This is 10X Kamehameha's talk page, where you can send messages and comments to 10X Kamehameha.
|Archive 1 - August, 2009 - December, 2009|
|Archive 2 - December, 2009 - February, 2010|
|Archive 3 - February, 2010 - April, 2010|
|Archive 4 - April, 2010 - June, 2010|
|Archive 5 - June, 2010 - July, 2010|
|Archive 6 - July, 2010 - August, 2010|
|Archive 7 - August, 2010 - September, 2010|
|Archive 8 - September, 2010 - January, 2011|
|Archive 9 - January, 2011 - March, 2011|
|Archive 10 - March, 2011 - May, 2011|
|Archive 11 - May, 2011 - July, 2011|
|Archive 12 - July, 2011 - August, 2011|
|Archive 13 - August, 2011 - September, 2011|
|Archive 14 - September, 2011 - October, 2011|
|Archive 15 - October, 2011 - November, 2011|
|Archive 16 - November, 2011 - December, 2011|
|Archive 17 - December, 2011 - January, 2012|
|Archive 18 - January, 2012 - February, 2012|
|Archive 19 - February, 2012 - March, 2012|
|Archive 20 - March, 2012 - April, 2012|
|Archive 21 - April, 2012 - May, 2012|
|Archive 22 - May, 2012 - June, 2012|
|Archive 23 - June, 2012 - August, 2012|
|Archive 24 - August, 2012 - October, 2012|
|Archive 25 - October, 2012 - November, 2012|
|Archive 26 - November, 2012 - February, 2013|
|Archive 27 - February, 2013 - March, 2013|
|Archive 28 - March, 2013 - May, 2013|
|Archive 29 - May, 2013 - July, 2013|
|Archive 30 - July, 2013 - October, 2013|
|Archive 31 - October, 2013 - February, 2014|
|Archive 32 - February, 2014 - June, 2014|
|Archive 33 - June, 2014 - October, 2014|
|Archive 34 - October, 2014 - March, 2015|
|Archive 35 - March, 2015 - July, 2015|
|Archive 36 - July, 2015 - January, 2016|
|Archive 37 - January, 2016 - May, 2016|
|Archive 38 - May, 2016 - April, 2017|
|Archive 39 - April, 2017 - March, 2018|
New Dragon Ball movie
Hello! Do you think we could add a link to the new Dragon Ball 20th Movie Commemoration Project in the local nav? I think it'd be good because then it's easier for users to find. Let me know what you think!Witnessme (talk) 19:49, March 20, 2018 (UTC)
- What do you mean by local nav? Also, your user name is great! -- 10X.Ka.me.ha.me.ha.....talk.....contrib. 02:47, March 23, 2018 (UTC)
Hope all is well, I was reading over the Super Sayain 4 wiki and noticed it doesn't entail the Ozaru multiplication factor. It's stated Golden Great Ape is 10x stronger SSJ3, and SSJ4 is the culmination of Golden Great Ape and another x10 multiplyer. This detail should be clarified for the community and give better insight into the true scale of the conflicts portrayed in Dragon Ball GT. I request that this edit is changed and all is made well and known regarding the Super Sayain 4 transfirmation defintiely 20x stronger than Super Sayain 3 in Dragon Ball GT wikia.Thank You.
Dragon Ball Enthusiast
- You can edit articles when there is something you want to change. -- 10X.Ka.me.ha.me.ha.....talk.....contrib. 16:00, March 26, 2018 (UTC)
There have been a couple of users who have been uploading images that do not belong on this wiki, previously I asked that some would kindly stop uploading these images. This newest [] has been warned once already and has proceeded to upload pornographic images onto this wiki I ask you to please do something and have these images deleted.--Tuxedo12 (talk) 01:59, April 17, 2018 (UTC)
- The user has been blocked and all his uploads have been deleted. Thanks for the heads up. -- 10X.Ka.me.ha.me.ha.....talk.....contrib. 04:19, April 18, 2018 (UTC)
DragonEmeperor is edit warring and adding false information to pages.
- If the information is false, you really don't need an admin to say you can remove it. Munchvtec (talk) 03:21, April 17, 2018 (UTC)
- We only need one to settle the argument or the edit war won't end. DragonEmeperor (talk) 04:14, April 17, 2018 (UTC)
- To be fair, DragonEmeperor was the one ACTUALLY doing what the wiki has us do. If anything, Quaking, you were the one edit warring. And, regardless of whether or not the information is "valid", as you put it, you still have to use the talk page after even a single user disputes your edit. ExyleCage (talk) 04:50, April 17, 2018 (UTC)
- What “pages” are we talking about? -- 10X.Ka.me.ha.me.ha.....talk.....contrib. 04:20, April 18, 2018 (UTC)
- The edit you linked was a citation, not a power level claim. -- 10X.Ka.me.ha.me.ha.....talk.....contrib. 03:39, April 23, 2018 (UTC)
Yes, and he is claiming Goku became 10x stronger after drinking the ultra divine water, which he was not. He is also going around making unnessary edits, edit warring, and any edit that comes after his edits he undos them with no explanation. He seems to think only he can make edits here, then he claims he is waiting for admins to talk to but never does. QuakingStar (talk) 03:58, April 23, 2018 (UTC)
- Because, Neff found some sources and some other users agreed to reworded it. So that one was settled. P.S., my "unnecessary edits" you say are focusing on cleaning up older pages that haven't been edited on in years. DragonEmeperor (talk) 04:17, April 23, 2018 (UTC)
Nice excuse, but you don't need to add unnecessary shit to pages just because you feel like it. That's just redundant. We really needed to know Majuub was an earthling AND a human in that sentence?? No, human sufficed. You just want to be right and don't want anybody else making edits if YOU don't agree with them. You are edit warring and you are flexing like you are some sort of admin or sysop. You literally broke rules, yet you didn't even get a warning... that's hilarious. QuakingStar (talk) 04:23, April 23, 2018 (UTC)
SHIT is not a bad word, nor against the rules. Neither is the word hell. Don't you come on here acting like a Sysop or an Admin either when you are neither. Mind your business and move on. QuakingStar (talk) 04:36, April 23, 2018 (UTC)
It depends on how you use the word if it is against the rules or not, here is an example for both "You need to take your shit and shove it" is where shit would be against the rules and "Today was shit" is where it isn't against the rules. Actually ExyleCage shit isn't against the rules on the Rules page which can be found under Guidelines or on your talk page in the first message you received but it depends on how you use it if it is really against the rules I don't see a problem with Quaking calling some redundant stuff in articles shit instead of stuff.
Recommended Videos test
Hi 10X Kamehameha. I wanted to give you a quick head's up that I just posted a forum thread about a new feature test here on Dragon Ball Wiki. Let me know in that thread if you have any questions. Thanks! - Brandon Rhea(talk) 19:25, April 23, 2018 (UTC)
David Gray/Sam Majesters is James Marsters
I come to you about this because you once stated that IMBd is reputable. and it lists Marsters as the voice of Zamasu and Fused Zamasu. So does Anime News Network. So has IMBD lost its reputation or it is still a valid source; that's my question? Other sources i listed are on its Zamasu's talk page.--Made up Character Wiki/Dragon Ball Fanon Wiki Admin Jack Jackson Things I do [mod] 07:57, May 1, 2018 (UTC)
- IMBD is a user-generated site like this one, so not ideal as a primary source. -- 10X.Ka.me.ha.me.ha.....talk.....contrib. 01:47, May 2, 2018 (UTC)
NegativeShipper was rude again this time on this http://dragonball.wikia.com/wiki/Thread:613839#34. He said I was young enough to question why people are needlessly mean and Sheikhtanveerahmed asked me how old are you kid... in response to my statements that GT and Super being trash are only opinions. And Negativeshipper has been rude in the past too. like in this thread http://dragonball.wikia.com/wiki/Thread:616539#144. Like I posted before on an archived message page, sorry if this bugs you.--Hulk10 (talk) 17:46, May 9, 2018 (UTC)
- Rudeness isn’t exactly a policy violation if it doesn’t hit the level of personal attack. I recommend not engaging in conversation with rude people. I didn’t see any cursing or insults. -- 10X.Ka.me.ha.me.ha.....talk.....contrib. 22:27, May 10, 2018 (UTC)
I personally think we are understaffed, most large wikis have at least two bureaucrats and four admins active. We are a large wiki and in the top thirty for most popular, I think we need to further up our administrative body.--Neffyarious (talk) 19:33, May 14, 2018 (UTC)
- Who would you recommend for new admins? For mainspace, we seem to have 1 bureaucrat and 2 admins regularly active including ourselves. I’m happy to add more if we have well-suited users. Conflict resolution skills are at the top of my list for candidates. -- 10X.Ka.me.ha.me.ha.....talk.....contrib. 00:28, May 15, 2018 (UTC)
That's the only problem, it's difficult which users exactly. New World God, YonedgeHp and Sandubadear all have admin skills, but are admins on other DB wikis and so would probably not be able to commit to being admins here (and NWG has not edited here all that much). DragonEmeperor and Goku20 both have good admin potential, but there are a few issues with them: they don't have the best standing in our community and DragonEmeperor also still needs some growth in how he edits (users have complained several times that he undoes edits without giving reasons). From what I've seen 0551E80Y may also be a good candidate. I'd say we need more community input on new admins.--Neffyarious (talk) 10:38, May 15, 2018 (UTC)
On my part now it really isn't my fault that I am bad standing with some of the community if you look at my talk page four users have a problem with me two of which because in their opinion I impersonate admins (which could be fixed by me becoming one) and the other two because I undone their edits which were wrong like the one that made the edit about how famous Gogeta is.
It doesn't take much for someone to become drunk with the power that they have be given and go on a bindge of being enforcement on policies far more then what is actually required. Oh, they can promise they will be good. But once they get the responsiblities, it can cause them to change their perception on things while having that lust of knowing you can stamp out any saying against you immeditalty with blocking them. It can be like ectasay, it is that easy to do.
I have seen around the wikia of admins who gone beyond the standards and even necessary procedure of enforcing rules, while being venomous about it. I know one who because of his actions has a very infamous reputation (contains strong langauge) of running his wikis, despite the high quality work he puts in on them.
My question is this. What do you have that can convince the community that they believe you will not be like him if you get these privalages? Because frankly i believe he would have been once like us non admin users here on the db wiki before he became an admin. But look what has happened to him. In my view, he is a warning of what can happen to communities that become toxicified because of too much abuse of adminstation power. 0551E80Y (talk) 11:59, May 15, 2018 (UTC)
0551E80Y I know that admin because I used to edit on the family guy wiki until he undone my edit and blocked me, and I personally don't care who in the community thinks I will or won't be like him because I know their are some that will be for me becoming an admin and some against it just because they have a problem with me undoing their edits for good reason and after 10X and Final both talked some sense into I have actually changed from the guy that users (who some of don't edit here anymore) had a problem with me don't anymore and quit a few times those problems where just misunderstandings, now the ones I have mentioned I don't know if they still edit here or not. But I can only prove people wrong or right if I become an admin and quit literally after having been wanting to, to help out with this exact problem of not enough admins and being passed over because I wasn't at the top of the list I really don't care if I become one or not anymore. If I do though I will check as many edits as I can which even goes for Dragon's edits and the ones I don't agree with or are wrong I will undo them and give them a reason (if I am not in a rush) which is all I can do. The users who edit war will have the rules mainly that one explained to them, the ones that want to be vandal's they will be either blocked or banned depending on if it was just one time or not. The other rule breakers will be treated like the ones who edit war.
I can't give a reason on every edit I work cause I do multiple pages at once. Plus, I read through the added material first before removing because most users like to either vandalize or add complete speculation. As the users that have a problem, you can read about them on Neff's talk page. Besides them, I don't really get complaints that much now. DragonEmeperor (talk) 18:13, May 15, 2018 (UTC)
- I have reviewed all these users and will promote 0551E80Y and YonedgeHp to admins. DragonEmperor you are almost there, but there are a couple concerns. Lack of communication including good edit summaries when undoing others’ good faith edits is one. Another is defending edits on the grounds they were made by admins in the past. Admins including me are by no means always right, and official sources trump users. This would be especially concerning if you used that argument to defend your own edits and stop using sources. I’m not saying you would do that, just that sources are needed in articles as are edit summaries and other good communication. -- 10X.Ka.me.ha.me.ha.....talk.....contrib. 00:33, May 16, 2018 (UTC)
- When people edit war over your edits even when some was sourced, I try to play neutral cause even I'm not sure at times. But, when nobody wants to listen or follow the rules so what can you do. Also, the good faith edits don't be always removed permanently. As for communication, you can see on Neff's talk page with Rey0194 and JohnRich23. DragonEmeperor (talk) 01:15, May 16, 2018 (UTC)
I appreciate the efficiency, but shouldn't we have gotten more imput - like from Bullza for example - before moving forward? Also, what about the subject of a second bureaucrat?--Neffyarious (talk) 10:12, May 16, 2018 (UTC)
Thanks, 10X Kamehameha, I'm honestly surprised that I was chosen to be a new admin here, even though I'm already part of the administration at the Spanish Dragon Ball Wiki, I'll be here more often to watch out. 11:00, May 16, 2018 (UTC)
Congratulations, Aussie Boy!13:04, May 16, 2018 (UTC)
- Recommendations are always welcome from any users including admins like Bullza. Neffy you and I both recognized the new admins, and I think requiring a review from all the current admins would be too much. I’m happy to keep serving the Wiki as our local active bureaucrat, and for the number of admins and frequency of adding new ones, I don’t think another is required right now. -- 10X.Ka.me.ha.me.ha.....talk.....contrib. 00:32, May 17, 2018 (UTC)
- A second bureaucrat to what end? -- 10X.Ka.me.ha.me.ha.....talk.....contrib. 01:18, May 17, 2018 (UTC)
- Just because someone else is doing something doesn’t make it right, necessary, or even useful. I think chat moderator status is okay to keep, since the relevant policies don’t change much if at all over time, unlike article content and style. As stated on your link, bureaucrats become inactive but not retired. I couldn’t do it if I wanted to anyway. -- 10X.Ka.me.ha.me.ha.....talk.....contrib. 20:42, May 17, 2018 (UTC)
Well as you have seen several users think a second bureaucrat would be a good idea, so it's something that needs to be acted upon. We can contact wikia to have them remove Nonoitall's user rights.--Neffyarious (talk) 20:54, May 17, 2018 (UTC)
- You say we need one because other sites need one, but you haven’t given any reason why we need one. Bureaucrats just click the button to add new admins, and we don’t need a second person for the volume of new admin promotions we need and have here. The other user didn’t know why hey thought we needed a second bureaucrat. Since I’ve told you why one is plenty for us right now, and no one else has given any reasons why we would need two, we will not be adding a second bureaucrat right now. -- 10X.Ka.me.ha.me.ha.....talk.....contrib. 22:36, May 17, 2018 (UTC)
We are voting on this, it's not your decision alone 10X, it's up to the community. As for reasons, what if you disappear? I've seen bureaucrats disappear without warning. What if there's a decision that should be made by more than one Bureaucrat? Promoting new admins is not all a bureaucrat should do, they should be the ones who update policies and rules as well.--Neffyarious (talk) 22:46, May 17, 2018 (UTC)
- We don’t decide things by voting, we use discussion and consensus. That means someone actually needs a reason to do something, including adding admins, rollback, chat mods, buteaucrat, etc. I’m patiently awaiting someone to give a reason for the second bureaucrat.
- Neff, Wikis don’t work on voting, they work on civil discussion and consensus. I’m surprised you don’t know that as an admin on a Wiki. If bureaucrats disappear, staff can appoint a new bureaucrat at that time. Rules here are determined by civil discussion and community consensus. Admins or bureaucrats have permission to edit the policies, but should not be tyrannically mandating policies without the community agreeing. While the main functional difference of bureaucrat rights is the extra button to make others admins or remove those rights, their service here involves much more. Like admins, they are leaders here and help resolve conflicts, drive Wiki style, and article formatting, as well as align the site with Wikia technology advancements. None of this is done alone. The differentiator of a bureaucrat, that is what they can do that admins cannot, is promote new admins. This is in additional to everything the other admins and users do too.
- So by all means, drive policy change through civil discussions and community consensus. Recommend new admins. Be a great editor and suggest and implement new formatting options in articles. Actively participate in the social aspects of the Wiki. All of those things can be done as an admin, and most by any user. But the button you would gain by having bureaucrat rights is not something we need a second person for right now. In the future you are a candidate for it, but comments about voting here as a substitute for discussions and consensus, and about admins making policies rather than facilitating and implementing them, make me hesitate. If you want to be a bureaucrat here, those are the areas to focus on—everything else I think you are good. And you don’t need to beat around the bush, you can just ask, either here or via email. Think about how you would shape the Wiki as a bureaucrat rather than just saying we need to vote on having two. -- 10X.Ka.me.ha.me.ha.....talk.....contrib. 00:11, May 18, 2018 (UTC)
Plenty of wikis work on voting, ours is about community consensus (which is basically voting, just with discussion). You talk about us running on a community consensus and yet you immediately put your foot down and say "we will not be adding a second bureaucrat right now" and you promote two new admins near immediately even though only two users have agreed that they are the right ones for the job (not that I don't appreciate the efficiency).
I already gave you what I think is reason enough, but if you need more; bureaucrats hold the most power on the wiki and I don't think that one person alone should have this, it should be more balanced. You say that the only difference between an admin and a bureaucrat is making new admins, but that's not true, in all honesty the bureaucrat is the one who gets the final say in things. I was discussing with a member of wiki's vanguard team a while back about the best way a wiki should be run and they suggested that a wiki should actually have three bureaucrats. I never said I wanted to be the second bureaucrat, I just said I think we should have a second one, certainly I'm a candidate but then there's also Bullza - who may well be better suited for the job than me.--Neffyarious (talk) 10:47, May 18, 2018 (UTC)
- We could probably do with more than what we have. I was made a Mod due to their being a lack of them in the first place and since that time Final Chidori has since become inactive so it's just back to where we started.
- Dragon Emperor is the most active of us all and he does a good job at finding things and updating pages and checking most people's edits so he'd probably be an ideal Mod. The only concern there is that I think he could be a bit quick to block people. So he'd need to be fair for that and also the way he goes about undoing people's edits which can lead to edit warring, so he'd need to explain things a bit better.
- As for the other Bureaucrat, I see where the idea is coming from. Though I don't think there's been a problem up to yet, I do think it would be a good safeguard to have another one just encase. It's not like everything would suddenly change around here, it'd be the same just with a bit more reassurance.Bullza (talk) 13:09, May 18, 2018 (UTC)
Neffyarious, I like your point about balance with multiple bureaucrats rather than one, but your comment about some random unidentified user saying three is good does not add to your argument. Also, you said I said the only difference between a bureaucrat and an admin is the button to promote to admin, but that's wrong. That's the only functional difference. I said, "While the main functional difference of bureaucrat rights is the extra button to make others admins or remove those rights, their service here involves much more." Then I went on to describe the role, and yes all of the rest of it is possible as an admin. Ideally positive influence on a Wiki (and everywhere else in the world) is achieved by ideas and actions rather than the power to demote and block. In 6 years as a bureaucrat here, I have only ever threatened to demote an admin once, and never actually had to do so (other than voluntarily and admin retirements). Promoting new admins is one of the most important parts of being a bureaucrat, and I thoroughly reviewed all the candidates that made sense before the last two promotions were made. In honesty only time will time if people with good records and potential will live up to it, but YonedgeHp and 0551E80Y have earned their shots. Your argument swings back and forth between saying a bureaucrat should do more and saying I do too much on my own, and it just doesn't add up. If sometimes I do too much and other times not enough, I'm probably right about where I should be ("you can't make all the people happy all the time"). Also, consensus is not voting with discussion, it is the process of presenting points of view to arrive at a solution everyone can stand behind. Voting means 49% of people may be unhappy and not understand why the decision was made. Consensus takes substantially longer, but involves everyone to a greater extent, and leaves everyone happier with a higher quality resolution.
Bullza, I mostly agree with your comments on Dragon Emperor, and wrote my own earlier in this thread. I think he'll definitely get there in time. I'd like to see him communicate a little more in addition to what you said. While I don't find your argument for another bureaucrat completely compelling (since Wikia could always appoint a new new bureaucrat if I suddenly and unexpectedly disappeared after now 8 years of regular activity), I do trust in the fact that both you and Neffyarious feel it's the right thing to do. After due consideration of all community members on this Wiki, Bullza you are best suited to become the second bureaucrat. This is based on your outstanding editing, communication, calm demeanor, and technical skills. Never forget there is always room to keep growing in all these areas. I am promoting you to bureaucrat effective immediately. Congratulations and please let me know if you have any questions. -- 10X.Ka.me.ha.me.ha.....talk.....contrib. 23:04, May 18, 2018 (UTC)
- You just promoted a new bureaucrat with little input from any users? You made the decision on who it would be completely alone, despite the apparent community consensus we need, and quickly, before anyone could even react. Really? What?--Neffyarious (talk) 23:20, May 18, 2018 (UTC)
- Nope, that's all wrong. We've been discussing this for 5 days, and many of our most active users, and all the active admins have contributed to this discussion. While bureaucrats make the final decision on promotions, everyone's input was considered, including 4 years of observing Bullza and 5 years of observing you, the only active admins who have more than a couple days of experience as an admin. So after years of observations, and input from the community and all active admins, Bullza's outstanding editing, communication, calm demeanor, and technical skills gave him an edge over you in this case. While the decision to appoint a second bureaucrat, spear-headed by you, was made in less than a week, the preference of candidates was years in the making. This was a well-reasoned, and long-considered decision. If you would like specific examples of the comparison, I can provide that for you. -- 10X.Ka.me.ha.me.ha.....talk.....contrib. 00:00, May 19, 2018 (UTC)
No. You made the final decision without enough community input, it should have been up to the greater community to decide the second bureaucrat, not you alone.--Neffyarious (talk) 00:15, May 19, 2018 (UTC)
- No. The only thing I determined was who of the two of you was better suited. I was best suited to do so, after over 4 years of observation and over 6 years doing the task myself. You are mad you didn’t get picked. -- 10X.Ka.me.ha.me.ha.....talk.....contrib. 00:19, May 19, 2018 (UTC)
No, a decision like this should have been decided by the greater community. I'm not mad, just surprised at what you're doing. I really don't think this is the proper way of going about things.--Neffyarious (talk) 00:26, May 19, 2018 (UTC)
- I don’t believe you. A few posts ago you were against community consensus. And you have been a part of other promotions and never pushed for community consensus back then, only this time when you got passed over. Rather than stew, I recommend you work on the areas I pointed out. Make the Wiki better and you have a good shot at being bureaucrat in the future. -- 10X.Ka.me.ha.me.ha.....talk.....contrib. 00:43, May 19, 2018 (UTC)
I was never against community consensus. The only promotion I was part of was Bullza's adminship, and there were a large amount of users who agreed Bullza was the best candidate, you even waited for my input before going through with it.--Neffyarious (talk) 10:28, May 19, 2018 (UTC)
- Well that’s clearly not true, since you spurred the last two admin promotions in this very thread, and also in this thread you recommended a vote. -- 10X.Ka.me.ha.me.ha.....talk.....contrib. 12:41, May 19, 2018 (UTC)
You'll find that after you promoted those two I said "I appreciate the efficiency, but shouldn't we have gotten more input - like from Bullza for example - before moving forward?".
Anyhow, I was discussing this subject with a member of the vanguard. You were technically in the right because we don't actually have a proper procedure for promotions, however due to our wikis size we should implement a procedure. A forum should be opened for us all to discuss proper promotion procedure.
You were being a hypocrite when you said we should follow consensus but then proceeded to choose a second bureaucrat on your own, but as I said, we don't have a procedure in place so that can be overlooked.--Neffyarious (talk) 13:13, May 19, 2018 (UTC)
- (posted after the note below, for organization) The second bureaucrat was your idea. I’m the only one here with experience as this site’s bureaucrat, and the only thing I picked was Bullza over you, with the current admins’ input including yours. Bullza has stated you would have been fine, and you have stated Bullza would be fine. I’m growing tired of your lies. We do have a process here, which you should know after being an admin here for years Dragon Ball Wiki:Administrators. The process is the bureaucrats choose people to promote. I was going beyond that procedure by collecting input from others first. -- 10X.Ka.me.ha.me.ha.....talk.....contrib. 14:10, May 19, 2018 (UTC)
- That is confusing. There is already a page for the procedure, use its talk page. -- 10X.Ka.me.ha.me.ha.....talk.....contrib. 14:10, May 19, 2018 (UTC)
Thanks, I suppose it would be better to put it in the admin talk. It would have been handy if you could have moved Bullza and I's comments there when you deleted it though.--Neffyarious (talk) 17:07, May 19, 2018 (UTC)
- Sorry for that. I considered it but your comments were specific to it being a forum and I didn’t want to edit your words to make it fit. -- 10X.Ka.me.ha.me.ha.....talk.....contrib. 17:43, May 19, 2018 (UTC)
- While you did start that convo in the wrong place, please don’t stick new text as a replacement for my intro to that thread. It makes it falsely seem like I am responding nonsensically. Also it included you saying there is no process on the talk page of the article containing the process, which made no sense. Be careful when moving around comments and just avoid doing so for other peoples’ if possible, thanks. -- 10X.Ka.me.ha.me.ha.....talk.....contrib. 17:51, May 19, 2018 (UTC)
Also keeps shoving his silly little fan fiction into the page too.(Kaleifla 03:11, July 13, 2018 (UTC))
- Thanks, I gave him a 1 week block. -- 10X.Ka.me.ha.me.ha.....talk.....contrib. 04:58, July 15, 2018 (UTC)
- No, you’ve been making too many edits against consensus that all have to be undone, currently this parallel nonsense. You cannot have a bot at this time. -- 10X.Ka.me.ha.me.ha.....talk.....contrib. 04:55, July 15, 2018 (UTC)
- This only happened because some of us thought we should separate the films from the main story after Broly's return. Plus, I need the bot for different task that's too time consuming right now. DragonEmeperor (talk) 05:00, July 15, 2018 (UTC)
- Some people always think some things. Don’t reformat the whole site into twice as many articles or more on a whim. What’s this project? Stop making major changes to many articles at a time without getting admin input. -- 10X.Ka.me.ha.me.ha.....talk.....contrib. 05:05, July 15, 2018 (UTC)
- The bot is for minor edits I can't focus on like fixing dead links or changing redirects to the main link, so I left a message on the CheckerPage for one. DragonEmeperor (talk) 05:10, July 15, 2018 (UTC)
Hi. regarding your message, it is not "my so-called parallel characters", there were already characters like that because this wiki was seperating the movie versions of the characters after it was announced there was going to be a Dragon Ball Super version of Broly, so I did not make that up. Also, there was a red link for it on the Goku Parallel and Gohan Parallel. I am sorry that there was a bit of a mess upon the creation of the article. Sclera1 (talk) 22:30, July 15, 2018 (UTC)
Are we allowing people to add information on the Super variant of Broly to the Triple Threat Broly's page? Because that's what's happening. Considering it's confirmed to be a completely different Broly, they're essentially adding information to the wrong character. ExyleCage (talk) 03:00, July 16, 2018 (UTC)
- Not completely different. We’ll see. For now yes it’s okay. -- 10X.Ka.me.ha.me.ha.....talk.....contrib. 04:18, July 16, 2018 (UTC)
The Parent Tab 2
This is my proposal right here for pages too big only. I managed to fix right and got the signature colors in. This is what every fandom site uses and we shouldn't be the only ones. I want everybody to think this over first before shooting me down. DragonEmeperor (talk) 00:06, July 17, 2018 (UTC)
- I agree wih Bullza, both on the functionality needing to be cross-platform and on this being a topic for talk:MoS. I am generally in favor, let’s do it the right way. -- 10X.Ka.me.ha.me.ha.....talk.....contrib. 01:41, July 17, 2018 (UTC)
Sorry to intrude
Hey, it's been a while! Hope this isn't too out of turn, I found this user spamming a lot of edits, most (I think) of which are false based on what I could tell from external googling. I wouldn't have done anything but I checked his talk page and noticed that he'd been getting banned a lot for inserting false information so I went ahead and banned him. If that was in error, I apologize :0 I figured that, due to the fact that it's morning, people might not be online to stop or confront edits at this pace - and I just happened to be around. Cheers, 14:06, July 17, 2018 (UTC)