User talk:SnorlaxMonster

Female Characteristic

I really hope that you understand what "overtly" word meaning... If you do, then describe it clearly please. --iFredCat 12:40, June 8, 2013 (UTC)

I am asked you to defining what "overtly" mean - I don't ask for your rants about the choice. They stay and that's that. --iFredCat 12:47, June 8, 2013 (UTC)

Don't matter, it's not your article to control. I just pull it and left it there as normal. If you want to fight, feel free spit at Admin - I am just merely mover who obeyed to the (Yu-Gi-Oh! Wikia) laws. --iFredCat 12:52, June 8, 2013 (UTC)

The reason why I disagreed to your option: this girl was already revealed her figure when released in the Japan, while this girl has showing some female secondary sex characteristic as well as this version. Therefore I was against your optional from start and if you wish to continue this, go to the discussion and give it some talks before we can settle this. I am not continuing to argue with you for this stupidity conflict. And again, it's not your nor my article to control, I only merely obeyed the rulings. --iFredCat 13:09, June 8, 2013 (UTC)

It's a matter of opinion, but I believe "Water Omotics" could fit under either category, because "secondary female characteristics" are used to judge where or not a monster has an "overtly female appearance." My suggestion? Drop the "overtly female appearance" part and replace "Mist Valley Shaman" with "Water Omotics", since although both monsters look female in their OCG versions, "Water Omotics" is the easiest to identify as female in the TCG version. --UltimateKuriboh (talk • contribs) 18:30, June 8, 2013 (UTC)

As I understood it, the purpose of the "overtly female appearance" was for characters like "Dryad" who didn't have any secondary female characteristics in the frame of the image. Which really was the basis for my objection to placing "Water Omotics" there; it clearly does have secondary female characteristics. I suppose excluding "Dryad" and similar cards isn't that bad anyway though. --SnorlaxMonster 18:37, June 8, 2013 (UTC)

Ruling Warning

In Infraction‎, it was that way when Konami printed out the lists of warnings and stuffs - "Sangan" was limited at that time when they published it. This time, I have nothing to against that thought of your. Just thought I would like to admit what I was thinking about that article. But good job cover all "error" they left in there with Sic part. --iFredCat 14:38, June 8, 2013 (UTC)

indeed, that's outdated but still true, kindly like all those "Previous Official Rulings" in Card Ruling articles, which were yet to be "disapproved" by Konami. --iFredCat 14:46, June 8, 2013 (UTC)

Chain Link

"The effect of "Naturia Barkion" can be activated multiple times in the same Chain.[3]". That is right, you can activate "Naturia Barkion" effect as chain link 2 and then in the same Chain as chain link 4, but you cannot put all "Naturia Barkion" effect in one chain link. the ruling say "in the same Chain" not "in the same Chain Link". --Dlamash (talk • contribs) 17:53, June 8, 2013 (UTC)

Images

Thanks a bunch for the images you've uploaded. If you could upload future images in png format though, it would be even more appreciated. Take care! --Golden Key (talk • contribs) 18:04, October 31, 2013 (UTC)

Oh, and did you happen to find those images on a particular site? I've been asking around to find one with un-watermarked Spanish images, since our galleries are lacking them. --Golden Key (talk • contribs) 20:46, October 31, 2013 (UTC)

I'm getting them from the alternate language links down the bottom of the page. I'm leaving them as JPG because that's what they are originally and converting to PNG them isn't going to increase the quality, but if you would rather have them that way (so consistency for templates or ease of replacement) I can do so. --SnorlaxMonster 00:32, November 1, 2013 (UTC)