User talk:FredCat100/Archive 20

Appropriate

I'm gonna make a rulings page and how to properly use it, ok?
then just link your page with my page?
sound good?
THANKS--Rasengan0 (talk • contribs) 14:31, May 11, 2013 (UTC)

Similar Word

Suffocation is what you're looking for. --UltimateKuriboh (talk • contribs)

Reason of Number 96

Ok, instead of having an arguement in the history and start and edit war I would like to discuss it in a talk page in a mature way. Anyways here goes, its no biggie of a deal btw..

The category given to that statement is "reason to collect Number cards" so it can be treated as a question like "What is his/her reason to collect the Numbers?" So if I answer it in a complete sentence using that statement, the response would be something like "The reason Number 96 collects Numbers is "to collect the Numbers and possess Astral"." See my point? Its gramatically incorrect as "collecting the Numbers" is already in the question and we do not need to add it in the reason as solely being in that list makes it understood that Dark Mist "collects the Numbers". --49.145.96.56 (talk) 15:04, May 18, 2013 (UTC)

Number 96 (character) wanted to help Astral to remember his original mission - destroy the Earth. So he collected the Numbers then present them to Astral once the latter made up his mind. That's what I am seeing from him. --iFredCat 16:01, May 18, 2013 (UTC)

What I mean is its no longer needed to put the "to collect the Numbers" statement because being in that list is already understood that he collects the Numbers. So, what is the reason Dark Mist collects Numbers? To possess Astral according to that page so just put "possess Astral" right? Instead of "Collect all Number cards and possess Astral" --49.145.96.56 (talk) 05:48, May 19, 2013 (UTC)

If it's not true anymore, then why did he get "Number 65: Judge Buster the Adjudicutting Djinn"? He still hold that Number after that duel, and still possessed it since. Your argument is invalid - that line stay. --iFredCat 11:02, May 19, 2013 (UTC)

I didn't say that Dark Mist is not classified as a Number Hunter, i indeed classify him as such. You do not seem to get my point. What i say is just put in there "to possess Astral" --49.145.96.56 (talk) 09:11, May 21, 2013 (UTC)

I am sure he's also a Hunter - after all, he was holding another Number, beside himself. If you disagreed, then why did other members being listed there even if they only had 1 Number in their "possession"? --iFredCat 10:53, May 21, 2013 (UTC)

Btw thats me above, just got lazy into logging in. Anyway I am not saying that he is not a Hunter, I think he is. You do not get me at all lol. I suggest you look back to that page and look into the changes I did there ----SharkTenjo 01:02, May 23, 2013 (UTC)

My sense had told me that - and I was on high haywire earlier as well, so that's why I was like a drunken elephant that tried to make the sense right. But right now, I am back to normal. --iFredCat 01:53, May 23, 2013 (UTC)

2013 Collector Tin

You undid my edit on 2013 Collectors Tins, saying that "He already show an evidence, so leave them in please." Of what evidence are you talking? Konami only says "The other 3 Super Rare cards are selected from popular cards like Black Luster Soldier – Envoy of the Beginning and Ally of Justice Catastor", they do not say the two aforementionned ccards are in each Tin. Takame9 (talk • contribs) 20:20, May 18, 2013 (UTC)

Check the Discussion Article - GallisMan did show the evidence of BLS being included as reprinted. Just leave them in until Konami provided otherwise. --iFredCat 20:24, May 18, 2013 (UTC)

undo jinlong picture

was that jinlong picture wrong why did you undo it? (ZombieLionel (talk • contribs) 10:05, May 26, 2013 (UTC))

Jinlong_PNG.jpg - that's not a great purpose to give them an URL name. it should be either png OR jpg, not both. --iFredCat 10:06, May 26, 2013 (UTC)

Pokémon trivia continued

Continued from Forum:Admin noticeboard#Stubborn IP-Addressed User

So yeah, I was just saying that the reason the "Fenghuang" Pokémon trivia was removed was because the card was not based on the Pokémon. It and the Pokémon were based on the same thing, meaning there was no direct connection between the two. That's the reason the IP user was giving. It's also the reason YamiWheeler wanted it removed. TwoTailedFox said that he does not recall saying what you said he did. -- Deltaneos (talk) 21:09, May 29, 2013 (UTC)

Again, my apologize for gave the list of user's names, I am under the common cold "illness", which made me acting quite oddly lately - But, if TwoTailedFox wanted to set the conflict about the "outside reference", he can set the law as he wish - after all, he's the Founder of this Wikia Site. So as of lately, I am completely agree with what Joey said about the outside reference since they are completely unrelated to the Yu-Gi-Oh!, so are Digimon, Sonic the Hedgehog, etc. --iFredCat 21:15, May 29, 2013 (UTC)

Just before this annoys me further, I want to say something; I don't set the "law" here, the rules and policies we have are set by the Administrative Team. I really can do without a loose cannon user who insists on dropping my name to excuse his behaviour. It's starting to wear *really* thin, as is your general behaviour here.--TwoTailedFox (My Talk Page) 21:26, May 29, 2013 (UTC)

Then I should further my apologize - it was my illness that made me behaving like this. And I know that's not a good excuse. I only wish to let you know the reason why I was actually on Joey's side for Pokemon reference. --iFredCat 21:28, May 29, 2013 (UTC)

I really, really, really am beyond caring what your excuse is. You've been repeatedly warned about your behaviour, and it's clearly not sunk in. Last warning.--TwoTailedFox (My Talk Page) 21:35, May 29, 2013 (UTC)

This therefore the reason why I allowed to discussing in here. If you still find it negative, then feel free break me and rip me apart. I honestly don't care about that anymore, and I had been banned for more than three times in the past, only one time via you. --iFredCat 21:37, May 29, 2013 (UTC)

I'm not saying you shouldn't be allowed to continue the conversation here; I'm saying that your overall behaviour still isn't acceptable. Even after we've told you time and time again, you still have a problem following basic instructions on how to act. You say you don't care? Not a problem. I can deal with that, and its solution.--TwoTailedFox (My Talk Page) 21:45, May 29, 2013 (UTC)

I only say that I don't care if you ban me or not. So my behavior is a problem - well, I guess that if I am starting to feel strange and act out of character myself, I will have to stop attend here until I recover. --iFredCat 21:47, May 29, 2013 (UTC)

It's a permanent fixture with you. Regardless of it's origin, it needs to stop. If you cannot, further sanctions will be applied.--TwoTailedFox (My Talk Page) 21:49, May 29, 2013 (UTC)

Then I should leaving now. Thank you for have a hardcore chat with me and Delta here (if he still visiting). See you all at Sunday, next week. --iFredCat 21:50, May 29, 2013 (UTC)

Daigusto Emeral Ruling

You read the 4th OCG ruling. Read the 5th ruling. --UltimateKuriboh (talk • contribs) 23:11, June 4, 2013 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure of the situation, but I'll state what I know. If you have 2 monsters in your Graveyard and control a "Daigusto Emeral" with 1 or more Xyz Material, you cannot activate its 1st effect; you need to have 3 monsters in your Graveyard before you activate that effect, even if paying the cost would place 3 monsters in your Graveyard.

However, if there are 3 or more monsters in your Graveyard, you can detach 1 Xyz Material from "Daigusto Emeral" to activate its 1st effect. At this point, you can feel free to target the detached Xyz Material as one of the 3 targets for its effect. But, if one of those 3 targets leaves the Graveyard before the effect of "Daigusto Emeral" resolves, the effect fizzles. (This is like "Pot of Avarice", where if one of the 5 targets leaves the Graveyard before the effect of "Pot of Avarice" resolves, its effect fizzles.) --UltimateKuriboh (talk • contribs) 02:18, June 5, 2013 (UTC)

List of female cards

I don't think you are understanding what I'm doing. I am not saying "Mist Valley Shaman" does not have clear feminine characteristics. What I am saying is that by placing "Water Omotics" under "Others may have an overtly feminine appearance" it means that it does not meet any of the prior qualifications to be considered female due to the usage of the word "others". Placing "Water Omotics" under "overtly feminine appearance" is therefore false as it implies it does not have female secondary sex characteristics. I chose it over "Mist Valley Shaman" for an example of female secondary sex characteristics as they are more prominent on Omotics than Shaman, and two examples is consistent with the number for the other categories. --SnorlaxMonster 12:45, June 8, 2013 (UTC)

I understand what "overtly" means, yes; "clear or obvious". But that's not the point. It is false to put "Water Omotics" in that category as it implies it does not meet the previously mentioned criteria. Whether or not to include "Water Omotics" under "overtly feminine appearance" is a matter of accuracy, not a matter of choice; what to include under "female secondary sex characteristics" is a matter of choice, and it doesn't bother me if you would rather keep Shaman there. --SnorlaxMonster 12:50, June 8, 2013 (UTC)

Your response confuses me. I corrected a factual error in an article, and you're telling me that doing so is being possessive of the article, requires admin permission, and in violation of Wikia policy? Again, I do not care which examples are used, as long as the examples are accurate; in this case, using "Water Omotics" as an example of something which fits in the category of "overtly feminine appearance" but not "female secondary sex characteristics" or "[having] feminine pronouns in its name" is untrue. Also, if I am in violation of a Yu-Gi-Oh! Wikia policy, it would help if you specified which one, as I don't know which one you are referring to. --SnorlaxMonster 12:58, June 8, 2013 (UTC)

Re: Ruling Warning

Yeah, I know that Sangan was Limited at the time the guidelines were published (I checked and there isn't any more recent ones). I was just noting that it being outdated is an issue with having an article that only quotes it verbatim. --SnorlaxMonster 14:42, June 8, 2013 (UTC)

Re:

Interesting conversation...anyway, what is here IP? I know they can change, but they don't always do so. --Dark Ace SP (Talk) 16:35, June 9, 2013 (UTC)

RE:WaryurZZ from GameFAQs

If their username is the same as it is on DN, then I'm afraid I don't know. However, it is possible that they know me from the DN forums or DuelistGroundz, in which case, I still don't know who they are. It is always possible they made a different username when they joined DN. --UltimateKuriboh (talk • contribs) 01:03, June 12, 2013 (UTC)

Redirects

Fred, never suppress the redirects when you move a card article. Cheesedude (talk • contribs) 17:05, June 13, 2013 (UTC)

Gotcha - other mover from long ago (not sure if it was Golden Key) told me to suppressing the redirects, but that would be completely different reason... Won't hurt to ask if you insisted. --iFredCat 17:21, June 13, 2013 (UTC)

Subpage redirects like Galleries should be suppressed. Actual card pages almost never should be. Cheesedude (talk • contribs) 23:02, June 13, 2013 (UTC)

I see, thank you for some clearly explanation, friend. --iFredCat 01:02, June 14, 2013 (UTC)

RE:100th Topic in this talk page

Oh, true, I didn't even noticed I already had 100 topics. I personally don't care much about the pages length, but yeah, I can start archiving if it makes things easier. Thanks for the advice. LegendaryAsariUgetsu (talk • contribs) 21:41, June 13, 2013 (UTC)

Re: Me Math Sux!

Forgot to count two spells, so it should be M=20, S=15, and T=5. --Dark Ace SP (Talk) 17:44, June 14, 2013 (UTC)