User talk:Soroxas

KH3 content

Hey there. I noticed you were creating pages for characters and worlds that will appear in Kingdom Hearts III. Our policy is to wait until the game is released before starting those pages. However, we've set up drafts in our project-space in case people want to get started. TheSilentHero 17:16, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi, what is the reasoning behind this policy? No offense, I really don't see the point of it. Is it to prevent spoilers or something? Or because information may be inaccurate? The majority of wikis allow articles for upcoming content, while they tend to have templates at the top which say "this content is upcoming".

I also think we should add KH3 era icons, content footers and templates. Sora's article has them for example. I did this while adding Olette's KH2 biography, but my edit seems to have been rejected. Is it because of the KH3 stuff? Soroxas (talk) 00:54, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

With past games, some of the content shown in trailers didn't actually make it into the final version of the game (the Twilight Thorn in KH3D for example). Therefore, we have the policy that we only place information on the game page itself, to avoid having to change and remove stuff from all kind of pages later. The same applies to the KH3 icons and templates. There are some exceptions for characters that are definitely in the game, like Sora. And yes, that is why your edits were rejected. TheSilentHero 17:17, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

I still don't really agree with the principle in concept and think the idea of a "this article is for upcoming content and may be inaccurate" template is superior, but if that's what the people in charge of this wiki plan to do, then I can't really say or do much. It seems really extreme to deny KH3 articles just because information may be inaccurate based on trailers. For example, info about Elsa being in KH3, her being from Arendelle, her sister being Anna, etc, aren't going to change in the final game. I know all the KH3 content will be added later, I just don't see the big issue with getting a headstart on things we absolutely know for sure (for example, there's no way Olette is going to be removed KH3 after she's seen in various trailers wearing new clothes). In the meantime, I guess I'll just work on the drafts then. Maybe you should make it more obvious that KH3 content is just going to be drafts for now. Soroxas (talk) 05:35, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

"It seems really extreme" -- these are the same policies that wikipedia and tfwiki follow.

"I just don't see the big issue" -- The issue is that each time the wiki community has given in on this point, false material based on trailers makes it into the wiki that does not get removed until a year or more later, when someone like me notices it. In the meantime, the wiki gets criticized by the fandom for having such material."We're werewolves, not swearwolves." (KrytenKoro) 20:27, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Woody Pride

Why did you remove this?"We're werewolves, not swearwolves." (KrytenKoro) 19:03, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Where? If you mean on the KH3 article, it was already just "Woody" before I edited. If elsewhere, then it's probably an error. Soroxas (talk) 19:14, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

https://www.khwiki.com/index.php?title=Template:KH3&diff=prev&oldid=741361

I was just trying to be consistent with the name of the article there. The name conventions on this wiki are confusing. Sometimes, the article name isn't the same as the infobox. It's why I've avoided creating Mike's and Sulley's pages. Soroxas (talk) 20:25, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Woody Pride is the name used by the official site. If other sources use just Woody, then they are either unsourced or not up to date. The naming conventions on this wiki are "full name used in published material"."We're werewolves, not swearwolves." (KrytenKoro) 20:28, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Violating guidelines

I was responding to the IP, not you. That being said, we do have a general policy to edit articles as if they rest of the wiki was set up correctly, red links and all, as done on tfwiki. The goal is to minimize what rewriting needs to be done once a game is fully released."We're werewolves, not swearwolves." (KrytenKoro) 20:20, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Captions

Hi, I just want to let you know that the community doesn't use quotes for captions for our images. Captions should be written more professionally, in a way that summarizes what the image depicts.--NinjaSheik 21:35, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

I know I mentioned this before, but I seen you've been uploading a lot images lately and inserting them in articles, and the captions aren't fulfilling the wiki's requirements. So, as a reminder: the captions need to explain what the image itself depicts. Putting it "X with the group" isn't informing the readers what the image is supposed to illustrate.--NinjaSheik 21:20, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

This is my third time saying this, but you're not really following the image policy in regards to the captions. KrytenKoro reverted some of your edits because you're not following our guidelines with the captions. When adding images to an article, please write the captions that explains what the image itself depicts. Don't just say "X with Y and Z", and use different captions for different images (not "X with group" or "X on Destiny Islands).--NinjaSheik 23:12, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I'm not used to a wiki where captions are expected to be so long and detailed. Honestly, it comes off as redundant to me when the image is right beside text that explains what it is. It feels overly written to me. I thought "Frollo meets Sora" would be an improvement over "Frollo and Sora", but I realize now that it does not suffice. I'll try to add more detail then. Soroxas (talk) 05:49, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure that's why I had reverted those changes, but yes, that's pretty much the gist of the policy -- images are meant to compliment the text, not simply be decoration. Similar to wikipedia, the caption should give enough of a description to justify the image, but also not just be redundant to the text itself. So, for example, the images on pages for special techniques describe the visual appearance of a technique, like Zantetsuken's cherry blossoms. We can't really do stuff as comprehensive as this, but this is the gist of what we're going for -- a professional, encyclopedic approach that respects fair use restrictions and focuses on content over decoration."We're werewolves, not swearwolves." (KrytenKoro) 13:46, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Hey, Soroxas. While your efforts of uploading images in Galleries and articles are appreciated, I've noticed that you've been trying to add images to a lot of the smaller articles, like the Evil Queen's page, for example. However, due to the limited role certain characters' play and/or how the articles are written, some articles cannot host too images. Please don't try to cram too many images in articles to avoid cluttering. Please add them to the Galleries instead. And not to sound like a broken record of anything, but please make sure when doing captions, describe what the image itself depicts. I've noticed that you're still not really writing the captions out that follow the wiki's policy.--NinjaSheik 18:56, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Inserting images

Also, just to let you know, the wiki follows the typical standard that when posting images into articles, it follows a left-right-left-right pattern.--NinjaSheik 22:41, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Regarding your edits to the Seifer page

Just because someone disagrees with you and undoes your edit, doesn't mean they're "forcing their own interpretation". Especially if they left an edit comment explaining why they undid it. By undoing that edit, you're actually forcing YOUR own interpretation. If you disagree with another user over something, instead of edit warring, you should take it to the talk page. Now, someone else edited the page with a possible solution for your disagreement. If you do not agree with that edit, please don't undo it, but bring it up on the talk page. TheSilentHero 10:15, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

There are three options.

1) Claiming it's totally mocking

2) Claiming it's totally sincere

3) Claiming it could be mocking or sincere

I already left a comment explaining why I felt it was option 2 for myself, but I decided to go with 3 in order to try to reach a middle ground with them. If someone undos option 3 in favor of 1, they are not open to alternate interpretation. This is exemplified because they said "No, you're wrong, it IS option 1, and we are not doing option 3". What I find amazing is that you're trying to make me look like the bigot here, when I went for option 3, while the other person went for option 1 and also edit warred a bit too in order to keep option 1. If someone tried to keep option 1, then I'd say that pretty much qualifies forcing an interpretation. Yet you go after me, acting like I'm the only one who is totally guilty and in the wrong. And if they undid my edit again, I would indeed take it to the talk page. I am fine with the current version. Soroxas (talk) 11:21, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

I hardly calling editing your edit once "edit warring". If you disagreed with me, simply talk it out to the talk page and let's discuss it thoroughly. Quite frankly, I find it ridiculous to be disagreeing with something that is made quite clear through the characters' tone and dialogue, not to mention the the general interaction between them in the scene and having a good and objective understanding who the characters are and their relationship they have to one another in the game. For the sake of not escalating things further and not violating the standard three-revert rule, as it seems to be a case of "difference in opinions", I'll leave it as it is at the moment.

However, I will ask that you keep future conversations with other users more cordial and assume good faith in accordance to the KHWiki's rules. It's fine to disagree with other users and you are entitled to your opinion, but don't go around saying "forcing one's interpretation" or that our no speculation rule "only exists because people like you with this mindset are often in positions of power on wikis". That isn't how the community works. Everything is decided by majority vote, not on a user's editing credentials.

If you find our policies disagreeable, I think you might favor our sister site, The Keyhole, more and find it more suitable for your editing style.--NinjaSheik 18:15, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

We'll have to agree to disagree. In my eyes, re-adding "Seifer mockingly said", when someone already vocalized that they disagree with this interpretation and attempted to be neutral, is forcing your interpretation. At that moment, you could have also went to the talk page, but your reaction was to undo my edit. I also still disagree with KH2's article featuring art of Sora on the beach - I disagree with your view that it's somehow more relevant, especially when the first 2-3 hours of the game heavily focus on Roxas' life in Twilight Town with his friends. Hayner, Pence and Olette meant so much to Roxas, and they also play a prominent role with Sora during the latter parts of the game.

Yes, Seifer is a bit of bully, but Japanese games tend to feature character growth and complexity, just like how Seifer wasn't completely evil in FF8. The way Seifer nods to Roxas and then fist bumps his heart seemed very bro-ish. The way Olette calls out to him also came across as sympathetic. I don't like Seifer being portrayed as this one-dimensional bully. Seifer also thought Roxas was a photo thief, explaining his hostility. I'm sad that you view that scene as just "Seifer being an ass again", instead of him changing his attitude of Roxas a bit, and a hint that maybe he's not all that "bad" as he seems. Soroxas (talk) 18:59, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Once again, for the sake of not escalating things further, we need to take this discussion about the edit on Seifer's talk page. Everyone is entitled to their opinions, but the KHWiki advocates for objective facts, not personal interpretation. You might see my edit as "personal interpretation", but I see it as fact due to the evidence given to us, the viewers, via dialogue and tone, something I explained in the edit summary, as per policy. If someone seriously disagrees with something after three reverts, then it's policy to take to the talk page. So, shall we head there?

Again, that's your personal and subjective feelings on the matter, which is no place for the KHWiki. Also, I'd like to ask to refrain making assumptions about my subjective feelings regarding a character. Not only it is presumptuous and inaccurate, it's also extremely rude. Like most editors, I don't like letting my subjective feelings regarding a particular work seep into my objective editing. That's unprofessional. The KHWiki relies on facts and objectivity. So please refrain from acting as if you know my subjective thoughts and feelings on a particular matter, because as we are not acquainted, you do not.--NinjaSheik 19:08, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Then let's take it to the talk page. We disagree on whether or not Seifer was being mocking is a fact. I was simply explaining my reasoning there. Soroxas (talk) 19:47, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Warning

I'm not laughing!
	This is a warning for false accusations for bad faith. Your edits have been reverted; please do not attempt to repeat them. If you wish to do test edits, you are welcome to do so here. — KeybladeSpyMaster 19:39, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

KeybladeSpyMaster - You're actions are totally illogical. TALK - - You've done enough! - 12:39 PM Sun, June 24, 2018 MST CODE 0x1SF1XKSMDRK: EMERGENCY Unfortunately, user, this is a warning for falsely accusing an administrator of bad faith. Assuming that TheSilentHero was correcting you with the intention of making you appear as a bigot is accusing him of acting with malicious intent, and nothing in his message to you portrays any such intent. We follow on this wiki the principles on Wikipedia of assuming good faith: that users on this wiki, including you and me, do not act with the intention of harming the Kingdom Hearts Wiki or others on the project. That's true even when we disagree. I'm sure you have no such malicious intention, but you can't go around and accuse people of acting with malicious intent towards you. Falsely doing so is inappropriate and can lead to further hostility and argument. You are welcome to continue to edit, and can continue to express your disagreement with current rules, policies, and interpretations, but you will do so without accusing others of bad faith without evidence. Otherwise, continuing such behavior will lead to a block. END OF LINE

What a fancy template. There's so much here I could pick apart, but I think I'll address the elephant in the room.

"False accusation of bad faith" - They framed a situation to make me look like the one who can't accept other's opinions and trying to force their opinion, when I was actually the one trying to reach a neutral viewpoint. That alone should be plenty of evidence, reason and grounds for assuming bad faith. Claiming what I said is "false" is extremely dismissive of my opinion and devalues what I have to say, and retroactively tries to paint me in the wrong. Soroxas (talk) 20:08, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Images

What's the deal with the brighter-but-patchier images you've been uploading?"We're werewolves, not swearwolves." (KrytenKoro) 13:47, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Some images are way too dark to the point I can barely make anything out. The "patchy" effect is due to the brightening process. Sorry it bugs you and I'll keep your dislike of patchiness in mind. Soroxas (talk) 18:28, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Okay, so to be clear you're not simply getting screenshots from the game? This wiki doesn't allow artificial alteration of images like that, out of concern for presenting stuff in a false light. If the game presents it dark, then it's dark."We're werewolves, not swearwolves." (KrytenKoro) 19:24, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

It's dark in the game, but not that dark as the image is. Also, a lot of games back then were adjusted for CRT televisions. It also does not help that a lot of capture devices can alter the brightness of an image. Because of all the factors involved, it's often difficult to tell what the intended brightness/saturation/contrast/etc of an image is. Soroxas (talk) 21:57, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Okay, then we'd need to get a better direct rip from the game, not artificially alter an image."We're werewolves, not swearwolves." (KrytenKoro) 13:24, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Bumping this. Soraxas, your images don't comply with the image policy, as some of the images you uploaded have altered, so can you please inform us which ones you uploaded were altered? You've been uploading a lot of them since you started editing and it's difficult to keep track of them. Images with artificial alternation need to be deleted and replaced with HD screenshots directly from the games.--NinjaSheik 17:39, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

The ones I recently altered were also altered before I altered them, so I altered them to look like how they were originally supposed to be. Their brightness was too high and were not a clean direct rip from the game in the first place, as the uploader's capture messed up the black levels. Look at the file history here and the brightness:

https://www.khwiki.com/File:Ventus-Vanitas_01_KHBBS.png

There's no way you can say that the developers intended their blacks to look like greys. Master Riku the Bloody uploaded HD versions, but in doing so, ruined the intended and correct brightness levels.

Also, the concept art of Hollow Bastion should not count, since it's not originally a direct rip of anything. I simply removed the grey smears on them, making it closer to what the artist intended. Soroxas (talk) 17:56, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

There are a lot of old images from the split, but the KHWiki are starting to replace them in HD. Plus, as a large franchise, it is difficult to keep up with the amount of images on this wiki. But you did confess to Kryten that you did alter those images nonetheless, and we need to get images directly from the games so we aren't presenting them in a false light. If anything, I just wanted to alert you that, if you see any images that needs replacement, you can request images to be uploaded and have them brought to attention by posting here.--NinjaSheik 18:35, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

I don't see the issue with altering an image to make it look unaltered and how it is actually supposed to look in the first place. I don't view it as "presenting these images in a false light". If anything, the originals, with their incorrect black levels, were already doing that. I'm done altering the brightness levels of images anyway.Soroxas (talk) 18:41, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Because you are taking an image and manually altering it based on an assumption that that is how it is supposed to look, not how it actual look in the game(s). That's why Kryten informed you that we need to get images directly from the games themselves. Please stop sidestepping the issue. Please list the images that you altered. I'll put in a request on the Image Requests to have those replaced. I think that you should talk ShardofTruth about to rip images directly from the games, as Shard is our best image uploader.--NinjaSheik 17:44, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

If the images were altered before, they should indeed be replaced. However, altering the images to make them look unaltered is not the way to do this. First of all, because it's hard to tell how exactly they were intended to look, and second, because they'll still be altered. The correct way to replace them would be to take screenshots from the games themselves. As NinjaSheik asked, please list the images you altered on the request page so they can be replaced. TheSilentHero 18:06, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

My edits are closer to look like how the image is supposed to look. It does not take a genius or a perfectionist to know when black levels are incorrect. It's not "hard" to know in these cases such as Vanitas's images. It's not some vague wild assumption, I've played the games and know the brightness of the scenes. And while my alteration (I usually go to Photoshop and just click Auto-Contrast) may not be 100 percent correct to the original, it is close enough to the point it should not be an issue. For example, if an image is the number 100, then the unaltered version is like a 50 while mine is like a 90 or 95. In any case, here's every file I've ever uploaded:

https://www.khwiki.com/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&offset=20190101000000&limit=500&contribs=user&target=Soroxas&namespace=6&tagfilter=

I can take direct rips instead, I know how. It is just difficult for KH1 pics due to the lack of theater mode in my copy, so I can't do that. The exception is the Ansem pic I recently pic, since it's near the beginning of the game. Soroxas (talk) 18:11, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Were all of your images altered? All the uploads you've done since were done in bulk, so it's hard to keep track of them. If you can refer to the ones you altered and post them the request page, that'll save a lot of time. Also, if you have trouble with getting images, that's what the request page is for. ShardofTruth or another user might be able to help if they can see what images need to be replaced on the request page.--NinjaSheik 19:07, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, all the images that are renders or control art of characters, soroxas cleaned them up by getting rid of excess whitespace, which was very helpful."We're werewolves, not swearwolves." (KrytenKoro) 12:25, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

So not all of them were altered. Good to know. But it doesn't answer the question which ones were altered in brightness.--NinjaSheik 19:46, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Any of them that are screenshots."We're werewolves, not swearwolves." (KrytenKoro) 19:52, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Jiminy

Just a heads up, this wiki covers fictional content in an "in-universe" PoV, which means that we write synopses, well, like Jiminy Cricket would. I've tweaked your writeup on Jiminy's page to address this."We're werewolves, not swearwolves." (KrytenKoro) 16:44, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Thumbnails

You'd need to ask an admin for the current policy, but to my memory there are parts of the manual style that dictate what width thumbnails should be in an article."We're werewolves, not swearwolves." (KrytenKoro) 14:07, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

filenames

This wiki actually uses a bot for that, so it's already in the queue."We're werewolves, not swearwolves." (KrytenKoro) 12:41, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Master

Xehanort is a clearly unique case, as his incarnations as a youth and as a Keyblade Master are treated as distinct, separate characters in the plot.

Mickey Mouse is a good example, although I'd like to suggest that most of that list is stuff that doesn't include his name at all (and King Mickey includes it only in part), and that these are names used for mechanical facets as well (ex. "The King" card in CoM). Furthermore, Mickey Mouse's article specifically excludes his Master title.

Meanwhile, Yen Sid, Aqua, Luxu, and Riku don't list Master, and the Foretellers exclude their special titles. Master of Masters is pretty much the only one that includes his Master title.

That being said, the journals consistently call him "Master Eraqus", while omitting the title for other characters, so there's that too."We're werewolves, not swearwolves." (KrytenKoro) 18:27, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

I would not normally list "Master Aqua" and "Master Riku" because they are used so sparingly. However, "Master Eraqus" is said over and over again, and used so frequently, that I think it deserves its own mention. If you absolutely MUST omit "Master Eraqus", then fine, but I would appreciate it if you left it be. Soroxas (talk) 22:51, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Talk sprites

1. As I said in the edit comments, from what I remember of when the images were originally added, they were not official art -- they were fanedited images made in the style of the CoM sprites. I've contacted the admins to get verification on this -- it's possible that I've misremembered, or that consensus has changed over the years. Hell, it's possible the fansprites have already been weeded out.
2. For Union X: you are misunderstanding what those headers are for. The headers are to illustrate the period in the timeline, not the specific game something appears in -- this is why we still use "Chain of Memories" in synopsis headers, not "Re:Chain of Memories". As far as the categories, the edit change window just showed the category getting deleted, it didn't show that there was already a category there, so that's my mistake.
3. "Cold, ruthless, and uncaring" is the polar opposite of "slapping someone in a fit of rage". So, either you miscaptioned the image, or it doesn't fit the section. Per fair use, we should avoid using images that don't clearly complement the text -- so if you want to use that image, you need to clearly justify that specific image within the text, not used as decoration for the sake of having images). See this for a standard and more thorough guideline for what fair use allows us to do. This is also part of why the admins have been busting your balls about captions -- in order to stay kosher, we need to rigorously justify the use of the image. We're necessarily going to be more anal about these kind of things than a gaming magazine or an approved PR site specifically because we don't want to have to pay licensing fees for every single image we use.
4. "you did not archive the pic in Larxene's gallery" -- we're not supposed to. We should not be putting every single image we can find that includes a character in the galleries. That's a direct violation of Fair Use, which is what allows us to use the images in the first place. Images should only be in galleries if they illustrate a specific, distinct, and necessary image of a topic (and to be frank, should be at least a little lower quality than the official image, if possible). We have a legal obligation to reduce the number of images we use as much as we can possibly justify. I have personally talked to SE PR reps about SE's relationship with the wiki, and stuff like overuse of images is a concern. At this point, we're basically operating under plausible deniability.
5. You can "view things" however you want, but constantly assuming bad faith when other editors edit an article in line with decades-old policies that have been thoroughly discussed and agreed upon by the community is not helpful. I understand you are trying to help, lord knows I acted like this (and for the record, was thoroughly disciplined) when I first came to the wiki, but constantly accusing other people of "hurting the wiki" because they do something you don't agree with, despite giving clear reasons for why they did it, is burning bridges. If you think I've misinterpreted policy, or you disagree with the policy itself, question it or discuss it in that way. But, and I say this because I want you to succeed, repeated ad hominems are neither productive nor winning you a lot of fans."We're werewolves, not swearwolves." (KrytenKoro) 16:12, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

TSH confirmed that the CoM sprites I had removed were in fact the official versions, and that they had already removed the faked ones. I reinstated the images you added. I also removed the excess Kingdom Hearts X character categories."We're werewolves, not swearwolves." (KrytenKoro) 16:34, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

This is pretty minor, but to clarify, the caption of the .gif of Larxene smacking Naminé was edited by me. Soroxas has it as "Larxene smacking Naminé", I believe, but I added in the "fit of rage" part. I wasn't really sure if it fit, even though that was what happened in the scene, but I left it there since I scrambling to keep up with Soroxas's edits and fixing the captions. Just wanted to point that out.

That said, Soroxas, look... I don't mean to sound harsh, but your edits are seriously flooding the RC. Moreover, given your edits with adding images to articles and galleries, it's pretty obvious to tell that you're not all that focused on making quality edits when it comes to writing captions and seem to be more focused on just uploading images into articles as quickly as possible. I'm not a expert in writing captions, either, and while you do seem the improving with writing the captions than before, the way you're doing things is causing more work than necessary for the other editors here. Kryten already explained it to you, but the KHWiki is not a respiratory for images and uploading images without a legitimate reason is strictly prohibited in accordance with the with the United States Fair Use law. That means that images that are uploaded must be used only for informational and educational purposes, meaning that images are meant to be used to identify the subject of an article and to illustrate something directly relevant to the text. We really appreciate you adding images to articles, but again, by not adhering to our policies, your edits are detrimental to the KHWiki, and I'd rather not see the KHWiki be thrown into legal troubles with Square Enix with KHIII coming out next year.--NinjaSheik 17:34, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

I prefer to keep this succinct. First, I'll address Kryten:

1. As you admit, you misremembered. If you were unsure, you could have easily checked TheSpritersResource.

2. From my understanding, Union X is not simply only a remake of X, so it can not be compared to Chain of Memories story-wise and canon-wise. The storyline of Union X is an additional canonical reboot. Union X begins in a new realm where everyone loses all their memories of their previous world, with the exception of the five wielders chosen to become the new Union leaders, but the events of X still happened. Due to this, I feel that Union X should be treated as a separate entry story-wise.

3. Striking someone is uncaring and being cold to someone else's feelings. We can argue semantics, but I'd rather not.

4. I feel Larxene hitting Naminé is a pivotal and notable character moment, so a screenshot of it is notable and fine. I think what qualifies as a "necessary" or "important" image is often subjective.

5. As per our first point, the talk sprite situation was a misunderstanding. Me briefly saying that I feel a certain behavior or attitude hurts the wiki does not qualify as "ad hominem" in my eyes. It is far from an "attack" on you. For you to think that me saying overly pedantic attitudes hurt the wiki is an "attack" on you is, simply put, bizarre. If you feel attacked, it is not my intention.

Now NinjaSheik, I'm sorry if the RC seems flooded, but there's not much else I could do because there were a ton of Galleries out-of-date and lacking COM talk sprites. I'm honestly surprised there were so many talk sprites uploaded to the wiki, but not in Galleries. I was doing something that was long overdue. Perfect captions, if anything, are more like the cherry on top, while I view simply having the basics there is a far more important concern. Soroxas (talk) 18:41, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

1. No, dude, I can't easily check a completely separate website, especially when my internet protocols do not let me visit certain websites. This is why I gave an explicit reason, citing policy, for why I was removing the images. I was mistaken as to the particulars of those specific images, but I was plainly editing in good faith -- which is also why I did not accuse you of vandalizing or purposefully doing anything wrong when I reverted, I just noted the policy I was reverting based on. As I tried to explain earlier, that is the way to go about contentious discussions -- not this bit about accusing things of being "overly pedantic" or feeling like it's "the cherry on top".
2. You are still misunderstanding the point of the headers. They are not to specify the game. They are to specify point in the timeline. All of the X works (chi, Unchained, Back Cover, and Union) use "Kingdom Hearts X" as their header, and even the "new realm" justification for Union/Unchained still has the conceit of reliving all the previous memories (a meta take on being able to replay earlier missions), so all the events are chronologically jumbled up together.
3. It's semantically false. "Cold" does not simply mean "not nice" -- it means "emotionally distant, unfeeling, dispassionate". "striking someone in a rage" is fundamentally not dispassionate. If it's a pivotal or notable character moment, then it should be possible to describe what the import of the moment actually is. If it's possible to do that, it should be covered in the text. And, honestly, this is a case where a picture is not worth a thousand words -- the information communicated by that animation could be pretty easily covered just in text.
4. You are wrong about whether the images are "notable and fine", and as Ninja said, you are putting the wiki in a legally bad place.
5. There exactly is "much else you could do", unless you're telling us someone is holding a gun to your head. Dude, this is what I was talking about earlier -- a staff member directly told you "your edits are bothersome to the community and violate our policies", and you're giving them a nonpology and dismissing their explanations of why the captions matter. Do you not get that you talked down to a staff member as if you understood the wiki's agreed-upon policies and the legal burdens the wiki operates under better than they did? Read the article I linked you -- by spamming the galleries and articles with all these images and not putting in the work to demonstrate why the images are necessary, you are violating fair use policies, which puts the wiki in a bad legal state. In other words "simply having the basics there" without doing the full job will fuck us. I was not screwing with you when I told you that I have spoken directly with Square Enix representatives about the specific issue of images, among other issues of affiliation or legal kosherness. Square Enix is aware of our site, and thumbing our nose at fair use does damage the wiki."We're werewolves, not swearwolves." (KrytenKoro) 19:32, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

1. "Completely separate website" You realize it doesn't take more than a few seconds to google "Kingdom Hearts Chain of Memories sprites"? And then an extra 2 or 3 minutes to perform a cross-check with the wiki? I seriously doubt that TheSpritersResource, among many other spriting websites, are all blocked on your Internet connection. TheSpritersResource is not Pornhub.

2. While some of the memories of X are re-lived, Union X adds so much more exclusive content and I think it's so unique that it deserves to be considered a new point in the timeline. Agree to disagree. I won't touch the headings.

3. So you really want to argue semantics? Here's a definition. "Rude behavior". Slapping someone is rude behavior. Slapping someone is a cold and uncaring thing to do to someone. Agree to disagree.

4. That's your subjective opinion, and for you to act like there's an objective "importance" when it comes to images is ridiculous.

5. You're taking me of out context. I never said "captions don't matter". I said I felt there are things of higher priorities, like ensuring we have the basics first, over the cherry on top (i.e. perfect and detailed captions). Either way, how detailed a caption is should not be the ultimatum into whether or not an image should be considered important. Most of the time, it's just a copy of the text beside it. I'm not "spamming" Galleries either. I view that the images I add are valuable. And if you happen to have these messages from Square Enix, I'm curious to see them. Soroxas (talk) 20:05, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

1. "TheSpritersResource is not Pornhub." ...it's a gaming website. Most office computers block gaming websites. I'm lucky I can edit the wiki at all, and I have to use a complicated route to try to access scripts on gamefaqs. I don't understand why you're continuing to insist that I had the ability to easily check this information while I'm at work, when as I explained it's far easier and assuming-good-faithy to simply say "Hey, Kryten, I'm pretty sure those images you marked as fanart are actually official images, can we talk about this?"
2. Cold behavior is a type of rude behavior. It does not encompass all rude behavior.

Unfriendly, emotionally distant or unfeeling.

She shot me a cold glance before turning her back.

Dispassionate, not prejudiced or partisan, impartial.

Let's look at this tomorrow with a cold head.

He's a nice guy, but the cold facts say we should fire him.

The cold truth is that states rarely undertake military action unless their national interests are at stake.

I'm not sure if this is an ESL issue, but "cold" in English refers to behavior that is unemotional and dispassionate, metaphorically speaking of how you feel "hot" when you're jumped up on adrenaline and emotion, but "cold" when you're stewing in longterm hatred and malice. It's a specific contrast to behavior that is "heated" or emotional -- i.e., the difference between a premeditated crime and a crime of passion. Violence is rarely ever described as "cold" unless its very precise and premeditated, like an assassination or poisoning. Almost always, a brawl (like Larxene slapping Namine) is described as a "heated exchange".

1. I'm not "acting" anything. There are defined laws about fair use. I gave you a primer that discusses what those laws mean in practical terms. You should read it and start following its guidelines.
2. Detailed captions are not a cherry on top. They are what makes the use of the images legal and keeps us safe. They also should not be a copy of the text beside it -- they should complement, but not reiterate, that text. Again, your view of your images does not matter, and neither do mine or any random persons -- the legal consequences do, and the staff (and wikis as a whole) have developed guidelines for what will keep us out of hot water and what won't. It is really not in your best interests to poo-poo the staff when they inform you you're crossing the line on images.
3. They weren't text. They were spoken, in person, in New York, when I was invited there by the SE public outreach rep to cover the launch of KH3D, as well as discuss the wiki's role in reference to Square Enix. It's...a bit confusing why you would want to "see them" in the first place, after I already told you I spoke directly with Square Enix on this matter. If you really don't trust that I'm being honest with you, then I'd implore you to follow the links I've given you for a third party explanation of fair use issues, but there's not a lot that can be accomplished if you go into each discussion assuming I (or other editors, judging on your responses) are all lying to you. We're not. We're trying to get you up to speed.

Look, dude, I'm not your enemy. I'm really not. Honestly, I'm the one most likely to be your cheerleader as soon as you start following the wiki's policies. I am trying to help you here."We're werewolves, not swearwolves." (KrytenKoro) 21:50, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

1. Then maybe you should edit the wiki when you're not at work and can actually check other websites to be sure, instead of jumping to the conclusion that I'm adding fan sprites. I'm actually a bit offended because it seems like you thought I can't tell what's a fan sprite or not. It's why I avoided adding Daisy Duck's talk sprite because I knew it was a fan made one as she is not in COM, but I honestly question your memory of the games if you think that the portraits I added weren't in COM. I mean, COM is like a rehash of KH1. Should be common sense that characters like Genie, Aerith, Hercules, etc, are in COM.

2. Cold behavior can absolutely include doing cruel things, like physical abuse. People often use "cold" as "lacking empathy". Striking someone so hard that they fall across the room is an action which lacks a lot of empathy, even if it happens to be in a fit and rage. Humans are complex and can have multiple emotions at once, even if they seem contradictory. Someone can be happy and sad at the same time, or cold and angry, or disgusted and relieved, at the same time. I honestly hope you don't view human interactions in a one-note way.

3 (...? you went 1, 2, then jumped to 1 again). I will keep what you said in mind, but honestly, it's terrifying because you make it seem like this wiki is on the verge of being taken down if we have more captions like "Riku and Maleficent" instead of "Riku showing Maleficent the Keyblade of heart". Forgive me, as a recently joined editor, for not being aware that this wiki is treading mighty thin ice here.

4. I find stuff interesting, sue me. I thought you meant by e-mail or something. Anyway, keep in mind, KH3D was *six years ago*. I'm sure that this wiki has changed a lot in *six years*, as well as how companies view wikis a bit. Soroxas (talk) 22:16, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

You know what, dude? If you're this committed to trying to turn every single thing into an ad hominem or personal attack, or scoff every time someone tries to inform you of the wiki's policies or legal realities, have fun with that. I was being serious about trying to help you here, but I'm not going to throw good effort after bad. You have successfully burned this bridge."We're werewolves, not swearwolves." (KrytenKoro) 12:19, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

I literally just said I'd keep the wiki's legal troubles and policies in mind. Please don't twist situations into making it seem like I don't care and am "scoffing". And I'm sorry that you feel attacked. Like I said, it's not my intent. And thanks for keeping your reply short. Keep in mind, you're the one who said this bridge was burned, not me. I'm not in a mood for a blame game. Soroxas (talk) 15:30, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Warning 2

I said, hands off!
	This is a warning for failing to comply to KHWiki's Image Policy and U.S. Fair Use law. Please stop breaking the rules on the Kingdom Hearts Wiki. Further violations will result in additional warnings or blocks. If you wish to do test edits, you are welcome to do so here. — --NinjaSheik 19:32, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

NinjaSheik - All of this might have started with a lie...But I'm really am glad that I could meet you... TALK - One day, the light-it will be ours, and it will bring us together. Til then, I'll be in your heart... Despite your earlier claims to keep the wiki's policies in mind in future edits, your recent edits in characters' galleries for the last two days still does not comply to the policies. Thus, I am issuing you an official warning for failing to comply with the KHWiki's Image Policy and the United States Fair Use law, after being informed multiple times about our policies and the U.S. Fair Use law, and why it is important to uphold these rules. Please abide by these policies when editing on the KHWiki in the future, otherwise another warning will be issued to you. We do appreciate you improving the galleries and such, but perpetually violating our policies and the U.S. Fair Use law is not acceptable.

Randall

Please do not add katakana or other stats to the infoboxes based on original research or speculation."We're werewolves, not swearwolves." (KrytenKoro) 16:35, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Mandy Moore

Please remember that trivia sections are against the rules unless the information absolutely cannot be covered elsewhere in the article, and must be devoid of speculation or non-notable info."We're werewolves, not swearwolves." (KrytenKoro) 15:31, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Please remember this (ex. Skoll). That kind of information can be covered in the Design section, for example."We're werewolves, not swearwolves." (KrytenKoro) 16:06, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

https://www.khwiki.com/index.php?title=Beast&curid=7501&diff=746029&oldid=743710

Please remember that story sections should be in-universe, and avoid speculation."We're werewolves, not swearwolves." (KrytenKoro) 15:06, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Speculation isn't allowed because it can get people to have the wrong ideas, but when in-game claims that can also lead people to get the wrong ideas exist, shouldn't there be more to clarify what is uncertain? For example, in Beast's case, all the wiki said was he "explained ____ happened" (not even the word "claimed", but "explained"), but it turns out that was not the whole story. Is it really that detrimental to add a mere "but it is unknown if this is true" if there's something fishy? If no one tries to make the line between what is known and what is unknown distinct, then I feel we risk confusion. Soroxas (talk) 18:08, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

"but it is unknown if this is true" -- yes, that would be a problem. That is a phrasing that alleges that the script is being untrue, which requires sources. You can't just attach that to something without providing a separate source which contradicts it, and by that point you would know if it's true or not -- or, if it's not possible to tell, we would say something like "this source says X, this other source says Y" and let the reader choose which one to believe -- what it looks like we might do with the Experiment, for example.

The wiki's scope is to present what is published, with as little commentary as feasibly possible. We let the reader determine how to interpret anything that they feel the canon is vague on."We're werewolves, not swearwolves." (KrytenKoro) 18:30, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

In media and stories, characters often lie, or are deceived, or are ignorant to what is true. I wouldn't necessarily say that phrasing alleges that the script is untrue, but rather, that character could be affected by one of those three aspects which I just mentioned. It's transparency, in a sense. If you don't like "it is unknown if this is true" on the wiki, then do you also have an issue with "claims" being used instead of "explained" in an instance like this? Soroxas (talk) 18:37, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

No, because as cited in the article, Nomura retconned the method Beast used, in the KH2FM Another Report, to be due to a corridor of darkness opened up by Beast's extreme hate (presumably for Maleficent). Without something solid in the plot that casts doubt on earlier claims (like when KH3D changed the explanation for summoning KH from Xehanort explained you needed light and darkness to Xehanort thought he needed light and darkness), then we take the current published material as credible. Up til that point, "this is coming from within the characters rather than from the narrator" is about as far as is appropriate."We're werewolves, not swearwolves." (KrytenKoro) 19:28, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Katakan

Where are you getting the katakana for stuff like Flynn Rider, Woody Pride, and Mike Wazowski?"We're werewolves, not swearwolves." (KrytenKoro) 18:13, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Japanese Wikipedia and sometimes articles for the game written in Japanese, can't remember which ones. Is there something you're concerned about? Soroxas (talk) 21:57, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Okay, so they need to be wiped. You're supposed to provide sources for katakana when added, especially since I can't find any reliable sources using that katakana either through going through the released official publications, or even running a google search."We're werewolves, not swearwolves." (KrytenKoro) 18:35, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Misspellings

"Trivia will be removed if it fails to meet the notability guidelines." - Please read the editing guidelines as required at the top of every page when you go to edit (i.e., "READ BEFORE EDITING:")

As specified, you should also read the manual of style before editing, which states:

"Content qualifies as trivia if it is information that is not significant or vital to either the game or gameplay, does not fit in other places of the article, and is of interest to note. Examples include seemingly unintentional recurrences, real-world references, or seemingly unintentional but marked similarities between two subjects. Trivia must be true and verified; neither speculation nor opinion-based conjectures are trivia. Trivia is inserted as the final subsection in an article, before "References” and “External Links”.

"as if the developers of the series are incompetent." -- they are. KH2 had an intensely poor localization, and the FM releases were even worse.

Please familiarize yourself with the policies of the wiki, as the editing window explicitly requires, instead of trying to turn things into personal drama."We're werewolves, not swearwolves." (KrytenKoro) 18:34, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Please don't accuse people of trying to turn things into personal drama (which is "bad faith"), it was just a question. It's a false accusation when I hate drama and would rather limit my contact with you, I talk to you for the sake of bettering the wiki, not because I'm trying to instigate shit. And I'd argue that because I went more in-depth, talking more about the specifics of the misspelling and where it appears in each version (as the PlayStation 3 and 4 versions could technically be seen as being "the North American version of KH2"), it qualifies for Trivia, as it became too lengthy to fit in the introduction of the article. Soroxas (talk) 19:03, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

"It's a false accusation when I hate drama"

"I don't know why you insist" is blatantly framing the issue as personal drama, when this was a black-and-white wiki policy issue. You chose to frame this in an accusatory, dramatic way -- take ownership of that.

"the PlayStation 3 and 4 versions"

They could not, because Kingdom Hearts II was never released for any system but the PS2. The wiki (at least per direction, if not always practical effect) specifically refers to the original NA release of KH2 when talking about the north american version of KH2. If you find articles using "NA release of KH2" to refer to KH2.5's KH2FM, those are errors.

"it qualifies for Trivia"

The wiki's longstanding consensus policy is that if a note placed within a trivia section can be covered elsewhere in the article, it must be. Trivia sections are only to be used for information that is worth communicating to the reader, but absolutely cannot be made to fit in any of the existing sections. The wiki has a longstanding directive to reduce or eliminate trivia sections as much as possible. The misspellings can be covered as alternate names in the lead -- ergo, that's where they go. If necessary, they could also go in a design section, or be a ref note in the lead rather than plain text (as I did with Yuffie, as that one was less in-universe), but they have a valid place to go that's not a trivia section."We're werewolves, not swearwolves." (KrytenKoro) 19:55, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Since this is something I had attempted to explain to you above, please let me know if you have any suggestions on how to make that policy clearer, and I will ask the staff to improve the wording of that policy."We're werewolves, not swearwolves." (KrytenKoro) 19:58, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

If you think me saying "I don't know why you insist" is me trying to instigate drama, then yikes. It reminds me of the admins and mods on a forum called ResetERA who ban people for literally anything, and try to stretch things that really aren't that inherently offensive as being super offensive, claiming they're trying to do something. Me saying "I don't know why you insist" is literally me saying that I'm confused and not sure why you support doing something. That's all there is to it. You reverted something I worked on without explaining why. I already knew that simply by asking you why you did it isn't going to make you suddenly turn around and change your opinion, which is why I said "insist". This is why I don't particularly enjoy talking with you because it feels like I'm walking on eggshells. For future sake, you should phrase it like "you seem to want to start drama", not "you want to start drama". By adding "seem", it is far better behavior that comes across as less accusatory and hypocritical yourself. And to support my claim that I'm not looking for drama, I'm ending this aspect of our discussion right here.

It is absolutely possible for someone to misread "North American version as KH2" as including the PS3/PS4 versions. Just because KH2 is in a compilation on PS3/PS4, it doesn't mean it's suddenly not KH2 on PS3/PS4, or doesn't qualify as a North American version of KH2. We should not be vague and unspecific on the wiki. Maybe while you wouldn't assume the PS3/PS4 versions, it doesn't mean you speak for everyone, especially for our average and common readers. We have to be clear.

I don't feel like you addressed my point about length in Trivia, but whatever. It seems you're already discussing this with KeybladeSpyMaster.

On an unrelated note, I wish you'd start trying to improve the articles yourself instead of adding cleanup templates everywhere. I don't see why you can't "clean up Riku-Ansem's article for conciseness a bit" yourself, or spend 5 minutes improving Sally's story section (as I don't see much else that needs improving and feel we covered everything sufficiently). Soroxas (talk) 22:17, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

"If you think me saying" -- saying "you" indicates you're speaking to a person, and "insist" indicates that you're ascribing intent. My following of policy is neither personal nor intent. I'm not staff so this is not a warning, but dude, you've already had staff talk to you previously about insinuating that other editors are taking personal action to spite you, when in reality they are simply following consensus policies that you do not seem to have familiarized yourself with. Speaking from personal experience, it's detrimental to the project to be doing this -- for the record, I personally have been disciplined in the past for such behavior. It is by no means asking you to "walk on eggshells" to ask you to assume good faith toward other editors.

In addition -- as I have already reminded you, the trivia policy was explicitly explained to you above. Since you seem to be complaining that the policy wasn't explained to you a second time, for the benefit of the project please let me know how you would word the policy to make it sufficiently clear the first time it's explained to an editor.

"It is absolutely possible" -- but it is not how the wiki uses those terms. KH2 is not in a compilation on PS3/PS4 -- Kingdom Hearts II Final Mix, a different game, is. This wiki consistently treats KH2 and KH2FM as separate for all mechanical purposes, as a matter of policy (so, again, if you do find an outlier, that page is in error).

"I wish you'd start trying to improve the articles yourself" -- What you're trying to accuse me of here is completely at odds with reality, vastly underestimates the time it takes to write an article correctly, and has nothing to do with the current topic. I'm confused as to why you brought it up here. If you believe I am violating policy, I would recommend you either cite me on the policy in a separate message thread on my talk page, or notify a staff member to correct or discipline me."We're werewolves, not swearwolves." (KrytenKoro) 15:16, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

If I feel like people are being unfair or being accusatory to me, then I'll call them out. And I disagree and feel it's reductionist to claim those prior times were just all me "not knowing policies", there was more to it and it was more complicated than that. This time, you accused ME of bad faith (claiming I'm trying to start drama), and even now, it seems like you feel I'm totally in the wrong and should be reprimanded. You even have a warning about accusing other people of bad faith and being hostile to other editors.

No, I'm not complaining about Trivia not being explained to me properly. I'm trying to make a valid point about how by adding a fair amount of length to something in the introduction section, it can make it deserve its own Trivia point, as introduction sections should be brief and focus on the article, not little and more minor things like a one-time incident misspelling in a memo which the vast majority of people probably don't read or won't remember.

There is nothing wrong with the wiki being more specific to avoid confusion for new readers, which is my point about the terminology on the wiki. If a wiki does not try to be considerate of newer readers who are unfamiliar with the policies and terminology of a wiki, then that's a failure in my eyes. I'm not asking the wiki to change its terminology, simply expressing how little things like clarifying potential room for confusion can go a long way.

And finally, as I said before, I think cleanup templates EVERYWHERE on the wiki look awful, and sometimes, they're too vague as to what specifically needs to be improved. For example, what about Sally's story section needs to be improved? Is it because it's missing content? Not enough length? Too much length? Who knows because you don't clarify stuff like that. We aren't mind readers. And yes, me bringing it up is irrelevant, I simply don't want to start another section on it on your talkpage, so might as well bring it up here while I'm talking to you now. Are you breaking policy because you have a tendency to add cleanup templates? No, but it's still not an ideal thing to do if you have the potential to do it yourself, or can clarify better what specifically should be improved. Soroxas (talk) 17:41, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

"This time, you accused ME of bad faith" --- I pointed out that you were accusing me, personally, of "insisting" on following the rules. You trying to pull some sort of "he who smelt it dealt it" nonsense is just that. Stop trying to DARVO.

"I'm trying to make a valid point" -- The Trivia policy does not focus on length. It focuses on whether the information can be covered elsewhere. Aladdin and Cloud are the models for a character article, specifically the lead section. Adding in an alternate name is not unduly extending that - Dilan's lead, for example, is if anything too sparse compared to what the MoS recommends. If you don't like the policy, open a forum about it, but don't go to editors who are following the policy and accuse them of having some sort of agenda.

"There is nothing wrong with the wiki being more specific" -- there is when it introduces incorrect claims. KH2 and KH2FM are not the same game. It would be appropriate to specify that it was corrected in the FM version, but not "PS3 and PS4". The standard for misspellings across the wiki has been to either put it in the lead, or cover it as a ref note.

"And yes, me bringing it up is irrelevant," -- yes, it's irrelevant, and to put it bluntly, it's pretty crappy that you're still trying to derail with it.

"We aren't mind readers." -- That is why the MoS and talk pages exist. If you have the time and resources to address a page marked for cleanup, you have every ability to ask for clarification if you're not sure what needs cleaned up.

When KSM reverted my edits, I didn't go to him and say "I don't know why you insisted on this, it's so ridiculous!". I asked him "why did you do this" and I cited the specific policies that I felt justified my version of the page. That is how you're supposed to go about this, not turning everything into some personal drama."We're werewolves, not swearwolves." (KrytenKoro) 21:12, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Okay, cut it out, you two. You're both accusing each other of things and I can only see this ending badly. If either of you have a problem with another user or their edits, you can go to one of the staff members, instead of "fighting it out" personally. As for the initial problem, the misspellings, some of the staff discussed what is the best way of dealing with it, and we've decided to go for references in the lead. That way it won't take up any space in the lead, but it won't break our policy regarding trivia either. You can find an example on this page. TheSilentHero 21:43, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

KH3 images

Thank you for getting those cropped."We're werewolves, not swearwolves." (KrytenKoro) 16:25, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Sure. Can you delete the jpg versions? Soroxas (talk) 16:37, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Riku

Wasn't the section you removed covering his original (unseen) discussion with Namine, that set him on a collision course with Roxas and Xion in the first place? Not the one we see in a cutscene, where Namine tells him the problem is getting worse.71.222.195.240 00:21, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

We need a source that such a conversation even existed. From my understanding, Riku learned about Roxas from DiZ, and he tracked down Xion on a lead that the Organization is lurking around Beast's Castle. I also read somewhere that Riku was originally meant to have his own game after his ending in CoM, but before he faced off against Xion at Beast's Castle, which is why there's like 100 days where he is unseen. I've been using this timeline, and as you can see, there's a mysterious gap between Day 52 on Riku's side and Day 149 on Riku's side. Riku talked to Namine around 255, which we see in a flashback on 276. Soroxas (talk) 13:05, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

I was mistaken, it's not unseen -- Day 276, presented as a flashback:

"(The silver haired man brushes her hair aside and recalls a conversation with Naminé. They sit in a White Room, at opposite ends of the table) Naminé: I wasn't sure I'd see you again. Riku: You made me a promise.""We're werewolves, not swearwolves." (KrytenKoro) 20:35, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Depths of Darkness

Depths of Darkness, Castle Town, Forest of Thorns, and the Snow White one are all subworlds of Dark World, and should have articles as we do with Mysterious Tower, the Underworld, and a few other articles. Depths of Darkness is the Destiny Islands portion of Dark World. The Destiny Islands article should link to Depths of Darkness, but it is its own world in the fiction and any reference to the area should be to DoD instead of Destiny Islands itself, which several of our articles are inaccurately doing at the current moment.

Per our scope, anything that is an official term gets an article, even if its small. We merge stuff only when its impossible to focus on one topic at a time -- such as the White Mushroom's Arts items, which can't be covered individually and still be understandable."We're werewolves, not swearwolves." (KrytenKoro) 15:15, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

Gummiphone data

Hey, someone's pointed out that the Gummiphone page you created is partially based on leaks. I just want to remind you that leaks are not allowed on the Kingdom Hearts Wiki, so just make sure you don't add any of that again. Thanks for all your hard work over the last couple weeks! KeybladeSpyMaster 23:00, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Sure thing. I'm actually trying to avoid leaks (story-wise), but I can't help myself when it comes to gameplay a bit, or certain things like the intro, what the world map looks like, etc. I figured that the functions of the Gummiphone would be pretty whatever. Soroxas (talk) 03:59, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Sure, I understand that. Reason for the strictness is that we're actively trying to dispel rumors/claims that we have leaks and therefore people should avoid visiting the wiki. We had a doozy of a time dispeling those claims earlier in December, so we'd like to avoid giving people reason to think they need to avoid us over the leaks. KeybladeSpyMaster 05:39, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

FWIW, I'm on the "once we actually have final version of data, is fair game" boat."We're werewolves, not swearwolves." (KrytenKoro) 02:26, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

To be written.

That needs to be {{section-stub}}."We're werewolves, not swearwolves." (KrytenKoro) 14:32, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Hans

You did play KH3, right? None of that was true."We're werewolves, not swearwolves." (KrytenKoro) 13:33, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

I just beat Corona and haven't gotten to Frozen. My bad then, it seemed like a logical assumption and I didn't realize they changed his personality drastically (or hide parts in KH3 which they explicitly showed in the movie) as the Corona world seemed accurate enough to the movie. If they really don't show those aspects of him in KH3, then I find that really surprising and disappointing, especially if all he does is show up in the end to kill Elsa. Then again, I know Sora arrives when Elsa flees, so they skipped "Love is an Open Door" and probably skipped building up Hans as an antagonist in favor of Larxene. Soroxas (talk) 16:14, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

It's not a very good idea to add information for something you haven't seen yet. Make sure you actually know what happens before writing articles. TheSilentHero 16:30, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

He literally only shows up in the background. The journal entry makes a point of stating that the heroes have no idea what his deal was."We're werewolves, not swearwolves." (KrytenKoro) 18:30, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

"before you hit undo"

That's not how it works, no. If there's a critical error with the edit, it is completely acceptable for the reviewer to simply revert it and go on to reviewing other edits, than to try and parse out the good bits."We're werewolves, not swearwolves." (KrytenKoro) 20:17, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

I never said it's not acceptable, but it's not nice wiki etiquette either, especially if it's easily fixable, which it totally was. Soroxas (talk) 20:55, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Seeing as your edit was reverting me already fixing things the first time, no, that's not an example of poor wiki etiquette. I was already having time wasted by having to refix a mess I had already fixed. If you want your corrections to stick, do them separately from stuff that people will need to revert."We're werewolves, not swearwolves." (KrytenKoro) 21:19, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

I didn't see your edits and I don't check every single entry in Recent Changes. I don't check an article's history every time I make an edit either. Most people don't. But if you were aware that I was fixing other things than the heading and saw what I did, yet reverted anyway, then it's poor etiquette because it was easily fixable and you could've easily edited around it. Soroxas (talk) 21:24, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

"it's poor etiquette because it was easily fixable and you could've easily edited around it.""We're werewolves, not swearwolves." (KrytenKoro) 22:10, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

I already told you. I never hit undo on your edit because I didn't see it. I literally reached The Carribean world of KH3 last night, so I started editing character articles for the world, noticed the KH3 sections contained information which occurred before Sora's arrival into the world, and edited it as such. It's a coincidence that my edits happened the day after you removed those headings. You may not believe me, but I'm telling you the truth, it's just bad timing. It's why I also recently uploaded the world map pic. Soroxas (talk) 23:13, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

The point is that what you're criticizing of me is something that you were in greater violation of. Before getting upset and grousing at other editors, check into the article to confirm what's happening. That's why when I see a violation of policy, I track down who first did it instead of yelling at the last one to touch the page."We're werewolves, not swearwolves." (KrytenKoro) 01:28, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

For the third time, I was understandably nescient and never clicked "undo". My point is you didn't have to revert all my edits. You were aware and seemed to do what you did either out of laziness or spite. There's a huge difference in context between my edit and your edit and I think I have the right to "grouse" (no, it's really just mentioning what you did). All I said was "Actually look at my edits before you click undo" on the article. You're the one so bothered by that that you decide to leave me a message and yet you claim I'm the upset one? Sure. Soroxas (talk) 04:03, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

"I was understandably nescient" -- this is the thing that you need to correct. That is why I made a post informing you of the misstep that you had made, so that you could spend effort trying to correct it. Excuses do not correct the misstep.

"and never clicked "undo"" -- this isn't relevant. You undid an edit that was fixing the article. Whether you actually clicked the "undo" button or not, you made a misstep.

" My point is you didn't have to revert all my edits." -- as I've tried to explain multiple times -- yes, I did. Reviewers are supposed to be checking all the edits going through to make sure they are good -- taking the time to fix bad edits step by step, instead of just rejecting them, is a bonus, not the expectation. Time is at a premium.

"I think I have the right to "grouse"" -- you don't. This kind of thing is why the "2-years" thing was suggested to begin with. You are not familiar with the wiki's policies or standards, and when you're informed of them you've habitually lashed out instead of rigorously trying to get up to speed. I and many other editors have been banned in the past for less. Please focus on trying to learn the wiki's standards, as long as you learn them nobody is going to care whether or not your prior missteps were on purpose. All we care about is good content.

"You're the one so bothered by that that you decide to leave me a message" -- I'm correcting you on wiki policy and standards. That doesn't make me upset."We're werewolves, not swearwolves." (KrytenKoro) 14:23, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Me not clicking undo is relevant because it means my original edit was done out of innocence/nescience, not spite. Context is important because it shows us our intentions. Considering that you spend so much time editing this wiki and effort dissecting everything I write on my talk page, I find it difficult to believe time is a premium for you, so much so that you couldn't even spare a few seconds to re-do some incorrect links. And if I see something I find to complain about, which you try to undermine as "grousing", I will. Editors have the right to make complaints, and yes, even *gasp* suggestions to policies. If editors weren't allowed to voice complaints about policies or behaviors of other editors (which I see myself doing the latter right now as opposed to the former), then this wiki would be an Orwellian authoritarian dictatorship which ignores basic free speech. When I'm informed of a policy I don't know of and it makes the neurons in my head understand what I need to do, then I follow it, but to say I'm not allowed to even express my thoughts on current policies in a disagreeing manner is ridiculous. Soroxas (talk) 14:51, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

"Me not clicking undo is relevant" - I didn't say it was done out of spite. I said it was wrong. (This misunderstanding of yours seems to be at the root of a lot of the issues you're involved in -- people correcting your actions are not necessarily accusing you of malice.)

"I find it difficult to believe time is a premium for you" -- this is also wrong. Getting an editor to understand and follow policy correctly saves much, much more time in the long run, and the only cases where the time is not worth it, is when the editor should just be blocked or banned altogether.

"I will." -- and in cases like this, your complaint would be inaccurate. I never said you weren't allowed to voice your thoughts. I said you were being ignorant.

"then this wiki would be an Orwellian authoritarian dictatorship which ignores basic free speech" -- while free speech is certainly helpful to a wiki, it is a mistake to believe that that is the point of the project. The project is building an encyclopedia with comprehensive, accurate information. If free speech were the primary goal, blocks and bans wouldn't exist (and as a multiply-banned editor, I would know)."We're werewolves, not swearwolves." (KrytenKoro) 15:04, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

You heavily implied my edit was out of spite and/or laziness in your third comment in this section. It implied I knew what you did, when I didn't, and seemed to be accusing me of hypocrisy. I'm not annoyed at you because over a policy, I'm annoyed at you for trying to justify easily fixable laziness by using technicalities in policies with "well, the rules say I don't HAVE to do this so I'm technically following the policies so you don't the right to complain at me"-style arguments. You claim I'm ignorant, when to me, it seems like you're ignorant of wiki etiquette. And you don't have to keep mentioning you were banned in the past. If you're trying to sound sympathetic to me, it's not working. I'd rather see better wiki etiquette from you and more opportunities when you go the extra mile to be more respectful of other's edits and concerns, even if it isn't necessary according to policies. It shouldn't be surprising to you that if someone tries to fix something in an article, and you revert all their edits (even easily fixable positive edits), they'd feel frustrated at your actions. Soroxas (talk) 15:24, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

"and seemed to be accusing me of hypocrisy" -- yes, it is. Whether or not you clicked the undo button, you groused at (and are continuing to grouse at) another editor for something you had messed up in the first place. That's not the same as accusing your original edit of malice.

"it seems like you're ignorant of wiki etiquette" -- I'm claiming you're ignorant of the realities of trying to keep the wiki in good condition, and are requesting special treatment for yourself. Every editor has the responsibility to make sure their own edits are correct. Reviewers have the responsibility to make sure that bad edits are not introduced. My edits have gotten wiped if they had egregious errors. So have most longterm editors. The standard is to check the edit history to figure out why the edits were undone, ask the undoing reviewer why they did so if you don't understand, and work the changes out on the talk page if you can't come to an agreement with them one-on-one. Not to accuse the reviewers of laziness or bad etiquette for not doing your job for you.

"If you're trying to sound sympathetic to me" -- god no. I'm trying to remind you that you've already been extended a lot of leeway by the mods, to my understanding because you are at least trying to improve the wiki, and that it's not exactly wise to keep going down this road. I'm trying to remind you that no amount of intent to improve the wiki, or even nominal seniority, will outweigh toxic behavior or ignorance of policy. Plenty of editors with much more contributions to the wiki have been permanently banned because they refused to detach their ego from their editing -- those like me who were readmitted, were only done so because we fully acknowledged our mistakes, and didn't try to give excuses for them.

"I'd rather see better wiki etiquette from you" -- this is, again, you choosing to lash out at other editors instead of taking the lesson and improving your own edits. This entire discussion didn't need to happen in the first place -- per the boldly noted edit notices baked into the edit interface, you're supposed to acknowledge that you made a misstep, and resubmit your work without the misstep. Not grouse at other editors for not taking extra time to do your work.

"they'd feel frustrated at your actions" -- it's not surprising. That doesn't make it right, which is the point here. Useful contributing to the wiki requires leaving your ego at the door, end of. Every productive, longtime editor has had to learn that lesson -- I am regularly corrected by TSH, for example, despite my being a much longer-term editor than he is. Same goes for all the long-lasting staff. And until you learn to stop tying your ego to your edits, past experience shows that things will continue to be rocky for you (disclaimer: I am no longer a mod due to stepping back to part-time status, so this is an observation, not a warning)."We're werewolves, not swearwolves." (KrytenKoro) 15:43, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

You seem to enjoy writing me long replies, but I don't feel like writing you a long one back because it's tiring. I'll just sum it up with this: Just because someone may have messed up first, it doesn't mean you can't go out of your way to show some respect in return. Give people the benefit of the doubt. It's often worth spending the extra minute of effort not to make someone feel offended. This has nothing to do with me requesting "special treatment" for myself, it's something you should do for all editors. A lot of people have complained to you on your talk page too, and it a lot of it seems to relate to what I'm telling you now. You can follow the policies and lack wiki etiquette, which is why a little effort and consideration can go a long way.

Anyway, I finished KH3. I enjoyed the game, although I'm disappointed by certain creative directions. Since my hype train is over, I'm going to be editing this wiki less. I hope you're satisfied with the idea of talking me to less since I am with you. Soroxas (talk) 16:10, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Under Construction

Please don't remove the under construction notices from the keyblades. They are still missing recipe and stat growth info, as well as (in discussion) formchange and shotlock info."We're werewolves, not swearwolves." (KrytenKoro) 01:25, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Also, the "Keyblades (Sora)" category is added automatically by the template, or at least is supposed to be."We're werewolves, not swearwolves." (KrytenKoro) 01:28, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Spoiler templates

Thank you for removing those."We're werewolves, not swearwolves." (KrytenKoro) 14:12, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Dark Riku

Fantastic job getting us a cleaner version of the render! Will you be able to do that/are you willing to do that with the other renders released we have yet to upload? - Eternal Nothingness XIII 13:56, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, although I have priorities. If a render is poorly scanned (bad angles can result in deformities) or too low res, or isn't in the infobox, I'll likely skip those. Saix/Demyx/Ansem are coming up. And maybe Terra-Xehanort and Vexen. I don't have the Ultimania so I have to rely on random pics floating around the web. Soroxas (talk) 13:59, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

I'll link you to all the renders I've gathered. For some, we will have to wait for ShardofTruth to get his Ultimania. Kost of them, however, can be uploaded to at least serve as placeholders, like we did with the Journal renders before the Ultimania's release. - Eternal Nothingness XIII 17:01, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

I've already seen this. Sadly, not much is usable here. I did find renders of Sora's Final/Element/Blitz/Strike forms tho, so I can do those later. Soroxas (talk) 17:44, 4 March 2019 (UTC)