User talk:Cheesedude

Welcome to my talk page. Feel free to leave any messages below. However, do not ask me for help with your Deck. I have not actively played the TCG in a very long time, and have not kept up with current rulings. If you leave me a message, I will put your talk page on my watchlist. You may respond on my talk page or your talk page. I will check both.

RE: III and V
My edit summary was "Same as Quatro", which was moved because... well a reason wasn't really given. I don't think so, I just moved them since it would take a long time to bot change "V" since lots of words have a capital V (like TV, Veil, etc) so I need to check each page. If the page is moved again, I don't need to check each page now. I had lots of time on that day, not so much after that. -Falzar FZ- (talk page|useful stuff) 13:45, August 27, 2012 (UTC)

Episode 69
Did the Number 53 leave the field in the end of the episode? An anon put that info (though it was written more in a way of speculation). Can you confirm that info? E n e r g y X ∞ 12:40, August 28, 2012 (UTC)


 * We can't be sure. They were focused on Number 91 at the end. 53 didn't look it was still there, but he could have easily been behind 91. I assumed that 53 was used an Overlay Unit for 91, since 91 appeared to have one Overlay Unit, but that's speculation too, which I why I left it ambiguous when I wrote the section. Cheesedude (talk • contribs) 14:59, August 28, 2012 (UTC)

So...
What is the standard episode duel layout? Is it like this:


 * Player 1
 * Action 1
 * Action 2


 * Player 2
 * Action 1
 * Action 2

Or is it like this:

Action 1, Action 2
 * Player 1

Action 1, Action 2
 * Player 2

If you have questions, please ask them. E n e r g y X ∞ 22:17, August 28, 2012 (UTC)


 * The bulleted style is outdated. We've started writing it in prose. See pretty much any ZEXAL article. That's how it should be written. Cheesedude (talk • contribs) 01:08, August 29, 2012 (UTC)

Don't you think...
you're being a bit too easy on User:Rocket.knight.777? His stance is essentially "Hi, I'm new, I don't like the currently-working system that you've been using for archetypes, I don't have a better way to organize it, but I'm going to cause a fuss anyway." I understand that you're a mod and you're trying to be a diplomat, but he's essentially just trying to cause trouble. Isn't there a point where you say "I'm a mod, this is the way we do things. If you don't like that, feel free to leave." Not trying to tell you how to be a mod, but I just have a few things that I'm holding back to respect how adamant you are to reason with him.--YamiWheeler (talk • contribs) 19:33, August 29, 2012 (UTC)
 * A) I'm not new. I've been coming to this sight for a few years now, and only had to sign up when the admins made some sections of the site (i.e. lists of member to a certain Type and/or Level) members only. It is in maturity and growth from coming here for so long and viewing and playing the game that I'm just trying to express and hopefully help perfect the slight flaw in the system through critical thinking. B) This is a community site to have the mod and admin go Hitler and say "my site my rules" will turn people away. Before you make accusations Yamiwheeler, I suggest you get the facts.--Rocket.knight.777 (talk • contribs) 19:49, August 29, 2012 (UTC)


 * Instantly to the Hitler example. Yes, because Hitler really gave the choice of "If you don't like it, feel free to leave." Silly people. Anyway, I don't believe I was talking to you. You still failed to address my point, either way, in which you're coming in here, whining about the system, but don't have a better alternative. As an anon, you are not part of the community, so you are new to it, and this is the way we do things. We've had many a discussion about it and the majority obviously feels that the current way is the best way, so it's perfectly acceptable when someone like you comes along and demands a change from what is tried-and-tested, to tell you that sorry - If you don't like it, feel free to leave. Regardless, this is a conversation between me and Cheesedude.--YamiWheeler (talk • contribs) 20:32, August 29, 2012 (UTC)


 * If you are going to insult me I have a right to defend me honor. If you want a more private conversation with him, I suggest finding another means of contacting him than something where any update is logged. Whatever "power" you think you have must be giving you a swelled head, because you obviously are not listening to what I'm saying. I've suggest you focus the archetype on Name, Support and theme because it seems the most logical regardless of whatever names the cards have. What might be a good idea to the majority of the "heads" does not mean it's good for the majority of the "masses". Either way, it seemed no one is going to budge on this, so I repeat what I had also suggested, Why doesn't somebody write Konami and ask them what makes an archetype an archetype. If you suggest I should do it, I say "If you won't listen to a simple suggestion from a peon like me, what makes you think you'd listen to me if I got an answer from them?"--Rocket.knight.777 (talk • contribs) 20:53, August 29, 2012 (UTC)


 * Hey, Knight 777, please cut it out - Yami's message is meaning for Cheesy here, not for you, hence the reason why he's respond to Cheesy's Talk Page. They would have to using Email but they're too lazy to open the mailbox right now. Alright? -- i  F  r  e  d  C  a  t  20:56, August 29, 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, who's insulting who? I've been quite civil so far, but so far, you've accused people of behaving like Hitler and said they've got swelled heads. You seem to take your "rights" on the internet far too seriously. And once again, you prove your unfamiliarity with the Wiki, because on this Wiki, we go by what the majority wants with almost every matter like this. Once again, if you don't like it, feel free to leave. No one will be changing the sole foundation of the Wiki just for you. We aren't listening to you because you aren't making a realistic argument. How exactly would you organize it by name, support and theme on this Wiki? How would you factor in cards that aren't part of an archetype by your definition, but still receive support from that archetype's support cards, like "roid" monsters that are not "Vehicroids"? Please feel free to draw up a template on how we can organize the cards like this and then perhaps people will take you seriously. As for e-mailing Konami, it's your suggestion, why don't you take responsibility for it? If Konami themselves e-mail you back with a strict definition of an archetype, then obviously we'll take it into consideration.--YamiWheeler (talk • contribs) 21:04, August 29, 2012 (UTC)


 * The only reason I jusped in is because I feel he insulted me. I'll back out. But if I feel I have been insulted, I have a right to jump in and defend my honor.--Rocket.knight.777 (talk • contribs) 21:00, August 29, 2012 (UTC)


 * We knew, and that's why Yami want to know Cheesy's opinion on you. And this site is belong to nothing but TwoTailedFox (Founder), and he don't control the site like it's his kingdom - he only created it for Yu-Gi-Oh! stuffs to keep updating and stuffs - nothing more. -- i  F  r  e  d  C  a  t  21:12, August 29, 2012 (UTC)


 * For the record, restricting the queries, such as lists of monsters by Type, was not something done by the administrators. The archetype definition is not an admin "my site, my rules" thing. Too many users had different opinions of what counted as an archetype/series etc. After many long discussions involving users of any status, the last of which Cheesedude linked you to; Forum:Archetype definition (again), something was finally decided on. A lot went into those discussions, it's not something likely to be overwritten because one user disagrees with it. I don't think everyone was happy with every aspect of the final result, but it was the best general agreement. There are some parts I don't quite agree with, but am happy to follow, because it was a communal agreement. -- Deltaneos (talk) 21:48, August 29, 2012 (UTC)

To answer the original question posed, no, I don't think I was going too easy on him. It wasn't as if he continued to revert to his style after that conversation started. I don't think his intent was to cause trouble at all. He legitimately thinks the current system is BS (which is fine, and to an extent even I agree its BS. As Delt said, no one is happy with all of it). For the record, I don't mind other people jumping in on my talk page. Prior to those reverts, Rocket Knight had constructive edits and I do not want to discourage him from continuing to edit this wiki. Cheesedude (talk • contribs) 23:04, August 29, 2012 (UTC)


 * Fair enough. To me, it came across as trying to start trouble when he refused to acknowledge the majority verdict and the amount of discussion that went into the decision to have the system this way, but whatever, it's over now.--YamiWheeler (talk • contribs) 23:37, August 29, 2012 (UTC)

ZEXAL II
So, you know about the "new ZEXAL" which is starting on October, right (ZEXAL second)? So, what are we gonna do? A new article, or a section about it in the main "ZEXAL" anime article? Remember not only the name, but the airing time will change as well, from Monday 19:30 to Sunday 17:30. LegendaryAsariUgetsu (talk • contribs) 22:10, August 29, 2012 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I heard about it. I'd like to see the logo before we make any decisions. It may be best to wait until a few episodes have aired. It may just be a continuation with a subtitle (if there's a timeskip or something that really makes it different I could see making new articles). Cheesedude (talk • contribs) 23:04, August 29, 2012 (UTC)

The Winged Dragon of Ra (original)
The anime lore states the fourth, fifth, and sixth effects that activate when this card is Special Summoned in the Graveyard activate only when it is revived from the Graveyard. This is contradicted in Episode 85 of GX as Franz was able to use those effects without Special Summoning itself from the Graveyard. The only way Franz could activate those effects was if some kind of effect allowed him to do so(possible "Mound of the Bound Creator").Cardsknower (talk • contribs) 02:22, August 30, 2012 (UTC)Cardsknower


 * Honestly, we will never get consistent effects for the god cards. They do whatever they need to do to suit the situation. There's nothing written on "Mound of Bound Creator" that says that and I don't believe there was dialogue to indicate that it had that effect either. The effect is simply inconsistent. It's not necessarily an error either, just an inconsistency. Cheesedude (talk • contribs) 01:43, August 31, 2012 (UTC)

"Overdoom Line"
The animelore says all monsters summoned from the Graveyard, but that would mean both players' monsters would get the boost, however the episode seems to explicitly say that only all of Akiza's monsters would get the boost. Reply when you can.Cardsknower (talk • contribs) 00:54, August 31, 2012 (UTC)Cardsknower


 * Ok, then change it. You don't have to run everything you do by me, you know. Cheesedude (talk • contribs) 01:41, August 31, 2012 (UTC)


 * I agreed with Cheesy, he's not that brilliant with the stuffs, but hey, he's not the boss of anything - if you're "stuck", then here he can help you out. And if you think you're not sure, just collect all the data and throw at him at once - I felt sorry for ATEM when I ran everything at him with the rulings... -- i  F  r  e  d  C  a  t  01:43, August 31, 2012 (UTC)


 * I am sorry if I sometimes act like I need permission for things as well as making it look like Cheesedude is the boss of "anything", but sometimes I can't figure things out completely and I usually don't want to insert or change animelores if I am not completely positive that is what it should be. I only come here if I think I can't find any other solution to certain discrepancies I find. Sorry if I acted like I was bothering anyone.Cardsknower (talk • contribs) 04:34, August 31, 2012 (UTC)Cardsknower

Number 39's Logical
Now I understand why TCG name was "Utopia" instead of "Hope" - the latter word is most often using for female than using for male. At least he managed to explain the reason why that name was selected. Thank you for show the link, my friend. -- i  F  r  e  d  C  a  t  02:00, August 31, 2012 (UTC)