User talk:Nintenchris5963

From Touhou Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Regarding the game-appearances of the Tsukumo sisters...[edit]

The positions imply that Yatsuhashi will be the fourth midboss of every scenario with Benben as the boss. This is not correct.
I am Risa. Best of fortune be with you. (talk) 11:14, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
That's much better, thank you.^^
I am Risa. Best of fortune be with you. (talk) 04:55, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Hopeless Masquerade character order[edit]

I'm not sure if you read the summary notes, but as I stated before in those, the Hopeless Masquerade character orders in story mode are based upon the order seen in the game (story mode), which is chronological. It makes more sense to have it in that order, even if it is inconsistent with the character order at other places. ☢ Quwanti 00:58, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

I didn't play the game for the first time. I apologize for that. Nintenchris5963 (talk) 01:53, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Edit-warring[edit]

Please refrain from edit warring. This is a warning. Mamizou (talk) 16:49, 20 June 2014 (UTC)


Dude. We have a talk page for this and despite apparently reading the first paragraph you've neglected to make any actual comment on said page, instead opting to throw a tantrum on one specific user page and are attempting to force through your changes anyways. You mention that Kief agreed with "Unlockable Character" at first but ignored that he changed his mind once it was pointed out that the only reason it was that way was because you had changed it, and furthermore ignore the several other people arguing against it. You are currently the only person who seems to think "Unlockable Character" is more appropriate. Stop it, this is ridiculous. Drake Irving (talk) 04:04, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

To add onto that, I find it disappointing that not only did you take my words out of context, but you deliberately ignored the first part of my comment - to stop edit warring. For your future reference, I care most about precedent and consistency in that case, since you seemed to also ignore the part where I mentioned that I'd be willing to entertain changing the whole phrase. I ask that you read my comments carefully for now on. - Kiefmaster99 (talk) 18:41, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

I'd like to remind you of your stated intention to 'take back those awful words I said to him'; this doesn't just stop at simply reverting your post. Discuss this and straighten this situation out once and for all, and do not edit war again. Mamizou (talk) 05:45, 31 May 2015 (UTC)


Response[edit]

I have not once said that I hated you or anything of the sort. However, the issue has long since been resolved: we've decided to keep the phrasing as it currently stands because it seems to be the best option. People are ignoring your posts at this point because you have nothing new to bring to the table, and seem to only want to keep pushing the issue out of a desire to be in control rather than to be productive. I seriously cannot understand why you keep making trivial suggestions that serve absolutely no purpose. The best thing for you to do is to just drop it and move on. Drake Irving (talk) 04:04, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Continued edit-warring[edit]

Nintenchris, you're starting to prove that you're not co-operative, but only looking at this is enough prove. If you really want some decent input, I suggest you stop edit-warring, start using talk pages with decent comments, stop changing the way people have suggested things (as I've never suggested 'teleportation' and 'astral projection' are the same; it's obvious you didn't see the talk page), stop saying everyone is hurting & hating you for eternity and start following the guidelines appropriately. Now, I'm removing the comma once more per talk page, and I'm adding back a comma in 'black high-collared cloak' per talk page since you did not respond to my comment. Just because this is a wiki that you can edit does not mean it's a personal wiki; this wiki is shared. Tony64 (Talk/Con.) 13:03, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Recent Edits[edit]

Hello! I noticed that you've been editing the first lines on a couple of character pages recently. I agree that the character pages could use some further maintenance and tweaking in places, but unfortunately I don't see the logic behind the changes you've made. In some cases, they've made the sentences harder to understand than before. Here are some examples:

  • You added non-canonical information about Rinnosuke into his profile. His appearance or non-appearance in unofficial spinoff games should not be listed on his character page, as this runs the risk of confusing readers into thinking those spinoffs are canon
  • As pointed out by Glide, some characters were mislabeled as antagonists, when their actual behaviours in the story are not 'antagonistic.'
  • You identified Akyuu as the protagonist of PMiSS, when the original book is more like a guidebook than a novel.
  • Some of your alterations are redundant. For example, Seija's page. It seems odd for the first sentence to read "Seija Kijin is the main protagonist of Impossible Spell Card." and the final sentence to then read "...and is the protagonist of the spin-off game Impossible Spell Card..."

(Character appearances are covered in the 'General Information' section, so I don't think there's a need to repeat the same information above.)

There are some areas on the character pages that could be cleaned up, but I don't think adding more text to the beginning of each character page will solve that. I'd like to hear your opinion on this matter. Also, it would be helpful to list somewhere (whether it's on the talk page or elsewhere) why exactly you're making the change before you make it, especially when you're changing something as important as the first line of a character's profile. That way, it's impossible for others to misinterpret what you're doing. Your enthusiasm is greatly appreciated, but in the end, we're all here to create a site that will be useful for everyone! Biggest Dreamer (talk) 04:34, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

On Seija Kijin's profile, I didn't notice the last sentence because I was in a hurry. Sorry about that. Nintenchris5963 (talk) 01:41, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
Also, the reason why I labeled the characters as antagonists is because they're final boss characters, even if their behaviors are not antagonistic. Nintenchris5963 (talk) 15:19, 13 September 2017 (UTC)