Talk:Majin Buu/Archive 1

message: Should this be moved to Buu? It's a less ambiguous name (doesn't need the (Dragon Ball)), plus it's the name which current fans know the character as in the US. Only early toys and some Japanese imports have the Boo form of the name, so far as I know. JRP 18:11, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Boo vs Buu

message: *The current article says as much as it needs to say, the Evil Buu article has nothing to worth adding. Saying 'decrepit' after 'skinny' is redundant. Someone can delete the other article. Infinare 23:18, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merging Evil Buu 

message: The article states that Kid Buu is weaker than the other forms of Buu's (because he is no longer fused), but absoring, as explained by Old Kai, brought his power down eventually to the froggy, fat Majin Buu (after absorbing the Grand Supreme Kai).  Remember, after removing the Z fighters and Majin Buu from Super Buu, he reverted to Majin Buu (South Supreme Kai absorbed) and finally his original form.  His strength increased, not decreased.  Eventhough he was no longer a fused being (Goku and Vegeta crushed the earrings), he still overwhelmed SSJ3 Goku in power and speed; blows from SSJ3 Goku did not even weaken him...period and Vegeta was outclassed.  It even took Kid Buu everything he had to stomp the cooking grease out of the fat version of Majin Buu, so Kid Buu was definitely a huge increase.  It would have taken a SSJ4 Goku to deal with him one on one or a Kid Goku (tail extended again in GT).
puk 01:22, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kid Buu's Strength 

message: * Wiki-star: I believe that this article can expand more. But we need the knowledgable individual to come out of the closet, and do so. If there is anyone out there, who thinks they can enhance this article, please by all means! We need you!!
Thanks! Wiki-star 07:42, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: More Contributions

message: * Wiki-star: Editors should keep in mind that the character's name are according to what they saw. Try and limit your character indentity from "Mr. Buu" or "Mr. Satan" or even "Son Goku". Many fans or readers aren't really familiar with those words, because they never existed or said within the series.
Thanks! Wiki-star 22:17, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Proper Name

message: * Wiki-star: Please do not remove any sub-section without thorough reasoning. Every sub-section within this article is very useful! Thanks.
Wiki-star 09:18, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Elimination Without Reasoning

message: To prevent from being temporally blocked I'm going to address my edit. There is a user who is adding nonsensical information attacks. For example Galaxy Ball which is based on the Funimation dub only that does not have a title from neither sub, dub, videogame nor even daizenshuu. Already littering most of the section useless drivels and opinions. I mean we may as call Majin Vegeta's final flash "Majin Final Flash" or add in his giant purple energy attack that he launched at Freeza. I can understand if the user would add in information to Buu's Galactica Donut or his Super Ghost Kamikaze Attack but don’t add any fan name to the title itself. If you can e-mail me solid evidence that attacks such as Super Special Beam Cannon, Galaxy Ball and Dimensional Warping is officially named. I will reframe from making such edits. Till then stop. 
Gunsword 10:22, 20 March 2006
* Wiki-star: Ok! Let me go really slow for you, and i need for you to keep up with me!
* Is/Was there a specific name for the Buu that absorbed gohan within the series? Nope!
* Is/Was there a name for the Buu that absorbed gotenks and piccolo? Nope!
* Is/Was there a name for Kid Buu absorbing a kai, and becoming immensely buff? Nope!
* Did Kid Buu specify the name of his ball in the series? Nope!
What i need for you to understand, is i need for you to understand the word interpretation. The abilities that you are claiming to be "False" are indeed logical and are sensable adjectives. There isn't a specific name for Super Buu when he absorbed the Z-Warriors, but because of who he specifically absorbed, we can interpret his name. So for example, because Super Buu absorbed Gotenks and Piccolo, he is given the name: Super Buu w/Gotenks and Piccolo. His name tells that he has Gotenks and Piccolo within his being. This is obviously a fact for those who are familiar with the series. The same thing would go for Super Buu when he absorbed Gohan, he is named: Super Buu w/Gohan.
Now, for Galaxy Ball. If you play the Budokia Series, you'll notice that Buu is given specific names that aren't specific within the series. So for example, Fat Buu has "Angry Explosion" as an attack. Because a name for the move is specified, the Budokai Series is a perfect resource for information. Now, the Galaxy Ball technique isn't specified as a proper name within either the game or series. However, because Super Buu w/Gohan mentioned that he used the ball to destroy many galaxies, it can interpreted that the technique be called Galaxy Ball. The same thing goes for Dimensional Warp. Vegetto, Gotenks, and Piccolo all mention that Buu was tearing a hole to another Dimenion. Because this was said, you can conclude that the name of the technique be called, Dimensional Warp.
I am assuming that you aren't familiar with Dragon Ball Z. You seem to be the kind of person that looks up the information, instead of watching it. Dragon Ball Z has many flaws, and some of the information from the series have to be interpreted from the viewer, in order the make it more sensable. I'm not the one to judge, but i am extremely knowledgeable of the series. Whatever it is that you find to be false within the article, then please further explain yourself. If you have any questions, by all means ask. If not, i kindly ask that you do not eliminate valuable information from the article! 
Thank you.
Wiki-star 21:30, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Buu did what?! 

message: I know about the Uub/Buu fusion against Bebi, but I just don't know how it was done. Was it via Potara Earrings? Or via Fusion Dance?
* Wiki-star: Naahhh... there was no special technique done. Fat Buu just decided to morhp himself with Uub. I don't know exactly how he did it, but it's very similar to the fusion of Piccolo and Nail.
Wiki-star 18:12, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fusion 

message: What makes these two different?  Shouldn't they be the same as each other? Thanos6 21:54, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Evil Buu vs. Kid Buu 

message: I have just reverted the changes made by the previous poster who removed the 'Galaxy Ball' attack. As the attack itself existsed, despite the exclusion of the name, it deserves a place within this article. The personwho had removed it, it would seem, has been known in the past to blank pages, add nonsense and take info away. Anyway, just thought i would give this little announcement. f any one has any objections or questions about this, please let me know
Brad92 15:49, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revert 

message: * Wiki-star: I have added all the source information on two images in this article. All the images from this article are from myfavoritegames. So, it would very kind if someone could just copy and paste that information onto all the others. Thanks alot!
Wiki-star 03:55, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Image Sources

message: Right, lets get this sorted out. I frequently see throughout talk pages, and even in the history pages of some articles that quite a lot of criticism and insults are directed towards other contributors. This must stop. Either you work with other contributors in a friendly manner or don't bother contributing at all. Insults and criticism just makes things worse. The best thing to do is co-operate in a manner which allows you and other contributors to sort out arguments, disputes or debates by stating the debate and then working your way through it as best you can so that you can sole it without discord.
Dai, Wiki-Star has done a marvelous job at revamping several DBZ character articles over the past few months. Wiki-Star is essentially a new contributor to Wikipeida, so he needs all the support he can get, especially with how well he has modified the articles. Sure give him some advice and criticise his work at times becuase that's the only way people can learn to become better at what they do. But I don't agree with going as far as saying all of his work is unnecessary, stupid and time-wasting because it isn't (I persoanlly love the edits). Give him some more time to adapt to the editing style of this site, give him advice etc, but don't criticise all of his work.
Wiki-Star, Dai seems to be a very factual person. Becase of this you need to research a little more or make your argument clearer so that he can accept what your saying. Wiki-Star, you also need to sto ptaking criticsm too seriously, it's a good thing because it will help you become better at editing etc. However I don't agree with how far Dai takes it. Your doing a marvelous job as new contributor, keep up the good work.
Both of you need to learn to co-operate with each other, only then will these arguments be settled. Your both great contributors, I can see that immediately with how much effort and time you put into these articles. I hope this makes things clearer.
Brad92 17:26, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Disputes

message: This was changed back so I'll bring it up here. It seems to me that the line "from the Fairy Godmother's 'Bibiddy, Bobiddy, Boo' incantation, anglicized to 'Bibidi, Babidi, Buu'" isn't quite right. If someone has a better suggestion for conveying the point. However, the words were changed to the Japanese phonetic system out of English. The second set of names there haven't been anglicized. That word literally means to make English, and "Bibbidy, Bobbidy, and Boo" are the English words. The Viz manga strives to anglocize while maintaing the integrity of the original names, and they even simply use those spellings. Babidi, for example, is said as if the a were an "ah" sound, even in the dub. If it were anglicized, it would be an "o" just like the original word, because that's the vowel that makes that sound in English. I'm no linguistics professor, so maybe I'm not saying this right. But it seems to me that saying Babidi or Buu has been anglicized is like saying Yamucha or Bejita (instead of Yamcha/Vegeta) has been anglicized. Another example is Dabura. That's the spelling that makes sense in Japanese. Anglicizing that would yield Dabra, the word his name is based on (going with the whole theme, his name is taken from the phrase Abra Kadabra).Onikage725 23:56, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Anglicized

message: Look people. ANY name that I added (and a few others I saw added at the same time) of late has been either from the Japanese version or from the Daizenshuu attack lists. Will somebody please explain to me how Dragon Ball Z Budokai 2 or Dragon Ball Z Budokai Tenkaichi names are considered more factual than that? Angry Explosion is Budokai 2, 3, and the unrelated Tenkaichi. Revenge Death Bomber, as far as I can tell, is ONLY Tenkaichi. Someone please tell me where Atari translations fall in under Dragon Ball canon. If you want to consider videogame names official, then you should realize that Dragon Ball Z 1,2,3, and Dragon Ball Z: Sparking! (the Japanese names of the previously mentioned games) all use the Daizenshuu attack lists just like EVERY other DBZ game, since before they were even bringing them to the states, and not every English speaking fan's DBZ experience is limited to a handful of PS2/GC games. They way it was it would list the most official name and then mention the dub name or video game name. Please tell me how excluding information from official attack lists in favor of English VG names (which btw are inconsistent- Tenshinhan's Kikoho and it's one upgrade have 4 names between VG and dub, and I DARE you to look at the Supersonic Warriors 2 attack lists without getting a headache) and fanon names exclusively without the other information is more conclusive for the encyclopedia. And don't say "this is English Wikipedia" because there were English speaking fans before Saban picked it up, there's a manga that contradicts the anime dub by striving for authentic translation, there are two dubs of the anime spotchy reputations, two other English dubs in other countries (The US is NOT the only country to speak English, and this is Enlgish wiki, not America wiki), video games with inconsistent attack names, and a pen and paper RPG. So English DBZ has a large number of conflicting sources, and that's before you factor in fanon information. Onikage725 22:01, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Attack Names 

message: * Wiki-star: I never understand why is it that the japanese name counts more than any other name. Why is this? Did the Japanese originated this cartoon or what? Thanks!
Wiki-star 05:15, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, that's exactly right. It is also the most consistent version. The US manga tries to stay faithful and does a decent job, but for non-manga material... well the US anime has a very checkered past, and there are no officially licensed translations of the Daizenshuu. So it's best to simply use those original sources. As for my statement of the US dub, one can argue familiarity but I counter that there are plenty of fans in the US who don't even watch the dub, and there were fans before there even was a dub (the series was nearly a decade old before we saw the Pilaf Saga). Also, the Japanese version is a click away on the dvd's. So it's not a non-presence in the states. And the fact is, this is an encyclopedia. We should strive for accuracy. The US dub has been inconsistent. There are multiple english dubs, for one thing. There's the FACT that most of the script for a good percentage of the series was re-written from scratch. Attack names were mostly ignored or renamed. The Masenko didn't get a name until FUNi took over. I'm pretty sure the Big Bang Attack wasn't named until a scene where in the original Vegeta didn't even call out the name (as opposed to when he first used it on #19). Destructo Disk? The word Destructo sounds like something a 6 y/o would invent on the playground (that or a bad Pre-Crisis DC Comics villain). Kienzan (Energy Circle Slicer) directly describes the ability. Which would you consider more factual? It's also inconsistent in that some names they use from the original (Kamehameha, Masenko, Kyodaika), some seek to translate to some degree or another (Guided Scatter Shot, Evil Containment Wave, Wolf Fang Fist, Dragon Fist), and others they completely make up (sometimes for attacks that didn't have a name, like Raditz's generic charge up for an unreleased attack that we now know as either the Birdy or Double Sunday). Onikage725 21:49, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Japanese Names

message: Wiki-star, maybe I'm just not looking in the right place (it is pretty late in the day), but can you point me to the part where this was already explained? I added it because I didn't see it on the list. His regeneration is there of course, but I was writing about Fat Buu's ability to heal others (presumably gained from absorbing Dai Kaioshin). Let me know if it's a mix up with his own personal regeneration and I'll re-add it. If not, just point me to the right place and I apologize for the double info. Onikage725 03:23, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have to disagree Wiki-star. As for the subject header here, I said Fat Buu's for expediency. In the article I just mentioned that he was the one who did it, mainly because no other Buu ever did. I know they could, because Buu is Buu regardless, but they never did. Just like the Henka Beam section doesn't mention Evil Buu, for example. Not that he couldn't, but the articles just mention who actually used it. Also, the technique isn't Henka Beam. The two have completely seperate listings in the Daizenshuu. Also, the Henka Beam is done with the forlock (with the sole exception of Majin Uub in GT), whereas Fat Buu used his hands for healing. Onikage725 12:14, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Fat Buu's Healing

message: * Wiki-star: Ok fellow contributors, here me out here. All of the images in this article each serve a purpose. The images under the "Forms/Transformations" section, are there to visualize the form of Buu. There is no reason to not have them there. Now, the images under Buu's abilities are debateable as to which images can be deleted. I'm not trying to say do not delete the images, because i will agree that the article is clogged. However, Zarbond eliminated FAR too many images that did not need to be eliminated. I want you to understand something. Yes, i'm sorry if you're computer takes forever to load the images. However, that is still not an excuse for the article itself to suffer, because you're suffering. (And Zarbond, i don't mean to be rude, but who uses dial-up anymore? I mean, it's the 21st century now man!). Until we debate on why 75% of the images in this article must go, i ask of you all to leave them alone. We'll discuss it here. Thanks!
Wiki-star 06:48, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: More people use dialup than any other form of internet. Yes, we should all be able to use broadband now that it is the 21st century. We should all also be free of war and poverty, but that simply is not the case. As I can see it now, you have two people saying for the pictures to go (not counting Kafziel, who I saw Zarbon spoke to earlier on his talk page). Readers are not stupid, they do not need pictures to help them understand. Look at WP:NOT and you can see in the talk pages discussions about pictures. There is also the more serious fair use policy, which many people refuse to acknowledge. The pictures of a show are copyrighted. It's ok for you to post them onto your forums or fan sites, but Wikipedia is not a fan site. Wikipedia is a site that has reached the level of recognition and distribution that it has to be careful about what it puts up. The understanding has been that a limited number of screenshots is appropriate if they are critically important. 38 is not limited. 10 is not limited. One picture of Kid buu is fine. Pictures of him emerging from smoke (I does not matter if it seems cool or personifies the character), fighting, using moves, dying, etc. is wrong. These are the pictures the page really needs: Fat Buu, Old Buu, Super Buu, Kid Buu, Uub, that's all I would put. I'd have just put the group shot of the Buu's and the Uub image. So Zarbon did not do something extreme, he actually lies in the middle, keeping 8. And his name is Zarbon. --Orion Minor 19:08, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Article Images

message: Holy crap, this article is enormously long. I would suggest either cleaning out the DBZcruft or splitting this page into sections. See Wikipedia:Article size. Isopropyl 23:22, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Length 

message: I feel there is an incredible error on this page.  It states that Kid Buu is Buu's strongest form, but this is untrue if you pay attention.  Kid Buu is indeed the most dangerous because he has no reasoning or remorse, but Super Buu w/Gohan is his strongest form.  Evidence: Super Saiyan 3 Goku went head on with Kid Buu, yet if Kid Buu was the strongest, Goku would've been defeated in seconds since Goku and Vegeta couldn't do anything to Super Buu w/Gohan and had to fuse into Vegetto to do harm.  
Super Buu is actually stronger than Kid Buu as well.  Super Saiyan Gotenks outclasses Super Saiyan 3 Goku and Goku even admits to this.  Super Saiyan 3 Gotenks fights evenly with Super Buu until his fusion ends.  Then Mystic Gohan decimates Super Buu.  This lil tidbit is important because you have to remember Mystic Gohan is the strongest un-fused warrior and hence is stronger than Super Saiyan 3 Goku.  Evidence: Gohan has been stated numorous times throughout the manga to have the most potential of all the Z-Warriors.  Mystic Gohan is Gohan at his full potential.  
More Evidence that Super Buu is stronger than Kid Buu.  When Buu became Super Buu w/ Piccolo, Goku smiled saying "Gohan can handle you now."  Goku is a saiyan and loves to fight so why not fight and defeat Buu right there?  Because he knew he couldn't.  When inside Buu's head after pulling Gohan, Goten, Trunks, & Piccolo from their pods, Vegeta wants to blast his way out and fight Buu and Goku warns him not too, citing that even though Buu had lost a lot of energy, he was still far too much for them to handle together and then blamed Vegeta for destroying the Potara.  However, he calmly accepted the offer to fight Kid Buu, even saying he could've defeated him had he gone all out from the start.  
This article needs to be corrected.
Super Buu w/Gohan > Super Buu w/Gotenks > Super Buu w/Piccolo > Super Buu > Kid Buu > Majin Buu > Evil Buu > Mr. Buu
(what if fusions from Budokai 2 included: Super Buu w/Gohan > Super Buu w/Gotenks > Super Buu w/Vegeta > Super Buu w/Cell >Super Buu w/Piccolo > Super Buu w/ Frieza >/= Super Buu w/Yamcha & Tien > Super Buu > Kid Buu > Majin Buu > Evil Buu > Mr. Buu)
* Wiki-star: It is not a 100% fact that Super Buu w/Gohan is Buu's strongest form. However, there are far more logical reasons to proove that he is, than any other Buu. This is why he is strongly assumed as Buu's most powerful form. Wiki-star 14:50, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Strongest Form

message: Ok seriously, this contiual assertion that Kid Buu is the strongest Buu based on his fight with Goku is ridiculous. Goku, an expert at guaging his opponents, was convinced that fighting Super Buu w/ Gohan was hopeless without fusion. He was also convicned that he alone could stand up to Kid Buu. Really people, that's called common sense. People point to skirmishes Goku had with Super Buu and a dub quote by East Kaioshin as further proof. News flash kiddies- FILLER FIGHTS AND FUNIMATION MISTRANSLATIONS DO NOT EQUAL CANON EVIDENCE. In the manga it is quite clear which Buu is the strongest, and Toriyama has never said otherwise. Onikage725 13:55, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree on most points, but please try to not be so confrontational about it. Discussion and edits for this article seem argumentative enough without adding fuel to the fire. Voice of Treason 16:37, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right of course. it's just frustrating to have to fix the same thing over and over and over. And after displaying all evidence, the page gets moved and the old discussions lost, and every other new person who finds their way here wants to start telling those who've fine tuned this article how wrong they are. The sad nature of Dragon Ball fandom- everyone has their own theory and everyone is sure there's is right. In this particular case there's strong evidence to the contrary and I'm just tired of beating a dead horse. Onikage725 17:24, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Kid Buu

message: Please stop reverting the article. If you would like to change the article in some fashion, we'll discuss it here.
Sincerely, the undersigned:
#Isopropyl 19:14, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I commented in the above discussion, and looking through the long string of edits under your name, you responded, and then suddenly both my comment and your response disappeared. Don't swear at me. You did it. And I'm not swearing at you. Onikage725 15:57, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dear Wiki-star, 

message: This site has pictures of the Budokai 2 versions of Super Buu that could be used for the article.
http://pagesperso.aol.fr/friezito/imagesuperbuu.html
:We've agreed to leave the article as is without adding additional pics, though this may change over time. Thanks for trying to help, though. Voice of Treason 23:45, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Pictures

message: * Wiki-star: Now i have no right to tell any contributor within this great article, what to do. However, i can and will warn you that whatever information you delete or add without thorough reason and decription towards it's ultimate purpose within the article, it will be removed. I care greatly about this article, and will be damned if i let another voilator ruin such a wonderful article!
Wiki-star 22:58, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wiki-star, obviously when you decided to join Wikipedia you didn't even bother to read The Five Pillars of Wikipedia. Before you make any more contributions to any other articles please take the time to read Wikipedia's Policy. I also recommend that you read Wikipedia's Policy on the Three-revert rule and on Ownership of articles for you to avoid being blocked from editing Wikipedia once again. Thank you.-3bulletproof16 23:14, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I cut the episode table per WP:NOT. I don't see it as adding anything noteworthy to the reader and as sort of a fluff piece. It would be like adding a huge table for any recurring character EVER in media listing whatever large or tiny role they ever played in. If it can't be described in the main piece, there's no reason for it there. Voice of Treason 23:41, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And images were already talked about as well. Provide the proper rationale for re-adding pics throughout the article and get consensus from other users before doing so. Voice of Treason 23:43, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Deleted Information/Added Information

message: I've reached my limit for the number of times I can revert the article. If other users could continue to revert Wiki-star's vandalism, I'd appreciate it. If he continued to revert, then he'll just be in more trouble when the Admins get to the petition I posted about his continued violation of 3RR.
Daishokaioshin 20:17, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If anyone would like to comment on Wiki-star's reversions please do so here.-3bulletproof16 01:01, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I just OD'ed on *snurk*. Someone get me a tissue and a glass of water. Papacha 01:37, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Until "justice is served?" This is the Buu page, not Great Saiyaman :p Onikage725 03:52, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Forget about it, Onikage725. Let the kid get what's coming to him. Don't stoop down to his level. Just sit back and ride this whole thing out-3bulletproof16 04:00, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yeah, that's sound advice. Onikage725 04:55, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Reverting

message: I got dragged into this and would like to move on. To begin with, anyone violating WP:Civil or WP:3RR will be blocked. Now, there have been discussions about the debates, but all end in yelling and screaming. Worse, more and more people are disagreeing on issues and not discussing the problem due to hurt feelings. Nothing on Wikipedia should be personal. Do not attempt to start a crusade on this site. Justice is something carried out by troops across the world or policemen at home. Justice is not getting a page to look the way you feel it should. I want everyone to stop, calm down, and list the sources of debate that have sprung up. Do not give long speeches about how this is right or wrong, just the problem, and a sentence or two about why you feel it should be that way. Also, once a concensus is reached, it is vandalism to go against or revert the changes. --Orion Minor 02:04, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Wikistar, I'm trying to help you here. I have not formed some cabal with Zarbon. I do not decide what vandalism is, policies have been set in the past. It was decided long ago that if you act against a consensus, that counts as vandalism in Wikipedia. You are right in that everyone has 100% input, but what is that when multiple people are working with different opinions? Well, everyone weighs in and votes. You seem to believe that you have a majority behind you; I challenge that notion. I am confident that the people on this article agree on a few basic points. You are right to say, “Who are we to boss you around.” I’m not trying to boss you around, I’m just trying to get this article to fit within some given standards. If you find more people against you, however, who are you to boss a group of people around? We can all put our names to a vote, but that is not necessary; read the long list of above discussions while your ban passes, read other peoples opinions and ponder this: maybe it’s not all of us, maybe it’s you.--Orion Minor 20:34, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Back to square one 

message: For this whole Super Buu thing, why don't we just leave it out? Sure, it seems fairly obvious to me which Buu is the strongest. However it is a simple fact that it's implied and not flat out stated or confirmed. So why don't we just present the facts as is and leave the speculation to individual readers? I mean, this article goes back and forth in a tug of war between Super Buu w/ Gohan and Kid Buu, depending on who happened to be editing the article that day. I say we just drop the speculation and eliminate the need for argument. Who is absorbed and how he performed in each fight against each fighter is all we have to guage his various levels of strength, and those facts are well presented in the article already. Onikage725 04:08, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal 

message: Does the section on him need to be so in-depth?  Apart from Majin Buus interaction with him he isn't really a Buu, reincarnation or not and he has a seperate article on himself (Even though IMO its poorer than the section currently in the Buu article).
It might not be a problem I'm just wondering if it adds too much to the length of the page like some of the sections on Buus actions during the Buu saga.
:: I would surmise a link to Uub's page would be sufficient, however, currently there isn't a discussion re: Uub's page, so perhaps it's best to keep his information here for now? In regards to it, I believe there is a mistake in saying Uub's first appearance in GT is emerging from the HBTC, as the episode clearly shows Goku and Uub fighting in the area beneath the top of Kami's lookout (in the semi-circle dome underside), with Dende and PoPo watching. I don't know the name of this area of Kami's lookout, and am new to Wiki editing, so I'm hesitant to be presumptuous and change it.--Insanityrealmv2 08:46, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 100% Merge...-3bulletproof16 16:22, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Uub

message: I personally feel that "Buff Buu" is a rather stupid name, while Mega Buu fits with the theme of other naming conventions for the various Buu forms, but I'm not going to insist on the name being the "official" one used in the article. However, "Super Kid Buu" has also been suggested. I don't see this as being a very good name, but I wanted to see what other people think, rather than reverting things over and over without discussion.
Daishokaioshin 22:18, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Buff Buu/Mega Buu/Super Kid Buu

message: No need to do that Onikage725, the kid came back, he had his chance to clean up his act, and now he is in violation of the Three-revert rule... AGAIN. Guess what... It's that time of the month again! Wiki-star has been reported. To comment please do so here AND here. - 3bulletproof16 18:10, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I did, and though it's not new to most of us recent edits are more than ignoring 3RR. Posted comments there and on WP:ANI. Voice of Treason 18:51, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RR#User:Wiki-star_reported_by_User:3bulletproof16_.28result:_72h.29 Comment on 3RR report]

message: Regardless of whether he is more powerful super buu would be imidietly destroyed by the kid because he is so ruthless hed quickly eliminate him Dragon Emperor 21:12, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kid Buu 

message: ATTENTION!!: The following controversies are only for the discussion of resolving a major crisis within this article. If you are not one of the main negotiators who are involved within the crisis, we encourage that you make as much effort not to get yourself involved. However, if you feel the need to say something involving the article, by all means. We apologize for the inconvenience, and we very well appreciate your patience. Thank You!
Good evening ladies and Gentlemen. It is my honor, Wiki-star, to present the Final Debate for the Buu article. There has been many cries, and many michieves commited in such a great article.
Many contributors felt hurt, and confused, and flustered. But all that is about to come to an end right now. I, as the user Wiki-star, hold the majority of the confusion held up within this article. As a result, it is my responsibilty to give each and every contributor the final chance to say their mind on my proposed edits. Before we begin the debate, first we will go over the participation.
There are a couple of "Main Participants" within this debate, that will hold the majority of the debate. These contributors include:
* Wiki-star
* Onikage725
* Daishokaishin
* Orion Minor
* Voice of Treason
* <Unknown>
* <Unknown>
* <Unknown>
* <Unknown>
In total, there should be 10 maximum "Main Participants" within this debate. Four of the Ten participants cannot be named at this time, because of casualties. However If you feel that you are one of the Four <Unknown> "Main Participants" (or "MP's"), please contact Wiki-star on his user page, and explain your reasons. Replies can be as soon as immidiately, or as late as 2 Days. Once again, the Main Participants are those that have the majority of the debate, since these contributors have had a long history during this crisis.
Next, we have "Other Participants" (or "OP's"). These participants don't hold a substantial amount of the Debate unlike our Main Participators, but they do have a role within the debate. That Role depends on whether or not the participant wishes to debate for a Main Participator, or for themselves. Regardless, the OP's have a good amount of saying towards the debate. OP's have not been in this crisis for as long as MP's, as a result there are only 5:
* Zarbon
* 3bulletproof16
* Dragon Emperor
* <Unknown>
* <Unknown>
Like the MP's, Other Participants have <Unknown> members. If you think you are one of the Three <Unknown> members, contact Wiki-star.
And finally, our least important and experienced participators are the Guests. Guests are unlimited, as anyone who is not an MP or an OP can be infinite. Guests are those who feel they would like to have a say in the debate, to further strengthen a case, or better improve the article. They are not entitled to participate unlike the MP's or OP's, because it would be more of an interruption than a participation. Guests should present themselves within the debate respectfully and courteously, as to not distract the core debaters or interrupt the resolution.
That ladies and Gentlemen are the Participation Regulation. If you have any questions or concerns, please contact Wiki-star.
Now ladies and gentlemen, we approach the Rules Section. This can also be called, the "RS". The Rules Section must always be abided by all participators. And voilation in correspondence, and the participant will face consequences. The following are the Rules for the Debate:
Rule #1: Do not be rude, disrespectful, impatient, or any other negative and hurtful act. This is the final debate that will decide the fate of the article, and we need to come to together in a peaceful, and mannerable act.
Rule #2: All Participants must provide either a Support or Oppose response in co-ordination with each of the Proposed Edits. This means that you cannot be in-between. You must choose a side, and stick with that side for that response.
Rule #3: All participants must provide a logical and evidential support for their response towards a Proposed Edit. This means that whatever your response maybe, it must be backed up by either: The Series, The Video Games, or Any Other Resources. You cannot just choose Support or Oppose without a logical and evidential reason. 
Rule #4: Any Participant who has been proven wrong for their response to a Proposed Edit, will be banned from responding to that Proposed Edit. This means that if you voilate Rule #3, you will recieve this consequence. So try to make sure you give a thorough explanation. 
Rule #5: The final fate of a Proposed Edit will be determined when all of MP's and OP's have agreed to accept it's fate. Which means, unless all 10 MP's, and all 5 OP's accept the Proposed Edit's fate, it will be neutral, and remain neutral until so. However, if a participant does not reply in 1 week, their response no longer has an effect towards it's fate.
If you follow these simple 5 rules ladies and gentlemen, your responses should have little, or absolutley no flaws. 
Now for the moment you've all been waiting for! Time to post the Proposed Edits. The Proposed Edits (or the "PE's) are the Resolutions in which all participants will debate and come to final decision on. Most of these resolutions are from the user, Wiki-star. Others are from other contributors. The following are the Proposed Edits for the Buu article:
PE #1: Allow Super Buu w/Gohan the title for Buu's strongest form
PE #2: Allow Super Buu w/Gohan the title for "least evil" Super Buu
PE #3: Allow External Links to be visible for other resourcing
PE #4: Delete the Budokai 2 informations
PE #5: Comine the Uub sections, into a new, more Concise section
PE #6: Add any more known facts about each of Buu's forms and transformations
Preparations will continue tomorrow.....
This is not how you conduct a straw poll in Wikipedia. The proper, less complicated, version is below. Use that. You should have read Wikipedia: straw polls. Also, don't wipe things from the talk page. Post a summary of your edits in a new topic and then let us vote. This, while I'm sure included a large amount of work, is not the way it is done in Wikipedia. --Orion Minor 23:40, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Article Resolution: Final Votes

message: Please sign your name using four tildes (~~~~) under the position you support, preferably adding a brief comment. If you are happy with more than one possibility, you may wish to sign your names to more than one place. Extended commentary should be placed below, in the section marked "Discussion", though brief commentary can be interspersed. --Orion Minor 23:59, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Except you ignored and deleted against Nemu's wishes of a yay/nay discussion by going with this long-winded & somewhat asinine concept of yours. Papacha 00:25, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Save yourself the time Wiki-star. You said in your version no change could be enacted unless everyone could agree. Considering that everyone not named Dragon Emperor has gone on the record in this talk page multiple times as not wanting these edits, and has supllied reason upon reason as to why, the destiny of your vote is just neutral anyway. Onikage725 00:24, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Everyone stop, seriously, this isn't a debate its just a waste of time and the 5th or 6th massive arguement between those I'd consider upholders of the consensus and Wikistar.  It goes nowhere and fast, leave it to admins now to read this and see that Wikistar is beyond reasoning.Darkwarriorblake 02:18, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Buu Straw Poll 

message: Discussion resulting from the survey go here.
Since he will not do it, here are User:Wiki-star's (And, Wiki-star claims, other contributor's as well) proposed edits from the post above. Wiki-star seems to believe that other editors proposed these edits along with him. I have added the previous comment to hopefully stop him from changing my post. Sadly, he has changed this post many times, so do take care in reading it to see if he has changed it again. However, because Orion Minor has been and still is showing a tremendous amount of ignorance, the comment stays Wiki-star 02:47, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Except you ignored and deleted against Nemu's wishes of a yay/nay discussion by going with this long-winded & somewhat asinine concept of yours. Papacha 00:25, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Save yourself the time Wiki-star. You said in your version no change could be enacted unless everyone could agree. Considering that everyone not named Dragon Emperor has gone on the record in this talk page multiple times as not wanting these edits, and has supllied reason upon reason as to why, the destiny of your vote is just neutral anyway. Onikage725 00:24, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Everyone stop, seriously, this isn't a debate its just a waste of time and the 5th or 6th massive arguement between those I'd consider upholders of the consensus and Wikistar.  It goes nowhere and fast, leave it to admins now to read this and see that Wikistar is beyond reasoning.Darkwarriorblake 02:18, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion