Talk:Xaldin

Um, where is it ever said he's impulsive? it was Beast who attacked Xaldin, look at the video. Besides, fighting Sora and co. is kind of part of what Org. XIII does, it's not really impulsive, it's part of their goal. Scott ch 17:27, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

He's been described as such in many descriptions (as such, it's probably official. Might be the Ultimania). Besides, though Beast attacked, Xaldin chose to stay and fight, rather than retreat. He was going against large odds, and one of his opponents was integral to the Organization's plans (the other Organization members only fought Sora when they were no longer of any use to him, and Demyx was assigned specifically to combat Sora, while Xaldin was not) It would've been in his best interest to retreat, but he didn't. DannyP 08:08, 18 February 2007 (UTC)DannyP
 * Seems very speculative to me. I've never heard this about him, and it doesn't say so at Ultimania (although they aren't necessarily a reliable source of info, there are enough spelling errors on that sight to make a grown man cry).  Do you have any links or anything for this?  Scott ch 08:55, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, Wikipedia, and several other sites describe him as such (though these sites are just copy-pastes, admittedly).DannyP 17:21, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Honestly, the Wikipedia articles about Kingdom Hearts are very poorly written - they're basically owned by a couple of kids who edit war others into submissions and cram their own personal theories into the article. And mirrors are just mirrors... and honestly, I'm not too keen on seeing Ultimania as a good source of information, they're extremely subjective, calling the Xaldin battle the toughest in the game (surely we don't want that in the article?)  I don't see any reason for Wikipedia to be saying that, it's not like it has a source there either, it's just an opinion.  Scott ch 22:35, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Heh, if you had just called us "edit-warring kids", I'd have let it slide off my back, but saying that we "cram [our] personal theories into the article" shows that you're just making up bullshit to spite us. How is your glass house, by the way? On another note, Your confusion about "Ultimania" is hilarious. He's not talking about the website. He talking about the Kingdom Hearts II Ultimania, which is an official guide straight from Square Enix. All information given for the fiction in this book is canon. It's where the assigned elements attributes, Nobodies, and weapon names come from. It contains profiles for the Organization XIII members, which is probably where the "impulsive" part comes from. 129.89.191.231 22:18, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * That bit in the Marluxia article isn't even my opinion though, it's just a common opinion of others, which is exactly what I wrote. Phrasing it as fact, like the revert warriors at Wikipedia do with their judgments of the Organization members, is a whole different story.   Scott  ch  22:59, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * And those "judgments" are...? We don't even consider "Superior" to be a "title" because there's nothing to back up that assertion, and even make it a point to refer to Larxene's weapons as knives, since that's what the Ultimania refers to them as. Both cases where this site uses personal interpretation on. Furthermore, you're connecting two unrelated things. If there are judgments in the article, that has nothing to do with the massive number of reverts, which are related to poor edits. I dunno about you, but "Demyx is hott" or "Xemnas=Mansex lol" isn't very good for an article. Most of the people who revert such edits, including me, didn't write all of the article, so your assumption that we revert to preserve our "judgments" is very poorly-founded. Please, if you're going to bad-mouth us, at least base it on the actual situation. 129.89.191.231 01:12, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Look, missing my point on purpose would be a great argument tactic if this were some flamewar whose outcome mattered, but it's not. I'm not interested in arguing over the merits of the WP article, or I'd be doing it there.  My comment was in reference to this article, and this conversation has lost relevance to that.  I'm not really interested in fighting with an internet stranger, so consider this a win for you.  If you have something to add about this article, by all means go ahead, but if all you're interested is an argument with me, please at least go to my talk page to avoid clogging up this page (though I can't guarantee I'll care any more there).   Scott  ch  03:25, 9 March 2007 (UTC)