Talk:Kokomon (Adventure)

Kerpymon? Why are we still referring to this guy as Kerpymon instead of Cherubimon?
 * Please watch the movie. 06:09, December 6, 2011 (UTC)

Kokomon is the in-trainning version for agumon or is that another digimon wait i know this kokomon is the in-trainning version for lopmon aka the Female Terreirmon in the show digimon tamers where it was around episode 30-45 but still i don't know if this is true or not. --(Dan67 17:09, February 6, 2012 (UTC))

Order of form appearances on the movie?
Why don't we just re-arrange his form in order of appearance on the movie? Make Endigomon, Champion level, on the first paragraph and so on. I reckon Lopmon should be last as he barely appeared in this digivolution stage in the movie. I never saw Lopmon in the movie at all. I know this is a little weird but this Kokoman was a movie-only Digimon anyways and won't matter much if we didn't follow the same format as the other 'adventure-Digimon' articles.Bluebeat 11:07, March 31, 2012 (UTC)
 * Because he evolves and degenerates and there isn't any necessity to going against our consensus style. 12:10, March 31, 2012 (UTC)


 * So you guys actually have a consensus style? I guess I didn't know about this. Do you guys have a page on it as well? Bluebeat 12:26, March 31, 2012 (UTC)
 * The official Manual of Style is here, although the style of listing the forms in order is consensus, and not explicitly spelled out in the manual. 18:48, March 31, 2012 (UTC)


 * Can we say that Endigomon briefly Digivolves into Antylamon because he didn't spend a lot of time in that form. Or was this cut from the English version?Bluebeat 07:22, April 6, 2012 (UTC)
 * Sure. He vanishes so suddenly, even the protagonists think they've defeated him at first. 17:26, April 6, 2012 (UTC)

KrytenKoro vs. Bluebeat
I've been asked to make a judgment between the two versions of the page. Below, Version 1 is KrytenKoro’s version of the page, and Version 2 is Bluebeat’s version. Comparing the two versions, this is what I notice about the differences:

Version 2 provides a lot of unnecessary links to Wikipedia. Everyone knows what a fiction character is and what the Digimon franchise is.

Version 2 mentions Gummymon as Chocomon’s twin brother in the opening paragraph while Version 1 doesn’t. I’m not familiar enough with the Wikia protocol to know if family relationships are generally mentioned there.

Version 2 specifies that Wendee Lee voices the “little” Kokomon. Volume 1 is more succinct, which is good.

Throughout, Version 1 keeps the dub and original separate, while Version 2 tends to mix the two, which could result in confusion.

Version 2 makes the claim that Chocomon was too corrupted to be reborn, which is not what the CD Drama says. This false statement is later made again in the section about Lopmon. Version 1 is more accurate.

Version 1 provides much more information in the Wendimon section.

Most of the differences in the Andiramon section and others are minor, though I’ve been told that Version 2 is just reverting the page to the old Wikipedia article, which is against the MoS.

At the end of Version 2’s section on Cherubimon, it is stated that his corruptive properties prevented his rebirth, which is a fan theory not mentioned in the canon materials.

In general, I’d have to say that Version 1 is better than Version 2.


 * Alright, let's get some things straight here:
 * 1. I did not put those Wikipedia links. There were made by someone else. Not me.
 * 2. This "fan theory" thing was already there before I first came here to edit this page.
 * 3. The CD Drama statement was made by someone else.
 * I suggest that you get those facts straight before you judge my edits so unfairly. Seriously all I did was try to make it look better and neater. Then 1-3 users make minor edits adding wrong info. then all of a sudden I get blamed for the entire format's inaccuracy because most of the admins here hated my own format? Unbelievable!
 * Let me ask you guys something. When those wrong info were there why didn't you remove them earlier? It wasn't until I entered this site and starting editing everything that you guys finally paid attention to the wrong info put by other users. Yet, all I ever did was try to make it a little bit better and easier to read.
 * Yes, it wasn't your manual of style but you know if you look closer I did didn't even remove all of the info that was already there. Yeah I removed a huge chunk but those were mainly based around the plot of the movie. So don't go calling my edits "inaccurate" just because you lot (including your friend whom you brought over here to judge my edits) hated my own format. But you guys probably put the blame all on me especially with that "Wikipedia" link because of what I said in my talk page.

Bluebeat 06:59, April 6, 2012 (UTC)
 * For the record, this was the format before I first entered this site.
 * - KrytenKoro's version
 * - Bluebeat's 1st version
 * As you can see all that inaccurate stuff that you blamed on me was already there before I edited the page. So guess who's more accurate? Neither of us. But you can clearly see that there was nothing inaccurate or wrong with my version other than the fact that it doesn't follow the "manual of style" here. I clearly didn't remove everything that was there. Your lot shouldn't have completely reverted my edits. The least that you could've done was add/change/remove things so that it would suite your style. Bluebeat 07:08, April 6, 2012 (UTC)
 * You got blamed for the prior format's inaccuracy and MoS-violations because you are the one consistently reinserting it. The fact that you are reinserting it due to monumental carelessness and flippancy does not stop it from being an insertion of innacuracy and MoS-violations.
 * You asked for an opinion from someone on another site. TMS is a writer, not from this site, and frequently tells me I'm stupid. He is a perfectly satisfactory third party, and you should use his review to improve the page instead of attacking him for disagreeing with you.
 * We started attacking the MoS violations here because you started editing the article and requesting that it be cleaned up. While a lot of your additions were unacceptable, we have been trying to fulfill your request.
 * Lying is unacceptable. My version of the page is the one that I keep replacing, not the one that was here before you came. Furthermore, we have NOT been completely reverting your edits—in fact, as far as I can tell you're the only one who has been doing that.
 * Take some responsibility for your edits, and stop with this edit warring or you will receive a ban. 13:45, April 6, 2012 (UTC)
 * That info about the CD Drama is false? Then, what about those two quotes in the ref tags? 14:03, April 6, 2012 (UTC)
 * He's talking about what was there before. 14:44, April 6, 2012 (UTC)


 * #1 - I did not add those links. They were already there before I began actively editing this article.|1 06:56, March 21, 2012- this was the version of this article before I came here to edit.
 * #2 - Again that another information that was already in this page before I began editing.|1
 * #3 - Another statement where I am held liable for even though I did not place it. |1
 * #4 - Check what the old revision(before I started coming to this site to edit) says:
 * "The CD Drama The Door to Summer reveals that Kokomon did not come back, however, in spite of the movie's ending. Terriermon's words imply that he was too corrupted to be reborn, suggesting that the same may happen to Nat-chan."
 * This is where I got that from. I do not know if this information was right or wrong so do not blame me for this alright? I kept it there because I was unsure if it was correct. I do not know much about the CD Drama. As you can see I was not speculating anything. I just simply refered to this.
 * #5 - Alright then I didn't follow the manual of style of this site.
 * #6 - Again, check #4. This is was the statement that I was referring to. You seem to be blaming me for all the wrong information in there simply because my edits did not follow the manual of style. Yet you make no mention of the wrong information that had already existed in Version 1 or before that.
 * You see? You are blaming me for the wrong information already in this article before I came in this site. You're calling this "Version 2" and throwing all the wrongness around it mainly because it didn't follow the manual of style isn't that right?
 * Your review was very un-fair. I know that I made a lot of mistakes on the manual of style but for you link the most of the wrong information to my edits. It's like your holding me liable of placing all of it in the first place when KrytenZero basically did nothing about removing them as well(and I'm not saying that it was his/her fault for putting them there). Go ahead and blame me for not following the manual of style and for following what the article had already stated when I first came but you shouldn't humiliate someone's hard work like this by blaming them forall of the wrong information there. I was only trying my best to make the article better. Even though mine's did not comply with MoS I do not deserve to be judged for other people's mistakes. The way you categorized my edits as "Version 2" and threw all the wrongness in it and yet makes no mention of the fact that it had already existed in "Version 1"(including the version before I edited began editing this article) is simply not fair. I feel very humiliated with what you have done. Which is why I wrote all of this out of frustration below this.Bluebeat 01:17, April 9, 2012 (UTC)
 * I was manually reverting your edits back to my version by simply copying my revision and pasting it there. Yes, my version still had the CD Drama stuff because I was following what this article originally had before I began editing this. I did not remove them because I was unsure if they were right or wrong. Look at the history page from late March before April, when you reverted other people's edits did you even bother to remove this information? Wouldn't you also be responsible for 're-inserting' them simply because you let it stay there? So why are you also blaming me then?
 * When I asked for someone else to look at the article at the history page. I meant your recent edit on here. Click on Older |Edit and see how it looked like before and after I reverted it. ->
 * I know this already. You put this on my talk page.
 * I can't believe that you would even go the extent of calling me a liar. What have I ever written about you? Did I call you anything stupid?.
 * You know I was already fine with our discussion on my talk page about me not following the MoS but now guys have seriously made me frustrated and sad because you blamed me for being a liar when all I was simply doing was showing to everyone what the article looked like before I began editing it. I put your username there because it was your revision but this does 'not mean that I was placing you accountable for all the wrong information on the article. That's why I said earlier that neither of us were completely accurate as we both allowed those wrong information to stay in this page without noticing that there were mostly incorrect. So once again you forgot to stop and read every little edited detail here thoroughly. Jumped straight to conclusions.
 * Why don't you guys look at the the history page during the last 2 weeks and look at the edits you've made? I can't believe that you guys didn't even bother correcting any of the wrong information placed here until I started coming to this site to edit this page. Then you guys blame all of the wrong information towards me? Hey I am only new here.
 * I was very not familiar with the MoS or was unaware of the information left by other users in this site when I first came. When I wasn't aware of the MoS I was simply sticking to what I thought was right back then(which was actually wrong). Just like what you guys were doing reverting my edits back to the version that you thought was right as approved by this site's rules. But what happens when that version actually contains some information that was pointed out to be wrong? Are you going to run-away from that and blame the person who has absolutely no idea why their edits are being reverted and wants to keep all the hard work that they've put on up there?.
 * Also if you had told me sooner that some of the information there was wrong I could've stopped re-inserting them especially the CD Drama!
 * After being told off about the manual of style, getting the edits that I worked on for a long period of time reverted, being humiliated by being judged unfairly like this and being called a liar when all I was doing was showing what the article looked like before I began editing it (I was not even accusing you of what the article looked like). Do you have any idea how I feel right now? You are being blamed for everything bad about the article when you were not entirely responsible for it. Yes I didn't follow the rules of the MoS and so I stopped trying to interfere with your edits but now you guys are going to humiliate me by showing to everyone that it was all my fault that there was wrong information there? I'm feeling very frustrated about this and all I am doing now is defending myself.
 * Its like everyone is ganging up on me when all I ever tried to do was help. Just when I decided to stop mass reverting your edits you guys began humiliating me by creating this part of the article. When I tried to defend myself because I felt frustrated and humiliated you began lashing at me by accusing me of such hurtful things that didn't intend to!? Shame on you! You need to learn how to take responsibilities for your own actions as well including judging others so quickly, lashing out at them like this and falsely accusing them of things that I didn't do when all they did was try and help this site! After what you wrote about me lying, I at least deserve an apology! But I probably won't get it anyways. So don't bother warning me or replying because I quit this site. Bluebeat 08:19, April 9, 2012 (UTC)


 * One of my main edits was inserting citations to the CD Drama that explained exactly what it actually said. You have no "I didn't know" excuse, since you removed those citations.
 * Instead of throwing a temper tantrum and refusing to accept responsibility for your own actions, here's what you should have said:
 * "I'm sorry for being so lazy and inconsiderate as to ignore the edit comments you guys gave for your own changes, and for not checking what my edits were actually doing to the page. I'm sorry for removing cited material and instead placing in bad versions of the page from months ago. I'm sorry for blaming KrytenKoro, G-SANtos, and TMS1 for my own laziness. I'm sorry for personalizing discussion of a wiki article and taking critiques of the material I added as personal critiques. I'm very sorry for refusing to work in collaboration with other editors, and instead ignoring their edits to just reinsert my own earlier version. Most of all, I'm sorry to TMS for wasting his time by asking him to critique my version of the page against the admins', then ignoring his points entirely and instead accusing him of bullying."

13:53, April 9, 2012 (UTC)