Talk:Nitros Oxide

Narcissism

How is N. Oxide a narcissist? I'm not very sure what narsissistic traits he shows.

Okay let's see here:

• He's preoccupied with success and power.
• Believes he's the fastest racer in the galaxy.
• Apparant lack of ability to recognize, perceive and directly experientially feel the emotion of others.
• He's pretty arrogant over the Earthlings, and tries to make them his slaves.

Yeah, I think that pretty much covers it. If a mentally ill person shows at least three traits of a disease, then he can be officialy diagnosed. Cat's Tuxedo 23:51, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Trivia

I removed a bit of trivia stating that Oxide was to be a mad scientist much like Velo, as there's absolutely no proof of it, and after I tagged it for citation, it went weeks without anyone providing any. Please stop re-inserting it.

• Once again, you are stating your opinions as factual, without doing any research. The fact that Oxide did have a human like appearance has become well known by now. How else would we know about Trippo? Stop it!

• Yeah, but it still needs to be cited. This is an encyclopedia, after all. I found a webpage showing the concept art, and added it to the external links, as the trivia bit was worded badly.

• Stop vandalising. It doesn't need to be blinking cited if people already KNOW about this.

• Yes it does. Check the Wikipedia guidelines. Adding citations is never vandalism. At all. Ever. Removing them, on the other hand, is.

• And that is EXACTLY what you are doing...removing true information. You're vandalising. Again. Stop it. You KNOW where the source is, you said so yourself.

• I'm not removing it, I'm just putting it where it belongs. Besides, noting only one sketch in the concept art isn't encylopediac. The external link belongs in external links.

• Yes it is. It's trivia and you know it is. Check the good fansites, you'll see it. Not under links, because no one looks there. Under trivia.

• Look, every video game character goes through concept stages, so that isn't worth noting in a trivia section, and he wasn't "originally meant" to be any specific one of them. Besides, Wiki policy is to try and avoid trivia sections, and integrate trivia into the article in the appropriate places. The concept art is relevant to the article, but it belongs in the external links section.

• You're doing it again...forcing your opinion as fact. It is trivia, thereby, it is specific and worth noting. Stop reverting it, and stop changing accounts.

• I'm not forcing my opinion. Here is the policy on trivia sections. As you can see, if a piece of trivia can be integrated into the article, it is Wikipedia policy to do so. Besides, he wasn't "originally meant" to be any specific one of those designs, so that should be taken out. If you do that, it's just stating that he went through the concept stage, which every character does, and that isn't notable, not even as trivia. For these reasons, it is better suited to external links. Thank you.

• Only in your blasted opinion, which has been flawed from day 1 anyway. In other people's opinions, it's worth noting. So stop editing things with your opinion and take a neutral concept, as I have asked you to do many a time.

• Nope. I'm following Wiki guidelines. Have you read one thing I've said? It belongs in External Links, per Wikipedia policy to avoid trivia sections, and the fact that it's not even notable, for the reasons I stated above.

• That is YOUR opinion and you are, once again, forcing it as FACT! It is TRIVIA! Trivia does NOT belong in external links. Besides, I see only YOU removing that comment anyway.

• It's not my opinion. Read. The. Policy. As for the trivia, Oxide was not "originally meant" to be any specific one of those designs, so the article shouldn't say that. Take that out, and all it says it that he went through the concept stage, which every game character does. What's notable about that? Nothing. It belongs in external links.

• Will you stop it with the "Read the policy" lark! That's all you can say, aside "You're vandalising, I'm not" and "My opinions are fact and no one else has that right". It is TRIVIA! Trivia does NOT belong in the External Link section because...well, it's OBVIOUS! Stop vandalising threads ecause you think you're right. INCLUDING this one, because we're going past the 3RR rule...again.

• Maybe if you actually read Wikipedia policies once ina while. Trivia sections are to be avoided. That piece isn't even trivia, for reason's I've explained and you've ignored. Even if it was something notable, it wouldn't belong in trivia anyway. Before you edit this page again, read the policy. Then read it again, because you obviously don't understand it. It clearly states, if trivia can be integrated into the article, then it should be. Which is what I have done. I didn't remove the info, except the bit about him "originally meant" to look like Velo, which is false. I kept the concept art, it's just in the right part of the article now.

• It ISN'T in the right part of the article and you KNOW it isn't! Stop vandalising and stop 3RR'ing. And you OBVIOUSLY have NOT read the article you claim to have read at all for, instead of intergrating it into the article, you REMOVED it completely. That's vandalising, so I will ask you, one more time, to STOP IT!

• I did not delete it, I moved it to external links. The only bit I removed was the wording of it, which, in fairness, made absolutely no sense.

• To a two year old, maybe not, but it MUST make sense because that's the same style that has been used in other fansites/information sites. I would like to think that you are not two years old.

• This is not a fansite. It is an encyclopedia. Writing has to be encylopediac, not fannish. Like how it is now.

• AHA! Proof that you are incapable of reading!!

• What the hell are you talking about, kid? As for your comments in the edit history, the opening line states who Oxide is, so people know, then we cover the development. Then, we can go into fictional details. Sticking the concept stage in the middle of that interrupts the flow.

• It does not, as I've said before. As for the other bit, it's obvious what I'm talking about. Plus, I'm in my late teens, thank you very much.

• Yes it does. You shouldn't go back and forth between fictional and non-fictional information. The design stage should come first, then his role in the games. Not: His role in the games, then the design stage, then some more of his role in the games.

• No it doesn't and you KNOW it doesn't. And, you should KNOW that his INTRODUCTION comes first, which is what it does.

• Yes it does. The introduction of the subject comes first, then an in-universe introduction of the character. Switching back and forth from fictional to non-fictional is bad writing.

• It does now, no thanks to you. Your way does not say who, or what, he is.

• It doesn't need to. It covers hsi development, when he becomes what he is.

• Yes it does. Not everyone knows who he is, you know.

• They find out he's a Crash character. Then they find out about his development, and see he's an extra-terrestrial, then see his role in the games. What's the problem with that?

• That's exactly what I wrote? I explained what he was, why he was that, then his role within the games. Why did you deliberately change your mind so you can edit me out?

• No you didn't. You put in fictional elements, then went back to real-life, then back to fiction. It's bad writing. I haven't changed my mind on anything. Small introducton, development, then fictional characteristics.

• See, you're telling lies about me again. Stop it, you're vandalising.

• I'm telling lies about you? What the hell are you talking about? I haven't said anything about you, except that the way you edited this article looks quite bad. Which it does. So I fixed it.

• ...and when I improved on it, using your methods, you changed your mind, then when I argued against it, you said I was using fictional elements.

• I didn't change my mind. You didn't use my methods, because if you did, I wouldn't have to edit it. And by fictional elements, I meant in-universe info. Which you did use. In the wrong place.

• You would have reverted it anyway. And it was NOT in the wrong place, because it explained what and who he was.

• Yes it is. All you need to know to understand the article is that he's a Crash character. Specifics can come later, where they belong.

• Crash Novice: "Duh, who is this N Oxide? Is he a bandicoot? Wikipedia doesn't give hints right away." See? It makes no sense. Stop reverting constantly.

• Crash novice: "Huh, who is this Oxide? Oh, this paragraph says he's an extra-terrestrial." Problem with this?

• Obviously, since you think a wrecked sentence is the best for Wikipedia, it's no longer up there.