User Talk: DaRealPrinceZuko

Server-side rendered snapshot of this editor's Wikipedia talk page discussions.

Welcome!

thumb|alt=A plate of chocolate chip cookies.|Help:Getting started|'''Welcome!''' ↗ ↗
Hello, DaRealPrinceZuko, and '''''welcome to Wikipedia ↗'''''! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Below are some pages you might find helpful. For a user-friendly interactive help forum see the '''Wikipedia Teahouse ↗'''.

Introduction ↗

The five pillars of Wikipedia ↗

How to edit a page ↗

How to write a great article ↗

Simplified Manual of Style ↗

Your first article ↗

Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community ↗

Feel free to make test edits in the sandbox ↗

and check out the Task Center ↗, for ideas about what to work on.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian ↗! Please sign your name ↗ on talk pages ↗ using four tilde ↗s (<nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, please see our '''help pages''' ↗, and if you can't find what you are looking for there, please feel free to ask me on my talk page or place '''{{Tlc|Help me}}''' on this page and someone will drop by to help. Again, welcome! HiLo48 (talk) 00:39, 8 August 2023

April 2024

25px|alt=Information icon ↗ Hi DaRealPrinceZuko! I noticed that you have reverted to restore your preferred version of :American Indian Wars ↗ several times. The impulse to undo an edit you disagree with is understandable, but I wanted to make sure you're aware that the edit warring policy ↗ disallows repeated reversions even if they are justifiable.

All editors are expected to discuss content disputes on article talk pages ↗ to try to reach consensus ↗. If you are unable to agree at {{TALKPAGENAME:American Indian Wars}} ↗, please use one of the dispute resolution options ↗ to seek input from others. Using this approach instead of reverting can help you avoid getting drawn into an edit war. Thank you. Meters (talk) 07:05, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

July 2024

25px|alt=Information icon ↗ Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions ↗, such as the edit(s) you made to :Mainland Japan ↗, did not appear to be constructive and have been reverted ↗. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines ↗. You can find information about these at our welcome page ↗ which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia ↗. If you only meant to make test edits, please use your sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page ↗. ''I've never heard of the Empire of Japan having imperial designs on California, especially at this early stage in its modernization. Not impossible, I guess, but very unlikely; especially given that they were on much more firmer ground to pursue similar aims in Hawaii during the late 19th century, but chose not to in order to avoid upsetting the US. None of the sources cited in the article mention this. If you have any, please cite them.'' CurryTime7-24 (talk) 22:15, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

The article is listed in Category:Former Japanese colonies. The settlement did not necessarily have to have been a part of a significant imperial design, as it was simply a minor possession used for economic purposes akin to Fort Ross, California ↗ by the Russian Empire ↗, Santo Tomás, Guatemala by the Belgian colonial empire ↗, and Klein-Venedig ↗ by the German states. DaRealPrinceZuko (talk) 23:03, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

:Even so, it wasn't even a minor possession. None of the sources I checked in the article confirm that. All of them acknowledged the farm as the first Japanese immigrant community in the US, but not as a ''de jure'' Japanese possession. (Such a thing would've been controversial in California at the time, to put it mildly.) Good sources are going to be needed to confirm this assertion. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 23:28, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

::Even if the colony wasn't owned by the Japanese government, that does not change the fact that it was owned by a community of soldiers and settlers that received financial support from military personnel, even if the colony itself wasn't recognized. By that logic, you would have to dismiss the notion that Fort Ross and Fort Elizabeth ↗ were not owned by Russia, just because they were not recognized as colonies. Plus, it was recognized as the "first Japanese colony in America."<ref>https://www.walkthefarm.org/wakamatsu-tea-and-silk-farm</ref> DaRealPrinceZuko (talk) 23:42, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

:::Yes, military personnel that ''fled'' from the Japanese government, as the article itself explains. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 23:49, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

::::And yet still served as military personnel, whether or not they were loyal to the government, thus making the settlement a vassal of the military. A colony does not have to be owned by a foreign government to count at one, as a colony can also be owned by an active military or a private company working for the government, as was the case with Santo Tomás by Belgian settlers. DaRealPrinceZuko (talk) 00:09, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

<div class="ivmbox " style="margin-bottom: 1em; border: 1px solid #a2a9b1; background-color: #fdf2d5; padding: 0.5em; display: flex; align-items: center; ">
<div class="ivmbox-image noresize" style="padding-left:1px; padding-right:0.5em;">40px ↗</div>
<div class="ivmbox-text">
Hello! Voting in the '''2024 Arbitration Committee elections ↗''' is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on {{#time:l, j F Y|{{Arbitration Committee candidate/data|2024|end}}-1 day}}. All '''eligible users ↗''' are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee ↗ is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process ↗. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans ↗, topic bans ↗, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy ↗ describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review the candidates ↗ and submit your choices on the '''2024|poll}}|voting page ↗'''. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{tlx|NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. <small>MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:53, 19 November 2024 (UTC)</small>

</div>
</div>

ArbCom 2025 Elections voter message

<div class="ivmbox " style="margin-bottom: 1em; border: 1px solid #a2a9b1; background-color: #fdf2d5; padding: 0.5em; display: flex; align-items: center; ">
<div class="ivmbox-image" style="padding-left:1px; padding-right:0.5em;flex-basis: 40px">40px ↗</div>
<div class="ivmbox-text">
Hello! Voting in the '''2025 Arbitration Committee elections ↗''' is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on {{#time:l, j F Y|{{Arbitration Committee candidate/data|2025|end}}-1 day}}. All '''eligible users ↗''' are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee ↗ is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process ↗. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans ↗, topic bans ↗, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy ↗ describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2025 election, please review the candidates ↗ and submit your choices on the '''2025|poll}}|voting page ↗'''. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{tlx|NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. <small>MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:58, 18 November 2025 (UTC)</small>

</div>
</div>

Stop reverting my edits and additional information on Benji the Hunted.

I don't appreciate you reverting and undoing my information on Benji the Hunted. What you undid did really happen. I've been observing several times and found try evidence. Stop that please. Info. Policy (talk) 05:01, 31 January 2026 (UTC)
:The cubs that Benji adopted in the film consisted of four, while the cougar that adopted them had only one. At the end of the film, there were only four cubs instead of five, three of them Benji's. Throughout the remainder of the film, Benji was seen carrying only three cubs, since one of them was snatched by the eagle. Additionally, it is confirmed that the wolf in the film is a male, since he was portrayed by a wolf dog named Dimitri. There's also an unnecessary space at the end of the plot section. DaRealPrinceZuko (talk) 22:02, 31 January 2026 (UTC)
::You thought wrong. I counted five in that scene when they were next to their new mother. Four light (including the adoptive mother's birth cub) and fifth one dark. You obviously have never watched or paid attention to the movie. That cub who got snatched by the eagle clearly did not get killed and eaten. What you told about that additional cub that arrived during the final scene was the adoptive cougar's cub is wrong and a lie. If you had been paying attention, you'd already notice that cub appeared from a different entrance of the valley while the adoptive mother's offspring appear in the same entrance as it's mother. I saw and compared the different entrances. Eagles cannot eat their prey fast, otherwise that bird would not come back to catch another a few seconds later. This video with the evidence proved it and contradicts your misinterpretation: Full Story & Full explanation of Proof that all 4 orphan cubs from Benji the Hunted made it together ↗ Even AI knows it's true. I even had to write to Disney about it to help confirm my proof, which they answered it may take weeks to reply.
::And for the record, I never said anything about the wolf being a female and never talked about its gender. Now that I have given the real story of what really happened, you can't contradict it. And don't try saying there was only a shadow, because that is a lie. I have a sharper eyesight of what really is thanks to the carrots I've been eating a lot. Info. Policy (talk) 22:19, 31 January 2026 (UTC)
:::Even if the eagle did not eat the cub afterwards, it would have been crushed by its talons and been picked apart in real-life. Some predators can return for seconds, even if they already have a sufficient meal. It should also be noted that the cub that was snatched was of light color instead of gray. The reason Benji found the gray cub was because it already fled the scene and hid before it could be captured. Also, why did Benji carry only three cubs up the cliff and how would the fourth cub have survived on its own? "''And don't try saying there was only a shadow, because that is a lie.''" The camera angle is not flattering enough to verify if the shot included all five cubs, as it could very well indeed be a paw or a shadow. As for your reasoning to the differing entrances, it could also be possible that the filmmakers just filmed a different location. Also, AI is not a reliable source, as it can and does have a tendency to lie and contradict itself at times. DaRealPrinceZuko (talk) 22:38, 31 January 2026 (UTC)
::::If it really had been crushed by the talons, the cub wouldn't still be squealing. But it didn't go that way. The "Some predators" would only return for seconds if the prey was really small and if the predator is larger. This eagle or hawk is not as big as a tiger or bald eagle. and the cub is not that small.
::::I did not say or mention anything about the the gray cub having already fled the scene and hid before it could be captured. I wasn't even talking about that one. That pointless bring that up. You misread and misinterpreted again.
::::There you go again, telling lies and twisting truths around saying "the camera angle is not flattering enough to verify if the shot included all five cubs, as it could very well indeed be a paw or a shadow." It was too flattening enough and I looked perfectly well on Disney Plus for a better view, and it proved my fact. It was not a paw or a shadow. I saw different movements very carefully and clearly. You made it all up and you know it. You only think it is not flattening enough because you're just not looking hard enough and obviously don't have clear eyesight as I do. And you're just making up excuses of what you're saying about the differing entrances. That different location does not contradict my evidence facts. Filming a different location are always mean to show where a character is and show who is coming and leaving from. Also, I don't care if AI is a reliable source or not, nor if it can and does have a tendency to lie and contradict itself at times. You're only doing exactly what you're claiming about AI by having the tendency to lie and contradict everything. I already proved it by asking Disney about it through email. Leave the evidence alone. Info. Policy (talk) 23:04, 31 January 2026 (UTC)
:::::You stated that Disney has not responded to your email by stating that it may take weeks to respond as of the time of this discussion, so you did not prove your point. Also, a bird of prey does not have to crush its prey upon grabbing it first, as it can do so as it flies away as well. It should also be noted that all birds of prey have different behaviors in regards to how they hunt as well.
:::::If there were indeed all five cubs, the camera would have presented them frolicking or suckling from above them, not on the side. As for the different location aspect, it could also be possible that the filmmakers forgot where the mother and her cub entered. "''Also, I don't care if AI is a reliable source or not, nor if it can and does have a tendency to lie and contradict itself at times.''" Then why did you cite it? I'm contradicting your "evidence," because it's anecdotal and you have no way of knowing for sure that the shot included all five cubs. DaRealPrinceZuko (talk) 01:10, 1 February 2026 (UTC)
::::::: I don't care how long it will take for them to respond. I will get my response soon no matter how long. I did so already did prove my point. You're just lying by saying I didn't just to ignore things because you're afraid of being proved. It's you who actually proved nothing. The laugh will be on you when I get my answer and confirmation for my evidence.
:::::::
::::::: You pointed out nothing when saying "a bird of prey does not have to crush its prey upon grabbing it first, as it can do so as it flies away as well. It should also be noted that all birds of prey have different behaviors in regards to how they hunt as well." You just said a prey would have been crushed by its talons. Now you just made up another tale to cross your way out of what you were contradicted by. You're wasting your time and breath as your already wasting mine.
:::::::
::::::: If there were indeed all five cubs, the camera would have presented them frolicking or suckling from above them, not on the side. What you said about how cameras present things is wrong. Cameras do not always present things from above. They do so sometimes present things on a side. You ignored and missed a spot. I counted the backs and they were high enough. There is no "if there were indeed all five cubs". Give it up.
:::::::
::::::: What you said about possible that the filmmakers forgot where the mother and her cub entered. That is not happen.d
:::::::
::::::: I do not always cite through AI. And what you said about "contradicting my evidence, because it's anecdotal and you have no way of knowing for sure that the shot included all five cubs" was another lie and putting lies into my mouth. I already have found the way of knowing for sure that the shot included all five cubs through observation at the same scene several times. That was before I discovered AI. You say you don't trust AI, and yet some hypocritic jerks like you are known to use it occasionally. Give it up. This discussion is closed. I already got all the proof I need, and you are never going to win this argument to convince me otherwise with more of your misinterpretations, misinformation, and mixed truths with lies. End of discussion.
::::::Info. Policy (talk) 02:12, 1 February 2026 (UTC)