Talk:Dingodile

DINGODILE well he has a cool wepon now that is a good bit on CTR hes good as well hes got full speed but rubbish turning but good (but not full) sorry i forgot the name but you know that was a good discussion I think Dingodile's turning depends on the player, because I've beaten the game with him twice and he seems to have outstanding turning and speed.Clan rHrN 23:21, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Dingodile in CB Warped
If u have double jump, u can just jump over the crystal barriers to get to him instead of waiting for him to blast them apart. And it seems he has some sort of defense against Crash as he only gets damage when his fuel tank explodes.

-SoloKia

New Photo
Will you get rid of that ridiculous "Naughty Dog sceatch" and consider a more realistic photo? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 63.3.72.10 (talk) 19:14, 6 March 2007 (UTC).

I put a new one. --Der4 10:32, 16 March 2007

But now that photo's gonna be deleted because it's copyrighted. From now on, we use emulated photos. Cat&#39;s Tuxedo 20:29, 20 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I sketched one in MS Paint and am using it there now. Problem solved. --98E 21:24, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Dingodile's creator
Who is Dingodile's creator? -- zzuuzz(talk) 17:05, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Please sign your talk page edits using four tildes, like ~, thanks. -- zzuuzz(talk) 17:21, 7 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I can't see what Mr. Account Swapper's problem is! My version says exactly the same as his version does, without the needless trivia section. I mean, who really wants to read a trivia section when all it covers is a possible manual mis-print? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by CBFan (talk • contribs).


 * Your version is biased in favor of the Cortex theory. My version has no bias and actually explains why there's confusion, which your version does not do. I feel my version is superior, but I'm open to it being edited. Yours, however, is quite biased. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.42.95.179 (talk • contribs).


 * I may as well say that your version is biased towards Brio (your original was), because my version is NOT biased to ANYONE. And, of course, as soon as your version gets edited, you'll just go "HU-WHA!" and edit it...again. Mine is NOT biased and you need to accept that. CBFan 17:24, 7 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Yeah, my first version was biased to Brio. So I changed it. This one isn't. See, I'm open to suggestions. Your version is biased to Cortex.. Also, stop saying "hu-wha". It's not even a word. 86.42.102.242 17:30, 7 March 2007 (UTC)


 * My version is, quite clearly and as stated numerous time, NOT biased to anyone. It says that Cortex may have created him, it says that Brio may have created him AND it shows the most official suggestion (I.E. based on the manuals) first. YOUR version is biased. And I'm saying "Hu-Wha!" to make you realise your ways and reform. It's not working though, is it? CBFan 17:50, 7 March 2007 (UTC)


 * You can state it all you like, but it is biased. There is no such thing as the most official suggestion. Yours says Cortex created him as fact, and adds that it might have been Brio. That's biased. How exactly is my version biased? At all? It doesn't lean towards either theory. Also stop with this "hu-wah" stuff. Nonsensical rambling isn't exactly going to make me "reform". 86.42.103.153 22:52, 7 March 2007 (UTC)


 * It is NOT biased, it is FACTUAL! It is ALSO FACTUAL that you are telling lies about me AGAIN. I did NOT say that Cortex definately created him. Isn't that blindingly obvious? Well, it should be to someone who is a Crash fan, and not a Mario fanboy like yourself. Your version says "Nobody created Dingodile" or "No one knows Dingodile's creator", but my version says "Dingodile was created either by Cortex or by Brio". You know, if you didn't like how it was worded, you could have easily edited out the brackets or added a footnote explaining the confusion, instead of going "HU-WHA!" and editing it completely. Your ignorance and arrogance got us into this. And no, I'm not going to stop making you say "HU-WHA!" until you stop making me say "Cortex definately created Dingodile". And stop bashing Crash. And stop boltarding Universal, Naughty Dog and all the other Crash companies. And stop vandalising Wikipedia. CBFan 23:36, 7 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, it is biased. It's factual, but it's biased. It says "Cortex created Dingodile (or maybe it was N. Brio)". That's biased. For the last time, I don't play Mario, so drop that, because it makes no sense. My version says "Either Cortex or Brio" created him. Yours says "Cortex created Dingodile (or maybe it was N. Brio)". Since you're fine with me editing out the brackets, or adding a footnote, I've gotta think you're only protesting this because I'm the one who's editing this. You've shown that you have a grudge against me in the past. And, uh, "making me say 'hu-wha'"? What the hell are you talking about? I'm not bashing Crash, not in any way. I'm also not "boltarding" any companies, because, hey, that's not a word. Just because I disagree with you doesn't make me a vandal. 86.42.74.140 23:42, 7 March 2007 (UTC)


 * If it is factual, then it HAS to be there. It is an encyclopedia. It HAS to contain factual information. You don't like it? That's not my problem. If you just accepted the facts, you wouldn't have got the thread locked. Both Cortex AND Brio are named as Dingodile's creator, BUT (and this is important), the manuals are two-to-one in Cortex's favour. THAT is a fact. Thereby, you are vandalising by adding false information (and going "HU-WHA!") and blaming it on me. I'd also like to say that the only reason I don't like you is because you're a vandal, insisting that the truth is incorrect, and that I used the word "Boltard" because I don't like swearing. If you actually thought, you'd be able to identify two rude words in there. What makes you a vandal, finally, is the fact that you keep insisting that your way is the right way, even when it isn't, or you have no proof of it. CBFan 23:48, 7 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Except mine is also factual, and isn't biased. Which is why I edited it to be that way. It doesn't matter about it being "two-to-one". Wikipedia does not take sides. Wikipedia is neutral. Which is why my version mentions both on equal standing. Unlike your biased version.


 * Yours is biased and informative. Mine gives the information without going "HU-WHA! YOU'RE WRONG!" Wikipedia is meant to be an encyclopedia of facts, not a garbage trove of opinions, which is EXACTLY what you've been doing. You're biased. I'm stating the facts. Now shut up and go to bed.


 * Mine is not biased at all. It doesn't favour any of the theories. It is informative though, thanks. Your version does not give the information. Mine does. It's also not biased, like yours.


 * Your version has pointless trivia. No one wants to read a whole trivia section about a misprint. Even if mine is biased, yours is more so.


 * Tell me, very clearly, how mine is biased. You do know what the word means, right? How could my version possibly be construed as biased to either theory? Also, no-one wants to read it? You mean, you don't want to read it. Don't pretend you talk for everyone. Even if yuo don't want to read it, it's needed to explain why there's confusion.


 * Even if mine was biased, it was more informative, more professional and better constructed. If you felt that something was wrong, you could have just as easily, as I have suggested twice already, deleted the brackets or added a footnote, rather than add a pointless "trivia" section over one possible (note the wording) misprint. May I also add that exactly the same thing you said about me can be used for you as well, because you also pretend that you talk for everyone, when it is obvious you don't, and never can do.


 * Your version isn't informative at all. It doesn't explain why there's confusion over who created him. It's also not more profesional, at it shows bias. It's not better constructed, because, hey, it's just poorly worded. And, I don't speak for everyone, I've never claimed that.


 * Mine doesn't NEED to be biased. You're making a complete flip over one possible mis-print. Yours is also biased as well.


 * My version is not biased at all, so unless you actually have some reasoning behind calling it biased, stop using that as an argument. Yours is, because it favos Cortex over Brio. It doesn't need to be, but it is.


 * Yours favours Brio over Cortex, so it is obviously biased. I know you're going to say "That was my older version, my newer one wasn't biased"...but I will laugh at this, because that was exactly the same case with MY version...biased old one, improved new one. As I've stated, numerous times already, mine did NOT intentionally favour one over the other.


 * My version does not favor Brio over Cortex. At all. Try reading it. Your "improved" new one is still biased to Cortex. If it wasn't intentional, it was still biased, and I was justified in editing it.


 * Your version says that he was "Created by Brio (but only ever shown in service with Cortex)". If that isn't biased, then I'm not sure what is. Unintentionally biased is better than intentional biased, and I'm not even sure you know what the word "Intentional" means.


 * My version does not say that. It doesn't say that at all. I understand that you say you didn't intend your version to be biased, but it was, so I was justified in editing it. And the fact that you're using an old edit of mine to discredit this version just furthers my belief that the only real problem you have with this version is that it's mine.


 * If you were to read up a bit, you'll SEE what I was talking about...your old edit was biased, because you kept insisting that my old edit was biased.


 * No, I'm talking about the edit you were reverting to when the article was protected. Old edits of mine have no bearing on the discussion.


 * Neither do mine, but you keep doing it.

You two spend more time talking about each other than the article. The objective here is to move forward with wording that you can both agree on. This page is currently protected because you both revert each other's version. Neither current version is satisfactory because of this. Please find a new one. -- zzuuzz(talk) 23:50, 7 March 2007 (UTC)


 * It's just, I'm not sure what I can do to satisfy all. I tried rephrasing it, he reverted my edit. I tried removing it altogether, he reverted my edit. The version he wants implemented is biased, as I've discussed. Suggestions?


 * Your version is also biased and uninformative. As I've said before, if you thought something was worded badly, you could have simply removed the brackets and/or added a footnote. You didn't NEED to revert from biased to more biased.


 * I think it needs to be explained why there's confusion over his creator. Your version does not do this. My version is not biased, and it explains why there's confusion, which is informative, two things your version is not. Honestly, I don't see your problem with it, other than the fact that you didn't write it.


 * You know, you've got some cheek saying "Don't pretend you talk for everyone" when you're doing exactly the same thing right now. There is NO confusion over Dingodile's creator. All there is is a contradiction, but that's not everywhere. Most of the Crash fans I know, from all the forums I go on, meerly puts it down to a simple mis-print, or doesn't know about it at all. You're making a big rant and rave over nothing if you ask me. The original version, BEFORE you and I edited it, was the best version, because it stated, quite clearly, that it was a mistake. I don't hear you ranting and raving over the Tiny mistake.


 * I'm not claiming to speak for everyone. There is confusion because there's a contradiction, and none of the companies that mentioned it were the original creators of Dingodile, so none of them are more credible than the others, so to speak. It doesn't matter what the people on your forum think. This is an encyclopedia, not a fansite. There's no proof, it shouldn't state either as fact. Also, the Tiny comment in the WoC manual wasn't definite about Cortex creating Tiny, it said "some believe", so there's no contradiction there. Perhaps it wasn't a mistake, we don't know. Therefore, Wikipedia shouldn't make any assumptions.


 * So? On numerous articles (the Aku Aku one springs to mind), you constantly insist that your fanon is correct. And that sentence clearly states that you think you speak for everyone. You keep INSISTING that my article is biased, but it wasn't, it was meerly stating the facts, and the fact is that two manuals say Cortex was the creator and only half of one says that Brio was the creator. Two over one-half does lead to suspision, does it not? Yours was biased, and then added a pointless trivia section when you refused to accept that you were wrong. Also, where do you get your "Encyclopedias shouldn't make any assumptions" nonsense from? You must never have read an encyclopedia in your life, as assumptions occur all the time (although all of these are based on the scientific facts, of course...just like my edit version was and yours wasn't.). The instant it IS revealed who Dingodile's true creator was, your version is going to look very silly. As stated before, You could have, and should have, simply removed the brackets and add a footnote. One trivia section filled solely with a possible misprint could hardly be called a "trivia" section.


 * Your version of this is biased in favor of Cortex. It doesn't matter why it's biased, the fact is, it is biased. It doesn't matter that two manual say it's biased. One doesn't. Wikipedia does not take sides. Wikipedia is neutral. And, uh, scientific facts? None of the companies who claimed a creator for Dingodile were his original creator, so none of them are more credible than the other. The instant it is revealed who Dingodile's true creator is, we can add it to the article. Until it is, we'll leave it neutral. Also, it is important to note exactly why there is confusion over his creator. Perhaps we could remove the "Trivia" heading and just add the paragraph to the article proper? Would that be acceptable?

My version of this was NOT intentionally biased to anyone. If it seemed biased to you, you didn't have to blow a fuse and edit it completely. And, seriously, can you stop insisting that "Wikipedia is neutral" because, trust me on this, it isn't. You can edit the articles, but you can't remove all biasey on one point or another, so don't bother. And trust me, your version is NOT neutral because it almost acts as if Dingodile doesn't HAVE a creator, which is obviously not true. I mean, he can't have been bred naturally. To put it simply, you don't NEED to waste a whole chunk of text just explaining "There is some confusion over his creator. It's pointless. An alternative and, if you ask me, better version would be, once (if) this article is unlocked again, to... 1: Revert back to my version (which is closer to what we want). 2: Remove the brackets. 3: Add a simple footnote explaining the contradicting manuals. For example "The manuals for XS and Wrath Of Cortex claim that Dingodile was created by Cortex, whilst the Bash manual describes him as one of Brio's creations". It doesn't need to take up the whole article.


 * Intentional or not, it was still biased, and uninformative. Wikipedia is supposed to be neutral, read NPOV. My version is neutral. It says there's confusion over who created him. That makes it prety clear he was created. It needs to be explained, and it doesn't take up the whole article. It's one paragraph at the end. Get over it. Your version is not what "we" want, it's what you want.


 * If it is unintentional, it clearly means that the biasey of it was not realised, but I don't think you know what "intentional" means. Your version is biased, as it either claims that Brio definately created him, states that he has no creator, or wastes a whole load of space with a trivia section talking about a possible misprint. I have given you a suggestion many a time for an improved article, but you simply refuse to accept it, and use pathetic little excuses as "Your version is not what 'we' want, it's what YOU want", which is, of course, laughable. My suggestion explains the issues and cuts out a LOT of space that could be used for other, more important details. Your version is not what "we" want, it's what YOU want.


 * Even if you didn't realised it was biased, it still has to be edited. My version is not biased, as explaining the issue is not a waste of space. Remeber, Wikipedia, is not a paper encylopedia. Wasting space is not an issue here. Your suggestion would have exactly the same text as mine, except with "Dingodile was created by Dr. Neo Cortex or Dr. Nitrous Brio" which, I'm sure you'll agree, is pretty poor writing. It seems the only problem you have with this version is that you didn't write it.

I'd like to think you actually read this suggestion fully next time.
 * It also seems to me that you're not reading my suggestions because you just want your way. If you checked again, you'd see, quite clearly, that I suggested that, added on to the "Dingodile was created by Cortex or Brio", a footnote EXPLAINING the issue without wasting a lot of space. If you check some of the other articles, they explain notes/confusion without going into a great deal of detail. It's just like adding a quote. Just remove the brackets and add a footnote explaining the issue. Or better yet, remove the brackets, add them in again as shown "(See below)" or "(As explained further in the article)", THEN add the information. Certainly, the bit saying "There is some confusion over Dingodile's creator" isn't needed, firstly because it contradicts the brackets and secondly because their isn't confusion...we know that he has been created by Cortex or by Brio. Yes, there are two suggestions, but that does not suggest confusion.


 * Again, I say Wikipedia is not a paper encylopedia. Wasting space is not an issue here. There is confusion, we don't know who his creator is, Cortex or Brio. Also, in this version, there are no brackets to contradict. It has the exact same info as the one you want implemented, amd it's more informative. Your version would have "Created by Dr. Neo Cortex or Dr. Nitrous Brio" which is pretty bad writing. This version is better.

I'd like to think you actually read this suggestion fully next time.'''
 * Since you have clearly not read a thing I wrote, I'll say it again in bold lettering...'''If you checked again, you'd see, quite clearly, that I suggested that, added on to the "Dingodile was created by Cortex or Brio", a footnote EXPLAINING the issue without wasting a lot of space. If you check some of the other articles, they explain notes/confusion without going into a great deal of detail. It's just like adding a quote. Just remove the brackets and add a footnote explaining the issue. Or better yet, remove the brackets, add them in again as shown "(See below)" or "(As explained further in the article)", THEN add the information. Certainly, the bit saying "There is some confusion over Dingodile's creator" isn't needed, firstly because it contradicts the brackets and secondly because their isn't confusion...we know that he has been created by Cortex or by Brio. Yes, there are two suggestions, but that does not suggest confusion.

I'd also like to think that you're not just ignoring what I say simply because you want what you put and you don't want this argument resolved.


 * Honestly, what is the difference? Wasting space is not an issue on Wikipedia. Having "Dingodile was created by Dr. Neo Cortex or Dr. Nitrous Brio" is bad writing. We do not know who the creator is, so it really should not be mentioned at the outset of the article. It should be mentioned later. Again, wasting space is not an issue on Wikipedia. So, what is the problem? Why is a footnote necessary when we can explain it in the article itself?


 * ...which, yet again, shows that you have NOT read my suggestion clearly, if at all. If you even tried to do this, which you obviously have not, you will see that it is MORE to that than your version, which, as you said, is bad writing. Seriously, are you simply refusing to end this argument because you know it is not the article you want it to be?


 * I read you suggestion, and I explained why I don't like it or feel it's needed. Did you read what I wrote? Because you haven't addressed anything I brought up. Like the fact that the version you want implemented would be pretty badly written. Or the fact that since Wikipedia is not a paper encylopedia, wasting space is not an issue, making your problem with it null and void. Footnotes are not necessary when it can be explained in the article. Since we don't know who his creator is, we really shouldn't have it in the outset of the article, the issue should be mentioned later.


 * I do not think you are reading what I am saying...I'm saying, quite clearly, that a footnote could easily do because I have seen other pages on Wikipedia that explain minor details like that on them, yet you still insist "Wikipedia is NOT a paper encyclopedia, space doesn't matter!"...which has nothing to do with ANYTHING as to what I'm saying. Your reasons for a rant over a possible misprint are null and void as well. I mean, look at the articles for Coco and Fake Crash...no one knows who created them, but they don't go ranting and raving on about it. They just list the options. There was nothing to stop you saying "His creator is unknown, but it has been stated that he was created either by Cortex or Brio. It should be noted, however, that he has only ever been shown working for Cortex". I also do not think you are reading what Zzuuzz is saying either...that NEITHER of our current edits are satisfactory. I am trying to come up with a more neutral one, all you are posting is your old "unsatisfactory" one...which says a lot really.


 * The article should not have the sentence "Dingodile was created by Dr. Neo Cortex (reference manual) or Dr. Nitrous Brio (reference manual)" because that's bad writing. It would have to be mentioned on it's own, but then you have to mention what the confusion is, and then you end up with pretty much exactly what the current version is. If we remove the "trivia" section, and simply absorb the paragraph into the article proper, I'd be fine with that.


 * ...which AGAIN shows that you are NOT reading what I am putting. Try actually reading BEFORE you rant and rave over the fact that you must be right all the time, which you are not. Until you actually READ what I have put, I will not take you seriously. There is NO confusion over Dingodile's creator, get over it.


 * Seems you're the only one insisting you're right here. I read everything you wrote, so stop using that as an excuse not to form a decent argument.


 * It is obvious that I am reading both what you and Zzuuzz are writing...which is WHY I am also trying to find an alternative way of putting what has already been worded. My suggestion is new and explains the problem. Yours is the typical "NO, I MUST BE RIGHT!" demand of the original idea you had, suggesting that the only person insisting that they must be right is you. I've given you numerous suggestions as to how the article could be re-worded, but each time, you've gone "NO, I WANT MY VERSION BECAUSE I MUST BE RIGHT!!!"...well, look at what Zzuuzz has written and stop acting so immature. Sheesh. Trying to come to an agreement with you is like talking to a self-centred parrot.


 * When Zzuuzz said neither version was satisfactory, I do not believe he was commenting on the quality of the versions. He was commenting on the fact that we keep reverting each other's, so neither could be used if that continued. Keep that in mind. Now, if you're simply trying to find an alternative way of saying the exact same thing as written, then it's clear all you're concerned about is implementing a version that's yours. For the record, you've given ONE suggestion as to how it could be reworded, and I've explained why I feel it's worse than the current version. What else ya got?


 * For the record, I've given several suggestions as to how the article could have been re-worded, and every single time, you've refused them in favour of your cluttered article, once AGAIN proving that you did not read all that is put. Did you not see my comments about the Coco and Fake Crash articles? No one rants and raves about THEM, even though we do not know THEIR creators. If I am simply trying to find an alternative way of saying the exact same thing, as you call it, as written (without the pointless information), it is clear that I am taking the advice of Zzuuzz and trying to improve the article so that arguments like this do not occur in the future. If you're simply trying to defend YOUR article, it's EXTREMELY clear that you're only concerned about implementing a version that is yours...just like you are doing on the Aku Aku page at the moment...forcing your opinions/personal beliefs.

What is it about an article stating something along the lines of "His creator is unknown, although it has been stated that it was either Doctor Neo Cortex or Doctor Nitrus Brio. However, he has only ever been shown in service to Cortex or working on his own accord" you are incapable of accepting? The fact that it isn't YOUR version? Try another excuse next time. I mean, it certainly isn't biased and states the full facts in a simple statement.


 * I would be fine with "His creator is unknown, although it has been stated that it was either Doctor Neo Cortex (reference the manuals) or Doctor Nitrus Brio (reference the manual)".


 * OK...then I think we could possibly state that he has only ever been shown working with Cortex or (in the case of Twinsanity) on his own accord, just to point out all the details. After all, saying he works for "Insert character here" doesn't mean he was created by that character, does it?

Category
Doesn't the category "Fictional dogs" fit into this article?

Titans?
Dingodile isn't in Crash of the Titans, is he? I've never seen him in the game, but somewhere in the article is says something about his tail being different in Crash of the Titans. Anybody know? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.214.156.164 (talk) 21:02, 4 April 2008 (UTC)