User talk:Cerez365

New Images
The past 3 or 4 images I've uploaded appear as the old version even though under the image summary you can see that I've uploaded a new one. Do you think it's a cache problem, because I've went on three different browsers and the same things happen. ~ Fmakck → Talk → Contributions 00:34, February 14, 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh ok, and one more thing, can you teach me how to make an archive, it's almost about time for me to make one. ~ Fmakck → Talk → Contributions 00:45, February 14, 2011 (UTC)

Re: Block
Fixed. Jacce | Talk | Contributions 07:26, February 14, 2011 (UTC)

Pakura
Why are you editing Pakura page? Stop it. --Faust-RSI (talk) 13:14, February 14, 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't get your point. In English, please. Sorry, if you're not a native-speaker.
 * Common, another dude was deleting changes only because there was no proof of the resemblance (as in Shippuuden movie case). And now you are telling me the pictures are not necessary? This web-page is sure messy.
 * you're calling me noob, yet you haven't add that link to unknown Iwa kunoichi page *facepalm* I don't care about your stupid rules or "methodology", because those are not helping people to see some interesting facts, as simple pictures do. I can't care about you less, but I care about people that reading this wiki and 98% of them don't give a shit about your "methodology". Stop being a little bitch and improve you English - it sucks, really.

Vacuum Wave
I can quite easily cope with you reverting and referring to my edits as fluff, if the information can appear and be justified as unnecessary but on this occassion, would you please mind explaining what you find so unnecessary about mentioning an evident weakness in the technique in question that was even exploited by Sasuke in chapter 477. Blackstar1 (talk) 00:43, February 15, 2011 (UTC)


 * Firstly let me say thank you and to also apologize, as it appears you have misinterpreted what I have said, I was instead referring to the article Wind Release: Vacuum Wave, where I wrote about how the technique could be avoided. I have no issue with the reverts on other pages and had assumed that you had done so for the reasons you stated anyway, however, could you please refrain from remarking "fluff" when correcting or simplifying most of my edits, at least not in every circumstance. I understand your reasons for doing so and on most occasions I'd be the first to admit that it's justified, but I am attempting to temper my writing so it is more available yet you must be able to understand that the term can be used negatively and seeing it repeatedly attached to your edits can quickly become annoying, even if it is intended constructively. Hopefully, I don't give you the wrong impression of myself, I really don't mind criticism but I felt that this needed to be said before a larger misunderstanding occurs. Blackstar1 (talk) 01:18, February 15, 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Blackstar1 (talk) 01:33, February 15, 2011 (UTC)