User talk:Axel Carnage

Hello Axel Carnage, greetings and welcome to the Narutopedia! Thanks for your edit to the User talk:Art-is-a-blast page.

We do hope that you will stay for a long time. Enjoy your stay as we work to become the best Naruto info site out there. BELIEVE IT!

If you're looking for something to do why not look over the Forums or more specifically Narutopedia Collaboration for a list of projects we're working on. And the Community portal has a lot of recent discussions and places to go listed on it.

Please leave a message on my talk page if I can help with anything! -- Dantman (Talk) 05:50, July 9, 2009

Re: Madara/Danzo
It has been up before, and then it has been removed. Until there is some good source for it, it will be removed. And spoiler chapters does not count. Jacce | Talk 06:30, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I understand that. However, this has nothing to do with facts or fiction. I actually put that statement there first (right after that I made an account and then Art-is-a-bang edited it). I thought I'd add it with the Obito theory because it's just a theory fans came up with (which actually is a fact), even before Danzo had any recent screen time. If you're going to edit that out, you might as well edit the Obito theory out too. Axel Carnage (talk) 06:36, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The Obito theory was more likely. Jacce | Talk 06:37, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

That doesn't matter. It's not about what you think or anyone else thinks, it is a FACT that fans came up with an Obito theory and it is also a FACT that fans came up with a Danzo theory. Please don't base things off your own opinion. Axel Carnage (talk) 06:41, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I was talking about the common opinion on the wiki, personally I don't believe in either. For the Obito/Tobi theory: we have the name, the pins in the uniform, only one eye. Danzo however: lacks one hand while Madara has two, Danzo protects Konoha while Madara wants to destroy it. Jacce | Talk 06:46, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh my.... You're still basing things off your opinion. And you'll see in the next chapter why I bothered to even add that theory. I'm going to re-add it once the new chapter comes out. (Holy crap I keep forgetting to add the stupid signature).Axel Carnage (talk) 06:50, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 1; No, I don't have a opinion, I base it on facts. 2; that is pretty much the point of the wiki, adding info when it comes up. 3; Don't trust spoiler chapters, they have been proved to be unreliable. Jacce | Talk 06:52, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

My point is, you cannot do anything in the world to change the sheer fact that fans (you, I, whoever) have made theories that Danzo is Madara. It does not matter if it doesn't come from a source because it's under Past Speculation (which is where the Obito theory is which DOESN'T have any facts whatsoever, it has never said anywhere in the manga/anime that Obito was Madara) the fan-made Danzo theory is a fact itself and should be added if the Obito theory is allowed to be there. Again, it doesn't matter how likely the theory is. A theory is a theory. Axel Carnage (talk) 06:59, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Madara's Disguises..., Hokage. Just don't change anything in Madara's archive, those are old discussions. Jacce | Talk 07:16, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if a theory is a theory. We aren't a comprehensive resource of theories. Fans create theories, just like fans create shipping, just because someone says they have a theory doesn't in any way make it notable enough to be put in a speculation section, just like how we don't list shipping because any shipping anyone says exists, does the moment they say it. ~ NOTASTAFF Daniel Friesen (DanTMan, Nadir Seen Fire) (talk) Jul 9, 2009 @ 16:40 (UTC)

That is the most hypocritical thing I have ever heard. Why in the hell do you have an Obito theory if you're not "comprehensive resource of theories"? You are a hypocrite unless you either add the Madara/Danzo theory under the Obito one or edit out the Obito theory completely.Axel Carnage (talk) 00:17, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Are you serious? You would include speculation FROM FANS on a wikipedia page and not a SPOILER PAGE WHICH IS A HINT FROM THE AUTHOR! You would be banned from any other wiki for such ignorance! The Obito/Tobi speculation if anything should be removed, and every spoiler page fact put in! This is a wikipedia! SKEPTICISM IS LAW HERE! Madarake (talk) 00:31, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Why "in the hell" would including one or two small notes about past theories which were very popular until the manga revealed the facts that confirmed or denied them. People speculated that Pain was Kushina's father, or an Uchiha, but we don't list those. We don't even go into detail about the speculation, every edit adding detail on the Obitobi speculation has been removed. Fans make as much speculation as they do shipping, but you don't see any huge list of those here, I say it again "We aren't a comprehensive resource of theories". Obitobi was a popular founded speculation with points based on facts that were hard to object to up till Tobi was revealed as Madara, and the speculation still persists despite that. And so we include a small note in the article to even it out. The Danzo theory is another wild theory there are dozens of which is founded only by loose connections and wild possibilities not backed by facts. We get dozens of edits adding speculation, we revert them, we only add speculation sections when something had a heavy popularity and a number of the editors feel that despite being false the theory is notable enough for a small note in the article. ~ NOTASTAFF Daniel Friesen (DanTMan, Nadir Seen Fire) (talk) Jul 10, 2009 @ 02:43 (UTC)

The Obitobi crap was just a wild theory as well. This damned silly Danzo Uchiha crap actually has evidence, although I don't believe it, it deserves as much mention as the Obitobi crap if not more for it's evidence. Pure fan speculation is silly nonsense, but when there is damned direct evidence - http://anime-and-manga.info/naruto-455-raw-naruto-455-spoiler/ - even if there is a quarter's chance of being fake it's considered data! Speculatory crap is never considered data. Wikipedia is for data. Madarake (talk) 12:05, 10 July 2009 (UTC)