User talk:Mangekyo22

Hello Mangekyo22, greetings and welcome to the Narutopedia! Thanks for your edit to the Sakura Haruno 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! -- ShounenSuki (Talk) 10:07, 2010 January 6

Re: Sakura
Because you are basing her confession being "fake" on what other characters have said, not what Sakura has said. While I'm sure she was lying to Naruto, a wiki needs to be impartial. ~SnapperTo 19:17, January 13, 2010 (UTC)


 * What do you mean to be "impartial"?
 * Even Sakura showed that it was fake: chapter 470 - while they leaving Naruto, Kakashi and Yamato she says "I'm sorry Naruto", wich means she realised that it didn't work and she has to try something else.
 * The Forth Raikage's suspection can be impartial, can't be?
 * But then what about "her feelings for Sasuke" section? It is true, no matter how much I read the manga from chapter 245 to 475.


 * Why is written then that Yamato and Sai suspects that her feeling for Naruto is deeper than frinedship, if it was only said by Yamato, and was only a suspection? It wasn't impartial neither, was it?


 * "Impartial" means to report things as they happen. Rather than say "Danzo helped kill the Third Hokage", put "The Raikage suspects that Danzo helped kill the Third Hokage" instead. Rather than say "Sakura was lying", put "According to Sai, Sakura was lying" instead. When Sakura confirms she was lying (which she hasn't yet), your edits will be fine. Until then, please do not try to read Sakura's mind.
 * As for Sai, I believe that's referring to an anime scene. ~SnapperTo 21:10, January 13, 2010 (UTC)


 * So, if I put "according" before what I writte, it'll be okay?
 * I don't want to read a manga character's mind, I just read his/her thougths (Sakura - "I'm sorry Naruto")(Kiba - "This didn't work! Shouldn't we tell him the truth?"), and what people says - after all, everything is from what other characters says. So I leave the mind reading to Naruto + Sai + Kiba + Yamato + Kakashi and to everyone who saw trougth that lie (confession) and then I will always put the "according" sentence before everywhere - and the referrences but I think that is useless.
 * So, can it be work then with this impartial-thing change?


 * That's already being done on Sakura's article (example: "Sai and Kakashi suspect that...", "Sai seems to confirm this, telling Naruto..."). Also, Sakura's thoughts in 470 are open to interpretation; she could be apologizing for lying to Naruto, she could be apologizing for not telling him about the plan, or she could be apologizing because she's going to go kill Sasuke. ~SnapperTo 03:44, January 14, 2010 (UTC)

Chapter 539 + Chapter 540.... so, do you still think, that she didn't lied?

Naruto article edit

 * 1) I never said Sasuke was a member of Akatsuki but that is what is believed by everyone because he has been seen helping them, wearing the mantle etc.
 * 2) Anko? Anko who is unconscious on the cave floor (if Kabuto didn't have his snake swallow her again) And who we don't know whether or not is going to live? I highly doubt she'll be able to report anything in her current state
 * 3) Just because Sasuke is helping Itachi stop Kabuto, doesn't mean Sasuke is back on the "side of good" It's simply a means to an ends for him since he wants to hear the truth from his brother. Since for one, he very much seems to still want to destroy Konoha.

With that said, I believe the paragraph you are deleting is simply speaking about the decision that Naruto has to make in order to save his friend. Nothing that has happened so far has changed this resolve. That's why I don't see a reason to remove it.--Cerez 365 ™(talk) 15:22, April 17, 2012 (UTC)