User talk:SuperSajuuk

Notice: The talkpage will be archived when needed.

Re: Block
I tried a warning. Jacce | Talk | Contributions 09:19, January 22, 2012 (UTC)

Blocked. Jacce | Talk | Contributions 16:59, February 4, 2012 (UTC)

Fixed. Jacce | Talk | Contributions 08:48, February 5, 2012 (UTC)

I hope you have noticed the comments about the user, both on his and yours talkpage. I placed the ball in his corner, so let's see what happens. Jacce | Talk | Contributions 18:53, February 5, 2012 (UTC)

Fixed. Jacce | Talk | Contributions 08:16, February 11, 2012 (UTC)

Have you solved the problem? Jacce | Talk | Contributions 20:09, February 29, 2012 (UTC)

I'm on it. I think I can handle it from here. Jacce | Talk | Contributions 19:16, March 1, 2012 (UTC)

Fixed. Jacce | Talk | Contributions 18:39, March 5, 2012 (UTC)

Blocked. Jacce | Talk | Contributions 10:39, March 11, 2012 (UTC)

Fixed. Jacce | Talk | Contributions 13:43, March 17, 2012 (UTC)

Solved. Jacce | Talk | Contributions 14:34, March 25, 2012 (UTC)

Fixed. Jacce | Talk | Contributions 19:21, March 25, 2012 (UTC)

Solved. Jacce | Talk | Contributions 10:41, March 31, 2012 (UTC)

The Narutopedia:Talkpage policy states: ''The Talk page does not belong to the user, it belongs to the community. Users are not allowed to do other actions that hinder users' abilities to send messages to you. The point of archive is to clean up old messages, you may only archive resolved discussions''. Whether or not Kunoichi101 is getting block is not my decision, but the Admins. Though since she has been warn numerous of time, it's most likely she will. White Flash 19:23, May 2, 2012 (UTC)

Re: Delete
Fixed. Jacce | Talk | Contributions 17:07, May 13, 2012 (UTC)

Deleted. Jacce | Talk | Contributions 17:34, May 31, 2012 (UTC)

Re: File:Pein Rikudō.png
There isn't but it's more a case of logic. There is no logical reason to link the page in it's Japanese name if the page isn't also in it's Japanese name. It just comes off to me as a dumb thing to do for little to no reason.--TheUltimate3 (talk) 12:00, August 2, 2012 (UTC)
 * Like I said, it comes off to me as dumb. My opinion. Plus it has always been a problem for me, I'm just hella lazy and haven't actually done anything about it until now.--TheUltimate3 Allied Shinobi Forces Symbol.svg (talk) 12:03, August 2, 2012 (UTC)

Re:Thanks again :D
No problem, mate :D akz!  12:25, August 2, 2012 (UTC)

Signature policy
Hi. Which specific restriction in the Signature Policy is in question?


 * My username is in the signature
 * It should link back to my userpage (albeit blank) and talkpage.
 * I'm using only 1 colour unless you count the blankpage hyperlink colour and blue talkpage colour in which case I'm still using less than 2 colours.
 * I have no pictures.
 * Timestamp is default and automatic I think.
 * I haven't used any Magic words.
 * No line breaks.
 * No nested super or subscripts; only consecutive like yours. I believe this policy is to avoid having users changing the page structure drastically such as having a long staircase pushing other user posts downwards. (It's not my intention to cause such a disruption.)
 * No background or border colours.

Thanks for taking an interest in my signature and I'm willing to correct any valid faults that may arise.

Ageci (talk) 13:14, August 2, 2012 (UTC)


 * My signature directly quoted is this: Ageci (talk).
 * Pay particular attention that there are no nested levels unlike this violation: normal levelsup level 1 sup level 2 (nested)
 * My signature only includes this: sup level 1normal levelsub level 1.
 * Nested is the key word in the policy. What this means is that you cannot have sup within a sup to create sup/sub levels greater than one. Each sup/sub tag is immediately closed before a new sup/sub tag is opened. As I have shown you, I do not have anything nested; only consecutive (one after another) ie 1 sup then normal then sub. To give an example, this is as normal as writing: H2O2.
 * My reference to your signature is that an inefficient person might write ABundefinedC which would visually be the same as AB. In the first case, multiple consecutive sup tags are used but it is still valid and not nested as per the policy. I hope I'm not too provocative in my explanation. My intention is only to clarify the difference between nested and consecutive nothing more.


 * If you're still interested, feel free to test out my wiki code to verify I am correct in a preview. As I have explained above, this nesting policy is to avoid people altering the visual structure of multiple posts to push other posts further down with many sup/sub nested levels. Now if you wish to modify the policy to prevent consecutive or multiple sup and sub uses then I will comply and amend it in line with the new policy change. Thank you again for your interest.
 * Ageci (talk) 14:06, August 2, 2012 (UTC)


 * It's ok! At least I have explained it already so for future reference I can copy paste what I've written for any other eager users.
 * Ageci (talk) 14:17, August 2, 2012 (UTC)

Re: Repeated violations of Talkpage policy
Don't worry, I read them --Aeonophic (talk) 13:39, August 2, 2012 (UTC)Aeonophic


 * Yes, I already did that, I told u I saw what happened. Thank you for heads up --Aeonophic (talk) 13:41, August 2, 2012 (UTC)Aeonophic