User talk:WindStar7125

Apology
I know that we are getting into the bad start and I apologized about all of the misunderstanding. It's just that I was, you know, jealous about all the praise that the Villains Wiki has more than the Heroes Wiki. I was trying to bring more contributors to join the Heroes Wiki. Again, so very sorry about copying from most of your sources. Do you ever forgive me? I won't do it again?--AlexHoskins (talk) 01:48, January 4, 2015 (UTC)

Lightning confirmed
I know Magnet Release has been a heated topic around here but me saying its speculation is correct and was a valid reason to bring up as even Seel noted the similarities in the situation. The way you replied was very intimidating and out of character to what a mod should act like. --Sarutobii2 (talk) 20:17, January 5, 2015 (UTC)
 * I completely understand where your coming from in attempting to stop magnet release causing unnecessary drama. Ive completely stayed out of the discussions involving it and just accepted that's its wind/earth and Gaara's not a user. The only thing i was against in the databook was Tobi's name but im cool with it now. Just wanted to give you the heads up because if i was a new user not knowing you, i would swear you had it in for me. But again, apology accepted :) --Sarutobii2 (talk) 22:30, January 5, 2015 (UTC)

re: cumbersome articles
It occurs to me I didn't respond to your message. Most of the wiki follows a picture-per-paragraph policy. I don't agree with it, but at this point I don't see what can be done about it directly.

Indirectly, the number of paragraphs can be reduced by shortening sections. Each paragraph would probably continue to have its own picture, but if there are fewer paragraphs then there are, overall, fewer pictures. Problem solved? ~SnapperTo 20:22, January 6, 2015 (UTC)


 * It's not an official policy. It's just so common around the wiki that it's basically de facto.
 * I wouldn't say sections should be "as brief as possible", because it's possible to make the whole section only a paragraph long. But they can be shorter than they are. To use an example:
 * In the former version of Minato's article, the World War summaries included a total of 14 images. Not every paragraph had an image, but the number was still 14.
 * In the current version of Minato's article, the World War summaries include a total of 10 images. Admittedly every paragraph now has an image, but the number is only 10. And the summaries are shorter to boot.
 * You can try to simply remove images, and I'd support the effort. But it's inevitable that somebody's going to come along and add more images to accommodate all the content. If you slim the content down, though, then it will be almost impossible for people to add images back because there's simply no room. ~SnapperTo 00:05, January 13, 2015 (UTC)
 * As loathe as I am to admit it, it may be necessary to just use tabs or drop downs for summaries for the more troublesome articles. The ones that are long but we can't really do much with because the users tend to get agitated if this little detail is not mentioned.--TheUltimate3 Eye of Rikudō.svg (talk) 00:28, January 13, 2015 (UTC)
 * Ideally, better. What we have on the Zetsu page is for lack of a better phrase, pure shit and only exists to make the "Zetsu are one people" camp happy (I was one of them, but I was and still not pleased with the results). Ideally, a drop down thing like on the Bleach Wiki could be used, where it can hide large portions of an article, but it's still there so people can easily edit it. Because nothing is a ball kicker than trying to edit a character arc and having to go through 2 different threads to do so.
 * Troublesome articles are the obvious ones. Naruto, Sasuke, Tobi, Madara, ect.--TheUltimate3 Eye of Rikudō.svg (talk) 00:51, January 13, 2015 (UTC)
 * First things first the content needs to be compressed, if I had my way. Naruto vs Sasuke's last fight was 4 paragraphs, and goes on to detail just about every move the two of them did. The rest of the article is just as stupid and this is repeated on just about every character's articles. None of that is needed. If we can do that, and make sure that actually sticks however would be a great benefit.--TheUltimate3 Eye of Rikudō.svg (talk) 01:18, January 13, 2015 (UTC)


 * I don't agree with the complete removal of sections. It's lazy, for starters; nobody wants to actually do the work to make the article shorter, so they just cut stuff out unilaterally so they can feel like they're making a difference. It's also in direct contradiction to the wiki's goal of documenting the series by, like, not documenting it.
 * In short, I do not support the removal of information strictly because it happens in the anime, and would theoretically like to see all of the removed content restored. ~SnapperTo 00:06, January 17, 2015 (UTC)
 * I believe the original reason the sections were left blank is because nobody actually wanted to write the summaries. Over time, people mistook that to mean that there weren't supposed to be any summaries at all. ~SnapperTo 00:20, January 17, 2015 (UTC)
 * Effort? ~SnapperTo 00:26, January 17, 2015 (UTC)
 * I would say no, of only because not every instance of "in the anime" leads to an summary of an anime only arc. Sometimes the anime expands on this and that and those are fine. It was when it became entire paragraphs based on the anime only articles that become cumbersome.--TheUltimate3 Eye of Rikudō.svg (talk) 01:40, January 17, 2015 (UTC)

Chat
I understand that you are extremely busy now. However, if you see this, please join the chat. Reply to this message when you are on the chat, please. Thanks. --Sajuuk Talk Page 19:05, January 10, 2015 (UTC)

Uhmmm..
I just noticed you have blanked your userpage, removed the talkpage header, even your avatar and stripped your signature to basics... what's up? Talk on chat if you wish... --Sajuuk Talk Page 23:14, January 12, 2015 (UTC)
 * Alright then. I know you recently got made a forum operator, but I don't know whether it'll be meaningful if your motivation for editing/modding has been affected. Not saying that you shouldn't be one, but maybe it'd be better to be returned to forum moderator and not have the pressures of being a forum op.
 * The chat would've just been about something minor and wouldn't have taken much time but I respect your wishes. --Sajuuk Talk Page 23:29, January 12, 2015 (UTC)
 * By "pressure", I meant that I don't want you to feel like you need to be here just because you are a forum op. I don't want the wiki (and by extension, the forum op flag) to make you slip in your studies or things like that (that happens to me regularly and I don't want that to happen to other users).
 * Assertiveness is somewhat important for the forums these days: if you didn't see, I had to reclose a thread that a sysop decided to reopen (and we both know what happened when a sysop reopened threads I closed ;)), so I need another forum op who can assert my side of the argument. That isn't to say that not being assertive is bad, but it does mean that I will feel lonesome and my decisions will likely be disrespected as a result. :/ --Sajuuk Talk Page 23:45, January 12, 2015 (UTC)
 * I know you've not thrown it all away. ;)
 * You might want to assist in trying to explain to a "certain" sysop why this thread needs to be closed. --Sajuuk Talk Page 23:53, January 12, 2015 (UTC)
 * JFYI: I already called him out on that trolling he was doing in the chat. ;) --Sajuuk Talk Page 00:19, January 13, 2015 (UTC)
 * It's interesting to note they are allowed to moderate them. However, in just about every case, the moderation is done inappropriately (the exception would be Jacce who moderates appropriately) and results in problems because they're either deleting spambot threads (instead of reporting to VSTF to let them deal with it), or reopening discussions and not caring for the end results of reopening discussions that should stay closed (you know what I'm referring to here) A few have made it clear that because I was the one to suggest opening up the forums to more discussions, that it's my responsibility to moderate them, so yeah... --Sajuuk Talk Page 00:42, January 13, 2015 (UTC)

content
It'd be nice if you'd wait a bit before yelling at users. im trying to add info. the page isn't loading properly. Munchvtec (talk) 04:11, January 13, 2015 (UTC)
 * It's a lot harder now that when i go to create a page it starts me off on blank instead of giving me options like, jutus, team, place etc. my home computer won't let me upload a template for the infobox. Munchvtec (talk) 04:17, January 13, 2015 (UTC)
 * There is the page better now? Munchvtec (talk) 04:35, January 13, 2015 (UTC)

New Form
Regarding the form for creating new pages, I attempted to use it the first time I tried creating a new page, but the form lacked a "location" category, which was what I trying to create. Is it possible someone could add location to the forms for these that way we would have to go through with this? --Tuxedo12 (talk) 05:58, January 13, 2015 (UTC)

Re: 21 Ways to Save the Day
Thanks so much for the quick response! Grace (profile)•(talk) 20:55, January 13, 2015 (UTC)

Reminder
Just a small reminder: Manual_of_Style "Do not make edits that do absolutely nothing to change the appearance of the page when it is rendered, such as adding or removing a space between paragraphs, adding underscores in spaces when including an image onto an article, or removing unused parameters from infobox templates. This does nothing except add pointless edit revisions to the page history and does not improve the wiki." Going around removing the quote marks around the word "true" in gallery parameters is pointless and violates the spirit of the rule above. Whether the quote marks are present or not does not change anything about how it functions. --Sajuuk Talk Page 22:10, January 13, 2015 (UTC)
 * Also, this would not happened had you suppressed the redirect when moving the page (by removing the checkmark from the "Leave a redirect behind" option on Special:MovePage). --Sajuuk Talk Page 22:34, January 13, 2015 (UTC)
 * ^Simply forgot to uncheck it. By the time the renaming process was complete, I instantly remembered and it was too late, therefore tagging it as a candidate for deletion was my only option. --WindStar7125 (talk | contribs) 22:50, January 13, 2015 (UTC)
 * Understandable. Might write some JS code you can add to your js file so it's always unchecked, can't do it this evening though. --Sajuuk Talk Page 22:53, January 13, 2015 (UTC)

Just thought they were...
Since Hagoromo and Kaguya respectfully had them. I thought that since they were members of the Otsutsuki Clan, those Dojutsu were also part of it.--SuperSaiyaMan (talk) 01:36, January 15, 2015 (UTC)

Hey :)
So, um, are you up for chat? --Hisana456 (talk) 04:38, January 15, 2015 (UTC)

Tailed Beast Powers
I remember reading somewhere on the wiki that Kishimoto said the jinchuriki retain the powers bestowed on them by their tailed beast should they hypothetically survive extraction, using Gaara's sand manipulation as an example. Do you happen to know if there is a verification and/or citation for this? Arawn 999 (talk)

Naruto - Six Path Sage Mode
yo That sage of six paths is incorrect I can show you my work on it thus far in the Narutobase.net forums thread There is no information stating it combines all nine tailed beast chakra, but merely allows Naruto to use it. http://narutobase.net/forums/search.php?searchid=3434255 Alsoo Could we fix that image?

Re: Explosion Release natures
No idea, sorry. • Seelentau 愛 議 18:43, January 16, 2015 (UTC)
 * Take care that no one decapitates you for that. x) • Seelentau 愛 議 19:16, January 16, 2015 (UTC)
 * …sorry for butting in. Deidara's explosive techniques being made with Earth Release was stated by Sasuke in chapter 361, page 13. However, about Lightning Release, well, that has no source whatsoever, though it can be understood by exclusion since Earth Release has been combined with Fire (Lava), Wind (Magnet) and Water (Wood), so Lightning (Explosion).--JOA2019:17, January 16, 2015 (UTC)
 * How was it hinted at?--JOA2019:24, January 16, 2015 (UTC)
 * I still don't understand how Sasuke diffusing Deidara's bombs with Lightning counts as "proof" of Explosion=Earth+Lightning.(Acting like a jackass isn't bad. Being an asshole is.)--JOA2019:33, January 16, 2015 (UTC)
 * …Ironically, the same ref I gave you.JOA2020:03, January 16, 2015 (UTC)

re: f
Thread:128764 ~SnapperTo 05:26, January 18, 2015 (UTC)
 * re: f → ref.
 * ref → re: f.
 * re: f ←→ ref.
 * ~SnapperTo 05:45, January 18, 2015 (UTC)

KinGin Kyoda Article
So, what can I add to the page. I was mainly editing, as before the edit, it was theorized that the two characters weren't even related, and that they're merely friends with a group name gimmick. But supposedly that's ok to add, but not that they could be half-siblings? So, mainly I think that should be taken off, regarding them not even being brothers, and just sharing a group name. Because they are called brothers in Kishi's summary, and both are stated as being related to Rikudou. So, they may not be twins, but saying they aren't brothers seems like a stretch. JasmineFlower (talk) 06:08, January 19, 2015 (UTC)JasmineFlower

I understand. I won't put they';re half-siblings. But isn't it a mere theory that they are not brothers, and simply using a team name? They are called "The Gold and Silver Brothers." but my thing is, saying "It's just a team name" seems to imply they may not be brothers, which we don't know. So having that tacked on the end would be a theory. So their ages being different is true. No question. But them not being brothers is not been proven true. Because there are many variables. So saying they're half-siblings, seems no different than saying they're not even brothers. So, really, the trivia info should probably just stop after revealing the different ages, then letting fans draw their own conclusion, rather than putting the theory of "their status as brothers is just a name." it's mainly that last sentence, that I think should be removed. But all the other things are great. The Gold and Silver "Brothers." Because they could have been named, by Kishi as Gold and Silver "team", "duo", "pair", "demons", etc. So, the "just a team name" has room for lots of doubt as well, which seems it would put that statement in theory territory.

Not trying to be a pest, troll or make enemies. The site and info is always fine. Just this here is where I see a glitch. JasmineFlower (talk) 06:37, January 19, 2015 (UTC) JasmineFlower

My apologies. I rarely see need to edit. Just that last part seemed incorrect, and biased, since it was allowed to be said they may not be related, but not allowed that they could be half-siblings. Both are equally theorized, thus both should be omitted. So, that was my issue. And when you stated not to add theories to the content, I went back, and erased the last sentence, because that seemed like a mere theory as well. But I see it has been edited, and the theory about the team name, and possible non-relation has been fixed. So, it seems to be at a good stopping point, "dissuades them as twins" then fans can just draw their own conclusion. So I am good. You won't see any other messages from me.JasmineFlower (talk) 07:32, January 19, 2015 (UTC)JasmineFlower

Thanks!
I believe I just did ^_^ Oh, and sorry for abruptly going off, an 'emergency' happened (awkward one) Thank you! --Hisana456 (talk) 08:55, January 19, 2015 (UTC)
 * Assistance? Ok, you're up! And don't mind my dorkiness. --Hisana456 (talk) 07:58, January 20, 2015 (UTC)

Re: Well then...
Indeed. I will no longer play audience in that chat unless I choose to. The BanHammer template is me trying and failing at making a UserBox. I wanted to have an ascii image of mjolnir but wikia doesn't like ascii it seems. Also I can't find one.--TheUltimate3 (talk) 21:40, January 19, 2015 (UTC)

re: classifications
Generally, the wiki has had a problem in the past with users adding speculative classifications to jutsu, changing the rank or other such vandalism. Since the edits were widespread, I used rollback on all but one edit, which was intended to clarify the various rollbacks. Elveonora then clarified why the edit was made, but I only checked the recent diff, which showed the classification being added. There is nothing to be confused about here, I just think you are overthinking what other rollbacks are doing, assume good faith ;)

On a related note, please join chat when you are able. Thank you. --Sajuuk talk 22:33, January 20, 2015 (UTC)