Talk:Giant Shuriken Apparition

New name, different meat
Before people start thinking that I am just renaming old info (which I have admittingly done once or twice in the past), I would like to say that this time there is new information which I hope will be a form of compromise. Thomas Finlayson (talk) 22:11, September 7, 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not even going to say anything this time. /walksoutdoor --TheUltimate3 (talk) 23:48, September 7, 2010 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. Thomas Finlayson (talk) 00:20, September 8, 2010 (UTC)
 * Everyone says an article is already covered by another article, and your solution is to make another of the same type. I don't see how you would believe that this would not create similar issues. It seems to me you are ignoring the results of discussions. S im A nt  04:45, September 8, 2010 (UTC)
 * Um, not exactly. A lot of the controversity, though not all I admit, seemed to come from the name I chose (I said that on the other talk page), and I did not know how to change it. When I asked Omnibender how to do it I was not clear enough and he thought I was talking about another issue. Plus, I did examine the last discussions and when I made this new page it should have reflected that; do you not see the similiarities? Thomas Finlayson (talk) 04:54, September 8, 2010 (UTC)
 * I see one random person (who has never been back to the wikia after that day) who suggested a name change. I see ShounenSuki suggested the minor details being listed on the summoning technique page. A side note, references that rely on personal interpretation of a image are not good references. S im A nt 05:01, September 8, 2010 (UTC)
 * I do not gather the relevance of the first part (I did not even know someone said to do that). As for the latter part, what is your (thanks for the bold trick) interpretation? Thomas Finlayson (talk) 05:42, September 8, 2010 (UTC)
 * Relevance of first part: "A lot of the controversity, though not all I admit, seemed to come from the name I chose" S im A nt 11:24, September 8, 2010 (UTC)
 * The part about if it is a summoning or not. The second part? Thomas Finlayson (talk) 16:57, September 8, 2010 (UTC)
 * My interpretation (and quite a few others) of these pages you have created is not suitable for me to put on a talkpage. S im A nt 17:31, September 8, 2010 (UTC)
 * I realize that my following statement may, inadvertently, seem nothing more than a childish attempt to provoke those comments, for which I appologize, but...that was not my question. What do you (plural) see happen? Thomas Finlayson (talk) 04:18, September 9, 2010 (UTC)
 * Me thinks you may be a tad delusional or naive... All these pages you seem to think are seperate jutsu, are in fact just different ways of using Generic Sealing Technique. If you will note generic summoning technique was never named or in the databooks, so its abilities include all of these unexplained things that cause objects to appear/disappear using space-time ninjutsu. Anyways this is the absolute last time i'm gonna respond to your "I saw this, and i think it means this, even though i have no real proof" comments, (which will likely get you blocked eventually for using narutopedia as a forum); and as wise TheUltimate3 said, /walksoutdoor S im A nt 12:24, September 9, 2010 (UTC)
 * Not sure about the latter, but not able to comment on the former. Never had the databook actually, so thanks for the tip. In your third sentence do you mean "sealing" though, since summoning is cited. Regardless, I think it is summoning and not sealing, which is why a key part of this article was a compromise. Feel free to not respond, I cannot force you to respond, though I am curious how this is forum use since I am not speculating on what may happen, but reporting something that did happen and everyone seemed to miss. Thomas Finlayson (talk) 16:26, September 9, 2010 (UTC)