User talk:WindStar7125

Archive
You might want to consider archiving your talkpage as it's getting a bit long. To archive, simply hover over the arrow to the right of "Leave Message" and click Archive. Then select the content you want to archive (preferably old discussions) and then hit the Save Archive button. :) --SuperSajuuk Talk Page 16:42, August 16, 2014 (UTC)

Re: Verification on usage of Senjutsu Chakra

 * Okay, Tau (not Seel, right?)
 * Right, Seel isn't even a word in German. Seele would be soul, Tau is dew.


 * Natural energy is an element of senjutsu chakra, correct?
 * Yes, it's the core element.


 * So senjutsu and natural energy are two different, though related, things right?
 * Yes. You can have natural energy without Senjutsu, but never Senjutsu without natural energy.


 * So in the recent Shinobi World War, did Juugo contribute natural energy or senjutsu chakra to Sasuke's Susanoo?
 * Senjutsu chakra. I don't know if you can contribute one of the three energies.


 * And also, only those who have used Sage Transformation can use senjutsu chakra, correct?
 * No, there is no true definition of what Sage Transformation is. Everyone who can gather natural energy and mix it with the other two energies can use senjutsu chakra.


 * Meaning Sage Mode, usage Orochimaru's Juinjutsu, and the Six Paths Sage Technique are all different types of the umbrella term "Sage Transformation," correct (which would explain Madara's ability to use techniques that start with "Sage Art," because of the natural energy of the Ten-Tails)?
 * As stated before, there's no existing manga definition of the term Sage Transformation.


 * And only those who have trained with senjutsu chakra (users of Sage Mode) are regarded as Sages, correct (like Naruto, Hashirama, Kabuto, and unlike Juugo, Madara, Obito, Sasuke, etc)?
 * There's also no manga definition of what a sage is.


 * Sorry for bombarding you with questions but I really need clarification on this.
 * Not a problem.


 * Thanks!
 * You're welcome. :) • Seelentau 愛 議 18:47, August 16, 2014 (UTC)

Chōmei
Listen. You say "don't make pointless edits", I say don't make wrong ones. Chōmei IS written with a macron and I guess you also know why, and it's not female. Writing "SHE" into the article is wrong. And you know it's true. Iloveinoxxx (talk) 20:32, August 16, 2014 (UTC)
 * And because you said to me to sit still, it's perfectly fine to have errors in an article? My edit was not wrong and you know it wasn't. What's wrong is what stands in the article right now. This is not about picking a fight with somebody, this is about deleting wrong statements and you are no help in this regard right now. Iloveinoxxx (talk) 20:40, August 16, 2014 (UTC)
 * One step ahead of you, and you indeed wasted both our time enough already. Have a nice day. Iloveinoxxx (talk) 20:45, August 16, 2014 (UTC)
 * It's as much Sajuuk's job as it's ours. None of us three is an admin, so we're on "the same level". And that does also not mean that we should just jump out of the admin's way as soon as they arrive, even if they could block us any moment. A wiki works by many people working together, not by a small elite trying to smash every newcomer. If I make it "harder for somebody" (and I don't think TU3, who you've mentioned, is bothered by that in any way), people can discuss about it, which is what we are doing right now. Have a nice day too, again. Iloveinoxxx (talk) 21:28, August 16, 2014 (UTC)
 * We maybe, maybe can't correct all faults, but that should not mean we can add new ones, shouldn't it? Yes, Sajuuk is a rollback, which means he can....rollback edits that are purely vandalism. In a case of vandalism, he can use this power and that's a good thing, but it did not come in handy this time as no vandalism was involved. Yes, the topic was big and bad enough to me to take it to your talkpages, because, you know, that's what a talkpage is good for and I did not wanted to have my edits reverted for (in my eyes) no good reason. That you came off as rude did not bug me at all as it's the general tone on this wiki anyway. About the elite thingy....that's a matter of opinion. Surely they are admins and sysops for a reason (they really are), but "smashing newcomers" is not okay and will never be unless these newcomers do willingly vandalism. That's my opinion at least. Iloveinoxxx (talk) 21:54, August 16, 2014 (UTC)

Re:689
Wind, Fire, Lightning, Earth, Wood, and Yin-Yang were stated to belong to TSB. Zetsu was talking about Kaguya when he said "all natures and all kekkei genkai". It makes no sense for him to start listing natures only for him to then say it has everything. She has all kekkei genkai and natures, because, after all, not all kekkei genkai are natures and I highly doubt the TSB are made of Sharingans and Byakugans too. This also confirms she had the Sharingan because that is part of all kekkei genkai. ~ Ten Tailed Fox 06:14, August 20, 2014 (UTC)


 * Wood is its own nature and Zetsu clearly separated wood and earth, so if Kishi wanted water in there, he'd add it in there. We'll have more clarity when Mangastream releases. ~ Ten Tailed Fox Rinnegan Sasuke.svg 06:18, August 20, 2014 (UTC)

Naruto's Relationships
Hello I see from the history page that you un did an edit of mine taking that Naruto heard Hinata and was rushing to her aid. This is unconfirmed and that piece is conjecture Naruto has shown immense sensing power. And Kishimoto has been known to deliberately put acts such as that in order to stir up pairing fans.

First you can take the stink out of that. Second I wasn't talking pairings I was talking editing and proper usage of an encyclopedia page. I would have figured that someone who made so many edits would understand that its wasn't about pairing I was just looking at all the evidence (not just was on one page) and editing something that I didn't think was correct. --Sincerely Morality (talk) 21:03, August 24, 2014 (UTC)

Look I think we are just starting off on the wrong foot. I hold no grudge. I am new to wiki editing and i thought talking to the person who reedited my post would be the appropriate way to go about making sure the article is clean and unbiased (becasue frankly you are right there are to many shippers that make unnecessary edits). I apologise for anything I may have typed that may have offended you and I just felt in your original response you were a little touchy. --Sincerely Morality (talk) 21:17, August 24, 2014 (UTC)