User talk:Snapper2

uhhhh
Is there any reason why you have unconditionally removed very valid redirects for the old titles? That's a very great way to annoy editors and cause people to recreate pages, especially as now a lot of links off-wiki are now probably broken. I understand the removal of talkpage redirects, but not those of alternate title redirects. Please restore them, they should be left for legacy reasons and redirected to the new titles. --Sajuuk Talk Page 12:16, December 13, 2014 (UTC)
 * Even if that were the case, there is no reason to delete redirects, they contribute no additional space to the database. It's better to simply repoint them to the intended target. The only case where a redirect should be removed is in the case of files, templates, userpages/user talkpages and orphaned talkpage redirects, but mainspace redirects should be left as mentioned previously. --Sajuuk Talk Page 19:17, December 13, 2014 (UTC)

databook
Snapper2, please stop changing the chapter numbers for Fated Battle Between Brothers and Pain's Assault (Arc), the databook information for the arcs have been revised. Please go here for more information: User:WindStar7125/Sandbox. Do not reply to this message. --Sajuuk Talk Page 18:50, December 14, 2014 (UTC)
 * You can draw as many conclusions as you wish, but the fourth databook revised the arc information and the wiki is taking steps to correct the information we already stated. Therefore, your information is now wrong.
 * Please do not revert war, you should know better as a sysop to actually use a talkpage and make your case as to why you think you are right. --Sajuuk Talk Page 18:55, December 14, 2014 (UTC)
 * Hurling abuse at editors? Do you want to lose your sysop flag? It would take me no time at all to make a thread for community consensus on you losing your sysop flag.
 * Also, can you stop being a hypocrite? You told everyone to use a bot to fix links, yet you are mass editing yourself. --Sajuuk Talk Page 19:02, December 14, 2014 (UTC)
 * Shoot, I made a crucial mistake. Fated Battle Between Brothers ends at volume 44, meaning chapter 412. Pain's Assault (Arc) starts at volume 45, meaning 413. Snapper2 is correct. Please, Snapper2, I'm so sorry about that. I take full responsibility for misleading SuperSajuuk. ~• WS7125 [Mod]WindStar7125 Task.svgWindStar7125's Task.svg 19:05, December 14, 2014 (UTC)
 * It's ok Windy.
 * Snapper2, why are you mass editing? Aren't you the one who wants everyone using bots? Stop being hypocritical. --Sajuuk Talk Page 19:17, December 14, 2014 (UTC)

Apology
Snapper2, I'm terribly sorry for making that mistake and causing you to get into it with SuperSajuuk. If this is anyone's fault, it's mine. He was misled by MY mistake. ~• WS7125 [Mod] 19:12, December 14, 2014 (UTC)

Mass editing
Umm... Snapper? I was under the impression you'd rather use bots than mass editing. And you almost blocked Sajuuk for doing so. Can you please explain to me what you're doing by mass editing yourself? ~• WS7125 [Mod] 19:19, December 14, 2014 (UTC)
 * You there? ~• WS7125 [Mod]WindStar7125 Task.svgWindStar7125's Task.svg 19:29, December 14, 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't want to sound too critical of you then, but why do you push for bots to be used for links when users can just utilize "Whatlinkshere" and manually edits links like you and Sajuuk are doing? ~• WS7125 [Mod]WindStar7125 Task.svgWindStar7125's Task.svg 19:41, December 14, 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh, OK then. :) It was just strange to me how you were going to block Sajuuk a month ago for mass editing and not using a bot, then you mass edited yourself just now (In fact, I also did some mass editing myself on Dec 5...) But okay then, I'll leave it alone. ^_^ Again, sorry for the misunderstanding earlier. ~• WS7125 [Mod]WindStar7125 Task.svgWindStar7125's Task.svg 20:06, December 14, 2014 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry
Uh, Snapper? The user you blocked, named MuhammadSarutobi, is at it again with the sockpuppetry. After creating two accounts, he's created a third one. He's not stopping. I've talked to him though. And he's indicated he's not going to stop. Not sure what to do, so I ask this instead: may you please talk to him or something? Maybe he'll listen to a sysop. ~• WS7125 [Mod] 04:33, December 17, 2014 (UTC)

MuhammadSarutobi
Hello. Just thought I'd let you read this. Since you were the one who blocked him, and seemed to sympathize with him a bit, I think the best choice of action is to let you decide what to do.--JOA2006:47, December 17, 2014 (UTC)
 * Never mind, I just read the post right above mine. There's no point now.--JOA2006:50, December 17, 2014 (UTC)

Subs
Hey Snapper2, im not sure who to ask but considering your a sysop and very knowledgeable, do you know how reliable the subs are on CR? I'm only asking this because this wiki sends people to watch their episodes from our episode infoboxs, so i presume their reliable? Im bringing this up because their subs say Kinkaku killed Tobirama and im wanting to know if they subbed it wrong or if the dialog is changed from what is said in the manga. Thanks --Sarutobii2 (talk) 15:10, December 18, 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for clearing things up. --Sarutobii2 (talk) 18:58, December 18, 2014 (UTC)

Ages
Why do you keep changing the ages? Yamato was placed as 26 in the third databook but that was by the event of the Itachi Pursuit Mission. Kotetsu turned 29. Izumo's birthday was in November thus meaning he didn't turn another year older unlike his partner. Naruto turned 17 by the end of Shippūden but the month only followed in October possibly a few days later but not into November. --Rai 水 (talk) 20:56, December 18, 2014 (UTC)

However, Kotetsu's birthday passed in July. Meaning he turned of age 29. His partner would still be 28 since his birthday didn't come yet following the end of the war in Chapter 699. Approximately a year and a half has passed in since the start of Shippūden. Kotetsu would count in the age movement considering his birthday and when the series of Shippūden stopped. As for Yamato, in the third databook he was stated to be 26 but that was following the events of the Itachi Pursuit Mission. Before such events, he would be 25. By the time of the Hidan and Kakuzu Arc, at least half of the year passed. Genma was debuted earlier, at least in the anime and half year later he turned 33, and a year later, 34. Despite Kishi not stating some ages we can make analogies because he messes up a whole lot.

P.S. I'm creating a timeline of my own, hopefully to give a good representation of the events. I know Tau has one but I'll do one for my sake. All in all, I've made good analysis in the time periods and can be very certain of these people's ages, honestly. --Rai 水 (talk) 07:57, December 19, 2014 (UTC)

We are nit correcting the databook, we are updating. So if a character was shown in Part 1, given age 13 even in the databooks, shows up three years later with no age in the databook then do we just ignore it? No, we place what info needs to be placed. Databooks are suppose be helpful with info but no offense to Kishi but he contradicts alot of crap. If you are aware if Naruto's timeline you'd understand. Naruto left in January before the 17th before Gaara turned 14. Two and a half years, meaning Naruto returned in July. Almost 2 years have past since the start of Shippūden. Naruto turned 16 then 17th of October 10th. Kotetsu was 25 when Naruto left and his birthday is in July. Do the math. Kotetsu would have turned 29 by the end of Shippūden. --Rai 水 (talk) 08:07, December 20, 2014 (UTC)

Chat
Join the chat please. It's about a "certain user" who is showing no respect for my requests. --Sajuuk Talk Page 19:32, December 25, 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh come on Spey. Like I said, I at least use a name.--TheUltimate3 Eye of Rikudō.svg (talk) 19:35, December 25, 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't care TU3. Would you like it if you had another name that I persistently used for you that you didn't like and had asked me to stop using? No, you wouldn't. Since you won't listen to me, I'm going to other sysops to get you to stop. --Sajuuk Talk Page 19:38, December 25, 2014 (UTC)
 * This isn't Wikipedia and this isn't about talkpage comments. So your link does not apply at any point here. --Sajuuk Talk Page 11:33, December 26, 2014 (UTC)

Sasuke image
1) Merry Christmas SnapperTwo. 2) Thanks for that SnapperTwo. I couldn't find a good image of Sasuke during his battle with Itachi anywhere. So you'll delete it when I put the deletion tag on it, correct? :P Also, would you mind me uploading this image of Sasuke in his Akatsuki attire? It's an unedited video game image like the rest. ~• WS7125 [Mod] 01:42, December 26, 2014 (UTC)

what
I don't care what the wiki uses, this goes against our naming policy for anime episodes. Crunchyroll, Wikipedia and the OFFICIAL DVD's use "Bee". You using "B" is breaking the naming standards and being inconsistent, not to mention the redirect you have for the REAL title goes to the wrong fucking page. Stop creating double standards. You will not go against the naming standards which we have for anime episodes. --Sajuuk Talk Page 13:45, December 28, 2014 (UTC)

Redirects
SnapperTwo, are there any use for redirect pages such as Sakura Uchiha and Hinata Uzumaki? Shouldn't they be deleted or something? They were never stated. ~• WS7125 [Mod] 23:54, December 30, 2014 (UTC)
 * They should be left. The redirects were created to stop people constantly moving Sakura Haruno and Hinata Hyuga to those titles. Tagging them for deletion will simply cause us problems. --Sajuuk Talk Page 11:30, December 31, 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, "Hinata Uzumaki" was already deleted, so... ~• WS7125 [Mod]WindStar7125 Task.svgWindStar7125's Task.svg 19:00, December 31, 2014 (UTC)
 * It was deleted because Elveonora was reverting movepage vandalism and suppressed the redirect. That technically doesn't count, I've recreated the redirect there to stop further potential "vandalism" and page creations at that title. :P --Sajuuk Talk Page 19:20, December 31, 2014 (UTC)
 * I guess nothing is stopping you from removing the deletion tag I put on "Sakura Uchiha" then. ~• WS7125 [Mod]WindStar7125 Task.svgWindStar7125's Task.svg 19:25, December 31, 2014 (UTC)
 * The pages are all move-protected, so don't keep the redirects on that account. ~SnapperTo 19:15, January 1, 2015 (UTC)
 * There's a chance the redirect titles will be searched for, so it's better to keep them. Plus, if there was no article at the title they're expecting, it's a possibility a page may be created there in error. The redirects -- imo -- prevent the creation of duplicate articles and cover alternate titles. --Sajuuk Talk Page 20:00, January 1, 2015 (UTC)

re: intro
Okay then, just trying to help out. You being a sysop wasn't my only reasoning though. Like I told him (twice already), in Naruto's article, we do not refer to the fox by its name until it is revealed in Part II, just like we don't refer to Tobi as "Obito" until the time period he is revealed Part II in various articles, all due to spoilers (told him this twice). Keeping the consistency and lowering spoilers was my complete reasoning besides keeping what you had. But I'll do as you say and omit that part next time, SnapperTwo.  ~•WS7125 [Mod] 20:56, January 3, 2015 (UTC)

Cumbersome articles
Okay. I do agree with your notion on simplifying a couple things in articles, but I am beginning to get the sense that, in terms of pictures, we're overdoing it a bit. Some articles are just being plain stuffed with photos from the manga. I've decided to remove some. Thoughts?  ~•WS7125 [Mod] 00:56, January 5, 2015 (UTC)
 * Picture-per-paragraph policy? I see. Is there a link to that? As a response to your suggestion: So you're saying that to possibly reduce the number of photos in very long articles like Naruto's or Sasuke's, we should be as brief and concise as possible with words and such?
 * --WindStar7125 (talk | contribs) 23:42, January 12, 2015 (UTC)
 * Understandable. And you are correct, people have added some images back. Thank you for the advice. --WindStar7125 (talk | contribs) 00:10, January 13, 2015 (UTC)
 * I have noticed that in Naruto's, Sasuke's, and Kakashi's articles, the anime-only arcs are omitted to further shorten the article. Would it be valid to do perform the same action to Sakura's article, considering hers is the fourth longest page on this wikia?
 * It is also interesting to note that some anime-only arcs in her article are already omitted, and some are still there.
 * --WindStar7125 (talk | contribs) 04:42, January 13, 2015 (UTC)

restore
Hi, can you possibly restore this thread for me please? Thanks. --Sajuuk Talk Page 19:43, January 10, 2015 (UTC)
 * Jacce has restored the thread. Please do not delete threads like this in future: instead, you need to go to VSTF and report it to them so they may globally block the spammer. The wiki to report this kind of spam is here: w:c:vstf:Report:Spam. Thank you for understanding. --Sajuuk Talk Page 16:15, January 11, 2015 (UTC)

Video game debuts info boxes
I was wondering if you could add a character debut section to the video game articles since it would help. please message me when this is done :) Munchvtec (talk) 04:20, January 12, 2015 (UTC)

edits
i removed dumb unsigned edits that would be better off with out. My edits were valid, you can't go around making reverting stuff that makes you mad. knock it off. you do this all the time. Munchvtec (talk) 19:29, January 12, 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry to butt in, but Muncvtec is right, this policy is only for removing material in the User's talkpages. We have no such policy that forbids removing this kind of material, at least to my knowledge. Sorry If I'm going out of bounds by interrupting your "discussion".--Omojuze (talk) 19:47, January 12, 2015 (UTC)
 * Not to butt in, but the rule regarding "removal of messages" only affects user talkpages. There has never been such a rule for article talkpages, which is why we get to remove messages that were bumping old discussions.
 * Please do not make up rules just to give users warnings because you do not personally like their edits. I see you do this on a fairly regular basis to a number of users, you should know better. --Sajuuk Talk Page 19:48, January 12, 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't even know what to say, so I'm just gonna stay quiet before I get into unnecessary trouble... But before that "Your giving people warning without a legitimate rule or fact, just based on your own beliefs and ideas". Thank you for listening, I'm gonna go get drunk now.--Omojuze (talk) 19:57, January 12, 2015 (UTC)

I removed parts of and whole discussions that where not signed in any way what-so-ever. There was nothing wrong with that. your little warning is invalid big shot. Munchvtec (talk) 21:52, January 12, 2015 (UTC)