User talk:Neo Bahamut

Welcome
Welcome to Bleach Wiki! Thanks for your edit to Runuganga page, and thanks for joining our community! There's a lot to do around here, so I hope you'll stay with us and make many more improvements.


 * Recent changes is a great first stop, because you can see what pages other people have been editing, and where you can help.


 * Questions? You can ask on the "discussion" page associated with each article, or post a message on my talk page!


 * Need help? You can find it right here! You can also find a full list of help pages here.


 * Don't know what to do? The Community Portal has an outline of the site, and has links to pages to get you started!


 * Please sign in every time you edit, so that we can recognize you!


 * Here are some more pages you might find useful:


 * Policy - follow this to ensure harmony on the wiki
 * Manual of Style - a guide to how articles here are organized and written
 * Spoiler Policy - follow this to not ruin upcoming stories for those yet to read or watch the new chapter or episode


 * Sign your name in discussions by typing ~ , which automatically adds your signature and the date, so we know who's talking!

Please leave a message on my talk page if I can help with anything! -- Yyp (Talk) 16:57, 15 May 2010

Isshin
I dont plan to continue this argument anymore then has already been discussed. The point being you cant determine something cause you dont agree with it. If the anime shows something different then it will be changed as of now the manga shows a physical act during a fight plan and simple. That is the way it has always been done with no problem. Your argument amounts to little more than having a section of the fight as well as its happening to be nonexistent with Isshin and Aizen fighting and next thing Aizen is flying back and crashing into buildings with no explanation. It also sets the stage for you to make other arguments that would only add in deconstructing the sight, insisting that barriers are not kido and the like as you have previously. Contrary to what you may think that is not helping the sight any. There is plenty of work to do here and it seems that your only interest is making arguments instead of actually helping. The point being it is largely determined as a physical attack and with minor users believing it Kido even though it fits no such criteria. This is the official stand you can choose to agree with it or not. Salubri (Talk)  23:16, August 4, 2010 (UTC)

I did not insist that barriers are not Kido. That's an example of you not bothering to read my arguments & straw manning them into something else. For example, the Speculation Policy dictates that it should be removed. I quoted it at you, yet you're ignoring that just so you can claim that I only want to change it "because I disagree with it." This is moronic, frankly. How is my opinion at all supported by putting a neutral statement in that article? For that matter, why would I be putting up with all of this red tape nonsense just to say that you're full of crap? I believe I've already done that!

Well, here's the problem, Salubri: I can see the logic flaw on that page. I can go in & change it easily, but it won't stay unless I can get the admins to side with me. However, said admins refuse to acknowledge a word of what I'm saying. You want me to help? Then you have 2 choices: Actually REFUTE my arguments & submit some compelling logic of your own. If you do this, I will cease activity on that page, just like I did on the Gotei 13 article. Alternatively, you could concede that my logic is sound & that your "official stance" is in direct violation of your own speculation policy, & let me make the change. Attempting to guilt trip me is neither of these things.

The fact of the matter is that the Speculation Policy states, verbatim, what I told you should be done. The only logical reason I can think of for you continuing to argue against me is that YOU do not want it changed because the logical decision is neutral, rather than allowing YOUR opinion to remain in effect. The manga does not show a physical attack. If it did, there would not be a debate.[Points 1 & 2 of the SP]. Deal with it. Also? Site. Not sight.Neo Bahamut (talk) 23:42, August 4, 2010 (UTC)

Ok you wanna argue facts what is taking place in that scene and what would you put there instead seeing as you claim there is a neutral way of putting it. Salubri (Talk)  23:51, August 4, 2010 (UTC)

The narrative of the battle just says, "Isshin flicks his finger, which has the effect of sending Aizen through 2 buildings." I don't see any speculation here, do you? If that is kept but the example in the abilities section is removed, it's fine. Alternatively, if it MUST stay in the abilities, it can be rephrased like this & used as evidence of his Immense Spiritual Pressure, instead, since that's technically true no matter what he's doing. Personally, I think that the latter option is a bit of a stretch, but you seem pretty insistent that it stays in the Abilities section.Neo Bahamut (talk) 00:02, August 5, 2010 (UTC)

If your using the speculation policy, which in this case it is not used commonly as this is about canon material not made up material. Other then that section of the powers and abilities section isn't providing anything wrong in what it says. I also think you misunderstand the idea of how the powers and abilities section works. Any physical feat is considered akin to strength. There is many determinations on how to qualify spiritual energy/pressure mostly never show cased as a means of combat. They lock swords Isshin flicks his finger against his arm and Aizen goes flying back into some buildings. You can make all the determinations you like the general consensus is its a physical attack unless clearly shown different in the anime. The information in the powers and abilities section will not be removed. If your intention was to assert that it was kido or spiritual pressure thats speculation as there is no way to know that or prove it but saying that there is no way to know what is clearly shown in the manga is not speculating its working with the information your given, there is nothing far reaching about the current information up. Salubri (Talk)  00:47, August 5, 2010 (UTC)

Those 2 points state that they're about "Conclusions derived from Canon factoids which are in dispute." Ergo, it applies. And even if directed spiritual pressure is considered a strength attack, that doesn't change the fact that it's also been interpreted as Kido. Since the points specifically state that a statement is to be made preferring neither interpretation, in the case of a disagreement...well, you get the idea. Now, perhaps I have not made myself clear enough. In that case, some ALL CAPS is required: I AM "ASSERTING" THAT THE LOGICAL THING TO DO IS TO CONCLUDE THAT NEITHER OF US KNOWS WHAT HAPPENED IN THAT IMAGE & PRESENT IT AS SUCH. NOWHERE HAVE I EVER SAID THAT IT SHOULD BE CHANGED TO KIDO. I HAVE SAID THAT I THINK IT IS KIDO, BUT IT IS DISENGENOUS & DOWNRIGHT INSULTING TO ASSUME THAT I CANNOT SEPARATE SUBJECTIVE & OBJECTIVE ANALYSIS. I WOULD APPRECIATE IT IF YOU'D STOP CRAMMING WORDS DOWN MY THROAT. Get it? Got it? Good. Anyway, the fact is, there remains a decent chance that the Powers & Abilities section IS providing incorrect information. In that case, you're telling your readers something when there's reasonable doubt as to the accuracy of the statement.Neo Bahamut (talk) 01:07, August 5, 2010 (UTC)

Well you complain about having no admin on your side and at least two occasions decided to be condescending toward me regardless of me agreeing with you or not. Im actually being nice about addressing this issue seeing as i dont have to make any argument at all if dont choose to or even bother with this issue. The basic idea here is that if you can get the majority of the committee on the side of stating until proven otherwise listing it as a physical attack isn't right. Then something will be done to make a change otherwise I have nothing else to say on this point. Salubri (Talk)  01:28, August 5, 2010 (UTC)

Look at it this way: You insinuated that I was trying to push some personal agenda FIVE TIMES before I felt the need to go into ALL CAPS Mode. But, whatever, I guess it's in the past. Continuing to scale the red tape, how do I find this comitte?Neo Bahamut (talk) 01:54, August 5, 2010 (UTC)

Community in the side bar - then policy and standards committee, either individual members or the talk page for the committee. Salubri (Talk)  02:27, August 5, 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. Now, I'm off to see the wizard!Neo Bahamut (talk) 02:35, August 5, 2010 (UTC)

Re: Isshin's Zanpakuto
I have gone back and had a look at the chapter where Isshin performs the Getsuga Tenshō and to be honest, given that you really don't see much of the blade itself, I cannot with confidence state that release doesn't alter the blade at all. Significantly, you never see the top half of the blade. Without seeing the whole of the blade, I personally would not support an assertion that Shikai doesn't change Engetsu at all. So at this point, I think the article is best left the way it is. Tinni  (Talk)  12:49, August 5, 2010 (UTC)

Not 100% sure why you put that here, but point taken.Neo Bahamut (talk) 14:01, August 5, 2010 (UTC)


 * That is how we communicate. When someone leaves a message on your talk page, you generally reply on their talk page. There might be special reason why you would keep the communication on your talk page. But generally, you reply to them on their talk page. Tinni   (Talk)  14:20, August 5, 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't know, I find sticking to a single page to be far simpler. Say, is there any way to get a topic deleted? Because I made something of an ill-advised forum topic while working out what to do about a particular editing conflict.Neo Bahamut (talk) 16:59, August 5, 2010 (UTC)

Re: Saigyoku Nijigasumi
First of all, those three are exceptions. They have obtained Bankai and it has been confirmed. Second, I dropped that subject a long time ago, so don't bring it up again. Third, Ichinose was not of captain-level, and it has not been confirmed whether he has Bankai or not. And finally, your post glitched up a few parts of the talk page. Gold3263301 (talk) 03:53, August 10, 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, that's my problem. You closed it after a single response & didn't even consider all of the facts. The name is in Bankai format. And since when does it make sense to brush away counterexamples JUST because they're counterexamples? Also, don't blame me for your computer problems.Neo Bahamut (talk) 15:08, August 10, 2010 (UTC)


 * Right, before this gets out of hand, let me say unequivocally that as far as we are concerned. Saigyoku Nijigasumi is not a bankai. No more then Kinshara Sōkyoku Dai Jūichiban - Izayoi Bara or Yūkōjōchū Muramasa is. Maki Ichinose did not say bankai and therefore, any suggestion that it is his bankai is speculation. In addition, Gold3263301 did not close that discussion (people really need to get out of the habit of thinking the last person who responds is the one who closes the topic), he does not have the authority to do so. The admin did. In short, drop it - its not up for discussion.  Tinni   (Talk)  15:18, August 10, 2010 (UTC)
 * Hey, I followed the most obvious conversation thread. What, exactly, do you expect people to do when the discussion is tabled like that? You call it "speculation," but I don't see the difference. EIther way, you're making a decision on what it is. The most obvious decision to me would be to go with Bankai, because of the naming format. Kinshara blablabla does not share the same format nor does it really change. As for Yukojochu Muramasa, that's a separate issue entirely. I don't know jack shit about the Zanpkauto Unknown Tales Arc. If someone else wants to tackle that issue, I say, let them.Neo Bahamut (talk) 15:42, August 10, 2010 (UTC)

It is not Bankai. Did you hear him say Bankai before he used it? No, and that is because it is not bankai. You keep bringing up old issues that have been decided and try and change them. THEY HAVE BEEN DECIDED UPON. He was a lieutenant and therefore, for all we know, never achieved Bankai. This is the policy of this site. We list all lieutenants as having not achieved Bankai unless it has specifically been said that they have.--God (Pray)  15:48, August 10, 2010 (UTC)

I try to correct logical fallacies regardless of who stamped their respective foot down. So fucking sue me. Hell, the policy was recently re-written just because it supported what I was saying! Frankly, I think you guys should really question why you give people so much shit for trying to fix questionable information because "we already decided." I wasn't aware I was speaking to Tite Kubo. I don't remember what he said. I don't remember what episode it was in, I'm not watching a whole episode for this, & I can't find it on YouTube because of copyright restrictions.Neo Bahamut (talk) 15:53, August 10, 2010 (UTC)

First off watch your mouth. Second, The policy was re written to make it clearer, not because it supported you. You have done nothing but come in here and re-open discussions that had been decided on long ago. It is not a logical fallacy. We are quite democratic on this site. We had all these discussions long ago and they were decided on. You have not presented any new information to overturn our decisions. So I will ask once more, did you hear him say Bankai?--God (Pray)  15:59, August 10, 2010 (UTC)


 * First let me say please watch your mouth profanity is not tolerated here period. Secondly if you dont read the manga or watch the episodes for proof to back your argument then you have no argument. You cant determine something is questionable because your personal belief is that is, where's your proof from the information given that it is. Third the speculation policy wasn't rewritten it says the same thing it has always said, but now it asks for proof from those who would question something without being able to back it and finally to just point something out Maki Ichinose not only didn't say Bankai which is standard of any such use of that release in Bleach. There has not been a instance once of it being used without the statement. But just to clarify what Godisme said it was never stated that he was a lieutenant in the arc, just that he was a member of unknown seated rank. So all in all he wasn't even a lieutenant further making it unlikely he had any significant rise in power.--Salubri (Talk)  16:01, August 10, 2010 (UTC)

I am going to say what I say to most people who decide to challenge us. Find proof or drop it. So far the only proof you have is the "naming format". Expect that it was never codified any where that bankais have to have that naming format. Maki is an anime only character. If the anime studio wanted him to have a bankai, they could have easily given him one without much trouble. In addition, Salubri is absolutely correct. We have had shikai's released without verbalising the command (Komamura, Unohana, Isshin), we have shikai's released without even being told the Zanpakuto name (Iba) but we have never once had a bankai without the word "bankai". Therefore, assuming it is bankai is speculation. It is not for us to determine what is and isn't a bankai. All Maki said was that was the true power of his Zanpakuto. That is all. We double check all our information and most of us go back and check the manga chapters and anime episodes before we open our mouths. It is not a logical fallacy and you are just being deliberately argumentative. Tinni  (Talk)  16:06, August 10, 2010 (UTC)

You know what? I'm done here. What little change I've managed to affect is not worth the bullshit I've had to go through. Someone questions your logic, you just accuse them of trying to start shit. Well, I hope that works out for you, but I'm not tolerating it any longer. You won't see me editing anymore, at least not outside of talk pages & forums. Oh, & about my language? Frankly, if it makes you uncomfortable, you should find a different fandom. Have fun acting like a Continuity Bureau, sorry if I yucked that up for a few weeks.Neo Bahamut (talk) 16:14, August 10, 2010 (UTC)

And how does this change from what you have already been doing? All you have done is question old decisions. If you want us to be nicer than actually contribute to the site. There is a lot that needs to get done. Bringing up old discussions is not being beneficial to the site. Why not actually try and be helpful. I could always use help in the Bleach Wiki:Grammar Corner and then there are always the committee projects Bleach Wiki:Article Improvement Project and Bleach Wiki:Anime Summary Project. Help out and you will like the site a lot better--<font color="black" face="Verdana">God <font color="black" face="Verdana">(Pray)  16:22, August 10, 2010 (UTC)

Echoing <font color="black" face="Verdana">God, that would be different from what you have been doing so far how? I checked your edits and you haven't actually edited a lot of article. Maybe 5 or 6 article edits. Mostly you seem to want to argue close discussions. Which is fine and encouraged because we do get things wrong. But to do so you need some sort of proof. For example, here is me arguing for a change in the classification of Hinamori's Zanpakuto. This is my first failed attempt at getting it changed. It failed because I didn't have proof. Then I found proof and so in my second attempt, I successfully got it changed. In short, bring us proof and we will change it. But if it is just opinion then we must always err on the side of caution. However, in this case, it is actually pretty clear cut. Maki didn't say bankai, therefore, it isn't a bankai no matter what the naming format is - especially when bankai naming formats, or technique naming formats for that matter, are not set in stone. Tinni  (Talk)  16:28, August 10, 2010 (UTC)

Did I stutter? I. Am. Not. Interested. And for the record, if you're going to tell me that I didn't do anything despite all the crap I've been putting up with, you may as well not even ask for my help, because that's no way of going about asking for a favor.Neo Bahamut (talk) 17:08, August 10, 2010 (UTC)

You didn't do anything. So please stop pretending that you did and we are not asking for your help. We are simply pointing out what constitutes "doing something". Bringing up groundless arguments is not "doing something" and you wouldn't have to put-up with anything if you didn't start it. You started stuff, then wouldn't drop it even when things were explained to you. So really, if you had to put up with something, its through your own actions. Tinni  (Talk)  17:18, August 10, 2010 (UTC)