Talk:Inuyasha/Archive 5

My edits
Hello, I updated the article and it was reverted back with an summary that did not fit what I changed.

my edits. 1. The article said "powerful demon Naraku" he is a half-demon said in animation and the manga. (in Japanese he is a hanyou) 2. The manga volume 1 page 11-13 is the day before Kagome Higurashi birthday. page 14 is the start of her birthday. The Animation follows the manga. 3. I added this edit because the manga has it 1997 for the English manga version and in the Japanese version it is 1996. "The year is 1996 for the Japanese version and 1997 for the English version." 4. I added "according to the animation" on this because the manga is different. Instead of hitting the bottom of the well, Kagome ends up 500 years in the past (1496) during Japan's Sengoku period according to the animation

I do not understand why the summary said "The series' full title already says it's Sengoku" I did not make that edit. Also, not sure why it was revert. I did revert it fit the manga and animation. I did add a reference.

My sources are the manga and the animation. I was helping the article grow. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Truthseeker1022 (talk • contribs) 19:45, 27 April 2016 (UTC)


 * The general plot doesn't need to nitpick which exact day the series started or the year. The year is clearly meant to be the present time whether it be 1996 or 1997, and Kagome's events occur on her 15th birthday (as with Bloom turning 16 in Winx Club). Also, the half-demon part should only be noted if he is introduced as such. If the character was later revealed to be a half-demon some number of chapters later then you can discuss that in the later part of the plot. AngusWOOF ( bark  •  sniff ) 22:35, 27 April 2016 (UTC)


 * If the series introduction for each episode goes, "It is the year 1996. Kagome...", then you can leave in the year as it is part of the narrative. But I don't remember the series placing such an emphasis in the manga or anime. AngusWOOF ( bark  •  sniff ) 22:41, 27 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Your comment makes more sense than what the summary I got. But I would still had to disagree. I don't think I am nitpicking, just presenting the truth and it is just a lot of fans looks for this information. I wanted to make this article reliable.    My edits: 1.  Naraku is reveal to be a half demon/ hanyou  Manga vol 13 chapter 10, overall chapter 108.  Animation: episode 33. It would be misleading to leave it as it is. Also, that was not in the plot section.  2. The manga and animation starts at on the day before her birthday for pages 11-13 or Episode 1 of the animation. my edit never incited the events happen the day before her birthday. It still incited her birthday.  Netflix: 4:36 Kagome to her grandpa: "Remember what day tomorrow is?" 4:39  Her grandpa to her "How could I forget my dear granddaugther's birthday." as seen on page 12 of the manga.  I had no clue about winx club but I just watched the first section of the first episode. Bloom says "she is already 16"  indicating it is not her birthday not unless it is said later.Which is different from what happens in Inuyasha both manga and animation. 3. The manga volume 1 chapter 1 page 11 said 1997 Tokyo for the English. For the Japanese it says year 1996 Tokyo. Don't think the English animation says the year. The Japanese version may had.  4. It is only for the animation, not manga. Which is misleading. That information does not fit for the manga and the manga never incited the amount of time she went back. 500 years is too much.
 * All my edits enhances the page and makes it more of a reliable source. I wanted to build for a better reliable source. We are suppose to work together and build a better source without misleading. All the information in the edits should be included in the article. Isn't this suppose to present factual information to help others? I don't think this is suppose to mislead others with what I believe are half truths from the manga and animation. My edits are back with the sources and the summaries both reported what I put as vandalism. My edits were constructive and provide factual information to provide a better source. Just because someone made constructive edits does not make it vandalism, only because if someone can't remember what is official information or knew of the knowledge before hand or goes against what someone knows. Not all edits are vandalism. My factual edits were not vandalism. I disagree with both summary edits to my edits. I still believe this information should be in the article. Truthseeker1022 (talk) 01:55, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry but I have to agree with the others that this is extraneous detail. Things like "a day before" or "on her birthday" are not the most important parts of the plot, which should describe the main events of the story to the point. (See: MOS:PLOT) As for the detailing of the differences between different versions, I don't really think it is worth noting here unless the difference is significant, such as in Dragon Ball Z for It's over 9000. (See: MOS:AM) The detail about Naraku being a half-demon is already mentioned in the plot section: "devious half-demon named Naraku". Opencooper (talk) 02:30, 28 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks Is that how you use that? There have been two that has revert the edit and one was about "The series' full title already says it's Sengoku." Which had nothing to do with my edits. I am not sure how you agree with that but okay. I disagree and disagree with the second one. My point was about the content should be there on the page not the in the plot. Even though my edits were in the plot. I can see where your comment comes from but it was not what I meant. So the material should be okay in other places on the article? Because, I don't believe they are extraneous detail since I only correct what was there with verifiable accuracy and definitely was not vandalism. I am sorry to say, the plot now has "The story begins in Tokyo on the fifteenth birthday...." My edit to this and all my edits were to verifiable accuracy. As you said they "are not most important parts of the plot..." However, the information is still there. If the smallest of details that are really there are not important and are half truths how could people consider this a good source? How does this help others? How is half truths presenting the main and "more" important information accurately? How does that make it reliable?  I present information with verifiable accuracy and that is what the articles should strive for. Not when the information contradicts itself, like  the summary have "powerful demon Naraku" and then the plot ""devious half-demon named Naraku."  How does that have a reliable article when the information is not accurate. Again, I only edited what was there which was not in complete accuracy. The information that is there is not verifiable accuracy. Are you agreeing to keep the information where it is not accurate? While this is not important as the rest of the story, it should reflect the sources to have complete accuracy.
 * Article Now: "the powerful demon Naraku"  half accurate.  My edit.  "powerful half-demon Naraku"  Verifiable accuracy
 * Article Now: "The story begins in Tokyo on the fifteenth birthday of Kagome Higurashi, a girl who lives on the grounds of her family's hereditary Shinto shrine with her mother, grandfather and little brother. When she goes into the well house..." half accurate. My edit: he story begins in Tokyo a day before the fifteenth birthday of Kagome Higurashi, a girl who lives on the grounds of her family's hereditary Shinto shrine with her mother, grandfather and little brother.ref Volume 1 Chapter 1 pages 11-14 /ref The year is 1996 for the Japanese version and 1997 for the English version. On the day of her birthday, when she goes into the well house.  Verifiable accuracy.  Article Now: Instead of hitting the bottom of the well, Kagome ends up 500 years in the past (1496) during Japan's Sengoku period.  half accurate. My edit. "Instead of hitting the bottom of the well, Kagome ends up 500 years in the past (1496) during Japan's Sengoku period according to the animation according to the animation." Verifiable accuracy because the manga never give a precise time where the animation did. Maybe What is in the article now should not be in the plot because you said "that this is extraneous detail. Things like "a day before" or "on her birthday" are not the most important parts of the plot, which should describe the main events of the story to the point." However, it is there and I wanted to have this article to strive to be the reliable source with verifiable accuracy. If people can not trust the small details why trust the major details? The information on the page is misleading and not accurate. Truthseeker1022 (talk) 03:40, 28 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Regarding the day before the birthday. Yes, the story might have started the day before her birthday but that is trivial information. Her fall into the well happened on her 15th birthday. As for 1996 vs. 1997, I removed that and replaced it with modern-day Tokyo, and removed the 1496 / 1497 year. Otherwise it would have to be explained in the footnote that the year immediately differs. That it is during the Sengoku period is good enough there. The half-demon part is revealed on chapter 108 but the character was introduced in chapter 59? That's almost 50 chapters away, nearly a full year's time if the series was released one chapter a week. AngusWOOF ( bark  •  sniff ) 05:30, 28 April 2016 (UTC)


 * I am not sure how removing it would improve the article. However, it does seem like the original edits were in the wrong place and taken care of when they were made. They just need to be in the right place. My edits only made it more reliable with verifiable accuracy.  The first revert of my edits the summary used Twinkle and made a false assumption on my edits. I revert that because it did not fit what I did and I know my edits were constructive and made in verifiable accuracy. The second revert was used Twinkle and rv to revert it back to half-truths and unconstructive edit with another comment that did not seems to fit. I believe if the time was taken to look at the original edit to my own. Someone would see I was making good faith edits and that the original material need to removed and placed in the right place. All this could had been avoided by editing the original and explaining why to me, since I was a new comer. If this situation was reversed I would read the original as well, and if I made a rv and used twinkle on a good faith edit. I would apologize already. I would make it in the summary of an edit. So others would know that person’s edit was not vandalism.  I would also talk to the person and tell them where to place things or explain why it would not go there when they are new users than to assume. Something like this would had been easily avoided. I believe that any information from any reliable source is not trivial no matter how small or big. I have always claim she fell in the well on her 15Th birthday. I believe that has been well established and I never say anything inciting otherwise. I never said anything against using Sengoku period. Removing what you did helps, however I would suggest “about” 500 years.  The series has been over for a few years it should not matter about the time it was released. Maybe it should just say villain in the first part leaving the plot one alone because the page contradicts itself with that.   I am sorry to say the only thing I found benefits my situation in the comment was the changes that were made. That is what I believe encourages conversations and working together.  Truthseeker1022 (talk) 23:06, 28 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I threw in "about" as you have mentioned. It is mentioned in the anime, but not the manga, but they do mention Ancient Japan. AngusWOOF ( bark  •  sniff ) 23:16, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, I know I was the one that claim that on this page as proof. Yes I know I have watched Inuyasha and read the manga a few times in Japanese and In English for a research essay. Though, if I make other good faith edits with verifiable accuracy would it always be something like this? I don't like that my good faith edits was revert because being called "vandalism". :/ Never foreseen this trouble of verifiable accurate edits. :/  Truthseeker1022 (talk) 23:57, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
 * No one called your edits vandalism. In fact, when you were first reverted, Tintor2 even said that your edits were made in good faith. ("rv" stands for "revert", while "rvv" stands for "revert vandalism") Being verifiable is not enough for an edit to be accepted, it must also be appropriate in the article. You can be bold, but that doesn't preclude any feedback on those edits or their being reverted. That is when you have to use talk pages to work towards developing a consensus instead of edit warring. My advice would be to not view your edits so personally; they're preserved in the article history and since no one owns an article, there is always a possibility of the content being rewritten or removed. Wikipedia is a collaborative work of progress. Opencooper (talk) 00:35, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for telling me that rv can stand for something else. Though, I have seen rv used for revert vandalism. I am not sure but I think a wikipedia article says it. I could be wrong because I have read so much. Opencooper. I know you mean well, but I believe there is a misunderstanding. I believe the situation was at the end. The original edits, that I corrected most were removed and they should be dealt with before I changed them into veritable accurate edits. The original edits were in the wrong place and the content was only half truth. In reverting my comments back to the original edits that were harmful and not appropriate to be there did not seem right to me. It was not me taking my edits personally, I rather have the original to be removed than them being there being harmful. That is what this is about, not my edits. I do still believed my edits could be replaced to be somewhere else. I was not just adding things I thought should had been added, but to fix what was there. I hope that helps and I am confused because I am not sure about the rest of the comment because they don't benefit this situation. It is a good comment if I was taking my edits personally, having an edit war, or not trying to work things out. Since AngusWOOF revert my edits back to the harmful original ones I have not touch the article. I have just wrote on here to show AngusWOOF and others, I am working toward a better article and a genuine contributor. I have been working toward developing, not an edit war. And also AngusWOOF corrected the original, And I thought it reach a conclusion. At first it may seem like it was my edits but this was about the original that was harmful and not appropriate. Yes, Tintor2 did say that,but his summary did not match my edits. Yes, I have told AngusWOOF the same thing "Wikipedia is a collaborative work of progress." but in different words. " That is what I believe encourages conversations and working together." And this whole thing could had been avoided if the original edits were read than being revert back to them or changed when they were made. Also, maybe realize I was correcting what was there and then explain what the original edits should not been there and not made my edits to be the ones in the wrong place like nothing was there before. I really don't understand your comment for this situation but thanks for the input. Truthseeker1022 (talk) 01:32, 29 April 2016 (UTC)


 * The original paragraph and edits were too wordy and detailed for the main article. In the summary, you're trying to explain the main points of the show: Kagome is attacked by a demon and falls into her family's well, which transports her back in time to ancient Japan. It doesn't need to talk about what the current year is or that the year immediately varies between English and Japanese versions or that we first see the character the day before her birthday, or, as with the Dragon Ball Z thing, focus on "over 9000" vs. "over 8000".  It's not a question of whether that detail is correct. I'm sure you accurately detailed it and have it referenced, which is good for perhaps the chapter list or episode list. My recent edits tried to simplify this detail, for example, Kikyo and how the Jewel works, I tried to trim it down to something a casual reader of the series would be able to understand: the jewel came from Kagome's body, gets shattered snd spread all over Japan, they have to go on a quest to recover all the pieces. As for Sengoku, if it mentions Sengoku, then great, but the manga description I saw was "ancient Japan" which was even more vague. See WP:PLOTSUM for some more suggestions. AngusWOOF  ( bark  •  sniff ) 14:33, 30 April 2016 (UTC)


 * If “The original paragraph and edits were too wordy and detailed for the main article.” Then why revert my edits back to them and leave the original edits there? If I did not come the talk page, I believe they would still be there. I think what should had been done was to change it not revert it back and then explain to the editor. “In the summary, (an editor) is trying to explain the main points of the show:” The comment did not need to explain the main points of Inuyasha.  I did not added the year 1496, I elaborated on it because it was there already, so it would not confuse people who follows the English manga and animation. Again what happen is I seen nonconstructive edits which was half-truths which could had been in the wrong place. All my edits were to elaborate what was there not something I thought should had be add. I would appreciate if that stopped because I truly only added to what was there to make it verifiable accurate, even if it is in the wrong place or not.  Then my verifiable accuracy edits were revert back to the nonconstructive edits that were misleading.  Again, what should had happened was to look at that original and removed or changed it and explain why to the editor then to leave inappropriate information there, which is now changed. The first summary made it about Sengoku, which none of my edits has been about Sengoku. I have stated this on the talk page a few times and I would appreciate if that stopped because I have been clear I have never dispute it. The only time my edits come close it where I corrected the original paragraph “Instead of hitting the bottom of the well, Kagome ends up 500 years in the past (1496) during Japan's Sengoku period” to my verifiable edit. “Instead of hitting the bottom of the well, Kagome ends up 500 years in the past (1496) during Japan's Sengoku period according to the animation according to the animation."  According to the animation is to the year 500, I have also made that clear in the talk page. The way it is now solved that problem.” But instead of hitting the bottom of the well, Kagome time travels to the past during Japan's Sengoku period.” So I don’t understand the fixation on my edits were against the Sengoku time period as I had said this, none of my edits disputed the time period. I am not finding that comment to be beneficial to the situation besides the link and this statement “The original paragraph and edits were too wordy and detailed for the main article. In the summary, you're trying to explain the main points of the show”. I also thought we reached a conclusion in the matter and that comment I am responding to did not help the matter as we already discussed your changes, we already discussed what did not need to be there and did, I know the main points of Inuyasha and makes it took like my edits were about Sengoku time period and I randomly add information I thought need to be there, which both are untrue and also, did not correspond to the current situation or latest comment. I would really appreciated if my edits and what happen would stop being made into things they were not. Thanks. I think this matter was at the end about two days ago. As my edits go, they should be on here somewhere in the articles. Only reason to continue to have a discussion is where to put my verifiable accuracy edits. Not if, I drop this subject.


 * Look, I know you didn't put the original details in there, and you're trying to make what was there accurate. My comments are directed more for the editors who wrote up the original summary how to move forward with cleaning up the summary, and suggestions on how to shave the entire head instead of working on the forehead area. Are there details in the summary that still need to be discussed? Let's focus on that, not about the hair that is already on the floor or who made the cut. AngusWOOF ( bark  •  sniff ) 17:08, 30 April 2016 (UTC) 17:42, 30 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Okay, Sorry it did not come across that way. May I make a suggestion. maybe this section could be removed off this talk page.It will be still in the history. Then make a new section about your edits. Because this section, it longed and detailed, Starts off confusing and will confused others. I don't think most readers would make it to the last comment. Of course I know you know, but I think a comment would be good if you explain that you simplify the details and add “The original paragraph and edits were too wordy and detailed for the main article. In the summary, you're trying to explain the main points of the show” then give the link. That should be good enough without details, I think. Remember, I am just suggestion. It is up to you. Your last sentence, I never heard of it been put that way, I laugh at that. Though working on the forehead area has benefits at the right time especially when you don't have to shave the head. Thanks for a new saying! Truthseeker1022 (talk) 17:56, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
 * That was a reply to your original reply. I did not see a moving forward comment either but I will re read it again later. Also, I will read the summary over and if I found anything, I will let you know but I can't read it until later. I have a busy day ahead! Thanks for more on that interesting I may have to use that one day. lol. We can discuss where to place my edits or/and about details about the summary if I found anything else that not accurate. Truthseeker1022 (talk) 18:05, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
 * There is a way to collapse the discussion but I don't know if there's a fair way of doing so. No worries. You can start a new thread if you find new details. AngusWOOF ( bark  •  sniff ) 18:09, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Inuyasha. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150805112042/http://comics.shogakukan.co.jp/mangasho/rist.html to http://comics.shogakukan.co.jp/mangasho/rist.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100523151929/http://animage.jp/old/gp/gp_2003.html to http://animage.jp/old/gp/gp_2003.html
 * Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/5vS3xHqri?url=http://animage.jp/old/gp/gp_2001.html to http://animage.jp/old/gp/gp_2001.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 09:59, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Inuyasha. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110810132840/http://www.mania.com/10-anime-series-need-reboot_article_120621.html to http://www.mania.com/10-anime-series-need-reboot_article_120621.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061127230213/http://www.websunday.net/inuyasha/ to http://websunday.net/inuyasha/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 21:53, 15 November 2017 (UTC)