User talk:Raijinili

I'm logging off (i.e. WP:Wikibreak). Spring Break was over last Monday, and it seems like I'm doing more harm than good here. See you next time I need the powers of a registered account. --Raijinili (talk) 16:13, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Disregard that. --Raijinili (talk) 14:50, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fansites

I was referring to Wikipedia:External links --Squilibob 02:28, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lacrima Castle

May I ask what you're doing with this article? You create it with the comment that it probably will be deleted, then alternate between improving it and recommending its deletion. If you really don't think it belongs on Wikipedia, you can just add the {{db-user}} tag to the article and have it removed. ~Matticus ^T_C 19:17, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some people wanted that article, and I'm torn between helping them and being realistic. I have an idea though. --Raijinili 19:27, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Forums as sources

From WP:RS: "posts to bulletin boards etc should not be used... no way of knowing who has written or posted them... and no editorial oversight or third-party fact-checking". Axem Titanium 20:28, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The point is, we don't know who it actually is and whether or not this person's information represents Atlus' information. Axem Titanium 20:29, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ummmm... why are you asking me? It's already done and it's being localized right now. I thought we were talking about using this guy's forum post as a source for a release date, not whether the game is still in development or not. Axem Titanium 20:53, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What are you talking about? I agree that the game is no longer in development. I recently reverted a release date added by an anonymous editor because it had no reliable source information. If you're still referring to the forum admin thing, what he says cannot be considered the stance of the company as a whole because it hasn't made any official announcements about it. It cannot be verified, hence the part about editorial oversight and third-party fact-checking. Axem Titanium 20:08, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Andy Richter

Aww, crap, I'm stupid for not reading that. Thanks for catching that, and I reverted myself. Hurricanehink (talk) 03:35, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Questions on IDT Energy and ITD Corp

You've recently posed two questions regarding IDT Corp. on the article's talk page. This is just a quick note to let you know i've responded and I hope my answers give you enough information and detail to deal with the questions. If you need some more help, don't hesitate to drop me a line via my talk page. thewinchester 15:59, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

.hack//AI buster

Let's talk about it on the discussion page. Kazu-kun 16:14, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: My rvv on Utawarerumono

While I do realize it wasn't exactly vandalism on the editors part, there have been several edits in the past related to Revised Hepburn romanization, the correct English romanization by ADV Films of Erurū/Elulū's name and the fact if the twin archers Dori and Gura are male or female, so I just lumped all three into one and did a quick "rvv" summary as a way to discourage other editors who know that ackronym means "Revert vandalism" from editing it back to how it was altered by the editor in question.--(十八) 06:49, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: My duplicate/orphaned Ouran image (and other images that may arise)

I thank you for the cleaning up of any images I may have uploaded in the past which are now orphaned for one reason or another, though know that when you post the notice on my talk page, I'm going to send it to the archive since it clutters up the page and makes it look bad. So any further action you take on my past images I won't stop. Delete them by abiding by Wikipedia policy and informing which ones you intend to delete in case I want to save it before it gets taken off the server.--(十八) 04:10, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Castle.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Castle.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 05:09, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tetsusaiga

1. Google searching is very flawed, because there are many factors that can be used to alter google rankings in one's favor. Nowadays we use Wikipedia:Original research to largely exclude Google searching. Instead we go by reliable sources. 2. Raijinli, if information is not sourced from a Wikipedia:Reliable source, I can remove it. The responsibility for getting the sources lies with the person that adds the information. It doesn't stop me from making an effort to source info, but it means that I am perfectly allowed to remove the information instead. WhisperToMe (talk) 23:39, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking of that section, it is full of Wikipedia:Original research - it is totally unacceptable. That section has no sources that say "this is a mistake and not deliberate." Please do not post any OR. WhisperToMe (talk) 23:40, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is still original research. Your "reference" states that in Japanese the sword is Tessaiga. Okay. What is DOES NOT SAY is whether "Tetsusaiga" was a mistake. Because no relaible sources say that Tetsusaiga was a mistake, you cannot add this information in. A sentence like "due to either an error or an intentional change, it became the Tetsusaiga." does not belong in here. There may be a third, or fourth possibility. Suggesting that it may be due to an error is OR too. Please read the discussion pages. BTW, this name change does not need a section on its own as there is no information about it. All we need to do is say it is Tessaiga in the original Japanese, and that is that. WhisperToMe (talk) 01:50, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let's look at [1] 1. In an encyclopedia, you do not refer to the reader as "us" 2. You do not need an entire section about how the name is different unless you have sources that explain how it is significant. As there is no significance to the name change (no reliable sources that state anything special about it), there is no need for a section. WhisperToMe (talk) 01:54, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You said: "Tetsusaiga" is an obvious mistake. The question is whether it's intentional." 1. How is it a "mistake" if it is intentional? Also, the sentence does not agree with the following from WP:OR: "Articles may not contain any new analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not clearly advanced by the sources." - Having Joe Blow analyze the use of Tetsusaiga and conclude that it has to be a "mistake" is original research. Now, if CNN or some other reliable source clearly states that "Tetsusaiga was a mistake," that would be acceptable. WP OR says: "Citing sources and avoiding original research are inextricably linked: to demonstrate that you are not presenting original research, you must cite reliable sources that provide information directly related to the topic of the article, and that directly support the information as it is presented." - You need a source that explicitly states that Tetsusaiga is a "mistake." Without it, you cannot say anything about it.

":::I offered a compromise of changing it to "taken" from "mistaken". Regardless, an objection to one word of one line is not just cause to remove the whole section." There is nothing special about this name change, so it does not need a paragraph.

The section is useless. Think about Wikipedia:Manual of Style - You cannot dedicate a section to every single aspect of every subject. You need to carefully think about how to properly divide an article. WhisperToMe (talk) 23:24, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WhisperToMe (talk) 23:21, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Look at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Anime_and_manga#Testsusaiga_name_issue WhisperToMe (talk) 00:16, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Heated Discussion

I did lose my cool at the end, and I do want to apologize for that. You are right that I occasionally lose track of how antagonistic I sound, and that is something I need to keep an eye on so stuff doesn't escalate like this. Happy to call a truce here. Doceirias (talk) 08:19, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Spring egg (media)

Seleted because it is useless redirect. Since Spring egg is itself a redirect, its disambigutation is meaningless. It is also an improbable search term. `'Míkka >t 17:28, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AGF warning

Please remember to assume good faith when dealing with other editors, which you did not do on Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2008_August_12#ad_hominen_.E2.86.92_ad_hominem. Thank you.

You have for some reason (I'm not sure why) personally gone after myself and User:HighKing here, and after the proceeding "ad hominen" redirect was no longer being argued for deletion too! Both I and HighKing corrected you on the matter, and in response you wrote this line: "You claim that your misspelling of "ad hominem" was because of your own confusion? You spelled it correctly the third time in that edit, though." This is blatantly calling me a liar: I told you the live-linked misspelling of "ad hominen" confused me, and it did for a good while - which ever 'version' I may have used myself (I don't remember - I expect I've used both, though I've hardly ever used the term). How can you question my honestly on this? It is what I have argued all along too - that I and others can be confused by the live-link redirecting of misspellings.

You have simply been wrong about most of this. You have not Assumed Good Faith at all, and you are contributing in a place where you simply have to do it. I came in good faith to help Wikipedia, and you have cast aspersions on my motives, with no evidence behind it. I deliberately kept the person who made the misspellings anonymous as this is ONLY about the misspelling redirection of "ad hominen" (and it is simply polite anyway). You not only named him (and his previous name) - but related our history with each other! It is neither relevant to the re-direct matter, nor appreciated by either of us (or anyone else I'm sure), so please let it go.--Matt Lewis (talk) 21:19, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I think I've been relatively benign with the accusation of bad faith up until, well, when I posted on HighKing's talk page.

"...to me, this request does not seem in good faith..."
"If this is not a good faith request..."

Also, I disagree with you that pointing out a fact which contradicts what you say is blatantly calling you a liar. It's a strong implication that I believe you're a liar, but it hardly compares with saying it out loud. How else should I bring up that fact (since I had reason to do so)? This is a technical point, though.

As for assuming good faith, it's unreasonable to use it as an absolute requirement all the time. In fact, if it was, accusing others of not assuming good faith is also not assuming good faith, so it would be impossible to point out that people aren't assuming good faith, no?

No evidence: You can't claim that I have not brought in any evidence, since you mentioned the diff that I gave as evidence. --Raijinili (talk) 22:47, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am taking this to a dispute resolution. I will accept nothing less than a full apology from you. This has come from nowhere, and it is a completely personal attack on my good name. Why? I have not lied - I was confused by the misspelling, and I've based my arguments on that! You now say "It's a strong implication that I believe you're a liar, but it hardly compares with saying it out loud."! How dare you say that? Who do you think you are? People here strive every day to 'assume good faith' and you come out with this while having no evidence at all!--Matt Lewis (talk) 00:27, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This may not be an actual 'dispute resolution' case, by the way - I'm researching the best route for me. You've broken a core policy rule, and it certainly is an incivility to call someone a liar. But you also have no evidence. I certainly asked you not to call me a liar again, and you replied by doing it even more strongly. I'll have to see what is the best route. --Matt Lewis (talk) 00:56, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stop saying that I have no evidence. Rather, you believe that the evidence that I brought up does not support my claim. --Raijinili (talk) 01:09, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Sarah777

As per the Wikiquette entry Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#User:Sarah777, I would say the ball is currently on your pitch right now. I personally believe that it's past time to close this issue, and all should move on. BMW(drive) 23:47, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1-month, then register

Hello Raij. IP accounts over 1-month old, should be forced to register in. GoodDay (talk) 16:32, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

At least have some form of restrictions. Say 3-postings per day on a respective talk-page & 1RR rule. GoodDay (talk) 14:01, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm content that (IMO) registration will eventually become mandatory. GoodDay (talk) 00:15, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fear not, I'm not going after the IPs. Somebody else can assume that task. GoodDay (talk) 00:26, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Raij. I wasn't proposing a policy change (at least not now); I was peeved with a few IP accounts at British Isles. -- GoodDay (talk) 01:06, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I still support mandatory registration, though. GoodDay (talk) 23:28, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine, as long as you understand where you stand at the moment. --Raijinili (talk) 02:39, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: I reverted one of your recent image deletion marks

"An in-game screenshot depicting shielding in the TYPE-MOON,French-Bread doujin 2d fighter game, Melty Blood." does not constitute a fair use rationale. Please see the rationale guideline. I have readded the deletion notice, and I ask that you do not remove it again unless a rationale is added. J Milburn (talk) 11:03, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's not a rationale, and no, I will not remove it- that's really not how it works. If you want the image to be kept, add a rationale that explains in detail how the image meets the non-free content criteria. If it's as easy and obvious as you say it is, it'll surely be quicker than arguing with me about process. J Milburn (talk) 00:15, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not really interested in pursuing the academic issue of bureacracy, procedure and things- it's frankly not important. I'm intersted in clearing away or fixing non-free images that do not meet our guidelines. If you're looking for a way to write a decent rationale, take a look at the non-free use rationale template- remember to focus on exactly why the image is needed and what it is illustrating, as well as explaining why it is not replaceable- don't just state that it's needed and state that it is irreplaceable. J Milburn (talk) 00:29, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've no interest in arguing about whether there are loopholes in the procedure. Images need a rationale- if there is not a rationale, they will be tagged as having no rationale. What that image had was not a rationale- there is no way you can argue that it was. If no rationale is added, the image will be deleted. If you want to argue about that, go for it, but I'm not going to join you, and you'll find that the image will wind up deleted- strange, considering that's what I said. The new rationale is excellent- that is what a rationale should look like. However, I am not completely satisfied that the image is required- there isn't a lot of discussion about the concept of "shielding" in the article. I will leave you to work on that if you wish- if you do not, you may find the image is nominated for deletion again, and the article may struggle if it ends up a good article candidate. J Milburn (talk) 10:00, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I did add rationales to those images I felt were unquestionably helpful- take, for example (chosen from the list at random...) Rayman: Hoodlums' Revenge was one article I reviewed in the same "sweep". That had one image that lacked a fair use rationale, but because I felt it was clearly beneficial and within our policy, I added a rationale and a reduction request. I was not convinced that the image we are discussing was needed, and so I tagged it for deletion. I'm honestly not following your concerns about policy compliance- it seems to be a very minor concern. If there's no rationale (and I'm not even going to argue with you about this, just take my word for it- that wasn't a rationale) images should be deleted. The standard way to go about this is with the no rationale template, which gives several days for anyone wishing to keep the image to add a rationale. J Milburn (talk) 10:44, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose I could have done that, but my past experience with that has been poor. I generally have so many images "on the go" at once that I can't really rely on myself to keep track of them all. J Milburn (talk) 10:52, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re:This tag

Normally, I'd say to not change it without the permission of the tagger- images can easily be restored. In this case, as it's an IP address that may have changed hands, asking permission would not really be appropriate. If you have linked to the image in the email requesting permission, I'd knock it forwards a few days, and explain why you're doing it in the edit summary. J Milburn (talk) 21:48, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification

Hey Raij, I noticed your comment that, "The editor has probably already been told not to do it, and it's bringing the issue to unrelated editors in an unrelated discussion." Just the opposite is true. There was an AN report made and the clear consensus was that improving articles at AfD is entirely appropriate and encouraged. A move can be reverted, after all, and it was obviously done in good faith. I would make a point of noting this more explicitly in the AfD (one or both I suppose at this point) but I'm trying to refrain from engaging with that individual wherever possible. It's unfortunate though, that misinformation and inaccuracies are promoted in this way. It reminds me of what happens when obvious spelling errors go uncorrected... :) Cheers. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:01, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I had meant for my comment to be neutral as to whether or not his objection was correct, so that I could focus on whether or not it belonged there. I should've made the neutrality more clear, though. --Raijinili (talk) 12:39, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My sig

How do I make a background for the signature? I don't know how. Sorry about the trouble though. I'm using a black and green monobook skin - I can see the yellow clearly and it looks amazing. SonGoku786^{(talk • contribs)} 14:12, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How's that? --Raijinili (talk) 14:26, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't look good although a solid red will do much better I think. I can see the green but not the yellow clearly enough. Can you add a black border around the red? (the red one looks like this SonGoku786^{(talk • contribs)}.

Or how about this black one? Although I'd much prefer seeing a red one with a black border. SonGoku786^{(talk • contribs)} SonGoku786^{(talk • contribs)} 18:08, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Choose whichever one you want. As long as it's not yellow on off-white. --Raijinili (talk) 18:28, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpupetry

Hi, I'm being accused of of doing something, and I'm afraid I will be blocked. What should I do? The guy is saying I'm someone I'm not and he says its got to do with something my signature and editing templates. SonGoku786^{(talk • contribs)} 15:41, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Personal Conflict?

I'm getting the feeling from the discussions at Talk:Dragonball Evolution that you have a bit of a personal problem with me. I can remember conflicting with you over anything before, so I'm curious as to what I've seemingly done to insult or annoy you and how we can address this to restore a more harmonious editing environment if we are going to continue interacting on the same articles. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 23:56, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What I have against you isn't anything you've done to me (or anyone I know well, for that matter). I feel that you're being overly rude to other users, and talking as if you had authority (by stating things that the other user most likely wouldn't agree with as if they were facts), rather than being just another editor. --Raijinili (talk) 00:02, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. I guess I'll try to keep that in mind, though specific instances of "overly rudeness" would be helpful since I generally try to be polite, if reserved, except vandals and disruptive editors. Yes, I'm "just another editor, but I am also a very experienced editor, so I do try to share knowledge of consensus, guidelines, policies, etc that other editors may not have. If that comes off as rude, not sure what I can do to address that. I try to only "speak with authority" when I'm speaking from consensus that is either backed by project consensus or a Wikipedia guideline or policy, as that, to me, is an appropriate time to do so. Thank you for your honesty.-- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 00:12, 20 April 2009 (UTC)][reply]

Sorry for the response. I got... distracted. Several times. For hours.

I think it's generally unhelpful when responding to a user with a concern to simply claim consensus, guidelines, or policies as a reason without explicitly pointing out the specifics of location (especially consensus, since that's harder to find). A small quote is more useful than a wikilink to a big page, for that matter.

Relevance and need are subjective (as well as meaning something different to editors unfamiliar with many disputes of relevancy), and to state them as fact is intimidating. Elaboration, instead of just terse, unexplained statements, are friendlier. Basically, try not to get yourself in a situation where someone can accuse your words of being harsh.

I appreciate you working with me about this concern. And yes, I'm sort of stalking your past edits while trying to find examples :P. --Raijinili (talk) 11:48, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, admittedly, in two of those, I'm less well tempered with sockpuppets (or suspected ones), and I was a bit annoyed as his kept asking for an answer as if we were on an instant messaging system. :P For the IP, yes, it was short and I could have expounded more. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 13:55, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sacarism

Hi there,

You said on the talk of shippudeen episode i was being sacaristy. I really find it hard to udnerstand how i was, i merely was pointing out a fact and was trying to say to the user that it should be sourced. By the way i am dsylexica so what i write i might ot realise is bad as it appears to me to be ok. I am not saying i wa snot sacaristic only that it was not intenionally, and ot learn form my mistakes i od need ot understand if i was how i was so i try adapt for future.--Andrewcrawford (talk) 21:46, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, I was uneasy with the word "sarcastic". The point is, don't be so aggressive. Argue to reach an agreement, not to win. --Raijinili (talk) 02:34, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Editing other editor's user space

Don't do this again, unless you had the editor's permission, and I don't think you did. The user is entitled to put material in a sandbox without you editing it. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 02:31, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's obviously not a sandbox. That page is not meant to help improve Wikipedia, only vent, as indicated by the blatant lack of neutrality. If I'm wrong, and he does intend for that page to be a sandbox, and really doesn't realize the neutrality problems, then how can it hurt to point out the lack of neutrality since he doesn't see it himself? --Raijinili (talk) 02:36, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you concerned with what another editor has in their sandbox? And how do you know they won't be improving it over time? Really, I can't see why you would care what that editor is doing in their user space so long as they are not defaming anyone (which they are not). This issue was already discussed on the user's talk page (that page really should have been your first step before editing someone else's user space). Note that I already warned this editor about trying to include the content in an article, but I'm certainly not going to prevent them from doing work in a sandbox, even if it's on material that is not NPOV. If that material gets dumped wholesale into a mainspace article we have a serious problem, but barring that we do not. It's not our job to police other's user space for article material with which we don't agree, and it's certainly not our job to edit other's user space without their permission. In the future if you see what you see as a major problem with a user "sandbox," at least talk to them about it first, don't tag it with eight different NPOV tags. Obviously that was not going to help anything. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 02:51, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, hasn't it?

Anyway, I'm not removing the content or otherwise scrawling vandalism on it. I'm treating it like a real article, and I'm hoping that we can work together on it and learn from the experiment. I'll stop if he wants me to. --Raijinili (talk) 03:00, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's not how it works. You don't get to edit another's user space just because you feel like it. See WP:UP#OWN. Why not ask first, then edit if the user has no problem with it? Why is it so important for you to make changes, and why would you "treat it like a real article" when that's not what it is (and anyway doesn't this conflict with what you said above, that the "page is not meant to help improve Wikipedia, only vent")? Please stop making changes over there until you okay it with the editor whose page it is. It's simple politeness really. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 04:18, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't how it works either. I'm not "not allowed" to edit the page. Why is it so important for me not to edit his page? If he doesn't like it, it's a wiki, and I'll stop. If he has no problem with it, then this discussion is pointless. --Raijinili (talk) 05:13, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's not "so important" for you to not edit the page, but it's a very good idea because it's in someone else's user space, and it's considered polite to ask first before changing it, particularly when you think that the "page is not meant to help improve Wikipedia, only vent" and took the time to plaster it with POV tags before significantly altering the text. Maybe you like it when someone (who disagrees with you about content) comes into your user space, fills it with tags, says elsewhere that some of the content is bad for the project, and then changes it, all without saying so much as "hi" on your talk page. That's fine if that's your view and you can tell folks on your user page that you encourage others to edit it at will, but not everyone feels that way which is why it's considered good form to simply leave a note on the user's talk page before making changes to material in their userspace. I cannot fathom why you have a problem with that, but obviously you do and I'm not going to waste any more time trying to convince you that being polite to other editors is a good thing, or that even when something is "not 'not allowed'" it may not be a good idea to actually go and do it. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 05:42, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hm? Politeness is subjective. For example, I might find it impolite if someone took it upon themselves to protest another editor's "violation" of my userpage. I definitely consider it downright uncivil to command another user not to do something with language that implied it was prohibited ("Don't do this again), especially when it wasn't.

In case he is doing this in good faith, I'm treating it as an article and helping it become respectable. If I knew for sure that it was pure bad faith, I wouldn't have added the POV tags in the first place, probably complaining about it on some talk page.

Even if the page isn't primarily meant to help Wikipedia, it can be used that way, by cleaning up and solidifying the references and other things before they're proposed to be added to the mainspace.

I see you posted on the talk page that I "don't like" the content there. I don't do anything to an article based on my own personal political opinions. From the start, I honestly hoped that Grundle would improve this article, and that I was doing something in a way that would help his final result. The POV tags were not done in bad faith, they were a way of constructive criticism (though I admit that they were overly drastic, by luck they started off the improvement).

I dared to not leave a comment on his page because I expect him to see it anyway, but I specifically decided (after the fact) not to do it to spite you for trying to impose your sense of manners on me, when it's another person's judgement as to whether what I did was wrong. That's not a slip, I'm admitting it outright. --Raijinili (talk) 07:40, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not my sense of manners, as I did not write this. But probably my first comment was worded too directly, I should have written it more carefully, and had it been softened we could have avoided this drawn out exchange over what should have been a minor matter. I did not realize it offended you until your last comment, so my apologies if it came off as too harsh. But you might also try to put yourself in my shoes, i.e. that of someone trying to get all parties involved in various Obama articles to hold to strict civility standards and avoid edits that might just serve to inflame conflict (even minor tiffs seem to blow up with relative ease when it comes to Obama-related matters). I don't know you obviously, but I left a note on your page because I'm keeping an eye on some of the Obama stuff - not many admins are - and I really did not expect this to blow-up into a big thing. I just thought, and still think, you really should not have edited the other editor's user page. That's all - not a big or even medium-sized deal. I'm not really a bad person you know, and am fairly confident you are not either, so there's really no need to decide to edit (or not edit) in a certain way simply to spite me. We're not enemies and this is not a big deal. Sorry if I've caused you any stress, and maybe you could consider the possibility that my basic point about not editing another editor's user space has some validity to it, even if you dislike the way I presented it. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 08:42, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I knew about that page already. I was willing to risk it because I thought there was a reasonable chance that he wouldn't mind. I wouldn't edit a userpage of someone that I'm in an actual dispute with, and I hope to remember not to joke with such a person, since actions asserting a close relationship are suspicious when done by someone who might dislike you.

I would also like things there to calm down. I'm involving myself in the Obama disputes not because of any interest in him or his politics, but to try to act as a much-needed neutral party in their debates. Surprisingly, my personal biases aren't the biggest hurdle. --Raijinili (talk) 14:07, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

For your good faith and collegial discussion and interest in improving the encyclopedia. I found your efforts helpful. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:06, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just stopped by to see if you were still on vacation. You are a party ANIMAL!!! :) ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:08, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:08, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:33, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Raijinili. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]