Talk:Raiden V

Untitled
Am editing several grammatical errors, looks like a non native english user's work is cringeworthy to read. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.122.12.33 (talk) 18:35, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Somebody wipe this and start over because it's terrible and barely English.

Edit warring
At this point, 's actions are bordering on WP:WIKIHOUNDING, where they show up on pages that they have never edited before simply to negatively interact with me. And the personal, unwarranted, and erroneous (based on actual policy, rather than on WP:IDONTLIKEIT) attacks are completely uncalled for. Uncited articles should be redirected until someone has the interest to flesh them out properly. Leaving uncited material in an encyclopedia is reckless at best. Onel 5969  TT me 17:55, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Where is the policy stating (or even supporting the idea) that "Uncited rticles should be redirected until someone has the interest to flesh them out properly." Imposing BOLD redirects on the basis of that unsubstantiated opinion seems like quite a serious WP:CIR issue to me, as is the conceit that a BOLD redirect would become part of a "stable version" of an article just because no editor catches the BOLD move within the first few minutes.
 * I have nothing against Onel5969 as an individual, but I have a good deal against imposing redirects to replace articles on notable topics where FIXIT applies.Newimpartial (talk) 18:16, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
 * There is no policy. But it is standard practice as meted out by the admins, which you have been informed of before. Nothing BOLD about it, just following a long-standing practice. Your reversals, however, are a clear indication of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Your incorrect applying of WP:FIXIT has to do with items like "good spelling, grammar or layout", not with uncited material. Per WP:VER, sourcing is incredibly important, in fact it's one of WP's core policies. It's lead clearly states, "Any material that needs a source but does not have one may be removed." Redirecting an article which has substantial chance of being recreated once sources are available, or someone puts the effort into it, is the best course of action.  Onel 5969  TT me 22:56, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
 * It is funny that you should mention WP:V, which reads in part "When tagging or removing material for lacking an inline citation, please state your concern that it may not be possible to find a published reliable source for the content, and therefore it may not be verifiable. If you think the material is verifiable, you are encouraged to provide an inline citation yourself before considering whether to remove or tag it."
 * In the present instance, you have not followed WP:V at all in this respect, and we are talking here about a policy, not your personal opinion or "standard practice" (sic.). Summarily removing an article's worth of material, without even placing a tag before hand, is most certainly NOT standard practice - in this case you either believed the material was not sourceable or not notable (in which case subsequent edits to the article show how ill-informed this opinion was), or you did suspect that they could be verified but hold yourself outside of the injunction in WP:V "you are encouraged to provide an inline citation yourself before considering whether to remove or tag it." Ahem.
 * TL;DR - just because you have tools at your disposal doesn't mean it is wise to use them. Newimpartial (talk) 23:44, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
 * You should really learn to understand what you quote, as you point out, "you are encouraged", not "you are required". And you seem completely unaware of standing practices regarding uncited material. Any uncited material may be removed at any time. Period. That's one of the pillars of WP. I didn't request the article be deleted, for I firmly believed that someone would put some effort into the article (unlike you, who seem to put little effort into anything, merely complain). And btw, if you show up wikihounding me again (which is pretty clear when you show up after I edit an article when you've never edited that article before), I will feel compelled to file an ANI complaint.  Onel 5969  TT me 01:11, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I am able to read that nuance perfectly well -- the policy encourages you to provide the citation yourself before removing or tagging it, which you refuse to do. On the other hand, you point out that "uncited material may be removed at any time" -- which is of course true, but policy does not encourage you, or anyone else, to do so. Sloppily citing "standing practices" as a defense of what you feel like doing is no substitute for actual public consensus, which is clearly on the contrary for this issue.
 * As far as wikihounding is concerned, the relevant policy states that "Correct use of an editor's history includes (but is not limited to) fixing unambiguous errors or violations of Wikipedia policy, or correcting related problems on multiple articles" which is all that I was doing on this matter. So far, out of the three redirects that I reverted, two of them have since been replaced with uncontroversial stable articles, while for the one that has not, I simply have not figured out a way around the problem of finding appropriate Japanese-language sources to satisfy WP:N without having to learn Japanese. When I do so, I am confident that I will be batting 1.000 in this matter.
 * Also, please drop the personal attacks ("you ... merely complain") - I have generated a fair number of citations for myself, thank you very much, and your failure to WP:AGF doesn't place you in an especially good light, which is particularly relevant in the context of your premature threat of ANI. Newimpartial (talk) 04:37, 2 December 2017 (UTC)