User talk:Raltseye

Question
Hi. Why do you share IP information with ? It is alright if you have forgotten your original password, but I need to know.
 * I have honestly no idea. Raltseye (talk) 15:34, 2 August 2015 (EDT)
 * Did you forgot your password to the old account? 16:04, 2 August 2015 (EDT)
 * I have nothing to do with that person and if we are sharing IP information then I am sorry, I have no idea how thats even possible or why that is so. --Raltseye (talk) 18:02, 2 August 2015 (EDT)

Look....
...I'm sorry if this is annoying you, but I am only removing the links because I have been specifically told that the links are for playable characters only. I have seen an edit description stating as such. Whether you like it or not, it is consistent. CrashBash (talk) 10:01, 10 April 2016 (EDT)
 * Okay them from whom in the staff did you get those rules that SmashWiki NIWA links should only be added when playable? --Raltseye (talk) 10:08, 10 April 2016 (EDT)
 * As I have already stated, it was in an edit summary. I saw it last night whilst I was going through all the Sonic related pages. But it nonetheless specifically stated "playable characters only". CrashBash (talk) 10:13, 10 April 2016 (EDT)
 * Then you once again have the burden of proof who in the staff said in their edit summary that we should do that? --Raltseye (talk) 10:16, 10 April 2016 (EDT)
 * I don't even remember what page it was on, that was last night. I just remember seeing it, that's all. It looked fairly recent. CrashBash (talk) 10:23, 10 April 2016 (EDT)
 * Then I choose to believe that you are wrong as you clearly can't present any solid evidence for you statement. I mean it could then just have been some normal user like us and not a staff member then it is his words against ours again so until we get someone in the staff to state that I'm going to assume that was the case. Because consistency is better then absent of consistency, if there is a page that we can link to we are going to link there unless stated otherwise. --Raltseye (talk) 10:29, 10 April 2016 (EDT)
 * Then I choose to believe that you are wrong as you clearly can't present any solid evidence for you statement. OK, so instead of trying to be mature about it, you just choose to flat-out insult me instead. Congratulations, you almost had me there. I've reverted your edits because you're going against what you keep insisting I should do, and being insultive whilst doing so, especially since I was trying to come to a peaceful conclusion. CrashBash (talk) 10:33, 10 April 2016 (EDT)
 * EDIT: OK, as it turns out, it was a passing and completely unrelated topic on the Silver the Hedgehog page, ironically the one page you didn't add a Smash link to. For now, I have added the links back. But your comment is still completely inexcusable. CrashBash (talk) 10:37, 10 April 2016 (EDT)
 * A peaceful conclusion, being mature? Yes, because stating something and then saying "you can't prove me wrong therefore I must be right" is very mature. Look now I'm almost about had it with you, YOU are the one saying that YOU have some sort of evidence for your statement, that edit summary namely. But can you show it to me? no you have conveniently "forgotten where it was". Now, am I just to then assume that you are right? No of course not therefore I am going to assume that you are wrong. Show me the evidence then I'll change my mind. --Raltseye (talk) 10:41, 10 April 2016 (EDT)
 * EDIT: No my comments is not inexcusable it is called healthy skepticism if you state something you are the one to have to prove that you are correct not the other way around. --Raltseye (talk) 10:44, 10 April 2016 (EDT)
 * Did you not read what I just wrote? I clearly said that it was a different topic to what I thought it was, which is why I put the links back. But no, instead you choose to insult me even MORE. Yes, your comments ARE inexcusable, because the situation was OVER. First, you choose to insult me whilst I'm trying to be polite, and then when I basically admit that I was mistaken, you deliberately ignore it just so you can write more stuff about the situation which has more or less been settled. Good god. Next time, don't insult other people, and read what they write. CrashBash (talk) 10:49, 10 April 2016 (EDT)
 * Well you did clearly not read the discussion either because like I said that is healthy skepticism and you called that inexcusable. I mean you were the one who thought that I should just have accepted your statements just like that, without anything to go on than your word and when I didn't do that and explained to you why, you called me immature. You were the one claiming something you were the one not able to not present evidence for it whatsoever why should I have believed you? --Raltseye (talk) 11:02, 10 April 2016 (EDT)
 * Yes, and I clearly just said that I went back over and saw it was something completely unrelated. What part of that did you not get? I also clearly did read the discussion, because of what I said. You are still choosing to insult me, seemingly refusing to accept that this is over.
 * Tell me, what part of "OK, as it turns out, it was a passing and completely unrelated topic on the Silver the Hedgehog page", showing that I went back over, found the comment and realised it wasn't what I thought it was, don't you understand? CrashBash (talk) 11:11, 10 April 2016 (EDT)
 * Yes you changed your mind but not your tone in the previous message where you accused me of being immature and you said that my skepticism was "insulting" that was actually insulting to me. That was what I responded to. --Raltseye (talk) 11:16, 10 April 2016 (EDT)
 * Well, One, you shouldn't have done, especially after I literally just admitted that I was mistaken, which should have been the end of the discussion aside from a small "OK then, I'm glad we've got that settled. Lets just forgive and forget", and Two, "Then I choose to believe that you are wrong as you clearly can't present any solid evidence for you statement" is still very rude and disrespectful. You could have and should have worded that in a much nicer way, especially since I was at the very least trying to be honest and polite with you. CrashBash (talk) 11:21, 10 April 2016 (EDT)
 * Yeah I agree with you there, I maybe shouldn't have written that especially since I saw that you wrote before I did it. But you were rude to begin with and nonetheless you must still understand why I did not believe you in the first place. --Raltseye (talk) 11:27, 10 April 2016 (EDT)
 * No, I wasn't being "rude to begin with". Before this conversation started, maybe, yes, which is why I approached you wanting to discuss this calmly and not aggressively, to put a stop to that. If it came across as rude to you, I'm sorry, but it was not my intention. CrashBash (talk) 11:30, 10 April 2016 (EDT)
 * Okay, I'm sorry if I seemed aggressive too or rude it was not my intention either. --Raltseye (talk) 11:35, 10 April 2016 (EDT)
 * OK, OK, cool, no worries. Now, shall we move on? CrashBash (talk) 11:49, 10 April 2016 (EDT)
 * Yepp, that seems like a good idea, like you said, forgive and forget. :) --Raltseye (talk) 11:56, 10 April 2016 (EDT)

interwiki link
Just to drop you a note that I have added all the interwiki links for Paper Mario-related articles. It was a pretty tiring work, but what I did was to follow, on the German and Italian MarioWikis, the "Paper Mario" category and go through the pages and infer their English name and come here and add it. And yeah, the links on the three wikis are asymmetrical, and sometimes must be (for example, we have a single page for Rowf and Rhuff, but the German MarioWiki has a Blöff, a Blaff and their shop. Also, what we have as an article List of badges in Paper Mario the German MarioWiki has as a section), taking into account disambiguations also, so I don't consider turning to bots for help anymore. Anyway, good job on creating bonds between the affiliated wikis! 09:39, 27 June 2016 (EDT)
 * That's good to hear but I do think that a bot could be beneficial to us anyway for instance if they or we move or merge a page, then we don't have to think about inter wiki-links cause the bot will that for us and when the Italian wiki create pages which they frequently do then they will only have to add the inter wiki-link on their page which they do and then the bot will do that for us on our site and that would save us a lot of hassle. So even if I do agree with you that is is not need right now to add those specific links it could be needed for the future to maintain functional links when broken. -- R alts eye prata med mej 12:27, 27 June 2016 (EDT)
 * Yeah, I agree with that. A bot can at least semi-automatically assist. BTW Are there other editors interested in interwiki links? I was wondering whether a collaboration has been called for.  00:15, 28 June 2016 (EDT)