User talk:Ryulong/Archive 19
 | This is an archive of past discussions with User:Ryulong. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 15 | ← | Archive 17 | Archive 18 | Archive 19 | Archive 20 | Archive 21 | → | Archive 25 |
87.254.68.249
87.254.68.249 (talk · contribs) requested an unblock. I'm still completing the port scan but it doesn't immediately look like an open proxy. May have been shut down in the last three days. Could you please reexamine and unblock if necessary? Thanks. --Yamla 22:41, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
- That is one of the various IPs that have claimed to be Songgarden who has been disrupting the project by indirectly trolling Durova.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 04:14, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
CoH
The Character classes in City of heroes: Might I ask why the piece I added stating The Statesman's class is also considered an incarnate in edition to being a tanker was removed? Both he and Lord Recluse are deemed to be these in addition to their more standard archtypes yet the Recluse entry on the same page stating this is seemingly allowed to remain. Both should either be allowed or both should be removed if it's not acceptable for one.Petrarch 00:38 02 December 2007 (GMT)
- There is already a mention that he is an Incarnate later in the page.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 00:41, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
- I missed that one - having just re-read it and seen it near the bottom, I'll remove the duplicate reference to Recluse under the "Mastermind" heading also as he too gets mentioned in the same section. Cheers. .Petrarch 00:48 03 December 2007 (GMT)
- Sorry about that, then. It should probably be removed from both.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 00:51, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
- I missed that one - having just re-read it and seen it near the bottom, I'll remove the duplicate reference to Recluse under the "Mastermind" heading also as he too gets mentioned in the same section. Cheers. .Petrarch 00:48 03 December 2007 (GMT)
More bad blocks
Once again, you have continued to block good faith users without even the slightest attempt at warning them. User:Braverman01 made no mistakes not common to a newbie (would a kindly worded "please stop" do?). User:76.110.76.253, whom you blocked for 3 months for "vandalism" was doing nothing but making newbie mistakes: [1] (again, would "please stop" do?). If these users are sockpuppets, could I ask you to make sure to use a better edit summary when blocking them? The Evil Spartan 01:17, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
- Ugh - why did you block those users without any warning? It's getting to the point that I pity the fool who dares to edit Power Rangers articles without checking with you first. Videmus Omnia Talk 03:11, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Braverman01 came up in one of the recent changes feeds and was uploading images and ignoring talk page messages concerning the copyrights. To prevent users who have nothing but image warnings on their talk page, I blocked him (getting those messages are considered as warnings). The IP is indeed a returning vandal that I had blocked another IP the day before for performing the exact same edits. And to Videmus Omnia, I am not owning the page. I had noticed that the other IP (74.173.49.58) had been performing multiple inappropriate edits and blocked it while it was performing said edits. Then the next day 76.110.76.253 came and performed the same edits, which are still vandalism. I should have denoted that it was a returning IP, but there is still nothing wrong with either of these blocks.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 04:05, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
- OK, but couldn't you have placed a shorter block on the Braverman? To go for the death penalty right away seems unnecessary, and it is against our official policies: WP:BLOCK#Duration_of_blocks. As for the other user being a sock, I notice you immediately blocked the first account for 1 month for "systematic whitewashing" also without any warning. The Evil Spartan 04:15, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
- The IP was continually vandalizing articles and while I agree it hadn't been warned, it was still performing whitewashing edits and I had originally only blocked for 24 hours until I saw the months of damage the IP had been doing to the encyclopedia, and particularly in the area of interest I am in. Warning a vandalism only account is not imperative. We're not going to change someone's mind if they see the little orange bar every time. And I will unblock Braverman as the block was more than necessary.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 04:17, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Not to bother you, but is there any reason why you didn't add this barnstar to your award page? Would it be OK with you if I added it?--U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. 01:31, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
- I forgot to at the time. Go ahead if you wish.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 04:06, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Inquery about the warning signs on user:Jjk82
Hello, Ryulong, I notice that you're an admin and erased the vandalism warnings on the User:Jjk82 page because the banned user, "bason01" tried to keep the warning message. While User:Jjk82 was active, he did not get any sanction from admins even though the edits were disruptive behaviors. Besides, your comment on the summary of the User:Jjk82 user page implies enough that I and Patriotmissile, and the other (I can't recall his/her id) who left the signs to him also the socketpuppet. I object to the implication and involvement with the sockpuppet.
In addition, I filed a report on his behaviors, but due to the Korean cuisine report, it did not get fair attention from sysops as well.
- black list: Schools you should avoid working for. Teaching English in Korea is really a minefield of potential disasters. Read the warning from the U.S. Department of State regarding teaching English in Korea:
- South Korea, However, there are many dodgy schools, so do be careful.
- Koreans are far from the wealthiest - they are a disappointing 28th.
- Korea is not an egalitarian society; one is either of a higher or a lower status than other people. How do foreigners fit into this scheme?
I ask your opinion regarding these kind of comments by him. Do you think his edits are from good faith and just a matter of perspective? The above comments are only partial of the whole messes he brought up. Please carefully examine it. Thanks. --Appletrees 07:53, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
- The edits from GoodfaithBadfith are those of a banned user. If you think the warnings he/she placed on Jjk82's page were proper, then you can put your own warnings in their place. That is all I have to say on this situation.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 07:55, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
- No, you didn't understand my saying. The warning signs were not from the sockpuppet but from me, patriotmissle and the others. You left the comment that you will ask for the responsibility whomever would revert "admins"'s revert. --Appletrees 08:00, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
- Oh. If that is the case, then I am wrong in stating the banned stuff. Feel free to replace the content that was not made by the banned user.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 08:03, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
- No, you didn't understand my saying. The warning signs were not from the sockpuppet but from me, patriotmissle and the others. You left the comment that you will ask for the responsibility whomever would revert "admins"'s revert. --Appletrees 08:00, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you for clearing things up. But I'm a bit hesitate to put them back, because they are neither warranted nor official warnings from admins. I tried to keep his page with the vandalism warnings in case, he would do the same behaviors again and the signs will be helpful for admins to judge his behaviors per history.
- However, I'm more pleading for re-considering his behaviors now. I highly doubt that Jjk82 is a newbie. He did seem to be very knowledgeable of wiki rules like 3rr rules already and showed the very same pattern of User:Keyngez according to their obsession at the environment of Korea. Please take a look at the report. Thanks--Appletrees 08:25, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
- Again, more than I'm planning to get involved in than I already am. Please raise these issues again at ANI and cite the old thread.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 08:49, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
- However, I'm more pleading for re-considering his behaviors now. I highly doubt that Jjk82 is a newbie. He did seem to be very knowledgeable of wiki rules like 3rr rules already and showed the very same pattern of User:Keyngez according to their obsession at the environment of Korea. Please take a look at the report. Thanks--Appletrees 08:25, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Block
Ryulong, what was the reason for the one-month block on this IP? I see they only made one edit and got no warnings. Videmus Omnia Talk 05:32, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
- The provenience of the edit as well as the general content of the edit in question show that its the IP belonging to some sort of user who has been banned. As of right now, I am not positive as to who is behind it, but the non-technical evidence is enough for me. Should a checkuser show the opposite, I will unblock the IP.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 05:38, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
- Let me clarify myself, this is not the edit of someone new to the site, or the edit of someone who is happy with the site.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 05:42, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
- Criticizing Wikipedia is a blockable offense now? Videmus Omnia Talk 05:49, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
- No. But having your only edit on a tucked away user talk page being critical of Wikipedia is telling evidence that we kicked you out in some way.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 05:50, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
- So why escalate things by blocking the user? It wasn't like the comment caused any harm to the encyclopedia, and your block seems to be punishing the person for a mildly critical comment. It may have just been a user editing while logged out, which is allowed per the meta privacy policy. I don't think you understand that you're helping to create drama, and giving people axes to grind about Wikipedia, by being way, way too block-happy. I also see on that IP talk page that one of your block justifications was not enough editing of article space - I thought we settled that was not part of the block policy after your block of CattleGirl. Videmus Omnia Talk 05:59, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
- The IP's only edits were concerning the recently closed RFAR for Durova. If you check the IP's contributions, all edits are on that topic and nothing at all encyclopedic. The user is not here to build an encyclopedia but to cause drama. The IP had been blocked prior for similar reasons, although not specifically stated to be about lack of encyclopedic contributions. If they are here to only cause ill will, then they needn't be here to begin with.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 06:01, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
- Ryulong, once again, please read the block policy and the meta privacy policy. Users are allowed to edit anonymously, and they may edit wherever they wish - article space, image space, project space, whatever. And it's not a crime to criticize or discuss an admin's unwise actions, nor is it automatically "drama". The Durova thing is all over the intertubes anyway, what do you think you're accomplishing? Every time you try to shut someone up by blocking them, you create another enemy of Wikipedia, or make the existing enemies more committed. Better to let them have their say unless it's blatant trolling or insults, which this was not. That way, they can feel they're part of the community, and their comments get archived and forgotten about within a day or two - no real harm done. Videmus Omnia Talk 06:14, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
- If you feel there's an issue here, take it to ANI. I am tired of having to answer to you whenever you feel I am coloring outside of the lines.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 06:16, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
- ANI is a swamp that resolves precisely nothing...but if you don't want to answer questions about your blocks, then don't make questionable blocks. Simple. Videmus Omnia Talk 06:18, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
- I've answered you, but you don't think the answer is decent.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 06:20, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
- Based on technical evidence (rather lack thereof), I have unblocked the IP that you initially questioned about. The latter I do not have enough reason to unblock, as the editting and trolling is still extant as reasons for the block.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 06:28, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
- ANI is a swamp that resolves precisely nothing...but if you don't want to answer questions about your blocks, then don't make questionable blocks. Simple. Videmus Omnia Talk 06:18, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
- If you feel there's an issue here, take it to ANI. I am tired of having to answer to you whenever you feel I am coloring outside of the lines.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 06:16, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
- Ryulong, once again, please read the block policy and the meta privacy policy. Users are allowed to edit anonymously, and they may edit wherever they wish - article space, image space, project space, whatever. And it's not a crime to criticize or discuss an admin's unwise actions, nor is it automatically "drama". The Durova thing is all over the intertubes anyway, what do you think you're accomplishing? Every time you try to shut someone up by blocking them, you create another enemy of Wikipedia, or make the existing enemies more committed. Better to let them have their say unless it's blatant trolling or insults, which this was not. That way, they can feel they're part of the community, and their comments get archived and forgotten about within a day or two - no real harm done. Videmus Omnia Talk 06:14, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
- The IP's only edits were concerning the recently closed RFAR for Durova. If you check the IP's contributions, all edits are on that topic and nothing at all encyclopedic. The user is not here to build an encyclopedia but to cause drama. The IP had been blocked prior for similar reasons, although not specifically stated to be about lack of encyclopedic contributions. If they are here to only cause ill will, then they needn't be here to begin with.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 06:01, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
- So why escalate things by blocking the user? It wasn't like the comment caused any harm to the encyclopedia, and your block seems to be punishing the person for a mildly critical comment. It may have just been a user editing while logged out, which is allowed per the meta privacy policy. I don't think you understand that you're helping to create drama, and giving people axes to grind about Wikipedia, by being way, way too block-happy. I also see on that IP talk page that one of your block justifications was not enough editing of article space - I thought we settled that was not part of the block policy after your block of CattleGirl. Videmus Omnia Talk 05:59, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
- No. But having your only edit on a tucked away user talk page being critical of Wikipedia is telling evidence that we kicked you out in some way.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 05:50, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
- Criticizing Wikipedia is a blockable offense now? Videmus Omnia Talk 05:49, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Keepscases
Just to let you know that this user has continued to ask inappropriate questions on RfAs after your warning. I've warned him again (and this is several he received), and I'll be watching his contributions.--U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. (talk) 01:25, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Kamen Rider Kiba
When, can the info related to Kiba Form be told as his "default form" was revealed? We could use the pic for the Kamen Rider Kiba page or the main series page? Kiba-Form Fractyl (talk) 01:50, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
- Only textual information. If something in text says "Vampire" in Japanese, then we add that. Anything else is WP:OR or unverified.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 01:54, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
- No character page, yet, either.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 02:01, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry
Ryulong I'm apologize for the deleting the dead links and all but sometimes its annoying when they are red and the article for that word doesn't exist. I wasn't to vandalze pages I thought I was helping please do forgive me. -RedLifeguardRanger 06:35, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
- On Wikipedia, there are no "dead links." Only red links. You can get rid of those red links another way by writing the articles on the people.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 06:36, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for telling me and do you think those links with the Sentai actors could get their own articles too? Louis Marinucci 06:38, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
- Of course. All that would be necessary is to check their articles over at the Japanese Wikipedia so we can get their names right in Japanese as well as how they write their names in English.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 06:39, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
- Also, it would be best if you changed your signature such that your user page was linked.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 06:40, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
- Ok, got and btw you can use a translator like babelfish to name a few to help you translate that stuff into English and ok will with my name at the end of signture. One more thing are we allowed to change our names on our accounts without socking or no? -RedLifeguardRanger 06:46, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
- I actually mean that some actors spell their names differently in English than they would be written directly from Japanese. The actor who played Kitazaki in 555 spells his name as "Ray" when its written in Japanese as "Rei."—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 06:50, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
- Oh ok I got now thanks and btw dude I like your Ranger avatar its very cool and I used the same template as you did to make my own Ranger team with. -RedLifeguardRanger 06:54, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, I had to ask to use that on Wikipedia from the same source.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 06:56, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
- Well me that is just for personal use only and was wondering are we allowed to change our names since socking is a no no here? Because I wanted to change my name from RedLifeguadRanger to RedPolarBearRanger.-RedLifeguardRanger 06:59, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
- There is a way to request that your username be changed at WP:RENAME.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 07:01, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks again dude well I would like to learn more alot from you about this site and keeping it clean and all. -RedLifeguardRanger 07:04, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
- Well me that is just for personal use only and was wondering are we allowed to change our names since socking is a no no here? Because I wanted to change my name from RedLifeguadRanger to RedPolarBearRanger.-RedLifeguardRanger 06:59, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, I had to ask to use that on Wikipedia from the same source.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 06:56, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
- Oh ok I got now thanks and btw dude I like your Ranger avatar its very cool and I used the same template as you did to make my own Ranger team with. -RedLifeguardRanger 06:54, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
- Also, it would be best if you changed your signature such that your user page was linked.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 06:40, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
- Of course. All that would be necessary is to check their articles over at the Japanese Wikipedia so we can get their names right in Japanese as well as how they write their names in English.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 06:39, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for telling me and do you think those links with the Sentai actors could get their own articles too? Louis Marinucci 06:38, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Re: Hagger nonsense
Be wary of the musical fruit, if you catch my drift.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 10:03, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
- Not trying to go down that road, but what is the point in having reams of protected titles? Stifle (talk) 16:26, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
- Because he was acting in a predictable motion.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 21:19, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Help
I REALLY need help over at Talk:Universal Life Church, and my request at WP:AN/I continues to be ignored. HELP!!! GJ (talk) 02:33, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Orgs
Such I found the sub of Gaoranger, I can finally add the needed info on the monsters. So please do not erase the info just like that. Fractyl (talk) 03:48, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
- It's extensive detail on minor characters. We do not need an essay on each monster of the day.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 04:29, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
- Going on a eassy for each is not the intent, only enough detail on who the Org is and his/her part in the story. Now if you like to use the info I gather to make a more condensed version, I'm alright with that. Fractyl (talk) 04:58, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
- It's still way too much detail for a minor character. The information on the various Beast-Men in Confrontation Beast-Fist Akugata is too much.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 05:00, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
- Actually, what's at Akugata is mostly decent. Keep it to less than that.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 05:01, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
- That's what I'm doing, but I will shorten it more. Fractyl (talk) 05:13, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
- Going on a eassy for each is not the intent, only enough detail on who the Org is and his/her part in the story. Now if you like to use the info I gather to make a more condensed version, I'm alright with that. Fractyl (talk) 04:58, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
- I have made up my mind on this again. There is too much detail on such minor characters. A line is more than necessary for any description or summary for its place in the episode.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 02:17, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
- I'll try to shorten more, but don't remove the data that is necessary. Fractyl (talk) 08:32, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
- The only necessary data is what episode they showed up in and by what means they were destroyed. Any intensive plot detailing is unnecessary.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 09:23, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
- But what of their part in the episode, why they were used and their abilties, and the ones whose influence expands the episode they only appeared in? If it needs to shorten, it will be, but not by removing the info all at once. Fractyl (talk) 09:46, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
- That is getting way too much into plot summarization. Remember that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. What happened in each particular episode is not really the focus of a page for what is essentially a list of characters, including really minor characters such as monsters of the day. Keep it short and to the point. We need maybe three sentences on each. If an Org turned humans into carrots, then that can be mentioned, but just writing what they did based on your viewing of each of the episodes made the page way too long. We need to cut out on plot summary, especially on biographies of fictional characters, because it turns into something that does not appear to be worthy of encyclopedic coverage.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 10:06, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
- I'll try to shorten more, but don't remove the data that is necessary. Fractyl (talk) 08:32, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
Block of Bruce1333
Ryulong: You blocked this user a few hourse ago. He is a party to and the subject of Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Bruce1333. I assume the block now prevents his particpation. Out of fairness to him if he cannot respond, should that RfC now be closed? Unless he is unblocked it would be moot in any event. Thank you. Kablammo (talk) 15:58, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
- I suggested on that page's talk that the dispute is resolved; after all, the main goal was for the editor to stop disrupting that article. However, I was more interested in the user calming down and contributing constructively rather than him being blocked, even though he thinks I'm working for some cabal who is out to get him. Is it acceptable for me to email him and see if we can reach an agreement that I can then pass on to you? Cheers, Master of Puppets Care to share? 18:15, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
- I can really see no constructive edits from the individual, and its unlikely that an RFC would make him change his mind (per the comments I saw at the RFC). If you believe that you can turn him into a constructive editor, have him enter some sort of mentorship, and I will unblock him.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 20:51, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
- I guess you're right... I'll think about it, I guess. Cheers, Master of Puppets Care to share? 05:19, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Why did you block those two? I've seen a WR thread mentioning them, but it specifically says that those are not sock puppets of baned users. Discombobulator (talk) 16:04, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
- If anything they're proxying for a banned user which is just as bad. The usernames aren't any better, concerning the context of the thread and whatnot.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 16:17, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Proxying for a banned user? Care to explain that? As for the usernames, I don't believe they break the username policy. Discombobulator (talk) 16:21, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
- Both were recruited by Daniel Brandt to stir up drama concerning the recently deleted SureFire M6 Guardian article, which is a flashlight that Jimbo has claimed to own and utilize as a personal weapon on the off chance that someone were to break into his house. That is why "Bright flashlight" and "Jims beam" are inappropriate usernames at the moment. Regardless, they are only here because of Brandt, and that is proxying on behalf of him.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 16:24, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
There is no proof that those two were made to stir up "drama". Regardless, being recruited by a banned user is not offence, especially not a banworthy one. Especially not when you block them as sock puppets. Discombobulator (talk) 16:32, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
- Being a proxy for a banned user is a blockable offence. There have been multiple arbitration cases that utilize this fact. Regardless of not being the user, they're still only here because of one. And that is why I refactored my block rationales.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 16:34, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Your thoughts
on TRE unblocked? the_undertow talk 10:49, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Elaborate?—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 21:49, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Oh, I only blocked because the user's main account had been blocked for being hijacked. It does not matter anymore.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 22:07, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
This user, who you blocked in September, is saying that he has learned his lesson and requesting an unblock. Just thought you might like to know. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 16:32, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Should he realize his errors, then he can be unblocked.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 21:49, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Notification...
I would appreciate if you would have notified me before you deleted my additions to University of Miami. I understand your reason for doing this, but one of the links you deleted was hyperlinked to an existing article. On a side note, red links help users to know what articles need to be created, and are not always cases of vandalism.--Manderson198 (talk) 19:25, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- The individuals you added did not have articles, and therefore are not specifically notable per the Wikipedia biography policy (and really should not be put on a list of notable faculty). Should articles be made, then they can be listed, as they are proven to be notable.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 21:48, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
I was in the process of creating the articles when you deleted them, but anyways case closed. And they are in fact notable faculty members, especially Craig Morris.
- They're not deleted, they're just proposed to be deleted.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 03:58, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
OK, well I will expand them tomorrow. I didn't have time to construct the complete articles today because I had an exam. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Manderson198 (talk • contribs) 04:57, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
- As did I.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 05:17, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
You can delete the Tim Conner article immediately if you please. I reviewed the policy and found him not to adhere to enough of the notability guidelines for a biography. Craig Morris will stay though, and I will finish the article and include additional sources. Sorry for the confusion.--Manderson198 (talk) 16:49, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Hello Ryulong. I see from Talk:Dave Winer that you have been involved in the past helping to straighten out that page. It seems that a dynamic IP who behaves like Nick Irelan has resumed inserting his favorite story back into the page. Do you think it is time for semi-protection again? Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 20:45, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
- I'll look into it in a bit.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 22:29, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for following up. EdJohnston (talk) 03:09, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
Hurricaneger
I can try to expand the hero profiles, but know the info I provided stopped at #34 (subtitled version). Fractyl (talk) 16:36, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
- Just expand the biographies or cut out some of the villains biographies. Whichever is easier. We don't need a full summarization of their place in the series.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 17:11, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
Fair use
You mean that I cannot prepare a draft of an article? --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:17, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
- You can, but you just can't use fair use images in your userspace while you do so. It violates policy and copyright.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 21:18, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
- I just wish someone had simply said "You need to add this template." No one did that. All I was told was that a rationale had to be added, which was. I wasn't told that it had to be formatted with a particular template. When my response didn't seem to satisy the templated messages I got, I had to go hunt down the necessary information myself. --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:46, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
- I usually write them out myself. And you really can't have fair use in temporary user page drafts. That was the main issue.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 23:03, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
- I just wish someone had simply said "You need to add this template." No one did that. All I was told was that a rationale had to be added, which was. I wasn't told that it had to be formatted with a particular template. When my response didn't seem to satisy the templated messages I got, I had to go hunt down the necessary information myself. --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:46, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
I forgot to ask...
I forgot to ask you this about the troublemaking 61.5.*.*/61.94.*.* IP vandal, but how long does the block you imposed on those five ranges you mentioned back there last? And what does the "0/24" or "0/23" endings mean? Just asking. - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 11:02, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
WPTC Active Members
The Wikipedia:WikiProject Tropical cyclones has changed greatly since it was first started, and according to our main page we now have 87 members. However, we only have a small group of members that are still active, and as such, I am sending this out to all users on the participants list. If you are still active, please sign your name here. If you do not wish to be part of the project any more, or if you do not answer to this, you will be placed on an inactive users list after a period of two weeks. If you wish to rejoin after you are put on the inactive users list, you are welcome to rejoin. Cheers. --Hurricanehink (talk) 18:46, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Block of Abadafa
Could you comment on the talk page of this user? You've block the account for sockpuppetry, and s/he is requesting to be unblocked. I can't figure out whose sock s/he is supposed to be or what disruption occurred. - auburnpilot talk 22:50, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
- Part of the user's user talk page revisions contain a link to a website upkept by a banned user. That was strong enough for me.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 23:26, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks. I wasn't aware of an Amorrow (talk · contribs) until just now. It looks like Luna Santin is attempting to resolve this one, but Abadafa's answers to his questions are less than convincing. - auburnpilot talk 23:42, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
ValueJet Flight 592 Page
Excuse me I think the page for the ValuJet Flight 592 needs to be updated because I tried to add reference that states the incident was featured on COPS which involed the Miami-Dade Police Department but I think my info was reverted back and removed I was wondering if a Pop Culture section could be added in the article because of the fact this plane crash was featured on COPS if not I understand. I did not make the appearance of this incident on COPS up because the episode with the segement in question acutally exists I thought I let you know. - Red Polar Bear Ranger 05:00, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
- "In pop culture" sections are discouraged.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 05:48, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for me I now understand thanks for helping out if I have any futher questions or need help can I come to you for info? - Red Polar Bear Ranger 06:17, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
More sockpuppetry
Hello! I noticed that you had blocked Chinese has a V as a sockpuppet of Fiet Nam and I thought it might be a good idea to tell you the same user appears to have taken on another user name: Oxygenikkepest, at least based on the contributions. That said the Dalecarlian language article is once again been reverted to reflect Fiet Nam's opinion on the matter. Thanks! -Yupik (talk) 19:37, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
- I will look into this.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 22:23, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Waga
"Waga" (我が): (adj-pn,n) my, our, one's own Fractyl (talk) 14:31, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
- Right. Well, I see that it's used for all of them. I just know that it had regal conotations, so that is why I equated it with "we" as that is what several English royals refer to themselves as.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 22:14, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
- Yeah, but I don't think Rio's line is meant to use a Pluralis majestatis. Though the "royality" bit is sensable. Hence why I go with "I am the Black Lion..Rio" or "My name, the Black Lion..Rio". Fractyl (talk) 23:18, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
- The Ellipsis isn't necessary, as that's not present in the original text.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 23:21, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
- Ok, just "I am the Black Lion Rio" or "My name, the Black Lion Rio. I just did that for the timing aspect of the phrase. Fractyl (talk) 23:32, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
- I'm also trying to make Sharkie's statement appear presentable in English instead of the translation that may have been used by the subtitles. It's awkward the way you keep presenting it.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 23:25, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
- Yeah, but I kinda like the ""Sharkin!"'s there while training." line as it fits in a "awkard way". Fractyl (talk) 23:32, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
- It does not work at all in English. It does not fit in any way. That is why I am trying to reword it.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 00:25, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
- Yeah, but I kinda like the ""Sharkin!"'s there while training." line as it fits in a "awkard way". Fractyl (talk) 23:32, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
- The Ellipsis isn't necessary, as that's not present in the original text.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 23:21, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
- Yeah, but I don't think Rio's line is meant to use a Pluralis majestatis. Though the "royality" bit is sensable. Hence why I go with "I am the Black Lion..Rio" or "My name, the Black Lion..Rio". Fractyl (talk) 23:18, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
If the user is banned, can you block the account? See his two edits from today ([2] [3], which I reverted. - Rjd0060 (talk) 02:32, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
- Everything's been fixed.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 04:57, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
- Hi. I was looking at that discussion, and what convinces you that this user was the said sock in the first place? The Evil Spartan (talk) 04:59, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
- It was suspicious in the first place that the IP's first edit was to WP:AN concerning power structures and other meta-level stuff. I did not inquire about the actual individual behind the IP until I was talking with Dmcdevit the other night about an unrelated case. I then asked him about the IP that started the thread, and he revealed that it was the banned user I cite in the block log and there were multiple sleeper accounts behind the IP. Dmcdevit revealed to me that the IP was a sock, and did what he had to do. I blocked today because of continued abuse from the IPs.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 05:34, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
- OK, thanks for the information. Just as a note, this happened via email or IRC, right (not a criticism)? The Evil Spartan (talk) 07:19, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
- It was via off-site correspondence, yes.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 07:25, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
- This sounds like nonsense to me. I've just checked the IP's block log and they looked clean. I see the user also requested you show your evidence. Would you be willing to do that, or have you something to hide? 194.189.32.65 (talk) 08:48, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
- <cough>banned sockpuppet</cough> The Evil Spartan (talk) 08:55, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
- I see nothing in the logs about sockpuppetry. Please provide evidence otherwise this is exactly what the user was talking about in his post! 194.189.32.65 (talk) 09:25, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
- I did not save the conversation (there was no reason to). I was given the evidence, and I acted upon it.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 10:00, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
- Personally it seems like you are using the controversy concerning the anon as an excuse to censor the content of the post. I find this unacceptable, the entire thread had attracted a lot of attention and was being discussed by several users. You have taken it upon yourself to prevent that from happening, specifically to prevent those with issues from raising them or criticising the site. Since you can't provide evidence of the anon's disruptive past, I myself am furthermore reluctant to take your word on this. I am in agreement with those who believe this encyclopedia is being ruled with an iron fist by those such as yourself, and this is just another example of how you silence those who refuse to accept this. 194.189.32.65 (talk) 12:16, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
- Personally, I think you belong to either the banned user that started the thread or a banned user who had been posting in the thread. Kindly leave.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 22:20, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
- Personally it seems like you are using the controversy concerning the anon as an excuse to censor the content of the post. I find this unacceptable, the entire thread had attracted a lot of attention and was being discussed by several users. You have taken it upon yourself to prevent that from happening, specifically to prevent those with issues from raising them or criticising the site. Since you can't provide evidence of the anon's disruptive past, I myself am furthermore reluctant to take your word on this. I am in agreement with those who believe this encyclopedia is being ruled with an iron fist by those such as yourself, and this is just another example of how you silence those who refuse to accept this. 194.189.32.65 (talk) 12:16, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
- I did not save the conversation (there was no reason to). I was given the evidence, and I acted upon it.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 10:00, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
- I see nothing in the logs about sockpuppetry. Please provide evidence otherwise this is exactly what the user was talking about in his post! 194.189.32.65 (talk) 09:25, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
- <cough>banned sockpuppet</cough> The Evil Spartan (talk) 08:55, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
- This sounds like nonsense to me. I've just checked the IP's block log and they looked clean. I see the user also requested you show your evidence. Would you be willing to do that, or have you something to hide? 194.189.32.65 (talk) 08:48, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
- It was via off-site correspondence, yes.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 07:25, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
- OK, thanks for the information. Just as a note, this happened via email or IRC, right (not a criticism)? The Evil Spartan (talk) 07:19, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
- It was suspicious in the first place that the IP's first edit was to WP:AN concerning power structures and other meta-level stuff. I did not inquire about the actual individual behind the IP until I was talking with Dmcdevit the other night about an unrelated case. I then asked him about the IP that started the thread, and he revealed that it was the banned user I cite in the block log and there were multiple sleeper accounts behind the IP. Dmcdevit revealed to me that the IP was a sock, and did what he had to do. I blocked today because of continued abuse from the IPs.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 05:34, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
- Hi. I was looking at that discussion, and what convinces you that this user was the said sock in the first place? The Evil Spartan (talk) 04:59, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Attracting flies
Yes, you are right. But I did not ask for it. Hayden has harassed me for months with his biased racialist agenda, so he can edit freely. I will lay low, like you said. Thank you. It's frustrating though, and I'm sure it is also for you too. I have a semi-static IP while he has many dynamic IPs and will be back over and over. Sigh.65.27.201.206 (talk) 10:50, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
- Like I said, stay away for a bit and Hayden will get bored and then you can come back and edit unabated. I don't think you're even banned by all senses of the word, but that's up for discussion (if a sock hadn't started it).—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 10:53, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
- I know, but that's just it, he doesn't seem to get bored. He is always recreating himself. I'm sorry for bothering you. But, he's come back over and over again, and then got me by reporting me to AN/I again...(my fault, I know), thinking he "got rid of me". I've even been nice to him, at times. I don't know if you celebrate any kind of holidays -- but I wish you the best no matter what holiday it is for you, or whether on not you celebrate any. I'm not "crazy" in the real sense of the word either. LOL. I just act crazy. Although I think it would be fun if I were really crazy or "insane" as I've been labeled. It's the Catch 22 effect. If I lay low, he will have free rein. If I want to fly, I'm crazy, if I don't, I'm sane and have to fly anyway. Ya know? I think that I'm the only one who knows his style and what-not. Maybe not, but I think I am anyway. :) I did catch him again, though. Anyway... Happy Holidays. Also, I don't know how to "come back" although I have emailed an admin for my right to vanish, but he's asking for a new user ID before he does grant me that. Though, I can't think of one that would fit me -- to feel comfortable in anyway, at the moment. Best wishes, Jeannie 65.27.201.206 (talk) 11:36, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Like I've did last time (based on your edit summary on June 20th), but I think that after 6 months of semi-protection, we can un-protect this article and give it a shot.--JForget 01:35, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
- Seems long enough. I think the moron that caused the semiprotection is gone by now.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 01:45, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Vandalism?
That user you just reverted and blocked didn't vandalize my talk page. He/she was trying to find out how to have their original account that they said was blocked vanish from Wikipedia.--Urban Rose (talk) 05:05, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
- It was still a sockpuppet of someone who abused multiple accounts in the past.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 05:27, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
- Who was it a sockpuppet of? Videmus Omnia Talk 05:53, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
- Gth629jHelp (talk · contribs) explicitly stated that he was a sockpuppet of Gth629j (talk · contribs) who was blocked some time ago and then created several abusive sockpuppets. I do not understand why we are giving an abusive sockpuppeteer a clean slate here.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 05:58, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
- Who was it a sockpuppet of? Videmus Omnia Talk 05:53, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
That blocked user seems to want to talk to you. Regards, Sandstein (talk) 07:43, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
- The user requested the right to vanish. I don't think that's feasible with the amount of sockpuppets he's created, and he seemingly does not realize that he simply stops editting and is done with us.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 07:52, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Why did you revert my edits to the First Colonial High School Page? Pipepaladin (talk) 22:55, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
- The group is not notable for discussion, nor can we tell if you are telling the truth.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 22:55, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
- so, because you know nothing of the subject, you assume it is not notable for discussion? thats a closed minded approach is it not, all the information was neither slanderous, nor outrageous. It was a simple discussion of the team members, simply their names, as well as a recent event in the team. Pipepaladin (talk) 22:59, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
- Wikipedia has strict policies concerning naming people who may or may not be notable against their wishes, and you do not have a source that supports that they are actually the team members. I will gladly show you how the links to the proper inclusion items.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 23:01, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
- I'll have to get some sources then
- Pipepaladin (talk) 23:10, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
- Wikipedia has strict policies concerning naming people who may or may not be notable against their wishes, and you do not have a source that supports that they are actually the team members. I will gladly show you how the links to the proper inclusion items.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 23:01, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
- so, because you know nothing of the subject, you assume it is not notable for discussion? thats a closed minded approach is it not, all the information was neither slanderous, nor outrageous. It was a simple discussion of the team members, simply their names, as well as a recent event in the team. Pipepaladin (talk) 22:59, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Vandalism IP Adress 71.228.207.207
I found an annonymous IP user with IP 71.228.207.207 (contributions • Talk) that has vandalized Wikipedia articles, expecially ones related to Power Rangers. Please check if this user has already been blocked. I strongly think he/she does not need to contribute to Wikipedia. Mythdon (talk) 06:01, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
- I blocked him yesterday.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 06:04, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
- If he continues to do vandalism after his block expires, then i will tell you. Mythdon (talk) 06:08, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Your message on a user's talk page
Please, please, stop leaving messages like this. You cannot block people for "using Wikipedia as a social networking site". The user hasn't done anything disruptive, or in any way impeded the smooth running of the encyclopedia. He has not committed any blockable offences. Gentle encouragement to contribute to the encyclopedia is fine; threatening blocks is only likely to drive a good-faith user away. WaltonOne 12:41, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. It is not MySpace. People who treat it like MySpace should be blocked from editting.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 23:24, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
- About this MySpace issue, you recently deleted User:This doesnt hurt's userpage. May I ask why? I don't think it said anything offensive... ~ Bella Swan 23:28, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
- The user had very little encyclopedic contributions. User pages are to be used to improve the encyclopedia. Users who do not contribute to the encyclopedia get their user pages deleted, particularly if that is all that they have editted.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 23:30, 31 December 2007 (UTC
- Ryulong, didn't this issue get raised following your block of the administrator CattleGirl (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)? I thought you were going to stop this. Videmus Omnia Talk 23:35, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
- I did not block anyone. I deleted the userpage of someone who had 4 article edits and several hundred user talk edits. I firmly believe that the activities are improper, but I have given warnings, which was something else you have been harping at me about.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 23:38, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
- OK - can you cite the policy behind your deletion? Videmus Omnia Talk 23:40, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
- WP:NOT#MYSPACE—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 23:40, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
- OK - can you cite the policy behind your deletion? Videmus Omnia Talk 23:40, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
- I did not block anyone. I deleted the userpage of someone who had 4 article edits and several hundred user talk edits. I firmly believe that the activities are improper, but I have given warnings, which was something else you have been harping at me about.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 23:38, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
- Ryulong, didn't this issue get raised following your block of the administrator CattleGirl (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)? I thought you were going to stop this. Videmus Omnia Talk 23:35, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
- The user had very little encyclopedic contributions. User pages are to be used to improve the encyclopedia. Users who do not contribute to the encyclopedia get their user pages deleted, particularly if that is all that they have editted.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 23:30, 31 December 2007 (UTC
- About this MySpace issue, you recently deleted User:This doesnt hurt's userpage. May I ask why? I don't think it said anything offensive... ~ Bella Swan 23:28, 31 December 2007 (UTC)