User talk:Ryulong/Archive 27
 | 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 20 | ← | Archive 25 | Archive 26 | Archive 27 | Archive 28 | Archive 29 | Archive 30 |
Hardblock
Why not hardblock 64.202.160.0/19? Spellcast (talk) 22:53, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
- Good point. Although, how did you find that block seeing as it's from last year?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 23:07, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
- Before blocking an open proxy, I usually check that it's not under any rangeblocks. Spellcast (talk) 23:19, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
For some reason, the 208.109.0.0/16 block doesn't seem to be working. See 208.109.19.19 (talk · contribs). Spellcast (talk) 12:11, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
- Blocked users can edit their talk pages.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 21:39, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
- But what about the articles it edited this year despite the range being blocked last year? Spellcast (talk) 01:08, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
- Someone unblocked a single IP and it broke the rest.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 01:30, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
- Wait so if someone unblocks one IP in a rangeblock, that disables the whole rangeblock? It would be better if the software could unblock individual IPs without unblocking the entire range. Spellcast (talk) 01:44, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
- Or if someone blocks another IP in a range, it disables the rest of the block once that block expires.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 01:54, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
- Well that's not good, especially when the duration of a direct block is shorter than the range block. This should be changed. Spellcast (talk) 02:02, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
- Actually, are you sure unblocking one IP disables a rangeblock? Last month, I blocked 208.77.91.32/27. Today, after I removed the block on 208.77.91.43 (talk · contribs) (from this web proxy), the rangeblock still worked. I then set a 1 second block and found the rangeblock still works. Spellcast (talk) 04:05, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
- I don't know the specifics. I just know things go down.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 04:16, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
- I just hope there aren't any other "malfunctioning" rangeblocked open proxies (like with 208.109.0.0/16 above). Spellcast (talk) 04:26, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
- I don't know the specifics. I just know things go down.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 04:16, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
- Actually, are you sure unblocking one IP disables a rangeblock? Last month, I blocked 208.77.91.32/27. Today, after I removed the block on 208.77.91.43 (talk · contribs) (from this web proxy), the rangeblock still worked. I then set a 1 second block and found the rangeblock still works. Spellcast (talk) 04:05, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
- Well that's not good, especially when the duration of a direct block is shorter than the range block. This should be changed. Spellcast (talk) 02:02, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
- Or if someone blocks another IP in a range, it disables the rest of the block once that block expires.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 01:54, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
- Wait so if someone unblocks one IP in a rangeblock, that disables the whole rangeblock? It would be better if the software could unblock individual IPs without unblocking the entire range. Spellcast (talk) 01:44, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
- Someone unblocked a single IP and it broke the rest.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 01:30, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
- But what about the articles it edited this year despite the range being blocked last year? Spellcast (talk) 01:08, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
Personal attacks
Hi, could you block 129.250.211.0/10? I've warned them on each of their talk pages, and they continue to vandalise my talk page. Here are some diffs, [1], [2], [3]. Its getting pretty annoying and they've made no useful contributions whatsoever. He seems intent on vandalising my talk page because i deleted his comments on the Greys Annatomy talk page regarding a song question. I thought id come straight to an admin, but if there are other means of reporting people like this i'll take it through that. Thanks in advance! Metagraph comment 04:34, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
- Such a block is impossible at a software level.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 04:35, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
- I blocked a /24 that seems to cover things.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 04:43, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, im not too familiar with rangeblocks. Thanks alot, now back to editing. Metagraph comment 05:07, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
- You might like to know this editor has begun sending death threats to me through email. How he got it, i'm not quite sure. Regardless, i'm leaving the project. Just thought you might like to watch them. Metagraph comment 03:20, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
- I don't know who it is, and there are ways to block email. Using Gmail or even AOL allows you to block certain emails from going through.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 03:22, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
Urgent Page protection
Brian PosehnMonster Under Your Bed (talk) 05:16, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
- Why is this urgent?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 05:17, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
- Well, have you not had a look at the history? And its been on RPP for the last 20 minutes. Thanks 05:23, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
You blocked this editor as a vandalism only account and they are requesting to be unblocked. Looking at the edits, you may have inadvertently blocked the wrong account. Take a look when you have a second. Thanks, - auburnpilot talk 06:46, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
- I did not block the wrong account. The account name is an issue as are its edits.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 07:24, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
- You're going to need to give a better explanation than that. The account has three edits, none of which are vandalism, and I don't see how the name is a violation of our username policy. - auburnpilot talk 07:31, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
- Have you actually looked at the edits?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 07:39, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, but I'm starting to think you haven't. The editor absolutely used the talk page in the wrong manner, as if it were a forum and not for discussing improvements to the article. But that's not vandalism or a reason for an instant indefinite block (it's a common mistake of new editors). What you've done, is bite the head off a potentially new editor, rather than explain the real purpose of a talk page. We have warnings for a reason. Please reverse this block immediately; it was clearly done outside of policy. - auburnpilot talk 07:42, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
- You're a bit late on that. I've reversed the block after re-reviewing his edits.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 07:51, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, I suppose during the less than 2 minutes between your unblock and my last comment, I was typing. I've disabled the unblock request and informed the editor of the proper use of talk pages. - auburnpilot talk 07:53, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
- Everybody happy!—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 07:55, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, I suppose during the less than 2 minutes between your unblock and my last comment, I was typing. I've disabled the unblock request and informed the editor of the proper use of talk pages. - auburnpilot talk 07:53, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
- You're a bit late on that. I've reversed the block after re-reviewing his edits.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 07:51, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, but I'm starting to think you haven't. The editor absolutely used the talk page in the wrong manner, as if it were a forum and not for discussing improvements to the article. But that's not vandalism or a reason for an instant indefinite block (it's a common mistake of new editors). What you've done, is bite the head off a potentially new editor, rather than explain the real purpose of a talk page. We have warnings for a reason. Please reverse this block immediately; it was clearly done outside of policy. - auburnpilot talk 07:42, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
- Have you actually looked at the edits?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 07:39, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
- You're going to need to give a better explanation than that. The account has three edits, none of which are vandalism, and I don't see how the name is a violation of our username policy. - auburnpilot talk 07:31, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
Meetup
Wikipedia:Meetup/Tampa -- You're invited! Hires an editor (talk) 22:02, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
Request
Can you take a look at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/RestoreTheEmpireSociety and Btzkillerv (talk · contribs)? I think Btzkillerv's personal/racist attacks[4][5][6][7][8] quite resemble to RestoreTheEmpireSociety (talk · contribs) indefinitely blocked by you for his racist attacks. Although RFCU would eventually take care of the case, but I think the user's behaviors need attentions by admins. Thanks.--Caspian blue (talk) 23:03, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
- My knowledge of this situation is at a bare minimum. I simply blocked then because it was a problem user.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 03:23, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
Hey Ryulong. Okaaay - you just indef blocked the above editor for 'disruptive editing'[9] but they've only ever edited twice. You also immediately deleted their userpage. Can you possibly explain where they're being disruptive and what warranted an indef block? Thanks - Alison ❤ 05:05, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
- Their third edit (there's a first edit to the user page that I deleted not immediately after) was to support a topic ban on ANI. While "disruptive editing" does not really cover that, I could not block for calling the user a "possible sockpuppet account" without knowing exactly who is the puppet master.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 05:08, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
- Umm - nevermind. It's MyWikiBiz again :/ - Alison ❤ 05:40, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
- Sometimes you can just tell.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 05:41, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
- Umm - nevermind. It's MyWikiBiz again :/ - Alison ❤ 05:40, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
Quick Question
Quick one, I saw where you deleted an edit at ANI from an IP [10]. I certainly have no problem with that, I just wanted to know the reason he got removed so quickly. Are IPs not allowed to be a part of those discussions, or was it an IP sock issue? Just asking for future reference, thanks! Dayewalker (talk) 05:55, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
- If an IP's first and only edit is to request that a user be banned, you know it's never good.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 05:56, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
- Well put. Thanks! Dayewalker (talk) 05:59, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
ejaculation article
You have commented in the past either for or against a video on the ejaculation article. There is currently a survey discussing this topic if you care to offer your opinion. Atom (talk) 13:40, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
Welcomebot, eh?
So you think I use a "welcomebot". Do tell me how you propose I am doing this? DougsTech (talk) 09:16, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
- I know you're not a welcomebot. But your edits (22/minute) show that you're acting like a welcomebot. We don't need to welcome every user. Especially when your last 2000 edits were all made in the last day and all were essentially welcomes.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 09:17, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
- Why didn't you contact me, or tell me not to use huggle that way if you were going to disable it for a month? As soon as I looked at my talk page, and saw that users did not like it, I stopped. The first user complained at 09:00, you posted the message disabling huggle at 09:11. So, it took you less than 10 minutes to reach the conclusion that you should disable me for a month? DougsTech (talk) 09:29, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
- You had thoroughly warned before hand.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 09:30, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
- At 22 users per minute, you welcomed a further 132 users after the first warning at 09:00 until your last welcome at 09:06. Daniel (talk) 09:31, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
- Sure, but I stopped. And, not because huggle access is disabled. I am still able to use huggle, and have several times after the supposed disablement. The first warning at 09:00 was from an IP, not an admin. And I checked the talk page at 09:11 and saw the message. I am not asking you to reenable huggle, because its not disabled, just why you would want to block it for a month before giving me time to pause and look at it. All Pedro said was to "hold up". DougsTech (talk) 09:38, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
- At the end of the day, no-one here is psychic. The problematic mass-welcoming continued well after the warning. You had not responded to the warning. I found out about it as you welcomed three IPs that were on my long-term-blocked-IPs list, so clearly they weren't in *need* of welcoming. Was going to ask you about it but action had already been taken by that stage on the others. Orderinchaos 09:54, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
- *sigh* I am beginning to feel unwelcome myself, I will just have to give this account a rest, but I wont let a few clueless admins chase me away. DougsTech (talk) 10:05, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
- I see that my suggestion was not heeded. :\ --slakr\ talk / 10:46, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
- Clueless admins? Well, that's how you make friends and influence people. Far from being clueless, half a dozen people (me, Ryulong, El_C, Daniel etc) have tried to tell you that you were misusing automated editing tools in one way or another and you've not been receptive to the advice. So of course someone removed them - Ryulong beat me to it by a few seconds. I hope you can show more nouse when editing in future so that your tools can be restored with confidence. ➨ REDVERS in a car - no brakes? I don't mind 11:23, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
- I see that my suggestion was not heeded. :\ --slakr\ talk / 10:46, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
- *sigh* I am beginning to feel unwelcome myself, I will just have to give this account a rest, but I wont let a few clueless admins chase me away. DougsTech (talk) 10:05, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
- At the end of the day, no-one here is psychic. The problematic mass-welcoming continued well after the warning. You had not responded to the warning. I found out about it as you welcomed three IPs that were on my long-term-blocked-IPs list, so clearly they weren't in *need* of welcoming. Was going to ask you about it but action had already been taken by that stage on the others. Orderinchaos 09:54, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
- Sure, but I stopped. And, not because huggle access is disabled. I am still able to use huggle, and have several times after the supposed disablement. The first warning at 09:00 was from an IP, not an admin. And I checked the talk page at 09:11 and saw the message. I am not asking you to reenable huggle, because its not disabled, just why you would want to block it for a month before giving me time to pause and look at it. All Pedro said was to "hold up". DougsTech (talk) 09:38, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
- At 22 users per minute, you welcomed a further 132 users after the first warning at 09:00 until your last welcome at 09:06. Daniel (talk) 09:31, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
- You had thoroughly warned before hand.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 09:30, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
- Why didn't you contact me, or tell me not to use huggle that way if you were going to disable it for a month? As soon as I looked at my talk page, and saw that users did not like it, I stopped. The first user complained at 09:00, you posted the message disabling huggle at 09:11. So, it took you less than 10 minutes to reach the conclusion that you should disable me for a month? DougsTech (talk) 09:29, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
- "Newcomers are always to be welcomed. There must be no cabal, there must be no elite, there must be no hierarchy or structure which gets in the way of this openness to newcomers." Found here http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/User:Jimbo_Wales DougsTech (talk) 00:42, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
- IP users are not newcomers and anything that looks automated can actually drive away new users.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 00:44, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
- How can you know this? By saying that IP users are not newcomers, you are saying that unregistered or registered users are newcomers? DougsTech (talk) 00:57, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
- IP users are not newcomers and anything that looks automated can actually drive away new users.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 00:44, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
Enough of this. You were warned. You continued to perform edits that you were warned not to do. I deleted your huggle.css page, and protected it from creation for one month. You are no longer going to use an automated tool to welcome anyone: IP users with new edits, new users, old users, IP users with old edits, no one. There are several other administrators here and on your talk page who say that I was not wrong in what I did. Any more messages over this issue will be promptly removed from my talk page.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 01:09, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
- I think you are simply not willing to discuss what you did, because you know it was wrong. You should not have taken action if you are not willing to be held accountable for it. I will move this to my talk page then. DougsTech (talk) 01:14, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
- I have discussed what I did. You were wrong. You were warned to stop. It doesn't matter who says what. You were told to stop. You didn't stop. I made it so you couldn't use an automated tool. "Newcomer" covers registered users, as IPs are not permanent. If you feel that what I did was wrong, other than the 5 people on this page and your user talk who have already agreed that my action was not wrong, go to WP:ANI.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 01:20, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
Reminder about Shuki Levy
You are receiving this message because you are listed as the protecting admin for Shuki Levy. The page has been semiprotected for longer than 2 months without an expiry date set. Because Wikipedia relies on contributers to make the encyclopedia, I'm asking you to review your decision and either
- Unprotect the page if protection is no longer needed, or
- set a reasonable expiry date for the protection instead of leaving it on forever
I hope that you will do one of the two in order to reduce the backlog of pages that have been semiprotected for very long period of time. Thank you. -Royalguard11(T) 19:20, 6 August 2008 (UTC) Why am I receiving this message?
Reminder about VR Troopers
You are receiving this message because you are listed as the protecting admin for VR Troopers. The page has been semiprotected for longer than 2 months without an expiry date set. Because Wikipedia relies on contributers to make the encyclopedia, I'm asking you to review your decision and either
- Unprotect the page if protection is no longer needed, or
- set a reasonable expiry date for the protection instead of leaving it on forever
I hope that you will do one of the two in order to reduce the backlog of pages that have been semiprotected for very long period of time. Thank you. -Royalguard11(T) 19:34, 6 August 2008 (UTC) Why am I receiving this message?
- I know that you know you protected a lot of pages without expiry dates with a summary of something like "do not unprotect without consulting me", so I won't give you any more, but it would be nice if you audit your protection log. Thanks. -Royalguard11(T) 19:34, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
- There is currently a banned individual who will vandalize that page and has vandalized that page and many others. Semiprotecting is the only solution, because he does not make accounts.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 22:30, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
ALBUMCAPS revisted
Sci-Fi is not Wikipedia and does not have to adhere to WP:UE or similar guidelines. I repeat, get NARUTO or BLEACH moved, and I'll agree; until then, I won't agree.--十八 05:17, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
- Those have official English names. They're not referred to as "NARUTO" or "BLEACH" in the English media. And, those are both manga/anime series; not songs. You're holding these two separate things to entirely different standards.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 05:44, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
- No, I am not, especially when the English manga of Naruto is printed with the title rendered as "NARUTO" and not "Naruto", so your argument is invalid. And, I am trying to make the comparison here since Naruto is also Japanese media with (originally) an all-capped English title which is decapped on Wikipedia for various guideline reasons. The fact that Naruto is a manga, and our argument revolves around songs shouldn't matter since they are both titles of a media type, and both originate from the same county in the same industry (anime song, anime/manga series). And besides, even if all those things I've quoted are guidelines and not policy, if Wikipedia articles didn't follow these guidelines, then why do we have Naruto and not NARUTO, or Orange Range and not ORANGE RANGE. I can keep going, but it's not necessary. We do this to all-capped titles to conform with the way standard English is displayed. The fact that a title originally was in all caps or all lower case is merely a stylistic choice, and does not conform with how English is normally rendered. Don't just think that I'm the only one that thinks this way, or conforms with these guidelines. If these two songs from Gurren Lagann had articles, their titles would be rendered how they currently stand, and not your way, and you know that because I've given you many examples where we de-cap all-capped titles, and there are other times where we cap all-lowercased titles like with The Pillows.--十八 06:17, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
- Fine. I give up on this.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 06:18, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
- But, I'm willing to compromise: Gurren Lagann#Music. They do the same thing at the top of Naruto, and I've employed it before (though didn't consider it until now).--十八 06:29, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
- It's not really "romanization." The name of the song isn't written as "アンダーグラウンド." It's just "UNDERGROUND."—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 06:56, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
- But, I'm willing to compromise: Gurren Lagann#Music. They do the same thing at the top of Naruto, and I've employed it before (though didn't consider it until now).--十八 06:29, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
- Fine. I give up on this.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 06:18, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
- No, I am not, especially when the English manga of Naruto is printed with the title rendered as "NARUTO" and not "Naruto", so your argument is invalid. And, I am trying to make the comparison here since Naruto is also Japanese media with (originally) an all-capped English title which is decapped on Wikipedia for various guideline reasons. The fact that Naruto is a manga, and our argument revolves around songs shouldn't matter since they are both titles of a media type, and both originate from the same county in the same industry (anime song, anime/manga series). And besides, even if all those things I've quoted are guidelines and not policy, if Wikipedia articles didn't follow these guidelines, then why do we have Naruto and not NARUTO, or Orange Range and not ORANGE RANGE. I can keep going, but it's not necessary. We do this to all-capped titles to conform with the way standard English is displayed. The fact that a title originally was in all caps or all lower case is merely a stylistic choice, and does not conform with how English is normally rendered. Don't just think that I'm the only one that thinks this way, or conforms with these guidelines. If these two songs from Gurren Lagann had articles, their titles would be rendered how they currently stand, and not your way, and you know that because I've given you many examples where we de-cap all-capped titles, and there are other times where we cap all-lowercased titles like with The Pillows.--十八 06:17, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Pacha Kamaq
Well, TV Nihon provided half of the name origin: As Pacha Kamaq's name is pun on both the deity of the same name and the ruins of Pachacamac (named after the god because of its religous importance). Fractyl (talk) 03:57, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
- Well, Pachacamac it is (just for the sake of it being a more common name for the place/figure).—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 04:43, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Your Abuse
I now believe that you are harassing me. Before you even took any action regarding Huggle, you deleted my monobook.js. The reason you gave was "cleanup". You have NO RIGHT to be there. Luckily, I predicted this move, and have a local copy of what was there. I was able to restore most of what was there, then I looked at yours. You brought it upon yourself. What is an "abuse of .js". I am considering reporting this action to seek a de-admin.DougsTech (talk) 20:55, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
It looks like you also have a history of harassing other users, and abusing your adminship. http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:Videmus+Omnia DougsTech (talk) 21:06, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
- These are two separate situations. I checked my deletion log last night, and found that you had recreated the monobook page using all of the content from mine. I deleted it because it contained an exact copy of my page. That is why I deleted it. You have a history of abusing automated tools, which is what the Javascript and Cascading Style Sheets pages are used for.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 21:21, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Power Rangers Jungle Fury
Hi. Looking at the talk page of Jungle Fury, you seem to be in the know about most Power Ranger stuff. My son's started to watch the show religiously and I end up watching it with him. From what I understand, the scenes with the Zords are taken from the Japanese equivalent, right? What about the scenes with the Power Rangers when they're in full costumes wearing their helmets? Theo is really short and RJ is really tall, but when they're standing next to each other in their ranger suits they look almost the same height. This leads me to think that these scenes are from Japan too, but then the surrounding buildings (especially in that "square" where they do a lot of fighting (there's a food court, a games store and a few others) look the same. And I've seen English signs on walls too. Also the scenes with Dai Shi, the bouncy people, Jellica and the other people in rubber costumes - Are they Japanese scenes too? Thanks in advance, Matthew Edwards (talk • contribs • email) 08:52, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
- Generally, yes to everything you've said. The lighting of the footage is slightly different, too, because of the different cameras used. Japanese footage tends to look darker, or filmed in lower light, than the English footage.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 09:10, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for the speedy reply. So what happens when the Jungle Ranger actor is seen onscreen with a Japanese rubber character? Is it due to blue screen technology? Regarding my signature, I was using {{subst:user4|Matthewedwards}} until I usurped User:Matthew Edwards after becoming an admin for impersonation reasons. I could go back to doing that, but I liked having the space. Matthew Edwards (talk • contribs • email) 09:20, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
- Disney gets copies of all the suits (or the originals) to make their own footage. If you see the English actors and rubber suits, it's original footage.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 09:29, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for the speedy reply. So what happens when the Jungle Ranger actor is seen onscreen with a Japanese rubber character? Is it due to blue screen technology? Regarding my signature, I was using {{subst:user4|Matthewedwards}} until I usurped User:Matthew Edwards after becoming an admin for impersonation reasons. I could go back to doing that, but I liked having the space. Matthew Edwards (talk • contribs • email) 09:20, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
WP:NOTMYSPACE deletions
FYI, I'm performing undeletion requests for User:SLJCOAAATR 1 and User:Unknown the Hedgehog based entirely off my subjective opinions on what is and isn't constructive content in userspace. I'm just letting you know to head off potential issues with this, and so you don't take it the wrong way. Cheers. lifebaka++ 20:14, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
- Okay.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 21:40, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Userboxes
Hey there, Ryu, well, during the whole big fiasco, all of my stuff was deleted. Lifebaka was kind enough to hep me get most things back. I was hoping that you could help with the rest? It's just a bunch of userboxes that I've made over the times. Thank you, and regards! Skeletal S.L.J.C.O.A.A.A.T.R. Soul 22:35, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
- If you give me specific userboxes you want restored, I will look at them. Several of them (a lot of them were shipping ones which are not appropriate for Wikipedia) I will not restore.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 22:36, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
- Here's the whole big list of 'em. Sorry there's so many. But, what's wrong with couples? Again, thank you! Skeletal S.L.J.C.O.A.A.A.T.R. Soul 22:38, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
- I may not restore any of these, just as a forewarning.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 22:41, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
- And I am not restoring any of these. None of these are appropriate for Wikipedia and the sheer number of them is beyond what should be allowed.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 22:46, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
- Gee, thanks... Skeletal S.L.J.C.O.A.A.A.T.R. Soul 22:52, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
- Spend more time on actual article edits instead of focusing on minutiae on Sonic the Hedgehog characters and these userboxes.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 23:26, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
- I do edit articles on a regular basis. I currently see nothing that needs improvement, so, nothing to do. Also, I see that these user don't have their pages yet... Talon, Person, and SAMF. Could you fix that? Thank you. Skeletal S.L.J.C.O.A.A.A.T.R. Soul 23:37, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
- No.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 23:38, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
- Why not? They were un-blocked, as well. Why can't their pages be restored? Skeletal S.L.J.C.O.A.A.A.T.R. Soul 00:02, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
- Because some of them never contributed otherwise.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 00:03, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
- Talon, and Person were still learning how to use Wikipedia. I asked them not to edit untill I finish teaching them the basics. SAMF, I'm not sure about, but, still deserves to have his page back. If you wat someone to improve, you first must give them room to improve. Skeletal S.L.J.C.O.A.A.A.T.R. Soul 00:08, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
- That's not how Wikipedia works. They can have room to improve with or without a user page.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 00:09, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
- I'd like to this rule stating that peole who are still learning can't have userpages. Skeletal S.L.J.C.O.A.A.A.T.R. Soul 00:14, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
- That's not how Wikipedia works. They can have room to improve with or without a user page.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 00:09, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
- Talon, and Person were still learning how to use Wikipedia. I asked them not to edit untill I finish teaching them the basics. SAMF, I'm not sure about, but, still deserves to have his page back. If you wat someone to improve, you first must give them room to improve. Skeletal S.L.J.C.O.A.A.A.T.R. Soul 00:08, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
- Because some of them never contributed otherwise.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 00:03, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
- Why not? They were un-blocked, as well. Why can't their pages be restored? Skeletal S.L.J.C.O.A.A.A.T.R. Soul 00:02, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
- No.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 23:38, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
- I do edit articles on a regular basis. I currently see nothing that needs improvement, so, nothing to do. Also, I see that these user don't have their pages yet... Talon, Person, and SAMF. Could you fix that? Thank you. Skeletal S.L.J.C.O.A.A.A.T.R. Soul 23:37, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
- Spend more time on actual article edits instead of focusing on minutiae on Sonic the Hedgehog characters and these userboxes.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 23:26, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
- Gee, thanks... Skeletal S.L.J.C.O.A.A.A.T.R. Soul 22:52, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
- Here's the whole big list of 'em. Sorry there's so many. But, what's wrong with couples? Again, thank you! Skeletal S.L.J.C.O.A.A.A.T.R. Soul 22:38, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
(OD)Is this really the way to show wikipedia editors that you're serious about making contributions to the encyclopedia, since you guys just came off blocks for being too obsessed with your userpages and boxes? Dayewalker (talk) 00:18, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
- So again, our contributions are being challenged? I'm starting to agree with the IP from my talk page... Skeletal S.L.J.C.O.A.A.A.T.R. Soul 00:20, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
- No challenge, your obsession with userpages and boxes is obvious. Several admins have already told you they're not appropriate, but these discussions continue. Dayewalker (talk) 00:23, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
- Then expain to me the existance of userboxes, and pages if they're inappropiate. I am not obsessed with them, and I don't appreciate it when you say that. I am trying to help three innocent users, who haven't done anything against Wikipedia policy. If you believe that people shouldn't be taught how to use Wiki, then they'll never become good editors. I don't see any logic in your reasonings. Skeletal S.L.J.C.O.A.A.A.T.R. Soul 00:28, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
- I rejected on a different basis - I saw a massive amount you were asking I undelete at once, and just sent "No go." Take my advice - read WP:UBX, ask for the text of the deleted userboxes (I will provide them via email) and see if the userbox is acceptable. And don't request the text of all of them at once - one at a time, please, so that admins fielding your request do not feel swamped. -Jéské (v^_^v Bodging WP edit by edit) 00:25, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you, Jeske. You're one of the few admins that I've felt is actually trying to be nice, and solve problems in a way better than "We're admins, we control you. We don't like you. Get out." Skeletal S.L.J.C.O.A.A.A.T.R. Soul 00:28, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
- I've told you exactly why I'm not doing any of these undeletions. Your 4 dozen userboxes are not beneficial to the project and the user page is not necessary for editting Wikipedia.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 00:54, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
- If my userboxes ren't of any good, then none of the others are either. I doubt the fact that you're to delete every single userbox on Wikipedia, because you feel that they don't add anything to Wiki. Go ahead. Delete EVERY single one. Is there a rule in Wiki saying that users can't have userboxes? If so, I'd like to see it, and know why they exist then. Skeletal S.L.J.C.O.A.A.A.T.R. Soul 00:58, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
- How many of the userboxes you created were used by people other than you? Heed Jeske's comment. He'll provide the text. I'm not going to undelete the 4 dozen pages you requested that I do.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 00:59, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
- Seeing the sort amount of time they existed, some were on a few other userpages. And I am still stressing over the fact that those 3 userpages be un-deleted. I'll eventurally re-create my user-boxes, if no one will un-delete them, and you can not just delete them saying "Oh, they're useless." Beause all userboxes serve the same purpose. If one isn't good for Wiki, then none of the others are as well. And now, you're giving the impression that a userbox should exist due to how many people have them? Where's this rule as well? Skeletal S.L.J.C.O.A.A.A.T.R. Soul 01:04, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
- I am done discussing this with you. If you wish to get the pages undeleted, go to WP:DRV.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 01:05, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
- Hey, wait a second. Before you asked SLJ how many people besides him used his userboxes, but people have used mine and my userboxes were still deleted. Unknown the Hedgehog 01:29, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
- Some of mine were on a few userpages, as well, Unknown. I've found this to be more of a discrimintory issue... Skeletal S.L.J.C.O.A.A.A.T.R. Soul 01:32, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
- Hey, wait a second. Before you asked SLJ how many people besides him used his userboxes, but people have used mine and my userboxes were still deleted. Unknown the Hedgehog 01:29, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
- I am done discussing this with you. If you wish to get the pages undeleted, go to WP:DRV.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 01:05, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
- Seeing the sort amount of time they existed, some were on a few other userpages. And I am still stressing over the fact that those 3 userpages be un-deleted. I'll eventurally re-create my user-boxes, if no one will un-delete them, and you can not just delete them saying "Oh, they're useless." Beause all userboxes serve the same purpose. If one isn't good for Wiki, then none of the others are as well. And now, you're giving the impression that a userbox should exist due to how many people have them? Where's this rule as well? Skeletal S.L.J.C.O.A.A.A.T.R. Soul 01:04, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
- How many of the userboxes you created were used by people other than you? Heed Jeske's comment. He'll provide the text. I'm not going to undelete the 4 dozen pages you requested that I do.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 00:59, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
- If my userboxes ren't of any good, then none of the others are either. I doubt the fact that you're to delete every single userbox on Wikipedia, because you feel that they don't add anything to Wiki. Go ahead. Delete EVERY single one. Is there a rule in Wiki saying that users can't have userboxes? If so, I'd like to see it, and know why they exist then. Skeletal S.L.J.C.O.A.A.A.T.R. Soul 00:58, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
- I've told you exactly why I'm not doing any of these undeletions. Your 4 dozen userboxes are not beneficial to the project and the user page is not necessary for editting Wikipedia.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 00:54, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you, Jeske. You're one of the few admins that I've felt is actually trying to be nice, and solve problems in a way better than "We're admins, we control you. We don't like you. Get out." Skeletal S.L.J.C.O.A.A.A.T.R. Soul 00:28, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
- No challenge, your obsession with userpages and boxes is obvious. Several admins have already told you they're not appropriate, but these discussions continue. Dayewalker (talk) 00:23, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
- (outdent) "This user hopes there's a 1-up Mushroom inside." is hardly useful to the project. We're not going to restore userboxes that were deleted in accordance with policy. None of the userboxes Ryulong deleted contained any bit of information that could be useful to other editors, and were clear violations of WP:NOT#MYSPACE. We're here to build an encyclopedia, not advertise which Sonic character you think is best. And don't use WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS as an argument, please. Hersfold (t/a/c) 01:40, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
- These:
- Don't add anything to Wikipdia. I suggest that you delete them. Skeletal S.L.J.C.O.A.A.A.T.R. Soul 01:45, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
- Yes they do. Yours did not.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 01:48, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
- Also, stop transcluding these onto my user talk page.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 01:49, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
- Didn't I say not to use WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS as an argument? Those are useful, anyway. American users can be expected to know American spellings and have better knowledge of American topics, and are at least four hours behind UTC time. The New York one is very similar. Knowing a user is male or female makes communication easier and prevents offending people accidentally. If you're going to argue this, use better arguments. And by the way, this is doing absolutely nothing to convince us your unblock was deserved. Hersfold (t/a/c) 01:50, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
- Aye, but, the Sonic userboxes tell you that this user would be best for editing that characters section on Wikipedia. Not doing very good here, you guys. Skeletal S.L.J.C.O.A.A.A.T.R. Soul 01:52, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
- No they don't. They say which coupling you support and which characters you like. These have no place on Wikipedia.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 01:53, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
- Woo-hoo. You can contribute usefully to one article. As opposed to the other userboxes providing a much wider range of info. Uh-uh. Hersfold (t/a/c) 01:55, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
- If SLJ's and my userboxes aren't useful to Wikipedia, then please tell me why these exist... And also tell my there is a Wiki project for userboxes. Unknown the Hedgehog 02:24, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
- Stop using "what about this" and "what about that" arguments. Several hundred of your edits and SLJ's were solely focused on user boxes and user page maintenance, when you had very little edits other than those. The next person to use an WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument on this page gets blocked.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 02:25, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
- If SLJ's and my userboxes aren't useful to Wikipedia, then please tell me why these exist... And also tell my there is a Wiki project for userboxes. Unknown the Hedgehog 02:24, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
- Woo-hoo. You can contribute usefully to one article. As opposed to the other userboxes providing a much wider range of info. Uh-uh. Hersfold (t/a/c) 01:55, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
- Didn't I say not to use WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS as an argument? Those are useful, anyway. American users can be expected to know American spellings and have better knowledge of American topics, and are at least four hours behind UTC time. The New York one is very similar. Knowing a user is male or female makes communication easier and prevents offending people accidentally. If you're going to argue this, use better arguments. And by the way, this is doing absolutely nothing to convince us your unblock was deserved. Hersfold (t/a/c) 01:50, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
MySpacers
Just checking to make sure you saw this, but another admin is offering the userboxes back. [11] Dayewalker (talk) 02:27, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
- He discussed it with me.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 02:29, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Another TyrusThomas4lyf sock
Another TyrusThomas4lyf sock is active: 99.141.23.146 (talk · contribs · logs). Would it be possible to semi-protect the following pages to discourage his reappearance?
- List of career achievements by Michael Jordan
- List of National Basketball Association top individual scoring season averages
Thanks! — Myasuda (talk) 01:18, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
- Another who what now sock?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 01:50, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
He's another sock of indefinitely blocked and multiple-socker User:TyrusThomas4lyf, who returns, makes the same changes he's been trying to make for months without ever justifying anything on talk pages, and whipping sock accusations and edit wars around him as he goes. He's currently at 99.145.217.208 (talk · contribs · logs), edit warring again. Any help would be greatly apprecated. Thanks! Dayewalker (talk) 02:41, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
- I've never been involved in this particular sockpuppetry case so I do not want to get involved anew.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 02:42, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
- Actually, you had blocked one of the other socks: 99.141.67.42 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). So you had some previous interaction with this case -- otherwise, I wouldn't have asked you. But if you don't want to be involved further, that's okay. I'll ask someone else. — Myasuda (talk) 13:10, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
--mboverload@ 03:59, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Ryudecay --mboverload@ 04:05, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
- Is there a reason you've come to bring these to my attention?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 04:16, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Second Annual WikiNYC Picnic
Greetings! You are invited to attend the second annual New York picnic on August 24! This year, it will be taking place in the Long Meadow of Prospect Park in Brooklyn. If you plan on coming, please sign up and be sure to bring something! Please be sure to come!
You have received this automated delivery because your name was on the invite list. BrownBot (talk) 20:33, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Michael Phelps
Phelps even gets compared to him in an article. It's an interesting bit of conversation right now (agreed, once Phelps wins two more championships, it's acadameic), but I think it's a good item for the article. SirFozzie (talk) 07:41, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
- It's not explicitly about the subject though. It just seems like one-upsmanship for history buffs. Certainly not an item found in an encyclopedia entry. It's just a referenced trivia section. :P—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 07:42, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
- It's about the only person that Phelps can be compared to, and what he CAN do in the next 72 hours. *shrug* It's trivia, but it's useful trivia. ~~
- It's still trivia and trivial.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 07:48, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
- It's about the only person that Phelps can be compared to, and what he CAN do in the next 72 hours. *shrug* It's trivia, but it's useful trivia. ~~
Merge tags
Almost no one has opposed merger, if we read beyond the !votes, and everybody suggested different ways of merging these articles. Lack of participation can delay consensus, but as long the argument remains valid, there is no reason to assume that consensus wouldn't be reached. The intention should be constructing an encyclopedia that is not confusing or ethnocentric, not even in pieces, rather than constructing an encyclopedia that values the bureaucracy of appropriate tagging system over that of content. I am not implying that you had such an intention, rather I am clarifying my position here. You are right in one way - the tags are not helping much. May be this concern has to be addressed in different way, but it needs to be cleaned up, no matter how much of laziness it meets. May be WP:BRD is the only way to get people discussing and reaching consensus. I'll take a look at the possibilities. If necessary I am perfectly willing to put myself into the line of fire, while others can go about quoting policies and guidelines without trying to resolve anything. Thanks for showing me what was not working. Aditya(talk • contribs) 11:37, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Userpage usurpation
You reverted my revert here [12]. Didn't you know that User:Avinesh is another user and User:Avineshjose just redirected the former's user page without going through the process? Uzhuthiran (talk) 13:51, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
Nano-Tyranno
Hey Ryulong, what's up with the block of Nano-Tyranno (talk · contribs)? I'm not seeing anything particularly evil jumping out at me from a quick first glance. east718 // talk // email // 02:11, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
- No good edits, really.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 04:48, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
How did you determine that this address was operating an open proxy? Can you determine whether it still is? My limited tests seem to indicate that it is not. --Chris (talk) 13:00, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
- It's open. Spellcast (talk) 04:20, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
- Interesting, I cannot find any active proxy mechanism. --Chris (talk) 13:06, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
- Zenmap shows open port 3128. Spellcast (talk) 05:28, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
- Google also helped me out with that.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 04:48, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
- Zenmap shows open port 3128. Spellcast (talk) 05:28, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
- Interesting, I cannot find any active proxy mechanism. --Chris (talk) 13:06, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Heh, I forgot to check 3128 (I think I scanned 1-1024,8080-8082). While it does seem to be an open proxy, if you go to whatismyip.com using it, it reports 68.72.39.170. So blocking this IP is doing exactly zero good for Wikipedia, since the requests seem to be routed to come from somewhere else. I have tried some Tor .onion addresses which all seem to fail, so it's not a Tor in-proxy. But it's forwarding the requests somewhere else for sure. --Chris (talk) 12:54, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
- Nevermind. Either my configuration was incorrect somewhere, or whatismyip.com respects XFF, or something. Using my own script it seems that it is not forwarding requests. --Chris (talk) 13:10, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
Farewell, Den-O
Well, the article's starting to surface. New-Den-O
Plus, the movie site is now opened. [13]
Fractyl (talk) 16:01, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, but we only have some scans at the moment, none of which contain any accompanying text (just copies of the text). Please wait until larger scans appear.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 19:02, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
Conservapedia
Hi. I wondered why there was an olive padlock on the Conservapedia article, and saw that you'd move-protected it in April following some drive-by vandalism (logs). Since there was no expiry on the protection just letting you know, since it seems unnecessary to keep it protected permanently. • Anakin (talk) 18:10, 23 August 2008 (UTC)