User talk:Ryulong/Archive 55

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 50

←

Archive 53

→

"Cannabis Corpse" should not be salted

I was looking over the backlog of Fair Use images not in articles and found [1] which is scheduled for December 5 deletion. There are many Google references including a secondary-ish [2] which points at them. There's even a site from Sweden: [3]. I actually have very little interest in the topic, but because the Cannabis Corpse article was deleted and salted I can't myself start a basic stub to hang the fair use image on. Please fix? Wnt (talk) 11:34, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm not an admin anymore.
The subject still fails WP:MUSIC

I'm glad I could be of service.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 20:08, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Looks like multiple non-trivial published works to me. But I don't have the patience to win an AfD just to start a stub article, so I'll just pitch the stuff somewhere it doesn't belong. Wnt (talk) 20:24, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

I can't do anything about it.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 20:53, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Buredoran

i apologized for making buredoran page. but if u have time, can u make buredoran page. just like what shadow moon page has! :) or even u can make the entire goseiger villains page :D - User:Jbr999

Shadow Moon is a unique case. Buredoran is not.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 10:33, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

But the Goseiger/Shinkenger crossover has Buredoran in a Gedoushu form.131.247.129.232 (talk) 16:24, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

We'll figure that out later.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 18:41, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Why are you using "Buredoran of Chimatsuri" instead of "Buredoran of the Chimatsuri"? All of the names have "the" in it.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 21:36, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

I see where you're getting at, though there are special cases where "the" is not used if it sounds like bad grammar.131.247.129.232 (talk) 21:40, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Ok.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 00:16, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

English Names Of Tsutarja , Mijumaru & Pokabu on Best Wishes Article.

Ok thanks for telling me , i'l ask in the future. But when will we have the english names up on the article , when the anime comes out in english , i assume 79.194.95.33 (talk) 18:56, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Once Best Wishes! is dubbed into English, then the article will be full of the English names of all of the characters, places, and Pokémon. Because we do not have everyone's names in English, it is better to use the Japanese names now, and just change everything later. That is why we use "Satoshi" instead of "Ash" at this stage.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 18:58, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Need help: remaked Climax Heroes series character tables.

Similiar to the other wikipedia that has a tabled character appearances liked in MvC series, Naruto Ultimate Ninja series, Tekken series. I kinda screwed & messed up to make that remake. It's makes me puke.

Tables are not needed.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 19:24, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Visits table?

Do you want me to build One of these for the American version's page? It might get really big, so I need to know how to make the table show up in two columns. 174.1.48.24 (talk) 01:34, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

You can't really make a table like that have two columns.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 01:58, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I figured it out by looking here. So do you want me to make it, or do you think it's unnecessary. 174.1.48.24 (talk) 02:15, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Go ahead.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 02:28, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Oh, actually that doesn't really work for what you want to do.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 02:34, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Reminder: Assume good faith

You've certainly had enough experience to know the assume good faith guideline, yet you seem to have forgotten it on 76.203.72.184's talk page. I have replaced your warnings with a friendly message assuming good faith and which is more likely to work (You do catch more flies with honey than vinegar after all!). Signed by Barts1a Suggestions/compliments? Complaints and constructive criticism? 11:23, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

And I apologise in advance, if you like, to both of you. I have reverted the last edit by Barts1a to leave all contributions showing, which in my view is the correct approach, given that again IMHO the edits by Ryulong were acceptable, if a little terse. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 12:21, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, Anthony, Barts1a has been blocked for a week concerning these edits.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 06:05, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Ref your edit on my talk-page; his last edit was 05.34, your warning 06.00 and he has no edited since. Block is not appropriate unless he vandalises after your final warning. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 11:23, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

If he edits again today can the IP be blocked?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 18:48, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

User talk:Brian barghout

Could you please comment on the unblock request? Thanks. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 19:52, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Do what you think is right. I can't do anything about it.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 20:38, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

December 2010

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for your disruption caused by edit warring by violation of the three-revert rule. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} below this notice, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Magog the Ogre (talk) 02:48, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Ryulong (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I have done everything to engage the other parties in discussion over the content of a policy page, while the other parties (User:Pmanderson) continued to edit war while the discussion took place. This block now hinders any possible attempts I can make to further discussion as well as contribute to the project in other ways that I normally do. A week four-day long block is a bit excessive and I don't know what the "removing report from AN3" part is about (as seen in my block log) and 3RR blocks never escalate in length like this, regardless of the fact that I was blocked for 3RR in August and September of this year for 24 hours each day. My block should most definitely not be a week 4 days long, when Pmanderson's block is only 12 hours and he has twice as many 3RR blocks (and blocks overall) than I do.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 02:59, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Decline reason:

None of this justifies edit-warring. You have edit-warring blocks going back to 2006 and should have learned that by now. You and Pmanderson should consider yourselves lucky that both blocks were not much longer. Sandstein 08:25, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

I'm sorry, I misread about deleting the AN report. I'll redact the log and shorten the block to 96 hours. That said, you made six reverts. And then length of the block is because frankly previous blocks are clearly not getting through that this edit warring has to stop. Perhaps the fact that previous block lengths didn't escalate is causing you to take it for granted.

As for hindering the building of the encyclopedia: I'm thinking the tendency of edit warring is more harmful than having a clause slightly off in AN3. Magog the Ogre (talk) 03:04, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

A week is a bit much. And edit warring over trying to restore the original reading of a policy page does not really harm the project as much as edit warring over live content. I know I should not have edit warred, but the manual of style was being continually edited in the face of the standing consensus and over an aspect that simply does not make sense to keep. And four days is still a bit much, especially that the page has been protected, I did not revert Pmanderson's last edit to the page (tagging the whole thing with "disputed"), and that Pmanderson was particularly disruptive in some of his subsequent edits to the page (tagging the whole thing as an essay and referring to my stance on the guideline).—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 03:06, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

To those of you reading on WP:AN3 and WP:ANI, I attempted to go through with the Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. However, Pmanderson kept on modifying the page despite my attempts to initiate discussion. I know this is my third block this year for edit warring, but every single time I revert a bold change and initiate discussion, the other party reverts back and the edit war begins. I can't request protection in these cases because it gets thrown out as a content dispute, but that's the only way to enforce discussion outside of the edit war. Unblocking both myself and Pmanderson will allow us to work on discussing the manuals of style now rather than in four days when I'm unblocked and Pmanderson has full reign over WP:MOS-JA without any opposition to his interpretation of policy because some of you are suggesting the protection be lifted. And Pmanderson has a much longer history of this kind of disruption than I do.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 05:11, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Silver seren, Pmanderson was bold and made the change, and I reverted and then initiated discussion. And consensus was with the original version of the page before Pmanderson ever edited it. If Pmanderson had kept to discussion rather than repeatedly disrupting the status quo of the guideline and changing the meaning of my attempts to clarify a statement, the edit war would have obviously not happened. Long before the edit war even started and then even before it got into the 3RR territory, I attempted to initiate discussion, but Pmanderson just continued to modify the page, even if two other people arrived to side with his edits. That does not make a consensus against my edits. There was no consensus in either direction, so no edits should have been continued to be made to the page to make it appear that one side had consensus over the other.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 05:28, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Sandstein, my block in 2006 was a mistaken block when I was reverting either vandalism or a banned user (not sure which at this time). Besides, the first 3RR block that has been left in place on my account was this year. It is entirely unfair that Pmanderson is only blocked for 12 hours, when he was disrupting the page while edit warring. Either my block should be cut down to the same length as Pmanderson's or Pmanderson should be blocked for as long as I am.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 08:32, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm not saying I was right in doing what I did. But the length disparity between my block and Pmanderson's is wrong and Magog the Ogre even admited that he was being too lenient to Pmanderson.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 08:54, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Ryulong (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

(Sent by e-mail to Sandstein 11:19, 11 December 2010 (UTC)) I am asking for one of two things here

Either shorten my block to match Pmanderson's block of 12 hours.

Or extend Pmanderson's block to 4 days like mine currently is.

Any block from before 2009 on my account was done in error. In fact, one of the blocks from 2009 was also in error as the edit warring stopped hours before the block was put in place, and the dispute was settled, too.

Pmanderson has been blocked and was kept blocked almost every single time he was blocked and I'm tired of being punished for being desysopped and it being expected of me to be aware of every single time I break policy.

I honestly don't care which you do, but it's unfair that I was blocked for a week at first and now for 4 days, and he is only blocked for half a day.

Decline reason:

6RR is a bit much to be complaining about "be[ing] aware of every single time I break policy". SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:03, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

I have received the above request per mail and am posting it here for review by another admin. In my opinion, the block duration of Ryulong is, if anything, too short in view of his previous blocks for edit-warring. The block duration of Pmanderson is not subject to review in the context of an unblock request by Ryulong, see WP:NOTTHEM. Sandstein 11:19, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Re your email

Hi Ryulong. You're right; upon further review, it became obvious to me that Pmanderson received far too short of a block. But here's the thing, shortening a block is non-confrontational; lengthening a block is however a bit of a dick move. It's like this: if the judge lets you off easy for doing drugs, he's not going to come back a few days later and lengthen the sentence; but if he realizes it was too long, he may have leniency and shorten it.

Really Sandstein is correct though, PMA is immaterial in this case because we're talking about you. I'm afraid if you think I should lengthen his block, I'll have to take it to ANI for it to be reviewed.

But I don't think shortening the block on your account is a good idea. I believe 4 days is appropriate, and really would have been appropriate for PMA as well. This is due to your recent history of edit warring and the fact that you're clearly not getting the point with shorter blocks. Per WP:BLOCK: "incidents of disruptive behaviour typically result in 24 hours blocks, longer for successive violations." But you're a former admin, so you should have known that.

Therefore, the fact that anyone else that would have "had your back" in this dispute is not relevant- you're still edit warring. And frankly you're exhibiting a bit of WP:MPOV by asserting that the other party is edit warring but not admitting you too were doing it.

Mind you I feel awful blocking someone who was editing before I ever was, but I have to enforce things fairly at AN3. Magog the Ogre (talk) 12:17, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

What about just cutting my block down in half? A four day block is still excessive after my last block three months ago was only for 24 hours. I have articles that I want to edit today (or tomorrow) that have nothing to do with the edit war, and Pmanderson is now allowed to edit despite his excessive disruptive edits that took place during the edit war. Meanwhile, I'm fucked over till Wednesday night. This "former admin" shit is so annoying. I shouldn't be treated with a heavier hand because I was the heavier hand.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 18:52, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

I do everything I god damn can to avoid edit warring. I left a message for the user. I initiated a talk page discussion. But I always get screwed over by the other party because they just restore their preferred version of the page despite every single step I take to come to a consensus over the content. This happened in both of my last two blocks and it most certainly happened in this block. The page is protected now, and there's no way for me to even work on finding out a way to solve the problem and come to an agreement on what to do with the policy, rather than edit warring over some inconsequential article content.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 19:01, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

How about this: I cut the block length in half, simply out of fairness because Pmanderson got off easier. However, I place in your block log this note: "unblocked under the condition that all edit warring will stop; user agrees next edit warring block is to be for 10 days". It's kind of dickish but I think you understand why I'm doing it. Magog the Ogre (talk) 20:31, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Deal, even though it will prevent me from updating the page I normally update on Sundays.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 20:38, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

I need your help.

And well this is a serious one since some idiot is editing this topic: List of all Jewelpets in Appearance. I don't remember Sanrio stating Angelite is a fox and Jasper is a Dragon and I keep on removing it again and he keeps on adding it. You need to clarify this. I NEED YOUR HELP FOR ONCE~! ;A;Blackgaia02 (talk) 01:33, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't know what you're talking about.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 01:36, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Rider Movies

I hope you're gonna make new articles for Double Returns and Kamen Rider 40th Movie because I suck at making new article and I'm tired.

Web Sites: w-returns, all-rider

You don't have to if you don't want to, just wondering what to do with them beacause we cant put a cast and web site fro "Returns" and we can't put "The Movie" in all Kamen Rider show articles (or can we?) because there is nothing to confirm it is Ichigo's, Den-O's, or OOO'.

~Xtreme2010~ ( ★ AlienX2009 ★ ) 03:36, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

W Returns are V-Cinemas and we don't have anything extensive about it, so it's getting a section on the KRW page for now. I haven't seen anything for "All Rider" yet but I'll figure out somewhere to put it.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 03:38, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Current title, Kamen Rider Birth 40th Anniversary Commemoration Movie (仮面ライダー生誕40周年記念映画, Kamen Raidā Tanjō Yonjushūnen Kinen Eiga). ~Xtreme2010~ ( ★ AlienX2009 ★ ) 03:48, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure there should be another long u in there, and I don't think that's the current title.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 04:02, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, it can be read as "Yonjūshūnen" however the correct saying would be "Yonjushūnen". And I meant it as a temporary title. ~Xtreme2010~ ( ★ AlienX2009 ★ ) 04:39, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Jusshūnen.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 04:41, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

yeah. ~Xtreme2010~ ( ★ AlienX2009 ★ ) 04:48, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Release Date

I know we aren't Bulbapedia but Wikipedia is an encyclopedia for all the info possible. Also, I did my research and I found a reliable source(you just need to know where to look).http://www.pokemonblackwhite.com/en-us/zorua/ (look at the bottom of the page, read carefully)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Coolg863 (talk • contribs)

Okay. THat's a reliable source.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 04:56, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Kamen Rider's DiEnd K-Touch (Current revision as of 07:39, 19 December 2010)

Actually my only purpose is simply "to make things clear", and since I'm new on this, I'm very sorry if it's not according to rule. The previous revision stating how Diend's works like Decade's simply doesn't work in my mind, since he never used it in same way, something I thought as a "radical guessing" itself (please correct me if I used wrong phrase). The current revision is much better, and I like it.

Again, sorry, and thank you. May someday I learn how to contribute well, just like you.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Estradael (talk • contribs)

Your information just is not important to the article. I know you mean well, but it has no place on Wikipedia.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 19:38, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Bulbapedia Pokedex entries

[4] So now we can't even use those? wth. They will be changed immediately once the actual English versions are available, but for now it would be nice if we could have sourced biographies. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 14:59, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Oh, mybad. I didn't see you reverted yourself. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 16:53, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

I didn't realize we had a template here to cite to the Pokedex entries.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 20:15, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Baruchai, Barujina

As with Vanipeti, Vaniritchi and Baivanira, shouldn't Baruchai become "Vulchai" and "Barujīna" "Vuljina"?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Fifteen501 (talk • contribs)

No.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 22:06, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Gyarados

Yes, Gyarados is not separate from Ring-Ring, but she appears in many episodes. I will remove the entire section on Gyarados and will not add it back. However she will be part of the "Ring-Ring" section, because the character exists but is not separate from Ring Ring.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Fifteen501 (talk • contribs)

The character is not "Gyarados". It is just Ring Ring.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 01:17, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Then why am I hearing Gyarados when she transforms? Fifteen501 (talk) 01:25, 24 December 2010 (UTC)Fifteen501

Because you think it's Gyarados. It isn't. She doesn't say anything in English, Japanese, or Chinese. It's just random sing song.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 01:25, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

So you are sure that "Gyarados" in the Ring Ring song was something I misheard? Fifteen501 (talk) 01:34, 24 December 2010 (UTC)Fifteen501

Yes.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 02:01, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

About Pucca

I've done a bit of work on the main Pucca article. As you can see, there are sources out there to be found, they just require a bit of digging. No worries though, i'm going to do what I can for the other articles as well. That way we won't have to deal with any AfDs coming around for them, though i'm sure they'd be kept anyways. Silver seren^C 23:30, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Reliable sources were difficult to find, but they're only going to really be impossible for character biographies or episode summaries.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 23:49, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Just use TV.com for the episode summaries. The characters will be a bit more difficult, but we can at least ref the main ones, which is better than nothing. Silver seren^C 00:14, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

AIV

First and foremost: this message is to help, so think constructive.

You've built bad reputation at AIV because of unactionable reports, and I believe many simply ignore them even when they could act. Those reports are on hoppers with short editing window and no warnings. Reporting and blocking them is waste of time - reverting is much faster. (i) Wait if they stay with that IP (ii) figure out safe blocking range, if exists (iii) request semiprotection if narrow article range. You know that all, and it probably sounds like stupid advice, but you keep reporting .. Materialscientist (talk) 04:27, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

I get ignored on ANI when I request rangeblocks, as well. If I cannot report currently active recurring vandals on new IPs when warning rarely ever does shit on AIV, where the fuck am I supposed to go for a quick response?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 04:34, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Its frustration. Wikipedia does not yet have a good solution against dedicated hoppers. Thinks constructive and help admins - they often have no time to understand sneaky vandalism. I don't recall your suggesting a range. If suggest, show it is safe (example - not every admin knows how to see whether the rangeblock is safe). Spend a few minutes on that - rangeblock sometimes drives away even worst maniacs (I did drive away a few). Hasty report is waste of time, well-prepared report can save weeks. Materialscientist (talk) 04:47, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

But I've gathered all of the necessary information to persuade blocks to be made. This particular hopper I got kicked off of his original ISP and there's an edit filter in place.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 04:50, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

I'll check this shortly (India is tricky for rangeblocks). You sometimes link that summary page and often don't. Adding the toolserver stats for the range would help at AIV - few admins dare to place long-term, long-range block, which is often the only reasonable block (if block at all). Materialscientist (talk) 04:58, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Wrong section. The "Saban troll" is the one we're dealing with currently.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 05:01, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Doesn't matter. Much vandalism comes from his range, but it is normally random, not from one person. Materialscientist (talk) 05:51, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Warning: Edit warring and canvassing

Be warned. You are clearly edit-warring for the express purpose of including non-reliable sources, ie. fansites rife with copyright violations, at the various Pucca articles, as well as engaging in improper WP:CANVASSING in an attempt to influence the discussion of sources at WP:RSN. If you continue, you may well find yourself blocked from editing yet again. Fladrif (talk) 19:49, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Note: Fladrif is the one that is edit-warring on said articles and has not joined or initiated talk page discussion on the issues. Silver seren^C 19:52, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Telling the project that primarily utilizes the source you and several other editors are throwing out as being a reliable source is not canvassing. If anything, it is the right thing to do to notify them of your one sided discussion rather than let them be in the dark when you and anyone else who doesn't think that ANN can be used as a source completely removes any source from the pages, thereby putting definitely notable subjects in danger of deletion. And I am putting the burden on myself that those websites can be used as sources to show that something exists. Being full of copyright violations has never before made a website not a reliable source.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 20:13, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

@ Fladrif - actually read the page you're shoving in people's faces: specifically bullet point one here, which permits doing as Ryulong has done. Merry Christmas. f o x 20:34, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Power Ranger episode page

I have no problem if you want to reformat the Power Ranger episode list page according to the television page rules. If you are going to do it though it should be done right however. It should not be a direct "copy and paste" job of each individual Power episode sections (otherwise the page might as well not even exist due to redundency). It should be setup in a style similar to the Simpsons total episode page in contrast to it inividual season episode pages. Doing it the way you guys are doing it now is messing up the notes section for starters (some of them no longer make sense in the context as to why they were originally listed or no longer link to the relevent thing they were noting because of the copy/paste job). In addition, you are erasing valuable info. by doing a copy paste job. Some of the origianl airdates (because they were in the UK) have been erased. In addition, you aren't even listing the correct airing info for series. Your have things like MMAR airing in 1995 while MMPR season 3 airing in 1996 and MMPR airing in only 1993. I was reverting your and Rebelshadow's edits as to set the page up "proper" instead of this hacked up mess.172.190.106.236 (talk) 09:35, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Let us fix the page. It is a work in progress at the moment.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 09:36, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, Mr. IP-address. Editors need to make sure to post UK airdates in the respective seasons' episode list pages so they correctly transfer with the episode list transclusion. And other issues needing to be done would be to create said pages for 5 seasons and seeing how to integrate content from the MMPR episode list article -Rebel shadow 09:48, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

{{!}

You did this on the refs you "fixed". So I had to "refix" them. Was this something you mass C+P'ed, or is it in some sort of bot? _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 20:59, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Derp. Copy paste error.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 21:28, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Vector Marketing

I am as skeptical as you, but the article has been nominated to be checked for neutrality. I've reverted it back, but we need consensus on which version of the article to use. I'll start the topic on Talk:Vector Marketing.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Phearson (talk • contribs)

Don't revert it back. The page isn't neutral.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 03:47, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Discuss this on the talk page. I'm most certain that AG will object. Phearson (talk) 03:55, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

I posted something on the talk page and I reviewed the page for neutrality myself. If you want, you can have people look at the oldid and see if it was ok and then revert to that.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 03:56, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Failed Fast Forward

What do you think of what I did to this TAR1 Table? 174.1.48.24 (talk) 02:30, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Is it really necessary?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 02:35, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

That's what I'm wondering. Sometimes, in the case of Nancy & Emily for example, it contributed to their elimination. I just thought it would help make the tables a little more complete, but if you think they aren't necessary, then we won't include them.174.1.48.24 (talk) 03:15, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it's particularly useful.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 04:28, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Should I change it back? 174.1.48.24 (talk) 23:01, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I dealt with it.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 23:59, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

PRMF

PRMF actually does need a minor special setup like PRWF. PRMF began on all 3 channels, but only ended on 2 (kids programming ended on ABC Family before PRMF ended). And while we are on the subject, PRWF isn't entirely setup right either. PRWF began on Fox (episodes 1 through 26) and ended on ABC (episodes 27 through 40) true enough, but it aired in its entirety on ABC Family (PRWF began airing on ABC Family in March 2002).172.190.241.103 (talk) 06:54, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

PS, I actually do have a wiki account. I just usually don't sign into it on a regular basis.172.190.241.103 (talk) 06:59, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

I realized that was the with the PRMF thing. However, it did not air in entirety on ABC Family. It was on Fox Family which as rebranded as ABC Family mid season. This is overall a weird set up, and it may be better to say which were aired on ABC Family during the Fox Family branding before modifying the table for PRWF. And it would really help if you did sign in. It's hard to leave you messages signed out because AOL is retarded in the UK.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 07:00, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

From everything that I've seen the Fox Family Channel (in the US anyway) was officially renamed ABC Family on or around November 10, 2001. PRWF began airing on Fox in February of 2002 and the encore/rerun airings of PRWF began airing almost immediately after in early March 2002 on Family. So by that point there shouldn't have been any Fox Family branding left on the channel.172.190.241.103 (talk) 07:29, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, but the issue still is that it went from Fox to ABC, too, thus still requiring a whole new section.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 07:35, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Could be worse I suppose. If we really wanted to get anal about the channel/kids block thing (and probably mess with people's heads) you could try listing things like independent station, WB and UPN for Fox Kids. I don't know how much you know of Fox Kids history, but when that kid's block began FOX (as a network) was still in its infancy. The FOX network wasn't available (as an affiliate) in all television markets, therefore Fox Kids was offered seperate of the channel (as if it were a syndicated block). As a result Fox Kids was aired in most areas on FOX affiliates, but in a few areas (some because there was no FOX affiliate, others simply because that FOX affiliate didn't want the kids block) it ended up on independent stations. Some of those independent stations did eventually become FOX, but others became UPN or WB (and it stayed that way until 2002 when Fox Kids ended).172.190.241.103 (talk) 08:04, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Best to keep it as simple as possible.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 08:50, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Power Ranger Films/Specials

I don't understand why it makes a difference if they are episodes, movies, television specials, etc. in your argument for not changing it. Its the format (type of table) that was changed, not the information. Its still the same information as before. Sure, two of those things are movies, but 5 of them are television specials and 7 are "direct to video" specials. See the specials section at the bottom of the page on http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/List_of_Lost_episodes. If you notice, its the same type of wikitable as the episode listings on the page (just slightly different category topics), yet they aren't "episodes". In all honesty, can you really say that the television specials (from a listing standpoint) shouldn't be same type of table when other wiki pages use similar tables for specials. Most of the info listed there such as written by, directed by, production code (not certain for movies, but it is for the tv specials and direct to video stuff) isn't all that different relevence wise from whats listed with the episodes. i removed the categories that had no importance (such as episode #).172.190.126.246 (talk) 01:40, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

They probabl shouldn't be listed there to begin with, but the templates are not made for the films to be mentioned at all in them. Just leave it be for now.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 01:41, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

The template wasn't made for the movies to be listed, I can buy that as a reasonable explaination for not wanting the movies in that particular wikitable format I suppose. But what about in regards to the television specials and the "direct to" specials? Those are not considered movies.172.190.126.246 (talk) 02:00, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Leave the movies out of it and the rest of the content is fine.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 02:04, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Alright, I changed everything to the new format with the exception of the two films. In regards as to whether or not the movies should stay on the page, they probably should stay in some extent. The Turbo movie is closely tied to the Turbo season episodes (similar to how the Turtles Forever movie is to the 2003 Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles and is thus listed on their episode page).172.190.126.246 (talk) 02:21, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Ok.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 02:23, 31 December 2010 (UTC)