User talk:Ryulong/Archive 12

Please undelete Nicholas Beale
Hi Ryulong. Please undelete me. Firstly I honestly think the decision is wrong:
 * 1) I have authored 1 book, co-authored another, been published in Harvard Business Review, Sunday Times, Prospect etc..
 * 2) The article was independently reviewed as in the top 25% of all reviewed biographies.  I don't see how this is compatible with being NN.

Secondly the process was flawed:
 * 1) I was not notified that the AfD was happening, although the nominator knew perfectly well that I was a Wikipedian Editor.
 * 2) The AfD was closed after just 3 days and our policy is to leave at least 5.

If you want to re-list we could have a proper AfD debate, but this wasn't it. Many thanks NBeale 23:10, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * You needed to be notified... according to what policy? You didn't have the article on your watchlist? &mdash; BRIAN 0918 &bull; 2007-05-01 14:11Z
 * Hi Brian. According to WP:Articles for deletion "It is generally considered civil to notify the good-faith creator and any main contributors of the articles that you are nominating for deletion." There are over 100 of pages on my watchlist so it is easy not to notice a change unless you check it obsessively - I check it rarely. NBeale 14:46, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I followed the steps that were listed under I, II, III. I can't help it if some random comment further down escaped my attention. 100 articles on a watchlist is ridiculously low. At my worst I had about 100 times that. &mdash; BRIAN 0918 &bull; 2007-05-01 14:59Z

Thanks for the vandal revert
Thanks for reverting vandalism on my user page. MrMacMan Talk  00:30, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Family guy images
Thanks for doing the right thing on that image list. I see you got a lot of fire for it and I hadn't really the stomach to join the fray on ANI at this point, just wanted to let you know I agree with your stance. Let me know if you should need support on other similar cases in the future. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:02, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Sailor Moon episode images
What are you doing mass-deleting an entire page full of images without a single day of warning given to even one person? This is completely against all policies. List of Fullmetal Alchemist episodes, List of Planetes episodes, and List of RahXephon media are all Featured-status lists and have a screenshot for every episode; they have have been left alone, so I see no reason why we're suddenly not allowed to imitate the best Wikipedia content. You have no right to go demolishing other people's work without even making an attempt at the correct procedures. --Masamage ♫ 15:45, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I totally agree! Be glad Masamage found this before me and that i was out of town all weekend or you would have a 5 page paragraph of me yelling at you. Also, I am right mind to report you to your fellow admins and the higher ups. Just becuse you are an admin, it doesn't give you the right to do something this huge with outinforming anyone. Do us all a favor and Unless you are attempteing to restore the damage you have caused, don't come near that page again, PLEASE!Lego3400: The Sage of Time 15:49, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Ryulong is right. These kinds of image lists are not covered by our fair use policies. Nonfree images of this kind may only be used where they are indispensible for critical analysis of the work. The fact that this kind of image abuse has become so common in certain quarters of Wikipedia doesn't mean it shouldn't be cleaned up. Slowly, one by one. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:17, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 * And JUST WHERE does it say that. Unless I have a link to the EXACT statement in the guidelines that says this. I don't belive it. also its not an image list. Its a list of episodes and the images are being used to explain stuff about the episode. That is clearly fair use. Lego3400: The Sage of Time 16:48, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Start with WP:NONFREE. The passages on "acceptable use" and "Examples of unacceptable use" are most instructive, but by no means exhaustive. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:08, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 * But as evidenced by the featured lists cited above, it is obviously possible to have a list where the uses are all justified. So deletion without discussion is quite disruptive. --tjstrf talk 17:25, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm happy to report that at the time of this writing, the images have gone from those featured lists too. :-) But in any case, your argument is specious. The mere fact that the people who happened to be around at WP:FAC when these pages were featured didn't object to the images doesn't entail they were right in not doing so. This is a field where a misunderstanding of the image policies has unfortunately become very deeply engrained in the community. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:31, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 * A better step would to be *GASP* start at the source. Instead of ruining the article by doing tons of reverts, Remove it from the template. Also you removed them to help support your case. Don't try falsefying your case by altering things! Also it clearly matchs this conditon for useFilm and television screen shots: For critical commentary and discussion of the cinema and television The image helps explain what is happening in that episode also theres noting there saying we can't use them on episode lists. Lego3400: The Sage of Time 23:31, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Also: I have reverted the article back to its former state, though it leaves tons of blank links. You removed dozens of articles summeries. If you want to do something... Do it right. so go back and remove them with out removeing our other content.Lego3400: The Sage of Time 23:49, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I'll fix it. Most of it was clean up of a banned users' uploads and edits.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龍 ) 23:50, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you for fixing thatLego3400: The Sage of Time 15:37, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Images being used elsewhere
Most of them were left untouched but somehow Image:SailorMoonEpisode172.JPG, which was also being used to Show the child form of that charcter on the Page about her Villen Group. Could that one be undeleated its use there is not a subject of controversy? Lego3400: The Sage of Time 15:36, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
 * That was uploaded by a banned user.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龍 ) 19:13, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Checkuser case completed
Hi, A checkuser IP Check case you filled has been completed by a CheckUser, and archived. You can find the results for 7 days at Requests for checkuser/IP check/Archive. -- lucasbfr talk, checkuser clerk, 17:31, 1 May 2007 (UTC).

IP block
Just wanted to let you know I modified your block of the IP that identified as a banned user. His MO is to disconnect and reconnect from another IP, blocking his current IP for longer than a few hours serves only to inconvenience another user that is assigned that address. Rockpock e  t  00:39, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Ranges blocked, then.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龍 ) 00:41, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Redirect deletion
Okay, I've obviously stepped on the wrong toes with trying to delete the redirect. Who did I piss off, and what makes that redirect so special that it shouldn't be deleted? --Mhking 02:18, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Redirects for discussion not Miscellaney for deletion— Ryūlóng ( 竜龍 ) 02:19, 2 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh -- okay. Thanks... --Mhking 02:22, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Puzzling IP block
Hello Ryulong, there's a small problem I'd like you to check up your records on. Before logging on tonight I paid a quick visit to en.wikipedia without logging in, being in two minds whether to do any work or not. Imagine my surprise when I found my IP (or rather the range my IP's in) has been blocked by you. As you can see I'm a registered user and have had no problems logging in. I can assure you I've done nothing to warrant a blocking. As well as being a fairly regular contributor here I'm a sysop on cy.wikipedia (under another name - hoping to dodge any vandals with a grudge!). Fine, I can still get here and edit, but I'm puzzled and a bit worried for fear I might find my account blocked the next time. By the way, there are no contributions recorded for the blocked IP address (88.111.169.225). If you could shed some light on this I'd be grateful. Best wishes, Enaidmawr 20:29, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
 * It's very likely that we were dealing with a troll who was hopping about on those IPs.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龍 ) 22:26, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry dude
Just had to vent out... the discussion was too long for me to add my input but you can guess I am for screenshots in episode lists. I rarely make comments like that which you can validate through my good edit history. What is the gist anyway with screenshots? >_> Berserkerz Crit 09:40, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Why did you protect Social Distortion?
The history tab shows nothing suspicious...  Grue  10:38, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Constant target of a banned user.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龍 ) 19:29, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Who is the banned user? Anyway, the article is not edited very often and the protection is unwarranted. It is watched by several editors and I'm confident that any vandalism would be reverted very fast.  Grue   05:21, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
 * User:Mike Garcia, a.k.a. User:Johnny the Vandal— Ryūlóng ( 竜龍 ) 07:48, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
 * That's ridiculous, when was the last time he edited the page? I'm unprotecting.  Grue   08:30, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
 * — Ryūlóng ( 竜龍 ) 08:31, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Reverted in 1 minute, QED... And a week has passed since then.  Grue   08:35, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
 * He's always likely to come back.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龍 ) 08:36, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Block of TheN0ble2
submitted an unblock request (mailing list) apologizing for his actions at Hd dvd key. I think it was a good-faith attempt at an article, and I would like to unblock the user with a warning about reading policy for future reference. Thanks, Nishkid64 (talk)  14:33, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Let me know if you're okay with this, and I'll unblock the user, or you can do it yourself. Nishkid64 (talk)  14:34, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龍 ) 19:29, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Block of LOrdSteiN
You blocked as a SPA, and they are currently requesting to be unblocked. I agree that they clearly are an SPA, but that in and of itself is not a sufficient reason for a block. Their edits, while clearly POV were not really spam and they received no warnings about 3RR or POV-pushing. I think they should be unblocked but cautioned over POV-pushing and verifiability. What are your thoughts? &mdash;dgies tc 16:17, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The account was used solely to insert questionable material at the fraternity's page. It is hard to tell who was right and who was wrong there. So long as he understands our policies, I would not oppose unblocking him.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龍 ) 19:32, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I unblocked and left a note explaining policies. &mdash;dgies tc 19:42, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

In the Signpost
The Wikipedia Signpost article I'm working on for Monday is about the non-free image debate. As a major contributor to the debate, I mentioned you in the article, which is here: User:Phoenix2/FL fair use. Feel free to change, add, or remove any information you see fit. -- Phoenix  (talk) 23:13, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I've modified the timeline of things a bit to conform with what actually happened.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龍 ) 23:20, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Struck out link

 * 

Quite possibly - it wasn't my comment that was originally supposed to be struck out, but he forgot to close the striek tags so mne got struck out too. Viridae Talk 00:01, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

One Piece
Hey, i'm kinda new here, so I was wondering why the One Piece page I made to edit was deleted. Roselia92
 * Overuse of copyrighted images.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龍 ) 08:22, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Something to keep an eye on...
IP-based editors keep making changes to the voice actors for the monsters for MMPRS1-2. Naturally, none of their stuff is sourced, as sourcing any monster actors from that time is pretty much impossible. Just an FYI. JPG-GR 20:27, 4 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Only for those you don't recognized the voices. Plus, the VAs were credited, but never properly. Like Kingg Sphinx when compared to Cardiotron & the JellyFish. Fractyl 00:26, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Emily (Band)
Hello. I just saw the delete log and saw you deleted the Emily (Band) article. As you can probably see, the article has been recreated. Please excuse me if I am wrong, since it is the first time I see the deletion log. Yours truly, Boricuaeddie Talk •  Contribs  •  Spread   the love! 00:44, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Nuked it.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龍 ) 00:48, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Help
Would you mind commenting here? Aaron Bowen 07:31, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Category:Power Rangers characters
has seriously fudged the category up by putting redirects in this category. Since you're the leet administrator, could you rollback most of that user's edits to remove the categories? This will work for most characters except for created pages - this user also created most of the Operation Overdrive character redirects, so there's nothing to revert to, and only mnaul removal will do it for those pages. hbdragon88 07:33, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Can't. He created all of the pages. I don't know which ones were redirects to begin with.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龍 ) 07:36, 6 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Damn. How good is your knowledge with PR characters?  There were some of the obvious ones, like Joel Rawlings and Cole Evans...even if they were redirects to begin with, they aren't formatted correctly, because they contain unsuitable categories (they should only contain "R from merge" if that).  Also, stop scaring me - I just posted this message and jumped when I saw (top) disappear.  It's 3:39 AM!! hbdragon88 07:39, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Looks like you rollbacked most of Violdnet-kun's redirect changes in the three minutes between the post and my response. Thanks. hbdragon88 07:56, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
 * You're welcome— Ryūlóng ( 竜龍 ) 08:02, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Ma-hi-ya-sqa
Ryulong, what you there was wrong. Ma-hi-ya-sqa is not a word in our language, it's a phonetic equivalent, and in this case given the subject, it's wrong. This redirect needs to be removed. I corrected the site links into the article, and I fail to understand why that link canot be submitted as an Afd. What do you suggest be done here? Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 07:38, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Redirects are not sent to AfD. They are sent to RfD— Ryūlóng ( 竜龍 ) 07:40, 6 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Submitted as RfD. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 08:00, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Much better. Just remember to transclude today's page onto the main RfD page.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龍 ) 08:01, 6 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Done. ᏂᎪᏗᏍᎨᏍᏗ (that's just the way it is). Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 08:19, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

User:LionheartX
Hi, Ryulong. May I ask why you deleted LionheartX' userpage? The reason is not apparent in the deletion log. Since he's not banned or indefinitely blocked (at least not yet), I assumed you did it at his request, but I just noticed on his talk that he's asking why, too, so I'm confused. Best wishes, Bishonen | talk 19:35, 6 May 2007 (UTC).
 * I had done so because I wanted to view something in the history so I restored all of it, and then deleted all of it. His userpage was blank, anyway.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龍 ) 19:37, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
 * It was? Weird. He's asking to have it restored. I don't know what difference he thinks it'll make. Just because it'll blue his sig, perhaps? I'll just restore the whole thing, history and all, unless you object. Bishonen | talk 19:54, 6 May 2007 (UTC).
 * Well, at one point the wanted it to be deleted, mostly because Certified.Gangsta tagged him as a sockpuppet of RevolverOcelotX/Apocalyptic Destroyer/someone who was banned/blocked for disruptive edits on Chinese articles.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龍 ) 20:02, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Not much of a reason, is it? Perhaps he doesn't understand the distinction between deleting and blanking a page very clearly. Why do these things have to be so complicated? Well, I'll make it simple and restore all of it, since he asked for it. Bishonen | talk 20:23, 6 May 2007 (UTC).

Editore99
The user has responded to concerns about the manner in which he was editing. Considering the fact that the user had not edited in hours when you placed the block, was it really needed? Anyways, there is a small discussion brewing at the talk page and I have told the user that I would get your attention. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 23:10, 6 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Some users were concerned at ANI. I would not oppose the unblocking at this point.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龍 ) 23:12, 6 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Well the user says they are manual edits, which is certainly doable with a tabbed browser, so I will unblock, and watch the contributions of this editor. Thanks for the fast response. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 23:16, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I'll get you next time, Gadget...
NEXT TIME!!! HalfShadow 03:34, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Can I have what you're smoking?— Ryūlóng ( 竜龍 ) 03:37, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Smoking? Sheeit... Coffee and codeine are what I'm on. My head is full of fluffy clouds and the pain has gone away. Wheee... HalfShadow 03:42, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Are you being coy, or did you not get the Inspector Gadget reference? hbdragon88 23:15, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I just don't know why the fuck he did it.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龍 ) 23:17, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Image and Image (artifact) and Image (disambiguation)
Ryulong, please take a look at the merge proposal in Talk:Image (disambiguation), and object there if you don't like the plan that you just jumped into the middle of. Thanks. Dicklyon 03:40, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
 * That needs a larger audience... You're the only one discussing it there.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龍 ) 03:41, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
 * My impression was that these articles were pretty much orphaned. If you can drum up an audience to get more opinions, I'm all for it. What's your opinion? Dicklyon 03:43, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm thinking Image is a very important page.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龍 ) 03:58, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
 * OK. What should be its scope then?  More than the image (artifact) concept?  The image (disambiguation) already has links to most of all the more specific interpretations, and refers to the image article as an artifact; is that the right scope for this use of the term alone?  And what sources are available about it?  I'm having a hard time finding anything that talks about image per se, other than a bunch of dictionary definitions and tons of random uses. Dicklyon 05:22, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, I still think that you could bring this up on one of the village pumps or at WP:RM rather than just the article's talk page that no one really goes to.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龍 ) 05:34, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I could, but neither of those places appears to be appropriate to the situation. What I should do, however, is wait a bit longer to give others a chance to comment.  If you'd like to call for more opinions in the meantime, feel free. Dicklyon 05:44, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
 * You could try the WP:RFC route.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龍 ) 05:58, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
 * That's for dispute resolution. Are we having a dispute? Dicklyon 06:15, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
 * It's a "request for comment". You can request people to comment on the issue at hand. No one is really going to go to that talk page any time soon. Just bring it up in a more public forum.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龍 ) 06:20, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
 * First, a simple request for YOU: go to that talk page and register your opinion. As it stands, it appears unanimous in my favor; no tie to break.  If we stalemate on just two opposing opinions there will be something to resolve. Dicklyon 15:19, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Re: Aksi
Parthian, the Wikimedia Foundation really does require that you explicitly mention the source of the image if it is truly a photograph you have created and therefore own the copyright to. Copyright violation is a serious issue on Wikipedia and may bring the project into disrepute and legal trouble if the original photographer (if he is not you) finds that you have licensed his work for free when he was originally paid to do so. This is why aski is pressing the issue.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龍 ) 06:09, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Dear Ryulong - The problem as I repeated myself over and over is NOT the images, but his personal attacks on me and his breach of Admin privileges. However you have mentioned about the Wikipedia legal obligations here regarding the images - the irony is that the Wikipedia is already in legal violation. As FutPerf brought to my attention Wikipedia admins have accused an establishment and a renown researcher of plagiarism and theft  !  ← ← Parthian Shot  (Talk)  06:33, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
 * If you can't prove that you truly own the copyright or that someone has e-mailed permissions at wikipedia.org, then the images get deleted and you get blocked for violating copyright. It's as plain as that.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龍 ) 06:36, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Also, we need to make sure that the source isn't violating copyright either.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龍 ) 06:39, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry but it seems that you need to read my previous reply again! ← ← Parthian Shot (Talk)  06:49, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't feel like reading all of that conversation. Can you give me the Cliff's Notes of how Wikipedia is "in legal violation"?— Ryūlóng ( 竜龍 ) 06:55, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

User:0001
FYI, as you were the last admin to block him; I just blocked again for a month for another WP:BLP violation --Steve (Stephen)talk 00:11, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Something to keep an eye on...
IP-based editors keep making changes to the voice actors for the monsters for MMPRS1-2. Naturally, none of their stuff is sourced, as sourcing any monster actors from that time is pretty much impossible. Just an FYI. JPG-GR 20:27, 4 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Only for those you don't recognized the voices. Plus, the VAs were credited, but never properly. Like Kingg Sphinx when compared to Cardiotron & the JellyFish. Fractyl 00:26, 6 May 2007 (UTC)


 * restoring after being archived and then protected too fast
 * No ESAs during the first two seasons were creditted. And "recognizing a voice" doesn't mean a damn thing. At this point, I'm half tempted to remove all the VAs JPG-GR 02:32, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Link you wanted from ru.wp
ru:Обсуждение_Википедии:Посольство User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 07:33, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Skult of Caro
On what information did you determine that Skult was Nathan? - Mgm|(talk) 09:55, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Duck test, information from others that the writing styles matched, and the suspiscion of members of the arbitration committee. The e-mail utilized by both was also the same, according to those who received e-mail from Nathan.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龍 ) 09:56, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
 * There was also a request from Nathan that I change a block on an account of a troll who impersonated him, followed by a request by Skult on the same page when his account was too young to know much of anything. It was obvious then.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龍 ) 09:59, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Overpopulation category
What happened with that important category you just removed from my user page????

—Cesar Tort 01:22, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I deleted it. There were only three individuals in it.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龍 ) 01:23, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * How many individuals should be for a category to exist? —Cesar Tort 01:30, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * There's no set number. The category is simply one that does not have anything to do with Wikipedia and one does not need a category (or a userbox) to express ones ideas.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龍 ) 01:31, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * If there's no official set number do I have the right to re-insert it? —Cesar Tort 01:34, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * No, as it's deleted. You can say "I am worried about overpopulation" without stating it in a useless category.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龍 ) 01:36, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * But why did you take this unilateral decision without consulting us? In fact, to me that was the most important category of all. —Cesar Tort 01:39, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Categories with low populations (ironic, isn't it?) are deleted on a regular basis. The category for Wikipedians concerned about overpopulation was one of them.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龍 ) 01:40, 10 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Too bad. Please let me know if you receive more complaints from that policy or if there is a chance in the future to reinsert it. —Cesar Tort 01:45, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Additionally, "Wikipedians concerned with" anything categories are generally frowned upon, as categories are supposed to facilitate collaboration on articles. Stating one is "concerned" with overpopulation does not convey a collaborative intention. Feel free to create a "Wikipedians interested in overpopulation issues" category though. VegaDark (talk) 01:47, 10 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Stating one is "concerned" with overpopulation does not convey a collaborative intention.

This sounds extremely bizarre to me. It's like saying that there's no problem in Calcutta or here, in Mexico City with more than 20 million, many of which are very poor. "Wikipedians interested in overpopulation issues" sounds to me as Newspeak's blackwhite speech: it conveys exactly the opposite idea of what I am concerned about. —Cesar Tort 01:55, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Saying you're concerned about overpopulation does not help the encyclopedia.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龍 ) 01:56, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * But it could help the poor people here (and elsewhere). —Cesar Tort 01:58, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * No. It wouldn't— Ryūlóng ( 竜龍 ) 01:58, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Feel free to write you are concerned about overpopulation on your user page, though. User categories, however, should have an encyclopedic benefit. VegaDark (talk) 02:05, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

What do you mean that it wouldn’t help? Any new user that sees this category could use it in his or her user page as a moral statement representing what historian Kenneth Clark, the author of the acclaimed TV series  Civilisation, called the new barbarians: the people who breed like rabbits condemning millions to poverty. —Cesar Tort 02:14, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * It does not help Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia to have a category for users who are concerned about the overpopulation of the Earth. It may help in a social context, but not on an online encyclopedia. Please stop pursuing this— Ryūlóng ( 竜龍 ) 02:29, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Rinrinshi
But technically, Rinrinshi & BeastMan Forms are one and the same. Beast Man Forms are the supered-form of a Rinrinshi. Fractyl 02:43, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Rinrinshi are the forms before they transform into a Beast-Man.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龍 ) 02:45, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * No, I thought it like with the Gekirangers. The BeastMan are fighting-forms(Example: Super Saiyans), but the Rinrinshi are the default form with individual names. In fact, many Rinrinshi introduced themselves before assuming Beastman form. (Like Makirika & Gyuuya for example).Fractyl 02:52, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * While this is true, they are still unique from one another. It is true you cannot have a Beast-Man without a Rinrinshi, but they are seen more often as the Beast-Man form.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龍 ) 02:55, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, when they are fighting. Otherwise, they are usually Rinrinshi. Fractyl 03:08, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * If they fight as the Rinrinshi form, then write "Rinrinshi." If they fight as the Beast-Man form, write "Beast-Man."— Ryūlóng ( 竜龍 ) 03:10, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

RfAr
I'm giving you notification that I'll be bringing your banning of User:AmendmentNumberOne up in an RfA. - JNighthawk 03:23, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * It's not a ban. It's an indefinite block.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龍 ) 03:24, 10 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Number 7. Also number 1.  Heartily support the block.  Antandrus  (talk) 03:36, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Indef of User:John miller19677
User:John miller19677 e-mailed unblock-en-l asking to be unblocked so they could keep creating Delticom. While I don't think that the version they created was good, I think that an indef with no warnings is a little harsh. Or is there something that I'm missing? Veinor (talk to me) 20:44, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * It was an account used solely to spam. There were no other constructive edits.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龍 ) 23:48, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

HistoryBuffEr again
Take a look at this. TML 10:47, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

User:AmendmentNumberOne
Hi. I know you feel strongly that the block was appropriate, but I have some qualms about your reblock the other day of User:AmendmentNumberOne. The account was obviously created as an SPA and may well be a sock/alternate account, and I have previously opined on ANI that its approach to a difficult issue was unnecessarily confrontational and strident. Nonetheless, neither a harsh tone on talk pages nor an editor's protesting against his previous block on ANI is, of itself, a blockable offense. I don't see any other user misconduct (in fact, as you noted, there hasn't been any other user conduct at all yet, one way or the other). In your block summary&mdash;"User has only existed here to push a single point of view concerning the encryption key; no attempts have been made to edit a single article in the two days that this account was unblocked. This user is not here to contribute to the encyclopedia"&mdash;the first two sentences do not constitute a strong basis for a block, and the third is a conclusion based on what I consider insufficient evidence. Under the circumstances, I would have preferred, at a minimum, to allow more time to see whether problems developed before there was any consideration of reblocking. I'm sorry to be critical, and I'd welcome any additional thoughts you may have on this. Regards, Newyorkbrad 01:59, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The editor has now posted a formal unblock request. Rather than act unilaterally, I've brought this to ANI, acknowledging the prior ANI discussion which preliminarily agreed with the reblock. Regards, Newyorkbrad 21:28, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The user in question had two days to show other conduct such as edits to encyclopedia articles. He decided not to do any of that and simply continue the complaints against DragonflySixtyseven at WP:ANI. He is not here to build an encyclopedia and I blocked his account for that reason.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龍 ) 22:04, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I am sorry to advise that after allowing considering all the input at ANI, especially including yours, I remain of the opinion that there was insufficient foundation for this block. I have unblocked the account, but will monitor its contributions and take appropriate action if there are problems in the future. Thank you for taking the time to provide your detailed input both here and at ANI. Newyorkbrad 21:08, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Protecting reference to Anderson's work
Just out of interest, why, in the article on locus of control, did you remove my reference to Anderson's work? I did give a source for this research into attributional style, and what is more, if you go to the following website - www.psychology.iastate.edu/faculty/caa/abstracts/Personality/Attr. Style.html

You will see that it lists Anderson's work on the concept. ACEOREVIVED 16:27, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The use of the new category was entirely pointless and in my removal of that I removed the additions you had made. I apologize.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龍 ) 22:03, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Template:Cfd2
Don't know what you were planning there, but your edits broke the template. The change was reverted. Vegaswikian 19:39, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The issues were that there is a template for what was being performed via the use of unnecessary external links.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龍 ) 22:02, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Checkuser case completed
Hi, A checkuser IP Check case you filled has been completed by a CheckUser, and archived. You can find the results for 7 days at Requests for checkuser/IP check/Archive. -- lucasbfr talk, checkuser clerk, 15:44, 13 May 2007 (UTC).

*COUGH*
Pokémon Brown HalfShadow 02:08, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh no!
Now you're going to get "FUHKKING SUED!!!" (nyuknyuknyuk...) 02:14, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Clock and calendar page
Where can I find the code for the cool calendar page with the clock that you have right above the archive links? lwalt 04:17, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The code can be seen at User:Ryulong/Clock. Just try not to copy some of the external code (just copy the stuff that has  tags)— Ryūlóng  ( 竜龍 ) 04:22, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Penguin Icon
Hey? What is the big deal about the penguin icon on the top right of the screen? Is it something special? King Lopez Contribs 08:08, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I like it.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龍 ) 08:09, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Very nice. King Lopez Contribs 08:12, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Not to be blunt, but why do you contact me, specifically?— Ryūlóng ( 竜龍 ) 08:15, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Not really often. Only when I have questions about Wikipedia and I need advice from a experince editor like you. If that bothers you I can ask those questions to someone else. King Lopez Contribs 09:02, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks
for reverting vandalism on my user page. Gman124 21:45, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * It wasn't so much vandalism but violation of policy (for some strange reason), but you're welcome anyway :)— Ryūlóng ( 竜龍 ) 21:46, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

"smoking pipe" versus "pipe smoking"
Is there some reason you reverted the move I made from Smoking pipe (tobacco) to Pipe smoking (tobacco)? I'm trying to implement a cleanup that has been discussed and agreed upon for several weeks now. The pipe-smoking-related articles have been a mess since the original article expanded and split, so if you have any suggestions on how to cleanly do this cleanup, I'd like to hear them. Frotz 09:37, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

User talk:DamnCartoonGuy
You blocked this user, who is requesting unblocking, for uploading a lot of screenshots. As far as I can tell, although he's uploaded a lot of screenshots, they're all appropriately tagged, with FU rationales, and are used in articles in line with what seems like standard practice on Wikipedia, and he didn't have a warning or any discussion. Is there something I'm missing? Mango juice talk 17:21, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I wasn't sure whether or not the user was one of several problems users. I will unblock myself.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龍 ) 20:41, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Ryulong
Many thanks for being gracious and polite, and offering an apology in which you explained that the removal of the reference to Anderson's work, in the article on locus of control, was simply an accident. I have now put this reference back in the article. Please do not worry, I take the point about the need to remove the category "Articles which have seen by internationally recognised figures who have published work in the field". After all, they may have seen it, but I do not think any of them edited the article. I raised the question of this category at Village Pump, and had a similar negative response. ACEOREVIVED 20:16, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

information request
What was the reason Kantojohtohoennshinnoh blocked? Just curious because of the long name.VK35 20:40, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The user is a sockpuppet of a banned user. It should be clear from my summary and the edits I made to the page.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龍 ) 20:43, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I didn't see any explanation on that person's talk page other than the sock label. That person's contribution list was empty.  It's not clear to me why this person is a sock.  I'm not that interested in knowing but the answer didn't seem too easy to see.  My interest isn't so much in that user but in trying to understand how the mind of a sock works.VK35  22:17, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Checkuser confirmation. Username fits with the MO of that particular banned user.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龍 ) 22:19, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Couldn't find that user's name on this checkuser []. I'm not disputing your judgement.  Perhaps your detective skills are superior than most? (not being sarcastic)VK35  22:31, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I've sadly been dealing with this problem user for the past 6 months now. I know what I'm looking for when this one's active or has been active. And not all checkuser results are published on site.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龍 ) 22:50, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Tell me more! I'm not so interested in that long name anymore.  How does one submit a request to the secret checkuser?VK35  22:54, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I cannot say anything else.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龍 ) 22:55, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Episode summaries
Despite the fact I lengthened episode summaries, they still need to be terse and to the point. Expansions such at these get to the point where it is almost a copyright violation. We need to keep things at the length I had them at and to the point, and whatever is important for the plot of that arc is to be written about. We don't need to get too detailed. That's why it's a summary.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龍 ) 22:52, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I guess I understand, I'll try not to go that far. Fractyl 00:41, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

My User Page (T-1000)
Excuse me, but why did you delete the Michael Jackson photo from my user page? --T-9000 09:34, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Geki movie stuff
Could you perhaps give me the URL so I can add a ref properly?— Ryūlóng ( 竜龍 ) 21:03, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Here you go Fractyl 22:54, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Imagin
I have to disagree with you, the imagin do have genders. Most being male. Fractyl 02:00, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Unless they're referred to as male or female, then they are genderless.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龍 ) 02:01, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I can't go my that, but I can call Gigadeath genderless. Fractyl 02:07, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Bat Li
His name is meant as a homage to Bruce Lee. Plus, to further the homeage, in "Enter the Dragon", Lee(Bruce Lee) was asked, "What great technique you wish to aquire." To which Lee answered, "To have no technique". Fractyl 02:08, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Japanese Wiki uses "Jet Li" due to the similarity on how the names are written in Japanese (Jet Li (ジェット・リー) vs Bruce Lee (ブルース・リー)).— Ryūlóng ( 竜龍 ) 02:24, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, you could go for both, but Bat Li seem closer to Bruce Lee than Jet Li.Fractyl 03:23, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm currently consulting others on the matter.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龍 ) 03:23, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Consensus is that the writers would not characterize Bruce Lee as a bat.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龍 ) 08:19, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, the theme of the Fist Saints is somehow modeled around Martial Artists of the 70s. It makes since as Bruce is more famous then Jet. Fractyl 13:13, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

List of 4chan memes
Why did you delete it? It was encyclopedic material. - 2-16 13:57, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Also, why did you protect it against recreation? I'm in no danger of starting it again. Besides, it would do well as a redirect to either Internet meme or 4chan.

Den-O movie
From the movie page, Aki Hoshino is to appear as Senhime Den-O Sword-form and Senhime Fractyl 16:48, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

PT - wikiw
Hey! I'm really sorry for talking to you only now, but with so many messages and work to do in th pt:wiki, I couldn't see your post until now. My english is kinda stuck, so, you may find some spelling problems - sorry about that!

But, well, did you solve your problem? Can I still help? You can talk to me here or in the pt:wiki.  Lucia Carvalho    Hey!    18:57, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Unblock
Dear Ryulong, thankyou for the unblock after my autoblock. Would it be so unusual if I removed the whole unblock buisiness and that whole section from my talk page? Thanks, Anonymous Dissident  Utter 22:14, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

It appears that there is some sort of issue with autoblock. Smee has 2 auto blocks and the IP's show as being registered to wikipedia. Lsi john 22:15, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank You
Dear Ryulong,

Thank you so much for lifting my autoblock. I was very confused when it happened, and I'm glad you could remedy the issue. Again thanks!

Sincerely, Denise --Candy156sweet 22:29, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for the lifting my autoblock. I was in the middle of a big edit, and when I tried to submit and it came up. I was really confused. *** Clamster 02:38, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Your deletion of links from WP:ANI
At WP:ANI, you deleted the linkset " ", with the edit summary "this isn't WP:CSN". The summary doesn't seem to explain the deletion. The linkset is in no way restricted to WP:CSN; it provides links relevant to the discussion where it was posted. If your only reason to delete it was the belief that it had accidentally been posted on a different noticeboard than intended, please rest assured that this was not the case. Thank you. -- Ben &ensp; TALK/HIST 05:28, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
 * It's simply not necessary to add that. Yes, his ban is indefinite. But we don't need a tag for every single thread about banning to have all of that.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龍 ) 05:30, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Indefinite User talk semi-protection
I was told at Protection policy that at one time you were forced to prevent consistent attacks on your user talk page by instituting indefinite semi-protection and creating an extra talk page solely for new users so that they could still leave you comments. I intended to look through your history to see how long this went on for, but after taking one look at how many edits you have, I decided it might be better just to ask. How long was this indefinite suspension for? Once it was removed, were the vandals gone, or did they return? Would you recommend using the same system for another user whose talk page is constantly vandalized? Did you run into any problems with using a subpage for a talk page for new users? What notice did you put on your talk page to explain to new users that they'd have to go to a different page to contact you?

I would appreciate any and all help you may give on this matter. &mdash; Eric Herboso 14:12, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I really do not recall the length of this protection. I do know I kept it up longer than was really necessary and I simply had something at the top that said "if you cannot contact me cause this page is semi protected go to insert name of subpage that was unprotected .— Ryūlóng ( 竜龍 ) 20:33, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Zeronos stuff
As usual, sources please.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龍 ) 20:36, 18 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Part of the upcoming Toy lines. No source at this time. But the theme of Zeronos is "Interception Tracks".
 * Action Series 09 ZeroLiner Drill
 * Action Series 10 ZeroLiner Naginata

Fractyl 20:45, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
 * This Dukemon?— Ryūlóng ( 竜龍 ) 20:47, 18 May 2007 (UTC)


 * That(Though focusing on near-future) and the fact I'm attempting to translate the magnizine article. But I do know for a fact that Zeronos's Form-Change system is used by sliding a card from the RiderPass into slot of the camera-style belt(Than turn the belt in a certain direction), allowing him to assume either of his two armored forms. Fractyl 20:55, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, so long as it does come from what we do have concerning Zeronos in print works, then that can be added.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龍 ) 21:00, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

spoiler
If someone removes spoiler tags, don't add them back. The whole point of the RFC is to decide whether or not they are of any use to Wikipedia. Some of us are being bold and getting rid of them where they surely shouldn't be in the first place. Encyclopedias don't have spoiler warnings. Fansite message boards do.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龍 ) 00:01, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The matter is not undisputed. You do not have consensus. You have a conflict of interest in implementing a Wikipedia-wide change while engaged in a RfC against it. Why do you have more justification in taking them out than I have putting them in? Your comment "Encyclopedias don't have spoiler warnings. Fansite message boards do." shows that you are ignoring the fact that the matter is under discussion, or you have assumed that your side is won. It is. You are not. --Kizor 00:05, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
 * It is general consensus that it should be done. By undoing it yourself, you are creating unnecessary disputes. If the consensus goes the way that it is taken that the spoiler tags are to be kept, then you can revert them then. However, the way that David Gerard has done things he is right. There is no need to add a spoiler tag for a plot section.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龍 ) 00:14, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Block?
Greetings, Ryulong. I just have a question here. Recently, you put a block on someone named YourLord, which was probably for the best, seeing as he was causing a bit of trouble in the pages regarding Bionicle. But you did not seem to use an "official" block like {subst:uw-block1}, or something like that. So can Admins use different methods to block someone? -- -- Gravitan 10:49, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I had a different reason to block that I needed to spell out in full.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龍 ) 20:20, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Steve Rizzono
This page was created entirely by JB196 sockpuppets. A few admins have removed the g5 notice, as they haven't paid attention to the fact that yes, it was altered by many users, but only because the original accounts kept getting blocked. Please deny this user and delete the file. The Evil Spartan 13:21, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Flying Fist Ringi
Here are the Ringi the duo used in Lesson 13.

Fractyl 05:45, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Majestic-Rapture Warswords (嚇悦戦剣): Rustu summoned twin swords.
 * Decaying-Night Sword (降職晩刀): Rasuka brings out a katana
 * Wicked Spinning Encounter (邪悪輪遇): The two juggling (Sounds like the "attack name") their feathered shurikens while hitting the Gekirangers from both sides.
 * Destroying Red-Top Kick (破死兜丹頂脚): The attack the two used to defeat GekiElephaTohja with a double kick to the head.
 * We'll figure it out in a week.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龍 ) 05:54, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
 * But you here them say it. I can admit I use TV Nihhon for the attack spellings, I nothing from waiting for TV Asahi to update, other than get the correct kanji and detail the attack. But I can use the page to help myself out, that I can admit. Besides, that "wait a week " know refers to Rustsu, asnd I'm guessing the Kakuestu War Swords & Koushoku Bantou are their actual weapons rather than Ringi, tranlating them. Fractyl 14:17, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Zeronos Revealed

 * He's Ryuto Sakurai (桜井侑斗) aka the Mystery man & he was Airi's fiance, myseriously disappearing after some incident. He's played bt Yuichi Nakamura.

Ryuto at the episode 17 "To Be Continued" scene
 * I heard that in the series; but we should wait until next week as all information is speculation or original research.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龍 ) 16:13, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
 * How is it speculation if he possesses a Imagin card that resembles one of the shadowed forms of Zeronos? Fractyl 16:20, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Basically, using solely the preview sequence is considered original research. The only thing we do know is we can say the mystery man is Sakurai, as that is supported by the most previous episode and its summary at the tv asahi website. However, we don't have verifiable information about his first name, that he is Zeronos, or who portrays him.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龍 ) 16:25, 20 May 2007 (UTC)


 * If that's the case, we should mention that on character and cast then? Also, how about Toei's Den-O page?
 * Toei's Den-O page rarely has this info, but you're free to check.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龍 ) 16:56, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:V archetypeicon corruptor.png
Thanks for uploading Image:V archetypeicon corruptor.png. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. (ESkog)(Talk) 19:12, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Zeronos pix!
Card promos

Powered form 1

Default form

Fractyl 21:31, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I know... Not much we can do just yet.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龍 ) 21:38, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Re: Image deletion
Yeah, I prefer the anal-retentive method. Every once in a while new users start bizarre edit warring over the old revisions (sometimes copyvio) of images. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 04:24, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * You can still nuke the old revisions from the page.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龍 ) 04:24, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Deletion is deletion. I like the thorough approach, when copyright status affords it (see ) ˉˉanetode╦╩ 04:28, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

User_talk:MelicaanMatkins
Can you please follow this up? No need for helpme tags there, could you also note that? Many thanks, Extranet is now E  talk 07:55, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Once someone else declines the unblock request, I'm gonna tag and protect.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龍 ) 07:58, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Gekiranger Lesson 14

 * Uploaded the info from it (Including Rageku's cameo in the "15" Promo). Fractyl 20:10, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Whatever.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龍 ) 20:14, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Den-O 17
Will attempt to condense my summary of it. Fractyl 20:59, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Try to keep it as short as it currently is. Add a line at most.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龍 ) 21:00, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Imagin
I said that Imagin do have gender, as they are human-like in form. Even Den-O Imagin have gender. So far we have see only male Imajin in the show. Fractyl 23:43, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * They do not have gender. The only way you could say as such is if when they talk they say "Ore" or "Boku" which are masculine versions of "I" in Japanese. The Den-O Imagin are the only one that appear to have gender, as I do not recall any of the other Imagin referring to themselves with "Ore" or "Boku"— Ryūlóng ( 竜龍 ) 23:45, 23 May 2007 (UTC)


 * All Imagin have gender, the other Imagin hadn't use the gender-pronouns, as they were more bent on the mission. But I go by both the voices and mannerisms. The only things I give the "it" to are inhuman monsters like Gigandeaths, which I'm starting think are not the Imagins in a stronger form. Fractyl 01:36, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * It is easier to refer to them as "its" and user gender-neutral pronouns. So far, we have not had a female voice actor voice an Imagin, but we should refer to them all as "its" until one is specifically a female. And just use whatever information we have from verifiable primary resources. Don't use your own original ideas in these articles.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龍 ) 01:38, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Don't worry, I would alter the text about Gigandeaths until I am convinced enough for it. The gender bit is another matter, but I do hope a female Imagin does appear. Fractyl 02:28, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Mac
Hi, why did you block without warning and not reply to any queries from the user (see )? Could you show me diffs that he or she was spamming so egregiously that an indef block w/o warning was necessary? Thanks, Iamunknown 04:50, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm surprised, Mac has been a editor for four years and has over seven thousand edits, doesn't seem like an RBI situation. &mdash; Michael Linnear   04:54, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Indeed, Mac has registered over 7000 edits starting from February 2003. --Iamunknown 04:56, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I cannot really recall what site had been spammed. And I did receive one e-mail from this user after the block, but it appears I did not reply to it. What happened when I was offline tonight? Why is this issue brought up now?— Ryūlóng ( 竜龍 ) 05:10, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I noticed that the user had been indefinitely blocked when I posted [ this] TfD notice to his or her talk page. The only thing that happened while you were offline tonight was me becoming utterly confused.  Would you please unblock Mac and leave a note at his or her talk page?  I do not think that an indefinite block was warranted.  --Iamunknown 05:16, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Right now I'm searching through my deletion log to see what I had done that night to refresh my memory of the block.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龍 ) 05:17, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I see something in the deleted history of Research and development and innovation that more than likely lead to the block, however I cannot recall why I had done so. I'll lift the block.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龍 ) 05:22, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you. --Iamunknown 05:35, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Titan124
Hi, Ryulong. I am concerned about your remarks on User:Titan124's user talk page regarding his block and vandalism tonight. While I support your decision in blocking him, I think you handled it incivily and bit the newbie a little. I would just kindly ask that in the future, even if it is a blatant vandal, please hold yourself professionally. Thanks :). Kntrabssi 06:03, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * He is not a newbie. He has an established account and should not be handled lightly.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龍 ) 06:46, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * As I see it, he has made a total of 30 edits. He also seems to have made quality edits, with a single excpetion, up until March.  At that point he made a total of 5 disruptive edits, none of which he was warned for.  He replaced two pages with pro-Colbert statements and you blocked him.  This doesn't seem to assume good faith to me.  Ask yourself, if I brought this guy to AIV with no warnings, a total of two disruptive edits in the past two months and asked for an indefinite block with no chance of unblocking, would they comply?  Unless I missed some kind of rule change in how we hand vandalism, blocks should be preventative and not punative.  The majority of this users edits had, in fact, been good edits, until recently.  I'm going to ask, again, that you seriously reconsider the conclusion you've come to.  Thanks :-). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kntrabssi (talk • contribs)
 * Colbert vandalism is given zero tolerance.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龍 ) 00:58, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Those of us who were working to fight off all the vandalism during the spree that followed the show's airing are truly able to assess the damage that a gang of unchecked hooligans can cause. I support Ryulong's position to not unblock this user at this time.  When the talk page block expires, we can see how contrite they are, but for now, I see no reason to change position. --After Midnight 0001 03:12, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I had not, until now, read anything regarding Colbert vandalism, so I thank you for that. Secondly, I would like to say that I was not asking for you to unblock Titan124, but that you reconsider using the word idiotic, as it not only contributes no a negative environment, but also doesn't assume good faith.  I fought a lot of vandalism on the Virginia Tech massacre article when the whole situation went down, so I understand how frustrating throng vandalism can be.  My best :-)  Kntrabssi 18:15, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Delinking my user talk page
Hey Ryulong, why are you delinking my user talk page?

Thanks,

Mathiastck 14:13, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I was removing redlinks.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龍 ) 00:57, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

redirect deletion
What speedy criterion are you using to delete things like Rocketfish and Double Redirect, please? I want to understand your methodology before I object. -- nae'blis 14:22, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * It was G3. I was cleaning up after the user who contacted me above because he was rapidly creating redirects that were getting disruptive.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龍 ) 00:52, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
 * G3 is untenable for things that actually help the encyclopedia, like subscription and Easylist. Please refrain from being so hasty, something I notice you were criticized for in your successful RFA (by me, among others). Remember that what you may consider disruptive may simply be a lack of experience. I have restored some of the more blatantly encyclopedic redirects that you deleted, please review your own list if you get the chance. -- nae'blis 15:34, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Heat of evaporation
Why did you revert my move without discussion? Your preferred title isn't even consistent with Enthalpy of fusion, which by the way references this as Heat of vaporization. The way, the truth, and the light 02:01, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
 * First, the name you chose used incorrect terminology (you used "evaporation" when it should be "vaporization"). Where the page is right now is the scientifically correct term for the process. However, the titles do need to be consistent, but I will need a physics textbook to tell what's right and wrong.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龍 ) 02:05, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Google shows only a 4:1 ratio for 'heat vapori(z/s)ation' over 'heat of evaporation', so my terminology can't be called wrong: at most less preferred. At least 'heat of evaporation' should exist as a redirect, which it didn't before my move. Aren't article titles supposed to be the most common name, not necessarily the scientifically correct one? The way, the truth, and the light 02:13, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
 * In my University Physics lecture this past semester, it was taught as "vaporization." It was taught the same in high school chemistry and physics for me. And "Heat of evaporation" exists as a redirect now. However, I've moved the page to Enthalpy of vaporization and now I have to do some fixing.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龍 ) 02:15, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
 * OK for now. The way, the truth, and the light 02:16, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

It's morphin time!
I don't consider you a sysop (as you had to ask a 'crat to promote you...) Ask someone who I do consider a sysop to ask me politely. Matthew 17:09, 26 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Matthew - would you please say who leaked the log to you? As Ryulong explained, the channel is used to discuss very sensitive BLP issues, and leaking its contents really is a big problem for the encyclopedia. Phil Sandifer 17:47, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Fmeokhotmail
The user was blocked, but why did you remove the section at ANI?  Cool Blue  talk to me 00:40, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
 * WP:DENY— Ryūlóng ( 竜龍 ) 00:41, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Possible false adminship
I came across this unblock request that you declined, which occured in Novemeber of 2006. According to this link, you did not become an administrator until January of this year. Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't that falsely implying that you had admin. powers, to delcine an unblock request while you were not technically an admin.?(I've made comments on their talk page when some had made an unblock request, but I didn't decline, nor approve them on their talk page.)--Wikipedier is now U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. 01:04, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Absolutely not. I cleared the unblock logs when I was not an admin, and that user was a sockpuppet of someone who has been trolling Khoikhoi for some time now.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龍 ) 01:09, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
 * very interesting. I don't know of what unblock logs that you are refering to.Special:ipblocklist and Special:Log/block are the ones that I know of. I'll take your word for it.--Wikipedier is now U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. 01:13, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
 * CAT:RFU— Ryūlóng ( 竜龍 ) 01:14, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
 * So in other words, non-administrators were able to unblock users that were blocked aswell. Who knew?--Wikipedier is now U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. 01:17, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
 * In general, non-admins should not "decline" unblock requests, though they are free to comment on such requests, but this matter was fully discussed at the time of Ryulong's RfA, so I submit that there is little point in pursuing it now, some four months later. Newyorkbrad 01:25, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Ryulong, please accept my most sincere apologies for that mistake.--Wikipedier is now U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. 01:45, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

How
Peguinman how did you get youre userboxes to scrool? Anubiz 16:02, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I also want to know how to make a userbox to scroll, because I want to do that to my own userbox. Look, now my userpage is f***ed up! So I have to put a scroll to my userbox to overcome the mess... --Edmundkh 17:20, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Check the code of User:Ryulong/Userboxtop and User:Ryulong/Userboxes— Ryūlóng ( 竜龍 ) 23:02, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

The code has a disclamer, dos that mean you will not let us have scrrolling boxes? Anubiz 00:20, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
 * What the hell are you talking about?— Ryūlóng ( 竜龍 ) 00:22, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

'''If you can see this message, then Ryulong's user page was transcluded (or transcluded then substituted) somewhere other than his user page. This page was never meant to be transcluded anywhere else on Wikipedia. As such, please deal with the user who decided to transclude it by blocking him as an impersonator

That. Anubiz 01:57, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Copy the other code, then.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龍 ) 02:06, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for providing the code. But now, I would like to make my Babel box to be also able to scroll. But I still want it to look like the original one, just only adding a scroll to it. Do you know how to do it? I don't want my babel box to look like the other userboxes of mine. --Edmundkh 16:48, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
 * That's a bit more difficult. It would be easier to use just the userboxes and apply them as I had.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龍 ) 21:19, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

OK nevermind, anyway thank you very much for helping, and I would turn to Misza13 instead... --Edmundkh 05:42, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I got to scroll but I messed up the rest my page. Help plese.Anubiz 11:56, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I can't figure out what's wrong.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龍 ) 15:55, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Well it was messed up I frougt to deleat that last post. Anubiz 11:03, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Zeronos
I think it's obivous that Deneb is the Imagin used by Zeronos. Epecially with the pix of Zeronos "Vega" form.

Zeronos & Deneb "Vega-form" Vega-form 2

Fractyl 23:07, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
 * It is obvious, but we must wait until it is explicitly stated.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龍 ) 23:12, 27 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, the Zeroliner Cars had been identified with new pictures. Fractyl 21:50, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
 * True, but we have identification without them.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龍 ) 22:18, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

..
Yes you may (or you can wait for the long message to WP:TV). Matthew 06:15, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Sure thing bro. Because they're disputed and done without consensus (evidenced by the fact multiple users have opposed him). The user can use AfD if they so please. Matthew 06:17, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Perhaps. It's a good idea actually -- we've had so many discussions all over that it's become messy. Matthew 06:21, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:Skyfire-satellite.jpg
You said that there was no reason to delete Image:Skyfire-satellite.jpg. I thought that re-uploading images that had been deleted was not allowed? This image was originally uploaded by the same user as --  JediLofty User ¦ Talk 14:36, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Compromise Regina Neighbourhoods
I have posted a compromise to the issues in the Talk:Regina Neighbourhoods. It is my hope that this will lead to a solution over the disputed figures and edits. I also hope that this will eliminate future accusations as to my identity and/or relation to other banned users. I would appreciate that you read over the compromise and comment on it. I just want to find a solution, that will satisfy all parties.--207.81.56.49 07:28, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Merkey thread
Ryulong, I understand we haven't had the best relationship, but as a genuine member of this community, I'm going to assume your good faith: look closely. What is happening here has been happening for a long time, it is a very big deal, and it is completely unacceptable.Proabivouac 09:31, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
 * It's being dragged out to an extent which is now ridiculous. CatchFork was using an open proxy, and nothing can be proven from Poindexter.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龍 ) 09:33, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I should also add that I have no particular sympathy for Mr. Merkey, except one: he is a real person operating under his real name, and per BLP and common decency we shall not allow WIkipedia to become a forum for his slander (read the thread, overt threats against his bio which Jimbo had to step in to stop before) and harassment.
 * I will rest when the ring is busted, and all the attack socks are indef blocked. I've notified Jimbo, and I will soon notify Brad Patrick and the Arbitration Committee. If they all blow it off, then by all means archive it. I'm not going to sit here and do nothing while a living person (however eccentric he may be) is subjected to coordinated attack on and from Wikipedia.Proabivouac 09:41, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppets are people too
Yes, this is the reincarnation of Uga Man but I come with a different message. I am sorry to you and to the entire wikipedia community because I now see that what I did was wrong. It was all just immaturity on my part and I have to learn from experiences like this to grow up. I have no plans to destroy wikipedia and I hope that no one else does. I wish everybody here good luck and I hope that the growth of wikipedia continues. Just remember that sockpuppets are people too, they have family, friends, and feelings just like the rest of you. We aren't criminals or thugs but just misguided individuals that want to stir up problems and cause confrontation. I apologize whole heartedly and just wish that I will get forgiveness even though I don't expect it.--209.244.187.183 16:51, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Non-free media in user space
Noticing your comments on User:Hotwiki's talk page about not being able to display non-free images or audio files in userspace, I would just like to know if it's still acceptable to link to the image/audio description pages such as Image:Foo.jpg and Image:Bar.ogg. &mdash; AnemoneProjectors (zomg!) 19:23, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Those are allowed, as far as I know.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龍 ) 20:30, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * That's ok then! &mdash; AnemoneProjectors (zomg!) 22:04, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Gekiranger 15 & new pix
Shorten by summary more. Plus, the Ringi should be kept as it was a major one in the plot. Plus, if Gekiwazas gets info provided, the non-important Ringi deserve it too. Fractyl 20:59, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay, but don't use "kodou"— Ryūlóng ( 竜龍 ) 20:59, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * While I was in term like Geki & Rinki, but I'll hold it off. Fractyl 21:03, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

New pix, the new Fist Saint is said to be named "Sharkie Chan", but I'll keep they under my hat.

Gekijuu Shark-Fist Master GekiSaber GekiShark GekiSharkTohja

Fractyl 21:03, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

User:JB196 is back
I see you caught him already.. Guess we're going to have to lock down those five articles for longer.. I'll add him to the open IP Check. SirFozzie 23:40, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * And back again... One Night In Hackney  303  00:03, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Run for adminship already so you can kill them yourself.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龍 ) 00:04, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
 * You're the fifth person to suggest that! Sadly I'll decline still, my time is best spent improving the Irish republicanism articles that are in a poor state after being neglected for far too long. There's not many editors improving them, and if I spent my time blocking vandals, protecting pages and the link that would be less time to improve articles. Thanks. One Night In Hackney  303  00:09, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
 * It'll make everyone's lives easier.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龍 ) 00:10, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Possibly, but I still don't think I'm admin material and I know sufficient other people will share that view to make it a waste of time trying. I don't think a nom where I promise to only use the admin tools against JB196 sockpuppets would succeed either.... One Night In Hackney  303  00:16, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
 * We need more admins, and we need more dedicated ones. I think you'd be good as one of them. And you can ID these socks fast.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龍 ) 00:17, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I'll think about it, just need to finish getting an article I've been working on up to GA class first. And to be fair he did tell us exactly what to expect. Based on his previous pattern of behaviour, anyone should be able to see that a new account suddenly adding links to those five articles in the space of a minute is a clear sock. One Night In Hackney  303  00:33, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
 * If it's any solace (and it's probably not), I plan on working the next few months towards getting my mop, not just for JB, but for all the spills and "fun" that admins have to go through on a daily basis :) SirFozzie 01:09, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) is the latest.
 * newest one. Gee isn't this fun? (rolls eyes) SirFozzie 02:35, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm done with him for the night.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龍 ) 02:36, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok, thanks. Your work is appreciated SirFozzie 02:37, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Oops...you recent edits
Yeah, I was trying to revert the edits of the banned user too, but my dyslexia flaired up or something and I read the edits backwards, reverting your's instead. My mistake. I've fixed it. Nikki311 01:08, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Surely you mean "lysdexia"— Ryūlóng ( 竜龍 ) 01:58, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

JB196
Last post. –– Lid(Talk) 03:22, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah yeah yeah. I got tired of reverting. I'll get a decent amount of edits to finish up for the night.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龍 ) 03:28, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Extended block
Hiya. Could you leave a note informing User:Horhay Sanchez that you've permanantly extended his block? I told him it was temporary, so I don't want us to look dishonest. Thanks! --Masamage ♫ 04:08, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you! --Masamage ♫ 04:21, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Can you have a look see?
Hello Ryulong, CyclePat doesn't seem to be baking down he wrote this essay which has the same wording as his "complant" against me and the EA that he posted several times on various Wikipedia pages. If you can do anything about thi sthat would be great also I have started a user conduct RfC on him as a direct result of this essay (since he will not assume good faith, keeps making point issues and I'm taking this also as harassment against myself and the WP:EA). Thanks Æon  Insanity Now!  06:24, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Ryulong, should I keep the RfC going or should I back off? Æon Insanity Now!  06:30, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Let it go on.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龍 ) 06:43, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Roger that, didn't want it to go that far the the essay really did it for me....sigh oh well thanks for your help. Hopefully it will end the matter and we can all move on to something more productive, like an article.  Æon  <sup style="color:red;">Insanity Now!  06:45, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

About my Signature
How long should it be? What is the maximum character limit? -  Bagel7  What ya say, 07:19, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
 * As short as I just made it.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龍 ) 07:27, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Image deletions
Hello, I noticed you have been speedy deleting images with no copyright tag which were only uploaded minutes before deletion, here are some of the images you deleted:
 * Image:Pinkranger.jpg
 * Image:Res6.jpg
 * Image:82961578 m.jpg

...and others. May I kindly ask you not to do this as the tag with should be applied if the image is missing copyright information, then if it has not been added after seven days then it qualifies for deletion but speedy deletion for these does not seem appropriate.

Kindest Regards <b style="color:#2E82F4;">The Sunshine</b> <b style="color:#2E82F4;">Man</b> 09:42, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
 * They were taken off of google, as was claimed by the user. There were no tags, and the user had a history of uploading such images that are later deleted. I can use my discretion and kill them first (they would be orphaned fair use images, anyway).— Ryūlóng ( 竜龍 ) 10:06, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

FreeContentMeta
Hello Ryulong. I was reading trough the new votes, and was somewhat puzzled by your comment: "It's about as "pimping" as an external link to the article or main page of the other free content project." This box however is used to replace exactly such types of external links... How is more HTML and a seperate position for this external link not pimping ? --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 14:35, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Kamen Rider templates
Hey, just wanted to say kudos on the edits to the various Kamen Rider series templates, I think it's a creative step in a positive direction. Also, while I'm here, do you happen to have any input on the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tokusatsu and the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tokusatsu? (Guyinblack25 18:17, 31 May 2007 (UTC))