User talk:Ryulong/Archive 18

Armenian troll
Thanks for dealing with this problem. --Folantin 22:15, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Blocked editor requesting permission to edit
You want to have a look at this? I'm planning on posting his request on  WP:AN (since WP:CN is kaput) and letting the community decide, but I wanted to consult you as the original blocking admin of. Personally I don't see a problem letting the indivdual edit provided they understand they are under a 1 strike rule and any sockpuppetry or 'anger management' issues will result in a reinstatement of block and revert of all edits done during their current block... however I don't want to simply unblock arbitrarily without community consideration of this. Thoughts? --Isotope23 talk 12:44, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
 * You know, I have no idea why I originally blocked EverybodyHatesChris, so I don't know why he/she is considered banned anymore.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龍 ) 21:11, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Cool... thanks for the response.--Isotope23 talk 13:51, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 * With regards to this editor, please see my comment at Talk:Isotope23 and the edit histories for EverybodyHatesChris and sockpuppet Foofiles. Thanks. --Ckatz chat spy  07:59, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

user:kearney6
wtf man? what are you saying i did?

Answer me.

--LPWRHR 17:40, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me sir, but I would like to know why you warned me about deleting pages or material or some such thing. Could you please find it in your heart of hearts to look it up?

--LPWRHR 18:01, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Those warnings are from over one year ago.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龍 ) 21:27, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Not here for the editing, it seems
I came across the following from the "New pages" page and backtracking:



Note the similarity of "contributions". --Calton | Talk 15:53, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Check the deletion logs as the pages have all been deleted. I didn't block the accounts though.--Isotope23 talk 16:06, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
 * What am I supposed to do?— Ryūlóng ( 竜龍 ) 04:03, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Proxy rangeblock
See User talk:Skywing. You apparently put a block on an IP range with the reason of "open proxy." What was the story there? Were there several open proxies? Or one hopping to various IPs? It looks like it's the entire range of an ISP that you blocked; could this be adjusted? Mango juice talk 04:44, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
 * When I first looked into it, I more than likely looked like a hosting company, which the IP appears to belong to still. I'll be looking into this and unblocking the range if I find otherwise.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龍 ) 04:49, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Is it policy now to block IP ranges for hosting companies that aren't open proxies? Videmus Omnia Talk  14:57, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Hosting companies are not internet service providers. No one in theory should be editting off of a GoDaddy.com IP address.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龍 ) 19:14, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks - could you cite the part of WP:BLOCK that covers those types of blocks? If you're making up blocking policy on the fly again, like you did with your block of, it's probably time to go to WP:RFAR. Videmus Omnia Talk  19:38, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The only thing that mentions open proxies is WP:OP. And if an open proxy is on a hosting server, then it's very likely that other IPs on those hosting servers could potentially be used as open proxies. I have not been making up policy, and I have not been performing any other questionable blocks. The last time I did an indef on a range I immediately undid because I discovered that it was not a hosting company as I originally stated. I've unblocked Skywing's IP last night, and this is getting annoying with you. Go back to dealing with images and leave me be.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龍 ) 20:07, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Ah - so those ranges were open proxies? I'd appreciate if you'd point me toward the evidence, thanks. Videmus Omnia Talk  20:11, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I look at the WHOIS information and then look up the owner of the IP address. I then Google that name, and if I see "allocated hosting" or "web server", I block the entirety of the range as a source of open proxies, because as far as I know no one should be using open proxies and no one would be editting from a hosting server (unless they have a dedicated server which is then covered at a later time). I've unblocked Skywing's IP. I don't see what else needs to be said in this situation.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龍 ) 20:17, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm still not seeing how that type of broad rangeblock is covered by blocking policy, but I take it you have no problem with taking this issue to arbitration for further examination? Videmus Omnia Talk  20:20, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
 * There is nothing that arbitration would see. I am still investigating the original block I put on Skywing's IP range. I just have not had any time. I do have a problem with taking this to arbitration, because if I have to go through that bullshit process, I will be so fed up with this website that I will never return.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龍 ) 20:21, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
 * And now the system won't allow me to unblock the range.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龍 ) 20:23, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm just asking how blocking policy allows you to block ranges that are "allocated hosting" or "web server". It's a pretty simple question. Videmus Omnia Talk  20:24, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
 * There is nothing explicitly stated in the current blocking policy that either forbids or mentions such.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龍 ) 20:49, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Then given your history of improper and excessive blocks, you should probably be erring on the side of caution, right? That's a lesson you don't seem to ever learn, if you'll pardon my brutal honesty. Videmus Omnia Talk  20:51, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The block that is currently being discussed was performed a while ago, even before the RFC. Recently, the only similar block I've made was on Sun Microsystems, which I then realized my error.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龍 ) 20:56, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Big rangeblock
I understand that this post was from someone who was obviously trolling, but did you really block millions of IP addresses? Videmus Omnia Talk  14:32, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I temporarily blocked a range of IP addresses in a Chicago suburb because of one abusive user. The number of IP addresses would not go into the millions.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龍 ) 19:14, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
 * How many addresses would you estimate that you blocked? Videmus Omnia Talk  19:39, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I do not have an estimate. Any range blocks I have performed are those on hosting ranges or to prevent abusive users from returning over and over. Don't listen to Joehazelton's nonsense, which is the user behind that post. If I blocked 50 thousand IP addresses that all belong to one non-ISP.I've made some mistakes, and I've fixed them. It's obviously not in the degree of millions.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龍 ) 19:59, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
 * But you're blocking potentially productive users in addition to abusive users. What policy covers your blocks of hosting ranges? Videmus Omnia Talk  20:03, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Not everything is explictly stated in any policy. Leave me alone, will ya? I know you've been gunning to get me desysopped for a while now, and this is really annoying with every time you feel the need to come over and say "You're doing X wrong"— Ryūlóng ( 竜龍 ) 20:04, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm just hoping for an explanation why you seem to have no concern for collateral damage in your apparently excessive strict and broad blocks. Are you saying you'd rather have this go to arbitration rather than explain your actions? I've hardly been stalking you. Videmus Omnia Talk  20:09, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The collateral damage is outweighed by the fact that there's a subscriber who has been abusing his right to edit Wikipedia for the past two years and continually leaves abusive messages on the talk pages of the administrators who he felt wronged him. I've had a checkuser look into some of my temporary range blocks and confirm that my block is primarily dealing with the banned user at hand and not "potential editors" as you continually reference. If a checkuser is performed on any of the range blocks I've placed, it will come up that only one individual has been editting or no one has been editting except from the singular open proxy IP. I've even used WikiScanner to check my range blocks on ISPs that I know one person primarily has been using. And there's no way that this would go to arbitration, because there is no prior RFC or anything concerning this issue.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龍 ) 20:15, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd appreciate your pointing me toward the evidence, as referenced above. And excessively broad rangeblocks were brought up in your RfC, also. And why did you block the corporate servers of Sun Microsystems, anyway? Videmus Omnia Talk  20:18, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I immediately unblocked Sun Microsystems because I had discovered that they were actually an ISP than I originally thought that they were hosting servers. This is because there was an actual open proxy found on their servers, and I assumed incorrectly. The only bitching about my rangeblocks currently is from someone who is banned that I've taken away his favorite toy for the past two years.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龍 ) 20:20, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks - can you point me toward the evidence that there was an open proxy there? Videmus Omnia Talk  20:25, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I cannot recall the exact details, but Dmcdevit/Deskana had performed a checkuser on a banned users' socks and found that they were utilizing an open proxy within that range. I cannot recall the exact IP that it was, but it was an open proxy.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龍 ) 20:46, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Then why not just block the IP with the open proxy, rather than this excessive rangeblock business? Videmus Omnia Talk  20:53, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
 * It was blocked. I simply applied a larger block, but then found that I was in error.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龍 ) 20:56, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Why do you keep making these block errors, over and over again? You've promised repeatedly to knock it off, but you keep doing it, and doing it, and doing it. I'm mystified...it's as if you treat the "block" button like the "fire" button in a video game. Is it really that hard to take a few minutes to think about the damage you're causing by blocking innocent people and potentially constructive contributors? (not a rhetorical question) Videmus Omnia Talk  21:04, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I would like to see confirmation here from a checkuser that these rangeblocks are reviewed around the time they are made to ensure that there is no undue risk of collateral damage. Newyorkbrad 21:09, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Because I'm not perfect. I have not even been performing as many bloks as I did prior to the RFC. In the case brought up in the initial diff, I'm not blocking anyone innocent. I used WikiScanner and a checkuser inquest to see if I was going to potentially cause any collateral damage. Through both, I was told that I was in the right, and I also posted that block on ANI/AN after I performed it. Anything else, I use my discretion, and if I find that I made a mistake, I fix it or I apologize if it was corrected by someone else.
 * And we don't have enough checkusers to even make sure of this. With several I have asked for a check to make sure that if I did perform the rangeblock, there wouldn't be any collateral damage. All I want to do right now is try to find some decent sources for an article that is currently up for AFD that I would like to keep.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龍 ) 21:18, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Where is the ANI/AN thread that you posted this at? Videmus Omnia Talk  21:32, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The Joehazelton one? I'll have to search for it.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龍 ) 21:35, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive311. And this is an open proxy that I more than likely blocked the entirety of the range it belongs on because it belongs to "RackSpace.com"— Ryūlóng ( 竜龍 ) 21:41, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Something to consider
It has become apparent to me that Pilotbob is on a mission to nominate various Super Sentai article pages for deletion and the problem at hand is that since that Super Sentai series are only released in Japan which is difficult to find sources in most cases. If need be I can move the details to Microsoft word and work on analyzing and removing details that won't be necessary for that article page. One other thing you should know that a lot of the stuff that used be on the Power Rangers page on Wikipedia has been moved to it's own wiki and it also has it's own section for Super Sentai but it is badly underwritten at the moment. Since I am aware of Pilotbob's latest action against the Magiranger I wanted to let you know of this since it is possible to consider Transwiki that stuff to this section and and if you take a look at it yourself you can see how underwritten it is. I think the next move is to shorten the details on various pages, especially the ones for Dekaranger, Boukenger, and Gekiranger as well before Pilotbob attempts to nominate them for deltion as well. -Adv193 01:26, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Pilotbob just has a problem that there are no sources. At the moment, the only page I want to salvage is Infershia's. The Pantheon can be merged once that's fixed, and the AkaRed page can be merged into the Boukenger vs Super Sentai article.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龍 ) 01:32, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I moved and saved all the Infershia related information to Microsoft Word just a little while ago I can work on redeveloping the summaries if necessary. -Adv193 01:42, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I have come up with an solid idea how to preserve the Power Rangers/Super Sentai material and remove any possible fancruft from Wikipedia and still have valid sources to keep the main portion of it on Wikipedia. My main concern is to rework the Sentai articles and prevent Pilotbob from causing any more problems wherever if it is from sources to overexcessive details. If you are interested I will explain my idea for the first move. I know I sound concerned but I would like to strike first before Pilotbob causes more problems. -Adv193 22:36, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Be bold and do it. I'm sure your ideas would work.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龍 ) 23:57, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
 * First I wish to remove all Monster Details from Power Rangers/Super Sentai to remove fancruft of Minor characters and still keep the profiles of Villains and their generals around and have the Monster data moved to the Power Rangers Wikia and also place a link to their Sentai section on the Super Sentai page.


 * I checked the PR Monster pages and I can say that no sources and too much details on various profiles will render those pages for an AFD debate. Although I originally wanted to decrease the material on the Monster profiles for Wikipedia I decided on trans-wiki to remove the minor detail and only keep the more notable detail to help those series be more up to code on Wikipedia policies, such as Yu-Gi-Oh! and Dragon Ball. Here is a sample of what I did with the Magiranger detail . So will you support this new change?. I'll handle the work myself but any sources you can dig up will also be benifical since I can't read Japanese. -Adv193 00:40, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Works. Most we'd need is a minimal list of monsters.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龍 ) 00:44, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Right now at best I could do is transfer the monster data over little by little and it's going to take some time before I can complete it. Right now I am working on the data from seperate monster pages from various Super Series because I feel those are more immediate at the moment. Right now one of the problems with the Super Sentai section at the Power Rangers Wiki is that it doesn't have a template system and I don't have the skill to make one. If possible could you help me with that issue. -Adv193 04:10, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

On second thought I decided to retire for the moment since my frustations towards the current policies of Wikipedia are becoming very stressful for me but before I go I would like to say that the other parts to my plan were to cut down on unnecessary details on Main character and villain profiles as well as Zord/Mecha profiles such as the possible removal of attack descriptions from those profiles and cite in first episode appearances. Lastly although the fansubs can't be sourced the only place that the Abaranger and Dekaranger episode summaries can be found is on TV.com's Super Sentai section in their respective 27th and 28th Super Sentai seasons as well as Magi-Geki which is also found in episode guide format on Super Sentai.com. I might decide to come back some day but for now I need to retire and if you can could you take over my task of moving unecessary material over to the Power Rangers Wiki. -Adv193 07:31, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Marktwain403
An editor you blocked, Marktwain403 appears to have returned as Arkansaschemist with the same edit pattern. Avruch Talk 14:45, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Hello, Ryulong. You seem to have beaten me by three minutes here: . I am a slow typist. Now note that I have added another IP account just now. This one is trickier, seems like a public library: 204.62.68.23. Keep up the good work, I would say.--Paul Pieniezny 14:25, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Metal Heroes.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Metal Heroes.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.  « FMF »  19:54, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Gekiranger: Genjuuken
To note, I found this pic.


 * Lesson 38: Biba-Biba! Another Retsu?!
 * The Gekirangers battle the super-strong Genjuu Minotaur-Fist user Shiyuu. Though hit by Shiyuu's gengi, Retsu is not physically harmed. Gou warns his brother that an attack is always significant. This turns out true when Retsu's reflection (Shinpei Takagi). comes to life and takes the original's place. Meahwhile, Mele masters the Genjuu Phoenix-Fist style, attaining a new fighting form.

Long and Genjuujin "Phoenix" Mele Fractyl 21:51, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks SineBot. Fractyl 21:51, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Pilotbob
I was brousing the recent changes patrol, and saw that this editor has reverted your edits. Just thought you might want to know that.--U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. 01:04, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, and that's not all.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龍 ) 01:05, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Inappropriate user edits
Hi - I reported at AIV for his inappropriate edits and name - I've reverted his edits at Bronx High School of Science, but can you also remove the image he added - Image:23hot.JPG. Thanks Tvoz | talk 06:48, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
 * He's already indefinitely blocked.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龍 ) 06:48, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Yup, just saw that - thanks. Tvoz | talk 06:49, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

User talk:Catchpole
I saw on User talk:Catchpole that back on August 3 you used "shit" in a candid manner, without referring to anyone in particular. I used "WTF," not referring to an editor in any way, in an edit summary a while back and another administrator threatened to block me. WTF is up with that. Perspicacite 12:42, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Pardon?— Ryūlóng ( 竜龍 ) 22:12, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Jungle Fury
Hey, I added all the info I knew how to, or where to, but their ages, (Casey + Lily are 18, Theo is 17), and their animal spirits: Casey: Tiger, Theo: Jaguar, and Lily: Cheetah, I wasn't sure where to add... That's all the info available on the site atm along with what I already added. You might also be able to remove all the refs to the patent site since there's now a real official site for Jungle Fury. Myzou 18:51, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Also: Can we source info from the video on the site? Because it mentioned the evil villain Dai Shin returned, and it's up to the Order of the Claw, the Red Ranger, the Blue Ranger, and the Yellow Ranger to stop him. And that was the preview other then premiering February 2008, only on Jetix. Again, tell ya cause not sure if these are sourceable, or where they should go in the page... Myzou 18:55, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
 * If they're on the Jetix page, then the information can be added to the article. My only problem is that I can't load the webpage on my end to see anything.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龍 ) 21:33, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Enjin Sentai Gouonger and Kamen Rider Vlad
Excuse me for asking but are these really confirmed as the Super Sentai and Kamen Rider series of 2008 or no? Louis Marinucci 23:15, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Not yet. There are sketchy details, but nothing concrete.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龍 ) 23:16, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Hey; that's no longer true. Vlad at least, is confirmed on these concept sketches: Please note the point made on the 7th post down, or maybe the 8th-the last pic has PLEX's signature/seal in the frame, meaning the (sketched) images are at least legit, and they reveal a lot of data. Plus, over the next couple pages, the same kind of image re appears, and other sites have them too, when when Kamen rider Vlad is searched. Thus, he is defined at least to the base concept of having three forms, one of which definately being a Vampire based form. Below is the page with the main evidence, and more can be found on later pages in that thread.

http://forums.henshinjustice.com/showthread.php?t=17989&page=79

With this, there seems to be enough credibility to begin page creation, but I wanted to run it past the Expert Editor Ryulong first. Shotesu (talk) 07:18, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Archive at AN/I
Please undo this archive. There are a number of unresolved issues in that thread; I see absolutely no compelling reason to close it before the autoarchiver takes care of it. There was one bit of trolling, and it was promptly dealt with. — bbatsell  ¿?   ✍  23:57, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * JzG had initially archived it, and I was caught in an edit conflict when I went to add the collapsable table.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龍 ) 00:02, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I knew that he archived it, but it was reverted immediately with good reason. I don't see the advantage of adding a collapsible table to an ongoing discussion, either, though...  If it's really becoming unwieldy, then we move it to a subpage, but that one has hardly reached that point yet.  — bbatsell   ¿?   ✍  00:10, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, it was archived and unwieldy at the time of my edit.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龍 ) 00:25, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Gotcha. — bbatsell   ¿?   ✍  00:43, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

User:Jakie21
Guess who's back? (Already noted here, where I stumbled over it just now. --Calton | Talk 13:43, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Gekiranger Episodes
Due to the new Sentai, Gekiranger is to have 48 episodes.


 * Lesson 39: Uro-Uro! The Children Who fon't Return (11/25/07)
 * A Miki episode.


 * Lession 40: ??? (12/2/07)
 * Jan confronts Genshou Sugu of the Chimera-Fist in the forest. Gou appears to aid and noticed that Sugu's style as the same as Byakko's.

Fractyl 22:25, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Barnstars
just wondering, how do you give people barnstars for their hard work?Annoyomous24 08:09, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Gekiranger: Hyper Battle Video
The Special is revealed: Revolving on the Fist Sages.

Gekiranger Hyper Battle

Fractyl 15:40, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar

 * While this is great and all, but you do understand that "academic major" is what I'm getting a degree in, right?— Ryūlóng ( 竜龍 ) 06:19, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes.--U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. 07:37, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Should Norg be removed from the Villians in Power Rangers: Operation Overdrive section?
I was wondering should Norg's entry in the villians section be removed since the fact he is a ally and that he became good in the final episode of the show or no? Louis Marinucci 09:06, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Power Animal assessment
The tag is being added to all the articles in either the Category:Lagomorphs or Category:Rodents, as per the work group's stated scope. Part of the reason for this is the existence of the lists of fictional animals which entirely fall within the scope of this group, which is also the only group that all such articles fall within the scope of. By having the tags in place, it makes it a lot easier to update the lists for any changes to location of content, etc. Also, all the articles being tagged are being added to the work group's watch list by category as they're being tagged. Granted, I myself don't watch all the lists as much as I would like, but I try. They aren't even remotely all tagged yet, though. In any event, I notice you have already removed the tag, and that you are free to do so. The article will remain on the group's watch list in any event. Also, in the future, I anticipate that any further "mammal" groups will probably be task forces of the extant Mammals project, so any other tagging which may occur later for other groups of animals would probably be done with the same banner. John Carter 17:47, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
 * But they're first
 * Not "lagomorphs"
 * Not "rodents"
 * Not real animals
 * Not pocket-sized
 * I don't know why it was placed into the categories in question.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龍 ) 22:55, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Good point, which I can't answer. The article is included in the subcats Category:Fictional hares and rabbits, Category:Fictional mice and rats, and Category:Fictional squirrels, all of which are subcats of the above. Why the categories were included in the first place, though, I can't answer that. If you think it shouldn't be included in any of those categories, though, or any of the mess of other categories it's included in, I guess no one would object to your removing them. At least, I wouldn't. And, for what it's worth, the "Pocket pets" name was someone else's idea, not mine, and generically refers to pet rats, mice, guinea pigs, rabbits, and whatnot. As most species of animals are some form of pet somewhere, and it's the only name I can think of that would include lagomorphs and rodents, I didn't try to change it. John Carter 23:06, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I found the issue.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龍 ) 00:04, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * That should work except for perhaps later tagging by WikiProject Animals. I'm not going to do any tagging for them myself, so I don't think I'll be adding their banner, but I can't swear someone else or maybe their bot won't add one later. John Carter 00:09, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Re: Tiny question
Have you been up to date on the discussions at Talk:Dragon Ball Z? Some people are obsessed with the unsourced data and fancruft I deleted. Me, DBZROCKS, Sjones, eVula, and Ryu-chan are trying to get rid of the unverified content, your support would be greatly appreciated. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 01:20, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Why not look for the sources to said content?— Ryūlóng ( 竜龍 ) 01:32, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Most of the DBZ page was fan bunk and a large amount of the information was concerning release dates for the DBZ DVDs. This is an encyclopedia, not a fan directory or something. I proposed a merger to Dragon Ball (anime) on said talk page because the remaining data is minuscule, join the discussion if you'd like. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 02:19, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!
Thanks for the unblock! Apologies for any issues. Now, confusion as to the asteroid article: I created it (twice, apparently, though so far apart that the second time around, I'd forgotten I'd ever done it the first time) because there are articles on other asteroids as significant (or insignificant!) as 22551. I figured it was OK because there was precedent. And yes, it was named after me. Was there some confusion/issue because people thought otherwise? AdamSolomon 07:07, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Asteroids are rarely named as such, and it appeared that you were just making up the name (until I found 4535 Adamcarolla). Just let someone else write about it for now.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龍 ) 07:09, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Hey there ...
Just so's you know - indef'd now - A l is o n  ❤ 18:51, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * You can therefore ignore something that just hit your inbox. Silly me, AGF and all that... Fvasconcellos (t·c) 18:53, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

re:Den-O
It might make it easier to go straight to an episode, but it creates a massive directory at the top of the page which has no place on a clearly defined table. It's not an indescriminate collection of information, it's a list of episodes, and I can't see a reason for a directory there. The list of Kabuto episodes doesn't have that, and I was under the impression that that list was the standard to aim for, so... Howa0082 (talk) 20:26, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * But how else do you go through the table, and also the list of Kabuto episodes is from last year which is before I started really editting these articles. The Den-O list does need to be cut down, but the section headers make it easy to go through the list, which is easier than making several articles for each episode which according to current WP policy won't be notable anyway.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龍 ) 20:36, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The directory is a page long. That's insane. People can scroll down, for god's sake. Who seriously needs a giant list like that to go through a list of one topic? I'm not saying make an article for each episodes, but that directory makes it actually more difficult to navigate, because now people have to scroll past the immense object on the page. Directories are made to enable people to find information in the surf of the article, by dividing everything into topics. Episode lists are all one topic. QED, no directory. Howa0082 (talk) 21:51, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * It's not a directory. It's a table of contents. It shows what's in the article. The only other person who felt that it was unnecessary was an individual who was trying to get the particular version of the template deleted.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龍 ) 22:10, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * ...a list that tell you what is in something is a directory, as well as a table of contents. Either way, it's redundant having a list that tells you what's in... a list. Just have the actual list itself. Howa0082 (talk) 22:22, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * If nothing else, look at featured episode lists from WP:TV. Those don't have episode-by-episode topic headers. They may still have topic headers, but not for each individual episode. Howa0082 (talk) 22:40, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Front Page
Thanks for switching the picture on the front page. It was kinda gross, kinda-alot gross. Take Care and Have a Good Weekend... NeutralHomer T:C 03:44, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia's cascading protection does not extend to the Wikimedia Commons. When placing an image on the main page, please remember to first verify that it's stored locally (and to upload a copy here if it isn't). Otherwise, users can vandalise our main page by replacing the Commons image (which has occurred on several occasions). Thank you! —David Levy 05:47, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Ryulong
I recall you blocking me this summer because I made no edits to articles, but rather was arguing. I have done everything I can to avoid arguing, but I am constantly being trolled and harassed by another user and obsessed over by him like a steak. User: HiDrNick has actually done nothing but harassed and trolled me for the last several weeks, in nearly all of his last 40 or so edits. All of his edits have been efforts to get me blocked. He's even requested my block and made lies about me. Take a look at his edit history. He's been lying to administrators about me here [,, , . I think at the very least HiDrNick deserves a block for only harassing and not editing wikipedia constructively. [[User:EverybodyHatesChris|EverybodyHatesChris]] (talk) 15:39, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 * People might like you a bit more if you weren't weren't also abusing multiple accounts by creating, for example, User:U Big Baby, User:Hairbrusher, User:ManGirlBoyLady, User:BreakingFree40, User:LoggedInWiki, User:LoveMe2, User:NewbieEditor, User:HeWillBeBack, User:FootComesLady, User:SurvivorHoney, User:PregnantBoy, User:Wikiholic 21, User:Marriedhands... and these are just the ones that haven't been blocked yet. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 18:56, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I had a quick glance through the accounts contribs above. I see no abuse at all from them. It's not an offence to create multiple accounts. A checkuser ought to know what constitutes abuse, and what doesn't. This doesn't. Of course, if there are other accounts which were disruptive and blocked, then that's good, but I'm pointing out these accounts are not abusive, and shouldn't be labelled as such.  Majorly  (talk) 20:26, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a role-playing game. Creating dozens of accounts is not in any way conducive to creating an encyclopedia. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 20:44, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 * ...and considering the fact that I unblocked ECH after the individual was block evading with socks, expressly with the understanding that they would create one account and edit from it, the fact they were building another sock army doesn't do much to demonstrate good faith. Unfortunately, I have to agree with jpgordon's block.--Isotope23 talk 13:30, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Barry Beckett
You deleted this as db-music, yet this article is about a person who was (supposedly) part of a notable band, Traffic (band). I'd like you to restore it so we can go through with a full AfD.--h i s  s p a c e   r e s e a r c h 22:08, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 * It did not appear to be compliant with the notability policies when I read it. If the man is notable, then an article can be written about him. I see no point in undeleting that particular version of the article.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龍 ) 23:16, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 * He does seem notable, going on his allmusic.com biography. I'll create a stub in its place.-h i s  s p a c e   r e s e a r c h 21:26, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Also see Special:Whatlinkshere/Barry Beckett. Many articles about notable musicians and albums link to this page, so chances are he clearly is notable.--h i s  s p a c e   r e s e a r c h 21:30, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
 * That's fine.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龍 ) 22:03, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Help with a page merge?
I just completed the merger of the articles 1976 World Surrealist Exhibition and Surrealist Movement in the United States into the article Chicago Surrealist Group, and I have some questions to make sure I did this right. Both articles I merged from were very short, so the cut-and-paste of content was not difficult. Both pages have now been blanked and redirected to the destination article. Where I am less certain is in the talk pages. The talk page for the Surrealist Exhibition page has no content other than a Wikiproject template, and a note about the page surviving an AfD. Is there any reason that should be saved? The Surrealist Movement talk page, however, has some content (mostly bickering, to be honest), and this should not be lost. Would you mind taking a look and making sure I got everything right? This is the first merge I've ever performed, so I'm a bit nervous. Cheers! --- RepublicanJacobite  The'FortyFive'  23:26, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Talk pages stay as they are. Just make sure you put R from merge on the redirects you made.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龍 ) 23:29, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Did I not do that? --- RepublicanJacobite  The'FortyFive'  00:02, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I was a bit busy. I did not see what you had done, exactly.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龍 ) 00:27, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I wasn't being defensive, I was really asking. I appreciate your time and your response.  Cheers! ---  RepublicanJacobite  The'FortyFive'  04:11, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Deleted comments from ANI
I see here that you deleted an IP's comments, accusing he/she of being "MyWikiBiz." Deleting another users comments is a serious action and should be supported by some credible evidence. What is your evidence that that IP is from a banned user other than the IP is complaining? Isn't the ArbCom currently investigating whether that IP was correctly blocked or not? If so, shouldn't you wait for their conclusion before taking action on the user's comments? Cla68 (talk) 08:06, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The user is on TOR, a home for users who cannot access Wikipedia normally (The Great Firewall) or they're banned and use through their normal IP is restricted.
 * The user is talking about Durova, one of MyWikiBiz's current targets, so the individual is obviously not Chinese.
 * The user persists on using TOR nodes to replace that message and had been doing some time last week.
 * The user is arguing that he was wrongly blocked, when it several other IP in the range that initially made those comments have been linked to User:MyWikiBiz/et al.
 * That's enough to apply both WP:DENY and WP:BAN— Ryūlóng ( 竜龍 ) 08:09, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Cuba & El Jigue
Be prepared Ryulong, EJ has numerous IP addresses to post from. PS- I apologies, if at times I came acroos as uncivil toward EJ -- He has his way of getting under your skin. GoodDay (talk) 17:41, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
 * So is life and single-minded idiots on the interwebs.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龍 ) 22:34, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Please explain
What does my 'editing' have to do with my request to delete my user and talk pages?

When I made the request there was no agreement or offer that I'd stop editing. I merely decided I was no longer interested in editing.. and now I have decided to make several posts.

By what rule did you decide to undelete a page that had been deleted by MY request?

please re-delete the user and talk pages. Lsi john (talk) 06:26, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
 * If you persist in editting Wikipedia, then you do not really need to have your right to vanish, as you have continued to edit as this account. Once you leave, I will be happy to redelete the page, but as it stands it will be there.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龍 ) 06:27, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Editing only has 1 T. And I consider that Bullying. I have the right to have my page deleted, or Durova would not have deleted it. There was no offer made to 'stop editing' when the request and deletion was made.

Lsi john (talk) 06:32, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
 * You had your page deleted a couple of weeks ago and stopped editing. You have resumed editing. When I first saw your commentary I saw two red links and got suspicious, and then I saw the deleted talk page, and asked another administrator what should be done, and he basically said "If he is editting, his talk page should be restored."— Ryūlóng ( 竜龍 ) 06:37, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
 * a) my request to have the page deleted was not tied to any agreement to stop editing.
 * b) my page did not need to be un-deleted in order for people to contact me.
 * c) my page has no relevant bearing on Durova's abuse of her admin tools, nor does my page have any bearing on her blatant disregard for anyone who gets in the way of her sleuthing.

You are correct, I have less than no regard for Durova. She earned that place in my list all by herself.

My edits on the Admin board are accurate and can be verified without my page being undeleted.

Personally, I think the page got undeleted so that perhaps something could be dug up.. in order to shift the focus away from the 'documented' abuses of Durova and onto those making the charges. Its a well established tactic and it will probably work.

Best of luck to you and the one you are protecting.. though I think your faith in her is seriously misplaced. Lsi john (talk) 07:23, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
 * What faith? All I was wondering is why you had your page deleted. User talk pages are never deleted so I fixed that error.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龍 ) 07:24, 21 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry for butting in, but please see the userpage policy: WP:UP. User talk pages are not deleted except in very rare cases, one of which is if the user is exercising their right to vanish.  I would assume that Durova believed you were invoking your RTV, because otherwise there is no policy allowing deletion; editing revokes that, and your user talk page should be undeleted. — bbatsell   ¿?   ✍  07:28, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
 * But you're wrong.. User talk:Smee was deleted.. ;) Have a great rest of the week and leave me alone.. thanks! Lsi john (talk) 07:29, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Durova should not have deleted either user talk page. And if I undeleted that many revisions I'd get castrated by a developer.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龍 ) 07:31, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
 * And Smee has not edited since late June.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龍 ) 07:34, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Smee has a new account now.. thats exactly the point. Lsi john (talk) 07:36, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
 * How about if we simply call a truce.. I have no beef with you and I want no beef with you. Just leave my page alone.. stop reverting it.. its MY page. there are only TWO edits to the new Smee talk page since it was deleted. But i don't really care whether or not it gets undeleted. It's clear to me that Durova was helping someone hide from their block history.. if nobody else cares then why should I. Too much politics and playing favorites here.
 * As for my page.. lesson learned. I should have made an edit to it so it wasn't 'red'. Cest la vie. C'est la guerre. C'est la pomme de terra. Lsi john (talk) 07:36, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Whatever. Have a good rest of your life.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龍 ) 07:39, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Question about the above
Why were you edit-warring with the above user on their talk page? (For example, this edit). Is there a new policy that requires users to keep messages on their talk page after they've been read? Videmus Omnia Talk  18:04, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Because at the time I felt that it was wrong that his page had been deleted and also I wished to continue conversation over there instead of it being over here. Whatever happened, its over and we went our separate ways. Please stop coming here whenever you perceive something I did was wrong long after the fact (after the apology, and after both of us have stopped editting).— Ryūlóng ( 竜龍 ) 19:00, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for replying. I'm not complaining about the talk page restoration, just wanted to make sure you are clear on the fact that being an administrator doesn't give you any right to restore your comments to someone's talk page, after they've acknowledged and removed them, with the edit summary "Leave this here". That looks like to me to you're telling them what to do with their talk page, which you have no right to do. So long as you can comprehend that, we've got no problem here. Videmus Omnia Talk  19:08, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I only replaced it once after which he posted one of the messages above and then I agreed not to do it again and stopped interacting with him. I probably should have put "Please" in there but it's too late for that.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龍 ) 19:10, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Gekiranger: Rio
His new fighting form and style: The Genjuu Gryphon-Fist Fractyl (talk) 19:17, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Hold off on that until the episode airs.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龍 ) 21:41, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I have the text added, but have it hidden until said episode airs, but I expect it to be within this week or the next, as I see it related to Rio's fight with Suugu. Fractyl (talk) 02:36, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Yugiohmike2001
Ryulong, I just saw your block of the above user (, apparently without any warnings or block message. Could you explain this? Videmus Omnia Talk  02:44, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The user has been consistently inserting false information into several articles, adding unsourced information, and general rumors. I used my discretion to block him/her.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龍 ) 02:45, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Why no warning or attempt to work with the user? Videmus Omnia Talk  02:48, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I did not think of it at the time.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龍 ) 03:17, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Hasn't this been raised to you more than once, including your RfC? How about ? Any attempt to work with that user? It looks like you're getting careless with your block button again. Videmus Omnia Talk  03:29, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Both users were adding unverified information multiple times despite warnings placed in the text of the page (I think it was there, at least), and both are not new or exactly established. I have seen questionable edits from Yugiohmike2001 for a few months, and Chaingang29 simply replaced the same unverifiable information. You are the only one who has brought this up. Stop scrutinizing my every action, please.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龍 ) 03:32, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not "scrutinizing your every action". But you promised that you would warn users prior to blocking. These both seem to be good-faith editors. I'm just asking what part of WP:BLOCK merited these users get indef blocks with no prior warning or discussion. Videmus Omnia Talk  03:35, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
 * If you're concerned about mine being the only opinion, maybe you should post a request for a review of these blocks at the admin noticeboard? Or maybe a neutral third opinion would help - Newyordbrad would be acceptable to me. Videmus Omnia Talk  03:43, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Videmus Omnia, your actions in the last few days has soley consisted of scrutinizing various admins. What gives?--Hu12 (talk) 05:59, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I haven't done that much editing, but I had some questions about some admin actions. Is that all right with you? Videmus Omnia Talk  06:07, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm improving the encyclopedia here by blocking individuals who disrupt the integrity by filling articles with unsubstantiated rumors and other unverified information. I probably should have warned them first, but that would mean having to go through another six intermittent weeks of edits at the rate that they were going. Now, I don't know why you're fixated on me, but leave me be and go back to image patrolling.— Ryūlóng  ( 竜龍 ) 06:13, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
 * That's in accordance with the block policy, right? And with the previous promises you've made? Would you mind if I post these blocks for review? Videmus Omnia Talk  06:16, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I in fact would mind.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龍 ) 06:48, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Why? Because they're bad blocks? Videmus Omnia Talk  06:50, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Because I'm tired of you being a vulture towards my sparser administrative actions as of late.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龍 ) 06:51, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
 * If the blocks are righteous you wouldn't have any problem explaining them. Are you saying this is my fault, for noticing your actions? Why not just unblock and apologize? Videmus Omnia Talk  06:55, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
 * You are the only one who seems to feel that these are questionable. Whenever I perform something that is not explicitly stated or forbidden in any policy, you automatically feel that I am wrong in some way. When Newyorkbrad signs on again, and he apparently reviews this, then maybe it should be opened to a wider audience.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龍 ) 06:57, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
 * That sounds good, I'll refrain from making further comment until then. Videmus Omnia Talk  07:04, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Commenting as requested. Candidly, I don't know enough about the subject-matters of these articles to tell whether the edits Ryulong blocked the two users for were defensible edits, inappropriate but good-faith edits, or vandalistic edits. I can only say that for Ryulong to write that he "did not think of" even the possibility of warning the users before blocking them is disappointing given the prior discussions here. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:31, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I will admit that that much I did was wrong, but I feel that my blocks are still beneficial to the encyclopedia.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龍 ) 03:28, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppet of EverybodyHatesChris
Sorry to bother you with this, but there's another one: BetterThanYou (contributions) --Ckatz chat spy  09:01, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
 * User does not exist. Just block them in the future and stop coming to me to identify them.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龍 ) 03:30, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Umm... apologies for the typo - the user (since blocked by another admin) is User:BetterThanMe, not User:BetterThanyou. That aside, I don't quite understand your post. First off, how can *I* block a user, as I'm not an admin? That's why I came to you, since you blocked EHC originally. Secondly, I think this is the only time I've come to you with a sockpuppet block request. (In fact, my only other recent posts here were a note regarding EHC on Hallowe'en and a note regarding an IP block you made that affect Opera Mobile users. Are you confusing me with someone else?) Thanks in advance, and sorry once again for the mistyped user name. --Ckatz chat spy  06:47, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry. It's just that people keep coming to me when it comes to EverybodyHatesChris sockpuppets and I'm tired of it. I only blocked him for wasting our time by spending more than 500 edits complaining about an administrator and then came back to edit under multiple accounts, and then under more multiple accounts once he was unblocked for being given a second chance. I really don't want to keep having to deal with him...— Ryūlóng ( 竜龍 ) 06:50, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, and I can appreciate how frustrating it must be. Thanks for the explanation, and sorry for inconveniencing you. If he resurfaces, is it best to go to an admin, WP:AIV, or the sockpuppet page? --Ckatz chat spy  07:10, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
 * ANI would probably be a better venue than my talk page.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龍 ) 07:26, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Proxy block
Hi Ryulong, Sometime back you blocked the proxy User:205.56.129.195 as indefinite. A request came this morning from User:N who had been caught by the block. I checked via the Tor Check link and it now shows that it is not a Tor node. It is registered to the U.S. Navy. Based upon that I have changed the block to a soft block. If you aware of things I am not, please do feel free to change it back. JodyBtalk 15:14, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Your block on 148.201.1.111
The block on 148.201.1.111‎ for 72 hours seems a bit excessive considering that many long-time vandalism-only accounts get blocked for much less (like less than 5 hours). This seems like a case where the guy wasn't familiar with the rules of Wikipedia, became frustrated and closed down to legitimate advice after several Wikipedians tried handling his case incorrectly (including deleting comments he made to restore warnings) and he went on a angry tirade. A shorter block (half of what he was given or just 24 hours) seems more appropriate since it was his first block. Cigraphix (talk) 18:07, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I generally blocks IPs who perform inappropriate edits for 72 hours. Shorter blocks in my opinion would make it such that they don't really get the point that their actions are harmful to the encyclopedia. He was warned and was repeatedly performing the same actions.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龍 ) 21:19, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Den-O Episodes
Summaries for episodes 43-46 had been translated. 43's here only as the title is revealed and its plot has been referenced in the previous episodes.

Episode 43: Something's Missing (12/2/07)
 * Ryotaro chases after the a young man who is a contract holder. Before he can help, Kai arrives and gives Ryotaro a ominous revelation: That the "day he and the Taros will part ways" draws near. Horrified and confused by this, Ryotaro becomes hesitant to fight.

Fractyl (talk) 04:30, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Policy Question: Blocking Password Secured Users
I am an occasional contributor to, and registered user of Wikipedia. I travel extensively in the developing world, where I use internet cafes to access Wiki. Twice in the past 2 weeks I have been blocked from editing at different internet cafes, after I signed in to my private Wikipedia account, because the proxy address was blocked.

I do understand the need to block proxy computers, even in cases, such as these, in which the vandal has probably long since left Cambodia and will never use this computer again.

But why am I being blocked when I'm signing in with a secure password? What's the point of having a private, secure password issued by Wikipedia if I will still be blocked simply for accessing the internet on a public server? I suspect this problem is particularly big for people from the developing world, who may often have no other way to participate in Wikipedia.

Is it possible for Wikipedia to introduce a policy of recognizing registered users and permitting them to edit even when they access Wikipedia from a public server that has been blocked? Thanks!Brett epic (talk) 10:37, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Request for arbitration
I've followed Hu12's advice and opened a request for arbitration with my concerns about your blocks here. Please visit there and leave a comment, thanks. Videmus Omnia Talk  19:44, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
 * God damn it. Why couldn't you just leave me be?— Ryūlóng ( 竜龍 ) 20:00, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Re: RFAR
Because the content of the initial statement was sufficient to convince me that this is a matter for the Committee to resolve. Kirill 20:39, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

User talk:70.52.172.145
Just letting you know about this unblock request, looks related to the block on. Not sure what the reason for the block is, so thought I'd bring it your attention for whatever response may be appropriate. – Luna Santin  (talk) 01:07, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Dealt with.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龍 ) 03:29, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Cool, thanks. – Luna Santin  (talk) 03:37, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Generate categories
Can you please run this for Wikiproject High School Musical? Thanks! -- Whiteandnerdy111 (talk) 19:53, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not involved with either items. I do not know why you have asked me.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龍 ) 19:57, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Just type in (by the looks) "High School Musical articles by quality", click on "run the tool!", and thats it. -- Whiteandnerdy111 (talk) 19:59, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay...— Ryūlóng ( 竜龍 ) 20:02, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Retsu Unohana
Have you seen the current version of her Zanpakuto's name? I'm unsure as to why it was changed and wondering if you have any insight.--Marhawkman (talk) 20:01, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I do not follow Bleach.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龍 ) 21:22, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I put something about that on the talk page, and have asked several people, but no one has responded. The whole thing is rather mind boggling as the original had a concise(though somewhat verbose) explanation of what it was, and the current version is a single phrase that bears little similarity to the older one. Any idea who might be able to help?--Marhawkman (talk) 22:22, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
 * A regular editor of the page.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龍 ) 22:39, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I tried that already. I suppose I could try again though.--Marhawkman (talk) 10:59, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Protección
Buenos días,

¿Por qué ha sido protegida esta página tan larga? Es una página de discusión, y por lo tanto, debería estar protegida por sólo un plazo corto de tiempo.

Bueno. Estoy curioso donde aprendiste tu castellano. Debe de ser una buena escuela, sí puedes contribuir a una nivela tan avanzada, ¿Verdad?

Vaya con Dios,

Utapata (talk) 23:35, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
 * No me recuerdo quitar la protegida. En el secundario, tomo seis años de clases de español. Intento practicar, pero ha sido tres años desde mi última clase.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龍 ) 23:43, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Practica y practica. pero solo se que no se nada. ;) Feliz navidad. Lsi john (talk) 00:19, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Kamen rider (vlad)Kiba confirmed
Ryulong, you have "kamen rider vlad" listed under a series of pages which you forbid the creation of due to large-scale crystal balling. Understandable. However, i have uncovered a series of 3 forum pages that hold a wealth of data, including coherent concept art(one of which bearing the PLEX logo as proof of authenticity), and most recently a screeshot of a japanese Email or IM that confirms the name will be "Kiba (fang)" instead of Vlad or Blood: this makes sense, as children would likely understand the japanese name much better that a english-based one. If you know any Wikipedians who can read the kanji and confirm it, this all seems to me as very solid proof. Regardless, multiple pictures have surfaced on many sites of the same art style, as well as repeated posters and magazine scans. This Thread, found here: http://www.rangertalk.com/showthread.php?t=25107&page=3 seems to compile most of this. Additionally, I have managed to read two lines of text from the Screenshot: the words "kamen rider Kiba" can be seen twice on the lower half, to the right. I read this by comparing the kanji shown here, on wikipedia, for Kamen rider kabuto and den-O; and the "Kiba" part was translated by using the katakana referance here: http://www.picturetokyo.com/images/Katakana_Chart.gif

Last; the large poster showing the rider's leg on the last post of that thread has it's Kanji sutitled in Hiragana. It reads "Shin kamen raida", or "new masked rider". This translator http://www.freedict.com/onldict/jap.html comfirms it when "shin" is searched. It is defined as the prefix for "new". with all this, the claims made on the forum thread can be proved to be at least reasonably accurate enough to start a page. Requesting your approval on this; that is, I'm not half as skilled at Wikipedia editing as you are, so if anyone can judge this, you can. ^.^ (PS-for the record, do not mistake me for a rabid otaku; I find japanese fascinating and thus have studied it through many CD's and dictionary's. While this can't be used as a referance, I do know my way around basic grammar.) Shotesu (talk) 01:38, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Kamen Rider Kiba exists. But nothing is definitive for it yet.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龍 ) 02:22, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Ah, good-but what off all this? Surely SOMETHING can be gained; that PLEX-signed pic means something, at least? and what of that poster? At least we can say that he will have more than one form and is monster-themed? (or other umbrella terms which we can safely derrive from all that promotional media...?)Shotesu (talk) 02:34, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
 * We only know that the name "Kamen Rider Kiba" is trademarked. There is nothing in a scan that correlates this name with the vampire rider, yet.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龍 ) 02:48, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you
Thanks for the swift response to RS1900's harassment on my talk page. I was surprised and pleased to find that appropriate action had been taken without my having to post an incident report. Again, thank you. Nick Graves (talk) 16:36, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Message from L D E J R u f f
Hi. Super Mario Bros. Z, an article I tried to recreate, and one you've deleted, can now be relocated at The Unofficial crossovers section of The Fictional crossover article. Just wanted to let you know.  L D E J R u f f  ( talk ) 13:53, 28 November 2007 (EDT)
 * Super Mario Bros. Z is in no way notable for inclusion or mention. Most of the content of that section was spam, and one had a link to the user space.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龍 ) 22:56, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Protection of talk page
Your talk page appears to be semi-protected. Since you're involved a lot of vandalism related blocks, this isn't such a good thing. At minimum you should note at the top some method for new users and IPs to contact you. JoshuaZ (talk) 18:54, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Fixed.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龍 ) 22:55, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Enjin Sentai Goonger
Hello, Ryulong its me Nsmith4658. I was just wondering about something on the Goonger page. Although it IS confirmed, the link you have provided doesn't work. Or at least it doesn't for me. What I'm supposed to see is this but instead, I get this.

Now I'm aware that this was a problem before. See the Super Sentai talk page concerning Goonger and you will see that both me, you and four other people were unable to get to the page and that caused a problem of setting up the Goonger page in the first place. Now I'm wondering, if it isn't just me, is there a Wikipedian policy regarding this where we KNOW that what we're saying is confirmed but we just can't access any source backing it up or something? Feel free to respond to me either here, or my talk page. I look forward to a response either way. Talk to you soon. スミス ナサニアル (talk) 04:59, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The link dies every so often. That shouldn't be a problem very much longer.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龍 ) 05:00, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Unblocking
Hello Ryulong. I began to mediate a case involving a user that you blocked (User:Ira01) and the other disputant in the case has suggested that he be unblocked and adopted/tutored. If you think it's alright, I'll unblock him so that he can be mentored. However, if he does not contribute constructively, he will be blocked again. Does this sound fair? Thank you. Regards, Ne ra n e i   (talk)  01:34, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Seems fair.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龍 ) 01:56, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * FYI, his request for unblock has been denied. may also want to check with him also. Who was the other disputant? Has the off Wiki attacks thread been considered..--Hu12 (talk) 01:58, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Geki vs Bouken
The movie Nei-Nei! Hou-Hou! Hong Kong Great Decisive Match is not a special. It is a movie and was shown in theaters. Gekiranger vs Boukenger is also not really a special but a DVD release. It is never shown on TV first. Please do not associate the two, again, as "Specials."— Ryūlóng ( 竜龍 ) 22:04, 29 November 2007 (UTC)


 * But the term "special" refers to the fact they both occured out of the TV series. Fractyl (talk) 02:51, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Um, no. The movie is a movie, and is denoted as a film in all contexts. The VS DVDs are different.— Ryūlóng  ( 竜龍 ) 03:14, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, if you can't count the movie, you have to count "Vs. Special" with the Hyper Video special. Fractyl (talk) 03:20, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * There's been no evidence of an actual Hyper Video for Gekiranger. And still, they do not need to be grouped together under one heading just because they are slightly similar in their lack of context within the series as a whole.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龍 ) 03:23, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * There is such evidence of a Hyper Video, you saw the pic I posted to you, right? Fractyl (talk) 03:28, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Did it explicitly say "Hyper Video"?— Ryūlóng ( 竜龍 ) 03:29, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Of course, pix of it came around the same time as Den-O.
 * Gekiranger Hyper Battle Video Fractyl (talk) 03:34, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Then when we know more about it, it's listed under "Special DVD" as that is what is it is currently billed as. But the Movie and VS are kept separate.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龍 ) 04:00, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Regarding User:Thisisjonathanchan
Hi there. I notice u reverting all of this user's edits. Is it because he is blocked? The reason i am asking is that it appears that many of his edits are actually useful/helpful (besides adding spam), thus your action to revert his edits is not helpful. kawaputra torque 08:17, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The only reason Thisisjonathanchan edited Wikipedia was to add spam links. Anything else he did may have been helpful, but to remove the links, I reverted whatever he had done. If necessary, you can add back the useful edits, but you will not be able to add the website back as it is now blacklisted.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龍 ) 08:24, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
 * yeah. After checking his contributions properly i just realised a pattern of editing bits and adding those spams. I should have checked first, cheers. kawaputra torque 12:52, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Blacklist
I see you have added an entry to the blacklist. However can I ask you to please log any entries that you make with a permanent link to the request came in some form. This may seem a little irritating but in 6 or 12 months time the rationale may be impossible to find and the listing will then be removed by someone. I recently had to do exactly that on a Meta listing than no one logged! Let me know if I can help - cheers -- Herby talk thyme 08:23, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I added it per my own discretion and I mentioned that in the edit summary. I don't know how the hell the log is supposed to work, nor what should be mentioned with that.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龍 ) 08:25, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Your call I guess but if the rationale cannot be found some time in the future it will likely be removed by someone. As I said I had to remove one on Meta recently and at least one more there will probably be removed as the reasoning can't be found.  I made the logging instructions as clear as I could and others appear to have managed it.  The history of the actually blacklist is impossible to trawl through when the page is 100K long -- Herby  talk thyme 08:31, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Muntuwandi
"I have blocked Muntuwandi because I have never seen him on these boards except as a part of a dispute or because his activities lead to long and winded discussions." - from Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents. Ryulong, this is one of the worst reasons for an indefinite block I have ever seen. A short block may, possibly, have been understandable, and I had even warned him such a block may have been in the pipeline if he continued, but indefinite? Without any warning you were considering it beforehand? Had you done so, I am pretty sure there would have been a wave of "nooo"s.

We all know "indefinite does not mean permanent", but it sends absolutely the wrong message out. He wasn't vandalising, he wasn't attacking other editors, all he was doing was trying to get his own ideas for an article published. They may have been poor ideas, but he was coming around to working collaboratively. He'd stopped recreating the article and was engaged in discussion. I think this was a weak call on your part, particularly considering you've been asked before to exercise better judgement with the banhammer. I'm asking you to unblock him - he's now been shown what he's doing is block-worthy, and I have a feeling he will improve his behaviour. If he fails to do so, I'll reblock him myself. Neıl ☎  10:41, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
 * If you read User talk:Muntuwandi you'll see the whole reasoning behind the block. I did not write it out in full on ANI because I had specifically stated that I wrote out the full reason on his talk page. Muntuwandi has never come up on AN or ANI in any good light, and I acted as an uninvolved administrator to deal with him. He was inable to see that despite his article being deleted after an AFD, he repeatedly created it despite several warnings not to. If you look at his deleted contributions you'll see this article under three different names, the last of which showed up yesterday after it was brought up on ANI. If someone does not realize the proper methods of getting an article kept, and continues to abuse that lack of knowledge, then he is blocked to prevent him from continuing to recreate deleted content. If he realizes this (that he gets an article undeleted through discussion and not by making it again at another title) then he can be unblocked. I am not going to unblock him until he starts working on something to that effect, because I am sure that he will be contacted concerning this thread and he will see the exact reason why I had blocked him.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龍 ) 10:50, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I also find this comment not becoming of a fellow administrator. I know that there are multiple choices. I made the choice that I felt was appropriate concerning Muntuwandi's continued misuse of this website.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龍 ) 10:58, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The comment was apt - you were far too quick to jump straight to an indefinite block. I don't see what part of it was unbecoming. I am aware of Muntuwandi's recreation; if you look at the deletion logs, you'll see I deleted half of them. A shorter block would have been far more appropriate.  I note someone else has reduced the block length to a month, which is still too long but better than indefinite. Neıl  ☎  13:24, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
 * some comments have been posted at User_talk:Muntuwandi. Systemicbias (talk) 19:17, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Appreciate
I appreciate you helping to edit pages. But before you edit my talk page without my consent or permission, could you atleast let me know ahead of time what you are about to do? (I love entei (talk) 02:49, 22 December 2007 (UTC))
 * You had a warning on your talk page already concerning that fact. And I do not need your consent or permission to edit any page.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龍 ) 02:59, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Even if I did have a warning, it was my page, and you could of notified me by email, or on my talk page. And yes, you do need permission to edit my talk page. (I love entei (talk) 03:50, 22 December 2007 (UTC))
 * No, there is no "asking permission." It is there, and I editted it.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龍 ) 03:58, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
 * It is my Talkpage. I believe I have some right or ownership of it. (I love entei (talk) 04:01, 22 December 2007 (UTC))
 * No. You don't.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龍 ) 04:06, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
 * So if somebody copied and pasted information of an article of mine, wouldn't that be stealing? (I love entei (talk) 04:20, 22 December 2007 (UTC))
 * They are not your articles. You add to them. And it would only be "stealing" if they did not say it came from Wikipedia, as we use the GFDL for our license.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龍 ) 04:23, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
 * What is the point contributing to Wikipedia without a userpage? (I love entei (talk) 03:57, 22 December 2007 (UTC))
 * You don't need a user page to edit Wikipedia. And Lolipop/whatever has not contributed to Wikipedia. Out of her edits, four are to articles.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龍 ) 03:58, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Atleast she tried! (I love entei (talk) 04:01, 22 December 2007 (UTC))
 * But her edits are not constructive and most are to your talk page. She needs to edit more than that, or she may be blocked for wasting our time.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龍 ) 04:06, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
 * But..she was just being friendly. And she was new. (I love entei (talk) 04:20, 22 December 2007 (UTC))
 * She was not new. Her edits go back to February at the earliest.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龍 ) 04:23, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

E-mail
From me. Acalamari 03:09, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
 * You didn't have to e-mail me to notify me of that. It's fine with me.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龍 ) 03:14, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
 * It was the reason for extending the block why I sent the E-mail. Normally, I'd just leave a posting here, but I preferred not to say on-Wiki why I extended it. I hope that clears things up. Glad the extension was fine, however. Acalamari 03:18, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

So..
So I'm virtually writing some of my own articles. However, if I write them, then they are not Wikipedia's. Just because I add it to Wikipedia, doesn't mean they belong to Wikipedia. (I love entei (talk) 06:50, 22 December 2007 (UTC))
 * Yes it does.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龍 ) 06:56, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Then why should I submit it? That was hardly a good reason to delete her userpage. It was an invasion of her space. (I love entei (talk) 08:05, 22 December 2007 (UTC))
 * Whenever you add text to Wikipedia, you agree to license them under the GFDL license. So while you are given credit in the history for making the edit, the text belongs to Wikipedia now, not to you. You are given credit for the text, and hold copyright to it, but it can never be removed from Wikipedia, even if if you demand it, and you can never revoke the GFDL. Also, all text at the bottom says that if you don't want them changed, don't submit them. Also, userpages belong to Wikipedia and administrators have discretion over what can appear on userpages. In the case you cite, I assume of Lollipop-3, the userpage was just filled with boxes. And since all the edits the user was making to your userpage and hers, we delete pages of non-contributors. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 08:23, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Fiet Nam is back with another sock
is definitely him. Same obsession with linguistic stuff, especially the so-called Dalecarlian language. On the last ANI, you told me to take any more occurences directly to you. User:Angr has also filed a report, but this should be pretty straightforward. Thanks. --Folantin (talk) 09:01, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Done.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龍 ) 09:06, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
 * It's harder to tell with this guy, but he has my attention. —Angr If you've written a quality article... 21:27, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Jungle Fury Power Rangers redirect created
Hello there. Just so you know. I created a redirect to Power Rangers: Jungle Fury called Jungle Fury Power Rangers. Im not planning on putting any Ranger biographies on Jungle Fury Power Rangers until the show premieres on television. Just so you know. Mythdon (talk) 03:03, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龍 ) 03:14, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Request for arbitration
I have filed a request for arbitration which involves you. Please see Requests_for_arbitration. John254 04:40, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

IRC Channel
I have no interest in an edit war, so I'm bringing this to your Talk page. Based on your edit summary, I think you may have gotten an incorrect link to my changes&mdash;please see this link. Jouster (  whisper  ) 08:36, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Fixed tenses
I have fixed grammatical tense on the Villains in Power Rangers: Operation Overdrive article. I wanna know if this is the way that qualifies to your suggestion way of fixing the tense. Mythdon (talk) 08:46, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Hard block
Hi Ryulong. I'm not sure that deleting his userpage and placing a hard block on User:Meaningless! Meaningless! Everything is Meaningless! was a good idea. From what I can tell, the userpage was correct, and the username is no sillier than CSCWEM's username (they both refer to a long common name). Could you reconsider and soft block? The Evil Spartan (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 11:15, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Eh? The Evil Spartan (talk) 10:30, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * There was a string of inappropriate usernames that day. I thought that this user was one of them.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龍 ) 10:43, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Gekirangers' episodes before the 3-part finale
The images were shown, along with pic from Gekiranger vs. Boukenger. Titles (japanese romanji) and dates by Dukemon.


 * Lesson 45: Bikiin! Fateful Showdown (修行その45　ビキキーン！宿命の対決)
 * Date: 1/13/07
 * The relation between Gou & Rio is explored as the two battle.
 * Long's agenda and backstory are finally revealed.


 * Lesson 46: Gawa-Gawa of Recollection (修行その46　ガワガワの記憶)
 * Date: 1/20/07
 * Revolves on Jan and Suguu/Dan.

Fractyl (talk) 18:22, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration/IRC
An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Requests for arbitration/IRC/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Requests for arbitration/IRC/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Thatcher 00:43, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

A new flavor of SALT
Hello, I'm dropping you a note because you are listed on Protected titles/Specific Admin as an admin that is maintaining a personal SALT page. Recent software updates now allow deleted pages to be protected just like other pages. Please consider migrating any pages on your personal list to normal protections, and clearing them off of your list. There still may be situations where a personal list may be the best way to handle a page though. Thank you, — xaosflux  Talk  02:50, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the notification. However, I think it will be easier to keep the several hundred pages protected through the list rather than the new software.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龍 ) 02:54, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Encouraging?
I don't believe I'm encouraging anything. They are choosing to do so, and User:Rgoodermote as well as I am trying to, in fact, discourage that. They simply will not listen. I am willing to help you in getting them to be constructive, but please don't antagonize me and say it's my fault. -- Cuyler 91093  -  Contributions  - 07:46, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I apologize, as I saw your name multiple times. If they continue to misuse the website, contact me, and they will be blocked.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龍 ) 07:47, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I see you deleted their page. I know them personally, but are you sure that their pages deserved to be deleted? I don't know; I'm not a sysop. I think you are; I've seen your name frequently around Wikipedia. I have a question. Since you are a sysop (administrator), can you let them start again with a blank slate? In other words, can you give them a second chance? I think deleting their pages taught them that this really is a zero-tolerance thing. Please don't be too harsh on them. — Cuyler  91093  -  Contributions  - 08:10, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * This is their final chance. If they continue to misuse Wikipedia following my warnings, they will be blocked by myself.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龍 ) 08:11, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I notified them on their talk pages. Thank you for communicating with me. — Cuyler  91093  -  Contributions  - 08:17, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Cyric the All
Hi, and thanks. That was quick!. --Jack Merridew 10:18, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Cyric the One
FYI, WP:ANI --Jack Merridew 15:22, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Dattebayo
Hi, just wondering why the Dattebayo link redirects to Naruto and is protected? Dattebayo are the worlds most notable contemporary fansub group so I fail to see why this action has occured. 124.168.10.172 (talk) 08:22, 29 December 2007 (UTC)JW
 * Dattebayo is not notable per Wikipedia's guidelines on notability; no fansub group is. Being notable on Wikipedia means neutral, third party discussion. None of that has or will happen for fansubs, Dattebayo or otherwise.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龍 ) 08:30, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
 * When I type Dattebayo into google I get hundreds of links to neutral third party discussion about the groups activities 124.168.10.172 (talk) 09:30, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Dattebayo is not notable per our guidelines. It does not matter whether or not they exist. They have to fit our guidelines for inclusion. Now, leave me be, as this was decided a while ago, and I am just following policy.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龍 ) 09:41, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I have reviewed the decision and what Ryulong did was consistent with our policies. We do not cover any fansub group. Plus, a lot of the websites and links you describe are user submitted websites or places that hold their files. This is common among fansubbers and I see nothing that sets them apart. Plus, as Ryulong said, we have decided about this article before and we decided, as editors, to not include Dattebayo as an article. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 09:47, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Hannah's New Section
Hi. I'm sorry if I've been unhelpful lately but i haven't been on the computer for awhile. When I am on the computer I've been searching through articles but have been hesitating to edit. I've been blocked before for editing a page I've never been on and this irritated me to no end. I want to make sure all my information is perfect before I put it on Wikipedia. Wikipedia has, unfortunately, a bad reputation in schools for being inaccurate and I seek to help change that. Thank you for trying to make Wikipedia better but I assure you that I am helpful and just need time to sort things out. Once again, Thank you. -- yours truly,   Edgar Allen Poe  02:05, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Reply from user:ixella's talk page
"In a view of your contributions, very few of them appear to be made to the editing of the article space and more into user talk and user spaces. If you continue to edit more and more as part of a community building project and not an encyclopedia, you may be blocked.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龍 ) 02:56, 29 December 2007 (UTC)" Hello. I am User:IXella007's adopter, an as one, I am aware of his non-encyclopedic contributions, however, I just wanted to inform you that this user is in the fourth grade and he may not be old enough to make encyclopedic contributions. I am encouraging him to stay with Wikipedia because I believe that once he becomes older, he will make constructive edits valuable to this encyclopedia. I am just not sure if he is ready to become an editor at this moment. I think that we should just let him fiddle with his userpage/talk, and eventually, when he become bored of that, he most likely will leave Wikipedia. He will then probably return to Wikipedia in a few years. Thanks for your time, I hope this helps. -- penubag  05:01, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The adoption process should not be a babysitting process.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龍 ) 05:02, 30 December 2007 (UTC)