User talk:Ryulong/Archive 31

Excessive use of images
I can see you have requested assistance from Arrowned regarding my refusal to allow excessive use of images on Power Rangers articles. I guess I made so many changes to those pages that even you are requesting assistance. I have been telling you that excessive use of images is too much. Too much is too much, and that is a fact. Why don't you get it?. — Mythdon ( talk  •  contribs ) 00:55, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Today was the first time you've ever mentioned this. The next time you screw up you are gone.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龙 ) 02:14, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * How am I screwing up?. — Mythdon ( talk  •  contribs ) 19:36, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

"Seeking process for the sake of process"
In this AfD, a little more than a month ago, you said I'm "seeking process for the sake of process". How am I seeking process for the sake of process?. — Mythdon ( talk  •  contribs ) 21:56, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * You are looking to do things just because it's there. You weren't listing the page because it should be deleted. You were listing it for reasons that it could be fixed easily without an AFD.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龙 ) 22:41, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * If the information is not verifiable, then how can it possibly be kept on Wikipedia?. — Mythdon ( talk  •  contribs ) 22:44, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * But it is verifiable. And that's why I added references to every page and someone found a mention of it in a print publication. Look harder next time.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龙 ) 02:35, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

User:EagleScout18
The indef block might have been a little harsh, but I'm not necessarily arguing against it, and it's up to him to post an unblock request, if he chooses to do so. I'm still not certain if he was sincere but misguided, or if he was just trolling. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 13:27, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Not a whimper of protest, so I'm going with "troll", and you can delete this section. :) Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 00:49, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Okiedokie.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龙 ) 01:05, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Go-onger vs. Gekiranger summary
Found it on the board. It makes a reference to Long. I'm attempting to translate it and would like you help.

いつものようにガイアーク反応に急行したゴーオンジャーが見たのは、 蛮機獣ヌンチャクバンキと、拳法のような技で戦う謎の３人組！？ 彼らは･･･ビーストアーツの使い手・ゲキレンジャー！！ ゴーオン＆ゲキの夢のタッグが実現！ だがなんと、臨獣トータス拳を使うヌンチャクバンキの卑怯な作戦に、 ゴーオンジャーの炎神ソウルとジャンの持つ慟哭丸が奪われてしまう！ ガイアークのケガレシア、キタネイダス、ヨゴシュタインと共に、 臨獣拳士の生き残り臨獣トータス拳のメカも現れ･･･.

My attempt: The Go-ongers battle the skilled Banki Beast Nunchuck Banki as they encounter a trio of fighters, the Gekijuuken Beast Arts' Gekirangers. Though dream-team tag team is realized, Nunchuck Banki displays Rinjuuken-style skills as he takes both the Engine Souls and the Dōkokugan holding Long with the Gaiark Ministers arriving along with the surviving member of Rinjuuken: Rinjuu Tortoise-Fist user Meka. Fractyl (talk) 18:10, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Not in any way necessary. I've already listed a basic summary on the Go-onger article.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龙 ) 20:48, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Shinkenger, again
Any idea when information about Shinkenger will be announced on Wikipedia? Usually a new Super Sentai instalment is announced here in late November or early December... it's pretty late this year. Although I have found out some stuff about it but I know I'm not to let them out, as they are rumours for now until Toei officially confirms it. --Burai (talk) 20:30, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Usually, TV-kun, Hyper Hobby, Figure-Oh, etc. will have something more than a silhouette out by this time (there's been one of ShinkenRed or whatever he'll be called and his sword has "Shinkenger" on it). I'd expect something more definitive in Japanese sources in the next month.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龙 ) 21:33, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

December 2008
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Chris  09:14, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

User talk:69.208.71.99
User talk:69.208.71.99 is requesting an unblock. I am a bit confused over the block; the user seems to be making good-faith edits, which do not look at all like vandalism. He plainly explains in detail why he is making each edit, has not edit warred, and yet he has been blocked. Additionally, it appears as though you were involved in a disagreement with him over at least some of his edits; it may have been more prudent to ask another admin to review the case and block rather than doing it yourself. If you have additional information which cannot be found in the users contribs list such as sockpuppetry or other issues I am unaware of, it would really help inform my review of this user's unblock. Please advise. --Jayron32. talk . contribs 03:52, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * This user was warned in the past by myself that his edits were improper. This user has removed the phrase "long running" from various articles about television programs, when we have List of longest running United States television series and there is a "criteria" for inclusion. There is no disagreement. This user is essentially vandalizing. If you look at the talk page I linked to, you can see that this user's edits were a problem last month. There is a reason we have the commented out item on Power Rangers: because this user created a stink last month and did these same edits to several hundred articles on his previous IP addresses at and .— Ryūlóng ( 竜龙 ) 04:04, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your input. Knowing that this disupte has spread over a long time period, and that this user has used multiple IP addresses helps understand the issue better.  In the future, may I recommend that you leave more explicit explanations either in the Block Summary or at the blocked user's talk page so that admins that respond to the inevitable unblock request may do so intelligently.  Simply marking "vandalism" as unqualified in the block summary is not as informative as "Person using this IP address has disrupted multiple articles by editing against consensus from multiple IP addresses".  Reserve the term "vandalism" for things like typing random obscenities in articles.  --Jayron32. talk . contribs  05:03, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay then.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龙 ) 06:02, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Power Rangers
Hello Ryulong, I just wanted to drop by to remind you that the use of the undo button opposed to rollback would have probably been a better course of action to take here. As WP:ROLLBACK states: "The 'rollback' links provided by Wikipedia's interface provide a standard edit summary of the form "Reverted edits by X to last version by Y". These should be used only to revert edits that are clearly unproductive, such as vandalism; to revert content in your own user space; or to revert edits by banned users. Reversion for other reasons should be accompanied by an explanatory edit summary, and must therefore be done by a different method." - but you already knew that. Even though we often think of this as applying only to user with the Rollback userright, it does apply to administrators. Cheers! Tiptoety talk 04:33, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I was discussing this with Mythdon on his talk page and he persisted in adding those tags unnecessarily to the article. So these edits were unproductive. And the only difference between "Undo" and rollback is the edit summary.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龙 ) 04:35, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

tagging: Also telling me
When you tell me not to place the tag on articles, are you also telling me to take the issue to the associated talk page instead?. — Mythdon ( talk  •  contribs ) 01:02, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm saying that you shouldn't be tagging things which normally require one's common sense.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龙 ) 01:07, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * When you asked me to read Disruptive editing, was you referring to the below part of the policy?:
 * Engages in "hostile cite-tagging"; uses a "scattershot" method of adding [citation needed] tags to an article and announces an intention to delete large portions of the article if other editors do not immediately find citations to support the material thus tagged. In egregious examples, proper citations already appear at the end of a paragraph and the cite-tagger inserts the tag at the end of each sentence within the paragraph.
 * — Mythdon ( talk  •  contribs ) 01:35, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龙 ) 01:46, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Power Rangers articles
Hello. I just noticed that you have introduced new images for the Blue Ranger and Black Ranger articles. However, I personally think that the Pink Ranger article should also get a new image, preferably Time Force Pink. That image of Galaxy Pink is terrible. ANDROS1337  03:05, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * This was for drastically different reasons than for aesthetics.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龙 ) 03:22, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Why did you change the images?. — Mythdon ( talk  •  contribs ) 05:46, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Because it was an issue concerning fair use. Why the hell is it your business?— Ryūlóng ( 竜龙 ) 06:03, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Because this is an encyclopedia, and this section was discussing content, so this is my business. — Mythdon ( talk  •  contribs ) 06:09, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * You didn't initiate the discussion. Is it really necessary that you know the exact reason?— Ryūlóng ( 竜龙 ) 06:27, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah. And it does not matter if I initiated this discussion or not. I still have a right to participate. — Mythdon ( talk  •  contribs ) 06:30, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Why didn't you do it three days ago?— Ryūlóng ( 竜龙 )
 * Because I wasn't curious at the time. Just recently, I got concerned. As a reminder, earlier you said "Why the hell is it your business?" which with its tone violates WP:CIVIL. — Mythdon  ( talk  •  contribs ) 06:43, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * And?— Ryūlóng ( 竜龙 ) 06:46, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Thats pretty much it. — Mythdon ( talk  •  contribs ) 06:48, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龙 ) 06:52, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

User talk:193.172.170.26
Just letting you know, this user you blocked is currently requesting unblocking. – Luna Santin  (talk) 11:51, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Rolando
Is under discussion at deletion review, if you're interested. []Bali ultimate (talk) 14:45, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Decade
I took care of the template, using the Gackt interview to add the Grongi into it. Template:Kamen Rider Decade Fractyl (talk) 13:15, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
 * There is no need for this prior to the show's premiere. I've deleted it, as we have no idea what will be going on with the program whatsoever.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龙 ) 21:51, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, the series plot points out that Decade travels into other dimensions which are each modeled after a previous rider's show (Though a reboot in Kuuga's case). Furthermore, the Gackt interview shows scenes from the first few episodes with Decade fighting the Grongi.. Hence I feel I was right on mark, though I intended the template to be added to the show page once the series aired (Took me awhile to find the symbol for "Decade"). Fractyl (talk) 03:16, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * We won't know this definitively for a while. Also, the use of Kamen Rider at the bottom of the article on the show will suffice, as will links to the individual character pages or a list of characters.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龙 ) 03:26, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, we saw Kiva fighting the Horse Fangire and Otoya about to duke it out with the Octopus Fangire in pre-show Kiva promos. So it's obvious the interview showed footage from the first episodes. But I can't say it's from the first episode itself. Fractyl (talk) 13:56, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Doesn't matter. We don't have any pages to navigate about for the navbox to exist.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龙 ) 21:11, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Also, those are not the symbols for "Decade." That is the Eth and the letter X, which is the Roman numeral for 10. Decade's symbol is "DCD."— Ryūlóng ( 竜龙 ) 03:28, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Bbcody
It is not fair to block Bbcody. You cannot go from a second warning to a block. I had talked with Bbcody and had discussed vandalism with him and he has not done any vandalism since. I believe in giving this user a chance to redeem himself before we block him. The block came out of absolutely no where. Mygerardromance (talk) 22:17, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * He vandalized and there was nothing good coming from his account.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龙 ) 22:43, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes but he only received two warnings. Give him a chance to do some good and if he vandalizes again, then you can block him. Mygerardromance (talk) 22:47, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The number of warnings is inconsequential at that level, really.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龙 ) 22:48, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * There's now a discussion at Administrators'_noticeboard but I agree with you and the other admins. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:13, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Sounds fun.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龙 ) 01:17, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Dragon Knight
In the "[Animal] Advent Deck" bit, the only few direct relations are the use of "Vents". But I'll hold off on it for a while, maybe copy the techs and vents into new pages once enough info is gathered(like the Mirror Monster names). Fractyl (talk) 01:38, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Just don't do anything until the official premiere.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龙 ) 02:59, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Request for "certify the basis for this dispute"
Hello. Thanks for your help. Would you either "certify the basis for this dispute" and/or "endorse this summary"? in the Requests_for_comment/Law_Lord? --Law Lord (talk) 05:33, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll take a look later.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龙 ) 05:38, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks. --Law Lord (talk) 05:41, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * And I do not wish to get involved.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龙 ) 06:46, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Delphine
I added the tag to White Ranger concerning Delphine as Delphine's bullet point on the article is not yet sourced. Information on Wikipedia must be verifiable, and verifiability is an important factor on Wikipedia articles. In this edit, you said "there's no official website page for Delphine". If there is no official website page for Delphine, then what other reliable sources are there to support the existence of Delphine?. — Mythdon ( talk  •  contribs ) 01:22, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
 * It's one single entry on a page otherwise well referenced. The tag is unnecessary.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龙 ) 01:25, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
 * You say "It's one single entry on a page otherwise well referenced". "Otherwise well referenced" is not a sufficient reason not to include the tag. The tag says "This article needs additional citations for verification". Until all else is sourced, the tag should stay. — Mythdon ( talk  •  contribs ) 01:36, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The information is verifiable without an inline citation.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龙 ) 01:53, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
 * How?. — Mythdon ( talk  •  contribs ) 01:54, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Because it is verifiable in the linked articles. There is nothing major being stated there that would require a citation, and it is verifiable that the subject exists within a fictional world.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龙 ) 02:02, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Articles do not verify other articles. You said "There is nothing major being stated there that would require a citation". We need to cite information to reassure our readers that the information being presented on this site is verifiable. — Mythdon ( talk  •  contribs ) 02:07, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

(dedent) inline citations are helpful, but not required, except to source negative statements in a BLP, and where the information is likely to be contested. The referenced articles and references as given are acceptable to verify the content. The tag is overkill for an article that is well-sourced. Please try an article talk page comment first, instead.  Jerry  delusional ¤ kangaroo 02:15, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Am I over doing it?. — Mythdon ( talk  •  contribs ) 02:17, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Your intentions were undoubtedly great, and much appreciated. You may want to read User:Shanes/Why tags are evil to see *MY* opinion on why maintenance templates should be reserved for extraordinary circumstances, like articles that are horribly sourced.  This article does not need to scream out to the reader: "Beware: most of this could be all lies!"  What you really wanted was for an editor to provide a citation, and easy task, perhaps for someone interested in the article.  So a talk page comment would probably work well.  Try that first, then watch the article and if it does not get any attention, you can let the author(s) know about your concern or just then tag it.  JUst my $0.02.  Jerry   delusional ¤ kangaroo 02:28, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks
Apology accepted. Thanks for fixing the block on my login. I was getting worried I might not be able to edit until after the holidays if you weren't available! Alls well that ends well. Thanks, --JD554 (talk) 09:37, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
 * No problem. But could you please complain to your ISP about the person abusing us here? I don't think this IP should be blocked until next year's holidays just because of one (or two) sour apples :P— Ryūlóng ( 竜龙 ) 09:39, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually I think there's a problem there. The IP address you blocked 194.176.105.39 says that it is registered to King's College Hospital NHS Foundation Trust. As I work at Bradford Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust the IP must belong to the National Health Service as a whole. As you can imagine they employ hundreds of thousands of people so tracing any vandals would be nigh on impossible. --JD554 (talk) 09:50, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Hmm. A problem indeed.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龙 ) 10:00, 24 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Hello Ryulong


 * I see you’ve blocked IP 194.176.105.39 for another year; good!


 * Like JD554 said, this IP is for the National Health Service as a whole, which has about 1 million employees. Whatever the percentage of prats there are in the general population, the NHS has its share, and it’s more than “a few sour apples” I’m afraid.


 * Regarding reporting abuse: I had a similar conversation with CSCWEM a couple of years ago; I never had any luck reporting the vandalism, as there isn’t a central IT dept, and no means of tracing which Trust (there are a few hundred) it came from.


 * But there’s plenty of us with user accounts, so I think the only remedy is to ban the IP address for long periods, or indefinitely.


 * Regards, Xyl 54 (talk) 14:10, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it seems that I've got a fans now.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龙 ) 05:06, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!
Thanks for reverting the vandalism and botched rvv attempt on Rubik's Cube. It is much appreciated.&mdash;Tetracube (talk) 16:20, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Re: Headers on episode lists
This is to inform you that I've moved the discussion about episode headers in episode lists from my talk page over to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tokusatsu for wider discussion. --Farix (Talk) 22:51, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Block this person please
I can see that the person with the IP of 97.116.19.244 had vandalised the Kamen Rider Kiva episode list with garbage. Actually, he had done it before but under a different IP and I would like him to get blocked. If you can get 97.116.x.x blocked (with the x's representing any number) then that woukd be great. I don't want to see that idiot making these sort of edits again, and that I already told him off a month ago. --Burai (talk) 08:53, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Too many IPs to block.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龙 ) 09:36, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Aw damn... well what I meant is that the IP can be blocked with those x's as wildcards. For example, that IP address having a .18.218 or 57.142 will all get blocked. If that person doesn't get blocked then he'll still go around vandalising the article with garbage that an 8-year-old would write and it would be a pain for you to keep reverting his lame edits. Besides, I remember I said that anonymous users shouldn't be making edits in Wikipedia, the same way not to let guests post at a forum. --Burai (talk) 14:26, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Deleted user page
Ryulong, could you do me a favor and kindly explain to User:Reliableforever, whose user page you recently deleted, why you deleted her user page? I spoke to her about it but I think she would be more convinced if the deleting admin justified it.

Cheers, and Happy New Year, &mdash; Mizu  onna   sango15 Hello! 20:06, 30 December 2008 (UTC).
 * I clearly did.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龙 ) 22:39, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Apparently it didn't quite sink in. Sorry to waste your time, then. Happy New Year, &mdash; Mizu  onna   sango15 Hello!  20:15, 31 December 2008 (UTC).

Punctuation "inside or outside" a quotation
Please refer to the Wikipedia's Manual of Style, in the quotation marks section. There are many differences to the English language between countries like the US and the UK. So Wikipedia likes to choose to follow one specific style for each part of English to use for Wikipedia... of course you know since you're one of the administrators of Wikipedia. --staka (T) 02:22, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

By the way, putting punctuations outside of quotation marks is part of the British style. --staka (T) 02:27, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I didn't realize that there was such a style difference. I've only written in the American English.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龙 ) 02:41, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Few months ago in another article, I thought I found a mistake and fixed it, but it got reverted so I read the manual. Well you're an administrator so you should read manual of style and keep following it. --staka (T) 02:48, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * That is certainly new for me, but this is not a quotation.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龙 ) 03:46, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * You mean it's not a quote. We're talking about if the punctuation goes inside these quotation marks "". --staka (T) 15:04, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龙 ) 15:05, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Subpage
I would delete my guide but I don't know how to delete it...Abomasnow (talk) 11:32, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll take care of it. By the way, you should probably try out Bulbapedia.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龙 ) 11:33, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Requests for checkuser/Case/Everyme
I am notifying you of the above as it concerns an editor you had blocked who seems to be yet again evading a block by using at least two IPs. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 15:55, 31 December 2008 (UTC)