User talk:Ryulong/Archive 99

CensoredScribe sock
Just pinging you to let you know that I spotted what appears to be another sock. I've already filed an SPI on it with a checkuser request. —Farix (t &#124; c) 00:26, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Barbara Broccoli
For what it is worth, the IP you just reverted on Barbara Broccoli (64.228.73.49) seems to be the same editor as the earlier 69.159.39.121 which may explain their edits in your sandbox. Helpsome (talk) 18:33, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
 * No shit Sherlock.— Ryūlóng ( 琉竜 ) 18:34, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I was just trying to help. Your hostility was a little unnecessary. Helpsome (talk) 18:37, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
 * You could help by reverting this guy instead of telling me what I already know.— Ryūlóng ( 琉竜 ) 18:38, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

IP vandal
Give me a list of a dozen or so IPs and I will see what I can do in terms of a filter.&mdash;Kww(talk) 00:51, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
 * User:Ryulong/sandbox— Ryūlóng ( 琉竜 ) 09:53, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

You have been mentioned in WP:AN
You have been subject in WP:AN here: Administrators' noticeboard/Archive264. Lucia Black (talk) 06:31, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Your sock sense
Ryulong, I wanted your opinion on something. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?limit=50&tagfilter=&title=Special%3AContributions&contribs=user&target=TheFrontDeskMust&namespace=&tagfilter=&year=2014&month=-1 Does this look like a sock to you? ] The edits all look fine, and I honestly don't have any problem with the vote to delete David W Horvitz or even if the editor is a sock, but I thought it odd that a new user dives in, makes a number of rapid and apparently unrelated edits related to notability and deletion. I just wondered what it looked like to you.--Nowa (talk) 01:30, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
 * he hit a lot of debates but none of them seem to be related, nor even related to me. You might want to bring it up somewhere.— Ryūlóng ( 琉竜 ) 01:35, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
 * OK. Thanks.--Nowa (talk) 02:04, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Arbitration case request declined
An arbitration case request in which you were named as a party has been declined by the Arbitration Committee. The arbitrators views on hearing this matter, found here, may be useful. For the arbitration committee, -- S Philbrick (Talk)  15:14, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Did you do this?
I was reviewing your ANI thread and it appears some person has been modifying and censoring your comments..the comment reads "All this because I'm in a disagreement on one page and restored the original version when there was no consensus to change it? Perhaps you need to restore the good faith you say has run out. Not to mention this talk of an interaction ban with Lucia is entirely unnecessary and unfounded. I don't know anyone thinks one is necessary like Lucia herself. I have worked with her on various pages. Just because I don't agree with this one (Redacted) article's layout and content does not mean jack (Redacted). I start or request discussion in content disputes. I report vandals and sockpuppets. Just because the other party doesn't care and admins and checkusers are too bogged down to block when found does not mean I should be limited from improving this website and keeping it in tip top shape like every other volunteer here" I'm fairly sure you didn't redact anything or User:Hasteur comment either right above. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 22:07, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I found redacted to be amusing in its usage in the previous comment.— Ryūlóng ( 琉竜 ) 22:13, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
 * O Ok just checking glad cause I hate that   bullshit ;) Hell in a Bucket (talk) 22:19, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Well it only works if you make them have to figure out what the  you hid, .— Ryūlóng ( 琉竜 ) 22:20, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Self censored, but at the same time still expressing the less than civil remark at the user. Kind of like the Christian "How do you fit an elephant through the eye of a needle" joke that some use to dodge saying the curse word while expressing the sentiment. Hasteur (talk) 03:20, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Additions of "Section Break"
I have seen you add (seemingly) completely arbitrary sections breaks to numerous pages (as you did here: ), can you cite a policy by which you add them? They needlessly break up threads and promote your comments to a level of importance they may not deserve (it is human nature to read the first thing after a heading). CombatWombat42 (talk) 21:22, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Refactoring talk pages. --erachima talk 21:27, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Are you telling me you want to read through all that bickering?— Ryūlóng ( 琉竜 ) 21:40, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Ultraman
With all do respect while the picture with Gyango was there first but, it shows Ultraman in his Type A costume. I wanted readers to see Ultraman in his more iconic appearance. If you think that the article needs to show him fighting a monster, I can proved I more suiting picture. Teridax122 (talk) 16:09, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Ultraman is Ultraman unless it's one of the other Ultramen like Jack or Ace or Taro.— Ryūlóng ( 琉竜 ) 16:12, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

In that case isn't there a better reason for Gyango to stay besides "it was there first"? There shouldn't be a problem with the improvement of a pages' information. My picture shows Ultraman how he most seen, that should be a good reason for change.Teridax122 (talk) 04:08, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
 * there only needs to be one photo and the old one serves two purposes by showing Ultraman and a monster.— Ryūlóng ( 琉竜 ) 04:20, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Then I'll bring in a compromising photo. Do I need to put the "candidate for speedy deletion" template on the Ultraman Type C picture or should I just wait for the rest of the 7 days for it to be deleted? Teridax122 (talk) 07:26, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
 * You can just leave it. All image speedy deletions are a week for some reason.— Ryūlóng ( 琉竜 ) 09:46, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Did I license the new photo With the alien wrong or are promotional images not allowed. If the latter, why are promotional Godzilla pictures allowed? Teridax122 (talk) 13:19, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
 * You said it was public domain. Also other editors disagreed with your image choice.— Ryūlóng ( 琉竜 ) 13:29, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

My image shows Ultraman, a monster, as well as the HQ of the Science Patrol in the background. It also focuses more on Ultraman than any other object in the picture so it better illustrates the hero of the show.Teridax122 (talk) 09:03, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry. You're right.— Ryūlóng ( 琉竜 ) 09:09, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for all your help in this, and sorry for wasting you time.Teridax122 (talk) 09:34, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

A comment about your uploaded File:Ultraman Festival 2013.JPG – are you sure that's a man? The man seems to have rather large and prominent breasts. —BarrelProof (talk) 02:51, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
 * That is how the costume looks. Vacuformed muscles and such.— Ryūlóng ( 琉竜 ) 06:17, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
 * OK, if you say so. Perhaps it's partly a matter of the person's pose, which is squeezing the front of the costume. The narrow hips are certainly consistent with that interpretation. Thanks for the reply. —BarrelProof (talk) 06:24, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
 * It isn't the best pose, but I'm assuming he enjoys his job.— Ryūlóng ( 琉竜 ) 06:53, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Oh Dear
this is slightly concerning. Looks like we picked up another(?) POV pusher. Just a heads up. Cheers, Philg88 ♦talk 03:48, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
 * No that's the same guy as yesterday.— Ryūlóng ( 琉竜 ) 03:49, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Hence the question mark. Thanks for the revert. Best, Philg88 ♦talk 04:36, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Well now we have to fix an indeed separate POV pusher that went to the same pages before the pages were protected.— Ryūlóng ( 琉竜 ) 04:37, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I want to stay out of this for now but if there is still a problem towards the end of the week then I will get involved, for now I'm just watching. Apologies for being cryptic. Philg88 ♦talk 04:43, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
 * protection expires in another day though. Unless the ip comes back.— Ryūlóng ( 琉竜 ) 05:01, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Extracting the only meaningful unicode characters I can find from our Beijing friend's user name (2600:1012:B01E:5FCF:8AA4:106E:B7F3:912) gives "忏誤", which I translate as "sorry for the damage". Surely that can't be a random thing? Philg88 ♦talk 19:52, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
 * That's an IPv6 string though.— Ryūlóng ( 琉竜 ) 21:10, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Ah, my bad, I thought it was a unicode version of an eastern language. That makes it even weirder that it contains those two characters. Anyway, I see the individual concerned has now been blocked. Best, Philg88 ♦talk 21:37, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
 * It is just a really odd coincidence, mostly because the characters don't form a word on their own but have their own inherent separate meanings.— Ryūlóng ( 琉竜 ) 21:54, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

17RR
Can you tell me under which exception to the 3RR rule you went through and reverted an edit 17 times in the span of three hours at Taipei, and why you failed to mention that exception in your edit summary and/or the article's talk page, as the policy indicates must been done when claiming an exception? ☺ ·  Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  04:18, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
 * The vandalism one. Which was also brought up when I made a thread on ANI to request assistance after being told by Nyttend to apply RBI to his edits the next time he showed up.— Ryūlóng ( 琉竜 ) 04:21, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Under which definition of vandalism do you consider the edits to be? ☺ ·  Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  04:25, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
 * considering the complex nature of the real world dispute over the nation it was to stop an incessant POV pusher as told to me here Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive850 and under current discussion here WP:ANI.— Ryūlóng ( 琉竜 ) 04:32, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

I see this is not an isolated incident, and I will accept that your reverts came from an intention of defending the project, but I urge you to keep in mind POV-pushing is specifically not vandalism, and as such is not a valid reason to claim a 3RR exception. I understand you may have been influenced by Nyttend's comment but I still believe you are responsible for your own actions and that you should know better. 17RR is an insane amount of reverts by any standard, especially so when considering your use of rollback and reversion has long been under particular scrutiny, from the recent AN/I thread clamouring for a 1RR restriction to your history of abuse of the rollback user-right, which led to its removal on two occasions. I won't block you because I don't think it serves a useful purpose at this very moment, but this latest incident only goes to show that you should probably be more careful in the future, if you want to avoid another admin acting more severely towards you than I do. If and when you are going above 3RR, you have to clearly indicate by what exception you are justifying it in your edit summaries. I'm not templating you, but this is still a warning, and I hope that you will heed it. This warning is per the your conduct probation and should be taken seriously. Any future breach of 3RR without providing a clear rationale for it, or for which the rationale is not valid, will lead to actual sanctions. ☺ ·  Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  16:53, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, yet again, this was an instance where I did attempt to reach out for help, and got practically no response from the community until I was proactive abou it by going onto the IRC channels for assistance, where as usual I have people at my neck going "you shouldn't be allowed to do this" despite the fact I got the sanctions vacated. I am still at a loss as to what to do because you're right, it shouldn't have gotten to 17 reverts. But that's how long it takes for someone to step in and help it seems.— Ryūlóng ( 琉竜 ) 17:39, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
 * You request protection. Raise AN/I. Ask for immediate IRC help. And you wait for help. You don't call the cops and start beating the POV-pushers over the head with a baseball bat repeatedly and relentlessly until help arrives to discover the bloodbath. ☺ ·  Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  17:52, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I did. I asked everywhere. There was a request on RFPP for hours. A thread on ANI for hours. It was only when I went on IRC to get help that the IP user was blocked. And it's obvious that other users in the topic area see this type of editing as problematic and vandalistic.— Ryūlóng ( 琉竜 ) 18:03, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh, and it turns out the guy I was reverting is still being sneaky about his shit with his edits to other pages.— Ryūlóng ( 琉竜 ) 18:08, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

javascript problem
Hi Ryulong, with regard to the problem you ran into today with your javascript, could you share with me your browser and it's version that you use ? There is a suspicion it might be browser specific so it would help if we had that information so we can investigate on that exact platform. —Th e DJ (Not WMF) (talk • contribs) 18:16, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Firefox 31.0.— Ryūlóng ( 琉竜 ) 20:08, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

RFPP
Just a request. If you adding several reports that are related can you put them all into one section. It would be quicker and easier. CBWeather, Talk, Seal meat for supper? 06:48, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm doing it via twinkle because it's easier on my end for that, though.— Ryūlóng ( 琉竜 ) 07:03, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
 * OK. No problem. CBWeather, Talk, Seal meat for supper? 07:34, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

.
Bang Bang on Just Dance 2015 is now sourced with an official gameplay preview, if that makes you so happy (don't take that the wrong way). As for Black Widow I can't find the Just Dance Facebook page that uploaded the picture, so I guess I'll wait for a gameplay. Also, I'm now capable of sourcing things. Kittygirl7878 (talk) 02:27, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Citations must be added.— Ryūlóng ( 琉竜 ) 02:39, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Stalker
It seems as though you've got a stalker. left a nice note for you at User:Ryulong/Newbie biting. He also thanked me for a trivial edit I made to my own user page. Any idea who it might be? One of the few times that you and I have interacted recently was in this ANI thread (permalink) about, who was recently warned about sock puppetry. I have filed a UAA report, but I have not filed an SPI report. I'll let you do that, if you feel it's warranted. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 11:40, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

During a brief edit war over the UAA report, the troll claimed he was. Dunno if that's his M.O.; I've never run into this guy before. I have no idea where that user would get my username or why he would choose to sarcastically thank me. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 12:13, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm his new playtoy apparently. WP:RBI and WP:DENY all the way.— Ryūlóng ( 琉竜 ) 12:36, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

The Amazing Race
I see what I did wrong. The article about the U.S. series does have the information. I didn't think about there being other versions.— Vchimpanzee  •  talk  •  contributions  •  23:00, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, sorry for not being clear. Also, the description seems somewhat out of place in the article.— Ryūlóng ( 琉竜 ) 03:54, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't see why, because they have to keep secrets, and that would certainly be relevant.— Vchimpanzee  •  talk  •  contributions  •  15:38, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Because it's already established that the production company sequesters the losing teams.— Ryūlóng ( 琉竜 ) 16:45, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
 * You mean in the article I linked to above?— Vchimpanzee  •  talk  •  contributions  •  17:00, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Re:
By the way, unless they just simply let the auto-archiver do the work for them, removal of a message from a talk page implies that it had been read by its recipient. The reversion on my talk page was a little rude, and felt a little bitey.

Also, about my edits; I'm just trying to keep the article presentable, because I'm trying to get it into DYK. ViperSnake151  Talk  18:21, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Well I felt that your blanket removal was somewhat rude.— Ryūlóng ( 琉竜 ) 18:29, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
 * You conveniently forgot to acknowledge the part that says "This does not mean that edits must be reverted just because they were made by a banned editor (obviously helpful changes, such as fixing typos or undoing vandalism, can be allowed to stand)", although this section does not seem to address talk page postings. I consider supportive comments like that to be "obviously helpful" to my morale. Additionally, you claim this user is "banned", without providing any approve beyond a blind accusation. ViperSnake151   Talk  18:52, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
 * It wasn't "obviously helpful". It was an unwarranted and unbased personal attack on me because this guy is obsessed with me lately. He's repeatedly created a page in my userspace that's now protected from creation and he's been operating several dozen other accounts to harass other users. He just wants to get in the way and under my skin.— Ryūlóng ( 琉竜 ) 18:57, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Re: Five Nights
Think you could help me address these issues? We're trying to go for DYK. ViperSnake151  Talk  01:34, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Images
Understood.Teridax122 (talk) 03:11, 30 August 2014 (UTC)