User talk:Ryulong/Archive 14

Archive 10

←

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

→

Archive 20

Gekiranger

To ask, can we start using "Gekijuuken Beast Arts" yet? With Juuken in the series title, we should start considering stuff like that. Fractyl 01:36, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

No. We are using the proper translations for the schools and techniques. I was just waiting for the proper title written in English.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 01:39, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'm willing to keep the proper translations of techniques, except those that use "Geki or Rin" in them, but I think the schools should not count as long as the proper translation is made clear. Fractyl 01:44, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Go ask at WT:TOKU.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 01:49, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Did just that. In fact, here's how I thought was can do this...

• Gekijuuken Beast Arts (激獣拳ビーストアーツ, Gekijūken Bīsuto Ātsu, Firece Beast-Fist)
• Rinjuuken Akugata (臨獣拳アクガタ, Rinjūken Akugata, Confrontation Beast-Fist)

Fractyl 01:51, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't know yet. I think it's better to translate them. We're not using the half-translations of TV Nihon here.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 01:52, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the attacks used in the TV Nihon are in full-japanese. And though there are some attacks I like to keep japanese (like "Geki-Geki" Cannon and "Geki-Geki-Rin-Rin Slash"), I do have some full English translations, like "Come-Come Beast" or "Wave-Wave Slash", that follows the show's intended formula. Fractyl 01:58, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

I mean "Gekijyuken Beast Arts" and "Rinjyuken Akugata".—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 02:01, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

No way! If we're going to do it right, then we have to do it as "Gekijuuken Beast Arts", which is more accurate than "Gekijyuken Beast Arts". Fractyl 02:04, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

That's still a half-translation on our part. Like I said, I'm not sure if it should be done at this point.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 02:15, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, I think we still should as "Geki" and "Rin" are associated with both sides in many terms. Fractyl 02:25, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Like I said, I'm not sure right now.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 02:28, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Here's a example, added with a pun I failed to see.."先聖" is translated as "Sensei" in the sense of a "ancient sage" or "Confucius"

The Gekijuuken Beast Arts (激獣拳ビーストアーツ, Gekijūken Bīsuto Ātsu, Fierece Beast-Fist) is the school that represents the "Juuken of Justice" which the Gekirangers practice. It is founded by the legendary seven Kensei (拳聖, Kensei, Fist Saints, pun on "Sensei"), one of whom is mentor to the Gekirangers.

The Rinjuuken Akugata (臨獣拳アクガタ, Rinjūken Akugata, Confrontation Beast-Fist) is the school that represents the "Juuken of Evil" that gets energy from the suffering of others created by the Three Kenma (三拳魔, Sankenma, Fist Demons). The main school is known as the Rinjuu Hall (臨獣殿, Rinjūden), where all of the dead users are brought back to the world of the living. Fractyl 20:10, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Movie

The term you are to go with is Mechung Fu (銘功夫（メカンフー）, Mekanfū), a combinaton of the two words. Fractyl 22:11, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it's "Mechung Fu," unless I screwed up on the translation of 銘—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 23:43, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Apparently, you did. The term "Mechung Fu", refers to not only "Kung Fu(Kanfuu)" but "MECHa (Meka)" as well due to fact that its members are cyborgs and the Mekan'non giant robot. "メカ" is pronounced as Meka, which is translated as Mecha. Fractyl 03:05, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Okay. I'll revert myself.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 03:20, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Fine, I'll reattempt the Gekijuuken/Rinjuuken later when I have more back up in materials (Hopefully by lesson 39), but Kensei is now the new thing to bring up. It turns out Kensei is actually a pun on "Sensei"Fractyl 21:18, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Template

Hi, Ryulong. I cannot maintain alive the template Power Rangers, but you want, talk with Dodo, he want delete it. I cannot do nothing, Im sorry. Kamen Rider Nigo - (Can I help you?) 15:54, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Operation Overdrive

I replied to you at the talk page. --CmdrClow 21:03, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Kensei

You didn't object when I provided the Kensei info, saying "whatever" to give me the OK. Plus, I never said the Kanji were the same. 先聖 translates into Sensei in the terms of "Ancient Sage" or Confucius (Juuken did start in China, as well as the word Sensei itself). Furthermore, "Sensei" is a term used for a martial arts teacher worldwide. Fractyl 00:52, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Sensei (先生) is written with different kanji than Kensei (拳聖). "Whatever" was "I'm tired of this right now"—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 00:54, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Of course! Sensei can be translated in Kanji as 先生(Teacher) or 先聖 (Ancient Sage) yet share the same kana, furthering the pun's intent.

Kanji Search, Sensei Fractyl 01:05, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I doubt this right now. The common usage of sensei begets "teacher" which uses different kanji than "kensei" which is "Fist Saint" or "Fist Sage." "Sensei" meaning "Ancient Sage" is rarely used.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 01:08, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

You may doubt, but it's there: "拳聖" and "先聖"'s similarites make the pun, regardless of 先聖 being rarely used or not, it relates to the Kenseis' being ancient sages. Plus, Sage makes sense as the Kensei are sage-type characters. "聖" Fractyl 01:14, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

It's not the meaning of "Sensei" though.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 01:43, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

It is depending on which kanji of "Sensei" you refer to for meaning. In your case, you prefer the "先生" rather than the "先聖". But in my case, I refer to both: The Kensei being teachers AND sages. But I intend to research more on "先聖". Fractyl 01:56, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Range-blocked my IP

Hi there. You blocked a fairly large range of IPs, including mine (76.179.47.111). Once I logged in, I was able to edit (obviously), but I've had this IP for quite a while (it's an RR address in Maine) and haven't vandalized from it. Any chance you could fine-tune the block a bit? Thanks.--SarekOfVulcan 05:04, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I cannot recall the range.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 05:23, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Just logged out to check again: it's 76.179.32.0/19.--SarekOfVulcan 11:42, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Kamen Rider: The Next

A new magnazine article

Fractyl 18:15, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I'll look it over to see if there's anything of note.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 20:49, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Hello

I appreciate your trying to get the IP range block on SummerThunder. My regular account has personal information on it, so I've been using this one exclusively for ST sock fighting. Anyway, I noticed you listed this account's user page on a "protected from creation" list here [1], and I just wanted to let you know I was cool with that, as I don't intend to add other information re: this account. Best Regards, Inspector Lee 22:41, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

The revert

Thanks for doing that revert of vandalism to my user page! :) Acalamari 00:00, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

UMiamiLogo.gif

Holy heck, you work quickly. Thanks for saving me the need to tag it! --fuzzy510 04:25, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

:P—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 04:33, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Hello :)

Don't worry, i requested a block on that IP :) Giggity Giggity GOO! 04:45, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

And I just blocked it :/—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 04:47, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Hey

Do you mind adding a block message to accounts you've blocked? I just wasted my time twice in the last minute warning a vandal reported to WP:AIV that you had already blocked, and I imagine I'm not the only one. It only leads to duplication of effort. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 08:15, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, it's a busy night with some of these guys.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 08:22, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Page protection

Hi, there's been a lot of vandalism of your page from dynamic IPs. After a lot of reverting and blocking, I decided to semi-protect. I would have chosen 12 hours, except that I saw it was already fully protected from moves, and I was afraid that the expiry of the edit semi-protection would also mean expiry of the move protection. So I made it indefinite, and I leave it up to you to undo it whenever you find it necessary. Cheers. ElinorD (talk) 17:06, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 03:27, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikimeetup

I'm flying into Orlando for the weekend of August 17-19. I've asked Mike Haltermann (who is currently interning at the foundation HQ) to setup a meetup in Tampa that weekend. I remember seeing you couldn't make it to the NY meetup because you said you'd be back in Florida. Here's your chance to participate in one. Raul654 02:00, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Blocked user

Why is Pokemonleafgreen (talk · contribs) blocked? What makes you believe they're a disruptive sockpuppet? They have no contributions, so I'm a bit perplexed. Cheers! 18:12, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

It was caught in a sockpuppet search on an old Bobabobabo sockpuppet. It's definitely a disruptive sock.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 20:45, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Template:Blockedimpersonator

Hi! Could you explain why you believe the Blockedimpersonator template is unnecessary? It seems to me that it's a good idea to explain why an account is blocked... --Tango 00:18, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

It's one of the many split offs that were merged into {{indefblockeduser}} that were deprecated a while ago.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 00:21, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

If it was deprecated a while ago, why did you only redirect it a couple of days ago? Where did the discussion that decided to merge them take place? --Tango 11:44, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I only discovered it recently.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 20:48, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

And the discussion? Was there a TFD? --Tango 17:45, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't remember. I just know that a lot of templates were deprecated some time late last year. {{imposter}} was one of them.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 17:52, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

in re deletion of Category:Çankırı:

What about this: Category:Cankiri? --Homer Landskirty 20:15, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Still empty. Populate them first.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 20:18, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Hmm... I was just checking those "wrong categories" for entries I could bend to the "right category"... Then I found this red "right category" and wondered what to do... But I dont know how to populate it, because I have not the slightest idea, what "Cankiri" might be... Can u look at this, too, please: [2] --Homer Landskirty 20:29, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Jokenda

Jokenda (talk · contribs)

User's sole edits have been to edit userpage, and when I prodded it a couple of days ago he just removed it (four horus ago). Clearly this person is bent on keeping this user page, so I was wondering – would it be more appropriate to MFD it now or wait a couple of weeks in hopes that Jokenda will start contributing to the encyclopedia? hbdragon88 20:16, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I've deleted it outright.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 20:19, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Recreated. May I suggest salting? hbdragon88 21:17, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I've found my own solution.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 21:20, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Iwashington

You may want to consider extending his 31-hour block to indef--it turns out his userpage was a blatant copyvio of http://members.tripod.com/~foxielady/index.html. Blueboy96 12:27, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

FWIW, this user has returned as User:Iwashington2. Therefore 09:34, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Changing of the Zords

Just a quick query as to why this episode was deleted? I would have thought that the aim of this site would be to eventually have a page for all the episodes with a description, and I would hardly call CotZ an unimportant episode. If you could just clarify for me, then I know if I should bother adding details for any future episodes or not - MiChaos 12:50, 8 July 2007 (UTC).

Episodes need to contain more than a summary of what happened. You need to show that it had some sort of real world impact or have more than just an impact on the show itself. Look at episode articles for other series. The aim of Wikipedia is not to have a page for all episodes of a series. We're not a TV Guide you can edit. We're an encyclopedia.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 20:39, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

In which case why does any Power Ranger episode page exist? I don't recall Green with Evil or King for a Day having any real-world impact. I've seen quite a few TV shows on Wikipedia which have pages for many episodes, most with just a summary and trivia sections. I'm not bitter about a page being deleted (sorry if this sounds like I am), I'm merely curious why some episodes have summaries and others don't? What guidance do I need to follow if I want to create a page on an episode and not have it deleted, wasting both of our time and effort? Thanks. - MiChaos 21:10, 8 July 2007 (UTC).

Go to WP:EPISODE (or whatever it is) and ask there. I'm just sure that "Changing of the Zords" is not a major point in Power Rangers.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 21:39, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I'm still confused why some episodes have been added as I would hardly call them having any out-of-universe impact (except maybe Day of the Dumpster or maybe Countdown to Destruction) but to be safe I'll just stick to editing existing pages for now until I know more about Wikipedia's policies. Thanks for your help. - MiChaos 22:34, 8 July 2007 (UTC).

User:Ryulong/YGOPTL

Hi, I want to know whether is there some talkpage for determining links listed at your User:Ryulong/YGOPTL, thanks --Andersmusician VOTE 02:05, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

It's a personal list. I don't see anything wrong with it.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 03:23, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

One more question, has the uploader of those images reuploaded them again after being deleted?, I just want to know more why many were deleted --Andersmusician VOTE 04:47, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

The user in question is banned from Wikipedia. The images are there because she repeatedly uploaded them.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 04:53, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

All right thanks. BTW: nice equation you did here: User:Ryulong/Clock, I'm copying it to my userspace. --Andersmusician VOTE 00:53, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Not Sure What It Was About

But you should probably be aware of this: User talk:69.225.26.14. -WarthogDemon 05:22, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

That's SummerThunder.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 05:37, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

A member of Wikipedia's Most Wanted, eh? I'm glad I could help. -WarthogDemon 05:47, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Clock

Hello. Can I just say that I really like the clock on your Talk pages - very impressive! May I use it on my own User page? —gorgan_almighty 11:31, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, copy and alter the code as you please—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 01:11, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

English language

Hi, back in May you semiprotected English language indefinitely. Was there any discussion where it was agreed that, like George W. Bush, English language should be one of the pages indefinitely semiprotected? If not, I'd like to unprotect it if you don't object. —Angr 19:52, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

It was probably a result to Colbert vandalism.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 21:01, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Rangeblock of 64.231.64.0/18

There's an unblock request up at User talk:64.231.70.47. Thought you might like to comment. On a side note, it is so aggravating to find when there's a rangeblock in place: at least it was clear there was one because your summary said you were blocking a range. I notice you do a fair number of them and I was thinking: would it be much trouble to include the IP range in the block summary? That way in a request like this, the block can be found right away. Mangojuice^talk 20:04, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I will do so in the future. I believe that the individual I was preventing abuse in question is the individual who was vandalizing articles such as Haim Saban (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and Shuki Levy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (you can see several edits from this range in question). And with range blocks, I believe you can lift individual IP blocks.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 21:03, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

• On a related note, Symphony Girl (talk · contribs) is getting auto-blocked by the 70.85.0.0/16 rangeblock. Do you have any strong objections to a softblock on that range with account creation disabled?--Isotope23 20:16, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

  That range is a hosting range from ThePlanet.com. No one should be editting out of hosting servers. Symphony Girl is probably using some sort of proxy, open or closed, to connect.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 21:01, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

CAT:AOR

Now that you have added yourself, it really would be a good idea to spell out the terms of your pledge. Must have certainty in this crucial matter for personal protection. -- Y not? 04:08, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I'll figure that out in a bit.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 04:51, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Gekiranger: Energy

I though Geki, Rinki, & Kageki were acceptable! Fractyl 04:26, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I changed my mind.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 04:27, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

You can't just do it like that. The names were better left untranslated, expecially Geki. You could had brought it up to see if anyone would agree to it or not. Fractyl 04:42, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

It's the proper translation.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 04:42, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Maybe, but "Geki" was a intended pun on both the "proper translation" and the team name. Fractyl 04:58, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Where the hell do you get these "pun" things? It's not a "pun" when the words are the same in the source language.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 04:59, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

That's easy, research. It still is a pun, the first kanji of "Ge-ki"(Fierce Chi) has the same meaning as "Geki" (Firece), but is written as "Ge" and put together with "Ki" to create the same word it originated for. Fractyl 15:04, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Then give me a textual source. I still don't believe the "Let's run and jump" thing.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 17:54, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, GekiViolet's appearence changes the group pun by one word. Fractyl 01:45, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

...—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 01:52, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Acording to Dukemon, GekiViolet's name is to be "Gou". Furthermore, he just learned from this page that GekiViolet uses a "kick boxing" style.

[3] Fractyl 04:46, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I'll see what I can glean.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 05:05, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Jack Cox

Just FYI. This was right aftr his previous WP:CIVIL block expired.—Chowbok ☠ 07:29, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

A bit late, isn't it?—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 07:32, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of songs about masturbation (4th nomination)

Why did you close this AFD? The original closer wanted it re-opened, the AFD was not listed correctly. See the AN/I thread. --W.marsh 18:37, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

It's had nearly two weeks to reach consensus. If you feel that the close is improper, go to WP:DRV—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 18:39, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Please read the AN/I thread, it was never listed properly at AFD so the consensus was invalid, since only a skewed set of people could see the AFD. I'd like to avoid DRV but I will take it there... I was hoping you could be reasonable. --W.marsh 18:42, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Do you disagree with the result?—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 18:44, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Or do you simply feel that process needs to be completed?—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 18:46, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't feel that we need process just for the sake of it... I honestly don't know what the consensus would look like with 5 days of proper listing at AFD. If I did I wouldn't be insisting. --W.marsh 18:48, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

What about the 11 days (July 4 to 15) it had already?—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 18:49, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

It was only linked to from the article page, which means only people who had it watchlisted or surfed to that article saw the AFD. This is problematic for what should be obvious reasons, the community should be reasonably notified that an article is at AFD... and it's not practical to watch all 1.8 million articles to know which ones are at AFD. Listing at AFD for 5 days is needed for an AFD to be fully valid, if the result is contentious (the past AFDs make this contentious). --W.marsh 18:51, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

It was also on ANI. In what little time the article did have listed in various places, a consensus was reached.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 19:06, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

AFDs often can change wildly from the first few hours of it being listed properly to the normal conclusion of the AFD. --W.marsh 19:10, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Well it's at DRV now. --W.marsh 19:53, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Okay.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 19:57, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Change of license on contributions.

Greetings,

I am withdrawing the licensing of all of my major contributions to Wikipedia. I no longer support GDFL and can no longer in good conscience allow the use of my works on this site. I am claiming my contributions solely under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 License. Further details can be ascertained by contacting me directly via e-mail at minimoniotaku@gmail.com. Hav a nice day,

CJ Marsicano 18:52, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

You cannot withdraw the licensing of your contributions. You cannot cancel an edit under the GFDL.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 18:55, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

OK, chief...

I've given the "temporary" GFDL license notice on my page where my protest withdrawal was (a further multi-license under CC will come later).

One more favor I ask: Can you locate for me whichever links/pages there are regarding the Foundation's decision on image policy change for my future reference, as well as where to go to properly discuss revising policies and for trying to get exceptions/clearances/whatever for what WP:H!P is still trying to do? Thanks in advance. CJ Marsicano 20:26, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

It's somewhere on meta. I'll try and find it in a bit.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 20:27, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

March 23rd, 2007 Wikimedia Foundation Licensing policy resolution—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 20:30, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. --Ceej 20:50, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Sieg stuff

I know that the Heisei movies are supposed to exist in a different timeline and storyline, but this month's episodes are kinda derailing that (I don't know what went on with Kabuto last year at this time, but the continuity this year seems to be blending together).—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 23:07, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Thats what we thought with Kabuto too. Look what happened. Keep it seperate until we know. Then we can add tidbits about each character and their roles in the movies as such. Even then, there are spaces on the movie article for it. Thats why its not mixed with the main articles. Guessing whether they tie in or not would be OR.Floria L 23:10, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Was there really a lot of it with Kabuto? The Kabutech users and other items being billed as movie-exclusives appearing in the series?—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 23:16, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Everyone thought, OMG LOOK, TENDOU GAVE THE BELT TO HIMSELF. Up to that point, there was no real declaration of movie relation to the series, but with that tidbit, everyone believed it so. Then, later, we realize in the series, Native father gives him the belt, utterly destroying any hopes of continuity. Same with Hibiki, different ways of acquiring the armed saber.

For now, I suggest we write information into the movie article about the characters that will play larger roles in the movie, like such. Floria L 23:19, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

What about a separate paragraph once we get actual plot details on the movie, (especially for someone like Sieg who was billed as movie-only, but appeared in the show regardless)?—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 23:22, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough, for those characters who appear to have larger roles in the movie than they've actually done in the show. Floria L 23:26, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, now I have to figure out what to do with Rick lay95 (talk · contribs). He has a tendency to upload fair use images and not say anything else about them. Apparently, Jetix put the Once a Ranger episode up, and he put up a screencap that can be seen here right now (and the Jungle Fury logo).—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 23:32, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

That was unfair

You reverted the Villians in Power Rangers: Operation Overdrive section back to its outdated form and Once a Ranger is at jetix's page and the page needs updating and I fixed the credits for my miratrix and Thrax photos. I wasn't vandalzing the pages I was trying to update them and I feel hurt when stuff I add on is removed for no reason. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RedLifeguardRanger (talk • contribs)

The detail added just for one episode is highly unnecessary. Character biographies are not plot summaries. Secondly, you are not giving proper fair use rationales. Please read WP:FURG.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 01:19, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Petition to unblock User:KillerPlasmodium

I believe that you have been clouded by personal reasons and convinced by a group of extreme leftists who find KillerPlasmodium's political beliefs to be intolerable despite his having references to support what he has written in the articles. He is an example of a common American with beliefs engendered by the majority of Americans, and thus he will bring a semblance of neutrality to many of the most biased liberalist articles. Gold Nitrate 03:35, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

No, he was being a complete and utter dick, and I used my discretion to block him for being a complete and utter dick.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 03:42, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Suspected Sock puppet

Im not really sure how to report a suspected sock puppet...so im asking you! heh the user BongwarriorSupportsDrugAbuse1 recently vandalized Savie Kumara's Userpage and talk page quite a few times. I noticed if you go to User talk:Bongwarriorsupportsdrugabuse the user has been blocked and is a suspected sock puppet. How does one go about reporting them? oh btw thanks for the block of 69.225.26.130 that guy was an idiot. :) ✬Dillard421✬ ^{(talk • contribs)} 06:13, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Um, try WP:RFCU—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 06:14, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks ..DOh >.< i should have just searched...x.x ✬Dillard421✬ ^{(talk • contribs)} 06:18, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

ANI

I'm more than happy to examine the hard evidence that an IP address used by Tor is a banned user.--Rambutan (talk) 06:59, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

If it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck...—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 06:59, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I would like to complain of your actions, and if you don't respond suitably, I shall bring it to wider attention. All I could see was a user deleting reasonable requests from ANI with edit summaries like "rv kuntan". I reverted, obviously. When I asked what kuntan meant, he said that the Tor IP was a sock of a banned user. I said that I would continue reverting until he provided evidence. I said the same to you. When some moderately convincing evidence was left on my talkpage by another user, I stopped reverting. The reason I didn't find WP:DUCK satisfactory was that I didn't feel he behaved like a banned user, since I had never encountered the user in question. In order for the whole world to apply DUCK, we need to know what a DUCK is. I await your reply.--Rambutan (talk) 06:56, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Banned users like to inflame disputes they had with the administrator who caused the ban. Blnguyen was the one being inflamed and frankly knows when the duck is quacking. And frankly, only people who are banned or blocked previously use TOR IPs to edit Wikipedia and bring up random instances that occured during the ban. I blocked you for only three hours because you were edit warring and I thought that length would get your attention to stop. There is nothing to complain about any more.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 07:00, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

OK, then I'll move my complaint to the noticeboard. You see, unless Blnguyen explained to the community how he recognised duck-like swimming, how's anyone supposed to know if he's acting in good faith, or even correctly? Now, I think you'll find that Tor is used by people under oppressive regimes who want to remain private (there are several Wikipedia: namespace articles apologising to citizens of mainland China for the fact that Tor is blocked here). So since you're being rather lame about this whole incident, it's going to WP:AN.--Rambutan (talk) 07:03, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I know when I see banned users. I've had to deal with around 3 in my year on Wikipedia. There's nothing else to exacerbate in this situation. And I know that no one in China was bothering Blnguyen or myself yesterday. In that situation, TOR was being used abusively, and the banned user who was using those TOR nodes was dealt with.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 07:05, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

If only two users know when they see Kuntan, they must explain. You are really stupid if you can't understand this simple issue.--Rambutan (talk) 07:07, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

If you're not sure who the banned user is, then you shouldn't intervene.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 07:35, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

It's still polite to provide evidence.--Rambutan (talk) 07:35, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

You shouldn't have been edit warring at all.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 07:37, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

If I ask for evidence, and instead of providing it, the askee continues edit warring (which he was doing), then it shows poor faith.--Rambutan (talk) 07:38, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

It's even worse to edit war.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 07:39, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

No it isn't. I considered what he did vandalism. That's why I wasn't blocked for 3RR.--Rambutan (talk) 07:42, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not discussing it with you any more. Have a nice time making other peoples' lives a misery.--Rambutan (talk) 07:42, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

But I did block you for 3RR, essentially.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 07:42, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Merkey

I just wanted to let you know that I agree with your assessment regarding Merkey. It seems that like a few others, (four teen AfDs??? for example), Merkey's under the special protection of Jimbo, and untouchable by Wikiprocess. I find this incredibly frustrating. I'm especially furious that Merkey's response is to apparently go off wiki and claim that I'm a 'SCOX troll'. (imagine my embarrassment at finding that this isn't an attack on my scottish heritage, but a stupid Yahoo message board.) And THAT revelation makes me wonder why Wikipedia's bothering to waste any fuckin time dealin with an OFF-Wiki Flame war? This is absurd. Block him, and fast. Anyways, I agree. I posted it at the AN/I too, but I doubt it'll help. ThuranX 03:03, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

There's a page with your name on it.

What I mean by this is that there is an article that is in serious need of conforming to the standards that you hold dearly. You can find that article here. It seems to me that people over at RangerBoard have taken one of it's members postings as fact. (Although in his or her defense, this member is responsible for confirming that Adam Park, Tori, Kira, Bridge Carson, and Xander Bly would appear on it) I figured you have done such a good job in maintaining the quality of the Toku related articles, this should be a walk in the "Adam Park" for you. So if you could help in fixing it, I would be most appreciative.

Thank you very much. スミス ナサニアル 05:18, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

That's actually entirely true. There was a release of the particular episode where all of that happens on the Jetix Website, so whatever information is there is proper. Check Once a Ranger.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 05:42, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

What I mean is that someone has put in the article that the person Adam was going to get was Alpha. I haven't heard any official, third party statement declaring it to be so. The only place I've heard it from is from "the light." I think that is the same as taking Dukemon's rumors to be true. Also, the phrase, "current rumors say this," and "current rumors say that" have been used, and last time I checked, Wikipedia wasn't about speculation and rumors. I understand the statements that came from the first half of the teamup are indeed correct, the problem I have is statements from the second half which hasn't premiered anywhere yet. Anyway, thank you for responding.

スミス ナサニアル 13:31, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh, well, that may be true. I haven't watched the episode yet.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 20:56, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Unblock of IP

Thanks. This is the second time this has happened in a week; is there a better place to comment about collateral damage than ANI? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:43, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

AFD that needs a category removed

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of songs about masturbation (4th nomination) still contains the template {{REMOVE THIS TEMPLATE WHEN CLOSING THIS AfD}}, so it's still being placed into a category of AfD debates that aren't sorted. Since the AfD has been closed, the template should be whacked, but the page is now protected. Could you do the honors? Thanks. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 00:56, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Template

Re Template:List of Anime Ep TV

"That edit removes the line color parameter for lists that have summaries, though."

Really? Shows up fine for me. Sorry for the confusion, I'll smack it around in the sandbox till I can get it right. -- Ned Scott 01:23, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, I use it at List of Gekiranger episodes and List of Kamen Rider Den-O episodes. The color disappeared there when you performed that edit. I don't know if it's because of the section headers, though.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 01:24, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Ooh, I see now. *smacks forehead* -- Ned Scott 01:26, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

What we could use is a decent medium, or at least input a way for navigability ({{Japanese episode list}} doesn't allow for the method {{List of Anime Ep TV}} does).—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 01:29, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Ashnard smiles at you.

Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Unblock question

Hey Ryulong, I was just checking out the unblock request for User:ZordZapper. I noticed in the block log that you mention a "possible sock puppet." Is there evidence of that, or is it a gut feeling? Just checking, because I am considering unblocking (based on the vandalism block, and an expressed desire to be a real contributer to the encyclopedia), and I did not want to do so without checking in with you. Pastordavid 16:29, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Gut feeling. The user is a vandalism only account, too.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 21:00, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

(moving to the bottom, I hope you don't mind) Hi, this unblock is still pending. Care to either decline or grant the request? My guts tell me that since he is now looking for adoption, we might give him an other chance. Anyway the autoblock is long gone so if he wants to create an other account, he can. If he remains on that one we got some more contribs history. As a side note, you might want to reconsider blocking the e-mail function if there is no abuse yet, since it's one of the suggested ways to contact an admin. This user just stayed here for a week with no options. -- lucasbfr ^talk 17:05, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, the sockpuppetry wasn't the primary cause of blocking. The edits to other pages were the reasons for the block. Go through his article edits and see why I blocked him.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 21:03, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

page move

i recently moved a page called The MARK of the Quad Cities to i wireless Center, cause the name of the arena changed. is there a way to go through and make sure all pages with the first name, are automatically changed to the current name, without having to manually do it? Thanks, Ctjf83 00:26, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

It has to be manually done.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 00:32, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Canvassing

I didn't realize that inviting editors to review something they had an interest in was against policy. My reading of Wikipedia:Canvassing doesn't convince me you are right. In any case, I won't ask any more of the concerned editors to contribute. Lentower 04:04, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

It's just something that's questionable. This thing does not need to be sent to a sixth AFD or another DRV if consensus is skewed or whatnot.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 04:05, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Looking over the list of those you notified (though only in a cursory fashion) it seemed to me that you were only notifying those that indicated that the article should be kept. Is this accurate? --Eyrian 12:43, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

It's still an issue, and take this to his talk page.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 20:51, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Indefinite blocks

In the past hour or so you blocked two accounts indefinitely that appeared to be editing in good faith: User:Xterra1 and User:Civilwarguy. The former had been making a number of typo fixes before he left a foolish comment on your user talk page, but you blocked citing, "Vandalism only account," which was simply false. The latter appeared to be a newbie creating a page about a relation who served in the Civil War or something, but you blocked indefinitely citing a hoax without leaving that user any sort of warning. I'd just like to urge you to keep in mind WP:AGF, WP:BITE, and our blocking policy. Andre (talk) 04:57, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

The latter was most definitely hoaxing (google shows nothing). The former is still questionable.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 05:07, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Um, let me point out that Xterra1 had no vandal edits, so it is not a matter of debate whether it was a vandal account or not. I think you should apologize to that user, who I imagine is going to feel quite severely bitten if you don't. Everyking 05:42, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

If Xterra1 requests an unblocking, I will not question his unblocking. I just saw a strange edit from him on my talk.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 05:45, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Andrevan already unblocked Xterra. Everyking 05:49, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

And I won't be reblocking.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 05:51, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

That's good. But the point is that you blocked in the first place, apparently without even looking at the account's edits, based on a "strange" comment on your talk admonishing you for some comment you're supposed to have made. Don't you think there's something wrong with that? Everyking 05:56, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I get harassed by sockpuppets all the time. I thought the user in question was one of them.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 06:20, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I think something's seriously wrong with the way you've handled the Xterra1 situation. You're right that the Civilwarguy article and picture look really fake, and I'm not here to advocate leniency for hoaxers, so I'll pick my battles about that one. But there's no way you should have blocked Xterra1, there is NO way you should have blocked him forever, and there is CERTAINLY no way you should be standing by that block now that two users have called it to your attention and expressed disapproval. I don't mean to "shout" or be overly forceful, but I think this kind of behavior is a huge problem and goes way beyond an admin's mandate from the community. Andre (talk) 08:39, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I was second guessing myself with Xterra1 immediately after I had blocked him. I discussed the matter privately with another administrator, and after that discussion I decided that if Xterra1 were to be unblocked, I wouldn't fight it. However, Civilwarguy was brought up separately, and after a quick google search that showed no results, I blocked for hoaxing.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 08:58, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand why you haven't yet apologized to this user. Andre (talk) 16:09, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I do not see why it is imperative that I do.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 20:51, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Because when you violate WP:BITE, you apologize. That's the civil thing to do. Andre (talk) 22:26, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I've blocked him again for harassing me. I've nothing to apologize for now.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 22:27, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I've unblocked him. This is ridiculous - you are far from impartial. I think Andre is right - this could have been avoided if you'd apologise. Your original block was in violation of WP:BITE and WP:BLOCK and you seem to have acknowledge it was a mistake. When we screw up we apologise, no big deal. The user wouldn't have come round here to object to your conduct had you apologised. I still think you should do so though I will ask him to stop posting to your page. Your conduct in this matter has been unbelievable. WjBscribe 22:31, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I completely agree. Andre (talk) 22:34, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I removed it, indirectly asking him to change his tone. Right now, I'm working on an article. And I should hope I am not right at a checkuser request I have placed.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 22:45, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Surprised you'd delete a polite comment from a fellow admin. The Rambling Man 23:18, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't sure if it was related to the IP's comments or just a comment from one admin to another. I apologize.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 23:19, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

No bother. I can see this situation getting out of hand so all I'd suggest is a moment of contemplation. Cheers. The Rambling Man 23:20, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Right.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 23:22, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Many thanks

Thanks for the revert to my talk page. I see the anon has been given 72 hours to ponder the answer to the question as to why I reverted their edit to WP:V! Cheers, Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 07:22, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Not if he keeps coming back on new IPs. I really don't want to block Auckland. I may have already pissed off Toronto tonight.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 07:29, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Undelete

Hi, I would like you to undelete the Brier logos you deleted, and place this rationale on their pages:

Though this image is subject to copyright, I feel its use is covered by the U.S. fair use laws because:

• The image is only being used for informational purposes.
• The image adds significantly to the Brier XXXX article because it is used to identify the subject of the article.
• No free equivalent is available or could be created since this is a copyrighted logo.

Thanks, -- Earl Andrew - talk 08:04, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

You are free to reupload them and add that yourself.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 08:06, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Recall

I do like you as an editor, but I been looking though logs and I seen many situations of WP:BITE, and the way you handled the User:Xterra1 situation is the final straw. The main reason why you passed your RFA is because you promised to stop biting the newbies, in which you did, but lately it been out of control. I ask you to step down. Thanks Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 23:27, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I do not see this as an issue right now that requires any removal of administrative privileges.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 23:28, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Lets see if four other editors in good faith agrees, there is many invalid blocks you did in the past week alone. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 23:30, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Jaranda. I think you do a lot of good work here, but recent events and your unwillingness to apologize for admitted wrongdoing are very worrisome. You should endeavor to make far-reaching changes to your demeanor and behavior, or step down. In the future, I am sure the community will support a new RfA once you've shown you will not repeat the same mistakes. Andre (talk) 23:31, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

While it's unpleasant, I'd like to be the second(ec) third editor to request your recall. Nothing personal, but your handling of some of these recent issues seems worthy of further discussion. It is without prejudice that I add this request, I hope that open, transparent discussion clears the situation up. All the best. The Rambling Man 23:33, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Here's my problem with this recall business. It's a bit vague. I mean. Ryulong isn't undergoing an active Request for Comment. Or any other Request for X that I can see in regards to his behavior. As admins, we do alot of controversial work. It just doesn't take much to alarm 5 other users. Yes, I realize that Ryulong opened himself up to recall voluntarily. But I'd like to see some sort of formal action outside of "hey, you should step down". Does his actions warrant a AN or AN/I discussion? Probably. But just asking him to step down without really any discussion specifically regarding his recall is a little overboard to me. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 23:41, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

While I respect your work in general, Ryu, some of these recent blocks have been troubling. I disagree that this isn't an issue. I don't want you hounded off the project, or even deadminned, but a reexamination is in order. I'm not requesting your recall at this point, but to my mind more of an answer is in order. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 23:36, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry Ryulong, I agree with Jaranda, Andre and The Rambling Man. You have continued to show the failings that resulted in the heavy opposition to your RfA. You bite newbies, generally don't give warnings and shoot first. You assume the very worst of new editors and the consequences are bad for the Wiki when you do so. Your failures to apologise when you have been wrong only compound this. You are highly active and most of your admin actions are correct, however the number of mistakes are way too high - many of which we will never know about because editors just give up editing the project. This a collaborative project based on a community. You are way too ready to jump to block and deletion before trying other softer options and in my opinion that can only harm the project. I had hoped given the circumstances of your RfA you would show extra caution but you have not done so and in my opinion are becoming increasingly cavalier as time has passed. If you are not willing to undertake a radical change in your conduct to address these problems, I also believe you should step down. WjBscribe 23:38, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I've been working on articles and some non Wikipedia things. I've apologized to Xterra1, but the IP user's constant repostings was wearing on my nerves (as were Xterra1's). I'm willing to work on my "bedside" manner.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 23:42, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Bedside manner and the trigger-happiness? Questions asked and warnings given before blocks in future? WjBscribe 23:44, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Indeed.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 23:44, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

OK. In that case I think recall's unnecessary at this stage. You do achieve a lot on the "front line" of dealing with abusive editors and I'm sure its easy to lose focus. Hopefully a more cautious approach in future will avoid these issues coming up again. And I appreciate the fact you apologised to Xterra1. WjBscribe 23:50, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I'm glad you apologized to Xterra. I'll take a step back on the recall thing for a while, and provided you take our criticisms seriously and work on them, we won't need to bring it up again. Andre (talk) 23:50, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Just no more blocks that violate WP:BITE, consider this recall closed, and I hope you learn your lesson. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 23:55, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I'll try to pay attention to such incidents.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 23:57, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

And if you need any guidance or assistance, let me know. You don't have to tackle it all alone if you aren't up to it for whatever reason. I know how stressful vandal fighting can be. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 11:06, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I'll second that sentiment. The Rambling Man 11:23, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I took some heat in Jreferee RfA #1 for your March 15, 2007 indefinite block. I have no opinion of whether the indefinite block was right or wrong, but just thought that you may want to know. Of course, my AN/I post, my sparring with a well respected user early in my Wikipedia career, and the six RfA oppose sock !votes by Runcorn didn't help my RfA #1. However, in the end, everything worked out for the best. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 23:17, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Kamen Rider

Ah ok. I admit that I'm not real familiar with it. I will say that I made 500 edits last night involving template candidates. Screwing up on 6 ain't bad. :) --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 23:34, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, it was in a manga, but the primacy of the templates were not serialized as such (as far as I know).—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 23:54, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Ah ok. As for "Ranger". :) I think I put the Power Rangers templates under children's tv (article said it was considered children's tv) and sci fi. Think that's right. It's fuzzy on some of these. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 09:14, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Well {{Gekiranger}}, {{Boukenger}}, etc. aren't anime or manga.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 09:15, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Yep. Just saw that I had misunderstood. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 09:16, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

10 wrong out of 500 isn't bad, though :P—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 09:18, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

And it's more than that now. :) I deserve a cookie. :) Got Category:Television show navigational boxes from 400+ articles down to about 40 in about 24 hours. And created many subcats. And unfortunately, lots of work to go. Alai did a database dump and discovered thousands and thousands of templates with no cat on them. Page is so long that it makes my Firefox crash. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 09:23, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Re:User:Grandya Logan

I noticed you filed a sockpuppet report for this user and I thought you should know that User:Grandva Logan(temp blocked user) was editing the same articles yesterday until they got blocked. I thought that it wasn't just a coincidence in the names( obviously the user made another account but slightly edited the name) but the article List of Darkwing Duck episodes they are editing. If you look at the edit history of this article, you will notice User:Grandya Logan and User:Grandva Logan made the exact same edits (simply reverting the last edit). Angel Of Sadness ^T/C 23:51, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

So, is it Danny Daniel or is it just Grandva Logan?—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 23:55, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I think Grandva Logan could be yet another sock of Daniel like Grandya. I mean the edits and names between them aren't just a coincidence. Angel Of Sadness ^T/C 00:01, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

But the issue is, should Grandva be reblocked for block evasion or should he be reblocked as a Danny Daniel sock?—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 00:06, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Blocked first for block evasion for definate. But if it turns out that they're all the same person reblock as Danny Daniel sock. Currently Grandya isn't blocked just accused of sockpupppetry, as you know. That's the sock trying to get away. Angel Of Sadness ^T/C 00:12, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Uhh, your edit count on your userpage...?

Hey! You didn't make 58000 edits! Or did you use another edit count tool? -- Altiris Exeunt 01:42, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I knew it was coming up, but I didn't check that in a while.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 01:47, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Template: Power Rangers

Hi, Ryulong. I have bad news: the Template:Power Rangers, in the Spanish Wikipedia was deleted. I will try to reconstruct it, although I fear that it is deleted again. Kamen Rider Nigo (Can I help you?) 13:26, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Im Sorry, but I can´t recontruct the template. Kamen Rider Nigo (Can I help you?) 15:32, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

That's okay. Also, you can link to your pages at es like I do with my English pages there.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 20:51, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

WP:POKE is doing some housecleaning

This notice is to inform you that because many people have added their names to Wikipedia:WikiProject Pokémon#Participants but do not seem to be active, all names are being deleted in an effort to find out who is still truly interested in the project. All you have to do is re-add your name if you'd still like to be considered a member of WP:POKE. Any questions, you can contact me on my talk page. -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 17:45, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

That's really pointless.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 18:31, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

YourLord

By any chance, will the lack of warnings to editors that have been banned nullify their conviction? User: YourLord is still blocked, even though he has showed remorse for his actions and has actively tried to relieve his block. Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 18:50, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

No. YourLord could have requested an unblock, but he did not and instead the two of you spent your time chatting on his talk page. I was notified of this and took the proper action. YourLord was recreating content that had been deleted many times before. There is no reason he should be unblocked after this short lived action. If you are still in contact with him, you can tell him to contact a proper channel.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 18:58, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Yet again, you digress from my main point. You never gave him a warning — which is my main point. He did try and appeal the block. He tried the channel that you suggested but it was ignored. I was overlooking your talk page and noticed maybe there was an injustice considering your previous conduct. No, I'm not still in contact with him. Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 19:03, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Furthermore, as mentioned above, you:

a) Didn't provide a warning

b) Were overly harsh (WP:BITE) on a new user

c) An all-new category — led him down an appealing avenue that is malfunctioning/inactive/incompetent.

Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 19:36, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

YourLord was violating policy, and those categories that he had created had been deleted. My block reasoning was spelled out completely. If he wanted to be unblocked, he should have used {{unblock}} which is explicitly spelled out on the page when you are blocked but try to edit. Instead, he used his talk page to chat with you, which is against policy. I told you a while ago that if you are still in contact with him, tell him to e-mail mail:unblock-en-l and they will deal with it. I gave him two months to request that himself through the venues I have explained here, but you are the only one I have seen actively calling for his unblocking. If YourLord wants to be unblocked, he can ask other administrators.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 19:45, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Hmph. To clarify, I haven't called for him to be unblocked here. I've asked about the lack of warning, plus the e-mail thing which was ignored. You haven't responded on either. He was violating policy. Talking with me was violating policy (which I regret). I feel that this discussion isn't going anywhere. This wasn't just a sporadic appeal for YourLord (or an appeal at all). I was just wondering about how the issues raised by the admins above relates to YourLord. Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 20:05, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

The short thing is that they may, but there is no retroactive action going to take place.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 20:07, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, I wish you well over this admin thing. Maybe it's a blessing in disguise and you'll become a better admin out of it (no sarcasm intended). Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 20:15, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Don't count on this. There was a lot of similar cases in the past, and it seems Ryulong is not able to positively change his abuisve behaviour, apparently... 82.80.248.176 22:40, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Mighty Morphin Power Rangers The Movie

Are you going to be unlocking the page for Mighty Morphin Power Rangers: The Movie anytime soon? I was going to help take care of some of the trivia by adding some additional sections. One of which would be Adaptation In Other Media which would be for the mentioned video games and comic adaptation. 71.115.195.228 06:52, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

WP:ATRIV, and there are still issues with an editor who has blanked that page in the past.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 07:21, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Which is why I was looking to edit the trivia. I thought up three sections that would remedy it, such as:

• Behind The Scenes
• Adaptations In Other Media
• Changes to the Title

Any idea when you would lift the block? 71.115.195.228 08:05, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 09:01, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Den-O vs. Shin-O

Seeing some of the pics, it's clear that we got a "Monkey Imagin" as a villian.Fractyl 20:20, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't see anything like that. It's written in kanji that I haven't been able to really decipher yet. It's Shin-chan's mother as the Imagin.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 21:24, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Where are these pics? Maybe I can help decipher them. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 07:22, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I'll try to find them. I know that I saw it written as "Sandenban" or something in katakana. I'm not sure on that.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 07:49, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Ah, it's サンダンバライマジン. I'll see if I can get the kanji that I saw for it.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 07:51, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

三段腹イマジン—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 07:52, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I got "サンダンバライマジン=Sandanhara Imajin". Fractyl 08:07, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, but that means "Three-Leveled Ass Imagin".—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 08:09, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Red Ranger article image...

Ahem, I noticed you reverted my edit earlier, wherein I changed the image of the Red Turbo Ranger, to one of the 10 Red Rangers of Forever Red (which couldn't be more fitting, if you ask me, but regardless). If you don't feel like using that image, fine, but at least use an image of a Red Ranger that was a bit more influential. Tommy's portrayal as the Red Turbo Ranger was arguably his least memorable form, he played a much more significant role as Zeo Ranger V - Red. And T.J. wasn't exactly the greatest Red Ranger in the world. But beyond that, the image itself, while a cool pose, isn't of very high quality; it's relatively degraded, in fact.

My point being... if you want to use a different image than the one I added, then use one of Andros, or Tommy, or something in that general area. Personally this image strikes me as perfect for that particular article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Redzeotommy.jpg It's memorable, of high quality, and so on. --156.34.78.91 02:38, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Quality is not a question, rather the usability of the image. We don't need to show every Red Ranger to describe what one is. We just need a singular picture, and the Red Turbo Ranger image fulfills this and has the proper rationale on its image page.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 03:12, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

True, true. However as important as usability is, is presentation not a concern as well? It may not be of the largest importance, but having an article look nice via the images within said article should also be a factor. If nothing else, perhaps we can find a higher quality (but still low enough for Wikipedia, obviously) image for the article. An image to strike the proper balance, if you will. As which Red Ranger is used doesn't really matter, I'm going to change the image to Zeo Ranger V - Red, as it has a nicer level of visual quality. --156.34.78.97 20:25, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Visual quality is not really something we're looking for either. It's encyclopedic value and I was trying to avoid using the same character or season for all of the pages (Tommy as the Black Ranger in Dino Thunder is on Black Ranger).—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 20:57, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Hm, you have a good point there. But couldn't Turbo Red be taken as Tommy as well? By the way, I've been trying to track down a better quality image of the Red Turbo Ranger, it's surprisingly difficult.

Wait a minute, what the hell? Why are you reverting all of my edits? The yellow mystic force image is AWFUL. It's compeltely degraded and has the the Jetix watermark for god's sake! And not only that, but yellow rangers are typically female, so it's more suitable to have that section represented by a female yellow ranger. The green S.P.D. Ranger picture is a terrible shot as well. And the keeping Blue MMPR Ranger flies in the face of what you just said above about having different eras and rangers representing different colors. What exactly is your problem? I made no negative changes and have been nothing but polite. And yet you continue to undo all of my hard work, for NO REASON. --156.34.76.4 22:27, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Yellow Mystic Force shows that it's a Power Rangers picture and not a Sentai picture (also it was replaced by a Yellow Overdrive image on the same page). MMPR Blue and MMPR White are different from each other (different source material). As I said, we're not looking for the quality of the image but for how it contributes to the encyclopedic value of the page it is added to.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 22:29, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm aware of what you're looking for. But the yellow mystic Ranger is no more encyclopedic than the yellow overdrive Ranger. I'm trying to beautify the pages, as well as keep them accurate. Half of these images are completely atrocious. I mean look at the image of the Alien Rangers, it's just two sentai shots pasted together, rather badly. As for the sentai shots versus PR shots, does it really matter in a lot of cases? It was merely a solo shot. It wasn't exactly like you could see sentai characters in the background drinking sake.

In addition to that, your comments are somewhat contradictory. You say you don't want the images to be alike, but then you have two MMPR era Rangers representing two separate colors (blue and white). And then you say you don't want the images to all be Tommy, but if you notice you have the Red Turbo Ranger for red (who may or may not be Tommy in that shot), the Black Dino Ranger for black, and the White MMPR Ranger for white; all of whom are Tommy.

I'm trying to fix up these articles so that they don't look visually bad. I know that's not important to you, but often when people go onto an article they'll be put off by shabby looking images. Essentially, I'm trying to catch people's eye, so that they stick around and don't just write it off as a crappy article due to poor visual representations of the subject-matter. --156.34.76.4 22:39, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

But images are secondary to article content. Visually appealing images aren't what we need. Images that serve the purpose of the encyclopedic value of the article are.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 23:12, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Ah yes, but exactly, that was my point. What I've been trying to say is this: "Why can't it be both?". Why do we have to choose between encyclopedic and visually appealing? There are plenty of images out there that can do both of those things for an article. Which, in essence, is what I've been trying to get at all along. I'm not arguing against encyclopedic, that's a must. I'm merely saying that we can easily have the best of both worlds with little to no effort. I think a perfect example is the Tommy Oliver article; most of the images look fantastic AND they properly represent the article's source material. --156.34.88.130 23:25, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

It could be both. Just try and keep a balance among them (we don't really have any other "Yellow Ranger" pictures that I know of...). I apologize for my workings.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 23:48, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

As do I, what I mean is, I probably should have consulted you, or at least the talk page, before assuming my changes would be welcomed with open arms. And actually, you probably didn't notice (as it was relatively subtle), but I was trying to strike multiple balances at once. I was trying to keep a balance between seasons, characters, gender, and Disney & Saban eras. Trying to make sure there wasn't too many of any particular one represented in the various colors. --156.34.67.4 00:04, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Gender is something difficult, considering the lack of balance between such in the source material. But there is probably another Yellow Ranger to use.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 00:09, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Which is actually why I went after PROO's yellow. I was looking for a yellow ranger in keeping with the Disney era image standard of that article (ala the PRMF yellow Ranger image), while also finding a ranger who was definitively female (IE: a skirt). Because as you know, many female yellow Rangers are adapted from male counterparts. My first thought was Kira/Yellow Dino Ranger, given that she has such a strong presence in the series... but given that DinoThunder is already represented by Tommy/Dino Black, I went on the hunt.

Anyways, I digress... it's actually been relatively difficult finding a higher quality image of OO yellow. The one I used earlier wasn't one I wanted to use, but it was the clearest shot I could find. I'll see what I can come up with though. --156.34.72.53 00:26, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, you could...

1. Download the version of PROO Yellow that was uploaded over PRMF yellow
2. Register
3. Upload the PROO Yellow seperate
4. Replace it in Yellow Ranger
5. Place {{subst:orfud}} in PRMF Yellow
6. Use a proper fair use rationale on PROO Yellow

—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 00:46, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Hm? Oh, ha, I thought it was obvious, I'm already registered. I'm Venomaru 2.0, the one who uploaded the images to begin with. I just don't log in unless I have to (for uploading images, etc etc), as it's just easier not to. I was mistaken in uploading said images though. I had assumed that you could upload any given image to replace a previous one. For example, I thought that the picture of S.P.D. Green could be replaced with any given image of of the same character, as long as it was, as mentioned, of that same character. --156.34.72.53 00:59, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh. It's better to upload other images and have the older ones deleted.—Ryūlóng (竜龍)

I'll keep that in mind. While we're on the topic I'll run my plans by you. I'd like to full-on replace that image of Turbo Red, for reasons I mentioned above. I was thinking of using one of Andros/Red Space Ranger, but if that's not suitable then at the very least we I'm trying to find a better quality picture of Turbo Red. Then there's the Yellow Ranger image, you know all about that. And I was also thinking of replacing that awful image of Galaxy Pink in the Pink Ranger article. Perhaps with one of Time Force Pink, or again, at the least, a better image. And of course, I'll be doing all of this as you suggested, by uploading them as separate images and replacing the links.

In addition to that, I've noticed a lot of character image doubles, of sorts, that I think should be replaced. Two examples come to mind: The Kimberly Hart and Kat Hillard articles both have different images of MMPR Pink, we really only need one that will work for both. And the Tommy and T.J. articles have two very different images of Turbo Red. --156.34.72.53 01:10, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I think the TJ article has an actual screencap from PRT...but I can't be sure. Fix whatever you think needs it.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 01:14, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Alright, the Yellow Ranger image is up, I found a new Turbo image for Tommy and T.J., and I put up the Red Space Ranger in place of the Red Turbo Ranger on the Red Ranger article. --Venomaru 2.0 15:48, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Also, as a suggestion, I personally think that Jen Scotts should be the image on the Pink Ranger article. Jen is one of the more influential Pink Rangers, as she is the first and only Pink Ranger to lead a Power Rangers team. ANDROS¹³³⁷ 17:16, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

That's actually one of my plans as well, I'm just trying to find a better image of Time Force Pink before I make the change. For a Ranger of her popularity, it's actually relatively difficult finding an image with a good pose and nice quality. --Venomaru 2.0 17:37, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, the images are not being used to depict a Pink Ranger. Jen is one of the atypical ones. And I was only using images that we had already onsite.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 21:00, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

The same could be said about Andros, who is from KO-35 and has telekinesis. Here is who I think should be on each article:

• Red Ranger - Andros
• Blue Ranger - Billy, T.J., or Sky Tate
• Green Ranger - Xander
• Black Ranger - Dr. Tommy Oliver
• Pink Ranger - Jen Scotts
• White Ranger - Tommy Oliver
• Yellow Ranger - Taylor would be a good one, but the current image is fine.

ANDROS¹³³⁷ 23:43, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

If you can find suitable images, then go ahead. I just think what we have here is better than finding new images.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 23:46, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Well we already have Andros, Billy, (Sky, while cool, isn't exactly an ideal candidate for legendary blue ranger), black is Tommy, white is Tommy, and I'm against putting Taylor in. Not because I have anything against the character, but because her costume isn't exactly feminine. The reason I chose Ronny is twofold: she has a feminine yellow ranger outfit, and because she's Disney era. We don't want to throw off the Disney to Saban ratio otherwise the articles might come off as somewhat Saban-biased.

If you want the honest truth, as much as I love Tommy and DinoThunder, I think Kira/Dino Yellow would be a much better choice for Yellow Ranger. She has a feminine costume and is Disney-era, not only that, but she has quite a fan following and has appeared in quite a few episodes (the entirety of PRDT, both S.P.D. team-up episodes, and both Once A Ranger episodes). But that would mean we'd need a new character for the Black Ranger article, which I'm fine with, but it all comes down to who. MMPR Black Zack/Adam is the obvious choice. But we already have Billy/MMPR Blue in the Blue Ranger article.

In closing, we get rid of Galaxy Pink in the Pink Ranger article, replace her with a nice quality image of Jen (I'm still searching), we replace OO Yellow with PRDT Yellow, PRDT Black with MMPR Black, and find a new Blue Ranger for Blue. Oh, and as for the Green Ranger, I'm with Bridge or Xander. I think Bridge is slightly more popular, but it doesn't throw off the Saban/Disney ratio, so either choice is fine. --156.34.65.22 01:10, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Once a Ranger episode

Why can't I add, notes and trivias to an episode that already aired. Countless of other episodes and team-ups episodes, have in them trivia, notes, and fun facts, about confirmed already seen facts? (DaPuertorican 15:54, 26 July 2007 (UTC))

Trivia is something we avoid in Wikipedia articles. See WP:ATRIV—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 20:56, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

As I can read on the WP:ATRIV, it is accepted to add notes and facts, it isn't accepted if the facts are invented, rumors or speculation. The facts I wrote in, are of an episode that already aired, and showed all this information to be true.

I just think, since this is a very important episode of the Power Ranger Saga, a 15th years anniversary episode, it should offer more information than the one already there. Just like the article on the episode Forever Red, even though it doesn't contains the words "TRIVIA" or "NOTES", it clearly have them in the words of "CRITICISM" and "POWER RANGER REFERENCES".(DaPuertorican 23:36, 26 July 2007 (UTC))

If you can source TV critics noting these references, then it can be included. I wasn't here when Forever Red was written, and I'll be perusing that page now.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 23:48, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Ok, then... I'll try to look for the notes and facts from trusted sites, and then reference them before adding them again, and I'll look for reference before posting next time. (DaPuertorican 18:30, 27 July 2007 (UTC))

Gekiranger 23-27

Translated those titles you posted.

• Lesson 23: Garin-Garin! The Brothers' Reunion
• Lesson 24: Jira-Jira Registration! A Great Flower's Petals
• Lesson 25: Hiba-Hiba! Gong ????
• Lesson 26: Zogu-Zogu! The Kenmas' Birth!
• Lesson 27: Kyara-ra!? Protector, Destoryer!

Fractyl 20:23, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Okay, let's see if they show up.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 20:57, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Protection for Theatre

Do you think we might take a chance and unprotect Theatre now? (You protected it in April.) I took a look at the history and there has not been an awful lot of editing since April. (I am an admin.) ●DanMS • Talk 01:27, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I think the page is no longer threatened. Go ahead.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 01:32, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

OK, will do. I did not want to start a wheel war, so I thought I would check with you. I am going to put it on my watch list also. ●DanMS • Talk 01:40, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

User Talk:66.253.177.76

User:66.253.177.76 continues to blank his user talk page to hide his history of vandalism. He is also committing personal attacks in the edit summaries of his page blankings. Perhaps he should be blocked from editing said talk page? -Interested2 11:26, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Smile!

Xterra1 has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

You're a cool New Yorker,if you don't mind me saying so!--Xterra1 15:24, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

User talk:Ryulong/Omi

Did you know you still have User talk:Ryulong/Omi? I thought you would have deleted it. Jay32183 01:35, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

It's only a redirect. I'll get to it once I'm done working on an article.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 01:37, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Gorilla Gekiwza

You can't translate "ゴリ" into "Gorilla", you only get "Gori". Plus it's Kata(like episode titles), so it's OK as it is. It also adds proof that Gekiwaza follow a "2-word" pattern like the episodes(except the 1st attacks by GekiPenguin & GekiGazelle). You can't count it just because Jan uses "Gori" to refer to "Gorilla". But I will add that bit of info to Gorrie's profile. Fractyl 02:39, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't know what to do with that, now. There is really no Japanese word for "gorilla," so "Gori-gori" is something that may mean "Gorilla" in English.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 03:38, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

No, that would be "Gorira". Plus, this furthers the fact that Gekiwazas ARE meant to have same "Word-Word" element as the episodes. Fractyl 04:54, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Smile

Connell66 has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Krimpet has passed you the WikiJoint! WikiJoints promote... uh... promote... help with... do... wiki... something... yeah... uh, what was I saying? WikiJoints help promote, uh, wiki stuff... and help with... {{subst:User:Krimpet/WikiJoint}}... huh?

Fair use rationale for Image:Billy-Pascal_J_Goldschmidt-Claud_Delorme-Sebastian.jpg

The above image has no fair use rationale. You should know what happens next... MER-C 11:21, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Personally don't care for that one...—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 21:01, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

If you have a minute...

Thanks for adding in the last bit of that tag. Anyway, was looking through your userboxes and came across one about Rouge Admin's. I read a little bit into it and I thought: "What is this crap? It must be a joke". Is it a joke or is it serious? Thanks in advance. Scarian^Talk 01:52, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

And, how sir, was I supposed to know that? When I see an anonymous I.P. changing a very large amount of spellings, does that look suspicious to you? Obviously, I am not familiar with that particular show or whatever it is. But I do know that I.P. addresses (and occasionally logged in users) do change minor things on purpose. And this seemed very suspicious because of the amount of changes there. If I am wrong, I am a human and humans make mistakes, do they not?. Do not have a go at me for trying to revert what I thought, at the time, was vandalism. Assume good faith on my behalf, please. And, please, do not threaten me with anything for trying to keep my eyes open for vandlism. And btw, 'crufting' is a term used by some veteran users for: "Purposeful degradation of articles". Thanks. Scarian^Talk 02:03, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

There was no such anonymous IP changing any amount of spellings on that page. I, in fact, wrote the bases of those summaries, and you were rolling back another user's edits, as well. You still need to watch what you do, and make sure you're not inadvertantly vandalizing and assuming bad faith, yourself.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 02:07, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Your block of Videmus Omnia

Hi. I saw your 48-hour block of this user (his talk seems to be on my watchlist, though I honestly don't remember why). This block is troubling in that there appears to have been no discussions with or warning of any kind given to this established user before the block. Am I missing something or might it have been better to discuss this user's image-tagging activities and your concerns about them with the user before blocking? Regards, Newyorkbrad 03:09, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

For the past 3 hours or so, Videmus Omnia has been going through the upload logs of NeoCoronis, Mike Halterman, and Alkivar, and tagging whatever inappropriate image he finds, and then proceeded to flood the three users' talk pages with the templates that go with the taggings. The disruption was ongoing, and to stop it, I blocked. I had read a message from Mike Halterman on VO's talk page, and thought it was related, and that was the warning.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 03:14, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

The comment from Mike H. was not related to this issue, and in any event even if there had been a complaint from the user whose images were being tagged, that is very different from a warning that an uninvolved administrator considers the tagging to be excessive and harassing. Please reevaluate the appropriateness of this block or consider posting it to ANI. Also, although completely inadvertent in on your part I am certain, you seem to have made quite a hash of this user's block log. Regards, Newyorkbrad 03:25, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Trying to work together a length that wasn't too lenient or too harsh. Will post to ANI, got distracted about that.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 03:29, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

The block was completely inappropriate. About harassment:

“ This does not include checking up on an editor to fix errors or violations of Wikipedia policy, nor does it mean reading a user's contribution log; those logs are public for good reason. ” — Wikipedia:Harassment#Wikistalking

--Abu badali ^(talk) 03:43, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

It's harassment when there are several hundred messages on a user talk page for image uploads, and you stay out of this.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 03:44, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

"and you stay out of this"??????? Who do you think you are????? --Abu badali ^(talk) 03:53, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

You are only here because of your ongoing dispute with Alkivar, that Videmus Omnia got involved in. Recuse yourself.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 03:55, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Besides misinterpretting Wikipedia:Harassment, you also ignore Wikipedia:Assume good faith? I'm here because I notice your block when visiting Videmu's talk page to reply a message he left me. I aborh your arrogance. --Abu badali ^(talk) 03:58, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not misinterpretting anything. And I'm going off what I know based on your current activities.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 04:02, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Every single image Videmus Omnia tagged was tagged for a justifiable reason. Have you read them? Your upload log is one link from me right now... if I choose to review it now and found some problems, will you block me as well? Your use of admin tools were completely unproductive in this case. Remove the block! --Abu badali ^(talk) 03:48, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Okay, they may have been tagged properly, but the talk page flooding is a separate issue entirely. If you start doing the same, I'll give you the same block.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 03:49, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Posting dozens of warnings in a short period of time could be perceived as harassment regardless of the purpose behind it. Such action is discourteous, even if well-intentioned. I don't necessarily agree with blocking the offender, but such spamming is a problem and should be addressed. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 03:49, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

The talk page warnings are obligatory, sir! Remove the block right now. --Abu badali ^(talk) 03:53, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

They are not obligatory when there are 60 of them at once, as was at Mike Halterman's talk page. The block is for harassment, which Videmus Omnia had done.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 03:55, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

See this for some enlightening. --Abu badali ^(talk) 03:58, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not saying "Don't do it." I'm saying "Don't do it all at once 100 times in a row."—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 04:02, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Ryulong, you blocked half an hour after Videmus Omnia stopped editing, so the block can be considered punitive rather than preventative. —Kurykh 04:01, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I did not see any sort of time, I just saw nearly 500 such edits.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 04:02, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I saw the 500 edits too. But looking at the time is also required before blocking. Timing can decide whether the block would be preventative or punitive. And in this case, timing decided in favor of the latter. —Kurykh 04:05, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Still, the disruption had occurred. Is it still a punitive block if I did not intend it to be so?—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 04:07, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Not if you correct it :) I think Videmus Omnia will get the point that there's some sort of problem after reviewing his blocklog. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 04:10, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I will agree that he be unblocked, but if he persists once he returns to editting tonight or tomorrow, I will reinstate the 48 hour block (given my block message that he would have not received can be perceived as a warning).—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 04:11, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Block are for stopping disruption, not to punish them. Once, a use war blocked for expressing the intention to hit me with a baseball bat. As the block was 1 week after the episode, it was considered punitive and inappropriate.

If you plan to stay around misinterpreting our image police enforcements, make sure you only use your "block" tool when you believe in "ongoing" disruption. --Abu badali ^(talk) 04:13, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Enough. I am not misinterpreting any policy, and I admit that I did not pay attention to the time. Recuse yourself from this.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 04:16, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

What part of Wikipedia:Harassment says that it's harassment to leave 100 messages to a user with 100 problematic images? --Abu badali ^(talk) 04:28, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

WP:UCS and WP:TEMPLAR. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 04:36, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Those are essays, not policies, not guidelines. We don't block people for violating essays, we block them for violating policy. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 05:00, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

(copied from VO's talk page)

All of the people who work on image tagging (including me) will often find a group of images that merit investigation and will go through them to check for errors or violations. When one user has uploaded several violating images in the past, it is perfectly acceptable to go through that user's logs and look for other violations. That's not Wikistalking. Wikipedia:Harassment specifically condones this: "This [wikistalking] does not include checking up on an editor to fix errors or violations of Wikipedia policy, nor does it mean reading a user's contribution log; those logs are public for good reason. Using the edit history of users to correct related problems on multiple articles is part of the recommended practices both for Recent changes patrol (RCP) and WikiProject Spam. The important part is the disruption - disruption is considered harmful. Wikistalking is the act of following another user around in order to harass them." I don't see any evidence that VO was intending to harass either user. The tagging that VO did seems to have been factually correct. He has spent a lot of time over the past few weeks tagging images like this; it certainly hasn't been targeting a few users, when seen as a whole.

As for the many image-deletion notices, VO uses a tool (which I also use) that automatically notifies the uploader when an image is tagged for deletion. When I see that I have left many notices on a user's talk page, I finish all my tagging, and then I go back and compact the warnings -- simply saying something like "This applies to the following images as well. . ." It seems likely that VO was planning to do this. How would you know without asking him?

This sort of a block without prior discussion was unwarranted and unacceptable. I'm glad you chose to reverse the block. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 04:37, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Videmus Omnia's activity was continuous for 3 hours straight and he had not gone back in the half hour prior to the block to do any sort of compacting. Tagging 61 images and doing so under semiautomation and then warning a user for each usage, particularly one that you stepped in on a dispute with, is disruptive. There is nothing wrong with what he was doing in theory, but the lack of moderation is an issue.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 04:48, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

If I had a conflict with a user, and then learned that the user had copied 50 different articles from the Encyclopedia Britannica, would it be disruptive for me to tag those pages as copyvios? Of course not. So it seems your only complaint about VO's behavior is the long list of semi-automated warnings. That's the sort of thing you could simply ask the user to fix. If you had done so, and VO had refused, then you would have evidence that VO was being disruptive. As it is, I think you blocked someone for an error in judgment. That in itself was an error in judgment. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 04:58, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Abu badali

Your remark to Abu badali here was uncivil and uncalled for. You owe him an apology. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 05:04, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

He got involved in a dispute that he had no reason to do so.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 05:05, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

He had as much reason to get involved as you did. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 05:13, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I blocked someone who was not him. There was no reason for him to get involved.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 05:18, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

If you think it's inappropriate for an outside party to criticize your use of admin tools, then you shouldn't be trusted with admin tools. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 05:23, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I do not think it's appropriate for he to have interjected as he did, when there was already a discussion brought up that I was reacting to in a civil manner. He brought the incivility to my talk page.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 05:27, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I think Ryulong was remarkably civil and he was quite correct to tell Abu badali to get lost. Abu has a vested interest in defending people who use contrib histories to harass. There's a difference between being open to criticism from outside parties and letting someone with an axe to grind soapbox. WjBscribe 05:31, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I "brought the incivility", Sir? Do you consider this message unvicil? Maybe it's being questioned what you don't like --Abu badali ^(talk) 17:45, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

thank you can you help me put it

Thank you very much for your message suddenly seem to a forgeten how to put it.Can you help me put it.Put it today's page ?Harlowraman 05:10, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

There's a link on the AFD template in the article that you should have tagged.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 05:18, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Church of Christ (Temple Lot)

Please remember to add a notice stating that the page has been protected. I would also encourage you to take a look at the edit history to better understand the situation at the article. The Jade Knight 06:15, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

This is an OTRS issue. I cannot do anything else.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 06:17, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I have absolutely no idea what that means. But you cannot even add a tag stating that you have protected the page from editing? To me, that seems strange. The Jade Knight 06:17, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

WP:OTRS—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 06:18, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Ryūlóng

For your encouragement. I don't understand Wiki programming but I love Wikipedia. Vendrov 06:23, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Yet another overzealous block

You have once again blocked a good faith user without the slightest bit of warning: User:Activist4TRUTHinMEDICINE . While his username may be a problem (as was his editing history), you didn't warn him or anything. And this is scant days after people had just said that you are >< close to pushing it far enough for an admin recall, and you agreed to start warning people. Not only that, but you're continuing to block huge swaths of IPs as open proxies indefinitely, and blocking user's email on the first block (this should be a last resort). What the heck is your issue? I don't have a lot of time, but I'm now going to open up an RFC - the only reason no one did it before is because it takes too much time. The Evil Spartan 19:28, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Activist4TRUTHinMEDICINE is

1. A questionable username
2. He performed various POV edits
3. And has an agenda, already

I have been out of the house all day and I have just got back to editting and such now. You can't really warn for improper usernames.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 02:41, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

How about {{Usernameconcern}} or WP:RFCN, since it's really not a blatant violation of WP:U?. A block without discussion on such a borderline username seems particularly trigger-happy. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 03:19, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

But that is not the reason behind the block. It was questionable edits along with the username.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 03:21, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

It's a newbie. Nobody left a single message on his talk page, except for a welcome template. Did you even try to draw his attention to the NPOV policy, or ask him to change his username, before indefinitely blocking? The edits were POV, maybe, but seemed to be in good faith. Why not at least leave a warning, or a message with the reason for a block? Videmus Omnia ^Talk 03:31, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

And why block account creation for a username problem? Videmus Omnia ^Talk 03:33, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

It was not solely a username problem. It was a POV edit problem that was also supported by the username.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 03:35, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

My question is, why no warnings, explanation, or any attempt at all to work with the newbie prior to an indef block? I think you bit the hell out of him. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 03:37, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Because I did not think that I would be able to use my rhetoric to turn this individual into a non-biased editor.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 03:38, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

He had 7 edits prior to your block. Because you apparently automatically assumed bad faith, that means you don't have to give a warning? Or even any kind of explanation why you blocked him? Videmus Omnia ^Talk 03:42, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

He has 6 deleted edits to EBOO which I deleted as a POV article, but you cannot view those. In the edits that I saw, they were biased, unreferenced, and all from one source to fulfill his singular point in editting.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 03:44, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

That doesn't mitigate the fact that you didn't leave a single warning, or make any attempt to correct the problem, prior to your indefinite block. I would ask you to remove the block and apologize, but the editor is probably gone forever by now. But why no warnings or explanations? - it's a simple question, I'm just asking (for the third time now) why you didn't do this. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 03:48, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Because I think that warnings in this case were entirely unnecessary.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 03:48, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

There is absolutely no reason for you to think that, unless you're assuming bad faith. Please stop biting the newbies, this has been pointed out to you I-don't-know-how-many times. --nae'blis 14:28, 1 August 2007 (UTC) (not logged in at present)

Detubug

Would you mind casting your eye over this unblock request. I'm not familiar with the sock-master in question and there is no link to the evidence for sock-puppeting. I can't see how the socking was established and I'd like to see how the link was made before dealing with the unblock request. Thanks. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:12, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I had recently semiprotected several of the Macedonian history pages due to a highly nationalist editor blanking and inserting POV into such pages, and accusations of pro-Bulgarian or whatever stuff. Detubug's first edits are to those talk pages of the articles I protected.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 02:31, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Gekiranger

Wondering if you can check the summary I redid, I used the japanese phrases intentionally to reduce size and still feeling this terms should be used, plus "Chi" is a most familar snd modern term of "Qi".

"Four thousand years ago, in China, a form of Kenpo martial arts was developed, the Juken style which allow one to mimic the abilities of animals as well as reach spiritual peace. However, dissent grew among the Juken style's ten creators. Three of them believed that they should use the suffering and hatred harnessed within humans to increase their power, using their power to assume their monsterous forms, the three Kenma. The other seven believed that the strength should come from within and were forced to fight their former friends, ending the fight with a forbidden technique to seal the Kenmas' powers at the cost of losing their own human forms in the process, becoming the Kensei. Followers of the Kensei began to use the Gekijuken Beast Arts: the Juken of Justice whose sport discipline enhances the human body with the self-produced positive Chi called "Geki". It is taught by Grand Master Sha-Fu, one of the seven Kensei, using a sports goods company named "SCRTC" as a front. The followers of the Kenma practice the evil form of the Juken style known as Rinjuuken Akugata. By present time, a fallen student from the Gekijuken school named Rio takes up the Rinjuken-style, rebuilding the Rinjuu Hall with intent on world domination. Bringing other Rinjuken users back from the dead as kyonshi, he collects Rinki, Geki's polar opposite Chi, to revive the Kenma so that through them, he can become stronger. To fight the new Rinjuu Hall, Sha-Fu had been training two youths: Ran Uzaki and Retsu Fukami. Along with Jan Kandou, a wild boy raised by tigers, the Gekiranger team is formed to save the world from Rio's ambitions."

Fractyl 22:18, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

The spelling is "Qi" and is pronounced as "Chi" in Chinese. We are not untranslating anything to use "Geki," "Rinki", "Gekijuu", "Rinjuu", "Kenma", "Kensei", etc.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 03:40, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

That's your problem, you think everything should be translated. But exceptions can be made, if needed. Fractyl 05:46, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

There is a very good reason behind this.

• Items such as "Rinjuuken", "Gekijuuken", "Geki", "Rinki", "Kenma", "Kensei", "Rinjuuden", etc. are all written with Kanji. These Kanji have definitions in English.
• Items such as "Gekiwaza", "Ringi", "Gekisaber", "Gekibeast", and "Gekiranger" are all written with katakana. Katakana is used for two reasons: emphasis and borrowed words from other languages. These are transcribed into their parent language.

All items in Kanji are translated into English. The only exceptions are the titles of the series (Juken Sentai Gekiranger, GoGo Sentai Boukenger, Kamen Rider Den-O, Kamen Rider Kabuto would be "Beast-Fist Squadron Gekiranger", "Rumbling Squadron Boukenger", "Masked Rider Den-O", "Masked Rider Kabuto"). Another exception to this are Japanese words that are used in English or do not have a translation in English (Sukeban, Yakuza, Sake, Ninja, etc. can't be translated easily). All items in katakana are transcribed. The only exception to this is if they have a meaning in Japanese (onomatopoeic words like "guruguru" and "barabara"). GekiJuuken, Rinjuuken, etc. are easily translated into English. Gekirenjaa, Gekiseibaa, etc. are easily transcribed into English. This is pretty much how things were before I editted the articles (the name Underground Hades Empire Infershia was in use on Wikipedia, but I'm not sure if that's what the fansub group used). We do not want to mirror what fansub groups use. We want to use proper translations if they exist, and set a precedent for encyclopedic articles on this subject.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 06:12, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

No, I believe I was the one who conned Infershia translation. But while GekiJuuken, Rinjuuken, etc. are easily translated into English, they are also part of the martial arts theme Gekiranger uses, as many asia martial arts styles keep their names in english-speaking contries. Furthermore, though written in kanji, the names and attacks of the Oni of Kamen Rider Hibiki are left alone as they are related to the japanese culture. I see your reasons good, but you have to remember to follow the show's theme. Fractyl 06:37, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Most of the other martial arts styles are not easily translated into English, as well as becoming a part of the English language. Honestly, most of the lack of translation on Wikipedia comes from the omnipresense of the fansubs of the show (except for HK subs). It can still be seen as a martial art if it is translated into English.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 06:54, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, the fansubs do explain a few plot-devices we miss, but I doubt the names really come from them. But in martial arts, some that are easily translated, like "Wushu", are left untranslated. Also, it follows the theme of "geki". But in the case of "????ken" or "-ma", they are left alone. As for Kensei, it's actually a pun(though it took me months to realize that) so it should be left alone. Fractyl 07:15, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Michael Vick

I went to block user Jaburke515 but you had already done so. I just wanted to stand behind you on that action. As you probably verified first, there have been adequate warnings. Thanks, Mark. Vaoverland 06:30, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Den-O Movie

• Movie specific plot points stay in Kamen Rider Den-O: I am Born!—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 07:00, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Technically, the "Movie-specific plot points" were seen on the show, as well as Ryotaro learning of the Fang King in the process prior to Ryutaros. I truely doubt the movie isn't separate from the show, as I expected due to the time-paradox element. Fractyl 07:15, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
    • We don't know any of this until someone does a summary of the movie.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 07:21, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
      • True, but 25-26 do show scenes from the movie itself, giving us the idea of what's going to happen. Fractyl 15:33, 31 July 2007 (UTC)