User talk:Ryulong/Archive 25

Archive 20

←

Archive 23

Archive 24

Archive 25

Archive 26

Archive 27

→

Archive 30

Checkmate Four

It is much simpler to put them under "guest actor" as we'll end up re-ordering the footnotes each time there's a new member of the Checkmate Four featured. Seeing as they're only semi-regular players, it's easier to put them listed under "guest stars."—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 22:08, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

But they're NOT Guest actors, they're just regular who appear once and a while. It's no different a role when compared to Seeshomaru of Inuyasha or Naruto's Gaara. Besides, you can leave the reordering to me. Fractyl (talk) 02:25, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

They're not regular actors either. It's much easier to leave things as they are (not reorder the "notes" section) than it is to keep reordering them.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 02:26, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

But are the Checkmate appearences any different to Kengo's or the Spider Fangire? The two are also reoccuring major figures in the series story. Even in most anime, the major villians don't appear in every episode. Fractyl (talk) 02:36, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Spider Fangire has been there since episode 1. Kengo has been announced as a character prior to episode 1. The Checkmate Four aren't appearing in every episode following their initial appearance, and reordering every single footnote is a pain in the ass because they portray that there's a different order. Also, this is not an anime.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 02:44, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Just saw the end results, I can live with this. Fractyl (talk) 03:13, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Meatpuppets

Hi. I saw your edit here and I was wondering if you could also take a look at this user. The account was created at 00:21, 25 May 2008 [1], at which point this "new user" played around with some pages, and then went straight to AfD and RfA. Furthermore, his comments (as well as his contribs) in these areas are completely atypical of a new Wikipedia user. I know, because I spend a lot of time helping new users. Please take a closer look at this. Thank you. Viriditas (talk) 00:31, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I've dealt with the user in question.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 00:39, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for trying. Viriditas (talk)

h20 (rfa3)

did you mean to remove this? Cheers, Dlohcierekim 00:44, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

No, he's an established user.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 00:45, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Reply: Maximum the Hormone

The issue with the continual use of the standard Nihongo template is that it inserts many redundant notifications of foreign text. The initial use of Japanese text can justify the Nihongo template, however a Nihongo2 template is what should be used in subsequent instances. That template was designed with that specific purpose, and I'm certain that the manual insertion of parentheses isn't much more difficult than remembering how to execute a complete Nihongo template.. As the use of struck text, that is a simple instance of stylisation in a song title. It is the same as TITLING SONGS IN ALL CAPS, or ~Using~Tildes~ everywhere, as opposed to the simple hyphen (-). The striking of kanji in particular makes them difficult to see, especially in a standard browser font size, thus disturbing the purpose of including the kanji. Striking out this text is just irrational fancruft, important to a minute fraction of the bands sphere of influence. If you have a well supported rebuttal, or would like an outside opinion, please contact me again. I will revert the changes again in due time if nothing occurs. Regards. --Jacob ^Talk 23:37, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Fancruft? That is how the official text is written. And the tildes generally refer to the use of a subtitle, which is done in parentheses or a colon in English songs. And for the use of Template:Nihongo, you only do that to each initial use of that particular name in the text. I've never seen it used in the context you state, which is only once, and then just Template:Nihongo2 for each subsequent piece of Japanese text, which may be different from the initial one. I've removed the struck-out text, however the templates should be kept as is.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 23:46, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

In the excerpt you've provided to Using Japanese in the article body in the MOS-JP, you share only the first paragraph (I am unsure whether this was intentional or unintentional, but I will not jump to conclusions). If one reads further down, the section says

"Japanese text should be marked with the {{Nihongo}} or {{Nihongo2}} templates."

I think that is justification enough to use the Nihongo2 template at stylistic discretion. I'm sure this could be argued endlessly, but when it comes down to it, there is a strong push against redundancy on Wikipedia in my experience. The policy really ought to be more clearly written, as I don't think it is ever beneficial for a policy to be ambiguous. --Jacob ^Talk 07:11, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Still, several of the titles are not named the same as their transliterated names. Using {{nihongo2}} is the same as using {{lang|ja|}}. As the names are often transliterated, I'm not sure what could be the use of just using {{nihongo2}}. Either way, I tried to make the article in line with WP:MOS-JP from what I read.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 07:16, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, the majority of the songs are included in the album pages, where it would maybe be more appropriate to give detailed information on "single" titles. The perfect transliterations are almost an overload of information in the artist page, though. Having a multiple line title (even on a widescreen monitor) to discern between the three alternate writings of "Houchou Hasami..." is potentially confusing to me at first glance. If there was a nice way to avoid such a messy looking structure, that would be the best option, but if the Ni2 template could be used with a line break in there, it could display as something like this.

• "Hōchō Hasami Cutter Knife Dosu Kiri/Rei Rei Rei Rei Rei Rei Rei Rei Ma Ma Ma Ma Ma Ma Ma Ma" (25 November 2004)
  (包丁・ハサミ・カッター・ナイフ・ドス・キリ／霊霊霊霊霊霊霊霊魔魔魔魔魔魔魔魔 Hōchō Hasami Kattā Naifu Dosu Kiri/Rei Rei Rei... Ma Ma Ma...)

The only other problem with the regular Ni-template is just the superfluous notifiers (^?), even when the Ni2 template can be used in a slightly different manor to rid the page of such nuisances. --Jacob ^Talk 07:30, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

However, aren't several of the singles not the name of the song? Like "Zawa...etc"? It's easier to have one template to include all of the content that we want to include (and br tags can be used in the middle or before).

• "Hōchō Hasami Cutter Knife Dosu Kiri/Rei Rei Rei Rei Rei Rei Rei Rei Ma Ma Ma Ma Ma Ma Ma Ma" (25 November 2004)
  (包丁・ハサミ・カッター・ナイフ・ドス・キリ／霊霊霊霊霊霊霊霊魔魔魔魔魔魔魔魔, Hōchō Hasami Kattā Naifu Dosu Kiri/Rei Rei Rei... Ma Ma Ma...)

So, it doesn't really matter with the question mark, as it shows the variousaspects of reading the template.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 07:38, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of Cannabis Corpse article

Hello. I would very much like to make a wikipedia-worthy page for this band, but it has been deleted several times and I am not allowed to make the page. I am asking the favor of allowing me to create this page. Furthermore, I am curious to know exactly why the page has been deleted, twice specifically by you. The deletion log said that it was for being unimportant/insignificant, which is simply untrue of this band. They have a large following and are very good at what they do, and, as I fell, are more than deserving of a wiki where people can go to look up their band info in one spot. Should you allow this page to be made, please contact me so that I can carry it out. Thanks for your time.

Gienappa (talk) 00:31, 4 June 2008 (UTC)gienappa

If you have reliable sources (not the band's website) that the band is notable per Wikipedia's policies on the inclusion of musical artists, then the article can exist on Wikipedia. Otherwise, Wikipedia is not the place for every garage band that performs at local bars or events.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 00:33, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Tomica Hero Rescue Force: Eiji Ishiguro

I am just going to give u a link to a pic I found of him in the rescue force armor (even though it is only a toy at what looks like a toyfare or something). http://www.thai-toku.com/cgi-bin/Y1Gold/tcsyabb/index.pl?board=general&action=display&num=1212497795

P.S.: I have a bunch of pics of Kamen Rider Rei and Kiva Emperor Form if you want them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tahu90 (talk • contribs) 00:49, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

There's gonna be an R5, yes, but we can't tell who it is yet. And anything about Emperor/Impaler/whatever form cannot be added as they have not featured the character in anything but toy catalogs. I'm aware what they look like. They just can't be added to Wikipedia until we get more textual confirmation.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 00:55, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

You can tell perfectly who it is going to be because of the color on their civilian uniforms his is black!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tahu90 (talk • contribs) 01:07, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

That would be original research. Just because his uniform is black doesn't mean someone else can't be R5. He probably will be, but we can't say this without something to back it up put forth by the production company as promotional material in a magazine.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 01:10, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Talk Page

Thanks for the edit. Made a mistake with the code and forgot to edit it. Have removed it from my page. J.T Pearson (talk) 07:33, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure you'll be able to fix it.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 07:40, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

User:Ryulong/YGOPTL

Would you consider protecting these pages from creation rather than using a cascading protection? (I can help if you like.) This page has too many expensive parser functions (see Wikipedia:Template limits). Stifle (talk) 11:19, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

If someone would like to go through this, then they can.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 21:56, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Mighty Morphin' Power Rangers

For pretty much the entire cast of MMPR you deleted some important backing information such as some cool stuff like birthdays and in depth information about the character and claimed "no trivia". My question is why? Plenty of other articles have trivia sections why can't these articles have them? I see no problem in it. For now I'll take it upon myself to put back the "trivia" or as it is listed "Backround Info" or "Quotes". I realize and respect your awards, one of them for keeping the MMPR article clean and I give you the utmost respect for it. However, your recent edits take away enjoyable depth to the characters and make the article a bit bland. Please rethink and then make a decision. Also contact me to further discuss this if need be. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TapOut 013 (talk • contribs) 05:06, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Trivia sections are discouraged because they become lengthy lists of useless content. There should be no reason to keep any sort of trivia in an encyclopedic article. This is why I removed such sections from several articles. The "enjoyable depth" is not what an encyclopedia is necessarily for. The content that is encyclopedic should be enjoyable. Not the 10kb of trivia. Please read WP:TRIVIA.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 05:33, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I read the message you sent me. I'm sorry I wasn't aware of the rule. I just really feel good contributing to articles and I kinda felt bad when I noticed a small chunk of it was done away with. Again, despite the rules I disagree with the point of view. It's not like it is completely unecessary. However, you are right and I have to accept the rules. Thank you for making me aware.

P.S. I can't remember specifics but I remember I've seen a few trivia or misc. sections for certain movies or video games. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TapOut 013 (talk • contribs) 21:44, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, those pages should be fixed.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 22:23, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Re: Trivia

Sure thing, have just done so. Happy editing! Metagraph 05:54, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

User:SexySeaClownfish

Please could you undelete their userpage and usersubpages that you deleted with the rationale of "WP:NOTMYSPACE". Reasons derived from WP:NOT are specifically given as a non-criteria for speedy deletion and I think taking the pages to MFD would have been more appropriate. Regards, Guest9999 (talk) 05:25, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

These were done in the ideal of if the rules get in your way, ignore them. This user has been treating Wikipedia improperly. Having a user page means you're going to be contributing to the encyclopedia. I removed his non-encyclopedic contributions so he may focus on his actual encyclopedic contributions. Just because something is not listed on WP:SPEEDY doesn't mean the deletion cannot be done.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 05:46, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I take your point but the user is only imitating and taking part in what many other users already do, encouraged by the fact that established users seem by default to be allowed to create secret pages, humorous "cabals" and other "social content" that is not aimed towards building the encyclopaedia. If it were really accepted that these pages were harmful to the wiki then no one would be allowed to have them; established users aren't allowed to vandalise or attack people just because they've made positive contributions to other areas of the encyclopaedia. I think that seeing how the process of a deletion discussion works and having the arguments for deletion clearly presented would be a better way to encourage them to take part in building the encyclopaedia and show them why their current contribution is inappropriate (or else gently indicate that this might not be what the're looking for). A unilateral decision forced upon them seems more likely to scare them away. Guest9999 (talk) 06:22, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Dude, deleting subpages is one thing, but deleting USERPAGES?! Are ytou TRYING to drive him away? Just block him! You don't have to go deleting userpages! Blocking is enough. Just think twice before you do anything, man. You did not have to do any of this buulshit. Later >:-( SAVIOR_SELF.777 06:27, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

If he had more than 50 edits in the article space, then I would have left it. If he's driven away because he doesn't have a pretty user page and a ton of MySpacey subpages, then he really doesn't have the right mindset for Wikipedia. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. My deletions cut this user's contributions in half, but there are still much more edits outside of the article space.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 06:37, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Even if it did help contribution wise, I still find it disruptive. He's retired before and he may retire again after what you did. Not everybody's a perfect editor! People learn from their mistakes, so, why don't you fix YOUR mistake! Block him, don't delete him! >:-O SAVIOR_SELF.777 06:46, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

To be fair if he actually wants to contribute to the encyclopaedia blocking him's going to prevent that whilst deleting his userpage is not. Guest9999 (talk) 07:05, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, but still. I mean, don't you think it was, I dunno, a little much? Sure, blocking will prevent from editing, but....you know what, forget it. I'm done here. Just put back at least his userpage. SAVIOR_SELF.777 07:19, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes I disagreed with the decision to delete the pages, especially without warning, but the idea that someone's on-wiki identity can be so tied to their user page that having it deleted would be deemed a "bigger deal" than being blocked is making me start to rethink my position. I have offered to help the user if he wants it and looking at his talk pages he has at least two adopters so hopefully he'll start to help build the encyclopaedia and the situation will resolve itself. Guest9999 (talk) 07:25, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

The beatings will continue until morale improves! In all reality, blocking him is not the answer. The deletions will get him to change his ways more than "You're blocked until you realize what you did was wrong."—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 07:29, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, he's retired. "Due to the actions of Ryulong". I think you did a good thing deleting his myspacey userpage, but ir drove him to quit. No comment. I mean, he blames you. Not that that's a bad thing. It's good to have one less Myspacey editor, but I made contact with him. Shapiros10 WuzHere  15:38, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, he's been indef. blocked as a sockpuppet of User:I'm On Base. iMatthew _T.C. 21:42, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of entire criticism section i put in

Why did you remove the whole thing? Couldn't you have helped me with sourcing, improving it..etc instead of erasing it?Invisible Noise (talk) 21:32, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Sourcing is the responsibility of the content adder, not the content remover.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 21:55, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Yea it was a bit much

U made it sound as though I'm using wikipedia as some dreadful myspace. In reality I only research one topic at a time right now. That brings me to the point u made about my adoption, when I say I need to be adopted I mean I have no clue of how to do more than watch the RC pages or add information to already created pages. So let's just say we're both too vague with our statements, call it even, and not send me anything on how to make a page because I wont. Apologizing--Neoonyxalchemist (talk) 05:14, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

That's okay. Just work on articles a bit more.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 05:16, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

It is 20k of data

But very unstructured, very uninformative and in a very diluted format. It is very bad in its current form and I am trying to make it much more crisp. Take a look at the article. I don't need to convince you, you can see for yourself. HarvardHealthEcon (talk) 07:44, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, try moving stuff around instead of deleting it outright.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 07:45, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Most of what I remove is just plain junk that comes from somewhere else and reads like advocacy drivel than scientific work on global health. I definitely try to keep the text worth staying there. HarvardHealthEcon (talk) 07:59, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay. I saw that just now.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 07:59, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

User talk:207.226.255.67

You blocked 207.226.0.0/16 in March of 2007 for a reason related to Proxies. The above user is requesting unblocking; I've offered to make an account for them but I also felt it was worthwhile to check with you about this block, since it's been over a year and it's a large IP range. I have no idea what led to this block, but is it possible for you to check and see if the problem still exists? Thanks. Mangojuice^talk 15:22, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Beyond the Network America is a webhost, not an ISP. That's why I blocked it. No one should really be editing from a hosting service.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 22:25, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

User talk:204.13.82.149

Another one -- this one you blocked as an open proxy but a user claims it is merely a WiFi access point. I checked the "Multi-RBL" lookup and it seemed to come back negative, but I'm not that on top of proxy issues so I was hoping you could double-check. (According to general feedback at WP:AN, we shouldn't be blocking IPs like WiFi access points as if they were proxies.) Mangojuice^talk 18:56, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Google shows that the IP comes up multiple times and on open proxy (transparent proxy) lists.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 22:06, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Open proxy block length

While an IP may be an open proxy now, five years from now--or tomorrow--it is likely to be re-assigned to a different person or ISP, or otherwise re-purposed or fixed. Therefore, open proxies ought to be blocked with some medium finite time period, not more than 5 years. Otherwise, someone will need to manually unblock all of these addresses, or legitimate people will be blocked from editing. —Centrx→talk • 19:51, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

The IP ranges that I have blocked belong to web hosting companies. No one should really be editing from anything like that, which is what people put proxy servers on. That is why I blocked them (and included the blocked range in my block rationale).—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 22:04, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Is the same IP likely to be a web hosting company five years from now? In many cases the company did not even exist five years ago. Also, while the number of legitimate users blocked from web hosting companies may be small, a web hosting IP is not per se an open proxy. —Centrx→talk • 00:21, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, that issue can be dealt with if the IP is relegated to a different service.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 00:24, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

...which requires manual unblocking of thousands of IP addresses, when most of them are no longer open proxies after a mere 3 years. —Centrx→talk • 17:20, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

No. It requires manual unblocking of whatever IP addresses are no longer open proxies and then become regular internet service provider IP addresses and then that individual wishes to edit Wikipedia. A case by case basis.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 22:44, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Pokemon template merges

It has been discussed at the project's talk. Here, an anon removed many things from the template.[2] since the project is inactive, I suggest one for all games (RPG and spinoff) and one anime + films. Or move Pokemon media to Pokemon. What do you think. Ultra! 15:05, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Also why was there any need to use rollback on three of them? Ultra! 15:12, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I never saw any discussion at the project's talk page. Have you looked for WP:POKE? It's certainly not inactive.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 15:17, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Here it is.[3] POKE was tagged inactive till recently. Ultra! 15:20, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

That thread is several months old and only one person is talking there. There's no consensus, and having multiple templates prevents a huge template like the media one is becoming.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 15:22, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Reverted edits

I hope you don't mind me reverting these[4] edits made by Amydelaine (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Bidgee (talk) 21:47, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Nope.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 22:14, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Best Buy IPs

I've noticed your comments on some talk pages for some Best Buy IP addresses. I wonder how one can fairly say No one should be editing from Best Buy when we allow other public networks such as libraies, diners, internet cafes, schools, and hospitals to edit. Also, it's one thing to say that about their customers that edit, but what about their employees? That's just a few questions I have. GO-PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 23:58, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

There is only one regular editor who edits from a Best Buy store terminal, and he/she is in good standing. This is the national Best Buy IP range, where on our end, we have no control. We can prevent abusefrom libraries and the like, but a store chain is something entirely different.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 00:06, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

When you say regular editor, do you mean registered, or do you mean regularly edits anon? GO-PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 21:09, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Registered.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 22:23, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Wiki vs. Drama wiki

This might not be a drama wiki, but it is an encyclopedia, right? And dramas are part of people's careers. Also, deletion of drama info from Japanese singers' pages kinda conflicts with presence of Filmography sections on pages of singers/entertainers from other countries. Why such discrimination? --Smallq (talk) 07:57, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

The information I remove is solely the information that is extremely unencyclopedic. I've solely removed their "nickname", moved their birthday to the lead, and changed the formatting from the Drama-Wiki general format to the Wikipedia format. Wikipedia is not D-Addicts' Drama-Wiki, and the content should not be carbon copies.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 07:59, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I have nothing against removal of nicknames and such, but you routinely remove information about their acting in TV dramas. As I said, other countries' entertainers get to retain their acting career information, so why do you remove it from Japanese's? --Smallq (talk) 10:01, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I left the filmography entirely intact. I removed the trivia section from the article. This is the change you're complaining about, is it not?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 10:11, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I am so sorry. It seems that I confused two history pages. Again, I'm very sorry for bothering you. --Smallq (talk) 10:33, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Images

There are tons and tons of images in your upload log where you haven't met all the criteria of WP:NFCC - I got your note, did you mean that you're going to go through and fix them all, and I can dispense with notifying you? I just wanted to be sure. Kelly ^hi! 02:38, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

They have all met the criteria at the time of upload. I don't upload images that often, and when I do I make sure that if they are fair use that I follow the proper policies in the usage of the images in question.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 02:40, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

And I will later go through other image uploads to check that they have all the information required.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 02:40, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I use Howcheng's script to tag images - after I'm finished going through your upload log, I'll come back and consolidate all the spammy templates into a single message. Kelly ^hi! 02:44, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'm checking everything now (up to page 2). Some have copyright information, those that don't I'm adding them to.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 02:45, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

ANI thread

I know you are aware of the thread, but please see here. Thanks. Carcharoth (talk) 07:40, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I've made my statement.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 07:46, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of undertow's recent article

The article had 4 citations. How can this claim be upheld? The article is most certainly notable. — _Maggot^Syn 11:56, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

It had 4 citations, yes, but what did they really tell us? That the subject works for an organization, it links to his personal website, as well as two self-referential articles that trivially discuss his actions on Wikipedia. The individual is not notable. Unless he appears in print media regarding his actions as part of the Iraq War Veterans Organization that specifically focus on him, then he's notable.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 12:05, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd like the citations to be posted to my talk page if you don't mind, so I can go over them to determine it for myself. This isn't a threat, but after reviewing them, and if I find evidence to the contrary, I'm taking it to DRV. The article, as I seen it before its deletion, asserted notability and is thus not subject to speedy. — _Maggot^Syn 13:01, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I will get the citations, but deletion reasons are not set in stone to CSD.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 13:01, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. Much appreciated. And IAR was not the given reason for deletion. — _Maggot^Syn 13:03, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

IAR can cover many definitions. If you cite it, it's suddenly a rule :O—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 13:03, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Of course it is ;p although it wasn't specified in the log as the reason, but only after the fact. I really do appreciate your willingness in this situation. — _Maggot^Syn 13:05, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Here are the external citations: [5], [6], [7], [8]. In all, I can find 5 sentences about him in the press, his personal website, and a single line about him.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 13:06, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your promptness. — _Maggot^Syn 13:08, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Now that I have looked over the sources used, I'd like to formally request to you that it be undeleted. The article appears notable and meets wikipedia's requirements for inclusion as a stub. — _Maggot^Syn 13:54, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

My review of the sources (a total of five sentences of coverage outside his website) say have fun at DRV. —Ryūlóng (竜龙) 13:56, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I've got yet another wild idea. I'd like to request that you userfy it for me, in my userspace, if you wouldn't mind. — _Maggot^Syn 14:42, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not ok with that. If there is an article about me in the mainspace, that is one thing, since that's where articles are supposed to go. If there is an article about me in userspace, that seems quite retaliatory and inappropriate. For the record, an article on me in previous incarnation was deleted at AFD. My notability has not substantially changed since then.⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 14:52, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Its nothing of the sort. I've only asked it be userfied, so I can recreate it in the mainspace. Nothing more. I'd appreciate not being accused of this in the future. — _Maggot^Syn 15:03, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

As a side note, the AfD was closed as no consensus, leaning toward keep anyway (as the prevalent majority !vote). — _Maggot^Syn 15:12, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

That AFD appears to be about Dan K. Rosenthal whose notability is also kinda iffy.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 15:14, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I am definitively NOT Daniel K. Rosenthal of White House fame. Nor am I the Daniel Rosenthal of public relations fame, nor any of the university professors, the china manufacturer, or the jazz musicians. I'm also not the multiple lawyers in DC named Daniel Rosenthal. Just so we're on the same page here. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 16:11, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

My mistake not making that comment clearer. Thats the only AfD related, so I must be missing something when you refer to your notability being refuted in an AfD. If you still want to discuss this, you're more than welcome to my talk page SWAT, if you don't mind. I don't want to continue to clutter Ryulong's talk up. Although I am interested in what AfD you were talking about, I've taken this talk page off my watchlist (I usually do this when conversations are considered over). Cheers. — _Maggot^Syn 17:08, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Is this stub really worth it? Are you going to go through process for the sake of process to force an article about someone the undertow was in a dispute with? Is that what we've been brought to?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 14:51, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I just want to explore the options I have before DRV. I'm basing my opinion on the premise of the article, and staying clear from basing my judgment on what has transpired between editors. I find this to be the preferable editing standard. If it can be established that there is a direct link; from a dispute, to the creation of an article with no OR and written with NPOV in mind, then I will stay out of it. But if you cannot prove this to me, you are basically telling me that the deletion of the article was based on the knowledge of a past dispute, while overlooking the merit of the article. Its true that the article shouldn't have been created by the undertow, but it was (theres no stopping that now). I've asked for its undeletion, and now for you to userfy it for me. If the real problem lies with the creator of the article, then let me do it. — _Maggot^Syn 15:03, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I do not think that the two lines of content are worth it.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 15:06, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

One line of content if you take out the Wikipedia references, which are not notable enough to be relevant. _{1 != 2} 15:16, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Are you saying that the nytimes and washington post aren't notable? — _Maggot^Syn 15:18, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Five sentences spread out in both talking about him would be a trivial mention, no?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 15:21, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

We're going to have to agree to disagree. I'm not going to bother with the DRV, but I do thank you for the cooperation that you did give, in any event. Cheers. — _Maggot^Syn 15:31, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

hi

hi there, I just want to say sorry for everything that I said to you. I know your angry at me right?? but I really am sorry for all the trouble I made, I know I'm stupid sometimes so let's just forget what happend right. just like jam project yells No More War!!! but I still believe that mizuki and matsumoto are past members and maybe people around the world just have different opinions right... honto ni gomenasai!! hope we be friends —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kurorohunter (talk • contribs) 06:37, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Indef block on User:Condolence

Hi, I wonder if you could explain a bit more about why User:Condolence has been indefinitely blocked? I've checked the blocking policy, and I can't see how it fits with the purpose or goal of blocking, since Condolence has not really been disruptive or damaging, only a bit daft. The block doesn't seem to fit anything under "Purpose and goal", nor under "When blocking may be used". I've followed some of the discussion history on his and other talk pages, and he has a point that if he's blocked for not editing then he's hardly going to be able to redeem himself. We have a whole load of doofuses floating around this encyclopedia causing all kinds of problems or making arses of themselves with talk page comments; why block Condolence in particular when he's actually not causing problems and most of his edits are limited to his user page? (I can't see bandwidth wastage on his user page as a reasonable argument!)

When he has edited talk pages that I've been watching, he's obviously been following the article and interested in its improvement; what I imagine he's doing is mainly just reading articles, and feeling too shy/incompetent to start editing yet. I agree that he's probably not going to be hugely useful as an editor any time in the near future, but is he any less deserving of that chance than any other doofus out there? I don't agree that he's not here to help build an encyclopedia, since he's repeatedly shown interest in article improvement, and he hasn't been disruptive; I think the real reason for blocking him is his incompetence.

I don't have any special fondness for the fellow, but this block just seems contrary to WP policy as well as the spirit of community that WP is built on. I'm not an admin and I don't understand these things, so please explain to me why I'm wrong. Fuzzypeg★ 06:09, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia first and a community (barely) second. Condolence made no article edits and had several hundred edits in his/her user space only, as well as some inappropriate edits outside of his user space. Wikipedia is a community created website, but not one that needs someone who wants to use Wikiformatting to make their user page pretty.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 06:12, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Deleted user page

I have been unblocked by arbcom. You deleted my user page. Please undo your delete.

Thank you.

Cbsite (talk) 01:23, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Done.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 01:24, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

You blocked me..

Hello there Ryulong, my name is Jon and I've been using wikipedia since about late 2005, and I use Wikipedia numerous times everyday.. And I mean everyday. Sometimes I make changes to documents, ONLY when I feel I can help make that documents better by changing some information I know is inaccurate. However for some reason or another I haven't logged into my user account for quite some time, and when I did I saw that you pegged me for vandalism and blocked my account from making changes. I would like to please know why you are blocking, because I swear I didn't do anything wrong. I would never do anything to Wikipedia, other than help make it better than it was before.

So if you could please tell me what I did wrong, and give me a chance to defend myself, that would be great. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonwillig (talk • contribs) 06:50, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, I don't know what account you're referring to, because if you're editting on my page, that means you're not blocked. Please be more specific?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 06:52, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, that's very strange. Just moments ago I was blocked from making any changes and said it was from you. So I thought I'd go see why I was blocked, but I guess it's all fixed now. Sorry for wasting time then. Sorry for not having proper Talk Page etiquette as well, I went and edited my last entry to fit the guidelines, but there was complications. Thanks for everything!

Jonwillig (talk) 07:04, 19 June 2008 (UTC)Jonwillig 07:04, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, so long as you can edit, everything's fine here :)—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 08:08, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Invite to review a set of articles

Hi there. You participated in this ANI thread. I picked out the names of some editors I recognised, or who had extensive comments there, and I was wondering if you would have time to review the articles mentioned in the thread I've started here, and in particular the concerns I've raised there about how I used the sources. Thanks.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Carcharoth (talk • contribs)

Well, the subjects are a bit out of my area of expertise, but I'll take a look at it given some sleep.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 08:12, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Forever Red

Can you stop making Forever Red a redirect? I made it just as good as Green with Evil, if not better. –Victor ^{(talk) (works)} 03:55, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Green With Evil is probably no better sourced than Forever Red and should be redirected.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 03:56, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Also, there was an AFD for Forever Red.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 03:56, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I guess you're right. –Victor ^{(talk) (works)} 03:57, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for the trouble. –Victor ^{(talk) (works)} 04:05, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Getter Robot Hien logo

here the logo right from the first chapter http://img46.imageshack.us/my.php?image=getterrobohientheearthspo3.jpg using ImageShack because I'm not sure how\where upload it.Sirtao (talk) 00:26, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

It is still never called "Getter Robot" outside of that logo.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 00:27, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

official logo=Official spelling. There is no other official spelling for Hien, so that spelling should be used, maybe with a note saying that Hien is the only series with Robot and not Robo as official romanization Sirtao (talk) 23:03, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I realize this, but no one in the English speaking world refers to the series as anything but "Getter Robo." While it is the official logo, it is als not the preferred spelling.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 23:24, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Then, a note saying that Robot is the official spelling should be added(maybe explaining why the Robo spelling was chosen) Sirtao (talk) 14:18, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Think of something along those lines then.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 16:52, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Real life

I can understand your revert even though I was just being bold, but in future can you please refrain from saying "not smart" in your comments. It's degrading. --Pmedema (talk) 08:30, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

That was fairly kind of me, in my opinion.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 08:32, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Best Buy preventative blocking?

I just reported another Best Buy Mac display IP for vandalism. The one in question has not received many warnings, but the Mac next to it has been blocked for 6 months. They're on the same table. What's the difference between the two? DarkAudit (talk) 18:35, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Somehow the other one is outside of the range I had blocked. If you could give me the IP, I can fix this.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 22:18, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

It's 198.22.122.123. It was blocked for a day. DarkAudit (talk) 00:25, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I have blocked the range.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 00:26, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Can you explain these blocks please

• 67.150.175.9 (talk · tag · contribs · count · WHOIS · ip details · trace · RBLs • logs · block log · arb · rfc · lta · spi · checkuser · socks )
• 67.150.174.233 (talk · tag · contribs · count · WHOIS · ip details · trace · RBLs • logs · block log · arb · rfc · lta · spi · checkuser · socks )
• 63.199.246.137 (talk · tag · contribs · count · WHOIS · ip details · trace · RBLs • logs · block log · arb · rfc · lta · spi · checkuser · socks )
• 12.210.183.169 (talk · tag · contribs · count · WHOIS · ip details · trace · RBLs • logs · block log · arb · rfc · lta · spi · checkuser · socks )
• 69.145.49.128 (talk · tag · contribs · count · WHOIS · ip details · trace · RBLs • logs · block log · arb · rfc · lta · spi · checkuser · socks )

I have run them past Alison, who agrees that none of them are likely open proxies [9]. Viridae^Talk 11:56, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I blocked them before I realized that my user talk page was linked to a particular message board. The IPs had no other edits, and probably won't edit, again. If you feel like they should be unblocked, do so. I'm not going to have the chance to for an hour or so.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 22:41, 30 June 2008 (UTC)