User talk:Ryulong/Archive 11

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

I guess I didn't need to add those? :) Yankees76 04:27, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

That means the page gets deleted. And we don't want that.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 04:28, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I see. Cool, I didn't know that. Thanks! Yankees76 04:30, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I was going to go with {{sockpuppetconfirmed|Burgz33}} because there is no doubt that they are sockpuppets. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 04:33, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

{{blockedsock|Burgz33}} is much better.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 04:37, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

You pointed out: "User talk:213.113.231.176"

Thanks. I left a message on that user's talk page. I believe this is

talk · contribs) requesting an unblock even though he knows he's banned. If not, whoever it is can email the unblock-en list. --Yamla

05:22, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Declined based on your message.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 05:25, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

What's with this guy? I declined quite a few requests of his in the past 10 minutes or so. —²¹⁰physicq (c) 05:28, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Mike Garcia must get bored very easily.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 05:28, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

But this easily? Come on, this sock/block/sock/block cycle is verging on ridiculous. —²¹⁰physicq (c) 05:30, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, I know I shut down his last factory. And his IP is blocked from creating any more sockpuppets.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 05:31, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

He's at it again. —²¹⁰physicq (c) 06:00, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

He had to find a new picture since I blacklisted the middle finger—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 06:01, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Hello Ryulong. I would like to semi protect my user page. Can you help me? Where do I go? How do I do it? King Lopez ^Contribs 05:49, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I see no reason why it should be done.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 05:49, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I just don't want any vandals to attack my user page in the future. Is it something that only administratiors can do? King Lopez ^Contribs 05:58, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

No one's done anything there. I won't protect it.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 05:59, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok well thanks anyway. King Lopez ^Contribs 06:04, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for helping out with this anon user. I really did try to be reasonable and explain why I was reverting them. But, as we well know, it's easier to hit Caps Lock and vent than actually reconsider one's actions. Cheers, Caknuck 06:57, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I think we'll need to protect his talk page if he insists on using it to make personal attacks. Caknuck 07:09, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Will you stop removing those Jetix shows from Jetix templates & stop removing Jetix category that the shows is only on Jetix? HMR 11:31 Apri 1, 2007 (UTC)

The issue is those shows were stated as being original to Jetix, when the articles clearly state that they are not.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 10:34, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, So I renamed Original Jetix Shows into Shows only on Jetix. 11:37, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

And PR isn't only on Jetix.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 10:37, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

What a mess. Too many edits to too many sections at the same time. – Chacor 10:38, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, you'll find this diff interesting—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 10:39, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I saw that, and tried to replace it, and managed to revert someone else's edits too, so gave up. – Chacor 10:40, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

And, of course, reverting myself made even more of a mess, so... it's not worth it. I won't be surprised to get caught on 3RR (I reverted one comment by the troll four times, the last time accidental in that botched revert of Prob), either. – Chacor 10:42, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

And Mel Elitis has referenced the Straight Outta Lynwood fiasco, just as Tony Sidaway basically predicted in a private conversation. I'm going to sleep now (for real). Could you take on the reigns?—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 10:44, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm probably gonna call it an editing day too. Too busy, not worth getting caught on a technicality. – Chacor 10:45, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for reverting my user pages that were blanked. Koweja 13:50, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

The

) 16:21, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

A Barnstar

User:TeckWiz/Barnstar

Hi - a stub template or category which you created has been nominated for deletion or renaming at

06:15, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I'll rename it then.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 06:17, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Please undelete his page. The reasons are stated on his talk page. Peace, -- The Hybrid 23:36, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. -- The Hybrid 00:20, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Just so you know the next potential article split is the

05:56, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

That page isn't going to get any larger. I think it's fine.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 05:57, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Fine but at least now you are alert and I'll treat this as a minor issue. But one thing you should know before I saw your message is that I did a sandbox test by removing the individual clans monsters and Quester Robos I found that there were only 34 kilobytes left, although I doubt that it wouldn't be a good idea to use should it come to article seperation. -Adv193 06:06, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Trim the mosnter entries of clutter (plot summary)—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 06:26, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if I can get to it for awhile since I got to go to bed and then on the next day I have to deal with homework after my college classes tommorrow. -Adv193 06:48, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

What the heck was that supposed to mean, 'You have not learned your lesson, it seems'? Arcayne 14:47, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Edit warring is harmful—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 18:26, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, which is why I don't engage in it. However, you suggested that I had not learned my lesson, implying that the particular lesson was a recurring issue. If you were referring to my block log, you surely noted that the two prior blocks were withdrawn by the admins who placed them as they were inappropriately placed. I am curious as to what evidence you based your statement upon. Arcayne 01:23, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

You have a history of nearly violating 3RR. Edit warring, even if not 3RR is harmful.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 01:29, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Ahh, I see. Okay. I thought you had actually looked at my edit history or knew the matters surrounding the withdrawn 3RRs. You hadn't and don't, but that's okay. I know how very busy you are. Arcayne 14:53, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

For future reference, I thought I'd remind you that blocks aren't meant to be punitive. :) Arcayne 14:54, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

did you delete the page I made? —The preceding

) 02:15, 4 April 2007 (UTC).

I didn't delete it. I made it redirect. There was only a line of text and a big and useless template on the page you made.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 02:16, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

See

05:56, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Essjay controvery "purge"

Hello, I saw this in the logs just now:

1. 08:49, April 1, 2007 Ryulong (Talk | contribs) restored "Essjay controversy" (1,515 revisions restored: flushed)
2. 08:48, April 1, 2007 Ryulong (Talk | contribs) deleted "Essjay controversy" (purging)

Please explain what the purpose/need for that was? Thanks! - Denny 06:01, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Something that I should seek oversight for.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 06:04, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

No problem, I didn't see any mention on the talk page for any reports of problems there and it looked odd. - Denny 06:05, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Just one user spamming oversightable information across WP.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 06:05, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Ah. I figured it was something stupid. - Denny 06:06, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Jamie Hyneman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Ask a favor while I have your attention? Semi protect this? Asked on RFPP but nothing yet; anons are going nuts on it and with new accounts too. - Denny 06:07, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

damn, that was fast. Thanks. - Denny 06:08, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I can read minds.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 06:08, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

If I knew how to make a pretty barnstar you'd get a psychic one. - Denny 06:09, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Look at user:Mr.Blyak--Giovanni Giove 09:00, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

No worries, Ryulong. I had to go off-line shortly after but it looks like he stopped, for now. :) Cheers, Sarah 13:01, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikitube (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) -- I don't have time to deal with this -- Agathoclea 11:12, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Dear Ryulong,

I object to the use of the term 'Vandalism' on my edit to

). It was my intention to provide useful information to those who had read about and a link so that they may be able to view this page. It was my reasoning that a link was appropriate in this instant as it was a topic under direct discussion in the text.

I understand that perhaps supplying a link was not quite appropriate on this page and would have been more useful in a separate page discussing

.

I have read the vandalism page and feel that in no way could my edit be considered an act of vandalism. In the future, however, I will discuss with other page editors before adding links.

Thanks,

--Brerbunny 01:08, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

How did you set up your userboxes? They're nifty. I think they are separate user pages, but I don't know how you set them up as scrollboxes.... 01:46, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

It's a

coding thing—Ryūlóng

(竜龍) 01:58, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Gekiranger

I think you get leave "Geki" alone, plus had you even noticed no one even comments on the arguments we have on the Tokusatsu Wikitalk? Fractyl

Yeah, I'm trying to contact him, but he is not replying (I know he's on Wikipedia now because he's blocking any edit I do to Shawn Michaels). If I make another edit, he's gonna block me. What should I do? Davnel03 09:13, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I would leave him a new (since I removed them) message on his talk page, or perhaps e-mail him or

Eagle 101 about this issue.—Ryūlóng

(竜龍) 09:14, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Mergers

I see that you have acted unilaterally in reverting the mergers of the murder articles. I also see that you are an administrator. I think that As you are an admin you should be aware of the procedures. THe merger procedures have been followed. If you disagree please partake in the debate on the subjects individually not a blanket revert. Many thanks Lucy-marie 11:00, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

In case you haven't noticed, I realized my mistake and undid my reverts and unmergings.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 20:21, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I thought that Dwayne Cameron interpreted him. Kamen Rider - (Can I help you?) 03:36, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that we don't know it for sure yet. The website that originally stated it is a fansite.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 03:39, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I understand. Sorry. Kamen Rider - (Can I help you?) 02:31, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Akkad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I did in the discussion page. As there was no dissent to my suggestion after some time, I went ahead and made the changes. I am sure if you see the pages as edited you will agree they are an improvement John D. Croft 08:28, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

In this case, it's best to go ask other people who have worked on the article—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 21:19, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Dear Ryulong, Can you please edit and upgrade an article for Tau Gamma Phi based on the Revision last at 15:58, 2 April 2007 or Revision at 10:09, 4 April 2007 plus 4000+ Collegiate, community based chapter will be modify to 4000+ Collegiate and local based chapter. Thank you so much and we really appreciate your upgrading and protections on Tau Gamma Phi. —The preceding

) 10:43, 7 April 2007 (UTC).

Dear Ryulong, just a follow-up regarding on this request "An Upgrade and Effective Article"...thank you.

my posts to ur disc page

I put my posts in 1 section as u ask, but still u deleted it, y? R u going 2 answer my question?Lilkunta 22:01, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I did. Now please type in English when conversing with me. I don't like AOL speak.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 22:02, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Ack! Quickly! Put make it *(?i:garfield) .. not "*Garfield", that'll catch every username with G a r f i e l or d! --Iamunknown 05:31, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Gotcha.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 05:32, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Is 67.101.47.82 an open proxy? You've indefinitely blocked this IP and I can't seem to figure out why. - auburnpilot talk 06:39, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok, nevermind. You changed it immediately....not sure why that didn't show up before. Apologies, - auburnpilot talk 06:40, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I have yet to see anything with his name spelled in English. Where's the proof that it's Ax Form, not Axe Form? Or am I missing something? Archon Divinus 18:53, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Note the spelling of the English here—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 21:15, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. You certainly told me. Archon Divinus 23:20, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

The prime user has been in a content dispute regarding the birthdate of this article. All the sockpuppets are deleting the same portion of the article and inserting one birthdate while using the same type edit summary. Ronbo76 23:02, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I was glancing through the recent block log, and I noticed that you banned

) 02:04, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I had a feeling it was related to the FA. I've allowed the user to create a new username (no autoblock, etc).—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 02:06, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for zappin that guy.

		The Original Barnstar
		For Reverting Vanalism On My User Page Pupster21 12:05, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

So you deleted most of this article because it was original research. I disagree with this because most of the information that was deleted is factual information. Here are some examples:

The entire section labeled The "Booyah" Video is all factual. It is a brief synopsis of one of Eveready's most famous films. Would this not count as original research if there was a citation to the video at the end of this section?

The section labeled Eveready's Technique merely explains the derivation and common use of a phrase that was invented largely due to the man that the article is about. This is both relevant and factual.

The section labeled Internet Meme and Beyond is very true. If you looks at popular internet sites that college students share information on, such as Facebook.com and Myspace.com, you will find that many students have joined groups that are based on Tony Eveready. Some examples are the groups "Dig tuh china then tone!", "Freak dat bitch out den tone!" and "Awww Tone." If these sources are cited, will this no longer be original research?

My most important point is that the parts of this article that were deleted are very similar to parts of other articles that are allowed to remain. My main example is the article about the recent film "Snakes on a Plane." The Snakes on a plane article has a section that is a synopsis of the movie, and a section entitled "Internet" which explains the online following that this movie developed. These are basically the same as the Tony Eveready article sections that were deleted. The Snakes on a Plane article even has a section about References in Popular Culture, which is also quite similar to the Internet Meme and Beyond section of the TOny Eveready article.

It seems to me like there is some kind of double standard here, and that you are being overly critical of the Tony Eveready article possibly for personal reasons (ie. you don't like the pornography industry). Are you still sure that you can delete the bulk of this article while leaving so many other articles that have the same 'violation' intact?

Sincerely,

Jeff Hofmann

—The preceding

) 17:45, 9 April 2007 (UTC).

User:Mmckinnie

Mmckinnie (talk · contribs)

This user has requested an unblock and as per the reasoning, it does seem like the user was simply removing vandalism. As you are the blocking admin, I thought I would run it by you. IrishGuy ^talk 22:39, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

At first glance, I think I agree with IrishGuy's assessment. Looks like a lot was going on, though, so it's possible I missed something. – Luna Santin (talk) 23:50, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

As a precaution, I went through the history and blocked all IPs and users who only had their contributions on that page (or their most recent ones) and blocked them. I will unblock Mmckinnie.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 00:30, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I am aware of the vandalism and I am attempting to correct the problem I listened to the show today and heard the comments made by J.D. Ryan himself about the accuracy of the article. I restored the page to its state previous to its mention on the show and removed all inaccuracies regarding J.D.Ryan's involvement in the KKK.I am aware you are trying to protect the page but I believe my edit was accurate. and would appreciate your input on this matter. —The preceding

) 03:04, 10 April 2007 (UTC).

Then please only add sourced material.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 03:05, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi Ryulong, I need your help again. Today

page, left me the following message:

Hi, Mario. On the talk page of

WP:RS); sadly, this was basically ignored and very obvious

sockpuppetry was resorted to instead, by people who held the high ground in the dispute. This led to the page being unprotected at your request and the edit war kicking off again, as it would when underhand methods are being used.

I wrote to

05:46, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I would request something at RFCU—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 05:49, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I borrowed the text you tend to use when uploading pictures, about the fair use stuff, for the zord launch pic at Zords in Power Rangers: Operation Overdrive; just wanted to let you know in case you minded and wanted me to change it. Arrow 22:15, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

That's cool.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 00:50, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Hello. I'm looking for a little impartial 3rd party admin advice here. A week ago, I saw Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of ZIP Codes in Oklahoma and suggested that the discussion be closed and an umbrella nom created. I saw that it was closed yesterday and was going to create the umbrella nom for all (52) the articles in the category, until I noticed the closing note from the admin suggested that AFD was not the right place. So... should I just go ahead and create the umbrella nom, or should I first seek additional clarification from the closing admin? --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 03:23, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Discuss it at the correct VP.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 03:38, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm. That was not one of the possible responses that I was expecting.... Are you recommending that I A) initiate a discussion at the pump to propose the deletion of the articles, or B) ask the question at the pump instead of asking you personally? Also, which pump? I've only ever really used the technical pump, but that's obviously not the correct one for this. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 03:55, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I understand how time consuming it must be to keep up with everything, so I thank you for your consideration and attention to my situation.

Mmckinnie 17:50, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I've brought the individual episode pages to afd on the grounds that they cannot be more than plot summaries. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Journey of a Thousand Miles. I thought you may wish to participate since you were once heavily involved in Xiaolin Showdown, and still perform vandal watching on the pages. Jay32183 22:47, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Today%27s_featured_article/April_12%2C_2007#Help_me_plz --Iamunknown 06:53, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

		The Original Barnstar
		I voted oppose in your RFA, but now I see that I was wrong. We need more admins like you, Ryulong. Hardworking, diligent, and apparently detectives too. Keep up the good work. — MichaelLinnear 00:17, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you :)—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 00:42, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

03:41, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Regarding your block of User:Skult of Caro, it doesn't appear you have provided evidence for your sockpuppet claim anywhere. If I am wrong, point me to the place. If I am right, please provide the evidence on User talk:Skult of Caro or on a noticeboard. Everyking 07:43, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

There is no culmination of the data on this website. And I would prefer not to release the information on Wiki per

WP:BEANS. But there are a handful of administrators who had a very strong feeling that Skult of Caro was Nathanrdotcom. In fact, most of the evidence that is really damning was pointed out by Thatcher131.—Ryūlóng

(竜龍) 08:08, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

How are people supposed to evaluate the truth of the accusation if you won't explain the evidence (if any) in favor of it? If you refuse to post it on-wiki, then you must at least disclose it in private to anyone who requests it, and I am making that request now. Anyway, Thatcher's evidence is that they both made a similar plea for a user not to commit suicide. This would be a worthwhile supporting detail in the context of a serious case, but standing on its own it's virtually worthless. Furthermore, how would Skult go about disproving the accusation, if it were false? Everyking 08:17, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

You have just made a similar accusation against User:Sant99876 and blocked him, again without providing the slightest bit of evidence anywhere. This is a serious problem. Everyking 08:23, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/LegoAxiom1007—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 08:29, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

All right. In the future, when you impose a block based on CheckUser results, please provide a link to the results along with your block message. Everyking 08:35, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

And let me finish this damn e-mail, too—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 08:30, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Everyking, Skult of Caro is definitely nathanrdotcom, without a shadow of doubt. I know for a fact that he is. I don't know whether this blocking has anything to do with the emails I sent to a couple or arbitrators yesterday, but either way we don't need this guy. Thanks to Ryulong for blocking the Lego socks, BTW. Best to all, Moreschi ^{Want some help? Ask!} 08:57, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

• Agreed, that was definitely him. Besides his contributions, moments after Skult of Caro was banned, nathanr immediately posted a blog entry on his website about it, also bitching about how Ryulong "got patted on the back" with a barnstar from yours truly. Additionally Skult of Caro is coincidentally in the same time zone as nathanr and the email Skult sent sounds just like nathanr, getting all angry and petulant about something as trivial as a barnstar.

From: [redacted]

To: [redacted]

Subject: Wikipedia e-mail

Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2007 5:40 PM

Ryulong is wrong. I have nothing to do with that user whatsover - and awarding him anything for faulty logic is just wrong. - Chris.

Anyhow he has requested oversight to be conducted on this page. By the way nathanr's email address and Skult of Caro's are one and the same, so that removes any last doubt about the sockpuppetry that went on. — MichaelLinnear 23:06, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. This guy couldn't quack any louder.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 23:08, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

As an aside, Skult of Caro likely refers to the Cult of Skaro from Doctor Who. It would've more poetically justified if he was blocked next Saturday, but I digress. It makes the case worse for him, though, he was a self-proclaimed Doctor Who fan. Will ^{(I hope they cannot see, I AM THE GREAT DESTROYER!)} 01:39, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Lol, Will, nice one. Must time these blocks with the TV shows, naturally...Moreschi ^{Want some help? Ask!} 11:56, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Because you are an admin, please block

) 09:15, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

No—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 09:17, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh, you just blocked them. Thanks.

T|C

) 09:23, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Edit war

There appears to be an edit war and 3RR violation engaging on Turkey by two users, which done it before, before the page was semi-protected now they have waited for over 4 days and are doing it again. It is extremely disruptive, please block them. Retiono Virginian 16:33, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually all sockpuppets of a banned user. Retiono Virginian 16:34, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I didn't realize Ararat arev had 4 year old sockpuppets.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 21:22, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

4 years old? Oh dear, it turned out the article had to be fully protected anyway, as everytime the accounts were blocked. New ones appeared to be coming from nowhere. He seems to have some real issues. Retiono Virginian 17:56, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi Ryulong, my name is CJ King. I am Skult of Caro's adopter, and I would really appreciate it if he was unblocked. For a lengthier statement, please see his talk page. Thanks.--CJ K 22:06, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Skult of Caro/Nathanrdotcom will not be unblocked. Nathanrdotcom is effectively

banned for unquestionable things, and this ban was upheld by the arbitration committee. As a banned user, he is not allowed to edit Wikipedia.—Ryūlóng

(竜龍) 22:12, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Ryulong, take a look at this: CJ King welcomed Skult to Wikipedia before Skult even made his first edit (check the bottom ). Furthermore, Skult's reply to the welcome came two minutes after the welcome (and was also his first edit). Milto LOL pia 01:31, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

People do welcomes all of the time. I need something more than that.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 01:33, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Before the person edits though? Milto LOL pia 01:33, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Erk, forgot about the user creation log. let me see if that guy welcomed anyone else at that time. Even if not enough for a block, maybe it'd be enough for a checkuser. Milto LOL pia 01:34, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I'll keep it in mind.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 01:35, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Quick link: [1] - no other welcomes at the time. Maybe he just hit the log up once and happened to adopt the person later... maybe. Anyway, I'll request a CU, check my contribs if you want to comment ^_^ Milto LOL pia 01:37, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

The noinclude problems you fixed at {{Ent}} and {{Rf}} - if you check edit hist of user who made that spacing error, there are several other templates edited around the same time (in response to my editprotecteds) that probably have the same problem. I'd go fix them myself, but I'm not an admin. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 23:36, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

It's all fixed now.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 23:54, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Thou dost rocketh. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 16:56, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi, because of the dispute over the AfD on ISTIA and the whole sockpuppet issue, the user representing that organisation has a personal grudge against me and has posted false accusations on her (new and allegedly temporary) user talk page. It was the same nonsense that was posted at WP:CN that you removed[2]. I would request for that to be removed since I don't want to be bothered with her again and me editing anything by her would only make matters worse. Thanks. --Strangnet _{(t, c)} 00:04, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Completely dealt with.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 00:17, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. --Strangnet _{(t, c)} 00:29, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

still at it with again IP account. community page again. --Fredrick day 00:31, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Funny thing is that it's actually me who have received two emails from her, through my blog (which she took to google to find), of which one had that gmail-address she posted about on WP:CN earlier as return address with the same email content. I also think she called me at home with a difficult to understand norwegian accent - a little too much for me, that's why I won't get into all of this any more. --Strangnet _{(t, c)} 00:39, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

If it's not too much to ask for, her false remarks she later added to WP:CN again should perhaps be removed as well. I shouldn't have to defend myself everytime she decides to return as a sockpuppet. --Strangnet _{(t, c)} 02:00, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Dealt with.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 02:03, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Great! Hope this was the last time. --Strangnet _{(t, c)} 02:05, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

You'll never guess who's back... ;-) Khoikhoi 01:54, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for helping me and fixing my userpage. I created those pages using "\" because somebody told me to use it instead of "/". Well, I would like to ask for your help. Some wikipedians use my userboxes, can you automatically fix the link to the new address? Thanks. AlexCovarrubias ^{( Let's talk! )} 08:01, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

All fixed—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 08:09, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

So much thank you! AlexCovarrubias ^{( Let's talk! )} 08:39, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi. My name is Chris Murray, and i noticed that you were the last of a long line of people to delete the page on Hadouken! the band. The band now are reasonable notable so i think it is now appropriate for the page to be created again. See the

for an extended request, I'm just one of many wanting it up again. --SteelersFan UK06 15:43, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

No.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 20:24, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Please use

deletion review—Ryūlóng

(竜龍) 20:25, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppets

In case you haven't seen my ANI addition User:MobyGames is the same as the IP editor, as evidenced by the Paula Michaels edit warring. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 21:07, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Done.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 21:09, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, he's certainly persistent. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 21:14, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Guess what pal, simply deleting my article without warning, without nominating it, without even leaving a message on my talk page simply wont do, its gonna be tougher than that mr all powerful administrator--0001 09:38, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

It's unsourced and violates

WP:BLP.—Ryūlóng

(竜龍) 18:07, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

FYI, that IP is a likely sock of

11:48, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

There was no autoblock.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 18:06, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

You have blocked Lakers for being a sockpuppet, but the sockpuppet case was declined in the second part, where Lakers came up, and I have seen numorous good contributions from the recent changes patrol from that user. [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11]. Would it least be fair to give Lakers a chance to appeal the case? Is there criticially significant evidence that Lakers is a sock, having done so much anti-vandal work?--U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. (talk) 00:17, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I guess there must have been a side to the case that made it evident.--U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. (talk) 00:22, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Artaxiad is banned. Plain and simple—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 02:54, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I posted up a suggestion WikiProject Tokusatsu, but no one's other you is answering it. I'm just frustrated. Fractyl

We're a diffuse group :/. Also, you are doing ~~~~, right?—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 22:04, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I am, but I'm making sure everthing is perfect. Maybe you can help me with Rio & Mele's catch phrases. The English I can do easily, but it's hard to find said text in kanji and japanese. But I found the kanji 師, meaning "Master" or "Mistress".

• Rio: As Purely Fierce as a lion, as powerful as a lion. I am one destined to rule the world. I am the Black Lion...Rio. (Takeki koto, shishino gotoku, tsuyoki koto, mata shishino gotoku. ???.Ore wa Kurojishi...Rio.)
• Mele: I live for Lord Leo's love, I am the Love Warrior who fights for my Lord Leo's love! Rinjuu Chameleon-Fist Mistress, Mele! (理央様の愛のために生き!理央様の愛のために戦うラブウォリア！臨獣カメレオン拳師, メレ!, Rinjū Kamereonkenshi, Mere!)

Fractyl

I think we should wait a bit. And type ~ 4 times in a row! D: Not 3, not 5.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 17:54, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

But that's the 2nd time both said their respective lines. Those lines will be added soon now. Fractyl 03:11, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

:D You did it! So long as you have the kanji for it, though.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 03:12, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

But I don't know the kanji, hence asking for your help with it. Fractyl 11:04, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. I will ask someone else. I'll figure it out by the end of the weekend.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 21:12, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Though I would normally agree, Gerunds are not actually needed in this case. Even if it's sounds like something out of One Piece, it's still a important element to the series due to Jan's method of speech and the episode titles. Also, I think we should keep Geki-Geki Cannon as I'm thinking it may not be "Fierce" but "Geki".Fractyl 02:14, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

The "Geki" energy is written differently than the "Geki" that means "Fierce." GekiBazooka's Gekiwaza uses the one that means "Fierce."—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 02:51, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, with some of the kanji error I have been through, like with the Blastasaurs, I'm being careful. But if not, I think Geki-Geki should still be used, it's one of those kanji that are better left alone like "Daizyujin". Same goes for Madoku and the Kenma. Fractyl 03:25, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I disagree.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 21:47, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't get that last revert, I thought Rinrinshi were the "monsters of the week" that use the Beast-Man as a "fighting form". Fractyl 02:08, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

They're referred to as Juujin at the website and not Rinrinshii—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 02:09, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I thought that just refered to their fighting forms they assume, as they are mostly identical in Rinrinshi form. Fractyl 12:14, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

"No one in their right mind would lift the ban on Daniel Brandt. —Ryūlóng (竜龍) 03:17, 16 April 2007 (UTC)"

"19:25, 18 April 2007 Jimbo Wales (Talk | contribs) unblocked Daniel Brandt (contribs) (Courtesy unblock, he asked nicely, we are talking about a productive way forward in the future, it has been more than a year)"

-- Ben ^TALK/_HIST 21:35, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Administrators ≠ Jimbo.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 21:40, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

"No one", not "no administrator". -- Ben ^TALK/_HIST 21:52, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Also, m:Don't be a dick, Ben.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 21:41, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

There are two reasons I keep a palm-sized crystal ball on my desk. One of them is to use it as a magnifying glass. The other is to remind me of what I can't do. I recommend it for both reasons. -- Ben ^TALK/_HIST 21:52, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

WP:CRYSTAL is articles only.—Ryūlóng

(竜龍) 22:05, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Greetings. Please do not remove comments from talk pages as you did here and and here. Those comments are germane to the talk discussion and removal is not recommended at

01:17, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

The link to

WP:CRYSTAL was an "I told you so" on the part of Ben. It had no bearing on the discussion itself.—Ryūlóng

(竜龍) 03:30, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Blocking the range 88.154.0.0/16

This range seems to be used by the Israeli ISP Bezeq International, and I think it should not be blocked for a month since it blocks many users who connect through this ISP. Thanks. – rotemliss – Talk 10:04, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi Ryulong, I noticed your block of those new accounts, but from what I could see they were civil, contributing to the discussion, and were not violating

23:37, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree that these blocks were poorly conceived. I see no violation of

WP:SOCK and blocking these accounts (who we all know are probably pretty well respected under their usual usernames) was more likely to inflame the situation than calm it. What I find trully amazing was that they were apparently blocked with autoblocks enabled. So after finding out people were uncomfortable posting with their regular names, you put pressure on them to reveal the connection between their account and their sock or stay autoblocked? I hope that was a mistake on your part because it seems pretty harsh to me. Most people try to pour water on the flames in this situation- you seem to have opted for lighter fuel instead. WjBscribe

02:00, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I unblocked Infodmz

1. 23:30, 19 April 2007 David Gerard (Talk | contribs | block) unblocked Infodmz (contribs) (second account taking care of not breaking sock rules; blocking admin away, asked nicely)

They asked for an unblock as apparently you weren't on hand, and wanted the account so they could talk about the Daniel Brandt unblocking without possible retribution from Brandt directed at their real account and say they'll take care not to appear to generate false consensus (which would violate sockpuppet rules). If it's who I think it is from writing style I think they'll be good for this.

Apparently there's more than one admin using a pseudonym in that discussion who's fallen to an autoblock because of a blocked pseudonym.

Anyway, this one should be fine I think. Probably there are others that will, but I'm going to bed now and hoping I don't wake up to a mess where I have to mutter that fatal word: "oops ..." - David Gerard 23:38, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

With the utmost of respect, I'm unblocking ForPrivacyConcerns (talk • contribs) as you are still away. I don't mean to tread on your toes, and I apologize in advance for any offense, it's not my intention. We can discuss this in more depth if you'd like when you get back, but the person contacted me privately, and I understand why they have fear/concern for their safety. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 00:15, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

You may allready be aware of this, but I thought I should let you know that it looks like User:Cascadia has started a RFC about you. Just thought you should know. -Mschel 00:54, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Cascadia has agreed to my deleting the RfC pending further discussions with you about the matter. WjBscribe 02:41, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I'm advised that the RfC is being deleted. Before that happened, though, I had submitted an outside view, which I'd respectfully urge you to take a look at and think about. Regards, Newyorkbrad 02:42, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I have just returned from my meeting. I will be reading the content of WP:CN concerning my blocking. I will not reinstate blocks, at all.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 02:43, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

After reading the commentary by you, Brad, I am going to say here that I also had been consulting with a couple of other administrators. One believed it was "disgusting" that the alternate accounts were in use. And another also agreed that the use of the alternate accounts should not have been in use.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 02:46, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

That is good to know. I disagree with those other admins as well but your actions are more understandable with that additional information. It might have reduced criticism if you had mentioned it when you announced the blocks. Regards, Newyorkbrad 02:49, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I was on my way out and I was debating on whether or not I should have gone through with it for a few hours (while simultaneously researching for a term paper). I probably should not have enacted the autoblocks, in hindsight (as it appears to have affected everyone). I should have done that immediately, but I had to rush out.

Also, as a side note, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Ryulong are only salted because of sockpuppet activity.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 02:56, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Ryulong, WJBscribe suggested that the RfC I opened in regards to your actions today be postponed, and I agreed.

There is an enormous issue with the actions that you've taken today in blocking editors using sock puppets within the guidelines of

. I've been the victim of off-wiki harassment before, and decided this time that I would not open myself up to that. It was clear from the beginning that people had issues with these preventative measures by myself and other editors. Claims of trolling and attempting to alter the debate spread like wildfire. All editors using such socks explained that they were independent users acting to prevent backlash.

Your decision to arbitrarily block all users you perceived as sockpuppets (and I say it this way because I understand one of those blocked was an actual account) was one that could have had drastic implications for those involved. In effect, by blocking those accounts, you were calling the editors out. Something that the topic of the discussion had done in the past: Outing-editors. Only you didn't out real names and other information, you created a situation where editors had few options: Out themselves, or try to find a sympathetic admin to unblock. To make matters worse, you disappeared. Other editors who were not directly involved in the block asked you to revert your actions, but you had already gone. Other admins were forced to clean up the situation.

Your actions showed blatant disregard for not only policy (

), but a disregard for the privacy and safety of those involved. As such, I personally find your actions inexcusable.

My personal preference of moving forward would be for you to voluntarily desysop. I also admit this is asking a lot of an admin, but I feel your actions warrant such a request.

I will continue to discuss this issue with you until discussion comes to a dead end. Thank you. CASCADIA^Howl/_Trail 02:48, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I apologize that I was not here when all of the major discussion was going on. I had left to go to dinner and a club meeting this evening. If I had the chance, I would have unblocked all that I had blocked, and remove the autoblocks myself. I realize my mistake now, and I apologize to all of those that had been affected by my wrong action.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 03:20, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm willing to let this all die, assuming you grasp the grave consequences of such actions that could have come about. I was hoping for something more than a "I'm sorry, I won't do it again" response, but I find that anything more than that may be hard to achieve. Could I request that you add yourself to "Category:Administrators open to recall" as a condition for me letting this die? CASCADIA^Howl/_Trail 03:36, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

FWIW I'm uninvolved with this, but a) I totally agree with you Cascadia (and others) that this was a severe mis-step and misjudgement, but b) I personally think it's unreasonable of you to ask this editor to take a step with such long-term possible consequences. I think the sincere apology and promise never to repeat is sufficient. This issue will live on in WP history, and can be revived as evidence if necessary. Anchoress 03:40, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I had removed myself from the category a few weeks ago due to dealing with a crapload of sockpuppetry. I will have to rethink my addition back to the category.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 03:42, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

(ec)The problem is too many people feel that such major misjudgments and use of admin power can be simply resolved by saying "I'm sorry and won't do it again". The actions had potentially severe consequences for those involved (I yet don't know if anything has occurred). That was the whole point for people using the accounts in the first place. All I am asking that Ryulong to make himself open for recall in the future, partly as a self-imposed discipline, partly act of good faith. I have no intention for asking him to recall should he agree to this. CASCADIA^Howl/_Trail 03:45, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Much appreciated. No hard feelings (although the autoblock was annoying). I see no reason for desysopping (as suggested above). Throwaway account 111 03:38, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

If I had been online, I would have done everything myself. I left around 5 hours ago at this time, and was unaware of the more pressing repercussions of my actions. I did not think it was related to having been harassed before, but more of not wanting to be harassed in the future.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 03:42, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure it matters whether people had been harassed in the past or feared such harassment in the future. The fact that contributors on this site feel too threatened to post using their normal usernames seems to me one of the most troubling elements of this own affair. WjBscribe 03:48, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

That is also a reason that I factored into my earlier blocking. People shouldn't be afraid of anything concerning internet arguments.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 03:51, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

They shouldn't but they are... this the whole reason the US Government has a CyberCrimes division. CASCADIA^Howl/_Trail 03:53, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I really don't think the CyberCrimes division covers arguments; I think it's more identity theft and scams and whatnot. I don't really follow that news, though.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 03:59, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Or in the case of this situation, people being threatened, menaced, having attempts made to get them fired at their real jobs, etc. You were aware of that, I assume? Your text above seems to suggest you may not be. That's why so many people sought anonymity, and why your a:blocks and b:setting of autoblocks was so dangerous. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 04:04, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I was unaware (or I simply do not recall at this moment in time, my memory sucks like that) that those threats were made.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 04:06, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Did you read the posts by those spas before you took action? They seemed pretty clear about their motivation for not using their normal accounts... WjBscribe 04:15, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I had read some of the comments, but did not see that the anonymity went as deep as the actual calling of an editor's workplace. I merely saw the issues concerning the hivemind site.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 04:23, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

(ec)The more you know: University of Dayton: Cybercrimes Wiredsafety: Cyberstalking / Harassment Cyber-rights.org, Cyberstalking Articles. There's more out there, just some jump-off resources. CASCADIA^Howl/_Trail 04:08, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

No hard feelings, just slow down on the itchy block finger. ;) FWIW, the stalking is pretty crazy. Even romantic interests (not just employers) were in some cases tracked down, as well as family. Thanks for understanding, Infodmz 05:30, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to bother you, but you were the first active admin I could find right now. Would you please take a look at the article I referenced in the header; I've tagged it ad a db-bio, but the article claims that she is the sister of the Virginia Tech shooter, and if this is so, I think it should be removed as soon as possible. The poor woman has enough problems without this. Deor 03:17, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Hello, I noticed no tags were placed on either blocked account. I don't mean to step on your toes, but I went ahead and added them.

07:33, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

It's not necessary to tag them as indefblocked.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 07:57, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I know that they are blocked whether or not the tag is there, I wanted to practice placing tags and thought it'd be courteous to let you know (since you initiated the blocks). Thanks,

08:15, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

It's not really that necessary. The tags will eventually get deleted, so there's no reason to tag them in the first place.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 08:21, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Your reply prompts the question: Why does the tag exist in the first place? Wouldn't it make sense to simply delete the

08:58, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I simply don't think that it was at all necessary in this case, especially without the "Temporary userpage" category, which you clearly removed when you put the templates there. Other users do it all of the time, I do it some times, but with these two I do not think it was of any use to tag them.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 09:03, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I understand, you meant in this case not in general. If you feel the pages were more appropriate they way they were feel free to revert me (also part of the reason I let you know).

09:13, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Megaversal (talk · contribs)

Can you take a look at an unblock request from Megaversal (talk · contribs)? He/she is blocked from an IP block you made with the comment "open proxy (ThePlanet)". It looks like it results from a range block of 69.93.0.0/16, and I don't want to just unblock the IP because that would undo the whole range. Are you certain that this is an open proxy and not, as the user claims, an ISP? Can you review and either accept or decline the request? --BigDT (416) 14:31, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I do know that we had problems with banned users mucking around with ThePlanet IPs which shows that there are several open proxies. Although it does not appear that this person was editting fine five days after the block was put in place. I really doubt that we should unblock the IP.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 20:20, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Please sign the

01:23, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Paranormal/Participants—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 01:24, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Need some help with regards to PLA military ranks pages to keep malicious editor (Roitr) from continuously making bad edits. --Aldis 90 —The preceding

) 01:28, 22 April 2007 (UTC).

All dealt with.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 03:15, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

It appears that Reddi was just leavign a message on my talk page. Why did you remove it? - Bagel7 06:50, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

He was spamming a hell of a lot.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 07:09, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Ryulong,

You probably remember that the Tony Eveready article was mostly removed a few weeks ago, but then we agreed that it was actually valid, and it was restored. It has now been removed again by Shanel, and protected in its removed state by Pathoschild so that it cannot be restored. They seem unresponsive to my comments. If you could do something to help restore the article and prevent other wiki editors from removing it again, that would be great.

Jeffw245 17:19, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

The article should not be restored to the state you want. It is full of unreferenced information that only you really think is important. Right now, it is semiprotected which means IPs cannot edit it. However, while protection is not an endorsement of the current version, I do endorse its current state.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 20:35, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about that, friend! I figured you flubbed the subst, which is something I do myself on occasion. No bad faith intended (or perceived, I hope). -- SwissCelt 20:40, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

You semi-protected this artile almsot a month ago, though I am not sure why. There is no semi-protection template on the page. I see you semi-protected the article after this edit. That IP is now blocked as an open proxy anyway, so does this page still need semi-protection? If not, please unprotect it. —The preceding

) 20:43, 22 April 2007 (UTC).

It is a constant target.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 20:45, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

No mate, blocking a user, who could easily be considered a "newcomer", given the changes that Wikipedia has had over the past two-plus years, without warning after recreating a userpage is a severe misuse of the block button. As I mentioned to you over IRC before unblocking the fellow, the proper course of action would have been to blank or delete the userpage and explain

04:56, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Zeronosu

The scan says... Second Kamen Rider, The name is Zeronosu. I don't see how it can't be any more clear. And there are other scans that hold the other forms floating around as well. Its no more crystal balling the than GekiSabers or Gekifan is. Floria L 01:10, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

And there's this, if you believe the text was cut off. [14] Floria L 01:12, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Especially the sono naha Zeronosu part.... Floria L 01:15, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I think it's still better to wait a bit for even clearer stuff. The Gekiranger stuff has clear images and scans (and the GekiFan stuff has a 6 page spread). Right now, everything's crossed concerning this guy—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 01:17, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Yargh, my bad.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 01:19, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

It also says more stuff will come out about him in the 7th (July) issue. I still think we should wait a little while.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 01:22, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Its not really CRYSTAL if its been set in stone to happen, along with multiple scans of belt, weapon, forms, and name. Still say it should be setup as a stub. Floria L 01:24, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, the name is still of an issue (mainly whether or not it will be Zeronosu or Zeronos). I'll unsalt it (but please use scans as references and not in the article; those are just ugly)—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 01:31, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

but I think it's time you consider CAT:AOR —The preceding

) 15:34, 24 April 2007 (UTC).

Is it ironic when an admonishment of accountability comes from someone editing anonymously? - CHAIRBOY (☎) 15:41, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Er, surely Ryulong is already in CAT:AOR given his answer to question 7 at his RfA. WjBscribe 15:57, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

That would be a negative there, WJB.

CAT:AOR. CASCADIA^Howl/_Trail

17:21, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I was open to recall, however as a result of activities following my RFA (a couple of weeks) I removed myself from the category. And this is resulting from an editting dispute in which I have not used my administrative abilities in any way.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 18:19, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Let me phrase it differently. Regardless of you physical presence in

CAT:AOR or otherwise, do you continue to regard yourself as open to recall? WjBscribe

18:21, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I do not currently consider myself open to recall.

And my comment about the editting dispute arises from the anonymous user's edits concerning the University of Miami article, in which I have been trying to describe the difference between the 8 main schools and their programs and the three solely graduate school programs. This user is overreacting, in my mind.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 19:01, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

In this case, Ryulong, I would not support a recall. The anon editor doesn't even have a leg to stand on for recall anyway. CASCADIA^Howl/_Trail 19:16, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I saw your protection comment of "Why not do this?". The reason is that it would create an extra link at protected delete pages, both

) 23:57, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

TFA image

The question is not the "better" image. The question is between the free image or no image. And this case is quite clearer than the Scooby-Doo TFA, because we know a free portrait of the man almost certainly exists.--Pharos 03:17, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Then don't use the kidney transplant cartoon. Use any of the other free photographs in the article, but I find the kidney thing less indicative of the subject of the article.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 03:24, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

The only other images in the article are of various buildings where he worked or spent time at. Woodruff is primarily known as a pioneer in organ transplantation. If you have a concrete alternative suggestion, I would like to hear it.--Pharos 03:31, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I've added the id-0 template in your userbox because I found that you have an account in the Indonesian Wikipedia, and in your userpage there you put id-0. So I think you should do the same here! --

04:07, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I did not put it here because I did not want to. It is not important on the English Wikipedia that I do not speak Indonesian.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 04:07, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

OK OK. But what about Chinese? You also have one account in the Chinese Wikipedia, and you do put a zh-0 over here. Why do you choose to put your statement regarding Chinese but not Indonesian? Did you create accounts for fun in other Wikipedias in languages that you don't understand!? --

04:11, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I had my reasons. For Chinese, it is because people assume I have knowledge of said language here when I do not.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 04:14, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Huh? "Said language"!? What's that!? --

04:22, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

People think I'm Chinese/Japanese/etc when I'm not and they ask me stuff about the language when I don't know anything about it.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 04:24, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Why did people think you are a Chinese or Japanese!? Is it because of your username? And I found that you put ja-1, so how can you say that you know nothing about Japanese!? --

04:29, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I know a little Japanese. And yes people think it because of my username.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 04:30, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Stops 15-17 noted! Fractyl 18:03, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Attempted Stop 16, Come Running (耒走, Suki Sou) Fractyl 22:59, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Any particular reason you reblocked

02:04, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

He was apparently community banned while he was still under arbitration restrictions. Because of how the blocks were set up, one of the defined blocks expired beyond the indefinite block. I "fixed" the block, so it stuck, again.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 03:24, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Thought you might like to see this.

05:04, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

You don't sign on for 12 hours and someone unilaterally undoes a block without contacting you and waiting for a response...—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 05:20, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

The "new article" he was unblocked in order to "create" was deleted as a copyvio [15] although I'm not sure...it could have been GPL'd text. I would say that would be a violation of his probation though.

Nardman1

11:48, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

A handful of admins and myself checked his article and discovered this.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 20:02, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

To note, since the Lesson 12 title is almost identical to the one Dukemon had up, doesn't that mean he may be right about these?

• Master Bat Lee (マスター・バットリィー, Masutā Batto Rii, 14): This Fierce Beast Bat-Fist (激獣バット拳, Gekijū Battoken) master trains Retsu to use the GekiFan. His name is a pun on Bruce Lee.
• Rasuka (らすか, Rasuka): A Confrontation Beast Crow-Fist (臨獣 クロウ 拳, Rinjū Kurōken) user.

Fractyl 01:51, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

No—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 03:39, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Could you please tell me why you deleted the category Wikipedians who collect airsickness bags when there was no consensus and the guidelines are NOT to dlete in the case of no consensus. Also you deleted my userbox This user supports the UK Independence Party (UKIP) for no apparent reason. Barfbagger 16:16, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

You were the only one in the category. And no one used that userbox.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 21:13, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

You seem to be taking a very high-handed approach to deletion here. As the category was only new it may take some time for other users to join in. If you delete the category then that avenue is completely closed anyway. I repeat that the guidelines are NOT TO DELETE if there is no consensus - which was the closing admin's verdict. As for the userbox having no users, then not only is this a palpably absurd reason to delete anything from a a user page but is also INCORRECT. I politely ask you to reconsider your deletions and reinstate the two pages in line with Wikipedia guidelines. Barfbagger 18:24, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/Gen. von Klinkerhoffen

Holy gosh, he's doing non-bad so far. Nice to see. Cross fingers! - David Gerard 19:02, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for reverting vandalism on my user page. Even though such things don't bother me much, I still prefer to have a normal-looking un-vandalized user page. ^_^; 夢の騎士^{Yume no Kishi - Talk} 07:17, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

You protected the following articles on March 31 with no comment; can they be unprotected now?

• Janet Romano
• Xtreme Pro Wrestling
• Tommy Dreamer
• Extreme Associates
• Rob Zicari

CMummert · talk 18:26, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't know. Is the threat of JB196 gone?—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 18:45, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

So that's what those are. There was a RFCU on him on the 25th, so probably not gone yet. Do you mind if I change the protection to expire in 6 months? I only ran into these because I was looking at Category:Protected and choosing more specific protection tags. CMummert · talk 19:27, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I'd lower it to a month.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 21:10, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I did that. CMummert · talk 22:23, 30 April 2007 (UTC)