User talk:Ryulong/Archive 98

More diffs for

• [2]
• [3]
• [4]
• [5]
• [6]

All BCD/DFtZ has been doing for the past week is adding Dino Charge to that infobox, adding that fake episode entry (a new episode entry has recently been made public that I've got no chance to add now), and trolled me by disrupting the requested move that indirectly led to my block.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 12:02, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

@OccultZone: He restored the edits and nothing's been fixed

• [7]
• [8]
• [9]

—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 14:21, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

71.172.99.38 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) is just another sockpuppet and he's trying to pin the blame on me, as usual.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 14:57, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

@

This IP is so obviously him now.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 15:24, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

{{unblock|I am fully aware that I have been blocked because of yet another petty edit war with an editor over something extremely trivial (the inclusion of that section break), but I will not go into that debate. I intend to deal with all of this banned user's garbage while he continues in his attempts to deflect blame away from himself and towards myself.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 15:32, 19 July 2014 (UTC)}}

I unblocked you without noticing that you'd filed the unblock request. Nyttend (talk) 15:45, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for that.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 15:55, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

You're welcome. I'm about out the door (some Saturday work), so I don't have time to investigate all the IPs; I only came to block Shuffle and unblock you because both were rather clear-cut situations that warranted rapid responses. Nyttend (talk) 16:25, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

I'll start up the SPI.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 16:26, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

(

^Chat

_Online 17:58, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Your expertise and comment would be appreciated in this talk page discussion. Thanks. Hei Liebrecht 23:39, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Please stop this. You should know that when you post something, it's no longer under your complete control. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:08, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

I was refactoring my own comment though.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:10, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

You were deleting it off another user's talk page when they didn't want it to be deleted. Short of editing other people's edits, their page, their rules. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:13, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

I posted to his user talk first. And no. He wanted the thread here. And I don't want it here because I started it on his page. All I did was get rid of the templated "I orphaned this image" part in that edit you're pointing to. And now he put it on the AFD and I had to move it again.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:14, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

I do not want to talk to you. Stop posting crap on my talk page to threaten and intimidate me just to get your way, just do not post on my talk page at all or I will report you to Wikipedia for harassment, threats and intimidation just to get your way. Just leave me alone! Is that clear?

All of my messages to you are because you have broken the rules and you ned to be informed of that.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 10:20, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

No, you are breaking the "rules" and are trying to put it all on me. Stop fucking posting threatening and intimidating crap on my talk page and how dare you make a false claim of edit warring and report me go to hell dude and stop posting on my talk page. You are harassing me, intimidating me and making threats at me. I have reported you to an admin as well and showed them everything you are doing. Leave me alone I mean it and stop posting on my talk page before I go to the Wikiboard and report you to them.

Bumblebee9999 (talk

) 10:28, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

I am not threatening or intimidating you. I am informing you that you have violated several policies of this website. There is also no "Wikiboard" to report me to.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 10:29, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes you are threatening or intimidating me to get your way, you are not informing me of any violations because you are the one who has voilated several policies by starting an edit war on unfounded and false removals so just back off me and yes there is a "Wikiboard" it is called the Wikipedia Board of Directors.

Bumblebee9999 (talk

) 10:41, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

You've already violated the rules so you have to be warned to prevent further violations and there is no "Wikipedia Board of Directors".—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 10:45, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Ryulong (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I self-reverted to restore the other user's preferred version of the template (and inquired if I should self-revert more). I made as many attempts as I could to discuss it civilly and politely with him on his user talk page only to be met with bad faith ([10] [11] [12] [13]) which includes attempts at informing him of the various policies and guidelines he was violating and I attempted discussion at the template talk page only to be ignored. I only did automated reverts (Twinkle?) of his edits to my own user talk page which is fully allowed per WP:Rollback. And he is just as guilty of edit warring as I am and he remains unblocked, in addition to the fact he threatened to report me to some non-existant off-site governing body and continues to do so. And I particularly shouldn't be punished for trying to discuss this content dispute with the other editor who refuses to have me on his user talk because of how everything began on the wrong foot, particularly when the claimed "biting" was a series of valid standard templated warnings. I was never incivil towards Bumblebee9999 throughout the whole of the dispute, as well. So none of the reasons for the block are valid as the edit warring was solved by the self-revert, I was as calm as I could have been with the new editor, and there were no "automated reverts" other than on this page.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 11:46, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Accept reason:

I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt. Please try to remember that new editors are not used to WP policy and that warning template saturation will tend to either scare them off or goad them into misplaced retaliation.

Jim

and the soapdish 17:24, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

WP:NOTTHEM. --Onorem (talk

) 12:15, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

I think I cover that.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 12:17, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

I did not break 3RR first. And I self-reverted to undo whatever 3RR vio there was. The other party blew his lid at me, refactored my comments at the AFD without my permission, was incivil, and giving him templated warnings (with reasons as to why they were given) is why I'm blocked? I followed everything to the letter other than my poor choice to revert more than once on the template. I behaved myself and I'm blocked because of a sensitive editor who cursed, screamed, and made laughably false threats to get me punished by a non-existant entity when he wasn't getting his way over a link in a template.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 16:42, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Are you seriously denying that you broke 3RR? What are these? [14] [15] [16]

They look like reverts to me. Three of them. In just over 12 hours. And the most recent one took place more than two hours before any 3RR violation by the other party.

Jim

and the soapdish 17:00, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

I self-reverted the article back to his own preferred version (albeit without his badly written and completely invalid commented out warning). I said this like 3 times on

self-revert

and the attempt to incorporate his content better.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 17:01, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Okay, the block is removed. Please try to be a little less bitey with new editors.

Jim

and the soapdish 17:18, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Fair enough. Now is it out of the question to restore the better version of this template yet?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 17:36, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

This request for help from administrators has been answered. If you need more help or have additional questions, please reapply the {{admin help}} template, or contact the responding user(s) directly on their own user talk page.

Пчёлка Майя 2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is that Maya the Bee sockpuppeteer.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 12:38, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

@Favonian: can you add this guy to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Pszczolka Maja1 too.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 12:41, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

 Done. Favonian (talk) 12:45, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

You should probably delete his user talk and disable talk page access because he's trying to badly make a template to replace the whole discussion with myself and Rhaworth's names on it instead.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 16:01, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

 Done Mkdw^talk 17:04, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Probably should delete User:Kokoboo man/sandbox too.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 17:07, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi. May I suggest pasting a slightly more informative edit summary than the above single word into your photo removal edits? It doesn't mean much to anybody who isn't involved with whatever's going on with that affair. It's likely to inspire knee-jerk reverts, and causes confusion generally... --jnkyrdsprkl (talk) 02:29, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

I was rushed.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 08:49, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Hmm, do you think that this person is actually notable under

It's questionable but also he wants to have his page deleted as part of some other art project (or he just deleted sentences and tweeted them).—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 13:56, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Whether he wants to have his page deleted as part of an art project is irrelevant. If he is not notable, the page has to be deleted, period. The first Afd appears to have been excessively focused on that "art project" consideration. --Edcolins (talk) 14:38, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Well now you can see if notability is established in a good faith nom.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 14:46, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

What do you mean? Where is the good faith nom? --Edcolins (talk) 15:13, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

There is none yet.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 15:49, 26 July 2014 (UTC)