![]() | This 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. |
Archive 10 | ← | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 | Archive 18 | → | Archive 20 |
Hey-Xterra here. I need to know if a "cool user list" is OK on Wikipedia. I know policies are extensive and very strict here. That's why I'm asking you,Ryulong.-- Xterra 1 (talk) (Work) (?) 16:24, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure why you deleted my question with out giving a responce? -- JLennox 19:29, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
I think I have a means to allow terms like "Gekijuuken", translations of kanji shouldn't count in the area of asian-themed "Pronouns". Fractyl 05:51, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
Why the change now? I think you should left that alone, as it's a proper noun for a "battle". Plus, that term was allowed to stay as it was since episode 16. Also, "Wolf-Wolf Kick" & "Beast-Beast Full-Body Change" should be acceptable as they accurately translated. Fractyl 22:30, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
That should be the exception as it's a proper weapon name, like Zyusouken. Also, Jugenkyo (獣源郷, Jūgenkyō, Beast-Origin Village). should be left untranslated as it is a place like Tokyo. Fractyl 00:07, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Hi Ryulong--I see you are the admin who blocked Irelann ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) on August 14, putting an indefinite ban on account creation.
He is now active at NickIre ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log).
Here a few of his earlier sockpuppets, banned in January--got this list from the contemporaneous w:Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Nirelan.
I don't understand how somebody who has been repeatedly banned can keep getting new accounts that let him waste the time of so many hard-working Wikipedians. betsythedevine 10:03, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
You may be interested to know that this user is now actively contributing on MediaWiki. What is most alarming is he is continuing to persist in creating conflict with other users, e.g. here. He was recently banned for three days, however continues to persist in arguing in any way he can. -- Zven 10:37, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
It's been years since I last had any interaction with him, but he hasn't changed his habits one bit. It's sad, really. TCC (talk) (contribs) 21:38, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
No, I guess I missed that one, that administrative actions are not the purview of AN/I--maybe somebody will link it for me. Don't bother, I'm probably too stupid to edit Wikipedia anyhow. I keep thinking that when you reference an article it actually has to say what you say it says, or even be on the same topic, and that other people might care when it doesn't. KP Botany 20:34, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
This is enough. KP Botany 20:55, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
And why bothering e-mailing when an administrator just removed my RFPP? Apparently, I can't request that the crap be removed from this article anywhere, and administrators are totally willing to make sure I don't. [1] What is this, an administrative gang up on me? I really hope this article gets written up in a blog or newspaper as an example of the pure crap that administrators and editors fought to keep on Wikipedia. What incredible, unthinking, lazy, pointless nonsense. There's not a single competent reader on Wikipedia who couldn't look at those sources and see they don't say what is claimed--but no one will bother, because it's more fun to fight and gang up on a user who stupidly thinks that it important to be accurate. KP Botany 21:05, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
User:Wandering Star NPA violation warning and overall attitude. Thanks. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:15, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
Hi Ryulong -- it appears that you were the one who protected the libertarianism article. I'm requesting that you unprotect it? There appear to be no current edit wars on the talk page, and none brewing; no more grouchy/contentious right now than many pages, such as ACLU. I am not sure if you're online these days, so I also posted to the requests page (not because I believe myself to be in conflict with you, of course!) Sdedeo ( tips) 21:57, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
Heyo, Ryulong. Believe it or not I'm still searching for the perfect images in regards to the various PR articles, although on a less frequent basis, just to keep you up to date. =P
Now, onto the real topic: If you remove the Metal category from the Power Rangers color table, then you have to remove it from Super Sentai as well. It can't be both ways. Either it's alright for both, or neither. And personally, given the frequency of Metal-based Rangers, I'd say they're notable enough to be included in both tables. But yes, it has to be both or neither, because to the best of my knowledge, outside of fan-circles, no "Metal" color exists for Sentai either. In fact, to get into semantics, "Metal" isn't a color by any definition.
Another alternative would be to rename the Colors sections in both articles. Perhaps to "Types" or "Colors/Types". -- Venomaru 2.0 02:47, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm taking this back to the first line, to avoid cramping the comments any more than they already are. --
Now, that brings us back to the beginning in the way; the definition of the metallic category. You seem to equate it to the Super Sentai definitions, as well as the actual suit coloring/matrial. But sentai's source material should have no bearing on Power Ranger information, and coloring varies on every Ranger, not just the "Other"-type. The Red Galaxy Ranger also has a lot of white in his suit, but he's still called the "Red Ranger", not the "Red and White Ranger". Solaris Knight may have a metallic look, but for that matter so does Shadow Ranger on his chest, cuffs, and helmet. The Lunar Wolf Ranger may be silvery colored, but he's a Lunar Wolf Ranger, not a Silver Wolf Ranger.
Designation is all that matters, if a Ranger is called the "Bronze Ranger", it doesn't matter if they're purple, or green. "Solaris" and "Lunar", neither of those are colors or metals, I'm going by the purest form here, Gold, Silver, Titanium, and Mercury, all of those are actual metals. I'm not talking about color, or the type of suit each Ranger has. The color title designated is the deciding factor. Again, what I'm getting at is that what they look like, or what Sentai called them, none of that is important. When it comes down to categorizing these Rangers, it should be about their title. -- Venomaru 2.0 04:29, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Ryu,a user, Self Titled Album violated the 3RR on the SASUKE article. I nearly violated it,but I only rv'd 3 times within that day. I am being honest,would you expect me to lie?-- Xterra 1(talk) (Work) (?) 20:30, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
It would appear that Hakozen ( talk · contribs · block log) has a new alterego ... or at least an IP to revert the deletion of his foreign language talk messages: 85.103.252.206 ( talk · contribs). -- Kralizec! ( talk) 20:49, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
You blocked User:Dbelange a few weeks ago; it appears he has reappeared as User:DbelangeA (how carefully he conceals his identity!) If you look at his edits to pages like Pope Gregory I, Rich, and Benjamin Drake Van Wissen, you will see that he is the same person, and is up to the same sort of thing. Perhaps you would care to block this account as well? Brianyoumans 00:47, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
As I recall, it said nothing about outing editors. You might want to double-check and retract if you're wrong. ← BenB4 07:59, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
What happened there? -- DarkFalls talk 02:30, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Do you want to say that Wikipedia:Serbian Wikipedians' notice board, Wikipedia:Hungarian Wikipedians' notice board and other similar notice boards are having right to exist but Croatian is not having this right ?? If you saying that we do not have about what to talk and fact that you are administrator will not change that because you decision are against rules of wikipedia (POV) !! -- Rjecina 14:23, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Like you can see I have created again this notice board. All words used in notice board are from Serbian Wikipedians' notice board only words Serbian and Serbs is changed with Croatians and Croats. I will like to hear reasons for deleting Croatian and not Serbian notice board. -- Rjecina 14:32, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Problem is solved . Sorry for disturbing -- Rjecina 15:36, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Good call! That thing was an eyesore. -- Marvin Diode 14:44, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
What do you have against my attempts to replace the picture of the Green SPD Ranger with the picture of the original Green Ranger from MMPR? -- JoBrLa 20:56, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
I can see from your contributions you are a good editor. However, these edit summaries are unhelpful. Please reconsider them. Best regards, Navou banter 23:50, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
(outdent)Thank you for considering. Good luck on everything. Best regards, Navou banter 00:09, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
![]() |
The Resilient Barnstar | |
Your resilience has been recognised as one of Wikipedia's finest. For this, you are hereby awarded the Wikipedian Resilience Barnstar. Congratulations. -- Alt iris Exeunt 04:17, 9 September 2007 (UTC) |
P.S.: The title was meant to lighten the mood. If that is not the case, please change it. For some background information, the Soul of Zinglon is a special weapon in the game it links to. It has proven to be useless sometimes, but very powerful at other times. --
Alt
iris
Exeunt
04:17, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Marlith
T/
C has wished you well! Joy promotes
WikiLove and hopefully this little bit has helped make your day better. Spread the WikiJoy by sharing the joy someone else, Try to brighten the day of as many people as you can! Keep up the great editing!
Smile at others by adding {{
subst:Joy message}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Marlith T/ C 04:56, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Can I request you to re access your block on User:Altruism. You assert that the block was for "Repeatedly revert warring at Dravidian civilizations over the course of several days". If you look at the history for Dravidian Civilization, this user does not seem to have violated any 3RR rule. If you are blocking users for so-called "revert warring" then you need to also look at the other parties to the war. Obviously wars are not fought with just one side. I can guarantee you that there are other groups of editors who game the system by indulging in gang reverts. See the article history for yourself. Parthi talk/ contribs 06:39, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Ryulong, keep an eye on this guy if you can. He appears to be vandalising articles. -- Alt iris Exeunt 08:22, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for reverting on Talk:Dravidian civilizations. I would also like to bring your attention on this and this edits. Probably there are several other edits too. Request your admin action on the same. Thank you! - KNM Talk 05:22, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
I recall in the past that I have reported an incident involving numerous IPs going to many talk pages removing our WikiProject templates. These IPs were reported by me here and blocked here. Furthermore, your admin action was very much appreciated here by reverting them back. I would like to now bring to your attention that recently, there have been mass removals of the template called WikiProject Dravidian civilizations from the following users: Sarvagnya, Gnanapiti, and Mbrdnbry. NOTE: Mbrdnbry is a new user who has recently joined and edited as of Sept 7, 2007. With all due respect I find this users action to be rather odd by just joining and all of a sudden doing these mass removals of the WikiProject Dravidian civilizations template back to back here, right after users Gnanapiti and Sarvagnya have done the same to other related articles back to back here and here. This user Mbrdnbry has posted in the edit summary box "rm possible hoax until issue is resolved" The issue this individual is referring to is the AfD case against the page on Dravidian civilizations here when in fact the template this user has been removing belonged to the WikiProject Dravidian civilizations itself. Therefore, I respectfully request for your admin assistance in this matter. Gratefully. Wiki Raja 06:12, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Hi Ryulong. I'm quite intrigued by the ಠ character/symbol you have used in your talk page header. Is there any particular reason to chose that symbol? The reason I'm asking is that symbol is actually one of the alphabets in Kannada script. Gnanapiti 06:28, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Ok, now I'm confused. The last time Tv.com posted episodes up to 3 or 4 away from what was confirmed by disney, YOU were the one who edited them as confirmed into the article. So, either A. you were wrong then. Or B. I am right now. Please, explain =p Myzou 20:04, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Kemono is usually refering to "Animal", while Juu is commonly used for Beast. Fractyl 21:50, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
dear ryulon on 11 sept you put an indefinite block on my account on the accusation of repeated abuse. i e-mailed you to ask about this, and never heard back. you are probably very busy, but when you have a moment, i would appreciate knowing why you blocked my account. what repeated abuse were you accusing me of? by the way, my account was unblocked shortly afterwards, and i have no idea whether that was you or someone else. thanks in advance 01:55, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
me again, for some reason my name did not appear when i saved the edit - i'm new to wikipedia so may be doing something wrong Martauwo 01:57, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
I don't know if this user is invading a block, but could you take a look here User_talk:Jeeny#EmperorVelocicaptor? Thanks. - Jeeny Talk 20:26, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Why did you take off my article. I was improving it and you deleted it.-- Stco23 06:27, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
I was going to do that and you took them off. You put them back on there now or else because you deleted articles that goes with a article. Bye.-- Stco23 06:35, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Less than a week ago,
Operation Spooner was counseled by three different admins (at the same time, if you can believe that) about adding disruptive edits to the
Ronald Reagan article. they also counseled him about using his User Page to attack other editors. Recently, the contributor has reintroduced almost precisely the
same edit. His user page is continually updated to address perceived slights against him in what I can only interpret as his one-man "mission" to save Wikipedia from all of us trying to OWN articles (translation: make them actually follow policy and consensus). The user page section in question is titled: "Shady methods used by some editors to control articles that new Wikipedians ought to be privy to". I think it's a catchy title, if a bit long. :)
You've struck me as and admin who helps to keep the wheels of civility well-greased. Perhaps you could try your hand at helping this user along his evolutionary path to becoming a more polite editor, or in the alternative, providing a more protective measure for the rest of us? -
Arcayne
(cast a spell)
15:58, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Hello Ryulong, I have a question: before you became an administrator, what non-admin revert script did you use to revert vandalism? Acalamari 20:45, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
I hope you're aware of the amount of vandalism that Negima!? has received in between protections. That has been like that since April. KyuuA4 ( talk · contribs) may have found what seems to be an inspiration for the culprits in this site. Luna Santin ( talk · contribs) referred me to you because the site is in Spanish and you have sort of have a good command of language. KyuuA4 said that his citation is just conjecture for now, but is this one of the reasons why the said article is vandalized in-between protections? - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 12:00, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
You said it was a fair use violation, but how? I got the image myself, I didn't copy it from the internet, so it was my work so I can put it on Wikipedia. - Bagel7 T's 03:15, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
FYI: [2]. – Steel 13:56, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Hello. I originally asked MastCell about this, since they are familiar with the back history behind this person (see Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/AFI-PUNK (3rd), although there are multiple cases involving this user under different names) and they recommended I talk to you as you are experienced in range blocking. As the title suggests, there is a puppetmaster at large who is still using multiple ips to vandalise multiple articles. I was wondering whether a range block would be effective against countering this recurring vandal; they vandalise 15-20 different articles on each IP a day and change IPs everyday, sometimes twice in one day. I'm not sure page protection would really be useful in this situation anymore (it has been implemented before to no avail) as they vandalise so many different articles. It's been like this for months and threatened to drive contributors away, who have been sick of dealing with the diatribes the person leaves at their talk pages. What sort of action would be best? Seraphim Whipp 09:51, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Was your edit summary here a reference to something I did? I hope I didn't screw something up on that page; I posted a new section and it somehow kept getting incorporated into the archived section above. I experimented a little and managed to extricate it. If I did something to your work in the process, many apologies. All best, -- G-Dett 21:07, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
What I saw was that you closed it, then you unclosed it, except for the section Jossi started as an attempt to make sense of the chaos which had developed, and to determine how much support there was for each of the remedies. Since you'd unclosed it except for the proposed remedies, it was an open discussion about sanctions, without anywhere for anyone to place their view on which remedy was most appropriate. That makes no sense. I completed your un-closing, or re-opening, if you will, of the thread, as I had only the three choices: Leave it in that unhappy and confused state, all open except for where people could place their view; Close it all, which I felt was inappropriate for me as the one who started it; or Finish the un-closing which you'd partially done. I chose option 3, as least disruptive and most ethical of the choices available - and I posted my rationale on the thread, in the appropriate section, so anyone who wished could discuss it with me. Later, FeloniousMonk closed it as he had been chastised previously by Banno for not closing it when he blocked Ferrylodge. You reverted his closure and re-closed with a caustic comment directed at no one in particular, changing the format of the closure. I came here to find out why you'd changed FeloniousMonk's closure and what you were talking about in your summary, and Lo and Behold, I am being specified by name as a party against whom you have a grievance, without benefit of having been informed of your grievance. So I am still wondering, what are you aggrieved with me about? And why do you complain of me, without having discussed your grievance with me? And is your complaint about the section Jossi started??? Then perhaps you'd better discuss it with him, rather than naming me to others without benefit of knowing who did what when. KillerChihuahua ?!? 22:23, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Let's put all this behind us, shall we? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:48, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Hi Ryulong. I've added something to the debate on the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Case of abusive sockpuppetry by Mrs random following an e-mail from one of the parties involved. I won't expand here to avoid forking, but thought I'd bring it to your attention. Number 5 7 21:37, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Hi! I wanted to let you know that a reply has been received from the ISP regarding the abuse report you filed, and I've marked the case as closed. If this particular abuse pattern should reappear, please file a new abuse report case and reference the old one so we can report it again. Thanks! -- Darkwind ( talk) 22:46, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
If that's how it works, it needs to be fixed. That text is small and sneaky.. if someone wasn't looking for it, they'd miss it and therefore miss the opportunity to way in on discussion of the TfD. AfD isn't like that, why is TfD? -- ALLSTAR ECHO 02:42, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
In a cursory check of your contributions, I mistakenly took you for one of those users who treat Wikipedia like a social networking website, and pressed "block" without noticing your administrative duties. I am terribly sorry, and I have undone everything concerning this action.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龍) 23:05, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm not comfortable with this block. Would you consider unblocking? It seems like the editor has some constructive edits and has a mentor. I'm not so sure the block reason is in line with the policy. Navou banter 12:57, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Hi Ryulong. I see you blocked an IP as an open proxy, and immediately unblocked it: [3]. Did it turn out this wasn't an open proxy? Thanks. The Evil Spartan 17:21, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Experience on the meta:Spam blacklist has shown that it's important to keep some sort of record as to why sites are blacklisted -- otherwise a whitelisting request comes in a year or two later and the site is removed unless someone can find the original reason for adding it. This has happened with many of the old domains that were added in the early days of the blacklist before admins started logging their additions.
If you don't mind, could you maybe leave a brief note for the record on MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist as to the history (diffs, editors) of the wikicrime.net spam [4]? Thanks, -- A. B. (talk) 00:43, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
What does this term 'fork' mean? I've seen it used here a few times and would like it's definition. HalfShadow 03:01, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Just curious - why did you remove yourself from Category:Wikipedia administrators open to recall? Videmus Omnia Talk 18:12, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Pardon the butting in, but I really don't think anyone is going to consider this a suitable matter for arbcom. The category is voluntary, so removing oneself is voluntary. I'm not saying I approve or disapprove, but I can't imagine any arbitrator would be interested in touching this. (Oops, nevermind- on re-reading I realized that the removal from the category is probably not what arbcom was being considered for. I suppose that's what I get for butting in.) Friday (talk) 00:13, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
I can't see Arbcom getting involved with this either, and despite the mistake Ryulong made with the block yesterday, the actual logic behind it is solid and sensible, Wikipedia isn't MySpace and we've got better things to do with our bandwidth than let it be pissed away by people running blogs or trying to sell crap from pages here. Arbitration isn't for people who can stick their hand up and say "Shit, I made a mistake, I'm a klutz", it's for people who go around saying "No, no, my block was 110% correct" when they're in the wrong. Nick 00:19, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Ryulong, in light of some of your recent blocks and deletions, I urge you to recuse yourself from blocking editors and/or deleting their pages on the grounds that they have not contributed to the encyclopedia enough. While it is true that building the encyclopedia is by far our primary goal and that it is firmly established that Wikipedia is not MySpace, and there are many cases where warning users of this, deleting their problematic pages, and if all else fails, blocking them, is justified, given some of your incorrect blocks and deletions I really think it would be in the best interest of both you and the community if you left these decisions and actions to other administrators. You perform a lot of useful work for the project, and I would hate to see it all be overshadowed by these mistakes. -- krimpet ⟲ 20:55, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Hi, just noticed a mess devloping by this user. the user appears to be creating lots of silly redirects. For example Windows XP now redirects to XP SUCKS. Can you help sort out the mess please, thanks -- Zven 23:26, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Some thoughts, for what they are worth, on Ryulong's tenure as an administrator, and the calls for him to put himself up for recall or to be brought before the Arbitration Committee.
I remember thinking carefully about how I would opine on Ryulong's third request for adminship, back in January. I ultimately supported that RfA, opining as follows:
Ryulong's RfA was closed as successful by a famously narrow margin, and Ryulong changed from being an extremely hardworking vandal-fighter making reports to AIV, into being an extremely hardworking vandal-fighter blocking vandals himself. He has also, over the past nine months, taken on more than his share of dealing with trolling situations, difficult blocks, sockpuppet reviews, image deletions, and other administrator chores. Ryulong has become a workhorse of an administrator, whose level of dedication has consistently been high.
Any administrator, especially a busy one who can average dozens of admin actions every day, is going to get some criticism—some of it quite justified, some of it much less so. All of us, myself certainly included, make mistakes. Unfortunately, exactly as I (and many others who commented on all sides of the RfA) feared, Ryulong's mistakes have tended to be all of the same genre: harshly blocking, most often indefinitely, accounts that other administrators would have felt warranted a shorter block, or a warning, or sometimes no action at all. Some examples of problematic blocks were surveyed in Ryulong's RfC, and others have occurred more recently. I gather that in some instances, questionable blocks resulted simply from the press of business. In other instances, Ryulong has applied far stricter standards in reviewing an account's record than most other admins would themselves apply or recommend that others apply.
Several times Ryulong has been urged to reconsider his approach to adminship. He has sometimes promised to do so, particularly in the wake of the RfC; and I believe we have seen some improvement. Now, in the wake of an admitted error he made earlier this week, Ryulong has promised elsewhere on this page to discontinue his practice of blocking without warning accounts that have not, in his view, made sufficient recent contributions to the mainspace, which has been a source of several problematic blocks. I would like to think that, at this time and with the spectre of an arbitration proceeding looming, Ryulong remains capable of moderating his approach to adminship.
I understand the concerns that respected editors and admins have expressed from time to time concerning some of Ryulong's administrator actions. In particular, unjustified blocks risk costing the project good-faith editors and their valuable contributions, and must be avoided. But I am not convinced that a proceeding seeking desysopping is the best answer at this juncture. The best interests of the project call for retaining Ryulong's dedication and efforts while curtailing the problems that have arisen from them, rather than losing his efforts as an administrator outright. I hope this proves to be possible. I think it is worth a further try.
I call for Ryulong to fully and definitively take to heart the advice he has received from many quarters that his work will be best appreciated, and will best serve the project, if he slows down a bit, and bears in mind always that the block button is not an administrator's only tool. And I call for those who are considering filing an arbitration case against Ryulong to hesitate and give him a further chance, perhaps a final chance, to demonstrate that he can do what is being asked of him. Newyorkbrad 01:52, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Hi Ryulong. Please unprotect your talk page (I won't just unprotect it myself). Indefinite semi-protection of your talk page is not advisable, particularly when you are involved in so much administrative action against IP editors - this prevents many of them from contacting you. Neil ム 08:39, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
File:Resilient-silver.png | The Resilient Barnstar | |
For deciding to unprotect your talk page yourself after concerns had been raised, even though you disagreed with them. [5] Melsaran ( talk) 17:47, 27 September 2007 (UTC) |
What's the reason for the cascade protection on the Power Rangers pages in User:Ryulong/PTL? Is this justified by WP:PROTECT? For example, I looked at Power Rangers: San Diego and the page has never even been created or deleted before - how would a new user know to contact you for unprotection if they wanted to create the article? Videmus Omnia Talk 19:30, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
* User:Ryulong/PTL" at all?— Ryūlóng (竜龍) 23:08, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
FYI, they made a page about you on the front of Encyclopedia Dramatica -- Just thought you'd want to know. -- 128.218.6.200 21:06, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
If you persist in continual disruption of the Kiev/Kyiv naming issue outside of the talk page of the article or outside the talk pages of users involved with the discussion, such as your attempts to get your way at WP:RM and WP:ANI, you will be blocked for disrupting Wikipedia.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龍) 05:35, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Reply here— Ryūlóng ( 竜龍) 03:32, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Which says absolutely nothing about the topic at hand. But thanks for bringing it up anyway. 199.125.109.88 01:59, 28 September 2007 (UTC) By the way, this discussion is closed. I have no interest in pursuing it further. 199.125.109.88 02:02, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Yes, this is a school IP, but school's back in session. Currently, there has been excessive vandalism, and the last revert(s) have been made by me; I have an account. I think a temporary block should be placed. Special:Contributions/206.117.237.56 206.117.237.56 17:48, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
But he's already been revealed. Brusai-E Fractyl 04:00, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
How about Liner Form? The pix reveal how Liner Form and the DenKamen Sword works. Also, King Liner is revealed!
KingLiner, DenLiner, and ZeroLiner
Combined time trains and the "Mole Imagin" trio
Fractyl 04:10, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Why? Why you want destroy my hard work? Who are you? Imagedonxidima 20:30, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Who are you, Melsaran? I talk to Ryulong, not you. -- Imagedonxidima 20:26, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
I have every right to add those refences so do not try my paitence those have to added. I'm mad at you for undoing the stuff I did I do not vandalise articles I clean articles and I had to even clean the Power Rangers: Operation Overdrive section up once due to vandalism. So I do not care what you say about me adding Super Sentai refences it needs to added to point out things left out in Power Rangers. So do you have a problem with that? If so tell me and if its pointless then I'm sorry I just wanted to let PR fans know about things left out in the series. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RedLifeguardRanger ( talk • contribs) 16:53, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Alright but I still feel angered by you saying its pointless and trivia. Please do not ban me I apologize. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RedLifeguardRanger ( talk • contribs) 21:20, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Just a heads-up - several of your userpages (the ones you use for private cascade protection) have been nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Protected titles/Specific Admin. Videmus Omnia Talk 18:32, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
The general policy in Wikipedia is to mix citations and footnotes (see Wikipedia:Footnotes). I have therefore reverted your deletion of my footnote regarding serpentinization in the "Atmosphere" section of Mars. WolfmanSF 20:26, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Ryulong, I appreciate the apology (actually I think you already apologized a while back) but that wasn't the reason I called those issues to your attention. Please believe that I hold no grudge against you - I don't get emotionally wrapped up in Wikipedia, and I frankly find people who do somewhat disturbing. For me, it's just a hobby that's more constructive and fun than watching TV. Getting blocked was annoying when I didn't deserve it, but so long as I got unblocked, who cares? But I do remember that I almost walked away completely when I had a hard time getting unblocked by you, and it makes me wonder how many potentially productive people really have walked after their first encounter with you.
I appreciate the good work that you do, and because of that, I actually don't want to see you desysopped - we need all the good admins we can get. That was the reason that Newyorkbrad's statement above ultimately led me to decide against the WP:RFAR for the time being. But you seem to keep repeating the same mistakes, especially in regards to hasty blocks - unless you fix this, ultimately this behavior likely will lead to your de-sysopping. The reason I called those things to your attention was so that you could fix them before things went too far. When you do things like break a promise to be open to recall, or break a promise to go easy on the block button, you cause people to doubt your integrity, and your ability to wield the tools maturely. Your message to me shows that you're perfectly capable of being gracious and courteous, please let this side of you show more often - I'm positive you'll have fewer problems.
Anyway, I'm sure you've had enough patronizing lecture for one day. Thanks again, and take care. Videmus Omnia Talk 23:38, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Protected titles/Specific Admin. Since some of your user pages were listed there, you might want to participate in the deletion review. -- Jreferee t/ c 02:51, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
You rolled back my editing in the article. Please read the talk page, my correction was abslolutely justified. -- 82.147.64.113 07:13, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Please coment. User_talk:Avraham#About_the_right_of_sockpupetry_to_vanish -- יודל 19:57, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
![]() | This 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. |
Archive 10 | ← | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 | Archive 18 | → | Archive 20 |
Hey-Xterra here. I need to know if a "cool user list" is OK on Wikipedia. I know policies are extensive and very strict here. That's why I'm asking you,Ryulong.-- Xterra 1 (talk) (Work) (?) 16:24, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure why you deleted my question with out giving a responce? -- JLennox 19:29, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
I think I have a means to allow terms like "Gekijuuken", translations of kanji shouldn't count in the area of asian-themed "Pronouns". Fractyl 05:51, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
Why the change now? I think you should left that alone, as it's a proper noun for a "battle". Plus, that term was allowed to stay as it was since episode 16. Also, "Wolf-Wolf Kick" & "Beast-Beast Full-Body Change" should be acceptable as they accurately translated. Fractyl 22:30, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
That should be the exception as it's a proper weapon name, like Zyusouken. Also, Jugenkyo (獣源郷, Jūgenkyō, Beast-Origin Village). should be left untranslated as it is a place like Tokyo. Fractyl 00:07, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Hi Ryulong--I see you are the admin who blocked Irelann ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) on August 14, putting an indefinite ban on account creation.
He is now active at NickIre ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log).
Here a few of his earlier sockpuppets, banned in January--got this list from the contemporaneous w:Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Nirelan.
I don't understand how somebody who has been repeatedly banned can keep getting new accounts that let him waste the time of so many hard-working Wikipedians. betsythedevine 10:03, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
You may be interested to know that this user is now actively contributing on MediaWiki. What is most alarming is he is continuing to persist in creating conflict with other users, e.g. here. He was recently banned for three days, however continues to persist in arguing in any way he can. -- Zven 10:37, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
It's been years since I last had any interaction with him, but he hasn't changed his habits one bit. It's sad, really. TCC (talk) (contribs) 21:38, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
No, I guess I missed that one, that administrative actions are not the purview of AN/I--maybe somebody will link it for me. Don't bother, I'm probably too stupid to edit Wikipedia anyhow. I keep thinking that when you reference an article it actually has to say what you say it says, or even be on the same topic, and that other people might care when it doesn't. KP Botany 20:34, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
This is enough. KP Botany 20:55, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
And why bothering e-mailing when an administrator just removed my RFPP? Apparently, I can't request that the crap be removed from this article anywhere, and administrators are totally willing to make sure I don't. [1] What is this, an administrative gang up on me? I really hope this article gets written up in a blog or newspaper as an example of the pure crap that administrators and editors fought to keep on Wikipedia. What incredible, unthinking, lazy, pointless nonsense. There's not a single competent reader on Wikipedia who couldn't look at those sources and see they don't say what is claimed--but no one will bother, because it's more fun to fight and gang up on a user who stupidly thinks that it important to be accurate. KP Botany 21:05, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
User:Wandering Star NPA violation warning and overall attitude. Thanks. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:15, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
Hi Ryulong -- it appears that you were the one who protected the libertarianism article. I'm requesting that you unprotect it? There appear to be no current edit wars on the talk page, and none brewing; no more grouchy/contentious right now than many pages, such as ACLU. I am not sure if you're online these days, so I also posted to the requests page (not because I believe myself to be in conflict with you, of course!) Sdedeo ( tips) 21:57, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
Heyo, Ryulong. Believe it or not I'm still searching for the perfect images in regards to the various PR articles, although on a less frequent basis, just to keep you up to date. =P
Now, onto the real topic: If you remove the Metal category from the Power Rangers color table, then you have to remove it from Super Sentai as well. It can't be both ways. Either it's alright for both, or neither. And personally, given the frequency of Metal-based Rangers, I'd say they're notable enough to be included in both tables. But yes, it has to be both or neither, because to the best of my knowledge, outside of fan-circles, no "Metal" color exists for Sentai either. In fact, to get into semantics, "Metal" isn't a color by any definition.
Another alternative would be to rename the Colors sections in both articles. Perhaps to "Types" or "Colors/Types". -- Venomaru 2.0 02:47, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm taking this back to the first line, to avoid cramping the comments any more than they already are. --
Now, that brings us back to the beginning in the way; the definition of the metallic category. You seem to equate it to the Super Sentai definitions, as well as the actual suit coloring/matrial. But sentai's source material should have no bearing on Power Ranger information, and coloring varies on every Ranger, not just the "Other"-type. The Red Galaxy Ranger also has a lot of white in his suit, but he's still called the "Red Ranger", not the "Red and White Ranger". Solaris Knight may have a metallic look, but for that matter so does Shadow Ranger on his chest, cuffs, and helmet. The Lunar Wolf Ranger may be silvery colored, but he's a Lunar Wolf Ranger, not a Silver Wolf Ranger.
Designation is all that matters, if a Ranger is called the "Bronze Ranger", it doesn't matter if they're purple, or green. "Solaris" and "Lunar", neither of those are colors or metals, I'm going by the purest form here, Gold, Silver, Titanium, and Mercury, all of those are actual metals. I'm not talking about color, or the type of suit each Ranger has. The color title designated is the deciding factor. Again, what I'm getting at is that what they look like, or what Sentai called them, none of that is important. When it comes down to categorizing these Rangers, it should be about their title. -- Venomaru 2.0 04:29, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Ryu,a user, Self Titled Album violated the 3RR on the SASUKE article. I nearly violated it,but I only rv'd 3 times within that day. I am being honest,would you expect me to lie?-- Xterra 1(talk) (Work) (?) 20:30, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
It would appear that Hakozen ( talk · contribs · block log) has a new alterego ... or at least an IP to revert the deletion of his foreign language talk messages: 85.103.252.206 ( talk · contribs). -- Kralizec! ( talk) 20:49, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
You blocked User:Dbelange a few weeks ago; it appears he has reappeared as User:DbelangeA (how carefully he conceals his identity!) If you look at his edits to pages like Pope Gregory I, Rich, and Benjamin Drake Van Wissen, you will see that he is the same person, and is up to the same sort of thing. Perhaps you would care to block this account as well? Brianyoumans 00:47, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
As I recall, it said nothing about outing editors. You might want to double-check and retract if you're wrong. ← BenB4 07:59, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
What happened there? -- DarkFalls talk 02:30, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Do you want to say that Wikipedia:Serbian Wikipedians' notice board, Wikipedia:Hungarian Wikipedians' notice board and other similar notice boards are having right to exist but Croatian is not having this right ?? If you saying that we do not have about what to talk and fact that you are administrator will not change that because you decision are against rules of wikipedia (POV) !! -- Rjecina 14:23, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Like you can see I have created again this notice board. All words used in notice board are from Serbian Wikipedians' notice board only words Serbian and Serbs is changed with Croatians and Croats. I will like to hear reasons for deleting Croatian and not Serbian notice board. -- Rjecina 14:32, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Problem is solved . Sorry for disturbing -- Rjecina 15:36, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Good call! That thing was an eyesore. -- Marvin Diode 14:44, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
What do you have against my attempts to replace the picture of the Green SPD Ranger with the picture of the original Green Ranger from MMPR? -- JoBrLa 20:56, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
I can see from your contributions you are a good editor. However, these edit summaries are unhelpful. Please reconsider them. Best regards, Navou banter 23:50, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
(outdent)Thank you for considering. Good luck on everything. Best regards, Navou banter 00:09, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
![]() |
The Resilient Barnstar | |
Your resilience has been recognised as one of Wikipedia's finest. For this, you are hereby awarded the Wikipedian Resilience Barnstar. Congratulations. -- Alt iris Exeunt 04:17, 9 September 2007 (UTC) |
P.S.: The title was meant to lighten the mood. If that is not the case, please change it. For some background information, the Soul of Zinglon is a special weapon in the game it links to. It has proven to be useless sometimes, but very powerful at other times. --
Alt
iris
Exeunt
04:17, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Marlith
T/
C has wished you well! Joy promotes
WikiLove and hopefully this little bit has helped make your day better. Spread the WikiJoy by sharing the joy someone else, Try to brighten the day of as many people as you can! Keep up the great editing!
Smile at others by adding {{
subst:Joy message}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Marlith T/ C 04:56, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Can I request you to re access your block on User:Altruism. You assert that the block was for "Repeatedly revert warring at Dravidian civilizations over the course of several days". If you look at the history for Dravidian Civilization, this user does not seem to have violated any 3RR rule. If you are blocking users for so-called "revert warring" then you need to also look at the other parties to the war. Obviously wars are not fought with just one side. I can guarantee you that there are other groups of editors who game the system by indulging in gang reverts. See the article history for yourself. Parthi talk/ contribs 06:39, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Ryulong, keep an eye on this guy if you can. He appears to be vandalising articles. -- Alt iris Exeunt 08:22, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for reverting on Talk:Dravidian civilizations. I would also like to bring your attention on this and this edits. Probably there are several other edits too. Request your admin action on the same. Thank you! - KNM Talk 05:22, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
I recall in the past that I have reported an incident involving numerous IPs going to many talk pages removing our WikiProject templates. These IPs were reported by me here and blocked here. Furthermore, your admin action was very much appreciated here by reverting them back. I would like to now bring to your attention that recently, there have been mass removals of the template called WikiProject Dravidian civilizations from the following users: Sarvagnya, Gnanapiti, and Mbrdnbry. NOTE: Mbrdnbry is a new user who has recently joined and edited as of Sept 7, 2007. With all due respect I find this users action to be rather odd by just joining and all of a sudden doing these mass removals of the WikiProject Dravidian civilizations template back to back here, right after users Gnanapiti and Sarvagnya have done the same to other related articles back to back here and here. This user Mbrdnbry has posted in the edit summary box "rm possible hoax until issue is resolved" The issue this individual is referring to is the AfD case against the page on Dravidian civilizations here when in fact the template this user has been removing belonged to the WikiProject Dravidian civilizations itself. Therefore, I respectfully request for your admin assistance in this matter. Gratefully. Wiki Raja 06:12, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Hi Ryulong. I'm quite intrigued by the ಠ character/symbol you have used in your talk page header. Is there any particular reason to chose that symbol? The reason I'm asking is that symbol is actually one of the alphabets in Kannada script. Gnanapiti 06:28, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Ok, now I'm confused. The last time Tv.com posted episodes up to 3 or 4 away from what was confirmed by disney, YOU were the one who edited them as confirmed into the article. So, either A. you were wrong then. Or B. I am right now. Please, explain =p Myzou 20:04, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Kemono is usually refering to "Animal", while Juu is commonly used for Beast. Fractyl 21:50, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
dear ryulon on 11 sept you put an indefinite block on my account on the accusation of repeated abuse. i e-mailed you to ask about this, and never heard back. you are probably very busy, but when you have a moment, i would appreciate knowing why you blocked my account. what repeated abuse were you accusing me of? by the way, my account was unblocked shortly afterwards, and i have no idea whether that was you or someone else. thanks in advance 01:55, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
me again, for some reason my name did not appear when i saved the edit - i'm new to wikipedia so may be doing something wrong Martauwo 01:57, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
I don't know if this user is invading a block, but could you take a look here User_talk:Jeeny#EmperorVelocicaptor? Thanks. - Jeeny Talk 20:26, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Why did you take off my article. I was improving it and you deleted it.-- Stco23 06:27, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
I was going to do that and you took them off. You put them back on there now or else because you deleted articles that goes with a article. Bye.-- Stco23 06:35, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Less than a week ago,
Operation Spooner was counseled by three different admins (at the same time, if you can believe that) about adding disruptive edits to the
Ronald Reagan article. they also counseled him about using his User Page to attack other editors. Recently, the contributor has reintroduced almost precisely the
same edit. His user page is continually updated to address perceived slights against him in what I can only interpret as his one-man "mission" to save Wikipedia from all of us trying to OWN articles (translation: make them actually follow policy and consensus). The user page section in question is titled: "Shady methods used by some editors to control articles that new Wikipedians ought to be privy to". I think it's a catchy title, if a bit long. :)
You've struck me as and admin who helps to keep the wheels of civility well-greased. Perhaps you could try your hand at helping this user along his evolutionary path to becoming a more polite editor, or in the alternative, providing a more protective measure for the rest of us? -
Arcayne
(cast a spell)
15:58, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Hello Ryulong, I have a question: before you became an administrator, what non-admin revert script did you use to revert vandalism? Acalamari 20:45, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
I hope you're aware of the amount of vandalism that Negima!? has received in between protections. That has been like that since April. KyuuA4 ( talk · contribs) may have found what seems to be an inspiration for the culprits in this site. Luna Santin ( talk · contribs) referred me to you because the site is in Spanish and you have sort of have a good command of language. KyuuA4 said that his citation is just conjecture for now, but is this one of the reasons why the said article is vandalized in-between protections? - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 12:00, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
You said it was a fair use violation, but how? I got the image myself, I didn't copy it from the internet, so it was my work so I can put it on Wikipedia. - Bagel7 T's 03:15, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
FYI: [2]. – Steel 13:56, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Hello. I originally asked MastCell about this, since they are familiar with the back history behind this person (see Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/AFI-PUNK (3rd), although there are multiple cases involving this user under different names) and they recommended I talk to you as you are experienced in range blocking. As the title suggests, there is a puppetmaster at large who is still using multiple ips to vandalise multiple articles. I was wondering whether a range block would be effective against countering this recurring vandal; they vandalise 15-20 different articles on each IP a day and change IPs everyday, sometimes twice in one day. I'm not sure page protection would really be useful in this situation anymore (it has been implemented before to no avail) as they vandalise so many different articles. It's been like this for months and threatened to drive contributors away, who have been sick of dealing with the diatribes the person leaves at their talk pages. What sort of action would be best? Seraphim Whipp 09:51, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Was your edit summary here a reference to something I did? I hope I didn't screw something up on that page; I posted a new section and it somehow kept getting incorporated into the archived section above. I experimented a little and managed to extricate it. If I did something to your work in the process, many apologies. All best, -- G-Dett 21:07, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
What I saw was that you closed it, then you unclosed it, except for the section Jossi started as an attempt to make sense of the chaos which had developed, and to determine how much support there was for each of the remedies. Since you'd unclosed it except for the proposed remedies, it was an open discussion about sanctions, without anywhere for anyone to place their view on which remedy was most appropriate. That makes no sense. I completed your un-closing, or re-opening, if you will, of the thread, as I had only the three choices: Leave it in that unhappy and confused state, all open except for where people could place their view; Close it all, which I felt was inappropriate for me as the one who started it; or Finish the un-closing which you'd partially done. I chose option 3, as least disruptive and most ethical of the choices available - and I posted my rationale on the thread, in the appropriate section, so anyone who wished could discuss it with me. Later, FeloniousMonk closed it as he had been chastised previously by Banno for not closing it when he blocked Ferrylodge. You reverted his closure and re-closed with a caustic comment directed at no one in particular, changing the format of the closure. I came here to find out why you'd changed FeloniousMonk's closure and what you were talking about in your summary, and Lo and Behold, I am being specified by name as a party against whom you have a grievance, without benefit of having been informed of your grievance. So I am still wondering, what are you aggrieved with me about? And why do you complain of me, without having discussed your grievance with me? And is your complaint about the section Jossi started??? Then perhaps you'd better discuss it with him, rather than naming me to others without benefit of knowing who did what when. KillerChihuahua ?!? 22:23, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Let's put all this behind us, shall we? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:48, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Hi Ryulong. I've added something to the debate on the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Case of abusive sockpuppetry by Mrs random following an e-mail from one of the parties involved. I won't expand here to avoid forking, but thought I'd bring it to your attention. Number 5 7 21:37, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Hi! I wanted to let you know that a reply has been received from the ISP regarding the abuse report you filed, and I've marked the case as closed. If this particular abuse pattern should reappear, please file a new abuse report case and reference the old one so we can report it again. Thanks! -- Darkwind ( talk) 22:46, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
If that's how it works, it needs to be fixed. That text is small and sneaky.. if someone wasn't looking for it, they'd miss it and therefore miss the opportunity to way in on discussion of the TfD. AfD isn't like that, why is TfD? -- ALLSTAR ECHO 02:42, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
In a cursory check of your contributions, I mistakenly took you for one of those users who treat Wikipedia like a social networking website, and pressed "block" without noticing your administrative duties. I am terribly sorry, and I have undone everything concerning this action.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龍) 23:05, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm not comfortable with this block. Would you consider unblocking? It seems like the editor has some constructive edits and has a mentor. I'm not so sure the block reason is in line with the policy. Navou banter 12:57, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Hi Ryulong. I see you blocked an IP as an open proxy, and immediately unblocked it: [3]. Did it turn out this wasn't an open proxy? Thanks. The Evil Spartan 17:21, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Experience on the meta:Spam blacklist has shown that it's important to keep some sort of record as to why sites are blacklisted -- otherwise a whitelisting request comes in a year or two later and the site is removed unless someone can find the original reason for adding it. This has happened with many of the old domains that were added in the early days of the blacklist before admins started logging their additions.
If you don't mind, could you maybe leave a brief note for the record on MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist as to the history (diffs, editors) of the wikicrime.net spam [4]? Thanks, -- A. B. (talk) 00:43, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
What does this term 'fork' mean? I've seen it used here a few times and would like it's definition. HalfShadow 03:01, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Just curious - why did you remove yourself from Category:Wikipedia administrators open to recall? Videmus Omnia Talk 18:12, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Pardon the butting in, but I really don't think anyone is going to consider this a suitable matter for arbcom. The category is voluntary, so removing oneself is voluntary. I'm not saying I approve or disapprove, but I can't imagine any arbitrator would be interested in touching this. (Oops, nevermind- on re-reading I realized that the removal from the category is probably not what arbcom was being considered for. I suppose that's what I get for butting in.) Friday (talk) 00:13, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
I can't see Arbcom getting involved with this either, and despite the mistake Ryulong made with the block yesterday, the actual logic behind it is solid and sensible, Wikipedia isn't MySpace and we've got better things to do with our bandwidth than let it be pissed away by people running blogs or trying to sell crap from pages here. Arbitration isn't for people who can stick their hand up and say "Shit, I made a mistake, I'm a klutz", it's for people who go around saying "No, no, my block was 110% correct" when they're in the wrong. Nick 00:19, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Ryulong, in light of some of your recent blocks and deletions, I urge you to recuse yourself from blocking editors and/or deleting their pages on the grounds that they have not contributed to the encyclopedia enough. While it is true that building the encyclopedia is by far our primary goal and that it is firmly established that Wikipedia is not MySpace, and there are many cases where warning users of this, deleting their problematic pages, and if all else fails, blocking them, is justified, given some of your incorrect blocks and deletions I really think it would be in the best interest of both you and the community if you left these decisions and actions to other administrators. You perform a lot of useful work for the project, and I would hate to see it all be overshadowed by these mistakes. -- krimpet ⟲ 20:55, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Hi, just noticed a mess devloping by this user. the user appears to be creating lots of silly redirects. For example Windows XP now redirects to XP SUCKS. Can you help sort out the mess please, thanks -- Zven 23:26, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Some thoughts, for what they are worth, on Ryulong's tenure as an administrator, and the calls for him to put himself up for recall or to be brought before the Arbitration Committee.
I remember thinking carefully about how I would opine on Ryulong's third request for adminship, back in January. I ultimately supported that RfA, opining as follows:
Ryulong's RfA was closed as successful by a famously narrow margin, and Ryulong changed from being an extremely hardworking vandal-fighter making reports to AIV, into being an extremely hardworking vandal-fighter blocking vandals himself. He has also, over the past nine months, taken on more than his share of dealing with trolling situations, difficult blocks, sockpuppet reviews, image deletions, and other administrator chores. Ryulong has become a workhorse of an administrator, whose level of dedication has consistently been high.
Any administrator, especially a busy one who can average dozens of admin actions every day, is going to get some criticism—some of it quite justified, some of it much less so. All of us, myself certainly included, make mistakes. Unfortunately, exactly as I (and many others who commented on all sides of the RfA) feared, Ryulong's mistakes have tended to be all of the same genre: harshly blocking, most often indefinitely, accounts that other administrators would have felt warranted a shorter block, or a warning, or sometimes no action at all. Some examples of problematic blocks were surveyed in Ryulong's RfC, and others have occurred more recently. I gather that in some instances, questionable blocks resulted simply from the press of business. In other instances, Ryulong has applied far stricter standards in reviewing an account's record than most other admins would themselves apply or recommend that others apply.
Several times Ryulong has been urged to reconsider his approach to adminship. He has sometimes promised to do so, particularly in the wake of the RfC; and I believe we have seen some improvement. Now, in the wake of an admitted error he made earlier this week, Ryulong has promised elsewhere on this page to discontinue his practice of blocking without warning accounts that have not, in his view, made sufficient recent contributions to the mainspace, which has been a source of several problematic blocks. I would like to think that, at this time and with the spectre of an arbitration proceeding looming, Ryulong remains capable of moderating his approach to adminship.
I understand the concerns that respected editors and admins have expressed from time to time concerning some of Ryulong's administrator actions. In particular, unjustified blocks risk costing the project good-faith editors and their valuable contributions, and must be avoided. But I am not convinced that a proceeding seeking desysopping is the best answer at this juncture. The best interests of the project call for retaining Ryulong's dedication and efforts while curtailing the problems that have arisen from them, rather than losing his efforts as an administrator outright. I hope this proves to be possible. I think it is worth a further try.
I call for Ryulong to fully and definitively take to heart the advice he has received from many quarters that his work will be best appreciated, and will best serve the project, if he slows down a bit, and bears in mind always that the block button is not an administrator's only tool. And I call for those who are considering filing an arbitration case against Ryulong to hesitate and give him a further chance, perhaps a final chance, to demonstrate that he can do what is being asked of him. Newyorkbrad 01:52, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Hi Ryulong. Please unprotect your talk page (I won't just unprotect it myself). Indefinite semi-protection of your talk page is not advisable, particularly when you are involved in so much administrative action against IP editors - this prevents many of them from contacting you. Neil ム 08:39, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
File:Resilient-silver.png | The Resilient Barnstar | |
For deciding to unprotect your talk page yourself after concerns had been raised, even though you disagreed with them. [5] Melsaran ( talk) 17:47, 27 September 2007 (UTC) |
What's the reason for the cascade protection on the Power Rangers pages in User:Ryulong/PTL? Is this justified by WP:PROTECT? For example, I looked at Power Rangers: San Diego and the page has never even been created or deleted before - how would a new user know to contact you for unprotection if they wanted to create the article? Videmus Omnia Talk 19:30, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
* User:Ryulong/PTL" at all?— Ryūlóng (竜龍) 23:08, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
FYI, they made a page about you on the front of Encyclopedia Dramatica -- Just thought you'd want to know. -- 128.218.6.200 21:06, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
If you persist in continual disruption of the Kiev/Kyiv naming issue outside of the talk page of the article or outside the talk pages of users involved with the discussion, such as your attempts to get your way at WP:RM and WP:ANI, you will be blocked for disrupting Wikipedia.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龍) 05:35, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Reply here— Ryūlóng ( 竜龍) 03:32, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Which says absolutely nothing about the topic at hand. But thanks for bringing it up anyway. 199.125.109.88 01:59, 28 September 2007 (UTC) By the way, this discussion is closed. I have no interest in pursuing it further. 199.125.109.88 02:02, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Yes, this is a school IP, but school's back in session. Currently, there has been excessive vandalism, and the last revert(s) have been made by me; I have an account. I think a temporary block should be placed. Special:Contributions/206.117.237.56 206.117.237.56 17:48, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
But he's already been revealed. Brusai-E Fractyl 04:00, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
How about Liner Form? The pix reveal how Liner Form and the DenKamen Sword works. Also, King Liner is revealed!
KingLiner, DenLiner, and ZeroLiner
Combined time trains and the "Mole Imagin" trio
Fractyl 04:10, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Why? Why you want destroy my hard work? Who are you? Imagedonxidima 20:30, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Who are you, Melsaran? I talk to Ryulong, not you. -- Imagedonxidima 20:26, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
I have every right to add those refences so do not try my paitence those have to added. I'm mad at you for undoing the stuff I did I do not vandalise articles I clean articles and I had to even clean the Power Rangers: Operation Overdrive section up once due to vandalism. So I do not care what you say about me adding Super Sentai refences it needs to added to point out things left out in Power Rangers. So do you have a problem with that? If so tell me and if its pointless then I'm sorry I just wanted to let PR fans know about things left out in the series. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RedLifeguardRanger ( talk • contribs) 16:53, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Alright but I still feel angered by you saying its pointless and trivia. Please do not ban me I apologize. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RedLifeguardRanger ( talk • contribs) 21:20, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Just a heads-up - several of your userpages (the ones you use for private cascade protection) have been nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Protected titles/Specific Admin. Videmus Omnia Talk 18:32, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
The general policy in Wikipedia is to mix citations and footnotes (see Wikipedia:Footnotes). I have therefore reverted your deletion of my footnote regarding serpentinization in the "Atmosphere" section of Mars. WolfmanSF 20:26, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Ryulong, I appreciate the apology (actually I think you already apologized a while back) but that wasn't the reason I called those issues to your attention. Please believe that I hold no grudge against you - I don't get emotionally wrapped up in Wikipedia, and I frankly find people who do somewhat disturbing. For me, it's just a hobby that's more constructive and fun than watching TV. Getting blocked was annoying when I didn't deserve it, but so long as I got unblocked, who cares? But I do remember that I almost walked away completely when I had a hard time getting unblocked by you, and it makes me wonder how many potentially productive people really have walked after their first encounter with you.
I appreciate the good work that you do, and because of that, I actually don't want to see you desysopped - we need all the good admins we can get. That was the reason that Newyorkbrad's statement above ultimately led me to decide against the WP:RFAR for the time being. But you seem to keep repeating the same mistakes, especially in regards to hasty blocks - unless you fix this, ultimately this behavior likely will lead to your de-sysopping. The reason I called those things to your attention was so that you could fix them before things went too far. When you do things like break a promise to be open to recall, or break a promise to go easy on the block button, you cause people to doubt your integrity, and your ability to wield the tools maturely. Your message to me shows that you're perfectly capable of being gracious and courteous, please let this side of you show more often - I'm positive you'll have fewer problems.
Anyway, I'm sure you've had enough patronizing lecture for one day. Thanks again, and take care. Videmus Omnia Talk 23:38, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Protected titles/Specific Admin. Since some of your user pages were listed there, you might want to participate in the deletion review. -- Jreferee t/ c 02:51, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
You rolled back my editing in the article. Please read the talk page, my correction was abslolutely justified. -- 82.147.64.113 07:13, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Please coment. User_talk:Avraham#About_the_right_of_sockpupetry_to_vanish -- יודל 19:57, 30 September 2007 (UTC)