User talk:Ryulong/Archive 20

Archive 15

←

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

→

Archive 25

MySpace and Talkpages

I would like to point out that there are many people's page who do a have quite a bit about themselves on it, or even a little bit about themselves, myself included. This doens't mean their pages are suddenly and abruptly deleted by other users with no consultation. At the very least you should notify users that their pages will be deleted if they do not change them, not after you have done so. I don't believe anyone ever warned the users whose user page you deleted and given them time to change it. Honestly, if my user page that I spent fixing up exactly how I liked it was suddenly deleted with no warning, I would be discouraged from editing. Please take into consideration what I've said, and at least warn others before such another thing happens again. Thank you, ~ Bella Swan 23:28, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

The users in question had an average of 8 edits outside of their user pages and the user talk pages of their friends. That is extreme misuse of Wikipedia, as they are treating it as a social networking website instead of an encyclopedia. If they are not here to write an encyclopedia, then they should not be allowed to have a user page that lists their favorite bands or TV shows and nothing else.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 23:52, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I know for a fact that at leastone user had a pretty long page, nevertheless, I do agree that it was very wrong what they were doing. Yet, I don't think deleting their userpage is not the way to do it. As I said, it will just discourage them from editing in the actual encyclopedia, which is the last thing we want to do. I could understand the issue if they had warnings about their misuse of the encyclopedia and were warned abuot their talkpage, but right now your saying that they just don't deserve to have a page because of their misuse. If someone vandalises and is blocked, you don't delete their userpage. I can imagine after several blocks you might do so, but I really think that treating Wikipedia as a MySpace does not regulate deleting a user's userpage. ~ Bella Swan 21:14, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Your comments at User talk:IXella007

I find your comments at User talk:IXella007 warning of a block to be unwarranted, and I will file an RFC if this recurs. Sarsaparilla (talk) 01:56, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

This issue was already dealt with by Walton. And her lack of encyclopedic edits are an issue. Wikipedia is not a place for code shops, as she was running, and she needs to put more work into writing articles. All I did was give her a warning. I have done nothing else.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 02:02, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Why are you (and everyone else) on Ryulong's case about possible blocks stemming out of these MySpace-like issues when we have a template like {{Notasocialnetwork}} which says the same exact thing he's been saying, basically? Metros (talk) 02:02, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

And blatantly obvious precedent that blocks like this will be endorsed. Daniel 02:05, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

No. The block of Goodshoped was for making repeated unfounded accusations of sockpuppetry against an established user, not for social networking. The block of User:Gp75motorsports, which was for "social networking", was not endorsed by the community, and he was unblocked. Blocks like this are not supported by policy or by any kind of common sense. (As to the template cited by Metros above, I wasn't aware of it, and will proceed to nominate it for deletion.) Walton^One 21:59, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

If users are here just to talk to each other, they are wasting our time and Wikipedia's resources. We are not here to coddle users or babysit teenagers who want to make MySpace profiles on their user pages.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 03:11, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

They are not wasting your time - you don't have to communicate with them at all. Provided they don't impede you or others from working on the encyclopedia, or disrupt Wikipedia's processes, then they aren't doing anything wrong. They are not wasting resources either - webspace isn't an issue, so there's no reason to have any restrictions on what people can do in their userspace, provided it isn't disruptive or inflammatory. You are certainly entitled to disagree with me on this, but please don't block, or threaten to block, such users without getting consensus for it first. There is no community consensus in support of such blocks. Walton^One 12:42, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Well said, Walton. Majorly (talk) 21:20, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. It is not here for people to waste time on code shops.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 23:52, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Nor is it for people on power trips with their mouse over the block button playing the schoolyard bully. Majorly (talk) 00:11, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

If people aren't here for the encyclopedia, then they needn't edit period. Majorly, you already know my views on this, and I already know yours.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 00:13, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

(un-indent) Walton - as I said at a TfD in which you posted the link to WP:Editors matter - editors matter, but content matters more. Wikipedia is not here to play host to the new Facebook for markup geeks. The point is content not editors, and if people aren't here to work on content or issues related to content then they should find somewhere else to play. Un-productive users who are more disruptive than they are useful should be politely shown the door (and this opinion is, from what I've seen, the consensus). ^Avruchtalk 02:31, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

They aren't disruptive though. They aren't bothering anyone at all (apart from Ryulong, of course). With a little encouragement, these editors could become the greatest this site has ever had. If bullies like Ryulong want to stop that happening though, so be it. Majorly (talk) 02:47, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

The multiple "shops" that have been popping up are disruptive, and the autograph books were also disruptive, as it solely appeared that those particular users were here for. I am not trying to be a bully, but if users are just here to make pretty stuff on their user page, then they don't need to edit here at all, because that's not what they're here for in the first place. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. It is not the new facebook. If people want to make pretty mark up and signatures, they have other websites for their artistic skills with HTML code.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 02:55, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Four chan, Fourchan

as you keep deleting it, what is an 'orphaned' redirect?--Seriousspender (talk) 16:05, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

There are no links to it anywhere on Wikipedia other than my page. No one is going to use "four chan" or "fourchan" when looking up "4chan."—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 23:49, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

24.119.46.123

There is an IP Adress user 24.119.46.123 (contribs • talk) who has vandalized Power Rangers: Operation Overdrive twice within the last hour at least. Do you think this user is a vandalism user?. Mythdon (talk) 08:37, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Dealt with.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 08:40, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Gekiranger Gekiwaza

I think we should stick with "Tenchi Apex Strike". "Tenchi" good as it is. Fractyl (talk) 09:06, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Tenchi is a translatable term. It makes more sense to translate it than to leave it in Japanese.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 09:09, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Not really. It depends on the context. In this case, "Tenchi" is used in a "Yinyang" style. Fractyl (talk) 09:12, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Tenchi is a Japanese word with a clear English language translation. "Heaven and Earth" makes more sense than "Tenchi" if the rest of the phrase is translated.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 09:15, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Archiving?

I came by to read the discussion about four chan, but you've removed it already. Why would you do this? It was only a couple days old. Oh, and it looks like you didn't even archive it? Surely you don't think that doing things like this is a reasonable substitute for actual discussion? What's going on here?!? Friday (talk) 17:00, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I later answered him, I believe, and also made my answer when he posted at AN/ANI.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 23:13, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

And damn, that thread has overgrown its use.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 23:21, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

If this is how you discuss your actions, please, don't delete anything else. All editors need to be willing to discuss the edits they've made, and this is even more important when applied to admin actions like deletions. Friday (talk) 15:16, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

BTW that probably came out harsher than I intended, sorry. But, please, if you delete things, be sure to be willing to discuss it. That includes not removing conversations only a couple days old from your talk page. Friday (talk) 19:27, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Den-O

Actually, from the recent subbed episodes, Yuto said he's not a Singularity Point. Fractyl (talk) 18:32, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

The Japanese Wikipedia says differently. He is a Singularity Point according to the text there, and is listed with Hana, Ryotaro, the Owner, and Kai.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 22:15, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Apostrophe issue

Just wanted to make sure you saw my reply at my talk page. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 21:11, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Manifesto copyright issue

Regarding this edit of yours, can we make even some kind of partial mention of what this Manisto says? I agree, copying the whole thing may be a copyvio but maybe its ok to make a partial mention? I have source for it where they mentioned part of it. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 21:52, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Saying what it says without copying it verbatim is the proper thing to do.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 22:18, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

We use verbatim text all the time e.g. quotes from people. In the previous revert the other user said that since its a manifesto, its public. Should I ask in Wikipedia:Copyright problems as to how much I can copy and present there without it being a problem? --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 20:39, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I've added a request for evaluation here. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 20:54, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

The verbatim text of a document is different than the verbatim text that was spoken. If you think that the item is in the public domain, I would go about seeing if you could host the text at WikiSource.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 22:35, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll try that. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 13:04, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

FYI

Your friend was back again. Lawrence Cohen 21:30, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

And another TOR node.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 22:34, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Do you think this is appropriate?

Do you honestly think it's appropriate or helpful for you to do things like this? Why not let someone else handle it, if admin actions need to be taken here? It's already well established that many editors think you've been trigger-happy in the past. I would hope you would take a more conservative approach. Friday (talk) 22:38, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I did not perform the block. It is a sockpuppet account of someone who I believe has been harassing me through e-mail. The only issue here is that he was attacking me. I see nothing wrong.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 22:40, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Feeding the trolls does not help. Friday (talk) 22:41, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

What would you have done?—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 22:45, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I would not have used the sysop tools on someone who said I should be de-sysopped. The conflict of interest should be obvious. Yes, those accounts are trolling, but we certainly don't want to give any appearance of blocking people for criticism. So, there's no way you should be the one to process the unblock request. Also, I'd probably tend to ignore that kind of stuff rather than thinking I need to "fight back" somehow. Fighting back just prolongs the conflict. Ignoring it is better. This may be no big deal- clearly these editors are here to stir up trouble rather than to offer contructive criticism. Still, we should all take care how we respond to such stuff. Friday (talk) 22:49, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

What's done is done. I doubt that in these situations, there's any criticism. Even the casual outsider will see that these accounts have no edits other than the edits to the Arbitration Case to where I am barely a party. If anything, I think that it's only encouraging him as we remove the item from the workshop page. Leaving it and opposing it will probably serve a much better end-goal, but I am never online when this guy shows up.—Ryūlóng (竜龍)

You could be right about that. Still, I think you should be very conservative in how you respond personally to this stuff. Responding to an unblock request in cases like this sends a very wrong message. You only give fuel to your critics by doing what you've done here. Friday (talk) 22:55, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

And this is one of the few things that I have done lately that would raise any flags for my critics. I have been extremely careful as of late, and I've been making sure that actions such as those that you have been mentioning are rare occurrences.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 22:58, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Sockpuppet of user you blocked.

• User Diegogrez (talk · contribs) is most likely back as Musicfan48 (talk · contribs). JuJube (talk) 03:48, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

User Bodoque57 (talk · contribs) has a similar editing pattern to Diegogrez. What's your opinion? Jespinos (talk) 22:17, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Please stop your interference

I would kindly ask that you stop writing to me on my talk page. Also, I would kindly ask that you stop moving my user pages and talk pages around. Your interference serves no legitimate purpose that I can see, and since I plan to present my views on your actions, I think it would be best that you cease further interference. --Law Lord (talk) 09:18, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Remove the polemic statement from your userpage, and I will be done with you. Also, I would suggest you look over WP:OWN.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 09:20, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Hurricanger

Don't completely erase the data on the Jakanja Chunin and the Ninja Beasts. They are important to the story, just help me shorten them. Fractyl (talk) 22:49, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Fractyl, we do not need an article just for Jakanja nor do we need ten thousand characters of information just on the monsters of the day. The most we need is a list except for the major players in the group.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 22:48, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

But many of those minor players play a part to move the story, like the Fangaru and Madogi. Fractyl (talk) 22:51, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

They are not important. They are monsters of the day. They do not require as much coverage as you are giving them. Most we need is a summary of their biographies on the website (if it is still up after so many years).—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 22:52, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

They are..

• Kekkaibo: Reponsible for the Earth Ninja Schools being wiped out.
• Octonyuudou: His death resulted in Chuubozu's grudge on the Goraigers.
• Tsukkomina: The rage from his death unsealed Raging Arrow.
• Badogi: Brought Gozen out into the open.
• Madogi: Played a part in Gozen's death.

But we can shorten the profiles, but blasting them is out of the question. Fractyl (talk) 22:58, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

We do not need a biography for monsters of the day. It is this excessive detail that gets articles deleted, because there are no sources and there is no assertion of notability. AkaRed and Shadow Moon were both deleted for these reasons, but I have since recreated the Shadow Moon article as a stub with 11 references. I have left a few of the biographies, but all of the monsters of the day are gone. A list is better than thousands of bits of text that make it look like a fan site.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 23:01, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

No, because then, people would ask. Now, I'm not saying every villian needs his own bio page, like the Power Ranger monsters (who have their own page from the villians). But I'm saying that info must be provided on the minor villians, their abilties, part in the story, quirks, and death. Now I am going to review the profiles and have them shorten without ruining them, but I will ask for your review of them. Until then, the names(Eng, Japanese, Romanji) are brought back up. Fractyl (talk) 23:05, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

We only need what is necessary for knowledge of the show as a whole. The Japanese Wikipedia gets by with just lists of names for the Monsters of the Day. I think we can do the same.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 23:45, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Imagin

Last time I checked, we both argeed that if a female Imagin appeared, then you would stop with the "it" thing. The female Snail Imagin was that ice breaker, though she's the only female in the series. Fractyl (talk) 23:42, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

The Snail is the only Imagin that was ever denoted as male or female. Every other Imagin is not explicitly given a gender. It is easier for "it" to be used, rather than "he" or "she."—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 23:46, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually most of the Imagin(good & evil) are male, the "Male & Female" bit was used to tell the two Snail Imagin apart, like the brothers Ari & Kirigiris or the three Mole Imagin. Fractyl (talk) 01:00, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

But it is never stated other than with the Snails. Assuming as such is improper. Only the Taros, Deneb, Sieg, and the Snails are really gender defined.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 01:03, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

If one Imagin's gender defined, the others have to be. Aren't you assuming they have no gender? Fractyl (talk) 03:14, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Aren't you assuming that they have a gender? There is nothing to denote that the Imagin have a gender, except for the Snails. They are all voiced by men, but there is nothing that says that they are male. This isn't like the Worms that had explicit genders. None of the Imagin have been given a gender, except for the Snail Imagin duo. Because there really isn't a third person gender specific pronoun or suffix (-kun is really the only one), we cannot say that the Imagin have gender, unless stated otherwise. Just because we have one female Imagin doesn't mean that all of the other ones are automatically male.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 03:23, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually you said the opposite of the last sentence months ago that sparked this discussion. Now I don't know enough japanese to know gender pronouns that well, but I don't assume in the intermediate present and past. But, we can agree that Gigandeaths are gender neutral? Fractyl (talk) 03:34, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, I have changed my mind since then. It is easier to refer to the Imagin as "it" when using mixed pronouns (referring to Ryotaro or Yuto as "he" and then the Imagin they fight as "it"). The female Snail Imagin is a singular entity, so those two can be referred to as "he" and "she." Every other Imagin is not given a specific gender, so we refer to them using gender specific pronouns.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 03:38, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Vze21gwa

I see that a user named Vze21gwa (talk · contribs) has edits that are barely constructive. His two recent edits are outright vandalism. Check his contributions for yourself and please leave a notice on his talk page please. Mythdon (talk) 00:48, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Please look at what vandalism is.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 00:52, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry

I know you had wikipedia's best interests at heart when you proposed the Tor block bot. I did not agree with it, but knowing that you are a good person with wikipedias best interests at heart makes me feel badly that you were disappointed. --Blue Tie (talk) 03:57, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I never proposed a bot. Take a look at my monobook.js and you'll see a script written by Krimpet.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 03:59, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

OK, my mistake. --Blue Tie (talk) 04:57, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I wanted to help. But it seems that no one thinks it will help. So why should I bother on that page any more?—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 05:00, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I know you applied yourself to helping. And I put myself into your place and thought that the rejection of the idea might hurt. I just wanted to let you know that I sympathized. Probably it would have been better coming from someone else. But I felt it and wanted to say it. --Blue Tie (talk)

How to request new articles

Hi I was wondering how do you make requests for new articles to be added here on wikipedia? Red Polar Bear Ranger (talk) 03:45, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

What do you mean?—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 21:30, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

IP Blocks

The IP blocks you did on 5 Jan. What kind of proxy? Thanks, M-ercury at 11:39, January 11, 2008

PHP proxies.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 20:41, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Ohhh, I did not check for that. I'm going thru various logs (yours and alot of others) to compile a statistical analysis. Hopefully it will help. :) Regards, M-ercury at 23:30, January 11, 2008

Naruto-Arena Page Deletion

Hey, I recently had started work on a wikipedia page for the online game naruto-arena. I created the page, with a significant amount of information (at least in my mind) to warrant it to stay there, especially since I had planned to edit it with a LOT more information later. When you deleted it you said that the website didn't have enough significance, so I guess i'll have to prove that it does. Naruto-Arena has 1062377 members, to be exact, and has been around for around a year and a half. While not as popular as games such as runescape, or travian perhaps, it is very popular, and I believe warrants its own wikipedia page. I'll admit I don't know your exact standards on "significance", but I do believe it would be nice to give my article a second clance.

Thank you for your time

- antarctic —Preceding unsigned comment added by Antarctic9411 (talk • contribs) 03:54, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

If you read the WP:N guidelines, you will see that there are various guidelines for notability and inclusion on Wikipedia. Just being a website with a million members does not make one notable for inclusion. RuneScape and Travian have third party coverage in the media. There was nothing of the sort mentioned in the Naruto-Arena article. If you can show that Naruto-Arena was mentioned in a reputable news source, then there can be an article.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 06:01, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

74.173.49.58

That IP address keeps removing information on the Power Ranger articles that relate it to the Super Sentai series. You blocked him for a month in November, but as soon as that block expired, he started doing the same thing again. I think this address needs to be blocked indefinitely. The Legendary Ranger (talk) 13:45, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

You fool.

Lobsters don't dance, they juggle. You're thinking of shrimp. HalfShadow (talk) 22:38, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh really? You do also realize you're talking to a marine scientist, right?—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 22:43, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Wait; are we talking West Ocean or East Ocean? HalfShadow (talk) 22:44, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Both.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 23:07, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Salting

Hello Ryulong, I was wondering if you would mind having a quick look at User:Acalamari/Test when you're not too busy. It's a page I've written regarding salting, and it's for the new admin school to help new admins with salting. Can you please have a look at that page I've done to see if there's anything you might be able to add or fix before I move it out of my userspace? Thanks, Ryulong! Acalamari 17:57, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Never mind, it's already been moved now. Thanks anyway! Acalamari 17:16, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Question

How did you make that scroll box with all the userboxes in it on your user page? Please answer in my talk page Hatewind (talk) 15:39, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Request for Information

I saw an article edited by Codyfinke15. I was going to ask the person a question. You have blocked the user indefinitely. Why? I reviewed several edits and they seem ok. On what basis do you conclude that this person is a sock? What is the basis that the account of the originally accused sockpuppetmaster is indeed a sockpuppet?

I am not an admin but I have rollback privileges. This shows that I am reasonably trustworthy and not a crank (even if you don't believe in the Easter Bunny). Mrs.EasterBunny (talk) 20:20, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Mrs.EasterBunny, haven't we been discussing sock puppets recently? If you look at User:Codyfinke15 you will find a link to Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Codyfinke where the situation becomes apparent. Then you can look at the block log, and see that the original account was blocked by User:Alison, a checkuser. If you have further concerns, I suggest you contact her. Jehochman ^Talk 20:33, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

The editor made edits changing vague information into specific information which is what I wanted to ask him about. I'm not writing to question the block. The block only prevents communication. It shouldn't be so hard to find things out. Couldn't Ryulong have just left a message on the user's talk page? I have no interest in Codyfinke, just Codyfinke15. As it looks now, the original user is probably not locatable so let's drop the matter (except please respond, Ryulong) Mrs.EasterBunny (talk) 20:49, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Codyfinke is a banned user who does not respond to any comments, similar to MascotGuy. The easiest way to deal with the user is to block, as he will make sockpuppets.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 05:04, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

TOR proxies

Of course your idea will help. There's no reason to abandon it. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:40, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

The community snubbed my idea, and adding unnecessary content such as a "bot" to check.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 05:04, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Username transaltion?

Since a statement in your userpage says your username comes from the Japanese and Chinese words for dragon, could this imply or mean your username is translated into Dragon Dragon, Dragondragon or DragonDragon?. Mythdon (talk) 06:43, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

My username has no translation. It is just what it says. I came up with the name from the words, but it has no meaning on its own.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 06:44, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the information. Mythdon (talk) 06:58, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Personal attack

Hi, I stumbled upon this post which is a personal attack against you, I do not know the correct action against this post, but I guess you do. --Morten LJ (talk) 19:55, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

User was warned at the time by another admin. As the attack happened several hours ago, a block of the IP would be inappropriate now: see what the IP does next. Acalamari 20:20, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

The IP's WHOIS information is curious...—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 21:39, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Nice one for catching it. There have been a few IPs bashing you recently that have been proxies, and I suspected that this one might have been, but how did you find out for sure? Acalamari 21:45, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I asked Heligoland to scan it for open ports.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 21:52, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for the response. Acalamari 22:15, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Before your account?

I was just wondering, have you ever edited Wikipedia before registering under your username?. Mythdon (talk) 05:21, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I think I had.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 05:28, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Do you think?

Do you think it is breaking the rules to make a category named after your username?. Mythdon (talk) 09:40, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes. To keep track of pages, click the "Watch" tab instead of making your own category.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 09:41, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Is this breaking any rules?

In your opinion, am i breaking any rules by using infobox functions for User:Mythdon/user info?. Mythdon (talk) 01:11, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Go-Onger

Dukemon found magazine images, so the info should be present on the article he got the pix from. Example pix.

• Esumi Sosuke/Go-OnRed: Former racer who always has a sunny disposition. Unyielding and always full of confidence. Always confronts obstacles as best as he can. When evil is in his sights, he will not hesitate to fight right away. Transforming into Go-OnRed, he attacks violently crushing evil with the "Speed Tosshin" (Speed Rush.)

• Engine Speedor: Partner Enjin of Go-OnRed who came to our world from the "Machine World." Can not be beaten when it comes to his starting speed. Has the habit of saying "Doru Doru." His catchphrase is "Buchigishize! Doru Dorutsu!!"

Fractyl (talk) 21:26, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Those don't say anything. They're just pictures. If we can't access the article, then the information should not be on Wikipedia. Just because what he thinks he's reading is believed doesn't mean its right.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 21:27, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I know, hence I mentioned the pix(as he took them from the article). But I can ask Dukemon is he can present the entire page. Fractyl (talk) 21:31, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

---

Plus, yesterday, this "non-Dukemon" info came out by "Rumble".

Esumi Sosuke/Go-onred: Ex-racer. His courage won the hearts of the Engines and Bonpa the support bot and was given the powers to be Go-onred. His hot-blooded antics are possible because of his undying luck. nickname Fierce King.

Kousaka Renn/Go-onblue: Ex-bus driver. He was caught in between the Gaiark invasion when they raided the race circuit he dropped race crews and others. A very knowledgeable person, he takes pride in making meals that have eggs in them and is also a machine lover. Although his vast array of knowledge is helpful, he tends to just let it sit. nickname Erudite Prince.

Rouyama Saki/Go-onyellow: Worked at the race circuit's convinience store as a part-time worker. Cheerful and optimistic, she is the first one to tell people to smile. Other than the fact that she enjoys the super hero life, she is no different from any other teenage girl. nickname Smiling Princess.

Jyou Hant/Go-ongreen: A Freeter, he was caught in the whole invasion mess with Gunpei. Living life by the moment, he does not like to settle on one job and therefore has a lot of jobs he took under his resume. Although he seems apathetic, he is passionate of what he does. nickname Convertible Joker(as in transforming).

Ishihara Gunpei/Go-onblack: Ex-policeman. He is the only one who wanted to be a Go-onger. He has problems dealing with his teammates who he considers "amateurs" but respect them for their sense of justice. Cool at first glance, he too is hot-blooded in nature. nickname Formal Fighter.

Bomper: The maintenance robot created by the Engines. He is responsible for creating all sorts of armaments and Engine repair.

Fractyl (talk) 21:41, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

If we have the scans, then we can add it to the article.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 21:46, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

--

Go-onger theme

Fractyl (talk) 21:48, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Title isn't given. We only know that the song exists. Do not assume that the title is the same as the show. Gaoranger, Hurricaneger, Timeranger, etc. have all had different names than the show.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 21:54, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing the fullwidth stuff

I appreciate you tuning up the Smash articles. Say, do you study at RSMAS? Coreycubed (talk) 19:31, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm an undergraduate. I haven't really gone out to RSMAS that much.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 01:39, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Kiva

Info found. Fractyl (talk) 23:29, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Fine. If you want, there's also the entry on Go-onger at that blog, too, for you to add.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 01:39, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. Fractyl (talk) 02:32, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Gekiranger

Just pointing out Long's true form, which is to be in the series finale 48-49.

Long's true form{shadowed}

Behind the scenes of Long's true form.

Fractyl (talk) 03:09, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Bobabobabo removed my "she has been banned on EN and JA" messages

Hey, Bobabobabo is back... sort of. See: http://zh.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Bobabobabo&action=history And: http://zh.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Bobabobabo&action=history What is going on, exactly? WhisperToMe (talk) 04:18, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

She added [1] "Leave me alone" and then edited the Yu-Gi-Oh! GX page: [2] WhisperToMe (talk) 04:19, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

So get her banned at zh. It's out of my jurisdiction.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 05:29, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh, ok :) - I'll see what they say about it :) WhisperToMe (talk) 07:21, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

ja:炎神戦隊ゴーオンジャー and ja:仮面ライダーキバ

ja:炎神戦隊ゴーオンジャー and ja:仮面ライダーキバ are pretected for editing wars. Please wait until February 2, they will be unprotected automatically.(ja)ja:炎神戦隊ゴーオンジャー とja:仮面ライダーキバは編集合戦のために保護されています。2月2日に自動解除される予定なので、それまで待っていてください。--Michey (talk) 10:02, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

A year

Hello Ryulong, I just wanted to say that you've been an admin for just over a year now. I also wanted to say that you have been an effective administrator, and whenever concerns have risen, you've been willing to discuss and address them, and are a better Wikipedian and admin as a result...putting more care and thought into actions. I don't regret this decision at all. Thanks, Ryulong. Acalamari 01:04, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Is there?

Is there a template that informs users that the article is written like an instruction manual?. Mythdon (talk) 21:05, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

No.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 21:11, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

TOR block of 66.199.184.254

Hey, I noticed that you've blocked 66.199.184.254, as a TOR node, which, it is no longer. I was wondering, if you'd consider either allowing me to unblock it, or, unblocking it yourself please. SQL^{Query me!} 20:46, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

If it's no longer Tor, and no one is using it, why should we unblock it?—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 21:10, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

TTN

Asking for administrative intervention concering User:TTN is outside of the purview of WP:AN and WP:ANI. You are both involved in the arbitration case which is still on going. Wait for the ArbCom to decide on something.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 22:54, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Last time I checked the presence of an RfAr is not a license for disruption. TTN is being disruptive in the absence of consensus on the matter which is exactly the point of the RfAr.

I find this culture of people going out of their way to prevent any kind of review to TTNs behavior. Any post to ANI about TTN is immediately attacked and rendered useless within minutes which adds to the disruption.

-- Cat ^chi? 03:28, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

His behavior is currently being investigated by the ArbCom, again. It's their job to figure out what to do with him. If they cannot decide anything, then its the community.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 03:32, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

So According to you

A line of text counts more than a factual picture? a picture is worth more than a thousand words. -User:Hai_Tien

Pictures are open to interpretation. Just because it looks like her doesn't mean it is her. Wikipedia relies on reliable sources. A picture you have or a video uploaded to YouTube does not have the same value as an official statement.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 04:25, 30 January 2008 (UTC)