This is an archive of past discussions with User:Ryulong. 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.

Hi, In your edit summary you said "shouldn't be those links". Could you please clarify what you meant? Is the use of interwiki links in infoboxes discouraged for some reason? Or was it that the wrong ja.wiki articles were linked? Thanks, —Msmarmalade (talk) 01:06, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

WP:MOS-JA says not to use interwiki links for articles on ja.wp but not on en.wp because if we're linking them then they have to be notable in the first place to have an en.wp article on them at some point.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 01:19, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

WP:MOS-JA also says "interwiki linking may be used to supplement red links." and WP:REDNOT says "Red links to personal names should be avoided". But it also says "if the subject of the link is unlikely to have an English article ever created, this can be written Les Blondes^(fr)."

I don't necessarily agree that the two actors you removed the interwiki links from are non-notable, but if you do plan to remove interwiki links then could you please change them to this formatting: ... [[:fr:Les Blondes|Les Blondes]]^(fr) ... rather than a redlink? Thanks,—Msmarmalade (talk) 02:11, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

WP:REDLINK favors no article locally than pointing our readers to the Japanese Wikipedia.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 02:27, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't understand. Could you please explain? Maybe quote the part of WP:REDLINK you are referring to? Thanks, —Msmarmalade (talk) 11:10, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

The two actors are obviously notable if they were in Kamen Rider so we should instead be encouraging people to write English language biographies on them instead of just linking to the Japanese language Wikipedia page on them. This is not such a difficult concept to wrap your head around. Do not link to other language projects in the main article text just because we don't have a local article on the subject because if that is the case then we should fucking have a local article instead.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 19:10, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

I see that you have done this on every god damn Kamen rider article on the project. Here's the thing. If these people are all actors in these TV shows then they are notable for coverage on the English Wikipedia and we should have red links leading to empty pages where someone some day will write an English language biography for them rather than you completely disregarding the manual of style for your own interpretation of guidelines and policies that instead unnecessarily provides links to these people's pages on the Japanese Wikipedia. Do not use this esoteric linking format again and if you care so god damn much make biographies.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 19:19, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Please wait before reverting all my edits. Will reply shortly—Msmarmalade (talk) 22:33, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

No, because you are enforcing a change that no manual of style suggests. WP:REDNOT does not comply with the fact that these people simply do not have articles on the English Wikipedia yet nor that the format you've been putting in place instead is of any valid use.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:35, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Ok there has obviously been a misunderstanding here, and I think you've been a little too quick to revert my edits. Interwiki links are not the same as the format I have recommended above. Please take a look at {{link-interwiki}}:

This template temporarily displays a link to a non-English Wikipedia article, while the corresponding English-language Wikipedia article is lacking ("a red link"). The red link is explicitly shown, followed by the non-English link. Once the English article is created, the non-English link won't be shown.

So to reiterate, interwiki links can be used for notable actors who would otherwise have plain redlinks. This format- [[:fr:Les Blondes|Les Blondes]]^(fr) should be used for non-notable actors with other language articles.

I hope this clears things up, please confirm that you understand, and that I can re-revert my edits. —Msmarmalade (talk) 22:55, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

The template is not in wide spread use on Wikipedia. It is better to have redlinks for articles which might be made than replace them with this template to point people to the other language projects.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 23:15, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

That's what I'm saying. This template does both. It provides a red link, and a language link. And then when the en.wiki article is created, the language link goes away. Besides that, WP:REDNOT explicitly states to avoid redlinks for BLPs —Msmarmalade (talk) 23:38, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

This is an interwiki link: Issei Masamune [ja]

This is the format I reccommended above (for non-notable actors): Issei Masamune^(ja)

—Msmarmalade (talk) 23:54, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

We don't need both because the actors are notable and should have articles on the English Wikipedia but they presently do not.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 00:54, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Once the English article is created, the non-English link won't be shown.—Msmarmalade (talk) 01:28, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

WP:MOS-JA:

There is generally no need to use inline links to the equivalent Japanese Wikipedia article for any words in an article. If a word is important enough to warrant a link, it will more than likely have an English Wikipedia article.

—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 01:29, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

WP:MOS-JA:

...However, interwiki linking may be used to supplement red links.

—Msmarmalade (talk) 01:53, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Supplement, not replace.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 02:12, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

It doesn't replace the redlink since the redlink is included within the template. as I said above: It provides a red link, and a language link.—Msmarmalade (talk) 02:25, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Oh, I see now. It still seems excessive. As what you did to the cast lists in the article itself.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 03:03, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

The bulk of my Kamen rider edits were just removing extra {{nihongo}} templates that shouldn't be needed for the actor names. The cast lists are messy and near unintelligible with both character and actor having nihongo templates. en.wiki articles don't need the kana/kanji of each person for a cast list. And i figure, if the actor has a wiki article, it's not necessary to give their name in kana/kanji anyway. And if they didn't have an en.wiki article, I used an interwiki link.

The interwiki link may seem excessive, but the alternative is no link at all, since WP:REDNOT says living people should not be redlinked. (This is because there is a risk that an article is created for someone else of the same name who is a felon etc. And we don't want to credit felons with an actor's roles).—Msmarmalade (talk) 03:42, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

I sincerely doubt that problem will come up for any of these Japanese TV show pages. And the cast list is the style all these pages are in. If anything, the nihongo for the characters should be dropped because of character lists.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 03:47, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

I have seen incorrect links to Japanese soccer players etc. It is not beyond the realm of possibility that some worse connection will happen. Regardless; that is what WP:REDNOT says (Just to be clear, I paraphrased their reasons; It might be worth looking up the exact wording).

I realise that all the Kamen Rider articles are in that style, which is why I have been methodically going through them all. It may take another few weeks to get them all, but I will keep at it. I would have liked to remove all the nihongo in the cast lists, but wasn't sure I could justify removing the character nihongo. If you can find a guideline that justifies the removal of the character nihongo, then I will do that too.

Unless you have any further objections, I'd like to start un-reverting my edits. —Msmarmalade (talk) 05:12, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

I do not agree with the style change which is why I reverted it wholesale. I do not think it is helpful to remove all the Japanese text as you did, nor do I think the linking style works. I will not agree to a restoration of your preferred form but WT:TOKU exists to form a proper consensus across so many pages.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 07:49, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

It doesn't look like that wikiproject is used much, but I'll give it a go. Honestly, I'm surprised that you condone such a messy format.—Msmarmalade (talk) 08:11, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

The format needs work, but I think you went baby bathwater here.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 08:16, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree—Msmarmalade (talk) 08:40, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Well WP:BRD is how we move forward.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 09:01, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

In accordance with the community sanctions on the GamerGate controversy subject area, you are hereby prohibited from commenting on Wikipedia with regards to any accounts owned or alleged to be owned by Wikipedia editors on non-Wikimedia wesbsites or the activities of such accounts as concern he GamerGate controversy. Should you feel the need, you may email the Arbitration Committee with any such comments. Should you feel compelled to make such comments on arbitration pages, you must obtain the prior permission of a clerk or arbitrator. This restriction is in place indefinitely. In the event that it is not superseded by arbitration remedies, you may request reconsideration of this restriction after not less than three months directly to me or to the relevant noticeboard. You may also appeal immediately to AN or ANI if you feel the sanction is unjust or unduly harsh, but please link to this comment. This sanction is a result of this enforcement request (permalink), which you originally filed against Loganmac. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:08, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Why the three month thing?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:25, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

It just means I'll re-evaluate in three months if you ask me to, and lift the restriction if I think it's no longer serving any purpose (as opposed to an appeal, which generally implies that you're contesting the sanction or the grounds for it). It doesn't have any effect on your ability to appeal to the community. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:32, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Yeah I read that after I hit save.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:14, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

@HJ Mitchell: I've appealed on ANI.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:42, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

FYI, per Ncmvocalist's suggestion at ANI, I'm reducing the duration to the end of the arbitration case. Once you get the message from a clerk that the case is closed, the sanction automatically expires and you can disregard it. Anyway, as I said at ANI, you were more polite in your appeal than most sanctioned editors are, so thank you for that. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:52, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Please do not remove the {{copyvio}} template from articles, as you did with Kikaider Reboot. Your action has been reverted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept non-free text or images borrowed from other websites or printed material; such additions will be deleted, and removing copyright notices will not help your case. You can properly contest the deletion at Wikipedia:Copyright problems. If you are the owner of the material, you may release the material under the Creative Commons and GFDL licenses, as detailed at WP:IOWN. Alternatively, you are welcome to create a draft in your own words at Talk:Kikaider Reboot/Temp. If you continue to insert copyright violations and/or remove copyright notices, you may be blocked from editing. Actually, in this case your action has not been reverted, as the result is acceptable even though the process was not. Your manners are not acceptable either, by the way. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:13, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

• What? Ryulong removed the copyvio tag at the same as he rewrote the content to remove the copyvio itself, which is actually exactly what needed to be done. What are you warning him for? ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 20:26, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

  I think he thinks my impersonator is me for some reason.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:52, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Well, Salvidrim!, the copyvio template says quite clearly, in large letters, "Do not restore or edit the blanked content on this page until the issue is resolved by an administrator, copyright clerk or OTRS agent". As far as I can see, Ryulong doesn't fall into any of those categories. So in theory at least he/she should not have edited the blanked content or removed the template. I didn't revert the edit as the result was acceptable though out of process. What exactly has got up your shirt? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 00:21, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

The fact you took more time to break out fully weaponized bureaucracy over a simple copypasted plot summary than the time it would've taken you to rewrite it, potentially mobilizing a significant number of people to deal with the most basic of issues instead of actually fixing things yourself. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 00:37, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

If we have a template that says editors must not rewrite copyvio content, then the template ought to be rewritten. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:40, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

I strongly agree - this is my first time running across this particular template and I am quite taken aback by its wording and especially by its oppressing size in a mainspace, live article. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 00:46, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

I've seen {{copyvio}} before but usually the whole page is blanked and I certainly don't remember this bullshit about "it has to be checked by an admin or copyright clerk". I rewrote the summary based on the reliable sources available. Isn't that better than just forbidding anyone from editing the page? Move on Justlettersandnumbers.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 03:17, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.  CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 15:47, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

---

Request reason:

MetalMan2015 was very likely a sockpuppet or a troll who had come here for the express purpose of baiting me into one of these situations so that means my edits were exempt not to mention the bulk of my edits regarded fixing the cut and paste move which is also technically exempt due to copyright violation reasons, even if they are internal violations. The edit war was already over by the time the report was filed so there is no more threat of disruption to be had that this block is meant to prevent either. I also spent some time trying to get MetalMan2015 to stop even though I beleved he was a sockpuppet. ChrisGualtieri needs to stop reporting me for things that are over when I was trying to revert the cut and paste move.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 18:42, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Decline reason:

The editor you were edit warring was not a banned/blocked user or a sock puppet of a blocked/banned user. Knowing you are right is not justification to edit war. Your history of edit warring is extensive and you have been given every opportunity to understand this policy. This block is valid and I am declining your unblock request. Please don't fall for the same pitfall yet again. Chillum 19:35, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

It is difficult to keep your thoughts concise and clear with mobile typing.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 19:00, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

@Ryulong: What evidence do you have that this was a banned/blocked user and thus 3RR exempt? I am looking at the contribution history and I see a content dispute. I don't see you claiming a 3RR exemption in your edit summaries or making any sort of sock puppet report. Chillum 19:01, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

@Chillum: He had spoofed my user page as another troll had recently done. I put up an SPI case for it before the block.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 19:02, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

@Ryulong: You have been told on several occasions that you are not to edit war with anybody, regardless of whether they are suspected sockpuppets or not. You have been told to report problems to an administrator and you personally are to walk away. You (and people who know how to run rings around you) leave administrators with no option but to block you, because your behaviour is so predictable and the disruption you cause has to be stopped. Please stop giving in to temptation and stop people having to block you. Nick (talk) 19:15, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

You've already made your opinions of me known to me, Nick.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 19:26, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

The user's page contains the common words "My user name comes from the", and the common words "because for some time I had an interest". It is not a copy of your page, it has minor elements in common. Regardless if you post something on Wikipedia you are inviting people to copy it, even if the page was a copy of yours the only thing wrong was the lack of attribution. It is not an attack.

I had not noticed the SPI as it was on the next page of edits, my mistake. Looking at that it seems you think this is the same as User:Cobbsaladin.

Cobbsaladin is not blocked or banned as far as I can see. WP:3RR makes exceptions for banned users, and sockpuppets of banned or blocked users, but not users you think are engaging in sock puppetry that is not block evasion. The evidence you have given me shows even if this is a sock puppet it is not a sock puppet of a banned user.

Frankly you should know better. Even if this is a troll then you are feeding him a 4 course meal. Why do you need to edit war whenever someone provokes you? If this really is someone trolling you you must see that they are taking advantage of your predicatable behavior? Chillum 19:21, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

His user page was identical to mine in structure and layout except for the details edited to be his own. It is not "minor elements" it is like he used it as a template. And I do all I can to try to get this shit taken care of but the response always comes too little too late. MetalMan2015 is definitely someone fucking with me and the cut/paste fix should still be somewhat exempt from 3RR. And maybe I'm wrong on Cobbsaladin, but all of this is too coincidental not to be someone screwing around. Something smells fishy and I have been blocked for discovering it as is always the case.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 19:26, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Something smells fishy and I have been blocked for discovering it as is always the case. Get realistic please, you have been blocked for edit warring as is always the case. Pretending this block is for anything other than edit warring shows that somehow after all these years you still don't get the policy. Just stop edit warring every and you will stop getting blocked. I would listen to Nick as he is giving good advice. Chillum 19:33, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

I was blocked for edit warring with a user who spoofed my user page with his own probably false information as had happened previously when I am a target for harassment across the fucking Internet because of Gamergate and you don't think what had happened is circumspect? I edit warred to prevent internal violations of copyright which should be exempt.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 19:39, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

I think if this is trolling then you need to stop feeding them. If you get yourself blocked every time one of them trolls you then of course they are going to keep trolling you. Your reaction is like candy to them. Even if it is a troll it is not acceptable for you to edit war every tome someone baits you. Use a bit of restraint.

Do make up your mind on why your edits were 3RR exempt. First you say it is exempt because this person was a blocked sock(it seems they are not). Now you are talking about copyright concerns. Okay, once again please provide evidence that your edit warring was removing a clear copyright violation and thus exempt because I don't see it. Chillum 19:47, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Does violating WP:C&P not count as a copyright violation? ANd FFS more of this victim blaming shit. This whole "ignore the trolls" thing works all well and good for people who are not constantly assailed by multiple long term abusers on site and off. Someone treating my user page as a mad libs for the second time in such a short period of time raised red flags for me so I reported it, and it was only after that that I discovered the copy paste moves he had did and tried to fix that, even telling him not to keep fucking doing it regardless of whether he is a banned user's sock or not.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:15, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

And what happens when the SPI case discovers something that I did not find?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 19:42, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Then we will address those concerns with that user. Chillum 19:47, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

• Dude, I'll repeat what I told you before, If and when you are going above 3RR, you have to clearly indicate by what exception you are justifying it in your edit summaries. Any future breach of 3RR without providing a clear rationale for it, or for which the rationale is not valid, will lead to actual sanctions. [When dealing with a problematic editor], you request protection. Raise AN/I. Ask for immediate IRC help. And you wait for help. You don't call the cops and start beating [the other person] over the head with a baseball bat repeatedly and relentlessly until help arrives to discover the bloodbath. People are always going to react badly and neither them, me, nor you find a block to be a desirable outcome, I'm sure. I'm just thankful this block was for 48 hours and not more considering the long history. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 20:58, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

  I was on mobile earlier while all this happened and I did not expect for it to have gotten to the point it did. Also the IRC app I have is shit now.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:38, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Some free advice. You do not need to be the one to respond to people who you think are sock puppets or are being otherwise disruptive. If you ignore it and it really is a problem then someone else will notice it. If you ignore it and nobody else notices it then it is very possible that it is not a problem. The great thing about Wikipedia is that you are not responsible for solving any given problem, we have many eyes.

Specifically if someone is trying to engage in some subtle trolling that they know will bug you but everyone else will see as not big deal then simply do not respond. Trolls feed on attention. Starve the trolls, give them nothing. You will become boring to them. So long as you react in such a predictable and self destructive manner every time you are baited you will give these trolls joy and they will come back. It is like feeding rats in your backyard and wondering why there are so many rats in your backyard. Chillum 21:59, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

I found the edit to one article, the mad libbed user page, and then the copypaste shit. I found this by chance and the problems related with it because no one touched one page in 10 years.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:33, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

{{unblock|Seeing as sockpuppetry was found can I be unblocked now?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 23:20, 8 January 2015 (UTC)}}

• Comment: I don't see why Ryulong had to blocked at first, CambridgeBayWeather is a good admin but why he didn't looked at the SPI report? Ryulong could be blocked later if SPI had shown negative results. Unblocking would be best thing with an appropriate summary. Bladesmulti (talk) 00:12, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Ryulong did not give any reason or indication in any of the edit summaries that he was even claiming an exception to the normal 3RR process. Ryulong also has an extensive history of edit warring indefinitely with users. In the end, the user was not Cobbsaladin. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 00:25, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Yeah but it was discovered he was someone else and Cobbsaladin had a bunch of other accounts.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 00:35, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

I hope someone else recoils at the horrible implications you just made while trying to justify your past actions. Justification despite three or four times now that you were warned not to edit war with trolls or sock puppets and to immediately contact an admin and stay out of it. Either you do not understand how your actions spur further problems or you know and don't care enough to resolve the situation. I told you this months ago and yet you are frequently warring across my watchlist. As far as I am concerned, you are part of the problem because you constantly go out of your way to let such problems persist. What ever happened to page protection requests, AIV, or SPI and simply waiting for it to dealt with? WP:DENY is more than just a wiki-link. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 00:58, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Here's the thing Chris, I did report this. I did expect there to be something discovered. However, I'm still dealing with the fact that I'm either so radioactive that no one wants to help me or that there's a backlog somewhere for hours on end that nothing gets done. And when something finally does get done, it's only after having to deal with it myself for all that time and that only fucks me over. I went to AIV. I went to SPI. But the problem persisted. Do you know how hard it is to get this done on mobile? Half of what I wrote yesterday still has typos in it.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 01:19, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

That is an excuse and an appeal to pity. If you know something is wrong and you will likely be punished for it - why do it anyways? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 01:25, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Because in the end the project benefits from me being the canary. I'm sorry that I'm a honeypot but I can't fix that now.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 01:26, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

I would happily unblock you if you were to guarantee that next time instead of edit warring you would report it then step back. You reported this apparently at SPI but there was nothing in the articles or here to indicate you thought you were dealing with a sockpuppet. If you had made a report at RFPP or ANI, especially about the cut and paste moves the whole thing would have been a lot different. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 01:34, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

I promise I will try to be more diligent in reporting this stuff more widely next time.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 01:43, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

OK. You should be unblocked now. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 01:50, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

He should never have been blocked in the first place he was reverting a block evasion or ban evasion. Trhe arbcom banning policy case upheld that. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 01:58, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

The editor did not make a violation while under block and was not banned at any point prior to Ryulong's block. Ryulong never claimed an exception in the edit warring and it was not the editor whom Ryulong thought it was either - the SPI matter resulted in an entirely new entry. I do not see how your argument is valid given the circumstances. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:04, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Shouldn't the fact that I made an SPI case be enough?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 02:27, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

@Hell in a Bucket: What block evasion are you talking about? As far as I can see was no block in place for either user until after the edit warring. If you have information I don't please point it out to me. As far as I know the person Ryūlóng was edit warring was not blocked under their current account or prior. Even if the person did turn out to be a sock puppet there is no evidence it was a sock puppet of a blocked user, not now and especially not at the time of the edit warring.

3RR has very clear exceptions and none of them applied. If I am wrong Hell please tell me how and I will reconsider. Chillum 02:55, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Cobbsaladin shows that this was indeed a sockpuppet farm including the sister investigation found Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SkimmedMilk. Yes he missed his mark in who it was but it was a sockfarm. I've watched long enough to not always agree with Ryulong but to at least have seen the concerted efforts of socks to get him blocked by any means nec, through false claims of harrassment or stuff like this. I remember one of the things the banning policy taught me is that more then likely the sock is out there laughing this off while we all debate the finer points. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 10:24, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi Ryulong. I grok IPA (sort of) and used to be able to speak Japanese (sort of), but all I know about Okinawan is that it is a language. Could you possibly have a little look at this? Pete AU aka --Shirt58 (talk) 10:27, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

They didn't teach it to us because weird Japanese racism.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 10:36, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

ToQ100gou is still active, haven't seen him changing any of the anime pages but the range is well traveled and if you have found any of these[1]-[2] extensions on your watchlisted pages, just deny recognition. Oh and Happy new year! Bladesmulti (talk) 04:58, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Noted.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 05:46, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Looks as if the whole thing got sorted. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 15:10, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

The subject article was PRODed by yourself - it has been restored as a contested PROD. You may wish to consider WP:AfD in the light of this result. Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 19:29, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

FYI just partial-reverted your change on 8chan. You changed 'prominent critic of the site' to 'prominent critic of the Gamergate movement'. Looking at primary sources I think you're right, but the source in the article makes no mention of gamergate. Cheers. — Strongjam (talk) 21:23, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Well then you need to pick a better source.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 00:52, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Only one I could find that made the connection was the Cheong one, but I didn't want to deal with the reaction from using it. — Strongjam (talk) 02:19, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Why should we care?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 02:26, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm not 100% sure Gameranx is RS and figured it would end up being a fight that I'm not prepared for. Figured 8chan critic was good enough. I'm fine with your edit, just didn't see the need to tie it GG on the 8chan article. — Strongjam (talk) 02:30, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Sorry to see us on opposite sides here. I hope this will not be a great falling-out. I understand your popint, but I am also mindful of the particularly inflammatory nature of having content available only to us chosen few. I won't rehash the argument here as it's in enough places already, I'm just sorry that we differ on something. Guy (Help!) 17:05, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

The problem was that it is really a fringe minority who wants the page back and they've been at my throat for 5 months.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 18:48, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Sorry to hear that. I think the best result would be a page they really hate. Guy (Help!) 22:56, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

We already have one apparently.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 23:00, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

I appreciate your suggestion with just adding an s to the end of the link, but when I tried that it showed up red. All I'm saying is that grammatically, it is correct and it shouldn't be a big deal. "Two theatrical film" just doesn't sound right at all. Miamiheat631 (talk) 22:23, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

It should say "Two theatrical films".—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:52, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Okay.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 02:40, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

I really shouldn't obsessively look at my watchlist on my phone. --DSA510 Pls No AndN 21:30, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

What—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 23:05, 25 January 2015 (UTC)