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.

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

→

Archive 20

Hi. I´ve seen that you´ve blocked AlexHillan for an indefinete period of time. But, and maybe this applies to all administrators that block social wikipedians, don´t you think the block was a bit too sever? I haven´t seen any previouse warning yet on his userpage for socializing and not contributing... My point is, a vandal, assuming bad faith, may vandalize and he usually recieves a warning, and another, and so on until he is blocked; sometimes indefinete and others for some time... But when a user starts socializing instead of contributing, but assuming good faith, you block him indefinetely without previouse warning (if there was a previouse warning than please tell him) ans you delete his userpage... Isn´t that a bit too severe? Even vandals are treated better than that... And they assume bad faith and do worst things... How about before indefinetely blocking a user for socializing and not contributing you give him a last warning before blocking him forever and deleting his userpage? I´m not sure if he even was familiar with the policy; most probably he didn´t know... How about if you explain and, after asking him if he will contribute to the encyclopedia, you unblock him if he answers yes? ♠Tom@sBat 23:08, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

To me it was obvious that he was not here at all to contribute to the project. Individuals who do this are in violation of policy and I used my discretion to block him.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 23:41, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

An unwarned and indefinite block for "not making any contributions yet" is unacceptably severe. This individual, who appears to probably be a younger editor, should have been steered in the direction of making contributions before being summarily and indefinitely blocked without warning. I am not going to unblock unilaterally but my input will be to reverse. You need to counsel and guide users, who have no bad-faith or vandalistic contributions, into becoming editors before unceremoniously throwing them out the door. Newyorkbrad 04:22, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

The user had nine mainspace edits. Another hundred or so were to his userspace. The usual remedy to this sort of block is that the editor shows a planned improvement to an article on his user talk.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 04:42, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I have unblocked him on the assumption of his good faith that he will make a majority encyclopaedic contribution from now on in. --Steve _(Stephen) ^talk 08:26, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

And if I find that he has not touched articles, I will reblock him.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 08:27, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Your understanding about policy is fine and absolutely correct and I appreciate that you feel strongly about enforcing it. But, we tell people they are in danger of losing their editing privileges, and why and what they have to change, before we block them. I consider blocking an editor from out of the sky with no advance warning, absent an emergency situation, to be inappropriate and I don't see how it complies with the blocking policy. Regards, Newyorkbrad 23:42, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

In the preview for episode 19(?), I'm fairly certain he tells Ryotaro to stop wasting his time and loitering around in time doing pointless things. Floria L 21:34, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I didn't watch 18's sub yet :<—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 21:46, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Pretty much, the lines deal with Ryotaro & Sakurai in a conflict of ideas.

• Sakurai: Nogami, it's wrong to protect the flow of time and save people.
• Ryotaro: But, I don't want to give up.
• Sakurai: Stop loitering in time. Got it!?

Fractyl 23:46, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I get it. I need to watch the episode.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 23:59, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

why don't you semi protect Emma Smith for an hour, that IP has an obsession with removing things from it Whsitchy 02:45, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Blocked it.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 02:45, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Saw that, thanks. Whsitchy 02:47, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I'm back! May I understand better why did you accuse the user above for "not here to contribute"? I'm very curious about your reason to block the user... --Edmundkh 09:39, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

The user had 9 main space edits. Another couple hundred were to his user pages.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 09:40, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I still don't understand why you block this user just because he edited mostly on his own userpage while he did only 9 edits in mainspaces? When I was trying to track through, I found that you left him a message saying that Wikipedia is not MySpace. What edits did he made to his own userpage, that you see he is treating Wikipedia as MySpace? --Edmundkh 10:50, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Too late sorry. Its people like this ***** that is ruining it for me. I have put in plenty of hours, I have asked for help but instead his ego needs to be massaged by his pathetic little bot. Until admins reign in users like this and get them to help users rather than rip their work to shreds then Wikipedia will continue to slide with the bad press it has been getting, especially here in the UK. They are simple sports logos. Why not make a useful bot to add fair use rationales for sports logos. They will be the same for any sport if that is Wikipedias policy. Thanks for your reply and good luck in the future. Hammer1980 09:57, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Bots don't do it. People have to. Write your own fair use rationales if you don't want them deleted.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 09:59, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Like I have said. I understand none of it. Its like talking to bloody robots. Good Luck Hammer1980 10:11, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Add a rationale. Add something that shows that it can be used under copyright law.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 10:12, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for removing the threats on my talk page and blocking the troll. Strange, it's been going on for a few days, but it seems to be a dynamic IP. Cheers. ElinorD (talk) 16:07, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

As a courtesy note, given you were the blocking administrator, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Cyclepat. Daniel 00:24, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

The image is free. It may be incorrectly licensed, but that can be repaired. The signature does not say "Kasuga" either. I further don't understand why you consider it to be trolling; it was created as a result of the same topics that led to the trolling, yes, but it itself hardly qualifies. --tjstrf talk 05:16, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

You declined my request for an autoblock last night. Apperently after someone else had already cleared the block. However your reason was wrong. I was not directly blocked. No harm done, but you might want to read these issues a little more throughly in the future.--BirgitteSB 12:59, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Administrator Reedy Boy taking off! Hello Ryulong, Thankyou for voting in my RfA. You will be pleased to know that it has been successful!! Meaning that I, Reedy Boy, am now an English Wikipedia Administrator. It passed with a suprising 47/0/0, and I really am grateful of all your support, and I hope that I live up to your high expectations! If there is anything I can do to help you out, please, do not hesitate to contact me! Yours, Reedy Boy 16:20, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

To ask, are you sure his human name is not just "Gao"? Due to his attire, I have to think he's from the Warring States era. And in that case, his name should be left untranslated like those of that time like Senhime. Fractyl 17:50, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Still trying to figure out what should be done wit his name, but let's leave it translated until there's something from the movie in English to tell us otherwise.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 21:11, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok, though I doubt it can be really translated as a name due to him being of that time. but I realized those guys Momotaros and the others are fighting are the Sanada Ten Braves, Yukimura's ninja bodyguards. By the way, I thought of this.

• Ga-O: The kanji used for writing fang is Kiba (ガ, Ga) and king is Oh (王, ō), translating into "Fang King." However, Oh is primarily used as a suffix, thus creating the term "Fanged-King."

Fractyl 22:43, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

We won't know anything until the movie premieres (or more stuff on the official websites is released in English or just the Roman alphabet, such as Ryōtarō and Yūto being "Ryotaro" and "Yuuto")—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 22:56, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

And they are all under free license here — Penguins at Wikimedia Commons. Regards, G.A.S 18:36, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

To: Ryulong, I CyclePat, lodge a complaint concerning your deletion of the Wikipedia:Historical Pages project essay. The basis of the complaint is as follows: You have deleted a Wikipedia Essay Project page.

A description of the name, location, and nature of the project is as follows: The title of the project was Historical Pages and was located in the wikipedia essay section. The nature of the project was to discuss the use of the historical page and the discussion of making a Wikipedia "non-article" pages into "historical page". This is part of the wikipedia:essay project which contains approximately 600 essays about Wikipedia and related topics.

You Ryulong, are involved with the project: as the administrator that deleted the page.[1]

The project sponsor is I CyclePat.

The following are details of policies, guidelines or procedures of Wikipedia that have not been complied with: WP:DEL (heck! Ironically even deletion policy has an essay on this!)

Any other relevant facts to support this complaint are (attach copies of any relevant material): Our past interactions concerning the AMA should not be taken into consideration and are prejudicial to the deletion, nevertheless you state in the deletion log "this is not the way", inferring a correlation between a complaint on the closure of the AMA and making a project page historical. These are two different subjects which should and will be argued in separate venues.--CyclePat 21:46, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

From comments I received by the individual who put forward Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Cyclepat, the creation of that essay was just another method of airing your complaints concerning the shut down of WP:AMA. It was decided by the community that AMA was something that they did not need, and it was not deleted but kept to show the mistakes that arose from it. That is why WP:PAIN and Wikipedia:Esperanza are on Wikipedia, still.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 21:52, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

You, in fact, use "dumping letter of complaint..." in your creation summary. Go to the RfC and see the issues at hand.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 21:54, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I, Radiant, mens sana in corpore sano, hereby lodge a succinct rebuttal against the aforementioned complaint by Cyclepat, the specifics being that he failed to observe one of our most basic policies, id est that Wikipedia does not equate to a bureaucracy, and that ipso facto his complaint is therefore rather silly, quod erat demonstrandum. >Radiant< 13:35, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

for trying to unblock me. i finally logged off internet and back on and block went away. i'm on dialup. --Moon Rising 23:05, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I emailed you regarding him 5 days ago and since you haven't replied, I've extended some good faith and unblocked him since he not attempted to mask his identity in his correspondence with me. --  Netsnipe  ►  13:35, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I did not read the whole article. It confused me. I will not do that again! Bearian 21:20, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Greetings, Ryulong. You might remember blocking a user named YourLord. I would just like to make you aware of what is being done on his talk page. He's pretty much using it as a forum to chat with someone named Ashnard, even going so far as making one or more edits through him. Is there anything that can be done about this? I'm not sure if I'm allowed to tell an Admin something like this, but it's really getting on my nerves the way they're abusing his talk page like that. Please tell me if I'm not supposed to tell you this, and I'm sorry if I've bothered you. -- -- Gravitan 00:11, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

You've blocked this user as a Vandalism only account, but there appears to be only one instance of vandalism in this user's history. S/he has a pending unblock request on User talk:Bebopblue, if you'd take a look. - auburnpilot talk 00:12, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I am unsure as to whether or not this individual should be unblocked.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 01:43, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Was not a "fair use" image at all and once the page was finished it would be moved to a regular space now see if you all would let me speak before you remove my things you would know why things are the way they are on my page. --Muriness 02:30, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Do not use all bold. It is unsightly and unprofessional. Secondly, if the image is copyrighted and not used in an article, it can and will be deleted.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 02:42, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

You don't have to change your vote, but could you change your rationale? This edit was an accidental re-reversion (see User talk:Gwernol#Reverts). Ral315 » 18:45, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm currently reviewing an unblock request for 69.248.19.196. You recently blocked the address as an open proxy, but I've scanned and it seems to be secured now. Would appreciate if you'd double-check me and unblock if the machine is indeed secured. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 07:47, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Having encountered many of your open proxy blocks before, could you please elaborate on your methodology for detecting open proxies? Are you using nmap, relying on RBLs or just by looking at editing patterns alone? I ask now because 202.93.8.68 does not appear to be open for me. --  Netsnipe  ►  15:18, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

You blocked 69.248.19.196 (talk · contribs) about a week ago for being a blocked proxy. I just did a port scan and checked the TOR list and found nothing at either. Could you please take a look and consider unblocking if appropriate? Thanks. --Yamla 15:39, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Turns out this was already mentioned.  :) --Yamla 15:40, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Given Yamla's similar findings and a second scan of mine that still comes up negative, I've unblocked the address. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 20:03, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I was using this. That's six blacklistings on spam blacklists. I'm reblocking.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 21:08, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Uh...I'm on four of those, and I sure don't run a mailserver or proxy. A lot of those blacklist any dynamic IP whatsoever. I don't see that IP on any proxy blacklist. I would strongly urge you to reconsider blocking proxies based just on RBLs. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 22:52, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

It was doing 4chan edits and it's on 6 RBLs. I put two and two together. I've unblocked it based on this, though.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 22:54, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Can you please undelete User:Oh yEs itS caRly's images and let the IFD discussions take place? These are not uncontroversial deletions, so CSD doesn't apply. ··coelacan 07:48, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I blocked the user for creating an inappropriate account name and she has not requested an unblock.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 07:49, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Ahh, I see. That's regrettable. This has been an otherwise productive user, though, who is obviously feeling suddenly "under the gun" and lashed out with one single attack. I think indef is a bit of overkill. ··coelacan 07:58, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

How about 48 hours? That seems appropriate for a first time nasty personal attack from an established user. ··coelacan 09:37, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I take it you are not willing to unblock? ··coelacan 01:13, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

You'd be correct.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 01:15, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

And would you be equally opposed to me unilaterally unblocking? I'll look for consensus first if you'd prefer. ··coelacan 01:25, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Again correct. It doesn't seem that she'll be coming back, anyway, though.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 01:43, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Feel free to comment at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#suggest we unblock Oh yEs itS caRly. ··coelacan 01:53, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

The image deletions are spot on, the block is too long. But hey... /wangi 01:57, 9 June 2007 (UTC)}

I'm just curious why you reverted Honest 64's comments about Calton on my Talk page. Griot 19:14, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Apparently, it involves you. See User talk:Anonyymi. Sr13 22:04, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I am going to unblock Rackabello (talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfa · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · socks) so he can appeal his ban. He is limited to filing his appeal, notifying other involved users and his own user pages. Fred Bauder 22:36, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

What ban? He was indefinitely blocked because he was found to be the sockmaster of several sockpuppets, some of which were abusive. I believe Dmcdevit did the sock check.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 22:51, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Is this better? -(lemonflash)^(t)/_(c) 23:37, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

A little; could do without the repeated use of </font> though; though you'd have to play with span and div to get that decent enough.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 23:40, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

This is another sock of VinceB (he's pretty bad at hiding it): see his posts at WP:ANI. He's at least a self-admitted sockpuppet. Could you please block him if it's not already done? The Evil Spartan 00:40, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Keep them concise. You doubled the length of the ones I wrote for the last two episodes because I did not include unnecessary details (the summaries I wrote were from the raws and were not complicated by information from the subs).—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 01:08, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, I readded the necessary ones and condensed them. Also, provided new info on new Ringi, and the Kenma's base of operations: Rinjuu Mountain. Fractyl 02:02, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

The summaries are still way too big and unruly.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 02:14, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Hello Ryulong, just wanted to let you know that I listed you as an involved party in my request for arbitration concerning my indef block, link can be found here [2]. I have been unblocked temporarally to allow me to file and comment on my case and inform other users whom I have listed on the case. Rackabello 04:17, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

If you know how to properly write a rationale, why are you taking the time to cite Wiki guidelines on my talk page instead of simply writing the fair use rationales yourself? Gamer Junkie 04:55, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

That's not my job. It's yours.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 05:01, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it's not. I didn't upload the image, so I'm simply picking up the slack. Also, you're an administrator, which makes every job your job by default. What's even funnier is that you've returned the tag rather than just altering the rationale while you were there reverting my edit anyway. Gamer Junkie 05:09, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

If you want it kept on the article, then make a rationale. I do not care about its retention anywhere. It is the job of the one who wants it retained to put up a rationale.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 05:17, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Wow, your passion for improving this project is overwhelming. Frankly, I don't care about the image either, but at least I bothered to put in the effort because that's what constructive editors do around here. Since my rationales aren't up to bureaucratic par, let's just hope there's somebody out there who can do it properly... or put in the effort. Gamer Junkie 05:24, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't know about the article. I would not be able to write up a decent rationale. However, if you look at something like Image:Pikachu.png, maybe you can get some ideas.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 05:25, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

You don't need ideas for cover art of any kind. It's blatantly clear why Resident Evil: Outbreak cover art would be suitable for an article about Resident Evil: Outbreak. Even what I've written here is description enough for anybody to understand why the image would be suitable. We're describing a game, it would be in a reader's interests to know what the game in question is. Fair use. Gamer Junkie 05:34, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Why did you delete my subpage? This is not an attack page, but an evidence that I'm preparing for ArbCom case. It has been seen by ArbCom member and he didn't have a problem with it after I explained it. Please restore the page.  Grue  07:41, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

It was brought up to me privately by one of the individuals you listed there. They expressed their concerns that it was attacking them. You are allowed to put evidence together directly on the evidence page.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 07:43, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Hey, I'm late again, I know and I'm sorry. The page above (in the portugese wiki, remember?) has been deleted only today. I've been changing our sistem os deletion (is this how you spell it) so, it got late. Talk to me if you need anything. Oh, and you vote has been deleted too. Lucia Carvalho^Hey! 20:01, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Trust me, for Den-O and other Kamen Rider series, the movies will NEVER have the same viable plot. Personalities are change, even basic story structure is alter. It is not a wise idea to double movie info in tv specific articles. Floria L 21:01, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Still, some information on the movie characters (within the movie itself) can be retained in the other articles—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 21:02, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

But that makes no sense. They don't have anything to do with those articles which are exclusively about the 2007 tv series. I suggest removal, thats why there is a movie article in the first place. To collectively organize information about the movie that may or may not ever show up in the series. Its like exemplifying false information. Floria L 21:04, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

One's about Den-O (the rider), one's about Imagin, and the last is about the characters within the series, which the movie is (technically).—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 21:05, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

But you're looking at it as if the movie Den-O and tv Den-O are the same, just as the Imagin in the series and the Imagin the movie are the same. They just aren't. At all. They may not even be interpreted as the same thing. Thats why there is a movie exclusive article. They may share the same terms, but are not the same thing at all. Floria L 21:07, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Alright, I guess they can stay for now. But when the movie is released, the information should be moved so that the movie plot and characters do not conflict with the tv plot and characters. They just can't be considered the same unless somehow Toei breaks 7 years of tradition and ties it into the same continuity. Floria L 21:09, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Could you please explain why you removed the categories from my user rank boxes? Cheers DBD 21:34, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Some of them were empty (WP:CSD#C1) and others were populated by very few people. They would not have survived WP:UCFD, and they did not serve any purpose to the encyclopedia.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 21:41, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

MediaWiki talk:Bad image list#Lolicon images --tjstrf talk 06:38, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I wanted to retain the image, and now I see it as a source of edit warring. It would have been in worse interests to add the other ones to the list (which they probably are).—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 06:50, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

No, they aren't. They were for a minute or two, but they then were removed from the bad image list because using the bad image list as part of a content dispute is not acceptable, since it's using admin tools to circumvent the editorial and discussion processes. See the conversation I linked to there. --tjstrf talk 06:53, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I used my discretion to stop the edit war. I did not see protecting the page necessary at this time. This project is seriously starting to disgust me these days.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 06:57, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I would have thought you would have noticed the outcome of the exact same situation a couple days ago. Anyway, User:Merovingian reverted you. Not sure what about the project is disgusting you, unless it's the ability of the entire community to erupt into argument at the drop of a hat. --tjstrf talk 07:08, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Judging by JPGordon's block log, it's pretty obvious that JB196 is using this website to find his proxies. The Evil Spartan 16:23, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Hope Ryulong doesn't mind me being a buttinski.. I brought up that page with the CheckUser who is trying to plug all the JBholes.. SirFozzie 18:00, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

		The Original Barnstar
		I, Wikihermit award you this barnstar for your administrative work at Wikipedia, particularly at the various notice boards. Wikihermit (Talk • HermesBot) 00:50, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Danke :)—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 00:51, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

ThankyouMineralwaterisgreat 00:58, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

You appear to lack any sort of consensus.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 00:59, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

The user appears to be another User:Danny Daniel sockpuppet based on editing patterns (Jazz Hands was originally created by User:Jugglemuggler, a previous indef blocked sock). I've added it to User:Squirepants101/Danny Daniel. I also have a question for you. When should the subpage be turned into a long-term abuse page? Pants^(T) 01:05, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't know.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 01:10, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Please see my comment at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Block Review:Madman bum and angel. Do you have any objection to that? Thanks. -- JLaTondre 01:32, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Not at all.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 01:39, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I have unblocked & cautioned him/her. I will keep an eye out to see that they comply. -- JLaTondre 01:48, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Info is accurate, the page was translated. I'm going with 5-8, out of storyline importance.

Magazine pic

5-7. Story begins when Ryoutaro and gang chase imajin to year 2000. But Denliner was hijacked by Ga-O and his Imagin. It results with Ryoutaro losing his memory and eventually meeting up with his 10-year-old self. Because Ryoutarou lost his power, Zeronos goes after the Imajin in his place.

8. The Taros Imagin now have physical form outside DenLiner. They have to fight with ninjas in Edo period sent by Yukimura (The Sanada Ten were the only Ninjas Yukimura used according to legend and thus the most likley to be identified).

Plus, the Taros were all shown in a another pic weilding their respective weapons in a promotional movie pic.

Fractyl 04:37, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Okay then. But cite it to that picture.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 04:40, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Finally found the picture: The Taros Imagin in Fedual Era Fractyl 12:42, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Thought I'd give you some background on this for future reference, which you probably know some of already. They are pretty obvious Chadbryant sockpuppets, if you do some digging. Chadbryant was involved in a lengthy (like, the whole page) dispute here about whether a date was 5 or 6 May, and it also spilled over onto this talk page. If you check Chadbryant's last contribs there's little more than changing the disputed 5 May date to "early May", and removing mentions of wrestling events from Market Square Arena, Selland Arena and Save Mart Center at Fresno State. KoC made this edit to remove the 5 May date, and IAW made this edit and this edit to remove mentions of wrestling events from venue pages. If that's not enough strange coincidences, there's also the fact "I always win" is a phrase very commonly associated with Chadbryant, as can be seen here, even including an on-Wiki mention of it here. Thanks. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 10:59, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Someone screwed that page up and I can not figure out how to correct it. -ShadowRanger.

The three Power Ranger articles to which I added assorted clean-up tags are bereft of reliable sources and contain original research (e.g. that assumption in the trivia section of one). Please review those Wikipedia policies before removing those tags -- or, better yet, provide published secondary sources to support those articles' claims. --EEMeltonIV 18:43, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

The WikiProject I am part of will work on that.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 18:44, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

"will work on it" -- in other words, you acknowledge that they're not there (already pretty well evidenced by those articles' lack of a References section). Therefore, you have no plausible basis to remove those tags. While you're working on the wikiproject, a random editor (like me, who just stumbled on these by accident) may see the tags and move ahead and add citations. The tags are there to help articles and inform editors that assistance may be useful. Why hurt them by removing them?

I am going to restore the tags and start a section on each article's talk page. Please respond there and articulate your case for why/how you think these articles -- Other Rangers and Ranger-like allies, Power Rangers and Zord -- meet Wikipedia's burden of proof for reliable sources and no original research. --EEMeltonIV 19:06, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Right. Most of these articles do not contain unverified claims that require reference tags. At most the information is found on official websites. The rest of the information would be cited directly to the episodes or series themselves.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 19:11, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

ALL claims require supporting references -- even the common sense ones. Keep in mind that Wikipedia is a general-purpose reference source; one should not assume that readers will know whence material came. In fact, I stumbled upon these articles when a picture linked at digg.com mentioned "Zord" in a caption. I was clueless, came to wikipedia. But, I've been around Wikipedia enough to know that some of the material is iffy and OR, which is why specific, direct references are useful. Not seeing them in this article, I put the maintenance tag at the top.

You may find it useful to refer to WP:CITE. --EEMeltonIV 19:14, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

There are no "claims" being made as far as I know.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 19:18, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

A claim is any sort of "fact" or nugget of information. "There have been 15 Power Ranger TV series" is a claim, and might be supported/cited by providing a reference to the official FOX website or some sort of published book about the show. --EEMeltonIV 19:22, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

And because there's no ref tag next to it, yet we have multiple websites at the bottom that will repeat the fact, is not referenced?—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 19:23, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

For one thing, they're listed in "External links", which serves a different purpose than "References". Please read Wikipedia:External_links and Wikipedia:Reliable sources. In particular, fan sites are not any sort of reliable source, because there is no editorial control over their content, i.e. the owner can post anything he/she wants and there is no check for its accuracy. I and the various other editors who have restored those maintenance tags I'm sure would he happy to help you differentiate between what's more appropriate in each of those sections. --EEMeltonIV 19:28, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Fine.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 19:29, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Evenin', I've reverted your reverts to the Power Rangers article -- I'm unsure why you introduced an immense amount of spam, and removed valid maint. tags. Matthew 19:02, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Essentially, they're the references that we need.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 19:05, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. The tags are there to alert users, that possibly can help. I'd do it, but I rarely watch the show. Matthew 19:06, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Who says those fan sites are "two of the best"? That certainly is a claim in need of referencing (see above discussion).
"There are just two" is not a compelling reason to include links to fansites -- essentially linkspam. I'd expect an admin to have better discretion. I'm starting to suspect you have ownership issues with this Power Rangers material; you may benefit from bringing it up at the administrators' notice board to informally ask for comment. --EEMeltonIV 19:54, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I try to keep the page decent because my presence on this site makes fan forums hate me. I honestly don't know where some of the specific information that's on that page is going to come from other than those two websites, which themselves basically directly references the TV show as far as I know. Where else am I going to substantiate the "claim" that one character's middle name was Melvin, or something like that?—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 20:02, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

One can cite an episode (e.g. "In episode 'such-and-such', Bob says his middle name is 'Widget'") for descriptive/non-interpretive stuff. The catch with that, though, is that articles should explain real-world significance, not information that only connects to the in-universe setting. Plot summary/primary source/things-in-episode material is okay to provide context, but shouldn't make up the bulk of a piece. --EEMeltonIV 20:29, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Right.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 20:30, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, Flora said it was alright if I add more information about the Imagin. Fractyl 21:08, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Okay, but add important things and be concise.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 21:09, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I attempt that, I mostly focus on the important things anyway, especially when they deal with the plot. Fractyl 21:21, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

The Article "Kamen Rider V3 , 27 years Revial", was translated.

<removed as it's copyright infringey>

So it makes that Riders 1-2(and Dr. Shinigami) would return. Fractyl 22:08, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't see Shinigami listed. But leave this information minimal.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 22:09, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Look, Toei said during the Hibiki movie making that it was a tradition of theirs to keep movies OUTSIDE of continuity. They are NOT THE SAME. KR movies in the Heisei era will NOT coincide with the series. They just don't. And you won't figure it out by reading a line of text. The series and movie will grow to contradict each other as they move on. Rather than leave them in, leave them out until proven otherwise. Movie=/Tv series. Instead of speculating that Toei may break tradition and believe that they might make the series coincide, we go the neutral path and leave them out until proven otherwise. Floria L 00:24, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

What you're doing is making the assumption that the movie will coincide with the series. As far as I know, thats speculation. There is no proof or line that says they are the same. Therefore, they must be separated until proven otherwise. Go with past example instead of speculating future cases. Floria L 00:27, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

It's still the character within the continuity. I know that nearly every anime/toku movie does not tie in with the series and the only thing they share is title and characters. I don't know how things were done (on Wikipedia), but I think it's proper to link the pages. Any biographical information that's unique to the movie will stay with the movie information, however items within the movie, such as Imagin, forms, and characters, will also go into the respective articles. Ryotaro is Den-O in both movie and series, it is just that there are aspects that are unique to each (that we know right now).—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 00:31, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

They should not at all go within each others articles. The Den-O article we have is for the TV series of 2007, not the movie series. They just aren't the same thing. You can't stick something that doesn't exist into something about another topic. Floria L 00:33, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

It's the same character. It's also a link to the character's page. Just because the movie is in a different continuity does not mean that the information cannot be centralized.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 00:36, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

You kinda killed me compromise message there... Like I said, seperate the information with "I am Born!" headers then. Centralized on same page, headers to denote the difference. Floria L 00:43, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Hmm? Oh, got caught with the boilerplate message from someone who I opposed in an RfA. I apologize for the misplacement.

Anyway, Wing Form at Kamen Rider Den-O (character) is already on its own. When the time comes, Imagin can have a section by itself for the movie unique Imagin, and maybe Sieg will go with them. But I doubt that we're going to have GOD SPEED LOVE Den-O style such that its an entirely different universe, and rather we'll have a self-contained continuity with the movie.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 00:48, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Thats been the case with all movies actually, so its not a "i doubt" but a "maybe they'll break away from 7 years of tradition" thing. Floria L 00:53, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, the only different scenery is that it's Edo. They're not in a desert or in the forest.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 00:56, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Hiya, could you please clarify this [3]  ?--Javit 01:16, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

IP user spamming across pages.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 01:19, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, but I think I could have handled it without interference --Javit 01:23, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

please don't delete on my userpage. i can delete spam myself, if i choose. if you wish, you may comment on my talk page. thank you. Whateley23 01:24, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, when an IP spams a bunch of talk pages then it is a good thing to remove them all. See WP:CANVAS. ^(H) 01:26, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for reverting vandalism on my talk page! Cheers, JetLover (Talk) (Sandbox) 01:45, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Is this a good reason for a block – [4]? Even if he is promoting something, he should be educated, instead of being blocked at sight. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 07:01, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

The only reason he was here was to promote his product. After I deleted the article, and the images he uploaded for the article, his only edit is to WP:ANI where he was complaining about the article's deletion.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 07:03, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Spammers are human too. They can make good editors. We block them only after notifying them about Wikipedia's guidelines and policies and then after appropriately warning them, iff disruptive behaviour continues. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 07:08, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Hmm—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 07:25, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

lol, big misuse if I ever saw one. Now come on, it's not as if he is using open proxies to promote viagra or other drugs. Undo the block and be nice. :P — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 07:28, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Could you pop on IRC? I have some wonderful news concerning this—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 07:29, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I can't, at the moment. Could you email me? — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 07:32, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, a cursory view of my recent administrative actions may suffice.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 07:33, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Dejabox? You block them and expect them not to play truants? This way, we're only biting newbies and creating disruptive users out of them. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 07:37, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Dejabox was a sockpuppet account set up days prior to my block of Wikiboxatgmail...—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 07:39, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

And yet there are no warings or prior notices over his talk page. Look, I completely understand that you do more work than many other admins combined and you have my empathy for that, but it doesn't hurt to be prudent. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 07:41, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Since his article is A7 anyway, I offered him a second chance to see if he is ever going to contribute in other parts of WP. MaxSem 09:44, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Could you please explain why you reverted three good edits to List of golfers by User:Tewapack, who is one of Wikipedia's best golf editors, at 4.54 on 4 June 2007?. Mowsbury 13:37, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

He screwed up the list bad.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 20:42, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I've reverted your changes as they make doing much stuff on deletion review very painful. The inclusion of the headings with if elements means that although the edit link appears for each section clicking on it returns an error saying the specified section doesn't exist, also when closing with {{drt}} it would require hacking to bits the if element in order to separate out the heading elements which are also in that template. Similarly when we have multiple xFDs to list trying to work out where to insert the extra ones etc. in the mass of markup left at the top from your version will be a pain in the arse. --pgk 15:20, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Okay...—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 20:42, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

195.229.236.213 (talk · contribs)

Why did you block this IP? Husnock was never blocked, and there is no remedy around this in the arbitration case. Yes, it was Husnock, trying to hide some of his misadventures, but he's not banned from posting from an IP (indeed, his account isn't banned, either). Please unblock it ASAP. Neil ╦ 15:25, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I have unblocked 38.119.112.187 (talk · contribs) whose only offense seems to be questioning your blocking. I will leave it to another admin to place judgment on 195... Metros 17:43, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I disagree, I'm attempt to refine the info. I see it needed story-wise and abilties/weapons. Three-Five lines of text on each Imagin is acceptable for now. Fractyl 23:24, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I have placed what I think is the most that should be in these descriptions, no plot description which belongs (and exists) at the episode summaries.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 23:27, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Don't think I did that, prior. Besides, the Imagin are showing as much personality that it needs to be longer than current yet shorter than the main Imagin profiles. But I'll re-add weapon/powers for now. Fractyl 23:30, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

But the plot summary does not belong.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 23:32, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

It's a plot summary if you cover everything of the plot. I mentioned only the parts of the plot that centered the Imagin itself. Fractyl 23:50, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

It is still stuff better stated in the episode summaries.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 23:51, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I'll go with it for now, until something convinces me otherwise (Like the Imagin returning). Fractyl 23:54, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi, it's YourLord. Not a boast, that's just my name. I'm very sorry for the trouble I've caused and I vow to be a more conscientious editor in future but for the time being could I please request that an exact date be set for my block to expire? YourLord

Please contact mail:unblock-en-l to request an unblock on you account.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 00:58, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi Ryulong! I filed a suspected sockpuppet report here about a user that you once blocked indefinitely. Based on the same pattern of disruptive and obsessive edits at the same articles I suspect we are dealing with User:Mayor Quimby. Could you please look into this? Thank you. Mumun 無文 01:17, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Just wanted to let you know that e-mail blocking is now live on enwiki. HTH. AmiDaniel (talk) 20:27, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

After seeing the likes of the Flying Fists and the origin of the Fist Demons, it led me to go that the "Juujin Wicked Body Change" Ringi is a permenent transformation in terms of the living, making it a "Transcendence Ringi". Those who are dead can only assume the Beast-Man form for a limited time depending on the level of Rinki. Makirika was such a example as in episode 2, he lost enough Rinki to revert only for Mele to use her "special" Ringi to have Makirika fight at full-power regardless of Rinki. Fractyl 00:37, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

NO ORIGINAL RESEARCH—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 00:38, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Not entirely original research, the fact roots from the fact the GekiRin Rebellon occured centuries years ago. Rasuka and Ruustu awaited Kata's return, hinting that when Beast-Fist artists of either side obtain the chi needed to assume animalistic forms: They gain longer lifespans close to immortality, but still can be killed. This furthers why Rio needed the Madoku fangs rather than use his own power as seen in the 1st Lesson: To train under the Fist Demons in their full glory. Fractyl 01:52, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

If it is not explicitly stated on the show, then it is original research.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 01:54, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the part where Sha-fuu's explaination of the origins of the ten Juuken masters does count "in years terms" to back up the long life notion. The rest may be further revealed in time. Fractyl 02:29, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

If it has not been explicitly stated in the show, then it is original research.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 02:33, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I was looking at your penguin cabal template and saw your note about no non-userspace usage, so I took the liberty of tagging it with a switch paser function to allow transclusion only on user and user talk pages. Hope you dont mind :) -Ĭ₠ŴΣĐĝё 04:17, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Whatever makes it better.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 04:18, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Can you please explain which speedy deletion criteria you used to delete Wikipedia:OTRS/Noticeboard. --Barberio 10:01, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Fine, I'll get to it if I have time, but I will keep up the debate in the meanwhile. Cheers, The Raven's Apprentice ^{(Profile|PokéNav|Trainer Card)} 11:48, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Wow, I must say I'm impressive, how did you revert OrbanBot's edits so quickly without using AWB? TheBlazikenMaster 22:09, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Tabbed browsing.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 22:10, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

• I think Aozame should be left untranslated in terms of a land. Fractyl 00:13, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

  Unless it's written in kana somewhere, then it's translated.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 00:15, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I believe it's in kana format, except "-shima"(island). Fractyl 00:18, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Can you explain this diff to me? --tennisman 01:17, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Is there a reason I should?—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 01:19, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Generally users do not edit others' userspace unless asked; did I miss that user asking you to do it? --tennisman 01:22, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

No, you did not.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 01:22, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry if this seems a strange question; but it seems that removal of content from users' personal space is against policy. This seems to discuss this matter. --tennisman 01:26, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I fail to see how there is any violation of policy.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 01:28, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Put it this way. If someone went to my userpage and removed something that I spent the time to put on it, I would not be happy. (Remove the policy issues) See the point? --tennisman 01:31, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

They didn't spend any time on that portion.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 01:33, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Now you're just being difficult. I'm wasting my time here; all I wanted to know was why you removed content from a user page. But never mind; obviously you're too sure you're completely right. --tennisman 01:38, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Re the tag-team deletion of a number of categories this morning, it would seem fair to ask that these be reversed and the deletion of the categories themselves, performed outside of consensus by a single user this morning, be put to a CfD. If that decision goes delete, then I'll happily accept deletion. Orderinchaos 02:22, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

That's beyond the scope of this discussion.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 02:23, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm trying to better myself, but I was never great with grammar. Fractyl 01:54, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

To explain the scene...Mele questions Dokariya on how he intends to overpower a Fist Saint. Then Dokariya decides to kiss Mele to show her "his method", only to get a kick in the crotch for his advancing. Mele got sick enough from it to throw-up Bae, whom Dokariya used in Mele's place as a demonstartion: Kissing the fly to enter his body and control it from within. When Sharkie sees his old friend Bae, the possessed fly rams at Sharkie and kisses him, transfering Dokariya into Sharkie's body. Fractyl 04:16, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Okay.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 04:30, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

This user, whom you have indefblocked for sockpuppetry, produces a fairly convincing rebuttal in WP:UNBLOCK. I have, of course, done nothing except to draw it to your attention, and you may well already be aware of his appeal. But if you are not, please note that he has appealed against your block.--Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 11:27, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Deco Da Man. Capital D.--Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 11:29, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Ryulong, since you're still offline, I'll take a chance and unblock him, taking into consideration requests from other users and Deco's apologies. I will report it to AN. MaxSem 19:58, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Just out of curiously, why did you remove the super smash bros. picture of Groudon? Also, if possible could you leave a reply on my talkpage? TheBlazikenMaster 12:49, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your effort. Sorry for replying so late but I was offline the whole day. Apparently it works now. Don't know what happened. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 20:26, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

You said: "Do not upload images if they are not to be used within the articles themselves. They are orphaned and violations of our fair use policies. If they are necessary, then put them physically in the article. If not, upload them to an external server and use them as citations.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 09:40, 14 June 2007 (UTC)"

I say: "The aforementioned images 'were in the articles as both links and images. Random failure passerbys kept deleting both. Got a better idea?"GrandMasterGalvatron 04:37, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Linked images do not fall under fair use. They are still orphaned.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 04:38, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

If that's the case, then why have the feature at all?GrandMasterGalvatron 20:25, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Read Wikipedia:Non-free content and why what you were doing is against policy.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 20:49, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

According to that, what I was, or rather, am doing is just fine. The images are being used as verification of the names of the Super/Hyper States. It is mandated that every Super/Hyper State named be cited before being put in the article. This is why Super Silver's name is never mentioned as he has no real source for that name (as decompiles don't count). Also an official image displaying Super Shadow's name is mandated to stop the foolish "Hyper Shadow" wars. I specifically requested that you find an alternative way of using the images. So far, you're not helping at all.GrandMasterGalvatron 00:28, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

That only counts if you have them physically on the page. Other than that, they are orphaned. See my usage to the right. If this were an article, and that image was fair use, that would not be against policy. However, the link within it would be orphaned.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 05:05, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I noticed that quite a while ago, I was unblocked. Can I remove the notice on my talk page? ~Crowstar~ 15:59, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm finding it hard to find any disruption that 195.229.236.213 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) has made lately that you feel warrants a three month block. Could you point me to some so I can review it while reviewing this block? Metros 23:48, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

The IP constantly causes issues when it's unblocked. It's better for Wikipedia when it is blocked.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 00:11, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Can you please provide some examples of what you mean? Thanks, Metros 00:19, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Ryulong! I'm an administrator on the Spanish Wikipedia. One month ago, on May 12 2007, you asked me for help to block Tokoblue. That's what I did, but it was only for 31 hours. Now, this user has started to vandalize, adding fake names elsewhere. Please, I would be grateful if you can help me to stop this guy, who is vandalizing both wikipedias. I want you to give me more proofs in order to block him forever. Thanks in advance. Kind regards, --Gustave - May I help you? 07:09, 16 June 2007 (UTC) PS: He is vandalizing everything concerning Power Rangers and other topics.

Is YourLord's plea now a lost cause? He's notified me that the e-mails he's sent have been ignored and that you've deleted messages from him on your talk page. I understand that the deletion part may be part of Wikipedia policy – him being blocked. He says that he's doing some work as an "anon". So, is there any possibity of the block being annulled or any means by which it possibly can be? By the way, I've now prohibited social edits on my talk page. Cheers. Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 08:04, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

He wasn't here to contribute constructively in the first place, and I had protected his talk page because you two were using it as a chat page. If he wishes to be unblocked, then he can contact mail:unblock-en-l, as I see no reason to unblock him, particularly because he recreated deleted content, repeatedly.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 08:05, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, there's an end to that chat thing now, as you can see on the talk of my talk page. I'm not disputing your decision to maintain the block, it's just that he said the e-mails he has sent have been ignored. The point of me contacting you is over these apparent "ignored e-mails". Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 08:12, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I tend not to reply to users who I do not trust with the e-mail address related to my Wikipedia accounts.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 08:24, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry if I may seem insolent here, but then what is the point of providing the link for him and suggesting it to him then? Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 08:29, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

mail:unblock-en-l is a mailing list that is read by other administrators. I do not assist there.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 08:31, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Okay, so do you know which administrators in particluar deal with this so that I may ask them? Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 08:35, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Just tell him to follow the instructions at mail:unblock-en-l. Someone will answer his request, and decide. When his page was not protected, he had the ability to use {{unblock}}, but because he abused that by solely conversing with you, I protected his page so he could not edit it improperly anymore. He did not want to be unblocked then, and I do not see why he wishes to be unblocked now.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 08:37, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for your help. Bye. Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 08:40, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

This edit [5] is a disgrace. I hope you were rewarded well. Giano 17:41, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Disgraceful indeed. I'm sure the Big Guys are proud of Ryulong. --Ghirla^-трёп- 17:58, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I performed that edit on my own accord and was not aware of the protection at the time.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 20:12, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

It was the removal of truthful fact and content that was the crime. You are a disgrace. Giano 20:13, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

The content that I removed was entirely unnecessary for any mention of the channel.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 20:15, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

The way I see things is, if you have time to complain about something, you could be using that time to get something done, especially if complaining won't get you anywhere. I have a very narrow view of the world: most of my actions involve accomplishing something, or working toward a goal. The closest I come to wasting time is humor. HalfShadow 00:25, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Buh?—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 00:27, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

The whole thing with user:Giano. If you're complaining about something that can't be changed, I just don't care and consider it time being wasted. Unfortunately, I can see how this might make me look rude, so I'm just explaining the way I think. HalfShadow 00:33, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Okay...—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 00:45, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

...

So how 'bout those Mets, huh? HalfShadow 00:57, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

...—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 00:58, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Was there a problem with my comment placement? Cheers, Navou 00:31, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

The template {{discussion top}} has a parameter to place the closing message.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 00:45, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I shall have to review the template: then. Learn something new everyday. Cheers! Navou 00:58, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not all that up on template coding, instructions are not on the template page, however, is the proper usage {{subst:discussion top|summary of conclusion ~~~~}}? Thanks in advance, Navou 14:41, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I wanted to update Template:talkarchive as I did Template:Talkarchivenav, but I get the following error if I click "edit":

• "This page is currently protected from editing because it is transcluded in the following page, which is protected with the "cascading" option enabled: User talk:Ryulong/Archive 13"

The talk page (also User talk:Ryulong/Archive 12) are protected. I assume that it is necessary to add the same code to those two archive pages as you did to Archive 1 to 11 aleady. For example User talk:Ryulong/Archive 10:

• <noinclude>{{archive-nav|10}} {{talkarchive}}</noinclude>__NOEDITSECTION__

versus the code for Archive 12 and Archive 13

• {{archive-nav|12}} {{talkarchive}}
• {{archive-nav|13}} {{talkarchive}}

The addition to the talkarchive template is the following:

• with user '''<span class="plainlinks">[{{{1|{{FULLURL:USER:{{BASEPAGENAME}}}}}}} {{BASEPAGENAME}}]</span>'''

I can do it, once the code is editable again, or you can add it yourself if you are at it. Anyway will work for me :). Thanks. --roy<sac> ^Talk! .oOo. 03:54, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Oops. Sorry.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 04:08, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I had my talk archive cascading because I found someone had tried to contact me in #13 so I thought about cascade protecting #14.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 04:09, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

me too (the sorry part), because my change was reverted. I left a note at my talk page :) --roy<sac> ^Talk! .oOo. 04:56, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

(reset indent) They did not like my ideas so I created a template in my userspace. Since it is in my userspace, did I take the time to make substantial changes to the template. You can find it here User:Cumbrowski/usertalkarchivenav and if you want to see it in action see User_Talk:Cumbrowski/Archive 4. Note the check if it is the last archive page. It does not show a link for the next archive page anymore. It only shows it, if there is an archive page. See User_Talk:Cumbrowski/Archive 3. You might like it better than the Template:talkarchive one. :)--roy<sac> ^Talk! .oOo. 06:45, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

[6] Cheers, Riana ⁂ 07:19, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Unless I'm very much mistaken, this is the default "real name" supplied by ChatZilla for IRC users. Does that jog your memory? HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 10:36, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I figured out who he was, anyway.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 20:35, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

You may wish to see the discussion on User talk:Eagle 101 under the heading Ask before reversing an Indef COI block. It seems Eagle_101 was attempting to allow this user a second chance, and you may not have been aware. - auburnpilot talk 22:38, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

In reviewing unblock requests, I'm inclined to give the user another chance -- I don't think he/she was deliberately committing page move vandalism. It looks like he/she just thought the articles would be better somewhere else. I won't unblock without your consent, though. -- Merope 17:22, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

FYI, I've commented on User talk:Deco Da Man about your recent (second) block of him. --Yksin 17:31, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Gave him a message.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 20:37, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Please see Deco Da Man's talk page; would my proposal work for you, assuming that he accepts it? (He's in Australia, so time zone issues might mean some time before he will respond). Thanks. --Yksin 22:51, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

If and when he complies, then he can be unblocked.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 23:09, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I'm still not 100% clear on what he needs to comply with for the block to come off. In the discussion on his talk page, you said: he needed to agree to lay off the user space and get to work on improving articles -- that's pretty clear. But do you mean he also needs to agree to be mentored, in order to be sure he accomplishes that? --Yksin 00:07, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

When he comes back and goes "okay" then he can be unblocked, and you will mentor him.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 00:07, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. --Yksin 00:25, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Hello - as the RfC page on you has been salted since February, and it's come up at AN/I, would you consider un-salting it at this point? I was going to do it myself, but it's transcluded in your userspace and I didn't want to edit there without discussing it with you. MastCell ^Talk 19:33, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Done so just now. I just hope this doesn't cause more frivolous accusations by established accounts.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 20:37, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Howdy! Please come to the First Annual New York Wikipedian Central Park Picnic. R.S.V.P. @ Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC
--David Shankbone 20:47, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

It has now been confirmed at the licensing show. Pics are available here: http://picsmcgee.com/thumbnails.php?album=34 Courtesy of Ray from Rangerboard. Since the page is protected from creation by you apparently, I thought I'd post here... Myzou 21:23, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I'd prefer something textual that we can source, like the press release from Buena Vista last year.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 21:24, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

The licensing show is pretty much as official as it gets... Text proof will be ages from happening... and you know that people besides me will start bombarding you about the confirmation, hence why I thought I'd tell you first... Myzou 21:27, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Someone posted it on Talk:Power Rangers. I'm still trying to figure out if it's sourcable.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 21:36, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Here's the official logo someone on Rangerboard posted, for when the page is in turn created, it was taken from the poster and cleaned up, so you may need to shrink it... http://linearranger.com/JunglePics/JFLogo01.jpg Myzou 22:29, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, the page might be creatable. I'm trying to figure out how to link to trademarks at the patent office website.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 22:39, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Right now I have these serial numbers (77170460, 77170454, 77170450, 77170447, 77170440, 77170438) that correspond to "POWER RANGERS JUNGLE FURY" owned by BVS Entertainment, Inc. But I can't work out how to link to these, as the website times out. This may be a reliable source, but I'm not sure on it yet.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 22:47, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

202.178.112.21 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
More open proxies, I assume. - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 00:00, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I doubt they're open proxies, but it's easier to assume as such. All pages this one hit protected for a month. He's really a twit, isn't he?—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 00:05, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Obsessive and juvenile. I first encountered him on the Hag article. He sure likes his homophobia and misogyny. Pathetic. Thanks for blocking him. - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 00:16, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Hey buddy...just dropping by with a note saying great job! I've been active as an admin only about a week now, and am thoroughly impressed by the work you put in around here. You never shy away from controversial issues, and seem to have a clear head about you as well. Keep up the great work! Jmlk17 03:22, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi Ryulong

My IP address 66.8.255.14 was blocked by you because of "Bot on the loose". I have really no clue what you meant by this. Can you clarify it for me?

---Hirohisat 05:29, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Your edits went a bit fast as the IP and normally. I thought there was automation.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 05:36, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

New pix. From left to right: "GekiRinTohja cockpit", the two movie-villians.

[7]

Fractyl 20:51, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

There's no picture there. It's ridiculous.(Drew1830 03:54, 22 June 2007 (UTC))

There is a picture.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 03:56, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Is this worth reporting? I don't know the details of his block, but as it's indefinite, I would imagine someone cares that he's evading.

• YourLord (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• 81.157.171.202 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• 81.157.172.208 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• 82.27.103.3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Probably other addresses, but these are the ones I've noticed. Quick examples...

Pushing for favorite categories in Stewie Griffin: [8] [9] [10] [11]

Categorizing: [12]

Editing Supervillain: [13]

Haven't spotted any vandalism, but haven't looked thoroughly. / edgarde 09:06, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

So long as he's not actively making deleted categories.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 09:07, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Per WP:MOSDAB#The "See also" section (likely misspellings), "Astar" can mean "a star", the singular form of "star"; hence, it's a likely misspelling of "star"; hence, it belongs in the "See also" section on Star (disambiguation). ∞Σɛ_Þ² ^(τ|c) 08:41, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

That doesn't make much sense...—Řÿūłóñģ (竜龍) 08:42, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Uh, how so? Also, why did you revert the context for A*? "a search algorithm for graphs" isn't very descriptive; we're not all programming geeks, you know... ∞Σɛ_Þ² ^(τ|c) 08:45, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

If someone's looking up "Astar" and they know that they're looking for that, then that's what they click.—Řÿūłóñģ (竜龍) 08:46, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Huh? That didn't make much sense. Someone could forget the space and mean "a star", for example. Dab pages are for people who aren't exactly sure what they're looking for; hence the disambiguation. You also failed to answer the second question... ∞Σɛ_Þ² ^(τ|c) 08:53, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Where does "A star" redirect to then?—Řÿūłóñģ (竜龍) 08:55, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. And A* is an alternate spelling of "A star", "which can be confused with Astar", per WP:MOSDAB#The "See also" section. ∞Σɛ_Þ² ^(τ|c) 21:26, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Note that disambiguation pages are exactly for people who know what they're looking for: lists, categories, portals and searches are for people who aren't exactly sure. --Piet Delport 08:53, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Um, no. Disambiguation pages are for making the ambiguous less ambiguous. And every time I create a list in response to removal from dab pages, it gets nominated for deletion! And, Ryulong, I don't appreciate you removing my comments and just giving an edit of "Just don't fuck up". That shows signs of you abusing your admininstrative "powers". You are not beyond the rules, yourself, you know... ∞Σɛ_Þ² ^(τ|c) 12:03, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

They are for making ambiguous titles less ambiguous. This is the very foundation of the entire disambiguation system, guidelines and style guide.

(Regarding the lists: the consensus to delete them (supported by Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information) should be telling you something about their merit.) --Piet Delport 17:03, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Why did you revert this? And why are you wikistalking my edits? ∞Σɛ_Þ² ^(τ|c) 08:48, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I was not wikistalking your edits. After seeing your name come up in the recent changes, I went to see what you have been doing since the block I imposed on you expired. I saw a handful of questionable edits that I undid. That's one of them—Řÿūłóñģ (竜龍) 08:49, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Again you fail to answer a question... Why did you revert a valid disambiguation reference? Going to see what I've done since your block, and reverting numerous edits without reasons (and evading direct questions of your actions), is wikistalking. ∞Σɛ_Þ² ^(τ|c) 08:53, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

It is not wikistalking. It is an administrator's duty to make sure that the person he blocked is not repeating the behaviors that led to the block.—Řÿūłóñģ (竜龍) 08:55, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

It's wikistalking (and general harrassment) when you revert edits without giving justification for doing so. I've already given you the exact Manual of Style (disambiguation) section which allows confusing/misspelled links in the "See also" section (which you still have not addressed!). ∞Σɛ_Þ² ^(τ|c) 21:26, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Why would I be disrupting? That was the only page I wanted to do anything to, and now that it's all going to get deleted, I have no point in editting anything else. I haven't even editted anything in several days. - Cwmoneybags

There are plenty of other pages that could use your enthusiasm. Just write about wrestling that doesn't involve the PCW.—Řÿūłóñģ (竜龍) 07:26, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Still, I would reconsider the words you use in your warning. you said, 'if you solely edit concerning PCW' - we have lots of users who only edit on one subject, and its not disruptive. The words you used didn't match what I thought was your intent, which I expect was the editor's PCW walled garden and creation of dozens of close to content-free PCW pages. The editor doesn't seem to understand what you mean, because of the phrasing. --Thespian 21:20, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

NO! Not until the foundation actually DOES SOMETHING! Wikipedia has a duty of care to protect its editors from criminality. While this is not really dangerous with children like GNAA, as i said many people edit about terrorist organisations and thier corrupt government. "Outing" in those cases could result in death. PS I care what happened on a non-wikipedia irc chat site. Hypnosadist 09:49, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Then I strongly urge you to email or call the foundation about this, a mob scene on a noticeboard won't register on their radar, contacting them about their handling of this actually might. --MichaelLinnear 21:06, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

And there's nothing that complaining about it at the administrators noticeboards is going to solve. And what "non-Wikipedia IRC chat sites"? There's nothing that I can do, and there's nothing that you can do concerning this situation. It's best to let that discussion go away while it's being worked on by the office. There's nothing that we can accomplish at this moment with that thread, and that's why it's archived. ColScott is still indefinitely blocked, and there are several administrators trying to deal with this bullshit.—Řÿūłóñģ (竜龍) 09:56, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I think you're underestimating the power of community sentiment. See User:Essjay, where the foundation had it wrong, the community had it right and the foundation ultimately recognized this. Of course sometimes the foundation is right and the community is wrong, while most often there is no difference. Here I see another case where the community was and is right. The deeper you dig into the rank and file, the more people are pissed off about this, as was plain as day on the prematurely-closed WP:AN ban discussion. We have policies here which prohibit harassment. That is part of the trust under which volunteers commit our expertise and labor. For those policies to be deliberately unenforced - literally un-enforced - is a breach of that trust.Proabivouac 10:25, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

"while it's being worked on by the office" well why has no-one has metioned this in the topic. Several editors asked repeatedly for official input into this but there was silence, silence is equated with inaction on wikipedia. Heres a hint inform editors whats going on!^{(Hypnosadist)} 10:07, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

All I know is that a bunch of us were looking at the photograph to figure out anything. I closed the thread because it was attracting trolling. There were mentions in #wikipedia about it, and it was by obvious members of the 4-lettered organization. And that carried over onto the site. Cary was not online today (I had something unrelated to talk to him about), so he may have been working on it, or he may not have. The only person from the office who I saw any discussion from was an OTRS deletion that she was unable to perform. There is nothing else that can be done on the site, and nothing I know that's going on personally.—Řÿūłóñģ (竜龍) 10:11, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

So if i understand what you say, after 48 hours of this the office has done nothing publicly and is probably not doing anything in private, thats just not good enough. This defeatist attitude is not helping either, GNAA have stepped up from trolls to a terrorist orgaisation (under my IANAL understanting of terrorist threats charge in USA law). Death threats to editors CAN NOT BE TOLERATED, especially when they are off-wiki and hence have much more force and likelyhood of being real. As i understand it Colscott can still edit his talk page so he can out someone on-wiki any time he likes, as well as opperating an off-wiki site to threaten editors (which again the foundation should take legal action against). ^{(Hypnosadist)} 10:43, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Let us, though, draw a clear line between what is done and allowed off-site and what is done and allowed here. Cutting deals to reduce off-site harassment in exchange for enabling harassment here is, for a number of obvious reasons, deeply ill-advised.Proabivouac 10:50, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Not to butt in, but indeed, I am pretty confident that if anyone wishes to email H and tell him to call or email the Foundation, I am very confident they will do what they can. Jimbo Wales takes these situations very seriously and I believe he will do what he can to help.--MONGO 11:04, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

The foundation has H's email they could always email him to offer help, how about that! ^{(Hypnosadist)} 11:07, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Good ideas, but, the point is that Foundation very deliberately and consciously took the step of unblocking ColScott, and unprotecting his userpage, which any reasonable person could have known and did know would virtually guarantee the resumption of attacks against several of our editors, as it did. This is completely unacceptable, and must never happen again.Proabivouac 11:23, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

• Hey, Ryulong thanks for trying to deal with the mess at ANI about this situation. --MichaelLinnear 21:06, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

WP:DENY is an essay not a policy or guideline - even so it's very very clearly about vandalism and those seeking attention, not intended as a mechanism to remove the comments of editors operating in good faith. Please do not use it in future when dealing with good faith contributors. --Fredrick day 10:39, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi, this user just came onto IRC enquiring about his blocking. I've had a look over his edits, and while I agree that it could be seen as suspicious that a relativly new user participates in RfA (possible sockpuppet?), I think indef-blocking in this way is a violation of Assume Good Faith. Unless there's any evidence I'm missing that confirms this user as a sock puppet, I'm going to state my opposition to this block.

I hope you don't mind me making these comments, I'm attempting to be bold and help out both this user and Wikipedia. If there is something else I'm missing in this case (deleted edits, etc), could you please let me know? Thanks, Darksun 11:45, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

While I agree he's a sockpuppet/new account of an other user (he know the procedures much more than most users), I don't really see the harassment. In my views his behavior is not really against WP:SOCK, since he did not disrupt a process or seem to have /voted somewhere. Am I missing something? For now I'd assume good faith, personally, but it's your call. -- lucasbfr ^talk 12:36, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

You should be aware there is a discussion about this user on AN/I, and that I have added a comment regarding the situation.[14] Be well! Vassyana 12:53, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure someone else raised this before, so please pardon me, but is there a reason you do not have email enabled? Vassyana 12:04, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Some asshole's bothering me. I'm pretty sure I reactivated it here.—Řÿūłóñģ (竜龍) 20:51, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Hello Ryulong. I have restored Category:Wikipedians who own cockroaches that you speedy deleted earlier today. This category had been through a couple CFDs back in March and the result was "keep" (here). Therefore, can't be speedied. Regards, Húsönd 12:26, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

It's a category that serves Wikipedia no purpose. I know that you were in this category, but it's something like "Category:Wikipedians who like to lick their elbows" and it was really lowly populated. The only CFD I found there was a consensus to delete.—Řÿūłóñģ (竜龍) 20:54, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

It serves a clear purpose, as to inform that I am able to respond to queries regarding this species as a pet. It's depopulated alright, but that doesn't prove its uselessness. Two discussions took place, one resulted in delete and the other one in keep. The link I provided directs to the latter. Regards, Húsönd 00:15, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Lession 19: Gokin-Gokin! Showdown with Rio : Rio sets out to eliminate the Gekijuuken's fighters other than the Gekirangers, who battled Rinjuu Toad-Fist Master Eruka. Though they defeated the Beastman, they had to deal with Rio and his two Beastmen Butoka and Wagataku as they captures Master Shafu.

Lession 20: Title- VS Lion Ken Part 2 (Temporary): To rescue Master Shafu, the Gekirangers must seek and gain the power of the Ultimate Gekijuuken in 3 days' time, obtaining the "Extreme Nature". In front of Retsu, Ran and Jan, appear the Fist Saints of the Geikjuuken Penguin-Fist, the Geikjuuken Gorilla-Fist, and the Geikjuuken Gazelle-Fist.

Fractyl 22:04, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

As the SuperGekiranger appear in July, The Kenma of the Earth appears: Maku, Grand-Master of the Rinjuu Bear-Fist. Shortly after, GekiViolet will appear. There will be a mystery warrior, named Ron, who appears in the Akugata. Another Gekiranger appears, the rhino-based GekiChopper.

Fractyl 22:04, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Can I have an image that supports all of this?—Řÿūłóñģ (竜龍) 22:05, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I believe the info on the episodes is accurate enough, give me time with the "rumours". Fractyl 03:01, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

The next Lesson's...19.—Řÿūłóñģ (竜龍) 00:45, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

My bad. Fractyl 03:01, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

If you saw the pic I showed you, GekiRinTohja is to be involved in the Gekiranger movie. Fractyl 03:20, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I know, I know. Let's just limit that information right now.—Řÿūłóñģ (竜龍) 03:24, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Republicofwiki (talk · contribs) has not been connected with any known blocked account, abusive sock or banned user. I cannot find a reason to justify an indefinite block. Discussion also seems to indicate that we should unblock, assuming good faith. Given all that, I am willing to unblock, though I am suspicious. If you have any serious objections, please let me know. I will not unblock for 24 hours, to allow time for your response and any further evidence. Be well! Vassyana 07:34, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Update. The user has been unblocked per discussion.[15] Vassyana 17:32, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the images we wish to use at WP:H!P are impossible to replace with free images for reasons that I have stated time and time again (although I will state them briefly below for your benefit) to the more anal-retentive idiots (at least one of which should have been banned already, judging from his RFC that he so proudly links to on his user page) who seek to block images that would otherwise be acceptable under fair use terms.

We do not wish to have our articles go pictureless, but access to the ladies is next to impossible because their management does not allow audience members to bring cameras to the shows. Funnily enough, the photos that we have been using are publicity photos that their company gives away to members of their fan club.

I don't know when this policy took effect or what kind of (bad) legal advice the Wikimedia Foundation got, but this policy is doing more harm than good to Wikipedia. I was originally under the impression that the policy allowed for properly attributed and rationalized pictures of a certain resolution.

Any suggestions for how we can keep this pictures, properly rationalize them, etc.? I thought we were doing fine until now. Cjmarsicano 00:04, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Unless you e-mail their management companies and request that they release the promotional photographs under a free license, then the articles will be pictureless. There are no exceptions to the fair use policy. Articles on living individuals must use free images to depict them. Using a promotional image under fair use is unacceptable, as you are simply using that image to identify the living individual. That is unacceptable under fair use law and unacceptable under Wikimedia Foundation policies. We are trying to build a free encyclopedia, and that means non-free content should be limited. If there's no image on that person's Japanese Wikipedia article, then there are no free images that can be found, yet one can still be produced.—Řÿūłóñģ (竜龍) 00:11, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

There are no exceptions to the fair use policy.

Oh, really? --CJ Marsicano 00:45, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

There are extremely rare exceptions. Images of Osama bin Laden depict events that are construed as historical and are allowable under the fair use policy. J.D. Salinger does not come out in public. The people covered by WP:H!P do, but you say photographs of them are forbidden. A good measure of whether or not an image should be used is to check if there is one at another project where fair use is expressly forbidden. I assume that there are plenty of articles on these individuals at the Japanese Wikipedia, and they, too, are without images.—Řÿūłóñģ (竜龍) 00:51, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

What is forbidden is taking the kind of pictures English Wikipedia wants us to take. Just because they are public individuals doesn't mean the public has access to them (unless the Wikimedia Foundation is willing to make that happen, but I'm not holding my breath.)

I wish to find a common ground that will allow Wikipedia's fair use policies and WP:H!P's desire to illustrate the articles. So far you seem to be refusing to help beyond the usual blow-offs. Prove otherwise. --CJ Marsicano 01:16, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

It is not impossible to find images of a pop band. Here is a fan photo of Morning Musume that's unfortunately under a noncommercial license, but hopefully the author will adjust the license if we ask him nicely.--Pharos 01:18, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

That's not only not the entire band, that photo has two former members of the band (now just solo artists) and two individuals who have nothing whatsoever do with the band. Not to mention, it's not that great of a photo to begin with. Way unacceptable for WP:H!P's purposes, and for the record, so is having no photo at all. --CJ Marsicano 01:25, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

You either have a free photo that's under a license usable by the Wikimedia Commons, or you have no photo at all. Believe me, there's a photo I want to use that I found on Flickr, but because it's "All Rights Reserved" I can't use it.—Řÿūłóñģ (竜龍) 01:40, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very nicely for the usual blow-off and total lack of help. We can't illustrate the articles under guidelines that have been changed without advance notice to the users because the policies seem to change faster than rules in NASCAR seem to. I can't communicate with the rest of my WikiProject because some idiot will classify it as "canvassing". Apparently this is Nazipedia rather than Wikipedia now. This policy must and will be changed. --CJ Marsicano 15:52, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use policy cannot and will not change. Your mass "mail out" to your WikiProject was indeed canvassing, and there's nothing that can be done with the fair use policies, other than trying to see if these Hello! individuals can count as exemptions from the photographs of living persons, like bin Laden and Salinger are. But I doubt that they will allow an entire group of people to be exempt.—Řÿūłóñģ (竜龍) 20:41, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

The belief that a "free" picture exists to replace a so-called "non-free" image is a huge fallacy that will kill this website if heads are not pulled out of asses soon. And I'm willing to give those heads a much-needed yank. --CJ Marsicano 21:03, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

There is no fallacy. If you can't find a free image of someone, then don't bother finding an image. That's why at Marg Helgenberger where there was a picture of her character on CSI:, it was replaced by one taken nearly 20 years ago at a red carpet event. All promotional photographs of living people just to show what that person looks like is considered replaceable under non-free content policies with a suitably licensed one that is not fair use.—Řÿūłóñģ (竜龍) 21:12, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

The only disruptions that are being caused here are the ones being caused by one or two people telling a larger mass that they cannot communicate with other members of the Wikiprojects they are involved in, or use fair use clauses to their advantage. But if you want me to play by what are in my opinion really not-very-well-thought-out rules and regulations, that's fine. I'll gladly do that for now, because those weak alleged "rules and regulations" will eventually expose the current version of Wikipedia for the farce that it is. That is neither promise nor threat - just a prediction. --CJ Marsicano 01:26, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Ryulong. The template {{Power Rangers}}, in the Spanish Wikipedia, is in danger. Another Administrators want delete this template, because the rules of the Wikiproyect Plantillas say that all template in delete danger must disappear of the pages. That is the reason, I'm sorry. Kamen Rider Nigo - (Can I help you?) 03:12, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

That makes no sense whatsoever. It's a navigation box. It should not be deleted.—Řÿūłóñģ (竜龍) 03:14, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi Ryulong. Could you please wipe my userpage (not talk) per CSD7? I feel the recent and ongoing religious attacks on me warrant this action. ॐ Metta Bubble ^puff 06:35, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Which WP:CSD #7?—Řÿūłóñģ (竜龍) 06:36, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, it's done. I'd appreciate your comments or referal to another admin regarding my incident report as Fyslee has made two more religious attacks on me since I filed that report, and one attack was after I asked him expressly to stop. Am I going about this the wrong way? Or is it just a slow turnaround? I'm pretty sure if someone got called a "thieving Jew", "lying Arab", "Christian sinner", or "uptight Catholic" it'd be a community problem. Is this different because his comments are about Buddhism? Or somehow justified because I accused him of a COI? ॐ Metta Bubble ^puff 03:23, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Hello Ryu. When you have an opportunity, can you please review the history of Warrior (wrestler) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ? I do believe that WP:BLP applies to this subject, although there are some certain editors who either disagree or do not understand the policy for living persons. It is worth noting that this issue was first identified by JB196 or a copycat, but that does not make it any less of a problem. Burntsauce 20:06, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I was wondering how you came to the conclusion based on contributions that this user is a sockuppet of User:Blu Aardvark. —M (talk • contribs) 13:52, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Tony's own suspicions, because it was not him behind the account.—Řÿūłóñģ (竜龍) 20:04, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Still Waiting for complete TV Nihhon episode. But till then, I can aid in research on the puns of new Fist Saints.

• Gori Yuen: Yuen Woo-ping?
• Michelle Peng: Michelle Yeoh
• Pyon Biao: Yuen Biao

Fractyl 20:41, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Gori Yuen is Corey Yuen.—Řÿūłóñģ (竜龍) 20:46, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Makes sense to me, shoulda seen that coming. But 2 out of three ain't bad. Fractyl 20:50, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Here it is. Attacks had been added to pages.

ShortSummary=It is revealed that GekiShark is possessed by Dokariya, with the same technique he used to possess Sharkie who was futher depressed. It takes a surprise visit by Bat-Li and Elehung to tell the Gekirangers to use GekiElephanTohja to defeat GekiShark for the time being. Sharkie eventually appears, only to be berated by Bat-Li and Elehung because they feel that he was not up to the task of teaching a student. Sha-Fuu arrives as well with the notion of them going back to the group's campsite to try and continue the training. Sharkie tries to impress Elehung and Bat Lee, but they do not pay him any attention, and he leaves, disheartened with Jan cheering him up. But Jan's attempt ends with Sharkie renouncing Jan as his student and swims away. That night, someone uses one of Sharkie's swords to attack Sha-Fu, and Miki revealing the attacker to be Sharkie, with Elehung and Bat Li believing that Sharkie's taking the same path as the Fist Demons had and pursue him with the Gekirangers following, while Miki and Sha-Fu clean up the campsite. By the next morning, Retsu, Ran, Bat-Li, and Elehung found Sharkie, binding him with Elehang's ball and chain to be taken to Sha-Fuu while Sha-Fu was distracted with putting the tent, Miki picks up one of the tent's pins and runs at him, only to be stopped by Jan who knew something was wrong all along. Dokariya reveals himself to be possessing Miki, fighting Sha-Fuu in vain and removed from her body as the others arrived. Intend to kill Sha-Fuu to win Rageku's love, Dokariya tries to possess Jan, but he is able to overpower the Hermit Crab-Fist user's will and forces him out. The Gekirangers' use their master's training style to defeat the Rinshi before Jan uses the techniques Sharkie taught him to defeat Dokariya with the Gekiwaza Wave-Wave Slash. But still bent on proving his love to Rageku, Dokariya enlarges and jumps into the sea. But GekiTohja follows by summoning GekiShark and combine to form GekiSharkTohja. The battle underwater ends with GekiSharkTohja's Big Firm-Firm Slash destorying Dokariya. After the battle, Sha-Fuu approves Sharkie as a true master, bringing the Fist Master to tears as he and Jan pose in celebration. Back at the Rinjuu Hall, Rio had trouble mastering Rageku's training, starting to see it being pointless. However after Rageku asks him of someone he has any form of grudge against, Rio reveals such a figure: a Gekijuuken user with Geki aura in the form of a "White Tiger." Upon revealing that figure and that he could never beat him, Rio's Rinki started to blaze from his body.

Fractyl 21:52, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Urgh... Too much unnecessary detail and prose. Only add stuff that you think I missed when I wrote the summary based on the raw.—Řÿūłóñģ (竜龍) 21:54, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I do that, you missed a few points that the subtitle covered. I broke the article up for better inspection. Fractyl 21:58, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm leaving hidden notes for you to expand upon.—Řÿūłóñģ (竜龍) 21:57, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Explain?

If you go to edit the section, I have left things in <!-- these --> for you to expand upon. I'll do that from now on, as you tend to watch the subs before I do.—Řÿūłóñģ (竜龍) 22:01, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

This better?

|ShortSummary=It is revealed that GekiShark is possessed by Dokariya, and it takes an attack from Bat Li and Elehung to tell the Gekirangers to use GekiElephanTohja to defeat GekiShark for the time being. The two Fist Saints berate Sharkie, because they feel that he was not up to the task of teaching a student due to his ideals of a strong-body being foolish, before Sha-Fuu arrived and suggested that they all go back to the group's campsite to try and continue the training. Sharkie tries to impress Elehung and Bat Li, but they further scold Sharkie's ideals, and he leaves, disheartened as he renounces Jan as his student out of failing him. That night, someone uses one of Sharkie's swords to attack Sha-Fu, and Miki assumes that it must be Sharkie, with Bat Li and Elehung pursing him. The next morning, the two Fist Saints, Retsu, and Ran find/capture Sharkie, while Miki and Sha-Fu clean up the campsite. While Sha-Fu is distracted, Miki picks up one of tent's pins and charged at him, only to be stopped by Jan who knew something was wrong all along. Dokariya reveals himself after being defeated in Miki's body by Sha-Fuu and then jumps into Jan to use him to kill Sha-Fuu as Rageku wished. However, Jan overpower the Hermit Crab-Fist user and forced him out of his body, revealing that Sharkie's training allowed him to overcome the Ringi. Jan then uses the techniques Sharkie taught him to defeat Dokariya with the Gekiwaza Wave Slash. Dokariya then enlarges and jumps into the sea. But GekiTohja follows by summoning GekiShark and combine to form GekiSharkTohja. The battle underwater ends with GekiSharkTohja's Great Firm Slash destorying Dokariya. After the battle, Sha-Fuu approves Sharkie as a true master, bringing the Fist Master to tears. Back at the Confrontation Beast Hall, Rio reveals his one true rival to Rageku: a Fierce Beast-Fist user with a "White Tiger"-style Geki.

Fractyl 22:09, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Put it in the present tense ("Miki pikcs up one of the tent's pins and charges at him") and other such fixes, and the last sentence is a bit off. I'd prefer if you left that the way I had written it. Also, run it through a spellchecker (you've misspelled "destroy"). Other than that, I see no problems (other than your use of "Sha-Fuu" instead of "Sha-Fu").—Řÿūłóñģ (竜龍) 22:11, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

As you seem to be blocking Ultra JG (es)'s socks, I thought I'd bring Davaguirre to your attention. Same behavior and same dogged determination to upload as many images as possible. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 22:29, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for unblocking me! Regards, DavyJonesLocker 23:51, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I've found Howaito Hōru, shiroi ashita ga matteru ze. (ホワイトホール、白い明日が待ってるぜ。)—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 04:49, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, his phrase seems to be Atama ga takai!!! (頭が高い！！！)—Řÿūłóñģ (竜龍) 01:25, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Different one, "The world turns because of me." (世界は私のためにまわっている。, Sekai wa watashi no tame ni mawatte iru.)—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 23:26, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Had you considered "The World Revolves for Me." Fractyl 00:22, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I do read talk pages... And that was just a google translation translation.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 00:29, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Please see discussion on talk page (here and here) about this topic. The writer is brand-new, and there are lots of format, tone, and reference problems with the addition. For example, there's only one "reliable source" reference, and that's only for one of the points at the end. The whole section needs to be re-written into NPOV and encyclopedic tone. I'm trying to encourage this writer to keep working on it - but it has a ways to go! GiveItSomeThought 02:07, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Villians and GekiRinTohja

Fractyl 04:31, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

All written about.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 04:43, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Heads up re: the above unblock request, as you dealt with the first one :) SGGH ^speak! 14:30, 29 June 2007 (UTC)