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.

Um are you a moderator because if not you can't tell me off for doing something that no other moderator has ever commented on; If you are then I'll stop.--Something12356789101 (talk) 01:32, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Even if I am not, what you are doing is still wrong.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 01:43, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

No your wrong read the language guidelines.--Something12356789101 (talk) 22:40, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

There is nothing in the language guidelines against using a person's legal name and replacing it with their Anglicized name, unless the legal name is not originally written using the Latin alphabet. "Sandis Ozolinsh" is not the most common name used in the media, even if it does appear on the back of his jersey.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 23:57, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I removed the succession boxes from the Power Rangers pages because it is pointless listing the previous, resp. next season, as all the season are listed in chronological at the end of each page...

FFall1986 (talk) 18:31, 1 October 2009 (UTC)FFall

It does not matter. We use both the boxes and the template.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 23:06, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

How does it not matter? It is a valid point, and why keep have the same thing twice?? And it's certainly not vandalism... FFall1986 (talk) 19:09, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

It is not the same thing. Just leave it be.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 23:55, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

 Confirmed the following as KamenRiderDouble (talk · contribs):

1. Astrfa (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
2. Afqwaeg (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
3. Wgfwgv (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
4. Ewhwsa (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
5. WAFw (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
6. WFWEAF (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
7. BlackBatrusJapanHero (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
8. KomoriRUS (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

All blocked. No CU data on Japanhero (talk · contribs), but KamenRiderDouble's talk page says it all. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 19:41, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

are deprecated per WP:INTDABLINK. I don't see how linking to a list of meanings helps the reader to understand. --AndrewHowse (talk) 20:28, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

WHAT Wikis Take Manhattan is a scavenger hunt and free content photography contest aimed at illustrating Wikipedia and StreetsWiki articles covering sites and street features in Manhattan and across the five boroughs of New York City.

LAST YEAR'S EVENT

• Wikipedia:Wikipedia Takes Manhattan/Fall 2008 (a description of the results, and the uploading party)
• Commons:Wikis Take Manhattan (our cool team galleries)
• Streetfilms: Wikis Take Manhattan (our awesome video)

WINNINGS? The first prize winning team members will get Eye-Fi Share cards, which automatically upload photos from your camera to your computer and to sites like Flickr. And there will also be cool prizes for other top scorers.

WHEN The hunt will take place Saturday, October 10th from 1:00pm to 6:30pm, followed by prizes and celebration.

WHO All Wikipedians and non-Wikipedians are invited to participate in team of up to three (no special knowledge is required at all, just a digital camera and a love of the city). Bring a friend (or two)!

REGISTER The proper place to register your team is here. It's also perfectly possible to register on the day of when you get there, but it will be slightly easier for us if you register beforehand.

WHERE Participants can begin the hunt from either of two locations: one at Columbia University (at the sundial on college walk) and one at The Open Planning Project's fantastic new event space nestled between Chinatown and SoHo. Everyone will end at The Open Planning Project:

• Wikis Take Manhattan page at The Open Planning Project

148 Lafayette Street

between Grand & Howard Streets

FOR UPDATES

Please watchlist Wikipedia:Wikipedia Takes Manhattan. This will have a posting if the event is delayed due to weather or other exigency.

Thanks,

Pharos

You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC/Invite list.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:43, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Rather than engage in an edit war over what is obviously inaccurate information, I have moved the history section to User:Racepacket/UMhistory and suggest we forge a consensus there. Racepacket (talk) 16:21, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I responded to your questions earlier today on my talk page. I don't understand your edits. There are items, such as the admission of African American students and the JMWAVE CIA project which transend specific UM Presidents. It distorts the history section to insist that everything be grouped into paragraphs organized by President. Again, with the Presidential debates, describing the debate as "the first" may be confusing and misleading to the reader. I have proposed saying UM hosted "a debate" rather than "the first debate." Whether it was debate #1, #2 or #3 has no historic significance, and was a function of campaign logistics. I would also accept "one of three Presidential Debates". We have a fundamental disagreement on fundraising. There is no reason to compare UM to the University of Florida in the history section. Too many comparisions, particularly if they are not objectively based, give the reader the impression that the institution has an inferiority complex.

It is unfortunate that you did not want to work out our differences on a draft page as I had proposed Thursday morning. Racepacket (talk) 08:35, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I have been trying to work with you. I can't find myself doing so. Your requests are just getting out of hand. I've been working on the text of the article. But every time you just revert it back to something else as you've done tonight while I was working on the lead section. Just leave things alone and they'll get fixed without your asinine workings.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 08:39, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Do you want to restart the draft page, and we can take turns modifying it until we reach concensus, rather than making changes on top of each other? Racepacket (talk) 09:56, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

No draft pages. I just want to work without having to deal with your reverts.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 10:08, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Are you really saying it's not possible to have a free image as the lead? J Milburn (talk) 22:12, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Why does a free image have to be used in the lead? The free images in the article are a series of film posters from the 50s. The current lead image, while unfree, depicts a more recent set of fictional characters.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 22:15, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I sent you an email in regards to this issue. --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:26, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s): The request posted to WP:AN3#User:Ryulong reported by User:Powergate92 (Result: 24 h) was well over a day old by the time Sandstein responded to it and long after the edit warring over the disputed text (and later disputed hidden text) ended and discussion to actually determine a consensus (which Powergate92 falsely accused I was violating) began at WT:TOKU#Infobox numbers. This block prevents nothing but my ability to improve the encyclopedia.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 11:51, 9 October 2009 (UTC) Request handled by: Unblocking administrator: Please check for active autoblocks on this user after accepting the unblock request.

I would like to refer the reviewing admin to my explanation regarding the continued necessity of the block in the AN3 report linked to above.  Sandstein  11:53, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Powergate92 seems to ignore this self revert over the initial content I contested in the first two diffs listed. That means the following two diffs are reverts #2 and #3 and therefore 3RR was not violated.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 11:57, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

In the history of the page, though, I can see at least five reverts over a twenty four hour period. This kind of argument smacks of trying to game the system. Ironholds (talk) 12:21, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion regarding the subject those reverts at WT:TOKU#Infobox numbers where consensus is currently showing that the number does not have to be in the infobox if the show is not over and that if there is a number it should not be updated on a week-by-week basis.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 12:25, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

In your e-mail to me, you state that you want the block removed because it does not teach you anything. Blocks are not intended to teach anything. They are intended to prevent continued edit warring. As to the number of reverts, etc., that is wikilawyering; you edit-warred whether or not you broke 3RR. Your other objections I hve already addressed.  Sandstein  14:10, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

There certainly wasn't any more edit warring on the article after the request had been posted by Powergate92 or even 24 hours after the request was posted.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 14:21, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I'll make the usual offer that I make for people blocked for 3RR and/or edit warring: Agree to stay off the article page in question and stick to the talk page until a clear consensus is reached, and I'll unblock immediately. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 15:54, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I will remove the offending (hidden) content from the two articles that it had been added to. I will not modify the content for which a consensus has to be reached. However, I cannot say I will stay off the article page because I do unrelated constructive edits to the articles which will not be contested, such as [1]. The article in question is about a weekly TV series for which the episodes air Saturdays 23:00 (UTC) and I also have knowledge that major news about the subject of the article will be released in the next 24 hours and it will also be added to the page (the section titled Film). The content requiring consensus is relegated solely to the infobox of the article and there is already discussion underway for determining a consensus as to what to do with it here.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 16:06, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

TL,DR: I won't touch contested content in the article (a hidden note in the infobox text), but I will edit it in other means that have in no way been a problem in the past.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 16:10, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

The simple answer was "yes", not "yes, but"; so I'll pass. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 17:59, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I will not touch the contested portion of the article.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 18:00, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

If I'm to be blocked for 24 hours, then Powergate92 should at least be blocked for a similar amount of time. He edit warred as well, citing a false consensus, and indirectly gamed the system by getting Black Kite to perform reverts for him by explicitly pointing out my edits and the "consensus" that he thought existed at the archived WT:TOKU discussion referred to in the AN3 report.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 12:54, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Diffs: 1, 2, 3, 4 (by Black Kite), 5 (by Black Kite), 6, 7.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 12:57, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Now that request appears to be moot, because Powergate stopped reverting more than a day ago despite the article not being in his preferred version, whereas you did not stop reverting at any time when the article was not in your preferred version. That's why the edit war is still ongoing on your part, but not on his part.  Sandstein  14:17, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

His preferred version does not have "<!-- This number does not need to be updated on a weekly basis. Only update monthly. -->". It's not like that is even seen on the article. It's a hidden request, the merits of which are in discussion.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 14:23, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

The fact that this is a lame edit war over a hidden comment makes it no less of an edit war. Just lame, too.  Sandstein  14:34, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

So the lameness is being compounded by actually blocking only one party over the dispute. If Powergate92 for whatever reason decides "Hey, Ryulong got blocked for this. I guess I can remove the hidden comment." I expect him to be blocked or my block to be removed.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 14:39, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I said this before and I will say it again "I did not ask Black Kite to revert your edit, I asked Black Kite "What do you think about this?"" and "I was asking other user what they think about this, if you look, you will see that the users I asked (User:Ckatz and User:Black Kite) are users I disagreed with within the last month." Powergate92Talk 22:55, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

It does not matter who you asked or what you said. Your intention was to get my edit reverted. And then after you realized I had made 4 reverts in a 24 hour period, you reported me. Just like you did for the Talk:Hurricaneger thing that you claim was my previous warning for the existance of WP:3RR.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 01:03, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

• Ryulong,. I have unblocked you because the main purpose of the block has probably been served, in that you're not going to resume the edit war; you are right that the report was somewhat stale; and there is a certain sense of injustice about blocking only one half of a clearly bilateral edit war. I note also that this is tangentially related to date unlinking, which ranks in my personal list of longest-running and lamest disputes, but I don't think there is much to be gained from going down that line. Anyway, you seem to have calmed down and I think you are not going to resume this behaviour, so I unblocked you. For the record the block was defensible, I'd probably have done the same on the basis of the report, but I find on looking more closely that the report is less than candid and if anything the block should also have been bilateral. Staleness tips the balance from blocking the other party to co-terminate, into unblocking you. Please, next time, ask for help rather than getting into a revert war. Guy (Help!) 19:24, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

  Thank you.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 01:03, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I am responding here so that you can find it. 1) The "first debate" is confusing to readers. Of course the first televised debate was in 1960. UM was one of three debates and the chronological order was determined by travel logistics not priority or ranking. If you must identify the debate to separate it from the other two, use the date not the sequence number. 2) "Momentum" was not the official name of the campaign. The name was quite a mouthful, "Momentum: The Campaign for the University of Miami" and the name does not matter to the history. 3) As side from "campaign" not being an objective unit of measure, I honestly don't know who currently has the largest campaign in Florida. UM started out with a $1 billion goal, and raised $1.37. U of Florida started out with a $1.5 billion goal and raised $959 million "as of Sept 2008." It looks as though they have announced at least another $100 million in large gifts since then. Unlike NACUBO, the professional society for college fundraisers has password protection on the statistics posted on their website, so I can't get better data and can't find a current total of large and small gifts. 4) You can add the Miami Herald article as a references if you wish. It did not relate to any of the facts I included. The first cite shows UM raised $275 million of its campaign total before 2003, and the second cite shows that there is an 8 to 5 split between Medical vs Coral Gables and RSMAS.

To me, the fundraising campaigns are not as important as other objective measures, like endowment size, value of physical plant, dollars raised per year. I know that money usually equates to quality in higher education, so I am fine with reporting endowment numbers in the infobox. I also reported the value of the Coral Gables physical plant in the campus section. I would rather serve the reader with the plain facts than with questionable comparisons.

If I have offended you in any way, I apologize. We just need to work without tripping over each other. Racepacket (talk) 12:12, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

1. It's now "first of three"
2. "Momentum" is the title of the campaign, while the rest is the subtitle.
3. Amount of money raised is a metric
4. Added

Also you need to change "Medical Campus" in the ref you added to "Campuses and Facilities {{!}} University of Miami". I take "title" for the {{cite web}} things to be the <title></title> of a website.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 12:14, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

The bot does that for pratical reasons. If a human cites a particular infobox or subarticle on the page, we can take the title of the relevant item.

The amount of money reportedly raised is a PR move. UM was raising money. They decided to organize a formal fund drive, and launched it in October 2003; On the day of the lauch, UM announced that it raised $552 million before the October 2003 launch date, with about $277 million before 2003. So the "metric" of the amount raised was backdated to start at some undisclosed time and was terminated "early" when $1.37 billion was raised. Why would the amount of money raised in an ill defined period be a metric? Even it it were a metric, don't Wikipedia readers deserve a better metric like dollars raised per year, endowment size, or physical plant account balance?Racepacket (talk) 07:28, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

If we have an explicit number, regardless of all of the assumptions, then we can use that number to compare to other universites who have reported explicit numbers. Why is that so much of a problem? And why does the allocation have anything to do with the arguments?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 07:32, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. Let's move further discussion back to the Talk:University of Miami page so that it will all be in one place. Racepacket (talk) 09:10, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, you're in the minority.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 09:11, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

How is this original research? Also do you watch this show? If you do you should know that in the episode Kamen Rider Siren (I think that was the episode) Xaviax tells Danny not to fight Dragon Knight, and Xaviax always tells the new Riders to fight Wing Knight (Len) not Dragon Knight (Kit). Powergate92Talk 04:35, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

The text refers to the beginning of the series. Not its end. No one knew then that Xaviax was not targetting Kit.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 04:45, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

That text doe's not refers to the beginning of the series as it says "Xaviax has also begun using his shapeshifiting abilities to coerce humans into joining him, giving each one an Advent Deck and the corresponding Kamen Rider powers, with which they fight to eliminate Kit, Len and Kase." Xaviax did that in about all the episodes where a new Riders added and as I said before Xaviax always tells the new Riders to fight Wing Knight he doe's not tell them fight Wing Knight and Dragon Knight. Also the plot summary is for all the show not just the beginning. Powergate92Talk 05:01, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Regardless, Kit is being attacked is he not?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 05:04, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes but the plot summary is saying Xaviax is coercing humans into joining him, giving them Advent Decks to become Kamen Riders so they can they fight to eliminate Kit, Len and Kase, but Xaviax is not trying to eliminate Kit and doe's like it when the other Riders fight Kit. Powergate92Talk 05:17, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

It's original synthesis from the show's material.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 05:26, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

What doe's that mean? Also you still have not answered my question of how was it original research. Powergate92Talk 18:03, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

This has been sitting on Third opinion for five days, which I am guessing means no one else feels up to it. I have not seen the series. Would it make sense to just remove the final clause of #Plot (, with which they fight to eliminate Kit, Len and Kase)? It is already stated that assorted humans are joining Xaviax, who has a fairly well-defined agenda, which would make that clause redundant. If, on the other hand, this dispute has resolved itself in the meanwhile, then good on you. - 2/0 (cont.) 11:51, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I was not even aware that WP:3O had been requested.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 16:39, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree with 2/0, we should remove that part of the plot. Powergate92Talk 21:15, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

The sentence/thought doesn't seem complete without it. I figured eight days without saying anything we came to an agreement.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 21:17, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I did not say "I agree with you", if your saying that you with agree me that the character name "Kit" should be from that sentence then there is a agreement if not then there is no agreement. Also you did not reply to my comment from 8 days ago. Powergate92Talk 03:37, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Okay, by omitting "Kit" it the sentence, it ignores the fact that for the entire series, Kit and Lenn and Kase have been attacked.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 03:54, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Again, please forgive my unfamiliarity with the series - the problem is that Kit, Len, and Kase are attacked by Xaviax's ersatz Kamen Riders, but it later is revealed that only Wing Knight is the true target? Would it then make sense to just state that battles with these humans are a central plot element? End the last sentence at Kamen Rider powers., then proceed with Over the course of the series, Kit, Len, and Kase battle these new Riders &c.

If this goes much longer we should probably move this conversation to Talk:Kamen Rider: Dragon Knight. - 2/0 (cont.) 07:22, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Can I copy your comment on my talkpage to the RFC/U's talkpage as a reply to my comment? Soxwon (talk) 23:23, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 23:23, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I have replied and changed my comment to reflect what I saw on the UM page. Honestly though, I think this RFC/U was a might quick. Your next step is going to be ArbCom and I don't know that they they would take this one. Soxwon (talk) 23:55, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

All I know is that I got bitched at, then there was an RFC/U, then there was an RFAR, and now I'm not an admin anymore. I figure this is the same track of events.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 00:21, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Has your vandal been active lately? The filter hasn't caught anything yet. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:38, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

166.217.43.55 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). For some reason he wasn't caught.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 00:39, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

He made his edits about an hour before I made the changes. Thanks. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:09, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Unless the filter just isn't working, this vandal hasn't been active since the last update, a week ago. I've disabled the filter for now, but it can be restarted if need be. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:38, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Okay.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 00:42, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I just tried http://web1.ncaa.org/web_files/stats/football_records/DI/2008/FBS%20compiled.pdf and it works for me. The information is on page 85 of the PDF. Please let me know if you can't access it on your computer. I have also found some other dead links. Can you get them to work on your computer? Many thanks. Racepacket (talk) 00:30, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

The other ref didn't work.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 00:47, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I now realize that you mean http://surveys.ope.ed.gov/athletics/DataForms.aspx Would it help you if I sent a screen print to OTRS? Racepacket (talk) 04:11, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Is it that important to have that number?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 04:44, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I am not sure I understand you. Are you objecting to the inclusion of the number on relevance or because you questioned its sourcing? I thought you removed it as unsourced, not as not relevant. The budget gives readers an idea of the magnitude of the program. While I am sure you are asking in good faith, I think that the deletion of the other budget data which I originally posted on University of Miami and later moved to Miami Hurricanes at the request of PassionoftheDamon was POV-pushing by him regarding his views on Title IX. Racepacket (talk) 12:07, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

The link does not work on its own and the number as a whole is not relevant for the article.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 18:37, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Evil Decade, Skull Memory, Skull Magnum, Double Super CycloneJoker, A World with Ryubee and Eijiro drinking beer? well, aren't you gonna add those? I'm sure you saw the scans. AlienX2009 (talk) 21:21, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

No official name, doesn't need to be mentioned, doesn't need to be mentioned, no official name, and I don't know the significance between Eijiro and Ryubee drinking beer. I'm still trying to determine what the official films names are as well as the basic stories.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 21:23, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Yeah but, Skull Memory and Magnum should be mentiond on the Sokuchi place on the characters article, Decade is mentioned as Yami no Decade (sorry can't use japanese because my keyboard is funny). Also, Tackle will appear in the movie too. but some rumors say that it's the world of Double or connected to it, since Tackle looks like Akiko and Ryubee and Eijiro are drinking beer. I know it's not confirmed and it's just a rumor. AlienX2009 (talk) 21:28, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Kamen Rider Skull stuff will be covered in the film article whenever it's made. I have not seen a name for the evil Decade yet. Tackle is a different actress. I don't know what the significance is yet, but it does not matter.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 21:36, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Is the move protection of Cayman Islands still necessary? It looks like there was only one attempted move, over a year ago... --Geoffrey 06:57, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Do you really think the page ever needs to be moved?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 06:59, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I was presuming, based from the page history of the Gorgom page, that there was a point when it was cluttered with too much info (though I don't know what). However, I am recently working on doing a short profile for every Gorgom mutant in the same manner that all Heisei Rider kaijin were being profiled. I do admit these profiles are only based from my viewing of each episode so far, and I have no access to any possible secondary source (books, magazines and the like) about the Kamen Rider BLACK series (me being in the Philippines and those documents unavailable here). At the rate I'm proceeding the article might lengthen up considerably. Should these contents be discontinued and removed, or could you help me find some valuable resources to validate their credibility? I would like to hear the recommendation of a senior editor on this matter. Supaagekireddo (talk) 15:56, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Don't do that. Don't continue working on it as you have. We do not need an extensive list like you've been performing. Just leave it alone. If you add more information, it will likely get deleted.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 21:13, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for reminding me on that note. I won't tamper with the Gorgom page anymore. Nevertheless, might the aforementioned information I collected be used for episode summaries of Kamen Rider Black? Or are these pages also not worthy of Showa-era series? Supaagekireddo (talk) 06:40, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Episode lists would be good.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 06:47, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm currently in contact with a representative of Bell Canada, and he seems interested in tracking down this individual for possible termination of his internet services, or other restrictions. He tells me that they did look into a complaint of the same matter sent to them previously, one which directed them to a page on Wikipedia listing one or more of this troll's IPs (the guy was vague on where he was sent). He explained that upon putting the IP and time stamp (in GMT), that there was no conclusive ID on the user (he was also vague about this point). I sent him the IPs and timestamps that were caught by the filter. I was wondering, are the IPs you provided at ANI the only ones he's used in the last 12 months? I was hoping maybe we could put together a list of all IPs he's used recently to give Bell the most possible information. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:09, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Those are all of the IP addresses that have been used up to December 2008. These were identified by going back in the history of Power Rangers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and picking out the IP addresses that plastered the screed blocked by the edit filter as well as those that triggered the edit filter while it has been active. He is easy to track because he's been at this a while and it is very obvious as to which edits are his.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 01:12, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for confirming the log information. The situation you have brought to our attention has been investigated and treated by a member of our staff. We have enforced our AUP against the offending account. Should this situation re-occur, please notify us immediately.

Bell Internet always enforces a strong anti-abuse policy; customers who abuse the network risk having their service terminated. Should you encounter any Internet Abuse originating from the Bell network, please do not hesitate to contact us again at [email protected]

Regards,

Chris
Bell Internet

[email protected] / [email protected]

There were a couple IPs in the list he's used that didn't originate from Bell Candada, but hopefully this means the brunt of it is over. Someguy1221 (talk) 18:13, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

All of those were Bell Canada, I thought.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 21:54, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

He used two IPs from Rogers Cable Communications (72.137.197.87 and 225.167.141) and one IP from Infonet (206.182.134.68). Someguy1221 (talk) 00:24, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, he's on 70.48.115.252 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) now.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 00:38, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

The same representative just informed me that the offending account was disabled. I believe the intial step of their AUP may only involve a warning, which would be why he did not go away at first. Hopefully he doesn't come back. Someguy1221 (talk) 06:07, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

What happens when he switches ISPs again?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 06:08, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

If he returns to Bell Canada we can get him removed again. If not, we'll have to start fresh in communications with the new ISP. I have this hope that the threat of losing his access to the internet might compell him to stop doing this, or at least that the only other internet service providers available to him have less dynamic IPs. Someguy1221 (talk) 06:14, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

There's Rogers and Infonet, as you pointed out. Rogers has been less than helpful in the past.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 06:19, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Hello, sorry about the Decade edit. Thats what i saw in one of the scans awhile back.119.74.231.63 (talk) 09:19, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I have not seen any such name in any of the scans. If you could tell me the magazine, we can add it so we have the right information.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 09:22, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I have been corresponding with Sniperhill Internet Services which uses the IP address 207.226.32.154 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for internet service inside Iraq for American servicemen. You have that range blocked as an open proxy, but according to the company the open port is password protected. Is there a way to unblock that IP or would we have unblock the entire range? Fred Talk 18:14, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I would think that you can unblock individual IPs in blocked ranges. If not, then the range would have to be unblocked.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 21:55, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I just started using the Lupin anti-vandal tool and clicked the wrong thing. I will be more careful now so This dowsn't happen again. WWE Socks 05:08, 30 October 2009 (UTC)