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.

Please don't say, "Do not move it again" in the edit summary - as if I had done it before - or assuming that I would do that. But it does look bad and out of place where it is. --Musdan77 (talk) 03:23, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

It's been moved by others in the past. And that is where such information belongs. It covers both the American and Canadian broadcasts so it should not be listed under just one and it is redundant to list them under both when a single listing above both suffices.—Ryulong (琉竜) 04:22, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

I reverted your redirecting of the manga. I previously had corrected the opposite of this from Lucia Black, the manga itself is one aspect of the franchise, but as you are doing what I didn't with Arise, I'm pleased you have done so much already for it. I took a wiki-break because I didn't want a mess with Lucia Black after her disruptions and drama became outright silly. Now, before I get into the matter, I want to point out, we seem to be on the same side.

Ghost in the Shell as a franchise is very weird and unusual, but Lucia's Black argument of merging the franchise (where Ghost in the Shell is) to the manga, was a bad idea. Sadly, because I hadn't dealt the critical blow to separate both pages you took a more obvious route, merge the manga to the franchise. I'm of the opposite category, remove the extraneous adaptations, unrelated SAC and Arise material from the original manga series and put forth the original works by Masamune as the main Ghost in the Shell page. Its not ideal, but it is better then duplication. The matter was made worse by Yu Kinutani, and the novels by Junichi Fujisaku and Masaki Yamada. It's a lot to sift through. Though I do not want to go through another 'episode' with Lucia Black, I do want Ghost in the Shell's articles to be better, I just don't want to take so much flak for something essentially trivial.

I'm going to try and begin refining the manga article to this scope, I do like your changes and work to the franchise page. I'm actually glad that you did this work, because Lucia Black tried to rid the franchise page entirely, and with Arise coming out, the franchise page is more important to have now. Any ideas on dealing with the craziness of the canon of GITS? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 01:14, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Its a choice. Plus, the fact that they have their own respected articles, shows how unnecessary it is to go into complete detail. You have no place sayingi was disruptive. My edits were bold, but lasted over a few months period. Making it into an accepted form. No one contested at the time. You refused to discuss, and continued to edit after reverts. It was until i went to ANI, that you were forced to discuss.

Ive changed the layout to "series" to separatee from continuations. And to differ from the manga article. Still, you refuse to shorten the information as per WP:SUMMARY. But ultimately i knew editors of anime and manga would intervene in this compromised layout, so i saved a form of the original on my userpage. Ryulong, you are free to look at it. Obviously Arise is missing.Lucia Black (talk) 01:29, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Whatever, I do not see all or know all on Wikipedia, and its hard to detect a page not on your watchlist and one that is strangely missing because of a redirect to a merged content page. Time may pass and people can object, nothing is set in stone, when you made a fuss about it others agreed unanimously that I was improving the content and trying to improve it. We may have differing opinions, but honestly, you protest whatever policies you want, but I reject your WP:SS argument by invoking the WP:SS argument's specific clause on WP:DETAIL. A reader who wants the concise version should be satisfied with the manga's overview at the franchise page, a reader who wants moderate to many details (as exists for the manga) should have that requirement filled BY the manga page, and in not the franchise's concise overview of the content. Okay? Wikipedia is not about removing valuable and key content for the purposes of being as concise as possible, we provide valuable and insightful knowledge into notable and important topics in as much detail as necessary for differing types of readers. While most information falls in the concise format, if enough valuable and key information exists sub-topics are appropriate. Let's not fill up Ryulong's talk page with banter, I'm on and will be watching the GITS main page, I just realized there was a discussion on the talk page. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:04, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

I really wish you hadn't but I guess we should form a proper consensus.—Ryulong (琉竜) 02:37, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

I'd also like to make it known that I think Ghost in the Shell (manga) would be better suited to be solely about the print releases of all of the manga rather than just original 3 things.—Ryulong (琉竜) 02:45, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

The problem is, you expect an overview of the manga, but practically duplicates of the main articles. You're not satisfied with shorter summaries of the seriesLucia Black (talk) 04:25, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Say this at Talk:Ghost in the Shell#Merged Lucia.—Ryulong (琉竜) 04:39, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

	The Original Barnstar
	For your efforts on the Ghost in the Shell pages. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:46, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm done arguing with Lucia Black. I'm just going to start trying to improve the page. End of story. I cannot read Japanese, for what it is worth, but I do want the page to be better. If you can translate some scans or something that might be useful because I cannot understand them at all. And it seems you can translate. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:28, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

I can try.—Ryulong (琉竜) 05:52, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

A website [1] has a bit of a review and a glimpse inside the artbook. I don't know if I can get a hold of the book anymore, but I did see it a convention a few years back and never got it because I couldn't read it. It may be possible that someone has it and can point out something of interest we could use. The book seems to offer commentary on SAC's making and other details which would help the article. Can you read anything from these pics? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 06:25, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

I'll take a look at it later but I'm not promising I can do anything.—Ryulong (琉竜) 07:26, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm going to communicate on the talk page in simple English and simple sentences. Lucia may have issues under WP:CIR given her previous assertions of such essays and policies. While we may disagree about certain things, keeping it simple will make it easier. I started with a simple (deceptively simple) suggestion on the talk page. Because the page doesn't address such issues in a coherent and intelligent way. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:44, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm not going to give you a barnstar for bluntness (we don't have one yet), but I agree that there was no rudeness on Talk:Random Access Memories. Happy days, Drmies (talk) 17:41, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

But think of the images you could use.—Ryulong (琉竜) 17:47, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Oh, I did. I think there's a picture on Commons somewhere with Malleus on it. Drmies (talk) 18:31, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

An IP editor added a fake episode description to List of Power Rangers Megaforce episodes. Another IP editor reverted it, but a third put it back. I just removed the vandalism again, perhaps you could arrange for semi-protection on the page? Thanks. Digifiend (talk) 01:29, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Go to WP:RFPP and request it yourself in the future. I'm not online that often anymore.—Ryulong (琉竜) 03:14, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, I didn't know what the proper procedure was for that. I've bookmarked it for future reference. Digifiend (talk) 10:33, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Do NOT edit my sandbox to remove the page I put in. I should not see ECs from you, I've had 8 of them since this began less then half an hour ago. Do not edit my userspace. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:12, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

I made a fucking sandbox for you as a subpage of the GITS talk page though.—Ryulong (琉竜) 04:16, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Sandboxes are not supposed to exist on article spaces. You reverted my sandbox. I just lost data because of your edit to my sandbox. That should not be happening. Calm down and don't curse at me. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:21, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Sandboxes are allowed in the talk space.—Ryulong (琉竜) 06:24, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

I just dont get it. It seems like both you and Chrisgualtieri misunderstand what i'm asking for. How does my stubborness cause other editors to split the article if I'm completely against that???? You tell ChrisGualtieri to "ignore" me, yet tell him the exact same thing when it comes to not splitting the article. Do you even read the discussion???? I dont think you understand what i want to do with the article. So i ask you what you think i'm asking.Lucia Black (talk) 08:58, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

I apologize. It seems that there are miscommunications on both sides and I was not looking at things from your perspective as well (because honestly you two write so much and I can't figure out what the hell you two want). I will retract my statements shortly.—Ryulong (琉竜) 09:05, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. I'm glad this was resolved easily.Lucia Black (talk) 09:12, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

I would like your input here Shadow2 (talk) 23:22, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

The DR matter is going slow... so I propose that we try and work out some solution. I am going to avoid Lucia unless it is on the DRN page, the drama is just too great and I do not want to lose your input on these articles. Now, I would like to tackle the matter of Ghost in the Shell, but let's divert our attention for the time being to establish some camaraderie between us. I say pick an article or subject to work on, but I am concerned about the overall structure of the pages. So I'm going to offer this, want to try and come to an agreement about the GITS page or want to try and work together on another page? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:18, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Get over it. Its 2 against 1. Two editors strongly disagree with you.Ryulong included. And as much as you made yourself believe Ryulong has a shaky stance enough for you to convince, that just wont happen. So stop blaming me for your fustrations. I'm just the one responding at every point you make and thats the fustrating part for you. If Ryulong did the same, you wouldnt be seeing me as the only issue. Overall, this shows strong WP:OWN tendencies and should avoid planning and disregarding the editors involved.Lucia Black (talk) 03:53, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I've been out of town this weekend.—Ryulong (琉竜) 06:06, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

I understand. I really wouldn't even bother reading the talk page anymore, it is really a waste of time. Nothings changed and we haven't edited the page since you last did. The Dispute Resolution matter will take days and is very slow. Did you want to work something out on GITS or another page? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:52, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi Ryulong, it's not about whether it's an initialism or not. 1) Random ref title: PSY Wants Tom Cruise to go 'Gangnam Style,' Talks 2013 Album. The title of this work clearly is "PSY Wants..." and not "Psy Wants...". You can also see that almost all of the other sources use "PSY" as opposed to "Psy". You are not supposed to be changing original titles of these works. Track listing also lists him as "PSY". Again, why change? Did you even check to see what you were changing? Please seek consensus first. Thank you. ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 14:08, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

WP:ALBUMCAPS, WP:ALLCAPS, etc., say otherwise.—Ryulong (琉竜) 14:19, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Understand your concerns, but the thing is not everything is capitalized... Only "PSY" is. And besides, as stated, "In titles of songs or albums in a language other than English, following the capitalization found in most English-language sources is recommended.". PSY is his style name... What's wrong? ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 14:44, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

There's a mix of "PSY" and "Psy" in the sources I'm seeing so clearly we should follow Wikipedia's standards that state that you shouldn't use all caps in anything unless the individual letters stand for something.—Ryulong (琉竜) 14:46, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Also let's not forget that the article is located at Psy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and not PSY (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) for this same reason.—Ryulong (琉竜) 14:50, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) My observation: Whether it's newspapers or online, I see a mixture of PSY and Psy. Arctic Kangaroo 14:56, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Either way, it is Wikipedia's internal guidelines that forbid the use of "PSY" unless the name is read as "Pee Ess Why". This is the same reason why MISIA and YUI are at their current article titles.—Ryulong (琉竜) 14:58, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree with you. Psy is probably better. Arctic Kangaroo 15:30, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

I made a new section under gits talkpage so it could be easier for outsiders to discuss. I mentioned that you agree to certain degree, if not completely. It would be great if you could mention your view and what you may not agree with.Lucia Black (talk) 21:06, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

No one's touched it in days it's not worth it.—Ryulong (琉竜) 08:57, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Wasn't really meant for full discussion, Chris linked the talkpage to DRN so I made a DRN section so that editors won't have to read that lengthy subsections Chris continues to create.Lucia Black (talk) 09:24, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

You did a very gorgeous job rebuilding the Kirby: Right Back at Ya! Episode Page. --Vaati the Wind Demon (talk) 15:09, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi Ryulong. I just wanted to tell you that I mentioned you in my latest report at ANI concerning WikiSkeptic (talk · contribs). No further action is needed on your part. Just wanted to let you know out of courtesy. Best regards. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 15:20, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

K—Ryulong (琉竜) 15:32, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

[...] where does this German name for the opening come from?

It's in the opening credits: [2]. Still, it seems like a sub-title or something. It's only listed in kanji on the official anime site and in retailers for the single.— Preceding unsigned comment added by HigherFive (talk • contribs)

Thank you. To make things more confusing it seems Linked Horizon is not naming the single after the song either. It's going to be "Jiyū e no Shingeki".—Ryulong (琉竜) 16:19, 29 April 2013 (UTC)