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.

There appears to be an issue with using the Japanese translation of PlayStation, as evidenced by several editors' attempts to remove it from the PlayStation 4 article. In searching through WP:VG and other articles, I came across a recent discussion on the subject that you participated in. Since I know very little about the policies/guidelines concerning translation, I was hoping you could enlighten me as to whether or not this belongs in the PlayStation articles and why. Or if you prefer, please feel free to weigh in at the talk page discussion (see Japanese translation).

Thank you in advance! --GoneIn60 (talk) 22:16, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it most certainly does belong (and I see he removed it from the PlayStation 3 article multiple times as well). I have restored the text, used the rationale in the edit summary, and responded on the talk page.—Ryulong (琉竜) 03:17, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you again for your assistance. I am truly indifferent on the matter, but I know there are other editors (such as yourself) that this matters to. Sorry to have dragged you back into the fray.  ;) --GoneIn60 (talk) 05:33, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Didn't want to post this somewhere as public as ANI, but if you're on LinkedIn, you should be able to contact Gen Fukunaga directly - personally I've found that CEOS are often the best people to complain to when their company screws up... Yunshui 雲‍水 15:58, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

I sent the email off to their support line already. And I am not on LinkedIn.—Ryulong (琉竜) 15:59, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Well, I wish you luck - hopefully they'll be willing to comply with the licensing requirements and there won't be any need for you to take it any further. Yunshui 雲‍水 16:04, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

These things happen all the time Ryulong; I know its supposed to be "flattery", but I do understand seeing your text in a book that you are not credited for can be a rather stunning blow. Problem solved though, right? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:38, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for your disruption caused by edit warring and violation of the three-revert rule. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} below this notice, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:53, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Are you serious. Because I was being gamed by someone on a rapidly changing IP address who for some reason was aware of the warning templates and another IP who showed up to support him I'm blocked? I am done with this site.—Ryulong (琉竜) 18:57, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but you made five reverts on that page in the last 24 hours, two of them after receiving an edit warring warning. I don't believe that any of your reverts were covered under the exemptions to 3RR, but I'm willing to reconsider if there's something I have missed. Note that I blocked the IP range that was edit warring, as well. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:01, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

I received a warning from an IP address and there was also the actions of 76.108.171.120 who appeared to be working in concert with the other IPs' user. The geolocation is similar. Something fishy was going on.—Ryulong (琉竜) 19:04, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I've left a warning for the other IP, as well. I'll block if he reverts again. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:08, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

I made attempts at communication outside of edit summaries but he kept hopping IPs. Why is it that every time I try to do something right and the other party doesn't communicate effectively and just keeps doing what it wants it bites me in the ass?—Ryulong (琉竜) 19:09, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Ugh Mark I'm going to have so much shit to do in a few hours because no one ever fucking updates List of Zyuden Sentai Kyoryuger episodes and List of Kamen Rider Gaim episodes despite the fact I have a half-filled out template for them to do so on both pages. Why do I keep getting fucking blocked on Sundays.—Ryulong (琉竜) 19:17, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Regarding the above article, I would appreciate your cooperation in retaining the well-sourced material and not removing it wholesale. Also, if you want the citations to take any particular form, I would appreciate your correcting them inasmuch as I have never learned the new method of handling them and prefer to stick by the older method. Sincerely, your friend, GeorgeLouis (talk) 07:39, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Five massive direct quotations do not comprise "well-sourced material", neither does unnecessarily focusing on something which has its own separate article. Also, you did not have to revert everything I did on the article outright just to restore those poorly formatted and entirely unnecessary direct quotations.—Ryulong (琉竜) 07:41, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Also holy shit just look at all of the citations in the article that use the {{cite web}} template.—Ryulong (琉竜) 07:43, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Well, I'm sorry if I offended you, but I worked pretty hard to get everything right, and I don't believe you should have simply destroyed everything. It is better to have more information than less, and I beseech you to make a self-revert lest somebody accuse you of engaging in an edit war. Also, I don't appreciate the scatology; it is really demeaning, and, frankly, demoralizing. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 07:51, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

The direct quotations are not "more information". They simply clutter up the article and disrupt the reading flow. It is not necessary to provide that many direct quotations when it is much better to summarize them as I had done. It is only pertinent to include quotations when they are of particular notability or import. Simply copying what other people have stated for the sake of having it on the page is not particularly welcomed in formal writing when what they have said can easily be summarized in original words. Similarly, information regarding the murder of Raustein and the happy slapping incidents of Europe need only be summarized on this article per WP:SS. And finally I will not be self-reverting edits I had made in good faith nor will I be refraining from "scatology" or using other strong words in my communication as they do not comprise any personal attacks as they are not directed towards you in particular but to the situation in general. I would appreciate if any further discussion on article content be kept at the section I created on the article's talk page concerning the content I had initially removed and you decided to restore.—Ryulong (琉竜) 07:59, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Why are you edit warring over the inclusion of a reliable source? I disagree with your assertion that "there is no need to source a block of colors that are not text" but I more strongly disapprove of your willingness to edit war over something so trivial! Please consider self-reverting and taking the issue to Talk instead of using edit summaries to discuss the issue. ElKevbo (talk) 16:55, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

What is it sourcing? The hex codes? Do you know how trivial that is? Do you know how unnecessary that is? Do you know how obvious that is to anyone who downloads their logotype and opens it up in Paint? It's not necessary. And it is not my prerogative to argue against its inclusion. I reverted a bold edit to the article. It is up to the parties who feel it should be included to begin a discussion on the talk page rather than simply reverting me. Why is it that no one bothers to do this? Why is it when I restore the status quo I'm the one who gets int rouble and it's edit warring? I'm tired of this bullshit.—Ryulong (琉竜) 17:01, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

What happened to WP:BRD? An editor made an edit and you reverted - fine, no problem. Another edit reverted your revert and you reverted their revert of your revert - problem. Should the other editors be more communicative? Yeah, they should. But that doesn't absolve you.

And why would you believe that the colors shouldn't be sourced? They're non-obvious facts. We can quibble over whether using a program to examine the specific colors in an image is original research but clearly there is no reason for us to know that the particular image selected is correct nor is it reasonable to expect editors to go through that when there is a reliable source readily at hand. And we can avoid the discussion altogether if we just do what we always do when there is a question about a fact in an article - we cite a reliable source. ElKevbo (talk) 17:11, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

BRD does not require the person who reverted to start a discussion if they themselves are reverted. There should have never been the second revert in thef irst place. And the PDF simply contains the technical information on how to reproduce the colors for internal purposes. Such a primary source isn't necessary in the first place.—Ryulong (琉竜) 17:14, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree with ElKevbo. There's never any reason on Wikipedia to not source something. And you're right, he's sourcing the RGB values for their colors. Many universities have very specific RGB values and I think it's quite useful to have them sourced. I don't think the original edit was bold in any way. It was adding a reference to a piece of information that was unsourced on Wikipedia. And you should be more civil and not call the edit and this discussion "bullshit". — X96lee15 (talk) 17:15, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

It's not necessary to souce the RGB values and I see no such sourcing at any other article. They just list the colors and have the box. The University of Miami page says the colors are green, white, and orange, and has a series of boxes that are green, white, and orange. There is no point in providing a source that shows that not only are the colors green, white, and orange but they happen to be a specific hexadecimal set of green, white, and orange that the article happens to use as well. It's trivial nonsense. And this discussion isn't "bullshit". This situation is as a whole is. I am tired of the nonsense nitpicking on this website and I am tired of having to answer for things that no one in their right mind should give a shit about in the first place.—Ryulong (琉竜) 17:18, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm completely baffled. You seem to believe that you have a right to make multiple reverts in an article. You also seem to believe that we don't need to source material in articles. Is that correct?

Look, on some level I agree that it's a tiny bit silly and trivial to source this information. But it's a reliable source that is being appropriately used to support an assertion made in the article so what's the problem? It's something to sigh about and move on, not something to edit war and argue about! ElKevbo (talk) 17:23, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

No one's right to revert anything anywhere. That's all I've learned in the last few weeks. That's why I've gotten blocked twice in the past month for edit warring.

It is not necessary to source a color being displayed on an article just because that color happens to be the one mentioned in a reliable source. I'm not discussing this further.—Ryulong (琉竜) 17:24, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

I just want to be clear on your page notice, as I don't really understand what is and what is not allowed on your page, according to your page notice. So that there will be no confusion next time, am I allowed to leave talkback templates, or will you remove them the next time they are added? Thanks, Epicgenius (talk) 15:43, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Why would I need to keep a talkback tag here? It serves its purpose and directs me to your user talk page so it can be removed.—Ryulong (琉竜) 15:44, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm not saying to keep it—I am asking if you even want me to notify you using them. Do you want any talkbacks, or are you fine without them? Epicgenius (talk) 20:36, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

It is generally fine. I just don't need people sending me {{uw-whatever}}.—Ryulong (琉竜) 06:17, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Please stop reverting my edits. DMB112 (talk) 16:13, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

No. Your edits are not at all necessary for these pages. There is no need to provide lists on the intercollegiate athletic group pages on the school's academic status.—Ryulong (琉竜) 16:15, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

please see college football's talk page. This has been discussed. You are vandalizing Wikipidea. They are necessary. DMB112 (talk) 16:21, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

All I see are a bunch of sections tagged "This doesn't match the scope of the article." And my edits do not constitute vandalism. They are reverts of your bold edits to introduce these sections into the articles without any discussion as far as I can tell.—Ryulong (琉竜) 16:22, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

See the talk page. You will not be vandalizing without making a case on that page. You are edit warring. DMB112 (talk) 16:26, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Read WP:Vandalism. My edits do not constitute that. And I see nothing except massive essays from you on that talk page drowning out any other voices. All I can see is UW Dawgs also disagreeing with you. When you get reverted, which constitutes removing the massive unsourced sections you added to all these pages, you do not revert again.—Ryulong (琉竜) 16:28, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

It seems you're not new to edit warring. Look, I'm here to help. Let me debate with you civilly. Why do you think the tables are unwarranted? DMB112 (talk) 16:51, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

I have explained my reasons on your user talk page and at WT:CFB. There is a consensus to remove them and you simply haven't paid it any attention.—Ryulong (琉竜) 16:52, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

• The consensus was reached. I compromised and removed information and no one said anything afterwords. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DMB112 (talk • contribs)

  Please read WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT regarding the fact that "no one said anything afterwords".—Ryulong (琉竜) 17:20, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 14 days for edit warring on Big Ten Conference and Pacific-12 Conference. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.  Nick (talk) 17:39, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

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

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

---

Request reason:

I will admit that I edit warred but two weeks is an excessive escalation off of my prior blocks. I attempted all methods of communication with the other user on four different discussion pages, but he refused to listen to me and began personally attacking me as well.—Ryulong (琉竜) 17:39, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Decline reason:

I reviewed your previous block log and can see two blocks in the past four weeks for edit warring, it is apparent that short blocks do not deter you from edit warring, that alone would have been sufficient to justify a longer block. The situation was made considerably worse as there isn't any real evidence of restraint, with nine reverts in 24 hours on Big Ten Conference, nine reverts in 24 hours on Pacific-12 Conference, four reverts in 24 hours on Big 12 Conference, a technical breach of 3RR which you resolved on Southeastern Conference. You've made approximately 100 edits today reverting DMB112 on various articles including the listed articles above. This is so egregious a breach of policy that I consider two weeks to be lenient. Nick (talk) 17:56, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

---

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

You removed my statement that if the block is shortened I'd stick to 1RR. I still stand by that even if the block is cut down to a week.—Ryulong (琉竜) 17:59, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

I think, in light of recent behaviour, a 1RR restriction will be necessary, but I don't agree with it being voluntary or in exchange for a reduced block length. Nick (talk) 18:16, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Then I will see you next year.—Ryulong (琉竜) 18:18, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

This is not really related but when the hell was EnglishEfternamn unblocked after I blocked him in 2007 for sockpuppetry and harassing me to the point where there was a new feature to the MediaWiki software created to prevent his harassment?—Ryulong (琉竜) 18:20, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Could someone inform Born on Setons (talk · contribs) that he is edit warring at WP:VG/GL by restoring this undiscussed change?—Ryulong (琉竜) 18:46, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Actually it's been downhill for me since 2009 but I can't wait to see all the Buddyroids and Tajadors written about then summarily deleted because they're not up to snuff to the project's main standards.—Ryulong (琉竜) 19:06, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

It's been great working with you(to some extent). I just wish you understood the way stuff works. If you are truly correct, then somebody else should have your back and revert with you. You don't have to fight the war alone. If you do find yourself fighting a war alone, then maybe either you are wrong, or it just plain isn't a cause worth fighting over.(I think this needs to be an essay!) Unless the edits are obviously straight up vandalism, you don't have the right to revert that many times. Wikipedia:Most people who disagree with you on content are not vandals. Best wishes in your future! _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 19:20, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

It's always been fights other people are involved in but I'm the only to have the balls to do anything about it. I might reconsider after the block is done but this I've contemplated doing this too many times this year and it's time. Plus the outing offsite and the fact no one will do anything about it is distressing enough. I know what will happen without me on the pages I remotely care about and it'll be upsetting but what can I do. No one respects me anywhere because of this garbage.—Ryulong (琉竜) 19:28, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Well this was an unfortunate inevitability. In a perfect world, your previous promises to change your attitude, stop abusing rollback and get along with others would have carried weight. Problematically you didn't deliver on said promises. You're right, it has been a downhill spiral for you, but only because you seem to be unable to follow WP:COOL and keep yourself from editing while on tilt. If that's the way you will continue to edit, I'm sad to say you should not be here.

I'm going to say something now that I've been pondering about in your case for about a month now, hopefully without you feeling like I'm trying to kick you while you're down. Have you ever considered that perhaps the pages you frequent are actually not that important? That's not to say your contributions are moot, but an encyclopedia should be more focused on things like WP:BLP, events in history, the world around us, geography, etc. - real information for people to sink their teeth into. By comparison, things like List of Zyuden Sentai Kyoryuger episodes and Big Ten Conference seem miniscule at best.

And yes, I frequent, follow and contribute to articles of a similar amount of frivolousness, but they're not articles that I'm going to fight to the death for. Saying things like "It's always been fights other people are involved in but I'm the only to have the balls to do anything about it" is a terrible idea. Why fan the flames by clearly picking one side of an argument? These are the kinds of things that certainly will (and have) get you in trouble.

If you're truly done here, I wish you luck in your future endeavors. Hopefully when the fire dies down, this will be a learning experience for you to further grow as a person. Take care. Antoshi ☏ ★ 03:14, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

It's shit like this that truly shows me that I have no use on this project. One would think that to have someone with some knowledge of Wikipedia policies to be able to keep a group of articles that no one else is going to be editing seriously in line with them would be welcomed. Honestly, I don't give a fuck about the NCAA shit. I just saw someone acting against consensus and called him out on it, and he wouldn't take no for an answer, as is evident from the massive diatribes he's left at WT:CFB. And with all of the bullshit Japanese kids' television shows, the only thing I do now is make sure that the new episode entry is properly formatted (because no one can apparently figure out how to copy the template I have hidden in the page code) and that the English names are the ones found in reliable sources (also preventing entirely unreliable sources from ever being used in articles), but you would not believe how much ire and hatred I receive because Wikipedia uses an L when everyone on 4chan or some other garbage site uses an R. I honestly can't take it anymore. I clearly have lost the respect of everyone on here since the RFAR and I can't keep myself out of trouble so the only way to benefit everyone is to say goodbye to this website and its horribly destructive community. The only benefit that can be gained from this is that WP:WikiProject Editor Retention can use me as a case study as to why their dumb little "Editor of the Week" award doesn't do shit. I have clearly done nothing on this project except piss people off. That is why we now have e-mail blocking and I still can't fucking believe that the guy responsible is allowed to edit now and I'm not.—Ryulong (琉竜) 05:53, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

But the reality is that it's you who refuses to take 'no' for an answer. I remember hearing about this ongoing 'R' vs. 'L' debate you were in and honestly, who cares? It's an extremely moot point and yet these moot points are what you continually find yourself fighting, arguing and edit warring about? WP:COOL is not something optional - it's mandatory. You seriously need to take a step back and chill out. You're taking your editing and responsibilities far to seriously when in reality it's not a huge deal. You are not the only one with knowledge of the content you contribute to and/or Wikipedia policies, which all tie into my next point.

From what I've noticed of you these past few months, not only is it you who refuses to take 'no' for an answer, but you continually believe that you are right and everyone else is wrong. That is not how articles and projects are bettered. They're bettered by a collaborative effort of everyone involved working together. You cannot be the one who's "been fights other people are involved in but I'm the only to have the balls to do anything about it" because that's completely ineffective as far as a free encyclopedia that anyone can edit is concerned.

Your first reaction is usually scorched earth, delete your talk page comments, even blanking the whole thing and replacing it with the "Retired" template only to realize you were being too hasty. You even did that with my last comment and then said "No, I'll reply." Not only does that come off as you being incapable of reacting calmly, but you seemingly cannot stand it when someone else doesn't conform to your standards. Maybe I'm coming off as a little harsh, but these are things I feel I need to say. I've become fairly involved in this saga even from just being on the sidelines.

Wikipedia policies became corrupted in your head in the time between you becoming an admin and today. They are not something for you to argue your convictions, to twist them and put spin on them so that you come out on top looking like the one who's right, or for you to argue that you are more right than others referencing a specific guideline "because I was instrumental in drafting it." Do you not see how pointless and frivolous these arguments are? Arguing almost to the death to keep the Japanese title of the PlayStation 4 (which is literally just "Playstation 4" anyway) that doesn't matter to readers on an English Wikipedia anyway?

I'm not sure if you're beyond help if you truly believe with all your heart that you are right and everyone else is wrong. If you do, even with literally everyone else telling you with talkback's, discussions, debates, arguments, AN/I's, RfC's and blocks that you are wrong, then that is a very serious problem. Antoshi ☏ ★ 16:34, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

All I do with the L and R shit is follow primary sources, which no one apparently likes because of fansub groups and what they think the translation should be. The PS4 shit was dealt with when I did a fucking Google search. I still don't see how I cannot be considered particularly better at explaining a guideline if I was the one who essentially wrote it. And clearly if I am edit warring with a single other party like what happened with DMB112 or that IP address hopper then it's not just me at fault when I go out of my way to resolve the issue but the other party refuses to start a dialogue.

And I am taking a step back. During the block I've cut my watchlist in half and I'm still considering not returning to editing when the block is lifted, which is honestly the biggest step back that anyone can make. And really, all you're doing is convincing me that that is the best plan to follow through with. You clearly don't give a shit about the work I've done. You've called everything that I work on on this project trivial and unworthy of being in an encyclopedia. So why should I ever bother contributing again if everything I add to this website is jewel encrusted fancruft turds? Or why should I return when someone who I personally had a hand in banning from the site has been allowed to return despite the months of stress he caused me years ago? I can't take this meta nonsense anymore. I wouldn't still be logged in if I didn't despise the Vector skin. Goodbye Antoshi.—Ryulong (琉竜) 17:39, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

The shit on my watchlist has gone so far downhill in my absense and someone is pushing a really stupid opinion on one article. I can't leave just yet. Also, hi one guy on /m/ who thinks using the word "Brave" is racist when a word is literally translaed as "Brave".—Ryulong (琉竜) 10:03, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

@AlienX2009: would you stop building up the non-main Kamen Rider pages for Gaim already? They're all going to be merged when my block is up because we should not be making pages like these anymore. There is no point in making individual articles for these characters and filling these god damn pages with such useless minutae from the TV show. There is nothing about the character. It's all nonsense about their weapons and belts. Stop now because people have already decided Baron was a shit page.—Ryulong (琉竜) 20:57, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

@KenYokai: When you see vandalism, report it to WP:AIV. Don't send me an email asking what you should do about it.—Ryulong (琉竜) 23:17, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

@Rtkat3: FFS, stop adding more and more information to the villains section of the Megaforce character page. There is no reason that the section on a character who has not even appeared on screen yet is longer than that of the lead character. This is getting ridiculous.—Ryulong (琉竜) 21:29, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi Ryulong. Too bad about your current situation - I hope enjoy a break. We are reviewing old indef IP blocks over at WT:OP. There are three of your blocks in the miscellaneous queue. I wonder if you could review them. They all look good to unblock to me. They are 201.36.74.89 (talk · contribs · block log), 75.59.243.73 (talk · contribs · block log), and 62.114.229.130 (talk · contribs · block log). There are some other lists we'll be looking through, and I know you blocked a lot of open proxies, mostly righteously at the time imo. I expect there'll a few more we'll be looking for your comments on, after we've organised them a bit. Maybe you'd like to follow the discussion or comment or review them yourself. Thanks. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 13:42, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

These were more than likely blocked at the time due to a disruptive user IP hopping much easier than he should be. Do whatever is necessary without me.—Ryulong (琉竜) 13:55, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

OK, thanks. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 14:12, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

@AlienX2009: There is no reason to use the Japanese animal names for the Inves because they never show up anyway and it's always the same ones. The only reason we kept them for the Yummy is because of the Medals having Japanese names. Switch them back, please.—Ryulong (琉竜) 21:19, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

isn't the official name for the 2012-2013 JoJo anime called JoJo's Bizarre Adventure: The Animation? Uuruuseiyo (talk) 21:41, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

No. It's just "JoJo's Bizarre Adventure". The 2014 season will be "JoJo's Bizarre Adventure: Stardust Crusaders", though.—Ryulong (琉竜) 21:43, 30 December 2013 (UTC)