Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:12, 11 March 2014

When I find that the conversations or issues discussed here have either ended or resolved, they will be inserted into my archives at my own discretion.—Ryūlóng

CensoredScribe

I'm more sympathetic to the issues you are dealing with than my posts at ANI might suggest. I've glanced at the talk page of CensoredScribe, and I can understand the frustration. However, this appears to be an editor who has not yet grasped how things are done. I'd like to see a clear explanation of what is wrong, and if the editor persists, then it is time to consider expanding a ban.--S Philbrick(Talk) 17:35, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

I thought that the multiple threads did show that.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 02:16, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Ryulong would you please actually discuss size change in power rangers and ultraman with me? I've added two categories for deletion; mansions in fiction and martial arts tournament films; I may be able to find more categories for deleting. CensoredScribe (talk) 00:55, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Just put Category:Power Rangers, Category:Super Sentai, and Category:Ultra Series into Category:Size change in fiction. I really dislike all these "Fictional X" categories in the first place because they're just trivial garbage invented by people like you who have a lot of time to think about these things.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 05:05, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Cool, thank you. CensoredScribe (talk) 22:34, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Tommy Oliver

Hey, why are you trying to remove the AfD for this page? I don't see anything improper about it, and the G8 you tagged it for is inappropriate. ₆ansh₆ 07:25, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

It was created by what appears to be a banned user's sockpuppet, if the two IPs' actions are anything to go by. It's not a valid debate (article has multiple references, subject had appeared on TV for 5 consecutive years and one other year as well as two feature films), it's malformed, and there's something suspicious going on.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 07:25, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

I understand that, but if you let the IP's comments stay but explain why they're invalid instead of just removing them, there won't be edit warring and such going on, and people might respond better, you know? ₆ansh₆ 07:32, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Why waste everyone's time when it's a banned user?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 07:33, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Because now they're probably going to go waste everyone's time anyways with some sort of report somewhere, or so they threaten. Anyhow, I'm going to stop watching this now, good luck. ₆ansh₆ 07:36, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, but the fact that they know this shit just proves my point that it's a sockpuppet of someone.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 07:38, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Ryūlóng, you don't get to unilaterally decide that an IP is a banned user, or that an AfD nomination isn't valid. Frankly, looking at the article, I'm half tempted to nominate it for AfD myself. It does nothing to establish the independent notability of this fictional character, and almost all of it is fancrufty plot summary. AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:42, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

See WP:DUCK. And just because the article is in a shit state does not mean the subject is not notable. As I stated, the fictional character was a main character on a television program for 6 seasons, 5 consecutive, and was featured in two films that were released to theaters. Also, I'd rather try to figure out some way to get a character list set up to get rid of these fancrufty pages but the multiple seasons (which were renamed) makes things difficult, and an IP sock is not helping things.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 07:45, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, but there is nothing in WP:DUCK (which incidentally is an essay) that permits unilateral removal of an AfD nomination - even a malformed one. AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:57, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

It does if the duck quacks like a banned editor, particularly when that editor's first edit was to revert me on an esoteric article page and then attempt to send an article I recently edited to AFD.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 07:59, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Actually, as an essay, WP:DUCK permits nothing. Can you point to the policy which permits an unilateral removal of an AfD nomination, without even so much as an edit summary, followed by repeated blanking of complaints about your behaviour? It seems to me that you have appointed yourself judge, jury, and executioner here. AndyTheGrump (talk) 08:52, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry that the fact that I've been harassed by a banned editor over the past 3 months makes me completely unable to determine when shits hits the fan.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 08:56, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

ani

Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Recent_behavior_of_ryulong NE Ent 16:56, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

God damn DFZ/BCD socks.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 02:52, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

{{uw-3rr}}, List of Power Rangers Super Megaforce episodes (if you're claiming socks, you should be using edit summary at outlined at WP:3rr )NE Ent 03:29, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

WP:AIV and the edits on List of Power Rangers Super Megaforce episodes

I saw the list of reports you left at WP:AIV. I see that there is a bit of back-and-forth on all the talk pages, but I'm a bit confused as to what you're trying to accomplish here? I went through all of the IPs' edits and the only ones that I could find in article space actually looked relatively unobjectionable, e.g. one.

I'll be honest and admit that I don't have the slightest idea whether or not any of this is relevant, but it seems like an expansion of the text that was already there. In any case, I'm not sure there's any vandalism here, but if you could provide me with a diff that would be wonderful. As it is, if it's just WP:SPI behavior then it is best to bring it up there. Cheers, Deville (Talk) 03:32, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

@Deville: It's a banned user block evading so any edits he makes are to be reverted. The issue is at SPI currently but because he is currently hopping IPs and causing damage AIV is the proper venue. Also, you should reset the block on AS92813 (talk · contribs).—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 03:35, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

A Game Boy for you!

	The Game Boy of Appreciation
	Thanks for all your maintenance on the Lists of Pokemon! It may just seem like cleanup, but it really makes a difference! Supernerd11 :D Firemind ^_^ Pokedex 16:02, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Your AIV Report

Hey, please ensure that you are only reporting ongoing, obvious vandals to WP:AIV. This sort of report is probably not the right way to deal with people criticizing you. Thanks for your help. SQL 05:26, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

I am reporting block evasion. Is that not what AIV is for?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 05:28, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

You might consider reading the giant green box on the page. SQL 05:29, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Well where do I seek out assistance with block evasion that will handle the case rapidly and is not backlogged for weeks?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 05:30, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

And please, I'm not reporting him because he's criticizing me. I'm reporting him because he's clearly evading the blocks placed on the four IP ranges dealt with by Materialscientist yesterday and the blocks on the accounts AS92813 and You Wont Win This Time.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 05:32, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

WP:ANI or WP:AN would both be more appropriate venues than Misplaced Pages:Administrator intervention against vandalism IMO. I get where you're coming from, but AIV isn't, and shouldn't be a 1-stop 'block this guy' shop, man. SQL 05:35, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

I had very little issues when the block evasion was occurring yesterday and I used AIV to report them.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 05:36, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

The fact that you've used the page inappropriately in the past, does not mean that you are presently using it appropriately. I don't have a problem with you man - I'm just asking that you not draw us off of ongoing vandalism / spam to deal with meta issues / block enforcement / ban enforcement. WP:ANI is probably the appropriate venue for your issue. SQL 05:40, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Well then, you could probably act on the report at ANI then. It's not hard to find. This guy's sockpuppets have been perpetuating a thread complaining about me.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 05:42, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm going to bow out at this point, friend. I hope you can take my advice. Thanks for your time. SQL 06:03, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

It appears that I am going to need it.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 06:21, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Similar Cases

Hi Ryulong. Just for your information, regarding the recent Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Dragonron case which you had filed, there are some sockpuppet accounts which have been confirmed match at Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Presbitow case which I had filed, specifically Presbitow, Wizradman and AS92813 which are all the same. You might want to take a look at the other case if you like to. Thanks. -TheGeneralUser (talk) 15:20, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Probably related to Don't Feed the Zords/BuickCenturyDriver.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 15:57, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

I see, thanks for your reply. -TheGeneralUser (talk) 17:57, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

It's all very complicated and by the time I saw the case it was closed.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 18:21, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

The straw poll

Could you just re-open the poll and request it be closed by an uninvolved party. It would save so much trouble. Thanks, Nick (talk) 18:27, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Is Jeffrd making that much of a fuss to you on IRC?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 19:26, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Stand Alone Complex's plot

since you are the only one contesting, i suggest we discuss this in the talkpage and try to reach a mutual agreement.Lucia Black (talk) 08:01, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

What.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 09:07, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Arbitration motions regarding Ryulong

The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

Motion 1

The following sanction is vacated with immediate effect.

3) Should Ryulong be found to be seeking or requesting any administrative action on IRC against users with whom he is in dispute, he may be reported to ANI or the Arbitration Enforcement page.

Motion 2

During the original case Ryulong was admonished for excessive off-wiki requests of an inappropriate nature in remedy 3b, which reads in part:

(B) For contacting administrators in private to seek either blocks on users he is in dispute with, or the performance of other administrative actions. Any further occurrence would lead to sanctions.

The admonishment is left in place as warning not to return to the excessive and/or inappropriate behavior of the past, but the final sentence "Any further occurrence would lead to sanctions." is to be stricken.

For the Arbitration Committee, Rschen7754 18:00, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Discuss this

PeggySaldana SPI

Hi Ryulong, please help me connect the dots here. I see that three of the editors look to be almost identifying themselves as sockpuppets, by having nearly identical user pages and working in tandem. But I'm trying to figure out how PeggySaldana fits into this; that account edit-warred to remove information from the article, but hasn't engaged in the same behavior as the other three (such as insisting that self-published works from Jehovah's Witnesses are reliable sources). I'm wondering what you've seen that I haven't. -- Atama頭 21:36, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

I saw PeggySaldana as the earliest SPA on the article that was disruptive. I may be wrong in that identification.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 04:58, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Okay, that works, I'll deal with the other three then. Thanks for getting back to me. :) -- Atama頭 05:03, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Re: Personal attack on MOS-JA

Stop directly modifying this MOS to suit your needs.: What do you mean "my needs"? What needs are those, Ryulong? Seriously, tell me. I was fixing the guideline in accordance with consensus that we don't promote the use of one search engine over all the others, and over reliable sources. I'm seriously considering helping User:Nanshu on that RFC/U idea: your behaviour on that page is simply atrocious. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 16:19, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

That's not a personal attack. Perhaps I shouldn't have used "needs" but "desires". You could have rather rewritten that sentence (as I did) to be in line with other guidelines and policies rather than delete it entirely. And these threats of an RFC/U are fruitless. I've done nothing wrong. All I've done is revert yours and Nanshu's bold and undiscussed deletions from aspects of that guideline.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 16:25, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

And perhaps I shouldn't have used "personal attack" but "AGF-violation": both "needs" and "desires" assume bad faith on my part. Additionally, could you please point me to where consensus said we have to determine "common use" in reliable sources for the syllabic "n"? Saying "Google" is bad, but it's not much worse than "we don't have a style guideline -- just go with the hit counts". Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 16:29, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

WP:COMMONNAME—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 16:30, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Please actually read WP:COMMONNAME -- that guideline refers to subjects where there actually is a COMMON name. If we are consulting MOS-JA to try to figure out how we should romanize a name then that is evidence enough that there is no COMMON name on par with "Chiang Kai-shek". The wording you are supporting is not backed up by COMMONNAME, but rather implies "Never follow this MOS guideline, but always try to find whether the subject has ever been covered in a single reliable source in English". COMMONNAME does not cover subjects that have only ever been covered in one English-language RS. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 16:38, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Fine. WP:USEENGLISH—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 17:40, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Channel lists in infobox

Almost all animanga infoboxes have their "genre" and "network" list in single-line form; and this is nothing new. Is Space Dandy a special case? Raamin (talk) 09:15, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

I dunno, I just thought it looked better because thats what's done on TV shows that aren't anime. Why does it matter?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 13:47, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Talkback