Misplaced Pages

User talk:Ryulong

Article snapshot taken from[REDACTED] with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Brett epic (talk | contribs) at 10:37, 24 November 2007. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 10:37, 24 November 2007 by Brett epic (talk | contribs)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Please post new messages at the bottom of my talk page by using either the "new section" tab or this link.
Please sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). If you do not sign your comments, I may remove them entirely.
Please keep your comments short and to the point. I do not want to read essays on this page.
I will revert and ignore any basic template messages used on my talk page. If you want to talk to me, use your own words.
I prefer to keep conversations on one page. If I left a message for you on your user talk page, I prefer to respond to you there.
My local time: January 2025 22 Wednesday 10:33 pm EST
Archives
  1. 2—6/06
  2. 7/06
  3. 8/06
  4. 9/06
  5. 10/06
  6. 11/06
  7. 12/06
  8. 1/07
  9. 2/07
  10. 3/07
  11. 4/07
  12. 5/07
  13. 6/07
  14. 7/07
  15. 8/07
  16. 9/07
  17. 10/07
  18. 11/07
  19. 12/07
  20. 1/08
  21. 2/08
  22. 3/08
  23. 4/08
  24. 5/08
  25. 6/08
  26. 7/08
  27. 8/08
  28. 9/08
  29. 10/08
  30. 11/08
  31. 12/08
  32. 1/09
  33. 2/09
  34. 3/09
  35. 4/09
  36. 5/09
  37. 6/09
  38. 7/09
  39. 8/09
  40. 9/09
  41. 10/09
  42. 11/09
  43. 12/09
  44. 1/10
  45. 2/10
  46. 3/10
  47. 4/10
  48. 5/10
  49. 6/10
  50. 7/10
  51. 8/10
  52. 9/10
  53. 10/10
  54. 11/10
  55. 12/10
  56. 1/11
  57. 2/11
  58. 3/11
  59. 4/11
  60. 5/11
  61. 6/11
  62. 7/11
  63. 8/11
  64. 9/11
  65. 10/11
  66. 11/11
  67. 12/11
  68. 1/12
  69. 2/12
  70. 3/12
  71. 4/12
  72. 5/12
  73. 6/12
  74. 7/12
  75. 8/12
  76. 9/12
  77. 10/12
  78. 11/12
  79. 12/12
  80. 1/13
  81. 2/13
  82. 3/13
  83. 4/13
  84. 5/13
  85. 6/13
  86. 7/13
  87. 8/13
  88. 9/13
  89. 10/13
  90. 11/13
  91. 12/13
  92. 1/14
  93. 2/14
  94. 3/14
  95. 4/14
  96. 5/14
  97. 6/14
  98. 7/14
  99. 8/14
  100. 9/14
  101. 10/14
  102. 11/14
  103. 12/14
  104. 1/15

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


Deleted comments from ANI

I see here that you deleted an IP's comments, accusing he/she of being "MyWikiBiz." Deleting another users comments is a serious action and should be supported by some credible evidence. What is your evidence that that IP is from a banned user other than the IP is complaining? Isn't the ArbCom currently investigating whether that IP was correctly blocked or not? If so, shouldn't you wait for their conclusion before taking action on the user's comments? Cla68 (talk) 08:06, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

  1. The user is on TOR, a home for users who cannot access Misplaced Pages normally (The Great Firewall) or they're banned and use through their normal IP is restricted.
  2. The user is talking about Durova, one of MyWikiBiz's current targets, so the individual is obviously not Chinese.
  3. The user persists on using TOR nodes to replace that message and had been doing some time last week.
  4. The user is arguing that he was wrongly blocked, when it several other IP in the range that initially made those comments have been linked to User:MyWikiBiz/et al.
That's enough to apply both WP:DENY and WP:BAN—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 08:09, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Cuba & El Jigue

Be prepared Ryulong, EJ has numerous IP addresses to post from. PS- I apologies, if at times I came acroos as uncivil toward EJ -- He has his way of getting under your skin. GoodDay (talk) 17:41, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

So is life and single-minded idiots on the interwebs.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 22:34, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Please explain

What does my 'editing' have to do with my request to delete my user and talk pages?

When I made the request there was no agreement or offer that I'd stop editing. I merely decided I was no longer interested in editing.. and now I have decided to make several posts.

By what rule did you decide to undelete a page that had been deleted by MY request?

please re-delete the user and talk pages. Lsi john (talk) 06:26, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

If you persist in editting Misplaced Pages, then you do not really need to have your right to vanish, as you have continued to edit as this account. Once you leave, I will be happy to redelete the page, but as it stands it will be there.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 06:27, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Editing only has 1 T. And I consider that Bullying. I have the right to have my page deleted, or Durova would not have deleted it. There was no offer made to 'stop editing' when the request and deletion was made.

Lsi john (talk) 06:32, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

You had your page deleted a couple of weeks ago and stopped editing. You have resumed editing. When I first saw your commentary I saw two red links and got suspicious, and then I saw the deleted talk page, and asked another administrator what should be done, and he basically said "If he is editting, his talk page should be restored."—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 06:37, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
a) my request to have the page deleted was not tied to any agreement to stop editing.
b) my page did not need to be un-deleted in order for people to contact me.
c) my page has no relevant bearing on Durova's abuse of her admin tools, nor does my page have any bearing on her blatant disregard for anyone who gets in the way of her sleuthing.

You are correct, I have less than no regard for Durova. She earned that place in my list all by herself.

My edits on the Admin board are accurate and can be verified without my page being undeleted.

Personally, I think the page got undeleted so that perhaps something could be dug up.. in order to shift the focus away from the 'documented' abuses of Durova and onto those making the charges. Its a well established tactic and it will probably work.

Best of luck to you and the one you are protecting.. though I think your faith in her is seriously misplaced. Lsi john (talk) 07:23, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

What faith? All I was wondering is why you had your page deleted. User talk pages are never deleted so I fixed that error.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 07:24, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Sorry for butting in, but please see the userpage policy: WP:UP. User talk pages are not deleted except in very rare cases, one of which is if the user is exercising their meta:right to vanish. I would assume that Durova believed you were invoking your RTV, because otherwise there is no policy allowing deletion; editing revokes that, and your user talk page should be undeleted. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 07:28, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
But you're wrong.. User talk:Smee was deleted.. ;) Have a great rest of the week and leave me alone.. thanks! Lsi john (talk) 07:29, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Durova should not have deleted either user talk page. And if I undeleted that many revisions I'd get castrated by a developer.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 07:31, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
And Smee has not edited since late June.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 07:34, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Smee has a new account now.. thats exactly the point. Lsi john (talk) 07:36, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
How about if we simply call a truce.. I have no beef with you and I want no beef with you. Just leave my page alone.. stop reverting it.. its MY page. there are only TWO edits to the new Smee talk page since it was deleted. But i don't really care whether or not it gets undeleted. It's clear to me that Durova was helping someone hide from their block history.. if nobody else cares then why should I. Too much politics and playing favorites here.
As for my page.. lesson learned. I should have made an edit to it so it wasn't 'red'. Cest la vie. C'est la guerre. C'est la pomme de terra. Lsi john (talk) 07:36, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Whatever. Have a good rest of your life.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 07:39, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Question about the above

Why were you edit-warring with the above user on their talk page? (For example, this edit). Is there a new policy that requires users to keep messages on their talk page after they've been read? Videmus Omnia 18:04, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Because at the time I felt that it was wrong that his page had been deleted and also I wished to continue conversation over there instead of it being over here. Whatever happened, its over and we went our separate ways. Please stop coming here whenever you perceive something I did was wrong long after the fact (after the apology, and after both of us have stopped editting).—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 19:00, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for replying. I'm not complaining about the talk page restoration, just wanted to make sure you are clear on the fact that being an administrator doesn't give you any right to restore your comments to someone's talk page, after they've acknowledged and removed them, with the edit summary "Leave this here". That looks like to me to you're telling them what to do with their talk page, which you have no right to do. So long as you can comprehend that, we've got no problem here. Videmus Omnia 19:08, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
I only replaced it once after which he posted one of the messages above and then I agreed not to do it again and stopped interacting with him. I probably should have put "Please" in there but it's too late for that.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 19:10, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Gekiranger: Rio

His new fighting form and style: The Genjuu Gryphon-Fist Fractyl (talk) 19:17, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Hold off on that until the episode airs.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 21:41, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
I have the text added, but have it hidden until said episode airs, but I expect it to be within this week or the next, as I see it related to Rio's fight with Suugu. Fractyl (talk) 02:36, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Yugiohmike2001

Ryulong, I just saw your block of the above user (Yugiohmike2001 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), apparently without any warnings or block message. Could you explain this? Videmus Omnia 02:44, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

The user has been consistently inserting false information into several articles, adding unsourced information, and general rumors. I used my discretion to block him/her.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 02:45, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Why no warning or attempt to work with the user? Videmus Omnia 02:48, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
I did not think of it at the time.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 03:17, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Hasn't this been raised to you more than once, including your RfC? How about Chaingang29 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)? Any attempt to work with that user? It looks like you're getting careless with your block button again. Videmus Omnia 03:29, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Both users were adding unverified information multiple times despite warnings placed in the text of the page (I think it was there, at least), and both are not new or exactly established. I have seen questionable edits from Yugiohmike2001 for a few months, and Chaingang29 simply replaced the same unverifiable information. You are the only one who has brought this up. Stop scrutinizing my every action, please.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 03:32, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm not "scrutinizing your every action". But you promised that you would warn users prior to blocking. These both seem to be good-faith editors. I'm just asking what part of WP:BLOCK merited these users get indef blocks with no prior warning or discussion. Videmus Omnia 03:35, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
If you're concerned about mine being the only opinion, maybe you should post a request for a review of these blocks at the admin noticeboard? Or maybe a neutral third opinion would help - Newyordbrad would be acceptable to me. Videmus Omnia 03:43, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Videmus Omnia, your actions in the last few days has soley consisted of scrutinizing various admins. What gives?--Hu12 (talk) 05:59, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
I haven't done that much editing, but I had some questions about some admin actions. Is that all right with you? Videmus Omnia 06:07, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm improving the encyclopedia here by blocking individuals who disrupt the integrity by filling articles with unsubstantiated rumors and other unverified information. I probably should have warned them first, but that would mean having to go through another six intermittent weeks of edits at the rate that they were going. Now, I don't know why you're fixated on me, but leave me be and go back to image patrolling.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 06:13, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

That's in accordance with the block policy, right? And with the previous promises you've made? Would you mind if I post these blocks for review? Videmus Omnia 06:16, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
I in fact would mind.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 06:48, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Why? Because they're bad blocks? Videmus Omnia 06:50, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Because I'm tired of you being a vulture towards my sparser administrative actions as of late.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 06:51, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
If the blocks are righteous you wouldn't have any problem explaining them. Are you saying this is my fault, for noticing your actions? Why not just unblock and apologize? Videmus Omnia 06:55, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
You are the only one who seems to feel that these are questionable. Whenever I perform something that is not explicitly stated or forbidden in any policy, you automatically feel that I am wrong in some way. When Newyorkbrad signs on again, and he apparently reviews this, then maybe it should be opened to a wider audience.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 06:57, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
That sounds good, I'll refrain from making further comment until then. Videmus Omnia 07:04, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Commenting as requested. Candidly, I don't know enough about the subject-matters of these articles to tell whether the edits Ryulong blocked the two users for were defensible edits, inappropriate but good-faith edits, or vandalistic edits. I can only say that for Ryulong to write that he "did not think of" even the possibility of warning the users before blocking them is disappointing given the prior discussions here. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:31, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I will admit that that much I did was wrong, but I feel that my blocks are still beneficial to the encyclopedia.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 03:28, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppet of EverybodyHatesChris

Sorry to bother you with this, but there's another one: BetterThanYou (contributions) --Ckatzspy 09:01, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

User does not exist. Just block them in the future and stop coming to me to identify them.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 03:30, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Umm... apologies for the typo - the user (since blocked by another admin) is User:BetterThanMe, not User:BetterThanyou. That aside, I don't quite understand your post. First off, how can *I* block a user, as I'm not an admin? That's why I came to you, since you blocked EHC originally. Secondly, I think this is the only time I've come to you with a sockpuppet block request. (In fact, my only other recent posts here were a note regarding EHC on Hallowe'en and a note regarding an IP block you made that affect Opera Mobile users. Are you confusing me with someone else?) Thanks in advance, and sorry once again for the mistyped user name. --Ckatzspy 06:47, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry. It's just that people keep coming to me when it comes to EverybodyHatesChris sockpuppets and I'm tired of it. I only blocked him for wasting our time by spending more than 500 edits complaining about an administrator and then came back to edit under multiple accounts, and then under more multiple accounts once he was unblocked for being given a second chance. I really don't want to keep having to deal with him...—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 06:50, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Fair enough, and I can appreciate how frustrating it must be. Thanks for the explanation, and sorry for inconveniencing you. If he resurfaces, is it best to go to an admin, WP:AIV, or the sockpuppet page? --Ckatzspy 07:10, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
ANI would probably be a better venue than my talk page.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 07:26, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Proxy block

Hi Ryulong, Sometime back you blocked the proxy User:205.56.129.195 as indefinite. A request came this morning from User:N who had been caught by the block. I checked via the Tor Check link and it now shows that it is not a Tor node. It is registered to the U.S. Navy. Based upon that I have changed the block to a soft block. If you aware of things I am not, please do feel free to change it back. JodyB talk 15:14, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Your block on 148.201.1.111

The block on 148.201.1.111‎ for 72 hours seems a bit excessive considering that many long-time vandalism-only accounts get blocked for much less (like less than 5 hours). This seems like a case where the guy wasn't familiar with the rules of Misplaced Pages, became frustrated and closed down to legitimate advice after several Wikipedians tried handling his case incorrectly (including deleting comments he made to restore warnings) and he went on a angry tirade. A shorter block (half of what he was given or just 24 hours) seems more appropriate since it was his first block. Cigraphix (talk) 18:07, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I generally blocks IPs who perform inappropriate edits for 72 hours. Shorter blocks in my opinion would make it such that they don't really get the point that their actions are harmful to the encyclopedia. He was warned and was repeatedly performing the same actions.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 21:19, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Den-O Episodes =

Summaries for episodes 43-46 had been translated. 43's here only as the title is revealed and its plot has been referenced in the previous episodes.

Episode 43: Something's Missing (12/2/07)

  • Ryotaro chases after the a young man who is a contract holder. Before he can help, Kai arrives and gives Ryotaro a ominous revelation: That the "day he and the Taros will part ways" draws near. Horrified and confused by this, Ryotaro becomes hesitant to fight.

Fractyl (talk) 04:30, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Policy Question: Blocking Password Secured Users

I am an occasional contributor to, and registered user of Misplaced Pages. I travel extensively in the developing world, where I use internet cafes to access Wiki. Twice in the past 2 weeks I have been blocked from editing at different internet cafes, after I signed in to my private Misplaced Pages account, because the proxy address was blocked.

I do understand the need to block proxy computers, even in cases, such as these, in which the vandal has probably long since left Cambodia and will never use this computer again.

But why am I being blocked when I'm signing in with a secure password? What's the point of having a private, secure password issued by Misplaced Pages if I will still be blocked simply for accessing the internet on a public server? I suspect this problem is particularly big for people from the developing world, who may often have no other way to participate in Misplaced Pages.

Is it possible for Misplaced Pages to introduce a policy of recognizing registered users and permitting them to edit even when they access Misplaced Pages from a public server that has been blocked? Thanks!Brett epic (talk) 10:37, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

User talk:Ryulong Add topic