User talk:Ryulong: Difference between revisions

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

I said that Imagin do have gender, as they are human-like in form. Even Den-O Imagin have gender. So far we have see only male Imajin in the show. Fractyl 23:43, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They do not have gender. The only way you could say as such is if when they talk they say "Ore" or "Boku" which are masculine versions of "I" in Japanese. The Den-O Imagin are the only one that appear to have gender, as I do not recall any of the other Imagin referring to themselves with "Ore" or "Boku"—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 23:45, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All Imagin have gender, the other Imagin hadn't use the gender-pronouns, as they were more bent on the mission. But I go by both the voices and mannerisms. The only things I give the "it" to are inhuman monsters like Gigandeaths, which I'm starting think are not the Imagins in a stronger form. Fractyl 01:36, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is easier to refer to them as "its" and user gender-neutral pronouns. So far, we have not had a female voice actor voice an Imagin, but we should refer to them all as "its" until one is specifically a female. And just use whatever information we have from verifiable primary resources. Don't use your own original ideas in these articles.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 01:38, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry, I would alter the text about Gigandeaths until I am convinced enough for it. The gender bit is another matter, but I do hope a female Imagin does appear. Fractyl 02:28, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, why did you block Mac (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) without warning and not reply to any queries from the user (see [1])? Could you show me diffs that he or she was spamming so egregiously that an indef block w/o warning was necessary? Thanks, Iamunknown 04:50, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm surprised, Mac has been a editor for four years and has over seven thousand edits, doesn't seem like an RBI situation. — MichaelLinnear 04:54, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, Mac has registered over 7000 edits starting from February 2003. --Iamunknown 04:56, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot really recall what site had been spammed. And I did receive one e-mail from this user after the block, but it appears I did not reply to it. What happened when I was offline tonight? Why is this issue brought up now?—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 05:10, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that the user had been indefinitely blocked when I posted this TfD notice to his or her talk page. The only thing that happened while you were offline tonight was me becoming utterly confused. Would you please unblock Mac and leave a note at his or her talk page? I do not think that an indefinite block was warranted. --Iamunknown 05:16, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Right now I'm searching through my deletion log to see what I had done that night to refresh my memory of the block.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 05:17, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see something in the deleted history of Research and development and innovation that more than likely lead to the block, however I cannot recall why I had done so. I'll lift the block.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 05:22, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. --Iamunknown 05:35, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Ryulong. I am concerned about your remarks on User:Titan124's user talk page regarding his block and vandalism tonight. While I support your decision in blocking him, I think you handled it incivily and bit the newbie a little. I would just kindly ask that in the future, even if it is a blatant vandal, please hold yourself professionally. Thanks :). Kntrabssi 06:03, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He is not a newbie. He has an established account and should not be handled lightly.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 06:46, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I see it, he has made a total of 30 edits. He also seems to have made quality edits, with a single excpetion, up until March. At that point he made a total of 5 disruptive edits, none of which he was warned for. He replaced two pages with pro-Colbert statements and you blocked him. This doesn't seem to assume good faith to me. Ask yourself, if I brought this guy to AIV with no warnings, a total of two disruptive edits in the past two months and asked for an indefinite block with no chance of unblocking, would they comply? Unless I missed some kind of rule change in how we hand vandalism, blocks should be preventative and not punative. The majority of this users edits had, in fact, been good edits, until recently. I'm going to ask, again, that you seriously reconsider the conclusion you've come to. Thanks :-).— Preceding unsigned comment added by Kntrabssi (talk • contribs)

Colbert vandalism is given zero tolerance.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 00:58, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Those of us who were working to fight off all the vandalism during the spree that followed the show's airing are truly able to assess the damage that a gang of unchecked hooligans can cause. I support Ryulong's position to not unblock this user at this time. When the talk page block expires, we can see how contrite they are, but for now, I see no reason to change position. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 03:12, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I had not, until now, read anything regarding Colbert vandalism, so I thank you for that. Secondly, I would like to say that I was not asking for you to unblock Titan124, but that you reconsider using the word idiotic, as it not only contributes no a negative environment, but also doesn't assume good faith. I fought a lot of vandalism on the Virginia Tech massacre article when the whole situation went down, so I understand how frustrating throng vandalism can be. My best :-) Kntrabssi 18:15, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Ryulong, why are you delinking my user talk page?

Thanks,

Mathiastck 14:13, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was removing redlinks.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 00:57, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What speedy criterion are you using to delete things like Rocketfish and Double Redirect, please? I want to understand your methodology before I object. -- nae'blis 14:22, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was G3. I was cleaning up after the user who contacted me above because he was rapidly creating redirects that were getting disruptive.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 00:52, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

G3 is untenable for things that actually help the encyclopedia, like subscription and Easylist. Please refrain from being so hasty, something I notice you were criticized for in your successful RFA (by me, among others). Remember that what you may consider disruptive may simply be a lack of experience. I have restored some of the more blatantly encyclopedic redirects that you deleted, please review your own list if you get the chance. -- nae'blis 15:34, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you revert my move without discussion? Your preferred title isn't even consistent with Enthalpy of fusion, which by the way references this as Heat of vaporization. The way, the truth, and the light 02:01, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First, the name you chose used incorrect terminology (you used "evaporation" when it should be "vaporization"). Where the page is right now is the scientifically correct term for the process. However, the titles do need to be consistent, but I will need a physics textbook to tell what's right and wrong.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 02:05, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Google shows only a 4:1 ratio for 'heat vapori(z/s)ation' over 'heat of evaporation', so my terminology can't be called wrong: at most less preferred. At least 'heat of evaporation' should exist as a redirect, which it didn't before my move. Aren't article titles supposed to be the most common name, not necessarily the scientifically correct one? The way, the truth, and the light 02:13, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In my University Physics lecture this past semester, it was taught as "vaporization." It was taught the same in high school chemistry and physics for me. And "Heat of evaporation" exists as a redirect now. However, I've moved the page to Enthalpy of vaporization and now I have to do some fixing.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 02:15, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK for now. The way, the truth, and the light 02:16, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't consider you a sysop (as you had to ask a 'crat to promote you...) Ask someone who I do consider a sysop to ask me politely. Matthew 17:09, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew - would you please say who leaked the log to you? As Ryulong explained, the channel is used to discuss very sensitive BLP issues, and leaking its contents really is a big problem for the encyclopedia. Phil Sandifer 17:47, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The user was blocked, but why did you remove the section at ANI? Cool Blue^{talk to me} 00:40, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:DENY—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 00:41, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I came across this unblock request that you declined, which occured in Novemeber of 2006. According to this link, you did not become an administrator until January of this year. Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't that falsely implying that you had admin. powers, to delcine an unblock request while you were not technically an admin.?(I've made comments on their talk page when some had made an unblock request, but I didn't decline, nor approve them on their talk page.)--Wikipedier is now U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. 01:04, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely not. I cleared the unblock logs when I was not an admin, and that user was a sockpuppet of someone who has been trolling Khoikhoi for some time now.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 01:09, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

very interesting. I don't know of what unblock logs that you are refering to.Special:ipblocklist and Special:Log/block are the ones that I know of. I'll take your word for it.--Wikipedier is now U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. 01:13, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CAT:RFU—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 01:14, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So in other words, non-administrators were able to unblock users that were blocked aswell. Who knew?--Wikipedier is now U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. 01:17, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In general, non-admins should not "decline" unblock requests, though they are free to comment on such requests, but this matter was fully discussed at the time of Ryulong's RfA, so I submit that there is little point in pursuing it now, some four months later. Newyorkbrad 01:25, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ryulong, please accept my most sincere apologies for that mistake.--Wikipedier is now U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. 01:45, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Peguinman how did you get youre userboxes to scrool? Anubiz 16:02, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I also want to know how to make a userbox to scroll, because I want to do that to my own userbox. Look, now my userpage is f***ed up! So I have to put a scroll to my userbox to overcome the mess... --Edmundkh 17:20, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Check the code of User:Ryulong/Userboxtop and User:Ryulong/Userboxes—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 23:02, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The code has a disclamer, dos that mean you will not let us have scrrolling boxes? Anubiz 00:20, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What the hell are you talking about?—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 00:22, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you can see this message, then Ryulong's user page was transcluded (or transcluded then substituted) somewhere other than his user page. This page was never meant to be transcluded anywhere else on Wikipedia. As such, please deal with the user who decided to transclude it by blocking him as an impersonator

That. Anubiz 01:57, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Copy the other code, then.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 02:06, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for providing the code. But now, I would like to make my Babel box to be also able to scroll. But I still want it to look like the original one, just only adding a scroll to it. Do you know how to do it? I don't want my babel box to look like the other userboxes of mine. --Edmundkh 16:48, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's a bit more difficult. It would be easier to use just the userboxes and apply them as I had.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 21:19, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK nevermind, anyway thank you very much for helping, and I would turn to Misza13 instead... --Edmundkh 05:42, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's obivous that Deneb is the Imagin used by Zeronos. Epecially with the pix of Zeronos "Vega" form.

Zeronos & Deneb "Vega-form" Vega-form 2

Fractyl 23:07, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is obvious, but we must wait until it is explicitly stated.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 23:12, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the Zeroliner Cars had been identified with new pictures. Fractyl 21:50, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

True, but we have identification without them.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 22:18, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes you may (or you can wait for the long message to WP:TV). Matthew 06:15, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sure thing bro. Because they're disputed and done without consensus (evidenced by the fact multiple users have opposed him). The user can use AfD if they so please. Matthew 06:17, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps. It's a good idea actually -- we've had so many discussions all over that it's become messy. Matthew 06:21, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You said that there was no reason to delete Image:Skyfire-satellite.jpg. I thought that re-uploading images that had been deleted was not allowed? This image was originally uploaded by the same user as File:Skyfire-satelliteofdoom.jpg -- JediLofty ^{User ¦ Talk} 14:36, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have posted a compromise to the issues in the Talk:Regina Neighbourhoods. It is my hope that this will lead to a solution over the disputed figures and edits. I also hope that this will eliminate future accusations as to my identity and/or relation to other banned users. I would appreciate that you read over the compromise and comment on it. I just want to find a solution, that will satisfy all parties.--207.81.56.49 07:28, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ryulong, I understand we haven't had the best relationship, but as a genuine member of this community, I'm going to assume your good faith: look closely. What is happening here has been happening for a long time, it is a very big deal, and it is completely unacceptable.Proabivouac 09:31, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's being dragged out to an extent which is now ridiculous. CatchFork was using an open proxy, and nothing can be proven from Poindexter.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 09:33, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I should also add that I have no particular sympathy for Mr. Merkey, except one: he is a real person operating under his real name, and per BLP and common decency we shall not allow WIkipedia to become a forum for his slander (read the thread, overt threats against his bio which Jimbo had to step in to stop before) and harassment.

I will rest when the ring is busted, and all the attack socks are indef blocked. I've notified Jimbo, and I will soon notify Brad Patrick and the Arbitration Committee. If they all blow it off, then by all means archive it. I'm not going to sit here and do nothing while a living person (however eccentric he may be) is subjected to coordinated attack on and from Wikipedia.Proabivouac 09:41, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this is the reincarnation of Uga Man but I come with a different message. I am sorry to you and to the entire wikipedia community because I now see that what I did was wrong. It was all just immaturity on my part and I have to learn from experiences like this to grow up. I have no plans to destroy wikipedia and I hope that no one else does. I wish everybody here good luck and I hope that the growth of wikipedia continues. Just remember that sockpuppets are people too, they have family, friends, and feelings just like the rest of you. We aren't criminals or thugs but just misguided individuals that want to stir up problems and cause confrontation. I apologize whole heartedly and just wish that I will get forgiveness even though I don't expect it.--209.244.187.183 16:51, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Noticing your comments on User:Hotwiki's talk page about not being able to display non-free images or audio files in userspace, I would just like to know if it's still acceptable to link to the image/audio description pages such as Image:Foo.jpg and Image:Bar.ogg. — AnemoneProjectors (zomg!) 19:23, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Those are allowed, as far as I know.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 20:30, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shorten by summary more. Plus, the Ringi should be kept as it was a major one in the plot. Plus, if Gekiwazas gets info provided, the non-important Ringi deserve it too. Fractyl 20:59, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, but don't use "kodou"—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 20:59, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While I was in term like Geki & Rinki, but I'll hold it off. Fractyl 21:03, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New pix, the new Fist Saint is said to be named "Sharkie Chan", but I'll keep they under my hat.

Gekijuu Shark-Fist Master GekiSaber GekiShark GekiSharkTohja

Fractyl 21:03, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see you caught him already.. Guess we're going to have to lock down those five articles for longer.. I'll add him to the open IP Check. SirFozzie 23:40, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And back again... One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 00:03, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Run for adminship already so you can kill them yourself.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 00:04, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're the fifth person to suggest that! Sadly I'll decline still, my time is best spent improving the Irish republicanism articles that are in a poor state after being neglected for far too long. There's not many editors improving them, and if I spent my time blocking vandals, protecting pages and the link that would be less time to improve articles. Thanks. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 00:09, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It'll make everyone's lives easier.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 00:10, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly, but I still don't think I'm admin material and I know sufficient other people will share that view to make it a waste of time trying. I don't think a nom where I promise to only use the admin tools against JB196 sockpuppets would succeed either.... One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 00:16, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We need more admins, and we need more dedicated ones. I think you'd be good as one of them. And you can ID these socks fast.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 00:17, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll think about it, just need to finish getting an article I've been working on up to GA class first. And to be fair he did tell us exactly what to expect. Based on his previous pattern of behaviour, anyone should be able to see that a new account suddenly adding links to those five articles in the space of a minute is a clear sock. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 00:33, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If it's any solace (and it's probably not), I plan on working the next few months towards getting my mop, not just for JB, but for all the spills and "fun" that admins have to go through on a daily basis :) SirFozzie 01:09, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) Ferryut (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is the latest.

Hi Fi Dorado (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) newest one. Gee isn't this fun? (rolls eyes) SirFozzie 02:35, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm done with him for the night.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 02:36, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks. Your work is appreciated SirFozzie 02:37, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I was trying to revert the edits of the banned user too, but my dyslexia flaired up or something and I read the edits backwards, reverting your's instead. My mistake. I've fixed it. Nikki311 01:08, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Surely you mean "lysdexia"—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 01:58, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Last post. –– Lid^(Talk) 03:22, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah yeah yeah. I got tired of reverting. I'll get a decent amount of edits to finish up for the night.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 03:28, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hiya. Could you leave a note informing User:Horhay Sanchez that you've permanantly extended his block? I told him it was temporary, so I don't want us to look dishonest. Thanks! --Masamage ♫ 04:08, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! --Masamage ♫ 04:21, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Ryulong, CyclePat doesn't seem to be baking down he wrote this essay which has the same wording as his "complant" against me and the EA that he posted several times on various Wikipedia pages. If you can do anything about thi sthat would be great also I have started a user conduct RfC on him as a direct result of this essay (since he will not assume good faith, keeps making point issues and I'm taking this also as harassment against myself and the WP:EA). Thanks Æon ^{Insanity Now!} 06:24, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Ryulong, should I keep the RfC going or should I back off? Æon ^{Insanity Now!} 06:30, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let it go on.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 06:43, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Roger that, didn't want it to go that far the the essay really did it for me....sigh oh well thanks for your help. Hopefully it will end the matter and we can all move on to something more productive, like an article. Æon ^{Insanity Now!} 06:45, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How long should it be? What is the maximum character limit? - Bagel7^{What ya say,} _{what ya say,} ^{what ya say,} _what??? 07:19, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]