User talk:Ryulong

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: June 2024 7 Friday 5:24 am EST
Archives
2—6/06 7/06 8/06 9/06 10/06 11/06 12/06 1/07 2/07 3/07 4/07 5/07 6/07 7/07 8/07 9/07 10/07 11/07 12/07 1/08 2/08 3/08 4/08 5/08 6/08 7/08 8/08 9/08 10/08 11/08 12/08 1/09 2/09 3/09 4/09 5/09 6/09 7/09 8/09 9/09 10/09 11/09 12/09 1/10 2/10 3/10 4/10 5/10 6/10 7/10 8/10 9/10 10/10 11/10 12/10 1/11 2/11 3/11 4/11 5/11 6/11 7/11 8/11 9/11 10/11 11/11 12/11 1/12 2/12 3/12 4/12 5/12 6/12 7/12 8/12 9/12 10/12 11/12 12/12 1/13 2/13 3/13 4/13 5/13 6/13 7/13 8/13 9/13 10/13 11/13 12/13 1/14 2/14 3/14 4/14 5/14 6/14 7/14 8/14 9/14 10/14 11/14 12/14 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

---

Canvassing

I didn't realize that inviting editors to review something they had an interest in was against policy. My reading of Wikipedia:Canvassing doesn't convince me you are right. In any case, I won't ask any more of the concerned editors to contribute. Lentower 04:04, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

It's just something that's questionable. This thing does not need to be sent to a sixth AFD or another DRV if consensus is skewed or whatnot.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 04:05, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Looking over the list of those you notified (though only in a cursory fashion) it seemed to me that you were only notifying those that indicated that the article should be kept. Is this accurate? --Eyrian 12:43, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

It's still an issue, and take this to his talk page.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 20:51, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Indefinite blocks

In the past hour or so you blocked two accounts indefinitely that appeared to be editing in good faith: User:Xterra1 and User:Civilwarguy. The former had been making a number of typo fixes before he left a foolish comment on your user talk page, but you blocked citing, "Vandalism only account," which was simply false. The latter appeared to be a newbie creating a page about a relation who served in the Civil War or something, but you blocked indefinitely citing a hoax without leaving that user any sort of warning. I'd just like to urge you to keep in mind WP:AGF, WP:BITE, and our blocking policy. Andre (talk) 04:57, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

The latter was most definitely hoaxing (google shows nothing). The former is still questionable.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 05:07, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Um, let me point out that Xterra1 had no vandal edits, so it is not a matter of debate whether it was a vandal account or not. I think you should apologize to that user, who I imagine is going to feel quite severely bitten if you don't. Everyking 05:42, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

If Xterra1 requests an unblocking, I will not question his unblocking. I just saw a strange edit from him on my talk.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 05:45, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Andrevan already unblocked Xterra. Everyking 05:49, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

And I won't be reblocking.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 05:51, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

That's good. But the point is that you blocked in the first place, apparently without even looking at the account's edits, based on a "strange" comment on your talk admonishing you for some comment you're supposed to have made. Don't you think there's something wrong with that? Everyking 05:56, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I get harassed by sockpuppets all the time. I thought the user in question was one of them.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 06:20, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I think something's seriously wrong with the way you've handled the Xterra1 situation. You're right that the Civilwarguy article and picture look really fake, and I'm not here to advocate leniency for hoaxers, so I'll pick my battles about that one. But there's no way you should have blocked Xterra1, there is NO way you should have blocked him forever, and there is CERTAINLY no way you should be standing by that block now that two users have called it to your attention and expressed disapproval. I don't mean to "shout" or be overly forceful, but I think this kind of behavior is a huge problem and goes way beyond an admin's mandate from the community. Andre (talk) 08:39, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I was second guessing myself with Xterra1 immediately after I had blocked him. I discussed the matter privately with another administrator, and after that discussion I decided that if Xterra1 were to be unblocked, I wouldn't fight it. However, Civilwarguy was brought up separately, and after a quick google search that showed no results, I blocked for hoaxing.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 08:58, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand why you haven't yet apologized to this user. Andre (talk) 16:09, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I do not see why it is imperative that I do.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 20:51, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Because when you violate WP:BITE, you apologize. That's the civil thing to do. Andre (talk) 22:26, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I've blocked him again for harassing me. I've nothing to apologize for now.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 22:27, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I've unblocked him. This is ridiculous - you are far from impartial. I think Andre is right - this could have been avoided if you'd apologise. Your original block was in violation of WP:BITE and WP:BLOCK and you seem to have acknowledge it was a mistake. When we screw up we apologise, no big deal. The user wouldn't have come round here to object to your conduct had you apologised. I still think you should do so though I will ask him to stop posting to your page. Your conduct in this matter has been unbelievable. WjBscribe 22:31, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I completely agree. Andre (talk) 22:34, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I removed it, indirectly asking him to change his tone. Right now, I'm working on an article. And I should hope I am not right at a checkuser request I have placed.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 22:45, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Surprised you'd delete a polite comment from a fellow admin. The Rambling Man 23:18, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't sure if it was related to the IP's comments or just a comment from one admin to another. I apologize.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 23:19, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

No bother. I can see this situation getting out of hand so all I'd suggest is a moment of contemplation. Cheers. The Rambling Man 23:20, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Right.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 23:22, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Many thanks

Thanks for the revert to my talk page. I see the anon has been given 72 hours to ponder the answer to the question as to why I reverted their edit to WP:V! Cheers, Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 07:22, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Not if he keeps coming back on new IPs. I really don't want to block Auckland. I may have already pissed off Toronto tonight.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 07:29, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Undelete

Hi, I would like you to undelete the Brier logos you deleted, and place this rationale on their pages:

Though this image is subject to copyright, I feel its use is covered by the U.S. fair use laws because:

• The image is only being used for informational purposes.
• The image adds significantly to the Brier XXXX article because it is used to identify the subject of the article.
• No free equivalent is available or could be created since this is a copyrighted logo.

Thanks, -- Earl Andrew - talk 08:04, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

You are free to reupload them and add that yourself.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 08:06, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Recall

I do like you as an editor, but I been looking though logs and I seen many situations of WP:BITE, and the way you handled the User:Xterra1 situation is the final straw. The main reason why you passed your RFA is because you promised to stop biting the newbies, in which you did, but lately it been out of control. I ask you to step down. Thanks Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 23:27, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I do not see this as an issue right now that requires any removal of administrative privileges.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 23:28, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Lets see if four other editors in good faith agrees, there is many invalid blocks you did in the past week alone. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 23:30, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Jaranda. I think you do a lot of good work here, but recent events and your unwillingness to apologize for admitted wrongdoing are very worrisome. You should endeavor to make far-reaching changes to your demeanor and behavior, or step down. In the future, I am sure the community will support a new RfA once you've shown you will not repeat the same mistakes. Andre (talk) 23:31, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

While it's unpleasant, I'd like to be the second(ec) third editor to request your recall. Nothing personal, but your handling of some of these recent issues seems worthy of further discussion. It is without prejudice that I add this request, I hope that open, transparent discussion clears the situation up. All the best. The Rambling Man 23:33, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Here's my problem with this recall business. It's a bit vague. I mean. Ryulong isn't undergoing an active Request for Comment. Or any other Request for X that I can see in regards to his behavior. As admins, we do alot of controversial work. It just doesn't take much to alarm 5 other users. Yes, I realize that Ryulong opened himself up to recall voluntarily. But I'd like to see some sort of formal action outside of "hey, you should step down". Does his actions warrant a AN or AN/I discussion? Probably. But just asking him to step down without really any discussion specifically regarding his recall is a little overboard to me. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 23:41, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

While I respect your work in general, Ryu, some of these recent blocks have been troubling. I disagree that this isn't an issue. I don't want you hounded off the project, or even deadminned, but a reexamination is in order. I'm not requesting your recall at this point, but to my mind more of an answer is in order. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 23:36, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry Ryulong, I agree with Jaranda, Andre and The Rambling Man. You have continued to show the failings that resulted in the heavy opposition to your RfA. You bite newbies, generally don't give warnings and shoot first. You assume the very worst of new editors and the consequences are bad for the Wiki when you do so. Your failures to apologise when you have been wrong only compound this. You are highly active and most of your admin actions are correct, however the number of mistakes are way too high - many of which we will never know about because editors just give up editing the project. This a collaborative project based on a community. You are way too ready to jump to block and deletion before trying other softer options and in my opinion that can only harm the project. I had hoped given the circumstances of your RfA you would show extra caution but you have not done so and in my opinion are becoming increasingly cavalier as time has passed. If you are not willing to undertake a radical change in your conduct to address these problems, I also believe you should step down. WjBscribe 23:38, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I've been working on articles and some non Wikipedia things. I've apologized to Xterra1, but the IP user's constant repostings was wearing on my nerves (as were Xterra1's). I'm willing to work on my "bedside" manner.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 23:42, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Bedside manner and the trigger-happiness? Questions asked and warnings given before blocks in future? WjBscribe 23:44, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Indeed.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 23:44, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

OK. In that case I think recall's unnecessary at this stage. You do achieve a lot on the "front line" of dealing with abusive editors and I'm sure its easy to lose focus. Hopefully a more cautious approach in future will avoid these issues coming up again. And I appreciate the fact you apologised to Xterra1. WjBscribe 23:50, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I'm glad you apologized to Xterra. I'll take a step back on the recall thing for a while, and provided you take our criticisms seriously and work on them, we won't need to bring it up again. Andre (talk) 23:50, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Just no more blocks that violate WP:BITE, consider this recall closed, and I hope you learn your lesson. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 23:55, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I'll try to pay attention to such incidents.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 23:57, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

And if you need any guidance or assistance, let me know. You don't have to tackle it all alone if you aren't up to it for whatever reason. I know how stressful vandal fighting can be. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 11:06, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I'll second that sentiment. The Rambling Man 11:23, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Kamen Rider

Ah ok. I admit that I'm not real familiar with it. I will say that I made 500 edits last night involving template candidates. Screwing up on 6 ain't bad. :) --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 23:34, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, it was in a manga, but the primacy of the templates were not serialized as such (as far as I know).—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 23:54, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Ah ok. As for "Ranger". :) I think I put the Power Rangers templates under children's tv (article said it was considered children's tv) and sci fi. Think that's right. It's fuzzy on some of these. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 09:14, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Well {{Gekiranger}}, {{Boukenger}}, etc. aren't anime or manga.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 09:15, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Yep. Just saw that I had misunderstood. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 09:16, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

10 wrong out of 500 isn't bad, though :P—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 09:18, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

And it's more than that now. :) I deserve a cookie. :) Got Category:Television show navigational boxes from 400+ articles down to about 40 in about 24 hours. And created many subcats. And unfortunately, lots of work to go. Alai did a database dump and discovered thousands and thousands of templates with no cat on them. Page is so long that it makes my Firefox crash. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 09:23, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Re:User:Grandya Logan

I noticed you filed a sockpuppet report for this user and I thought you should know that User:Grandva Logan(temp blocked user) was editing the same articles yesterday until they got blocked. I thought that it wasn't just a coincidence in the names( obviously the user made another account but slightly edited the name) but the article List of Darkwing Duck episodes they are editing. If you look at the edit history of this article, you will notice User:Grandya Logan and User:Grandva Logan made the exact same edits (simply reverting the last edit). Angel Of Sadness ^T/C 23:51, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

So, is it Danny Daniel or is it just Grandva Logan?—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 23:55, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I think Grandva Logan could be yet another sock of Daniel like Grandya. I mean the edits and names between them aren't just a coincidence. Angel Of Sadness ^T/C 00:01, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

But the issue is, should Grandva be reblocked for block evasion or should he be reblocked as a Danny Daniel sock?—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 00:06, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Blocked first for block evasion for definate. But if it turns out that they're all the same person reblock as Danny Daniel sock. Currently Grandya isn't blocked just accused of sockpupppetry, as you know. That's the sock trying to get away. Angel Of Sadness ^T/C 00:12, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Uhh, your edit count on your userpage...?

Hey! You didn't make 58000 edits! Or did you use another edit count tool? -- Altiris Exeunt 01:42, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I knew it was coming up, but I didn't check that in a while.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 01:47, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Template: Power Rangers

Hi, Ryulong. I have bad news: the Template:Power Rangers, in the Spanish Wikipedia was deleted. I will try to reconstruct it, although I fear that it is deleted again. Kamen Rider Nigo (Can I help you?) 13:26, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Im Sorry, but I can´t recontruct the template. Kamen Rider Nigo (Can I help you?) 15:32, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

That's okay. Also, you can link to your pages at es like I do with my English pages there.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 20:51, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

WP:POKE is doing some housecleaning

This notice is to inform you that because many people have added their names to Wikipedia:WikiProject Pokémon#Participants but do not seem to be active, all names are being deleted in an effort to find out who is still truly interested in the project. All you have to do is re-add your name if you'd still like to be considered a member of WP:POKE. Any questions, you can contact me on my talk page. -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 17:45, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

That's really pointless.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 18:31, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

YourLord

By any chance, will the lack of warnings to editors that have been banned nullify their conviction? User: YourLord is still blocked, even though he has showed remorse for his actions and has actively tried to relieve his block. Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 18:50, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

No. YourLord could have requested an unblock, but he did not and instead the two of you spent your time chatting on his talk page. I was notified of this and took the proper action. YourLord was recreating content that had been deleted many times before. There is no reason he should be unblocked after this short lived action. If you are still in contact with him, you can tell him to contact a proper channel.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 18:58, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Yet again, you digress from my main point. You never gave him a warning — which is my main point. He did try and appeal the block. He tried the channel that you suggested but it was ignored. I was overlooking your talk page and noticed maybe there was an injustice considering your previous conduct. No, I'm not still in contact with him. Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 19:03, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Furthermore, as mentioned above, you:

a) Didn't provide a warning

b) Were overly harsh (WP:BITE) on a new user

c) An all-new category — led him down an appealing avenue that is malfunctioning/inactive/incompetent.

Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 19:36, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

YourLord was violating policy, and those categories that he had created had been deleted. My block reasoning was spelled out completely. If he wanted to be unblocked, he should have used {{unblock}} which is explicitly spelled out on the page when you are blocked but try to edit. Instead, he used his talk page to chat with you, which is against policy. I told you a while ago that if you are still in contact with him, tell him to e-mail mail:unblock-en-l and they will deal with it. I gave him two months to request that himself through the venues I have explained here, but you are the only one I have seen actively calling for his unblocking. If YourLord wants to be unblocked, he can ask other administrators.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 19:45, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Hmph. To clarify, I haven't called for him to be unblocked here. I've asked about the lack of warning, plus the e-mail thing which was ignored. You haven't responded on either. He was violating policy. Talking with me was violating policy (which I regret). I feel that this discussion isn't going anywhere. This wasn't just a sporadic appeal for YourLord (or an appeal at all). I was just wondering about how the issues raised by the admins above relates to YourLord. Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 20:05, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

The short thing is that they may, but there is no retroactive action going to take place.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 20:07, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, I wish you well over this admin thing. Maybe it's a blessing in disguise and you'll become a better admin out of it (no sarcasm intended). Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 20:15, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Don't count on this. There was a lot of similar cases in the past, and it seems Ryulong is not able to positively change his abuisve behaviour, apparently... 82.80.248.176 22:40, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Mighty Morphin Power Rangers The Movie

Are you going to be unlocking the page for Mighty Morphin Power Rangers: The Movie anytime soon? I was going to help take care of some of the trivia by adding some additional sections. One of which would be Adaptation In Other Media which would be for the mentioned video games and comic adaptation. 71.115.195.228 06:52, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

WP:ATRIV, and there are still issues with an editor who has blanked that page in the past.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 07:21, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Which is why I was looking to edit the trivia. I thought up three sections that would remedy it, such as:

• Behind The Scenes
• Adaptations In Other Media
• Changes to the Title

Any idea when you would lift the block? 71.115.195.228 08:05, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 09:01, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Den-O vs. Shin-O

Seeing some of the pics, it's clear that we got a "Monkey Imagin" as a villian.Fractyl 20:20, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't see anything like that. It's written in kanji that I haven't been able to really decipher yet. It's Shin-chan's mother as the Imagin.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 21:24, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Where are these pics? Maybe I can help decipher them. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 07:22, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I'll try to find them. I know that I saw it written as "Sandenban" or something in katakana. I'm not sure on that.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 07:49, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Ah, it's サンダンバライマジン. I'll see if I can get the kanji that I saw for it.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 07:51, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

三段腹イマジン—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 07:52, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I got "サンダンバライマジン=Sandanhara Imajin". Fractyl 08:07, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, but that means "Three-Leveled Ass Imagin".—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 08:09, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Red Ranger article image...

Ahem, I noticed you reverted my edit earlier, wherein I changed the image of the Red Turbo Ranger, to one of the 10 Red Rangers of Forever Red (which couldn't be more fitting, if you ask me, but regardless). If you don't feel like using that image, fine, but at least use an image of a Red Ranger that was a bit more influential. Tommy's portrayal as the Red Turbo Ranger was arguably his least memorable form, he played a much more significant role as Zeo Ranger V - Red. And T.J. wasn't exactly the greatest Red Ranger in the world. But beyond that, the image itself, while a cool pose, isn't of very high quality; it's relatively degraded, in fact.

My point being... if you want to use a different image than the one I added, then use one of Andros, or Tommy, or something in that general area. Personally this image strikes me as perfect for that particular article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Redzeotommy.jpg It's memorable, of high quality, and so on. --156.34.78.91 02:38, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Quality is not a question, rather the usability of the image. We don't need to show every Red Ranger to describe what one is. We just need a singular picture, and the Red Turbo Ranger image fulfills this and has the proper rationale on its image page.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 03:12, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

True, true. However as important as usability is, is presentation not a concern as well? It may not be of the largest importance, but having an article look nice via the images within said article should also be a factor. If nothing else, perhaps we can find a higher quality (but still low enough for Wikipedia, obviously) image for the article. An image to strike the proper balance, if you will. As which Red Ranger is used doesn't really matter, I'm going to change the image to Zeo Ranger V - Red, as it has a nicer level of visual quality. --156.34.78.97 20:25, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Visual quality is not really something we're looking for either. It's encyclopedic value and I was trying to avoid using the same character or season for all of the pages (Tommy as the Black Ranger in Dino Thunder is on Black Ranger).—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 20:57, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Hm, you have a good point there. But couldn't Turbo Red be taken as Tommy as well? By the way, I've been trying to track down a better quality image of the Red Turbo Ranger, it's surprisingly difficult.

Wait a minute, what the hell? Why are you reverting all of my edits? The yellow mystic force image is AWFUL. It's compeltely degraded and has the the Jetix watermark for god's sake! And not only that, but yellow rangers are typically female, so it's more suitable to have that section represented by a female yellow ranger. The green S.P.D. Ranger picture is a terrible shot as well. And the keeping Blue MMPR Ranger flies in the face of what you just said above about having different eras and rangers representing different colors. What exactly is your problem? I made no negative changes and have been nothing but polite. And yet you continue to undo all of my hard work, for NO REASON. --156.34.76.4 22:27, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Yellow Mystic Force shows that it's a Power Rangers picture and not a Sentai picture (also it was replaced by a Yellow Overdrive image on the same page). MMPR Blue and MMPR White are different from each other (different source material). As I said, we're not looking for the quality of the image but for how it contributes to the encyclopedic value of the page it is added to.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 22:29, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm aware of what you're looking for. But the yellow mystic Ranger is no more encyclopedic than the yellow overdrive Ranger. I'm trying to beautify the pages, as well as keep them accurate. Half of these images are completely atrocious. I mean look at the image of the Alien Rangers, it's just two sentai shots pasted together, rather badly. As for the sentai shots versus PR shots, does it really matter in a lot of cases? It was merely a solo shot. It wasn't exactly like you could see sentai characters in the background drinking sake.

In addition to that, your comments are somewhat contradictory. You say you don't want the images to be alike, but then you have two MMPR era Rangers representing two separate colors (blue and white). And then you say you don't want the images to all be Tommy, but if you notice you have the Red Turbo Ranger for red (who may or may not be Tommy in that shot), the Black Dino Ranger for black, and the White MMPR Ranger for white; all of whom are Tommy.

I'm trying to fix up these articles so that they don't look visually bad. I know that's not important to you, but often when people go onto an article they'll be put off by shabby looking images. Essentially, I'm trying to catch people's eye, so that they stick around and don't just write it off as a crappy article due to poor visual representations of the subject-matter. --156.34.76.4 22:39, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

But images are secondary to article content. Visually appealing images aren't what we need. Images that serve the purpose of the encyclopedic value of the article are.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 23:12, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Ah yes, but exactly, that was my point. What I've been trying to say is this: "Why can't it be both?". Why do we have to choose between encyclopedic and visually appealing? There are plenty of images out there that can do both of those things for an article. Which, in essence, is what I've been trying to get at all along. I'm not arguing against encyclopedic, that's a must. I'm merely saying that we can easily have the best of both worlds with little to no effort. I think a perfect example is the Tommy Oliver article; most of the images look fantastic AND they properly represent the article's source material. --156.34.88.130 23:25, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

It could be both. Just try and keep a balance among them (we don't really have any other "Yellow Ranger" pictures that I know of...). I apologize for my workings.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 23:48, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

As do I, what I mean is, I probably should have consulted you, or at least the talk page, before assuming my changes would be welcomed with open arms. And actually, you probably didn't notice (as it was relatively subtle), but I was trying to strike multiple balances at once. I was trying to keep a balance between seasons, characters, gender, and Disney & Saban eras. Trying to make sure there wasn't too many of any particular one represented in the various colors. --156.34.67.4 00:04, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Gender is something difficult, considering the lack of balance between such in the source material. But there is probably another Yellow Ranger to use.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 00:09, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Which is actually why I went after PROO's yellow. I was looking for a yellow ranger in keeping with the Disney era image standard of that article (ala the PRMF yellow Ranger image), while also finding a ranger who was definitively female (IE: a skirt). Because as you know, many female yellow Rangers are adapted from male counterparts. My first thought was Kira/Yellow Dino Ranger, given that she has such a strong presence in the series... but given that DinoThunder is already represented by Tommy/Dino Black, I went on the hunt.

Anyways, I digress... it's actually been relatively difficult finding a higher quality image of OO yellow. The one I used earlier wasn't one I wanted to use, but it was the clearest shot I could find. I'll see what I can come up with though. --156.34.72.53 00:26, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, you could...

1. Download the version of PROO Yellow that was uploaded over PRMF yellow
2. Register
3. Upload the PROO Yellow seperate
4. Replace it in Yellow Ranger
5. Place {{subst:orfud}} in PRMF Yellow
6. Use a proper fair use rationale on PROO Yellow

—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 00:46, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Hm? Oh, ha, I thought it was obvious, I'm already registered. I'm Venomaru 2.0, the one who uploaded the images to begin with. I just don't log in unless I have to (for uploading images, etc etc), as it's just easier not to. I was mistaken in uploading said images though. I had assumed that you could upload any given image to replace a previous one. For example, I thought that the picture of S.P.D. Green could be replaced with any given image of of the same character, as long as it was, as mentioned, of that same character. --156.34.72.53 00:59, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh. It's better to upload other images and have the older ones deleted.—Ryūlóng (竜龍)

I'll keep that in mind. While we're on the topic I'll run my plans by you. I'd like to full-on replace that image of Turbo Red, for reasons I mentioned above. I was thinking of using one of Andros/Red Space Ranger, but if that's not suitable then at the very least we I'm trying to find a better quality picture of Turbo Red. Then there's the Yellow Ranger image, you know all about that. And I was also thinking of replacing that awful image of Galaxy Pink in the Pink Ranger article. Perhaps with one of Time Force Pink, or again, at the least, a better image. And of course, I'll be doing all of this as you suggested, by uploading them as separate images and replacing the links.

In addition to that, I've noticed a lot of character image doubles, of sorts, that I think should be replaced. Two examples come to mind: The Kimberly Hart and Kat Hillard articles both have different images of MMPR Pink, we really only need one that will work for both. And the Tommy and T.J. articles have two very different images of Turbo Red. --156.34.72.53 01:10, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I think the TJ article has an actual screencap from PRT...but I can't be sure. Fix whatever you think needs it.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 01:14, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Alright, the Yellow Ranger image is up, I found a new Turbo image for Tommy and T.J., and I put up the Red Space Ranger in place of the Red Turbo Ranger on the Red Ranger article. --Venomaru 2.0 15:48, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Also, as a suggestion, I personally think that Jen Scotts should be the image on the Pink Ranger article. Jen is one of the more influential Pink Rangers, as she is the first and only Pink Ranger to lead a Power Rangers team. ANDROS¹³³⁷ 17:16, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

That's actually one of my plans as well, I'm just trying to find a better image of Time Force Pink before I make the change. For a Ranger of her popularity, it's actually relatively difficult finding an image with a good pose and nice quality. --Venomaru 2.0 17:37, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, the images are not being used to depict a Pink Ranger. Jen is one of the atypical ones. And I was only using images that we had already onsite.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 21:00, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

The same could be said about Andros, who is from KO-35 and has telekinesis. Here is who I think should be on each article:

• Red Ranger - Andros
• Blue Ranger - Billy, T.J., or Sky Tate
• Green Ranger - Xander
• Black Ranger - Dr. Tommy Oliver
• Pink Ranger - Jen Scotts
• White Ranger - Tommy Oliver
• Yellow Ranger - Taylor would be a good one, but the current image is fine.

ANDROS¹³³⁷ 23:43, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

If you can find suitable images, then go ahead. I just think what we have here is better than finding new images.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 23:46, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Well we already have Andros, Billy, (Sky, while cool, isn't exactly an ideal candidate for legendary blue ranger), black is Tommy, white is Tommy, and I'm against putting Taylor in. Not because I have anything against the character, but because her costume isn't exactly feminine. The reason I chose Ronny is twofold: she has a feminine yellow ranger outfit, and because she's Disney era. We don't want to throw off the Disney to Saban ratio otherwise the articles might come off as somewhat Saban-biased.

If you want the honest truth, as much as I love Tommy and DinoThunder, I think Kira/Dino Yellow would be a much better choice for Yellow Ranger. She has a feminine costume and is Disney-era, not only that, but she has quite a fan following and has appeared in quite a few episodes (the entirety of PRDT, both S.P.D. team-up episodes, and both Once A Ranger episodes). But that would mean we'd need a new character for the Black Ranger article, which I'm fine with, but it all comes down to who. MMPR Black Zack/Adam is the obvious choice. But we already have Billy/MMPR Blue in the Blue Ranger article.

In closing, we get rid of Galaxy Pink in the Pink Ranger article, replace her with a nice quality image of Jen (I'm still searching), we replace OO Yellow with PRDT Yellow, PRDT Black with MMPR Black, and find a new Blue Ranger for Blue. Oh, and as for the Green Ranger, I'm with Bridge or Xander. I think Bridge is slightly more popular, but it doesn't throw off the Saban/Disney ratio, so either choice is fine. --156.34.65.22 01:10, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Once a Ranger episode

Why can't I add, notes and trivias to an episode that already aired. Countless of other episodes and team-ups episodes, have in them trivia, notes, and fun facts, about confirmed already seen facts? (DaPuertorican 15:54, 26 July 2007 (UTC))

Trivia is something we avoid in Wikipedia articles. See WP:ATRIV—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 20:56, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

As I can read on the WP:ATRIV, it is accepted to add notes and facts, it isn't accepted if the facts are invented, rumors or speculation. The facts I wrote in, are of an episode that already aired, and showed all this information to be true.

I just think, since this is a very important episode of the Power Ranger Saga, a 15th years anniversary episode, it should offer more information than the one already there. Just like the article on the episode Forever Red, even though it doesn't contains the words "TRIVIA" or "NOTES", it clearly have them in the words of "CRITICISM" and "POWER RANGER REFERENCES".(DaPuertorican 23:36, 26 July 2007 (UTC))

If you can source TV critics noting these references, then it can be included. I wasn't here when Forever Red was written, and I'll be perusing that page now.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 23:48, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Ok, then... I'll try to look for the notes and facts from trusted sites, and then reference them before adding them again, and I'll look for reference before posting next time. (DaPuertorican 18:30, 27 July 2007 (UTC))

Gekiranger 23-27

Translated those titles you posted.

• Lesson 23: Garin-Garin! The Brothers' Reunion
• Lesson 24: Jira-Jira Registration! A Great Flower's Petals
• Lesson 25: Hiba-Hiba! Gong ????
• Lesson 26: Zogu-Zogu! The Kenmas' Birth!
• Lesson 27: Kyara-ra!? Protector, Destoryer!

Fractyl 20:23, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Okay, let's see if they show up.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 20:57, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Protection for Theatre

Do you think we might take a chance and unprotect Theatre now? (You protected it in April.) I took a look at the history and there has not been an awful lot of editing since April. (I am an admin.) ●DanMS • Talk 01:27, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I think the page is no longer threatened. Go ahead.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 01:32, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

OK, will do. I did not want to start a wheel war, so I thought I would check with you. I am going to put it on my watch list also. ●DanMS • Talk 01:40, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

User Talk:66.253.177.76

User:66.253.177.76 continues to blank his user talk page to hide his history of vandalism. He is also committing personal attacks in the edit summaries of his page blankings. Perhaps he should be blocked from editing said talk page? -Interested2 11:26, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Smile!

Xterra1 has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

You're a cool New Yorker,if you don't mind me saying so!--Xterra1 15:24, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

User talk:Ryulong/Omi

Did you know you still have User talk:Ryulong/Omi? I thought you would have deleted it. Jay32183 01:35, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

It's only a redirect. I'll get to it once I'm done working on an article.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 01:37, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Gorilla Gekiwza

You can't translate "ゴリ" into "Gorilla", you only get "Gori". Plus it's Kata(like episode titles), so it's OK as it is. It also adds proof that Gekiwaza follow a "2-word" pattern like the episodes(except the 1st attacks by GekiPenguin & GekiGazelle). You can't count it just because Jan uses "Gori" to refer to "Gorilla". But I will add that bit of info to Gorrie's profile. Fractyl 02:39, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't know what to do with that, now. There is really no Japanese word for "gorilla," so "Gori-gori" is something that may mean "Gorilla" in English.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 03:38, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

No, that would be "Gorira". Plus, this furthers the fact that Gekiwazas ARE meant to have same "Word-Word" element as the episodes. Fractyl 04:54, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Smile

Connell66 has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Krimpet has passed you the WikiJoint! WikiJoints promote... uh... promote... help with... do... wiki... something... yeah... uh, what was I saying? WikiJoints help promote, uh, wiki stuff... and help with... {{subst:User:Krimpet/WikiJoint}}... huh?

Fair use rationale for Image:Billy-Pascal_J_Goldschmidt-Claud_Delorme-Sebastian.jpg

The above image has no fair use rationale. You should know what happens next... MER-C 11:21, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Personally don't care for that one...—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 21:01, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

If you have a minute...

Thanks for adding in the last bit of that tag. Anyway, was looking through your userboxes and came across one about Rouge Admin's. I read a little bit into it and I thought: "What is this crap? It must be a joke". Is it a joke or is it serious? Thanks in advance. Scarian^Talk 01:52, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

And, how sir, was I supposed to know that? When I see an anonymous I.P. changing a very large amount of spellings, does that look suspicious to you? Obviously, I am not familiar with that particular show or whatever it is. But I do know that I.P. addresses (and occasionally logged in users) do change minor things on purpose. And this seemed very suspicious because of the amount of changes there. If I am wrong, I am a human and humans make mistakes, do they not?. Do not have a go at me for trying to revert what I thought, at the time, was vandalism. Assume good faith on my behalf, please. And, please, do not threaten me with anything for trying to keep my eyes open for vandlism. And btw, 'crufting' is a term used by some veteran users for: "Purposeful degradation of articles". Thanks. Scarian^Talk 02:03, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

There was no such anonymous IP changing any amount of spellings on that page. I, in fact, wrote the bases of those summaries, and you were rolling back another user's edits, as well. You still need to watch what you do, and make sure you're not inadvertantly vandalizing and assuming bad faith, yourself.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 02:07, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Your block of Videmus Omnia

Hi. I saw your 48-hour block of this user (his talk seems to be on my watchlist, though I honestly don't remember why). This block is troubling in that there appears to have been no discussions with or warning of any kind given to this established user before the block. Am I missing something or might it have been better to discuss this user's image-tagging activities and your concerns about them with the user before blocking? Regards, Newyorkbrad 03:09, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

For the past 3 hours or so, Videmus Omnia has been going through the upload logs of NeoCoronis, Mike Halterman, and Alkivar, and tagging whatever inappropriate image he finds, and then proceeded to flood the three users' talk pages with the templates that go with the taggings. The disruption was ongoing, and to stop it, I blocked. I had read a message from Mike Halterman on VO's talk page, and thought it was related, and that was the warning.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 03:14, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

The comment from Mike H. was not related to this issue, and in any event even if there had been a complaint from the user whose images were being tagged, that is very different from a warning that an uninvolved administrator considers the tagging to be excessive and harassing. Please reevaluate the appropriateness of this block or consider posting it to ANI. Also, although completely inadvertent in on your part I am certain, you seem to have made quite a hash of this user's block log. Regards, Newyorkbrad 03:25, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Trying to work together a length that wasn't too lenient or too harsh. Will post to ANI, got distracted about that.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 03:29, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

The block was completely inappropriate. About harassment:

“ This does not include checking up on an editor to fix errors or violations of Wikipedia policy, nor does it mean reading a user's contribution log; those logs are public for good reason. ” — Wikipedia:Harassment#Wikistalking

--Abu badali ^(talk) 03:43, 29 July 2007 (UTC)