Jump to content

User talk:Ryulong: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 66: Line 66:
== Keepscases ==
== Keepscases ==


Just to let you know that this user has [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Keith_D&diff=prev&oldid=175977088 continued to ask inappropriate questions on RfAs] after your warning. I've warned him again (and this is several he received), and I'll be watchlisting his contributions.--[[User:U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A.|U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A.]] ([[User talk:U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A.|talk]]) 01:25, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Just to let you know that this user has [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Keith_D&diff=prev&oldid=175977088 continued to ask inappropriate questions on RfAs] after your warning. I've warned him again (and this is several he received), and I'll be watching his contributions.--[[User:U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A.|U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A.]] ([[User talk:U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A.|talk]]) 01:25, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Revision as of 01:32, 6 December 2007

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:
September 2024
Monday
6:43 am 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

87.254.68.249

87.254.68.249 (talk · contribs) requested an unblock. I'm still completing the port scan but it doesn't immediately look like an open proxy. May have been shut down in the last three days. Could you please reexamine and unblock if necessary? Thanks. --Yamla 22:41, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is one of the various IPs that have claimed to be Songgarden who has been disrupting the project by indirectly trolling Durova.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 04:14, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CoH

The Character classes in City of heroes: Might I ask why the piece I added stating The Statesman's class is also considered an incarnate in edition to being a tanker was removed? Both he and Lord Recluse are deemed to be these in addition to their more standard archtypes yet the Recluse entry on the same page stating this is seemingly allowed to remain. Both should either be allowed or both should be removed if it's not acceptable for one.Petrarch 00:38 02 December 2007 (GMT)

There is already a mention that he is an Incarnate later in the page.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 00:41, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I missed that one - having just re-read it and seen it near the bottom, I'll remove the duplicate reference to Recluse under the "Mastermind" heading also as he too gets mentioned in the same section. Cheers. .Petrarch 00:48 03 December 2007 (GMT)
Sorry about that, then. It should probably be removed from both.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 00:51, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More bad blocks

Once again, you have continued to block good faith users without even the slightest attempt at warning them. User:Braverman01 made no mistakes not common to a newbie (would a kindly worded "please stop" do?). User:76.110.76.253, whom you blocked for 3 months for "vandalism" was doing nothing but making newbie mistakes: [1] (again, would "please stop" do?). If these users are sockpuppets, could I ask you to make sure to use a better edit summary when blocking them? The Evil Spartan 01:17, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ugh - why did you block those users without any warning? It's getting to the point that I pity the fool who dares to edit Power Rangers articles without checking with you first. Videmus Omnia Talk 03:11, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Braverman01 came up in one of the recent changes feeds and was uploading images and ignoring talk page messages concerning the copyrights. To prevent users who have nothing but image warnings on their talk page, I blocked him (getting those messages are considered as warnings). The IP is indeed a returning vandal that I had blocked another IP the day before for performing the exact same edits. And to Videmus Omnia, I am not owning the page. I had noticed that the other IP (74.173.49.58) had been performing multiple inappropriate edits and blocked it while it was performing said edits. Then the next day 76.110.76.253 came and performed the same edits, which are still vandalism. I should have denoted that it was a returning IP, but there is still nothing wrong with either of these blocks.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 04:05, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, but couldn't you have placed a shorter block on the Braverman? To go for the death penalty right away seems unnecessary, and it is against our official policies: WP:BLOCK#Duration_of_blocks. As for the other user being a sock, I notice you immediately blocked the first account for 1 month for "systematic whitewashing" also without any warning. The Evil Spartan 04:15, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The IP was continually vandalizing articles and while I agree it hadn't been warned, it was still performing whitewashing edits and I had originally only blocked for 24 hours until I saw the months of damage the IP had been doing to the encyclopedia, and particularly in the area of interest I am in. Warning a vandalism only account is not imperative. We're not going to change someone's mind if they see the little orange bar every time. And I will unblock Braverman as the block was more than necessary.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 04:17, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Ryulong/Awards

Not to bother you, but is there any reason why you didn't add this barnstar to your award page? Would it be OK with you if I added it?--U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. 01:31, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot to at the time. Go ahead if you wish.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 04:06, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Thanks!--U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. 04:17, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Inquery about the warning signs on user:Jjk82

Hello, Ryulong, I notice that you're an admin and erased the vandalism warnings on the User:Jjk82 page because the banned user, "bason01" tried to keep the warning message. While User:Jjk82 was active, he did not get any sanction from admins even though the edits were disruptive behaviors. Besides, your comment on the summary of the User:Jjk82 user page implies enough that I and Patriotmissile, and the other (I can't recall his/her id) who left the signs to him also the socketpuppet. I object to the implication and involvement with the sockpuppet.

In addition, I filed a report on his behaviors, but due to the Korean cuisine report, it did not get fair attention from sysops as well.

  • black list: Schools you should avoid working for. Teaching English in Korea is really a minefield of potential disasters. Read the warning from the U.S. Department of State regarding teaching English in Korea:
  • South Korea, However, there are many dodgy schools, so do be careful.
  • Koreans are far from the wealthiest - they are a disappointing 28th.
  • Korea is not an egalitarian society; one is either of a higher or a lower status than other people. How do foreigners fit into this scheme?

I ask your opinion regarding these kind of comments by him. Do you think his edits are from good faith and just a matter of perspective? The above comments are only partial of the whole messes he brought up. Please carefully examine it. Thanks. --Appletrees 07:53, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The edits from GoodfaithBadfith are those of a banned user. If you think the warnings he/she placed on Jjk82's page were proper, then you can put your own warnings in their place. That is all I have to say on this situation.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 07:55, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, you didn't understand my saying. The warning signs were not from the sockpuppet but from me, patriotmissle and the others. You left the comment that you will ask for the responsibility whomever would revert "admins"'s revert. --Appletrees 08:00, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh. If that is the case, then I am wrong in stating the banned stuff. Feel free to replace the content that was not made by the banned user.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 08:03, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for clearing things up. But I'm a bit hesitate to put them back, because they are neither warranted nor official warnings from admins. I tried to keep his page with the vandalism warnings in case, he would do the same behaviors again and the signs will be helpful for admins to judge his behaviors per history.
However, I'm more pleading for re-considering his behaviors now. I highly doubt that Jjk82 is a newbie. He did seem to be very knowledgeable of wiki rules like 3rr rules already and showed the very same pattern of User:Keyngez according to their obsession at the environment of Korea. Please take a look at the report. Thanks--Appletrees 08:25, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Again, more than I'm planning to get involved in than I already am. Please raise these issues again at ANI and cite the old thread.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 08:49, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Block

Ryulong, what was the reason for the one-month block on this IP? I see they only made one edit and got no warnings. Videmus Omnia Talk 05:32, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The provenience of the edit as well as the general content of the edit in question show that its the IP belonging to some sort of user who has been banned. As of right now, I am not positive as to who is behind it, but the non-technical evidence is enough for me. Should a checkuser show the opposite, I will unblock the IP.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 05:38, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Let me clarify myself, this is not the edit of someone new to the site, or the edit of someone who is happy with the site.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 05:42, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Criticizing Wikipedia is a blockable offense now? Videmus Omnia Talk 05:49, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No. But having your only edit on a tucked away user talk page being critical of Wikipedia is telling evidence that we kicked you out in some way.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 05:50, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So why escalate things by blocking the user? It wasn't like the comment caused any harm to the encyclopedia, and your block seems to be punishing the person for a mildly critical comment. It may have just been a user editing while logged out, which is allowed per the meta privacy policy. I don't think you understand that you're helping to create drama, and giving people axes to grind about Wikipedia, by being way, way too block-happy. I also see on that IP talk page that one of your block justifications was not enough editing of article space - I thought we settled that was not part of the block policy after your block of CattleGirl. Videmus Omnia Talk 05:59, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The IP's only edits were concerning the recently closed RFAR for Durova. If you check the IP's contributions, all edits are on that topic and nothing at all encyclopedic. The user is not here to build an encyclopedia but to cause drama. The IP had been blocked prior for similar reasons, although not specifically stated to be about lack of encyclopedic contributions. If they are here to only cause ill will, then they needn't be here to begin with.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 06:01, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ryulong, once again, please read the block policy and the meta privacy policy. Users are allowed to edit anonymously, and they may edit wherever they wish - article space, image space, project space, whatever. And it's not a crime to criticize or discuss an admin's unwise actions, nor is it automatically "drama". The Durova thing is all over the intertubes anyway, what do you think you're accomplishing? Every time you try to shut someone up by blocking them, you create another enemy of Wikipedia, or make the existing enemies more committed. Better to let them have their say unless it's blatant trolling or insults, which this was not. That way, they can feel they're part of the community, and their comments get archived and forgotten about within a day or two - no real harm done. Videmus Omnia Talk 06:14, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you feel there's an issue here, take it to ANI. I am tired of having to answer to you whenever you feel I am coloring outside of the lines.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 06:16, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
ANI is a swamp that resolves precisely nothing...but if you don't want to answer questions about your blocks, then don't make questionable blocks. Simple. Videmus Omnia Talk 06:18, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've answered you, but you don't think the answer is decent.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 06:20, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Based on technical evidence (rather lack thereof), I have unblocked the IP that you initially questioned about. The latter I do not have enough reason to unblock, as the editting and trolling is still extant as reasons for the block.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 06:28, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keepscases

Just to let you know that this user has continued to ask inappropriate questions on RfAs after your warning. I've warned him again (and this is several he received), and I'll be watching his contributions.--U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. (talk) 01:25, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ryulong&oldid=176060639"