User talk:Ryulong

	Server time: August 2024 14 Wednesday 6:32 UTC
Archives
	February 2006 – June 2006; July 2006; August 2006; September 2006; October 2006; November 2006; December 2006; January 2007; February 2007;

User talk:Ryulong/Penguin

	Please post new messages at the bottom of my talk page. Please use headlines when starting new talk topics by using either the + tab or this link. Please sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). If you do not sign your comments, I may remove them entirely. Thank you.
	If I deleted a page that you've worked on, please view my deletion reason, and the deletion policy to understand why.

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

Blanking talk pages

I know you're having a bad day, and it is not my intention to make it worse, but could you please direct me to a policy on WP that says one cannot blank their talk page or remove warnings placed on it? I know of no such policy, and WP:USER, which is only a guideline, even says On a user's own talk page, policy does not prohibit the removal of comments at that user's discretion, although archival is preferred to removal. Please note, though, that removing warnings from one's own talk page is often frowned upon. That seems to indicate that one may blank their page and even remove warnings if they wish. While I agree with the block of that anon IP with whom you are in conflict, I don't think it was appropriate of you to protect his page or block him (as he claims) for blanking it. If I have misread the situation, I apologize and please clear up any confusion on my part. Sincerely, Jeffpw 09:34, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, while he was allowed to blank the page, the method by which he did so was disruptive in itself: saying he'll get the ACLU to sue Wiki, repeated accusations of homophobia, and then causing the levels of destruction for posting a complaint at some blog where they attack Wikipedia. There's not much else that can be done now.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 09:41, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blocking revert of page move by null edit

Perhaps you'd be the right person to take a look into such an edit recently (details at Wikipedia:administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Blocking revert of move). :-) — Insta ntnood 11:58, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Billy's Last Name (cont)

If you found Billy's last name on Amazon, doesn't that conflict with your Bushido of only including information that pretty much comes from an official source?RangerKing 19:54, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dirak/Domitius/Thulium etc.

Hi Ryulong, I saw you blocked the six incarnations of User:Dirak / Domitius / Thulium etc. identified by Dmcdevit this morning. Let me say first this user is a good, trusted friend of mine (though I have very frequently disagreed with him) and I firmly believe he can really be an excellent wikipedian. Also, although he's been getting into quite a lot of disputes lately, he is really one of the more liberal and least nationalist people among the Balkan crowd, and certainly one of the most intelligent. As I said on ANI earlier today, he's had a weird habit of giving up old accounts and starting up new ones quite frequently, trying to make "fresh starts". I've never been able to understand exactly why he was doing that. But most of the time, this has not involved anything approaching illegitimate sockpuppetry, since he used the accounts one after the other. Also, people in that area know him and his distinctive handwriting so well they have always recognised him quickly under each new guise, so he probably couldn't engage in serious sockpuppeting even if he wanted to.

I don't really know why his turnover of accounts went up to as many as six in a month now, but I've checked their contributions and I think they stayed away from each other sufficiently. Even when he was using two at the same time, that was almost always on different articles. In the one case where I've seen two accounts of his in the context of the same debate (shortly after each other, not simultaneously), I'm 100% certain everybody involved in that situation already knew what was going on anyway. There seems to have been no evading of 3RR (reverting the same article during the same day) or double voting or the like, for all I can see.

Anyway, I've been in contact with him and he promises to stop creating new accounts and stick with a single one. He asks to be allowed to continue as User:Domitius. Would it be okay if we unblocked that one? Thanks, --Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:19, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for nagging, but could you take a moment to comment on this? I'd be loath to do anything unilaterally in this case. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:02, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whichever one he wants to use, you can unblock it.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 22:04, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've unblocked Domitius. Khoikhoi 22:07, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, was that someone lurking behind this page? :-) Thanks to you both. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:08, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Image:Ejaculation_sample.jpg

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Ejaculation_sample.jpg

(1) The image is questionable regarding the age of the boy in the picture. The lack of body hair, the size of the boy's body, and the texture of the skin indicates it is probably someone about 15 to 17 years old or younger. (2) Image is not representative of most ejaculations since it appears to be shooting in a straight stream all the way to the neck area. Studies conclude (from various surveys and the Kinsey Institute motion picture recordings) that ejaculations are usually a dribble or a combination of a dribble and a shot. (3) The size of the penis picture is not proportionate to the hand or the torso of the boy, which could be a sign that the photo has been altered. (4) If it is unaltered, then the picture is only representative of very few men.

APatcher 22:53, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So?—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 22:54, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The IFD was closed. I decided that the deletion requests were not reasons for deleting it. And your reasons don't show me that I should delete it. People shave their bodies and he's gifted. Let's leave it at that.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 22:56, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Inflammatory user

I am sorry for reporting him, you may have thought that he doesn't exist and that I just made him up to get on somebody's nerves, but I didn't. I saw him as "New" on vandalProof, but maybe something happened. At any rate, I know I saw that user and I apologize for any confusion that I may have caused. ~Steptrip ⁽^talk⁾ 01:14, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Marikina again

See special:contributions/Html Kame. -- RHaworth 02:33, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dealt with.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 03:17, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tooj socks

What does PTL'd mean? I had protected a few of the talk pages after he started adding unblock requests and links to a shock site on them ... I saw that you deleted one of them - User talk:Tooj One One Seven (talk · contribs) - what does PTL'd mean? --BigDT 03:34, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:PTL—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 03:35, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thx ... I need to keep up-to-date on the new acronyms. ;) --BigDT 03:37, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Barnstar of Good Humor

		The Barnstar of Good Humor
		I, Cocoaguy award Ryulong The Barnstar of Good Humor for his work on The Penguin Cabal. Cocoaguy ここがいい _contribs^talkTodays Pick 20:21, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RfC

Just to say you were completely right to delete that stupid trolling RfC. I was just about to add to it:

Outside view by WJBscribe

I see no evidence of abuse by Ryulong in the two blocks in question:

Powerrangerbuster (talk · contribs) was a block following a Requests for checkuser. This account was identified by Mackensen as an account of CBDrunkerson. (see Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser#CBDrunkerson). The indef block is therefore clearly warranted.

Wrongporch (talk · contribs) reverted Ryulong with his first edit, claiming that he used Vandal Proof to do so, when (obviously) not on the list of users authorised to use this software. Checkuser identified him as "possibly if not probably" a sockpuppet of CBDrunkerson.
It should be noted that the checkuser request above concluded that it was likely one of the people certifying this RfC (Jim Pooele) was "possibly, bordering on likely" a sockpuppet of CBDrunkerson. That user has not in fact edited this page. The user who created this page (Hiablke) edited unconstructively a few times on Feb 9 but had not edited since. His immidiate action prior to creating this RfC was to label Ryulong as a sockpuppeteer on his userpage [1], a clear act of vandalism. The other user certifying the basis for this dispute admits: [2] to being PowerRangerBuster2, another checkuser confirmed encarnation of CBDrunkerson. This RfC seems to me a clear example of trolling and should be deleted as such.

As far as I can see, you're doing a great job as an admin. WjBscribe 21:30, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is the second time it was initiated. Both times by the same socks—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 21:31, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Block summary

Hey. Best to avoid all-caps in block summaries. Thanks. El_C 21:47, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I intended for it to be humorous. The user was disrupting Kurdistan by blanking it with all caps.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 21:48, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers

Cheers for reverting my userpage, User:Estuary went mental! Have you blocked him? RyanPostlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 22:17, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 22:20, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea - he seams like a good user ;-) RyanPostlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 22:21, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ryulong, you're a hard working dude. ~~

Special:Contributions/195.137.123.222

Should the person be blocked? Xiner (talk, email) 22:37, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry...

...to always be bugging you, but I don't know any other admins by username off the top of my head. Care to recommend a course of action regarding the erupting edit war over at Barenaked Ladies Are Me/Barenaked Ladies Are Men. Is there something like a Wikipedia:Problems For Discussion or something? Right now, we've got one pro, one con, and one middleground (that's me). If you want more info, drop me a line. JPG-GR 03:11, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind, found it! JPG-GR 06:16, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't even go there

The only dick is you, you blasphemous pig. You're running the friggin page into the gosh damn ground and making everybody whose very valuable, including Kyle, BR and myself away from Wiki and its said. You even admitted you no shit about Japanese yet, yet you can say that Miyauchi wasn't singing the theme? Hmm...?74.195.3.199 08:21, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]