Jump to content

User talk:Ryulong

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Black Condor (talk | contribs) at 19:45, 7 October 2007 (→‎Kamen Rider Agito Template). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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:
August 2024
Wednesday
5:42 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


RFPP

FYI: [1]. – Steel 13:56, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indef blocked puppetmaster AFI-PUNK still wreaking havoc

Hello. I originally asked MastCell about this, since they are familiar with the back history behind this person (see Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/AFI-PUNK (3rd), although there are multiple cases involving this user under different names) and they recommended I talk to you as you are experienced in range blocking. As the title suggests, there is a puppetmaster at large who is still using multiple ips to vandalise multiple articles. I was wondering whether a range block would be effective against countering this recurring vandal; they vandalise 15-20 different articles on each IP a day and change IPs everyday, sometimes twice in one day. I'm not sure page protection would really be useful in this situation anymore (it has been implemented before to no avail) as they vandalise so many different articles. It's been like this for months and threatened to drive contributors away, who have been sick of dealing with the diatribes the person leaves at their talk pages. What sort of action would be best? Seraphim Whipp 09:51, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would need a larger set of IPs to put in an effective rangeblock.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 20:20, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Would it be helpful to list all of the ip's that AFI-PUNk has ever used? Will that help detemine the range? Thanks.
Seraphim Whipp 12:13, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've tried to create as full a list as I possibly can and put them in numerical order. I can also reformat the list so you can check the contribs if you need to. Seraphim Whipp 16:34, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the list since it was clogging up your page and it's been dealt with at AN/I now. Seraphim Whipp 01:26, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ryulong

Was your edit summary here a reference to something I did? I hope I didn't screw something up on that page; I posted a new section and it somehow kept getting incorporated into the archived section above. I experimented a little and managed to extricate it. If I did something to your work in the process, many apologies. All best, --G-Dett 21:07, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, it was to edits that Killer Chihuahua did.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 21:34, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. I note you follow in your usual practice of not discussing with the editor or admin in question. KillerChihuahua?!? 21:43, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I simply reinserted tags that I added and a comment that you had removed in the process. I do not think that it required contacting you.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 21:46, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You reverted FeloniousMonk, then? And what did I do to which you object strongly enough to name me here to someone else, while I am kept ignorant of your complaint against me? KillerChihuahua?!? 22:00, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see where I accidentally removed your post, apologies. Was that the Big Problem? KillerChihuahua?!? 22:02, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't revert anyone (as far as I know). I originally closed off the AFD/RFA-like vote, then I saw that the user had been blocked by FeloniousMonk, so I closed everything off.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 22:07, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What I saw was that you closed it, then you unclosed it, except for the section Jossi started as an attempt to make sense of the chaos which had developed, and to determine how much support there was for each of the remedies. Since you'd unclosed it except for the proposed remedies, it was an open discussion about sanctions, without anywhere for anyone to place their view on which remedy was most appropriate. That makes no sense. I completed your un-closing, or re-opening, if you will, of the thread, as I had only the three choices: Leave it in that unhappy and confused state, all open except for where people could place their view; Close it all, which I felt was inappropriate for me as the one who started it; or Finish the un-closing which you'd partially done. I chose option 3, as least disruptive and most ethical of the choices available - and I posted my rationale on the thread, in the appropriate section, so anyone who wished could discuss it with me. Later, FeloniousMonk closed it as he had been chastised previously by Banno for not closing it when he blocked Ferrylodge. You reverted his closure and re-closed with a caustic comment directed at no one in particular, changing the format of the closure. I came here to find out why you'd changed FeloniousMonk's closure and what you were talking about in your summary, and Lo and Behold, I am being specified by name as a party against whom you have a grievance, without benefit of having been informed of your grievance. So I am still wondering, what are you aggrieved with me about? And why do you complain of me, without having discussed your grievance with me? And is your complaint about the section Jossi started??? Then perhaps you'd better discuss it with him, rather than naming me to others without benefit of knowing who did what when. KillerChihuahua?!? 22:23, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My comment was to the undoing of my closure of the vote and the now accidental removal of my comment to Gatoclass concerning the closure. My only intention was to end the voting section. I then undid the closure of the whole thread, because my only knowledge was that Ferrylodge had been indefinitely blocked. I have many issues with how that board is currently being used as an AFD or RFA for banning an editor, and my initial closure was to get that practice to stop. Consensus is being taken as a supermajority lately, and this mindset should not be applied to bans on editors.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 22:30, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So you thought the section Jossi started was "not helpful" so you closed it, and rather than respond to my reasoning on the talk page you reverted FeloniousMonk's closure in order to make it really clear that you personally don't approve of how Jossi handled that?
And your complaint against me involves an accidental removal of a post, which has happened, I am sure, to a great many of us. I have seen this happen to other editors, and I usually simply replace it with a summary like "restore post accidentally removed in previous edit". I'm wondering why you name me as someone you're pissed off at, for a simple oopsie. KillerChihuahua?!? 22:36, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
At the time I thought it was intentional.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 22:53, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot express how astonished and offended I am that you would entertain for even a fraction of a second the notion that I would have removed anyone's post on purpose. I've done that for some vandals, I'll grant, such as this gem but it never occured to me that anyone had such a low opinion of me as to think I would remove a good-faith post made by a non-vandal... I am at a complete loss. Do you normally ABF so readily? Is there any reason you have for thinking so incredibly poorly of me? KillerChihuahua?!? 23:08, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let's put all this behind us, shall we? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:48, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That works.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 01:02, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mrs random socks

Hi Ryulong. I've added something to the debate on the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Case of abusive sockpuppetry by Mrs random following an e-mail from one of the parties involved. I won't expand here to avoid forking, but thought I'd bring it to your attention. Number 57 21:37, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Abuse report

Hi! I wanted to let you know that a reply has been received from the ISP regarding the abuse report you filed, and I've marked the case as closed. If this particular abuse pattern should reappear, please file a new abuse report case and reference the old one so we can report it again. Thanks! --Darkwind (talk) 22:46, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 22:50, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

TfD Tag

If that's how it works, it needs to be fixed. That text is small and sneaky.. if someone wasn't looking for it, they'd miss it and therefore miss the opportunity to way in on discussion of the TfD. AfD isn't like that, why is TfD? -- ALLSTAR ECHO 02:42, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Templates are used all over. Having a giant massive box saying "this template is up for deletion" will be disruptive to the project.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 02:51, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't have to be giant. A normal 10px size text would suffice, such as the size I used in which you removed. -- ALLSTAR ECHO 02:53, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Then discuss it at Template talk:Tfd—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 03:03, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Terribly sorry

In a cursory check of your contributions, I mistakenly took you for one of those users who treat Wikipedia like a social networking website, and pressed "block" without noticing your administrative duties. I am terribly sorry, and I have undone everything concerning this action.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 23:05, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's alright! Yeah, I've been away on occasions for the last couple of months, so contributions have been low. Cheers- CattleGirl talk 09:31, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Huh?

I'm not comfortable with this block. Would you consider unblocking? It seems like the editor has some constructive edits and has a mentor. I'm not so sure the block reason is in line with the policy. Navou banter 12:57, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'll unblock, and fix this mess that I made.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 20:09, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock of proxy

Hi Ryulong. I see you blocked an IP as an open proxy, and immediately unblocked it: [2]. Did it turn out this wasn't an open proxy? Thanks. The Evil Spartan 17:21, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I blocked the hosting range that the entirety of the proxy was on.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 20:09, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spam blacklist

Experience on the meta:Spam blacklist has shown that it's important to keep some sort of record as to why sites are blacklisted -- otherwise a whitelisting request comes in a year or two later and the site is removed unless someone can find the original reason for adding it. This has happened with many of the old domains that were added in the early days of the blacklist before admins started logging their additions.

If you don't mind, could you maybe leave a brief note for the record on MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist‎ as to the history (diffs, editors) of the wikicrime.net spam[3]? Thanks, --A. B. (talk) 00:43, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was someone providing links to her site and she was quite disgruntled about it. There is no reason to have links to her website.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 00:53, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, well could you maybe leave a note about this at the talk page? Otherwise, some future admin will waste a lot of time going through hundreds of edit histories trying to track down who added it and why. Edit histories are not indexed by Google -- talk pages are. Trust me, I've wasted a lot of time trying to figure out undocumented 2005 meta Blacklist entries.
Thanks! --A. B. (talk) 00:58, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
PS: Thanks for fighting spam! —Preceding unsigned comment added by A. B. (talk • contribs) 01:06, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Definition requested

What does this term 'fork' mean? I've seen it used here a few times and would like it's definition. HalfShadow 03:01, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Splitting up content into two directions, like a fork in the road.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 04:25, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No longer open to recall?

Just curious - why did you remove yourself from Category:Wikipedia administrators open to recall? Videmus Omnia Talk 18:12, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because it is both in my prerogative to include and exclude myself from such a category. I never was able to come up with a decent set of self-chosen criteria for the category, and with my heavier course load at school, I doubted that I would be doing as much on Wikipedia as I did when I first became an administrator and did edits over the summer.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 21:08, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's disingenuous of you to remove yourself from the category, as you made the promise to be open to recall in your third RfA, and there were several participants who supported you specifically because of that promise. Especially in light of your numerous blocking problems, I'm requesting that you place yourself back in that category. Videmus Omnia Talk 21:27, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So you can request for my recall?—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 21:44, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't decided yet. You'll remember that in your request for comment, I specifically said that you shouldn't be desysopped at that time, because you promised to be more careful with the block button. I saw the comments here on the talk page about your block of an admin (and others) and improper deletions of userpages, so I looked back through your log. You're still making a lot of improper blocks, for things not based on policy. For example, you've been blocking people for sockpuppetry for which I can find no checkuser, you're blocking people without warning or discussion, you're making username blocks and disabling new account creation when you do it, and you're frequently blocking e-mail as well, for no good reason I can see. I definitely think recall is worth considering. Videmus Omnia Talk 21:53, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yesterday was a mistake that I immediately caught and undid. I do not plan on placing myself into the recall category again since - as I promised Krimpet - I will not be performing any more blocks as I had on CattleGirl and ILikePikachu. I will focus on image deletions, vandalism blocks, and obvious sockpuppetry cases (administrators can block without a checkuser if it's blatantly obvious). Because the recall process does not distinguish between mistakes learned from and simple controversial and necessary actions for Wikipedia, I do not feel that I should go through the recall process, or allow simply disgruntled people to make me want to leave this project entirely.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 22:22, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I understand you. I do not want to see you leave the project entirely (as I've said before), but I don't want to see you continuing to drive away potentially productive editors either. You've made promises along this line before and haven't kept them. I will probably post something at WP:AN later to request opinions on your self-removal from the recall category, I'll let you know if/when I do. Regards - Videmus Omnia Talk 22:27, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's not imperative that I be in the category. I've agreed to stop blocking first and asking questions later.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 22:30, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, you've promised that before (more than once), and the promises weren't upheld. What's changed? Videmus Omnia Talk 22:42, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My judgement after my fuck up yesterday.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 22:44, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No offense intended, but please forgive me if I'm skeptical about that. Your statements in the past have seemed equally sincere, but didn't hold up. I think you're sorry about this instance because you got caught and called on it; I'm not at all convinced that, in the long term, you will cease with the biting and inappropriate blocks. While you addressed the admin-blocking incident (which I am skeptical is a "wrong-button" mistake, as you stated on the unblock, because you also deleted the admin's userpages at the same time), you haven't said anything to explain the instances of account-creation blocking and email-blocking. And I've looked at some of your sockpuppet blocks - I can't find anything to justify the duck test being applied in many instances. You seem to feel that a sockpuppet suspicion on your part is adequate justification for an indef block. You're still not warning before blocking in a huge proportion of instances, and leaving no talk page message to explain the block. You're deleting (not archiving) posts on your talk page that request clarification or criticize your actions. And there are other problems as well - I can cite diffs if I have to, but I'm still scratching my head over your speedy deletion of WP:OFFICIOUS, and your stated position that people who don't do enough mainspace edits are worthy of indefinite blocking and deletion of their userspace material. Where did that come from? Forgive me for being blunt, but it pretty much seems to me that you're occasionally making up blocking policy on the fly, and not communicating with editors when you're doing it. Videmus Omnia Talk 23:09, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The duck test needn't be thoroughly applied when the user in question links to his edits off-wiki. I know it's not a "wrong button" thing but I clarified my entire reasoning on CattleGirl's talk page, apologized to her, and she accepted it. Most of the other blocks I've been doing are vandalism blocks to blatantly vandalism only accounts (blanking one article three times in a row, or section by section). I also don't think it's imperative to say "I've blocked you because you're a vandal" or "I've blocked you because you are a sock of X" on every user talk page of people I block. E-mail blocking did not occur in the blocks that I performed yesterday, and account creation and autoblock are default.
WP:OFFICIOUS I deleted because I felt it was inappropriate, and then when I couldn't think of anything nice to say in return in that conversation, I eliminated it completely. We also have WP:NOT#MYSPACE which covers anything involving not contributing to the encyclopedia. In extreme situations, I block, and with CattleGirl it was a grey area. I made a mistake. I fixed it. I apologized. There's nothing else I can do in this situation.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 23:16, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I appreciate your response. I'm sorry to say this, but I'm afraid you've lost my respect by removing yourself from the recall category, which tells me that you yourself don't believe you actions will stand up to community scrutiny. I now don't believe that you have the judgment to be a Wikipedia admin. I'll roll it up to the next level in the chain, which, since you have removed yourself from the recall category, despite your previous promise, is apparently WP:RFAR. I hate thinking about the time I'll have to spend there, but I think it's necessary given the damage you are doing. We'll see how things go, but I'll quit bugging you in the meantime. Videmus Omnia Talk 23:34, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not bring this to RFAR.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 23:35, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why not? Videmus Omnia Talk 00:10, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pardon the butting in, but I really don't think anyone is going to consider this a suitable matter for arbcom. The category is voluntary, so removing oneself is voluntary. I'm not saying I approve or disapprove, but I can't imagine any arbitrator would be interested in touching this. (Oops, nevermind- on re-reading I realized that the removal from the category is probably not what arbcom was being considered for. I suppose that's what I get for butting in.) Friday (talk) 00:13, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I understand what you're saying, but the request wouldn't be for the removal from the category (I agree that it is a voluntary category) but for the inappropriate blocks and ineffective communication. I'd particularly refer to the findings from Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Betacommand, which seems to have a lot of overlap here. Videmus Omnia Talk 00:17, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: the series of blocks and deletions which show an overall pattern of abusing the administrative buttons may be grounds for ArbCom, or at the very least for Rfc. However, as VO mentions, Ryu has stated good intentions before and failed to follow through. His lack of productive communication about concerns is disturbing. KillerChihuahua?!? 00:19, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I admit what I did was wrong, and undid my actions. I unblocked, removed the autoblocks, undeleted, apologized, did whatever was necessary to ameliorate for my grievous error immediately after I saw it as such. I know what I did was wrong, and I won't be doing it again tonight, tomorrow, next week, next month, whenever. The only administrative action I've done today is block a page move vandal because I rarely get any time online due to my involvement with school. Honestly, all that will be solved now by going through recall or going through arbitration will be punishing me for a mistake I admit that I made and completely regret. Videmus Omnia only wants one thing right now: for me to be desysopped, be it through the recall process (a voluntary act) or an arbitration case (crammed down my throat). The "suspected sockpuppet blocks" that are claimed that I'm doing now are not "suspected." I know who it is because they brag about it offsite (and both of them know that I must have been reading it there). If I do choose to put myself up available for recall, I'll have to come up with my own criteria, which frankly I don't have time to bother with concerning I'm a full time student. If I'm forced to go through arbitration for something (broken record) I now realize was wrong, I won't feel like working on this site anymore. I don't want to be another burnt out administrator, but I've had multiple occasions where I've felt like this project just sickens me, but I realize that something has to be fixed about it. There was no imperative to keep myself in the recall category for my entire tenure. It seems that for however long I had removed myself from it, no one felt the need to recall me. But now when its noticed, there's a sudden need to chastise me for it. Right now, I'd rather work on my exchange program essay rather than worry about Wikipedian politics.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 03:07, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Recent abuse? Hardly. Poor judgement? Certainly. Then again, I am of the opinion that very few people on Wikipedia are of sound judgement. The quality by which I distinguish others, then, is the ability to admit, attempt to rectify and cease from repeating wrong. Ryulong, in my opinion, is doing fair in these three areas. --Iamunknown 04:53, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see Arbcom getting involved with this either, and despite the mistake Ryulong made with the block yesterday, the actual logic behind it is solid and sensible, Wikipedia isn't MySpace and we've got better things to do with our bandwidth than let it be pissed away by people running blogs or trying to sell crap from pages here. Arbitration isn't for people who can stick their hand up and say "Shit, I made a mistake, I'm a klutz", it's for people who go around saying "No, no, my block was 110% correct" when they're in the wrong. Nick 00:19, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I understand. However I see that Ryulong apparently realizes he's made errors and says he's changing how he does things. I'll completely agree that repeatedly demonstrating poor judgment should be legitimate grounds for removal of sysop access. But, I'd just hate to see that step being taken if he's actually changed his approach. Why not give it a bit of time and see how things turn out? Friday (talk) 00:22, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I like to give the benefit of the doubt, which I is why I opposed de-sysopping in his RFC. But he's been making these promises for months (as a matter of fact, since he was given the tools in January) and he repeatedly breaks these promises. Videmus Omnia Talk 00:27, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How about this? When Ryulong agreed to stand for recall if necessary, the threshold that User:Tennis expert mentioned was six editors with over 500 mainspace edits and over one month of tenure. Let's say that 1) Ryulong opens himself to recall at that threshold, and 2) I post a request for his recall at WP:AN:
1) If 6 net editors or more say he should, Ryulong gives up the tools.
2) If 6 net editors or more say Ryulong should keep the tools, I go away and leave Ryulong alone forever, no matter what he does or who he blocks.
3) If neither of the above is met, I make a case at WP:RFAR. If they decline the case, I leave Ryulong alone forever.
What do you say? If Ryulong is righteous, he whould have nothing to worry about. Videmus Omnia Talk 00:58, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ryulong, your mistake was not removing yourself from Category:Wikipedia administrators open to recall, it was putting yourself in the category in the first place. I have never seen it work to the benefit of either the admin, or the community when it was enacted. I personally don't think arbcom would be interested in you now, but that could change in the future. If you are indeed sincere in your increase in care, all the power to you! ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 03:17, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Unproductive" users

Ryulong, in light of some of your recent blocks and deletions, I urge you to recuse yourself from blocking editors and/or deleting their pages on the grounds that they have not contributed to the encyclopedia enough. While it is true that building the encyclopedia is by far our primary goal and that it is firmly established that Wikipedia is not MySpace, and there are many cases where warning users of this, deleting their problematic pages, and if all else fails, blocking them, is justified, given some of your incorrect blocks and deletions I really think it would be in the best interest of both you and the community if you left these decisions and actions to other administrators. You perform a lot of useful work for the project, and I would hate to see it all be overshadowed by these mistakes. --krimpet⟲ 20:55, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 21:06, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Redirects mess

Hi, just noticed a mess devloping by this user. the user appears to be creating lots of silly redirects. For example Windows XP now redirects to XP SUCKS. Can you help sort out the mess please, thanks --Zven 23:26, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 23:31, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Great, there appears to be quite a few more in his recent contributions --Zven 23:32, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe yourve got them all, I am impressed by your efficiency! --Zven 23:35, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A word to Ryulong, and to his critics

Some thoughts, for what they are worth, on Ryulong's tenure as an administrator, and the calls for him to put himself up for recall or to be brought before the Arbitration Committee.

I remember thinking carefully about how I would opine on Ryulong's third request for adminship, back in January. I ultimately supported that RfA, opining as follows:

This is an important !vote and one that I've agonized about for days. On the one hand, this candidate is clearly dedicated to Wikipedia in general and dealing with vandalism in particular. Given the sheer volume of his vandal-fighting efforts and his intention to concentrate on that area, lack of experience in some other areas, while not optimal, is insufficient to dissuade me from supporting. The more troubling concern is about the risk of BITE problems and blocks with insufficient warning; there is evidence that since his last RfA, the candidate has improved in this area, but not to the level where virtually any of the voters/commenters would want him to be. So one looks for evidence as to whether the candidate now sees what the problem is, and one finds a mixed record. On the one hand, I found the answer he gave to the optional question I added above very satisfactory. On the other hand, yesterday on ANI, there was a report of a new editor who had disambiguated the names of some TV show episodes; Ryulong had reported the editor, first to AIV and then to ANI, for blocking because the move was in violation of consensus as found by an ArbCom case decided that day; but the editor in question was new, was not a party to the ArbCom case, had not been warned, and as it turned out had never heard of the consensus discussion or the case; when advised of them, he apologized and said he would study up on policy; had Ryulong been an administrator, I am afraid he would have blocked this editor without warning, which would have been a terribly unjust block that could have cost us either a drama or an editor. So an oppose here would be quite easy to justify and the concerns raised below are serious ones. And yet, after all, Ryulong's vandal-fighting record is a distinguished one, and although it's perhaps not of any long-term significance, I did appreciate his taking the time to give evidence in the Konstable arbitration case, helping to save the committee from issuing a decision that would have contained a palpably false finding of fact. I am going to go out on a limb here and hope that Ryulong, reading these words, if he becomes an administrator, can and will promise and remember to please, please pause before blocking; remember to assume good faith until the assumption is no longer viable; to consult with others when that is appropriate; and above all, to remember that most editors are here to contribute to the encyclopedia and that the world should not rightly be looked at through vandal-colored glasses. I wish I could !vote for the candidate with fewer reservations, and I hope I don't come to regret this, but ... support. Newyorkbrad 00:38, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Ryulong's RfA was closed as successful by a famously narrow margin, and Ryulong changed from being an extremely hardworking vandal-fighter making reports to AIV, into being an extremely hardworking vandal-fighter blocking vandals himself. He has also, over the past nine months, taken on more than his share of dealing with trolling situations, difficult blocks, sockpuppet reviews, image deletions, and other administrator chores. Ryulong has become a workhorse of an administrator, whose level of dedication has consistently been high.

Any administrator, especially a busy one who can average dozens of admin actions every day, is going to get some criticism—some of it quite justified, some of it much less so. All of us, myself certainly included, make mistakes. Unfortunately, exactly as I (and many others who commented on all sides of the RfA) feared, Ryulong's mistakes have tended to be all of the same genre: harshly blocking, most often indefinitely, accounts that other administrators would have felt warranted a shorter block, or a warning, or sometimes no action at all. Some examples of problematic blocks were surveyed in Ryulong's RfC, and others have occurred more recently. I gather that in some instances, questionable blocks resulted simply from the press of business. In other instances, Ryulong has applied far stricter standards in reviewing an account's record than most other admins would themselves apply or recommend that others apply.

Several times Ryulong has been urged to reconsider his approach to adminship. He has sometimes promised to do so, particularly in the wake of the RfC; and I believe we have seen some improvement. Now, in the wake of an admitted error he made earlier this week, Ryulong has promised elsewhere on this page to discontinue his practice of blocking without warning accounts that have not, in his view, made sufficient recent contributions to the mainspace, which has been a source of several problematic blocks. I would like to think that, at this time and with the spectre of an arbitration proceeding looming, Ryulong remains capable of moderating his approach to adminship.

I understand the concerns that respected editors and admins have expressed from time to time concerning some of Ryulong's administrator actions. In particular, unjustified blocks risk costing the project good-faith editors and their valuable contributions, and must be avoided. But I am not convinced that a proceeding seeking desysopping is the best answer at this juncture. The best interests of the project call for retaining Ryulong's dedication and efforts while curtailing the problems that have arisen from them, rather than losing his efforts as an administrator outright. I hope this proves to be possible. I think it is worth a further try.

I call for Ryulong to fully and definitively take to heart the advice he has received from many quarters that his work will be best appreciated, and will best serve the project, if he slows down a bit, and bears in mind always that the block button is not an administrator's only tool. And I call for those who are considering filing an arbitration case against Ryulong to hesitate and give him a further chance, perhaps a final chance, to demonstrate that he can do what is being asked of him. Newyorkbrad 01:52, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Brad, your thoughtful and reasoned approach is, as always, appreciated and deeply considered. However, I remain unconvinced. I don't see why the promises this time should be taken seriously when previous promises were broken so many times. The conduct has not gotten better, it has, in fact, gotten worse - this mainspace-editing "policy" that suddenly appeared is only one example. Also, I ask you to take a second look back through the block log. The "suspected sockpuppet" indef blocks, without investigation or discussion, are all over the place, with no obvious evidence to support many of them. I can't understand the constant account-creation or e-mail blocks, which have been specifically addressed before. The lack of communication and attempts to hide criticism of his actions have also apparently not abated.
Also, Ryulong has radically changed the conditions of his adminship by withdrawing from recall eligibility. You mention the "famously narrow margin" above - I have zero doubt his adminship attempt would have failed without this (broken) promise on his part. I think the best solution would be to de-sysop him without prejudice (as happened to Betacommand for extremely similar issues - a case that you clerked and should be familiar with), and allow him to stand for adminship again - this time with the specification that he is not open to recall.
I'm afraid that I still believe this is a matter that should be reviewed by the ArbCom, if Ryulong will not agree to honor his previous promises to be open to recall. Videmus Omnia Talk 02:19, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to me that you have been out for blood since the first block I placed on you, lifted, and then apologized for. Any mistakes I've made I've apologized for. I apologized to CattleGirl immediately. I'll apologize to ILikePikachu soon, but I can't seem to appease you. I was open to recall, and now I don't want to be. It's as simple as that. Punishing me for being in either boat for something I've already fixed is ridiculous.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 03:11, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, Ryulong, but you're making an incorrect assumption. I haven't been out for blood - I've had no interaction with you since your RFC, and I'll point out again that I supported your retention of sysop privileges there, and also supported closing of the RFC after your promises to straighten up and fly straight. As I said, the CattleGirl thing only drew my attention back here - where I found that you haven't been keeping your promise. The issue is not CattleGirl, but the dozens of other people who couldn't defend themselves that you've potentially driven off the project. Nothing personal. Videmus Omnia Talk 03:18, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There was nothing to attract any attention to me (other than reading something offsite). I screwed up. I realized it. I ameliorated my mistake. I apologized, repeatedly. I have been improving since the RFC over the past month (nearly two months), and one mistake that I just made should not force you to think that I should not be allowed to protect pages, delete images, or block blatantly vandalism only accounts. I know I've made controversial blocks. I know I've made bad blocks. I accept criticism (otherwise I would have removed all of this by now). I don't want to have to "worry" about an arbitration case that you feel the need to bring up against me when I should be reading for my classes and preparing for laboratories.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 03:33, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Problem is, you keep apologising, yet you keep making silly mistakes. Admins are certainly not perfect, but ones who have made as many errors as you have are a serious problem. There's no need to worry about ArbCom... the worst that could happen is you'll be desysopped, but that isn't the end of the world is it? Majorly (talk) 07:36, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But I learn from grievous mistakes like this and do not repeat them. What purpose will a desysopping serve to try and learn from mistakes as an administrator, other than probably not being one ever again. There are three cases off the top of my head where administrators got desysopped through arbitration proceedings, and have not been resysopped even through RFA because the community doesn't trust them because of the airing out of an arbitration case.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 15:10, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is unlikely that arbcom would desysop you unless they were convinced such behavior would continue, not to teach you a lesson, but to protect the community. At this point I think arbcom would take your word that you have learned your lesson and really not do much if a case came up. Short of continued problems I don't think you need to worry about them. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 15:13, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I second Brad's request. Sorry to say, Ryulong's evolution reminds me that of Betacommand. I became aware about him for the first time when he started threatening me and Giano with blocks for no apparent reason. Subsequently, I have noticed that whenever an experienced wikipedian was frivolously blocked, there was Ryulong endorsing the block. This facile attitude to blocking long-standing contributors is alarming, and I don't see any overpowering reason why we should trust tools to trigger-happy folks. --Ghirla-трёп- 19:53, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Brad is stating that I should be given another chance to show that I am not trigger-happy and that I am beneficial to the project with the access to the delete, protect, and blocking capabilities, so I don't know to thank you or be afraid.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 20:54, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any overpowering reason why we should trust tools to trigger-happy folks, but you have a chance to show that you are not as easy on the buttons as you have been reputed to be. Why should you be afraid? This does not stand to reason. --Ghirla-трёп- 21:08, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Because the context of your reply was slightly confusing at a first read.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 21:09, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotecting your talk page

Hi Ryulong. Please unprotect your talk page (I won't just unprotect it myself). Indefinite semi-protection of your talk page is not advisable, particularly when you are involved in so much administrative action against IP editors - this prevents many of them from contacting you. Neil ム 08:39, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All fixed.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 20:51, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

File:Resilient-silver.png The Resilient Barnstar
For deciding to unprotect your talk page yourself after concerns had been raised, even though you disagreed with them.[4] Melsaran (talk) 17:47, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Good move, you know you'll be protected by other means... The Rambling Man 18:02, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 20:52, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quick question

What's the reason for the cascade protection on the Power Rangers pages in User:Ryulong/PTL? Is this justified by WP:PROTECT? For example, I looked at Power Rangers: San Diego and the page has never even been created or deleted before - how would a new user know to contact you for unprotection if they wanted to create the article? Videmus Omnia Talk 19:30, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I keep seeing it pop up from one editor or another, and I know for a fact that it is fake and we should never get an article titled "Power Rangers: San Diego" or "Power Rangers: East" whatever it was.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 20:44, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
When you try to edit a page protected due to cascade protection, it tells you what page is causing the protection. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 21:11, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, it doesn't. Videmus Omnia Talk 22:41, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Try editting Power Rangers: San Diego and you tell me you don't get a link.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 22:52, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nope. Must be an admin-only function. Videmus Omnia Talk 23:05, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You don't see "WARNING: This page has been protected so that only administrators can edit it because it is transcluded in the following page (which is protected with the "cascading" option enabled). Ensure that you are following the protected page guidelines.

* User:Ryulong/PTL" at all?—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 23:08, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I only get the warning, with no link. Videmus Omnia Talk 23:14, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You should definitely get the link.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 00:00, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and I am 150% positive that there will never be a need for a page titles "Power Rangers: San Diego" or "Keisatsu Sentai Sapiranger"—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 21:20, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:PROTECT says that protection is not used as a pre-emptive measure, it's used to prevent continuing disruption. It also says that cascade protection is used for high-visibility pages and for deleted pages that are repeatedly recreated. Is there a reason these cascade protections are made from an obscure page in your userspace, as opposed to WP:PT, which is the place the community has designated for protected titles? Videmus Omnia Talk 22:41, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I use it to prevent using Wikipedia as a crystal ball, or simply to prevent disruption through the creation of pages that I know shouldn't exist because they're completely made up. The page hasn't been created, yes, but it's been referenced multiple times.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 22:52, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm looking again at WP:PROTECT and don't see that policy anywhere in there. Videmus Omnia Talk 23:05, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The best place to look is WP:NOT#CRYSTAL. Seriously, I'm seeing this as you gathering evidence against me, and it's really starting to bother me. If you can tell me one reason why in good faith you would create Power Rangers: San Diego within the next 24 hours and it would be an article that would conform to inclusion guidelines, then I'll remove it from my personal protected title list.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 23:08, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The ideal outcome for me would be that you follow policy and become a good admin. I've no desire to go through the headache of WP:RFAR if the problem can be fixed by discussion with you. This issues of privately-transcluded cascade protection from your userspace (the same method you used to prevent creation of an RFC page on you) came up at your RFC, when it was eventually started by Evil Spartan. WP:NOT#CRYSTAL is not justification to salt pages without community discussion. Please use WP:PT and get rid of these secret protection pages. If you're really concerned about being de-sysopped, then remaining well within the bounds of policy should be one of your goals. Videmus Omnia Talk 23:14, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing in any policy that says that administrators are not allowed to keep these pages. The original salting of the RfC was done in February because someone decided to sockpuppet and harass me by recreating that page after a block that was within policy. Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Ryulong and Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Ryulong were salted because of the same individual (this afternoon, I found them full of IPs that were either already blocked proxies or resolved to Kerala, India from the WHOIS information). Other than a few articles that are complete hoaxes that have been created, have been refereneced offsite as rumors, or have been referenced onsite but never created, the rest of that page is so "Yamla is a poophead" does not show up on a higher profile page like WP:PT or in Google. There are also two other pages that solely contain links to well over 500 fair use images uploaded by a user who is currently banned. I'm using my discretion here, and preventing pages that will inevitably be deleted from being made in the first place. There have been a lot of Power Rangers fanfic/hoax/garbage articles. If I can nip these in the bud, we won't have to waste time with stuff like this, this, orthis, since I know that they don't exist and they won't exist.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 00:00, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
One nitwit, two accounts, three attempts to insert links to the wholly-made-up PR:SD project. Under the circumstances, I think it's completely reasonable to prevent an article on PR:SD from being created. On a related note, your grudge against Ryulong is becoming tedious. There are more interesting things to do with your time on the project. DS 23:23, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Technical note, when I log out I cannot see any indication as to what is causing the protection unless I go to the "What links here" page[5]. This is less than ideal, and is a technical problem that needs to be bypassed. I think this can be done by editing the interface page, I am no good at finding them though. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 00:37, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The problem was that MediaWiki:Cascadeprotected displayed a different message for cascade protected pages and deleted cascade protected pages; the one for deleted pages did not include the page it was transcluded on. It should be fixed now. (The message sysops see is a completely different MediaWiki page) Mr.Z-man 18:09, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FYI

FYI, they made a page about you on the front of Encyclopedia Dramatica -- Just thought you'd want to know. --128.218.6.200 21:06, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ZOMG. I guess I'll go cry and become an hero.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 21:07, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note

If you persist in continual disruption of the Kiev/Kyiv naming issue outside of the talk page of the article or outside the talk pages of users involved with the discussion, such as your attempts to get your way at WP:RM and WP:ANI, you will be blocked for disrupting Wikipedia.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 05:35, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply here—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 03:32, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is from so long ago that it is now moot. However, thanks for taking the protection off from your userpage. As I mentioned in the discussion, since I could not do it here, WP:Disruptive is a rejected policy, so your threat to block someone for being disruptive is strange. I noticed that you started out your discussion on WP:AN#Kiev/Kyiv RM (now in Archive) with an off-topic comment on what name you thought should be used for the article. The purpose of opening the AN had nothing to do with wanting to change the name or not change the name. I have no interest in either and am simply an impartial observer of the process. 199.125.109.88 00:43, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is no WP:Disruptive. It's just "if you keep disrupting [mentioning it out of talk space], you'll be blocked for doing it."—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 00:44, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Huh? And for what reason? What policy would you possibly state as your reason for the block? 199.125.109.88 01:13, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you might be interested in reading Wikipedia:Blocking policy#Disruption? Mr.Z-man 01:30, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Which says absolutely nothing about the topic at hand. But thanks for bringing it up anyway. 199.125.109.88 01:59, 28 September 2007 (UTC) By the way, this discussion is closed. I have no interest in pursuing it further. 199.125.109.88 02:02, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 02:13, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

blockage

Yes, this is a school IP, but school's back in session. Currently, there has been excessive vandalism, and the last revert(s) have been made by me; I have an account. I think a temporary block should be placed. Special:Contributions/206.117.237.56 206.117.237.56 17:48, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Brusai-E and Liner Form

But he's already been revealed. Brusai-E Fractyl 04:00, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wait until he's referenced in an episode. Also, the transliteration of his name would have to change.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 04:00, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But isn't it once we get magazine pix with offical info, we add it? Besides, we got the first of SaiDaioh's Gekiwazas: Dai-Dai Saidaiki. Fractyl 04:03, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Once we have more than a little snippet, then we can put this information in. Until then, we wait for these things to show up in the series.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 04:04, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How about Liner Form? The pix reveal how Liner Form and the DenKamen Sword works. Also, King Liner is revealed!

Note the sword's hilt

KingLiner, DenLiner, and ZeroLiner

Combined time trains and the "Mole Imagin" trio

Fractyl 04:10, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've been directed that using photobucket to host sources, and that it would probably be better to wait for it to be on the show first.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 04:11, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But the info's all there. Fractyl 04:14, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I know it's there, I'm just not sure if we can use it as a source and link to it.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 04:14, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My hard work

Why? Why you want destroy my hard work? Who are you? Imagedonxidima 20:30, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Probably because your "hard work" wasn't complaint with our copyright policy. Melsaran (talk) 14:49, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Who are you, Melsaran? I talk to Ryulong, not you. --Imagedonxidima 20:26, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Melsaran is right. We don't need fair use images just to go on pages for every Kamen Rider. Nor every Ultraman, nor a template to go through only a small group of Ultraman characters.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 20:29, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Super Sentai/Power Rangers

I have every right to add those refences so do not try my paitence those have to added. I'm mad at you for undoing the stuff I did I do not vandalise articles I clean articles and I had to even clean the Power Rangers: Operation Overdrive section up once due to vandalism. So I do not care what you say about me adding Super Sentai refences it needs to added to point out things left out in Power Rangers. So do you have a problem with that? If so tell me and if its pointless then I'm sorry I just wanted to let PR fans know about things left out in the series. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RedLifeguardRanger (talk • contribs) 16:53, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The references are your original research/trivia. Do not add them, again.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 20:26, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alright but I still feel angered by you saying its pointless and trivia. Please do not ban me I apologize. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RedLifeguardRanger (talk • contribs) 21:20, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MfD notification

Just a heads-up - several of your userpages (the ones you use for private cascade protection) have been nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Protected titles/Specific Admin. Videmus Omnia Talk 18:32, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm getting real tired of this, Videmus Omnia.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 20:28, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mixing references and footnotes

The general policy in Wikipedia is to mix citations and footnotes (see Wikipedia:Footnotes). I have therefore reverted your deletion of my footnote regarding serpentinization in the "Atmosphere" section of Mars. WolfmanSF 20:26, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But is the footnote necessary with a link to serpentinite? Why not expand on serpentinization there?—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 20:27, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Overdue apology

Ryulong, I appreciate the apology (actually I think you already apologized a while back) but that wasn't the reason I called those issues to your attention. Please believe that I hold no grudge against you - I don't get emotionally wrapped up in Wikipedia, and I frankly find people who do somewhat disturbing. For me, it's just a hobby that's more constructive and fun than watching TV. Getting blocked was annoying when I didn't deserve it, but so long as I got unblocked, who cares? But I do remember that I almost walked away completely when I had a hard time getting unblocked by you, and it makes me wonder how many potentially productive people really have walked after their first encounter with you.

I appreciate the good work that you do, and because of that, I actually don't want to see you desysopped - we need all the good admins we can get. That was the reason that Newyorkbrad's statement above ultimately led me to decide against the WP:RFAR for the time being. But you seem to keep repeating the same mistakes, especially in regards to hasty blocks - unless you fix this, ultimately this behavior likely will lead to your de-sysopping. The reason I called those things to your attention was so that you could fix them before things went too far. When you do things like break a promise to be open to recall, or break a promise to go easy on the block button, you cause people to doubt your integrity, and your ability to wield the tools maturely. Your message to me shows that you're perfectly capable of being gracious and courteous, please let this side of you show more often - I'm positive you'll have fewer problems.

Anyway, I'm sure you've had enough patronizing lecture for one day. Thanks again, and take care. Videmus Omnia Talk 23:38, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Videmus Omnia, thank you for considering my long post above. Your concerns about some of Ryulong's past blocks are concerns I share (I am a bit less troubled by the page protection issues), as I believe do many other users. You write that you "almost walked away completely" from Wikipedia when you were wrongly blocked; and that is the essence of the concern I have had with Ryulong's behavior as well. The job description of an administrator includes keeping the site free from the hardened vandals and the irredeemable POV-pushers and the willful trolls; but in my mind the cardinal sin for an admin would be driving away a good-faith contributor without abundant cause. Particularly in light of your statement that my words led you to hold off for now from filing an arbitration case—a case that, if there had been any more problems this week, I was considering filing myself— make me hope very strongly that the days in which Ryulong's blocks risked doing such a thing are in the past. Regards, Newyorkbrad 23:52, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DRV Note

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Protected titles/Specific Admin. Since some of your user pages were listed there, you might want to participate in the deletion review. -- Jreferee t/c 02:51, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 03:10, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Soyuz-2

You rolled back my editing in the article. Please read the talk page, my correction was abslolutely justified. --82.147.64.113 07:13, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize. All that I saw was the size of the text being removed.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 07:18, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpupet's right to vanish

Please coment.User_talk:Avraham#About_the_right_of_sockpupetry_to_vanish --יודל 19:57, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I really have no opinion right now.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 22:04, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Power Rangers articles

Hello! I've noticed you have protected 3 Power Rangers related articles in June, so over 3 months back, and mentionned to be asked permission for unprotecting them. Since it's been protected long enough, maybe we should give the articles a shot now. --JForget 01:24, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, since the abuse report has been completed, if you link me the pages, I'll unprotect them (I just can't remember them off hand right now).—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 05:23, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes they are: Power Rangers: Ninja Storm, Power Rangers: S.P.D. and Power Rangers: Wild Force but later in my maintenance-type round yesterday in Category:Semi-protected I've also discovered Superhuman Samurai Syber-Squad and Turbo: A Power Rangers Movie. I've thought of unprotecting myself, but considering what was mentionned in the protection rationale line in each of those, I've thought that it may be better to let you do it to avoid any issues.

I'm doing regular patrols to check-up for articles that have been protecting long enough. As per the policy, permanent protected pages can be un-protected after a certain period and I had discovered that lots of articles which had only been protected once were semi'd for several months despite the first occurrence, in some cases closer to one year, so I've thought to help on easing-up a bit that backlog and also per the policy which also states that the first protection shouldn't be too long (except likely for BLP violations, intense edit waring and sock puppetry).

Thanks for that!--JForget 19:06, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There were issues with sockpuppetry that I put an abuse report in for. According to the contact, the individual was dealt with. I've unprotected these five pages.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 19:17, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again!--JForget 01:16, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

IP block affects Opera users

Hello... you may or may not already be aware of this, but the IP you blocked a few days back (195.189.142.166) actually blocks users editing through the opera Mini browser for mobile phones. (I found this out when, despite being logged in under my username, I was blocked from editing. This was not the case only a few days previously.) If you're not aware of this, there is/was an AN discussion here. Thanks in advance for any help you can provide. --Ckatzchatspy 08:51, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I do know about that. I started that thread. Right now, we're waiting for XFF header installation to prevent abuse by the Opera Mini browsers (that one was accessible through the Opera Mini online demo).—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 00:22, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. I found out about the blocking while using Opera mini on my Palm PDA, so it's not only the Opera mini online demo. Is it possible you could lower the blocking restrictions so that properly logged in users can edit? SanGatiche 02:10, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We're trying to fix this by getting the actual location instead of the Opera proxy.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 02:53, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you remove talk of Signpost article?

[6] - ??? What does "db-banned" mean? 19:16, 5 October 2007 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.212.211.94 (talk • contribs)

It means that page was created by a banned editor, which means it is subject to immediate deletion. In this particular case it was just a run of the mill, proxy abusing troll with an axe to grind, who created that page.--Isotope23 talk 19:19, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Automatic Italic

On the List of Power Rangers article, for some reason, on the Black Rangers section, Black Bison Ranger is italicized, without it being italicized, if you know what I mean. So, I was wondering if maybe you'd know why that is.CrystallixRed 23:47, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Probably a mistake in editting. I'll check it out.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 00:22, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. It's fixed now.CrystallixRed 00:32, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RfD nomination of WP:RFAR/NC

I have nominated WP:RFAR/NC (edit | [[Talk:WP:RFAR/NC|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) for discussion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. After Midnight 0001 16:15, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kamen Rider Agito Template

Hi, I just want to know why do you remove the Alpha/Omega letters in Agito's template but didn't remove similar characters in Ryuki, Faiz, Blade, Hibiki and Den-O templates. If Agito's case isn't suitable for a encyclopedia, I can't see why the others are. --Black Condor 18:40, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Omega is only used in the English translated title in the opening card. Nearly every other usage in Japanese is not "AGITΩ" but "AGITO" or the like. Due to the common name of "Agito" being prevalent, using "AgitΩ" doesn't really look right.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 19:10, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I see what you mean now. I've replaced them. I was only disagreeing with the use of "AgitΩ"—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 19:13, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I also disagree with the "AgitΩ" spelling, by the way. The idea of the Greek letters was only to illustrate the template, just like the kanji used in other Rider series. --Black Condor 19:45, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ryulong&oldid=162927183"