User talk:Ryulong/Archive 45

Archive 40

←

Archive 43

Archive 44

Archive 45

Archive 46

Archive 47

→

Archive 50

Filter 286

Hi Ryulong, because of recent performance issues with the edit filter (which caused it to automatically execute its self-protection and permit some invalid posts, some of which were related to your "Tokusatsu vandal"), I have made a significant optimization to the filter you requested. This optimization has resolved the performance issues, but it is more aggressive than before, and might be prone to false positives. Please let me know if you have any troubles editing those articles. Beyond that, please also let me know if anything is still being missed. Regards, Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 15:28, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I've requested outside help from Prodego to deal with blocking the ranges that produce the least collateral damage.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 17:54, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

I appreciate the support.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 08:49, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

user talk page

User is allowed to edit/blank their own talk page [[1]] Gerardw (talk) 10:51, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

The user said he was requesting his right to vanish, then stayed around.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 20:04, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I am requesting the right to vanish, and once I receive confirmation that my user page and user talk page will be deleted, I will do so. Until that time, I will continue to defend myself.

If you have the authority to make these changes, then let me know. If they are still here in one hour from now, I will continue to defend myself.Srwm4 (talk) 20:11, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I do not. Read WP:RTV.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 20:11, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, yes, but an active user is allowed to blank their talk page. Gerardw (talk) 20:13, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, if he wants to leave he should leave.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 20:14, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I want to leave, but before doing so I would like my talk page to be purged. Or, if that is not possible, for it to be protected in such a way that mine is the only account capable of making edits to it. Thanks!Srwm4 (talk) 20:23, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Just leave and ignore Wikipedia.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 20:26, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I fail to see how admonishing me is accomplishing anything here. Either offer your help in my request to vanish and have my talk page deleted, or stay out of it. Seems simple enough to me. Srwm4 (talk) 20:29, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

The only way to vanish is if you leave Wikipedia alone.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 20:36, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

UM Business School

Lest you think that we were the only ones to consider the creation of a separate article, check out: [2] for an independent effort. Racepacket (talk) 18:52, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

That is very obviously an account made by someone who works for the Business School. The name "Sbacommunications" gives it away.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 21:38, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, I think that the current version has much less POV than the draft in the user subpage. I was not aware of his effort. Does SBA stand for School of Business Administration or something else? Racepacket (talk) 22:54, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I would think that SBA stands for the University of Miami School of Business Administration.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 22:58, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Shiba Inu Puppy Cam Page

If these are my pictures and I give everyone permission to use them after they're posted, then they ARE free to use. I wish everyone would stop deleting them. YumiFan (talk) 16:20, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

These are not screen shots. I (or my wife) took these photos with a digital camera for the 2009 calendar for the shiba inu rescue. The newest one of Kika I just took a couple of weeks ago. YumiFan (talk) 16:42, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I am sorry, but photos that are that small and with text on them are of no use to the English Wikipedia if you have released them into the public domain.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 21:35, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I guess English wikipedia will come crashing to halt because someone put the names of the puppies on their photos. You also removed the ones that didn't have writing - the ones that I took specifically for this purpose. You can say whatever you want. You're abusing your power. This is not the life of King Henry VIII. Go ahead and stop me from editing as you threatened. If I can't even post real pictures of the real puppies on the site that's about them, what's the point. YumiFan (talk) 04:46, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

If you have the original photos that you took with your camera, I might believe you. All we have on Wikipedia are the modified photos that were shrunken to such a size that they are practically fair use. Do not take this as a slight. We are trying to build an encyclopedia, and that does not need to include six separate photos of six Shiba Inu puppies.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 04:55, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

And it obviously won't. How can I possibly prove to you that I took these photos?? I've upload them from the computer they're sitting on? How can I prove their mine??? YumiFan (talk) 04:57, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

By uploading the original photo without the editing that removed all of the Exif data from them. We obviously cannot determine the proper owner unless an original photograph is uploaded.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 04:59, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm not a computer person like you and have no idea what that means. The photos that I took for the calendar are the only close ups of the puppies individually and not in a group. After I added the names to the photos, they were saved that way.YumiFan (talk) 05:14, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Upload the original photograph and not one that was resized for the use in the calendar you made.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 05:10, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I did exactly that with the one I just took of Kika and new puppies, without any text, and it still got deleted. I reposted again today and it also got deleted again today. Why? YumiFan (talk) 05:14, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

This image? Because you shrunk it and we cannot tell if it is actually a photograph you took or one you took off of the internet. Upload the original file from your camera of this photograph.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 05:16, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that's the one. And I certainly know that I didn't shrink before uploading. I used Wikipedia's sizing to make it appropriate on the page, but it was uploaded at the size it came off the camera. The photos get deleted off my camera as soon as they're on the computer. The ones from the first litter are long gone except for the images for the calendar. YumiFan (talk) 05:19, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

That is a tiny 240x160 photograph. My cellphone takes larger pictures than that. There is absolutely no way that a camera takes photographs that small, especially one used for commercial endeavors. And I have never heard of a camera that does what you say yours does. And one that strips all of the information about the camera that took it from the photo.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 05:23, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I can set the size of the file on my camera. One obvious way a person might know if these are our photos? Take a look at the actual cam. There is NO way a person could get a shot of the puppies from this perspective. Not only that, they would never get screen captures of the puppies alone, because they were never alone on camera, and they were taken outside where the cam doesn't reach. By the way, I don't use a camera for "commercial endeavors". I have a cheap camera that takes shots that are good enough for me. YumiFan (talk) 05:29, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

The fact of the matter is that none of your old photographs or recent ones can be determined to have been actually made by any existing camera. I can tell that the perspective is impossible to achieve as a screen capture from the stream but that photo could have been taken by anyone for use by the owner of the dogs and you have uploaded it to Wikipedia. I honestly have never heard of any of the aspects of the camera you say you have. And I can tell that the photo has no information on the type of camera you supposedly took it with. It appears to have been modified with Microsoft Office, though.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 05:37, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I bring them into Microsoft Publisher and save them from there. I wonder if that's what's taking all the information that you need away. I have no professional set up here and do the only thing I know how. I have no way to prove this to you. I understand your point of being careful with people wanting to make money off the puppies' images, but the truth is, they'll find a way to do that if they want. It's already happened. YumiFan (talk) 05:44, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

No. My goal is to make sure that images uploaded to Wikipedia have the right copyright information on them. Right now, I can't be sure of what you have uploaded is truly a photograph you have taken, or one taken from somewhere on the Internet. There needs to be an image that has not been modified through Microsoft Publisher and then uploaded to Wikipedia. Only then will I believe you about the ownership of the images.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 05:53, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Okay, with your permission I posted the one screen shot until I figure out my camera and how to bypass Microsoft publisher. Is there anyway you can mark that photo file as authorized by you? Also, I'm confused about something you wrote in your note to me. It seems like there are several ways to "talk". I didn't realize I would be able to get personal messages. Then the word "talk" was next to your name on the edit, but you made it sound like my using that was an inappropriate way to go about this. As stated, I'm new to this and it's hardly intuitive. Any help would be appreciated.YumiFan (talk) 17:34, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Just do not upload any images for the puppy cam. If you do not know the proper rules and regulations for images you should not be uploading any of them.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 23:23, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Here ya go...that was very kind and instructive. It's a good thing you're here to help us. p.s. they shouldn't allow people who can't moderate their temper (when someone's asking for help) be moderators. You can erase this all you want sir. YumiFan (talk) 23:38, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

If you don't know the rules, don't play the game. And I'm not moderating anything.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 23:39, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm sitting here asking you for help. Asking you for instruction. Is it so hard to be kind????????? I apologize that I'm not an ace at this like you are. You still don't have to be a dick. YumiFan (talk) 23:41, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

If you don't know the rules about uploading images, you should learn them before uploading any more images. I cannot help you beyond that other than tag images you have uploaded with improper rationales and copyright information for deletion. Good day.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 23:46, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

checkered background

I know you decided to use something different, but thought i'd post here in case you ever change your mind, so you don't have to start from scratch:

Cheers, Bawolff (talk) 02:59, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. That certainly makes it almost impossible to read the text though.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 03:00, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Epic win

Unfunny. Check my other recent contribs too. Amazing how much trivia was pumped from these games into Wikipedia. Pcap ping 13:49, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Orphnenoch -> Orphnoch

Okay, but then it was still wrong cause the part i corrected said "Orphoch" ;3 IchiGhost (talk) 14:02, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Ah. Good on ya then.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 20:59, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

University of Miami issue

I've replied to your comment on my talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 03:51, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Politest

To state in the politest way possible please donot use a threatening tone on me. Doesnot work sweets. I still don't see any consensus at WP:RSN over the matter. I won't revert for 3RR, however, donot remove hidden tags as the issue is unresolved. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 05:40, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

The album is available on iTunes. The iTunes link is what is currently used on the article. It is clear that you were just exerting ownership of the page and did not want to have an Amazon.com link sully its references. The tag is removed because the point is moot now that there is another reference in place.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 05:45, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Im not exerting ownership of the article and request you to please stop these petty accusations. I don't see any consensus except SunCreator commenting that he thinks Amazon is a WP:RS but will explain later. Is this the way you think consensus is achieved? I donot understnad why are you removing a hidden tag when that can urge other editors in the discussion. This is simply an abuse of your editing priviledges. Again, assume good faith for others instead of calling them names. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 05:54, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

You didn't bother to contribute to the discussion until I pointed out to you that the album exists and is available for purchase and is mentioned on the artist's official website. A single article should not be the place to point people to an ongoing discussion on the merits of using the Amazon MP3 Store as a reliable source.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 05:57, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

WP:RSN#One week later

Apology for the delay, have now replied. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 22:41, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Removed prod from Back on My Feet

Just leaving you a notice, I removed the proposed deletion tag from this article because I felt that with the coverage shown by multiple citations, it passed Wikipedia's notability standards. If you disagree, feel free to bring the article to AfD. Thanks! -- Atama頭 00:08, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

For a moment there I forgot I made a separate article at Back On My Feet. To AFD it is for Back on My Feet then.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 00:12, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

University of Miami

That summary listing of University of Miami alumni and faculty seems inevitably subjective, and I think it was better from a format standpoint to simply leave the two links with the more comprehensive listings. Also, those individuals associated with the residential college names should be listed if they are individually referenced, or even if there are building articles, but not as names associated with buildings. MiamiDolphins3 (talk) 16:10, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I listed random people from both pages. And there is nothing against what I have done concerning the names of the buildings. If you have an issue, bring it up on the talk page.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 23:41, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Re: Digimon vandal

I thought you were demoted. Anyway, here's my full list of the IPs the vandal used since last July. But we know the guy's history is longer than that.- 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 11:34, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I was but I can see if something is feasible and request it. Could you try sorting these numerically?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 11:35, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Above list has been rearranged and grouped according to the first two number groups of the IP addresses. - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 11:56, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

That's much better.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 11:59, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Regarding your note on my talk page: I think you can just check the Digimon pages alone and compare the edits he always added by the diffs. - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 12:29, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Note that I attempted an edit filter (Filter 274), but it never went live due to a rangeblock by another admin that at the time seemed to work at the time. Feel free to customise or test it, as I am honestly a newb at edit filters. Cheers, NJA (t/c) 13:23, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't have the rights to work on filters. Nor do I know how they are made.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 13:24, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Re from vi: Sentai

Please watch (Ctrl+F "Dịch từ phiên bản bài viết ở Wikipedia Tiếng Anh.") this page, it mean "I translated from English Wikipedia version". Sometime I forgot add it, I sorry about that.--Lê _{talk-contributions} 12:00, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

P/s:Gedoushu isn't my article and translated from En Wikipedia.--Lê _{talk-contributions} 12:06, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

You should still add a link to the en.wiki page. Like I did in my edits.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 12:55, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Gosei Cards Removal Explaination

I first removed them because I figured it will probably be too much infomation in the future.--Yugiohmike2001 (talk) 23:41, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

We don't know that yet.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 00:38, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Question

Regarding this reply, User:Dwanyewest has actually posted that exact same "It fails..." line across a host of Afds: see also [3], [4] (the MAIN villain in a series with multiple episode appearances and that was made into an action figure that appears on a top ten list), [5] (one of the principal locations of the He-Man universe with appearances on television, in cartoon booklets, and as at least one playset that yes, I still have somewhere...), [6], [7], [8], etc. In fact, he nominated about THIRTY articles listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Fictional elements from the C.O.P.S. and Masters of the Universe franchises with near copy and paste nominations and is inviting those who do not like these particular articles to the discussions. Writing the exact same worded nominations and subsequent comments for episodes, characters, and locations does not feel right. These are not the same things. Moreover, the characters and locations vary considerably one from the other, i.e. how could the same worded argument possibly apply to a henchman with no action figure and who appears in one episode versus the main villain with multiple episodes versus the main villain's headquarters that also appears in comics and as a playset and especially when checking Google Books, these same characters and locations get different amounts of sourcing. What is more, I am seeing no reason presented as to why many of these could not be merged or even redirected as they are not hoaxes, libelous, or copy vios and a clear redirect location exists. Additionally, the same "original research" line is being applied to even ones that actually do have out of universe information sourced from a secondary source or two. I do not see any reason why per WP:BEFORE and WP:PRESERVE merges and redirects are not being discussed considered first and it does not even appear that sources are being looked for prior to the nominations or that the individual notability of each article is actually being considered. It looks more like as someone said in one of them, the nominator is just indiscriminately mass nominating from categories. What if anything can/should be done? Thank you. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 05:39, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

The only thing I can suggest is WP:ANI. This guy has been around way too long to keep doing this shit. I even saw him copy-paste all of WP:PROVEIT in another AFD.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 05:41, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Should I allow him a chance to reply to me first, i.e. so admins see that, I attempted to discuss with him first? Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 05:42, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Considering I did the same thing in one of the two AFDs he started today for Once a Ranger and Countdown to Destruction, and he just added the second copy-paste thing, just go ahead to ANI or something.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 05:45, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

For better or worse, it is 1:23 AM where I live and so I am about to go to sleep, i.e. I won't be able to start a thread tonight. Anyway, though, good night and hopefully our combined messages will be sufficient. If not, then I guess we'll have to start a thread tomorrow or something. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 06:25, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Do you still think an ANI thread is worth it? I notice the editor is now also asking participation from one of the only other deletes in that "Countdown..." discussion to join the other episode AFD as well as the mass noms mentioned above. So, we now have asking two editors who are likely to say to delete to join discussions for ones he started, at least one instance of nominating and then voting, mass copying and pasted, flooding AfD, etc. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 00:56, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Do it. I'm writing up other content.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 01:01, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Done, but the nominator is not the only editor taking a problematic approach to these discussions. Another editor with a battleground mentality ("I'm off to fly the Deletionist flag over at AfD" just labelled us "keepmongers." Also, I just noticed this. Look at the edit summary. The whole "kill it with fire" bit is something I have only noticed used by one other account: [9], [10], etc. That particular edit summary seems unique to these two accounts. If they are the same person, then they have double voted. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 18:18, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Despite the ANI thread, we are still seeing him add delete "votes" within discussions for which he nominated. Obviously, the nomination itself is a delete "vote" and so adding one within the discussion after someone else is a bit odd and certainly so when others have raised concerns over it. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 20:46, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Remove it and tell him that he is not allowed to do that.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 23:22, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I mentioned it at ANI where you have probably noticed I am stalked and hounded by a half dozen or so accounts that would probably just try to revert me and claim I'm editing someone else's post or some other distortion. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 23:25, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Well then I don't have a fucking clue what to do.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 23:30, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Edit summaries

I may have screwed one up as was having bad day. But think the rest of mine are OK? Will try and do better, thanks for drawing it to my attention. --Gibnews (talk) 16:15, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

You just did it here by editing the above section instead of using the + tab.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 16:19, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

OK assume I'm thick and spell it out to me because I really don't understand what you are getting at, and would like to get things right. or show me somewhere in wikipedia that explains what you are saying I can read. --Gibnews (talk) 20:19, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

In the edit summary here it says "/* Edit summaries */ ". You've been changing the text that's in the middle. Not adding text onto the side.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 23:38, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm not trying to be difficult, but really want to get it right as have been doing it that way for around six years - where is this explained on wikipedia? If not time it was! I took the /* */ to simply designate a comment as in c programming --Gibnews (talk) 09:17, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

That denotes the section title. Not a comment. Check the history of this page and see the difference between the section title and the commentary in the edit summary.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 10:52, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to explain that as its not intuitive or explained anywhere I've seen. --Gibnews (talk) 22:45, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

My Mistake

Please remove the offending vote if that is what is needed Dwanyewest (talk) 23:30, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

If you started it, you should not vote again. Just remove it yourself.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 23:32, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

User:Ryulong/Sandbox

Ryulong, As long as there is no major opposition from other users (I'm trusting you will let me know of any opposition), provide me with the IP ranges, I'll do rangeblock(s). Regards, FASTILY ^(TALK) 02:03, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

They're all currently in a thread I've posted on ANI. Several are blocked right now by Prodego but the blocks are all set to expire in about four days time.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 02:17, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

76.202.56.0/22 and 75.36.128.0/21 both blocked 6 months. If the vandal continues their disruptive spree once the blocks of the other 4 ranges expire, leave a message on my talk and I'll re-block the ranges. Regards, FASTILY ^(TALK) 02:24, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Of course he will use those other four ranges. The only reason he has been on the other two is because the other four are blocked which gave him the daily ability to vandalize instead of once every two weeks on the two unblocked ranges.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 03:22, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

I would reblock those ranges right now, but I need a valid reason to. This vandal, through their actions upon the expiry of the blocks, is going to give me the justification I need for a long, extended block. Please let me know when they return. Regards, FASTILY ^(TALK) 03:25, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

So as soon as he becomes active on the ranges that gave him more IPs to edit from in four days, notify you, instead of just blocking them all now?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 03:30, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Basically. We're talking justification for a yearlong block here. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 03:33, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

So when he comes back on the other four ranges, you're going to be blocking just those four for a year?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 03:41, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

I am indeed considering doing just that. Is that not long enough or are there other ranges in question? -FASTILY ^(TALK) 03:51, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

The four that will soon be unblocked and the two that you just blocked are the only ranges he's operated out of.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 03:54, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Ah, I see what you mean now. I blocked 76.202.56.0/22 and 75.36.128.0/21 for six months because you noted that the vandal was not as active in these ranges. Rangeblocks have the potential to affect numerous users so I want to keep them short as possible. If the vandal is as active as you say on the other ranges, six months isn't going to cut it. So if the vandal returns on any of those ranges, let me know and I'll block all 4. Regards, FASTILY ^(TALK) 04:06, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, I'm only sure that before the other four ranges were blocked, he only used 3 IPs out of the other two ranges. Now that they are the only one's he can use, he has used just as much. I really don't think you need to wait for March 3 to reblock these. If he hasn't learned that we don't want him to edit by blocking most of his access, I doubt that with these two blocked and the four he used most available again that he's gonna stop.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 04:13, 27 February 2010 (UTC)