Jump to content

User talk:Ryulong/Archive 67

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 60←Archive 65Archive 66Archive 67Archive 68Archive 69Archive 70

Clock Help

I don't know how to shift the clock over to the left side. I can't seem to find the code for it.—cyberpower (Talk to Me)(Contributions) 21:35, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Get rid of the <center> tags.—Ryulong (竜龙) 21:48, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
I want the clock on the left side of the screen, my little notice in the center and my WikiStress Level on the right. I'm not getting it to work somehow. Could you possibly help me out in this matter? I want my page to use space efficiently but it's not.—cyberpower (Talk to Me)(Contributions) 13:08, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
Go to Help:Tables and that should help you out. I am not going to make your page for you.—Ryulong (竜龙) 20:10, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
Thanks.—cyberpower (Talk to Me)(Contributions) 20:48, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Go-busters & Meteor

I have created a sub-article for the Go-busters here. Do whatever you wish to it and you can move it to the real article any time you wish. ~Marvelous2011~ ( ★ AlienX2009 ★ ) 21:29, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

I will very likely be writing something from scratch, but whatever.—Ryulong (竜龙) 21:55, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
So, you probably won't use my draft? ~Marvelous2011~ ( ★ AlienX2009 ★ ) 22:01, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
Too early to tell.—Ryulong (竜龙) 22:02, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
Also, I cannot get the copyrights because there is an error on WebCite. ~Marvelous2011~ ( ★ AlienX2009 ★ ) 22:05, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
Just copy them from the Super Sentai page.—Ryulong (竜龙) 22:18, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
What do you mean? ~Marvelous2011~ ( ★ AlienX2009 ★ ) 22:37, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
The links are working fine.—Ryulong (竜龙) 22:39, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
No, go to CiteWeb and enter 2011-63268. It won't work.~Marvelous2011~ ( ★ AlienX2009 ★ ) 22:50, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
Just click one of my damn links on Super Sentai. They are working fine.—Ryulong (竜龙) 23:06, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
Well sorry, I didn't know what you meant when you said check the Super Sentai page. ~Marvelous2011~ ( ★ AlienX2009 ★ ) 23:11, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
And the English title of "Go-Busters" is not confirmed unless you have something that isn't those shitty photos of a trade catalog.—Ryulong (竜龙) 23:15, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
Well here's a not-so-shitty version of it. It's bigger, and you clearly see the GO-BUSTERS in the logo on this one. It's confirmed. [1] Digifiend (talk) 17:09, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
That is still not from a reliable source. That's just a higher resolution scan of that same trade catalog.—Ryulong (竜龙) 18:29, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Also, I hope you know I have a sub article for Kamen Rider Meteor as well. ~Marvelous2011~ ( ★ AlienX2009 ★ ) 00:10, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, well it's also going to end up not being used.—Ryulong (竜龙) 00:11, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
Do you know the magazine with the picture of Kamen Rider Fourze Rocket States with the english name next to it? Because thats the smae magazine where the official english name for Kamen Rider Meteor, and is indeed "Meteor", is revealed. ~Marvelous2011~ ( ★ AlienX2009 ★ ) 22:17, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
"Rocket States" is an easy translation. I have not seen "Meteor" yet.—Ryulong (竜龙) 22:29, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
It must be in like a Hyper Hobby or a Figure-Oh magazine or something. There was also a "Nostalgia Point" for Mega Max in the magazine if that helps. ~Marvelous2011~ ( ★ AlienX2009 ★ ) 22:31, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
I don't have the full page scans that show that.—Ryulong (竜龙) 23:22, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
Well, trust me there is. It shows Rocket States as "KAMEN RIDER FOURZE ROCKETSTATES". ~Marvelous2011~ ( ★ AlienX2009 ★ ) 23:58, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
I would, but I've had issues with that in the past.—Ryulong (竜龙) 00:07, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
I know, I don't blame you. I just can't find the damn scan. ~Marvelous2011~ ( ★ AlienX2009 ★ ) 00:10, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I finally found it. [2] ~Marvelous2011~ ( ★ AlienX2009 ★ ) 12:43, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
Ah. So it is "Meteor".—Ryulong (竜龙) 19:20, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
Lol. I have been watching this argument for a while now. In my opinion Ryulong it seems to me you are a little stressed out. I don't know if you de-stressed yet or not, I hope my beer helped, it's good to see you calm again.—cyberpower (X-Mas Chat)(Contrib.) 20:12, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

No wars please

Listen I don't know why you are posting these statements concerning 'Children of the World' by Julian Lennon when it was featured on a Japanese movie??? or any of the other articles posted since they have ranked on the top 100 in Japan??? Such as this http://www.music-chart.info/song/802335/Children-of-the-World --Galworld (talk) 11:29, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

A random compilation album made up by some no-name non-for-profit organization does not match with our rules on what is and is not allowed on Wikipedia.—Ryulong (竜龙) 11:31, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
I think that you are confusing the organization with the album... the organization is like the label... the album is by all of the artist on the album... most of the are very notable musicians...
"Howling at the Moon" is a well known song???? On Tim Rice page: http://www.timrice.co.uk/archive.html states: "The Tyler Foundation For Childhood Cancer held its "Vegas Extravaganza" to help support its new dog therapy programme on 2 October 2009 at the Grand Hyatt, Tokyo. Sir Tim Rice attended the event at which "Howling At The Moon" and the comic "Nova Scotia Duck Trolling Retriever" were premiered -- songs written by Tim and Alan Menken especially for the occasion. Visit the Tyler Foundation website for more information, pictures and video of the event." Why are you questioning notability when a simple search can show what is what?--Galworld (talk) 11:40, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
None of this is what qualifies for inclusion on Wikipedia. "Howling at the Moon" was never released as a single and there are no reliable sources out there to even say that it exists out of the garbage produced by the Tyler Foundation. It is a song on some compilation album that the organization that hired you is selling.—Ryulong (竜龙) 11:43, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
Also, the iTunes sale charts are not record sale charts.—Ryulong (竜龙) 11:44, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
You are so wrong about everything just look at this: http://www.lewisbradley.site90.com/shows.html
The song existed just as I have stated but the information just needs to but all put in... just because you cann't find anything doesn't mean there isn't anything... FYI I wasn't hired by anyone but I think that the information will support itself.--Galworld (talk) 11:49, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
It doesn't matter if the song existed beforehand. None of the articles you have written are within the inclusion guidelines of this non-public website. None of the songs are notable on their own. The album isn't notable on its own. And the foundation is barely notable itself. It is extremely odd that you claim to not be involved with this organization when all of your edits to this project have been involved with making pages about the crap that it's been spewing out.—Ryulong (竜龙) 11:55, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
I'm really not interested in this organization you keep talking about... I only interested in the album itself... the fact that the artists sang them, notables wrote them, and discogs references backup that the album was in fact officially released in Japan with all the needed identification information means that it is charted. Plus, the fact that a few of these songs were mentioned in media and published elsewhere on third party websites means that they are in fact notable or a lease have the potential of further attention given the artists involved and the recentness of its release.... I am sensing you bias against this organization, but I think you should let that go because it has nothing to do with these entrees as far as Wikipedia is concerned.--Galworld (talk) 12:11, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
Discogs is not a reliable source. It is a database that lists every album ever made. And individual songs like these are not notable. We have rules that say this. I have no bias against the Tyler Foundation of which you are very clearly a worker of. I only know that none of this crap belongs on Wikipedia.—Ryulong (竜龙) 19:45, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

AIV

Sorry, but many of your recent AIV reports are unactionable. Except in rare situations, one or more warnings (at the very least) should usually precede a block. --Bongwarrior (talk) 11:48, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Warnings get in the way of stopping these idiots from continuing.—Ryulong (竜龙) 11:49, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
In some cases being warned will cause them to stop on their own without being blocked. This "block everyone on sight" mentality isn't good for the encyclopedia, and isn't the way normal vandalism is usually handled. --Bongwarrior (talk) 11:53, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
Those are rare occasions, I must say.—Ryulong (竜龙) 11:56, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
The goal is to stop vandalism, this can usually be accomplished by providing warnings. Blocking should be the last choice not the first choice. Jeepday (talk) 12:24, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Indefinite blocks vs. bans

Hi. Because an indefinite block is only a "de facto" ban if no administrator is willing to unblock, it is not the same as a community ban. An indefinite block can be overturned by an administrator; a community ban requires community discussion. For that reason, I have undone your closure of this discussion and instead implemented the ban unanimously agreed upon by participants to that thread. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:08, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Oh come on. We do not need to community ban people who have been de facto banned. I started up a discussion at WT:BAN to get rid of these stupid threads on ANI and WP:BAN has been changed to reflect that.—Ryulong (竜龙) 19:36, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
A "de facto" ban stops being a ban as soon as any administrator is willing to unblock. That is not the same thing as an actual ban, which requires community conversation to lift. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 01:42, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
That still does not explain why it is necessary to discuss a ban on a serial sock master when it is frankly already in place. These community lynchings of corpses need to stop.—Ryulong (竜龙) 02:01, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
The contrast is between something that is "de facto" and something that is "de jure". A "de facto" ban has no teeth; it is not, in fact, a real ban but is "as good as"...until the day somebody unblocks the user or decides to give him a second chance. Is there an actual reason that you feel that community ban discussion needs to stop? The only thing you've cited so far is that you think it is unnecessary, but for an indef block to replace a ban, we must be able to trust that every single admin on Wikipedia will understand that the community actually does want a ban and that the contributor will not be welcome just because one guy thinks he deserves a second chance. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:21, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Scramble

Hey there. I don't agree with your assertion of non-notability, and so I've reverted your edit. Just to let you know, in case you disagree :) If you do, please take it to the talk page and we'll discuss it. Kyle Barbour 06:46, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

You've been reverted by more than one person on that page. Stop disrupting Wikipedia.—Ryulong (竜龙) 07:22, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
Hey, there. Can we assume good faith here? I am with you.
It's not a neologism. It's the official term until the advent of SOAP (see [3]). It gets 121,000 hits on Google (see [4]). It's not a dicdef, since it requires explanation and was the official title of a large, complex process. So why should it be removed, exactly?
I don't care enough about Wikipedia or this to fight you on it, but since the claims that you've proffered aren't true, I hope you look at the evidence and discuss it with me reasonably, rather than treating me as a troll. I've been here a long time, it's not like I'm a vandal or something. I'd appreciate it if you treated me with some courtesy. Thank you, Kyle Barbour 07:30, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
What-fucking-ever. The fact that two different editors removed this means you should not have put it there in the first place. Disambiguation pages are to list different variations on the page title. Not to host something which is not listed anywhere else on Wikipedia. If you feel that the "scrambling" process is so god damn important just make a real full fledged article about it instead of haphazardly listing it on a disambiguation page. And the fact that you do trollish things like edit warring or adding crap to a random redirect shortcut to evoke a sense of nostalgia or humor are disruptive.—Ryulong (竜龙) 07:31, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
You're being mean. Can you stop doing that and engage with me as another editor? It's OK to disagree, I'd just like some politeness.
They provided two different arguments. I rebutted both of them. I'm open to hearing alternative arguments. Can you please offer any? The DAB is important for things that aren't article titles, in fact, that's why they exist. Hence, adding something that isn't an article on its own. Kyle Barbour 07:36, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
It does not matter if you've rebutted two different arguments. The fact of the matter is that it's 2 against 1 on having that on Scramble (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). If two different people have removed content, you should figure out that it is not appropriate for the project.—Ryulong (竜龙) 07:39, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
I don't agree, but you know, never mind. This was really unpleasant and unnecessary in how nasty it was, and I'm just going to let it go. I'd encourage you to remember in the future that while you may judge someone harshly very quickly, you can be wrong about their true character and the thought process behind their actions — hence m:Don't be a dick. Best wishes to you. Kyle Barbour 07:42, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
You don't have to agree. You just have to deal with it.—Ryulong (竜龙) 07:43, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
That's not what I'm talking about. I'm OK with being wrong, and I'm OK with disagreeing and talking about it. I'm talking about your really mean and aggressive tone. It's why editing Wikipedia isn't fun anymore, and I might note, part of why you failed RfA. It's too bad — I was actually really stoked to talk to you about this, since I remember you from back in the day and was excited to work with an old friend on figuring this out. No worries, though. Kyle Barbour 07:48, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
I was an admin for two and a half years and me being blunt had nothing to do with any of the RFAs (or the RFAR that led to my desysop) so that's a really odd assumption you make there. And I believe that someone who has been on this site longer than I have should realize that they should not do silly things on important pages and should not be coddled with a "Hey, don't do that".—Ryulong (竜龙) 07:53, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
I'm basing it on the numerous comments saying "bites people" on the 3 RFAs I scanned. It doesn't matter, though, I'm just pointing out that it doesn't look like I'm the first person you snapped at pretty hard. I'm happy to withdraw that statement if you like.
I think the concern should be about whether the NRMP entry belongs in the DAB or not. I think I've provided evidence that it should be. You seem to oppose it being there despite that evidence and I really haven't heard anything suggesting that I'm wrong. It seems like you think that since two people don't agree, I'm wrong and that the evidence doesn't matter, which seems strange. I haven't violated 3RR. Instead, BOLD, revert, discuss was occurring in the edit summaries, at least until we got to this point. I thought until now, everything was very positive.
Anyway. I thought it would be fun to contribute to knowledge, but this has not been fun, you don't seem to want to look at the evidence, and I don't care that much, so I'm going back to studying for finals. Have a good day, and I hope this has been beneficial for you in some fashion, whatever that means for you. Kyle Barbour 08:02, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
BRD does not take place in edit summaries. The minute you were reverted the first time, you should have gone to some talk page and raised the issue instead of reverting, again. And I did not say you violated 3RR. I just said you edit warred, which has no lower limit.—Ryulong (竜龙) 08:28, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

AIV report

You have been reported to Administrator intervention against vandalism here. Naturally I have declined to take any action, but I do suggest it would be much better to make sure you use edit summaries. A couple of the linked diffs removed content without any explanation at all. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:55, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Here is the report
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Edits are not vandalism. Please ensure recent edits constitute vandalism before re-reporting. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:53, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

--Guerillero | My Talk 16:27, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Oh great. Now he is socking.—Ryulong (竜龙) 18:31, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi Ryulong, I declined your request at WP:RFPP, and I would also ask you to stop reverting the IP editor's additions to the article. While some of the sources are of less dubious quality, others (such as [5]) are completely fine. Further, I doubt the anonymous user is socking; it's much more likely they have a dynamic IP address or are editing from multiple locations (home, work, etc.). Malinaccier (talk) 19:56, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

The IP editor's additions to the article are the same as other IP editors' additions to the article because they are a series of IPs all within Tel Aviv who seem to have a vested interest in Tyler Foundation.—Ryulong (竜龙) 19:58, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
There's nothing wrong with that. Looking at the AFD, there has not been a use of sock puppets to violate policy or distort consensus. If the anonymous user(s) improve the article and establish notability of the subject and the AFD fails, then Wikipedia improves and all is well :). Malinaccier (talk) 20:04, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
But I removed the other pisspoor primary sources that he keeps putting back. The Japantimes one is vaguely fine, even if I do not think it is a suitable source.—Ryulong (竜龙) 20:07, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
Your continued reversion is escalating things negatively. Japantimes is an established news source in Japan, and you did not leave it in the article. Further, the IP is not violating WP:SOCK. I agree that the editor probably has a conflict of interest, but there is nothing wrong with the addition of further sources. If the article is too much of a blatant promotion as determined at AFD, it will be deleted and no harm done by the IP's attempts to save it in the meantime. You need to just let the IP try to improve the article instead of choking article improvement. Malinaccier (talk) 20:26, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
The sources that he keeps adding are primary sources that mention the subject in passing.—Ryulong (竜龙) 20:28, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
What is on the article now is fine (with the removal of primary sourcing), can we agree on that? :). Malinaccier (talk) 20:30, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
Fine. But if another IP in Tel Aviv adds the Scotty McIntire and Tim Rice homepages, again, I will be reverting it.—Ryulong (竜龙) 20:31, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Why is Goranger "Gorenger?"

The reason why I ask is that you said on the editing that you wanted to avoid the debate on the page but I can't help but see that if you change "Goranger" to "Gorenger" than you have to turn "Turboranger" to "Turborenger" and "Zyuranger" to "Zyurenger" and so on and so forth or revert "Gorenger" back to "Goranger" like all the other Sentai teams. Unless that is if there is a specific reason why Goranger is the singled one out in which case, I simply ask what is the thing that makes "Gorenger" important to distinguish? I will not edit the page "back" or anything, I am merely trying to understand the use of "Gorenger."

Thank you for your time, sincerely,

--スミス ナサニアル (talk) 06:20, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

The fact of the matter is that Toei and Bandai have been using "Gorenger" to exclusively refer to the first Super Sentai series since at least 2006. Every subsequent series that has the レンジャー ending has been "-ranger". You can see this sort of thing on any of the print material released by them lately has it as "Gorenger", while all the others have been "Turboranger", "Zyuranger", "Dairanger", "Kakuranger", "Ohranger", "Carranger", "Megaranger", "Timeranger", "Gaoranger", "Abaranger", "Dekaranger", "Magiranger", and "Gekiranger". I believe "Gorenger" is also plastered across their vehicles.—Ryulong (竜龙) 06:40, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
Do you suppose that this could be the case of a translator messing up and creating an "Engrish" problem like many Japanese companies have done in the past such as using the word, "Congraturations" instead of the correct "Congratulations." Or the "Retu" incident in the Gekiranger movie. People do make mistakes that get past into the finished project. Do you suppose that this is one of those instances. Because it doesn't seem self-consistent in the translation of レンジャー in my opinion.
Again, thank you for listening to what could just be from your perspective a rant from a butt-hurt fanboy.
--スミス ナサニアル (talk) 06:52, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
It's pretty consistent that it's "Gorenger" and "Zyuranger" as of late. I've posted scans of the back of Dice-Oh cards that show "Akarenger" and "Tyrannoranger" on your talk page. There were also boxes of toys that came out lately that say "Akarenger" and "Dragonranger" but I can't find them.—Ryulong (竜龙) 06:54, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
And regarding "Retu", his name was never printed as "Retsu" and "Retu" is a valid transliteration of the katakana that make up his name that are normally pronounced as "Retsu". The same goes for "Mere", whose name is written as "Mere" in the movie as well as on this website (which also uses "Goranger" for the URL for the Gorenger page but "Gorenger" is more prevalent otherwise).—Ryulong (竜龙) 06:58, 9 December 2011 (UTC)


Go-Busters

http://i667.photobucket.com/albums/vv31/alternate-zero/wwwdotuporg2409770.jpg

Would this count as confirmation? It's from February's issue of Televi-kun. 69.132.11.135 (talk) 07:21, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

That would be confirmation except the February Televi-Kun isn't out until December 27. So we'll wait 5 days.—Ryulong (竜龙) 07:43, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
Well no need to rely on that now anyway: official website has launched - http://www.tv-asahi.co.jp/go-bus/ Digifiend (talk) 19:46, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
So it has.—Ryulong (竜龙) 20:12, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

File:Little Boots Shake.jpg

You really should get an SVG version created and uploaded to commons. :) -- A Certain White Cat chi? 13:59, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

I took this directly from the source who only uploaded it as a JPG.—Ryulong (竜龙) 19:45, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

P4 epsidoes

It is OR for stating what King Moron believes because we cannot say what he believes. That is OR. We can only state what he does. I haven't seen the series so I don't know how he acts. If you want to have that phrase, find a secondary sources, ie not the episode itself. While I'm at it, descriptive terms are generally not a good idea to use either for the same reason, although on a few occasions the primary source can be used if its cited exactly so people know where to look in the episode.∞陣内Jinnai 07:04, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

You should not have reverted me and tagged it as vandalism, or reverted me at all anyway. It is not OR when he says, and I quote from the Anime Network subs, "Infidel! You just leered at the girl by the window, didn't you?! Your name's goin' down my rotten shit list!" This is the only source I will ever need to support any statement about King Moron's opinion of Narukami. And as you played the game, you should remember how he acts. In the future, take a look at the edits instead of blindly reverting just because of the edit summary.—Ryulong (竜龙) 07:17, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
Sorry about reverting as vandalism. I didn't mean to hit that button, but once hit you can't undo it. However, the previous statement was controversial claim as it was assigning an opinion or belief to a character.∞陣内Jinnai 16:35, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

My images

All images in page Vietnam awards and decorations, include all Medals, Orders, Titles, Ribbons,... I created those image by myself, I used Power Point Presentation 2007, and then save as a image file (jpeg/png). If you need evidence, I will sent to you my file. I just know what I missed when I upload those images. Don't delete those image. It's took my 2 months to created.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Trungkiendo (talk • contribs)

You may have created them, but you do not own the rights to them.—Ryulong (竜龙) 10:35, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for your help, I know what I missed. I will change those permissions. Thanks!— Preceding unsigned comment added by Trungkiendo (talk • contribs)
No. Do not. The Vietnamese government does not give the same permissions as others.—Ryulong (竜龙) 10:41, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
What can I do if I want to create images and upload to those pages?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Trungkiendo (talk • contribs)
For this topic you can't. You do not own those images, even if you made them yourself. The Vietnamese government owns the images, and they do not have a public domain for these items. Even then, they're not the right shape or anything because you put it together yourself in Power Point.—Ryulong (竜龙) 10:49, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Super Hero War

I know the title is still tentative, but I think it should have an article by now. We have a cast list and enough sources to do it. Besides, we can always move the article when the real title is decided. ~Marvelous2011~ ( ★ AlienX2009 ★ ) 19:26, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

No. We do not have enough reliable sources yet.—Ryulong (竜龙) 20:25, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
Well anyway, here is Sakata Rikako's blog confirming a few characters appearing in the film. [6] ~Marvelous2011~ ( ★ AlienX2009 ★ ) 20:39, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
Okay. We can't really use this as a citation, but it is useful.—Ryulong (竜龙) 21:59, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ryulong/Archive_67&oldid=1257474890"