User talk:Ryulong/Archive 89
 | This is an archive of past discussions about User:Ryulong. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 85 | ← | Archive 87 | Archive 88 | Archive 89 | Archive 90 | Archive 91 | → | Archive 95 |
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:1993EBT/EBT
Hi Ryulong. I finished closing Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:1993EBT/EBT. If I missed anything, please let me know. -- Jreferee (talk) 14:39, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
Removing true information
Stop removing truthful information; you said you would not abuse rollback anymore, but you are still committing to bad ownership issues and you are removing important information like categories. How about you do some research next time? Disney ran Power Rangers for 15 something seasons and many incarnations of Power Rangers including Mighty Morphin Power Rangers. And stop trying to own the article. Your actions at Power Rangers and its media is becoming highly disturbing. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:02, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
- Last I checked the Jetix block did not feature MMPR, while it did feature the other versions.—Ryulong (琉竜) 17:59, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
- But it did. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:34, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
Crunchyroll in anime infoboxes
KirtZJ has added Crunchyroll as an English network to Btooom!, and argues that it is common practice. Is there a consensus for (or against) adding a streaming website as a TV network (or a licensor) in articles? I thought the |network_en = parameter is meant only for TV stations, and the |licensor = parameter for companies releasing physical media in their territories; am I wrong? Is this issue discussed anywhere? Raamin (talk) 02:17, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
- I don't know.—Ryulong (琉竜) 02:59, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
Edit warring and OWN
Your revert was reverted, please do not edit war and explain why the removal is necessary. Do not again reinstate your revert again. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:24, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
- Neither of you have consensus for your addition so I don't know why you're yelling at me. You two need to stop gaming the system to gain the upperhand in these debates by agreeing with each other and targetting me when I'm the only one who will stand up to your bullshit.—Ryulong (琉竜) 06:04, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for notifying me about a discussion of me. It's appreciated. I fear Chris and I are quite independent here. We did talk about WP:MOSAM a bit when I was reviewing a GA of his, which got me interested in the issue, but I'm afraid this was me acting on my own, because I think that supposed guidelines need to actually make good recommendations and be guidelines in the first place, not something supported solely by a small cabal in a Wikiproject. Adam Cuerden (talk) 09:12, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
- The two of you appear to have been acting in concert, if not intentionally. Regardless, you are the one who began the edit war by reverting my revert, and Chris reverting me does not legitimize anything, as it is still of questionable quality as shown in the discussion on the talk page.—Ryulong (琉竜) 09:34, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
- I didn't, actually. I made a change. You reverted it. I did not restore the change, but tagged it with "disputed". Here is the diff from just after your first revert. [1]. If you check, you will find that, after that single, inital change, my only actions to that section afterwards involved marking it as disputed. Adam Cuerden (talk) 09:51, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
- Fair enough. Then Chris is to blame for restoring content under dispute on the talk page.—Ryulong (琉竜) 09:57, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
- I can't speak for his actions, obviously. Still, I am genuinely glad this dispute's over, and hope we can move forwards with the actual issues - hacking out better wording. Adam Cuerden (talk) 10:12, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
- How was the parenthetical I added not suitable?—Ryulong (琉竜) 10:14, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
- It's a start, but, remember, I'm not actually disputing having a statement like that, just the issues it has in applicability and practice.
- There's roughly three types of articles we could be looking at, and the statement can only apply to one of them.
- Articles on the original work. If anyone wrote, in an article on the Bleach manga, that Bleach was an anime based on a manga, they'd be stupid, so the advice is meaningless here.
- Articles on a spinoff. Again, the advice is meaningless.
- The general article - I know you hate "franchise", but, choice of exact wording aside, there's a number of articles on mangas that also give extensive coverage to - and outright replace articles on - anime series based on the manga. These are the only ones I can see where the advice applies. Now, combining everything into one article isn't always a bad thing (depending, pretty much, on how faithful the adaptations are to the original), but if we're not going to have an article on a very popular anime, rolling it into the manga instead, we need to very quickly make it clear to readers "Read here for information about the anime!" The simple fact is, everywhere else on Wikipedia, the first sentence is used to set out the scope of the article. Whether a spoken or unspoken rule (it's at least strongly implied in WP:LEAD, e.g. "It should define the topic", "[The first paragraph] should also establish the boundaries of the topic", etc.), it's one that's highly consistent throughout all of Wikipedia, but I've seen a few examples where the scope is "the manga, anime, and video games for X", and the first mention of the anime is in the third paragraph or so - and the anime is half the article, and no dedicated article of its own. Fullmetal Alchemist is a good example here, where I wouldn't expect anyone looking for the anime series to figure out they're at the correct article already. (I'd also question whether the Fullmetal Alchemist anime is faithful enough to be rolled in, but then, I've only seen the anime, and have been told that the mangaka asked for the anime to change enough detals to make it its own work, while keeping the spirit and characters of the original. Maybe that's wrong, but it's enough to concern me a bit.)
- I think our goal is the same: we want Wikipedia to have good articles on manga and anime. Doing so means getting these things right, so that people can find our coverage. Adam Cuerden (talk) 10:36, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
- I see your point now, but it's not necessary to advise writers to cram everything into the first sentence either. The manual of style or whatever we're calling the page should probably advise writers to use "[title] is a manga by [author], first published in [magazine] on [insert date here]. [Short plot exposition sentence]. It was later adapted into an anime [TV series/film/film series/etc] on [insert date]. There have also been [other media like video games]."—Ryulong (琉竜) 16:07, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
- That would be an excellent opening sentence and first few sentences structure. I am so uninterested in your favorite topics, but I have to research them sometimes for work, and I have seen and generally trust your work on Wikipedia articles. It is the one area where I have to start at Wikipedia with research. Please try to not let the bs lead you to a heated response. It goes nowhere. 1rr for you would be a problem in this area, leading to long delays while you find someone to correct the worst crap added to articles. --(AfadsBad (talk) 19:14, 3 October 2013 (UTC))
- I see your point now, but it's not necessary to advise writers to cram everything into the first sentence either. The manual of style or whatever we're calling the page should probably advise writers to use "[title] is a manga by [author], first published in [magazine] on [insert date here]. [Short plot exposition sentence]. It was later adapted into an anime [TV series/film/film series/etc] on [insert date]. There have also been [other media like video games]."—Ryulong (琉竜) 16:07, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
- How was the parenthetical I added not suitable?—Ryulong (琉竜) 10:14, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
- I can't speak for his actions, obviously. Still, I am genuinely glad this dispute's over, and hope we can move forwards with the actual issues - hacking out better wording. Adam Cuerden (talk) 10:12, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
- Fair enough. Then Chris is to blame for restoring content under dispute on the talk page.—Ryulong (琉竜) 09:57, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
- I didn't, actually. I made a change. You reverted it. I did not restore the change, but tagged it with "disputed". Here is the diff from just after your first revert. [1]. If you check, you will find that, after that single, inital change, my only actions to that section afterwards involved marking it as disputed. Adam Cuerden (talk) 09:51, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
R from move
This change may be of interest to you, given your recent TfD of Template:R from move. Jackmcbarn (talk) 15:17, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
JoJo
Hey, we need to organize the JoJo article a little. The 'Exhibitions' and 'Collaborations' sections you recently added have some duplicate info to that of the 'Legacy' section, and a little to the manga spin-offs too. I'm thinking move both those into Legacy, I don't think exhibits and illustrations for other media such as albums covers qualify as "JoJo media". Xfansd (talk) 20:07, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
- I don't think they really fit under "legacy" when it was the artwork (particularly for JJBA) that was the focus, and the collaborations don't really fit under it either. However, they are relevant under the discussion of JoJo as they were all drawn in the distinctive style Araki has created for this particular manga, rather than any of his other creations. "Legacy" is such a nebulous title.—Ryulong (琉竜) 20:10, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
- The collaborations came about because the series is iconic and popular. Yes, legacy is vague, but purposefully so. This way it can gather miscellaneous info and we don't have to create several subsections for each piece. That is just his art style, you don't seriously think he draws that way just for JoJo? The images for the temple restoration and book covers (the Cell one excluded I guess), if they don't have characters from the series, then it doesn't have anything to do with JoJo. You agree that there is some repeating info (the Gucci manga are mentioned 3 times currently) and something needs to be done tho right? Xfansd (talk) 21:02, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
- It wasn't how Baoh was drawn or Gorgeous Irene either. I tried to cut out some of the Gucci stuff but yeah fix it how you think is best.—Ryulong (琉竜) 07:23, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
- The collaborations came about because the series is iconic and popular. Yes, legacy is vague, but purposefully so. This way it can gather miscellaneous info and we don't have to create several subsections for each piece. That is just his art style, you don't seriously think he draws that way just for JoJo? The images for the temple restoration and book covers (the Cell one excluded I guess), if they don't have characters from the series, then it doesn't have anything to do with JoJo. You agree that there is some repeating info (the Gucci manga are mentioned 3 times currently) and something needs to be done tho right? Xfansd (talk) 21:02, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
Editor of the Week
|
Editor of the Week | |
| Your ongoing efforts to improve the encyclopedia have not gone unnoticed: You have been selected as Editor of the Week, for improving the encyclopedia one edit at a time. Thank you for the great contributions! (courtesy of the Wikipedia Editor Retention Project) |
User:Buster7 submitted the following nomination for Editor of the Week:
- Ryulong is a veteran editor with over 180000 edits in a long career of editing. With over 65% of his efforts in mainspace, it is clear that his efforts are about improving the encyclopedia rather than arguing about it. Since mid-2010 he has received the occasional barnstar (6) and one lone beer. A glance at his archives and communications with editors shows someone that is always willing to explain and to teach. I nominate User:Ryulong for Editor of the Week.
You can copy the following text to your user page to display a user box proclaiming your selection as Editor of the Week:
{{subst:Wikipedia:WikiProject Editor Retention/Editor of the Week/Recipient user box}}
Thanks again for your efforts! Go Phightins! 19:45, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
|
|
|
| Symbol of Okinawa Prefecture |
| Ryulong |
| Editor of the Week for the week beginning October 13, 2013 |
| Recognized for |
| 180000 edits displaying collaboration and teaching. |
| Submit a nomination |
- Congratulations! Can't thank you enough for all the work you've done. -- Khazar2 (talk) 02:03, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Please don't bring this to mediation
Its not worth it, and they always manage to find ways to use WP:BOOMERANG on you. Also mediation isn't the place to complain about his behaviour. the mediator will not take it into consideration.Lucia Black (talk) 19:14, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
Abuse of the Thanks system
Do this again and I will block you. [2]. This is your only warning. Nick (talk) 19:20, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
- You got a deal.—Ryulong (琉竜) 19:21, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
- Do you think there's something I can plug into my CSS to remove the link. Seems stupid anyway.—Ryulong (琉竜) 19:35, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
Vent
This place hasn't been fun in years. Coming here is only out of habit. Editing pages is practically a chore. I have pissed off random assholes on third party websites because of my actions here. The only reason I'll end up staying is because I can't trust that same group of people who hate me to keep these articles in check otherwise the coverage will just go to shit and people will be bitching at each other over official spellings or the spelling some translation group pulled out of their ass because it's what the company meant to use because they can't speak English. And no one seems to give a shit about keeping the pages up to date despite the templates I've put in hidden comments to let people other than myself do it. I needed to get this off my chest.—Ryulong (琉竜) 21:08, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
Wha???
I reverted your edit on dragon Ball (Anime) I do not know where you see that those are not needed anymore (Multiwiki link) and link to wikia. If I am wrong please link me to the page thanks. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:18, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
- The inter language links are now supported by media wiki software and I've seen wikia links get removed from several other pages as we'll.—Ryulong (琉竜) 03:06, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
- Ryulong is correct, they are not needed anymore. I think you can add them through that site somehow, but despite no coding present you still have the interwiki links on the left side. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 11:53, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
Please revert close of melody song RM
Sorry but a close like that with a comment misrepresenting the arguments of those who have participated is not a good close. That is likely to end up at Move Review with that wording on it. Best leave it for a third party. In ictu oculi (talk) 05:07, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
- Current decision is "Melody song" is what should be used and there's no page at that disambiguated title so why does it matter? It's not what I wanted so I don't see any reason it should ever be listed at move review which never does shit anyway.—Ryulong (琉竜) 05:59, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
List of Pokemon (650-718)
Eventhough no one currently knows if more Pokemon are actually to be revealed in the future since no one has access to the game data that list encompasses the Pokemon from numbers 650 to 718 therefore List of Pokémon (650–718) is the appropriate title. Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 15:10, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
- I reverted your move once, already. Do not move the page back and begin a WP:Requested move discussion instead.—Ryulong (琉竜) 15:58, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
- Why did you move the page back, exactly what is your reasoning for this? The page currently lists Pokemon from numbers 650 to 718, therefore it is a more accurate title. If there are more Pokemon to be revealed, the page can simply be moved again. Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 05:02, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
- I moved it back because you moved it twice without discussing it first, the second time after I had reverted you. If you wish to move the page, again, bring up a WP:Requested move discussion.—Ryulong (琉竜) 07:27, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
- Simply moving a page does not automatically require a discussion because a Wikipedian can be bold. I do agree that a move discussion was in place after you moved it back again as what you did not do when you moved this page from my move[3] and back again.[4] Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 10:25, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
- I moved it back because you moved it twice without discussing it first, the second time after I had reverted you. If you wish to move the page, again, bring up a WP:Requested move discussion.—Ryulong (琉竜) 07:27, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
- Why did you move the page back, exactly what is your reasoning for this? The page currently lists Pokemon from numbers 650 to 718, therefore it is a more accurate title. If there are more Pokemon to be revealed, the page can simply be moved again. Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 05:02, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
Rollback and BITE
Please stop misusing rollback, this is not an acceptable use.[5] And please discuss with users before combing their entire edit history for "flag violations" and reporting them as vandals when you do not even make contact with the editor in question.[6] You took immediate issue with the editor upon the one edit at Power Rangers.[7] Your lack of discussion and drastic response shows a failure to assume good faith. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 21:50, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
- Nikostrd was posting several dozen copyvio images to the commons.—Ryulong (琉竜) 22:29, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
- You should discuss first, civilly, the user is unlikely to be aware of such policies without being informed. Assume good faith is an important tenet. Something which you seem to have little of, I wonder why you labeled this new IP as a "long term vandal" despite all three edits seeming to be good faith. [8] ChrisGualtieri (talk) 23:42, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
- Not when I find two blatant copyright violations and countless others on the commons where he's been active for a year. And there has been a constant presence of a user on that IP range disruptively changing translations and generally being unhelpful on a handful of articles, despite multiple attempts at communication.—Ryulong (琉竜) 23:46, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
- Perhaps you should explain things better; neither of these seem to be adequate. I actually think the IP editor is correct on first examination and it appears that you are making it worse. Could you explain... because it seems like you actually are making it more difficult to read?ChrisGualtieri (talk) 23:52, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
- I don't know how to make it any clearer to you. That IP editor originating from the Philippines has for the past several years been unnecessarily been changing the spellings of character names despite their established usage in the English speaking community, to what I assume are the names used when they translated the show into Tagalog. And the individual has been unnecessarily been adding definite articles prior to the names of the giant robots. He or she has been asked on previous IPs to cease thea activity, as it is not necessary, but the edits persist. Because they are uncommunicative, the range has previously been blocked. One of the pages is currently pending changes protected because of this individual's edits.—Ryulong (琉竜) 08:39, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
- Perhaps you should explain things better; neither of these seem to be adequate. I actually think the IP editor is correct on first examination and it appears that you are making it worse. Could you explain... because it seems like you actually are making it more difficult to read?ChrisGualtieri (talk) 23:52, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
- Not when I find two blatant copyright violations and countless others on the commons where he's been active for a year. And there has been a constant presence of a user on that IP range disruptively changing translations and generally being unhelpful on a handful of articles, despite multiple attempts at communication.—Ryulong (琉竜) 23:46, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
- You should discuss first, civilly, the user is unlikely to be aware of such policies without being informed. Assume good faith is an important tenet. Something which you seem to have little of, I wonder why you labeled this new IP as a "long term vandal" despite all three edits seeming to be good faith. [8] ChrisGualtieri (talk) 23:42, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
- Please stop posting on my talk page, it is disturbing me. Look we disagree on a few core issues, but my watchlist has grown to include numerous pages and I frequently see them being reverted by yourself - I disagree with your edit warring to redirect articles out. Wikipedia isn't going to fall apart if you take a break or stop mass reverting anything - once you attributed the core of the problems to "the fans" I realize you have lost objectivity. Stop taking everything so personally and stop constantly demeaning me and assuming bad faith. I'm not out to "start shit" and your can't even address my arguments on content disputes. If you believe the issue with the IP editor is over; drop it and move on. I am annoyed that you delayed the mediation for a week, but I don't say "you are starting shit". You should respect other people and their ideas, even if you disagree with them - despite taking your side numerous times, you seem unable to get over the standing disagreement and it results in the interactions being an unpleasant experience. And I can't see its resolution if you are not willing to make the effort. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:13, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
- No. You never edited a Kamen Rider-related page up until today when you saw me turn an article that had no citations into a redirect. And I do not believe the issue with the IP editor is over because he will be back and I now have no way of stopping him because you suddenly called into question everything I've been doing on the pages in an attempt to stem the 3 year long edit war with someone who never communicates. I never intended for the medcom thing to be delayed. And the fact that I have to constantly revert edits on Tokumei Sentai Go-Busters because several people believe that a single instance of the phrase "BUDDY ROID" appearing in episode 2 overrules any English phrasing that says "BUDDYLOID" on all subsequent merchandise means I have not lost objectivity. On every page that I edit that I am interested in I always attempt to find the official and reliably sourced English language name of these fucking guy in a rubber suit shows and I get backlash on 4chan, HJU, Rangerboard, and countless other fucking websites because I won't let them say that Super Megaforce is based on Gokaiger because oh my god you can totally tell that the costumes are exactly the same or shut up Ryulong because it's a Condor it should be called Tajador and not Tajadol despite Tajadol being used on god damn everything in English. I'd rather gut most of these pages of all the useless plot summary bullshit but it's a format that I can't fight anymore because technically these things get covered in all of the fan and hobby magazines so they have reliable sources, the glut of which are inaccessible prior to the point where I went "you know, we should probably source everything to the magazines". I need help on these pages but no one will ever help me because no one gives a shit about them. But you just come in like a bull in a china shop and get into a dispute with me over poor sourcing and I'm expected to respect your god damn requests to never post on your user talk page? I'm tired of dealing with you in places where I've never had to deal with you before.—Ryulong (琉竜) 02:22, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
- Hi you two. I've been following this discussion, and I thought I should probably chime in. Ryulong, from your description here it looks like you are doing a lot of work to keep up the standards of quality on the pages that you watch, and that you're frustrated because you're not getting much help with it. It strikes me that this might be a good place to start our discussion from - if we can work out a way to take the pressure off you, then things might go more smoothly when we discuss our main content question. It can't be easy to sit down and concentrate on a mediation when you check your watchlist and see a dozen new unsourced statements that have been added. We might well be able to do something about this, whether it's by social means, or by page protection. Let me know if that's something you would be interested in. Also, the Dragon Ball AfD will probably closed today, so we should be all clear to give mediation another shot. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 02:46, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
- No. You never edited a Kamen Rider-related page up until today when you saw me turn an article that had no citations into a redirect. And I do not believe the issue with the IP editor is over because he will be back and I now have no way of stopping him because you suddenly called into question everything I've been doing on the pages in an attempt to stem the 3 year long edit war with someone who never communicates. I never intended for the medcom thing to be delayed. And the fact that I have to constantly revert edits on Tokumei Sentai Go-Busters because several people believe that a single instance of the phrase "BUDDY ROID" appearing in episode 2 overrules any English phrasing that says "BUDDYLOID" on all subsequent merchandise means I have not lost objectivity. On every page that I edit that I am interested in I always attempt to find the official and reliably sourced English language name of these fucking guy in a rubber suit shows and I get backlash on 4chan, HJU, Rangerboard, and countless other fucking websites because I won't let them say that Super Megaforce is based on Gokaiger because oh my god you can totally tell that the costumes are exactly the same or shut up Ryulong because it's a Condor it should be called Tajador and not Tajadol despite Tajadol being used on god damn everything in English. I'd rather gut most of these pages of all the useless plot summary bullshit but it's a format that I can't fight anymore because technically these things get covered in all of the fan and hobby magazines so they have reliable sources, the glut of which are inaccessible prior to the point where I went "you know, we should probably source everything to the magazines". I need help on these pages but no one will ever help me because no one gives a shit about them. But you just come in like a bull in a china shop and get into a dispute with me over poor sourcing and I'm expected to respect your god damn requests to never post on your user talk page? I'm tired of dealing with you in places where I've never had to deal with you before.—Ryulong (琉竜) 02:22, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
Bragigas
I just wanted to ask really quick, with the thing about Torin being the partner of Bragigas, wasn't that stated in the debut episode of Bragigas when the war with Deboth was being talked about?KenYokai (talk) 00:44, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
- I haven't watched the show. All I figure is that people are going off of the 1 minute preview where it appears he transforms into Kyoryu Silver.—Ryulong (琉竜) 00:46, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
Forced Entertainment
Hi. The log says you deleted Forced Entertainment. I'd like to create this article and Wikipedia:Deletion review seems to say I should take the matter up with you. I've created a new article, currently at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Forced Entertainment. Am I able to get the ban lifted on creating Forced Entertainment please? Thanks. -Lopifalko (talk) 12:30, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
- I am no longer an administrator and I cannot perform any of the tasks you are requesting of me. Also your AFC submission is poor.—Ryulong (琉竜) 14:58, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
Continuing with mediation
Hi Ryulong. I notice that you've started a merge discussion at Talk:Dragon Ball#Proposed merge with Dragon Ball (anime). After the thread at Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Ghost in the Shell 2#On hold, you should be aware that we won't be able to restart the mediation while discussions like this one are ongoing. Does this mean that you would like to give up on the mediation? It is entirely your choice whether you would like to do so or not, but you should be aware that if we give up on the mediation, then the next step is likely to be a lengthy ANI discussion or an ArbCom case. Please think through this decision carefully, and let me know what you would like to do. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 04:11, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
- Yes. I would like to give up on mediation. I have been contemplating the utility of the mediation for some time now, as it seems utterly ridiculous to me that it should be paused for such other disputes and now this one.—Ryulong (琉竜) 07:13, 31 October 2013 (UTC)