User talk:Ryulong/Archive 94

Archive 90

←

Archive 92

Archive 93

Archive 94

Archive 95

Archive 96

→

Archive 100

PeggySaldana SPI

Hi Ryulong, please help me connect the dots here. I see that three of the editors look to be almost identifying themselves as sockpuppets, by having nearly identical user pages and working in tandem. But I'm trying to figure out how PeggySaldana fits into this; that account edit-warred to remove information from the article, but hasn't engaged in the same behavior as the other three (such as insisting that self-published works from Jehovah's Witnesses are reliable sources). I'm wondering what you've seen that I haven't. -- Atama頭 21:36, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

I saw PeggySaldana as the earliest SPA on the article that was disruptive. I may be wrong in that identification.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 04:58, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Okay, that works, I'll deal with the other three then. Thanks for getting back to me. :) -- Atama頭 05:03, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Re: Personal attack on MOS-JA

Stop directly modifying this MOS to suit your needs.: What do you mean "my needs"? What needs are those, Ryulong? Seriously, tell me. I was fixing the guideline in accordance with consensus that we don't promote the use of one search engine over all the others, and over reliable sources. I'm seriously considering helping User:Nanshu on that RFC/U idea: your behaviour on that page is simply atrocious. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 16:19, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

That's not a personal attack. Perhaps I shouldn't have used "needs" but "desires". You could have rather rewritten that sentence (as I did) to be in line with other guidelines and policies rather than delete it entirely. And these threats of an RFC/U are fruitless. I've done nothing wrong. All I've done is revert yours and Nanshu's bold and undiscussed deletions from aspects of that guideline.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 16:25, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

And perhaps I shouldn't have used "personal attack" but "AGF-violation": both "needs" and "desires" assume bad faith on my part. Additionally, could you please point me to where consensus said we have to determine "common use" in reliable sources for the syllabic "n"? Saying "Google" is bad, but it's not much worse than "we don't have a style guideline -- just go with the hit counts". Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 16:29, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

WP:COMMONNAME—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 16:30, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Please actually read WP:COMMONNAME -- that guideline refers to subjects where there actually is a COMMON name. If we are consulting MOS-JA to try to figure out how we should romanize a name then that is evidence enough that there is no COMMON name on par with "Chiang Kai-shek". The wording you are supporting is not backed up by COMMONNAME, but rather implies "Never follow this MOS guideline, but always try to find whether the subject has ever been covered in a single reliable source in English". COMMONNAME does not cover subjects that have only ever been covered in one English-language RS. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 16:38, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Fine. WP:USEENGLISH—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 17:40, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Channel lists in infobox

Almost all animanga infoboxes have their "genre" and "network" list in single-line form; and this is nothing new. Is Space Dandy a special case? Raamin (talk) 09:15, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

I dunno, I just thought it looked better because thats what's done on TV shows that aren't anime. Why does it matter?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 13:47, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

It's a matter of "different tastes" then. Your edit comments implied (1, 2) some kind of rule against single-line lists in infoboxes. Raamin (talk) 02:00, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't know. I'm just sure it's common practice across all anime and manga pages.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 03:49, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Bleach question

It looks like a bunch of the seasons are at featured and the rest are not. Ideally, I want all the pages in the topic to be GA or FA level. I was trying to pull some of the air dates for Canada and the UK, but I got zilch, know of anything? It seems that some of this information is going to be required to get it to that level. I'll let you do some tinkering on the page, but a brief breakdown of the material is needed. And I fixed an error on the manga and character page with a bad ref after another user caught it. Did you finish up in the Tokusatsu area yet? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 00:49, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

No, I haven't.

And I really think it's still a poor idea to have the a separate article for the anime just because of the undue weight the English language "press" gives to it and its general inseparability from the manga, regardless of how many times you can call the filler seasons important.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 00:52, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia is neither macro nor micro in scope. Please keep in mind that even individual TV episodes for series are allowed on the basis of being able to write a good encyclopedic article on them with reliable secondary sources. I'm not saying that anything so detailed need be done, and I'd be quite against it, but Wikipedia is in like 5th place when it comes to readers to get even basic information on major media. We got over 9000 problems with the article space and thousands of outright bad articles that need a lot of work. When we patched up our differences it was because we both know the community will sooner say "fuck em both" instead of on the merits of our sides. Let's not forget that the goal is not to push any e-peen or some other lame marker when we both know that damage can be done by inaction and outright vandals. As individuals, we may be pretty different, but its pretty clear that you want Wikipedia to be respectable, accurate and hopefully full of high-quality articles. Not sure why you railed against me for this focus of mine, but I'm not content to let ailing articles or omissions go unaddressed. If this means making a page and grabbing Oricon charts and pushing things to GA, then by all means, we should support one another. Personally, omission of key information is more problematic then our ailing pages or making bloated single pages that cannot hold even a meager amount of detailed information. Oh... and I still retain that multi-billion dollar series reserve the right to have several pages - Cartoon Network's Toonami can't afford to run Dragon Ball Z on the budget because of the licensing as a result of its popularity. A popularity was responsible for. I want A&M to be like VG in terms of high quality content - we do not even have our own section on the Good Articles yet. Let's make 2014 A&M's year. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:54, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't see what this has to do with me thinking there only needs to be one page on Bleach like we have set up for Naruto and FMA.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 04:16, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, it was more along the lines of "let it be" instead of wasting months arguing over something petty when we got better things to be doing and a strong single page doesn't satisfy all readers, but we should definitely try to improve any and all pages towards GA and FA and cross that bridge when we need to. You and I both know that 5 well-written Tokusatsu pages are better than 25 terrible ones, but the well-written single pages will only go so far. Even Godzilla is a mess - and that says a lot. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:45, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

The Toho pages have their own circle of people that I never got involved with. And no, these articles on 30 minute long toy commercials will never be good.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 06:00, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Notification

I just wanted to let you know that I've made reference to an RfC regarding incidents in which you were involved from several years prior in an ArbCom case statement. It was for purely contextual purposes, and I did not intent to cast you in a negative light. Kurtis ^(talk) 08:58, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Ultraman American Title Card

Dear Ryulong‎, I got a notice that says that the Ultraman English Title Card is "currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia", as seen here→ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ultraman_English_Language_Title_Card.jpg

But the thing is, it is being used in an article in Wikipedia, it's being used in this→ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultraman

So clearly it's not an orphan image.

Please respond as soon as possible.00717F (talk) 16:39, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

It should be orphaned because it's not being used properly.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 18:15, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, what can we do to fix it?00717F (talk) 22:27, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

It's been fixed.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:44, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

humongous list of pokemon stuff Reply

Well. As you said:

This is a list of characters with minimal discussion of each character, these tags do not work.

"Each character". Correct. "Each character": Notice something? This was at one point in time supposed to be an encyclopedia. Not a fanzine. Look up the difference. The tags, however, contrary to your suggestion, work very well. If you let them. -- Kku 12:46, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

It's a character list. The characters are listed. I don't see your problem.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 18:50, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Reverts

Hi Ryulong. I couldn't help but notice these reverts: [1], [2], [3], [4]. What caught my attention is the fact that you reverted them using Twinkle, but did not leave an edit summary explaining why you reverted meaning you believed they were vandalism. Being that, these edits on face value do not appear to be vandalism I would like to remind you, yet again, to slow down, write an edit summary, and discuss. Tiptoety ^talk 16:55, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

I meant to inform the editor of the issue I had with the posts but I got distracted and it slipped my mind.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 18:52, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Courtesy notification of ANI report

Greetings! User:CombatWombat42 has opened an AN/I case against you; the case is at WP:ANI#User:Ryulong, failing to WP:AGF and claiming WP:SOCK as a weapon. I don't see where you were notified, so I'm just letting you know that this has been started. —C.Fred (talk) 21:51, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:15, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Sorry about that, got distracted as I hit submit to AN/I, my apologies. CombatWombat42 (talk) 22:15, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

And if the SPI is closed as "unrelated" nothing will happen.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:17, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Kamen Rider Zeronos

Ack! Sorry about the deletion spam earlier. I forgot to uncheck the notify box. Again humble apologies. Green Giant supports NonFreeWiki (talk) 00:59, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Re: Speedy deletion nomination of User:Gonna

It seemed like you responded to my comment about you in that WP:AN/I discussion by putting a speedy deletion tag on User:Gonna. It is not legible for speedy deletion because it's a redirect used to avoid going over the character limit of Wikipedia signatures. IX|(C"<) 03:05, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Gonna (talk · contribs) existed so you can't use it as a redirect. Maybe you should strip all of the shit from your signature if it's causing that much of a problem.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 03:06, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Please don't be aggressive to me. And User:Gonna was now deleted. Why did you call parts of my signature "shit"? IX|(C"<) 03:08, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

So okay, a user named Gonna existed, so I can't use that recently deleted page. IX|(C"<) 03:09, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

I used "shit" as a pronoun to colloquially refer to the extensive HTML encoding that you are utilizing in your signature. Perhaps you should simplify it and use your actual user name within it because otherwise not having your username or a working link to your userpage in your signature is a violation of Wikipedia:Signatures.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 03:11, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Here is the new signature (in large size) with the background colors removed:

IX|(C"<)

I'm happy now. =) IX|(C"<) 03:17, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

The signature was fixed in that I removed all the background colors from it and changed "Mr. Gonna" to "Mr. Gonna Change My Name Forever". I am not a sockpuppet of and have no relations with Gonna. IX|(C"<) 03:20, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Okay.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 03:30, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

About "copy edit Twinkle"

Hello, Ryulong. I am Akiko718atWiki. Thank you for your correcting and sophisticating "Funassyi" article. I would like to confirm what you mean in the edit summary 09:31, March 25, 2014. Do you mean when we add a new content, we should avoid attaching the "copy edit Twinkle”? If so, please answer just "Yes.". I just want to know it. As you know, I am not a native speaker of English, and 14 day experienced Wikipedian. Thank you.Akiko718atWiki (talk) 09:57, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

You do not need to tag the page for copy-editing every time you add to the article just because you are not a native English speaker.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 11:18, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your answer, Ryulong. It will not happen again.Akiko718atWiki (talk) 13:43, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

The Amazing Race 24

help undo to anon. please semilocked (to 31 may 2014). Akuindo (talk) 11:07, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

I cannot lock pages.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 11:15, 31 March 2014 (UTC)