Jump to content

User talk:Ryulong/Archive 98

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 95Archive 96Archive 97Archive 98Archive 99Archive 100→Archive 104

Hello, Ryulong. :) I just wanted to let you know with respect to your comment here that "Users cannot violate Wikipedia's copyrights internally" that they may indeed violate copyright when they copy content from one Wikipedia article to another without attribution. As WP:C points out, Wikipedia (and the WMF) do not own copyright to the content on this website - the content is owned by the individual contributors, who license it liberally for reuse. Substantial use of their material that does not conform to the license (including meeting the attribution requirement) is likely to be an infringement of copyright, even if done internally. This can be repaired easily, of course, as per Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia, but so long as the material is unattributed the potential copyright violation remains. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:54, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

I did elaborate on that bit at the AFD.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 12:56, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Invitation to participate in a discussion

Ryulong, a conversation regarding a matter you were involved in back in 2011 is going on at: User_talk:Binksternet#Backside_of_Beachgoer_.E2.80.93_a_strange_little_wiki_tale talk→ WPPilot  07:23, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Whales and beaches

Aren't geographic locations considered notable by default? DS (talk) 17:34, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

No sources to support notability though.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 17:58, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
My point is that if it can be proven to exist, then it is notable. It's like with biological species. DS (talk) 18:06, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
Articles on biological species also tend to not be authored by users who created the articles just to host their art project photos.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 18:11, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Original Barnstar
Great. Thank you for helping Candy Crush Saga. Qwertyxp2000 (talk) 04:24, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Yaiba

I went there only for fixing reference error but you should have a view. Thanks OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 15:18, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Pokemon XY

I don't see why you had to revert that edit. The episode haven't aired yet in either Japan or the United States and others are airing before it so it makes no sense to keep it placed in the list where it was originally suppose to be at. It has to be moved to the back until further notice. It cannot be episode 826/819 anymore. - Jabrona (talk) 17:00, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

You also added an episode entry for which there won't be an episode airing. Leave things in order until they make an effort to broadcast the episode.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 01:29, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
I'm confused. What do you mean by I added an episode entry for which there won't be an episode airing? - Jabrona (talk) 17:44, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
You put an entry in for July 17, but there's no new episode that day.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 01:30, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
Um, I didn't do that. I don't recall putting in a date for any future episode and I went through the edits and it doesn't show me doing that either. All I did was move the original episode 819/826 to the back and left it at that. - Jabrona (talk) 20:20, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Barnstar of Diligence
For attention to detail and refusal to back down in handling the Horvitz case. Keep it up. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 19:54, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Isotope sup sub

Nomination for deletion of Template:Isotope sup sub

Template:Isotope sup sub has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. — SkyLined (talk) 20:22, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Reverting reports against you

Whether or not you believe the account is evading a block is is not a good idea at all to revert a report made against you as you did at WP:ANEW especially without explaining your revert. Instead it would be much better to comment, explaining your reasoning. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:12, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

It's obvious and also I left that null edit in there to explain what I was doing.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 11:13, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
No it's not, as far as I can see at a quick look you reverted (the first time) without explanation of an account which you were edit warring with (just looking at their contribs). The first revert at least deserved more information: that you believe it's a sock of x and you've reported it at x. I've indef'd it anyway. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:19, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
It's obvious from the account's other edits.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 13:23, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
Hater's going to hate, keep up the excellent work. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 15:49, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
Your work here is invaluable. I certainly don't think you are an editor who tries to get people blocked and I certainly believe we get along just fine. Here's to your tireless work to a thankless, salary-less job. —cyberpower ChatOnline 18:07, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

July 2014

Stop icon with clock
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for edit warring, as you did at Talk:Power Rangers Megaforce. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.  Bbb23 (talk) 20:10, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Based on your block log, I should have by all rights blocked you for longer than 48 hours. However, in these circumstances, I wanted the blocks of you and the other user to be the same. That said, I will not take kindly to more battles after expiration of the 48 hours.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:12, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm surprised you can be blocked for restoring your own talk page comments (or sections) when they're removed.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:13, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

General notes

20:21, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Can someone at least fix the archive nav template on User talk:Ryulong/Archive 96 for me? I forgot to change it from 95 when I copied it from another archive page.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:27, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Done. Fixed Archive 95 as well. --NeilN talk to me 20:35, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
So basically I copied it and increased the number but the numbers were wrong in the first instance. The human mind is amazing.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:39, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
At least you have a couple days off to recharge. Too soon? :) --NeilN talk to me 20:43, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, but would it be out of the question to archive my June convos and/or fix that formatting snafu on the episode list too?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:03, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
Funnily enough, I was just looking at what blocked editors could use their talk page for yesterday. [1] I've fixed the WP:MOS issue as it was a formatting error. --NeilN talk to me 21:19, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 06:26, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 07:15, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Sockpuppet found

{{admin help}} Shuffle 329 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is BuickCenturyDriver aka Don't Feed the Zords. He has used another sleeper account to move a page, add his fake content to that page, and then copied all of that same content to the redirect he created. His edits need to be reverted now and the account blocked ASAP.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 11:03, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

@Tiptoety and Reaper Eternal: Anyone who watches my talk page fix it please.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 11:14, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Rcsprinter123 has reverted those changes, check? OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 11:15, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, I got pinged him on IRC. The page move needs to be reverted (by an admin) and the account needs to be blocked ASAP though.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 11:17, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Yes, and I made a new section at WP:AN. Rcsprinter123 (indicate) @ 11:17, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
I have adjusted the helpme template to reflect the helper audience required. --Gryllida (talk) 11:40, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

More diffs for WP:AN:

All BCD/DFtZ has been doing for the past week is adding Dino Charge to that infobox, adding that fake episode entry (a new episode entry has recently been made public that I've got no chance to add now), and trolled me by disrupting the requested move that indirectly led to my block.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 12:02, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

@OccultZone: He restored the edits and nothing's been fixed

—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 14:21, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

71.172.99.38 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) is just another sockpuppet and he's trying to pin the blame on me, as usual.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 14:57, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

@John Reaves: You saw the sockpuppet's actions. Could you please help with all of this and what's laid out at WP:AN#User:Shuffle 329?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 15:14, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

This IP is so obviously him now.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 15:24, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

{{unblock|I am fully aware that I have been blocked because of yet another petty edit war with an editor over something extremely trivial (the inclusion of that section break), but I will not go into that debate. I intend to deal with all of this banned user's garbage while he continues in his attempts to deflect blame away from himself and towards myself.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 15:32, 19 July 2014 (UTC)}}

I unblocked you without noticing that you'd filed the unblock request. Nyttend (talk) 15:45, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for that.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 15:55, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
You're welcome. I'm about out the door (some Saturday work), so I don't have time to investigate all the IPs; I only came to block Shuffle and unblock you because both were rather clear-cut situations that warranted rapid responses. Nyttend (talk) 16:25, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
I'll start up the SPI.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 16:26, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) I thought the block was bad and Bbb23 should be trouted for this block.—cyberpower ChatOnline 17:58, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Re:List of anime series by episode count

Your expertise and comment would be appreciated in this talk page discussion. Thanks. Hei Liebrecht 23:39, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

User talk:Bumblebee9999

Please stop this. You should know that when you post something, it's no longer under your complete control. --NeilN talk to me 21:08, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

I was refactoring my own comment though.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:10, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
You were deleting it off another user's talk page when they didn't want it to be deleted. Short of editing other people's edits, their page, their rules. --NeilN talk to me 21:13, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
I posted to his user talk first. And no. He wanted the thread here. And I don't want it here because I started it on his page. All I did was get rid of the templated "I orphaned this image" part in that edit you're pointing to. And now he put it on the AFD and I had to move it again.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:14, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Stop posting shit on my talk page!

I do not want to talk to you. Stop posting crap on my talk page to threaten and intimidate me just to get your way, just do not post on my talk page at all or I will report you to Wikipedia for harassment, threats and intimidation just to get your way. Just leave me alone! Is that clear? Bumblebee9999 (talk) 10:02, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

All of my messages to you are because you have broken the rules and you ned to be informed of that.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 10:20, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
No, you are breaking the "rules" and are trying to put it all on me. Stop fucking posting threatening and intimidating crap on my talk page and how dare you make a false claim of edit warring and report me go to hell dude and stop posting on my talk page. You are harassing me, intimidating me and making threats at me. I have reported you to an admin as well and showed them everything you are doing. Leave me alone I mean it and stop posting on my talk page before I go to the Wikiboard and report you to them. Bumblebee9999 (talk) 10:28, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
I am not threatening or intimidating you. I am informing you that you have violated several policies of this website. There is also no "Wikiboard" to report me to.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 10:29, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
Yes you are threatening or intimidating me to get your way, you are not informing me of any violations because you are the one who has voilated several policies by starting an edit war on unfounded and false removals so just back off me and yes there is a "Wikiboard" it is called the Wikipedia Board of Directors. Bumblebee9999 (talk) 10:41, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
You've already violated the rules so you have to be warned to prevent further violations and there is no "Wikipedia Board of Directors".—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 10:45, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

July 2014

Stop icon with clock
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for Disruptive editing; edit warring, biting new editors as you did at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.  Catfish Jim and the soapdish 11:46, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Unblock request

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Ryulong (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I self-reverted to restore the other user's preferred version of the template (and inquired if I should self-revert more). I made as many attempts as I could to discuss it civilly and politely with him on his user talk page only to be met with bad faith ([10] [11] [12] [13]) which includes attempts at informing him of the various policies and guidelines he was violating and I attempted discussion at the template talk page only to be ignored. I only did automated reverts (Twinkle?) of his edits to my own user talk page which is fully allowed per WP:Rollback. And he is just as guilty of edit warring as I am and he remains unblocked, in addition to the fact he threatened to report me to some non-existant off-site governing body and continues to do so. And I particularly shouldn't be punished for trying to discuss this content dispute with the other editor who refuses to have me on his user talk because of how everything began on the wrong foot, particularly when the claimed "biting" was a series of valid standard templated warnings. I was never incivil towards Bumblebee9999 throughout the whole of the dispute, as well. So none of the reasons for the block are valid as the edit warring was solved by the self-revert, I was as calm as I could have been with the new editor, and there were no "automated reverts" other than on this page.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 11:46, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Accept reason:

I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt. Please try to remember that new editors are not used to WP policy and that warning template saturation will tend to either scare them off or goad them into misplaced retaliation. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 17:24, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

WP:NOTTHEM. --Onorem (talk) 12:15, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
I think I cover that.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 12:17, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

For your info, the "automated edits" was a copy/paste error and have been removed from the blocking rationale. The main reason, as you know, was your edit warring, then reporting the other party on WP:AN3 even though it was you who had broken WP:3RR first. Your behaviour towards the other party, a newcomer to Wikipedia, bombarding them with warning templates (three in 12 minutes) was the very definition of WP:BITE. I was hoping that the block would give you time to cool down and show some contrition. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 16:10, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

I did not break 3RR first. And I self-reverted to undo whatever 3RR vio there was. The other party blew his lid at me, refactored my comments at the AFD without my permission, was incivil, and giving him templated warnings (with reasons as to why they were given) is why I'm blocked? I followed everything to the letter other than my poor choice to revert more than once on the template. I behaved myself and I'm blocked because of a sensitive editor who cursed, screamed, and made laughably false threats to get me punished by a non-existant entity when he wasn't getting his way over a link in a template.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 16:42, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
Are you seriously denying that you broke 3RR? What are these? [14] [15] [16]
They look like reverts to me. Three of them. In just over 12 hours. And the most recent one took place more than two hours before any 3RR violation by the other party. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 17:00, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
I self-reverted the article back to his own preferred version (albeit without his badly written and completely invalid commented out warning). I said this like 3 times on WP:ANEW. And even then that's only 3 reverts, which is still within the "limit" of 3RR without considering the self-revert and the attempt to incorporate his content better.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 17:01, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
Okay, the block is removed. Please try to be a little less bitey with new editors. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 17:18, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
Fair enough. Now is it out of the question to restore the better version of this template yet?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 17:36, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

More sockpuppetry

Пчёлка Майя 2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is that Maya the Bee sockpuppeteer.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 12:38, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

@Favonian: can you add this guy to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Pszczolka Maja1 too.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 12:41, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

 Done. Favonian (talk) 12:45, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
You should probably delete his user talk and disable talk page access because he's trying to badly make a template to replace the whole discussion with myself and Rhaworth's names on it instead.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 16:01, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
 Done Mkdwtalk 17:04, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
Probably should delete User:Kokoboo man/sandbox too.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 17:07, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

"Horvitz"?

Hi. May I suggest pasting a slightly more informative edit summary than the above single word into your photo removal edits? It doesn't mean much to anybody who isn't involved with whatever's going on with that affair. It's likely to inspire knee-jerk reverts, and causes confusion generally... --jnkyrdsprkl (talk) 02:29, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

I was rushed.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 08:49, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

David Horvitz

Hmm, do you think that this person is actually notable under WP:BASIC/WP:ARTIST? Whether to keep the "ref-improve" tag might be distracting us from the real issue... --Edcolins (talk) 13:15, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

It's questionable but also he wants to have his page deleted as part of some other art project (or he just deleted sentences and tweeted them).—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 13:56, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
Whether he wants to have his page deleted as part of an art project is irrelevant. If he is not notable, the page has to be deleted, period. The first Afd appears to have been excessively focused on that "art project" consideration. --Edcolins (talk) 14:38, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
Well now you can see if notability is established in a good faith nom.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 14:46, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
What do you mean? Where is the good faith nom? --Edcolins (talk) 15:13, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
There is none yet.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 15:49, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ryulong/Archive_98&oldid=1251444105"