User talk:Ryulong/Archive 75
 | This is an archive of past discussions. 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 70 | ← | Archive 73 | Archive 74 | Archive 75 | Archive 76 | Archive 77 | → | Archive 80 |
Cohen
- Hi, I picked up the reverts earlier to Cohen & Sex.com and was in the process of reverting them when Wikipedia.org dropped out for me. (And quite a few others from checking some DNS lookups) So my edit summary on sex.com may now seem a bit obtuse. I was about to revert on Cohen with a longer description, but it basically boiled down to 'What does that have to do with it?'. Thanks for picking it up. Only in death does duty end (talk) 22:49, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
- You might want to post on WP:BLPN, because Youreallycan is starting all over again.—Ryulong (竜龙) 22:58, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
- Really? I thought he was sticking to a 1RR standard? :D I dont particularly want to get dragged into an argument at BLPN. Claiming primary sources shouldnt be used in a BLP is just going to be a headache waiting to happen. The mentality of 'primary sources are bad and must never be used' really gets ridiculous when it comes to legal court documents. A primary source (the court themselves) that makes a legal notice of the court's judgement should never be removed for 'sourcing' issues. Get rid of it because its UNDUE maybe, get rid of it because it violates other policies (including BLP) sure, but because its a primary source? I suspect that excuse is because the info that was added easily passes every other criteria that can be thrown at it. Only in death does duty end (talk) 23:09, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
- I think he gave up his 1RR standard because of the edits to this particular article.—Ryulong (竜龙) 23:25, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
- Got your message from last night. Sadly after a 5 hour session of Crusader Kings II, I was fast asleep at that point. I have posted to BLPN but BLPPRIMARY is a valid argument. Its a shame he didnt make that at the time he was removing it, instead of making vague hand-wavy gestures at unrelated info! I dont agree with that particular application of it as I have explained there, but enough people will do that its better to void the entire thing and find secondary sources as you have done. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:02, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
- I think he gave up his 1RR standard because of the edits to this particular article.—Ryulong (竜龙) 23:25, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
- Really? I thought he was sticking to a 1RR standard? :D I dont particularly want to get dragged into an argument at BLPN. Claiming primary sources shouldnt be used in a BLP is just going to be a headache waiting to happen. The mentality of 'primary sources are bad and must never be used' really gets ridiculous when it comes to legal court documents. A primary source (the court themselves) that makes a legal notice of the court's judgement should never be removed for 'sourcing' issues. Get rid of it because its UNDUE maybe, get rid of it because it violates other policies (including BLP) sure, but because its a primary source? I suspect that excuse is because the info that was added easily passes every other criteria that can be thrown at it. Only in death does duty end (talk) 23:09, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
Calm down
Did that really just happen? Do I need to explain to you why that's not going to fly? — Coren (talk) 02:44, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
- Yes it happened because I told YRC three times that I did not need his addition to my comment but he saw fit to ignore my requests.—Ryulong (竜龙) 02:46, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
- You know better, Ryulong. The entire spat could have been avoided with a trivial annotation that the addition was by YRC; or somesuch. Keep your cool, please. — Coren (talk) 02:51, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
- Hindsight. He was still being unnecessarily disruptive when he kept re-adding it when I requested that he not, and specifically stated he did not have permission to modify my comments.—Ryulong (竜龙) 02:52, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
- Still. I'm obviously not going to clobber either of you with a 3RR over that, but try to consider how that's a symptom that you might be taking your interactions with YRC too personally to keep your cool. — Coren (talk) 02:59, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
- I rarely communicate with him, aside from when he makes bad attempts at enforcing BLP on that page.—Ryulong (竜龙) 03:01, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
- Still. I'm obviously not going to clobber either of you with a 3RR over that, but try to consider how that's a symptom that you might be taking your interactions with YRC too personally to keep your cool. — Coren (talk) 02:59, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
- Hindsight. He was still being unnecessarily disruptive when he kept re-adding it when I requested that he not, and specifically stated he did not have permission to modify my comments.—Ryulong (竜龙) 02:52, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
- You know better, Ryulong. The entire spat could have been avoided with a trivial annotation that the addition was by YRC; or somesuch. Keep your cool, please. — Coren (talk) 02:51, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
Hello. I would like to inform you that the Glozell Green article has been created again. I have added a couple more reliable secondary sources, if you have any, please feel free to add them. Thanks. Till I Go Home 12:21, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
- Should capitalize the Z.—Ryulong (竜龙) 19:37, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
The Amazing Race Australia 3
Hi Ryulong.
I am writing in response to The Amazing Race Australia Season 3:
The new season has just been confirmed by the channel on it's facebook page.
The page is here: http://go.mycastingnet.com/Apply/Show/TARAUS3.
I have also reverted back the page that you have undo. Evan Weinstein | Talk 11:03, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
- I still think it is too early.—Ryulong (琉竜) 19:28, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
IP user edits on The Amazing Race Australia 2
Hi Ryulong, this IP editor has put back the Detour/Roadblock icons just after the location(s) is/are placed. The method isn't following the current methods on other TAR pages. ApprenticeFan work 10:21, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
- You do realize that not every icon is put before the location. It's only set up that way if they get the clue and then go somewhere else for the task.—Ryulong (琉竜) 10:29, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
That was odd
Hello R. I am glad that you figured out what was going on at ANI. I couldn't figure out why Ritchie333's "oops" had removed items from three different threads so that is why I reverted. Probably just a glitch in the system. Cheers. MarnetteD | Talk 08:33, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
- He probably did an undo and it killed the rest of the page.—Ryulong (琉竜) 08:56, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Power Rangers imaginary season
If 2010 is a new season why does the series overview show only Season 1 (1993–94), Season 2 (1994–95) & Season 3 (1995); why does 2010's re-version on List of Power Rangers episodes not season #18 but in fact has no season # at all, why does it not list the cast like Austin St. John as "(Season 1-2, whatever # of season you think the special edition is)"? Why do we not do the same thing with the re-version of the original Star Trek? The only logical reason I can see is because it's not a season at all and shouldn't be listed. --TheTruthiness (talk) 05:01, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
- It was the 18th season for the past two years, but the production company changed their mind on the matter fairly recently to make the upcoming season the 20th anniversary season, instead of what would have been the 20th season this time around.—Ryulong (琉竜) 05:11, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
Start Megaforce page?
At PMC 3 last weekend, they announced "Power Rangers Megaforce" by revealing the ranger cast and names. With the press release out months ago and everything related to Megaforce is out there, can we please start the Power Rangers Megaforce page? Here's a link.--Mikeymike2001 (talk) 18:49, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
- No. SamuraiCast is not a reliable source and there is nothing else out there concerning Megaforce. It won't air for another 6 months so we can wait.—Ryulong (琉竜) 19:33, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
- No, but Power Morphicon itself IS. So the videos on Samurai Cast are a good enough source, even if the blog itself is not. Check the history for Primeval: New World. The page was started in September last year and the show has yet to air. The sources cited on the original version of the page were Blogspot, Digital Spy, and a bare url. If it wasn't too early for that to get a page with what is effectively no citations, it's certainly not too early for this. Digifiend (talk) 02:25, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
- Digtial Spy is a reliable source. Everything else you list isn't. So that page had broken rules, but it now appears to be properly sourced. There is nothing concerning Megaforce that can be reliably sourced other than the title. However, I am not sure if a convention can be a reliable source. Perhaps if a major news source reported on it, we could use the information from that. But a fansite's con report is not a reliable source as they do not fact check. We can wait until Saban or Nickelodeon puts out a press release containing the information from the convention. Until then, there is not enough information out there to support a stand-alone Megaforce page.—Ryulong (琉竜) 02:46, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
- Instead of discussing this on 4 different talk pages, I think we should all discuss this in the discussion that was started at WP:Notability/Noticeboard#Power Rangers Megaforce back in June. Powergate92Talk 06:32, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
- There was a discussion started and I was not asked to participate? What bullshit.—Ryulong (琉竜) 08:39, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
- Instead of discussing this on 4 different talk pages, I think we should all discuss this in the discussion that was started at WP:Notability/Noticeboard#Power Rangers Megaforce back in June. Powergate92Talk 06:32, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
- Digtial Spy is a reliable source. Everything else you list isn't. So that page had broken rules, but it now appears to be properly sourced. There is nothing concerning Megaforce that can be reliably sourced other than the title. However, I am not sure if a convention can be a reliable source. Perhaps if a major news source reported on it, we could use the information from that. But a fansite's con report is not a reliable source as they do not fact check. We can wait until Saban or Nickelodeon puts out a press release containing the information from the convention. Until then, there is not enough information out there to support a stand-alone Megaforce page.—Ryulong (琉竜) 02:46, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
- No, but Power Morphicon itself IS. So the videos on Samurai Cast are a good enough source, even if the blog itself is not. Check the history for Primeval: New World. The page was started in September last year and the show has yet to air. The sources cited on the original version of the page were Blogspot, Digital Spy, and a bare url. If it wasn't too early for that to get a page with what is effectively no citations, it's certainly not too early for this. Digifiend (talk) 02:25, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
Link
I just linked to an edit summary of yours in an MfD discussion here. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 14:50, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
- Damn it.—Ryulong (琉竜) 19:38, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of Amazing Cooking Kids (season 1)
A tag has been placed on Amazing Cooking Kids (season 1), requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:
Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time.
If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. —Ryulong (琉竜) 10:15, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
|
The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar |
| Thank you for your cleanup work. Pine✉ 10:16, 27 August 2012 (UTC) |
Notability Noticeboard
My problem with this comment was that you only warned him about WP:COI. To do such at the Notability Noticeboard, without saying anything about Notability, strikes me as discouraging. I don't have a problem with pointing COI's out to new users there; indeed, my original response was going to include such (we had an edit-conflict), but it was to be followed by "...write from a neutral point of view..." and detailed commentary about Notability. Mysterious Whisper (SHOUT) 02:34, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
- Will keep that in mind for the future.—Ryulong (琉竜) 03:11, 29 August 2012 (UTC)