User talk:Ryulong/Archive 85
 | 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 80 | ← | Archive 83 | Archive 84 | Archive 85 | Archive 86 | Archive 87 | → | Archive 90 |
This screenshot from the show proves that that Figuarts packaging is wrong. Sorry, but it is Basco, not Vasco. http://images.wikia.com/powerrangers/images/a/ab/Sentainame-Basco_and_Sally.png Digifiend (talk) 13:36, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
- Names change. The latest name is "Vasco".—Ryulong (琉竜) 13:38, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
Rating Reverting
Why did you revert all of the ratings I added for Consequence of Sound? They are a major online music publication and have most of their reviews' ratings added to specific albums' pages. Also, where is the information regarding this "11th review" rule?—User:Zanderporter 01:49, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
- See MOS:ALBUM#Album ratings template. "Include no more than ten reviews in table form."—Ryulong (琉竜) 01:54, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
- Okay, I see that. What about all the other ones you reverted that don't have anything to do with being an 11th addition? Why can't I go and undo those?—User:Zanderporter 01:59, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
- First, stop copying my signature. Just type ~~~~ and then save (do not copy the "nowiki" things when you do) and that's how you write in your signature because you're not doing it with time stamps. Second, Consequence of Sound was not used before so why are you making it used now?—Ryulong (琉竜) 02:08, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
- Apologies; still learning things. What do you mean Consequence of Sound was not used before? Ratings aren't all posted at the same exact time. I'm a new intern at the website and I'm supposed to add Consequence of Sound's album ratings to Wiki pages. I don't see why additions that aren't the "11th" should be reverted. Zander Porter (talk) 02:10, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
- I see the issue now. I am afraid I have to direct you to Wikipedia's conflict of interest policy. It is best if you do not attempt to promote CoS on Wikipedia, particularly if it is your job.—Ryulong (琉竜) 02:21, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
- Okay, I understand that too now. However, how would one ever go about adding Consequence of Sound's album ratings to any pages without running into 100 conflicts? Zander Porter (talk) 02:22, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
- Not be affiliated with the blog I guess. I think it might be fine for the albums that aren't yet at 10 reviews but your conflict of interest raises issues still.—Ryulong (琉竜) 02:53, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
- Either way, I'm contributing to Wikipedia. And although I'm new, I'm pretty sure that's its main purpose? It's hard to get involved at all when newbies are so often struck down like this. Although it does provide helpful information. So thank you. Would it be awful to ask that you undo your reverting of the albums you reverted my edits of recently? Zander Porter (talk) 02:57, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
- So long as you're not adding CoS as the 11th entry then you can revert me. I have a meeting in a bit so I don't know what to fix.—Ryulong (琉竜) 05:29, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
- Thank you. Zander Porter (talk) 06:42, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
- So long as you're not adding CoS as the 11th entry then you can revert me. I have a meeting in a bit so I don't know what to fix.—Ryulong (琉竜) 05:29, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
- Either way, I'm contributing to Wikipedia. And although I'm new, I'm pretty sure that's its main purpose? It's hard to get involved at all when newbies are so often struck down like this. Although it does provide helpful information. So thank you. Would it be awful to ask that you undo your reverting of the albums you reverted my edits of recently? Zander Porter (talk) 02:57, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
- Not be affiliated with the blog I guess. I think it might be fine for the albums that aren't yet at 10 reviews but your conflict of interest raises issues still.—Ryulong (琉竜) 02:53, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
- Okay, I understand that too now. However, how would one ever go about adding Consequence of Sound's album ratings to any pages without running into 100 conflicts? Zander Porter (talk) 02:22, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
- I see the issue now. I am afraid I have to direct you to Wikipedia's conflict of interest policy. It is best if you do not attempt to promote CoS on Wikipedia, particularly if it is your job.—Ryulong (琉竜) 02:21, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
- Apologies; still learning things. What do you mean Consequence of Sound was not used before? Ratings aren't all posted at the same exact time. I'm a new intern at the website and I'm supposed to add Consequence of Sound's album ratings to Wiki pages. I don't see why additions that aren't the "11th" should be reverted. Zander Porter (talk) 02:10, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
- First, stop copying my signature. Just type ~~~~ and then save (do not copy the "nowiki" things when you do) and that's how you write in your signature because you're not doing it with time stamps. Second, Consequence of Sound was not used before so why are you making it used now?—Ryulong (琉竜) 02:08, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
- Okay, I see that. What about all the other ones you reverted that don't have anything to do with being an 11th addition? Why can't I go and undo those?—User:Zanderporter 01:59, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
I understand why you posted the "Conflict of Interest" to my talk page, but it mentions distorted views, which posting ratings wouldn't include, as they are only direct references to a website, and they're cited. Zander Porter (talk) 18:35, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
- Are you doing a paid internship or are they harnessing your labor for free?—Ryulong (琉竜) 18:36, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
- Why is that important? Zander Porter (talk) 18:42, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
- It just is.—Ryulong (琉竜) 18:43, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
- Why is that important? Zander Porter (talk) 18:42, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
Ban vs Block
Just a short note. I noticed you made a reference to User:Lucasmoura as being banned. That is incorrect. The user is blocked, in this case indefinitely. There is a difference between a WP:BAN and a WP:BLOCK, so that you know. -- Alexf(talk) 17:24, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
- When someone is indefinitely blocked to where no one in their right mind will listen to any unblock requests, as has happened with Lucasmoura, then that means he is de facto banned from the project. The fact that he is consistently coming back and disrupting things because he has not gotten his way is just detracting from him ever returning so why make the technical distinction?—Ryulong (琉竜) 17:25, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
- You may be correct in what you say, but I just wanted to make the distinction as they are technically and functionally different, from a WP point of view. -- Alexf(talk) 17:36, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
Dispute resolution noticeboard
My apology, I thought that User talk:MugsWrit was referring to being listed as a sock multiple times and suggested taking it to dispute resolution. Sorry for the hassle. Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 19:44, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
- No problem.—Ryulong (琉竜) 02:50, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
SM
Since the Shiroi Mahoutsukai is now officially declared a Rider and his identity has been revealed, I think that the Shiroi Mahoutsukai article should be recreated or at least have one made in a later time when more is revealed on him in the later episodes. ~Switch On 2012~ ( ★ AlienX2009 ★ ) 21:41, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
- There are all of 8 episodes left in the show so no. I saw what you did with the Birth Proto Type article too and I am disappointed that you actually went through with it after I told you no, again.—Ryulong (琉竜) 23:59, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
Reversions of ratings
Why have you reverted my TV ratings information? They're all verified as official.MB MrTV (talk) 05:31, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
- There's absolutely no reason for you to replace Zap2It, which is a reliable source, with a website that you have been personally promoting because you are obviously the author of the articles you've been posting.—Ryulong (琉竜) 05:32, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
- Zap2It is one reliable source. FYI, so is our website which often refers to more detailed ratings data. I have verified all these numbers from Nielsen itself. MB MrTV (talk) 05:38, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
- You're not allowed to promote your own work on Wikipedia, particularly because TVMediaInsights is not a reliable source.—Ryulong (琉竜) 05:38, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
- Our interest is in providing ratings. I advise you to check ALL the ratings that TVMI posts. ALL valid. Its site owner has been reporting ratings for more than a decade - prior to others' sites. I assure you we're not spam. TV Media Insights is a legitimate website. MB MrTV (talk) 05:49, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
- Then why is it that you're replacing legitimate TV By the Numbers sources with those of your own, just because you have found a different number than reported by a vetted source?—Ryulong (琉竜) 05:51, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
- They're actually not a "different number." Our numbers state the number of millions more exactly. Other websites round off the figure. TV Media Insights is vetted as anyone else and accesses the same Nielsen data but with more detailed info.MB MrTV (talk) 05:55, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
- I seriously doubt that. Don't insert your website or your publications onto Wikipedia, again, please.—Ryulong (琉竜) 05:56, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
- Why the "doubt"? TV Media Insights is a legitimate website; not spam. Our site's owner has been oft mentioned by what you deemed as the "vetted" Zap2it -- look at the "Jensen Project" section at http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2010/07/17/tv-ratings-abc-unscripted-tops-friday-jensen-doesnt-project-well/57354/ "TV Ratings: ABC Unscripted tops Friday; Jensen Doesn’t Project Well"
- Also, a year later: http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2011/09/17/tv-ratings-friday-dateline-again-leads-nbc-win-karaoke-battle-usa-finishes-down/103996/
- You cannot use "You're not allowed to promote your own work on Wikipedia" as an argument. All Zap2it references on Wiki occur immediately after they're posted on Zap2it because their workers post them here. It's all the same data, Ryulong. MB MrTV (talk) 06:29, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
- I doubt that Zap2It references are added to Wikipedia by people who work at the website, unlike yourself.—Ryulong (琉竜) 06:35, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
- And you have no proof behind this doubt. Is Zap2it the ONLY Nielsen ratings provider online? No, but being omnipresent on Wiki was their strategy to make it seem as such. MB MrTV (talk) 06:48, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
- That doesn't excuse you from flooding articles with links to your website and replacing Zap2it links with those of your own authorship.—Ryulong (琉竜) 06:49, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
- You seem like a passionate Wiki user so I won't further this debate after these statements since we'll forever be at a stalemate. The reason for the Wikipedia input was they were not regurgitations of other TV sites' information. They were enhanced versions of Nielsen data. That was all. Sorry you believed otherwise. MB MrTV (talk) 07:02, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
- You still need to be aware of WP:COI.—Ryulong (琉竜) 07:09, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
- You seem like a passionate Wiki user so I won't further this debate after these statements since we'll forever be at a stalemate. The reason for the Wikipedia input was they were not regurgitations of other TV sites' information. They were enhanced versions of Nielsen data. That was all. Sorry you believed otherwise. MB MrTV (talk) 07:02, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
- That doesn't excuse you from flooding articles with links to your website and replacing Zap2it links with those of your own authorship.—Ryulong (琉竜) 06:49, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
- And you have no proof behind this doubt. Is Zap2it the ONLY Nielsen ratings provider online? No, but being omnipresent on Wiki was their strategy to make it seem as such. MB MrTV (talk) 06:48, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
- I doubt that Zap2It references are added to Wikipedia by people who work at the website, unlike yourself.—Ryulong (琉竜) 06:35, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
- I seriously doubt that. Don't insert your website or your publications onto Wikipedia, again, please.—Ryulong (琉竜) 05:56, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
- They're actually not a "different number." Our numbers state the number of millions more exactly. Other websites round off the figure. TV Media Insights is vetted as anyone else and accesses the same Nielsen data but with more detailed info.MB MrTV (talk) 05:55, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
- Then why is it that you're replacing legitimate TV By the Numbers sources with those of your own, just because you have found a different number than reported by a vetted source?—Ryulong (琉竜) 05:51, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
- Our interest is in providing ratings. I advise you to check ALL the ratings that TVMI posts. ALL valid. Its site owner has been reporting ratings for more than a decade - prior to others' sites. I assure you we're not spam. TV Media Insights is a legitimate website. MB MrTV (talk) 05:49, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
- You're not allowed to promote your own work on Wikipedia, particularly because TVMediaInsights is not a reliable source.—Ryulong (琉竜) 05:38, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
- Zap2It is one reliable source. FYI, so is our website which often refers to more detailed ratings data. I have verified all these numbers from Nielsen itself. MB MrTV (talk) 05:38, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
|
The No Spam Barnstar |
| Great job fighting spam from a user who is clearly self-promoting his website! Logical Fuzz (talk) 06:30, 11 June 2013 (UTC) |
Hey
Whoever supressed that sock's edit to my talk page might want to do the same to the edit summary of the person reverting him.—Ryulong (琉竜) 19:40, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
Also it would help checkusers to provide the changed username.—Ryulong (琉竜) 19:44, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
Title Move Discussion
I have opened up discussion at Talk:Enthronement of the Japanese Emperor#Title Move Discussion. You are invited to provide your opinion in the interest of consensus. Boneyard90 (talk) 14:07, 17 June 2013 (UTC)