User talk:Ryulong/Archive 95

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 90 ← Archive 93 Archive 94 Archive 95 Archive 96 Archive 97 → Archive 100

Attack On Titan Talk Pages

Is there some wikicode that would put a message at the beginning of the Talk Pages to have people look at past discussions before they attempt to restart an old one? I'm sure I had seen something like this in a talk page before but I can't seem to find it anywhere. —KirtZMessage 17:17, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Just make a notice box at the top about it.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 18:04, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
Thank you! —KirtZMessage 19:13, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
Hey please add the note to the List of Attack on Titan episodes as well for consistency. I tried adding it but everytime i click "Edit" it goes back to my userpage for some reason. —KirtZMail 19:12, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
It's already at Template:Editnotices/Page/List of Attack on Titan episodes.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 19:13, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

It is impossible to edit-war alone

It is impossible to edit-war alone. Therefore, it follows logically that if I have been edit-warring then you have also been edit-warring. A50000 (talk) 20:37, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Except I've not been the only person to disagree with you on this matter.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:40, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
What difference does that make? A50000 (talk) 22:07, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
It means you should take the fucking hint already that your contributions in the area of communism isn't wanted.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 04:44, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
So, in other words, it makes no difference at all? A50000 (talk) 23:20, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
I don't see how you cannot understand that people do not want you to change the definition of the Soviet Union as a "socialist state" to a "communist state". Maybe you should think long and hard about this before you come back to bother me for no reason.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 23:26, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
I follow Wikipedia policies, not what ´´people´´ want. A50000 (talk) 22:29, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
Well you still have to follow WP:CONSENSUS.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 06:18, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
Since edit warring can be a single edit.....yes you certainly can edit war "alone" A50000.--Mark Miller (talk) 01:36, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Thomas Alured Faunce

Hi, at the AfD for this article, you link NimbusWeb to this person. I'm curious, is this something they disclosed somewhere or is it a conclusion that you reached from their edit patterns? --Randykitty (talk) 14:06, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

I note the connection at WP:ANI#COI issue. But in short, NimbusWeb uploaded photos to the Commons attributed to himself as Thomas Faunce rather than as "NimbusWeb".—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 14:11, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, I just saw this in another AfD that you started the minute you posted the talkback template :-) --Randykitty (talk) 14:15, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Your technical move request

Please see my response to your move request at RMTR. The issue appears to need a regular move discussion, and a simple revert by an admin would not be appropriate. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 19:36, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

So because someone decided to turn the page into a dab containing a bunch of redirects it can't be reverted? That's bullshit tbh.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:33, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Yu-Gi-Oh!

This page, List of Yu-Gi-Oh! (1998) episodes uses a mix of Japanese and English character names even though it was not released in English. Therefore is that and something like this acceptable? I'm not sure. —KirtZMail 12:53, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Probably not.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 13:29, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Blocked

I've blocked you for a week. Your contributions show you have been edit warring and using a script to make a mess reversion of one user, there are issues (here and in edit summaries) with gross incivility, your behaviour at AIV is not acceptable either. This behaviour has to stop. Nick (talk) 15:02, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

Request reason:

I was reverting mass vandalism/bad edits across the whole project, which was not assisted by any script (unless you are counting WP:TWINKLE); I even left the user a message regarding his bad edits when I used the "vandal" rollback button as leaving an edit summary each time would be pointless. The AIV posting I made yesterday was still up and declined, and because the IP I reported was still performing the exact same edits, I reinstated my request due to the new activity as was left in the message. And what edit warring? The only content dispute I have been part of in any capacity lately has not had any further action and I was well below the threshold for any violation. The only thing vaguely valid in the block reasoning is incivility, and that's not worth a week's block.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 15:21, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Decline reason:

With a block record like yours, for all the good you do, have done and (I hope) will do in the future, you are not in any position to have any say in how long you're blocked for. People with far less blocks than you have long been in the cold twilight of indefinitude. — Daniel Case (talk) 15:34, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

Request reason:

None of the cited reasons for my block even happened except maybe for incivility of which that was this one edit out of the many I performed in the past several days. And that alone is not worth a block. This was completely out of line and I should not be blocked at all right now. Re-requesting because Daniel Case does not even address anything I brought up other than my indignation at this block's length.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 15:38, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Decline reason:

The reasons for declining this have all been explained at length below, so I need not go into detail. However, the most fundamental points are (1) you treated as vandalism things which you know (and admit you know) were not vandalism, because doing so was "easier" than dealing with them properly, and (2) you do not accept that there is anything wrong with doing so. I will also mention that I find it amazing that someone who was once an administrator can apparently think that he shouldn't be blocked because there wasn't a prior discussion of what was wrong with his editing somewhere. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 20:40, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Here's what seems weird to me about what you've been doing today. Not all of these things are necessarily blocking offenses or anything, but they add up to make it look like you've sort of flown off the handle. Maybe seeing it laid out like this can help you grok what's going on.
  1. You're reverting extremely fast. Like, "13 edits in one minute" fast. That's not necessarily wrong to do, but it's not something we see someone doing without a bot/automated tool all that often, and people who do edit at that rate are expected to be doing indisputably accurate work.
  2. You're reverting, at a very high rate, edits that aren't obvious vandalism. Now, I'm not saying they're not vandalism at all. They might be; they might even be quite likely to be. But they're not obvious vandalism that an editor like me can look at and immediately go "oh, ok, that's just a vandal". That means that you're not exempt from either the spirit or the letter of the edit-warring policies like 3RR.
  3. You're being unduly aggressive ("Don't fucking revert me...") to people who are reacting to the fact that you're reverting, with no edit summary, something that's not obviously vandalism.
  4. You're using catastrophic language ("this editor is beyond reason") for what is, at worst, some boring vandalism. Not Ryulong's, oops.
All of this pretty much gives us a picture of someone who's lost his temper, gone into panic-attack mode, and is no longer operating rationally. That seems even more likely to be the case here because, as we know, this is something you're prone to, and something that has gotten you into trouble before. So as long as you're operating in that mode, it makes sense to force your editing to a stop, and the only tool we have to do that is a block. Now that you're no longer editing on that spree, the damage is paused and you have a chance to calmly address what's been going on. Do you understand why what you were doing was verging on disruptive? Is there another way you can try to go about getting what you see as vandalism addressed without losing your patience and your temper? A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 15:41, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
I'll address these then:
  1. I'm hitting "rollback vandal" on edits that all have the same content in it from 68.108.159.184 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), that is adding a trivial reference to a TV show being broadcast in reruns on a particular TV channel and adding that TV channel to a list of international broadcasts (apparently not wanted in some TV show MOS) and the category of that TV channel. I was not the only editor to revert him. He has a message from someone else on his user talk, and I saw plenty of other edits that I did not have to revert or manually undo when checking the contributions. I simply did it en masse because I took note of its volume.
  2. I was using the "rollback vandalism" because of the speed at which I could clean up after him. Because of this, I left a message regarding my reverts to the IP who performed the edits in the first place, twice (first a general message that I wrote myself, then a templated warning).
  3. I overreacted, plain and simple. I should have left an edit summary in the first place, but I think I just didn't get one done because it was undoing several revisions in a row and I forgot the undo option doesn't leave an edit summary in those situations.
  4. That is Super48paul's entry at AIV that has the "this editor is beyond reason" line, and it seems I accidentally restored it when I was hit with an edit conflict during my attempt to remove the {{AIV|ns}} response from Ronhjones when I was re-reporting the YTV adding IP.
Really, the only thing that I have done wrong is my "don't fucking revert me for not leaving an edit summary" edit summary. This alone does not warrant a block.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 15:51, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
I feel that you should be unblocked (preferably by the blocking administrator, User:Nick) but agree to abide by WP:CIVIL in the future as well as be careful not to deem vandalism (implicitly or explicitly) content that was not added by an obvious vandal. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 15:58, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
Ah, indeed, "beyond reason" wasn't yours. Sorry, I skimmed the diff too quickly. But now reading the rest of your explanation, I'm confused. Are you saying the edits weren't vandalism and you didn't think they were vandalism, but you were reverting them as vandalism and reporting them to AIV anyway for speed's sake? or am I misunderstanding you? A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 16:04, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
If I may add: the anonymous user in question is an obvious vandal. Any edits made by this user may be deemed vandalism unless obviously not such. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 16:06, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
I used "rollback vandalism" because it's faster and easier than having fifty tabs open where I have to paste "YTV addition is trivial" into the little twinkle popup. Also, per WP:ROLLBACK I left the IP a message as to why I reverted him. I reported him to AIV because it was extensive disruption going on for what appears to be 3 weeks now and I don't know if ANI is really the place to deal with an IP just going insane across the project in such volume.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 16:08, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
The user, as you have admitted, is not a vandal, so what precisely was the urgency in reverting them ? Why couldn't they have been reverted slowly with an accurate edit summary providing the necessary information about why you were reverting their edit, that's information that is useful both to the editor and to others. The user should not have been reported to AIV, it exists, as you well know, as a former administrator, as a place for editors to report vandals, and for clear, obvious vandalism at that.
If this has been going on for three weeks, it's an ongoing incident in need of administrator assistance, so should have properly been brought up at ANI. [1] is an unacceptably poor attempt to explain to an editor about what they are doing wrong and why you are reverting their edits. I do hope there is a more thorough attempt to communicate the issue with the editor.
This is, at the end of the day, another situation where better communication and a more measured pace would have resulted in a drastically different outcome. If the issue had been stopped three weeks ago, either through better/more communication or by getting administrators involved early on, you wouldn't have ended up reverting this user in such a frantic and almost panicky fashion today, you wouldn't have ended up swearing at people, making ill conceived AIV reports and breaking existing reports, and you wouldn't be blocked.
It feels like you are treating Wikipedia as your private fiefdom, expecting people to block users, to do page moves and perform other actions at your whim. You have lost sight of the fact that Wikipedia is a collaborative project. Nick (talk) 16:48, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
I only discovered the IP in this edit and then investigated further. I reverted him en masse with the "rollback vandal" option because it is easier than having to deal with the popup every tab, and while I could have been more thorough in the message I sent him after my first batch, I did send a message, which is what WP:ROLLBACK suggests. And all I did was report one guy to AIV and request one undiscussed page move to be reverted.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 16:55, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
  • This is inexcusable on so many accounts. This was not a single "period" upon which Ryulong acted and got caught in the middle. He did around 100 reverts of a single user in two different time periods and in both cases mass-reverted, labeling it as vandalism and reported to AIV. The additions were not vandalism. The edits were not sourced to YTV's schedule, but they do check out on some TV databases. Ryulong's lack of good faith and twice reporting the user is as a vandal is a problem. Also, Ryulong should not be using Twinkle like this - he lost Rollback after its abuse and has done an even greater violation here. The last time he did 100~ reverts of a user and went way past 3RR. I swear, Ryulong can not control himself and only finds value in Wikipedia by constant fighting and pressuring users. He was an abusive admin and was stripped by Arbcom and to this day, Ryulong has continued a years' long battle with dozens of editors. He knows exactly what he does and its time that he be held accountable for his willful disregard of Wikipedia's policies and its editors. Escalating blocks clearly don't work on Ryulong. The behavior never changes and this whole "I'll be civil" promise from 6 months ago was a farce. He should not have access to Twinkle for this continued abuse. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:25, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
    Edits were not sourced. Someone just said "This aired on YTV 10 years ago" and added the article to the YTV category, when that category is not meant for shows that just happen to rerun on the network. My reverting him is not an abuse of anything. And even in the last instance where I was reverting a user's edits en masse, he was in the wrong for adding the content in the first place then as well. I deserve no sanctions for what happened in the past 24 hours. I reported him to AIV because he was continually disrupting the project with his unsourced additions, inappropriate applications of content, and the like. That's why we have userwarnings for disruption and adding unsourced content, and why after a 4th warning AIV is a completely valid place to take him. The sheer volume of this one IP's additions meant I took him to AIV after discovering the level of disruptive edits.
    And you should not be retaliating against me because I came to ask you about your contributions to a page that I had opposed in the past and you implimented them anyway.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 16:28, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
    The editor was making good faith edits and adding details from List of programs broadcast by YTV. The category issue may be simple error, but the text itself was an appropriate addition because its verifiable. Go through Corusent if you want to check. You are well aware that your actions were controversial and a problem and you keep doing this. You lost WP:ROLLBACK rights because you abused it - you should not be skirting that with its Twinkle counterpart. This should be obvious. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:35, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
    They were in good faith, yes, but problematic and voluminous. He added the mention to the lead paragraph of every page, and we don't list the stations tha these things are rerun on anyway, AFAIK. As I explained to Fluffernutter, I used the "rollback vandal" link because of the volume rather than intending to label the user a vandal, and reported it to AIV because it's disruption and such.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 16:38, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
    Then why did you repeatedly call the editor a "vandal" and report them to AIV as a YTV vandal? Ryulong you wrote:"Vandalism across over 100 articles in adding trivial mentions of broadcasts on YTV (channel)" Diffs of edit summary claims of vandalism.[2][3][4][5][6][7][8] ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:49, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
    Because it's simpler to refer to a large swath(e?) of bad edits, even if done in good faith, as vandalism due to the sheer level of disruption it causes.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 16:55, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
    Good faith edits are NEVER to be referred to as vandalism. You know this. They give Wikipedia and they give you a bad reputation. If I find you reverting further good faith edits as vandalism after your block expires or is lifted, I am warning you now this will automatically result in further blocks of increasing duration. Nick (talk) 16:59, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
    So what do you call disruptive edits done in good faith? And where do you report them when you discover that they are inherently problematic and currently happening?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 17:03, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
    You report good faith edits that are causing damage or disruption to a relevant noticeboard, such as ANI or AN, after you have tried extensively to discuss the issue with the user(s) in question. Nick (talk) 17:15, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
    And if the other party is an IP editor who does not respond to messages?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 17:17, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

To all involved: those are not good-faith edits. I've reverted extremely similar edits so many times... come to think of it, we might all be being played by a single sockmaster. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 17:19, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Upon further examination of the anonymous user's edits, I feel that I should add that I was referring particularly to the addition of the categories across numerous pages, especially after being warned to stop adding them. I notice that the user seems to have added entire tables in some later edits, and these tables indeed do not seem to be vandalism. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 18:57, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
There's something in one of the manuals of style on television series that says that those kinds of tables where it's just international broadcasters are discouraged.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 19:08, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
I didn't comment on that. All I said was that it didn't seem to be vandalism. Nevertheless, every one of the mass edits seems to have added an improper category (and again, many after your initial warning), so I still think the mass reverts were largely justified. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 19:13, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Am I going to have an unanswered unblock request for a week like last time?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:46, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

It's not unusual to have an unblock request sit for a few hours or even a day or two before someone handles it anymore. In this particular case, I think you could speed up the decision-making process of whoever comes to review it by answering some questions.
  1. Do you understand that only vandalism may be labeled vandalism, and that it is in fact considered disruptive to falsely label good-faith or ambiguous edits as vandalism?
  2. Do you understand that vandalism rollback in twinkle is not simply a fast-track revert-for-any-reason-I-feel-like tool, since it labels those edits vandalism?
  3. Do you understand that high-speed/(semi-)automated edit tools in general are to be used accurately and only for their intended purposes, and not just because they're faster than doing things the right way?
  4. Do you understand why your behavior looked as much or more disruptive than the IP's, especially once you lapsed into incivility against other editors?
  5. Can you explain how you intend to approach things differently if you come across another case of "this person has been doing something weird for a while now"?
  6. Do you understand the difference between what AIV is used for and what ANI is used for, and can you explain which you would take a similar situation to if you ran into it again?
If I were reviewing your unblock request - which I'm not, since I've been involved in this conversation and previous similar ones with you - I would be paying particular attention to your answers to numbers 1 and 3, because as long as you appear to not draw a distinction between handling good-faith edits and bad-faith ones, or appear likely to misuse (semi-)automated tools, I wouldn't be comfortable unblocking you. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 22:06, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
Well it's just that the last time I was blocked (or in one of the previous times) I had requested unblock and had this sort of conversation going on and it was there for the whole duration.
  1. Yes.
  2. I don't get why everyone says that the edits are labeled as vandalism when my edit summary says something like "Reverted 12 edits by 68.108.159.184 (talk) to last revision by Rtkat3. (TW)".
  3. So it's better for me to use the "rollback" link, wait for 50 tabs and 50 popup dialogs to appear, then paste the same edit summary into each of those dialogs and have the same speed of edits? Fine then, I'll do that in the future.
  4. No. I do not see how my reverting a random IP across the project looks disruptive. No one had any problem with what I was doing (no one certainly approached me and asked me why I was doing what I was doing). I was just blocked out of thin air for nebulous reasons, of which the only concrete one is the incivility in the edit summary that has already been discussed ad infinitum here. Considering I've been sanctioned, apparently dozens of times now, for shooting first and asking questions later, this is a bit hypocritical to be blocked and then be talked down to for something no one gave two fucks about until I was incivil in one edit summary.
  5. Revert with edit summaries. Post on ANI. Don't curse someone out for reverting just because one edit was missing an edit summary. Why are you constantly talking down to me?
  6. I'll only use AIV for people replacing articles with the word "COCKS" or if the disruptive edits are happening at the time of my report. You know, like 68.108.159.184 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) is doing right now, despite the warnings I gave him. Dozens of articles are being given trivial mentions of a rerun on YTV in the lead paragraph and being categorized in the YTV category. Someone should block him now and revert all of it, you know as I had originally intended until I was painted as the bad guy and someone destroying Wikipedia.
You're all treating me like a child and I'm tired of it. The "lynch mob" that I've been told is out for me will probably get their way at this point. And someone really needs to clean up after 68.108.159.184 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) who last edited about 20 minutes prior to me writing all this down.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 07:56, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
And it's still going on, 3 minutes after I posted the above.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 08:14, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
User:Sjones23 has been reverting every one of the IP's latest edits. ミーラー強斗武 (talk) 13:04, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

This whole block is still utter BS. This is being discussed nowhere but my user talk. It came out of nowhere without any warning or discussion prior. It should be invalid for those reasons alone.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 14:39, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Ryulong - you've been on Wikipedia for a number of years, you served as an administrator, complaining about a block because you didn't receive a warning is insulting. You know how you are expected to behave and interact with other users, it is no longer the place of administrators such as myself to remind you every five minutes when you step out of line.
Your contention that "I've been sanctioned, apparently dozens of times now, for shooting first and asking questions later" should be enough to inform you by now that we do not shoot first and ask questions later at Wikipedia. We collaborate and are expected to at least try and get along with other users, not edit or revert them and worry about the consequences later.
You complain about being treated as a child, yet demand to be treated as a child when it suits you. You complain the above text is talking down to you, but you expect the same treatment we hand out to brand new accounts, giving warnings and asking users to change their behaviour. You asked me a long and winding series of questions about how to deal with a user making good faith if unhelpful changes but expect to get away with shooting first and asking questions later.
You have to now admit you know exactly what you're doing when it comes to editing Wikipedia, that you realise why this behaviour is wrong and that we can confidently unblock you, or you're effectively admitting that you don't know what you're doing and that you arguably lack the competence required to edit. Which is it ? Nick (talk) 15:58, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
Every other block that I have had applied was the result of some thread or report somewhere, and there is nothing on Wikipedia other than on this very page that deals with this current block. No one reported me for incivility. No one reported me for edit warring. No one reported me for anything. I had no forewarning or attempt to explain any of the issues that are apparently part of this block until after it happened, and because I am presently blocked all of my explanations are being used against me rather than as a means of preventing or lifting it. Taking it upon myself to clean up after an editor making dubious edits across the project after discovering the problematic edits in the same day should not net me a block of any length. Nor should my attempt to get these bad edits dealt with at AIV. Nor should the edits themselves. The only thing I will and have admitted to is that I should not have made that rude edit summary. I don't expect to be treated like a brand new editor, but I expect to be treated with some sort of dignity prior to having a week long block imposed.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 16:18, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

JamesBWatson, for a block such as this one I expect some sort of damn discussion prior to it happening and maybe I could be given an opportunity to explain everything, as has been the case with every time I had been reported to ANI for some new nonsense. This never happened in this case. I was blocked and now everything afterwards is just another nail in the coffin until next week. I'm seriously starting to suspect that someone was stalking my edits and waiting for me to slip up just to report me to some administrator in a private channel to block me (and I have a prime suspect in this case). All this teaches me is that I shouldn't bother to fix anything anymore, because every time I step out of my esoteric topic area and realize that some editor is disrupting the project and I revert it, just because it is not vandalism, it gets me blocked. I'll gladly ignore users like this YTV IP and CensoredScribe in the future if it means I will be allowed to edit in peace.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:10, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Heads up

I thought both you and User:Nick should know that the anonymous user in question has now been blocked for further edits of a similar nature following another WP:AIV report. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 20:33, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Doesn't really matter at this point seeing as the IP in question will probably not even recongize that it had been blocked when it begins editing a day from now and I'm still blocked because I tried to get it stopped yesterday.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:01, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
Dogmaticeclectic - the user is not vandalizing. You submitted the report, but the editor simply refused to engage in discussion. Why is this so difficult to understand? They may not be seeing whats going on or any of the discussions. Ryulong, you do not understand that mass-reverting 100+ edits over two periods and biting the editor and cursing at others is not appropriate. You fail to understand that you lost WP:ROLLBACK rights and that you should not be engaging in 13+ reverts a minute of an editor, repeatedly and purposefully labeling the editor as a vandal "to make it easier". Talk about a lack of WP:CLUE. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 21:11, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
I did not "bite" the editor. I told him not to add trivial mentions of YTV and gave him {{uw-unsourced4}}. How the hell is that WP:BITE? And how the hell does this link label the user a vandal? There's no edit filter being applied to say "this user is a vandal and I'm reverting him" and that's being displayed for everyone to see in the page histories or contributions. "Vandal" only appears on my end. It's "revert without leaving an edit summary", which is what made things easier when finding so many problematic edits in a row so stop twisting what I've said. WP:AIV is for ongoing disruption. The IP in question was clearly disrupting at the time. And all this teaches me is that straying out of my stupid rubber monster pages when I find something problematic gets me blocked for weeks at a time.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:16, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
And you should have kept your word instead of piling onto this lynch mob.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:25, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
If you are referring to Rollback (Vandal) you are noting that other editors know it implies vandal reverts by definition. The other editors and I pointed out you knowingly labeled good faith edits as vandalism because it was easier and I pointed out 7 instances where you called the editor a vandal in an edit summary. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 21:38, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
WP:ROLLBACK still says that you can use the version of rollback that in your words "implies vandal everts by definition" "To revert widespread edits (by a misguided editor or malfunctioning bot) which are judged to be unhelpful to the encyclopedia, provided that an explanation is supplied in an appropriate location, such as at the relevant talk page" and that's what I did in this god damn case. And it turns out it goes back to my arbcom case.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:45, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Just in case I wasn't clear before... Much of what the anonymous user was doing is indeed vandalism. See WP:SNEAKY. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 21:29, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

No, it wasn't and you can go through the press releases and other sections to prove otherwise. Its not "obvious vandalism" and its most certainly not "sneaky vandalism". The burden is on s/he who calls it "sneaky" vandalism to prove it so. And I don't think updating a hundred articles on shows about TV airings on that network classify as "sneaky vandalism" by any measure of definition. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 21:38, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
The user was doing precisely this by repeatedly adding the category: "adding plausible misinformation to articles (such as minor alteration of facts or additions of plausible-sounding hoaxes)". Even if one assumes that initially, the user may not have been aware that adding that category was incorrect, the fact is that multiple warnings were given. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 21:40, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
Could you direct me to these multiple warnings. I can only find one warning which fails to explain the issue to the user before I blocked Ryulong. Thanks in advance, Nick (talk) 21:50, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
Before me, me, me.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:55, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
User:Nick, every single message at User talk:68.108.159.184 resulted from this series of edits, and all but one of those messages is a warning. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 21:57, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
Yes, none of these explain the issue to the user. Are you expecting the user to be some sort of psychic who knows what your concerns are with their edits ? Yes, it's time consuming and yes, you'll probably telling someone who has already edited and knows there way around, but a user with no previous edits, a blank talk page and an unerring ability to do stuff wrong should be treated initially as a brand new user who needs helped around the site, basic stuff explained and a bit of compassion showed.
Chris is the only person who has done things properly, like welcoming the user and explaining some of the problems. I would expect you to all react the same way in future. Nick (talk) 22:19, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
I told him not to keep adding the YTV shit. So that's not enough and that's yet another aspect of my block?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:23, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
Yes, that's why the block log says "biting new users". Nick (talk) 22:29, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
I don't see how anyone could construe "Don't add trivial mentions of reruns on YTV." as WP:BITE.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:30, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Section break

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:

This is torture. There are so many articles that are completely unrelated to this one unresponsive IP editor that I update weekly that no one else ever bothers to do despite all of the stuff I lay out to be copied and pasted just in case I'm not available. If I'm unblocked all I'm doing is updating JoJo's Bizarre Adventure: Stardust Crusaders, List of Youkai Watch episodes, List of Youkai Watch characters (all will have new content tonight, my local time), List of Ressha Sentai ToQger episodes, List of Ressha Sentai ToQger characters, List of Kamen Rider Gaim episodes, (all Sunday morning, JST) and The Amazing Race 24 (Sunday night EDT/PDT) like I do every week without conflict, as well as JoJolion which I work on monthly (new issue is out tomorrow April 19). All I want to do is work on this content and all the other crap that I keep seeing popping up in my watchlist. I have no intention of doing any more vandal fighting. It's a waste of time and there's no gratification for doing anymore, unlike when I signed up years ago. I'm an idiot for trying to do anything else like keep the integrity of other areas of the project as I'm shown time and time again. Just let me work on articles again. It's all I'm good for anymore.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 06:46, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Accept reason:

On the basis of the assurances you've provided below, I'm unblocking you. If there is a return to the behaviour which saw you blocked, I will be reinstating and possibly lengthening the block, please don't make that course of action necessary. In other words, no shooting first and asking questions later behaviour please, for the love of god. Nick (talk) 23:56, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

And the only other thing I would consider doing if unblocked is deal with this guy's constant conflict of interest.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 10:35, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

I seriously hope no one listens to this random request.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 15:56, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Is that IP with only two contribs trying to keep everyone from editing your talk page? ミーラー強斗武 (talk) 16:49, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
No, he's trying to keep me from editing my talk page.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 16:58, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Should I report it to ANI? ミーラー強斗武 (talk) 17:02, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Whatever you think.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 17:15, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Considering the fact the IP that caused all of this has been blocked for a month for not listening to anyone as is pretty much common for IPs most of the time, can this be lifted now?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 18:49, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Do you understand fully why you were blocked and what I and other administrators have been explaining to you ? Given the expletive ridden rants that have been posted here over the last couple of days are you calm and level-headed enough to be unblocked ? Nick (talk) 22:26, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
The expletive ridden rants have been because of the anger at being blocked, for the most part. And I will attempt to be more thorough in explaining what's going on. And I will be more thorough when I do the last item listed at WP:ROLLBACK#When to use rollback in the future, as I intended to with the YTV editor.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:31, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Sturmgewehr88 convo

Going off topic but you know the reason I used ja is because no browser can identify any of the other languages. Not to mention all reliable sources provide the names in katakana and not hiragana. You should probably restore the other version of at least the table.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 14:36, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

What do you mean by "no browser can identify" them? Anyway, "all reliable sources" are post-1945 and written in Japanese by Japanese and Americans, so of course they'd be in Katakana. Before nearly everything on the island was destroyed, Katakana was never used to write in Okinawan; Hiragana and/or Kanji were used. The Japanese can write it however they'd like in Japanese, but it's absurd to use Katakana when writing in Okinawan. ミーラー強斗武 (talk) 15:20, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
I mean that using {{lang|ja}} we make it so the text is properly encoded in HTML tags and are displayed properly. It's technically all those other languages, yes, but encoding it as Japanese makes sure its displayed right. And we still have to abide by what is shown in reliable sources rather than the truth.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 15:22, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
That makes sense; I'll go back and change that. Well actual Ryūkyūan documents or a Japanese republishing of Ryūkyūan poems in their original form counts as a reliable source, right? I'll be damned if I ever find an Okinawan text that says "ウチナーグチ". ミーラー強斗武 (talk) 17:31, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
Everything now is more commonly written in katakana. I've never seen anything other than "mensore" written in hiragana here.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 17:37, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
Because it's been completely replaced by Japanese. The only thing close is ウチナーヤマトグチ, which is just Japanese with a few Okinawan words thrown in. And if I recall correctly, "mensōre" was written in Katakana on the Okinawan language page before I changed it to Hiragana, and if I'm wrong I know it was like that on other Wikipedias. ミーラー強斗武 (talk) 17:51, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
By "here" I meant the last time I went to Kokusai Doori. Or one of the Mangasoukos.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 17:55, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
Well actually I thought you meant Okinawa in general, but I threw in the WP bit since it's relevant. I've noticed that when I see Okinawan written in public, it is written in Katakana, but it's almost always written side-by-side with Japanese, so I assume they do it to "avoid confusion" or something similar. ミーラー強斗武 (talk) 17:59, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure all the tourism signage is めんそーれ and not メンソーレ.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 18:01, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
Well yes, but I was being more general. ミーラー強斗武 (talk) 18:06, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
Crap, I'm sorry User:Ryulong, I completely forgot to change the lang code back to ja. Thanks for doing it though. ミーラー強斗武 (talk) 01:32, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
It's fine.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 01:41, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Have you seen User:174.109.215.144's edits to Okinawan language? It just seems fishy coming from an IP. ミーラー強斗武 (talk) 22:40, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

It's not problematic.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 23:23, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

etc.

I forgot to update the {{as of}} template on JoJolion last month, not to mention there's a new chapter in the new Ultra Jump this weekend.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 15:29, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Someone should revert this.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 17:41, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Reverted it. ミーラー強斗武 (talk) 17:46, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
I saw. Thank you.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 17:47, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Can someone fucking block 175.143.27.202 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) already? This is the 4th fucking time he's removed the section on Ultraman about Malaysia's book banning.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 05:26, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Sandbox archive

Where do these go? ミーラー強斗武 (talk) 17:04, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

First goes on JoJo's Bizarre Adventure: Stardust Crusaders, where I've already got an entry for ep 4 (I also have a hidden section header that I can't really replicate here but it should be clear enough when anyone edits the page) and the second is List of Youkai Watch episodes.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 17:14, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Oh, there's also a ref in the episode 3 entry that needs unhiding now that it aired and it should be live. And someone already added the ending theme to the proper pages, but this one needs some copy editing.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 17:18, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
I think adding Walk Like an Egyptian to {{JoJo's Bizarre Adventure}} would be a good idea too.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 17:24, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Which category (anime, manga, related, etc) does it go under? ミーラー強斗武 (talk) 18:10, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Alright, it took me a minute to figure out the format, but I've add the two below. I've got to run some errands now, but I'll get the rest done within two hours from now. ミーラー強斗武 (talk) 17:34, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
The format's a little confusing but it makes things easier for everyone in the long run. Sunday's the Super Hero Time stuff which has a similar format.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 17:43, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
God damn it. Wonchop, the official name of the Stand is "Tower of Gray" with the US English spelling, not the UK English spelling of "grey". And why did you delete the preview summary? Sturmgewehr88, when you get back if Wonchop doesn't answer could you restore the official spelling and the summary?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 17:45, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
It seems that he just switched from US to UK English spellings, which is a big nono.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 18:02, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Episode 3 summary with engvar fix and reference up. And I really need to get Wonchop's attention here cause I can't answer him on the article talk :(—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 18:04, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
I think I screwed up the grammar on the Tower of Gray summary. Holy's name needs to be separated from the others somehow.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 18:05, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Alright, I fixed episode 4 (except the grammar mistake you just mentioned), now do you want me to copy and paste the code for episode 3 or just the summary and reference? ミーラー強斗武 (talk) 18:08, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
It all results in the same thing. And I have no clue how to fix that grammar mistake.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 18:11, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Ok, I'll get on that now that I'm home. ミーラー強斗武 (talk) 19:10, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
I think adding Walk Like an Egyptian to {{JoJo's Bizarre Adventure}} would be a good idea too.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 17:24, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Which category (anime, manga, related, etc) does it go under? ミーラー強斗武 (talk) 18:10, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
It goes with the rest of the music. A link right after the one to Bloody Stream.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 19:14, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
And all the formatting here needs fixing still.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 19:15, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Ok, so I fixed episode 3 and the template. How am I supposed to fix the format at the link you just provided? ミーラー強斗武 (talk) 19:19, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
The song title doesn't have quotation marks around it. It's not on the right line or it needs an extra carriage return. ANd probably referring to it as "the second season" rather than "the Stardust Crusaders adaptation". However you think looks better because right now it doesn't look good at all.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 19:30, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Fixed it. ミーラー強斗武 (talk) 19:44, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Sturmgewehr88, I realized List of Garo: Makai no Hana episodes had to be updated but it seems I never put the right episode title for #3 "Greenhouse" in the header last week. I'll also paste the entry for episode 4 below. Same format as the JoJo page.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:47, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Also it seems I had the location of the beetle wrong. It's inside the plane. I've modified my draft below.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:02, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Wow, I keep finding mistakes in coding I made. If you edit the top of the "Episodes" section on JoJo's Bizarre Adventure: Stardust Crusaders you can see a hidden "===Part 3: ''[[Stardust Crusaders]]===". It needs to be ==== instead. Same thing needs to be done to the unhidden section titles at JoJo's Bizarre Adventure (season 1). Or making a separate set of hidden titles like the other one might be good but that would involve wrapping the ones there in <noinclude> tags and wrapping the new ones in the <includeonly> tags. I've got a mock up at the bottom of the sandbox.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:09, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
I'll do what I can. Btw, do you never sleep? ミーラー強斗武 (talk) 22:12, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
It's an "I need to reset my internal clock" weekend. Also I was an idiot and decided to schedule a redelivery in the morning.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:14, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
You didn't have to copy the top {| and bottom |} here. I just put them on my page because I'm worried about open ended tables. It looks like it kinda breaks them a bit.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:19, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Oh ok I get you. I erased those and added the codes, but adding them as they were below didn't make any visible change.. ミーラー強斗武 (talk) 22:28, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
The change is at List of JoJo's Bizarre Adventure episodes where the section headings now decrease properly. Still have to do the one hidden on the Stardust Crusaders page so they match though. Thank you for all of the help, by the way. This stuff would make me go mad if I saw it and realized the mistakes I left behind or stuff that I would be chomping at the bit to do.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:30, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Seems like there's a bit of empty space at JoJo's Bizarre Adventure (season 1). I think it's because of the extra carriage return before the new coding I came up with for the Battle Tendency header. Should be fine if that line before the <noinclude> is deleted.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:34, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Glad it worked; I'll go fix the other one too. And you're welcome. You come off as stubborn and profane, but I do respect you, especially with all the work you do here. ミーラー強斗武 (talk) 22:42, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
I rarely get any help with any of the pages I work on. They seem to collect people with a great passion for the subject, but they're used to how things work in their circles rather than how it should work here. And then I get into stupid arguments with people that get out of control and that's how I end up where I am now. And things have gone to shit in my personal/professional life this month. It might have been a contributing factor to my outburst but nothing that can be done about that.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:48, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
I understand.. Well, I'll do what I can until you're unblocked, since I'm procrastinating instead of overhauling my first article and winning that dispute at ja Wiki anyway. ミーラー強斗武 (talk) 22:59, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

I think the stuff at ja.wp is unwinnable. And it seems you broke the formatting at JoJo's Bizarre Adventure: Stardust Crusaders. You deleted a tag that was used in making it show up right at the main episode list. All that was needed was changing the hidden ===Part 3: ''[[Stardust Crusaders]]=== to ====Part 3: ''[[Stardust Crusaders]]==== because there's not going to be a division like season 1. Or that may have been my fault. I meant to show what existed in the first place and what I wanted it to be changed into, rather than having both items down there.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 23:07, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Straight up made a pastebin of how it should look to avoid any other confusion.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 23:15, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Eh, doing something is better than nothing though. And yeah, I didn't know what I was doing there.. Thanks for the pastebin. ミーラー強斗武 (talk) 23:21, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Just to double check, you want me to replace the entire article with what's in the pastebin? ミーラー強斗武 (talk) 23:24, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Yeah. It was just that one fix but didn't want to be ambiguous.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 23:25, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Alright, did it. ミーラー強斗武 (talk) 23:27, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
D'oh, I put that extra carriage return back in and an italic text string wasn't closed. New revised revised version here.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 23:31, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
I promise that's going to be it for today. Once my delivery is here I'll probably be out of commission for the rest of the day because I won't bother with resetting my internal clock until Sunday.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 23:36, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Fixed it. Haha and ok, go get some Z's in. ミーラー強斗武 (talk) 23:39, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Don't want to miss the Sagawa guy again. At least it's out for delivery.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 23:45, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Maybe I'l start up the sections for the stuff for tomorrow now, while I'm waiting, as I apparently have the title for one of them.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 23:58, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Ack, no, Sturmgewehr88, the stuff I just did has to wait for tomorrow. None of the refs are valid yet, not to mention I don't have the episode title for one of them. Undo on the Gaim and ToQger episode lists, please.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 01:00, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
Oh crap, sorry! I saw them and was like "well, better go ahead and add this"... ミーラー強斗武 (talk) 01:11, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

@Sturmgewehr88: Whenever you get back, I have content that can be posted to the two Youkai Watch pages below. Also, I saw that List of Kamen Rider Kabuto episodes is using fullwidth !'s and ?'s which just makes it look ugly when two are used in a row.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 19:42, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I've gotten carried away on other Wikipedias. I just added the two items for Youkai Watch, now how do you fix the fullwidth !'s and ?'s? ミーラー強斗武 (talk) 21:24, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
Just change them to half-width ones.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:26, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
I'm really sorry, but you have to explain that... ミーラー強斗武 (talk) 21:36, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
Replace ！ with ! and ？ with ?.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:37, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
Alright, is it fixed now? ミーラー強斗武 (talk) 21:43, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
Found some other mistakes, so here's a pastebin.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:55, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
Ok, and done with that. ミーラー強斗武 (talk) 22:25, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Sturmgewehr88, first, Wonchop removed the summary for ep 4 again. Also, I disagree with adding a mention of Crunchyroll to the main page (it's mentioned on the lists' pages which is enough) and his retitling of everything to match with Crunchyroll (several of those translations are just incorrect) but I don't think you should necessarily revert those. I will deal with them later, or I could get Wonchop's attention and tell him there's no reason to change the translations like that because I've already said below that Crunchyroll is getting everything wrong, at least with the change of "The Warrior Returning to the Wind" to "The Warrior of Wind". Other than that the others look like great changes. And if he's making those changes there then the content should be changed at Battle Tendency too. Also, the content below can be added to the articles in question now—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 23:47, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

I saw that earlier, but since you didn't say anything I didn't bother with it; why does he keep erasing the summary? Anyway, I've added some of the things below, and if you could collapse what's been done I can blast through the rest of it. I'll go readd that summary right now. ミーラー強斗武 (talk) 23:56, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
It appears that I've been unblocked.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 23:57, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
I see now, congratulations! ミーラー強斗武 (talk) 23:59, 19 April 2014 (UTC)


Redyue = Samus according JP wiki?

How do y'know? Is it really official from the website, just like how Scorpio is the female teacher from the beginning of Fourze?— Preceding unsigned comment added by ScottKazama (talk • contribs)

The Japanese Wikipedia calls Redyue a female.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 17:43, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

To Wonchop

Hey, I can't respond at Talk:JoJo's Bizarre Adventure: Stardust Crusaders right now. "Holy Kujo" and "DIO" are the official spellings within Japan, and to some extent the US, prior to Crunchyroll's really poorly researched subtitles. She was always "Holy" in the original Japanese materials as well as the Viz translation, and the use of "DIO" over "Dio" is because of the confusion with his original incarnation of "Dio Brando" and also Diego Brando of SBR goes by "Dio" (normal caps). Also, change it back to "Tower of Gray". It's also the official spelling. I can get a photo from my copy of JoJoveller if you want for proof.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 17:49, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Wonchop, multiple issues.

  • Why do you keep removing the preview summary for Stardust Crusaders' ep 4 "Tower of Gray"?
  • We don't need to say anything about Crunchyroll's streaming on the main JoJo's Bizarre Adventure article. It's trivia regarding the international broadcast, which should just be in the infobox rather than dedicating a whole sentence to it.
  • While a lot of those changes to the episode titles on JoJo's Bizarre Adventure (season 1) are good, if you're changing them there, you should change them at Battle Tendency (and later Phantom Blood if you're going to do a sweep of those too) because those are all chapter titles from the original work. Also, I don't like the change to "The Warrior of Wind". The Japanese title doesn't match that translation very well. Not to mention there's no requirement that we use Crunchyroll's translations in the first place. I see this is why you changed "Tower of Gray" to "Tower of Grey". This is only going to cause problems later on when Crunchyroll begins using the "revised" character names that were made to avoid international copyright problems (we will not use "Jean-Pierre Eiffel", "Centerfold", "Soul Sacrifice", "Cool Ice", etc.).

Please respond because I can't contact you directly (not that you want me to anyway).—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 23:54, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Emptying categories at CfD

Regardless of whether or not the category is appropriate, useful, or even reasonable, emptying a category that is at CfD, especially when you've just filed that CfD yourself, is a no-no, and I'm surprised by your having done that considering how long you've been around. - The Bushranger One ping only 21:51, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't do CFD that often. I emptied it because I thought it was crap but then noticed it was part of a series then did CFD.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 05:13, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
Actually, you nominated it first. But please remember this in the future. Thanks. - The Bushranger One ping only 05:39, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
Either way, individual articles in the category is not the way to go, and I've found some good child categories that cover most of the bases rather than a random set of 30 pages Dwaynewest chose.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 05:42, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Where was it on the noticeboard?

Just wondering. (Relating to your comment here; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Quadrat1414 ) Tutelary (talk) 19:12, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

It was on AN or ANI in some nature. Can't remember which.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:45, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

The Amazing Race ISO codes

I something wonder on the ISO country codes in two countries that will visit in The Amazing Race 24. SWI is not a real ISO code for Switzerland, but its CHE as Confoederatio Helvetica, which means Swiss Confideration in Latin. SUI is an official IOC country code. For Spain, it uses ESP not SPA, and that said code derives from España, the native name of Spain. ApprenticeFan work 14:30, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if they're not the official ISO codes. SWI and SPA redirect just fine.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 15:36, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ryulong/Archive_95&oldid=1190254425"