User talk:Ryulong/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Werto IP unblock

You unblocked RumDuck (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)'s IP address which had been recently used by Werto (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). The commonality might not be coincidental [1]. Phr (talk) 04:21, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Um, I didn't do any unblocking (isn't an admin). I merely answered him on {{helpme}} and I found out that he was a sockpuppet, and I posted it on WP:ANI. Ryūlóng 04:24, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

RumDuck is a brand new user and this account has not been unblocked, let alone blocked, by anyone. Of course, his sock was blocked, but I guess he was "allowed" to create another account. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 04:39, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Above message copied over to Phr's talk page. Ryūlóng 04:47, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Other Ranger discussion

If you read my post in thad discussion, you´ll see I´m sincere. That was a smart way do add everyone who deserves to be there and still keep them apart from the ones who are really considered Rangers by the fans.DinobotTM2 05:01, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. And I apologize, it's just hard to discern such things over the internet. Ryūlóng 05:02, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I Know. And never mind...

P.S.: Now i need to talk someone into writing an article about the Psycho Rangers, hehehe... ;)DinobotTM2 05:05, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Villains_in_Power_Rangers:_In_Space#Psycho_Rangers Ryūlóng 05:08, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I´ve seen. Still, they´re far more important to just be in a generic "Villains of" article. They were the most dangerous Evil Rangers, plaged through 2 different series and caused the death of a Ranger (what none ever did before). But that is just my thought.DinobotTM2 05:13, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Why not make one yourself? Just edit the redirect that's in existance. Ryūlóng 05:16, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Maybe later. I´d rather talk about it in a discusion page before doing it.DinobotTM2 05:18, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

BE BOLD Ryūlóng 05:21, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Gary Frill and sockpuppets

Hi, I have moved the discussion from WP:AIV to Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Gary Frill. Please report there any more evidence you can find. Thanks. Mushroom (Talk) 13:28, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Speedy Delete bot warning

I noticed that you tagged the page Image:Autism.jpg for speedy deletion with the reason "image name has nothing to do with subject". However, "image name has nothing to do with subject" is not currently one of our criteria for speedy deletion, so I have removed the speedy deletion tag. You can use WP:IFD if you still want the article to be deleted. Thanks! Stifle (talk) 15:05, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Bluecanoe?

Did they do the checkuser thing on User:Bluecanoe? What's new with all that. It looks like nothing else has happened. --Awiseman 18:15, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Fictional teleporters

I have removed the various Power Rangers characters from this category because their method of teleportation can be likened to the Star Trek teleporters. They did not have the power to do so; they merely used technology to do so. If you take any random Star Trek character, you can see that they are not listed under "Fictional teleporters". Ryūlóng 18:38, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Regardless of how someone ascertains their powers, they still belong to them, right? Is Iron Man the hero or is it his suit? If the power of Red Ranger itself teleports and not Rocky DeSantos or whoever, then what's to discriminate between earlier series in which they could and later in which they couldn't? That's why I added all the MM and Zeo rangers. In Star Trek, they use the ship to teleport. In Power Rangers, it is thier own powers, and only some specific rangers. Zythe 18:54, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

But they didn't get the ability to teleport from their suits. They had a watch/communicator that allowed them to teleport, whether they were in their civilian or Power Ranger suits. And I'm not that sure that the Zeo Rangers teleported. Ryūlóng 18:57, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

And Green Lantern has a ring. I don't see why they should not be included, they are teleporters, later ones aren't. It's not like Star Trek where I assume everyone does actually teleport all the time.Zythe 19:02, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, I originally removed the entry from Tommy's page because I thought it was a mistake in his powers through Dino Thunder, where they got abilities that were not unlike those that would allow for inclusion in categories such as "Fictional speedsters" or the like. However, in the Mighty Morphin era, I doubt that their technologically driven ability to teleport would surmount to inclusion into the category. Ryūlóng 19:06, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok, whatever, I don't care enough to revert them back and I haven't watched Power Rangers since Time Force, and really I feel it should have ended at In Space. While I feel technological and mystical powers sources equate to roughly the same thing. Didn't some of the Ninjas and others since have innate powers, from their coins or whatever the power source was that year? Should they count? Zythe 19:11, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Those are different powers that they utilized as part of their training that weren't derived from a device. If a Power Ranger has the ability to manipulate the wind or electricity, that warrants inclusion into the respective categories. However, I believe that listing "Category:Power Rangers characters" into "Category:Fictional teleporters" would be sufficient, as several of the characters that have their own pages are in the category, and it wouldn't include any of the Ranger teams that didn't teleport. Ryūlóng 19:16, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Noah's ark

Why are you reverting the removal of AD as vandalism? That's a content dispute. KillerChihuahua^?!? 01:07, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

It's not a content dispute, it's a sock of a banned user trying to revert back to earlier versions. See Panairjdde (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Ryūlóng 01:08, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Ahh, glad I asked. KillerChihuahua^?!? 01:29, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

And now the IP has been blocked, however a little longer would be better. Ryūlóng 01:30, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

It is not, it is a content dispute over the interpretation of Manual of Style: nobody reads it, everyone is eager to revert/block, however. It is the victory of form over content. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.44.82.159 (talk • contribs)

ADs and BCs

To return to the matter:

1. The Manual of Style says ADs and CEs are both acceptable, but this has nothing to do with our case;
2. In the same section, it is clearly written that "normally" you should not use AD/CE in front of the years, except when "events" span over the era change. What does this mean? As far as I know, the example given is about an interval: 1 BC-AD 1, not as an article dealing with both eras but no intervals;
3. In the section about years, all the examples have either BC/BCE or nothing.

This should be interpreted (as far as I know) as "never use AD/CE, but when writing intervals".

Now look at my edit at Mark 12, [2]. Apart a matter of formatting I do not understand why you reverted (the center tag), my edit was changing "If one accepts [...] dates for Jesus' death of AD April 7, 30 or April 3, 33" to "If one accepts [...] dates for Jesus' death of April 7, 30 or April 3, 33". I do not understand why this edit is wrong or, by your words, vandalism.--Brunetti 20:03, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

More AD/BC IP stuff

"At WP:DATE, there is nothing under years that states that AD should not be used when it is the only era in an article."

I that case, what does Normally you should use plain numbers for years in the Anno Domini/Common Era mean, according to you? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.44.91.151 (talk • contribs)

Ok, stay calm. You put a remark in my talk page, and now you are angry because I am answering? It is strange, however, how you are dodging my remarks.

You just don't leave me alone. In one of the articles where you removed "AD" from, the use of a BC year was in the same paragraph. And it says "Normally you should use...", that doesn't mean they have to be omitted everywhere. Ryūlóng 22:40, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

You reverted articles with no BC at all. How do you plead? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.44.89.89 (talk • contribs)

Either we block him when he betrays himself by his actions, or we step back & give him free reign. I've tried talking to him, & it hasn't worked. If you have a better idea, I'm all ears. -- llywrch 22:49, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

You know my conditions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.44.89.89 (talk • contribs)

Your conditions are ridiculous. Now, LEAVE ME ALONE. Ryūlóng 22:55, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Fine. As far as I don't find you anymore in my edits, I shall leave you. I still wonder to what "conditions" are you referring thou. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.44.89.89 (talk • contribs)

And I don't know what conditions you were referring to in the first place. You just seem to be interpretting WP:DATE as you think it should be. Ryūlóng 23:00, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

The Vandal range

Well, to give you some peace & quiet Ryulong, I blocked one range at Infostrada for an hour. I'll have to document this at WP:AN/I, but if no one else using that ISP is inconvenienced (who knows, maybe none of them actually want to edit the English Wikipedia), we can keep extending the block until he goes away. -- llywrch 23:15, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I just checked: he beat me to it. -- llywrch 23:24, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Someone beat me to blocking that one, too. He's definitely not very popular nowadays. -- llywrch 23:29, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Stalkers

You cry I am stalikg you, yet you don't answer me and, worse, revert my edits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.47.77.48 (talk • contribs)

Making points

You think I am making a point? All of this time and you still did not understand anything? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.47.87.229 (talk • contribs)

Well, perhaps you can answer my question. If you can give an INDEPENDENT reason as to why AD should not be used, then by all means say so. Do not quote WP:DATE. Ryūlóng 00:52, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

And there is nothing at WP:DATE that prohibits or suggests that AD should never be used. Ryūlóng 00:54, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

1. My independent (?) reason is that is typically redundant, typographically cluttering, and prone to create disputes.
2. When it says that "normally you should use plain numbers as year", it means that it should be never used except when in intervals. Is it so difficult to understand?

--151.47.87.229 01:00, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

How is AD redundant when the year in question is (for example) 9 or 200? Ryūlóng 01:01, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

• "The Jewish temple in Jerusalem was burned for the second time in 70", "Paul the Apostle (c. 9 – c. 67)", "Britain, c. 500.", "it passed in 226 to the Sassanids," "In 525, New Year's Day was set at March 25". Where do you see ambiguousness? If there is not, then using AD to specify it is redundant. Just like writing 2006 AD.--151.47.87.229 01:08, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Specifying it to be AD is not redundant. Especially when it's like year 9 AD or year 70 AD. Those dates are way too early to discern a difference between BC and AD. While 2006 AD is redundant, as there are few dates that can be determined to be 2006 BC, the fact that you are going against the edits of others as well as bypassing several blocks placed on your accounts for going against the arbitration committee, that is why I am reverting your edits, because you constantly undo others work, and make things less exact. Ryūlóng 01:11, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

3RR

You are way over 3RR on the Noah's Ark article, in fact you are at 9RR. You are only permitted 3 reverts (see WP:3RR) on an article in a 24 hour period. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing for a period of time. Additionally, you engaged in edit-warring with an anon, this too is a blockable offense.
Bottom line, I understand your frustration (and I think I know why that change irked you), but is it really important enough to risk getting blocked over? Sometimes with anons it's best to ignore them -- they usually lose interest and go away. Cheers.
PS -- I didn't leave a note for the anon because he hasn't a reserved IP -- he's editing via IUNET-BNET in Italy, and if the range is blocked, other users suffer. Just hang in there. •Jim62sch• 11:38, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

*clears throat* Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Panairjdde (2nd) Ryūlóng 19:42, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

You may have noticed that the latest Panairjdde sock is again edit warring tonight, has repeatedly placed a spurious sock template for one of his socks on my talk page, and made arguments all over the place. None of the admins from last night seem to be around ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 01:50, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Diacritics in hockey player's names

Since you're pretty determined to move Czech player articles to titles that have diacritics, I would like to point you to Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ice_Hockey#page_moves and Talk:Marián Gáborík to explain why people are undoing those moves. --NeoChaosX 01:24, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

For cleaning up the vandal on my talk page! I appreciate it. All the best, Ziggurat 01:42, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Manual of Style and dates

I noticed you reverting an anons edits regarding the removal of AD. The wikipedia guideline states that AD/CE is only necessary when used in a range of dates that begin in BC/BCE. While you may not like the current guideline, and there can be discussion to change that, I urge you to respect the standing guidelines and not revert such edits in the future. I personally dislike edit wars having to do with dates (especially AD vs. CE issues). I wish there were a way for each user to be able to choose which format appears on their computer, but until that date, I feel removing the redundent ADs and CEs (per the guidelines) helps nip these issues in the bud. (the AD/CEs are redundent because any wikilinked positive number goes to the year article such as 5, or 226, or 2006, etc)--Andrew c 02:20, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

However, I am reverting the removal of those edits because it is constant returning 3RR vandalism from an anonymous IP range. This user has constantly unilaterally changed such information in the past, and had claimed that he would stop for a month, but he went against his word. Unfortunately, the range cannot be blocked for any length of time. Ryūlóng 02:22, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, I apologize for not being familiar with the past issues. That said, going through the users contribution, I can find nothing that would qualify as WP:VAND. Maybe I am missing something, but these edits are per the guidelines, no? The user isn't changing the dating format of an article, simple removing the redundent ADs as stated by the guidelines. While anon users are encouraged to register, the great thing about wikipedia is that ANYONE can edit it. I believe AGF applies to anons as well. Anyway, I still urge you not to revert helpful edits that are not against policy (vandalism and edits that break policy should clearly be reverted though). Thanks for your time and concern.--Andrew c 02:27, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, this anonymous editor cannot be put under AGF. He is utilizing his IP range to evade a block, and continue doing the various edits that he was blocked for in the first place. There have been various blocks put on his IP addresses, but he just disconnects and reconnects to a new IP address and continue to undo everything that people have issues with. Ryūlóng 02:28, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry it seems I have come into the middle of things here. Could you point me towards any archived discussion on this users behavior, and discussion going against the stated guidelines of Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers). It seems strange to me that someone was blocked for implementing the MoS, but maybe I have read the policy wrong (as this user did). Anyway, I'm just curious in reading more of the background information concerning this issue.--Andrew c 02:33, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Try Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Panairjdde (2nd) ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 02:34, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

As well as the conversation centrx had with him on the last IP he used prior to this evening User talk:151.47.87.229. Ryūlóng 02:35, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism revert

I noticed you reverted an edit on Montanism which was duly discussed on its talk page, saying only "rvv". Please check the Talk page in the future before assuming an edit like that is vandalism. I'm reverting your revert. Thanks. Fagstein 05:57, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

User:Research79

I blocked the user for three and a half hours. If you have any questions or comments, please post to my talk page. Happy to be of service, RyanGerbil10(The people rejoice!) 06:55, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Er...Tawker did an indef block. Ryūlóng 06:57, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Darn it, I'm new at this. Every time I block someone, it seems like someone else changes my block length... I'll get the hang of it eventually, I guess. (I was just made an admin about 30 hours ago) Thanks for the message! RyanGerbil10(The people rejoice!) 06:59, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

That's okay. The user had no useful edits, anyway :D. Ryūlóng 07:00, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Dopplegangers

Yeah, I guessed that... eventually. Cheers ➨ ЯEDVERS 20:34, 27 July 2006 (UTC)