User talk:Ryulong

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Musical Linguist (talk | contribs) at 01:24, 20 March 2007 (→‎Cheers: Support TU's right to vanish. Not a normal case of abusive sockpuppetry that needs to be tagged.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Please post new messages at the bottom of my talk page by using either the "new section" tab or this link.
Please sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). If you do not sign your comments, I may remove them entirely.
Please keep your comments short and to the point. I do not want to read essays on this page.
I will revert and ignore any basic template messages used on my talk page. If you want to talk to me, use your own words.
I prefer to keep conversations on one page. If I left a message for you on your user talk page, I prefer to respond to you there.
My local time:
May 2024
Wednesday
10:45 pm EST
Archives
  1. 2—6/06
  2. 7/06
  3. 8/06
  4. 9/06
  5. 10/06
  6. 11/06
  7. 12/06
  8. 1/07
  9. 2/07
  10. 3/07
  11. 4/07
  12. 5/07
  13. 6/07
  14. 7/07
  15. 8/07
  16. 9/07
  17. 10/07
  18. 11/07
  19. 12/07
  20. 1/08
  21. 2/08
  22. 3/08
  23. 4/08
  24. 5/08
  25. 6/08
  26. 7/08
  27. 8/08
  28. 9/08
  29. 10/08
  30. 11/08
  31. 12/08
  32. 1/09
  33. 2/09
  34. 3/09
  35. 4/09
  36. 5/09
  37. 6/09
  38. 7/09
  39. 8/09
  40. 9/09
  41. 10/09
  42. 11/09
  43. 12/09
  44. 1/10
  45. 2/10
  46. 3/10
  47. 4/10
  48. 5/10
  49. 6/10
  50. 7/10
  51. 8/10
  52. 9/10
  53. 10/10
  54. 11/10
  55. 12/10
  56. 1/11
  57. 2/11
  58. 3/11
  59. 4/11
  60. 5/11
  61. 6/11
  62. 7/11
  63. 8/11
  64. 9/11
  65. 10/11
  66. 11/11
  67. 12/11
  68. 1/12
  69. 2/12
  70. 3/12
  71. 4/12
  72. 5/12
  73. 6/12
  74. 7/12
  75. 8/12
  76. 9/12
  77. 10/12
  78. 11/12
  79. 12/12
  80. 1/13
  81. 2/13
  82. 3/13
  83. 4/13
  84. 5/13
  85. 6/13
  86. 7/13
  87. 8/13
  88. 9/13
  89. 10/13
  90. 11/13
  91. 12/13
  92. 1/14
  93. 2/14
  94. 3/14
  95. 4/14
  96. 5/14
  97. 6/14
  98. 7/14
  99. 8/14
  100. 9/14
  101. 10/14
  102. 11/14
  103. 12/14
  104. 1/15

When I find that the conversations or issues discussed here have either ended or resolved, they will be inserted into my archives at my own discretion.—Ryūlóng

Old Friend

Ryulong, one of your old friends has returned. For such a ridiculous name, he seems rather attached to it. User:Gen. von Klinkerhofen. — MichaelLinnear 01:50, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. He's dealt with.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 02:07, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, the reason why he was able to create socks again was because he posted on meta, where Paul August (talk · contribs) reversed the IP block. I suspect that he will probably do this again, so you may want to add a note there. TML 07:07, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Duly noted and mentioned what's going on.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 07:26, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gekiranger

I think Geki, Rinki, & the Gekiranger Gekiwaza should be as they are in japanese with the same translation explainations as Gekitohja.—Fractyl (Fractyl)

But it's Kanji that we know the English meaning of. "GekiTohja" is written in katakana and has meaning from kanji. There is no reason to leave kanji as romaji when there is a translation that we know of. Things like "激獣拳" have known translations. Whereas something like "ゲキワザ" is left as it is. If it was written as "激気技" then it'd be translated.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 20:05, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I get that it should translated, but like in "name/puns", like we did with the likes of Daizyujin, which was written in kanji, & many of the mecha seen in shows like Abarenger. the energy the Gekirangers draw from, Geki, is really a double pun as it is translated as "Fierce Spirit", but it also pun on 'Fierce' alone, "Geki". And Ki is the japanese term for "Chi", the energy harnessed in martial arts. And for "Rinki" to match up with Geki. —Fractyl (Fractyl)
Well, I made it so "Geki" is "Fierce Spirit." There are times when it's good to translate and those when it's not. And why is it that your posts aren't time stamped?—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 00:17, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I guess, but I still prefer using terms like Gekijuuken. As for the time stamp, no idea.—Fractyl (Fractyl)
Well, are you typing ~~~~ (four ~'s)?—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 03:25, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I believe so, it worked last time. By the way, I added Lesson 4 Info. —Fractyl (Fractyl)

Block

I'm editing from a school IP right now, and its contributions are nothing but vandalism. May you add 206.117.237.56 to the #vandalism-en-wp blacklist? See Special:Contributions/206.117.237.56 or User talk:206.117.237.56 for the repeated blocks. {Slash-|-Talk} 16:33, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Stevenstone93

Hello. Now that I see that he was I guess impersonating a living person, I see the reason for your swift action and it no longer seems absurd. But I'm not a sockpuppet of his, I just thought he was a confused newbie whom I tried to help along. --Tractorkingsfan 21:55, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The issue was brought up on WP:ANI and it was a compound factoring. No edits to the article space in 3 months. Several hundred edits to his user page instead. And apparantly he was impersonating a professor at UC Davis. He's not here to contribute to the project (at least not anymore) and if he's actually that professor, he's violating some policy by pretending to be a child.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 22:00, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, where's the debate on this topic going on? I saw your closure of the MfD, and I'd like to know more. Cheers! bd2412 T 06:54, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, never mind, I found it. Unfortunately, your deletion of his user page has also deleted the links to the evidence raised in the AN/I discussion. If the page is to be protected as a blocked user page, I'm not sure I see why the history should stay deleted (particularly where it is linked to as evidence in a discussion). Cheers again! bd2412 T 06:59, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and I sincerely have no interest in bothering you. I don't think that the information provided by User:Jreferee has any basis in reality. The diffs he provide do not prove that such a professor even exists, nor do they show evidence of impersonation of a professor. Also, there is no evidence of such a professor online. I must ask: how heavily, if at all, did the information regarding the professor weigh in your decision to block indefinitely? It seemed that user space deletion was what was on the table, not blocking. You've explained your rationale regarding his lack of mainspace edits, call me stubborn, but I think that is fixable and in itself warrants less drastic of a block. --Tractorkingsfan 23:41, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The professor stuff was not what led to the block. I have a firm belief that if you are not here to contribute to the encyclopedia in any way shape or form, then you should not have a user space. The fact that Stevenstone93 made absolutely no contributions to the article space in a span of 3 months yet made several hundred edits to his user page since then was my reason for the deletion and the block.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 23:43, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am unaware of any policy that permits a block based on a user's failure to edit outside of user space, an certainly not a permanent block. If you wish to propose such a criteria, start a discussion at WP:BLOCK (which I request you read very thoroughly now) or at the Village Pump, but please do not presume to create such a policy. Either we have rules and we stick to them, or we have anarchy and the encyclopedia devolves into it. bd2412 T 03:32, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Users who are not here to contribute to the encyclopedia are not given the privelege of having a user page. See WP:NOT#WEBSPACE. That is why I deleted his user page. The fact that he was also racist, homophobic, and had other polemical statements on his userpage led me to block him, as well as the suspicions that he was impersonating another individual.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 04:05, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, but I would still impose only a temporary block. If he comes back and makes trouble afterwards, then a longer block would be justified, but I simply don't see how this user has earned a permanent block. In the year and change that I've been an admin, I've seen a number of young contributors come around after a bumpy start. Of course, I've seen some earn a permanent block as well, but this one is too early to tell. bd2412 T 05:22, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Straight Outta Lynwood‎

I'm somewhat surprised, first, that you don't understand how naming conventions work (our conventions override the conventions of other sources, as do the Manuals of Style of any publication), and secondly that you edited the article and then protected it in your version. I'll be raising this at WP:AN/I; you might want to reconsider your actions. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 22:11, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Look at what I placed on the talk page. And this is already mentioned twice on WP:AN at the two threads I listed there. Why the hell should our conventions override an actual name?—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 22:16, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why you're so aggressive I don't know — but there is no "actual name" as regards capitalisation. All publications follow a manual of style. Some capitalisae all articles and prepositions, some none, some only those under a certain length. in all cases this is independent of what a record company or publisher does. You need to familiarise yourself with our guidelines and policies. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 22:30, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Name used by artist > MoS. That is what is being upheld at WP:ANI#User:Ryulong and at Talk:Straight Outta Lynwood.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 22:33, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

David Westerfield

Hello, Can you please unprotect the David Westerfield article now? I have agreed not to revert the edit 196.15.168.40 wants in. I will only add a few important words to it. Thank You. Fighting for Justice 00:44, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please use the {{editprotected}} or go through another method of unprotecting the article.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 00:53, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

C.M. Sigmon

Just wondering why you deleted C.M. Sigmon page from the site??? There was no given reason or good explanation as to why is was deleted.

I was doing a lot of deletions tonight. That was one I will be looking back at.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 05:45, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am a fan in Knoxville, TN, and was hoping you would reconsider putting it back up since it met the guidelines and he is a rising star in the wrestling world.

Deletion of WIEECT

The page you deleted was officially made by the college it self. The college has a single Public IP address and a large local network spreading over 10 labs.The vandalism you detected was probably done by some miscreants from the college.Please undo your actions.And could you suggest us methods of further preventing this form of vandalism. Thank You —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 125.99.89.206 125.99.89.206 06:14, 15 March 2007 (UTC)WIEECT Web committee [reply]

Move request

Thanks for deleting the KiaSu Speedcar and other hoax articles. Could you help to move the article Kiasu (singlish) back to the original title Kiasu? The hoax poster User:Wiki United had made the earlier move to accommodate one of his hoax articles. [1]. Thanks. --Vsion 06:22, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Emo Rangers

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Uh, why did you remove the additions I had made to the henshin and MTV UK pages? Emo Rangers are a real tokusatsu show, and it is featured on MTV UK.

http://www.mtv.co.uk/channel/28092006/mighty_moshin_emo_rangers

I also noticed someone deleted the Emo Rangers page for some reason. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.119.0.243 (talk) 23:14, 15 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

There was a deletion discussion and it was decided that the show was not notable for inclusion on Wikipedia because of no actual sources regarding its notability. That and it's more related to Power Rangers than tokusatsu—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 23:27, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, Power Rangers is Tokusatsu. In fact, the article here on wikipedia on Tokusatsu mentions the Super Sentai series in the very first paragraph. I also fail to see how a show on MTV UK and coming to the US MTV is not notable enough for mention on wikipedia article on tokusatsu but France Five is. Was the discussion about whether Emo Rangers is notable enough performed before or after the show started appearing on MTV?

Also, you deleted mention of a henshin anime called Sadamitsu the Destroyer, which also has an article here on wikipedia. I think you should reconsider your deletions

Power Rangers is tokusatsu, but Emo Rangers is more directly related to Power Rangers than it is to the Japanese tokusatsu series and Emo Rangers was deleted by someone else's actions.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 03:16, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Someone else might have deleted the Emo Rangers article, but you deleted any mention of Emo Rangers from Wikipedia. Again, I ask why. It cannot be because Emo Rangers is not notable.

It is.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 03:31, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why is it not notable?

Because it was a simple myspace thing made by random British fans. Unless it's discussed in a major news medium in a critical insight, then it really does not belong on Wikipedia.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 03:35, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This "simple myspace thing" is now playing on MTV. http://www.mtv.co.uk/channel/28092006/mighty_moshin_emo_rangers

They have also been featured on Chart magazines's online website, http://www.chartattack.com/damn/2005/05/2603.cfm

It has been mentioned in a BBC article about Myspace http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/4782118.stm

--Teram10 03:48, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review and the article was deleted here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mighty Moshin' Emo Rangers—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 03:54, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Go to Wikipedia:Deletion review—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 03:56, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your notability guidelines state that an article may gain notability over time. That it was in the past not notable does not mean it is not notable today. The article was deleted 2 years ago. Since then Emo Rangers has clearly gained notability.

So can I revert the henshin and MTV UK articles back to include Emo Rangers?

--Teram10 04:00, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MTV UK yes, Henshin I'm not sure. Now, if you want the article undeleted, go to DRV.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 04:01, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.


Full Protection.

This page needs fully protecting: User talk:Yamla has a crush on Kate McAuliffe. The Kate McAuliffe vandal is at it again with unblock abuse. Acalamari 23:34, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please Block 64.168.254.145

This guy has vandilized wikipedia in many places as like all these [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9]. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Justinpauloberg (talk • contribs) 01:19, 16 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]


can you help me create the account?

request an administrator

for "Kuākini"--Wikipedia is blocking it since it's so close to my original account of kuakini.

thanks!

140.247.240.154 04:10, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have done so. You may log in with the password which Daniel.Bryant has sent to you via email and then change it to your wish.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 04:18, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ryulong, when making accounts for people, please follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Request an account/Administrators to avoid posting the password on Wikipedia (which is extremely insecure). Even if you don't do it "via email" (see point 6), at least email the user with the temporary password rather than posting it on Wikipedia. I have emailed Kuākini with the temporary password, and cleansed the IP talk page history. Cheers, Daniel Bryant 04:40, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Never done so before. Sorry :/—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 04:50, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock request

MrigeshKalvani (talk · contribs) was blocked by you and has requested an unblock. You stated that this user is blocked indefinitely for spamming but I think in this case, you may have been mistaken. I couldn't find any instance of spam. I could be looking in the wrong place but could you please check this out. I'm worried that you blocked the wrong person by mistake. Thanks. --Yamla 15:02, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There were several pages that I deleted the other night that may have been home to the article where MrigeshKalvani editted and solely contributed to. I am currently unsure of which one it was.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 18:18, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In hopes of finding out why this user was blocked, I reviewed every deletion you made within 10 mins prior to the block. In doing so, I was unable to find a single deleted image, article, category, or template that was created, editing, or uploaded by MrigeshKalvani. With no evidence to support a spam block, I suggest this user be unblocked and would be happy to handle the request. Thanks, auburnpilot talk 03:26, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Very well. It may have been an accidental block, as I have no memory of the page, either.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 03:29, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Jibal

User talk:Jibal (edit | user page | history | links | watch | logs)

This guy's responses to you[10], and to me, both in actions [11] and on his talk, where I left him a request about his refactoring[12], he ignored it with more misfactoring, to which i responded [13], and finally, after suggesting at AN/I that he go walk away and find other things to edit, I left him this:[14]. His replies at my talk got worse and worse,[15], [16], andeven after being asked to just go away,[17] are frustrating, and hostile. Can you take a look? Thanks. ThuranX 03:47, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Ryūlóng, stop vandalizing my user page. You removed my own additions to it, which is very clearly against policy. -- Jibal 03:55, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And I replaced them, too.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 03:56, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What's "them"? You have no business replacing or removing material from my talk page, nor do you have any business threatening to block me for future actions I haven't committed, vaguely described as "disruption". -- Jibal 04:10, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What were the 20 some odd edits to the section at ANI?—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 04:21, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
They were all legitimate, substantive contributions. And since that section was about your own actions, you're treading on some pretty thin conflict-of-interest ice here. -- Jibal 04:24, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Because I matter-of-factly asked you to kindly stop and you ignored that request?—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 04:25, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You asked me to stop editing WP, not just that section, after I had made those comments and they had been archived by Naconkantari. In any case, asking someone not to edit an ANI entry about themselves is a rather obvious conflict of interest, no matter how "matter-of-factly". You say I have "lost good faith", but all my actions have been made in good faith; I'm not so sure about yours, but I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt from here on out, per policy, so I suggest that you drop this. -- Jibal 04:32, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That was my second request. I asked you to take a break because it's getting out of hand. And while your actions were surely made in good faith, my patience is wearing thin regarding this whole situation. Nothing was going to precipitate from the ANI thread other than more useless and unnecessary drama, which is why I linked you to the comment I made to ask you and anyone to stop posting in the thread. I will drop this, and so long as you do, as well, I won't use any administrative tools against you (unless something gets extremely out of hand).—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 04:35, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're right that it was your second request; sorry about that. But I didn't see the first one until long after you made it -- the message alert is scrolled off the top of my screen most of the time; so my failure to react was not any sort of bad faith. And I don't appreciate even the suggestion that you might use administrative tools against me -- I have never done anything on WP to warrant that, and such talk is inappropriate. As for "as long as you do", I have no interest in pursuing anything with you, and in fact have mentally added you and ThuranX to my list of WP editors that I hope I never again encounter. -- Jibal 04:49, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I hope your future Wiki ventures are fruitful.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 04:50, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I take back my comment about hoping never to encounter you again -- that was unwarranted, and I apologize. Peace out. -- Jibal 05:16, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blocks don't stop the e-mail service

Which while annoying, is probably meant to provice alternate route for unblock requests. Unless it's already been checked into... -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 04:55, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent block of Stevenstone93

Hello. You recently blocked Stevenstone93 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), and they have asked to be unblocked. It appears they genuinely want to contribute this time around... would you object to an unblock? Thank you, Sandstein 07:05, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The user's user page (Special:Undelete/User:Stevenstone93) is why I performed the block. The user had not contributed to articles in nearly 3 months, and his userpage was a mess. I am currently unsure as to whether or not an unblock should be performed right now. I will contact you once I am done with things tomorrow.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 09:02, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, come on now, as far as we know this is a thirteen-year-old kid. I'll bet you made an error in judgment or two when you were thirteen. Cheers! bd2412 T 19:59, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think we should unblock as well. Unblocking can't hurt, and everyone deserves a second chance. Prodego talk 19:32, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hello again. Since no message from you has arrived, I have granted Stevenstone93's unblock request. Feel free to re-block if he misbehaves again. Sandstein 22:12, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppetry

64.92.162.10. --Benten 15:47, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Been dealt with. But needs upgrade to indefinite block like the others. --Benten 15:56, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Done.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 00:27, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weird behaviour by IP

Hi, could you take a look at some strange behaviour by 151.197.30.31. The user seems to enjoy filling its talkpage with warnings from other IP's talkpage. Which gives the impression of a long history of vandalism and blocks when the account hasn't vandalised or been blocked [18]. I've already had the talk page speedily deleted once before when the same thing happened. Anyway I'm about to sign off so won't be able to keep an eye on the account. Thought I'd let an admin who's around about this odd behaviour first. WjBscribe 06:22, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I've served out my block. Could you please unprotect my talk page? I won't put any more fake warnings on it. Actually, I was drunk when I did that. 151.197.30.31 20:25, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So long as you remember that you should always have a friend be your designated editor and never edit under the influence.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 20:36, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks 151.197.30.31 20:41, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Problem

There's a user who continuously changes Tyranno Hassleberry's dub voice actor, both in the article and in the Yu-Gi-Oh! GX article. We know this to be incorrect because Maddie Blaustein (who does Sartorius' voice) was the one who first confirmed his actor to be Sean Schemmel.

To "justify" his/her edits, the user (Ghostysshow) is claiming to be/impersonating David Wills (Just look in the contribs). --Benten 14:24, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edit: Another account is being used for impersonation: 209.196.192.7.

Cheers

For the assist. Much appreciated. I find such sockpuppetry disturbing particularly as it allows for avoiding scrutiny from other editors. (→Netscott) 07:46, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've just sent you an e-mail detailing this situation.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 07:46, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Understood, still that type of puppetry is not allowed per avoidance of scrutiny. (→Netscott) 07:49, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What is your suggestion? He has done a right to vanish, I believe.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 07:49, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Right to vanish doesn't mean come back as a sockpuppet to be gunning for blood over a user he was previously involved with prior to his vanishing as he has been. I believe the right to vanish clause is negated once an editor reinvolves themself with editing of the same nature as the previous account. (→Netscott) 07:52, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have had such situations before (see my actions at this AfD). However, as the original account was not blocked, I'm unsure as of what should be done.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 07:54, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well your block was proper per the fact that User:HEWatch was the same user and HEwatch has been indefinitely blocked. If this editor wants to retain his right to vanish he shouldn't be coming back like this. It isn't right (which is why HEWatch was blocked). This user has already had another sockpuppet blocked and lifted over nonsense surrounding this. Enough is enough. (→Netscott) 07:56, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would bring this up in the proper forums on Wikipedia (mostly cause I should go to sleep and more input is necessary).—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 07:58, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds sensible. Sleep well then. (→Netscott) 07:59, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'll try.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 08:04, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and as you can see from the last e-mail, he does not want to be referred to by name whatsoever for some reason.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 08:06, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Right to vanish doesn't allow for avoidance of scrutiny from other editors. If he doesn't want his name mentioned then he shouldn't be avoiding such scrutiny and should just step away from it all. (→Netscott) 08:11, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Right to vanish is for editors who've left the project. Obviously this editor hasn't left the project. (→Netscott) 08:14, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have made the associated pages for this fiasco.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 08:44, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was just checking that. Let me be upfront, if this user wants to come back under his account and make these types of edits then I've got no problem with that. But socking as though he's some third party is just wrong. (→Netscott) 08:47, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ryulong, would you kindly delete the indentifying content (revisions) from the concerned pages that involve this user? I made him agree to in the future seek the assistance of admins in case material referencing him needs removal rather than do so himself directly through sockpuppets. I stipulated that if he came back the tags would go back up and he understands this. Thanks. (→Netscott) 23:10, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure what you are requesting.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 00:19, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, just to delete the tagged puppets and the category. This user has agreed to not sockpuppet further and to contact admins in the future if information pertaining to him needs removal from the Wiki. (→Netscott) 00:45, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Got it.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 00:46, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(Resetting indent) I was just coming to your page to make that request, but have just looked at your logs (having seen your "got it"), and I see that it's unnecessary. I think the problem is that TU registered an account under his real name (assuming that it is his real name), and HE just used a username. So HE wasn't as vulnerable in real life to nasty things that might be said about him and that might show up in Google searches. I wasn't in any way involved in the arbitration case, but I think that I did comment in it, having seen some of HE's particularly vile attacks. I knew TU from another page, and while he could be critical of other users, he never descended to the kind of abuse that HE descended to. He was not blocked or banned, but I think he became concerned about the use of his real name, because a lot of very abusive things had been said about him, and would forever show up in Google searches. He left Wikipedia, and requested that his pages be deleted. Tom harrison deleted them, and some time later, when he made a single edit, and was welcomed back, he requested that his talk page be deleted again — which I did for him.

My understanding is that TU is anxious not to have HE making attacks against him using his real name, and that he registered the sockpuppets with the intention of removing those attacks. Since HE is banned anyway, anything he posts should be removed. TU is not banned, so technically he has the right to discontinue the account that uses his real name, and register another. (The only problem with that is that he's on a one-year civility parole, if I remember correctly, and sockpuppetry could help him to avoid detection in breaking that parole. But, while I haven't read everything that these sockpuppets or alleged sockpuppets posted, a brief look didn't show any violation, and showed rather a concern to have attacks made against him by a banned user removed. I can understand that he wouldn't use his main account. The one time that he did use that account after his disappearance, he seemed quite displeased at having his talk page recreated, because he didn't want any record of him to remain on Wikipedia. So I'd fully support his right to vanish, and thanks for deleting the pages. This is not a standard case of a sockpuppet used for double voting, multiple reverting, or block evasion. And while I don't have the right to speak for Tom harrison, I suspect that he would agree with me. Also, I'd be happy to deal with any cases of HE puppets posting negative things about TU, so he's welcome to e-mail me if he has any concerns. (I'm sure he's reading this page!) Cheers. Musical Linguist 01:24, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Award

User:Selfworm/HiddenLinkAward _selfworm_ ( Give me a piece of your mind · Userboxes · Contribs )_ 20:15, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hassleberry/David Wills dispute

Ryulong, What follows is what I've just wriiten to Makemi:

Makemi, Thanks for getting back to me (and unblocking me). I'm relatively new to contributing to Wikipedia and the procedures around here are baffling to say the least. To answer your question...YES... this IS Davd Wills the voice actor. My ID and e-mail address is "ghostysshow" because, aside from my voice acting career, I also host a show on Sirius Satellite Radio on channel#32 Sirius Disorder and a Saturday night show on WFDU fm out of Teaneck, NJ under the on-air name of "Ghosty"...hence "Ghosty's Show"...get it? Here's what happened over the weekend. While trapped at the radio station as a result of the snowstorm, I began browsing around online. While I was aware of various forums and websites related to another TV show I work on, Viva Pinata, I decided to see if there was anything about Yu-Gi-Oh GX. Well, yes indeed there was, but on all of the aforementioned sites and forums I was not credited with playing Hassleberry. Now I'm not really one for self-promotion (especially true when GX is heading into season 3 and I've never bothered to look and see what's out there). Research into how and why this incorrect information has spread all over the internet led me to Wikipedia. I logged in and made the correct changes where applicable. Of course, my corrections were undone and the false information has once again reappeared. While not getting credit for the role of Hassleberry on Wikipedia will probably not be injurious to my career in the long run, I do take a certain amount of pride in my work and at the very least would appreciate having the correct information listed on both the Hassleberry and Yu-Gi-Oh GX pages. As a disc jockey, I've often used Wikipedia for show prep purposes but now after having been the subject of bad information, I'll refrain from taking Wikpedia's word as "gospel" (something I'm sure the other sites, forums and fan pages made the mistake of doing too).

I don't know what else you need from me (and is this OTRS?) but I hope I've made it clear who I am (although I'd hardly call myself "notable". LOL

If you have any questions feel free to contact me either via e-mail or phone which I can also give you.

-David Wills —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ghostysshow (talk • contribs) 20:20, 19 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Oh good grief! Ghostysshow 20:24, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Third season? I've ALWAYS played Hassleberry since season 2. This is getting ridiculous. I'm at work [phonenumber removed] (don't worry, it's WFDU and anyone can contact me) Just ask for David Wills or Ghosty.

I really don't watch GX, so I would not know about any cast member stuff. Discuss this with Benten.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 20:52, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if anything it's been good fodder for my radio show on Sirius :) Ghostysshow 21:25, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ryulong&oldid=116416111"