Archive 20

←

Archive 24

Archive 25

Archive 26

Archive 27

Archive 28

→

Archive 30

The years have been commented out because of a talk page debate. 1075 is quite arbitrary, if we refer to the Hungarians establishing their rule there 1003 would be correct (see article Transylvania in Britannica).
But as this is a historical region, probably the infobox should simply be moved to Principality of Transylvania (again see talk page proposal on this). Squash Racket (talk) 10:37, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

It was breaking the page. It was requested that I look at it. If you can put in a better date, do so.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 10:39, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Please could you expand the rationale then? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:08, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

The rationale is as extensive as possible.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 11:08, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I see recently you reversed my redirects, ie ESPN Classic (US) back to ESPN Classic, and all the others that were similar. These articles need to have "(US)" in brackets to differentiate between the other articles that have a similar name, ie there is a ESPN Classic (Canada) and ESPN Classic (UK) article as well so ESPN Classic needs to be called ESPN Classic (US) to let the reader know off the bat that this article is about the US channel and not from another country. All other articles are done like this, just because it is an article about a American channel doesn't mean that it is exempt from this and that it is given preference over the others. Like i said, all others do this, so the American channel articles should be done like this as well. musimax. (talk) 18:55, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

You should have discussed the radical changes you made before performing them.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 01:36, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

This user has requested unblocking on unblock-en-l and I can find no record of any evidence pertaining to the block reason. Is there any discussion you can link me to on this? --Chris (talk) 19:06, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Jpgordon notified me that the user was socking and attacking him or herself with their own sockpuppet account.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 22:06, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Is there a CU page I can link to him? --Chris (talk) 15:34, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Per WP:DRC i dont think its necessary for that to remain on my talk page after the block has ended. I actually told FT2 and he stated i could remove it even when the block was actually in place. Its always going to be on my log and my talk page history, its just not necessary for it to remain on the actual talk page. I guess different admins have differing opinions but im going to remove it and i think you should get a second opinion before re-adding it. Thanks Monster Under Your Bed ^(talk) 11:18, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Okay. I apologize that I did not know about the context of the removal. Using "rv" isn't descriptive enough.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 11:19, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

According to the recent edit in the Fangire article, I'm baffled of the fact that Shinji Takeuchi's name is written as "竹内伸二" other than "竹内 伸二". I mean, most names in Japanese have a space between the surname and forename like most of the other humans in that article. Can you explain this? --Burai (talk) 11:31, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Someone forgot to put the space in between the surname and the given name.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 11:34, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh. It's just that when someone added the space here, you made your edit in which you reverted it. It doesn't matter anyway.. --Burai (talk) 11:38, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Mistakes all around.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 11:46, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi - You asked to be contacted on your talk page. The anon user has again changed the caption for Brent Corrigan. [1]. Also another unilateral comment on the talk page. [2]. I suggest semi protection for a while, since he will just get another dynamic IP address. Thanks. — Becksguy (talk) 17:29, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Just revert him as banned. I'm not going to be on all the time. I'll reblock the ranges if he comes back, again, while I'm online today.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 22:23, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Do edits like this mean you consider the Main Page to be an exception to WP:R2D? Only the featured article link seems to be consistently used more often than the 10,000 statistic at Wikipedia:Tools/Navigation popups/About fixing redirects (see http://stats.grok.se for usage statistics), and anyway the Main Page is a good place to set an example for the rest of Wikipedia. Art LaPella (talk) 22:14, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I saw they were redirects, and why use a redirect when on the Main Page?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 22:22, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

One would use a redirect because it's more efficient to leave it that way than to change it, as I elaborated above. Are you saying that the Main Page is an exception to the logic of WP:R2D? Once again, with the exception of the Featured Article it's more efficient to leave it alone, and even there I think it's more important to get the WP:R2D word out to the rest of Wikipedia by keeping WP:R2D simple and consistent. Art LaPella (talk) 03:57, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't care about what is said at WP:R2D. I felt that the links should be amended. And I acted on what I thought should be done.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 03:59, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Then I'll note that WP:R2D is a Wikipedia guideline, and leave it at that. Art LaPella (talk) 05:24, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I hadn't even heard of R2D until you brought it up. I really don't think the Main Page should utilize redirects. If you feel that I'm wrong in what I did, find an actual forum for discussing it. One edit changing three letters is nothing to start a case about.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 06:04, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

FYI: Wikipedia talk:Redirect#R2D on the Main Page again, another discussion about the same matter opened by Art Pella. — Athaenara ✉ 04:50, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

For the past several days, four anon IPs, 124.104.92.149 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), 124.104.91.186 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), 124.104.84.107 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), and 124.104.92.152 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) have been vandalizing pages and are possibly the same person. Each of these addresses attacked a lot of articles lately, with several of the common denominators (not by all) are as follows, leading me to suspect that these four are the same person:

• Annabelle Rama‎ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Pinoy Idol‎ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Raymond Gutierrez‎ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Richard Gutierrez‎ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (including its talk page)
• Ruffa Gutierrez‎ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Regine Velasquez (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (including its talk page)

In fact, there is some range hopping going on with vandal edits by 124.104.80.217 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), 124.104.89.247 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), 124.104.80.171 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), 124.104.88.20 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), 124.104.81.175 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), 124.104.94.45 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), 124.104.87.102 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) and many others on this range. Again, I suspect that this is the same person who used these address on his vandalism.

Can a rangeblock be applied on this case because this vandal? Whoever he is, has gone chronic. Or do you have any other thoughts? - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 16:02, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

(I've posted this on WP:AN/I, but it seems no one has responded to it. When I asked User: Nihonjoe about it, he told me to file a report on WP:ABUSE, which I did. Is a rangeblock necessary, or should I just wait for the result of the report I made about these vandals? - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 09:51, 9 July 2008 (UTC))

There is a range to block. I just need to identify it first.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 10:24, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Ow... Filipino ISP.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 10:26, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

It seems to be a too wide of a range even for you, as it encompasses the 124.104.8x.* and 124.104.9x.* ranges. Am I right? (For reference, you can read my report: Wikipedia:Abuse reports/124.104.8x.x range and 124.104.9x.x range.) - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 11:12, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

It's not too wide. I just have to figure out which the right range to block is.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 22:38, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I hope you find it ASAP because he can strike again at any time under another IP address. - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 03:13, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Just collect the IPs, and I'll figure out how we can block as little people as possible.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 03:28, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm thinking it could be 124.104.80.0/20. However, this is just based on what I can tell from what you've given me. If you find IPs with 124.104.7X.XX or 124.104.96.XX, then I'll be able to figure more out.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 03:34, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Based on my report given to WP:ABUSE, that will be enough because 124.104.7X.XX was not on my list and none of them have 124.104.95.XX on them. But if the vandal does come out within 124.104.7X.XX and 124.104.95.XX to 124.104.99.XX, I'll be the first one to tell you. - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 03:56, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Then once I'm done writing up this article, I'll put in the block.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 04:09, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

The vandal has struck, this time as 124.104.93.156 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). Does this confirm your suspicion? You haven't imposed the rangeblock yet. - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 10:45, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I'll put in the range block I believe it encompasses now. I'll block for only a week and put it up on my sandbox with a bunch of other rangeblocks.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 10:47, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Question: Let me see how I can interpret this. The "/20" in the IP address in the end of "124.104.80.0/20" means the IP address and the next twenty adresses? Am I right? - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 10:56, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it blocks that IP address the next 4095 IP addresses.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 10:58, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, thanks for that and thanks for helping me out. It seems that the vandal is focusing on the Pinoy Idol article which is why I knew. It's in my watchlist right now because the show is having its seasonal run. I'll continue to watch the article to see if this guy tries to evade the block or if he strikes again next week when this block expires. - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 11:08, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Bug me if my range wasn't right then :P—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 11:15, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Update: The vandal's back! This time, it is under 124.104.82.186 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) and his attack occured a day after the block expired. - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 13:49, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I blocked it earlier this morning after I saw this message.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 22:13, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for reporting this. I'm happy to blacklist but I need some help first -- I left some questions in response to your report.

It's nice when a spammed lists all his domains -- usually I have to dig for them! --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:07, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Do you mind taking a look at the issue of handling NPOV, 3RR, civility in discussion, etc. at Template:Asia topic and Template talk:Asia topic? Readin (talk) 16:30, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not going to get involved. I apologize.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 16:38, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Can you recommend someone? Readin (talk) 13:45, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

You could go to WP:3O.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 22:05, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion. Sadly, the WP:3O page says "The third opinion process requires good faith and civility on both sides of the dispute." This is no confidence for that. I don't believe the other person involved is operating on good faith or showing civility, and he says he thinks I'm not either. Readin (talk) 22:29, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, then you're SOL, aren't you? There are other administrators who will be likely to help. I just do not wish to get involved.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 22:34, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi, would you take a look at that user's unblock request? He's pledged not to spam any more. Thanks,  Sandstein  08:46, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Ryulong - I saw your indef block of 66.96.243.12 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) as an open proxy - I don't really care about the user, they seemed nonconstructive, but I was curious about the open proxy aspect - the IP goes back to shrikehosting.com, which would appear to be a reputable company. Just to satisfy my curiosity, can you tell me how determined they had an open proxy problem? Thanks! Kelly ^hi! 15:46, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Strikehosting.com, by simple deduction from its name, is a web hosting company, and likely sells servers or server usage. Webhosting companies are not Internet Service Providers, and as a general rule, no one should be using IPs owned by webhosting companies to edit Wikipedia from. These are usually open proxies or dedicated servers. However, in the case of that IP, my means of deduction showed that it was not a dedicated server but an open proxy.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 18:38, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what your "means of deduction" is, did you scan the ports? If it's just that we're indefinitely blocking IP-hosting companies - well, that would seem a somewhat radical expansion of the policy on blocking open proxies, or blocking in general. Can you cite some kind of policy or consensus on that? We don't generally indef-block IPs. If you didn't scan the ports, would you mind if I posted this as a question to one of the admin noticeboards as a major shift in blocking policy? Or alternatively reducing the block from indef to something that we typically use for vandalism from IPs? Kelly ^hi! 19:04, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

As far as I've known, open proxies are blocked until sufficient evidence is given such that the IP is no longer an open proxy. TOR nodes are the exception to this. Also, my means of checking for open proxies is less technical. I check if the owner of the IP is an ISP and I check for the IP on Google to see if it's on several websites devoted to open proxies.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 19:06, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Huh - I haven't seen that before. Could you show me, as an example, the evidence that led you to believe the above IP was an open proxy? Kelly ^hi! 19:09, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

The IP resolves to Strikehosting.com. This website does not exist (as a check in your browser can tell). If you go to http://66.96.243.12/, you will see that it has an Apache server running. By checking Google, you can see that it shows up several times, including on a Mail Server blacklist and a host deny file. All of these factors to me suggest that the IP is an open proxy.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 19:15, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

OK, I think I see...do we typically report these problems to the ISP? Kelly ^hi! 19:18, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

There isn't an ISP in these cases.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 19:19, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually, they do[3] - it's Shrike Hosting, not strikehosting. Kelly ^hi! 19:45, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Same diff, it's still not an ISP.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 19:51, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Uh, actually it's not the "same diff". See this. You shouldn't be blocking IPs as open proxies unless they are demonstrably open proxies per a WP:OP check, and even then they shouldn't be blocked indefinitely - see WP:IP#Block lengths. The "not an ISP" thing doesn't hold water, we don't block IPs just because they access via a non-ISP - for example, we don't block .gov or .mil domains. Kelly ^hi! 19:59, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

It is clearly an open proxy, and there is no harm in blocking non-ISP IP addresses from editing Wikipedia, which they shouldn't. No one should be editing from a web hosting company's ISP, be it an ISP belonging to Shrike Hosting, GoDaddy, and the like. I would think that open proxies being an exception from the normal IP do not get treated preferentially when being blocked. They are blocked on sight, which this one was, and left blocked until they are no longer an open proxy. Dot-gov or dot-mil or dot-edu domains are different, entirely. They're expected to have edits on their IPs.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 20:03, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Like I said above, I understand your point, but is there any policy or consensus to back up your blocking policy? And now I doubt your whole contention that the IP is an open proxy, which seems to have been based on a faulty assumption. I don't want to argue endlessly, but I wanted to offer you a chance to answer that before asking for other opinions. Respectfully - Kelly ^hi! 20:09, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

That is how I thought the open proxy blocks were handled. I know more finite lengths are often applied, but other than at the software level, what difference is there in blocking an IP for 5 years instead of indefinitely?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 20:14, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

(ec)According to WP:IP - Open proxies should generally be reported to the WikiProject on open proxies and blocked for the length of time they are likely to remain both static and open, which in most cases is likely to be under two years. But I'm still not convinced this was an open proxy. I just looked at your last archive and see there are a lot of complaints about your "open proxy" blocking. There are also more complaints in your older archives, and it looks like this was a topic in a Request for Comment about you. No disrespect intended, but perhaps you should pay heed to the community, and list IPs you suspect to be open proxies at WP:OP, rather than blocking them yourself? Just my opinion, but I think there may be something wrong with your method or approach. Respectfully - Kelly ^hi! 20:25, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

There has rarely been a case where I've gotten it wrong. Most of the "complaints" are because I block ranges belonging to hosting companies when I find a single IP, and I often ask for checkusers to make sure that there are no other users. If you feel that this particular block was inappropriate, given the fact that after I asked JzG to check for open ports and he confirmed the existence of them, then you know the proper channel to bring it up in. I've found WP:OP to be sluggish, which is why I have stopped announcing IPs I find to be open proxies on the page.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 20:39, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I understand where you're coming from, but the complaints seem to indicate that there are cases when you do get it wrong. I've listed this particular IP at WP:OP for a check to clarify the discussion, but I still think your indef blocks here are problematic, in that they're not recommended by WP:IP, and even long blocks of a year or two should not be made unless the IP is confirmed by WP:OP to be an open proxy. I completely understand your laudable desire to prevent damage to the encyclopedia - would it be acceptable for you to, as a compromise, only block IPs you suspect to be open proxies with a shorter duration (the durations typical for vandalism edits) - unless and until WP:OP confirms that they are in fact open proxies? In those cases you can always extend the block if needed. But I'd ask that you cease with the indef blocks in any case, per WP:IP. Thanks! Kelly ^hi! 20:46, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Why should I wait when it is obvious to several that they are open proxies? If you check the history of WP:ANI at the time of this user's edits, you will see that it was identified as an open proxy by another, and I simply performed the block. And, as per below, it has been confirmed to be an open proxy with more open ports than Japan after Perry arrived.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 20:53, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

My point is the checking should be done before the block, not after (I'm not technically savvy enough to judge the statement below, I'll hold off for WP:OP) - though my real point is that open proxy IPs should be blocked for a finite time, not indefinitely, per policy. Do you see where I'm coming from on that? Kelly ^hi! 20:57, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I checked, and then after the block was performed, it was double-checked. Also, I had thought it was a Foundation-level mandate that open proxies are blocked indefinitely.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 21:00, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

From WP:NOP, an official policy, "Open or anonymising proxies may be blocked from editing for any period at any time." Indef falls under any period, presumably. Antelan 21:02, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Ah, OK. Sounds like we have a policy conflict. Kelly ^hi! 21:04, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

• That box has more open ports than any properly secured machine is likely to have, unless it is someone's web proxy server (which is quite likely). It answers to sleepy.bringateam.com, I would be inclined to leave it blocked and contact that company's admins. Guy (Help!) 20:21, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Use this proxy to go to http://www.whatismyip.com/ . QED. Antelan 20:49, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and for the other IP that has been attacking SA (58.145.192.75). It is used to host this network of proxy servers. Feel free to confirm by pinging. Kelly, if you would like a primer in this, let me know. I'd be happy to teach you - it's easy, it's a useful skill, and you might enjoy it. Antelan 21:00, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Antelan. I'm always interested in expanding my skill set. I'm working on a couple of other things, but I'll drop you a line sometime if it's OK. Thanks again! Kelly ^hi! 21:04, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I left an unsolicited tutorial on your talk page anyway. Cheers, Antelan 21:14, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

<- FYI, here is the report on the open proxy check. Kelly ^hi! 05:01, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

But it is a proxy. The above confirms it.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 05:02, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I'm not arguing that point - I'm discussing with Antelan, but the bot does apparently give some false negatives. But the report conflicts with what JzG said above about open ports, so there's something wrong there. Also, Calvin says that open proxies shouldn't be blocked indef. Kelly ^hi! 05:46, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

That's news to me.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 05:48, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

The relevant policy document does not contain that restriction on block duration. Also, given that it's a webserver, it's not surprising that it has at least a handful of relevant ports open. Antelan 05:53, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Regarding Ccashwell (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), before unblocking you might also want to note that he edited some of the same porn articles as 96.241.62.121 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), which you might also want to block if he continues to use it as a sock, and also that at least one of his edits was not merely a spam link, but an intentionally misleading "stealth" link that modified the routine external link to the web site of the article subject (PornoTube) to maintain the same appearance but was actually a link to his own competing porn site. That's a little more serious than your average link spammer. Cheers, MCB (talk) 17:31, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like it would be worth reporting to WT:WPSPAM for possible link blacklisting. That should solve the problem whatever he tries to do with socking or IP-hopping. Kelly ^hi! 17:39, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I'm unaware of a copy from a free source being a reason to delete, let alone speedy. Could you clarify or point me to the policy in question? Thanks. Hobit (talk) 01:49, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, it's a copy, and content similar to it has already been merged. It was a dead end page. That's why I chose G6 as the actual deletion reason.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 01:53, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not the most experienced at these things, but I'd ask you restore it and keep it on AfD. If not, please provide a better explanation in the close. Neither the G6 nor your close comments seem to be a reason for deletion in this case, let alone a speedy. I can't see the article, so no clue at all about it. Hobit (talk) 02:02, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Got it.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 02:20, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I thought you might be interested in knowing you have a new impersonator, User:Ryulxng. - Diligent Terrier (and friends) 20:27, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm looking into it.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 23:26, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Dunno who it is but they've done it before. IP blocked - Alison ^❤ 08:54, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Really? How quaint.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 08:55, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Bit sad really, IMO, but whatev ... - Alison ^❤ 08:58, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Related to the below by any chance?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 09:00, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't think so, no. Seems to be some Power Rangers thing going on there, too - Alison ^❤ 09:02, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. That certainly clears things up for me. Also explains why they want the Best Buy ranges to be unblocked.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 09:03, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Hey Ryulong, I was hoping you could help with a problem over at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Llamadog903. While the accused sock, User:Eatpeaches, does not seem to have any connection to Llamadog, there was something that I found worrying: Special:Contributions/Eatpeaches shows that their first edit was related to a renaming of a Kate McAuliffe account. I'm not 100% familiar with all the details of this case; however, I saw that you blocked at least one of the Kate McAuliffe names back in March of 2007, and thought perhaps you could lend a hand, or provide some info. Thanks! GlassCobra 21:55, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

• I would also like to direct your attention to an RFC/U they've filed on you here: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Best Buy Range Block. Fairly clear trolling imo, and likely won't be certified, but I thought you should know all the same. –xenocidic (talk) 22:46, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
  • I'm looking into it.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 23:26, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
    • There's a fairly lengthly discussion at my talk page here: User talk:Xenocidic#User:Eatpeaches.2FKate McAuliffe, so feel free to weigh in there. –xenocidic (talk) 23:28, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Where are you getting this other than removing the macrons from the reading of the kanji?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 21:47, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

• Well, as they are residents of a "feudal japan" world, it makes sense to use the term "Honoshu Warriors". Fractyl (talk) 01:11, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
  • But that's not how the items are written.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 01:12, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I dont know if you get fan mail much for your help in the indonesian project - but hey thanks! SatuSuro 07:26, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Do what now?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 07:28, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Javanese Language - reverting innapropriate items - SatuSuro 07:30, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh. No problem.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 07:34, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me, but what language is "UNDERGROUND" and "happily ever after" in? If you answered English, than you are right. You have to use the conventions in English, even if it's a Japanese song. Plus, see Wikipedia:Manual of Style (capital letters)#All caps where it states Avoid writing in all capitals. Further, this is the same reason we don't have NARUTO but we do have Naruto. Moreover, for the non-caps, see Wikipedia:Manual of Style (capital letters)#Mixed or non-capitalization: For trademarks that are given in mixed or non-capitalization by their owners (such as adidas), follow standard English text formatting and capitalization rules. As per the example, we write Adidas, not "adidas". --十八 01:18, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I hate those guidelines.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 01:28, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Be that as it may, if you can get other Wikipedians to agree that we should move Naruto to NARUTO (or some similar change in convention), then I'll agree with you. Until then, I'm sticking to these guidelines. Plus, just because you don't like it, is not a good argument.--十八 01:56, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

That has an English name which uses normal capitalization (the last I checked the info button when it was on, at least). Media that never gets released in the US (although I've yet to see the SciFi dub of TTGL) should probably use the original formatting. Also, full reasoning is on your talk page. This was just something short and sweet (and they're guidelines, not policy).—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 01:58, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't know if you've seen my reply on my talk page, so... Erigu (talk) 16:18, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Duly noted.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 22:17, 26 July 2008 (UTC)