I'm leaving this message here to notify you that I have removed the PROD tag from The Georgetown Improv Association, which you proposed for deletion. It was already listed at AfD, with a result of keep. There are several reliable sources cited in the article. Thanks. -- Wikipedical (talk) 07:41, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

There is one reliable source in the article that is not the Georgetown student paper. I'm sending it to AFD.—Ryulong (琉竜) 07:57, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

I removed the Prod from Delta Phi Epsilon (professional) -- major professional fraternities with national reach are notable. I agree generally with you about the excessive number of pages on minor Georgetown topics, but this is not one of them. For one thing, it was merely started there, not limited to it. Yes, it needs better refs, but with such notable members, they should be there -- the criterion is sourceable, not currently sourced. DGG ( talk ) 01:07, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

They all kinda look iffy on sources.—Ryulong (琉竜) 01:09, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

What gives with all the Georgetown PRODs? This looks like targeting. Why didn't you bring up issues on the talk pages first? And several of these have already been through these same debates before, what's changed this week? It makes it very difficult on the small community we have here, trying to save so many articles with the seven day deadline.-- Patrick, _oѺ^∞ 16:06, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

The discussion about the Lecture Fund has made me realize that several other pages all suffer from the same issues. They are lacking independent reliable sources (the Hoya, the Vox Populi, the Georgetown Voice, whatever aren't reliable sources as they're not independent), and whatever other sources remain don't assert the notability of the group.—Ryulong (琉竜) 19:42, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I saw the Lecture Fund discussion just now. The Lecture Fund article is one I don't plan on defending, it isn't notable. The other articles however tend to have the words "oldest", "biggest", and "first in the nation" attached to them, and that's typically where the notability comes from. I guess to continue my comment from your deletion request on Mask and Bauble Dramatic Society, I don't get why you label them as "not independent". I'll grant you that The Hoya has been unable to fully break its ties to the school for financial reasons, but The Georgetown Voice is more of a neighborhood news paper, with a circulation similar to a local newspaper in a small town. I actually have been through this argument several times, and I am frustrated with what feels like a full on assault. I doesn't even seem like you've read all the articles you nominated for deletion. I've been trying to guide an article through FAC this week, and am not sure I have enough time to work on all these simultaneously.-- Patrick, _oѺ^∞ 20:44, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, it's just in my understanding that the student newspaper is still a student newspaper. Of course, the articles can speak for themselves and I can be utterly wrong about their notability. I merely went through the entire "Student life" section of the GU template and prodded/afded whatever I saw heavily relied on the Hoya to establish notability.—Ryulong (琉竜) 20:54, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

That name is trivial. The very fact that she lives in LA and is engaged is probably trivial. Drmies (talk) 18:01, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

It's a person's name that can be reliably sourced. It's not trivial.—Ryulong (琉竜) 00:58, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Not everything that can be reliably sourced is of encyclopedic relevance. You know that. We're not a tabloid. Drmies (talk) 05:00, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

It's information about her personal life that she makes public on her website.—Ryulong (琉竜) 05:03, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

And? Is everything in her vlogs worthwhile mentioning? Drmies (talk) 05:39, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

It's her husband's name. It's something worth mentioning.—Ryulong (琉竜) 06:09, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Hey! Just wanted to let you know that I was doing that edit because it was initially created a non-clickable link. It's been fixed now for some reason so its good to go. Udar55 (talk) 18:51, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm new to this editting stuff on Amazing Race pages and have done 95 percent of the content on the China Rush 3 page but have to ask.

Where does the Detour icon go? Does it go at the location teams got the clue, or the location teams do the detour? On the China Rush 3 Leg 2 area, I put it down as Beihai Park as teams got the clue there, but an IP user keeps moving to the location below as that is where they did the detour.

How does it go exactly? Is it Beihai Park where they got the clue, or Zhuangsen Village, where they traveled to do the Detour? Both myself and the guy who does the Chinese version have it down as Beihai Park, are we correct? 86.15.195.205 (talk) 18:41, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

If they go to different places the icon goes before those places. If the Detour happens where they pick up the clue it goes after the location.—Ryulong (琉竜) 20:05, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Can I add the dates in every episodes of all seasons of The Amazing Race? All TAR articles are now have episode date articles and has been encyclopedic. ApprenticeFan ^work 04:44, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

The ratings sections have the airdates.—Ryulong (琉竜) 06:20, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks a bit. User:Kartoffel07 had added a dates in Race Summary section in series 1 and 2 of The Amazing Race Australia, its too misunderstanding that the dates are already in ratings section in individual series article. Can you remove them back? ApprenticeFan ^work 06:38, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Hey, a lot of shows have a ratings section with the dates on as well as on the episode section itself. I thought it would be convenient if both were shown because someone might want to know when that leg was shown while they are reading about it. Sometimes legs are split into two episodes and it would be such a hassle if they would have to scroll down where episodes are listed below in numbers (ie 1), in the ratings section they wouldn't be able to identify which leg belongs in what episode number. --Kartoffel ⁰⁷ 08:21, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Sure, whatever.—Ryulong (琉竜) 09:04, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Kartoffel and I'll add the dates where episodes of all seasons were/are aired. ApprenticeFan ^work 12:22, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Hello, Ryulong. I noticed you've been trying to implement some changes regarding the presentation of katakana/actual readings of Japanese names in articles related to Saint Seiya. I would just like to point out the existence of this one more article to you which might benefit from the same treatment. I have no intention of doing it myself as I've already been involved in past disputes over these articles which I do not care to repeat, but would still like to see them improved from their current state. Best regards, Cyn starchaser (talk) 23:02, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

I'll take a crack at it if you take a look at the thread I started on WP:DRN because of Onikiri's absolute refusal to allow the katakana readings.—Ryulong (琉竜) 23:06, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

I'll stop by just to show my support towards the inclusion of the katakana readings. I've tried to improve these articles before (in different ways) and was met with just as much resistance and disregard. Cyn starchaser (talk) 23:16, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

DRN is also more of a way to show that there are more parties who have had issues with Onikiri over these pages. If what you told me is true, it might be useful to mention that as well.—Ryulong (琉竜) 00:03, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

To be honest, I've no interest in dealing with Onikiri. If you're curious about these issues I had with him, you can take a look at some of the comments he made in edit summaries from when he reverted all my edits a while back and the following discussion we had on the talk page of the character techniques article I pointed out above. However, I'd rather not revisit old issues and I don't see how they would contribute to the DRN anyway. Cyn starchaser (talk) 00:32, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

It shows that Onikiri is entirely difficult to work with and does not compromise with anyone. It might be better for an RFC, but this is a problematic behavior that needs to be corrected.—Ryulong (琉竜) 00:35, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

He is certainly determined in his ways. I'm not sure what a RFC would involve, though? Cyn starchaser (talk) 01:03, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

I try to avoid them. In the DRN just say how you were involved in editing the pages in the past and state how difficult Onikiri was to work with, as it appears to be the case to me at least. Just give your own side to the dispute at hand.—Ryulong (琉竜) 01:06, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I misunderstood your earlier comment. I thought you were thinking about starting a RFC. Well, right now, he seems to be slightly more open to discussion, at least. I fear that mentioning my past experiences with him might just bring more issues to the table and complicate the resolution process of this DRN. It happened a long time ago, anyway. I'll continue to follow the discussion there and intervene if it becomes necessary. Cyn starchaser (talk) 01:21, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

It most certainly shows that Onikiri has issues with working with others and it may help him realize how he's been acting.—Ryulong (琉竜) 01:28, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Please do not change the DRN Case status header. 1 day is not unreasonable for a volunteer to get back to the issue. Needs assistance is typically used when no volunteer hasn't responded in over 2 days or the dispute is older than 4 days. Hasteur (talk) 19:16, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

I didn't touch the case status header? All I did was add other problem pages to my initial summary and continue discussion.—Ryulong (琉竜) 19:17, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

I knew it. The fucking bot did it.—Ryulong (琉竜) 19:42, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Man you just love undoing anything I write just because it's not good enough for you. Fine go ahead. When it's confirmed to be true (From a so called "reliable source) Have fun re-writing it all yourself. The names Vrak, Admiral Malkor, Loogies and Robo Knight are official whether you believe them or not. Soemtimes I wonder if you are really a fan of Power Rangers. Radix Z (talk) 22:08, 16 September 2012 (UTC)Radix Z

Any fansite you pull shit from cannot be used as a source on Wikipedia, no matter if the information itself is "official" or not.—Ryulong (琉竜) 22:30, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

There's no templated version to give you something extremely passive agressive so I'll just say it in my own words.

Fansites such as Samurai Cast or Morphin Legacy cannot be used as sources for information on Wikipedia because they do not fulfill Wikipedia's reliable source criteria. They are just fansites. I do not care if the information from these websites is correct and I'm going to be proven wrong when the show is broadcast in 2013. Wikipedia cannot and will not use fandom sources because none of them have any sort of editorial control and will post whatever they want and whenever they want. Even if the information is correct, we cannot trust them.

So stop bitching at me over the fact that I removed your precious 3 lines of content because you have never been able to learn the rules and regulations of Wikipedia in the two years that you've been contributing here.—Ryulong (琉竜) 22:37, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Who cares about rules and regulations? 70% of people who contribute to Wikipedia don't even abide to half of the rules themselves. I may not be exactly as perfect at you at obeying the rules but in case you forgotten I wrote most of that Samurai article NOT you, so don't think everything I write comes completely out of the fandom. You got rid some of it claiming the epiodes I wrote about had not aired, when they did in Latin America. I can't wait till it's proven true and you have to put up with that infomation being on Megaforce's page permanently. Radix Z (talk) 17:33, 17 September 2012 (UTC)Radix Z

I care about the rules and regulations. And I don't give a fuck who wrote what on Wikipedia. All that matters is that everything has to be found in reliable sources which every fansite out there does not comply. It does not matter if the information is right and will be on the page in the future. What matters is it can't be there now. We cannot put shit that the fandom posts onto Wikipedia. We have to wait for it to be proven by the show itself.—Ryulong (琉竜) 20:41, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

I noticed you nominated Fuser (band) as an AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fuser (band) (2nd nomination). Given it was resolved only today, I thought you should at least be aware of the link between this (specifically, this), this and this.

I didn't think it was fair to watch you to walk into something you didn't see coming. Cheers, Stalwart111 (talk) 04:38, 25 September 2012 (UTC).

I found it by reading ANI.—Ryulong (琉竜) 04:41, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Y All good then! No worries. Cheers, Stalwart111 (talk) 05:15, 25 September 2012 (UTC).

Hi Ryulong. Reasonable editors can disagree over whether Mdann52's non-admin closure of your requested move was an appropriate use of that provision, but your revision of it was not appropriate. See Wikipedia:Requested moves/Closing instructions#Non-admin closure: "the mere fact that the closer was not an admin is not sufficient reason to reverse a closure." Mdann52 was uninvolved in the discussion, and reasonable editors can also disagree over whether there was consensus. A majority of voters there opposed the move, and one of the supporters opposed the specifically requested form. Please take the case to Move review if you feel it was inappropriate, or appeal to an administrator, preferably one active at RM such as Jenks24 or Cuchullain ("All non-admin closures are subject to review by an admin"). Thanks, BDD (talk) 21:29, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

What an annoying set of bureaucracy. And a dictionary definition of a majority (4 in favor, 5 against) shouldn't be the deciding factor.—Ryulong (琉竜) 00:32, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

I know you removed Power Rangers from the Nickelodeon Original Series navbox as it used to be on two different channels and is not produced by Nickelodeon, but then explain Winx Club is a Nickelodeon Original Series as the channel only began airing the series with the sixth series and it is not produced by Nickelodeon, because the show can not be an Original Series at all. Please reply with no swearing. WhatGuy (talk) 04:02, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

So remove it too. It's not that hard and why are you asking me not to swear on my own talk page?—Ryulong (琉竜) 03:48, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

I do apologise for writing "please reply with no swearing" on my comment. No hard feelings? WhatGuy (talk) 06:05, 28 September 2012

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Obani. Thank you.

This is just a courtesy message since I did mention you in the report. —Farix (t | c) 00:49, 30 September 2012 (UTC)