Misplaced Pages

User talk:Ryulong: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 15:36, 9 November 2014 view sourceRTG (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users9,390 edits →Warning: move comment up one← Previous edit Revision as of 22:08, 9 November 2014 view source Ryulong (talk | contribs)218,132 editsm Reverted 5 edits by RTG (talk) to last revision by Nowa. (TW)Next edit →
Line 7: Line 7:
:::But why do manual when you can plug in some things, check some boxes, and be done with it?—<font color="blue">Ryūlóng</font> (<font color="Gold">琉竜</font>) 04:10, 1 November 2014 (UTC) :::But why do manual when you can plug in some things, check some boxes, and be done with it?—<font color="blue">Ryūlóng</font> (<font color="Gold">琉竜</font>) 04:10, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
::::Generally speaking, 3RR's can be time-sensitive, so if one is serious, one needs to file right away. Although there are clear exceptions for continual disruption or if the editor indicates in some manner they are willing to continue the edit war against policy. ] <small>]</small> 05:21, 1 November 2014 (UTC) ::::Generally speaking, 3RR's can be time-sensitive, so if one is serious, one needs to file right away. Although there are clear exceptions for continual disruption or if the editor indicates in some manner they are willing to continue the edit war against policy. ] <small>]</small> 05:21, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

:::::Ryulong makes an argument about bribery not being a crime. That political crimes are not real crimes. They quote WP essays to support them that do not even contain the word bribery. Ryulong complains that because the other editor did not avail the talk page in a set time they are to blame, but not Ryulong, oh no. That could never be. Anyway, Ryulongs edit warring track record has nothing to do with posting up false information about what is or is not acceptable. <font color="green" size="2" face="Impact">~ ].].]</font> 15:16, 9 November 2014 (UTC)


==Dispute resolution attempt== ==Dispute resolution attempt==
I think that when someone raises a concern about a BLP issue, you shouldn't press the issue in the article until you have a clear consensus. Especially when the information about a living person is pejorative in nature. This is an initial attempt at dispute resolution. ] (]) 10:04, 1 November 2014 (UTC) I think that when someone raises a concern about a BLP issue, you shouldn't press the issue in the article until you have a clear consensus. Especially when the information about a living person is pejorative in nature. This is an initial attempt at dispute resolution. ] (]) 10:04, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
:Is this some sort of vague attempt at legitimizing some forum shopping?—<font color="blue">Ryūlóng</font> (<font color="Gold">琉竜</font>) 15:49, 1 November 2014 (UTC) :Is this some sort of vague attempt at legitimizing some forum shopping?—<font color="blue">Ryūlóng</font> (<font color="Gold">琉竜</font>) 15:49, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

::Toxic response. No interest in the BLP issue whatsoever. Having a game off the fighting. <font color="green" size="2" face="Impact">~ ].].]</font> 15:18, 9 November 2014 (UTC)


== Inquisitr == == Inquisitr ==
Line 36: Line 32:
:::::Ryulong, I may have spoken a bit too strongly earlier -- after the IP's mass-reverts, I (reasonably) expected you to go out and mass-revert their reverts. I was worried that: A) it would be seen by another admin as a mass edit war, and it might bite you hard, that considering your extensive history of sanctions for alleged or real abuse of reverts; also that B) it might look like we're somehow collaborating on a large scale to enforce your editorial decisions, which isn't entirely incorrect, but y'know... I know you know how to act (and revert) responsibly and reasonably and as long as you stick to policy and provide clear explanations (in edit summaries, ideally) you'll probably be just fine with or without me, since you're generally ''right'' about the content and policies, even if you don't work always with others in the best way because of their attitude. ;) <span style="font-family:Sylfaen;color:white;background:black;padding:0 3px;">☺&nbsp;·&nbsp;]&nbsp;·&nbsp;]</span> 23:38, 3 November 2014 (UTC) :::::Ryulong, I may have spoken a bit too strongly earlier -- after the IP's mass-reverts, I (reasonably) expected you to go out and mass-revert their reverts. I was worried that: A) it would be seen by another admin as a mass edit war, and it might bite you hard, that considering your extensive history of sanctions for alleged or real abuse of reverts; also that B) it might look like we're somehow collaborating on a large scale to enforce your editorial decisions, which isn't entirely incorrect, but y'know... I know you know how to act (and revert) responsibly and reasonably and as long as you stick to policy and provide clear explanations (in edit summaries, ideally) you'll probably be just fine with or without me, since you're generally ''right'' about the content and policies, even if you don't work always with others in the best way because of their attitude. ;) <span style="font-family:Sylfaen;color:white;background:black;padding:0 3px;">☺&nbsp;·&nbsp;]&nbsp;·&nbsp;]</span> 23:38, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
::::::Fair enough. Although I thought that the fact that the IP had been warned by other editors before it had continued its crusade (and particularly reverting me across several pages I found in its editing history and in the editing history of the previous IP it had been under) was truly out of the question.—<font color="blue">Ryūlóng</font> (<font color="Gold">琉竜</font>) 23:43, 3 November 2014 (UTC) ::::::Fair enough. Although I thought that the fact that the IP had been warned by other editors before it had continued its crusade (and particularly reverting me across several pages I found in its editing history and in the editing history of the previous IP it had been under) was truly out of the question.—<font color="blue">Ryūlóng</font> (<font color="Gold">琉竜</font>) 23:43, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

:::::::{{reply|NinjaRobotPirate}}People want to convince each other that because Ryulong is reverting they ''must'' be helping, but they are a beacon. Edit wars will be perpetuated here by an editor immune to recourse. The most impressive thing about User:Ryulong recently if not for a long time is their apparent immunity to regular basic editing principles. <font color="green" size="2" face="Impact">~ ].].]</font> 15:35, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

*Pulled the trigger myself, at least, for any edits that were reversions of Ryulong's edits. Haven't analysed any other edit (this came to my attention based on the ] article). ] ] 00:39, 4 November 2014 (UTC) *Pulled the trigger myself, at least, for any edits that were reversions of Ryulong's edits. Haven't analysed any other edit (this came to my attention based on the ] article). ] ] 00:39, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

{{re|Salvidrim!|Ryulong}} Y'all just need an uninvolved editor to rollback their edits? I can easily do that for ya. Takes about 1 minute. ] ] <small>Please &#123;&#123;]&#125;&#125;</small> 00:45, 4 November 2014 (UTC) {{re|Salvidrim!|Ryulong}} Y'all just need an uninvolved editor to rollback their edits? I can easily do that for ya. Takes about 1 minute. ] ] <small>Please &#123;&#123;]&#125;&#125;</small> 00:45, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
:{{re|Salvidrim!|Lukeno94|EvergreenFir}} well he's on {{IPuser|81.153.74.26}} now.—<font color="blue">Ryūlóng</font> (<font color="Gold">琉竜</font>) 01:41, 4 November 2014 (UTC) :{{re|Salvidrim!|Lukeno94|EvergreenFir}} well he's on {{IPuser|81.153.74.26}} now.—<font color="blue">Ryūlóng</font> (<font color="Gold">琉竜</font>) 01:41, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
Line 68: Line 60:
:APGNation has been said is not a reliable source and it's just more of the "THE MEDIA IS AGAINST GAMERS" stuff.—<font color="blue">Ryūlóng</font> (<font color="Gold">琉竜</font>) 01:32, 7 November 2014 (UTC) :APGNation has been said is not a reliable source and it's just more of the "THE MEDIA IS AGAINST GAMERS" stuff.—<font color="blue">Ryūlóng</font> (<font color="Gold">琉竜</font>) 01:32, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
::Well, if there's a source and the post talks about the source, I'd leave it. If you run into that again, bring it to me and I'll check it out. ] <small>]</small> 02:18, 7 November 2014 (UTC) ::Well, if there's a source and the post talks about the source, I'd leave it. If you run into that again, bring it to me and I'll check it out. ] <small>]</small> 02:18, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

:::So you just delete the other editors good faith comments, ''and they stay deleted and nothing changes for this combatant, Ryulong''? Just another token reprimand answered, with just another refusal, to acknowledge wrong. Surely Ryulong can do whatever they want so long as they edit a lot of Japanese language video games because let's face it, Ryulong is just that bit more important than the rest of us. Let's face it {{reply|Dreadstar}}, there is no circumstance where removing anothers talk page comments is acceptable unless they are blatant vandalism or mockery or anything like that. Failing to impress Ryulong is not one of the exceptions for interfering with anothers talk page comments. When is this going to result in sanctions? When is Ryulong going to do something like this and get blocked straight in acknowledgement that they are a loose cannon? <font color="green" size="2" face="Impact">~ ].].]</font> 15:09, 9 November 2014 (UTC)


== Okay, what the hell? == == Okay, what the hell? ==

Revision as of 22:08, 9 November 2014

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: December 2024 25 Wednesday 1:37 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

Template:NoBracketBot

Some advice

I'm sure you were trying to help with this comment, but considering your own EW challenges and the conflict, be careful not to give the appearance of rubbing salt into the wound with others, eh? Dreadstar ☥ 03:59, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

I asked him hours ago to raise issues on the talk page and he seems to have ignored that request and continued edit warring. I'd report him to AN3 if the Twinkle dialog would work.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 04:00, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
AN3 reports can be done manually... :) Yeah, looks like a solid breach of 3RR there, but I gave the warning and if it doesn't stop I'll step in further. Dreadstar ☥ 04:09, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
But why do manual when you can plug in some things, check some boxes, and be done with it?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 04:10, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
Generally speaking, 3RR's can be time-sensitive, so if one is serious, one needs to file right away. Although there are clear exceptions for continual disruption or if the editor indicates in some manner they are willing to continue the edit war against policy. Dreadstar ☥ 05:21, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Dispute resolution attempt

I think that when someone raises a concern about a BLP issue, you shouldn't press the issue in the article until you have a clear consensus. Especially when the information about a living person is pejorative in nature. This is an initial attempt at dispute resolution. Cla68 (talk) 10:04, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Is this some sort of vague attempt at legitimizing some forum shopping?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 15:49, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Inquisitr

What was the problem with this article by Inquisitr? What were the specific erroneous details? Tutelary (talk) 22:14, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

The source is poor and an individual who uses the name "Alexandra" is being quoted as "Alexander" when the whole issue is regarding a transgender person being outed.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:33, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Comments about others

Please stop commenting about others on the article talk page as you did here, it violates the expected standards of behavior and exposes you to possible sanctions per Misplaced Pages:General sanctions/Gamergate. If you want to talk about others, take it to a noticeboard and follow WP:CONDUCTDISPUTE. Dreadstar ☥ 02:08, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

And stop personalizing things as you did here. Dreadstar ☥ 02:27, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

He's had a grudge against me since March.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 02:29, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Warning

I'll only tell you once -- if you mass revert 86.172.46.16's edits, I will consider it edit warring, and you will be blocked, just like he was. I don't wanna hear about the status quo version, or BRD, or 3RR: if you go around and mass-revert the edit warrior I blocked, you will be perpetuating the edit war. Don't do it. Let someone uninvolved clean up what needs to be cleaned up. Others are already aware. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 18:17, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

@Salvidrim!: If they're already aware how come no one is cleaning up after the mess he made?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 19:26, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
Ryu, I'm slowly beginning to realize why you're occasionally irritable. I think I would be too if I had to deal with this kind of crap. I have to go pick up a pizza, so I'm a little busy. I'll post a message to WT:VG, and if nobody else gets around to it, then I'll take a look. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:08, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
I was also planning on posting to WT:VG for review, which IMO is the best option in this case; I would've reverted them myself, for the most part, but am both involved (due to being the blocking admin), and not totally familiar with MOS:IMAGES. :) ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 23:24, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
He also hit a bunch of TV show pages to have 300px size images. I'm going to be taking care of those now.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 23:26, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
Ryulong, I may have spoken a bit too strongly earlier -- after the IP's mass-reverts, I (reasonably) expected you to go out and mass-revert their reverts. I was worried that: A) it would be seen by another admin as a mass edit war, and it might bite you hard, that considering your extensive history of sanctions for alleged or real abuse of reverts; also that B) it might look like we're somehow collaborating on a large scale to enforce your editorial decisions, which isn't entirely incorrect, but y'know... I know you know how to act (and revert) responsibly and reasonably and as long as you stick to policy and provide clear explanations (in edit summaries, ideally) you'll probably be just fine with or without me, since you're generally right about the content and policies, even if you don't work always with others in the best way because of their attitude. ;) ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 23:38, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
Fair enough. Although I thought that the fact that the IP had been warned by other editors before it had continued its crusade (and particularly reverting me across several pages I found in its editing history and in the editing history of the previous IP it had been under) was truly out of the question.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 23:43, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

@Salvidrim! and Ryulong: Y'all just need an uninvolved editor to rollback their edits? I can easily do that for ya. Takes about 1 minute. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 00:45, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

@Salvidrim!, Lukeno94, and EvergreenFir: well he's on 81.153.74.26 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) now.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 01:41, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Arbitration case request(Gamergate) declined

An arbitration case request(Gamergate), involving you, has been archived, because the request was declined.

The comments made by arbitrators may be helpful in proceeding further. For the Arbitration Committee,--S Philbrick(Talk) 13:16, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

The Amazing Race 24

I am a native speaker of English, there's nothing wrong with the information that was put up there, I don't know what's wrong with the editors of TAR, but you all seem to hate each other, and it doesn't seem very welcoming at all. --I am Kethrus 19:59, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

I thought that the inserted text was of ApprenticeFan's authorship. It can be restored if need be, but I don't know why this IP came to you on these matters.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:01, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Your AIV report

Block evasion of...? Is there an SPI case? What's the master account/IP? — MusikAnimal 21:47, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

I've been dealing with this with Salvidrim! and others above on this page and on his user talk where you can see all of the other IPs in question.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:47, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
OK, I've blocked all of them for 36 hours following Salvidrim!'s lead. It'd be helpful if you link to the discussion and/or original IP in your AIV reports. Also this guy is clearly just IP hopping away. Blocks aren't going to do much if this continues, but we can try other measures. — MusikAnimal 21:56, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
He's been at this for days now and is clearly not getting the hint.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:01, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
It looks to be getting close to edit filter territory, right now... certainly if many more of these IPs appear. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 23:00, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
If this continues, and you are able to identify a definitive pattern, feel free to email me about it and I'll see what I can do. — MusikAnimal 23:13, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Forum

So, why is this comment with a source WP:FORUM? Dreadstar ☥ 01:28, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

APGNation has been said is not a reliable source and it's just more of the "THE MEDIA IS AGAINST GAMERS" stuff.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 01:32, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
Well, if there's a source and the post talks about the source, I'd leave it. If you run into that again, bring it to me and I'll check it out. Dreadstar ☥ 02:18, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Okay, what the hell?

I get you have a bias and some hate boner for GamerGate. I can get that. But posting anything along the lines of "ban all these pro-GG editors to save us some time" is a heaping pile of bull and you know it. I don't even care if it means only certain editors whose viewpoints you don't like, you don't do that. I've been keeping out of this for a good long while, but it's gotten pretty clear you're not approaching this with an open mind, just the mindset you want the article to preach, and it reads less like an encyclopedia and more like a smear campaign where opinions are being presented as facts.

Damn it man, you and I have both been here at least, what, 8+ years? I've got enough common sense when to back away from a topic because of a bias, so should you. I've watched people call you out, and said very plainly that I hoped you meant well, but this is the last straw. We're better than that, we're supposed to be neutral about what we're writing so it has a reason to be encyclopedic. What's going on now is wrong.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 03:56, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

That was a month ago and it clearly didn't go as planned.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 04:31, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
Matters not when it was, the fact that was something you'd consider on the table...why does this matter so strongly to you that you have to be involved in it, when you seemingly hold a bias? That I don't get. You're a smart, well written, objectified person from all my previous dealings with you. You're sinking your teeth into this one like a starved dog to a steak.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 04:52, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
Are you reading /gg/ now or something—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 04:59, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
No, that fun excerpt popped up on my twitter feed, as have plenty of people calling for your noggin over you making yourself the poster child for why that article is the way it is.
Also my question still stands.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 05:14, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
They're just doing that because I answered them. I should step away at this point but why bother with anything anymore.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 05:16, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
Heh, guess I didn't realize you felt that way. Won't lie, things have been pretty tense as of late, and I really *do* feel that article has gone completely off the rails. But with my anger dying down I can't look at the situation and put the onus entirely on you. To be frank I stepped out of it because I've gotten my hands in the gears and do agree with the #gamergate group: there's a lot of wrong going on. Not going to say I don't see people doing stupid, but I know they're not endorsed by the masses. Just...watching a place like this, I called home for years, paint me and the people I've met along the way as 'misogynistic monsters' keeps making me want to ask "why?".
Anyway, I do apologize for the rant. Sounds like this has taken a bit out of both of us ultimately.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 05:35, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

SPS

Did you see that I switched the reference from Fillip to Rhizome (art)?--Nowa (talk) 10:14, 9 November 2014 (UTC)