User talk:Ryulong/Archive 102

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 95

←

Archive 100

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 Wikipedia: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)

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 The Sims 4 article). Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 00:39, 4 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 ^{Talk to me!} 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 ^talk 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 ^talk 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 ^talk 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 (organization)?--Nowa (talk) 10:14, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

He's involved at Rhizome too.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:10, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

How so? Just curious.--Nowa (talk) 23:09, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm fairly certain I saw him involved in the group somehow.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 23:16, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

That's fine. I found about 5 references related to "Wikipedia Reader". I'm going to post them on the DH talk page. If any are acceptable, we can use them. If not, I'm fine with deleting the reference to the work.--Nowa (talk) 23:20, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Is this what you remember? “The entire project (i.e. Public Access) was then “repackaged” for Rhizome…” (not sure if it’s behind paywall. Quote is from second to last paragraph)--Nowa (talk) 14:21, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

You have a message

I left you a message on the talk page of the article you reverted me on.—cyberpower ^Chat_Absent 00:05, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

ArbCom notification

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#GamerGate and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

Thanks,--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 00:44, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Friendly suggestion

You might want to undo the reversion of DSA on the ArbCom Request page. If my eyesight is correct, I suspect that they will be topic banned in short order and Jimbo, ArbCom, and clerks can decide if the case really needs to list him as a party. Remember, the best way to disarm SPA warriors like this is to let them have rope. Hasteur (talk) 21:17, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Whatever.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:00, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Gamergate revert

Can you please fix that sentence you reverted as it does not grammatically make sense to me. Retartist (talk) 23:28, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Well it makes sense to me.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 00:32, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Remember to WP:AGF

Ryulong, I don't agree that the other user is overtly POV, and it's worth having a conversation. I agree that some of the trims are objectionable but some are reasonable, and with the article protected for a week, there's no need to go into immediate confrontation mode. We've got some safe space to hash things out dispassionately. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:51, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

I can still think he's as biased as he and his ilk claim you and I are considering off-site stuff.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 05:52, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

And I assumed good faith when he first showed up but his cuts in the sandbox are obviously pushing the Gamergate POV, and his activity off-site proves as such. If they can yell at me for Twitter which I've made private to avoid getting constant harassment, I can point out his public activity.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 05:58, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Sure, but keep an open mind, be thoughtful about reasonable opportunities for discussion and think strategically about how we can make this a better article. He's not running in trying to make it say Zoe Quinn is the leader of the FeminaziJournoCabal, which is a small victory in and of itself. What I'm saying is, save your ammo for when it's really needed. (Cue 8chan copypasta'ing this as proof that I want you to shoot him. Keepo) NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:59, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

If he can't bother to look at a photo of Anil Dash on his own article to know if he's a man or a woman then what can be said? Sure, it might not belong in the article in the long run, but why delete it and leave all the TFYC stuff intact? And I still never received that email of sources that that poster on 8chan said he'd send to me.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 06:02, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Also, the Adland page is questionable.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 06:05, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Ok.

Do you not want to talk or what? I'm trying to discuss an edit you reverted, and I can't do that without you. Skeletos (talk) 08:13, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Where is this discussion that led to the removal of the quote?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 08:26, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Gamergate_controversy/Archive_13#The_quote_in_question

Sorry, its not reasonable of me to expect you to slog through talk page archives and I can understand how the removal of the quote must have looked to you. Skeletos (talk) 08:33, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't really think that counts in the end.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 08:35, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

What, the discussion? How does the discussion not count? Skeletos (talk) 08:39, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

There was no actual consensus. Just a majority vote taken as one.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 08:41, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

It got archived before it could get the fancy formatting. A majority vote is still a big part of consensus. Skeletos (talk) 08:46, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

No it isn't.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 08:52, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Oh yeah, my bad. Still, there weren't any concerns that were brought up by others that weren't discussed, and they didn't try to make a compromise. I guess I' just saying I'd like to see my edit not get reverted for once. Skeletos (talk) 08:56, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

What gives?

Why the warning? What behavior of mine lead you to do as such? Camarouge (talk) 08:18, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

It is not a warning. It is a notice that the subject is under certain restrictions.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 08:26, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

If informing me of consequences for potential actions isn't a warning, I don't know what is. Regardless--why did you place it on my talk page? Camarouge (talk) 08:48, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Everyone editing the article or related pages receives the notice, not warning. That's why it says "This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date."—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 08:51, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

TAR Layout

What's the matter with that bizarre layout? Did you get a consensus based on your own opinion again? If there is one (and even if it was brought to table, I'm sure that needs a whole lot discussion to decide whether or not to change it), where is it? I'm sure I don't have to remind you how things work here. Gsfelipe94 (talk) 14:16, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia must present things such that anyone can read them. I simply made the template easier to read and format. Stop going after me for being bold.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:06, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't go after you by personal reasons or being bold. I go after consensus and correct attitudes. I don't see one here. Obviously once again you simply decided what looked best in your eyes and that's it. I'm still waiting for the consensus. And a real one. Gsfelipe94 (talk) 04:50, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

It doesn't matter because you don't get to decide anything just because you're pissed off at me.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 04:53, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

That's the kind of attitude that clarifies your behavior of updating articles based only on your opinion. It's a "in the closet" owning of article. Gsfelipe94 (talk) 22:46, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

I made an edit that made the Amazing Race pages easier to read and edit. You have been consistently haranguing me over the omission of "Sweden" from one page. Get over it.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:48, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Incredible. Gsfelipe94 (talk) 00:31, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

A correction. You've been on my ass since season 24 episode 2 changed the order and it didn't mean anything in the end.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 00:47, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Despite the great sense of humor, you seem have some trouble remembering some things: I had the same opinion as you, but I wasn't an asshole to other editors as you were in that TAR 24 situation. I even reminded that on the "Sweden" discussion at TAR 25 talk page. You can check there and see that you've just said something completely wrong. A correction. :) Gsfelipe94 (talk) 01:16, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

You constantly seemed up in arms about it at the time.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 01:48, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Five Nights at Freddy's

I'm glad you're watching out for speculation. However! The sequel explicitly states the year as 1987 for the game. When a primary source (in this case, the game) gives the year it's in, said information is not speculation and does not need a reference. It's similar to plot summaries: if you summarize info given in the movie, you don't need to cite a critic's review of the film. Likewise, the info that the player is a different guard is not speculation, since the name is not the same as the one given in the first game. I wanted to make sure you knew where the info was coming from so you knew it wasn't speculative (unlike theories about whether it's a prequel or not, which would need citations). Thanks! BloodmoonIvy (talk) 15:33, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Well it needs to still be sourced to the game.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:07, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Calm Down

It appears that you are too angry to be editing usefully with regard to the Gamergate controversy. I am aware that there may be off-wiki harassment, but that won't prevent you from being blocked from editing if you persist in being uncivil. The Gamergate controversy article, in the medium run, needs you to help it stay as objective as it can, so don't push to where you get blocked, let alone topic-banned. No matter how urgent you think the situation is to rage at biased editors, there are, in the short run, other editors who can try to maintain balance. If you are too angry to be civil, take a break. There are five editors in your cabal (TINC) (there is no cabal). Give it a break for now rather than getting blocked. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:25, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Reddit and/or 8chan calls us the 5 Horsemen or whatever.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 02:28, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Gamergate Edit Protected

Hi there. Note that one of your protected edit requests was moved to the archive: Talk:Gamergate controversy/Archive 14#editsemiprotected. Stickee (talk) 04:27, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 05:30, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Gamergate Arbcom

Please note the instruction for your statement in the Gamergate request for a case:

Without exception, statements (including responses to other statements) must be shorter than 500 words.

Your statement is at 1197 words, so is well over the limit. Please recall that this statement is not intended to be a full exposition of all evidence, which occurs at the next step, but simply a statement requesting a case. Please trim back your statement. For the arbitration committee --S Philbrick (Talk) 19:57, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

@Sphilbrick:: A good portion of my statement is responses to other statements made. How do I refactor it?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:11, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Penguin

Didn't you used to have a penguin cabal thing? I seem to remember having the little penguin on my userpage for a long time. I miss that penguin. Tex (talk) 19:04, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Yeah but I got rid of it.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:32, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @Tex: There's no need to miss it. Just copy this edit. (You don't have to copy the typo in the edit summary, if you don't want to.) I had completely forgotten that it was Ryulong who used to have that cabal. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 12:46, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

@JamesBWatson:Ha! Wonderful. Thank you, James! Tex (talk) 14:56, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Edit war at Talk:Power Rangers

Is there any reason you shouldn't be blocked for edit warring at Talk:Power Rangers? The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 12:39, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Someone doesn't know the not a forum policy and he won't wtop restoring his comment. Block evasion too.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:39, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

@JamesBWatson: Please block ToQ100gou for disruption, edit warring, and trolling, if not on Talk:Power Rangers then at least on my user talk page and for being responsible for promoting a hoax that someone in a show he watches committed suicide because no one updated the episode list on Wikipedia.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 23:52, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

FWIW

Irregardless of our differing views on the subject, I do commend and respect your decision to step away from the GG article at least for the time being. I'm not clear on the details from what I see here on WP and elsewhere (nor need to know), but I think it's a very reasonable step to avoid any issues from that. I would still think that you can contribute on the talk page without having any possible COI issue involved, but that's your choice to stay with it or not. --MASEM (t) 18:12, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Gamergate fallout

As you probably know, you're on the front page of a pro-GG site. That's shameful, and it's shameful that Wikipedians are not doing more to reach out to you. If there's something I or the project can do to help, let me know. (Feel free to contact me by phone or email or whatever, I'm easy to find.)MarkBernstein (talk) 19:19, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

@MarkBernstein: What—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:31, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps I should not have spoken. There is a site to which the Gamergate 8chan board links, which has a page on "Ryūlóng". It’s a wiki-like site, with a front-page sort of like wikipedia’s, and your page is currently featured on its front page. I've not read it in detail; in outline, I think it contains stuff that is scurrilous and reprehensible (and also deeply anti-semitic) but perhaps not actionable. I don’t want to put the link on wikipedia, but if you want it (and I'm not sure you do want it -- it won't do any good for your inner light) I'm happy to send it along by other means. Meanwhile, I've begun to receive a steady trickle of twitter abuse for complaining about this stuff; I can't imagine what stuff you get. So thanks, and let me know if I can be helpful. MarkBernstein (talk) 21:53, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Oh. I see you must be referring to ED.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:18, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

ED is not pro-gg. They're anti-everything. --DSA510 Pls No H8 04:46, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Why else would my identity be posted there in prime Gamergate season?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 05:57, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Looking at the article's history page, it's been up since 2011 actually, just not touched for a damn long time.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 19:09, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

It's been there for longer than that. They were actively tracking my arbitration case. They just got taken down and everything is up from some old database dump and now because of all this it was actually updated.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 19:44, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Well deserved

	Soup for the Journey
	Some hearty soup to keep up your body, soul and spirits. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:44, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

What the fuck happened—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:45, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

You have been repeatedly strung up to dry, both internally and externally, in ways that civilized human beings do not treat each other. The soup was meant to give you fortitude in dealing with such challenges. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:29, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Bloody hell man...you okay?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 22:26, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Just found out what everyone's in a tizzy about. GG ED.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:29, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

I'll take a look. Sent you a follow on Twitter, I pretty much stick to just being there and one forum as far as this stuff goes.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 22:30, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

I know we have differing views on Gamergate controversy‎ but the ED page is Disgusting (as they all are)

Retartist (talk) 05:58, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

indeed. I extend my sympathies as well. --DSA510 Pls No H8 06:03, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Musing

The 8chan article is awful.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 11:03, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

8chan

From an 8chan thread ostensibly planning ArbCom strategy and coordinating how to deploy Orlando, DSA and Logan but largely venting at me:" This Mark guy looks like Ryulong Mk2. Huge persecution complex and crazy editing, with the added stuff of zealotry to a cause he created in his own mind. Why the fuck can't people put in their heads that we just want those damn journalists to be accountable to what they do? That if they actually do this the revolt will stop soon after? Why the fuck having actual an ethics stance on this shit is so hard for them? Can't they fucking see it's a GOOD think to have ?" High praise. Be well. MarkBernstein (talk) 05:34, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Oh my

Special:Diff/635547322 is there a pool running on how long before a KiA thread? I was actually just about to take a look at those. No need to get involved if you don't want to. — Strongjam (talk) 19:32, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm sure Loganmac will write something about it. But really, don't make me revert that guy anymore.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 19:34, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

26 minutes. About 10 minutes longer then I thought it would — Strongjam (talk) 20:31, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Of course it's Pepsiwithcoke raising the issue instead.

And I know you idiots at KIA are reading this because otherwise Loganmac and Pepsiwithcoke wouldn't be getting all that precious link karma. Eat shit. Reverting an absolute single purpose account meant to be your mouth piece will be the only act I take on that page.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:17, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Wow Ryu, You seem to be upset, Care to fling any more insults at Gamergate supporters?, Telling us to "Eat shit" is not very neutral of you. Pepsiwithcoke (talk) 21:45, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

I just hope your link karma score is worth this in the end bruh.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:55, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Let me guess, You're going to try and convince one of your admin buddies that i broke some obscure rule?, Compared to what you have done (Repeatedly insulting Gamergate supporters, Taking money from a hate group to edit a Wikipedia page, etc) i'm the model of a perfect user. Pepsiwithcoke (talk) 22:08, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

I probably don't have to do anything. And please. Hate group?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:12, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

What rule did i break exactly? Pepsiwithcoke (talk) 22:15, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Maybe WP:CIVIL or one of the general sanctions.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:54, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Wait, You are threatening me with WP:CIVIL less than 2 hours after telling me to "eat shit"? Pepsiwithcoke (talk) 23:33, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

That was technically given to everyone who would be coming here to post to KIA about it.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 23:35, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm gonna buy a boat with all that precious karma Loganmac (talk) 00:25, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Good. I'm going to get my books from Japan back. Just missing a volume now though because it was released after I left.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 00:27, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

You know, looking at this discussion, I think I'm starting to understand your frustration with SPA's and POV pushers. Still wish you'd ease up a little. Skeletos (talk) 17:25, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Tutelary (talk) 22:30, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Please respond at WP:ANI and be more specific about whatever break you are planning to take. Another month would be beneficial. In my opinion you have helped your reputation by being absent from GG (for the most part) since 19 November. Since there is now more admin attention to GG matters, whenever people are looking around for who to blame, your name might come up. Any self-restraint would be helpful. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 22:40, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm an easy target TBH. I took the bait and I was wrong for doing so.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:52, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Misclick, sorry

Sorry about the revert on your addition, it was a misclick. However you also removed a statement when you edited the IP's name in your previous edit. Please fix this. Arkon (talk) 23:53, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

That did not show up in the edit conflict window.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 23:53, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Email

Have a look at your email when you get a shot. INeverCry 02:22, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick response. INeverCry 04:20, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate opened

You were recently listed as a party to a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate/Evidence. Please add your evidence by December 11, 2014, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 22:26, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

TAR results table positions

Hey Ryulong, I just want to ask you about the listed positions of teams on the TAR results pages. A guy recently edited the TAR 24 table to match the Leg 2 departure instead of the Leg 1 arrival positions. I reverted it for now, but I want to know what the current format/rule for these things is, not just for the TAR 24 page but for all TAR pages since this isn't just an isolated incident. Taking into consideration that there are times when the incidents are noted on the show or on official sources (do Twitter posts by racers/production count?), but others aren't noted, and whether if these are because of penalties or time credits. Albertdaniel222 (talk) 01:07, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Inaccuracy

I've reported users other than you to WP:ANI. Tutelary (talk) 20:39, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

How many were regarding Gamergate?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:52, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

That wasn't what your statement stated. I'm just making sure you're aware of this inaccuracy. Whether or not you correct it is up to you. I've reported users for legal threats, copying an admin's entire talk page (statements and all) and review of admins' conduct and the like. Tutelary (talk) 20:57, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Fair enough. I will rewrite it.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:03, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Old websites

Hi! I took a look at this edit. Power Rangers does cover the history of the franchise and I think old websites can increase the understanding of the history of the Power Rangers. I do think that if there were already many external links, it could be removed. Since there are few, I think it would be a good idea to add one more. WhisperToMe (talk) 09:34, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't think the late 90s Internet is going to be very useful.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 09:38, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

If I can recall it correctly... There's been stuff I found on those late 1990s websites that I've cited on Wikipedia. If you want I can look for examples... WhisperToMe (talk) 09:56, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

I notice Central Park Media cites http://web.archive.org/web/19970207202414/www.centralparkmedia.com/anime18/anime18.htm (I think I added the cite) and such a citation could be useful for saying that CPM licensed La Blue Girl QT. http://web.archive.org/web/19970207204203/http://www.centralparkmedia.com/anime18/anime01.htm could be used in citations for Adventure Kid and Demon Beast Invasion WhisperToMe (talk) 10:00, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

I just don't think that the ancient fox kids website is going to be relevant to readers of Wikipedia.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 10:01, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

I haven't edited Sentai/Power Rangers pages extensively, but what are your thoughts on this page? http://web.archive.org/web/20001003035800/http://www.foxkids.com/power_rangers/faq/index.html It talks about how children are selected to be on the Power Rangers and also the "typical day" on the Power Rangers set. Would this be useful for the article series? One more thing: the cast page http://web.archive.org/web/20000706225857/http://www.foxkids.com/power_rangers/shows/lightspeed/meetthecast/index.html might be useful too for the Wikipedia articles on the people... WhisperToMe (talk) 10:13, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

COI discussion

Hey there, just wanted to discuss this with you one-on-one in a less drama-laden place. My issue isn't the $350 one-time donation, but the fact that that subreddit has continued to promote the GoFundme campaign. I don't think your edits themselves are problematic, but I don't want some journalist catching wind of a "paid editing" scandal and running with it either. But I also don't want to create unnecessary drama on-wiki either.

So I'm going to propose a compromise. If you agree to return to your self-imposed topic ban (including the draft article and any related pages in the Article namespace, broadly construed), then I'll accept that on good faith and withdraw my request for a formal topic ban. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 12:25, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Actually, as soon as my goal was reached they took all links down or at least said "hey his goal was reached, thank you everyone". The link was promoted for less than 12 hours I think. People just keep giving you archived versions of the pages that don't match the live versions (I will find them when I get my computer up and running).—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 18:35, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

@The Wordsmith: Here are the live threads [1] [2]—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 18:57, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

I see. You probably should have given that in your statement, that would have changed how I weighted the evidence. That said, I still think returning to your self-imposed ban is the best option here. The Arbcom banhammer is going to come down sooner or later, and your aggressive actions aren't helping keep things calm. The fact that your fundraising was supported and promoted by one side in a content dispute is still deeply troubling. I fear it may cloud your judgment in this topic area. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 22:29, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

If I held the opinions of this topic before I learned of the gathering place is it really going to change things? Or is it just going to be an arguing point for people who aren't getting their way on the article? I was not really aggressive. I edited an unofficial sandbox version of the article that people are using to proxy war over the main article. I reverted edits by a brand new account that had no other edits to any other part of the project and hasn't been heard from since. I also questioned the notability of a tangentially related article only to be met with people harassing me offsite protecting it from my "dangerous biased touch". And if anything, I was given money by one person who was sympathetic to the harassment I received as a result of becoming involved in writing on this topic because when the nebulous subject of the article doesn't like what they see they get ugly fast and then deny that the people doing ugly things are part of them as a whole. That much is evident from one user here denying owning an account with the exact same name as them on one of the gathering places for the subject's advocacy—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:36, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Again, I strongly suggest you return to your self-imposed topic ban and take some time to cool down and think about why this topic is so important for you to edit. It looks like the current Enforcement action is going to end up as no consensus. However, I'm going to be keeping a close eye on this topic area in an enforcement (and hopefully mediation) role. Any editor on any side of the dispute who can't edit in accordance to our policies and guidelines will be met with discretionary sanctions.The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 23:16, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

I haven't done anything other than the arbcom stuff. And most of the editors who can't edit in accordance to the policies and guidelines have already been banned or will likely be banned at arbcom.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 23:22, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi Milo Yiannopoulos.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 02:39, 30 November 2014 (UTC)