User talk:Ryulong

Please post new messages at the bottom of my talk page by using either the "new section" tab or this link.

Please sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). If you do not sign your comments, I may remove them entirely.

Please keep your comments short and to the point. I do not want to read essays on this page.

I will revert and ignore any basic template messages used on my talk page. If you want to talk to me, use your own words.

I prefer to keep conversations on one page. If I left a message for you on your user talk page, I prefer to respond to you there.

My local time: May 2024 16 Thursday 4:27 am EST
Archives
2—6/06 7/06 8/06 9/06 10/06 11/06 12/06 1/07 2/07 3/07 4/07 5/07 6/07 7/07 8/07 9/07 10/07 11/07 12/07 1/08 2/08 3/08 4/08 5/08 6/08 7/08 8/08 9/08 10/08 11/08 12/08 1/09 2/09 3/09 4/09 5/09 6/09 7/09 8/09 9/09 10/09 11/09 12/09 1/10 2/10 3/10 4/10 5/10 6/10 7/10 8/10 9/10 10/10 11/10 12/10 1/11 2/11 3/11 4/11 5/11 6/11 7/11 8/11 9/11 10/11 11/11 12/11 1/12 2/12 3/12 4/12 5/12 6/12 7/12 8/12 9/12 10/12 11/12 12/12 1/13 2/13 3/13 4/13 5/13 6/13 7/13 8/13 9/13 10/13 11/13 12/13 1/14 2/14 3/14 4/14 5/14 6/14 7/14 8/14 9/14 10/14 11/14 12/14 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

---

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 (art)?--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—

• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Requests for arbitration;
• Wikipedia:Arbitration guide.

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)

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)

Please do not cite me or otherwise mention me

To quote what Jimmy Wales said, "Saying that a writer for a respectable publication was criticized for something as awful as saying that victims of harassment were responsible for that harassment is a serious claim, and it is a claim that was never in the source provided...This is a disgrace."

To quote Drmies: "I don't know who wrote that awful paragraph, but "actions in making himself a neutral party" is barely English, and "criticizing him for saying that women harassed and threatened and men attacking those who challenged their privilege should both be held responsible" doesn't look like proper English to me at all."

I do not know why you tried to slander me with your erroneous and atrociously written paraphrase, but that agenda is patently clear from your original "awful paragraph," and so I request that you not cite me, cite other articles about me, or otherwise write about me in the future on Wikipedia. Thank you. Auerbachkeller (talk) 07:38, 15 November 2014 (UTC)