User talk:Ryulong

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by DMB112 (talk | contribs) at 16:51, 16 December 2013 (→‎Reverts). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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
Wednesday
2:22 am 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

Japanese translations in video game articles

There appears to be an issue with using the Japanese translation of PlayStation, as evidenced by several editors' attempts to remove it from the PlayStation 4 article. In searching through WP:VG and other articles, I came across a recent discussion on the subject that you participated in. Since I know very little about the policies/guidelines concerning translation, I was hoping you could enlighten me as to whether or not this belongs in the PlayStation articles and why. Or if you prefer, please feel free to weigh in at the talk page discussion (see Japanese translation).

Thank you in advance! --GoneIn60 (talk) 22:16, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it most certainly does belong (and I see he removed it from the PlayStation 3 article multiple times as well). I have restored the text, used the rationale in the edit summary, and responded on the talk page.—Ryulong (琉竜) 03:17, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Thank you again for your assistance. I am truly indifferent on the matter, but I know there are other editors (such as yourself) that this matters to. Sorry to have dragged you back into the fray.  ;) --GoneIn60 (talk) 05:33, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Funimation

Didn't want to post this somewhere as public as ANI, but if you're on LinkedIn, you should be able to contact Gen Fukunaga directly - personally I've found that CEOS are often the best people to complain to when their company screws up... Yunshui 雲‍水 15:58, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I sent the email off to their support line already. And I am not on LinkedIn.—Ryulong (琉竜) 15:59, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
Well, I wish you luck - hopefully they'll be willing to comply with the licensing requirements and there won't be any need for you to take it any further. Yunshui 雲‍水 16:04, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note bene

These things happen all the time Ryulong; I know its supposed to be "flattery", but I do understand seeing your text in a book that you are not credited for can be a rather stunning blow. Problem solved though, right? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:38, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

December 2013

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for your disruption caused by edit warring and violation of the three-revert rule. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} below this notice, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:53, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Z10

Are you serious. Because I was being gamed by someone on a rapidly changing IP address who for some reason was aware of the warning templates and another IP who showed up to support him I'm blocked? I am done with this site.—Ryulong (琉竜) 18:57, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but you made five reverts on that page in the last 24 hours, two of them after receiving an edit warring warning. I don't believe that any of your reverts were covered under the exemptions to 3RR, but I'm willing to reconsider if there's something I have missed. Note that I blocked the IP range that was edit warring, as well. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:01, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I received a warning from an IP address and there was also the actions of 76.108.171.120 who appeared to be working in concert with the other IPs' user. The geolocation is similar. Something fishy was going on.—Ryulong (琉竜) 19:04, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
Ok, I've left a warning for the other IP, as well. I'll block if he reverts again. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:08, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I made attempts at communication outside of edit summaries but he kept hopping IPs. Why is it that every time I try to do something right and the other party doesn't communicate effectively and just keeps doing what it wants it bites me in the ass?—Ryulong (琉竜) 19:09, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
Ugh Mark I'm going to have so much shit to do in a few hours because no one ever fucking updates List of Zyuden Sentai Kyoryuger episodes and List of Kamen Rider Gaim episodes despite the fact I have a half-filled out template for them to do so on both pages. Why do I keep getting fucking blocked on Sundays.—Ryulong (琉竜) 19:17, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Knockout (violent game)

Regarding the above article, I would appreciate your cooperation in retaining the well-sourced material and not removing it wholesale. Also, if you want the citations to take any particular form, I would appreciate your correcting them inasmuch as I have never learned the new method of handling them and prefer to stick by the older method. Sincerely, your friend, GeorgeLouis (talk) 07:39, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Five massive direct quotations do not comprise "well-sourced material", neither does unnecessarily focusing on something which has its own separate article. Also, you did not have to revert everything I did on the article outright just to restore those poorly formatted and entirely unnecessary direct quotations.—Ryulong (琉竜) 07:41, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
Also holy shit just look at all of the citations in the article that use the {{cite web}} template.—Ryulong (琉竜) 07:43, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
Well, I'm sorry if I offended you, but I worked pretty hard to get everything right, and I don't believe you should have simply destroyed everything. It is better to have more information than less, and I beseech you to make a self-revert lest somebody accuse you of engaging in an edit war. Also, I don't appreciate the scatology; it is really demeaning, and, frankly, demoralizing. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 07:51, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The direct quotations are not "more information". They simply clutter up the article and disrupt the reading flow. It is not necessary to provide that many direct quotations when it is much better to summarize them as I had done. It is only pertinent to include quotations when they are of particular notability or import. Simply copying what other people have stated for the sake of having it on the page is not particularly welcomed in formal writing when what they have said can easily be summarized in original words. Similarly, information regarding the murder of Raustein and the happy slapping incidents of Europe need only be summarized on this article per WP:SS. And finally I will not be self-reverting edits I had made in good faith nor will I be refraining from "scatology" or using other strong words in my communication as they do not comprise any personal attacks as they are not directed towards you in particular but to the situation in general. I would appreciate if any further discussion on article content be kept at the section I created on the article's talk page concerning the content I had initially removed and you decided to restore.—Ryulong (琉竜) 07:59, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Edit warring over the inclusion of a source?

Why are you edit warring over the inclusion of a reliable source? I disagree with your assertion that "there is no need to source a block of colors that are not text" but I more strongly disapprove of your willingness to edit war over something so trivial! Please consider self-reverting and taking the issue to Talk instead of using edit summaries to discuss the issue. ElKevbo (talk) 16:55, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What is it sourcing? The hex codes? Do you know how trivial that is? Do you know how unnecessary that is? Do you know how obvious that is to anyone who downloads their logotype and opens it up in Paint? It's not necessary. And it is not my prerogative to argue against its inclusion. I reverted a bold edit to the article. It is up to the parties who feel it should be included to begin a discussion on the talk page rather than simply reverting me. Why is it that no one bothers to do this? Why is it when I restore the status quo I'm the one who gets int rouble and it's edit warring? I'm tired of this bullshit.—Ryulong (琉竜) 17:01, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
What happened to WP:BRD? An editor made an edit and you reverted - fine, no problem. Another edit reverted your revert and you reverted their revert of your revert - problem. Should the other editors be more communicative? Yeah, they should. But that doesn't absolve you.
And why would you believe that the colors shouldn't be sourced? They're non-obvious facts. We can quibble over whether using a program to examine the specific colors in an image is original research but clearly there is no reason for us to know that the particular image selected is correct nor is it reasonable to expect editors to go through that when there is a reliable source readily at hand. And we can avoid the discussion altogether if we just do what we always do when there is a question about a fact in an article - we cite a reliable source. ElKevbo (talk) 17:11, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
BRD does not require the person who reverted to start a discussion if they themselves are reverted. There should have never been the second revert in thef irst place. And the PDF simply contains the technical information on how to reproduce the colors for internal purposes. Such a primary source isn't necessary in the first place.—Ryulong (琉竜) 17:14, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
I agree with ElKevbo. There's never any reason on Wikipedia to not source something. And you're right, he's sourcing the RGB values for their colors. Many universities have very specific RGB values and I think it's quite useful to have them sourced. I don't think the original edit was bold in any way. It was adding a reference to a piece of information that was unsourced on Wikipedia. And you should be more civil and not call the edit and this discussion "bullshit". — X96lee15 (talk) 17:15, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's not necessary to souce the RGB values and I see no such sourcing at any other article. They just list the colors and have the box. The University of Miami page says the colors are green, white, and orange, and has a series of boxes that are green, white, and orange. There is no point in providing a source that shows that not only are the colors green, white, and orange but they happen to be a specific hexadecimal set of green, white, and orange that the article happens to use as well. It's trivial nonsense. And this discussion isn't "bullshit". This situation is as a whole is. I am tired of the nonsense nitpicking on this website and I am tired of having to answer for things that no one in their right mind should give a shit about in the first place.—Ryulong (琉竜) 17:18, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
I'm completely baffled. You seem to believe that you have a right to make multiple reverts in an article. You also seem to believe that we don't need to source material in articles. Is that correct?
Look, on some level I agree that it's a tiny bit silly and trivial to source this information. But it's a reliable source that is being appropriately used to support an assertion made in the article so what's the problem? It's something to sigh about and move on, not something to edit war and argue about! ElKevbo (talk) 17:23, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No one's right to revert anything anywhere. That's all I've learned in the last few weeks. That's why I've gotten blocked twice in the past month for edit warring.
It is not necessary to source a color being displayed on an article just because that color happens to be the one mentioned in a reliable source. I'm not discussing this further.—Ryulong (琉竜) 17:24, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Your page notice

I just want to be clear on your page notice, as I don't really understand what is and what is not allowed on your page, according to your page notice. So that there will be no confusion next time, am I allowed to leave talkback templates, or will you remove them the next time they are added? Thanks, Epicgenius (talk) 15:43, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why would I need to keep a talkback tag here? It serves its purpose and directs me to your user talk page so it can be removed.—Ryulong (琉竜) 15:44, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
I'm not saying to keep it—I am asking if you even want me to notify you using them. Do you want any talkbacks, or are you fine without them? Epicgenius (talk) 20:36, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It is generally fine. I just don't need people sending me {{uw-whatever}}.—Ryulong (琉竜) 06:17, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Reverts

Please stop reverting my edits. DMB112 (talk) 16:13, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No. Your edits are not at all necessary for these pages. There is no need to provide lists on the intercollegiate athletic group pages on the school's academic status.—Ryulong (琉竜) 16:15, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
please see college football's talk page. This has been discussed. You are vandalizing Wikipidea. They are necessary. DMB112 (talk) 16:21, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
All I see are a bunch of sections tagged "This doesn't match the scope of the article." And my edits do not constitute vandalism. They are reverts of your bold edits to introduce these sections into the articles without any discussion as far as I can tell.—Ryulong (琉竜) 16:22, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
See the talk page. You will not be vandalizing without making a case on that page. You are edit warring. DMB112 (talk) 16:26, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Read WP:Vandalism. My edits do not constitute that. And I see nothing except massive essays from you on that talk page drowning out any other voices. All I can see is UW Dawgs also disagreeing with you. When you get reverted, which constitutes removing the massive unsourced sections you added to all these pages, you do not revert again.—Ryulong (琉竜) 16:28, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
It seems you're not new to edit warring. Look, I'm here to help. Let me debate with you civilly. Why do you think the tables are unwarranted? DMB112 (talk) 16:51, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ryulong&oldid=586360334"