User talk:Ryulong/Archive2

This is an archive page, last updated 28 February 2015. Please do not make edits to this page.

Archives for this talk page:

<1>, <3>, <4>, <5>, <6>, <7>, <8>

, (new)(back)

Archive links

You may want to look at Template:Talkpage. See my user talk page for an example of how it looks like in action.--ZooGuard (talk) 09:00, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

I want to use the complicated scrolling box I came up with at Wikipedia.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 10:02, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Gamergate

I wouldn't mind giving you a hand in getting it rewritten and reorganized, if you like. I consider it your project, really, due to your expertise in the matter. I do agree it shouldn't be broken up into subarticles. --Castaigne (talk) 20:15, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

This?

This right here? With the insta-reversion and the take-no-prisoners edit summary? That's the kind of thing that makes people who've been here a long time think "there might be some Headless Chicken Mode in the air." Depending on who you've done this to and what the stakes are of that edit to him or (back when, say Kels was here?) her, this is the kind of moment that can go south very quickly, very quickly indeed. In a place like this, every new guy with a pet cause is a potential MAY 2011 in the making. Weaseloid's a reasonable guy. Nutty, or, God help you, Human or Sophie decides they've had enough of being reverted, which is exactly once, some days....you've just authorized a free-fire zone there, son.

You are being very, very, very obstinate on that talk page. A lot of solid editors with a lot of experience on the wiki are making points that are not completely incoherent. You are digging in your heels. That is a situation that is not generally condusive to a positive outcome. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 06:12, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

I was looking for a ref and then discovered that massive erasure. My next edit (after reverting Someon for mass reverting me) is to cut out the crap that Weaseloid found problematic. I can't fix the page if people keep erasing shit that they think doesn't fit in because it appears that the narrative is slanted in a way that has been in place before I registered.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 06:48, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Friendly advice

As a fellow animanga editor and obssessive wiki-er, and someone who has been observing your situation, I understand the compulsion to want to keep editing a page until it's perfect, and to take the job of perfecting the page on yourself -- but it's honestly not very healthy, and it's not what wikis are for. I know it may not make sense why it would matter, but sometimes it's important that you just stand back and let other editors make the bulk of edits, and work on providing resources or pointing out issues on the talk page instead -- not to the exclusion of editing, like you did on wikipedia, but in moderation at least.

I think you'd be really well-served to focus less on reverting edits you see as mistakes, and use the talk page to iron out compromises instead.KrytenKoro (talk) 21:16, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Did you fucking sign up here because my melt down is being tracked on some gator forum?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:54, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Not in the least, no. I've actually tried to reach out to you in the past (elsewhere), offering to let you edit on my own animanga wikis or to defend your edits on wikipedia. I signed up here because I've gone through the same issue with owning articles, and wanted to help.

If you need my "bona fides" to view me as something other than an enemy to be ignored, i can email you to unequivocally show that im not here to harass you.KrytenKoro (talk) 19:21, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

You really need to take a break.

You've been editing the Gamergate article for like 9 hours straight, dude. You're editing it every day. This is behaviour that has already gotten you banned from Wikipedia. You should take a break. Seriously, this isn't healthy behaviour, you're starting to remind me uncomfortably of Ken DeMeyer. Take a holiday, yah? Let someone else worry about it. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 10:28, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

No, I was banned at Wikipedia for "recidivism" and not being civil in the face of a horde of trolls trying to skew an article in their favor when they don't have any sources to back their claims up. Research better.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 11:02, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Whatever. You're still putting in more than full work days editing here. For the sake of your own health, take a couple of weeks off, please. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 11:05, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Why—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 11:06, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Because what you're doing is a pretty clear sign of some sort of mental illness, dude. Editing a wiki is not a paid job, and doing it for ten hours at a stretch isn't good for you. If what you're doing isn't affecting your work or your personal life, it'd be some kind of miracle. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 11:13, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

The effort I'm putting into the page might actually get me work and my social life has been dead ever since I came back to the states.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 11:15, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Not just for the sake of your health, but the sake of the article, take a rest. Let a few other people work on the article without obsessively micromanaging it. Check out the rest of the wiki, fix some typos and stuff, take a breath of fresh air. ħuman 22:32, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Your plans are shit though.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:46, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

How do you know? You won't even let anybody start to work on your pet article, let alone see the end results of their work, before you start to edit war with them. John Jacob Jingleheimer Schmidt (talk) 22:51, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Because he's said he wants to carve it up like a turkey.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 23:09, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Calling them "shit" is not a good way to collaborate. Also describing a useful plan as "carving it up..." is just irrelevant. Your personal vision for this article may not be the one that is best for the wiki. ħuman 23:34, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

If I don't like the plans that you and others claim are best for the wiki when the page is used as a resource by people who have been heavily affected by Gamergate to show to their uninitiated friends how bullshit it all is then I can call them what I want.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 23:36, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

And we can call your plans bullshit, too. |₹Λ¥$€₦₦ ^{Get the paddles, he's having a cancer!} 23:40, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

And I won't stop you from calling them that.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 23:45, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

you know you could write it exactly the way you want with no interference, to share with your friends, etc., if you had a blog, right? ħuman 02:05, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

But this is here and established and it was shitting on Gamergate for what it was before I ever signed up. I came here to lend my expertise on the matter because I had to step away from a more public website over this garbage.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 02:11, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

If the man does not have a job that needs attending to and has no desire for an active social life - something I can often understand - then I would suggest dropping this as a reason for him to "take a break". After all, what better way to occupy one's time? --Castaigne (talk) 22:56, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

That's not my reason, though. My reason is that, if ey steps away from the article for a bit and let's others try to work their magic on it for a while, ey might like the end results. But ey haven't let anybody make more than a couple of edits before ey starts to edit war with them. John Jacob Jingleheimer Schmidt (talk) 22:59, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Would you not agree that it comes down to a matter of trust? --Castaigne (talk) 23:02, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

No, I wouldn't agree. Because, in the middle of trying to clean up some of that article's clusterfuck, I was immediately edit warred with before I could even organically finish what I was trying to do. What it comes down to is that Ryulong thinks they own the article. John Jacob Jingleheimer Schmidt (talk) 23:05, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

It's a public wiki. |₹Λ¥$€₦₦ ^{I'm a survivor, keep on survivin'} 23:13, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Maybe it's because you (Raysenn) haven't been able to point out anything specific about the page that needs work other than saying it's too long and daunting. Going "supervote" over the heads of people who can understand the page and are trying to fix it up isn't going to solve anything.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 23:17, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

I've talked exactly about one topic in the talk page and that was resolved rather quickly. |₹Λ¥$€₦₦ ^{My wishes over their airspace} 23:19, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Well no one else has. It's just complaint after complaint that the page is too long and going "We should give these people separate pages" which is not the solution.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 23:21, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

It's too long and also unreadable, poorly organised, and generally useless. I know you disagree with every critique of your baby, but someday it will grow up and go to school and have to fend for itself. ħuman 23:35, 28 February 2015 (UTC)