User talk:Ryulong/Archive3

This is an archive page, last updated 15 May 2015. Please do not make edits to this page.

Archives for this talk page:

<1>, <2>, <4>, <5>, <6>, <7>, <8>

, (new)(back)

Gamergate proposal

Hello there. I've made a prototype format of how I think the Gamergate article could be organized so that it would take care of some of the major problems the article has (disorganized, hard to follow). Take a look and see if you like it. This proposal superceeds my earlier thoughts about chopping it up, as I maintain that the article's length is not actually its problem; its disorganization is. John Jacob Jingleheimer Schmidt (talk)

Will take a look when I'm done tidying things on the article.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 09:30, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

On the GG article.

It's unbelievable how these people are treating the GG article. People who openly admit they don't understand anything about the subject trying to take a hatchet to the article until it matches their ignorance. Then they're accusing you of "owning" the article that you have actual experience with because you have been directly targeted by the group in question.

I mean, maybe they should read up on the subject they are trying to edit? I dunno, you've been way more patient with them than I would have been. Cykosys (talk) 18:23, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

I am become meme, destroyer of worlds

Ryulong, they really hate you. Keep it up! but maybe keep it up on the timeline article ^_^" FuzzyDogPotato (talk/stalk) 00:52, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

But what about my SJWcoins?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 00:58, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Better?

User:FuzzyCatPotato/Gamergate. I think that a short history is all the article needs. (edit: The history in the article I wrote may be too short, and is, again, tentative) Then, rebuttals to gamergate claims. Does an index of GG claims, as presented on the article, a la talk.origins, seem reasonable? 32℉uzzy, 0℃atPotato (talk/stalk) 01:13, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Short history makes sense but not like putting the long history onto its own separate pages.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 02:14, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Yep. Instead of having any longer history, I'm promoting the idea that we just spend the rest of the article showing how shitty GG is and debunking their claims in a categorical way. GG sez they don't dox? Here's 50 examples. Instead of the current layout, which is weaving a history. oʇɐʇoԀʇɐϽʎzznℲ (talk/stalk) 03:01, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

I was trying to fix that with my most recent edits, trying to combine similar topics rather than provide a chronology. It still helps to provide an indepth background but perhaps less of an ongoing narrative.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 03:47, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

It's worth making the article extremely explicit about what it's discussing. Shorten the history to 10 sections max. Then, have sections for "Doxxing", "Sexism", etc., and for debunking GG's claims, again. Very few people want the detailed history. (If they do, they have the Timeline.) Instead, they want evidence that incriminates GG as the horror it is. Optimize the page for that purpose. FU22YC47P07470 (talk/stalk) 04:17, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

The history section on the main page is workable. Just need to reorganize the rest of the page (although Sarkeesian going on Colbert is something we should mention as a turning point). I did cut out everything on Hatred and Revolution 60 as well as some other stuff over the last week.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 04:56, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

That alternate article structure

Is this a sufficient history? User:FuzzyCatPotato/GG Sir ℱ℧ℤℤϒℂᗩℑᑭƠℑᗩℑƠ (talk/stalk) 22:38, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

The history section in the main page is fine tbh. Just the rest of the page needs reorg.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 23:38, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

By main page, do you mean Gamergate or User:FuzzyCatPotato/GG? αδελφός ΓυζζγςατΡοτατο (talk/stalk) 00:26, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

*cough* oʇɐʇoԀʇɐϽʎzznℲ (talk/stalk) 01:35, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Gamergate. Sorry. It's hard training sea lions even with my oceanography degree.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 01:38, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Ryulong, that history is incomprehensibly long, dense, and non-critical to the main point. Everyone but you and a few token others agrees. There is no rest of the page, since the history covers literally the entire page. (OK, 97%.) FuzzyCatTomato (talk/stalk) 02:08, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

I thought the main issue was the content in "Gamergate's inevitable decline" rather than the various events you seem to have cut out in regards to "Operation Chemo" and the "escalation" section.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 02:23, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Nearly 90% of content from the decline has been cut, and about 60% overall. My question is this: Does the history on that page present a sufficient introduction to the history of Gamergate? oʇɐʇoԀʇɐϽʎzznℲ (talk/stalk) 02:40, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes I think it does. I'm simply interested where the TFYC shit is going to fit in with this new approach.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 03:19, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

It'd probably go in a few rebuttals. ("Quinn doxxed TFYC", "VJ proves GG isnt' sexist!" etc.) FüzzyCätPötätö (talk/stalk) 15:46, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

I think the whole Operation Chemo narrative is somewhat important in some fashion to deserve some lengthier mention.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:07, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Add it to main history? ʇυzzγɔɒтqoтɒтo (talk/stalk) 00:20, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Possibly. They're important to show how hypocritical and douchy they've been in regards to using Gamergate as a personal army/fund (as are several other people) but they're not important enough to give separate dedicated coverage to.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 00:46, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Are you RevDeleting your own edits?

Because if you are, explain yourself. --MtD^{Notorious Sodomite} 06:48, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

I realized I had made a mistake I don't want people to use against me as has been the case in the past.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 07:15, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Please, don't do that. Revision deletion isn't meant for burning the evidence. We aren't conservapedia. It is meant for potentially illegal or otherwise highly problematic material. I know your situation is special in that you're a target, but that's not gonna cut the mustard with regard to revision deletion. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 14:41, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

When a discussion here is currently hosted on know your meme in order to cut me down I am going to do what it takes to keep things clean.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 18:08, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, but see, they're going to you exactly what we do to Ken. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 18:17, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

If people were memeing my discussions, and ED took a page out on me, I hope that I would take it as a sign that it might be time to step away from the keyboard and look at other venues for my efforts and energies. But that's just me. YMMV. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 18:28, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

They're not memeing my discussions. Know Your Meme is just Gamergate's walled garden because the moderation team there is shit.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 18:33, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, "You should maybe be quiet because gamergate is targetting you" is exactly the reaction gamergate is reaching for. Nonetheless, just remove(but not purge, please) anything you don't like anymore. They're going to lie about your motives regardless. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 18:36, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

I just made a shit joke that I slightly modified in the next edit after I realized it wasn't what I wanted people to see after I hit save.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 18:42, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

"Yeah, "You should maybe be quiet because gamergate is targetting you" is exactly the reaction gamergate is reaching for." This presumes that writing about one aspect of misogyny on wikis and blogs and tweets is the only way to fight misogyny. You will note that I said "step away from the keyboard and look at other venues for my efforts and energies..." not "be quiet." I'm beginning to think your username is some sort of joke: this is like, the third time in as many days that I've pointed out your basic incomprehension of the meaning of a sentence. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 18:50, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Walking away to do 'other things' is still ceding the space (and part of your life) to them, though. It's a reasonable response to the problem of the shitlords getting to you, but not a reasonable response to this particular situation. Queex_{chthonic murmurings} 18:57, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Silence is what they want.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 19:01, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

I know that. But nobody is asking you to be silent. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 19:02, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

All I did was respond to FCP here and I made a joke I didn't like afterwards that I felt could be taken the wrong way if left in the wrong hands.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 19:20, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

I think this is pretty insignificant, especially when compared to the abuse Ryulong's been subject to. Just don't do it in the future. ʇυzzγɔɒтqoтɒтo (talk/stalk) 19:49, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ I have undone your (Ryulong) most recent revision deletion. Unpleasant yes but it revealed nothing personal about you. Someone being cuntish towards you is not doxing. --MtD^{Notorious Sodomite} 21:14, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

^This. Please stop using revision delete & other sysop abilities inappropriately & please stop trying to plead some sort of special status as an excuse for breaking community standards. Thanks. ΨΣΔξΣΓΩΙÐ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 22:02, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

^This. I get that your desire to be a voice for Gamergate has brought you a lot of bad attention. And I think you'd have to agree that RW has done as much as it can to protect you from that attention when it follows you here. At the same time, RW was around before Gamergate, and it will be around long after Gamergate, and Gamergate is not what's going to make us change the way we keep our community running. Please respect our minimal standards while you're here. Thanks. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 22:31, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

My last action was to rev del a message someone else had already reverted from being here. It counts as inappropriate content. I don't need gators getting ideas.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 01:26, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Again: Please stop using revision delete & other sysop abilities inappropriately & please stop trying to plead some sort of special status as an excuse for breaking community standards. Wëäŝëïöïď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 10:51, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Ryulong, if you don't what your mistakes to be used against you, perhaps you could try getting it right first time? Bicycle^wheel 18:55, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Stop paying attention to it then for fucks sake.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 23:37, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

You probably shouldn't tell a lady who's been here pretty much since day one, and has done an amazing amount of the heavy lifting required to make this community what it is, what she should and shouldn't pay attention to. It's not much of an exaggeration to say this is pretty much Sophie's wiki. Read what I said above: RW was here before Gamergate, and will be here after Gamergate. We've gotten through much worse without compromising the 3 or 4 rules we have. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 23:52, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

If the whole purpose is to ignore what was said why is so much time and energy being put into telling me off for having removed it in the first place? That's what I'm getting at here.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 04:23, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

RationalWiki:Chicken coop

You brought this on yourself. --MtD^{Notorious Sodomite} 21:45, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

No, I brought it upon him, and partially did so out of ignorance. And Jesus Christ, the fact that you're trying to guilt trip him over it isn't good. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 22:34, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Makes me wonder what his personal beef against Ryulong is. Probably time to start examining allegiances.--Castaigne (talk) 22:58, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Are you now or have you ever been a member of the /r/kotakuinaction party? --Madman (talk) 03:45, 7 March 2015 (UTC)The Madman

Your edits at the 8chan article

If you ask me, it's pretty damn noteworthy when 8chan fights against totalitarianism for once. And the image you deleted? It was proof of it. Couldn't you at least have asked me about the meaning of it before deleting it? --Norman (talk) 23:47, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

No. Some random new board is unimportant.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 00:00, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

One of the most visited boards on the website is unimportant, sure. Not convincing me. --Norman (talk) 00:02, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Go talk to the Daily Dot about it and then we'll see.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 00:07, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Also "most visited boards on the website", it's a fucking week old.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 00:08, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Norman, what are the chances that SJW is a troll? 99% or 100%? Herr FuzzyKatzenPotato (talk/stalk) 00:27, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Gentlemen, please. Talk:8chan#/sjw/.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 00:33, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

What are the chances that CWC is a troll? If CWC can be legitimately stupid, than nolongersilenced can be, too. Besides, the reaction of the new hate machine of the internet is nevertheless noteworthy. --Norman (talk) 00:36, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

What does the creator of Sonichu have to do with Gamergate?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 00:39, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Is your reading comprehension that bad or are you deliberately doing this shit? FuzzyCatPotato said that nolongersilenced is definitely a troll. I pointed out that the same could be said about CWC, hence the argument doesn't cut it. That couldn't have been so hard for you to understand. --Norman (talk) 00:42, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Why do you have to bring him up at all?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 01:03, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

I already explained that to you. If you spent more time reading the stuff I write and less time trying to out-curse a possessed juvenile delinquent, maybe you would've realized that. --Norman (talk) 01:05, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

But you forgot to ask if I care.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 01:05, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Well, maybe that's because I don't care about your stupid, stupid opinion? --Norman (talk) 01:14, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

feels not reals right—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 01:15, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you very much for this constructive comment, Ryulong. Why exactly did your career on Wikipedia end, again? --Norman (talk) 01:17, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Because I didn't filter what I thought about bullshit ideas like yours and others and my participation on the Gamergate page was the perfect shit storm for people like you to remove me from Wikipedia because of my checkered history on the website and the fact that I pointed out in the 11th hour that assholes like you were planning on using the proposal that ArbCom in their massive myopia thought would solve problems by restricting me to a single revert on a page a day by flooding the articles completely unrelated to Gamergate with edits that I had for many years opposed due to the fact that they are not and never have been supported by reliable sources but that didn't stop the assholes on /m/ who think I'm responsible for every fucking shit translation out there by thinking I'm wrong and a cancer in the toku fandom. It really has absolutely nothing to do with any personal stance I may have on Gamergate or the fact that I think you're a complete tool. It more has to do with how I tried to make sure pages I was interested in were best updated and maintained in line with Wikipedia's various rules and regulations that got me into plenty of fucking stupid arguments over content where I opposed people who were just as stubborn and pigheaded as I was. You know. Like how you idiots still think Zoe Quinn had sex for a review from Nathan Grayson despite he never reviewed shit and only ever wrote "Depression Quest" twice in his career and that was never when he was sexually involved with her or that Anita Sarkeesian has somehow scammed people out of $100 grand because you think that she faked all the abuse sent to her for going "I want to talk about video games" and possessing ovaries.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 01:22, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Graysons first article listed fifty games. Only three were mentioned explicitly in the introduction, among them "Depression Quest". He had one screenshot in the article, one from "Depression Quest". The name of the article was "Admission Quest". His second article had Zoe Quinn as a central figure. It is proven he and Zoe were at the very least friends before the two articles were published, something he didn't disclose until after the shitstorm. These are facts. --Norman (talk) 11:39, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

This has now descended to "People in the games inudstry know each other." Shut up, Norman. The idiotic charges leveled by gamergate were unsubstantiated rumors. Almost completely unrelated charges later developed to excuse the previous slanderous ones don't bear much relevance at all. If you have a content dispute take it to an article talk page. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 13:06, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Proxy IP

This discussion was moved to RW:CC#Proxy IP. Cømrade FυzzчCαтPøтαтø (talk/stalk) 22:46, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

did you issue a /16 rangeblock?

This discussion was moved to RW:CC#did you issue a /16 rangeblock?. Cømrade FυzzчCαтPøтαтø (talk/stalk) 22:46, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

I am going to give your rights back. But if you block outside of normal blocking procedure before that debate has had a few days to play itself out, I will be upset. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 22:48, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

But what about pi second blocks—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:50, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Those things you revdel'd

Erm... Last I knew, the coop had said that pointing folks to ED wasn't true doxxing, and comparing revisions over at shitheadland itself does not lead me to believe that anything has been added that would change that, so why did you revdel some troll? PacWalker 05:16, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't want links to my page available here.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 07:46, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Okay. When people covered here come blank their pages because they don't want criticism, or come and remove links to critical news coverage, do we nod happily and burn/salt/whatever those pages? "Do not like" is not a good enough excuse to hide revisions. PacWalker 07:55, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

I do not want links to the article made about me on ED to be available on this website as it contains my dox. Am I clear now?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 08:00, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Those damn headless chickens decided it wasn't dox. Am I clear now? PacWalker 08:04, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Madman was saying "Hey go look at ED" not directly linking to my page there.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 08:49, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

The difference? One application of Google; one click. For those of us among the technologically literate, that's hardly different. PacWalker 08:52, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

An IP directly linking to the page to harass me is different from Madman Johnson being a cock.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 08:53, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

They're the same damn thing, except that one requires three seconds of additional effort for the reader. PacWalker 08:56, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Correction: MadmanJohnson didn't claim that the other wiki missed you, so he scores a couple points extra. Is that the difference? PacWalker 09:11, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Reading your link, they're not "deciding" any such thing: it's one person, Weaseloid claiming that a link to dox for purposes of harassment by doxing is somehow not doxing, and then the Coop failing to decide anything further on MadmanJohnson. Your cited evidence doesn't back your claim at all. Redeleting. We have people blatantly trying to harass an editor here; your motivation for enabling them, with spurious justifications that don't check out, eludes me - David Gerard (talk) 09:14, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

I am not enabling them; I'd gladly undo their edits, but there's no need to burn the evidence. Also, you are willfully ignoring things or failing to read; Weaseloid was not the only one to say that, and the closure of the coop case without any action or even vote kind of says something. PacWalker 09:23, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

It clearly doesn't say at all what you claim it says - David Gerard (talk) 09:24, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

It shows that (a) we are were willing to punish actual doxxing and (b) we were not willing to punish this. Need I jump through the apparent logical hoops here? PacWalker 09:27, 12 April 2015 (UTC) (tense correction: 09:36, 12 April 2015 (UTC))

Wait, they aren't even that bad. If whatever we're calling doxxing will lead to punishment, and an act is noticed, discussed, and not punished, then it isn't doxxing. If A implies B, then not B implies not A. Damn them contrapositives. PacWalker 09:46, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

So, do you dispute (a) that we are and were willing and able to punish doxxing, (b) that Madman's pointing to ED was not punished as doxxing, despite being noticed, or (c) neither? Or (d) do I need to point you to a proof that any true conditional remains true after contraposition? PacWalker 10:17, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

I think if you're asking questions with multiple layers of negation - to the point you literally just confused yourself with what your question was - you're trying way too hard to justify yourself. How about: 1. Is this blatant targeted harassment? 2. Is this in any way a good idea to encourage? And of course 3. Why the fuck are you looking so hard for a technicality to enable the harassment on? - David Gerard (talk) 13:45, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't enable harassment, and revdeleting it doesn't disable it; it just leaves a hole in the fossil record (an amusingly appropriate analogy). Secondly, pointing out that contraposition preserves truth isn't some grand magical crazy logic voodoo. Why am I looking? Because I would not want a bunch of "nyehnyeh can't see this" sitting around in page histories when we don't need it. I like some level of transparency in what happens on wikis, which is a big part of the reason for HAVING page histories. SO: A, B, C, or (probably) D? PacWalker 13:57, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Ease up on the banhammering

Sure, said BoN may annoy you and the edits to the U.S. article were classic wandalism, but have you considered the vandal bin? Dishing out bans for mere wandalism is usually not the first option on RW. ScepticWombat (talk) 09:44, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Ryulong should not have sysop rights; it seems to be the only way they can continue to contribute without abusing their power. Tielec01 (talk) 09:58, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

You can, as wikipedia did, suffer years of tedious vacillation until his rights are inevitably stripped. Or you can accept that persistent refusal to accept criticism of even a single action here or elsewhere indicates an unwillingness to change. Your problem, your call, good luck. Sarah (HH) 18:07, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

The issue is the BoN is being a pain in the ass on more just United States and I don't know how vandal bin works.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 18:16, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Special:VandalBrake is the page for vandalbinning folks. Exercise discretion bla bla so on so forth. PacWalker 18:25, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

How does it work and how do I use it is more important—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 18:46, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

RW:B FU22YC47P07470 (talk/stalk) 18:49, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Do you have to contest every edit to the Gamergate article?

It hardly seems productive. Just let it be, and save the reversions for the gaters themselves--Tanis (talk) 01:17, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

I added something and then it was removed so when that happens yeah I do.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 01:30, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

That's what happens when your writing is overly verbose. Deal with it. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 01:34, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Being terse changes the meaning.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 02:13, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

No. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 02:38, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

"To jump to the conclusion" and "to conclude" have different connotations.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 03:08, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

"They concluded." It is clear from the context that they were incorrect in doing so. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 03:12, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Does everything you add need to stay? Surely, AgingHippie is not on the side of those who would harass women. Not that I know much of him, but I've always known him to be a strong supporter of feminism. Not that I know much of him. But he's not vandalizing the article and making Gamergate look good, is he? The article is long, and not necessarily a pleasant read. Making it longer isn't exactly imperative--Tanis (talk) 03:15, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

I added a sentence that was removed with barely any comment.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 03:16, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Standard comment for anything I do to that page: "Editing for concision, style, and clarity." Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 03:31, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

What of this then?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 05:44, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

"If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others, do not submit it." Wëäŝëïöïď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 05:49, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Hush, they aren't supposed to notice that part! :P PacWalker 05:51, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

That's not the point. Corrections and clarifications to his "concision, style, and clarity" edits are reverted.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 05:57, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

If you want to make that article clearer, I suggest applying a largely defensive weapon of hatchet. PacWalker 06:15, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

I added a sentence and citation saying Twitter execs called out GG by name and it gets cut down to "Twitter condemns Gamergate".—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 06:28, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Yup. Twitter condemned Gamergate. That implies they did it by name.Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 13:30, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

For the past 8 months it's been rare for it to be explicitly condemned by name by any company.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 17:59, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

And this isn't "Fix some bad grammar/spelling, remove excess verbiage." You basically blanket reverted everything I added which included correcting your grammar in some places.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 18:03, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes. Everything you added did little in terms of telling the story or giving meaningful analysis. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 18:24, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

You remove a hell lot more context when you claim to edit for length and conciseness.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 18:28, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

There is so much repetition of fundamentally simple ideas in that article. By the time I'm done editing it, it should lose about a third of the words and none of the meaning or impact. You'll have to live with that. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 18:32, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

You keep blanket reverting when half of the shit I'm doing is fixing your verb tense fuckups.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 18:47, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, well, if you would write clearly in the first place it would be way easier to figure out what tense is appropriate. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 18:56, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

You're getting everything wrong and you're blaming it on me? For example, Honey Badger Brigade was only found to be AVFM's podcast Honey Badger Radio after they were booted out. You somehow think that they're "fans" instead of the actual podcasters.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 18:58, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

If you meant the podacsters, fucking well say that. You wrote "members." I had to guess what you meant based on your inability to write clearly. Again. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 19:02, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ "Members of a podcast"?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 19:03, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

You wrote "using one of their members' webcomics..." Which in no way signals a podcast producer, but a member of something. Totally unclear. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 19:11, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

"more inaccuracies."

You need to own that, friend. If people trying to edit your prose end up getting stuff wrong, it's because the original text failed to tell the story in a clear manner. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 18:37, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

What? ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 18:44, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Someone turned a sentence that said "They dot tweeted at her" to "They used the same channels".—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 19:02, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

And what's the point of all 300 references if no one is going to read a single one of them?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 19:03, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

":Someone turned a sentence that said "They dot tweeted at her" to "They used the same channels"" Exactly. Like I said, when your prose is that unclear, don't be surprised when people don't summarize it the way you want. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 19:27, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

The sentence was intended to say "he tried to contact her in the same method as her harassers" and it was changed to "he tried to contact her using the same channels as her harassers". And when you, CorruptUser, and ConfusedLiberal keep cutting out large swathes of content, you leave broken references behind.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 19:29, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

The sentence could have read "he tried to contact her." And it's on you to fix the references since you dumped a huge mess into the wiki for other folks to deal with. Sorry. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 19:31, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Maybe you should read the citations that are all over the article instead of complaining about my prose.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 19:32, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

And even as I've explained this exact excerpt to you you still get it wrong when you cut out all of the fucking text.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 19:38, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

You can yell at me in bold characters all you want. I don't care. The article will be whittled down to a reasonable and readable size. Or take it away and go write the book you should write where nobody can mess with your vision and your work. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 19:41, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

That's not the fucking point. I've spent an hour telling you what that sentence is supposed to mean regardless of how fucking long it is and you still "whittle it down" into something that's blatantly incorrect.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 19:46, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

This is some dumb ass fucking gatekeeping you're doing too. "I don't understand your writing but I'm still going to cut out half of it because THE PAGE IS TOO LONG AND THAT'S BAD FOR RATIONALWIKI."—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 19:48, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

The article is an unreadable mess, and that's bad for Rationalwiki.And again, yelling at me in all-caps has zero effect on me. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 19:52, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Do different colors work instead? Because you keep getting basic facts wrong when you cut everything down to size.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 19:53, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Nope. Sorry. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 19:54, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

How about some more edits because you keep cutting shit out that takes away from the narrative and meaning.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 19:56, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

And you're fighting with me over the use of "fairweather" because that ONE word is "excess verbiage"? Cut the bullshit already.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 19:59, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

I think I mentioned this earlier, but if I want to learn what happened during the superbowl, I don't need you to tell me the exact length of every strand of Tom Brady's pubic hair.

At the moment there are a half dozen pictures of Vivian James. Do we need all of them? I only think one is necessary. There is a lot of content that we don't need; do we really need 300? Does ANY other page have that many sources? You should help use prune the thing down, that way you can help prevent "important" content from being lost. CorruptUser (talk) 20:02, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

If I want to point out that Liana K and Lizzy have both left and rejoined Gamergate when it was convenient for them then I can use "fairweather" to describe their association. The images are necessary because it shows how hypocritical the movement is when it comes to this manic pixie sockpuppet they created. And I cut out 20k of text yesterday because it was irrelevant to the discussion of Gamergate as a whole. This "pruning down" that AgingHippie has been doing has been cutting out vital information because he doesn't feel like reading up on it beyond what I had written here already.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:12, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

And now when I want to add in details that are necessary for understanding why two people listed are complete shitheads that had been in the article prior to "pruning" as well as this ONE descriptor, AgingHippie is edit warring with me over it.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:17, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

You can't have it both ways.

You can't engage in an argument with a user and then turn around and bin him for "feeding the troll." It is you, in that case, who fed the troll by replying to him. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 23:45, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

I am guilty of feeding the troll and I have realized this after the fact and sought to tag the conversations as such to prevent my own or others further devolution.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 23:46, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I mean that. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 23:47, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Next time, I will be less responsive even if their arguments are so old they'd fit in on Dave/TV Land/whatever channel that just broadcasts repeats.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 23:55, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Tyciol says hi

I'm not sure how often you log onto ED, but Tyciol has left a message for you. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 13:34, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

he can eat a dick.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 19:55, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Oh it seems he's been globally banned and to get any reason why you have to go by the arbitration committee which means only one thing.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 19:58, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

You can find the reason if you root around hard enough, which makes your first comment... unfortunate. PacWalker 20:16, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Anything that goes "don't unblock without prior consent of the Arbitration Committee" is a big red flag and I know exactly what that red flag means.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:24, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

This is your last and final warning about learning what constitutes a blockable offence

Your cited reason for blocking this guy is total bullshit. Smarten up. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 13:52, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

His user page is meant to mock mine from Wikipedia and the wording about salads was explicitly used by someone from Wikipedia to harass me. I made this known on other people's talk pages. It has nothing to do with any of the shit he wrote on RW.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 13:55, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Although I don't think it's block-worthy, what Ryulong's saying does make sense to me. Ryulong, there's a better way to handle this, which I will now demonstrate. Narky Sawtooth (Floof!~) 14:00, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

We don't block for off-site drama. |₹Λ¥$€₦₦ ^{We exist in different epistemological paradigms, fuckpants!} 14:01, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

A rule, I should add, that has worked in your favor repeatedly. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 14:02, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, Reddit-boy is quite possibly the worst conceivable proponent for that rule - David Gerard (talk) 14:16, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

What are you talking about? |₹Λ¥$€₦₦ ^{I'm sorry, dear. I'm reading Pokemon horror stories for the internet.} 14:20, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Ryulong was banned from Wikipedia for obsessing over GamerGate. CorruptUser (talk) 14:25, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Wrong. I was banned because I lost my temper when dealing with that topic area and my history there was controversial. Stop spreading that lie.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 16:39, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

That is not why that occurred.

And you're a recent user.

Probability that you are one of those damn KiA/8chan sleeper agents causing trouble - increasing. --Castaigne (talk) 22:22, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Is recent, has been wrong, annoys Ryulong? Damn, I must be such a good sleeper I didn't even know I was a sleeper. PacWalker 22:33, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

He brought it onsite by fucking being here and the IP he was using to talk to PacWalker is a fucking dedicated server web service. He is here to harass me and stir up shit and it only took him until recently to do this shit.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 14:03, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Then you can block him when and if he harasses you here. So far, he has stirred zero shit around here and we don't care about his offsite activities. This is not Citizendium. |₹Λ¥$€₦₦ ^{Thank you for the culinary utensils} 14:06, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

his user page was for that purpose.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 14:07, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

"My username is a combination of Husky and Harlot because for some time I had an interest in salads." Nope, nothing of note. |₹Λ¥$€₦₦ ^{To the pure body, to the perfect existence} 14:08, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Are you feeling okay, Ryulong? Where on earth did you get this notion from. Everyone here saw the cited block reason, and none of us get it. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 14:27, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

I said that I get it. And, from what I can gather, "salads" is a placeholder for "dragons." Narky Sawtooth (Floof!~) 14:48, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Back on Wikipedia, an individual calling themselves "Cobbsaladin" appeared and began editing Gamergate pages. His user page was identical to my own except he took a mad libs approach to my personal data, and part of that was the "salad" line that appears on HuskyHarlot's page. This is why I called bullshit here.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 16:39, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

And that still isn't a valid reason. Even if you could somehow prove "Cobbsaladain" is HH, we still don't care. We don't block for off-site drama. |₹Λ¥$€₦₦ ^{WHO THE HELL DO YOU THINK I AM!?} 16:50, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

It's offsite drama being brought onsite in order to intimidate and harass me.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 16:54, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

If (and that's a big if) HH came to import drama and harass, then we shall block if that happens. As it stands, HH has done nothing to harass you or import drama. |₹Λ¥$€₦₦ ^{Open your heart, it's gonna be alright} 18:26, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

What he said: as it stands, you've imported off-wiki drama to intimidate and harass another user, not v. va. Just saying. PacWalker 18:28, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

And not only that, but HH has never interacted with you, not even once. As it stands, you are the harasser, Ryulong. |₹Λ¥$€₦₦ ^{Do you accept Madoka as your Lord and Savior?} 18:31, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

HuskyHarlot has edited one topic and one topic only, and it's a topic I frequent and simply because I've identified a questionable action by them as being something that was done to harass and intimidate me in the past, I'm the one in trouble for bringing that up?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:14, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Her, unless he is a guy named Sarah. And you didn't just identify it, you went "ONOZ! Teh salads is coming to harass" and blocked her for nine hours. PacWalker 22:16, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Because I want to be rid of them without directly acknowledging why in the one place where it will be permanent.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:47, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

"Because I want to be rid of them" You're not helping your case there Ryu. Also, if you don't feel like explicitly stating your ban reason, don't ban in the first place. |₹Λ¥$€₦₦ ^{Hahaha, what a story Anonymous user} 22:59, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

I meant I don't want to have the ban spelled out explicitly in the block log where they can then go off to 8chan or Reddit and show off their new e-peen.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 23:01, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

As I said before, we don't ban for offsite drama.

Plus, the user in question has not harassed you. Please stop insisting she's there to harass you with no evidence. You're coming off as a paranoid nutjob. |₹Λ¥$€₦₦ ^{Everyone gets hugged and turns into Tang} 23:05, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Ryu why do you care what happens on 8chan, if you block someone and they talk about being banned on 8 chan how does that affect you Bubba41102 ^{CUMON STEP IT UP} 23:08, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

(EC) For once, I'm leaning towards Ryulong on this one. Not on the blocking so much as the badgering going on here. It's a problematic userpage, for reasons that are perfectly sensible once you know the context. It's as close to direct harassment as you can get, and saying 'nope, no harassment there' is disingenuous at best and wilfully perverse at worst. It's not Ryulong who's imported offsite drama, in this case. Ryulong needs to be less trigger-happy, certainly, but let's not be under any illusions that we're not dealing with another Chrimony or Norman or however many others there have been. Queex_{chthonic murmurings} 23:12, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Queex, he hasn't even told us the exact line, the only issue here seems to be salad, and even then we dont even know if it is the same person, and Husky hasn't harassed him, the only thing that bothers ryu is the user page, she hasn't done anything else to "directly" (used lightly) harass Ryu, and ive checked nearly all of her edits. Bubba41102 ^{CUMON STEP IT UP} 23:17, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ In fact, all evidence points out that HH is a good faith editor. |₹Λ¥$€₦₦ ^{Everybody betray me! I fed up with this world!} 23:21, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

That's a fucking inane statement. The smoking gun of bad faith is the madlibs. That's not a blockable offense, but the fact of not being a blockable offense doesn't make your statement blitheringly wrong.

I will also point out that one of the first things you did here was dox someone when they showed up. Your moral high ground starts in a 20km deep hole. You have no room to pontificate about how someone being harassed across sites should behave, having been the perpetrator of such harassment yourself, and you really need to stop doing so - David Gerard (talk) 20:20, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

That's not bad faith, just bad humour in the form of an overly simple parody. PacWalker 21:55, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

I think the simplest solution here is just to ask her to change it no big deal Bubba41102 ^{CUMON STEP IT UP} 23:26, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

In my last months on Wikipedia, multiple individuals who solely registered to stir up shit with regards to Gamergate took my userpage at the time as a mad libs to mock and harass me. One of these wordings was verbatim what appears on HuskyHarlot's user page here. I am fairly certain I've mentioned this at some point today.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 23:34, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes but did the person bait you to their page, for all you know you could have never clicked on the user page, and her user pages in the past have not been anything like that, and how did she track you down to here,and the name is nowhere near the same as the person who harassed you, but as Raysenn pointed out, she is a good faith editor, all you needed to do was ask her to change it, blocking was unnecessary. Bubba41102 ^{CUMON STEP IT UP} 23:38, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

I'll address these in list form:

• Cobbsaladin didn't bait me into going to his page either. I found it on happenstance.
• There have been multiple threads on Reddit's Gamergate subs and other forums mocking my involvement on RationalWiki, including one within the past week.
• People can come up with new screennames to avoid scrutiny.
• I'm not going to kindly negotiate with people that I believe have harassed me.

—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 23:44, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

If your not willing to work it out with the person, then your jsut going to have to deal with it, you havent provided sufficient evidence that the person actually did it, ans carl sagan said Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence so unless you can prove that she is the person in question without a doubt, we cant do anything. The most you can do is just ask the person to change it, it is a simple solution, and if she refuses then tell us with evidence, i just recommend that you talk it out with husky. also report the harassment to Reddit admins if you don't want them talking about you, there are you two main issues solved. Bubba41102 ^{CUMON STEP IT UP} 23:51, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

For someone to come up with "My username is a combination of X and Y because for some time I had an interest in Z." out of the blue when it was on my Wikipedia user page for 8 years and then utilize a particular part of that madlibification that I had seen in the past 5 months to harass and mock me is enough.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 23:59, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Blocking abilities aren't there to protect you from being mocked. Grow up. Weaseloid^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 00:16, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Someone could have easily thought of the same thing, with all of the people on the internet. If you want sometihng done get it fixed if you are jsut going to whine about it, stop talking, go fix it if it is such an issue. Bubba41102 ^{CUMON STEP IT UP} 00:20, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

This isn't something some random person can pull out of their ass when it was something that was on my Wikipedia user page since possibly 2007 in some form and the "because for some time I had an interest in salad" was used to mock and harass me in December of last year.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 00:34, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Your ideas completely disabled all PIDOOMA on others' part for all time. Right. That aside, it's at worst a mild parody. We have an entire namespace of such things. Big whoop. PacWalker 00:48, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Hell, we used to have an entire wiki of such fun-poking. PacWalker 00:49, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. Bubba41102 ^{CUMON STEP IT UP} 01:00, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Am I allowed to tell Chrimony to fuck off as he's returned to the site to more explicitly troll me, and even AgingHippie blcked him for that once.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 05:31, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

You are permitted to tell anyone to fuck off at any time for any reason. Hipocrite (talk) 10:34, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Can I do it through the newly discovered negative block lengths?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 11:02, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, but 0×π seconds looks cooler. PacWalker 13:18, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

No, I think -100000 years will look just as nice.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:25, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Now -6019 years might be a useful one to keep in mind... Thanks for the idea. PacWalker 21:58, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

God, you're a child, Ryulong. Blocking isn't here to protect you from da vile twolls. --Madman (talk) 11:46, 2 May 2015 (UTC)The Madman

" I expect some god damn fucking respect from people who should know the history"

Yeah, because we have nothing better to do than to keep up on obscure in-jokes from some other website. Look, it's well-known that I don't tolerate harassment of or users, even ones that piss me off, like you. That said, you, who has a problematic history re: blocking, can't block someone based on stuff that happened elsewhere and reasonably expect the rest of us to immediately see what is going on. smarten up. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 14:03, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

I've posted about it already so why can't you read any other edit I made?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 14:04, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Because I spend enough time trying to keep up with your edits to one article. I have neither the time nor the interest to follow you around and keep up-to-date on your personal online situation. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 14:06, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Uhhh

The thing that happened is that Gamergate was behind the tweets, and then^{[Statement Redacted]} AyyTeam or whatever swooped in for an interview where they claimed to be behind it. Narky Sawtooth (Floof!~) 17:15, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

AyyTeam and GG are indistinguishable.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 17:16, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

That's not what I'm getting at. It's important that people not be able to dismiss the claims on the timeline over that sort of thing. Narky Sawtooth (Floof!~) 17:26, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

We're going to get that anyway because gators are going to deny involvement despite their most prominent members being involved in the same shit.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 18:06, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Can you PLEASE ...

...try to understand that "disagreeing with Ryulong" is not the same thing as "feeding the troll" and therefore is not grounds for vandal-binning an account. Thank you. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 17:04, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

He erased an entire section of that article to put in one that was crap and made to put in a false balance. H should be vandal binned for that.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 19:43, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

No. He shouldn't. When it comes to shitty edits there's two big ones: 1. unfunny vandalism and 2. edit warring.

The following are not reasons an edit warrants a ban(or bin): 1. Being incredibly wrong. Revert it and move on. 2. Failing to improve the article. Revert it and move on(preferably with an edit summary so they know why they're being reverted). 3. "Not getting" rationalwiki's approach to things. Tell them.

If all that seems unfair, remember if they persist in doing the annoying thing, they're edit warring. You have to wait at most 2 more edits before clear malice is visible. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 19:47, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

This isn't the first time he's shit up an article though.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 19:59, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Revert and move on. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 20:19, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Cool doown bro

Dude other people can edit this (gamergate) article too, could you tone it down, no need to shout because someone disagrees with you. Bubba41102^{Taste the shortness} 01:51, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

That's not the point. I added something in and AgingHippie keeps cutting it out with barely any reasoning and when he resummarizes what I wrote it's full of inaccuracies.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 02:28, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

You really are not anyone to lecture anyone here on writing - David Gerard (talk) 12:24, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

then request a reason from aginghippy or put it on the talk page, waht you did was revert in all caps, it was unnecessary, in my opinion the edits were okay, you were adding unnecessary information. Bubba41102^{Taste the shortness} 12:40, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

I did.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 16:37, 15 May 2015 (UTC)