User talk:Ryulong/Archive5

This is an archive page, last updated 24 September 2015. Please do not make edits to this page.

Archives for this talk page:

<1>, <2>, <3>, <4>, <6>, <7>, <8>

, (new)(back)

{{lang}}

I'm curious and ignorant, so tell me: what's the lang= attribute on a span tag good for? (and yes, I'll reply to your email once it hits my inbox) WalkerWalkerWalker 11:48, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

It tells browsers that it's encountering non-English text so it encodes it properly.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 11:53, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

At least I hope it's working. 中国 and 中国 should appear different depending on the browser.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 12:04, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

This should show how it works—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 12:08, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

All right, I think I've got it. Thank you. WalkerWalkerWalker 12:15, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Also, I never received an email. WalkerWalkerWalker 10:54, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

I was sure I sent it through email user.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 12:15, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Last RW email I have is from the twelfth; there are none in my spam box. AT&T may have done a stupid to me? I dunno. Maybe the tubes are clogged up. WalkerWalkerWalker 12:24, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Welcome back...

...among the gods.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 18:59, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

What he said. Your months in exile ended earlier this week and I forgot to resysop you. Don't do anything I'd do. Hipocrite (talk) 19:03, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Get on the clown car, too

The newest shitfest about Zionism, Israel and so on has now officially crossed with GG (look at the bottom of that page). Get on the clown car, too, after all, it's your pet issue, too.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 00:41, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Apologies

I think I may have been a tad harsh on you over GG. So, a small apology on my part. CorruptUser (talk) 00:59, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Ryulong the model

I've been advised to emulate you so as to get my way on edits. (Not too likely as my ways are pretty set -- which isn't to say I even understand how exactly it is you operate here.) All I really know about you is that you are mainly responsible for the GG article, the quality of which is one of two pieces that made me decide to join. ---Mona- (talk) 05:57, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

"Basing" doesn't necessarily imply "emulate." Also, that would help only a bit, since Ryulong here still gets his share of trolling. Dandtiks69♪♫ (talk) 23:09, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Rouner & Nyberg

I think you should keep an eye on this situation: One. Two. Probably going to get very ugly. --Castaigne (talk) 04:28, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Multiple eyes will be just the thing. I expect a new wave of helpful IPs - David Gerard (talk) 13:46, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

I doubt this will be relevant and it's all really stretching. The accusations are already covered as well as how much they fall short.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 18:38, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Blocking

Two users who have been here since roughly a few weeks (me) or months (Goonie) after the place opened shop have undone your block of that guy. That should be a good hint that you shouldn't block him again unless he does something block-worthy. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 15:56, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

It's literally an account for shitposting, sufficiently fraudulent that the person it was fraudulently claiming to be noticed. Ryulong's block was entirely correct. What possible good editing do you anticipate it producing? - David Gerard (talk) 16:48, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

My anticipations are irrelevant. The only germane question is what bad actual bad editing has it produced. Until there's an answer to that, chill the fuck out. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 16:57, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

No, that's an absolutely terrible criterion. The account was created with malicious intent (to Joe-job someone) and there is no conceivable positive outcome from the perpetrator being allowed to edit here - David Gerard (talk) 16:58, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

I'd take "realistic", but "conceivable"? Eh, that's a big stretch. On a related note, what conceivable harm could it do to wait and see how the guy responds to being called out on his act (assuming he'll even edit again at all)? 142.124.55.236 (talk) 17:04, 23 September 42015 AQD (UTC)

Why bother allowing such obvious bad faith behavior?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 17:19, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

I am unfamiliar with the term "Joe-job." But look, I'm not gonna argue anymore about pre-emptively blocking a user who hasn't edited in five days and who has made zero problematic edits on the wiki. You are the big-dick-swinging boss around here. It's your wiki, and if you want to block the guy, go ahead. But maybe we should also totally re-write the blocking guidelines to include off-wiki behaviour, or "Ruylong/Gerard says so" or whatever else it takes so that outcomes actually reflect policy. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 17:23, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Not immediately blocking outright is not the same as allowing. Depending on the seriousness and harmfulness of their actions, blocking can certainly be an apt response. With the little evidence there is to look at in this case, I feel disinclined to make a judgement on seriousness. Meanwhile, I can't see any noteworthy harm being done here.

Overreacting and misusing your sysop powers only enables the people that troll you and makes them feel validated. Is that something you want? 142.124.55.236 (talk) 04:15, 24 September 42015 AQD (UTC)

"Don't feed the trolls" is bullshit.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 04:28, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

"Just ignore the trolls and let them run amok" is bullshit. "Never ever say any words to a troll" is bullshit. "Don't do exactly what your enemies want" isn't bullshit. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 04:36, 24 September 42015 AQD (UTC)

Whoever impersonated Tarc wasn't after me. He was after Tarc.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 04:58, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Sounds plausible, though since they were (or seemed to be, at least) using your story to 'incriminate' Tarc, they likely didn't have a good opinion of you. Which is mostly irrelevant either way, since there's inevitably plenty of other trolls out there, some of whom do target you specifically. And they lurk in the darkness, watching, waiting for you to make a mistake. Don't give them what they want. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 05:09, 24 September 42015 AQD (UTC)

How would that have worked considering I registered here before my ban—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 05:13, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Do we need to go on that tangent? I'm not questioning the legitimateness of you being a user here. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 05:20, 24 September 42015 AQD (UTC)

I see that they namedropped me but I doubt that their intent was directed at me.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 05:26, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Block

Why did you block them? Because you disagreed with them on prostitution? <-𐌈FedoraTippingSkeptic𐌈-> (talk) 20:12, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

No, because they were unnecessarily combative over the fact that I skimmed pages other people posted and wasted our time. It's not like it matters because she'll be on some other IP in a day if she even does decide to come back.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:14, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

I mean it's no longer an issue since you unblocked them, but blocks are not intended to censor individuals who disagree even if unnecessarily. It's also more of a cause for concern than usual, because of your infamous history with this sort of thing. <-𐌈FedoraTippingSkeptic𐌈-> (talk) 20:19, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

It was a stupid act of frustration. Because after days of dealing with her she decides that the fact I read something that doesn't agree with what she had to say is reason enough to say this website is shit. It's not my fault there's more than one study on prostitutes' opinions of their job and some don't match what she had to say. I've been trying to reach out to people I know who might be more knowledgeable in the topic because I have a feeling that there's more to this than this Swedish BoN's insistence that prostitution is the best job in the world.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:23, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Alright man, just so you know I'm not trying to cause any animosity between us and I can understand your frustration. <-𐌈FedoraTippingSkeptic𐌈-> (talk) 20:25, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

"It was a stupid act of frustration." I am shocked, shocked, that you, of all editors, would do such a thing out of stupidity and frustration. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 20:32, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Fuck off.—Ryūlóng (琉竜)