User talk:ReynTime

Welcome

Hello ReynTime, and Welcome to Wikipedia!

Welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you enjoy the encyclopedia and want to stay. As a first step, you may wish to read the Introduction.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask me at my talk page – I'm happy to help. Or, you can ask your question at the New contributors' help page.

Here are some more resources to help you as you explore and contribute to the world's largest encyclopedia...

Finding your way around:

Table of contents

Department directory

Need help?

Questions – a guide on where to ask questions
Cheatsheet – quick reference on Wikipedia's mark-up codes
Wikipedia's 5 pillars – an overview of Wikipedia's foundations
The Wikipedia Adventure (a tutorial orienting you with Wikipedia)

Article wizard – a Wizard to help you create articles
The simplified ruleset – a summary of Wikipedia's most important rules
Guide to Wikipedia – a thorough step-by-step guide to Wikipedia

How you can help:

Contributing to Wikipedia – a guide on how you can help

Community portal – Wikipedia's hub of activity

Additional tips...

Please sign your messages on talk pages with four tildes (~~~~). This will automatically insert your "signature" (your username and a date stamp). The or button, on the tool bar above Wikipedia's text editing window, also does this.

If you would like to play around with your new Wiki skills the Sandbox is for you.

ReynTime, good luck, and have fun. – Lor^Chat 01:05, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ReynTime, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi ReynTime! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Come join experienced editors at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a space where new editors can get help from experienced editors. These editors have been around for a long time and have extensive knowledge about how Wikipedia works. Come share your experiences, ask questions, and get advice from experts. I hope to see you there! Osarius (I'm a Teahouse host)

Visit the Teahouse

This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 16:19, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there

This comment of yours should probably not be put in the section that has only been edited by administrators. Please remove it and place it in a separate section that looks like the "Statement by [screenname]" sections above the "Result concerning Ryulong" section.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 04:31, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, someone else did it for you.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 04:32, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, did I put that on the wrong page? This mess has forked into at least four different places NOT including the talk pages of various users, so it's getting very hard to track it. I can't even tell where my question got moved to.

In any case, since you're at the heart of this, can you answer the question? What exactly is the quid pro quo that's being claimed here? I'm really not following the argument of why Wikipedia should care that some random Redditor set up a GoFundMe to help you get your luggage back. (As "bribes" go that's really pathetic, frankly.)ReynTime (talk) 04:42, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've moved your response from my page to yours. I just prefer to have responses remain on one user's page. If you need to get my attention again, you can type {{ping|Ryulong}} (I guess it's like going /u/whatever on Reddit or @whatever on other social media).

You put your post on the right page, just not on the right part of the page. Your question was just moved slightly higher up on the same page into its own section. You can see it here (as of my posting here).

I'm not really sure what this quid pro quo is either. I mentioned my financial issues, someone said I should make a gofundme, I did, it got posted to Reddit, one person gave me everything I asked, and I'm getting my stuff back soon (I hope).—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 05:35, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I'm glad things got where they belonged (both with my edit and with your stuff.) I'm still in a bit of a post-Turkey Day coma and I had three different WP pages up. I thought that discussion was on the Gamergate talk page not the sanctions page. In any case I hope Wordsmith answers because I don't understand what his concern about "promoting a fundraiser" was all about. It wasn't a fundraiser, it was an Internet convenience, that's all. If someone had just mailed you a check no one would be the wiser -- which, if you were up to no good, would obviously be the way you'd go about it, so the fact that everything was right out there in the open just shows that nothing nefarious was going on. Typical Gamergate "This tiny molehill is really a HUGE MOUNTAIN!" nonsense.ReynTime (talk) 05:45, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom page

Just a tip - when an arbitrator removes something from a page, don't put it back. There's a reason they did that. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 12:53, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, did what? I noticed an edit was gone (replying to DSA) but it looked like Ryulong removed it, I'm assuming accidentally, when he took down his own post about the sea lion charity. Was that actually done by an Arb? Because the next diff was Ryulong's so maybe I misread something, unless this is something completely different. In any case, why did they leave DSA's stuff up there? Let's see if I can get the newfangled PING thing to work... {ping|NorthBySouthBaranof} ReynTime (talk) 13:04, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, it was removed by Roger Davies. See this diff. Put two curly-brackets around the ping and it'll work. Double curly-brackets is the standard Wikipedia syntax for templates. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 13:06, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So what's this then? [1] Was Roger one of the "five intermediate edits"? I've never worked on a Wiki page that was changed so damned often. Also why was DSA's irrelevancy kept, any idea? I think WP:V definitely applies since Gamergate has no official structure or membership, so how could anyone confirm "Gamergate" gave to charity, even if that were actually relevant to the controversy, which it isn't of course...? @NorthBySouthBaranof: ReynTime (talk) 13:12, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GS/GG/E

Threaded discussion is not allowed at this page. Please move all your comments into your own section, or I will do it for you. There is a 500 word limit. RGloucester — ☎ 13:30, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed it, thanks for the heads up. ReynTime (talk) 14:01, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, I have requested Oversight of the link in question, and have contacted the college to request a takedown. That student OpEd was a mashed-up repetition of some of the worst of the scurrilous accusations against Quinn. If the editor who posted it cannot be sanctioned under GG because of a technicality, then the full weight of WP:BLP should come down instead, IMO. Tarc (talk) 14:02, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Yes, I'm sure the Amherst article will be removed shortly (cue the cries of "CENSORSHIP!!!" to follow immediately after) but this bad behavior on WP isn't going to let up until it's called out and dealt with, somehow. ReynTime (talk) 14:09, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well well; Amherst pulled the OpEd! I will be curious to see if they post an explanation at some point. Tarc (talk) 19:56, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, of course -- it was clearly defamatory in several outrageous ways. Apparently the author first tried to post a very weak disclaimer saying "On second thought, these are unproven allegations and not facts," but since the allegations have been proven FALSE this wasn't any good either and a half an hour later it was gone entirely. They're not fools at Amherst. Of course the cries of CENSORSHIP!! have already started in certain unsavory armpits of the Internet, and I've been called out as a new WP bad guy, but that's irrelevant. The important thing is that the page is gone and hopefully the kid who wrote it is getting a good talking-to by folks at the college about his behavior and will be able to mend his ways before he does this kind of thing again and causes serious damage to his academic prospects at Amherst. ReynTime (talk) 20:39, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

NLT

I'd suggest you refactor your gamergate comments that allege what Avono posted is "illegal" or that a third party "will be sued." Those can be construed as legal threats and we have a zero tolerance policy. See WP:NLT. I don't believe you have standing or authority to make good on those threats (whence another reason they should be refactored into non-legal language). Legal threats is a chilling argument style to use in collaborative environments. --DHeyward (talk) 18:05, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wow you bunch are predictable. I have no grounds to sue for libel, of course, since I'm not the subject of the article. (LOGIC! HOW DOES IT WORK?) The one who would be suing would be Zoe Quinn and she would win big time. ReynTime (talk) 19:41, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

It is apparent to me that you are a single-purpose account. You are also clearly not a new editor. Your first ever edits were to dive into the thread on Jimbo Wales' talk page and ANI like a seasoned pro and your editing has gone downhill from there. Your repeated use of talk pages as a forum and inability to refrain from your own commentary are unacceptable, and your snide remarks have contributed to the toxicity of the atmosphere in the topic area. As such, it is my conclusion that you have no interest in writing a neutral encyclopaedia, so I have blocked you indefinitely. Regards, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:15, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]