Jump to content

User talk:Mythdon/Archive 10

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10


Arbitration amendment to a decision affecting you

Please note that the Arbitration Committee has made an amendment to the Ryulong case as follows:

The remedy "Mythdon further restricted (4 August 2009)" is revoked. Mythdon is instead restricted as follows for the longer of one year or 500 edits. If, in the opinion of any uninvolved administrator, Mythdon: a) behaves disruptively at XFD discussions;

b) unreasonably nominates multiple articles for deletion; or

c) unreasonably places maintenance tags on multiple articles;

then Mythdon may be blocked, initially for up to one month, and then with blocks increasing in duration to a maximum of one year.

For the Arbitration Committee, --L235 (talk) As a courtesy, please ping me when replying. 07:14, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Pending changes reviewer granted

Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.

Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

See also:

Closing AfDs

Hi there, thanks for helping out and closing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TFC Academy. However, next time you do an AfD closure, please follow the instructions at WP:AFD/AI. Thanks! ansh666 23:43, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the instructions. I'll keep them in mind! —Mythdon 04:21, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Topic ban termination

Per consensus here, your request to rescind the topic ban applied in 2012 is granted.[1] This does not affect other ArbCom restrictions as those are beyond the competence of AN. Deryck C. 06:32, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

I know. As to the AN discussion which got archived before a formal closure, I'd already inferred the topic ban was lifted based off the lack of opposition. Kudos to you on formally closing it. And any other issues related to the case, I'll be sure to bring up with the arbitration committee. Thanks for the note. —Mythdon 18:47, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

October 2018

Information icon Hello, I'm John from Idegon. I noticed that you recently removed content from Kamiak High School without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. John from Idegon (talk) 12:55, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

@John from Idegon: I thought "-WP:IINFO list of no contextual use" was providing an adequate edit summary. The list isn't noteworthy because it has no meaning to anyone outside of the Mukilteo, Washington vicinity. That's where "no contextual use" comes in". Also, it'd be better if you sent a personalized message instead of a template message, that way you'd be able to explain your position better.—Mythdon (talk • contribs) 00:21, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Leslie Cockburn

When I saw your self-revert, my first instinct was to agree with your edit. The pronunciation "KOK-bərn" makes sense based on the spelling. But it turns out that's not how Cockburn pronounces her name: here is one of her commercials for reference [2]. So I have reverted. Best, Altamel (talk) 03:34, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

@Altamel: Thanks for checking that. I thought I made a mistake going by the spelling, but I guess stealth tactics aren't hard to miss and I'm usually good at catching those.—Mythdon (talk • contribs) 03:42, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

SS Scharnhorst (1934)

You caused me a lot of grief on 14 Oct when I was in the middle of working on the page. Please do not do that again in future.Gousinsaang (talk) 06:53, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

@Gousinsaa: I realized it was my mistake. My apologies.—Mythdon (talk • contribs) 07:16, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Sorry for reverting you

I thought you were the spamer again PZQ (talk) 06:45, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. I was wondering about that.—Mythdon (talk • contribs) 06:46, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for barnstar

I just loving getting into revert wars with trolls. NOT! It's my punishment for being on Wikipedia at this hour. Looks like the page is protected again, which should help. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 07:03, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

It took the admins awhile, and it was fun while it lasted, but it needed to stop at some point.—Mythdon (talk • contribs) 07:04, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

The "talk" link in your signature appears to lead to your user page, rather than this page. Is there a good reason for this? Upon a quick glance, your user page doesn't seem to explain any such reason. --SoledadKabocha (talk) 23:11, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Oh shit, you're right, I didn't even notice that. Well, thanks for telling me, I'll fix that :)—Mythdon (talk • contribs) 06:14, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
Fixed.—Mythdon (talk • contribs) 06:16, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

AfD

Hi - thanks for closing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Mountain Witch. I was wondering if you would reconsider your close to No Consensus? I think an evaluation of the arguments would indicate there was not a consensus to keep. One of the three !votes was a WP:VAGUEWAVE "Keep per" given without rationale and the other was simply a template !vote (the editor uses a nearly identical !vote in all deletion discussions) given without rationale. Chetsford (talk) 08:03, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

BOZ and FreeKnowledgeCreator were both citing Newimpartial's argument, which is actually WP:PERX, not WP:VAGUEWAVE. While "per user" arguments are discouraged in favor of using one's own rationale, it's most certainly not prohibited by policy (that essay is more advisory than anything). BOZ's keep argument was especially if more sources can be found (which Newimpartial subsequently provided in the discussion with you and seemed to pass WP:RS/WP:GNG) and seemed to be in favor of merging more as a second choice (hence the otherwise part). As to FreeKnowledgeCreator, I'm aware they do this at a lot of AFD's, but that by itself doesn't automatically make their rationale invalid (some users find that easier than repeating the same argument twice). Based on the substance of Newimpartial's argument, and the subsequent support in that argument (absent opposition), I decided to close as keep. If you still disagree with my closure, you might wish to bring that up at WP:DRV. I probably should've explained this at the AFD when I closed it, but I hope that clears it up.—Mythdon (talk • contribs) 13:01, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Deletion review for The Mountain Witch

An editor has asked for a deletion review of The Mountain Witch. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Chetsford (talk) 01:41, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Hey Mythdon - I hope you don't view this as a personal affront. I think you did a typically excellent job when faced with a difficult decision and agree this does not warrant delete; I'm just thinking there might be a benefit in a short relisting. Thank you for your thankless work at AfD. Chetsford (talk) 01:41, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Why wasn't Power Rangers Owned by Toei Company?

I know Power Rangers was owned by Saban Entertainment, in 1993-2001, BVS Entertainment (Buena Vista Television) in 2002-2010, Saban Brands in 2010-2018, and now, Hasbro Studios/Allspark Television but the credits say Toei Company, Ltd it feels like the show is produced by Saban & Toei Company. Is the series actually created by Toei and Saban, who passed the torch to Disney, to SCG, and now Hasbro? PascalMuganyizi (talk) 18:15, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

PascalMuganyizi As I explained, the only reason Toei is credited is because that's where most of the source material comes from. Toei is responsible for creating most of the footage/props/costumes and Saban/Disney/Hasbro ports it over to the US/New Zealand for use in Power Rangers. Sometimes Saban/Disney/Habsro will create their own footage/props/costumes. Power Rangers is an adaptation of Toei's work (Super Sentai), so whereas Saban created/did own the adaptation and Disney having owned it for a time (with Hasbro owning it now), Toei is the creator/owner of the work Power Rangers is adapted from. The closest Toei gets to owning Power Rangers is the contract Hasbro (previously Saban/Disney) is under with Toei because Hasbro buys footage/props/costumes (so Toei does make some profits). Apart from that, everything else is original and made specifically for Power Rangers. You're not going to find a source that says Toei is the owner. So basically, Power Rangers is its own work unto self that's owned by Saban/Disney/Hasbro that just happens to take stuff from Super Sentai. Please have a look at Adaptation on Wiktionary when you got some free time.—Mythdon (talk • contribs) 03:52, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Reading User:[you] just feels good

Homeward Bound
Reading your page has the following positive benefits:
  • it is attractive to begin with because your username promotes such interest, although your name's form does leave one to wonder if there should be a vowel between the two halves of it, a thought perhaps influenced by mythology
  • one admires the visual layout, topic structure and userbox content, even if one disagrees with some of the userboxes themselves, as they contain no immediately obvious hypocritical content
  • considering the page as a whole including the text, it truly conveys the feeling that one has been invited into a0 new friend's home only to discover that the feeling of the place and the conversation of its inhabitants simply feels like home

...for me, at least! Thank you very much indeed. Geekdiva (talk) 23:15, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

List of the Arsenal

When are you going to create new page for the Power Rangers' Arsenal? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 175.139.236.207 (talk) 05:09, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Confirm Involvement in WikiProject Disney

Hello Mythdon! I'm a new member of the Disney WikiProject. I'm trying to confirm who is still interested in the WikiProject in hopes to build a team of that can revamp the project. Please let me know if you would like to stay on the list of active members, or if I can go ahead and move to you the list of inactive members. You can do so by replying to this message and including the {{reply to|GeekInParadise}} tag. Happy editing! GeekInParadise (talk) 03:46, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

@GeekInParadise:: Go ahead and move me to the inactive members; I barely edit the Disney articles anyway (let alone this project).—Mythdon (talk • contribs) 23:56, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Power Rangers input

Hi Mythdon, I was advised to look for an editor knowledgeable about the Power Rangers production/credits to add some input to this message. I saw your helpful replies to other users confused about who makes the show so I was wondering if you had the time to reply to the link above. Thanks so much. SBSPfan (talk) 13:42, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Dasha Nekrasova (3rd Nomination)

I'm trying to get this taken down again, any help? The reviews are just self-promotion RightStuff4 (talk) 18:50, 15 November 2020 (UTC).

RightStuff4, It's been nominated for deletion three times and all three times, it was kept. It may very well be self-promotion (I haven't taken a look at the page since I commented at the first AFD), but honestly, nominating the same article for deletion multiple times doesn't look good on the nominator and I've seen where users nominated the same article for deletion multiple times and get sanctioned for it. Your best is to either drop it or look for better sources (seeing as the last time it was nominated for deletion, the admin that closed the AFD warned against renominations) —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 19:37, 15 November 2020 (UTC)


About your recent revert of my edits on Dabuyid dynasty

Both content removals were explained, and the etymology section was written by one IP user in the course of one day in July of 2021. The section contains information already provided in the below sections, and has nothing to do with the etymology of the dynasty. Furthermore, the only information provided that was relevant to the topic of the section was a single sentence about an unrelated word in Mazandarani, referenced by a dictionary definition, which does not explain its correlation with the name of the dynasty. If you still have any concerns, I would suggest you to take this discussion to User:HistoryofIran’s talk page, who knows a lot more about this subject. 2600:1006:B067:B992:E036:BFF:E74B:1CAE (talk) 21:42, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Well, your edit summary here didn't show that, just "repeated info". But thank you for clarifying, nonetheless. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 21:49, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Rohl

Please be careful when closing AfDs as a non-administrator until you have more experience with AfDs. Consensus to not keep was rather clear here. Thanks! Sandstein 20:13, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

What about my other two closures, here and here? Do they look okay? I've performed deletion closures as a non-admin before, but had never done a no consensus closure previously (from what I can recall) and thought no consensus closures were fine coming from a non-admin (XFDcloser gives non-admins the ability to close as no consensus). I had initially closed David Rohl as no consensus because the keep arguments (especially the first two) seemed to be more based on ILIKEIT (with only the delete/redirect arguments being based on policy and actually addressing the reason for the nomination), but didn't see a strong enough consensus to delete or redirect, which is why I'd chose no consensus as the closure. Nonetheless, I'll try and be more careful in the future about closing AFD's, especially ones that are more of a close call like the David Rohl one was. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 20:36, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding Ryulong

The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

Mythdon's topic ban from editing any page that falls under WikiProject Tokusatsu (including articles), and any discussions relating to those pages, broadly construed, is lifted.

For the Arbitration Committee, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 23:32, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Arbitration motion regarding Ryulong
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Mythdon/Archive_10&oldid=1138016779"