User talk:Mythdon/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10

Return

I've just been lazy, by the time I see most episodes, people have already updated the pages. If I happen to see something that hasn't been updated, I simply update it =P Myzou (talk) 21:56, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

So your saying you just contribute when you feel like it?. Mythdon (talk) 04:33, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

No, I contribute when I have something to contribute. I live on the west coast. By the time I watch episodes, typically users from the East Coast have already updated it. When an episode airs early/is captured by a user on a forum early, I can typically help by updating with new info. Myzou (talk) 03:19, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Okay. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 19:36, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Questions

What did I tell you about inappropriate questions?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 06:40, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Are you telling me I broke the talk page guideline?. Mythdon (talk) 06:49, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

RE:Your question

Um... there aren't any particular feelings I experience, I guess. Wikipedia hasn't ever evoked any significant emotions in me. May I ask why you ask? Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :)} 06:40, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I was just curious. Mythdon (talk) 06:49, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Userpage reversion

Thanks a ton! :) Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :)} 07:51, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Your welcome. Also, earlier I reported the IP user and that the IP has been blocked with an expiry time of 24 hours. Mythdon (talk • contribs) 08:16, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Attack on Ryulong

This "attack" was not intended to be an attack. See, I have Asperger Syndrome, diagnosed by a doctor and everything, which makes it medically difficult to anticipate the consequences of my words and actions. Now, per the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, Wikipedia must accomodate this or risk being sued for millions of dollars. Despite the fact that the Aspergers article on Wikipedia claims it's not a true disability, the federal government recognizes it as such. Trust me, if I wanted to attack him, I'd say something like "You have no idea what the hell you're talking about, moron."

If my Aspergers kicked in in that paragraph, I once again apologize. I'm just giving pure facts, regardless of how cold or blunt they may be.Dstebbins (talk) 14:47, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Adding the Morphing Grid

How about this: Is there a wiki site that is devoted to fictional lore? If it makes you happy, I'll put my section about the Morphing Grid on that site.Dstebbins (talk) 14:46, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

WP:Sims

Hello I have proposed that WP:Sims to be moved to a task force in WP:VG under there Inactive project cleanup Task force. Since WP:Sims has been tagged inactive. There is a discussion on it, here.Hereford 17:03, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Deleting Power Rangers articles

Are you just on a personal mission to delete every single power rangers article except the most basic core ones because you simply don't like the Power Rangers? You deleted my edit about Aurico being second in command simply because the "previous statement was good."

Listen, if you continue to vandalize the Power Rangers articles, I'm going to contact an admin and ask for you to be blocked. You're nothing but a troll. Yes, I did just go there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dstebbins (talk • contribs) 22:39, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Replied on your talk page. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 10:30, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Re: Did you?

Yes, that was how I became aware of the situation, but I subsequently read through the block log and the user's contributions. ffm 20:18, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

That tells me that I called the attention to his disruption. I'm not surprised that my alert about Dstebbins made you aware of the situation. Thank you for the response. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 23:05, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

SVG Hardee's logo...

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

In response to this edit, there is an SVG logo, located here. Which browser are you using? (If it's IE6 or below, that's why. It doesn't have an SVG renderer (except there are probably some plug-ins around). However, IE6 is almost dead except in businesses, so you probably have IE7 or Firefox (and maybe Opera, but it has a renderer). Can you please tell me which browser you're using? Thanks, Jonathan (talk • contribs • am I wrong?) 23:09, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

When I said there is no SVG version, I meant the company did not have a SVG version of their Hardee's logo. It has nothing to do with my web browser. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 23:31, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. I had retraced the image from the PNG, and there are mistakes in the Brazier curves if you look really closely (no retrace is perfect! ). I know there is no publicly-available SVG-logo, but there is an SVG version here. Thanks, Jonathan (talk • contribs • am I wrong?) 12:51, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Why is the PNG version such an issue? If it is an issue. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 17:42, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

PNG's are less efficient in the servers. The file size was reduced by 9KB. Not much, but it's a good thing if someone just happens to refresh the SVG's description page 50,000 times (almost humanly impossible, someone would probably use a bot) with no caching. If you do the math, that saves 450,000 KB (439.45 MB) of bandwidth. A file of that size would take about six hours to download on a good day for me. That keeps Wikipedia fast and in good working order. See what I mean? Jonathan (talk • contribs • am I wrong?) 22:30, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

I see your trying to save bandwidth, but I strongly encourage you to keep the image as a PNG, because altering an image destroys the truthfulness and reliability of the image. I disagree with the SVG version, because, like I said, altering an image destroys the truthfulness and reliability of the image. I wish for the PNG version to stay. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 22:47, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Also, the non-beveled logo is used on soda cups and some indoor signage, I assume for printing reasons. If we did the bevel effects, the SVG file would be HUGE due to blur effects that MediaWiki doesn't really like anyways. I wish for the SVG version to stay. The New Phobia (formerly Jonathan) 01:23, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Forgot one thing: we can get someone from the outside of this to choose which one...like an admin not related to this. It would be kind of like a mini-mini-RfC. Involving one person. Are you okay with it if I choose one out of random and contact them? I won't do it until you give a green light, though. :-) The New Phobia (formerly Jonathan) 01:30, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Okay. Out of this group, I scrolled up and down blindly and ultimately ended up with Emperor. I have contacted him and created a system for !voting. Whoever gets 2 votes obviously has the !win. I ask that you make a statement from your POV to make an equal request. Thanks! The New Phobia (formerly Jonathan) 03:12, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Main Page redesign

The Main Page Redesign proposal is currently conducting a straw poll to select five new designs, before an RFC in which one will be proposed to replace the Main Page. The poll closes on October 31st. Your input would be hugely appreciated! Many thanks, Pretzels^Talk! 10:29, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Subpage

I've restored your page. :) Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 04:27, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 04:28, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

"Excessive use of images"

I don't know what your problem today was, but I've rolled back every single instance where you removed every image from a page. This was highly unnecessary, as each image should have a fair use rationale for the article it is being used in, and in many places, you removed the only image from an article. If you do this again, you will be blocked.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 23:48, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't think we should be using excessive images, because sometimes you can use images too much. I don't care how many images are on the articles, as long as it is excessive use of images, it is too much. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 23:58, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Since when did you become so focused on image usage?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 00:03, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

There is a such thing as using images too much. Should we have 45 images on a single article? Should we have 5 images of Homer Simpson specifically dedicated to him? Wikipedia is not an image gallery. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 00:07, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

You are using massive extremes here and completely wrong analogies, as usual.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 02:46, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

How?. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 17:53, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

{{fact}} tagging

The items you are tagging are so blatantly true that they do not need to be referenced whatsoever. Various items you are requesting a citation for are information from the primary source (the show itself) or can be inferred by anyone reading later text on the page.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 22:22, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

If the content is not sourced, then what's stopping the {{fact}} tags from being useful?. The tag is necessary for unsourced content. I also undid one of your reverts. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 22:29, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Some statements are taken for granted as being true with or without a source. The fact that there is a Power Rangers: RPM and that the one picture of it we have prior to its naming is that of Go-on Red would mean that the two are related. You are tagging things that are taken for granted. That's like requesting a {{fact}} for "The sky is blue."—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 22:34, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

"That's like requesting a {{fact}} for 'The sky is blue.'" - No, that is blatantly wrong. Tagging information that says "There is a Power Rangers: RPM" is not nearly as blatant as "The sky is blue". Also, information on Wikipedia should be either sourced or they will be either tagged or removed. That's the bottom line. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 22:44, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

You are misinterpreting policy yet again. You don't need to reference every single statement. And some items that aren't referenced can be supported in other ways.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 22:48, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Ryulong, you said "You don't need to reference every single statement". Show me a policy and/or guideline that says this, if any say so. Also, you seem to be interested in mostly sourcing future things and mostly ignoring sourcing for past subjects. Wikipedia just can't have articles that do not adhere to WP:V. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 22:51, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

There's nothing that says it and nothing that doesn't say it. It's just common sense. These articles do adhere to WP:V. The information is verifiable. The source of the information is just not stated explicitly in the text.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 01:55, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

You say "These articles do adhere to WP:V", but then again you say "The source of the information is just not stated explicitly in the text". You also say "The items you are tagging are so blatantly true that they do not need to be referenced whatsoever", but WP:V says "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true". Also, as per WP:NOT, You cannot have information on Wikipedia merely because it is true. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 04:31, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm using common sense as to what is and is not explicitly referenced. You are not. The information is true and is verifiable. Again, you are looking too into the strict adherence of these policies. These pages are fine in all Wikipedia policies as far as I know and am concerned as an administrator.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 05:27, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

"You are looking too into the strict adherence of these policies" - No I'm not. I'm looking into the important adherence of these policies and WP:V is one of the policies that articles should adhere to. If the content is not sourced, it should either be removed or tagged as needing a citation. That is a fact. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 05:32, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

The articles adhere to WP:V. The information is verifiable. It has been verifiable. No one has had any problem with the information until you started saying "this needs to be cited, and this needs to be cited." I have constantly told you, "if it isn't broken, don't fix it," and this is one of those situations. Just let it be and everything will be fine. The article is not going to be in any danger of being deleted (unless you decide that Wikipedia does not need it) and I am tired of seeing your issues with everything every day. Please find another topic to edit on, or try not to use a strict reading of policy.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 05:37, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

You cannot have information on Wikipedia if it is not verifiable, or at least hasn't been verified yet. Every time I have searched for sources on information for Power Rangers articles, I have found no reliable sources and that is why I have been nominating multiple Power Rangers articles for deletion lately. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 05:48, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

The information is verifiable. And the articles are fine. As it was stated in the AFD on the minor characters, the information is out there, it's just you who thinks that the various sources are not reliable.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 06:19, 8 December 2008 (UTC)]\

But if the information is not reliable, then where does the information have a place on Wikipedia?. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 06:21, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

The information is verifiable. You just feel the sources that list this information are unreliable.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 07:15, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

We cannot have articles on a subject if no reliable sources can be found. Also, we can't have articles on a something if it does not adhere to WP:V. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 07:18, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

You can't find these "reliable sources." Other people have.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 07:22, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Every time I start an AfD concerning lack of coverage in reliable sources, I'm perfectly fine with editors finding reliable sources. If they want the article kept, they should cite their sources. If not, the article is doomed. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 07:26, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Have you even written an article yet? All I see from you is complaints about content that is easily fixed or you can find the sources that do exist out there. You are not the person who decides whether or not a source is reliable or not. It is up to the community at large.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 07:37, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I have written an article, but not a real big one. Just stubs. Jeremy Hubbard (here is the diff of when I first made it) is an example. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 07:43, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Have you contributed as such to a Power Rangers article lately?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 07:45, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

What I've contributed lately? Lets see, I pretty much haven't added stuff to Power Rangers articles lately. Its all been removals lately. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 07:48, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Information should be cited, but adding a <ref> to every sentence makes prose un-readable. Same with {{fact}} tags. Use common sense, please. Thanks! --MZMcBride (talk) 01:59, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Okay. You just asked for a reference for the synopsis of SPD. This is beyond ridiculous. Stop this frivolous tagging now, or you will be blocked.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 08:49, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

And I just saw that you did this for every single series/season. That is it. The next fact tag I see you add to something which should use one's common sense, I will get someone to block you.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 08:51, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

How is that a blockable offense?. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 19:55, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Disruptive editing.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 03:19, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

ABC Kids

Way should i cite a source if the current schedule is on ABC Kids website. What next are you going go to the The CW article and remove the current schedule saying cite a source. Powergate92Talk 04:42, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

If you want the information to stay, cite a source. Otherwise, I will keep removing it. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 04:45, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

The ABC, NBC, CBS, FOX, The CW, MyNetworkTV and ION Television articles do not have sources for there schedules as there schedules are on there websites. So way should the ABC Kids article need a source for its schedule if its schedule is on its website. Powergate92Talk 16:32, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Because information on Wikipedia needs to have already been published by a reliable source per WP:V. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 20:03, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Power Morphicon

Their official website has been dead for nearly a year now. Leave the section in the main article for now, as it is verifiable that it exists.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 08:39, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Cite a source. If you want that information kept in the article. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 18:04, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

What part of "The Power Morphicon website is gone" don't you understand? The information is staying.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 21:43, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I understand every part of "The Power Morphicon website is gone". And that Google search link you did, if the information in the link is reliable, why aren't you using the sources. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 21:53, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Because what we have is right, and I, as an administrator say that the content is fine as it is.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 22:22, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Then add the citations. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 22:23, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I say it is fine as it is.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 22:28, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

You may say so, but Wikipedia has to have information sourced. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 22:33, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

As a Wikipedia administrator, I say the content and its current level of sourcing is fine. It could be better, but it is fine as it is.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 22:35, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Then why aren't you making it better?. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 22:39, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Because he's too busy picking fights with people. Message from XENU^{complaints? leave me a message!} 20:50, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Do you think the {{fact}} tags need to be on the articles until sources are placed?. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 20:52, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Your rollback request

Hi! I regret that I must inform you that your request for the rollback permission has been denied. You can discover why by checking the archives at Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Denied/December 2008#Mythdon. SoxBot X (talk) 22:00, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Talk page formatting

The way you format your talk page with your archive box being a navbox directly on the bottom of the page is highly unnecessary and frankly not very useful, as you constantly have to move it downward. I would suggest you not treat this thing as a navbox (which I warned you about earlier this year) and use it as a header box as normal users would.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 23:14, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not changing it. I'm not going to use the normal talk page archiving methods. I like how I can format my talk page navbox any way I want to, and that way, I can add additional archiving links besides just the archived talk pages. Sure, my talk page may not be within the normal range, but at least I have an archiving method. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 23:25, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Navboxes are not for talk pages. They are for organizing related articles.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 01:06, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

That is what they are meant for, but I'm using them in a different way for my talk page archives. Also, I replied to one of your posts in the "fact tagging" section, but you have yet to reply. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 01:17, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, it'd be more useful if you kept the box at the top of your page, because you constantly need to move it anyway.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 03:20, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Merges

I chose to merge Mesogog after seeing the AFD. Just because it closes as "no consensus" does not mean that someone afterward can go in and decide "I want to merge this."—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 05:34, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, the AfD did show a consensus to merge, so maybe I was wrong to revert your merge. I guess AfD doesn't decide everything. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 05:35, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

The AFD was closed as no consensus. I decided to merge after I saw several other similar articles (Lothor, Katherine Manx, Omega Ranger) had pretty much the same merge result.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 05:40, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I know it was closed as no conensus, but it also shown a slight consensus to merge, and that slight consensus to merge included me as one of the two editors to say merge. I guess I'll let the merge stand. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 05:44, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

SSRanger

Are you actually following where I've editted? Why else would you have put {{unsigned}} all over SSRanger's talk page for his comments?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 07:47, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Oops. Maybe I shouldn't do that. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 07:48, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Stop tagging his page with {{unsigned}} now.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 07:54, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Why?. Its only a tag. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 07:56, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

He doesn't have to sign his page if he doesn't want to.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 07:58, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Where does Wikipedia policies or guidelines say that?. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 07:59, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Rollback

...has been granted. Please remember to only use rollback for blatant vandalism - noting Frank's concern at the request page, please remember not to use rollback if you have any doubt that the edit is vandalistic in nature. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 14:10, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

My comments to other users

What I say to other users is technically none of your business. What I warn Fractyl about or what I say to other users such as SSRanger should not concern you whatsoever. The fact that you've been going around and looking at my edits to see what I've been saying to other users is in itself against policy. I would appreciate if you stopped doing this and trusted my judgement as a fellow editor and as an administrator.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 21:37, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Are you telling me that I was stalking you during that period of time?. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 21:43, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 21:53, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

Powergate92Talk is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Don't eat yellow snow!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:Flaming/MC2008}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Emmerdale past character edits

These were constructive edits to better benefit the new minor characters by year system being currently employed and a heavy number of these characters were minor and therefore needed their respective year categories. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Conquistador2k6 (talk • contribs) 14:29, 3 January 2009

You should have given your reason in the edit summaries. Next time you make a large blanking of a page, explain why. Since the edits lacked edit summaries, I misinterpreted them as vandalism. Also, sign your posts next time. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 14:31, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I was in a hurry. I had to go out. That's why I gave the half-arsed greeting sans name. Conquistador2k6 (talk 16:46, 3 January 2009

Okay. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 16:48, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry

The same person keeps adding recaps of unaired episodes to several articles about TV sitcoms. I thought the caps would emphasize what he's doing is wrong since he hasn't paid any attention to the messages sennt to him on his talk page. My intention was to emphasize, not be uncivil or rude. I apologize for breaking the law and I'm so happy to see the Wikipedia police are doing such a good job of chasing down the people who are trying to keep articles honest instead of the ones who are vandalizing them! 209.247.22.164 (talk) 17:13, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Okay. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 17:15, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

My respone to your message

Yes I know that it still airs on ABC, however, ABC is no longer the ORIGINAL channel for it because they only air re-runs now, Toon Disney is now the ORIGINAL channel becuase all the NEW episodes premiere on Toon Disney now and NOT ABC. Have a nice day. --Mr. Comedian (talk) 21:41, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Doesn't matter. Don't do it again as ABC still airs the show. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 14:17, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

PR Monsters response

Are you the one who had it deleted? Rtkat3 (talk) 10:53, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

No, but I was the one who had nominated it for deletion. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 15:55, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Eugene Tonnet

Sorry for confusing you by deleting it :/ For obvious vandalism like that, you don't have to create an AFD. Just use {{db-vandalism}}. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 20:35, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Series table

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

See Talk:Power Rangers#Table formatting for the later discussion.

My version of the table makes it much clearer as to what season of MMPR used what footage from whichever Sentai series much better than your formatting or the original formatting which had no division of what MMPR footage there was. Line breaks should never really be used like that and your formatting clutters everything up.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 21:01, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

My formatting doesn't clutter things up. It may shrink things, but it does not clutter anything up. in fact, it gets rid of the clutter which is present with your formatting, because your formatting uses unnecessary cells. You have again used "fine" as a reason to disagree with how I'm trying to improve things. Just because something is fine never means that it can't be improved. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 21:04, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Also, your version does not make anything clearer. Both yours and my version make things just as clear as they are just table formats that are used to represent the information without changing how clear it is said. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 21:06, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Just leave it as it is. There is no problem with it. The multiple table cells display the information much more clearly than rowspanned single cells.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 21:11, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

It only makes the years more clear. That can be learned in other articles, and if not, can be written. There is a problem with your version in terms of style, and that is a good reason for change to aspects of an article, believe it or not. Your are using "fine" as an excuse for your formatting according to your edit summaries regarding the edit war we were in about the formatting. If something can be improved, improve it. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 21:14, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

How is the version I made have problems in terms of style? There are different cells for each season which had a different Super Sentai basis. You get rid of those multiple cells for no reason that I can tell.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 21:17, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Because I only changed the style of the table. I did give a reason for removing the cells, and that was to get rid of clutter. Why can't you accept various improvements just because of your "fine" excuses? —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 21:18, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

You did nothing of the sort. There is more clutter in your changes to the table than in my changes from the original table. And as you've clearly brought this discussion to the talk page, I won't be answering you here anymore.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 21:22, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Power Rangers Airing Dates

Via information from a Disney spokesperson, Power Rangers will cease airing altogether on Toon Disney. The date about FOX Family cannot be verified through the Power Rangers Google group archives which was very active during that time period and no release can be found regarding the show airing on that channel.RangerKing (talk) 03:49, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I know that Toon Disney will stop airing the show, and in fact, end broadcasting as a network. It will be replaced by Disney XD in February 2009. Having the Toon Disney part of the Power Rangers article say "2004-2009" is irrelevant for now as one could interpret that Toon Disney has already stopped airing the show. We should be saying "2004-present" until it has stopped airing on Toon Disney. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 03:57, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Warning level

Hi. The user had posted multiple recreations under varying spellings of an article about a NN band. I don't like to be so harsh, but it seemed clear to me that this user was only interested in a vanity article. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 04:01, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

So you were assuming bad faith immediately?. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 04:02, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

WP:AN

Just a courtesy note to advise that a comment made towards you is being discussed here Pedro :  Chat  13:51, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Harrassment of My Profile

Please leave my profile the fuck alone. Cactushead (talk) 05:11, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

No. Also, your contributions identify a vandalism account and that you're are proving this further by the edits you're making to your talk page. Don't do it again. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 05:13, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Stop harassing other users

I have noticed that you have taken a number of editing disputes personally and have gone to rather extreme measures to get your own way. I suggest that you find yourself a mentor editor and learn some protocols of non-disruptive editing and working with other editors. Otherwise I will be the one reporting you to WP:AN. MyNameIsNotBob 06:42, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

How have I taken editing disputes personally?. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 06:43, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

You could have simply placed a warning on the user in questions talk page. The user appears to have been quite confused about the difference between a talk page and a user page. You could have given them advice rather than rushing off to WP:AN. That is one sure way to scare off a newbie editor. MyNameIsNotBob 06:51, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

The user was already warned not to vandalize by other editors and the user continued to disrupt the project, so therefore, there's no bullying here. The user got what he/she deserved. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 06:52, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Too much info

Mythdon, I just reverted your two userboxes which stated your name and your age per this. I won't edit war over this, nor will I come back and revert a re-insertion of those two userboxes, just keep them off the page, ok ? ;) — Kosh ^Jumpgate 17:30, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Happening by from your RfA, I would observe that Kosh's removal is, as you likely know, inconsistent with our practices, which surely do not counsel the removal of first name and age of underage users—amongst our admin corps, after all, are at least four editors who haven't attained the age of fifteen years who provide both a first name and an age, which, even when considered alongside a geographic location, are not personally identifiable—and certainly does not follow from the PCP arbitration decision, such that you should (at least IMHO) feel free to return the userboxes. Cheers, Joe 05:02, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

RfA

Your RfA does not appear likely to succeed. Do you wish to withdraw it? Enigma^msg 06:10, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely not. Giving up is not an option for me in that case. Lets keep it running. I could very well learn from everyones viewpoints. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 06:36, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

lighten up

My comments on your RfA seem very... mean, to put it nicely. I'd just like to say: You're not bad person, just very... tight-fisted. Lighten up, man. Enjoy editing. Have some fun. Cheers, flaminglawyer 07:33, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Your RFA has been withdrawn

I have closed your RFA early as it does not seem it can possibly pass at this time. Please address the concerns that were raised, and feel free to reapply in the future. Good luck. --Deskana (talk) 14:23, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

RFA

I read your RFA after it was closed. Some editors said you don't have the temperment to be an administrator. I haven't read enough of your edit history to give my opinion or not, but I would encourage you to read those comments carefully and take them to heart.

Usually, when an RFA is closed with comments like that, it will not be successful until there is a major shift in editing behavior, followed by a long time under the new behavior. By "a long time" I mean at least as long as a new user would take, but probably longer. I usually require 9-12 months for new users, but at least a year for editors who spent their first few months editing with problems, perhaps up to 2 years if the problems were long-lasting. I do believe people can change and I believe in forgiveness once it's clear the past issues won't recurr. I have not studied your history, I don't know if you fit in the "1 year miniumum category," but if you run before next February, I will look at your edits going back at least a year. It's up to you to decide if and when you want to make that shift in editing. If you decide to keep editing as you are now, you'll probably won't have the bit in your future. As discouraging as it is to have your nomination forcibly withdrawn, remember that adminship itself is no big deal. If you decide that you do want to make the effort to change your editing behavior, I would also encourage you to spend the next year or more looking at policies and guidelines that affect admin-ish areas like deletion discussions, handling vandalism, and the like. I would also encourage you to actively participate across the entire project. Editing and article creation is of course the bedrock of the project, but future admins should also have a background in some of the many other areas of the project. Being around as long as you have been I assume you know what these areas are or know how to find them.

By the way, I too had editing issues, and mine were worse than anything indicated at your RFA. It took me several months and an extended block before I realized I was editing in ways that hurt the project. I've been editing for well over a year since returning, and received my first offer of adminship nomination several months ago, followed by another one around Christmas, along with several pre-supports. I declined them both for various reasons, but the point is, adminship is possible even with a problematic history. In a year or two, if you edit well and participate in admin-related areas, you too will may people coming to you offering to nominate you. Good luck. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 15:30, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Non admin AFD closes

Your close at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Solar power in Alameda County was fine, but can you please remember to add the old AFD discussion to the article's talk page when performing these. I've done this one for you [1]. Pedro :  Chat  22:17, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry. I forgot to do that. I'll do that next time. Thank you for the reminder. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 22:31, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Re: Coordinating Arbitrator

See WP:ARBCOM#Coordination. Cheers! Kirill ^[pf] 12:04, 12 February 2009 (UTC)