User talk:Mythdon/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Templates

Lay off of the templates. They have been made to be distinct from each other, which includes using different colors and definitely other fonts colors than white.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 00:03, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

All I am trying to do is make the templates readable, and less confusing. Do you have a problem with that? —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 00:05, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

They are readable and the coloration has nothing to induce confusion.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 00:07, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

When you put red text on top of a purple background, it is extremely hard to read. If you would please revert back to my versions, they will be more readable. Putting black text on a dark color background is not a good thing, and white should be used as the text color in that case. Readers will not want to look at a template that they won't be able to read. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 00:10, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Okay, that one needs to be fixed. However, I will be looking for alternate colors. Also, there are no instances of black text on dark backgrounds that I am aware of. {{Kamen Rider Decade}} is a light pink with black text.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 00:13, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

{{Kamen Rider Decade}} looks like more of a dark pink, than a light pink. Since it's a dark color, white is more effective than black. Black isn't the worst color, however, because gray would be much worse. We need to ensure that our readers can read all of the text. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 00:17, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

The color is perfectly readable.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 00:39, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

But it's not readable enough. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 00:43, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

That makes no sense whatsoever. I'll try to improve the templates. But using white text is ugly.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 00:44, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't see how white is ugly. Could you please explain? —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 00:47, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Also, gold just make it worse. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 00:48, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm working on it. STFU and let change happen.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 01:01, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

No, I am not going to shut up. I know you're working on it. But, however, this is another example of just making it worse. Following the previous black text on a darker red, you've now put red text on a black background. Not good. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 01:05, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

I am talking with a fellow editor who says that that is perfectly readable. I am done talking with you because you cannot seem to comprehend what is and what is not good.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 01:07, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Who are you talking to? —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 01:10, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Leave the colors be. They are fine, readable, and do not need to be changed.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 00:04, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

While readable, I think Decade's template is too dark to be readable enough, and I thus have made the pink light, instead of the dark pink that you prefer. --Mythdon ^{talk • contribs} 00:24, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I've reverted it because the shade used is fine.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 00:33, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it's fine because it's too dark to be readable enough. --Mythdon ^{talk • contribs} 00:34, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

You have been the only user to see the template to think that.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 00:50, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

That is not a proven fact, as this hasn't been discussed by other users other than me and you. I still think that your version of the pink is not as readable as mine, and I will continue to think that. Do you think I should take this discussion to WT:TOKU? --Mythdon ^{talk • contribs} 00:53, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

No. This is a dispute between the two of us. The shade on the template currently is fine. It does not need to be altered, despite what you think. Any lighter color does not match the color of Decade.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 00:57, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

If a lighter color does not match the color of Decade, then I guess we should use the default template color. --Mythdon ^{talk • contribs} 00:58, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

That is in no way what I meant. A third person thought that the shade used was fine and the black on the darker pink (than the one listed at web colors) was perfectly readable. There does not need to be any more input. Just leave it alone and there will be no issues with people being unable to read it.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 01:00, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

There are a bit of issues with some people reading it. What if the person reading it is color blind? We should think about that, but we can't do anything about people who are fully blind. And who is this "third person" you refer to? --Mythdon ^{talk • contribs} 01:02, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Then they see black on a medium gray. I ran a test in an online colorblind filter and the text is perfectly readable. Look for yourself here.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 01:06, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

It looks no more readable to them than it does a regular person. It's just as bad for them. I still believe that my color is correct for readability reasons. --Mythdon ^{talk • contribs} 01:10, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Using a lighter shade of pink will only result in a lighter shade of grey for color blind people. It's just as readable as anything else.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 01:11, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

My reasons for this change are for all people, not just color blind people. And, again, who is this "third person" you refer to? I've been wondering that for a few comments now, but now I more than ever would like to know. This change needs to happen, firmly. --Mythdon ^{talk • contribs} 01:12, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

If color blind people can read it so can everyone else. There is not going to be a change and if you replace the color with a lighter one again I will revert you again. There is no need to change anything. I've changed everything else so that there is a thematic color and a readable color. I can't remember exactly who I had asked and frankly it is none of your business.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 01:15, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I was just wondering if color blind people could read it as good because they can't see every color that someone who isn't color blind. I haven't studied color blindness, or heard any study whatsoever, but I was just wondering. I am going to take this to WT:TOKU and see what the other members think, because two of us arguing is pointless, and the "third person" you asked is not going to be good enough without consensus. --Mythdon ^{talk • contribs} 01:19, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Color blind people can read it as well and there is absolutely no need to bring this over to WT:TOKU for the sake of you making a process when this is just something between the two of us. No one else cares about the color other than you (and me for customizing the templates to make a color). The colors on all of the templates are fine. Things are readable. I even gave you a website that allows you to test webpages for color blind people. Just move on and find something else to do.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 01:21, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

What is going on?

Why are people ignoring my edits?--The Singer Who Carries A Trumpet (talk) 03:36, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Based on your low edit count for a high knowledge of Wikipedia, it is highly possible that you are a sockpuppet of someone. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 03:37, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Sockpuppet? What is that supposed to mean? And how do you know how many edits I have done?--The Singer Who Carries A Trumpet (talk) 03:39, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Sockpuppet means an alternate account of someone's main account being used in an abusive manner. And, as for your edit count, it tells me right here. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 03:42, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

So because I'm participating in a request for adminship discussion, I am being abusive. Why won't you remove the other oppose person's edit? Is it because they have done heaps of edits?--The Singer Who Carries A Trumpet (talk) 03:44, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

New users don't participate in adminship discussions in their first few edits. They do that later on. And whether or not you're being abusive or not, the sockpuppet suspicion can still come. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 03:47, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

That sounds unfair. Doesn't it? How many edits do you have to make before you can participate in admin discussions. 100? 200? 1000?--The Singer Who Carries A Trumpet (talk) 03:51, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

There is no requirement, but your edit count being as low as it is will look to others that this is not your first account. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 03:53, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

So should I edit articles instead right now? I know a lot about trumpets.--The Singer Who Carries A Trumpet (talk) 03:55, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

You should edit articles, but, however, if you are found to be a sockpuppet of ANY user, you won't be allowed to edit, and an administrator will block you on discovery. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 04:00, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Explain

Explain this edit please: [1]. Viridae^Talk 04:01, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I was changing the timestamp to the correct time the post was made. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 04:08, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

If you take a look at the post, the edit was made at 02:49 (UTC), but the timestamp said 02:48 (UTC), so I changed it to the true time. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 04:11, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Test block

If you want to see what a block looks like, just go to MediaWiki:Blockedtext. That shows up when you try to edit pages while blocked. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 15:55, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I want to do the test anyway to see how it actually feels. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 15:57, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Why? Blocks are not for testing purposes. Ask someone to block you on [test Wikipedia instead. Majorly talk 16:00, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't have a an account there, and I don't feel like making one. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 16:02, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Maybe admins here don't feel like blocking you just because you feel like being blocked. Besides, it's against policy. Majorly talk 16:03, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I know it is. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 16:05, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

If you want to experiance a block, just tell one of your less fave editors to go **** ******* and that they are ********! (Off2riorob (talk) 15:59, 5 August 2009 (UTC))

I'm not going to make personal attacks just to get myself blocked. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 16:00, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

If you keep asking admins to block you, sooner or later somebody will block you for disruption. I really wish you wouldn't do that. I was once blocked by a banned editor who got his sock account sysoped (User:Archtransit). A big red X appears on the screen when you try to edit something. At that very moment my wife looked over my shoulder and asked if I had been naughty. I was so embarrassed. Jehochman ^Talk 16:04, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Mythdon - this request is highly unusual and you are strongly discouraged from pursuing it. Policy does not permit this, so, however ironic it might seem, continued requests for such a block might well result in an indefinite block for disruption, and I don't think that's what you want.  Frank  |  talk  16:04, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I know this is discouraged, but its just a try. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 16:06, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

• Done, though I think this and a bit of imagination could have worked too. I don't know what to say, you're welcome? enjoy? Nja²⁴⁷ 16:07, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

  No offence Nja, but I think that was a poor discison - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 16:09, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

  It wasn't. I'm satisfied to go through this test. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 16:10, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 16:15, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Do you want to appeal? I recommend trying that! Just add request unblock. (Off2riorob (talk) 17:56, 5 August 2009 (UTC))

Uh, sorry, but I was unblocked over an hour ago when I requested an unblock. Check my block log, and the page history of this talk page. It will give you surely good answers. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 17:58, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

How was your experiance of being blocked? (Off2riorob (talk) 18:01, 5 August 2009 (UTC))

It was alright. First, I tried to edit the Power Rangers article and I got a big message of "YOU ARE CURRENTLY UNABLE TO EDIT PAGES ON WIKIPEDIA", and then I tried to create my userpage, which is now deleted per my request, but I found out that userpages are also not editable while blocked, and I then tried to edit User:Mythdon/Sandbox but that was also not editable. After that, I was satisfied and requested unblocking. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 18:05, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I am not very keen on them, one of the things I find annoying is when someone comes along and vandalizes a page you are guarding. Anyway...take care not to get a real one as they are not much fun. Regards. (Off2riorob (talk) 18:11, 5 August 2009 (UTC))

Don't worry. I won't. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 18:12, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Templates

Navboxes are not helpful when there are only two articles to navigate around. Also, we don't use the {{navbox}} template because it is much too large. I've redirected the GoGoFive and Dairanger templates to the main Super Sentai template.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 06:51, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Okay. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 06:56, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Clarification request

Did you notice that the last clarification request closed with specific direction from ArbCom that future questions be taken to WP:AE instead of the clarifications page? Nathan ^T 11:46, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don't read it that way. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 17:39, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Request

I am officially and very politely requesting that you stop stalking me and replying or making changes to everything I do. Keepscases (talk) 06:51, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

He's not stalking you, just participating in a discussion. Triplestop x3 18:02, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

AlienX2009's talk page

Mind your own business and stop stalking my contributions.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 02:27, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I wasn't stalking your contributions. I've had that talk page on my watchlist ever since the last few reverts I've witnessed of you reverting AlienX2009's changes. Sorry that this may feel a bit like stalking, but given what I was seeing, I felt that I had to step in. --Mythdon ^{talk • contribs} 02:45, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Both AlienX2009 and I were in the wrong, but he archived before I could respond which is entirely rude.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 02:52, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, maybe I was wrong to revert, but, if I see you edit warring on that talk page again, and if I feel your reverts are uncalled for, I will step in. --Mythdon ^{talk • contribs} 02:53, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

That is still none of your business.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 02:53, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Sure it is. Everything that goes on on this site is everyone's business, provided it isn't a violation of privacy, but, this isn't to say you can stalk another users contributions and respond with any random response that is un-waited for. --Mythdon ^{talk • contribs} 02:54, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Keepscases

Hi. Please feel free to contribute to the subject page. Thanks!   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 22:12, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for filing! I was going to file it later on, but you beat me. Thank you, Jeff G. --Mythdon ^{talk • contribs} 22:17, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I have blocked you for 24 hours

I refer to this edit, which you have not retracted or struck out despite immediate requests to do so (and I note you have edited since). Comments upon other contributors in such terms is corrosive in respect of trying to maintain a collegiate editing environment, and if you are not prepared to refrain from doing so I believe that limiting your ability make such edits is the only option.

If you wish to appeal this block, please use the {{unblock|''Your reason here''}} template. LessHeard vanU (talk) 09:52, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Maybe he doesn't watch the page in question? No one thought of asking him on his talk page. Why would you block 6 hours after the event anyway? What's being prevented here? He's not editing, so basically, this is a punitive block. Please undo it. Majorly talk 09:58, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

{{unblock|reason}}

It's not constructive, and rather offensive to those who didn't make it. Tiptoety, at least, was above the 70% mark for the majority of the election, and only fell below just before the end. Now that he officially wasn't chosen, you come in and shove it in his face? Mythdon, you have a long history of insensitive comments of this nature, and it's high time someone did something about it. I'm not going to review the block myself because of our past history, but I do support it and probably would have done so myself if not for our previous involvement. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 18:27, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Hmm... I guess I did in fact shove it in their faces. After reading your comment, I am starting to see the mean side behind the comment. Now that I think about it, I'll do everything I can to refrain from making such a comment, and leave such a thought to myself. Thank you for your concern. Mythdon (talk • contribs) 18:32, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, LessHeard VanU. Mythdon (talk • contribs) 19:56, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

{{unblock-auto|Disruptive editing: Placement of contentious comment on noticeboard, declining to retract after requests|LessHeard vanU}}

I will not be revealing my IP address for privacy reasons. However, the autoblock log is here. Mythdon (talk • contribs) 02:23, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, Jayron32. Mythdon (talk • contribs) 02:34, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

welcome to the club.

Hey dude, how did that feel in comparison to the not real one? Off2riorob (talk) 19:56, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

When I first saw that message, I was more or less thinking "what?", until I read the diff and found out about the requests, and then saw as to why I was blocked, and at first thought it was unjust, and then Hersfold convinced me that I was in fact wrong, and then I realized that what I said was in fact a bad thing, and will make an effort not make such comments in the future. Mythdon (talk • contribs) 19:58, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, cool. That is also my experiance that it usually comes as a shock, and feels a lot worse than a test block. I usually go to make an edit and you see the , you have been blocked from editing message.. and I usually think..f--k, where has that come from not all blocks are fair, or rather feel fair and I am still a little annoyed about a couple of mine, but it is good to move on and grow from the happening. The last editor that blocked me was a bit of a controversial editor and shortly after he blocked me he got himself into trouble and then had his adminship removed and then because of that he retired completely? Oh well, my blocks have all grown and now I am at two weeks, so take care not to get anymore, regards to you and welcome to the club. Off2riorob (talk) 20:11, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I'll be sure to not receive any more blocks. I didn't expect the block to occur. Mythdon (talk • contribs) 20:13, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Okay. I will stop, be useful and go edit some articles. Moo!--The Cow That Thinks She's A Horse (talk) 04:44, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Okay. Please be good. Mythdon (talk • contribs) 04:45, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Is there any articles about cows or horses that need expanding?--The Cow That Thinks She's A Horse (talk) 04:46, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't know. If you wish, you can use the "search" button to search for some. Mythdon (talk • contribs) 04:48, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Sock

Re, your message, I think the accusation is correct. I don't think it's a new user. The admin pages visited are in no way alphabetical, so there is no way that a list was used to find them. I believe this user is some how related to those admins, but I don't know how. All I know is that is not a new user.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 05:22, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I hope Casliber checks it out to see if it is a sockpuppet. I have no doubt that it is a sockpuppet. Mythdon (talk • contribs) 05:23, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Same, I wish to know who it was.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 05:24, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Me too. For all we know, it's a banned user who has operated over 40 sockpuppets. Mythdon (talk • contribs) 05:26, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't be surprised.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 05:26, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Me neither. I just hope that if something is there, that something is found. We're still awaiting evidence. Mythdon (talk • contribs) 05:27, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Given that ThaddB, exploding boy and myself were all targeted this was more then Likely User talk:UkFaithHell In A Bucket (talk) 14:36, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

And now we know that this is indeed a sockpuppet. Mythdon (talk • contribs) 23:34, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Rollback

I thought you were told to stop stalking other user's reverts. If not, fuck off and give me distance, which is something I know you were told to do.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 02:49, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I was not stalking you. I have the article (Kamen Rider Decade (character)) on my watchlist and saw the rollback edit summary with your username, and checked it out, and saw a rollback that was clearly unwarranted. I watchlist any article that I have edited. And, as for why I did it, which you did probably ask in the edit summary, because 1: The edit seemed to be in good faith, and 2: The addition of "Machine" to "Decader" to form "Machine Decader" is perfectly productive given that the name "Machine Decader" was already mentioned in the "Decader" section. Now if you'll excuse, I have other things to do, but please feel perfectly welcome to reply. Mythdon (talk • contribs) 02:53, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Why is it on your watchlist? You have never even heard of the show other than the fact that WP:TOKU covers it. And you shouldn't undo a rollback just because rollback was used.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 02:55, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I saw productivity in the edit, and thought that reverting it without an edit summary was perfectly uncalled for. You should have explained yourself to the editor, which I didn't see you do. As for my reasons for having it on my watchlist. Well, because it is an article in a topic area that I edit, though I rarely edit the article itself. What I have on my watchlist is really none of your business, as well as why I have certain things on my watchlist. Mythdon (talk • contribs) 03:00, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

You edit none of the Japanese articles and you barely edit the topic area. It should in no way be on your watchlist because you know nothing of the topic.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 03:05, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

One thing that you do not have a right to do is tell me what I can and can't have on my watchlist, but one thing you do have a right to do is report me to Arbitration Enforcement, because I can see myself violating the "edit warring" part of the probation. Mythdon (talk • contribs) 03:07, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I am merely expressing an opinion concerning your editing practices, in which I do not believe this, and several other pages, should be on your watchlist.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 03:14, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Okay, and I am done with this argument, so please find something better to talk about. All that is left to worry about is that my block log will be listing another, and new block within next few hours/minutes. By the way, speaking of block log, I was just blocked a few days ago, but the block was later overturned. See section #I have blocked you for 24 hours. Mythdon (talk • contribs) 03:18, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I've brought this up on WP:AE.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 02:58, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Fine. I just hope that the right result comes. Mythdon (talk • contribs) 03:00, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

The Infaliable Baseball Bugs

[2]174.3.103.39 (talk) 05:04, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

...and I have reverted your report as it is clearly disruptive. Mythdon (talk • contribs) 05:19, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you...

...for coming to my defense. I see that 174.3.103.39 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)‎ has caught the attention of several admins now, and not in a good way. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 05:11, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Also, I should feel honored by the IP, who has labeled me "Infaliable". Whatever that means. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 05:15, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome. Mythdon (talk • contribs) 05:15, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

And I see he's now on ice for the next 2 weeks. "Jesus loves the little chillin'..." :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 05:20, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

That IP's comment....

...is pure vandalism. The IP made similar useless comments across the project to attack Baseball Bugs, as seen above in his comments towards you. We should freely use WP:DENY and WP:RBI in removing the comments, wherever they may be. If you plan on replacing it on your talk page, I expect you to quickly remove it, again.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 05:19, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

As you have clearly just done.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 05:19, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Do you not understand that you should ignore the comment because it is just someone trying to get their jollies? Don't bother replying to the IP.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 05:20, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, well, I did just that. Mythdon (talk • contribs) 05:23, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

He's playing a game. Any response just eggs him on. The best course of action is to not respond, and if he abuses his talk page, the admins will take away his ability to edit his talk page for the duration of his block. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 05:26, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I recommend that if you want to keep it, store it in your archives rather than your active talk page. There is a growing trend towards invoking WP:DENY in order to minimize the fun these characters get from their little games. I would say you could archive my own comments likewise, for the same reason. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 05:23, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Blocked

For the reason given in the block log. You may apeal your block - instructions provided in the block splash page. More comments at WPAE. Viridae^Talk 05:46, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Okay, understood and fine with it. I somewhat actually deserved it per "edit warring" in the conduct probation. I am not going to appeal the block, because #1: Arbitration Enforcement, and #2: Deserved. You may protect the talk page if you want because I am not going to be making any edits to it, except maybe this conversation. Mythdon (talk • contribs) 05:49, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Ban from reverting Ryulong

For the reasons explained at [3], under the authority of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ryulong#Conduct probation enforcement, you are now indefinitely for the duration of your conduct probation prohibited from reverting edits by Ryulong (talk · contribs). For the purpose of this sanction, a revert is any action that reverses the actions of Ryulong, in whole or in part.  Sandstein  21:16, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I already know. I commented at your talk page about it before you came here. Mythdon (talk • contribs) 21:18, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

ANI notification

To let you know that you or your conduct is being discussed at ANI. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:33, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I'll be on the look out in that case to ensure you NEVER get promoted as you would be a danger to this website. As for blocking me for two weeks because I responded to an equally disgusting forum demeaning me and my contributions to wikipedia which I'd not have said anything if it wasn't there to taunt me you would be the worst type of clown admin there is. You can't be serious that two whole weeks would be appropriate. I make 700 edits constructively within a few hours yet one comment (which I retracted on calming down) is enough to preventing thousands of edits for weeks? Uncivil comments are not accpeted on here but we are all human and have angry moments. It does not take two weeks to pass, a two week ban would be very excessive. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 10:01, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Your constructive work on Wikipedia does not in any way excuse your inappropriate behavior, though doing constructive work can be a sign that an indefinite site ban is not necessary. As for making sure that I'll never become an administrator, well, that's your decision to oppose me in a future RfA, not mine. Mythdon (talk • contribs) 18:45, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

An explicit final warning

The community is concerned about your excessive requests for clarifications. ArbCom has also noted that your behavior has not improved at all since the closure of the case and has particularly noted your inappropriate comments directed to Tiptoety (among other instances). Please consider this a final warning because ArbCom will not hesitate to topic ban you or ban you from Wikipedia for a period of time up to one year (that may vary according to the discretion of the Arbitrators). If you are not able to correct your behavior then there will be no other appropriate remedy apart from the topic ban/ban. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 13:53, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

What "topic ban" are you referring to? Mythdon (talk • contribs) 18:41, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Blocked for two weeks

Per the most recent report at arbitration enforcement, I have blocked you for two weeks. That you struck out the comments when asked does not excuse having made them. It has been made abundantly and repeatedly clear to you that you should avoid unnecessary interaction with Ryulong; making those gratuitous comments in a totally unrelated venue was either mind-bogglingly bad judgment or a deliberate attempt to test the limits. Please be advised as well that I have reviewed your past habit of asking repeated questions of administrators who warn or sanction you; while I am happy to answer reasonable questions, my patience will grow very short if you follow your usual course with me. Steve Smith (talk) 10:13, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I know it don't. Also, as for "either mind-bogglingly bad judgment or a deliberate attempt to test the limits", it was "mind-bogglingly bad judgment". It looks like I haven't been keeping my mouth shut for the past few days. I'll try to ask reasonable questions. Also, I'll be over at the Simple English Wikipedia, and edit there for the next two weeks. I won't be appealing this block, nor do I have any intention on doing so. It looks like more sanctions are upcoming. I won't be surprised if I am restricted from interacting with Ryulong (or even commenting on him) in a short time after this block is over. Are you planning on placing an interaction ban on me with respect to Ryulong? You seem to imply that at Arbitration Enforcement. Mythdon (talk • contribs) 19:06, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I think it is very likely that you will be banned from interacting with Ryulong, and it is likely that I will be the one imposing such a ban. The exact terms of the ban still need to be worked out, since an absolute ban could lead to ridiculous situations (for example, if Ryulong makes a request for arbitration enforcement against you, it would be dumb if you were not allowed to respond). I appreciate your acceptance of this block, and sincerely hope that it will be your last. Steve Smith (talk) 19:23, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I hope it's my last one too, and hope that no more sanctions come into place. One of the main reasons that I'm not appealing this block is because this is an Arbitration Enforcement block, and on top of that, I do recall that administrators are not allowed to reverse such blocks without Arbitration Committee approval or substantial community consensus per a motion that was passed by the Committee in November 2008. Also, my guess is that you consider the comment an attack because of the way I phrased it, and because of the lack of evidence provided; true? I've gotten myself into a lot of trouble in the past few days. Mythdon (talk • contribs) 19:30, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

No, it went beyond phrasing and lack of evidence. You were commenting on a situation that had absolutely nothing to do with Ryulong, and for some unfathomable reason you decided that you should include a criticism of Ryulong in your comments. It would have made no difference how thoroughly you defended your comments or how mildly you worded them: in general, you should not be posting any criticisms of Ryulong at all, and you certainly shouldn't be doing so when commenting on situations having nothing to do with him. Steve Smith (talk) 19:34, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

So, from what you're saying, no criticizing Ryulong in any way, at any time, at any place? The reason I made the comment was to give an example of administrative abuse, to express my point. Mythdon (talk • contribs) 19:41, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I do not believe that you are currently prohibited from criticizing Ryulong, so I cannot tell you absolutely that you must not do so. I can tell you that it is very difficult for me to imagine a scenario in which criticizing Ryulong would be in any way helpful to anybody, so I would very strongly advise you never to do it. As for your statement that you were trying to provide an example of admin abuse, I am at a loss to explain why you thought that, example, of all the ones you could have chosen, was a good one, given your history and the admonitions you received from Arb Comm. Steve Smith (talk) 19:47, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Given that I do not currently have any evidence of other administrative abuse, Ryulong was the only one I could provide, with evidence. Please be aware that my comments in this section are not to indicate whether I get your point, or the block or not, but rather questioning your perspective. Mythdon (talk • contribs) 19:50, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh dear - do you get my point? Steve Smith (talk) 20:43, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't know at this point. Mythdon (talk • contribs) 01:27, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

It is a well-known fact that there are admins out there who do abuse their powers, but it is not wise to point fingers when you're not really in such a rosy position yourself.--^{The Legendary}_{Sky Attacker} 21:28, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

What "rosy position"? I don't know what you mean by that. Mythdon (talk • contribs) 01:23, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Mythdon, rather than seeking the razor edge of appropriate conduct, so you can go as close to that edge as possible... If you think you may not be allowed to do something or that someone might take it amiss... simply choose not to do it. Don't ask, don't wonder - just don't do it. Part of the frustration folks have had with your conduct lately is that you are always searching for the farthest you can go without getting in trouble. I think everyone would appreciate it if you would just stop - don't edit war with anyone, criticize anyone with whom you have a history, or do anything even remotely similar to what you've been criticized for doing in the past. Stick to articles, perhaps find a new area of interest where you can edit so that you won't run into old opponents. If you can manage it, you'll be fine and you won't get blocked again. Nathan ^T 21:34, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

My only area of interest that I frequently edit is the Power Rangers subject area, though besides that I do fight vandalism, post to WP:ANI, etc. Perhaps if I just fought vandalism, I won't get blocked again, but would I really commit myself to doing only that just to avoid a block? If I do get interaction-banned from Ryulong, editing the Power Rangers articles, and posting on their respective talk pages would be difficult, because Ryulong has interest in the subject area, too. I always try to avoid doing what I think I shouldn't do, but in the event of question, I would go to Requests for Clarification. I certainly hope that this is my last block. Mythdon (talk • contribs) 01:15, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

It's a big world out there, with lots of topics that aren't Power Rangers. Check some of them out. And in the event of a question, err on the side of caution (i.e. stay away) and don't bother the Arbs so much that they just ban you. Nathan ^T 02:48, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

The other topics in my area of interest are The Sims, The Biggest Loser, etc. As many topics that aren't Power Rangers, I don't feel like editing many that aren't. I don't feel like checking others out, and if you see an edit counter that says that I've edited other non-Power Rangers articles, most of them on that list are just as a result of vandalism reverting. Mythdon (talk • contribs) 03:02, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Interaction ban imposed at Arbitration Enforcement

Following discussion at Arbitration enforcement, the following measure has been imposed based on the provisions of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ryulong, and specifically the additional enforcement provisions at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Ryulong#New_remedies_and_enforcement_added_by_motion:

"Unless Ryulong (talk · contribs), on the following pages, requests arbitration enforcement, amendment or clarification, with respect to both Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ryulong and any finding, remedy or enforcement directly pertaining to Mythdon, Mythdon (talk · contribs) shall not directly or indirectly, interact with, or comment about Ryulong, at any time, anywhere on Wikipedia. In addition to this, Mythdon (talk · contribs) is topic-banned from editing any page that falls under WikiProject Tokusatsu (including articles), and any discussions relating to those pages, broadly construed. If Mythdon violates this sanction, he will be blocked for up to 1 month per incident, with the third incident resulting in a ban from Wikipedia for 1 year."

I will log this sanction in the appropriate venues. Best wishes, Fritzpoll (talk) 09:41, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Could you please explain why I am topic banned from WikiProject Tokusatsu? Will the restrictions still apply after the conduct probation is over? Mythdon (talk • contribs) 22:50, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I'll probably be requesting unblocking shortly. The interaction ban and topic ban enforces it to an extent that the block don't. Mythdon (talk • contribs) 23:39, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Topic ban from the Wikiproject is because it assists in simplifying enforcement of the interaction ban. Length is not specified by the ban, so it is indefinite in the sense of undefined rather than infinite. When your conduct probation is over, you can ask me for a review and I'll look into it. Fritzpoll (talk) 13:54, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

In response to your reason, while I can see your concern that the topic ban is used to protect the interaction ban, I actually see no other reason for me to be topic banned. Is there any other reason? Do you think I should ask the Arbitration Committee whether sanctions applied by the conduct probation expire at the end of the probation? I've had the question for the past few weeks. Also, do you think that I should any longer be blocked due to the sanctions? Mythdon (talk • contribs) 20:02, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Personally I think some leeway could be written into the topic ban, with 0RR (and maybe some kind of time delay?). There are 407 Category:WikiProject Tokusatsu articles, so surely there can be room for both to edit if Mythdon respects the other restrictions. –xeno^talk 22:10, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I can go with a zero-revert-rule. I can respect that, though I would most certainly treat vandalism as an exception to the rule. Also, could you please explain what you mean by "time delay"? Mythdon (talk • contribs) 22:50, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Something like: not editing an article that had been edited by Ryulong recently. (7d ?) –xeno^talk 23:17, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

A time delay would only get in the way. An interaction ban, in absence of a topic ban also gets in the way, though an interaction ban from all matters unrelated to this WikiProject would also get in the way too. If I am un-topic banned, then I should also be un-interaction banned, unconditionally. Mythdon (talk • contribs) 23:19, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

May I suggest that you only ban Mythdon from reverting edits by or being in content dispute with Ryulong, as Mythdon said a time delay would only get in the way. Powergate92Talk 23:38, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually a revert ban from reverting edits by Ryulong is already in place, see here. As for content disputes, that would only get in the way too. Mythdon (talk • contribs) 23:48, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

How would a ban from being in content disputes with Ryulong get in the way? If you think any info added to an article by Ryulong should be removed then you should discuss it on the article talk page. Powergate92Talk 00:06, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Because content disputes happen regularly in editing Wikipedia, nobody agrees all the time, and such a prohibition would bar me from discussing while disagreeing. A sign of a content dispute can either be an edit war, or a discussion in which the parties to it can't agree, either heated or polite. Mythdon (talk • contribs) 00:11, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

"A time delay would only get in the way. An interaction ban, in absence of a topic ban also gets in the way, though an interaction ban from all matters unrelated to this WikiProject would also get in the way too. If I am un-topic banned, then I should also be un-interaction banned, unconditionally."

So you're saying any kind of ban "gets in the way"? Well that's pretty much the point, isn't it? Also, you go from agreeing to 0RR and an interaction ban to requesting no bans at all and no further conditions. There's no way anyone is going to agree with that.--Atlan (talk) 08:29, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I did not agree to an "interaction ban". I did however state that I would agree to a zero-revert-rule with respect to WikiProject Tokusatsu, but also with the desire that vandalism be an exception. I can not answer whether or not any kind of ban would get in the way, until every ban has be mentioned to me. Mythdon (talk • contribs) 17:25, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

To all who have commented here: Mythdon has had this ban enforced because, despite apparently obvious indications that he shouldn't, he continues to mention Ryulong and related matters in inappropriate venues, and appears to be finding ways to circumvent the intention of prior enforcements against him. I believe this is further evident by his outlining above of how, in the event that the topic ban did not exist, he would still interact with Ryulong during content disputes. Only a blanket ban can enforce the intent of the arbitration rulings, and the subsequent agreements at AE - I have not been convinced that the intermediate measures here are appropriate given the history. I welcome comments to the contrary, but with respect, something more substantial as an argument will be required. Fritzpoll (talk) 08:40, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Based on subsequent comments I would (regrettably) agree with your assessment. However, perhaps this can be revisited in the future. Thank you for taking a look. –xeno^talk 17:29, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Could you please explain what comments led you to agree with what has been imposed by Fritzpoll? Mythdon (talk • contribs) 17:31, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

See what Atlan said above. I was trying to come up with some creative ways to allow you to edit WP:TOKU articles and you didn't seem interested. –xeno^talk 17:38, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Because a time delay would most certainly get in the way. Time delays are inappropriate for two editors who are interaction banned as they bar one from editing an article for the sole reason that it was edited by the other in a recent period of time. If the intent of the time delay is to prevent response to an edit by the other (in this case, Ryulong), that actually can't be prevented by a time delay, because as long as the other party's edit still remains, one can still modify that edit. While I would agree to a zero-revert-rule with respect to these articles, would that forbid me from reverting vandalism or would that be an exception? Mythdon (talk • contribs) 17:43, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Mythdon - surely you realize that there is always another alternative?  Frank  |  talk  17:47, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I think you should come up with a way that you would be able to respect the interactional ban if the topic ban is lifted and propose it to Fritzpoll. As he points out, you stated that would not be possible. –xeno^talk 17:48, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, to a certain extent, I was once interaction banned from Ryulong with the privilege to edit these pages once before. In "Mythdon restricted and placed under mentorship", I was not to comment on Ryulong on any page on Wikipedia without approval of a mentor, but since I did not find a mentor, and the fact that Kirill Lokshin, a former arbitrator clarified that I was not to interact with Ryulong, there was an interaction ban imposed to an extent. Though the wording of the restriction didn't mention interaction, interaction prohibition most certainly existed. Mythdon (talk • contribs) 17:55, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I'll be your mentor, if you like. Off2riorob (talk) 18:05, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Not interested. I was just stating that I once had an interaction ban without a topic ban from these articles once before. I'm not interested in being mentored, mainly because I feel that I don't need advice. Mythdon (talk • contribs) 18:08, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

If you do not need any advice, then, why is everything going wrong? Off2riorob (talk) 18:15, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Don't think of it as not needing advice, think of it a kind of go between for any interaction that might be required between you and Ryulong. Off2riorob (talk) 18:19, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Not interested in any mentorship of any kind. This is exactly why I am now placed under conduct probation. Mythdon (talk • contribs) 18:23, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I feel that a good option for you would be to request going back to the Arbcom mentorship condition, if you change your mind you know where I am, take care. 18:30, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I will not. Mythdon (talk • contribs) 18:32, 31 August 2009 (UTC)