User talk:Mythdon/Archive 5
Power Rangers
Why, they're all Saban programs of course. --99.158.136.26 (talk) 05:28, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
- Doesn't matter. That's like saying Private Practice is related to Desperate Housewives just because they are both ABC programs. Please do not re-add the template. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 05:34, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
It's true about them. I'm serious. --99.158.136.26 (talk) 05:35, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
- True about what?. The shows are in no way related. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 05:36, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
I'm dead serious that they are similar. --99.158.136.26 (talk) 05:37, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
- Just because they are similar doesn't make them related, in any way, shape or form. The shows have totally different storylines. Deal with it. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 05:39, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
Please, they ARE related. Honestly. They have the same creator of Saban. This is COMPLETELY true. --99.158.136.26 (talk) 05:43, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
- Just because they are series of Saban doesn't mean they are related, in any way. Different storylines, different characters, different villains, different allies and friends. What does that tell you?. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 05:47, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but you are dealing with someone with autism and have really got me upset about this, but we'll have another talk of this sometime tomorrow with my parents to see if they can help me of this dispute the two of us are having. So you then. --99.158.136.26 (talk) 05:57, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
Mythdon. Leave the template on the damn articles. There is currently no template unifying the various other Saban-produced television shows that premiered in the 90s following the success of Power Rangers in the American market. {{Power Rangers}} serves this purpose, and shares a hell of a lot of the same production crew and concepts.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 06:29, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
- Then why not we create a template specifically dedicated to Saban. That way, we can unify the shows, but still avoid the implication that Power Rangers is related to those other shows. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 06:34, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
- Because the Power Rangers one suffices.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 08:18, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
- I disagree. Is it really important that the articles include the template?. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 08:20, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
- I agree with Mythdon the saban shows should have there own template and they should not use the Power Rangers template. Powergate92Talk 05:15, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
- I disagree. Is it really important that the articles include the template?. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 08:20, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
- Because the Power Rangers one suffices.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 08:18, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
Re: Stalking?
No i am not following you around! I notice the discussion at WikiProject Television Stations in my watchlist and i notice the discussion at the Administrators' noticeboard in NeutralHomer's contributions. Powergate92Talk 05:27, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
- That is not the discussion I am talking about. I am talking about your various replies to various discussions I have in the Power Rangers subject area with other users, and you just pop out of nowhere. I never see you take part in a discussion in that subject area unless I have commented in the discussion. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 05:31, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
- I only been in 1 Power Rangers discussion and that was on the Power Rangers talk page. Powergate92Talk 05:40, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
- It is striking that you suddenly went on my talk page and suddenly got involved in the discussion. End of story. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 05:42, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
- I went on your talk page to see if Ryulong reply to you after he removing your warnings and then i notice the discussion about the Power Rangers template. Powergate92Talk 05:54, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
- Okay. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 05:56, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
- I went on your talk page to see if Ryulong reply to you after he removing your warnings and then i notice the discussion about the Power Rangers template. Powergate92Talk 05:54, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
- It is striking that you suddenly went on my talk page and suddenly got involved in the discussion. End of story. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 05:42, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
- I only been in 1 Power Rangers discussion and that was on the Power Rangers talk page. Powergate92Talk 05:40, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
Re: List of Morphers in Power Rangers re-deletion and create protection
Taken care of. Thanks for notifying me! –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 03:21, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
Harassing Ryulong
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
When you brought the issue up at WP:AN over Ryulong's use of rollback, 5 or 6 administrators said that they thought it was fine. You continue to harass him over it. Please let him be. If you continue to follow him around and "warn" him every few hours, you may be blocked for harrassment. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 06:01, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
- I am not harrassing him. I see his rollbacks on my watchlist, as me and him tend to edit the same articles, and any page I edit automatically goes on my watchlist. I have been telling him time and time again, and he wont stop. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 07:47, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
- He does not have to stop. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 20:37, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
Yeah he does. WP:ROLLBACK clearly states the following:
- The 'rollback' links provided by Wikipedia's interface provide a standard edit summary of the form "Reverted edits by X to last version by Y". These should be used only to revert edits that are clearly unproductive, such as vandalism; to revert content in your own user space; or to revert edits by banned users. Reversion for other reasons should be accompanied by an explanatory edit summary, and must therefore be done by a different method.
- It is possible to specify an edit summary when using rollback; however, this requires manual editing of the link's URL or use of additional software or scripts. When such tools are used, the issue of choice of reversion method is moot, and rollback may be used for any purpose, provided an explanatory edit summary is supplied.
- Rollback must always be used with care. If you use rollback to restore text to a page, you are in effect still making that edit yourself, so you should take care to ensure the text does not violate any Wikipedia policies. When in doubt, manually revert to the appropriate revision and supply an edit summary to explain your reasoning.
Which you did not get. Ryulong has been misusing rollback, and I have been telling him time and time again to stop. It would be best if you stopped defending him and started seeing the truth. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 20:43, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
- No, you think he has been misusing it, but independent administrators have reviewed your complaint and dismissed it as vexatious. At this point I think it is time to either drop the stick and back away from the horse carcass or face sanctions for harassment. Guy (Help!) 21:36, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
- You are defending him without any evidence to support your claims. Everybody who has defended him have not provided any evidence whatsoever, yet they keep defending him. This is not harassment. He has been misusing the tool even after several warnings. One time when I warned him about the misuse, he simply responded with "Clearly I don't care", which can imply intentional misuse. Your summary at WP:AN was only full of accusations and assumptions without any reasonable evidence to support your summary. I am asking you to read my reply to your summary which will make things clear.. I am also asking you to re-read WP:ROLLBACK before making any further comments about this issue. Thank you. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 21:49, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
- Your saying that rollback should only be used for reverting vandalism but you used rollback to revert your own good faith edits here, here and here. Powergate92Talk 18:55, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
- You have that 100% the wrong way round. You are making the claim, the burden of proof is 100% on you, and thus far you have failed to gain any significant support for your complaints. In fact, most people seem to consider them not merely frivolous but vexatious. Were I Ryulong, I owuld react exactly the same way: strident demands based on opinions not apparently shared by others, are ignorable. Of course, you cold have asked nicely. And then walked away. But it does not look like you did either. Your opinion of WP:ROLLBACK is not shared by others. You assert that this is because Ryulong and I, to name but two, do not understand or know WP:ROLLBACK. That is incredibly condescending. Weve both been admins since before you even signed up. Sorry, but your complaint has been read, analysed and dismissed. You now have two options: create an RfC and persuade people to certify and support it, or drop it. Guy (Help!) 22:56, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
- I did not
oppose rolling my own edits, Powergate. Well, maybe you can rollback test edits, blatantly false information and hoaxes, clearly unjustified tags etc. I am not suggesting that it is acceptable not to warn the offending editor of their actions. Also, I still dispute using rollback for reverting uncited information, original research, etc. But that is not to say such edits are actually productive. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 02:40, 17 February 2009 (UTC)- {{nobody cares}} Guy (Help!) 19:33, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
- Do you think he has abused rollback at all?. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 04:51, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
- No. Insofar as none of his edits would have been considered abuse without rollback, rollback does not magically make good edits bad. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:55, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
- Do you think he has abused rollback at all?. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 04:51, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
- {{nobody cares}} Guy (Help!) 19:33, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
- I did not
What do you think
Looks like Saban Records is now Saban Music Group not Saban Entertainment.[1] So i think the Saban Records info should be moved from the Saban Entertainment to the Saban Capital Group article. What do you think? Powergate92Talk 04:11, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
Just so you know
See this. Powergate92Talk 04:48, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
- Thank you so much for notifying me of this RfC. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 21:35, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
RfC
Hey Mythdon, can I ask you a favor? Would you mind reverting or refactoring this comment? I feel it is a bit harsh, and a bit over the top. Please note this a just a request. Thanks, Tiptoety talk 22:18, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
When I put that, I mean no Expansions announced yet, and I kept the main game to the left. It matches the others. Obi-WanKenobi-2005 (talk) 02:18, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
- Okay, but please leave it as it was before. Okay?. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 04:07, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
- I agree with you half-way, we just need a way to make the Expansion space blank. That's what I was trying to do. Obi-WanKenobi-2005 (talk) 11:15, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
List of Power Rangers: RPM episodes
Would you stop being such a stickler to the rules? Powergate92 seems to do that to any page he creates and doesn't have sources currently on it. A list of episodes is clearly proper content for Wikipedia and the content that was there certainly does not belong on the main article, where he had originally put it. I don't know what your problem is, but I would prefer it if you stopped being so anal retentive over rules.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 22:53, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
- Uh, there is no way to "ignore all rules" when it comes to unsourced information. Also, I did not say lists of episodes were not proper content for Wikipedia nor did I say it did belongs in the main article. The issue is that the content is unsourced thus failing WP:V. If you would start enforcing that policy more than you already do, all of these easily avoidable problems would be solved. I guarantee it. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 23:03, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
- The source is episodes but as i can't cite youtube as a source i added a unreferenced tag. Powergate92Talk 23:10, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
- IAR helps when the content exists, is verifiable, but just isn't sourced. I've undone your edits to the article, removed the tag, and added references directly to the TV Guide website. I am extremely tired of the way you act on Wikipedia. You always think you are in the right, and most of the time your logic is full of fallacies. You've had two separate administrators who primarily edit this topic area (myself and JPG-GR) tell you this, but you seem to ignore it at every single opportunity or simply go off and start picking apart our comments to you. If you can't work amicably or constructively in this topic area anymore, you may be banned from it. I know that there are several editors in the topic area who are tired of your actions, and I know you mean well, but you are so extremely obstinate when we try to work with you.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 23:12, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
- Also, Mythdon, generally when an episode airs there can be content for it. Stop acting this way. It is getting really f*cking annoying.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 23:13, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
- You cite TV Guide, but then again you claim the show is the source. That is completely wrong. Also, just because something is "annoying" doesn't mean that the editor who performed the action should stop. I can work constructively in the subject area. Sorry to be so opposite to you, but that's just the way it is. If you cite a source, and then claim something else is the source, you are using that source to jump to a conclusion that is explictly non-concludable. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 23:22, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
- This content is clearly verifiable as the episode itself had aired. I understand that the links I have have absolutely nothing on them (the episode title is mentioned on a different page and not on the individual pages currently), but that does not give you the prerogative to remove the content entirely. I am getting an uninvolved administrator to intervene here, because my patience in dealing with you is frayed beyond repair.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 23:31, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
- You cite TV Guide, but then again you claim the show is the source. That is completely wrong. Also, just because something is "annoying" doesn't mean that the editor who performed the action should stop. I can work constructively in the subject area. Sorry to be so opposite to you, but that's just the way it is. If you cite a source, and then claim something else is the source, you are using that source to jump to a conclusion that is explictly non-concludable. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 23:22, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
- Hello there. Mythdon, I'm very inclined to agree with Ryulong here; it's nigh on impossible to cite a TV show directly, and the links Ryulong has provided to TV guide are more than sufficient to cover what is being cited. I don't pretend to be an expert here or anything, but generally referencing content is much preferred to removing it, and removing referenced content is entirely out of line. These aren't the best references, no, but they're sufficient, and what we have to work with. Your logic really isn't making sense, and this along with some of the other comments you've made lately are making me wonder what your intentions are. Hersfold (t/a/c) 23:38, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
- The citations are deceptive, as there is no source on the citations. I cannot allow such edits to take place. Look at the edit history of List of Power Rangers: RPM episodes if you haven't done so yet. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 23:44, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
- Hello there. Mythdon, I'm very inclined to agree with Ryulong here; it's nigh on impossible to cite a TV show directly, and the links Ryulong has provided to TV guide are more than sufficient to cover what is being cited. I don't pretend to be an expert here or anything, but generally referencing content is much preferred to removing it, and removing referenced content is entirely out of line. These aren't the best references, no, but they're sufficient, and what we have to work with. Your logic really isn't making sense, and this along with some of the other comments you've made lately are making me wonder what your intentions are. Hersfold (t/a/c) 23:38, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
- Since when do citations need citations? This is TV Guide we're talking about, not the National Enquirer... Hersfold (t/a/c) 23:48, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
- I am saying that when you click on some of the sources, there is no indication that the source is talking about the thing that it's cited at. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 23:50, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
- Since when do citations need citations? This is TV Guide we're talking about, not the National Enquirer... Hersfold (t/a/c) 23:48, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
- (outdent) Perhaps I'm going insane or something, but they seem to make sense to me... Hersfold (t/a/c) 00:04, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
- They make no sense. If you say a sandwitch is the basis of a pizza, you are trying to conclude the unconcludable. Does that make things clear? —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 00:08, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
- Not in the slightest; if anything, you've made me both more confused and hungry. Perhaps if you could actually say what you mean without making non sequiters we may get somewhere... however I still stand by the fact that these references are perfectly reasonable and that you're making a big fuss for nothing. Hersfold (t/a/c) 00:23, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
- Some of the citations that are being left on the article are deceptive and irelevent to their placement. If Ryulong could find a source for the summary of "Rain", and if it is reliable, I would have no problems. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 00:32, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
- I don't see how any are deceptive or irrelevant, nor do I see how saying so would be assuming good faith (cough cough). It looks as though Ryulong was attempting to source the summary, but it's either been removed or otherwise made unavailable. It's not the most critical part of the article (list), though; the sources do establish that the episode exists, which is the important thing. Hersfold (t/a/c) 01:37, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
- Well, maybe I'll call the sources blank instead. The citations do not have the content that it should have in order to be cited on a statement. I have removed the blank citations. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 03:52, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
- I don't see how any are deceptive or irrelevant, nor do I see how saying so would be assuming good faith (cough cough). It looks as though Ryulong was attempting to source the summary, but it's either been removed or otherwise made unavailable. It's not the most critical part of the article (list), though; the sources do establish that the episode exists, which is the important thing. Hersfold (t/a/c) 01:37, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
- Some of the citations that are being left on the article are deceptive and irelevent to their placement. If Ryulong could find a source for the summary of "Rain", and if it is reliable, I would have no problems. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 00:32, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
- Not in the slightest; if anything, you've made me both more confused and hungry. Perhaps if you could actually say what you mean without making non sequiters we may get somewhere... however I still stand by the fact that these references are perfectly reasonable and that you're making a big fuss for nothing. Hersfold (t/a/c) 00:23, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
- They make no sense. If you say a sandwitch is the basis of a pizza, you are trying to conclude the unconcludable. Does that make things clear? —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 00:08, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
Stop removing the citations. Those are the links to those particular episodes' pages at TVGuide.com, which have simply not been updated yet.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 03:58, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
- Patience, Ryulong. If you acknowledge that the sources have not been updated yet, you have proven why they shouldn't be there yet. Please wait until they update. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 04:00, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
- No... The sources are valid, even if they currently are blank. It's better to have them now than wait for the pages to be filled out later.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 05:03, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
- No, letting them be there quickly would leave readers wondering "why isn't there a page here?". That is the reason you should wait. I understand you are trying to make an effort, but it also seems that you do not understand what should be done. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 05:06, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
- I think I know with my experience on this website that I know what needs to be done.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 05:12, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
- I don't think so with everything. You use rollback when it shouldn't be used, at least I think you still do, and you are not enforcing WP:V enough. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 05:15, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
- Use of rollback has nothing to do with contributing to article content.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 05:17, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
- I know, and as you may know by now, I do have the rollback privilege which I have had since December of last year. I use it to fight vandalism, and as it seems, this thread is getting a bit off-topic. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 05:19, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
- That's because you seem to send it that way. The citations are fine, as stated by Hersfold, who hasn't had a chance to reply to you because he signed offline several hours ago. Before you continue to remove this content without consensus, give other people some time to discuss your changes.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 05:22, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
- I really think patience is the only option here. However, I do admit that I have not made as many valuable contributions to this subject area as I have in previous months. But I still have made contributions lately. Any citation that does not have the proper content it is cited for, should not be used as a citation. As I have said above, if someone says a sandwitch is the basis of a pizza, you are trying to conclude the unconcludable. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 05:31, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
- And that still does not make any sense. Wait before you do anything else on that page.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 05:32, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, do you mean wait before doing anything else on that page relating to this dispute? —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 05:34, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
- Yes.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 05:36, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, do you mean wait before doing anything else on that page relating to this dispute? —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 05:34, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
- And that still does not make any sense. Wait before you do anything else on that page.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 05:32, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
- I really think patience is the only option here. However, I do admit that I have not made as many valuable contributions to this subject area as I have in previous months. But I still have made contributions lately. Any citation that does not have the proper content it is cited for, should not be used as a citation. As I have said above, if someone says a sandwitch is the basis of a pizza, you are trying to conclude the unconcludable. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 05:31, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
- That's because you seem to send it that way. The citations are fine, as stated by Hersfold, who hasn't had a chance to reply to you because he signed offline several hours ago. Before you continue to remove this content without consensus, give other people some time to discuss your changes.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 05:22, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
- I know, and as you may know by now, I do have the rollback privilege which I have had since December of last year. I use it to fight vandalism, and as it seems, this thread is getting a bit off-topic. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 05:19, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
- Use of rollback has nothing to do with contributing to article content.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 05:17, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
- I don't think so with everything. You use rollback when it shouldn't be used, at least I think you still do, and you are not enforcing WP:V enough. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 05:15, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
- I think I know with my experience on this website that I know what needs to be done.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 05:12, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
- No, letting them be there quickly would leave readers wondering "why isn't there a page here?". That is the reason you should wait. I understand you are trying to make an effort, but it also seems that you do not understand what should be done. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 05:06, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
- No... The sources are valid, even if they currently are blank. It's better to have them now than wait for the pages to be filled out later.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 05:03, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
Your request for adminship
Hello. I have closed your request for adminship early because, at this time, there was no possible chance of it succeeding at this time. Do not be disheartened; many of our finest admins have failed their first RfAs. You might want to take a look at the guide to requesting adminship and the administrators' reading list for guidance. Also, take note from the opposers about areas in which you could improve. Best of luck, PeterSymonds (talk) 09:59, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
Episode numbers
I've told you in the past not to add the numbers for ongoing series. This only leads to the number needing to be updated on a weekly (or daily) basis, which is highly unnecessary when "Ongoing" clearly suffices.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 02:08, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
- How are readers going to know how many episodes the shows have without excessively browsing articles to find out? The "ongoing" thing is not sufficient. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 02:16, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
- Why does it matter that they know that the show has X episodes at the top of the article when it's not the complete number?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 02:29, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
- So they wont waste as much of their time. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 02:30, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
- That makes zero sense.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 02:56, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
- It makes things faster and more explicit. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 02:58, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
- I agree with Mythdon. Powergate92Talk 03:12, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
- Why do you agree?. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 03:17, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
- Why does it matter?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 03:19, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
- Because we work by conensus, not voting. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 03:25, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
- This is one of the many things that has made me lose my patience with you. You always want an explanation for everything. That is extremely annoying. It should not matter why he agrees with you.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 03:33, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
- Explanation is construction of discussion. Do you have a problem with elaboration?. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 03:37, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
- This is one of the many things that has made me lose my patience with you. You always want an explanation for everything. That is extremely annoying. It should not matter why he agrees with you.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 03:33, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
- Because we work by conensus, not voting. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 03:25, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
- I agree with you because i also think it would be better to list the number of episodes that have aired. I also think it would be better to have this discussion at WikiProject Tokusatsu or WikiProject Television. Powergate92Talk 03:34, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
- Then why not start the discussion on any of those pages?. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 03:36, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
- Why does it matter?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 03:19, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
- Why do you agree?. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 03:17, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
- I agree with Mythdon. Powergate92Talk 03:12, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
- It makes things faster and more explicit. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 02:58, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
- That makes zero sense.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 02:56, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
- So they wont waste as much of their time. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 02:30, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
- Why does it matter that they know that the show has X episodes at the top of the article when it's not the complete number?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 02:29, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
Do you know of the general practice outside of anything we've done at WP:TOKU about these templates and the boxes? I just don't find it necessary to update something so often just because it changes so often. Particularly when it's known that the number increases by a known amount every week. The Episodes section of these articles suffices for the number to be updated weekly.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 03:46, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
- The "Episodes" sections do not make the number as explicit as what I want. Why is it so important that we don't update weekly?. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 03:54, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
- I just started a discussion here. Powergate92Talk 03:57, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
- And I have notified Ryulong of that discussion. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 04:02, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
- And now Ryulong has started a discussion on my talk page about this. Powergate92Talk 04:57, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
- I just started a discussion at WT:TOKU. Powergate92Talk 03:05, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
- And now Ryulong has started a discussion on my talk page about this. Powergate92Talk 04:57, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
- And I have notified Ryulong of that discussion. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 04:02, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
- Because it's simply unnecessary when the number in the episodes section (be it a numbered list or the table) does the exact same thing. That number should really only be for shows with multiple seasons or shows that are over. Shows that air over the course of one year and only have one real season should not be updated as you feel they should. If you look at Survivor: Tocantins, they have a known number and leave it at that. Same goes for Star Wars: The Clone Wars (2008 TV series). I think that because we do not have a known number, we should not keep updating a number like that.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 03:59, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
- I just started a discussion here. Powergate92Talk 03:57, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
Discussion at Wikipedia:Administrator's noticeboard#Incivil personal attacks from Malleus Fatuorum
Hi! You might be interested in the discussion at Wikipedia:Administrator's noticeboard#Incivil personal attacks from Malleus Fatuorum. Thank you. Ipatrol (talk) 21:32, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
Re:Editing your own comments
In this edit and this edit i modify my comment but in this edit i unmodify my comment and in this edit you remodify my comment. Powergate92Talk 05:52, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
- By reading your reply, I found out that your reply to him before his reply to you is actually "What separate decision are you talking about? I don't see a separate decision.". I have now corrected my reversal to the true original. Please keep the comment as it is, unless at some point you get Ryulong's permission to refactor it. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 06:04, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
- I was up for i don't know how long at the time so i was not thinking at the time i modify my comment. Powergate92Talk 16:56, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ryulong/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ryulong/Workshop.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, MBisanz talk 23:23, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
Color tables
I would like to remind you that you (or any singular editor) do not get to decide what is and what is not proper content. I have undone your edits to these tables because you are the only one who believes that the content is not worthy of inclusion on Wikipedia. The footnotes are there to explain the table more thoroughly as to why the "Other" column is used as such. Because I clearly disagree with the edits you just performed, please start a conversation at WT:TOKU, Talk:Power Rangers, or Talk:Super Sentai on the article content, such that a consensus can be formed beyond our two conflicting opinions.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 20:42, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
- Okay, I have just started a discussion at WT:TOKU. —Mythdon t/c 20:50, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
Just so you know
Just so you know when you removed Qui you forgot to remove the Qui userbox from your user page. Powergate92Talk 21:20, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
- Thank you for telling me. I guess I forgot to remove that hours ago. —Mythdon (talk) 21:23, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Re:vandalism
You're welcome. 
♪Tempo di Valse ♪ 01:04, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
You have rolled back the inclusion of the word "the", and restored capitalization in the middle of sentences. Do you not read your rollbacks? Are you even a native English speaker? Your edits have the appearance of vandalism themselves. Nonsensical rollbacks will be reported as vandalism. 70.140.218.227 (talk) 01:10, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
- You removed substantial content without giving a valid reason. Please review our rule on vandalism for more information. —Mythdon (talk) 01:12, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Re: Is this proper for Wikipedia? (WP:AN)
No worries, nobody will mind. I keep stuff that is much worse ;) -- lucasbfr talk 14:07, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Editing own comments
Hello, WP:REDACT says, "Altering a comment after it has been replied to robs the reply of its original context. It can also be confusing." Bignole's edit to change "their" to "there" does not affect the original context nor cause confusion. His personal fix is acceptable. —Erik (talk • contrib) 02:17, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, but he did violate WP:REDACT, believe it or not. Take that modification into thought before further commenting. —Mythdon (talk) 02:19, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
- Can you explain how changing from "their" to "there" robs Powergate92's message "I agree with Bignole" of its original context? Bignole's edit was purely cosmetic, and the edit does not cause any confusion. —Erik (talk • contrib) 02:23, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
- He said "their" before the reply. Editors will know what he meant either spelling. There's no need for change for the sake of change. —Mythdon (talk) 02:24, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
- I agree that the change is not necessary per se, but some people want to be presentable. I know I want to fix my typos no matter what, though if I find a typo from one of my comments a week ago, I would probably leave it alone! :) What I'm saying is, if Bignole said, "I think we should delete it," and Powergate92 replies, "I agree with Bignole," and Bignole changes his original comment to say, "I think we should not delete it," then that would be a violation of WP:REDACT. I know you mean well, but this is not an edit that was cause for concern. I wanted to clarify how WP:REDACT applies so you can make sure you address redactions that are rightfully cause for concern! :) —Erik (talk • contrib) 02:32, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
- "It is best to avoid changing your own comments. Other users may have already quoted you with a diff (see above) or have otherwise responded to your statement. Therefore, use "Show preview" and think about how your amended statement may look to others before you save it." - From WP:REDACT. That is what I am saying he's violating. —Mythdon (talk) 02:34, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
- I have to disagree with your assessment. Let's say someone quoted Bignole in a diff in another discussion. Does it matter which diff is quoted: the one with "their" or the one with "there"? I'm saying that WP:REDACT does not apply rigorously to all situations. The page we're citing is a behavioral guideline, and it says, "It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense and the occasional exception." Common sense dictates that an editor fixing his own typo is harmless and ultimately inconsequential. If you still disagree, I encourage you to ask for others' opinions at WT:TALK, pointing to this discussion. —Erik (talk • contrib) 02:39, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
- I agree with Erik. All Bignole did was change their to there. Powergate92Talk 02:42, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
- I have to disagree with your assessment. Let's say someone quoted Bignole in a diff in another discussion. Does it matter which diff is quoted: the one with "their" or the one with "there"? I'm saying that WP:REDACT does not apply rigorously to all situations. The page we're citing is a behavioral guideline, and it says, "It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense and the occasional exception." Common sense dictates that an editor fixing his own typo is harmless and ultimately inconsequential. If you still disagree, I encourage you to ask for others' opinions at WT:TALK, pointing to this discussion. —Erik (talk • contrib) 02:39, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
- "It is best to avoid changing your own comments. Other users may have already quoted you with a diff (see above) or have otherwise responded to your statement. Therefore, use "Show preview" and think about how your amended statement may look to others before you save it." - From WP:REDACT. That is what I am saying he's violating. —Mythdon (talk) 02:34, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
- I agree that the change is not necessary per se, but some people want to be presentable. I know I want to fix my typos no matter what, though if I find a typo from one of my comments a week ago, I would probably leave it alone! :) What I'm saying is, if Bignole said, "I think we should delete it," and Powergate92 replies, "I agree with Bignole," and Bignole changes his original comment to say, "I think we should not delete it," then that would be a violation of WP:REDACT. I know you mean well, but this is not an edit that was cause for concern. I wanted to clarify how WP:REDACT applies so you can make sure you address redactions that are rightfully cause for concern! :) —Erik (talk • contrib) 02:32, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
- He said "their" before the reply. Editors will know what he meant either spelling. There's no need for change for the sake of change. —Mythdon (talk) 02:24, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
- Can you explain how changing from "their" to "there" robs Powergate92's message "I agree with Bignole" of its original context? Bignole's edit was purely cosmetic, and the edit does not cause any confusion. —Erik (talk • contrib) 02:23, 2 April 2009 (UTC)