User talk:Mythdon/Archive 6

The Kids in the Hall
Nothing "questionable" about it at all. "The show was not able to afford a live studio audience because of the lack of viewers during the series' run. The show utilized a laugh track so that viewers at home, that were watching by themselves wouldn't feel embarrassed laughing." is unsourced POV commentary that has no business being in an encyclopedia article. Bearcat (talk) 12:26, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Re: Rollback
The edit I reverted has been a specific edit being added by multiple IPs and new users, despite consensus that was noted on the talk page, and through various policies, that such info is OR, and should not be included in the article. I realize that I probably should have just undid the edit now, as RB should only be used for blatant vandalism, and aside from the MvA article, I had been using it as such. I'm sorry for messing up like this.—  Dæ dαlus Contribs  22:27, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay. Just remember to be more careful, and things will be fine. — Mythdon  t / c  22:28, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for watching my back.
Bless you. I am so sick of this little jackass's minions coming to this site to act like a bunch of brainless retards I can't even tell you. Thanks for watching my back. I'll keep on tagging and bagging the socks as they come in. Gratefully, --PMDrive1061 (talk) 23:59, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Your welcome. — Mythdon  t / c  00:01, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

hey
can i keep a picture of a dog on my page or is that banned. Funnyman390 (talk) 07:01, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * not related to what i was asking. and besides, I can't edit the page.  Funnyman390 (talk) 07:04, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't know. Just read the rules. — Mythdon  t / c  07:06, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * NawlinWiki said it isn't but I don't trust him. Funnyman390 (talk) 07:08, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Click on the image, then read the rules. That's all I can say. I'm not very familiar with image policy. — Mythdon  t / c  07:10, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I hold no interest in bureaucratic policy. Funnyman390 (talk) 07:14, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Do whatever you want to your user-page (using common sense and within reason). Q  T C 07:14, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * If you aren't going to read the rules, what's the point in linking them to you? — Mythdon  t / c  07:15, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I figured I could get a summary from you. =p Funnyman390 (talk) 07:16, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't know image policy very well, and not enough that I can help you. You may contact an administrator if you wish for assistance. — Mythdon  t / c  07:20, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

holy cow you're annoying
I've been periodically looking at your edits for a few months now, and it's apparent that you are a pain in the collective ass of everyone on Wikipedia who has had to deal with you extensively. You adhere to the rules of Wikipedia in a completely useless, unconstructive and annoying way for which you are _constantly_ called out, yet you usually refuse to concede the slightest ground to those who complain about your anal-retentive efforts.

Yes, we get that you want to further the interests of Wikipedia. You can accomplish this by acting like a reasonable person and cooperating with others, not by following the letter of the law in a way that agitates everyone around you. Don't you find it at all telling that so many of your edits at any given time are concerned with fending off the complaints of people whom you've ticked off? I don't know what you're trying to accomplish by acting the way you do, but it's not constructive, not helpful to Wikipedia or its editors, and not cool.

You are an annoying little kid and need to grow up, and although the nice people here are bound to disapprove of my incivility in saying this, I doubt that anyone will disagree with my sentiments. 72.188.57.92 (talk) 00:28, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * There are only a few situations where violating policy is legitimate. "Ignore all rules" is not something I'm a big fan of, and will only consider doing what it says if I know that I can improve with violation. Yes, I know that the user that I have been spending time with since day one of my tenure here does not like it, but it doesn't matter to me. I strictly interpret policy, yes, but is it excessive? No. I didn't even know that you as an anonymous editor has been following me around and stalking me, but do I care? No. You do not understand the benefit of compliance with policy, do you? I as an editor will do everything in my power to make sure policy is properly obeyed, with only the most severe and clear exceptions. Am I an administrator? No. Do I wish to be one? Yes. Yes, I do act like a "reasonable person". Since March, my civility has grown stronger than ever, making friendly warnings, requests for explanations, etc. Please understand this comment and then tell me if I'm not correct. — Mythdon  t / c  00:54, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

ArbCom questions - reminder
Hey Mythdon, just reminding you that you still need to respond to the questions posed to you at the Ryulong case. They're supposed to be done before the 29th, which is tomorrow. Thanks. Hers fold  (t/a/c) 19:02, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I know. I just haven't felt like answering them. — Mythdon  t / c  19:15, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Toranger
Huuki Sentai Toranger is a porno, to put it blatantly. As such, I considered that edit obvious vandalism, which is why I left the revert set for its default message. Arrowned (talk) 04:53, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * What do you mean by "porno"? — Mythdon  t / c  05:04, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Pornography.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龙 ) 06:07, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Recusal and Ryulong case
I have now responded to your request for my recusal in the Ryulong case. My comments and decision can be found on the workshop talkpage in that case. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:28, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Maybe not,
Check the ANI thread. Apparently the one who blocked the possible sock was CU.—  Dæ dαlus Contribs  04:05, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Could you please show me a link to the thread? — Mythdon  t / c  04:06, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Interview/Chat
I recently came across your involvement in the Ryulong affair. Those that follow the history of Wikipedia feel that the RFAR on Ryulong is a significant event along the lines of Watergate. I humbly ask permission to interview you on behalf of my school IT Club's newsletter, if you have time. Thanks in advance. Yardleyman (talk) 05:37, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
 * No. — Mythdon  t / c  17:39, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Brian Hyland
We had some correspondence recently regarding the use of 'rollback'; which I do not really need to re-enter. However, it happened to surround the Brian Hyland article, which recently seems to be the subject of an ongoing 'cut and paste' copyright violation. I have reverted two or three of these, which on face value appear to be from different editors, although I suspect it is the same person. I do not want to get into a potential 'three reverts and you're out' scenario. Could I ask you to have a look and see what you think ? Many thanks,

Derek R Bullamore (talk) 21:20, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but no. I feel that I use my time on something else, and do not feel like running through a series of diffs at the moment. Sorry. — Mythdon  t / c  23:19, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Ryu's talk page
Hey Myth, nice to meet you. If possible, please take this suggestion seriously, for the time being. rootology /equality 05:22, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Warning
Per this, please stay off his talk page per his request. Discuss article issues on the article talk pages. rootology /equality 05:51, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * It has nothing to do with article issues. The discussion started as a notification, but it evolved into a discussion between me and Ryulong as to whether he was neutral on the proposals, and it then evolved into discussing your suggestion. Also, I do not consider you an uninvolved administrator given your involvement in the discussion, so I suggest you leave such a block to another administrator. Did Ryulong ask you in private to participate in the discussion? — Mythdon ( talk  •  contribs ) 05:56, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

ANI
As a courtesy, I am notifying you of this. Now leave me be.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龙 ) 05:57, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Ryulong's talk page
Since you want to claim Rootology is somehow involved, and in response to your posts on AN/I, let me say this as somebody who has never interacted with you in any capacity: I've added Ryulong's talk page to my watchlist, and if I ever see your username contribute to it in any fashion, I will block you. Period. End of story. Remove it from your watchlist and leave him alone. -- auburn pilot  talk  16:30, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * You can't tell me what I can and cannot have on my watchlist. — Mythdon ( talk  •  contribs ) 21:47, 22 May 2009 (UTC)