User talk:Mythdon/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Simple English Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Mythdon comes to Simple English Wikipedia

Hello everyone. As you're viewing this page right, I, Mythdon, from the English Wikipedia comes to Simple English Wikipedia to add a new addition to the Simple English Wikipedia family. --Mythdon talk • contribs 23:22, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New signature! Mythdon (talk • changes) 00:24, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome message

Hello, Mythdon, and welcome to the Simple English Wikipedia!

You may want to begin by reading these pages :

For some ideas of pages to work on, read Wikipedia:Requested articles or the list of wanted pages.

You can change any pages you want! Any changes you make can be seen immediately. You can ask questions at Wikipedia:Simple talk. At the end of your messages on Talk pages, please sign your name by typing "~~~~" (four tildes)

Good luck and happy editing!--Gordonrox24 | Talk 23:25, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for reverting those edits. I wonder why they were after me (maybe it was my Huggle work earlier at en.) Griffinofwales (talk) 03:36, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Maybe it was the IP who kept complicating sentences, but yet those edits weren't from the same IP, but, maybe the user's IP changed over the last few hours. Mythdon (talk • changes) 03:38, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Different places. I ran a geolocate, and they were located in NYC, Illinois, and Berlin. Weird. Griffinofwales (talk) 03:40, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, okay. Those IP's who were harassing you should be blocked, if they continue after the page protection is over. Mythdon (talk • changes) 03:42, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not going to happen. It's indef. Griffinofwales (talk) 03:43, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I know, but let's just say that you ask for them to be unprotected. They get unprotected. Those very IP's, or even some new IP's begin harassing you and vandalizing your userspace. You ask for them to be protected. They get protected. Do you think that sequence of events will occur? Mythdon (talk • changes) 03:47, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

a comment

Just a comment for future reference. This is not enWP, and the difference is not just in the language. There are different standards, users get away and don't get away with different things, and the community here is very close. Don't make mistakes like I did, and do your best to stay in article space. Griffinofwales (talk) 22:21, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Did you run for adminship before, Griffinofwales? Mythdon (talk • changes) 22:31, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, I never have. Look through my talk page archive. It will explain things. Griffinofwales (talk) 22:41, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your recent three-revert-rule violation? Mythdon (talk • changes) 22:45, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not that, that's minor. Look further, and see WP:AN (I think it's the thread at the top). If you keep bothering admins, they will block you. They let you get away with more at enWP. Here it's different. Listen to the admins when they tell you something. Griffinofwales (talk) 22:47, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If admins actually do something wrong, or need someone to remind them about something, then by all means, tell them. Griffin basically questioned every single thing an admin did, interrogating them pointlessly with question after question after question. There is nothing wrong with asking questions, but when it becomes an interrogation session it starts to get silly. This is not about "bothering admins" and being blocked. It's about not being a pest, which you were being. And it's certainly not about "getting away" with things - this isn't a game. Majorly talk 22:55, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

<-Stop exaggerating. That's not what I meant by getting away with things. I meant that admins (IMO) assume more good faith at enWP than they do here, so you get away with more (does that make sense?). I never interrogated admins (especially not pointlessly, although it may have appeared pointless to you), but this isn't about me, it's about my advice. Griffinofwales (talk) 23:00, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you're wrong. They assume as much good faith as can be assumed by someone pestering them over their every move. I think Mythdon should take you advice with a grain of salt. Majorly talk 23:01, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Incorrect on both comments. One, they assume an incredible amount of good faith, and two, I did not pester admins over every move (I have to sleep, remember?). Griffinofwales (talk) 23:06, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I was clearly referring to Simple Wikipedia admins, so no, I was right. And obviously you need to sleep, but whenever you're online, you're pestering someone it seems. Maybe it's exaggerating, but I'm not far off reality. You're digging yourself a deeper and deeper hole with every word you say. I suggest you drop this smartass attitude, it's doing you no favours at all. Majorly talk 23:35, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

<-I haven't pestered anyone since the AN thread (although that depends on your definition of pestering), and the hole is being filled up (slowly). You're right about the sleep part (4.5 hours in a 36 hour period). Griffinofwales (talk) 23:40, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's got nothing to do with the sleep... –Juliancolton | Talk 23:52, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Side comment. Not making an excuse. Griffinofwales (talk) 23:57, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Easy does it

Can I ask that you ease into this project. Whilst we always welcome new editors, you don't need to comment on everything. Obviously you are watching RC for new changes, but comments like this aren't really needed. The right thing was done. fr33kman talk 23:41, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am indeed looking at new changes. As for you asking me to not comment on everything, I don't, but I'll comment on whatever I feel like commenting on. Mythdon (talk • changes) 23:44, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you really feel like ignoring some friendly advice, feel free. Good luck with your life here! fr33kman talk 23:51, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'll be sure to have good luck. Mythdon (talk • changes) 23:52, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Given your history at enWP, I hope you do have better luck here. fr33kman talk 23:53, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'll make sure of that. Mythdon (talk • changes) 00:01, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for disruption

You have been blocked from changing pages on Wikipedia for a period of 1 week in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for repeated abuse of changing privileges. Please stop. You are welcome to make useful changes after the block expires. If you believe this block is unfair you may request to be unblocked by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. You may want to consider reading our guide to unblock requests before requesting to be unblocked.

fr33kman talk 00:51, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please explain how I disrupted the project? Mythdon (talk • changes) 00:53, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That is, what did I do wrong? The block reason in my block log says "disruption of the project", but I don't know how I disrupted the project. Please explain what I actually did to deserve this 1 week block. Mythdon (talk • changes) 00:57, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Basically telling people what to do, not being here to contribute to the projects aims. I told you to ease into things and not to comment on everything. The admins here are capable of working without other editors needing to comment on everything. You ignored that advice and kept on doing it. If another admin wants to lessen or remove your block, then fine. I won't. Sorry, but you need to relax a bit. fr33kman talk 01:03, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please go to WP:AN and ask what other administrators think of this block? I still don't find myself deserving this block. Commenting on everything is not disruption. You said I could ignore your advice, saying "If you really feel like ignoring some friendly advice, feel free. ". If you want the diff, I'll be glad to provide it. Mythdon (talk • changes) 01:08, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This blocked user asked to be unblocked, but one or more administrators said no to this unblock request. Other administrators can also review this block, but should not unblock the user without a good reason. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Mythdon/Archive_1 (contribs · deleted contribs · block log · filter log · global contribs)

Request reason:

It is not disruption to comment on everything that goes on. If this were true, we would have to limit how much users could comment on things. This is certainly not "disruption of the project". Sure, I haven't edit articles much, but that doesn't make it disruption. It would only be disruption if I weren't editing articles in a good manner at all, or not editing articles at all. Please unblock.

Decline reason:

Yes, I did say you could ignore my advice if you wanted to, but you did so at your peril. I am not the only admin who wanted to block you. I have decided to reduce the block to 48 hours in light of your being so new here and because of your actions last night. But you need to understand that commenting on every thing here get's up people's backs. The VAST majority of your edits are to peoples talk pages, not to the article space. You were counseled to refrain from commenting on everything you see in RC. Note that the regulars here don't comment on everything either. If you still want unblocking and if another admin wants to do it, fine. I won't at this time. -- fr33kman talk 01:25, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I still want to be unblocked, but I am not going to make further requests, as that would be an abuse of the appeal process, and would only get this talk page protected. Mythdon (talk • changes) 01:29, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This doesn't mean that I won't support you taking this to WP:AN to get agreement or disagreement of this block. Mythdon (talk • changes) 01:31, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Administrator note: Agree with above. If your questioning everything, then editors have to devote time to responding. This in itself is disruptive to the article process. Best, NonvocalScream (talk) 01:28, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Block change

I have changed your block, it will now disallow editing of your talk page. You can still however, use the email interface. Please allow the block to expire. Thank you, NonvocalScream (talk) 01:33, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your subpage

Created. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 21:37, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Mythdon (talk • changes) 21:39, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page messages...

Hello. Your message here was unclear. What did you mean? NonvocalScream (talk) 19:14, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, at the English Wikipedia, you'll see this discussion on my talk page, which refers to this block, which is what I was referring to. Please restore my comment. Mythdon (talk • changes) 19:16, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your comment was restored immediately after it was removed. I had hit the wrong button. Thank you for the clarification. NonvocalScream (talk) 19:18, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome! Mythdon (talk • changes) 19:20, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings

Hi, Mythdon. I have to thank you for my presence here at all, as I only google and came in reply to your comment on wp en that you would be here. Cool, at least this is a place for you to relax. You need to stay awaay from R. as you two are in terminal dispute. You are at two weeks now and they are after blood, yours .. disruption is one of the all encompassing expressions that they can use to any use they desire. Off2riorob (talk) 19:20, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think they're after blood, but rather I am assuming good faith that they're just wanting me to not do what is seen as disruptive. Because of the blocks, sanctions and sanction proposals I've received in the past few days, including my 2 day block here which expired yesterday, the last few days have been a lot of trouble. Mythdon (talk • changes) 19:34, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Caution

I've reviewed your changes. Of ~271 changes, 29 of those are article space at the time of this writing. I want to caution you, to remain more in mainspace, and less in discussion/adminspace. If you are not contributing to the project, I may remove your editing privileges. This is becoming problematic. I've taken into account your current status on our sister project English Wikipedia with regards to your blocks there, and that aggravates, as opposed to mitigates the situation here. Thanks, NonvocalScream (talk) 23:18, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Put another way, please stick to helping out with writing articles and reverting vandalism over the next two weeks and try to avoid administrative discussions. We've noticed that you've been blocked on en and that you're heading down a path toward blocking here, too. If you stick to writing articles, we would be glad to continue to have you help us on this project. EhJJTALK 23:23, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New results according to X!'s edit counter

Here is my edit count here according to this, note that with this writing and edits after this writing, the results have changed:

Namespace Count Percentage
Article 58 16.52%
Talk 5 1.42%
User 19 5.41%
User talk 177 50.43%
Wikipedia 56 15.95%
Wikipedia talk 15 4.27%
MediaWiki talk 17 4.84%
Template 4 1.14%
Total 351

What do you think? Mythdon (talk • changes) 23:50, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you are trying to become an administrator here, you will need to edit the mainspace quite a bit more than you are doing now. You'll need to get the percentage up to between 35% and 50%+ if you want to have a real good shot at becoming an administrator. Cheers, Razorflame 06:01, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am trying to do mainspace more, now that Nonvocalscream has cautioned me. I will try to be in mainspace more, but if a something comes up that I have to do something in other namespaces, then I will by all means do what I need to do in those areas. And yes, I am trying to become an administrator here, which is my primary goal right now, but at the same time, I know that being at Wikipedia is not just about administrating, but also about building an encyclopedia. Mythdon (talk • changes) 06:19, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your primary goal on Wikipedia should never, ever, ever, ever be "to become an administrator." You shouldn't be contributing more to the mainspace because you know it'll make you look good for an RFA...you should be contributing because that's the important part of this project. Stop with your proposals, stop with your over-discussion of things (you've got 13 edits related to "poopork" on user talk pages...about 12 more than necessary), and just go edit. Either way (talk) 12:26, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not doing those things for a successful RfA, but for the project. Mythdon (talk • changes) 16:36, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well stating that your primary goal here is to be a sysop...not to help the project...definitely suggests otherwise. Like I said, you're making unnecessary proposals, carrying out unnecessary discussions, and all to become an admin. Either way (talk) 16:52, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How does that suggest otherwise? Also, I'm not making "unnecessary proposals" or "carrying out unnecessary discussions" to "become an admin". Mythdon (talk • changes) 16:56, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Because you're saying one thing (I'm here to work on the encyclopedia! even though my stated mission is to be a sysop!) but doing another (focusing on administrative proposals and obsessing over edit counts). Please stop alerting me of replies here. I have a watchlist, I have recent changes. Either way (talk) 17:11, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

different forms of english

This is the British English spelling of flavor. You shouldn't change it per WP:MOS. Griffinofwales (talk) 03:48, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But, aren't articles suppose to use American spelling rather than British spelling? Mythdon (talk • changes) 03:49, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, that is not policy/guideline, because we have Aussies, Brits, Africans, Pakistanis, and Americans and we would get into an edit war over the correct spelling. For future reference, center = centre, color = colour. Griffinofwales (talk) 03:51, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Er, if the article is on an American topic, writing using American English is completely appropriate. Majorly talk 03:54, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I thought the English Wikipedia's (including this one) were suppose to be written in American English. Are you trying to say this Wikipedia should be written in another English's spelling, or are you trying to say that it depends? Mythdon (talk • changes) 03:56, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
@Majorly: You are right in a way, but I wouldn't say that Pepsi has a strong American connection, it is sold worldwide. @Mythdon: If you are writing an article, use the spelling you are comfortable with. If you are copy-editing and you come across some British English words, do not change them. If you are writing an article that has a strong connection to a country that uses British English, use British English (See WP:MOS#National varieties of English). Griffinofwales (talk) 04:00, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So in other words, it depends on the case? Mythdon (talk • changes) 04:09, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 (change conflict) Articles should use the same language as the article was originally written in. So, if I write about the colour Blue in British English, all other edits should be in British English. If, however, I write about Canada, I should use Canadian English, because it is an article about Canada. Typically, most articles on Wikipedia are in American English, because there are more American editors and most articles just happen to be in that variation of English. Simple rule is: 1) If it's about a particular country/topic, use that country's English, and 2) Don't change the spelling otherwise, except to make the article self-consistent (use the same kind of English throughout each article). EhJJTALK 04:11, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. Mythdon (talk • changes) 04:14, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(<-) Hello, Mythdon. We are writing for people who are learning English as an additional language. As such I think the only thing we can ask is that they are consistent, that is they always spell the word the same way. Many people see it as bad if you changed their spelling from the South African form to the one used in Ghana, India or Belize. --Eptalon (talk) 17:10, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The way to become an admin

Hello, for once forget about percentages, or number of edits. Look at the thing differently:

  • Write new articles (take some from EnWp and simplify, eg)
  • Simplify/improve existing articles
  • Contribute/help with DYK/GA/VGA-processes
  • Help fight vandalism.

If most of what you do in the next few months is for the points noted above, i think by the end of the year you may have a chance of being nominated as a candidate. Adminship is not a goal; it is also not an award. It is given to those who have shown they merit it. --Eptalon (talk) 17:25, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am not going to do things just be become an administrator. I help fight vandalism and simplify articles already, as well as copyedit and help the formatting of articles, though content editing is not what administration is. Mythdon (talk • changes) 18:17, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What I look for in an admin is knowing what counts as vandalism and what sort of pages should be deleted (QD or RfD). If you work on those things (revert vandalism, report vandals, tag QDs, discuss RfDs), as well as regular content contribution, that is what will get you a support vote from me, because that is what being an editor and admin is mostly about. EhJJTALK 18:30, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A tip from me:you said content editing is not what administration is. Well often an admin should have quite a high percentage (over 40-50%) of mainspace edits to show he is dedicated. Also, report vandals to WP:VIP often, and WP:QD pages. Yotcmdr =talk to the commander= 18:52, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The reason I stated that an admin is a content editor... Sometimes you may have to decide to block a user because they have problems maintaining a neutral point of view, issues with sourcing things, and a penchant for affecting pages for their own gain among other issues. In order to recognise these, you need to edit content. I mean, really edit content. Articles about people may be an issue as well. While the block tool is not a tool for administrators to get an upper hand in content disputes... sometimes you need to use it with editors whom, even when we educate them to these core policies, don't seem to follow our policies as a habit. This needs to be dealt with from time to time in order to protect the project. Editing content will give experience in this area. This is one of the things I look for, in an admin. NonvocalScream (talk) 19:10, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mythdon, you're well within your right to march to the beat of your own drum when it comes to what you think administrators should be. However, you've been given the same advice several times about how content is more important; don't be surprised when your RfA fails if you disregard sound recommendations so readily. EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:21, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://simple.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Mythdon/Archive_1&oldid=1757786"