User talk:Meganoide

New Forums Invitation
Please participate, and invite others to, in these two new forums: Thanks. Yatanogarasu 21:37, March 4, 2011 (UTC)
 * Forum:Merge all the Voice Actors and Seiyu
 * Forum:RAW Japanese Manga Images

Fisherman trivia:
Hey, I undid ur edit on the fisherman page's trivia section because that's not supposed to be on trivia and instead it should be "on the page" ...


 * ...and I'm telling this on ur talk page because the summary I gave never showed up on the activity page (so strange ) !

Re:Polls
I dont know how to do it myself, but I've asked someone I know from the community central .... Let's just wait ..
 * .. but what ? If you gimme an example of where such a situation has araised, I think I can solve it with someother techniques depending upon the satiation :)
 * I may have an idea : Use these as I've done on my userpage :
 * 
 * 
 * 

forum invitation
Hey, how are you? I'd love it if you participated in the new forum discussion concerning Top 10 Lists.

Tuckyd 23:42, May 26, 2011 (UTC)

Please stop editing user pages
While I thank you for editing the "u" away from our pages, editing other people's personal user pages is not allowed. Please stop. Yatanogarasu 21:19, May 27, 2011 (UTC)


 * This is a matter of invasion of privacy, not just appearance of an article. Yatanogarasu 22:18, May 27, 2011 (UTC)

I think it's pointless to edit that part, as that represents the first edit that the user ever made, and you don't want to change the record. Also, editing messages other people wrote without their permission is not right. Yatanogarasu 22:24, May 27, 2011 (UTC)

Even the links are part of a message, and should not be edited without permission. If you were the one who wrote the message yourself, then feel free to change anything, but otherwise, you need to ask first. Yatanogarasu 22:42, May 27, 2011 (UTC)

There was a huge debate about that. They are not correct just because that's what the wikia wanted. There's no evidence that every single name was intended to be without the extra u. Also you are editing talk page comments of people which you have no right to do. SeaTerror 23:20, May 27, 2011 (UTC)

You wanna edit a message, you ask whoever wrote it. Yatanogarasu 00:05, May 28, 2011 (UTC)

Talk Pages
Please stop adding or changing links and whatnot in random anon talk pages. It doesn't accomplish anything and is just unnecessary. You don't have to change every "Luffy" to "Monkey D. Luffy", that is why we have redirects. Please stop. 01:32, July 16, 2011 (UTC)

Correct all the mistakes you want, just don't do it on other people's talk pages. 15:54, July 16, 2011 (UTC)

Not really, because Luffy will still redirect to Monkey D. Luffy. I'm not against you correcting stuff, just keep it off talk pages. 16:02, July 16, 2011 (UTC)

Alright, just stop editing anon talk pages. It serves no purpose. Some of the pages you're editing haven't been used by that address for over a year. You don't have to fix links, that's what the redirects are for. It's getting annoying, please stop. 21:23, July 17, 2011 (UTC)

I don't know what you have against redirects, but there is nothing wrong with them. All you're doing is flooding the activity feed with edits that don't need to be done by fixing links on anon talk pages, some of whom haven't edited in over a year. It doesn't matter if you click on a link that says Enel or Eneru, they take you to the same page. Why is it so important that they go exactly to the page and not through a redirect? I fail to see the purpose it serves, I really do. 21:31, July 17, 2011 (UTC)

Small yes, important no. Fixing grammar and spelling on articles is fine, but you don't need to redirect the links. Luffy will go to the same page as Monkey D. Luffy. You don't need redirects for them. I don't see what it accomplishes. In an equilateral right triangle you can go two ways from the largest angle, and they'll both get you to the hypotenuse in the same amount of time. Making redirects like that is pointless. 21:48, July 17, 2011 (UTC)

Redirects maybe to cover mistakes, but they are also on there to make navigation simpler. Instead of having to write out someone's full name, it would be just as easy to write out Luffy or Zoro in the link rather than the whole name. It doesn't make a difference to the average reader. Did you know that the Luffy redirect was actually made after the Monkey D. Luffy page? It's for ease and convenience as well as to cover mistakes. It doesn't serve anything to fix redirects. You may think it looks better, but it really doesn't do anything. 22:00, July 17, 2011 (UTC)

Fixing them is simply unneeded, plain and simple. 22:08, July 17, 2011 (UTC)

It is still unneeded. 22:43, July 17, 2011 (UTC)

Why are you still not listening? Stop editing the talk pages. This is your second warning. Stop editing talk pages and redirects. 18:06, July 19, 2011 (UTC)

As you've been told before, it alters the record and SERVES NO PURPOSE. I am ordering you to stop. If you do not stop, we will take appropriate actions. 18:12, July 19, 2011 (UTC)

If you are going to be that stuck up about it, then I'm not even going to justify it with an answer. Just know that if you continue pointlessly editing redirects, you will be banned for two weeks. 18:20, July 19, 2011 (UTC)

It's not just me. I've looked around, and Yatanogarasu and SeaTerror have been getting on you for the same thing. Apparently Roranoa zoro and Pandawarrior have told you the same thing. So how is it just me? 18:26, July 19, 2011 (UTC)

Well, I don't know it's a matter of popularity... usually talk pages are easily forgotten. You can do that yourself or I'll do that later, since not only I agree to you, but it was decided to do that in a forum, see here.

Knock It Off
Adding redirects is pointless. Even DP said so. Your edits only exist to be pointless and there is no reason to do them. SeaTerror 04:00, May 14, 2012 (UTC)

That's nice. I guess you'll enjoy being banned then. SeaTerror 04:04, May 14, 2012 (UTC)

Redirects
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Redirect#Do_not_.22fix.22_links_to_redirects_that_are_not_broken

Read that and stop trying to fix problems where there aren't any. There's no reason to hate redirects. 04:24, May 14, 2012 (UTC)

If by nonsense you mean do I agree with what SeaTerror said, then yes, I do. There's no reason to touch redirects, so at this point the edits you're making to them are completely worthless and simply irritating. 12:20, May 14, 2012 (UTC)

Will you just friggin' stop! I don't know what you have against redirects, but stop bypassing them. They exist for the very reason we're using them, so there's no reason for you to act self-important and get rid of them. At this point you're just edit warring. Leave the redirects alone unless you can give me a valid reason for bypassing them. 13:09, May 14, 2012 (UTC)

And narrow-mindedness strikes again. It's not just me. It's at least 3-5 other people who are undoing them as well. Do you really think all of us would pick an edit war with one user? Please, we have better things to do. Take the hint from at least 5 people who disagree with what you're doing and stop doing it. 13:31, May 14, 2012 (UTC)

It's not just today, it's been almost all of last week as well. Waste all the money you want, the point is you should acknowledge that multiple people disagree with what you're doing and realize that you should stop doing it. Stop being so stuck up and notice the people around you. If more people feel one way than another, then the community goes with the majority. That's how things work around here. 13:42, May 14, 2012 (UTC)

http://i1075.photobucket.com/albums/w422/imhungry4444/THISGONBGUD.gif

14:18, May 14, 2012 (UTC)

Hey, just so you know, a forum requesting your ban has been reopened. In case you didn't know, here it is. 00:16, May 15, 2012 (UTC)

Do you...
Even know what "an hero" means? I&#39;d rather not beat you to death with a slightly heavy silver spoon 22:35, May 17, 2012 (UTC)

Ok, at this point I can tell you're really just trying to be difficult. To avoid further conflict and edit wars, I am going to block you temporarily until the day before the forum for your ban ends. That way you'll still have one last chance to plead your case. I'm sorry, I'm just trying to keep the peace. 22:46, May 17, 2012 (UTC)

Dude how are redirects mistakes... User:X-RAPTOR 21:27, May 24, 2012 (UTC)

Omg dude ok ill help u since ur problem is with the new feature, just go to ur preferences and then go to *Under The Hood* and then go to the bootom and select *Enable Go Search* this should help u edit the same way u did before without this new feature and the redirects sould work well again so hope this helps and makes u stop doing this. User:X-RAPTOR 21:52, May 24, 2012 (UTC)

vote
could you please vote two weeks, anything more then that seems extremely unreasonable and cruel to me http://onepiece.wikia.com/wiki/Forum:OnePieceNation?t=20120524205553 (OnePieceNation 22:16, May 24, 2012 (UTC))

You're already back to doing what got you into trouble before. Don't make the same mistake twice, as the consequences will be worse. 04:42, July 30, 2012 (UTC)

Apostrophes
Please remember to put the apostrophes ("'") inside the link. Like this: Sabo's instead of Sabo's Thank You! 13:23, August 12, 2013 (UTC)

Well, it's the way this wiki does it. I used to do it the way you did. 15:31, August 12, 2013 (UTC)

Putting the apostrophes inside links was decided as a result of this poll. 16:56, August 12, 2013 (UTC)

No, my username is a reference to an anime character called "Lelouch vi Britannia". 04:29, August 13, 2013 (UTC)

Talk Pages
The talk pages weren't deleted, because they held discussions. So Category:Deleted Article Talk Pages was added instead. 03:18, August 20, 2013 (UTC)

Da nose
It's here, in case you want to referance it. SBS Volume 37

Rampo in Chapter 734
http://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/800x600q90/89/omfn.jpg

Where is he? I'm assuming you're talking about the dwarf I've circled since it's the only clear one, but that can't be it - Rampo is wearing black clothing and has a really distinctive hat and facial expression... 13:40, January 15, 2014 (UTC)

Edits
The hilarious thing is all your edits are bad and extremely pointless. You don't improve anything. SeaTerror (talk) 16:03, January 21, 2014 (UTC)

I find it hilarious you still think those are correct edits. 97% of your edits are those redirects. The only thing they do is clutter up source mode with unnecessary text. SeaTerror (talk) 17:09, January 21, 2014 (UTC)

You didn't show any "proof" and even if you did it would be impossible since your edits are always wrong. SeaTerror (talk) 17:15, January 21, 2014 (UTC)

Pages
Template:ChapterPages. This is where you go to fix pages. It isn't defaulted to 19.

Chapter 736 is 19 pages. You have to count the gigantic pages as 2 pages. 00:16, January 31, 2014 (UTC)

re:Abilities and Powers
Slightly redundant, yes, but not really worth doing anything about. 02:42, February 10, 2014 (UTC)

Re:Poll Rules
Hey Meganoide, I saw your posts on the admin's talk pages, and if you want to go about changing policy, posting in Forum:Forum and Poll Rules Updates would be best. That forum is technically "active", though nobody's made any substantial posts in it for a long time. You should check it out and see if your idea fits in one of the sections. If not, make a new one. 18:47, February 11, 2014 (UTC)

Hi Meganoide. Admins cannot change poll rules on their own, it's a community decision. As JSD said, if you want to discuss this, you should go to the specific forum. Now, personally I don't think your proposition would be fair. If there are 10 users who voted "no ban" and 11 who voted "ban", the user should have a shorter ban than if it were 2 vs 19—that's kinda logical.

Now, I agree with you that the current system is not fair either (obviously most "no ban" voters will choose the shortest ban, so "ban" voters have to "ally" to change the outcome). That's because polls with more than two options are intrinsically unfair, unless we change the way votes are counted (for example, we could take the average of ban durations weighted by votes, or something like this).

Look here for the current rules. You can also get a good idea of what they are by reading the forum I linked you earlier. I'd be happy to answer any other questions you have on my talk page or in chat. 20:40, February 11, 2014 (UTC)


 * If you want to open a discussion, create a new section at the end of the forum JSD linked you to earlier.
 * About your objection to my answer: you say that it is supposed that the 11 users will be fair when deciding the length of the ban. Well, the same can be said for the 10 others. By preventing them from voting, you give a lot of power to the 11, even though the outcome of the first poll was almost a tie.
 * That's a complex problem, there is no perfect solution… and the fact that ban polls are basically popularity contests makes it far worse.

Well that'd make it easier to see who's in favor of the ban and who isn't, but that's all, there'd still be wall of text to read… Not sure it would really make forums better. Plus, some messages do not take one side or another, so there would have to be a neutral column too… Anyway, same thing, if you really like this idea, make a forum for it to be discussed.

Mummy
Hello. Sorry to bother you, but you reverted my edit that Hakuba hit Mummy. Here is the link to the page with that. . 98.235.153.176 18:10, February 13, 2014 (UTC)

Re:
Stop acting like a cryer baby and give up this edit war you are continuing to cause. 20:47, February 15, 2014 (UTC)

Yes you are contuing the edit war there has been two users against your edits. Just like you explained your reasons, i have explained. I also told what i learned in the summaries of when i undo you. You do know if you want to ban you have to go through a forum to do so, surely someone thick headed as you should know this. Do really think i'll simply take your side after everything it's lead to now? 21:03, February 15, 2014 (UTC)

If you're going to treaten someone with a ban, at least have to balls to follow it through. 16:16, February 16, 2014 (UTC)

"I don't want to ban you if I can't avoid it." Listen it's a straight forward thing, you want to ban me or don't. Their is no if's or but's about it, it's a yes or no situation. If I gave damn about you're opinion, when were you are attempting to be right, i'd let you. Seeing how I haven't, I still think you are a god damn idiot. 21:00, February 16, 2014 (UTC)

I know you two are in disagreement, but Meganoide, can you please not use such a threatening tone on Besty17? You can't threaten to ban someone yourself if you don't have the right to ban. At least take this out on Magellan's talk page, rather than spouting insults on each other's pages. 22:15, February 16, 2014 (UTC)

stop
"One Piece - Defeat Him! The Pirate Ganzack" is the correct title of the article, if you remove the "One Piece - " then it turns the link into a redirect, so stop changing it-- 00:27, February 17, 2014 (UTC)

re:collection of proofs
Thanks for explaining but a single disagreement that didn't become an edit war isn't enough. If you could include other examples of him undoing your edits, that would make it a lot stronger. 00:54, February 17, 2014 (UTC)

I just mentioned it because Just brought up earlier how he undid a lot of your edits without reading them. 01:04, February 17, 2014 (UTC)

You don't have to dig through contributions or list 100 things. We already have plenty of evidence against ST as is. 01:17, February 17, 2014 (UTC)

Sorry I was confusing. I just meant that if you wanted to keep that example you could do that. I wasn't asking you to do it, I was just making the suggestion. 01:24, February 17, 2014 (UTC)


 * You couldn't work it out with Besty, so you threatened him with ban-vote. Thats the point, it looked just like that to others reading the comment, so you have to really think about how you handle situations.  If it doesn't work, you get others in on the situation and you resolve things.  Metaphorically speaking, if you pick up a knife and threaten to stab someone with it, how does it look to everyone else standing in the room?  You could be play acting, you could be serious. Who knows? :-/
 * again you come off as someone who hates ST's guts, you said anyone who voted for him is voting based on being his buddy, and I was about to change my mind on where my vote was. I was in chat with him at the time; I presumed the reason he was linking to the topic constantly was he was trying to get me on his side, a few links were dropped my way to the forum topic and all.  So this created a situation where both sides were starting to act like each other at points, do not sit well.Hene why I spoke up about the situation.
 * As for undoing your edits, it happens. But you should have checked out other's edits.  the wiki system logs events every editor makes, so checking ST's log for edit wars is where you start.  If you don't know how to check his contributions, its listed on everyone's talk page.  As I said, if you have a point to make, don't hold anything back, commit fully.  One person having a edit war with ST, isn't going to commit the same weight as several and enforces the point against his character.  Two people can have a grudge and it leads to edit wars, so to show its not just two people clashing egos.

Basically, I was editing when ST first came along, got to know him so my tolerance level of fellow wiki editors is hgih. I edited alongside Joekido, who was a pain at times. I adore having people like Joekdio though because they lead you to rethink everyone, likewise ST was the same. The case was this; ST was displaying problematic behavior in his ban topic anyway, but the other side was making themselves out to be gunning for him. He is meanwhile dropping links for me to see. I'm not blind on the things going on. So I tried to help both sides, taking a more neutral vote. The poll had only "for" and "against", there was no "neutral" vote, which is where I was at by the time I was done. I did point out things like "you go full out" with evidence for a reason.

However, since I had committed to ST's side of the vote, I was reluctant myself to help the pro-ban side too much, for obivous reasons, I was in the chat with him last night as well. Just based on the evidence section I added, no one added anything but me in the "counter" section, so there was another issue going down. Those supporting ST were only supporting him via votes, they weren't highlighting his better character either. For anyone in that poll, it would appear more lop-sided then it possibly was. Therefore I won't argue that the results mean nothing, I argue the poll isn't justified but you can't fault the way the votes were heading, for various reasons. :-/ One-Winged Hawk (talk) 13:38, February 17, 2014 (UTC)

Fishing the troll
Because the more time I spend arguing with him, the less time he spends making stupid blogs and vandalising. It's a subtle tactic, but it usually pays off.

14:24, March 17, 2014 (UTC)

I may not be an old user here, but I used to be active on the Mangastream forums. I know how to head off a troll until the admins ban him. XD

14:29, March 17, 2014 (UTC)

Actually me and nova do that to keep him distracted from fucking up articles and all. But I guess I'll ignore him from now on, I got bored. 14:30, March 17, 2014 (UTC)

Editing Talks
Stuff changed. There was a forum about it in 2012 but I can't seem to find it right now >_> 17:52, May 16, 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I thought you would had realized by now but apparently you didn't so I'll explain. What I did is fixing redlinks that show up in Special:WantedPages which is totally accepted and wanted, we mass fixed those in February 2013 if I'm correct, there were about 5k of them. We fix them in every place, talk pages, blogs, blog comments, archives, anywhere. The same applies for Special:WantedFiles, Special:WantedTemplates and Special:WantedCategories. I'm trying to find the forum but I can't, you could ask JustSomeDude... for a link to it, I think he was the one who started it. 19:15, May 16, 2014 (UTC)

re:Saru
Well, I changed it to make it sound like it is more vulgar, as Shaulia described, as conceit and arrogant does not describe it. 16:23, May 30, 2014 (UTC)

re:Saru
Well, I changed it to make it sound like it is more vulgar, as Shaulia described, as conceit and arrogant does not work in the description. 16:24, May 30, 2014 (UTC)

'Civilian' in the Affiliations/Occupations field of infobox
Please, take part in this discussion: Forum:'Civilian' in the Affiliations / Occupations field of infobox. Ruxax (talk) 04:11, June 25, 2014 (UTC)

Blackbeard haki
http://imgur.com/oJ8gW9x

I know it's not the best translation, but that's Teach measuring Luffy's strength and being surprised that he has a bounty of 100 mill. That is Kenbunshoku haki.

14:34, June 27, 2014 (UTC)

Haha, don't worry about apologising. I'd already added him to the template and mentioned it on the Haki page.

14:42, June 27, 2014 (UTC)

re:Age
I understand your reasoning, but I don't agree with it. We don't list the pre-time skip ages of charcters who didn't appear because there would be no point due to their lack of introduction. However, the same does not apply to characters introduced before the timeskip, unless we know them to be dead (ie Ace and Whitebeard). The age and intro thing is a one way street. 19:45, June 30, 2014 (UTC)

Mega
Hi Mega. It's me, Cheese Lord. I know this happened a long time ago, and it's likely you don't even remember it, but I'm sorry for calling you names and stuff back when I reverted your edits a long time ago. It was stupid, out of line, and I apologize.

Hope we can be friends. Coffee-chan (talk) 22:17, July 15, 2014 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for mentioning. For now I'm lurking in the chat though, so if you see the vandal pop in again it may be faster popping in the chat to ping me.

Cheers!

YATTA ヽ( ° ヮ° )ﾉ ☆ |　2014年07月17日、12:35:36


 * Hi. I'm just being careful because I'm technically only allowed to interfere in extreme cases, and I in fact only have these additional user rights because I'm a Dutch Wikia Helper. I have posted two out of three admins a message though, so it should not go unnoticed. I will contact VSTF if this situation continues.


 * YATTA ヽ( ° ヮ° )ﾉ ☆ |　2014年07月17日、12:40:24


 * Hello, I think I've cleaned up the entire Special:NewFiles now, everything should be in order.
 * YATTA ヽ( ° ヮ° )ﾉ ☆ |　2014年07月17日、01:23:13

Chao
I saw that you added Chao on the dwarf list. Another translation I saw said "Jack". I know that Mangapanda and Mangastream both translated it to "Chao", but I think we should ask Zod or Klobis before making a page. Montblanc Noland (talk) 12:43, July 30, 2014 (UTC)

Ok. I'll talk to Klobis to make sure the name is right. I'll make the page if he thinks it is accurate. Montblanc Noland (talk) 12:50, July 30, 2014 (UTC)

Danbo
Page is made. Go on ahead. Montblanc Noland (talk) 22:46, September 6, 2014 (UTC)

Great job on the page! Could you add a personality section to Butler's page? Montblanc Noland (talk) 14:19, September 7, 2014 (UTC)

The personality section is fantastic! I'm impressed. Thank you. Montblanc Noland (talk) 15:53, September 7, 2014 (UTC)

Your welcome. Could you expand Gonzo's history a little bit? Montblanc Noland (talk) 19:00, September 7, 2014 (UTC)

Pagina di discussione
Ti ho cancellato (di nuovo) la pagina di discussione, aspetta che la ripristino, non ricrearla.

Provoking
Um can you please stop provoking SeaTerror like pretty much every one of your recent edits has been doing? I'm well aware he annoys a lot of people as much as the next guy but there's no reason to bring up unrelated dramatic situations (like ST's ban forum) in the light of the separate drama this wiki's been suffering in the past three days. --I&#39;m not a coward I&#39;ve just never been tested; I like to think if I was I would pass (talk) 01:11, September 16, 2014 (UTC)

re:gal again
By all means, please do. I can't take that SOB anymore than you. 01:06, September 26, 2014 (UTC)

^ He's pissed. Haha 107.191.36.19 03:23, September 26, 2014 (UTC)

Pages to delete
I'll get on with that right away. 12:08, September 26, 2014 (UTC)

Well, the reverts aren't really a problem, so I don't think there's any rush to delete them. We're talking about nearly a hundred files with 6 or more reverts each; It would just be a waste of effort. 12:51, September 26, 2014 (UTC)


 * I see no point to this actually coz those reversions just show file history.--

No. I'm only a temporary admin myself. Giving the rights is up to the real admins. 13:11, September 26, 2014 (UTC)

Re: Image Reverting
Yeah, VSTF locked image editing for an undisclosed amount of time, but it should be back to normal soon enough. Regarding the Nigeratta image, that watermark is allowed, and the previous version is of significantly lower quality, so it's best to leave it the way it is for now. Maybe if someone had access to the Blu-Ray or DVD releases we could get a better version. Sadly, I cannot do such a thing. Thanks. 15:30, September 26, 2014 (UTC)

Get on chat if you can. I don't quite get what you mean. 21:35, September 26, 2014 (UTC)

re:Tsk tsk
So, cheers. =P 00:41, September 30, 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) We usually get rid of that black line, top bottom or sides, just to look better.
 * 2) Time interface not really needed, since you could just put it in under summary or source.
 * 3) Watermarks are not allowed it shows scanlation/fansub.

Nami image
Why i can't upload that image?

07:05, October 21, 2014 (UTC)

Ho cancellato di nuovo per sbaglio la tua pagina di discussione... aspetta che chiedo di ripristinarla. Cmq per risponderti: ok, ma la mia obiezione è come fai a dire che non sia "Kampaccino", "Campacchino" o "Kampacchino"? (questo è solo un esempio, vale per tutti gli altri personaggi).

Re: Talk Page
Then you can make an archive. 18:15, November 23, 2014 (UTC)

Yes. If you think your talk page is too long, then you have to make an archive. You can't just delete the messages. You should name it "User talk:Meganoide/Archive" and move all the messages there. Then put a link to the archive on your main talk page. 18:28, November 23, 2014 (UTC)

Unless the "bad stuff" is vandalism, you can't remove it. That's the rule. 18:53, November 23, 2014 (UTC)

Ban warnings
Hey Mega, when placing the ban template on IPs, don't say anything about how long their ban will be. That decision is up to an admin. In the case of this IP, that one spam page they made is hardly worth a 6 month ban, since it was only one edit. You'll look silly if you post ban times that are different from the actual ban. Thanks. 15:00, December 1, 2014 (UTC)

We typically don't ban IPs after one edit unless their edit is obscene or otherwise disturbing. If an IP just puts in random crap or removes content only once, please just put the vandalism template on their page instead of the ban request. Thanks. 21:44, December 3, 2014 (UTC)

Pagina italiana
Andiamo su, non è assurdo per nulla: la pagina serve per spiegare a che punto è e come è distribuito One Piece in Italia. Se non dice nemmeno cosa è stato pubblicato allora che cavolo di pagina è? La scritta nella pagina del mese serve proprio per indicare fino a quando le informazioni sono aggiornate. Se tanto si caricano le cover allora tanto vale aggiornare pure quella. Non è meno assurdo di aggiornare la pagina dei capitoli quando esce un nuovo capitolo o quella dei volumi.

Se aggiorniamo gli episodi usciti ogni giorno, perché dovrebbe essere un problema aggiornare questo una volta ogni 3 mesi? E se poi non rimane aggiornata, pazienza, tanto uno capsice quando è stata aggiornata l'ultima volta. Non vedo dove sta il guadagno nel togliere gli ultimi volumi usciti... Comunque ho aggiunto anche la frase che dici te.

Warning.
Please see Talk:Chapter 777 for your final warning about your inappropriate behavior recently. Anything else like what I described there will bring about a ban for you. 18:24, February 20, 2015 (UTC)

Chapter 777 Apology
Sorry for that image I posted. I shouldn't have posted it and maybe we could try being friends or talk to each other at least. SeaTerror (talk) 05:59, February 22, 2015 (UTC)

Why did Calua block me? Maybe because I said I don't believe in SeaTerror apologies? Oh, sorry for expressing my opinion! --Meganoide (talk) 20:29, February 22, 2015 (UTC)
 * PS SeaTerror was blocked for three days instead of two weeks (and then completely forgiven) and I am blocked for a week? Are you kidding? Where is consistency? I don't believe in SeaTerror's honesty and I am blocked for being skeptical. Thank you very much Calua! --Meganoide (talk) 20:37, February 22, 2015 (UTC)


 * I apologize that I had to ban you, but you've have been warned before, even if it wasn't me, it was another admin and other users. The reason why you were banned for a week is because we started doing the ladder system, and I believed that 1 week isn't that long. 2 weeks or more would have been long, but a week isn't that long. I did not know of ST being banned and unbanned before I banned you. 20:47, February 22, 2015 (UTC)


 * I think he wanted to know what was the cause/trigger of the ban since JSD didn't block him for example.


 * The situation was brought to my attention by other users. When JSD came on chat, him and I discussed it further more, eventually agreeing to one week ban. The cause of the ban was mainly the attitude. 21:23, February 22, 2015 (UTC)


 * Some examples of his attitude are in Talk:Episode 682 (his response to Xil when offering to trim the summary), St's talk page, and Xil's talk page. In Talk:Chapter 777, JSD gave him his final warning. 21:37, February 22, 2015 (UTC)

Are you serious???? In Xil's page I said I'm NOT against him. What did you understand? In ST's page I just said I don't believe him. Am I FORCED to believe his words? Different opinions are not allowed? In the talk page of episode 682 I only said that ANYONE should be allowed to trim the summary! What is the SERIOUS REASON for my ban? --Meganoide (talk) 00:16, February 23, 2015 (UTC)

The serious reason for your ban is your harmful attitude, as shown by all of the examples linked by Calu. The initial problem was not so much the content of the edit for episode 682, but the edit war, as well as your accusatory and angrily worded posts on the subsequent discussions. The goal of discussions on this wiki is to keep calm and help resolve situations, not make things worse by posting provocative posts and being impatient.

Like I already mentioned on Talk:Chapter 777, you really need to be more patient and willing to work with users, instead of accosting them.

On the 777 talk, I said "Meganoide, you should not start conversations for the sole purpose of making snarky comments. Talk pages are for discussions about article content and editing, not calling out users."

I said I would not tolerate this in the future, and I woke up this morning to your post on ST's talk. I would consider that very provocative, and snarky. Even if you say that it is "not an accusation" it is still in my eyes, a very harmful thing to say. Saying that you don't believe him does not in any way help foster cooperation between you two, or help cool the situation down: Posting that is at its very core a provocation for further bad blood between you in the future. Yes, it is your opinion, but if I told everyone I everyone I ever argued with at work my opinion of them, I would still be considered an asshole, even if I said "It's just my opinion!" Telling him (or based on the way you worded it, commanding him) that the he should just avoid undoing your edits is so far against the goals of a community based wikia project as well that I could not tolerate that as well. A community project like this means that everyone has the right to deal with the edits of everyone else, and that should not be taken away as long as there is a productive and positive effort to resolve conflicts. See, I actually agreed that Xil should not be the only one to make edits to his summary, but because of your impatience and the trouble you caused, I had to spend my time dealing with the conflicts you created instead of dealing with the initial issue.

And are you forced to believe ST? Absolutely not. But should you have the decency to respond to him with respect, or at least not respond to him at all? Absolutely. You had an opportunity to just let it go, and you chose to make an even larger issue out of it. That is just not okay in any social situation. Like I've said so many times already, this is unnecessary and not helpful to making a cooperative editing community.

Even after all of this though, I will still afford you the same courtesy I gave to ST: If you promise to apologize, I will reduce, but not totally undo, the ban. 05:12, February 23, 2015 (UTC)

Why would my ban not totally be undone? I think it's discriminant. And, among all of Calua's exemples, my message to Xilinoc really wasn't harmful! However I promise to apologize to ST. --Meganoide (talk) 12:15, February 23, 2015 (UTC)

I offered ST to reduce his ban too, and I had expected to pretty much cut it in half. I was just very busy, and didn't get to address the shortening of it until we were already about halfway through. So his ban may seem like it was undone, but in reality it was just reduced. So I have changed your ban to end on wednesday, and I expect your apology to come shortly after it ends.

I agree that your message on Xil's talk wasn't harmful actually. But that is just one example among a metaphorical sea of examples. I still believe the ban as a whole is justified. 15:10, February 23, 2015 (UTC)

And what about my last comment in Talk:Episode 682? The resume is: ok, Xil can trim his summary, but everyone should be allowed, not only him. So: where is my harmful behaviour in that? I accept my ban but I don't like when my faults are exaggerated. Meganoide (talk) 15:24, February 23, 2015 (UTC)

Your last comment on 682 is decent. Not the most civil thing, but it's ok. However your comment right before that one "You're crazy, you don't understand that it must be a SUMMARY, not a description." is an insult. There is no reason to call anyone crazy on a talk page.

We could go back and forth all day on stuff like this, but let me make it clear for you: You were mostly banned for your not following my warning on 777, and then for your post on ST's talk page. Anything else was pretty much irrelevant in our decision, however still a part of the pattern of your poor behavior. 15:31, February 23, 2015 (UTC)

I still don't understand why I have been blocked for a week while SeaTerror received a first "bonus" being blocked only for 3 days instead of 2 weeks. I'm not talking about the following decreasing. Now I'm going to check who did it, to better explain myself. --Meganoide (talk) 18:43, February 23, 2015 (UTC)

Ah, JSD! It was you! Why this difference? --Meganoide (talk) 18:45, February 23, 2015 (UTC)

SeaTerror posted one disruptive thing, you posted several disruptive things with. The disruptions that you posted were also more severe. The sum total of your offenses are not of equal severity. You are a larger disruption to the community, so you received a longer ban. Does this make sense now? 20:41, February 23, 2015 (UTC)

Not at all, because he was banned before for the same reason and he earned a 2 weeks ban which, without any explanations, was reducted to 3 days. This is, instead, my first ban for that reason. You're not objective, that's the truth. And by the way, I'm not a disruption for community, as you can see noticing that a lot of old discussions finished with my ideas being approuved, and ST's were always against them. So, while everyone has the right to say his opinions, at least you should note that my opinions often finish to improuve the wiki. And, only to be sure, "improuve the wiki" is right the opposite of "disrupt the community". --Meganoide (talk) 20:49, February 23, 2015 (UTC)

If you had read the forum I linked, it said that anyone who had been banned before we implemented this ladder system of bans was going to be banned for two weeks instead of starting them off at the length of their last ban. Since you have been banned before, you also should have gotten a two week ban, but yours was also reduced from two weeks. I have tried my best from before you two were even banned to treat you as equally as I could (like I said before, Calu and I talked about and agreed on your ban length).

4 or 5 posts ago, I wouldn't have said this, but can you please stop questioning our judgement? We've made our decision, we were kind, and we're even still willing to reduce it if you apologize to ST. I'm not gonna stop you from doing it, or punish you in any way for it, but the constant questioning is just not going to help you get over this and move forward. Can we please be done discussing this now? 21:03, February 23, 2015 (UTC)

I can not know what you said to each other, so if I have questions I'll continue to ask. PS about my apologizes to ST, I have to do them now on this page or in three days on his? --Meganoide (talk) 22:00, February 23, 2015 (UTC)

You can apologize after the ban ends on his talk page. 02:15, February 24, 2015 (UTC)

Re: Hancock's vandal
Yeah sure, all done. Should be protected against new and unregistered users. Thanks for telling me. :) 00:23, March 18, 2015 (UTC)

Hahaha well I was about to block that page too. Thanks again 00:34, March 18, 2015 (UTC)

Stub Team
Hey Meganoide. I have two things. First, you said you could just translate the info from the Italian wiki fir the Phoenix Pirates pages. If so, could you do Basil and Sutton? Don't worry about Guyle, because another user is already working on that page.

Second, I was slightly confused by your comment on the team blog. Just to clear things up: do you or do you not want to join the team? I couldn't tell from your comment, but I would love to have you join regardless. Thanks. 11:42, March 21, 2015 (UTC)

I understand. I'm sorry to hear that you've been discouraged, and, if this has been an ongoing issue, you should consult an admin. I hope all goes well at the Italian wiki and wish you the best of luck! 13:05, March 21, 2015 (UTC)

I have a pretty good idea of who you're referring to, and he is just overly stubborn. I know the debate and polling system is tedious and somewhat inefficient, but some of the new editing policies state that a user must give a reason for reverting edits. Hopefully, with this in place, your edits will get reverted less, and, if they do, there might be some intelligent discussion instead of one person reverting repeatedly. I'm sorry, but I don't know what else to tell you.

On the stub issue, I'd be happy to review your pages. I can check Sutton and any others you need me to do. 14:09, March 21, 2015 (UTC)

If someone undoes what you deleted there is a reason for it, just because you might not like reading everything that's put doesn't give you the right to delete other peoples work. it's there for a reason kindly leave it be. thank you and have a wonderful eveningCaring16:) (talk) 03:13, March 22, 2015 (UTC)

re: toe stubbing team
Sadly, I'm not an admin, although I'm intrigued by the prospect. I agree that the superfluous summary that includes phrases such as "x does this then x does this then y does this" are utterly useless. That particular user is being himself, and we all wish he'd stop. Sadly, I can't make changes to the rules, but I strongly suggest asking an actual admin, such as Calua or JustSomeDude... about it, because that does sound like a good idea.

Also, would it be possible for you to add the pages you destub to the Grammar team page? I've noticed that while you do a good job of getting content out there, it could use a few corrections here and there, and since that's sort of the thing the Grammar team is for it'll just streamline the process. I'll add a section in the Jobs list, and you can just add to it whenever you destub a page.

15:14, March 23, 2015 (UTC)

Here is where to add your destubbed articles. Even if they don't get done immediately, they'll be down on the page and we'll get to them in time.

20:30, March 23, 2015 (UTC)

Sutton is done. I tried to make it "Sutton and the crew" where possible to make copying it over a simpler job.

21:06, March 23, 2015 (UTC)

Re:Summaries
Well, my opinion on your question is that the issue for each of those specific pages was resolved on each page, but the decisions on those pages were about those pages only, and there was no larger consensus about other pages, which is probably the same thing the other editor you talk about thinks. If you want something like that, you'll have to make a forum yourself (I'm too busy IRL, and uninformed on the topics to make one myself). Personally, I also believe that issue is not about who is allowed to cut (this should be anyone), but what is supposed to be cut. The disputes over these issues are over the content you are removing, so the central issue is that very content, which is a highly subjective thing and it was definitely not settled in the original discussions.

Now about the stubbing crew: I do not believe this issue should be related to the crew much at all. The stubbing team is meant to expand pages, and in no way is it their job to cut down summaries that already exist. The only way this related to the Stub Crew is that they should follow some guidelines on how to expand pages to make sure that they are not too long in the future.

Lastly, some of my thoughts on the general topic at hand: I believe you have the wrong priority in this situation. On our wiki, over 70% of all episode pages are categorized as stubs. Do you really believe that your time is best spent taking away from pages that have a bit too much content? I know it is much easier to trim summaries that are already there, but I would encourage you to try to write summaries for pages that do not have one at this time. Then perhaps, you'll understand a bit more about what needs to be done in the future in terms of cutting summaries. But right now, I do believe that our focus should be adding content the wiki so desperately needs, instead of trimming off extra content that is not particularly harmful to the wiki. In my mind the information we lack is far more important, and discussing how to remove content is a waste of resources and time. 21:16, March 23, 2015 (UTC)

Please leave section headings on my talk page.
Kage took care of that blog. I delete things as I see them, but I'm not always around much these days, and me not deleting things right away is not a cause for concern. Also: Please leave section headings on my talk page when you post there. Thanks. 20:38, March 30, 2015 (UTC)

Re: Quality of images
No. Stuff like pixelation, bad color balance, black lines or smudges etc. = worse quality. 17:30, May 10, 2015 (UTC)

We don't allow doctored images, so no can do. I might try to find non-watermarked episodes, but TV station watermarks aren't really a problem anyway. 19:38, May 10, 2015 (UTC)

Your Ban Again
Congrats, Awaikage. Ban me and let Sh**tyError and his boyfriend Busted17 to continue their trolling game on ALL my serious edits. That's what a real admin does: silencing people who work for the wiki and get annoyed when a troll opposites them allowing the same troll to do what he wants. Sh**tyError has been banned before but he continue doing always the same. So should't I be annoyed by him? My rudeness is a direct consequence of his behaviour. PS you will ban me even because I continue defending my ideas, right? --Meganoide (talk) 23:57, May 29, 2015 (UTC)

First, check out my post Talk:Chapter 788 to find out why you're being ridiculous towards ST this time.

Second, you're half right about what "real admins do". Real admins silence people who are insulting and disruptive to the community. You have been insulting and disruptive time and time again, which is why you are banned again. Your edit summaries and talk page posts continue to show a snarky, pissed-off attitude that continues to make the community more and more upset, and frankly, they aren't helping solve any disputes, they're just making those disputes more of a spectacle to laugh at. Real admins ban disruptive people for being disruptive, and you are a disruptive editor doing disruptive things.

Third, it doesn't matter what ST does or doesn't do, it will not affect how we will treat your behavior. You are two different people and we will always judge you separately. If you both misbehave, you will both be banned. I'm not gonna lie and say ST isn't a disruptive editor, but the difference is that since his most recent ban a few weeks back, he has done nothing disruptive. (And no, the 12 words he used to voice his opinion on the 788 talk were not disruptive) You have done several disruptive things since your last ban, so you're being banned again. I should not have to explain this to you.

Finally, we gave you the privilege to still be able to edit on your own talk page, and you took that privilege and used it to continue to insult other editors and disrupt the community. This will lengthen your ban from 2 to 3 weeks. And if I see you clearly insult ST on any page again (including your response to this), no matter what, your next ban will be 3 months instead of the 1 the ladder system says it should be. Do it again after that and it will be a year. There is no imaginable scenario where insulting another user is something that we can approve of. I and the other admins have ZERO tolerance left for this, and consider this both a fair warning, and your last warning.

Hopefully you can take this time to put yourself in the shoes of a "real admin" and see that all the stuff you are doing is not helping to keep our community running smoothly. You need to see that regardless of what others do, it's YOUR behavior that you are responsible for. We will judge you for your behavior alone, just like we judge ST and others for theirs. 05:21, May 31, 2015 (UTC)

Re:Meganoide still can't get over ST
Then stop trying to snap back at him the same way he snaps to you. We all know your animosities towards ST but you're only luring him out again and again. Sorry anyways, I didn't mean it as an offence towards you personally. 15:46, June 20, 2015 (UTC)

You're reasonable. He's not. There's your answer. 16:00, June 20, 2015 (UTC)

I'm not saying this so you accept the critics. It's a critic, whether you accept it or not is your choice. I'm not making you do anything, mate. I'm not your slave master, I'm not your teacher. ST is stubborn and is punished by bans growing in length. It just seems to me snapping back at him is not particularly the best way to prevent yours. We've all bickered with ST. Don't think you're the only one. 17:40, June 20, 2015 (UTC)

So I don't mean to butt in or anything, but I think what AoD means is that when you imitate ST just to spite him (even if it's sarcasm), you are bringing yourself to his level. Also, it's probably not working either because, well, ST. If you don't agree with ST's ways, just don't follow his example. I understand your frustration, but you have to also realize that it is because you handle these matters in a way of taking things very personally and lashing out like this that you keep getting criticized. Though I agree that AoD was wrong in posting that comment, he apologized, and I'm sure he understands that what he said was a bit much as well. Please remain civil and productive to the community. I apologize for barging into the conversation. I'll be showing myself out. 18:41, June 20, 2015 (UTC)

What exactly do you mean when you say "So why does everybody let him do what he does"? ST does make baseless arguments sometimes, but unless he actively does something to disrupt the community, I personally wouldn't say his actions are even close to ban-worthy, and I'm pretty sure he has been banned several times whenever he's really gone overboard, just like any other user would be. If there are any instances you can think of where his actions did not prompt proper consequences, you can always open a forum so that we as a community can properly discuss how we feel like the situation should be dealt with. I wouldn't waste your time on the really little things though, because we all have better things to be worrying about. 20:01, June 20, 2015 (UTC)

Okay. Basically, I just have three things to say:

That's it from me. Thank you for listening! 03:46, June 21, 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) If you don't like ST (or anyone else), do just the opposite of what they do. If you mirror their actions to make a point, the people who share your views will also lose respect for you, because you are doing exactly what you (and others) don't like seeing people do. Stay logical- ignore provocations.
 * 2) People don't have the time to do research and see if you are right. If you feel like ST (or anyone else) commits actions worthy of some form of proper punishment, open a forum. If you want to be taken seriously and gain supporters, provide lots of convincing, accurate evidence so that people will actually know what you mean. Simply making claims will not make the cut here.
 * 3) Don't take opposing views personally. In most cases, that was not the intention. People don't argue with you just to spite you, they argue because your views don't match theirs. Instead of getting offended, have a discussion and do your best to convince the person who is against you using solid facts. This, often times, works surprisingly well.

I would strongly suggest that you back up your baseless assertions with evidence if you have any, rather than just saying, unconvinclingly, "totally false". It renders your arguement, if any, unfounded and unreliable while also being unfathomably oblivious to the manga and /or anime.

Wonderor of the Deep (talk) 20:18, June 20, 2015 (UTC) Wonderor of the Deep

It is also interesting that you would assume I singled you out, when I have not. Yet another baseless claim, that you've thrown out. I wrote them individually on the chat, I did not see you in the chat room, ergo I didn't mention it on there but wrote you. Nice try though at trying to be a victim.

Wonderor of the Deep (talk) 20:28, June 20, 2015 (UTC) Wonderor of the Deep

I'm feeling you are taking this way too personal and way too back into the past. I didn't mean to be rude at all to start with. Believe me, if I wanted to be rude there would be a much harsher comment on that talk. I'm not taking your past into this comment. ST was banned in early May and the only disagreement you guys have had was on the Magellan page, in which both of you were wrong since no one even bothered looking it up in the actual manga. Since then I can't find any personal attack of ST towards you in his contributions. In the Chapter 790 talk you are saying that ST is wrong, despite Kaido and I having the same opinion as ST. ST has done no personal attack towards you since that ban where he was punished for what he did to you before, so don't bring the older instances into this. You however did start a personal attack. I understand you are cross with him and I have been multiple times as well, but this is just luring the troll out again. I'm pretty sure the next time ST personally attacks you for no reason at all he will be banned again, and I promise I will urge the admins to that. But luring him out even after he was banned is not what I really expected, hence that comment. Thank you. 12:55, June 21, 2015 (UTC)

I can't say I personally told ST to stop bickering because I didn't have to; others (admins for example) were doing exactly that already, whether on chat or on the talk pages. And ST was banned several times for that. I was only trying to bring over a hint about what you were doing with the comment saying "I think ST is wrong". Bringing the past back and no word about you starting the recent attack? I find it hypocrisy that I should be the one being logical by the way. 13:41, June 21, 2015 (UTC)

I f you don't feel like opening forums because of "politics", that is fine. I'm just saying, if you want to see changes, don't just bicker for change- be the change itself. Bickering is basically a waste of time. And I'll say this again. If you don't like what people do, just don't do what they do. What's the point in looking for "illogical users"? You're just here to contribute to the One Piece community, are you not? Please carefully re-read and think about what we've all been trying to say here. 18:21, June 21, 2015 (UTC)

...why would you skip people's comments in forums other than because of laziness? The point of forums is to have a discussion with the entire community, and listen to what everyone has to say. If you don't want to be ignored, then don't ignore others. You are only enforcing what you are against. Also, fixing mistakes does count as contributing to the wiki. 19:11, June 21, 2015 (UTC)

I don't like Seaterror either however he's not that bad but he's like a brick wall and our job is to either play cards with him or walk around him. Jumping on him never helps.

Joekido (talk) 20:30, June 28, 2015 (UTC)

I'm not trying to mock you; I posted that link because I thought it applied to you. Ever since your ban ended you've been at it trying to expose flaws in the system (which you have yet to show any conclusive proof of), for only your own benefit, and disrupting the wiki in the process. PS, You're not allowed to remove talk page messages unless they're vandalism, which they aren't. 20:31, June 28, 2015 (UTC)

"Removing messages from a user talk page is forbidden unless it is obvious spam or vandalism."

This is the rule for talk page messages, and my link was neither. But I will let it slide since I doubt it would have had any effect on you anyways. If you feel so "threatened" by my message, ignore it, which you have done just fine.

If you want to get people to take you and your beliefs seriously then stop acting like a 5 year old when you see something you don't like. 20:42, June 28, 2015 (UTC)

Apparently your trying to pick a fight with me. Let me make myself clear Sherlock:

1. I'm aware of the flaws in this wiki, however it's at the point that it's beyond repairs and it's full of people who don't want to see anything wrong here. So unless we restart the wiki and change the rules and bring in creative editors and ban bad ones then we can fix the problem. However i'm not totally on a democratic side, I prefer harsh sentence but not all people deserves it. I only want to insert trivial pages and correct bunch of errors that people think it's right and refuse to see any proof I provided. However this wiki is for everyone and it's democray. I believe you are trying to turn this site into a like something of a state Nazi Germany was in.

2. Seaterror has pissed me off for so many years and know what? All we have to do is tolerate with him. Personally I want him gone often times and know what again? There are people worst then him running around this wiki and even with him gone, someone else is gonna come in and be as worst as him. I'm not saying we should give up, i'm saying we need to just reason with him, hoping that he'll finally understand. I remember back in October 2006, I was a pain in the ass and people throughout the years has to tolerate and reason with me and got banned recently, your not any better then Seaterror either so don't judge people.

3. That is all I can say. Why i'm I even writing this? A guy who's not going to understand anything people are saying?

Joekido (talk) 21:46, June 28, 2015 (UTC)

Consider this conversation closed. It is highly disruptive. If anything else needs to be said, it will be said by the admins. As much as I want to lock this page, it's silly to lock a person's talk page. And Meganoide, the topic being closed also applies to you. Do not respond to anyone else on this topic (besides me, if you choose). And keep in mind, I am still very aware of what I said the last time you were banned: If you clearly insult ST again, you will be banned for 3 months.

One final input from me is that during this whole issue, ST has remained silent, and I commend him for that. You should consider doing the same for all things related to ST. ST posting his opinion on the 790 talk was not in any way targeted towards you, and ST was not the sole force stopping progress on the wiki. We go by the clear majority's rule these days, and ST is but one voice, your continued focus on him makes little to no logical sense, and your efforts would be better spent attempting to get the opinions of other users than continually trying (and failing) to get him to change or acknowledge anything about his opinions. As much as you love to say that this wiki hasn't changed, it has. Banning users no longer requires a forum, and I have banned both you and ST completely independently from both of your "popularity" on the wiki. If you believe a user has done something that breaks a rule and deserves a ban, all you need to do is inform an admin; no forum required, no popularity involved.

But I strongly, strongly, STRONGLY urge you to just stop talking about him. It helps nobody to focus on one user so much, when a whole community exists to help solve problems. If you honestly believe that ST only posts "trolls" and not his actual opinion on the content of OP, then there is no helping you. ST has been a thorn in my side long enough for me to know that the man posts what he believes in discussions, and leaves his trolling for blog comments and chat. The fact that you still cannot assume ST's edits are done in good faith makes me strongly question how suited YOU are to be a part of this community, not ST.  22:17, June 28, 2015 (UTC)

I know you were not insulting ST. You want proof? You're not banned right now.

Also, people don't take kindly to "copying their attitude". Lord knows Gal and I did enough of that to each other over the years, and it hurt our relationship far more than most things we could have done. Sure, you can do it, but it does not mean that you should. Don't you see how it got you into trouble now with all these people coming to your talk page to take issue with it? Do you have any desire at all to be a part of this community without having to get into an argument/discussion about behavior every couple weeks? I certainly find it annoying and can't imagine you enjoy these talks either. If you have any desire to live in "wiki peace", I suggest trying not to bother people in the future, regardless of the threat of ban from it.

In regards to Kaido's post, if you are offended by it, then it stays off. If I had believed otherwise, I would have put it back myself. And we will deal with Kaido separately from you, but it likely will be just a warning, as it was his first offense, and I assume that no matter how misguided of a post it was, he did so trying to help the situation. (that's the "assuming good faith" part of my last post I added on in a second edit you may have missed.)

Anyways, I don't really care too much about the fact that this argument took place, or who was involved. If anything else happened in it that I thought deserved more discipline, I would have done so already. All I really wanted was to stop it. And also, another thing I care about is that by reading the content of your argument, you still have a serious issue with ST, which my posts (likely foolishly) try to address to get you to change your mind. 23:06, June 28, 2015 (UTC)

Pipe Links
Good day Meganoide,

We've decided in this forum that it will be OK to use redirects. While you are still free to change them to pipe links, that cannot be all you do when you edit an article (for example, your Chapter 792 edit was OK since you also edited the chapter notes). Just warning you.

It appears democracy was on your side for once in 792. Happy fourth of July. 23:55, July 3, 2015 (UTC)

At least mark all those edits as "minor", Mega. You make it the default by going to your preferences, the Editing section. 16:15, July 4, 2015 (UTC)

Again
Remove it. It's not insulting (depending on people's viewpoints, and not necessarily mine), so you're not banned yet, but it is clearly antagonistic towards ST. Just because you don't mention his name, it does not mean we're stupid and have to treat it like we don't know exactly who you are talking about. That is not some loophole you can exploit I am really disappointed I've had to use so much of my time and effort lately to moderate a one-sided user dispute instead of doing things that actually help our readers. It's part of what an administrator must do, but should not be as large a part as it has been for me. I don't mean to offend, but your talk page right now reads like a crazy person's manifesto. It sounds to me like you really need to consider that this community will decide things you don't agree with.

I copied this next part from a help page, but I really think you need to read it ALL slowly and consider what it means to the wider community. Not just you, me and ST, but the whole community that sits in silence and watches all these debates we have regularly.

''This wikia has dealt with several users in the past who have tried to turn the wikia into something that fits their "vision" of what the wikia should be. The wikia is open to all ideas and we cannot afford to let a single user's ideas dominate the wikia. That is not to say that you cannot propose any changes to the wikia, but to say that you should realize that the wikia will become what all of its users think it should be.

It is unfair and wrong to exclude anyone from discussions, or to fail to acknowledge their opinions. (Like what you are doing with ST) Decisions are made by the community as a whole, and no matter how "right" you think you are, the wikia can still decide against you. You should be prepared for the possibility that the majority of the wikia will not agree with the changes you propose, and accept it should that be the case.''

When are you going to change your attitude and behavior so that you can function as cohesive part (and honestly, a welcome part) of our community? I don't just say that as someone annoyed with what's been going on, but as someone that honestly wants to see a good editor like yourself cooperate with the community. 05:30, July 5, 2015 (UTC)

Uhm, pardon me for intruding, after reading that page I felt the need to add this but how is one person disagreeing everything when majority are against him makes this a troll? Let me sink this into my head.......nope, can't find the logic but seriously......

Joekido (talk) 05:50, July 5, 2015 (UTC)

Please imagine me shouting the follow ideas that you seem to have yet to grasp:

''' 1) THE BEHAVIOR OF OTHERS DOES NOT EXCUSE YOUR OWN.

2) PEOPLE ARE ALLOWED AND WELCOME TO HAVE DISSENTING OPINIONS.

3) PEOPLE ARE ALLOWED TO VOICE THEIR OPINIONS.

4) YOUR CONSTANT COMPLAINING ABOUT ONE USER IS MAKING THIS A VERY UNPLEASANT PLACE TO WORK. '''

And no, I did not like your post on Kaido's talk. It was just as antagonistic as his post was. And I take further issue with what you said. You and ST are out on the very same thin ice. I am treating the two of you with the very same "severity". The difference is that ST is actually more well behaved than you, and you cannot accept/handle that fact. Him going around voicing his opinion is not something the rules are against, nor would I want them to be. He dissents, but he always backs off when we have followed procedure in discussions and reached a conclusion. That is not "trolling", it is not stopping us from progressing as a wiki, and it is certainly not worth all the ill will you have towards him.

Anyways, some kind of confirmation that you've actually read and attempted to understand the things on my list would be cool. Other than that, I don't really know what I want from this. 19:03, July 5, 2015 (UTC)

Chapter 794 Talk Page
If you have any further problems please try discussing them on that Chapter's talk page. I am only suggesting this to avoid an edit war. -Adv193 (talk) 19:18, July 15, 2015 (UTC)

Finish what you start
Hey Meganoide, can you please be sure to keep up with (and continue posting on) this? If we're going to have to discuss the merits of every summary, we need to make sure that each discussion doesn't last longer than it takes for the next episode/chapter to come out. We should not assume that more people are magically going to post on the discussions. We should work to reach a usable version of the summary through discussion, and everyone in the discussion should be prepared to make some concessions. This will get easier over time, but we really need to sit down and WORK at this, no matter how hard it is. It's the only solution I can see actually working to stop these near-constant editing disputes. I'm copy/pasting this to just about everyone who's involved regularly in these disputes, so I'm not singling you out. I hope you'll help us get through this hard time for the wiki. Thanks. 03:07, July 17, 2015 (UTC)

Re:Madness
It's not. First, the word "people" in that summary means he's referring to more than one person, so not just you. Second, the idea of going crazy is insulting somehow? I don't get it. What I do get is that I, as a "people" mentioned in the summary, am going crazy after the response, making it more like a prophecy than an insult.

More importantly, I just see this as Xil making an edit in good faith (as writing a summary is a hard, long edit), knowing that the ongoing controversy surrounding the type of edit is not solved yet. Comparing the two evils of not having a summary at all, and having a summary that may cause (what should be) a small controversy, I know Xil made the edit in good faith and did not do it to "troll" as you claim.

However your summaries that say "let's use intelligence" are much more insulting, in my opinion, as it implies that people aren't using intelligence, or really a vague way of calling people idiots.

But as Nova said on the talk page: Nobody removed your cuts, and as far as I can tell, nobody objects to them. Take the win and walk away. 12:29, July 19, 2015 (UTC)

1 Month Ban
Alright Mega, this time you ignored the active discussion on Talk:Episode 702, and the decision made there to keep the section related to Donquixote Homing. You made no attempt to discuss or participate in that discussion, or to leave any kind of edit summary when you removed it for the second time. We have discussions for a reason, and you had better damn well participate in them if you expect to edit objectionable content. This brings you up further on the ban ladder to 1 month. Next time is 3 months, so please be more careful in the future. And keep in mind that my threat about ST still stands: If you insult ST, you'll face the next level of the ban ladder, so now 6 months.

It's a shame, since I actually do agree with you that many summaries need trimming, but if you can't follow our most important rule, I have no problems banning you.

You can edit your talk page if you like. 02:21, July 21, 2015 (UTC)

I simply didn't notice the discussion. However I do care no more. Stop menacing me. Do you really think it works? I cared for the good of the wiki, otherwise I would have not come back each time. So do you know what you can do with your ladder? I'm fed up with users who do what they want because they add direct insults in inoocent sentences and you don't even notice it. Good work. I'll watch the fall of this wiki. --Meganoide (talk) 17:09, July 21, 2015 (UTC)

And STOP telling you agree with me. You say you can ban without a forum, but you can not apply obvious things like trimming long summaries. Just what kind of admin are you? You're a puppet. Just an example of you being tricked. SeaTerror and I insulted each other and got banned. Next time Kaido started insulting me, so I got a second time ban. But you didn't understand that they were teaming in make me get banned. Should I have been silent while they were mocking my ideas? Oh!!! I had to tell you!!! Because you would have stopped them!!! In fact you did it! Oh no wait! You said that they were doing nothing wrong!! People noticed that I fight for my ideas and they reached in using it to give me a ban. And because they're 3 or 4 users, you would have not noticed they were acting just like a single user. --Meganoide (talk) 17:17, July 21, 2015 (UTC)

Why should I stay on this wiki if my edits are always wrong? Even my piping redirects rule was just removed. BTW, that's another small step against me, however I don't care. As I said I'm telling this to help you preventing this thing in the future, with other users targeted by the fairy team. --Meganoide (talk) 17:20, July 21, 2015 (UTC)

What? You are not making any sense here, nor are your arguments are soild enough for your defense.

Joekido (talk) 18:31, July 21, 2015 (UTC)

In my opinion I perfectly explained my point of view. I've been accused of what? To not partecipate in the fifth discussion about the same thing as ever! I should have copied and pasted my posts? That would have worked? And I also underlined that. So no more edits, for me, even when the ban ends. Pepole would only need to say "it's wrong" to earn the right to undo them. --Meganoide (talk) 18:54, July 21, 2015 (UTC)

This article and this article may be of interest to you.

18:58, July 21, 2015 (UTC)

Firstly, you started the discussion on the episode 702 talk page. I honestly find it rather difficult to comprehend how you didn't notice the discussion there but still noticed edits to the long summary. Secondly, yes you've explained your point of view well enough. Long summaries are too long, we don't know how to write summaries, we include too many useless parts, we'll never understand what you're saying. When we try to explain to you why we don't think things are useless, you don't tell us why you think they are. When we tell you why we think your edits are "wrong," you say we're ganging up on you to get you banned. So I think you're right; I don't understand what you're saying. Maybe it's because I'm still new to editing here. I'm sorry your attempts to contribute to a wiki about something you enjoy is turning out like this, but there's clearly more than just a language barrier here. MizuakiYume (talk) 19:23, July 21, 2015 (UTC)

@Nova: I'm sure they aren't. @Mizu-something: I didn't even read your message. Now everybody stop disturbing me, otherwise I'll think you're doing it on purpose. But -hey!- no one will blame you! So go on, continue. --Meganoide (talk) 19:25, July 21, 2015 (UTC)

Alright, Mega, I'm the one whose summaries you're taking offense to and I've had enough of your woe-is-me attitude, so allow me to tell it to you like it is. I and just about everyone else on this wiki have no problem with making changes to how we structure and format articles, whether it be the level of detail presented or how long certain sections should be, if someone presents a calm, valid, and well-reasoned argument as to why we should do so. This is not what you have done. You have repeatedly made calls on your own as to how summaries should be written, then gotten mad at us for following the rules by taking it to talk pages. You've insulted the intelligence of anyone who dares prefer a style other than what you like, most notably SeaTerror. With the last two episodes, you've refused to acknowledge points brought against your arguments; in fact, you've refused to listen to some of the people trying to explain all this to you on your own talk page. And then you have the gall, the nerve, the insane gumption to say that everyone else is at fault for all this because we're not being fair to you. Face it: you're creating your own problems here. Man up, shape up, grow up, and learn to act like an adult, and then we'll see about changing things. Otherwise, you're getting nowhere on this wiki.--Xilinoc (talk) 02:46, July 22, 2015 (UTC)

I was sure that someone would have continued in writing to me. Would you stop, please? I don't care ANYTHING about what ANYONE has to say. --Meganoide (talk) 17:03, July 22, 2015 (UTC)

CONVERSATION CLOSED. Mega has made it clear that he doesn't want people to write to him, and there is no need for regular users to keep interfering. Next person to involve themselves in this will be facing a ban. 17:19, July 22, 2015 (UTC)

And people is still continuing! Fascinating, really. --Meganoide (talk) 17:47, July 22, 2015 (UTC)

Reminder
While it's good that you're back and fixing grammar and broken links, remember that you can't edit a page solely to change redirects to pipe links, unless you make a major contribution along with it. Changing one or two little instances of grammar is not a major edit. 17:05, August 21, 2015 (UTC)

First, that's incredibly rude, and second, what I'm saying is valid and if you ignore the rules you become more likely to be banned. 17:18, August 21, 2015 (UTC)

Ey
I see what you are doing with the redirects, please dont..its spamming the activity. I will do them with a bot. 17:37, August 21, 2015 (UTC)

You'd better fucking read this!
If you respond to me saying that you did not read this, you will be infinitely banned from the wiki.

First off, you MUST listen to the concerns of other editors, this is a COMMUNITY, and if you are not available to work together with others, I don't see why I should let you edit here. I could get into the specifics of what they said, and your recent edits, but frankly, if you're just going to ignore them and this message, I don't see the point of wasting my time. If you respond to this, we can address the small shit like that later.

Second, I don't want to ban you. I will actually defend you from other users, because I don't want to see users being treated unfairly. I'll be the first to admit that the circumstances surrounding your first ban 2 or 3 years ago were bullshit.

I surprisingly both like and respect you as an editor and user, and in many cases such as the recent issues with summaries, I agree with the reasons why you start shit.

I will tell other users to lay the fuck off you, behind the scenes. But you don't see that, and you waste every opportunity I give you.

But the bottom line is that your behavior after you start shit makes it sooooo goddamn hard to work with you. Not just for everyone else, but for me too. You only accuse others of behaving poorly, and recently have tried to use the flimsiest of excuses to try and get other users banned out of some need for revenge or something. I am never going to ban anyone just to prove my dedication to you, I will only ban someone if they actually deserve it. In discussions, you rarely discuss the topic at hand in any detail, and only accuse members of this wiki to be stubborn, when it is you that is being stubborn.

I want very much to make things better for you, me, and the community, and all the relationships between us. But your inability to think about and acknowledge and wrong doing on your end has made it impossible for the situation to improve. Bottom line: It starts with you.

I'm at the end of my rope, here. I do not want to ban a member of my community for shit like this, especially one whose presence I feel is important to the wiki. And I'm sorry for the obscenities in this message, but I'm talking in the exact language I think in, because I very much want this to be an honest message.

Please just read this, think about it, and know that I actually care. 22:33, August 21, 2015 (UTC)

Alright, let's not beat a dead horse too much. I'm just going to ignore most everything you said "I don't believe it to" because no amount of arguing on my end will help that cause, and you don't want to elaborate on anything, so I can't address them further.


 * First, ST hasn't put any message related to you on any page in months. Kaido's message contains no insults, but you wouldn't know that since you didn't read it. And you're completely missing the core issue: It's not about not getting angry, it's about controlling any anger you have so that you can respond in a way that deals with the issue at hand without letting your anger out.


 * Here's how bans work CURRENTLY, as the rules have changed in the past 6 months, which make current issues entirely different from the past (Like your 2012 ban). Users are given an initial warning, then a final warning, then ban. The warnings and ban reasons apply to each rule separately, per the decision of the forum. Any times and additional warnings are left to as the rules say "Admin Discretion". I usually give users that respond positively another chance, because they want to better themselves as editors. Kaido was warned by me because until the issue you first pointed out, he had done nothing wrong and received no warnings about that issue. He also responded positively. ST has done NOTHING wrong since his most recent ban (and I am watching his edits closely), yet you continue to mention my not banning him as a bad thing. I don't understand this. Why should I ban a user who has done nothing wrong since his last punishment? I'm not going to ban him for past actions.


 * Why should not believe my assertion that I don't believe in the reasoning behind your first ban? That forum closed only a few months after I joined, a few months before I was an active editor, and a few more months before I could vote. I did not participate in the first discussion at all. In the most recent section of that forum, which was still long before I held any authority here, I only made 2 posts, one of which sounds shockingly consistent with what I've said recently to you. I started discussions about the issue of redirects BECAUSE of your first ban, and it was one of the first rules I helped try to change, because of the injustice of that first ban. However, I still believe your behavior after that first ban made the second one deserved.


 * The rules for bans have changed for the better, so that injustices such as your first ban don't happen anymore. We are "inconsistent" in banning people for bullshit reasons, and you call that a bad thing? If you want petty revenge, you're not going to get it at the expense of any user. Other than me: the only user I will allow you to insult. I'm an admin, and I will tolerate your insults.


 * Finally, I would be fine with you being a self-proclaimed "bot-man"... if you were doing it right. The messages on your talk page from earlier today are about how your edits aren't in line with the rule we recently made here. You would know that if you read them. If you are unavailable to let people inform you about new rules and your edits, why should we allow you, a bot, to continue to edit here? PX-Bot's user page is all about how if it's hurting articles, it should be shut down. I'm having a hard seeing why you shouldn't be shut down too.


 * Even if you're a "bot", you still need to work with the community on some level. It's unavoidable. If you can't believe that, and you can't work with that, then just tell me now; That way we don't have to beat around the bush, and I can just do what needs to be done. 00:37, August 22, 2015 (UTC)

Am I not worth responding to? 11:49, August 22, 2015 (UTC)

I was not lying. Opinions change, I'm only human. And if you honestly thought from reading all this that your fate didn't depend on how you responded to this, you're just not intelligent. When people are are the end of their rope in a relationship, you can't just say whatever you want and expect unconditional support. Opinions change based on actions and words. You chose your words and actions poorly.

I don't care that you insulted me, and if I was truly bothered by being insulted by you, I would have banned you after the first several times you personally insulted me. In my position as an admin, I see part of that as being tolerant of people personally attacking me, because due to my position, it's bound to happen. This is why in my last post to you I said that I was the only user you were allowed to insult. What I do find offensive is your continued poor behavior in general, which is far worse than anything you could say to me.

I don't disown my words from before, but I still think your attitude means you shouldn't be a part of this community anymore, regardless of your strength as a editor. Your presence is toxic.

And if I was truly and unfair, bad, and/or childish admin, I would have banned you outright. And I had the authority and ability to do so, per the rules. But I chose a ban forum. I chose to let the community make the decision about you, because I know the opinion of myself and the other admins is biased, no matter how much we try to be fair about it. It's an important issue, and I think it's very important that everyone's opinions on it are both clear and represented in the final decision. I did not do this alone.

Right now, it's unanimously in favor of your ban, and only one user is arguing against your permanent ban. I would not focus your attacks on me, and right now I have just as much of a say in your fate as the other 13 users who have posted there. 02:27, August 23, 2015 (UTC)

Ban Forum
Just to let you know, your ban forum has been re-opened and you are leaning towards a ban; even infinitely. If you want to defend yourself, you may want to respond. 22:53, August 22, 2015 (UTC)

I don't completely know what's going on myself, and have no interest to read all about it. I just want to say this: JustSomeDude probably doesn't want to ban you since you might be a useful editor (I don't really know that myself, though; I'm completely ignorant), but he opened up the ban forum because he feels you SHOULD be banned, for the good of the Wiki. Everyone does things they don't want to because they have to. That's just my take on it. He might feel differently. Like I said, I don't know what's going on, and I don't care. This is just my two cents. 23:47, August 22, 2015 (UTC)

Ban
I don't want to ban you for long while your ban forum continues, because I don't want to deprive you of the ability to defend yourself there. However, you cannot continue to violate our rules regarding editing link formats. You've been banned for 2 hours. If you continue to vandalize the wiki with your link editing, we will have to ban you for longer times until you lose the right to defend yourself in the ban forum. 16:33, August 23, 2015 (UTC)

You genius. Don't you understand that's all already decided?

Breaking a rule doesn't mean vandalizing the wiki. There is a stupid law and I ignore it. While you can ban me, you can't accuse me of vandalizing. I hope you understand the difference, but it doesn't metter in the end. --Meganoide (talk) 17:05, August 23, 2015 (UTC)

Taken from here: ''Edits that are harmful, or in violation of the wiki's rules, will result in a warning from an administrator or veteran user. The decision is then up to the administrators if they will ban the user or if they will give them another chance.''

Also, your fate isn't decided. It's your attitude that decides your fate- and if you simply agreed to start cooperating with the wikia at the very least (as this is a community after all; cooperation is an absolute must), people's opinions about you would change. 17:16, August 23, 2015 (UTC)

You're wrong, it's all decided. How can you think that saying "I'm sorry" would work? However, why did you add that link? Do you think I didn't know it? --Meganoide (talk) 17:25, August 23, 2015 (UTC)

I didn't tell you to say sorry, I said that if you went on that ban forum and showed interest in fixing your behavior, people would actually start reconsidering not giving you an infinite ban. The only reason why so many people want you permanently banned is because they believe that you will never change for the better, and if you prove otherwise, you can change their opinions. I did add that link just in case you didn't know, since you seemed to believe that "Breaking a rule doesn't mean vandalizing the wiki". 17:30, August 23, 2015 (UTC)

No, they won't change opinions. And why should I stay on this wiki? Anything I do is undone: I crop toei's symbol and I can't do it, I fix redirects and I can't do it, I trim summaries and I can't. Even if they don't ban me, what would I do on the wiki? --Meganoide (talk) 17:39, August 23, 2015 (UTC)

Yes they will, if only you tried to change them.

If they don't infinitely ban you, you have a chance to return here, a chance to fight properly for your causes, and/or a chance redeem yourself. You don't have to do any of these things, but you'll have an option to do so if you ever change your mind. 17:47, August 23, 2015 (UTC)

I'm really sorry!! I didn't understand that you were mocking me! No, I'm joking. I'm joking because you said "you'll have the chance to fight properly for your causes". So you think I haven't tried? And you really think they're not going to ban me forever? What an innocent mind you have! I'm saying it with kindness. Their continuous opposition on anything caused my rudeness. Statistically, don't you think that at least one of my ideas should have been approuved? --Meganoide (talk) 17:56, August 23, 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I think you've never properly fought for your causes. You may have some good ideas here and there, but you never provide any solid evidence to prove your point and convince others. You just assume that people are going to shoot you down, and you end there, even at times when your side has a chance. "Statistically" speaking, of course your ideas won't go through if you're the first one to give up the discussion. Who's going to be convinced that you're right if even you don't believe you can convince others?

And don't get me wrong- I do believe you'll get infinitely banned if you don't even put up a fight. That's why people keep inviting you to the ban forum- they don't want to see you infinitely banned, so they're letting you know that you have a chance if you redeem yourself. But if you don't take up on that opportunity to prove that you'll start being more cooperative in the future, we have no choice but to give you a permanent ban, because the way you currently go about doing things is harmful to all of us as a community. 18:22, August 23, 2015 (UTC)

You're not getting banned for fighting properly for your cause, you're getting banned for refusing to follow rules that we decided on together as a wiki. Who doesn't want to see you infinitely banned? Nada, Kage, JSD, just to name a few. They are all giving you a fair chance to redeem yourself. I don't think you're stupid, I just think you're incredibly stubborn. I also got that you don't really mind if you don't get to stay here, so I'll stop bothering you. 18:59, August 23, 2015 (UTC)
 * you think I didn't fight for my ideas?
 * A got banned for a year for defending my ideas about redirects. JSD yesterday agreed that my ban was not right, but now he will ban me for the same reason. He said that he would have not asked my ban, and then he did it.
 * Three discussion were opened in a week about the same arguement: trimming summaries. Each time I underlined that proofs of too long summaries were cumulating, and they simply negated it. And then JSD came and said "i agree with you but I won't change anything".
 * Me too, i believe I'll get infinitely banned if I don't even put up a fight. But i also think that I'll get infinitely banned if I do.
 * "they don't want to see you infinitely banned". WHO is THEY? The ten people who immediately agreed with a permaban? You think I'm stupid, don't you?
 * if I can't improuve the wiki why should I stay here? My ban is the second important thing, not the first one.
 * however if you agree with my ideas then fight for them and don't care about me. I don't care for me, I care for my ideas 'cause I care for the wiki. If you say you'll convince them, it's good for me. Once those nonsense habits are removed nobody will care about who made it. --Meganoide (talk) 18:40, August 23, 2015 (UTC)

Your first ban wasn't right because their wasn't a rule about redirects in existence. Now there very clearly is, and your edits are very clearly against it. That is the reason why I think your first ban wasn't right, but your current behavior is not ok. IMy opinion on what format redirects are in is irrelevant to my opinion about your ban. Users are not allowed to edit articles only to change link formats, which is what you did.

And JOP is correct, if you made ANY move towards changing your behavior, people would not be in favor of your ban. I've seen so many people in the forum and chat say something to that effect. I certainly would reconsider my stance if you reconsidered your behavior. 23:53, August 23, 2015 (UTC)

Your ban poll just opened if you want to defend yourself. This might be your last chance to avoid a permanent ban. I know you think it's going to happen either way, but a lot of people are would be willing to lower the length if you would just agree to work with the community instead of ignoring rules you don't like. 05:16, August 25, 2015 (UTC)

Today's edits
I just want to say that the edits you made today were stellar. If your could continue to edit like this and work with the community, it would be a great asset to the wiki. And I'm not the only one thinking this. The ball is in your court, as the expression goes. 03:36, August 27, 2015 (UTC)

I don't want you to be my "buddy". I would just love it if you could edit here without being a snippy child when talking to anyone. You're the one that is alienating every user here even before you interact with them with your attitude, so you need to make changes and consider your own behavior before the community will stop "mobbing" on your edits as you say. But if you're at the stage when our actions are "unforgivable", then your actions are "unforgivable" too. This should be my last communication with you, unless you want more. 14:39, August 27, 2015 (UTC)

So let's assume that it's their fault (even if I disagree with that idea). In perfect world, who takes the first step towards fixing the problem? Does it even matter who makes the first step? And why can you not take the first step? 16:36, August 27, 2015 (UTC)

Those edits were a long time ago, in a different era for the wiki. I would say that they are not relevant to the way we do things now. ST used to just revert anything that was a change from his imagined ideas of what our rules were based on "this is just the way we do things". Now we strive to make sure that if there's disagreements or unclear policies, we communicate to get a clear policy out of it. The wiki has changed a lot since 2013, and part of that comes from my distaste for what happened in your first ban. If the wiki works in this different way, can you see why your uncommunicative tendencies hurt us (and you)?

I'm honestly not really sure what your point is in the second bullet point. I'll just respond to what I do get and hopefully I'll not miss the point too much. First off, your two examples are two very different levels of severity. In one you call a user a bastard, while the other is just a general declaration. Can you see how I would treat them differently? Whereas I would ban for the first one, I would talk to the user of the second in chat and tell him just to "not poke the bear", as the expression goes. And that's what I actually did. Maybe I should have done a public warning on his talk page, as it is not entirely great behavior. But maybe I was busy and Xil was in chat already, I honestly can't recall the circumstances.

Regardless of either point, I do want to make one thing clear once more:

The behavior of other editors does not excuse your own.

Regardless of what others have done to you, why can you not move on? Why can you not judge users separately from earlier circumstances? Why do you need to obsess over edit wars from THREE YEARS AGO and refuse to acknowledge that our community has changed for the better?

I think the answers to those questions are more relevant to you potentially not getting banned than assigning blame (blame that is irrelevant if we judge users separately) to others. 20:20, August 27, 2015 (UTC)

Two months is a long time on a wiki, that's several chapters, and some users even get a lot of time to think about relationships with others over breaks that come with bans. And with ST, problem happens, discussion opens to solve the problem within an hour. Is that so offensive? You can't handle us not understanding or working on something for less than 1 hour? 02:10, August 28, 2015 (UTC)

As I've said before, the summary issue is bound to be very difficult to discuss, and likely never going to be totally solved with no future issue. The only way to fix that would be for users to calmly and quickly discuss issues with the summaries every time. However, you were never calm about it, and you never helped make it quick.

And if discussions you start never finish, did it ever occur to you that it might be the tone you take when you start them? Thing like this are just snarky attempts to bait people into discussion. OF COURSE people aren't gonna look forward to finishing real issues if the conversation starts like that. If people are responding to things every other user starts, but not you, there's only one common party: You.

And I've been consistently asking you questions about yourself, and your thoughts about your own behavior, and all I get is responses about the behavior of others to questions I didn't ask.

When are you going to look in the mirror and comment on your own behavior? 03:16, August 28, 2015 (UTC)

So you acknowledge that your behavior is bad, but you refuse to change it because of a few users? Is your dislike for them so strong that you'd rather get permanently banned than try to see if you can change your approach and improve those relationships? That's really selfish. You say you want to help the wiki, but you don't want to if it means you have to change your behavior?

And all of this is under the assumption that your behavior is "logical" and everyone else is "illogical". Let me tell you something right now: I think you are much less logical than the 100% logical you seem to think you are.

You also even say that "it can be assumed that they will disagree for illogical reasons". The word "assume" is right in there, showing that even you are speculating. You assume that if you act more nicely and cooperatively, that they will still treat you the same, and based on what I've seen, that assumption has led you not to try. Other people, especially Kaido and Xil are capable of change, you just don't believe it since you are so stubborn yourself. 13:33, August 28, 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm sick as a dog today and didn't want to do much of anything, let alone edit. Anyways, ST was in the right on that page and the site navigation section should stay. But he also undid your edit incorrectly, so he got banned for that. But that shouldn't affect anything as people's actions are judged separately from each other. 22:35, August 28, 2015 (UTC)

Just leaving this here
[http://onepiece.wikia.com/wiki/Brook/Abilities_and_Powers?diff=1068242&oldid=1068236 Though I do agree it should be removed. :/] 18:13, August 27, 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Shadoguardian, not ST. Sorry for that vagueness. 19:04, August 27, 2015 (UTC)

Yup. Though I probably would've undone him anyways had I seen the edit at that time (I just found it while searching for who originally undid you/Shadoguardian). 19:11, August 27, 2015 (UTC)