User talk:Rursus

Wikipedia have had its best days before. It's slowly waning. I'm decreasing my level of engagement one step more, it's sometimes useful good quality reading, but otherwise not improving very much from amateurish opinionating...

Untalk

• User:Rursus

Talk archive

• All talk archives of User talk:Rursus, last archived at 2010-05-16

Porvoo map

Hi, you could you please edit commons:File:Porvoo-t.svg to make the Balearic Islands yellow, since they're part of Spain? I tried doing it myself, but my knowledge of Inkscape is limited, and I couldn't figure out how to turn them yellow without turning all the rest of Europe yellow too. Thanks! —Angr (talk) 15:36, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

OK, I see. I'll fix it tomorrow. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 20:38, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Y Done Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 19:22, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Constellation Family

Thank you for your input on saving the article. The article was kept. Kindest regards to you and an additional thanks for your other astronomical article inputs over time. Thor Dockweiler (talk) 20:53, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Be welcome! Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 06:06, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Legend for List of Stars tables in various Constellations

Hello, once again. I created a template and have put a footer legend to the star list table for the first 5 constellation articles (Andromeda, Antlia, Apus, Aquarius, Aquila). Done to help provide info for those that print out articles or to provide further explanation. Just soliciting your opinion before I go to the effort of putting it on all of the constellations. For example, see List of stars in the constellation Andromeda. Kindest astronomical regards, Thor Dockweiler (talk) 05:14, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Nice! I noticed it is inserted as a template, which is a most practical thing. I give my blessings. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 07:31, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Editor Richardbooth from the Arabic Language talk page

Hello, I just saw your note here about user Richardbooth and thought I'd explain in more detail my reason for calling him a vandal.

1. It started with this edit. Turns out that there's no evidence that the book Arabic: A Nebulous Nature by Michael Zwierzanski ever existed. Further I found no evidence that Zwierzanski ever taught at Brown much less became a Professor Emeritus there.
2. Later at this same article he wrote this. Again a book whose existence could not be confirmed. (But with a title like A Quintessential Handbook in the Study of Arabic Whimsy it was pretty clearly a hoax.)
3. He then added this edit about Zwierzanski being at the Potsdam Conference which is clearly nonsense. But leads to the next point:
4. Here Richardbooth claims that Zwierzanski graduated from a high school that didn't open till 1971 and yet was involved in the Potsdam Conference during WWII.
5. And then this edit about Zwierzanski and Nixon which again is full of several instances of nonsense.
6. More
7. This rather bizarre redirect here
8. Again with the Zwierzanski silliness here
9. An odd edit here

I think Zwierzanski was a real person and if I recall correctly did do some work in Arabic languages but, again if I remember correctly, never published any books on the subject. There were a few good edits during this time and plenty of good ones before this but clearly something happened and Richardbooth began this hoax largely surrounding Michael Zwierzanski. Actually doing a quick Internet search now I'm not sure this Zwierzanski is even a real person (I didn't take notes from when I vetted his edits before).

I didn't warn him then or report any of this to admins because several months had passed before I looked into all this and he hadn't edited since then (and still hasn't). SQGibbon (talk) 10:10, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

What a troll! OK, he vandalized some little, but my impression of the guy is that he's inactive amd either bored or up for "fun", which isn't quite fun in real reality. I remember giving a friendly warning comment to an immature guy that inserted fantasy religions, and I remember a few of my first edits being destructive and stupid, but I changed my attitude. Just as a few examples. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 11:04, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

I guess what really got me is that the editor kept coming back to insert more of this Zwierzanksi stuff. Started in April of 2009, came back May of that year, started it up again in May 2010, and then finally again in November 2010. And then it wasn't until February 2011 that anyone noticed anything on the Arabic Language page. Other editors eventually caught most of his other edits but they were well-written enough to fool people giving only a cursory glance. In fact I had even read over the stuff on the Arabic Language article and it didn't strike me as a hoax. In other words there's a bit of persistence there even if spread out over a long time. Anyway, if he starts it up again at least we have a record of the evidence now. Cheers! SQGibbon (talk) 18:57, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Maybe time to warn him. I must say, reading your links to his edits that he is a rather funny vandalic troll making a few pretty preposterous and obviously false claims ("reality-irreality grammar paradigm"), but compared to two of the few known real messup guys User:Jagged 85 and User:Richontaban (see Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Jagged 85 and User:Rursus/star name desinformation) he seems to be a bored persistent joker that's just testing if he can insert one specific fiction. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 16:53, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Chaos2 Template change

Rursus, I apologize for being so bold as to change your template, but I am working on removing links to DAB pages and Chaos (disambiguation) (without the disambiguation) is my current project. If your first link was intended for a different link (Chaos recently changed), then please modify your template as necessary. Thanks for your understanding. § Music Sorter § (talk) 08:18, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

No problemo! Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 10:52, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

{{infobox general}}

Please undo all of these while the TfD is running. By removing the transclusions you're basically short-circuiting the TfD with your own favoured outcome. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 12:05, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

1. There is no desired outcome for me, except I reluctantly accepted the reasons for the TfD,

2. I was cleaning the articles that was affected by the uglicity of the TfD procedure,

3. is there any certain policy that I broke? AFAIK it is quite legal to fixup an article that is under an AfD,

4. no - request denied - not unless I broke a policy.

Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 12:44, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Oh dear.

1. Your comment on the TfD was to redirect to {{infobox}}. You then short-circuited that by altering lots of existing transclusions. The expected outcome of the TfD (per the nomination) was that the template be replaced with a standard image box, not an {{infobox}}.
2. If you think the TfD template is ugly, go and propose improving it. Editing templates out of articles to remove the TfD notice is wrong-headed.
3. WP:GTD gives a general overview. There is no specific prohibition on altering or replacing templates during a TfD, but there is plainly consensus that it isn't right.
4. That's a depressing attitude, and not one I'd expected from an editor in good standing. Nevertheless, I think I've come up with a novel way of detecting these templates, so I should be able to auto-categorise them and delete them that way once the TfD has concluded (if, as expected, it results in deletion).

Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 08:00, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Young man! (You're circa half my age). I think you're overpersonalizing this and indirectly wasting my time. The reason I denied the request is a lack of time, and no good reason to revert: the new template usage of the articles I changed is as good as the old one were. I feel like being bullied by being attributed intentions that I have not. Go read WP:GOODFAITH!

Now listen carefully: if my cleanup of the aforementioned infoboxes was a personal prestige matter and a try to thwart the TfD process, how come

1. I first defended the template, then changed my mind randomly?
2. Just fixed up a few articles that happened to be messed through the TfD, not all of them?

You're misinterpreting my position. You're taking me for a POV-pusher, and a system manipulator. I can understand your position, because you're a hardworking sysop that often meets persons that cannot get their personal position out of the texts. But I'm not your ordinary POV-pusher: I don't give a damn about {{infobox general}}, only how WP looks and whether a certain argumentation is valid or not. Why can't you leave your personal ego out of this discussion? I'm most of the time acting in the vacuum of WP where responses are very slow if none. If I've broken a policy, then link to that policy. Otherwise your request is denied because I have no time, and your request is unjustified. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 08:24, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Additionally: 1. bureaucratization comes from the bottom getting struck in the first ad-hoc try to organize an enterprise (WP:BOLD), 2. bureaucratization is the prelude of territoriality, which undermines the common ownership of WP data (WP:NOT#OWN). Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 08:32, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't really think you have an iron in this particular fire, but nevertheless your actions weren't appropriate mid-TfD and as such I asked you (asked you) to undo them, not as a matter of ego but simply because it means that the TfD close won't actually accomplish what it was meant to (getting rid of fake infoboxes). Responses like "if it's not specifically banned then I'm not doing it" aren't very productive. But never mind; there's nothing more that we can resolve here, so I'm going to drop it. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 08:49, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

OK, I beg you pardon for that! (Cultural and language misunderstandings). Now back to work! Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 09:36, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Ophiuchus

Just to let you know that somebody has put Ophiuchus (astrology), an article you created, up for deletion. MakeSense64 (talk) 16:42, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank You! I'll give some opionions. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 08:43, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:5-Astraea-Size.gif

A tag has been placed on File:5-Astraea-Size.gif requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F2 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an image page for a missing or corrupt image or an empty image description page for a Commons-hosted image.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion," which appears inside of the speedy deletion ({{db-...}}) tag (if no such tag exists, the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate). Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Marcus Qwertyus 17:30, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

July 2011

Please do not delete or edit legitimate talk page comments, as you did at Talk:Anders Behring Breivik. Such edits are disruptive and appear to be vandalism. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Please do not delete other's comments, ever. Cerejota (talk) 11:12, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I know the rules. If I deleted someone others comment, it was unintended and due to an edit conflict. However, it might be that the other one got an edit conflict, and that I did nothing to trigger the data loss. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 11:17, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

File:Brace-7.png listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Brace-7.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Calliopejen1 (talk) 03:55, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

My corrections of your factual errors

Hello. It seems you may be on vacation or busy with other things, since the time you left that stuff on JW talk page. Just to let you know I corrected your mistakes (unless they were deliberate lies, I don't know). This is what I wrote there, in case you don't see it any time soon.

Just to add my two cents, I did not read all of the comments and remarks on this section here, though some, but just basically the UNBELIEVABLE FACTUAL ERRORS put forth on the top by Rursus. These are my corrections and factual rebuttals.

• Fact 1: JV:s ALWAYS call themselves "Christian", (in fact they call themselves "the only true Biblical Christians on earth". Just check their literature and listen to their sermons.)
• Fact 2: Those who call themselves "Christians" sometimes have and do call JV:s "Christian", (not all of course, but some churches and writers (who profess to be "Christian") have referred to JWs as that, from time to time, depending.)
• Fact 3: JV:s may reject others as being "valid Christians", and others do too, vice versa, but it does not matter much on a neutral Encyclopedia context.
• Fact 4: JV:s are sometimes referred to as "cultic" by SOME who claim to be "orthodox" Christians, but not by all professed "Christians" necessarily. (And that doesn't matter as it's a known fact that the first-century Christians were referred to back then, by religious "orthodoxy", as "heretical, cultic, and crazy" too. The so-called "orthodox" turned out to be wrong, worldly, and pagan, and the fringe "heretics" turned out to be right. History never changes.) Regardless, JWs refer to themselves as, not just "Christians" (all the time, not just sometimes), but as the ONLY real New Covenant and Biblical Christians. That can easily be seen. To say that JWs "never" refer to themselves as "Christians" betrays an incredible ignorance and sloppiness (if not outright deception). Or just reckless assumption, because of agendas. JWs profess to believe in "Christianity". That's not even debatable, but completely verifiable. JWs call themselves "Christians" all the time.

This section is basically nonsense, built on 3 confirmed and absolute LIES....(or humongous mis-notions at the very least.) cheers. 68.237.235.130 (talk) 21:30, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

That's what I wrote. Just being blunt, sir, but you couldn't be more wrong. I don't know where you got that notion that JWs "never" call themselves "Christians". Because just the opposite is the case. JWs call themselves, not just "Christians", but the only true separated narrow-road no-part-of-the-word "Christians." They call themselves "Christians" all the time. So WP is correct in calling them that. In whatever sense. Just like Roman Catholics are professed "Christians" (though Luther called them pagans and called the pope "anti-christ"), so do JWs profess to be "Christians", and so do many neutral reliable sources, and so should a neutral encyclopedia. 68.237.235.130 (talk) 21:53, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't think you're blunt, and I'm grateful for your opinion. I think I'm actually being wrong in my statements, except the one that JW:s aren't Christians in the usual Christian sense. My arguments are wrong, but my opinion is founded in my practical experience in how JWs and the rest regards each other. JWs are not Christians because of their intentional separateness, which is respected by the Christians, they're not Christians because their theology demands the individual JWs to act in a significantly different behavior compared to the Christian behavior, who actually have some coherent uniform behavior based on the characteristic Christian theology. The article on JW seems to ignore the connection between behavioral codex based on theological issues completely and the comments on that talk page indicates that one or a few POV:ly kidnappers completely disrespecting WP:5P have taken over the inner workings of the article. This is an inherent weakness of Wikipedia based on some few flaws in the Wikipedian philosophy (which is generally to be regarded as pretty successful).

The Wikipedian philosophy works up to advanced college level, but not more. For religious articles, the uppermost level is less, and it will never-ever reach farther than that. Regarding religious and philosophical articles, I myself have by far surpassed the level of achievement that the Wikipedian inner workings ever will be able to achieve – I've simply lost interest in Wikipedia for that purpose. I'm slowly leaving Wikipedia to find something better that is not ruled by the flawed Ayn-Randian Objectivism, which makes democratic committees and elect authorities suspect, that is combined to the highly successful OpenSource. OpenSource rulezz, while Ayn-Randian Objectivism should replaced with regulated democracy. (Jimbo Wales is a good guy, but too many editors are influenced by the Ayn-Randian mind-virus to get Wikipedia better than a certain level). Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 08:44, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

I understand. Wikipedia has its pluses and minuses. It depends. The decent standard (though not always perfectly followed etc) is for neutral and sourced information to be the main points. By the way, I just wanted to add, as far as Jehovah's Witnesses, and the term "Christian", and their using it. I happen to know also that JWs refer to themselves (quite frequently) as "the Christian Congregation". That's even one of their official names. Something worth noting. Regards. 68.237.235.130 (talk) 22:43, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your understanding, and I agree with how it should be according to the policies, except, the policies lead the wrong way in quite a few cases. I'll occasionally be here in other articles to correct spelling errors, so I won't leave entirely for a while. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 06:42, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

I am learning about the christian symbols ALPHA and OMEGA are the beginning and the end just like GOD / JESUS — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.19.88.97 (talk) 16:37, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Christianity is full of symbols. You may be right of course, but GOD is ALPHA and OMEGA and Jesus and the Holy Ghost too. Good luck to you! Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 18:49, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Spoof star names

I see that an editor called Dbachmann has been reinserting or tinkering with various star names, including those that we had previously deleted as bogus. I'm not sure if he is merely careless or another incarnation of the old star name vandals who mixed good edits with bad. Something to keep an eye on. (BTW, he references a recent Patrick Moore book as the source for the star name "Urodelus". The only source for this can be Wikipedia, which says little for the author of the book!). Skeptic2 (talk) 11:39, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

User:Dbachmann is AFAIK a trusted editor with some position that I cannot remember just now. That must be carelessness, thank you for your note. Maybe inform him? Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 12:21, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I see you informed him! No deal then, I think, except some cleanup ... L8R. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 12:23, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Endorse your calendar edit

Thanks for marking this personal essay in the midst of an article. I wish I knew of suitable reliable sources to set it right. Jc3s5h (talk) 14:06, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

this site (which is already in the external links list) defends the "revised julian calendar". Reducing a personal essay to something encyclopedic is mostly a matter of reduction, marking places where references are needed by ^{[citation needed]}, and including references where found. In the final run, one can remove the claims that still have no references. If the remaining are hard-to-read, one may make a style improvement review. Orthodox wiki also have some concise reading about the Revised Julian Calendar, which is a good pattern for the topic. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 15:29, 3 November 2011 (UTC)