User talk:Marudubshinki/Archive 54

I get distracted sometimes.

Please click here to leave me a new message.

Stolen from Kross, who stole it from -asx-, who stole it from Redwolf24, who stole it from Linuxbeak, who stole it from an old nun.

Before adding a new section at the bottom of this Talk page, please take a good look at how it is already formatted, and please follow that formatting style. Thank you.

See also: User talk:Marudubshinki Archive 1

• User talk:Marudubshinki Archive 2

Adding pipes when they aren't needed

([1])

In this diff you changed [[prophet]]s to [[Prophet|prophet]]s. This is a pointless edit, because MediaWiki ignores the capitalization of the first letter of an article title. It merely adds length to the article. --Andre (talk) 21:32, May 13, 2005 (UTC)

'MediaWiki ignores the capitalization of the first letter'? News to me- I guess all those templates about techical limitations are pointless.

But seriously, I am just a little neurotic about not relying on implicit assumptions about what the wiki engine does or does not do, is all. More saliently, what is your actual point? Did I not mark it minor? (I might've) in which case I am sorry; I shall endeavour to be more accurate with my edit summaries. Or is it simply you object to me taking my time and making a minor edit- does that offend you?

Try to keep a little perspective here- was this worth complaining about on my talk page? I think not. --maru 18:11, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

I think he was just pointing out that you don't need to do stuff like that. There's no need to get offended. Leaving a comment on a user talk page is a common way of educating other users; it shouldn't be regarded as an insult.

And the "technical limitations" templates are useful because MediaWiki always capitalizes the first letter of an article title, which causes problems when it's not supposed to be caitalized (as in nWo). It's also useful when a name contains characters that aren't in the Latin-1 character set (which the English Wikipedia is limited to in titles), such as Paul Erdos, whose name is actually Paul Erdős with a double acute accent over the O. -- — Gwalla | Talk 22:26, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

Fair enough. But like I said, I don't particularly like being told how to spend my time- If I wish to fix a link, then that's my business. (I suspect someone might try to remind me of similar points I told Motor, but that's totally different- people are actively trying to undo his similar pedanticness.) --maru 16:27, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Nobody is "telling you what to do with your time". He said it was pointless, which it is: it serves no purpose. — Gwalla | Talk 21:45, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

The Dark Tower/Gunslinger

In the discussion on the Dark Tower VII page, you mentioned that King rewrote/issued the Gunslinger to 'remove the most glaring of broken promises'. What promise? What did he change? It's been many years since I read the first book, and I don't remember any details from it... --Lachatdelarue (talk) 14:46, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Well, if you read the Gunslinger many years ago, you are right to not remember the changes- the new edition I believe was published 2000 (check: but Amazon claims it was 2003. Hmm.)

The most significant of the changes was in Roland's meeting with Walter- a lot of the dialogue was changed; since I happen to have the old edition at hand, I'll copy from it.

"Who is your master?"

"I have never seen him, but you must. In order to reach the Tower you must reach this one first, the Ageless Stranger."

pg 211

"This Stranger, this Maerlyn, is a minion of the Tower? Like yourself?"

"Much greater than I. It has been given to him to live backward in time. He darkles. He tincts. He is in all times. Yet there is one greater than he.

"Who?"

"The Beast," the man in black whispered fearfully. "the keeper of the Tower. The originator of all glammer."

pg 212

Notice how little resemblance to the actual ending all this has.

Also, a good reason why so many felt cheated by the ending- consider this passage, which is one of the first to really speak of the Dark Tower:

Yet suppose further. Suppose all worlds, all universes, met in a single nexus, a single pylon, a Tower. A stairway, perhaps, to the Godhead itself. WOuld you dare, gunslinger? Could it be that somehwere above all of endless reality, there exists a Room...?

You dare not.

You dare not.

pg 209

And so on. Lists of the differences are available online, but I think I've lost the link. Oh well. Left as an exercise to the reader...

--maru 15:18, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Walter IS the Ageless Stranger, and I do believe The Beast refers to The Crimson King. --Anon.

You're only fooling yourself. --Maru (talk) Contribs 06:57, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Archiving

It's really more appropriate to archive old conversations in subpages of your talkpage, rather than creating entirely new talkpages. User_talk:Marudubshinki Archive 1 is technically the talkpage for the nonexistent user User:Marudubshinki Archive 1, and creating userpages or user talkpages under nonexistent user names is discouraged (except in some very rare circumstances—the only one I can think of at the moment is User:Mr. Treason, and even then the username was technically registered for it), even if the "username" is as unlikely as "Marudubshinki Archive 1".

You can create user talk subpages by using the slash character. For example, User_talk:Marudubshinki/Archive 1. Subpages automatically link back to their parent pages at the top, and you can write subpage links in "shorthand" in the parent page by leaving out the title of the parent page and just supplying the slash and subpage title, e.g. /Archive 1 leads to the same place as User talk:Marudubshinki/Archive 1. -- — Gwalla | Talk 22:36, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll remember that next time. --Maru 3 July 2005 02:22 (UTC)

KOTOR II

Hey, check out this article on Kae and its vfd, and comment on it if you could. Thanks. --Nufy8 00:52, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Done. --maru 02:42, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

VFD Kotor II

Thanks for letting me know about the VFD for the cut ending to KOTORII. --K1Bond007 20:08, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)

I figured the contributors to the page might want to know. --maru 20:18, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Maru, the page got deleted. You know why? cause I remember there being more votes for keeping and merging it? --Psi edit

The dude what did closed the VfD claimed that there was nothing to merge. So he simply deleted it. Bogus I know, but he moved too fast for me to complain. And after all my work on that article, I'm too tired to restart it from scratch in the main KOTOR II article. --maru 03:38, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Who deleted it? A Wikipedia official? There should be more info included on thet KOTOR II article. --Psi edit

Rossami. VfD. --maru 05:07, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Turns out that I copied all of the info on the article to my computer. If you want it I'll post it on my user page. --Psi edit

!

!

Could you? --maru 28 June 2005 22:49 (UTC)

I did. Just click my name. --Psi edit

Thank you! Understand, I can't add it in immediately (a trifle busy writing Grand Admiral Miltin Takel), but soon. --maru 29 June 2005 01:44 (UTC)

I understand. No problem.What parts of it will you add to the KOTOR II article? --Psi edit

The links, the summary, and maybe a summary of the content as well. Depends. --maru 30 June 2005 03:24 (UTC)

Supreme Warlord Harrsk

Can you explain what you mean by "copied from Wookiepedia"? I can't find any information on this character at either http://www.objectsspace.com/quote/index.php/Main_Page or http://wiki.jenkster.com/index.php/Wookiepedia. I'm trying to find some evidence that it's okay to copy information from wherever you copied it without it either being a copyright violation or required that you give credit. --RickK 23:28, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)

Of course- what I mean by that was simply that the text, barring a few minor fixes I threw in, was copied from the Star Wars Wiki, or more affectionately, "Wookiepedia" (get it? Wiki-pedia, Wookie-pedia... ?). Since it seems to be hosted by a wiki foundation project and claims to be an offshoot of Wikipedia, I naturally assumed that their stuff is under the GFDL which allows such copying. And since I've copied over to them a few article I wrote for Wikipedia proper (Joruus C'Baoth, Lumiya etc.), I felt it was only fair to bring some back to fix a few links in articles I was writing. That help? --maru 02:23, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The Jenkster page is the first result in a Google search for Wookiepedia, so you shouldn't find it surprising that someone who wasn't aware of the Star Wars Wiki would think that was what you were referring to. Wikicities is not part of Wikimedia like Wikipedia, Wiktionary, et al, but is licensed under the GFDL so it's legit to copy content back and forth, as long as proper attribution is given (that means linking to the source page at the very least, the same standard to which we hold Wikipedia mirrors). -- — Gwalla | Talk 02:43, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, Gwalla. That's what I meant by "required that you give credit". If it's a GFDL copy, we have to link back to the original. I've put a copyvio template on it until such a time as a link back to the original page is included. RickK 04:07, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)

:( Once again, what I don't know comes back to bite me in the arse- I had thought that the GFDL simply required you to let other people share it as well. Oops. Well, I'll go an add the links to that effect, but if there is a template or standard format for that sorta thing, I'd appreciate knowing. --maru 14:23, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Jedi Exile

Although the male option is canonical, it doesn't nullify the fact that in the game the Exile can be either male or female. If you want to list the canonical gender, edit both this article and the Revan article, to stay consistent. --Anonymous

In case you haven't noticed, the Revan article does indeed list him as male. --maru 04:42, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Disciple and Handmaiden

These two are KOTOR II characters, and have nothing to do with Revan. Perhaps this note would be more appropriate at the Jedi Exile page. --Sikon 16:50, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

D'oh! Sorry- I don't suppose the excuse I've been editing so many SW articles lately I can't see straight will wash...? --maru 19:03, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the speedy response

Well, you didn't need to delete the Whole bitch! BUT it's your page. The trouble is Tan won't compromise at all, at all. I think we have one of the graphics programs around, so I'll turn my 15 y.o. loose on that avenue. In the meantime, I posted a revert and protect request, and added to the Tan RfC. Yeah, I'm being nearly as stubborn, but he seems to need "the two by four across the ears!". Thanks, --Fabartus 16:48, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC) re: "Kipling? That's somewhat silly- Kipling would have made it rhyme. But more seriously ..." Hey - I placed out of most college english courses... give me a break, I'm but a poor humble Eng-Gin-Ear! --Fabartus 16:53, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"Placed out", or "fell out" drunk? --maru 17:30, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Followed your advice. See Tsushima Strait arty now. See the talk for desert! --Fabartus 22:44, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

:-0 ... Did you really spend 4 hours talking to admins, and a full hour editing the image? I wouldn't have thought it would take much more than 25 minutes. --maru 22:55, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

:>( ... Only half joking... oh, there were other things in the way, but the Bill reads the way it seems. At least, 2.5-3 overall. I did get some research done, and some other editing, but what a wasted day off! --Fabartus 23:28, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Mr Tan wrote this morning and mentioned that he's only a kid - 14-15 y.o., so I wrote him back, made nice and think I'll suggest he work together on some stuff with my two boys. They both need practice writing. I'm going to offer to send him a CDROM I got a few years ago on Middle School Grammer, which of course my guys are too good to bother with. Could make for an interesting summer! Thanks fer holdin me hand!

btw - 25 minutes!, you trying to make an old fart feel inadequate? --Fabartus 17:14, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Err- no! Of course not! I would not attempt to play such mind games with a respected elder- what I meant was I broke down the procedure to a minute to double size through zooming, 2 minutes to get the color right and erase the arrow pointing to the island, another 10 minutes to get the arrow pointing to the strait right, and umm, 12 minutes to save the file. Plus about ten minutes to upload (uploading has always been very quick for me- I think the Grand Admiral Grant article's picture took maybe three minutes to upload and include in the article. But then, tabbed browsing greatly speeds up wiki-editing.) And I was glad to help- I've been watching Tan ever since Bell quasi-vandalized his user page, so its nice to see one dispute that didn't end in acrimony. Who knows, perhaps one day I'll make a passable admin. ;) --~~

Dark Lord of the Sith business

Hey. There seems to be some disputes over this whole subject - and to avoid an all out edit-war, I'd like people to comment on this. I started a discussion going at KFan's talk page, so please add your thoughts if you would be so kind. Thanks. --Nufy8 22:51, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the old, old Republic histories are not an area I am particularly well versed in, so I am largely staying out of this one (although, I do have the SW encyclopedia and guide to characters, and one of the Dark Horse comic books, so a specific dispute I could do some research in; but not the whole general topic of succession.) --maru 22:54, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Jerec

Yup, Jerec's now been officially confirmed as a Miraluka. Check it out here: [2] --Jon Hart

Darth Millenial

Yeah, I discovered he was an actual character after marking the page for a speedy delete and by the time I went to remove the notice, it was too late. Oh well, the article was only a succession box and nothing more. It would have been deleted anyways.--Kross 04:11, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

Thats what the List of minor Sith characters is for. ;)--Kross 16:06, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

Darth Millennial is little more than a name in terms of Star Wars continuity. The character was mentioned in "The Dark Forces Saga, Part 5: Two Peas in a Pod" as a "Sith apprentice" who "abandoned his master to focus on the philosophy of Rule by the Strong, espoused by the "Dark One" Lord Kaan, rather than on Darth Bane's restrictive Rule of Two." He is said to have brought the Dark Force religion to Dromund Kaas, but beyond that, no further information is available. --Publius 04:16, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Well, I've added what I've pieced together. Hope it works, and no-one deletes it... /glances over at Kross. --maru 12:39, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Grand Moff Ardus Kaine

Grand Moff Ardus Kaine's death during Operation Shadow Hand is mentioned in The Essential Chronology (Messrs. Daniel Wallace and Kevin Anderson, Del Rey Books, 2000). --Publius 03:37, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Canonical

Tell me, do you have a huge problem with someone not accepting some of the Expanded Universe franchise that you have to go off on some tangent, telling me that I'm "evil" and that I should kill myself on account of not accepting the New Jedi Order series of novels? (Which is what I really don't like). --Scorpionman 15:13, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

... Did you miss completely the edit summary, wherein I mentioned the humorous nature of my post, and noted that while you are free to construct your own fanfic continuity, LLC has the copyrights, and has indeed made the NJO and other EU series canon? --maru 16:59, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

If the series are secondary canon to the films, we don't have to believe them if we don't want to, do we? Hard to believe Luke would be a heretic. --Scorpionman 17:15, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Not being well-versed in the NJO, I have no idea what you are talking about vz. heresy. But I suppose you don't have to believe them... in the same way you don't have to believe in the Copenhagen or Tegmark interpretation of quantum mechanics. If you don't like the EU, declare it fanfiction, and never see hide or hair of it again. Just don't expect the rest of us to follow. --maru 17:45, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

One more thing. If the movies are a higher canon than the NJO series of novels, would George Lucas have the right make a third trilogy contradicting these novels? --Scorpionman 18:41, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yep. And the higher-in-the-canon-hierarchy items would win; that's how the hierarchy works, higher overrules lower. Novels are lower than movies, so if movies decided that the Yuuzhan Vong never started their incursion, but chose a different galaxy to attack, the NJO would become non-canon (I personally don't think that any of the NJO would survive Lucas deciding suchly, since every last thing, detail, event, character in the NJO is contingent on the Vong. As the Vong goes in canonicity, so the rest IMO). A more tricky scenario would be if Lucas decided that the scripts for the last trilogy (which he says he'll never make, but...) should be the basis of EU novels, and scrapped the Vong. In fact, Lucas releasing any of the plot of the last trilogy would probably be a disaster for the Expanded Universe, since every time period except for after NJO is already well-charted and colonized by novels and games and such. --maru 19:13, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Cool. --Scorpionman 30 June 2005 23:05 (UTC)

Your email

I just received your email (I generally only check it once a day or so), and from your recent edits you are clearly no longer blocked. I am not fully aware of all the wrinkles in the blocking software, but I do know that if an IP address is blocked, then no one can edit from that address even if they are logged in. How difficult it would be to change this I don't know, but I've seen a number of requests for this over the time I've been at Wikipedia without any real answer. --gadfium 3 July 2005 00:26 (UTC)

I can edit again because I took the time to punch a hole through it. So I lose security when I access the en.wikipedia.org domain, but none others. An unsatisfactory compromise, but it works. Would it be possible for you to check with a developer on how difficult it would be to allow logged-in edits? I've also seen some grumblings on the mailing lists about just that, so its not just me; and you would probably get a quicker/more accurate answer than I, a mere editor. --Maru 3 July 2005 02:19 (UTC)

Irregardless

I won't bother to change it on the Star Destroyer page, but "irregardless" is actually a redundant word that is primarily unique to American English; "regardless" is actually the correct form. ;) – --Mipadi July 4, 2005 03:21 (UTC)

Aye, I know. I changed it for stylistic reasons- imagine you are reading the article, and a horde of anon.s are trying to edit it in your mouth, do you want to be saying regardless or ir regardless! ? Which one sounds more emphatic? --Maru 4 July 2005 03:34 (UTC)

List of Star Wars planets

Excellent work on the References section of List of Star Wars planets! – Mipadi July 8, 2005 00:41 (UTC)

Thanks; nice to know someone noticed. But as they say at funerals, "Don't send flowers, send edits!".

...Or something like that. --Maru 8 July 2005 01:07 (UTC)

I'll work on it. :) I've had to go to this pesky thing called "work" lately, which puts a real damper on my free time. – Mipadi July 8, 2005 01:38 (UTC)

/nods head sagely. Yes indeed, he has heard of the dread enemy of Wikipedians everywhere named 'Work'. Indeed, he himself has only been able to acquire so much good wiki-karma lately due to recovering from some surgery. Truly, Wiki giveth, and Wiki taketh away. --Maru 8 July 2005 01:43 (UTC)

Common Interests

I am very impressed with your contributions to wikipedia. I am also a fan of Star Wars, and Dune. It struck me as ironic that i also had placed Bria Tharen on my watch list, intending to reform the article.

I was wondering what sources you used for the 12 Grand Admirals article, and what sources you plan on using for the Bria Tharen article.

Also, I was wondering if perhaps you be interested in a collaborative effort on the topic of Bria Tharen. Let me know... --jonasaurus 03:06, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Thank you.

The sources for the Grand Admirals I meticulously noted in their articles, but the primary source was The Imperial Grand Admirals; the only source for most of the GAs is the Insider magazine article, and as I do not have a copy, I was forced to rely on that web page's summary of the Insider article. I have noticed that articles I place in my ToDo section keep getting done- I was fairly annoyed when someone beat me to Isolder. Factually, (now that I look at the article), the Tharen article isn't too bad; it is the writing that grates on me, and the lack of references (For references I'll borrow from [[List of Star Wars references, adding any of the missing Han Solo trilogy (the only novels Tharen appears in) books to the list and article as needed). So I'll fix those when I have the time. But I don't really see what that article needs besides that. --Maru 03:02, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Re: Talk:List of Star Wars references

Glad something of use to you came out of our discussion. sort/uniq is just one example of the power of UNIX - I'd highly recommend reading up on some of the other UNIX tools sometime, too. Take care. --Jon Dowland 20:35, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

You too Jon. I thought our argument was good-natured and cordial, for the most part, and I'm glad to find you think so too. And I agree, Unices are teh 4w3some! :) Too bad man pages are so dull to read... --Maru 23:15, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Feng-kan != Fenggan

You asked : "Why did you move all the Feng-kan related pages to Fenggan? I have never seen him named that, and I was following Red Pine's usage. Also, Feng-kan has multiple hits, for the right guy, while Fenggan returns many more hits- but not a single one appears to reference the monk. --Maru 16:40, 15 July 2005 (UTC)"

I found this page [3] that states that buddhist names have to be spelled like I did (Hanshan, Shide, Fenggan). --gbog 02:43, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Over here versus over there

So Maru. Have you had fun constantly reverting SuperShadow crap from articles like Yoda and the like? This is the very reason I cannot continue keeping up with stuff here versus the Wookieepedia. If you don't want anons constantly adding noncanon info, then its best to make a section in that article that denounces all that information, or you could put in the infobox "intentionally unknown" or something to keep the anons and easily fooled from changing it again. Well I'm going back to the other Pedia. --Riffsyphon1024 05:33, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

Bah! If one cannot take the heat, one should depart the kitchen. Scurry back to your unknown, insular little Wiki; I shall continue to cherry-pick of your compatriots' work (and, as always, contribute/fix my new articles. Incidentally, what did you think of the Grand Admiral articles?). At least my work here will actually be read. --Maru 01:58, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Bogus vfds

Thank you for removing most of the bogus vfds from User:138.130.215.115's rampage. His trolling is becoming more than a simple annoyance, and is disruptive to Wikipedia. I would list him on vandalism in progress (again), but I'm still not clear on the policy, and whether or not this constitutes vandalism. If it doesn't, then still, something needs to be done. I particularly laugh at the fact that he clearly looked at my user page, went down the list of articles I created, and added a vfd to each page, one by one. You'd think he'd at least make an attempt to hide the fact that his intent was malicious, but I guess not. Anyway, thanks for the help. --Nufy8 19:14, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

I think you could make a very strong case for vandalism- none of those are at all serious noms (like the Sion one is- that one does not seem to be going well, frankly.) And no thanks are necessary, or expected, but it's nice to know someone noticed. --Maru 02:51, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Racist poopy

You are poopy! You calling me a vandal? Well you racist poopy!!!!! kornflaces

See, this is exactly what I meant by the whole 'vandal' thing. --Maru 05:14, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Count Dooku Clone

In the Clone Wars video game The New Droid Army, Anakin Skywalker fights and "kills" a Force doppelganger of Count Dooku. In Yoda: Dark Rendezvous, set two years later, Dooku reveals that at some point during the Clone Wars Anakin killed a clone of him (Dooku). It's implied that this was an authentic clone, not just a Force-generated illusion controlled by the real Dooku, and I wanted to specify that in the article. Jon Hart 21:33, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Ah, I see- I do not play the video games nor have I caught up on the Ep III novels; rather tenuous though. Good luck with the inevitable vfds alleging non-notability. :) --Maru 01:34, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Dune quote

I think the catholic in O.C. bible has zero overlap with catholicism. Dune Encyclopedia has large section on O.C. and also touches origin of its name but without giving definitive explanation. --Pavel Vozenilek 14:32, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

There is overlap: if you had read the DE entries, you would have noticed that the Roman Catholic church was one participant in the Ecumenical council, that several other groups had the word 'catholic' in their names, and that they chose the word catholic as part of the title as an expression of how 'universal' they wanted the OC bible to be. --Maru 16:29, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Darth Revan

About the changes to the article, do you think you could revert the whole female thing by User:Pattern spider and the anon that deleted the canon bit please? I tried explaining the situation on the Darth Revan Talk page, but the user seems to have ignored it. Also, I tried contacting that user on his/her talk page, and it seems that he/she ignored that as well. I don't want to break the three-revet rule, but I'd hate for someone to stumble on the page and take in false information, especially after it's been discussed and proven at such length. --Nufy8 23:30, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

If I didn't already agree with you, I'd accuse you of violating the spirit of 3R. :) Consider it done. --Maru 23:34, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Much appreciated. --Nufy8 23:41, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

KOTOR II characters

What do you think of the current state of the KOTOR II characters pages? It seems some of them are in the minor characters page and some of them have pages of their own. I think it would be better if all of them had articles. What do you think? --Psi edit

With the caveat that the characters can't be minor, I agree- but who are you thinking of? The three Sith Lords have articles, the Exile and Atris have articles &etc. --Maru 19:14, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Vissas, Handmaiden, Disciple. I think there may be more. --Psi edit

Handmaiden, Disciple, and the other party members I don't think notable enough yet to rate more than a large-ish 'minor characters' page, since they don't truly affect the story. Visas though should probably be in a solitary page; come to think of it, didn't she have a page before, and it got merged? --Maru 02:44, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Yes she did and it is now merged here. And I happen to think that the Handmaiden should have its own article, I guess if I can find more info for those 2 I will remake the articles for them. --Psi edit

Well, good luck finding enough data to justify popping off Handmaiden off the list. --Maru 01:52, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Force-sensitivity

If you would, Force-sensitive could use any information that makes an exception to the at-birth idea, or just some clarification that it's possible to teach it within other disciplines (and maybe name some). --Nufy8 18:39, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Oh. Sure- just didn't realize the article existed. --Maru 18:41, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Sith And Dark Jedi Code

I got it from this forum: http://www.darkjedibrotherhood.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=1239. Hope i've been of assistance. --Ood Bnar 18:04, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

That does indeed help a bit and I appreciate it, but reading through it it seems that various forumites variously claim it is taken from the Revenge of the Sith novelization or something to do with the Shadow Academy (which may or may not be the one in the Young Jedi Knights.) Further checking is needed, but I'm gonna leave it as it is until I find out one way or other. --Maru 18:18, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Zsinj

Props for expanding the Warlord Zsinj article— I was astounded when I stumbled onto the article and saw that there was barely any material for that character. – Mipadi 04:29, August 20, 2005 (UTC)

Hold the kudos for when I'm done! I've still his whole decline to do! (and so was I). --Maru 05:32, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm gazing in awe, and now you deserve the kudos. Nice work with the Zsinj article! – Mipadi 01:09, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks! Unfortunately, I was going to go through the X-Wing series, and add missing data but I no longer have the books. :( Oh well, the edits I just made will have to satisfy. (Yes, there was more I could add, and I did.) --Maru (talk) 03:37, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

RfA

Your support is greatly appreciated :). You seem to have about the same experience as me, and with more edits, so the good conduct you display as a Wikipedian and editor should be some indication that adminship isn't far off for yourself as well. Let me know what you think. --Nufy8 02:48, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Aww, you're just saying that. But I have nowhere near as many awards as you, nor do I have a neat little "vandalism box" (probably because I'd be able to only list one or two vandalisations). I also feel I don't have enough knowledge of templates and more advanced wiki-fu like infoboxes and images and footnotes and such-like. It is my belief an admin should be an expert on that sort of thing. With all your vandal fighting, you should definitely be a shoo-in. --Maru 02:55, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Well, if you ever change your mind, you know where to go. At any rate, Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Nufy8 :). --Nufy8 00:55, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Glad to see it! Now you can beat me to reverting even *more* vandals. (You've beaten me to reversions on Yoda alone about ten times now.) And maybe I shall, but we'll see how yours goes. --Maru 03:47, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

My sincerest thanks for your support. Speaking of Yoda, that anon is at it again. He's persistent, I'll give him that. What irks me the most is that he is completely ignoring my attempts to talk to him. --Nufy8 03:55, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

/rolls eyes. ""Dumbledore's greatest weakness is that he always thinks the best of people", said Snape."

Have you added him to the persistent vandal page yet? --Maru 03:57, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Although it is an annoyance, it doesn't seem to qualify as vandalism. POV, fan fic, bad grammar, etc., but probably not vandalism. This is more for using WP:RFC if things get ridiculous and he refuses to stop. --Nufy8 04:05, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Now you beat me to the reversion :). --Nufy8 04:14, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Had to get lucky sometime. --Maru 04:24, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Well, there you go, it worked out well :). Thanks again, and by the way, I see you're going to RIT - I myself was planning on going there (being from a suburb Rochester myself) until I switched my area of interest away from what they provided. Anyway, have fun! --Nufy8 00:33, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Really? That's too bad; I would have liked to start a section on my user page for "Wikipedians I know in RL". Another Everett branch of the multiverse maybe... Out of curiosity, what did you change your area of interest to? One of the liberal arts? And more importantly, when do you start leveraging your newfound status to gain World Domination? --Maru 05:37, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Liberal Arts, yes. More specifically, English. As for domination, I prefer to set my sights higher: galactic domination :). Nufy8 21:59, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Well, best of luck at Nazareth College! --Maru (talk) 01:38, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Niagara University, actually :). --Nufy8 03:02, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Oops. The most annoying thing is I knew it was Niagara, but when I went to look it up, I hit Nazareth and I was distracted by some other articles and completely put in the wrong thing. The joys of whois and non-use of anonymizers, eh? :) --Maru (talk) 03:10, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Talk:Darth_Traya#Kreia_.2F_Darth_Traya

Learn from the mistakes you have to... --G.S.K.Lee 15:54, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Discussing Yoda we were not. Hmmph. --Maru 23:58, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Category:Millennial Wikipedians

Category:Millennial Wikipedians has been listed on categories for deletion. Since you are using it on your user page please weigh in on the vote and that of the other generational categories here. Thanks. --JCarriker 20:31, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

Human (Star Wars)

The information on the Miraluka and the Jedi Temple comes from no source I've ever encountered. It's possible that it originates from a sourcebook or some type of RPG supplement, but it's just as possible that it's a fan-created idea. If the anon can't cite a legitimate source, I'd consider it false and remove it. --Jon Hart 03:49, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Boba Fett

Yes, that's the common practice with Star Wars articles. --Copperchair 07:23, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Well... If you say so. But that one from the Bounty Hunter anthology is especially good ("Everyone dies..."), and it's a shame to see it go. --Maru 15:19, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Formatting

Thanks for formatting my talk page :). --Nufy8 21:38, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Stick to the basics, I say! I originally got my start formatting Talk: pages (well, and writing Buttercup Festival). And don't worry, I didn't do it from altruistic, friendly, congratulatory reasons either: I plan to worm my way into your life, until you are a puppet, solely dependent upon my will. Then, when, with my constant pushing and insidious schemes forming a backdrop to the grand sweep of events, you ascend to power, I shall be the true leader. Mwa ha ha ha! --Maru 23:11, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

I, Nufy8, award you this completely generic barnstar for your consistently helpful contributions to Wikipedia, and because none of the specific barnstars would suffice. Someone really should make a Star Wars barnstar - there's one for Star Trek, after all.

Your proposition... intrigues me. At any rate, check out this star. It's from a barn. Or so I've been told. --Nufy8

Excellent- it is too late to back out now, Nufy! The operation began half an hour ago! But first I shall go stick this lovely star on my User page. My suggestion for a SW Barnstar would include an adaption of the Rebel Alliance symbol. I wonder what the Star Trek barnstar looks like... --Maru 23:42, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

It's here. There's even a Stargate one. --Nufy8 23:56, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

That is amusing. But I still say the star should either be made out of lightsabers or that red stuff used in the Rebel Alliance logo, IMO. --Maru 00:01, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

SW Barnstar

You mean something like this? --nae'blis _(talk) 20:55, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

... How do you do that? --Maru (talk) 21:57, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

...do what, exactly? Make the icon? The GIMP (or any program with layers) is your friend... ;) nae'blis _(talk) 22:43, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

No, that thing you do, you know man, that thing. --Maru (talk) 22:46, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Oh, that thing. Well, you know.... --nae'blis _(talk) 01:06, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Quotation marks

David S. Touretzky - 18:19, 1 September 2005 edit summary - "rv AI's edit- it is well known that adding quotes is prejudicial; are you trying to make the statement Touretzky is given too much credit here, which is why inspiried is quest". -Maru[4]

Please explain what you mean by adding quotes is prejudicial. I used the quotes to indicate that it is not really inspiration. Whether or not this usage is well known is besides the point, usage in this manner is explained in dictionaries and grammar books.

I was disputing User:Touretzky's use of the word INSPIRED because it is misleading. However, I allowed it to remain. I don't see that other contributors to the "gallery" were inspired in an artistic sense. I see DeCSS supporters who were in a capacity and willingness to support Touretzky's "gallery" idea to oppose the Digital Millennium Copyright Act.

For the sake of NPOV, in David_Touretzky#Free speech activism, Judge Kaplan's comments about Touretzky's views on freedom of speech[5] should be presented. Touretzky may be an activist, but he is not an expert. --AI

I shall disregard your last section; I do not believe I've reverted or attacked those statements. If I did revert it along with the 'inspiration' bit, it was accidental.

What I meant in my truncated edit summary was this: assuming good faith, I did not understand your edit. It seemed nonsensical. Did you mean to say that the haiku, square dance et al. were uncreative and original? That I doubted. Did you mean to say that they were artistic and original, but Touretzky was being given too much credit, in that the contributors were actually independently inspired by the events, or perhaps by another person entirely? In which case I would've reverted as well, as you did not point out who then inspired it. Did you mean to say that they were indeed artistic, but wholly independent of one another? Unlikely.

Looking through the edit history, I see you wish to replace 'inspired' with a more anemic and neutral "other contributors added". I do not think this is an improvement, as "inspired" is more specific, as it narrows the range down to essentially "multiple independent actors following the lead of the actor Touretzky", instead of the range of possibilities I list above.

I see further that you have removed the informative and relevant "dead agenting" links and replaced them with a "Religious Freedom Watch". Replace=not good edit. Add, in addition to,=good edit.

I might further note that depending on how one counts, you may well've broken the Three Revert Rule, as this is not a case of vandalism. --Maru 21:08, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Anonymous contributions

Beyond simply stating that you previously edited as a certain anon IP on your user page, I do not believe there is a way to directly credit anonymous edits to your current user name. However, I'll ask on IRC when I get the chance, just to make sure. --Nufy8 20:24, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. Shall go mention it on user page then. --Maru 20:46, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Personal attacks

Marudubshinki, please do not make personal attacks. In your edit summary you made a personal attack about the previous contributors formatting syle.[6] For more information about the policy on personal attacks see Wikipedia:No personal attacks. --AI 22:15, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

In the very spirit in which you edit, AI, I shall reply: you notice the adjective used was "sucks". Furthermore, it will no doubt have not escaped your imposing intelligence that the object of which the adjective previously was the anon. editor's formatting. Your vast knowledge and experience must have failed you this once, AI, as denigrating someone's work is nowhere even close to personally attacking/insulting them. Thusly, your complaint is baseless. --Maru (talk) 22:55, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

AI was here. --AI 09:48, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

What?! AI, kindly do not spam my Talk: page. --Maru (talk) 16:29, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

I saw no reason to give you further comment other than a note to indicate that I have looked at your response. It is apparent that you have not read or understood WP:NPA, or you simply disagree with it. Stating that a user's contribution "sucks" is contrary to WP:NPA and I suggest you abide by the policy. --AI 20:40, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

If I may interject for a moment, WP:NPA states "comment on content, not on the contributor." Maru commented on the content and not the contributor. So... uh... I don't know what else to say. --Nufy8 21:47, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Maru has a habit of "rule bending," followed by accusations of his own against those who bring it to light. - AWF

And you have a habit of personal attacks, agreeing with banned trolls, and commenting on matters you are ignorant of? --Maru (talk) Contribs 17:51, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Ummon/Yunmen Wenyan

Yunmen Wenyan is Standard Chinese for Ummon Bun'en. This seems more appropriate for a Chinese person. I think there is a vague and unstated tradition on Wikipedia that using Chinese names for Chinese people trumps most common usage, except in the case of people who are very well-known (e.g., Confucius). At least, I can't think of any Chinese people who are listed under Japanese names here. --Nat Krause 09:11, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Alright then. --Maru (talk) 11:29, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Eric S. Raymond

I have first-hand knowledge of ESR's palsy as he is local to my area, and periodically present at local LUG meetings. But for a second source, check out this salon article: http://archive.salon.com/21st/feature/1998/04/cov_14feature.html Raymond tells the writer directly about his palsy. --Magnus 14:36, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Great! Now we have two online sources for the palsy, Salon and ESR himself. That should shut that vandal up. --Maru (talk) 18:29, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Lord Kaan

Sorry, I didn't add that reference, and, since I don't own the story, I can't provide any publishing details other than that it appeared in Star Wars Gamer #3. Jon Hart 17:12, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Sith

The special abilities and powers exclusive to the prestige classes would fall under the heading of gameplay mechanics, but the classes themselves exist in-universe. In fact, I believe there are more than just Assassin, Marauder, and Lord, but until I get a chance to check The Dark Side Sourcebook, I can't be sure. --Jon Hart 17:12, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Well... If you say so. But I too shall check the DSS, through the power of Inter-library Loan. Just in case you've misremembered. --Maru (talk) 17:17, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Palpatine

Vandalism? Why is that vandalism, I ask? --The Wookieepedian 02:31, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

I was lumping you in with the previous trio or however many of vandals there were, for re-putting in their additions. The edit is questionable since I believe we've established that Plagueis is definitely established as Sidious' master in the novelization, which counts the same as the movie. Even if the edit is amended to specify that the movie does not definitively establish Plagueis as Sidious' master (although strongly implied), I would argue this is of truly minor importance or interest, as the canon-level of the novel and movie are exactly equal. Now, if the canon levels were unequal, that would be interesting, but they aren't. --Maru (talk) 03:13, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

I was certainly surprised to see I was "vandalizing" the page after an edit that largely involved fixing grammatical mistakes. - AWF

And removing sections, entire sentences, multiple cites and external links... You'll notice I did manually merge in your good changes. --Maru (talk) Contribs 05:42, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

I had removed sentences which were irrelevant or poory written, but left the general message in place. I don't recall "removing sections," though the article could certainly use it by now. As far as external links, all references were left intact. What I did do, however, was to remove an entire line of citations that you had written in support of a lone sentence. An entire space across the page featuring only numerical links to the references below which remained untouched. You'll keep in mind that my edit was apparently in good choice, considering it hasn't been yet reversed. - AWF

You mean that edit that added an animated gif, or whatever that was? It was only not reverted because it had been there a modest amount of time. And I can find no mention in WP:CITE of removing references as a good idea. --Maru (talk) Contribs

The Dai Bendu Knights on Force (Star Wars)

Did you mean to remove the item "The Dai Bendu Knights" in the list of Organized Force Traditions? Because if you did, you might want to know that it's still there (you didn't actually remove it). – Mipadi 04:23, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

What? This shall not stand! --Maru (talk) 18:35, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Without Murdering SuperShadow...

What do you want to do to him or have someone do to him? --Shultz 02:14, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

I'd like him to shut up, get a life, and issue a blanket denunciation of his lies and evil works. Then leave the SW community the hell alone. But I'm dreaming... --Maru (talk) 02:16, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

CAD Hack

You mean the site wasn't hacked? It was all a ruse? --72.144.21.218 20:27, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

No, silly- it was just a joke. Got your goat, I see. :) --Maru (talk) 20:28, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Oh allright. I actually just checked the site again - earlier it sounded it more believable, but after they added in the part about "breaking throught the gates on the border", the "mounties open firing on them", and them "killing Scott", I realized the whole thing was a hoax! --65.9.109.15 21:10, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

I figured you would. One day we'll look back on this and laugh; and by one day, I mean today. --Maru (talk) 21:18, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for keeping an eye on Bogdanov Affair.

Please continue to do so. --r b-j 02:27, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

I will. I was asked as a favor by bishonen, and I think it behooves me to intervene in another edit war anyway with my unique style. --Maru (talk) 03:45, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

---

I will suggest you to be more careful not to be the source of a new chaos instead of defusing one....it will be most distressing to witness such one again.

You took some mesures who are unlikely to be the right ones in that case, and it will crave a certain degree of familiarity with the subject and its history to can handle the task properly. Do not dismiss users with longer experience with the case as it was based on this experience that the talk page was brought out. For instance, I received mails from the person who wrote the biography of the affair both for the french and the english talk page, as those din't knew enough about the matter to start with. If I were you, I will feel suspicious of receiving approuval and encouragemets about what you are doing, from a person who first heard about this affair for 3 weeks ago, second: heard about it from ybm -the drive force of this affair and person who resurected it from ashes in nov. 2003 - so not much reliable as an eye opener and arbitrary source of informations, and third: who has conducted, since then, a revert war in the best anti-3RR rules, and best ybm styles...

It isn't right for an admi to emit subjectiv and judgementals accusations toward users, as calling them socket puppet and other insulting terminology, as it is usually to be found in the mouth of the persons who in shortage of argumentation, choose to attack people personnaly in best sophistics style. So no surprise that the person who rever you is the same one who used that language constantly against other users before you stepped in, and who was also doing the reverting job as you are doing it now.

It is abusively unclear, what you are trying to do, and I do hope that a more adequate person will take over the surveillance of this talk page. One with the right degree of integrity, the proper knowledge of the stuff, here physic, a thourough insight in the affair and its history, and a knowledge of the people involved and their characters and profile in regard to the topic. I think here of Nicholas Turnbull, administrator, and expert in mediation.

I have, unfortunately, to aknowledge the fact that your latest actions have resulted in creating a turmoil on the site, based both on your actions and your utterings, and that you have provocated 50% of the users, who had already been harshly provocated by user r-b-j for several weeks and needed therefor the administrators help to put an end to it, not to overtake the place of the source of turmoils.

I do believe that you are acting your best with your actual knowledge of the facts, but nonetheless you should be more carefull to don't bruise som ego by commiting unfully justified and unjust actions in the process, and as a consequence endanger the quality of the talk page.

As those arguments for and against have been dancing in parallel for far too long time, without everreaching a solid ground of agreement, and as references made by anti bogdanov are always pointed at some unclear statement made by scientifics a long time ago, where most did redraw it, and as all those people of science didn't knew a thing about Theoretical Physic and/or Cosmologie, which this dispute is about, and as the positiv statements, made by specialists in the fields named above, are systematically unaccepted for tricky reasons, as are the statements made on this page by pro-bogdanovian, who are called socket puppets for a yes or for a no, I suggest this affair to be settled once and for all by truly and undiscustably specialists in that field, I named Holger Beck Nielsen professor of the Copenhague Niels Bohr Institut of Theoretical Physic, and Stephen W. Hawking, from the Chair of Mathematic of Cambridge University.

I have already made the necessary steps in order to bring professor Holger Beck Nielsen attention to that matter, and would like to know if anyone feel of doing the same in England. I tried already to suggest this approach above, but it seems that my suggestion was drawned in the tumults of the fights and remained ignored. I will ask you to make a join effort to gather your attention on this particular possibility and think of how each of you can take part in its fullfillment, in the best interest of all parts involved.

- Lets work as a team -

--XAL 22:16, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

This appears to be a straight copy of a similar text you added to the Bogdanov Talk page. I shall respond there. --Maru (talk) 01:35, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Recent edit to User:Geogre

Thanks for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and has been reverted. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thanks. --81.139.125.50 05:20, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Heh. Serves me right. --Maru (talk) 13:05, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

The vanity of human wishes...

Skeltonian indeed! If the l337 folks ever managed Skelton, it would be one of those infinite monkey accidents. --Geogre 17:16, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

I did what I could. Skeltonian verse is harder than it looks, mon, especially in l33t. --Maru (talk) 19:03, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Also, if you examine the heart of my poem, disregarding the excess l33t (non)verbiage, you'll find it is indeed Skeltonic verse; tumble rhymes in irregular length lines. --Maru (talk) 19:08, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Your RfA

Maru, why didn't you tell me?! (Ever notice how SW quotes can be applied to just about anything?) Anyway, good luck. --Nufy8 17:30, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

It was the NPOV.... from a certain POV ;) I didn't mention it because I didn't want it to look like I was gathering supporters and comrades to vote for me. 'sides, I knew you would find out soon enough, as indeed you did (Thanks for the vote, BTW). In addition, I nearly fell dead of sleep after setting up and answering for the RfA- it was about 3 am at that point, so going around and telling people just would have taken too much time and effort at that point. --Maru (talk) 17:36, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Edit lock on Bogdanov talk page

Say Maru: I need to fix two small inaccuracies (I try to fix these as soon as I discover them) of my last post to Talk:Bogdanov_Affair which you have an edit lock on. Well, I guess I can do it tomorrow. I gotta go to bed, now. --r b-j 04:57, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

It is not actually locked- people are suposed to respect the notice and not edit voluntarily as a courtesy. I'll definitely be done tomorrow... err.. later today, and even if I'm not I'll remove tag before I go to bed as well. --Maru (talk) 05:00, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Editing users' talk page

I appreciate your commitment with typography, anyway could you refrain yourself from editing others' talk pages? Especially on meaningless ortho/typographic details? Thanks. --YBM 18:46, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm afraid I can't. Going through the relevant Talk pages is educating me considerably about this matter, and those "meaningless" details detract from comprehensibility considerably; both my understanding, and that of others. Fortunately, I think I've taken care of most of the pages- I've done User:XAL's, I've done yours, I've done that monster called Talk:Bogdanov Affair; I think that only leaves rbj's. --Maru (talk) 18:51, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

By doing so you are modifying texts written by other people on my own Talk Page, I can't accept that. --YBM 19:01, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Your loss. --Maru (talk) 19:08, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Royal Guard

That information comes from Kanos's entry in The New Essential Guide to Characters, I believe. I can look up the exact quotation if you like. --Jon Hart 19:59, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

No, that's good enough. I simply wanted a reference to add. --Maru (talk) 21:16, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Welcome!

Hi Marudubshinki! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Happy editing! --Maru (talk) 01:30, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

I just noticed while you are a valuable user, you never got welcomed- consider this a belated one. --Maru (talk) 01:30, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Aw, thanks. BTW, how do I do category redirects? --Maru (talk) 01:30, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

No idea. Go ask one of the people on the IRC channel. --Maru (talk) 01:30, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Alright then. --Maru (talk) 01:30, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Insanity. --Nufy8 04:07, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

WP:BITE. For shame, Nufy8. I expected better of you, as an admin, than personal attacks, like calling Maru insane. --Maru (talk) 04:34, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

RfC

Please take a look here. --chris.lawson 03:48, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Done. --Maru (talk) 04:42, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Bogdanov affair case

Hey- over at Talk:Bogdanov Affair, XAL said this:

"And I would very much like to know who you think you are and who appointed you on that talk page? For your knowledge Maru was officially placed here to watch this talk page by mediator Nicholas Turnbull, and this talking is in the process on entering the arbitration comity, so your interventions here are so outplaced as they can be! I talked with Nicholas Turnbull tonight who disagree with your actions. You are not appointed here and do not have to make decisions above the heads of the members of the arbitration comity, so you will be very kind to step aside and anihilate your previous doing. This is not your playground. I do not know what are your motives to act as you own the place, as nobody has ever seen you here, but you do seems to go at it with a revenge. Any reasons who would be worth mentioning now, to us poor mortals?"

Did I miss where I was officially empower'd by you to oversee Bogdanov? --Maru (talk) 03:01, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Hmm, interesting. No, I never officially placed you whatsoever- I asked you to assist via IRC, if I remember correctly, but I certainly didn't elect you as the final ruler of the page dispute! I fear XAL possibly misunderstood the scenario somewhat. Thanks for helping out, by the way. --NicholasTurnbull 18:41, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

That's what I thought- actually, wait, I thought Bishonen was the one who asked me. Now I'm confused. ANYWAYS, thanks for the thanks. I was definitely on the path to burning out, what with both Snowspinner and Hamster turning on me (or at least that was how it seemed at the time), and the abuse from most parties w/r/t Bogdanov. --Maru (talk) 04:46, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

RFA

Hi! Your RFA nomination was successful. However a bug in the software is preventing us from setting sysop rights. In other words, you've got the licence but not the keys. More details on the RFA talk page. Thank you for your patience. Regards, User:Nichalp/sg 07:52, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Congratulations. --Nufy8 15:43, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Hey, how about that? My lifelong dream (well, for nine months) has been accomplished. How very awesome. --Maru (talk) 16:20, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Jaxl's RfA

Hi Maru, thanks for supporting me on my RfA, and congrats on becoming an admin! Robert 15:41, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Ditto! --Maru (talk) 17:08, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Fanfic

Yep, delete away. --Jon Hart 02:37, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Glad to hear. I'll do that soons I finish this Dark Jedi categorization (I can't believe it didn't already exist). --Maru (talk) 02:38, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

You're a sysop!

Hi, Marudubshinki/Archive 54, Congratulations on Becoming a Sysop

Hey there. I'm pleased to let you know that, consensus being reached, you are now an administrator! You've volunteered to do housekeeping duties that normal users sadly cannot participate in. Sysops can't do a lot of stuff: They can't delete pages just like that (except patent nonsense like "aojt9085yu8;3ou"), and they can't protect pages in an edit war they are involved in. But they can delete random junk, ban anonymous vandals, delete pages listed on Votes for deletion (provided there's a consensus) for more than one week, protect pages when asked to, and keep the few protected pages that exist on Wikipedia up to date.

Almost anything you can do can be undone, but please take a look at The Administrators' how-to guide and the Administrators' reading list before you get started (although you should have read that during your candidacy ;). Take a look before experimenting with your powers. Also, please add Administrators' noticeboard to your watchlist, as there are always discussions/requests for admins there. If you have any questions drop me a message at My talk page. Have fun! =Nichalp «Talk»= 20241011121710

Yay! --Maru (talk) 06:26, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Rfa

Congrats on Rfa success Maru. --Dlyons493 Talk 12:56, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Congratulations

Congratulations on becoming an admin! --CambridgeBayWeather 08:10, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Thank you! \(^o^)/ --Maru (talk) Contribs 05:17, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Popups tool

Congratulations on being made an admin! I thought you might like to know of a javascript tool that may help in your editing by giving easy access to many admin features. It's described at Wikipedia:Tools/Navigation popups. The quick version of the installation procedure for admins is to paste the following into User:Marudubshinki/Archive 54/monobook.js:

// [[User:Lupin/popups.js]] - please include this line 

document.write('<script type="text/javascript" src="' 
             + 'http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Lupin/popups.js' 
             + '&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript&dontcountme=s"></script>');

popupShortcutKeys=true; // optional: enable keyboard shortcuts
popupAdminLinks=true;   // optional: enable admin links

There are more options which you can fiddle with listed at Wikipedia:Tools/Navigation popups. Give it a try and let me know if you find any glitches or have suggestions for improvements! --Lupin|talk|popups 14:57, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Alright, I'll give it a shot. Looks pretty interesting. --Maru (talk) 16:43, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Multifarious

You did me such a favor when you reinstated the Inquistorius, then you instated me as a Bishop, then you forgave my blasphemy, then you voted positively on my RfA.... How can I ever thank you sufficiently? --Maru (talk) 00:50, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Hmmm, I checked the closet, and it seems like I'm good on first-born children...I have always wanted an idol, though, if you have one sitting around... ; - ) -- Essjay · Talk 00:58, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

May I suggest a grammar fetish? --Maru (talk) 00:59, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Hmmm? -- Essjay · Talk 01:00, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, I don't off hand have any non-Semitic idols, but I do have a grammar fetish, an irrational obsession with and idolization of enforcing grammatical rules and strictures. --Maru (talk) 01:04, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Oh...I thought maybe I'd made a mistake and you were suggesting that I learn to write more accurately...Oops! -- Essjay · Talk 01:36, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Heh. No, I was using Fetish in the religious sense, as in Fetishism, as opposed to Idolatry. I had thought as a professor of religion it would be clear for you, but perhaps my writing was at fault here. --Maru (talk) 01:49, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Ah. I typically take any comment to mean the most common usage; I kept checking over what I wrote to figure out where I'd made an error! -- Essjay · Talk 01:56, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

My oppose vote on Adam1213's RfA

I am not joking about wanting to be an admin. I dont see why you have to of made a certaint amount of edits to be an admin. You should instead look at a user and see what they will accomplish for wikipedia by being an admin. --Adam1213 01:09, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

I asked whether you were joking because if you had read anything or looked at anything dealing with RfA that you didn't have a chance in hell. You have 165 edits total- in the past 6 months, only two RfAs with under 1000 edits (and not far under either) have passed, of many that tried. Secondly, you haven't been here all that long. Thirdly, a disconcertingly large number of your edits are useless to Wikipedia- and you article edits are not major or impressive either. You really should have looked at my standards before complaining here. Now I am even less likely to change my vote. My advice? Take your inevitable defeat well. Stick around for another three months. Have at least a thousand edits. Then begin considering an RfA. In fact, wait untill someone else nominates you: that would be the best course. Adminship is not something to desire or seek lightly. --Maru (talk) 01:29, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

"clean up Adrian Lamo"

... while I'm occasionally in need of cleaning, I prefer to handle it in the relative privacy of my own shower, thanks : ) --Adrian 21:07, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Heh. I was referring actually to your article, not you (though from what I hear, you could use it ;). And yes, we do sorta harp on signing because conversations can sprawl out over time, and not signing can in active/old talk pages make it utterly impossible to follow what is going on. And it is not hard at all! A simple --~~~~ is all it takes, and the benefits are great, so our anality I think can be understood. --Maru (talk) 22:00, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

-- I was being a tad facetious, as you may have realized :) I generally sign my contributions to discussions; I have no idea why it escaped me initially. My postcrime life also contains 38% more showers, though I was an exceptionally well-groomed homeless hacker =P -- Adrian 16:25, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

-- RE: less jes' link to yer wikiarticle, nyet? -- I'm not opposed to having the link there. I just didn't want to be the one to add it, as it seemed to be in poor taste to link to my own article from my userpage :) -- Adrian 01:28, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

I like to think of it as a disambig- is it this Adrian Lamo, or another? The Talk page gives the answer, but what if you are not starting at the talk page? --Maru (talk) 04:27, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Barnstar

Damnit, you changed the one on your user page before I could give it to you. Guess it's not exactly "generic" anymore. Anyways, thanks for the award. --Nufy8 22:13, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Jes' call me "speedy fingers gonzales". :) BTW, I recently added Hethrir. If you have nothing better to do, you could look it over. Also: I beat you to Jon Hart. --Maru (talk) 22:19, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Name

All official sources I've ever seen that give a collective title to Zahn's trilogy use The Thrawn Trilogy. --Jon Hart 22:50, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Understood. --Maru (talk) 23:04, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Lumpy's stuffed bantha

To be honest with you, I really don't know what the hell I was thinking when I put that pagfe up. I put the thing up on the star wars wiki and they were adding to it of all things. So I, and I don't know why, wondered if it might be allowed here. And, for some strange reason no one found it. I'm sorry for even adding it. Totally belongs only at the star wars wiki. I'm going to add my vote to delete it as well. It is pretty stupid for the purposes of this website. I'll keep those types at the star wars wiki from now on. It was late at night, and well, I wasn't thinking. The Wookieepedian 00:42, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Decent enough excuse. I forgive you this time, but if you do it again and add Jaina Solo's Panties or something, well, I can't promise what I will or won't do... And were the Wookipedia people really adding to it? 0.o --Maru (talk) 03:26, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Dude, that's so a violation of WP:BEANS. It took all the willpower I have not to create that article. --chris.lawson 04:45, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Curses! My temptation failed. And it was such a good one too. --Maru (talk) 04:49, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

At least you did the right thing and un-redded the link. ;) --chris.lawson 04:55, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

I knew it was only a matter of time before you gave in, so I made a redirect and beat you to it. My work here is done. --Maru (talk) 04:57, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Esperanza Block (Is that an oxymoron)?

Well, congrats, and welcome to the club! --Bratsche^{talk | Esperanza} 12:03, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Indeed. And it would appear not to be in this case! --Maru (talk) 13:06, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Question from my RfA

Maru-- I am going to answer your question here instead of on my RfA page, because that page is getting fairly long, and This will only increase that problem. I guess I should probably leave a link there though. Okay, here goes. Information is free. When Carnegie was making all his money, he insisted on giving a lot of it to establish free libraries, so that everyone in every situation could have a chance at learning. I feel Wikipedia is doing the same thing today. The idea that everyone can contribute something is amazing. Some people's specializations around here are astounding. The idea of free software, etc. is something fairly new to me. I only stumbled across it a few years ago. I am not a "computer person" per se, but I love the idea that something can actually get done in a freeware environment. This wiki is one of the pinnacle acheivements of the Internet, I feel. People that actually want to spend their time fighting vandals, fixing articles, and creating something bigger than themselves, all without compensation. Simply amazing. The idea of free speech is important to me. I have done several lenghty research papers on the subject and could go on for hours writing about it, but I will summarise it as this: I have no problem with free speech. Everyone has the right to be heard, and don't try and stifle what may need to be heard. "Free speech zones" are a crock. But while I am a proponent of free speech, I do think we need to be wary somewhat. I think some people have taken political correctness to far, and have started to repress free speech. I do not think that children should be exposed to pornography or extreme violence. Sorry, I am blabbering now. But to the point, the freedom of speech is how we are able to keep people in power in check. And as to your question, I do not feel this has much to do with my political leanings, but rather more with my principles and ideas. I hope I have answered your question, and sorry for such a long answer. --Lord Voldemort ^{(Dark Mark)|My RfA} 18:16, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

No no, a lengthy answer is what I was hoping for: it makes it difficult for you to give a disingenuous answer, and delves deeper anyways. And I disagree- I think this is all very political. Good politics is indistinguishable from science and philosophy and ideas and such, I feel: we've just forgotten. --Maru (talk) 18:26, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, I think that science, philosophy and the like all have a role in politics, but do not define it. People all the time separate their ideas and their politics (Blind support for a party, etc.). And today's "politics" are just awful. Not many people think much anymore. Well, at least that's what I think. --Lord Voldemort ^{(Dark Mark)|My RfA} 18:31, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

What I meant was more along the lines of this: politics and science should not really be distinct; the experimental method should apply to both equally. If policies fail to do what is promised, then that political faction should be discarded, and new policies/hypotheses proposed. It should be like philosophy in that arguments are logically sound, that they do not use logical fallacies and propaganda techniques, that their platform is consistent etc. --Maru (talk) 19:10, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

RFA standards

Good to know :). I'm compiling a list of users with similar voting tendencies. Right now I'm thinking a guild is the way to go, with one user voting in opposition for several guild members if the candidate does not meet their criteria. Other users can then change, or leave their vote if there are extenuating circumstances. freestylefrappe 18:39, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't think it is a good precedent to set that there can be some editor voting for other editors. Each editor may have the same standards, but should be required to cast their own vote of support or oppose. I know I'm butting in here, but I think what you're doing could lead to a dangerous place. --Lord Voldemort ^{(Dark Mark)|My RfA} 18:48, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, I was thinking it would go like this: that this guild/cabal/group would essentially bring together voters who have similar standards; then a few members could keep an eye on RfA. When something distasteful is going down (ie a good qualified RfA in danger of failing, or a bad RfA in danger of succeeding), those few would run back and alert the others that they might want to look at this. Proxy voting,... well, I don't trust any other user that much. --Maru (talk) 19:05, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I have no problem if there is a group that can alert each other to happenings, but my concern was with the proxy voting. --Lord Voldemort ^{(Dark Mark)|My RfA} 19:11, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Darth Traya

I thought we already concluded that the three Sith Lords in KotOR II were just that, and not Dark Lords of the Sith? Nufy8 20:43, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Oops. I'll go fix that. --Maru (talk) 20:46, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. And I'm not on IRC anymore because I have lost interest with it. --Nufy8 20:49, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Lost... interest... in IRC? /me's head asplodes. Well, I'm sticking around on it. Good for cabalism and getting admin advice quickly. --Maru (talk) 20:52, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Format changes to Talk:Eliezer Yudkowsky

Hi. I see you keep changing the formatting of my comments on this page. Sometimes it might be a mistake not to increase the depth of the nesting, true, but in the places you changed it it was not. My last comment, for example, was not a reply to Yudkowsky's last comment, but to the one prior to that, to which Yudkowsky's last comment was an addendum. Both my last comment and Yudkowsky's last should therefore be at the same level of depth. Miai 00:35, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Oh. /looks again. Well, if you say so... --Maru (talk) 00:38, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, you've been here longer than I have, so if there's some special Wikipedia rule for how conversations on talk pages should be formatted that I'm unaware of, I'd be happy if you would explain it to me. I'm just following normal net conventions for how threaded conversations should be formatted. Miai 00:41, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

For talk pages the standards generally are: the headers have a space between the double equal signs and the header name itself (unlike in an article) and there is one line between the header and the message. The message is generally not broken up by spaces, and always one indentation below the comment it is replying to if any. They are always signed, and to sign properly you go like this: --~~~~. So they look like so: --Maru (talk) 00:50, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Your Durin Chart

Hey Maru, it's all set, although i've put your edit totals into two charts -- it's a different graphical story for users with massive amounts of edits. Where would you like it? I think i'm going to make a subpage anyway, so I can leave a copy here on your talk page, but I saw it looked very large so you could just see it there. I'll put a link to the subpage on my userpage, which should be up by the end of the day. --Karmafist 16:00, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Just put it on a sub page, I'll link to it from my user page in the same section as my RfA and Kate's Tool are linked (User:Marudubshinki/Edits seems appropriate.) BTW: I'm afraid the chart is already outdated; I'm up to 5346 edits now. --Maru (talk) 16:05, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

WP:CP

Hi, you've reported copyright infringements to WP:CP in the last week, a new measure was recently passed to allow the speedy deltion of new pages that are cut and paste copyvios. Please follow these instructions if you come across this type of copyvio. Thanks. --nixie 00:03, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Blatant copyright infringements may now be "speedied" If an article and all its revisions are unquestionably copied from the website of a commercial content provider and there is no assertion of permission, ownership or fair use and none seems likely, and the article is less than 48 hours old, it may be speedily deleted. See CSD A8 for full conditions. After notifying the uploading editor by using wording similar to: {{nothanks-sd|pg=page name|url=url of source}} -- ~~~~ Blank the page and replace the text with {{db-copyvio|url=url of source}} to the article in question, leaving the content visible. An administrator will examine the article and decide whether to speedily delete it or not.

Hey

Thanks for your response. --Shelburne Kismaayo 22:34, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

'Tis I who should be thanking you. The existence of administrators such as Redwolf and I are predicated on three things (well, one thing, keeping Wikipedia healthy, but in practice it breaks down to two things): one, using our powers to close out paperwork, like deleting pages and finishing votes or AfDs. Two, fighting vandals, setting exampls that way, and blocking them when the vandals should be blocked. And three, helping the less experienced. --Maru (talk) 23:03, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Redirecting?

Hi! Thanks for telling me about Babel, I'd been wondering. There's something I need to ask you about. Searching for soccer and association football produces the same result. How do I do that for an article I create? Let's say I want searches for 'abc' and 'abcd' to target the same article. Thank you. --Aabha R 07:36, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

So, you want to know how to make redirects. That's actually pretty easy. Ok, suppose you want you want FOOBARBAZ to redirect to Metasyntactic variable? Well, in this hypothetical example, the link is in a page, so you could just click on it right? When you do, it opens up an empty page for you to edit. Then, in this case, you would insert #REDIRECT[[Metasyntactic variable]], and save. And now anyone who visits FOOBARBAZ or clicks on it will swiftly be taken to Metasyntactic variable instead. This also works with the "go" button, if there is no page by the name of what you are looking for (it will offer a link to create the page). And that's all there is to it. BTW, if you are creating a genuinely new article, not just a redirect, it is a very good idea to go through all variations of captilization and possible spelling errors, and make sure there is a redirect to the real article for each. --Maru (talk) 17:39, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks a ton! That was a great help!:) Aabha R 12:54, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Fanfic

Yep, this's fake, too. The title is legit, however; it's the in-universe name used to refer to the events covered in the Gameboy Advance game Star Wars: The New Droid Army. Jon Hart 22:40, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Sigh. Will vandals never cease? At least I can replace the nonsense with something. --Maru (talk) 00:20, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Barnstar

Thanks for the badass star thingy, by the way. I just noticed its presence on my page. Woohoo, I rule! --Jon Hart 22:57, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

That's what you get for being in the SW cabal. --Maru (talk) 00:20, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Mission Vao

Mission cannot become a Jedi (unless you use a third-party mod). This is KOTOR I, not KOTOR II. - Sikon 00:52, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Oops. I coulda sworn she could become a Jedi. Hmm. Better undo that then. --Maru (talk) 00:54, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for voting on my RfA

Dear Marudubshinki: Even though you voted Neutral on my candidacy, I would like to thank you for taking the time to vote on my RfA. Oppose and Neutral votes are as useful to me as Support votes, since they serve to highlight areas in which I can improve myself and become a better administrator. As my RfA was successful, I would be most grateful if you would please tell me how you would like to see me improve, and what areas you think I should work on, as I am always looking for feedback. I am most grateful for your assistance, and I look forward to working with you in the future. Best regards, --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) (e-mail) (cabal) 05:16, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

I was wondering when you would finally make it to me. I've followed the progress of your thanks with interest (I actually found it astonishing and not a little disturbing how many of the user pages who voted I watch.) I'm not at all unhappy with the outcome of the RfA. I couldn't bring myself to actually vote support, but I was rooting for you regardless. As far as improvements go, really, you only need to discard any resemblance of a life outside of Wikipedia and I'll be happy. :) --Maru (talk) 05:30, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Wiki Wars!

Argh! I was misled by your phrase "your Arbitraryness... etc". Anyway, I'll leave you specialists take over from now on ;) Plus I was dying to say that... please re add it when you see fit;) Hugs! Shauri smile! 19:12, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Actually, you weren't. Darth Vader and Princess Leia have a very brief appearance, which breaks up the long on-Tatooine section of the movie. And I definitely will add your comment- EB for Dantooine works on so many levels. --Maru (talk) 19:37, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dara Jade

I noticed you deleted Dara Jade, and I was going to close Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dara Jade...but I'm not sure what speedy criterion you used. Lemme know and I can close the AFD for you. --A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 20:22, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Haft already taken care of that. --Maru (talk) 20:40, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Why yes, you did

And feel free to butt in on my talk page any time you have something useful to say. Letting me know I'm not totally insane (or calling me on it when I am) is always appreciated. --A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 22:28, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

I shall, only so long as you feel free to butt in mine. --Maru (talk) 22:33, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Brain teasers

Hi, I'm just posting a friendly notice stating that I have got Brain Teasers on my user page that you're welcome to have a go at. Will post new questions one day after they have been answered. Thanks... --Spawn Man 05:11, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Image use

Hi Sorry if I keep asking dumb questions! :( But I have a big doubt..how can people just pick up pictures from any site and use them? Why are there pictures from sites like premierleague.com in articles here? These are copyright infringements, right? Can a picture be used from a site which is not updated anymore, and the email address of its webmaster is dysfunctional? Are screenshots really a legal way of using pictures? Thanks a lot. --Aabha R 08:57, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Ah. This is indeed a tricky area. I don't understand all the details. Generally an image falls into a couple areas: first, the copyright holder knowingly licenses them into a Free license; for an example I did, see the pic for Buttercup Festival (I bugged the author into giving me permission). Secondly, they can be public domain- all pictures published before 1923 for example, are always in the public domain. Thirdly, they can be from an entity whose works are public domain- the US government's photos and text is public domain, for example, and bizaarely, anything at all from Soviet Russia before 1973 is public domain in the US. Fourthly, and most relevant to your question, is "fair use". Fair use is a hideously complex field of copyright, and I won't even try to summarize it. Just see Wikipedia:Fair use, and good luck. --Maru (talk) 21:03, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks --Aabha R 14:06, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Palpatine the Undying

Pardon my tardiness in response to your inquiry of 28 September regarding the epithet "Palpatine the Undying"; I was occupied in a permanent change of residence from the west coast to the east. Maj. Arhul Hextrophon, Executive Secretary and Master Historian, Allied High Command, used this term when he referred to Palpatine during a guest lecture he gave at the Brionelle Memorial Military Academy, Chandrila, shortly after the events of Dark Empire, quoted in the Dark Empire Sourcebook. --Publius 14:16, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

No need to apologize- I understand completely. The matter was not of great importance regardless. Thank you for the reference. (And btw, as I seem unable to edit your wiki, may I suggest you add a footnote or reference in your essay?) --Maru (talk) 14:39, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Force users

Isn't that article a bit superfluous, given that it is essentially the same list from the the Force page? As for the fates of Palpatine's aides, I believe it is the Episode III Visual Dictionary that states they were dealt with shortly after the birth of the Empire in accordance with High Human Culture. --Jon Hart

Alrighty then. I shall add that. And running it through Diff, it does seem to be redundant. I'll delete it. --Maru (talk) 19:36, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

---

I realize your points, very good reasons. But where should I explain Jedi roamers and spirits? I tried in Jedi, but it got deleted. And there also needs to be an explantation of Force users such as Kiffu/Kiffex/Kiffar Guardians, Witches of Danthromir, Hapian Guard, Dark Prophets, Light and Dark Jedi, Rogues.....I'd be willing to do that. --User: Penman the Egyptian

Well, with Jedi Spirits, that probably should go in the Jedi article. The removal was probably for bad prose, lack of references, and distrust. (the SW articles get vandalized, have malicious information inserted, fanfiction uploaded all the time. We are a little paranoid.) I have no idea what a roamer is, so I can't help you there, and the Force users, where feasible, get an article to themselves, well referenced, and linked to on the Force page. And Light Jedi need not get an article, it is just another name for Jedi; Rogue sounds like a character class from the D&D inspired SW rpgs. Our unofficial de facto policy is that unless a sourcebook, say, mentions them and gives a detailed profile (minus the game mechanics- game mechanics are not canon), they do not get included. So, Dark side devotee, since it is in the Dark Side sourcebook, with a large profile of non-game mechanic data, gets a page, but smuggler does not. --Maru (talk) 21:51, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Where did my comment go? --Penman the Egyptian 22:36, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

You mean the header? I removed it because one can easily see who wrote the comment at the end of the comment. Suffixes to messages are preferred to prefixes. --Maru (talk) 22:39, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

I'll explain roamers eventually. Could you get on today, at 3:00 afternoon, and then I'll post something and you say whether it was right or not? Have to go to edit my The Reality Bug page. And then I'll write something Star Wars, no doubt. Stay tuned! Penman the Egyptian 10:43, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, I'll be on for probably about an hour from this message, and on IRC too. So you probably want to visit the channel. --Maru (talk) 18:31, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

I'll post Something now.....Penman the Egyptian 19:22, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, question.

I'm SO sorry if this is dumb, but can you read and writefanfic here? I had a Star Wars one and you mentioned something about fanfiction in "Note to Self" and how excactly do pics work? User:Penman the Egyptian

No, this isn't the place to upload fanfiction. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 21:41, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Figured that, but just asking. User: Penman the Egyptian

OMG, absolutely not! Nothing will get you a bad rep and careful observation faster than uploading fanfiction. The SW section of Wikipedia is only for canonical in-Universe data, and verifiable, interesting real world data on SW. For picture data, see Wikipedia:Images; and ask all the questions you need to. --Maru (talk) 21:55, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Thank you. I always ask the vets. when I first join somewhere. This is kinda corny, but can you be like a mentor/friend for me? Penman the Egyptian 22:32, 15 October 2005 (UTC)User:Penman The Egyptian

Sure. Ask me anything. If I'm not around, either ask WikiFanatic at his talk page. If you absolutely have to have an immediate answer, generally the wikipedia IRC channel can handle it. (it is on the FreeNode server, channel #Wikipedia). --Maru (talk) 22:39, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Richard P. Gabriel

Nice biography on Richard P. Gabriel. Thanks. --Xah Lee 22:36, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

What can I say? I'm a fan of Lisp, and when I saw that an important fellow like him had barely even a stub, I went into action (it helps that he keeps an autobiography online too; the potential ease/low hanging fruit tempted me). --Maru (talk) 01:40, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Sorry

Worry not, they talked me out of it. I'm sorry I scared you. -- Essjay · Talk 06:30, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Phew! --Maru (talk) 16:09, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

My aplogies

Thanks for intervening on the KOTOR 2 Talk page, I aplogize if I made any problems in the dicussion. To be honest, the anon user had no idea how wikipedia works in my opion but maybe I need to recive a bit of disipline. Who knows? --Dynamo_ace 08:22, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

You did alright. You could have done better, (more links to wikipedia policy and noob-guide pages, for example), but you didn't do too badly. --Maru (talk) 17:46, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Popups

Your popups tool is flooding the page history of Jack Thompson (attorney). Is there any way to keep it from doing this? If there isn't, maybe there is a better way to fix redirects. --silsor 18:07, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes of course there is. But there is no easier way, short of someone coding a bot to fix redirects. --Maru (talk) 18:10, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Barnstar

Thank you very much for the Barnstar! – Mipadi 01:59, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Why are you thanking me? Do you think you do not deserve it? :) --Maru (talk) 04:28, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

I guess it is not immodest to say I think I deserve it, but as we all know, not all deserving work goes noticed; so I guess I am thanking you for not only noticing, but taking the time to compliment me on it. :) – Mipadi 05:34, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Hah. I have ulterior motives- I can't have you burning out on me; I've got too much other stuff to take on your workload. --Maru (talk) 05:37, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Stop think

You want to contact editors not everyone. The correct page would be (preff a slight less inflamotry message MediaWiki:Watchdetails. --Geni 03:21, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Good idea. I will do that. --Maru (talk) No ads on Wikipedia. 03:26, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

I want to make it clear that I neither endorse nor oppose that action at the present time. --Geni 03:29, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Quite alright. I do not mind taking the heat. --Maru (talk) No ads on Wikipedia. 03:33, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't think it will come to that. Incidently the an should be an a. --Geni 03:38, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Ah, so it should be. Thanks. --Maru (talk) No ads on Wikipedia. 03:39, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your response on my user page

Thanks for your explanation on my user page. I certainly understand the distraction; I am also opposed to advertising on Wikipedia pages, and will look into the new proposal, when I will likely join the cause. Thanks again for taking the time to respond on my user page; don't worry, I wasn't too upset with the admins, just slightly perplexed as such things are usually taken care of quite efficiently. --EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 07:10, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Glad to hear it. --Maru (talk) No ads on Wikipedia. 07:20, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Emperor's Hand

Well, in truth I just see no reason for the Emperor's Hand article to be a part of the Sith category, as there is no inherent relationship between the two. The only Sith who was ever an Emperor's Hand was Lumiya, but she wasn't both at the same time. "Emperor's Hand" was merely a title dispensed by Emperor Palpatine for some of his elite pawns, and those who held it required no knowledge of the Sith arts in order to do so. It would be more appropriate to categorize it under "Dark Jedi," which I believe it already is. --Jon Hart 23:02, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, given that they were trained in the dark side by one of the greatest Sith ever, and that they were effectively replacements for Darth Maul... And besides, Blackhole was a Sith and an Emperor's Hand, was he not? --Maru (talk) Contribs 00:36, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

About Asuka Langley Sohryu

I thought she might be classified as a psycho because of her behaviour during Neon Genesis Evangelion which borderlines insanity, in and out of the Evangelion. She pretty much loses her mind towards the end of the series. She acts pretty psychopathic during her fight with the Mass-Produced EVAs during End of Evangelion.

Sorry if I did a miscalculation, but I just thought. --GamerJay.

Aside from the one incident in EoE, she does have some serious mental disturbances bordering on (high-performing) insanity, but do they qualify as psychopathic? I don't think so, especially when you compare her to the other entires in the category. It seems others don't either, so you would be advised to ask on the talk page first for similar edits. No real harm done, and we do have Be Bold policy here. --Maru (talk) Contribs 20:42, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

WP:RFA/SV

I greatly appreciate your support at my RFA, and no less so because of your general stand against the use of RFA as a remedy in Arbcom cases. I hope that my explanations have served to answer any outstanding questions you might have. Regards, --St|eve 04:29, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

I've said my say. Sufficient other people are interested in you that I feel no need to examine in more detail whatever transgressions you may have committed. --Maru (talk) Contribs 05:17, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Your comment

Tell that to Copperchair. Have you read what he and I are arguing over? He wants to credit actors in the Star Wars films, based on whether or not they have been officially included in the credits. What I told him is that wikipedia doesn't go by the credits, they go by reality. For example, he wants to exclude Hayden Christensen as playing Anakin in ROTJ becuase he's not included in the credits. Did he appear in the movie? Yes. Should he be credited in an encyclopedia as being in the movie? Yes. Why? Becuase an encyclopedia goes by reality. --The Wookieepedian 04:58, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm trying to stay out of this because it is annoying and petty, but a comment like that I couldn't help but reply to. And you don't need to explain that to me; I already know where I stand. --Maru (talk) Contribs 05:17, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

User category

Why are you adding the Category: Chaotic Good Wikipedians to user pages? If they choose to identify themselves that way then they can do so themselves. --Willmcw 02:06, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

They already did; please see Wikipedia:Wikipedians by D&D alignment. --Maru (talk) Contribs 02:08, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

No, they did not add a category to their user pages, they added themselves to a list. It would be better if you simply put a note on their talk page alerting them to the category so they can add themsleves if they so choose. --Willmcw 02:19, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

A list which I've converted into categories like they should be in the first place. But I haven't heard any complaints yet, so I will rest my defense until some feedback comes in. --Maru (talk) Contribs 02:29, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, if no one minds, then I guess it's OK. Usually editing user pages is discouraged. Cheers, -Willmcw 05:05, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Also keep in mind that this is a fairly common practice- my own user page has been editted w/r/t categories multiple times, and I never had cause for complaint. --Maru (talk) Contribs 05:06, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

sw-stub

While for someone who clearly is a Star Wars fan (judging by your User page) it may be obvious that sw means Star Wars, there are a whole lot of other things that sw can be an abbreviation for, several of which, such as software and shortwave, do have a significant number of stubs. It's not just Star Wars that's being imposed upon, the Stub Sorting project has a general policy of getting rid of ambiguous abbreviations such as sw. --Caerwine 04:57, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Y'know, it is ironic I can be pegged as a fan; when I came here I was trying to exorcise my youthful infatuation with Star Wars (and I still am; notice that my first edits were to a webcomic article, and only two of my ToDos are Star Wars-related), thinking that if I set down all my SW knowledge into the articles, I could finally bring myself to forget. I've made a lot of progress- after 9 months I am about 1/4 done. :)

But seriously, you make a good point. I hadn't realized that sw could be taken in so many ways. --Maru (talk) Contribs 05:03, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

No personal attacks.

Well, I had already tried over and over again to be reasonable with him, and he refused. --The Wookieepedian 04:16, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Just keep reverting until the RFAr grinds to a conclusion. Personal attacks only harm our case. --Maru (talk) Contribs 04:31, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Nice category

So I'm neutral good categorized now? Good work, keep it up. Happy editing. --Lectonar 09:08, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Don't shoot the messenger! I only did as the list bid me do! --Marudubshinki

Neutral goods don't shoot anybody ;-) --Lectonar 14:34, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Neutrals wouldn't really care either way- it'd balance out some of their do-gooding. Druidic true neutrals wouldn't even worry about the balancing... --Maru (talk) Contribs 16:44, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

I should have added: ...here on wikipedia. Here, we can only block you (but would this constitute a good act?) :))) --Lectonar 12:26, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

I would like to think that blocking me would be bad. But then, as a chaotic neutral, I'm a bit selfish. --Maru (talk) Contribs 19:47, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Request for arbitration accepted

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Copperchair has been accepted. Please place any evidence at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Copperchair/Evidence. --Fred Bauder 19:41, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Odumin

Nope, that is complete and total bull-Sith. This is much more accurate: http://www.theforce.net/swenc/entrydesc.asp?search=18164. --Jon Hart 21:43, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

*sigh* I was afraid of that. Yay, another stub to expand... --Maru (talk) Contribs 21:46, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Linux on zSeries

I would like to first give thanks for your service to Wiki, true contributors like yourself make 'the Open Source brand(tm)' possible. :)
I think the one who brought up the NPOV issue had both points. For point one, IFLs are cut down versions of the full spec, known as a CP (Central Processor). The IFLs are 'broken' to run *nix only and save on licensing, and are otherwise identical to CPs. As for the 'public' the General Public is offered the Licence free of charge, much like Wikipedia offers itself. On a side note IBM, the manufacturer of the zSeries, is raping Open Source and hopefully GPLv3 will fix that.
I would be happy to help you in the future, and I thank you again for your contribution. Contact me at maru@cuimalo.e4ward.com
--Cuimalo 09:24, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Is that what they are? Could I trouble you to add that? --Maru (talk) Contribs 21:09, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Image:BMaryRyan.jpg has no copyright info

File:BMaryRyan.jpg

No copyright info. --Dangerous-Boy 06:50, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

... Why are you asking me? The dread intricacies of photos are beyond my ken. --Maru (talk) Contribs 07:07, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Irvin Kershner

Hello. Irvin Kershner was the director of the Empire Strikes Back. He did not act in the film (or, at least, was certainly not known for that primarily), so please don't change the category from 'Star Wars' to 'Star Wars actors'. Thanks. --Proto t c 11:04, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

/me bypasses the specific dispute with some long-overdue category shuffling and creation. --Maru (talk) Contribs 18:36, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Wheel of Time wikicity

Hey, if you have any interest/inclination, there is now a Wikicities project at [wot.wikicities.com] that you may be interested in. In particular, I'd like to get some of your experience on specialized fictional articles in our categorization scheme and some of our layout/policy proposals. Please see the Community portal for more information. --nae'blis, who is not logged in at the moment

Alright. Flattery will gain you much. :) --Maru (talk) Contribs 18:20, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Haysa Giind

More fanfiction. Delete away. --Jon Hart 22:17, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for reverting my talk page :o) --dr.alf 01:33, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Nae problem, lad. --Maru (talk) Contribs 01:38, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

"Kobiyashi" is a sock

Hello. I see you've blocked "Kobiyashi" for 48 hours. He's merely one of many socks: see his talk page. Thanks. --Hoary 06:24, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Unless they aren't blocked yet, my part is pretty much done here. Administrator Alerts and all that. --Maru (talk) Contribs 06:28, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes, sorry about that. Frankly I was very tired at the time, too tired to get my head around the syntax and usage of the relevant sockpuppet template. -- Hoary 03:28, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

{{foreignchar}} vandalism

I've added {{sockpuppet}} templates to the user pages of all the foreignchar vandal accounts I know of, to make it easier to keep track of them. They currently link to User:Diacrit and Category:Wikipedia:Suspected sockpuppets of Diacrit, but that can be changed if and when someone finds out who the real user behind all these sockpuppets is. I'd suggest centralizing discussion of these vandal accounts to User talk:Diacrit. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 13:37, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Battle Meditation

Not that it's terribly consequential but why did you revert my edits to Battle Meditation? --Sumergocognito 17:12, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Because Darth Vader has, AFAIK, nothing to do with Battle Meditation, nor did Palpatine. --Maru (talk) Contribs 17:44, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Ep1

The link is actually to the very short clip of the new CG Yoda that Lucasfilm plans to insert into TPM in the next release. As you probably know, it was featured in The Chosen One featurette on the ROTS DVD. The link to the clip is there for illustrative purposes only. I captured it myself. It is important to the article to show the new Yoda. Though, I could just make a screenshot and put it instead. Maybe. --The Wookieepedian 22:31, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I think a screenshot is a much better idea. --Maru (talk) Contribs 22:42, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Links vs Link

Re: Bluebot. Are you sure that Bluebot is working on a correct policy? I've seen bots on occasion set to fix things incorrectly, too. I used to put "External link" singular as well but I kept being reverted by admins telling me it was the Wikipedia style to use "links" regardless. Did something change? --23skidoo 23:45, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Actually, now that I check the style guide, I see only a dispute about it Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(headings)#External_links_vs_External_link. Well, it makes more sense to have the plurality of the header reflect the contents anyway. --Maru (talk) Contribs 01:35, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

I suppose, except as I mentioned earlier I had an admin (actually I think it was another bot) change a bunch of my pages from "External link" to "External links". Bluebot finally scored a hit or two on pages on my watchlist and it's just changing capitalization. --23skidoo 13:08, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

As I mentioned, that's not surprising; there doesn't seem to be any agreement at all. --Maru (talk) Contribs 21:35, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Shaizar pic

I've seen the pic all over the internet so I just assumed it was PD. If that's not good enough then I guess you can delete it. --Yuber^(talk) 16:29, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Damn. Now I regret asking- it is a good picture of Shaizar. Hmm. I guess I'll just put a Fair Use tag on it, that way I don't have to delete it. (and FYI: pics floating around the Internet are almost always copyrighted :() --Maru (talk) Contribs 16:32, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Behavior of Ted Wilkes

User:Ted Wilkes has now deleted all edits by administrator FCYTravis to the Gavin Lambert, Nick Adams and James Dean articles. See [7], [8] and [9]. He and User:Wyss continue with accusing me of being a vandal, fabricating texts, etc. I think this behavior is unacceptable. --Onefortyone 16:31, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes, 141, I know: you've sent this same message to other users; I'm looking into it. --Maru (talk) Contribs 16:43, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Luke as apprentice

Somebody wrote in to Star Wars Insider about this. They asked why Luke was not given a Darth name. Of course we know the real-world explanation is because the writers didn't know about its status as a Sith name yet. But the man who replies to letters, whom I believe is Pablo Hidalgo though I could be mistaken, explained that Luke never became a true Dark lord, only a Dark Jedi. The title "Lord Skywalker" is in reference to "overlord," Luke's position as Supreme Commander of Imperial troops. --Jon Hart 23:19, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

That seems exceedingly silly/stupid to me, but if it is canon, then my objections count for nothing, I guess. --Maru (talk) Contribs 00:36, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

The Separatist Masacre - sp

Thank You. -- Jason Palpatine 04:41, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

help needed at Talk:Bantha

Some anon keeps posting patent nonsense over there. Its been blanked four times now, but he/she keeps going .--Kross | Talk 21:49, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Sure. You know I'm always good for some vandal-fighting! --Maru (talk) Contribs 22:52, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Blocked. --Maru (talk) Contribs 23:11, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

set in the EU?

Why do you put the statement "set in the Star Wars Expanded Universe" onto the book articles? Couldn't it just simply be "set in the Star Wars galaxy?" That's how the films and video games are worded. --The Wookieepedian 18:37, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Because "Set in the SW galaxy" != "set in the SW EU". Different levels of canon, sources, itnerpretation, and generally, interest to readers. It's justified because some novels are EU and some aren't- novelizations aren't EU for example. It is a worthwhile distinction, I feel. --Maru (talk) Contribs 19:27, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

The thing is, Lucasfilm considers all works not contradicting the films part of the same continuity as the films, and on the same level. The distinctions in canon are made only for the purpose of settling continuity issues. Since they are all set in the same universe, I believe they should be named appropriately. The Wookieepedian 19:53, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Marmot

Thanks for the update. I am so poor with coding and such. If you haven't already, please tell Redwolf24 and post the details on the Mentcom talk page. --Karmafist 21:06, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

I'll let Linuxbeak do that. He was doing most of the talking anyway. --Maru (talk) Contribs 21:15, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Thinking Machines

I moved part of your edit to Thinking Machines to the discussion page -- I'm not aware of any external references that support the claim that the company wasn't shipping machines on time. If you can find support for these claims, I think it would make the article stronger. --Zippy 03:12, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Just purely offhand, the first external link offers this quote: "Had the CM-5 been built without the miscues and the wasted time, the company might have gone on to live up to its considerable promise." But that's not what I based it on- I based it on a book I had borrowed for another article, Lisp machines, (Newquist, Harvey. The Brain Makers, Sams Publishing, 1994. ISBN 0-672-30412-0). So feel free to add it back in. --Maru (talk) Contribs 04:18, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

I believe the Inc Magazine article isn't talking about a failure to ship machines (as in, someone ordered a machine, but it didn't arrive) but rather about the long process of developing a new line of machines. The CM-5 was a radical change from the CM-2 architecture. I believe the article is saying it took too long to design the new architecture. I don't have The Brain Makers, but if you say that it talks about delays in shipping machines, please do put that in the article and include a link to the book. --Zippy 07:07, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

I no longer have The Brain Makers (had to interlibrary loan it, since apparently it is a rather rare obscure book), but that is what I remember. Feel free to get a copy yourself and double-check- I'm more concerned with the Lisp Machines and the panoply of companies that eventually led to the AI Winter; Thinking Machines is little more than an aside in that. --Maru (talk) Contribs 18:40, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Reverted or removed

Please stop changing template test. Reverted and removed do not mean the same thing. Reverted means entirely removed by returning the article to the pre-edit version. Removed means Either the complete removal of the edit, or a partial removal of some of the edit. The former is used when the entire edit is vandalism. The latter is used when some of the edit is vandalism but some is valid. In such a case only the vandalism is removed and a revert is not done. The wording is carefully constructed to cover either option. One may be covered by the 3RR unless purely dealing with vandalism. The other is not covered by the 3RR rule unless the edit is really a disguided revert. They are two different things. Your edit creates a misleading impression of Wikipedia policy in the template. --User talk:Jtdirl 05:02, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Alright. --Maru (talk) Contribs 05:07, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Bounty Hunter Wars

That is amazing you spotted that! Indeed I did take that name from the Bounty Hunter Wars trilogy. Back in the day, I had a website named Kuat Drive Yards and I wanted to be Kuat of Kuat, but that username on Yahoo was taken, so I took Kuat of KDY (Kuat Drive Yards). I never actually liked those books much, bounty hunters were never my thing, but I kept the name since Kuat Drive Yards made most of the big ships for the Empire. Ah, there are some good old memories. I slowly replaced KuatofKDY with Whaleyland but the logon name remained on a number of sites, including here. I usually only use that name for gaming stuff now. Thanks for the retrospection! –Whaleyland 20:55, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Heh. Yeah, I'm very much of a Star Wars geek. (To put it in perspective, a number of my SW articles here, like Cronal or Warlord Zsinj are even more detailed than their counterparts on Wookiepedia). When I saw your edit on RFA, I blinked for a moment and I just had to ask, especially since it is such an obscure comment, I haven't seen you around the SW articles, and I was hopeful of possibly discovering the real-world inspiration for the name... (oh well). Anyways, you can change your user name, you know, retaining all your settings, edit counts and such at Wikipedia:Changing username. --Maru (talk) Contribs 21:06, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Vader in the Unifying Force

I see you have my reversed my minor edit to the Vader page. I'm don't see the reasoning for the reversion, so I'll explain here what I explained on the talk page. If you agree with your previous decision, could you please explain why? Thanks.

Right now, the article contains an incredibly major spoiler for the NJO at the end of the "Expanded Universe" spoiler by mentioning "Onimi, the true Supreme Overlord of the Yuuzhan Vong." Since the purpose of the article is to talk about Vader and the identity of the Supreme Overlord is completely irrelevant to every aspect of his life, wouldn't it make more sense to simply say "the Supreme Overlord of the Yuuzahn Vong" and avoid spoiling one of the better twists in the series for any unsuspecting readers reading about a character who lived, in the galaxy, 25 years earlier? I imagine there's quite a few of those users out there, especially with RotS and the Vader book being released. --Dws90 06:54, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

I reverted it because there is already a spoiler warning there, and it is better to refer to character by name. Now, I wouldn't mind removing the "true" part, since you are right, that particular adjective is unneeded. --Maru (talk) Contribs 15:58, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

There is a spoiler warning, yes, I understand that point but, since Vader dies well before the events of the TUF, nobody is really going to be expecting TUF spoilers when they read that page. Since I view it as unneeded, it's, in my opinion, a courtesy thing. But...whatever. Happy Thanksgiving. --Dws90 22:16, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Re: Mai Shiranui Pic

Yes, it is. Like all SNK's official art for their upcoming games, it is copyrighted and can be used freely. However, I see where you're comming from- when I made the URL, I was too general; It is really: http://www.snkplaymore.jp/official/neowave/english/character/index.html; my deepest apologies for the mix-up and mis-understanding. --MegamanZero 16:44 25, November 2005

Really? That is suprising; an unusually enlightened and rational copyright policy. Well, as long as it's alright with SNK, then I'm happy. --Maru (talk) Contribs 15:36, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

• Ditto, my friend-as long as we can keep the articles up to date with the most recent pictures from thier respective companies, than I 'm happy too =).-MegamanZero 16:59 25, November 2005

More made-up

They are indeed fake. Delete with a clear conscience. Jon Hart 00:43, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Imperial Grand Admiral Category

Thanks for the help getting that set up. I wasn't sure exactly how many categories pages should be in. --Dws90 21:11, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Generally, if *all* the members of a new category are in a category, then that applies to the category, not the members, since it implies that it is a subcategory. Anyways, those articles were written almost entirely by me, so I am solicitious of them. --Maru (talk) Contribs 22:23, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I noticed that. Good job. --Dws90 22:35, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Featured article for December 25th

I noticed you have listed yourself in Category:Atheist Wikipedians. That said, you will probably be interested in my suggested featured article for December 25th: Omnipotence paradox. The other suggestion being supported by others for that date is Christmas, although Raul654 has historically been against featuring articles on the same day as their anniversary/holiday. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-11-28 08:13

What happened??

The most recent edits I see in RC are all but one creaters of new user names. --Georgia guy 02:21, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

No idea. Looks normal now. Possibly it was a server backlogged which suddenly caught up. --Maru (talk) Contribs 02:37, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

shultz

I am not at all convinced that he is not vandal and that he started creating these multiple redirects to cover a number of deliberately trollish, and not only eel. In addition, he introduced a number of subtle false changes. I tried to fish out them all, but obviously I missed several, judging from recent polite remarks on his talk page from people who don't know who they deal with. For me he is a sneaky vandal who should be kept at bay, KGB of CIA. Several people wasted lots of time with him. His selective "archiving" of comments he does not like is IMO to show you and other people that he is an innocent "good boy" harassed by KGB. One more his spree of jokes and he will be upon RFC. mikka (t) 04:48, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Oh, almost forgot: not all call me KGB. Some call me Bureaucratic Fuck. mikka (t) 04:50, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm afraid you've only confused me further. Are you called KGB, while not ever employed by or working with the organizations called such, because of your strictness?

KGB was famous not for strictness. And I was called by many names, including the amusing "irredentist chauvinist communist anti-Romanian anti-Semitism vandal". mikka (t) 05:53, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Don't assume I'm a noob at dealing with trolls, mikkalai. I've served my time, with the Bogdanov Affair and others, and I know their tricks. Further: I went through all the talk edits. All. I saw his selective archiving, and I considered it. I still think you should not have deleted the redirects. They are mostly harmless (only harmful in rare and unusual, almost contrived instances), and more productive than what he was doing prior to that. Lay off him untill he does something flagrantly bad. --Maru (talk) Contribs 04:55, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

They are harmful because I have to click at each of them and check for a possible mischief. I unblocked the guy, with serious warning. You are welcome to keep an eye on him. He claims he has Asperger Syndrome. I've met two wikipedians with this one, and their behavior was nowhere close to being hoaxing troll. --mikka (t) 05:58, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

I've met a few Asperger's. Shultz does remind me of them a bit, so I tend to believe him there. And I will be watching him. --Maru (talk) Contribs 00:02, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Recursion

May I point out two minor edits in this article that you might like to reconsider.

• You replaced visualise with visualize. Both are correct spellings for the word. The first is the English spelling and the second is the North American spelling. This edit was not really required as I believe that the choice of an alternate form of English spelling should be the choice of the original author.

• In the code example you removed a space. The original source code was deliberately formatted with the space to assist legibility. I know because I wrote it. Your edit does not improve the readibility formatting and I respectfully ask you to restore it.

Was ...

 return Factorial(X-1) * X

Your edit ...

 return Factorial(X-1) *X

--DerekP 07:53, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Sorry about that. I was running some automated formatting routines in Emacs over the article while I was fixing categories, and I guess they did too much... It's fixed now. --Maru (talk) Contribs 00:03, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Quotation Marks

Re your edits to Nazi mysticism: When a quotation on a page is given in the indented blockquote style, quotation marks are normally not used around the quotation. The reason is that the entire blockquote is the quotation, so the quotation marks are not needed to mark the quotation. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Quotation marks. •Regards, DanMS 01:05, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

That is interesting. I did not know that. But it says that they aren't "needed", not that they shouldn't be used. So... --Maru (talk) Contribs 04:26, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

It’s a matter of style only. I would not go out of my way to delete such quotes, nor would I edit a page solely to delete the quotes. If I am editing a page for other reasons and I see quotes on a block quote, then I might delete them. But it’s not worth a lot of effort. ◎DanMS 21:00, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Cadifra UML Editor

You have put {{npov}} on Cadifra UML Editor without explaning on the discussion page. I think this is not justified. Could you explain what's NPOV on said article? Thanks! – Adrian | Talk 19:37, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

The whole thing smacks of an advertisement to me. --Maru (talk) Contribs 19:58, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

That's what I am disputing. Could you be more specific and also compare with other tools articles on List of UML tools please? Listing a tool is not per se an advertisement. As you have not added any comments on talk:Cadifra UML Editor that underpins your action, I have removed the {{npov}} mark in Cadifra UML Editor for now. – Adrian | Talk 20:41, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

In the mean time I've edited Cadifra UML Editor to remove potential NPOV statements. Hope that helps. Thanks! – Adrian | Talk 21:27, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

I suppose so. I don't really know too much about standards for UML tool articles- I was passing through on part of my attempt at cleaning up and rationalizing the articles and categories within Category:Programming. If it helped you NPOV, then all's well that ends well. --Maru (talk) Contribs 01:23, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Please explain apparently ineffective markup change

Dear maru dubshinki, could you please explain why you changed the markup on 'Abstraction Inversion' (in your revision of 2005-12-02 07:43:18) to remove spaces between initial '*'s and the subsequent texts? Is this something I ought to be doing? It appears to me to have no effect on the made up page, and to (marginally) reduce the readability of the source code. If you could put an an answer on my talk page I should be grateful.

Incidentally, it was very hard to check your talk page for a similar question, which makes me wonder if there is no way of organising these things better.

--PJTraill 21:08, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

I did it because I like (and indeed, I believe the policies suggest this) a consistent notation; spaces are generally removed from headers and other markup in articles, so that should go for asterisks as well, IMO. And it's not something you have to do- I just really like consistency (I'm a bit strange about this: many other people see nothing wrong with random capitalizations in links and templates and spacing in headers and such.) It has no effect on the presentation, true, but it makes the source like nicer (again, IMO) and differentiates articles from Talk pages, among other things.

And yes, I know, I really should archive my talk page. But I never seem to get around to it. --Maru (talk) Contribs 21:35, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

I encourage your strive for concistence in Wikipedia style such as capitalization. But I also think that source code readability is important and that one part of it is enough whitespace to separate markup from content and, for example, list items longer than an editor row from each other. I wouldn't make whitespace tweaks, at least not without separating them into edits clearly marked as such (for diffs, you see). --TuukkaH 13:00, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Ah, well the formatting changes are something I usually do while intending to do something else, an aside almost. So always marking it in summaries is something I strive for, but sometimes the volume of extra work the summaries are makes puts it beyond my will to do so. --Maru (talk) Contribs 18:03, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

A quick check shows that the (current) help and tutorial pages are inconsistent in this matter: the help page Wikipedia:How_to_edit_a_page#Wiki_markup shows examples with spaces, while the tutorial Wikipedia:Tutorial_(Talk_pages)#Bullet_points shows them without. I feel that space definitely increases source readability, and that removing it is a little couterproductive. --PJTraill 00:28, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

As you said the official guidelines are inconsistent. As far as it concerns me, I think as long as I don't devolve into exclusively fixing these debatable things, then I'll be okay. And the guides wouldn't be inconsistent if people like you and I didn't disagree on the readability. --Maru (talk) Contribs 04:35, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm wondering whether the two sides are prominently represented somewhere, because I can't even understand how whitespace could impair readability. Perhaps it's because I've begun with programming languages and I only remember people preferring more and never less whitespace. I mean, perhaps if there was so much whitespace that nothing fit on the screen at a time, but that's not the issue here, right? --TuukkaH 04:52, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Don't be too sure. A lot of whitespace can majorly expand the size of an article, even if it has little content (frex, a lot of sections and not much in each), and it is easy to mess up whitespace. Plus, my policy is to remove whitespace on articles, but follow your standards of whitespace on talk pages, where major divisions between sections are needed- plus this means it is easy to tell at a glance articles vs. talk pages. --Maru (talk) Contribs 04:58, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

One hand clapping

I wrote a one hand clapping page and someone came along redirected it to koan. Now this content is going to go somewhere and this seems like the best place. Both traditonal and alternative anwser should be seen. --Ewok Slayer | T | C) 04:30, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Cite your "alternative anwser". --Maru (talk) Contribs 04:35, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Do I really need to? Take out your hand and try it, I am doing it right now. *clap* *clap* *clap* *clap* not hard. --(Ewok Slayer | T | C) 05:01, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes. --Maru (talk) Contribs 05:06, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Categories

I hope you can see why I reverted some of your recent category changes on computer science articles. I'm not sure they are currently the best, though, so I'm very much open for discussion. One thing is that WP categories are not logically defined, so this is not a matter of logical but human consistence (see cyclic categorizations). I would say that an article should belong to a category if the topic is important to be listed in the category, or if the category is important part of what the topic is. --TuukkaH 13:00, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm afraid you'll have to tell me more specifically what you reverted- none of the articles were on my watchlist, and I'm too such of the whole category to go back and hunt and prowl. I left the Programming Language and Software Design Patterns categories almost untouched, so if you did anything there it wasn't me.

Oh, probably I shouldn't bother you then :-) For what it matters, the edits of yours I saw in my watchlist were on Algebraic data type, First-class function, Currying, Type conversion. I also put a comment on Category talk:Data types but it probably doesn't help anything, does it? --TuukkaH 21:14, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

For what it is worth, I feel that all the type systems and data types &etc are all subsets of Type Theory, so if I were to go back and redo things, I'd invert the current heirarchy. --Maru (talk) Contribs 23:30, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Oh My Goddess episodes

Feel free to comment. I thought you may want to know. --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 23:41, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Bah! This is nothing but rampant blatant vote solicitation. :) --Maru (talk) Contribs 00:15, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

At least I am not spamming random people. ;) --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 00:34, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Sigs

Then start a policy page and get consensus for banning it as a policy. Stirling Newberry 03:40, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

I could say the same to you. You are the one adopting an extreme minority viewpoint and abusing the freedom the raw sig option grants us to advertise or spam or whatever that link goes to (I refuse to follow it to find out). Gratuitous links are already banned by policy. I see no reason to seek a reaffirmation for a special case. --Maru (talk) Contribs 06:25, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Re User:Onefortyone probation

As a member of the Wikipedia:Mentorship Committee, you along with User:NicholasTurnbull and User:FCYTravis agreed to act as mentor for Anon 80.141 et al/Onefortyone who is on Wikipedia:probation. This person has returned to editing the same article with the same non-encyclopedic inserts, using distorted phrasing and quoting totally unacceptable sources in order to continue his agenda on the Nick Adams article. Your fellow mentor FCYTravis worked with me to achieve a consensus text pending resolution of the propriety of quoting certain sources. Despite our efforts, and despite being told his edits were improper by mentor FCYTravis, Onefortyone has ignored his mentor and repeatedly inserted them. As well, he continues his past pattern of behaviour of ignoring the facts as to why his edits are unacceptable that have been spelled out in precise detail on the Talk page over and over and over and deliberately obfuscates the issue with massive inserts of text on the Talk page. I and FCYTravis have done everything we can. Now I request that you and mentor NicholasTurnbull step in and examine this matter to take the appropriate action. - Ted Wilkes 06:58, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

I haven't stepped in because I am inclining towards 141's position in this issue. --Maru (talk) Contribs 17:16, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for replying. Let me make sure I understand you. You are "inclining towards 141's position"' that at Wikipedia "relevant published material must be included in the article?" - Ted Wilkes 21:30, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't think I am going to respond to an obvious rhetorical trap like that: it is a truism that an encyclopedia should include all relevant material, and even more so published material. --Maru (talk) Contribs 21:53, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

I have no idea why you would call my direct quote by you with a direct quote of Onefortyone, a trap? Perhaps you would be good enough to point to writings by me at Wikipedia that led you to believe I would try to trick or "trap" anyone. Straightforward, honest questions? Yes. But, silly attempts to trap? No. My statements are based all on Wikipedia policy that we do not include anything at all just because it is published elsewhere. We don't accept dubious sources, those who are promoting a point of view, those where peer reviews cast doubt on the source and the writings integrity, and certainly we must never include references to hearsay. Hearsay cannot be a verifiable facts. But, your having stated that Wikipedia "should include all relevant material, and even more so published material," appears to contradict the statement at Talk:Alan Dershowitz that an aricle must not only document the sources but verify through them every single fact:

• "We need to verify very carefully, with documentable sources, every single fact in the article."—Jimbo Wales - 00:09, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

This has been done very carefully. All sources (books and articles) I have used are published. The only problem is that tbese sources are not in line with Ted Wilkes's personal view. Onefortyone 07:09, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Does Mr. Wales statement mean only certain articles should have the facts verified from documentable sources? Further, if "all relevant material, and even more so published material" are acceptable, then what were these various policys and guidelines created for?

• Wikipedia:Verifiability#Dubious sources - states "For an encyclopedia, sources should be unimpeachable"
• Wikipedia:The perfect article - "reflects expert knowledge; fact-based"
• Wikipedia:Reliable sources#Evaluating sources
• Wikipedia:Reliable sources#Exceptional claims require exceptional evidence *Wikipedia:WikiProject Fact and Reference Check
• Wikipedia:No original research - states: "What counts as a reputable publication? Reputable publications include peer-reviewed journals, books published by a known academic publishing house or university press, and divisions of a general publisher which have a good reputation for scholarly publications."

Thank you. - Ted Wilkes 22:42, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

See, this is what I mean. --Maru (talk) Contribs 23:47, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Your ESB changes

Maru, why did you make those changes to the ESB article? Generally, we don't begin an article with a quote, and we decided a while back that including the opening crawl was a copyvio. That's usually allowed on wikipedia, but not here. I'm going to revert again. The Wookieepedian 19:33, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

I didn't know about the opening crawl, and I think an epigraph is a good idea. So I guess I will revert too, except I'll make sure I leave out the opening crawl this time. --Maru (talk) Contribs 19:40, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Image placement vote

Hello, I'm MegamanZero, and I've gotten into a conflict with the Orgy over his needless image placement and excessive quotes on the Iori Yagami page. So, I've decided to hold a vote (like you did on the Ryu charaacter page) concerning which version should be used. The vote can be found here. Please vote your opinion on the matter and thanks for your time! --MegamanZero 17:56, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

I've replied on the article talk page. --Maru (talk) Contribs 19:46, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

re:template

You would like that, you dang dirty Imperial! :P --Kross | Talk 23:29, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

PS: The "Leave a new message" table at the top is linked to *my* talk page. :P

Who said that wasn't deliberate...? :)

Why can't we all just get along? --Maru (talk) Contribs 05:26, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Bothan

You should really look at wikipedia's time line for the Star Wars books. It clearly states that "Heir to the Empire" came 2.5 years after the first Rouge Squadron book which had bothans in it. List of Star Wars books . Type in and scroll and you can see that main point is true. I am going to change it back and keep what you had, but say they first came in Rouge Squadron. Next time get your facts straight before changing other peoples info. Thank you.

Appearance data is always from what book/work appeared first in the real world, not what appeared first in the internal chronology. Hence, I am still right, since Heir long preceded the Rogue (notice the spelling) Squadron series. --Maru (talk) Contribs 18:19, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Ohhh ok i see now. Thank you i will go change it now.

KOF infobox template

Thanks. I'm glad you like the template I made. Yes, I'm going to insert it into all the KOF articles, and I'll try finidhing all the character's today. BTW, how do you like Iori's article now..? -MegamanZero|Talk 07:36, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Er... It still needs work. I'll leave it at that. ;) --Maru (talk) Contribs 01:27, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

I just saw the addition to Mai Shiranui- why didn't you make it a full-fledged template like I suggested? --Maru (talk) Contribs 02:02, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Your comment...

Maru: "Wikipedia is not paper."

• Indeed. However, this was something asked of me by Tony in hopes of reaching a concenus for the article. Seeing that my first composition was more directed toward the Orgy's actions, I reconsidered and constructed a new thesis to depict my respective view on the article. As you can see, it was clearly shown at the top of the page, and in the end, I proved my point and the article has been conformed to a higher standard of quality. Just thought I should clear that misnomenor up. -MegamanZero|Talk 17:05, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

I was specifically referring to: "Also, the fact that my version cuts down on GB and space consumption rectifies its reason for not putting a strain on the servers." Which both doesn't make sense to me, and if you were trying to say that a smaller version was better, I strongly disagree (I am very much of the more is better school- superfluous data can easily be filtered out by a reader, and often turns out not to be superfluous, whereas missing useful data cannot be filtered back in, and often the lack of it goes un-noticed, so the reader couldn't fix it even should they have wished to.) --Maru (talk) Contribs 01:30, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

I see. My mistake, but I still agree with my reason for a smaller article. In this case, the exceeded use of images and quotes had no business in the article, as to put it quite simply, they didn't acomplish anything. So, why consume space and GB when there's no reason to..? -MegamanZero|Talk 01:58, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Now here we are disagreeing on the quality of the content itself; I supported removing the pics because of copyright considerations, but elsewhere we part paths. --Maru (talk) Contribs 02:03, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

• As as the quality of the article is concerned, I believe we agree: It still needs some work. In paticular, the text still reaks of POV and sounds very un-encyclopedic....

Also, concerning the template, you said why "didn't I make a full-fleged one?" I had, and I have inserted into other KOF articles as well. -MegamanZero|Talk 02:20, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

BTW, the template can be found here.-MegamanZero|Talk 02:42, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, but it doesn't seem to be used at all, according to whatlinkshere. --Maru (talk) Contribs 02:51, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes it does. :) See my contributions. -MegamanZero|Talk 02:53, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

I think what we have here is a failure to communicate- when I say use a template, I mean tuck all that html code away on a [[Template:FOO]] page, and only invoke it with {{FOO|bar|baz|etc}}, not do a cut and paste and fill in the approriate values. --Maru (talk) Contribs 02:57, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

I assure you, our cummunication is fine. The reason why I do not do it like that, is because it makes it harder to list and keep track of information while I fill in the table's respective contents, so I simply copy and paste the template on the article.-MegamanZero|Talk 03:00, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

There are reasons copy and paste is deprecated... syncing the many uses with an updated template, ease of use, and just plain aesthetics of the source code, among others. --Maru (talk) Contribs 03:15, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

• I understand....really I do...It's just it takes much longer to fill in a "updated template" than the copy and pasted one; as 10 minutes as opposed to 30... -MegamanZero|Talk 04:00, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Really? I always just copy the actual template over from a reference article (typically Yoda, for {{Sw character}}) and fill in the values. Even easier than copy/paste of the actual html and wikimarkup of the original template. (Plus it is vastly more easy to understand and add to.) --Maru (talk) Contribs 04:42, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

• Oh no, no.....the actual information itself it not the problem...its just when you're filling in the "updated" template, there's no values to look to when you insert the actual information. It's akin to looking at a high school test and having to answer the questions, but there's no questions to look at... That's why its so...so difficult. -MegamanZero|Talk 05:48, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

? I'm not following you here. Are you referring to how, when you change the template itself, preview does not work well? Or something? --Maru (talk) Contribs 22:17, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

• Well, no... but seeing as I have inserted the templates into almost all of the KOF character articles, anyway, its not really important regardless... -MegamanZero|Talk 22:36, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Image Tagging Image:Brin-7.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Brin-7.jpg. I notice the image page currently doesn't specify who created the image, so the copyright status is therefore unclear. If you have not created the image yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the image on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the image yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the image also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture then you can use {{GFDL}} to release it under the GFDL. If you can claim fair use use {{fairusein|article name}} or {{fairuse}}. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other images, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of image pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thanks so much. --Thue | talk 12:49, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Oops. I uploaded those pictures (1-7), but it looks like I only put the copyright data on #1 (Image:Brin-1.jpg). Anyway, I copied my CopyrightedFairUse rationale over to the other six pictures. Is that good? --Maru (talk) Contribs 13:50, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, thanks :). Thue | talk 17:04, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

need some adminy protection for an image

Image:Bill Gates1.jpg is being violated repeatedly by a sockpuppet vandal and not in the slightly arousing way. :P --Kross | Talk 18:10, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Done. I'll unprotect it in a day or two. And is it just me, or has vandalism suddenly experienced an upsurge lately coincident with the holiday season? --Maru (talk) Contribs 21:43, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Eggnog and computers don't mix, mmkay, class?--Kross | Talk 23:51, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Tis the season. --Maru (talk) Contribs 19:29, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Foreign naming

I didnt know who to ask but here you go. Ive noticed that some videogame aritcles link to the foreign or american name. Indigo Prophecy links to Fahrenheit (video game) this is because Indigo Prophecy is the US name while the Farenheit is the name in foreign countries. A vice versa act is when Wanda and the Colossus the direct Japanese name translation for the game Shadow of the Colossus, so in Japan its Wanda in the US its Shadow, Wanda was originally given the article name but someone moved the info to Shadow and made a redirect there. What is the Wiki article supposed to be named? After the original foreign name? Or the US name? --Psi edit

This is tricky- but I'll answer with the caveat that since you are asking me, I won't check the naming guidelines to see if this issue is covered, and so my ensuing discussion is unofficial.

Anyways, the Right Thing is this sort of naming is to preferentially go with the the official name, since it is official, what the primary source/originator/owner-of-the-copyrights goes with, and hence probably also the most common (translations tie in here; f'er instance, "Neon Genesis Evangelion" is not a literal translation of the Japanese series name, nor is it a faithful transcription; but it is official, and thusly the most common name, and obviously the article name). The most common name is enshrined in the naming guidelines as the way to go, so such situations are simple. In the case of Shadow of the Colossus, if the original name was the actual English phrase "Wanda and the Colossus", then there would be trouble, since one could easily make a case that the original name is both comprehensible and primary over a localization. However, "Wanda and the Colossus" is merely a translation of ワンダと巨像, and so one would go with the official titling, which is "Shadow of the Colossus". This also ties in with the observation that we are the English Wikipedia, and so rightly our language and naming should take into account that readers will primarily be American, British, Australian, etc, which justifies using the American title for Shadow.

Hope this little discussion helps. --Maru (talk) Contribs 21:55, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Image:PPTParadigmShiftsFrr15Events.jpg

Since you commented on the image talk page, I'd like to let you know I have expanded the description of this graph. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 23:46, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

It's much clearer now about the sources; I fixed one of the links for you. --Maru (talk) Contribs 00:46, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

71.103.202.24

Thank you for your assistance with this user. My clicking hand was starting to get tired from all those reverts! --JHMM13 (T | C) 00:55, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

No problem. I used to have to use reverts too, and well I remember how tedious multiple reverts were (I was so happy when I could start using rollbacks). --Maru (talk) Contribs 00:57, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Cleaning up talk pages

Hey, I noticed you editing talk pages to make them generally look nicer. While it doesn't hurt anything, it doesn't really help much either, since not too many public people read them ;) Scott Ritchie 07:52, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I cannot help it; it is an addiction for me. But then again, it is often a prelude to working on the main article, as it lets me check out in detail the people that edit that article, what sorts of things they do to it, bones of contention, pitfalls, what should be given especial attention for fixing etc. And it makes a part of the overall article more pleasant for me to read anyway. --Maru (talk) Contribs 18:24, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

re:Category:Wikipedians by D&D Alignment

I noticed you are categorized as a Wikipedian by alignment. If you are in to userboxes, there are now infoboxes available using a standard template. See the alignment category page for details.

This is a copied announcement, please reply on My Talk Page or in the category talk if you have any questions. --xaosflux ^Talk/_CVU 18:48, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. --Maru (talk) Contribs 14:45, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Fire Emblem Pictures

I moved some of the minor characters into List of minor characters in the Fire Emblem series. You can delete the pictures if it's absolutely necessary... --Zxcvbnm 03:55, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I'm afraid so. Fair use allows only so many, and more opens Wikipedia up to charges of copyright infringement (which have quite extraordinary penalties). --Maru (talk) Contribs 04:24, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Virtualization

Maru - I will admit that I am new to Wikipedia, but I do disagree with your reversions. Parallels produces virtualization software, just like VMware or Xen, for example. If you think it necessary to remove Parallels from a list of virtualization software, then Xen and VMWare should be removed as well, as they are companies (or in the case of Xen, a non-profit), not software. VMware's products are VMWare Workstation, GSX Server, ESX Server, etc. If you notice, those aren't directly linked...rather, the company page is listed.

I'm just trying to understand the rationale of the removal, and would appreciate any advice that you could share on how I should better present my ideas. Perhaps it would be better to create articles on the products and link to those?

Thanks, Ben

As I said, the difference is that with Xen, the company does not even have an article (and VMWare it is easier to link the company rather than a particular wrapper around their core software)- the article is on the actual software, whereas with Parallels, the case is opposite. If there is no description of just what their software is, how it is not simply re-packaging Xen or VMWare, but rather is a whole hypervisor, along with details on what makes it better, or at least equal, then it is simply advertising, no matter how well you intended it. Write an article on the core technology, and that would be well-worth linking (e. "... see also [[Parallels]]' [[Parallel (hypervisor)|Parallel hypervisor]].") In short, the rationale is that linking as is is only advertising for a company, whereas a new article on the actual software could be informative. --Maru (talk) Contribs 20:39, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

SS talk page has gone quiet...

Say, any idea why the Supershadow talk page went quiet? Did it have anything to do w/ my request to answer SS-related questions on Answerbag? Or was it a coincidence? Everytime I go to the SS talk page to check for updates, I keep hearing chirping sounds in my head. --Shultz 16:16, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Naw. It's just a mature article, that's all. There is little more to discuss. --Maru (talk) Contribs 19:30, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

SCA blocked

You have mysteriously blocked me by blocking IP User:207.200.116.132. This must be an error. Please unblock me ASAP. --Sca 16:29, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

It most definitely is not. Have you taken a look at some of the edits coming from that IP? Viz. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Podracing&diff=prev&oldid=32320489, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Podracing&diff=prev&oldid=32213175, and http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Podracing&diff=prev&oldid=32320333. --Maru (talk) Contribs 16:34, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Re: User:Meals-on-Wheels of White Plains

With all due respect, I disagree with your decision of not blocking this user. As per Wikipedia:Vandalism in progress/Willy on Wheels, any users with name similar name to "Willy on Wheels" are to be blocked immediately. --Hurricane111 16:30, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, but it is Meals on wheels, not Willy on Wheels. Certainly there could be someone from White Plains who really likes Meals on Wheels. Without any evidence, I'd rather not block. --Maru (talk) Contribs 16:35, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

User:ToadX

I noticed your block of that anon user and Ogstrokes. I took a look at what was happening and it's a purely content dispute between ToadX, Og and his sockpuppet (possibly but no proof). I went on that page in an attempt to get them to stop reverting (informed them of the 3RR) and that none of the edits are vandalism (so stop calling it that) and to start talkng to each other (the talk page was blank). I'm afraid Toad has abused the vandalism in progress page and just reverted to his version after your block. I would suggest that you either unblock everyone here and explain on the St. John's talk page or block Toad too (they all technically deserve a block for violating the 3RR so that might be a good idea). Just thought you should know. I hate seeing admins being tricked. --Gator (talk) 16:42, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

I blocked the anon, not Ogstrokes, but I will go take a second look at this dispute. --Maru (talk) Contribs 16:57, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. I think the anon shpould stay blocked at this point as it looks like he's come back under an AOL IP. I've reported Toad at the admin ntice board for the 3RR violation, but feel free to act on it and remove it if you want. Everyone is misbehaving here and needs a good block via 3RR in my opinion. Leaving some unblocked though is causing problems. Thanks again, let me know what you think.Gator (talk) 16:59, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Going through St. John's university's hisyory right now. ToadX is definitely going to be blocked for 3rr shortly. --Maru (talk) Contribs 17:00, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Please read the talk page on St. John's University. I feel that all of my posts and reverts were made appropriately --- ToadX

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AToadX&diff=32376131&oldid=32365545. --Maru (talk) Contribs 17:06, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Well done. Couldn;t ahve done it better myself. Thanks for the help.Gator (talk) 17:08, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

ToadX

Apparently you have blocked me (username ToadX). Like I was going to write on the talk page:

"Ogstrokes and 24.239.149.9 are the same person (sock puppeting). After he reverted the 4th time, and I had not yet reverted more than 3 times, I reported him on the vandalism page. He was blocked by an administrator for vandalism, which I think should give me the right to revert back to the original article since an administrator obviously found the material questionable. The material this person is adding to the article is ridiculous and should not be considered a content dispute. The material added does not even belong in the paragraphs they were put in e.g. "Prospective athletes should be made aware of the on campus shooting of football player who was consequently left paralyzed." was put in "Campus Renovations." Not only that, all of these negative comments are purposely put in bold with a link after them. This user is obviously attacking this school based on his comments and is not trying to enhance the article. What if I went to the George Bush article and put something like "Prospective residents of the United States should be made aware of this president's actions which have caused many people to die in Iraq." in a random place in the article, in bold, and stuck some link under it. That would not be considered vandalism, and should be discussed as a content dispute? I think this is obviously vandalism. This is ridiculous. Someone please revert this to the original article. Please post comments."

Please unblock me so I can continue this discussion. Please post any comments you have.

I blocked you because this is a content dispute, and you did break 3RR. The bolding and random placement are more or less irrevelevant as they can be easily fixed. Should his edits be kept as they are? No- but that does not necessarily mean that the data they embody. I don't particularly want to take a position on this, but I do want to see it discussed and consensus of some sort reached. --Maru (talk) Contribs 18:02, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

User:True Redman

An obvious sock puppet, you might want to give him an indefinite block. This entire episode is getting ridiculous and Toad doesn;t seem to want to take any responsibility for his actions. They all need a lesson in what actually constitutes "vandalsim" here. --Gator (talk) 17:28, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

It;s obviosuly Og, I woud conasider jsut blocking both of them indefinately. Sock puppetry is not looked upon favourably here. Toad may not be the worse of the two, but he still deserves his time out. --Gator (talk) 17:31, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Toad is using that Ip to get around your block too, so I would block that IP too and maybe extend this block. Man, some people.Gator (talk) 17:36, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Sigh. I've blocked True Redman since it was editing the article, but since Toad's IP does not seem to be doing anything except on Talk pages... well, it would be hypocritical to block someone for trying to discuss this dispute when that is exactly what I've been urging. --Maru (talk) Contribs 18:05, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

---

I would like to discuss this issue, and I believe all of my posts so far have been appropriate. How am I supposed to discuss it if I am blocked? -- ToadX

First, you be good and stop using an IP address to get around the block (that's sockpuppetry and can get this IP blocked) and you take some time off for the next 24 hours and think about what you would like to say and then come back. I beleive you can still edit your own Toad talk page though.Gator (talk) 17:44, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

He has to take some time off, as I've protected the page. Needless to say, Wikipedia has some good advice on this issue: COOL. :) --Maru (talk) Contribs 18:05, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

St. John's University

The article has been reverted again, by another user who is obviously a new user, and is probably the same as the other IP and username which he is sockpuppeting with. Can you please revert the article again, and read the talk page for this article . Thank you. --ToadX

Done. --Maru (talk) Contribs 18:16, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Stop deleting link

The link I am adding is to topic of Totse and is being posted in external links, which i believe is the correct area for the link to be put. Since totse is down, this website has become availale for totseans to post on. Please stop deleting it. Thanks. TAAS

P.S. If I wanted to spam you, I could think of many more creative places to put it. Do not test me.

Totse is not down. Replacement sites are not worth including, unless the original site is a new model of website and the replacement site is using the same software (ex. the reason Bash.org includes a list of imitating sites in the External links is because Bash pioneered the quote submissions and rating model)- which is not the case for Totse. It is just some forums and a really frickin' large database.

"P.S. If I wanted to spam you, I could think of many more creative places to put it. Do not test me."

Are you threatening me? --Maru (talk) Contribs 02:22, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

I am not threatening you. I never made a reference to you, all I said is that I could think of more creative places to put the link. Totse.com is down. If you even bothered to visit the site you would realize that. The replacement site does not use the same software as the original totse.com because we don't know what software it used. Plus totse's server friend and died, I'm pretty sure I don't want to use the same one. Now again, stop deleting the link. Thanks, TAAS.

You are spamming Wikipedia to promote your website, plain and simple. That's not what Wikipedia is for. Go advertise on "more creative places". --Maru (talk) Contribs 02:53, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

I am not spamming on wikipedia. I am adding information that may be useful for people who want to know more about tose.com, such as the possibility that there is a replacement site out there for their use until the original totse.com is up.

And by the way, it isn't my site, I just thought it would be a good idea to help people out by posting it on there, That is the one place I know totseans will go to check for any current updates. All you are doing is abusing your power for useless reasons. Please stop it.

It may not be your site, but judging by the fact that a fellow of a similar name is a moderator on just about all the sections, you are a hardly uninterested party.

If this "replacement site" were truly a replacement site- if it had all the text files, since that is why Totse merits a Wikipeida article at all- then I would reconsider. But it is just another forum site, a nickel a dozen online. There is no reason to link it. --Maru (talk) Contribs 03:02, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Totse died, a temporary site was put up to harbour it's addicts until repairs were made. How does that constitute spam? It is a part of history, as totse sees it, and deserves a place in Wikipedia.

There is a reason to link to it if it has a beneficial outcome. And it is hardly logical for us to have all the text files totse had, espically since totse itself doesn't have them. this site is for totseans, it is not like all other forum sites, its a replacement totse site. How many other sites are the exact same as that?

Isn't there a rule against reverting somethign more than 3 times? You have reverted the totse page 6 times, what does the rules of Wikipedia say about this?

They say it shouldn't be done.... except in the case of vandalism, which subsumes spamming. --Maru (talk) Contribs 03:39, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

But this is neither vandalism or spamming.

Yes, it is spamming. --Maru (talk) Contribs 03:45, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

No, this is a content dispute, plain and simple. Why do you insist that this is spam? I still have not gotten a response to my message "Totse died, a temp..."

I haven't replied because you aren't listening and consensus appears to be with me. Plus, I've been busy with page moves and writinga poetry article (oh yeah, and Christmas :), so I haven't had as much time as I would like to deal with this. --Maru (talk) Contribs 19:00, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Cool it Snake, I'll explain it you- let's say you love the NFL, you love it so much you created a forum about it, your site is an example of a fan site; let's say Wikipedia has an article on the NFL. One day NFL.COM goes down, you post your site saying REPLACEMENT FOR NFL.COM, when it clearly is a fan site, not a replacement. Do you think your link should stay up? Of course not. END. --XxNeXuSxX 06:03, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

This user and his sock at 142.177.*.* have been spamming their link on Totse all day. It's currently semi-protected, but I do think that These_Arms_Are_Snakes (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) deserves a {{test4}} or an outright ban by now. If nothing else, it will keep them from having a non-anonymous account that can get around the semi-protection.  — Saxifrage | ☎ 05:02, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

I've put a test4 on'im. I didn't want to suggest it myself since there is the outside chance that this might have simply turned into a personal vendetta on my part. --Maru (talk) Contribs 05:28, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Your self-restraint is admirable! Let's hope that he gets the message and no more is necessary.  — Saxifrage | ☎ 01:59, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

No such luck. 142.177.*.* has inserted the link again.  — Saxifrage | ☎ 00:25, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Sigh. Guess we will have to start blocking IP addresses on the 1st offense then. --maru (talk) Contribs 00:32, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

In effect that would be no different than a banning a block of IP addresses, though, wouldn't it? The point of avoiding banning a block of IPs is to avoid blocking innocent users, but individually blocked IPs can as easily be assigned to innocent users as to the vandals we intend to block.  — Saxifrage | ☎ 01:12, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, it would be like blocking a range of IP addresses if the spammers came in through every last IP address in the range. And sometimes there are collateral casualties. Blocking a single address doesn't harm too many people though, and it often blocks the vandal as well. --maru (talk) Contribs 01:20, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Unix architecture

Hey, uh, you did the move within a couple of hours of the idea first being put forwards, and without any mention being made on the discussion page for Unix architecture itself, only from the discussion in Unix.

I don't think the move/rename is a huge bad thing, but you're supposed to wait longer than that, and put a notice of impending move in the article's own discussion page too... shooting from the hip can cause real problems.

I'm not suggesting you move it back or anything but... more caution and deliberation?

Happy holidays, in any case. --Georgewilliamherbert 02:37, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

I didn't feel I needed to wait because it is a Wikipedia-wide convention that, when it is not used to refer to a particular early historical period when Unix was named "UNIX", the preferred spelling is the lowercase version viz. "Unix". --Maru (talk) Contribs 02:41, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, it was requested that way (requested article pending for months), was created that way, and up until this recent discussion in Unix had been left alone that way. And despite actively reading and participating in both of the relevant discussion pages, I had no warning it was about to happen, and you moved it right out from under an edit I was starting to make. Even if it's a rename for a good cause, I get grumpy when people do that to me... Anyways, points made in both directions, and no lasting harm done. --Georgewilliamherbert 02:46, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

As long as you didn't lose your edit. :) --Maru (talk) Contribs 02:48, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Why do you think I bothered to post here? Wasn't a big deal, though. --Georgewilliamherbert 02:59, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

List of Star Wars Books

IP 207.69.137.34 posted as himself being User:Jedi6 on Talk:List of Star Wars books but that was not me. Can I do anything about that? --Jedi6 21:24, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Ah, you must be referring to this diff. Consulting with some other admins, they tell me 48 hours or so for a block. I will betake me to doing that. --Maru (talk) Contribs 18:57, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Thank You. --Jedi6 21:03, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Dune Encyclopedia

I'd reverted your edit [10] and added source (and longer list of them on Talk page) why it is not just "some fans" who think Brian herbert did stop futher reprints of the book. I hope this is sufficient enough and the word "some" is no longer needed. --Pavel Vozenilek 06:26, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, that's fine. (I'd just read a BH blog posting wherein he lambasted thoroughly fans who criticized him. I don't think he was right, but I'm still not convinced he's totally wrong, so I was just trying to avoid any unfounded conspiracy rumors.) --Maru (talk) Contribs 14:05, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Islamofascism

Hi Maru, I saw you had moved Islamofascism (term) to Islamofascism, but I can't find any discussion about your decision on talk. Would you mind saying how you reached that decision, because as I read the vote (when I last checked it anyway), there was no consensus to make the move. I don't mean to question you, and normally wouldn't, but this has been a particularly contentious issue with a complex background, so any information would be appreciated. Many thanks, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:30, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

It wasn't really one specific thing- it was more like there seemed to be a bare consensus, (the oppose votes didn't really sound convincing to me), it was requested, it sounded better (I dislike superfluous subtitles for articles- vainly multiplies redirects and confusion), and it seemed to me that getting rid of the subtitle was in more conformance with naming guidelines than the status quo. --Maru (talk) Contribs 22:37, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry -- the oppose votes didn't "sound convincing" to you? Could you elaborate on this, please? And clarify who was requesting this move? --BYT 23:36, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

By the convincing, I meant exactly that- didn't sound like a very good reason to oppose, little better than a simple oppose without a reason would have been.

As far as the actual request goes.. Better yet, I'll show you- here. Apparently a fellow by the name of Chaosfeary. --Maru (talk) Contribs 23:49, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi Maru, the policy says: "Requested moves may be implemented if there is a Wikipedia community consensus (60% or more) supporting the moving of an article after five (5) days ..." So the question is: was there a 60 per cent or more vote in favor of the move? I count 14 in support of the move, 12 opposing it, and four neutral, which is not a consensus to move. See Talk:Islamofascism_(term)#Requested_move. Do you agree with those figures? --SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:18, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm not disagreeing, let's put it. But it struck me as close enough to 60% that there was no need to crunch it through a calculator and see whether it was 61% or 59% or whatever 7/13 works out to. --Maru (talk) Contribs 04:41, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi Maru, there were 30 votes: 14 support, 12 against, four neutral. Ignoring the neutrals, that's 54 per cent in favor, but the minimum to move is 60 per cent. --SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:47, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

First things first- could you knock off the "Hi Maru" thing? Not that I don't appreciate the sentiments, but I think we all know who you are addressing here. :)

Secondly, I added (+ 14 12), (= 26), then (/ 14 26) reduces to 7/13- that's how I got 7/13. (I didn't count the neutrals- the 14 + 12 is just for supports/opposes. Personally, I would add the neutrals in, since I think the move makes sense, but I imagine this differs from admin to admin. You could, I suppose, say that they are tacitly voting for the status quo, but I think it's the other way around. But whatever.) --Maru (talk) Contribs 18:10, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean. I calculate 54 per cent in favor of the move. If that is correct, there is no consensus to move. So my question is: do you agree with my calculation of 54 per cent? If so, will you move it back, please? Or do you mind if I ask for a second opinion from another admin? --SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:54, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

See, this is what people mean by rules-lawyering. If it had been precisely 59% or 61% instead of exactly 54% would you still be here complaining? The fact of the matter is that I think that the move has merit to it, there was not a clear consensus against it and the most deeply felt votes were for the move, there was a request for the move, the target page fits naming guidelines better than the original title and (to me anyway) describes it better etc. Go ahead and get a second opinion, or 5- I think I made the right choice, despite your focus on numbers here. But if you disagree and move it back, I'll leave it alone. Really, I don't know why so many people are getting worked up over such a minor issue. --Maru (talk) Contribs 00:16, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Well no, it isn't rules-lawyering; it's called following policy. I will ask someone else. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 06:13, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Also Maru, two of the votes came 2 weeks after the vote should have been closed and was added to the top. So that makes it only 12 support and a 50% which is not concensus. Both FrancisTyers [11] and MasterDebater [12] added votes way after than the voting. MasterDebater actually added his to the top. The vote should last a week at max and people can't add votes 2 weeks later. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 02:54, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

This harsh limit on vote timelines is something I've never understood, nor agreed with- unless there is some pressing onflow of votes (for instance, in RFAs would be one such case), strict temporal limits can only impede the vote accurately revealing consensus, or the lack thereof.

Incidentally, Slim, did you get around to getting a second opinion yet? --Maru (talk) Contribs 05:33, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Page move

I am amazed by your action, moving Islamofascism (term) to Islamofascism! Any explanation?! Cheers -- Szvest 01:37, 26 December 2005 (UTC) ^{Wiki me up™}

Yes. There was a ~month old outstanding request to do just that, and it seemed perfectly reasonable. See above. --Maru (talk) Contribs 04:28, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Hello

Hi Marudubshinki. Why did you move the Islamofascism (term) page to Islamofascism? There was a huge discussion on the talk page and the result was no consensus to move. See this [13]. Thanks. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 14:54, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

See above. I hate explaining things more than once, so... Hey, wait, why am I answering to a dirty anon? :) --Maru (talk) Contribs 18:05, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Posted to WP:AN

I've posted a note to the administrator's noticeboard seeking comment on the appropriateness of Marudubshinki's method of reckoning. --Charles Stewart 17:05, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Have you received any comments? --maru (talk) Contribs 22:07, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

None. It's clearly not considered a big deal. --- Charles Stewart 22:13, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Charles, I asked user:Nandesuka for a second opinion, but said there was no rush, so I've had no response so far. See User_talk:Nandesuka#Islamofascism_.28term.29. I'd move it back myself but feel I shouldn't because I'm involved. It would be very helpful if Maru would at least move it back to the status quo ante, and then Nandesuka or another uninvolved admin could make a final decision. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:26, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Well... If it's Nandesuka... I have a fair bit of respect for Nandesuka, so alright; I'll move it back. As I said before, it doesn't really matter all that much to me. I'd be perfectly fine with a lifetime ban from Islamofascism. :) --maru (talk) Contribs 22:41, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Strange; it's already been moved back. Never mind then- I guess one of you took my suggestion and moved it back. --maru (talk) Contribs 22:44, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Your actions on Islamofascism (term), and the RfC I intend to file if you do not address questions in good faith

I am disturbed by your attitude, and your curt, disengaged responses to the important questions raised concerning this page move.

I am disturbed by your attitude. For all that you talk of good faith, you appear to have the RFC's indictment already written up. My responses have been curt because they said what I felt needed to be said and no more- I thought from the moment Slim posted here that an RFC might be in the cards, and there is a saying about ropes and hanging. Incidentally, your topic title reminds of the no true Scotsman fallacy- how on earth could I prove I am truly answering in "good faith"?

I would like to know now whether you dispute the following points.

• There was a major discussion on the talk page of this article concerning this move.
• You did not take part in this discussion prior to moving the page on December 25.
• You did not explain the page move at the time it took place.
• There was, prior to your moving the page, a vote concerning a move to Islamofascism.
• Wikipedia rules state that such a vote should be closed after two weeks.
• Your stated position is that in determining the outcome of such a vote, if the vote is "close enough to 60%" there is "no need to crunch it through a calculator" to establish the actual percentage of the vote.
• Your stated position is that if a vote "doesn't sound like a very good reason to oppose," those votes may be disregarded by the closing admin in assessing whether or not "bare consensus" on a given vote exists.

I dispute the implied attack on the last one, in addition to the implied logical deduction that I've violated policy.

I am giving you formal notice that these questions will be the focus of an RfC about your actions here. I ask you to restore the page to Islamofascism (term). --BYT 14:41, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

It is easy for you or Slim to move it back; as I've said before, I'm done with Islamofascism. I am suprised to hear that neither of you has done so yet; indeed, I rather assumed that my move had been reversed even before Slim posted here. After all, one does not revert a perceived vandal's contributions after posting a test1 on their talk... --Maru (talk) Contribs 16:40, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Huh? I don't know what you're getting at with that "vandal" business, but I never called you a vandal.

The vandal thing was an analogy. Sheesh.

I'm saying: You altered the status quo, ignoring the outcome of the vote and moving the page without an explanation. That means, to my way of thinking, that you should move it back.

Saying somebody else should (take the heat for) undoing your error here is, if you will forgive me for saying so, a bit of a copout. I didn't move the page. You did. I'm not an admin. You are.

Why do you keep saying "Take the heat for"? I already am taking the heat! Who would attack you or slim if y'all moved it back?

And this business about "disputing an implied attack" -- I'm quoting you verbatim, and if that leads to an "implied logical deduction" that you've violated policy, you've got two alternatives:

• 1) Say why you don't think you violated policy, or

IAR.

• 2) Acknowledge that you may perhaps have acted hastily, by not actually counting votes that were valid, whether or not you agreed with them. And move the page back.

I'm perfectly willing to acknowledge I acted hastily- there was a large backlog, and I wanted it done so I could move onto more interesting tasks. And certainly, I could have acted against FRM guidelines- But I'm not convinced I have, and I have not, AFAIK, heard from regular RFMers that I did wrong, but rather largely from partisans and edit warriors from that article. --maru (talk) Contribs 22:21, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

That's what I'm asking you to do. Move the page back. But if you think you've acted appropriately here, I'm eager to hear why you feel that way. BYT 02:57, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

• I think that an RfC is premature, but I also think that you owe either an acklowledgement of error in the way you closed the WP:RM request, or a less unconvincing defence of you behaviour. --- Charles Stewart 03:09, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Yet another attempt to engage with you on this

Is it or is it not WP policy for the closing admin to discount votes that he or she feels "doesn't sound like a very good reason to oppose" a page move? BYT 12:23, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

It may not be written down policy, but it certainly is common practice- what about sock puppets, suspicious users? Or what about regular users, like Boothy over on RFAs? These are just some examples. --maru (talk) Contribs 22:07, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

That would be relevant if you had been discussing the validity of the votes in question. What you said was that you found the content of oppose votes unpersuasive, and thus gave them less weight. Not sure where to find that kind of decision making justified in the rulebook, inasmuch as it would seem to undercut the whole point of voting. BYT 22:19, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

From Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators:

Administrators necessarily must use their best judgement, attempting to be as impartial as is possible for a fallible human, to determine when rough consensus has been reached. For example, administrators can disregard opinions and comments if they feel that there is strong evidence that they were not made in good faith. Such "bad faith" opinions include those being made by sock puppets, being made anonymously, or being made using a new userid whose only edits are to the article in question and the voting on that article.

Some opinions can override all others. For instance if someone finds a copyright violation, a page is always deleted. If a page was to be deleted, but a person finds references for a particular topic or rewrites the article, the page might be kept. If the consensus so far was to delete, but it is requested that a page be userfied, then typically the page will be moved into the user namespace.

Felt you'd wish to know.

All the best.

Ξxtreme Unction|_{yakkity yak} 23:09, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. I note that the examples given are: a) sockpuppetry, anonymous votes, and new userids. None of those fall under the category of "doesn't sound like a very good reason" to oppose. There are no copyright issues on this page that I know of. No one is trying to userfy this page. There is no consensus to delete it.

Once again -- if we vote, it should be under the presumption that the votes actually matter and will count, rather than be discounted by the closing admin, assuming they are cast by a valid user. BYT 16:58, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

In defence of Marudubshinki, there's not a whole lot codified about how to close WP:RM discussions, particularly by comparison to deletion discussions. I do, however, think that if his comments on this talk page reflect his general approach to WP:RM closures, it would be better if he did not help out with backlogs. --Charles Stewart 19:22, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

I stand by my work in general, and on the page moves in specific. Most of my moves have been just fine, and I helped to get rid of that backlog. For backlogs in general, I've never had any complaints on my de-stubbing, cleanups, or wikifying- all of which fall into the Category:Backlog. --maru (talk) Contribs 22:07, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Maru, I support BYT's view that you've been curt and unhelpful about this: even asking me to stop saying "hi Maru." And you're not being asked about it by "partisans and edit warriors": if we were the latter, we'd have simply ignored you and moved it back by now. It is out of respect for your decision that the page remains where it is, and why we've asked for a second opinion rather than undoing your move. You made an error because the policy page says a minimum of 60 per cent is needed, and you moved with 54 per cent, and it would therefore be extremely helpful if you would acknowledge this and undo it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:33, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Agree with all of the above in principle, but I should tell you both that I took Maru up on his suggestion and moved the page back today. Not as clean as the admin in question repairing the mistake, but better, I thought, than letting an error of this magnitude stand. BYT 22:38, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

No, the error was in ever making it at Islamofascism (term)- did none of you consider that that name, since there is no disambiguation needed, and none foreseeable, violated naming guidelines to begin with? Besides, if Islamofascism is really only a term, then shouldn't't be at Wiktionary? As it is, adding that parenthetical suffix strikes me as rather POV- if it is a term, the very non-standard "(term)" is not needed, as the article would make that abundantly clear, as with all the other articles on terms scattered throughout Wikipedia, and if it isn't a term, than the title is inaccurate and misleading at best, and POV at worst. Which is it? --maru (talk) Contribs 22:14, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

The point about "(term)" not being used for disambiguation was made in the discussion: it was observed that the naming policy suggests this form for disambiguation, but does not say that it should not be used for other purposes. --- Charles Stewart 22:43, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Aye, but long-standing practice is to use the shortest unambiguous title, and leave further detail to the article itself. Indeed, if this shortness is a virtue policy hasn't yet actually been written down, then it might as well be, so universal it is. Actually, I think I'll go suggest that to the naming guidelines people. --maru (talk) Contribs 23:43, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

• I think you've hit on something here. Throughout the long and tortured history of this (absurd) article, its proponents have insisted that it is relevant because the term is, they claim, in common use. (President Bush's use of the term marked some sort of watershed, supposedly.)
• That was the line of reasoning that carried it through two bitter votes for deletion: "We're not saying that Islam is inherently fascistic..." (a claim that has proved unsupportable and, invariably, blind to most meaningful definitions of Fascism) "... no, no, no, we're just pointing out that a lot of people are saying this now, and we want to document that usage."

I realize I haven't actually said anything about my opinion of the article itself- FWIW, I personally think that Islamofascism is definitely a misnomer, since the hatred of the Jews and the extreme authoritarianism are about the only commonalities- besides, the best example of "Islamofascism" I can bring to mind would have to be the Taliban, and to my mind the Taliban is much better described as an "Islamic theocracy" or "Islamoauthoritarianism" rather than an "Islamofascist" state; needless to say, I didn't want to suggest this since the actual word in currency was "Islamofascism", and I didn't think it would go over particularly well. Besides, "Islamoauthoritarianism" is hard to spell, and there'd probably be arguments as to whether to hyphenate or not. :)

• It's an absurd and, frankly, opportunistic argument (and, given the incessant attempts to push the article in the direction of "look, there were real, live, Muslims, with teeth and everything, who supported Hitler," quite disingenuous). But such reasoning carried the day on two attempts to delete an article that is, inevitably, a fig leaf for hate speech. The comparison is frequently made to Protocols of the Elders of Zion -- well, read that article and tell me if you think the protocols are in fact a historical document. No. You know they're a hoax. You don't know that "Islamofascism" is a hoax, a fact that just about any poli-sci expert will endorse. You know only that the term's use is "controversial." Do we have an entry for DeVere authorship of Shakespeare's plays that presents that particular delusional idiocy as fact? No. What about an article that openly endorses the idiotic notion that Islam embraces, say, corporatism? No, but we can manufacture one that finesses that inconvenient point. That will do just as well. The point, after all, is to get people linking Muhammad with Hitler by means of a memorable catch-phrase.

The Protocols are a historical document... just not the historical document they purport to be, is all. As far as deleting the whole article goes... well, we have many articles way less worthy of existing than one particular article on a fairly widespread neo-con meme. As Gandalf says, "Many that live deserve death. And some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then do not be too eager to deal out death in judgement. For even the very wise cannot see all ends."

• And now, in the face of all the wind from Neoconville that has been expended insisting -- a little too vehemently, I think -- that it is only the usage of this term that entitles it to an entry in an encyclopedia, you shine a spotlight on the whole sorry business. You raise the point that this convenient argument is, instead, what points the term toward Wiktionary, rather than Wikipedia. I couldn't agree more. I wish it had come up six months ago, before the trolls started gaming the system on this. Good luck selling this line of reasoning to the neo-cons, though. BYT 22:45, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually, it might work if one proposes a split; I took a look at the talk page, and it seems someone wants to merge it back into a list. The word could be moved to Wiktionary (eg. "Islamofascism: A political philosophy believed by American neo-conservatives to have originated through a fusion of hardline Islamic beliefs and European fascism" etc.) and the article merged into the list.

The real problem of the article, as I see it, is that it is fundamentally a POV question- does Islamofascism exist as a political philosophy believed and practiced by Muslims, or is it just a theoretical and proposed political philosophy believed by certain people to be believed by other certain people?

More simply, I could invent "Islamocommunism" right here and now, and it would be a real idea which one could use as a term and write a Wiktionary or Wikipedia article on, saying among other things "Islamocommunism is a political philosophy and term first coined by Maru..." (though it would probably be deleted since no one would care), but it would not actually be a belief in currency among Muslims, though there could be similar beliefs for all I know; but what if I then say and convince a number of people that I've identified those similar beliefs as actually being surface manifestations of my Islamocommunism? I see no simple answer to that question. --maru (talk) Contribs 23:43, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Proponents of this article see a very simple answer to that question. Apparently Bush speaking the magic word makes it legit. (Of course, he's been right about everything else; why shouldn't he be a political scientist now? Shortly before he died, Stalin said Communism doctrine led logically to the conclusion that wheat could grow in the snow, and for a few months in the Soviet Union it was a crime against the state to dispute this.)

Thanks for responding to all this. And for the Gandalf reference, which made my morning. Personally, I think the time is perfect to redirect to the list and place the word itself in Wiktionary. (Similarly intelligent moves have, in the past, been undone as the result of pressure from certain constituencies.) BYT 13:09, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Bush speaking the word makes it legitimate and encyclopedic, if for no other reason than it being somewhat unlikely that Bush and co. could have borrowed the word, the coinage, but not any of the surrounding ideas. Less likely, but still possible is that it might turn out, in the future, that Bush and the associated thinkers and movers and shakers of the neocons identified Saddam Hussein and his Baathists as being an Arabized version of fascism (not that far-fetched an idea from what I can find out), and noticed that as the second Gulf War approached, Hussein made an ever increasing number of speechs and other stuff invoking Islam and the Koran, leading to a belief that Iran and Iraq represented the upsurgence of (wait for it)... Islamofascism!

I'm not saying that that scenario is what happened, but it could well happen, or some reputable historians/ideologues/pundits etc. could contend it, so it seems to me that we should coverage. Not like we are running out of space or anything.

But anyways. I've been thinking some more about this- I want to see a satisfactory and equitable end to this Islamofascism mess, because otherwise I will have just wasted my time and the time of everyone who's been arguing with me here. I think I may have come up with a proposal that everyone could get behind.

We are dealing with three cloesly related but almost separate articles here, so my proposal reflects that. What would you say to a proposal to: take Islamofascusm as a term and transwiki it to Wiktionary, leaving a Wiktionary link on the main Islamofascism page; move Islamofascism (term) to simply Islamofascism. Splitting what would now be Islamofascism, leaving the history of the idea/term in the Islamofascism article along with criticism of the idea and that sort of thing along with a short summary of the idea itself, and move the actual political ideas back to the page from whence it came; of course, all three would be linked to each other. Do you think this has any chance of succeeding? --maru (talk) Contribs 18:50, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

You're clearly making this suggestion in good faith :) ...

(and are a true Scotsman)...

...so it pains me to say that I still can't quite get my head around it, as I imagine any page named Islamofascism to be prone to manipulations by certain users. However, I think you would be well advised to talk to other people than me about this, and to float this idea on the talk page. I'm interested in what User:Anonymous editor would have to say about what you've suggested. BYT 00:26, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Eh. I will wait for AE to comment. If it doesn't work, I will not lose too much time, and I will be able to tell myself truthfully that I did my best. --maru (talk) Contribs 00:51, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Page move

I noticed you deleted without explanation Plasma, a page with significant history, and then you moved Plasma (physics) to Plasma without leaving a note on the discussion page (which you didn't move). You may not have realized it, but this very course is the subject of a move request which failed to achieve consensus; furthermore, the pre-existing Plasma page was "moved" to Plasma (disambiguation) by cut-and-paste, so the histories will have to be repaired (there is also a move request to move Plasma (disambiguation) back to Plasma). You probably were not aware of this; I moved the page back but just wanted to let you know. Thanks! — Knowledge Seeker দ 23:22, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

It was? Oh dear. Thanks for cleaning up after me- I should have realized something was amiss for an undone request that old, and when there was a second request for a page move on the Plasma pages a week or three higher up (although to be fair I didn't notice that till the deed was done). --Maru (talk) Contribs 23:51, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

It's quite all right. It's a bit of a complex matter—I left a clarification (I'm an involved party) and I think it will be sorted out soon. One suggestion I'd have: when you're moving a page (whether as part of a move request or on your own initiative), I'd recommend leaving a note on the talk page explaining your actions (unless it's an obvious move like "Bill clinton" to "Bill Clinton" or reverting vandalism). Also important to remember when completing move requests is to close the discussion and to remove the tag at the top of the talk page. Keep up your good work, and thanks for tackling the backlog. — Knowledge Seeker দ 00:11, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Talk:Totse

Would you like to discuss your unexplained revert? I deleted that discussion (which was unrelated to the article) with good reason: Wikipedia is WP:NOT an anarchy. [T]alk about the article, not about the subject. —BorgHunter (talk) 04:21, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

I rolled your deletion back because that anon/ArmsAreSnakes fellow is going to be back, sooner or later. The more the trail of consensus against adding his vanity site is kept, the more effective and usefully we can discuss it. Regardless, deletion is only the answer for patent nonsense or vandalism- you should have archived it. --Maru (talk) Contribs 04:26, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

I see your point, but I stand by my reversion. "Talk pages are not for general chatter; please keep discussions on talk pages on the topic of how to improve the associated article." (Yeah, it's only a guideline, still, it doesn't add anything to the talk page, nor would it add anything to the archives.) Incidentally, please be WP:CIVIL by not telling me what to do. We're collaborators. —BorgHunter (talk) 04:34, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

? By telling you what you did wrong and what you should have done, I was incivil? Alright.... Anyway, I do feel it is fairly important to keep tucked away- how many edits to the page were there over just that one link? At least ten, and I wasn't really counting. If the anons/users were making no attempt to justify it, I would say just delete it or something- but if you look further up my talk page, you'll notice a fairly lengthy section on just that one link alone. --Maru (talk) Contribs 04:38, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

But it has nothing to do with that link, nor anything to do with the discussion. It's chatter about their site. It does not belong on Wikipedia. —BorgHunter (talk) 04:43, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Really? Talking about when Totse will be back up does not belong on Wikipedia? I guess we better go remove all mention of the downtime from the article itself. --Maru (talk) Contribs 17:56, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

No, he means, "Snake" is talking like he is affiliated with that site, he has NO clue what is going on in Totse, I happen to moderate there, and he has no clue what he is talking about. He is really just promoting something excessively and unnecessarily. --XxNeXuSxX 05:53, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Hag & Nightmare

Thanks for responding on User:Essjay's page. Would you mind taking a look and adding you comments over in both hag and nightmare? Another user and I are in disagreement in regards to the use of Category:Neuroscience in those articles. Both of us have made our cases in the talk page I believe. Cheers! --Semiconscious (talk · home) 07:49, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

I've chipped in on Talk:Hag. --Maru (talk) Contribs 17:54, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. I've tried to be as fair and rational as I could, but we weren't getting anywhere by ourselves. --Semiconscious (talk · home) 20:30, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

I hope it helped. Please feel free to call on me again. --maru (talk) Contribs 22:01, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Copperchair

Please leave Copperchair's user pages alone. He can have them the way he wants if he wishes. --Fred Bauder 14:37, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Fred, are you sure? I mean, we've been reverting the talk page for months because he keeps deleting stuff, and you've never said to knock it off or cast an eye askance. But if you say so. --Maru (talk) Contribs 17:36, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Signing

i don't have to sign aticles o comments. --xchisblackx

What the deuce are you talking about? --Maru (talk) Contribs 19:02, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

St. John's University article

I am having a problem here. I am trying to resolve the argument over content in the St. John's University, New York article. However, it seems as if someone keeps reverting the article to the one with the incorrect bold statements. I have stated in the history of my edits and on the discussion page as to why I think these statements should be removed or changed. It seems as if the person who keeps changing it back is being unreasonable. You have even stated on the discussion page "Regardless of what I may or may not think of the merits of your facts, they were not inserted properly." This person keeps reverting to the same entry in which you made that statement about.

There also seems to be new vandalism to this article as you can see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=St._John%27s_University%2C_New_York&diff=32776139&oldid=32660115 . "In late 2005, St. John's University also announced new features that will be installed by the 2008-2009 school. It will install the Garbage Toilet 3000 in every dorm building, which will make the disposal of waste much easier." This statement is ridiculous, and is not true. I hope you realize that someone is trying to destroy this article and the integrity of Wikipedia.

I do not even go to this school. I do not feel I have any bias toward St. John's University. I have never even attended one of their sporting events. I only live in New York, and I feel I have some knowledge about this university. I am really tired of trying to keep the content in this article correct and appropriate. Since you were involved with helping us resolve our dispute on this article before, I would appreciate your assistance here again. Thank you. --ToadX 18:58, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I might be able to take another look at it in a day or two- I'll let you know when I do. --Maru (talk) Contribs 05:34, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

I think I'll decline entering into this dispute. I don't know enough to comfortably intervene, and I don't find the subject or dispute interesting enough to learn what I'd need to learn, sorry. :( You could try some of the other admins- Nufy8 isn't doing much, or maybe Redwolf24. --maru (talk) Contribs 22:00, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks

For renaming Hunting Methods. I really do feel it's these little chores that make wikipedia so great, rather than the reversion warriors and their endless battles. --MPD 11:17, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Personally, I think it is adding information that makes Wikipedia excellent, but lord knows the little chores are necessary to make it pleasant to read and use. --maru (talk) Contribs 21:56, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

I've come around to yr POV. What does this remind me of but of how both artists and scholars are necessary in culture: one to produce the material, the other to analyze and judge it. Or of radicals and reactionaries in general: one or the other (in varying contexts) to break new ground, the other to critique it. - MPD 00:08, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Hunting strategy

I think you picked up on this article very quickly. It's completely bizarre and definitely needs some adjustments. Any ideas what can be done about it? --TheGrappler 19:24, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm not really sure. My instinct was to simply delete it, but if appropriate pages can be found, I'd say just merge and redirect it. --maru (talk) Contribs 21:55, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't know if the merge will work because the main hunting article is just about sport hunting. We need something to connect sport-hunting to businesses entering a new market and infantry companies dealing with snipers. -MPD 00:04, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, the phrase is common to hunting, militaries, and businesses, right? Perhaps we could make it a disambiguation page. --maru (talk) Contribs 01:46, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

World Cup

Do NOT move a page while a vote is still in progress!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jooler (talk • contribs)

Do you really think that the current tally of 10-3 will change much? --maru (talk) Contribs 21:53, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

For one, I don't think it can really change, but let's wait for those 5 days to pass so that these 3 persons don't feel cheated. --Conscious 08:50, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and one more note - this article was selected for WP:FAID today, and an influx of voters is possible. --Conscious 09:08, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

The vote is not 10:3, the vote is 9:3:3. One of the votes for moving is invalid as the user has made no other contribution to Wikipedia. Actually I think the vote for this page should be extended for several reasons. Firstly it is a very heavily linked article with many sub-pages which use the same name and a move of this page will affect a very large number of sub-pages. Secondly during this holiday period a large number of people will not be using Wikipedia as they normally would and a number of the people who regularly contribute to the football articles will not vote. Indeed they have not as yet voted, their voice has not been heard. --Jooler 10:33, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

The current vote is 12:4, even discounting Rousseau's vote which I'm not sure should be done- he seems to be editing other pages, which argues against him being a sockpuppet or for counting his vote as invalid, although time will tell whether this is too charitable an assumption to make. --maru (talk) Contribs 18:08, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

You are not counting the neutral votes, they add to the figure that must be used to caluculate the value of the majority i.e. they count as a half vote for each proposition. It is standard policy not to count votes of people who only log in to make such a vote. --Jooler 19:01, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Counting neutral votes is pointless, since by your own definition they affect each side equally. And Rousseau has not logged in solely to vote- you've seen his edit history, he has editted other pages. --maru (talk) Contribs 01:44, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

If the persons who bothered to put a neutral vote on the page thought it was pointless then they wouldn't have put the vote on there in the first place. If you want clarification ask them what they intended that vote to mean. Yes look at the Rousseau's edit history. He specifically created the account to vote that was hiss first edit. Since then, in the Wikipedia namespace he has made precisely five minor edits three different articles, one of which is the one we are voting on and the other two are related to it. Jooler 10:09, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

The person bothered to put a neutral because they are neutral- otherwise they'd've voted either oppose or support. Even if you counted them as a half vote either way, it leads to the same damn ratio! --maru (talk) Contribs 22:27, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Islamofascism (page move) - My opinion

Hi, Maru :-)

SlimVirgin asked me to look into this issue as an uninvolved party and offer my opinion. Without getting in to the specific merits of whether or not I personally think the page "should" have been renamed, I think this is a case of biting the oldies. Page moves are typically doable by anyone, and the 60% guideline on WP:RM is phrased somewhat loosely. The whole point is that if you end up on WP:RM, the move is controversial. The stakes are, frankly, low here — the substance of the article is unchanged — and getting worked up over a few percent one way or the other seems to me to be missing the forest for the trees. It seems wrong to me that we should give an admin less discretion in deciding how to close a page move discussion than we do when closing an article deletion discussion.

I think Marudubshinki should be encouraged to close out the discussion however he thinks appropriate, and people should be encouraged to redirect their energy into improving the article and making sure it stays properly focused, rather than fretting over the semiotics of whether or not a parenthesized word appears in the article title.

Hope this helps. Looking forward to the hate mail.

Regards, Nandesuka 23:04, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi Nandesuka --

Thanks for the opinion, and for taking the initiative to express it. You'll get no hate mail from me, I promise.

Re: The whole point is that if you end up on WP:RM, the move is controversial.

This ignores, alas, the fact that the move vote was brought by someone known for, and not infrequently disciplined for, gaming the system, User:Chaosfeary, which may help explain why some of us are monitoring the rules fairly closely. In this case, if you end up on WP:RM, it's because someone with an axe to grind has found a new source of flint. I encourage you to take a look at the edit history of User:Chaosfeary, as it is an important piece of the puzzle here. BYT 16:44, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for helping out on WP:RM

Thanks for helping out on WP:RM. I know it can get hard at times, but try not to let it get to you :). I'm rather dissapointing with the conduct of some of the people involved in the situation you were involved in, people I otherwise have a lot of respect for. I think it's really something you learn to do over a matter of time, so I wouldn't worry about it. Happy new year :). WhiteNight ^{T | @ | C} 00:06, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words. It's been a little tough for me lately, but a sucessful new year to you too! --maru (talk) Contribs 17:57, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Maru, I think you are being rather premature with many of the RM closes. The directions call for a 5 day wait to establish consensus, so unless the outcome is overwhelmingly clear, one really shouldn't be closing discussions that are only a couple days old. Dragons flight 02:09, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Really? Guess I should hold off for a few days then. --maru (talk) Contribs 02:11, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. It is actually rather unusual for RM to not have a huge backlog, so there will probably be plenty of things to close soon enough. BTW, if you close a move request, it is conventional to visit the talk page to remove the {{move}} template and slap a {{moved}} or {{notmoved}} and your sig on the discussion so as to make clear the result and the identity of the closer. Dragons flight 02:25, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

What dragons flight says - although I've learned to appreciate using {{Polltop}} and {{Pollbottom}} myself. WhiteNight ^{T | @ | C} 02:27, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

I'll remember that. But what do those poll templates do, whitenight? --maru (talk) Contribs 02:38, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Example:

{{Polltop}} '''Moved''' ~~~~
===Requested move===
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
{{Pollbottom}}

Turns into

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was Moved WhiteNight ^{T | @ | C} 02:45, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Requested move

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Ah. I see- that's pretty neat. --maru (talk) Contribs 02:47, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

geo-stub

Hi - just a small note that places on Mars or other planets dont get geo-stub, they get crater-stub. Thanks for helping sort stubs! --BL kiss the lizard 08:24, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Sorry about that. I knew it needed stubbing and geo-stub was the first one which worked. --maru (talk) Contribs 22:16, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

The link

The Dalip Singh pic was taken from http://www.puroresufan.com/roster/singh.php, it appears quite often in other sources as well, though.

Ah. In that case, we can use it via fair use, with a publicity template. I've taken the liberty of doing so. --maru (talk) Contribs 00:18, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

São Francisco River requested move

Hi. I, recently, requested to move the article Rio São Francisco to São Francisco River. However, you moved the article to São Francisco river (instead of São Francisco River, with the capital letter R). Can you fix this, and move the article to São Francisco River? Thanks for your help. Keep up the good work. Regards, Carioca 23:29, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Oops. I must have made a typo there. Not much of an excuse I know... I'll move it. --maru (talk) Contribs 00:13, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

BTW- you should probably fix all the redirects. I took care of the double redirect, but not the singles. --maru (talk) Contribs 00:27, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

:Thanks. Keep up the excellent work. I will fix the redirects. Regards, Carioca 00:29, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

What is an "anti-chamber"?

Bad spelling.

an·te·cham·ber n a small room leading into a larger main room and often used as a waiting area

I can assume this error has been fixed? --maru (talk) Contribs 02:56, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Image:Dan-lispmachine.jpg

Image:Dan-lispmachine.jpg is a good picture, but we need to know more - who took it, who is the copyright owner? Without that, the picture may be deleted in a week. Also, {{fairuse}} is deprecated because fair use is only valid relative to specific articles, for instance {{fairusein}} is available. Stan 02:52, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Gotcha. I'm on it. --maru (talk) Contribs 02:58, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Image:Dan-lispmachine.jpg

You tagged this image as {{fairuse}}; you do know that tag requires a "detailed rationale explaining why this use qualifies as fair use.", right? If such a rationale is not there, eventually, the image may be deleted, even without further warning... Just so you know. --JesseW, the juggling janitor 22:55, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Done. And I have to say, our coverage of images has seriously improved- times were even three uploaded pics wouldn't draw a single mention from another user, and now one picture draws two! --maru (talk) Contribs 23:18, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the heads up about the images, If I wasn't so busy I would tag them all but I do plan on re-adding them later with rationale attached when I have a whole day to devote to it. Thanks again for letting me know. --Derktar 06:30, 3 January 2006 (UTC).

I'm afraid I already deleted them, a while ago. To be honest, I don't think you'll manage to get that many fair use pictures in a single article or page, but good luck anyway. --maru (talk) Contribs 06:36, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

List of minor Jedi characters deletions

I only removed the minor characters that had their own articles. At least, that's what I tried to do. You make it seem like I deleted the whole thing. Did I?

No, you didn't- but they still shouldn't have been deleted, since they belonged in the list. They simply weren't fully in the list because there was too much material; if it all had been included, it would have made that page unwieldy to deal with. --maru (talk) Contribs 18:39, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

I have corrected Chris Bangs

Marudubshinki, I removed reff. to specific people and edited the article removing neg. comments and peoples names. Also I took out all of the stuff that looked like a bacchanal commercial. What else can I do to improve/save the article?

I really don't know. The two best things I can think of for you to do are:

1. Go to the AFD, using the link on the article page, vote Oppose to the deletion, and explain why you think this guy is worthy of an article; I put it up for deletion because I couldn't see what made the guy interesting or important- but I'm not a music aficionado, so there could well have been something buried in the tortured prose of your article which did establish his notability (as we say here).
2. For God's sake, cleanup the article! Surely some of that stuff could be linked to existing articles, the grammar improved, the spelling corrected. Also, there are a lot of formatting niceties which could be done- look at other musician biographies, they are often good examples. If there are specific things you can't quite figure out, I'm fairly good at this sort of thing.

--maru (talk) Contribs 21:46, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Blocking AOL IP Proxy numbers.

Please release your recent block of a revolving proxy number. IP address is 207.200.116.132 - blocked by Marudubshinki. Please be aware that when you block such numbers, it is unlikely that you will impact your target vandal. Instead, you will hit regular users like me. Please see my User Page User:WBardwin/AOL Block Collection for a history of such blocks and decisions that have been made on this and related IP numbers. Thank you for your help. WBardwin 09:12, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Are you sure you are still blocked? I just spent 10 minutes hunting through the block list, but I can't seem to find my block to unblock the address. Maybe another admin unblocked it already?

Still, it really burns my cannoli to let that podracer vandal continue to vandalize it. --maru (talk) Contribs 17:17, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

From your Wookieepedia talk page

Copied from your talk page on Wookieepedia, in the chance that you check here more often than there: Hey Maru. When copying content from Wookieepedia to Wikipedia, please use {{wookieepedia}} on the appropriate Wikipedia talk page. For a quick overview on using the template, see: Wookieepedia_talk:Community_Portal#For_Wikipedia. If you're copying content from Wikipedia to Wookieepedia, please use the {{wikipedia}} on the appropriate Wookieepedia talk page. Cheers! --SparqMan 10:03, 6 Jan 2006 (UTC)

Is this just a general help message because of my past activities, or is there any specific article I've been negligent in? Incidentally, the {{wikipedia}} is unecessary for me- all my contributions are public domain, so the GFDL is not concerned with them. --maru (talk) Contribs 16:47, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

LanTalk XP and LanTalk NET

Hi. I received a note from User:Crea7or wondering why LanTalk XP and LanTalk NET were speedily deleted. I saw the logs http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=&user=&page=LanTalk+XP and http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=&user=&page=LanTalk+NET and realised that you and I failed to put a {{nothanks-sd}} tag on his Talk page before deletion. It's a procedural error on both of us, as per WP:CSD. How do we resolve this? -- Perfecto Canada 16:08, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

We don't, or rather, we put the template on post facto. Given that those were copyvios (I doublechecked), it's not a good thing for them to be in the history anyway, as that means we are still mirroring copyrighted material. As for the procedural errors... it is my opinion (shared by a number of others) that CSD has gotten overgrown with procedures and policies, which while nice to do (like adding that template to User Talk pages), get in the way of doing the Right Thing. I would mention to Crea7or that deleting based on copyvios is no judgement of him or the article subject and that he is welcome to recreate the two articles as long as he avoid copyrighted material. --maru (talk) Contribs 16:54, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Happy New Year and Three Kings Day

I wanted to wish you Merry Christmas a few weeks ago, but I couldn't remember how to spell your name. Well, hope you had a good holiday season and that the new year is good. Guettarda 19:02, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

If you can find your way to this page, you kin spell it! Worse comes to worse, you can just spell it "maru", like in my sig.

And I hope this will be a year with many full bellies and improved articles for you too! --maru (talk) Contribs 19:28, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

That's the thing - I couldn't get here until I found a post by you (on Kate's Rush poll). It didn't help that I was trying to wish people Merry Christmas while I was supposed to be packing to leave for break. Guettarda 19:58, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Hyakunin Isshu

Hi Marudubshinki, The vowel in Hyakunin Isshu is short, so I moved the article back to the short vowel. --Fg2 02:28, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Are you sure about that? Britannica lists it with the ū in its article on Teika. --maru (talk) Contribs 02:31, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the Japanese is 百人一首 with the last kanji being shu (not shū). You can confirm it at the Japanese Wikipedia. It's an easy mistake for EB to make, since the names of many poetic compilations end with the kanji 集 (shū), "collection." But this title means "one hundred people one poem" with shu being a counter for poems. Fg2 03:05, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, you see, the reason I was appealing to authority like EB there is I have no way of confirming this- I'm awful at foreign languages, and I know nothing of Japanese. So I guess I have no choice but to trust you on this. --maru (talk) Contribs 03:14, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

It's easy to tell from the Japanese Wikipedia. Shu (short vowel) is しゅ while shū (long vowel) is しゅう. The Japanese Wikipedia article begins: 百人一首（ひゃくにんいっしゅ、故実読みはひゃくにんしゅ）. Inside the parentheses, before the comma, is the shu (しゅ). You can also check outside sources like University of Virginia. Hope that helps! --Fg2 03:27, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

OK then- the UoV site was good enough for me. --maru (talk) Contribs 03:33, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

replacing "science" by "non-deist science"

Hi, I found you through Category:Rationalist Wikipedians, looking for advice. This edit somehow irks me. Speaking of "non-deist science" seems to imply that "deist science" exists, and undisputedly so; besides, the author probably refers to creationism or ID anyway, rather than to deism. What's the wikipedic stance on usage of the term "science"? Is it acceptable to replace any instance of it by some sort of creationist relativisation? ...this being the consequence of the edit mentioned. I don't mind creationism or ID having their articles giving all sides their due, but, yes I'm POV and wouldn't like to see it creeping in as a generally accepted view. --tickle me 04:33, 7 January 2006 (UTC)