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.

This talk page is automatically archived by Werdnabot. Any sections older than 30 days are automatically archived to User talk:Marudubshinki/Archive 49. Sections without timestamps are not archived

Be aware I prefer to keep conversations coherent, so my replies will usually be on this page.

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; spell-checking is especially appreciated. Keeping this page consistent in style makes it vastly easier for me to archive it, and thus easier for visitors like you to search my archives. Thank you.

Archives: Enter the archives... if you dare.

myg0t

re: Nice job, re: myg0t/myg0t mediation

Not liking a particular group of people justifies deletion? Can I delete George W. Bush's page, then? Not notable, you say? Join any server in any game wearing [myg0t] in your name and you're sure to be kicked or at least told to get out. -- Leandros (not the user)— Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.96.117.22 (talk • contribs)

Nice job, re: myg0t

Nice job deleting the myg0t wiki because you just don't like myg0t. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.154.132.227 (talk • contribs)

Thank you. I'm always glad to rid Wikipedia of crap and crap about asshats. --maru (talk) contribs 21:05, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Wow your really a great unbiased admin, deleting legitimate articles because you just don't like their subject.

How in go'ds name did you become an admin when you can allow yourself openly admit you deleted the article because you don't like the group? How did other admins nominate a person? This is really sad, Wikipedia is supposed to be changed by discussion, not by feeling-based rash action.

"State your point; don't prove it experimentally"

As an admin you should really abide by this statement, if you don't like the "asshats" of the myg0t community you can express this in its proper forum, deleting the article without discussion just shows that you should never have been trusted with admin rights.

There are some cases in which bold action must be taken; such actions are the reason admins are given such latitude. This is just such a case. --maru (talk) contribs 06:32, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I really wanted to read the article about myg0t, specifically to see if there was any information regarding why their site was down. You should delete GNAA when it comes up for deletion too, their a bunch of asshats aswell. Since obviously you have that kind of latitude :) 146.9.223.86 18:14, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, there should be an article about myg0t because you want to see "why their site was down". Yes, that's an excellent reason for there to be an article. --maru (talk) contribs 18:20, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Ooh, a sarcasm detector. Oh, that's a real useful invention. I came to wikipedia to see why The Pirate Bay was down too, its a logical place to go. Their site has been down for months apparently (from discussions I gathered on its and your talk page) I'm not affiliated with them in anyway, though I remember running into them years ago when I used to play CS:1.1 - 1.4. I saw a ytmnd saying that their site was down, I thought I remembered them, went to the site to find it was in fact down. I remembered the CS thing and went to wikipedia to see if there was an article I can read up on. The most information I've gotten now is from a newgrounds flash movie. I really like Wikipedia as a treasure trove of information and would rather see most information cateloged and indexed rather than deleted (I liked the way you guys forced ytmnd to catalog the details of their history themselves though). As a gamer I know of their notability and maybe you think by deleting their article you can make them less notable, because I guess notability is what they want. But that's censorship, you need to take the good and the bad if you truely believe in anti-censorship. --68.40.0.189 18:18, 24 June 2006 (UTC) (same guy as 146, different IP, I probably should get a user name).

Dude, they are definitely notable. I heard about myg0t within a week after I played CS for the first time. They're notorious in the CS subculture. There's an entire article about CS MAPS for christ's sake! The article should exist to provide unbaised, factual information about a prominent CS clan to those who want the information. Instead, you simply delete the article in an attempt to delete myg0t. It's plain as day that there is no basis for this at all except your personal vendetta against them. And you just make yourself look like an ass even more by trying to justify it and sound noble in the process.

"There are some cases in which bold action must be taken; such actions are the reason admins are given such latitude. This is just such a case."

Yes, because it is certainly such a problem that there be information anywhere about myg0t that you just have to delete it and ban the article without asking anyone. This is a case of abuse of power for sure. Seriously, this pisses me off. You're acting like a damn little kid throwing a fit. It's obvious that you can't handle the responsibility of being an admin, if you can't separate your personal feelings from your responsibility to be neutral.

But, it is pointless to be arguing with one such as you. You are the type of person who won't back down, no matter what, because you think you are right, and you twist things in your mind so you believe yourself to be some kind of martyr, defending against an overwhelming, wrong, majority. You are a disgrace to your position.--LifeEnemy 12:29, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Tacitus question on WP:V

Please don't write questions on blocked pages between commentary tags, makes it a bit hard to answer if one isn't a sysop.

Anyhow,

• Straight link to Annals XIII, 20 at Perseus Project: Latin - English translation (Brodribb)
• Although in Tacitus' condensed style it is not always completely one-to-one which word is translated to which, basicly:
  • "consensum" → "consentient"
  • "diversa" → "differences"

--Francis Schonken 00:39, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Mm. It's still a bit odd; is Tactius trying to say, "I will give the consensus account, and when historians disagree with that consensus, I shall list their differences with the consensus account, and specify which historians hold which disagreements"? It isn't clear at all to me. --maru (talk) contribs 01:47, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Well the Church/Brodribb translation is let's say a bit old-fashioned "circumstantial" (after all that translation was made about a century ago). I'd have provided my own translation, but would find that a bit odd on the "verifiability" page (after all, the Brodribb translation is Verifiable by the given link)

In short, Tacitus says something like:

• If all historians before me agree on what happened, I just tell the story;
• If the historians' tales differ, I give each of the differing versions and mention which historian told which tale.

Note that Tacitus' writing style is very condensed, which is sometimes very difficult to imitate in English.

Anyway, I'd still ask that you remove the hidden comment you added to the Wikipedia:Verifiability page yesterday, and move it, for instance, to the talk page, so that it can be answered there. There is no good reason for leaving a comment/question on a place where not every wikipedian has the same ability to answer it, IMHO. --Francis Schonken 09:52, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

This is a wiki, we should be able to improve upon a confusing originall... But since the comment now has no purpose, I've removed it. --maru (talk) contribs 15:42, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

...And you damaged the wikitable syntax diff, please repair to the last version of Musical linguist [1] unless you want the table to look different than it was, in that case: again, this is a protected page, discuss changes on the talk page of WP:V. --Francis Schonken 08:47, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Adah Script

A way to open up in tabs all diffs on one's watchlist that haven't been visited. I guess this would probably be a browser-specific thing, but I waste so much time just clicking on links to open up diffs on my watchlist, almost as much as I do checking!

Did anyone ever point you to this? — Mike (talk • contribs) 17:13, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I tried it before. Didn't work. (Didn't work this time either). :( --maru (talk) contribs 13:15, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Works fine for me, actually — but unfortunately, I'm not techie enough to distinguish why it would work on my system and not yours. (I can say I'm using Firefox, which seems to be the best of my options when it comes to handling JavaScript.) — Mike (talk • contribs) 16:06, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

myg0t has a place in history

myg0t has a place in history and should therfore be noted. Not having a myg0t wiki is biased. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.33.199.230 (talk • contribs)

If you wish to start a wiki devoted to myg0t, then nothing is stopping you except laziness. --maru (talk) contribs 22:57, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

and we would do that how since "This page has been deleted, and protected to prevent recreation." --Olmeca 23:18, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

...you would do that by starting a wiki devoted to myg0t, as I said. wiki != Wikipedia. --maru (talk) contribs 23:44, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

..... why does Wikipedia not have a wiki about myg0t.. wikipedia not having a wiki about myg0t is biased? clear enough for you? EDITED: Stop being pedantic. --Olmeca 23:49, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I'll stop being pedantic when you start using words with their actual meanings. --maru (talk) contribs 23:56, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

As much as I am not enjoying this banter with you. Can you just answer this question for me. Why has the mygOt wiki being deleted? All I'm after is a straight answer not one that goes round and round in circles so that I have to keep posting back to your obviously very high intellect. --Olmeca 17:55, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm bantering with you because I've gone over this several times, in the DRV, on my talk page, on the myg0t talk page (note that I've forborn from deleting the Talk page like I could have - per Wikipedia:Deletion process#Articles for Deletion page or the CSD #8 although that might not apply - since I didn't want to keep having the same conversation) etc, and all patience must come to an end eventually. --maru (talk) contribs 02:05, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you maru for providing me with enough information this time to find out the reasons myself. Not all of us are veteran wikipedians ;-) Some of us just might of joined the other day and are still learning the ropes. --Olmeca 11:53, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Re:Teika refs

Yes, it's much better, I'd consider the article now passes the 'inline cit. req.' with flying colors. There are still some formatting issues though (shorten the elinks in refs, the colorful tables in article look strange) - but it's close to FA. I'd recommend a GA nomination first, then FAC.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 07:35, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually I was thinking of JSTOR links, they can all be 'hidden' to look shorter and tidier ([long_elink short_text]).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 14:54, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Star Wars ship names

Hello, Marudubshinki! (I might have slightly mispelled your unique name, so please forgive me)

I've noticed your prolific Star Wars editing! Three barnstars! Wow!

Hey, I've noticed you have been working on the Star Wars ship names article. I'll try to start putting in at what battle most of the ships have been destroyed at.

However, some guy has been trying to put the page into AfD. Please support me in saving it!

Sincerely,

RelentlessRouge 11:30, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I've commented. --maru (talk) contribs 00:33, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Deleted content of user:kzzl/yeah/no

is there a way I could see the content that I put in there? I didn't know robots deleted stuff just cuz "redirect target doesn't exist". --McKzzFizzer 20:12, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

The content of that deleted page was "#REDIRECT [[My dads drying method]]" and nothing else. I honestly don't know why you'd want that in your user space. As far as deleting goes, many people never notice that the sixth criterion for deleting redirects over on Wikipedia:Redirect is if a redirect is broken (although this one would also fall under not-making-sense); this makes sense since a broken redirect isn't doing anything, it is only in the way. --maru (talk) contribs 00:28, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

ok. I honestly don't know why anyone would care enough to delete it. have you seen my userspace? I don't know what that phrase means. I don't remember making it. I bet there was prob one other backlink to it before but there are none now. whether something making sense is the most relative thing in the world, tho on it's face, the page def appears absurd at best. is there any way I could get an undelete? peace be with you. McKzzFizzer 17:00, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Well sure, you could ask for it to be undeleted (just ask any admin, like me, although there are formal ways to go about it); but should you really? It doesn't seem to be serving any purpose. Anyways, if admins undeleting is too slow for you, I gave you the entire page's content up in my first comment so there's nothing stopping you from re-creating it. --maru (talk) contribs 02:01, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Template:Title

Template:Title was moved to User:SushiGeek/Title per a discussion on templates for deletion. I've changed your user page to reflect this. --SushiGeek 15:52, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

yo, isn't that messed up they deleted tempalte:title? the replacement looks real gay on my browser (& default skin I guess?). how's it look from yer view? --McKzzFizzer 17:00, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

It looks horrible. I've commented it out until this is fixed. --maru (talk) contribs 02:00, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Special pages talk

Please have a look at Special:Undelete/Wikipedia:Special:Deadendpages. --Docu

As I understood it, cross-namespace redirects are deprecated. And what's with your sig? It was broken. --maru (talk) contribs 23:08, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Quick Question....

Would I ever have a chance to be an admin.? Since of course a long time ago in a galaxy far far away.... my account was hacked. I've had no problems since then. But I don't don't know.... --Mahogany 18:17, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

If you kept it unhacked, but honestly, I doubt you have much of a chance- you exude an aroma of unstable kookishness, if you know what I mean; a certain sense that while you mean well, you shouldn't be trusted with adminship. (Or at least, that's what the RFA voters in general would say, based on my past familiarity with that page). --maru (talk) contribs 23:08, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Star Wars AfDs

I decided to close the ones that were pretty much obvious (since they are all outdated). I didn't close the ones that were really close (the closest was devices, which I userfied). Some of them I even closed opposite my votes — I agree, it's even a little bold to close obvious ones, but I don't think it was out of line, per se. — Deckiller 01:41, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, if you're sure. --maru (talk) contribs 14:57, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Please stop fixing my double redirect

Hi,
Earlier this year, I decided to keep a double redirect in my pocket. The trouble is that people keep fixing it. Could you have your robot whitelist it? I've placed your talk page on my watchlist, so you may reply right here, to keep the discussion all in one place. --Smack (talk) 05:00, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

No. Because as far as I can tell, such a page is merely willful foolishness. --maru (talk) contribs 14:57, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

It actually has a purpose. I first created that page for this discussion. Furthermore, last I checked, it was considered poor Wikiquette to mess with other people's user pages. --Smack (talk) 03:24, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Mm. Seems pretty pointless- if someone wanted to test for themselves that double redirects don't work, then they can easily manufacture one. No need to keep one around; smacks of POINT. And fixing a useless double redirect in your userspace (not your userpage) hardly seems a violation of Wikiquette to me- fixing things is good. --maru (talk) contribs 03:31, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

It's a useful prop to a discussion that already happened; when you "fix" it, it breaks a link. And, since it doesn't disrupt anything, you can't invoke WP:DISRUPT except as a vague menace. As for the distinction between user pages and user subpages, do you really mean to suggest that I turn my actual user page into a double redirect? --Smack (talk) 04:57, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject Star Wars newsletter

Project updates Greetings, Star Wars editors! Deckiller here. It's the first edition of the WikiProject Star Wars newsletter, and yes, it's a semi-ripoff of the Esperenza newsletter. I think it's important to begin with some good news: Star Wars Episode II: Attack of the Clones, Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith, and Jabba the Hutt have reached featured article status! Kudos to the editors who helped obtain these achievements! WikiProject Star Wars is also on a mission to improve Star Wars articles using the following ideas: An out of universe perspective versus an in universe perspective (see Wikipedia:Writing about fiction and the future ammendments to our manual of style) Evolving lists into regular articles Moving excess information and specifics to Wookieepedia (and providing links to Wookieepedia per the "see also" and/or "external links" sections) Enhanced communication amongst WikiProject members More to come These should provide the basic steps needed to improve and "encyclopedia-fy" the Star Wars series of articles. Things to do There are plenty of Wikipedia:WikiProject Star Wars/things to do. An update to the page is coming very soon, and it will represent the new and exciting changes that Star Wars pages will be receiving! Out-of-universe versus in-universe perspectives Although details are forthcoming, I would like to take this time to explain the gist of this concept. Wikipedia has generally agreed that fictional articles should write about the topic from a "real world" perspective, focusing on real world issues and topics, with a section or two for plot synopsis and so on. Jabba the Hutt is a solid character example, and Clone Wars (Star Wars) is quickly moving toward an out of universe perspective.

Article evolution As many of you know, lists of minor Star Wars-related themes are very common on Wikipedia; however, since these may be seen as violations of Wikipedia policy (and having seperate articles would breach even more policies), the tentative solution is to create general articles on a list's topic (for example, turning List of Star Wars devices into Technology of Star Wars, which allows us to cover everything from hyperspace to comlinks in a general encyclopedic fashion). This can be very tough for some broad topics, so the key is organization. I encourage all editors to list their ideas on the WikiProject talk page. It will be a very difficult — but tangible — effort. For an example, let me point you to the Final Fantasy WikiProject. Some of us over at that WikiProject decided to turn various components of Final Fantasy X, such as Pyreflies, Yevon, and the backstory — into an article describing the world of Spira. Location descriptions were given a List of locations in Spira article, and the details themselves were placed on the Spira (Final Fantasy X) page. This is a decent template to follow — however, we will need to place priority on out-of-universe, "real life" topics and perspectives in realtion to the article. Sounds confusing, eh? It won't, for examples will be popping up left and right in the near future! Signed... — Deckiller 03:19, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Ah, I meant that the lists would serve as the middle step toward being turned into actual general articles with an overview to prevent deletion. — Deckiller 04:01, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Like, we had the List of Star Wars devices (which has been userfied to User:Deckiller/Star Wars devices. We can churn all that information into a Technology of Star Wars article to describe the various aspects of technology (a heading for communications for things like comlinks and whatnot). Then, we can also use this to describe the development, significance, parallels, and so on. It's like what the Final Fantasy WikiProject and the people on the fiction policy pages have been working on. — Deckiller 04:05, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps I am too pessimistic, but copying FF WP seems unrealistic- such compilations seem impossibly demanding of sources and information, or shot through with OR and thus vulnerable. --maru (talk) contribs 04:28, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to try it out in my userspace with Mipadi and perhaps a couple others and see how it goes with a technology section before even considering moving it into the Wikipedia namespace (or advancing it outside of the proposal/trial stage). I mean, this all sounds like a grand plan, but I do agree that it will be very difficult (hence why Star Wars is handled as it currently is). Naturally, there will be links to the sub-articles of various topics (droids, blasters/lightsabers/vibroweapons, etc). — Deckiller 04:35, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Robot interwiki standardization

This bot looks to have some small troubles with alphabetical order of interwikis, placing ru before fi here and ja between nl and no here. You might want to check this. --Denniss 00:09, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I have no idea why those errors are occurring (but I've fixed those two, anyway). For what's it worth, I've filed a bug report. --maru (talk) contribs 00:16, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Hmm. Apparently that's the right thing- alphabetizing by the language name, not language code. Go figure. --maru (talk) contribs 14:52, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Removing whitespace ...

Hi there, I have a couple of concerns regarding your recent edits. For one: You're leaving an edit summary that indicates you're a bot; however, your username and userpage do not indicate you're a bot. If you've not already, I'd like to ask that you go to WP:BOTREQ and request permission to run your bot. Secondly, many of your edits have been simply nothing more than removing/adding invisible whitespace, which you really should not do. (For example, [2] [3] [4]) Anyway, until these concerns can be addressed, I'd like to ask that you refrain from running your bot. Thanks. AmiDaniel (talk) 05:08, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I've now blocked this account as you've been unresponsive to my above query. You should not run bots from main accounts (certainly not from admin accounts), should not have it simply removing/adding whitespace, and you need to go through bot approvals like everyone else. Please email me or add {{unblock}} to have the block removed--do not unblock yourself. Thanks. AmiDaniel (talk) 06:42, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

On another note, bots should only edit at a rate of about two edits per minute until it is granted a bot flag, unless the approvals group decides otherwise. AmiDaniel (talk) 06:44, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Please do not run bots on this account again, you have been warned multiple times. Particularly "robot interwiki standardization" more often than not just moves whitespace. Martin 11:13, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

What's wrong with just moving whitespace? I find whitespace edits can make the source look a lot nicer. --maru (talk) contribs 14:52, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Please get permission before running bots, which you are doing again without asking, and at least run it on a separate account, as you have already been asked to do. Martin 21:26, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

My un-selflinking is done through a semi-automated bot; semi-automated activities are perfectly licit. And there is no point to a separate account. --maru (talk) contribs 21:33, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you very much for making my time in Wikipedia super. I have decided to leave and I don't think I will be back. Thank you again for helping me and making my time in Wikipedia super. Best Regards, ForestH2 t/c 23:26, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

That's really too bad. Good luck in your future hobbies; if you aren't soured on the whole idea of volunteer collaboration over the Internet, have you considered the Distributed Proofreaders project? I did a little work there before moving on to Everything2 (and then Wikipedia), and I enjoyed it. --maru (talk) contribs 00:15, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Belldandy

In the light of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Moby Dick/Proposed decision, you might want to review history of the page. While the arbitration case isn't closed, I thought you might want to comment about the issue either at the talk page of the arbitration case or on the articles talk page. --Cat out 17:41, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

It looks well in hand, so no need for me. --maru (talk) contribs 14:52, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Fossores etc- bravo

My congratulations: finally (I hpe it isn't a weird coincidence) a bot who doesn't blindly short-cut whatever redirects but actualy targets the right section. A treat for the content contributor! Fastifex 11:10, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, thank the pywikipedia devs. I am merely a user. --maru (talk) contribs 14:52, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Robot removing selflinks

When you remove selflinks in the designation sequence for planes then you break the autoboldening of the link (see Fairey Swordfish for instance). Would you mind tempering your robot so that it either avoids these self links, or at leasts emboldens them before moving on. Thank you. GraemeLeggett 12:05, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Why are these sequences abusing internal links to create bolding in the first place? --maru (talk) contribs 12:58, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Myg0t on deletion review

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Myg0t. Since you closed the deletion discussion for (or speedy-deleted) this article, your reasons on how or why you did so will be greatly appreciated in the above review. --LifeEnemy 18:17, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

? What DRV? The one that closed as keep-deleted? (You're kinda late to the party then). --maru (talk) contribs 23:17, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

ROTEW

I assure you, I had no idea it was false information. If so, why does SuperShadow remain online? It is quite an insult to Star Wars fans everywhere. But if you feel you must talk down to a new user such as myself in such a manner, then block me. You had no right to speak to me in such a manner. Especially before seriously consulting me. Wikipedia is for all. Block me if you wish, but these are my views. Thank you. PS I agree with the top comment. You are abusing the power given to you. You're taking things too seriously! — Preceding unsigned comment added by ROTEW (talk • contribs)

SS stays up because those with legal standing to sue and take it down, don't. I take people adding known false information to Wikipedia very seriously. We have enough to do without such problems; believe me, if you had to deal with SS vandalism on a near daily basis for years, you would begin to lose your patience. And I don't see how a warning is abusing the power given to me. --maru (talk) contribs 13:19, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Abuse of power

Has anyone else noticed that this guy uses his blocking power and abuses it? I've seen several threats he's made to people when they are making healthy contributions. He did so to me, but it was rightly so as I was misinformed, but I'm refering to other people who did not deserve that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by lani12 (talk • contribs)

I believe all my warnings are prefectly valid. And my talk page is for talking to me, not about me. --maru (talk) contribs 13:19, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Not all your reason's are valid, and you are extremely hated by most people for your continued abuse of admin abilities. Don't believe me, see above where they constantly ask you to stop using that bot of yours but you didn't until you were blocked. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lani12 (talk • contribs)

Really. Funny, I thought most real sensible editors were annoyed by my bot edits, not by anything I do with my admin abilities; I consider the good I can do with my bot edits to be worth the transitory annoyance I cause them. Just goes to show how deluded I am, but it is not like I would listen to anything you in particular would have to say. --maru (talk) contribs 12:31, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Forget it!

Why do you find it your duty to inform others this? You take Wikipedia too seriously! I'm not going to argue with you. I'll leave you to bask in your own greatness. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ROTEW (talk • contribs)

I find it my duty because I was the one who noticed, and because I greatly like Wikipedia, that's why. Your flippancy and casual disregard of basic principles for articles (like, I dunno, being factual) greatly annoy and dismay me. --maru (talk) contribs 12:28, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Canon

It's a tough subject to find boundaries on; I just tried to clarify it on the project page. — Deckiller 03:49, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Yeah. You been following the argument raging over whether to include the ST-vs-SW.net external link? Good example. --maru (talk) contribs 03:54, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Bleh, not really; I've been bogged down with some work over in the FF and CVG departments. — Deckiller 03:56, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Probably just as well. The actual link is quite interesting, and I intend to mine the quotes it provides for our own Star Wars canon article, but I don't really feel like stepping into that argument. --maru (talk) contribs 03:57, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Bot removing self-links is causing grief

Why are you running this? there are perfectly good reasons to have self-links. For example, a list of related aircraft that include the current aircraft.

Look http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=RQ-7_Shadow&diff=65374533&oldid=65303480

Now the current aircraft isn't in bold. What was the benefit of this change? -MarsRover 20:34, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

No. There are no good reasons for self-links on article pages. If it is meant to be bold, it should be bold. The benefit is that now that page is not abusing wikimarkup, and perhaps may even one day use wikimarkup correctly rather than depend on obscure undocumented "features". --maru (talk) contribs 00:39, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

WP:DICK — Preceding unsigned comment added by MarsRover (talk • contribs)

That's not an argument. --maru (talk) contribs 02:57, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

External link bot

Regarding the external link message you posted at Talk:Paddy Hannan, the external link is fine if a non-bot manually clicks on it. Apparently the problem is that your bot incorrectly parses urls when they are embedded in templates with no space between the url and the next pipe. Snottygobble 04:46, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I/we know about that bug. I have to say, I am kind of surprised to see it ever show up again. I guess that happens more often than one would think, although it would be more legible to have some space in there. --maru (talk) contribs 04:49, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree; the space has been added already. Snottygobble 04:52, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Maru, I did a random scan of your recent bot contributions and easily found half a dozen non-errors per the problem above. Are you going to remedy this? You sound as though you're dismissing it as not being a big issue. -- I@n 05:24, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I am dismissing it as a big issue. Going back through my last 50 contribs, besides the already mentioned example, I can only find Talk:Pan-Asianism and Talk:Palpatine with the pipe issue. ~40 correct, ~3 wrong, doesn't seem so bad to me. And some of those Pan-Am articles apparently could use some link cleaning. --maru (talk) contribs 05:34, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Well why not just fix it? Your response sounds very arrogant. {{cite web}} is used extensively and its useage guide doesn't indicate a need for a space before each pipe. ie. there's nothing wrong with the links. Can you also explain what is the status of your bot? Is it authorised and why is it running on your admin account rather than a separate account? -- I@n 06:03, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

This is certainly not the first time people have complained about your bot, which you continue to run through your user account instead of your bot. If in your last 43 contribs 7% were wrong, it might be negligible if it were only 43 contribs, but I see a couple hundred of them in your history. - Rainwarrior 06:13, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Here's a few more for you to dismiss: [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11] -- I@n 06:34, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Seems to me the fix is trivialer than trivial. Simply tell your parser to split on pipes as well as whitespace. To my knowledge HTTP doesn't permit pipes in URLs, but even if they do they are exceedingly rare so your error rate will plummet. Snottygobble 06:42, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

It may be trivialer than snot for a regexp or Python maven (neither of which am I). But I've given it a shot, and changed

text = re.sub('(?s).*?|', , text) 

to

text = re.sub('(?s).*?||\|.*', , text) 

Does this do the trick? I have no idea. I'm checking, but... --maru (talk) contribs 13:33, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Possible impersonator of User:Marudubshinki

FYI, I've blocked a possible impersonator of your account here. -- I@n 08:32, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Looks like an especially nasty one, what with the copied user page. --maru (talk) contribs 01:50, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Unauthorized bots

See WP:AN/I#User:Marudubshinki_running_unauthorized_robots. -- SCZenz 16:06, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

That's remarkably harsh of Cyde. If I were revert-warring, deleting articles which shouldn'tbe , engagin in personal attacks etc. I would perhaps be blocked for a little while, and similar remedies. But not indef blocked. But for occasionally running a bot to do disambigs, or to fix double redirects, or cat moves/tidies, fixing selflinks, or finding broken external links on articles I'm concerned with (which is actually how the previous section on weblinkchecker.py started; because I was trying to see which links were broken on Palpatine and I simply started it at 'P'), or any of the other similar mostly harmless tasks I do, Cyde would like to see me indefinitely blocked. Man. --maru (talk) contribs 01:58, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Its not harsh Maru, its called process. Create a bot account, get it approved at WP:BOTREQ and you can continue on your merry way. I see an earlier bot account User:Bot-maru was blocked indefinitely a couple of months ago, so perhaps you need to have a rethink about your bot QA standards first. In the meantime, this account is blocked until you give an assurance that you'll comply with the above. -- I@n 02:14, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

"Indefinite" doesn't mean "infinite"; it just means that no limit is predefined. Cyde's proposal, and I@n's implementation of it, is that you remain blocked until you agree to follow process/policy. You determine the expiry time; your block will end as soon as you undertake to follow the rules. Snottygobble 02:23, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Unblocking yourself

Maru,
I was never really concerned about your bot, although obviously others are. What greatly concerns me is the fact that you were blocked indefinitely on the 13th for running an unapproved bot, that you unblocked yourself the same day claiming the bots were shut down, and that you then started your bots up again. To unblock yourself is bad enough; to do so on a pretext is a most grievous misuse of admin privileges. Before you unblock yourself again, you should bear in mind that you are under intense scrutiny right now, and any further perceived misuse of your admin privileges is likely to result in unpleasant consequences.
Snottygobble 02:36, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Quite right. Policy is extremely clear on this: do not ever unblock yourself. State, on your talk page, that you will not be using any further on authorized bots—and then someone else will unblock you. These are not small policies you're breaking here; I'm sure this seems harsh, but you've been ignoring the community for far too long and now all we're asking is that you stop. -- SCZenz 02:41, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Wait a minute... After reviewing the history, I should clarify something that I misunderstood on first reading. Maru was only blocked on July 13th until his bot wasn't currently running, and was told he could unblock himself when it was shut off. So although he continued violating bot policy, he did not violate blocking policy, and I have no reason to believe he will do so this time either. Thus I have struck through my above comment, although of course you shouldn't unblock yourself this time. -- SCZenz 02:47, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

No, that was on the 6th. He was blocked indefinitely by AmiDaniel on the 13th, with the summary "Please request approval before running your bot." AmiDaniel also left a message on his talk page explicitly instructing him "Please email me or add {{unblock}} to have the block removed--do not unblock yourself." Maru unblocked himself and continued running his bot without requesting bot approval. Snottygobble 02:50, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

After reviewing, I stand corrected; that was absolutely and 100% a violation of blocking policy. We missed it somehow, and it's an example of why admins need to be trusted users. To Maru: DO NOT UNBLOCK YOURSELF THIS TIME. You are setting a very poor example by violating bot policy; you must agree clearly to stop and follow that agreement. -- SCZenz 03:07, 28 July 2006 (UTC)