User talk:Marudubshinki/Archive 36

Hen Fap vandal

I support your slapping an infinite block on User:TuomasTumour (I was going to do that if he vandalized again after the 1 week block I gave him) however the guy also surfs anonymous IP addresses and posts his nonsense from there. For example I just blocked 86.31.56.59 for Perpetua&diff=prev&oldid=45359868 this vandalism. Since this guy tends to use the same m.o. I wonder if perhaps some sort of autoblocker bot could be set up to catch any instances of the term "hen fap" and place a block accordingly? --23skidoo 03:54, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Probably not a good idea; if he edits largely from a few IP addresses, regular procedures are fine, and if he disperses, then by definition auto-blocking would produce minimal gains, and possibly catch legit users. A reversion-bot would be good, but there are already a number of bots and feeds, so we should probably ask the CVU or other projects to add it as a search term, much like "fuck" or "shit" already are. --maru (talk) contribs 03:59, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Palpatine and Rule of Two

Can I take it that the message you left me concerning "Palpatine and the Rule of Two" and "Palpatine as a Ruler" is permission to move the former into the "Rule of Two" article? --Kiddre 18:10, March 26, 2004 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.193.216.103 (talk • contribs)

If you'll recall, I suggested a variant of your suggestion. I'd rather someone else weighed in, though. I mean, it's not exactly a pressing issue. --maru (talk) contribs 02:41, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

About Ushio & Tora

Actually, I found out about the series through Wikipedia. Maybe I should watch it sometime. --WhisperToMe 05:26, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

:( Now I'm crushed. Or on the other hand, should I be glad that my little article motivated someone to do that much work? Hmm.

And you definitely should watch it if you ever can. It's one of the unappreciated little gems of anime that lay between forgettable mediocrity and the level of brilliance/popular appeal that would make it a hit. --maru (talk) contribs 06:11, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

??

What did I do? I haven't done anything to that page (The Last Command) since you warned me the last time!!!!!!!! jeez, I don't want another warning for something I didn't do please.

You removed the warning. That is trying to hide the fact that you did something to be warned for, and is classic vandal behaviour.

Please also take a look at Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages. --maru (talk) contribs 23:31, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I didn't know that you weren't supposed to do that. Sorry. --The ed17 18:01, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Just don't do it again, needless to say. --maru (talk) contribs 19:33, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Category:Software engineering success stories?

I see you speedied this today based on the {{delete}} tag, but prior to your speedy it had been converted to a {{cfd}}. Linux was readded to the category after you emptied it as well. If you don't mind, I made a note on the discussion at WP:CFD that they should consider the category not-empty and not-deleted for now and if it is decided to keep I'd undelete. Is that ok with you? --Syrthiss 16:31, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

That's alright. I've voted, but I'm not sure why you think Linux is in the category. The current revision doesn't have it, at least. --maru (talk) contribs 19:44, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Heh I should have taken a pic of the page then. In the revert war thats going on in Linux I'm not surprised it has gotten tossed again. =D --Syrthiss 19:48, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Vandal Watch

User:Esaborio's only edits has been to up the IBM's rating of the Star Wars movies and to remove the re-release information about the movies. Now that isn't that special but isn't that exactly the two things Copperchair did before his indef. ban. I say we should keep an eye out on this one. Jedi6-(need help?) 22:24, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I'll admit it is rather suspicious. But we can do little but watch since the edits per se are not vandalism, and he hasn't done enough to be checkusered. --maru (talk) contribs 01:31, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I know, I was just giving you a heads up just in case. Jedi6-(need help?) 03:36, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Pam Bondi deletion

You shouldn't have deleted the Pam Bondi article. You should have at least put it up for a vote. Your argument that she's just a prosecutor holds no weight because she's also a guest on national cable news programs, which most prosecutors are not.

She's more famous than Flavia Colgan, who has a Wikipedia article, easily survived a vote for deletion, and has essentially the same job: Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Flavia Colgan

Pam Bondi also has an IMDb entry, which I doubt most other prosecutors do. http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1980834/

Then we add that she was offered her own reality TV show. And if you think she needs to be connected to a major case, she was the prosecutor in Dwight Gooden's case; Gooden is a famous baseball player.

Please restore this article. If you must, nominate it for deletion, but don't just remove it without questioning. --Beisnj 23:45, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I should note I merely deleted because I agreed with the speedy delete request. But since you seem to care, I've undeleted and put up for AFD. --maru (talk) contribs 01:39, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I understand. --Beisnj 02:23, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Your deletion of my new work (re: Stephen Dare)

You deleted an article which I posted which corrected the detailed faults of a previous entry.

I wrote the article as a result of your deletion of the original post, because after reading the debate and knowing something about the subject, I agreed with the general discussion that the essay seemed to babble and was not in any way, in a form which merited inclusion.

Without sounding aggressive, I would like to point out that there was by no means clear consensus, and looking at your posts and areas of interests, I think that this subject is a little out of the beaten path.

I think that it is reasonable and definitely withing wikipedia guidelines, that the corrected post should stand on its own merits, to be discussed and edited.

The subject is a fairly notable and pretty witty writer and activist.

I would appreciate a little help from you, since you deleted my wholly different article without so much as messaging me. {unsigned|Carstenboswell}}

I'm guessing you are speaking of the Stephen Dare deletions. As for my reason, please see Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#General, fourth down. --maru (talk) contribs 05:26, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I did read that section. And thank you so much for responding so quickly. I came across this thread of discussion while surfing Wikipedia. I had read a series of essays by the author a few years ago, and chanced that there would be a page about him. And there was! But it was in the process of being deleted. So I got involved in the discussion, and definitely agreed with the criticisms of the page. Plus it was factually innacurate and a mess - no wonder it was up for deletion.

I was a little suspicious as to the reason....If you follow the MySpace link that was listed in the debate, and then match the dates with edits on the post, it seems like there was a little homophobic vandalism, which when it was edited, there was a sudden request for deletion of the article.

Anyways to make a long story short, I researched and wrote an accurate article.

The author was embarassed to be the subject of any debate. Im not sure if he could see the instances of him being called a pedophile and etc, but I know it would make me mad as heck.

I think the edit blocking should be lifted so that I can post the amended article and request mediation and input on the creation of a valid entry. I would appreciate some help on this.

Thank You, Carsten Boswell. --Carstenboswell 05:57, 29 March 2006 (UTC)carstenboswell.

I don't have much interest in the issue (I was asked to close the AFD as a uninterested party), so the best I can do is point you to the proper procedures. In this case, your new article is still accessible through the history for Stephen William Dare or whatever the article name was, so you should take that to VFU. --maru (talk) contribs 06:14, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Why do you reformat talk pages? (re: Talk:Pattern matching)

Hi, I notice you've gone to reformatting talk pages too. Last time I was irritated by your meaningless format twids, you said they were to distinguish article pages from talk pages. So what's your reason this time? Talk:Pattern matching is the latest example.

Your adding a section heading where one was missing is ok to me. But then in the same edit, you went changing insignificant white space in my comments. They're supposed to be my comments, and as you changed line structure in the same edit, Wikipedia's diff can't even easily show me what you changed when you went along. You changed some spelling too. What's worst, you also changed the thread structure of a discussion!

Best would be to keep the edits to significant ones, and concise ones at that, so I would have time to follow them instead of being flooded with continuous twids. --TuukkaH 10:37, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

It's not that I've "gone" to reformatting; I've always done it. And my reason is still the same (although for the first section where I added the header, indented, quoted and italicized, the reason is that that is just plain good formatting regardless of where it is). Were my spelling changes wrong? Was my threading incorrect? (I thought I'd got it right). And you are hardly being flooded with continuous "twids"- it was one edit, which I marked as major and gave a complete and concise edit summary ("fmt", which is a standard summary appearing in the Edit legend). So I'm not following your complaint. --maru (talk) contribs 16:59, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

With last time, I was of course referring to User talk:Marudubshinki/Archive 17#Please explain apparently ineffective markup change. Back then, I thought you'd at least leave people's comments on talk pages alone. And no, it's not just your one edit, but all of your edits like that, and you're not the only one making edits here. I hope you could feel my pain.

Yes, I remember that discussion. (BTW, did my archive structure make that easy or difficult to find, as compared with other archives?)

I browsed through the archives starting from the latest, looking for a topic where I had commented. It would be even easier if there was a page that had all the archive content transcluded, though.

I also hope you can agree that there are a lot of unconstructive activities some people engage in at Wikipedia instead of improving our content. They "fix" redirects, change whitespacing, tinker with other people's talk page comments, change from one acceptable style to another they happen to prefer. I'm not the only one who considers these negative: see for example Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Disputes over style issues, Wikipedia:Redirect#Don.27t fix links to redirects that aren.27t broken and Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#Behavior that is unacceptable on Wikipedia. I'm not considering anonymous editors here, who fortunately don't pay too much attention to wiki syntax or style. Neither am I accusing you of these, I'm trying to explain how something you consider harmless is considered harmful by others.

We should definitely tolerate such activities; much like allowing userboxes and user pages (and heck, userspace at all), they pay for themselves. Which is to say, if an editor likes to engage in them, they will also contribute good content. Look at me: I spend a fair bit of time on "wiki-twiddling", but I also contribute scads of decent content.

The biggest difference is that the activities I listed interfere with the writing process of every article and basicly lead into revert wars, whereas what you listed is separated in the userspace and helps build a community. To get a propert picture on the negative versus positive consequences, we have to go to the community at large. I provided you with three links to guides that tell these activities are negative.

To answer your concerns: Your spelling changes might be wrong because on talk pages editors have the right to spell as they please. Your threading change is definitely incorrect, as you can see in the page history. Now I see you've continued on some articles I've recently contributed to. I really had to revert your erroneous edits of User talk:TuukkaH, Guard (computing), Pattern matching, and List comprehension. It's not only that you edited what the guidelines say you shouldn't, but also that you mess with my talk page, uninformedly change article references to external links, negligently break "f n = n * f (n-1)" into "f n = n *f (n-1)".

There's a difference between messing with spelling because they intended it and because they simply didn't check carefully over what they wrote. In the former case, then one should probably refrain from correcting it, but in the latter.... one is doing them and other readers a favor by fixing it. As for user talk, that is your right, but I wasn't seriously trying to fix anything- I just didn't want to move this conversation to your talk page, and since you missed my reply, it seemed an amusing way of notifying you. As for the factorial approach, I simply screwed up there.

You can't know which users want their spelling changed and which don't. The favor won't be a big one in any case, whereas the irritation is big. However, I appreciate spell-checking an article because it's not supposed to be connected to the personality of any writer and we have an encyclopedic style we try to achieve in the articles.

Even if I haven't been able to make my point or you can't agree with it, I kindly ask you -- instead of saying you're not following -- to consider the reaction your activities have provoked in me. Should I and possibly other people, who for any reason can't stand your going around "proving you know better" and messing up articles, stop contributing content to Wikipedia so we can evade your "formatting fixes"? --TuukkaH 11:46, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not at all sure what you are talking about here- are you saying I should stop formatting and spellchecking since it might turn some people off editting? Well... "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others, do not submit it." --maru (talk) contribs 01:12, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

That's what I've been saying all the time. What I talk about here is that you shouldn't pose as if you had no idea what I'm talking about. You should act in good faith and try to understand what's the problem of fellow contributors when they contact you. This might be very funny for you but it really stresses me. What you quote here doesn't once again have anything to do with this. Feel free to edit mercilessly and take the content wherever you want, but I don't want to see your disruptive beviour: spell-checking other people's comments, making edits that change insignificant whitespace etc. --TuukkaH 14:18, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Simon Byrne FAC

Hi, Thanks for your support vote at Simon Byrne FAC. I have addressed your concerns as much as possible and written a few short pages, and deleted a few links to obscure boxers who even google has never heard of. Believe me I'm happy with a weak support, but I would be happier still if you felt able to upgrade that. Regards Giano | talk 11:54, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

After looking at it, I've changed my vote to Support. Good job. --maru (talk) contribs 16:43, 29 March 2006 (UTC)