User talk:Marudubshinki/Archive 50

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 least emboldens them before moving on. Thank you. GraemeLeggett 12:05, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

? 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Canon

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 Wiki-markup, and perhaps may even one day use wiki-markup correctly rather than depend on obscure undocumented "features". --maru (talk) contribs 00:39, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Well why not just fix it? Your response sounds very arrogant. {{cite web}} is used extensively and its usage 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 authorized and why is it running on your admin account rather than a separate account? -- I@n 06:03, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Here's a few more for you to dismiss: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7] -- I@n 06:34, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

It may be trivialer than snot for a regular expression 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)[reply]

Possible impersonator of User:Marudubshinki

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

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