User talk:Marudubshinki/Archive 47

List of Internet Prank Flash Animations

Do you mind me redirecting it? Λυδ α cιτγ 02:45, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No. --maru (talk) contribs 03:22, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Leon County in the Civil War

Received your notice at Leon County in the Civil War. Work is in progress an sources are cited. Noles1984 20:24, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, my concern wasn't with sources, or the actual quality of the formatting or prose (what I looked at seemed to be fine), but rather with the aim of the article. It looks like a list (which should be reflected in the title; is that article really about "Leon County in the Civil War", or is it a List of Civil War soldiers from Leon County, and if the latter, then why should it be a separate article and not a part of a Leon County or a Civil War article?) and I'm none too sure about its point. Most of the personages don't seem too notable. --maru (talk) contribs 00:52, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

International Space Agency (ISA)

You visited our new listing international Space Agency (ISA).

All information is correct.

We are open to any feed back, however, please be aware that at present there is an all out effort by powerful government agencies, and agents, who have spread massive amounts false information and propaganda to unsuspecting people, to cause harm to the ISA organization and its people.

We are legitimate.

Also, be aware that if you do a search on the internet for "International Space Agency" you will find years and years and layers and layers of false information, propaganda, and manufactured lies about the International Space Agency (ISA) Organization, and our Founder, Mr. Rick R. Dobson, Jr. People have even used Mr. Dobson’s name on the internet, pretending they are him, when in fact they were not, and this has caused major problems! Also, these same government agents have been sending out hundreds of emails, looking as if it has come from the International Space Agency (ISA) Organization, when in fact these emails did not come from the ISA Organization, and were intended to cause harm and to deceive people. These are ongoing problems, which the ISA Organization is constantly fighting against.

Just want to set the record straight before any false information or propaganda is taken as fact, and cause problems to unsuspecting people.

Thanks. ISA Global Team. (402) 299-2799 public-affairs@isa-hq.com

It's a huge mess. The formatting and prose are equally awful, notability isn't particularly well established, it isn't linking to or from very much, or categorized, sources are rarely or haphazardly cited (and your statements above only compound that problem).... etc. --maru (talk) contribs 00:54, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BunnyTrack notability

Hello. I believe you are wrong in displaying a notability notice on the BunnyTrack page. If you can suggest to me how I can improve its notability, please do so and I will. There are countless web sites which include sections devoted to BunnyTrack including www.clanbase.com, www.i4games.net and www.fraggednation.com. There are several worldwide tournaments held every year for this game type, also. It is an absolutely integral part of the Unreal Tournament community. In fact, reading through Wikipedia's notability policy, I have to say that I think your placing of the tag on the page was extremely unjustified. There is no way that anyone could claim that the article's statements are unjustifiable, original research or for vanity. BT maps are very real and there are over 600 individual levels. Please advise as to how I should proceed. Soulhunter123.

First off, NOR and sourcing are necessary but not sufficient conditions for an article. As for how to establish notability? I'm not very sure. There are only a few similar articles. Tactical Ops: Assault on Terror is obviously notable since it was eventually released as a separate game, but neither the other two examples (Thievery UT and Strangelove (video game)) seem to have ever seriously established or been challenged on their notability.

Incidentally, you don't seem to know how to sign properly; see Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages. Long story short, --~~~~. --maru (talk) contribs 03:18, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply. I've posted the article's link on BunnyTrack forums and already there has been one edit to the "Origins" section. I'm unsure of the amount of experience you've had with BT yourself, but it is most definitely one of the most popular gametypes and, in the months in which I had been absent from the BT community, it has grown enormousely. Many new servers have been purchased and several new websites have been launched. What I'll do is attempt to add more external links to the article to well-established websites (FraggedNation, ClanBase etc.) and hopefully this will suffice. The StrangeLove article, in my opinion, warrants the notability notice much more than BunnyTrack! =P (And, may I say, StrangeLove is much less popular too!). Also, thanks for letting me know about the signature thing, that was a big help! Hope to see you around. --Soulhunter123

USS Grand Canyon (AD-28)

You state (through userboxes) that you don't use Microsoft products, so why the Xbox then? More to the real reason I came here, you deleted the page: USS Grand Canyon (AD-28) (rightfully so). I did some google searches and uncovered some info, so I re-created the page as a stub (rather than the pile of nonsense that another editor made earlier). I was hoping you could point me towards a policy/guideline that discusses the creation of deleted pages, as I am not sure if I have broken any rules in doing this. Also, 23000 edits(!!!), that's HUGE, are you sure you didn't add an extra zero to that? MichaelBillington 03:25, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, as I told an anon a few months ago, I justify that by running Linux on it when it's not doing anything, and by prudent use of doublethink, there's no problem.

As for the recreation, I very much doubt anyone will hassle you over it. The results are more important than the process, after all. IAR, and such.

re: 23k. Nope. That's wrong. I probably should update it, but it's only low by about three or four thousand, so I'm in no real hurry. --maru (talk) contribs 03:37, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Marudubshinki, thanks for alerting us to make a category for "David Lucas Burge." It looks like you're totally swamped with work, but if you get a moment, we'd appreciate your advice for the best category selection for this. Thanks again. --AEMP 03:30, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Think Living Person, Born in XXXX, and some sort of musican category and maybe entrepreneur as well depending on how commercial his course is. --maru (talk) contribs 03:39, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of Video Gamerz page

I'd like to know why you think it should be deleted.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Falco1029 (talk • contribs)

It makes no sense, and it is a worthless article on a two bit Flash animation. It is lacking in all notability. And there's only two actual episodes? Get real. --maru (talk) contribs 05:19, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Psychology wiki

Hi Maru: I appreciate your concern about notability. Had to go off and have my dinner and was only halfway through.

Can you look again at Psychology Wiki and see if I have resolved your concerns. Thanks. --Lifeartist 19:36, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you did. The article still need a fair amount of cleanup (especially those odd tables of links), but the Wikia statistics definitely addressed my notability concern. --maru (talk) contribs 22:00, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Maru, have a look at the Psychology Wiki's new Community Portal :) Mostly Zen 03:21, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looks pretty nice, although the FAQ doesn't really address the "why a separate wiki?" question - I haven't noticed any crusades to purge Wikipedia of psychology cruft, so I don't see the motivation. --maru (talk) contribs 03:36, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lozi mythology

Hi. I created the Lozi mythology article and I noticed that you attached a clean-up tag. I'm new to editing on Wikipedia, so I'm willing to learn from any old hands. Exactly what needs to be done?

Mungo

First, it needs categories. Then, it needs to be wikified; see Wikipedia:Guide to layout or Wikipedia:How to edit a page. Then, the prose should be fixed up and wikilinked to whatever may be relevant. Finally, the referencing could be improved in one of the methods linked to from Wikipedia:Citing sources (specifically, look at the Citation styles section). --maru (talk) contribs 03:59, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, again. I have tried to follow the suggestions you made: I have put in a couple of categories; I have followed examples from other articles on mythology, to introduce standard layout; and I have introduced wikilinks. The only other suggestion I haven't fulfilled is the referencing. I hope to find time for that within the next week or so. Is what I've done so far acceptable? Mungo 05:13, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's better, certainly. --maru (talk) contribs 11:27, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

bot

Hi, please do not run bots from your normal account. Martin 09:58, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Better still, don't run it at all. It keeps messing up pages. --Zundark 13:43, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure it was messing up pages, Zundark? I went through a couple of dozen revisions before I set it loose, and I don't remember seeing it ever screw up any HTML-to-wiki conversions (since I doubt you're complaining about the "wikicities" -> "wikia" replacement, but rather the HTML conversion options I turned on). --maru (talk) contribs 17:49, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Of course I'm sure. Take at look at beth two and multiplication table, for example. There are probably many more - these two just happened to be on my watchlist. --Zundark 19:44, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. Those edits do result in errors, but that's as much Wikimarkup's inability to differentiate between simple bolding and italicizing-with-an-apostrophe as the bot's fault. Guess I'll file a bug report for that. --maru (talk) contribs 21:07, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blaming the wiki markup for having no way to distinguish between bolding and italicizing-with-an-apostrophe is ridiculous, since you can use HTML in these situations. Why didn't you use HTML in these situations? How would it have made any difference if there was a wiki-markup way of doing it, when your bot doesn't even notice the problem in the first place? You set a buggy and poorly tested bot loose on Wikipedia, and are now trying to shift the blame for the resulting corruption of articles. I am not impressed. --Zundark 07:52, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that pointing out a real, general flaw which makes multiple things difficult and often results in bugs in regular editting (which has annoyed me on multiple occasions, as it has both made it difficult to properly italicize ship titles and still use possessives in any relatively simple way, as the HTML solution is as clumsy as using nowiki tags and caused me grief with unintentional bolding) is "shifting the blame". HTML should be replaced with wikimarkup where-ever possible, and you are foolish indeed if you can't see why turning HTML into wikimarkup per the MoS is a good thing. --maru (talk) contribs 11:34, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blaming the misbehaviour of your unauthorized and inadequately tested bot on a "flaw" in wiki markup is obviously an attempt to shift the blame - an attempt that is made even lamer by your admission that you already knew about this "flaw" from your regular editing. The straw-man attack of your last sentence is just pitiful. --Zundark 18:24, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have briefly blocked (15 mins) this account as an unauthorised bot, note that I only resorted to this because of the above complaint and because there has been no response from you. Martin 14:40, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's quite alright. If my bot was indeed messing up as Zundark claims, then blocking was the right thing, since I was asleep at the time. --maru (talk) contribs 17:50, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Italics in Villian

Please note that html was used in the villian article because of apostrophe issues which made wiki markup more complicated than html, defeating the purpose of using wiki markup in the first place. Your edit actually broke the italics [1]. I have reverted this to the style arrived at by consensus on February 1. NickelShoe (Talk) 15:46, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Duly noted. I shall leave the consensus alone then. --maru (talk) contribs 18:46, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Muirchertach MacLochlainn

Hello. You tagged this for a merge with High King of Ireland, not a bad plan given the content. However, I've written a stub on the actual person so that a merge is, I think, no longer needed. All the best! --Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:07, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That was definitely a major overhaul. Did the original version even give any of the bio? Anyhoo, good luck sorting that out. --maru (talk) contribs 00:29, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]