User talk:Marudubshinki/Archive 49

Your - the the + the bot

Could you refrain from using your bots on user space? There's really no need to be cleaning up user pages with such a thing (the same goes for talk pages), and you could stand to remove information that was being stored there for a purpose. (Sometimes "the the" may mean something. Please don't let your robot make assumptions about the notes I leave for myself.) - Rainwarrior 04:36, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I concur here. I most strongly object to your bot making any edits to my user space, for whatever reason. I think from the comments above that you've got more than enough others who feel the same. I can't protest strongly enough that what you are doing with your bot goes against all bot usage guidelines. I am extremely upset about this, and I expect you to rectify the problem. AKAF 07:37, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Bots#Spell-checking bots seems to suggest that this Bot should not be allowed. You might want to save yourself the bandwidth. - Rainwarrior 16:47, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

True enough, but bandwidth is wasted if not used, and there have long been spellchecking bots for very specific restricted errors- and fixing double "the"s isn't actually spell-checking anyway. --maru (talk) contribs 18:00, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The argument about what is and what isn't spell checking isn't important to me. My request was that you not please not bot the talk or user spaces. These are special areas where a double "the" isn't actually a problem, and in the case of talk pages you're buzzing a lot of watchlists for no good reason. In the user page that brought this to my attention, I was doing a translation from another language into English, and the double "the" was actually a note to myself about the original grammar. Using this bot on talk and user pages has no benefit to anyone and will annoy many. - Rainwarrior 00:21, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Similarly on other non-article-space pages: [1] - Jmabel | Talk 18:46, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

fossil/GoogleFS similarities

Have you studied the fossil code? The article here on Wikipedia is very low quality, but fossil shows a lot of similarities with GoogleFS to me. I cannot cite anyone, that would be violation of NDA. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrco (talk • contribs)

No, I haven't seen any of the code- none of GoogleFS because I don't think it's released, and none of fossil since seeing it would do me no good and I can't use it on Linux. However, again, I don't see any significant resemblances- no chunking over multiple peers, no master servers, no heartbeat arrangements, no overlay over another conventional filesystem (in the case of GoogleFS, ext2 or ext3) etc. And if you cannot cite anyone, then how is your contention that there is such a linkage any more than original research? --maru (talk) contribs 01:09, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is one master server (corresponding to the fossil server), fossil servers "chunk" to (multiple) venti server(s), which can run on Linux and store their data on files on any filesystem, and the "heartbeat arrangements" looks like nonsense. You just proved you know nothing about Plan 9. But isn't the whole GoogleFS article 'original research' since the project is not public and no code/specification was ever released? --Mrco 03:12, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I could only know that if I'd read the research papers and such- our article currently doesn't seem to mention any of what you just did.

And you've equally proven you know nothing about GoogleFS (hint: look at the external links section). --maru (talk) contribs 03:22, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dahak

I don't know much about the series; I created an article for the ship to separate it from the main Dahak article, which was about a television character from Xena. --DrBat 20:24, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh. Fair enough. I seem to be doomed to be the only person in the entire wiki to like Weber's obscurer fiction. Oy vey! --maru (talk) contribs 22:37, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Propedeuse + user page comment

Thank you for reviewing the Propedeuse wiki page. I added references and would appreciate another review if you will.

One thing about your user page I find very distressing. It states you do not use Microsoft products. Yet your user page states that you do prefer the XBOX over two other major game consoles, and that you are an intermediate gamer. Because the availability of PC-games for platforms other than Windows is fairly limited, I must assume that you are in fact in the possession of at least one game console, and based on a fact stated earlier this is most likely an XBOX. I must admit that the hardware is not a product of Microsoft, but the XBOX itself quite definitely is. Moreover, a wide variety of XBOX games have either been acquired and/or (further) developed by Microsoft, thus these games fall under the category of Microsoft products. Please correct me if I am wrong, but it can be reasonably assumed that you do use Microsoft products based on other statements made on your user page.

Well, as I've said before, I run Xebian on my Xbox, and as the only thing in an Xbox that is actually produced by Microsoft is the Win2k kernel and the bootloader and such, I feel my hands are clean of Microsoft products (as opposed to Microsoft-branded products, but that's another thing entirely). --maru (talk) contribs 14:50, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Acceptable ;-) -- Eddyspeeder 13:39, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

...And you damaged the wikitable syntax diff, please repair to the last version of Musical linguist [2] 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

...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)[reply]

..... 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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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". --McKzz Fizzer 20:12, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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. McKzz Fizzer 17:00, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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? --McKzz Fizzer 17:00, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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.... --Mahoga n y 18:17, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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. — Deckill e r 01:41, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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...

— Deckill e r 03:19, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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. — Deckill e r 04:01, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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. — Deckill e r 04:05, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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). — Deckill e r 04:35, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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, [3] [4] [5]) 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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, [6] [7] [8]) 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]