User talk:Marudubshinki/Archive 51

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 god's 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 as well. 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 cataloged 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 truly 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 unbiased, 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)

Myg0t Redux

Ok.. I'm one of the people that voted to keep this article around.. I will admit, the original did have some reference citing issues, but nothing that can't be fixed straight away without wiping out the whole thing. Don't you think we could at least put a stub article in place, or SOMETHING, other than a deleted/protected page that serves no purpose to anybody? There are links around WP to myg0t that are permanently red now, something I'd like to see fixed.

Sure, its a vandal target, but so are other controversial pages.. GNAA (OK, i promise to stop pointing at them now, but GNAA and myg0t are relatively similar. Both attack groups, both with available (limited) references, both vandal targets)

There's an overwhelming amount of people that want an article.. please reconsider your earlier decision, and if you must refuse, please give a reason as to why. Thanks in advance.

 T.K.  ^TALK  09:40, 10 August 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 referring to other people who did not deserve that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by lani12 (talk • contribs)

I believe all my warnings are perfectly 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)

He's not very helpful at all, a terrible admin. Likes to talk down to people instead of helping them up. As you can see from the above response he considers him self higher then though --Olmeca 21:46, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Marudubshinki is a stupid retard who thinks he is above everyone else. He's banned me 2 or 3 times and I just want to hurt him so bad. He is a no good grease-ball with useless edits and blocks people for no reason. And that irritating bot of his really gets on my nerves. I'm glad hes been blocked, because thats what he deserves. Let him have a taste of his own medicine. If he keeps on doing all this im gonna declare some kind of war on him. I dunno how, i just will. He once banned me for trying to make a template on this list of star wars characters, and as I was new, i messed up and the whole page had the same template: the one i created. He blocked me and then he became my worst enemy on Wikipedia. He is hated by most people for his arrogance, geekiness and thinking he is above the Wikipedia rules. Mil Falcon 14:29, 18 August 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't be , engaging in personal attacks etc. I would perhaps be blocked for a little while, and similar remedies. But not indefinitely blocked. But for occasionally running a bot to do disambiguations, 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)

It's not harsh, maru, it's 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)

Henceforth I promise not to run fully automatic bots without a bot flag; I shall go and sin no more. Is that sufficient? (An answer soon would be nice. I have about 20 articles I'd like to get off my hard drive.) --maru (talk) contribs 00:03, 18 August 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)

I haven't. I unblocked myself that time because I didn't see AmiDaniel's message and (mistakenly it would appear) assumed that the same conditions obtained as previously. --maru (talk) contribs 00:03, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Blocked

Blocked
You have been blocked for misbehaviour for a period of time. To contest this block, add the text {{unblock}} on this page, along with an explanation of why you believe this block to be unjustified. You can also email the blocking administrator or any administrator from this list. Please be sure to include your username (if you have one) and IP address in your email.

Maelgwnbot 08:58, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Cut from the unblock request (see edit history):

Request reason: "The editors concerned wanted a promise from me to go and sin no more against the bot policy. They have it. --maru (talk) contribs 00:03, 18 August 2006 (UTC)"

• Marudubshinki, I have unblocked you per your promise to abide by the BOT policy. Please note that that policy includes obtaining approval for *any* BOT activity at WP:BOTREQ. Welcome back. --I@n 00:40, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Dead external links

Could you possibly add to your dead link reports some sort of link to Wikipedia:Citing sources#What to do when a reference link "goes dead"? Currently, these reports are the indirect cause of a lot of references being completely removed when there would be a pretty easy chance to reconstruct them. This is especially exacerbated because some people remove the notice from the talk page after they remove the link. --Jmabel | Talk 04:34, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I've added that to my local copy, and I've emailed the pywikipedia list with a small patch to add that link in. 'sall I can do, sorry. --maru (talk) contribs 00:03, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Dokkodo

Hi, I've just found your article, and I see that you've got some articles of Musashi's work. I've searched around but haven't found a proper translation of it. Can you give me any links where all 21 articles are listed? Thanks! chery 12:46, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

The 21 maxims are translated and annotated in the reference I provided in the article, Tokitsu's book. Tokitsu also translates pretty much all the other interesting works in it, although not always in their entirety. There's a translation here which is more or less accurate, or this page offers another print reference to follow up; I haven't looked closely, but [http://www.hyoho.com/Hyoho6.html this page might be helpful. --maru (talk) contribs 00:03, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Naruto weapons Deletion

Why did you delete the Naruto weapons section? --Anon.

I didn't. I deleted a redirect that was pointing to a deleted article. --maru (talk) contribs 00:03, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

List of Soul Calibur Bonus Characters

Do not delete content from the article: List of Soul Calibur Bonus Characters. --iswatch19 09:00, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Don't believe that it was I who deleted it or its content. --maru (talk) contribs 00:03, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, "reclusion" is indeed a proper word.

"reclusion? is that even a word?" Yup. http://www.thefreedictionary.com/reclusion. It wasn't the most fitting word to use anyways as you suggested: [1].

My mistake. --Fred26 11:28, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't entirely correct either. I stand chagrined that my vocabulary failed me here! --maru (talk) contribs 00:03, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

That's no moon...

Great job getting yourself blocked. Now who's going to finish Wiki Wars IV: A GNU Hope with me? Well, I'll be waiting.

And don't you go quitting on me. --Nufy8 06:09, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Quitting? Perish the thought. I prefer to think of it as a (mandatory) Wikibreak. --maru (talk) contribs 00:03, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Good. Just checking. Nufy8 00:48, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Article deletion

I would like to know why you deleted Dr. Roberta Trias-Kelly from Wikipedia. Her name was misspelled (it is Kelley) but the information in the article was accurate and current. Please email me jules_sempai@yahoo.com --Jules

I'll copy my reply to your email address. To summarize what happened, the article Dr. Roberta Trias-Kelly was put up, but it was a duplicate of Roberta Trias-Kelly, which had a shorter title to boot. So User:Rye1967 redirected it to the latter. The latter then was the subject of an AFD, which you can see at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roberta Trias-Kelly. You can just as easily see that the consensus was to delete it, and the sentence was carried out. So now Dr. Roberta Trias-Kelly was pointing to a deleted page. Pointless redirects like that are supposed to be deleted. --maru (talk) contribs 01:05, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Could you tell me why it was deleted. It is an important entry in terms of the world of karate, in particular Shuri-Ryu. All of the Chief instructors remain as does her father... --Jules

I gave you the link to read for yourself. I had nothing to do with the actual deletion of the article; I was merely cleaning up after the fact. --maru (talk) contribs 01:18, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

This is one of the leading woman in karate...she is well known and one of the first American woman to get a black belt. She competed with men when she was younger because there were no woman's divisions back then. I resubmitted her article, should I include these things to make it more appropriate for Wikipedia? Thanks for your help. --Jules

Yes, those things would help, but since a decent article was deleted in AFD because of notability issues, what you're supposed to do is go over to WP:DRV and file a request to have it undeleted; you'd mention all the well known and "leading woman" bits there if the article didn't already. --maru (talk) contribs 02:20, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Blocked again

I have blocked both your accounts indefinitely while we thrash out the implications of you running unauthorized bot edits through an alternative account created to avoid an indefinite block applied for running unauthorized bot edits. --Snottygobble 01:57, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Needless to say, I strongly disagree with this block. I don't particularly mind you blocking the Rhwawn account, since it was originally for the Board election, and I don't expect to need it again, but blocking my main account for semi-automated disambiguating and de-self-linking edits really cooks my chestnuts. Was I ban evading? Under a strict interpretation, I suppose so. A process wonk could surely argue that this is grounds for a few days or weeks banned, but an indef ban? Look at my edits. They were good edits. We're supposed to judge by results, not mindlessly follow process; that's what IAR is all about, and we keep it around for a reason. Does de-sysoping, an indef blocking (with an apparent intention of making it truly indefinite and infinite) truly seem proportional to my actual offenses? I've contributed so much good work to Wikipedia, and so little bad work; doesn't that merit any consideration when I violate your interpretation of policy in my haste to actually get something done? I'd reply on AN/I, but there seems to be some technical problem. --maru (talk) contribs 02:14, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for copying it over, anyway. --maru (talk) contribs 02:19, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Snottygobble is being waaay too convincing on that admins noticeboard page. Please do listen carefully to Zscout370, and also listen to Snottygobble. Don't prove me wrong here! Kim Bruning 02:49, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Fanclub?

You've certainly attracted a following, albeit a pretty negative one. Anyway, I blocked Mil Falcon's extremely clever play on words impersonation of you, User:Marugeekshinki. --Nufy8 16:52, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Wait, I didn't block him, I just added the template to his page. God I'm tired. --Nufy8 16:55, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Wait a second, how can you be tired at this time of day- I thought you were in the Eastern time zone?

Anyhoo, thanks for guarding me talk page when I'm gone. They're really coming out of the woodwork, eh? --maru (talk) contribs 00:14, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I just woke up and was still half-asleep. --Nufy8 00:42, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Maru haters

There is a legion of people who band together to make Maru a normal Wikipedian, not an administrator. It looks like he's hated by just about everyone, except for Nufy8. Maru has deleted articles purely because he dislikes them, and has no answer, he is the Internet's most hated person (apart from Supershadow), his bot is irritating, he has been banned a number of times for using his bot without permission, he has banned many people for no reason, he is arrogant, he is a geek who has poems on his userpage, he makes other accounts and pretends they were made by sum1 else to get them in trouble, he is a toe-rag, he has a bounty on his head (i don't know what the reward is, just that whoever gets him off the admin board gets a reward) he is extremely hated by almost everyone, many people want to hurt him, he is a slime-ball and he is biased and a liar and can't handle the truth. go ahead ban me. by banning me or deleting this text you are proving that you are a wimp and you can't handle the truth. also if anyone else deletes this text they are proving that they are doing something for that gimp maru, proving he can't stick up for himself. Thierryhenry1000 18:00, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

No need to get all worked up, it's just the Internet. I'm going to block you not because I can't "handle the truth" (I love that movie), but because you're trolling with sock-puppets which is a violation of policy. And if you want to talk about proving notions due to potential actions by another party, if you continue to create sock-puppets to evade your block, that will only prove that you're taking all this way too personally. My advice to you is just to relax and walk away. There's no need to progress this pointless behavior any further. Nufy8 19:13, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Thierryhenry1000 has started a legion of Maru haters. Im in it by the way. He gave Alt Gr the second in command/Supreme Commander position, while Thierry is the leader. Our aim is to get Maru off the admin board somehow, and while now there is hardly any of us, we are growing. I can see how Thierryhenry1000 feels about Maru with him banning his other account and all. I joined because I like to fight for a good cause. B-Wing 21:19, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Sock template

I'm sorry, you're correct of course. I've moved it. -- I@n 00:27, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

GYLA prod has been contested

Maru, could you take a look at Talk:Georgian Young Lawyer's Association (GYLA)? You deleted the article through WP:PROD, but the/a creator has contested it on the talk page. It might be simpler to just have them restart it at Georgian Young Lawyer's Association (which was also prodded), but page history might be important. Your call, just bringing it to your attention on their behalf, since there may be some language barriers. -- nae'blis 06:43, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm gonna let the PROD stand right now, but if the creator really had just slapped up a quick article and not the real one, obviously the speedy for reposting won't apply. --maru (talk) contribs 13:16, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

My understanding is that many admins consider ex post facto comments about prods to be contesting them, and undelete/userfy - but I can't see the original version to tell if he's scamming us or not. -- nae'blis 16:33, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm sympathetic to that view, but not wholly so. But I don't think it applies to this case since he said, if I'm understanding him correctly, that he was working on a full version and the PRODded ones were temporary. --maru (talk) contribs 00:02, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alleged inconsistencies in Star Wars

Can you quickly undelete this long enough for me to copy its contents over to Wookieepedia? It was suggested in the VFD, but no action was ever taken by the person who made the suggestion. The Wookieepedian 19:54, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

For you, Wookieepedian? Anything. Look for it in your email. --maru (talk) contribs 23:39, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! :) The Wookieepedian 01:04, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

RfAr

Hi Maru,
I intend to invite the Arbitration Committee to consider whether you should be permitted to retain your sysop flag given your recent policy violations. I have prepared a RfAr statement at User:Snottygobble/Drafts/RfAr. If you feel that any part of my statement is unfair or inaccurate, feel free to let me know and I'll consider your comments.

As an involved party, you are also entitled to make a statement. If you want to, feel free to craft your statement on User:Snottygobble/Drafts/RfAr; just be sure to restrict your edits to section User:Snottygobble/Drafts/RfAr#Statement by User:Marudubshinki.

I think it is proper that I@n and SCZenz also be considered involved parties to this dispute. I will invite them to add themselves to the list.

Snottygobble 01:22, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I see. I'm not very familiar with the Arbcom system, so I think I'll refrain from commenting and such until I've read up on it. Very off-hand though, I'm not sure Wikipedia:Resolving disputes has been satisfied, but of course I guess that'd probably be up to you? (The last Arbcom case I was even tangentially related to was the Bogdanov one, so my memory is very rusty here.) --maru (talk) contribs 19:05, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

The request is now pending at WP:RFAR#Marudubshinki. Snottygobble 11:30, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the copyedit

Thanks for stopping by Diary of a Camper and giving the article a copyedit, as well as flagging out potentially problematic wordings. — TKD::Talk 02:23, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Don't overly thank me. I didn't do all that much.

BTW, impressive article. I dunno how it'll fare on FAC, being so short and all, but it's a shining example in my book. --maru (talk) contribs 02:52, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Every little bit of clarity helps, especially with an article of that size. I'm admittedly a little anxious about the FAC, but the precedent seems to be that short articles are fine (see Hurricane Irene (2005)). I decided to go for it. — TKD::Talk 03:52, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Why did you delete and protect the myg0t article?

Specifically, what were your reasons? Al001 08:30, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

I believe this has nothing to do with me. 49Untouchable 20:08, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Hidden places.

I've heard rumors that there are certain hidden parts of Wikipedia that Jimbo Wales and certain administrators are keeping from the rest of Wikipedia, (Sorry Marudubshinki for posting this statement on your talk page first, and I'm not saying you are one of the admins keeping it from us, I'm going to post it on many talk pages). These hidden places are rumored to have benefits to the users that access the pages, such as unlimited blocking power and the ability to change your username etc. Remember these are only rumors. Word has it that in 2002, Jimbo Wales constructed seven pages, six for the six administrators he would secretly inform, and the best and most brilliant page for himself. Obviously one of the admins told someone, and word of the pages got out. Jimbo Wales permanently blocked all of the users that were told (I don't know how he found out which ones were told). Wikipedia came to a stand still. Many people were demanding if these pages existed, and, after many denials, he didn't answer a single question thrown at him. He came out of hiding in late June 2003. RUMORS. EVEN CERTAIN ADMINS SAY THIS. --49Untouchable 20:19, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Untouchable, how exactly does visiting a page flip the bits in the SQL database? What happened to spiders and robots when they get it? How are all the Special: pages fooled? --maru (talk) contribs 23:29, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Maru, your talk page never ceases to entertain me. --Nufy8 20:39, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

And you don't even get the email... --maru (talk) contribs 23:29, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Sam, get real! No-one's gunner believe all this stuff about hidden pages and what not. Let it go. --Mil Falcon 21:30, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry Maru

Hey Maru, I'm sorry I caused u a lot of grief. It was just that I was so ticked off at being banned and all, I wasn't thinking straight. When I called you all those names, I didn't mean it. I've thought it through, and yes, Nufy was right. I was taking it far too personally. And I do confess to having some sockpuppets, including B-Wing. Sorry to you as well Nufy8, I've been a total ass and uncivilized. Don't take any notice to B-Wing's talk page as I didn't mean all that stuff. If there is any way I can make up for all the trouble I've caused, I will do it. Thanks, Mil Falcon 21:25, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

You can make up for it by never pulling any of that shit ever again. --maru (talk) contribs 23:29, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Righto. Mil Falcon 17:13, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Marudubshinki

Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Marudubshinki. Please add evidence to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Marudubshinki/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Marudubshinki/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, --Tony Sidaway 10:52, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Daisy cleanup

Hi,

Why did you mark Daisy_(CMS) for cleanup?

Can you give me a tip what to clean?

Thanks,

Poldiri

Grammar; lists which could be given in prose format and integrated into the description better; better wikilinking; fewer sentences like "Outerthought is a geek-technical Open Source Java & XML company. Outerthought supports Daisy and its community of users and contributors in a responsive and transparent way."; scrap the "Daisy Community" section; explain why or whether this is a popular piece of software. --maru (talk) contribs 23:29, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikepage

Dear Mr. Marudubshinki,

I want to ask the reason of deletion of the "Wikepage" article. Wikepage, is a small wiki/blog hybrid program with a growing developer and user base, i began to write alpha to omega about it. I accept, Wikipedia is a large reference base with many junk articles, but a clean article about a software listed as a "wiki" and "blog", which are two popular Internet phenomena. We believe, wikepage is on a way to be a state-of-art coded within only 500 lines of codebase, can not be ignored. I believe that articles in Wikipedia must be cross-referred. Deletions must be asked at least 1 other admin. This may prevent personal dislikes.

Thanks for your attention,

With regards,

Sefer Bora Lisesivdin, M.Sc., Eng.

Coder of Wikepage

See my comment on the DRV. For starters, it was a prod deletion, and deletions don't need the concurrence of two admins, regardless of whether you are talking about a speedy deletion, a PROD deletion, or the result of an AFD. --maru (talk) contribs 23:29, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Sir Gnarles Hammer

You deleted my information that was displayed on List of minor Star Wars droids. This information was valid and you can read the book if you have any doubts whatsoever. Thank you, however, for your vigilance and for keeping Wikipedia accurate.

I've re-read your entry. You can't seem to decide whether that droid was in Young Jedi Knights or the Jedi Academy Trilogy; I still can't find any non-Wikipedia Google hits, nor anything in Wookieepedia. I also strongly doubt it is in the latter, since I've read the trilogy many times and can't remember the slightest bit about such a droid. --maru (talk) contribs 23:31, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Manley Men images

I prodded Manly Men and you recently deleted it via prod. Can you go back and grab the images that were used on the page? I want to send them to IFD but for whatever reason, I didn't record the images used on the page. They were all uploaded by the author, so it shouldn't be that hard to find them. In fact, I only really need the first image. Thanks. --Kevin_b_er 20:39, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Never mind, Google came through for me. Kevin_b_er 20:46, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

A request

Maru, could I ask you to let go of the issue of Rebecca's talk page? I've been attacked by banned users on external websites and I've therefore also had a need to sprotect my talk page from time to time. It's very discouraging and upsetting if another Wikipedian questions that, because it makes it feel as though we're not all pulling together against personal attacks. I don't know if that's why R. protected her page, but I feel it's her business and we should support her and just leave it alone. Leaving it sprotected is not harming anyone, after all. Hoping I can count on your cooperation. --SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:32, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

'fraid you can't. Other things aside (like the trivial personal issue that I still haven't quite forgiven you for the Islamofascism (term) page-naming thing and so don't particularly feel inclined to do you any favors), I see it as a moral duty to make sure that semi-protection is not abused and constrained to the circumstances it was approved for - a fight against creeping feeping page protectionism if you will. I opposed semi-protection in the beginning, and I don't intend to see Wikipedia slide down the slippery slope, so in this case I intend to see policy followed unless Rebecca can show me a persistent vandalism problem on her talk page. I'm not surprised that your talk page needs semi-protection occasionally, but looking through the last 100 edits to User talk:Rebecca shows me no spree of vandalism edits - unlike yours.

On a more admin-to-admin note, I'm disturbed that Rebecca, another admin, is semi-protecting her talk page. If it were her user page, I'd probably just drop the whole thing, since anybody with business editing it will meet semi-protection restrictions. But that is not true of a talk page: an admin's works affect many new and anonymous users, who are exactly the persons who should be posting on an admin's talk page and exactly whom would be blocked. So yes, it could indeed harm someone. --maru (talk) contribs 23:31, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

As you mention moral duty, I hope you'll take the substantive moral point that it's important for regular Wikipedians to put their differences aside when one of them is attacked personally and unfairly. People would do it for you (I hope) and therefore it'd be good if you could extend it to others. All I can do is ask; I can't, of course, force you, but I hope you'll give it consideration. The semi-protection policy is mostly concerned with articles, and I'm not sure it even mentions users' talk pages. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:52, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I do take it. But again, I don't see any attacking of Rebecca, and she doesn't seem inclined to try to convince me of anything, if I take her curt comment below aright. And sprotect policy mentions talk pages, as I quote it on Rebecca's talk. --maru (talk) contribs 00:03, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

WP:DRV

Your decision to delete Wikipage has been challenged on WP:DRV. Comments would be appreciated if you have a minute. Rossami (talk) 22:05, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Commented upon. --maru (talk) contribs 23:31, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Verbot on Deletion Review (DRV)

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Verbot. 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.

Commented upon. --maru (talk) contribs 23:30, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Semiprotection

Yes, I am aware of the semiprotection policy. There was special circumstances here (none of your business frankly), which have perhaps now subsided. --Rebecca 23:34, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Glad you're considering it at least. --maru (talk) contribs 13:15, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Edit summaries

33 revisions restored: undeleting to satisfy whingers — Please do not insult other editors in edit summaries. --Uncle G 08:57, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I'll stop that when they stop trying to de-sysop me for an honest and minor (since it's going to be deleted at AFD anyway) mistake. --maru (talk) contribs 13:14, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Even if someone is attacking you as an administrator you are held to higher standards. WP:Civility TheSeer (TalkˑContribs) 08:09, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

You still haven't responded

You still haven't responded to my comment on the Sith talk page (very bottom), you probably just missed it and I didn't bother looking to see if you finally replied until just now. -- Solberg 08:31, 1 September 2006 (UTC)Solberg

I've replied on Talk:Sith. Didn't even notice it. --maru (talk) contribs 02:35, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply, that is indeed terribly confusing. I guess this is the nature of trying to factify (I can't believe that's a word) a fictional universe generated by multiple independent thinkers from different times. Kind of like Wikipedia, come to think of it. -- Solberg 06:07, 2 September 2006 (UTC)Solberg

Yeah. You know, it used to be that the most confusing aspects of the EU were the canon levels and whether the Dark Horse Comics were C or N-canon because of their contradictions. I'm seriously thinking of abandoning editing SW articles just because it's getting impossible to really be an effective editor without being wired into the official forums and the many comic books. --maru (talk) contribs 13:44, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Are you from China?

Where are you from, China or Japan?

Anyway, can you tell me how I can find IP addresses out? Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lieutenant Dol Grenn (talk • contribs)

1. Neither.
2. Depends. If it is a registered user like you or me, generally you can't. IPs for registered users can only be retrieved through CheckUser, and CheckUser is explicitly reserved for vandalism and sockpuppetry (see m:CheckUser Policy). For non-registered users, their ID is their IP number/address, so nothing need be done to find out the IP address. --maru (talk) contribs 19:39, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Edit to my home page

Thanks for your update to my home page. I'd missed the update to use {{main|FOO}}.

As to the translation, all of the quotes can be (and have been) translated into English. Somehow I get better comment when they’re not.

Skål - Williamborg (Bill) 05:04, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Lolzors. Perhaps I should translate all quotes on my user page back to their original languages... --maru (talk) contribs 14:55, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

ISBN problem

Thanks, Maru. --Rich Farmbrough, 16:55 3 September 2006 (GMT)

Just trying to get nasty warnings off my articles. --maru (talk) contribs 16:57, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Hello Maru, I believe I have an update on this problem. There is a digit missing from the ISBN in the Fujiwara no Teika page, for the ISBN in note 1, 'Seeds in the Heart'. The ISBN which is shown on the page as 0-231-1141-9 should be 0-231-11441-9. Please note that ISBN is a 10-digit code, and the number shown in the article has only nine digits. I checked that the longer version is correct on Amazon and at catalog.loc.gov. If you agree with this diagnosis could you also update your recent entry on Rich Farmborough's talk page, because I am trying to make a list of ISBNs that are 'published invalid', and if this were one of them (which it seems not to be), it would get added to that list. Thanks, EdJohnston 19:17, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

D'oh! I feel utterly mortified for making such a stupid mistake as mistaking 1141 for 11441. (I'll go do that). --maru (talk) contribs 23:05, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Internationalized Domain Name

At Talk:Padania you reported a problem with four links. I suspect that the tool cannot cope with Internationalized Domain Names. The links are fine. --Jmabel | Talk 20:51, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for telling me. I've filed a bug report; the bot currently isn't reporting dead links anyway (merely gathering data for the past few months), but I guess I won't turn on reporting anyway until that bug report is closed.

Still, I didn't even know non-ASCII URLs could be valid. What an Internet we work on, eh? --maru (talk) contribs 23:10, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Steve Irwin

If you would like to pay tribute to Steve Irwin, who tragically died on September 4th 2006, just feel free to sign your name on Mil Falcon's userpage under tributes. 49Untouchable 18:02, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

No thanks. I feel too cheated that he died by a manta ray and not by an alligator to be able to honestly sign a memorial. --maru (talk) contribs 18:04, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Kk. Thanks anyway. 49Untouchable 18:38, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Blocked yet again

Why are you still running unapproved bots on your admin account? Especially considering the nature of your ongoing arbitration on exactly this topic? I don't understand it one whit. --Cyde Weys 22:05, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Good grief. So now I can't even do disambiguations? --maru (talk) contribs 23:44, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Dude, seriously, that's one of the stupidest things you could have done. --LifeEnemy 02:25, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

No. There's little point to this if basic things like disambiguations are forbidden me; this is an incontrovertible way of finding out. --maru (talk) contribs 14:14, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I've unblocked you so you can participate in your arbitration. Please, for the love of God, no more bots on your main account while this is ongoing. There is no disambiguation so urgent. --Cyde Weys 14:57, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Abbie is Sniffing You

Abbie is sniffing you. Teke ^(talk) 01:55, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Awesome. Reminds me of my own cat, in a good way. --maru (talk) contribs 03:44, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

My reversion

I was mainly concerned that that issue was a bit off-topic from your case, which was why it was posted on the talk page rather than as a proposed remedy. When Cyde removed your block I thought even more so. But if you think its relevant, let me know and I'm happy to include it, because it is an issue that's concerned me for a while. -- I@n 01:12, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it's off-topic, but very relevant. I'd appreciate its inclusion. --maru (talk) contribs 01:17, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

No worries. I've added it as a proposed remedy. --I@n 01:29, 7 September 2006 (UTC)