User talk:Marudubshinki/Archive 16

Vader in the Unifying Force

I see you have my reversed my minor edit to the Vader page. I'm don'tsee the reasoning for the reversion, so I'll explain here what Iexplained on the talk page. If you agree with your previous decision,could you please explain why? Thanks.

Right now, the article contains an incredibly major spoiler for theNJO at the end of the "Expanded Universe" spoiler by mentioning"Onimi, the true Supreme Overlord of the Yuuzhan Vong." Since thepurpose of the article is to talk about Vader and the identity of theSupreme Overlord is completely irrelevant to every aspect of his life,wouldn't it make more sense to simply say "the Supreme Overlord of theYuuzahn Vong" and avoid spoiling one of the better twists in theseries for any unsuspecting readers reading about a character wholived, in the galaxy, 25 years earlier? I imagine there's quite a fewof those users out there, especially with RotS and the Vader bookbeing released. --Dws90 06:54, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

I reverted it because there is already a spoiler warning there, andit is better to refer to character by name. Now, I wouldn't mindremoving the "true" part, since you are right, that particularadjective is unneeded. --Maru (talk)Contribs 15:58, 24 November2005 (UTC)

There is a spoiler warning, yes, I understand that point but, sinceVader dies well before the events of the TUF, nobody is really goingto be expecting TUF spoilers when they read that page. Since I view itas unneeded, it's, in my opinion, a courtesy thing. But...whatever.Happy Thanksgiving. --Dws90 22:16, 25 November 2005(UTC)

Re: Mai Shiranui Pic

Yes, it is. Like all SNK's official art for their upcoming games, itis copyrighted and can be used freely. However, I see where you'recomming from- when I made the URL, I was too general; It is really: http://www.snkplaymore.jp/official/neowave/english/character/index.html;my deepest apologies for the mix-up and mis-understanding.--MegamanZero 16:44 25, November 2005

Really? That is suprising; an unusually enlightened and rationalcopyright policy. Well, as long as it's alright with SNK, then I'mhappy. --Maru (talk)Contribs 15:36, 25 November2005 (UTC)

• Ditto, my friend-as long as we can keep the articles up to date withthe most recent pictures from thier respective companies, than I 'mhappy too =).-MegamanZero 16:59 25, November 2005

More made-up

They are indeed fake. Delete with a clear conscience. Jon Hart 00:43, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Imperial Grand Admiral Category

Thanks for the help getting that set up. I wasn't sure exactly howmany categories pages should be in. --Dws90 21:11, 26November 2005 (UTC)

Generally, if *all* the members of a new category are in a category,then that applies to the category, not the members, since it impliesthat it is a subcategory. Anyways, those articles were written almostentirely by me, so I am solicitious of them.--Maru (talk)Contribs 22:23, 26 November2005 (UTC)

Yes, I noticed that. Good job. --Dws90 22:35, 26November 2005 (UTC)

Featured article for December 25th

I noticed you have listed yourself in Category:AtheistWikipedians. That said, you will probably be interested inmysuggested featured article for December 25th: Omnipotenceparadox. The other suggestion being supported by others for thatdate is Christmas, although Raul654 hashistorically been against featuring articles on the same day as theiranniversary/holiday. — <fontcolor=black>BRIAN<fontcolor=gray>0918 • 2005-11-28 08:13

What happened??

The most recent edits I see in RC are all but one creaters of new usernames. --Georgia guy 02:21, 30 November 2005(UTC)

No idea. Looks normal now. Possibly it was a server backlogged whichsuddenly caught up. --Maru (talk)Contribs 02:37, 30 November2005 (UTC)

shultz

I am not at all convinced that he is not vandal and that he startedcreating these multiple redirects to cover a number of deliberatelytrollish, and not only eel. In addition, he introduced a number ofsubtle false changes. I tried to fish out them all, but obviously Imissed several, judging from recent polite remarks on his talk pagefrom people who don't know who they deal with. For me he is a sneakyvandal who should be kept at bay, KGB of CIA. Several people wastedlots of time with him. His selective "archiving" of comments he doesnot like is IMO to show you and other people that he is an innocent"good boy" harassed by KGB. One more his spree of jokes and he will beupon RFC. mikka (t) 04:48, 30November 2005 (UTC)

Oh, almost forgot: not all call me KGB. Some call meFuck. mikka (t)04:50, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm afraid you've only confused me further. Are you called KGB, whilenot ever employed by or working with the organizations called such,because of your strictness?

KGB was famous not for strictness. And I was called by many names,including the amusing "irredentist chauvinist communist anti-Romaniananti-Semitism vandal". mikka (t) 05:53, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Don't assume I'm a noob at dealing with trolls, mikkalai. I've servedmy time, with the Bogdanov Affair and others, and I know their tricks.Further: I went through all the talk edits. All. I saw his selectivearchiving, and I considered it. I still think you should not havedeleted the redirects. They are mostly harmless (only harmful in rareand unusual, almost contrived instances), and more productive thanwhat he was doing prior to that. Lay off him untill he does somethingflagrantly bad. --Maru (talk)Contribs 04:55, 30 November2005 (UTC)

They are harmful because I have to click at each of them and checkfor a possible mischief. I unblocked the guy, with serious warning.You are welcome to keep an eye on him. He claims he has AspergerSyndrome. I've met two wikipedians with this one, and their behaviorwas nowhere close to being hoaxing troll. --mikka(t) 05:58, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

I've met a few Asperger's. Shultz does remind me of them a bit, soI tend to believe him there. And I will be watching him.--Maru (talk)Contribs 00:02, 1 December2005 (UTC)

Recursion

May I point out two minor edits in this article that you might like toreconsider.

• You replaced visualise with visualize. Both are correctspellings for the word. The first is the English spelling and thesecond is the North American spelling. This edit was not reallyrequired as I believe that the choice of an alternate form of Englishspelling should be the choice of the original author.

• In the code example you removed a space. The original source code wasdeliberately formatted with the space to assist legibility. I knowbecause I wrote it. Your edit does not improve the readibilityformatting and I respectfully ask you to restore it.

Was ...

 return Factorial(X-1) * X

Your edit ...

 return Factorial(X-1) *X

--DerekP 07:53, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Sorry about that. I was running some automated formatting routines inEmacs over the article while I was fixing categories, and I guess theydid too much... It's fixed now. --Maru (talk)Contribs 00:03, 1 December2005 (UTC)

Quotation Marks

Re your edits to Nazi mysticism: When a quotation on a page isgiven in the indented blockquote style, quotation marks are normallynot used around the quotation. The reason is that the entireblockquote is the quotation, so the quotation marks are not needed tomark the quotation. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Quotation marks.•Regards, DanMS 01:05, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

That is interesting. I did not know that. But it says that theyaren't "needed", not that they shouldn't be used. So...--Maru (talk)Contribs 04:26, 2 December2005 (UTC)

It’s a matter of style only. I would not go out of my way to deletesuch quotes, nor would I edit a page solely to delete the quotes. If Iam editing a page for other reasons and I see quotes on a block quote,then I might delete them. But it’s not worth a lot of effort.◎DanMS 21:00, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

It's definitely a matter of opinion. English teachers often requirequotes though. -Xol 01:35, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Cadifra UML Editor

You have put {{npov}} on Cadifra UML Editor without explaningon the discussion page. I think this is not justified. Could youexplain what's NPOV on said article? Thanks! – Adrian | Talk 19:37, 2December 2005 (UTC)

The whole thing smacks of an advertisement to me.--Maru (talk)Contribs 19:58, 2 December2005 (UTC)

That's what I am disputing. Could you be more specific and alsocompare with other tools articles on List of UML tools please?Listing a tool is not per se an advertisement. As you have not addedany comments on talk:Cadifra UML Editor that underpins youraction, I have removed the {{npov}} mark in Cadifra UML Editorfor now. – Adrian | Talk 20:41, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

In the mean time I've edited Cadifra UML Editor to removepotential NPOV statements. Hope that helps. Thanks! – Adrian | Talk 21:27, 2December 2005 (UTC)

I suppose so. I don't really know too much about standards for UMLtool articles- I was passing through on part of my attempt at cleaningup and rationalizing the articles and categories withinCategory:Programming. If it helped you NPOV, then all's well thatends well. --Maru (talk)Contribs 01:23, 3 December2005 (UTC)

Vader in the Unifying Force

I see you have my reversed my minor edit to the Vader page. I'm don'tsee the reasoning for the reversion, so I'll explain here what Iexplained on the talk page. If you agree with your previous decision,could you please explain why? Thanks.

Right now, the article contains an incredibly major spoiler for theNJO at the end of the "Expanded Universe" spoiler by mentioning"Onimi, the true Supreme Overlord of the Yuuzhan Vong." Since thepurpose of the article is to talk about Vader and the identity of theSupreme Overlord is completely irrelevant to every aspect of his life,wouldn't it make more sense to simply say "the Supreme Overlord of theYuuzahn Vong" and avoid spoiling one of the better twists in theseries for any unsuspecting readers reading about a character wholived, in the galaxy, 25 years earlier? I imagine there's quite a fewof those users out there, especially with RotS and the Vader bookbeing released. --Dws90 06:54, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

I reverted it because there is already a spoiler warning there, andit is better to refer to character by name. Now, I wouldn't mindremoving the "true" part, since you are right, that particularadjective is unneeded. --Maru (talk)Contribs 15:58, 24 November2005 (UTC)

There is a spoiler warning, yes, I understand that point but, sinceVader dies well before the events of the TUF, nobody is really goingto be expecting TUF spoilers when they read that page. Since I view itas unneeded, it's, in my opinion, a courtesy thing. But...whatever.Happy Thanksgiving. --Dws90 22:16, 25 November 2005(UTC)

Re: Mai Shiranui Pic

Yes, it is. Like all SNK's official art for their upcoming games, itis copyrighted and can be used freely. However, I see where you'recomming from- when I made the URL, I was too general; It is really: http://www.snkplaymore.jp/official/neowave/english/character/index.html;my deepest apologies for the mix-up and mis-understanding.--MegamanZero 16:44 25, November 2005

Really? That is suprising; an unusually enlightened and rationalcopyright policy. Well, as long as it's alright with SNK, then I'mhappy. --Maru (talk)Contribs 15:36, 25 November2005 (UTC)

• Ditto, my friend-as long as we can keep the articles up to date withthe most recent pictures from thier respective companies, than I 'mhappy too =).-MegamanZero 16:59 25, November 2005

More made-up

They are indeed fake. Delete with a clear conscience. Jon Hart 00:43, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Imperial Grand Admiral Category

Thanks for the help getting that set up. I wasn't sure exactly howmany categories pages should be in. --Dws90 21:11, 26November 2005 (UTC)

Generally, if *all* the members of a new category are in a category,then that applies to the category, not the members, since it impliesthat it is a subcategory. Anyways, those articles were written almostentirely by me, so I am solicitious of them.--Maru (talk)Contribs 22:23, 26 November2005 (UTC)

Yes, I noticed that. Good job. --Dws90 22:35, 26November 2005 (UTC)

Featured article for December 25th

I noticed you have listed yourself in Category:AtheistWikipedians. That said, you will probably be interested inmysuggested featured article for December 25th: Omnipotenceparadox. The other suggestion being supported by others for thatdate is Christmas, although Raul654 hashistorically been against featuring articles on the same day as theiranniversary/holiday. — <fontcolor=black>BRIAN<fontcolor=gray>0918 • 2005-11-28 08:13

What happened??

The most recent edits I see in RC are all but one creaters of new usernames. --Georgia guy 02:21, 30 November 2005(UTC)

No idea. Looks normal now. Possibly it was a server backlogged whichsuddenly caught up. --Maru (talk)Contribs 02:37, 30 November2005 (UTC)

shultz

I am not at all convinced that he is not vandal and that he startedcreating these multiple redirects to cover a number of deliberatelytrollish, and not only eel. In addition, he introduced a number ofsubtle false changes. I tried to fish out them all, but obviously Imissed several, judging from recent polite remarks on his talk pagefrom people who don't know who they deal with. For me he is a sneakyvandal who should be kept at bay, KGB of CIA. Several people wastedlots of time with him. His selective "archiving" of comments he doesnot like is IMO to show you and other people that he is an innocent"good boy" harassed by KGB. One more his spree of jokes and he will beupon RFC. mikka (t) 04:48, 30November 2005 (UTC)

Oh, almost forgot: not all call me KGB. Some call meFuck. mikka (t)04:50, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm afraid you've only confused me further. Are you called KGB, whilenot ever employed by or working with the organizations called such,because of your strictness?

KGB was famous not for strictness. And I was called by many names,including the amusing "irredentist chauvinist communist anti-Romaniananti-Semitism vandal". mikka (t) 05:53, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Don't assume I'm a noob at dealing with trolls, mikkalai. I've servedmy time, with the Bogdanov Affair and others, and I know their tricks.Further: I went through all the talk edits. All. I saw his selectivearchiving, and I considered it. I still think you should not havedeleted the redirects. They are mostly harmless (only harmful in rareand unusual, almost contrived instances), and more productive thanwhat he was doing prior to that. Lay off him untill he does somethingflagrantly bad. --Maru (talk)Contribs 04:55, 30 November2005 (UTC)

They are harmful because I have to click at each of them and checkfor a possible mischief. I unblocked the guy, with serious warning.You are welcome to keep an eye on him. He claims he has AspergerSyndrome. I've met two wikipedians with this one, and their behaviorwas nowhere close to being hoaxing troll. --mikka(t) 05:58, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

I've met a few Asperger's. Shultz does remind me of them a bit, soI tend to believe him there. And I will be watching him.--Maru (talk)Contribs 00:02, 1 December2005 (UTC)

Recursion

May I point out two minor edits in this article that you might like toreconsider.

• You replaced visualise with visualize. Both are correctspellings for the word. The first is the English spelling and thesecond is the North American spelling. This edit was not reallyrequired as I believe that the choice of an alternate form of Englishspelling should be the choice of the original author.

• In the code example you removed a space. The original source code wasdeliberately formatted with the space to assist legibility. I knowbecause I wrote it. Your edit does not improve the readibilityformatting and I respectfully ask you to restore it.

Was ...

 return Factorial(X-1) * X

Your edit ...

 return Factorial(X-1) *X

--DerekP 07:53, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Sorry about that. I was running some automated formatting routines inEmacs over the article while I was fixing categories, and I guess theydid too much... It's fixed now. --Maru (talk)Contribs 00:03, 1 December2005 (UTC)

Quotation Marks

Re your edits to Nazi mysticism: When a quotation on a page isgiven in the indented blockquote style, quotation marks are normallynot used around the quotation. The reason is that the entireblockquote is the quotation, so the quotation marks are not needed tomark the quotation. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Quotation marks.•Regards, DanMS 01:05, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

That is interesting. I did not know that. But it says that theyaren't "needed", not that they shouldn't be used. So...--Maru (talk)Contribs 04:26, 2 December2005 (UTC)

It’s a matter of style only. I would not go out of my way to deletesuch quotes, nor would I edit a page solely to delete the quotes. If Iam editing a page for other reasons and I see quotes on a block quote,then I might delete them. But it’s not worth a lot of effort.◎DanMS 21:00, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

It's definitely a matter of opinion. English teachers often requirequotes though. -Xol 01:35, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Cadifra UML Editor

You have put {{npov}} on Cadifra UML Editor without explaningon the discussion page. I think this is not justified. Could youexplain what's NPOV on said article? Thanks! – Adrian | Talk 19:37, 2December 2005 (UTC)

The whole thing smacks of an advertisement to me.--Maru (talk)Contribs 19:58, 2 December2005 (UTC)

That's what I am disputing. Could you be more specific and alsocompare with other tools articles on List of UML tools please?Listing a tool is not per se an advertisement. As you have not addedany comments on talk:Cadifra UML Editor that underpins youraction, I have removed the {{npov}} mark in Cadifra UML Editorfor now. – Adrian | Talk 20:41, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

In the mean time I've edited Cadifra UML Editor to removepotential NPOV statements. Hope that helps. Thanks! – Adrian | Talk 21:27, 2December 2005 (UTC)

I suppose so. I don't really know too much about standards for UMLtool articles- I was passing through on part of my attempt at cleaningup and rationalizing the articles and categories withinCategory:Programming. If it helped you NPOV, then all's well thatends well. --Maru (talk)Contribs 01:23, 3 December2005 (UTC)