User talk:Marudubshinki/Archive 20

List of Star Wars Books

IP 207.69.137.34 posted as himself being User:Jedi6 on Talk:Listof Star Wars books but that was not me. Can I do anything aboutthat? --Jedi6 21:24, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Ah, you must be referring to [1] diff. Consulting with some other admins, they tell me 48 hoursor so for a block. I will betake me to doing that.--Maru (talk)Contribs 18:57, 24 December2005 (UTC)

Thank You. --Jedi6 21:03, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Dune Encyclopedia

I'd reverted your edit [2]and added source (and longer list of them on Talk page) why it is notjust "some fans" who think Brian herbert did stop futher reprints ofthe book. I hope this is sufficient enough and the word "some" is nolonger needed. --Pavel Vozenilek 06:26, 25December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, that's fine. (I'd just read a BH blog posting wherein helambasted thoroughly fans who criticized him. I don't think he wasright, but I'm still not convinced he's totally wrong, so I was justtrying to avoid any unfounded conspiracy rumors.)--Maru (talk)Contribs 14:05, 25 December2005 (UTC)

Islamofascism

Hi Maru, I saw you had moved Islamofascism (term) toIslamofascism, but I can't find any discussion about your decisionon talk. Would you mind saying how you reached that decision, becauseas I read the vote (when I last checked it anyway), there was noconsensus to make the move. I don't mean to question you, and normallywouldn't, but this has been a particularly contentious issue with acomplex background, so any information would be appreciated. Manythanks, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:30, 25December 2005 (UTC)

It wasn't really one specific thing- it was more like there seemed tobe a bare consensus, (the oppose votes didn't really sound convincingto me), it was requested, it sounded better (I dislike superfluoussubtitles for articles- vainly multiplies redirects and confusion),and it seemed to me that getting rid of the subtitle was in moreconformance with naming guidelines than the status quo.--Maru (talk)Contribs 22:37, 25 December2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry -- the oppose votes didn't "sound convincing" to you?Could you elaborate on this, please? And clarify who was requestingthis move? --BYT 23:36, 25 December 2005(UTC)

By the convincing, I meant exactly that- didn't sound like a verygood reason to oppose, little better than a simple oppose without areason would have been.

As far as the actual request goes.. Better yet, I'll show you- [3]. Apparently a fellow by the name of Chaosfeary.--Maru (talk)Contribs 23:49, 25 December2005 (UTC)

Hi Maru, the policy says: "Requested moves may be implemented ifthere is a Wikipedia community consensus (60% or more) supporting themoving of an article after five (5) days ..." So the question is: wasthere a 60 per cent or more vote in favor of the move? I count 14 insupport of the move, 12 opposing it, and four neutral, which is not aconsensus to move. SeeTalk:Islamofascism_(term)#Requested_move. Do you agree withthose figures? --SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:18, 26December 2005 (UTC)

I'm not disagreeing, let's put it. But it struck me as closeenough to 60% that there was no need to crunch it through a calculatorand see whether it was 61% or 59% or whatever 7/13 works out to.--Maru (talk)Contribs 04:41, 26 December2005 (UTC)

Hi Maru, there were 30 votes: 14 support, 12 against, fourneutral. Ignoring the neutrals, that's 54 per cent in favor, but theminimum to move is 60 per cent. --SlimVirgin^(talk)04:47, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

First things first- could you knock off the "Hi Maru" thing?Not that I don't appreciate the sentiments, but I think we all knowwho you are addressing here. :)

Secondly, I added (+ 14 12), (= 26), then (/ 14 26) reduces to7/13- that's how I got 7/13. (I didn't count the neutrals- the 14 + 12is just for supports/opposes. Personally, I would add the neutrals in,since I think the move makes sense, but I imagine this differs fromadmin to admin. You could, I suppose, say that they are tacitly votingfor the status quo, but I think it's the other way around. Butwhatever.) --Maru (talk)Contribs 18:10, 26 December2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean. I calculate 54 per cent in favorof the move. If that is correct, there is no consensus to move. So myquestion is: do you agree with my calculation of 54 per cent? If so,will you move it back, please? Or do you mind if I ask for a secondopinion from another admin? --SlimVirgin^(talk)20:54, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

See, this is what people mean by rules-lawyering. If it hadbeen precisely 59% or 61% instead of exactly 54% would you stillbe here complaining? The fact of the matter is that I think that themove has merit to it, there was not a clear consensus against it andthe most deeply felt votes were for the move, there was a requestfor the move, the target page fits naming guidelines better than theoriginal title and (to me anyway) describes it better etc. Go aheadand get a second opinion, or 5- I think I made the right choice,despite your focus on numbers here. But if you disagree and move itback, I'll leave it alone. Really, I don't know why so many people aregetting worked up over such a minor issue.--Maru (talk)Contribs 00:16, 27 December2005 (UTC)

Well no, it isn't rules-lawyering; it's called followingpolicy. I will ask someone else. SlimVirgin^(talk)06:13, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Also Maru, two of the votes came 2 weeks after the vote shouldhave been closed and was added to the top. So that makes it only 12support and a 50% which is not concensus. Both FrancisTyers [4]and MasterDebater [5]added votes way after than the voting. MasterDebater actually addedhis to the top. The vote should last a week at max and people can'tadd votes 2 weeks later. --<fontcolor="green">a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 02:54, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

This harsh limit on vote timelines is something I've neverunderstood, nor agreed with- unless there is some pressing onflow ofvotes (for instance, in RFAs would be one such case), strict temporallimits can only impede the vote accurately revealing consensus, or thelack thereof.

Incidentally, Slim, did you get around to getting a secondopinion yet? --Maru (talk)Contribs 05:33, 30 December2005 (UTC)

Page move

I am amazed by your action, moving Islamofascism (term) toIslamofascism! Any explanation?! Cheers --Szvest 01:37, 26 December 2005 (UTC)^{Wiki me up&#153;}

Yes. There was a ~month old outstanding request to do just that, andit seemed perfectly reasonable. See above.--Maru (talk)Contribs 04:28, 26 December2005 (UTC)

Hello

Hi Marudubshinki. Why did you move the Islamofascism (term) page toIslamofascism? There was a huge discussion on the talk page and theresult was no consensus to move. See this[6].Thanks. --<fontcolor="green">a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 14:54, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

See above. I hate explaining things more than once, so... Hey, wait,why am I answering to a dirty anon? :) --Maru (talk)Contribs 18:05, 26 December2005 (UTC)

Posted to WP:AN

I've posted a note to the administrator's noticeboard seeking commenton the appropriateness of Marudubshinki's method of reckoning.--Charles Stewart 17:05, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Have you received any comments? --maru (talk)Contribs 22:07, 31 December2005 (UTC)

None. It's clearly not considered a big deal. ---Charles Stewart 22:13, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Charles, I asked user:Nandesuka for a second opinion, but saidthere was no rush, so I've had no response so far. SeeUser_talk:Nandesuka#Islamofascism_.28term.29. I'd move it backmyself but feel I shouldn't because I'm involved. It would be veryhelpful if Maru would at least move it back to the status quoante, and then Nandesuka or another uninvolved admin could make afinal decision. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:26, 31December 2005 (UTC)

Well... If it's Nandesuka... I have a fair bit of respect forNandesuka, so alright; I'll move it back. As I said before, it doesn'treally matter all that much to me. I'd be perfectly fine with alifetime ban from Islamofascism. :) --maru (talk)Contribs 22:41, 31 December2005 (UTC)

Strange; it's already been moved back. Never mind then- I guessone of you took my suggestion and moved it back.--maru (talk)Contribs 22:44, 31 December2005 (UTC)

Your actions on Islamofascism (term), and the RfC I intendtofile if you do not address questions in good faith

I am disturbed by your attitude, and your curt, disengaged responsesto the important questions raised concerning this page move.

I am disturbed by your attitude. For all that you talk of good faith,you appear to have the RFC's indictment already written up. Myresponses have been curt because they said what I felt needed to besaid and no more- I thought from the moment Slim posted here that anRFC might be in the cards, and there is a saying about ropes andhanging. Incidentally, your topic title reminds of the no trueScotsman fallacy- how on earth could I prove I am truly answeringin "good faith"?

I would like to know now whether you dispute the following points.

• There was a major discussion on the talk page of this articleconcerning this move.
• You did not take part in this discussion prior to moving the page onDecember 25.
• You did not explain the page move at the time it took place.
• There was, prior to your moving the page, a vote concerning a move toIslamofascism.
• Wikipedia rules state that such a vote should be closed after twoweeks.
• Your stated position is that in determining the outcome of such avote, if the vote is "close enough to 60%" there is "no need to crunchit through a calculator" to establish the actual percentage of thevote.
• Your stated position is that if a vote "doesn't sound like a verygood reason to oppose," those votes may be disregarded by the closingadmin in assessing whether or not "bare consensus" on a given voteexists.

I dispute the implied attack on the last one, in addition to theimplied logical deduction that I've violated policy.

I am giving you formal notice that these questions will be the focusof an RfC about your actions here. I ask you to restore the page toIslamofascism (term). --BYT 14:41, 30December 2005 (UTC)

It is easy for you or Slim to move it back; as I've said before, I'mdone with Islamofascism. I am suprised to hear that neither of you hasdone so yet; indeed, I rather assumed that my move had been reversedeven before Slim posted here. After all, one does not revert aperceived vandal's contributions after posting a test1 on theirtalk... --Maru (talk)Contribs 16:40, 30 December2005 (UTC)

Huh? I don't know what you're getting at with that "vandal"business, but I never called you a vandal.

The vandal thing was an analogy. Sheesh.

I'm saying: You altered the status quo, ignoring the outcome of thevote and moving the page without an explanation. That means, to my wayof thinking, that you should move it back.

Saying somebody else should (take the heat for) undoing your errorhere is, if you will forgive me for saying so, a bit of a copout. Ididn't move the page. You did. I'm not an admin. You are.

Why do you keep saying "Take the heat for"? I already am takingthe heat! Who would attack you or slim if y'all moved it back?

And this business about "disputing an implied attack" -- I'mquoting you verbatim, and if that leads to an "implied logicaldeduction" that you've violated policy, you've got two alternatives:

• 1) Say why you don't think you violated policy, or

IAR.

• 2) Acknowledge that you may perhaps have acted hastily, by notactually counting votes that were valid, whether or not you agreedwith them. And move the page back.

I'm perfectly willing to acknowledge I acted hastily- there was alarge backlog, and I wanted it done so I could move onto moreinteresting tasks. And certainly, I could have acted against FRMguidelines- But I'm not convinced I have, and I have not, AFAIK, heardfrom regular RFMers that I did wrong, but rather largely frompartisans and edit warriors from that article.--maru (talk)Contribs 22:21, 31 December2005 (UTC)

That's what I'm asking you to do. Move the page back. But if youthink you've acted appropriately here, I'm eager to hear why you feelthat way. BYT 02:57, 31 December 2005(UTC)

• I think that an RfC is premature, but I also think that you oweeither an acklowledgement of error in the way you closed the WP:RMrequest, or a less unconvincing defence of you behaviour. ---Charles Stewart 03:09, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Yet another attempt to engage with you on this

Is it or is it not WP policy for the closing admin to discount votesthat he or she feels "doesn't sound like a very good reason to oppose"a page move? BYT 12:23, 31 December 2005(UTC)

It may not be written down policy, but it certainly is commonpractice- what about sock puppets, suspicious users? Or what aboutregular users, like Boothy over on RFAs? These are just someexamples. --maru (talk)Contribs 22:07, 31 December2005 (UTC)

That would be relevant if you had been discussing thevalidity of the votes in question. What you said was that youfound the content of oppose votes unpersuasive, and thus gavethem less weight. Not sure where to find that kind of decision makingjustified in the rulebook, inasmuch as it would seem to undercut thewhole point of voting. BYT 22:19, 31December 2005 (UTC)

From Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators:

Administrators necessarily must use their best judgement,attempting to be as impartial as is possible for a fallible human, todetermine when rough consensus has been reached. For example,administrators can disregard opinions and comments if they feel thatthere is strong evidence that they were not made in good faith. Such"bad faith" opinions include those being made by sock puppets, beingmade anonymously, or being made using a new userid whose only editsare to the article in question and the voting on that article.

Some opinions can override all others. For instance if someonefinds a copyright violation, a page is always deleted. If a page wasto be deleted, but a person finds references for a particular topic orrewrites the article, the page might be kept. If the consensus so farwas to delete, but it is requested that a page be userfied, thentypically the page will be moved into the user namespace.

Felt you'd wish to know.

All the best.

Ξxtreme Unction|_{yakkity yak}23:09, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. I note that the examples given are: a) sockpuppetry,anonymous votes, and new userids. None of those fall under thecategory of "doesn't sound like a very good reason" to oppose.There are no copyright issues on this page that I know of. No one istrying to userfy this page. There is no consensus to delete it.

Once again -- if we vote, it should be under the presumption thatthe votes actually matter and will count, rather than be discounted bythe closing admin, assuming they are cast by a valid user.BYT 16:58, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

In defence of Marudubshinki, there's not a whole lot codified abouthow to close WP:RM discussions, particularly by comparison to deletiondiscussions. I do, however, think that if his comments on this talkpage reflect his general approach to WP:RM closures, it would bebetter if he did not help out with backlogs. --CharlesStewart 19:22, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

I stand by my work in general, and on the page moves in specific. Most of my moves have been just fine, and I helped to get rid of thatbacklog. For backlogs in general, I've never had any complaints onmy de-stubbing, cleanups, or wikifying- all of which fall into theCategory:Backlog. --maru (talk)Contribs 22:07, 31 December2005 (UTC)

Maru, I support BYT's view that you've been curt and unhelpfulabout this: even asking me to stop saying "hi Maru." And you're notbeing asked about it by "partisans and edit warriors": if we were thelatter, we'd have simply ignored you and moved it back by now. It isout of respect for your decision that the page remains where it is,and why we've asked for a second opinion rather than undoing yourmove. You made an error because the policy page says a minimum of60 per cent is needed, and you moved with 54 per cent, and it wouldtherefore be extremely helpful if you would acknowledge this and undoit. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:33, 31December 2005 (UTC)

Agree with all of the above in principle, but I should tell youboth that I took Maru up on his suggestion and moved the page backtoday. Not as clean as the admin in question repairing the mistake,but better, I thought, than letting an error of this magnitude stand.BYT 22:38, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

No, the error was in ever making it at Islamofascism (term)- didnone of you consider that that name, since there is no disambiguationneeded, and none foreseeable, violated naming guidelines to beginwith? Besides, if Islamofascism is really only a term, thenshouldn't't be at Wiktionary? As it is, adding that parentheticalsuffix strikes me as rather POV- if it is a term, the verynon-standard "(term)" is not needed, as the article would make thatabundantly clear, as with all the other articles on terms scatteredthroughout Wikipedia, and if it isn't a term, than the title isinaccurate and misleading at best, and POV at worst. Which is it?--maru (talk)Contribs 22:14, 3 January 2006(UTC)

The point about "(term)" not being used for disambiguation wasmade in the discussion: it was observed that the naming policysuggests this form for disambiguation, but does not say that it shouldnot be used for other purposes. --- Charles Stewart22:43, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Aye, but long-standing practice is to use the shortestunambiguous title, and leave further detail to the article itself.Indeed, if this shortness is a virtue policy hasn't yet actually beenwritten down, then it might as well be, so universal it is. Actually,I think I'll go suggest that to the naming guidelines people.--maru (talk)Contribs 23:43, 3 January 2006(UTC)

• I think you've hit on something here. Throughout the long andtortured history of this (absurd) article, its proponents haveinsisted that it is relevant because the term is, they claim, incommon use. (President Bush's use of the term marked some sort ofwatershed, supposedly.)
• That was the line of reasoning that carried it through twobitter votes for deletion: "We're not saying that Islam is inherentlyfascistic..." (a claim that has proved unsupportable and, invariably,blind to most meaningful definitions of Fascism) "... no, no, no,we're just pointing out that a lot of people are saying this now, andwe want to document that usage."

I realize I haven't actually said anything about my opinionof the article itself- FWIW, I personally think that Islamofascism isdefinitely a misnomer, since the hatred of the Jews and the extremeauthoritarianism are about the only commonalities- besides, the bestexample of "Islamofascism" I can bring to mind would have to be theTaliban, and to my mind the Taliban is much better described as an"Islamic theocracy" or "Islamoauthoritarianism" rather than an"Islamofascist" state; needless to say, I didn't want to suggest thissince the actual word in currency was "Islamofascism", and I didn'tthink it would go over particularly well. Besides,"Islamoauthoritarianism" is hard to spell, and there'd probably bearguments as to whether to hyphenate or not. :)

• It's an absurd and, frankly, opportunistic argument (and,given the incessant attempts to push the article in the direction of"look, there were real, live, Muslims, with teeth and everything, whosupported Hitler," quite disingenuous). But such reasoning carried theday on two attempts to delete an article that is, inevitably, a figleaf for hate speech. The comparison is frequently made to Protocolsof the Elders of Zion -- well, read that article and tell me if youthink the protocols are in fact a historical document. No. You knowthey're a hoax. You don't know that "Islamofascism" is a hoax, a factthat just about any poli-sci expert will endorse. You know only thatthe term's use is "controversial." Do we have an entry for DeVereauthorship of Shakespeare's plays that presents that particulardelusional idiocy as fact? No. What about an article that openlyendorses the idiotic notion that Islam embraces, say, corporatism?No, but we can manufacture one that finesses that inconvenient point.That will do just as well. The point, after all, is to get peoplelinking Muhammad with Hitler by means of a memorable catch-phrase.

The Protocols are a historical document... just not thehistorical document they purport to be, is all. As far as deleting thewhole article goes... well, we have many articles way less worthy ofexisting than one particular article on a fairly widespread neo-conmeme. As Gandalf says, "Many that live deserve death. And somethat die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then do not be tooeager to deal out death in judgement. For even the very wise cannotsee all ends."

• And now, in the face of all the wind from Neoconville that hasbeen expended insisting -- a little too vehemently, I think -- that itis only the usage of this term that entitles it to an entry inan encyclopedia, you shine a spotlight on the whole sorry business.You raise the point that this convenient argument is, instead, whatpoints the term toward Wiktionary, rather than Wikipedia. I couldn'tagree more. I wish it had come up six months ago, before the trollsstarted gaming the system on this. Good luck selling this line ofreasoning to the neo-cons, though. BYT22:45, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually, it might work if one proposes a split; I took alook at the talk page, and it seems someone wants to merge it backinto a list. The word could be moved to Wiktionary (eg."Islamofascism: A political philosophy believed by Americanneo-conservatives to have originated through a fusion of hardlineIslamic beliefs and European fascism" etc.) and the article mergedinto the list.

The real problem of the article, as I see it, is that it isfundamentally a POV question- does Islamofascism exist as a politicalphilosophy believed and practiced by Muslims, or is it just atheoretical and proposed political philosophy believed by certainpeople to be believed by other certain people?

More simply, I could invent "Islamocommunism" right here andnow, and it would be a real idea which one could use as a term andwrite a Wiktionary or Wikipedia article on, saying among other things"Islamocommunism is a political philosophy and term first coined byMaru..." (though it would probably be deleted since no one wouldcare), but it would not actually be a belief in currency amongMuslims, though there could be similar beliefs for all I know; butwhat if I then say and convince a number of people that I'veidentified those similar beliefs as actually being surfacemanifestations of my Islamocommunism? I see no simple answer to thatquestion. --maru (talk)Contribs 23:43, 3 January 2006(UTC)

Proponents of this article see a very simple answer to thatquestion. Apparently Bush speaking the magic word makes it legit. (Ofcourse, he's been right about everything else; why shouldn't he be apolitical scientist now? Shortly before he died, Stalin said Communismdoctrine led logically to the conclusion that wheat could grow in thesnow, and for a few months in the Soviet Union it was a crime againstthe state to dispute this.)

Thanks for responding to all this. And for the Gandalf reference,which made my morning. Personally, I think the time is perfect toredirect to the list and place the word itself in Wiktionary.(Similarly intelligent moves have, in the past, been undone as theresult of pressure from certain constituencies.)BYT 13:09, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Bush speaking the word makes it legitimate and encyclopedic, iffor no other reason than it being somewhat unlikely that Bush and co.could have borrowed the word, the coinage, but not any of thesurrounding ideas. Less likely, but still possible is that it mightturn out, in the future, that Bush and the associated thinkers andmovers and shakers of the neocons identified Saddam Hussein and hisBaathists as being an Arabized version of fascism (not thatfar-fetched an idea from what I can find out), and noticed that as thesecond Gulf War approached, Hussein made an ever increasing number ofspeechs and other stuff invoking Islam and the Koran, leading to abelief that Iran and Iraq represented the upsurgence of (wait forit)... Islamofascism!

I'm not saying that that scenario is what happened, but it couldwell happen, or some reputable historians/ideologues/pundits etc.could contend it, so it seems to me that we should coverage. Not likewe are running out of space or anything.

But anyways. I've been thinking some more about this- I want tosee a satisfactory and equitable end to this Islamofascism mess,because otherwise I will have just wasted my time and the time ofeveryone who's been arguing with me here. I think I may have come upwith a proposal that everyone could get behind.

We are dealing with three cloesly related but almost separatearticles here, so my proposal reflects that. What would you say to aproposal to: take Islamofascusm as a term and transwiki it toWiktionary, leaving a Wiktionary link on the main Islamofascism page;move Islamofascism (term) to simply Islamofascism. Splitting whatwould now be Islamofascism, leaving the history of the idea/term inthe Islamofascism article along with criticism of the idea and thatsort of thing along with a short summary of the idea itself, and movethe actual political ideas back to the page from whence it came; ofcourse, all three would be linked to each other. Do you think thishas any chance of succeeding? --maru (talk)Contribs 18:50, 4 January 2006(UTC)

You're clearly making this suggestion in good faith :) ...

(and are a true Scotsman)...

...so it pains me to say that I still can't quite get my head aroundit, as I imagine any page named Islamofascism to be prone tomanipulations by certain users. However, I think you would be welladvised to talk to other people than me about this, and to float thisidea on the talk page. I'm interested in what User:Anonymouseditor would have to say about what you've suggested.BYT 00:26, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Eh. I will wait for AE to comment. If it doesn't work, I will notlose too much time, and I will be able to tell myself truthfullythat I did my best. --maru (talk)Contribs 00:51, 5 January 2006(UTC)

Page move

I noticed you deleted without explanation Plasma, a page withsignificant history, and then you moved Plasma (physics) toPlasma without leaving a note on the discussion page (which youdidn't move). You may not have realized it, but this very course isthe subject of a move request which failed to achieve consensus;furthermore, the pre-existing Plasma page was "moved" to Plasma(disambiguation) by cut-and-paste, so the histories will have to berepaired (there is also a move request to move Plasma(disambiguation) back to Plasma). You probably were not aware ofthis; I moved the page back but just wanted to let you know. Thanks!— Knowledge Seeker দ 23:22, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

It was? Oh dear. Thanks for cleaning up after me- I should haverealized something was amiss for an undone request that old, and whenthere was a second request for a page move on the Plasma pages aweek or three higher up (although to be fair I didn't notice that tillthe deed was done). --Maru (talk)Contribs 23:51, 25 December2005 (UTC)

It's quite all right. It's a bit of a complex matter—I left aclarification (I'm an involved party) and I think it will be sortedout soon. One suggestion I'd have: when you're moving a page (whetheras part of a move request or on your own initiative), I'd recommendleaving a note on the talk page explaining your actions (unless it'san obvious move like "Bill clinton" to "Bill Clinton" or revertingvandalism). Also important to remember when completing move requestsis to close the discussion and to remove the tag at the top of thetalk page. Keep up your good work, and thanks for tackling thebacklog. — Knowledge Seeker দ 00:11, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Talk:Totse

Would you like to discuss your unexplained [7]? I deleted that discussion (which was unrelated to thearticle) with good reason: Wikipedia is WP:NOT an anarchy.[T]alk about the article, not about the subject.—BorgHunter (talk)04:21, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

I rolled your deletion back because that anon/ArmsAreSnakes fellow isgoing to be back, sooner or later. The more the trail of consensusagainst adding his vanity site is kept, the more effective andusefully we can discuss it. Regardless, deletion is only the answerfor patent nonsense or vandalism- you should have archived it.--Maru (talk)Contribs 04:26, 26 December2005 (UTC)

I see your point, but I stand by my reversion. "Talk pagesare not for general chatter; please keep discussions on talk pages onthe topic of how to improve the associated article." (Yeah, it'sonly a guideline, still, it doesn't add anything to the talk page, norwould it add anything to the archives.) Incidentally, please be WP:CIVIL by not telling me whatto do. We're collaborators. —BorgHunter(talk) 04:34, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

? By telling you what you did wrong and what you should have done,I was incivil? Alright.... Anyway, I do feel it is fairly important tokeep tucked away- how many edits to the page were there over just thatone link? At least ten, and I wasn't really counting. If theanons/users were making no attempt to justify it, I would say justdelete it or something- but if you look further up my talk page,you'll notice a fairly lengthy section on just that one link alone.--Maru (talk)Contribs 04:38, 26 December2005 (UTC)

But it has nothing to do with that link, nor anything to do withthe discussion. It's chatter about their site. It does not belong onWikipedia. —BorgHunter(talk) 04:43, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Really? Talking about when Totse will be back up does not belongon Wikipedia? I guess we better go remove all mention of the downtimefrom the article itself. --Maru (talk)Contribs 17:56, 26 December2005 (UTC)

No, he means, "Snake" is talking like he is affiliated withthat site, he has NO clue what is going on in Totse, I happen tomoderate there, and he has no clue what he is talking about. He isreally just promoting something excessively and unnecessarily.--XxNeXuSxX 05:53, 27 December 2005 (UTC)