User talk:Marudubshinki/Archive 21

Hag & Nightmare

Thanks for responding on User:Essjay's page. Would you mind taking a look and adding you comments over in both hag and nightmare? Another user and I are in disagreement in regards to the use of Category:Neuroscience in those articles. Both of us have made our cases in the talk page I believe. Cheers! --Semiconscious (talk · home) 07:49, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

I've chipped in on Talk:Hag. --Maru (talk) Contribs 17:54, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. I've tried to be as fair and rational as I could, but we weren't getting anywhere by ourselves. --Semiconscious (talk · home) 20:30, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

I hope it helped. Please feel free to call on me again. --maru (talk) Contribs 22:01, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Copperchair

Please leave Copperchair's user pages alone. He can have them the way he wants if he wishes. --Fred Bauder 14:37, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Fred, are you sure? I mean, we've been reverting the talk page for months because he keeps deleting stuff, and you've never said to knock it off or cast an eye askance. But if you say so. --Maru (talk) Contribs 17:36, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Signing

i don't have to sign aticles o comments. --xchisblackx

What the deuce are you talking about? --Maru (talk) Contribs 19:02, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

St. John's University article

I am having a problem here. I am trying to resolve the argument over content in the St. John's University, New York article. However, it seems as if someone keeps reverting the article to the one with the incorrect bold statements. I have stated in the history of my edits and on the discussion page as to why I think these statements should be removed or changed. It seems as if the person who keeps changing it back is being unreasonable. You have even stated on the discussion page "Regardless of what I may or may not think of the merits of your facts, they were not inserted properly." This person keeps reverting to the same entry in which you made that statement about.

There also seems to be new vandalism to this article as you can see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=St._John%27s_University%2C_New_York&diff=32776139&oldid=32660115 . "In late 2005, St. John's University also announced new features that will be installed by the 2008-2009 school. It will install the Garbage Toilet 3000 in every dorm building, which will make the disposal of waste much easier." This statement is ridiculous, and is not true. I hope you realize that someone is trying to destroy this article and the integrity of Wikipedia.

I do not even go to this school. I do not feel I have any bias toward St. John's University. I have never even attended one of their sporting events. I only live in New York, and I feel I have some knowledge about this university. I am really tired of trying to keep the content in this article correct and appropriate. Since you were involved with helping us resolve our dispute on this article before, I would appreciate your assistance here again. Thank you. --ToadX 18:58, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I might be able to take another look at it in a day or two- I'll let you know when I do. --Maru (talk) Contribs 05:34, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

I think I'll decline entering into this dispute. I don't know enough to comfortably intervene, and I don't find the subject or dispute interesting enough to learn what I'd need to learn, sorry. :( You could try some of the other admins- Nufy8 isn't doing much, or maybe Redwolf24. --maru (talk) Contribs 22:00, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks

For renaming Hunting Methods. I really do feel it's these little chores that make wikipedia so great, rather than the reversion warriors and their endless battles. --MPD 11:17, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Personally, I think it is adding information that makes Wikipedia excellent, but lord knows the little chores are necessary to make it pleasant to read and use. --maru (talk) Contribs 21:56, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

I've come around to yr POV. What does this remind me of but of how both artists and scholars are necessary in culture: one to produce the material, the other to analyze and judge it. Or of radicals and reactionaries in general: one or the other (in varying contexts) to break new ground, the other to critique it. - MPD 00:08, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Hunting strategy

I think you picked up on this article very quickly. It's completely bizarre and definitely needs some adjustments. Any ideas what can be done about it? --TheGrappler 19:24, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm not really sure. My instinct was to simply delete it, but if appropriate pages can be found, I'd say just merge and redirect it. --maru (talk) Contribs 21:55, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't know if the merge will work because the main hunting article is just about sport hunting. We need something to connect sport-hunting to businesses entering a new market and infantry companies dealing with snipers. -MPD 00:04, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, the phrase is common to hunting, militaries, and businesses, right? Perhaps we could make it a disambiguation page. --maru (talk) Contribs 01:46, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

World Cup

Do NOT move a page while a vote is still in progress!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jooler (talk • contribs)

Do you really think that the current tally of 10-3 will change much? --maru (talk) Contribs 21:53, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

For one, I don't think it can really change, but let's wait for those 5 days to pass so that these 3 persons don't feel cheated. --Conscious 08:50, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and one more note - this article was selected for WP:FAID today, and an influx of voters is possible. --Conscious 09:08, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

The vote is not 10:3, the vote is 9:3:3. One of the votes for moving is invalid as the user has made no other contribution to Wikipedia. Actually I think the vote for this page should be extended for several reasons. Firstly it is a very heavily linked article with many sub-pages which use the same name and a move of this page will affect a very large number of sub-pages. Secondly during this holiday period a large number of people will not be using Wikipedia as they normally would and a number of the people who regularly contribute to the football articles will not vote. Indeed they have not as yet voted, their voice has not been heard. --Jooler 10:33, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

The current vote is 12:4, even discounting Rousseau's vote which I'm not sure should be done- he seems to be editing other pages, which argues against him being a sockpuppet or for counting his vote as invalid, although time will tell whether this is too charitable an assumption to make. --maru (talk) Contribs 18:08, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

You are not counting the neutral votes, they add to the figure that must be used to caluculate the value of the majority i.e. they count as a half vote for each proposition. It is standard policy not to count votes of people who only log in to make such a vote. --Jooler 19:01, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Counting neutral votes is pointless, since by your own definition they affect each side equally. And Rousseau has not logged in solely to vote- you've seen his edit history, he has editted other pages. --maru (talk) Contribs 01:44, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

If the persons who bothered to put a neutral vote on the page thought it was pointless then they wouldn't have put the vote on there in the first place. If you want clarification ask them what they intended that vote to mean. Yes look at the Rousseau's edit history. He specifically created the account to vote that was hiss first edit. Since then, in the Wikipedia namespace he has made precisely five minor edits three different articles, one of which is the one we are voting on and the other two are related to it. Jooler 10:09, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

The person bothered to put a neutral because they are neutral- otherwise they'd've voted either oppose or support. Even if you counted them as a half vote either way, it leads to the same damn ratio! --maru (talk) Contribs 22:27, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Islamofascism (page move) - My opinion

Hi, Maru :-)

SlimVirgin asked me to look into this issue as an uninvolved party and offer my opinion. Without getting in to the specific merits of whether or not I personally think the page "should" have been renamed, I think this is a case of biting the oldies. Page moves are typically doable by anyone, and the 60% guideline on WP:RM is phrased somewhat loosely. The whole point is that if you end up on WP:RM, the move is controversial. The stakes are, frankly, low here — the substance of the article is unchanged — and getting worked up over a few percent one way or the other seems to me to be missing the forest for the trees. It seems wrong to me that we should give an admin less discretion in deciding how to close a page move discussion than we do when closing an article deletion discussion.

I think Marudubshinki should be encouraged to close out the discussion however he thinks appropriate, and people should be encouraged to redirect their energy into improving the article and making sure it stays properly focused, rather than fretting over the semiotics of whether or not a parenthesized word appears in the article title.

Hope this helps. Looking forward to the hate mail.

Regards, Nandesuka 23:04, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi Nandesuka --

Thanks for the opinion, and for taking the initiative to express it. You'll get no hate mail from me, I promise.

Re: The whole point is that if you end up on WP:RM, the move is controversial.

This ignores, alas, the fact that the move vote was brought by someone known for, and not infrequently disciplined for, gaming the system, User:Chaosfeary, which may help explain why some of us are monitoring the rules fairly closely. In this case, if you end up on WP:RM, it's because someone with an axe to grind has found a new source of flint. I encourage you to take a look at the edit history of User:Chaosfeary, as it is an important piece of the puzzle here. BYT 16:44, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for helping out on WP:RM

Thanks for helping out on WP:RM. I know it can get hard at times, but try not to let it get to you :). I'm rather dissapointing with the conduct of some of the people involved in the situation you were involved in, people I otherwise have a lot of respect for. I think it's really something you learn to do over a matter of time, so I wouldn't worry about it. Happy new year :). WhiteNight ^{T | @ | C} 00:06, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words. It's been a little tough for me lately, but a sucessful new year to you too! --maru (talk) Contribs 17:57, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Maru, I think you are being rather premature with many of the RM closes. The directions call for a 5 day wait to establish consensus, so unless the outcome is overwhelmingly clear, one really shouldn't be closing discussions that are only a couple days old. Dragons flight 02:09, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Really? Guess I should hold off for a few days then. --maru (talk) Contribs 02:11, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. It is actually rather unusual for RM to not have a huge backlog, so there will probably be plenty of things to close soon enough. BTW, if you close a move request, it is conventional to visit the talk page to remove the {{move}} template and slap a {{moved}} or {{notmoved}} and your sig on the discussion so as to make clear the result and the identity of the closer. Dragons flight 02:25, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

What dragons flight says - although I've learned to appreciate using {{Polltop}} and {{Pollbottom}} myself. WhiteNight ^{T | @ | C} 02:27, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

I'll remember that. But what do those poll templates do, whitenight? --maru (talk) Contribs 02:38, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Example:

{{Polltop}} '''Moved''' ~~~~
===Requested move===
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
{{Pollbottom}}

Turns into

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was Moved WhiteNight ^{T | @ | C} 02:45, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Requested move

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Ah. I see- that's pretty neat. --maru (talk) Contribs 02:47, 2 January 2006 (UTC)