User talk:Marudubshinki/Archive 25

Stetson Kennedy controversy section

I have corrected the Controversy Section to take out the reference to Peggy Bulger accusing Kennedy of lying. I AM Peggy Bulger and this is not true. I couldn't be more opposed to Ben Green's position. Please do not return this false information to this section. I had also posted true and verifiable quotes from Morris Dees and Hodding Carter that were taken out. Why? If Wikipedia is to work at all, people must adhere to the rules that what you post is verifiable. This is straight from the source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.147.176.9 (talk • contribs)

I have no way of knowing you are Peggy Bulger. Normally, as an anonymous user who is unilaterally removing and POV-ing large sections of an article, you would be blocked by now. However, since there is a chance you are in fact Bulger, I'm willing to make you a deal: I've put in a request to my library for your PhD thesis, which the NY Times article credited that quote as coming from, so I can check it. In the interim, I'll comment out the quote attributed to you. --maru (talk) contribs 00:12, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Butler

Sorry about that Maru, I'd started working on it before I saw your message come through the helpdesk. I'll stick my nose back in the copyvios since you're doing such a fantastic job on the list :) .:.Jareth.:. ^babelfish 18:31, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Heh. Don't worry, I'm sure I'll tire of the list eventually. And then you can do it! Won't that be fun? --maru (talk) contribs 18:32, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Freespeechstore

I see Scoville has put up an attack on you, with your email address, on his page. Maybe you ought to consider a lawsuit against him? --User:Zoe|^(talk) 21:13, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I'll let it be. A man should be known by his enemies and the company he keeps. --maru (talk) contribs 22:10, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Mirrors and Forks

It's not that important, but in the future, try to use the mirror template when adding new entries into the list. Standardization makes things easier to read. I've fixed it this time. --Superm401 - Talk 01:46, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh. Well, it's just the previous and next entries did it by hand, and I assumed they all were done that way. --maru (talk) contribs 02:00, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Edwin Torres

Hi Marudubshinki, How you doing? I just got your message and yep there was a mix-up. I contacted the PR Institute of Culture and notified them also of the situation. I deleted the image. Thank you for concern. --Tony the Marine 07:04, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm fine, Tony. After spending all that time searching, I just had to know the truth of the matter. Thanks for adding an ending to the mess. --maru (talk) contribs 07:23, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Galaxy/EU

maru, I realize there is a large debate behind this. But I am well aware of what the canon rules are. And the current policy at Lucasfilm is that the films and the EU works are considered canon. THAT is why I make the change in these articles; because of official policy. The Wookieepedian 20:04, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Wookie, you completely missed my point. It's valuable to have it mentioned whether a character is G-canon or C-canon. It is also equally valuable to mention the physical location of an event place or creature. The two are not mutually exclusive- for example, the Yuuzhan Vong, you could omit the mention of the Star Wars Galaxy, since they are extra-galactic, and still mention that they are EU, since they are. Or you could mention Otherspace, give canon status as EU, and mention it lies next to the SWG, but is not actually in it. Are you following me here? Canon mention of EU or G-canon does not exlcude mentioning whether it lies in or outside of the SWG. --maru (talk) contribs 20:11, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

While we're on the subject of completely missing points, Maru, I'll be frank and say you missed mine. Please assist on the King of Fighters articles; this is really quite a task on my own and I could use help. The KOF character articles contain involved histories and background information, not to mention a cast of thousands. You also could do with a new archive. --Zero^Talk 21:16, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Megaman, I'm quite busy with other stuff, and I don't find working on KOF character articles as interesting as, say, helpdesk stuff, or regular SW articles, or my other areas of interest. I took your point perfectly well, and as I told you, I don't want to get sucked into another fictional universe. --maru (talk) contribs 21:28, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, an archive would be a good idea ^_^ --Deckiller 21:17, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

I swore on my parent's grave never to archive until it reached 300 kilobytes! --maru (talk) contribs 21:28, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Please call me Zero. May I inquire what is so uninteresting concerning the editing of the King of Fighters articles..? And an archive is really recomended. -Zero^Talk 22:17, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

I never really played the games much, and I find the backstories to be even more shallow and uninteresting than Star Wars'; that is why I find them uninteresting, Zero. --maru (talk) contribs 22:34, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

I see. Whilst I can comprehend the plot being uninteresting (its a fighting game), I applaud its depth. I just created this article recently. That's not what I would describe as "shallow", and I find it invigorating how such a expansive cast possesess so much information. I deeply implore you to begin contributing to this series.-Zero^Talk 22:44, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

And look at that- you've just editted the various gramatical errors and mistakes I cleverly left to draw you in. I knew you'd come around. Now...join the dark side side of King of Fighter articles! :) --Zero^Talk 00:35, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

You did that deliberately??? You royal bastard! --maru (talk) contribs 00:39, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

(Chuckles) Maru...Maru. You are well aware my article writing skills are far above such mistakes. (chuckles yet again)....All according to my plan. All according to plan. -Zero^Talk 00:44, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

I can't believe that. The man who killed my father left behind an ill-spelled and ungrammatical letter... just like your articles! --maru (talk) contribs 00:49, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

maru, I understand your point. But the entire reason I change the links is so to make clear that all of these characters and locations are part of the same overall story. I can see why you would want a distinction between film and EU, and the information is quite valuable to the reader. I don't mind if you change these back, as long as the point comes across that it is part of an overall story. I took the "character from the EU" distiction as a message that EU elements are not canon, which is not true. Maybe we should equalize this situation by changing other articles to "Darth Vader is a major Star Wars film and Expanded Universe character."

Also, I don't think I've ever fully explained to you why I change the white space formatting on articles. I have always assumed that this was correct formatting, based on the way messages are generated ontalk pages. (Here's an example: == Subject ==, double space, text.) If this is not correct formatting, I will stop formatting articles this way. The Wookieepedian 01:16, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

And I had always thought that Wikipedia had two distinct formatting styles, for articles and talk page, to further emphasize the difference. I would appreciate if you stopped.

As for EU/movie and in-galaxy/galaxy, the information shouldn't be removed, but I think perhaps a good compromise would be be appearance (ex. Darth Vader, first seen in the Star Wars movies; or, Gavin Darklighter, first depicted in the Star Wars Expanded Universe (Star Wars).). I think Wookiepedia is already doing something along this line. --maru (talk) contribs 01:21, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

65.3.235.84

Hi Maru: My apologies for my actions here on the recent days concerning the blocking of anon 65.3.235.84. I did not know how many edits he or she had, I honestly did it to prevent an edit war. I only blocked the person for 24 hours. I usually don't block people, but I think 24 hours is prudent to make them realize edit wars should not happen here. While I admit CoolCaesar was also part of the war, he attacked CoolCaesar on his talk page, which is also a break of the rules. This person seems to be a very angry anonymous. Look at what he wrote on my talk page:

"As you can see, I had removed my original post about my disdain for your actions. However, upon seeing this, I have reconsidered:

"Bar examination Hey Coolcaesar! Whats up? I gave the anon a 24 hour block, so that the revert war could stop. Now hes threatening to take action against me. I'm not scared, I did not abuse my powers like he says I do and his argument doesn't hold water.

Do you think we should protect that page for future people who do not know how things work here not to "play around" with it?

Thanks and God bless you! Sincerely yours, Antonio Coke and Daiquiri Martin"

You have abused your powers based on your friendship with Coolcaesar and I have subsequently reported this abuse to Wikipedia.

My arguments don't hold water? They are better than the contradictions rampant in the "standards" posted by a few hundred users when there are probably 100,000+ users . . . Go read the final post I created, called "reply" and tell me how it doesn't hold water. Feel free to post your discussion and show me the error of my ways."

-Alas he didnt even send me a link where to defend my actions, and it's funny he calls me a friend of CoolCaesar because I only met CoolCaesar after he asked for someone to resolve the problem.

I honestly didn't mean to do any harm. I have been a contributor for three years now and I love wikipedia. I hope you can understand.

Thanks and God bless you! Sincerely yours, Antonio HBO dude Martin

Yes, I know you didn't mean to do anything bad- it's just against the blocking policy. If you will mend your ways, we can both simply forget about it and let bygones be bygones. --maru (talk) contribs 07:04, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Maru of course Ill let bygones be bygones. I never had anything against you or to be mad at you for in the first place. The question is, will the anon do the same? He seems angry at people who don't see things his way. And even through I don't know the person I am reffering to it as he because the way the person responds makes it look like a guy.

Anyways, I've learned a valuable lesson with all of this, and I have to thank you for that: next time, before I do the blocking, I need to investigate further before I do. When the three revert rule is broken then I may proceed, and that's depending also on who's trying to harm the page.

Thanks, and God bless!

Sincerely yours, Antonio The Kid Martin

Pulgasari: Fairuse Shmairuse

How can I justify using the image? I dont understand this. I see people using images on their user/talk page all the time - like the "cookies" and "flowers" pictures they have in their comments, and it's always justified, but whenever I post images they get removed. --freestylefrappe 01:46, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

You can't. Fair use is a conditional license, so to speak. It is allowed only for educational uses and stuff- an article on the movie the picture depicts can use it, since fair use exists for the educational article; but that fair use does not exist for a user talk page, and hence is a copyvio.

As for why you are singled out... Because it happened to be especially obnoxious, the only thing on your page, someone pointed it out on IRC, and I happened to know that it was supposedly fair use, but couldn't be on a user talk. I do this when I can find such mis-fair uses. If you are feeling ill-used, give me a target list... --maru (talk) contribs 01:50, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Re: Dayanand Arora

Just wondering if you're going to answer his last email since you were the one who nuked it. Oh and you have entirely too many userboxes on your page... Alphax ^τεχ 12:34, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I did a whole ago; I just forgot to CC it to helpdesk.

As for userboxes, I know; that's what ubx-5 is for! --maru (talk) contribs 16:52, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

James John Parker

Why did you remove the semiprotection I posted on the page almost immediately after I protected it? Unregistered users keep trying to rewrite the article as a campaign statement and I was trying to prevent that. I see it happened again after you unprotected it. --PedanticallySpeaking 17:14, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I removed it after a request on Helpdesk and because I did not think the vandalism and POV serious enough to warrant semi-protection. In other words, I think you were trigger happy with the protection. --maru (talk) contribs 17:18, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I was not "trigger happy." It is the first time I've ever protected anything since I became an administrator over a year ago. I posted a query about this on the administrator's noticeboard and someone suggested semi-protection might be advisable. The changes, which are lifted from the candidate's web-site (which links to the Wikipedia entry from the tagline "Who is Jim Parker?"), appear connected to the campaign. The changes have been made numerous times (see the page [history]). I gave notice of my reasoning on Wikipedia:Protected pages. I have consulted Wikipedia:Help desk and am unsure what question you refer to. Would you point me to it? --PedanticallySpeaking 17:33, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Dude, the vast majority of helpdesk requests are made, and handled on, the mailing list. Let me put it this way- just today we had ~90 emails. What you see on that page is a tiny fraction of the true amount.

As for semiprotection, I standby what I said; it shouldn't be used until the vandalism is uncontrollable, multi-layered and complex. --maru (talk) contribs 17:38, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. Would you be able to send me a copy of the item from the mailing list? Or is it posted online someplace, in which case I'd appreciate a link? --PedanticallySpeaking 17:44, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/helpdesk-l/. Link seems to be down now. I will paste the original request here:

"From: Jim Parker <parker309@msn.com> Mailed-By: wikimedia.org

To: helpdesk-l@wikimedia.org"

"I would like to have this page unlocked so that I can perform one final edit. Then we can lock it again. Somebody keeps changing it. Thanks."

"Jim Parker"

--maru (talk) contribs 18:13, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. This is the man the article is about. And we aren't supposed to edit articles about ourselves. I am grateful. --PedanticallySpeaking 18:15, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Not necessarily. That is only a guideline, which can and should be broken on occasion (ex. Cory Doctorow). --maru (talk) contribs 18:21, 31 January 2006 (UTC)