Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 00:03, 18 August 2006

Stolen from Kross, who stole it from -asx-, who stole it from Redwolf24, who stole it from Linuxbeak, who stole it from an old nun.

Be aware I prefer to keep conversations coherent, so my replies will usually be on this page.

Before adding a new section at the bottom of this Talk page, please take a good look at how it is already formatted, and please follow that formatting style; spell-checking is especially appreciated. Keeping this page consistent in style makes it vastly easier for me to archive it, and thus easier for visitors like you to search my archives. Thank you.

Archives: Enter the archives... if you dare.

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 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 Misplaced Pages 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, Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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.    09:40, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Robot removing selflinks

When you remove selflinks in the designation sequence for planes then you break the autoboldening of the link (see Fairey Swordfish for instance). Would you mind tempering your robot so that it either avoids these self links, or at least emboldens them before moving on. Thank you. GraemeLeggett 12:05, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Why are these sequences abusing internal links to create bolding in the first place? --maru (talk) contribs 12:58, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Myg0t on deletion review

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Myg0t. 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. --LifeEnemy 18:17, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

? What DRV? The one that closed as keep-deleted? (You're kinda late to the party then). --maru (talk) contribs 23:17, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

ROTEW

I assure you, I had no idea it was false information. If so, why does SuperShadow remain online? It is quite an insult to Star Wars fans everywhere. But if you feel you must talk down to a new user such as myself in such a manner, then block me. You had no right to speak to me in such a manner. Especially before seriously consulting me. Misplaced Pages is for all. Block me if you wish, but these are my views. Thank you. PS I agree with the top comment. You are abusing the power given to you. You're taking things too seriously! — Preceding unsigned comment added by ROTEW (talk • contribs)

SS stays up because those with legal standing to sue and take it down, don't. I take people adding known false information to Misplaced Pages very seriously. We have enough to do without such problems; believe me, if you had to deal with SS vandalism on a near daily basis for years, you would begin to lose your patience. And I don't see how a warning is abusing the power given to me. --maru (talk) contribs 13:19, 20 July 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)

Forget it!

Why do you find it your duty to inform others this? You take Misplaced Pages too seriously! I'm not going to argue with you. I'll leave you to bask in your own greatness. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ROTEW (talk • contribs)

I find it my duty because I was the one who noticed, and because I greatly like Misplaced Pages, that's why. Your flippancy and casual disregard of basic principles for articles (like, I dunno, being factual) greatly annoy and dismay me. --maru (talk) contribs 12:28, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Canon

It's a tough subject to find boundaries on; I just tried to clarify it on the project page. — Deckiller 03:49, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Yeah. You been following the argument raging over whether to include the ST-vs-SW.net external link? Good example. --maru (talk) contribs 03:54, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Bleh, not really; I've been bogged down with some work over in the FF and CVG departments. — Deckiller 03:56, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Probably just as well. The actual link is quite interesting, and I intend to mine the quotes it provides for our own Star Wars canon article, but I don't really feel like stepping into that argument. --maru (talk) contribs 03:57, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Bot removing self-links is causing grief

Why are you running this? there are perfectly good reasons to have self-links. For example, a list of related aircraft that include the current aircraft.

Look http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=RQ-7_Shadow&diff=65374533&oldid=65303480

Now the current aircraft isn't in bold. What was the benefit of this change? -MarsRover 20:34, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

No. There are no good reasons for self-links on article pages. If it is meant to be bold, it should be bold. The benefit is that now that page is not abusing Wiki-markup, and perhaps may even one day use wiki-markup correctly rather than depend on obscure undocumented "features". --maru (talk) contribs 00:39, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

WP:DICK — Preceding unsigned comment added by MarsRover (talk • contribs)

That's not an argument. --maru (talk) contribs 02:57, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

External link bot

Regarding the external link message you posted at Talk:Paddy Hannan, the external link is fine if a non-bot manually clicks on it. Apparently the problem is that your bot incorrectly parses URLs when they are embedded in templates with no space between the url and the next pipe. Snottygobble 04:46, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I/we know about that bug. I have to say, I am kind of surprised to see it ever show up again. I guess that happens more often than one would think, although it would be more legible to have some space in there. --maru (talk) contribs 04:49, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree; the space has been added already. Snottygobble 04:52, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Maru, I did a random scan of your recent bot contributions and easily found half a dozen non-errors per the problem above. Are you going to remedy this? You sound as though you're dismissing it as not being a big issue. -- I@n 05:24, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I am dismissing it as a big issue. Going back through my last 50 contribs, besides the already mentioned example, I can only find Talk:Pan-Asianism and Talk:Palpatine with the pipe issue. ~40 correct, ~3 wrong, doesn't seem so bad to me. And some of those Pan-Am articles apparently could use some link cleaning. --maru (talk) contribs 05:34, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Well why not just fix it? Your response sounds very arrogant. {{cite web}} is used extensively and its usage guide doesn't indicate a need for a space before each pipe. ie. there's nothing wrong with the links. Can you also explain what is the status of your bot? Is it authorized and why is it running on your admin account rather than a separate account? -- I@n 06:03, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

This is certainly not the first time people have complained about your bot, which you continue to run through your user account instead of your bot. If in your last 43 contribs 7% were wrong, it might be negligible if it were only 43 contribs, but I see a couple hundred of them in your history. - Rainwarrior 06:13, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Here's a few more for you to dismiss: , , , , , , -- I@n 06:34, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Seems to me the fix is trivialer than trivial. Simply tell your parser to split on pipes as well as whitespace. To my knowledge HTTP doesn't permit pipes in URLs, but even if they do they are exceedingly rare so your error rate will plummet. Snottygobble 06:42, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

It may be trivialer than snot for a regular expression or Python maven (neither of which am I). But I've given it a shot, and changed

text = re.sub('(?s).*?|', , text) 

to

text = re.sub('(?s).*?||\|.*', , text) 

Does this do the trick? I have no idea. I'm checking, but... --maru (talk) contribs 13:33, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Possible impersonator of User:Marudubshinki

FYI, I've blocked a possible impersonator of your account here. -- I@n 08:32, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Looks like an especially nasty one, what with the copied user page. --maru (talk) contribs 01:50, 28 July 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

Template:Genblock

Marudubshinki (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Notes:

• In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
• Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=The editors concerned wanted a promise from me to go and sin no more against the bot policy. They have it. --] ] ] 00:03, 18 August 2006 (UTC) |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=The editors concerned wanted a promise from me to go and sin no more against the bot policy. They have it. --] ] ] 00:03, 18 August 2006 (UTC) |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=The editors concerned wanted a promise from me to go and sin no more against the bot policy. They have it. --] ] ] 00:03, 18 August 2006 (UTC) |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

Dead external links

Could you possibly add to your dead link reports some sort of link to Misplaced Pages: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

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: .

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)

• Requests for unblock