User talk:Marudubshinki/Archive 17

Please explain apparently ineffective markup change
Dear maru dubshinki, could you please explain why you changed themarkup on 'Abstraction Inversion' (in your revision of 2005-12-0207:43:18) to remove spaces between initial '*'s and the subsequenttexts? Is this something I ought to be doing? It appears to me to haveno effect on the made up page, and to (marginally) reduce thereadability of the source code. If you could put an an answer on mytalk page I should be grateful. --PJTraill 21:08, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Incidentally, it was very hard to check your talk page for a similarquestion, which makes me wonder if there is no way of organising thesethings better.


 * I did it because I like (and indeed, I believe the policies suggestthis) a consistent notation; spaces are generally removed from headersand other markup in articles, so that should go for asterisks as well,IMO. And it's not something you have to do- I just really likeconsistency (I'm a bit strange about this: many other people seenothing wrong with random capitalizations in links and templates andspacing in headers and such.) It has no effect on the presentation,true, but it makes the source like nicer (again, IMO) anddifferentiates articles from Talk pages, among other things.
 * And yes, I know, I really should archive my talk page. But I neverseem to get around to it. --Maru (talk)Contribs 21:35, 3 December2005 (UTC)


 * I encourage your strive for concistence in Wikipedia style such ascapitalization. But I also think that source code readability isimportant and that one part of it is enough whitespace to separatemarkup from content and, for example, list items longer than an editorrow from each other. I wouldn't make whitespace tweaks, at least notwithout separating them into edits clearly marked as such (for diffs,you see). --TuukkaH 13:00, 5 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Ah, well the formatting changes are something I usually do whileintending to do something else, an aside almost. So always marking itin summaries is something I strive for, but sometimes the volume ofextra work the summaries are makes puts it beyond my will to do so.--Maru (talk)Contribs 18:03, 5 December2005 (UTC)


 * A quick check shows that the (current) help and tutorial pages areinconsistent in this matter: the help pageHow_to_edit_a_page shows examples withspaces, while the tutorialTutorial_%28Talk_pages%29 shows themwithout. I feel that space definitely increases source readability,and that removing it is a little couterproductive.--PJTraill 00:28, 6 December 2005 (UTC)


 * As you said the official guidelines are inconsistent. As far asit concerns me, I think as long as I don't devolve into exclusivelyfixing these debatable things, then I'll be okay. And the guideswouldn't be inconsistent if people like you and I didn't disagree onthe readability. --Maru (talk)Contribs 04:35, 6 December2005 (UTC)


 * I'm wondering whether the two sides are prominently representedsomewhere, because I can't even understand how whitespace could impairreadability. Perhaps it's because I've begun with programminglanguages and I only remember people preferring more and never lesswhitespace. I mean, perhaps if there was so much whitespace thatnothing fit on the screen at a time, but that's not the issue here,right? --TuukkaH 04:52, 6 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Don't be too sure. A lot of whitespace can majorly expand thesize of an article, even if it has little content (frex, a lot ofsections and not much in each), and it is easy to mess up whitespace.Plus, my policy is to remove whitespace on articles, but follow yourstandards of whitespace on talk pages, where major divisions betweensections are needed- plus this means it is easy to tell at a glancearticles vs. talk pages. --Maru (talk)Contribs 04:58, 6 December2005 (UTC)

One hand clapping
I wrote a one hand clapping page and someone came along redirected itto koan. Now this content is going to go somewhere and this seems likethe best place. Both traditonal and alternative anwser should be seen.--Ewok Slayer | T |C) 04:30, 4 December2005 (UTC)


 * Cite your "alternative anwser". --Maru (talk)Contribs 04:35, 4 December2005 (UTC)


 * Do I really need to? Take out your hand and try it, I am doing itright now. *clap* *clap* *clap* *clap* not hard. --(Ewok Slayer | T | C) 05:01, 4December 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes. --Maru (talk)Contribs 05:06, 4 December2005 (UTC)

Categories
I hope you can see why I reverted some of your recent category changeson computer science articles. I'm not sure they are currently thebest, though, so I'm very much open for discussion. One thing is thatWP categories are not logically defined, so this is not a matter oflogical but human consistence (see cyclic categorizations). I wouldsay that an article should belong to a category if the topic isimportant to be listed in the category, or if the category isimportant part of what the topic is. --TuukkaH 13:00,5 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid you'll have to tell me more specifically what youreverted- none of the articles were on my watchlist, and I'm too suchof the whole category to go back and hunt and prowl. I left theProgramming Language and Software Design Patterns categories almostuntouched, so if you did anything there it wasn't me.


 * Oh, probably I shouldn't bother you then :-) For what it matters,the edits of yours I saw in my watchlist were on Algebraic datatype, First-class function, Currying, Type conversion. Ialso put a comment on Category talk:Data types but it probablydoesn't help anything, does it? --TuukkaH 21:14, 5December 2005 (UTC)


 * For what it is worth, I feel that all the type systems and datatypes &etc are all subsets of Type Theory, so if I were to go back andredo things, I'd invert the current heirarchy.--Maru (talk)Contribs 23:30, 5 December2005 (UTC)

Featured list candidates/List of Oh MyGoddessepisodes
Feel free to comment. I thought you may want to know.-- Cool CatTalk 23:41, 6December 2005 (UTC)


 * Bah! This is nothing but rampant blatant vote solicitation. :)--Maru (talk)Contribs 00:15, 7 December2005 (UTC)
 * At least I am not spamming random people. ;) -- Cool CatTalk 00:34, 7December 2005 (UTC)

Sigs
Then start a policy page and get consensus for banning it as a policy.Stirling Newberry 03:40, 8 December 2005(UTC)


 * I could say the same to you. You are the one adopting an extrememinority viewpoint and abusing the freedom the raw sig option grantsus to advertise or spam or whatever that link goes to (I refuse tofollow it to find out). Gratuitous links are already banned by policy.I see no reason to seek a reaffirmation for a special case.--Maru (talk)Contribs 06:25, 8 December2005 (UTC)

Re User:Onefortyone probation
As a member of the Mentorship Committee, you along withUser:NicholasTurnbull and User:FCYTravis agreed to act asmentor for Anon 80.141 et al/Onefortyone who ison probation. This person has returned to editing thesame article with the same non-encyclopedic inserts, using distortedphrasing and quoting totally unacceptable sources in order to continuehis agenda on the Nick Adams article. Your fellow mentor FCYTravis worked with me to achieve a consensus text pendingresolution of the propriety of quoting certain sources. Despite ourefforts, and despite being told his edits were improper by mentorFCYTravis, Onefortyone has ignored his mentor and repeatedly insertedthem. As well, he continues his past pattern of behaviour of ignoringthe facts as to why his edits are unacceptable that have been spelledout in precise detail on the Talk page over and over and over anddeliberately obfuscates the issue with massive inserts of text on theTalk page. I and FCYTravis have done everything we can. Now I requestthat you and mentor NicholasTurnbull step in and examine this matterto take the appropriate action. - Ted Wilkes06:58, 8 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I haven't stepped in because I am inclining towards 141's position inthis issue. --Maru (talk)Contribs 17:16, 8 December2005 (UTC)


 * Thank you for replying. Let me make sure I understand you. You are"inclining towards 141's position"' that at Wikipedia "relevantpublished material must be included in the article?" - Ted Wilkes 21:30, 8 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I don't think I am going to respond to an obvious rhetorical traplike that: it is a truism that an encyclopedia should include allrelevant material, and even more so published material.--Maru (talk)Contribs 21:53, 8 December2005 (UTC)

I have no idea why you would call my direct quote by you with a directquote of Onefortyone, a trap? Perhaps you would be good enough topoint to writings by me at Wikipedia that led you to believe I wouldtry to trick or "trap" anyone. Straightforward, honest questions? Yes.But, silly attempts to trap? No. My statements are based all onWikipedia policy that we do not include anything at all just becauseit is published elsewhere. We don't accept dubious sources, those whoare promoting a point of view, those where peer reviews cast doubton the source and the writings integrity, and certainly we must neverinclude references to hearsay. Hearsay cannot be a verifiablefacts. But, your having stated that Wikipedia "should include allrelevant material, and even more so published material," appears tocontradict the statement at Talk:Alan Dershowitz that an ariclemust not only document the sources but verify through them everysingle fact:
 * "We need to verify very carefully, with documentable sources,every single fact in the article''."—JimboWales - 00:09, 8 December 2005 (UTC) 
 * This has been done very carefully. All sources (books and articles)I have used are published. The only problem is that tbese sources arenot in line with Ted Wilkes's personal view.Onefortyone 07:09, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Does Mr. Wales statement mean only certain articles should have thefacts verified from documentable sources? Further, if "all relevantmaterial, and even more so published material" are acceptable, thenwhat were these various policys and guidelines created for?
 * Verifiability - states "For anencyclopedia, sources should be unimpeachable"
 * The perfect article - "reflects expert knowledge;fact-based"
 * Reliable sources
 * Reliable sources *WikiProject Fact and Reference Check
 * No original research - states: "What counts as areputable publication? Reputable publications include peer-reviewed journals, books published by a knownacademic publishing house or university press, and divisions of ageneral publisher which have a good reputation for scholarlypublications."

Thank you. - Ted Wilkes 22:42, 9 December 2005(UTC)


 * See, this is what I mean. --Maru (talk)Contribs 23:47, 15 December2005 (UTC)

Your ESB changes
Maru, why did you make those changes to the ESB article? Generally, wedon't begin an article with a quote, and we decided a while back thatincluding the opening crawl was a copyvio. That's usually allowed onwikipedia, but not here. I'm going to revert again. The Wookieepedian 19:33, 11 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I didn't know about the opening crawl, and I think an epigraph is agood idea. So I guess I will revert too, except I'll make sure Ileave out the opening crawl this time. --Maru (talk)Contribs 19:40, 11 December2005 (UTC)

Image placement vote
Hello, I'm MegamanZero, and I've gotten into a conflict with the Orgyover his needless image placement and excessive quotes on the IoriYagami page. So, I've decided to hold a vote (like you did on theRyu charaacter page) concerning which version should be used. The votecan be found. Please vote your opinion on the matter and thanks for yourtime! --MegamanZero 17:56, 13 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I've replied on the article talk page. --Maru (talk)Contribs 19:46, 13 December2005 (UTC)

re:template
You would like that, you dang dirty Imperial! :P--Kross | Talk 23:29, 13 December2005 (UTC)

PS: The "Leave a new message" table at the top is linked to *my* talkpage. :P


 * Who said that wasn't deliberate...? :)


 * Why can't we all just get along? --Maru (talk)Contribs 05:26, 14 December2005 (UTC)

Bothan
You should really look at wikipedia's time line for the Star Warsbooks. It clearly states that "Heir to the Empire" came 2.5 yearsafter the first Rouge Squadron book which had bothans in it. Listof Star Wars books. Type in and scroll and you can see that mainpoint is true. I am going to change it back and keep what you had, butsay they first came in Rouge Squadron. Next time get your factsstraight before changing other peoples info. Thank you.


 * Appearance data is always from what book/work appeared first in thereal world, not what appeared first in the internal chronology. Hence,I am still right, since Heir long preceded the Rogue (notice thespelling) Squadron series. --Maru (talk)Contribs 18:19, 15 December2005 (UTC)


 * Ohhh ok i see now. Thank you i will go change it now.