User talk:Marudubshinki/Archive 24

Sergeant Fox
Thanks for your cleanup of the Sergeant Fox article. It looks much better. I'm no expert on the expanded universe, so thanks for weighing in. --Kafziel 19:57, 10 January 2006 (UTC)


 * It needed to be done. If you were really grateful, you'd go get the references listed in the Wookiepedia article and see whether Fox died the way the article says he did. I don't generally trust anons when it comes to Star Wars articles- too many anons are immature or ignorant jackasses. --maru (talk) Contribs 20:15, 10 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I could look into it a little later this evening. I'm at work right now and can't access wookiepedia from my work computer (damned websense!) Thanks again. --Kafziel 20:23, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

General "Ro-Bo Ant" Grievous
Why did you cut the segment about Windu crushing his chest and causing him to constantly cough? I think that is a vital part of his character. --MajinPalgen 21:00, 11 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Because I was pretty sure it was already mentioned in the article, and I don't like redundancy over comparative trivia. --maru (talk) Contribs 23:21, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

OCR
It would be easy if the font used in this book wasn't so archaic, and the text wasn't so worn. Even the best OCR software (ABBYY Finereader) is pretty poor for stuff like this, and wouldn't be able to handle the long s without some training. The site that hosts the Cyclopaedia also has "OCR'd text" available, but it is just garbled nonsense. &mdash; 0918 BRIAN &bull; 2006-01-12 00:28


 * Guess I'll mosey on over and see whether their OCR is utterly unusable crap or not. Even if we end up correcting every other word, that'll still be faster than the manual method, as long as we restrict our efforts to headwords. --maru (talk) Contribs 00:37, 12 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually, it looks like their OCR handled the headwords fairly well, and left'em in caps as well; it looks eminently possible to simply filter out everything that isn't in caps, then a quick cat, pipe, sort, uniq etc. should leave behind a usable list. Should I pursue this? --maru (talk) Contribs 00:45, 12 January 2006 (UTC)


 * NM. I did it anyway. See User:Marudubshinki/Cyc. --maru (talk) Contribs 16:52, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

THANK YOU
Thank you so much Marudubshinki for the incredible welcome! It's so great to know that there are people here who want to see new users get acclimated! It's also great to know that you all have such a great sense of humor and appreciate and recognize jokes when you see them! --Von Steuben 06:33, 13 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I can recognize sarcasm when I see it... The time and place for your jokes is over at uncyclopedia, not here. What's appropriate there is not appropriate here, and vice versa. Don't mix'em up. --maru (talk) Contribs 15:55, 13 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Just a joke my friend. I easily could have done something much more pervasive and damaging to wikipedia. It wouldn't be hard to begin disseminating false information in rarely read articles that are almost never checked. Someone could change the information in the Lawncrest article to say that the neighborhood borders on Pennypack Creek (which it certainly doesn't). This, however, was a joke. The sheer fact that it was put on the very top of a page I knew someone would check often points to it as a joke. In fact the other jokes I realized probably wouldn't get caught for a while (because they were on much less viewed pages) I went back to and fixed so there wouldn't be any confusion at a later date. --Von Steuben 17:52, 13 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I realize that, but you have no right to complain about being warned when there is an ENTIRE OTHER WIKI set up for EXACTLY YOUR SORT OF JOKES. Please, take your jokes there, not here. --maru (talk) Contribs 20:09, 13 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Know what, I will ask a serious question. Why does everyone on this site give that canned welcome message to new users directing them to "the sandbox"? Why even have a sandbox? With the way this software is arranged, any changes can be immediately fixed. So a new user to the system can play around when they put real information on a real page and fix the formatting mistakes they made. And certainly, the people who go through and make samll purposeful errors for the sake of humor know how this software works and don't need a sandbox either. With the beautiful simplicity of this software, no one should be need a sandbox. The very concept of a sandbox is condescending. Von Steuben 21:56, 13 January 2006 (UTC)


 * The sandbox exists so editors who could be doing something useful (like say cleaning up the prose on Outlaw Star) don't have to worry about getting rid of or fixing the additions of clueless noobs or anons. It also acts as a bit of a "Good faith" indicator. If you use the sandbox when you are advised to to experiment with wikimarkup, then you are probably genuinely trying to learn how to contribute and well. If you recklessly dump fetid piles of crap into articles trusting that this "beautiful" software will clean it up, you are being selfish and wasting other people's time. The very concept of experienced and inexperienced users is condescending. --maru (talk) Contribs 03:15, 14 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Yeah, the "beautiful simplicity" I was talking about is not that the software cleans up your crappy job for you, but that you are able to immediately identify your mistakes and quickly fix them, whether by tweaking you formatting or copying a piece of code from another page that has the format you want. My only point, my friend, is that there's nothing wrong with a joke every once in a while. Trying to lighten the mood never hurt anyone. Von Steuben 04:44, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
 * This is where I draw the line. The fact that software can "fix our mistakes" is irrelavent. There is no room or time to put up with "jokes". We are here to write an encyclopedia. Anything going agaist this goal is clear violation of wikipedia and in this case, your good fun could be considered Vandalism. Take note of the fact that you been notified by dear Maru here that it isn't acceptable, and you contiue to back up your actions with the concensus of "lighten up". There is a word for that and that word is trolling. -MegamanZero|Talk 04:50, 14 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Alright alright alright, I understand what you're saying. I've had enough of trying to explain myself anyway. Irregardless of the fact that the term "Trolling" implies blatant maliciouness, and that I have maintained a civil tone through all this and not done anything malicious (like say, erasing entire pages or setting up random redirects), I will ignore the semantics and end this. I'll "hang up my cleats" for lack of a better term with this account, and return to actually contributing to the encyclopedia. And I'll look elsewhere for some humor (even though this only a user-created internet encyclopedia with as much academic credibility as that implies). Still, I do appreciate the value of Wikipedia, even if I don't share your immense seriousness. --Von Steuben 05:08, 14 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, clearly there's time to put up with jokes, or else nobody would, but vandals (no matter how "funny") are certainly quite inconsiderate of what time does exist. There's plenty of room on Wikipedia for humor that doesn't involve deliberately antagonizing anyone or adding fraudulent edits to legitimate work.


 * Anyone can vandalize an article, but it's much, much harder to introduce something helpful, funny, and valuable enough to keep. I hope you'll give the latter a try.


 * Cheers, Adrian Lamo · (talk)  · (mail) · 05:14, 14 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Fair enough, Adrian. The humor of all this has been lost in this crazy conversation. --Von Steuben 05:18, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

General Grievous
I’ll thank you not to refer to my submissions as nonsense. As I see it, the state of that entry, with the grammatical eloquence of a drunk, was nonsense. If you’d like to debate my opinion knock your haughty self out, but don’t expect me to pay any attention.


 * And I suppose "proceeded to wipe the deck with Kenobi's face" or whatever you added had the grammatical eloquence of a sober person? --maru (talk) Contribs 20:09, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

"U.S. presidential election, yyyy" articles
Hi there:

If you have a question about the coloring of maps in the "U.S. presidential election, yyyy" articles, please ask the question in one place, then wait for a reply. As things stand, what will most likely happen is that each article you have added this question to will receive replies, as most people will respond on the article they have read. This will result in a chaotic and fragmented discussion at best.

I am going to repost your question to Wikipedia talk:Style for U.S. presidential election, yyyy and try to direct replies there. —DLJessup (talk) 21:29, 15 January 2006 (UTC)


 * That's fine. I didn't know what the best way of going about it really was, thanks. --maru (talk) Contribs 00:01, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Avriette
Um, why did you create an article in the main namespace with my name? --Avriette 01:59, 18 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Because back in September (which is when I think I made it), for some reason I found myself needing to go to your pages multiple times, and I simply got tired of typing in "Avriette" and then hitting myself when I realized I forgot the "User:" prefix. --maru (talk) Contribs 02:39, 18 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Uh, I am going to ask that they be speedied until I am, uh, notable. --Avriette 07:38, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Image Tagging Image:180px-Royal guard.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:180px-Royal guard.jpg. I notice the image page currently doesn't specify who created the image, so the copyright status is therefore unclear. If you have not created the image yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the image on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the image yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the image also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture then you can use GFDL to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the image qualifies as fair use, please read fair use, and then use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other images, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of image pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. bluemask 09:38, 20 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Taken care of. --maru (talk) Contribs 21:25, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

re:Please Stop
Hey there; I knew that I was quite WP:BOLD in merging several of the larger articles (Initially, I was going to save any article longer than a paragraph for discussion, but I grew merge happy). Very well; for now on, I will not merge an article longer than five sentences or one paragraph without discssion. As for the losing information/formatting, I did that on purpose to remove redundancy with the merges (ex. mentioning that it was a star wars reference, which would grow redundant in a list) and to keep the subheaders from showing up. About those two articles; you're right, I'm wrong; I should've discussed such large merges. If there's anything else you want me to revert, just let me know, and I'll be glad to do so myself. --Deckiller 04:01, 22 January 2006 (UTC)


 * On a side note, if you would like to discuss anything, feel free to IM me at SonOfYoungwood (AOL). ^_^ --Deckiller 04:04, 22 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not objecting to all of them- I left the merge of the Tierfon Yellow Aces, the Tenloss Syndicate and other small stubs/near-stub alone because they belong in a list, but if it is more than one and a half paragraphs, with decent references and external links (which you generally removed...), than it probably should be a standalone article. As for any other ones I might object to, well, it will take some time to comb through your contribs. --maru (talk) Contribs 06:41, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

reply
And I'm sure the Council would be interested in your cache of Hutt porn. :P --KrossTalk 23:28, 22 January 2006 (UTC)


 * That's not what you said when your desires mastered you... --maru (talk) Contribs 23:53, 22 January 2006 (UTC)