User talk:Marudubshinki/Archive 27

Image tagging and deletion
Depends on the circumstances. If the user is active and the image is used on a page, I tag the image and put a note on the user's page. If the user is inactive and/or the image is an orphan, I just delete it. -Nv8200p talk 08:13, 4 February 2006 (UTC)


 * In the future, could you inform me first? I am pretty good at recognizing sources. --maru (talk) contribs 08:15, 4 February 2006 (UTC)


 * What image are you concerned about? -Nv8200p talk 08:40, 4 February 2006 (UTC)


 * All the Star Wars images. --maru (talk) contribs 19:10, 4 February 2006 (UTC)


 * A bunch of the images in the List of minor Star Wars Jedi characters page had already been tagged with "no source" for over 7 days. I just went through all the images on that page and deleted the ones without sources, whether they had been "no source" tagged or not. I left the ones that were sourced and had a copyright tag. Wikipedia is overwhelmed with images that are not sourced, especially Star Wars and Anime related and if I'm working a page already, it is more efficient to take care of the images one time. If I removed your images or ones you care about, I apologize, but they can be uploaded again and if sourced and tagged, they should be around for awhile. -Nv8200p talk 23:26, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Archives
Your Archive listing, while comprehensive (and supposedly complete) is simply appalling. Could you please explain the organization thesis of it..? --ZeroTalk 23:36, 4 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Simply put, roughly ten topics are on each page, and each of the ten topics is listed chronologically next to a link to that one archive page to facilitate looking up specific topics. I think it is the work of a genius, myself. --maru (talk) contribs 23:40, 4 February 2006 (UTC)


 * It might be more feasible to insert it into a table. In its current format, it is atrocious and intensely confusing. --ZeroTalk 23:43, 4 February 2006 (UTC)


 * That's a good idea, but I don't understand the HTML markup necessary to make a table, so this mess was the best I could do (if you are willing to do it...). Most of my effort went into actually parsing the 300k of text just to accomplish that much. --maru (talk) contribs 23:53, 4 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I've created your archive here, table and all. I had originally made the table on the talkpage here, but its quite expansive. Feel free to move it back if you feel so inclined. Regards, ZeroTalk 00:20, 5 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks. It looks a lot better; I would like to have it on the main talk page since it looks more "open" and accessible, less like I'm hiding things, but on the other hand, there are the aesthetics to consider.... meh. I'll think about where to put it later. --maru (talk) contribs 01:51, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Images
Depends on the circumstances. If the user is active and the image is used on a page, I tag the image and put a note on the user's page. If the user is inactive and/or the image is an orphan, I just delete it. --Nv8200p talk 08:13, 4 February 2006 (UTC)


 * In the future, could you inform me first? I am pretty good at recognizing sources. --maru (talk) contribs 08:15, 4 February 2006 (UTC)


 * What image are you concerned about? --Nv8200p talk 08:40, 4 February 2006 (UTC)


 * All the Star Wars images. --maru (talk) contribs 19:10, 4 February 2006 (UTC)


 * A bunch of the images in the List of minor Star Wars Jedi characters page had already been tagged with "no source" for over 7 days. I just went through all the images on that page and deleted the ones without sources, whether they had been "no source" tagged or not. I left the ones that were sourced and had a copyright tag. Wikipedia is overwhelmed with images that are not sourced, especially Star Wars and Anime related and if I'm working a page already, it is more efficient to take care of the images one time. If I removed your images or ones you care about, I apologize, but they can be uploaded again and if sourced and tagged, they should be around for awhile. -Nv8200p talk 23:26, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Archive formatting
Your Archive listing, while comprehensive (and supposedly complete) is simply appalling. Could you please explain the organization thesis of it..? --ZeroTalk 23:36, 4 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Simply put, roughly ten topics are on each page, and each of the ten topics is listed chronologically next to a link to that one archive page to facilitate looking up specific topics. I think it is the work of a genius, myself. --maru (talk) contribs 23:40, 4 February 2006 (UTC)


 * It might be more feasible to insert it into a table. In its current format, it is atrocious and intensely confusing. --ZeroTalk 23:43, 4 February 2006 (UTC)


 * That's a good idea, but I don't understand the HTML markup necessary to make a table, so this mess was the best I could do (if you are willing to do it...). Most of my effort went into actually parsing the 300k of text just to accomplish that much. --maru (talk) contribs 23:53, 4 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I've created your archive here, table and all. I had originally made the table on the talkpage here, but its quite expansive. Feel free to move it back if you feel so inclined. Regards, ZeroTalk 00:20, 5 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks. It looks a lot better; I would like to have it on the main talk page since it looks more "open" and accessible, less like I'm hiding things, but on the other hand, there are the aesthetics to consider.... meh. I'll think about where to put it later. --maru (talk) contribs 01:51, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Zaraza @ Hacker
...I'd never heard of the guy, but his site has some ridiculous number of Google hits. Many (most?) seem to be from reprints of vulnerability information on Bugtraq and other Infosec lists, and I've given up trying to separate how many are about him / his site and how many are just security alert repeaters.

Bottom line is, they do seem to produce/publicize a lot of vulnerabilities. I have inherent bias against folks who just produce theoretical vulnerabilities and have never done anything besides scan code FBI: "anything" doesn't mean crime but that's immaterial for purposes of determining his relevance to an encyclopedia.

A search at c|net for his site name shows citations in white papers but no actual news. The site alexa ranking is in the 19K's, but you probably already checked that. A c|net news search shows no results at all for Zaraza. I use this as a benchmark due to c|net's propensity for covering anything technical. He's been mentioned once in an actual SecurityFocus article.

c|net and Slashdot had nothing for 3APA3A. SecurityFocus had 12 pages of vuln ID's and people talking about 'em.

So. For sheer, prolific effort in identifying theoretical vulnerabilities, I'd say he's notable within a non-trivial field. -- A  drian  L  amo  ··  01:23, 5 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Hm. Thanks for doing all that research, Adrian- it definitely establishes his notability and worthiness of an article in Wikipedia, but I'm still not convinced he belongs in the notable security experts section. But since no-one else seems to be objecting, I guess I'll leave it be. --maru (talk) contribs 02:08, 5 February 2006 (UTC)


 * He's definitely not a household name, even among the security community. I deliberately avoided making any judgment as to whether he belongs in the article. I think it helps Wikipedia readers to have a wide array of biographies in the Hacker article, but I don't see much room for expansion in his article unless someone wants to trawl through everything he's uncovered and highlight his most notable work. Frankly, that's too tedious even for me.
 * Anyways. It wasn't actually a lot of research, but thanks for saying so :) Cheers. -- A  drian   L  amo  ··  04:30, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Evangelion stuff revisited
I watched the English anime on Adult Swim.. the ADV version does call Asuka Langley Soryu "Sohryu"... --WhisperToMe 06:15, 5 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Yeah, but doesn't the article already mention that? --maru (talk) contribs 06:58, 5 February 2006 (UTC)


 * It's true that they do call her "Sohryu", but in the original Japanese format, it is actually written that way, because it is a German, and thus foreign, name. --Aeris of Iniquity 01:05, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Iain Banks formatting
What do you think about a common format for all the articles on Banks books? --Guinnog 20:59, 5 February 2006 (UTC)


 * It is a good idea. For Player of Games, I was just putting it into the format I was familiar with from the Star Wars books. --maru (talk) contribs 21:03, 5 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Cool. I'm going to revert that article to standardize with the other IMB books. --Guinnog 00:14, 8 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Why? What's wrong with that format? --maru (talk) contribs 00:16, 8 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Nothing at all. It's just that I have rewritten all the IMB articles (and all the IB articles) and I think it would be good if they conformed to the one standard. --Guinnog 00:22, 8 February 2006 (UTC)


 * It is a good thing for articles to have a standard format, but it is even better for that format to be a good format- the ISBN and reference information in the articles currently is an especially apt example of what I mean. --maru (talk) contribs 00:38, 8 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Glad you agree. --Guinnog 00:42, 8 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your recent edits of The Player of Games. After our discussion, I decided to revert to your model, and standardize across all the Iain Banks books. See what you think. --Guinnog 23:00, 22 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I haven't edited it recently, but I'm glad you saw the merits of my model. Looking at it, the current layout is a lot better than it was before. --maru (talk) contribs 00:36, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Brevity is the soul of wit (FMA)
I saw your comment in the edit history for Episodes of Fullmetal Alchemist: "spaces are good. too good for this horrible writing. who wrote this, a kid?)" I get the feeling you and I may tend to agree that a shorter synopsis, carefully written, is to be preferred over a two-page paragraph of any skill level.  I think the synopses should be brief.  I have yet to actually read any of the marathon synopses on the page (episodes 1, 3, 32, 33 and 34) because life it too short.  Granted, my synopses can be brutally short, but I think they better server the reader who wants a quick overview of what happened in an episode.  By the way, how did you attach that comment to the revision history?  Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sprocketeer (talk • contribs)


 * Mm. As you can see on my user page, I take an inclusionist approach to things. What offended me most about the summary was it was a blow-by-blow summary, with ill-selected quotes (I've seen the episode in question), and with absolutely no eye towards the big picture and how the events fitted into the grand story arc. The actual writing was the final straw and what set off my ill-tempered remark.
 * As for how I attached the comment to the revision history... Every time you edit a page with the edit box and such, there's a second little rectangle between the big box and the save and preview buttons. It is good editing practice to add a summary of what you are changing and justifications for the change; but as you saw it can be used for parenthetical notes on the article being edited. --maru (talk) contribs 04:11, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Get a life
Look, who are you? Who said you could patronize me? NO ONE. I added a picture, and yeah, it took a little figuring out. Don't ever send me a message again, especially as I didn't "vandalize" anything, and it had to you no detrimental effect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Milonnz (talk • contribs)


 * You put Wikipedia at risk by lying about the copyright status of the Waylon Smithers picture - copyright infringement is treated harshly by the law. So it is very much my business. Anything that puts Wikipedia at risk has a considerable detrimental effect on me. --maru  (talk) contribs 04:15, 7 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, thank you for policing the site to ensure against copyright infringements, but that was not your original complaint of me, was it? Now, leave me alone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Milonnz (talk • contribs)


 * I have left you alone; you contacted me here. The test template is standard procedure. --maru  (talk) contribs 19:53, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

AWB suggestion
I've responded on my talk page. Thanks. --Adrian Buehlmann 08:21, 7 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Done. --maru (talk) contribs 17:37, 7 February 2006 (UTC)