User talk:Marudubshinki/Archive 31

Arvanites' unprotection
Hi maru, thanks for looking after Arvanites. I very much hope your unprotecting wasn't a bit premature, as I think we were still having a few open matters to resolve, but let's be optimistic. Would be nice if you could keep an eye on further developments during the next days. --Lukas (T. 11:52, 18 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Nah. This was just a fly-by unprotection- it simply shouldn't be protected for so long, regardless of the merits. --maru (talk) contribs 17:33, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Trivlis / Halagad Ventor
I thought the information on Ventor was overkill, but if you want to redo it, go ahead. I'm always one for simplicity, 'why use ten words when three will suffice?' —Preceding unsigned comment added by Trivlis (talk • contribs)


 * I dunno... It looked to me like real info was being removed. --maru (talk) contribs 23:04, 18 February 2006 (UTC)


 * NOTE: That message wasn't from me; I transferred it from your userpage. --Deckiller 15:46, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Kawaii AfD
Ohayo Marudubshinki-kun! Care to help with this article? It is currently under attack. :) -- Cool CatTalk 22:02, 18 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Gomen nisai! I should have seen the AFD and acted earlier. I hope my vote will help. --maru (talk) contribs 23:02, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Blanking of the page resting upon the surface for the sitting utensil intended for one's posterior constructed of the element known as copper
What are we going to do with him..? I'm going to refrain from futhur reverts, but his talkpage sanitation is a clear audible cause for complaint. Additionally, his actions depict an clear attempt to troll/provoke, as well as disobey Arbcom. -ZeroTalk 08:40, 19 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I looked, and strictly speaking, there are no sanctions against him blanking his talk page. However, we can go ask Arbcom to extend the judgement's parole conditions to include the talk page as well. --maru (talk) contribs 08:58, 19 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Perhaps. It could be argued that the erasing of the talkpage reflects an goal corresponding to further disruption and lack of respect concerning the arbitration's final decision. -ZeroTalk 09:02, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Star Wars Wikiproject
Hello! Thank you for participating in the Star Wars Wikiproject. The participants section has recently been changed so it would be appreciated that you put the template User Star Wars WikiProject onto your Userpage so that you appear in Category:WikiProject Star Wars members. That way you appear in the listing of WikiProject Star Wars members. --Jedi6 04:27, 20 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I'd rather continue in an unofficial capacity. --maru (talk) contribs 04:34, 20 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Okay. --Jedi6 04:59, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

User talk:Snowtroper
Hey, may you block him please? He's been a sneaky vandal for two+ weeks now. --Deckiller 20:41, 20 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Done. Not an indefinite ban because some edits seem to have been good. --maru (talk) contribs 20:47, 20 February 2006 (UTC)


 * -=nods=- okay, thanks. --Deckiller 20:54, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Another Thought (barnstarry goodness)

 * Squee! My third barnstar! And first non-Star Wars related one... Anyway, I'm glad to have contributed; I've been meaning to write down my Wikiphilosophy one of these days.
 * Y'know what would be even neater? It would be kinda neat if there were a Wikipedia-wide contest sponsored by the Signpost or something, for the most lucid and well thought out Wikiphilosophy essay. Just something to think about. --maru (talk) contribs 05:03, 22 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Third barnstar..? Maru's got some catching up to do. Zero -ZeroTalk 08:08, 22 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I will simply note that I, at least, have not stooped to awarding myself barn stars... --maru (talk) contribs 13:43, 22 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I disagree with your assessment that I have fabricated the acquisition of barnstars. I and User:Cool Cat had an "contest" of sorts quite an while ago in which the winner could claim an barnstar. The acquisition of it is equivalent to him giving it to me himself (he even gave me another one as well for that situation). I see your assumption of me unjustly claiming awards as an uncalled for statement. I am extremely offended. -ZeroTalk 13:53, 22 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I am deeply offended by your offense! That a simple humorous note could be taken so ill speaks likewise ill of you AGF factor! I disagree with your fabrication of charges I am being mean and malicious. You accusing me of bad faith is equivalent to attacking me himself. Totally unjustified and unjustly. --maru (talk) contribs 00:31, 23 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Be fair, I explained myself exhaustively. Your accusation was not only intemperate, it was completely misplaced, and any normal passerby would claim that it was impossible to garner any humor simply from the statement of "I will simply note that I, at least, have not stooped to awarding myself barn stars... ".


 * It's not humorous because the first thing you do in the above is falsely accuse me of something I never do: unjustly claim awards. The second thing you do is falsely accuse me of promulgating logical fallacies. You have asked me to assume good faith and yet you have falsely stated I cited you as malicious and mean (I never said such a thing). I'm sorry this just won't do. Don't make false accusations. Don't breach good faith repeatedly and then try to lecture someone else to do what you already are signally failing to do. I know you are a good person, and it did not bother me as much as it would another I didn't know. It also helped that you verified it was an jest, and that's good. My apologies for coming off so strong however, I will attempt to lighten up more in the future. -ZeroTalk 11:12, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Stormtrpr's back
Yeah, that's right, he's back at it :) --Deckiller 03:57, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Star Wars Collaboration of the week
Make sure to vote for the Star Wars Collaboration of the week for next week at Star Wars Collaboration of the week. --Jedi6 04:20, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

"Harry's Place" deletion
You recently deleted this article with the summary "01:09, 24 February 2006 Marudubshinki deleted "Harry's Place" (per afd)". This AFD had only begun on 21 February and was fairly evenly split so that wasn't a valid justification. You may have meant that you were deleting it under the "recreation of identical content" speedy deletion criteria, which was mentioned on that AFD. I can understand the theory here, but the article's creator (User:Dbiv) is arguing that since the article's original deletion it has increased in notability (being nominated for best UK weblog, media coverage) and that the article had been updated to cover this. I'm not trying to push you one way or the other (honest m'lud!.) I'm jsut checking that you're fully keyed up on all the facts, since from your deletion summary it appeared you may not be. Thanks. --Cherry blossom tree 10:59, 24 February 2006 (UTC)


 * You're right on the second count- if Harry's Place has indeed increased in notability, it should be taken up at VFU, not recreated and put through AFD. --maru (talk) contribs 17:54, 24 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Should it? I'll trust you on that one. I'll let the creator decide what to do with it then. --Cherry blossom tree 18:15, 24 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Yeah; if it's increased in notability, then that means the original AFD might've been mistaken, and that's exactly what VFU is for. --maru (talk) contribs 18:18, 24 February 2006 (UTC)