User talk:Marudubshinki/Archive 42

Commons page scans
Would it be too much to ask you to do some basic cropping of your uploads of page scans to Commons? Or better yet, OCR it, and put it on Wikisource or Wikibooks. --AnonMoos 18:58, 4 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Your Immediatist demands offend my Eventualist beliefs, you insensitive clod!
 * But seriously- yes, it would be too much to ask. It already taxes my time to simply track down this rather obscure books, scan them in, do some flipping, set up the categories and all the other stuff, along with uploading. I simply don't have time for the niceties of image editing, and as for OCR...? You've presumably looked at the images I'm uploading; do you know of any free OCR tools on Linux which can handle Victorian English and archaic Arabic? --maru   (talk)  contribs 22:27, 4 May 2006 (UTC)


 * And of course, my main concern is just getting this stuff online so I can use it in my Wikipedia articles, not in adhering to whatever formatting guidelines Wikicommons has. Someone else can do that. It's easier to edit these sorts of scans once they are online than it is to get them in the first place (or even learn of them in the first place). --maru  (talk)  contribs 03:45, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


 * As long as you're fully aware that the material will be of little use to most people (even most of those with some interest in the subject) in its current form. AnonMoos 06:26, 6 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, I know. What's important to me is that it's useful to me, and that if others want to, they are perfectly able to put it into another, more usable form. The scans are PD, high-resolution in a usable format (I think; I think PNGs are good things but I'm not too sure), and I think all the metadata is still there, so I feel my duties in the latter respect are more or less discharged. --maru  (talk)  contribs 06:37, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

general semantics
I don't know if I follow your reasoning in favor of capitalizing the article name for general semantics. Adherents commonly use the lowercase version. I checked the Wikipedia guidelines and found this: Philosophies, doctrines, and systems of economic thought do not begin with a capital letter, unless the name derives from a proper noun: lowercase republican refers to a system of political thought; uppercase Republican refers to a specific Republican Party (each party name being a proper noun).  Do you see general semantics as an organized movement rather than a doctrine? I can see how you might get that impression if you only know of gs through the 'pedia. (See this essay on certain effects of Wiki policies.) But in my experience this vastly exaggerates the degree of organization among Korzybski fans, and the extent to which we agree on practical issues. --Dan 18:45, 4 May 2006 (UTC)


 * There's a number of reasons. I disagree with that particular guideline, for instance; I also think decapitalizing it risks confusions with general semantics and general semantics studies (quick: was the former a particular movement or an adjective and a word meaning the study of meaning?). And even if the article exaggerates the cohesion, General Semantics is still considerably far from being a subsection of semantics. --maru  (talk)  contribs 22:09, 4 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't follow your question at all. Do you really mean to propose separate articles with those names? What do they mean to you? And the article explains the name of Korzybski's field, which derives from the Greek. It also explains the slight blurring of meaning, which derives from the field's focus on human survival. You misunderstand what I said about cohesion, but it doesn't matter if you disagree with the guideline. Dan 01:09, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, it's not just my personal preferences here. I quickly googled General Semantics, and it seems to me that when people refer to General Semantics, they say "General Semantics" and not "general semantics"- like the Institute of General Semantics for example. --maru  (talk)  contribs 03:43, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


 * They also capitalize Learning Center and Book Store, as well as most of the words in article titles. Look at the actual articles in that Center. Dan 14:49, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I've looked at a few. They don't seem to consistently support your capitalization. --maru  (talk)  contribs 06:41, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Jabba the Hutt
Hey, thanks for the comments on the Jabba the Hutt article! I posted this response on the article's talk page as well:


 * Well, none of the fictional character articles that are Featured have these things. Take a look at Batman, Superman, Bulbasaur, Goomba, Lakitu, Link (Legend of Zelda), and Wario.  The Wikipedia community (those who hang around the FAC page, anyway) constantly shoots down fictional FAC articles that have this material in it. I made the mistake of including all of this in an article on Padmé Amidala (the first major rewrite I did) and the results were not good (see the article's talk page).  Since the goal of the Star Wars Wikiproject is to: "organize, clean, and improve Star Wars information within a format that fits Wikipedia's fictional procedures to, ultimately, the level of quality stressed in the Featured Article and Featured List guidelines."  That's not going to happen if the article only tries to please SW fans and not the Wikipedia community in general.

My proposal is this: I have an article on the FAC page right now, but as soon as that's over with I'm going to submit this one to peer review and then FAC. I would like to see what happens to the article there without the extra SW detail. If it fails, then I'll gladly reinsert the DOB-DOD and write a DETAILED biography (just to spite the FAC folks). Please don't think I'm trying to be hostile or disrespect SW. Dmoon1 05:18, 6 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, I'm not going to revert you or paste in Wookieepedia's article, if that's what you're worried about. Go ahead, put it up for FA in its current state. If it passes, at least then I will have hard evidence that FAC is biased against comprehensive articles like my Palpatine.  --maru   (talk)  contribs 06:48, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Hey!
I'm gonna become a Star Wars author one day and I just thought I'd add some of my stuff into Wikipedia before hand. That wasn't even all of my add-ons I had in mind. Why can't I add stuff like that? Is there a way to make people accept this stuff? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.27.218.175 (talk • contribs)


 * Your stuff will be accepted when it is canon. Until it is officially published and unrepudiated, your contributions are but fanfiction, and we do not accept fanfiction-based articles or articles on fanfiction (except in the rare case of really notable fanfiction; ex. Star Wars: Revelations). --maru  (talk)  contribs 21:19, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Usurpation
As your request to usurp the user User:Maru has not yet been granted, I have commented out the redirections from that user's personal and talk pages. You may certainly re-add them when your request has been granted. -- Gnetwerker 00:07, 8 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Fair enough. --maru  (talk)  contribs 00:12, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Tdxiang
This is me.

Thank you Maru. Now, back to work for me! -- 陈 鼎  翔    贡献  Chat with Tdxiang on IRC! 05:17, 8 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Heh. I guess I should be a little sheepish for making such a mistake for such a long time. My bad! --maru  (talk)  contribs 05:50, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Curious about some things...
Why do you say it's a "good thing" to not hear too much about me lately? I think that, well, threw me off guard. Also what does "rp" mean, in the way you use it? --Shultz IV 08:59, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
 * (Ok, I just realized "rp" meant "reply". I thought it was some kind of a greeting abbreviation.) But other than that, you'd of course want to hear many good things about me. I'm not sure why I'm reacting differently at around these times. Maybe it's something to do with sleeping at exactly the wrong hours in the last two or so weeks. --Shultz IV 12:56, 8 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, I say it's a good thing because it means you haven't gotten yourself banned or anything again. :) --maru  (talk)  contribs 13:45, 8 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Maru means "blocked". Bans are different and far worse than blocks. Whoever is curious can read more about them at WP:Block and WP:Ban. --Shultz IV 14:09, 8 May 2006 (UTC)


 * No, I meant what I said and I said what I meant, 100 per cent. The way you were going, not just blocks were in your future. --maru  (talk)  contribs 17:50, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Re: PROD of Esoteric subjects mentioned in Foucault's Pendulum
Thank you for your continued support of the Esoteric Subjects. -User:ShadowyCaballero


 * Think nothing of it. It's a useful and interesting list for me. --maru  (talk)  contribs 03:43, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Repeated vandalism from 150.204.106.231
Check it out please. User:150.204.106.231 Oops :-/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.40.67.66 (talk • contribs)


 * He's already been blocked. --maru  (talk)  contribs 18:32, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Requested move of Serenity comic book page
As a favor, can you move Serenity: Those Left Behind. so that it removes the dot at the end? I've tried, but I get an error. Thanks. --The Wookieepedian 17:56, 9 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Done. --maru  (talk)  contribs 18:28, 9 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks again! --The Wookieepedian 21:01, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Why the Shohé Tanaka deletion?
It's utterly unjustifed, and was requested by a known trouble maker. Did you check with anyone before deleting? Was there a discussion of any kind? Gene Ward Smith 02:27, 10 May 2006 (UTC)


 * The requester was Arthur Rubin; looking through his user and talk page doesn't show anything to me that says troublemaker. As for why I deleted it- the guy was a physicist and musical theorist. Just being in those fields doesn't make someone notable. --maru  (talk)  contribs 02:41, 10 May 2006 (UTC)


 * The "troublemaker" I was referring to was the user who has gone by the name Dylan Lennon and then something else, and who now seems to be banned. I can't make out if Rubin ever requested it, or was responding to Dylan Lennon, who seems to be the one who marked it for speedy deletion. Anyway, he says something about withdrawing his request, but I don't know what request.


 * This is on the Dylan Lennon talk page:


 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DYLAN_LENNON


 * It seems to me that even if Jimbo Wales marks something for speedy deletion, correct proceedure should be followed, and it wasn't. Gene Ward Smith 04:05, 10 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, Jimbo can, and has, done as he has pleased. But I just re-checked the deleted article's history (apparently Fang Aili deleted it again; I don't know whether to be amused, vindicated, or chagrined), and it was definitely Arthur Rubin who put the speedy tag on it; my reading of Lennon's talk page (who began the article) supports the edit history. --maru   (talk)  contribs 04:15, 10 May 2006 (UTC)


 * With all due respect to Arthur Rubin, who knows a lot about mathematics, the article was about someone primarily known as a music theorist. And anyway, Rubin withdrew the request, which clearly should never have been made. Isn't there some kind of proceedure for contacting people who know something about a given topic before deleting? It seems at least the people who worked on the page should be informed. Gene Ward Smith 04:26, 10 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Sure there is... it's called AFD. And the article I deleted made no claim to notability, so speedy was appropriate. Incidentally, where did Rubin withdraw his request. I see a withdrawal for another article, but not for Tanaka. --maru  (talk)  contribs 04:36, 10 May 2006 (UTC)


 * What the heck is a "claim to notability"? The article was linked to from other articles, which should have provided a clue as to "notability". If the subject didn't have some kind of notability, why was it being linked to from two other articles? It seems to me what you are saying is that it is OK to remove an article when you don't have a clue about its contents, and haven't even bothered to check what links to it. I think this is a dubious proposition. However, it seems there wasn't much to the article, or so I've been told, but without the history, and the various versions, who can know? I've started a new article. I hope no one will delete that, but I'd like to know what was there previously. I plan on improving the article and don't want someone playing Wiki Police in the meantime. Save the speedy deletions for "obvious nonsense", which is what it is supposed to be for. Gene Ward Smith 07:20, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

The article did not meet the criteria for speedy deletion: Criteria for speedy deletion. I have restored it. Hyacinth 03:21, 10 May 2006 (UTC)