User talk:Marudubshinki/Archive 7

Ummon/Yunmen Wenyan
Yunmen Wenyan is Standard Chinese for Ummon Bun'en. This seems moreappropriate for a Chinese person. I think there is a vague andunstated tradition on Wikipedia that using Chinese names for Chinesepeople trumps most common usage, except in the case of people who arevery well-known (e.g., Confucius). At least, I can't think of anyChinese people who are listed under Japanese names here. --Nat Krause 09:11, 12 September 2005(UTC)


 * Alright then. --Maru(talk) 11:29, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Eric S. Raymond
I have first-hand knowledge of ESR's palsy as he is local to my area,and periodically present at local LUG meetings. But for a secondsource, check out this salon article:Raymond tells the writer directly about his palsy. --Magnus 14:36, 15 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Great! Now we have two online sources for the palsy, Salon and ESRhimself. That should shut that vandal up.--Maru (talk)18:29, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Lord Kaan
Sorry, I didn't add that reference, and, since I don't own the story,I can't provide any publishing details other than that it appeared inStar Wars Gamer #3. Jon Hart 17:12, 16 September2005 (UTC)

Sith
The special abilities and powers exclusive to the prestige classeswould fall under the heading of gameplay mechanics, but the classesthemselves exist in-universe. In fact, I believe there are more thanjust Assassin, Marauder, and Lord, but until I get a chance to checkThe Dark Side Sourcebook, I can't be sure. --JonHart 17:12, 16 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Well... If you say so. But I too shall check the DSS, through thepower of Inter-library Loan. Just in case you've misremembered.--Maru (talk)17:17, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Palpatine
Vandalism? Why is that vandalism, I ask? --The Wookieepedian 02:31, 18 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I was lumping you in with the previous trio or however many ofvandals there were, for re-putting in their additions. The edit isquestionable since I believe we've established that Plagueis isdefinitely established as Sidious' master in the novelization, whichcounts the same as the movie. Even if the edit is amended to specifythat the movie does not definitively establish Plagueis as Sidious'master (although strongly implied), I would argue this is of trulyminor importance or interest, as the canon-level of the novel andmovie are exactly equal.  Now, if the canon levels were unequal, thatwould be interesting, but they aren't. --Maru(talk) 03:13, 18 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I was certainly surprised to see I was "vandalizing" the page afteran edit that largely involved fixing grammatical mistakes. - AWF


 * And removing sections, entire sentences, multiple cites andexternal links... You'll notice I did manually merge in your goodchanges. --Maru (talk)Contribs 05:42, 25 November2005 (UTC)


 * I had removed sentences which were irrelevant or poory written,but left the general message in place. I don't recall "removingsections," though the article could certainly use it by now. As far asexternal links, all references were left intact. What I did do,however, was to remove an entire line of citations that you hadwritten in support of a lone sentence. An entire space across the pagefeaturing only numerical links to the references below which remaineduntouched. You'll keep in mind that my edit was apparently in goodchoice, considering it hasn't been yet reversed. - AWF


 * You mean that edit that added an animated gif, or whatever thatwas? It was only not reverted because it had been there a modestamount of time. And I can find no mention in WP:CITE ofremoving references as a good idea. --Maru (talk)Contribs

The Dai Bendu Knights on Force (Star Wars)
Did you mean to remove the item "The Dai Bendu Knights" in the list ofOrganized ForceTraditions? Because if you did, you might want to know that it'sstill there (you didn't actually remove it). –Mipadi 04:23, 20 September 2005 (UTC)


 * What? This shall not stand! --Maru(talk) 18:35, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Without Murdering SuperShadow...
What do you want to do to him or have someone do to him?--Shultz 02:14, 21 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I'd like him to shut up, get a life, and issue a blanket denunciationof his lies and evil works. Then leave the SW community the hellalone. But I'm dreaming... --Maru(talk) 02:16, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

CAD Hack
You mean the site wasn't hacked? It was all a ruse?--72.144.21.218 20:27, 21 September 2005 (UTC)


 * No, silly- it was just a joke. Got your goat, I see. :)--Maru (talk)20:28, 21 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Oh allright. I actually just checked the site again - earlier itsounded it more believable, but after they added in the part about"breaking throught the gates on the border", the "mounties open firingon them", and them "killing Scott", I realized the whole thing was ahoax! --65.9.109.15 21:10, 21 September 2005(UTC)


 * I figured you would. One day we'll look back on this and laugh; andby one day, I mean today. --Maru(talk) 21:18, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for keeping an eye on Bogdanov Affair.
Please continue to do so. --r b-j 02:27, 22 September2005 (UTC)


 * I will. I was asked as a favor by bishonen, and I think it behoovesme to intervene in another edit war anyway with my unique style.--Maru (talk)03:45, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

I will suggest you to be more careful not to be the source of a newchaos instead of defusing one....it will be most distressing towitness such one again.

You took some mesures who are unlikely to be the right ones in thatcase, and it will crave a certain degree of familiarity with thesubject and its history to can handle the task properly. Do not dismiss users with longer experience with the case as it wasbased on this experience that the talk page was brought out. Forinstance, I received mails from the person who wrote the biography ofthe affair both for the french and the english talk page, as thosedin't knew enough about the matter to start with. If I were you, I will feel suspicious of receiving approuval andencouragemets about what you are doing, from a person who first heardabout this affair for 3 weeks ago, second: heard about it from ybm-the drive force of this affair and person who resurected it fromashes in nov. 2003 - so not much reliable as an eye opener andarbitrary source of informations, and third: who has conducted, sincethen, a revert war in the best anti-3RR rules, and best ybm styles...

It isn't right for an admi to emit subjectiv and judgementalsaccusations toward users, as calling them socket puppet and otherinsulting terminology, as it is usually to be found in the mouth ofthe persons who in shortage of argumentation, choose to attack peoplepersonnaly in best sophistics style. So no surprise that the person who rever you is the same one who usedthat language constantly against other users before you stepped in,and who was also doing the reverting job as you are doing it now.

It is abusively unclear, what you are trying to do, and I do hope thata more adequate person will take over the surveillance of this talkpage. One with the right degree of integrity, the proper knowledge ofthe stuff, here physic, a thourough insight in the affair and itshistory, and a knowledge of the people involved and their charactersand profile in regard to the topic. I think here of Nicholas Turnbull, administrator, and expert inmediation.

I have, unfortunately, to aknowledge the fact that your latest actionshave resulted in creating a turmoil on the site, based both on youractions and your utterings, and that you have provocated 50% of theusers, who had already been harshly provocated by user r-b-j forseveral weeks and needed therefor the administrators help to put anend to it, not to overtake the place of the source of turmoils.

I do believe that you are acting your best with your actual knowledgeof the facts, but nonetheless you should be more carefull to don'tbruise som ego by commiting unfully justified and unjust actions inthe process, and as a consequence endanger the quality of the talkpage.

As those arguments for and against have been dancing in parallel forfar too long time, without everreaching a solid ground of agreement,and as references made by anti bogdanov are always pointed at someunclear statement made by scientifics a long time ago, where most didredraw it, and as all those people of science didn't knew a thingabout Theoretical Physic and/or Cosmologie, which this dispute isabout, and as the positiv statements, made by specialists in thefields named above, are systematically unaccepted for tricky reasons,as are the statements made on this page by pro-bogdanovian, who arecalled socket puppets for a yes or for a no, I suggest this affairto be settled once and for all by truly and undiscustably specialistsin that field, I named Holger Beck Nielsen professor of the CopenhagueNiels Bohr Institut of Theoretical Physic, and Stephen W. Hawking,from the Chair of Mathematic of Cambridge University.

I have already made the necessary steps in order to bring professorHolger Beck Nielsen attention to that matter, and would like to knowif anyone feel of doing the same in England. I tried already to suggest this approach above, but it seems that mysuggestion was drawned in the tumults of the fights and remainedignored. I will ask you to make a join effort to gather your attention on thisparticular possibility and think of how each of you can take part inits fullfillment, in the best interest of all parts involved.

- Lets work as a team -

--XAL 22:16, 24 September 2005 (UTC)


 * This appears to be a straight copy of a similar text you added to theBogdanov Talk page. I shall respond there.--Maru (talk)01:35, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Recent edit to User:Geogre
Thanks for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and hasbeen reverted. Please use the sandbox for anyother tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more aboutcontributing to our encyclopedia. Thanks.--81.139.125.50 05:20, 22 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Heh. Serves me right. --Maru(talk) 13:05, 22 September 2005 (UTC)