User talk:Marudubshinki/Archive 19

Virtualization

Maru - I will admit that I am new to Wikipedia, but I do disagree withyour reversions. Parallels produces virtualization software, justlike VMware or Xen, for example. If you think it necessary to removeParallels from a list of virtualization software, then Xen and VMWareshould be removed as well, as they are companies (or in the case ofXen, a non-profit), not software. VMware's products are VMWareWorkstation, GSX Server, ESX Server, etc. If you notice, those aren'tdirectly linked...rather, the company page is listed.

I'm just trying to understand the rationale of the removal, and wouldappreciate any advice that you could share on how I should betterpresent my ideas. Perhaps it would be better to create articles on theproducts and link to those?

Thanks, Ben

As I said, the difference is that with Xen, the company does not evenhave an article (and VMWare it is easier to link the company ratherthan a particular wrapper around their core software)- the article ison the actual software, whereas with Parallels, the case is opposite. If there is no description of just what their software is, how it isnot simply re-packaging Xen or VMWare, but rather is a wholehypervisor, along with details on what makes it better, or at leastequal, then it is simply advertising, no matter how well you intendedit. Write an article on the core technology, and that would bewell-worth linking (e. "... see also [[Parallels]]' [[Parallel(hypervisor)|Parallel hypervisor]].") In short, the rationaleis that linking as is is only advertising for a company, whereas a newarticle on the actual software could be informative.--Maru (talk)Contribs 20:39, 21 December2005 (UTC)

SS talk page has gone quiet...

Say, any idea why the Supershadow talk page went quiet? Did ithave anything to do w/ my request to answer SS-related questions onAnswerbag? Or was it a coincidence? Everytime I go to the SS talkpage to check for updates, I keep hearing chirping sounds in my head.--Shultz 16:16, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Naw. It's just a mature article, that's all. There is little more todiscuss. --Maru (talk)Contribs 19:30, 21 December2005 (UTC)

SCA blocked

You have mysteriously blocked me by blocking IPUser:207.200.116.132. This must be an error. Please unblock meASAP. --Sca 16:29, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

It most definitely is not. Have you taken a look at some of the [1] coming from that IP? Viz. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Podracing&diff=prev&oldid=32320489, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Podracing&diff=prev&oldid=32213175,and http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Podracing&diff=prev&oldid=32320333.--Maru (talk)Contribs 16:34, 22 December2005 (UTC)

Re: User:Meals-on-Wheels of White Plains

With all due respect, I disagree with your decision of not blockingthis user. As per Wikipedia:Vandalism in progress/Willy onWheels, any users with name similar name to "Willy on Wheels" are tobe blocked immediately. --Hurricane111 16:30,22 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, but it is Meals on wheels, not Willy on Wheels. Certainly therecould be someone from White Plains who really likes Meals on Wheels.Without any evidence, I'd rather not block.--Maru (talk)Contribs 16:35, 22 December2005 (UTC)

User:ToadX

I noticed your block of that anon user and Ogstrokes. I took a lookat what was happening and it's a purely content dispute between ToadX,Og and his sockpuppet (possibly but no proof). I went on that page inan attempt to get them to stop reverting (informed them of the 3RR)and that none of the edits are vandalism (so stop calling it that) andto start talkng to each other (the talk page was blank). I'm afraidToad has abused the vandalism in progress page and just reverted tohis version after your block. I would suggest that you either unblockeveryone here and explain on the St. John's talk page or block Toadtoo (they all technically deserve a block for violating the 3RR sothat might be a good idea). Just thought you should know. I hateseeing admins being tricked. --Gator (talk) 16:42, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

I blocked the anon, not Ogstrokes, but I will go take a second lookat this dispute. --Maru (talk)Contribs 16:57, 22 December2005 (UTC)

Thanks. I think the anon shpould stay blocked at this point as itlooks like he's come back under an AOL IP. I've reported Toad at theadmin ntice board for the 3RR violation, but feel free to act on itand remove it if you want. Everyone is misbehaving here and needs agood block via 3RR in my opinion. Leaving some unblocked though iscausing problems. Thanks again, let me know what youthink.Gator (talk) 16:59, 22December 2005 (UTC)

Going through St. John's university's hisyory right now. ToadX isdefinitely going to be blocked for 3rr shortly.--Maru (talk)Contribs 17:00, 22 December2005 (UTC)

Please read the talk page on St. John's University. I feel thatall of my posts and reverts were made appropriately --- ToadX

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AToadX&diff=32376131&oldid=32365545.--Maru (talk)Contribs 17:06, 22 December2005 (UTC)

Well done. Couldn;t ahve done it better myself. Thanks for thehelp.Gator (talk) 17:08, 22December 2005 (UTC)

ToadX

Apparently you have blocked me (username ToadX). Like I was going towrite on the talk page:

"Ogstrokes and 24.239.149.9 are the same person (sock puppeting). After he reverted the 4th time, and I had not yet reverted more than 3times, I reported him on the vandalism page. He was blocked by anadministrator for vandalism, which I think should give me the right torevert back to the original article since an administrator obviouslyfound the material questionable. The material this person is addingto the article is ridiculous and should not be considered a contentdispute. The material added does not even belong in the paragraphsthey were put in e.g. "Prospective athletes should be made aware ofthe on campus shooting of football player who was consequently leftparalyzed." was put in "Campus Renovations." Not only that, all ofthese negative comments are purposely put in bold with a link afterthem. This user is obviously attacking this school based on hiscomments and is not trying to enhance the article. What if I went tothe George Bush article and put something like "Prospective residentsof the United States should be made aware of this president's actionswhich have caused many people to die in Iraq." in a random place inthe article, in bold, and stuck some link under it. That would not beconsidered vandalism, and should be discussed as a content dispute? Ithink this is obviously vandalism. This is ridiculous. Someoneplease revert this to the original article. Please post comments."

Please unblock me so I can continue this discussion. Please post anycomments you have.

I blocked you because this is a content dispute, and you did break3RR. The bolding and random placement are more or less irrevelevant asthey can be easily fixed. Should his edits be kept as they are? No-but that does not necessarily mean that the data they embody. I don'tparticularly want to take a position on this, but I do want to see itdiscussed and consensus of some sort reached.--Maru (talk)Contribs 18:02, 22 December2005 (UTC)

User:True Redman

An obvious sock puppet, you might want to give him an indefiniteblock. This entire episode is getting ridiculous and Toad doesn;tseem to want to take any responsibility for his actions. They allneed a lesson in what actually constitutes "vandalsim" here.--Gator (talk) 17:28, 22 December2005 (UTC)

It;s obviosuly Og, I woud conasider jsut blocking both of themindefinately. Sock puppetry is not looked upon favourably here. Toadmay not be the worse of the two, but he still deserves his time out.--Gator (talk) 17:31, 22 December2005 (UTC)

Toad is using that Ip to get around your block too, so I would blockthat IP too and maybe extend this block. Man, somepeople.Gator (talk) 17:36, 22December 2005 (UTC)

Sigh. I've blocked True Redman since it was editing the article,but since Toad's IP does not seem to be doing anything except on Talkpages... well, it would be hypocritical to block someone for trying todiscuss this dispute when that is exactly what I've been urging.--Maru (talk)Contribs 18:05, 22 December2005 (UTC)

---

I would like to discuss this issue, and I believe all of my posts sofar have been appropriate. How am I supposed to discuss it if I amblocked? -- ToadX

First, you be good and stop using an IP address to get around theblock (that's sockpuppetry and can get this IP blocked) and you takesome time off for the next 24 hours and think about what you wouldlike to say and then come back. I beleive you can still edit your ownToad talk page though.Gator (talk) 17:44, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

He has to take some time off, as I've protected the page. Needlessto say, Wikipedia has some good advice on this issue:COOL. :)--Maru (talk)Contribs 18:05, 22 December2005 (UTC)

St. John's University

The article has been reverted again, by another user who is obviouslya new user, and is probably the same as the other IP and usernamewhich he is sockpuppeting with. Can you please revert the articleagain, and read the talk page for this article . Thank you. --ToadX

Done. --Maru (talk)Contribs 18:16, 22 December2005 (UTC)

Stop deleting link

The link I am adding is to topic of Totse and is being posted inexternal links, which i believe is the correct area for the link to beput. Since totse is down, this website has become availale fortotseans to post on. Please stop deleting it. Thanks. TAAS

P.S. If I wanted to spam you, I could think of many more creativeplaces to put it. Do not test me.

Totse is not down. Replacement sites are not worth including, unlessthe original site is a new model of website and the replacement siteis using the same software (ex. the reason Bash.org includes alist of imitating sites in the External links is because Bashpioneered the quote submissions and rating model)- which is not thecase for Totse. It is just some forums and a really frickin' largedatabase.

"P.S. If I wanted to spam you, I could think of many more creativeplaces to put it. Do not test me."

Are you threatening me? --Maru (talk)Contribs 02:22, 23 December2005 (UTC)

I am not threatening you. I never made a reference to you, all Isaid is that I could think of more creative places to put the link.Totse.com is down. If you even bothered to visit the site you wouldrealize that. The replacement site does not use the same software asthe original totse.com because we don't know what software it used.Plus totse's server friend and died, I'm pretty sure I don't want touse the same one. Now again, stop deleting the link. Thanks, TAAS.

You are spamming Wikipedia to promote your website, plain andsimple. That's not what Wikipedia is for. Go advertise on "morecreative places". --Maru (talk)Contribs 02:53, 23 December2005 (UTC)

I am not spamming on wikipedia. I am adding information that maybe useful for people who want to know more about tose.com, such as thepossibility that there is a replacement site out there for their useuntil the original totse.com is up.

And by the way, it isn't my site, I just thought it would be agood idea to help people out by posting it on there, That is the oneplace I know totseans will go to check for any current updates. Allyou are doing is abusing your power for useless reasons. Please stopit.

It may not be your site, but judging by the fact that a fellow ofa similar name is a moderator on just about all the sections, you area hardly uninterested party.

If this "replacement site" were truly a replacement site- if ithad all the text files, since that is why Totse merits a Wikipeidaarticle at all- then I would reconsider. But it is just another forumsite, a nickel a dozen online. There is no reason to link it.--Maru (talk)Contribs 03:02, 23 December2005 (UTC)

Totse died, a temporary site was put up to harbour it's addicts untilrepairs were made. How does that constitute spam? It is a part ofhistory, as totse sees it, and deserves a place in Wikipedia.

There is a reason to link to it if it has a beneficial outcome. And itis hardly logical for us to have all the text files totse had,espically since totse itself doesn't have them. this site is fortotseans, it is not like all other forum sites, its a replacementtotse site. How many other sites are the exact same as that?

Isn't there a rule against reverting somethign more than 3 times? Youhave reverted the totse page 6 times, what does the rules of Wikipediasay about this?

They say it shouldn't be done.... except in the case of vandalism,which subsumes spamming. --Maru (talk)Contribs 03:39, 23 December2005 (UTC)

But this is neither vandalism or spamming.

Yes, it is spamming. --Maru (talk)Contribs 03:45, 23 December2005 (UTC)

No, this is a content dispute, plain and simple. Why do youinsist that this is spam? I still have not gotten a response to mymessage "Totse died, a temp..."

I haven't replied because you aren't listening and consensusappears to be with me. Plus, I've been busy with page moves andwritinga poetry article (oh yeah, and Christmas :), so I haven't hadas much time as I would like to deal with this.--Maru (talk)Contribs 19:00, 24 December2005 (UTC)

Cool it Snake, I'll explain it you- let's say you love the NFL,you love it so much you created a forum about it, your site is anexample of a fan site; let's say Wikipedia has an article on the NFL.One day NFL.COM goes down, you post your site saying REPLACEMENT FORNFL.COM, when it clearly is a fan site, not a replacement. Do youthink your link should stay up? Of course not. END.--XxNeXuSxX 06:03, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

This user and his sock at 142.177.*.* have been spamming their link onTotse all day. It's currently semi-protected, but I do think thatThese_Arms_Are_Snakes (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) deserves a {{test4}} or anoutright ban by now. If nothing else, it will keep them from having anon-anonymous account that can get around the semi-protection. — Saxifrage | ☎ 05:02, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

I've put a test4 on'im. I didn't want to suggest it myself sincethere is the outside chance that this might have simply turned into apersonal vendetta on my part. --Maru (talk)Contribs 05:28, 30 December2005 (UTC)

Your self-restraint is admirable! Let's hope that he gets themessage and no more is necessary. — Saxifrage | ☎ 01:59, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

No such luck. 142.177.*.* has the link again. — Saxifrage | ☎ 00:25, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Sigh. Guess we will have to start blocking IP addresses on the1st offense then. --maru (talk)Contribs 00:32, 4 January 2006(UTC)

In effect that would be no different than a banning a block of IPaddresses, though, wouldn't it? The point of avoiding banning a blockof IPs is to avoid blocking innocent users, but individually blockedIPs can as easily be assigned to innocent users as to the vandals weintend to block. — Saxifrage | ☎ 01:12, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, it would be like blocking a range of IP addresses if thespammers came in through every last IP address in the range. Andsometimes there are collateral casualties. Blocking a single addressdoesn't harm too many people though, and it often blocks the vandal aswell. --maru (talk)Contribs 01:20, 4 January 2006(UTC)

Unix architecture

Hey, uh, you did the move within a couple of hours of the idea firstbeing put forwards, and without any mention being made on thediscussion page for Unix architecture itself, only from thediscussion in Unix.

I don't think the move/rename is a huge bad thing, but you're supposedto wait longer than that, and put a notice of impending move in thearticle's own discussion page too... shooting from the hip can causereal problems.

I'm not suggesting you move it back or anything but... more cautionand deliberation?

Happy holidays, in any case. --Georgewilliamherbert 02:37, 23December 2005 (UTC)

I didn't feel I needed to wait because it is a Wikipedia-wideconvention that, when it is not used to refer to a particular earlyhistorical period when Unix was named "UNIX", the preferred spellingis the lowercase version viz. "Unix". --Maru (talk)Contribs 02:41, 23 December2005 (UTC)

Well, it was requested that way (requested article pending formonths), was created that way, and up until this recent discussion inUnix had been left alone that way. And despite actively readingand participating in both of the relevant discussion pages, I had nowarning it was about to happen, and you moved it right out from underan edit I was starting to make. Even if it's a rename for a goodcause, I get grumpy when people do that to me... Anyways, points madein both directions, and no lasting harm done. --Georgewilliamherbert 02:46, 23December 2005 (UTC)

As long as you didn't lose your edit. :)--Maru (talk)Contribs 02:48, 23 December2005 (UTC)

Why do you think I bothered to post here? Wasn't a big deal,though. --Georgewilliamherbert 02:59,23 December 2005 (UTC)