User talk:Ta bu shi da yu/Archive10

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search


Considering the only translation I can make is "he is not a large fish", I doubt that those tones are the same. So, uh, what does it really mean? Teria (aka 54098) 02:03, Dec 16, 2004 (UTC)

"He/she is not a large fish" was my first guess too, but here are some alternatives to mix 'n match:

"da" | "yu"
da1 big-eared | yu1 detour yu1 silt
da1 to ride | yu2 to lift 輿 yu2 sedan chair
da2 repeated; MW: pile | yu2 to pull; moment yu2 belly
da2 MW: dozen | yu2 to flatter yu2 anxiety
da2 to attain; to express | yu2 excess yu2 foolish
da2 a bean plant | yu2 corner/nook yu2 to make a canoe
da3 to hit; to fight; to make/do | yu2 flawless gem yu2 to scoop out
da4 big; great | yu2 fish yu3 language
| yu3 crooked teeth yu3 to give
| yu3 mountain yu3 roof; eaves
| yu3 feather yu3 rain
| yu4 lush yu4 to drive
| yu4 pen yu4 reputation
| yu4 region yu4 to nurture; reproduce; cultivate
| yu4 desire, want yu4 passion, lust
| yu4 abundance yu4 bath; to bathe
| yu4 monkey yu4 sojourn
| yu4 lawsuit; jail yu4 imperial
| yu4 to defend, protect yu4 in advance; to prepare
| yu4 to hesitate yu4 jade
| yu4 to improve yu4 cure
| yu4 to explain; understand; compare yu4 to notify; edict

"He is not a big-eared monkey"? "She is not a pile of jade"? A few of the "yu"s are surnames, too. Draw your own conclusions.

(Thank you, 中文.com...)

--Alxndr 19:38, Dec 24, 2004 (UTC)

3RR Violation by Irishpunktom[edit]

Hello, this is over at Yasser Arafat

Irishpunktom reverted 4x in 23 minutes as follows:

Reverted Jayjg 23:44 Dec 22 [1] to his previous version [2]

Reverted Mperel 23:35 Dec 22 [3] to his previous version [4]

Reverted Jayjg 23:27 Dec 22 [5] to his previous version [6]

Reverted Jayjg 23:21, Dec 22 [7] to his previous version [8]

Actually reverted a fifth time under his ip 12:23 Dec 22 [9] to his previous version [10]

--MPerel 00:28, Dec 23, 2004 (UTC)

How many times, and to how many people are you going to post this? Why not just talk to me? --Is Mise le Méas, Irishpunktom 01:12, Dec 23, 2004 (UTC)

Hello, I just want to double-check, but you mentioned on Irishpunktom's talk page that he has not violated the rule. On the face of it, it seems like he has. Can you explain? Cool Hand Luke 04:24, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

In the last two edits he added a paragraph, while reverting the rest of the information. If you look at this diff [11], you will see the information he kept inserting (e.g. about seeing Zionists agitating for the Temple Mount) and removing (e.g. quote from E.U. stating "The reform of the financial management of the PA is the objective of several key conditions attached to the EU financial assistance.") He inserted and/or deleted this information 4 times (5 if you count his IP edit). As has been made clear many times, reverts with added information are still reverts. Jayjg 04:41, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Yeah, that seems to be a complex revert, and I believe it counts. However, I'm going to assume good faith: he was possibly unaware of the rule. I wish another user had told him about the rule by the time he was on his third revert. I'm going to stick with blankfaze's warning, but if this ever happens again, I'll certainly block him. Cool Hand Luke 04:48, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)


OK I added a table to pet skunk. Any ideas for making it look better? Nathanlarson32767 | (Talk) 03:40, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)


Thanks mate :) My btrieve article is slowly but surely getting there... Ta bu shi da yu 04:24, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Sure, any time. Should you feel adventurous though, I think that even without sophisticated image editing tools you could probably achieve something similar by saving to BMP and then converting that BMP back to PNG, as BMP doesn't support transparancy. &0xfeff; --fvw* 04:27, 2004 Dec 23 (UTC)

Re Bodybuilding—you mean weight training, don't you?[edit]

Thank you for your kind review of my work. Will certainly aim to convert some of bullet points to encyclopaedia-style paragraphs. And I definitely need to clarify further the difference between weight training and bodybuilding! Thanks. GeorgeStepanek\talk 03:23, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Pauline epistles[edit]

Hi Ta bu shi da yu, I hope you won't abandon Authorship of the Pauline epistles and related articles. At the same time, I also hope that you can stay focused on specific problems with the articles or avenues for improving them, rather than getting side tracked with discussing particular editors instead of the articles. Maintaining these articles is admittedly hard work. Wesley 06:44, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I understand. Enjoy your break. Merry Christmas! Wesley 06:52, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Updating diff[edit]

I discovered that a diff I had used further up the page wasn't working properly. I think what happened was that at the time I gave the diff, that was the last edit to my talk page, so that entry didn't have a stable oldid. Now it does. I've updated the diff so it points to where it should. 'Just wanted to let you know. Merry Christmas! SWAdair | Talk 03:52, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Jihad article[edit]

User:BrandonYusufToropov seems interested in writing Jihad article. You should ask him. He seems good editor. Pename seems to have given up editing Jihad article. He is apparently just trolling the talk page now. That doesn't bother me anyway. I am not sure if I want to go to arbitration since I used personal attacks too :). I think Mustafa, you or someone else should take it to arbitration OneGuy 12:11, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

tbsdy, I don't want to meddle, but browsing the Jihad discussion, I cannot help thinking that you would do better not waving around your admin powers in discussions you are involved in yourself, and in no case (even obvious ones) block people you are disputing with yourself: If the case is obvious, another admin will block them just as quickly. Please don't take offense at this comment. I don't want to lecture you. I just mean to comment in a friendly spirit, and you may of course disagree with me. regards, dab () 16:01, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
sure, and no blame to you. I dipped my toe into some of the Israeli-Pal disputes recently, and I realize it's messy. I suppose I just wanted to get a feel of your take on the blocking business. Keep up the good work! dab () 09:32, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)


Uh, it's five times if you count the tag that someone else added a long time ago. Tony, did you mean it when you said you wouldn't have done this if you'd known it was on 4 times already? - Ta bu shi da yu 03:26, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Absolutely. I just opened the can of worms again. I was in two minds about relisting it so soon after the last vote, but it looked like such obvious trivia and vanity that I thought I'd give it a go. Had I realised it had been through more than one VfD and survived, I would have left it alone. It's doing no harm. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 03:34, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Blocks are not expiring[edit]

I'm posting this message on every admin who has made a block in the last few days. The title says it all really: because of a bug in the new software blocks are not expiring when their time is up. Until this is fixed can you get in the habit of manually unblocking a few everytime you block one. If everyone does this we'll be able to keep on top of things until the bug is sorted out. Note also that another bug is displaying indefinite blocks as expiring at the current time and date. obviously you don't want to unblock those. If you want to reply please do so here Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 09:43, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

My replies[edit]

Hi. Some replies to your comments are on my talkpage and on Talk:Gay Nigger Association of America. Best regards, Kosebamse 17:44, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

What I really can't understand is why you keep reinserting irrelevant trivialities such as "this guy wrote an article" into the GNAA article. That's inclusionism in a nutshell: bloat articles with just any stuff that can be seen as factual and neutral, without much judging its encyclopedic value. I just don't get it. Why does a sensible person like you do that? Ah, forget it. I have read your reply and understand your point, although I disagree that the troll script should be linked. And after all, I won't give the troll sthe satisfaction of getting overly annoyed about them. best regards, Kosebamse aka Wikipedia's chief deletion ideologist.

Winter Soldier Investigation[edit]

For details of the plagarism go here please [12]. TDC 15:58, Dec 28, 2004 (UTC)

I've checked the alleged plagiarism cited by anonymous user TDC, and find none. Where he claims "word for word" copies, I instead find similarity at best -- or in some cases quotations and citations, which are supposed to be identical by their very nature. I also see a vague reference to plagiarism from The New Soldier which is, in itself, a book comprised of 90% public domain material from the Congressional Record. Reprinting public domain material is not plagiarism. Nor is reprinting text specifically posted on the internet for the purpose of free dissemination.
The point is moot, however, since the sweeping edits to the articles caused by TDCs reverts to ancient versions have little to do with alleged plagiarism. He has tossed up a couple suspect sentences as a red herring excuse to cover his real intent to delete wholesale several pages of content, spelling and grammar corrections, formatting, etc., from several other editors. The very same antics he was using on these articles months ago: see here -Rob

What a crock of shit, if you will pardon my language. These are not similarities but word for word cut/paste jobs from internet sources. You may also not be aware that entire articles have been blanked for issues such as this (see Tom Hayden).

In one case the plagarized material is quite explicit in its copywite protection status [13].

There was also a special panel of psychiatrists, several of whom had served in Vietnam, discussing the impact of the war on American society. The first public testimony about the potential toxicity of Agent Orange was given by Dr. Bert Pfeiffer of the University of Montana. Midway through the hearings, the organizers insisted that no one make statements on behalf of the Vietnam veterans except for vets. It was presumed by reporters that this was to separate the participation of veterans from that of people like Mark Lane.

None of the above paragraph is covered under the copyright of the site you mentioned, although part of it is a direct quote from Nicosia's book, and therefore covered under his copyright. He is properly quoted elsewhere in the Winter Soldier Investigation article as well. It appears that the quote attribution has been edited out in your example, but that is easily repaired. As for the "Midway through the hearings, the organizers insisted that no one make statements on behalf of the Vietnam veterans except for vets. It was presumed by reporters that this was to separate the participation of veterans from that of people like Mark Lane." sentences, your claim of plagiarism appears to be mistaken. I do not see it at the site you list. -Rob
Did you have a second example to present?

The formatting and spelling corrections may stay, but all the content you have provided goes bye bye. I would also loke to point out that 172 has blocked this users IP adress (on of his many) for these infractions. TDC 19:05, Dec 28, 2004 (UTC)

I have merely made reverts. None of the afore-mentioned content is mine. As for the user blocked by 172, you'll also note that 172 apologized, removed the block, and admitted that he wasn't critical enough of TDC in that instance. See 172's Talk page.

I would also like to point out that this anon user is also inserting plagarized material into the Al Hubbard (VVAW) article as well.

If you refer to me, I have inserted nothing. I merely reverted your changes until they were explained. -Rob

From the opening paragraph in the article: Alfred H. Hubbard entered the Air Force in October 1952, re-enlisted twice and was honorably discharged in October 1966, when his enlistment expired. At the time of his discharge he was an instructor flight engineer on C-123 aircraft with the 7th Air Transport Squadron, McCord Air Force Base, Tacoma, Washington.

Now from a National Review article [14] Alfred H. Hubbard entered the Air Force in October 1952, re-enlisted twice and was honorably discharged in October 1966, when his enlistment expired. At the time of his discharge he was an instructor flight engineer on C-123 aircraft with the 7th Air Transport Squadron, McCord Air Force Base, Tacoma, Washington.

The above paragraph is not from the National Review. It is an exerpt of a press release given by the Defense Department almost 35 years ago, and is in the public domain -- as are most press releases. It is also part of Hubbards military record, which is also public domain. Perhaps you should brush up on your knowledge of plagiarism. A good starting point would be learning to spell it.
Did you have any other examples you'd like to present?

I think that all articles this user has been involved in should be protected until he gets the idea and leaves Wiki permanently. TDC 19:12, Dec 28, 2004 (UTC)

I'm sure you do. -Rob
(Edit: Apologies to Ta_bu_shi_da_yu for cluttering up your Talk page with discussion that is more suited for the article Discussion page.)

Auto movil[edit]

Aloha. I was hoping that I wouldn't have to bother you, but you seem to be online and David Gerard is not. I notice the both of you have been blocking users for personal attacks. Would you mind taking a look at my block request for Auto movil? This user has been warned by both Jewbacca and myself. Jewbacca has opened an RFC as well. Let me know if there's anything you can do, or if you have any advice. --Viriditas | Talk 07:59, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Blocking Grunt%AD[edit]

User:Dysprosia apparently blocked him, see User_talk:Jimbo Wales

-- Curps 08:57, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I added a suggestion to help solve this problem on Jimbo's talk page. — DV 09:22, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I'm only a developer in my day job, not here on Wikipedia. I'll leave a suggestion with some of the developers to see if they endorse it. If not, I'll start a software poll to try and establish a consensus around the idea. — DV 09:37, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
There's a new one: %ADGrunt%AD ... as an admin, is there any way you can find out what IP he's using and block by IP? -- Curps 09:51, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
In the specific case of this user, I think he's using IP -- Curps 09:55, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Can you simply reset the password of each such fake user? Does an admin have authority to do that? -- Curps 10:06, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Does User:JeLuF 's method work? He mentioned it on my talk page, I asked him to post it to the Jimbo Wales talk page. Or is this just the same as Dysprosia's unsuccessful method? -- Curps 10:11, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Thank you[edit]

Thanks for your support on my RFA request. It seems that had I waited one day with self-nominating, it would have succeeded. Jordi· 09:05, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Much Ado 'Bout Scripting[edit]

Argh, why are people so damned fond of slippery slope arguments around here? "Hey, if you want to remove X, you're pro-censorship, and next thing you know we'll have to remove Y and can I now put Z up for deletion?" :-) NO. I generally argue as narrowly as possible. Or at least I try. Consistency can please come afterwards. :-)

Re Wikisource: of course it's a bad idea to have that on Wikisource. But let Wikisource figure that out and/or develop policy. Why can Wikipedia link to it but Wikisource not host it? Are you trying to censor them? :-)

Let's first and foremost get rid of the great big bugaboo of offensiveness/censorship. I'd like to point out that it's one thing not to put in a picture because it might be offensive to somebody (bad), and quite another to not directly link to a script because its only purpose is disruption of websites. Really. I can't use a picture of a vulva to harm somebody in any way. Offend, yes. Offend them to the point of senseless anger, maybe. "Harm" our relationship, sure. But I can't bring down their websites with it. So NO — "offending" people is not my concern. And I'm even willing to listen to the argument of "well, sure, you could use this script to harm somebody with it, but nobody's forcing you, and reading it might even be useful to you". OK. I can go along with that. I don't like it, but I wouldn't consider my personal distaste for it binding policy, or anything.

OK, so why shouldn't it be on Wikipedia? Well, first and foremost, and I know this is a silly argument coming from an inclusionist, but lately the deletionists have tried to get me over to the Dark Side: it's not notable. In fact, it's so not notable that linking to it comes dangerously close to advertising, promotion, what have you. The "notable activities" section escapes this branding only because it can source the statements. But what's the excuse for the script? "Well look, people, this is the script they so often used to upload shock images"? What on earth is notable about that? What does it matter how they did it? If they'd done it by having a hundred people doing keyboard acrobatics, would that be a notable fact to mention, perhaps with a link to the procedure?

Second, can you fend off accusations of just being a GNAA platform by saying "hey, it's valid info"? Sure it is. Let me try the analogy game for once: a link to a site with schematics to the devices the Unabomber used in his most notable attacks would be valid info too. But if people argue that mere factual accuracy might not be enough to warrant its inclusion, I think they might have a point. Arguing against links to material whose primary purpose is to break the law is a far cry from promoting censorship based on offensiveness. Wikipedia is not Anarchopedia.

And before you say "who's law": everyone's law. I'm pretty sure disrupting web services is illegal everywhere where there actually are laws on cyber crime. And don't bring up Childlove movement either: even if pedophilia would be universally illegal, you cannot argue that the primary purpose of the organizations' websites is to break the law, unlike the script. The distinction is not as subtle as it sounds.

We have a link to the GNAA homepage. If the GNAA wants people to have the script, I say let them link to it. We are under no obligation to do it, and it doesn't improve the article just because "the information is there". (Yes, I do believe an article can become better by leaving some things out.)

PS. Yes, I can be incredibly verbose. This is usually because I need to convince myself, too. I typically sound a lot more authoritative than I am. Sorry if you're one of those people who doesn't like reading half a page just to discuss a single sentence.
PPS. That animated kitten on your user page is evil. Watch it closely. :-) JRM 23:21, 2004 Dec 29 (UTC)

image copyright[edit]

Question: You uploaded File:Gnaa.png and tagged it as Public Domain. This image is the one featured on the so-called "GNAA corporate homepage." If you did not make this image yourself, then what leads you to believe that this image is public domain? By default it is copyrighted and while it may be fair use, it would not be PD. NTK 03:09, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Sorry, you need to do better than that. Do you have documentation? Furthermore the "GNAA" is not an incorporated group so you likely you need documentation from the person who made this logo. NTK 06:15, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
That would be better, though I do not know why you bother. NTK 06:22, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
1. "GNAA" is neither Hitler nor the Holocaust. They're a few petty trolls that in all probability will in all probability soon be forgotten. Perhaps the VfD effort is doomed at this point but that doesn't exactly legitimize their place in history given the kinds of things that have wikipedia articles. 2. No I would not want to censor any article. But taking your bait, neither would I try to negotiate with the Third Reich to get them to relicense their intellectual property. 3. Chill. NTK 19:18, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)


Hello TBSDY, Just to let you know, User:Chocolateboy reverted one of my edits on Gay Nigger Association of America as "SPAM" when I don't think that it is. See [15] and [16]. I see on ChocBoy's userpage that you have the same problem with him calling you a spammer. So that is why I wanted to let you know - just for the record. Squash 22:57, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Stop moving the damn page![edit]

Huh? I was a bit confused by this (from WP:AN):

I was referring to this page being moved to Wikipedia:Administrator's noticeboard. .. kept getting moved on us

because according to the history of that page, it was last edited on "12:21, 25 Dec 2004", and has more than one edit (meaning that a non-admin shouldn't be able to move the actual article on top of that redirect). Were they moving Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard to some other title? Noel (talk) 12:58, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Sorry, still don't get it. Wikipedia:Administrator's noticeboard looks like it's been there for weeks. Where was Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard getting moved to? Did you mean it was getting moved to Wikipedia:Administator's noticeboard (no, can't be that, the history on that looks like it's been there a while too), or Wikipedia:Administrators' notice board either (again, looks like it's been there a while). Sorry I'm being anal about this, I'm just puzzled... Noel (talk) 19:11, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)


If that was my real email address, I'd be worried. Thankfully, I thought that might happen, so I put in one that doesn't exist. :) Ambi 00:09, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Happy New Year[edit]

Happy New Year, Ta bu. Have a good one. Slim 01:10, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)

Well, then, you're a bit slow my friend, because I already am. (Bailey's, yum). Slim 01:14, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)

RfA: Poccil[edit]

Hello, TBSDY. I've seen you around a lot, but don't think I've ever interacted with you. Good to make your acquaintance. <insert segue here> On to business, do you plan to follow through with your vote on said RfA page? The bullet at the top of an ordered list is upsetting the feng shui of the page. (Ok, honestly, it's upsetting my inner desire for order and resolution.) --—Ben Brockert (42) UE News 03:49, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)

more Sealand cleanup[edit]

If you get a chance, take a look at HavenCo - another MPLX problem article I've made an initial attempt at removing bias from. Still needs lots of work. Now my curiosity's been aroused I'm finding articles promoting his bias all over the place. --Centauri 08:58, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Hello again. I've now merged all the useful content from HavenCo into Sealand, so if you want to redirect the HavenCo article feel free to do so. Haven't figured out the whole redirect thing myself yet.--Centauri 01:23, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Temporal link[edit]


Knowing your fondness for Exploding whale you probably already know this, but I've just been editing and updating some links to 1970 Bhola cyclone - the worst recorded natural disaster - and noticed on the 1970 page that there is a temporal connection between the two. In fact, if I have got my time zones right, the 1970 cyclone and tidal wave must have been hitting the coast of present day Bangladesh at pretty much the same moment that the Oregon whale was being detonated.

Especially with current events, it kind of puts a damper on the Exploding whale article. -- Solipsist 19:19, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Krag-Petersson (and also Jarmann M1884 if you have time on your hands)[edit]

God dag ;) I'm happy you're willing to help out on an article on a subject you don't know much about - but then, as a layman you probaly can spot troubles I cannot see.

Now.. why do I find the Krag-Petersson so interesting... well: - It was a gun designed by Norwegians, built in Norway, for the norwegian armed forces. - The firearm action is unique, allthought it could in part be based on a Peabody action (not even a stub on this subject on Wikipedia yet, but that might have changed by the time you read this ;) ). - It was one of the first repeating (ie; capable of fireing more than one shot at a time) rifles adopted anywhere in the world. - It is virtually impossible to find a specemin in the original form today, or to even find good information on it. - It was the first rifle designed by O H J Krag, who later designed the Krag-Jørgensen, that was adopted by any armed force.

As for the Jarmann M1884... much of the same apply: - It was a gun designed by Norwegians, built in Norway, for the norwegian armed forces. - The firearm action is again unique, the nonrotating bolt (breechblock) locked by a rotating bolt is a design feature not employed (AFAIK) neither before nor after. - It was the first repeating rifle adopted by the Royal Norwegian Army, and one of the first adopted world wide. - Again, finding one in it's original form is next to impossible, and finding good info is also hard.

Again, thanks for helping out. WegianWarrior 21:34, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I like it. It's not much one can say in the lead of such a short article, I feel, without ending up with a feeling of déjà vu =) WegianWarrior 18:34, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I agree, it's much more complete. I don't think I'll put it on WP:FAC quite yet thought - I want to put at least stubs on the red links and get hold of a recent colour photo of the rifle in question... means I have to find time to travel to the Armed Forces Museum soon =)
Again, thanks. I'll be sure to let you know when I put this up for WP:FAC. WegianWarrior 04:28, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

exploding whale[edit]

Surely half a ton is 500kilogrammes?--Wonderfool 00:38, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

For the record, tbsdy replied on my talk page saying "I'm an idiot". So thats proof enough for me that, in fact, he is an idiot--Wonderfool 03:32, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC) ;)
Hehe :-) Ta bu shi da yu 03:42, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

On reliability[edit]

Liked your comment on Kuro5hin. You hit the nail right on the head. All the talk about lack of reliability is bogus. It's just the Sangerites wanting greater acknowledgement of their work here (something that I'm sure some of us would feel is out of place -- isn't this a communal effort where we dissolve the ego into the greater wikigo?). But anyone who cited an encyclopaedia in a paper would get their arse kicked for not reading the primary sources! I'm not a fan of the "academic standards" school of thought here. It seems to me that a big, broad encyclopaedia is much more useful. We already have Encarta. Hey, anyway, wanted to say I appreciated your comment and wish you a happy new year!Dr Zen 11:32, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Would like to add a note to the Yopu VFD discussion[edit]

You'll recall that (former) User:Tteexx, defending the Yopu article, cited a paper by "Lewinski and Manes." Despite the fact that the URL he supplied was broken, he insisted that it was a real article that had appeared in the "Fall 2004" issue of an online journal. I emailed the listed address for the editor of that journal and he has responded, confirming that the journal has yet to publish its first issue and that no such article as that described by User:TTeexx has been submitted, much less appeared.

I think this is very germane to the discussion and would like to add a suitable note to the discussion page, even though discussion has been closed and the page says it should not be edited. May I have your permission to do so? Dpbsmith (talk) 17:07, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

(Sorry for butting in here, but I tend to keep an eye out for interesting discussions. Thanks for trying to verify the claim by the way!) I don't think the VfD discussion is the correct place (nor do I think permission for adding it there is Ta bu shi da yu's to give). How about the VfD's talk page? Those aren't "closed" as such I think. If your goal is just to inform those participating in the discussion (as opposed to putting it on record for any further discussions) you could also put it on the main VfD talk page. --fvw* 17:46, 2005 Jan 3 (UTC)
What I want it to do is put it someplace where it's on record and easily found by anyone who runs across the VfD discussion. I actually don't see why it would terrible to add it, carefully labelled as an addendum and as being added after close of the conversation. A justification for doing this would be that I said I would add the response if I got one, and had the VfD discussion run for the full five days I would have been able to do so. A minor violation of the exact letter of process, but then so was deleting the article before the five days were up. I'm not criticizing that action, by the way. I'd really prefer to put it on the VfD discussion page, rather than put it on the Talk page for the VfD discussion, because I don't know how many people will notice that the "discussion" tab for the page isn't red, but Talk-page-for-the-VFD would do if there are really strong feelings about it. BTW I'm watching this page for the time being so if this is going to be a three-way conversation let's continue it here. Dpbsmith (talk) 21:14, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I suppose there really is no reason for appending to VfD discussions later. Perhaps the VfD footer template could be turned into some sort of comments after VfD closing beyond this mark please or something? (keeping an eye on this page too, perhaps this belongs on the VfD talk page?) --fvw* 21:19, 2005 Jan 3 (UTC)


Thanks for your support and encouragement on requests for adminship. Happy new year. Tim Ivorson 17:37, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Autism peer review[edit]

Wow, those are some great ideas for the article. I really feel like this article will get to featured status soon. A few months ago it needed some serious work, but then the Controversies in autism article and other spinoffs siphoned away some of the more troublesome sections and made the article shorter and more manageable. Thank you very much for your valuable input. Szyslak 02:27, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Just in case[edit]

I've numbered your bare sig on Wikipedia:Proposal to expand WP:CSD/Proposal I (Amount of content I) on the assumption that it was a vote, since it was breaking the votes below it. If it was not intended as a vote, it'll need to be fixed. —Korath (Talk) 11:50, Jan 4, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. In response to your question, I'm not arguing that the Soviet Union wasn't totalitarian. What I am saying is that totalitarianism is an ideal-type or typology in academic literature used as a methodological tool for researchers. Some scholars reject this model, seeing it as too simplistic... My own view has been left unstated. (This is irrelevant to the talk page, but I personally do find the totalitarian model useful for many areas of inquiry. In my work of Wiki, I'm partial to the analytical categories sketched by, e.g., Juan Linz and Alfred Stepan, which use the totalitarian model but draw a distinction between the totalitarianism of the Stalin years and "post-totalitarian" following his death. [17]) Despite my own leanings, since it is a methodology (moreover one not accepted by many respected scholars), it is inherently POV and nothing around which to base an NPOV article. Instead, we can clearly lay out Soviet realities in a concrete and factual way (calling the Soviet Union, e.g., a single party regime), as opposed to an abstract and theoretical way. 172 14:36, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Main Page article[edit]

Hey, Ta bu shi da yu, don't even try to rollback or edit Restoration comedy, you'd be zapping legit edits that don't show up in History. Sheesh, I hope it's not on the latest vandalism when my mom reads it. See irc.--Bishonen | Talk 02:46, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Database replication is broken, or slowed, or whatever. It's not Restoration comedy specifically, it's all wikipedia editing. Some edits show up in watchlists only, some in histories only, some on the page and in the history but not in the diffs... it seems random. Oh, and I saw several bona fide edits to Rc in the History before, that I don't see now. So, in other words, it's kind of dangerouos to edit and more dangerous to revert. Sheesh. At this moment though, if I click through from the Main page, I see a good version of the article. I'm not at work myself, as it's 4:30 AM here...yawn... gnight, thanks for watching the article, but I guess there's not a lot to be done right now. I hope all the vandals are tired out after the vandalstorm that hit yesterday's Featured article (as fully expected).--Bishonen | Talk 03:32, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Actually you can usually get to the most recent edit with a few page reloads, make sure you append ?action=purge though, to prevent cached query results being used in generating the page. --fvw* 03:43, 2005 Jan 6 (UTC) B2B EXTRANET AGREEMENT.rtf[edit]

Could you please put the appropriate copyright tag on B2B EXTRANET AGREEMENT.rtf so that it doesn't have to be deleted? Thanks. Kbh3rd 04:19, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Yes, Wikisource occured to me, too. Thanks for your quick response! - Kbh3rd 04:38, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

LGA maps[edit]

Hey Ta bu, sorry I've been way too busy of late to go on any more cartographic binges. Here's the base map as a .gif. I don't have a host for the .psd version but you should be able to colour and size this one in paint or any similar program.



Randwicked 14:21, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Uploaded as Image:SydLGAs.png. - Ta bu shi da yu 23:20, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Thanks, that's cool. GFDL or PD is fine. - Randwicked 23:50, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)


Ta bu, I know you feel strongly about CheeseDreams and that she upset you over the article that you worked hard to fix.

But I want to appeal to you to change your comment on the proposed decision talk page and to join me in asking for CheeseDreams to be given a second chance.

This is why: I think by the time you were dealing with CD, she had been embittered by the process. I don't think she, and her admittedly bold edits, were given a very kind reception by the editors who, well what can I call it, guard the christianity articles. She didn't react well but we all make mistakes.

Can't she be given a chance to redeem yourself? I'm proposing a strict parole -- no personal attacks and no unexplained edits with a limit of one revert (of any kind -- so that it includes "edits" that reinsert her POV) a day. I'm also asking that those who opposed her are cautioned to modify their behaviour.

I'm asking you because I know you are a good guy and I hope that you share my belief in redemption. Please put your personal hurt -- and any feeling that CD is working to hurt the Christian articles, which I appreciate is a worry of yours -- to one side and show CD some wikilove. If she is given rope and then hangs herself, I will join you in asking for the suspended punishment to be reinstated.Dr Zen 01:22, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

There a couple of things to take into account. First, it is unacceptable that you feel unable to edit the article. If CD is given another chance, I will impress on her the unacceptability of that. I hope she will listen. I would hope that the strict paroles, which she must agree to, will hold her to a more conciliatory line. However, it's no good demanding she change her ways if she's not given the chance.

Second, CheeseDreams' POV that Christianity is wrong is one that is out there. There is plenty of opinion that Christian doctrine that are disputed. I don't feel that CD is doing anything wrong in inserting that dispute into articles. For a nonbeliever it is interesting. We should not be editing from the POV that Christianity is correct and its doctrines inviolable, whatever our POV. Of course, the opposite is entirely true -- we cannot edit from the POV that it is wrong and all its doctrines false either! I'd be happy to put this to CD too. I feel she has not shown a commitment to balance. However, it is often the case that an editor with a minority view will feel -- and usually rightly -- that the articles they come to are pre-biased.

You do need to ask yourself whether a view that "her edits to Christian articles have been made with the POV that Christianity is wrong, misleading and that Christian doctrine cannot be trusted. This is a great disservice to scholarly opinion and to believers alike" is entirely neutral (we know she isn't -- that's not in question). Accepting that it's difficult for you to be able to evaluate her work fairly (because you feel it is doing a disservice to you as a believer) would help you to get perspective.

I agree without any reservation that she should do the same as regards your material and I agree that she has not. I would be willing to put that across to her fiercely and to make clear that even those who are friendly to her won't stand for unadorned POV pushing. I don't have a problem with editors who have biases, as such, but I sure do with anyone who insists that articles only or mainly represent one POV. Part of the difficulty for me in sympathising with the editors, some good, some bad, who oppose CheeseDreams, is that they have been fighting in part to maintain biased articles against balance. (They have also been fighting for the notions that changes must be sourced; for civility and good editing practice, etc.)

Sorry I've taken up so much of your time, but it's very important to me that CD is given the chance to reform, rather than be cast out.Dr Zen 02:42, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

CheeseDreams/Cheese Dreams latest[edit]

Hi, I noticed you had a question about CheeseDreams new "templates", so please see the latest at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/CheeseDreams/Evidence#CheeseDreams/Cheese dreams creates TWO new anti-Bible templates violating injunction! [19] and the Vote for Deletion at: Wikipedia:Templates for deletion#Template:BPOV and Template:BPOVbecause [20] . Thank you. IZAK 10:42, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

It is not a violation of the injunction for CD to create templates. She is only banned from inserting that template into Christianity articles. You shouldn't have deleted them while a vote was happening. Doing so caused an even bigger mess than waiting a few more days. -- Netoholic @ 17:31, 2005 Jan 7 (UTC)

Controversial Counter Vote for Cheese dream's templates[edit]

Controversial COUNTER-VOTE Please note that someone has commenced a Vote for Undeletion of Cheese dreams latest templates at Wikipedia:Votes for undeletion#Template:BPOV and Template:BPOVbecause [21]. Is that valid/legal? Please vote there is well. Thank you. IZAK 11:25, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Come on, you don't see me complaining about exploding whale, do you? Actually, I like it a lot. Everyking 12:15, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

But you did spin it off from whale. Everyking 17:47, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
That's missing the point. It's an article about something specific that could hypothetically be squeezed into a more general article. Everyking 00:33, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Just a question really[edit]

Please explain why you have blocked me. I edited Zero Christianity articles. I edited articles relating to Judaism. I also edited talk pages. And templates. None of these things are Christian articles. CheeseDreams 00:45, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I think CheeseDreams deserves an apology for the improper deletion of the templates Template:BPOV and Template:BPOVbecause. Both were created some hours before the injunction came into effect, and were not candidates for speedy deletion. - Vague | Rant 05:33, Jan 8, 2005 (UTC)

You humility is much appreciated. - Vague | Rant 06:13, Jan 9, 2005 (UTC)
I would agree, good show. -- Netoholic @ 06:49, 2005 Jan 9 (UTC)
It was "articles which relate to Christianity", not "subjects relating" :-) Evidently the wording was a bit ambiguous - I'm putting together a sharper and clearer wording if possible - David Gerard 23:42, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

X Window System[edit]

Please see the bottom of Talk:X Window System - I've done a bit of ASCII art to show what I was thinking of (a simple diagram of what "client-server" means), and I'm really not hot with Inkscape ... if you can do a version of that (presumably a PNG, though the SVG would be good too!) it would be lovely for the article!

I think a really detailed version (with all the software layers and so on) would be good too, for the technical section. But if you can put a basic version together I could take it from there.

(I shall continue to practice ...) - David Gerard 03:24, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)


See, that's where the big disconnect is. Bunch of people: "It's not the size per se, but that there's so much superfluous detail that it's inaccesible." Reponse: "OK. I'll move it to another page and expand it." Bunch of people: "*boggle*" Lather, rinse, repeat. . . iMeowbot~Mw 02:41, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Political views of Lyndon LaRouche[edit]

Ta bu, if you're around, would you consider protecting the above? Two LaRouche editors are busy deleting/reverting properly referenced quotes that were inserted by a journalist who has become a Wikipedia editor. It's been going on for two days with no sign of abating. I would like page protection to force them to discuss deletions on Talk. Any version you protect would be fine. I've also put up a request at Requests for protection. If you're not around, no worries. SlimVirgin 17:36, Jan 9, 2005 (UTC)

Update: Silsor did it. SlimVirgin 18:24, Jan 9, 2005 (UTC)

country infoboxes[edit]

Hi, there's a new Solution E that's been proposed for the country infoboxes; I've changed my vote from the Solution D that I proposed, earlier. The new option, proposed by User:Zocky, transcludes a subpage instead of using the template mechanism for this.

See: Nepal's infobox is implemented at Nepal/infobox using Template:Infobox_Country; Tuvalu's is implemented at Tuvalu/infobox as a wiki table.

Discussion is at: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Countries

voting: Wikipedia:Country_infobox_vote

Thanks. — Davenbelle 02:35, Jan 14, 2005 (UTC)

Thank you. I expect him to bring it back, though. 172 04:57, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)


I was looking to answer a question about whether to contact a user through means other than via talk pages (re: User:Cheung1303), but I managed to find User:Mark and User:Sannse, both of whom advised against it. --JuntungWu 15:53, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Removing items from Peer review[edit]

Hi, Ta bu shi, I noticed you just removed Aquarium from WP:PR (because it became Featured, I assume), and I've seen that you are also a valiant reviewer at PR. It would be interesting to get your take on the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Peer review right now, about removing items more briskly (for instance FAC's?I don't think anybody's likely to comment on an article at PR when they can do it at WP:FAC), to try to get the PR list shorter and livelier. Best, Bishonen | Talk 03:59, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

San Jose, California[edit]

Hi. There's been a lot of work done on the FAC San Jose, California the past few days, and its seven days is about up. If you have a chance, could you take a peek and see if your objections have been addressed? Thanks. Niteowlneils 20:07, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Anonymous proxies[edit]

Heya, you took an interest in the open proxy discussion on WP:AN, could you perhaps give your opinion on Wikipedia talk:Bots#OpenProxyBlockerBot? Thanks. --fvw* 23:37, 2005 Jan 23 (UTC)


Given the continued existence of articles such as Terran unit and building statistics, do you suppose TradeWars 2002 and its associated articles are safe from accusations of fancruft? I figure, there are a lot of articles, such as Super Star Destroyer, that could theoretically be more info than the average person needs, but what's the harm of keeping it? With cult classics, people like a lot of detail. Anyway, someone did accuse my Justin Bailey article of being fancruft, although I merged it into Metroid so everything's cool now. However, it just made me wonder how one decides to post or not to post, given the subjective nature of these standards. It's kinda like the discussion of What wikipedia is not, which people thought pet skunk fell into, although later it ended up becoming featured. Nathanlarson32767 (Talk) 09:11, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Well, I don't particularly like that word. However, I put that Terran article on VfD, because, to be honest, it's just not notable enough. Personally, I don't mind lots of information in the articles themselves, I do object splitting off articles that just contain trivia and non-notable stuff. - Ta bu shi da yu 21:35, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Yeah, the f-word (f*ncr*ft) is rapidly becoming unacceptable in polite society. Hmm, that Terran info is probably important to StarCraft die-hards (of which there seem to be a lot), although to be useful I would think the information would need to be condensed down to a unified grid, for easy comparison of stats. That's what I'm thinking of doing with the TradeWars ship types, and in fact this has been done on several web sites with good results. Some ships, like the Imperial StarShip, have so many nuances that they need paragraphs of text to do the subject justice, but the Terran stuff seems to be mostly a list of numerical attributes. Nathanlarson32767 (Talk) 22:12, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Kylie Minogue[edit]

Hi, I've been making changes to the Kylie Minogue article since you put it on peer review on 1 Jan, and I think the article is more in line with other featured articles. I was wondering if you could have a look at it and comment on the peer review page. I'd like to see it get up to FA standard, but at the moment it's now buried near the bottom of the peer review list and looks like it's been forgotten. I thought if you commented back against the review you requested, it might encourage other people to discuss it, and maybe work on it some more. I'd be interested in your opinion anyhow. thanks. Rossrs 05:45, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

thanks for the encouraging words. Personally, I'm happy with the article now. I think it compares favourably against a lot of the well regarded articles. Now if anyone says there is no discussion of "the music" ... I give up. It could only mean they are voting without actually looking at the thing. Thanks also for the suggestions about Anne Frank - I've rewritten that entire section. It's now a bit long, but I think "Criticism and authentication" is too important to condense and it's now stronger than it was before. Would appreciate any comments. Rossrs 09:47, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Apple in the Chapel?[edit]

I might have stumbled upon something for you...take a look. If it's valid, I have a few more sources I can sniff down. This one is old-2003. Checking out a "web farming" source. Best regards, --allie 03:43, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The original info is on Wiki Ref Desk. It's the second question on the page. Here are a few more links to track down more info. I made a mistake, I think, in creating my page because I forgot to put "user:" in front of it, so I don't know if anyone else can access it. But it's called Allie:Wikipedia Reference Desk Links *sigh* It's turning out to be a great resource page, too... Anyway, here are some links, haven't checked them yet to see if they're all updated & functioning. These are top-notch professional journalism links. Haven't reached the "j's" so can't confirm that they're working -They're from Warning: It's pretty scary in there! Here you go:

I can devote some time to this tomorrow (NYC EST) if you can't, so let me know. They're good resources for my ref. site. Give me more info though, It was hard to figure out that this was BRISBANE area...any add'l info will help. Fair trade - you fix the user page - I'll do the grunt work? Best regards - --allie 04:45, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)