User talk:Ta bu shi da yu/Archive1

Welcome

Tell us who you are. Who are you? --DPFJr

Exactly what do you want to know? :-) -- Ta bu shi da yu 01:36, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia! Glad to have you around. I just saw the pictures you added to Morgan Spurlock and Super Size Me. I think they're legal under our copyright policy (see Wikipedia:Copyrights), but you might want to add {{fairuse}}, to show that they're fair use under copyright law. Anyway, here are some tips in case you need help editing.

• Wikipedia:Help desk--questions answered by real people
• Wikipedia:FAQ--questions answered by text
• Wikipedia:NPOV--our most important policy
• Wikipedia:Manual of style--our formatting guide
• Wikipedia:Tutorial--how to edit

Hope all this helps, and have a great time. I really appreciate the work you've done. Best wishes, [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 14:15, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Thanks Meelar :) Have added the {{fairuse}} tag to the images! - Ta bu shi da yu

Your user page

Probably i just have no sense of humor, but the question on User:Ta bu shi da yu misses the fact that your user page is not an article: the articles are pages with no colons in their titles.
--Jerzy(t) 03:45, 2004 Jun 28 (UTC)

I was making a joke because of the dire warning that Wikipedia initially gave me when I first editted my user page. Perhaps this message shouldn't have been there? It made me laugh anyway. - Ta bu shi da yu 05:03, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Christian views of women

Cheers TBSDY,

A major problem with the article (which I should also mention on its talk page) is that there are at least as many different attitudes as there are Christian denominations, if not Christians. We'll have to write and write and write just to cover a generalized representation of such attitudes. The article only exists in the first place because someone wanted to engage in what they thought they could pass off as "objective" Christian bashing. In reality the subject is almost prohibitively complex. I'm leaning towards a vote for deletion myself, but I'll sleep on it. If it isn't deleted, I will contribute something along the line of the above to the article.

Regards, Fire Star 03:52, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I'm voting to keep, but I agree on the observations above. I think we can make some generalisations, see my attempt at a new introduction. Andrewa 03:45, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)

It's a good attempt. As the article is now being kept, I'll make a shot at improving it. - Ta bu shi da yu 04:24, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I think the sections quoting Paul's Epistles should note Paul's POV towards women and marriage was not particularly usual among early followers of Jesus. He believed men shouldn't marry, that women were a distraction(really rough paraphrase) this article could use a lot of work, but I'm not really a Biblical scholar... I may be able to spot something wrong, but not quite be able to put it right...Pedant 07:45, 2004 Aug 16 (UTC)

Abington School District vs. Schempp

Looks as if you are doing some good work there. I don't think the author knew what he was doing when he posted his tract on Wikipedia. I may have a hack this evening. Noisy 14:23, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)

---

Question

I just can't help but wonder: who's not the big fish? - Nat Krause

Without the tone marks, who can tell whether it says something completely different?  :-/ — Chameleon My page/My talk 13:25, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)

No, he's right. My name's an in-joke, though I explain it on K5. [1] - Ta bu shi da yu 13:33, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Christian Views of Women part deux

If you're going to try to go after a new version of this page, I'll be happy to help, especially with the historical development during the splintering of the churches in the 17th century, where views on just about everything have as much in common as the paths of a box of marbles dropped on the floor. (You want women as chattel? Some say yes. You want women as equals? Some say yes. You want women as miniature men? Some say yes. You want men as developments of women? Some say yes. All Protestant, all claiming Biblical authority, and all sure.)

However, I absolutely agree that the present article just needs to be deleted. Let's put it this way: let's say that you, Andrewa, and others blow out everything on the existing page and write a huge new article (a template, actually, so that you can link 6-8 articles). Fine. Now the Talk page will still have all this bloody-minded debate on it, refer to the page as a disgrace, etc. Further, it will carry in its history two VfD listings -- making it easy for anyone (esp. someone petulantly insisting that "Christians are misogynists") to nominate it anew and claim that it's a POV mess. It won't be, but it will sure be confusing to any future readers. Geogre 18:11, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Unfortunately, it looks like it's going to be kept. Never mind, I'll probably rewrite the OT stuff completely starting from the perspective of Genesis and incorporate his Biblical quotes in it also. - Ta bu shi da yu 04:26, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Hey this is my first time really getting into this site, so let me know if I am doing this wrong. I am not sure at what time these comments about the article are in reference to, and am responding because the deletion notice is still up. Even before there was more added (I am guessing this is what happened, before I came across the page), having the ones before it...I don't completelly see a problem with having the negitive views up before, because they are really from The Bible. However, noting that there are many differnt views is nessessary, even though I prefer to see as many differnt views about the subject as possible. --Serpentdreams 00:13, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Great work in the Windows XP article

Kudos on your great work on the Windows XP article. Nice to have a level, neutral mind working on it! Samrolken 19:10, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Thanks! - Ta bu shi da yu 03:29, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Hi Ta bu shi da yu. Nice to meet you. I replied over on the talk page. Cheers, Tannin 14:05, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Yep, and I've put the page back to the way it was before. Weasel words and incorrect assertions just don't cut it mate. - Ta bu shi da yu 14:28, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I meant that I agreed 100% with his points, not with his insults. ;) Ambivalenthysteria 01:12, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Oh, OK :) I understand! - Ta bu shi da yu 02:03, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Windows XP: Between User:Tannin and User:Ta bu shi da yu

I've removed the request from Wikipedia:Requests for mediation and the issue has been listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment, because according to Wikipedia:Dispute resolution, this should be done before mediation is attempted, and I do think that involving more people in the discussion will help move the issue forward.

Thanks, BCorr|Брайен, Co-chair of the Mediation Committee 13:14, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Very good comments...

... in Talk:Anti-globalization movement. I'm up to m eyeballs with other things right now, so I'm not going to follow up with that article, but all of these are on the mark as to what should be done there. -- Jmabel 01:58, Jul 8, 2004 (UTC)

Tasmania move

Why the move from Tasmania to Tasmania, Australia? Do you realise how many redirects will need to be moved, as well as how much more difficult it is to type [[Tasmania, Australia|Tasmania]] than it is to type [[Tasmania]]? (I do it a lot in my articles!) -- Chuq 07:33, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Indeed. Why the shift? Is there a Tasmania somewhere else in the world? - Mark 09:19, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Hmm. Put it down to unthinkingness. - Ta bu shi da yu 11:48, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Ok then.. I've moved it back now. -- Chuq 13:07, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Cool. Sorry about the hastle! - Ta bu shi da yu 13:08, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Name

Is your name supposed to mean "He is not a big fish"? ☞spencer195 04:34, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Yep :-) - Ta bu shi da yu 04:35, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Probable hungarian

Is my English is not just "imperfect" but "broken"? :-) Oh well, I'm probably a Hungarian. But try to write a Hungarian article (in Hungarian) and we'll see how broken your Hungarian is! :-) BTW thanks for fixing it, keep doing that, so I can be relaxed and provide the information. --grin ✎ 09:43, 2004 Jul 30 (UTC)

Oops. - Ta bu shi da yu 10:32, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)

re: Sydney Morning Herald

The entire content of those pages was something like

"Joe Bloggs is a columnist for the SMH.

"SMH is a leading newspaper in Australia, bla bla bla, the same paragraph"

with no useful information on the person, it might as well be a redirect. That self-referential redirects were left means that if you have useful information on them, then put it in. Otherwise, there is no point in having the article. The information on the persons were all substubs, yuk.

Dunc_Harris|☺ 12:28, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)

So put it up for VfD, or cleanup. Don't redirect to another article!!! - Ta bu shi da yu 21:20, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Categorization

Please don't add a higher level category to an article when it already exists in sub-categories of it. I've noticed you adding Category:Automobiles to articles that are already members of Category:Ford vehicles etc. Please don't do that. Category:Automobiles should generally not be used except for articles not sub-categorizable. It's too general. —Morven 14:47, Aug 12, 2004 (UTC)

OK. - Ta bu shi da yu 23:34, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Ahem. Speaking of not putting my talk page into Category:Automobiles... - Ta bu shi da yu 15:26, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Fagan birth year

The article for Confederate general James Fleming Fagan has two years listed for his birth so I consulted my Bigraphical Dictionary of the Confederacy (ed. Wakelyn) which says he was born, Louisville, Kentucky on May 1, 1828 and died Sept. 1, 1893.

PedanticallySpeaking 15:21, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Fagan, Again

I looked at my message and I stupidly typed the wrong thing. Fagan was born on March 1st, not May. I misread my own handwriting. Sorry about that.

PedanticallySpeaking 15:26, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Childlove movement

Look, its right there on the VfD page. Toward the end is the vote on whether or not to protect it. It mentions both our user names. All it takes is a few clicks to verify. -Seth Mahoney 09:49, Aug 14, 2004 (UTC)

I'm not talking about participating in VfD, I'm talking about participating in the vote on the VfD page to protect Childlove movement or not. Further, there are better reasons for reverting than the fact that the article is on the VfD page, which are listed right before the vote regarding protecting Childlove movement. -Seth Mahoney 09:54, Aug 14, 2004 (UTC)

You can edit the article, I guess, but if you do and it gets protected it will just be restored to a previous version before it is protected, as stated in the paragraph before the vote. What we're trying to avoid is a bunch of people editing this particular article toward a POV or vandalizing the article, which is pretty much what has happened to it since its listing on VfD. Your edits certainly aren't vandalism, and I didn't take the time to read all of them to look for POV, but the consensus seems to be for now to leave it as it is until the VfD issue is resolved. Please wait until the vote is finalized. -Seth Mahoney 09:59, Aug 14, 2004 (UTC)

Please respect not making major edits to this article while about four dozen editors are trying to hash out some policy on the VfD page for the last two weeks. Your edits may well be valuable, but please wait a little bit. Thanks. -- Cecropia | Talk 10:04, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Got your message. Thanks! -- Cecropia | Talk 10:09, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)

No problem or offense at all - I totally understand, this is an emotional issue all around, and everyone's immediate reaction is to get involved. I should definately have been more forthcoming with what was going on on the VfD page from the beginning, but I assumed you had been one of the many, many people taking part in the discussion. Regardless, your edits are there in the page's history, so if the page is kept they can be reincorperated into the article. I suspect also that if the page is kept, there is going to be a lot of heavy editing right after the decision, hopefully resulting in a substantially improved article. -Seth Mahoney 10:26, Aug 14, 2004 (UTC)

Hola. You're right. It was my place to censor.. I just read the Discussion page, and there seemed to be an ongoing argument inre: whether the image should stay or not. In hindsight, I should have just ignored that, and stuck with my original decision to respect the law... but I do love breaking the law, Ta bu shi da yu. I really do. Not that specific law, inre: child pornography... the law in general.

Message Number Two: Huh... oh.. I think I meant that the image itself was illegal, as the kid's consent most likely wasn't given. Sorry for any confusion. Incidentally, it's 2:39 AM and I'm still at work. *sighs* Such is the hectic world of the television industry. Actually not that hectic - but much stuff must be put on master tapes, and I don't have anything better to do at 2:40 on a Friday night. Besides sleep. Sweet, beautiful sleep... how... how I long for thee... oh, sleep. Sorry, did I say something?

Cocaine merge

you commented 'we'd better check out this merge', I would appreciate it if you look over the article. I think it was merged correctly, I didn't add or remove anything, but the article could definitely use some cleanup. It was on pages needing attention, with a merge request, so I merged it. Afterwards though, I saw that there is a lot of POV expressed, and in short it would be wonderful if you looked it over critically and polished it up when you are done. I'm off to bed. I'll check back tomorrow. Thanks, and nice to meet you.Pedant 07:33, 2004 Aug 16 (UTC)

ooops you removed a piece that belongs, I think you thought it was a duplicate, but it wasn't. there was History of cocaine, and the merged in history from cocaine addiction... I reverted your edit, and changed the title of that subsection to 'history of cocaine abuse' still, the article could use some work, (POV? and cleanup) just please read what you're deleting, ok? Thanks. If you want some help on an article, I'll be glad to do what I can, just ask.Pedant 08:15, 2004 Aug 16 (UTC)

Thanks. I replied on my talk page. I appreciate your effort. Pedant 17:00, 2004 Aug 16 (UTC)

Windows XP reverts

If User:Pigsonthewing continues to revert Windows XP without explaining, would you certify a RFC nomination? Thanks. Rhobite 15:45, Aug 17, 2004 (UTC)

I think you're right, and I attempted a compromise. Rhobite 17:35, Aug 17, 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment on my Talk page. The Windows XP article had stated that Linux "has no such limitations" and I added that it's considered harder to use and has less software available - I agree this wasn't a perfect edit, but I felt I had to make an effort to balance the article better. Saying that Linux has no limitations like Windows XP SE does, that's just POV. I've commented on this in more detail On the Windows XP talk page. (All in all I'm kind of frustrated that the debate over a few words has grown as much as it has - it started with Pigsonthewing insisting on re-adding the phrase "with no such limitations" every time someone removed it, and it's turned into a widescale attempt to rephrase that in a vanilla way which doesn't really say anything.) - Brian Kendig 13:24, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Edcreely

Good work! How did you find the source of Theatre design? I tried and tried, but all my searches came up empty.

As to what we can do: first off, we'll have to audit all of Edcreely's previous contributions, especially the larger ones, like Postmodern theater or his addition to Literacy. I've already tried, but not found anything. Either he paraphrased extensively (and then these would be fine), or I'm just not using the right search queries... All his previous copyvios were hard to track down — I wonder how he finds them at all! (His Australian Involvement in the Vietnam War was in its integral form only on http://www.archive.org — not exactly the place I'd look for sources!)

Secondly, if he's caught with one more copyvio, I'll escalate this. I'll ask a more experienced sysop for opinion and see if I can get him blocked for some time (a week or so), and if he keeps doing it, whether he can be blocked indefinitely. I hope quick action is possible, and that we don't have to go through RfC/Mediation/Arbitration.

Lupo 07:19, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I wrote on my talk page: Now please stand back. and omitted "but remain watchful for the time being". Though I do think he's got it. Lupo 14:35, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

OK, understood. - Ta bu shi da yu 14:38, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Just in case you're interested: check the first result from this Google search (should be a SETI@home user blurb): I think that just doesn't fit the typical profile of a troublemaker. And his contributions make it highly unlikely that the person claiming to be him was an impersonator; I rather think he's sincere and it is him. Lupo 07:44, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Exploding whale

As commentary to a couple of your edits to exploding whale, you wrote: "The explosion and results - we all know what a website it! Same with emails and cars" and "Removed unnecessary links... we all know what blood, entrails and a penis is. Mammal is just a way of describing the beasty, and not that important to the story.".

Of course we all known what website, e-mail, car, blood, entrails, penis, foot, ton, beach, and mammal mean, but that is no reason not to have wikilinks! We also know what 1970, boulder, 12 November, scavenger, blubber, shark, etc. mean too, but you haven't deleted those links yet. Internal links ought to be encouraged: WP:MOS#Free links says - "The use of so-called "free links" to other topics ... is encouraged. Use the links for all words and terms that are relevant to your article. Don't overdo it. Do not link every occurrence of a word; simply linking the first time the word appears will usually be enough."

I don't see that having links to the above interrupt the flow of the article, and, speaking personally, I often like to divert down a side road to see what the article on something tangential says (interesting that entrails does not exist yet).

(PS - Thanks for the message on my talk page - I was writing this before I saw it. I am afraid I disagree. I do not consider the above to be too many links.)

-- ALoan (Talk) 14:44, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I guess we will have to differ. I agree that adding too many links (say, every word, or every other word) is unhelpful and can disrupt the flow of an article, but I prefer to err on the side of linking rather than not linking because I find that it makes it easier to navigate around the Wikipedia without cutting/pasting or typing in the search box. Links are essentially free, so why not. -- ALoan (Talk) 15:00, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Please be more careful. You took someone's paraphrasing or parody of Douglas Adams use of a whale in Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy and entered it into the Exploding Whale artcle, stating that it was actually in the book. This is very sloppy. It has now been removed. Mintguy (T) 16:11, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

My comment above 16:11, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC); your comment on FAC 21:21, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC) Mintguy (T)

Thank you

Thank you for the links you gave me. Thanks for all your other efforts to make Wikipedia a better place. --DavidCary 00:51, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Windows XP

Voted :-) Kim Bruning 14:22, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

What do you think is the best way to proceed here? Obviously Andy isn't going to let anyone remove it, even though the opinion is 7-1 in favour of that. I'd rather not just revert it every day until he gives up :-) — Kate | Talk 10:38, 2004 Aug 21 (UTC)

Butler

I don't remember where the photo came from. Adam 16:41, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Color Graphics Adapter

Hi Ta bu shi da yu,

You recently reviewed the CGA article as a Featured article candidate and had some concerns regarding its style. Could I convince you to take another look and let me know on the FAC page if it's ok/better now? I've slaved over it edited it quite a bit and have high hopes.

Please let me know :-)

Ropers 01:24, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

BTW, I just went over the article and did a severe edit and fixup on the writing, and struck my objection on FAC. While it's not Shakespeare, it's readable ;-) Would you consider it up to scratch? - David Gerard 22:01, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

And you know what? The article has just reached FA status! :-) Ropers 06:29, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Captions

Hi, I noticed you didn't like my caption on exploding whale. Was there something wrong with the complete sentence guidance from Wikipedia:Captions? I also tried to lead the reader into the article with that caption. Please edit or discuss (at Wikipedia_talk:Captions) the caption guidelines as needed. -- ke4roh

Sorry I forgot to sign earlier. Thanks! -- ke4roh 18:43, Aug 30, 2004 (UTC)

Common scold

Hi,

I'm trying to compile a proper reference to Common scold, and I notice you added a reference to Blaxland Blackstone. Would you be able to help me out with the source of the book? I need the following information:

• Full title of the book
• author name - got this :-)
• Editors
• ISBN (if you have this)
• publisher and publisher location
• year the book was produced

Thanks!

Ta bu shi da yu 04:32, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I did not add a reference to Blaxland, and don't see one in the article. Could you be more specific? Smerdis of Tlön 04:56, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The history shows that you added this: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Common_scold&diff=4121294&oldid=4121283 - Ta bu shi da yu 05:08, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Gah! I meant Blackstone, not Blaxland... sorry! - Ta bu shi da yu 05:10, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

That's Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England. There are literally dozens of editions, with many differences in apparatus. As such, the Harvard Citator way is that you give the volume, chapter, section, and asterisked *page number from the first edition; many editions provide the original pages in running commentary. Mine is from 1927, and predates ISBNs. Smerdis of Tlön 11:48, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Howard

Howard contested the leadership of the Liberal Party once, in 1983, before becoming leader in 1985. Research should precede editing. Adam 13:12, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Sure, then again after reverting my caption it would have been good if you'd put a little summary in explaining my mistake. I see you did it the second time. - Ta bu shi da yu 13:18, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)