User talk:Ta bu shi da yu

Ta bu shi da yu talk archives
Archive 1
Archive 2
Archive 3
Archive 4
Archive 5
Archive 6
Archive 7
Archive 8
Archive 9
Archive 10
Archive 11
Archive 12
Leaving Wikipedia
Archive 13
Archive 14
whole section (deleted) missing
Archive 15
Archive 16
Archive 17
Archive 18
Archive 19
Archive 20
Archive 21
Archive 22
Archive 23
Archive 24
Archive 25
Archive 26
Archive 27
Archive 28 (last)
User:Ta bu shi da yu [edit]

Picture of the day

The Double Asteroid Redirection Test (DART) was a NASA space mission aimed at testing a method of planetary defense against near-Earth objects. The target object, Dimorphos, is a 160-meter-long (525-foot) minor-planet moon of the asteroid Didymos. DART was launched on 24 November 2021 and successfully collided with Dimorphos on 26 September 2022 while about 11 million kilometers (6.8 million miles) from Earth. The collision shortened Dimorphos's orbit by 32 minutes and was mostly achieved by the momentum transfer associated with the recoil of the ejected debris, which was larger than the impact. This video is a timelapse of DART's final five and a half minutes before impacting Dimorphos, and was compiled from photographs captured by the Didymos Reconnaissance and Asteroid Camera for Optical navigation (DRACO), the spacecraft's 20-centimeter-aperture (7.9-inch) camera, and transmitted to Earth in real time. The replay is ten times faster than reality, except for the last six images, which are shown at the same rate at which the spacecraft returned them. Both Didymos and Dimorphos are visible at the start of the video, and the final frame shows a patch of Dimorphos's surface 16 meters (51 feet) across. DART's impact occurred during transmission of the final image, resulting in a partial frame.Video credit: NASA / Johns Hopkins APL

Talk to me, I'm not an ogre! - Ta bu shi da yu 04:22, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)

(As wikipedia seems to be having refresh issues, I'm adding a link to purge the cache of this page). Gah!

---

Bash

Thanks! Intrigue 23:44, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I beg to differ

Most people want them delisted from VfD. - Ta bu shi da yu 23:58, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

From the Wikipedia:Administrator's noticeboard (and your talk page)

• I'd leave the listings until the 14th, and then delete the listings and probably keep the pages, since that's how it looks like the voting's going. - Hephaestos|§ 05:34, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

1. I don't think VfD should be used for anything other than main namespace.
2. Even if I'm wrong about (1), I think that RfC entries should be dealt with by policy, not individually. Either they should stay there forever, or there should be explicit policy regarding their deletion (for example, perhaps RfCs that are not properly endorsed should be deleted immediately.)
3. I would not recommend removing those entries from VfD.
4. I would not complain for a moment if someone did it. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 06:41, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• b) The VfD listings shouldn't be removed, either. I am very much opposed to removing items from VfD on the grounds that they "shouldn't have been listed." Once they've been listed, let the discussion proceed openly and let the string of "keeps" tell the story. A strong remark that the discussion does not need to continue would be fine. Also, personal attention to moving the article to /Old immediately when the five days are up would be fine, too. If a custom of removing items from VfD becomes prevalent, we will soon need to develop all sorts of metapolicy, pages for voting on whether items should be relisted on VfD, etc. etc. ...Just my $0.02. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 13:18, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• While I'd advise against LISTING RFCs on VFD, I don't particularly see a need to remove them from VFD, even if they are trivially keepable. Strictly speaking it's probably against procedure. On the other hand, no one will complain about you removing them unless they have an axe to grind. -Fennec (はさばくのきつね) 03:51, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Let it ride. In case you didn't see my objections on talk (which you apparently didn't "this time could you please bring your objections to talk?"):

Yes, I agree these shouldn't have been listed, Ta bu shi da yu, but you shouldn't remove them either. Let them die like other frivolous VfDs. One perception CheeseDreams has is that adimns are ganging up on her. Let's give this one its time. I'm adding them back. (Incidentally, it's only been 48 hours). Cool Hand Luke 22:56, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Cool Hand Luke 00:11, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

However, I don't think you should remove the VfDs in this instance - an important precedent is being set here regarding the keepability of all RFCs. - from what I said earlier. Merely putting it here because Cool Hand Luke didn't mention it. Andre (talk) 00:47, Dec 11, 2004 (UTC)

Oh, sorry for missing that one. I agree. The broad attention given to RfC here is a good thing. Cool Hand Luke 00:56, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Xenobiology

There is a consensus on Xenobiology to move the page back to Astrobiology. If this isn't already done by the time you read this message, I was wondering if you could help us with the move, or at least help me understand the process. I want to preserve the history of Xenobiology, so the Astobiology page (which only exists as a redirect at this time) has to be temporarily deleted before Xenobiology can be moved to Astrobiology. In this case, does the Astrobiology page have to be listed on VfD, or can an admin just temporarily delete the page so that the Xenobiology page can be moved to Astrobiology? --Viriditas | Talk 04:36, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Mahalo! :) --Viriditas | Talk 06:37, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

RfC on Pename

As you are aware, since your original RfC on Pename expired without certification by 2 users, it should be deleted in accordance with the explicit instructions on the RfC page. Could I ask you to revise your comment on the page to support Speedy deletion? I do not know about, and do not wish to know about, your dispute with Pename. Maybe you have a strong case. But it's only right that all parties follow a proper dispute procedure when a dispute arises. In this case, that means that the rules on the RfC page should be followed. If your dispute with Pename is continuing, and you believe that another user will be able to certify your dispute, then you may wish to consider another RfC - but that does not mean the expired one should be revived. jguk 11:38, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Hey, don't get depressed. And I agree with you that there's never any excuse for making personal attacks. Taking things by the book may at times be slow, but doing so sets a good example to those whose behaviour needs to be modified and doesn't give them any ammunition to throw back in your face. Besides, there's nothing the troublemakers like more than provoking an angry or not well-thought out response. Anyway, I see from [1] that Pename has not contributed since 25 November, though, of course, he may be using sockpuppets. As a suggestion, why not avoid the page in dispute for a week, say. See what it looks like in a week or two. That's what I've started to do. The page can't go too wrong in that time, and your wikistress is likely to be much lower when you go back to it. jguk 12:07, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

You have enforced the Three Revert Rule incorrectly

The rule states:

Don't revert any page more than three times within a period of 24 hours.

Please read that carefully. Do not revert more than three times within 24 hours.

Viriditas asked you to block me for activity that was not a violation of the three revert rule - and you agreed!. Your misuse of admin authority to improperly block a user is a serious offense.

Reverting more than three times in more than 24 hours does not constitute a violation of the three revert rule. User:Mirv noted that my edits to the article in question were not a violation of the three revert rule. See this note that immediately precedes your block notification on my User discussion page.

You should read clock time and investigate block requests from partisan editors carefully otherwise you should not be in a position to block other users from editing. --Alberuni 16:21, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Oh wow. Out by 5 minutes. - Ta bu shi da yu 00:33, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It seems that 24:05 still counts as "within 24 hours" since it is less than 24.5. I suppose this is debatable, but I am interested in what others think on this issue. --Viriditas | Talk 04:10, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

So is that your defense? You were only wrong by 5 minutes, so no big deal? I wasn't the one who was wrong. You were. You are not going to apologize for your mistake or seek authoritative or consensus decision on your arbitrary interpretation? Is 24 hours part of this rule or not? Does 24 hours now mean 24 hours and 30 minutes? Or is it just whatever you and Viriditas arbitrarily decide in order to silence people you want to silence? Your Admitted Bias Against Me. You should apologize and take steps to clarify the violated policy so that you don't make the same mistake again instead of arrogantly dismissing as unimportant your improper blocking of a registered user. --Alberuni 04:50, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Care to explain why you reverted more than three times in the first place? It is you who must explain this to me. - Ta bu shi da yu 04:52, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

You have it wrong. I don't have to justify my edits or reverts to you. I chose to revert the article to a well-written version that is much more NPOV than the Zionist hatchet job that you and the Zionist vandals prefer. It doesn't matter if you agree with my edits/reversions or not. I am allowed to revert three times within 24 hours and that's all I did. You had no right to block me. My reasons for reverting are irrelevant. You are in the wrong. Viriditas enlisted you so that he and Jayjg and a sock puppet could impose their Zionist bias on Wikipedia. Proud of yourself being used like that? --Alberuni 05:05, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Your comments on my discussion page are rude, arrogant, bullying and totally inappropriate. Napoleon complex is a stub and you might learn something about yourself by improving it, little boy. --Alberuni 05:10, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)