User talk:Thumperward/Archive 13

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

→

Archive 20

gOS Rocket "ad"

I tried to make this article a little less "ad-like", by removing some stuff as you suggested. Mahjongg (talk) 11:37, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. The tag can probably go now, though the extlink in the lead to the company should probably go too (either they're notable enough for their own article or not notable enough to link to). Chris Cunningham (talk) 11:38, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree, gOS is the only product of 'Good OS LCC', so this article also covers them. I removed the extlink, and the tag. Mahjongg (talk) 14:14, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Infobox

Hi. I noticed the problem by accident in the Mircea Eliade article, where no requirement in the infobox had been changed, but the image had turned immense and awfully pixellated (it is fair use, and thus intentionally uploaded at a low resolution which only looked okay in a small[ish] size). I'm not familiar with template scripts, but, before the edits in question, the image looked just fine at a given size. Also, in the long run, wouldn't you say that simply adding a size to the images in respective articles would yield better effects than hunting down all possible errors produced by one single edit? Dahn (talk) 23:33, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

That could be thousands of pages. If it can be remedied by fixing a broken bit of markup (it's almost certainly just a pipe which shouldn't be escaped; I'll have a look in an hour or so) then this is much less effort and requires no change to articles. Anyway, yeah, let me see whether I can fix this. Chris Cunningham (talk) 07:52, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Fixed. Any further problems with the template, please let me know and I'll get them sorted ASAP. Chris Cunningham (talk) 08:40, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

32k rule

Where does the 32k archiving rule come from? Alatari (talk) 05:15, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

It originated in Wikipedia:Article size, specifically the technical limitations section. While that isn't a hard-and-fast rule any more, it's still a good suggestion; I do a lot of editing from diskless terminals where performance becomes a big issue on very long pages, for instance. Chris Cunningham (talk) 07:55, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Infobox writer

I saw that you've been making changes to the images for the writer infobox. It is currently not working if the image size parameter is left in the infobox but no default image size is not specified. It used to work in this case, and I know nothing about templates so I'm not sure how to fix this. (An example page where it is broken is Mary Higgins Clark.) Could you please take a look? Thanks Karanacs (talk) 20:05, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I figured out how to use the sandbox and reverted back to Blow of Light's last version until User:Dahn specifies which articles his stuff was broken in. That version allows images to appear with a default size of the parameter is there but left blank (that's a test case). That reverted your last change to the infobox too. Now that the sandbox version is the same as the live one, in the interests of stable infoboxes, could you please test any changes in the sandbox/test cases before making more to the template? Karanacs (talk) 20:33, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Punisher.

Thanks for cleaning that up, I thought I'd done the move properly. This own't be the last time that page gets moved, either, despite citations, I guarantee. Sorry that left a mess behind. How do I ensure I do it properly next time? ThuranX (talk) 12:21, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

You didn't really mess up, just moved it over the wrong redirect. Easily enough fixed. It's important to check when moving pages over redirects that you've got the destination page exactly right first time, otherwise you can end up in a situation where the edit can't easily be undone (which is what happened today). But it wasn't your fault, it was the guy who moved it in the first place. Chris Cunningham (talk) 22:01, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Comparison of issue tracking systems

Your opinion would be welcome at Talk:Comparison of issue tracking systems#Cleanup urgently needed on this article. Thanks, Technobadger (talk) 15:05, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Line Rider

I have a question regarding self promotion. Hypothetically, if Bill Gates were to update or change entries relating to himself, within the Wikipedia, would they be removed as Self Promotion? I am in no way upset or attacking, please don't misunderstand, rather I am new to the realm of contributing, and I would like to further understand.

With regard to the 'removal' of content and links on the Line Rider page, I was the author of the released video mentioned.

Thank you, TechDawg (talk) 06:43, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia has a guideline on autobiographies at WP:AUTO. There's a more general guideline on editing articles on subjects one is directly involved it at WP:COI. It's a common thing for new users to come up against; if you think that your contributions are important to an article, yet that it may be inappropriate for them to be inserted by you because of your personal involvement with the subject, a good idea is to bring the edits in question to the article's talk page and see if the community agrees that the edits are a good idea. At that point, an uninvolved editor can make the changes. Chris Cunningham (talk) 12:32, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Photoshop comparison to GIMP

Can you remove it from GIMP as well then? Photoshop users should be embarrassed, perhaps, to be placing Photoshop advertisements on GIMP wikipedia articles. Or, put it back because I only put it there because it found a place at GIMP. Thanks for removing it, I do not think it belongs in either article. Depraved is the word that comes to mind. Universities purchase PS license, local and national governments purchase PS, public school systems purchase PS -- they do not need to advertise on wikipedia GIMP article. -- carol 13:32, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Just move it to comparison of raster graphics editors like the template suggests. Chris Cunningham (talk) 13:39, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

It is in the history. I have only occasionally used Photoshop and Paintshop Pro since 1997 and I have not used anything except for GIMP since 2003. I am not going to install the software needed to run Photoshop on linux so I can write a GNU Documentation article comparing softwares -- especially when my preferences are so skewed towards one of them. The photoshop gui used to confuse me -- not an issue of right or wrong, better or worst.

It should be interesting to see if the people who can write a good article of comparison can also dig stuff out of the history (both of the wiki diffs and of the applications in the article) here. At least for me. -- carol 01:15, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

No one should be writing comparison articles based on their own experience. That's called original research. Fortunately, in terms of this particular topic, there are plenty of reliable sources to rely upon. For what it's worth, I don't think anyone is "advertising" Photoshop on the GIMP article. It's simply a topic of interest. Nandesuka (talk) 02:05, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Limnor

Hi,

I need some objective views on the Limnor article. Please see the talk and history pages: User:ESOK has a different opinion than I do about what should and what should not be on a computer language page.

Thanks, --Slashme (talk) 09:00, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

You made the right call on this one. We just need to make sure that we're not putting him off editing in future. There's probably still more material from the old versions that can be salvaged. Chris Cunningham (talk) 10:27, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback, much appreciated. --Slashme (talk) 10:43, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

re paid subscription sites in cites

the keyword is "avoid" which is not equal to "prohibited". Anastrophe (talk) 01:49, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

And we can easily "avoid" it in this case, because there's already a valid citation attached to the point. I didn't remove it on the grounds that it was "prohibited"; you used that word, though I should have been clearer in my edit summary. Chris Cunningham (talk) 08:08, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

fair enough, yes. others were suggesting it was verboten, i believe. all things considered, tempest<>teapot. cheers.Anastrophe (talk) 08:11, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Re:Copyediting

Well, {{refs}} redirects to {{reflist}}, and sometimes I find it confusing with so many different templates, etc.; without actually going to the template page, people may think {{refs}} and {{reflist}} are two different reference templates, but they're not. I'm just trying to make things at least slightly clearer to editors, mainly not-so-experienced ones. Hope that answers your question.   jj137 ^♠ 23:36, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Why did you remove my contribution?

In the discussion page for the article on Cygwin, I asked some questions, but you (Thumperward) apparently removed them. I saw a message suggesting you thought they weren't relevant to editing the article. I disagree. I could incorporate unconfirmed information in the article, of course, making my discussion relevant to editing it, but that would be absurd. On the other hand, why should the discussion be relevant to editing the article? The button at the bottom says "discuss this page" (if I recall correctly), which I took to mean "discuss the topic of the article." In any case, editing the page should be construed broadly enough to include considering future amendments to it, shouldn't it? Unfree (talk) 17:51, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

WP:TALK provides guidelines on what talk pages are to be used for, and includes approval to remove comments which are not aimed at editing the article. The comment I removed appeared simply to be a user venting about the subject, and your comment (which was indented as if it were a reply to said comment) likewise appeared to be expressing concerns about the subject without obviously being intended for use in editing it. I apologise if this isn't the case, and I've restored the comments. Sorry for the inconvenience. Chris Cunningham (talk) 10:29, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

WP:AIV report

Hi! Just to ask you not to add lengths of time when you make reports at the above - we have strict rules and guidelines we have to follow when blocking, and although we appreciate the quick summary, we're bound to check every single case and come up with a block length suitable anyway. Thanks :-) Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 22:15, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Sure thing. Chris Cunningham (talk) 22:17, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Nynexman4464

you know that an editor with two edits, and hello world is an vote only account. 04:46, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

1. 01:52, 20 January 2008 (hist) (diff) User:Nynexman4464‎ (top)
2. 01:51, 20 January 2008 (hist) (diff) Talk:Mozilla Corporation software rebranded in Debian‎ (→Merge)
3. 18:28, 18 September 2006 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Sidebar redesign/Final draft vote‎ (→Option 3)
4. 22:23, 19 March 2005 (hist) (diff) Talk:In-joke‎
5. 06:47, 12 October 2004 (hist) (diff) User:Nynexman4464‎
6. 06:45, 12 October 2004 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Stackronym‎
7. 06:39, 12 October 2004 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Stackronym

Hi Chris, do you agree this looks like "an inappropriate alternate account"  ? Mion (talk) 13:08, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

It might be worth pointing this out on the debate in question; it's totally out of line to just strike the comment off and label the user a "troll" on the basis of such a short run of edits. To strike out supporting comments on a debate you're personally involved in is very worrying. Chris Cunningham (talk) 14:43, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Yep, i am personally involved on that debate, and you're right the first action was not correct, however the second action can be discussed, strange that we can't reach consensus on the second action, striping, in my opinion this is an inappropriate alternate account that is used for voting before since 2004, and since you seem to support it, do you know who it belongs to ? Mion (talk) 15:08, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I haven't a clue who it "belongs to". If you believe it's a sockpuppet, go take it to WP:RFCU. Chris Cunningham (talk) 15:13, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

That would be WP:SSP, i'll post it there. Cheers Mion (talk) 15:19, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Just made a note Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Nynexman4464. Mion (talk) 16:38, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

You were complety right Chris. Mion (talk) 22:04, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Archival of Talk:4X game

I just wanted to point out that when you archived portions of the talk page for 4X game, you archived a thread that started the first week of January (of this year). Discussion on this topic may not have completed yet. Also, you left threads which date back to 2006. SharkD (talk) 20:29, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Argh. That's what happens when people top-post new threads. Sorry about that. Feel free to de-archive any threads with ongoing conversations. Chris Cunningham (talk) 21:07, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Nobody top-posted anything. User:SevenMass rearranged all the threads out of their original chronological order, and sorted them by topic. A big PIA if you ask me. SharkD (talk) 02:59, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Ah, right. Yeah, that's not a great way of doing things. Chris Cunningham (talk) 07:56, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

YouTube links

You were right to remove the YouTube link from GNU, because it's obviously a clip from Revolution OS (that YouTube user posted several of them). But your suggestion that "youtube links are discouraged" isn't the case - Wikipedia:External links#Linking to YouTube, Google Video, and similar sites says there's nothing wrong with them as long as they're infrequent and not in violation of Wikipedia:Copyrights#Linking to copyrighted works.
RossPatterson (talk) 16:05, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
P.S. We frequent many of the same articles, and I've admired your work on numerous occasions. RAP

Cheers! Thanks for the heads-up on when YouTube is acceptable. Chris Cunningham (talk) 17:01, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

WUSTL template

I would like to change the titlebar colors of the WUSTL template. Per Template:Navbox, "Styles are not recommended as to maintain consistency among templates and pages in Wikipedia. However, the option to modify styles is given in case it is necessary." I do not want to change the function or overall design of the template at all, simply the titlebar colors to reflect the recognizable color scheme of the University. I seek your consensus. Thanks, Lmbstl (talk) 15:23, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Sure, but please don't change the font. Chris Cunningham (talk) 15:40, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I won't change the font. -Lmbstl (talk) 15:55, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Threat or No Threat

You seem like a reasonable person, I could use a little help. I have been working on an article for which I am COI. I don't edit it, I only make contributions to the discussion page. The article Wiley Protocol concerns my wife, but there is another editor Debv who operates a hate site aimed at my wife, so you can imagine how heated these discussions can be. In any case, I tried to offer an olive branch at Christmas by giving holiday greetings along with a old saying that is usually referred to as an Irish blessing or Irish prayer, but this editor said it was a curse, said that I threatened her physically and put it on her website as well as filing a civility complaint. The editor who responded Cheeser1 picked up the threat claim and repeated it quite a few times, was insanely rude and then petulent when another editor KieferSkunk gently chided him. And though the latter editor did not accuse me of making threats, he more or less alluded to it. Now this is causing me real problems off Wiki, where clients are asking me why I threatened (to kill, yes that's how it escalates) a woman. Would you please have a look at talk and talk and read the dozen or so paragraphs and advise me what to do? Thank you in advance.Neil Raden (talk) 01:45, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

This really needs to go to WP:RFC, which is the best avenue Wikipedia has for complicated issues which aren't centred primarily on policy. I can state without prejudice that your Christmas message carries a level of ambiguity which could readily be interpreted as malice if directed at editors with whom you didn't expect to reach an entente. But that's all I can say: it's ambiguous. My experience with the project is that the worst possible thing one can do when in a negative confrontation is to continue to engage the party in question directly. As both parties have an obvious COI regarding the topic, taking it to the wider communinty through an RfC and then standing well clear is by far the best solution. As for real-life repercussions, I've got no experience of dealing with such, I'm afraid. There are surely bodies within WP which can at least provide some advice, but I'm not one. Hope this helps. 02:04, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, that's the most reasonable response I've gotten so far. Neil Raden (talk) 21:20, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

my

Sorry, I read WP:RFC and it states that at least two editors had to attempt to resolve the problem. I suppose that includes KieferSkunk, but how do I go about getting another involved? KieferSkunk responded to WQA against him I filed. Neil Raden (talk) 02:12, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Re: your project "Refer to Linux consistently"

I admit this is somewhat dated (you marked the project "done" in last September), but I would like to see a justification for such a project. According to GNU/Linux naming controversy page, two thriving and largest distributions in its kind (Debian and Knoppix, general purpose distribution and live CD) use GNU/Linux in their official name, while the distributions quoted as using "Linux" are smaller in comparison (Mandriva, Mepis, and Slackware) and perhaps even in decline (Gentoo, at least if "Funtoo" blog is to be believed). Others maintain neutral positions regarding this.

Given this evidence, GNU/Linux is clearly not a "minority term" for the free operating system, and I would like to see your justification with a link to a discussion where such consensus on Wikipedia was determined—after all, depending on when that was, it might be appropriate to re-open that discussion.

In addition, I would like to suggest that, for objects with controversial names, it is common to refer to them by both names. This is only marginally applicable here, but that is the stance taken in international names for geographical features (for an example, see Sea of Japan), and I don't see why that should not be the case on the Wikipedia. I would yield that for the article title, such as Linux, where brevity can be appreciated, it can be argued to keep the Linux name, rather than moving it to GNU/Linux and redirecting Linux to there (right now, it's the other way around), as long as it is explained in the introduction (as it is now). However, I strongly disagree that the term "GNU/Linux" (with the exceptions you already noted in the search, such as Debian GNU/Linux) should be excised from Wikipedia.

Again, if you'd like to maintain the validity of such a project, I respectfully request a link to a discussion where such consensus was determined—that it's not your personal opinion and bias that you are pushing on the Wikipedia. novakyu (talk) 09:02, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

See the archives of Talk:Linux. I don't believe that you've presented a compelling case for change, in any case. Chris Cunningham (talk) 20:11, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but could you *at least* point to which archive? There are 20, and it would be very difficult and time consuming to find the particular one where such debate was held. As I can see it, you are the one being proactive in change, so I would think the burden of proof is on you—not to mention you would be more familiar with which archive would contain the appropriate discussion.

Again, I respectfully request the link to the discussion, something more specific than "search the Wikipedia", to justify your "project". novakyu (talk) 21:03, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, as a good-faith effort, I at least read the current talk page on Linux article. It appears that there is no such consensus for excising the term GNU/Linux from Wikipedia. All I see are discussions and debates with no conclusive end, some mentions of Wikipedia naming policy (which only argues for the point already conceded, i.e. the article title of Linux), and Gronky saying that your aggressive edits tip the balance into the "Linux" POV. Do the archives show anything more significantly different, or is "I don't believe that you've presented a compelling case for change" one of those "No, you are wrong, I'm right" type of simple contradiction (and no reasoned argument)? novakyu (talk) 21:29, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia's wikilinking policy is connected to its naming policy, and Wikipedia's common-name policy applies consistently throughout Wikipedia and not just to article titles. So any arguments which apply to keeping the article title at Linux apply just as well to linking to it using the term "Linux", and using that term in article prose. It's a matter of long-term agreement over a broad range of conversations. It doesn't make sense to point to a particular place in the archive where it was reached.

Assuming that you do in fact believe Wikipedia should be consistent, I can't see how you could oppose a change which actually makes it so, even if you happen to disapprove of the term used consistently. The onus should be on you to explain why the chosen term is incorrect, rather than on me to justify why I shouldn't have just left several hundred articles in a contradictory state just because the authors of such articles had a different opinion to those taking part in the discussion on Talk:Linux. It's a long and complicated debate, and reading the talk page archives for yourself would be the best way to get a feel for it. Chris Cunningham (talk) 01:20, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

One, could you show how Wikipedia's wikilinking policy is connected to the naming policy (are you saying that we should not have any redirects, or that we should get rid of wikilinking by using alternate names with pipes)?

Two, how is an edit like this related to "wikilinking" policy at all, since the wikilink part only had "Linux distribution" in it? (Please note that "GNU/Linux" in the "next sentence" was eventually taken out by Mattl later; he did say "GNU Operating System, using Linux kernel" but that doesn't have the same feel as "GNU/Linux"—regardless, I suppose I don't feel strongly enough (as long as it is correctly represented as being GNU) to re-introduce the old dispute.)

Three, I won't argue for distributions that identify themselves as "linux distribution", such as "Gentoo Linux", but why would you insist on excising "GNU/Linux" from distributions that officially identify itself as a GNU/Linux distribution, such as gNewSense? Are you saying that these people do not deserve to be called by what they would rather be called because there is some nebulous consensus on Wikipedia (for which you have yet to produce firm evidence, other than disputes on "Linux" talk page without a conclusion) that says the term "GNU/Linux" to be censored out of existence?

I would greatly appreciate your answer to these questions, and whether you would clarify your "project to remove mention of GNU/Linux" in light of your forthcoming answer. novakyu (talk) 07:09, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay:

1. I'm not saying that we shouldn't have any redirects at all. However, going via a redirect for the sake of making an ideological point is out of line with WP's policy of maintaining a neutral and non-advocative point of view. It's been argued that the policy of not fixing redirects which aren't broken means these should be left; however, when there's an obvious subjective issue regarding links this can't apply. There's an obvious difference between Democratic People's Republic of Korea and North Korea, though they go to the same page.
2. The removal of an unlinked "GNU/" before "Linux distribution" is because Wikipedia should, as I've previously argued, refer to subjects consistently. We refer to all "GNU/Linux distributions" as "Linux distributions" as a matter of consistency.
3. Articles are not written from the point of view of their subjects. We have enough problems with objectivity in the free software sphere of WP already without allowing articles to use their own definitions and terminology.
4. Lastly, while I'd rather not have to defend myself over such silly charges, I am not "censoring" Wikipedia, nor does a personal project to improve Wikipedia's free software articles by making them use consistent terminology boil down to "removing mention of GNU/Linux". I've restored the old lead to gNewSense, including the clause which explains the project's own stance on the naming debate. By this act, I've incremented the number of times the term "GNU/Linux" is included in the encyclopedia. If you think this necessary in other articles, please bring it up with me and I'll gladly add it myself if appropriate.

I've left a comment on Mattl's user talk regarding my revert of his gNewSense intro rewrite. Chris Cunningham (talk) 10:28, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I would like to offer my opinion. The project to excise all references to GNU/Linux is deeply POV and wrong. It should be reverted completely and totally as quickly as possible. Virtually all references to Linux should be references to GNU/Linux. I am certainly unaware of any community consensus which would support the draconian and absurd campaign that has been conducted against the correct naming convention.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 01:29, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I think that you should examine the context of Jimbo's worldview: The reason why GNU/Linux is a "good" name for the thing is that is emphasizes GNU's contribution to the ensemble. You should also consider how much face time Jimbo has had with Stallman vs. Torvalds. And you should consider how obsessed some established editors are about getting attribution for themselves. Take a look at this example to see what I mean. When you take these considerations into account, you can understand more fully where Jimbo is coming from. Of course, the fact that GNU/Linux is a redirect tends to outweigh Jimbo's theory. WP:NAME and WP:JIMBOSAID also seem to go against Jimbo. And the fact that Linux is the most popular usage... Well, put yourself in the mindframe of a dictionary creator, where you should be documenting usage, not dictating it. Do you want to present fact or do you want to be creative and original? Your choice.--Veritysense (talk) 23:33, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

What would you say to “The most important man in the Open Source history is Linus Torvalds, the creator of the popular Linux operating system.”?

And have you created a new account specifically to post this comment?

--AVRS (talk) 11:57, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Dodgeball revert

Hi,

Thanks for your comments, unfortunately i am not sure if you deleted my comments on the discussion page in question because they were childish or pointless or both. Mine was a valid question which related to the article as it stood at the time. Deckchair (talk) 09:39, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about that; I've restored your comment. Chris Cunningham (talk) 15:26, 28 January 2008 (UTC)