User talk:Thumperward/Archive 19

Archive 15

←

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

→

Archive 25

Talk:Scientific_software#Thanks_for_merge_suggestions

Talk:Scientific_software#Thanks_for_merge_suggestions —Preceding unsigned comment added by Prohlep (talk • contribs) 19:11, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Alcohol (proof)

Concerning your recent edit of this article: I would like to see at least one citation of a jurisdiction where twice-the-ABV is not used, and a smaller value is used. EU regulations require use of the ABV number. Do liquor bottles in the UK show both the ABV number and a proof number? Wahrmund (talk) 00:18, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I was just copyediting the material added by Fogster74 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). UK bottles only show ABV in my experience. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:01, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Something I'd thought I'd never read...

See this. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 06:23, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Heh. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:28, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Commander Dante

I've been talking to a few people involved at the deletion review, and I proposed the follow: I receive the old Blood Angels page to be userfied. I take the Dante information, merge. I use the 12 sources (reviews and specs) I've found to have real world information. I discuss mostly product release, product history, product creation, etc. I have a section for the one game guide, the video game, the books, the comic books, the card game, and the miniatures. I will emphasize creations, impact, and reviews. I will discuss awards and other bits of information like that. I don't know much about the primary subject, nor do I have access to the material, which I will ask for people to provide and I will sift through for various things. I have 12 sources now, and I will hunt down more later. I will keep it in my user area until I feel that it is good enough to meet all demands, then use it in a deletion review to see if I could place that version up.

How does this sound? Ottava Rima (talk) 20:32, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Tell you what - sure. I'm happy for you to go for it, given that I seem to remember you working some wonders on articles I didn't feel were going anywhere in the past. I'll do the DRV myself if you can make it articleworthy. If that works out then I'm happy to reconsider whether similar articles I've voted to delete in the domain could work the same way. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 20:38, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I'll just need support from the community as I will be hit from both sides - coverage on a game topic and lack of fan coverage on a game topic. When it comes to fiction, I tend to believe in summaries of a line per 5/10 pages. Nothing more than that, unless its an important event. I also try to minimize plot summaries and fiction to less than 1/4th of a topic. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:11, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

My talk page

Thanks for the considerate edit (although I do wonder why you were "passing through").

But the reason I had the bullet point there was so the next box would start on the next line. When it is removed, the top line of boxes is too long for my computer screen and I have to scroll to read across the whole page. Is there a way of limiting the number of boxes along the top row so this does not happen?

Is it just my monitor? I have a 13.3 inch widescreen. Do you have to scroll?

Regards, Btline (talk) 22:36, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I happened to be following some old conversations between some railway-minded Wikipedians. As I say, please don't be offended; feel free to tell me not to do it again! :) I've fixed the templates by using the {{-}} template, which forces future templates not to float next to it. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 23:18, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks for your help! Now I come to think about it, I "pass through others' talk pages as well! Btline (talk) 23:28, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Re: "straight from memory" (Apple Boutique)

Uh, thanks for the compliment - but I was never there. What I wrote comes from several bios, including Philip Norman's Shout!, Peter Brown's The Love You Make, Ray Coleman's Lennon, Mick Fleetwood's Fleetwood, and others... at a time when referencing every last flipping item was not such an issue. I may go back and add the refs you want - if I have nothing else to do, for several days. (I don't see that happening.) It's easy for someone to say "this needs references"... I wish the folks who insist on them would spend half the time looking things up for themselves, as they do tagging articles in such a way. This alone is enough to drive me straight off Wikipedia, and leave what was an enjoyable way to keep my writing hand in, for something that actually pays me. Meanwhile, you now have a list of source works. Zephyrad (talk) 02:45, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry to hear that, but I don't get paid for copyediting either. It's just a tag and an edit summary - I'm pretty sure that professional editors are rather less impersonal in their commentary. The summary was a tad disparaging though, and for that I apologise. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 06:56, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Template:Other message boxes

Hi Thumperward. I noticed that you changed the notice box at the top of Template talk:Mbox to instead use its own separate template. What's the point of that? We can't reuse that template on the talk pages of any of the other mboxes since each of them have their own specific links and text in their talk page notice box.

And using the {{columns-list}} template inside that box causes weird display. For me the bullet point that comes last in the first column gets split and continues at the top of the next column, which makes it hard to read.

--David Göthberg (talk) 09:39, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Do they? I'd assumed that they were all the same and was going to migrate them, but got distracted by something IRL. If that's not the case, feel free to speedy it and revert the change. Sorry about that. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:53, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I am not surprised that you thought they were the same since they are pretty similar, its only their lower halves that differ. So yeah, I will revert it. I just wanted to explain and check if you were planning some other usage that I were not aware of. Sorry to "crush" your work...

--David Göthberg (talk) 02:18, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

No sweat. Thanks for the heads-up. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:09, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Moved Template:WPMIXInfobox to Template:Infobox cocktail

Hi. On 7/27 you moved Template:WPMIXInfobox to Template:Infobox cocktail per "standard naming convention". What exactly was the basis of that convention? WPMIX is the WikiProject Mixed Drinks, and all of its templates are (supposed to be) prefixed with WPMIX (thus, WPMIXInfobox was the standard naming convention). By renaming it to "Cocktails", it actually breaks convention. You could have renamed it to Infobox mixed drinks, and that would be okay. However, cocktails is not acceptable since cocktails are a subset (though the most recognized) of the superclass, and it just looks really bad to have an infobox named cocktails on punches, egg nog, and other non-cocktail mixed drinks. It is also used in some other articles related to mixed drinks, where cocktails just doesn't make sense.

Also, as the person who created the template and (occasionally) maintains it when things go wonky, it would have been nice if you had contacted me prior to making changes to this template. I don't claim to own it, but out of respect for the weeks of work that went into it, it would have been nice to have been contacted earlier. Also, that would have avoided the whole naming problem (and now the need to rename the template either back to WPMIX or to mixed drinks). --Willscrlt (Talk) 16:39, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about that. Yeah, I see now that it was rash. Did it actually cause any fallout on articles, or just semantically? Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 17:18, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Not Copyright Anymore

The details added to those Amiga games are the storylines. I checked the copyright and its all above board as the companies responsible for the creations of the games no longer exist. Please reinstate the information that you removed. I do not enjoy wasting time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Allan Kendall (talk • contribs) 10:42, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Copyright in the United States and the United Kingdom lasts for at least 75 years. Those games are not 75 years old. While the companies who originally wrote the games may no longer exist in their original forms, their intellectual property still has an owner - in the case of Psygnosis, that owner is SCEE. Please read abandonware for some background on abandoned-but-still-copyrighted games. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:46, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Re: Reflist

Hi. I don't have a personal issue with it, but some browsers don't have access to three columns i.e. Internet Explorer. Also, I believe 1 column is much better than say two or three, as some articles look "messier" and more unprofessional in my view when using three columns. If reading an article, you read down the page so with one column, you read them straight down, but on 2 and 3 columns its more confusing. On long articles, with loads of refs three columns in my view looks incredibly messy. D.M.N. (talk) 13:46, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

IE ignores the option whether it is there or not - it doesn't need to be removed for the sake of that browser. While you may believe that using only one column makes articles look less "messy", this isn't the project consensus, which is why that option was added. For users on widescreen monitors, this layout saves significant vertical space, and avoids lots of empty space on short rows. Please don't remove this as a matter of cource in future, at least not without discussing it. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 13:54, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

OK. D.M.N. (talk) 14:08, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 14:09, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

After our brief discussion yesterday, you may wish to contribute to this discussion. Kind regards, D.M.N. (talk) 13:27, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Allow critic on Segway

You didn't. Your arguments against my posting of new tests on the segway by experts were none. You deleted the critic that would have been interesting to many people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.130.40.65 (talk) 14:12, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

It can be re-added when it is properly sourced, properly written and properly integrated into the article. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 14:27, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Semantic label or a divider

How about both, by employing the nonwikilinked-wikilinked observation I gave Tombstone?

Kingdom Animalia · Phylum Chordata · Nonwikilinked Wikilinked · ...

Surely anyone able to make sense of the words above will at the same time make sense of their presentation? Sardanaphalus (talk) 15:45, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
PS I (or rather AWB) has done exactly quite a lot so far.

Wikilinks are neither semantic nor dividers in my opinion. People are used to seeing wikilinks everywhere. What if someone comes along and wikilinks Kingdom as well? Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 07:46, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

User talk:Tombstone#Colons. Sardanaphalus (talk) 11:22, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:27, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Template:Infobox user

Not sure what's wrong but your edit to the template has caused an issue with my user page. Please take a look at my userboxes section on my main page. Thanks, HoosierState^Talk 15:30, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Whoops. Sorry about that. I've fixed this, hopefully for everybody. Thanks for letting me know! Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 17:09, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

This article

As you can see I have begun revising it, but a number of the sources that turn up are in Dutch and I don't read Dutch. I wonder if you know of a relevant wikiproject who can help there? --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 23:05, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Also, there's an artist of the same name (see her website), which naturally complicates the source searching. Not sure on the notability of the artist yet, i.e. if there should be a disambiguation page to both women or anything. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 23:09, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Al Gore

I know you nominated Al Gore to WP:GAN and I would like to ask if you can give me some time for me to review the article. I've been busy with other projects, but I will get to review the article. All I ask is if you can be patient with me. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 02:31, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Sure thing. There's no rush. :) Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 07:44, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

1796 sword

The nature of the page had been changed in a mis-informed manner. I have given my reasoning behind why these changes were either factually wrong or likely to lead to unnecessary confusion on a reader's part, I believe these reasons to be cogent. I reverted them in the most straightforward way I could devise, the "undo" function apparently not extending to titles. I regret if this broke any policy guidelines but would uphold my reasons for changing the present state of the page, which are outlined on the relevant discussion pages. Urselius (talk) 13:48, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't disagree with your changes - what I am doing is carrying out the "undo" you require, by using the page move function to rename the article rather than simply pasting its contents into a different page. I'm going to remove the {{hangon}} tag in order to expedite this. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 13:51, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Question.

Can you take a look at my user page and tell me if you can help me out. If you click show on the bar for Signifcant Contributions you'll see how long it is. Do you think you can find a way so that when you click show it shows it, but just like 10 lines and then has an interior scroll bar for the section itself? The reason I ask is that it would save space on my page when other editors or I view the list. Hope you can help. If not that's ok. Crash Underride 18:39, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I had a quick play with it, but I'm not the best person to ask. Try WP:Village pump (technical). Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 18:54, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Abhuman

Hello! For this one, I am not arguing any further for the Warhammer content; however, would you be opposed to my going ahead and completely writing a new article about the concept as used in Gothic literature as that does have lots of secondary source commentary and is discussed in the context of such noted authors as Bram Stoker, Arthur Conan Doyle, and Rudyard Kipling. Please comment in the AfD if you would support totally cutting the Warhammer stuff and allowing me to continue the rewrite based on the other topic. I am hoping that how Arathi and Commander Dante currently look can be a positive precedent for what to do with ones that say lack consensus for Warhammer but for which a different arguably legitimately more "encyclopedic" subject exists. I am hoping that this will be a good opportunity to work constructively and aboid further going back and forth in the discussions over the Warhammer sub-articles. Obviously I couldn't make such claims for all of these Warhammer articles, but some like Arathe, Abhuman, and Commander Dante are ones that I believe we can instead boldly write a new article on a more clearly notable topic. I am hoping that this will be a way to mend fences, i.e. instead of going back and forth over Warhammer notability, let's just leave that consensus where it is and instead go ahead and make the article about a subject that I don't think we disagree on as having notability. It would make for one less back and forth AfD here on out and instead allow for the creation of a genuinely notable article. Please consider. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 03:07, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to write it under a different title and move it to abhuman after the AfD is completed. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:33, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

EEMIV and Judgesurreal777 are onboard with the proposed compromise and to save us all a lot of future stress, I strongly encourage you to join us in finally working together to compromise and edit in a more cordial and constructive manner. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:29, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm unhappy with the precedent this sets, but the project has bigger problems than an article having a bogus edit history. I certainly don't want to see this repeated every time you Google an AfD candidate's name. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 19:35, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

It's sets an excellent precedent where editors who usually disagree (EEMIV and Judgesurreal on one side and me on the other) were able to come to an agreement that resulted in stopping the usual heated AfD discussion and instead working together to make an encyclopedic article. It's about time at least the three of us came to our senses and colloborated and compromised. And it augmented my respect for them as seeing them as open-minded and reasonable, which will cause me to adjust how I interact with these particular editors. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 23:33, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Obviously you're happy. You got what you wanted. Now you're going to copy-paste a response along the lines of "judgesurreal and EEMIV have already approved if this in the past" into every set of WP:GHITS included in all of your templated keeps, which makes me unhappy (as it's disruptive to AfD and weakens the process) That you've indicated that you treat anyone who disagrees with your threshold for notability as an enemy is likewise worrying. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 23:40, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

What I would have preferred would have been an article on the Gothic literature topic and one on the Warhammer subject in a separate Abhuman (Warhammer) article, but instead compromised. Judgesurreal and EMMIV got what they wanted in that we do not have an article on the Warhammer topic, but compromised in that the edit history wasn't deleted. Unless if you also have issue with all the templated deletion nominations and per noms as well, then it's comical to call my keeps templated, when I only do that in response to copy and paste nominations and delete votes, but even then I also frequently attempt to improve the articles and make subsequent comments in the discussions. Many of the copy and paste per noms just go down the list of AfDs never to return. I saw one the other day in the Warhammer AfDs with FOUR per noms in under a minute and another three in under the preceding minute. My compromise with Judgesurreal is that when an encyclopedic subject can be written for an article that is likely to have a tension raising AfD to instead just have me boldly write a new article and for my part I will avoid commenting to everyone I disagree with in AfDs he or EEMIV nominate and may even abstain altogether from those that I am unlikely to actually convince people in. I am increasingly finding the word "disruptive" as a nonsense Wikipedia word like "cruft", i.e. a word to no longer regard as one used seriously as use of the word is usually hypocritical and in some cases dishonest. As far as weakening the AfD process goes, well, AfD is a seriously flawed aspect of Wikipedia. A handful of editors deciding in five days in discussions that can be taiend by sock puppets whether something that's been around for years and worked on and read by maybe even thousands is anti-logical and the idea of some somehow knowing better than thousands strikes me as elitist if not arrogant. Thus, it should be a challenge to delete anything that is not obviously a hoax or libel or copy vio. I don't see anyone as an "enemy". I am always hopeful that people can be open-minded and find compromises eventually. As Lincoln said, "Am I not destroying my enemies when I make friends of them?" Finally, as far as using it as precedent, I can't always use it as one in discussions like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/High Lords of Terra, which is why I am refraining from commenting to everyone there. If editors can show open-mindedness and willingness to compromise as they did with Abhuman, then I will do the same by saying my peace on something like the High Lords one and nothing further. Ultimately, we all win in some way and so does the project. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 23:57, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

"If editors can show open-mindedness and willingness to compromise as they did with Abhuman, then I will do the same by saying my peace on something like the High Lords one and nothing further" sounds an awful lot like "I will continue to disrupt AfDs with frivolous rationales unless editors engage in tit-for-tat capitulation with me". Your concerns over AfD process in general would not be nearly so ill-received if you limited yourself to attempting to change policy through the usual channels without also engaging on widescale project disruption in individual AfD discussions. As for being open-minded, I've shown on more than one occasion that I'm willing to try to engage you on issues where we can find some common ground, but that does not include compromises to core policy which will if unchecked lead to a significant weakening in our current process. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 00:06, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I have never and will never "disrupt" Wikipedia. Every edit I have ever made was made in good faith and with the interests of the project in mind. I have never even played Warhammer, nor likely will I, but I respect that others believe aspects of it are notable. Claims to the contrary are dishonest and farcical and are a stopping point for serious discussion. By that same token, I suppose I could call many of the deletion nominations frivolous and disruptive. After all, a vocal minority trying to unilaterally (the same half dozen deletes in every AfD for articles worked on and read by thousands is rather unilateral) put a halt to years worth of the colloborative work of scores of editors on a widescale actually is disruptive, inconsiderate, and unconstructive. It really seems low when redirects or merge discussions are not at least attempted first or when the article contributors and creators are not even notified of the discussions. Or should we all assume good faith and focus on how best to cover content rather than allegations against each other? Consensus can change and so should our current processes. What is broken should be fixed. I am always willing to compromise and keep an open-mind and when we have subjective "rules" like what is and is not notable or illogical "rules" like a five day AfD with a handful of participants deciding the fate of something worked on and read for years by far more people, these things need to be challenged and called into question at all times. No one should feel bound by the illogical. The funniest (or saddest) thing about it all is that the end result is instead of Wikipedia covering aspects of human knowledge that more people than those who said to delete find suitable for Wikipedia, we wind up covering deletion discussions. I would much rather have a bunch of Warhammer spinoff articles that at least someone finds relevant than pages and pages of deletion discussions that serve God knows what purpose. Unless if we are trying to prove useful for people who do studies on online culture and online arguments or something. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 01:25, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Spare me the rehearsed replies ("years of work", "five day discussions with a handful of participants"). AfD is as it is because the current system has been refined through project experience. That you object is unimportant in the scheme of things when you continually discredit yourself by disruptive action (and I don't care what your definition of "disruptive" is: you waste more of the community's time by your AfD participation than can be justified by your record, and that's the only way it can be measured). I have worked extensively on WP's coverage of Games Workshop material and I do have extensive real-world interation with the subject - I am also one of Wikipedia's most prolific contributors, and have no interest in degrading the project's worth. Furthermore, your arguments about the excessive concentration on process are entirely bogus - you know full well that the 40k deletion work was started with a series of redirects, and that you are the one who continually makes mountains out of molehills by drawing out what would otherwise by pretty snowy closes of reverted redirects by continually harrassing every contributor to the AfDs that process requires after failed prods / continual reverts of redirects. Were you not interested in subverting policy by making a point out of these generally uncontroversial closes, there would be no drama and little effort wasted on them. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 01:48, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

The actual waste of community time is the pointed nominations of articles for deletion that should not be deleted. AfD is as it is because a vocal minority want it that way, not what the actual community wants. Your disruptive and harassing replies to me and bogus "arguments" continually discredit you as a serious contributor. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:15, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Fortunately for me, your opinion in this matter is a distinct minority as well. I'm ending this thread. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 00:24, 23 August 2008 (UTC)