User talk:Thumperward/Archive 20

Archive 15

←

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

→

Archive 25

Shareaza article

Could you plz have a bit more pation before removing all my work form the article? It is still being worked on (e.g. I am searching more sources) There is something called artile talk page, where you should at least discuss before you delete... (my personal opinion) I undid your recent changes, and continued working on the article (especially on the history part). Also, I will complete the features part of the software's description.

And by the way, links to the BETA builds websites are interesting for users (more advanced users). On the websites are clearly pointed out (as well as in the beta installers) what can hapen by running beta builds. So there is no reason to not have them written in the article. (I remember a PM from a user who complained he hadn't found the beta links on wikipedia (where he had first searched) [...]

Same for the forks: forks of the original appliacation are important in the history of Shareaza (for example, we regulary use code from the raza + mod [and vis-versa]). Also, when they arrive in finally coding what they call FLOX, this will be a milestone in the history of P2P (comparable to the swarming technology). And when coding on Shareaza Lite has been finished, it might be (we are not sure about this yet) released by the Shareaza community as alternative to our big and really feature rich client.

Old Death (talk) 11:45, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

These software links are not notable enough for inclusion. They are not appropriate inclusions in a description of the subject, which is what the article is. It is not a portal or guide to using it. If there are reliable third-party sources which mention these things in some encylcopedic context then they can go back in, but I doubt that this will happen. I have used the talk page extensively in the past to address this kind of thing. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:51, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you on some points (see also my answer on the Shareaza article talk page), and I removed the entreys for the two different debug builds page and I replaced them with a redict to the official debug builds page (which is needed since there has been no release for a long time and lots of users use our debug builds instead of the official release now.Old Death (talk) 14:28, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I've replied on the talk page. Given your obvious conflict of interest here, I think you should re-evaluate the way you approach editing the article - it isn't a vanity page to attract people to the project. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 19:33, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Emacs infobox

Well done! Didn't know about that. Thanks for taking initiative. Waitak (talk) 15:26, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

My pleasure. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 19:16, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Hahahahahahaha

I just read your contributions to the debate about the title of the article on football. I am speechless.

FWIW, I went through a period of my life where I was a staunch advocate of the word soccer. However, after much consideration, I then came to the conclusion that that term is ridiculous, not least due to its lack of use in the countries where the sport is most popular - both by native English speakers, and by non-native English speakers speaking English.

I would therefore absolutely call the article "Football", and I think the current article entitled "Football" - which seems to me to be something of a random mix of unrelated points - should be renamed something like "Random jumble of facts about sports involving a ball and feet". xD Kennethmac2000 (talk) 10:34, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

That would be nice, but it's pretty unlikely to ever happen. And frankly, given the epic struggle to get the thing renamed in the first place I'm in no hurry to go starting any more debates over it. "Speechless" how, by the way? Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 19:15, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

User block question

There is an anonymous user at 76.125.140.46 who keeps making nonsense edits to Transformers articles. I and several other people keep correcting him and warning him, but he won't stop or even talk to anyone, he just keeps making the edits. What is the next step? Thanks Mathewignash (talk) 23:50, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

WP:AIV is fine for repeated anon disruption after a final warning. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 23:58, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Al Gore is now GA

Al Gore is now a Social Science GA. ThinkBlue recommended to me that I ask for a Peer Review before moving on to FAC. So spread the word, the peer review is up: Wikipedia:Peer review/Al Gore/archive2. -Classicfilms (talk) 02:56, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Woo. One thing that we need to address is that there's still a fair bit of content churn right now - FAs should be pretty stable. I know that some of this is due to him having been the former next President and all, but if there are any issues which keep coming up and haven't yet been resolved to satisfaction on the talk page we should try to get them closed now. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:29, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that will be a problem - a few other contemporary figures are FA such as John McCain and Wesley Clark. The major controversy on the talk page has been around the Noble medal icon, but that icon has since been deleted (the links on the Gore talk page take you to the discussion) so that discussion won't happen again. There are two other points on the talk page - one concerning South Park and the other towards the environmental section. You can take a look to see if they need resolution. The only other issue that has come up is the photo in the infobox and we can replace that if need be with the 2007 portrait. I think that is why ThinkBlue recommended a peer review. FA doesn't have to happen right away. We can wait and see how peer review goes. -Classicfilms (talk) 13:23, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Holly Ann Collins article

Dear Chris, you asked me to look at the article a while back. It seems it has become a POV battleground that is trying to replace my cited revisions with uncited revisions as seen at Revision history of Holly Ann Collins. I agree with you that some kind of protection may be necessary. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:55, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm raising it at the BLP notice board as we speak. Thanks. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 17:56, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I suggest noting the usernames of the primary contributors to the article other than us: User:Demand Justice, User:Americangrantedasylumnetherlands, and User:Get Out the Facts. Obvious single-purpose probably conflict of interest usernames. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:58, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, done. I'm new to the BLP notice board, so I don't know how this will go down, but I felt it needed more attention than the average edit war. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 18:03, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I find it despicable that this informative site is being used for one parent in a divorce to slander the other. Perhaps it is noteworthy that Holly Ann Collins is the first American to received asylum in a foreign country.

However it is unacceptable that her ex husband, AKA Tasha Polistar, and his family members use this site to vent his anger?

The very first article was from the reporter who broke the story. I see that Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles condensed the article and removed several important facts. That in itself is acceptable. However why is Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles defending slanderous attacks against this woman?

“the Dutch judge issued a residence permit under the false impression she was from Bosnia” That is 100% false.

The ex husband has used his own comments at the bottom of a newspaper article for his source of information for this article.

“The facts of the following entry have been thoroughly disputed with verifiable sources. These can be found on the Minneapolis City Pages Newspaper's comment section.”

Surely his own comments on another site does not qualify as a legitimate source of information on this site.

There is a court order forbidding the identity of the minor children to be printed in the media. The child in this case should be protected.

Perhaps I did not follow proper protocol on this site, but I don’t have the desire to get into a full discussion about who did what.

My only concern is that the children are protected and the facts are accurately represented.

Thank you Demand Justice —Preceding unsigned comment added by Demand Justice (talk • contribs) 12:33, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I have removed any contentious material from the article, and placed a notice to have the issue looked into. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:44, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Infobox football club broken

Please see Template talk:Infobox football club#Broken microformat. Andy Mabbett | Talk to Andy Mabbett 18:11, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I've put in an editprotected to get this fixed. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 18:15, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

King's Field Series Edits

I have to wonder about people who spend their lives policing other articles they have no interest in what so ever. Methinks I smell a God complex. Since this article has already been on Wikipedia for around a year with no complaints under the title King's Field, why don't you offer a bit more details about what your particular gripe with it is, or better yet, fix it yourself. May I remind you that common knowledge does not need citation. And most of the 'second person' references that you are complaining about are direct quotes from the game. Maybe you should stick to policing articles about whose topic you have some knowledge. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.248.78.147 (talk) 05:28, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Spare me the pop psychology, kthx. Actually, I do have an interest in the series - I just hadn't thought about it for about ten years. When I came across the WP article, I was disappointed that it was of such low quality. Tags are not personal commentary upon editors - they help to get articles fixed faster, by adding pages to appropriate cleanup categories. Rather than spending time getting worked up at other editors, you could try finding sources. "Common knowledge" does not apply nearly as broadly as you think it does if you don't think the current article has serious referencing problems. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 07:40, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Prompt

Hi again.

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template%3AInfobox_Information_appliance&diff=226002720&oldid=204614865

Sometimes I wonder if you'd rather go back to the days of non-graphics ASCII-only fixed-font output on black-and-white (or black-and-green) monitors straight out of something like UFO.

Don't worry, I'm not angling for some kind of reversion; instead, finding the above prompts me to mention that some work is underway (albeit slowly) to guage how many Navboxes might be broken by the group/liststyle amendments I've suggested -- at least, broken if not modified. Should you happen on any more Navboxes whose group/liststyles I've amended manually, please try to restrain yourself from destyling them, at least for the time being. I do appreciate the other kinds of contributions you make. Sardanaphalus (talk) 15:10, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Where is this work underway? I'm happy to add boxes I find to a tally, if there's one going; make me part of the solution. As for going back to ASCII, maybe that is it - I see code and presentation as two different things, and I don't want them mixing if possible. Anywa, yeah, let me know where you're working on this tally and I'll add boxes where I find presentation problems to the list (though again, I'm not planning on giving up based on a problem that I don't actually see for an indeterminate amount of time). It is funny that you picked UFO as an example, given that I fixed {{UFOs}} by cropping the image rather than messing with the template CSS. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 15:21, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Influence of the IBM-PC on the PC market, tags

Hi, as you have been involved with this article in the past I am seeking some arbitration from you. A user User:Petchboo has hit the article with an excessive "multiple issues" tag, which seems completely unnecessary to me. It feels like Petchboo just has an ax to grind about the -content- of the article, not its "tone and style". Or maybe I'm paranoid, and I'm just personally offended, as I wrote most of the current article. Perhaps you can have a look at it, and give your opinion on the talk page . TIA. Mahjongg (talk) 15:28, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I was in the process of leaving my comment when I got the "new messages" bar. :) Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 15:33, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I looked at the article again, and noticed this edit I previosly overlooked. [[1]]. Perhaps Petchboo's wrat may also have been triggered by this new paragraph. Mahjongg (talk) 15:38, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I forgot to tell you that one reason I did not take the tags placed by User:Petchboo serious, and reverted them, was because I took a look at his talk page and discovered that he cleared his talk page, and if you look at his history at the latest non-cleared version [2] you see why. Also, on his main page he has a "barnstar" given to him by an anonymous user from an IP address from which a lot of vandalism is generated. Seems fishy to me. Mahjongg (talk) 15:56, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Hat

Ok, on closer examination I see the skull and bones of pirate lore. I looked at the image category too, and see many people used that style of hat. Like Napoleon, etc.. :) --Timeshifter (talk) 18:06, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

F1 infobox link broken

Hi, can you contribute to the discussion here about what to do now hundreds of infobox links are broken? It would have been cool if you'd mentioned it to the wikiproject first. Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:23, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

It was a simple double redirect on an old name. I've fixed it. I've also commented on the project page. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 19:56, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Suikoden

You beat me to the punch (literally by minutes) on archiving that talk page! MuZemike (talk) 23:47, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I've been meaning to do it all day. :) Thanks for cleaning up the page so that archiving was possible, mad props. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 23:48, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Template:Asof

I just tried to get to {{as of}} but omitted the space and got {{asof}} instead. This is an easy mistake and I think {{asof}} should redirect to {{as of}}. The latter is documented at Wikipedia:As of and has garnered support. {{asof}} is currently only transcluded on 4 articles which could easily be updated to match the functionality of {{as of}}. PrimeHunter (talk) 03:37, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. It's actually meant for a subtly different purpose, so I've moved it to {{updated}} and made {{asof}} a redirect to {{as of}}. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 07:50, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I have updated the last 2 uses of {{asof}}. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:13, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Talk:DOSBox

Hi, I'd appreciate if you don't remove comments users leave on that page, unless they are either pure spam or attacks.

Thanks. --The Fifth Horseman (talk) 12:30, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

It wasn't conductive to editing the article. Fair enough that you chose to reply to it, but there's usually little lost in removing off-topic discussion like that. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:53, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Harbour project modifications

Chris,

Sorry, I've inadvertently wiped out your mods to the Harbour (software) page. Could you check and re-do if necessary?

Ron Ronchristie (talk) 17:53, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Easily done, don't worry about it. :) I've merged the edits. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 17:55, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Template talk:Infobox Musical artist - archives

Hi,

If dates are required, an archive page can be set up to show them. By having to manually specify each page in the archive ({{archives}} doesn't automatically detect them unless they're strictly numbered "Archive 1", "Archive 2" etc.) it means that the archive box muct be manually altered each time a new archive is created, and it prevents automated archiving. Are they really needed so much? Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:31, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi Chris. I presume the person who set up the archive using the longer method, did so to purposely index the dates. There is so much discussion (arguing) in this WikiProject about past consensus, and users are frequently referring to things agreed upon so many months or years ago. So I figure anything to help search and review old discussions is beneficial. I notice the Archive help page says to use {{archives}} "for pages with a very large number of archives" which isn't the case for this page. If you feel there are good reasons to make this change, go ahead, but it's too bad this dating information will be lost. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 10:50, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

{{archives}} is a pretty recent innovation - it's possible it just wasn't migrated over. I'll leave the manual links in for now (although it can be tidied a little) - who knows, maybe at some point {{archives}} will be able to guess dates too. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:56, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

King's Field (series) Edits

Well you should go critique the Japanese Wikipedia listing because the US was a near mirror of it. The reason why the KF topic was/is so bad is because people like you who claim to have an interest, never bothered to put any effort into it. But it meant something to those of us who actually put the effort into making it and improving it little by little as we had time.

I would hardly say tagging a topic as 'not of notable interest' is a good way to show your interest in the series! Then, when someone says 'it's world renowned' and removes the tag, you reply 'prove it' and once again mark it as not of notable interest! Trust me, you have a God complex; that's why you work in programming and troll Wikipedia handing out opinions. People with God complexes think dictionaries are prescriptive; other people know they are descriptive.

The King's Field series page is now an ugly clone of the Final Fantasy page listing. So if you get a hankering to delete half a topic's bulk again, start with Final Fantasy and see how those fans respond. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.248.78.88 (talk) 11:02, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Not gonna happen. If you aren't going to respond like an adult, then you're not in a position to be shaping the article. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:19, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Re:Well, I don't like you any you are allowed to not like me, but I have said my piece on that subject. All that is really relevant is how to improve the entry. My point was that the vast majority of topics on Wikipeadia do not actually comply with Wikipedia's own guidelines and it is not realistic to expect that a user-made encyclopedia ever will- completely. It is self defeating to use the letter of wikipedia's guidelines to defeat its purpose. For instance, any reference to King's Field Japan could be removed because it is nearly impossible to find any authoritative reference to the game in English- but how would that serve wikipedia's purpose of providing information to the masses?

I read the details of your tags (challenges), did some edits and judged them as fixed or inaccurate, and thus removed them in a perfectly appropriate way. You replaced them immediately without comment. Now, I have done even more to make the article more informative and in line with wikipedia's guidelines and you post that I vandalized the article and that you are going to undo my effort? Give some specifics. Stop acting like your opinions carry some special weight. And don't forget to work toward wikipedia's intent as well as the letter of its law. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.248.71.144 (talk) 21:01, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I fully intend to keep working on the article. I consider myself to be a good judge of what Wikipedia's policies do and do not allow, and what Wikipedia is and is not there for. I'll ensure that I leave appropriate commentary on the talk page for any further work I do, though be warned that I'm certainly going to be removing stuff again. For instance, you can't use the Japanese wikipedia as a reference, because it isn't a reliable source - it's like using another English WP page as a source. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 21:06, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I forgot! When a site allows loud-mouth small-minded people to run amok, you simply stop using that site. That's how junk sites go belly up. Have fun ruling your little corner of the net, edit Nazi. What you're a lousy 'judge of' is understanding WHY actual REAL people read video game listings on wikipedia. Wikipedia is becoming a broken tool because of people like you. I'm sorry, that statement needs references: See 7000+ Google results for "wikipedia sucks", 12900 for "wikipedia is bad", 733 for "wikipedia is horrible". And last but not least, stop referring to yourself in the plural; only kings and queens can pull that off. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.248.65.36 (talk • contribs) 06:44, 29 August 2008

We are highly amused. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 07:43, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Republic of Ireland

Hi there, do you mind me asking what your solution to this discussion would be? There seems to be quite a jumble of ideas without any real consencus. I know I'm a newcomer here, and the couple of ideas I had (which were brought up a hundred times I'm sure) were dimissed, quite rightly I'm sure. I thank you for the link you gave me which I did read. Cheers! Skipper 360 (talk) 13:09, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I personally think the status quo is fine. I certainly don't believe it's likely that there will be consensus for a move any time soon. Some issues are simply impossible to permanently settle - all we can do is to make our rationales as simple and conclusive as possible, so that others can get a full grasp of the previous discussion without having to wade through hundreds of kilobytes of arguments. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 14:17, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I have much sympathy for those who want to change the name, whilst also understanding why people think it can't be changed. How's that for sitting on the fence! Looking back at the history of the talk page would it not be a good idea, no matter the outcome, to have an agreement to leave it for a certain period, maybe two or three months to let things settle down again? I'm sure there could be other areas of the article that deserve an equal amount of debate. Skipper 360 (talk) 14:30, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

PS; Wouldn't it be great if half a dozen or so editors who have absolutely no interest in it were brought in to discuss it and make a decision! I know, its probably impossible, but it would be an idea. Skipper 360 (talk) 14:36, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't really have an interest in it, but I consider myself pretty good at having structured debates which centre around policy and not chest-beating, so thought I'd step in to steer the conversation. If you really want disinterested editors to participate, though, there are ways of getting their attention. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 15:11, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I have put forward the idea Here.Skipper 360 (talk) 16:11, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

RFPP reports

I understand that you're frustrated, but please try and tone down notice to the board in future - edits like this tend to frustrate us admins, who have to balance both protecting the encyclopaedia from vandals, and making sure that pages are, whereever possible, unprotected for as long as possible. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 16:18, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about that, but I'm not new to RFPP (or requesting protection for this page). If I thought it were merely in need of temporary protection I wouldn't have requested an extension (and normally don't). We're talking about an article which has been protected for 80% of the last year (and only that way over the last two due to a declined last request) and still has a negligible constructive edits/vandalism ratio. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 17:42, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for comment move

Thanks for taking the time to move my comment on the Shareware talk page while archiving! Who is like God? (talk) 21:02, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

No problem. Sorry for any confusion it may have caused. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 21:07, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Removal of link to lurc from the cmake article

Hey, would you mind to explain why you considered the link to (lurc to be spam? If it was because the link was an external link: IMHO, the project's not big enough to warrant its own page yet, but it's noteworthy nonetheless. It is also mentioned on the XChat page. Cheers, --Mtu (talk) 23:24, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Either it's notable enough for its own article or it's not notable enough to include in other articles, in my opinion. The CMake article already has a problem with being fully of links to largely unrelated topics, so we need to concentrate on reducing them. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 13:25, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Removing manual page breaks

Did you add the correct template to the page to keep my formatting?

By removing the page breaks you destoyed the line flow of the article. Instead of removing the formatting give me an alternative because now I have to go in and reformat the line flow and picture placement again. Alatari (talk) 19:22, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but I really don't know what you're talking about. Which article is this pertaining to? Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 00:02, 3 September 2008 (UTC)