User talk:Thumperward/Archive 26

Archive 20

←

Archive 24

Archive 25

Archive 26

Archive 27

Archive 28

→

Archive 30

Windows NT#Designation

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Windows_NT&diff=244396881&oldid=244396535

This reads like the VMS story could be true, just uncited. Also, Lucovsky is called "Another of the original OS/2 3.0 developers", but he's the first person mentioned in the section. 98.223.106.192 (talk) 01:28, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, both of those need fixed. Do you mind suggesting fixes (or doing it yourself)? Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 15:58, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I already had. Sorry for not making that clear. 98.223.106.192 (talk) 03:08, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Template

Template:Backwardscopyvio. Lovely. :) I've added some clear instructions to the documentation (for the benefit of those like me who will stare at it, wondering "What am I supposed to put here?") and included it in Wikipedia:Copyright problems/Advice for admins. I expect it will come in very handy! --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:04, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

My pleasure. :) Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 14:06, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Editing headers on talk pages

Thumperwad: When users post to a talk page on a given topic, the guidelines state they should give that section a header. Once they create that header, the header becomes communal property. It is not part of their comment. See Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines#Editing_comments. It is recommended to change header titles when the topic shifts, which it has in this case. My change, which you reverted, followed these guidelines perfectly. Your reversion violated editorial guidelines. In the future, please allow those engaged in the discussion determine whether changes in header titles is warranted; SoundBlast was welcome to speak up if he felt that I was changing his intent by modifying the header title, and would have been justified in making an edit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thesoxlost (talk • contribs) 16:46, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the compromise edit. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 17:46, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Giant Space Hamsters

I see your point. I've merged the article into Spelljammer. -Drilnoth (talk) 20:34, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Cheers. Much appreciated. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 20:37, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Re: protected request

Request has been taken care of, however, the link you added does not seem to go to any specific section. Check the target page and see if another section should be linked to and let me know. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 23:45, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Done, thanks. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 00:31, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Re: Larsson

It looks much better. After I got your message, I recalled seeing a new proposed footballer infobox template over the weekend, which I'm sure that's what you'd put into the article. Jiminy Christmas, I'm not having a good month with editing. *sits in corner*  :) sixtynine ^{• spill it •} 21:08, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Hey, don't worry about it. If it's any consolation, I stuck up for you over your edits to Klaas-Jan Huntelaar. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 21:21, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I know, and I am most grateful. Muchas smooches. sixtynine ^{• spill it •} 22:45, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Andy Martin

How 'bout explaining why this isn't an "attack piece" while "Barack Obama birthplace controversy" is. The arbitrary nature of Wikipedia edits appears to be motivated more by the desire to censor a particular POV than provide a reliable source of information. --DaleEastman (talk) 16:33, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Given that the article you're talking about no longer exists, I'm not sure exactly how I'm meant to compare the two. What I can say is that the Martin article is backed up by multiple reliable sources and doesn't actually appear to be in dispute, other than your desire to have it deleted (presumably due to the negative light it places on the fringe theories espoused by its subject). Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 16:40, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps I can shed some light on this. The article DaleEastman referred to was a coatrack for an attack on Barack Obama sourced primarily to "www.obamacrimes.com." The fringe nature of the site's claims, combined with the fact that there is no controversy about Barack Obama's place of birth -- there is his verifiable birthplace and there is a nutball who has filed a frivolous lawsuit -- made the article into little more than a poorly sourced attack page. As an apparent subscriber to the notion that the lawsuit has merit, and won't be tossed out of court, DaleEastman is upset that the article was deleted. I'm sorry if this comment comes off as snide, but I've grown quite frustrated with the constant push to incorporate OMGOBAMAISAFOREIGNBORNMUSLIMLOLWTFBBQ into Wikipedia. You'd think that now the election's over, this stuff would die down, but no... --GoodDamon 19:16, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, the backstory wasn't hard to find after a look at the user contributions. 2016 can't come fast enough, although to be honest the next Democratic candidate could be Whitey McOldGuy and exactly the same thing would happen. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 23:29, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Radar

Hi,

I would like to know why you took out references about the meaning of radar in the intro of the article. These have been put there because some user had contested the meaning of the acronym and it was necessary to it backup with solid references. I will put them back. Pierre cb (talk) 04:45, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

The lede is intended to be a summary of the article - any facts within it should be fully explained in the article body. Those refs belong further down. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 08:52, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

"Markets" section of console articles

I wasn't referring to the Mega Drive item in that comment... that was my mistake and I've corrected it. The comment was in regard to the subtitles and the breakdowns. I can't find the specific page now where the talk was it was on one of the other video game related pages. There was some comments I made on the LaserActive talk page that I found. I'll see if I can find the other talk on this. This break out is related to this odd cross over class of systems from the mid nineties that didn't specifically fall under one market category or another (eg, LaserActive, 3DO and CD-i) which need qualifiers to explain how they fit into the market. BcRIPster (talk) 07:22, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I know they need qualifiers, but there are much better ways of doing so than presenting a largely context-free set of wikilinks and I didn't even change the presentation - just reduced the evident overlinking and removed the ugly parentheses from the headers. If you find the discussion please let me know. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 08:56, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

New proposition regarding D&D article notability

Hi! I know that you have recently been active in some Dungeons & Dragons articles, so I thought that I'd point out a new proposition that I made regarding their notability at WT:D&D#A new proposition. Any input on the idea would be much appreciated. Thank you. -Drilnoth (talk) 14:51, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Template:Australian Racing Driver

It's only orphaned because it has been removed from relevant articles and been replaced with a completely inappropriate template which looks similar at the technical level but creates a completely inaccurate result. Absolutely oppose. --Falcadore (talk) 21:51, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

It is surely a far better idea to edit an existing template so that it covers the subject in question than to create an entirely new template which differs only subtly from existing ones for a rather niche use case. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 21:52, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Sure, if it does, and the V8 Supercar driver template does not. You've just stated that Leanne Tander has won 4 V8 Supercar races. Like to know when she did that precisely. --Falcadore (talk) 22:01, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

So pick a different one. Part of the reason one can never find the right infobox to assign to people is because there are so many of them, which differ in trivial ways. The correct solution is not to continually invent new infobox templates. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 22:06, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I created this one specifically so it could be picked for a multitude of purposes as the V8 Supercar driver template is category specific. You're attempting to delete the more generic template in favour of a template which can't be used for the purpose you prescribe. None of the other templates in Category:Racecar driver infobox templates is useable. --Falcadore (talk) 22:10, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

What exactly makes {{infobox racing driver}} unsuitable? Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 22:27, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

In the short term - its intimidating complexity, and the need to be re-implemented across a large number of pages. The ARD template is simpler and more easily implemented by new editors. --Falcadore (talk) 23:54, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

We do not fork templates because they are "complicated". I don't understand your point about needing to be "re-implemented across a large number of pages". Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 00:42, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Using that template as you would prescribe would then see it largely supersede the V8 Supercar template as well. But then it gives you another template to delete. --Falcadore (talk) 01:12, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Certainly. That's a future goal. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:48, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Theoretically all other driver templates could be replaced with infobox racing driver. Why not slap CSD against all driver templates other than the one you like? Why stop where you have? Where's the dotted line between acceptable to yourself and what is not? --Falcadore (talk) 10:03, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm having a hard time understanding your point here. If one template can adequately cover all the common use cases then that is indeed what we should be going for - I already rolled all of the NASCAR driver templates into the single {{infobox NASCAR driver}} from the original five or six and that's only been of benefit to the project. I wouldn't ordinarily just speedy things, but when a template is only being used on one page (pardon me for missing that it had recently been removed from other articles, but i can't really track that) it smacks of being surplus to requirements. it would have been far better to take a template which was already in common use and broaden its scope than to start an entirely new one forked off of an existing template and to try to deploy it piecemeal. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:09, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Hello Thumperward

Just to mention I noticed your contribution on gNewSense right after mine. I am ok with your edit. --Grandscribe (talk) 23:33, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

gEDA Page

Hi --

I just noticed that somebody (maybe you) put a {{notability}} tag on the gEDA page. Ummmm, for it's admittedly narrow field of applicability (electronic design), gEDA is one of the two major open-source software packages out there. Wikipedia has several articles about portions of the gEDA Project (Icarus Verilog and GTKWave are two which come to mind). The other electronic design package, Kicad, also has a Wikipedia article. Finally, Wikipedia has tons of articles about various free (as in freedom) software applications.

I'm nervous about seeing the article get deleted. Ummmm, what specific changes (if any) should be made to bring the article into compliance with Wikipedia's guidelines?

Cheers, Brorson (talk) 11:45, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Exactly what it says on the tin - references need to be provided for reliable, third-party sources which have given non-trivial coverage to the subject. These can be in journals, news publications (print or online), books or other media. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:56, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi -- I put several external, third-party journal and conference references to the gEDA Project and its tools into the article. Please let me know if this is enough to remove the {{notability}} tag from the article. Cheers, Brorson (talk)

Hi again -- Just pinging you to see if you are happy with the notability changes to the gEDA article. Cheers, Brorson (talk) 14:25, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Looks good, thanks. Feel free to de-tag it. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 14:33, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Done! Thanks!

Brorson (talk) 18:32, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

About {{Infobox Anthem}}

Yes, in fact, when I saw it, the code from {{Listen}} was spilling out onto the article space, and that was a big no-no. I simply felt that it looked a little boring and plain, being just gray. I'm not exactly sure how I could turn it into a template with fields (like {{Infobox}}), but I hope we can reach a compromise (i.e. we could keep my design, get rid of the rounded borders, lower the padding, and put it into template form). Hope to hear from you soon about this, – Obento Musubi (C • G • S) 16:40, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I've left a comment on the template talk page. I feel strongly that infobox templates should take a standard design and that the {{infobox}} defaults are good enough for almost any purpose, but if you want to suggest changes then be my guest. Note that altering the design of the current version is a simple as inserting one line of CSS for the bodystyle parameter, as explained in template:infobox/doc. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 16:46, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Alright, thanks. I never knew about that, so I'll try it out on my sandbox. – Obento Musubi (C • G • S) 19:48, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Furthermore, I apologize if it freaked you out or irritated you or caused any problems in any way. – Obento Musubi (C • G • S) 19:55, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Not at all. Thanks for your consideration. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 20:12, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Your message

Hello Thumperward, I think it's a good idea to keep things cool. Let' take some time to find an acceptable solution. There will be a discussion and then the most appropriate text will be used. --Grandscribe (talk) 22:56, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Just realized this, but

Why was BitTorrent Client redirected to Comparison of BitTorrent Clients? The two articles were split because they were two different subjects. The split was because BitTorrent Client had too little to do about a/any bittorrent client, and was almost entirely the BitTorrent Comparison chart. If it was decided via concensus that that the two subjects do not warrant separate articles, then can you move everything back to BitTorrent Client. I noticed the move when I was discovered that a previous talk section was missing. Thanks. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 06:37, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't mind whether the article is titled "BitTorrent client" or "comparison of BitTorrent clients", so long as the page history is intact. I reverted the recent split because it took the comparison (which is the only important part of the article, and the part which most of the page history concerns) and dumped it in a new article minus all the page history. I've fixed the talk page archives; if you need something from the old talk:BitTorrent client then you'd need to ask an admin to undelete it. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 08:08, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

But the article was split so that the comparison of BitTorrent clients wouldn't be a majority of the BitTorrent Client page. Page history break is inevitable unless there's a way to copy page history. Splitting any page does this. I don't see why a split should be reverted solely because of a missing history. Now if you are referring to why the comparison chart was removed, it was because there was a consensus (although there needs to be another discussion on it now as consensus can change) that the BitTorrent client page shouldn't compose solely of the comparison, and that it needed to focus on what a BitTorrent client is. Therefore, the Comparison was split. There was a link on the BitTorrent client page to the comparison page anyway. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 02:30, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

In this case, the page history relates almost exclusively to the comparison section, so belongs in that page's history. I don't have a problem with a re-split from the opposite direction, though I do think that there are insufficient reliable sources on the subject of "bittorrent clients in general" to establish notability for an article on that subject. If you think there are then be my guest in splitting off a BitTorrent client article from it. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 08:47, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

complaint at AN/I

Hi TW, your conduct is currently the matter of discussion at AN/I - the view (that I share after reviewing your recent edit history) is that this is a nonsense complaint. --Cameron Scott (talk) 18:02, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I saw it, thanks. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 18:16, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

RE: {{orphan}} tweaks

All done. Feel free to let me know if you have any further. - Rjd0060 (talk) 19:39, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Excellent. Cheers! Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 19:40, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

About trisquel notability

Hi, I'm a trisquel developer, I've made several changes to the trisquel article in order to fix the issues you raised. I've added two references (from spanish printed press), and will add some more once the project is included in the GNU recommended free distros list [1]. We are working with GNU Spain hacker group to evaluate the freedom of the software included. I've also cleaned the introduction, as being a Ubuntu derivative is not so important for us as being 100% free (I've taken the liberty of using your neat description for gnewsense). So, if you are pleased with the changes I will remove the deletion tag, unless you prefer to do it yourself.

As I don't currently have a wikipedia user account, please use ruben AT es.gnu.org if you need to reach me. Regards, Ruben

1 http://www.gnu.org/links/links.html#FreeGNULinuxDistributions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.144.43.103 (talk) 18:06, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I've de-tagged it. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 18:14, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Civility

I would suggest showing good faith and acting in good faith as the best way to indicate your good faith. You may not be aware how your comments come across, but they didn't appear to be born of generosity and caring. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:11, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

They weren't "born of generosity and caring". A Nobody not getting blocked again is for the good of the project, and for the benefit of those editors whose time will be spared from dealing with disruptive editing. I've been in discussion with this editor for several months both on- and off-wiki, so I didn't feel the need for false platitudes. As he is once again refusing to even consider discussion of his conduct with users who do not extend him unwarranted good faith, I fear that history is going to repeat itself. I'd rather not go airing dirty laundry right now, but suffice to say that I was not "baiting" him so much as giving him a firm warning. I don't need to be an administrator to do that (admins are just normal editors who have been trusted to do the right thing; they don't have any special powers of authority). Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 23:59, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't aware that using weak arguments at AfD was a blockable offense. Is there a policy page on this? I think we can weed out an awful lot of editors. ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:55, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

If you don't know the particulars of this case, it would behoove you to not be snide. If you do, then it would be disingenuous to word community complains about his behavior in that fashion. Protonk (talk) 01:01, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I only know what I read as a comment posted on an editor's talk page. I never messaged or mentioned Thumperward by name at all. He posted a message on my talk page suggesting if I had questions about his comments that I should let him know (I'm paraphrasing here, so I apologize if I'm not phrasing it exactly). So I'm letting him know that I didn't think his comments came across as being very nice, and in fact seemed aggresive and hostile (uncivil as I understand the word). I wouldn't be discussing this with Thumperward at all except for Thumperward's request on my discussion page. I think calling me snide is a personal attack, especially when you consider that Thumperward stated that "certain arguments are disruptive (at AfD)" and posted an ominous and threatening comment about "disrupting AfDs with specious and long-discredited arguments". So I think my question is quite reasonable and if using bad arguments at AfD are a blockable or otherwise punishable offense I'd like to know. And if it's not I think his comment could have been better phrased. ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:34, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not calling you snide. I'm describing your summary of the issue as snide. As for Chris's "warning", AfD's are a place for discussion. The disposition of content needs to be considered rationally, fairly and deliberately. Filibustering, grandstanding, or otherwise filling up AfD with poor argumentation is disruptive. I also think that Chris (and others) don't intend their warnings as anything other than that: a warning. It is a suggestion that you might be stepping outside certain norms and should review your actions. I don't think Chris is threatening you. I'm certainly not threatening you. No one wants to swing around threats of blocks or topic bans. Honestly, the process is unpleasant for all involved even in the most unequivocal cases. So let's not get worked up over this. Protonk (talk) 02:13, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. Your explanation is very reasonable. Had the issue been presented in a similar manner in the first place, I think this ruffling of feathers could have been avoided. Words do matter. When someone starts talking about long term bans and such it's hard not to take it as threatening. It's something Admins would do well to keep in mind. Having extra buttons is no small thing. Take care. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:27, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

That last comment is very important to remember. I guess more because although the admin (and long term editor) mantra is "just extra buttons", the appearance of authority can intimidate people where there was no intent to do so. Thanks for responding and sorry if feathers got ruffled in the first place. Have a nice day/night (depending on timezone). Protonk (talk) 02:36, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Archives

Do you want just #32 restored? And sorry for deleting them, they were all tagged as U1 speedies. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :D} 08:23, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

All of them, please. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 08:37, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I've started restoring; wanna go through and rollback his speedy requests? Cheers, Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :D} 08:42, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

All done. I'll help rollback a few. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :D} 08:44, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Will do, thanks! Can you drop him a note asking him not to do that again? Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 08:45, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good. Thanks for letting me know about this! Cheers, Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :D} 08:50, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Top Gear (current format)‎ - Running gags

You have just undone an item in Top Gear (current format) about "Running gags". Although poorly-written and unreferenced, it was accurate and relevant. If you had looked at Talk:Top Gear (current format) you would have seen that is in GA review, which would have picked up and fixed the problems. You should at least have left a note at Talk:Top Gear (current format) so that the editors would have a chance to research the "Running gags" content, and I suggest you do this in future if you see content that you consider unsatisfactory. --Philcha (talk) 12:58, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

The last thing we should be doing during GA review is adding yet more unsourced and misspelled material of little general interest to an article which is already 60k long. The article already has enough arbitrary and cruftastic lists without adding another one. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 13:11, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Don't you think you should leave that to the editors and reviewer? In any case failure to note wht you've done on the Talk page and why is likely to annoy other editors and may get you involved in an edit war. --Philcha (talk)

Errr, I'm an editor. And it takes two to edit war - if someone reverts, then the talk page is there to discuss it. Maybe you've chanced upon WP:BRD at some point? There's no mandate to discuss any edits before making them, especially not in the case of articles which plainly need improvement. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 14:20, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

You're an editor, but, as I pointed out at Talk:Top Gear (current format), have not made any noticeable contribution to content or research at Top Gear (current format). There are several thousand subjects on Wikipedia on which I have too little knowledge to lay down the law to anyone about what is or is not useful content.

WP:BRD itself says "It requires more diplomacy and skill to use successfully than other methods, and has more potential for failure." Nowonder it also says, "While this essay is not a policy or guideline itself ..." (banner at top). In short WP:BRD does not recommend itself enthusiastically. --Philcha (talk) 15:10, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't see that this is getting us anywhere. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 15:17, 27 November 2008 (UTC)