User talk:Thumperward/Archive 32

Archive 25

←

Archive 30

Archive 31

Archive 32

Archive 33

Archive 34

Archive 35

{{Who?}} tags

Thank you for your input at the Village Well concerning the use of tags. Can you provide me any guidance on available conflict resolution for dealing with this issue?-32.145.117.65 (talk) 19:55, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

On the specific Obama birthright framing point that the thread in question has devolved into? Discussion on the page in question would be the best solution. It's no longer a technical or policy issue. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 14:51, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Planescape: Torment GA review

Hey there! In case you haven't seen, Planescape: Torment has been nominated as a Good Article, and the review has been placed on hold; some issues need to be resolved, so have a look at the review page and discuss the issues and let's get to work! BOZ (talk) 20:48, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. I'm going to wait this one out to see how the article develops; as one of the main forces behind keeping the plot section short in that article, I might not be the most help if the GA fails because the article doesn't contain enough plot. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 14:51, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Working Man's Barnstar
		For clearing out all that crud from the WP:FOOTY page that should have been sorted out ages ago :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:04, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Cheers! Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 14:51, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Overlinked template

Could you return the broom to the template? I didn't see any discussion about removing it, and I rather liked it. Debresser (talk) 00:18, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Have you looked at the template? It's still got a broom on it - {{ambox}}es with | type = style automatically get a broom. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 08:34, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

It does. Great. Debresser (talk) 13:52, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Ireland naming question

You are receiving this message because you have previously posted at a Ireland naming related discussion. Per Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ireland article names#Back-up procedure, a procedure has been developed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration, and the project is now taking statements. Before creating or replying to a statement please consider the statement process, the problems and current statements. GnevinAWB (talk) 18:25, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Bbcnews

Template:Bbcnews has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. meco (talk) 17:13, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Admin nom

Well, you probably figured I would oppose; however, I do see positives from you as well as my reasons for hesitancy and I didn't think it worthwhile to bring up past arguments too much. As such, I'm not going to put some angry "strong oppose" or what have you. I've indicated where I think I'd be concerned with you as an admin, but also how I might keep an open-mind with regards to my stance there as well. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 18:56, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the constructive feedback at any rate. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 19:00, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome and I hope it didn't come off too harsh (there are times where I wish I could upload sound files of me reading my comments so that the proper tone is understand as it is easy to read text in multiple ways that might not necessarily be the intended meaning). If I write, "What's up?" without the tone, it can be interpreted as a friendly question, but it can also be interpreted sarcasticlaly. Well, anyway, I'm probably rambling now. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 19:11, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Out of interest, what would your opinion be were I to say that I had no interest whatsoever in using the tools in non-housekeeping deletion? Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 19:13, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

To be totally honest, my concerns with you as an admin would be given how eagerly you wanted to undelete some of my old userspace, I am apprehensive if once you have the tools you would in fact do that and second that you would close fiction related AfDs based on bias against them disregarding even when new sources are presented. I know I am a strong inclusionist with regards to fiction AfDs. As such, I do not do non-admin closes as keep even though in theory I could. I have seen by contrast a number of admins of the deletionist bias with regards to those sorts of articles close as delete even when the consensus seems otherwise. Consider Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Rubber-Band_Man_(Static_Shock) and Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Mainframe_(C.O.P.S.), which had clearly no consensus to delete either or Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sennon and Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Schutzwald, for which nearly everyone seemed okay with a redirect. And as those examples suggest, no explanation is provided as to why the majority opinions are discounted. So, yeah, if you're basically saying that you have no interest in using the tools in a non-housekeeping manner, then that pretty much discounts my basis for opposing. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 19:20, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

At least so far as AfD is concerned, I'd far rather argue my cause than try to short-circuit the resolution by use of the tools. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 19:24, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

That is reassuring, but in the event we came to conflict again, which again, I really hope won't happen and heck since I do not comment in AfDs as regularly probably diminishes that likelihood, would you defer to someone neutral with regards to any admin action? Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 23:30, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I wasn't clear enough. I'd happy recuse myself immediately, and would expect that from any other admin. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 23:42, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Okay, that is also reassuring. I'll likely rethink my stance in the near future. I posted a link after my initial stance to this discussion, so editors should see that my concerns have been addressed before I think of how I want to revise my position accordingly. My stupid back is hurting too much tonight for me to write too thoughtfully (hence focusing on minor grammar fixes, welcome messages). By the way, if I forget to update before it closes, just send me a gentle nudge as a reminder; I am just a little curious to see how it goes, but I do plan to revise or switch in some manner for the better. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 02:16, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Are you transcluding it or shall I? Oldelpaso (talk) 19:36, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Erm, yep, forgot about that. :) Done now. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 19:38, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

BBS

It should be in a new paragraph at least. The whole paragraph and the one below it is about BBSes that would charge users for access to content. The line about the Rusty n Edie's BBS seemed out of place in the paragraph. That is why I added the new information about another instance of a BBS in trouble with the law and created that section. I will make a new paragraph. Let me know if there is any problems. Thanks. Quistisffviii (talk) 10:00, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Sure thing. So long as negative material isn't segregated out into its own section rather than incorporated into the article naturally, I don't mind. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:02, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

RE: Template:WPFILMS Sidebar edits

It was a style thing, primarily the smaller text. New version is much better, though I don't see an overwhelming need to have it fit flush with the archive template. No problem though. :) PC78 (talk) 01:10, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Cool, cheers. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 01:12, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Nile

Thanks, Chris, for taking care of that move situation. I would not have thought to post it where you did, but clearly it was an intelligent way to resolve the situation. I much appreciate it, as I was completely stymied in my attempts to make any further progress. Unschool 06:27, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

No problem. :) Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 07:26, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

comment on Lphant article

Hi,

since I know you as a much more experienced wikipedian than I'll ever be, (remember our differences on the Shareaza article^^), I would like to kindly ask you to read threw the Lphant article (as well as its sources etc.) and add a comment to the talk page, if you have a bit of time left.

Greetings, Old Death (talk) 14:41, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I've tidied the article a bit. For what it's worth, I think the current version is well enough written and is not overly advocative - it describes the issue without attempting to unduly influence the reader. Good work. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 15:10, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

aimed stalking or what?

Hello,

i'm a developer at dyne.org

i noticed that you systematically acted on articles related to GNU/Linux software we develop

it is obvious from dyne:bolic page history you annoyed other editors with repeated notability questions:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dyne:bolic&action=history

also on FreeJ software you recently questioned the notability of the article:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FreeJ

is there something you disagree with in general, regarding the notability of dyne.org activity? or any specific issue related to our activity?

ciao jaromil (talk) 14:06, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I routinely tag software articles which do not contain secondary references. This is in no way unique to you. The simple way to prevent this from happening in future is to ensure that these articles contain plenty of reliable secondary sources which establish that the subjects have sufficient real-world notability to belong in an encyclopedia. Wikipedia is not a directory service, and not all software belongs on it; just that which has had some measurable impact on the larger world. Stalking is a rather serious allegation; I would ask that you not throw such allegations around lightly. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 14:28, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

yes in fact i didn't meant it lightly. your reaction now is submitting for deletion an article in question (FreeJ) about one of the few GNU GPL multimedia frameworks for streaming ogg/theora and included in Debian GNU/Linux since years. the funny thing is that the mediawiki foundation is supporting ogg/theora development... but probably you simply don't understand all this? jaromil (talk) 15:37, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

None of that implies that it's received significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources, which is our main notability criterion. As I've pointed out in other cases previously, "being included in Debian GNU/Linux since years" isn't an establishment of notability, because Debian contains thousands of different pieces of software and inclusion means little more than having an active maintainer and meeting Debian's packaging standards. I'm sorry that you feel you're being "stalked" because I treated your software article exactly as I do with any other, but it's not the case. if you're through with making out that I'm ignorant or a stalker then I suppose this conversation is over. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 16:32, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

as this conversation unrolls you are calling up more people to delete articles related to dyne.org development. can you suggest another justification to this behaviour rather than stalking? if not then i also suppose this conversation is over. jaromil (talk) 15:00, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

If you're talking about the edits around this, I had nothing to do with it. Sigh. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 15:11, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Answer

Rather than create drama at your RfA, I'll answer your inquiry here. First, WP:3RR is not a right to 3 reverts - it is a means to prevent edit warring and disruptive reversions. A more insightful answer would have been to ask for more information from my question: has anybody been warned, has anybody discussed the changes on the talk page, what did the edit summaries look like, was this a pattern of behavior. In a certain sense, the question was calculated to elicit you to examine the scenario more deeply or to make some assumptions in preface to your response. The answers to the "underconstruction" question sound fine, but realistically few if any admins actually have the time to go off and research notability independently - especially if the article's author can offer none. "Underconstruction" without content or with nothing more than an external link is like planting your flag on some uninhabited island claiming it as your own - WP doesn't allow that; we have user space to which the offending article could be moved if queried by its author after deletion. I have seen you around and you do good work. I think you'll be a good admin at some time, if this doesn't work out this time, then soon. By they way, I'm glad you've asked and not nastily. I'm moving to neutral. Cheers, Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:46, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. At the very least I'm learning something. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 18:05, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

FWIW, I think your RfA will pass, so don't take my "if this..." statement as a pessimistic one more than a philosophical one. :-) Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:55, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject IRC

I see you've been keeping an eye on the WikiProject ;)

The portal boxes seem to work fine under Internet Explorer but Mozilla based browsers handle the div differently. If you can find an easy solution let me know. Tothwolf (talk) 23:22, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually I was keeping an eye on who was using my {{portalbox}}, but I saw a familiar face. :) I'll let you see what you come up with and give it a bash once you're finished. Friday night is not generally acknowledged to be my best time for looking at cross-platform CSS issues. :) Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 23:25, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

It seems to be a common problem for WikiProjects, portals and userpages that use custom style elements. The floating elements for things like {{portal}}, {{sisterlinks}}, etc don't seem to play well with the style elements, at least in Mozilla compatible browsers. Its probably something simple but finding a solution has been a lower priority on my to do list compared to everything else. (You can probably get a feel for what all is left from the to do list on the WPIRC project.) Its not like WP:WPIRC is getting a huge amount of traffic at this point anyway ;)
The style elements for WPIRC are in the Frame subpage which is itself an updated and modified version the Turnkey Project. One of the things about the existing code that really bothered me was the lack of real edit links, but that turned out to be a pretty easy fix.
You may want to look though some of the other projects in the WikiProjects Based on the Turnkey Project category since some of those have examples of the problems with {{portal}} and other templates.
--Tothwolf (talk) 13:07, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/GLFan151

I'd say just ride it out. My guess is that this isn't a new user, but I don't know who it would be. If you get a feeling on who the account behind this is, email a checkuser and see if they will take a look. Otherwise it is best to just let it slide for a bit. Protonk (talk) 02:52, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I've mailed Casliber. The last couple of talk page comments look pretty clear as to who it is. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 13:26, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

LAMP with a Perl

You reverted my edit on LAMP (software bundle) to make Perl the primary language. I suspect that you are more knowledgeable than me on the subject (I came to this site to see what all the fuss over LAMP really was). However, the rest of the article still uses PHP as the primary language and currently this article is a mess.

It appears that the article has been using PHP as the standard for most of it's life and was only recently changed to Perl by an anonymous user. So it appeared that the change had been made in order to promote Perl rather than correct information. Do you have any references to back your claim that LAMP meant Perl first, people seem to be claiming the opposite as well?

Either way, you ought to fix the rest of the article if you believe that Perl is the default. Thank you. -Sligocki (talk) 02:59, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Yes, I'll try to update the rest of the article soon. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 06:10, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

This is the one that finally got to me....

And no offense at all as I feel sure you will one day make a terrific admin... and I mean that with all honesty. My oppose came down to your bumping heads with Jimbo... and even though he simply asked you to stop something, declarations from Jimmy Wales have policy status, and ignoring him, no matter the best of intentions, is something no editor should ever do. Then he had to ask a second time. That was the clincher... for me and likely a few others. With best regards, Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 10:06, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate the response, but I disagree with the premise - please see this thread on ANI, linked in the previous discussion, where the idea that anything Jimbo says is automatically binding policy is fairly thoroughly discredited (the thread is specifically on the Linux issue too). I've hardly ignored Jimbo on this - I've personally started two separate RfCs on this issue, which he engaged in, and I specifically asked for clarification on whether this was an edict precisely so that onlookers wouldn't get the wrong impression (apparently unsuccessfully in most cases). But anyway, that whole sphere of editing has eaten up a large part of my spare time and given me nothing but grief both on- and off-wiki, so I imagine I'll be dialling down my involvement in our free software articles in future. Thanks for your followup regardless. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:26, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

May I have links to those RfC's? And I was only referring earlier to the talk page discussion where he says please stop.... and then again says please stop, and suggests an RfC. Did the RfC's coincide with or follow those two requests? Thanks, Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 14:06, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Linux/Name and Talk:Linux/Referring to this article. If you'd like it set in stone that this is Jimbo's personal opinion and not policy, here's a link to Jimbo saying exactly that. The "UK /US English" analogy that Jimbo and Mako are so fond of grants editors a mandate to either sidestep the issue with more neutral language or at least make articles internally self-consistent. That exactly reflects my actions of taking an article which uses the term "Linux" ten times and "GNU/Linux" once and changing it so that it uses "Linux" consistently, or taking an article which applies to all Unix-like systems and changing it from reading "GNU/Linux" to "Unix-like". Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 14:46, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

• That's a crying shame that you or any other editor is under the misapprehension that Jimbo's views on content are law. The very premise is absurd. Even if Jimbo were willing to say "I am making it policy that we call Linux GNU/Linux", he didn't--Chris asked him as much right here on this talk page. This is a content matter and Jimbo is just another editor. If he takes a particular view on a content dispute there is no reason to click your heels and comply. Protonk (talk) 17:47, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

RFA

Your RFA has been closed as no consensus. Please work on the concerns and try again in the future. Thank you for your interest. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:20, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Commiserations Chris. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:00, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations!

Sixty people who had no axe to grind supported you, and even in the other sections there's a surprising amount of sincerely positive stuff. You did well! Nevertheless, this might be a good time to step back and think about what you really want to do. All those hours on Wikipedia might be better spent on a part-time postgraduate diploma, MSc, MBA, PRINCE2, ITIL, etc. There's great training around and you need to make the most of it while you can. While your brain's still buzzing, re-boot your education, not your edit counts! Good luck - Pointillist (talk) 23:09, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Comment: Good advice. Wikipedia is a brilliant but thankless place, the RfA processes are caustic and merciless, ad nauseam; with bouts of destructive energy (my own included) that could have been spent so much better elsewhere. The toll is also considerable, recently Ecole and Dean annihilated each other. What a senseless waste. You would serve your own interests much better channeling all that energy into post grad education for a relatively short period, and the benefit it will bring you is lasting. Sincerely. Power.corrupts (talk) 01:29, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Absurd

Guess you've got to take more pottery classes or something. Oh well. :| Protonk (talk) 23:11, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

That was a hard RFA to watch, so I know it must have been harder from where you're sitting. If you decide to run in the future, let me know if there's anything I can do to help. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 02:19, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Keep your chin up

I took the past week off for final exams (you will see a week long gap in my editing from the 10th through 17th), but if your RfA was still open when I decided to take a temporary break from my break this evening (back to school work and logging off Wikipedia again momentarily), I would have at least switched to weak oppose if not neutral. Of course, I doubt my one oppose had much impact (maybe even brought a couple to support you...) and after all, anyone who would have seen my last edit in the RfA with the update that linked to our discussion above where I said my concerns were largely addressed probably took that into consideration. Anyway, they say being an admin is no big deal, so don't lose sleep over it. Take care! Sincerley, --A Nobody^{My talk} 03:29, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Your revert of my edit to Rangers F.C.

While you may be correct that too many terms were bolded in my recent edit, I think that one is far too few. The club's official incorporated title should certainly be in bold (there is no separate article for the corporate body), and this club is extremely well-known as "Glasgow Rangers"; this is not a nickname but a definite alternative title and should be bolded per WP:BOLD. Three bold terms is not too many. What do you think? --Rogerb67 (talk) 12:51, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Maybe, yeah. Definitely not more than three, though. I'd be a bit wary of bolding "Glasgow Rangers" too, myself - we still need a good reference to prove that this is actually in common parlance rather than simply an easy way for European broadcasters to disambiguate when need be. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:55, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what kind of reference you're looking for? Unambiguous usage outside of a certain context [1]? By Rangers F.C. [2]? By FIFA [3]? By fans [4]? In books [5]? Or some kind of reliable source stating "Rangers F.C. is frequently called Glasgow Rangers" [TBA]? --Rogerb67 (talk) 18:29, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

The latter most preferably, yeah. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 21:31, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Regrettably my internet searches for the "killer" reference have so far come up blank. I do think however that the other sources I mentioned above do demonstrate usage satisfactorily. Would you find one or some of these acceptable? --Rogerb67 (talk) 10:05, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Might as well put one in just now and we can improve it later, yeah. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 13:02, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Happy Saint Patrick’s Day!

On behalf of the Wikipedia:Kindness Campaign, we just want to spread Wikipedia:WikiLove by wishing you a Happy Saint Patrick’s Day! Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 16:10, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Dyne:bolic

jaromil may be the project maintainer, but look at the edit history: Very minor input. Out of the last 100 edits, not one was his. That level of involvement (more accuratly, non-involvment) does not constitute a COI by most reasonable people. Proxy User (talk) 17:19, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

This was the very last edit to the page prior to Cameron's. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 17:28, 17 March 2009 (UTC)