User talk:Thumperward/Archive 34

Archive 30

←

Archive 32

Archive 33

Archive 34

Archive 35

Archive 36

→

Archive 40

Jim Baxter

I think we need to discuss the lead, at the article's Talk page. I like some of what you've done, but removing Slim Jim's interational career from the lead was a mistake. --Philcha (talk) 20:46, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I think the old version assigned rather undue weight to that one game, but I'm not adverse to adding another sentence on it. I'll make sure to watch the talk page. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 21:03, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I've just posted comments at Talk:Jim Baxter. If by "undue weight to that one game" you mean 1967:

• The article says Baxter thought 1962 was his best.
• But Scottish fans / commentators most strongly remember Baxter toying with the world champions. --Philcha (talk) 21:26, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Meh. I still think it's undue weight. Archie Gemmell's single most memorable moment in football might have been in Argentina, but you could write pages on the rest of it. I think the same applies here. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 21:31, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Gemmell was also the driving force behind Forest's 2 European Cups. Rangers never won a European comp in Baxter's time, so his fame rests on his internationals - against the world champions. And it's what the sources say. If we continue this, let's do it at Talk:Jim Baxter. --Philcha (talk) 22:06, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Sure. Do you mind reformatting your last comment to place the whole lot after mine rather than segmenting, though? By interspersing comments it becomes very hard to follow who said who in the future. I'll reply once that's done. Cheers for the dialogue by the way. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 22:08, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

The nested format seems to work rather well at GA reviews, that's where I got into the habit. But I sign every item, addition, so it's obvious who said what. --Philcha (talk) 22:31, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Regarding this

You said to continue the discussion on your talk page. Since your RfA, you have referred to me by something other than my currently and only account (as any checkuser can confirm)'s username, made accusations against me in the above cited thread and now an AN/I. What gives? When I opposed in your RfA, I tried not to make it overally mean, and afterwards I even tried to make an encouraging post on your talk page. I certainly am not just showing up in any discussions in which you commented or started first and so why the aggression against me in these other venues? I don't expect us to just agree on everything, but why when I am trying to be nice or politely disagree are you still acting confrontational to me? I don't know if I just can't win or what, but I really thought with the whole natural horse thing we were at least coming to an understanding and that by not making a big fuss at your RfA (i.e. opposing while pointing out some positives and not going back and forth with other editors as I have done in other RfAs) it would have been received far more favorably. I cannot tell how frustrating it is when I try to be nice or fair to just be rebuffed and against regarding me going on breaks, please note what the talk page templates say, they clearly both allow for occasional breaks from the break and again as well when I last did break around the time of your RfA, I really did not edit for a whole week. Anyway, I am just distressed that things have deteriorated between us again, and I don't understand why, and I really hope that we can patch things up and yes, once that AN/I thread is done, I do hope to take much of the coming months of as much as possible. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 23:28, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Let's lay this out flat. You socked under the account Elisabeth Rogan while you were vanished. This was so obvious that several editors guessed it independently; more than one checkuser was run on it, and it came up as likely (bearing in mind that checkuser is an inexact science, the degree to which the editing matched your own style makes this either an open and shut case or the greatest WP hoax since EssJay). The original thread, which is the very best place to examine the evidence as it was at the time, is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive169#Right to vanish and not vanished. For you to continually and hypocritically pursue editors you are ideologically opposed to for past sockpuppet transgressions while denying this is an indelible mark on your trustworthiness and your creditability. From what I'm led to believe, your were allowed back on following this (which required multiple administrative actions) after making promises (presumably off-wiki) to reform, or at least not to go down the exact same path again. I look at your actions right now (repeated, barely-provoked soapboxing in any venue, vilifying opponents, taking the earliest possible opportunity to poison the well in any editing or ideological dispute, and an utter disregard for advice given you) and see exactly the same editor who burned out and decided to leave six months ago. This is not good news for anyone. Regarding my RfA, I did not expect anything other than an early and strident oppose from you and said so months ago. I acted in grace during my RfA because it was the right thing to do. I don't consider RfA to be a back-scratching parlour; since then I've supported BOZ, who didn't support my RfA, and opposed Cyclonenim who did. For what it's worth, I've disengaged almost completely from AfD since then for reasons including those raised in my RfA, so I do take comments to heart. If you would like relations between us to improve, then I would advise you to take the same approach as I would to your re-engaging other editors: stop soapboxing, stop vilifying editors who disagree with you, stop being brazenly disingenuous when it comes to judging the behaviour of others and consider whether your continued denial of your last indef is worth the mistrust it generates from editors in good standing who were there at the time (and there are a lot of them). Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 23:56, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

You really need to stop mischaracterizing my edits. My limited AfD contributions are nothing like from last year and in all cases since my rename, every article I argued to delete was deleted and every one I argued to be kept at worst had its edit history undeleted upon deletion review. I have therefore been remarkably successful in that regard, i.e. much more so than last year. I don't villainze editors who disgree with me; I respect many editors who disagree with me. What I do take issue with are editors who mockingly refer to me by anything other than "A Nobody" my current username. If you think I "villainize" anyone it is solely those who have done incivil things like that or who come at me hypocritically, i.e. who tell me not badger when they badger others or who give me guff over arguing to keep when they argue to keep less frequently than I argue to delete. I am willing to be held accountable for my edits, but not to be bullied and anyone can plainly see that those I tend to challenge have indeed done their share of mockingly referring to me by other usernames, etc. Those who don't pull stuff like that, I treat fine and as my starting this thread suggests, I still try to give some editors a chance to reconcile even after they have already done that. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 00:04, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I did not say one single thing about your AfD contributions in my last reply. It is telling that the very first thing you did here was try to poison the well again by making out that this is a dispute over what we argue in AfDs. As for the rest of your reply, it is precisely this kind of boilerplate gainsaying which earns you no favours. I've said my piece. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 00:18, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't get the "boilerplate" as the above is hardly a copy and paste from anywhere, but, anyway look, as with the natural horse thing, I am always receptive to good faith colloboration. My mere hope is that there is no needless escalation and antagonism. I will not refer to you by anything other than your username. Please do the same for me and anyone else. Doing otherwise accomplishes nothing worthwhile. Otherwise, whenever I do return after today's uproars, I hope to resume colloborating with Ricardiana and others on GAs and DYKs. I have no desire to escalate any disputes and so long as people aren't going around badgering my comments or mockingly referring to my old username, I will 1) not refer/reply to their comments in AfDs or RfAs and 2) have no need to start AN/I threads. If people leave me alone, I will be sure not to even create a perception of antagonism of them. If beyond today, anyone escalates things, it will be their doing so, because my goal is to rescue articles that can become DYKs or to help with some GAs. Otherwise, I am tired of the tensions here. Take care. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 00:27, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Template:External media

This template is nominated for deletion. Wandalstouring (talk) 15:19, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I know; I already commented at the TfD. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 15:27, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

merging templates

I suggest to merge Template:YouTube user with Template:External media. Greetings Wandalstouring (talk) 18:00, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Where would you like the discussion to be? You've posted messages on both template talk pages; it would be better to keep it in one place. For what it's worth, I don't think this is appropriate; {{YouTube user}} is an inline template intended to be used in the "External links" section, while {{external media}} is usually used in the article body. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 18:04, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Blocci.

As you are involved in the dispute at Giuseppe Rossi, you should know that I've opened a case against the accounts Tesaux (talk · contribs) and Blocci (talk · contribs) at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Blocci. – Toon^(talk) 12:57, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Template:External media

I noticed some time ago that you were rejigging this template to reflect the type of media that was linked. This seemed to me useful. I didn't follow the process, but I notice your changes have been reverted. Are you intending to complete those improvements in the future? --Geronimo20 (talk) 05:19, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

They haven't been reverted; my changes are still live. Is it not working somewhere? Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 07:40, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Can you revert your edit to show the references again. It's part of leading by good example. Wandalstouring (talk) 12:33, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Done, although I don't particularly see the need to show these refs (as they don't actually pertain to the documentation). Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:40, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

The refs are for completeness to show everybody we can cite. I'm following the discussion about the deletion of external media. There's currently a debate about deep linking. I suggest we write a comment in the documentation that it's a nice thing to contact the administrator of a page we use content from, tell him that we are deep linking and how he can avoid it. Wandalstouring (talk) 16:02, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Or, even better, asking that he relicenses his media so that we could host it as free content. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 16:34, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Forget that. People are very possessive. I did a lot of negotiating and the reason I inititated this template was the impossibility to get accurate free license material. Wandalstouring (talk) 15:59, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Joomla! and Joomla

I noticed your {{db-move}} and have removed it for now. While MOS:TRADE does say avoid using special characters that are not pronounced, are included purely for decoration, or simply substitute for English words, I would say an ! is in a bit of a grey area, as it does change the way the word is said, in a way. That and the fact that the article has been at Joomla! since 2005, I think it would be wise to get some consensus about the move before it takes place. Happy editing! ~fl 09:42, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh, you mean like the discussion here, from eighteen months ago? It's a housekeeping speedy. It can be easily reversed. Adding new comments to the talk makes it harder for me to do the talk page refactoring that I'd be doing right now were I not having to argue a housekeeping speedy with you. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:53, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Thankyou for linking to the discussion, if a link had been provided sooner (like in or with the CSD tag), I would have been able to complete the move faster; perhaps a suggestion for the future :). The move has been completed. Happy refactoring! ~fl 10:04, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Cheers. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:05, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Cheers mate!

I would like to ask you if you would like to look and give your opinion on the new Articles for deletion proposal for FreeOrion. I wrote a new version article from scratch and I would like to ask you if you could comment on it FreeOrion and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FreeOrion (3rd nomination). Thank you nice! Peer-LAN (talk) 17:05, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Abstract

Thanks for the See also link to Executive summary, I was just about to put it in!! HarryAlffa (talk) 17:47, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Your question

Sorry Chris, but I'm not gonna be a tool in your discussion about this. Actually, the fact that you are using my RfA in this way, even though rather innocent, kinda disappoints me. (Conclusion based on the fact that you question was asked immediatly after your reaction to Joomla. please correct me i'm wrong.) --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 12:22, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I asked a question of an admin candidate with a history of questionable judgement in the area of speedy deletion based on one of my own pet bugs about admin work in that area, which I'd recently been reminded of. If you don't want to answer it then fair enough, but there's no need to tell me off for it. Anyway, you're going to pass, so I just hope you've learned from your past mistakes. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 21:05, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

I apologize if you were offended, but it was just a bit too coincidental for me. It's also why I said something about it here, instead of on the RfA. There was no way to be sure, which of the two it was, but the two edits were just a tad too close for comfort. See you around ok ? --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 00:35, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Sure, no worries. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:48, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

{{Fix}}

Ah. But they shouldn't copy it into mainspace though, should they? - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 16:02, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Nobody should be using {{fix}} directly - it's a meta-template. If they're using it in articlespace then they're already doing it wrong. I'll add a note to that effect on the doc. Cheers. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 17:15, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Aah. Bit of a problem, there. 500 mainspace uses listed and we're still in the Bs. Have we got a plan? - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 17:24, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Examined any of those? Special:Whatlinkshere doesn't care how deeply nested a transclusion is - those are all picking up on uses of {{fact}} and the like. I'm not sure if there's a way to see how many pages directly transclude {{fix}}, but it's certainly not many. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 17:27, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Ah schucks, really should have checked that one, shouldn't I? Hmm, I'll see whether I can get my hands on a list of direct transclusions. - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 17:32, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Template:Infobox Language sub-templates

Hi there. First of all, please remember to always use <noinclude></noinclude> when tagging templates for speedy deletion, else it will show up on all transclusions. Then, these sub-templates are still widely used in multiple pages, so I declined speedy for now. If you have already replaced those uses, please wait for the job queue to refresh the cache of those pages and re-tag them once there are no transclusions left, else we will end up with cached and incomplete pages that need a lot of null-edits to fix. Regards SoWhy 08:20, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Did you actually see any of these occurring? I speedied each after the main template had been updated, so any articles which were grabbing new copies shouldn't have been requesting the speedied sub-template. If you did then yeah, my bad. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 08:24, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

They are still used in userspace and you using {{db-house}} without <noinclude></noinclude> tags will list those pages in CAT:CSD, thus creating more work to sort through. I'm sorry to see that you re-added them again without those tags. You really should not do that unless your goal is to annoy admins. Regards SoWhy 11:33, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Ah, right, I get you now on the userspace thing. I wasn't really paying attention before, mostly because people tend to switch off when they have a feeling they're being, y'know, lectured. Take care. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:40, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Help

Can you please refer me to a good place where I can learn how to write and edit template code? Help:Advanced Templates was kinda difficult to read. Thanks, Ray^Talk 18:21, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I learned by experience, mostly just by diving in and editing where I could and picking it up as I went along. Is there anything in particular you need help with? Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 21:25, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Not just right now. We were playing with a template, but PhilKnight got it working pretty well. Ray^Talk 02:26, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Help with template

Since there's been no reply too my proposal, Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Inline_Templates#Proposal:_linkspam, I was going to go ahead and create a template based upon your {{Registration required}}. It looks like the same categories would even apply. Any thoughts or suggestions before I do? --Ronz (talk) 19:25, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Nope, just go for it. The last one I created was {{reg}}; I basically just figured it out from looking at {{fact}}. Good luck! Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 21:24, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! --Ronz (talk) 22:06, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Minor template question

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Block_User:CommonsDelinker_-_negative_non-obvious_bot_powered_contributions_detrimental_to_the_project.

Ignore the main drama in that section. Gimmietrow said that commons delinker caused a bug when this edit caused {{Pro hockey team}} to display this. I notice that you spend a fair amount of time dealing with templates, homogenization and graceful failure given bad/no arguments. Is that a 'bug' caused by the bot or a fault in the template? If it is a fault in the template, is it unique to that template (because Pro Hockey looks like it was put together rather than built from a shared parent)? Thanks. Protonk (talk) 01:42, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

• Disregard. turns out there was a non-printing character left in the field. Protonk (talk) 05:40, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I've now {{infobox}}ed that code to make it easier to check things like this in future. This also has the neat side effect of reducing code size by nearly 50%. Do you have any idea why there are several different hockey team infobox templates? I was going to jump in and start merging them into one unified {{infobox hockey team}} but thought I'd ask first. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 08:26, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I have no idea why. Probably a mix of the reasons most projects end up with a half dozen infoboxes--a combination of parochialism, inertia, turnover and the most dangerous ingredient of all: guys like me who know just enough about this coding business to make trouble, should we be eager enough. Protonk (talk) 09:11, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Mmmm. Anyway, {{Hockey team}} is infoboxed too now, so a future merge wouldn't be difficult. We'll get there eventually. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:19, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

It is something that gets hotly debated by the hockey project constantly. Mostly comes down to championships parameters and that hockey in europe is run far differently than north america and making one box able to handle all possible options might become unwieldy to use. -Djsasso (talk) 12:59, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Ernie Els revert

It is not clear from the template documentation that "name" defaults to the article name - this should probably be added to the documentation (as well as any other defaults/parameter interactions). Tewapack (talk) 19:56, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

True, and I'll correct that; however, it still leaves the question of why you reverted it without an edit summary when there was no change to the actual output. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 08:39, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Template:Infobox SCOTUS case

Threw a note on the template talk page (in case you aren't watching it). Cheers. --MZMcBride (talk) 16:17, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Tags

Putting a tooshort tag on a stub/start article of barely two paragraphs is just excessive. Garion96 (talk) 14:00, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

If an article has a dedicated lede, then that lede should be an adequate summary of the article's key parts. Why people seem to think that the lede must be strictly less than 10% of the total article length or whatever is beyond me. Regardless, it shouldn't have been removed without providing at least the rationale you've just given me. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 14:02, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree that an article should have a good lead. What I don't agree with is that (in general) ok articles have a huge template on them stating such a relatively minor isue. Category:Wikipedia introduction cleanup is excessive. Garion96 (talk) 14:11, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Cleanup templates are easily hidden by editors who take exception to them. For editors who use them to guide their work, they're a godsend. These "minor issues" don't go away by themselves, and if tagging them gets them fixed faster then I'm all for it. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 14:12, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

BLP unsourced

Hi. You're good with the layout of these article message boxes. Could you take a look at the request on Template talk:BLP unsourced and my edit to the template? Thanks, — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:57, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

It's probably okay - the length isn't too much of a concern considering the current paranoia regarding the quality of our BLPs. The code itself seems fine anyway. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 07:44, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Take a look at this football article.

Greetings,

After your input to in this football article, I was wondering if the same applies to this articles, especially in respect to it's "sub-articles" found here and here. Thanks. Digirami (talk) 22:50, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Primera División de México Apertura 2008 Liguilla is excessive, but I think the other two are okay. We should be trying to discourage almanac-style articles, but so long as they aren't egrecious they will probably improve given time. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 07:46, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

re: Champions League template

I just feel that, at less width the design with groups doesn't look as compact (it takes up more space), the teams are crammed in in a narrow space in a template that's already narrow, it's just too over crowded imo. Whereas the style without groups uses the space better chandler ··· 22:31, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Replying on your page (I'd prefer to keep conversations to one thread). Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 01:06, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I have replied on my talk chandler ··· 01:31, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

It's cool, I've got it on my watchlist. Cheers. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 01:32, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Should I go and request a edit at {{fb start}} to change {| class="navbox" style="margin: 0.5em auto; width:47em; font-size: 95%;" to {| class="navbox" style="margin: 0.5em auto; width:51em;" (or perhaps a little wider even), it will not make big changes to non-navbox templates (presumable just make all text 5% smaller). It would make the text size in all navbox templates look as they're suppose to chandler ♠ 03:41, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I think it needs to be run by WT:FOOTY again first. There wasn't previously support for changing the width right now. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 07:39, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Well sure, but Im not talking really big changes. It would be something like below (I would include a non-navbox template like {{Football in Argentina}} but that would take up very much space) chandler ♠ 07:45, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

{{fb start}} {{UEFA Champions League/sandbox}}

{{fb end}} {{UEFA Champions League/sandbox}}

{{fb end}}

I'm not opposed, but as I say it needs to be run by a wider audience and not just me. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 07:57, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I've started a section on WT:FOOTY, I hope I gave some good arguments for at least removing font-size 95. chandler ♠ 08:30, 21 May 2009 (UTC)