User talk:Thumperward/Archive 61

Archive 55

←

Archive 59

Archive 60

Archive 61

Archive 62

Archive 63

→

Archive 65

José Carlos Fernández Vázquez - Help!!!

Hi there CHRIS, VASCO here,

seriously, this is getting out of hand, this anon user from hand is giving me no rest (and he can also be User:Demis21, as he also wrote the same shenanigans in another AEK player article - see here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Juan_Torres_Ruiz&diff=437881829&oldid=437801290 - also advising with a hidden box message to stay the hell out of editing his team's players), i elaborate:

1 - He turns CAREER sub-sections (you know the ones with the club's names) in three per se sections, i tidy it up, he undoes me again, so we have FOOTBALL CAREER (empty), SEVILLA and AEK, cool...; 2 - i add Sevilla FC C in box (it's a senior club and José Carlos played for it), he removes it, i add the correct Sevilla FC totals (18 games and one goal, as www.bdfutbol.com clearly indicates), he changes it to 31/5; 3 - the gross error saying that he was sent on loan to FC Cartagena in January 2011 after the arrival of coach Marcelino García Toral, who did not arrive until July (i correct it, he reverts me)!!; 4 - the POV and the WEASEL in AEK: he joined because "he wants to play UEFA Europa League" (when Sevilla is also playing the competition this season!!), he joined because "he has a GREAT relationship with Manuel Jiménez Jiménez the coach", he joined "even though all these teams wanted him", and he writes this without one single reference, i tidy it up, keeping the basics, he undoes me, help me please (and help WP)!

I have already messaged both IP addresses (he is dynamic 100% sure, at least has used three here) and user Demis - that also reminds, is there any possibility to establish a connection and see if the person is the same? - have received ZERO in reply...then i lose my temper (duly or unduly) and i get the scolding, what can be done? --Vasco Amaral (talk) 14:06, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't have an extra authority here, and I'm not going to block over a content dispute when there appears to have been no discussion on the talk page. I'm not really sure why you're bringing it up two whole weeks after the IP last edited the page either. (ignore that, was looking at the wrong article. the rest still stands.) Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 14:25, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

• I see my actions of the last months (i.e. summaries) have done me no good in getting assistance. How can i discuss things in talkpages with someone who does not answer one single message, and has all those IPs? Impossible man! Still, i ask again if you can see (or direct me) if there is a possibility to see if the IPs and the account Demis21 were the same person, that would be a great help.

Let's see who gets the loose end of the stick in this edit war (because he will continue, and i will revert him every time, unless i am blocked for wanting to improve the articles), i repeat i can't talk to him, and i can't (even tough i am 99,9999% sure of it) send a message to Demis21 telling him he is the anon guy and ask him to stop and comply...I will start a discussion in the talkpage though.

Attentively - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 14:34, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Note: the anon user from England may also be a "person" who has been on my case for almost two years now (sent me obscene photos to my userpage and everything), all for protecting a couple of pages that he vandalized. He may have seen my interest in this article, and started his "work"... --Vasco Amaral (talk) 14:42, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't have checkuser rights: if you want that checked, open a case at WP:SPI. Whether or not the IP has responded to comments on its own user talk, it is a basic requirement of dispute resolution that disputes are taken to the article talk before they can go any further. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 14:37, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Australian soccer RM

Hi Chris, thanks for taking the time to close the RM for Australian football/soccer. However, although you moved the article, the talk page remains at Talk:Association football in Australia, so I'm hoping you can move that to Talk:Soccer in Australia to match the article. Cheers, Jenks24 (talk) 15:20, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for the catch. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 15:23, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

ta4bein[lone]REASONABLVOIS!!

wmf furthrIGNORSME[NOdiscr.here,uno-ifu wantCOPY ofmy40PP.HANDRITNLETR2wmf,juslemeno uremail orwodevameans[=pdf-frmt];imGOINPUBLIKw/dis i/[vain?]hope2c @leastsumINCLUSIVITYnACOMODATNof&4DISABLDusrs here+byond-ta'gen,sven. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 111.184.196.225 (talk) 07:38, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, all I can say is that I hope WMF takes the matter more seriously with a handwritten note. I don't agree with a lot of the ways you've pursued this, Sven, but this definitely seems like the way forward. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 08:07, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

deyDONT-wotways??:|

• psWMF-cronizATAKDmyemailngotEVNDADBLOKD-iHARAS+PERSECUTE,ic— Preceding unsigned comment added by 111.184.196.225 (talk) 09:55, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) A handwritten letter? I thought that typing was hard for this user: handwriting must be torture. Chris: you've been trolled. Jus' sayin'... Doc talk 04:40, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm not prepared to accept that, but in any case I'm powerless to do anything about Sven's block or WMF's handling of it. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 07:31, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

'doc'=1.klasTROL+imprsonatr[I=MD]nIGNORNT2boot-doc4wmf-board!!!!![deplyOFENSIVtrols~dad'dbeKIKDOUTO/SAIT,npplDONAT4dad[shakinmyheas

• ftr,iPROFRD2SENDI/documntatn:RSIcertificat,MD-degre,germnDOCtrat [aoth/degres];frontpagepasport[40yrs.old]-2beIGNORD[butPRETENDERS~docARETOLERATED2RUNLOSE,wmf=best.

"Doc9871 (talk | contribs) (71,230 bytes) (→ta4bein[lone]REASONABLVOIS!!: Freakin' Sven...)"<butNOTOFENSIV,N-aslongagenstME,devictim,ALGOZ,LONGLIV[ABUSIV,NAZIST]WMF!!!!!!!!— Preceding unsigned comment added by 111.184.196.225 (talk) 17:28, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Share a thought

As to our recent edits to Template:Cleanup-weighted. You'd have the word "{{Documentation}}" on the same line as the noinclude tags. Rich Farmbrought not only has them on separate lines, but add a whiteline in between them. I have them on separate lines without a whiteline. Compromise. :)

But I do think having them on different lines helps to make the template more readily understandable. Debresser (talk) 14:59, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

I remove single linebreaks from templates out of habit, but so long as it doesn't result in any visible additional whitespace anywhere in the output I don't really mind either way. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 16:11, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

I have removed quite some whitelines from templates over the years. Debresser (talk) 18:11, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Why did you authorise the move of the "Association football in Australia" to "Soccer in Australia"

You should not have interfered and a lot of your suppositions in your statement closing the discussion were baseless. At least half of Australia ie. NSW and Queensland is happy to use the term "football" to mean "Association football". Silent Billy (talk) 02:14, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

And in fact what authority did you have to make the decision to move instead of keeping the status quo? I have read through the discussions and there was no consensus except from (mostly AFL) partisans Silent Billy (talk) 02:44, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

What "authority" I have is that I'm an uninvolved administrator. I was actually one of the loudest voices in favour of the original football (soccer) → association football move and one of the most active admins in WikiProject Football, so the idea that I'm either clueless or a "soccer" partisan is absurd. Up to a point I'm fine with laughing stuff like that off, but if blocks need to get handed out to stop stunts like this then so be it. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 07:40, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't know how you arrived at your conclusions. I "know" in the same you you seem to "know" otherwise that Australian rules zealots use the term "soccer" as an insult. This is mainly in Victoria. You don't appear to live in Australia and it is a relatively recent phenomena. In NSW and Queensland you can usually use the term football and its meaning is obvious because of the context or simply because Australian Rules is referred to as "AFL", RL as "league" and RU as "union". I cannot imagine why you thought it was a good idea to make the change without a longer and wider canvassing of the move. The fact is that your decision will mean that the article on the "Australia national association football team" will be changed to the diminutive "Australia national soccer team" which will make the code a laughing stock. Let me assure you that the fact there is no realistic opportunity to play AFL at an international level rankles with the AFL community hence the claim by "physical education teacher" that he had never heard the term "Association football" previously. In Australia their meme is that it's little kids who play "soccer", real men allegedly only play "football" ie. the AFL version. I think you should revert the move and open the matter to discussion again after proper publicity. Silent Billy (talk) 12:41, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

The move request was open for nearly two weeks, which was several days longer than was needed for editors to add whatever arguments they wished to the debate. The arguments you're giving now were already given in the move discussion, so it's not obvious why anything would change if it were still open (except that your behaviour in the last 24 hours would very likely have made a closing admin less likely to believe that your arguments were valid).

If you genuinely think this needs a wider discussion you could try opening an RFC on the subject, which will attract more outside discussion and will remain open for a month, but your comments regarding "proper publicity" and "wider canvassing" (along with your apparent casual dismissal of people who live in Victoria, people who don't live in Australia, and people who prefer codes of football other than association) rather suggest that what you really want is for some sort of mass appeal by editors of a given bent (basically, those football fans in Australia who find the term "soccer" insulting) to overturn a close that was based on our naming conventions. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 12:55, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Fix bunching

FYI, this template is now under 50 transclusions (soon to be near zero). Almost all are for campaignboxes with template:infobox military conflict. As has been pointed out before, that template has a "campaignbox = " parameter, which will "glue" to campaignboxes to the bottom of the top infobox, allowing them to float as a single unit. If you check my edit history, you will see what needs to be done to orphan the bunching template. I would say it could be taken to TFD soon. I have been orphaning it for quite some time, with no complaints. 198.102.153.2 (talk) 23:11, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Excellent: I wondered who was doing the orphaning! Massive thanks: I'll take it to TfD in a day or so if there isn't any sort of mass-revert or new issue raised. Cheers! Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 23:16, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Left over ship-related templates

Thought you might like to know that (thanks to another users listing of "orphaned" templates) I have collected a number of "Ship....." templates that may be similar cases to the ones under discussion. I've copied the list to my user page User:GraemeLeggett#A_little_project for the moment. Next stop probably tabulate on a subpage and then investigate. GraemeLeggett (talk) 15:31, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Yep, that looks like all the pages under the cateogyr I linked to on the TfD. With any luck that's all of them. I wonder if these were officially deprecated by the ship project at one point. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 21:17, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Having looked at them, we have a bunch of orphans, which don't have even have a category to help locate them and quite a few which are categorised but not yet orphaned. If the orphans were categorised (hidden cat?) it would make it easier to nominate them for deletion. GraemeLeggett (talk) 00:16, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

History of IBM magnetic disk drives

I am going to revert your change - the article is limited to magnetic disk drives and DOES NOT cover other storage devices like optical disk drives, tape drives, libraries, etc. Tom94022 (talk) 19:59, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Sigh. Did it occur to you at all to suggest that I could fix this before you reverted half of the changes to the lead? And don't shout at me: I can understand you fully well without your having to resort to all-caps. I'll leave you to fix the various problems you've reintroduced (such as not explaining what "FDD" stands for before using it, and including unnecessary self-references like "this article"). No wonder that so few others are active on that article any more. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 21:14, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

ANI

The Tokerdesigner issue/thread was archived unresolved/unfinished?[1] Mjpresson (talk) 23:42, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Vandalism watch message reguarding Rajivsahni123 5:42 PM ET July 30th, 2011

This is to tell you that Rajivsahni123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is possibly a vandalism only account, as reported at AIV. It appears that he is not indefinitely blocked yet. And in closing, i'm only an auto confirmed user and unable to block account. StormContent (talk) 21:42, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

That is not a "vandalism-only account". I appreciate that you're trying to help here, but thos focus of your on admin-type activity is premature when yo don't really have a handle on our guidelines yet. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 10:31, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Of course. Vandalism-only accounts are only when you see the user's contributions are all vandalism. No indef block yet. But if someone continues vandalizing, i'm sure to impose a temporary block on the user (for vandalism, not vandalism-only user). Storm-term to long-term duration I always say. Deal? StormContent (talk) 17:16, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Only when the disruption continues past a final warning. That didn't happen here, as the user stopped editing after his second warning. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 23:35, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Question re citation style template

Hi, you tagged Jacob Truedson Demitz for citation style. Could you be more explicit? I notice that some of the notes are citations, while others are explanatory footnotes. Explanatory footnotes are used relativity rarely in WP, and I've seen some article break them out into a separate section. Is that your point, or are you getting at something else? One of the common reasons for that template is a mixture of Harvard style and other style references, but in a quick glance, I didn't see that issue. (I was asked this question by another editor, and wasn't sure of the answer. so I thought I'd ask you directly.)--SPhilbrickT 12:09, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

If that "other user" is SergeWoodzing, I gave him a reply two weeks ago. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 12:57, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Chris. I actually saw that question dated the 16th, and saw Thumperward added the template on the 17th, so I thought maybe the template was referring to issues not resolved earlier. However, I see that you followed up with details on the 18th, so I think I have a general notion of the problem, being a general issues of referencing. I'll see what I can do to help.--SPhilbrickT 21:53, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Intro

What is the most common way to spell the first paragraph of an intro? is it "lede" or "lead" or something else? Pass a Method talk 09:21, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

There was a move to do away with "lede" a while ago, but I still use both "lede" and "lead" interchangeably. It doesn't really matter which one is used so long as the same thing is meant. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 13:57, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

{{Home networking standards}}

Hello, thanks for the cleanup you did on this recently. It looked to me like this was a cut-n-paste from {{ITU-T Home networking Recommendations}} with some errors introduced which explains the original name being "recommendations". The original still uses the roll-your-own table instead of infobox template. It also has a bunch of links to redirects, so the links appear blue in the articles. I changed some instantiations of the old one to the new one, but looks like they were changed back. Do you think it is worthwile to keep them both around? I also wonder if a real horizontal navbox would make more sense (take up less space?). Would appreciate your opinion on Template talk:Home networking standards if you have a minute. In particular, seems to overlap with the first row of {{Internet access}} so that might be either spun off or clarified.

Somewhat related, the Portal:Grid computing needs discussion. Thanks again. W Nowicki (talk) 22:13, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

All good points. I'll try to see what I can do soon. Cheers! Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 23:05, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Possible COI

Some interactions that you may have been involved in are being discussed at Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#Blackvisionit. Guy Macon (talk) 22:59, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Keeping an eye on it. Thanks. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 10:10, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Excuseme for directly asking it here, but could you please help admin Qwyrxian in reviewing this section [2]? There are some the earth is flat posts that need review. Thanks. Blackvisionit (talk) 11:12, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Template:Infobox space shuttle

Aloha Thumperward. I started a discussion on Template:Infobox space shuttle, looking at ways to get a new field for "resting place" or "permanent home" in the infobox for SS articles. I see you made some upgrades a while ago. Any chance you're not too busy to help? --Travis Thurston+ 19:38, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Hacker_(programmer_subculture)#Grand_merge

I have reverted your "grand merge". These are just too many too different topics to make one article out of it. Some merging on a less drastic scale may necessary, but one needs to consider carefully what needs to be merged to what else. You put things together that are vastly different. The Hacker definition controversy is all about the difference between hacker philosophies in the computer security, hobbyist and programmer subculture context, and you put everything into one article. --rtc (talk) 20:51, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

That's a terribly counterproductive move that shouldn't have been made lightly. Nobody whatsoever is maintaining most of these pages, which is why they have been terrible for years and are getting worse. Ideological niggles like your revert reason are a very poor reason for undoing such a load of work, especially what with it having received nothing but support from other editors commenting on it. When I can be bothered fighting such stop energy I'll be proposing that it be reinstated unless someone (that's you) demonstrates how on Earth to move forward with these articles without going back to basics. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 21:05, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

In fact I've been look at the pages from this topic for years from time to time, and improved them over time. I agree the current state still leaves a lot to be deserved, but I have to confess that it is my impression your merge is making things only worse. It's nothing against you; you have certainly put a lot of work into this and it was done in good faith obviously. Some users may be applauding your change, but I can hardly see any substantial arguments why it's good. It is merely making a mess in one article out of a mess of several articles. I have proposed less drastic changes to clean up in the discussion and added arguments why your change does more harm than good (mix different philosophies which can lead to misunderstandings, and destroy the existing purpose of articles, which is assumed by many references to these articles; also you seem to have missed that the article infrastructure you ask for is basically already there?). The stuff will evolve, just give it some time. Let's do things in smaller steps. I'll help to realize the cleanup-goals behind your change. --rtc (talk) 21:24, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Topic Wikibreak

Just so you don't wonder why I went missing, I have unsubscribed from the floppy emulators pages. It simply is not worth it and there are other pages I could be editing. Cheers! Guy Macon (talk) 17:55, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

History of South Asia Template

If possible, can you improve the Template:History of South Asia. It needs minor improvement similar to Template:Hinduism if possible.

Cheers (157.150.192.225 (talk) 20:52, 15 August 2011 (UTC))

Nomination of Pac-Man clones for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Pac-Man clones is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pac-Man clones until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 20:29, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Stack begin

Hi! I responded on my talk page. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 01:11, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

What the hey?

Hi there CHRIS, VASCO here,

After all the discussions we had, a user (is it possible to see if it hails from Colombia as the other anon user who kept reverting us?) has changed the Quique Sánchez Flores page again. I have started a WP:FOOTY discussion and asked admin help. The account also wrote a serious unref'd sentence in the page of Ángel María Villar - president of the Royal Spanish Football Federation: "He is a FC Barcelona fan" - meaning IMO the refs are "instructed" to make Barça win.

Attentively - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 01:13, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I've move-protected the page. The editor appears to have some productive edits, so I don't think any other action is required right now, though obviously it's worth keeping an eye on. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 09:54, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

• Highly appreciated mate! Keep it up - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 14:20, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

• In both the WP:FOOTY discussion and his talkpage, i provided several Spanish media sources in which we can see the subject being called solely QUIQUE FLORES. What did the Colombian user do? He refused to participate in the discussion, refused to reply to my message, and has again written QUIQUE SÁNCHEZ FLORES in the "playername" field, going the "extra mile" by removing a protection template (see here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Quique_Flores&diff=446034548&oldid=445883692)... Getting quite annoying no? Also, i think someone other than me might try and reach out to this individual, as obviously he has no intention of interacting with me (even called me a vandal in this edit http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Quique_Flores&diff=435871016&oldid=435866861), someone might have better luck. The person, does seem to be helpful and polite to other users though (see this talkpage, the penultimate message http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Elop76).

Attentively, happy week - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 22:53, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

If he does it again without leaving a talk page comment, warn him as usual for edit warring. We'll take it from there. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 08:12, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

• After my polite warnings, XXX693 returned in Quique Flores and undid me, he was himself undone also. In a sick twist, User:Lombriz de Aguapuerca - that's got to be him with a new account, this guy is dangerous, wiki-wise that is! - started vandalizing my userpage!! Of course, XXX has not responded to anything, to me or in the discussions.

Please do anything about this, it's getting out of hand and my civility-meter is running out of gas... --Vasco Amaral (talk) 15:14, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

• Ahah! Found the connection, the definitive proof the accounts are the SAME: in Gregorio Manzano, even tough the page is now called QUIQUE FLORES, the new account (Lombriz Aguapuerca), has written QUIQUE SÁNCHEZ FLORES in the storyline (see here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gregorio_Manzano&diff=445873186&oldid=445244921). --Vasco Amaral (talk) 15:23, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

• MORE! Thought he had only vandalized the languages and stuff but NO! For him, i come from Libya and am "a Portuguese vandal" (please see here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:VascoAmaral&diff=446252605&oldid=446252541)? What on earth is this? --Vasco Amaral (talk) 15:31, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Ashley Smith

Wasn't sure about the infobox. I'd seen it used in a section like that before, but have no difficulty with your change. I'm watching the documentaries now. It seems a way greater tragedy on video than on the page. This page could actually get to FA, because the implications are vast. BusterD (talk) 09:47, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

No problem. Yeah, the article's definitely got potential. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 09:51, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Give it a look if you want. Ready for a review and copyedit. I'm tired and a bit perturbed CBC won't let me see an indicting video by tfe on the CSC. BusterD (talk) 12:23, 22 August 2011 (UTC)