User talk:Thumperward/Archive 63

Archive 60

Archive 61

Archive 62

Archive 63

Archive 64

Archive 65

→

Archive 70

talking about dd

A resulting action, here or in the dd (Unix) article, is the only reason to talk. If you must protest or complain for good reason, and if these are to lead to an action it is my opinion that you need to be more specific. Be specific with which examples are "spam" or which specific talk page statements you are referring to that need action. I am open to changing my mind, for example. For now, I'm quite sure the how-to tag should be removed. Thank you for all your energies concerning this article's examples content. I too make efforts, and you have my full cooperation as per the guidelines of Wikipedia. — CpiralCpiral 23:05, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

"Spam" refers to the volume, rather than to any specific examples. I see you've just re-added some of the most egrecious garbage that I removed from the article (such as the self-researched comments with references to Wikipedia talk pages); to be quite honest I've very nearly reached the limit of my patience for your attitude towards the article (namely edit warring over its contents while defending yourself with nearly unintelligible intellectual vagaries on talk) and the next step is likely to be formal dispute resolution as I've better things to do than repeatedly explain core Wikipedia concepts to an editor set on reinterpreting them to suit himself. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 06:36, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Your patience will pay off. I work slowly and at a low level, and you seem to work fast and at a high level. I doubt you care about the nuances I care about. We're getting it done sloppily at dd, but done right. dd's "garbage" pointer to the talk page was sloppy. But it worked; it got a cite put in next to itself. You are the editor that saw it was no longer needed and removed it. Good job. And you are definitely pushing to get things cleaned up at dd. Good job. But listen: your "passes" are speeding through a construction area with a crew you demanded at dd, but now you're running over we road workers! I don't want you deleting large parts of the article without proper discussion first. I can only hope you will take a deep breath and relax next time you go to dd. — CpiralCpiral 21:26, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

The most remarkable thing here IMO is that you're so far removed from what I would consider to be the basic level of understanding of community norms I would expect from an editor of several years' experience that you don't realise how patronising that comment is. To make this clearer: I am disinterested in your interpretation of what the encyclopedia should be about or how editors should collaborate with one another. I am instead going to concentrate on improving the article through the prescribed dispute resolution process, which should hopefully highlight how marginal your opinions are. If you feel inclined to post here again, please endeavour to ensure that it is on a subject of a direct and practical nature, rather than attempting to give me advice which I neither desire nor accept. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 00:32, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Template:Condense

When you have the time could you respond to the comment I made on the article's talk page. Trevor GH5 (talk) 13:49, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Done. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 13:58, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

User:Bruno corinthiano 2

Can not care LESS, has returned to "action"... Example here (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gorka_Iraizoz&diff=451603176&oldid=450281588), have already reverted some. For instance, in José Antonio Dorado, i think it's the FIFTH or SIXTH time he's reverted the lot of us...

Why do i bother, new account and he's set! --Vasco Amaral (talk) 03:34, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely with autoblock on to catch any IPs used under that user name. Sorry for making you jump through so many hoops for this one, Vasco, but hopefully this will end it. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 07:32, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

• A million thanks Chris! And no need to apologize, you have always done a great job, and played by the book on every occasion, which is more than you can say about "yours truly" :( Keep it up, happy weekend - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 14:06, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Following up

Hi Chris, I finally got around to checking up on this. I have a somewhat hazy understanding of how autoblocking works in detail, maybe you can fill in some blanks. I never tried it all out on my test wiki, it's tiresome to change IPs and keep a 2-nore network working. :)

My impression is that autoblocks are registered as random (or sequential) integers in the block log, and possibly in an admin-only log somewhere. If someone runs into an autoblock (either the same blocked user trying to log into their sock account on the same connection, or an innocent re-user of the same IP) the block message they see shows "Autoblock 123987" or something. This lets an admin unblock that specific autoblocked account without ever knowing where the autoblock originated. Or possibly an admin can see where the AB originated but not all editors?

The privacy implication I was getting at in the AN/I thread is that if the software showed the exact block rationale for the named user who attracted the block then it would be possible for anyone at all to search back through the user block logs and find an exact text-matching rationale, or narrow down the field drastically depending on what is in the additional rationale field.

From what I understand, the autoblock mechanism is completely opaque to non-admins as far as tying back to a user name (as IMO it should be). Showing an "originating" rationale which may be unique in a publicly searchable user block log, that is a potential privacy breach. Am I even close here? :) I'd like to fully understand this. Regards! Franamax (talk) 01:57, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

I think we're approaching this from different angles. My take on it was that one started with the blocked user name and used that to fish for IPs, rather than starting with the IP and trying to tie it to accounts. They're both privacy concerns of a sort: it'd be trivial for an admin to obtain the IP(s) of a user who was otherwise identifiable only by user name by blocking and then using the autoblock finder a couple of days later to identify any autoblocks caused. I suppose that would require the blocked user to try to edit from another account, but (from personal experience!) if the editor is within a corporate firewall then all it takes is for one other person in the organisation to try and log in under their account and you've got a privacy leak (and not only for the originally blocked user). Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 08:07, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Start tab

I believe you misread the triple { as a double {. Thank you. Frietjes (talk) 14:55, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

D'oh! Thanks for the catch. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 14:55, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

No problem. I updated the redirects, so Template:Phaedriel grey/tab1 and Template:Phaedriel grey/tab2 can be deleted. I couldn't resist after looking at your recent edits :) Frietjes (talk) 22:31, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Brilliant. Cheers! Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 09:37, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Template use on Wikipedia Education Program pages

Hi Chris -- I noticed you have nominated all of our templates that operate the WP:USPP, WP:USEDU, WP:INDIAEDU, and WP:CANADAEDU portals for deletion, and replaced it with your own template system. We would actually prefer to keep the system we had in place before, which maintained a consistent and unique identity for all Wikipedia Global Education Program-related pages. I'm especially concerned now because the U.S. version that is currently live has two major bugs: (1) the text of the page now flows outside your line system, and (2) the "Online Ambassadors" tab doesn't appear anymore, despite seeming to be in the template, and (3) as you click around, you get taken to the wrong pages. Our templates all worked perfectly as of two days ago, and now they are unusable.

While I appreciate your work at cleaning up templates that are not in use or are being used inappropriately, these particular ones have a different look from other WikiProject tabs for a specific reason: to provide a visual marker that pages with them are part of the Wikimedia Foundation's Global Education Program.

I've been trying to follow all you've done to fix those bugs listed above, and I'm at a loss. Can you please revert everything you've done to our tabs to get them back into working order first, and then let's discuss if changes to our tab system are needed? -- LiAnna Davis (WMF) (talk) 22:49, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

The changes should be straightforward to fix: Sorry for any fallout. I'll see what I can do the revert the damage ASAP. To make sure that this doesn't happen again I'd strongly recommend that the program either adopt its own namespace (which I assume is within WMF's power to sort out) or otherwise aggregate its templates within a centralised system rather than maintaining them within the broader WP: / T: namespaces with code obviously copy-pasted around. Please keep me updated with any problems as I try to sort them out, and let me know if I can be of help in future-proofing this. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 23:03, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

I've reverted my changes to the pages in question and undeleted the utility templates used. Please let me know if further work is needed to fix these pages for the time being. I'd still like to pursue a more elegant and centralised solution for this sort of stuff in future if possible. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 23:18, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Awesome, thanks, Chris! They look great. I'll discuss with folks here about a better way to approach this. -- LiAnna Davis (WMF) (talk) 00:20, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I think it may be worth moving the pages from template namespace into wikipedia namespace as they are each only used in one place. For example Template:Wine Project PageTabs was moved to Wikipedia:WikiProject Wine/PageTabs -- WOSlinker (talk) 06:38, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

RfC case you closed, now back open.

Hello. You might remember an RfC from April where you were the closing administrator, Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive689#User:Oakshade_making_uncivil_comments_despite_multiple_requests_to_stop.

Sadly, the topic needs to be revisited. The new RfC can be found here: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Floydian.27s_continued_proud_violations_of_WP:INCIVIL_and_WP:STALK

Thanks! --Oakshade (talk) 06:02, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

You really shouldn't be referring to these as "RfCs": WP:RFC is a formalised process, not just any time someone posts on ANI. Anyway, thanks for the link: I'll keep an eye on it. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 09:45, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Heh, thanks for the clarification. Gladly, I really don't have a lot of experience in ANIs so some of the terminology is new.--Oakshade (talk) 15:17, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi. Just a question for you regarding this. The thread was archived to IncidentArchive721 due to 24 hours of inactivity. This does need to have a definitive ending, whether any kind of action (block, warning, etc.) will be taken or not. The instructions say, "If you see a thread that should not be archived yet, please add a comment requesting more discussion, or if it is already archived, remove it from the archive and restore it to this page, preferably with a comment." Where would I leave this comment? On the current ANI page? Like I said, I've never had to be involved with something like this before so apologies if this is a green question. Thanks! --Oakshade (talk) 01:01, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Actually I just restored it to the current ANI page. Thanks for reading.--Oakshade (talk) 02:39, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Arch Linux

I have attempted to correct the "lead too short" issue on Arch Linux. I'm wondering if your concerns have been met.

Also, I would like to deal with the "primary sources" issue but need some clarification. I'd mainly like to know if there is a section or source in particular you take issue with or if it was throughout the article.

Thank you,

--Je mir (talk) 00:53, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

There's still nothing on package management or the release model. Ideally, every section of the article body should have a paragraph (or at least a couple of good sentences) of summary in the lead. As for the primary sources problem, just take a look at the references section: all but two of a references at the moment are primary sources, and a great many of them are user-generated and thus unreliable. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 07:45, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

ZX Spectrum character set

I have removed the OR tag from the issues list on this article because I believe it to be essentially a recension of information in the ZX Basic Manual, one of the listed sources; I have partially cleaned up the referencing (only partially because I'm not very good with <ref> tags), but no new references have been added. If you still think the article constitutes original research, please discuss on its Talk page. PT 09:26, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

I'd still prefer if it used sources other than the manual, but it's fine for now. Thanks! Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 09:52, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Good statement of the issue

I regret that we clashed in the past. I was happy to see us in agreement on the Linux naming question. You gave a good statement of the issue. Msnicki (talk) 16:17, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 17:03, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Reimplementation of Wiki*-inline templates

Please see Template talk:Wiktionary-inline#problems with the "reimplementation" for a summary of the problems I found with the reimplementation of this template.

I think that a |bullet=none option, as suggested in the other section on that talk page, is better than changing the template in such a way that every use of it now comes out without a bullet when it was used expecting a bullet. I have been using {{Commons-inline}} and {{Wiktionary-inline}} in the External links section on lots of pages such as B#External links. {{Commons-inline}} has the same problem with the bullet, but processes its parameter properly. —Coroboy (talk) 09:55, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Replying over there. Thanks. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 10:00, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Tabs

Um, thanks for redesigning my user pages. - Ahunt (talk) 13:09, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorry about the fallout. If you want I'll see if I can style them exactly as they were. Trying to clean up uses of {{tab1}}, which has been copy-pasted around the project for years. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 13:11, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

No problem, the new format looks nice, it was just a bit of a surprise to find my pages remodelled. - Ahunt (talk) 13:13, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Closing a table

See your edit here, you forgot to remove the "end table" markup at the end of the page. I imagine there are many others? Frietjes (talk) 16:13, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

There may be. I'll have a scan through them tomorrow and correct any fallout I see. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 18:39, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Merci M. Thumperward!

Thank you for reorganizing the code behind my profile tabs.

Just a question : what is the rationale behind this change? -- Mathieugp (talk) 13:50, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm currently cleaning up uses of tab code all over the project; I've made some significant changes to the syntax of {{start tab}} which necessitated editing all of its transclusions. Most of this was on Wikiproject pages, but in your case I happened to see that you were maintaining the same code on multiple pages and so I thought I'd help out. :) Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 13:52, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that was useless duplication. I think initially I meant to style each tab differently. I am assuming I just forgot I ever intended to do this or maybe I was simply too lazy to pick what colours I wanted... In real life, I use the randomizer a lot. ;-) -- Mathieugp (talk) 23:24, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Bunching (universal fix??)

Could you please comment at Wikipedia:Help_desk#Bunching.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:58, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Replied over there. This doesn't look like a problem with the bunching template so much as with the MLB player infobox. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 19:07, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Wireshark

You tagged Wireshark for copyediting in March. Can you tell me what further work it needs (or has it already been fixed)? Thank you. RJFJR (talk) 14:51, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

At the time I believed that the prose needed quite a bit of general improvement for flow and context, and that seems to have been resolved since. I've de-tagged it. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 14:59, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. RJFJR (talk) 18:26, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Stack templates

I noticed your comments in the discussion regarding {{Fix bunching}} so I thought you might know the answer to my question at Template talk:Stack begin. TIA. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 17:10, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

FYI, I overhauled the examples in {{Stack documentation}} to hopefully better explain why this template still exists. Please feel free to improve the examples if you feel they are not clear. Frietjes (talk) 17:59, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Change to Infobox concert tour

Please be aware that your reworking of {{Infobox concert tour}} broke usages where {{Extra tour chronology}} is involved. See A Conspiracy of Hope or Verizon Ladies First Tour or 2 Worlds 2 Voices Tour for examples. Thanks ... Wasted Time R (talk) 10:41, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Argh. Thanks: I've reverted for now until a sensible solution strikes me. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 11:16, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Tone problems

Re: your flagging of Mohamed Al Fayed's BLP citing tone problems. I totally agree. There appear to be a number of inaccuracies/unreliable refs too. I'd like to tidy this BLP up - put in chronological order, neutralise tone, replace unreliable references with reliable ones etc - and tried to do so earlier this week but my changes were removed a few hours later. Can you suggest how best to sort tone issues/accurancies in BLPs like this? Thanks Latika1976 (talk) 12:20, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

The comment on "tone problems" was written in March 2010. The article has change substantially since then. Keep up the good work :) Gareth E Kegg (talk) 09:37, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Infobox artwork

You have been bitten by the convert expression depth bug! See Menomonee (sculpture), Jammin' on the Avenue, and about 10 others. Possible resolutions include, (1) rolling back your changes, which I will do for the time being, (2) specifying the sigfig or precision for the conversions, (3) having WP increase the expression depth limit in the MW backend, (4) rewrite convert to reduce the expression depth, (5) remove the complicated conversion stuff from the template and just have each transclusion cook up its own conversion (like this). Frietjes (talk) 18:39, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Gaaaah. Thanks for the heads-up. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 21:42, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Your edit to AC Power Plugs and sockets.

Apologies that your edit was in good faith as your subsequent clear up seems to make clear.

However two issues: Wikipedia does mandate a brief summary of the edit where one is made. A failure to provide an edit summary is frequently a sign of a bad faith edit as vandals and bad faith editors seldom provide a summary. It can be difficult sometimes identifying the good from the bad. An edit summary however terse can often show where the editor is coming from rather than having to guess.

Second: the action that you suggest is clearly only really appropriate for persistent vandalism. I'm sure the admins don't want to be pestered with every minor gripe. Anyway, apologies again and happy editing. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 15:19, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

My edit summary usage is 100% and has been for the entire time I've been an editor (five years now, the last as an administrator). If you have difficulty understanding what one of my edit summaries means then ask me rather than insinuating that I'm a vandal. and this still doesn't explain why you reverted the edit anyway: do you habitually revert legitimate edits without looking at them if you don't approve of the edit summary? Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 21:45, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Football league template

Hi Chris. I've just made a post at [1]. I'm alerting you here as you're active with templates. Please post a response there unless you feel there's any queries that are better dealt with on my talk page. Regards. Eldumpo (talk) 09:07, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Replied over there. Cheers. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 21:43, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Template:Infobox basketball biography

Hi. I know that you are pretty knowledgeable with templates and wonder if you can help. There is something wrong with this infobox. Several players, such as Trey Johnson and Curtis Stinson, have a broken infobox where only several information are listed. I (and others in WP:NBA) can't figure out the problem. It would be great if you can fix it. Thanks.—Chris!_c/t 21:17, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

I think this is fixed? You may have to open the article, and click save, without changing anything to purge the cache. Frietjes (talk) 21:49, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Frietjes.—Chris!_c/t 22:02, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Infobox MLB player

Your alteration has caused a HUGE spacing between birth date and place of birth. Just letting ya know so you can fix it. Have a good day! CRRaysHead90 | ^{We Believe!} 11:48, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Fixed. Sorry about that! Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 12:04, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, but out of curiosity, why did you combine them? CRRaysHead90 | ^{We Believe!} 12:05, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

This appeared to be what the code was trying to do. Otherwise, it was adding in line breaks for no reason. Additionally, it means that Babe Ruth has the same output as Albert Spalding even though the articles use different code. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 12:12, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Ok then. You mind checking the updated coding here too? CRRaysHead90 | ^{We Believe!} 12:24, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Done. Let me know if you catch any further problems. Cheers! Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 12:47, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

New Page Patrol survey

New page patrol – Survey Invitation Hello Thumperward! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you. If this invitation also appears on other accounts you may have, please complete the survey once only. If this has been sent to you in error and you have never patrolled new pages, please ignore it. Please click HERE to take part. Many thanks in advance for providing this essential feedback. You are receiving this invitation because you have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey. Global message delivery 13:37, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Aimo Diana

Hi CHRIS, VASCO here,

can you please have a look at this chap's external link #3? Don't know what i have done, have looked it through over and over again, can't improve its display - the word LUMEZZANE unduly appears in title.

Thank you very much in advance, cheers - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 14:29, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorry Vasco, but I really don't understand what the supposed problem is here. Has this been fixed? Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 14:38, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

My apologies, i meant LINK#1 (www.tuttocalciatori.net). The word LUMEZZANE is supposed to be part of the website, not part of the title we write afterwards. --Vasco Amaral (talk) 14:45, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Fixed. The URL had a space in it. This needs to be encoded. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 14:53, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Template:Composer navbox

By removing the italic title declaration the titles of over 1000 articles have now been de-italicized. Discussion here. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 15:04, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Replied over there. Thanks. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 16:37, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Thumperward. You have new messages at WP:VPR.
Message added 16:35, 26 October 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Uʔ (talk) 16:35, 26 October 2011 (UTC)