User talk:Thumperward/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

→

Archive 15

From AN/I

A Community sanction ban discussion has been opened for User:Isarig. Italia^vivi 20:41, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Here's hoping. Chris Cunningham 20:46, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Photoshop

Hi, you removed the external link http://www.d4.dion.ne.jp/~motohiko/photoshop.htm from the Adobe Photoshop article, saying it adds little value. I kind of agree with this, but after looking through it there must be someway to incorporate this link into the page as an inline or something (the images are good, the text doesn't say anything insightful). It's a good collection of logos that helps us avoid the whole fair use crap, especially since the article mentions past logos and such. ALTON .ıl 08:40, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

That was a rather pointless message. I suppose I wrote it just to let you know what I was thinking. Cheers. ALTON .ıl 08:41, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Maybe. I'm worried that using an external site as a proxy to get people to look at images isn't really appropriate, but it's not an egrecious example of what not to link to. Chris Cunningham 09:38, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Sandwich game

And I would argue that a user looking for factual information on the sandwich game would find it. You don't type in sandwich game in the search box unless you want to find out about the sandwich game. Look... we'll clean it up, make it more sterile and less useful, perhaps even reduce it to a stub, but DO NOT DELETE IT. It is a piece of factual information, at least at the heart, and has been found useful by quite a few people (mostly non-registered users). 72.197.144.4 09:35, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day. End of story. Chris Cunningham 09:40, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

KFC vs Kentucky Fried Chicken

OK Señor Pirate, I call you out (in a very bad Spanish accent!)

KFC has begun to identify themselves as Kentucky Fried Chicken again, the article be damned - the company is calling themselves Kentucky Fried Chicken. So if the company decides to call themselves Kentucky Fried Chicken we have to also. Look at their web page and see that they have the name Kentucky Fried Chicken emblazoned across the top of the page, NOT KFC.

Chu is wron... (again, a very bad Spanish accent)

I am going to make an edit that will fix it all. Please stop being so proprietary about the article :-).

Jerem43 14:33, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

technically, last I checked, we go with whatever is most commonly used, not what the company uses. I'm not going to get involved in this, but I've not heard someone say Kentucky Fried Chicken and not been advertising for the company-- and even then most of the company's ads still say just "KFC" --lucid 14:41, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Uh-huh. The company name is still KFC, the web page be damned, and I imagine this will need fixed again tomorrow, but don't let me stop you from having fun. Chris Cunningham 14:42, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

There are lots of things that are commonly called one thing that is not their proper name. As I look through Wikipedia, I find that the proper name is the article name and the commonly used name is created as a redirect link to the properly named article: Coca-Cola is the official name of the soft drink and is commonly called Coke. The Coca-Cola Company also has the trademark for the product under both names, but the article is still called Coca-Cola, not Coke; People still commonly refer to the former AT&T networking division as Lucent but the proper name is Alcatel-Lucent. There are dozens of examples of this, and the same should apply for for Kentucky Fried Chicken/KFC.

I believe that Thumperward's argument goes against the policies and spirit of Wikipedia.

Jerem43 15:10, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Carrying on here. Chris Cunningham 15:25, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Hehe

Hey sorry for the template-spam (that's a new word for me) on the Rajoana page. Actually the place is a tiny village near my home. I found the article so funny I got carried away and added all those tags. I am good usually. --Amit 11:30, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

No problem. :) Chris Cunningham 11:33, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

crossbow

Reinsert or paraphrase the text from Needham. it contains a heck lot of info about use and origin and is thus central to the article. --Wandalstouring 14:31, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with it being readded. Chris Cunningham 15:02, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Thumperwad you could use the chat function before your massive edits. There is no better image and they do contain all important information. Sorry to say so, but you seem sometimes to lack a bit of knowledge about the subject you edit. Wandalstouring 14:32, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

You're not sorry at all, because this is the second time you've accused me of being unqualified to edit your article. Unsurprisingly it's still mostly as poor as it was last month, which is mostly as bad as it was six months previously. Part of the reason is that you're reverting copy edits while stating that the reason has something to do with article expertise, which is nonsense. Chris Cunningham 14:43, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

"Smearing nonexistent people"

It's not nonexistent people. See Chip Berlet and Cberlet (talk · contribs · count).

See also the arbcom ruling on the subject of Cberlet's edits to issues he writes about, which was mentioned earlier in the ANI thread. And it's not a smear. I don't think Cberlet has done anything wrong, even though he has edited much more aggressively than I have. Please retract or correct your statement. THF 15:25, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Cool, apologies. Chris Cunningham 15:28, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Deletion

You sent me a message telling me not to remove the delete template if I felt something should not be deleted. I went and checked the guidelines, and found this regarding articles in the proposed deletion catagory: "If you disagree: Any editor who disagrees with a proposed deletion can simply remove the tag." 24.11.202.83 13:37, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Deleted List of Linux Review Sites

Didnt read rules but thought a page of Linux Review Site Links was good info for newbies to Linux. Thought page was similiar to the "List of Linux Magazines" page that already exists on the Linux page.. Please let me know how to start a related Linux Links page which links to resource that are reviewing linux? I am unsure or or if even possible in the wiki format. Would like the page to grow with users contributing? I could moderate??

Thanks

Perkster 23:35, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

It's just not really an appropriate thing to write an article about, to be honest. See WP:NOT#INFO. Just because something is notable on the Internet doesn't mean it's notable on Wikipedia. We're not here to "help newbies", we're here to write an encyclopedia. Chris Cunningham 08:21, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. I just noticed the List of Magazine Links Page that is on The Linux page and thought a List of Review Sites for Linux was appropiate?? Who am I.. Thanks for your help

Perkster 19:07, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Punisher: Other Versions

You really should have discussed changing the other versions so that there are no subsections on the talk page before you just went ahead and did that. Legobrickmaster 14:07, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

It's a simple copy-edit. I'm sitting at around 10,000 edits in total just now; if I discussed every little section header change I wouldn't get a quarter of the work done that I do. Chris Cunningham 14:10, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Lowercase tag

Mr. Cunningham,

Although I disagree with the LC template to begin with, I would think it would apply only to pages such as "eBay", "cPanel" and "vBulletin". A word (not a trademark) that is all lowercase and is not a proper noun (such as Christopher or Costco) would fall under the category of all other nouns such as boat or island. When written in a sentence they are lowercase but when at the beginning or in a headline or title the noun would be uppercase just as in "boat" or "island". The only example I can think of at the moment would be the Vi text editor. There is only one Vi, and I would treat it as a trademark. An infinite amount of e-books can exist and should be treated just as an infinite amount of boats can exist. -Henry W. Schmitt 19:40, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I can be convinced on this, but I'd rather actually be convinced than simply be reverted with a comment which doesn't really explain the rationale. I'll take this to the talk page. Chris Cunningham 19:46, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you are not familiar with Wiktionary. Every page name can be lowercase without the use of special templates. In other words, Wiktionary page names are more case sensitive than Wikipedia. All improper nouns start with a lowercase letter. My comment was reflecting this and noting that improper nouns on Wikipedia mustn't be lowercase. Many page-edits were performed on the page in question between my two respective removals of the Lowercase template, and none of the edit-summaries mentioned the Lowercase template so I just duplicated my previous edit without consulting the discussion page, which I probably should have done. Thank you for leaving an edit-summary and bringing this matter to my attention. -Henry W. Schmitt 20:13, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

EVE Online

Thank you for tidying up the code for the info box on the EVE Online article, I notice that you also revereted the previous editors change in your edit, the effect was to change GNU/Linux back to Linux and re-introduce a typographical error. I shall revert these back as I beleive you made this change accidentally. GNU/Linux is the technically more accurate term for describing distributions such as Debian, SuSE and Mandriva. -- RichardSlater ^(About) / _(Talk) 15:24, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Exhaustive discussion at Talk:Linux has resulted in a general consensus that the OS is to be referred to as "Linux" unless there's a specific reason not to (i.e. Debian GNU/Linux). I'm going to change this back for the sake of inter-article consistency. Chris Cunningham 15:43, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

OK, thanks. -- RichardSlater ^(About) / _(Talk) 18:26, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

If you were actually awake..

One of those days, huh? if it makes you feel any better, I went to bed at 5PM, woke up at midnight, looked at the clock, rolled over and fell back asleep, woke up and fell asleep again about every hour before finally waking up at 3AM. Which means I haven't eaten since lunch, about nineteen hours ago. At least I had salmon.. --lucid 11:52, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Mmmm. At the moment, all that's sustaining me is knowing it'll be all over in four hours. Not sure if I'll be alive by then though. Chris Cunningham 11:58, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

GnuCash

I appreciate your work cleaning up some articles today. I do have a question re. your GnuCash edit. --Karnesky 15:58, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! Replied on Talk:GnuCash. Chris Cunningham 16:05, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

{{Microsoft}}

Hi, I am sorry I had to revert the organization you made to {{Microsoft}}. While the navbox markup does make it maintainable, the problem arises with {{MSNav}}, which was depends on a specific behavior in all contained templates, that it should stay open when the name of the template is passed to it as an unnamed parameter. Changing to a navbox breaks this behavior, and consequently breaks the MSNav template.

While this can be coped with, it would require all the templates to be updated in one go. Thats why I have reverted your edits. If you plan on updating any other templates, please do not change the live version but rather do it in another copy. When all the templates have been updated, then all of them can be updated simultaneously and the behavior restored.

Thank you, contact me for any additional clarifications that you might have. --soum ^talk 09:23, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Cool, I'll convert them all on my userspace and let you know. Still a bit confused as to the purpose of the master template though. Chris Cunningham 09:29, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

(ec) Well, the {{MSNav}} was created to manage all the individual MS related templates, with a view to simplify the use in articles when multiple navboxes need to be used. But as you can see the movement was somehow stopped midway, and even further development stopped. (I plan to revive the development, but I am a bit busy these days to be editing here :( ). But it has already been used in quite some articles, and breaking it means the articles look ugly.

This is not a custom guideline for a handful of articles, but a stop gap measure to not break things till all the templates are moved to the navbox syntax. Since the master template requires all housed templates to conform to a uniform markup, updating individually would cause the problems. Thats why I reverted you - not because your intentions were questioned (even I think a uniform markup would make it easier to maintain), but because if all the templates are updated in unison, the template can be updated and need not be broken (which would mean hunting all articles it is used in and updating them). So, all I request you is not to update the live templates one by one, but rather update them to a backup copy. When all the templates have been updated, the live copy can be updated then. --soum ^talk 09:39, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Not a problem. Sorry for being so confrontational about it. :) Chris Cunningham 09:41, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. As for the master template, it is expected that this master template be used in articles, where more than one navigation aid is helpful, but only keep the most relevant one visible. Though it is stuck at a point where it displays all the templates, the plan is to parametrize which templates will be shown, and in which state. The master template was designed so that all this can be achieved without much hassle and without juggling a handful of templates individually. --soum ^talk 09:44, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gnooteekay

Heya. I speedy closed this because it was supposed to go over at WP:RfD instead, it's a redirect. I've moved the discussion (and your nomination) over there for you. --UsaSatsui 16:02, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Didn't realise there was a separate process. Chris Cunningham 16:14, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Protection!

Hello Chris,

I am trying to get the KFC article permanently put under semi-protection because of the recent and ongoing vandalism, could you add some support? here.

Jerem43 07:44, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Meh. Sure, the article spends most of its time protected, but that's not to say we should be draconian about it. There are articles which get far worse vandalism than KFC did last week. Tell you what, if it goes straight back to vandalism after this protection, I'll push for permanent. Chris Cunningham 08:29, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Shadowman.png)

Thanks for uploading Image:Shadowman.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 07:55, 13 September 2007 (UTC)