User talk:Thumperward/Archive 1
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | → | Archive 5 |
Linux
It is hard to tell whether the anon on the Linux page is merely a troll, but it would be easier to support your position if you discussed it on the Talk page rather than reverting and putting nasty comments in the edit summary. -- Gnetwerker 01:55, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
Capitalization of headings
You recently capitalized the H in "Band history" in the Pink Floyd page. However, I'd like to point out that the correct Wiki style for headings is to capitalize only the first letter, as shown by Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Headings. Thanks for plurifying (is that a word?) the article though to follow standards for British pages. I'm going to un-capitalize the heading, if you don't mind. Thanks. Cowman109Talk 19:47, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
- Not a problem. I think I just undid someone else's edit made in the interim, actually, but go right ahead. Chris Cunningham 19:55, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
|
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.
P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 22:59, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
PlaneScape: Torment links
Please leave the page alone. Many of those links you thoughtlessly removed had large significance with the fanbase and were very good resources. You should be deleted. You never even played the game, did you?
- You're not helping your case by acting like I shot your dog. If you want the article to improve, add something of value to it. Wikipedia is not the place for fanboys to build their shrines. For what it's worth, it's easily one of my top five games, which is why I'd like the article to not be of embarrassingly poor quality. Chris Cunningham 15:24, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
- It was better before you came along. Now when people want to learn more about the game, the important fansites and guides will not be available to them. All the sites I had linked to were useful in some way. --Jesse Mulkey 15:40, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
- Those sites all have the same information! And, once again, there are rules for this kind of thing! This is an encyclopedia. It is not a game resource site. The article on bees does not contain links to beekeeper websites. The article on aircraft does not help one to become a pilot. Grow up. Chris Cunningham 15:44, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
- No one else actually agrees with you. Find at least ten people who do, then maybe I see through your eyes. And how is clarifying author information and adding resources vandalism? You have no idea what you are talking about. I will never stop reverting your edits.--Jesse Mulkey 15:47, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
- I tire of this. If you have a problem with my edits, I implore you to seek arbitration before I do. Chris Cunningham 15:51, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
- No one else actually agrees with you. Find at least ten people who do, then maybe I see through your eyes. And how is clarifying author information and adding resources vandalism? You have no idea what you are talking about. I will never stop reverting your edits.--Jesse Mulkey 15:47, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
- Those sites all have the same information! And, once again, there are rules for this kind of thing! This is an encyclopedia. It is not a game resource site. The article on bees does not contain links to beekeeper websites. The article on aircraft does not help one to become a pilot. Grow up. Chris Cunningham 15:44, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
- It was better before you came along. Now when people want to learn more about the game, the important fansites and guides will not be available to them. All the sites I had linked to were useful in some way. --Jesse Mulkey 15:40, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
Barnstar
|
The Tireless Contributor Barnstar | |
| I hereby award this barnstar to Thumperward for all his excellent work on the Guinea pig article! ~ Amalas rawr =^_^= 14:00, 10 July 2006 (UTC) |
Jerky (food) (diff; hist) . . Thumperward (Talk | contribs) (Remove cleanup; article might need beefed-up, but it's of a reasonable standard now)
OK, that was just horrible... scot 14:02, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
- HA! Would you honestly believe I didn't spot that? Chris Cunningham 14:04, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
coderwiki
why'd you take the link off? i'm a php nut and i'm starting a wiki for it. i think people should be able to find a good place to get info in wiki form. if there is a better place for the link i'm open to suggestion --da404LewZer 06:51, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
- Tutorial links and so are are far better placed in Wikibooks. Chris Cunningham 07:42, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Unix
Hi - you reverted some changes I did to Unix earlier, removing the linked dates, as the dates weren't significant. As the full date (month, year, day) was present, I understand the link was valid - it allows user preferences for dates to work, see [[1]]. If I'd merely found a "2001" year, say, and linked that, it would have been correct to revert it. However, in this case, such dates should be fully linked, so that January 31, 2001 becomes 2001-01-31 or 2001-31-01 or whatever, based on the user's preferences. Hope you agree with this approach. --Oscarthecat
04:13, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
- Yeah, not a problem. Overlinking dates is a pet peeve of mine, but if people would rather have them linked then I'm not going to get into an edit war about it (especially when there's the format advantage you mention.) Chris Cunningham 08:25, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
In case you might be interested in this project. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 17:41, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks. I now have a definite direction for those bored afternoons at work :) Chris Cunningham 22:36, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
Check this out !
|
The Original Barnstar
For your brilliant work on PHP! :) --james // bornhj (talk) 10:14, 28 July 2006 (UTC) |
Enjoy! --james // bornhj (talk) 10:14, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
I've made a few changes to this article since you placed the advert tag there. I hope I've got rid of the more gushy parts, but would like to hear what else (if anything) you feel needs improvement. -- Avenue 02:49, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks. The article is pretty clear now, although it's not very substantial. I'll do another pass over it and take the tag off. Chris Cunningham 11:58, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Amorrow's edits
Chris Cunningham, please explain what you are going to do, again. Did I understand you to say that you were reverting to the version of the article that includes banned user Amorrow's edits? If you did this please revert yourself, ASAP. Look for an email from me with more details about the situation with Amorrow. FloNight talk 20:11, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
- See also here. Banned editors are not allowed to edit either directly or by proxy. AnnH ♫ 20:24, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
- I hope that wasn't an implication. I've got nothing to do with the banned user in question. I'm just disinclined to allow positive contributions (including my own) to be reverted on the basis of a moderation dispute which doesn't involve me. I'm certainly not doing it myself. Chris Cunningham 20:34, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Please revert yourself
Hello Chris : - ) I'm sorry that we are having miscommunication about the Larry Sanger article. Please read my message on the article talk page and then revert yourself if nobody else has. I strongly encourage you to read WP:BLP and listen to Jimbo's keynote speech at Wikimania. Take care, --FloNight talk 06:36, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
- I'm just going to stop editing the article. I haven't the patience to get involved in other people's moderation disputes. Chris Cunningham 13:23, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
- Chris Cunningham, you seem to be missing the fact that you are at the center of a content dispute on this article. There is no other dispute. No one besides you is disputing the removal of Amorrow's edits. You are the person removing the image fair use statement. You are the person adding wording that the subject of the article asked to be removed. Your frequent editing of this article against consensus is the problem. FloNight talk 14:09, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
- Whatever. If you'd like to revert it be my guest. Chris Cunningham 15:52, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
- Chris Cunningham, you seem to be missing the fact that you are at the center of a content dispute on this article. There is no other dispute. No one besides you is disputing the removal of Amorrow's edits. You are the person removing the image fair use statement. You are the person adding wording that the subject of the article asked to be removed. Your frequent editing of this article against consensus is the problem. FloNight talk 14:09, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Bahnstah
|
|
The Original Barnstar
I first noticed your contributions, due to having Ubuntu (Linux distribution) on my watchlist for CVU work, and you have no idea how nice it was to see helpful editors coming out of the woods to seriously improve an article already at Featured status. Then I look at your contributions, and I see you've been slowly but steadily improving a huge number of articles since January -- you're clearly overdue for a barnstar, and I'm proud to present you with this one. Wikipedia is a better encyclopedia for your efforts. Thank you. Luna Santin 10:34, 9 August 2006 (UTC) |
Battlefield Earth
I've partly rewritten and significantly expanded Battlefield Earth. I'd be interested to know what you think. -- ChrisO 23:36, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
- Much better. Thanks. I really need to give it another read before I have another stab at editing it; I'm all burned-out of articles of that, err, ilk, right now. Chris Cunningham 00:29, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
At first I looked at the additions you made to the article with increasing pleasure. I met Peter several years ago in his London flat with my son;s sick critter, and only discovered his death when I searched for his phone number yesterday evening. As I read on, I saw that the additions you have made are, in many cases, verbatim from his obituary. I know that you have quoted the references, but you have nowhere quoted permission to use them. This makes me very nervous indeed, because it looks like a total copyvio and risks the article.
It may be that WP has a policy that obits may be quoted verbatim, but the usual practice with such matters is to quote limited sections.
On this you may be wiser than I, but, in view of my concerns I have reverted much of your work (thus naturally retaining it in the edit history) until such time as we can be certain that your additions are in order. I will be adding back all elements that are not apparent copyvios. Fiddle Faddle 06:35, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
- I have now taken the segments you added and rewritten them to remove any thoughts of copyvio. Fiddle Faddle 07:32, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks. It was a 2am edit, and wp was playing up, so the rewrite is appreciated. I'm really more of a copy-editor than a researcher. Chris Cunningham 08:34, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
- No worries. I was scared of someone slamming a copyvio on it and thus losing the baby with the bathwater. It was a shock to find last night that he'd died, so I nearly spoke harshly to you. Glad I didn't. :) Fiddle Faddle 22:15, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks. It was a 2am edit, and wp was playing up, so the rewrite is appreciated. I'm really more of a copy-editor than a researcher. Chris Cunningham 08:34, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
His controversial views
Not going to revert your removal of the refs, but a suggestion: If the article, reasonably, states that he had views which may be controversial, I suggest it needs a reference to show what those views are, as well as a ref to show that the views are controversial. My suggestion is to migrate the removed refs earlier in the sentence to where it mentions views at all, and then seek those that show that they were controversial, leaving the "cn" in place. What do you think? Fiddle Faddle 19:10, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
- "he had strong views on the monarchy" isn't a statement in itself. If it is to be cited, his actual position should be stated in the article, and that should be cited. To be honest I think that the whole section should be moved to the talk page for a while until it's more comprehensive; it's only included in the article just now because people were pushing for inclusion. Chris Cunningham 23:49, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
- Let's let it ride for a week or so and give he who pushed a chance to do something. I prefer articles to be developed in the article, which encourages other editors. After that let's do just what you say :), or enhance it ourselves Fiddle Faddle 00:30, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Archive links
The reason for using the absolute page links in archives is so if a page is moved the archives are still linked on the moved page, rather than becoming redlinks from relative links. It doesn't seem to cause any harm. —Centrx→talk • 00:10, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
- Ahh, right. Isn't this a technical limitation, then? I'll keep it in mind for the future though, thanks. Chris Cunningham 01:03, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
- I suppose there could be some way to move a page along with all its subpages, but that could be a vandalism problem for little need. The relative links are properly relative. Basically, the pages just stay where they are not hurting anything and moves happen so rarely that the relative linking isn't much of a problem, but it could be an increasing problem as most all talk pages are getting enough discussion old and new that they get archived, so when I notice it while archiving a Talk page I do something about it. —Centrx→talk • 01:19, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
link to cartridge
Hello, when you want to link to the article about a cartridge, please do not link to cartridge, as that is a disambiguation page (which nothing should be linked to). Instead link to the one of the options found on that page such as cartridge (electronics) by writing out cartridge Regards, -- Jeff3000 06:01, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
- Yeah, I know, cheers. Chris Cunningham 12:06, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
Refs
Hi, please stop changing references, to my knowledge having refs after a stop is a guideline, i've reverted you once already, as one of the main contributors to said article i find having them after a fll stop misleading and messy if you wish to open up conversation please do on its talk page before moving refs around. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 20:52, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
Fuel cell
Thats was to hasty, on 09:54, 11 September 2006 i changed the definition of fuel cell trying to include Blue energy and similar into it, consensus on the blue energy talk page states 2 against redefining fuel cell. so i restored the definition back to its original state. Now by reverted it again you are restoring it to its incorrect version. Mion 14:22, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
- You're totally right; I don't know what I was thinking there. I'll fix it myself; sorry about that. Thumperward 14:27, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
- I saw you rewriting it, thanks for the help. reg .Mion 14:28, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
MedCab case
Hi, I'm going to be the mediator for the Advanced Packaging Tool MedCab case. Could I request that you discontinue the edit war to allow the mediation process to commence. Thanks, Addhoc 12:19, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
- No probs. Hanging back for now. Chris Cunningham 12:28, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
$100 laptop
Nice work cleaning up The Children's Machine article. Looks much better now. —Pengo talk · contribs 11:48, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
Linux OS page
Thanks for your help, it looks like some people can invent all kind of (apparently innocent) schemes in order to push their POV. I'm getting tired of GNUish trolling around. The sad part is that people think they fight for "freedom", but they don't understand the basic principles of the freedom: letting people do what they want, choose the name they want for their projects, etc. -- AdrianTM 17:22, 27 September 2006 (UTC)