User talk:Thumperward/Archive 36

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 30 ← Archive 34 Archive 35 Archive 36 Archive 37 Archive 38 → Archive 40

Disruptive Editing In HDD Article

Hi: You might want to comment or react to the disruptive editing by Glider87 to your work in the Hard Disk Drive article, originally posted by you circa Sept 2006. Tom94022 (talk) 20:33, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Are you kidding? It was precisely your insistence that non-trivial technical details on that topic did not need referenced which caused all the schism at that time. If you continue to edit war on this topic, after years of being told not to by countless editors, I'll request an RfC on your behaviour with a view to ensuring that you are forbidden from doing so in future. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 00:58, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
I would support that RfC. Robust references are important. Glider87 (talk) 01:24, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
I wasn't kidding, and I have no idea what you are talking about when u say "at that time". I made about 7 edits to the Hard Disk Drive article in 2006, none about the time u posted the paragraph on air pressure without references. So as editor then, why are references now required and why didn't u do them then?
I also have no idea what u are talking about when u say "'years' of being told" - to the best of my recollection this is the first time I have raised the issue of when a fact tag is not necessary. Perhaps u have me confused with someone else.
So having made accusations, I would appreciate your pointing me to my offenses or going ahead with the RfC, and if not, an apology would be appreciated. I will watch for a reply here. Tom94022 (talk) 18:12, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Tom, as little as two months ago I posted this thread on that talk page over this exact issue (your non-consensus removal of {{fact}} tags for things which multiple other editors have disputed as being "obvious"). Furthermore, I did not write the paragraphs in question originally; I merely copyedited what was already there. I do apologise for saying "at that time"; I had that confused with a different dispute. However, make no mistake that you were certainly admonished for removing fact tags two months ago. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 08:39, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
I assume your apology covers "'years' of being told" - as you say your posting was 2 months ago.
To set the record straight, Glider87 was the second editor to restore the tag (13 April) but you were the first editor to opine on 14 April that the removal of the fact tag was "inappropriate;" - once a dispute appeared, I left the fact tag there! To say this was "non-consensus removal of {{fact}} tags for things which multiple other editors have disputed" is incorrect - their was neither multiple editors involved nor consensus at the time u posted your "admonishment," if that's what you would like to call it,. Since then, there has been little discussion and lots of accusations but I have not touched the fact tag. And I really think you exaggerate when you characterize, you,, Glider and 190.233.14.67 as "multiple editors" much less "countless editors."
Since the paragraph in question in question has been restored and you are not its original editor I hope this is moot. I suggest you delete this entire section without further dialog.
Tom94022 (talk) 20:09, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
To set the record straight about Tom's bad behaviour he has been told for years not to edit disruptively against consensus but he continues to do so. For example all of the editing against consensus Tom has done regarding WP:MOSNUM. The talk page there contains many archives of many editors telling Tom not to edit against consensus there but he continued for years. Tom removed the fact tag and continued to remove it despite the consensus of many editors being against that removal. Then when there was consensus to remove the offending uncited text Tom edit warred to add it back again without cites. Tom failed to produce any valid cites and you edit warred. Tom, stop trying to deny the facts and stop trying to use this talk page to rewrite history. Tom, by doing do it only demonstrates how you repeatedly misrepresent events that are already archived on the relevant talk pages. The only option now is for Tom to show genuine contrition and admit he is wrong and retract the misrepresentation that he has been using. Lastly, this section should not be deleted just to save Tom's poor track record. I think it should be kept as a reminder of Tom's poor behaviour for other editors to consult in the future. If Tom does not show contrition and continues to misrepresent the facts then it will be obvious that he does not intend to cease his disruptive editing and I then see no option but to start an RfC with a view to getting Tom blocked from editing in the future. Glider87 (talk) 02:04, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
I don't delete talk page content anyway; it'll be archived. I agree with your representation of the events leading up to this; I also believe that this is the consensus version of what happened. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:30, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
Thumperward, yr "your" is unfortunately ambiguous - whose version, mine or Glider? Glider likes to characterize discussion in an attempt to arrive at or change a consensus, "edit disruptively against consensus," - it is discussion that he doesn't agree with! If you happen to think Glider is accurate, I would appreciate as many diffs as you care to do so. I really do try to confine my arguments to discussion and not edit war in the article. Tom94022 (talk) 21:46, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
  • I see no contrition and no undertaking from Tom that he will resolve his disruptive ways. Actually I see the same kind of misrepresentation and denial that he always posts in such circumstances. Time for an RfC with a view to getting Tom from future disruptive behaviour I think. Glider87 (talk) 01:54, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

hi

Who says no original research?

First point I don't know your economical political slant therefore I don't know your bias.

So let me see. It has to be published first in a peer reviewed academic journal before it can be published on wiki? What nonsense. It is published as soon as I put it up there, i.e. in public view. Whether you agree with it or not is irrelevant. I’ve never seen an academic discourse where people do agree.

That’s analogous to saying

Only the "pros" not the "amateurs" can comment on things they are the experts.

I would rather hire an amateur who knew what they were doing than a pro with a qualification who thinks they know what they are doing but they don't.

All me members of a profession are going to resist changes to their profession where it may not be in their interests but in that of the public. That is what the edit was talking about.

You are trying to remove articles from the lancet that you don’t like. You can criticise them but you can’t remove them.

no one appointed you the editor here.

get of my turf,i am trying to help people to reorganise society in a way that is beneficial to them.

Barnaby —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.140.83.88 (talk • contribs) 06:09, 23 June 2009

What on Earth are you on about? I didn't remove any articles; all I did was remove a chunk of personal opinion that you inserted into the wrong place on maximum wage. This is an encyclopedia, not a place for people to publish their personal opinions or reflection on subjects. I didn't make Wikipedia's rules on the use of reliable sources, but I do agree with them and will continue to apply them. I would suggest that you read the relevant policies: no original research, reliable sources. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 08:06, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Template:Infobox Ethnic group

Made the change, can you check and confirm all is OK --Stephen 10:13, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Looks great. Thanks! Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:19, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Mayonaise

The ref is 3rd party but the statement says Ed once asserted to Johnny Carson. I hardly think that The California State Military Museum is an expert on the history of mayo. If it stays in the article it should mention only the count not Ed or Johnny. Unless of course it's in reference to a hermetically sealed jar on Funk and Wagnalls porch. If it doesn't get fixed soon I'm going to delete it again. --Weetoddid (talk) 17:40, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Urgh. You realise you could have fixed it yourself in the time it took you to write that? Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 17:42, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Regarding intent to trim Warcraft (Series)

Just a quick fyi on doing this: The page Warcraft (series) has had alot of other pages merged into it, and so in a way yes you are correct that it has become a large amount of plot related content. However, because the information was merged there, cutting large segments of it out could cause some redirects from merges to become redundant, which is messy to clear up. My request is that if you remove segments from the page, could you also please check if anything redirects to that section, or to the page regarding that section, and put those up for RfD? Thanks in advance, one of my personal bugbears are redirects which send you to places without the information relevant to them. Alternatively if you could just post on my talk page the topic of each segment you delete, and I can check through to find any potentially redundant redirects as a result, that would also be good. --Taelus (talk) 17:49, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Sure thing: I'll ping you if I'm removing any section headers. Yeah, I know that a lot of articles were merged in, but that doesn't necessarily mean that said content even belongs in a merged article IMO, especially not acres of raw plot material. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 17:53, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

AFCW honours

See the post I've put on the article's talk page. Cliftonian (Talk • Contibs) 16:44, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I reworked it. Cheers. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 16:49, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Crack (craic) → Craic

Hi Thumperward,

You requested that the page Craic be deleted so you could move Crack (craic) over it with the rationale "current title has unnecessary disambiguation". I agree with your reasoning - but have a bit of concern that it may not be shared on the Crack (craic) page. Either way, the Craic page has been deleted and is now a red link. Can you either a) move Crack (craic) (if you feel consensus is there) or b) start a discussion for a move on Talk:Crack (craic). Thanks.

p.s. live the pirate hat, yarrr! --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 20:50, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I've moved the page. Cheers for the reminder! Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 20:55, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
No worries. Take care. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 20:56, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Templates for deletion nomination of Template:Lists of countries

Template:Lists of countries has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. Cybercobra (talk) 06:46, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Added HOF to Tennis Player Infobox like Golf?

{{{tennishofyear}}}} ! Inter. Tennis HOF Here is my best shot! Can you see what you can come up with? 98.240.44.215 (talk) 23:52, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Done, replying on this IP's talk. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:45, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Template talk:Infobox Former Country

Is the edit request now null and void, or what? - Jarry1250 [ humourous – discuss ] 10:39, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

No, the template needs re-synced with the sandbox. It wasn't the removal of the transclusions which broke it; it was the inadvertent removal of a CSS statement. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:41, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Ah, should I sync them now? - Jarry1250 [ humourous – discuss ] 10:43, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Please. Cheers. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:45, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Just got round to looking at it again (sorry). The only difference seems to be the removal of a semicolon from the CSS: is this the intended change? - Jarry1250 [ humourous – discuss ] 11:31, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
The first line has "background: none; border: none" in addition to the rest of the CSS. Diff. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:45, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

AN3

Just FYI, someone reported you at AN3 here; I'm not sure who this person is (I guess the same as one of the IPs editing SOCKS) and I don't understand why he thinks you were edit warring, but in any case I threw it out pretty quickly because I see no evidence of anything. Just thought I should let you know. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 11:08, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Yeah, this is what I get for a bit of transparency on my user page: constant harrassment every time I edit anything vaguely related to free software because I happen to work for a certain company. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:22, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Haha, no worries. When I saw your name being reported by a redlink I was fairly certain it was going to be somewhat frivolous—sort of like the ANI thread that happens once every week or so, some random IP going "J. delanoy is an abusive admin and abuses his tools and needs to be banned because he keeps undoing all my vandalism!" rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 11:52, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Football player infobox

Hi - good job, but I changed the following possible oversight
data22b = {{{caps1|{{{caps(goals)1|}}} }}}
ok, but
data23b = {{{caps1|{{{caps(goals)2|}}} }}}
should maybe be
data24b = {{{caps2|{{{caps(goals)2|}}} }}}
etc etc?
All great, except currently if there is no caps 1 entry, but is other, they do not right-align. (I Realise you may still be looking at it....)--ClubOranjeT 10:59, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Yep, still working on it. Sorry for any fallout right now! Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:00, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
No problem, you keep right on beavering, I like it!:-)--ClubOranjeT 11:03, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Template:WikiProject talkheader

Hi- Sorry to bother you, but I've reverted your redirect, due to the fact that the above template is different, really, from {{talkheader}}, and is used specifically for WP talk pgs.

WT:VANDALISM doesn't even use that template: it uses a plain {{talkheader}}! So far as I can see, the only actual change is the addition of the phrase "discussing anything related to its purposes and its tasks". But I've added a note on the template talk, if you'd care to humour me. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 20:08, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Well, that's a even better solution, that I didn't think of!! BTW, my ref to WT:Vandalism was to show the differences between WP talkheader & talkheader above. I can work on what extra parameter(s) would be needed to add to talkheader for you, will get back to you later. Thanks --Funandtrvl (talk) 22:24, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Ah, right, you meant "compare Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Caribbean and WT:VANDALISM". I getcha. Well, let me know what you need. As I say, the difference seems trivial, and this would be a good addition to the template logic. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 23:18, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Icons used only for decoration

Re your recent change to {{MoS-guideline}} removing alt text for an icon: this subject has come up again for {{Portal}} and I've raised the issue (mentioning your name) in Wikipedia:Media copyright questions #W3C accessibility guidelines and image copyright notices, where you're welcome to follow up. Just thought you'd like to know why your ears were burning.... Eubulides (talk) 01:02, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 07:35, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Some guy ANI

I have started an ANI discussion on Some guy: WP:ANI#Some guy You may want to comment there. Thank you. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 05:07, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Done. Cheers. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 08:08, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Edit War?

(Half kidding.)
Things like this could get me into edit wars. What did you think? Man - this is like part of the history of this piece of software! These are the names and the places where the software lives on - how can you see this as ad?--Speck-Made (talk) 17:32, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Software forks are not notable unless they're covered by multiple reliable secondary sources. End of story. Links like that on WP are almost always adverts. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 20:41, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
I'd have to agree with Chris on this one. (Yes, Chris, I'm still stalking your page. :D ) The posted links didn't seem to be notable enough to warrant inclusion. If they have received notable coverage elsewhere, then they should have their own Wikipedia article which the ABC article would link to. Cheers, --Aervanath (talk) 05:02, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Club template

I didn't know that, I haven't see any in the navbox format. If so, feel free to change it back. --Jimbo[online] 14:46, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Done. Cheers. They're gradually being migrated, although obviously we have so many footy templates that it's quite possible you wouldn't have seen any yet. The code improvements are a good win here though. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 14:48, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Talk archive size

Hi- I'm very sorry that you are unable to read archive pages that are > 50kB, and I realize that we've had this discussion before. I'm also sorry to disagree with you that something less than approx. 50kB would be optimal for an archive, as there are very few instances where 100kB is a problem. So, the choices are to have umpteen million archive pages or keep the optimal archive page size to about 100-150kB. Since your machines are the only ones that have problems that I've come across so far, I don't agree that using smaller, multiple archive pages is the answer for the entire general Wikipedia population. --Funandtrvl (talk) 21:43, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

As I've already pointed out, the MediaWiki software itself flags talk pages of over ~50k as requiring splitting, so it seems bizarre that the "optimal size" would be above that. I don't see any evidence of that assertion, nor where the problem is in having "umpteen million archives" anyway. There's no reason this has to be a running feud; I would simply ask that you not manually collapse archives which I have set to smaller sizes unless you can point out some genuine problem with smaller archives, as what appears to be an aesthetic grumble for you is an actual practical consideration in editing at all for me. I don't think that's an unreasonable request at all. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 21:48, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
"This page is 114 kilobytes long. It may be helpful to move older discussion into an archive subpage. See Help:Archiving a talk page for guidance."
The above text that appears on the archive subpage does not make a lot of sense, since it is being displayed already on an archive subpage. However, this text is triggered at 73kB, so it makes sense that Wikipedia considers that amount to be optimal, which is fine with me. --Funandtrvl (talk) 22:07, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
If that's the nature of the compromise then so be it, though I won't promise that I won't manually archive to smaller lengths if otherwise unchallenged. Thanks. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 22:09, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Dr Pepper

I've added a section for discussion of the intro, if you're interested. - Denimadept (talk) 22:08, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Great, thanks. I'll reply over there. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 22:10, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Richard Pacquette

Cheers for your words and edits to the article, I think a peer review might be worthwhile. Mattythewhite (talk) 22:17, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I generally prefer to dive right in myself; not much of a reviewer. But I suppose I might get involved in that some day. :) Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 22:26, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

{{Infobox Windmill}}

Hi, your edits on 23 June have caused a few problems. Firstly, the embedding on the NRHP template into the infobox is now broken. Secondly, the name_of_mill field does not display a result. See discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_National_Register_of_Historic_Places#Template:Infobox_and_NRHP_embedding. Mjroots (talk) 06:46, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I've fixed the name_of_mill attribute, and replied on the thread in question. Thanks for the heads-up. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 08:50, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the fix :-) Mjroots (talk) 09:41, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

{{Infobox Korean name}}

If you were planning on creating an {{infobox}}-based version of this template, you might want to take a look at the work I've already done at {{Infobox Korean name/meta conversion}}. I really must get back to working on that, though as I recall I was having a few issues. PC78 (talk) 15:08, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I've used your work to complete the switchover, which I've now deployed. Even after moving the /Nametable logic into each row individually there's still a 10% overall code footprint win, along with huge wins for code layout and future maintenance. Cheers! Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 13:21, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
You may have already noticed, but I've reverted you for now. Your code had a number of issues that was breaking the template; it really needs proper and thorough testing prior to implementation. PC78 (talk) 13:34, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
(e/c)An edit to an template that instantly breaks thousands of pages require an immediate revert; you should know this as well as anyone, so please don't feel affronted by my actions. Korean name is not displaying properly; this can be seen on the current testcases page. There may be other issues regarding categorisation, but I'm not sure if they are related to this or not. PC78 (talk) 13:48, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
See, this is what causes unnecessary drama. An edit which breaks templates, as in adversely affects user experience, should be reverted immediately. Doing so because of some random bug with fields not appearing, when it could have been fixed in two minutes (it's now been half an hour since the change was made) doesn't help anyone. Nor should I have had to wait until your fourth reply to get an inkling of what was wrong anyway.
Let's continue this on template talk. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 13:39, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Cashflow 202???

I have to ask, in regards to the comment on my talk page ([[1]]) about you "passing through" - how in the world did you notice a wildly insignificant comment left by an anonymous poster on somebody else's talk page? - DavidWBrooks (talk) 23:19, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Same way I noticed this one, I would imagine. Protonk (talk) 23:25, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
Exactly. I had your talk page watchlisted for whatever reason, happened to click it out of curiosity, and thought I'd shine some light on something you'd admitted to being mystified about. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 23:47, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
Huh! It has never occurred to me to watchlist somebody else's talk page, unless I was involved in a long discussion with them. Seems sort of eavesdropping-ish, in a funny way. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 11:16, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
To each his own I suppose. Every page I edit is added to my watchlist. On this occasion, my "eavesdropping" shone some light on a comment that you hadn't understood, so I consider that a job well done. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:20, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Infobox nrhp

Hey thanks for the reply at WT:NRHP. I have a question. Do you think if I converted Infobox nrhp to use HTML format instead of wikimarkup that embedding would work better? It seems as though the problem is that MediaWiki won't parse the wikimarkup since it's transcluded inside of the table, but if it was already in HTML format, it seems as though it may work. Does this sound plausible to you? --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 02:05, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Nope, sorry - the problem is with the interaction between {{infobox}} and table logic in general, not just wikimarkup. Essentially, {{infobox}} encapsulates any data that it is fed within its own table code, so this would be "doubled up" in any case. The only way to circumvent it is to ensure that any data fed to it is fully wrapped in a standalone table. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:23, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Template talk:Plot

Hello, Thumperward. You have new messages at Template talk:Plot.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

--Cybercobra (talk) 22:10, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Replied. Thanks. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 22:14, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Thumperward/Archive_36&oldid=1078913006"