User talk:Thumperward/Archive 68

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 65 Archive 66 Archive 67 Archive 68 Archive 69 Archive 70 → Archive 75

Merry Christmas and Happy New Year

Hi Thumperward,

Hope that so day somewhere on earth we shall meet in the same friendly manner in which we have interacted online for en:wp. I am very pleased with your friendly and welcoming attitude. Hindustanilanguage (talk) 10:26, 26 December 2011 (UTC).

Infobox poultry breed

Hi, Chris, I seem to remember you are the infobox wizard. I've posted a request for change at Template talk:Infobox poultry breed, and thought I'd ask you to take a look, and perhaps comment? Thanks, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 16:32, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Replying over there. Thanks. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 18:57, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Civility enforcement

An arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Civility enforcement. Evidence that you wish the Arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence sub-page, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Civility enforcement/Evidence. Please add your evidence by January 12, 2012, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can contribute to the case workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Civility enforcement/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Tiptoety talk 08:47, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited Sea anchor, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Drag (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:45, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Arbcom workshop

Hello Chris, this is just a note to remind you that your edits to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Civility enforcement/Workshop#Seven hour delay should be added to the "comment by parties" section. No biggie, however. If you wish, I'll be glad to move it. Salvio Let's talk about it! 15:17, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Heh. I knew I'd mess it up somehow. :) Yeah, feel free to move it. Cheers! Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 20:36, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Thumperward. You have new messages at Armbrust's talk page.
Message added 16:04, 6 January 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talkabout my edits? 16:04, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

C Preprocessor -- Removal of "macro minutae"

Hello Thumperward,

I would like to request that the information that you deleted from the article on the C preprocessor be reintroduced in some way. I realize that to the general public, the details that you removed about the C preprocessor, which are found on this older revision of the article, may not be of much interest. While the newer, shorter view of the C preprocessor is shorter and easier to comprehend than the one presented by the considerably longer, older version of the article, I feel that the newer one is misinformative.

The new article describes the C preprocessor largely in terms of its most mundane uses in boilerplate code. While many C and C++ programmers use the C preprocessor exclusively for such purposes, it is a much more useful and powerful utility than the article makes it out to be. The C proprocessor allows for a greater degree of expression in the C and C++ language: while end-users usually do not have to implement sophisticated macros themselves for simple tasks, such macros are used heavily throughout Boost (particularly by Boost.Function, Boost.Foreach, and Boost.Preprocessor), as well as several other useful C and C++ frameworks.

Many complicated tasks involve replicating complicated units of code that follow some pattern. Through the use of macros, such as those provided by Boost.Processor, this sort of code can be written and maintained much more easily. However, using such a library requires knowledge of some of the less-frequently used features of the C proprocessor, such as token concatenation, argument quoting, and variadic macros. Searches for help on these subjects online will often bring up questions related to the subjects that I just mentioned: please refer to these links for more information. More sophisticated macros also find applications in loop-unrolling and automatic vectorization.

While the information that you removed from the old version of the article was not as well-structured as what one would hope for in a well-written article, it would nonetheless be useful for someone seeking to find help regarding the aforementioned topics. Therefore, I ask that either the removed sections of the article either be reincorporated, or that they be pasted in a new article that lists some more advanced uses of the C preprocessor. If you would choose one of these options, I would be glad to help clean up the removed sections of the article and introduce them in a more coherent way.

Thank you for your time! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Enkranz (talk • contribs) 12:06, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

As you've alluded to, the explanation of implementational nuances of this sort is precisely what Stack Overflow, which is likewise a collaborative knowledge community, is for. Wikipedia is a general-purpose encyclopedia and instructional or analytical content of this sort which is primarily or exclusively of interest to those working with the language simply doesn't belong here. The inclusion of the material in question served as a serious distraction from the improvement of the article to clearly and succinctly explain the purpose, history, and impact of the C preprocessor on the world. Nevertheless, the material is still in the page history, and should the article ever improve to the point where said material may be re-included in some form it can be retrieved from there. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:42, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Would you still be opposed to the introduction of the removed material in a new article that describes more advanced features of the C preprocessor? While it would be desirable to present a concise view of the C preprocessor to someone who does not have much programming experience, writing articles that accurately describe advanced topics with the purpose of catering to the general public is not always possible.
As I describe in my previous post, the C preprocessor is far from a simple textual replacement and macro expansion tool, but the new article presents it as such. To a very highly-motivated individual who has little programming experience (i.e. someone not working with the language), the new article may succeed in presenting a vague and misleading view of the C preprocessor, provided that he is willing to click though long chains of links to referred articles. In doing so, such an individual may glean something worthwhile from the first few lines of the new article.
The rest of the article, while succinct, would be intractable technical jargon to something who has not invested some time learning about C or C++. But in this case, we must classify such an individual as one who is "working with the language." It is impractical to write an article that progresses to any useful level of detail on certain topics, without assuming that the reader has met certain prerequisites. Again, I invoke the links that I provide in my previous post to argue that the current article does not go into a sufficient level of detail to accurately portray the subject at hand.
For example, the article on the C++11 revision of the language goes into a considerable level of detail to describe the changes that have been made to the language, but I'll be damned if a member of the general public who has not had experience with C++ metaprogramming understands the significance of "typename std::result_of<Obj(Arg)>::type operator()(Arg& a) const." Nonetheless, the article on the C++11 revision of the language presents one of the most useful, comprehensive and complete summaries of the changes that been made to the language that I have seen online, on par with Stroustrup's own article. Trimming down this article in any way would greatly diminish its utility to the vast majority of those who access it.
My point is that it is dangerous to delete material that has been added to an article by a contributor who wants to share some deeper insight into a topic with the rest of the world. Rather than delete such material so that we achieve a result of dubious practical utility, I feel that we ought to accommodate the new information, even if this means creating a new article that may not be of feature article quality. When an expert in a subject takes time to write useful material in a relevant article, this new material ought to stand to influence others who may have not considered what he has to say. It is partially the reader's responsibility to satisfy the prerequisites necessary to comprehend the text of an article. A member of the general public who has not had some minimal background in, say, linear algebra, will not learn anything useful from the article on, say, Inner product spaces.
Any contributor expects some investment of time from the reader--the reader is always free to stop reading an article when it becomes too specialized. The vast majority of those who read the article on the C preprocessor will be looking for or benefit from the inclusion of the the grimy details and minutae that have been removed from the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Enkranz (talk • contribs) 01:06, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a repository for anecdotal or personal analysis of its subjects. There is literally an entire World Wide Web out there upon which such material can be hosted. I've always found it baffling that people are so keen to turn Wikipedia into something that it isn't when there is zero resistance to including such material on any number of high-profile external sites which can be located just as easily with a search engine as Wikipedia's own coverage. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:05, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
None of the information in the older version of the article was original. Sources or links to other articles are provided for almost all of the subjects covered. For any subjects that you feel have inadequate citation, I'll be glad to add links to the original sources (sections of the ISO C standard) myself. I'm not advocating that we turn Wikipedia into something that it is not--Wikipedia is an encyclopedia; it is designed to serve as a reference. What is a reference but a collection of allusions to other resources? For the vast majority of the people who are going to view the article on the C preprocessor, the older article clearly serves as better reference than the newer one. I've argued extensively in the last response that your removal of the information in question diminishes the article's value as a reference.
The older version of the article on the C preprocessor was in fact unique in the subjects that it brought together. Try searching online for information on the C processor--you'll be hard-pressed a similar resource. I'm not intent on turning Wikipedia into something that it's not; I'd articles that serve as useful resources to remain useful resources in the future. I give a couple of examples of articles that I feel do this in my previous response, as well.
Enkranz (talk) 11:29, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
It is contradictory to argue that the content in question was both a) unique and b) non-original. In my opinion it certainly was the former. Wikipedia is not supposed to be a unique programming resource or reference. There is absolutely nothing stopping you from taking the material in the longer version of the article and adding it to Wikibooks: in fact, I encourage you to do precisely that. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 12:42, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
To clarify, by "material that has been added to an article by a contributor who wants to share some deeper insight into a topic," I meant information beyond what one would expect to find in an unspecialized encyclopedia, by still not original research. Even among programmers, however, people seem to be split in opinion over what ought to be done to the article. I did not mean for the post to be a survey and I certainly did not ask for responses in an unbiased way, but I did want to get the opinion of a few people likely to be programmers. Perhaps you'd find some of the comments in the post interesting.
I still feel that the removed information should be reintroduced in a "more coherent" way, e.g. cleaned up so that it would merely list the items and provide links to external sources for more information. I'd be glad to write an article on an external website to cover this information in more detail, and provide links to it in the outline in the Wikipedia article. Otherwise, I showed previously that the article presents a misleading view of what it should be covering. The code samples comprise the bulk of the removed information, so a simple outline would not take up much more space, but would do justice in presenting the C preprocessor more accurately.
How about we meet halfway?
Enkranz (talk) 00:21, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
Firstly, please don't use external sites as canvassing tools. Secondly, I've explained why the content is inappropriate on this general-purpose encyclopedia. There is, as I have repeatedly pointed out, nothing stopping you from taking said content and using it to construct a wonderful treatise on the nuances of the C preprocessor's macro capabilities at Wikibooks. However, if you really want to try to keep this content on Wikipedia itself, you could take the old contents and work on it in your user space until you've massaged it into a form that you believe addresses the concerns raised. I'd be happy to review that work once it's done, or you could take it to the wider community and propose it be re-included. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 05:55, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Request for evidence at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Civility enforcement/Evidence

As you blocked Malleus in 2011, would you please respond to Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Civility enforcement/Evidence#Requests for further evidence - Collaborative evidence collectionrcement/Evidence. Thank you. Dougweller (talk) 09:10, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Civility enforcement/Evidence/Blocks

In the course of an ongoing case, the Arbitration Committee has decided to collect all relevant information regarding Malleus Fatuorum's block log and, as such, has created a table of all blocks, which can be found here. Since you either blocked or unblocked Malleus Fatuorum, you are welcome to comment, if you wish. Salvio Let's talk about it! 14:02, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Honorverse

Please undo all your undiscussed merges in the Honoverse articles. If you like, please open a discussion about it afterwards. Debresser (talk) 14:40, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

As I'm sure you're aware, every single AfD raised on articles of the sort which were redirected so far has resulted in a merge. If you want to take material from the merged pages and add it to the main regions list article then be my guest (although as it's all wholly in-universe and unreferenced I'd really rather you didn't). Wikipedia's coverage of this subject has been an enormous cruftpit for years and there is certainly no onus on editors to request permission before attempting to help remedy that. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 16:14, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
It is customary to add a merge tag for some time, or open a discussion before making a merge. So even though your point is correct, your method most certainly wasn't! I will probably add some selected material from the merged articles to List of locations in the Honorverse at a later date. I was at first tempted to revert all your edits, but being that you are an experienced editor, I decided to ask you first. I hope you will in the future refrain from making such drastic steps without following the proper steps. Debresser (talk) 18:21, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
I was being bold. Merge tags may be used where discussion is desired: they are not required in all cases, and where the content is so obviously inappropriate (wholly in-universe content with no secondary sources, of the sort which numerous AfDs have resulted in merges previously) it would simply be an unnecessary bit of additional red tape. I seem to recall having repeatedly asked you not to come to my talk page simply to chide me, especially when I didn't actually do anything wrong. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 20:33, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
If you prefer less pleasant steps, like undoing all those edits of yours per the same boldness, or opening a discussion about your behavior in making so many and such drastic edits without any prior discussion, then that is fine with me. I personally would prefer a note on my talkpage. But if you really want to ruin all civil conversation and atmosphere of joined working towards a common goal, then your past sentence is going a long way in that direction. The choice is up to you. Debresser (talk) 23:08, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
There's nothing "unpleasant" about BRD. It is natural for editors to disagree with one another, and BRD is one of the patterns we've found to be useful in resolving that. What is unpleasant is that it seems that every time I make an edit you disagree with you come to my talk page to, quite bluntly, tell me off about it. That is not conducive to a collaborative editing environment. If, for some reason, you believe that the pages in question should not be redirected then I am all ears as to why, but I am certainly not under any obligation to seek the approval of random editors before taking (easily reversible) actions that I believe improve the encyclopedia. There was nothing stopping you from simply asking me for clarification rather than demanding that I go undoing all my edits and waiting for them to be rubber-stamped by some unnamed group of editors. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 05:42, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
You make a valid point. I should not have come with a demand, rather ask for clarification. I apologize. But you should have sought consensus first. Not from any specific editor, but from the community. These are by no means minor changes, and you should not be surprised to have stepped on some toes. Can you agree with me, in hindside, that it would have been better if you would have taken some steps to assure consensus before making the merges? Debresser (talk) 09:48, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
No. I deemed these changes uncontroversial as the history of Wikipedia's coverage of the Honorverse strongly suggests that all of the purely in-universe sub-pages will eventually be merged into the main list articles. The AfDs raised have basically all followed the same pattern as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alfredo Yu: universal support for a merge. Indeed, the only dissent has come when "the community" (which at this point appears to consist of you and Piotrus) has been consulted, such as at Talk:Mesa (Honorverse)#Merge proposal, where you both strongly opposed what was eventually a strong consensus for a merge on specious grounds of in-universe importance. I had no desire at all to sit through a repeat of that discussion before having to take this to an AfD; instead, I short-circuited the discussion to avoid the drama while achieving exactly the same end result. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:40, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
I understand your reasoning. Nevertheless, my opinion is that this way of being bold does more harm than good. Please take my opinion as an a priori disagree, and do not claim to start a BRD cycle in the future, because I will summarily revert you and post on WP:ANI for repeated non-consensus editing. Debresser (talk) 23:43, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
Erm, no again I'm afraid. You don't get to "pre-veto" discussions on your pet topics. If you want me to AfD these articles then so be it, but given the unanimity of the previous discussions I'm not sure you're going to like the result. As for taking me to ANI, your track record when it comes to that method of dispute resolution is not great, and that's coming from one of the few editors found often defending you when you end up there. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 05:48, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Template tasks

I'd be grateful if you could look at these template-related tasks, please, which are beyond my skills, (and require admin privileges):

{{Infobox settlement}} has code which could be adapted for the first of those.

Cheers. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:55, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

New WikiProject

Wikipedia:WikiProject Open Access is a new WikiProject. I noticed your participation in a couple openness/open-source-related related Tfd and Cfd's and thought you might be interested in the subject matter. Open access only somewhat interests me, but I edit in a number of closely related topic areas so I'm thinking about getting involved if the scope/title can be broadened a bit. – Pnm (talk) 16:33, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:TCL.png

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:TCL.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 05:56, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Problem

Ok I've said this at the football talk page as well but please do not speak to other volunteers like that as an admin you shouldn't be doing that. You asked me to calm down when I was perfectly civil then you made comments along the line of if you can't understand don't take part. The section you added talks about HTML is unable to split on the new template then you go on to say you inconvenience somebody if you split and somebody if you don't. There is mention that you are saying anything about the old template. So actually your point was very unclear. I ask you if you have a mobile device I use and iPhone and iPad I can view the old perfectly with no problems and the new one takes a whilst to scroll through an is inconvenient for a mobile device. Therefore it's clear that saying the new one is better for mobile devices is wrong. Anyway please consider just make your point rather than biting users you forced me to bite back. Edinburgh Wanderer 13:59, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Look, you're a valuable contributor to the project and I certainly did not mean that you should not be commenting on WT:FOOTY in general, but in a thread which largely revolves around technical discussion of complicated template issues it is wholly unproductive to continually have to read through responses by an editor who doesn't display any indication of taking said issue on board. The choice was either to tell you that, or to simply ignore you (which isn't very civil either). I tried to be as civil as I could, but I felt it more important to be honest than to pad it out and risk being further misunderstood. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 14:12, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
the technical issue with mobile devices I can't see on the iPhone or iPad. The new one is so long it takes ages to scroll so I would like you to explain what other mobile devices have issues as far as I can see most mobile devices won't have a problem with the current one or struway one. I would rather be ignored than people making comments. From what you said the new one Being split will cause viewing issues and your saying by not splitting you don't have that problem but if I can read the old one then is that an issue. I'm against the wiki table but if split it would look a lot better we would be better running a test to see what mobile devices actually have that problem as

Imagine with the majority now being relatively high tech it will be the minority. Edinburgh Wanderer 14:19, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Mobile devices were only mentioned as an aside. The major issue, and one you've ignored completely, is screen readers. And I'm going to ask you nicely to stop repeating your entire spiel about how you prefer the old one, no problems here et cetera every time you reply: everyone knows how you feel at this point and repeating yourself is not productive. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 14:27, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
I didn't repeat myself in trying to understand the technical issues. Do you have a screen reader personally and viewed the problem what I'm saying is technical testing will need to be done including a review to see what percentage of users each affects. If more devices have problems like the iPhone or more like screen readers we need to know that as to assertion how many are affected by each so as to effect the lesser amount and find out if struways version has that problem if not then thats the best option. Edinburgh Wanderer 14:35, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Sorry em so a screen reader isn't exactly what I thought it was but the point still stands anyway I'm going to let you all discuss it for a whilst and hopefully a compromise and further testing can be done. Edinburgh Wanderer 17:08, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
No, it isn't. And not only did it take an entire afternoon of pointing you to the answer for you to actually read what you were pointed at, you then didn't really believe it anyway. We're done here. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 20:45, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
chris I would like to draw a huge permenant line under this I've apologised to WFC and I would like to do the same with you. Ive become very angry about this probably wrongly to some degree and am ranting about it. I would like to more forward and I've suggested a further trial to gain more consensus and tweak this template until its perfect. Although i see isuses for high tech devices in appreciate if i was hard of sight or couldnt read it at all its much worse I would be willing to change the articles myself meaning neither you or WFC need to do the leg work allow a further trial. I also see that you biting me was just frustration caused by me getting frustrated and although i feel I was getting what you said I because of anger wasny seeing anything other than what I wanted to see. Sorry again. Edinburgh Wanderer 00:17, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
chris I have not suggested people go out and buy these devices as I said above I appreciate some will have these problem not all but some. There is clearly nothing we can do not to inconvenience someone therefore the only option we have is the new template. It's has issues with preference of flags squad numbers non existent and styling. A trial will allow us to gauge opinion and then get comments. As to resources given I have already said with a little guidance on articles to choose for a trial which I'm fairly certain WFC will give me some advice on I will set it up and then we can come back for further opinion on it. I will not push any ideas and the feedback can be reviewed. Further consensus is needed before it can be wider rolled out. I would appreciate you not blocking a trial just because we have has arguments all i want to do Is make sure we are doing the correct thing there is no point in making changes to then need to review again later because we have missed something. Ideas coming forward such as the trygame system for flags show we do need to do more research. Edinburgh Wanderer 13:11, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Thumperward/Archive_68&oldid=1138982865"