User talk:Thumperward/Archive 86

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 80 ← Archive 84 Archive 85 Archive 86 Archive 87 Archive 88 → Archive 90


AN discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "RfC proposal for community sanctions against Niemti". Thank you. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 01:34, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Richard Stallman

Just a note that there is a discussion at Talk:Richard Stallman which you may be interested in. -- Mrmatiko (talk) 20:04, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Nomination for merging of Template:Columns-list

Template:Columns-list has been nominated for merging with Template:Div col. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. -- Beland (talk) 23:42, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Requesting mediation on the subject of User:Launchballer's signature.

Requesting mediation on the subject of User:Launchballer's signature. I see you've had discussions with this user before, and since the user informed me that he had previous issues and my issue was never brought up then, I have decided to research this. I've so far found you have had issues there before, and would like you to help mediate this to make sure the user understands there is no "grandfathering" as it were of signatures. You may find the current discussion here. Thank you. — User:Technical 13   ( C • M • Click to learn how to view this signature as intended ) 16:08, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

If I were you I wouldn't be drawing attention to signature issues. Actually if I were you I'd be taking a very serious look at rethinking my entire approach to editing here around about now, as from the look of ANI you've somehow managed to get on the wrong side of a considerable number of editors not known for being easy to annoy. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 18:54, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
User:Launchballer's signature is a severe issue that could cause seizures (as I almost have on every time his signature is in my face with the contrast ratio and brightness). I consider this threat to my health serious enough to bring up where-ever need be. — User:Technical 13   ( C • M • View signature as intended) 19:00, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
Given that you had to be threatened with a block to remove the blinking from your own sig, your seizure assertion doesn't pass the laugh test. I'm done entertaining this, and I very much suspect that a number of your peers are as well. If you don't quickly cease treating the community like idiots you're not likely to be at liberty to continue doing so for very much longer. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 23:54, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
Thumperward is a likeable rogue with keen insight. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:42, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
You don't want to contribute, that is fine. I apologize for wasting your time. — User:Technical 13   ( C • M • View signature as intended) 02:00, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Anthropology of art

Good morning. Just wanted to say I liked the striking new look and wondered if a similar edit will be made of the other anthropology sidebars (such as "Medical anthropology", "Cyber anthropology", "Economic anthropology" etc)? These sidebars have all been copy pasted so the same issues exist for all (not to mention the transformation in appearance). The only subject of debate I see here is that there is an ongoing desire from multiple template editors to keep the width at 18 em. Is that a possibility? ThanksSchrauwers (talk) 12:14, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

As far as possible I'll be rolling this out wherever it's uncontroversial. Regarding the 18em width, my understanding is that this is a historical issue with sidebars in and around anthropology / philosophy (dating back to when having any consistent width at all was an improvement); in the modern age of {{sidebar}} and the hlist system it simply results in templates taking up an undue amount of vertical space. In particular cases where a narrower width is specifically required it can be re-added with a single declaration, but my personal preference is for templates to stop overriding the default width where possible. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 12:22, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
No one has ever said boo about the topic sidebars so rolling out these changes should be uncontroversial. All discussion has been about the main sidebar which I recently switched to a collapsible format so that it could be both 18 em and not overly long. However, that shift has elicited some concern that it obscures the breath of the discipline from view. Is there a coding variation that lets us have it all?Schrauwers (talk) 12:32, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
In my experience the best overall result is for the layout to make maximum use of horizontal space (so using the default 22em width and hlist where possible) and to avoid collapsing sections unless the resultant template is over a page long on contemporary desktop displays. It is possible to selectively collapse less-important sections by default as well if full collapsing isn't desired. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 12:39, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Puerto Rican vs American nationality....

Hey, I need you to chime in on WT:FOOTY regarding the nationality of both Taylor Graham and Kupono Low. It's pretty much the same debate we had a couple years ago. – Michael (talk) 06:40, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Ping Fu: draft ready

Hi Chris, it's taken me a while, but I've finally got a draft of the Ping Fu article ready for review. I've started a discussion at Talk:WikiProject Biography and it would be great to get your feedback if you're still interested. Thanks, 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 14:24, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Oh dear. T13

I had considered unblocking to be the correct course of action, but look:


Source is {{User:Technical 13/Userboxes/Blocked|duration=indef|start=05:27, April 3, 2013|end=11:10, April 4, 2013}}{{User:Technical 13/Userboxes/Blocked|duration=indef|start=05:27, April 3, 2013|end=11:10, April 4, 2013|TEST=2}}

Now, to me, that looks like a deliberate provocation. I'm drawing your eyes to it as the unblocking admin, because my eyes as one of those who suggested he could be trusted not to misbehave were drawn there too. They are displayed on his user page. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 21:41, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

It was not intended to disrupt or cause in any issues. It was an idea I was working on as a method to offer people assistance in dealing with their issues that caused them to be blocked. The current guides written on the WP: namespace are confusing and in some cases slightly contradictory to themselves. I will instead work on creating my help pages first so that it will be clearer that my intent is to help people and not disrupt or frustrate administrators. I apologize for the confusion. You can see the discussion on my talk page if you wish. Technical 13 (talk) 22:03, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) Seems like much ado about nothing on both sides. I don't see how that userbox itself could possibly be helpful to other editors, but I also don't see how it could be considered a provocation, either (provocation of what?). Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 22:18, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
The userbox by itself wouldn't have helped anyone, it was intended to only be a notice on my user page saying, "Hey, I've been there, I understand your frustration, may I help you understand and deal with it, one editor to another?" The links to Guide to becoming unblocked by another editor and Guide to becoming successful on Wikipedia are where the real helping words would be offered. The "unblocked" one has the starting of a very simple outline of what I had in mind. I'm back burnering the project for a bit as it seemed to be upsetting to Tim, and the last thing I want to do is upset people. Technical 13 (talk) 22:37, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

COI template for user pages...

Please check out the template I created as a companion to Template:Connected_contributor. Still needs documentation and what not, but I wanted to get consensus that it is a useful template first (I've had a lot of them called useless lately). Thanks! Technical 13 (talk) 20:12, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

In general, templatespace work is driven by demand. I implore you to devote more time to the simple improvement of articles until you've gained a general level of community trust, rather than continuing to work on meta projects like this and the community forums. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 21:20, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
I thought that this response to a Teahouse section was a fair and reasonable demand for the template. I have more to say, but have to go take care of the baby and will likely be tied up with that for a bit. Technical 13 (talk) 21:27, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
Okay, I think I have a couple minutes now. I have a hard time contributing much to the article NS... The reasons why for this are that I really don't know a lot of stuff about much of anything that hasn't already been written. I try to find articles I can add to and get really frustrated when I can't find verifiable things to add. On the other hand, as a MediaWiki wiki administrator and bureaucrat on another specialty wiki, I've got a lot of practice in coming up with logic and making templates work. I mean, I can go through and correct grammar and spelling and formating mistakes, if that is considered productive here. On my main wiki, we consider it sandbagging an edit count and frown upon it. The proper way to do it there is to either add to the article, or fix a factual piece of information and clean up formatting etcetera while you are at it. Anyways, my vacation week at UMA is over and I have to get back to class work next week, of which I have like 6 weeks worth of work in one class to catch up on because I had to wait to borrow a book. So, I don't expect to be doing "much" editing next week except to respond to things on my talk page and maybe answer an easy question or two on one of the three forums I've been contributing to. I'm also working with NerdFighter on his WP:CVUA program to be able to contribute to that as well.
I'm open to any thoughts, comments, suggestions, ideas, constructive criticisms you may have to offer. Thank you. Technical 13 (talk) 00:39, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

References needing improvement on International Atomic Time

What statements do you think need bettwer references on International Atomic Time? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=International_Atomic_Time&diff=501857048&oldid=500797472

DouglasCalvert (talk) 18:54, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Discussion at Template talk:Bullying#This reversion

You are invited to join the discussion at Template talk:Bullying#This reversion. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 01:00, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 20

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Switch statement, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Keyword (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) 12:18, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/BDD

Umm No? Thanks for the sarcastic response to something I took time to be neutral over (you know, what admins are supposed to be - neutral?) Anyway fuck it, the toxic atmosphere if this place is not worth it, so I've thrown in the bits. Cheers Thumperwad for opening my eyes. Pedro :  Chat  20:53, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, my bad: I edited it pretty much straight away. Sorry about that. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 20:55, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
Just seen the edit in the history - only saw your first response on my tablet to be honest. Pedro :  Chat  21:00, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
Fair enough, and you had every right to take offense. I misread the sentiment in the process of trying to come up with a clever putdown of the underlying vote. Serves me right. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 21:02, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:PDFlink

Template:PDFlink has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Lexein (talk) 13:00, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Infobox Olympics

Hello Thumperward,

I've noticed that you changed something with the Olympic event infobox. Why does it need to be changed? I've noticed that it became overly simple. The font is too small to be read when you changed everything back without modifying its aesthetics. Can you please revert it back? To be honest. Thank you. Raymarcbadz (talk) 13:37, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

That's the same font size as is used on 95% of Wikipedia's infoboxes. Regardless, the reason for the update was to fix the underlying code: if there is a strong consensus that the styling needs to be altered then that can be trivially accomplished, but I'm loathe to do so without that having been established. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:43, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
Okay. But not all Wikipedia's infoboxes are adjusted to 95%. The most common would be 100% or full percentage. Infobox on athletes and Olympic pages have the equal font percentage which is 100%. Raymarcbadz (talk) 13:52, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
{{Infobox sportsperson}} uses the default infobox font size. I'm sure there are plenty of older-style templates still in use on various Olympic pages which don't conform to the general styling, but as in the case of the template I've just altered that is almost certainly simply due to nobody having done the work as opposed to any deliberate decision. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:54, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
please revert your last change. it's not just the fontsize that changed. Frietjes (talk) 17:52, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
Let's continue over there, then. I haven't deactivated the new EP request, though I do think it needs clarification. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 18:17, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Piotrus 2

Would please clarify your comment there? I can't tell whom you are replying to and I almost get the impression that you are calling me a newbie. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C • Sign AAPT) 22:16, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

I've repeatedly seen SNOW invoked in similarly inappropriate situations in the past. It is entirely possible for editors who have been around for a while to make "newbie" mistakes in particular areas. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 22:23, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Reducing size of image in a song article's (single) infobox

Hello Thumperward. I wonder if you can help. I'm trying to find out how to reduce the size of an image containing a 7" single's custom face label when it appears in a single infobox. I asked at the Help desk – here's the relevant item – and John of Reading gave me a link to a discussion you contributed to back in late 2010. As that Help desk link will show, I'm simply interested in aesthetics: the reduced-size image that I was able to achieve in "Hari's on Tour (Express)" (which contains a song infobox) looks good, I think; whereas the full-size one in the likes of "World of Stone" is excessive, imo, for what is/was only a label in the centre of a 7". Would you happen to have any advice on how an image might be reduced in a single infobox, given the changes implemented in 2010? I notice that user:IbLeo, who appears to have spearheaded that discussion, is no longer active on wikipedia, so any help you can give would be greatly appreciated. I've also dropped user:gyrofrog a line, in the hope that might be able to help ... Thanks in advance. Best, JG66 (talk) 07:53, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

As the discussion suggests, this was due to a deliberate change in the infobox which removed the possibility of hard-coding a smaller size. Widescreen monitors are now the most common way that computer users view our articles, and I note that from where I'm sitting at present (in front of an iMac with a screen resolution of 2560x1440) neither image takes up more than 10% of the vertical width of my display. I'd suggest that it's fine as it is. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:12, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
Yes, I sort of knew the answer even as I asked the question, about the possibility of hard-coding being removed. Thanks anyway, Chris. JG66 (talk) 12:41, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Advertising character

Hello,

I removed your PROD tag from Advertising character because I feel that it might be worthy of an article and would be better discussed at AfD.

Uberaccount (talk) 03:10, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Your remedy

Regarding your actions at this ANI discussion[[1]] I feel more research should have been completed beforehand. Please be aware of [| this] where this group has been dragging this case out for a six month history. Please note the IP involved is clearly another IPsockpuppet of the page owner as identified in previous ANI complaint, Wtshymanski's comments and previously warned against [[2]] by admin Dennis Brown after attempting to ban me using a new IP sockpuppet ID instead of his usual log in name.[[3]] Yes, the editor in question is a PITA, to some, as his comments are sometimes comedic, sometimes annoying, and he doesn't discuss well, but he produces massive quantities of good edits. This could be construed as a pit dug to be fallen into by this group and indicates meatpuppetry, taking turns to revert the same text skillfully avoiding 3RR for each of them. 174.118.142.187 (talk) 04:48, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

What should have happened here is that a cluebat should have been judiciously applied many, many years ago, which would maybe have avoided the need for multiple editors to waste large amounts of time compiling user conduct RFCs. If this is indeed an elaborate trap then it's one that the editor in question has quite gleefully stomped into again and again. I'm disinclined to heed what is apparently your common suggestion that everyone noting Wtshymanski's behaviour is acting in bad faith, because one side is backed up by copious evidence and the other simply by bold assertion. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 07:07, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi Chris

I know we've disagreed in the past. I'm sure we will disagree in the future. But, I did notice you've been putting a lot of hard work, and IMO a lot of GOOD work into the admin boards; and I wanted to take the chance to note that and say thank you. — Ched :  ?  07:07, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Cheers. Much appreciated. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 07:33, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

RfC:Infobox Road proposal

WP:AURD (Australian Roads), is inviting comment on a proposal to convert Australian road articles to {{infobox road}}. Please come and discuss. The vote will be after concerns have been looked into.

You are being contacted as a user who participated in previous discussions proposing the deletion of {{infobox Australian road}}, this RfC does not propose that.

Nbound (talk) 07:04, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Template Talk:Help me

I think you misunderstood my request. My edit request was to remove the extra words, not add anything.

Thanks Chris. Technical 13 (talk) 13:50, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Ah, missed that. However, I'd disagree that there is consensus for reducing the existing wording at present. What may be an idea is bringing the entire template up for discussion at the Teahouse, or some other venue designed around helping editors, and see if there is a more elegant rewording for the whole thing. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 14:01, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Hard disk drive

I just have a quick question about this edit. Are the physical dimensions of hard drives normally given in millilitres? Because 20 millilitres (0.70 imp fl oz; 0.68 US fl oz) looks really odd. I tried to check the reference but it doesn't lead anywhere useful. I guess it moved and I couldn't find it. If the ml is correct would it be possible to explain why it is used rather than millimetres? Cheers. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 15:27, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

All I did was use the automatic conversion template on the existing figures; I didn't pick those units. The actual sources specify the sizes in standard length-width-height dimensions; looking into the page history, my suspicion that this was an idiosyncrasy of one of the article's more common editors was confirmed. Feel free to fix these measurements to use length-width-height rather than volume. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 16:38, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

A comment that seems directed at me

Greetings Chris. I noticed a comment you made recently that seemed directed at me where you inferred that the most prevalent editors talking about the us and them mentality between admins and editors do very little other than to agitate. I would mention that I do have more than 400, 000 edits and I was extremely active all over the project. What stopped that was the constant attitude by certain admins that they are above the content builders and even the rules and policies governing the project. I didn't stop editing because I don't want to. I stopped because its become nearly impossible to do more than a few edits without someone complaining about the speed of the edit, the method the edit was done, the type of edit, the decision to submit an article to one of the deletion/discussion boards without your motives questioned, etc. Every time I start to edit I have some overzealous admin with not enough to do drag me or some other editor off to ANI or something and I don't have time for that. I am here to edit and help build an encyclopedia but the us and them mentality is preventing that form occurring so I am trying to actively change that. Unfortunately I seem to be mentioned at every turn in some way about how much of a monster I am for trying to change the system and make it better so we can all get back to the purpose of this project. But since I am not an admin, I am nothing more than a second class citizen who isn't trusted to do any but the most basic and mundane of tasks and I need to constantly be watched, as do all other non admins, to ensure we don't break anything. Cheers. Kumioko (talk) 15:57, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately for you I wasn't born yesterday; I was actually around to witness the drama which led to your abandoning your content work. Suffice to say that like much of the "content contributor" myth, I'm sure it sounds far more convincing in the heads of its proponents than when compared to the historical record. For what it's worth, you weren't top of the list of the folk I was referring to in that comment. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 16:28, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
Well if you were around to see then you know there was a fair amount of bullshit I had to deal with that led up to it that no one wanted to deal with. I let it go for a long time and didn't buck the system when I should have so I feel that if I had pushed back a little more then, maybe the problems we have now wouldn't be so bad. I would also add that maybe if some of the culture problems are fixed I would probably be more likely to edit if I and others weren't always treated like second class citizens and told we couldn't be trusted. Kumioko (talk) 16:44, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
The community's wariness of you has nothing to do with your not being an admin, though the converse is most certainly not true. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 16:51, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
Well for better or worse this place is stuck with me. I may get fed up and leave from time to time but I keep coming back (like a bad rash or a well trained dog, take your pick, maybe a bit of both). The whole not trusted thing is pretty much bullshit since I have never done anything to damage the pedia so its really at this point just an excuse to prevent a long term editor that isn't part of the inner circle from contributing positively. Something that's happened countless times in the past and IMO leads more to the increasing amount of vandalism that we see and the decrease in editors and editing than allowing people to contribute positively. Anyway its frankly only a matter of time before I am banished like the rest of the non admin trash but until then I'll try and fix this broken ridiculous culture. Kumioko (talk) 18:51, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
Uh-huh. Anyway, we're done here. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 19:13, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Setting image sizes in infobox?

Hi, could you please clarify something for me. An editor is racing through the film articles setting the image size in the infoboxes to 220 pixels (see for example) and I was wondering what impact, if any, this would have? As I have always understood we avoid forcing size settings so I just want to clarify a few things. Since the infobox width is set to 220 pixels anyway, will these edits have any impact at all, and if so, will it positively or negatively impact on readers? Betty Logan (talk) 05:08, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

The default image size should not be overridden without good reason, per MOS:IMAGE. Doing so interferes with the user-chosen thumbnail setting. If the rest of the edits are sound (as they look to be from that diff) I'd just ask the user nicely to drap that particular bit of work from his tasks. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:31, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Thumperward/Archive_86&oldid=1089743223"