User talk:Thumperward/Archive 88

Archive 85

Archive 86

Archive 87

Archive 88

Archive 89

Archive 90

→

Archive 95

Template:...

Hi, this is to inform you, as a contributor to Template:..., about a discussion at Template talk:... regarding the purpose of this template. --Redrose64 (talk) 17:01, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Nomination for merging of Template:Online source

Template:Online source has been nominated for merging with Template:Press. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Steel1943 (talk) 22:18, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

(Violent) abuse to Sven70

Dear Mr. Cunningham, In the light of the 'problems' with Dr. Sven Verelst (Sven70) I would like to ask you officially to testify to Mister Wales the abuse you saw Sven undergo.... I refer to words like 'Munchausen and such'... It would be nice if you would put me in Cc of your mail and testimony.

You can reach me on (Redacted) because I don't have a clue how to use the Wikipedia talkpages exactly.

Thanks for helping me/us!

Yours

Kristof Verelst (brother of Sven Verelst) Master of Arts, Phd Archaeology Belgium. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Archeoloogje (talk • contribs) 16:37, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Nomination for merging of Template:Talk archive navigation

Template:Talk archive navigation has been nominated for merging with Template:Automatic archive navigator. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Steel1943 (talk) 05:29, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:In popular culture

Template:In popular culture has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Trackinfo (talk) 07:17, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Mu

Dear Chris/Thumperward, on the article Mu (lost continent) you added a tag which says, "This article's Criticism or Controversy section may compromise the article's neutral point of view of the subject. Please integrate the section's contents into the article as a whole, or rewrite the material." However I think such a tag should be explained at the Talk page. I think, as a reader, that it is nice to first learn the content of some controversial theory and only after that, in a separate section, the reasons why it is considered pseudo-science. Best regards, Bever (talk) 23:48, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

It's poor style to first present the subject as if it's absolutely uncontroversial and then to hit the reader with a large wad of negative material. In this case, I really don't think the tone is needed at all: the subject isn't pseudoscience because there's no "science" in the case for the continent at all. It's simply something that an author invented to sell books. Quite honestly I don't see that we need to "debunk" this in the first place, and it's little surprise that the deunking section is devoid of references which discuss the actual subject (as I doubt many reliable sources have bothered with too much scientific analysis of this particular dime-store Atlantis). Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:00, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

T: template redirects

Hi, you participated in Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2010 December 29#T:, some of which I have relisted at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2013 November_18#T:WPTECH. Please come along and share your thoughts .. ;-) John Vandenberg ^(chat) 15:39, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Next matchday scenarios

Hello! I invite you to a new discussion on the matter: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football#Next matchday scenarios. Ivan Volodin (talk) 21:01, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Sorry for disturbing you again. Thank you for participating in the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football#Next matchday scenarios. I have proposed a conclusion that addresses concerns of many participants regarding reliable sources. I know your problem was of a more general nature, so would appreciate a comment. Ivan Volodin (talk) 10:40, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Replied there. Thanks for taking the time to have a structured debate about this. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:02, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Tuk-tuk

your redirect was reverted. 174.56.57.138 (talk) 01:26, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Sigh. Thanks. I'll follow up with the perp (who hilariously prefesses to be retired, which is exactly when people should be causing time-wasting drama) when I can. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 16:09, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

I wasn't aware that I needed to justify anything to you. Oh that's right, I don't. Have a great day.--Degen Earthfast (talk) 17:14, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

You do if you don't want summarily reverted. Which is what will happen if you aren't prepared to put in at least as much effort as has already been wasted pursuing this semi-civilly. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 17:47, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

whatever--Degen Earthfast (talk) 17:49, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Admin's Barnstar
	For trying to make sure this is a place where EVERYBODY is free to contribute within the proper settings. I always want(ed) to help, but my manners (still) leave a lot to be desired. Hopefully, the hatchet has been buried, if it was ever unearthed in the first place... Cheers, happy work and the rest! AL (talk) 19:44, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Popcruft!

Saw the popcruft tag you put on the cow-tipping article. Appropriate. Was wondering what you think is the best solution to a situation like that one; I'm tempted to toss everything but the first sentence, as I have little interest in sourcing or verifying the laundry list, but if you have a more elegant solution, feel free to say so. Montanabw^(talk) 20:21, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

I wrote the heuristic at WP:IPCEXAMPLES, so I follow that. :) In this case, none of the examples had a demonstrable impact in popular perception of the subject, so their recent nuking is appropriate. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 08:47, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Works for me, and for a change I'm not the evil witch who does the cleanup! LOL! Montanabw^(talk) 23:29, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

| mayor =

We need the field "| mayor = " in "template:infobox officeholder" for mayoral appointments. We have city offices appointed by mayors, like chief of police and fire chief and head of education. I am working on the chiefs of police and fire chiefs for New York City and Philadelphia. We already have fields for presidents and for governors, for federal and state appointees. What do you think? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 19:53, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Makes sense to me, especially as {{infobox mayor}} redirects there. What fields do you need? It's been a while since I've looked at the code for this template but I'm going to assume there won't be much needing added. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 14:08, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Just one field "| mayor = ". New York City Fire Commissioner and New York City Police Commissioner for instance are mayoral appointees. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 18:44, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Someone says you have a COI ;)

Hi, Chris

How do you do? Haven't seen you around for a long time.

This edit on Ubuntu (operating system) might be of interest to you because it says "A major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with its subject." Well, you are the top contributor to the article with 191 edits.

Are you having a close connection with Canonical or Ubuntu? I wouldn't bet on it but ... what can I say?

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 13:47, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't think you've looked at this closely enough. The Banner's problem is with a different user. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sol (Laptop) for details. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 14:06, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Huh? Is that...? Actually, I am well aware of the Sol issue. But you are saying that User:The Banner actually put a COI tag on Ubuntu (operating system), effectively pointing an accusatory finger towards you and other top editors, in order to — to do what? Man alive, that's WP:POINT in a mind-blowing scale and a record-breaking disruptive edit! I still don't understand how these two are connected.

I mean... this guys autoreviewer, reviewer, rollbacker, 35114 edits... could he be that stupid?

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 14:55, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

No, I don't think that. He put the tag on specifically relating to the recent edit warring. I see the wording of {{COI}} has changed recently to say says "a major contributor" as opposed to just "a contributor", and as such it's probably incorrect for him to use it to relate to a small-scale edit war, but I don't think for a moment that he intended for the tag to refer to any of the people who really built the article. I don't think he's "stupid", but merely responding somewhat disproportionately to a relatively minor bit of self-promotion. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 16:23, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Hmmm... Disproportionately, eh? Well, I guess this is going to go into my Admin 101 Communication Manual. Never say "he lied", say "his statement lacked accuracy". Never says "he's stupid", say "he responded disproportionately". I only need 99 more entries!

Of course, this point of view needs us to assume that what he did was indeed what you say he meant; as an article editor, I have learned to avoid assumptions without a source. Still, we are not inside an article, so let's leave it at that.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 18:50, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Rage comics

Hey there. Normally I'd be wholeheartedly in support of merging an Internet meme-related article, which tend to be "famous today, forgotten tomorrow" type of material. But rage comics are more than just a viral YouTube vid, they're an entire category of memes. I added a NYT print article which covers them at length to back up my claims here. If you feel strongly about it, let's get a merge proposal in the works. Happy holidays, Steven Walling • talk 00:45, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure "an entire category of memes" means much given the fractal nature of modern memes (see the current Dogecoin idiocy, for instance); if popular culture is impacted to the point where there are multiple reliable non-trivial and non-routine sources then I'm sure it'll end up re-split. (I note that only Rage comic is standalone anyway: rage comics is and always has been a redirect.) Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:16, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

RfD for Teflon

Hello, Thumperward. Your name and one of your past edits has come up in regard to the redirect Teflon. You may be interested in the discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2013 December 20#Teflon (trademark). Cnilep (talk) 12:11, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Glad Tidings and all that ...

FWiW Bzuk (talk) 00:53, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Nested templates

Hi Thumperward. Could you have a look at the way I've nested Template:Indian History into Template:Infobox History of India, to be able to align it at the right side of the page? I tried to used this nested template in another nesting Template:Periodisation of Indian History, which I've used at History of India among others, but it didn't show up. Now I've added it directly to History of India#Periodisation, where it shows up twice... With other words: how can I align the collapsed table/template at the right side of the page? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:43, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Anothe rproblem: I've nested Template:Indian History within Template:Infobox History of India, but changes to T:IH don't show up in the infobox. Ah, I messed up a little bit, didn't I? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:47, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure what effect you're going for here. Can you create a test page with a mockup? Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:11, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

The idea is to offer a template with broad overview of Indian history and culture. I already found out that I can use "float:right", so the table is aligned at the right side. And I used "wikitable collapsible autocollapse" to collapse it. See History of India#Periodisation for an example of its use. One more problem: it looks like the template is not being "updated" when used at a specific page; does it work with some sort of cache or so? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 13:44, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Time (xkcd) notability banner

Hi Thumperward, I think the notability banner on top of the Time (xkcd) article is unnecessary, so I've posted about it on its talk page. See Talk:Time_(xkcd)#Removal_of_WP:N_banner. Rchard2scout (talk) 21:57, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Wikipedia:NO CONSENSUS and Wikipedia:NOCONSENSUS

Because you have edited Wikipedia:No consensus, your input is requested in the discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Wikipedia:NO CONSENSUS and Wikipedia:NOCONSENSUS. Cheers! bd2412 T 14:40, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for your work on the horizontal TOC. That's exactly what I was looking for.

Best,

Lesser Cartographies (talk) 17:00, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

My pleasure. :) Thanks for the compliment! Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 00:22, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Template image

Hi Thumperward. Regarding this, I believe consensus was clear not to include an image. Have I missed a later discussion? Rivertorch (talk) 18:42, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

consensus can change. Additionally, that discussion was spearheaded by a banned user. Finally the consensus was 1/3 no image, 2/3 image - split between retaining the existing image and replacing it with a new image. The reason for the problem was the way the rfc was phrased was incorrectly structured by me, which lead to a false consensus about excluding the image. Basically when 2/3 of the respondents support having an image, the consensus is keep an image. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 19:28, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

In all honesty I didn't even think to look to see if there had been some crazy drama about this before. If y'all want to have that discussion out again then be my guest; only the second edit need be reverted if there's a consensus for no image. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 19:53, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, I figured you were unaware of the discussion. It looks as if someone has commented it out again. Jeremy, consensus can indeed change and RfCs are certainly sometimes flawed in their methodology, but I'm aware of no evidence to suggest either of those things are the case here. If you disagree strongly and think it's vital that Wikipedia depict fast food as emblematic of American cuisine, the only real way to proceed would be to open another RfC. However I recall the last time you ran that idea up the flagpole—a mere four months ago—nobody saluted. Perhaps all the cholesterol in their diets made them too tired to lift their arms. Rivertorch (talk) 00:22, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Infobox power station

Hi, Thumperward. You have been one of contributors to the {{Infobox power station}} or its preceding templates. Therefore I notify you that there is a discussion about changes to the power station infobox template. Your contribution is appreciated. Beagel (talk) 18:27, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't have much to add. The changes look like a very positive step to me, and I'm sure the minor disagreements raised so far can be resolved. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:33, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Navboxes

As a frequent user of WP:TFD, and someone who understands how navboxes work, I wonder if you'd like to weigh in at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Agriculture#Breed navboxes. --Rob Sinden (talk) 08:57, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

You may also be interested to join WP:WikiProject Navigation templates, where we could centralise these sorts of discussions. --Rob Sinden (talk) 08:57, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. I feel like I'm banging my head against a brick wall though... --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:53, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

A not-uncommon sentiment. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 14:39, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

They've requested page protection of {{Horse breeds of France}} now. With all the redlinks and unlinked text still in... --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:12, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Well, that's hardly surprising after all your edit-warring there. Where exactly do you expect that to get you? You were warned against it two days ago, and have been repeatedly asked to respect WP:BRD since then. Despite Chris's very clear statement (thanks, Chris, for that, your opinion valued as always) and your various bits of canvassing, the consensus to date seems to be marginally against you; edit-warring in that position is quite likely to lead to grief. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 15:30, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Which is, sadly, sensible when there's edit warring going on. Nobody ever won a content dispute by edit warring over it. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 15:21, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Eek, there was an unannounced edit conflict there. Sorry, Chris, didn't mean to post above your reply. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 15:32, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

NTFS

Hi.

A table is almost deleted during your edits. Do you have anything in mind or is it an accident? I've not edited to avoid collision.

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 12:48, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Already fixed. Victim of a search-and-replace. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 12:50, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Aligment of userboxes

Hi Thumperward. Would you be able to help me with placing my userboxes under the Buddha-picture at my User:Joshua Jonathan page? I want the picture, userboxes and other pictures to be in a neat column at the right side of the page, but I can't figure it out how to do this. Thanks, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 10:56, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Fixed! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 11:03, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

February 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Linux may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• include [[Debian (operating system)|Debian]], [[Ubuntu (operating system)|Ubuntu]], [[Linux Mint]]), [[Fedora (operating system)|Fedora]], [[Arch Linux]], and the commercial [[Red Hat Enterprise

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 16:56, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Shell

Hi.

We have 413 inbound links to Shell (computing) which I don't see how the dab solver operators are going to be resolve to Windows shell or Linux shell. The article had unique pieces of information that I don't see a policy justifying their deletion.

I did take steps to reduce contents in there (such as excessive listings) but I can't see why the whole contents should be deleted.

No prejudice against taking the perceived WP:CFORK issue to AfD though.

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 01:18, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

If you want me to try to orphan it by fixing the inbound links then so be it, but I have an extreme dislike of chimera articles that invent topics by smushing different ones together much like Victorian archaeologists invented dinosaurs by mixing and matching bones. There's no overlap between the Windows shell and the Unix shell: "shell" is not, as that article suggests, some generalised term for a computer interface. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:40, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Note that neither of these two brave representatives of the Wikipedian establishment looked at the discussion page, page history, or just at the shell disambiguation page, before performing actions (affecting dozens of articles) and exchanges at user_talks. It’s rather typical attitude of wiki editors. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 14:25, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

The talk page shows that the sentiment that this is a made-up subject is fairly broad. As for the bulk link edits, the vast majority should have been pointed at either Windows shell or Unix shell in the first place, as they refer specifically to those subjects. Maybe once the majority of the unambiguous inbound links are corrected we'll have a clearer picture of precisely how this is used. I'm unconvinced by anything on the talk page that there is reason to believe that "shell" is a concrete subject in itself and not just an occasional synonym for "interface". Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 15:04, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Case in point, this and this (especially the latter, which also undoes some sorely-needed copyediting) are so wrong-headed it hurts my brain. I'd expect those to be self-reverted, given that you couldn't seriously have even looked at them before hitting the undo button. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 15:09, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

I apologize for reverting you in cd (command) and am going to fix the damage. Feel free to reinstate your edit in shell script, just provide another substantiation for removal of the content. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 15:30, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

I think shell script is a case in point of how the underlying argument damages us. The term "shell script" is emphatically not a generic term for a little snippet of code run in a CLI: it refers quite specifically to a Unix shell program (and we have a hatnote on that article to make the subject quite clear). What's happened here is that because we're claiming that "shell" is just another computing metaphor, someone has come along and said "well, a shell script is just some script that you run on a shell, so it must apply equally to Windows batch files and anything else that looks roughly the same". This is completely unsupported by reliable secondary sources. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 15:40, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Is that your assessment of the subject? Made up of irrelevant shreds of evidence? Well, I must confess I never saw it that way. I wanted to merge parts of this article into front and back ends and parts into window manager as soon as I found some time; but actually, I now see merit in your view. Okay, do whatever you see fit. (And once again, talk page to rescue.) Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 23:46, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 27

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited AlphaWindows, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Industry standard (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) 09:13, 27 February 2014 (UTC)