User talk:Thumperward/Archive 89

Archive 85

←

Archive 87

Archive 88

Archive 89

Archive 90

Archive 91

→

Archive 95

March 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Operating environment may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s and 2 "{}"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:

• {{shell (computing))

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 13:08, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Billboard Hot 100 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:

• * [[http://www.billboard.biz ''Billboard's'' online archive services]

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 19:00, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Inappropriate?

I am curious, why do you call the suggestion you removed at (https://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AManual_of_Style%2FLayout&diff=597805431&oldid=592442829) "inappropriate"? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 14:34, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Because see also lists are supposed to be short and to the point, if they exist at all. Adding columns inevitably results in them getting longer, because there is literally nothing that the teeming hordes love more than tacking another item onto a long list. Yours was the only voice of dissent when this was raised last January, with every participant in that discussion favouring short lists. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 14:38, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Evidently that "voice of dissent" was persuasive to the community. In light of that discussion it appears you are attempting to change prior (and fairly recently reviewed) consensus. May I suggest that, given this history, you should first raise the proposed change on the talk page? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 16:09, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, no. What happened was that you reflexively reverted at the time to your preferred version, and by the time the discussion had died down none of the other parties were interested enough to bother restoring it. That's winning by attrition rather than anything else. I don't see any evidence that this was "fairly recently reviewed" other than one incidental mention of columns in a different discussion in November. By all means be my guest in bringing in back to talk, but it's disingenuous to suggest that your initial revert (which was justified at the time by a lack of discussion) still holds given that when that discussion did actually talk place it didn't garner any support for your position. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 20:04, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Somewhat poor form for you to once again revert to your preferred version, but I'll continue this on talk. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:56, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

An RfC that you may be interested in...

As one of the previous contributors to {{Infobox film}} or as one of the commenters on it's talk page, I would like to inform you that there has been a RfC started on the talk page as to implementation of previously deprecated parameters. Your comments and thoughts on the matter would be welcomed. Happy editing!

This message was sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 18:27, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Openoffice

Torai lies here[1] --- he works for IBM in Ireland. This is why hae has done all the edits to Openoffice.95.172.31.34 (talk) 17:33, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Template talk:TOC hidden#Repeated disabling for main article space = counter to discussion

You are invited to join the discussion at Template talk:TOC hidden#Repeated disabling for main article space = counter to discussion. Jackmcbarn (talk) 02:45, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Prior to joining the current discussion I invite you to review the discussion about usage of this template on it's last deletion nomination resulting in keep. Thank you. 81.64.167.10 (talk) 02:54, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

FYI

Hi. Since you were one of the main participants in this discussion a few years back, I thought you might be interested to see that the subject is under discussion again. - Eureka Lott 18:45, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Firstly: gosh, I literally haven't looked at ANI (even archives) for over six months. Secondly: yeah, completely expected. Thanks for the heads-up. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 23:29, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Flight recorder merger

Hi Thumperward. An editor at the Teahouse has asked that someone address the merge proposal between the pages Flight recorder and Flight data recorder. Since it looks like you proposed the merge at Talk:Flight recorder, I thought you'd want to voice your opinion on the matter. The question is at Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions#Merger. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 21:14, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Replied, and I've done the work now. Thanks for the notice. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:32, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

		The Original Barnstar
		Wow, I'm surprised at how quickly you responded to that. Doing something no one else had the time and interest to do for more than half a decade... that's barnstar-deserving, IMO. Good work. Mz7 (talk) 01:55, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

From IIS to the courts

You made a rewrite about the antitrust case and said that the reference doesn't back up the link to the antitrust claim. But it does. Especially the first one. (Please checkout the page history.) It the title "Netscape goes to jail, does not collect $200" the word "jails" means the prison system which is intimately linked with the legal system. "So, Microsoft is up to its old trick again, and competitors are crying to the U.S. Department of Justice." This article was written before the antitrust case but there must be any refs written after the case that links back to its roots. (I don't have any yet.)

It's important to say "Netscape" explicitly because it was a major competitor against IE and other types of internet software. Netscape is not Mozilla. And O'Reilly WebSite is not their website, but a computer program.

Your rewrite does not match with what I wanted to say so I decided to talk to you before reverting it. (also because this matter causes lots of discussions and disagreement especially when dealing with M$ fanboys and of course M$ itself. :o) I'm not a native English speaker so if there is something that I need to clarify please say so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by M4t3uz (talk • contribs) 05:57, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

The assertion that "Netscape goes to jail, does not collect $200" is some sort of future echo of an intitrust claim that had yet to happen doesn't hold water. We should refrain from such inferences. As it is, neither of the provided references mentions IIS in respect to the antitrust case, so neither can we. It's probably a good idea to specifically mention IIS's contemporary competitors (including O'Reilly WebSite and Netscape Enterprise Server) and I'll re-add those names. I don't see a need to revert once those are added, given that it was basically just a copy edit of what you added. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:39, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Scratch that, the O'Reilly reference does mention the antitrust suit. I'll add details. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:41, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Y Great edit. Thank you very much indeed. --M4t3uz (talk) 10:02, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Gladiators histmerge request

This request, as it stands, wants Gladiators (2008 UK TV series) (an article) to be history-merged into Talk:Gladiators (original UK TV series) (a talk page). The texts of these two pages are very unlike and I see no way that one could have started as a history-merge of the other. Sorry. If the intention is to history-merge Gladiators (2008 UK TV series) into Gladiators (original UK TV series), those two page also are very unlike at the apparent cut-and-paste point. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 12:46, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Note the diff between these requests. I linked the wrong page the first time; the second request should be correct. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:50, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

•  Done Anthony Appleyard (talk) 15:56, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Merger proposal

Hello, Chris. How do you do? There is a discussion that you might be interested in: Talk:Shell (computing) § Merger proposal

You had edits in this area, so I thought perhaps you might be interested.

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 18:51, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Cheers. This annoyed me enough that I've just done the work myself. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:22, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

RAID article

Hello there! Obviously, you have some kind of a fixation toward bringing the RAID article into the layout you prefer. In my opinion, that layout is worse than the previous one as numerous small details are lost and it has a somewhat worse structure. However, I don't have enough time and energy to list all those deficiencies right now, and I also don't want to go into edit warring, so I'd like to discuss it here. Also, Voidxor might want to provide his own feedback, as one of the bigger contributors to the article.

Let's discuss. Thank you. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 02:33, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

I specifically made those edits piecemeal (as if we had a proper VCS) so as to make individual edits easier to revert or highlight if they're problematic. Feel free to bring up any problems and I'll do my best to respond. You surely know that blanket reverts are not in the spirit of collaboration. You also surely know that the article has a long way to go before it's of any real quality. Happy to discuss any and all issues; I assume we both respect each others' abilities. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:29, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree that reverting larger edits isn't a good thing and I don't enjoy doing that as someone invested a lot of time into them – that's why I've brought it here. On the other hand, reviewing such edits is really time- and energy-consuming, if you agree. Textbooks say that good code reviews (Wikipedia edits are similar) take almost as much time as the actual changes took, and my own experience confirms that.

For the beginning, here's one thing that really caught my eye – "A RAID implemented at the level of an operating system is not always compatible [...]" was replaced with "Software-implemented RAID is not always compatible [...]". Maybe I'm just too picky, but that looks like loss of information to me, as "software" is simply a too wide term. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 02:54, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't see that "the level of an operating system" is any clearer. The distinction is already made in the article between hardware, software and firmware RAID: We should stick to those definitions (or otherwise change them to match) throughout the article. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 20:15, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Hm, that makes sense. I'll go again through your edits, and come back with updates. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 20:25, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

The mdadm page is now mostly useless -- the Quick Reference section was the most used part of that article and it should in my opinion regardless of policy not have been removed. I know there is a copy of wikivesity, but that part does not come up in a google search and remains well hidden. Since MDADM is a specific software package, then why not have the useful quick reference there -- the rest of the information of the benefit of RAID should belong on a RAID page, so IMHO the re-org have been done badly. Sorenriise (talk) 00:31, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

"It takes me three seconds longer to Google for the answer to my problem" is not a compelling reason to fill our articles up with junk that is completely meaningless to non-sysadmins. I've removed this again. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:12, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

The page in question is for mdadm -- not for RAID in general -- the mdadm only have relevance for people needing sysadmin info. My comment stand, the re-org and the decision to make it more difficult to find the information is a bad decision 99.103.198.159 (talk) 07:56, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

No. Articles on software packages should describe what the package is, what its purpose is, how it was created, and what impact it has on the world. They are not HOWTOs for people whose stated rationale is that they're too lazy to look up proper documentation. In any other field this would be obvious; our articles on aircraft say nothing about how to fly them, for instance. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 08:04, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Need second opinion: Media Foundation

Hi.

I think I am going to need a second opinion: Must I delete the entire Media Foundation § Benefits and drawbacks?

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 22:10, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

I'd first try to find references for it, and if they exist I'd then rewrite it so as to avoid the {{procon}} problem. Deletion of potentially fixable content should be a last resort. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 20:08, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Hello again, Chris

I was hoping my original message would remain very light request for advice but unfortunately, there has been a new development: A User:RobinColclough has performed a blanket revert of my previous edits including simple fixes, removal WP:SYNTH and removal of highly contentious contents: Allegations of Microsoft being engaged in use of deceit and FUD, without any source whatsoever. [2]

Please correct me if I am wrong: It is my interpretation that this is an act of disruptive editing and a violation of WP:BLP, within the purview of WP:NOT3RR, articles #1 and #7. Am I correct? If not, how must I act?

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 23:41, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

If you want to avoid all drama and don'd mind the article suffering for a week or so I'd drop a note on the talk page explaining why that diff was inappropriate (basically because it's completely terrible) and then follow up by removing it again in seven days. Don't let yourself get worn down by clueless Internet vigilantes like that. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 00:05, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Why not? I am all in for direct action. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 01:02, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Having seen that account's latest reply, I've issued a final warning. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:04, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Need advice for Template: Infobox Number of Affected

Hi,
I wanted to remind about the discussion (the deletion of the Template: Infobox Number of Affected) you were participated some time ago.

Can you please give an advice on how I could change the template (convert to a module or do something else?) ?

Thanks in advance
kianitsa (talk) 10:00, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

I've tidied it a bit and added module support. You can now embed it into other templates (if they have embedding support) by adding "|child=yes" when calling it. I'll add an example later. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:29, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you!

Yeah, could you please add an example or tell me where I can find it maybe. kianitsa (talk) 13:50, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Refer

Hi regarding this edit of your I would like to comment that, per its documentation, Template:Refer should always be substituted. -- Magioladitis (talk) 22:06, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

I've always disagreed with that: I don't see what advantage is gained by substituting it. I'm sure I brought this up long ago, but I don't know where. Thoughts? Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 23:29, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 1

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Electrified water cannon, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Stun gun (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) 10:48, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Totally inappropriate in an experienced editor

You've been around a long time now-- I'm embarrassed for you that you would hang a tag, any tag and hide the fact. SIGH doesn't mean SHIT. }} & {{ can be seen. Summary's are supposed to show the {{manual}} template so others can find it! You owe me 15 minutes on a life already to short simply because you did a half-assed job. Edit summaries are important courtesies to and for other editors. Be responsible and give people a F***ing clue. Have you been back to check the page? Will I find you outlined your objections and what struck you wrong with a clear edit post in talk page? I sincerely doubt it. // FrankB 02:55, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm going to assume that the problem here is not locating what I meant by "sigh" in that edit (which can be identified quite readily simply by clicking on the diff) but identifying who was to "blame" when removing it. Well, yes, this could have been "tag", which I presume would have been enough to stop me having been randomly flamed over my breakfast. But seeing as the problem still isn't remotely near to being fixed (the article still contains huge chunks of code which are basically opaque to non-implementors) the tag is going to have to go back on. As for raising it on talk, I see the second-last thread on talk already points the problem out: it was casually dismissed by another editor, which is unsurprising because that's pretty much always the response when this is raised. I'll see if I can't work on this myself, though I suspect if you get apoplectic about imprecise edit summaries you'll want to keep some heart pills to hand after I've applied my delete key to resolving this. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 07:30, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Your cleanup of Feedback loop (email)

I mentioned you in Talk:Feedback loop (email)#Feedback loop links for some email providers, in case you'd like to comment. ale (talk) 14:51, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Yep, just saw it. Thanks. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 14:52, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Nanotech navboxes

I noticed that you reverted my restoration of the border colors. I have no problem with most of your changes to the consensus from a year and a half ago., but I'd like to keep the border colors matching the internal heading colors. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 20:50, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

the default borders look better, in my opinion. perhaps this should be discussed in a more centralised location? Frietjes (talk) 21:03, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

So the three of use can repeat ourselves again and subject ourselves to another executive veto? I'm disinclined to think this is a productive use of my time. There is no reason whatsover for the borders to be recoloured here, and only one person holds a contrary opinion and for purely personal aesthetic reasons. I'm disinclined to think that we should allow personal aesthetics within portalspace to bleed out onto articlespace here: every single other sidebar on the encyclopedia somehow copes with having borders a slightly different shade from the heading dividers. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:43, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

My main concern is that you should not pursue changes in such an aggressive manner. I put a lot of care and thought into designing the styles based on extensive discussion, and I don't know why you insist on so vigorously pushing aesthetic changes in a topic in which you do not even edit. I sometimes see aesthetic changes elsewhere that I would prefer, but I refrain from making them in topics I don't contribute to because it's not my place and that such edits often lead to drama. In particular, you should know better than to make unilateral changes when there has previously been extensive discussion: this is standard etiquette in article space and it applies to templates as well.

I'm also concerned that you seem to have gone through my edit history and made changes to other templates unrelated to the nanotechnology navboxes. In the interest of avoiding drama, I'm going to let all this go, but I expect that you will not act so aggressively in the future. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 22:16, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Just so we're clear, and I don't have to yet again go searching for it, this is your "extensive discussion", which involves three people, the other two of whom disagreed with you. The previous "discussion" to that is a brief conversation between you and one other editor from 2009, when template standardisation was nonexistent, and the matter of consistency simply wasn't an issue. With regard to whether it is or is not my "place" to edit templates on articles that some other editor has declared on my behalf not to be in my domain, I've never particularly subscribed to the view that editors have to somehow earn the right not to have their work summarily reverted in the first instance. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:34, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Reference Errors on 11 May

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Edward B. Garvey page, your edit caused an unnamed parameter error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:32, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

What's wrong with this paragraph?

I undid both changes you did on Mailbox provider. One of them (image) is discussed in the talk page. The other one is about the paragraph:

It has to be noted, for the bureaucracy-oriented, that this role is based on IETF standards. Unlike X.400, there is no formal undertaking beyond domain name registration. The notion of Administration Management Domain (ADMD) is derived afterwards, from empirical evidence.[note]

Your citation needed seems to imply that it is not obvious that SMTP is an IETF standard, which was addressed in the preceding paragraph. At the same time you removed the citation which was there.

The note to RFC 5598 is meant to document that email architecture, including the notion of ADMD, is defined "post hoc, trying to capture the architectural principles that the current email protocols embody" (Section 1.2). My non-native English shortened that into "from empirical evidence", to avoid Latin wording. Why isn't it acceptable?

ale (talk) 15:41, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Because the tone was completely wrong: it read like a scholarly margin-scribble rather than a statement of fact. If the observation is from the RFC then that should be stated, instead of a high-handed "it should be noted". See WP:NOTETHAT. Regarding the image, if you can't see why this complete non-sequitur (which includes an egregious caption about the quality of the film) is so inappropriate after it having been explained to you then I'm not sure it's worth trying again: the article is not so important that I'm too fussed about temporary quality issues at this stage. The next passer-by will inevitably remove it again, and I don't expect that you'll restore it in that case. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 16:19, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

I see your point on NOTETHAT, and rephrased that paragraph. For the image, as you foresaw, someone else removed it. May I ask how come that all these people pass by that page in this period, after one year of sporadic editing? I'm going to edit Talk:Mailbox provider rather than cluttering your talk page further... ale (talk) 16:30, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

I got there via feedback loop (email); I can't speak for Frietjes. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 16:33, 15 May 2014 (UTC)