User talk:Thumperward/Archive 15

0-level categories
Just an FYI, but all 0-level categories have been deleted. Your edit here re-added a deleted category, which I have reverted. It also re-added the category for those who speak english generally, which is also wrong. A userbox for those who don't speak a language should not get a category added to that userbox saying they do speak the langauge. Finally, your edit removed all the interwiki langauge links, which I'm not sure why was done. Feel free to re-do whatever changes to that userbox you wanted made as long as you don't re-add those categories, and keep that in mind for future 0-level userbox/categories if you intend on making the changes for more. Thanks, VegaDark (talk) 14:57, 13 March 2008 (UTC)


 * The language links weren't deleted, they were moved to the doc page where they belong. Anyway, I see user:Edokter has fixed this. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 18:44, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Rxart
Please, aid to neutralize and to improve this article that is in favor of being erased. It is a popular distribution in Latin America and that is entering Europe, and the European Union even contracted the creative company of Rxart to work in project MANCOOSI. excuse my bad English please. Thank you very much, I hope that it can help me. Here some links:


 * http://www.pixartargentina.com.ar/
 * http://www.vivalinux.com.ar/distros/rxart-desktop-3.2-multimedia-centre.html
 * http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rxart

--190.49.149.249 (talk) 22:11, 19 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I've rewritten the article. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:28, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Linux
I am not Spam, you are a vandal to erase my write.--Bostokrev (talk) 17:48, 20 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Please don't accuse other editors of being vandals without making sure you understand Wikipedia's policies. I have already made an effort to improve the article that you asked several users (including me, in the section above) to help with. User pages are an appropriate place to make such requests; Talk:Linux is not. Accusing others of acting in bad faith makes it less likely that they will take the time to help you in future. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 17:51, 20 March 2008 (UTC)


 * My apologies re: the post on Talk:Linux. Since the user was requesting help, I said that it might be better to request help centrally (for example, on Talk:Linux) rather than requesting help individually.  [Jam] [talk] 18:07, 20 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Meh. It's done anyway. For future reference, that's what portal talk:free software is for. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 18:09, 20 March 2008 (UTC)


 * OK. I wasn't entirely sure where to place the request, hence my suggesting Talk:Linux. I'll make sure to point future "assistance requests" in the direction of the portal :).  [Jam] [talk] 18:14, 20 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I blame him of vandalism because he accuse of spamm to my, I simply want to collaborate but whenever I do something always by some reason reverts it.--Bostokrev (talk) 18:26, 20 March 2008 (UTC)


 * But I am asking several user who helps me, a user accuse of spamm and say that the requests must go in Talk:Linux, now you to me says to me that the requests go in the talk pages of the users, I really do not understand anything.--Bostokrev (talk) 18:32, 20 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I did not accuse you of spamming, I just suggested that your request should go in a more central location, rather than asking lots of users individually. I suggested Talk:Linux but I did not know that it would have been more appropriate to place it on Portal talk:Free software.  [Jam] [talk] 18:36, 20 March 2008 (UTC)


 * good I hope that that article is the correct one at the time of requesting aid. You did not say that I am spamm, you to me you have only said that requests to the users would have to block me to do spamm when doing . Please I want that they understand that I make editions without badly intention, and that I do not have the intention to discuss with any user, and much less to make spamm and vandalism, I will thank you very much consider who I will do in Portal talk:Free software.--Bostokrev (talk) 18:48, 20 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, but you completely misunderstood what I said. I said that the user you contacted (in this case, User:Lightedbulb) had been blocked for sockpuppetry, so they would not be able to help you with your request.  [Jam] [talk] 21:03, 20 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Ok, Moan to have misdunderstood what there are saying, I request excuses to you and I repeat that not much English, I only want that they know my idea is to help and to improve articles and not to make vandalism or Spam.--Bostokrev (talk) 21:22, 20 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, I think we have established that now. I think that if you post your request on the Free Software Portal and leave it at that for the time being, that should be fine. As your understanding of English is not very good, perhaps you should familiarise yourself with the policies of Wikipedia in a language that you understand better, as they will be similar to the ones used here.  [Jam] [talk] 21:26, 20 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I have collaborated in the Wikipedia in Spanish for a long time, but there is no as much restriction there about the references in articles. The problem is that in the Spanish Wikipedia, many know Rxart, nevertheless many users did not know its existence here, Thanks for the advice.--Bostokrev (talk) 21:57, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Read the OED Article Cited
The OED conjectured as to what was going through the man's head when coming up with an origin. The article proves why this is a mistake. Yes, the OED makes mistakes and makes them often. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:11, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Please actually do you research before you undo the correcting of the definition. Portmanteaus are very rare and very complicated to make. A blend is the simple combining of two words to form a new word. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:13, 21 March 2008 (UTC)


 * "The OED makes mistakes" isn't currently a compelling argument. Mass-editing articles without first reaching consensus that what you're doing is correct is unproductive. I'm taking this to ANI. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 15:41, 21 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Chris. Stephen Turner (Talk) 15:53, 21 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Mass editing articles that have used a term incorrectly is no mistake. The OED does not defend what is claimed by you, nor does it allow words that are compounds or standard blends to be used. Even the term brunch was deemed a portmanteau even though it is cited, by definition, as a blend. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:57, 21 March 2008 (UTC)


 * This example is particularly ironic, because the first known use of the word, in 1896, calls it a "portmanteau", and the OED cites this quotation under both "brunch" and "portmanteau". I'm beginning to think you haven't read the OED on the subject. Stephen Turner (Talk) 16:05, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Except that you are wrong on this. It is one of the primary blends of linguistics, and also kept separate from "portmanteau". Just because a student used the term improperly, does not make it official. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:12, 21 March 2008 (UTC)


 * See, if you'd been prepared to wait a couple of hours and have this discussion on the article talk page, it's possible that there wouldn't have been any animosity. I'd rather than discussion of the change were kept there, rather than spread over various other talk pages. I still don't agree with your assessment, but my user talk page isn't the place to argue about it. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 16:18, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The fact that you would mention animosity means that it is not from me, but from those beyond me. I suggest you read WP:OWN and, if you still feel personally attached to such pages, please take a wikibreak. When people describe words linguistically, it has to fall under the linguistic definition. I left the few actual portmanteau as portmanteau. Yes, there were some. But many were compound words, acronyms, or traditional blends. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:20, 21 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not interested in discussing this further on my user talk page. Take it to more appropriate threads. And casually suggesting WP:OWN issues or that users who disagree with you should leave Wikipedia is obnoxious. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 16:33, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Taking a wikibreak is not telling you to leave, but it is a proper means to show that you are not here to WP:OWN a page, which your actions have suggested by your taking offensive of a proper edit. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:41, 21 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Whatever. Take it to more appropriate venues. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 16:49, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Morgan/RDJ connection speculation?
It has been somewhere officially said that it infact is a deliberate reference to RDJ's music. And if it's a speculation, what prevents it from putting it on the article while it's clearly stated that it is speculation? And besides, it has become a wide topic of conversation so it shouldnt be disregarded. —Preceding unsigned comment added by McYaballow (talk • contribs) 18:46, 21 March 2008


 * Find a reliable source and it can go back in. Speculation is prohibited on Wikipedia. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 17:48, 21 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I found this, http://www.en.game-ost.ru/articles.php?id=24&action=view. So technically what you're saying, if information regarding what that CD held in it is never revealed, that means the whole thing will remain forever as speculation? I know that link isn't enough to indicate that there was a connection. McYaballow (talk) 18:00, 21 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, you said "somewhere officially". That link looks pretty much like a denial. If the influence wasn't official, it doesn't have a place in the article. It's not like every game article soundtrack has a full list of official influences tacked onto it. It's just not really that important. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 18:09, 21 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually in my opinion that interview fuels the connection possibility, since it was mentioned Tim Cain is a huge AFX fan. Even though Morgan was unaware of RDJ's music it doesnt mean he wasn't influenced by it in this case. I personally think information regarding game soundtrack is highly important. McYaballow (talk) 18:36, 21 March 2008 (UTC)


 * And RDJ might have been influenced by Yoko Ono while he was wrecked one night, but barring reliable sources it's not appropriate for an encyclopedia article. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 18:37, 21 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Ok now disregarding all the article material qualification mumbo jumbo and just out of curiousity: whats your personal opinion on the speculation? McYaballow (talk) 18:44, 21 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I reckon that basically anything a sound artist hears will influence him. Morgan admits to having heard the material. Do I consider this to be important enough for the article? Not really. Do I consider it to be well-enough sourced for the article? Absolutely not. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 18:50, 21 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Well I do value your opinion. (END OF DISCUSSION) McYaballow (talk) 18:53, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

KFC
About freaking time, too. After that last guy reverting the article to a year ago, twice I was contemplating a request for PS-P. I got them to do the same on the Burger King article a month ago.--- Jeremy (talk) 01:03, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks --Bhadani (talk) 12:26, 22 March 2008 (UTC)


 * No problem. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 13:03, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Building PHP into a Featured Article
I am currently trying to build PHP into a Featured Article, and I noticed that you have contributed a considerable amount of time to the PHP article. If you have time, could you please help out and improve the article, copyedit it, and peer review it at Peer review/PHP/archive2? Thanks in advance! Gary King (talk) 05:21, 24 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I'll have a go. It's often been difficult to gain traction on major changes to the article thus far. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 18:10, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I would like to improve the article to featured status, and I believe it is ready for that. But, I already have one nomination right now, so I can't nominate another article. If you think you can donate some time to the article's nomination, then I would be more than willing to help out. Please let me know. Thanks! Gary King (talk) 22:46, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Selectron Tube Edits
Thanks for your contribution -- it was getting outside my technical/aesthetic formatting skills. OldZeb (talk) 21:09, 30 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Pleasure's mine. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 22:05, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

The Polish connection
Thanks for your work on removing the spurious (spam) links to polish website equivalents made by Tomek.poznan. I could not work out why he had made the changes, I initially thought he was just a user favouring Poland. When I saw him reverting all my good faith changes as vandalism I was worried an edit-war was in the offing. Thanks for spotting his strategy. Regards --Brian R Hunter (talk) 00:32, 31 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Cheers. Yeah, same here; didn't want to assume bad faith originally, but when he mass-reverted only the external links I figured something was up. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 00:34, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Gary Gygax intro tooshort?
You've twice marked Gary Gygax as >. (1, 2). There is at least some disagreement, but we really don't know what you're thinking. Would you mind joining the discussion at Talk:Gary Gygax > Too short intro and clairifying your view? — Alan De Smet | Talk 05:14, 31 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Replied. Thanks for bringing the discussion to my attention. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 20:15, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Patras Wireless Metropolitan Network
Thank's for the edit an artistic touch is always welcome, if you have any comments on the context addtions etc please feel free to make them Korkakak (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 18:06, 31 March 2008 (UTC)


 * No problem. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 20:15, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

...
I know that it isn't meant for anything fictional, but it might as well be polished-looking for when it's merged. This is mainly just to keep it organized while I'm re-writing it. The removal of the in-universe tag was an accident, too, sorry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by LordJesseD (talk • contribs) 19:10, 4 April 2008 (UTC)


 * No worries. I'm just sort of a stickler for these things, what with Wikipedia being so full of in-universe stuff which isn't properly represented as such. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 19:17, 4 April 2008 (UTC)


 * 100% agreed. I've got a fair amount of work with the Aliens/Predators sections to do. I might as well have 'fancruft' tattooed to my forehead.LordJesseD (talk) 19:44, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Another sock puppet?
Thanks for dealing with the Leadbeater talk page fiasco. Actually I was thinking of PriesltyKnight who's turned up just a few hours after CrunchEl being blocked. Going straight to the talk page seems odd behaviour for a new Wikipedian. Looking further through the edit history I'm wondering if it's tied into 999, CuriousBlue and RAmesbury, but I think they may be a bit too distant to connect them. Or maybe it's just that Leadbeater attracts cranks :)

Cheers, Alun Salt (talk) 23:44, 4 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Other than the CamelCase user name, I don't see the similarity. I'm extremely cautious when raising sock reports - the CrunchEl one was one of the most blatant I've seen, and it still took me a few days to make my mind up to raise it. I have no trouble believing that the Leadbetter article just generally attracts kooks. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 23:49, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Talk pages vandalism
(Edited to removed detailed warning with article list)

I have previously warned you to not edit my posts in clear violation of WP:Talk, and because you have now deleted at least 15 more of my posts without asking me, I no longer have to assume your good faith (per WP:AGF: "Actions inconsistent with good faith include repeated vandalism"). You claimed in the first edit summary (2008-04-08 16:27) "discussion's over". You don't know that, but even supposing that it is over, you have no authority to delete a post from a talk page, much less a topic section. One purpose of not deleting talk page threads, including expired TfD notices, is to help avoid history being pointlessly repeated. Your unilateral talk page option is a posted response to the thread, such as stating the outcome of the TfD. You also claimed in the first edit summary (16:27) "canvassing wasn't appropriate in the first place". WP:Canvassing clearly applies only to user talk pages, and indeed cannot apply to article talk pages, because that would allow you to make identical mass article space edits, without allowing me to make identical mass article talk space objections to your edits. Even if you wrongly conclude that the postings were WP:Canvassing, you still may not delete them. Your only remedy is to file a complaint, and even then user talk canvassing posts will typically not be removed.

Try to memorize this summary: You may not delete other editors' posts, or unilaterally edit them except under the most extreme circumstances such as personal info outings, libels, legal threats, and threats of off-wiki harm. (Please reply here if desired) Milo 00:38, 9 April 2008 (UTC)


 * There's no blanket ban on editing other users' comments such as you've quoted, so I don't understand why you've placed it in quote tags. Talk page refactoring (to remove cruft and make them more readable) is an acceptable practice. You know that it wasn't vandalism, and I know that the discussion is over, because not only did I withdraw the TfD, I also then disengaged from the template discussion as well. An admin already engaged you on issues with your TfD invite (removal of the discussion from your talk page is linked), and I don't feel that there's anything productive to be had from continuing this discussion. You got your way on the template discussion; there's nothing productive to be gained from continuing to accuse others speciously of bad faith after the fact. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 07:07, 9 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Refactor? You didn't refactor 15 of my posts, you deleted 15 of my posts. That's flat out talk page vandalism. (And another of your transparent excuses.)
 * This is about what you shouldn't have done, so don't try to change the subject.
 * I supplied the full talk page vandalism template with all the trimmings, because if/when you're about to get blocked, you might otherwise have dredged the excuse that you weren't properly warned. Deleting/refactoring warnings is also evidence that you've seen the warning. So you're prepped for the dock, if you do this again when I defend my posts.


 * You've been taking up way too much of my time, and I did research to find out why. Aside from making yourself unpopular with heavy-handed and combative article editing (followed by a predictable rejection for adminship), you've been cutting unconsensed campaign swaths across Wikipedia, and I was lucklessly in the way of your latest one. Notable work, Quixote – you've become one of the relative few editors who have managed to get a firm opinion of censure directly from the editor-in-chief! Milo 14:10, 9 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Huh. Well, now that you've finished trawling my editing history for things to berate me over, and with there no longer being any overlap in our editing spheres, I assume you'll be making good on that promise not to be spending any more time on this. Good day. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 15:57, 9 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Cunningham/thumperward (15:57): "promise not to be spending any more time on this"
 * WP:Talk: "Do not misrepresent other people" I didn't state or imply any such promise. It will be over when it's over.
 * ''Cunningham/thumperward (15:57): "with there no longer being any overlap in our editing spheres"
 * I agree that's desirable, but I assume there are currently 24 overlaps in our watchlists, so we may be seeing each other's usernames for some time to come. I have experience in the artistic and technical aspects of video and page layout, so I expect to work on only those parts of at least 21 of of the co-listed articles. I may work on more than video in space-related articles.
 * Given your history of imperious edit conflict ranging through edit warring, I may have to call in a video consensus committee, or report you to authorities if you still can't control your impulsiveness to break guiderules (or carelessly misread them as you did WP:Canvassing). Yet at some point I expect to be done with most of those articles and hopefully we'll see the back of each other.
 * Perhaps good news from your viewpoint is that I'm disillusioned with un*x article editing. Having had previous bad editing experience with OS religionists, what bothered me was that you recently threw petrol on an internecine fire that can only benefit big commercial OSs. Software patenting is an enormous threat that all open-source/free software must unite to resist.
 * Accordingly, I suggest that I remove from my watchlist OS-related Bruce Perens where you have a strong, or at least recent interest (and Bruce is personally watching out for his own interests at Talk). Likewise, I suggest that you remove from your watchlist Annie Oakley where I have a strong interest. Milo 03:23, 10 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Gladly done. Seeing as I've got 2000 pages on my watchlist, I don't think an overlap of 23 is going to cause too much conflict, but I'd hope we might be able to settle any future problems without getting into litigious shouting matches. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 08:22, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Gary Gygax tag
My opposition was not against the idea of tags in general, my opposition was to that particular tag. The introduction is not so short that it needs immediate attention; yes, the article isn't perfect, but if we tagged for every imperfection, why not tag it as having too many/too long quotes, tag it as needing more references (early life), tag it as needing a copyedit (paragraphing on 'awards and honours' is a little shabby) tag it as having too many copyrighted images (why are those book and box covers explicitly needed?) tag as having too many external links and so on and so forth? If we tagged for every minor imperfection, every non-featured article (and even some of them) would be overtagged. Those tags are an excellent way of drawing attention to urgent issues, but the shortness of the lead on that article is not such an urgent issue that it needs a huge tag deterring readers. J Milburn (talk) 21:03, 9 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Any chance of giving the article a fuller review and putting it on talk, then? It gives people a definite direction to work in. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 08:22, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Template:Infobox Person
Hi again. I'm afraid I've found myself reverting your recent amendments to the above. Hope the edit summaries I left are sufficient explanation. Sardanaphalus (talk) 03:27, 10 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Can you provide a text case where wrapping happens / would be undesirable? Can't this wrapping be fixed at the template level, as opposed to fixing it by stuffing entities into every label? I don't like to premature optimisation of this type. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 08:23, 10 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Ultimately I think it's a psychological/presentational issue you can imagine with examples such as the following (albeit crudely formatted here!):

Cause of death

Cause of death
 * The latter links "of" with the label's object ("death") more directly than the former, which should make it easier to read, especially scan-read.
 * I don't think this is a refinement that can be implemented consistently at the template level, at least not succinctly, although some clever AI-style programming may already prove me wrong. In the meantime, I could use nowrap instead of &amp;nbsp;..? Sardanaphalus (talk) 14:53, 10 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Ah, right, I get you. I'd probably have done it the other way (an explicit line break) to make the intent clear, but I see your point anyway. There's lots of formatting stuff in that template (the background: transparent stuff etc.) which shouldn't be required now, so I'll go and strip that out. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 15:43, 10 April 2008 (UTC)