User talk:Thumperward/Archive 18

Quick note
Hello! Regarding, I have hounds on the mind (see User talk:Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles) and so when I typed in the search (see ) it seemed clear that they appeared in the game and thus I figured given that article's title it must be referring to that fact. Anyway, my goal for today was to make some fixes to all of these articles, so if you check, you'll see that I corrected grammar and so in every one of them to get the clean up effort underway and I worked for the sake of making sure every article had some edit to show that we can work to improve them. -- Happy Festival of Castor and Pollux! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 21:05, 15 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Sure. I did the same thing to list of Chaos Space Marines, though I'm not particularly keen on that article sticking around in the long term. Copyediting is always productive, after all. :) Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 21:09, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Chaos Space Marine Legions
Template:Chaos Space Marine Legions has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you.  Sandstein  18:52, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Update regarding hound surgery earlier this morning
The vet took off several inches of tail where the ruptured tumor was and removed 8 other elsewhere on her body. She's apparently not taking it too well. -- Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 20:01, 17 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry to hear that. My girlfriend's doggy has kidney failure; she finds out this morning whether the vet thinks she should be put to sleep. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 08:11, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Audacity‎ categories
Thanks for correcting that - I missed the additional category already there and User:Imz didn't leave a good explanation in his edit summary. Thanks for fixing it! - Ahunt (talk) 14:34, 19 July 2008 (UTC)


 * No worries. Yeah, people should still try to leave meaningful edit summaries when using tools to update things like that. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 14:37, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Electric guitar
Hi, Thanks for the info on the MoS rule for picture placement. I was not aware of it. Regarding "add to discussioN", if you compare the text in the before and after version, I believe I added additional text to the new version (e.g., what a pickguard is used for). I use the term "discussion" in a loose sense, as in "add details" which discuss the issue at hand. OnBeyondZebrax (talk) 22:54, 21 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Ah, okay. Thanks. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 06:33, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Console logos
Template:infobox doesn't have room for logos. - SSJ ☎ 23:28, 21 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Fixed. Sorry about that! Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 06:29, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

THANK YOU!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I was so frustrated about my userboxes, I had spent so many hours working on them and then the syntax got messed up... But YOU fixed them!!!!!!! I am so thankful that I am giving you this:

Once again, thanks Dude. Altenhofen (talk) 23:38, 21 July 2008 (UTC)


 * my pleasure. :) Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 06:33, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

UEFA Cup
please explain your edits to UEFA Cup. i do not think that they help the article, in your "tidying" you have simply made the article harder to understand. Please explain your logic on my talk page or I will revert your edits in short order. Thank you for your compliance!.Notepad47 (talk) 08:46, 22 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Hrm. Replying over there. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 08:52, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Re: Rollback on Scottish Exhibition and Conference Centre
Hello, I suggest a re-rollback in that case per a two point rationale. Firstly, that ip is a banned user - a chronic vandal who introduces subheadings into articles for no coherent reason. That user does not have the right to edit and thus rollback is appropriate. Secondly, per WP:MOSHEAD, sections shouldn't be split into subsections unless the body of text is substantial enough; single paragraph subsectios are a no-no per the manual of style. Sure they may be appropriate at a later date, but right now it just breaks up the section out of line with our style guide, making for a worse encyclopedia for our readers. --Jza84 | Talk  12:25, 22 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Ah, okay. I'm going to try to work on expansion anyway; best to make use of the work, even if the user won't be coming back to finish it. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:28, 22 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, I'm confident you can make the necessary improvements. My only surprise was the article was in as poor a state as it is. :) --Jza84 | Talk  12:31, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

External links at Thomas Edison and WP:EL
You tagged that article as having external links that are not in compliance with WP:EL. Accordingly, I have started a discussion of some that might well be removed from the article for noncompliance with WP:EL, at Talk:Thomas Edison. Edison (talk) 20:09, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

CDisplay CBR comics Example Links
Chris,

You wrote: (there are appropriate ways to add resource links. grab a viewer one from dmoz; one to actual comics would be good too) (undo) on the Comic Book Archive File page - I undid that because I felt my site qualified as a good example page, but then saw below that you wanted an aggregate page or something. So I undid my undo.

I'm not clear what you are asking for here, but I want to comply. Can you explain what we need to do to be listed an example.

- Jim Shelley www.FlashbackUniverse.com

66.57.189.75 (talk) 12:10, 23 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Preferably a site with no affiliation of its own. What would be best is for someone to submit a new category to the Open Directory Project for "sites which host CBR files" - it is acceptable for Wikipedia to link to such categories on ODP, but less so to just pick individual sites to link to directly. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:16, 23 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Cool. Thank you! - Jim Shelley —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.57.189.75 (talk) 14:08, 23 July 2008 (UTC)


 * edit - just checked dmoz, and I can't find an easy way to submit a new category suggestion. I'll post something on their forums and see how that goes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.57.189.75 (talk) 14:20, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Your comments on my talk page
I have simply restored the article to the version of the editor previous to the changes you made regarding GNU/linux. It is very wise you have decided to avoid starting another edit warring. I think you may be able to give valuable contributions on several topics. But given your strong position in favor of removing GNU if you avoid that kind of editing it will help you to avoid unnecessary conflicts. --Grandscribe (talk) 19:03, 23 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I've already made that pledge and stuck to it - which was the whole point in the comment I left you. I'm not about to give up editing in the domain. My only issue is to avoid edit wars; I'm certainly not going to walk away from the content debates, given the progress that's been made. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 19:29, 23 July 2008 (UTC)


 * It is very positive and it's encouraged to participate in a debate in a constructive way. I am sure everyone agrees on not doing careless edits on important topics without having debated with several other editors especially those that may have a different idea on the contents of the articles.--Grandscribe (talk) 19:46, 23 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Again, that was precisely the point of the message I left you. You reverted without adding anything to the discussion on two separate articles as your first act on returning from absence. I have made talk page edits on both articles since they were edited. One is the correct way to do things, and one isn't. Additionally, you yet again yelled on about how awful I am in both edit summaries, which makes it look like you still haven't learned how to contribute positively to collaborative article construction. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 19:54, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Your suggestion was taken at face value
Here. Not sure what to make of it. Protonk (talk) 05:19, 24 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, at least he did it. I don't have a problem with Roi making a case for these things if he does it in the right place, rather than by spamming my AfDs with them. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 06:41, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh I don't either. I just say your suggestion as pretty tongue in cheek.  Did I misread it? Protonk (talk) 06:46, 24 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Not at all. I think the idea itself is nuts, but if he can't see why then it's better that it's discussed fully and that the AfD guidelines are updated to explain in more detail. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 06:52, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Bikeshed efforts
Thanks for tidying up my tangles at Parkinson's Law of Triviality. I hope I've done my bit here, anyway. I blush to discover the template and other Wikifications that should not have been surprises to me. Of course, the whole bikeshed AfD was a bit bizarre, and what a funnily ironic discussion it became; but I couldn't bear to see that marginally-useful article blasted into the aether on specious but what seemed inadequate grounds. Cheers - Spinality (talk) 08:06, 24 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Yeah, I initially thought deletion would be fine, but came around. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:36, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Transwiki
Could you direct me to the WH40k transwiki so I could move an article and allow it to be deleted? Nemesis646 (talk) 15:29, 25 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Replying at your page. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 07:46, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Blood Ravens
I closed this AfD as "redirect" (I'm not an admin), so I figured I'd give you a courtesy heads up on this. I figured I interpreted your intent (meaning that you wouldn't chafe at the prospect of an article redirected rather than deleted) properly. If I didn't or if you thought the close was bogus, please revert it and let me know. Thanks. Protonk (talk) 18:48, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Question
Can you help me with this, I created so that I could experiment with different things and make it different from the one we have now and try to give people a wider variaty, however, I'm not the most adept with the syntax. I was wondering if you could help me out, I was trying to make it collapsible. It's just a random idea I had. If you could, could you repond on my talk page please?  Cra sh U  nderride  21:55, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Sounds good, and CRAP you're fast! lol  Cra sh  Underride  22:00, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the support
OK, time for me to be polite. :)

Thanks for help against the false accusation/connotation.

OK, time to be mean now. :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Freed42 (talk • contribs) 22:26, 25 July 2008 (UTC)


 * No worries. We're all in this together, even if our opinions differ. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 06:58, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your help
I now have the list of Horus Heresy charatcers on Lexicanum. Is Lexicanum the right wiki or have I copied the article at the wrong place? Nemesis646 (talk) 08:33, 26 July 2008 (UTC)


 * It's your choice; whichever one has a compatible license / better community / whatever. I usually link to the 40K Wikia, mostly because interwiki links work and it means I can use my normal Wikia login, but there are loads of different 40k wikis to choose from these days. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 08:38, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Socom II
Hello. Thanks for bringing this to my attention. While perhaps this information should be removed if it cannot be referenced appropriately, I think that since the information on the article has been there for quite some time, a consensus should be reached in discussion before removing it all, not after. If this information cannot be verified I will gladly come down on the side of removal when the time is right. Thanks.--Xander756 (talk) 17:46, 26 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I am not exactly sure what is going on, or why these people are removing my information from the Socom Article, but it needs to stop. Like I said, if it keeps up, I am done. But "they" keep using the "we" reference in a manner that suggest they "run" that page. Now I am SICK of the way these people are acting. It is offensive, improper, against the rules of this site, and "Gang" mentality. I made my final plea, and reposted JUST the information I added before. "Code Majic" IS the first of its kind, this can be proven by clicking the image I added to the section. You can scroll down to the bottom of the image page and look at the Meta Data. This one image, with it's Meta Data PROVES it is the first. I also believe noone is even disputing that. If someone did dispute it, then it could be removed until proof was found to settle the issue. To me, I do not think I am being unreasonable. I am just sick of dealing with it.Cached Entity (talk) 04:38, 6 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Rather than continuing to make actions which you are already aware will be reversed immediately, you could take the time to read WP:RS (our policy on what kind of sources we find acceptable) and WP:OR (our policy on investigative content). You should really also stop with the "I am in contact with the Admin in San Francisco" thing, which is fooling nobody. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:26, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Nothing to do with me
Chris, you posted the following to my talk page. It looks as if you intended the message to apply to another contributor (I have never been involved with any license related discussion on Wikipedia). "I suggest you read WP:OWN. In addition, reading WP:COPYRIGHT is essential - you have no right to revoke the license you have placed your contributions under. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 17:51, 26 July 2008 (UTC)" Derek farn (talk) 19:35, 26 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry: as the indenting suggests, it was a reply to the user who left the comment immediately preceding it. It was not directed at you. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 20:22, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Question
Hi again. I'm curious: do my attempts to make templates easier on the eye, with lines (especially in groupnames) spaced not so far apart, actually stop the templates from working on your browser / in your world? Sardanaphalus (talk) 23:06, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:UK_far_right&curid=10422519&diff=227689125&oldid=227591243


 * No, but as I've explained before that isn't the point. If the default template styling is imperfect then it should be fixed at source. Manually overriding the styling on every single template on Wikipedia is not the correct solution. The difference on that particular navbox amounts to something like fifteen pixels on my screen, for the sake of two hundred bytes of extra code. I'm against micromanagement of this kind because it makes it harder to see the results if the problem is fixed properly in the default navbox code. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 08:43, 27 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, I agree. Can you make this change to the default navbox code, please? Here are the styles concerned:


 * groupstyle = padding:0.35em 1.0em; line-height:1.1em;
 * liststyle = padding:0.25em 0; line-height:1.4em;
 * Sardanaphalus (talk) 15:14, 27 July 2008 (UTC)


 * We've had this whole conversation before. I'm not an admin. If you think the default navbox line-height and padding should be changed, you need to raise this on template talk:navbox. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 15:31, 27 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Apologies; I know we've been here before, but I'd forgotten/hadn't realized that you're not an admin. I've previously made this request at Template talk:Navbox, but nothing seems to happen. In the meantime, though, please don't remove any more of the styling, because the more instances there are without comment (on its effect, not its cost in terms of code) then the more evidence there is that people don't mind or tacitly support it. Sardanaphalus (talk) 16:29, 27 July 2008 (UTC)


 * You're presuming that I agree with the change. While I don't particularly oppose it, I certainly don't agree with you making said change across every template you see without having first checked with the community at large whether it's appropriate. If removing it every time I see it is what will spur you on to correcting the problem properly then I think that's the best thing I can do for the health of templatespace. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 16:35, 27 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, it seems I'm unable to correct it. Help! Also, I'm not aware that editors are required to ask permission before clicking on the "edit this page" tab; it's probably wise to do so if editing a raft of pages in one sitting, but that's not what I'm doing. Instead, there seems to be consensus (or, perhaps more likely, indifference) by WP:SILENCE, with a handful of possible dissentions (seemingly on technical grounds rather than outcome). Sardanaphalus (talk) 18:06, 27 July 2008 (UTC)


 * If you want to get attention on template talk:navbox, you could slap an editprotected on it. And no, of course nobody has to ask permission, but you were the one telling me not to keep removing the extra styling - as I say, I'd much rather you fixed this at the source and saved yourself valuable time rather than doing rhe job piecemeal. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 18:15, 27 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Okay, I'll try the editprotected at Navbox -- I don't think I've tried that before. It's occurred to me that I can suggest consensus by virtually complete WP:SILENCE, something else I don't think I've tried yet. Sorry if I came over as "wagging a finger" above. Sardanaphalus (talk) 01:22, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

List of JVM languages
Hello, I noticed you removed the part about the Da Vinci Machine with the comment that it should be provided without contest. What Da Vinci Machine aim to do is to provide built-in support for dynamic languages, at the JVM level. For now support for dynamic languages is provided by libraries that use the regular Java API. Note that it is the same for the .NET Dynamic Language Runtime. Built-in support should ease scripting languages implementations, and also speed. Hervegirod (talk) 11:21, 27 July 2008 (UTC)


 * It was a typo; I mean "provided without context". See also links don't need to have sentences added describing their contents. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:30, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, I see. Hervegirod (talk) 21:29, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

RE: SOCOM II: U.S. Navy SEALs protection
I've unprotected the article. - Rjd0060 (talk) 17:33, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Infobox naming
Hullo again. Haven't got round to trying Template talk:Navbox yet. Meanwhile, though, I've just noticed this: "Infobox motorsport venue" suggests venues for infobox motorsports, something that'd be new to me, whereas "Infobox Motorsport venue" uses a sentence-cased topic, like Wikipedia's article headings, following the initial "Infobox". I'd agree neither seems ideal, but surely the latter is more robust..? Sardanaphalus (talk) 04:33, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template%3AInfobox_motorsport_venue&diff=228437743&oldid=228437634


 * I usually just make templates all lowercase - it's easier than having to remember that the second word has to be capitalised or whatever. I should really propose that as a change to the style guideline at some point. For now, what I consider to be most "robust" is whichever version is easier to use, and keeping the thing lowercase suits that for me. But it doesn't bother me that much so long as there are redirects for capitalisation. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 06:55, 29 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Sounds okay to me. I just vote that, for the record, ["Infobox" + sentence-cased topic] remains the pages' ultimate names. Sardanaphalus (talk) 18:29, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Lists, episodes, and characters
Well, I think I have actually come across two lists and lists concerning episodes and characters at that that I may actually support deleting. See User talk:Narutolovehinata5. -- Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 04:39, 29 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Certainly. And I appreciate that you don't instinctively vote to keep everything: we just have different thresholds of notability, and that's a valid disagreement. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 06:57, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Space Marine Chapters
Template:Space Marine Chapters has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. I suspect that this doesn't come as a surprise to you. — Protonk (talk) 14:43, 3 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Indeed. I could have probably just speedied it as the author. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 15:14, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Ownership?
Please note that your valuable edits to Komsomolskaya-Koltsevaya have been reverted by the editor who started the article, without much justification. --BorgQueen (talk) 12:22, 4 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I see you've previously had the same thing happen. I've left him a note about it. Thanks for flagging this. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:35, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Good article?
Hi Chris - I'm wondering if you think Al Gore is ready for a WP:GAN and if so, if you would be interested in making the nomination? -Classicfilms (talk) 21:38, 4 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Ooh. Never done a GAN before. I'll have a look into it over the next 24 hours. Cheers! Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:57, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Should sail through GAN. I'll review it later tonight if it is on the nomination page. Protonk (talk) 13:00, 5 August 2008 (UTC)


 * It's up. I agree that the current article is easily up to the standards expected from GA. It's testament to the amount of care taken on it that this nomination has been so long coming. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 13:32, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Great news! Thanks for taking the initiative. Since I've been editing the article quite a bit of late, I thought the GAN should come from other editors - thanks for nominating it. This is an article that should be FA- perhaps this will be a step in the right direction. -Classicfilms (talk) 14:26, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok. got busy with other stuff.  I'll try to tackle it tomorrow. Protonk (talk) 05:23, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

You beat me to it!
I was just coming back to fix my bad link to Python instead of Stackless... Alatari (talk) 12:51, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

BTW, doesn't Python software seem to be badly written? Alatari (talk) 13:01, 5 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Yep, that's a pretty crummy article. I'll listify it for now. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 13:02, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

No need to specify each archive...
Thank you for that, I hadn't even noticed the duplication until you fixed it. - brenneman  08:35, 7 August 2008 (UTC)


 * No worries. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 08:39, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Recent edits to Template:Infobox UK station
I note your recent edits to Template:Infobox UK station. Did you intend to centre justify the left column. I feel it now looks untidy compared to the left justified setup previously provided. Thoughts? --Stewart (talk)  14:47, 7 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Whoops! Just forgot to specify a default alignment. This should now be fixed - let me know if there's anything else and I'll do my best to fix it quickly. Cheers. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 14:56, 7 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Also, you seem to have mangled the subsection headings in the template, which makes it a lot harder to read (see here. What prompted you to make these edits?  You mentioned something in your edit summary about "migration to Infobox": what's all that about?  I've reverted to the previous version: if you want to "modernise" it somehow, I suggest you work on it in your userspace before it appears on 2,000+ articles.  (See this discussion.)  Thanks, --RFBailey (talk) 21:07, 10 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I've made a best guess at what your term "mangling" meant and replied on that talk page. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:25, 12 August 2008 (UTC)