User talk:Thumperward/Archive 23

WP:AIV report
Thank you for making a report on Administrator intervention against vandalism. Reporting and removing vandalism is vital to the functioning of Wikipedia and all users are encouraged to revert, warn, and report vandalism. However, it appears that the editor you reported may not have engaged in vandalism, or the user was not sufficiently or appropriately warned. Please note there is a difference between vandalism and unhelpful or misguided edits made in good faith. If they continue to vandalise after a recent final warning, please re-report it. -- alternatively if this is not a simple issue of cut and dry vandalism you may wish to try a report to WP:ANI. Thanks, Cirt (talk) 09:18, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Apologies for the templated response, it seemed to do the job okay. I gave the user a warning and told him to be civil in talk page discussion. If the behavior continues I think WP:ANI would be a more proper place to report this, if there are clear cut WP:NPA violations against specific users then it would be worthwhile for multiple administrators to look at it anyways. Cirt (talk) 09:25, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

D&D articles for Wikipedia 0.7
Hi there! :)

As someone who's worked on D&D and/or RPG articles before, I'm inviting you to participate in our goal to both improve articles that have been selected to be placed in the next Wikipedia DVD release, as well as nominate more to be selected for this project. Please see the WikiProject D&D talk page for more details. :) BOZ (talk) 15:13, 18 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I can see that you have put some work into the Gary Gygax article, which I have nominated for a GA review. If there is anything you can do to help it get passed, please join in! Also, feel free to comment on the D&D WikiProject talk page regarding our efforts to get articles in the 0.7 release. BOZ (talk) 03:19, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

E.V.O.: Search for Eden
Hi there. I noticed that you tagged that one section of E.V.O.: Search for Eden with an "OR" tag. I don't know if you saw the talk page or not, but I've been trying to explain that exact point to the editor who keeps adding the section, but they don't seem to be understanding (although they are at least being cordial in their disagreement). Perhaps you might have some insight on how to explain it better than them? Maybe I need to wikilink some more policy, but I hate overdoing that aspect... in any case, it would be nice to have someone else try to explain it, so that it doesn't look like I'm just trying to bully an anon. Cheers, CP 01:21, 19 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I'll give it a go, yeah. The tag was there to remind me to do exactly that. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 07:17, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Olbermann
Per (on my user talk page): 5 September 2008

Please do not add content without citing reliable sources, as you did to Keith Olbermann. Before making potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. If you are familiar with Wikipedia:Citing sources please take this opportunity to add references to the article. Contact me if you need assistance adding references. Thank you. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:14, 19 September 2008 (UTC) Chris - You are wrong about this. This is not a controversial edit simply by virtue of some Wikipedia editors such as yourself preferring to obscure information. Also, not every sentence needs to be cited. Is Rush Limbaugh a political commentator or a conservative commentator or a right-wing commentator? I edited that page to remove "conservative". Do you agree? I welcome your help in promoting this new standard across all articles. Best of luck. --Davidp (talk) 13:36, 19 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Rush Limbaugh self-identifies as conservative, i.e. saying things like "I am a conservative", on public media on a daily basis. Keith Olbermann most definitely does not self-identify as "left wing" in this way on any kind of regular basis, and indeed can't be cited as having advanced left wing positions (i.e. significant redistribution of wealth, public ownership of industry) in any reliable source. Your call was entirely personal opinion and was appropriately removed. Please don't do that again. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 13:41, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Re Scratch Live Trademark
Thanks for the correction Chris; hadn't read that. My apologies.Deejaysomething (talk) 14:50, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

September 2008
Please assume good faith in your dealings with other editors. Assume that they are here to improve rather than harm Wikipedia. Fafnir665 (talk) 15:32, 19 September 2008 (UTC)


 * PS stop templating me. Fafnir665 (talk) 15:33, 19 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Stop goading me in edit summaries, then. This isn't a gaming session. Final warning. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 15:35, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * What happened to "assume good faith" QQ has a number of meanings, rather then the one negative one youre assuming I'm using. Fafnir665 (talk) 15:38, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * PS. Make sure you read and understand the assume good faith page. Very good material. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fafnir665 (talk • contribs) 15:43, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Reading over the block page, I think you're grossly overreacting. You can escalate this however you would like, just prepare to be disappointed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fafnir665 (talk • contribs) 15:47, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Turbo Pascal
Thank you for your contributions on Turbo Pascal. Normally, I would have went directly to the talk page first, but I didn't since I'm getting a little too use to a lot of my contributions being reverted (even on the basis of any good faith edits). However, I feel that I probably should have used the talk page first myself (what's already done can still be dealt with in any case). So, if you have any concerns, please contact me ASAP (I may not reply right away, but I do edit at least once everyday). Thanks and best wishes, ~ Troy (talk) 03:46, 20 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Sure thing. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 08:02, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I have responded on the talk page. The reason why I still think that it's not really complicated is probably the fact that I've only acquainted myself with the program from a few days ago. Yes, it is old and kind of out-of-standard, but I find it to be easier than a lot of dos programs with the exception of WYSIWYG. Thanks for the response. ~ Troy (talk) 17:33, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Infobox building
Hi! I'm trying to add the altitude parameter to Template:Infobox building. . I'm not sure why it isn't showing up in Sewri Fort. Could you please look into it? Thanks! =Nichalp  «Talk»=  12:40, 20 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Just a typo. :) I've fixed it. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:52, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I should have been more careful! :) =Nichalp   «Talk»=  12:54, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

US v. ElcomSoft Sklyarov (official title)
Hi, I was trying to find the official title of the case from the case's own documents (the Complaint, Indictment, etc. at the EFF site), and it doesn't seem to be US v. ElcomSoft Sklyarov, although that's how the Electronic Frontier Foundation lists it. The header of one complaint was "The United States of America V. Dmitriy Sklyarov", which is a standard form of words. Carol Kirby of The San Francisco Chronicle reported the other case as "The United States of America vs. ElcomSoft Ltd." The Indictment (presumably after joining the cases) uses the header: " UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, // Plaintiff // v. // ELCOM LTD. / a/k/a ELCOMSOFT CO. LTD. and / DMITRY SKLYAROV // Defendants ".

Since EFF's short title is in the name of the article (which is fine with me), I wanted to give a fuller title, although the last formulation is a bit too long for the opening sentence. Neither of us sees Wikipedia as a place to score points or to prove how right or wrong someone was, but a common search for the best solution. What are your thoughts? [Feel free, of course, to move all of this on to Talk:US vs ElcomSoft Sklyarov (now empty).] Shakescene (talk) 22:46, 20 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for bringing it up. I think the more succinct form is better for the article title, because it's the more likely common name for the case (see Brown v. Board of Education), but on reflection I think you were right to expand it for the lede of the article. I've changed it back. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 08:57, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Reply on PS2 edits
Ok i will look up some sources on the internet to verify that the PS2 is less powerful than the Xbox 360 and PlayStation 3, (which it technicly is) to make my claim valid. Thanks. Mcjakeqcool Mcjakeqcool (talk) 11:48, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Concern
I am concerned because I have waited a very long time for a edit, on the reply on PS2 edits section of this article, and no one has replyed, If some one get'ts the chance to read this edit, please reply on it. Thankyou, mcjakeqcool Mcjakeqcool (talk) 17:19, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Pressure cooking
I have read what you have written in response to my comment under the heading "Deletion of redundant or unwanted material". I understand what you say, and am prepared to accept it, although I still have some reservations. However, perhaps you will not object if I delete both my and your contributions under "Deletion of redundant or unwanted material"? After all, not only is it now finished with, but it is not even on the topic of "pressure cooking": it is purely about editing Wikipedia talk pages. JamesBWatson (talk) 17:10, 22 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Sure thing. I'm sorry we got off on the wrong foot here. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 17:16, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Time Cube
A comment was made on the talk page for Time Cube about TimeCubeGuy being a troll, and I replied informing the previous editor that the guy is deceased (hence there is little point in worrying about what the claimed troll will do). You reverted those two edits with the comment "more chatter / BLP removal". You are of course free to consider this to be "chatter" and perhaps also to take upon you to remove such comments (although there is a huge amount of "chatter" with that guy in the talk page/archives, should everything be deleted?). What I do not understand, however, is the BLP reference. Care to elaborate? Thanks. -- Woseph (talk) 18:30, 22 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I could be missing something, but I can't think who the "he" might be in the statement "he's dead" other than TimeCubeGuy or Gene Ray, and also assuming that I'm not missing something in my examination of the article and Google, I think pronouncing the death of a still-living person falls under the category of BLP concerns. If I'm wrong then please correct me. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 20:52, 22 September 2008 (UTC)


 * If you have followed the discussion over the years you know that the anonymous user called TimeCubeGuy is not Gene Ray. When I reply to a message about TimeCubeGuy, writing "He's dead", why do you assume bad faith and take it that "he" refers to Gene Ray, rather than the deceased TimeCubeGuy? Writing that a dead person is dead is not a BLP question. Instead of deleting you could simply have added a comment clarifying that "he" does not refer to Gene Ray. -- Woseph (talk) 20:26, 24 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Given that "TimeCubeGuy dead" returns nothing positive on Google, I had little reason to believe that "he's dead" is a positive response to the incident. Given the circumstances, the reply looked like nonsense. I didn't consider a two-word response worthy of a deeper investigation, and I don't think that under the circumstances this would be too unusual. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 22:12, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

ZAMAC
Why move it to Zamak when the name is an acronym? Look at a page like OPEC; if the name is an acronym it should be all-capitals, right? Master of Puppets Call me MoP! :)  23:10, 22 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Radar and laser are acronyms. We don't go by any rules except common use; OPEC is universally referred to using upper case, whereas Zamac isn't, and if there isn't a clear trend in usage which suggests not using standard English conventions then we use standard English conventions. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 23:14, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

My snideness towards the BBC
You are, of course, correct. The tone was all wrong on my part. I would, though, stand by the observation (phrased differently) that the edit history of just this one of the BBC's IP's User talk:132.185.144.122 suggests that BBC staff are falling short of acceptable behavior for the English speaking world's most trusted source of news. This obviously malicious vandalism (which to me, at least, stinks of racism - reporting exaggerated sizes of African families) introduced by someone who also reports the news, makes me rather angry. This tends to come out in snideness, which is a poor move, and I'll try to be more serious in tone. Thanks, T L Miles (talk) 15:55, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of db-move tags
Hi, "This edit fails to explain why the speedy deletion has been declined, and I don't see that you've left a rationale on the talk page. The page was nominated for deletion in order to move the ZAMAK article over it, as the trademark is no longer active and the use of upper case is not universal in sourcing. I'm planning on re-nominating this page for deletion. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:18, 23 September 2008 (UTC)" This edit is why I removed the tag. The hangon tag does not prevent an admin from deleting a page. As you were the person who added the hangon tag, feel free to re-nominate ZAMAK for deletion using db-move. &mdash;  X   S   G   16:24, 23 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I was not the editor who added the hangon tag. Anyway, I'll replace it tomorrow, unless Master of Puppets has any more to say on the subject. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 16:30, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Template:Sidebar etc
Hi again. Thanks for your message. Well, there's also Template:Sidebar with collapsible lists, to which I'm about to add some documentation (meaning in the next 24hrs or so). Otherwise, as with the Navboxes and Infoboxes, I image you'd want to strip out the padding that's evolved to group its various features (images, title, headings, content sections, etc) in a Gestalt grouping-like way.

Hold onto yourself, though, because: In the case of the Sidebar templates, that might -- might -- be wise. Once you've recovered from reading that, it's because I've noticed that sidebars either use lines or headings with backgrounds to separate their sections in ways that, spacing-wise, might be mutually incompatible. It's something I'm still pondering as I try out the Sidebar templates.

You didn't respond to my final query above, but that's okay; I imagine it would've only protracted the discussion with us agreeing to disagree over what's "proper". By all means prove me wrong, however, if you wish. Sardanaphalus (talk) 21:28, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

PS I'll be needing to logout in a few minutes, so it may be a while before any further response.

Update
I just had a thought about the possibility of making the additional Navbox styling more acceptable to you without needing to overhaul the Navbox template itself, but am not sure why it doesn't work:



I'm guessing it has something to do with subst:ing (or not). Would you be willing to accept the Navbox styling approach, if it can be made to work? Sardanaphalus (talk) 20:50, 26 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Why can this not be made to be the default? If this can't be made to be the default, why should it be overridden? Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 20:30, 28 September 2008 (UTC)


 * The current Navbox code is too rigid to permit a change, but, at the same time, styling that works around this shortcoming is undone. It looks like I'll have to try to overcome this shortcoming in the Navbox code somehow. I'll need to weigh up how much more I might need to learn and what time and testing might be required to do so against whether it's all worthwhile or whether workarounds will be left intact.
 * No thoughts about the Sidebars? Sardanaphalus (talk) 23:50, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * PS I haven't noticed whether or not you're still removing the group/liststyle workarounds, so this may or may not be pertinent.


 * I'm still removing them, and I don't see that the thread in question is in your favour. If this can't be fixed in the general case then overriding it on every single navbox on the project individually doesn't seem like a good idea. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 13:45, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Of those people who responded to the thread's question -- not as to how difficult or not a change might be, but to the thread's question -- there seems to be a preference for the less spacey layout, i.e. the Navbox that includes the style workarounds. I've seen or received no negative reaction to the styling across the many different Navboxes to which I've added it. It might not be an ideal solution, but the added styling is an effective workaround and is not, I believe, the only workaround Wikipedia currently uses. Or are you removing those as well? For the vast majority of Navboxes, it's only one (liststyle) or occasionally two (liststyle+groupstyle) lines, for crying out loud. Why is this such a problem for you? Sardanaphalus (talk) 14:48, 2 October 2008 (UTC)


 * It isn't an "effective workaround" - it's a kluge which would have to be applied to every template on the project to achieve consistency. You are the only person who seems to want this. You've put a lot of effort into this, I know, by Wikipedia is not about winning and sometimes you have to let one go. There isn't sufficient support nor rationale for this change to be pushed out, and there's a convincing counterargument (cross-project consistency) which has both a degree of support and the great benefit of already being in place. It's not as if by this point there's going to be a great change in either of these states. Just let it go. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 15:02, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
 * But, by the same token, you are the only person consistently removing this styling. Something's gone very awry somewhere if it appears I'm interested in "winning"; my interest is in reaching a working solution -- not a default-only situation, but a working solution. Yes, it seems that it'd be too big or disruptive a project to recast the Navbox code, so here's the working solution: allow the list/groupstyles. Otherwise, why aren't you taking them out of the Navbox code anyway? Just let them be. Sardanaphalus (talk) 15:19, 2 October 2008 (UTC)


 * It's a hack. The project should have less hacks. There's no upside aside from soothing the aesthetic needs of one user. When I have time later I'll take navbox styling to TfD, and I hope that will be the end of it. Frankly, I'm no longer interested in discussing this on my talk page. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 15:26, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
 * You shouldn't need to bother with TfD; I've done nothing more with Navbox styling other than try it above and have just marked it with db-author. Incidentally, I'm still curious as to why the above -- if you know -- didn't work..?
 * Whatever you call it (hack, kludge, some other curious computer jargon), I'm sorry if it doesn't fit into your view of things. Can you think of or offer anything that might? Sardanaphalus (talk) 15:43, 2 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but I really can't. I seriously thought that this could be fixed properly at source, but is that's not the case then I really think that rather than continue to override this everywhere that you'd be better off just fixing it in your personal monobook.css. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:07, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * That is a useful idea, if it can do what I think it might be able to do; I'm assuming anything I copy there from the Common.css page and amend will then override the Common.css page..? Unfortunately, though, I guess there'd still be difficulties with subgroups, but perhaps that's something that might be fixable some day. Sardanaphalus (talk) 05:48, 5 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Yep, exactly. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 07:52, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

User:Sardanaphalus/monobook.css
I've experimented a little with the above, initially pasting in the code I requested at MediaWiki:Common.css. All seems to work except the padding for .navbox-list -- am I overlooking something? Sardanaphalus (talk) 10:23, 7 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Might be best asking at WP:VPT. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:26, 7 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks -- I've just done so. Sardanaphalus (talk) 19:45, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

100% Free
Articles for deletion/BLAG Linux and GNU: "its supposed claim to fame (being 100% free software) is hardly novel at this point." What distros are 100% free? I know of only one other (gnewsense) which is running a free kernel.... Jebba (talk) 16:12, 28 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Doesn't the FSF maintain a big list of them on its website? Even Ubuntu and Fedora have 100% untainted variants now. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:35, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, FSF has a list. It is not big. Only two of the distros on the the FSF list have fully free kernels (BLAG and gnewsense) and gnewsense is now using a script by BLAG to clean their kernel. The Fedora untainted version you are referring to is almost certainly BLAG itself, the distro you just voted to have deleted. There is no other Free fedora spin/derivative/variant. The GNU list of Free distros is here: http://www.gnu.org/links/links.html Jebba (talk) 17:57, 29 September 2008 (UTC)


 * It doesn't have to be big - I count six on that list (and I can't see that the FSF specifically says that only two use untainted kernels), which doesn't suggest that the attribute is unique. Anyway, the article's not protected from recreation, so if you have significant secondary sources which would establish the project's notability to a level which wouldn't see it proposed for deletion again then feel free to recreate it. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 18:05, 29 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Is BLAG the Fedora spin/derivative/variant you were referring to or do you know of another? Jebba (talk) 18:41, 29 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I thought there was an official Red Hat-blessed one, but I may be mistaken. Nevertheless, novelty is not in itself notability. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 18:58, 29 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not arguing for its re-inclusion, but am very interested in any info you have about this Free Fedora based distro, but it sounds more like hand waving than anything you actually know about. There is no official Red Hat-blessed one for certain. Novelty is oblivion. :) Jebba (talk) 19:30, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Regarding Advisor.Js
But, Ive been fixing the whitespace things all over the place, starting from yesterday (my time), so, erm, what do you want me to do now? II MusLiM HyBRiD II  12:44, 30 September 2008 (UTC)


 * It isn't a big deal, but it is occasionally contested, and I wanted to explain why I undid your edit. It's just to point out in future that if the only edit being made is to change an article's whitespace then it may not be worthwhile making that edit. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:48, 30 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Oh, I see. Thanks, and ill stick to not making those kinds of edits. II MusLiM HyBRiD II  12:53, 30 September 2008 (UTC)