User talk:Thumperward/Archive 24

Warthammer 40,000
Forgot to thank you for the improvements you have been making to that page. I saw that it was the 40K project's only 0.7 article so I was going to be damned if we were going to print the old version to a DvD. I just sat down with lexis-nexis and tried to rewrite it from scratch. As you can tell I'm better at complete overhauls than spit and polish. There is a lot more to do in terms of fleshing things out but I think we have a pretty good article on our hands (and basically every single 40K source available online...). That's so much for your help. Protonk (talk) 04:13, 2 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Hey, no worries. It'll be nice to have at least one article in the Project which we can point to with pride anyway. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 06:55, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

NICE JOB FOR BEING A HYPOCRITE
Keep it up and we'll see how ignorant you can be. --Ramu50 (talk) 18:37, 2 October 2008 (UTC)


 * What? Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 22:51, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah, this apparently relates to Template:Java (Sun). I don't actually see how this is hypocritical. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 22:54, 2 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I THINK SOMETHING IS BROKEN ON YOUR KEYBOARD. Protonk (talk) 22:55, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Can you mature up Chris Chunningham, the one who thinks he know everything. You said in Sun Microsystem that you wanted the template be smaller and first you suggest the idea to split template which was good, and when I offered something similar you totally disagree and start finding scapegoat and announcing I am the one to blame.

Well here is something you should know, we both have been involved with Linux Distributions before and you blame on I was wrong. Fine I am wrong and I changed, when I edit my template, if I find it too hard I often copy it to my User:Ramu50/Linux Distributions template and experimenting with the draft before I submit. Considering that even if the action was not a mature idea, and all of contents in my user talk page is full of problem I only accumulate (3 page / year, ideally --- currently it is one and half page.) Yet you accumlated 22 page in 3 year and with the addition of that, you didn't even resolve your own conflict with other people Wikiquette alerts while I did.

And go look at my contributions I spend time looking at my edits, some of them are 30 edits of dealing with the same template / article. Yet the biggest problem I cause, I resolve them all.
 * ATAPI problem (I apologize to User: Jeh [])
 * function (mathemtics) I revert the article several times, but I didn't act immature as if I have hatred against them. In fact I even invite them to a concept I recently developed [some mathematicians help me very on this]

WHO is the one that is causing the trouble in Wikipedia, me or you? --Ramu50 (talk) 02:33, 3 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Ignoring the personal attacks and the completely irrelevant stuff, considering that most of the stuff you added to the Java template hadn't been transplanted from the Sun template, I don't see how the two are linked at all. The point is that you seem insistent in edit warring with multiple users for extended periods of time where you disagree with them, and that this isn't the way we create articles. Edits like this, which add in a whole bunch of non-links to a template which is only supposed to be a collection of things to click on, aren't productive, and yet you haven't even accompanied it with an edit summary. You do this constantly. Furthermore, you ignore the basic rules of talk page etiquette, which includes starting new sections for new discussion and threading your replies. This makes it more difficult to debate with you. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 07:12, 3 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Oh really Chris Cunningham, from the beginning I see you keep evading from the following question
 * Migrate contents from Template: Sun Microsystem to Other Template and then regreting and blaming on me is not being a hypocrite then what is.
 * By the way in case you didn't know I already was involved with Template:Application frameworks and I considered both Template: Java (Sun) before doing rash action. --Ramu50 (talk) 16:50, 3 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not "ignoring the question" at all. You're trying to make out that an action I made in error yesterday is the root of all the problems here, which is plainly not the case. If you aren't willing to discuss this amicably then I've no wish for you to continually address me on my user page. Keep it to the template talk. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 16:55, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Scheme userbox
I don't care about this change, but it seems random without changing the related templates. Are you planning on making the same changes to the other Scheme userboxes? — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 17:28, 3 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 17:30, 3 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Nice. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 17:32, 3 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Done. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 17:37, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Georgia RU team
There's some awfully odd causal relationship going on there!. I'd bet the BBC got it here, but the original seems to have come from a 2005 edit by User:GordyB, who I'm guessing got it from  a 2003 Rugby Union World Cup site (BBC? RFU?), as he mentions it in the next edit (sometime later -- but also since all the new writing in that edit is about the team's status going into the 2003 cup). If it's a BBC website he got it from, maybe it's from a Beeb file card somewhere. If not, I'd go look for the old BBC or official WC site, since I can't imagine Gordy will remember what he was doing three years ago. Course, I know less than a little about Rugby Union, so I can't offer much help! Cheers T L Miles (talk) 00:57, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Cleanup tag placed on Hard disk drive
I notice that you have added a cleanup tag to the Hard disk drive article. I have removed this tag because you have not left any note of your reasoning for adding this tag. When using tags such as cleanup it is important to leave a note on the article talk page describing what you think is wrong with the article - if not your concerns cannot be addressed and the tag actually makes things worse - adding clutter to articles with no indication of when the tag should be removed. See Template:Cleanup for more information. CrispMuncher (talk) 21:58, 6 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I know - it was basically a null edit to punt the page to the top of my contributions list, thus reminding me to work on it. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 22:11, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of List of photographic mosaic software
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article List of photographic mosaic software, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. GDallimore (Talk) 11:05, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Undid mention of RetroShare in Friend to Friend: reasons ?
Hello Thumperward,

you've undid my revision of Friend_to_friend mentioning RetroShare IM software. Could you clarify why you see a mention of RetroShare as advertising ? The software is licensed under GPL and remarkable enough; there's a wikipedia article in German wikipedia: Retroshare_Instant_Messenger.

Xtremeways (talk) 13:20, 9 October 2008 (UTC)


 * The "see also" section of an article is for internal links. If RetroShare is a notable application, then eventually someone will write an English article on it and it may be worth adding the link back. But we are meant to use external links sparingly. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 13:28, 9 October 2008 (UTC)


 * This wasn't precisely a "see also" section, it is named "software". I propose to rename the section to "List of friend to friend networks" and to include RetroShare and couple of other applications there. Let me explain my rationale. "friend to friend" is a relatively new concept; google finds only 26'000 hits for "friend to friend" +network on the whole internet. Currently, there are less than 10 friend to friend networks; hence, each of them is important and useful in the context of this article.I personally came to this article looking for different real life implementations; with so few available implementations, I don't see why can't we mention them all. Xtremeways (talk) 19:52, 9 October 2008 (UTC)


 * The "software" section is a subsetion of the "see also" one, so follows the same guidelines. Wikipedia does not advance new research nor promote new terms, so any included subjects should follow our notability guidelines. I have no problem with the link in question being included if and when it is notable enough to warrant its own article. Until then, it's not appropriate to include it, and people who look to Wikipedia for information on new or up-and-coming subjects which do not themselves have coverage in other media are going to be disappointed. This is by design, as Wikipedia is not a publisher of original material and everything included should have previously been covered in a non-trivial manner by reliable external parties. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 21:18, 9 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Firmly disagree. advance new research is not applicable because it is not an original research; it is similar to a comparison article like Comparison_of_instant_messaging_clients (note, some links lead to non-existing articles). It does not require each application mentioned to have an article in wikipedia. Verifiability isn't an issue too, because there are news articles in reliable magazines confirm that the applications indeed belong to friend-to-friend type. Finally, WP:COMMON and WP:BURO are more applicable here, because no damage is done by listing all 10 applications implementing a particular network type. I propose two resolution options (1) we list applications without external hyperlinks (although I don't see how it helps) and (2) we start a new article named Comparison of friend to friend clients, where usual rules for comparison articles apply (==no requirement for a software to have a wikipedia entry to participate in a comparison). Xtremeways (talk) 17:41, 10 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, no. You haven't provided any valid rationale at all there for ignoring our notability guidelines. nor even a demonstration that you understand why they exist. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 23:19, 10 October 2008 (UTC)


 * You're wrong, notability applies to separate articles, not to the content:"The notability guidelines determine whether a topic is notable enough to be a separate article in Wikipedia. They do not regulate the content of articles, except for lists of people" Xtremeways (talk) 04:26, 17 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I see that as a bug in the wording of WP:N. It is evident that material in articles is routinely evaluated for relevance and notability and removed if it fails to stand up; otherwise, articles would expand indefinitely, containing increasing amounts of trivia and references to unimportant subjects. If you want to add a redlink to the article then I won't stop you, but if it's not notable then it'll eventually be removed again. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:17, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Progress on customizing Navboxes' appearance via user monobook.css
Hi again. In case you haven't already seen my response at the village pump (technical) thread about the above -- and in case you might still be interested, for future reference -- the suggestion made by User:Ludwigs2 to add "! important" after the non-functioning .navbox-list padding statements seems to work. So, your suggestion to use my user monobook.css page is still on course as a solution.

So far, I haven't gone looking for possible problem cases like complex subgrouped Navboxes, but even if I do find one that's mangled by the custom monobook.css, perhaps it's possible to amend the Navbox or Navbox subgroups code to work from padding:0 or padding:[Navbox default] when child Navboxes are used.

Sardanaphalus (talk) 08:12, 10 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Cool. It may be worth creating a diary page in your user space to keep track of this stuff; I believe that this is an acceptable use of userspace. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 08:39, 10 October 2008 (UTC)


 * If/when the problems with subgroups is resolved, I was thinking of making a brief "here's how to change the default spacings used in Navboxes" page somewhere, though not as a user subpage. I'd also remove the styling I added to the templates still on my watchlist. Sardanaphalus (talk) 12:18, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Picture templates
Hi,

On the Village Pump, you said these pictures were officially discouraged. I have a started a proposal to deprecate and remove images that say 'this is not an image please add one' and I would like to refer to it. Can you indicate where you saw the discouragement please? Lightmouse (talk) 15:12, 10 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid I only saw it in passing. I had a cursory look earlier, but can't figure out where now. Sorry. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 15:14, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

No problems. Feel free to vote at the proposal. Lightmouse (talk) 18:00, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Re: Mod (lifestyle)
No worries on the tone. I decided to do a search, and could not find the guideline I once read that addressed the issue. In this case, the image was borderline, anyway, and I decided it was just not worth any kind of argument. There are cases, though, in which I am adamant that portrait left/TOC right makes sense and looks better. Cheers! --- RepublicanJacobite  The'FortyFive'  22:50, 11 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Sure thing. Thanks for the quick reponse. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 22:53, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Taking things personally?
I'm very sorry if you feel that there's some sort of personal issue here; I assure you wholeheartedly that there isn't. While I am aware of the potential implications of "you statements", it's hard to refer to the ideas that you are advancing any other way, since they appear to be held by you and you alone.

Futher, since the "problem" under discussion does not appear to actually exist (absence of evidence is prima facie evidence of absence), I believe that "imagination" is appropriate, and indeed it was a term that you yourself introduced into the discussion to describe one of your own manifestly incorrect assumptions. I will, however, refrain from using it further if you're uncomfortable with the term.

Since the issues here are not personal, it would be inappropriate to discuss the actual proposal here, and I will make any relevant comments on the talk page. Cheers --Rlandmann (talk) 23:10, 12 October 2008 (UTC)


 * While I don't see how repeating such assertions here negates the premise, if you're going to refrain from it in future then the issue is resolved. Thanks. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 23:21, 12 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not quite sure what you mean? Which assertions? --Rlandmann (talk) 03:03, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * PS - if you're after actual evidence about your concern, you may like to watchlist this page that provides a list of new aircraft articles picked up by a bot. It does a pretty good job - it's been going for 18 months now and in that time WP:AIR members have only picked up a very small number of articles that slipped under the radar. Prior to and in parallel with that, we've been manually compiling "new articles" lists almost continuously since August 2004. Please feel free to review these lists as well - the infobox was gradually phased in throughout 2006, becoming widespread by the end of that year. --Rlandmann (talk) 03:15, 13 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Ah - after re-reading your comment on my talk page, I think I see. You feel that it's inappropriate that I point out that your concern is of a purely hypothetical nature and lacks any supporting evidence - is that it?
 * That makes it kinda hard to discuss the issue. From where I'm standing, it's like there's this guy speaking up at a public meeting to ask "So, what are we going to do about the yeti problem?" I'm trying to explain that since I've seen no evidence of a yeti problem (and he hasn't provided any either), I don't think that we need to do anything about it. At which point the guy tells me that he'd appreciate it if I didn't publicly question his belief in yetis!
 * I hope you can appreciate the difficulty. :) --Rlandmann (talk) 03:58, 13 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, no - not really. I don't see that asking for a trivial enhancement to an infobox along the same lines as is used in many other parts of the project is a "yeti problem". I think that analogy is pretty telling. Anyway, I'll decide whether I want to continue to pursue an issue whose cost-benefit ratio is already far higher than anticipated when I've looked over the provided links. Thanks. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 07:10, 13 October 2008 (UTC)


 * OK, well, at risk of stretching the analogy past breaking point, our friend at the public meeting is offering to install a "yeti repeller" in the woods outside the town. It's tiny and won't get in anyone's way, and he's sure that it will be 100% effective in repelling any yetis before they have the chance to menace the good townsfolk. "But wait!" some of us cry, "If there are yetis in the woods (not that anyone's ever seen one), we'd like to know that they're there. Rather than repelling them, let's give them a chance to show themselves."
 * Well, the analogy's far from perfect. But again, I hope it helps to illustrate what the suggestion looks like from where I'm standing, whether you think my position is reasonable or not.
 * Failing that, I'll provide the more prosaic observation that (a) the fundamental issue is that there's a solution on offer to fix a hypothetical problem that no-one can remember having seen ever actually materialise, but, more importantly (and where the sticking point is), (b) if the problem ever were to come up, the person offering the solution would like to see it handled in one particular way, but the others who have spoken up would like to see it handled differently. If not for item (b), I'd have no objection whatsoever to 30 bytes of code to fix a hypothetical problem, even if I thought the chances of it ever breaking through into reality were approximately 0%. I've offered a compromise solution where the "error output" is very informative of where the problem lies, but the person making the proposal is apparently unwilling to accept that compromise. --Rlandmann (talk) 07:30, 13 October 2008 (UTC)


 * No, that's not right at all: the primary reason for the enhancement is to allow for the omission of the line, not to prevent it. I reject the idea that we're better off having error messages than simply guessing a title. This is basic user-friendliness. The proposed "compromise" is the exact opposite of that. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:03, 13 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes it is (the opposite). But if you reject the idea that we're better off having an error message (of any kind - the cryptic one we have now or a verbose one that I suggested) that flags a problem than having a "guessed" title that's going to be inconsistent with the infobox titles in the vast majority of other aircraft articles, then we're at a fundamental impasse. --Rlandmann (talk) 09:12, 13 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Indeed. And that's the question which was put to the project. Other infobox templates generally go with guessing, and I disagree that the aircraft project is so fundamentally different from other projects that going with the more user-friendly approach would negatively impact the project. What should be a pretty straightforward discussion has been improperly character-driven IMO. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:36, 13 October 2008 (UTC)


 * The fundamental difference is that within the other projects that you are referring to, the infobox title and the pagename are generally the same (am I wrong?). That is not the case here, and is the negative impact that those of us who've responded to the proposal are seeking to avoid. I reject the assertion that it is therefore a "straightforward" proposal, and I reject the labelling of this as an "enhancement". Furthermore, I feel insulted by the implication that the only reason I could possibly have for disagreeing strenuously and vehemently with you is some personal, character-driven one. I think that the idea is an extremely bad one. I'm not here to shoot the messenger. I would oppose it just as strongly were it to come from anyone else. --Rlandmann (talk) 11:13, 13 October 2008 (UTC)


 * And that's the issue. You have a legitimate disagreement with me, but rather than just present your argument on at least three occasions you implied that the problem with the idea was that I was inventing a problem. Whether it was me specifically or just the person making the proposal in a general sense, there was no need to phrase your disagreement in a way which included commentary on the proposer. And if you would do that to "anyone else" too, I'd imagine some of them might see it the same way. Anyway, it appears that we're actually talking about the change now, which is better off on the template talk. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:55, 13 October 2008 (UTC)


 * The disagreement that you see as "legitimate" is the part (b) I talked about before - which really only matters if we assume that "yetis" exist (part (a)). The part that I have in the past labelled as "imaginary", but now am happy to call "purely hypothetical and never having been observed in the real world" is still entirely of your own devising. It certainly could happen, but it never has happened, as far as anyone can tell. That's the fundamental problem. But you apparently take issue with me pointing this out, and I still don't quite understand why. --Rlandmann (talk) 19:21, 13 October 2008 (UTC)


 * No, I don't. I take issue with the way you pointed it out. This entire userspace discussion is due to the way in which the argument was made. Now we're in the absurd situation where we're each trying to make out that the other person has insulted their character, apparently all due to a misundarstanding, so I don't see anything productive in continuing this. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 19:44, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Arilang1234
Hi, I have made a lot of changes to the page Boxer Rebellion. When you time please go have a look. I hope this time I am not getting into troubles again.Arilang1234 (talk) 23:52, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Regarding Template:Infobox American Political Party (and other political party infoboxes/n for that matter):
Political party infoboxes/n currently follow their own standard style (though the means to it are not consistent) that is distinctive and lends an instant indication that you've reached a polparty page. You'll want to take up the issue with WikiProject Politics or something similar if you want to streamline the system. Thanks! Lockesdonkey (talk) 00:25, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Gary Gygax
Hey there,

I note from the talk page that you felt the intro should be longer. As part of working it up to GA class I lenghtned it signficantly - have a look and see what you can do with it. :) BOZ (talk) 23:04, 15 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks - looks great! I'll see if I can do anything more for it. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 23:58, 15 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Oh, hey forgot to mention. Thanks for your help w/ 40K.  It's a GA now. Protonk (talk) 01:06, 16 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Hoping the same for ol' EGG. :) Anything you or anyone can do to help is a-OK. BOZ (talk) 06:31, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Cool, thanks for the work on the lead - I wasn't sure how much was too much, and a tad bit shorter than it was is likely better. :) BOZ (talk) 12:54, 17 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Great news! :) Gary Gygax is now a Good Article. I have now nominated Wizards of the Coast. BOZ (talk) 02:28, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Talkback!
Ioeth (talk contribs friendly) 14:50, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Programming Style - howto tag removed
I've removed the "howto" link from Programming style, for the following reasons: The tag requires a rationale to be posted to the talk of the article: none was posted. The tag is for articles with a "howto" section: this article does not have one, nor any step by step methodology that might be even distantly construed as a howto. The tag has been there for months, with nobody attempting to obey it.

I'm perfectly happy for the tag to return, but it needs a reasoned rationale (which I don't have to agree with!), and examples or explanations of how the page could be changed in order to be "better". —Preceding unsigned comment added by DewiMorgan (talk • contribs) 02:19, 19 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I do strongly agree with your new "essay" tag. Interested to see what you come up with, if you find the time to have a bash at it. DewiMorgan (talk) 23:51, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Banned sockpuppet reverts
Hello Thumperward, on Talk:Juan Cole, the banned sockpuppet keeps restoring the personal attacks on the talk page. Is there something that can be done in this case? Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 09:12, 23 October 2008 (UTC)


 * If it's happening more than once or twice a day, or he doesn't give up after a few days, either the page can be semiprotected or the IP blocked. It only takes one click to get rid of it, but if the page isn't being watched closely enough to catch it (some reverts are ten hours after the vandalism) then admins might make an exception to the normal rule of only taking such action when the abuse is sustained and heavy. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:21, 23 October 2008 (UTC)