User talk:Thumperward/Archive 33

Template:Infobox rugby team
I'm not sure its got anything to do with you but you said, please contact you when there is a proplem: The Template:Infobox rugby team now shows the Union in brackets automatically which makes the old brackets appear around it, have a look at Heidelberger RK for example. Can you fix that? I wouldn't know how to myself. Thanks, EA210269 (talk) 14:31, 22 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Fixed. Sorry about that. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 14:37, 22 March 2009 (UTC)


 * No worries, thanks for the quick fix, saves me fixing all the infoboxes on the German rugby union club articles! EA210269 (talk) 14:44, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

apostrophe abuse
Best. Edit summary. Ever. -- Ged UK  10:37, 28 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Cheers. :) It's probably my most common articlespace summary - I think about 50% of my edits in my first year were apostrophe corrections. :) Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:46, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Good, apostrophe misuse should be addressed with extreme prejudice. -- Ged UK  11:42, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Tweaking of Infobox Court Case
Hiya, thanks for intervening in the matter with Wikidea and myself. Also, feel free to help tweak Infobox Court Case/sandbox. Can't seem to spot what's wrong at the moment. If an editor types the name of a court (such as "House of Lords") which does not appear in Infobox Court Case/images or does not appear in exactly that form, the image size should default to 180px since will not equal "No image.svg". But instead, the image size is being set at 1px. — Cheers, Jack Lee  –talk– 14:20, 30 March 2009 (UTC)


 * You had a conditional the wrong way around - fixing that seems to give roughly the right result at template:infobox Court Case/testcases, though I think the image should probably be omitted rather than a big blank space inserted if no image is available. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 14:33, 30 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for trying! I figured out what was wrong. See my comment at "Template talk:Infobox Court Case". If you can think of a cleaner way to solve the problem, be my guest. — Cheers, Jack Lee  –talk– 15:03, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Cricketer infobox
Hi, you recently made an edit to Template:Infobox cricketer biography to "bring it into line with other infoboxes". However, the title of the infobox (i.e. the name of the player concerned) is now in a strange larger font and left-aligned. All the other infoboxes that I've just checked at random all seem to be centre-aligned. Can you check your edit again please?

Cheers, &mdash;MDCollins (talk) 21:09, 30 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I can't confirm this, I'm afraid; in both Firefox and Internet Explorer the title is still centred here. The font has been bolded as this is the default for    elements in infobox templates. Can you perhaps upload a screenshot showing the problem? For what it's worth, I'm planning on working on this further so that it looks exactly like our other sports infobox templates, so if there are any issues I hope for them to be temporary. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 21:29, 30 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi, I'm looking via Chrome but it hasn't been a problem before. two screenshots - I think the Brian Lara one was before your last edit. The size/bolding looks better but it still looks left-centred.&mdash;MDCollins (talk) 21:49, 30 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Okay, sure thing. I've added a workaround which should have resolved this; try purging your cache and see if it's fixed. I think this is a bug in Webkit-based browsers like Chrome and Safari, but it's easy to remedy. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 21:54, 30 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Seems great, thanks.&mdash;MDCollins (talk) 21:59, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the further clean-ups. Unfortunately, the height field now seems messed up (example Bill O'Reilly (cricketer) and the last 4 diffs attempting a workaround on Marcus Trescothick. &mdash;MDCollins (talk) 23:05, 31 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I have no ideas what went wrong here; I could swear blind that I'd tested it exhaustively on Ian Botham and Brian Lara earlier today, but it was evidently broken. I've reverted to an earlier version, which fixes this (if less elegantly). Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 23:26, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi again, I seem to remember that in your clean-up of this infobox, you removed the fixed widths etc. I guess this is partly browser specific, but the "header" column (i.e. the emboldened column on the left) now has a tendency to wrap at little, creating extra lines etc which looks a bit messy. Partly this is because some of the titles are a little long, but I think that was why the column widths were fixed in the first place. Can anything be done? [I was going to find a screenshot but mysteriously one bit has now fixed itself due to an intermediate edit I made... One bit in particular that is still there is the Test/ODI caps - I believe they did fit on one row initially. I had a feeling the 2005–Present also fitted. Examples from Kevin Pietersen. Cheers.&mdash;MDCollins (talk) 14:51, 12 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I've added a hack so that at least "cap" is on the same line as the total number of caps. I could add non-breaking spaces along that whole line, but I'd rather fix this properly by further adjustments to the overall template code. Is this hack sufficient for you, or would you rather the whole row were forced to one line? Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 21:14, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks - Hmm - to be honest, I would rather see it on one line but it depends how hard it is to fix. Actually it is the year ranges, to the present, (2002–present), which are annoying me a little more! Could the width not be increased just a little bit more to allow this to fit (the caps would fit also if this were the case!)?&mdash;MDCollins (talk) 22:54, 14 April 2009 (UTC)


 * The plan is to fix the lot by specifying using CSS that the labels don't wrap at all; however, in order to make things simple I have to do a lot of hard work first. :) I'll see what I can drum up as a stop-gap measure when I have a chance. Thanks for your patience, it's much appreciated. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 22:58, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

...as are your efforts to clean up the mess of code ;-). Don't worry to much about temporary measures, I'm sure I can cope for a while!&mdash;MDCollins (talk) 23:17, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Chatzilla on XULrunner Installer
The installer you wrote seems to have a broken link for the install file. I am trying to help someone get this working, and the recommended method is not working for him. Is there a chance you could make this available again? Thanks, — Jake   Wartenberg  02:29, 31 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Fixed. Sorry about that - thought I'd updated it yesterday, but obviously got distracted by something shiny. I've got email enabled if you want to contact me off-wiki about things like this in future, by the way. Thanks! Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 14:05, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

ProActive notability
Hi,

You recently added the and  tags to article ProActive, my mistake was certainly that I didn't put references according to Wikipedia policy (I did put links to the INRIA website instead of a global paper publication website). I did some modifications and added third-party references.

Could you please check and tell me if it's now more correct ?

I could add plenty of references and papers about the subject, I don't see the point in putting too many of them.

Thanks

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Fabviale (talk • contribs) 17:31, 31 March 2009


 * Most of the references still appear to have been authored by the same people; this makes me a little wary of untagging just yet. However, it's good that you've added more. It's certainly very hard to over-reference an article, so feel free to keep adding them; I'll try to monitor the page's progress. Thanks. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 17:36, 31 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Fabviale, I have copied this discussion to the ProActive Talk page. If you have no objection, it would be best to continue discussion there, so it will be seen by the appropriate editors. Thanks - Pointillist (talk) 22:14, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Horus Heresy (series) Merging
Hi,

I agree with you about the merging of the individual novels into a single article. They can all be merged into "Horus Heresy (series)"

Thanks

Cyberalien18 - talk 22h58, 5 April 2009

Talkback
-- IRP ☎ 23:04, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Giuseppe Rossi
What?? So tell me, Giuseppe Rossi is not an Italian footballer? Give me some answer, what is the problem with this page? First of all in the introduction sentence, like all the other player into Wikipedia, you heve to say wich country he represent when he plays football. Yes or not?--Tesaux (talk) 07:52, 6 April 2009 (UTC)


 * We do say what club he plays football for. We do not have to phrase it as "Giuseppe Rossi is an Italian footballer". This is confusing, as he is not wholly Italian. Kris Commons is an Englishman with an English accent, but plays for Scotland. We do not describe him as a "Scottish footballer" for the same reason. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 08:04, 6 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Confusing what, confusing who? The previous sentence was very confusing. Here on Wikipedia, we have only to report the reality, the facts. And tell me, Giuseppe Rossi is not an Italian footballer? He is playing for the United states national football team? This is a really poor discussion, because the question is very easy and simple, this guy is an Italian footballer, member of the national team. This means that when he plays he represent Italy. And remember that in the first paragraph we told the people that he is an Italian American, so the information for the audience is very complete. So again, what is the problem?--Tesaux (talk) 08:15, 6 April 2009 (UTC)


 * A person's nationality is not decided exclusively by what national football team they have played for. The old lede is not in the least bit confusing; it explains that he was born in New Jersey, holds dual citizenship and plays for Italy. There is no need to make a claim for his nationality by saying he is one or the other. You are attempting to force readers to consider him primarily Italian. This is a personal point of view and has no place here. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 08:32, 6 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Again, you don't want to understand..There is no question on nationality on the Giuseppe Rossi page, I don't care. On his page we are speaking about football. Why he has a page on Wikipedia? Because he plays the piano? No, because he is a famous footballer. And in his carrer for wich country he plays, United States? No, he has chosen to play as an Italian footballer. That is the point you and your frends don't understand, but it is so simple..--Tesaux (talk) 09:53, 6 April 2009 (UTC)


 * You're confusing "not understanding" with "not agreeing". Most editors disagree with you, which is why this will be reverted. Continuing to aggressively push your point of view while repeating your argument is not likely to convince anyone that you are correct; it is very likely to get you blocked from editing. Take the time to consider whether having your way temporarily on this article is worth being excluded from editing. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:02, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the Support
Now I feel legitimately bad about being hesitant to support you. :( BOZ (talk) 19:36, 6 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Don't sweat it. I didn't support to curry future favour with you; I'd have supported prior to my last RfA. It's not your fault that other people feel the need to oppose candidates they have ideological disagreements with. (I'd appreciate not getting any thankspam if you do breeze through though. :) Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 19:42, 6 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Don't worry about spam - you got an original message which is much better. ;) I guess at the time I was feeling that there was some vague leftover animosity of some sort - mostly because we hadn't communicated at all since Gavin's RfC (the worst thing intelligent, reasonable people can do is to not talk after a disagreement). I wanted to support you, and I definitely wasn't going to oppose you, but since we never shook hands and said "no hard feelings" so to speak, like I say, I was hesitant. So let's consider this "no hard feelings" and move on - if you are nominated again, I have enough respect for you that next time I won't have any stupid little petty personal misgivings to get in the way. :) BOZ (talk) 22:24, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Also, I'd like to comment on one thing I saw on your RfA that made me cringe when Hiding first approached me about a nomination of my own. Did someone actually oppose you just because you hadn't done enough recent changes patrolling or something like that? How trivial and picky, what do some people expect you to have done a little of everything? :) If we all work on the parts we enjoy or can handle the best (or at least, things we are willing to do which others aren't), that should be more than good enough to make this place sparkly. BOZ (talk) 22:47, 6 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Heh. I'd never even heard of recent pages patrol until it was brought up. But then, I got two or three opposes for having too many edits. Whaddya do. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 23:17, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * LOL! I have quite a few myself, wonder if they'll hold that against me. :) Anyway, cheers, time for me to go - good talking to you again. :) BOZ (talk) 23:21, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Template:Infobox motorsport championship
The problem stemmed from this edit by a user which produced a logo which was not the proper size, and my attempts to fix it not seeming to work. I believe the problem was actually that I attempted to correct the article by entering "image_size" as a parameter and did not get the result I wanted, instead of the correct "image-size". Hence I figured there was a problem with the template so I attempted to fix it there. I realized my mistake, reverted the template back, and have fixed the logo on the article in question. IIIVIX ( Talk ) 08:32, 8 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Ah, okay. Thanks for the clarification. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:13, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Removal of Elphel camera from "Open Source Hardware"
Hello Chris, I noticed that on November 19, 2008 you removed the entry about our cameras from the Open_source_hardware - http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Open_source_hardware&diff=252754927&oldid=252754158 Can you help me to understand - what criteria did our products fail to match?
 * http://www.fsf.org/resources/hw/cameras
 * http://www.fsf.org/blogs/community/elphel-camera
 * http://www.robmyers.org/weblog/2009/03/30/lp-elphel/
 * http://www.google.com/search?q=elphel

I do not think that the fact that these cameras are used in several high-profile non-open source projects by the third parties disqualifies Elphel cameras from being Open Hardware by themselves as they are from 2001 - the year when Elphel was founded --AndreyFilippov (talk) 14:18, 8 April 2009 (UTC)


 * The article in question suffered from a serious problem of containing many indiscriminate promotional links to projects which have not been covered by enough reliable secondary sources to establish that they truly represented high-profile examples of the subject. I have no prejudice against your project being re-added by an independent party should such reference be found, adding it back yourself without such supporting references (and adding a link to your home page in the process) is inappropriate self-promotion. Of the links you have provided on this talk page, two are obviously promotional (the FSF is hardly an unaffiliated party here) and the Google link does not provide direct evidence of significant coverage by reliable third parties. While Wikipedia might seem to be an ideal platform to serve as an aggregator for the various disparate projects that compromise the contemporary open hardware scene, our policies on neutrality and sourcing prohibit this. Your best bet would be to suggest reliable sources on the article's talk page in the hope that an unaffiliated party adds a description of your project. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 14:33, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Chris, I did not "add the page by myself" - reappearance of the link made me notice that the entry was removed earlier by you - I just watched our access-log, otherwise I would not notice it even longer. As for your objections to the reference to the FSF links - that I just can not understand. Am I so naive to think that this organization has some authority in judging which project belongs to FLOSS ?
 * * http://blog.makezine.com/archive/2009/02/inside_the_elphel_open_source_camer.html
 * I'm sorry but I am not going to provide you with any additional links that prove importance or high profile of our project (promotion of Elphel was not my goal - careful Internet and Wikipedia search would prove these my words) - information on one of such applications you may find in Wikipedia itself, the other one will require more googling around. My question was just - do Elphel cameras match criteria of "Open Source Hardware" or not? And why did you decide that they do not.--AndreyFilippov (talk) 15:06, 8 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Obviously your project fits the definition. That wasn't why it was removed. Our criterion for inclusion is not simply verifiability - it is coverage in reliable secondary sources, such that Wikipedia can act as a tertiary source describing a subject without promoting it. When your project has primarily been covered by sources which are advocative in nature (such as the FSF) or by weblogs (which are not, in general, considered to be reliable sources), Wikipedia cannot cover it as there is insufficient secondary coverage upon which to draw. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 15:25, 8 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you, Chris. You answered all my questions, you are right. Sorry for bothering - it was kind of embarrassing for me to notice that our project was thrown away. Better nobody puts it back again. --AndreyFilippov (talk) 15:29, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Update: I'm sorry for the unintentional "spam" by one of our users who included a direct link to our web site. To prevent that from ever happening in the future I tweaked our site's code a little so it will not be possible for anybody to add any direct link to our web site (like http://www3.elphel.com) from Wikipedia--AndreyFilippov (talk) 16:55, 8 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't there's a need to go as far as that. If at some point the project received significant coverage of the type expected from a standalone article then it will obviously be appropriate to cover it here. That this might not currently be the case does not mean that it never will be. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 18:31, 8 April 2009 (UTC)


 * > I don't there's a need to go as far as that - Chris, you see, it is a big deal for me when our company name is associated with spamming of any kind. Yes, I do believe that Elphel project is one of the (if not just the) most important, GNU GPLv3-compliant, influential and successful Open Hardware project of all, but I do not want anybody to get spammed about it. So this is why I had to implement such software measure to reduce the possibility that our company will be unintentionally connected to any spamming - there is not much more that is under our control. --AndreyFilippov (talk) 19:56, 8 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Okay. That's your prerogative, of course. I apologise for using the word "spamming" myself, by the way; I tend to use it offhand to indicate apparent self-promotion on here. I do hope you'll continue to monitor related articles, such that if there does come a time when an editor believes that a substantive piece can be written on the project that your referer block can be removed. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 21:25, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Seems that ETRAX_CRIS also needs some de-spamming, it also appears in Elphel's access-log - "30 times in the past 16 weeks" (and a new referrer-block log) and contains a direct link to a commercial site. Can you please remove promotion of Elphel from that article? Couple more derivatives found -, --AndreyFilippov (talk) 21:55, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I've cleaned out to English version of the ETRAX CRIS article, thanks. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 08:09, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

re: Italian footballers
Alright, I'm keeping an eye on it. If he doesn't get the clue, I'll extend the block. Xavexgoem (talk) 19:44, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Football Kit Box
I have reverted your updates to the football kit box becuase of an error, the new version does not appear to be working with the parameters for sock and short patterns Paul    Bradbury  12:16, 11 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Can you add a test for this to the test cases page? If it isn't working there, then it can't be working at template:infobox football team either, and we need to get that fixed. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:20, 11 April 2009 (UTC)


 * test added Paul    Bradbury  12:28, 11 April 2009 (UTC)


 * This should be fixed now. Can you verify? Thanks. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:48, 11 April 2009 (UTC)


 * It appears to be fixed except for one thing, the new template appears to have longer socks and they are appearing a brown/red colour on the test instead of white on the football box. But the longer socks appears to be a new thing on the main football kit template. Paul    Bradbury  13:03, 11 April 2009 (UTC)


 * OK scratch that, thats because the background colour you set, so yes it appears to be working Paul    Bradbury  13:04, 11 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Great. I've re-synced the sandbox code with the main template. If you find any more problems please drop me a line. Thanks! Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 13:09, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Template:Infobox Transformers character
I noticed that you had changed the Template:Infobox Transformers character, could please fix the coloring of it. For example if you see the following Starscream and Grimlock. You can barely read the affiliations. Could you change the text to white so that it is more readable per WP:Colour -- Gman 124 talk 23:02, 12 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I've just removed the wikilinks. They add little value and should be linked in the article body anyway. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 23:42, 12 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Ok, Thank You. -- Gman 124 talk 23:55, 12 April 2009 (UTC)


 * One more thing, I have removed the switch for header1 and replaced it with since the links were removed now. --  Gman 124 talk 00:03, 13 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Good call. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:21, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Template:Religion
As one of the previous editors/maitainer of Religion, I thought I'd personally ask for your thoughts of my proposal at Template talk:Religion, namely that as a meta-template for creating religious sidebar navboxes, it should really use the rather than  - this would allow optional addition of 2nd article-specific images (per request I had at User_talk:Davidruben). David Ruben Talk 12:16, 13 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes - I'd rather that all sidebar-style navigation templates eventually used sidebar. Right now I still have issues with that meta-template (namely the degree to which customisation of the styling is encouraged, which reduces simplicity and uniformity), but it's a better fit than infobox (which was what religion used) for the content in question. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 18:33, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

New article Talk page banner
I rather like the new Talk page banner you've just installed at Talk:Jim Baxter. A couple of points, if you can answer them or pass them to someone who can:
 * Would it be a good idea to bold the 2 bullet lists on the right (conduct policies and core policies) so they stand out better from the sandy bg? I think they're important and should be highly visible. PS queries about my eyesight will simply be answered with a sigh.
 * Would it be a good idea to float the banner to the right, so that the top of the TOC is level with the top of the banner? I know that on Talk pages that have too few sections for a TOC that might look a bit odd, but I suppose these Talk pages are rarely visited. OTOH on high-traffic artcile Talk pages (i.e. most) anything that makes it even slightly easier to get to the right section is good. --Philcha (talk) 20:34, 14 April 2009 (UTC)


 * There's fairly lively discussion about the styling and usage of the banner at template talk:talkheader. I'm active in development there, so if you leave suggestions I can help to implement. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 20:37, 14 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I'll paste my questions at the template's Talk page. --Philcha (talk) 20:42, 14 April 2009 (UTC)