User talk:Thumperward/Archive 4

Thanks
I appreciate your efforts in helping with the loudspeakerarticle. Ancjr 18:40, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Pleasure's all mine :) Chris Cunningham 13:44, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

KFC
Please see Talk:KFC --rogerd 16:49, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Aaaaah. Many thanks. Chris Cunningham 08:45, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Cole page 3rr
You have violated 3RR. Please revert yourself before you are blocked. &lt;&lt;-armon-&gt;&gt; 12:05, 5 March 2007 (UTC)


 * It's a BLP violation. 3RR doesn't count. Chris Cunningham 12:09, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
 * We'll see. &lt;&lt;-armon-&gt;&gt; 12:13, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Armon has enough admins on his side to get you blocked. I suggest you self revert fast. ابو علي (Abu Ali) 13:31, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
 * It looks like common sense has prevailed. Happy editing! ابو علي (Abu Ali) 14:10, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

3RR and BLP
Hi, you were reported for a 3RR violation at Juan Cole after reverting five times in around 14 hours. I'm not going to issue a block on this occasion because the material was a borderline violation of BLP, and therefore I accept that you were reverting in the interests of that policy. In the case of future BLP concerns, it's best to contact an admin to have the page protected or to intervene in some other way, rather than continuing to revert, unless the issue is very clear cut. In this case, it isn't, because other sources do say similar things about Cole, so the claim almost certainly wouldn't be regarded as a libel. However, that particular publication, and similar ones on the other side of the political divide, are best avoided in BLPs. Try to watch the reverting in general though. Cheers, SlimVirgin (talk) 14:12, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
 * No worries. Thanks for the information. I'm going to try and work on a better solution to the issues on this particular article. Chris Cunningham 15:20, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Regarding reversions made on March 5 2007 to Juan Cole
You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future. The duration of the block is 24 hours. William M. Connolley 16:11, 5 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Due to the page prot, you're now unblocked. But *please* don't do this kind of thing again William M. Connolley 18:03, 5 March 2007 (UTC)


 * William M Connolley - Please unblock this IP address immediately. It is the corporate gateway for a company with 32,000+ users none of whom can now edit Wikipedia pages. --Cheesy Mike 16:40, 5 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Will work on a better solution to this in future. Obviously policy isn't helping this article get any better. Chris Cunningham 08:50, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

inappropriate link
Why was the link inappropriate? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.150.135.39 (talk • contribs) 01:26, 8 March 2007


 * On Phil Silvers? It's a blog post, so it's not a good source; it isn't really explained; and there doesn't appear to be any content other than one image. If this ad is to be included it should be discussed in the article and a more appropriate reference should be found. Chris Cunningham 08:34, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Inappropriate reversions to Spore (video game)
Hi, I'd like to ask you to stop removing links from Spore (video game). What you are doing can be considered vandalism, especially since you are ignoring consensus and are not discussing on the talk page. I am going to replace the link, and I expect you to take your request for removal to the discussion page before removing it again. Please do not revert established consensus without providing edit summaries. Thanks for your time, --163.1.165.116 23:42, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, my deepest apologies. It was not you who reverted, I just checked the diffs incorrectly *slaps head*. Sorry again. --163.1.165.116 23:46, 14 March 2007 (UTC)


 * No worries. In future, if discussion establishing consensus is archived, it's worth summarising it when bringing it up. Chris Cunningham 23:47, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

On WP:AN/I
I've posted a comment on WP:AN/I regarding your behaviour at football (soccer), specifically the removal of piped links and one of your edit summaries there. – Elisson • T • C • 13:31, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * replied. Bah. Chris Cunningham 13:38, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Complaint about homophobic abuse on my talk page
I am well aware that you added a homophobic comment to my userpage. I find it very offensive. Checking your edit history confirms this - you are also the only person who has any motivation to do so - I am a new user here and sont really have any enemies.


 * My user page has been vandalised by User:Thumperward using a certain sock [] - check out the coincidental intrest in "Cunningham" in recent days by "both" users. This is ironic since I was trying to reason with him about how to describe the Glenn Greenwald Sock-puppetry scandal (covered in the MSM) only gaining a promise that he would "delete on sight due to BLP". I find the homophobic remarks by this user particularly offensive.

In any case, you are going to need to provide me with a very good reason why I should not contact City and Islington College and notify them of the abuse against me from their computers. They will have (as required by law) clear records of which account made the edit. David Spart 16:47, 16 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry that your talk page was vandalised, but spurious allegations do you no credit. I have nothing whatsoever to do with that edit, and the fact that I recently reverted you (from my well-known work proxy address) is scant evidence indeed that I'm involved. When I'm cleared of any wrongdoing here, I hope you'll be willing to apologise. Chris Cunningham 19:27, 16 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Look, if the check-user comes back clean it will make no difference to me. You are clearly the same person based on your edit history. You are also the user who again reverted the article under the name User:R. Baley based on your edit history. If the check-user comes back clean all that means is you use one at home and one at "work". Either way, to satisfy my curiosity I will be in touch with City and Islington College on Monday morning. Since it isn't you I am sure that wont be a problem for you. The circumstances are very clear here. David Spart 20:02, 16 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I fully support you contacting City and Islington College, wherever that is. Were it not for anonymous vandals, you wouldn't currently be smearing me in public, so in the long run this helps everybody. Chris Cunningham 20:11, 16 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I think it's extremely unlikely that Chris is User:195.194.68.22 or that he wrote the abuse. I also don't think contacting people in the real-world over wiki disputes is good idea either -see WP:HARASS. If a checkuser comes back that he's User:R. Baley -fine, but otherwise David, you need to cool out. &lt;&lt;-armon-&gt;&gt; 01:55, 19 March 2007 (UTC)


 * It is very very likely that it is. If you look at the edit history of all three users. We know that Thumperward is a British college student and suprise suprise we know that about User:195:194:68:22.  My page has never been vandalized before, and no-one else has any motive to do so.   ( talk · contribs · [ logs ] · block user · [ block log ] ) 02:28, 19 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I think you need to stop using "we", unless it's the Royal We. I haven't been a "college student" for four years, nor is there the slightest scrap of evidence for this assertion. This is moving out of the realms of a forgivable response to vandalism and into personal harrassment. Chris Cunningham 11:05, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Accusations
Presumably if the checkuser determines that you aren't socks, that will be confirmed. JoshuaZ 19:59, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Recent Editing of Aston Villa article
This editing is nothing short of vandalism! Chris, I'm afraid you have no understanding of Aston Villa's proud history and it's integral role in the formation of the Football League. We didn't found the FA!! It is clear you havn't even read the article properly!

I believe that any article citing the history of Aston Villa should mention William McGregor etc. Also, why have you taken it upon yourself to change all the subheadings, they were much better before. You havn't even consulted anyone on your proposals. I find the changes you have made offensive. I have spent countless hours getting this article up to the standard it is and your treatment of it has not improved the article in the slightest. Villafanuk 11:01, 22 March 2007


 * Oh, I love getting personal attacks from random anonymous fanboys. It warms my heart. Especially on my birthday. I've reverted this; if you want to maintain a rambling love-letter to your favourite club you don't necessarily have to do it on Wikipedia. Chris Cunningham 11:42, 22 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Happy Birthday Chris! It's not a personal attack, I'm just trying to get the best article I can for my 'favourite club'. I accept that nobody owns an article, but that doesn't mean to say that all changes are for the better. As I have a massive interest in Villa and its history and have been an avid fan my whole life, I think the changes you have made are not constructive. Villafanuk 13:08, 22 March 2007
 * Then discuss them, instead of reverting in anger. I've barely touched the actual article text; most of my work was in removing egrecious use of prose (such as creative title headings) which isn't befitting an encyclopedia article. I hope we can find some common ground on this. Chris Cunningham 13:12, 22 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I do too - I've changed the "Pheonix from the flames" sub-heading. I don't think the others are too 'creative' - they are descriptive yes, and much more informative than date ranges (that don't have any significance) Do you have any other constructive ideas? Villafanuk 13:58, 22 March 2007


 * I've been encouraged to discuss bigger changes on the Football project page for the time being. I'll see what I can come up with. Chris Cunningham 16:01, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Just to add, I've been keeping an eye on the Aston Villa FC edits and I'm broadly with you. The headings for the sections should be, in my opinion, dates and not magazing-style fluff. I've also mentioned on the talk page of that site that the notable players section should be scrapped, or at least sourced. Every time I've raised the issue I've been ignored - but what does define "notable". Some of the players on there do not even have wiki entries, so how can they be considered notable? Perhaps they should consider making a new, Liverpool-style page that lists all players with more than 100 games for the club? I'd back that, but at the moment their article is too fan-orientated and far too long! Let me know if I can help Gretnagod 15:43, 22 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Yeah, the problem is that while all of it is relevant to some extent, keeping it all in one article makes it a pain to read through. The alternative, of course, is to keep the stats and split the history off into History of Aston Villa F.C. or the like. Chris Cunningham 16:01, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Moves
You may like to know that there is also a template, db-move, which you can add to pages which are blocking moves that you want to make, although I don't know if that method's any quicker or easier than using WP:RM. Don't forget to fix any double redirects after moving pages, including talk pages. --Stemonitis 11:01, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I'll keep it in mind in future. Thanks! Chris Cunningham 11:04, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Calm
Hi. I would advise being careful about getting into any long discussions with Nathan J. Yoder. I spent an extremely frustrating 10 day period last year replying to "POV" accusations and application of standards that I would call ludicrous, across many articles. A websearch indicates that being argumentative is common for him. Amazon.com has had to remove comments made by him and he has previously been put on WP personal attack parole (Requests_for_arbitration/Njyoder). I'm just saying that it would be wise not to be too casual in discussions with him. Gronky 11:03, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I was planning on ignoring future discussion anyway. I assume you're aware by now of how seriously I take discussion of that sort on free software articles :) Chris Cunningham 11:05, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Jabber
just a temporary paragraph. sure that domain.com is an officially accepted example domain? I thought example.org and example.net are intended to that purpose, but haven't looked up the RFCs. thx for the clean-up anyway, but why do you re-introduce a special mention of google? it is mentioned in history anyway, and i see no reason to point out one particular jabber-enabled software. --lynX
 * Oh, sorry, didn't realise there was a policy on this. Err, example.com is cool, yeah. I reintroduced Google because they were the first example I could think of who offer notable public Jabber services. There needs to be at least some mention in the article intro of software which readers might be familiar with in the context of instant messaging. Chris Cunningham 16:55, 31 March 2007 (UTC)