User talk:Thumperward/Archive 79

Guitar Craft
Hi CC!

Please explain your concern about citations on the talk page. Thanks!

Kiefer .Wolfowitz  12:41, 11 September 2012 (UTC)


 * The list of sources comprises near enough 50% of the total article length and yet only a handful are actually used in footnotes. The majority of them are primary sources. The current footnote #13 is also glaringly amateurish. citation style maybe wasn't the right tag (though summarily deleting it is somewhat questionable); the article's got a lot of problems right now. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:05, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Chris,
 * I did not summarily delete anything. I deleted a non-informative tag with a request for clarification in the edit summary, which was then followed up by the above invitation.
 * Kiefer .Wolfowitz  13:21, 11 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, regardless, the tag is now gone and its addition has now been explained. Hope that satisfies for now. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 14:00, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi Chris,
 * I imagined several plausible reasons for the template, some probably fully justified and others perhaps amounting to matters of taste.... However, I trusted that you could make some suggestions on which I could quickly act, so I contacted you.
 * I improved footnote 13 and shortened a few other footnotes.
 * My articles tend to have complete and extensive notes and references. The Further Reading section lists a reasonable selections of articles, some interviews, some by GC persons besides Fripp. FR sections are optional, and we can discuss whether there are too many FR references given....
 * References to original sources are given for "color" mostly.
 * Original sources are given at the end of some sections to correct some statements, due to Tamm's book based on 1986: (1) about a particular brand of Ovation guitar (no longer recommended by GC and no longer manufactured by Ovation) and the name ("Guitar Craft" versus "Guitar Circle"). These seem important enough to justify use of original sources.
 * Music articles often have surprisingly detailed information about instruments (e.g. in an infobox of great detail and length); they use information from performers (c.f. the discussion of regarding Per Enflo's musicial life). Thus I think that these sections are compliant with WP policy and convention. Kiefer  .Wolfowitz  16:34, 11 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm not saying that the abundance of citations is a bad thing, just that the styling could be improved. Anyway, happy to help work on this myself (I typically work on anything I tag, if not immediately). Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:29, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
 * It looks better now! Thanks a lot!
 * Kiefer .Wolfowitz  10:12, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Template:Portal
Thanks for that; care to do another? I saw you reworked Infobox planet, and Ruslik0 has gone and. It used to be paleturquoise. My User:Tycho Magnetic Anomaly-1 account cleaned up a large number of planets and moons to not have random colours, and in one edit, they all turned blue. See: Template talk:Infobox planet. Ruslik0 seemed to like most of the other work I did with that account, which was lots of sfn and cite doi on stuff in the outer solar system. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 18:09, 11 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Looks like WOSlinker has already done this. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:32, 12 September 2012 (UTC)


 * It's edit protected for reversion. :/ Br'er Rabbit (talk) 04:33, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

WP:RDT/C Templates
There's well over a dozen templates specific to the BSicon catalogue pages, and all of a sudden you want to start messing with them? (There's hundreds—if not thousands of occurrences of BS-anleitung2; are you going to change each and every one of those?) What's wrong with leaving things the way they are (and have been working fine)? Useddenim (talk) 21:47, 12 September 2012 (UTC) P.S. You forgot to remove the TfD tag when you deleted the deletion discussion.


 * So far as I know, I didn't delete any deletion discussions. What are you on about? As regards the additional templates, I merely nominated what I saw: editors are not expected to be omniscient, and so if you'd like to draw my attention to additional problematic templates I'd very much prefer you did it with a polite note. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 22:18, 12 September 2012 (UTC)


 * OK, the discussion not showing up may have been a temporary caching error. And i guess you noticed that and I are somewhat sarcastic and acerbic. As far as moving the templates, go right ahead and do it, but there's other things that I feel have a higher priority… Useddenim (talk) 23:28, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Trisquel
Hi, can you clarify on the talk page what you think must be changed as indicated by your tagging? It's not apparent to me. Thanks Hekerui (talk) 13:01, 13 September 2012 (UTC)


 * It reads like a product pitch. There's nothing on the history of the project except two sentences in the lead; there's little on its development processes or who is behind it. The vast majority of the article is just a description of the product, and the only secondary analysis is a verbatim quote from a blog. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 14:23, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Multiple image template
Is it possible to place a multiple image template inside if a wide image template? Eurodog (talk) 15:48, 13 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Hopefully not. What's the use case here? Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 20:53, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Storm path template deletion discussion
I voted keep on the storm path template deletion, but after some experimentation, I also feel the template is unnecessary and want to change my vote to delete. I just have one question: Will the pictures of the storm paths not be seen in the articles anymore? Or will they be replaced? I ask because I think that they are vital to the article. Zonafan39 (talk) 22:10, 13 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Nothing will change on the articles. The images will just be included directly rather than being invoked by a template. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 08:19, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 14
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Videotelephony, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Audio (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:16, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Enzymatic reaction
FYI, you may want to consider Template:Complex enzymatic reaction and Template:Enzymatic reaction, as they appear to be very similar to "Biochemical reaction" and "Complex biochemical reaction". Thanks! Plastikspork ―Œ (talk) 21:31, 16 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Good catch. Slightly more transclusions in the case of the latter, but still only a couple of dozen. I'll nominate them afresh I think. Cheers. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:26, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Infobox theologian
Given the lack of consensus for deletion at Templates for discussion/Log/2012 April 4, do you think it could be made a wrapper/ module for Infobox person? Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:00, 17 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Trivial to do, even though that TfD was a really weak close. I'll see what I can do. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:13, 19 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Done. Can you update the documentation? Cheers. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:35, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
 * On it now. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:01, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I think it might be best if Infobox theological work/doc is moved back to its former location (which needs an admin), please. Do you know of another, similar template to Infobox theological work, whose documentation I can then copy (and adapt) for the new one? Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:18, 20 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Try infobox sports announcer / infobox sports announcer details. I'd rather not move the theologician doc back because ultimately I'd rather we deprecated the wrappers and had people using infobox person with modules directly. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:41, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

edit protected…
You'll get this; please go make it so, before someone who doesn't reflexively says “no”. tks, Br'er Rabbit (talk) 06:39, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Template talk:TFAfooter


 * ✅. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:11, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Keep Yer Mitts Off, Please
Hello, Thumperward! I know you don't like me, and I know you don't like Baseball Bugs. There are plenty of admins to work AN/I. So find other threads to shut down besides those that we comment on. Let other admins close those threads. Drop the stick. Cheers... Doc  talk  13:49, 20 September 2012 (UTC)


 * What. I didn't close it because you two happened to show up: if anything, I was more annoyed with Bwilkins (who does, in fact, have an actual reason to hang out on ANI). As for "not liking you", a more accurate assessment would be that I simply don't care very much for your largely-pointless participation on the admin noticeboards, which is not exactly an uncommon sentiment. I'll continue to close threads that have run their course and are being dragged off-topic whether you are the instigators or not. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 14:01, 20 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, I still respect the both of you as admins, for what that's worth. Not a lot, apparently, and not reciprocal: but I don't care that much. Send me a grid on the "uncommon sentiment" e-mails, as I'm not part of the "cabal". I won't hold my breath... Doc   talk  14:09, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Although...
...I agree with the close in toto, I disagree that he was trolled for 4 hours. He turned it into a content dispute by himself, which unfortunately left us discussing content/sourcing instead of IPBE. It's ok though, he's transferred his anger directly to my talkpage instead :-)   dangerous  panda  13:58, 20 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Meh. Having had to put up with the Great Firewall myself, I can sympathise with his being annoyed. But I know you've a thick enough skin to deal with it (and some whining from me). Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 14:02, 20 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm sympathetic as well ... just that I don't understand the transference to the one person who actually tried to point him a) in the right direction for his sourcing issues and b) the right location for his block issue...no thank you; just attacks...  dangerous  panda  14:07, 20 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Chris, he's been edit-warring on my talk all afternoon - can you either full-protect my talkpage for a day (the worst idea, really) or otherwise deal with what you've created? Thanks  dangerous  panda  18:51, 20 September 2012 (UTC)


 * This? Not best advised, but nor is reverting an editor's attempts to tone down a comment. User talk has a degree of sovereignty, but that isn't provided for the purpose of enshrining inappropriate comments by others for the purpose of making them look bad. If Brian returns to this tomorrow (roughly two hours' time) then I'll have a word. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 21:53, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
 * "Toning down" a comment after it's been replied to somewhere else is only acceptable when strikethrough is used instead. Edit-warring to keep his preferred version = not good.  Escalating his mistaken reading of ANI to attacks, and misuderstandings of WP:Alternate account = not good.  dangerous  panda  12:19, 21 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Yeah, but it could still have been handled better. Never mind. Bygones. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 12:29, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Heh, I wish it was a bygone ... still had to revert again this morning, and I'm trying to work with him on his talkpage. I certainly have never harboured ill-will against them ... but they seem to be a bit confused about a lot of things.  Maybe it's just time to return to my Bwilkins account, because some people cannot read/understand WP:Alternate account  dangerous  panda  12:36, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Blessed are the peacemakers indeed
Just noticed the notice box you put in the top right corner of that ANI discussion you closed. So very well said, and good judgment to close it since although I like to think I would have just let it go having had my Q answered, I would have struggled to bit to not respond to one person in particular. You renewed my faith in humanity (or Wiki admins, at least).--Brian Dell (talk) 14:04, 20 September 2012 (UTC)


 * No worries. Having had to edit from behind the Great Firewall myself in the past, I can understand your frustration. Probably best to let this simmer down: what's done is done, and at least you've got your answer now. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 14:09, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Template:Infobox ship career
Hi. Could you fix this? The problem I'm seeing is that the section header with {Ship country} && {Ship flag} often forces the left column to be too wide when the country name is long, such as Austria-Hungary; see, for example; the omitted the country and thus the right column was apportioned a greater chunk of the infobox's width, to good line-wrap effect.

I'm thinking that header should colspan="2" and duck most of the issue; making the flag about 9×5 px would free up some space. was prolly an attempt to address this issue, but it was foolishly reverted. Thanks, Br'er Rabbit (talk) 05:29, 21 September 2012 (UTC)


 * That's the approach I'd go for, but the ship people are pretty ownerish from personal experience (it's the only infobox on the entire project now that doesn't have a proper title, for instance, though I routinely hack one in if ever I'm editing ship articles). At the very least WT:SHIPS will need to be pinged first. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 12:14, 21 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Last I checked, WikiProjects don't own anything; it says so in the council pages. Last I pinged them (Category:Fleet submarine templates) they agreed that I was right and then did nothing about the problem. I'll try and work up the energy to waste my time on posting there and will point you at it if I do. And the lack of a title is certainly a problem, too :< Br'er Rabbit (talk) 21:10, 21 September 2012 (UTC)


 * mebbe you see how to make ;) Br'er Rabbit (talk) 22:47, 21 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Template talk:Infobox ship begin/doc :( Br'er Rabbit (talk) 23:49, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ships/Archive 34, too. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 23:58, 21 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, it's the weekend and I'm off to the races, so this will have to wait. But next week I'll see if I can sandbox some fairly comprehensive updates to the various ship bits: that at least gives a firm indication of what we're looking for here. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:05, 22 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Enjoy ;) Looking forward to your input next week… Br'er Rabbit (talk) 23:17, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

We have similar problems where MedalTableTop is used as a pseudo-infobox; see Template talk:MedalTableTop. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:54, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Request for mediation rejected

 * I have some experience of resolving disputes. Is it possible you could all decide one dispute that's worth tackling first (including any who think that that particular dispute is the first and last one that needs resolving)? If you can, if MedCom doesn't want to take the case, I'd offer my services if they're wanted. --Dweller (talk) 11:57, 21 September 2012 (UTC)


 * As far as I'm concerned this is a massive storm in a teacup, and all that's really necessary is for the original parties to stop yelling at each other. I'd actually planned on just leaving it for six months and then coming back and gluing the pieces together once the original feuding parties had moved on. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 12:09, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
 * OK. Let me know if I can be of any assistance. --Dweller (talk) 12:30, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Os Incriveis / Luiz Franco Thomaz
Could you please explain what are the changes you would like on those pages? thank you very much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samadhi12 (talk • contribs) 13:08, 23 September 2012 (UTC)


 * The articles need to be written. There is no point redirecting users to articles which are written in Portuguese, as we do not expect readers of the English Wikipedia to speak Portuguese. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 14:28, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

How to handle this kind of WP:NFCC problems?
Hello, Chris

How do you do? I am looking for the correct tag to put on File:Internet Explorer logo old.png. Someone has uploaded a big version of this copyright protected file; I think an admin needs to review that offending revision and possibly delete it (or maybe not delete it and tell me why I am wrong).

Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 17:01, 23 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I've deleted the offending upload. Thanks! Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 14:31, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Soft redirects to other languages
When you nominate these you need to hardlink the targets, e.g. : ds:Sortebakkeskolen, otherwise the software interprets them as an interwiki link. Thryduulf (talk) 17:46, 23 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I noticed that. Seems there are a few niggles with Twinkle's handling of RfDs for soft redirects. I'll report them as bugs. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 14:33, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

User:Chris Cunningham
Is User:Chris Cunningham your alternate account? It was Created in 2007 and has no edits. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 20:47, 23 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Nope, nothing to do with me. I've occasionally toyed with usurping it, but for the time being it isn't doing any harm. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 14:34, 24 September 2012 (UTC)


 * In that case, I'd guess that someone registered it to prevent you from being impersonated. I recommended usurping it or blocking it or something, and then treating is as your Doppelgänger account. Who knows how secure it's password is, and we wouldn't want someone hijacking it and impersonating you. Also, you do have "Chris Cunningham" in you're signature, so someone could think that that was you're user-name. After making it your Doppelgänger, I recommend adding Thumperward and redirecting it, and it's talk page to you're user page, and your talk page. You could take a look at my Doppelgänger if it helps. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 15:02, 24 September 2012 (UTC)


 * The matter is somewhat complicated by the presence of a somewhat more famous Chris Cunningham. As I say, I've occasionally pondered claiming that account, but so long as it is dormant it isn't doing anyone any harm and isn't likely to confuse anyone. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 15:37, 24 September 2012 (UTC)


 * That definitely complicates things. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 15:50, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Inexperienced user RFD
In you're post the RFD you probably meant to vote delete. You forgot to put a bold "Delete" in there. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 20:57, 23 September 2012 (UTC)


 * It isn't a vote. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 14:35, 24 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I know, but I don't like saying "!vote". I prefect to spell it without the exclamation point. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 15:09, 24 September 2012 (UTC)


 * You're falling into the common trap of thinking that "not a vote" means "it's a vote, but we don't call it one". It actually isn't a vote. It should always be possible to discern what a user thinks is the best course of action from the body of the comment, which makes putting some bold words at the front redundant at best and damaging at worst (as it reinforces the idea that consensus is a head count). I decided to stop doing that around four years ago, which is roughly when you registered your account, so it isn't a matter of me being an "inexperienced user". Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 15:34, 24 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I didn't think you were inexperienced, I thought you just forgot. Vote in this context, like you said, doesn't mean a simple head count. I think the only disagreement we have here is semantics. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 15:45, 24 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I think we've a rather stronger disagreement considering that you saw my omission of a "!vote" as an error. My opinion is that nobody should be using "!votes" because far too many editors fall into the trap described above. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 15:59, 24 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I only thought your omission of a bold "Delete" was an error, because I thought you just forgot to add it. Now that I know it was intentional, I don't think it was an error. If you don't want to use votes, that's probably your prerogative. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 16:09, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Infobox discussions
I nominated several infoboxes for discussion, on September 22, 23 and 24. Your wise counsel would, as always, be welcome. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:26, 25 September 2012 (UTC)