User talk:Thumperward/Archive 8

Cvinoth
Great job catching the vandalism/spam on PHP. Apparently this user is trying to get his website out their and known. He created an article for his website and is going through several other articles to inject his spam. He has been WP:AIV. Have a great day! Tiggerjay 12:24, 1 August 2007 (UTC)


 * No worries :) Chris Cunningham 12:39, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

'comments' on other pages
In fact, the pages on 'food irradiation' are under dispute; stating this is not at all a comment on other pages. Please refrain from eleiminating an indispensable improvement of some entries. If you feel forced to act, please edit my contribution appropriately instead of 'undoing' it. Dieter E 13:45, 1 August 2007 (UTC)


 * That's disingenuous. if should be obvious that placing a section on an article named "preamble" and then using it to comment on the state of another article is unacceptable. I've edited the section appropriately to remove this again. Chris Cunningham 14:02, 1 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your help! I consider it advantageous to inform the reader already here that a dispute about the main article is pending. But I am not sure how this can be done under rules of wikipedia. Dieter E 12:20, 2 August 2007 (UTC)


 * The best way is to use the template at the section head, and include appropriate commentary (such as a link to the main discussion) on the talk page. In general, templates such as this are the only indication of such disputes that should appear on article pages, with all detail being kept to the talk page. Chris Cunningham 12:27, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

distcc/Xcode
Hi there! You changed the distcc article to say that distcc was included in Xcode, rather than is included. Has it been removed from Xcode 3? Even if it has, shouldn't we focus primarily on the "current" version of Xcode? (Feel free to reply here or on my talk page, whichever you prefer.) --Steven Fisher 18:17, 3 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I was going with what the Xcode article says, which that it's at least deprecated in favour of Dedicated Network Builds. Chris Cunningham 13:36, 5 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Aha! Well, it is still included. In fact, distcc works in some circumstances where Dedicated Network Builds don't. I don't think either is preferred in all cases. --Steven Fisher 00:21, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Michelle Ryan image.
"Better" has got nothing to do with it; you cannot use a fair use image just to show what a living person looks like. By putting it in the infobox you are saying "Look, this is what she looks like". In comparison, by putting it in the career section, you are saying "She was in Jekyll. Here she is in that role". (number 8) In any case, I'll upload a free use image of her. Brad 09:31, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Or not. I thought I'd found one on flickr but it's the wrong licence. Brad 09:36, 6 August 2007 (UTC)


 * That's a rather curious definition of how Wikipedia views fair use. Regardless, you also removed the notable roles section from the infobox, so I really didn't know what you were up to. Chris Cunningham 11:46, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Blogs as sources for negative information
Hi - long time no see! I have been working on the Scott Thomas Beauchamp article for which a real story exists, except that the article is being driven by a group of bloggers and their readers, causing nearly all information in the article to be sourced by the same blogs.

The story is fairly straightforward: Scott Thomas Beauchamp wrote an article for The New Republic that was critical of the military and alleged wrongdoing on the part himself and fellow soldiers. The military bloggers erupted in protest and pressured the New Republic to investigate the claims. The New Republic in turn investigated those claims and reported that they found them to be truthful. That isn't enough, however, for the bloggers and editors who want blood. In addition to the section with TNR claiming that they are satisfied via their research, the blogger brigade insists on including a section where they claim the allegations were NEVER proved and that they were in fact disputed. Unfortunately for them the only sources they have for these claims are their own blogs.

Please check it out an weigh in if possible. Thanks. --AStanhope 15:23, 6 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Eeek. Truth be told, I'm on vacation for two weeks, and I've been trying to avoid contentious political articles since I vaped my watchlist a month ago precisely because wingnut blogger conspiracy theories tend to raise my blood pressure enough without getting into edit wars over them. I'll try to have a look, but I can't promise I'll have the enthusiasm to get involved in it. That said, many thanks for watching over this kind of article; it's a pretty thankless task much of the time. Chris Cunningham 15:45, 6 August 2007 (UTC)


 * So much for that. Heh. Chris Cunningham 16:18, 6 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh well! I think that they should be pleased with the Military Investigation section remaining along with Boylan saying the military still refutes it.  Information of this matter clearly should not be sourced to the likes of Confederate Yankee.  --AStanhope 17:26, 6 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Ahoy, btw! (the Ahoy! is for the photo of you wearing a pirate's hat.)  --AStanhope 13:23, 10 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I prefer ☠ :D Chris Cunningham 13:27, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I didn't remove any tag, I re-created the page.
But you're right, I apologized if I caused any trouble. Will try to read next time. TheBlazikenMaster 15:09, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Star Trek: Of Gods and Men
Hi, please could you explain why on 8 March you moved three refs from inline citations to footnotes, which removes any clue as to what part of the article they were supporting? They were originally added by Morwen but the Press Republican citations are no longer found, so I'm wondering whether to delete these refs altogether, or just to unlink them. - Fayenatic london (talk) 21:50, 17 August 2007 (UTC)


 * They're not supporting any particular part of the article; their content is used throughout. In their previous position they occupied that most annoying of Wikipedia tendencies, the "if we jam five references in next to this section it establishes notability" argument. If the content is gone altogether now I don't think we'd lose much anyway; we're bound to pick up some better refs soon. Chris Cunningham 10:20, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Kids
Dear Chris,

Thanks for your message. You're quite right: it is indeed a lot more sensible to have "kid" and "kids" pointing to disambiguation pages, rather than directly to the page about the goat. I originally did it like this because previously, the terms pointed towards "child" - and I felt it highly inappropriate that the slang usage of the word "kid" was referred to over and above the usage in proper English. However, the disambiguation page is of course a more preferable option! I have changed them now myself. Thanks for pointing it out to me. EuroSong talk 15:01, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Edit summary
Your edit summary on this edit isn't particularly nice, calling him a wingnut. Even if you disagree with him, try to stay respectful about it, please? -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 23:16, 23 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry. Past midnight, got a tendency to get a bit cantankerous after midnight with editors who make statements about defending the sanctity of policy after starting hit pages. I'm sure sense will win out, it seems pretty obvious that most people don't believe universally wiping Moore off Wikipedia is an appropriate response to this. Chris Cunningham 23:21, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Trolling?
Trolling? Actually all I had to do was look at your talkpage. You might have noticed it's at the bottom. No trolling required. I suggest you comment less on other editors ("wikicop," "trolling") and more on edits. Perspicacite 09:41, 24 August 2007 (UTC)


 * "Trolling" in the fishing sense of raking through, not in the Internet sense. As for the advice, I was simply sticking up for a new user caught on the wrong end of an established user's inappropriate behaviour. I'm sure I'll do it again, though hopefully not with the same antagonist. Chris Cunningham 09:53, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Accurize
I wrote the bulk of the accurize article, and while numerous edtiors complain of the how-to content, no one will give me any specific criticism that will let me actually improve the article (see Articles for deletion/Accurizing). Policy states, "This includes tutorials, walk-throughs, instruction manuals, video game guides, and recipes." I don't think there's anything in the accurizing article that fits that description, but I will admit that the distinction between how and how-to is subtle. For example, the article states that a stiffer barrel is more accurate, and that a fluting a barrel makes it stiff but lightweight; I consider that a "how". A "how-to" to me would be step by step instructions specific to a given model of firearm, specifying which mill bit to use, and what depth to cut, or how to install an aftermarket part. Your dividing line may be different, and I'd like to come to a consensus, but you're going to have to give me an example to work with before I can make any improvement. scot 14:27, 24 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry about that. I generally tag articles as a reminder to myself to clean them up as much as anything else; I've done quite a bit of work on articles with howto content over the last fortnight or so. I'll have a look at either fixing it myself or giving a good rundown on the talk page as soon as I can. As for my threshold, I'm pretty draconian if the content isn't worth it in the first place, but I do try to preserve brilliant prose wherever I find it. Chris Cunningham 15:41, 24 August 2007 (UTC)


 * As I said, I'm happy to work on things if you just want to point out specific problem areas. I also need to go through and inline the existing references, and dig up a bunch more.  I wrote the article before I had stubmed onto the inline reference syntax--for that matter, I'm still learning.  scot 18:23, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Modchips: Australian Legality
May I invite you to post a quick statement on this discussion branch? You have been involved with the edits, apparently "reported for vandalism", and seem to be more experienced with, let's say, difficult users than I am. Thanks. 85.181.98.201 00:49, 25 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Done. Don't worry about this. Chris Cunningham 01:05, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

michael moore
for what reason are you removing the official website links of micheal moore? --emerson7 | Talk 20:07, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
 * never mind. --emerson7 | Talk 20:20, 25 August 2007 (UTC)