User talk:Thumperward/Archive 95

Nomination for merging of Template:Infobox Star Trek race
Template:Infobox Star Trek race has been nominated for merging with Template:Infobox fictional race. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you.  Zack mann  (Talk to me/What I been doing) 05:25, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Nomination for merging of Template:Infobox Doctor Who race
Template:Infobox Doctor Who race has been nominated for merging with Template:Infobox fictional race. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you.  Zack mann  (Talk to me/What I been doing) 05:26, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Nomination for merging of Template:Infobox D&D creature
Template:Infobox D&D creature has been nominated for merging with Template:Infobox fictional race. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Gonnym (talk) 13:15, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Nomination for merging of Template:Infobox Primeval creature
Template:Infobox Primeval creature has been nominated for merging with Template:Infobox fictional race. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Gonnym (talk) 01:26, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 special circular
   

This message was sent to all administrators following a recent motion. Thank you for your attention. For the Arbitration Committee, Cameron11598 02:31, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Administrator account security (Correction to Arbcom 2019 special circular)
ArbCom would like to apologise and correct our previous mass message in light of the response from the community.

Since November 2018, six administrator accounts have been compromised and temporarily desysopped. In an effort to help improve account security, our intention was to remind administrators of existing policies on account security — that they are required to "have strong passwords and follow appropriate personal security practices." We have updated our procedures to ensure that we enforce these policies more strictly in the future. The policies themselves have not changed. In particular, two-factor authentication remains an optional means of adding extra security to your account. The choice not to enable 2FA will not be considered when deciding to restore sysop privileges to administrator accounts that were compromised.

We are sorry for the wording of our previous message, which did not accurately convey this, and deeply regret the tone in which it was delivered.

For the Arbitration Committee, -Cameron11598 21:04, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Question
Hi, I want to emulate/copy WikiProject Military history/Tab header for use at WikiProject Military history/Incubator/V-E Day but with different tab names. This is not a difficult task but I had one question. Can you explain to me the purpose of the first line  ? --- Coffee  and crumbs  10:29, 8 June 2019 (UTC)


 * As you can see from the editing history of the transcluded page in question, it's a placeholder for occasional banners related to that WikiProject. It's unrelated to the template functionality. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:13, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Nomination for merging of Template:Horizontal ToC
Template:Horizontal ToC has been nominated for merging with Template:Horizontal TOC. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Gonnym (talk) 09:26, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

"Template:Cryptography" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Template:Cryptography. Since you had some involvement with the Template:Cryptography redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Magioladitis (talk) 12:05, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

old maintenance template
Hello, I know it was over 5 years ago when you added the original research tag to Patch Tuesday but I was wondering, can you remember if it was for a specific reason or just in general? It has double the citations/references now and since I can't see any issues myself I thought about removing it, but there might be something I've missed! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Snizzbut (talk • contribs) 19:17, 12 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Looks like the majority of statements are sourced now, so I've removed the tag. Thanks! Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 19:05, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Infobox3cols/row
Template:Infobox3cols/row has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 10:02, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Ageing of newspaper readership
Hi Thumperward. I've tried to revamp this article. Please take a look and see if you think the "copy edit" and "essay" flags can now be removed.---Ehrenkater (talk) 18:31, 26 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Oh, wow. Great work, thanks! I've de-tagged. Still a lot of work needed but this article is a lot better than it was 24 hours ago. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 19:18, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of CS gas (data page)


The article CS gas (data page) has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "Why does this even need its own page when it already exists on the main page?"

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. « « «  SOME GADGET GEEK  » » » (talk) 13:45, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

January 2020
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Fulling. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. A plonker gave me a warning, so I should give you one too, to balance the fates Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 16:42, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Sopranos articles that need to differentiate between fact and fiction


A tag has been placed on Category:Sopranos articles that need to differentiate between fact and fiction requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. UnitedStatesian (talk) 02:00, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

MfD nomination of User:Thumperward/tropes
User:Thumperward/tropes, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Thumperward/tropes and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ). You are free to edit the content of User:Thumperward/tropes during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 08:21, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:TV Tropes
Template:TV Tropes has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 08:33, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Nomination for merging of Template:Inadequate lead
Template:Inadequate lead has been nominated for merging with Template:Lead too short. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. · • SUM1 • · (talk) 16:09, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

WP:WAS rule of thumb
Hey, there.

I noticed a small passage in the Manual of Style that I was sure was a recent addition, so I dove into the history and found that in fact the addition for the rule of thumb for MOS:TENSE is indeed fairly new.

I don't think that this is as helpful as you intended, and might actually be harmful. The preferred thing to do here, I think, would be to immediately back out the change entirely and then optionally work on coming up with a better way to put it. As it stands, though, it reads in a way that could provide fodder for folks incorrectly using "was" where "is" should be. -- C. A. Russell ( talk ) 19:56, 9 March 2020 (UTC)


 * See the MOS discussion. Thanks for not summarily backing it out (again) at any rate. Do you have any concerns that weren't raised in the discussion? It was intended as a simple way to stop people using "was" (having been inspired by a truly idiotic edit war), and I can't see any cases where one might use it to lawyer one in that aren't covered already elsewhere (e.g. WP:FICTENSE). Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:14, 10 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Chris, I understand that your goal was to stop people from using "was" where inappropriate, and with respect to that goal, I feel (strongly) that the edit fails. As I said before, I think the addition here is bad and that it will be fodder to people in arguing for "was" instead of "is".  I've been involved in spats about MOS:TENSE, and the only thing that I feel with regard to your edit to the guidelines is anxiety at the thought of pissing away even more of my time with dipshits who argue for "was"—as a result of the addition of these new rule of thumb.  I.e. the guidelines are worse off for having this blurb in it than if the text introduced in the edit were completely excised. -- C. A. Russell ( talk ) 19:16, 23 March 2020 (UTC)


 * How about we wait to see if that happens, and then there's evidence of it? No prejudice on a quick discussion to back it out should it cause more harm than good, and I'd very much take the side of avoiding past tense in any related discussion. But absent anything more than a gut feeling, which I disagree with, I don't think it should be re-reverted for now. Apologies if it does cause any hassle and feel free to get me to clean it up should that happen. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 19:25, 23 March 2020 (UTC)


 * How about, since you think the negative impact is zero and there exists someone who thinks the negative impact is non-zero, we just back it out since that's a course of action that doesn't conflict with either projection? -- C. A. Russell ( talk ) 19:50, 23 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Is that how we improve things? Like, honestly, just let it simmer. Chew me out if it ruins the world later. I genuinely don't think it will. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 23:23, 23 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Ping https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style#WP:WAS_and_defunct_magazines -- C. A. Russell ( talk ) 20:41, 14 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the heads-up. Replied. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 22:31, 14 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Well thanks for nothing. As soon as the immediate issue (wrt magazines) has been neutralized, I'm making sure that the changes you made to MOS:TENSE back in December are backed out.  You made the changes despite opposition from others.  Additionally, I later raised the above concerns about it backfiring, and then I only gave it a rest because you insisted we should give it an opportunity to see if things turn out fine.  And when just as predicted, it did have the opposite effect—people are now using it as ammo, arguing that it gives a mandate in favor of "was"—you've now dropped by to say exactly the wrong thing and that "was" is fine.  What a friggin' mess this has caused. -- C. A. Russell ( talk ) 00:19, 16 May 2020 (UTC)


 * You're not even guaranteed to come out on top in that particular discussion to be honest, and having edit wars and throwing tantrums doesn't really help with that. But since you obviously care far more about this than I do, by all means continue to expend as much energy on it as you want. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:58, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Nomination for merging of Template:Infobox engineer
Template:Infobox engineer has been nominated for merging with Template:Infobox engineering career. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. PPEMES (talk) 21:00, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Nomination for merging of Template:Infobox medical person
Template:Infobox medical person has been nominated for merging with Template:Infobox medical details. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. PPEMES (talk) 21:10, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Nomination for merging of Template:Infobox theologian
Template:Infobox theologian has been nominated for merging with Template:Infobox theological work. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. PPEMES (talk) 21:16, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Courtesy notification
Just to let you know that I mentioned you here. Regards, Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  14:48, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Malcolm Reed's page
Hi, I noticed that the page for Malcolm Reed (fictional character) has been removed and he's now reduced to one line in the Star Trek characters list. I put a bit of work into his page and have found it very useful, and it's really a shame to see all that information wiped out. Could you please restore him to his own separate fictional character page? I saved all the text from the edit window for the article that he used to have, you can see how much research is here. https://pastebin.com/sEbDjxiS Please help, his page was a great resource for Star Trek fans. Judgmentfist (talk) 19:23, 1 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Hi! Please feel free to add it to Memory Alpha or Memory Beta, the dedicated fan sites which permit significantly more in-universe material. Ensemble characters in TV shows don't generally need their own articles here unless they've had some significant real-world impact, which I would respectfully suggest isn't the case here. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 19:35, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

"Microsoft Connect" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Microsoft Connect. The discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 May 15 until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. --Paul_012 (talk) 21:38, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of some foreign character warning box templates
Several foreign character warning box templates, some of which you created, have been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the templates' entry on the Templates for discussion page. --Paul_012 (talk) 23:22, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Nomination for merging of Template:Infobox pirate
Template:Infobox pirate has been nominated for merging with Template:Infobox criminal. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. PPEMES (talk) 11:39, 27 May 2020 (UTC)