User talk:Thumperward/Archive 49

This is an archive of past discussions about User:Thumperward. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 45

←

Archive 47

→

Yes

In fact, that talk page redirects from the talk page for Template talk:Infobox Criminal organization, wherein Jack Merridew in fact did edit, to revert my removal of the redundant and silly template put on the original template page here. He wikistalks me horrendously and jumps in on anything and everything he possibly can, just to harass me. This is the identical behavior that ended up with his being required to have a mentor when his sock ban was lifted. Want diffs? Will it stop him? Wildhartlivie (talk) 23:12, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

If he's baiting you, then flaming out like this is presumably precisely what he's looking for. In this particular case you happen to be wrong and JM happens to be right: {{R from other capitalisation}} was created for precisely the purpose for which it was used there, and you shouldn't have removed it. Rather than ranting about JM on random talk pages you'd be better looking at proper mediation. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:13, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Template help?

Hi. Seresin ask me to look at something and I'd like a double check. It's all described at the top of my talk, but the short of it is that I've extended an existing template, {{Multiple image}}, and noticed a nit concerning container width and I don't see a clean way 'round it. My test is at {{Multiple image/test}} and some examples are at User:Seresin/Sandbox. First peek at User talk:Jack Merridew#Coding help!

Cheers, Jack Merridew 07:47, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I'll have a look, but the last time I tried to improve this template I ended up reverting everything; lord of mercy, that code is hairy. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 08:11, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I've taken a better look. Very nice work, nicer for it being to a hairy mess of code. I had seen that you had been in there previously and then undone, which was part of my bringing it back here. Cheers, Jack Merridew 22:06, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

No worries. I feel better for having conquered it myself as well; I hate being outsmarted by templates. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 22:12, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

You see that seresin has a vacation notice up? I guess it falls to us to take your code live. It certainly seems right to me, but I think it your call. I've tweaked the next signpost piece he's done to use your sandbox version and all's fine. Cheers, Jack Merridew 23:05, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I saw, but I'm a patient guy these days. :) Take it live if you want; there's no rush. I'm going to bump it to ten images soonish anyway (seven is a bit arbitrary), so if it's still in the sandbox then I'll push it when I do that. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 23:09, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri

Could you explain the purpose of your reflink edit?

I'm a little curious after you did them, reverted them and reverted the reversion!

Vyeh (talk) 10:17, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I must have accidentally hit rollback. I only noticed today, so undid the mistaken revert. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:20, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. I intend to revise Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri or Sid Meier's Alien Crossfire following the Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Article guidelines. There are more details on the discussion pages of those articles. I'd be interested in any comments you have. It would be best if your comments were on the discussion pages of the two articles. Vyeh (talk) 11:19, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Template:Filmography table begin (2)

Hi, I reverted your changes to this template. First I wanted the keep the colour option but it broke something. It gave an extra "|" symbol in the filmographies. Like |year |role etc. There was a discussion about the sortable the last time on wp:actor but there was no consensus (yet). Admittedly it got snowed in under all the discussion about the colour. Garion96 (talk) 19:47, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I saw. It's cool, I'll wait for it to die down. Before this gets adopted any further I'd like to make sure that both sides of the debate are okay with the general principle behind it; somehow it looks like it's JM who is removing it now, having actually authored the thing. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 19:50, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, waiting for it to die down might be smart. This whole ordeal should be somewhere in wp:lame. Admittedly I like the blue but also don't care that much one way or the other. :) Garion96 (talk) 19:56, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi. This is pretty heavily about the coding-issues related to all the desire for a colour; hard-coding a colour in tens of thousands of places is unhelpful; they use all sorts of improper code because they don't know code at all. The desire for ornamentation is creating all sorts of maintenance issues. And they attack all trespassers editing their articles. Cheers, Jack Merridew 20:13, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I commented about this in the ANI thread. The rowspan usages preclude sortable-for-all. And an option re coloured-or-not is just asking for local edit wars (not me;). The removing by me? As-is, the template and sorting are incompatible, so to sort entails bypassing the template. This is an issue I did not foresee during the RfC. I noticed that the table at George Cukor#Filmography did not use the rowspan and simply added "sortable" and some "unsortable"s and I worked great. I think sorting on year is damn useful and the chron-order was a major issue in some old RfC about this several years ago. I'd be interested in an optional-sorting arg to the template. Cheers, Jack Merridew 20:13, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm gonna wait for this to die down a bit before I go over the technical details if y'all don't mind. We're not exactly short of time. Just mind you don't say anything you might regret: it's getting a bit toasty out there. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 20:17, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm fine with that. I feel the route forward is going to be Moonriddengirls's idea of a next RfC on site colour issues. Someone mentioned this at VPP and it may have been first. The /Stuff subpage will get posted to ANI before we get to the RfC and the cup of tea that's supposed to have occur first. I have less wiki-time this month, anyway, so it's going to drag on. These site-level issues take years, I know. Cheers, Jack Merridew 20:31, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Frank "Pee Wee" Wallace

Greetings, I'm Frank's nephew. You were listed as the last person to update his Wikipedia page. If you'd like more information, please do not hesitate to write me. Jeff —Preceding unsigned comment added by I002492 (talk • contribs) 03:20, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Notification

As you have commented in an ANI thread or RfC relating to User:Pedant17, this is to notify you that the same user's conduct is being discussed here, along with sanction proposals. Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:22, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Infobox football league

No problem with the revert, I added back a few things that were added in the interim, but nothing major. I provided a couple simple examples of the width problem on the talk page. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 16:21, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank spam!

Hello, Thumperward. You have new messages at User:TFOWR/Thankspam.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

TFOWR 21:06, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Arborsculpture

Hello. You may want to ring in on the RfM survey at Tree shaping->Arborsculpture RfM at some point during the next seven days Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:45, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion: I think the opposition points already cover my feelings. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 18:20, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing the image layout there. We struggled somewhat with that. Upright, huh? I need to study wiki layout, clearly. Peace. Duff (talk) 19:05, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

My pleasure. :) Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 19:18, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Multiple image template

Just a small followup - I might be misreading, but should "{{max|1|{{max" be "{{max|width|{{max", in Template:Multiple image? It looks like you've just left in the example "1" from my suggestion, but I may be misunderstanding the context. --McGeddon (talk) 12:33, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Yep, my bad. Thanks for the catch, and thanks again for the suggestion! Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:35, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure if your recent edits are related to this, but the width of the template will expand if the footer caption is wider than the total width of the images. In short, the caption doesn't start a new line if too long. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 14:35, 14 June 2010 (UTC))

I didn't remove any old conditional code, so that should always have been the case. Got an example? Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 14:46, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Lara Croft#Model portrayal and Template:Multiple image/doc#Example with links. It could just be my browser, but the Lara Croft page was fine last week. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 16:50, 14 June 2010 (UTC))

Nope, you're spot on: I broke the conditional on the width, which meant that the CSS parser was dropping the whole thing. Now properly fixed, and I cleaned up the code a little in the process. I can safely say the code's never looked better. Cheers! Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 17:44, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the quick response. Happy editing (or coding for you). (Guyinblack25 ^talk 17:56, 14 June 2010 (UTC))

Judith Beheading Holofernes

Just out of curiosity, is there any particular reason you converted the reference back from list-defined to inline? I'm mostly asking to find out if there's been some policy changes I missed. Thanks. MLauba ^(Talk) 14:03, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

There's only one of them. If we were dealing with lots of thick prose with different embedded references then I could see the point, but for a stub which only uses one reference it seems a bit overengineered. If you want to change it back then be my guest though. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 14:04, 15 June 2010 (UTC)¨

Not at all, and your point about overengineering is well taken. It has merely become a bit of a habit for me - when reducing large copyvios to stub size, there are often many references worth salvaging to enable a future rebuild, and I've found switching to list-defined to be more convenient for this task.

Personal preference, nothing worth losing sleep over, but since I'm not much of an article creator, I tend to remain ignorant on any changes in good editing practice, and such things always make me a bit nervous :). Thanks for humoring me. MLauba ^(Talk) 14:23, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

 ????

what the hell are you talking about? i didn't 'undo' anything, it was a standard and typical edit. --emerson7 22:25, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

It's an undo of this edit. You didn't provide an edit summary, and it wasn't a constructive change. Ergo, you shouldn't have done it, and shouldn't do it again. So don't. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 22:44, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Your aggressive behaviour at ANI

I find your statements to be aggressive, partisan, personalised, uncivil, threatening, and based on false information—which you apparently did not check to see whether it was at all accurate. You are close to, if not over, the boundary of WP:CIVILITY and WP:INVOLVED. This kind of behaviour does not belong on ANI. Without a retraction (preferably an apology), I've got to say that you have lost credibility in my eyes. I am examining your contribs to determine whether this is a pattern. Tony (talk) 09:19, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you're mistaking me for another editor? All I said was that there seemed to be an oversight regarding your sanctions (which I'm not really interested in, other than to point it out) and that it is not the MoS's fault that it is used as a vehicle for editorial power trips. Quite how I'm "involved" here is beyond me, so I'm given to assuming that you think I'm someone else. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:25, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

No I don't think you're someone else. What exactly is this oversight? Have you read my "saction" text? Some editors would take great exception to your false assumptions: and they are still there, uncorrected. Tony (talk) 09:29, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

If you're looking for a retraction of some sort for my having given an off-the-cuff opinion then you've come to the wrong place. If you're looking for an apology from me for mischaracterising you then trying to browbeat me into it is probably not the best approach. I still have no idea where you pulled "WP:INVOLVED" from considering my marginal contact with you previously, but I'm not interested enough in finding out that this needs to continue. We're done here; if you still think I've wronged you then feel free to take it to WQA. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:34, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Thumper, you've been around long enough to understand why an editor might be upset about a mischaracterization. Of course we all can spend our lives at WQA (and no doubt some enjoy that, over spending time on productive endeavors -- I don't think you're one), but if there is a way to address a mischaracterization that is more to the point, why not go for it?--Epeefleche (talk) 09:39, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

No, I'm not done here at all. You have talked of blocking me—for what I can't imagine, but it's a VERY SERIOUS THING TO SAY, ANYWHERE, without reason. As an admin, you are bound by policy to communicate on such matters, not to give me the brush-off you think you can. You said, "Indeed, then, it is an oversight. It should have been apparent at the time that any restrictions of this sort would be followed to the letter and not the spirit." What exactly do you mean by this? What restrictions are your talking about? Your statement has reinforced the notion that I have been deceptive, that I have been topic banned (this has never been the case), that I have trigger-rushed into actions after some deadline.

If ever an apology was called for, here it is. Without it, I can assure you that you have no credibility with me, and I will believe that you are not fit to be and administrator. Tony (talk) 10:19, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I certainly do think that you're confusing me with someone else, now. Firstly, I said nothing about blocking at all. Secondly, I'm not an administrator. On the specific subject of your sanctions, you were indeed topic banned (from discussion regarding date delinking), and more to the point were given a one-year restriction on reverting the linking or unlinking of dates on articles (which is hardly different in my mind from the linking or unlinking of other trivia). The "oversight" I talk of (and the followup regarding heeding the letter, rather than the spirit, of your restrictions) was an off-the-cuff remark to the effect that you are still a locus for drama over script-assisted delinking even after a protracted arbitration case for almost the same thing. I did not suggest that you had been "deceptive" nor call for you to be blocked. I rather think that you have jumped to conclusions or read into my comments something which I did not say, and it's hardly appropriate for me to offer an apology to you on those grounds. And on that note, I trust that we're both mature enough to end this quite unproductive bickering. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:41, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

The "block" comment was made by User:Fences and windows: "... Tony1 could be heading for a block for disruptive editing, or another sanction against using scripts". Dabomb87 (talk) 13:59, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I was upset at what I see as a political stunt in taking that matter to ANI. I did indeed mistake you as the editor who made the "block" comment—sorry. I didn't find your comments particularly helpful, though. Tony (talk) 07:06, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Mesut Özil

how can you claim that guy makes Nationalist appearance in the Mesut Özil article. he just contributed about Özil's backround, it has not any connection with being Nationalist. Özil is turkish-german player and yes it writes in his double-citizen passport.--Finn Diesel (talk) 23:23, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I would expect a reliable secondary source for that. A quick look at your talk page suggests that edit warring over Turkish ethnicity is something you've been warned for before. This is trivia which is unimportant to basically anyone except the kind of nationalists who use Wikipedia to mark out their cultural identity. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 06:47, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Having looked at the source provided, I would concede that this is probably notable enough to warrant inclusion, in this particular case. Thanks for the reference. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 06:59, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

{{Tfd}} and in-line templates

When citing for deletion using {{Tfd}} a template which is used in-line, please add "|type=inline" as described under Usage. You didn't do this for {{H2G2}} and it made a mess of the articles in which the template is used. Thank you. (If you wish to respond, please do so here.) HairyWombat (talk) 23:51, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Ooops, my bad. Sorry about that. I usually remember, but messed up there. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 06:51, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi, would you be so kind as to give us support!

Hello, I hope you're doing fine and I sincerely apologize for this spiky intrusion. I've just read your profile and saw that you're proud to be a Scotsman and a pirate... (I went to Edinburgh not that long ago and I really appreciated the people and the wonderful place! Beautiful and really nice!), so I guess that being Scottish helps you understand what are an endangered language and culture and maybe I am not bothering you and you will help us... I'm a member of a Catalan association "Amical de la Viquipèdia" which is trying to get some recognition as a Catalan Chapter but this hasn't been approved up to that moment. We would appreciate your support, visible if you stick this on your first page: Wikimedia CAT. Supporting us will be like giving equal opportunity to minorized languages and cultures in the future! Thanks again, wishing you a great summer, take care! Keep on preserving your great culture, country and language! Mar sin leibh! Capsot (talk) 12:30, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

TaxonId CSS

Hi, there was a reason to change the default CSS: User:Petter_Bøckman suggested to make the TaxonId box the same width as the WikiSpecies / WikiCommons box. Which I support, looking at the examples. MichaK (talk) 12:46, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that it's been agreed that the sisterlinks style should only be used for affiliated projects; many of the links in {{TaxonIds}} are to unaffiliated sites. Furthermore, in its present style it evidently looks nothing like them, which means that it's going to stand out regardless. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:51, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Latin Article Questions

Hi, I was editing the article for Latin language some, and I was wondering if a) the "See Also" section has been cut down sufficiently, and if b) the introductory section has been more expanded and fits the article better. Thanks! Icountryclub (talk) 00:26, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Fantastic work! Yes, the article can certain be de-tagged. Thanks! Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:28, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

The Gracious Few

Hi, I've checked this article for grammar, spelling etc and to the best of my knowledge it's OK. I have removed the "copy edit" box you added. Was I supposed to do this? I'm not sure, which is why I'm letting you know. Please advise, many thanks. Iangurteen (talk) 07:11, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

I've done a bit more work and it's fine now. Thanks. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:35, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

List of Wales national rugby union players

Hi Chris, further to your responses at Village Pump to the problems I was having viewing/editing the above page, some changes have been made to the article but I am still having problems trying to edit, and the 'dts' templates you referred to are still in the list. I'd be grateful if you could consider and add a comment at . Regards Eldumpo (talk) 07:43, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Replied over there. Thanks. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 08:42, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Chorlton cum Hardy

Hello, Thank you for your work on the sport and recreation, makes it much more coherent. The content has been built up over a long period and images were hard to combine with the text. Best wishes.--Felix folio secundus 21:05, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

My pleasure. Thanks for the kind words. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 23:03, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Template:••

Once such important uses like this and this and this get through the job queue, the number of uses will drop like a rock. All you need to do is start fixing the bullets here and let the queue do its magic. I'll take on a few more tomorrow. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:29, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Aha. Great, cheers. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:31, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

This one is still my personal favorite. With a complex series of parameters, one goes from a template that just posts a wikilink to an even more complex template that again goes back to text. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:53, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Looks like you guys are still fighting the good fight. Good to know that Occam's razor is still strong in a few editors. Axem Titanium (talk) 09:50, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

RfA

Thank you very much for your contribution to my Rfa. I have made a comment about it at User talk:JamesBWatson#Your Request for Adminship which you are, of course, very welcome to read if you wish to. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:54, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Template:Hinduism

Hi, your edit at Template:Hinduism seems a great improvement — but you seem to have left out the last section, "Other topics". Could you restore it? I'm wary of fiddling with the template. Shreevatsa (talk) 15:46, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Oops! Fixed. Sorry about that! Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 18:41, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Great, thanks. No one else seems to have noticed, which shows how important it is. :-) Shreevatsa (talk) 19:15, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		You deserve this Monkeymanman (talk) 18:38, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, it's nice to be appreciated, thought you deserve this for your tireless contributions to wikipedia.

My pleasure. Keep up the good work! Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 18:41, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Eye gouging

Nice work on the rename. Definitely the correct outcome. --hippo43 (talk) 22:01, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Here's hoping it sticks, though I've a feeling we've got a few cycles left before that's agreed upon. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 22:14, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Let them bring it on! I'm optimistic - I think it needs a hyphen, and we need to take some care around BLP issues, but I can't see any basis in policy for anything else. --hippo43 (talk) 22:33, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

inre Wikipedia talk:Notability#inre: The General notablity guide

Thank you for your valuable input at the discussion, and no... I was not trying to an end run, but was instead attempting to gain a better understand. I see now that as consensus changes and as sub-criteria mutate over time, some of my own coments at earlier AFDs... comments based upon earlier versions of and consensus toward earlier and now-changed guidelines, have become dated and out of line with now-existing interpretation of those guidelines. For instance, my comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carter Hayden were based upon earlier consensus, and are thus dated. Hayden has a short career... and ENT allows a presumption that sources may be available. But actual searches for such find they are lacking, and with lack of verifiable of the significance of his roles, or sources that might allow a proper biography, he does not (yet) merit a stand-alone article. I do believe it would best serve to have a redirect to that one series for which his character may have the notability he himself currently lacks. As for the edit history of the stub article, yes... it would not be helpful to preserve it in an instance where the BLP is unsourced, and so would not be helpful for a simple redirect. As for the other voices actors, they would have to be handled on a case-by-case basis if or when someone might write an article about them. Not too crazy a thought? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:23, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Case-by-case is how we roll, really; we might not re-evaluate our notability criteria every time a new case comes up, but our whole process allows for exceptions as they come up. In the case of Carter I'm still opposed to a redirect because I feel that if a subject doesn't meet the GNG or have an unambiguous redirect target (i.e. individual Pokemon to the main Pokemon article and such) that a redirect supposes notability where it has not been established. If we can't argue that Hayden Carter the voice actor is notable in himself then we cannot genuinely suggest that he is more worthy of a redirect than a hypothetical Hayden Carter who is a brain surgeon in China. But this is better argued on the main discussions. Sorry for any misinterpretation in your motives on the policy talk (I see you've struck the line which made me suspicious), and thanks for dropping me a note. Cheers. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 00:57, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Never intended to bump heads. And naturaly, had the youngster met the GNG, we'd be having an entirely different discussion (chuckle). I don't think a redirect in this case would presuppose an unfound notability... as it would only act to direct readers to the only place where the individual has mention in relationship to his character... and I just realized I should change Total Drama Island to more accurately be List of Total Drama series characters... as THAT's the place where he is mentioned in context to his character. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:54, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes