User talk:Thumperward

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
This is Thumperward's talk page, where you can send messages and comments to Thumperward.

March 2014[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Operating environment may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s and 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • {{shell (computing))

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 13:08, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Billboard Hot 100 may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • * [[http://www.billboard.biz ''Billboard's'' online archive services]

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 19:00, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Inappropriate?[edit]

I am curious, why do you call the suggestion you removed at (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AManual_of_Style%2FLayout&diff=597805431&oldid=592442829) "inappropriate"? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 14:34, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Because see also lists are supposed to be short and to the point, if they exist at all. Adding columns inevitably results in them getting longer, because there is literally nothing that the teeming hordes love more than tacking another item onto a long list. Yours was the only voice of dissent when this was raised last January, with every participant in that discussion favouring short lists. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 14:38, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
Evidently that "voice of dissent" was persuasive to the community. In light of that discussion it appears you are attempting to change prior (and fairly recently reviewed) consensus. May I suggest that, given this history, you should first raise the proposed change on the talk page? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 16:09, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
Well, no. What happened was that you reflexively reverted at the time to your preferred version, and by the time the discussion had died down none of the other parties were interested enough to bother restoring it. That's winning by attrition rather than anything else. I don't see any evidence that this was "fairly recently reviewed" other than one incidental mention of columns in a different discussion in November. By all means be my guest in bringing in back to talk, but it's disingenuous to suggest that your initial revert (which was justified at the time by a lack of discussion) still holds given that when that discussion did actually talk place it didn't garner any support for your position. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 20:04, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Somewhat poor form for you to once again revert to your preferred version, but I'll continue this on talk. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:56, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

An RfC that you may be interested in...[edit]

As one of the previous contributors to {{Infobox film}} or as one of the commenters on it's talk page, I would like to inform you that there has been a RfC started on the talk page as to implementation of previously deprecated parameters. Your comments and thoughts on the matter would be welcomed. Happy editing!

This message was sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of {{U|Technical 13}} (tec) 18:27, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Openoffice[edit]

Torai lies here[1] --- he works for IBM in Ireland. This is why hae has done all the edits to Openoffice.95.172.31.34 (talk) 17:33, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Template talk:TOC hidden#Repeated disabling for main article space = counter to discussion[edit]

You are invited to join the discussion at Template talk:TOC hidden#Repeated disabling for main article space = counter to discussion. Jackmcbarn (talk) 02:45, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Prior to joining the current discussion I invite you to review the discussion about usage of this template on it's last deletion nomination resulting in keep. Thank you. 81.64.167.10 (talk) 02:54, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

FYI[edit]

Hi. Since you were one of the main participants in this discussion a few years back, I thought you might be interested to see that the subject is under discussion again. - Eureka Lott 18:45, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Firstly: gosh, I literally haven't looked at ANI (even archives) for over six months. Secondly: yeah, completely expected. Thanks for the heads-up. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 23:29, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Flight recorder merger[edit]

Hi Thumperward. An editor at the Teahouse has asked that someone address the merge proposal between the pages Flight recorder and Flight data recorder. Since it looks like you proposed the merge at Talk:Flight recorder, I thought you'd want to voice your opinion on the matter. The question is at Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions#Merger. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 21:14, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Replied, and I've done the work now. Thanks for the notice. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:32, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
Original Barnstar Hires.png The Original Barnstar
Wow, I'm surprised at how quickly you responded to that. Doing something no one else had the time and interest to do for more than half a decade... that's barnstar-deserving, IMO. Good work. smile Mz7 (talk) 01:55, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

From IIS to the courts[edit]

You made a rewrite about the antitrust case and said that the reference doesn't back up the link to the antitrust claim. But it does. Especially the first one. (Please checkout the page history.) It the title "Netscape goes to jail, does not collect $200" the word "jails" means the prison system which is intimately linked with the legal system. "So, Microsoft is up to its old trick again, and competitors are crying to the U.S. Department of Justice." This article was written before the antitrust case but there must be any refs written after the case that links back to its roots. (I don't have any yet.)

It's important to say "Netscape" explicitly because it was a major competitor against IE and other types of internet software. Netscape is not Mozilla. And O'Reilly WebSite is not their website, but a computer program.

Your rewrite does not match with what I wanted to say so I decided to talk to you before reverting it. (also because this matter causes lots of discussions and disagreement especially when dealing with M$ fanboys and of course M$ itself. :o) I'm not a native English speaker so if there is something that I need to clarify please say so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by M4t3uz (talkcontribs) 05:57, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

The assertion that "Netscape goes to jail, does not collect $200" is some sort of future echo of an intitrust claim that had yet to happen doesn't hold water. We should refrain from such inferences. As it is, neither of the provided references mentions IIS in respect to the antitrust case, so neither can we. It's probably a good idea to specifically mention IIS's contemporary competitors (including O'Reilly WebSite and Netscape Enterprise Server) and I'll re-add those names. I don't see a need to revert once those are added, given that it was basically just a copy edit of what you added. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:39, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
Scratch that, the O'Reilly reference does mention the antitrust suit. I'll add details. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:41, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
Green tickY Great edit. Thank you very much indeed. --M4t3uz (talk) 10:02, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Gladiators histmerge request[edit]

This request, as it stands, wants Gladiators (2008 UK TV series) (an article) to be history-merged into Talk:Gladiators (original UK TV series) (a talk page). The texts of these two pages are very unlike and I see no way that one could have started as a history-merge of the other. Sorry. If the intention is to history-merge Gladiators (2008 UK TV series) into Gladiators (original UK TV series), those two page also are very unlike at the apparent cut-and-paste point. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 12:46, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Note the diff between these requests. I linked the wrong page the first time; the second request should be correct. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:50, 15 April 2014 (UTC)