User talk:Thumperward

Sandy Bridge

RE:

Could you explain what you wish to see with the article in the discussion page?

203.116.251.233 (talk) 13:34, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Please see WP:LEAD. The article lead should be a more-or-less full summary of the article contents, rather than simply a brief introduction. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 14:28, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

There has been some work on this. I tried to add some context and explain some buzzwords, which is what I thought the major problem was. Not every wikipedia reader would know what a 32nm was for example. The article is mostly bullets and tables of gigahertz, so there is not much else to summarize I would think. I did add a statement about it covering a wide range of applications, but I think it would be best to avoid the details creeping back into the lead. There seems to be a lot of brownian motion from anonymous editors, alas. Could you take another look and see if you think the complain tags are still merited? Thanks. W Nowicki (talk) 23:35, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

There's still nothing in the lead regarding features of the platform nor its relative performance. These are key parts of the article, and as such must be included in a full lead. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:03, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Your ref links request

You added {{ref improve|date=November 2011}} and {{copy edit|date=November 2011}} to the pressure cooking page yesterday. Unfortunately, finding suitable web ref links for that page has been problematic. At one time, I used a website for refs that's written by an expert at pressure cooking for citing ref links see here, but people complained about it because the website was considered "commercial" just because it shows users about the sale of the author's book! I've not found any other web refs. That would have been an excellent site for web refs, as it has good factual pages examples. Please discuss in that page's discussion what improvements you would like to see and feel free to make the improvements to the page. :) I've spent many hours editing that page during the past 3 - 4 years, as it was missing lots of essential information. TurboForce (talk) 12:26, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

FYI, references were removed in this edit. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 13:35, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

I remember when those references were removed. I would like to see someone find ref links for that page. Maybe using book refs may be the only way of doing this without causing World War III on Wikipedia? Disputes about ref links is a very common problem on Wikipedia. If only people would actually explain HOW to improve the situation instead of just doing the easy thing and delete chunks of pages just because THEY don't like what they're reading, then they will argue forever "it's not right" and never discuss how to go about improving it. TurboForce (talk) 12:40, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Infobox lake

Does {{Infobox lake}} need a conditional statement for each parameter? It obfuscates, apparently needlessly, the templates's workings. Am I missing something? If not, I wonder if you'd kindly clean it up? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 13:23, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

How do you mean "a conditional statement for each parameter"? Isn't that the way templates are supposed to work? There's certainly a bit of cruft that could be removed from the code, but the layout itself is fairly standard from looking at it. Am I missing something? Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:23, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I misread it, thinking it was using {{Infobox}}; worth changing it to the latter, do you think? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 17:43, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Always welcome. I note however that it presently uses auto-conversion of units and is thus likely a victim of the same recursion depth limits as {{infobox artwork}}. Might not be able to move forward until a proper technical solution is put in place for that. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:01, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

[belatedly] Noted, thanks. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:20, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi, this message is to let you know about disambiguation links you've recently created. A link to a disambiguation page is almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. For more information, see the FAQ or drop a line at the DPL WikiProject.

Heroes of Might and Magic V (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

was linked to Dark elves

Any suggestions for improving this automated tool are welcome. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 23:58, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Note to self: this was deliberate, as the words "dark elves" were previously piped to Svartálfar when that's not an appropriate undab (HOMMV dark elves owe far more directly to D&D dark elves than to one of two competing targets from Norse mythology). Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:58, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Not Helpful

I'm not sure what you mean be this comment: but I am not really concerned whether or not you think anything I do around here is "helpful" (in your standards) or not. I don't comment on your motives around here, and I don't care if you're an admin. And I assure you that whatever problem you think you have with me is not going to stand to scrutiny. Good day, Thumperward. Doc talk 12:25, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

ANI already has one Baseball Bugs, and that's more than enough. I don't have any "problem" with you other than that I find myself frequently skipping over the additional noise you add to the drama boards: as it isn't helpful, you may find your time better fulfilled by editing an article or something. On the other hand, this was unacceptable, and doing that again will get you rather more than a warning. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 12:37, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

If you dared block me for a comment like that... oh, what fun we would have! I've shut more threads down on AN/I than you have, I bet, and you are the only editor who has suggested I not make "noise" there. Save it: there are over 1,000 more admins, my friend. But so many editors that need your advice... Doc talk 12:41, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

What on Earth. I warn an ANI gadfly for personal attacks, he apologises for it on ANI itself... and then comes to my talk page with a quite surreal attempt at intimidation. I suppose I should leave you to run along and gloat about this, or whatever you people do with your free time. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 12:47, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Gadfly, eh? You're losing it, buddy. I'm not an admin - but you are. I even voted for you. Your conduct is unbecoming of that position right now. Doc talk 12:51, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Look, this isn't going anywhere productive. I'm entitled to say what I think of your behaviour, and you're entitled to take it up with me: fair enough. Who is and is not an admin is pretty irrelevant there. The only admin-hat comment here was regarding the comment which you've now struck, so that's resolved. And so we go on with our lives. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 12:55, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Fine. But chiding me with, "Don't do that again, Doc9871" doesn't make me fear or respect that terminology, because no one else talks to me like that. If you were to block me for anything, you know it wouldn't stand after all this anyway, right? I've never even gotten a templated warning in all my time here, let alone a block from any admin. Cheers... Doc talk 13:04, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

The point in giving you a semi-formal warning was to get you to, y'know, do what you did and retract it. When the person it was directed to asked you to retract it you said there was nothing wrong with it, so something changed. I'm not getting into a meta-argument about blocking and its social consequences: I largely don't bother with that on Wikipedia, don't use my tools in that area, and find the whole thing tiresome. What I will say is that absurdities like "a block would not stick because I have powerful friends / you were mean to me once" and the like are becoming less common over time, thankfully. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:16, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Alrighty then. Suggesting someone may have had a few too many pints could somehow be construed as a personal attack and should be retracted/stricken. But directly labeling another editor as a "gadfly" cannot be construed as a personal attack and should not be stricken. Is this correct? I just want to be clear. Doc talk 13:22, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

You want me to apologise? Sure thing. I'm sorry I called you a "gadfly". That's quite a nasty little snipe and I had no justification for it. If I do it again you're perfectly right to take me to task for it. And I'll try not to. Deal? Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:30, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

I want you to see the direct conflict between what you chided me about and what you did, which was far worse than what I did. Do you not see it? Here's a better deal: don't take me to task. It's never a pretty thing; but it often can improve the project in unexpected ways. I know you're an excellent editor, and that you think my methods may be "unsound". I know what I'm doing :) Doc talk 13:36, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Template:Infobox football league

Hi Chris, further to my posts at [1] and [2] can you assist me in making the change. I can't understand what the two 'If' statements are meaning under label9. If you were able to make the basic change, or tell me exactly how to do it, I would try and update the documentation, labelling etc. Thanks. Eldumpo (talk) 13:20, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

On the label9 row, {{#if:{{{level|}}}|Level|Levels}} means "If the level parameter is set then use the label "Level": otherwise use "Levels". The next conditional on that line links to the article specified in pyramid if it's set (so if you put pyramid=English football pyramid the label is "Level on pyramid". On the data9 row the conditional puts the content of level if it's specified; otherwise it uses levels. So in actual fact, the code already does what you want it to do so long as you specify level and not levels. It's just the documentation that needs updated. As I say, we can't do away with the conditional code until the articles using the old meaning of the row are updated: if you want, I can add a tracking category to identify them all for cleanup. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:29, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

When you say "if the level parameter is set" do you mean whether the infobox has an entry on the 'levels' parameter? Looking at Football League First Division as an example, it does have an entry on that line, but it shows as 'Levels' when you view the page. So what changes need to be made to that article so as it shows as 'Level on pyramid'? Thanks. Eldumpo (talk) 14:51, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Football League First Division has levels and not level. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 14:53, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

I have manually changed the infobox at FLFD to show 'level'. Is there a way that a bot could make this change automatically, or are you saying you would prefer not to do this, as a number of the leagues are using the other use of the parameter, and this would need to be checked manually? I have also changed the text relating to 'level' in the parameters section of the template. I'm not sure if this is OK. Also, another query related to the FLFD infobox. Its first field in the infobox is 'logo' whereas in the template 'image' is used. Does this just mean that the template has been set up so certain words can be substituted? Maybe it's just my lack of experience with them, but I think some text could be added to make it clearer how it works, whilst appreciating you maybe don't want to make it too easy for all to edit easily. Can you let me know your thoughts on this post, and indicate what needs to be done next. Thanks. Eldumpo (talk) 12:54, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

The change to the documentation looks fine. I'd still advise that articles are manually updated rather than by a bot; as I say, if you want I can create a tracking category which will show all the articles using the old system so that they can be manually inspected. You're right that the template allows either logo or image to be used interchangeably for the image (although not both at once). Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:08, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by "... the old system". My understanding is that currently the level/levels parameter will either have been filled out to record the level the league is at, or the number of levels in the pyramid, and the only way of checking that is to manually go through them. If you are able to do some tracking that assists the task that would be useful. How do we go about recording which entries have been checked e.g. I have made a point of checking/changing the wording at FLFD but should that be recorded somewhere? Regards. Eldumpo (talk) 16:58, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Mail

Hello, Thumperward. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

ClaretAsh 14:47, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Replied, thanks. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 15:01, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Football

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Soccer in Australia". Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ck786 (talk • contribs) 04:36, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Replied over there. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:41, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks...

...for your note. It made a crappy morning a lot better. Literally crappy, actually: we have a dog that I want to kill for fecal infractions. Fortunately we don't have carpet yet. Happy days Chris, Drmies (talk) 13:38, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Oooh, nasty! Take care. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:40, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

ANI Jim Sukwutput

Hi Chris,

Thanks for closing. If his behaviour continues, where should I post? I'm not asking you to reverse a decision, just for advice. --76.18.43.253 (talk) 13:38, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Let me know. Not that I expect "his behaviour" to continue, given that it was in direct response to your disruption. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 14:06, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Cassette Singles

Howdy. I repaired the article on Cassette singles. Your earlier removal of all text as "removing wad" of information was not really helpful. The article is indeed in need of some referencing and a general clean up - but your white washing was not the way in which to do so! regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.53.222.20 (talk) 23:46, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

No edit ever rationalised with the term "whitewashing" has ever been useful on Wikipedia. The completely unsourced opinion in question has been removed again. If you wish to re-add it, either argue your case on the talk page or find a proper source. This isn't a personal website where any old bit of personal recollection should be thrown up at will. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 23:51, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

I2P Notability

I looked for some information about I2P to see if there were any potential Reliable Sources available. I found the following candidates:

• Anonymous Browsing with I2P, Privoxy, and Tor
• i2p: Got Root
• I2P - Community Ubuntu Documentation
• I2P - Anonymity for the Masses
• Getting started with the I2P Darknet (Hacking illustrated Series InfoSec Tutorial Videos)
• Anonymous hosting through I2P | LetsByteCode
• Linux Today - I2P - Anonymity for the Masses
• Andre' M. DiMino -SemperSecurus: I2P...The *other* Anonymous Network
• Why Tor Has Failed But I2P Will Not | Wilfred Hughes
• A paper (PDF)

The only ones I am concerned about are the blogs. Blogs are largely unacceptable; would the blogs I've listed fall under the same scrutiny?

Thanks.

wsoder (talk) 00:45, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

None of those are brilliant sources notability-wise (even the ones which aren't obviously personal blogs are on blog-like sections of websites), but they're an awful lot better than the presently largely self-published sources on the article. Thanks! Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 08:28, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Nomination for merging of Template:Infobox college rivalry

Template:Infobox college rivalry has been nominated for merging with Template:Infobox college sports rivalry. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:13, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

MfD/TfD

Right Sorry. I wasn't using anything automated--just WP:TWINKLE. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:20, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Can I prematurely close these discussions by the reason of Forum non conveniens? ~Alison C. (Crazytales) 19:36, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Certainly Thanks for asking. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:38, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

AutoLISP rm opaque code example?

Can you clarify why it was removed? http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=AutoLISP&oldid=462863772 Jimmy Bergmark (talk) 10:26, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Because it was unintelligible to any reader who didn't already have a thorough understanding of Lisp (which is most of them). Language features need to be explained and referenced rather than simply shown, as the point of examples is to illustrate rather than teach content. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:54, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

I still think it has a value. If I look at a language that is unfamiliar to me I like to see an example of what the code look like even without being able to understand it fully. Jimmy Bergmark (talk) 04:03, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

That's not true for the majority of our readers, though. Wikipedia's bias towards technically-excellent editors means far too many articles feature code snippets which are incomprehensible even to readers with a technical background because they assume far too much prior knowledge. For most of our readers the difference between this piece of Lisp and any other, from looking at it, is impossible to tell. It is plausible that small code snippets highlighting particular features would be useful if attached to a good English description derived from a secondary source, but that's work for the future. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:32, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

I can't see how an article on AutoLISP can really make much sense without a code sample. However this wasn't a good one, and it was right to remove it.

• It's too fragmentary. Why four?
• Hello world is a bit too simplistic. We don't have space for much of a sample, so it has to count. Likewise the factorial - classic Lisp example, but not that relevant to the AutoLISP world.
• The two Hellow worlds barely explain their difference. Maybe there isn't space to explain the difference, in which case we can't usefully attempt it.
• The complex example is verbose, but bitty. Is all AutoLISP so unreadable, or was this unrepresentative?
• None of them feel like CAD examples.

I'd like to see an AutoLISP example restored, but feel that it needs to be one good example, written especially to be an example at this scope, and it should also present some CAD-like task. How about some sort of parametric CAD? How about creating a couple of shapes in an AutoCAD drawing, but making their sizes inter-related in some mathematical manner. It's CAD and it's coding. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:13, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Absolutely. A concise sample which is well-described and documented by reliable sources would be a valuable addition to an article on the subject. At this point, of course, the article is still in need of basic structure above discussion of nuances in code. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 22:15, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

{{Infobox hurricane small}}

If you have some spare time, could you center the status/scale on the top? Thanks. HurricaneFan25 15:22, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Should be fixed now. Let me know if there are any other problems. Thanks. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 15:28, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

2011 North Indian Ocean cyclone season#Deep Depression BOB 02 Do i need to spell the problem out?.Jason Rees (talk) 17:01, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Inappropiate behavior

As a long time WP editor I am completely taken aback by your tone and method of conveying a point in this discussion right here:Advice please.

Looking through the "resurrector's" contributions, this seems to be a recurring theme (for instance, asking for The Devil's Tree to be moved to his userspace following an AfD and then restoring it, with no alterations, to mainspace while nobody was looking). This is a fairly blatant end-run around deletion by a user who doesn't hold the same notability standards as the rest of the community. There are likely more out there. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:10, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

The Devil's Tree article was restored and I was going to add citations from the Travel Channel's special Most Terrifying Places in America. However I had some trouble finding a direct citation and unfortunely a business trip at the time delayed my edit on the page. I had in fact spoken to restoring admin at the time User:Bearian regarding this. He neither gave me a warning nor ban because it was clearly a good faith edit. He simple suggested that I do not restore the article until additions citations are added and I did not.

I find your comment above not only inappropiate for wikipedia, but completely unfounded. You jumped to conclusions without even looking through my edit history. Instead of discussing this with me you made groundless and bias attacks painting me in less than optimal light in an attempt to get an article whose restoration was clearly in good faith deleted. Based on the response on the advice please page people clearly understand the motive in my bold restoration.

Secondly what were you able to find after looking through my history? The only other article I restore without discussion was Nemu64 which I restore 9 months after AfD with additional citations. Please point out how this is a recurring theme in my past. Valoem ^talk 18:35, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi. My "recurring theme" comment was due to being able to find a second instance of a restoration of deleted content by you within 30 seconds of investigating the original issue. I have indeed been unable to find recurrences of this, and for that I apologise. I still regard your restoration of dieselpunk to have been a bad idea for all sorts of reasons, but those are best discussed elsewhere. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 22:18, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Infobox

Hey, I reverted your change to the small hurricane infobox. It was causing problems in, among other places, North Indian Ocean season articles. Let me point out this storm. The type needs to be there, as otherwise, it would automatically rate storms based on their winds. However, the IMD may call a storm a deep depression even if it reached a certain wind threshold. I'm not sure what else your revision did, but be sure it doesn't break any coding. Cheers! --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:27, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Sorry about that. I'll have a look into fixing the new code before proposing re-deploying it. Cheers! Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 22:19, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Now it's acting strange at 1926 Atlantic hurricane season — compare the sections for storms one through six compared to Hurricane Seven. It isn't happening at 2011 Atlantic hurricane season though. HurricaneFan25 14:26, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

1-6 on 1926 Atlantic hurricane season don't have track set, which as far as I know from the doce means they only get one image. I've fised the image alignment problem. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 15:24, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

BTW, there's this one too. HurricaneFan25 15:41, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Done, for now. There's still quite a bit of inconsistency between these templates but the output is much closer than in was before and the code is much easier to dive into and fix / improve in future. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:34, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Template:CFB navbox

Thumperward, thanks for no-including the TfD tag on Template:CFB navbox. However, we now have a little but of an spacing problem; see Lou Holtz for an example. If you delete the carriage return between "</noinclude>" and "{{Navbox" that will solve the problem. Thanks. Jweiss11 (talk) 20:11, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Done. orry about that. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 20:34, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

No worries. Thank you. Jweiss11 (talk) 21:19, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Template:Infobox cocktail

This is a little (long) bit after the fact, but nice work on the cleanup of my old template. Sorry that you had to go through so much effort. It was a beast to create, and probably an equally bad beast to fix. Kudos and thanks! —Willscrlt ( “Talk” ) 14:17, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Pleasure's all mine. Yeah, it was a lot of work, but worth it in the end. Thanks for all the original work you did on it! Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 15:26, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

ITN/C Jim SukWutPut

More unprovoked hostility from the user Jim SukWutPut. My comments are sincere and rationalized, if the user doesn't like the rationalization, the user can say nothing, or rebuttal, but comments like "You'd be taken more seriously if you don't copy and paste your rationale every time." are not helpful. I know you think I'm a time wasting troll, I'm not. Please make the user stop. Please. I'm begging for help here. This individual seems to have some vendetta against me, and it makes me sad. [3] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.18.43.253 (talk) 03:42, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't consider that a demonstration of a "vendetta", especially given that in a followup comment Jim sincerely addresses your arguments. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:34, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

The original comment need never have been made. I don't understand why you're so reluctant to act. I'm not asking for a ban or a formal warning or anything. Just someone to say to this user that those types of comments are not constructive. --76.18.43.253 (talk) 12:34, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Editors are entitled to challenge the comments that others make. It is an observable fact that comments which appear to have been repeatedly re-used are typically assigned less weight in discussions due to the perception that the poster has not make an appropriate amount of effort in making his case: previously, you had posted a near-identical comment in opposition to a large number of different ITN candidates. So in isolation there's nothing at all wrong with the comment in question. When looking at it in conjunction with previous interactions between Jim SukWutPut and yourself, it can of course be argued that Jim SukWutPut only made that comment due to the identity of the person making it. However, I don't see any particular evidence of that, as not only has Jim SukWutPut not done the same to several other comments you've made recently but he has followed up with a fuller rebuttal of your position. I said that I would act if I saw an indication that Jim SukWutPut was acting inappropriately, not that I would step in to chide him the next time he happened to disapprove of one of your comments. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 12:40, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

AN/I

Your points are well taken. However, the issue is not resolved. See [4][5]. He removed a talk page post of mine, and did so after your posts in AN/I on this. He had previously done the same thing, and I pointed out to him in the AN/I that such doing so isn't allowed. ScottyBerg (talk) 14:34, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

And then this, and this. ScottyBerg (talk) 19:43, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

And then this [6]. Now he's edit warring to refactor a comment by another editor in a talk page. You wisely cautioned me to not be baited, so I'm not reverting him. ScottyBerg (talk) 05:25, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Could you keep this on ANI, please? FWIW I'm still not convinced that the root problem here (removing of what has been construed as a personal attack from multiple copy-pasted locations) is admin-actionable. I commented because I didn't want that issue to balloon into something bigger, not because I had to solution to the original problem. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:27, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

I brought this to your attention because you requested that he desist, and he didn't. There's more involved than his refactoring a talk page post, now three times in 24 hrs. However, I'll certainly heed your request. ScottyBerg (talk) 12:56, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

RFA thanks

Thank you for your partcipation at my recent successful RFA. In addressing your concerns, I will do my best to live up to the confidence shown in me by others, will move slowly and carefully when using the mop, will seek input from others before any action of which I might be unsure, will expand my efforts to include the more mundane areas, and will try not to break anything beyond repair. Best, Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:28, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Infobox currency

Hey, I saw you had edited Template:Infobox currency earlier. I think it is missing a very relevant information, the "Date of introduction". Could you please add this right after the ISO CODE entry row? It seems to be too complicated for me and any edition attempt would only be an experiment... Thanks you! Timur lenk (talk) 03:51, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

I haven't edited the template in question for over two years. One problem with adding "date of introduction" as a single attribute is that there may be multiple users of the currency whose adoption dates were different. I recommend that you start a conversation at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Numismatics suggesting this change and invite comments: I can add it afterwards if there's consensus on the best way to do it. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:08, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

That is true, indeed, that is why I suggest the title "date of introduction" not "date of adoption". A currency has a single authority responsible for its introduction (i.e. a central bank), while the adoption can be a completely separate technical issue, sometimes even against the will of the central bank (like the adoption of the euro by Kosovo was found problematic by the ECB). So introducing, issuing a currency is a process that can be separated from the act of making it a legal tender (adoption) by a state. It is even possible that a currency is issued but not adopted by anyone, i.e. it is not forced by law to be accepted anywhere. And since, unlike adoption, there is a single authority for issuing a currency, the date of issuance can be based on the definition of the issuing bank. The date of adoption is rather a characteristic of the territory not the bank, which might not even have effect on the adoption. Timur lenk (talk) 12:56, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Thumperward. You have new messages at Template talk:Infobox television.
Message added 23:40, 6 December 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 23:40, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

DIY Ethic

Hello. I recently contributed some information/opinion to the talk page of "DIY Ethic." I just noticed that you left a comment on that talk page pretty recently and thought I would encourage you to check out that information if you are still interested. Do with it as you will --I'm not a wikipedia contributor, it just happens to be a subject near and dear to my heart. Thanks... 97.81.82.233 (talk) 03:28, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Replying over there. Thanks. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:53, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

FNB Stadium

Hi, I posted a reply to your comment about the FNB Stadium to Soccer City move. I really think you are wrong, take a look. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paulbotha23 (talk • contribs) 14:09, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Replied over there. Thanks. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 14:50, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Contested PRODs

Ah yes, I read your comment on the talk page, I did not originally add the Deletion prod to the page, as from the the talk page a bit of hard working and sources will help the page. But since you are right, the prod can be removed, and I'll see what the article becomes. :) -- [[ axg ◉ talk ]] 14:59, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

It may not "become" anything; it may very well end up merged somewhere. However it is evidently not productive to try deleting it while it's still the #1 global trending topic on Twitter. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 15:08, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Dispute over USB article naming

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "USB". Thank you. --Crispmuncher (talk) 20:47, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Ray tracing

Thumperward, where is the discussion that concluded we should treat the graphics use as primary for Ray tracing? I thought this was pretty well opposed last time I saw a discussion of it. Dicklyon (talk) 21:37, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

The last discussion I could find was in 2008. In that discussion, the practical requirement for primary topics was seemingly discarded in favour of rhetoric. Having examined that argument, and the current inbound links, my interpretation was that there was sufficient evidence of a primary subject in Wikipedia terms to justify a move. In the process I sorted out the mess which was the history of these articles. There should never be a need for a dab page with only two subjects as article titles are solely for convenience of readers and are not meant to establish any ranking of subjects by importance. If you want to propose that the physics article be the primary subject then be my guest; that move would be much easier to action after today's cleanup. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 21:46, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean by "practical requirement for primary topics". I've never heard of such a requirement. And I don't think this topic fits the bill; given the prior discussion, a unilateral decision seems inappropriate. Cleanup is good, but I don't think either of the two main topics for this term should be considered primary; neither the traditional meaning nor the popular modern application, since each is equally important in different fields. Dicklyon (talk) 05:21, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm aware that you consider the "primary importance" aspect of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC to have much more weight than the average editor, but that's the only sticking point here. If the current solution (leaving the root title as a redirect) works for you then so be it. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 07:18, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

As you can see at Talk:Ray tracing (graphics), that's not an outcome that I like. Can you fix please? Dicklyon (talk) 07:22, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Absolutely not, per the comment I'm composing right now. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 07:25, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Voodoo Science

Hi, I saw your edit to the Voodoo Science article [7] where you added a template that said: "This article may contain improper references to self-published sources. Please help improve it by removing references to unreliable sources, where they are used inappropriately." but you did not leave any comments on the talk page. Can you please elaborate your concerns? (Is it about the "Warning signs" section?) Thank you. -- Limulus (talk) 00:46, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm... looking at it again, I'm not even sure what I was thinking. I've removed the tag. Thanks. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 07:21, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

2nd Opinion needed on GA

Hi Chris, would you mind having a look at Talk:Kenny McLean/GA1. A second opinion is needed and no-one has come forward to give one. Adam4267 (talk) 15:02, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree that much of the career section is a little too glowing: that is of course going to be extremely difficult to avoid when it's obvious that at this stage of his career the vast majority of references will be from back-pages filler in the tabloids. One thing which would certainly help is if a couple of instances of opinion-stated-as-fact were rewritten to give attribution: for instance, "The 2011–12 season saw McLean begin to emerge as one of the top young talents in the SPL" is really the opinion of Graeme Bailey (who isn't even given as the author in the present reference) and not an objective fact. Additionally, "However, McLean's drive and energy lifted St. Mirren and helped them to turn the game around and get a draw" is a very close paraphrase of the source, and should probably either be quoted or (even better) rewritten using another source (this one mentions McLean's influence, for instance, though again only briefly). Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 15:17, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Ok, thanks I have tried to make a few of those changes. Hopefully this will help. Adam4267 (talk) 15:40, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Squad templates

Hi, your recent edits to {{Football squad2 player}} appear to have messed up the display of football squad templates, please can you rectify? There is a discussion about this at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football#Current Squad Templates. Thanks, GiantSnowman 14:29, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Argh. Reverted, thanks. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 14:46, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

It was due to the #switch statement not having a #default= so it was taking everything upto the first = as a param and then ignoring the rest as the switch statement as it didn't match anything. -- WOSlinker (talk) 16:21, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Aha. Great catch, cheers! Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 17:20, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Júlio Regufe Alves

Hi there CHRIS, VASCO here,

Can you please protect this page? The harassment (at least i look at it that way, highly obscure player who does not "grant" such level of vandalism - removing refs and correct info in box - so it's got to be PERSONAL!) continues, don't know what else can be done.

Also, unlike me, i did not feed the troll in any summary in this article, so what gives with the anon "user"? Attentively, keep it up - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 17:37, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Sorry Vasco, but there's nowhere near enough vandalism to justify semiprotection at this time. Furthermore, looking at the recent edits, you yourself reverted as vandalism an IP adding data (the Beşiktaş move) which turns out to be factual. If you think the page needs special attention, add it to the watchlist at WP:FOOTY, but I think this is a pretty low level of activity and if we semiprotected every page of a similar level IPs would find it very difficult to participate here. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 19:22, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

1 - i understand, no problem man; 2 - i reverted what? The only factual thing i can see myself reverting was the stats for Besiktas in box, nothing else, and that happened because i reverted EVERYTHING with the rollback. Is that what you meant? I hope it is, because i am not the vandal, the Spanish anon user is.

Attentively, please reply and "kill" my doubts on the item #2 - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 20:58, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm referring to this, which was not a rollback edit. In your next edit you acknowledged the mistake. But anyway, there's really no administrative action required here at this time. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 01:12, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

He continues (see here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=J%C3%BAlio_Regufe_Alves&diff=prev&oldid=466184431) but that's OK, as long as i have rollback... If he considers the summary where i wrote "Toma!" - meaning "Take that!" - feeding the troll, he's gotta be one twisted individual! --Vasco Amaral (talk) 21:05, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Template:Politics of the United Kingdom revert

Hi. Well regarding the so-called 'new layout', it isn't one that's used by other countries - the old one is the official one to use. You may be gradually releasing it, but I have never seen any other country templates with this new layout. I make a lot of changes to various country templates, and I haven't seen any layout changes yet. JAU123 (talk) 18:39, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

That it has not been deployed widely yet implies that one must start somewhere. If there are concrete technical objections I'm all ears, but "it's not the done thing" is no reason at all. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 19:13, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Infobox two columns

Seems like an unnecessary fork. 198.102.153.2 (talk) 00:13, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

What? If you expect an insightful answer, link to what you're on about. Do you mean {{infobox3cols}}? Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 01:09, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

He/she probably means {{Infobox two columns}}, checking his/her recent contributions. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 01:44, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Ah, right. Yes, it's unused and unlikely to be. Want me to TfD it? Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 08:18, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

yes, that's the template. I was looking for a second opinion, and have since sent it to TfD. 198.102.153.2 (talk) 22:29, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Editing help in an article.

Thank you very much for the valuable help in editing the article on Dalitstan. Without your help, things would not have been possible. I wonder why I could not edit this article on my own when I am able to edit other articles. Hindustanilanguage (talk) 09:20, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

My pleasure. As I say, there does not appear to be a barrier from Wikipedia's side preventing you from editing the page. Even if there were, you would receive an error message rather than the submit button being made inactive. If this is an ongoing problem you may wish to leave a note at WP:VPT (the Technical Village Pump), where site issues are usually discussed and investigated. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:02, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks (2)...

...for keeping an eye on things (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:43, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Don't mention it. :) I really do wonder why WP doesn't send notifications to users when someone else edits their user pages; plenty of times a friendly TPS has fixed my own page after it's been vandalised. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:50, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Your advice

Thanks for your advice. It seems a good and solid approach and I will try to follow it. This time I made the stupid assumption that he would keep his word, so I didn't realize it was him until I'd already started responding to him, since he had IP-hopped since making the agreement. Yworo (talk) 10:14, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Sure thing. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:15, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Heriot-Watt University

I left a question for you at Talk:Heriot-Watt_University#Independence_of_sources. 67.6.163.68 (talk) 05:52, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Replied over there. Thanks. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:36, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

User:Majuro6

Checked several of his "contributions" (including this one http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Miguel_Monteiro&diff=334710117&oldid=331729914, ripe with foul language and insults towards the subject in my mothertongue, and this one http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=V%C3%ADtor_Pereira_(football_manager)&diff=462037708&oldid=462037642), just three words suffice: Vandalism-only account! Please deal with the chap accordingly.

Attentively - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 16:47, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

I'd normally be cautious about an indef for an account which a) hasn't edited in three weeks, and only eight times this year and b) hasn't received a proper series of notices, but you're right: no non-vandalism edits since February 2009. Blocked. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 20:15, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry by User:Subtropical-man

I think this person has resorted to sockpuppetry in an attempt to keep the unsourced information in the 'Tuples' page. This is the contributions of what I suspect to be his sock [8]. I thought I'd alert you because I don't know how these situations should be handled. Thanks. Adam4267 (talk) 19:31, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

While I'd agree that the signs are positive, by no means is Subtropical-man the only account to previously have had this POV (the existing on the individual, ummm, "tuples" were all authored by different editors). I'd politely point user:JohnMannV at WP:SOCK and suggest that if the account is a sock that he desists from using it to create a false impression of support, or tag-team reverting. The account isn't being used for block evasion or anything, so I don't think anything else is required at this time. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 20:24, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I have done that. Please look at the WP:Footy talk page, as there are more issues I am concerned with about Subtropical-man. He has certainly already tried to edit-war and bully me to try and get his way on this article. However, consensus and policy is clearly against him and he doesn't appear to understand how Wikipedia works. Still I do not envisage him allowing this content to be (rightfully) removed without him throwing a massive tantrum. Adam4267 (talk) 20:36, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Ummm, no you haven't. How is "I would suggest that, whoever you are, you cease using this account immediately" a friendly notice? If you want a friendly suggestion, try stepping back from the discussion for a while and letting it work itself out. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 20:40, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Tracking categories for native_name_lang

Hi,

Is Template talk:Infobox person#Native names / Template talk:Infobox settlement#Native names something that would interest you? It might also need to be applied to other templates. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:21, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Should be trivial. I'm wondering, however, if this wouldn't be easier by retaining the currently-at-TfD {{native name}} and using that consistently for any instances of native names across different templates. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:03, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

|native_name_lang= is widely deployed; {{Tl|Native name]] less so. Separate parameters are better where possible; and in this case would mean one less template for editors to learn and use. I'm unaware of any benefit derived from the template method in this case. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:25, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Template:Infobox philosopher

Dear Thumperward, In Hillel Steiner's infobox the show/hide thing looks a bit odd as there is only one influenced. Is there a way to switch it off? I know it doesn't matter much but it might help me understand the template things better. I am asking here as I think you might have made it do this anyway. Hope it is no problem and sorry to bother you if it is. Best wishes. (Msrasnw (talk) 14:44, 19 December 2011 (UTC))

I've added the option to expand the lists by default, and applied this option to the article in question. Thanks. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 15:34, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! - it still looks a bit ugly on my screen as it forces the influenced person to the next line. But I guess these things are tricky to make nice. Best wishes (Msrasnw (talk) 16:24, 19 December 2011 (UTC))

Problematic IP

That IP who was wikihounding me and who agreed to stop interacting with me has now incited via email User:Irolnire to create an attack page about me, Abusive editor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), in article space, no less. Isn't it about time to give said IP a good long block or even a community ban? Yworo (talk) 18:31, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

There's no point in issuing a long-term block to a dynamic IP, especially when the user is switching IPs so rapidly. Irolnire has been dealt with now, though, and I've deleted the additional copy of the content in question he had in his userspace. I'm going to propose a ban for the IP user, which isn't likely to be able to prevent him from editing by will at least mean editors are at liberty to revert him on sight. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:48, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Júlio Regufe Alves

I'm sorry to keep hammering this subject man: i've tried to speak with the Spanish anon user, i know it would be to no avail, with his humungous set of IPs, i tried nonetheless. The vandalism continues (yes it is vandalism, inserting wrong info in box and removing refs, or is it not?), article is now on my watch, and it's a pity it has to be...

Cheers - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 15:42, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Tried AGAIN to contact the person, kindly directing them to BOTH external links (Portuguese as the player) to make them understand it is CORRECT stuff that keeps being removed from the box. --Vasco Amaral (talk) 15:48, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Malleus

Really? Have you really just gone and indef-blocked one of the most helpful, prolific and talented editors that Wikipedia has? OK, so he's a bit outspoken sometimes but the good work far outweighs the minor problems that Malleus causes from time to time. I seriously hope that you reconsider your decision. Cheers, BigDom 22:44, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

I have. Malleus is not merely "sometimes" disruptive: he has for some time been the most persistently poisonous element in the whole of projectspace. His utter refusal to abide by WP:CIVIL in any way, shape or form means almost all contact with him has a negative effect on both new and existing users. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 22:57, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

If he is so "poisonous" and uncivil, why did the other tens of admins who will have seen his comments today (me included) take no action. Why have you taken it upon yourself to block one of the most experienced editors on this site just because he said a couple of swear words on a talk page? BigDom 23:09, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

My guess is that we would prefer to avoid a painful, meritless shitstorm on our talk pages which is what invariable ensues after blocking certain editors. Protonk (talk) 23:31, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, definitely that. Prodego ^talk 23:33, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

what a completely ridiculous block - have you any training in being an admin or experience of Wikipedia? Giacomo Returned 22:51, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree with BigDom. Malleus did overstep the mark, but a sudden indef block with no real discussion regarding his conduct is premature at best, even reckless. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 22:53, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

That seems a bit like a personal attack on Chris. Whether right or wrong its not personal. Edinburgh Wanderer 22:54, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

See my comment on MF's talk; also, there's always been a long-term consensus to unblock after Malleus' blocks. HurricaneFan25 — 22:56, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Thumperward, did you consider taking the matter to ANI? Nev1 (talk) 23:02, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Chris, I think the main problem is that you took it upon yourself to block an editor who is in generally good standing without discussing the issues with him, never mind the community. Had you opened an RfCU, the whole community could have decided what should happen, rather than just you. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 23:05, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

• It really does show an immennce lak of experience of Wikipedia - it seems things are no better here than they were three years ago as far as afmins are concerned. Giacomo Returned 23:07, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Neither Malleus nor the community need a refresh course on why wading into a discussion and broadsiding a large part of the participants with utterly unacceptable insults is actively harmful to collegial discussion. Our rules on civility do not make allowances for the breadth of one's contributions, while the limits of the community's patience most certainly consider an editor's history. As previously stated, had almost any other editor made such comments a block would have been utterly uncontroversial, and as such, I'm not apt to consider that the block was inappropriate. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 23:17, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

So you aren't willing to reconsider the block, and per your comment above you're going to pursue to the ends of the Earth any other admin who dares to defy you? For your sake, please at least take this to ANI for some more opinions. BigDom 23:27, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

• Imo, it would be wisest for you to ask for a block review at ANI, Chris. You would be able to present this in your way as you see it. The alternative is that someone else may present it (and they will) and it won't come across as you intended. I would echo Nev1's concerns and think that is best for keeping things procedurally correct. My 2p.
  ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 23:21, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

  I would echo this. I can't understand what this block is for other than using naughty words. I'm bewildered. Please unblock this editor or ask for a review. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 23:24, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

• I'm drafting a block review. That said, if one does not see why Malleus's contributions to the thread in question are unacceptable then there's little likelihood that a block rationale will be persuasive. (and tough luck Protonk.) Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 23:29, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Chiming in to support this block (short comment to avoid ec). Protonk (talk) 23:28, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Thumperward, a thread has been opened at ANI regarding your block of Malleus. The section title is "Indef block of Malleus Fatuorum requires review". Nev1 (talk) 23:31, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict with Nev1)

• Chris, I have one of them, and I'm not offended. Deb was offended, but to be fair to Malleus, he let the thing drop at six o'clock this morning, long before Deb or anyone else except {{User:HuskyHuskie|HuskyHuskie]] (who I believe also has one of them) passed by, and he let another editor redact the offensive term when someone did complain about it. I'm going to unblock him now, on the basis that you mistook this for being a personal attack on someone, and didn't realise from the timestamps that it wasn't actually aimed at anyone who commented later. Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:36, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Elen, might I request that you (and any other admin) does not alter Malleus' block until a consensus emerges at ANI? ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 23:41, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Now I've seen that there's a discussion, I'll wait for that. I'd prefer for Chris to undo his own block anyway. Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:43, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 23:46, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

• When you have time Chris, I would be interested to see your rationale for this block. I have undone it as it seems it contravened our blocking policy as evidenced by the strong consensus at AN/I. --John (talk) 23:50, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
  • I'd also like to point out this blatant incivility from earlier today. Note that I don't care that Malleus used the word "fuck", it was his derisive tone at a simple question that was uncivil. Kaldari (talk) 23:52, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Perhaps it's time for an RFC/U rather than more blocks. Kaldari (talk) 23:57, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

An RFCU would be much better than assinine blocks... and yes, it is assinine to block Malleus every other week when the odds are about 90% likely that it would be undone.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 16:53, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Trust of the community

I believe you have lost the trust of the community to hold blocking powers. Under what circumstances would you voluntarily resign your tools "under a cloud?" Thanks. Hipocrite (talk) 00:00, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

That was predictable. Kaldari (talk) 00:06, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

This is premature...and I don't think that it goes that far. Chris is a good admin. Let's put the pitchforks and torches away, please.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 00:24, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Oh cool. time to hop on this fucking train. Protonk (talk) 00:40, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

I blocked Malleus for an obvious breach of WP:CIVIL. That is not a breach of the community's trust. Address further comments of this nature to the community at large rather than disingenuously presenting them to me as "honest" concerns over my abilities. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 00:42, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

The community is usually silent. Those calling for your head do not speak for the community. Buster Seven Talk 01:41, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

As a note, Thumperward called me on a breach of civility I made recently...even suggesting I be blocked for it...in this case, I support Thumperward for taking a stand on the right side again.--MONGO 01:42, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

The flapping of slick vultures' wings bores me. Gwen Gale (talk) 02:32, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Might that be "sycophantic" vultures' wings? Malleus Fatuorum 02:59, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Heh, dunno Malleus, could be (but either way I don't see that as one of my "greatest hits" log entries). My outlook on civility blocks shifted in a big, deep way two and a half years ago when I blocked you for a week, then took it back shortly after, owing to a lack of consensus for it. I still think you were wrong, but I was wrong, too. Sometimes you say stuff that's needlessly forward and edgy and I guess I'd still hope you might stop that one day, but when one gets to know more about you, I'd say your way of putting things when you get tweaked isn't all that harmful (and no, I don't mean any of that as a put down). I even dare say you seem to wear your feelings on your sleeve more than need be, but that's up to you, not me, as it should be. We both know, far, far worse stuff goes on here. The pith is, given your contributions, I don't think your incivility is much of a worry, but it's you who has to deal with the outcomes of that now and then, not me. I know you thought all that through long ago and I don't think blocking you would help anything. So, I wouldn't have lifted a finger had you been blocked for a day, but I canny would've unblocked you from indef this evening if nobody else had done. Gwen Gale (talk) 03:42, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

We're obviously none of us perfect, not you, not me. But I find it intolerable that you got away with that block. Malleus Fatuorum 04:12, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Stuff has been done to me here that I find "intolerable," awful, but I don't go on about it. Maybe that's a weakness of mine. I blocked you within policy, but the policy, like most bureaucratic policies, has its weaknesses and I missed that, being wet behind the ears as an admin at the time. If it helps, I agree with you, the whole thing stinks. Peace. Gwen Gale (talk) 04:17, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Yes, come now, Malleus. You know how this works. You always call for the blocking admin to be desysopped and it never happens. Well okay, once, sort of, in a roundabout way. The whole thing is déjà vu, with the same cycle repeating itself. Block, AN/I thread, quick unblock, chastise blocking admin,... I forget what comes next. ;> Doc talk 04:25, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

...lots of dramah. :/
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 04:32, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

On a completely unrelated content note, I wish someone would expand this poor thing. This one too. Doc talk 04:49, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Malleus, I think Chris was out of line here... but your harping on Gwen for an action taken what a yaer or two ago is over the top... she's acknowledged a mistake and learned from it... move on.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 16:51, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

I note that you have not yet answered my question, so I'll re-ask it - "Under what circumstances would you voluntarily resign your tools 'under a cloud?'" If the answer is "if arbcom tells me to," that's fine, but please be clear. Hipocrite (talk) 17:24, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Nobody should be made to resign over this or is it likely arbcom will impose it other than maybe Hawkeye who re blocked.Edinburgh Wanderer 17:26, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

You pointedly weren't given one. I'm not in the habit of discussing hypotheticals with editors who come to my talk page with dubious assertions of speaking on behalf of the community. And even given that, I note that your identical comment addressed the other other blocking admin has a far less ambiguous title, which strongly suggests that this was not intended to be a question but rather a demand. Find some other drama to involve yourself in. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 17:28, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Please review WP:ADMIN. I civily asked you a non-leading question. You are supposed to "respond promptly and civilly to queries about their Wikipedia-related conduct and administrator actions and to justify them when needed." You have failed to do so - instead providing non-responsive snark, and asking me to not discuss your misconduct with you. This is conduct unbecoming. This is not a hypothetical - I am going to attempt to fulfill whatever hurdle you place in front of me to see that you no longer use your tools to vanquish your enemies. However, the first step in doing so is to ask what you want a complainant to do - in this case, it appears you will only accept a by-force removal. So be it. Hipocrite (talk) 17:32, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Admin's Barnstar
	I fully expect you to unjustly get desysoped, but you made the right move. I find your decision bold, courageous, and an excellent bit of judgement. Toa Nidhiki05 01:47, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

I think that it was a good block as well. Nick-D (talk) 11:02, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

It was certainly brave. I suspect that if the block review had been allowed to run its course, there would have emerged a consensus for a block. Its like at RfA where nominees tend to get a wave of support before the opposes start trickling in. Epbr123 (talk) 11:58, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Your block has to be one of the most stupid admin actions I have ever seen on Wikipedia. And you are not even a teenager. Jezhotwells (talk) 12:40, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Infobox (2)

Hi Chris, thanks for offering your help, it infobox European football. Basically I'm not sure how to get the documentation right, everything I want in the infobox is already in there, I don't know how to get it right so that it actually works. Been a long time since I made an infobox, so I'm at a loss at how to get it to work, any help at all would be a godsend, thanks. NapHit (talk) 11:23, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

I've added documentation. The code itself looks fine, so you should be able to deploy it. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:27, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Arbcom Case

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Malleus Fatuorum and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Requests for Arbitration;
• Wikipedia:Arbitration guide.

Thanks, Alexandria (chew out) 14:48, 22 December 2011 (UTC)