User talk:Thumperward/Archive 64

Archive 60

←

Archive 62

Archive 63

Archive 64

Archive 65

Archive 66

→

Archive 70

sidebar with collapsible lists

I was thinking it might make sense that if "list1name" is blank, then it could default to the value of "list1title". This would mean that if they are the same, you would only need to specify "list1title" rather than both. What do you think? Frietjes (talk) 16:58, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

I was considering doing this myself, but I left off for some reason. Yeah, it seems uncontroversial: at the very least it won't break anything. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 21:44, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

ArbCom, NFCC, image removal, and Δ

I've asked the committee to make their thoughts known on WP:VPR#Δ proposed task #1, just to avoid any possible misunderstanding later. See Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification#Request for clarification: Δ. Uʔ (talk) 17:22, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Cheers. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 21:44, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Pea Galaxies

Thankyou for your work on Pea_galaxy, which must have taken some time. The coding was all-over-the-place and was often a case of whatever works, rather than the correct version. You changed the order of the contents which probably works better now.

You took out several links at the end of the article which demonstrated the star/galaxy anomaly which has SO defined the search for these Pea galaxies. The links were a good way of showing this and in my opinion should not have been deleted. What's a few more links? especially when they improve the article.

Also, your comment that the article was heavily educational seems pointless. What else is it supposed to be rather than educational? Being a teacher, I equate education with information-giving, which is what Wikipedia is about surely. Galaxy Zoo is a project that has many (over 400,000) contributors, many of which are children, so it seems that an educationally-biased article is what is needed.

Those personal thoughts aside, the article has been improved, which is commendable.Richard Nowell (talk) 13:09, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm sure you can appreciate that while an encyclopedia is a valuable educational tool, it is neither a textbook nor a brochure. Maintaining a neutral, descriptive tone is of benefit to all of our readers: if they wish for a more advocative introduction to the subject we have a link to the project's website. As for the examples removed, the problem is that the output is largely opaque to inexpert readers and the accompanying text appeared to be personal commentary. While it may be noteworthy that the SDSS incorrectly identifies many pea galaxies as stars, a reliable, independent secondary source in the text would do a much better job of that than linking to random charts and expecting the reader to extrapolate the point from there. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 13:24, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough. The article may have drifted from the desired neutrality over time and was bound to suffer from personal commentary to some extent. However, the star/galaxy anomaly is noted in the Cardamone et al. paper, which should have been cited if it wasn't already. Possibly that would be the reliable, independent secondary source? And after all, that is how the original list of 37 was put together. Opaque? Very probably. Thanks for making the effort.Richard Nowell (talk) 14:25, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, dude

Sorry for dragging you through all that infobox updating for baseball only for it to be reverted, I really thought we reached a consensus to change it. And I'm not particularly happy that people came out of no where to say they didn't like the changes after they were implemented and now they get the revert they wanted, oh well, so goes life on Wikipedia. CRRaysHead90 | ^{We Believe!} 16:51, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Meh. It's happened before. It's that filibustering which explains why the baseball boxes lag so far behind almost every other sports infobox in presentation and consistency. As with everything else on the project, eventually the few people holding this up will move on and the project will move in line with the rest of the encyclopedia. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 17:18, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

They're also complaining I didn't let the discussion go the full week, though I personally doubt it would have made a difference, they probably still would have waited til after the changes were implemented, but this is all speculation. Oh well, discussion ain't finished. CRRaysHead90 | ^{We Believe!} 17:45, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Tweebuffelsmeteenskootmorsdoodgeskietfontein

Chris,

Your accusation that I was waiting for other editors to unwittingly validate it by adding circular references to an edit that I made is totally untrue and unfounded. I demand an apology. Martinvl (talk) 20:46, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

I am happy to note that the 2009 edit was not, at the time, a deliberate attempt to game the system. However, using the subsequent circular referencing incident to declare that the statement is correctly sourced, fait accompli, is most certainly deliberate after your having been pointed at our guidelines on how to source articles. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 20:54, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

What did rile me was that as soon as I mentioned that article, you went in and added a "citation needed" to the folklore comment, even though there were two mentions showing its status as folklore. If you had any knowledge of South Africa, you would have realised that Tweebuffelsmeteenskootmorsdoodgeskietfontein is, in the South African context, a question of "Die hemel is blou" (or "The sky is blue"). I took this as a deliberate wind-up, especially as I was trying to explain that there are cultural differences betwen various countries, so I reverted you entry in toto - unfortunately the good change that you made was reverted along with the bad change. Does this explain where I was coming from? Martinvl (talk) 21:15, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

There are no "mentions showing its status as folklore" in reliable sources in the article right now. That you appear simply to totally fail to understand our policy on sources despite it having been spelled out in detial to you multiple times is very troublesome, and I'm going to escalate this. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 09:47, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

You seem to have missed the point again. Let me try to explain it a different way. When Montgomery was addressing the troops before the Battle of El Alamein, he spoke of "hitting the enemy for a six out of Africa". What would be needed for clarifying what this saying meant? Every Briton understands that it is a cricketing term - most would know what a "six" is in cricket. However I would not expect Americans to understand the saying. This a a very clear case of "The sky is blue" (in the UK, but not in the US). Do you now understand where I am coming from.

Regarding the source of this being part of folklore - a few months ago there was a move to delete the article. I saved the article by drawing to attention that it was part of South African folklore. In short I have had one person who did not understand why the article was there Wikilawyering about why the article should be deleted. I satisfied him, now you are Wikilawyering that the reason I gave was not satisfactorily sourced. L lo0oked up the Wikipedia artcile on folklore - yes it can be oral, which means that it is not always written down.

At this stage may I ask you a few questions:

• Do you speak Afrikaans (or any other foreign languages)?
• How much time have you spent in South Africa (or in any other foreign country)?

Martinvl (talk) 13:21, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

That's an argument from authority. Incidentally, that AfD was an extraordinarily weak close. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 13:25, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

ANI

Please see the new sub-section of an existing section: WP:ANI#response, where you are mentioned. LadyofShalott 15:49, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I'd rather worried that the response would be of that sort. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 16:55, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Buffy re-directs

Chris, I think we've come to an agreement on the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Buffyverse‎ page. Can you check in and perhaps consider ratifying the agreement and then coming back in a month to see how it's going? Thanks.--TEHodson 19:35, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't need to "ratify" an agreement so long as there is agreement. The point of requesting admin intervention was that there was a deadlock at the time. If there is consensus to re-examine the articles in a month and redirect those which haven't changed then so be it. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 13:56, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Samoa

How can you edit the Samoa link which should be like this Samoa national association football team not the redirect. Australia has is like that but not redirected Mr Hall of England (talk) 22:08, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Notification of arbitration case

An arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Betacommand 3. Evidence that you wish the Arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence sub-page, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Betacommand 3/Evidence. Please add your evidence by November 17, 2011, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can contribute to the case workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Betacommand 3/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 00:34, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

{{Advert}}

Please fix the changes you just made to this template, you've broken the code and left half the parameters hanging outside the brackets. According to the count that's 8700 articles with broken code hanging at the top of them.--Crossmr (talk) 12:53, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Eeep! Some stray curly brackets. Fixed: thanks for the note. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 12:58, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

My reply to you

Pls see following your comment to me. See edit (16:28, 4 November 2011‎ Comps) in Talk:Database#Special_section_for_suggestions_of_User:99.90.197.87. Thanks, --Comps (talk) 16:36, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm watching the page; thanks for the heads-up. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 16:36, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Flagging error

I was just flagged for edit waring on that The Real Housewives of Beverly Hills page also, along with several others, all of whom just left Puppet dude a message. When I clicked on his talk page I was directed to a sandbox. Hope he gets his act together. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:20, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

This looks to have been a (huge) mistake, now corrected. I'm not sure why you're contacting me about it, though. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 09:47, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Tannhauser Gate

There is a discussion here regarding Colonel Warden's decision to move Tannhauser Gate to Tears in rain (soliloquy) without discussion. As you took part in previous related discussions on this matter, I am informing you of the current discussion. ---RepublicanJacobite_TheFortyFive 15:52, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Replied. Thanks. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 18:20, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Your comment about user:Fraere a sockpuppet of the banned user:Iaaasi

In your comment (Fraere being the original nominator) you are seem to be supporting the latest obvious sockpuppet of the banned editor Iaaasi, who is known for mass sockpuppeteering and harassment of other editors. If you attack or accuse editors trying to deal with this banned user, it contributes to the harassment he is attempting. This is a very serious issue and because of the large volume of sockpuppets and the extreme amount of disruption, the community can't take this issue lightly. I know that you are probably unaware of the whole situation but please be more careful in the future where sockpuppet use is rather blatant and obvious as was the case with Fraere. This user was blocked 13:46, 4 November 2011, almost right after you made your comment in support of him. Hobartimus (talk) 18:00, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

As ClubOrange pointed out in the edit preceeding mine, there was no formal evidence presented at that time to suggest the user was a sockpuppet. There is a process to follow here: first prove the editor is a sock, then block the account, then fix any disruption caused. All of that can be accomplished without causing the sort of train wreck that Squash Racket turned that discussion into. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 18:16, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Libel. Pls stop User:99.90.197.87

Pls take proper measures to stop him and his libel. Copied from Talk:Database#Special section for suggestions of User:99.90.197.87 bottom:

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
99.90, this is not a productive line of discussion. Any contributions to Wikipedia are implicitly licensed for reuse and reformatting of this type, and the page history records all of the specifics regarding who originally wrote what. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 13:00, 5 November 2011 (UTC) Agree when the text is modified over as all usually edit. Here lay particular case. Reverting an edit and coping the reverted content as own is somehow dishonest way of coediting. Do revert mean the edit was 'good' or 'not good'? So editor who revert text expressing: the edit was "not valuable", by coping the words or idea express otherwise: "it was good". This perceived conflicting expressions exhibit "lack of integrity", which lay in core of definition of dishonesty. If plagiarism is a dishonesty in context of editing and if pointed lack of integrity show dishonesty conjugating A and B should be easy. This alone will be sufficient to express regret, but on the top of such behavior such editor rant ethnic (enjoyably dosed) slur unsupported by any facts. Instead of continue this somehow tee rolling thread can some one pressure user Comps to provide the data in his < ref> he refusing to reveal. (see above) 99.90.197.87 (talk) 21:30, 5 November 2011 (UTC) Plagiarism and dishonesty: I had enough of you and your libel. As usual you are out of proportion, delusional and abusive. I used single words (meaning that you plagiarized the dictionary...) or changed texts only. I always wrote "returned" in the ed comment, to credit your idea, not copied any text, so stop talking about plagiarism and dishonesty. Shame on you! Your attitude and baseless accusations are unacceptable, and I wonder until when you are allowed in this forum. The following summary of your contributions inserted by me is copied from this section above, in case you have not seen or cannot find it: (Quote) "User comps did you put single edit of 99.90.197.87 in question whilst wholesale discredit it": I [Comps] reinserted the following elements of yours: proprietary (for your closed source) Market share (rather sales; you wanted explicit reason for DBMS example order) and ref (incomplete yet, with request for completion; to be done by me or other; pls stop repeatedly nudging; also today) [This is Comps' original text to support the list order; 99.90.197.87 probably did not like it, to conclude the open-source market share] copies -> instances PostgreSQL (for your Postgres) and SQLite added to DBMS list. [Actually I'm not sure if I ever removed it; can be checked] "many millions" for your "hundreds of millions" (with no ref); I added Adaption in SQLite to support it. I may have forgotten something. All nice but secondary in the article, and the article could live without, to my opinion. I hated to waste on it a week-work or so, rather than adding more urgent material (to my opinion) to the article. Pls help with such rather than unnecessarily digging in and substantially modifying existing text (what I have seen so far from you; my own opinion) --Comps (talk) 16:42, 5 November 2011 (UTC) (End quote) I did most of these changes reluctantly just to accommodate you. I never thought it was important to the article, beyond anecdotal, as you see above, and now I'm "dishonest", stealing your "great ideas". You already have accused me and an administrator of favoring MS, Oracle, and big corporations. You started your participation here with your "open source" agenda, trying to put open source DBMSs at the top of the DBMS example list. Shame on you! I do not see any reason to continue tolerate all your crap here. I strongly ask administrators to take measures to stop User: 99.90.197.87 from continuing his libel, abuse and other unacceptable behavior. --Comps (talk) 01:49, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. --Comps (talk) 02:23, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Looks like WP:AGF needs to be done for both sides here.Jasper Deng (talk) 02:41, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Libel about dishonesty, plagiarism, and more is above and beyond WP:AGF. It is a serious matter, even if it a ridiculous accusation of its face that only a sick mind can generate. The more I think of it and look at the discussion, the more angry it makes me. It is completely unacceptable that a person writes such things, and some measures should be taken. --Comps (talk) 07:02, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

If either of you throw the word "libel" or "plagiarism" around again you'll be on the receiving end of a block. As for the rest of it, take it back to the article talk page. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 11:21, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Infobox Amtrak

Template:Infobox Amtrak has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Mackensen (talk) 01:42, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Triumphalism

Very boring as it may be to some editors, a consensus was reached of 23/10 for the move, and the discussion has rolled on for far more than plenty other article move requests that I have been aware of. Further, if I really wanted to crow and be nationalist as some of the other editors have been suggesting that those contributors, north of Gretna/Berwick are, then that would be at the point when the page was moved to James VI of Scotland. It isn't, so therefore I'm not. Brendandh (talk) 16:01, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Consensus isn't a head count. Nevertheless, I agree that the page move itself was probably appropriate. However, that is tainted by the close having been performed by an editor who was involved. All that does is create even more drama. You shouldn't have been egged on by Mugginsx into closing it yourself. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 17:32, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

My apologizes to both for any misunderstanding or discomfort I have unintentionally caused. The vote was a clear consensus and was achieved by editors from four countries. The guidelines have been met. The time period was double what the suggested time was. This was a fair decisions nevertheless, once again, my apologizes for what might have been the appearance of any impropriety, though no impropriety was done. I did not egg her on. I assure you that neither she or I were "gloating". If anything, it was an expression of nervous anticipation of dissatisfaction by a very few editors, certainly not a hope, of what did, indeed happen. Mugginsx (talk) 18:20, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

See User talk:99.90.197.87

Pls see User talk:99.90.197.87, my comments at the bottom.

Since it is forbidden to use certain words, I want you to look into the behavior of User:99.90.197.87 towards me, and give it any name you would like. The main question is if you think that his behavior is proper, after all the exchanges we went through, and your warning. I can tell you what I feel: Humiliated and abused for publicly repeatedly doubting Comps' honesty and integrity, and accusing him with baseless accusations. I do not care about his reasons for such behavior, and reasons not connected to me may exist, but this should be stopped. --Comps (talk) 01:26, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Are you referring to 99.90.197.87's insinuation that you made up a reference? I read that as hyperbole employed in order to goad you into adding the source details. That wasn't a very civil way of doing it, and if you want I'll ask him not to do it again, but other than that the discussion appears to have moved on. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 10:02, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Questions to the parties on the Betacommand 3 arbitration case

Drafting arbitrator User:Kirill Lokshin has posted some questions to the parties. As you are either an involved party or have presented evidence in this case, your input is sollicited. For the Arbitration Committee --Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 13:49, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Commitment ordering

Have you noticed that User:Comps is Yoav Raz? —Ruud 22:21, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

While the incidental evidence is strong, can that actually be confirmed? Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 22:27, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

See his home page. While this is not a problem per se, it does perhaps explain the slightly idiosyncratic writing style. —Ruud 22:33, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

I've pinged Comps for inout. Thanks. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 22:50, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Interesting. But since when has a Wikipedia editor be identified beyond his nickname? And why the sudden interest? Any reason or just curiosity? An editor has to be judged by the quality and accuracy of his material, not by any real identity, or any possible personal connection to the material he writes about. I'm very careful with researching and verifying every fact I'm writing, and this what important. The material is with a broad importance, and I have spent considerable time to research it and present to a wide audience. It does not have the readership of Database, for example, but several tens daily, and in some related articles hundreds. I see people start to understand it and use it (patents, academic articles, and prods), and I attribute it to the Wikipedia articles to a great extent (which took it beyond quite hidden academic articles for years, see Yoav Raz's page linked above). If my work here served a good purpose, I'm pleased. Re "slightly idiosyncratic writing style", well Ruud, I'll be glad if you help improving the texts. Thanks for pinging me about this discussion. --Comps (talk) 05:19, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

The problem is that you're the sole author of Yoav Raz's page, and the primary author / maintainer of several pages which discuss his work. There's a significant conflict of interest there if you are indeed Yoav Raz, not to mention our strong discouragement of autobiographies. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:58, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Why conflict of interests? What interests (by whom?) and what conflict. I quite do not see this, and need your help here. I view this as complementary: The subject is interesting (very much to me and the CC community), and the person who did it is interesting, especially his background and what else he did, and with whom he worked on what. --Comps (talk) 11:23, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

It is obviously in the best interest of an academic for his research to be broadly disseminated and accepted. Having a very detailed series of Wikipedia articles certainly helps with that. Obviously if you don't have any affiliation with Yoav Raz then that doesn't apply to you. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 12:16, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Now I understand what you mean. But FYI, if you have not known: Wikipedia articles are not considered publications in Academia, and no credit is received for them. Citing Wikipedia is forbidden in academic publications, so no benefit in this regard either. Thus no conflict here. You may claim self-publication by a person. But what is wrong here, if all the details are correct, and all his publications are anyhow in official records, including multiple web sites with his publications and citations? Just Google the name. If notability exists anyhow, isn't it Wikipedia's interest to have such article? Wikipedia is about finding proper information, also including about people with proper notability. Just another info item added to Wikipedia for more completeness. --Comps (talk) 19:43, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Articles on operas

I see that your change to The Barber of Seville has been reverted. Please be aware of the guidelines of the WikiProject Opera group which you can find here: Wikipedia:WikiProject Opera/Article styles and formats

Almost every opera article uses this agreed-upon format. Viva-Verdi (talk) 05:57, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Ugh. Why am I not surprised. Thanks for the heads-up, though. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 08:22, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

STL (file format)

I noticed that you added a {{tone}} tag to STL (file format)‎. If you read what the tag expands to, you should understand that (like most tags) you should only apply it AFTER you've posted the reason why you're tagging onto the Talk: page. This is most important because otherwise the other editors don't know what it is that you want to be fixed. Hence I'm removing that tag pending such discussion. Please feel free to re-apply it once you have explained your reasoning. SteveBaker (talk) 14:21, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Instead of lecturing me on how to use cleanup tags, you could have applied yourself to addressing the problem whereby the entire article reads like an informal chat about the subject. The wording of {{tone}} states that examples may be found on the talk page, but like other cleanup tags it certainly doesn't mandate that said hoop be jumped through in advance. Or do you believe that this unsourced article, barely improved since 2005, is not in need of cleanup? Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 14:39, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

The article already bears a tag (justifiably) for lack of references - and it could certainly use some cleanup. But "tone"? Really? It's hard to know what to fix about 'tone' without you being a little more specific. SteveBaker (talk) 14:52, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Sigh. It would be as much effort for me to explain, in detail, why the article does not have the formal tone we expect of an encyclopedia as it would for me to go through it and fix or remove the problematic comments. I suppose I'll get round to that, eventually. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 15:06, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough...and the article does have one reference now, but it needs more and a heck of a lot more cleanup. SteveBaker (talk) 15:33, 11 November 2011 (UTC)