User talk:Thumperward

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

Contents

Have I somehow offended you?[edit]

I'm curious why a routine edit was met with this level of hostility. Sorry if I've offended you in the past, but don't hold grudges, you'll live longer. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:26, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

I told you three years ago that I'd be making this sort of edit routinely; see also the same discussion from June 2015, up-page. Ultimately this won't get resolved until we figure out some way to get engvar properly moved to metadata rather than in-band, but until then I don't expect to be summarily reverted over something so trivial as a bot-only tag that I still don't think should be anywhere near the edit window. And passive-aggressive little tips like that aren't helping. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 12:25, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Retitling request for Rhode Island Democratic primary, 2016[edit]

Hi, Thumperward,

Since you're far more experienced than I, would you mind taking a minute to rename this article Rhode Island Democratic presidential primary, 2016 ? This state is one of several which held primaries last spring (in RI's case 26 April 2016) to elect delegates to the just-concluded national party conventions, but which will hold another set of primaries in September for other offices. I contacted the article's creator and chief contributor, User:PanchoS, and he agrees. See Talk:Rhode Island Democratic primary, 2016 and User talk:PanchoS. The only possible points of potential disagreement that I could see would be over minor differences in title (e.g. "... Democratic Party presidential primary, 2016", "... Democratic Party presidential primary, April 2016" or "... Democratic primaries" (plural) if someone wanted to combine the April and September contests.

Thanks as always for your help, —— Shakescene (talk) 19:35, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

 Done - for what it's worth, anyone can move pages, not just admins, so feel free to do it by yourself in future if there's agreement. :) Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 07:05, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Nomination of Wet room for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Wet room is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wet room until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Herostratus (talk) 02:00, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

pl.vluk[edit]

pov-artcl https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lebensborn81.11.222.84 (talk) 16:11, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Infobox fictional creature[edit]

Ambox warning blue.svgTemplate:Infobox fictional creature has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:21, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Extended confirmed protection[edit]

Padlock-blue.svgHello, Thumperward. This message is intended to notify administrators of important changes to the protection policy.

Extended confirmed protection (also known as "30/500 protection") is a new level of page protection that only allows edits from accounts at least 30 days old and with 500 edits. The automatically assigned "extended confirmed" user right was created for this purpose. The protection level was created following this community discussion with the primary intention of enforcing various arbitration remedies that prohibited editors under the "30 days/500 edits" threshold to edit certain topic areas.

In July and August 2016, a request for comment established consensus for community use of the new protection level. Administrators are authorized to apply extended confirmed protection to combat any form of disruption (e.g. vandalism, sock puppetry, edit warring, etc.) on any topic, subject to the following conditions:

  • Extended confirmed protection may only be used in cases where semi-protection has proven ineffective. It should not be used as a first resort.
  • A bot will post a notification at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard of each use. MusikBot currently does this by updating a report, which is transcluded onto the noticeboard.
Please review the protection policy carefully before using this new level of protection on pages. Thank you.
This message was sent to the administrators' mass message list. To opt-out of future messages, please remove yourself from the list. 17:49, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Template:Aside[edit]

Your talk page archive 90 is one of the few links to Template:Aside, which was deleted in 2015 and currently redirects to Template:Importance section. I am planning to reclaim the name for a different purpose, as a fancy formatting wrapper for a Module:Aside I'm writing. The module produces a small extract of a talk page (generally a user talk page) so that it can be monitored from a broader conversation without taking it over. It's a bit up in the air, but I picture using it for digressions or for work groups of a few editors to come up with something related to a larger discussion. Anyway, I don't think this should impact you in any way, but just thought I should let you know. Wnt (talk) 16:22, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Not a problem at all. From what little I can pick together I thought the original purpose (pre-redir) was pointless anyway, and obviously its original retargetting never found much of an audience. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 16:29, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
Template:Aside should probably be a simple wrapper for the HTML 5 <aside> element (even though it doesn't work quite yet). --Izno (talk) 21:53, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
@Izno: Good point! But I am tempted to try to press on anyway... The purpose of the HTML element is conceptually similar to the template I'm making, and so using the actual aside code might even be desirable for my template. My template would absolutely require a "page" parameter to tell what talk page to display a summary of. This template would be a simple wrapper and requires no such parameter. Therefore, I think I can just "overload" the template, making it do your idea when page is omitted and mine when it is given. Wnt (talk) 12:48, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
@Wnt: I think I would prefer not to mix up the trivial functionality of implementing an HTML tag with what you're proposing. I do agree that your notional template may correctly be wrapped in the same tag (I'd have to think on it some), but since it will be used for other things, it's good design not to mix up the two. Basically, just change the pagename you're thinking to use--I obviously don't have an issue with the template you're thinking to put together. Maybe something like {{offtopic talk}}, since a) you mean to use it on talk pages and b) you mean for it not to be the focus of the current discussion? A name like "offtopic talk" could also sound like a standardized warning template, but I expect such a template would get the "uw-" prefix, if it were, so you're probably safe there. --Izno (talk) 13:17, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
@Izno: I'm sorry, but this doesn't seem like a convincing objection to me. My plan at this point is to have Template:Aside immediately check for the existence of page, and based on that check, go to either Template:Aside/wrapper and Template:Aside/talk page. The two can therefore be developed independently. The wrapper produces code that can't be used yet; the talk page template is something which, if it is anything like the other great module ideas I've had, will be functional but never actually end up getting used, in which case by the time the wrapper is actually being used it won't have any effect. To be clear, my preference is never to hide simple HTML tags behind a template at all; I see no point to it and it adds unnecessary uncertainty. I'm willing to go along with it anyway, but I don't want to use a different name just because you like it better. I don't want to limit asides to off topic talk; for example, above I suggested that a few editors might use it to work out a consensus text during some larger discussion such as an RFC. I really don't know all the uses it might be put to, if people decide they have a use for it. I should add that using a current Firefox (49.0.1), I don't even see a difference in the output at [1] if I take out the "aside" tags, even though it says Firefox supports the element. Nor Internet Explorer for that matter. So I don't really understand what the effect is supposed to be; but if it's not consistent or visible, why would people use it at all? Wnt (talk) 14:07, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Fascinating argument, folks, but could y'all pursue it on template talk or the like instead of my talk? Thanks! Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 14:42, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Sorry! I just went ahead and started, so I'll direct future discussion to Template talk:Aside. But this would actually have been a perfect case to put the conversation in one of my asides. :) Wnt (talk) 14:59, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Nomination of Indian pariah dog for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Indian pariah dog is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Indian pariah dog until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Vanamonde (talk) 10:33, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Nomination of Teflon (nickname) for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Teflon (nickname) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Teflon (nickname) (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Erpert blah, blah, blah... 09:11, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Deletion of article Gratis[edit]

Hello, I noticed you deleted Gratis, but I couldn't find a rationale in either the talk or history pages. If this decision is to be maintained for whatever reasons, would it be appropriate to produce a redirect to Gratis versus libre to alleviate all the broken links to Gratis? --isacdaavid 20:58, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Changed to a redirect - thanks for the notice. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 07:53, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Precious anniversary[edit]

Four years ago ...
Cornflower blue Yogo sapphire.jpg
lack of barnstars
... you were recipient
no. 289 of Precious,
a prize of QAI!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:29, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Five years now! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:05, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Two-Factor Authentication now available for admins[edit]

Hello,

Please note that TOTP based two-factor authentication is now available for all administrators. In light of the recent compromised accounts, you are encouraged to add this additional layer of security to your account. It may be enabled on your preferences page in the "User profile" tab under the "Basic information" section. For basic instructions on how to enable two-factor authentication, please see the developing help page for additional information. Important: Be sure to record the two-factor authentication key and the single use keys. If you lose your two factor authentication and do not have the keys, it's possible that your account will not be recoverable. Furthermore, you are encouraged to utilize a unique password and two-factor authentication for the email account associated with your Wikimedia account. This measure will assist in safeguarding your account from malicious password resets. Comments, questions, and concerns may be directed to the thread on the administrators' noticeboard. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:34, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

A new user right for New Page Patrollers[edit]

Hi Thumperward.

A new user group, New Page Reviewer, has been created in a move to greatly improve the standard of new page patrolling. The user right can be granted by any admin at PERM. It is highly recommended that admins look beyond the simple numerical threshold and satisfy themselves that the candidates have the required skills of communication and an advanced knowledge of notability and deletion. Admins are automatically included in this user right.

It is anticipated that this user right will significantly reduce the work load of admins who patrol the performance of the patrollers. However,due to the complexity of the rollout, some rights may have been accorded that may later need to be withdrawn, so some help will still be needed to some extent when discovering wrongly applied deletion tags or inappropriate pages that escape the attention of less experienced reviewers, and above all, hasty and bitey tagging for maintenance. User warnings are available here but very often a friendly custom message works best.

If you have any questions about this user right, don't hesitate to join us at WT:NPR. (Sent to all admins).MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:48, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open![edit]

Scale of justice 2.svgHello, Thumperward. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

About that edit to Python (programming language)[edit]

About your your edit to Python (programming language):

  • Technically, you are correct in that it would be obvious that this is the programming language. However, I work in IT & used to do development, including UI issues. Consider that when a user searches for Python, a drop-down list is presented, & sometimes the user clicks on the wrong link (think fat fingers on a mobile device using the desktop version or an uncoordinated mouse user). If you were in this situation, what is most helpful to the user? Is it to reconduct the search (& send redundant traffic back & forth), or click on the most likely links in the {{About}} template?
  • You removed the {{Use dmy dates}} but did not mention it in the edit summary. Was that removal intentional? Why?

Thanks for your work,

Peaceray (talk) 22:53, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

I left a link in the diff to the relevant argument. Browsers have a back button for people who misclick. Python should point at Pythonidae anyway; that it doesn't is a historical mistake. That's the correct fix here, which doesn't inconvenience the vast majority for the sake of the hypothetical few.
As for the invisible tag, I've spent years fixing whitespace issues with it due to the people who use it being too lazy to code their bots to place it where it won't cause problems when articles are edited. I used to just quietly move it to the bottom of articles where it performs the same job, only to be reverted and harassed by that special class of editors whose job it is to irritate that 1% of editors who actually improve articles. As such I've taken to considering it more trouble than it's worth and just removing it.
I've left a comment with the rando who didn't bother to engage before reverting as well. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 23:28, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
Not everyone is well versed in Wikipedia disambiguation conventions, so a hatnote can still be helpful to readers who arrive at high-profile pages that are likely to be reached from search results.
And how does a hatnote inconvenience the vast majority of readers? —Laoris (talk) 06:46, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
People aren't idiots. "Oh, I was looking for a snake, clicked on a link that explictly said 'programming language' and am now confused" is an entirely hypothetical problem until you can demonstrate otherwise. This is why we have WP:NAMB, and why random editors who think they know better had better have a reason that withstands the nine years that we've had that link. And the quote you cherry-picked from was "inconvenience, annoy, or puzzle the vast majority of readers and editors". The very first words a person meets on a page should not imply they were mistaken in what they're reading unless there's some (any) reason for doing so. And every bit of cruft at the top of articles discourages inexpert readers from becoming editors. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 22:34, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
Actually the quote I picked from was your first reply on this thread. I am not insinuating that a hatnote makes readers out to be idiots. A hatnote is simply a navigational aid, making it easier for the reader to find their desired page. I don't see how its presence would inconvenience, annoy, or puzzle readers by implying they are mistaken. It seems more likely that an experienced reader of Wikipedia would be able to ignore a hatnote that isn't useful to them.
Regarding WP:NAMB: I have no intention of throwing out the guideline. I understand that it says a hatnote is generally improper on a disambiguated page, but indicates there are exceptions and it also explicitly does not prescribe one way or the other, because it has been the subject of numerous past disputes. I'm not interested in forcing the hatnote against consensus, but since it hasn't been removed in over a year, until now the implicit consensus has been that it belongs. If we are to establish a new consensus, this discussion is probably better had at Talk:Python (programming language) or Wikipedia talk:Hatnote.—Laoris (talk) 23:32, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Template:Libertarianism sidebar/sandbox[edit]

A tag has been placed on Template:Libertarianism sidebar/sandbox requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion because it is an unused duplicate of another template, or a hard-coded instance of another template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is not actually the same as the other template noted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page explaining how this one is different so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{substituted}}</noinclude>).

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page's talk page, where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. – S. Rich (talk) 07:04, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:World alphabets[edit]

Ambox warning blue.svgTemplate:World alphabets has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Frietjes (talk) 18:12, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

oncemor:([edit]

You do not have permission to edit this page, for the following reason:

Your IP address has been blocked on all wikis.

The block was made by Ajraddatz (meta.wikimedia.org). The reason given is Long-term abuse.

  Start of block: 17:52, 24 December 2016
  Expiry of block: 17:52, 31 December 2016

Your current IP address is 62.235.177.130. Please include all above details in any queries you make.

If you believe you were blocked by mistake, you can find additional information and instructions in the No open proxies global policy. Otherwise, to discuss the block please post a request for review on Meta-Wiki.213.49.133.183 (talk) 20:31, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Kill vehicle listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

Information.svg

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Kill vehicle. Since you had some involvement with the Kill vehicle redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Thryduulf (talk) 14:00, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Thumperward![edit]

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Nomination for deletion of Template:Vgrtbl-bl/sandbox[edit]

Ambox warning blue.svgTemplate:Vgrtbl-bl/sandbox has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Lordtobi () 12:17, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

SnO2[edit]

Sorry for misunderstanding on SnO2. Thanks for correcting me. --Smokefoot (talk) 23:22, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

No problem. Thanks for understanding, and sorry about the rather snippy edit summary. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 03:18, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Nomination for merging of Template:Famous players[edit]

Template:Famous players has been nominated for merging with Template:Famous. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 01:41, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter - February 2017[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2017). This first issue is being sent out to all administrators, if you wish to keep receiving it please subscribe. Your feedback is welcomed.

Admin mop.PNG Administrator changes

Gnome-colors-list-add.svg NinjaRobotPirateSchwede66K6kaEaldgythFerretCyberpower678Mz7PrimefacDodger67
Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg BriangottsJeremyABU Rob13

Green check.svg Guideline and policy news

Octicons-tools.svg Technical news

  • When performing some administrative actions the reason field briefly gave suggestions as text was typed. This change has since been reverted so that issues with the implementation can be addressed. (T34950)
  • Following the latest RfC concluding that Pending Changes 2 should not be used on the English Wikipedia, an RfC closed with consensus to remove the options for using it from the page protection interface, a change which has now been made. (T156448)
  • The Foundation has announced a new community health initiative to combat harassment. This should bring numerous improvements to tools for admins and CheckUsers in 2017.

Scale of justice 2.svg Arbitration

Nuvola apps knewsticker.png Obituaries

  • JohnCD (John Cameron Deas) passed away on 30 December 2016. John began editing Wikipedia seriously during 2007 and became an administrator in November 2009.

13:38, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Marco Börries[edit]

Ambox warning yellow.svg

The article Marco Börries has been proposed for deletion because it appears to have no references. Under Wikipedia policy, this biography of a living person will be deleted after seven days unless it has at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp/dated}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within seven days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. TopCipher (talk) 16:37, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Nomination of Walligal for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Walligal is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Walligal until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 20:38, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:End of season[edit]

Ambox warning blue.svgTemplate:End of season has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 05:17, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Management consulting[edit]

Ambox warning blue.svgTemplate:Management consulting has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 06:08, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Belphegor's prime[edit]

You think Belphegor's prime is a stub? Man, I sure don't - I think of the stub tag as being there to let us easily find articles that don't have the minimum information to make sense to a casual reader. That article is well beyond that point, I'd say. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 00:51, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Well, that rather raises the question as to whether a subject that can be given a comprehensive article in a grand total of seven sentences really needs a standalone article in the first place. I mean, it's primarily notable for being a bit amusing. We don't have an article for 80085, which has amused pre-teen boys with desktop calculators for decades. A brief flip through the relevant category didn't turn up any other standalone articles for similarly quaint-but-pointless primes. Maybe there are some, and we could collate them into a broader article. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 15:51, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
I don't think it's comprehensive, it's just not a stub IMHO - there's a huge gap between stubbiness (too small to have even minimal usefulness) and comprehensiveness. Having said that, it is pretty borderline for an article of its own. Maybe part of, let's see ... Intriguing numbers? Weird numbers? Kind of funny in odd way numbers? - DavidWBrooks (talk) 16:00, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
I note that it isn't mentioned at all on list of prime numbers, the one place you'd think it'd be guaranteed a mention. But whether adding material to 125K listicles is a good idea is a question in itself. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 16:05, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
Holy toledo, what a page that list of primes is! ... but thank you for introducing me to Emirp. How have I missed that vital mathematical concept all these years? - DavidWBrooks (talk) 16:58, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Touch_(Unix) reads like a manual page[edit]

My search 'touch unix' (without the quotes) on a popular internet search engine brought up the article touch (Unix) top. I am long accustomed to skipping past the wikipedia editorial exhortation box to an article's content, as the eye runs past spam in an email inbox, but when I returned, having slaked my thirst for knowledge, to read this editorial box, I was at first somewhat stunned that there was even a template to accuse an article of being "written like a manual or guidebook", and then somewhat quizzical that this would be considered a bad thing when discussing a Unix command. I did think that it was one of the best things I'd ever read about a Unix command. I have now read the relevant paragraph on "what Wikipedia is not" about this policy, and reviewing the edit history, it looks like the non-standard examples have been revised. So how about taking that template off the top of the page? Each one removed increases the force of all of the others… LaFolleCycliste 05:42, 20 August 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by LaFolleCycliste (talkcontribs)

This edit helped, but the article still consists almost entirely of a "Usage" section which is just a thinly-paraphrased copy of the man page, and an "Examples" section which is a howto. Ask yourself what Encyclopaedia Brittanica would have to say about this subject were it notable enough for inclusion. Anyone who needs help using the utility is perfectly free to do what you did and Google it, and look on any of the hundreds of existing resources which exist for this purpose. It's not ours. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 12:00, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Plural of "ABS" is the same as plural of "ATM" ("ATMs"), etc.[edit]

I started a discussion about pluralizing "ABS" as "ABSs"--that is, "anti-lock braking systemS" the same way as we pluralize "ATM" as "ATMs," etc. Will you please show this other editor why that's correct with me?

Thanks if so, 174.23.105.242 (talk) 22:24, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your help![edit]

Hey, Chris, thanks for your help over there. Well, regushee decided to act like a baby about it by calling us "trolls" and not providing any concrete support for his "it sounds silly" argument, so I wrote up a reply calling him out on that. Do you think we should report him for incivility? As well, do you have any ideas of other editors who would be reasonable enough to see how obviously stupid "anti-lock braking system systems" is just like you and I know it is?

Thanks, Mike Christenen, 174.23.141.137 (talk) 19:58, 2 September 2017 (UTC) (until my dynamic address changes again).


Hey, Chris, a troll went in and reverted anti-lock braking system again. But I suspect that if I go in and revert his vandalism, he'll just war with me. Will you please go in and revert that back to the non-redundant version that we agreed on? 75.162.244.184 (talk) 06:18, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Tags on AVX-512[edit]

You added three tags to the article, and while I can see where you are coming from. I don't see how they can be resolved, so you just end up with permanent tags, and the tags would apply equaly to all article on wikipedia on the subject of intruction sets. This is one of the less technical written with more details on use instead of just listings of instructions. Carewolf (talk) 20:24, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi. It may be that technical sheets like this simply can't be presented as articles in themselves. Wikipedia isn't a technical reference, and it's not clear what value there is in an encyclopedia copying huge lists of specs out of vendor PDFs into standalone pages. Merging the less banal content to Advanced Vector Extensions would be a start. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 08:11, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
The thing is that it is a separate technology from old AVX1/2. And it is not detailed enough to be a technical reference, it is only listing new features not a complete set. Compare with SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4 and XOP articles for similar subject matter but for smaller instruction set extensions.Carewolf (talk) 08:24, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
There are different ways to list features. The very worst way to do so is to individually list every single new instruction along with its description in the manual, which is what the article does. Nobody who needs to look up this information for a practical purpose is going to start with Wikipedia rather than the vendor documentation, and nobody who isn't looking for implementation material is going to read it in the first place. Contrast with the SSE2 article, which does a good job of explaining the purpose and features of the extension without resorting to literally printing out the names and purposes of all 144 instructions it adds. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:51, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
The SSE2 article is old and the odd man out, some of its instructions had their own articles, see MOVAPD. I think however wrote it, skipped them in the main article to make them their own, but never completed it. I could move the list of instructions out to other articles, but keep the meat of what can be done with them?Carewolf (talk) 10:37, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
What actual value does listing each individual instruction provide? It's boring technical detail. Imagine if we had articles on aircraft which explained what all the switches in the cockpit did - that's the sort of level this lies at. I don't think people would generally bat an eyelid if they were just removed, and the article stripped back to cover the same areas as the SSE2 article. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:48, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure what kind of entertainment you are expecting from an article on a processor instruction set. AVX-512 follows the structure of similar articles on SSE, SSE3/SSSE3 and AVX/AVX2, as well as XOP/FMA/F16C which all have a brief description of new instruction. AVX-512 additionally has a list of supported mnemonics from previous instruction sets that can be encoded with the EVEX prefix - this is important because desktop CPUs will have extensions that essentially update earlier SSE/FMA/MMX instructions. SSE2 article on the other hand is simply useless - no description of new instructions, their encoding scheme, no some real-world examples, just some general boring blah-blah that could be found elsewhere, i.e. SIMD and Instruction set architecture. Dmitry (talkcontibs) 21:02, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

The same kind of "entertainment" present in other encyclopedias: well-written general-purpose information which examines a subject from a real-world perspective rather than being an unedited content-dump for technical manuals. The SSE2 article is the only one of this set which pays the remotest heed to this, by happy accident. I'd sooner see all of its peers reduced to the same level of information and build back up than try to explain piecemeal to people who think that Wikipedia is an appropriate day-job opcode reference why this isn't a good idea. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 23:00, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Can you help me with a six years old issue?[edit]

Hi, Thumperward!

I have some troubles with lack of documentation of an old deleted template, Fix bunching. At the time of the deletion discussion, you seemed to be one of the people with most knowledge about it and its alternatives. I do understand that it may be harder for you to remember the details now. However, if you do or could refresh your memory, this could be a great help.

My problem is that Template:FixBunching once upon a time was copied to a Swedish variant, which is still present: sv:Mall:FixBunching. This template is used on some 80 articles, mainly about historical wars. It has no sensible categorisation, no iw-linking, and almost nothing on its talk page. It has no accompanying documentation; for the first years, there was a link to the documentation for Template:FixBunching, but some time after that was deleted, so was the link from our template, with no substitute. Just looking at how it is employed, I suspect that it was used to fix enlignment of several infobox contents, as well as providing hide/expand wrappings for some of them. Am I right?

I'd like either to document and classify our template, replace it, or delete it. I succeeded to find the deletion discussion, and see that you there refers to a talk item with the most fantastic title Template talk:Fix bunching#Universal fix has been discovered!. This sounds a bit like having found that elusive "last 8software) bug":-) but even with a more limited and context bound interpretation, I would with interest have followed the link, if the discussion had not been deleted together with the template. I suspect from the little of what you wrote that I've been able to find that indeed the enwiki template was made superfluous, either by some general software fix, or by some simple material rearrangement. I also suspect that the same would be true of its svwiki clone. However, these are just guesses.

I'd like some explanation about what the template did, and of what that ultimate fix did, and how to eliminate the template without loss of simplicity or functionality. Alternatively, if I got a copy of the deleted documentation, I might translate this to a Swedish documentation, and find an appropriate context for our template. However, if it really nowadays is unnecessary, elimination would be the optimal solution.

Do you think you can help me? JoergenB (talk) 15:52, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi! The "universal fix" in question was a CSS change to common.css as discussed in https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T28449 - that's really all I know about it. Maybe applying this to sv-wp will fix the issue? Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:26, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Ban evasion[edit]

Hello, I hope you don't mind but I have reverted edits made by the IP sock of a banned user. No offense intended. Cheers!   Aloha27  talk  12:15, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

I do mind, because I get email notifications every time it happens. Block the IP and move on. If you're not able to block the IP, then go and play admin elsewhere instead of spamming me please. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 12:39, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Follow Follow (fanzine)[edit]

Ambox warning yellow.svg

The article Follow Follow (fanzine) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Non-notable fanzine, no reliable or third party sources, fails WP:GNG.

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

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

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Jellyman (talk) 17:31, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message[edit]

Scale of justice 2.svgHello, Thumperward. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Open-Source Governance Flag[edit]

Hi Thumperward!

Thank you so much for your incredible and generous contributions to Wikipedia for so many years! I am currently working with a student of mine (User:Claradm) to improve the Open-source governance article and get the flag removed that I believe you placed all the way back in 2011. Do you think your flag is still relevant today, given all the edits that others have made? If so, what can we do to fix it?

Thanks so much for your help! David (talk) 01:01, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

P.S. I love the Netherlands! You're so lucky to live in such a progressive nation.

Hi David. This is the article as it was when it was tagged. A lot of the self-hosted references have been removed, and some good new secondary sources added. If you want to remove the tag then be my guest. Thanks! Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:11, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Administrative law in the People's Republic of China[edit]

Ambox warning blue.svgTemplate:Administrative law in the People's Republic of China has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Störm (talk) 11:29, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Nominating cnote templates for merge[edit]

Hi! The {{cnote}} templates has been nominated for merging with the {{efn}}/{{notelist}} family of templates. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. E to the Pi times i (talk | contribs) 06:29, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of List of fictional assimilating races for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of fictional assimilating races is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional assimilating races until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. –LaundryPizza03 (d) 18:28, 8 June 2018 (UTC)