User talk:Thumperward

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

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)

Yes check.svg 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.svg Hello, 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)

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.svg Hello, 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)