User talk:Thumperward/Archive 75

Archive 70

←

Archive 73

Archive 74

Archive 75

Archive 76

Archive 77

→

Archive 80

Edinburgh Wanderer situation

My mistake Chris I should have clarified. Adam4267 (talk) 17:34, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

I think we need to try and work out a way where you and EW can either work together contstructively or not work together at all. I have been talking to EW about this and I've been trying to tell him not to do an RFC or anything. As I've been trying to say I think both of you need to change a bit but what I want to see more than anything is this situation getting resolved one way or the other where we don't have this croppingup at virtualy every discussion. Adam4267 (talk) 17:37, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

I can't really do anything to prevent him getting hysterical, and I'm far from the only editor he's had such a run-in with (WFC, for instance, wouldn't say boo to a goose, and yet I'm sure EW thinks he "hates" him as well). In this particular case I hope that after alerting the project again I can just step away. In the long run he's just going to end up getting blocked by an uninvolved editor. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 17:51, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

I think the first thing you should do is stop insulting him, "hysterical" and other such things. Whether you think he is "hysterical" or not using a term like that is completely unhelpful and if you must say something like that use a less insulting term. Also saying he doesn't know what he is talking about isn't helpful. He understands the situation quite well, although he might have made one or two mistakes. That's understandable considering how quick things are changing. I think everyone (including me and you) have made mistakes in the discussion. Adam4267 (talk) 18:19, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm really not sure he does understand the situation, though. All of two hours ago he still insisted on backing up an entirely incorrect reading of who owns the "oldco" from andrewcrawford which is the very centrepiece of the entire debate. He doesn't understand why the new entity would have to use a new crest (which is the most very basic aspect of club upheaval). And he's extraordinarily resistant to being corrected on these matters by any but the very small number of editors he regards as friendly. It's little surprise that he winds editors up the wrong way. But of course you're right that making pointed comments at him isn't helping, and I'm at fault on that one. I'd intended simply to ignore comments I regarded as unconstructive and haven't managed that so far. I'm going to try harder on that front. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 18:40, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

according to the the rangers football club article the crest was bought as part of the assesst so they can contuniing using the old one, i suggest you read the sources they confirm green bougth wthye sahres so he techincally owns the old club but i am not goign to try be less involvedAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 18:44, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Are you referring to a reliable source, or the Wikipedia article that EW wrote? And no, on the shares issue you're wholly mistaken. You simply cannot understand exactly why there is a newco at all if you think Green owns the oldco. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 18:53, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

yes i was refering tot he new article but that isnt getting contested. i do know the process very well but green said over a week ago he bought whytes sahres so he techincally owns the oldco, but since teh cva was reject they have made a newco, i think it is you that doesnt udnerstand but i am sitting back as i agree with what you said a few times we need to wait and see nothing is clear cut no source is agreeing with each other no one knows and make matter worse people liek green say one tihng about one perosn and then that person says no wait a minute that not true i mean the Ian Hunt investor sitution but there is other thingsAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 18:58, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Tymoschuk

Hi. You recently added a template to the top of the article on Anatoliy Tymoschuk. That template requires you to specify your concerns about the article in detail on the article's talk page. I am removing unless you a do so.--BoguSlav 02:36, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

WP Football in the Signpost

The WikiProject Report would like to focus on WikiProject Football for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Multiple editors will have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions, so be sure to sign your answers. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day. -Mabeenot (talk) 16:06, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Template:Where is it

See the thread on my talk page. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 23:38, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Rangers FC club dead or not". Thank you. --Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 16:35, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Template:Talk header

Hi Chris. About your edit today to {{talk header}} - I tried searching on a couple of pages that the template is transcluded on, and the search is coming up with no results because the page has two slashes added to the end. For example, searching for "ayn rand" using the template on Talk:Atlas Shrugged comes up with this. This should probably be reverted until we can figure out what's causing the problem. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 11:27, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

I'd forgotten that {{search box}} automatically adds the slash. Should be fixed now: can you check? Cheers, and sorry for the mess! Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:36, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Yep, looks like that got it. Thanks! — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 12:26, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 28

Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

List of applications of near field communication (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Rogers

XUL (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to MPL

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 15:29, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

A Barnstar for You

		The Template Barnstar
		For your work here. Mir Almaat Ali Almaat ☏ From Trivandrum, Kerala, India(UTC+5:30) 04:52, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Microsoft Security Essentials

Hello, Thumperward

There are a couple of things that I thought you ought to know about your recent edits in Microsoft Security Essentials article. The article is currently undergoing an FA scrutiny and the current established consensus is to keep the inline section links (which your edit summary refers to as "anchors") because they help the stability of the article. You see, the article history shows that people tend to insert {{Citation needed}} in the lead section because they find those statements controversial; but either they don't know or don't care that there should be no sources in the lead section and that they should check the body for sources first. But the history shows that with the inline links present, people no longer insert those tags.

As for your other edit, I am afraid it's very troublesome for me. You see, I need to be able to check sources left and right and so I'd really appreciate a more readable article source.

So, do you mind if you please leave the article the way it was?

Best regards
Codename Lisa (talk) 20:09, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm not fond of intra-article links at all. The first one that I noticed was broken at the time (and is right now), and there is nothing worse than a link which does nothing when it's clicked. The argument that they're needed to stop people sticking {{cn}}s in doesn't hold much water with me: that's a matter of user education, as editors should be aware that well-written leads don't need references so long as the body has them. The other matter (whitespace changes to the references}} is obviously a personal matter, so reverting that is fine by me. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 20:26, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Hello again

Thanks for letting me know about the broken link. I am also not fond of internal links and I assure you, in a perfect Wikipedia, in which no IP editor would have threatened the stability of an article during an FA review, I would have never dreamed of keeping the internal links or reverting you. But as the other two reviewers agreed, the remedying property of these internal links, under these circumstances, far outweighs their slight perceived unwantedness. Don't you agree?

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 20:45, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

What about using named references instead, so that you can re-use the existing references in the lead? I see the issue of using internal links was raised during FAR, and though the reviewer was satisfied with the response it's obviously still something that divides opinion. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 20:50, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi.

There is no need for a huge row or exhaustive discussion in FAR; either the reviewer is satisfied or a fatal oppose is given. (Mind you, the standards there is high and strict.) But I also thought of named references back then. So, I went around the Wikipedia and checked; they seem to be less popular than internal links. There is a very big problem with them: There is policy text against their presence in the lead. I would probably have to argue that it is a "Microsoft" issue and resolve to using WP:IAR. Sticking with the internal links seemed the better compromise. The only real problem with them is that people are not used to see them in Wikipedia and so they think since they are such a rare sight, they are "bad".

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 21:19, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

No, the real problem is that they break easily and when they break they confuse the heck out of people ("why does this internal link no longer work?" "Why does it work in IE6 but not IE7?"). In my experience named links are vastly more common in high-quality articles. I don't know where you're getting the assertion that "There is policy text against their presence in the lead": there is no such advice on WP:LEAD, and all I've ever seen against them is a suggestion that the lead need not be referenced, rather than must not. If that's the only reason to oppose them, it stands to reason that they should be used, considering the added robustness and the elimination of the Easter egg factor. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 21:24, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi.

Thanks for the link to the policy page. As for where I get the assertion, I think you do know where; only you have not seen the bigger picture yet. The assertion comes from WP:CITELEAD section that says "editors should balance the desire to avoid redundant citations in the lead with the desire to aid readers in locating sources for challengeable material". The keyword here is redundant citations. Now if you have immediately thought "This phrase and that conclusion? No way!", I think you should re-read the FAR: In multiple instances, there has been objections as to why I have "dumped" multiple citations on single sentences when one was perceived enough. The trouble is that it is impossible to just replace one inline link with one named reference. I have to "dump" multiple citations, for you see, I cannot find a single source that is reliable enough to say Microsoft Security Essentials elicited mixed responses or received generally positive reviews. Even if I did, I will have to fight an endless battle with Microsoft haters who think there is not enough sources, reviewers who think I must "balance the desire" (policy text) and other reviewers who dish out weasel word allegations and advertisement charges. (I am sure you have seen all these in Wikipedia, given the fact that you have been here far too longer.)

So, replacing an internal link with sufficient inline citations is a one-way ticket to trouble. In my humble opinion, internal links break so rarely that it is an emphatically easy maintenance burden to shoulder. I think we should just have an open mind and do not reject the internal links just because they are rarely seen, especially since they are clean and do not put a bump in the flow of the prose.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 22:11, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Meh. I think this is a rather broken solution to what could only be questionably described as a problem, but I'm certainly not going to stand in your way regarding the FAR over it (as the article is extremely good, and this is basically just a difference in opinion). Good luck! Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 22:20, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi.

Thanks! It is very nice of you.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 12:49, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

cleanup -> copyedit

Hi Thumperward. When you change {{cleanup}} to {{copyedit}}, please would you also set the date to the current month. This avoids recreating cleanup categories that we've cleared out and deleted. Thanks. --Stfg (talk) 19:26, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Noted. Thanks. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:16, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

template:fcitation

Hi. I just stumbled into this new suite of 'fast' templates. They're fast because they're cut down, and I'm seeing them break pages they've been deployed to; specifically breaking harv/sfn links. Where's the most centralised page to discuss this? I'm not against faster, but am opposed to breakage and forking. The usual templates are too fat, and slimming them down would be good. These I believe go too far. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 04:28, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Wikid77 and new 'fast' citation templates Br'er Rabbit (talk) 05:51, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

It's been shifted to Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Wikid77 and new 'fast' citation templates. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 10:45, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Argh. Cheers for nipping this in the bud. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 08:04, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

It's back: {{cite quick}}. Same rejected reduced functionality per WP:IDHT. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 22:04, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Oh, that "amendment" to Plastikspork's TfD close is delicious. I'll try to monitor this as W77 shops it about, but ping me if for some bizarre reason it gets traction anywhere. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 22:49, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Isn't it ;>

I've a thread going with Gadget. He favours the 'lite' idea and I just explained the down side I see. The proper outcome of all this should be improved core, not more inappropriate variations. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 22:55, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

There is no reason at all that the overengineering in the core citation templates can't be unwound if that is truly necessary. That's the long and the short of it. Fortunately plenty of people understand this and plenty more trust them. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 23:08, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

I've no problem with some pruning in there. There are too many aliases and quirks that muck things up. Best outcome would be merging styles 1 & 2, losing dross, and better cite tools.

Seen this: Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2012-08-06/Op-ed? Br'er Rabbit (talk) 23:20, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

• Another one: {{cite web/smart}} and see:
  • WP:VPT#Cite quick 12x faster for short cites

Br'er Rabbit (talk) 15:42, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Thumperward. You have new messages at DRAGON BOOSTER's talk page.
Message added 13:41, 11 July 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

DRAGON BOOSTER ★ 13:41, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

using portal with more than 18 portals

I have been converting the "ports" template, and the only major issue I have encountered is with the massive list in List of U.S. states#See also. I was able to make it look like one box, but there is probably some that doesn't look so sloppy in the wikitext. Frietjes (talk) 22:29, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

• I'd just bin the list entirely. This is a "full US" article, so doesn't need state-specific portals. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 07:59, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Thumperward. You have new messages at DRAGON BOOSTER's talk page.
Message added 14:30, 12 July 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

DRAGON BOOSTER ★ 14:30, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

International Atomic Time

Your addition of a template to the top of this article with no further comment or explanation on the talk page does not really tell editors what area you are concerned about. The article has a considerable number of citations, and much of the information is readily available in various reference works, and thus not contentious. Please specify which areas of the article you believe need additional citations. Jc3s5h (talk) 15:17, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

It's not so much that it needs a greater number of footnotes as that it needs a more diverse set of sources. There are only four sources used for footnotes in the article at present and one of them accounts for over half of the given citations. I could be persuaded that this isn't an important enough problem for a tag, though. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 15:21, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Lead rewrite of JFS (file system)?

What problems do you see with the lead at JFS (file system)? You should really use a better edit summary or comment on the talk page when it is not obvious. Thanks. --Pmsyyz (talk) 18:29, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Three quarters of it is rambling disambiguation rather than a summary of the actual article body. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:33, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

I noticed a problem on your talkpage: not enough kittens!

Arcandam (talk) 21:40, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 15

Hi. When you recently edited Came, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Leaded glass (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:04, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Spoilers in episode lists?

Hi, I see you've been involved in Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Television. I have begun a discussion on spoilers in episode lists and would appreciate your input. -- ke4roh (talk) 02:27, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Infobox Fishery Begin

I bet you didn't know that Fisheries are part of the military history project. Frietjes (talk) 18:29, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Awesome. I've resurrected {{infobox fishery}} and migrated it onto a merged codebase. Cheers. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:24, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Mediawiki:Loginend

Hi. I've replied at the talk page. Your reasoning is good. But on the login page where this message is transcluded, there is a H2 (Log in) under the H1. The accessibility improvement is for the login page, not this MediaWiki system page. It should be a H3, definitely. Thanks ! Dodoïste (talk) 13:28, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Ah, okay. I've made the change. Thanks very much. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:24, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Kris Boyd

Hi Chris, I'd just like to inform you that I feel Boyd's article no longer meets GA standard. I left a note on the talk page a while ago detailing some of my concerns. I know both you and Monkeymanman worked on it but you were the GA nominator and I also think he is not around much anymore so I thought I'd leave a message with you. Thanks Adam4267 (talk) 20:04, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Yep, you're correct; it hasn't really been maintained since passing GA. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:20, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't want to see it de-listed but I don't have the time to upgrade it myself and I assume you wouldn't and I don't think Monkeyman would. In all honesty I think its barely a B class never mind a GA. The only thing I can think of is to try and re-direct some of the users who are currently at the Rangers and Newco Rangers articles but I higly doubt that would work. Adam4267 (talk) 17:25, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Rename

Could you look at User_talk:MBisanz#User:Edinburgh_Wanderer? Thanks. MBisanz ^talk 15:13, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Still not a clean start candidate, from what I understand "clean start" to mean. My impression is that EW wants to shed his editing history (in particular his recent meltdown) but carry on as if nothing had otherwise changed. I can think of at least two examples (Off2riorob/Youreallycan and Le Grand Roi/A Nobody) where this hasn't worked out very well. (In fact make that three, as I see Fae has just been banned.) Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 17:20, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Chris, I think I'm going to do it on the theory that he's asking for a rename, so all the bad history (logs, edits, etc) will move over to the new account. From what I can remember, the people you cite simply created new accounts without the edit history of their old accounts. I emailed crat-l, but would you like me to go to BN before acting? MBisanz ^talk 19:07, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Nah, that's cool with me. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 19:10, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Chris. Let me know if there are other problems down the road. MBisanz ^talk 20:15, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

nb: Rob created YRC as a new account, but A Nobody was a rename from Le Grand Roi. This, of course, was before he was AC/Community banned and then returned with the quite unclean start as Northamerica1000. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 20:20, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

A joke, Jack? Is that really an LGR sock? Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 23:53, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

I believe so; and Jclemens called him out on it in January on an or ani. I pointed it out privately last summer, too. 'round an' 'round teh vicious wiki-circles go. Who do you think HectorMoffet is ;) Br'er Rabbit (talk) 03:32, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

template:politics box/sandbox

is the idea to replace the existing politics box with this one, or replace both with a simple {{sidebar}}? if the idea is to replace the existing one with this one, we could enable both using a {{#if:{{{1|}}}|new code|old code}}. if the idea is to replace both, then I am happy to help with process. currently, it's not the best situation, since the sandbox is being used in live articles. Frietjes (talk) 17:27, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

It was a half-baked idea I started to implement and never finished. It's only deployed on the Saint Lucia and USA templates, so they could just be reverted. I'm going to have to just manually convert all of the sidebars the same way as with the fisheries templates (except with a thirtyfold increase in the required work). Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 17:50, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

so, we could move it to template:politics of sidebar, then refactor all the templates calling template:politics box? Frietjes (talk) 19:48, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

My thought was to move it to {{politics box start}} and then start a new {{politics box}}, as with the fisheries. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 23:54, 22 July 2012 (UTC)