User talk:Thumperward/Archive 56

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 50 ← Archive 54 Archive 55 Archive 56 Archive 57 Archive 58 → Archive 60

Noreena Hertz

I follow the BLP tag, but why is the Tone wrong? There's nothing so far in the talk page to justify that tagging that I can see - so far it's a pretty routine achievements list. Been searching news sources for more, but there really isn't much in print yet to go the other way. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 16:09, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

I removed both tags - there are actually quite a lot of refs in it for a short article. Not sure why you posted those, can you say a little more on it? Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 17:47, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
The lede of the article consists almost entirely of weasel words and a great many factual statements are still unreferenced. For instance, you've got user:Factwriter popping in to add completely unsourced paragraphs every now and then (given that said account has primarily been used to remove unsourced negative material from two interrelated articles I'd be unsurprised if it were a role account). That needs to be monitored closely, and the best way to do so is with cleanup tags. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 09:25, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
Agreed on the possible role editor and I mainly reverted the edit you refer to. Fair enough - I will add the tags back in. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 09:28, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Template trouble

Wikibooks Cookbook has a recipe/module on
Wikibooks Cookbook has a recipe/module on

Chris, do you know how to fix Template:Cookbook? The problem is that it allows only one article to be linked to. So for example, you can write {{Cookbook|Vegan cuisine}}, which gives you the template top right. But if you write {{Cookbook|Vegan cuisine|Vegan substitutions}}, it will only make the second visible, i.e. the template bottom right.

Any ideas? SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 21:17, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

The issue is that the current syntax creates a piped link from the first two parameters. I believe the best fix is to change the syntax to match other templates, like {{main}}, and then allow for multiple links, like {{main}}. Your friendly TPS. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 21:31, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
Thank, PS. I were to copy the code for {{main}} into {{Cookbook}}, would it mess everything up? SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 21:56, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
Yes, it would. I will update it in a bit. I am checking/fixing all the current transclusions to make sure this won't cause any problems. Thanks! Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:17, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
How's that? Or should there be an "and" in between? I am nearly finished checking/fixing all the current transclusions. There were only about a dozen out of 750 which were legitimately using the "link text override" feature. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:47, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
It's very kind of you to do that, thank you, and it looks good. I think it's okay without an "and," but it's up to you. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 00:11, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
It's also missing the full stop at the end, so I suppose there is no harm in omitting the "and". If someone wants it, I can added it later. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 02:09, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

FYI

As a major contributor I guess you'd be interested in Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion#Template:Infobox_football_biography. I figure you'd see this yourself sooner or later, but just in case...Regards --ClubOranjeT 07:24, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Ahhh, awesome. Cheers for the link! Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 09:18, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

What to make of it?

Hi there CHRIS, VASCO "here",

as the message title implies, where should we go to with this discussion (see here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Football#Raising_the_bar.3F). Both of the users i mentioned (and the one you mentioned!) have failed to convey their opinion, and it seems that the general "feeling" is that we were "looking" at a clear case of overcategorization.

Attentively, happy week - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 18:55, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

I would raise a nomination for all of the sub-categories at WP:CFD. Cheers. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 19:13, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
  • And who should i ask to move Ricardo Pereira's page back to where it should? I am Portuguese so i know, there are lots of Portuguese goalkeepers named as such, and the user in question (as usual in WP!) did not even write a word in summary. Thanks (again) in advance - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 21:16, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
This looked objectionable enough that I've undone it myself. Cheers. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 15:17, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
I've left him a note. FWIW I don't think the existing per-nationality twin categories should be depopulated until after there's been a CfD for them, but that wasn't an appropriate way for HandsomeFella to register his disproval. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 12:38, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
  • He has sent me a message, this time without the habitual belligerance. I promised him, and i promise you (i have sent him the archived link of the discussion so that he can view it and comment if he likes) i will abide by any decision that emerges from the discussion, if any. Cheers - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 01:36, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Information appliance infobox

Hi !

Nobody is answering in the template talk of the information appliance infobox. Maybe you could help. Since lots of smartphones are using this infobox, could you add something like "Front camera" or "Second camera" and also "Battery" as seen in the Mobile phone Infobox ?

Thanks --Zouzzou (talk) 23:57, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

I've replied over there. Thanks. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 12:54, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Desolation Row

Thumperward, I've added refs to this article, and tried to make lead more comprehensive, per your suggestion. Do you think "lead too short" tag still warranted? Mick gold (talk) 13:12, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Great work! I've removed the tag. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 13:18, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
Thanks! Mick gold (talk) 14:50, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Scottish football AFD

Hey! You mentioned you wanted to rename this article after close, so I thought I'd let you know I've closed the AFD as a keep. Keep up the great work, m.o.p 14:32, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Ah, great. I've moved the page. Cheers for the heads-up! Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 17:15, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Help with the image File:Jelavic_ARMS_out_courtesy_of_Willie_Vass.jpg

HI, I've been given permission via email by the author of this image File:Jelavic_ARMS_out_courtesy_of_Willie_Vass.jpg to upload it to Wikipedia. This has been disputed, can you advise me on how I can sort the license out? Any help would be appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Parky-RFC (talk • contribs) 09:36, 18 February 2011

I've sent an email to the address you have registered regarding how to move forward with this. Cheers. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 19:54, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Comments welcome

See Template_talk:Infobox_NBA_biography#Recall and MediaWiki_talk:Common.css#Template:infobox. Thanks! Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 21:16, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

It looks as if everything's under control on both threads: great work in prompting the infobox styling to finally be moved into the default CSS. Cheers for the links. :) Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 19:31, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
Yes, and, this should mean an end to the font-size edit warring on that particular infobox. Thanks! Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 21:58, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Archiving HDQ

When you made this edit where did my comment that starts "I don't think anyone has asked you too, but would" and the others edits that immediately preceded it go? -- PBS (talk) 01:37, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Oops. Lost while cutting and pasting between tabs. I've restored the thread in question; won't happen again, as the archiving bot should now be able to cope with the remaining content. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 01:46, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Template:Infobox cemetery

Hi, you seem to have some experience with the editing of Infoboxes. Would you mind taking a look at the discussion of the Infobox:Cemetery? There are a few issues with titles and attributes there which could benefit from the application of a skilled hand! Thanks. Ephebi (talk) 14:37, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Sure thing: I'll see if I can address everything that's been raised in the next day or so. Cheers! Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 15:28, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Necrons

Regardingthe necron article, i do not see the reason for getting rid of the information like the HQ units, etc. To be honest i find it frustrating that wikipedia is gradually getting rid of its own information, while its original purpose was collecting and storing information Sclera2 (talk) 04:08, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

That was never Wikipedia's purpose. Wikipedia is supposed to be a general-knowledge encyclopedia which presents subjects from a real-world point of view based on independent reliable sources. It is not supposed to be a storehouse for copyrighted material. It was decided a long time ago that the Games Workshop articles in their former state were inappropriate. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 07:31, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
does that mean that you are going to get rid of all of the information regarding the warhammer units in every article? Sclera2 (talk) 11:38, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
Most articles were already excised of such material three years ago. If any remain they'll be cleaned up in due course. There are external sites such as Lexicanium which are the perfect home for such material: there is no need to duplicate that effort on Wikipedia. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 11:46, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Request for help with bot archiving of Talk:Reinhard Heydrich

I have had a request I have had a request to help out with the bot archiving of Talk:Reinhard Heydrich. As I have never set one up and you clearly have more expertise in this area than me, please could you have a look at it for user:Kierzek. I would also appreciate it if you would consider, given the moderate amount of traffic to that talk page, if bot archiving is appropriate. -- PBS (talk) 10:40, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

With pleasure. The oldest comments are now archived properly and the bot should do the rest in due course. Bot archiving is probably okay, so long as it's set to a reasonable time, and 90 days seems fine here. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 11:49, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
Thank you, Thumperward a/k/a Chris, for the assistance therein. Cheers, Kierzek (talk) 01:42, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Tree shaping

There is a proposed Topic Ban for Blackash and Slowart on Tree shaping related articles at the Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents As you have had some involvement with these editors in question, you may wish to comment. Blackash have a chat 00:23, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification. I don't feel I have anything to add to the ANI discussion at this point, though I will try to check in to the article in question more often now. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 07:38, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Airport Novel

I am pretty new to Wikipedia editing, but I think it was you who first flagged up the article on airport novel with the 'original research' template. I stumbled across the article recently and thought it was very amusing. I think you are quite right about its problems, but all the best encyclopedias and dictionaries have moderately quirky articles of this kind, full of personal flavour. I think this one is not misleading or offensive, and quite funny -- and quite short. But the template notice puts it under a kind of cloud and makes it vulnerable to oblivionisation. It would be a shame if it were lost. Might you consider removing your flag-up, if indeed you were the one who first flagged it, or even protecting it?

Mens Sana (talk) 15:27, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

The article is unlikely to be deleted. If its quirks are lost in the process of improving it, I don't consider that to be a bad thing. I've seen plenty of terrible articles evolve eventually into best-of-breed, and that's what I would rather happened to this article in the long run. Tagging it helps to get the attention of people who can help with that. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 17:18, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Odd problem

Chris, feel free to ignore this if it's a pain in the neck (and I really mean that: no reply is expected), but I'm having weird issues with the interface changing on me a lot. I described it here, and someone said it meant my browser doesn't receive main.css from bits.wikimedia.org. If you have any idea what that means, or how I could fix it, advice would be much appreciated. But, as I said, if you have no time or inclination, I'll completely understand. Best, SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 00:12, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, first things first: if you click on that link to main.css, does the file load as text in your browser? If that loads okay, can you then hit reload on a page and get the layout working? Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 07:26, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
Hi Chris, when I click on the main.css link, it does load as text in my browser. After the first time I did that, the problem lessened. That is, I was able to edit in Monobook for several hours uninterrupted, with the other odd interface appearing only a few times, whereas before it had been there almost all the time. That's still the case. The other interface has appeared only sporadically over the last 24 hours. When it does should I simply click on that link again to stabilize Monobook (or whatever it's doing, forgive my ignorance)? SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 14:43, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
That's the file that the browser uses to style your page. If for some reason it can't load that file, you'll get the unstyled content (which is the problem you're having). It's difficult to tell why your browser is having problems accessing that file, but if manually loading it is working then that's a good enough workaround. If this is a long-term problem it might be worth checking with your ISP or with a local technical type to see if there any network problems with your system. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 15:47, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Okay, thank you, that's very helpful. I was having the same problem with Firefox and Chrome, and with SlimVirgin and two other testing accounts I set up with default or near-default preferences. I then tried it on a different computer with a different operating system, and it was the same. The only two constants were my ISP and Wikipedia, but as I was the only person experiencing it when I asked on the pump, it seemed unlikely that it was WP.
If I contact my ISP how can I explain the problem (I have no technical vocabulary)? Would the issue be that my network connection may be causing pages not to render properly? SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 16:48, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
The issue is that for some reason you can't access http://bits.wikimedia.org/skins-1.17/monobook/main.css all the time: there could be a number of reasons for that, but that's the simplest description of the problem. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 17:03, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Okay, thank you very much for this help, as always. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 17:22, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Stub templates

Hi. Stub templates are usually under categories and not before other templates. Pelmeen10 (talk) 12:16, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm aware of that convention but I've always ignored it, along with the admonition to leave two blank lines before stub tags. This convention exists solely to work around the problem where stub categories are placed before regularly cats in the footer, and as far as I'm concerned that should be addressed properly in the main Mediawiki code (as it is in Wikia) rather than through a hack here. I've been meaning for some time to propose changing the convention for good, but haven't really the heart for that debate right now. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 13:53, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Template:Infobox professional association

Hi, last year you changed Template:Infobox professional association (here) but it appears that you did not update the doc page to match. The parameters on the doc page 

| subsib            =  
| Prof_association_slogan =

do not match; I haven't checked all the others. - Fayenatic (talk) 13:51, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

subsid should work fine: Prof_association_slogan didn't work in the previous revision either (looks to have been an error when the template was created), so it looks like I just carried the bug across rather than introducing a new one. I've fixed Prof_association_slogan, which should now work. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 13:57, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
The slogan works now, thanks. Should we just change subsib to subsid in the doc page? - Fayenatic (talk) 14:41, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
Ah, I missed that typo in the documentation! I've fixed it. Fortunately this was only a problem with the doc, and the code should have worked fine for any editors who caught it when deploying the template. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 15:19, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Bryan Gunn

Good to have your help, thanks. Does the pic of Ferguson need to go on the right? Just looks a bit "block"y, below the infobox. Also, is there a better way of showing the inline citations in the quote boxes? --Dweller (talk) 09:31, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

It's clashing with a header when placed on the left, and also interferes with the indentation on the quote template. Normal practice with references which apply to quotes is to place the ref immediately before the quote, after the colon in the preceding paragraph; I forgot to move it myself. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 10:04, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. --Dweller (talk) 10:06, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

I tried...

Hi. I´m sorry to bother you with Ludanoc (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) but I tried my best and things didn´t change a bit, I could even dare to say that they are worste. These days he made again many of the same old pages he had created already and were deleted. I left him a comment on his talk page trying to explain him how things work around here (User_talk:Ludanoc#Hello_Luda_no.C4.87), but since then, he created further 4 (!) non-notable articles (Adnan Bektašević, Elvis Holić, Amar Plojović and Elvedin Škrijelj), reverted me in a correction ([1]), removed twice a speedy deletion nomination from his talk page (here and here) and ignored me in my both aproaches, in English and an unnecessary good-faith one in Serbian, all this today, and knowing his earlier contributions are basically the same. He seems to think that he can just ignore other users and ignore the recomendations, or he doesn´t even understand them. I honestly think he doesn´t speak English, and he shouldn´t edit further en.wiki not knowing the language and ignoring all principles. What to do next? I mean, he contributes only to articles related to one club, and the club article is already too much expanded for the club size, so basically, even if he understood things, he doesn´t have much to contribute on that, and all notable players the club has already have an article (I did the last ones deserving article), so all he does is making articles for the non-notable ones. His contributions, beside disruptive, are unnecessary, meaning, en.wiki has already that subject well expanded. FkpCascais (talk) 22:46, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Assuming that those articles end up getting deleted, let me know if he does it again and I'll block. If you can speak his native language I'd appreciate if you left a warning for him explaining that his actions will result in a block. Cheers. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 09:24, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
His last edit was 4 days ago. If he returns and continues with his same old maners, I´ll give him some sort of poke. Many thanks. I´ll bother you if something is needed :) FkpCascais (talk) 21:29, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

TfD

Hello, Thumperward. You have new messages at Justin Ormont's talk page.
Message added 09:24, 21 March 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

per Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Football#Just_to_clarify

  • Q What we believe it "is"? or what we believe it "should be"?--ClubOranjeT 09:48, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
What it currently represents. We obviously all have different ideas as to what it should be, but we might as well see if we agree on what it does right now first. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 09:51, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Ben Affleck template

You have not responded as to whether you are now satisfied with the state of the template at Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2011_March_20#Template:Ben_Affleck.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:33, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, no objections at all now. Thanks! Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 12:46, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Thumperward/Archive_56&oldid=1078913024"