User talk:Thumperward/Archive 85
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 80 | ← | Archive 83 | Archive 84 | Archive 85 | Archive 86 | Archive 87 | → | Archive 90 |
Infoboxes and Persondata
I'm drafting an essay at User:Pigsonthewing/Persondata. I'd appreciate your thoughts, please; not least with regard to its clarity. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:00, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
- It's a clear explanation of the limitations of {{persondata}}, but I'm not sure how effective it is for what I assume is its intended purpose (as a rebuttal to the anti-infobox argument). Perhaps it would be better to reframe it as a general essay on metadata on Wikipedia and all the different ways that we can improve the semantic value of our articles: too few editors really have a grasp of the subject in the first place, and a gentle but persuasive introduction to a mass audience would be more effective in the long run than a pointed rebuttal to specific arguments against or in favour of one tool in the box. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 14:34, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
- Thank you; and your point about grasp and gentle persuasion is well made. I plan to write (and may incorporate the above in) such an essay at some point; but the one under discussion was meant to counter the specific suggestion that we don't need metadata in infoboxes because we have persondata; rather than to resolve the wider debate. It arose from a discussion a while ago (it's not a new essay), the location of which I have since forgotten! Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:38, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
Talkback
Message added 17:36, 15 February 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Cabe6403 (Talk•Sign) 17:36, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
Notice
Hi Chris, I just wanted to let you know about this discussion at AN/I in which you're mentioned. Have a great weekend. --76.189.111.199 (talk) 09:11, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for February 19
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited CentOS, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Enterprise class (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) 11:20, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
a page too large to edit
An editor recently came to me to ask for help with Wikipedia:Tambayan Philippines/History of the Philippines (citations), which is being used as a citation template, but has become too large to edit (see this thread). perhaps you have some ideas? Frietjes (talk) 23:17, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
- I'd just delete it. The author can keep this list of references locally: it's completely impractical to host it here. Wikipedia may aim to be the sum of all human knowledge, but not all one one Web page. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 23:58, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
- Heh. Looking at the revision history, it appears my tests are now finally showing up in the history. If he wants to tag this as U1 I'll nuke it. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:00, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
- it looks like we are going back to where we started, using WP space as template space. Frietjes (talk) 16:01, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
- Heh. Looking at the revision history, it appears my tests are now finally showing up in the history. If he wants to tag this as U1 I'll nuke it. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:00, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
- I really don't like this approach, but killing all the templates at least means that the page can be edited. It might be worth starting a discussion at WT:REF or another central board to gauge community consensus on whether we should allow for this. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:49, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#I have a strange problem -- Gadget850 (Ed) talk 19:14, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
- The only surprising thing about this is that it's the perpetrator who is complaining about it. Hopefully that will help kick this into the correct conclusion. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 20:51, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
A person who has full support
Hello, Chris
I am really sorry for bother you this time but I'm feeling helpless here. We have a sensational editor who is apparently badly carried away, making a huge fuss in Talk:Microsoft Office 2013 for something that is already discussed and everyone agrees with him. (You read it right: Agrees, not disagrees.) He wants to put something in the article that everyone is okay with, only instead of doing it, he starts a discussion and without waiting for reply, adds an RFC tag. I seem to have trouble telling him: "Okay buddy, just do it!"
Granted, I reverted his edit once but only because his contribution was already put in the article. And the fuss he is making is not related to my revert either. He is pulling one of the replies from a previous discussion that told me we needed more coverage. Only what is conveniently disregarded here is that we did add more coverage.
Is there anything you can do? Because I fear when we have so much trouble when no edit is done, how much trouble are we going to have when he makes a controversial edit?
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 07:31, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
- The issue seems to be resolved: his problem was with the mention not being in the lead, and he now seems satisfied. In general, there is no need to worry about people being over-enthusiastic. If it translates to bad behaviour in future then that can be looked at when it happens. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:54, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
- Hi. Phew! Yes, we are lucky he got satisfied by accident. Man, he sends contradictory signals! Again, thank you and I'm sorry for bothering you. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 10:12, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
A dramatic turn
- Hello, Chris
- Sorry to bother you again but it seems this time the problem is far more serious. User:Dogmaticeclectic has started reverting again. (In this very same article and about the same topic.) I have had problem with this user earlier: He is an avid revert warrior and does not hesitate to lie in his edit summaries like he is doing now. (I am very sorry to have to comment on a contributor, but do I have a better option here?) Furthermore, his communication policy is never to communicate with anyone. (Please see WP:NINJA.)
- Correct me if I am wrong but I believe the policy is to cease editing and contact an admin immediately, should I encounter this behavior. I am ready to discuss with this guy and I am open to compromises if there is a need. But is this guy too?
- Best regards,
- Codename Lisa (talk) 10:48, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
- P.S. I have opened a DRN case. However, as I am reading it, it looks ludicrous: Basically, I am demanding to know why is this person is violating WP:SYNTH and WP:V by adding sensational newspaper coverage that are not verified against any source. But what else I can do when a user thinks he owns Wikipedia? Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 12:06, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
- In all honesty, I think you're taking this dispute a little too personally: yes, there are editors plainly interested in using Wikipedia as a soapbox over this issue, but it's not such an urgent or egregious problem as to require direct administrative action. For what it's worth, the external opinions being offered at DRN appear to favour your (correct) view that we should err on the side of caution and refrain from inserting personal analysis into the article, and in the long run I'm certain that the article will reflect that. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:28, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
- Hi. Chris, I certainly did not mean that kind of admin intervention. (But since admins treat my requests like this, I am starting to assume a lot of young editors just come to admin talk pages and ask for another editor to be blocked in a "go to the dean's office and tell on the punk" manner. Seriously, do people think admins flick their blocking wand and problems go away?) I never request nuclear launch authorization because even if my request is granted, we will end up having radioactive ground. So, in case I have never said it before: I take responsibility for the discussion that I start and my point of view; I have the capacity to face defeat and be a good loser because Wikipedia is not about winning and losing.
- What I was hoping you to give me was some kind of guideline to follow in case I run into what we have at hand: FleetCommand and Dogmaticeclectic engaged in a verbal sparring. Communication skill and experience is what seems admins need to become an admin and what I evidently lack. I thought maybe you could give me a good tip or two. I was not waiting for magic but the non-magic thing, coupled with patience and civil manners is no less wonderful than miracle.
- Best regards,
- Codename Lisa (talk) 21:54, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
- Hello again. I am re-reading your messages again, and it seems the "admin intervention" theme has been on your mind from the very beginning, although I never suggested it. So, while I was hoping I was not bothering you, I was actually tormenting you by projecting the image of a crybaby? And only because crybaby is the default image of anyone who calls an admin? I was trying not to be a pig and all along I was a martian... This is just priceless. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 22:32, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
- While admins can act as mediators in these disputes, we aren't Jedi Knights and mediation only really works if all parties are involved: where they're still shouting over the top of one another, mediation rarely helps. My advice is just to disengage for the time being. It's a relatively minor content dispute that will likely work itself out in the long run. If you wish, check in on it from time to time to see if any new faces have arrived. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 16:14, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
- Hello, Chris. I did not ask for mediation either; it is up to DRN. Your advice about disengaging is also valuable but not in cases where Dogmaticeclectic or FleetCommand are involved. (Remember MSE FAC and what you told me about him?) But I think this discussion was a false start from the very beginning. Let's end it here and now. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 16:47, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
WikiProject Cleanup
 You are invited to join WikiProject Cleanup, a WikiProject and resource for Wikipedia cleanup listings, information and discussion. |
|---|
Chick magnet listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Chick magnet. Since you had some involvement with the Chick magnet redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). The Vintage Feminist (talk) 11:00, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
- Replied over there. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:11, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
You have a new message at CsDix's talk page.
You have a new message at CsDix's talk page.
You have a new message at CsDix's talk page.
Hello again, Thumperward / Chris:
I understand the return to the hanging dots, but any particular reason for (1) the initial "{{ sidebar" spacing and casing; and (2) for the (surplus) spaces between parameter names and equals-signs that I should also understand (and so perhaps follow)..? CsDix (talk) 15:30, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
- The initial space is a personal idiosyncrasy that I use to denote multi-line templates. (It's also occasionally caught some bugs in bots that scrape wikisource.) The other padding is so that the equals signs for all the template's parameters are vertically aligned: again, not strictly necessary, but it's very common practice and helps to make the code a little more readable. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 12:24, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
Greetings, I've noticed your interest in articles relating to C/C++ and would like to invite you to join the WikiProject C/C++, a group of Wikipedians devoted to improving articles related to C and C++. If you're interested, please consider adding yourself to the list of participants and joining the discussion on the talkpage. --—Sowlos
alignment of members in infobox musical artist
you might find this thread interesting. Frietjes (talk) 00:52, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
I'm just wondering if you still have a use for Category:Navboxes using background colours or shall I remove it? -- WOSlinker (talk) 16:17, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
- I still use it from time to time to track nonstandard usage; any particular reason for bringing it up now? Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:03, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
Talkback
Message added 18:05, 8 March 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
‑Scottywong| verbalize _ 18:05, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
Template:Library resources box
could probably use some conversion to a more standard floating box format, or no floating box if there is a problem with confusing it with the sister links. Frietjes (talk) 19:22, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
- Yeah, the sidebox needs to go: we've a firm consensus that only sister projects get sideboxed. I'll try to have a look this week. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:04, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
Uncivil language and accusations
In recent edits on Talk:Kopi_Luwak#Photos you used language that was not civil, and which was unjustified. WP:NOTPERFECT Specifically your response to adding a single image was the unjustified accusation "pretty flagrant attempt to use the article as a soapbox, pushing an agenda" and after a single revert / request to discuss, an accusation of edit warring. These accusations are ill-considered accusations of impropriety, and are inconsistent with WP:GOODFAITH and WP:DNB Kaffiend (talk) 09:18, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
- You made a poorly-rationalised edit to the article which had a significant effect on its perceived neutrality and then immediately reverted when this was disputed. Given the article's history of use as a platform for promotion and advocacy, it was always likely that such edits would be perceived in a bad light (witness the indefinite block of another editor in the recent past on the same article, which is being discussed elsewhere). If you're looking for an apology, then reciting policy shortcuts at me is an odd way to go about it. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:00, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
- If you perceived any issues with my explanation, you didn't raise them at the time. It's irrelevant claiming them now. In flagging your poor contribution on your talk page, I hope you appreciate I've taken the time to try and understand wikipedia policies and follow their recommendations. Maybe you're simply not aware. Maybe you're a great admin who was in a bad mood, or you associate bad editor behaviour with the page (as you seem to be saying) and unwittingly vent on editors who are making legitimate contributions. That doesn't seem like a great excuse to me. Maybe you're not conscious that such behaviour intimidates new editors and deters participation. By posting this I hope to draw it to your attention. Kaffiend (talk) 14:00, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
- My experience seem consistent with the observations of others. For example: Administrator Thumperward assuming bad faith "Thumperward should promise to strive to be more civil in the future; in my humble opinion, his civil communication and social skills definitely require improvements in order to reach the standard level that is expected of a Wikipedia administrator and one who should be a model of good behavior for us Wikipedians." Kaffiend (talk) 15:26, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
- I definitely see parallels between these two incidents, but I don't think you'd like my particular interpretation of what those parallels are. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 15:59, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
- No thanks :) Look Chris, likely you're a great guy and it's clear that you've added a great deal to Wikipedia. You seem to have a tendancy to fall short on civility sometimes. We're all imperfect. What is much more concerning is that you don't seem willing to acknowledge other points of view or correct the situation when it is explained to you. You'll never hear from the editors who respond to incivility by giving up on contributing. You're hearing from me, but I'm not going to pursue this further. Maybe the next person you offend will. Good luck. 01:43, 11 March 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaffiend (talk • contribs)
Hello - Could you do me a favor and take a look at Template:Bayesian statistics/sandbox. I'm trying to put a small space between the image background and the first heading background; much like the original Template:Bayesian statistics, but I can't figure out the syntax. Many thanks, Illia Connell (talk) 03:48, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
- Dropped the ball on this one, but it loosk like you figured it out. :) Great work, thanks! Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:32, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
Article Feedback deployment
Hey Thumperward; I'm dropping you this note because you've used the article feedback tool in the last month or so. On Thursday and Friday the tool will be down for a major deployment; it should be up by Saturday, failing anything going wrong, and by Monday if something does :). Thanks, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 23:38, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for March 14
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Common Gateway Interface, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page NSAPI (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) 14:23, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Request for lowering edit-protection for template:infobox mine
Greetings. As part of a general improvement drive for WikiProject Mining, I was hoping to make some improvements to template:infobox mine (e.g. ordering, field additions, subtemplate for historical designation, etc.). However, it is redlocked. On the talk-page there I was referred to you, as you had earlier made a proposal to lower the protection level for it, and was wondering if you might be willing and able to take action on that so the improvement may move forward. Thanks for your time. Cheers! Morgan Riley (talk) 19:38, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
- Sure thing: I've unprotected all of the templates that I discussed with KFP. Thanks for reminding me. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:51, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Coffee
You owe me a new keyboard for this ;-) Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:34, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Talkback
Message added 16:22, 15 March 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:22, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Template:Wikify/tutorial has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. GoingBatty (talk) 17:35, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
Infobox campground
I saw the discussion here. Could you please go look at Template talk:Infobox campground? Thanks! --evrik (talk) 14:06, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
- Done. Thanks. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 14:32, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
Template:Infobox campground
Thank you! I'd like to have the sample of the infobox reappear like it was in this version. Any other help with the clean-up is appreciated. --evrik (talk) 15:01, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
- It's included in the template documentation. Including a skeleton of the template directly on its page is somewhat old-fashioned and requires additional code to be carried around. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 15:03, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
|
The Template Barnstar | |
| For your work with {{Infobox campground}}, thanks! --evrik (talk) 16:26, 19 March 2013 (UTC) |
Hello Thumperward, I left the following message at the talk page for the "Templates for discussion" page before I saw you had indeed, flagged the problem with all the anthropology navboxes.
- Hi Thumperward. I introduced this navbox a few days ago and have been adding to it since. I have copied this box to create several navboxes for the anthropology pages (Economic and development Anthropology; Medical, Cognitive and Psychological Anthropology; Political and legal anthropology). The original box was created by CsDx for the Economic Anthropology page. I'm not sure what the exact issue is, but if its a problem with this one, its a problem with them all. The rationale for using this was uniformity across the anthropology pages. There were lots of orphan pages that needed to be brought together, shown to be related, and made easily navigable in a standard way. The subsections are meant to make it easier to see how specific case studies are related to specific basic concepts. Is it the content or the subsections that is the issue? What does 'Removing it will involve backing out the changes made to incorporate it into its transclusions.' mean? Its harder to understand than the HTML ;)
I'm agnostic on whether to keep these subsections (although in the "case studies" case, I think they serve a purpose) but have no idea what technical problems my cutting and pasting have created for undoing them.Schrauwers (talk) 18:42, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
- Hello, Schrauwers – there's no need to undo anything unless (and until) {{Sidebar subsection}} is removed. Its concept and use extend beyond the anthropology-related templates. Hope I haven't misunderstood anything, CsDix (talk) 09:52, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
Hello Thumperward / Chris,
Thank you for taking the trouble to leave the above. I've had another template I tried to contribute removed without warning, so I appreciate the courtesy.
CsDix (talk) 09:47, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
- Sure thing. And I'm sincere about wanting to work with you to get this sort of thing added to the core templates if we can figure out the right way of doing it. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:27, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
Film timeline
I found template:film timeline after creating template:decades in film, and deploying it in most of the articles to replace the hacked tables. please history merge these if want to keep your version, or suggest what we should do. I actually like the combination of {{TOC limit}} with {{Alphanumeric TOC}} in the actual "list of film" section (used in the later articles), as opposed to the single merged TOC used in the earlier articles. I will probably convert the earlier ones to use the later format when I have a chance. thank you. Frietjes (talk) 16:02, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
MaraDNS
Thank you for taking the time to look at the MaraDNS article. Since MaraDNS is my baby, it’s best if I do not edit the article. However, on my user page you can find some seven third party references that talk about MaraDNS, which can be used to help to improve the article. The article is terribly outdated an I would love it if a Wikipedia editor could go over it and make it current. Samboy (talk) 23:58, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
- Also, for anyone who wishes to edit the Wikipedia MaraDNS article, Here is how I would update the Wiki MaraDNS article. Samboy (talk) 00:33, 26 March 2013 (UTC)