User talk:Thumperward/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Thumperward. 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 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Hi, I noticed your addition of the 2 column reference layout and just was wondering if you realised that it seems to only work in browsers based on Gecko 1.8 due to it being a part of the CSS3 Specification that other browsers (such as Safari)? Or has it been implemented in another browser that I am unaware of? Cheers, Localzuk^(talk) 14:48, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I know. It's an added benefit for people using modern browsers; older ones ignore it, so there's no harm done. As for other browsers, Safari/WebCore might have some support now, not sure. Chris Cunningham 15:24, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Nope, not yet... Seems that Gecko is the only layout engine to support it natively. Lets hope other browsers get a move on and implement things faster! Cheers, Localzuk^(talk) 16:09, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

sorry, I thought I had a version that included the particular interwiki, but obviously it did not. Agathoclea 12:17, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

No worries :) Chris Cunningham 12:38, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

You should learn to read the history and edit summaries. A lot of things would become clear to you. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 12:49, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for this constructive and positive comment. It has clearly helped to foster a more enthusiastic community. "two columns don't work" in an edit summary is very constructive as well; but I suppose moderators don't need to explain themselves. Chris Cunningham 12:58, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, looks like you missed yet another edit summary. But hey, if you insist on feeling victimised, go ahead. I have to deal with people like you on a daily basis. Not going to faze me. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 13:01, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Why not try just talking to me like a normal person? I obvious did miss the edit summary (the one about wide screens), and for that I apologise, but you could have just, like, repeated it here instead of making me hunt for it. Bah. I don't see that this should be an issue for people on low resolutions so long as there are no un{{cite}}d URLs, wouldn't it be better to fix them than revert? Chris Cunningham 13:13, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your nice work on the ZX Spectrum article — it really was too long (27 minutes long, actually...), and you've done a great job. Cheers! --StuartBrady (Talk) 22:51, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I think you should have a good long think about what would happen to Wikipedia if you removed all unsourced material. But then maybe you think that would be wonderful. As it stands, there is no obligation to remove unsourced material except in biographies of living people. I believe your zealous edits to Children's Machine are counter-productive. I seem to remember a time when you expanded the "criticism" section of the Ubuntu article, and for this very purpose removed material that fitted perfectly well in the history section. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 22:20, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

The CM article is an overly-long mess. The parts that were removed were obviously original research, poorly-written and jammed into a section which is already dominating the article. If you're going to use my talk page to talk down to me then I'll just stop replying, I don't edit pages to be harrassed about it. Chris Cunningham 07:25, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Hell, now that I look at it, what I did was exactly what the GA delisting suggested, and the Ubuntu history thing was, what, me moving the Ian Murdock quote out of the history section? That wound you up enough to go asking for a delisting? Chris Cunningham 08:35, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

You still haven't got your facts straight. In this case, you've mixed up the timeline. But I don't expect you'll learn how to do proper research on Wikipedia. No signs of it yet, e.g. [1] And who executed the merge you whined for? All you seem to be capable of doing is delete stuff. Very accomplished! My only remaining hope is that my sarcasm will somehow cause you to get annoyed enough to keep you thinking things over. Maybe you'll realise that the high horse you are sitting on has sunk into the tar pit beneath you. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 22:34, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I admit that "deleting stuff" is a pretty accurate summation of what I do. It's an unfortunate fact that editing often requires it. Getting nasty about it isn't helping anyone. I'm not one of these people who thinks that civility is of paramount importance, but there's no reason for making personal attacks in this case, and your position shouldn't excuse you from having to follow that guideline. That wikiquote snipe was outright pathetic. Chris Cunningham 10:38, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps you are not aware that the custom is to post deleted chunks on the talk page with request for comment, assuming you can find no other home for them? - Samsara (talk • contribs) 11:18, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I'll bear that in mind in the future. Thanks. Chris Cunningham 12:01, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Hey pal, you deleted my words on a talk page. They obviously hurt your feelings... but sometimes the truth hurts: yep, linux sucks! Censorship and ignorance is no way to run an encyclopedia. But can we expect any better from the masses? --216.101.25.243 21:40, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Trolls don't got no rights, yo. Fo shizzle. Chris Cunningham 22:41, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi,

thanks for the markup fix on the bash article. I don't have much time at the moment but I think the article should mention the possibility to define functions as a major difference from the original Bourne shell (at least). Today I spent all my free time fixing the endianness article so I have to postpone that one. Perhaps you can do it :-) —Gennaro Prota^•Talk 18:39, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

After looking back through the history a bit more and reading the talk page discussion, I've semi-protected. That guy has had plenty of opportunity to discuss and hasn't (at least not much, and not recently). -- Steel 17:51, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks :) Chris Cunningham 17:59, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

...I fail to understand why you deleted that information... Could you please explain if I had missed something in the history? (Please respond on my talk page if you must.) tinlv7 01:01, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Hello. If you get a chance, could you please stop by the Jerky article and help resolve a dispute regarding proper WP:External links. The relevant discussion is at Talk:Jerky (food)#Recipes, and I am seeking third party opinions since another user and I seem to be at an impasse. I am sending this to all editors who have recently edited the article or its talk page. Thanks so much for your time, Satori Son 17:22, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading Image:BzLifecycle.png. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 21:06, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Please stop vandalizing the phpBB article. You may well have a view you feel strongly about, but you have no right to unalaterally force it on everyone else. Jake b 22:37, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Psychological projection as its best. You know full well that I am neither vandalising it nor seeking the removal of the links for the same reason as the previous editors. My view is simply enforcement of current policy. Seek mediation instead of reverting in bad faith. Chris Cunningham 22:49, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

ignore Jake b. he is troll. take a look at his talk page history:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jake_b&oldid=45137074

he thinks forumimages is little more than fan site.

another gem:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jake_b&oldid=50672199

he does not like it when people leave messages on his talk page yet feels perfectly fine doing it to others.

Jake b is hypocryte. very likely to meatpuppet. 72.36.251.234 21:16, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

you always try to force your ideas on every body in a unilateral maner both on phpBB and katana. removing sourced text and striping the articles of their flesh leaving only the bare skeleton.Marshalbannana 23:03, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm beginning to wonder whether the meatpuppets and the moderators are having a contest to see who tallies up the most attacks on my talk page... Chris Cunningham 23:08, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

meatpupet my @$$! if any one is using pupets it is you in your edit-deletion eforts, you simply try tobrand your oponents as pupets or vandals but that isnt the case.Marshalbannana 23:21, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

We will look into this. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 01:13, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Look into what? Chris Cunningham 09:07, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

You removed the section about fake sites and only left one mod linked. Why? Fake sites are a problem for users and YOu cannot name one mod and remove all the other links if you want to be reporting neurtral about it? (beside that that cleaning up can also mean ADDING stuff instead of removing...). :22:29, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a guide to how to use the internet. People who are fooled by fake sites are not going to be checking Wikipedia in the first place. Chris Cunningham 22:33, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I thought you agreed on the mod links since you did not comment on this. I will replace those links with descriptions when i finish my rewrite (can take a while... /User:Leuk_he/eMule )  :Leuk he 13:01, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

No worries. Thanks. Chris Cunningham 13:04, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I've been doing some work over at the Longsword article trying to build it into a proper GA, A, or eventually FA article. I read on your user page that you occasionally indulge in the art of copy-editing, so I'd like to invite you to give the article the once (or twice) over. It is currently incomplete, with future expansion planned on the hilt section (tagged as a stub) and a new section on forging, metallurgy, and modern reconstructions. I hope this will give you something to do if you have any spare time, but certainly don't feel obligated to engage in the task. Thanks! -xiliquiern^Talk 20:25, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Woah. You're not kidding about it needing some copyediting. Dunno about "spare" time, but it passes the hours at work ;) Chris Cunningham 10:45, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I've moved it to longsword (disambiguation). This is just a regular disambiguation page. Yes, there is a discussion of the term on longsword. Disambiguation pages are not for discussing terminology, just for listing articles on topics that may be intended by the term. In this case, we have longsword, spatha and katana, all independent articles on distinct topics. dab (𒁳) 11:57, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

This really disrupts the way I was planning on editing the article, but I suppose I can try and move all the explanatory stuff out of the article and into the disambig. I don't think this is going to work. Chris Cunningham 12:18, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Strike that, it may well work. Still needs tidying. Chris Cunningham 13:02, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Chris, the singular is fechtbuch, the plural fechtbücher. Try to be sure of your facts before "correcting" things. dab (𒁳) 10:16, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Thatnks. Sorry about that. In the last sentence you corrected though, wouldn't it still be capitalised if it's a loanword? And wouldn't the plural be the best usage in that sentence? Chris Cunningham 10:22, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Just back from Houston for Thanksgiving; ran into Ian J there. I knew a Chris Cunningham back in hs who knew about longswords and katanas... did you use to hang out there? Cheers, +sj + 12:24, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Never had the pleasure of visiting TX I'm afraid. Chris Cunningham 12:30, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Hello,

Thank you for your stub submission. You may wish to note that it is preferable to use a stub template from Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Stub types instead of using simply {{stub}}, if you can.

Thanks! --Vox Causa 22:24, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Why did you take out the reference to the early hdd history? Porter's list is far better (complete, more relevant, etc) than the current list. If I had the time I'd fix the current list which has too many unimportant events and too few important ones. In the mean time, I'd like to revert to the previous material unless you can give me a good reason not to.
Tom94022 01:49, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry about that. It looked like an inappropriate plug, inserted as it was. I have no objections to good sources being linked appropriately for the references or extlinks sections, so go right ahead. Chris Cunningham 16:24, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Stop edit warring. Stop insulting each other. —Centrx→talk • 22:07, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Done. Sorry. Happy holidays :) Chris Cunningham 23:33, 29 December 2006 (UTC)