User talk:Thumperward/Archive 66

Archive 60

←

Archive 64

Archive 65

Archive 66

Archive 67

Archive 68

→

Archive 70

Infobox

Hey, I reverted your change to the small hurricane infobox. It was causing problems in, among other places, North Indian Ocean season articles. Let me point out this storm. The type needs to be there, as otherwise, it would automatically rate storms based on their winds. However, the IMD may call a storm a deep depression even if it reached a certain wind threshold. I'm not sure what else your revision did, but be sure it doesn't break any coding. Cheers! --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:27, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Sorry about that. I'll have a look into fixing the new code before proposing re-deploying it. Cheers! Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 22:19, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Now it's acting strange at 1926 Atlantic hurricane season — compare the sections for storms one through six compared to Hurricane Seven. It isn't happening at 2011 Atlantic hurricane season though. HurricaneFan25 14:26, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

1-6 on 1926 Atlantic hurricane season don't have track set, which as far as I know from the doce means they only get one image. I've fised the image alignment problem. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 15:24, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

BTW, there's this one too. HurricaneFan25 15:41, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Done, for now. There's still quite a bit of inconsistency between these templates but the output is much closer than in was before and the code is much easier to dive into and fix / improve in future. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:34, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Template:CFB navbox

Thumperward, thanks for no-including the TfD tag on Template:CFB navbox. However, we now have a little but of an spacing problem; see Lou Holtz for an example. If you delete the carriage return between "</noinclude>" and "{{Navbox" that will solve the problem. Thanks. Jweiss11 (talk) 20:11, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Done. orry about that. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 20:34, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

No worries. Thank you. Jweiss11 (talk) 21:19, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Template:Infobox cocktail

This is a little (long) bit after the fact, but nice work on the cleanup of my old template. Sorry that you had to go through so much effort. It was a beast to create, and probably an equally bad beast to fix. Kudos and thanks! —Willscrlt ( “Talk” ) 14:17, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Pleasure's all mine. Yeah, it was a lot of work, but worth it in the end. Thanks for all the original work you did on it! Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 15:26, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

ITN/C Jim SukWutPut

More unprovoked hostility from the user Jim SukWutPut. My comments are sincere and rationalized, if the user doesn't like the rationalization, the user can say nothing, or rebuttal, but comments like "You'd be taken more seriously if you don't copy and paste your rationale every time." are not helpful. I know you think I'm a time wasting troll, I'm not. Please make the user stop. Please. I'm begging for help here. This individual seems to have some vendetta against me, and it makes me sad. [1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.18.43.253 (talk) 03:42, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't consider that a demonstration of a "vendetta", especially given that in a followup comment Jim sincerely addresses your arguments. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:34, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

The original comment need never have been made. I don't understand why you're so reluctant to act. I'm not asking for a ban or a formal warning or anything. Just someone to say to this user that those types of comments are not constructive. --76.18.43.253 (talk) 12:34, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Editors are entitled to challenge the comments that others make. It is an observable fact that comments which appear to have been repeatedly re-used are typically assigned less weight in discussions due to the perception that the poster has not make an appropriate amount of effort in making his case: previously, you had posted a near-identical comment in opposition to a large number of different ITN candidates. So in isolation there's nothing at all wrong with the comment in question. When looking at it in conjunction with previous interactions between Jim SukWutPut and yourself, it can of course be argued that Jim SukWutPut only made that comment due to the identity of the person making it. However, I don't see any particular evidence of that, as not only has Jim SukWutPut not done the same to several other comments you've made recently but he has followed up with a fuller rebuttal of your position. I said that I would act if I saw an indication that Jim SukWutPut was acting inappropriately, not that I would step in to chide him the next time he happened to disapprove of one of your comments. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 12:40, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

AN/I

Your points are well taken. However, the issue is not resolved. See [2][3]. He removed a talk page post of mine, and did so after your posts in AN/I on this. He had previously done the same thing, and I pointed out to him in the AN/I that such doing so isn't allowed. ScottyBerg (talk) 14:34, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

And then this, and this. ScottyBerg (talk) 19:43, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

And then this [4]. Now he's edit warring to refactor a comment by another editor in a talk page. You wisely cautioned me to not be baited, so I'm not reverting him. ScottyBerg (talk) 05:25, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Could you keep this on ANI, please? FWIW I'm still not convinced that the root problem here (removing of what has been construed as a personal attack from multiple copy-pasted locations) is admin-actionable. I commented because I didn't want that issue to balloon into something bigger, not because I had to solution to the original problem. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:27, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

I brought this to your attention because you requested that he desist, and he didn't. There's more involved than his refactoring a talk page post, now three times in 24 hrs. However, I'll certainly heed your request. ScottyBerg (talk) 12:56, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

RFA thanks

Thank you for your partcipation at my recent successful RFA. In addressing your concerns, I will do my best to live up to the confidence shown in me by others, will move slowly and carefully when using the mop, will seek input from others before any action of which I might be unsure, will expand my efforts to include the more mundane areas, and will try not to break anything beyond repair. Best, Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:28, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Infobox currency

Hey, I saw you had edited Template:Infobox currency earlier. I think it is missing a very relevant information, the "Date of introduction". Could you please add this right after the ISO CODE entry row? It seems to be too complicated for me and any edition attempt would only be an experiment... Thanks you! Timur lenk (talk) 03:51, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

I haven't edited the template in question for over two years. One problem with adding "date of introduction" as a single attribute is that there may be multiple users of the currency whose adoption dates were different. I recommend that you start a conversation at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Numismatics suggesting this change and invite comments: I can add it afterwards if there's consensus on the best way to do it. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:08, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

That is true, indeed, that is why I suggest the title "date of introduction" not "date of adoption". A currency has a single authority responsible for its introduction (i.e. a central bank), while the adoption can be a completely separate technical issue, sometimes even against the will of the central bank (like the adoption of the euro by Kosovo was found problematic by the ECB). So introducing, issuing a currency is a process that can be separated from the act of making it a legal tender (adoption) by a state. It is even possible that a currency is issued but not adopted by anyone, i.e. it is not forced by law to be accepted anywhere. And since, unlike adoption, there is a single authority for issuing a currency, the date of issuance can be based on the definition of the issuing bank. The date of adoption is rather a characteristic of the territory not the bank, which might not even have effect on the adoption. Timur lenk (talk) 12:56, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Thumperward. You have new messages at Template talk:Infobox television.
Message added 23:40, 6 December 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 23:40, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

DIY Ethic

Hello. I recently contributed some information/opinion to the talk page of "DIY Ethic." I just noticed that you left a comment on that talk page pretty recently and thought I would encourage you to check out that information if you are still interested. Do with it as you will --I'm not a wikipedia contributor, it just happens to be a subject near and dear to my heart. Thanks... 97.81.82.233 (talk) 03:28, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Replying over there. Thanks. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:53, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

FNB Stadium

Hi, I posted a reply to your comment about the FNB Stadium to Soccer City move. I really think you are wrong, take a look. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paulbotha23 (talk • contribs) 14:09, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Replied over there. Thanks. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 14:50, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Contested PRODs

Ah yes, I read your comment on the talk page, I did not originally add the Deletion prod to the page, as from the the talk page a bit of hard working and sources will help the page. But since you are right, the prod can be removed, and I'll see what the article becomes. :) -- [[ axg ◉ talk ]] 14:59, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

It may not "become" anything; it may very well end up merged somewhere. However it is evidently not productive to try deleting it while it's still the #1 global trending topic on Twitter. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 15:08, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Dispute over USB article naming

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 "USB". Thank you. --Crispmuncher (talk) 20:47, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Ray tracing

Thumperward, where is the discussion that concluded we should treat the graphics use as primary for Ray tracing? I thought this was pretty well opposed last time I saw a discussion of it. Dicklyon (talk) 21:37, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

The last discussion I could find was in 2008. In that discussion, the practical requirement for primary topics was seemingly discarded in favour of rhetoric. Having examined that argument, and the current inbound links, my interpretation was that there was sufficient evidence of a primary subject in Wikipedia terms to justify a move. In the process I sorted out the mess which was the history of these articles. There should never be a need for a dab page with only two subjects as article titles are solely for convenience of readers and are not meant to establish any ranking of subjects by importance. If you want to propose that the physics article be the primary subject then be my guest; that move would be much easier to action after today's cleanup. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 21:46, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean by "practical requirement for primary topics". I've never heard of such a requirement. And I don't think this topic fits the bill; given the prior discussion, a unilateral decision seems inappropriate. Cleanup is good, but I don't think either of the two main topics for this term should be considered primary; neither the traditional meaning nor the popular modern application, since each is equally important in different fields. Dicklyon (talk) 05:21, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm aware that you consider the "primary importance" aspect of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC to have much more weight than the average editor, but that's the only sticking point here. If the current solution (leaving the root title as a redirect) works for you then so be it. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 07:18, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

As you can see at Talk:Ray tracing (graphics), that's not an outcome that I like. Can you fix please? Dicklyon (talk) 07:22, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Absolutely not, per the comment I'm composing right now. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 07:25, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Voodoo Science

Hi, I saw your edit to the Voodoo Science article [5] where you added a template that said: "This article may contain improper references to self-published sources. Please help improve it by removing references to unreliable sources, where they are used inappropriately." but you did not leave any comments on the talk page. Can you please elaborate your concerns? (Is it about the "Warning signs" section?) Thank you. -- Limulus (talk) 00:46, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm... looking at it again, I'm not even sure what I was thinking. I've removed the tag. Thanks. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 07:21, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

2nd Opinion needed on GA

Hi Chris, would you mind having a look at Talk:Kenny McLean/GA1. A second opinion is needed and no-one has come forward to give one. Adam4267 (talk) 15:02, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree that much of the career section is a little too glowing: that is of course going to be extremely difficult to avoid when it's obvious that at this stage of his career the vast majority of references will be from back-pages filler in the tabloids. One thing which would certainly help is if a couple of instances of opinion-stated-as-fact were rewritten to give attribution: for instance, "The 2011–12 season saw McLean begin to emerge as one of the top young talents in the SPL" is really the opinion of Graeme Bailey (who isn't even given as the author in the present reference) and not an objective fact. Additionally, "However, McLean's drive and energy lifted St. Mirren and helped them to turn the game around and get a draw" is a very close paraphrase of the source, and should probably either be quoted or (even better) rewritten using another source (this one mentions McLean's influence, for instance, though again only briefly). Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 15:17, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Ok, thanks I have tried to make a few of those changes. Hopefully this will help. Adam4267 (talk) 15:40, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Squad templates

Hi, your recent edits to {{Football squad2 player}} appear to have messed up the display of football squad templates, please can you rectify? There is a discussion about this at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football#Current Squad Templates. Thanks, GiantSnowman 14:29, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Argh. Reverted, thanks. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 14:46, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

It was due to the #switch statement not having a #default= so it was taking everything upto the first = as a param and then ignoring the rest as the switch statement as it didn't match anything. -- WOSlinker (talk) 16:21, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Aha. Great catch, cheers! Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 17:20, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Júlio Regufe Alves

Hi there CHRIS, VASCO here,

Can you please protect this page? The harassment (at least i look at it that way, highly obscure player who does not "grant" such level of vandalism - removing refs and correct info in box - so it's got to be PERSONAL!) continues, don't know what else can be done.

Also, unlike me, i did not feed the troll in any summary in this article, so what gives with the anon "user"? Attentively, keep it up - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 17:37, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Sorry Vasco, but there's nowhere near enough vandalism to justify semiprotection at this time. Furthermore, looking at the recent edits, you yourself reverted as vandalism an IP adding data (the Beşiktaş move) which turns out to be factual. If you think the page needs special attention, add it to the watchlist at WP:FOOTY, but I think this is a pretty low level of activity and if we semiprotected every page of a similar level IPs would find it very difficult to participate here. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 19:22, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

1 - i understand, no problem man; 2 - i reverted what? The only factual thing i can see myself reverting was the stats for Besiktas in box, nothing else, and that happened because i reverted EVERYTHING with the rollback. Is that what you meant? I hope it is, because i am not the vandal, the Spanish anon user is.

Attentively, please reply and "kill" my doubts on the item #2 - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 20:58, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm referring to this, which was not a rollback edit. In your next edit you acknowledged the mistake. But anyway, there's really no administrative action required here at this time. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 01:12, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

He continues (see here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=J%C3%BAlio_Regufe_Alves&diff=prev&oldid=466184431) but that's OK, as long as i have rollback... If he considers the summary where i wrote "Toma!" - meaning "Take that!" - feeding the troll, he's gotta be one twisted individual! --Vasco Amaral (talk) 21:05, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Template:Politics of the United Kingdom revert

Hi. Well regarding the so-called 'new layout', it isn't one that's used by other countries - the old one is the official one to use. You may be gradually releasing it, but I have never seen any other country templates with this new layout. I make a lot of changes to various country templates, and I haven't seen any layout changes yet. JAU123 (talk) 18:39, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

That it has not been deployed widely yet implies that one must start somewhere. If there are concrete technical objections I'm all ears, but "it's not the done thing" is no reason at all. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 19:13, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Infobox two columns

Seems like an unnecessary fork. 198.102.153.2 (talk) 00:13, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

What? If you expect an insightful answer, link to what you're on about. Do you mean {{infobox3cols}}? Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 01:09, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

He/she probably means {{Infobox two columns}}, checking his/her recent contributions. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 01:44, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Ah, right. Yes, it's unused and unlikely to be. Want me to TfD it? Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 08:18, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

yes, that's the template. I was looking for a second opinion, and have since sent it to TfD. 198.102.153.2 (talk) 22:29, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Editing help in an article.

Thank you very much for the valuable help in editing the article on Dalitstan. Without your help, things would not have been possible. I wonder why I could not edit this article on my own when I am able to edit other articles. Hindustanilanguage (talk) 09:20, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

My pleasure. As I say, there does not appear to be a barrier from Wikipedia's side preventing you from editing the page. Even if there were, you would receive an error message rather than the submit button being made inactive. If this is an ongoing problem you may wish to leave a note at WP:VPT (the Technical Village Pump), where site issues are usually discussed and investigated. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:02, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks (2)...

...for keeping an eye on things (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:43, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Don't mention it. :) I really do wonder why WP doesn't send notifications to users when someone else edits their user pages; plenty of times a friendly TPS has fixed my own page after it's been vandalised. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:50, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Your advice

Thanks for your advice. It seems a good and solid approach and I will try to follow it. This time I made the stupid assumption that he would keep his word, so I didn't realize it was him until I'd already started responding to him, since he had IP-hopped since making the agreement. Yworo (talk) 10:14, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Sure thing. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:15, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Heriot-Watt University

I left a question for you at Talk:Heriot-Watt_University#Independence_of_sources. 67.6.163.68 (talk) 05:52, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Replied over there. Thanks. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:36, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

User:Majuro6

Checked several of his "contributions" (including this one http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Miguel_Monteiro&diff=334710117&oldid=331729914, ripe with foul language and insults towards the subject in my mothertongue, and this one http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=V%C3%ADtor_Pereira_(football_manager)&diff=462037708&oldid=462037642), just three words suffice: Vandalism-only account! Please deal with the chap accordingly.

Attentively - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 16:47, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

I'd normally be cautious about an indef for an account which a) hasn't edited in three weeks, and only eight times this year and b) hasn't received a proper series of notices, but you're right: no non-vandalism edits since February 2009. Blocked. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 20:15, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry by User:Subtropical-man

I think this person has resorted to sockpuppetry in an attempt to keep the unsourced information in the 'Tuples' page. This is the contributions of what I suspect to be his sock [6]. I thought I'd alert you because I don't know how these situations should be handled. Thanks. Adam4267 (talk) 19:31, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

While I'd agree that the signs are positive, by no means is Subtropical-man the only account to previously have had this POV (the existing on the individual, ummm, "tuples" were all authored by different editors). I'd politely point user:JohnMannV at WP:SOCK and suggest that if the account is a sock that he desists from using it to create a false impression of support, or tag-team reverting. The account isn't being used for block evasion or anything, so I don't think anything else is required at this time. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 20:24, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I have done that. Please look at the WP:Footy talk page, as there are more issues I am concerned with about Subtropical-man. He has certainly already tried to edit-war and bully me to try and get his way on this article. However, consensus and policy is clearly against him and he doesn't appear to understand how Wikipedia works. Still I do not envisage him allowing this content to be (rightfully) removed without him throwing a massive tantrum. Adam4267 (talk) 20:36, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Ummm, no you haven't. How is "I would suggest that, whoever you are, you cease using this account immediately" a friendly notice? If you want a friendly suggestion, try stepping back from the discussion for a while and letting it work itself out. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 20:40, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Tracking categories for native_name_lang

Hi,

Is Template talk:Infobox person#Native names / Template talk:Infobox settlement#Native names something that would interest you? It might also need to be applied to other templates. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:21, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Should be trivial. I'm wondering, however, if this wouldn't be easier by retaining the currently-at-TfD {{native name}} and using that consistently for any instances of native names across different templates. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:03, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

|native_name_lang= is widely deployed; {{Tl|Native name]] less so. Separate parameters are better where possible; and in this case would mean one less template for editors to learn and use. I'm unaware of any benefit derived from the template method in this case. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:25, 19 December 2011 (UTC)