User talk:Thumperward

Greetings and...

Hi Thumperward! I see that you did some extensive work over at Buck converter last year. As I know zilch about that subject, could you please check out this recent edit. Cheers! Technopat (talk) 10:26, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

That IP edit is simple vandalism. I think the following edit (other than the inadvertent italic text) was probably okay in intent, though it was loquatious and didn't really improve the text. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:32, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:List of permaculture projects

Hello, Thumperward. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:List of permaculture projects, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 16:03, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Copyeditor's Barnstar
	Thanks for your tireless work! Suntooooth, it/he (talk/contribs) 17:46, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

Maisonette

Regarding Maisonette -- there had been a discussion at Talk:Maisonette (disambiguation) resulting in moving the dab page and making the term into a primary topic redirect (which is still in place as a section hatnote at Apartment#Maisonette. I don't have an opinion as to whether it should be a PT redirect, but you might want to clean up the remaining artifacts (orphan talk page with RM and orphan hatnote). older ≠ wiser 17:01, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

At some point that redirect was undone anyway, but the problem isn't where it formerly redirected so much that the double-N version didn't point to the same place as single-N and both were dabs. I'm not sure what to do with Talk:Maisonette (disambiguation) to be honest but considering that the entirety of the discussion is about a dead RM I'm not sure it matters really. I've removed the unneeded hatnote. Cheers. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 17:14, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:List of permaculture projects

Hello, Thumperward. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "List of permaculture projects".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 15:43, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

First Edit Day

Happy First Edit Day, Thumperward, from the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day! Ezra Cricket (talk) 07:19, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Category:Imperium (Warhammer 40,000) has been nominated for merging

Category:Imperium (Warhammer 40,000) has been nominated for merging. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 13:51, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:24, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Water fuel cell page-move

I see for: Stanley Meyer's water fuel cell → Water fuel cell you moved the page and the talkpage archives (good--lots movers forget those!) but did not move the main talkpage itself (I assume it was blocked by actual content existing on Talk:Water fuel cell. But before you figure out how to fix that, the itself had already been proposed at Talk:Water_fuel_cell/Archive_6#Requested_move and found not to have consensus (multiple well-reasoned opposes). That's no prejudice from starting a new RM discussion, but in the mean time please undo the move. DMacks (talk) 21:03, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

I had completely forgotten about that RM (in which I actually participated). The arguments against were appalling, the close was a head-count of idiots, but I'll move it back for now. I fully expect another round of the same, though hopefully a few of the opposes since then have died (the usual way by which progress is made on here). Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 21:30, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

I take exception to your hope that I or others who participated in good faith there would die. Please strike that inappropriate comment and reflect on WP:CIVIL so we don't need to go to ANI. DMacks (talk) 22:05, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

Editors are permitted leeway on their talk pages, and my expression of hope of an outcome is not an expression of a desire to make it happen. But I mean, cause as much drama as you like. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 22:09, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

Also lol, you're talking about this behind my back? Hope that works out for you, in terms of pleading for people to improve their civility. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 22:13, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

As you wish...DMacks (talk)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. DMacks (talk) 22:21, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

Astonishing to think that you're under the impression that any reputational damage here will be on me. What a use of your weekend. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 22:31, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

December 2023

You have been indefinitely blocked for openly yearning for the deaths of other Wikipedia editors, and engaging in personal attacks against them. This is a collaborative project. You were given opportinities to explain and apologize and instead you doubled down. You did this twice in 2023. This misconduct is utterly unacceptable. Please read the Guide to appealing blocks. Cullen328 (talk) 02:38, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Thumperward (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I apologise for my professed desire that editors with whom I historically disagreed to have died. I realise that this is not in the spirit of collaborative editing.

Furthermore, I apologise for calling other users idiots. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 02:45, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Decline reason:

An apology is good, though I'm skeptical you have totally seen the light in the 13 minutes between your block and this request. I was surprised to learn that you are an administrator, I don't recall ever running into you previously. Maybe you're right that there is some leeway on talk pages, but you were offered a chance to explain, apologize, and withdraw your comments and declined it, I think that used up your leeway. More is expected of administrators than other editors in terms of behavior. I am declining your request. 331dot (talk) 10:26, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

I have AGF and unblocked you. I think this was a stupid comment and there should be low bar for action if further incivility. Secretlondon (talk) 16:38, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, I probably deserved this to be honest. I suppose standards really have changed. Once upon a time I was the one handing out indef civility blocks. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 16:40, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Culture change can be hard to spot as it's not as if one day everything changes. However Wikipedia is certainly not as playful as in the early days, and much less 'ignore all rules'. As the project has got bigger and higher profile there is much less tolerance for incivility, and adminship has not been 'no big deal' for years now.

However I do think blocking an admin is wrong - if you are not trusted to edit the encyclopaedia you should not be trusted to be an admin. Secretlondon (talk) 16:58, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

I'm not especially happy about a few people's conduct on this one, but this has served as an abundant reminder of why I stopped arguing with people on ANI in the first place. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 16:59, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

I'd advise you to think before you type and avoid comments that could be misconstrued. Always presume people who don't like you are watching. Secretlondon (talk) 17:04, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Good advice indeed. Thanks again. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 17:28, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Nomination for merger of Template:Archive

Template:Archive has been nominated for merging with Template:Automatic archive navigator. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  12:51, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Endianness: removal of diagram

Hi there - I see you recently reorganized Endianness, which it no doubt deserved. Any particular reason for removing File:32bit-Endianess.svg in the process? I've found it to be a good visualization that - for me, at least - makes it much easier to quickly see which end is which. -- the Barometz (talk) 12:26, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. There's a discussion on talk re: illustrations - to be honest I would far rather have that image back than the ASCII art table diagrams. Happy enough for it to go back in if that would satisfy all parties. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 12:52, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

REAPER: Question about Advert template addition

Hey Thumperward,

I was curious as to why you added the Advert template on the page for REAPER, as I didn't seem to notice any advertising language, besides for:

Extensive customization opportunities are provided through the use of ReaScript (edit, run and debug scripts within REAPER) and user-created themes and functionality extensions.

I feel like it's fine to remove the Advert template, though I'm new, and I would love to learn if I am missing something. Could you take another look and let me know? OnlyNano (talk) 18:24, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Practically everything in it is sourced solely to the product's own website, which by its very nature is promotional. Merely describing what something is on here is pointless if it all comes from a product page. It needs substantially reworked to denote its importance through secondary sources, leaning more towards what place it has in the world and less towards what bells and whistles were added in whatever the newest version is. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 18:30, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, that makes much more sense. I will work on the article over the next few days, so there can be more secondary sources included. I believe a history might be benefitial as well. OnlyNano (talk) 20:32, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Question about merge of Jonathan B Postel Award page

Thumperward - Hello! I have a Wikipedia process question. Back in December 2023 you merged a bit of the text from the Jonathan B. Postel Service Award (archived version) into Jon Postel#Legacy and made the original article a redirect to the new section. In doing so, you removed the list of past winners. My question is - should there have been a notification that this was going to happen? Or were you just being WP:BOLD?

I ask because that was a page on my watch list, and I had no idea it had been deleted/redirected until I just went to look at it today. And then I was surprised that I hadn't seen any notice on the Talk page or anywhere else about this change? I'm just wondering if I missed something. Thanks!

I do understand that it wasn't much of a page before, but it seemed similar to some of the other pages found on List of computer science awards, such as "Alan D. Berenbaum Distinguished Service Award" and "SIGMOD Edgar F. Codd Innovations Award". The Postel award article had been edited and updated by a number of editors since it was first created in 2008. (I have not edited the Postel award article myself because of WP:COI as I am employed by the Internet Society, the org behind the award.) - Dyork (talk) 23:42, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Purely an editorial decision to not result in a biography being unduly weighted towards a section with only primary sources. For what it's worth I don't see either of the other examples as being especially strong counterarguments: these are effectively industry awards, of which every industry has thousands, and if Wikipedia has more such articles in the realm of computer science and the Internet then it's pretty obviously a result of selection bias with respects to who edits Wikipedia. Secondary sources would help in that regard. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 23:49, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation of why you didn't include the winners, and I understand that for a biography article. That makes sense.

I guess I have a larger question, then - why did you merge/redirect the award article? It is similar to those other awards in that it is an industry award given by an organization in the Internet space, that just happens to be named for Jon Postel. - Dyork (talk) 23:57, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

As I said: it was a stub article which was exclusively primary sourced, and industry awards are a dime a dozen. They need to independently demonstrate notability. Wikipedia is more likely to have articles on awards within the computer science and Internet industries than, say, the dishwasher industry (which I am sure also has plenty of awards named after the luminaries of dishwasher history) because of the main demographic likely to edit Wikipedia articles. If the most notable thing about an award is who it's named after, then it makes sense to merge it to the article on that person as it reflects more on the notability of the person it was named after than the other way around. I'd argue to same could apply to the other two examples you gave. No prejudice on a re-split if and when the requisite secondary sources are retrieved. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 08:12, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. That is useful feedback. - Dyork (talk) 15:46, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

No problem. Just to reiterate, I'm happy for this to be split back out again in the event that secondary sources are added to establish its independent notability. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 07:56, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

WP:BURDEN

I'll reiterate that I'm not interested in rehashing any of this but in case it is unclear where I stand WRT your editing pattern of systematically removing what I would consider uncontroversial unsourced material, here's some previous discussion with another editor who practiced this pattern of editing. ~Kvng (talk) 21:56, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

That's an absolutely remarkable thread and I'm glad you brought it to my attention. You turn up on someone's talk page to argue a bunch of absolutely incorrect things about our citation standards, and every single person who replies (including two long-term admins) comprehensively schools you on it. That was in 2022. If we're talking about systematic editing patterns, that's good evidence that your recent tendency to start a discussion only to completely ignore every reply that you don't agree with is not new.

Anyway, for the sake of not misleading anyone who sees this and takes your assertions at face value: the day that I started the discussion on optical disc packaging which has apparently drawn your ire I also made this edit to Pete Postlethwaite, restoring material which had been removed as unsourced (despite being trivially correct, and therefore not really needing verification) because its removal unbalanced the article. Discerning the difference between doing that and what's happening at the packaging article is left as an exercise to the reader. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 07:54, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Weird take. Did you read the whole thing? They kept asking me to explain how I justify objecting to this pattern and when I finally did, comprehensively, the argument abruptly ended without comment and the editing behavior stopped. ~Kvng (talk) 15:11, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Parallel to your example, if you look at my editing associated with User:Kvng/RTH, you'll see that I'm most frequently removing unsourced tangential stuff. ~Kvng (talk) 15:16, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

So it's okay for you to remove unsourced trivia from articles, but when others do it it's malfeasance?

I don't think anything is being accomplished here. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 15:31, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

OK, it was worth a try. ~Kvng (talk) 15:39, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

About The ELF Format

I appreciate your efforts on ELF format article to make it more focused but you have cut the valuable parts from it. Please put them in a collapsable box inside the page or in a new article.

Regards. 88.238.58.190 (talk) 19:10, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Collapsible boxes aren't an option for article content. As discussed on talk, this was by-and-large a poor paraphrasing of the technical documentation. I have no objection whatsoever to it being expanded again in a manner more befitting a general-purpose encyclopedia, including the potential return of deleted content, but it's not being put back in as-is and as a separate article would be even less appropriate (shorn as it would be of all of the general-purpose content). Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 20:29, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Bio-coat rack

Template:Bio-coat rack has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. 184.146.170.127 (talk) 04:02, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Nomination for merger of Template:Overcolored

Template:Overcolored has been nominated for merging with Template:Overcoloured. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. 142.113.140.146 (talk) 06:39, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

"Arakkoa" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Arakkoa has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 August 26 § Arakkoa until a consensus is reached. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 15:25, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

I think you made a mistake in your edit to UTF-8#Encoding

(The section was later renamed to UTF-8#Description in this edit.)

You removed a large, (in my opinion, essential) part of the article. I think this was a honest mistake since the edit note seems to indicate it was done because of a misunderstanding.

The specifics of how a character encoding works are essential to that encoding's article, but not to Unicode for example. To me it seems like you thought you were removing the sections from that, or another more broad article instead of (in comparison the very narrow-in-scope) article UTF-8, which warrants having these technical elements too. (I no longer think you mistook the article, but that you had a disagreement on the design an presentation style with how the section was laid out. I however still think that some of the information was a the same time essential to the article, and would be very cumbersome when rewritten to a written/spoken word style. Some data, I think, should be presented in easy to read tables, like the codepage layout (old revision) you deleted from it. I would very much like to discuss this as I think the table was the single most important piece of information on the article with no feasible way of replacing it in plain English like what I now interpret you wanting to be done.

You also made another edit following that one, I have the same main issue with it, it should have been handled with a rewrite (or a note requesting that), and now some of the information is just gone instead. Here's the version difference including both edits I think were made by mistake: [1]

The third edit removes all font colouring from a section, I also see issues with this approach and I would like to discuss those as well.

I more extensively wrote about all of these topics on the affected section at this topic in UTF-8's talk page. Hope to see you there! Mossymountain (talk) 05:57, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

I apologize for that border

I attempted to fix the behaviour that when the signature was hovered over, only the very last part of the topic was highlighted. I only made it visible as a last-ditch effort after I couldn't get it to fix the misleading highlight. This made it ugly and non-conformant.
The topic became unexpectedly long as I gradually found more problems and did numerous small rewrites to reduce ambiguity as much as I could (and it seems I still failed at this quite horribly). Had I managed to notice the length becoming an issue before receiving any comments, I think I should have split the whole topic instead and this would've gotten rid of the highlight issue as well. Mossymountain (talk) 17:37, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

Apology accepted. Now, let's try to work as slowly and carefully through the current dispute as possible, finding common ground where we can. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 04:24, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Hi, I wrote this reply to your first reply there, three days ago at the time of writing.

I rewrote and further shortened parts of the topic and my last comment today by merging and/or linking to the relevant parts in existing text and by collapsing the less important stuff away. The whole thing should be a bit nicer to read now. Mossymountain (talk) 15:34, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. Apologies, but I've been extremely busy IRL of late and so it might take some time to respond to this. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 16:35, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Invitation to participate in a research

Hello,

The Wikimedia Foundation is conducting a survey of Wikipedians to better understand what draws administrators to contribute to Wikipedia, and what affects administrator retention. We will use this research to improve experiences for Wikipedians, and address common problems and needs. We have identified you as a good candidate for this research, and would greatly appreciate your participation in this anonymous survey.

You do not have to be an Administrator to participate.

The survey should take around 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement .

Please find our contact on the project Meta page if you have any questions or concerns.

Kind Regards,

WMF Research Team

BGerdemann (WMF) (talk) 19:22, 23 October 2024 (UTC)