User talk:Thumperward/Archive 27

Archive 20

←

Archive 25

Archive 26

Archive 27

Archive 28

Archive 29

Archive 30

Navbox

Great work there; I'd been trying to figure out how to do that when I created the navbox, but just couldn't find the right template. Thanks! -Drilnoth (talk) 14:27, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Cheers. Yeah, pet project of mine. I'll have a look and see if any other project boxen need standardising. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 14:30, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Celtx Notability

Hi Chris. Just letting you know I've made some changes to the Celtx page to address your notability concerns. Please let me know if ok for de-tagging? Thanks! - Sheila Betagerl —Preceding unsigned comment added by Betagerl (talk • contribs) 19:19, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. The notability aspect has been addressed - however, the new prose is rather promotional in nature and needs toned down. In addition, the article has some copy issues, such as uppercase headers. I've re-tagged the article to reflect these new concerns. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 20:23, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi again. As per the suggested copyright violation posted on Nov.28 by Scarian [Revision history of Celtx], please be aware that the copy in question was written by members of the celtx team and taken from our own web site. We have no issue with the content being distributed by others. If you'd like confirmation on this feel free to email our ceo, Mark Kennedy at info at celtx dot com. I'll inform [Scarian] of this as well.

In the meantime, as per your request I edited the copy to remove 'heavy promotional tone'. Please let me know if Ok. Thanks Betagerl (talk) 20:52, 3 December 2008 (UTC).Sheila

It's still a little too personal, but I'll see if I can find time to correct that. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 20:53, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

template:infobox mineral

Restored previous version as your changes messed up width. Did you check after you changed it? Vsmith (talk) 15:03, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Apparently not well enough. Anyway, I'm planning an overhaul which will resolve this. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 15:51, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Template:FOSS

Hi Chris: I know you have had some useful things to say about User:Ramu50's changes to Template:Linux‎ several times. I am having a similar issue with the same editor on Template:FOSS. I thought perhaps you would like to participate at Template_talk:FOSS#Changes if you have time to do so? - Ahunt (talk) 00:53, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

He's finally been indefinitely blocked, which should end this. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:48, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Pteropus

I generally think that a video is a bad item to add to the taxobox. It would be better further down (e.g. in the gallery), with a photo in the taxobox. If a video was all we had it would be okay. Richard001 (talk) 01:37, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't particularly mind - the article's still at an early stage. If you want to swap an image in there then be my guest. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 14:13, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but

I've had to revert your changes to {{Infobox OS version}}. If {{infobox}} can be used in such a way that it can look as good as the template, without consuming quite so much dead-space width (and width is at an extreme premium at the top of articles), then great, but until then, no. Clarity and editor-friendly maintenance are not sufficiently good reasons to make a template wider, taller, and less organized. The final output is the only thing that matters. Warren -talk- 19:32, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Bah. "As good". "Less organized". Funny how this layout has managed to last so long on {{Infobox OS}} without everyone clawing their eyes out if it's so difficult. I'll see what I can do, but that doesn't mean it's going back exactly as it was before. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 20:07, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

{{Infobox OS}} is nowhere near as wide as what you'd changed it to. It is also pretty unorganized when you have a lot of items on the template. And all the long labels wrap. Warren -talk- 22:39, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

The long labels can be made to not wrap by sticking in white-space: nowrap on the labelstyle parameter. The width thing I still can't see at all - it was already hard-coded to a minimum of 290px before I touched it. Anyway, best continuing this on the template talk, where everyone can see it. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 07:54, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Just a note

Hello Thumperward. I respect your efforts and dedication shown by the contributions you make to wikipedia. I think you sincerely want to help to make it a valuable source of useful and valid information. In that sense I hope that we can collaborate. --Grandscribe (talk) 22:05, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Appreciated. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 22:31, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

"Inflammatory comments"

I do not see how you could construe this as an attempt to provoke you by disparaging your current workplace. No company's independent existence is guaranteed 20 years in the future - there were even doubts about the survival of IBM in the early 1990s. Do not use your grumble to evade the point that editors in 2008 have no business guessing what will or will not be notable in 2028, and that applies equally to TV programmes and computer companies. --Philcha (talk) 12:42, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Considering that the current Sun article serves as a good historical guide to the subject and the current Top Gear one doesn't, you picked a rather poor analogy. As a heads-up, generally if one is picking examples it is a good idea not to go looking through people's user pages to find them, because it always comes across as being personal. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:57, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that your comments at [Talk:Top Gear (current format)#"Unusual reviews" section give the impression that you consider youself more entitled than others to judge what is important enough to appear in an article. I therefore thought it relevant that a subject in which you have a considerable interest might be quite unimportant to others. If the impression given by your comments is incorrect, you might like to clarify your position at Talk:Top Gear (current format)#"Unusual reviews" section.

As for the quality of Top Gear (current format), the GA review had already pointed out on 21 Nov 2008 that "All the items need refs" in section "Unusual reviews". I suggest you let the review take its course. Obviously if you can help with sourcing or other issues raised in the review that would be welcome. --Philcha (talk) 13:38, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

No, all it does is point out that I consider myself a good judge of what content belongs in articles in general, based on several years of experience including quite a few articles now at GA/FA. You decided that I had no interest in Top Gear because I hadn't previously edited the article on it (which is a rather strange criterion in my mind - I imagine most editors are keenly interested in subjects which they haven't yet edited on Wikipedia) and then dredged up my workplace for some reason.

Furthermore, GA review doesn't replace or override normal editing discussion and its conclusions aren't binding. Anyway, take it back to the page talk, minus the personal stuff. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 13:52, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks very much

Thanks. I really appreciate your help. My fingers are crossed for the next pass. Will a link show up on my talk page? I tried reading the intructions and copying, but I must have missed something.ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:56, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Don't worry about it. It's voodoo, and it still randomly fails sometimes. The {{archives}} template in the top right should automatically detect new pages as they are created, as you can see from my archive box. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 00:17, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I find it very confusing that it says Thumperward, but you are signing as Chris Cunningham. But it's still not as confusing and mysterious as the archiving fog. ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:02, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

One is my user name, and one is the thing I sign my cheques with. I feel weird putting my real name into a "user name" box and feel like a ten-year-old signing things with a nickname. Not so hard to understand. I've been planning to retire the nickname for about a year now though. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 01:07, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

What is a thumper ward, if you don't mind my asking? The only thing I can think of is a Dune (movie) reference. Do you raise rabbits?ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:27, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

It's my porn star name. I've used it online for the last decade or so. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:09, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Interesting... but I think you should tell people you raise rabbits. Were you on Arbcom? How was that? ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:45, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

No, I've never been on Arbcom. What made you think that? Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:20, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I think I confused you with Charles Mathews, is he on Arbcom? If nto someone else that I thought was you, but wasn't. Not very similar names I suppose, oh well. Thanks for looking out for my archiving. Manual archiving just means cut and paste? Can you clue me in on the Thumperward thing, I still don't get it. Isn't a ward someone who looks after others or a place where people are looked after? ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:05, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't really follow ArbCom, I'm afraid. Yes, manual archiving is just cutting and pasting the relevant threads. The porn star name thing is just a game, I wouldn't worry about it. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:33, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

IXsystems

A proposed deletion you instated on IXsystems has been removed by an anonymous IP address. This could be because they disagree with the proposal. Cheers. ←Signed:→Mr. E. Sánchez ^{Get to know me!} / _{Talk to me!}←at≈:→ 06:47, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. The talk page seemed to reach the conclusion that the title and layout were better prior to the move a few days ago, so I've reverted those (which resolves the notability issue for me). Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:12, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh emperor

What the heck do you think you are merging without prior discussion three templates and creating such an ugly and uninformative page? I will certainly take all measures to force a revert of your steps. Wandalstouring (talk) 15:56, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

In a slightly less threatening way than Wandal, I and others also concur. Please give your view on the template talk page if you would. MickMacNee (talk) 18:35, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

And in the meantime, Thumperward, I've reverted your changes, as five people immediately disagreed with it. You think dealing with me alone is a bitch when making bad changes? Good luck with this one... Warren -talk- 18:45, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Meh. BRD. I'll take it to talk. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 08:47, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

problem with your changes to db-g4 template

Template_talk:Db-meta#new_position_for_AfD_link_at_Db-g4_was_not_visiblel. I had to revert you, as it seemed that the change was causing real problems. --Enric Naval (talk) 21:37, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Sure thing. The template really needs some thought into a new layout which makes it easier to use and read; I'll have a look into this. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:31, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Template:Infobox Football biography 2

Hi - Just FYI, I've added a param for the total number of appearances and goals (actually, stole one so there are now only 29 rows for senior clubs) and tried to shrink the line spacing. At this point I don't understand why the line spacing is different between the existing version and the new version. If no one pipes up at Wikipedia:Bot requests I could write a conversion script myself (although not sure how soon). -- Rick Block (talk) 02:08, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Stealing that attrib might cause problems if Lutz Pfannenstiel gets about any more. :) Anyway, the reason for the line spacing change is explained on the template talk: {{infobox}} simply uses greater spacing by default, and we shouldn't be overriding this (especially not significantly) without a serious evaluation of whether it's necessary. I think the current padding is an acceptable compromise between the template-that-was and the infobox defaults, even in pathological cases like the Pfannenstiel article - can you point out any areas where you see a real problem here? Thanks for volunteering for the script duty too, that'd be great. I don't think we're in any rush, as it stands. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:36, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Do you understand Dudesleeper's "squished" comment (at Template talk:Infobox Football biography)? I don't really mind the padding, but in a side by side it looks fairly ridiculous. I created the infobox geography style a while ago to address a similar issue. It has "mergedrow" styles that shrink the padding. We'll see if the folks commenting really care about this or not. If so, it might be worth using the mergedrow style (it's actually kind of a pain with a template with lots of optional params, since the top and bottom row have specific classes). BTW - the actual reason I moved the Total header is because it was clearly the way the base template was intended to be used. I tried moving it back (using   as the label), which works, but you're right about this being an accessibility issue (thanks). -- Rick Block (talk) 10:44, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm much better with screenshots or technical descriptions when depicting display problems than I am with adjectives, in general. But keep the suggestions coming and I'm sure we'll be able to get a solution which works well for everyone. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:46, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Gavin.collins RFC/U

Hello. A request for comment on user conduct has recently been filed regarding Gavin.collins. Since you have been involved in the dispute regarding his disruptive edits, I thought that you would want to know. You can see the RFC/U here. Thank you. -Drilnoth (talk) 21:55, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Added a rebuttal. Thanks. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 22:54, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Welcome! All input is appreciated. I've posted a few questions/comments for you on the RFC's talk page. -Drilnoth (talk) 02:26, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

drop by

Proposal to end the template conflict and let the users decide. Wandalstouring (talk) 09:36, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

There's not much point in leaving templates around if they aren't used. If the other functionality isn't needed, we'd be as well just deleting the other templates. As it stands, the sandbox code neatly does all their jobs at once and doesn't greatly impact the complexity of the code IMO. I don't see it as a "conflict" as such anyway; we're following the usual editing cycle, and I think we're all mature enough to get a positive outcome. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:56, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Mono-something or other

"Can you try adding the following to your monobook.css: table.infobox sup { vertical-align: text-top; }" - could you advise how to do this? I have absolutely no idea what a monobook.css is. The only CSS I know is a Brazilian pop group :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:12, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Add the line in question your default stylesheet - this is located at Special:MyPage/monobook.css. Just paste it in, save it and then refresh your cache (hit Shift and Refresh) on the Johnny Warsap page. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 14:24, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Template:Infobox OS version

Hello there, i saw you fixing some things in this template, and i think than you could handle this problem than still exist in this template, the "OS cite needed" does'nt work properly. So... if u can ;)

Thank U --Sotcr (talk) 08:33, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

In what way is it not working? It seems to be working as designed on Windows 3.1x and Mac OS 9. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:53, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Mm, well, in Windows 3.1x was missing a "|" so the " release_url =" does'nt exist, but i already fixed, and in Mac OS 9 is becouse there is not the " release_url =". So the problem is when " release_url =" is in the article, but nothing is filling the field, like here--Sotcr Excuse my English (talk me) 06:29, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out this issue. I'll try to fix this as soon as I can. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 08:47, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

:o U understood me!! :P Im glad my english become better, or u are a good guesser.

Well... thanks 4 ur attention --Sotcr Excuse my English (talk me) 08:55, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Your English is fine. :) Thanks for the heads-up. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:01, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

So? Any update to the template? I saw a new edition in this template related with "OS Cite needed" but the problem still persist --Sotcr Excuse my English (talk me) 23:55, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm waiting on response from some users regarding the layout. I won't forget about this change, but it may be a week or two until it can be done. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 00:03, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

inapropriate humor ??

I politely disagree. I think it is a viable option and as such it should be discussed. best regards Capricornis (talk) 18:47, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Not on the article's talk page. Wikipedia talk pages are not forums for general discussion of the subject matter. Your comment contained nothing pertaining to the editing of the article. Please don't re-add it. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 18:49, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

It's nice that

we have something we agree on when it comes to appropriate content for templates. Warren -talk- 22:06, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. :) We've got plenty to agree on. Let's not make out that disagreement over two templates, which hasn't caused any acrimony and will reach an amicable conclusion some time soon, means that we're not broadly in agreement on a huge bunch of things. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 22:08, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Surely. I don't agree with everything you do, but that's okay, because you're pursuing good causes that are improving the encyclopedia. And that's the only really important thing here, isn't it? Warren -talk- 01:39, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Uzi article move

Huh? Where/why/who/how? No discussion beforehand?? Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:32, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

WP:BB. It is obvious that the primary term is the gun, so far as WP is concerned. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 22:34, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Did you look back a couple or three years, at the long discussion on what to call the article? It didn't end up where it was by accident...

Perhaps that should be revisited, but there are a couple of other firearms related editors who are likely to show up and try to set you on fire for being bold on this. May-be a move back and opening a normal move discussion?... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:46, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Can you point me at that discussion? It's not at talk:Uzi, talk:Uzi submachine gun or talk:Uzi (disambiguation) so far as I can see. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 22:51, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

SVG

If you think SVG overloaded with detail, have a look at Silverlight. Globbet (talk) 00:27, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I am aware that other articles have problems too. This is not a rebuttal to the issues raised. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 00:30, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't claim to have attempted a rebuttal. Please (a) don't lecture me, and (b) relax. Oh, and I suggest you may find rebuttal of might be better English. Globbet (talk) 00:26, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Why are you bringing this to my talk page, exactly? I think we're done here. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 01:02, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Image:CocaCola.png IfD

Does not look like it works that way for images or I can't figure it out. I believe the link has to be updated everywhere the image is used but I am not sure. -Regards Nv8200p talk 20:37, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Moral support

On the advice of counsel, I'm going to refrain from wading about in yon sewer for the moment. You might review the provenance of the image being used; it's lifted from {{User WikiProject Graffiti}} and its usage reinforces the pejorative message (and the XXX — has a 'dirty' implication which also is at odds with the street art perspective on graffiti).

Anyway, you seem a clueful fellow and I thought I'd have a chat with you. I see you do a lot of good work with templates and know code issues in general. I've quite a bit of development experience. Looking forward to working with you. Cheers, Jack Merridew 06:52, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Cheers for the support. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:47, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Condense

yes that is fine. Simply south (talk) 13:59, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

ANI case (70.79.65.227/Ramu50)

Hello, Thumperward. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. You can find the specific section here.

To clarify, you are not the subject of the ANI, but you have been previously involved in or have commented on this or a related ANI. Thank you for your time. Jeh (talk) 08:03, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Saw it, thanks. Not really any need for me to comment, you've got it covered. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:14, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

And I'm weary of covering it! I know it is policy (and one I agree with) to give people every benefit of the doubt, but... argh. Jeh (talk) 10:00, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I know. It'd be a tougher call if his edits were genuinely constructive, but even putting aside the tendicious editing and personal attacks so many of his edits were outright incorrect that I'm not likely to lose any sleep over it. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:10, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Pablo Escobar page

Hi, I have created a thread in regards to the meaning of "plata o plomo" on Pablo Escobar's talk page. Please contribute your thoughts, so we can reach an agreement. In the meantime, I have left your latest revision on the page. Thank you, Colombiano21 (talk) 17:35, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Replied. Thanks. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:52, 13 December 2008 (UTC)