User talk:Thumperward/Archive 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 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 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 →

Contents

Pop Culture Section for Tabasco Sauce

Thumperward, I rather liked the pop culture section for Tabasco Sauce and I gather that others enjoyed it, too, given how many people contributed to it, and the lack of previous complaints about it.

I think the pop culture section served a legitimate purpose for a subject like Tabasco sauce, which is so ubiquitous in society and such a pop culture icon.

Perhaps we could compromise by doing away with the trivia section per se and retaining the larger pop culture section . . . that is, combining the two sections into one pop culture section?

If this is not to your liking, perhaps we should invite discussion (as I've already done) on the talk page for Tabasco sauce, and see if a consensus exists on the subject? Sincerely, --Skb8721 15:59, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

If you really like it then go ahead and put it back. Pop culture sections are a personal peeve of mine (they inevitably seem to get longer than the rest of the article) but in an article of this type I suppose impact on popular culture is an important part of the notability. Chris Cunningham 16:03, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Eats, Shoots, and Leaves

Saw your user page... thought you'd enjoy the book by the above title if you haven't already found it. UKMan 23:28, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I do :) cheers! Chris Cunningham 23:34, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

When to use otheruses

Hi. I noticed your reversion of my addition of the otheruses tag to the page about the band Genesis. I'm not sure I understand your reasoning and thought I'd mssg you to discuss. I added the tag so that readers of this article would be aware that this band isn't the only thing called Genesis; experienced Wikipedia readers would realise this from the qualified title, but I was thinking more of casual users who wouldn't be familiar with our article naming conventions. An inexperienced user who arrives at this article from the Genesis disambiguation page (e.g. because that's where their search took them) should of course realise that there are lots of other things called Genesis, but someone following a link (e.g. recently, from the main page) would not (necessarily), and therefore an otheruses tag (or some other device) would be helpful to them and so IMO would be a useful addition to the article. I guess that there is a school of thought which says we should only use otheruses for non-qualified pages - this seems to be what you are alluding to in your edit comment - but I wondered what the thinking was behind this? Thanks SP-KP 18:11, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

They can't arrive there from an ambiguous link, because ambiguous links don't go to qualified articles. They can't arrive there from a search, because a search is going to make it obvious that there are other results. My general position is that it's hard enough to get through a whole wikipedia article without being distracted by links elsewhere (we all get lost for a few hours sometimes) without adding in links to unrelated subjects which don't logically help with navigation. In certain cases it may be appropriate to use a disambig tag on a qualified article, but I think this should be the exception rather than the rule. Cheers. Chris Cunningham 18:19, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. I think I may not have explained my reasoning well enough, for which, apologies. We agree that a search wouldn't take a user to a qualified page, and I think we also agree that ambiguous links wouldn't take a user to a qualified page (if what you mean by an ambiguous link is what I mean by an ambiguous link i.e. a link to a disambig page). The situation I'm envisaging is where a user arrives at a page such as this from a non-ambiguous link (but probably one such as this: Genesis). Thinking just about novice/casual users (the group I'm concerned about in this specific discussion), it is unlikely that they would realise that the presence of "(band)" in the article title would indicate that there are articles on other things called Genesis, and they would be even less likely to know that to find these articles they would have to go to a page called "Genesis (disambiguation)". To these users, an otheruses tag on a page like this one would serve the same purpose as an otheruses tag on a non-qualified page, hence my puzzlement over why an otheruses tag is appropriate in one place but not the other. Don't know if I've made a better stab at explaining my thinking now. Any thoughts? SP-KP 19:15, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
If the articles are unrelated then there's no reason to link to them. Why should someone be informed about the Sega Genesis as opposed to Peanut butter or the 1994 World Cup? Disambig is for confusion, not as a cool-stuff guide. Chris Cunningham 19:18, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, I don't follow your argument. If this were the case, why do we have the otheruses tag at all? Sorry if I'm being a bit slow! SP-KP 20:05, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
It's just another way of phrasing the disambiguation. To be honest I'm not sure what the exact rules are, but that's how I play it when editing. Chris Cunningham 21:07, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
I didn't mean "why do we have an otheruses template", but "why do we tag articles with links to disambiguation articles". What I was getting at was why is it appropriate to show novice users that disambiguation pages exist at pages which have unqualified titles but not at pages which have qualified ones - to a novice user, the "need" and the effect are the same. I'll hunt around in Help to see whether there is any guidance on this and report back. Cheers SP-KP 21:21, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Interestingly, the Manual of Style (specifically Wikipedia:Hatnotes#Disambiguating_article_names_that_are_not_ambiguous) implies that we shouldn't add a disambig link in these circumstances, although the reasoning it gives doesn't take into account the points I've made above, so I think I'll open a discussion on the talk page and see where things go. All the best SP-KP 21:31, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

GNU/Linux redirect

Hi. Could you please elaborate on why do you think my edit is worth a revert with no explanation other than "rv"? 80.233.255.7 00:30, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

It was an undiscussed, anonymous and highly contentious redirect swap on the grounds of an argument which has a whole article to itself. I regarded it as being provocative. Chris Cunningham 00:39, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Undiscussed: my bad. Anonymous: I don't see how does that matter. Contentious: true, but this is a very touchy subject on its own. Provocative: spontaneous, rather. I realize that I should've discussed it on the talk page, but I really do think that redirecting GNU/Linux to GNU makes a whole lot more sense than redirecting to Linux. A person referring to the operating system as GNU/Linux likely has a reason to do so, and pointing them to the Linux article is highly misleading. You may repost the discussion on the GNU/Linux page if you'd like to comment further. 80.233.255.7 00:58, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
The article histories indicate you were involved in the exact same argument just over a month ago. You are aware of the talk consensus, and I'm not interested in repeating myself ad infinitum. Chris Cunningham 01:33, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
I'll reiterate what I wrote elsewhere on the same subject: "majority" does not constitute "consensus". You're quick to use words that you don't understand the meaning of. The very fact that I was involved in an argument only shows that there is a disagreement, and in no way does that mean that consensus is reached. Please do not edit the article if you're not willing to actually discuss your or anybody else's edits. Otherwise it comes across as ignorance and in some cases simply bad faith. 80.233.255.7 10:56, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
That three or four editors don't accept consensus is not going to force this to be treated like an open issue. Over the last year most free software articles have adopted consistent terminology. It's practically policy at this point. Chris Cunningham 11:03, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Consensus can only be reached through discussion, it's not something that others must either accept or stand aside because you (claim that you) have had it for a longer period of time. Saying something is "practically policy" is somewhat cheap; it suggests that you don't really have anything to back up such a claim yet you insist that it be considered true. During the time I edit Wikipedia I have seen both GNU/Linux and Linux used for the same operating system in a lot of articles, sometimes in the same article; I don't see how is that "consistent terminology". 80.233.255.7 11:19, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Troll-feeding

You are right, but if we don't say anything the trolls will say "we talked about it in talk page and this is the consensus since nobody replied to us to refute our arguments" -- AdrianTM 19:04, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't disagree that the odd interjection is required, but once per thread is enough. Replying to everything just escalates the issue. Chris Cunningham 19:08, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Anyway I decided that will respond to any argument, no problem for me -- I have time, I am curious if trolls will have that much patience (other people might lose patience, I won't), Another solution would be to make a list of arguments and just link to that for every trolling regarding the subject, -- AdrianTM 17:32, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Please read my comment on Talk:Linux

I have explained why GNU must be mentioned, here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Linux#mentioning_GNU

Please reply instead of reverting and citing "Talk discussion" when the Talk: page discussion is far from supportive of you and you haven't even participated in the recent discussion. Thank you. Gronky 16:26, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

The talk page is swamped. Please see Talk:Scientology for similar tactics. When you can find an authority which supports the GNU/Linux naming convention I'm prepared to discuss this further. As is, all I'm getting is mantra, and you're avoiding the question. I'm not being drawn into repeating myself on talk indefinitely because unlike user:AdrianTM I haven't the patience of saints. Chris Cunningham 16:40, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Insults

Hi. I am not entirely aware of your position with respect to the Linux naming controversy, thus I do not have a strict opinion of you, but I noticed that you have referred to certain people, me possibly included, as "idiots" and "trolls" on AdrianTM's talk page. Just wanted to let you know that it shows lack of respect and generally isn't a polite way to refer to other editors. Also, if the discussion ever reaches a point where Wikipedia authorities will need to be involved, this fact is not going to speak in your favour. Please have at least some level of respect for other editors. Thanks, 80.233.255.7 23:34, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I like how you sign your text, it's difficult to call a number "troll", are you banned somehow? -- AdrianTM 15:11, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
No, I just never log in. I think they ban IPs as well when banning registered users. 80.233.255.7 16:07, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

X-COM: Apocalypse

I noticed you added the POV tag for 'negative tone'. I've just read the page and can't see much sign of this. The only negativity I can see is regarding unfinished features, but as far as I know this info is factual. Arganoid 20:42, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

The whole article has a negative tone, treating advertised-but-not-included features as faults. That something might be factual doesn't prevent its inclusion being POV, and missing features shouldn't really be worthy of inclusion anyway in most cases. My Internet access is going to be sporadic for a while, but I'll see if I can work on this in the near future. Chris Cunningham 00:28, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Personal attack warning

This official warning is concerning the comments you made here, although it looks as if you've been warned several times in the past already. Please stop. If you continue to make personal attacks on other people, you will be blocked for disruption. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Thank you. Roguegeek (talk) 00:44, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, what. I don't see that user having made a complaint. It wasn't a personal attack, it was a light-hearted comment of no substance. I don't appreciate being randomly sniped for this kind of thing. Kindly adjust your skin depth; I have little spare time currently to investigate how to report abuses of moderator power, so I'd rather not have to bother. Chris Cunningham 00:55, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
I wish to express my concern that harmless statements like "(now now children. use the byte-saving template)" are now cause for personal harassment. --MarSch 16:58, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
i believe that 'children' refers to many people, so the 'attack' wouldn't be personal. the comment did pertain to the content (being byte size) so Roguegeek's warning was out of line. are editors and humor mutually exclusive? The undertow 00:29, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Removing material from your talk page

Thumperward, after a cursory examination of your contribution history, I have found that you have removed information from your talk page several times in the past (and not placed it in an archive). Your edit summaries reflect that you belief the material to be "childish vandalism" when it in fact was a valid discussion (and I myself attempted to place back the material to no avail). A few examples are thus:

Please place the censored material back where it belongs, as removal of comments on talk pages is considered vandalism (and removed comments still remain in the page history). Thank you for your cooperation. --Zenosaga 22:34, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

As of this message, in order to fix vandalism, I have placed the material (with an unsigned signature fixed) back into the appropriate archive. Thank you for your cooperation. --Zenosaga 23:18, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
I've removed these again. Removal of boilerplate and personal attacks is not vandalism. Kindly give it a rest instead of pretending to be a neutral moderator-type instead of an editor previously involved in calling me "the evil Chris Cunningham" on talk pages. Chris Cunningham 08:58, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Rock pigeon edits

I'll assume that your edits to Rock Pigeon were a test rather than something worse. Pink is the colour for all animal taxoboxes, and changing the family link to a redirect isn't helpful, so I've reverted jimfbleak 16:10, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Ignorance rather than malice. Thanks for the bold revert though, I suppose I'll go back and manually add the non-contentious bits. Sigh. Chris Cunningham 16:13, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Sorry about the tone of the above, changing the colour is a favourite with the vandals, also sorry that I failed to notice the changes lower down the article. I've rebolded the species name, as the convention is that monotypic groupings (usually, but not always, just the species) are formatted thus. See for example, Crab Plover jimfbleak 16:54, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
No worries :) Chris Cunningham 18:10, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Glenn Greenwald edit

Thanks for adding the url of the announcement. I had meant to do that, but I forgot that step.Bjones 13:46, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

My pleasure. Oddly enough, I read Greewald religiously but hadn't checked the site yesterday, so my watchlist was the first place I heard about the move :) Chris Cunningham 14:21, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Your editing of the Quest Software entry

I'm curious about your notation that the Quest Software entry reads like advertising. I have re-read the entry and it is written in a plain, matter-of-fact manner. No claims are made about the products or the company. It is just a factual description of what the company does. Can you help me understand your point of view? I'm inclined to remove the tag, but I'd like to hear what you have to say on the matter first. Thanks. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by EGM (talk • contribs) 18:56, 2 February 2007 (UTC).

It's little more than a product list. Product lists aren't encyclopedic. An article doesn't have to be advocative to read like an advert. Chris Cunningham 19:11, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

The Trevor Baylis article

Hi, and thanks for all your contributions to the article about Trevor Baylis. I added quite a lot to this article in early 2006 when I was very new to WP. Uncertain as to how to cite my source, I put an explanation onto the talk page.

I notice the page now has an {{unreferenced|date=October 2006}} tag. I would like to cite my source properly, but am not sure how to cite the 4-page CV that Mr Baylis gave me. Do you have any suggestions?

Cheers - Euchiasmus 20:24, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi :) Sorry about missing the talk comment. The best thing to do would be to use template:cite on its own I think. Either add a single references directly to the references section, or use <ref></ref> tags at appropriate points in the article. Chris Cunningham 13:11, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Debian

I think you did an excellent job with this edit concerning the Debian article. Perhaps it is a natural tendency of many editors to "overlink", of which I may be guilty myself from time to time. Good cleanup, I support it. The text feels lighter now. Antidrugue 15:21, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I was actually just reverting to the previous version of the article, but thanks :) Chris Cunningham 16:30, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism

To me, it looks like a POV pusher, not really a vandal per se. But if you disagree, resubmit the report. I won't act on it. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 11:14, 22 February 2007 (UTC)