User talk:Thumperward/Archive 5

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 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 →

Contents

Sky at Night

Sorry, I was half asleep and hadn't realised which order the edits were made when I reverted. Sorry again. Chrislintott 12:43, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

No worries. I know the feeling :) Chris Cunningham 12:53, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Lincity

Hi Could you please stop spoiling Lincity-ng page. _I_ did the merge between lincity- and NG sometimes ago, _i_ cleaned the page when it was requested, and _i_ put uptodate image and updated text. So please stop damaging this page and stay away. —Preceding unsigned comment added by alain_bkt (talk • contribs) 14:28, 5 April 2007

Err, whatever. There were two pages, both were a mess, and I'm not in the habit of listening to people who can't even add comments to my talk page properly. Chris Cunningham 15:14, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

CC3

Good work on Command and Conquer 3. I was the one who added the PLOT tag and I didn't think anyone would remove the excessive plot details. Thanks! MahangaTalk 23:00, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Cheers. I've had an urge to just be bold and delete things like that ever since I snapped with Pulp Fiction recently. Here's to better articles :) Chris Cunningham 23:11, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Cheers as well to all that boldly delete excess ephemera! Validusername 00:59, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Trevor Baylis

Hi Thumperward. Thanks for doing some work on the Trevor Baylis article. I'm the person that wrote a lot of this article from the "Biography" document I tried to cite. However, I found it difficult to know how best to cite it.

You'll note from my comment on the talk page that Mr Baylis gave this four-page A4 "biography" document to me when I chatted with him at an exhibition in London. As I said in my comment, I've discovered that a number of websites have reproduced the whole document verbatim (without acknowledging his document as source). I could cite one of these secondary (copied) sources, but considered it better to quote the original document. As far as I am concerned, a document written by the man himself is about as reliable a source as you can get.

Now that you've removed my reference and added an "unreferenced" tag, what do you suggest I should do? I'm keen to remedy the situation. Looking forward to your reply. -- Euchiasmus 22:12, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

The ref's still there, I just removed the unverified parts. It'd really be best to provide a link to an existing online resource if possible; the link can always be improved in the future, and for the time being it allows people to fact-check and to add more information.
For what it's worth, using copyrighted material as a reference is fine, so long as the actual material isn't being copied verbatim. I think the best thing to do would be to paraphrase and use reference tags to point to sections of the document. Chris Cunningham 22:34, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Shaving spammer

Arbitration won't be necessary - User:Montereyham has already made 3 reverts in the past 24 hours, and I just warned him about it. --DLandTALK 21:50, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks :) Chris Cunningham 09:07, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Guinea pig

Hi, I was hoping to advance this article as an FA candidate some time in the near future (it passed GA status over the weekend). I was wondering if you had any further comments/suggestions for improvement of the page. Chubbles 05:19, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Scythe

Good revert. Peterkingiron 22:39, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

No worries. You wonder why people tag outright nonsense instead of just removing it. Chris Cunningham 21:10, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Led vs Lead

I think we're going to hit the 3r rule so let's avoid this. generally, Wikipedia is a place where we provide a global perspective, but of course with a basic difference in Australian, English and American written english, there are some nuances and differences. The nuances should, if no other concensus can be reached, be specific to that of the locality of the subject matter (it's in a guideline, I can't for the life of me remember where, but take my word... it's something like MOS or something). Anyway, as to using "led" as the past tense for the word "lead," that is exclusively a use in the united States, however the locality of Crowded House, the article in question, is Australia, where we use the same spelling for each, alike to, as you said, read. I'm not going to change it back as yet, as I'd like you to read this first and then I'll change it. Probably tomorrow (as it's late at night for me now).

--lincalinca 11:30, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Bryson specifically points to using "lead" here as a common grammatical mistake, and I can't find any reference online to this being a nuance of Australian English ("led" is most certainly used in the UK). I'm not one to go telling people their own grammatical rules, but are you sure about this? Chris Cunningham 12:17, 1 May 2007 (UTC)


Spoiler warnings

Spoiler warnings are an important part of articles about films. Please do not remove them. Thank you.71.48.223.132 20:38, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Uh-huh. Justification given. Chris Cunningham 06:48, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

BrE

Hi. I contribute a lot to Wikipedia, and I write in British English. There is nothing wrong with this dialect, and there is no reason to change it. Please stop converting articles that I have written from British English to American English. Gronky 16:12, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

WP:OWN, perhaps? I'm British and I have to grit my teeth when rewriting things in US English, but this isn't a reason to have glaring inconsistencies between page titles and the prose within. There's a very good reason to do so in the case of free software articles, where a majority of English-speaking editors will see a problem. But I'm not going to get into an edit war over it now that it's been undone properly. Chris Cunningham 17:03, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Please don't accuse people of WP:OWN needlessly. Thank you. Samsara (talk • contribs) 17:06, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

your work

Hey Chris Cunningham, Love the Rubber Johnny video, keep up the good work. ;-P —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.59.231.70 (talk) 19:30, 4 May 2007 (UTC).

Alas, it's a coincidence. I did buy the Chris Cunningham compilation DVD with a credit card in the name of Chris Cunningham though, which was fun. Chris Cunningham 19:32, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Theme Park

Good work on the Theme Park merge, lot better now. --Oscarthecat 18:17, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Cheers :) Chris Cunningham 18:22, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Rude undo of my edit

Hi Chris, I noticed you undid my recent edit of the Linux article. I assume you didn't mean it to be, but that was quite a rude thing to do, as I made quite a lot of different changes, which took some time to make, in order to try to make that a better encyclopedic article, and you seemingly deleted them all because of an objection to only one of the changes I made. Please don't do this in the future. Instead of simply undoing all of someone's changes, you should go through the article and make the changes you want manually, unless the edit was purely vandalism or destructive in another way. That's one of the policies of Wikipedia (see WP:UNDO#Don.27t). I've now remade all of my changes manually (except one someone else changed back with a valid explanation), and I'm not sure which change you disagreed with, so I'll leave that to you to edit if necessary. Guyjohnston 19:08, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I didn't agree with any of the edits, and I don't see reverting edits which I think fail to improve an article as being rude. See talk. The article needs considerably less meandering, not more. Chris Cunningham 20:53, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
It's fair enough if you disagreed with most of my edits. However, some of them were really small changes like improving links to 'open source' so they direct people to open source software, which is what they're supposed to be doing, rather than the general link to open source. I can't see how you think things like that make the article worse. I still think reverting edits like you did is rude. Either way, when contributing to Wikipedia, you should follow its policies. Guyjohnston 21:39, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
I really don't see the point in taking it personally; it wasn't meant that way. As for the idea of reverting good faith edits, well, sorry about that, but given the sheer volume of discussion on the wording of the intro at this point there's only so much new discussion that can take place. The link to the general concept of open source was deliberate, because "open source" as a branding came after the kernel (Torvalds' statement about being "open source and not free software" notwithstanding). Anyway, there's discussion open on it, and I didn't revert again, so we should be able to settle this amicably. Chris Cunningham 07:48, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Rollback of my "One Man and His Droid" edit

It occurred to me when I posted my edit that it might seem libellous to those who don't know about Harry Price or his notoriety (basically, those outside the ZX Spectrum community), but having now read the article section Wikipedia:Citing_sources#Tagging_unsourced_material, I can see precisely why the revert was done — the edit fits that section perfectly.

I've now not simply unreverted the revert, but added some basic citations (I don't want to get caught up in an edit war, as I suppose you don't either), and have advertised on the World of Spectrum forums for further cites if available. I hope this fixes the problem. 193.122.47.162 14:25, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

it does indeed. Many thanks :) Chris Cunningham 14:59, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Guinea pig

Passed FA! Thanks for all your help with the project. Chubbles 04:35, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Woohoo :) Chris Cunningham 08:39, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Pulp Fiction Move

I know, but it's quite confusing to have Pulp fiction and Pulp Fiction containing two different article. One a disambig and another an article about a film. I think, per wikipedia naming convention, Pulp Fiction should be moved to Pulp Fiction (film). If you look at the archive, a consensus was already achieved on this issue but somehow, in fixing the talk page, the two got switched. - Time Immemorial 09:56, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

The current talk has consensus for keeping it where it was. But to be honest it doesn't matter that much, so long as the archives and so on don't get orphaned (it appears we've got a duplicate copy of an old talk archive at an orphaned page right now, for instance). Chris Cunningham 17:33, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

BearShare

Did you mean to change significant amounts of content on BearShare? I didn't think the extra sections were complete garbage. They had some bad grammar and spelling. Bpringlemeir 21:30, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Small parts of the ultrapeers section are salvageable. I dare say none of the rest is. It's subjective, poorly written, provides commentary instead of description and focusses on trivia. Open to a rewrite, but I didn't think the drop in quality of leaving the stuff in for the time being was worth it. Chris Cunningham 21:38, 20 May 2007 (UTC)


In-Universe

It does not mean what you think it does.

In-universe means to describe something as a whole as if it was from someone in the universe's perspective. Just one mention of it being fictional, from a game, automatically makes it not in-universe. The fact that there are multiple pictures of the miniatures, different editions of the game mentioned, and the like, makes it clearly not in-universe. Please don't label such things again until after you have read the section that you are claiming it falls under. Thanks. SanchiTachi 22:05, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I know exactly what the tag means, and I still think it applies. It's primarily a cleanup tag, and the article still needs cleaned up to present the subject from an external point of view. There's no point getting offended that an article got tagged. Chris Cunningham 22:11, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
You do not know what the tag means or you would have read this: "Moreover, once the variants appear, Wikipedia now has a flatly wrong article, unless and until another knowledgeable editor catches the mistake. Framing things from the perspective of our own universe eliminates the problem altogether: "In Episode 37, Commander Kinkaid obtains a Finn-class starfighter with purple shielding. Vice Admiral Hancock calls the ship 'a real space ripper' and says that she can 'make it past 3c'."" By citing sources and editions, its not in-universe. Every paragraph had such. You really don't understand the words "external" or "point of view" if you claim that the article lacks that. And yes, there is a point to get offended by people who just randomly tag things without explaining any details or attempting to do anything to help the article. This is Wikipedia. Its made to be an encyclopedia, not some place for you to randomly vandalize pages because you have some definition of a word that isn't even close to whats in the dictionary. Thanks for being rude. SanchiTachi 23:41, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
And furthermore, the article is about figurines. Thats not fiction. Those figurines actually exist, so you really don't understand anything about in-universe, so I suggest you stop trying to label things as such. SanchiTachi 23:42, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Yay, I love being called a vandal. I suppose we can stop bothering trying to have a discussion about it, then. If it doesn't get improved it'll get tagged again, until such point as it isn't an exercise in fanboyism. Chris Cunningham 08:59, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for your words. I will be sure to quote them the next time you try to tag the page. It would be the third act of vandalism onto the page, as it clearly does not meet the definition for "in-universe." SanchiTachi 13:44, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Children. Chris Cunningham 13:46, 21 May 2007 (UTC)