User talk:Thumperward/Archive 6

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 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 →

Contents

Request for comment on computer program

The Computer program article is in need of repair. Would you comment on any improvement suggestions? I joined the talk starting with the thread talk:computer program#Definition of a computer program. Timhowardriley 00:30, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I've stuck it on my watchlist; I'll see if I can come up with anything. Chris Cunningham 07:46, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Date preferences

Can you please set your preferences correctly rather than make what are essentially null edits, like here? Go to "my preferences" and pick a date-time format. Samsara (talk • contribs) 16:34, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

A friend of yours?

You seem to have a lot in common. :) [1] pschemp | talk 20:43, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

 :D
I Can Has Cheezburger is one of my favourite memes right now. Chris Cunningham 21:32, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

British Grammar

Thanks for the tip about using the singular for British bands. As I am from the States, I obviously use American English and think that "Queen are an English rock band" sounds completely wrong. But since your name is Cunningham and you used the word "favourite" with a 'u' above, I presume you are British and will go with you on this one. Useight 14:58, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

No worries. JUst thought I'd bring it up for the future. Chris Cunningham 15:00, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Hybrid electric vehicle

The Working Man's Barnstar
Thank you for your tireless efforts to cleanup and organize the Hybrid electric vehicle article. Improbcat 12:45, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Yay :) Not had one of these in about a year I think... Chris Cunningham 12:47, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

American Invaders

Hello, the external link I inserted in the Improvised explosive device seems to be a relevant one. I do not understand why you removed. May I suggest that you read the Wikipedia policies. I also removed the term 'terrorist from the phrase asymmetrical warfare by terrorists because this weapon is used and has been used mainly by non-terrorists in the present and in the past to fight foreign invaders and criminals. The defeat of the United States in Vietnam is an example. May I also suggest that you read some history books (non-american history because the world has 4.6 billion years, not 10000 as your schools in the US taught you) Greetings, SeiteNichtGefunden

Youtube links are frowned upon because of potential copyright issues. I'm glad to see that my talk page continues to attract embarrassingly unresearched personal attacks from Wikipedia's crank population, though. Chris Cunningham 21:12, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Refs

<references/> has a bigger font for articles with few references such as 15ish or less this is important to change that is why i am changing {{Reflist}} to i did not do this for articles with many references

--Java7837 21:27, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Change the template then, for crying out loud. Don't edit five hundred articles by hand. Chris Cunningham 21:28, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
If i do that the font will be too big for articles with more than 15 references though for articles with few references it is acceptable to increase the font --Java7837 21:32, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Also the template is locked i can't edit it --Java7837 21:33, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Did you actually ask anyone about this? Having two different tags depending on how many refs an article has is flat-out wrong. I'd appreciate it if you could explain what makes it so important that articles with less refs have a bigger font. And you vcan request edits to locked templates, which is better than manually editing hundreds of articles. Chris Cunningham 21:36, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
One it is important that an article be both readable and not too long if the ref section is long it is best to use a smaller font so that the section doesn't take up to much space of the article if the article has few references then one should use a bigger font because one doesn't have to worry about space restraints
Also Wikipedia:Footnotes says that "An older system using {{ref}} and {{note}} templates is still common. Converting this older system to the new <ref>...</ref> system can make the references in an article easier to maintain." and further says that <references/> should be used.
--Java7837 21:44, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Read it

WP:BLP: Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material — whether negative, positive, or just highly questionable — about living persons should be removed immediately and without discussion from Wikipedia articles. So yes, it does mean exactly that. Sources or out. Guy (Help!) 21:57, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

So what's contentious about it? Where someone went to university is contentious now? Let's not go cathedralising the place with BLP invocation. Chris Cunningham 21:59, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Anything unsourced is contentious, in my book. I wonder if we'd have an article at all if she was not all over the interwebs with her top off? Guy (Help!) 22:00, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
I'd never heard of her prior to some random blog mention. I'm just opposed to heavy-handed administration in light of seemingly harmless edits. But I suppose I have better things to do this evening than edit articles. Chris Cunningham 22:08, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Zlib license

G'day Thumperward,

interesting interpretation. Actually, the talkpage says "either one is correct". The article was originally moved to its current location at Licence of zlib/libpng because either one would work, and the chaps at the time wanted to avoid the problem that zlib is, in fact, zlib, and not Zlib. I don't intend to delete the article for you, but I'm no more anxious than I'm sure you are to edit war over something as inconsequential as this, so I'm going to wander away from it now and not take any notice of what y'all do with it. Cheers, fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 10:48, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Zlib licence

There seems to be a dispute about a desired move involving page Zlib licence. Please what is who wanting to do with what? Please discuss the matter in Talk:Zlib license#Move discussion June 2007. Anthony Appleyard 12:17, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Nobody appears to want to actually say what the problem is with the move. I can't believe this is even an issue. The license has several names, none of which really have any claim to being particularly official, and the least convoluted one is "zlib license" as given on the existing article. I can't see any real reason for opposing. Chris Cunningham 12:21, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
Hmm, I said I was going to wander away. I'm evidently terrible at fortune-telling. The article was originally at Zlib licence, then was moved to Licence for zlib (or whateveritwas) because the chaps at the time decided that it didn't matter which name was used, so it was better to have it at a name that didn't get the capitalisation of zlib wrong. I wouldn't delete because I figure, if the article was moved away from its original title for what was ostensibly a Good Reason, then it's hard for a lone chap to wander along later and say moving it back is "uncontroversial" because he likes the idea. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 12:35, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
Technical restrictions aren't meant to affect how articles are named. But hey, I spent the whole of yesterday making hybrid electric vehicle legible, so a day spent bike-shedding over stubs sort of brings balance to the force. Or something. Chris Cunningham 12:50, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
Again, I'm not saying you can't have it moved, just explaining why I wouldn't do it for you, since you didn't seem to read my explanation (an alternative reading is that I didn't explain it well, but that's obviously incredible). Which leaves just one syllable left to be uttered: "meh". I do like the phrase "bike-shedding", though, and I think I'll steal it for use when I have the High Ground. Cheers, fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 13:36, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Open Source Beer Project

Hey, thanks for tidying up the article. I always find it amusing when someone has found and improved an article I've created before I've really even started it. Cheers! --Daniel11 07:53, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

No worries :) I'm convinced the Open Recipe movement will pick up steam in the next ten years. :) Chris Cunningham 08:33, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

When you redirected 'Infobox Senators template to 'Infobox senator'...

Why'd you do that? U.S. Senators aren't known as 'senators', they're known as 'Senator'. It's considered a proper noun. Also, when you moved 'Senator' to 'senator' and 'senator' was redirected to 'Infobox Officeholder', it broke the templates of hundreds (if not a thousand) pages by creating double redirects. Please be more careful in the future. One 19:15, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Eek. Sorry. I'll keep that in mind for future. Chris Cunningham 19:17, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
No problem. :-) One 19:33, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Cement/Concrete

I notice you took the link to concrete out of the cement article. Of course you're right, but as a clue to why it was there, try this: in the "Cement" article, in the "other languages" box on the left hand side, click "Simple English", and prepare to be amused. Perhaps there's more than one definition of "simple". . . .LinguisticDemographer 19:14, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Heh :)
That obviously needs corrected, but it'd still be awesome if there were an official and comprehensive policy which dictated how interlanguage articles were meant to link to each other in situations where articles might not have 1:1 mappings. Chris Cunningham 19:17, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Archive

Just an FYI that I archived the portions of Talk:Walt Disney World Monorail System that you deleted. --Kralizec! (talk) 11:30, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Are you planning on removing the rest of the archived material, then? A lot of it is still on the current talk page. Chris Cunningham 13:01, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, I did not catch and fix that until just a little bit ago. The double-listing was caused by an editor who is attempting to obfuscate his actions. --Kralizec! (talk) 16:47, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Your name there

This is just to ensure you are aware of the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Mike18xx#Response to Chris Cunningham. Cheers, CWC 09:57, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Yup. Not sure what that "carefully protecting" comment is about, admittedly. Chris Cunningham 09:59, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Linux says "GNU/Linux" is a valid name

Linux says "GNU/Linux" is a valid name. Someone contributed content to the article using a valid name, then an anon comes along and contributes nothing but changes the name to their preferred name. This is not productive, so I reverted. Then, just like the anon, you come along and contribute nothing other than pushing your preference between two valid names. Please stop.

And please don't use edit summaries as a place to comment on discussions happening on other article's talk pages. Gronky 11:52, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Linux does not say GNU/Linux is a "valid name", it merely notes its existence. You know that this is a long-term dispute and yet you're using summaries like "baseless rv" like there hasn't been ample justification. Consistency in terminology is good for the encyclopedia. If the community as a whole decides we should be using GNU/Linux for the OS, I'll be happy to help you change articles over myself. Until then I'd rather that links matched their targets where possible. Chris Cunningham 12:04, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia has a policy against this: Wikipedia:Redirects#Don.27t_fix_links_to_redirects_that_aren.27t_broken
"GNU/Linux" is a name that is in common use. Gronky 12:15, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
That's not what that rule is for. Were I to use Hillarycare to link to the Clinton health care plan in random political articles I'd expect the link to be changed. The existence of a redirect is not endorsement of the name. Chris Cunningham 12:37, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
We don't have to debate what the rule is for. We only need to see what the rule is. If you think there is a mistake in the rule and it is not achieving what it should, then raise that on Wikipedia_talk:Redirects. Until then, this person who actually contributes to those articles finds your behaviour disruptive, so please stop. Gronky 13:38, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Ugh. Yeah, we have rules for the sake of it, not because we're meant to interpret them or anything. Whatever. Chris Cunningham 14:27, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
The rule is there to stop non-contributors from disrupting contributors. That's my interpretation, and the rule matches that interpretation. You have another interpretation, but it doesn't match the rule. Gronky 15:23, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Hey man, I fixed the redirect to GNU/Linux, this way there is no redirect and its better. PS. Nice hat! :D - Francis Tyers · 08:46, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

There is no policy that demands standardised naming of things throughout Wikipedia. For example, try changing "the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" to "the Republic of Macedonia" (the title of the article in question) in a Greece-related article. - Francis Tyers · 09:10, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Edit summaries

You've reverted with the summary "rv per discussion on user talk page", but all I can find is you leaving comments on a User's talk page and that user disagreeing. Calling that "discussion" is disingenuous, please. (If I've missed something, prove me wrong.) Gronky 09:29, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

s/discussion/justification - happy? Chris Cunningham 09:44, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Peanut

I say do it. WLU 20:20, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Done. You wonder what drives people to do this kind of thing. Chris Cunningham 08:48, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Redirect Template

Thanks for correcting the redirect template on Flying Spaghetti Monster. I had no idea that existed!  :-D Happy wikiing!  DangerousNerd  talk 17:16, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

No worries :) Chris Cunningham 17:34, 22 June 2007 (UTC)