User talk:Thumperward/Archive 16

This is an archive of past discussions about User:Thumperward. 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 10

←

Archive 14

→

Rollback

I looked at your contributions and I believe that when you have reverted edits, you have done so appropriately. So, I have added rollback rights to your account. Please note that rollback should be used only for blatant vandalism and does not leave a useful edit summary. I hope you find it useful, but if not, just ask and I will remove it. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 06:36, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Template talk:Infobox Scientist archive

Hi again. Thanks for alerting me about the archive link and repairing it. I guess I'm surprised Wikipedia's move function doesn't handle these situations, but am grateful to've been made aware. I'll try to remember to look out for this possibility in future. Sardanaphalus (talk) 02:59, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Template:KOffice (and maybe elsewhere)

Hi again. I'm puzzled as to why you've introduced {{documentation}} when (1) there's no documentation, and (2) this isn't a protected template. What am I missing? Sardanaphalus (talk) 17:02, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

As I've said before: it's good practice to separate code and documentation whether it's immediately required or not (as the template may later be protected), and the documentation page contains interlang links. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 08:58, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry if you've said that somewhere before; I don't think I was party to it. Anyway, I guess I don't feel it's necessary to introduce complications such as {{documentation}} before they're needed. That's not good practice...? When there is more than some brief documentation to present, fine. When there's only a couple of lines or so -- or, in the case of KOffice, none -- using {{documentation}} seems a bit... dogmatic. Sardanaphalus (talk) 03:29, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

We'll have to agree to disagree. We've obviously got rather a few differences in how we believe templates should be laid out; better to stick to discussing issues which really matter to the encyclopedia, as opposed to kvetching over each other's sense of aesthetics I think. We'll both be more productive that way. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 06:51, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay... Thinking more generally, I guess I'm wary about applying things "because they're the default" rather than building on the default if/as/when circumstances prompt it (e.g. wide gaps between lines). If further down the line that means the default is amended, so be it. I appreciate, though, that there's many things (especially in template land) that haven't "reached the default", which is what I see you working to address. Hope I've sussed the general idea. Sardanaphalus (talk) 03:20, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Pixart

Excuses to erase the label, you can help please to improve the style of the article?, thank you very much.--Bostokrev (talk) 23:33, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Linux is not an operating system

Calling Linux an operating system is fascism. If more people would call Adolf Hitler a good guy, would that be right? It's obvoius that you are just an open source guy that wants to destroy for the free software movement. --212.247.27.19 (talk) 15:51, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Please do not compare a relatively minor issue like the name of an OS used in wikipedia with fascism. While I think you have a point to make in that Linux is the kernel and GNU/Linux an OS, the general public call the various distributions collectively as Linux. Extreme comparison can be useful to show how wrong something is but in this case the comparison itself is objectionable. Personal abuse also has no place on here. --Brian R Hunter (talk) 16:41, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand why this guy shall decide everything. --212.247.27.19 (talk) 17:33, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

He doesn't - he just happens to be of the "Linux is an OS" opinion. There are many editors that hold this view, as are there many editors that hold alternative opinions. However, calling everyone that holds the "Linux is an OS" opinion a fascist is not acceptable. ~~ [Jam]^[talk] 18:05, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Your most recent infobox comment!

Hey Chris, I'm pretty sure it's not me you're accusing of short-circuiting the discussion.. can you clarify to whom you were making that comment? I think we virtually e/c'd.... The Rambling Man (talk) 18:12, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Yep, we're both replying to the same comment. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 18:15, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Mind you, I'm pretty certain some of us are wasting a lot of time trying to reason this out.... The Rambling Man (talk) 18:19, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

hide/show

Thanks for changing the Obama FAQ to hide/show - was trying to find out how to do that! Tvoz |talk 23:47, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

So was I :) Next step is to see if this can be incorporated into the {{FAQ}} template itself somehow, so that this is the default behaviour for long FAQs. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 07:30, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, good idea. Tvoz |talk 07:47, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Whoops - I didn't see that teeny tiny little "show" button on the page ... thanksTvoz |talk 18:34, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Ah - much better!! Thanks again!! Tvoz |talk 18:36, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

hahahaha- you can see how little I know about this! I think you've got it now. Will do it on CLinton FAQ too. Tvoz |talk 18:46, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Internet Tablet OS Security Section

I couldn't agree more, but as the creator of said section (and several other sections of nonsense that have since been deleted from the page) has accused more than one person of "vandalism" during attempts to remove it, tagging it as garbage is about as much as we've been able to do until we get a neutral party involved Requests#Neutral_part_needed_on_Maemo_page. If you want to nuke it, though, feel free to do so. :) It really is nonsense and attempts to resolve it on the talk page have been less than successful. I just don't want the tags misleading people into thinking the whole article is biased, OR, non-NPOV nonsense when it's only the single section. GeneralAntilles (talk) 16:38, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Wow, yeah, I see the problem. I'll see if I can work on this. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 16:44, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

RE: Talk:OSx86 edit

Thanks for the heads-up. I'll gather some information on the subject, and post it again.Grin.exe (talk) 20:40, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

(Template:Infobox programming language) Turing-complete

I'm about to add one or two new parameter(s) to the Infobox programming language template but I want to hear opinions to be sure I'm not going wrong. I suggest to add :

turing-complete = yes|no (yes if this language can compute every Turing-computable function, no if not)
turing-complete_lacks = xxx (the reasons this language cannot compute every Turing-computable function; only appears if turing-complete is present and is equal to "no")

example :

| turing-complete       = no
| turing-complete_lacks = impossible to form loops

result :

Turing-complete no (impossible to form loops)

Ftiercel (talk) 10:47, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I'd go for just the one attribute with a freeform value.

| turing-complete       = Yes

Or

| turing-complete       = No (impossible to form loops)

Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:49, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Lempel-Ziv-Markov chain algorithm

Hello. I noticed your edit to the LZMA article removing the section on the Windowsy-history and the two Unix ports. Do you think it would be useful to restore the Unix-part as there are currently two (incompatible) ports available [because of header-differences, the streams produced without extra can not be interchanged]. Needs further checking up to see what the true status-quo is. —Sladen (talk) 09:21, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I think this really needs to be better-sourced if it's to be included again. It's always smacked of being rather investigatory in tone. Without secondary sources which detail the status of implementations, it's unclear why individual instances of such are notable enough to include in an encyclopedia. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:25, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Your Summary

Hi Chris! I've expanded and edited your summary and encouraged others to do the same. You should take a look and make changes to it at Talk:Linux/Referring to this article. Perhaps more importantly, can you look at the area I've put up under proposed solutions. We should start working on that as well and I just summarized what I've seen you arguing and want to make sure I get it right and give you a chance to fix it up. Thanks! —mako ๛ 17:18, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your response and (in general) for your work on this issue. I appreciate your patience over the last few weeks, months, and years. I think the text of the summary is pretty settled but would appreciate some more brainstorming and expansion of the remedies section. You've been through more times than I have, what do you think our next steps are? Do you think we can work toward some sort of consensus on a compromise remedy? —mako ๛ 23:49, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Levitron

You say

I don't believe that this is some deliberate attempt by parties with COI to influence WP, though I do agree that the article as-is is inappropriately weighted towards the issue of trademarks and patents as opposed to the device itself. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 08:09, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

How exactly do you think that a representative of a company removing referenced material from an article relating to that companies' goods and trademarks is NOT a WP:COI?- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 07:25, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't aware that the individual involved was a representative of the company. If that's the case then you need to report the issue appropriately, not just edit war over it. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:20, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, that's claimed on their user page. Anyway I have reported it on the conflict of interest page. There's also a lot of anonymous IP edits in the article (which is fairly unusual in itself), and they always go the same way, deleting references to Harrigan and so forth. You make a change, including references, and bang, up pops an anonymous and deletes it. Looks like previous editors weren't aware of or haven't been enforcing wikipolicy, and that's part of the problem.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 15:50, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, this one's pretty obviously all the same user (even the editor who locked the article said so), so I don't think you'd have any problem if you brought it up. But edit warring isn't the way to do it. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 16:42, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

From the comments made by 'WolfKeeper' on the Levitron discussion page, it would be reasonable to question his/her NPOV with regard to the referenced material; unless the adjective 'sleazy' has a non-subjective definition of which I am not aware. Proper usage of trademarks is not subjective and Fascinations has acted to ensure proper use. As noted before, the trademark owners did not start the entry (and do not see Wikipedia as a marketing tool). If the Trademark is referenced, then it must be done so properly. If there were no such reference, as suggested by 'WolfKeeper' on the Levitron discussion page, then the issue would be moot. Perhaps arbitration would be appropriate, if COI is feared. Fascinations (talk) 20:21, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Let's just say, that in my long history of editing in the wikipedia, my neutrality has rarely been found to be an issue. On the other hand, I don't think your 'Fascinations' account (which violates about 3 different major policies that I have bothered to count) is going to be here long enough to bother with arbitration, but we shall see.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 21:43, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

BTW, I'm pretty sure that this edit:[1] was done by Fascinations, to and was involved in them violating 3RR (I did a traceroute on it, and it landed in Seattle, which is a bit 'coincidental' don't you think? That means that the current state of the article was done under 3RR and involved a sockpuppet.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 22:15, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

So take it to WP:RFCU. I'm not the person you have to convince here. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:52, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

AVG (software)

I've replied on my talk page. SF007 (talk) 15:17, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Replied again. SF007 (talk) 15:34, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Your proposed deletion of WTFPL

Hi. You are proposing to delete the article on WTFPL on the grounds that there are only two recorded instances other than the author's own software. I assume this is from looking at the Freshmeat database. However, there are plenty of things using the WTFPL that aren't listed on the Freshmeat gallery, for instance:

In addition, it has ~22,400 results on Google, was voted a clear Keep the last time it was on AfD [2], and has been referenced many times:

The FSF recognizes it as a valid license. [3]
Google changed the licenses on the SoC pages to all be "WTF Public License, Version 2". Google's hoaxes#Google Summer of Code Licenses

Because of this, I am removing your proposed deletion. Feel free to list the article in AfD if you disagree. Zarel (talk) 00:01, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Cannon.

I've commented here. · AndonicO ^Engage. 17:16, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

WINE

Hi, Chris!

I have noticed that you deleted the link I put on the WINE software article about the real possibility of that compatibility layer running Microsoft Windows virii (or viruses). I consider that you should, at least, provide another link discussing upon the same subject and well suited to Wikipedia ways.

But, as you deleted the useful link I written, I admit that you read the entire thread and, as I did, also noticed the problems related by those WINE users and their poor performance complainings (CPU usage, memory usage, slow processing, virus infection of super-user files, and so on) when running some Microsoft Windows virii, even though using just a compatibility layer, as WINE.

Best Regards!

--Nosophorus (talk) 18:38, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

The premise may be correct, but it needs to be rewritten and given a much better source if it is to be incorporated. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 18:41, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

about ePSXe

No, you're wrong...

I wrote all text on my own. Sources actually are release notes, readme (contains a lot of valuable info), feedback on ngemu.com forums, and last but not least my own PS emu experience and testing of this release. But I repeat: I rewrote, reorganized all content.

1.7.0 is a big step of ePSXe and drastically change its usage (no need of 1.5.2, much less fixes on a per-game basis, internal plugins now even better than third-party plugins), so it is important to mention this in its page. However, a "1.7.0" section is not so good, it is of course better than merge it (at least for some parts) with the main content, as you apparently began to do.

Od1n (talk) 14:03, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

No worries. It still needs rewritten a bit to be more of a neutral description of 1.7's capabilities; it still reads quite a bit like a release announcement. But thanks for updating the article. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 14:26, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Linux (detergent)

Has the Linux (detergent) page gone, or did it never exist? Paul Beardsell (talk) 11:57, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Linux (washing powder). No page ever existed at (detergent) AKAIK. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:21, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

X Windows

That you hold that "X Windows" is disparaging and is not to be used strikes me as odd. You are so keen that "Linux" be used bareword to mean "Linux operating system" because that is the popular usage. Well, "X Windows" is the popular term. And there is no possible confusion. Surely your primary motivation is not contradiction rather than contribution?

Paul Beardsell (talk) 13:54, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

It's interesting that there are a number of inaccuracies in the X Windows article reflected, I think, in many places throughout WP in relation to what an operating system is and what a kernel is. The particular example I have in mind is the assertion that X Windows is an application layer on top of the kernel. No! It rests on the operating system, which is the set of services provided by the libraries and utilities married to the kernel. In the Linux world these libraries are the (near-)essential components provided by the GNU project that provide the POSIX layer that makes Linux containing operating systems Unix-like. These issues are not broadly understood and, in my view, contribute to the widespread misunderstanding re the Linux (kernel) vs Linux (operating system) disambiguation issues. And were they understood they might undermine the hostility to the GNU/Linux moniker, as the debt to the GNU project would be apparent. Interestingly, Torvalds first post was that he had got Bash and GCC working. GNU utilities. But first he got GLIBC working. GNU libraries.

Paul Beardsell (talk) 13:54, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

The UNIX-HATERS Handbook specifically calls their chapter on X "The X-Windows disaster" because it annoys Unix people, and glibc wasn't ported to Linux for some time after bash. You don't know what you're talking about. Keep any replies to this material on the relevant article talk pages rather than redirecting it here. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 14:08, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I didn't know that, I will say I'm wrong when I'm wrong. But the rest is correct, correct? "Linux" as the name of the o/s annoys the FSF crowd but you don't object to that. You do agree that X Windows is the common name and that it is without ambiguity? Paul Beardsell (talk) 14:53, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Your habit of imagining concession of your points in any reply is amazing. Observation of Special:Whatlinkshere/X-Windows would show that it has no inbound articlespace links, without any crusade on anyone's behalf to go changing them. It's not "the common name" at all. If you want to argue that further then take it to a more appropriate venue. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 15:02, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Sigh. X_Window_System#Nomenclature. Argument closed. Paul Beardsell (talk) 15:54, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Dell#Dell helping President Bush

Here you tell me, "I'm terribly sorry for your accidental funding of the re-election of George Bush." Assuming good faith, I presume you accidentally omitted the word "partial" before the word "funding". As written, the apology seems highly sarcastic. And yes, I view Bush in such a light that I would never knowingly wish to contribute to his administration in any way whatsoever. In my personal opinion, history will judge him as the very worst president in U.S. history, in no small measure due to the national debt his misguided policies have foisted upon future generations. There is no way I can avoid doing business with Bush supporters, since everyone is free to keep private their political views. But when someone chooses to rub into my nose the fact that he supports Bush to the tune of a quarter of a million dollars in a single contribution, that's where I take grave offense. I now utterly despise my Inspiron 9100, and I rue the day that I bought it, belittlers notwithstanding. Blame it on my ENFP Myers-Briggs personality type, which many people, especially ISTJ types, find utterly incomprehensible. Thanks for your patience with my priorities. --Art Smart (talk) 23:11, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

No problem. I can see where you're coming from, but we have to temper such feelings when it comes to editing articles. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 06:51, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Just trying to make the article more informative. Thanks. --Art Smart (talk) 10:02, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

LOLCODE example farm tag

~~Oh hai~~In adding the mentioned tag, you asked others to improve the article by removing poor and/or irrelevant examples. I had a look and did not find the examples to be either, but to give a simple demonstration of the language's structure and its development. Granted, it's longer than it needs to be for that, but as this esoteric programming language's claim to fame is the weirdness of its commands there's value in demonstrating a reasonable amount of them. If you don't object, I'll do away with the tag. --Kiz o r 18:28, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

"phx"

Hi Chris. Please excuse the random message, but I wonder if you might know - what does the term "phx" mean when referring to networking? The only things I can find refer to companies with the names "PHX" or the place Phoenix. Dunno if you can shed any light on it. ~~ [Jam]^[talk] 22:21, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Context? Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 22:24, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh sorry. Well, I've seen it a few times in domain names "blahblah.phx.somedomain.com", so it seems to be something to do with network infrastructures. I've also heard switches mentioned too... ~~ [Jam]^[talk] 22:34, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Not something I'm familiar with I'm afraid. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 23:02, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

OK, that's fine - thanks anyway :). ~~ [Jam]^[talk] 23:05, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Thumperward. You have new messages at Aervanath's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Leaving it alone

Chris, perhaps you might care to assist in "leaving the damn thing alone" by reverting to the steady state / status quo we have been at for some time, a state each of us and others have been refraining from editing. It would send an appropriate message for you to do so from your side of the fence. Paul Beardsell (talk) 23:57, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Errr, no. This particular edit war is all of your doing according to the page history, so I'm certainly not going to lend your position the credibility of having an editor in good standing revert to it. I might have been more inclined to do so if you hadn't yet again made me out as saying the opposite of what I did on the talk page. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 13:07, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Please look again. Just quote the diffs. An anon changed the status quo which had existed for weeks and weeks. I reverted on the basis that the discussion was ongoing, KDP reverted that, I reverted asking for Talk page discussion, KDP reverted again. I have gone to the talk page, KDP hasn't. I've done an honest reality check here. We can't both be right. Please have another think. In what way am I responsible for an "edit war"? Please be specific. Paul Beardsell (talk) 01:14, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Wok

Your rollback was crude and lost valuable information, including a picture you didn't bother re-adding. FiveRings (talk) 02:49, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

The only "valuable information" lost was a collection of trivia about naming, which I've explained on talk. It wasn't a rollback, it was a normal revert including a detailed edit summary. I don't see that it was "crude", but sorry if you took offense. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:07, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

You lost a very nice picture of a wok stove. As well as whatever work other people did on wording. FiveRings (talk) 13:54, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

It's not as if it's been permanently lost. Those changes can be reincorporated, and I imagine I'll be doing some of that work. But the previous version of the page is the best baseline for that set of changes, and it's easier to add the improvements back than to try and diff through a large set of edits and manually edit lots of bits out. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 14:02, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Template

Sorry; I'll have to disagree with you on the template that I removed, while suggesting in the Edit Summary that the editor make the changes he/she thought necessary or move the discuss to the Talk page. It was the right thing to do.

The "tone" template, like others that deal with subjective style topics or matters that don't matter to readers ("few articles link to this one"), do not belong atop articles - their visual interference with wikipedia as a reader resource far outweighs their usefullness as a note to editors. That's why there are separate Talk pages, so we can discuss editing and content issues without interfering with the article.

Templates are a loud signal to readers and should be reserved for matters of importance to readers - this article may be NPOV, this article lacks citations so we're uncertain about its versimilitude, this article deals with a future or ongoing event, this article is being considered for deletion. Removing unimportant templates improves the article by preventing distractions, and I'm happy to do so. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 19:17, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

No, thanks. I'll continue to remove nag tags as I see fit to improve wikipedia - just as other editors continue to place them as they see fit to improve wikipedia. That's how wikipedia works, after all; sometimes edits undo each other. It's not like nag tags are some magic move that raises your work above edit-ability.

If the person who placed the box complains and replaces it, as I imagine you will do, that's a sign that the editor is involved in the article and will improve it when they can; I don't remove a box again, although I may try to persuade them on the Talk page.

What happened 95 percent of the time, however, is that nobody notices; the boxes have been sprinkled around by somebody who never bothers to return to the article, serving as a substitute to editing. (See how many of these stupid things date back to 2006 - 2006, for crying out loud - without accomplishing a thing!)

Besides, this particular box is wrong - the tone of the article is fine. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 22:10, 18 June 2008 (UTC)