User talk:Thumperward/Archive 29

Archive 25

←

Archive 27

Archive 28

Archive 29

Archive 30

Archive 31

→

Archive 35

Proprietary software

Hi, I'm currently trying to have this article renamed in order to fix the problem of contradiction between the literal definition and actual meaning when used in relation to closed sourced software. While we having opposing views on the matter, I'd actually like to see some discussion had, instead of a list of votes that seem to think this is a discussion of the vaidity of the term. While I have no problem accepting that the term is used and heavily, I'm simply looking for a compromise, especially given that both terms have equal spread in the real world, however badly represented in editors here. So if you could spark some disucssion for the keep and actually help me reach a consensus, that'd be great, thanks. I hope to "argue" with you on the matter soon. - Jimmi Hugh (talk) 17:48, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

As WP:NAME makes clear, the title an article is at is not an endorsement of that point of view - it's simply meant to be the most commonly-used term for the subject. I've made a comment as such on the move discussion. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 22:55, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't looking for your support... I asked you to join the discussion in opposition to make changes instead of stagnating the current contradictary situation, mention the arguments there. But remember that that is not the most commonly used term. I, for example, have never had any exposure to it outside of the FSF movement and it's advocates in any situation while working as an expert witness on a huge number of related software development cases. It's clear that the choice of term is suited to the particular situation and avocation, despite its representation on Wikipedia. - Jimmi Hugh (talk) 23:52, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, hopefully the current discussion will adequately present everyone's views as it progresses. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 00:08, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

A number of recent editors (presumably the same, given that all but one are an IP) have been constantly editing the article to assert the idea that proprietary refers to ownership, as opposed to "lock-in" as decided. I've reverted the article to coincide with the definition discussed on the talk page, but with the constant synthesis and fact I still don't support the view, I don't have the energy to fight to maintain the consensus. You're pretty much the only serious editor from those discussions who has had any recent say, so if you have any interest still, I thought I'd bring it to your attention, for you to pass on to whoever wants to discuss it. Happy editing. - Jimmi Hugh (talk) 19:09, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll see if I can have a look into the discussion again. This is one of the many areas on WP which suffer from a relative lack of attention considering the importance of the subject, so I'm not sure how well we can look after it in the long run, but I'll try to give it a go. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 19:44, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. I did try getting discussion about the importance level of the article started at the Computing Project, but as so far, my opening question has gone basically unanswered. Note that I have no problem if your discussion leads to the removal of the pejorative claims, if you don't think that holds; it's more the addition again of the idea that the concept means "owned software", something I'd personally have liked to see claimed, but which was of course decided to be a synthesised defintion and not the primary use of the term. - Jimmi Hugh (talk) 20:02, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

File:Releases.gif listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:Releases.gif, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Rockfang (talk) 04:11, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Infobox issue

I'm using IE7, and therefore I assume that it will affect a very large number of users (and thus have rv'ed your rv in the meantime). пﮟოьεԻ 57 09:09, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Replying over there. This is evidently the wrong solution, and while the template is still little-used it's better to avoid plastering it with cheap hacks. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:43, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

It seems to be working properly now. пﮟოьεԻ 57 10:32, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Deletion of JRE

Hi, Wikipedia is my primary source of information. So when i got a question like "what is jre and how it is different from jvm" during my training on Java it was the first location i looked for (noted that you are from sun. but sun's online resources on java are too much complicated to understand, atleast for beginners). It was then i noticed that there is not even a page on JRE and it is not mentioned in the page for JVM also. i searched a lot to find a good explanation on this topic to find one (please see [1]). i agree that the article i had written contained only the definition and hence a stub. but there is a need of atleast a basic explanation about jre.

Most of the articles on java in wikipedia are stubs. I'd appreciate if you could spend some time in improving them. Aravind V R (talk) 16:31, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

The fourth paragraph of the lede of the Java Virtual Machine article reads as follows: "The JVM is distributed along with a set of standard class libraries which implement the Java API (Application Programming Interface). The virtual machine and API have to be consistent with each other[dubious – discuss] and are therefore bundled together as the Java Runtime Environment." This is further elaborated on in the body of the JVM article along with in the Java (software platform) article. There is no need to maintain a separate article on the subject of the Java Runtime Environment because there is very little to be said on that subject which is not already adequately covered by the others. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 16:39, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Now I get it

Now I see why you tagged a copyleft distro for notability. You're an anti-GNU crusader, and a believer in criminalizing information sharing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.105.228.24 (talk) 04:51, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

This made my day. Thanks. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:04, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

My Signature

Thank you for pointing out the issue. I have replied here. --Zaher1988 · ^Talk|_{Contributions} 10:47, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Cheers. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:54, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Margin scribbling?

Thank you for this edit - it solves a number of problems. Do you have a definition for "margin-scribbling"? Pdfpdf (talk) 12:28, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Basically any commentary which can be perceived as editorial in nature which isn't encapsulated in a pre-cooked template. The use of the term "note that..." always sets klaxons off. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:30, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

That makes sense.

Changing topic slightly, it seems that there is a large number of very useful templates (e.g. the one you used.) How/where can one find out about these? Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 12:40, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Manual of Style and Wikipedia:Templates are good places to start, but even our help documentation is spread out over a gigantic number of pages these days. If you have any questions feel free to drop me a note, though, and I'll try to help out. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:44, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

That's very kind of you. Thank you! Pdfpdf (talk) 12:47, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Maatkit

Thumperward,

In July you flagged the page Maatkit for Proposed Deletion. It was subsequently deleted but today deletion was contested in DRV. The admin Stifle undeleted the page as a contested PROD and suggested to me (as I had commented exactly that on the DRV discussion) that I was free to AFD the page if I wanted to. Since I'm not sure of the amount of work you did looking into the notability of the tool before PRODing it or the motivation for the PROD, I figured I would allow you to determine whether it now meets notability requirements for software which it failed in July. Usrnme h8er (talk) 14:25, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I think it's safe to say that if that article were re-deleted it would not negatively impact the encyclopedia. The DRV request was upheld purely through procedure, as there is nothing in it which further establishes the notability of the subject. Feel free to take it to AfD. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 15:47, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

List of Underworld characters

Hi. My thinking was that it's unclear from the title that it's referring to the films and not Underworld in any of the mythological senses listed there. All the rulers, denizens &c. are characters in a sense. Cheers, Jack Merridew 12:42, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Disambiguation is used for the sole purpose of avoiding conflicting article titles. It is not used simply to clarify the subject. We have no other articles named "list of underworld characters" or such, so there is no reason to disambiguate. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:44, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Pyjamas-Deprod

I have removed the {{prod}} tag from Pyjamas (software), which you proposed for deletion. I'm leaving this message here to notify you about it. If you still think the article should be deleted, please don't add the {{prod}} template back to the article. Instead, feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks! --Wallach2008 (talk) 11:34, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Visual Pinball edit

Moin moing, since the software is quite unique, I wanted to let you know that I have reverted your edit in regard to the category as game engine recreation. The best description would be a conversion, I think. Although it is a piece of software to make them, so just engine is fine. If you think otherwise, please elaborate on the talk page. -- Darklock (talk) 14:42, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I've rewritten the lede to (hopefully) address this. Thanks. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 14:52, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Tournament of Roses Parade

"TOCRight" was used to eliminate the white area in the article. Ucla90024 (talk) 15:43, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm aware of what it was used for. However, this is not a valid reason for floating the TOC, as indicated by this not being the default layout. If there isn't a better reason this should be reverted. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 15:45, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

"A floating TOC should be used when it is beneficial to the layout of the article ..." Not a valid reason? What are you talking about? Ucla90024 (talk) 05:21, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

It isn't beneficial to the layout - the article has a perfect standard layout, so there's no advantage to floating the TOC. It just gives the article a non-standard layout. I'll take this to the article talk page. The point about leaving no useful edit summary stands. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:34, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh come on

Seriously? You aren't going to start this shit again, are you?

If you don't want a protracted argument over this, you're going to need to fix the two main problems I have with this: 1) there should be nothing above the box. 2) The box is too wide. If you aren't willing or able to resolve this issues, then this disagreement will continue until you drop it. Warren -talk- 17:59, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

It's not "shit"; it's a perfectly normal content dispute. I've tried to be as reasonable about it as possible, but that obviously discounts your continued assertion of an executive veto. I'll keep trying to come up with acceptable compromises, but as far as I'm concerned your opposition to the caption format for the title is based on nothing but personal aesthetic preference and the same goes for the width. At the very least the OS version infobox should still be using {{infobox}} as a base like the components one does. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:42, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Pyjamas Software

thumperward, i've removed your deletion of pyjamas-software: it's not appropriate. you must also schedule Google_Web_Toolkit for deletion, because that page is of the same quality: i used Google_Web_Toolkit as the template basis for the Pyjamas_Software page. lkcl —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.16.107.175 (talk) 18:21, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

also - the reason for your requirement that the article be deleted - that there are no "induurrpennenn sources" - is impossible to satisfy. there _are_ no other sources of information regarding pyjamas. there are no other books (other than the one i'm writing). there are no other articles (other than the ones i'm writing). there is no other web site (other than code.google.com/p/pykjamas, pyjs.org and sourceforge.net/projects/pyjamas, all of which i am the maintainer for) because... there is only those web sites.

so what exactly are you looking for, here - a way to destroy a record of a useful project? lkcl. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.16.107.175 (talk) 18:28, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Thumperward: don't worry, I've reverted the edit in question and left this IP a notice. Politizer ^talk/_contribs 18:32, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Yeah, it's not exactly surprising that someone self-identifying as the author of the software doesn't want the free advertising it's getting on WP removed. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:46, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Re: {{Asbox}}

It's been mentioned several times over the past year or more at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Stub sorting and other WP:WSS-related talk pages. Not so much a discussion over it as a whole, more a general simmering rumble - e.g., here. As for being easier to maintain, I've always found them to be the opposite. Their lack of flexibility means that there are quite a few stub templates where it can't be used, as well. Myself, Alai (before he retired) and others have for over a year been converting asbox templates when they've needed to be edited - the only reason i did a batch of them yesterday is the recent discovery of more widespread problems with the Spanish stub types. Grutness...wha? 22:55, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I seriously do not see the issue in question. The thread you've linked contains nothing which indicates that the template itself is at fault. If "flexibility", as in the format of the description, is an issue then this should be easy to adjust in the template code. I'd appreciate a further discussion of this prior to any future reverts of this conversion, because it appears that it's being rejected out of habit rather than due to any actual issue with it. I'll continue this on the WSS talk. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 23:10, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Re: Martins Potato Chips

Hi, you tagged a company article for possible lack of notability. I'm a novice at wikipedia. Is this http://www.baltimoreexaminer.com/entertainment/010409emstYork.html an example of what is required for notability? Sfitz (talk) 19:50, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

It's along the right lines, yes. Ideally, sources would have more to say on the subject (there's only really a couple of paragraphs of that article which mention the company in question), but it's a start. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 23:46, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. It was just the quickest example i found. i think I have some more that are more substantial. Appreciate your help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.146.218.33 (talk) 20:36, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Thumperward, could you take a look at the references now? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sfitz (talk • contribs) 21:38, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Looks great. I've de-tagged the article. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:23, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Than you for your help in educating me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.146.218.33 (talk) 18:46, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Try again

It wasn't defamatory. Check the history of that IP. It's entirely dedicated to reverting my edits. This is something you should have investigated before puffing your chest and waving your p...p...power around. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.105.228.24 (talk) 20:34, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Replied on IP talk. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 23:40, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Football Competition Infobox Templates

Sorry, I disagree with your statement on my talkpage almost 100%. The infobox I revered to is a) far more attractive and easy to read (headings stand out, all text is at normal size etc.), and a lot lot easier to maintain because it is basically not a template. It uses mainly standard table code. A lot (probably the majority) of English competitions use this form of infobox. I won't revert again on the Football League Trophy until fuller discussion has been achieved though. - fchd (talk) 07:00, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I'll raise something on WT:FOOTY about it. To the best of my knowledge only non-League competitions use the freeform design these days, and while they might be a majority in terms of page count they're mostly fairly obscure stubs (which is why they've lagged behind in adoption). I'll drop you a link to the discussion once I've started it. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:35, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Infobox GAA team season

Hi, thanks for making {{Infobox GAA team season}}, really appreciate it. If you have the the time, could you make a small change to it. - Where the competitions are, instead of having the order Championship, then cup1, cup2, etc... would it be possible to have the cup1 show first, then a league field, then championship1 and championship2 if you have the time. Derry Boi (talk) 17:48, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I need a bit more to work on - what's the expected contents of the league field? Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:17, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Basically like in {{Infobox football club}};

| league = | league result = .

So in the League field the user enters something like National Football League Division 1. And in the league result field they enter the position the team finished. GAA seasons generally start with a pre-season cup competition, then the league, followed by two Championships. A bit like | cup1 = | cup1 result = | league = | league result = | championship1 = | championship result1 = | championship2 = | championship result2 =

Or you could change championship1/2 to cup2 and cup3, doesn't really matter. Any clearer? :) Derry Boi (talk) 09:54, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Sure. I'll see what I can do. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 13:36, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

teaspoon

Greetings! You added a cleanup tag to Teaspoon. I fixed some of the sillier violations of the Manual of Style. Was there anything else that could use cleaning up, or would it be appropriate to remove the tag? -Verdatum (talk) 16:08, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for helping out. I don't think it's quite ready to be untagged yet, as it has some content issues along with the MoS stuff. I'll see if I can work on this myself. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 16:19, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Single match article layout

If you look at the Euro 2008 articles or any recent Champions League final, you'll see that most of them follow that format. Obviously there will be a fair few articles that do not follow any particular format, but that's probably because I haven't got to them yet, or they were created before this format was. – PeeJay 13:11, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Cool, I'll have a look into it. So there's no actual guideline right now, just a prevailing style? Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 13:33, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

That's the one. Cheers. – PeeJay 13:41, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Europa

I added stats showing that Europa (moon) gets 4.5 times as many page views as any other Europa topic, and nearly 50% of the traffic going to all of the Europa's put together. Dragons flight (talk) 13:56, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

That's a good stat, and the kind of evidence needed to move this in the right direction. What about uncorrected incoming links to the present Europa page? Fancy doing a little analysis on which page is their most likely intended target? Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 14:03, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

GPV

Thank you, you just removed any trust I had in wikipedia. You did not enter into any of my arguments. You did not want to compromise by choosing the Dutch name. You just moved it while there was no consensus on the article's talk. You provided no proof for the "evident truth" that GPV was used more often than Gereformeerd Politiek Verbond.

Did you ever hear of the party before you moved it? Have you ever read anything about except for what you could find with google?

Really I have had it with people on wikipedia not being able to pick a single book but instead google-ing everything.

- C mon (talk) 20:30, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Errr. If I were you I'd consider checking the page history, or indeed the conclusion of the move discussion on the talk page. There are various avenues of recourse for this decision, but berating me for something that I didn't do isn't one of them. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 23:00, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Plain Old XML

Thanks for taking the time to look over the POX article, Chris.

This is actually a pretty-common term for XML specialists and developers. I added examples of usage from three credible, unrelated sources (Microsoft Dev Network, Microformats.org, and the Java Spring Framework) to support the claim that this is a term in general usage, then deleted the WP:MADEUP. Note that it isn't a vendor term, because POX really leaves a vendor nothing to sell (though some are trying to talk the talk anyway); also, as you'll see in the history, the article has had a number of different contributors. Let me know if you think it needs more references. David (talk) 22:17, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Cheers! That's already a significant improvement. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 23:13, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

re {{elementbox}}

No, it was not a vandalism. I am not sure what you were trying to do of why, but when doing such edits please verify the outcome. The version that you ahd simply made all the chemical element infoboxes look HORRIBLE. The elementbox was designed a loong time ago after some users spent some significant amount of time. I don't see the need to downgrade their work for the sake of some obscure policy or something like that. Nergaal (talk) 14:45, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I did verify the outcome, and was pleased with it. You surely understand that if your only objection is that it looks "HORRIBLE" (an obviously subjective statement) then this isn't a particularly firm reason to keep it as-is. Furthermore, that isn't an excuse to neglect an edit summary. I still think the infobox styling was a marked improvement for a number of reasons, but there are bigger problems with the infobox at the moment; I'll raise individual issues on the talk page. I would suggest that be your first port of call before reverting in future too. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 14:50, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Bob Herbert

inasmuch as the lead uses special formatting (bold), i don't think it at all unusual, irregular or in any way a break with the letter or spirit of the mos. --emerson7 16:28, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Huh? Bold in the lede is explicitly mandated by the MoS. Curly quotes anywhere is explicitly discouraged in the MoS. To compare the two is nonsensical. Directly acting against the admonition that quotes "should be straight and not curly" is most certainly a violation of the "letter of the mos" - that's asking an awful lot of the "spirit" of the MoS to go reverting changes to them. I'd advise you to browse the recent history of WT:MOS where this issue was discussed in agonising detail, if you haven't already done so. I still think the should be corrected. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 16:33, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

{{Infobox programming language}} edits

Hi,

Can you explain what you were trying to do on this template here? The infobox title should already be inferred from the article if {{{title}}} and {{{name}}} are omitted. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:15, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I was trying to get the article name to appear inside and only inside the infobox, consistent with other infoboxes. --Eustress (talk) 14:50, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

That's not really "consistent with other infoboxes" - every computing template ({{infobox computer}}, {{infobox software}}, {{infobox OS}}, {{infobox file format}} et cetera) uses the caption format. Which other infoboxes in particular were you comparing it to? Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 14:54, 29 January 2009 (UTC)