User talk:Thumperward/Archive 54
 | This is an archive of past discussions with 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 50 | ← | Archive 52 | Archive 53 | Archive 54 | Archive 55 | Archive 56 | → | Archive 60 |
Small Correction at DYKproblem
There should be a line break after before [[Image:Symbol question.svg|25px]] rather than a space. Thanks. Set Sail For The Seven Seas 189° 44' 30" NET 12:38, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
- Does that lead to problematic output? If you just mean a new line and not an actual
<br />, then it shouldn't have any result on what the template emits. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 13:31, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
The line break is so that the header works properly. It was present in the older code. The removal of the space stops the template from pre formatting. At the moment,
{{subst:DYKproblem|Article|Additional text|header=yes|sig=no|nominator=yes}}
gives
==DYK nomination of Article== 
Hello! Your submission of Article at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Additional text
and
{{subst:DYKproblem|Article|Additional text|header=no|sig=no|nominator=yes}}
gives
Hello! Your submission of Article at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Additional text
The correction fixes this. Thanks. Set Sail For The Seven Seas 238° 25' 45" NET 15:53, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
- Can you update the sandbox and I'll sync it, then? Cheers. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 18:00, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
- The code is now in the sandbox. Thanks. Set Sail For The Seven Seas 280° 17' 45" NET 18:41, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
- I meant to say earlier that the line break goes before the image not after. Anyway, it works perfectly now. Thanks. Set Sail For The Seven Seas 312° 27' 30" NET 20:49, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
Hi Chris, any chance you can have a quick look at the sandboxed {{infobox}} conversion I've done for this template? It was mostly straightforward, though I was a bit unsure about the |native name lang= parameter. Cheers! PC78 (talk) 12:43, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
- Looks great, yeah. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 13:29, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
Hi Chris, see post at [1]. Daemonic Kangaroo has already kindly moved the talk page history to the above, but I understand an admin needs to move the page history. Regarding my proposed page move, I'd be grateful if you could indicate if you think my proposed move to List of notable Wales international footballers) sounds reasonable. Let me know if any queries. Eldumpo (talk) 16:37, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
- Hmmm. Why not move the list of Wales international footballers article and redirect the list of Wales international footballers (alphabetical) fork? If there had been significant work in the fork which needed to be preserved then a history merge would be appropriate, but there have only been minimal updates since the merge. Thoughts? Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 16:45, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
- Chris - I was/am tempted to delete the non-alphabetical page except you can see in the discussions raised that someone did mention that the file sizes were fairly high and there were page load issues. Just to clarify, when you say Move the article, where do you propose it goes? Presumably the non-alph page can't just be deleted as else the page history of 'alphabetical' will be lost? Eldumpo (talk) 18:47, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
Chris - I have made the 2 moves/redirects you suggested above at [2] and [3], but the page history at the complete article still needs to be amended to include the history at the page with only 25+ caps (because I assume the page move was done wrongly when the additional page was first created). Thanks. Eldumpo (talk) 19:28, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
Template:X listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Template:X. Since you had some involvement with the Template:X redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 08:51, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
Talkback
Message added 08:40, 16 September 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Admingrats
You should advertise this at WP:BN. You and I are probably the only two that know about it. — Rlevse • Talk • 09:53, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
- Done. Thanks for the suggestion. :) Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 09:59, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
Credo accounts
There's a discussion about the possibility of a few hundred new Credo accounts being distributed to Wikipedians via the Foundation. Erik (User:Eloquence) would like help in drawing up criteria for distribution, so we don't have a repeat of last time where they were handed out to the first 100 who signed up, even if they weren't regular content contributors. He's looking for people to help him decide the criteria, and to set up a spreadsheet with the editors' details. With your technical skills, I was thinking maybe this was something you could help with. If you're interested, please see Wikipedia_talk:Credo_accounts#Usage. Cheers, SlimVirgin talk|contribs 11:12, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
- I'll have a look into it, through spreadsheets aren't really my specialty. Thanks for the note. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 11:15, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks. If you're not keen, no worries, and if the spreadsheet thing is something you'd rather not do, maybe you can think of someone else who'd be willing? SlimVirgin talk|contribs 11:19, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
Tone and Alloa article
Can you be more specific? It looks ok to me as an article about a town. AllyD (talk) 16:51, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
- I rather feel that it goes out of its way to paint it as a town in decline. Take a look at what I removed from the lede, for instance. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 17:38, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
FYI
Template talk:Old AfD multi#Bug fix. Seeing as you're an admin now, I figured you might want to do this one :) Dabomb87 (talk) 02:48, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
- Fixed. Cheers! Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 09:37, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
First use of admingrats
First real use: User_talk:Ron_Ritzman#Beat_the_.27crat_congrats.21. Problem is it doesn't allow for usernames with spaces in them. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:21, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
Template:RE listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Template:RE. Since you had some involvement with the Template:RE redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). This also applies to Template:re. — Jeff G. ツ 13:14, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Infobox width
Hi, I recently stumbled on this discussion and was wondering if you intend to follow up on it? Regards. PC78 (talk) 18:50, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Hey Thumper
What's with your issues?... Stevenmitchell (talk) 01:00, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
- I'm not even going to pretend to know what you're talking about. Care to clarify? Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 08:12, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for fixing the links I accidentally undid. The error was pointed out to me and I was on my way back there then I noticed your work. Nicely done... ttonyb (talk) 17:56, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
- No worries. I've just left a warning for Stevenmitchell regarding this. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 18:02, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
Thumper, if you were fixing the links that user:ttonyb1 is supposed to have done accidentally, then where are the other 5 references that were originally used in the article before his supposed technical malfunction. And thanks for your threatening note, you are as you have confirmed, an adult bully... Stevenmitchell (talk) 18:21, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
- The "other five references" were to the same articles; WP:REF explains how to combine multiple references to the same source into one footnote, which is what Tony did. I'm not a bully, but I am an adult, which I suppose makes one of us. Go and enjoy the rest of your Friday afternoon. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 18:26, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
- Some say the "devil is in the details" Thanks, again. ttonyb (talk) 19:08, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
- This is actually not what Tony did to the article. The original article used interposed references (in some instances alternating) for specific assertions which is in fact according to WP:REF exactly what is supposed to be done. However, the proper format for that, which was not done by either by myself or Tony is "Thereafter, the same footnote may be used multiple times by adding [1]". However, now the article is improperly referenced (and this is a Living Person article) as content in the article now that the additional citations have been removed, has citations attributed to it that do not say what the article content says. The article is now clearly in violation of the proper sourcing of Living people. Stevenmitchell (talk) 19:16, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
- Actually, he did. If you look at the article footnotes, you will see that reference 1 has four backlinks (labelled a, b, c and d) which link to the specific citations of that reference in the prose. Reference 2 has two, labelled a and b, as does reference 4. The result is that the article has precisely nine inline references to four different sources, in exactly the manner prescribed in the guidelines. If you don't care to trust me on this, try asking on WT:REF for confirmation. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 19:24, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
Harman
I only just looked back at this TFD, so .. thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 17:17, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
- No worries. If you think anything like that needs speedied in the future just ping me. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 21:19, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
Your edit here is a little premature concerning the current discussion on the Talk page, and also not helpful in resolving the Consensus on improvement of the template. What's disconcerting is the unexplained rationale for the edit, other than your opinion that it was unnecessary, and the borderline condescending comments that you posted. The edit's where made in Good Faith in trying to improve the template, which should have been obvious when reading the discussion. Your implication of "editing random templates" does not help in any manner with this discussion as it is an utterly bogus accusation. You are free to express your opinion, but when actions are combined with comments which IMO are unbecoming of an administrator, this detracts quality from the project. I write my comments here on your talk page with hope that you can further enlighten the discussion rather than detract. You state that this template is a "standard hatnote". If you can site WP policies which prove that this template is a hatnote, then cite where it says that hatnotes should not be < small >, I think that this would bode well for this discussion. I have made comments which show my opinion on why this is not, or should not be treated like a hatnote. Please feel free to convince me otherwise, but please do so in a more appropriate manner. QuAzGaA 03:44, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
- You were bold, I reverted, now we're discussing. I don't see the problem here. I am beginning to notice the irony that the number of times I am lectured on how to behave has increased ever since the community decided that I could, well, be trusted to behave. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 09:52, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
- Then its too bad we could not work together on this. At least you have noticed some of the Irony. Thats a start. QuAzGaA 13:38, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
- Yeah, I noticed that good faith goes out of the window with some people when they realise that the person they're in dispute with is an admin; despite having used no administrative powers here and engaging in discussion, I've been made out to be a petty tyrant on a power trip. I think we're done here. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 13:50, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
Hi Chris, thanks for doing the update. I'm not sure it was a good idea to put the |Image size= parameter back in (actually it should have been |Cover size= as previously used), so I've left a note on the talk page. Regards. PC78 (talk) 11:34, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
- Aha. I've followed up there. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 11:45, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
- Bumpity bump. I wasn't sure if you had seen my follow up comment on that page. Actually, I wanted to bounce an idea off you regarding the other discussion on that page about italic titles. If italic page titles are going to be implemented via infoboxes, do you think this is something that should be coded into {{Infobox}}? PC78 (talk) 06:49, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
- ...Whoops. This slipped off my radar. Do you still need anything done here, or have others fixed my mess by this point? Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 12:47, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
- No, I think all is right with the world. Thanks anyway. PC78 (talk) 23:38, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
WODE
WODE, as written, has very little to do with me; I only "created" the article by moving a different article about a different topic to another title, and somebody else subsequently started the current article by overwriting the resulting redirect. Bearcat (talk) 14:42, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
- The message was an automated formality; sorry for the disturbance. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 14:47, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
Coanda-1910
I think you did not follow the whole talk page. I least I tried several times to build-up consensus but two of the editors Romaniantruths( former Romanianlies ) and Binksternet refuse to answer or forcibly ignore the comments I and the others make. I'm not a specialist in Wikipedia unlike Binksternet and I asked already several admins to get help in fixing the mess started by Romanianlies in July this year in an article stable for the last 5 year. So please help me escalate this to the right upper forums in Wikipedia or at least help me change the starting of the article to the correct form ( the one you disabled ) which covers both sides, so that Binksternet and Romanianlies will be forced not to ignore any longer the consensus build up. The article in the current form is fine for them so they will never propose any consensus. Thank you in advance for any kind of help.--Lsorin (talk) 17:14, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
- I can't see that you've addressed the points being made in rebuttal of your arguments. Rather, you seem to have gone out of your way to ignore them. Furthermore, you're continuing to refer to Romaniantruths by an old user name despite being asked not to. Add to that what appears to be logging out to make it look like you have support from IP editors on the talk page, and I don't believe that outsiders will be inclined to side with you. For the time being it looks like consensus is against your edits for the large part. I'll continue to monitor the page. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 12:39, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
- I have answered from my side all question addressed to me personally since I observed the problem from the 1910 in aviation article. I did not ignore a single question in comparison to the opponents Binksternet and Romaniantruths. As being just a enthusiast of Wikipedia and not an expert like Binksternet, I did not know about the rules regarding old user names and vandalism topics. Regarding the IP editors I really don't understand your point. I always edited from my own account Lsorin. The consensus was tried and there was no administrators against my arguments they just simply left the discussion in the air ( see Amatulic, OlEnglish, Rosiestep etc). The only editors against my proposals are Binksternet and Romaniantruths with arguments from sources under scrutiny for they reliability at WP:RSN. Thanks again and I really hope that you will continue monitoring the page and don't simply leave the discussions like the other administrators.--Lsorin (talk) 13:25, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for formatting that template into a navbox!
I didn't know how to format it, so I appreciate that you did it. I have never made a template before, and I thought what I was doing would work. It didn't, so on the discussion page, I asked for somebody to help format it. It looks like they're going to delete the template, but I appreciate your help on it, so thanks again! InforManiac (talk) 02:02, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
Template marked for deletion
Hi, you recently marked the Template:Location map 100x100 for deletion, and this malformed a few pages, as you can see on the template's page and on the Clutch page in it's revision history before my update (http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Clutch&oldid=389748708). Can you check and see from where do those errors occur and if it's solvable before changing every page using that template ? Regards, Kaly J. (talk) 14:06, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
- Fixed. Sorry about that. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 22:40, 11 October 2010 (UTC)