User talk:Thumperward - Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by MadmanBot (talk | contribs) at 20:09, 28 January 2012 (Semi-automated edit: Delivering message by request.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 20:09, 28 January 2012 by MadmanBot (talk | contribs) (Semi-automated edit: Delivering message by request.)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

This is Thumperward's talk page, where you can send him messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20
21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30
31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40
41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50
51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60
61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70
71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80
81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90
91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97

Template:Infobox philosopher

Dear Thumperward, In Hillel Steiner's infobox the show/hide thing looks a bit odd as there is only one influenced. Is there a way to switch it off? I know it doesn't matter much but it might help me understand the template things better. I am asking here as I think you might have made it do this anyway. Hope it is no problem and sorry to bother you if it is. Best wishes. (Msrasnw (talk) 14:44, 19 December 2011 (UTC))

I've added the option to expand the lists by default, and applied this option to the article in question. Thanks. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 15:34, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! - it still looks a bit ugly on my screen as it forces the influenced person to the next line. But I guess these things are tricky to make nice. Best wishes (Msrasnw (talk) 16:24, 19 December 2011 (UTC))

Problematic IP

There's no point in issuing a long-term block to a dynamic IP, especially when the user is switching IPs so rapidly. Irolnire has been dealt with now, though, and I've deleted the additional copy of the content in question he had in his userspace. I'm going to propose a ban for the IP user, which isn't likely to be able to prevent him from editing by will at least mean editors are at liberty to revert him on sight. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:48, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Júlio Regufe Alves

I'm sorry to keep hammering this subject man: i've tried to speak with the Spanish anon user, i know it would be to no avail, with his humungous set of IPs, i tried nonetheless. The vandalism continues (yes it is vandalism, inserting wrong info in box and removing refs, or is it not?), article is now on my watch, and it's a pity it has to be...

Cheers - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 15:42, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Tried AGAIN to contact the person, kindly directing them to BOTH external links (Portuguese as the player) to make them understand it is CORRECT stuff that keeps being removed from the box. --Vasco Amaral (talk) 15:48, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Malleus

Really? Have you really just gone and indef-blocked one of the most helpful, prolific and talented editors that Misplaced Pages has? OK, so he's a bit outspoken sometimes but the good work far outweighs the minor problems that Malleus causes from time to time. I seriously hope that you reconsider your decision. Cheers, Big Dom 22:44, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

I have. Malleus is not merely "sometimes" disruptive: he has for some time been the most persistently poisonous element in the whole of projectspace. His utter refusal to abide by WP:CIVIL in any way, shape or form means almost all contact with him has a negative effect on both new and existing users. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 22:57, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

That comment discredits you as behaving like a hypocrite and fool. Please resign the administratorship you have disgraced. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 22:00, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

If he is so "poisonous" and uncivil, why did the other tens of admins who will have seen his comments today (me included) take no action. Why have you taken it upon yourself to block one of the most experienced editors on this site just because he said a couple of swear words on a talk page? Big Dom 23:09, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

My guess is that we would prefer to avoid a painful, meritless shitstorm on our talk pages which is what invariable ensues after blocking certain editors. Protonk (talk) 23:31, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, definitely that. Prodego 23:33, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

what a completely ridiculous block - have you any training in being an admin or experience of Misplaced Pages? Giacomo Returned 22:51, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree with BigDom. Malleus did overstep the mark, but a sudden indef block with no real discussion regarding his conduct is premature at best, even reckless. ItsZippy 22:53, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

That seems a bit like a personal attack on Chris. Whether right or wrong its not personal. Edinburgh Wanderer 22:54, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

See my comment on MF's talk; also, there's always been a long-term consensus to unblock after Malleus' blocks. HurricaneFan 25 — 22:56, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Thumperward, did you consider taking the matter to ANI? Nev1 (talk) 23:02, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Chris, I think the main problem is that you took it upon yourself to block an editor who is in generally good standing without discussing the issues with him, never mind the community. Had you opened an RfCU, the whole community could have decided what should happen, rather than just you. ItsZippy 23:05, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

It really does show an immennce lak of experience of Misplaced Pages - it seems things are no better here than they were three years ago as far as afmins are concerned. Giacomo Returned 23:07, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Neither Malleus nor the community need a refresh course on why wading into a discussion and broadsiding a large part of the participants with utterly unacceptable insults is actively harmful to collegial discussion. Our rules on civility do not make allowances for the breadth of one's contributions, while the limits of the community's patience most certainly consider an editor's history. As previously stated, had almost any other editor made such comments a block would have been utterly uncontroversial, and as such, I'm not apt to consider that the block was inappropriate. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 23:17, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

So you aren't willing to reconsider the block, and per your comment above you're going to pursue to the ends of the Earth any other admin who dares to defy you? For your sake, please at least take this to ANI for some more opinions. Big Dom 23:27, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Imo, it would be wisest for you to ask for a block review at ANI, Chris. You would be able to present this in your way as you see it. The alternative is that someone else may present it (and they will) and it won't come across as you intended. I would echo Nev1's concerns and think that is best for keeping things procedurally correct. My 2p.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 23:21, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
I would echo this. I can't understand what this block is for other than using naughty words. I'm bewildered. Please unblock this editor or ask for a review. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 23:24, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm drafting a block review. That said, if one does not see why Malleus's contributions to the thread in question are unacceptable then there's little likelihood that a block rationale will be persuasive. (and tough luck Protonk.) Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 23:29, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Chiming in to support this block (short comment to avoid ec). Protonk (talk) 23:28, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Thumperward, a thread has been opened at ANI regarding your block of Malleus. The section title is "Indef block of Malleus Fatuorum requires review". Nev1 (talk) 23:31, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict with Nev1)

Chris, I have one of them, and I'm not offended. Deb was offended, but to be fair to Malleus, he let the thing drop at six o'clock this morning, long before Deb or anyone else except {{User:HuskyHuskie|HuskyHuskie]] (who I believe also has one of them) passed by, and he let another editor redact the offensive term when someone did complain about it. I'm going to unblock him now, on the basis that you mistook this for being a personal attack on someone, and didn't realise from the timestamps that it wasn't actually aimed at anyone who commented later. Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:36, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Elen, might I request that you (and any other admin) does not alter Malleus' block until a consensus emerges at ANI? ItsZippy 23:41, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Now I've seen that there's a discussion, I'll wait for that. I'd prefer for Chris to undo his own block anyway. Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:43, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. ItsZippy 23:46, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

When you have time Chris, I would be interested to see your rationale for this block. I have undone it as it seems it contravened our blocking policy as evidenced by the strong consensus at AN/I. --John (talk) 23:50, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
- I'd also like to point out this blatant incivility from earlier today. Note that I don't care that Malleus used the word "fuck", it was his derisive tone at a simple question that was uncivil. Kaldari (talk) 23:52, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
- Perhaps it's time for an RFC/U rather than more blocks. Kaldari (talk) 23:57, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

An RFCU would be much better than assinine blocks... and yes, it is assinine to block Malleus every other week when the odds are about 90% likely that it would be undone.---Balloonman 16:53, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Trust of the community

I believe you have lost the trust of the community to hold blocking powers. Under what circumstances would you voluntarily resign your tools "under a cloud?" Thanks. Hipocrite (talk) 00:00, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

That was predictable. Kaldari (talk) 00:06, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

This is premature...and I don't think that it goes that far. Chris is a good admin. Let's put the pitchforks and torches away, please.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 00:24, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Oh cool. time to hop on this fucking train. Protonk (talk) 00:40, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

I blocked Malleus for an obvious breach of WP:CIVIL. That is not a breach of the community's trust. Address further comments of this nature to the community at large rather than disingenuously presenting them to me as "honest" concerns over my abilities. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 00:42, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

The community is usually silent. Those calling for your head do not speak for the community. Buster Seven Talk 01:41, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

As a note, Thumperward called me on a breach of civility I made recently...even suggesting I be blocked for it...in this case, I support Thumperward for taking a stand on the right side again.--MONGO 01:42, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

The flapping of slick vultures' wings bores me. Gwen Gale (talk) 02:32, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Might that be "sycophantic" vultures' wings? Malleus Fatuorum 02:59, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Heh, dunno Malleus, could be (but either way I don't see that as one of my "greatest hits" log entries). My outlook on civility blocks shifted in a big, deep way two and a half years ago when I blocked you for a week, then took it back shortly after, owing to a lack of consensus for it. I still think you were wrong, but I was wrong, too. Sometimes you say stuff that's needlessly forward and edgy and I guess I'd still hope you might stop that one day, but when one gets to know more about you, I'd say your way of putting things when you get tweaked isn't all that harmful (and no, I don't mean any of that as a put down). I even dare say you seem to wear your feelings on your sleeve more than need be, but that's up to you, not me, as it should be. We both know, far, far worse stuff goes on here. The pith is, given your contributions, I don't think your incivility is much of a worry, but it's you who has to deal with the outcomes of that now and then, not me. I know you thought all that through long ago and I don't think blocking you would help anything. So, I wouldn't have lifted a finger had you been blocked for a day, but I canny would've unblocked you from indef this evening if nobody else had done. Gwen Gale (talk) 03:42, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

We're obviously none of us perfect, not you, not me. But I find it intolerable that you got away with that block. Malleus Fatuorum 04:12, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Stuff has been done to me here that I find "intolerable," awful, but I don't go on about it. Maybe that's a weakness of mine. I blocked you within policy, but the policy, like most bureaucratic policies, has its weaknesses and I missed that, being wet behind the ears as an admin at the time. If it helps, I agree with you, the whole thing stinks. Peace. Gwen Gale (talk) 04:17, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Yes, come now, Malleus. You know how this works. You always call for the blocking admin to be desysopped and it never happens. Well okay, once, sort of, in a roundabout way. The whole thing is déjà vu, with the same cycle repeating itself. Block, AN/I thread, quick unblock, chastise blocking admin,... I forget what comes next. ;> Doc talk 04:25, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

...lots of dramah. :/
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 04:32, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

On a completely unrelated content note, I wish someone would expand this poor thing. This one too. Doc talk 04:49, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Malleus, I think Chris was out of line here... but your harping on Gwen for an action taken what a yaer or two ago is over the top... she's acknowledged a mistake and learned from it... move on.---Balloonman 16:51, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

I note that you have not yet answered my question, so I'll re-ask it - "Under what circumstances would you voluntarily resign your tools 'under a cloud?'" If the answer is "if arbcom tells me to," that's fine, but please be clear. Hipocrite (talk) 17:24, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Nobody should be made to resign over this or is it likely arbcom will impose it other than maybe Hawkeye who re blocked.Edinburgh Wanderer 17:26, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

You pointedly weren't given one. I'm not in the habit of discussing hypotheticals with editors who come to my talk page with dubious assertions of speaking on behalf of the community. And even given that, I note that your identical comment addressed the other other blocking admin has a far less ambiguous title, which strongly suggests that this was not intended to be a question but rather a demand. Find some other drama to involve yourself in. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 17:28, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Please review WP:ADMIN. I civily asked you a non-leading question. You are supposed to "respond promptly and civilly to queries about their Misplaced Pages-related conduct and administrator actions and to justify them when needed." You have failed to do so - instead providing non-responsive snark, and asking me to not discuss your misconduct with you. This is conduct unbecoming. This is not a hypothetical - I am going to attempt to fulfill whatever hurdle you place in front of me to see that you no longer use your tools to vanquish your enemies. However, the first step in doing so is to ask what you want a complainant to do - in this case, it appears you will only accept a by-force removal. So be it. Hipocrite (talk) 17:32, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

If "describe the circumstances under which you would resign in disgrace" is a non-leading question, I am Engelbert Humperdinck. We're done here. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 17:34, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

I did not use the word "disgrace." I used the technical phrase "under a cloud" which is wikispeak for "such that you may not request them back." Hipocrite (talk) 17:37, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

I note that this talk page is longer than some of your most recent archives, and wouldn't blame you at all for doing a little housekeeping. For what it's worth I vehemently disagree with your decision, but know you well enough to know that you wouldn't have blocked unless you felt it would have been a net positive for the project. —WFC— 17:41, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, it's in need of archiving. As for disagreeing, well, we disagree. I'm somewhat disappointed that your own statement at ArbCom reiterates the asserted link between bad behaviour and good content, but of course the whole reason this is at ArbCom is because of how many editors hold that impression. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 17:53, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree here too, but I don't think we're as far apart as that. X featured articles should never give editors a free pass to unfettered incivility. But in cases that would have been borderline anyway (in this case a long term pattern of valid points with a controversial method of delivery) I do believe that it's a relevant factor. —WFC— 18:23, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

I am not aware of there being a distinct Misplaced Pages definition for "under a cloud". I understood the term in its idiomatic meaning in regular English, which is "in disgrace or having committed some wrongdoing". "Resigning permanently", or words to that effect, would seem to be a less confusing expression if you wish to use this boilerplate to "question" other administrators in future. Anyway, there's an ArbCom case draft already, and as you've already been told that this isn't a welcome line of discussion on my talk page (regardless of what rights you may assume you have over editors who have the admin bit) you may find that your further pursuit of this matter is more effective if made there instead. Now in case you weren't aware of the Misplaced Pages definition of "We're done here", it's a polite request to disengage from my talk page. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 17:47, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

You block was probably merited, and probably unwise at the same time. I used to do things like that, but learned that all that happens is the mob with the pitchforks arrives and their disruption is worse than the demon you were trying to exorcise. Anyway, don't let the bastards grind you down.--Scott Mac 00:49, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Admin's Barnstar
	I fully expect you to unjustly get desysoped, but you made the right move. I find your decision bold, courageous, and an excellent bit of judgement. Toa Nidhiki05 01:47, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

I think that it was a good block as well. Nick-D (talk) 11:02, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

It was certainly brave. I suspect that if the block review had been allowed to run its course, there would have emerged a consensus for a block. Its like at RfA where nominees tend to get a wave of support before the opposes start trickling in. Epbr123 (talk) 11:58, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Your block has to be one of the most stupid admin actions I have ever seen on Misplaced Pages. And you are not even a teenager. Jezhotwells (talk) 12:40, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Infobox (2)

Hi Chris, thanks for offering your help, it infobox European football. Basically I'm not sure how to get the documentation right, everything I want in the infobox is already in there, I don't know how to get it right so that it actually works. Been a long time since I made an infobox, so I'm at a loss at how to get it to work, any help at all would be a godsend, thanks. NapHit (talk) 11:23, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

I've added documentation. The code itself looks fine, so you should be able to deploy it. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:27, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Arbcom Case

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests#Malleus Fatuorum and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

Thanks, Alexandria (chew out) 14:48, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

A pussy cat for you!

To help you reflect on the privileged bit that was marginally granted to you. A re-worded message of love for you in this trying time. Re-worded because The Rambling Man (talk · contribs) had taken offence—I assume on your behalf—at my previous innocuous Wikilove message

Senra (talk) 00:59, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited List of satirical magazines, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Reporter (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:56, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Notice of discussion at the Administrators' Noticeboard

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.Edinburgh Wanderer 20:58, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Júlio Regufe Alves (2)

No not what you think (or maybe...), not coming to ask anything, just to notify you of the following (would be worse if you found out by chance or similar): after attempts to politely converse with the Spanish anon "user", i am seeing quite well what he thinks of my efforts, continuing to remove the correct and insert the wrong in the player's box (and refs go too!).

Anyways, my notification is: i lost it in my last message to him, if you want to take action against me do so, i won't protest. Quite "interesting" to see that the "user", with his tons of IPs, is interested ONLY in editing J.Alves' article, nothing else, and what a good job he does at that!

Happy Christmas to you and yours, keep up the good work - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 01:55, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

I've semiprotected for three months. With any luck that should dissuade said user from continuing to disrupt the article. Thanks for keeping on top of this, Vasco. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 02:01, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Question

Since the thread was archived only a day or two after it was created, I thought I'd let you know that there's a question for you at WP:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive732#Proposed community ban for a harrassing IP. Thanks. 75.177.157.233 (talk) 20:36, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

I assume the absence of a response means that you have no reasonable explanation. Thus, it is obvious that your statements are an entire fabrication. Case closed. 69.134.111.98 (talk) 16:14, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Magi: Lost Kings or Aliens with a GPS

Peace is a state of balance and understanding in yourself and between others, where respect is gained by the acceptance of differences, tolerance persists, conflicts are resolved through dialog, peoples rights are respected and their voices are heard, and everyone is at their highest point of serenity without social tension.

Happy Holidays.

Season's tidings!

FWiW Bzuk (talk) 02:38, 25 December 2011 (UTC).

Phil Babb

Hi there CHRIS, VASCO here,

following on your latest edit: so is the intro going to be left like that, he has "no country"? It looks rather odd, but don't fret, i won't revert you or go against the flow.

Attentively - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 01:44, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi Vasco. Hope you had a great Christmas. There is not, and never has been, an absolute requirement to state a country (of birth, of nationality, or of any other sort) in the first sentence of a biographical article. In anything but the clearest-cut cases it is liable to result in terrible writing and questionable accuracy (such as the dreaded "English-born Irish" for players who may never have set foot in Ireland other than to play for the national team). I am genuinely surprised that you haven't seen any of the discussions on this at WT:FOOTY, as it's come up roughly once a month for the entirety of the time I've been on the project. I

I admit it, sometimes i don't study my lesson :( --Vasco Amaral (talk) 02:45, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Merry Christmas and Happy New Year

Hi Thumperward,

Hope that so day somewhere on earth we shall meet in the same friendly manner in which we have interacted online for en:wp. I am very pleased with your friendly and welcoming attitude. Hindustanilanguage (talk) 10:26, 26 December 2011 (UTC).

Infobox poultry breed

Hi, Chris, I seem to remember you are the infobox wizard. I've posted a request for change at Template talk:Infobox poultry breed, and thought I'd ask you to take a look, and perhaps comment? Thanks, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 16:32, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Replying over there. Thanks. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 18:57, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Civility enforcement

An arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Civility enforcement. Evidence that you wish the Arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence sub-page, at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Civility enforcement/Evidence. Please add your evidence by January 12, 2012, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can contribute to the case workshop sub-page, Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Civility enforcement/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Tiptoety 08:47, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited Sea anchor, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Drag (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:45, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Arbcom workshop

Hello Chris, this is just a note to remind you that your edits to Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Civility enforcement/Workshop#Seven hour delay should be added to the "comment by parties" section. No biggie, however. If you wish, I'll be glad to move it. Salvio 15:17, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Heh. I knew I'd mess it up somehow. :) Yeah, feel free to move it. Cheers! Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 20:36, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Thumperward. You have new messages at Armbrust's talk page.
Message added 16:04, 6 January 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Armbrust, B.Ed. _{about my edits?} 16:04, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

C Preprocessor -- Removal of "macro minutae"

Hello Thumperward,

I would like to request that the information that you deleted from the article on the C preprocessor be reintroduced in some way. I realize that to the general public, the details that you removed about the C preprocessor, which are found on this older revision of the article, may not be of much interest. While the newer, shorter view of the C preprocessor is shorter and easier to comprehend than the one presented by the considerably longer, older version of the article, I feel that the newer one is misinformative.

The new article describes the C preprocessor largely in terms of its most mundane uses in boilerplate code. While many C and C++ programmers use the C preprocessor exclusively for such purposes, it is a much more useful and powerful utility than the article makes it out to be. The C proprocessor allows for a greater degree of expression in the C and C++ language: while end-users usually do not have to implement sophisticated macros themselves for simple tasks, such macros are used heavily throughout Boost (particularly by Boost.Function, Boost.Foreach, and Boost.Preprocessor), as well as several other useful C and C++ frameworks.

Many complicated tasks involve replicating complicated units of code that follow some pattern. Through the use of macros, such as those provided by Boost.Processor, this sort of code can be written and maintained much more easily. However, using such a library requires knowledge of some of the less-frequently used features of the C proprocessor, such as token concatenation, argument quoting, and variadic macros. Searches for help on these subjects online will often bring up questions related to the subjects that I just mentioned: please refer to these links for more information. More sophisticated macros also find applications in loop-unrolling and automatic vectorization.

While the information that you removed from the old version of the article was not as well-structured as what one would hope for in a well-written article, it would nonetheless be useful for someone seeking to find help regarding the aforementioned topics. Therefore, I ask that either the removed sections of the article either be reincorporated, or that they be pasted in a new article that lists some more advanced uses of the C preprocessor. If you would choose one of these options, I would be glad to help clean up the removed sections of the article and introduce them in a more coherent way.

Thank you for your time! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Enkranz (talk • contribs) 12:06, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

As you've alluded to, the explanation of implementational nuances of this sort is precisely what Stack Overflow, which is likewise a collaborative knowledge community, is for. Misplaced Pages is a general-purpose encyclopedia and instructional or analytical content of this sort which is primarily or exclusively of interest to those working with the language simply doesn't belong here. The inclusion of the material in question served as a serious distraction from the improvement of the article to clearly and succinctly explain the purpose, history, and impact of the C preprocessor on the world. Nevertheless, the material is still in the page history, and should the article ever improve to the point where said material may be re-included in some form it can be retrieved from there. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:42, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Would you still be opposed to the introduction of the removed material in a new article that describes more advanced features of the C preprocessor? While it would be desirable to present a concise view of the C preprocessor to someone who does not have much programming experience, writing articles that accurately describe advanced topics with the purpose of catering to the general public is not always possible.

As I describe in my previous post, the C preprocessor is far from a simple textual replacement and macro expansion tool, but the new article presents it as such. To a very highly-motivated individual who has little programming experience (i.e. someone not working with the language), the new article may succeed in presenting a vague and misleading view of the C preprocessor, provided that he is willing to click though long chains of links to referred articles. In doing so, such an individual may glean something worthwhile from the first few lines of the new article.

The rest of the article, while succinct, would be intractable technical jargon to something who has not invested some time learning about C or C++. But in this case, we must classify such an individual as one who is "working with the language." It is impractical to write an article that progresses to any useful level of detail on certain topics, without assuming that the reader has met certain prerequisites. Again, I invoke the links that I provide in my previous post to argue that the current article does not go into a sufficient level of detail to accurately portray the subject at hand.

For example, the article on the C++11 revision of the language goes into a considerable level of detail to describe the changes that have been made to the language, but I'll be damned if a member of the general public who has not had experience with C++ metaprogramming understands the significance of "typename std::result_of<Obj(Arg)>::type operator()(Arg& a) const." Nonetheless, the article on the C++11 revision of the language presents one of the most useful, comprehensive and complete summaries of the changes that been made to the language that I have seen online, on par with Stroustrup's own article. Trimming down this article in any way would greatly diminish its utility to the vast majority of those who access it.

My point is that it is dangerous to delete material that has been added to an article by a contributor who wants to share some deeper insight into a topic with the rest of the world. Rather than delete such material so that we achieve a result of dubious practical utility, I feel that we ought to accommodate the new information, even if this means creating a new article that may not be of feature article quality. When an expert in a subject takes time to write useful material in a relevant article, this new material ought to stand to influence others who may have not considered what he has to say. It is partially the reader's responsibility to satisfy the prerequisites necessary to comprehend the text of an article. A member of the general public who has not had some minimal background in, say, linear algebra, will not learn anything useful from the article on, say, Inner product spaces.

Any contributor expects some investment of time from the reader--the reader is always free to stop reading an article when it becomes too specialized. The vast majority of those who read the article on the C preprocessor will be looking for or benefit from the inclusion of the the grimy details and minutae that have been removed from the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Enkranz (talk • contribs) 01:06, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is not a repository for anecdotal or personal analysis of its subjects. There is literally an entire World Wide Web out there upon which such material can be hosted. I've always found it baffling that people are so keen to turn Misplaced Pages into something that it isn't when there is zero resistance to including such material on any number of high-profile external sites which can be located just as easily with a search engine as Misplaced Pages's own coverage. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:05, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

None of the information in the older version of the article was original. Sources or links to other articles are provided for almost all of the subjects covered. For any subjects that you feel have inadequate citation, I'll be glad to add links to the original sources (sections of the ISO C standard) myself. I'm not advocating that we turn Misplaced Pages into something that it is not--Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia; it is designed to serve as a reference. What is a reference but a collection of allusions to other resources? For the vast majority of the people who are going to view the article on the C preprocessor, the older article clearly serves as better reference than the newer one. I've argued extensively in the last response that your removal of the information in question diminishes the article's value as a reference.

The older version of the article on the C preprocessor was in fact unique in the subjects that it brought together. Try searching online for information on the C processor--you'll be hard-pressed a similar resource. I'm not intent on turning Misplaced Pages into something that it's not; I'd articles that serve as useful resources to remain useful resources in the future. I give a couple of examples of articles that I feel do this in my previous response, as well.

Enkranz (talk) 11:29, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

It is contradictory to argue that the content in question was both a) unique and b) non-original. In my opinion it certainly was the former. Misplaced Pages is not supposed to be a unique programming resource or reference. There is absolutely nothing stopping you from taking the material in the longer version of the article and adding it to Wikibooks: in fact, I encourage you to do precisely that. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 12:42, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

To clarify, by "material that has been added to an article by a contributor who wants to share some deeper insight into a topic," I meant information beyond what one would expect to find in an unspecialized encyclopedia, by still not original research. Even among programmers, however, people seem to be split in opinion over what ought to be done to the article. I did not mean for the post to be a survey and I certainly did not ask for responses in an unbiased way, but I did want to get the opinion of a few people likely to be programmers. Perhaps you'd find some of the comments in the post interesting.

I still feel that the removed information should be reintroduced in a "more coherent" way, e.g. cleaned up so that it would merely list the items and provide links to external sources for more information. I'd be glad to write an article on an external website to cover this information in more detail, and provide links to it in the outline in the Misplaced Pages article. Otherwise, I showed previously that the article presents a misleading view of what it should be covering. The code samples comprise the bulk of the removed information, so a simple outline would not take up much more space, but would do justice in presenting the C preprocessor more accurately.

How about we meet halfway?

Enkranz (talk) 00:21, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Firstly, please don't use external sites as canvassing tools. Secondly, I've explained why the content is inappropriate on this general-purpose encyclopedia. There is, as I have repeatedly pointed out, nothing stopping you from taking said content and using it to construct a wonderful treatise on the nuances of the C preprocessor's macro capabilities at Wikibooks. However, if you really want to try to keep this content on Misplaced Pages itself, you could take the old contents and work on it in your user space until you've massaged it into a form that you believe addresses the concerns raised. I'd be happy to review that work once it's done, or you could take it to the wider community and propose it be re-included. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 05:55, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Request for evidence at Misplaced Pages talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Civility enforcement/Evidence

As you blocked Malleus in 2011, would you please respond to Misplaced Pages talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Civility enforcement/Evidence#Requests for further evidence - Collaborative evidence collectionrcement/Evidence. Thank you. Dougweller (talk) 09:10, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Civility enforcement/Evidence/Blocks

In the course of an ongoing case, the Arbitration Committee has decided to collect all relevant information regarding Malleus Fatuorum's block log and, as such, has created a table of all blocks, which can be found here. Since you either blocked or unblocked Malleus Fatuorum, you are welcome to comment, if you wish. Salvio 14:02, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Honorverse

Please undo all your undiscussed merges in the Honoverse articles. If you like, please open a discussion about it afterwards. Debresser (talk) 14:40, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

As I'm sure you're aware, every single AfD raised on articles of the sort which were redirected so far has resulted in a merge. If you want to take material from the merged pages and add it to the main regions list article then be my guest (although as it's all wholly in-universe and unreferenced I'd really rather you didn't). Misplaced Pages's coverage of this subject has been an enormous cruftpit for years and there is certainly no onus on editors to request permission before attempting to help remedy that. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 16:14, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

It is customary to add a merge tag for some time, or open a discussion before making a merge. So even though your point is correct, your method most certainly wasn't! I will probably add some selected material from the merged articles to List of locations in the Honorverse at a later date. I was at first tempted to revert all your edits, but being that you are an experienced editor, I decided to ask you first. I hope you will in the future refrain from making such drastic steps without following the proper steps. Debresser (talk) 18:21, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

I was being bold. Merge tags may be used where discussion is desired: they are not required in all cases, and where the content is so obviously inappropriate (wholly in-universe content with no secondary sources, of the sort which numerous AfDs have resulted in merges previously) it would simply be an unnecessary bit of additional red tape. I seem to recall having repeatedly asked you not to come to my talk page simply to chide me, especially when I didn't actually do anything wrong. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 20:33, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

If you prefer less pleasant steps, like undoing all those edits of yours per the same boldness, or opening a discussion about your behavior in making so many and such drastic edits without any prior discussion, then that is fine with me. I personally would prefer a note on my talkpage. But if you really want to ruin all civil conversation and atmosphere of joined working towards a common goal, then your past sentence is going a long way in that direction. The choice is up to you. Debresser (talk) 23:08, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

There's nothing "unpleasant" about BRD. It is natural for editors to disagree with one another, and BRD is one of the patterns we've found to be useful in resolving that. What is unpleasant is that it seems that every time I make an edit you disagree with you come to my talk page to, quite bluntly, tell me off about it. That is not conducive to a collaborative editing environment. If, for some reason, you believe that the pages in question should not be redirected then I am all ears as to why, but I am certainly not under any obligation to seek the approval of random editors before taking (easily reversible) actions that I believe improve the encyclopedia. There was nothing stopping you from simply asking me for clarification rather than demanding that I go undoing all my edits and waiting for them to be rubber-stamped by some unnamed group of editors. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 05:42, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

You make a valid point. I should not have come with a demand, rather ask for clarification. I apologize. But you should have sought consensus first. Not from any specific editor, but from the community. These are by no means minor changes, and you should not be surprised to have stepped on some toes. Can you agree with me, in hindside, that it would have been better if you would have taken some steps to assure consensus before making the merges? Debresser (talk) 09:48, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

No. I deemed these changes uncontroversial as the history of Misplaced Pages's coverage of the Honorverse strongly suggests that all of the purely in-universe sub-pages will eventually be merged into the main list articles. The AfDs raised have basically all followed the same pattern as Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Alfredo Yu: universal support for a merge. Indeed, the only dissent has come when "the community" (which at this point appears to consist of you and Piotrus) has been consulted, such as at Talk:Mesa (Honorverse)#Merge proposal, where you both strongly opposed what was eventually a strong consensus for a merge on specious grounds of in-universe importance. I had no desire at all to sit through a repeat of that discussion before having to take this to an AfD; instead, I short-circuited the discussion to avoid the drama while achieving exactly the same end result. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:40, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

I understand your reasoning. Nevertheless, my opinion is that this way of being bold does more harm than good. Please take my opinion as an a priori disagree, and do not claim to start a BRD cycle in the future, because I will summarily revert you and post on WP:ANI for repeated non-consensus editing. Debresser (talk) 23:43, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Erm, no again I'm afraid. You don't get to "pre-veto" discussions on your pet topics. If you want me to AfD these articles then so be it, but given the unanimity of the previous discussions I'm not sure you're going to like the result. As for taking me to ANI, your track record when it comes to that method of dispute resolution is not great, and that's coming from one of the few editors found often defending you when you end up there. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 05:48, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Template tasks

I'd be grateful if you could look at these template-related tasks, please, which are beyond my skills, (and require admin privileges):

{{Infobox settlement}} has code which could be adapted for the first of those.

Cheers. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:55, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

New WikiProject

Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Open Access is a new WikiProject. I noticed your participation in a couple openness/open-source-related related Tfd and Cfd's and thought you might be interested in the subject matter. Open access only somewhat interests me, but I edit in a number of closely related topic areas so I'm thinking about getting involved if the scope/title can be broadened a bit. – Pnm (talk) 16:33, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:TCL.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:TCL.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Misplaced Pages under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Misplaced Pages. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Misplaced Pages (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 05:56, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Problem

Ok I've said this at the football talk page as well but please do not speak to other volunteers like that as an admin you shouldn't be doing that. You asked me to calm down when I was perfectly civil then you made comments along the line of if you can't understand don't take part. The section you added talks about HTML is unable to split on the new template then you go on to say you inconvenience somebody if you split and somebody if you don't. There is mention that you are saying anything about the old template. So actually your point was very unclear. I ask you if you have a mobile device I use and iPhone and iPad I can view the old perfectly with no problems and the new one takes a whilst to scroll through an is inconvenient for a mobile device. Therefore it's clear that saying the new one is better for mobile devices is wrong. Anyway please consider just make your point rather than biting users you forced me to bite back. Edinburgh Wanderer 13:59, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Look, you're a valuable contributor to the project and I certainly did not mean that you should not be commenting on WT:FOOTY in general, but in a thread which largely revolves around technical discussion of complicated template issues it is wholly unproductive to continually have to read through responses by an editor who doesn't display any indication of taking said issue on board. The choice was either to tell you that, or to simply ignore you (which isn't very civil either). I tried to be as civil as I could, but I felt it more important to be honest than to pad it out and risk being further misunderstood. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 14:12, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

the technical issue with mobile devices I can't see on the iPhone or iPad. The new one is so long it takes ages to scroll so I would like you to explain what other mobile devices have issues as far as I can see most mobile devices won't have a problem with the current one or struway one. I would rather be ignored than people making comments. From what you said the new one Being split will cause viewing issues and your saying by not splitting you don't have that problem but if I can read the old one then is that an issue. I'm against the wiki table but if split it would look a lot better we would be better running a test to see what mobile devices actually have that problem as

Imagine with the majority now being relatively high tech it will be the minority. Edinburgh Wanderer 14:19, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Mobile devices were only mentioned as an aside. The major issue, and one you've ignored completely, is screen readers. And I'm going to ask you nicely to stop repeating your entire spiel about how you prefer the old one, no problems here et cetera every time you reply: everyone knows how you feel at this point and repeating yourself is not productive. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 14:27, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

I didn't repeat myself in trying to understand the technical issues. Do you have a screen reader personally and viewed the problem what I'm saying is technical testing will need to be done including a review to see what percentage of users each affects. If more devices have problems like the iPhone or more like screen readers we need to know that as to assertion how many are affected by each so as to effect the lesser amount and find out if struways version has that problem if not then thats the best option. Edinburgh Wanderer 14:35, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorry em so a screen reader isn't exactly what I thought it was but the point still stands anyway I'm going to let you all discuss it for a whilst and hopefully a compromise and further testing can be done. Edinburgh Wanderer 17:08, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

No, it isn't. And not only did it take an entire afternoon of pointing you to the answer for you to actually read what you were pointed at, you then didn't really believe it anyway. We're done here. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 20:45, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

chris I would like to draw a huge permenant line under this I've apologised to WFC and I would like to do the same with you. Ive become very angry about this probably wrongly to some degree and am ranting about it. I would like to more forward and I've suggested a further trial to gain more consensus and tweak this template until its perfect. Although i see isuses for high tech devices in appreciate if i was hard of sight or couldnt read it at all its much worse I would be willing to change the articles myself meaning neither you or WFC need to do the leg work allow a further trial. I also see that you biting me was just frustration caused by me getting frustrated and although i feel I was getting what you said I because of anger wasny seeing anything other than what I wanted to see. Sorry again. Edinburgh Wanderer 00:17, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

chris I have not suggested people go out and buy these devices as I said above I appreciate some will have these problem not all but some. There is clearly nothing we can do not to inconvenience someone therefore the only option we have is the new template. It's has issues with preference of flags squad numbers non existent and styling. A trial will allow us to gauge opinion and then get comments. As to resources given I have already said with a little guidance on articles to choose for a trial which I'm fairly certain WFC will give me some advice on I will set it up and then we can come back for further opinion on it. I will not push any ideas and the feedback can be reviewed. Further consensus is needed before it can be wider rolled out. I would appreciate you not blocking a trial just because we have has arguments all i want to do Is make sure we are doing the correct thing there is no point in making changes to then need to review again later because we have missed something. Ideas coming forward such as the trygame system for flags show we do need to do more research. Edinburgh Wanderer 13:11, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Broken Template:Infobox information appliance

Hi. One of your edits (diff) broke Template:Infobox information appliance. Several entries are now overridden by later entries and thus not shown in the template (e.g. power, type). Could you fix that? Thanks. - 1exec1 (talk) 15:34, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Fixed. Sorry about that. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 15:39, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

type still doesn't show. 1exec1 (talk) 15:41, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Argh. Try now? Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 16:01, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

It's OK now. Thanks. - 1exec1 (talk) 11:41, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited Glen Cinema Disaster, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Cinema (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:20, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

linkrot what?

Hi, saw you did a lot of work on Bicycle sharing system and then added a linkrot tag, last October. But most of the references (then and now) look fairly complete, with no actual 'bare URLs'. I want to remove the tag, but what's your view? Pedalissimo (talk) 12:07, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

I can still see quite a few bare URLs in the current article,and references 60-70 don't have proper context. I'll see if I can fix this myself. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:17, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Squad templates

I've taken on a project to attempt to integrate the functionality of all the various squad options at present. I know there's a good chance I'll fail and a good chance it won't get consensus even if I succeed, but to be honest I'm enjoying the challenge for its own sake. My long term aim is to achieve the dual table/navbox functionality of {{Boca Juniors squad}}, but that's some way off at the moment.

So far I've integrated {{fs player2 sort}} with my slightly tweaked version of {{fs player2}} (in other words, I've incorporated {{sortname}} into {{fs player2}}). Space is not at a premium in the wikitable format, so I've expanded the positions to Goalkeeper, Defender, Midfielder and Forward, which has the added benefit of removing that unsightly key. For aesthetic reasons I've centre aligned the squad numbers. I've also made other optional additions, allowing for the changing of table formatting, and the addition of a source and/or date.

A few examples of what I've done so far can be seen at User:WFCforLife/Test. The Stevenage squad is an example of what the template would look like if my version of {{fs start2}} is used with no parameters at all, while the other examples demonstrate various combinations of different parameters being used, long lines etc. I was wondering if you had any thoughts? —WFC— 19:20, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Looks absolutely perfect (minor kvetching concerning my dislike for custom header colours aside). We should certainly use this as the canonical test code. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:48, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Infobox currency

Hello Thumperward, I have proposed my infobox currency suggestion as per your request to the Wikiproject Numismatics talk page, however, no response arrived. There is not much activity there, anyways. I included my points in adding that data row earlier. To put it short: date of introduction is a cardinal information for a currency and – although there might be several dates of adoption for different areas – it has a single date of introduction by its central bank, as it is connected rather to a central bank than to a country. It would be appreciated if you could add this data entry row plus a row for reference for the actual law or act. I would also suggest to move the "issuing authority" entry to the top after "ISO code", then would the "date of introduction" and "date of introduction reference" come, and then the rest. The template would look like then this:

{{ infobox currency
| currency_name =
| currency_name_in_local =
| image_1 =
| image_background_1 =
| image_title_1 =
| image_width_1 =
| image_2 = 
| image_background_2 =
| image_title_2 =
| image_width_2 =
| iso_code =
| issuing_authority =
| issuing_authority_title =
| issuing_authority_website =
| date of introduction =
| date of introduction reference =
| using_countries =
| unofficial_users =
| using_countries =
| inflation_rate =
...
| rarely_used_banknotes =
| banknote_article =
| printer =
| printer_website =
| printer_override_with_original_text =
| mint =
| mint_website =
| mint_override_with_original_text =
| obsolete_notice =
| footnotes =
}}

Thanks, Timur lenk (talk) 07:00, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Right, try the sandbox. I've added date_of_introduction and date_of_introduction_source (the underscores are for consistency with existing parameter names) and reordered the labels as requested. If this is okay for you and there are no obvious bugs I'll sync this to the live template. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:45, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, I think it is great. --Timur lenk (talk) 16:41, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Deployed. Please update the documentation. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:49, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Quique Flores

Hi there CHRIS, VASCO here,

Colombian "user" has returned to the aforementioned page, wrongfully adding the "Sánchez". Most interestingly, he has resumed the racist attacks towards me, in the userpage.

Any suggestions and/or criticism? --Vasco Amaral (talk) 16:50, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry about your userpage vandalism. Unfortunately, there's not much we can do about an editor on a dynamic IP who disappears for months at a time before reappearing. If it happens more frequently we can block the user or semiprotect the page, but neither would help in this case. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 16:59, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Don't know if you noticed it, but this particular IP has been used for two days now, is that info useful? --Vasco Amaral (talk) 17:08, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Two dates, spanning midnight. The IP's four edits all occur within a 17-minute timespan. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 19:41, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

My bad, did not notice that...Seriously, this guy is an animal, i politely (before i lost it) point out that the name in English WP was Q.FLORES and not Q.SÁNCHEZ FLORES, and lots of users did the same, and he gets on my case like there is no tomorrow? A bit fed up with this, at least my userpage is now protected indef, i don't need to alter anything there, if i do i'll politely ask the admin who protected it to "allow me".

Cheers! --Vasco Amaral (talk) 21:10, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Links_To_Universities

Should a scientist (or other) be linked to a University in an article? Example: Carolin Cardamone, Brown University or just Carolin Cardamone.

Is there a rule about linking to Universities? Richard Nowell (talk) 13:29, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

There's no specific rule other than that in WP:LINK (in particular, the subsection WP:OVERLINK). If the link is likely to be relevant and contextual for the reader, then including it may be beneficial, but in a long list of academics (for example) linking every institution is not helpful. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:50, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Ah, I see you've used "linked to" here in the additional sense of "tied to". There is no mandate to include an academic's current place of work at all when referring to said individual; again, it may be beneficial to the reader to do so, but when that is appropriate is a matter of editorial discretion. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:52, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Thankyou for your thoughts. It seems unnecessary even to link a scientist to a university, as the paper that has been cited will tell of the appropriate educational facility. In some of the papers the scientist has several facilities mentioned. As for being 'tied to' (as if on an exclusive contract), I don't think that is necessary or justified. Also, scientists move around- Carolin Cardamone was at Yale but is now at Brown via MIT. Also, not having links seems more egalitarian: does one think that a scientist from Yale will be better than one from Brown (for instance)? Richard Nowell (talk) 10:01, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

As I say, it's a matter of editorial discretion. We don't routinely do it, but nor do we prohibit it. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:17, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Template:Infobox turf race

Re your modifications to the Template:Infobox turf race. Would you please restore the important Green color in the race name box's background. Thank you. Hialeah Harry (talk) 20:20, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

In what way is the colour green important to the infobox? Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 20:24, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Thumperward. You have new messages at Armbrust's talk page.
Message added 14:31, 21 January 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Armbrust, B.Ed. _{about my edits?} 14:31, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

"hlist" class in navboxes

hi. I responded on my talk page. thank you. Frietjes (talk) 17:06, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Pepe (footballer born 1983)

Hi there THUMP, VASCO "here",

for reasons that escape me, one cannot "report/share our thoughts on" vandalic acts at WP:FOOTY (last time i did so, received a scolding). I honestly tell you man, i never noticed you asking us not to do that (at least not directly in my talkpage), "honestest" of truths.

First things (related to title of message) last...the vandalism in this player's article continues, now inclusively removing ref'd stuff about his last violent incident, done by a guy whose username contains the word "REAL MADRID", 'nough said (User:Yusufmoosa1 also went the distance in vandalizing the article), i have sent him a message.

Pepe is, in my humble opinion, the dirtiest player that takes the pitch in the major European leagues, the ones that have constant coverage. Of course, one cannot write in his article "he is a dirty player" or "the dirtiest player" because it would be biased. But the incident with Lionel Messi (as the one with Javier Casquero) must be allowed to stay, don't you agree? If they are referenced, that's not bias, that's "telling it like it is".

Do you think the article can be protected for a week or two, as it has in the past once or twice? If not, any suggestions? Enjoy the rest of your weekend, regards from Portugal - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 17:10, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

It is incredibly harmful for us to have editors trying to ensure that negative material is added to or kept on articles on biographies of living people. The content that you are edit warring over (and labelling other editors as vandals for removing, which is not the first time by any stretch of the imagination that your edit summaries have been unacceptable) does not state that Pepe is "the dirtiest player that takes the pitch in the major European leagues": the reference in question makes no mention of any such thing. Adding such an incident to an article is a blatant attempt at making one's opinions felt by implication, which is wholly unacceptable. As for bringing up vandals at WT:FOOTY, we have a well-respected essay at Misplaced Pages:Deny recognition which covers that matter. It's been mostly ignored in the past because you do excellent work for the project, but you must understand that not everyone is going to excuse things like abusive edit summaries in the long run. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 20:19, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

I guess we have to cease all interaction (at least with me beginning it, whenever you want to come to me for help you're very welcome), another scolding and misunderstanding! Yes, i label a user who removes a referenced section (5 or 10 lines of content) without one word in summary a vandal, my opinion. Also, could you please tell me in what way is the content as it now stands, a violation of BLP (if i'm understanding it well)? The player Pepe stepped on an opponent's hand, deliberately (he can deny it all he wants), it is referenced clearly, without taking sides. Hence, i don't know why do you counter-mention the "the dirtiest player that takes the pitch in the major European leagues" when i am 100% on your side there, it is unacceptable to write that on a biography because it is biased.

By the way, you did not address the situation of a possible page protection, instead focusing on another reprimand, and the article continues to be vandalized (now he is a "CRIMINAL" and a "BUTCHER"; don't worry, i have reverted it without insults :)).

Seriously man, i have tremendous respect and consideration for you, and i don't know how many times i have to say that: 1 - yes, i agree some of my summaries are very stupid; 2 - i have promised over and over again to work on that, failing somewhat miserably. The only solution would be to have extended wiki-breaks, or to stop editing altogether; thus, if i come for assistance and the result is this (reporting vandalism and/or uncool behaviour - removing stuff without a word - and still hear about my antics), don't worry, i'll stop bothering you.

Attentively - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 21:19, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

By the way, researched this for you: have a look at summaries #6 and #7 of the Real Madrid fan user that removed the referenced Pepe incident (please see here http://en.wikipedia.org/Special:Contributions/Sujith_realmadrid), insulting Barcelona fans in typical "derby day" fashion in #6, the #7 is even worse! --Vasco Amaral (talk) 21:23, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Here, he insults Messi (http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=2010_FIFA_World_Cup_statistics&diff=371583902&oldid=371580644), fancy it has anything to do with the fact he plays for the "hated" FC Barcelona? No way...if i'm not mistaken about this individual, i have to brace myself for some intense reply, even though my message to him was polite, but to the point.

Again, sorry to bother you, the buck stops here. --Vasco Amaral (talk) 21:28, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorry to belie my words, but i have to make an exception: User:Sujith realmadrid has sent me a message - and User:GiantSnowman - insulting and threatening with legal action (this from a guy who calls Lionel Messi "Lionel Pussi" and insults FC Barcelona fans in his summaries!). I have done what i could, for example apologizing for using the word "vandal" in my summary in Pepe's article, but all conversation with this person stops.

Don't reply to me if you will - getting used to it - but please have a look at the situation. Attentively - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 00:00, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

I've issued a warning for legal threats, and I'll keep an eye on the user. On the matter of page protection, it should hopefully no longer be necessary now that the material in question has been rewritten in a more neutral manner. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:31, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

He has just reiterated his legal threats. Giant Snowman 12:22, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

And blocked. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 12:48, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Chris, thanks. A quick question (and now i surely would like a reply man, "mandatory"): if he continues with this (i sent him a message before seeing he had already agreed to desist on his legal intentions, polite, but i expect everything from this individual after seeing those summaries and his out-of-this-world reaction towards me and Snowman) - i still don't think i understand the full scope of what "legal action" means (what is it? take me to a real court and/or possibly to jail?) - which steps to you advise me to take?

Sincerely and attentively - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 15:15, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

NLT prevents editors from participating here while issuing legal threats, but it unfortunately cannot stop editors from suing one another. Should that happen, you'd be best getting real-world advice on how to respond. That said, and bearing in mind that I am most definitely not a lawyer, I don't think there's any credible legal threat here. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 16:00, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

I have not resisted and, in our latest exchange, in his talkpage, have confronted Sujith regarding the "Lionel Pussy" summary, politely as i should. Let's see the reaction. --Vasco Amaral (talk) 19:05, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

He said he was only doing it in response to vandals. As one who has lost it so many times with vandals, i am bound to believe him. Case closed for me. --Vasco Amaral (talk) 15:42, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

IFFHS World's Top Goal Scorer of the Year‎

Remember محمد الخوبري (talk · contribs), who was re-posting and re-posting IFFHS World's Top Goal Scorer of the Year‎ and its variants? Well after your final warning to him he disappeared, and has now re-appeared as 109.200.180.192 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), and has re-created the article again at Template talk:IFFHS World's Top Goal Scorer of the Year. Giant Snowman 14:57, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

And is now introducing the topic into existing articles... Giant Snowman 13:44, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Just seen the block - thanks very much - but Template:IFFHS World's Top Goal Scorer of the Year has already been sent to TfD, by me, on 19 January... Giant Snowman 14:33, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

D'oh. Should be fixed now. Cheers. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 14:35, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

algebraic notation template

I was the only opposition at Template talk:algebraic notation to your instinctive strong dislike of the template code (complexity) and use in articles. This is to let you know you would receive no opposition from me there anymore, my interest in the Project has been killed; you are free to do what you deem best there, including total revert, I no longer care. Ok, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 05:21, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

SFL1

When was the last time the Scottish First Division didn't "happen to have" part time teams in it? 94.2.8.11 (talk) 23:17, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Re above comment and previous history see. Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.Edinburgh Wanderer 23:55, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Fæ

A request for comments has been opened on administrator User:Fæ. You are being notified due to your prior participation in ANI, RfA, or RfC discussions regarding this user. Thank you, MadmanBot (talk) 20:09, 28 January 2012 (UTC)