User talk:Thumperward/Archive 58

Archive 55

Archive 56

Archive 57

Archive 58

Archive 59

Archive 60

→

Archive 65

Beers of the world

This page is obviously maintained and read by template experts, so I'm putting this here, hope you don't mind too much. What I'm looking for: a three-level nested navbox template of the world, as might be used, say, for 'beers of the world by country' or 'first-level country divisions of the world'. First level, continents; choosing one would open the second level, countries of that continent; choosing one would open the third level, with links to the various 'beer' pages. I would hope it would be editable, so that only the countries required would be shown. So the first two levels might work a bit like Template:Newspapers by continent (template), but without navigating away from the current page. Two questions: does anyone know of such a thing (I've looked long and hard, failed to find it); and, if it's not been done, could it be done? I think it might be of some general interest. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 13:05, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Not sure what exactly you mean. Do you mean something like {{alcoholic beverages}}, or am I on the wrong track? Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 16:43, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Infobox journalist

You recently contributed to the Template:Infobox journalist. Your input is requested for the following discussion: Template talk:Infobox journalist#Twitter. Thank You. --Flyguy33 (talk) 06:57, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Replied over there. Thanks. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 07:22, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Itamar attack‎

I see that you deleted a large section of Wikipedia talk about Itamar attack‎ stating that it was 'unproductive discussion'.

While I personally agree that the discussion is not helpful, I don't see where in the administrator page it was decided that the whole section should be deleted. Sugar-Baby-Love (talk) 03:11, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

See WP:ANI#clean talk page environment. I proposed its removal, user:Boing! said Zebedee agreed, and I acted quickly because the section was quite clearly not going to do anything other than continue to inflame people. Owain has re-added his sentiments without the troublesome language, and thus far nobody has disagreed. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 12:12, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Okay. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sugar-Baby-Love (talk • contribs) 19:48, 12 April 2011

Vince Lombardi cross posted

Someone has slapped a tag on the introduction of the article. I agree it is really bad. I am not an experienced editor so I have been averse to tackling the introduction. Furthermore, I have begged a couple people to help me with it but I have had no success. And I was told by, what seems to me an experienced editor, that the introduction should be written near, or at the end of the article. This article has made tremendous strides but right now I am stuck in the Bert Bell article and I am really looking into how and why Lombardi came to the Packers. By slapping the, I guess it is a leadinfo template, on the article that particular editor has put pressure on me. Maybe that is a good thing, I do not know.

But I am going to have to ignore it until at least April 16th, and probably until April 23rd. The Green Bay Packer section is very, very, very poorly underdeveloped. The Giant, West Point and St. Cecilia sections looks to need at least a paragraph more. Furthermore, the religious section may have to be wiped out - I right now would have a problem with. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 23:31, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

BTW, if anyone wants to write the introduction to the article........I wholeheartedly will support you and cheer you on :) 66.234.33.8 (talk) 23:35, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Replying over there. Thanks. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 06:41, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi, can you make me a todo page for Bert Bell please like you did for Vince Lombardi. Thanks. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 23:42, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Sure thing. See talk:Bert Bell/to do. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 13:18, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

TED

Hi, I see that you added a non-neutral tag to the TED's criticism section. I wondered what you would prefer to see as you didn't mention it on the talk page. Critique sections on Wikipedia articles seem fairly standard. All three examples are referenced and are far from fringe as they all got a fair amount of press coverage. I'd welcome hearing your thoughts. Thanks Span (talk) 20:12, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

"Commonplace" is not the same as "standard". WP:CRITS provides an overview of the relative merits of having a section of this type versus not having one. I am strongly of the opinion that such sections inevitably result in unbalanced articles whether they are well-maintained or not. There is really no reason why the three paragraphs currently inhabiting that section on the TED article could not be integrated into the article as a whole. For instance, the article really needs a "speakers" section to be split out from the current "history" section, and the first and third paragraphs of the current criticism section could live there. It also needs some sort of "impact" section to indicate why the conference is so notable, and the second criticism paragraph could go there. This avoids having articles where one section has by necessity a negative tone. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 20:24, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

User:Landalva

So much for your act of good faith. User is up to his old tricks here. I think we've run out of options now, which is a shame. - Sitush (talk) 03:38, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Yep. If it happens again I'll reinstate the block. Thanks for keeping track of this. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 07:02, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Harper AfD

You referenced the Economic History of the Jews VfD as a 'special case', I wouldnt go so far as to say that, but I explicitly made the point in that VfD when asked if Auschwitz would be deleted by the rationale used that articles with long histories can be pruned of POV issues and retain usable building blocks, whereas new articles with systemic bias can be easily removed without losing anything of value. I'm not a hundred percent sure why im commenting, but something just struck me wrong phrasing it as a 'special case' vis-a-vis a 'different situation'. -- ۩ Mask 14:25, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

I think we actually agree there. My point of it being a "special case" was that it's not often we get 100k+ articles added fully-formed, leaving no revision trail to potentially prune back. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 16:33, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

There were four other articles nominated in that AfD. I've taken the liberty of removing the AfD notice from each of these articles as the AfD is now closed. Please let me know if my actions were in error. Thanks. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:55, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Whoops. I had a nagging feeling I'd goofed somewhere. Cheers. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 09:31, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Where you "goofed" is in allowing the survival of those other four articles, which are rank spam and part of a well-known and extremely overt rebranding campaign by the campaign organizers of their main subject. I see you edit out criticisms of your activities, I guess you'll remove this post as well. I repeat - you've been suckered and have been made a tool of the Harper information machine. This is not a conspiracy theory, it's the plain truth. Enjoy your adminship, I will enjoy forgetting all about wet-behind-the-ears admins thinking they're doing the right thing when doing exactly the wrong thing.Skookum1 (talk) 16:57, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

I just looked at your edit history....calling criticism of a bad decision on your part "soapboxing" is just more proof to me that you're a political neophyte who doesn't have a clue of the consequences of allowing spinmeisters to game wiki rules to accomplish spammery, which is what your lack of recognition of what the issues in that AfD were; instead like the other admins in the ANI . Oh, gee is this "soapboxing", too, for telling you what you don't want to hear? The problem with the way things work around here is that passive-aggressives are reward,e those they aggress on and ignore get pissed off but their responses are not welcome and derided by the same passive-aggressive logics that allow yourselves to be more easily manipulated by political operators. Wash your hands of it, ignore me, fine, but know that you've been duped and played. Have fun with that pirate hat, the real pirates just won.Skookum1 (talk) 17:06, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

._. Wow, that's a pretty bad personal attack. Silverseren^C 07:26, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

User:Landalva (2)

Landalva (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Hi. Just to let you know I've reblocked this user after they immediately returned to the same problematic behavior from before the last block. It's almost certainly just a newbie/competence problem, and I'd be happy to try to help them get back on board. User:Sitush has suggested userfying the new articles for Landalva to work on for a while, which sounds like a good idea to me - but I'd be reluctant to do anything like that or unblock Landalva until we at least see some communication, and I've suggested they explain what they're trying to do with those articles. As you seem to be the only one who has had any communication from this user, I don't know if there's anything you might want to add to the Talk page or any suggestions you might have? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:10, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I saw the reblock. I don't have anything to add right now: the user mailed me after his first malformed unblock request and so I unblocked in the hope that he wouldn't be frustrated. For him to immediately repeat the same action suggests he simply doesn't have the requisite communication skills (in English anyway) to contribute here. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 16:35, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

OK, thanks - I guess we'll just wait and see if he responds -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:46, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Dashes

Hi there. From the link you provided; section 6. "As a stylistic alternative to em dashes (see below)." There were a mix of unspaced emdashes, and spaced endashes. I've just made it consistent throughout the entire article. As far as I'm aware, it doesn't matter which one is used, just as long as it's consistent. Brad78 (talk) 16:24, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Aha. I'm not sure what happened there: I use WP:ADVISOR to flag things like this and I'd assumed from my own edits that I'd already unified the formatting, but a look at my last revision shows I hadn't. Cheers for the response. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 16:48, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Les Reed (football coach)

Hi, I was just looking at the edit history of Les Reed (football coach) and in January you made a revert to an earlier version with the edit summary "massive almost-certain COI". Could you recall what conflict of interest this was? I enquire as your revert undid a number of changes I made, mostly MoS improvements, and was wondering if you had any issue with me reinstating those changes. Cheers, Mattythewhite (talk) 22:04, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

It was this run of edits by user:soccersolver, who has never been back since. I should have tidied up after myself, though: sorry about that, and hope I didn't cause too much wasted time. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 12:24, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Oh well

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aldebaran in fiction — Result "keep all". Predictable but it looks like preserving crap is the most important thing on these Wikipedia articles, regardless what the policies are for inclusion. I guess next April 1st I will nominate WP:N at WP:MFD, given the amount of support it actually has when it comes to cases where enforcing it becomes relevant. Thanks for the support anyways. Icalanise (talk) 01:41, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

It happens. In a year or so, when absolutely no improvement has taken place, these are guaranteed to end up back at AfD. It's not really worth the time of editors who care about content to worry about this too much: better to concentrate on those parts of the encyclopedia which benefit the general public. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 07:06, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Location maps

Would you mind looking at the location map here? I don't know how to put a border around the map and put some white space between the map and the text. --Epipelagic (talk) 03:29, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Border fixed. The whitespace problem is a general bug with the margins in {{location map}} itself: the margin should be identical to an image thumbnail. Probably better trying to get that fixed at template talk:location map than coming up with a hack to fix it on one page. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 07:10, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks --Epipelagic (talk) 07:31, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Monkey Butter

Hi Chris,

I re-checked, and you're quite right. It's just WWII slang for peanut butter. --Slashme (talk) 18:25, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Mind adding a reference to that effect to peanut butter? Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 18:58, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Done (including reference). --Slashme (talk) 13:14, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

+WP:TROUT, following Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Plenty_of_trouts_to_go_around_here

Whack! --Shirt58 (talk) 14:29, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Errr, CC there means Corvus cornix, not me. This was not a productive use of your time. Try to find something other than ANI drama with which to entertain yourself. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 10:12, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Oopsy. Down here in "steerage class" we're kinda starved of WP:DRAMA. You could add some, but please don't - it would not a productive use of your time :-) --Shirt58 (talk) 13:39, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Nice!

Your comment about Kwami at the ANI was right fricking on point! Nice! Wish SOMEONE would do something about him, but he gets off every time unscathed.

And nice picture, man - love the hat! See you around.

Best regards: Cliff L. Knickerbocker, MS (talk) 20:02, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

What's actually happened is that your ranting and personal attacks have probably made it significantly less likely that something will be done. I see you've posted another handful of attacks on the user pages of those involved after being told that these rants are going to earn you a block. If I see another one of those I'll be stepping in with a block for your own good, as all you're doing is drawing attention away from the original problem and onto yourself. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 10:25, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

OK, point taken. And I apologize for when I was out of line. But I keep running across all these problems that are similar, more all the time, going back over 2 years!

What do you suggest? I'm serious, and sober. I've been here maybe 15 months and I've never seen anything even REMOTELY comparable to this, and best I can tell, no action has EVER being taken. I don't want to be blocked, I want to get back to content. However, there's been a huge mess made in my area, and the person responsible is not going to clean it up. It's just incredibly galling.

Regards:

Cliff L. Knickerbocker, MS (talk) 12:03, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

What "action" are you expecting here? A block? De-sysopping? The problem that was presented in ANI was Kwami making mass page moves against consensus. That's stopped for now, and if it starts again it can be dealt with quickly and effectively so long as people remain calm and present the evidence properly. Other editors have suggested that Kwami has a deeper problem with ignoring other editors' concerns when making changes, and that's the sort of thing that usually requires a formal WP:RFC/U to deal with. It's not a quick fix and the only possibility of it happening at all is for people to avoid making things personal. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 12:15, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

I definitely hear you with regard to the emotional/personal outbursts. And I appreciate your polite dialogue with me, especially after I blew the fuse. But I checked this guys history thoroughly, and was absolutely amazed (and, admittedly, enraged) to see the magnitude of the problems he has caused on many, many repeated occasions, and not one single punishment of any kind. Just seems quite unbelievable to me, especially given how so many people get stomped down for an incident or two of "mere" incivility (i.e. "mere" in comparison to hugely destructive courses of conduct over days/weeks/months/years. It just seems so inequitable as to be, well, almost surreal. Thanks for listening, and for responding.

Best regards: Cliff L. Knickerbocker, MS (talk) 23:19, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Bob's_Burgers#Edit

I don't like your response. I pointed out 3 FAs that don't have this section. Can you narrow down where to look on WP:SUMMARY? CTJF83 01:58, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

It's the whole point of WP:SUMMARY. If you don't leave a summary in the main article then you are forcing readers to click through for essential information. WP:DETAIL gives guidelines on length. And just because an article is at FA doesn't mean it's perfect: it just means that at one point someone thought it passed the FA criteria. There are plenty of articles with FA stars which wouldn't be considered especially good articles these days, which is why we have a review process. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 10:11, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

What would you put in said section? "X show has # episodes in # seasons?"..what else could you put? Do you have good examples of such a section working out? CTJF83 11:46, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

The Big Bang Theory has a table which summarises them. That's better than nothing. Even better, Cheers has the episodes link in a fully-formed plot section which gives a good overview of the story arcs, aspects of the show which changed over time and so on. If you want me to move the {{main}} template into the plot section I'll be happy to oblige. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 11:59, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Well a table would definitely look odd with 1 season and no DVD release info. How about you throw the "list of episodes" under the "plot" section, like on Cheers, and then remove the "episodes" section that just has a link. CTJF83 12:08, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

While I'm bugging you, and before I go to bed, in the plot can you change "The show centers on a family that runs a hamburger restaurant." to

"The show centers on the Belcher family who run a hamburger restaurant."

Also, in the "Recurring characters and others" section, "Todd Barry as The Cow", "Jon Glaser as Jairo", "Sam Seder as Officer Cliffany", "Jerry Minor as Officer Julia","Jack McBrayer as Marbles", "Steve Agee as Glitter", and "Oscar Nuñez as Cha Cha" all need to be removed, because none are recurring they are all minor trivial 1 episode characters. CTJF83 12:14, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

How about you start a userspace draft of the page and work on it while the page is protected, and I'll sync it upon request? Better that bringing editprotected requests piecemeal. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 12:17, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Cause! I'm trying to be lazy! LOL...ok, I'll work on it in 7-8 hours when I wake up. CTJF83 12:27, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Changes. Please WP:G7 when you are done with my subpage. CTJF83 21:30, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

 Done. Cheers. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 21:50, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, CTJF83 21:51, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Oh, one more thing :) In "Recurring characters and others" section, can you remove "and others" as it should only contain recurring and not one time characters. CTJF83 21:53, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Re:User:Truthcon

Just wanted to say thanks for taking the time to address this challenging situation. ==Floorsheim (talk) 13:24, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

No problem. Actually, that was one of the least challenging decisions I've had to make as an admin. As I say, if the user goes back to said behaviour once unblocked ping me and I'll reblock. It's worth considering whether anything can be done to the way the information in question is being presented in the article to make it less objectionable, what with this being a BLP and all, so as to help ensure this sort of thing doesn't happen again. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 13:25, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for making that suggestion. I would be open to hearing more from you about how to go about that; I'm a pretty infrequent editor, so I often don't know exactly what I'm doing. My concern is that, because of the objectionable nature of the actions (by Bo Lozoff) that are discussed, the only way to make the material non-objectionable to students of his, who admire him and are certain that he couldn't possibly have done this stuff, is to sacrifice accuracy, brevity, and/or neutrality, all of which, to me, are essential for a good online encyclopedia. Especially considering the fact that Bo Lozoff is a spiritual teacher and, if the sources are correct in what they report, could easily do this type of thing again to more people. ==Floorsheim (talk) 01:31, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

A new editor Rubitzcube has made the exact same deletion as their first and only edit [1]. Gave them a uw-del3 given WP:DUCK. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:53, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Acme Corporation

Can you explain on the talk page what you mean by the tag you just put on the article? It's a pretty sweeping/vague item - I've never seen it before. It would be helfpul to have a more specific explanation, maybe with a cut-paste showing something that you think needs to be fixed. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 17:42, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

The article reeks of it: there are lots of disparate references to something named "Acme" which show little relation to one another, but are presented as being interlinked. I've left a note on the talk page. Thanks for not removing the tag. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 17:54, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Thumperward. You have new messages at TreasuryTag's talk page.
Message added 18:11, 25 April 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Phil Power

Hi and thanks for the message.

The problem is that this player comes up in the list of topscorers in the Football Conference 1988-89 article (which I will hopefully put into the article — the whole thing reworked, actually, in the next few days, I hope). The link will be blue, but it will lead the U of M page, where there is no info whatsoever on this guy. To me that’s a bit absurd. But then I’m not familiar with the boilerplate concept. Is there any elegant solution to this problem?

Apanuggpak (talk)

It would be better to work on the article in a userspace draft until it can stand on its own (with reliable sources and such) before requesting that it be moved into the main encyclopedia namespace: there's no rush, and this is the best way of making sure our biography guidelines are followed. By "boilerplate" I meant that the text I highlighted had been copied and pasted in that format onto many different league pages: we do not need to attribute sources in that manner so long as the reference is included somewhere on the article. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 21:53, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

User:Yomiel

Hi, Thumperward. I just wanted to notify you that Yomiel is up to his old tricks here and here. I think we are running out of options here. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 00:53, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

On second thought, this discussion has been resolved with a peaceful solution here. However, my comments will be enough, so you will not be bothered by this again. Take care, Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 03:30, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Seeing as Yomiel has been blocked as a sockpuppet I think we're done here. Far too much time was wasted on this. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 17:55, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

All right, then. Thanks, Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 18:00, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Location map

Hello. You have a new message at Template talk:Location map's talk page.

I'm sorry that I failed to reply to you question about which template to use as the back-end. Using {{Location map many}} would have been a lot more work as currently it uses {{Location map+}} as a back-end. Thanks for the work you put in on this. –droll [chat] 01:38, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Awesome work. That's been a long time coming. Cheers! Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 18:01, 27 April 2011 (UTC)