This is an archive of past discussions with User:Thumperward. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Chris, I think I owe it to you to stop by and add myself to those providing congratulations. I realize that I may have come across as a little harsh towards you, and I want to make it very clear that I really meant it when I said that I appreciated the comment you made to me during the RfA and that I genuinely wish you well going forward. Who knows, maybe I just ran into you on a bad day. For what it's worth, I hope that, as you go forward, you will think seriously about making sure that your comments to others will be perceived by them as courteous and patient. If you do, I have no doubts at all that you will make wonderful contributions as an administrator. Happy editing, and happy mopping! --Tryptofish (talk) 19:48, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
Congrats! I'm proud to have supported you, and glad you made it. As I said in my comments to Trypto (who I greatly respect) I felt that while you were a bit "snippy" at times, that you would make a good admin. Here's hoping you will prove me right... Best wishes on your adminship! Jusdafax20:05, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
I know you're going to miss going through a 4th one of those, but membership in the cabal has its privileges. Welcome! - Dank (push to talk) 00:21, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
Glad to see this. While we've had disagreements in the past, I'm in no doubt that you will fully justify Rlevse's closing rationale. Regards, --WFC-- 01:15, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
Awesome. Glad I was finally able to catch your RFA while it was actually open. :) It's always good to have another target...I mean admin! --Aervanath (talk) 16:15, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
Thanks very much for all the kind words, folks, and for your support. Real Life has caught up with me this week, but as soon as I get that in order I'll start getting to grips with the tools and seeing what I can do to help out! :) Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk08:00, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
I guess third time is the charm. Glad to see another editor who is very active in the template namespace finally get the tools. ...and I guess I'll have to work on creating some additional {{edit protected}} backlog so there'll be enough work to go around now ;) --Tothwolf (talk) 16:33, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you consider to be missing from the intro to the article on the latest in a growing list of ex-Gillingham players in prison. The murder was not of such high profile that it would be mentionable but for the career path of the offender, his career was not so staellar that it has highlights to summarise in the lead. It says that he was a footballer, but he's now been convicted of murder: what more is necessary to make a reader decide whether they wish top read the remainder of the article? Kevin McE (talk) 13:30, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
I've written the usual short para on RfAs at the SP draft for next week's edition. Please let me know if I haven't got the very summarised passage balanced correctly. Here. Tony(talk)17:08, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Question (irrelevant to Wikipedia) I didn't see an answer to on your user page
I was curious, what do you do for Sun Microsystems? I'm studying computers in school (I'd like to put that knowledge to use someday), and I was curious about what you do because I haven't talked to anyone employed by a computer company (a major one, anyway), and of course considering my major I'll probably do computer work in the future as well. Thanks for your answer. --Evice (talk) 03:24, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
Sounds interesting. That would probably be a little more complex than what I've been learning how to do, which was dealing more with individual machines (and mostly just home computers or workstations and not servers) instead of groups of them, so I probably wouldn't be suited to what you do. --Evice (talk) 17:40, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
Thumperward, today I come to my former discussions see their formatting all in ruins because you had blanked {{Cquotetxt}} and redirected it to another template.
Who authorized you to delete and redirect this template without a previous discussion? The fact that you are an administrator does not mean that you own Wikipedia or have the right to ruin its layout. In fact, last time I checked, you admins are supposed to be our model of behavior. (And certainly you won't be happy to see me running around deleting and redirecting every random template without a previous discussion, call it "MERGE" and then saying "It was a correct thing to do because Thumperward did it"!)
Erm, mind your attitude. I'm "authorised" to boldly merge templates by virtue of being an editor in good standing on the project who (usually) knows what he's doing. Furthermore, this edit was made over a month before I became an admin. Have you any actual argument for why this fork exists? How does merging it "ruin" the formatting of your "discussions"? Provide a test case and if it's compelling I'll see what I can do to ensure that you aren't inconvenienced. Otherwise I'll take it to TfD as an unneeded fork of the existing quote templates. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk13:42, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
Yes, you are authorized to perform bold changes but only to the extent allowed by WP:BRD and WP:SILENCE. You did your BOLD (B) and I did my REVERT (R). Now, if you are still willing to delete template, you have to follow Deletion process, which is a codified consensus between all Wikipedians. Once you started a deletion discussion (D) as outlined by this guideline, I will be more than glad to provide test cases. Otherwise, blanking templates is presence of evidences of lack consensus is not an acceptable behavior, be it from a Wikipedian in good standing or otherwise one with bad standing.
If you've got a legitimate reason for the fork then just spit it out here; there's no need for a formal discussion process when we're already in conversation. IMO you're making rather a big deal out of nothing, and I'm not sure what you think you're accomplishing by it. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk14:34, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
Legitimate reason for fork? It's a template not an article; WP:CFORK does not apply. It's a useful tool used in Wikipedia. It is you who should provide a reason.
IMHO you are looking down at me as if I am a vermin or who has less rights than you do. Please kindly respect Wikipedia guidelines: If you want this template deleted, nominate it in TfD. And remember, Administrators are supposed to be a model of behavior for other Wikipedians; so please do not do what you yourself wouldn't like to see me doing. Fleet Command (talk) 18:32, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
Template forks are generally discouraged as they duplicate effort and introduce inconsistency; argument #2 on the TfD "reasons to delete" addresses this. The guidelines are there to provide some semblance of order, but they are not immutable rules that have to be followed. I didn't expect you to have it demanded that I take a template to TfD in order to try to prise your argument for reverting out of you. I don't really know what your fascination with my being an administrator is about: I haven't used the tools in this discussion and how I respond to people I don't know from Adam turning up on my talk page to patronise me is largely irrelevant to my competence in that regard. Nevertheless, if I can be bothered I'll take this to TfD at some point. I do hope that makes you happy. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk19:08, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
a template arg parsing issue...
Hi. I'd be interested in comments concerning how a template arg might be parsed into two chunks; typically some data and then a ref are being passed as a piece and it's resulting in poor rendering due to a unit being glued onto the end.
Hi Chris, dunno if you've seen my message on the talk page yet but I managed to drop a bollock with my sandbox code. Can you have another look please? Cheers! PC78 (talk) 10:47, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
I recently did a major update to {{Singapore Statute}} and thought it was working fine, but just noticed that the template inserts an extra space in front of the title of a statute if |titlelink= is used:
Note the space between the left parenthesis and "Penal Code" in the second example. In the first example, when |titlelink= is not used, the problem does not occur. If you have time, can you see if you can figure out what's wrong? Thanks very much. — Cheers, JackLee–talk–21:19, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
Oh, I see. I thought the parser did ignore whitespace, but obviously I was wrong about that! Thanks very much. — Cheers, JackLee–talk–07:12, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
Hello Thumperward! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot notifying you on behalf of the the unreferenced biographies team that 1 of the articles that you created is currently tagged as an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. If you were to bring this article up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 3 article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the article:
Hi Thumper; why'd you put a dubious note on the Jesus clip statement when it's got three references? A note on the talk page would be much appreciated. Thanks! Wizard191 (talk) 13:40, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
If you have time, your help with {{Infobox Legislation/images}} would be much appreciated. The Parliament of Singapore moved to a new building with effect from 6 September 1999, so I thought it would be great if I could get {{Infobox Legislation}} to automatically display an image of Old Parliament House if the date that a piece of legislation was enacted (indicated by |dateenacted=) was before 6 September 1999, and an image of the present Parliament House if the date of enactment was on or after that date. I figured that this should be fairly straightforward (see the "SINGAPORE" section of {{Infobox Legislation/images/sandbox}}), but for some reason it is not working (see {{Infobox Legislation/testcases}}). Any idea why? — Cheers, JackLee–talk–20:01, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
If you can see it, then that's fine. Hopefully it's a transient issue. By the way, I noticed you changed the default image size (or, rather, you removed the forced default size of 180px). Is that the norm? Of course, with my default set at 300px it makes the infobox image very large indeed ... ;-) — Cheers, JackLee–talk–10:29, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
Regarding the use of {{gsd}}: I surprised myself. I was trying to think of a simple way to determine if one date was before or after another, and this was what came to mind. Not sure if there's any simpler way. Anyway, it seems to work quite well. I first used it at {{Singapore Hansard}}. — Cheers, JackLee–talk–10:32, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
The norm is to display images at the user's chosen thumbnail size, which is what frameless does. If you've got your default size set really high (as you do) then this might be a little disconcerting, but gradually every infobox is moving to use this for images.. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk10:34, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
I don't know how many infoboxes you've changed, but please don't do it, especially without asking. Changing the width messes up formatting for people who have put data in infoboxes in articles assuming the standard width will be 300 px as it was.
By the way another editor is assuming that your edits were WP:BOLD see Template talk:Infobox train - I don't know if this was the case. Please note that though I found the change of the default image size to be counterproductive, I have no objection to be being changed following a discussion. It's just that there was no warning, or announcement of the change - I only just worked out why some articles were looking terrible. Also you didn't update the documentation.
Perhaps the recommended infobox size (25em) is too big ?
The guideline is long out-of-date and doesn't reflect current convention; it's the guideline which needs fixed, not the infoboxes. By far the most common layout these days is width: 22em; text-align: left; font-size: 88%; line-height: 1.5em, which is the default styling of {{infobox}}. Putting it mildly, the train boxes are not exactly on the cutting edge of template design. I'll continue discussion over there. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk09:08, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
Indefinite Block and Ban Discussion of Sven70
I'm not sure if you've seen it, but as I know you're involved with this editor, you might want to weigh in at AN/I concerning the current situation. Cheers :> Doc9871 (talk) 08:19, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
No problem! While I reluctantly support the ban, I knew he needed dissenting opinions in the ban discussion, and knew that you were a supporter of his staying on WP (with help). It's about fairness to me, and he has no voice there to defend himself, being blocked. Cheers, Chris! :> Doc9871 (talk) 10:48, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
