I closed this discussion. You had indicated in the discussion that you could refactor it to call the new template. That seems like a suitable compromise, and down the road it could be renominated for deletion. Thanks! Plastikspork―Œ(talk)03:46, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Chris, since I think you're an experienced administrator without strong previous involvement with New York-related topics, the use of the definite article or the administrators who closed previous discussions, would you mind closing the month-long Request for Comment on whether to move Bronx back to its previous title of The Bronx (and then executing whatever you conclude has been the consensus or non-consensus)? See: Talk:Bronx#Request for Comments on renaming "(The) Bronx" (September 2010). If (for whatever reason) you don't wish to close this discussion, could you suggest another administrator who's been uninvolved and in whom you have confidence? Thanks. —— Shakescene (talk) 20:18, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, you made a series of edits to this template. I don't know anything about template syntax, so most of those edits I have no clue about what they mean. However, since your edits, the infobox appearance and layout has changed. Specifically, the color of the header is gone and the links in the final section of the box are now centered instead of left-aligned. The only way I know to restore the old appearance would be to roll back all the changes you made, but I assume there's a good reason for all of this and would appreciate if you could explain those to a template-challenged person like me. Thanks. --Crusio (talk) 15:31, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The change to alignment was inadvertent; this should hopefully be fixed now. The initial header colour was removed because it's incongrous with the use of a proper HTML <title> for the header; headers further down should have retained their styling. Sorry for not making my summaries clearer. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk19:38, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Site plan
I just closed this discussion, and I was hoping that you, Sameboat, and Droll could work out a suitable compromise (e.g., adding relative positioning to superimpose). Plastikspork―Œ(talk)20:00, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I noticed you recently converted Template:Infobox radio station and Template:Infobox journal to be infoboxes (using Template:Infobox. I was wondering if you could possibly also do the same at Template:Infobox video game?! The reason I ask is that it is now the only remaining template which uses {{Italic title infobox}} as the others now use the implementation of italics which is incorporated into Template:Infobox. If this was converted it would mean that the {{Italic title infobox}} would no longer be necessary and could be deleted. I would attempt to do it myself but I have no idea what I am doing with regards to templates! Don't worry if not and it's not urgent but would be great if you could do this if you get a chance!? Thanks. Mhiji (talk) 16:09, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If I understood you correctly, you are claiming that using a GPL'ed CMS to run a public website does NOT mean that you are "releasing" the CMS software in terms of the GPL (even so the "results" of the CMS are public). Do you have any source for that? If yes, I think that should be added to the article.
I expanded the lead since you flagged this page, if you would like to take a look at it and remove the flag. Also if you have any suggestions on improving the content, please feel free to make them on the discussion page. --Jonnybgoode44 (talk) 18:11, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Re. the reviews: The line in the sixth paragraph that reads, "The album was a critical success" was flagged as "citation needed". That's why I placed the references there, because it seemed obvious those were sufficient citation. Or would there be another way of doing this? Thanks. --Jonnybgoode44 (talk) 01:34, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ideally you'd want a secondary source which analysed the reviews and said "the album was a critical success". Simply aggregating a bunch of positive reviews can be (and frequently is) misleading, as the reader is unable to immediately verify that they're representative. Furthermore, it's stylistically awkward to go nestling large lists inside one another, especially when the references expand to multiple columns. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk11:26, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It still smacks of cherry-picking. If reception was generally positive, tertiary references which say so should exist. Until then, the article does not unduly suffer by having the reader go through the already-included references to positive reviews and coming to this conclusion himself. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk19:14, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hey: I've long disagreed with this, and have habitually undone it. It's my opinion that the existing consensus is a false one, largely kept in place by Grutness's (deserved) high standing within the stub sorting project. I really should start another centralised discussion about changing the current guideline (which I believe exists solely due to the technical matter of stub categories being placed before manually added ones: one which I believe Wikia has already solved). If you've any suggestions as to recent discussions on the subject that I could add to I'd be very grateful. Cheers! Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk22:51, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know of any recent discussions, nor have I ever participated in any - I'm going by the guidelines, also by the habits of certain bots (incl. RjwilmsiBot (talk·contribs), poss. others) which reposition stub templates to between the cats and interwikis. --Redrose64 (talk) 23:23, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Biased editing of Technological Utopianism by Loremaster.
Biased editing of Technological Utopianism by Loremaster.
Due to your past contribution to Technological utopianism, you may currently want to help editing the Technological utopianism article because currently only one editor is contributing to the article. The Singularitarianism Article could also benefit from your help.
I feel Loremaster is editing Singularitarianism and Technological utopianism in a biased manner in accordance with his Save The Earth propaganda. Loremasters's ideology seems to verge towards Neo-Luddism. Here are the damming facts Loremaster has stated in discussion:
Loremaster says he is:
"...critical of techno-utopianism in all its forms."
Loremaster wants people to:
"...stop indulging in techno-utopian fantasies... ...so that we can all focus on energies on saving the planet."
Loremaster sees his editing as a 'fight' and he states:
"Although I am convinced that the world is in fact heading toward an ecological catastrophe, I think it can be averted and my optimism makes me want to fight to do do just that."
Loremaster has stated he will do everything in his power to get me banned. I will do everything in my power expose the bias of Loremaster.
Loremaster, recently called me a jerk, please don't call me a "jerk". Loremaster began our relationship with unprovoked hostile comments telling me to get a life, his insults have continued, and now he calls me a Jerk. Loremaster really needs a reality-check. If anyone needs banning it is Loremaster. 86.185.71.172 (talk) 14:52, 20 December 2010 (UTC)JB[reply]
If canvassing Wikipedia to create a lynch mob against me using such an intellectually dishonest distortion of my views and edits is not the definition of a jerk, I don't know what is.
That being said, let's take this dispute back to the Talk:Singularitarianism page instead of engaging in a flame war on Thumperward's talk page.
Thumperward, can you help the rugby union project again by placing an addition to the rugby biography template. Before the regional professional rugby teams there were county teams. At present we just stuff them under amateur clubs, but it would be handy to have a new field which allows us the option to seperate county teams from the amateur clubs. Sydney Nicholls is a good example of the problem. Thanks in advance for any aid. FruitMonkey (talk) 10:13, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am not for sure if I created them, or if someone cracked my password back in 2008, but I want you to delete the four templates on my talk page at the bottom if you would please! Thanks, BLUEDOGTN16:34, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Thumperward, I noticed you tagged this article with {{primarysources}}. While this article is not short of flaws, it does appear to cite four secondary sources; perhaps you could use a different tag on it? --catslash (talk) 01:39, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I wanted to get rid of Category:Fb team abbreviation and the included team abbreviation templates in the near future. These have been used to create the headers of Fb r-based results tables a couple of years ago. However, the data has been included into the respective team templates soon thereafter, so the whole category is basically useless now, and with good reason. My question to you as a sysop would hence be how to dispose said category and its content at the least tedious way. In other words: Is there a way to do it without tagging each of the 357 templates for (speedy, via T3?) deletion by hand? --Soccer-holicI hear voices in my head...00:57, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
P.S.: The intended deletions are step 1 of a plan that also includes deleting {{Fb r header}}, moving {{Fb r2 header}} to Fb r header and finally letting a bot fix the roughly 820 redirects.
I'm not Chris, but I would say you don't need to tag any of them, so long as you place a few targeted {{tfdnotice}} templates. Just create a TFD section for say "FB team abbreviation templates", then place a tfdnotice at WT:FOOTY, and any other relevant WikiProject talk pages. If there is a particular individual who has created a large number of them, you should notify that individual as well. Just my opinion on the matter. Chris may have more to say. Thanks! Plastikspork―Œ(talk)02:40, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I noticed that you contributed to this infobox and are still editing. I recently reverted some bot like edits to a number of articles by an anon IP as they looked incongruous. One of these has been reverted. Would appreciate a second opinion as I couldn't find anything on the infobox TP to clarify if this type of addition is appropriate. Best. RashersTierney (talk) 15:15, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In that particular case it looks like it's just an overenthusiastic local, as the kroon is still legal tender in Estonia (for another week, at least). In general, I'm not sure if there's a consensus as to whether or not we need to say "none, previously..." for currency which is no longer in circulation. My preferred approach would be to say "Country (17xx-19xx)" instead, if clarity is needed. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk08:45, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thanks for reply. At the time I posted I was a little concerned that things might develop into a mass revert situation. Just wanted a second opinion that I hadn't overlooked some standard practice in similar cases. Agree entirely with your approach. Best. RashersTierney (talk) 11:02, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You recently marked this file as a copyright infringement and tried to get it speedily deleted on Wikimedia Commons. I apologize for not specifying the source of this image on the Commons description page. As I've explained over at commons:File_talk:Tictactoe-X.svg, this file (and related files) were generated with a computer program that I wrote, and are only meant to resemble the style of the xkcd comic. nneonneotalk14:30, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
By that standard, File:Tic-tac-toe-game-tree.svg is also unsuitable, as it is traced from an original work done by a Wikipedian. The tictactoe image does not constitute original research, both because similar images have appeared in the past, and as it is based solely off of the well-known game tree of the game. I thus don't see how you can object to the image solely on the basis of being "original work". nneonneotalk21:25, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that the article in question is, from a quick read, pretty much an original evaluation of the subject (it's got the odd reference, but the vast majority of it seems to be the personal assertion of our authors). Ideally, that would be tackled first before adding any more material obtained from personal research. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk22:55, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
IANAL but the resemblance is close enough that we should be talking about Image:Tictactoe-X.svg as a derivative work of the original xkcd strip. Those strips are, so far as I can recall, licensed as CC-BY-NC, which isn't good enough for us. The representation used in the comic seems bespoke enough that I couldn't convince myself it is simply a non-original re-expression of a game tree (contrast this with moving between Extensive-form game and Normal-form game). We aren't quite at a catch 22 of treating the svg image above as either original and not allowed or derivative and not allowed, but serious thought out to be given to the question of its status as a derivative work at least. Protonk (talk) 23:39, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
nneonneo generated the image from code, and it isn't unreasonable to suggest that Randall did the same (or at least derived his graph from a programmatic description of the game's phase space). What fuzzes things is that nneonneo was by admission inspired by Randall's strip. We might actually need a lawyer here, to be honest. :) Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk23:50, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, learnèd Thumperward. Here's your baby, possibly your proudest and dearest one! Ultra-low priority request:
If, some time in the next decade, you have some spare time,
perhaps a higher res image could be created for this template.
An image with fewer jaggies.
I would set this note to self-destruct,
but I haven't figured out how to do that yet.
Cheers, Varlaam (talk) 01:14, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
[Shavian template user, which will be the name of my sock puppet when I create one]
Also, note that the two users that have been notified about the other discussion, about "overcategorization" in "twins", still have not replied - fair to say none of them has edited since the last "quarrel". Regards from Portugal - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 17:57, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
