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

[edit] ATN

Hola,

I made the change because I usually use ATN without any other archive headers, since it serves to both announce that it's an archive, and allow scrolling between archives. Perhaps the best solution is a single box that combines the two (and a bot to delete all the existing atn templates). Two boxes with a very obvious redundancy seems to beg for a single box that combines the best of both. But I can't claim I'm incredibly informed in this regard. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 12:54, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

An ignorant question - is there a reason there's not simply one archive header? Having {{atn}}, {{atnhead}} and {{archive}} just seems unnecessary. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 12:56, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

There already is a combined template: {{atnhead}} (or as it's known now, {{talkarchivenav}}). I am indeed planning on merging as many of the various archive header templates as I can, but it'll take a while. The first step was making {{atn}} look less archaic. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:58, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Noted. I'll revert my change. Were you going to merge them manually (i.e. once you've got a final version, edit the old archive pages by hand) or is there a bot in the works? I don't mind the odd bit of mindless grunt work now and then, so if you need any brainless assistance I'd be happy to push up my edit count. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 13:01, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

I really, really need to start working on bots for this kind of thing, but for now I'm still just playing about by hand. Once I've got a solid plan for a grand merge I'll let you know. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 13:06, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Sure. I find stuff like this relaxing and easy to do when I want a break from RL stuff. You'd be doing me a favour WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 13:15, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] External media

The edit still doesn't make sense because no description has been added. So it's rather pointless nonsense. Wikipedia neither requires us to write alt text here. Wandalstouring (talk) 14:50, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Sigh. Please read WP:ALT#Purely decorative images; it instructs users to perform exactly the type of edit that you reverted. If you have further questions, please direct them (preferably with a bit of humility for once) at the talk page for that guideline. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 15:40, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Please suggest replacement template

Hi. You recently participated in a template deletion discussion [1] which resulted in the deletion of a template, Template:OtherusesSubtopicAlias, used at the top of the article Positive airway pressure. The deletion discussion did not mention which template should be used as a replacement. I can't even see what the text was that was formerly at the top of the article as created by the template. Could you please suggest an alternate template to use at the top of this article? (I'm also posting this request to the talk pages of others involved in the deletion discussion.) Robert K S (talk) 02:26, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Ah, according to the Google cache, it used to read, "This article includes a subtopic, Continuous pressure devices, which is often known as CPAP. For other uses of this term, see CPAP." Robert K S (talk) 02:32, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. There is no need for a replacement, as there is no ambiguity to resolve. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 13:45, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] The other C shell

Hi, Thumperward. In July, you made a change to the C shell article which had the effect of deleting some of the mention of Hamilton C shell, an independently-developed version of that shell. Others deleted the remainder of the mention. I've requested some discussion on the associated talk page and thought perhaps you might wish to comment. Best regards, Msnicki (talk) 18:54, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Replied over there. Thanks for the heads-up. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 18:57, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Your tags on liquefied petroleum gas

Hello! Just wondering about your tags regarding the fire protection section. You state that it is not referenced enough and I wonder if you could be more specific. There are plenty of internal and external references. What happens to an unprotected LPG vessel when exposed to fire is very basic physics and chemistry, like the Gas laws. If you live near a refinery and if there is a fire in there that they're having trouble extinguishing, you have but to look at recorded history to see that the threat is quite real, which is also why there are mitigation measures. The threat is very real and also very manageable and the subsection in that article points that out. If there is anything specific in that article that you think is irrelevant or unsubstantiated, would you please point it out specificall? Thanks and best regards, --Achim (talk) 17:07, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

The section is almost entirely lacking in footnotes, so it is difficult for readers to verify individual statements. But that's definitely a secondary issue to the use of the section as a soapbox upon which to educate people about the dangers you reference. That's not what an encyclopedia is for. We certainly should not be devoting nearly 50% of the article body to it. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 17:37, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Again, you cite no specifics that you take umbridge with. The length is a matter of being thorough. No one is prevented from adding further information to other parts of the article. The individual items are internally referenced, such as bleves, the mitigation means and so forth. The fact that there have been spectatcular fires and losses is simply a matter of recorded history, as is the fact that there are ways and means to minimise the hazards through burying the containers or fireproofing them. It is also a fact that a lot of refineries have spent a lot of time and money on those efforts the world over. If I were selling goods and services in the mitigation means, I could see your point about "soap box", but I am not and have not been for some time. Let me ask you this: Have you ever seen a BAM test on this topic? --Achim (talk) 18:06, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

When one section of an article is "thorough" and the rest less so, this is the definition of "undue weight". It is also the case that while a group of facts may simply be "a matter of recorded history", articles are not simply aggregations of facts: it is the way that those facts are being presented which is problematic. I'll try to have a look at the article again soon to see if I can do anything about this directly. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 18:11, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, I'll watch. I also noticed that you still could not point to any specifics, nor answer my question as to whether or not you have ever witnessed a BAM test. And just because nobody's expanded other parts of the articles to include more information, that does not prevent any editor from expanding an item with well-researched information, linked to internal Wikipedia and external sources. To suggest that because one part is deeper than another reduces the less voluminous parts in value because it's now "undue weight", I find frankly as absurd as your refusal to answer specifics repeatedly. That's why Wikipedia is always a work in progress. Next week, without input from either of us, the fire protection part of this may be dwarfed in size by other contributions. That would not mean that I would then bellyache that the part I wrote is now suffering due to undue weight of something else. Perhaps you can consider fleshing out the other parts of the article?--Achim (talk) 23:53, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not going into specifics because in my opinion the issue is so apparent that if you can't see it then it would take me a disproportionate amount of time to explain, which would be better spent actually editing the page. Anyway, I'll hopefully get to it soon. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 00:34, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Infobox swimmer

Hi Thumperward. With reference to your edit summary to Template:Infobox swimmer on 2009-07-28, could you get "show-medals=yes" to work again - i.e. force the collapsible list to be uncollapsed. It seems to have been lost during your migration of the template to use Template:Infobox. Thanks in advance, Yboy83 (talk) 18:04, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Done. Sorry about that! Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 18:14, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] This post went to the wrong person

You forgot to add inner space (term) to the disambiguation page. However, I felt the move was inappropriate anyway; it's clear that all of the other pages are derived from the main term, either through the meaning of underground, under the sea, the realm of the mind, or the very small. So there is a link between all the disambiguated articles and the main term. And do you think it might be possible, just once, for Wikipedians to communicate with one another without starting a war? It's not as if this really matters. And next time, if you're going to delete the article before moving it, I'd appreciate a heads up, because those things are hard to put back. Serendi^podous 22:39, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Ummm, I tagged the page, and then when you undid the edit (without mentioning it to me) I pinged you before doing anything else. If you think that's "starting a war" (bear in mind that I have no idea who you are) then perhaps you want to dial down your sensitivity. I'll take this to RM, not that it is genuinely controversial. Sheesh. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 00:37, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry I misplaced my explanation on another user's talk page, but I did feel your comment on my talk page was rather bellicose. Let me know when you take it to RM. Serendi^podous 01:18, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Done, at talk:inner space. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 14:16, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Martin Lee Anderson death controversy

There's a sneaky effort to move this page into a biography. As you said, "As it is clearly about Anderson's death, rather than about his life, it isn't a biography and shouldn't pretend to be one." Please look here-- you took an interest in this in 2007! Please weigh in on this.Fconaway (talk) 23:01, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Replied. Thanks. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 00:21, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Infobox lake

Thanks for reviewing infobox lake and proposing changes. As it's a frequently used infobox, please suggest the changes on talk first and explain which changes you'd like to do. For now I have undo your changes as it's not entirely clear what they intend to do. -- 签名 _sig at 10:49, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Wow. Did you really just revert an uncontroversial code cleanup just because it wasn't pre-approved? Pretty lame, but considering the obvious ownership problems already shown on that talk page I suppose I should have expected it. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:03, 2 December 2009 (UTC)