User talk:Thincat/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

RefTools fixed

RefTools should be totally back to normal now. Kaldari (talk) 02:46, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

TUSC token 66f8c1c4f7fe960903476166443251c1

I am now proud owner of a TUSC account!

Let's troubleshoot your RefToolbar problem

Hey Thincat, sorry to hear about you troubles with RefToolbar. I would love to help you troubleshoot this problem as it is likely that if you are experiencing it, others are as well. First off, I would like for you to temporarily turn off all your user scripts in your personal vector.js. Next disable all of your gadgets. Then turn on "Enable enhanced editing toolbar" and "Enable dialogs for inserting links, tables and more" under editing preferences. Go to edit an article and do a hard refresh (shift-refresh on most browsers). Record whether or not refToolbar shows up or not (it should add a "Cite" dropdown). Next turn off "Enable dialogs for inserting links, tables and more". Repeat the shift-refresh on the edit page and record if refToolbar shows up or not. From your bug description it sounds like it is working if you turn them both off, so you can skip that. Then post the results here, and I'll follow-up with you. Kaldari (talk) 22:18, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your offer of help and for your help to others. I shall make some remarks here tomorrow but, as of an hour or so back, I now have a fully satisfactory reftools situation. Sadly, I cannot be sure what it is that sorted things out but part of my problem was simply that I did not understand clearly what the enhanced editing toolbar was or which version of reftools was which. Thincat (talk) 22:37, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Glad to hear it's working for you now. Let me know if you notice any problems. Cheers! Kaldari (talk) 22:55, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Remarks:

1. In my case, I do not think my vector.js was the problem. Removing and restoring stuff seemed to make no difference. I used and still use vector.js
2. I was assiduous in cache clearing.
3. It is possible I missed seeing the {{}} button illustrated here. I do not remember ever seeing this button. I did notice the reftools 1 cite button moving from right to left.
4. At one stage I tried all eight combinations of "Enable enhanced editing toolbar", "Enable dialogs for inserting links, tables and more", "Enable preview dialog" as I reported here. I can now see I had reftools 2 but was wrongly believing it was reftools 1. However, there were problems with hangs when it came to inserting the citation.
5. Even at the time I realised I was aiming at a moving target so I often left things for a few days.
6. For me, I believe it was doing My preferences, Restore all default settings that sorted me out and gained stability. I could then switch back all my desired options without losing control. Whether I was using a problematic option or whether it was "clearing" all options at once, I don't know. Thincat (talk) 19:50, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I know that having "Enable preview dialog" on would definitely cause problems with RefToolbar. This was the problem that SlimVirgin had. "Enable preview dialog" was very buggy and has since been removed by the developers pending fixes. Kaldari (talk) 20:16, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I see. It was this ambiguous edit that put me onto what turned out to be the wrong track. Cheers! Thincat (talk) 20:30, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Afterthought: If someone had "Enable preview dialog" ON before the option was removed, could it still cause problems until switched off by "Restore all default settings". I guess not, but it is a thought. Thincat (talk) 20:36, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

No, it shouldn't cause any problems now that it's been removed. Kaldari (talk) 18:33, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

PGA

I've noticed your recent edits to peak ground acceleration, thanks - especially for the references. I found the article a few weeks ago looking a little sparse, so added info as I came across it, but hadn't found time to chase up references for it all. (What I have found is plenty of people quoting us, so it seems we're appreciated!). Gwinva (talk) 00:26, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind remarks. I had seen you had done a great deal to the article so I was a bit concerned in case you might feel I was messing things up. I'm glad you haven't thought so. It is puzzling why reported PGAs seem to have been getting very large recently! I wonder whether there are simply more and more accelerographs and, given very variable ground conditions, they simply tend to hit peaks that were never likely to have been measured in the past. Anyway, this is a mere guess since I have little background in the subject. Thincat (talk) 15:58, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I've little background, either, so can only speculate. Certainly the older sources give lower PGAs, and hazard maps and engineering specs also anticipate lower ones. Recording stations might well have something to do with it: both Japan and NZ have heaps of seimological stations around (Chch had a dozen or so within the city). Values do vary widely: early reports from Japan suggested 0.35 - 0.50g, but some later records showed high values in some areas. I've become quite interested in it all. Gwinva (talk) 21:58, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Architects' Alliance of Ireland

Hi Thincat,

thanks again for your support. Any chance to have you vote here.

I have the feeling that the page is being vandalised, but I can do little about that. I have revised changes by DGG who has not done a good job I think when working on the page. I am questionning his good faith dispite his vote in favour of keeping the page.

Thanks--Christophe Krief (talk) 19:28, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

I shall contribute to the AfD before it closes. I have not looked at DGG's edits (I shall) but I have great respect for his work. He makes very considerable efforts to save articles from being deleted and I believe he always acts in good faith. I cannot believe he would vandalise anything. In my experience he is a quite outstanding editor. I am sure he is trying to help produce an encyclopedic article even if that does not fit in with what you would like to read. He has access to a wide range of useful resources for references. Study carefully Wikipedia:Vandalism because the word should be used on Wikipedia only in very particular circumstances. I strongly suggest you should not use the word lightly. Thincat (talk) 19:44, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

It is probably by mistake, but DGG had inserted parts stipulating that members of AAoI were not by Law authorised to practice architecture. This is what some would like, but this is not true. He also had inserted a part saying that AAoI members do not want to pass the exam without specifying that the exam is biased, without saying that AAoI members would be passing an exam if it was affordable and fair. I have already revised the article to correct this and other things. I could not leave it as it was, but I am concerned of people thinking that I do not accept the article to be changed.--Christophe Krief (talk) 20:34, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi Thincat, thanks again for saving the AAoI article and for improving it to high standards.--Christophe Krief (talk) 17:43, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

---

Dear Thincat... I hope that you are well... I have a problem with an IP user which is a member of the institute opposed to Architects' Alliance. He has regularly inserted false comments promoting his institute and damaging AAoI. I have during the last days reverted his insertions because none were referenced. I have invited this user to discuss the issues on the talk page but he never did. This morning (in Dublin with an unusual nice blue sky) I have improved the article with new sections, I have removed false insertions and preserved others by changing the promotional contents for a more neutral approach. However, I know that this user will come back again and re-insert assertions that are proven false.

As you have shown interest for this article before, I was wondering if you could give me information on how to deal with such situation. If the insertions are proven false, then it must be vandalism to re-insert them without discussing the subject on the talk page. Is there any way to block this user IP if he persists in inserting false and promotional content in the article. Would you be able to advise me on the procedure to follow, or to direct me to someone who can.

Thanks in advance--Christophe Krief (talk) 08:42, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Nice to hear from you! I only occasionally look at the article so I'll keep a closer eye on it now. Of course, I do not know what is or is not "true" so I can only go on what is reliably reported elsewhere. However, that is Wikipedia's policy anyway. If unreferenced material is contentious it may be removed. I'll help out a bit as needed. Thincat (talk) 09:43, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Roger Scruton

Hi Thincat, I've posted an RfC at Talk:Roger Scruton—see here—to ask whether the neutrality tag should remain on the article. There are a number of issues in dispute; if you could comment even on just one of them, or your overall impression of the article's balance, that would be very helpful. I'm leaving this note because you've edited the article or talk page, but if you have no interest in commenting, please feel free to ignore the request. Cheers, SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 20:58, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Db-g6

Hello Thincat.

The purpose of deleting the redirect Louis Léopold Robert was to enable me to move the article Louis-Léopold Robert there. I can't presently, since there is a redirect in the way, and that redirect has been edited. If it hadn't been edited, I would have been able to move the article there over the redirect.

The redirect is most certainly helpful, as you indicated, but this issue is about what should be the article, and what should be the redirect. This type of request is a common one, with the purpose of reversing the present relation – hence the description.

So, if you're an admin, could you please delete Louis Léopold Robert, so I can move Louis-Léopold Robert (the move will leave a redirect behind, and so the situation will be reversed)?

Thanks in advance.

HandsomeFella (talk) 15:50, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Oh no! My apologies. I had not realised that. No, I am not an admin. Does this mean there now has to be a Great Debate? I am not bothered about what the article is called so long as appropriate redirects exist. Looking at the article I saw the name was being hyphenated so it seemed the naming was already "correct". Thincat (talk) 15:57, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

(I am checking to see if I am allowed to restore the speedy tag). Thincat (talk) 16:03, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

It has already been taken care of. Cheers. HandsomeFella (talk) 16:18, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Letter-NumberCombination

Template:Letter-NumberCombination has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page.

TT MFD

Howdy,

I hope I've answered your concerns - if not please let me know and I'll try to spell things out - I hope you understand that those of us who have been unfortunate enough to be sucked into TT's event horizon maybe see things differently.

Any time,

Egg Centric 21:02, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your remarks here and at the MfD. My view remains that deletion policy does not relate to the removal of part of a page. However, policy statements are descriptive and not normative so if there is a consensus that MfD is for partial removals then that is what policy is and the policy statements are inaccurate (or misunderstood by me). I have seen TT's activites at something of a distance, and if you and others have suffered (as I can quite well imagine) you have my sympathy. TT's user pages can be edited, protected, he can be blocked, banned, all sorts. People can argue this at MfD but then decisions and debates would go elsewhere and the MfD should be closed. Note: I did not suggest "keep" because a close of "keep" would prejudice a future MfD. Thincat (talk) 21:30, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Hiya - I understand your position. My view remains that stating it where you did may distort consensus with a stupid admin, but most admins aren't stupid and - once again - I can see why it makes sense to post that view. Thanks for your prompt reply!

(I express no view on the MfD issue in general as I honestly haven't an opinion, and I feel that just deciding one way or the other by gut or convenience or whatever would be stupid - I haven't got the right experience to have a proper one!)

Egg Centric 21:41, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

I now realise I am being too stern and legalistic. I hope an administrator (I think it will take several!) will come along and do something about TT. If I am right in thinking MfD is the wrong venue I hope matters can be moved to a better venue (hopefully by an experienced admin) and that you and your colleagues will no longer have your time wasted by all the carry-on. Merely to close this down wouldn't be adequate. My own experience is more in responding to this sort of thing rather than in initiating or acting on things so I feel inexperienced like you do. Very best wishes!!! Thincat (talk) 21:52, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I just noticed your reply. Absolutely no problem, we're all beginners in this grand, noble experiment, some of us more than others maybe but we're all still learning. Thanks for your kind thoughts too - there's something about the bureaucracy here that sucks you in (I've spent far more time on it than I intended to when I created this account) so you can hardly be blamed for trying to keep things within the framework Egg Centric 21:38, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Special Barnstar
	For keeping it real Egg Centric 21:41, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Hater

.... hm. I did not consider that it might be his name; rather, I thought he was proudly declaring that he hates (someone named Jay). I'll look into it; thank you for bringing this to my attention. DS (talk) 13:09, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Wooo! That was a very quick reply! Thincat (talk) 13:11, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Removing others' comments

Moviegoblin (talk · contribs) edited an article about himself. I left him a note reminding him that when doing that, one must exercise caution. It was appropriate and it was couched in helpful terms. It did not allege bad faith. Don't delete content from other people's talkpages. ╟─TreasuryTag►Clerk of the Parliaments─╢ 16:27, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

I shall cherish your comment here as if it were a barnstar. I note here, for the record, the edit you regard as a potential conflict of interest requiring future caution. Thincat (talk) 16:41, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Deleted article: Liverpool vs. Dinamo Bucharest, European Cup Semi Final 1984

Hi there. Thank you for your message of support!

I also feel that the article easily meets basic WP notability criteria. In addition I found the whole AfD process to be rather alarming. The article was nominated for deletion by an editor with the following justification:

Match is not notable at all especially compared to other Liverpool matches. The article almost entirely consists of quotes from autobiographies and there is no media coverage to suggest it was a notable match.

Which is completely inaccurate and untrue (of course it is notable compared to other Liverpool matches; the fact that players' autobiographies are referred to needn't necessarily be an issue; there is media coverage). Nevertheless, instead of being thrown out due to a lack of rationale and justification, the AfD process went ahead, with myself, as creator of the article, not being informed:

• 5 people vote to keep the article, providing well-reasoned grounds for doing so;
• 7 people vote to delete the article, but only three provide any substantial justification, and the reasons provided by these seem woolly to say the least, and conspicuously fail to address the reasons for including the article given by those voting to keep it. Let's take the last (and longest) delete vote as an example (my comments in italics in brackets):

Twelve out of seventeen refs listed come from either specialized media outlets (which in particular, and why is this a problem?) which are obsessed (is this the right way to describe Liverpool Football Club's official site? Is there a rule somewhere that the official site of a football club is not a reliable source?) with Liverpool FC and Liverpool FC only or ex-Liverpool FC players' autobiographies (but why is this a problem? In addition: the reviewer failed to take into account that the match is given a significantly disproportionate amount of coverage in these autobiographies, many of which are major historical accounts [Dalglish's and Rush's in particular, which have received widespread acclaim in the broadsheet press in the UK] that have certainly been read in huge numbers by non-Liverpool supporters) and two out of the remaining five point to UEFA's website with nothing but a scoreline, proving only that the match really occurred (these are bolstering refs for readers to check that the information presented is accurate – this looks like a non-sequitur. And what about the remaining three references – do they not establish notability?). There's very little here to suggest that the match is regarded as notable to anyone outside Liverpool (this is a knee-jerk, lazy, and ill-informed reaction. Please study and consider the references given more closely!). The conclusion Jprw drew above (This is an area in WP that needs expanding, and this has been something positive to have come out of this discussion) is concerning. Try explaining to non-football editing Wikipedians why a project which currently covers some 148,000 articles (92,000 of which are assessed as stubs) "needs expanding" into new and pretty uncharted territory. (I'm sure that many of those articles are non-notable. But that cannot be given as an excuse for excluding articles which in comparison are notable! I also stand by my assertion that there should at least be WP articles on the 2005 semi-final; 1977 quarter-final; and 1989 title decider. In other words, this is indeed an area of WP that would appear to need expanding. Perhaps the problem is that this particular reviewer has an aversion to football?) You could start by proving that the match was seen as notable by somebody not related to Liverpool before participating players decided to mention it in their autobiographies published in 2005 and 2009. You have over 20 years of newspaper archives and football books to dig through. (To repeat, media references are given, and the players' autobiographies are okay sources in this context, especially bearing in mind the amount of coverage accorded in them to this tie. In addition, there are other media references from closer to the time that have not been included [I would need to take a trip to a UK library to root these out, which I cannot do at present] and there are additional numerous significant references made in other players' autobiographies and footballing encyclopedias).

I think that the problems were compounded by the fact that the reviewer seemed to be non-European and didn't fully understand the significance and prestige of the European Cup. The semi-final would have received huge widespread media coverage, including headlines on national TV in the UK, in the wake of a British side getting through to the European Final. And on top of that, reviewers consistently failed to take into account all the extra connotations surrounding the tie regarding its physicality (I would be surprised if there has been a more brutal encounter in the history of British football) which make it a genuinely historical event.

Finally, the article was deleted, summary-execution style (by who exactly is not clear), and I was not informed. Luckily, the editor TParis was able to salvage the information that I had put together over nearly two weeks.

I now plan to keep the article on ice, improve it wherever possible, and then when I am back in the UK bolster it considerably with the abovementioned references and then resubmit it. I hope that another knee-jerk AfD process does not take place. If it does, I can always donate it to the Romanian branch of Wikipedia – I'm sure they will take it :) Best wishes, Jprw (talk) 07:49, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Postscript: I have posted the article here. Jprw (talk) 16:28, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Good. Does anyone ever give feedback at Requests for Feedback? I can if you like but I thought your original was perfectly OK. I won't edit the "draft" or its talk page in case this muddies the water but here are some more references

Independent authors and publishers but probably commissioned, page 138[1]

Independent author, page 130[2]

Autobiography but a lot of detail, pages 115-117[3]

From my library I have requested "Liverpool's 5-star heroes: official story of the kings of Europe,Hanrahan, Steve, A celebration of Liverpool's five European Cup triumphs" in case it has something. The only local newspapers my library HQ has going back that far is for a north of Scotland paper on microfilm so I think that is hopeless!

When you decide to go ahead, do you just move it or do you need to go to DRV or ask the deleting admin or what? I think all this must be terrible for newbies. The few articles I have created have all mercifully survived! Thincat (talk) 10:26, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks very much for unearthing these references. I was aware of the Dalglish book (it is an updated edition of his original autobiography Dalglish, ghostwritten by Henry Winter) and that Dalglish spends a lot of time discussing the match – itself a clear indicator of notability (his book is after all probably one of the more significant sporting autobiographies to be published in the last quarter of a century or so). Alas the book is back in the UK. I also wanted to add a couple of refs from official sporting encyclopedias. And in addition to the ones you've found, there are the references from newspapers closer to the time when the match was played (again I would have to be in the UK to access these, via a library).

There has been zero response at Requests for Feedback, which is disappointing, as it seems to be the official place to go to get guidance on developing a draft article. I also posted at WikiProject Romania (see here) but drew a blank, however that might not be the best place to gauge interest levels, as there seems to be very little activity there at all. I suggest that for the time being the article be kept on ice. Please feel free to add any salient info yourself supported by the refs you adduce above. Many thanks and best wishes, Jprw (talk) 05:48, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Bayeux Tapestry inscriptions

Good work! I have been planning just such a table myself, which is much needed. I think you are wrong to think it makes the Bayeux Tapestry article too long and to have removed it! The BT article is totally inadequate without such full transcription of the Latin annotations (as I would call them rather than inscriptions). How can a reader of the current BT article say he knows anything about the BT without having read the full narrative and studied the images which go with it? Length should not be an issue, the article will still be fairly short compared to some. I have therefore added suggest merger tags to both articles to effect a re-merger. I have also made some minor amendments to your text, explained in the edit summaries. I have also added images in an extra column, and would envisage all images being acquired and added over time. There may be a need to re-define the extents of individual scenes from the definitions you have supplied based on numbers on the back of the Tapestry, to make the images fit well with the text. (Lobsterthermidor (talk) 18:47, 12 October 2011 (UTC))

Good! I'll take a look. Just go ahead and I'll but in if I think. I agree inscriptions is wrong. Annotations seemed too sketchy and captions didn't seem quite right. It might be nice to keep the numbers even if you change the demarcation of the scenes because they are very widely used for reference (like the chapters/verses in the Bible which weren't original either). Thincat (talk) 21:00, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

I have commented at Talk:Bayeux_Tapestry saying I like the images a lot but am not in favour of merging. Thank you for what I agree are generally improvements in the translation. I have made one or two corrections and a lot of further suggestions. It is clear your Latin is better than mine! Thincat (talk) 13:18, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your co-operative style of editing, on an item-by-item basis. Many of the changes you have made are perhaps due to your admitted weakness in Latin. Mine isn't perfect but I have well-thumbed copies of Cassell's & Kennedy's to rely on. I will revert some of your well-intentioned changes individually with reasons in edit summaries and line refs to a Latin dictionary.

Re scene 2: "Ride to Bosham Church", as an integral scene, this is supported by Douglas, p.233. Contrast with however the scene of castle building at Hastings where Douglas splits the last "CEASTRA" into a separate scene, translated as "The camp", correct per Cassell's Latin Dict. (Castra). Re "CLAVES PORREXIT", Cassell's states: "Porrigo, -rexi, -rectum, to stretch out, reach out, extend, with "by metonymy" to hold out to, reach to, offer to. Which is best depends on how literal a translation you want. Your alteration to the latter is probably appropriate. Re your asserted lack of end "T"'s. I can see them, sharing an upright with the preceding "N". (e.g. see "CONTRA ANGLORUM, battle scene). I don't think this qualifies as an omission to be shown in brackets. Because of the tecnichal nature of this discussion, it seems a good idea to copy this last paragraph to the article's talk page, which I will do if you have no objection. (Lobsterthermidor (talk) 17:09, 14 October 2011 (UTC))

That is all fine. Thank you. I had deliberately done lots of small edits so you could consider each separately. By all means copy any of this to the talk page. I will be away now for a few days so I shall leave you in peace (until I get back!). It is actually a good discipline to be editing with someone else even when we do not agree on some details. Fortunately, on broad issues, we are in accord. Thincat (talk) 17:49, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

I must heartily congratulate you on your work on Bayeux Tapestry tituli which is therefore now complete. This is a great asset to WP. I just hope it will be visible enough to readers, I see that no consensus has been reached as to whether it should be re-merged into the main article. I'm not sure about the word tituli - I have seen Jonbod's comment suggesting it with an apparently strong reservation. Sounds a bit pretentious perhaps. I would prefer "Bayeux Tapestry Narrative", does what it says on the tin. I wonder if it should be developed further to add comments in footnotes for every scene, where there is something to explain? (i.e. who is Wadard?) (Lobsterthermidor (talk) 22:29, 6 November 2011 (UTC))

Thank you. Yes, tituli is pretentious (though, for me, educational — I had never heard the word, though I'd probabably have guessed what it meant). I think it doesn't matter provided there are appropriate redirects. People wouldn't search for any such term anyway — I see it merely as an appendix to the main article. So, as you have suggested, should it not be an appendix but instead embedded? WP:COLLAPSE seems to say not to collapse the table if it is in the article. Anyway, perhaps it is time to revive the discussion at Talk:Bayeux Tapestry#Suggest re-merger of table of text. Thincat (talk) 22:50, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Dinamo Bucharest vs Liverpool

Many thanks. You have certainly helped to propel the article forward and I think that it is looking pretty substantial now. If I can return the favour by doing some spadework on any WP article you feel needs attention, please let me know. I'll resubmit the article again soon, and I will of course keep you posted on how well that goes. All the best, Jprw (talk) 10:58, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Article now resubmitted, see here. Jprw (talk) 07:01, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm glad you have been able to get back to this. Things seems to have been much more satisfactory now than at "Requests for feedback". So, it looks as if it is now back in main space but waiting to be patrolled. I have watchlisted everything. Surely it will be OK this time. Thank you for your offer of help. I generally just do bits and pieces at WP but occasionally I create something more substantial and I'll remember your offer then! Thincat (talk) 10:48, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

I am now thinking it has been effectively patrolled so I have gone and reviewed it. I have never tried giving grades and I won't start now but I would here give B or possibly C because it is lacking press reaction shortly after the time of the tie and reaction from Romania. It is still a thoroughly worthwhile article. Thincat (talk) 11:17, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Liverpool vs Dinamo Bucharest AFD

Hi there! I have myself responded to NapHit, whose reasoning, I believe, is fundamentally flawed in a number of areas. I understand that the process takes seven days, so will get round to voting in the next couple of days. As a general comment, I find it mystifying that other football supporters have brought / are bringing the AFDs. I really cannot understand why they would not be pleased that WP's footballing coverage is being improved by a well-written and referenced article on an historic footballing event.

I'm very sorry that the process is taking so much of your time, and I am touched by the trouble you have gone to to get acquainted with the subject. I think that the fact that you have no interest in the subject is important, as it is helps establish that a neutral and objective judgement is being passed. You are clearly upholding the integrity of the encyclopedia. In contrast, it is terribly disappointing to see how quick other editors are to vote to delete, without bothering to study the facts carefully. Regards, Jprw (talk) 06:53, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Color TOC

We now have {{List TOC}}, it would be great if you could comment at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2012 March 1#Template:ColorTOC. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 14:34, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your common sense

Thincat,

Thank you for expressing a view on the deletion of 6 bookcover photos, in this discussion: [4]

I am puzzled by this process. I don’t see how the nominator or closing administrator continue to invoke a WP:NFC#UUI policy (critical commentary), which is exactly the manner in which these photos were used.

I hate to conclude that they didn’t read the article, or see the critical commentary in that article [5], but it’s difficult to reach any other conclusion.

Thank you for taking an interest. I really appreciate it.

Nelsondenis248 (talk) 21:33, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

I was there on another matter and happened to see your request. I doubt Fastily will restore the images but there is an arguable case at WP:DRV. At the very least a deletion rationale should have been given (and I hope will be now). I think the close was wrong (it was a supervote) but the files could still get deleted at another FFD discussion. The large number of fair use files in one article will be seen as weakening the case. Wikipedia policy is far stricter than the law (in my view excessively so). Perhaps you know all this! Thincat (talk) 21:52, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for your help with Sharur (mythological weapon) and the deletion policy procotol. You raise a good point about merging to Ninurta I am looking to see if I can adequately summarize and incorporate the content of Sharur into Ninurta, or if there is more information out there that justifies keeping them seperate. DrPhen (talk) 00:00, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Re your comment on the rejected Mapa Scotland article

Hello. Many thanks for your encouraging comment on my attempt to submit an article on the Polish map of Scotland. It's much appreciated. I've been here before. I recently wrote an article about a once very famous Edinburgh Company (Younger's), the origins of which go all the way back to 1749 and which existed until the 1990s. That article was rejected as not being a sufficiently notable subject, until another administrator, realising its significance, intervened and overruled the initial rejection. As the objection in this latest case is perfectly valid, I don't think that lucky intervention is going to be repeated. I've been trying to track down newspaper articles, but they tend to describe the restoration efforts and contain politicians' soundbytes rather than facts about the map, which are very sparse; hence the reliance on one major source. I'll see if I can somehow make use of these newspapers as references, but I'm not too hopeful. Fingers crossed. Kim Traynor (talk) 10:33, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Goodness me! Thanks ever so much for the reference links and advice. You've been far more diligent at finding references than I have. I'll look through them and see what use I can make of them. This makes the prospect of the article eventually appearing a lot more promising. Kim Traynor (talk) 11:47, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks to your 'divine' intervention I've added more references to the article which has now been accepted. I really am most grateful to you for your helpful advice and assistance, without which this result would have taken much longer to achieve. I'm not au fait with the process of sending out barnstars and the like, but as far as I'm concerned you deserve angel's wings. Kim Traynor (talk) 14:15, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Please forgive me

Whether this is belated or redundant, please accept my gratitude for your participation in the deletion review for the article Zeta Delta Xi. Your contribution was integral to the reversal of an improper deletion. It's not a an Earth-shattering article--but I looked to Wikipedia for a brief on the topic, and I was galled to discover that the information that had once been available had been deemed to be too inconsequential for the likes of Wikipedia users.

It is infuriating that sought-after information should be lost to such capriciousness, and you deserve to know that your history of opposition to arbitrary deletions is appreciated. As someone who has bothered to read the debates surrounding the implementation of the speedy-delete process, it is clear that the most pessimistic predictions have come true. Editors and administrators pay no heed to the rigorous guidelines they are meant to follow, and they exercise their own discretion where they are meant to have none.

The strength of a wiki is in its comprehensiveness. If Wikipedia values only those articles that are authoritative, the deletionists have a lot more work to do. Not to get too hysterical, but users like you are the only thing standing between Wikipedia and a virtual book-burning. If I've thanked you twice, that's less than you deserve. Patronanejo (talk) 08:02, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

List of Net channels AFD

Hi, Thincat. I am contacting you because you recently left a comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/3rd bundle of channel lineups. I have just created another AfD, nominating List of Net channels for deletion. If you are interested, you can leave a comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Net channels. Thanks. -- Wikipedical (talk) 03:21, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your notification. I have now commented. Thincat (talk) 11:09, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

• Hi. If interested, see also a new AfD, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of StarHub TV and mio TV channels. Thanks. -- Wikipedical (talk) 18:50, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4