User talk:Thincat

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Joshua Claybourn is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joshua Claybourn (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

Notifying you about the discussion, since you have made significant contributions to articles related to this subject. --IndyNotes (talk) 03:52, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

it may be worth adding the following link into your article at the appropriate place http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/vic/VSC/2015/499.html Downunderling (talk) 02:02, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Oh, thank you. That's so useful. I'll certainly include it (but I'll read it through first!). There were several points where the newspapers were differing about details of the case (e.g. whether Erlich was the only plaintiff or whether her sisters were as well). I found the case very distressing - I hadn't realised how insidious grooming can be. Thincat (talk) 08:29, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

@Downunderling: I've read it all through and it's a dreadful story. I found the judge's statements mostly clear to understand and I've corrected bits in the article where the press got things wrong. There's far more that could be said but, so far as I'm concerned, it'll have to do for now. I suspect the judge went out on a limb a bit sometimes but I'm glad he did. I'll keep an eye open because there will obviously be further developments. Thank you again. Thincat (talk) 21:48, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

There is an RfC at Talk:Daily Mail#Request for comment: Other criticisms section. Your input would be most helpful. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:26, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi Thincat, thanks for your comments on this article. I'd completely forgotten about it and I have a bit more editing experience than I did back in November, so will see if I can strengthen it a bit. Tacyarg (talk) 17:39, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

@Tacyarg: Thank you. I hadn't previously realised that his recent books had been published by Paragon, which does indeed look to be a self-publishing firm. I have two earlier books by him, one published by Collins and the other (the definitive book of Cairngorms mountaineering) by the Scottish Mountaineering Trust. So, I wondered whether the Paragon books were reprints of books out of press but no, they seem to be the only publication. Thincat (talk) 13:05, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

The Portals WikiProject has been rebooted.

You are invited to join, and participate in the effort to revitalize and improve the Portal system and all the portals in it.

There are sections on the WikiProject page dedicated to tasks (including WikiGnome tasks too), and areas on the talk page for discussing the improvement and automation of the various features of portals.

Many complaints have been lodged in the RfC to delete all portals, pointing out their various problems. They say that many portals are not maintained, or have fallen out of date, are useless, etc. Many of the !votes indicate that the editors who posted them simply don't believe in the potential of portals anymore.

It's time to change all that. Let's give them reasons to believe in portals, by revitalizing them.

The best response to a deletion nomination is to fix the page that was nominated. The further underway the effort is to improve portals by the time the RfC has run its course, the more of the reasons against portals will no longer apply. RfCs typically run 30 days. There are 19 days left in this one. Let's see how many portals we can update and improve before the RfC is closed, and beyond.

A healthy WikiProject dedicated to supporting and maintaining portals may be the strongest argument of all not to delete.

We may even surprise ourselves and exceed all expectations. Who knows what we will be able to accomplish in what may become the biggest Wikicollaboration in years.

Let's do this.

See ya at the WikiProject!

Sincerely,    — The Transhumanist   10:24, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

The RfC discussion to eliminate portals was closed May 12, with the statement "There exists a strong consensus against deleting or even deprecating portals at this time." This was made possible because you and others came to the rescue. Thank you for speaking up.

By the way, the current issue of the Signpost features an article with interviews about the RfC and the Portals WikiProject.

I'd also like to let you know that the Portals WikiProject is working hard to make sure your support of portals was not in vain. Toward that end, we have been working diligently to innovate portals, while building, updating, upgrading, and maintaining them. The project has grown to 80 members so far, and has become a beehive of activity.

Our two main goals at this time are to automate portals (in terms of refreshing, rotating, and selecting content), and to develop a one-page model in order to make obsolete and eliminate most of the 150,000 subpages from the portal namespace by migrating their functions to the portal base pages, using technologies such as selective transclusion. Please feel free to join in on any of the many threads of development at the WikiProject's talk page, or just stop by to see how we are doing. If you have any questions about portals or portal development, that is the best place to ask them.

If you would like to keep abreast of developments on portals, keep in mind that the project's members receive updates on their talk pages. The updates are also posted here, for your convenience.

Again, we can't thank you enough for your support of portals, and we hope to make you proud of your decision. Sincerely,    — The Transhumanist   10:21, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

P.S.: if you reply to this message, please {{ping}} me. Thank you. -TT

@The Transhumanist: I have never taken much interest in portals but the RFC proposal seemed so crass that I "opposed" at an early stage when most opinions were along the lines of "support, but don't delete the portals". Bizarre. So, thank you for rebooting portals – I have been keeping a slight eye on things and might think about creating a portal, or extending an existing one, when things have settled down. Thincat (talk) 15:59, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

(pinging @Noyster:) It's true that things have not settled down, but for the most part, in a good way. Interest in the WikiProject is high, and activity in the WikiProject is high. I hope these never settle down. Ongoing strife is not currently a problem; though there is one opposing editor who has become a nuisance, but with no consequence to portals or their WikiProject.

So far, we've automated the intro section and categories section, semi-automated the selected article section(s), and are working to fully automate that and all the rest of the sections, with active development of methods for news, DYK (did you know?), etc. Auto-generating the topics section is probably going to be the hardest feature to develop, as it may require AI (see Automatic taxonomy construction).

Automation methods we are employing so far include selective transclusion (see {{Transclude lead excerpt}}, randomization (see {{Transclude random excerpt}}), and bots (e.g., see User:JL-Bot/Project content). The transclusion templates are pretty sophisticated, using lua modules to power them. I'm expecting full semi-automation within a couple months, and complete automation by the end of the year.

"Complete automation"? Yep, from start to finish: you type in the subject of the portal and some parameters, and the tools do the rest. We've got portal construction down to an hour or two. By the time we're done it will take minutes for the computer, seconds (less than a minute) for the editor (to plug in the initial data).

Yes, I know what you are thinking: "Won't that cause a portal explosion?" I believe it will. :)

We even have an elite squad of WikiGnomes. I'm not exaggerating when I say, "We're having fun."

I hope to see you at the WikiProject's talk page. That's where most of this is happening. If you like what you see, by all means, add your name to our project members list. Cheers,    — The Transhumanist   20:16, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi Rajeng (talk) 19:27, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up! It looks like this article has gone through a lot of splitting since I was working on it. My contributions were mainly for Mesozoic birds (I think the article used to be simply "List of Prehistoric Bird Species"). Unfortunately I don't have much to add for "Late Quaternary" extinct birds specifically. Dinoguy2 (talk) 11:46, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

@Dinoguy2: Oh, I hadn't realised that. Anyway, it now looks to be heading for "keep", even "snow keep"! Thincat (talk) 12:04, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

I've already found your previous refusal of User:Dweller's attempt, so I'm not optimistic about my chances, but I'm going to do it anyway. Would you allow me to nominate you to be an admin? I've seen you a lot on DRV. Your arguments always seem to be rational, polite, and grounded in policy. You're on my short list of people who I frequently tempundelete histories for, and wonder why they've never acquired the tools to do it themselves. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:45, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestion but I'll still say no. Sometimes it's not necessary to see the undeleted article before giving an opinion at DRV but in the recent case you really needed the history to judge the DRV nomination's claims. Thank you for your involvement at DRV. I think you are a bit unusual in both taking part in discussions and closing them (though not the same ones!). Over the years I think the level of discussion at DRV has been generally good and the closes consistently rational and reasonable. Thincat (talk) 09:59, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

On 3 December 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article 1939 American Karakoram expedition to K2, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that on the 1939 American K2 expedition, Dudley Wolfe and three Sherpas died high on the mountain (K2 pictured) after the Sherpas had climbed from base camp to rescue Wolfe but he would not come down? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/1939 American Karakoram expedition to K2. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, 1939 American Karakoram expedition to K2), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Alex Shih (talk) 12:07, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Hello! Your submission of 1954 Italian Karakoram expedition to K2 at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 20:06, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

@Rachel Helps (BYU): Thank you for looking at this so carefully. Fortunately I have all three library books with me and the other books I own so I will be able to sort things out. Even though it is more work for me I am most grateful to you for the time you must have spent on this. It will (I hope!) improve the article. Thincat (talk) 20:22, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

I tried to focus on DYK criteria, but please let me know if I went too far! With the longer articles it can be difficult not to do a full-on GA review. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 20:24, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

@Rachel Helps (BYU): Well, I don't care too much about whether or not they are DYK criteria: they are criteria for a satisfactory article. Quite recently I created an article on another expedition and a Wikiproject assessor suggested I nominated it for good article. I did, but absolutely nothing seemed to be happening in the geography section so I eventually withdrew it. Anyway, mountaineering expeditions (successful ones) can get into "on this day" so I get two bites at the main page cherry anyway! Thincat (talk) 20:46, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, the GA review queue can last years. It's not required for DYK, but if you want to further improve the page, you could expand the lead on 1954 Italian Karakoram expedition to K2 to summarize a bit more of the page. My family is hosting an Italian exchange student and I'm definitely going to bring up the expedition at dinner! :-) Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 20:53, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

@Rachel Helps (BYU): Yes, a good conversation piece! Bonatti died in 2011 and it brought the squabble back into the press again in Italy and to a lesser extent in Britain. But maybe for young Italians it was all before their time. Elderly Italians will certainly know all about it (like I, being British, know about Everest!). I've referenced the ascent details, added some about the porter troubles and put quite a lot more in the lead so pehaps you can have another look. Many thanks. Thincat (talk) 19:08, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

On 4 March 2019, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article 1954 Italian Karakoram expedition to K2, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that K2, the world's second highest mountain, was first climbed by Achille Compagnoni and Lino Lacedelli (pictured) on the 1954 Italian Karakoram expedition? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/1954 Italian Karakoram expedition to K2. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, 1954 Italian Karakoram expedition to K2), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

 — Amakuru (talk) 00:01, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

I saw where you voiced a delete opinion, in WP:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_celebrities_who_have_had_an_abortion. Thanks for making the effort to voice your own position, rather than making a mere "me too", like many of the respondents there.

If I were to paraphrase the opinion you voiced I'd say you thought protecting the privacy of the women in this list trumped notability, RS, verifiability, and every other policy and guideline? Correct?

I think I left the perfect counter-argument in this comment.

Basically, I question efforts to "protect" individuals from having information they voluntarily chose to make public covered on the wikipedia, when it is reliably sourced and verifiable. This doesn't protect them, or respect their choices, at all. Geo Swan (talk) 20:21, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

George, Firstly, thank you for the "thanks" you gave for my comment about the irrelevance of WP:DEFINING to list articles. Secondly, I found I had a probably irrational dislike of the list article for reasons I don't really understand. I therefore thought that not only would I search around for a policy for deletion but I would say what I was doing. I eventually found something which was not even very convincing to myself so I admitted this. You have over-intellectualised what my thought processes might have been. Because I'm British I find it very difficult to have much clue about American attitudes to such things as abortion, single-payer healthcare (I know the alien jargon!) and (lack of) gun control. To me abortion is sad – not wicked or noble. I am happy to say here how greatly I deplore some of the arguments put forward for "delete" at that AFD, sometimes citing policy positions that I do not think exist. And, before you came here, I had already read your AFD comments which I hold in high regard (btw I can remember you from the "Guantanamo" days).

Sometimes at AFD I find I have an a priori attitude to "keep" or "delete" which may not match our criteria too well. Normally I just spout some guidelines to justify my position, putting things as convincingly as I can. Occasionally I'm brave enough to say I don't think the guideline criteria are giving good guidance but, for "keep" in the face of notability, I normally don't risk it in case it disadvantages my side of the discussion. For this AFD I really don't mind if the list is kept so it was a good opportunity for me to be straightforwardly honest in putting forward one of my rather rare "deletes". Best wishes and, dare I say it, good luck! Thincat (talk) 21:06, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

rm images that contribute nothing to the lead

My goal was to have two images in the lead: one actual selfie and one photo of someone taking a selfie. Removal of the "bath selfie", whatever that was, was most likely justified. But I guess we can't have a photo of someone taking a selfie in the lead? - Alexis Jazz 07:49, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

@Alexis Jazz: well, I didn't think that was such a good idea, maybe rather like you thought another image was not a good idea. Just go ahead as you think and I'll leave someone else to do what they wish. Selfie is not short of editors with ideas. I don't knowingly revert people unless it really is vandalism which this clearly was not. Best wishes. Thincat (talk) 09:59, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

If I may ask, why do you think it's a bad idea? Regarding the DSLR camera taking a photo of a cellphone taking a photo of the person with the DSLR camera and someone else, that was very meta. I can't imagine anyone going "oh THAT is what a selfie is!" upon seeing that. The DSLR doesn't add anything to explain what a selfie is. - Alexis Jazz 10:07, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Merely I didn't think it looked very nice and it spoiled the initial appearance of the article! Maybe the guy in the bath put me off more but I've forgotten now. This isn't the sort of article I'd normally edit but I had witlessly added a historical image File:RobertCornelius.jpg so the article got on my watchlist. Later I spotted Commons:Deletion requests/File:Ameily radke es vato!!.jpg and I was pleased a really nice image had been saved. Then poor Ameily had to survive a spurious deletion request at Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Selfies, was deleted as a copyright violation, restored because she wasn't, and then was deleted on highly dubious grounds at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Ameily Radke.jpg Such is image curation. This has, of course, nothing to do with the image you added but may be some sort of cautionary tale. Thincat (talk) 11:17, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi there Thincat! I don't think we've ever interacted before. Pleased to make your acquaintance! I'm writing because I saw that you commented on a thread on Talk:Luann de Lesseps. There's a similar discussion going on over at Talk:The Real Housewives of New York City that I know could benefit from your two cents if you would be interested in chiming in. Thank you! KyleJoan^talk 05:42, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Mmm, not really my line of country and to begin with I couldn't think why I would ever have commented there at all. However, now I remember and I have commented again. The answer is I don't know but I have suggested shifting the focus of the discussion. Best wishes. Thincat (talk) 08:34, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

If you go to this document, p. 8, NASA explicitly points out Harold Finger in the photo with Kennedy. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:31, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Oh yes, good find. I had looked at the source given on the photo's file description page but hadn't found an identification there. I see it has reached prep5 so best wishes and good luck. Thincat (talk) 20:52, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

On 31 August 2019, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article London to Brighton in Four Minutes, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the BBC has produced a new version of their 1953 film London to Brighton in Four Minutes every 30 years? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/London to Brighton in Four Minutes. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, London to Brighton in Four Minutes), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

valereee (talk) 00:03, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Hey there! Thank you again for your response to the discussion regarding the sorting of The Real Housewives of New York City article. I wanted to notify you of an RfC that was opened due to the initial discussion not concluding in a consensus in case you're interested in chiming in there as well. Cheers! KyleJoan^talk 20:09, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Do you only get on Arctic Medal despite multiple trips? Thomas Abernethy (explorer) - MTWEmperor (talk • contribs) 00:50, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for asking about this. The book I had been using definitely spoke of five medals but after the article was changed I checked up and now I suspect the change was correct (but unreferenced). I have raised the matter at Talk:Thomas Abernethy (explorer)#Abernethy and the Arctic Medal. Best wishes. Thincat (talk) 14:11, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Message to myself to note a conversation on Commons: c:File talk:1966 Ordnance Survey - Sutton Hoo helmet.jpg. Thincat (talk) 18:04, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Your observation here - "Sadly, she does not appear to have taken part in a football match in a fully professional league" - made me laugh out loud. Thank you! Dsp13 (talk) 19:51, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Oh, I'm glad it amused you and thank you for letting me know. Usually looking at Wikipedia's project pages is rather a grim business. Best wishes. Thincat (talk) 20:37, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi! I support your change of photograph for Greta Thunberg. For one, it's much less controversial without the EU flag in the background. Thanks! MartiniShaw (talk) 12:50, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. I had seen two discussions elsewhere that in passing commented adversely on the halo effect of the stars (depending on your POV it can seem like criticism or support) but I hadn't seen the discussions on the talk page archives. It seemed to me the halo image was inappropriate regardless of its technical quality. Also to me it didn't look too much like her. I never supposed for a moment the change might be in the slightest bit controversial. Anyway, I (and you!) are maybe in a minority, we'll see. I expect I'll be leaving this for other people to sort out – I'll go back to my normal practice of writing about historical topics where all is peace and quiet because no one much reads them! Thincat (talk) 13:55, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Okay. Thanks again for your input on the article! MartiniShaw (talk) 16:05, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Portals. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Portals/Evidence. Please add your evidence by December 20, 2019, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Portals/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, SQL^{Query me!} 20:38, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Your joke about waiting until the National Guard arrives to offensive to those in or those who have served in the military. --2601:199:4181:E00:F81F:9128:542D:FAAC (talk) 23:17, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm sorry if anyone was offended. That certainly was not not my intention nor had the possibility crossed my mind. At least you recognised that it was, indeed, a joke (diff) – on Wikipedia humour is not always recognised as such. Best wishes. Thincat (talk) 08:17, 14 July 2020 (UTC)