User talk:Thincat

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using three tildes, like this: ~~~. Four tildes (~~~~) produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome! -- Graham ☺ | Talk 16:30, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)


Johnson Beharry[edit]

Thanks for the kind words about this. Just happened to see the article in BBC so I figured I would start the article. Burgundavia 13:04, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)

Extreme points of the UK[edit]

My apologies - it was my mistake. I misread the article as saying it was a hillock slight to the east of Ardnamurchan point, when in fact the opposite was the case. I've now undone my revert. Warofdreams 14:59, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Re: Heptadecagon[edit]

I just got your message (8/3/05) about posting the heptadecagon, and wanted to tell you that I'm about to do that. (I don't log on too often.) Jonathan48 01:50, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

  • I just got your kind words about the animation, thank you! This site moves too fast for me :). Jonathan48 00:49, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Thomas the Tank Engine articles[edit]

Thanks for the message. I take the point about the title, but I can't think of anything better at the moment as (The Railway Series) seems less obvious and equally wrong - particuarly for some of the characters introduced in Calling All Engines. If you have some suggestions, perhaps you could comment at talk:Thomas the Tank Engine and Friends#merge proposal. Thryduulf 15:10, 18 November 2005 (UTC)


It's not so much that he's creating a great deal of cleaning up to do than that he's making such a massive mess that he can't be cleaned up after. I'd have to spend a good hour or two (and this is with rollback) to do that, and I'd rather spend that time checking edits for vandalism and writing new articles. His work with units is fine, IMHO, it's just that this time, he's using a bot to push his beliefs and disgregarding the opinions of everyone else. Ambi 05:58, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

RE: Savitzky–Golay smoothing filter[edit]

Thincat - Thanks a million for the citation link for the article on Savitzky–Golay smoothing filter located at URL: I knew this paper was oft cited! Thanks again, --Colm Rice 11:15, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Body Mass Index[edit]

Just wanted to tell you your edits to the article are accurate and very much appreciated. You've got my full support and backing! I also think it would be wise to use some open-source software to create a visual chart of BMI Numbers. Cheers, and thanks.

Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar.png The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
Good work on your edits to physiology related articles. I'm getting impressed! The magical Spum-dandy 12:54, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
I should send you a thank-you card for sending me a thank you card due to my initial thank you card. :-P The magical Spum-dandy 14:03, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Would you want to do a spoken version of Body Mass Index ?[edit]

Come on... have a go! :-) J.Spudeman 12:59, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Welcome to the club[edit]

I see that Jayjg has taken to calling you "unintelligible", too.[1] But he will only do in in edit summaries as he revert-wars on the project page, not in response to your well-reasoned comments on the talk page. Gene Nygaard 22:11, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

It's good that someone other than me reverted Jayjg. If two or three people are willing to do that, it might serve as a wake-up call to him that it is something that needs to be discussed and ironed out. But I wouldn't bet about him having gotten that wake-up call yet. Gene Nygaard 15:27, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
I think you should reconsider. I learned over 25,000 edits ago not to let the fact that someone had more edits than I did or was a sysop or whatever be an inhibiting factor in trying to improve the encyclopedia, and I'm not about to change now. Of course, a revert isn't really in order; as I've suggested on the talk page, we have a consensus on the proposed wording and you should run with it on that basis. Gene Nygaard 16:17, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Western Avenue, etc.[edit]

I think I now understand!

Are you saying that if two different references A and B say:

A: Western Avenue starts at Old Oak Common Lane and goes to Denham Roundabout along the line of the A40.

B: The distance along the A40 from Old Oak Common Lane at its junction with the A40 to Denham Roundabout on the A40 is xyz miles.

Then the article would infringe WP:NOR if it said Western Avenue is xyz miles long and giving these two references?

I agree with this as a very fine point (and so wonder whether this might not be a "point"). I think many people might allow it, even the High Priests of the sacred pillars of Wikipedia.

I thought you were criticising the lack of reference for "A" coupled with a claim that such a reference is impossible.

And I thought other people on Talk were critising that the Multimap reference did not provide "B" to WP standards.

Well, I have three thoughts:

1) Provide Multimap graphical map references that show "Western Avenue" (as text) extending between the stated points (within the accuracy of the claim of length). Only one source is then involved.

or 2) Split the Western Avenue entry in the article into the two separate claims "A" and "B" above. I'm increasingly thinking that the bulleted list should be dispensed with and (unordered) paragraphs inserted instead. But I'm not doing all this if the article is going to be deleted.

or 3) Give us a break and let's just get on. I know you (and many others) hated the article in its original form and this has plagued it ever since. I thought it was salvagable but the reversions and nit-picking has put me off from doing very much.

I know it's no excuse but even Featured Articles will have this tiny abount of synthesis. Let me also quote WP:NOR: "However, research that consists of collecting and organizing information from existing primary and/or secondary sources is, of course, strongly encouraged. All articles on Wikipedia should be based on information collected from published primary and secondary sources. This is not "original research"; it is "source-based research", and it is fundamental to writing an encyclopedia.".

I'd be delighted to get your thoughts, either here or on my talk page. Let me know what you think. We might be able to salvage something! Best wishes! Thincat 14:35, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

The above is copied from the edit I made to MartinRe's talk page. It continueed the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Longest_streets_in_London_(2nd_nomination) which was reviewed at [2]. Thincat 13:53, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Hello again :)

Putting together two sources to create a third can be original research in some cases, but not in others, and this is probably borderline. Not Or would be two sources saying that "Tony blair is labour leader", and "labour leader is at no 10", saying that "Mr blair is at no 10" would be fine, as it's clear that A=B, B=C that the two B's in this case are the same. With road references, it's possible that they are referring to subtely different things, where on the Denham Roundabout does the western avenue stop, and where on the roundbout was it measured to? Are they referring to the same point?

I wouldn't say I "hated" the original, but there were severe problems with it, namely it was very clear OR. People were measuring the roads themselves, and updating the list based on their answers. Interesting, yes, but not encloypedic - if you go to a enclyopeda and see a list of 1-10 under longest streets in London, you would assume that those are the longest, and not just the longest so far that a group of unnamed people have measured.

The current one has problems with expansion. Without doing original research it appears very unlikely that it can be significantly added to, considering how few references were found in the three months since the last afd. (It also kept getting reverted to the complete unsourced version, but that's a different issue). Even with sources, with multiple people adding details, what are the chances that they use different maps/driving software and come up with different answers? What would happen then? Include all different answers (with the respective sources) or give approximate answers, e.g. 11-12?. Neither are particularly appealing, imagine a page full of Axx 1.2m/1.25m/1.2, or Ayy (1-2 miles).

Hopefully that makes it clearer what my objections to the article are, contributions like your addition on Harrow road (Would you believe I was born there? :) are interesting, and sourced, but I personally think they're more appropiate added to the road article.

Regards, MartinRe 15:27, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

white peak of the three spiritual brothers[edit]

Hi, I'm attempting to translate Gangkhar Puensum into latin, whose orthographical, phonological, and semantic properties strongly discourage just simply transliterating the name. Now I know very little about tibetan, dzongkha, chinese or anything else, really, from that part of the world, but it seems to me much is being said in 4 syllables. I found an alternate translation online (the only other I could find) that rendered it as "3 mountain siblings". Taking Occam's razor, I tend to believe this alternate translation, as it says much less semantically than "white peak of the three spiritual brothers". At the same time, I don't want to doubt your translation, I would just like to know what, and where your source was. Just trying to make a better translation into latin, is all. Please help.--Josh Rocchio 13:48, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Doing something about the ridiculous date autoformatting/linking mess[edit]

Dear Thincat—you may be interested in putting your name to, or at least commenting on this new push to get the developers to create a parallel syntax that separates autoformatting and linking functions. IMV, it would go a long way towards fixing the untidy blueing of trivial chronological items, and would probably calm the nastiness between the anti- and pro-linking factions in the project. The proposal is to retain the existing function, to reduce the risk of objection from pro-linkers. Tony 05:20, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Newyorkbrad's RfA[edit]

Thank you for your memorable words of support on my RfA, which closed favorably this morning. I appreciate the confidence the community has placed in me and am looking forward to my new responsibilities. Please let me know if ever you have any comments or suggestions, especially as I am learning how to use the tools. Best regards, Newyorkbrad 19:56, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

From the drain[edit]

Thanks for rescuing the phrase "other founders" from Patrick Moore. I was wondering where to put those words, when I copy-edited that paragraph and worried about their omission. Two heads are better than one. --Uncle Ed 10:51, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Do not use as a reference[edit]

Do not use the website as a reference. The website contains too much out-of-date, unreferenced, or incorrect information. Their website simply cannot be relied upon. (However, this does not discredit your comments at Talk:Andromeda Galaxy.) Dr. Submillimeter 09:56, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Sgt Pepper[edit]

Thanks for the heads up about the Sgt Pepper cover. I updated the source ( Snow1215 12:25, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Category comment[edit]

Hi. i saw your note on Category:Israeli-Palestinian conflict issues. just want to let you know, it was not my intention at all to create an unbalanced category. this all seems kind of ironic, as my whole point was to provide a category which would lay out the issues clearly, neutrally and helpfully. Guess I didn't succeed. is there any way that i could please ask you to reconsider? please feel free to write anytime. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 16:55, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, no, I'm sure you weren't (and didn't) create an unbalanced category. We are somehow misunderstanding each other. See again my comments at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_December_21#Category:Israeli-Palestinian_conflict_issues. Regarding the subcategories of this category, I thought there was an imbalance in the articles included but I am not at all sure that one should criticise a category for what has been included unless the category itself encouraged a lack of balance. Thincat (talk) 12:32, 7 January 2008 (UTC)


Thanks re heads-up re BHG. As horrible a time as that had been, I have to give her props for the earnest effort to enunciate the policy theory motivating their group, which still illudes me. I'm reminded of the soldier in Dr. Strangelove who didn't want to shoot the Coca Cola machine. Pete St.John (talk) 20:32, 5 February 2008 (UTC)


Hi, i think that when you placed the coordinates in your location finder you missed out the - as when i put 51.051644, 1.171072 into google earth which is supposed to bring up Cheriton, Hampshire when actually it brought up somewhere in the English channel which is strange as that is what you say happened to you when you placed 51.051644, -1.171072 into your location finder. I think that one of us has gone wrong somewhere! Cheers Dewster_^*'_ 15:28, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Ye, if you study the two carefully then you can see that once you click on the coordinates in the top right hand corner of the page that the coordinate for W has changed to - if you left it xxx.xx and to xxx.xx if you gave it a -. This makes no sense to me at all but hay. I will go around and revert all my old coordinates so that they are correct. I know it is great to see such variety. =D Many Thanks Dewster_^*'_ 17:02, 26 February 2008 (UTC)


Thanks for the message. I thought your edit was better, because you placed the mention of the British Library after the manuscript had come into the possession of Robert Cotton. best wishes Mick gold (talk) 08:47, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

To demise[edit]

An editors lack of a good dictionary is not generally a good reason to revert other editors changes [3] [4]. However changing an uncommon and slightly archaic wording for a more readily coimprehensible one is. ·Maunus· ·ƛ· 14:07, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

When I get home I'll look in my Oxford English Dictionary for demise as a verb (and I expect I shall indeed find it!). Thincat (talk) 15:27, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
The OED (1971 edition) does indeed have "demise" as a verb, mainly with the legal meaning "convey" but also meaning "die", the latter marked rare but not marked with an † so not known to be obsolete. The examples given of the meaning "die" are dated 1727 and 1787. It is not clear to me whether 1787 is intended as a latest date. Thincat (talk) 12:06, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
I have also not heard the verb used in actual speech. It did stand out as an archaism in the Neilston article, and I did agree with your edit. But for example the not uncommon use of "demised" to mean deceased, does suggest that it was originally used as a verb, and the edit summary provoked me. Continued happy editing. ·Maunus· ·ƛ· 13:37, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia's Expert Peer Review process (or lack of such) for Science related articles[edit]

Hi - I posted the section with the same name on my talk page. Could you take part in discussion ?

User: Shotwell suggested (on my talk page) "I would endorse a WP:EXPERTADVICE page that outlined the wikipedia policies and goals for researchers in a way that enticed them to edit here in an appropriate fashion. Perhaps a well-maintained list of expert editors with institutional affiliation would facilitate this sort of highly informal review process. I don't think anyone would object to a well-maintained list of highly-qualified researchers with institutional affiliation (but then again, everyone seems to object to something)."

We could start with that if you would agree ... - could you help to push his idea through Wikipedia bureaucracy ?

In my view people nominated as "expert reviewers" should be willing not to hide under the veil of anonymity. They should be able to demonstrate some level of the verifiable accomplishment / recognition in the domain of professional science . BTW, I do not see any reason why the anonymity of editors on Wikipedia is considered to be a "good thing". Above is my general opinion, so please don't take my statement personally. There is obviously a choice given for everyone in Wikipedia either to act "in open" or to hide behind meaningless assumed pseudonym and I accept this situation. BTW, I do understand current Wikipedia concept that in order to produce good Wikipedia science article, one does not need to be a professional scientist ... - that is fine with me ... But I propose to have (at least optionally) ability to review/qualify such article by the professional scientist. Cheers, Apovolot (talk) 15:33, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Bhutan map[edit]

Bhutan location map

Hi Thincat, just to let you know I've created a new Bhutan location map. The national borders are based on this map[5] (from the CIA World Book) overlaid with internal boundaries taken from here[6]. I'm reluctant to replace the image used in Template:Location_map_Bhutan because it seems to link to a large number of pages, most of which are not articles about the northern borders and the CIA map's national borders aren't very precise. What do you think about do you think about using it for Gangkhar Puensum though? --Lo2u (TC) 16:13, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks very much for doing this. Your map looks much better (I've eyeballed it against my Times Atlas). I've also checked the lat/long given for GP and it really isn't up there in China (Tibet)! There is indeed a border dispute (generally conducted in a fairly gentlemanly way on both sides) but even China doesn't seem to claim the summit is wholly within China. Like you, I'd favour proceeding cautiously. I agree it would be best to try just the GP article first a before dealing with all the Bhutan articles. The trouble is the Infobox Mountain seems to invoke rather a fixed image name. Have you dealt with all this before? I have found Template:Infobox Mountain, Template:Location map and I posted at Template talk:Location map Bhutan. I haven't yet found what must be some technically strict rules about the requirements of the map image. Was there a wikiproject about this, do you know? I can't find talk, let alone documentation. Thincat (talk) 19:43, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
Hi. I think it's a very complicated template. The code is too long to be entered straight into the page (I've been playing about with it here) so in order to use it, it'd be necessary to create a second Bhutan map and add it to the list at the bottom of this page. However I'm fairly sure I saw a mountain article recently that simply had the image RedMountain.svg[7] overlaid. I don't know how to do it but I'll try to find it tomorrow. Best wishes --Lo2u (TC) 23:32, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
Here[8] seems to be where it started, then moving to the mountains at[9]and User:RedWolf also seems to know about these things. Thincat (talk) 09:54, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
Great, thanks. I'll see what I can do. --Lo2u (TC) 15:11, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
It's done - very messy code I'm afraid. I hope it won't annoy anyone. Anyway thanks for your help. --Lo2u (TC) 01:06, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
A problem: in Firefox (3.0.4), which I normally use, the marker is at the proper latitude but on the left hand edge of the map. In IE (7.0) it is fine. I can't follow any of your or the other code but I'm interested enough to take a careful look though it wouldn't be for a few days (I started off life as a computer programmer). Anyway, you obviously understand these templates and the coding so I'm glad of that! I imagine you have access to Firefox but if not I can look at other pushpin location maps. As a spot check, in Phuntsholing the marker displays in the right place on the old location map for both browsers. Thincat (talk) 11:28, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
Ah, I see what you mean. I'm not at all competent with this code either (all I really did was borrow from the template) but I know enough to take another look. If not, it'll have to go. Can't really see a way round that.--Lo2u (TC) 13:15, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
I think it's fixed - apparently the image in Firefox was left aligned and in Internet Explorer it was cetrend, so the position of the red triangle was relative to a different point in each image.--Lo2u (TC) 13:55, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
Yes, you have fixed it. Brilliant! Thincat (talk) 17:16, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

User:Thincat on zh-wp is free[edit]

Hello Thincat, I just want to inform you that you can occupy that user name now. Sorry for the long delay.--Wing (talk) 20:21, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks, Wing. Yes, I've tried it and it works! Thincat (talk) 16:37, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Toba Catastrophe graphic[edit]

I agreed with you and others graphic needs lightening and asked Why Can't We Just do it ourselves? And as a .jpg which lightens up better. See talk here. This is the wikicommons page where someone else made same comment. Thoughts? CarolMooreDC (talk) 16:32, 18 May 2009 (UTC)


Actually, it was accurate to say that the Doke symbols were never much used. Wells' argument is that they were widely taught, but that's tangential: there are very few publications that actually use them, if you don't count mere tables of the IPA. He admits as much with his statement, "I would estimate that at least 25,000 people were taught them, many more than ever worked with Khoisan languages." I agree with Wells that they are better than the pipe symbols, and I would support a shift, but Khoisan and Bantu linguistics overwhelmingly uses the pipe symbols. (I am glad, however, that what if I remember right was my "contemptuous" remark appears to have sparked Wells into defending the Doke symbols. kwami (talk) 06:30, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Kwami, I know nothing of phonetics but have recently found it fascinating to read about the subject and even more recently discovered John Wells' blog. Please revert my deletion if you so think: you have my full confidence! Thincat (talk) 10:36, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

TS Leda[edit]

Nice article! I've had a go at rewriting the infobox for the ship, which can be seen in my sandbox. What was her use between 1979 and 1985, was it still as an accommodation ship or was she back in service by then? Once this is sorted out the infobox can be placed in the article. Mjroots (talk) 10:50, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! I know little about ships and nothing about the template so it was a newbie's effort. I sailed on the ship as a kid (1957) and, disappointed to find nothing about it on WP, did some browsing and found she went on the have a very unusual career. I'll see what I can find for early 1980s. Thincat (talk) 11:00, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
No problem. It took me a while to find a way to get all the info in yet not have a mile long infobox! I'm so glad <br> works here, don't know what I'd do without it. I've added a few cats to the article, but hidden them as I'm not 100% sure they are correct. If they are correct unhide them. the two Kuwait cats will need creating but that's not a big job. Mjroots (talk) 11:03, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
I have posted at Talk:TS_Leda#History in case others want to pick up on this also. I think the question is what to put in the article text, what in the infobox and what to leave out! Some references are blog-like and even seemingly reliable sources have slight differences. I will not edit any of this into the article right now but will wait to see what you do. Your infobox looks good to me. BTW I spotted your Great Ellingham Windmill article at the top of your sandbox. I used to live at Little Ellingham 25 years ago. I don't actually remember this mill but there was one quite nearby, at Deopham, if I remember right. Thincat (talk) 13:21, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
Oh! and now I've found it on your Norfolk Mills website Thincat (talk) 13:26, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
I've copied the infobox to the talk page too. Looks like it needs a bit more work than I thought. BTW, the Great Ellingham Windmill article is up and running. Mjroots (talk) 15:45, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure about the "Commissioned 1940" bit. I don't remember adding that bit myself. Was Leda ordered in 1940? I'll remove it from the infobox for now, if a source is found it can be re-added. Mjroots (talk) 17:36, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

DYK nomination of TS Leda[edit]

Symbol question.svg Hello! Your submission of TS Leda at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that 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! Geraldk (talk) 17:38, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for looking into this. I have never had a shot at DYK before so had not realised how much work is involved for other people in keeping the show on the road. I have suggested an alternative hook. Thincat (talk) 19:31, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

DYK for TS Leda[edit]

Updated DYK query On November 4, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article TS Leda, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Thanks Victuallers (talk) 01:56, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

The Holocaust[edit]

Thincat, just to let you know there is a discussion ongoing here. Do you care to weigh in with an opinion? Bus stop (talk) 22:20, 30 December 2009 (UTC)


Your keep reason worded my own sentiments in a very succinct and clear way. Thank you for that.--~TPW 14:23, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Structure of Oscar Wilde[edit]

Hi Thincat,

I reverted your removal of the "main" template link to De Profundis (letter) in Oscar Wilde. I'd like to explain more fully than the edit summary allowed. I see your point about De Profundis not exactly being an article about Wilde's time in prison, but I still think it gives, or should supply, a good account of Wilde's imprisonment. Articles on literary works should describe the composition and publication of their subject, where there is interesting information to relate. De Profundis was one of the most notable outcomes of Wilde's imprisonment, and the article hopefully will describe how Wilde's warders bent the rules to accomodate him, what he read before and during publcation, and the physical conditions he was living in at the time.

Secondly, more than half of the imprisonment section is devoted to the work, reasonable for an article on an author. I'd like to solicit your views on the structure of the article more generally, and if you think it adqueately covers the subject? Also the images, I think it is well illustrated, but some of them are too large or small, or wrap awkwardly around the text. Do you know where we might request an image clean-up? Best, --Ktlynch (talk) 15:33, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your note. Of course I think that De Profundis is very relevant to Wilde's imprisonment which is why I added (yet another) link to the article from the current section. However, from the standpoint of the description of Wilde's incarceration the De Profundis article is more "see also" than "main article". As for the adequacy of article's treatment, I don't know. I am interested in what you say about the warders bending the rules to help him because neither of the articles really brings that out. I stumbled here from Penal servitude because I wondered exactly what the term meant and the discussion referred to Wilde. Perhaps he was deliberately (and "correctly"?) treated harshly in Wandsworth and comparatively well in Reading.
I see what you mean about the pictures. They do bob around a lot, seemingly at random! I hadn't noticed though and it doesn't bother me personally. I do know how to change sizes and locations but I wouldn't trust my own judgement in improving matters. Thincat (talk) 18:47, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Re: Deletion of Cold Neptune and Jupiter[edit]

Hi, the reason I nominated these is because the usage of the terms seems to be little more than an adjective+noun combination and thus trivial. The terms are also poorly-defined, where for example do you draw a line between "warm Jupiters" and the "cold Jupiters"? This contrasts with the hot Jupiters which represent a distinct population of objects, as evidenced by the mass/period diagram for radial-velocity exoplanets which shows a cluster of giant planets at roughly 3-days orbital period and masses typically around 1 Jupiter mass.(The other major population of giant planets identifiable in the mass/period diagram appears to be orbital periods longer than ~100 days, and a wide range of eccentricities, i.e. the eccentric Jupiters.) If you regard these terms as an atmospheric category, we already have the Sudarsky extrasolar planet classification. In short, I do not think these classifications are independently notable. Icalanise (talk) 13:25, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for all this. I'll ponder things. I had never come across the terms at all and don't have the relevant astrophysical background. My astrophysical knowledge was from forty years ago(!) when there were no exoplanets (and professional astronomers weren't interested in planets of any sort anyway). Anyway, in the light of your remarks I am glad I did not just plunge in. Thincat (talk) 20:11, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
Hot Neptunes are definitely on firmer ground, seems to be quite a well-attested category of extrasolar planets. Time will tell whether they represent a distinct population though, at the moment we are in the realm of small-number statistics, unlike in the case of Jupiter-type planets. Icalanise (talk) 16:09, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

List of number-one country hits of 2010 (Canada)[edit]

I think you're misinterpreting something. Part of the problem is that the older charts, from 2004–2009, are also unverifiable and therefore shouldn't have chart positions listed. 2010 is the only year that has an individual Number Ones list in its own article, and the reason for deletion is that the 2010 list is more than half-unverifiable. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 19:38, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

But the discussion is about whether or not we should delete the 2010 article and a good deal of it is verifiable and, indeed, verified. Unverified items should be deleted removed and I agree this leaves a rather unsatisfactory article. However it should not be deleted on grounds of OR or V but more on the lines of lacking notability as a whole. I am not sure what should happen if involved editors have consensus that an article would be best abandoned. Probably it should be merged. What do you think? Have the earlier lists already been deleted? I can't see what has happened. Thincat (talk) 19:55, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
The other lists have been deleted by Nowyouseeme and me because they lack verifiability. Verifiability seems to be the foremost concern with this chart, as there's no way to assure that the peaks listed are accurate. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 00:12, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I see. I quite understand. It is a pity when online references "vanish". This will become a major problem when more news sites go behind pay-walls if their older material disappears completely. By the way, we "met" recently when we both !voted keep for Spraint! I couldn't help but notice your signature. We once saw an otter walking along the road in front of our house (Scotland). It must have got lost. Thincat (talk) 12:55, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

RefTools fixed[edit]

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

TUSC token 66f8c1c4f7fe960903476166443251c1[edit]

I am now proud owner of a TUSC account!

Let's troubleshoot your RefToolbar problem[edit]

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)


  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)


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[edit]

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[edit]

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)


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[edit]

Ambox warning pn.svgTemplate: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[edit]


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 Face-wink.svg 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 Face-smile.svg Egg Centric 21:38, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

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


.... 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[edit]

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. ╟─TreasuryTagClerk 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[edit]

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[10]
Independent author, page 130[11]
Autobiography but a lot of detail, pages 115-117[12]
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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]


Thank you for expressing a view on the deletion of 6 bookcover photos, in this discussion: [13]

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 [14], 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 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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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)

Thank-you for coming to the rescue[edit]

of the ill fated image


. Something nasty would happen if you looked at the picture, you'd get to see Jose Marti shot again. Since mine was removed another perfectly good picture has been used in its place. My shot was a scan of my slide (remember those?) and I could rescan it since you have gone through the trouble of making it legal. An act I appreciate. My rap sheet with the wikicopyright police - mostly concerning pictures of statues, but other stuff too (see the top of my user page for 1 winner and 1 looser) is long and convoluted. I am currently working on File:NewarkJustice1.jpg, yet another case of where the sculptor wants the picture used but that is not always good enough. If she fills out the reems of paperwork so that we can use it I'll probably write a stub about her as way of thanks. I have not yet got the hang of the 1978 date in US copyright stuff. Can you point me at a good guide to it? Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 15:24, 22 February 2013 (UTC) Nice colour, red.

Someone I had never heard of sent me a red "Christmas card" and, since you were the first peson to contact me after that (sad, isn't it?), I see the red went and bled down into your message. I've cleared it up now. is what people use for US copyright information and Commons:Public art and copyrights in the US is a good description on Commons which also applies on Wikipedia. For whether a US sculpture has a copyright notice see or look for an inscription that says copyright is claimed. You can only publish a photo of a sculpture in the US if the sculpture itself is out of copyright (but see Fair Use below). For work outside the US other considerations apply. For images on Commons of non-US work the relevant foreign laws also apply but Wikipedia usually only applies US law. For sculptures in the UK on permanent display in a public place (even indoors) a photograph is allowed even for work still in copyright.[15] Wikipedia (but not Commons) permits a discretionary amount of Fair Use.[16] "Paintings and other works of visual art: For critical commentary, including images illustrative of a particular technique or school" but it vital you provide a Fair Use rationale. I suggest you do not claim fair use for copyright free work because it will create more problems than it solves. Thincat (talk) 19:33, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
Once again, thank you for your well presented reply to a continuing issue for me (US copyrights). Here is one image I posted that was not considered an copyright issue, but it might suggest that red is not a problem for me. I will look over your message with care, paying particular attention to the Cornell U stuff. Since I have not been to the UK since 1969 I have few pictures of interest from there. Carptrash (talk) 00:42, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
Yes, I saw some other problems you were having with Henry Moore sculptures at Princeton. They had automatically been tagged as if they were in Britain for the illogical reason that Moore was British. Thincat (talk) 09:56, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

North British, Arbroath and Montrose Railway[edit]

I hope you don't mind, I have gone ahead and nominated this for a WP:DYK. See Template:Did you know nominations/North British, Arbroath and Montrose Railway. Simply south...... eating shoes for just 7 years 14:46, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Well, that's rather nice. Thank you. It hadn't occurred to me at all. I did once put TS Leda through DYK but decided it was fun to do once, but maybe once only! Having spent too much time on NBAMR I thought I wouldn't do much more until it has survived AFD (which it looks like it will). There is more to be said about racing between Caledonian and North British trains around Broomhill Junction. Thincat (talk) 16:38, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
You're welcome. Whilst we are on the subject of the article, there are a number of bridges which cross ravines (such as Buckie Den mentioned) and could be considered as very short viaducts. Should these be mentioned? Secondly, there is an article in the London Gazette that mentions the company but gives a load of Acts. Are these important? This and this may be useful as well. Simply south...... eating shoes for just 7 years 17:23, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

DYK nomination of North British, Arbroath and Montrose Railway[edit]

Symbol question.svg Hello! Your submission of North British, Arbroath and Montrose Railway 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. Not a drastic problem but could the wording of the hook be changed? I notice you have clarified the relevant part of the article under the 'Montrose viaduct' section, as that had also been rather clumsily worded initially? I've also posted this on Simply South's talk page as I wasn't sure where would be best. Thanks! SagaciousPhil - Chat 16:28, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your encouraging interest. I have suggested an ALT1. Hope I have followed the right procedure. Thincat (talk) 18:11, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

DYK for North British, Arbroath and Montrose Railway[edit]

Casliber (talk · contribs) 16:03, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Franamax obituary[edit]

Thanks for pointing that out. I've fixed the page so that all three links are still available. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 06:19, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Five Stones Church[edit]

Hi Roger,

Thank you for expressing an interest in the Five Stones Church article. It is currently up for deletion here. You are the only editor of the article who has not commented on the AfD, so I thought that you should be notified. Whether you believe the article should be kept, merged, or deleted, your comments there would be appreciated.

Neelix (talk) 20:02, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your note. I got involved because I disliked how you and the article were being treated. I saw the AFD at the beginning and felt that the references remaining in the article probably fell below the notability guidelines. I didn't check what had been removed but from memory thought they might not either, though there was no need to have removed them. Now, I wish we didn't have "notability" at all. I think it has developed into a monster and I sometimes am even brave enough to say at AFD that an article does not seem to meet the guidelines so we should not presume the article should be kept but in that particular case it should be kept. I have even known this approach to work! Verifiability is very important to me and the article is fine here and I would have it in my encyclopedia. I'll think more but I suspect I won't put my head in this lion's mouth because I have no doubt that it would be bitten off. BTW I recently remembered I had bumped into this guy recently at another Canadian AFD (I have no connections with Canada). He unsuprisingly voted "strong delete" and, I'm pleased to say the article was rathrer decisively kept!
I suspect the church, although Protestant, is not Anglican otherwise a merge to Anglican Diocese of New Westminster would work. What about New Westminster? It seems to be an offshoot of the US Truebridge Churches, whatever they are. WP doesn't seem to have anything and, warning, is flagged as virus-infected by Google and my browser so I haven't dared look! Best wishes. Thincat (talk) 20:54, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
I really appreciate your encouragement and kind suggestions in all of this. The articles I create do not normally go up for deletion, and it is good to hear a friendly voice among the angry ones calling for deletion these past few days. I understand your desire to not comment on this particular AfD; it is looking like the deletion recommendation has a lot of support, so I'm not sure even if a merger would be considered. List of places of worship in Greater Vancouver would probably be the best target, but I'm hesitant to suggest it because that article is up for deletion right now as well, even though it is looking like it will be kept. In any case, thanks for making Wikipedia a friendlier place. I hope to cross paths with you again sometime. Neelix (talk) 18:40, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
If the argument is entirely about notability (and it is here) then that solely relates to whether we should have an article exclusively on this topic. There is no reason at all why the contents shouldn't be merged somewhere else. I raised a question here quite recently and I think I got a good reply (read to the end). Why not leave him to shout and, if it is closed as delete, ask the closing admin to restore it to you for incorporation in the other article? Maybe to combine several in a brand new non-list article? Thincat (talk) 19:42, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

disable caps lock[edit]

You can use the free program keytweak to disable or remap the functions of your computer keys. See this thread μηδείς (talk) 17:12, 21 June 2013 (UTC) I used it to disable my capslock and have never regretted it. Marvelous! μηδείς (talk) 17:13, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

I have run that program and it does exactly what I had wanted. Better still, it is compatible with what I was running already, CAPshift, which has useful features not using caps lock at all. It can do things like turn highlighted upper case text to title case which is useful in creating references with capitals pasted in from a web page. I'm surprised that CAPshift, which runs all the time, can still re-enable and re-disable caps lock but that is perfectly fine as well. It is here if you are interested. Many thanks! Thincat (talk) 19:16, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, I would love a feature that changes all caps into headline caps, i'll check it out. μηδείς (talk) 19:38, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Dog and Duck[edit]

That map alignment website is a great find, Thincat. I think a link in the article would be very a very useful addition. Also the article currently says "A new Bethlem Hospital was built upon the site and that building is now used for the Imperial War Museum" and I'm not sure that's strictly true, is it? We now know that the Dog and Duck was positioned where that strech of grass now is, to the west of the present day building. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:41, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, go ahead. I am just creating John Rocque's Map of London, 1746. Thincat (talk) 09:43, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
Warden (talk) 07:58, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

See also Talk:Main_Page#Errors_in_the_current_or_next_Did_you_know... which reminds me of Politically Correct Bedtime Stories. Warden (talk) 08:13, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Wonderful! I can image "Daddy, Daddy, what's a whore?" being a problem but is "Daddy, Daddy, what's a sex worker" any easier to answer? I haven't checked but I think the whole phrase got put in quotes at the last minute. Thincat (talk) 08:19, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

DYK for John Rocque's Map of London, 1746[edit]

Keilana|Parlez ici 08:03, 5 July 2013 (UTC)


Thanks Thincat, also for tracing previous discussions. I am writing you for advice. I am not sure how to handle the situation. I asked advice to the Third Opinion because things have started with a disagreement between two users (ThurnerRupert and myself); TransporterMan suggested the COI noticeboard (because of the title of the discussion), where I put the reference to doual'art November 2nd. I received a reply by Justlettersandnumbers November 4th, who started the delation process for WikiAfrica template October 30th. I do understand that clarifications might be needed; what I do not understand is ThurnerRupert moving WikiAfrica article to a user page even if the page was already discussed for delation and decided to be kept (indicated as a minor edit), erasing only a section of the article of the Africa Centre because it refers to WikiAfrica, erasing only lettera27 in a list of institutions (I am just mentioning few of the edits which I consider deliberately focussed); Justlettersandnumbers edits are just in a similar period, before my notification to the COI noticeboard; later on Justlettersandnumbers refers to (I presume "my") COI for the delation of the WikiAfrica subpages. I find this coincidence and the entire situation unusual. My impression is that it is a personal attack meant to discredit me and - by doing it - to erase WikiAfrica from Wikipedia; the time coincidence looks like meatpuppetry and I consider the edits I mention by ThurnerRupert simply vandalism. The situation is even more complex because there are also offline relationships with ThurnerRupert. I did not contacted on Wikipedia users I know (I informed about the situation Wikimedia CH - Rupert and I are both members-and Isla Haddow-Flood who manages WikiAfrica for the Africa Centre and Anthere bacuase she contributes to WikiAfrica; Anthere decided to post a comment on my talk page) and I tried to be cool and follow carefully the procedures, but sincerely this is not a situation I can get out by myself. Sorry to grab you but finally someone is noticing that something is weird. I am more than pleased to provide any clarification but I would be really grateful for any advice or for bringing this up wherever is the right place to handle it. --Iopensa (talk) 22:08, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

@Iopensa: I came across a slightly similiar situation where someone from the Victoria and Albert Museum got special permision from them to upload images to Wikipedia but, when they started uploading, got met with a hostile response from some people. See User:VAwebteam and their talk page. I think the way we handle these things is dreadful and it must be very hurtful. As you may know there is currently a lot of fuss about public relations firms editing anonymously on behalf of their clients and in responding to that abuse we can get far too suspicious of even long-term contributors such as yourself. Seeing that Newyorkbrad intervened with WP:WikiAfrica presumably knowing some background,[17] I think he may be able to take an informed view, if he has the time. He has said he is busy this weekend. I think Anthere is sensibly keeping her hands scrupulously clean. I expect this is something that could go to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents but that will send the temperature sky-high. Perhaps better to see if NYB can do something or maybe he can ask someone else to do something. I'll keep an eye open and we can talk again if if needs arise. Best wishes, I hope something sensible will be worked out. Thincat (talk) 23:09, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
thank you Thincat. ThurnerRupert is directly involved in the GLAM projects (user:ThurnerRupert, swissGLAMour, glam outreach in switzerland) and he is active in projects related to Africa (it is online on mailing lists). I agree with you about the conflicts that GLAMWiki partnerships can raise, but I do believe this situation is not related to it; it rather wallows in it. If the discussion about the WikiAfrica template started November 2nd, i would see it as a reaction (COI noticeboard brings attention to the issue and people look at things more carefully - which is good and healthy); but it started 4 days before. thanks again and I will follow the development. --Iopensa (talk) 08:43, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
Yes, I looked more last night and found out who who Rupert Thurner is.[18] This led me to List of museums in Switzerland where I found you had done a lot of editing which I have not followed up. I also found an interesting conversation here. There is clearly a lot behind all this which I do not start to understand. WikiAfrica is included at Wikipedia:WikiProject Africa but is there a reason it isn't a WikiProject itself? So far as I can see Rupert and Justlettersandnumbers are not connected at all. It looks like JLaN commented here and he is a frequent contributor to WP:COIN. I still find the removal of almost all reference to WikiAfrica and lettera27 to be extreme but I do not understand what has been going on. I am now thinking this is not an administrative problem but one of conflict resolution. Best wishes. Thincat (talk) 10:17, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
i don't know why WikiAfrica is Wikipedia:WikiAfrica and not Wikipedia:WikiProject WikiAfrica. The project was created on Wikipedia in English after making the project on Wikipedia in Italian; on Wikipedia in Italian it is Progetto:WikiAfrica (clearly a project) and it was created by some Wikipedia editors who are also active on Wikimedia Italia and who were interested in contributing to a new project focussed on Africa. Since the WikiProject Africa on Wikipedia in Italian (and in the other languages) has a focus on coordinating articles related to Africa, a different project was created for WikiAfrica because it had a broader approach which did not correspond to the existing Wikiproject Africa (outreach, different languages, online and offline activities, a different group of people, and later on a growing specific focus on involving GLAMs). The projects in the other Wikipedia editions followed this differentiation with WikiProject Africa and maybe the title Wikipedia:WikiAfrica instead of Wikipedia:WikiProject WikiAfrica was just a mistake. The project is quite active. I personally encouraged to move as much as possible the content on meta; I think it is easier to coordinate the project from there (in particular for the multilingual feature) but by contributing to content on Wikipedia in different languages - through time - we saw that having a WikiAfrica project on the different Wikipedia is helpful (for example in Spanish the community created the page to clarify what the project was about). --Iopensa (talk) 11:15, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Commons:VPC#Yuri Gagarin statue (UK)[edit]

I have replied to your comment. LGA talkedits 20:21, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your note to which I have replied. Unfortunately, I find many copyright discussions at Commons and ENWP so uninformed as to be largely irrational and it is better for my state of mind not to get involved in the polemics. Anyway, I have uploaded a photo which, although not as good, may suffice for the time being. Thincat (talk) 20:45, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Forth Bridge discussion[edit]

Thanks for pointing out the BBC News page and current discussion on the Forth Rail Bridge (yuch!) Talkpage. I didn't know that was taking place because it's not a page I watch. I've added my support for a renaming of the page. Kim Traynor | Talk 12:04, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

C'est la vie! Thanks to you I caught a glimpse of its transitory glory. Kim Traynor | Talk 14:16, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Profumo affair[edit]

As you were kind enough to add some comments on this article at its PR, you are invited to do likewise at its FAC, now open. Brianboulton (talk) 18:02, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

I will but it'll have to be from someone with little experience of the featured article process. I'm very keen on referencing but I don't give a toss about ndashes! I've seen a lot of "your" articles on the way through, however, because I am one of the herd of armchair polar explorers. Thincat (talk) 18:50, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Photo Preservation Discussion[edit]

Thanks for weighing in on one of the deletion discussions concerning San Francisco Library photos of which I was trying to include in an article ( see link below ).
I am once again involved in a deletion discussion while attempting to preserve 2 other photos from the San Francisco Public Library which they had give written permission to Wikipedia to use (link below).
Would you also care to contribute to that discussion as well? Thanx.James Carroll (talk) 12:52, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
Eeeuuuaaaggghhh! If you're interested in rowdy taverns with contradictory illustrations, try Dog and Duck, St George's Fields, which I had quite a bit to do with last year. Maybe put the illustrations on your watch list?! Thincat (talk) 22:58, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
  • User:Stefan2 continues to target photos for deletion which appear in articles where I have made significant contributions.
This time he want to delete a photo from before 1923 which has been used in multiple articles of Wikipedia for 9 years without generating a copyright complaint (link is above). His rational is that there is "no evidence that it was published before 1923."
BTW, the graphics are great in your Duck Baiting article. Wikipedia needs to realize that photos are a necessary asset to the survival of their website. Let me know when you're involved in a photo deletion review. If you’re not moving forward, you're falling behind. James Carroll (talk) 18:00, 8 March 2014 (UTC)


"What a Brilliant Idea!" Barnstar.png What a Brilliant Idea Barnstar
For suggesting the saga of a photo of Ezra Pound as an example of the problems arising from use of orphan works. We are using this as one of our examples in Wikimedia DC's comments to the Copyright Office! Antony–22 (talkcontribs) 19:59, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for this. That's really good. It is a worthwhile photo that we know a lot about but the more that was discovered the more it seemed that no definite conclusion could be drawn. Thincat (talk) 20:37, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Something strange[edit]

Thanks for bringing that to my attention. I've given them a longer holiday. CBWeather, Talk, Seal meat for supper? 13:25, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

That is one of the strangest things I've seen in a while. CBWeather, Talk, Seal meat for supper? 15:21, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

DYK Poundsbridge Manor[edit]

DYK Nomination for R. Durtnell & Sons[edit]

The nomination is for the secondary topic for this article.

DYK for R. Durtnell & Sons[edit]

HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:59, 4 May 2014 (UTC) 20:18, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2014 April 29[edit]

Having gone to the trouble of working out that I was the person that deleted it, did you not think it worth asking me why, before the discussion closed? --Dweller (talk) 16:44, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Well it hadn't occurred to me actually. I deliberately pinged you in case you wanted to join the discussion but often at DRV people don't want to. I hadn't anticipated the DRV would be closed so soon afterwards but I could have realised that it might happen. Looking at it now I can see that my attempt at a ping might look as an attempt to single you out. I certainly hadn't intended that and if I did gave that impression I apologise. In my view the trouble was caused at two ANI discussions a month or so earlier. Thincat (talk) 18:23, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
I don't mind about being singled out, I just didn't see the ping, as I've not been active for the last week or so. There were some unusual issues around that page (I'm wearing my bureaucrat hat, now), but it's done now and I'm not keen to kick off another Streissand by removing what has been restored. Never mind. --Dweller (talk) 21:49, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Robert M. Bond[edit]

I made some additions and tightened up the sourcing, partly as a result of your perceptive comments at Template:Did you know nominations/Robert M. Bond. I thought you might be interested to see. It is so much preferable to have a paper copy of the book rather than using GBooks or Amazon. Thanks again for your trouble in reviewing it. --John (talk) 19:38, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

I've now read it again and you've made a lot of changes. He was an accomplished man. I wonder if he was generally foolhardy (it doesn't seem so) or whether he just made a terrible mistake. BTW reviewing your article has started me using {{sfnp}} so thank you for that! I have been using {{sfn}} for a while now but {{sfnp}} is more harmonious. Thincat (talk) 20:33, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Norman Heathcote[edit]

Materialscientist (talk) 08:57, 21 June 2014 (UTC)


I really have no business here, but I just have to say that your article about the 1921 British Mount Everest reconnaissance expedition is just awesome! :) I really enjoyed reading it. I stumbled upon it while checking out the talk page of Philg88. His page always attracts interesting things and since I'm a newbie I learn a lot just by hanging out there. And I pick up the occasional tidbit. Thanks! Best - W.carter (talk) 20:53, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

That's very kind of you indeed. I found reading up about the whole thing absolutely fascinating (more interesting, actually, than "did Mallory reach the top in 1924?") and maybe this comes through. I was really lucky to find such an unfilled gap in WP. Thincat (talk) 21:01, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Change to EB1911[edit]

Please see Template talk:EB1911#ref=harv -- PBS (talk) 21:17, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2014 August 16#File:Hearts XP.png[edit]

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2014 August 16#File:Hearts XP.png. Thanks. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 18:28, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

What does ref=none do ?[edit]

Hi there, thank you for your help at article Adrianne Wadewitz.

What does "ref=none" do?

Thanks again,

Cirt (talk) 00:44, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

@Cirt: {{citation}} by default creates an anchor for itself so that inline references can link to it. See Template:Citation#Anchor. However, the two "works" I edited are not linked to from elsewhere in the article. This is not normally any sort of problem (it shouldn't be). However, for people like me who have error messages turned on you get great ugly errors such as Harv error: There is no link pointing to this citation. The anchor is named CITEREF2013. These used appear for everyone until they were suppressed following a discussion, RFC or something.[19] Putting in "ref=none" removes the anchor and so also removes the error message.[20] Why do I have error display turned on? It isn't so I can go around making changes like this but it is because when I create an article I want to leave it clear of referencing errors to avoid other people coming to "correct" them and making other undesirable changes at the same time. Error messages are turned on with Javascript "importScript('User:Ucucha/HarvErrors.js');".[21] Thincat (talk) 07:35, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
Ah okay, thanks very much for the friendly explanation! — Cirt (talk) 11:48, 18 September 2014 (UTC)


thanks for the quick catch; I've fixed it, (I hope, if not, please amend as needed). I have obviously been staying up too late. DGG ( talk ) 09:03, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/VideoPad[edit]

Hi Thincat. Because you participated in Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2014 September 28#VideoPad, you may be interested in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/VideoPad. Cunard (talk) 00:39, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library - ScotlandsPeople - You've got mail[edit]

Hello, Thincat. Please check your email – you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{YGM}} template. Philg88 talk 11:15, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Graham Russell Mitchell[edit]

Hello Thincat, Just wanted to say thank you for creating the Graham Russell Mitchell article. I had been meaning to start an article, but have never seemed to make the time! Best regards, David, David J Johnson (talk) 17:14, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. I recently created an article on Jane Sissmore and Mitchell was an irritating red link. Thincat (talk) 17:37, 23 November 2014 (UTC)


Hello again Thincat, Many thanks for all your recent edits. My only problem is your recent edit to MI5. I am given to understand that Burke Trend's report on the Hollis case did not clear Hollis, but found the case against him unproven - a long way from clearing him. Chapman Pincher's last two books seem to confirm this. Your comment and advice are very welcome. Best regards, David, David J Johnson (talk) 21:39, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

I think you are right – please change it or I will when I can get things clear in my mind. I merely added Mitchell's name and left unchanged the "cleared" claim regarding Hollis. I am re-reading Spycatcher (I dislike the book) and Wright has a lot to say about the investigation of Mitchell and he clearly concludes that Mitchell was not the mole. Nigel West thought Mitchell was the mole but no one seems to understand why he thought this, except to be different from Chapman Pincher. I have Christopher Andrew's immense book out from the library right now and it is very concerning how much he omits. I'm finding it very hard to accept what Andrew says in the introduction that very little is being held back any more. His account seems OK up to WWII but after that it come across to me as too much of an apology. Thincat (talk) 22:14, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
Done. Very much agree with you regarding Christopher Andrew's book - far too much left out or glossed over. Best regards, David, David J Johnson (talk) 22:55, 23 November 2014 (UTC)