User talk:Thinker78/Archives/2019

GOCE 2018 Annual Report
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:31, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Review Request
Hi Thinker78,

Please excuse any potential canvassing, but I read your comments on the Mark Dice talk page, and I'm wondering if you might be willing to take a look at the second AfD of the article about me: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesse_Waugh, which I feel was the subject of a deliberate take-down by Wikipedia editing group "Art + Feminism" because my gender and race do not serve their quotas of representation on Wikipedia. The two most notable sources for the article in question had already been vetted in a previous AfD as having satisfied the notability requirement before the second AfD. Thank you, Jesse — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jessewaugh (talk • contribs) 16:13, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't understand what's your request if it's been deleted for a year. I looked for sources and, at least in the news, I failed to find practically anything. I usually put the threshold for notability in at least three reliable sources that are independent of the subject, and cover the subject in detail. Thinker78 (talk) 22:49, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

March GOCE newsletter
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:12, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

MOS:BIO
There is no discussion going on re "notable" verses "notability" in this guideline. Please start one per WP:BRD. – S. Rich (talk) 04:42, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
 * , the WP:BRD explanatory supplement says that the person reverting may begin a discussion, it doesn't say "should". But it does state, "Discuss the contribution, and the reasons for the contribution, on the article's talk page with the person who reverted your contribution. Don't restore your changes or engage in back-and-forth reverting." In addition, WP:WPEDIT states, "Minor edits to existing pages, such as formatting changes, grammatical improvement and uncontentious clarification, may be made by any editor at any time. However, changes that would alter the substance of policy or guidelines should normally be announced on the appropriate talk page first. The change may be implemented if no objection is made to it or if discussion shows that there is consensus for the change." Thinker78 (talk) 03:29, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
 * YOU referred to a "pending discussion". But no discussion ensued, even after I extended an invitation to open one, so I reverted your Bold edit. In any event, a discussion is now open. I look forward to your comments. – S. Rich (talk) 04:01, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, "pending discussion" because a discussion was due by the initiating editor because the edit was contentious. When you make an edit to a policy or guideline, if someone reverts you, that means your edit was and is contentious, and it needs to be discussed before being added again. Editors making edits in policies and guidelines should not revert a revert, but instead discuss it in the talk page. Thinker78 (talk) 04:11, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
 * The BRD supplement suggests discussing the concern on the article talk page, which is why I asked you to open the discussion. At that point you could have opened the discussion (in which case I would have responded). OR – the other choice – you could leave my edit as-is, without discussion (and all would be fine and dandy). When you did not accept my invitation I hoped you'd allow me to re-revert without discussion. Since Eppstein has reverted I've opened the discussion about this serious editing issue. (Please join in.) BTW: I don't know what you mean by "contentious edit". We improve WP via WP:CONSENSUS and these discussions are part of the process.  – S. Rich (talk) 04:44, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

GOCE June newsletter
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:30, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

accusations re: "common sense"
With regards to your edit summary that says, "Fourthords, have some common sense", the English Wikipedia policy on personal attacks instructs all editors to "Comment on content, not on the contributor ." —  Fourthords  &#124; =Λ= &#124; 15:17, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
 * It is not a personal attack. I was instead simply asking you to have some common sense before removing content that is obviously relevant. Didn't intend to offend. Cheers! Thinker78 (talk) 15:34, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

September 2019 GOCE Newsletter
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:58, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions renewal
Doug Weller talk 12:11, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Honeywell Lead section
Hello Thinker78, I've been working on factual updates to the Honeywell article, and I'd like to get another pair of eyes on it. I have a COI with Honeywell, so I'm refraining from editing directly, but I saw you have helped my former colleague FacultiesIntact, with Honeywell in the past. If you have time, could you check out my proposed updates for the lead? I'd really appreciate it.--Chefmikesf (talk) 22:58, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Reverting your reversions
Your reversion on the page Marc Dutroux was this morning reverted and lots more was also removed. This was done by the user Toddy1. I don't know why it was reverted because all the information had sources backing it up. I came across this article early this morning and decided to read it later but when I came to it, the majority of the article had been removed. I figured I shouldn't go and revert it back myself because I don't have a lot of edits. I'm also wondering why this guy would do that? It seems strange to remove so much of an article that has been there for a while, especially after so little discussion on the talk page. The article is a pretty controversial subject. TagPro129 (talk) 12:49, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the tip. You can watch previous versions in the "view history" tab.--Thinker78 (talk) 03:12, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

GOCE December 2019 Newsletter
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:06, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Marc Dutroux
Hello, could you please reinstate the section "deaths of potential witnesses" in the Marc Dutroux article? Also all of the rest of the article before the revision of Toddy1 was all sourced. I put a lot of time into gathering sources in French, German, Dutch and English (reliable ones) in order to paint the whole picture of the trial. Please help me to reinstate my work. Marc Dutroux was officially in court convited not only with his wife but also with Michel Lièvre and at least one other accomplice was officially named in court documents (Bernard Weinstein) but was already dead at the trial so not convicted with Dutroux. It is horrid that Dutroux is constantly painted as a lone serial killer even though he was clearly involved in the crime scene of Belgium. The people in Belgium know that he was part of a network but outside of Belgium there is near to no knowledge on the case. This must be changed. Especially considering that Dutroux will be eligible for parole soon. Thanks, -- Sparrow (麻雀)     🐧   09:41, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I did manually revert it and saved the code so that it won't take as much time the next time around. Nevermind so. And thanks for editing to keep the list of dead witnesses in the article...-- Sparrow (麻雀)     🐧   10:14, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I was planning in doing some work and restoring some info with more sources. Be sure to read the talk page regarding your edits and the policy they are bringing forth (WP:EXTRAORDINARY). You might say that it is not extraordinary, but if another editor believes it is, then the onus is on you to follow said policy, specially if there is consensus about it. I know it is not a good feeling when you put a lot of work in something and another editor undoes your work. Be strong!--Thinker78 (talk) 03:22, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I have sourced everything with reliable newspaper articles. Everything written in the article is publicly accessible. I do agree that the subheadings are too long. And probably the style in general could be improved. But the content itself is solid. And everything is sourced well. I don't know why you put that heading in the article. Why does it need to state that the content is disputed? The Dutroux case is an obvious example of a criminal enterprise subverting the European political sphere. It should be in everyone's interested to make that known and avoid such things from happening in the future.-- Sparrow (麻雀)     🐧   05:41, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Ummmm, evidently the article is in a dispute. Other editors are disputing with you the factual accuracy of the content. You say one thing, the other editors say another thing, and this is called a dispute. I share your feelings regarding the Dutroux case very much, but Wikipedia is WP:NOTFORUM.--Thinker78 (talk) 03:03, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Tank Girl
Hi Thinker78. You may recall you got in touch with me on my talk page last May asking if I was still offering barnstars to translate any good or featured articles I had written into another language. Specifically you said you were thinking of translating Tank Girl (film) into Spanish. While the offer over at the Reward Board has recently expired, I just thought I'd contact you once to let you know I would still honour the original offer if you translated it (or any other article I have written) at any point in the future. One barnstar for translation, another for successful nomination to FA. Or if you prefer I could review any two peer reviews or good or featured article nominations of your choice. Have a nice day. Damien Linnane (talk) 12:15, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

North Potomac
Thank you for reviewing North Potomac, Maryland. I will eventually submit it for GA review. If you think anything obvious that it needs, please do not hesitate to let me know. I will use North Potomac as a "template" to upgrade another CDP—Travilah, Maryland. TwoScars (talk) 17:27, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

GOCE March newsletter
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:52, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

GOCE June newsletter
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) at 15:47, 5 June 2020 (UTC).

Rape in Islamic Law
I just noticed that you have previously taken interest in the article Rape in Islamic law. Would you consider joining the discussion between me and Vice regent? We could do with third opinions. I would not have bothered you if the discussion had made some sort of headway or if it was being solved at DRN. I opened a discussion at the dispute resolution noticeboard but it does not seem to be receiving attention from the moderators. Here is the link to the discussion at the dispute resolution noticeboard. Perhaps you could contribute on Talk:Rape in Islamic law. Mcphurphy (talk) 12:02, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I have been very busy and can't do it for some time. I see there is a very long conversation, maybe in December I may be able to do it. Thinker78 (talk) 00:04, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Guild of Copy Editors September 2020 Newsletter
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:03, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

December 2020 Guild of Copy Editors Newsletter
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:47, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Rape in Islamic Law
Thank you for reaching out! I am honored at the opportunity and will take part soon! I hope we can all manage to come to an agreement. Zurkhardo (talk) 07:20, 9 December 2020 (UTC) Zurkhardo (talk) 07:29, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

About your request regarding Rape in Islamic Law
Greetings, you recently requeted my aid in judging a dispute about the mentioned article, right? I read myself into various debates, but they all seem to be several months old. Which dispute exactly should have an overview about?--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 19:19, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi, . I think it would be good starting with the Marital rape in lead section request. And it would be great if you could add something regarding rape of unbelievers in Islamic law, historically and currently. Thanks!--Thinker78 (talk) 19:41, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I do not have a lot of material regarding this subject ready. I would need to do much research a about this matter. My first impressions are, that the term "Rape" has no direct equivalent in Sharia terminology and maybe the article should be changed into something like "illicit Sex in Islamic law"? But I do not want to "open a fuss" about this. My interests are usually the belief in spirits, demons and conceptions of God in Middle East, but my Study subject requires much about Middle Eastern history, society and religions. Nevertheless, there is not much about specific legal actions such as rape. When I find something accidently, I want to add my acquired knowledge (as long as I keep editing) here. But I do not have the current knowledge nor the time to make contributions in this matter. Still, thanks for asking me.--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 00:36, 20 December 2020 (UTC)