Jump to content

User talk:SchroCat/Archive 24

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 20←Archive 22Archive 23Archive 24Archive 25Archive 26→Archive 30

Hi Gavin. I noticed you closed/archived a list I nominated as a featured list candidate. Why? Thank you, New9374 (talk) 02:23, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

  • Hi New9374, unfortunately it had been open two and a half months and only had one person supporting promotion. As a rule of thumb we close the nominations at two months if a minimum of three supports (from in-depth reviews) have been achieved. I suggest you go through the page again, ironing out any further wrinkles you find and re-nominate in a week or two. Cheers - Gavin (talk) 06:52, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
  • I suggest you wait at least a week and ask a couple of friends or colleagues to look over it in the meantime. It's surprising what another pair of fresh eyes can find. - Gavin (talk) 07:09, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Eega/archive2

After withdrawal and subsequent copy-edit(s), i have reopened a FAC for Eega a week ago. If interested, please do consider reviewing the candidate when you are free. All constructive comments are welcomed. Regards, Pavanjandhyala (talk) 13:00, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Arb

You really shouldn't be feeding the ref desk troll by re-posting his comments. He's a banned user and is not allowed to edit. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:44, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Arb2

And by drawing attention to TRM's excessive reaction, you've hurt his case instead of helped. Unless you no longer care. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:09, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Jessica Chastain

Really sad to see you winding down your activities here, and I sincerely hope that it's temporary. I was wondering if you'd like to review Ms. Chastain's FAC which has been open for over a month but hasn't received much of a feedback. Cheers! --Krimuk|90 (talk) 07:44, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

TFL notification

Hi SchroCat. Sorry to bother you, but I wanted to tell you that List of regicides of Charles I is ready for an October 7 TFL appearance. The blurb is here, for your reviewing pleasure. Cheers. Giants2008 (Talk) 02:22, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi Giants2008, That's great: many thanks. - Gavin (talk) 11:24, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Before you go...

Your impending departure is greatly to be deplored, but may I ask one favour of you if you still have some reviewing boots on? After a long gestation I've finally brought Lieutenant Kijé (Prokofiev) to FAC. It did not have a formal PR, although Wehwalt gave a talkpage review and Tim looked it over a while back. If among your valedictory duties you could give it a glance, I would much appreciate it. Brianboulton (talk) 17:21, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

And on that note, can you perhaps finish the review you started for me at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of BLM Herd Management Areas/archive1? I'd be glad to pop by your FAC in return. Montanabw(talk) 03:34, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Shtocat nsme.

Love your "hsndle." You obviously have a sense of humor! I hsve been chasing my tail over this fellow for awhile now. Again, love your "name." Enjoy your retirement. JANNBEAU Jann42beau (talk) 23:25, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

I cannot seem to type worth a darn! Apologies. I just read your comment about working with idiots, etc.; I just want to say that I am so sorry that trying to use your intelligence in editing and producing Wiki articles has worn you down. Maybe after a break, you will get back to it. Wiki needs intelligent, knowledgable, (sp?), and patient authors/editors. Jann42beau (talk) 23:35, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Josephine Butler bibliography

Let me be the first to congratulate you on this reaching FL! Since it looks like that's gonna be the last thing you take to FLC, I'll say now that I hope you enjoyed your time there with this and many other lists while it lasted. FLC won't be the same without your service as a delegate. Best regards, Snuggums (talk / edits) 23:09, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Jo-Jo Eumerus, could you please write-protect my page please. Once this idiotic grudge-block (commenting at ANI about a specific point is not disruptive, despite the lies from the blocking admin) has ended in about 12 hours time I'm off. Thanks - Gavin (talk) 06:53, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

So done, but as with We hope and Cassianto on User talk:Ritchie333 I am pleading you to stay as well. You have done good work on the project and a number of users do appreciate your work here. I am sure this dramah will blow over in a short while. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:47, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
Thanks Jo-Jo Eumerus – much appreciated. Sorry to trouble you again, but could you delete the page and all its history too? Thanks very much – Gavin (talk) 16:12, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Hey

Are you leaving?  — Calvin999 09:28, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

  • Yeah the place has changed a lot: lots of the good admins are inactive and there is a new cadre of very poor ones who knee-jerk block without engaging any thought as to whether they are helping or hurting a situation; ANI is a broken dramah fest with a peanut gallery who don't bother with working on articles, they just try and sit in misinformed judgement (mind you, despite everyone knowing that and saying it, there's always someone of questionable approach who'll block you for saying it! #thoughtcrime! – Gavin (talk) 16:18, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Does this mean...

It's safe to try writing text content again? :-D We hope (talk) 11:32, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Your username came true  :) — O Fortuna semper crescis, aut decrescis 11:47, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
LOL! Erwin was right after all...! - SchroCat (talk) 12:08, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
I bloody hope so! A toe in the water to see if the reasons I left in the first place have moved on to something even less useful! - SchroCat (talk) 11:42, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
The WP dunk tank-;)We hope (talk) 11:57, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
Ha! Let us hope the two little groups have quietened down since last time. I've read a fair few untruths from at least one of them, who seemed to know more about the reasons I left than I did - and one (happily) banned editor has written some absolute tosh: more fictional the factual in output! - SchroCat (talk) 12:08, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Great news

That's great news. Welcome back. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:42, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Dudley - much appreciated! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 11:42, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
Thanks Betty - it feels good to be back! - SchroCat (talk) 06:40, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

TFL notification

Hi, SchroCat. I'm just posting to let you know that List of works by W. E. Johns – a list that you have been heavily involved with – has been chosen to appear on the Main Page as Today's featured list for July 14. The TFL blurb can be seen here. If you have any thoughts on the selection, please post them on my talk page or at TFL talk. Regards, Giants2008 (Talk) 20:17, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Many thanks Giants2008, much appreciated. I hope all is well with you. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 20:39, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Good to see you back

Good to see some life in you anyway. Like myself I'm not exactly "back" yet, difficult to be motivated here, especially with great weather!♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:58, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Doc – good to be back! Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 19:21, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
Nice to have you back here again, SchroCat.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 08:48, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
Thanks Ssven2! much appreciated - SchroCat (talk) 11:41, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
Welcome back, SchroCat. So much has changed. Eega (our last collaboration as a nominator-reviewer) is all set to become a TFA soon. Hope your experiences would be better this time. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 16:13, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
I'm also glad you've returned. Hopefully things work out better this time around. Snuggums (talk / edits) 02:21, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Welcome back and an apology.

I have realized what I have done. This still means that I will continue to edit on the Wikia Fandom and have my disagreements with Wikipedia's policies, but I would like for myself to stop revert your edits and at the last minute I tried comprising with you (see my talk page). I see the article I created was second rate rubbish and you're absolutely right about that. I looked at it with 95% dread when you temporarily retired and took the good parts of it and put it onto the Wiki Fandom. I thought, 'Well, let me revamp my user page into somewhat a proper user page'. I had thought about this for a while and I just gave up at first, but as we had started the edit war, I had come to the realization that it was time for the bad times on Wikipedia between us to go away so I attempted to compromise and was on my way to solving this long dragged out issue with you. Again, I apologise profusely for my reckless behaviours from the time we had contacted each other. And please read my draft on Bond 25, Draft:Bond 25. I think that was an improvement over that hideous article I wrote. Let's reconcile please and let's hope we could get to know each other more kindly and more respectfully. Thanks.

(Mi600740 (talk) 01:09, 5 July 2017 (UTC))

Welcome back!

Hi SchroCat. I'm very happy to see you back. Moisejp (talk) 01:32, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Seconded! Very nice to see you around. Ceoil (talk) 21:20, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

3 million Thais mentally ill, interesting.. I wonder how many of them spend every minute of every day trolling Wikipedians...♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:18, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Welcome back, SchroCat. But how can anyone not appreciate Wayne Sleep's Clean Willy?? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:49, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
This was my comedy hero, Peter Butterworth's last film. Not a lot of people know that. CassiantoTalk 22:00, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Since Schro's talk page seems to have turned into the Mos Eisley cantina I thought I would point out some recent James Bond vandalism by 46.99.34.168. The IP has been jumping around a bit but if you have any James Bond articles on your watchlists and you see a number like this pop up (i.e. in the 46.99.X.X range) then it almost certainly needs to be reverted. Betty Logan (talk) 22:52, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

From Russia with Love

You have given no reason for reverting my recent reverting of the plot for this novel. I notice you reverted am earlier correction to the nonsensical claim that Grant was responsible for faking the deaths of deaths of Darko Kerim and the third Soviet agent. I have just finished rereading the novel and that claim is nowhere made there. Again, it wasn't a magazine into which Bond slipped his cigarette case but an Eric Ambler novel. There were other inaccuracies too. Please try and achieve consensus on the article's talk page before reverting again. Mzilikazi1939 (talk) 19:02, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Per BRD, you are the one that should head to the talk page, Mzilikazi1939. - SchroCat (talk) 19:16, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

(talk) 19:15, 6 July 2017 (UTC) Just did so. Mzilikazi1939 (talk) 19:21, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Walt Disney

What precedent is there for NOT using the spouse field simply because the subject of the article has a family that has its own dedicated article on this website? Davejohnsan (talk) 18:57, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Not every field of an IB has to be filled in just because they exist. Less is more with IBs – see WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE: "The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves ... [its] purpose, allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance". When there is duplication in the fields (as there is here), it's pointless to duplicate. – SchroCat (talk) 19:11, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
And this kind of rhetoric, Davejohnsan, is why infoboxes become so problematic. CassiantoTalk 20:00, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
@Cassianto: My question, or SchroCat's answer? Davejohnsan (talk) 00:49, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
Well I addressed you in my comment as it was you who brought it here. These bloody boxes do more harm than good. CassiantoTalk 03:24, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Nani filmography/archive1

This is my fourth attempt at a featured list. Feel free to leave comments if any. :) Pavanjandhyala (talk) 18:37, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

FAC

Good to see you back. Could you please take a look at this FAC? It's not a long article. Thanks.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:25, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Will do! - SchroCat (talk) 12:38, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Fleming

@SchroCat: I thought the fragrance was of interest. Why deleteWhispyhistory (talk) 18:24, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

As I said in the summary, it's just going in to too much detail for an encyclopaedia article; "of interest" isn't an encyclopaedic standard. Seen in the context of Fleming's life, all we really learn from it is the brand of soap he used, which is too trivial for inclusion. – SchroCat (talk) 18:29, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

RfA

Thanks for supporting my run for administrator. I am honored and grateful. ) Cullen328 Let's discuss it 00:05, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
I really appreciate your willingness to discuss things and move to support. Thanks. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 00:05, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
Cullen328,!My pleasure. It's nice to come across someone who doesn't dig their heels in too. You took on board all sides and asked questions, which is what an admin should do. If you're going to act like an admin in RfA, I look a bit foolish sitting as a neutral! Good luck with it, and I hope it's stress-free for you. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 04:55, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Jared Leto fimography

Hi SchroCat. I noted that you participated in previous FLC for Jared Leto filmography and I was wondering if you could leave a comment on the article's current nomination. The review seems to have stalled and I'm afraid it will be closed for the fourth time due to lack of comments. Your help would be very much appreciated.--Earthh (talk) 10:42, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Peter Sellers

Wb. I'd really like to see this one on the Main Page on his birthday (in September), if that's okay. - Dank (push to talk) 15:27, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

  • Thanks Dan. Ugh... the grief that article has caused in it's time! (I took it off my watchlist some time ago) My personal opinion, for what it's worth, is that it probably shouldn't go there, given some of the history to it. As it's not "my" article, however, I'll leave you to make the call, and will be happy wth whatever decision you come to. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 20:48, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

ANI thread

You might be interested in WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#WP:IDHT behavior from Light show. Snuggums (talk / edits) 17:11, 14 August 2017 (UTC)


Waterloo Medal (Pistrucci)

If you have some spare time, would you mind reviewing this FAC? It's lagging, rather.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:30, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Anti-Vandalism Barnstar (special delivery from Bangkok / Penang)

The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
message 171.7.108.243 (talk) 07:21, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

I am sorry and lets get along here on Wikipedia

Hello SchoCat,

I know that I have been sympathising with you ever since I came onto Wikipedia. I have insulted you numerous times and now I have regretted all of that. I should have listened to you and the Wikipedians who were trying to correct my mistakes. I would like to get along with you and put all of those troubles behind us. Also, i would like for use to communicate whenever I need help or whenever you need help as well on Wikipedia. I am trying to improve and not make the same mistakes again. Please reply whenever you can.

Best regards,

(Mi600740 (talk) 21:04, 24 August 2017 (UTC))

I am sure SchroCat will appreciate your attempt at reconciliation but it isn't really down to him whether you get along or not. SchroCat gets along with anybody who follows the rules and respects the consensus so if you do the same you will get along fine. If you continue with being disruptive, adding unsourced content and disregarding copyright policy then it will not be possible for you to have a good relationship with anyone on Wikipedia. The fact that you recognize your behaviour has been wanting is a good start; everyone should be entitled to a fresh start and I am sure SchroCat—as will any other good editor—will give you advice if you ask for it but ultimately your relationship with other editors is in your own hands and always has been. If you want to change it you need to change your approach to editing. Betty Logan (talk) 21:42, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
Yep - what Betty said. - SchroCat (talk) 18:21, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
Courtesy ping Mi600740 --TheSandDoctor (talk) 00:52, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

File:Aberfan disaster - extent of the spoil slip.jpg

looking at this image, I think it is covered by template:PD-UKGov. It's a extract from a UK government report, it's over 50 years since publication, and even though its a map that will also be over 50 years old so also covered by the same UK Crown Copyright. Nthep (talk) 20:04, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Nthep! Does this mean it's a candidate to be transferred to Commons? Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 23:22, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
IMO almost, as there is a slight discrepancy between guidance. One source [1] says copyright expires 50 years after publication but the original email establishing the expiry [2] says start of the year after the 50 years i.e. in this case 1 January 2018. So I would suggest leaving it here until next January and transferring it then in case anyone wants to argue the point over 4 months - if there is an issue we can switch back to nfur here rather than delete. Nthep (talk) 16:17, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
Thanks Nthep - that's good news. It's close enough to wait for a few months before doing it without being a problem. It'll come up again at FAC when the image reviewers have a look at it, but they're normally fairly sensible people who can be flexible and use common sense when the timings are so close. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 16:24, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Anniversary

Anniversary
Precious the coprolite is here to remind you that it was one year ago this week you left Wikipedia over the infobox conflicts. We hope (talk) 00:29, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Catherine Zeta-Jones scheduled for TFA

This is to let you know that the Catherine Zeta-Jones article has been scheduled as today's featured article for September 25, 2017. Please check the article needs no amendments. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/September 25, 2017, but note that a coordinator will trim the lead to around 1100 characters anyway, so you aren't obliged to do so. Thanks! Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:40, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Jim. I only worked on strengthening the references for FAC and assisting a beleaguered nominator get past the unusually bear pit-like first FAC, so my knowledge of the subject is too thin to know if there are further amendments needed (and I see there has been considerable activity on the article since it was promoted). Thanks for the notification, tho - I'll keep an eye out for it on the 25th. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 10:52, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
I thought that was the case since the first nom was clearly by someone out of their depth. His page seems to have zero activity, perhaps because of the edit warring he was involved in, so anything you spot would be helpful. There are no dead links or uncited text, so I'm not anticipating major hiccups anyway

Your nice edits at Hitchcock

Thanks for your nice edits recently at the Alfred Hitchcock article. Someone has initiated a review of this article which I nominated though I'm not sure if it was meant as a support comment or a start-of-review comment. Could you take a glance there when time allows? ManKnowsInfinity (talk) 15:40, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm afraid I just don't have the capacity at the moment - I'm over-stretched as it is, and RL is increasingly busy at present - sorry! - SchroCat (talk) 23:07, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

POTD notification

POTD

Hi Gavin,

Just to let you know, the Featured Picture File:Burking Poor Old Mrs Constitution. Wellcome L0019663.jpg is scheduled to be Picture of the Day on October 3, 2017. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2017-10-03. Thank you for all of your contributions! — Chris Woodrich (talk) 02:18, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Aberfan disaster

The desperation the parents & family-members must have felt...trying to rescue people...especially all those children...reminds me of the aftermath of the Bath School disaster, with those Michigan townspeople trying to dig through the rubble of their school. Of course, the disaster was an act perpetrated by a single person and not a faceless corporation that only cared about profit... Shearonink (talk) 16:04, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Saint Fin Barre's Cathedral

Might need your assistance here - it outside my usual area, and as a proud cork man I am may be a bit blinded. Would very much like your insight. PR is here. You don't need to be gentle :) Ceoil (talk) 16:11, 24 September 2017 (UTC)


Request for assistance The Rolling Stones

As Ritchie333 pinged you on Talk:The Rolling Stones/GA1, I was wondering if you would consider assisting me in copyediting The Rolling Stones? I eventually would like to nominate it for featured article status and would like a second set of eyes to assist me with it. If not, that is fine. Regardless, thanks for your time! --TheSandDoctor (talk) 05:47, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi TheSandDoctor, I saw Ritchie's ping last night. The short answer is yes, I'd be happy to have a run through and do some fine-tuning on the prose. Have you ever been through FAC before? It can be a daunting place for the uninitiated, but the people who normally do the best, most in-depth reviews are excellent, even if they seem to be a bit harsh (if you don't know what to expect!) I have a couple of things I need to get sorted first, but I'll make a start in a few days. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 08:31, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
Thanks and no problem. As for FAC, I have been there once before with The Rolling Stones (which provided useful feedback from Ritchie and others nonetheless) but did not last the full cycle as it was determined that, at the time, I had not worked with the article enough to nominate it (see here). What I did learn from the review was the general impression that they wanted to see it back there eventually, preferably after it passed GA. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 13:06, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi TheSandDoctor, There are high standards at FA, particularly around sourcing, and as a newbie to the process your article will come under particular scrutiny (it's nothing personal - all new nominees have their worked checked more thoroughly until reviewers are happy that everyone apreciates the requirements). There are a few things you should consider before you go to FAC:

  • Have you considered every academic source you can get your hands on? (JSTOR shows the following that are not in the article – I have only skimmed the first page or so, but they would be worth considering):
Some of the English language examples on page one of eleven of a JSTOR search
  • Faulk, Barry J. "New Left in Victorian Drag: The Rolling Stones Rock and Roll Circus". Texas Studies in Literature and Language, vol. 53, no. 2, 2011, pp. 138–158. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/23020764.
  • Hellmann, John M. "'I'm a Monkey': The Influence of the Black American Blues Argot on the Rolling Stones". The Journal of American Folklore, vol. 86, no. 342, 1973, pp. 367–373. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/539360.
  • GLEASON, RALPH J. "Like a Rolling Stone". The American Scholar, vol. 36, no. 4, 1967, pp. 555–563. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/41210152.
  • Zobenica, Jon. "Rock: Death on the Installment Plan: Growing Old Gracefully the Rolling Stones Way". The American Scholar, vol. 76, no. 4, 2007, pp. 117–121. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/41221781.
  • Allen, Dave. "Feelin' Bad This Morning: Why the British Blues?" Popular Music, vol. 26, no. 1, 2007, pp. 141–156. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/4500305.
  • Make sure there are no tabloid newspapers or 'supermarket' magazines: if information isn't repeated in the 'quality' press or—better still—in a reliable history, it's not worth including (see the NY Daily News, for example)
  • Is there any reason the "Further reading" section is so long? i.e. why have these works not been used as sources?
  • Make sure your refs are consistent – for example you have Telegraph, The Daily Telegraph, The Telegraph, telegraph.co.uk and Telegraph.co.uk. You also have some book refs in with the Footnotes, and I'd advise moving them down to the rest of the sources and use the sfn ref (also make sure there are no SHOUTY caps in the titles, etc).
  • Make sure all book sources have consistent formatting – all should have a 13-figure ISBN. No need for page numbers in the Sources section – that's for the Footnotes section.

I'll get round to the c/e in a few days. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 14:03, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the pointers so far, I had swapped the NY Daily News reference for one from Rolling Stone, what do you mean by "reliable history"? I will take a look at the JSTOR results shortly. As for the Telegraph references, they were formatted per the Wikipedia citation tool, but I will go in now and manually adjust them. I was under the impression from the GA review to remove the sfn refs, but you think that they should be used? I look forward to the copy-edit assistance. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 02:21, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

The works in "Further reading" are just book sources that somebody has put in the article at some point but for one reason or another were not used to cite anything in the article. I converted most book sources over to using {{sfn}} but there were a few that needed more than trivial work, from what I recall. I like using sfn, other editors prefer harvnb, it doesn't really matter as long as it's consistent throughout. Since the sourcing requirements for GA are significantly lower than FA, I didn't see this as a showstopper. Obviously for FAC we should consider all of them, plus the JSTOR source, plus anything else that can crop up. I'm not going to begrudge TheSandDoctor for wanting to get this to FA - how many other FACs with 2.5 million annual views do we get these days - but I just want to absolutely stress that he's going to want to eat, sleep, breathe and live the Stones for the next six months, and personally that's more than I can cope with! Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:46, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the pointers Ritchie333, as for eating sleeping and breathing the Rolling Stones for at least 6 months, that is what I have already been doing since I was a toddler so literally no difference to me, can't get enough of them haha. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 23:32, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
I have added a couple of the references from JSTOR entries and will add more shortly. Thank you for pointing JSTOR out to me, it is very useful (and I just found out free through my post secondary institution). --TheSandDoctor (talk) 00:35, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi there SchroCat, I am not in any rush, but just wanted to check in regarding this as you said that you would copy-edit this article 16 days ago but have yet to? As I say, I am in no rush, just being sure that this is still on your radar so to speak. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 06:48, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi, TheSandDoctor. Yes, it's still at the top of my 'to do' list. I have been working on something that has taken a little longer than I thought it would to get through a major section, which has been the cause of the delay, but I hope to be with you soon. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 06:59, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
No worries, take your time - was just wanting to check in and be sure, --TheSandDoctor (talk) 15:12, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

TRM

For the record, I share the sentiment expressed in your comments. I just don't think editing TRM's user page is neither the right place nor the effective place to express that sentiment. There are better venues to make the voices heard. Regards, Alex ShihTalk 15:06, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

His talk page, perhaps? - SchroCat (talk) 15:10, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
Or you could choose to join the discussion here. Alex ShihTalk 15:12, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
I could, but closed minds will not be affected too much by anything I can add to that discussion. - SchroCat (talk) 15:15, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
On the other hand, given the lack of flexible thinking by some, I have now left a comment. SchroCat (talk) 16:49, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
Editing the user page to bypass the talk page protection is just inflaming the situation - please stop before it becomes disruptive -- There'sNoTime (to explain) 15:35, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
I do not know who you are, but leaving stupid comments on my talk page is likely to inflame the situation too. Leave my comment alone and there is no further inflaming. - SchroCat (talk) 15:37, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
Reverting a small comment of support...? Of all the petty, small minded pieces of foolishness I've seen recently... Ah yes, only 21% of edits made to article space... 'nuff said. - SchroCat (talk) 15:38, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Barnstar!

The Original Barnstar
To thank you for the wonderful articles you write, and in particular for getting Emily Davison to featured-article status. SarahSV (talk) 05:46, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Thank you Sarah! That's very kind of you. If you enjoyed Emily D, you may enjoy Josephine Butler, 'the patron saint of prostitutes', a suffragist from an earlier age, who took on the might of the British government, and won. Hers is a fascinating story for next time you're looking for something to read. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 07:35, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Aberfan disaster

Nicely-written, well-researched, looks like you've gotten a lot of input from Peer Review. Was wondering why you're not going for a GA first instead of a FA. Shearonink (talk) 12:55, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi Shearonink, I never really bother with GAs any more, unless I'm looking for a cheap version of a PR! I rather ask an external expert to have a look at the subject pre-FAC, than a GA. I know it'll be GA level by the time it gets to FAC, so there's no point jumping through the hoop for it. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 13:00, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
Will do this tonight. A certain little person has been keeping me from doing things of late. CassiantoTalk 14:53, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
Thanks Cass - I hope the distraction is fun tho! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 17:25, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
I was wondering this myself but concluded that the initials GA were getting to you for other reasons. ;-) ♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:29, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Apology

My comment here was unneeded, and I sincerely apologise for making it - it's caused drama and a "discussion" which didn't need to occur. I made it in retaliation to a comment you made, which isn't an excuse. I should hold myself to a higher standard. I do applaud those who make mainspace contributions and create articles - it's something I struggle to do (evidenced by my lacklustre attempts) but I do wish I could contribute more. Ritchie is right, the majority of administrative tasks I do are a heck of a lot easier than writing a good (not good) article, and for that I'd like to thank you for the time you donate to building an encyclopedia -- There'sNoTime (to explain) 09:59, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

  • Thank you There'sNoTime. I would, however, be grateful if you also struck the comment "stop with the "look at me with my content" bullshit": that is not something I tend to indulge in. I say I help in building an encyclopaedia, but that is different from what you have stated. - SchroCat (talk) 11:01, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your contributions to the project

I used to bother User:Cassianto about the civility rules, but then I took some time to read some of the articles he brought to the featured article standard. I realized that the true purpose of Wikipedia is not about these petty editor squabbles, but about the gifts of knowledge that the project, with its many talented writers, can deliver. Let me take this moment to thank you for your hard work creating and improving articles that help simple folk like me learn more about our truly wonderful world, and the people who inhabit it. Mr Ernie (talk) 13:17, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

  • Thank you, Mr Ernie. You are right to call them - including the "grand crimes" for which TRM has been blocked - "petty editor squabbles". That is all they are, and they are the least important thing on the site. This is not a social media site or a sociology project, and the more time people spent developing, crafting, polishing or reviewing articles, the better this place would be - because once we're gone, the content is all that will be left. Unfortunately there is fairly large percentage that forgets exactly why we're here. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 13:30, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
Mr Ernie, thank you for the kind words. Wikipedia civility rules only apply to those not in the admin clique, as illustrated over at GW's page. Ironically, injustices like those that have been served upon TRM, and others, are frequently why I become hostile and "uncivil" towards those dishing it out. I should be finishing Frank Matcham in a couple of days, and then opening the boxes containing the books for my next article, Al Bowlly, but I cannot sit back and see positions of power being abused. And it's not because TRM is a friend of mine around here; I'd happily do the same for anyone whom I didn't like, of which there are plenty. CassiantoTalk 14:23, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
I wish so many others would see the light like Mr Ernie has! ♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:32, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
I agree. I find that when going back to the basics (meaning forgetting bureaucracy, just improving articles), anything can be overlooked. Thank you for your contributions to the project, User:SchroCat and User:Cassianto! Alex ShihTalk 03:43, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Notice of noticeboard discussion

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. [Same thing I told Cassianto: nothing personal--I am looking for a good way to stop this. Or you could tell me you'll stay away from the AfD.] Drmies (talk) 21:37, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Too slow Drmies - already seen, already answered at ANI! - SchroCat (talk) 21:38, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
Not fair: I had to do notifications, and you were not the first on my list. Also, I'm watching reruns of BattleBots with the kids, so my attention is somewhat divided. Anyway, thanks. Paulmcdonald said something similar, so this may all end well. Thanks again. Drmies (talk) 21:51, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
Ah yes - Robot Wars we have here; lucky you: my youngest daughter makes me sit through Doc McStuffins with her. - SchroCat (talk) 22:05, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
Interesting. I did not know that these shows were this old already--I would have been a fan. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 21:19, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
......while some of us are still waiting to see the return of The Crystal Maze... and locking the kids in the garage! :p — fortunavelut luna 21:28, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
Some friends and I did the Crystal Maze experience last year in London and it was excellent. I thoroughly recommend it, if you get the chance. CassiantoTalk 23:02, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
Oh dear, I see a dramah queen is trying to stir the pot that has finally calmed down by telling porkies. This particular stalker is one other reasons I walked away from WP last time because he managed to suck the joy out of editing, and I see he's still spreading his untrue poison. - SchroCat (talk) 06:05, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
And has refused to strike the outright lies he has told. It shows a nasty mind and questionable integrity no matter what else. - SchroCat (talk) 09:26, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
I thought of this today when I threw a nappie bag in the bin. The only difference is that this is one shit bag that I won’t ever have to see again. CassiantoTalk 09:55, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
If only disruptive stalkers were as easy to deal with! - SchroCat (talk) 10:06, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Getting rid of Mrs David's twiddlies

You bugger! BB also removes my twiddlies. I shall be revenged. Meanwhile I have some quotes in my sandpit if you want them for your bit. Help yourself. Also, I have been raiding the BL for free images for the ED bibliography page, and we can recycle any or all of them. Pray ponder. Tim riley talk 16:38, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

On reflection, the Hypocrisy Brigade will be down on me for calling you a bugger. Please insert "unmitigated ratbag" instead. Tim riley talk 16:44, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
'Quick - take that man to ANI, ArbCom or the Tower!' seems to be the battle cry of those with little else beneficial to do (including at least one stalker of mine). Speaking of whom, the removal of the twiddlies is simply to keep at bay the rapid pantings of the MoS zealots (they will come anyway to rant on about the quote boxes, but bad cess to 'em for such a narrow view of the world).
I have started gathering a few quotes here, one of which is a duplication of yours. I've downloaded a stack of material from a few sources, but haven't started looking at it yet - I hope to be able to start on that bit shortly. Pip pip - SchroCat (talk) 16:58, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

FYI

User talk:Guy Macon#Suggestion --Guy Macon (talk) 21:15, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Guy, thank you; your intervention is appreciated. – SchroCat (talk) 21:31, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Josephine Butler scheduled for TFA

This is to let you know that the Josephine Butler article has been scheduled as today's featured article for November 29, 2017. Please check the article needs no amendments. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/November 29, 2017. Thanks! Ealdgyth - Talk 17:22, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi Ealdgyth, many thanks for the note and the scheduling. Dank, can you ping me when you've worked you magic on the blurb? Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 21:33, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
Okay, it's under 1170 characters now, the right length. Feel free to add and subtract to emphasize different things. - Dank (push to talk) 00:02, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
Thanks Dan. It looks good. The only minor quibble I have is with "police chief", which is a bit informal in BrEng, but I can't think of a short and correct term to replace it off the top of my head. It's not a problem if it remains tho. Cheers for your work on this—and all of the FP blurbs. Cheers SchroCat (talk) 09:16, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
I didn't like "chief" but couldn't think of anything else ... any term you want will be fine. I'm so glad you liked the blurb. - Dank (push to talk) 12:51, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
Sagaciousphil has come up with "police commissionaire", which is an excellent choice. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 15:54, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
Hi Phil! (if you're there). - Dank (push to talk) 16:07, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Tottenham outrage

Stevenmtyler (talk) 11:47, 8 November 2017 (UTC)Hi SchroCat, I don't know how to contact you, please could you reach out to me about the Tottenham Outrage at Stevenmtyler (talk) 11:47, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Walt Disney

Wasn't he religious? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Espngeek (talk • contribs)

That's not the point. As I stated rather clearly inthe edit summary, your addition was "not supported by the text". - SchroCat (talk) 07:43, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Paragraphs

I was wondering if I could temporarily borrow your writing skills. Following on from the discussion at User_talk:Betty_Logan#MOS:PARAGRAPHS I was wondering if you could take a look at The_Birth_of_a_Nation#Responses, especially the paragraph structuring. Another editor feels it would work better with smaller paragraphs. I am not looking for someone to take my side here and if it can be made to work with smaller paragraphs then I am happy for that to proceed. Basically I just think the dispute would benefit from a third party with decent writing skills, because there is probably a sensible compromise. Betty Logan (talk) 05:05, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Photo permissions

When I upload photos that aren't mine, how do I get permissions and how do I track down the author of the photo even if they conceal their identity or it's unknown, what shall I do call them or send them a letter. I'm confused with the whole process. Let me know if you could help me with this. Thanks.

(Mi600740 (talk) 06:11, 18 November 2017 (UTC))

My draft

I had also seen that you've looked over my draft. Has my editing style improved in contrast to the rubbish article I've made? (Mi600740 (talk) 06:32, 18 November 2017 (UTC))

  • Taking this as an example, I have to say not really. Aside from minor things like the date formatting, the second paragraph is grammatically flawed (no idea what is going on with the tenses) and it should read something like "In October 2017 it was confirmed that Waltz would not return as Blofeld." The first word of that first paragraph shows readers this isn't a neutrally presented viewpoint, and the rest of the sentence is open to misreading (why is he going to "do" a film on a television show). Starting a sentence (aspecially one so short) with "Also" isn't great either. - SchroCat (talk) 08:09, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

I had just made some grammar fixes on the draft, does it look better now? (Mi600740 (talk) 05:32, 20 November 2017 (UTC))

Josephine Butler as TFA

Congratulations and thank you! SarahSV (talk) 00:06, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for "a fascinating and important character", not only in the history of women's rights! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:12, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Thank you both very much! She was quite a character and deserved a decent article. - SchroCat (talk) 08:23, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Congratulations!

Regarding your reversion of my edit to "Josephine Butler"

Greetings and felicitations. I noticed that you reverted my edit to Josephine Butler. How wide is your browser window? I use 1600 pixels, which I understand is fairly common, and the second image in question is pushing the Portal box down into the "Notes and references" section, which is what I am trying to fix. —DocWatson42 (talk) 14:48, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

It's wide - 1920 px - but the multiple image sits above the line at the section break. Splitting the multiple image into an image sandwich of text is probably the worst possible outcome; a better possibility would be to move the portal box to the left (or show it as an inline bullet), rather than the right. - SchroCat (talk) 14:56, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
I checked it on another, newer computer which uses a different operating system and browser yesterday, and found the same problem. Try decreasing the size of your font by a step or two and check again. —DocWatson42 (talk) 09:17, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
No, because it's not a problem that needs sorting by sandwiching. I've suggested a fix already. - SchroCat (talk) 09:19, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
I wasn't suggesting that—I'm afraid I wasn't clear. I meant that even on the other computer the images were intruding in the same way as I described in my first post. —DocWatson42 (talk) 22:01, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
And as I've said, I have already suggested a fix for it - and undertook that fix a couple of days ago. Either way, as I keep having to say until it gets through: this is not a situation where sandwiching the text between two images is a positive step. - SchroCat (talk) 08:59, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, SchroCat. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

My two Hollywood FLCs

I have recently created two award lists: List of accolades received by Moneyball and List of accolades received by The Tree of Life, both of which are up for FLC here and here. Do let me know if you are willing to leave comments there by pinging me. Thanks.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 16:13, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi Ssven2, I'll try and make time for a visit over the next few days. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 19:55, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
Thank you, SchroCat.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 11:21, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Sir Arthur Sullivan

I am importuning close colleagues to look in, if they are inclined, at the peer review for Arthur Sullivan. Ssilvers and I are planning to take the article to FAC, and if you are inclined to look in at the peer review and give us your comments, it will be esteemed a favour. – Tim riley talk 22:53, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Will do! - SchroCat (talk) 12:29, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Steve McQueen filmography/archive1

I would appreciate your comments as always here, SchroCat. Do let me know if you are interested in reviewing this by pinging me. Thank you. BTW, Moneyball's accolades list passed its FLC.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 12:58, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Elizabeth David

Seeing your FAC reminded me that if ED runs at TFA, it should be on the anniversary of her birth or her death. Unless the current TFA coordinator schedule changes, I won't be scheduling May or December, so it won't be my call anyway, cheers Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:30, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Jim, much obliged. - SchroCat (talk) 09:11, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
Hello S. I hope that you are well. I just read this article and found it most informative and enjoyable. My congrats to you and Tim riley and anyone else who worked on it. Oh and did I mention that now I'm hungry as well :-) Thanks again for your efforts. MarnetteD|Talk 19:07, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
Hi Marnette, thanks very much for your kind words – it's much appreciated! Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 19:25, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
You are most welcome :-) MarnetteD|Talk 19:26, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Cragside

Dear Schrocat, the PR for the above, to which you kindly contributed, is now closed and the FAC opened. If you have the time and inclination, your further comments would be greatly appreciated. Thanks and best regards. KJP1 (talk) 16:25, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Sullivan again

As no good deed goes unpunished, we are alerting everyone who was kind enough to contribute to the peer review on Sullivan that Ssilvers and I now have the article up for FAC. If you have the time and inclination to look in, we shall be most grateful. Tim riley talk 12:02, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

It would be a pleasure: I'll be along shortly. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 15:37, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

thank you

Have to say it again because i really mean it. Thank you for your words. One gets kicked down on Wikipedia due to random nonsense and people being too proud to admit mistakes but then some kind soul comes along and restores some faith. But i have to say, this was... wow. I understand disagreement but bold faced lying getting worse and worse with every comment, deceitful arguments, switching positions and placing the burden of providing policy on me after a dozen requests for providing that exact non existing policy the whole objection was based on... man that annoyed me for a second there. But anyway, you don't need to listen to me whine. I sincerely apreciate your comments made. I feel like i somwhat held my own there and leave with my head up high, not having lied, not having been deceitful etc. Thank you. Oh, and i am sure i have enjoyed more than one of the articles you have written, much more thankful for that actually, haha. People like you are what makes this place worth while, not lying ANI dwellers like softlavender. Have a great and productive day anyway(sorry for the bit of venting here...and i am totally embarassed that this whole mess happened on such a weird topic, hahaha) 91.49.73.234 (talk) 08:50, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

You're welcome, IP. It's a shame that you've been treated so shabbily by people who should know much better, but I hope you continue to at least try and do what you can when you see problems. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 16:05, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
SchroCat I pinged you to the conversation already, but I just wanted to bring these highly inappropriate accusations that Softlavender is levying against the IP editor, on the talk page of an administrator. Boomer VialHappy Holidays! • Contribs 21:36, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
Thank you Boomer Vial. I was a bit mystified by many of the pieces of nonsense that were being given to the IP – completely erroneous and misleading in the main. It's an unedifying side of WP, unfortunately. - SchroCat (talk) 21:44, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
SchroCat Indeed. Hopefully making such baseless actions against an editor, especially on the talk page of administrator, will have some type of action levied against. This type of behavior that we are witnessing in Softlavender is exactly the kind of behavior that is turning newer, less experienced editors away. Boomer VialHappy Holidays! • Contribs 21:56, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
This is getting more and more unbelievable. So i am a sock now because i don't let someone lying to and about me walk over me? This is so pathetic... 91.49.73.234 (talk) 00:36, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
I would take 100 constructive IP editors over someone like Softlavender - they wouldn't know an encyclopaedia if it came up and smacked them on the forehead. IP, ignore and walk away would be my advice. CassiantoTalk 08:17, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
I would never even claim what i did was objectively the right thing to do. I thought it was the right thing to do in the context of things i knew. If i am wrong, thats fine. I just tried to understand what the objection was so i can prevent repeating the same. And it seems asking what i did "wrong" and wanting to learn for the future makes me a wikilawyering sock and single purpose account... I want to thank you all for the support in the matter. It pretty much is done for me now, would like to see the lies about me removed but looking at Softlavenders behaviour so far, i don't expect anything in that regard... But again, thanks everyone for wasting your time to help out a random stranger. Really apreciate it 91.49.64.241 (talk) 11:59, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Happy Saturnalia!

Happy Saturnalia
Wishing you and yours a Happy Holiday Season, from the horse and bishop person. May the year ahead be productive and troll-free and you not often get distracted by dice-playing. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:04, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Many thanks Ealdgyth, and a very warm Io Saturnalia to you too! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 14:16, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

New Page Reviewing

Hello, SchroCat.

AS one of Wikipedia's most experienced editors,
Would you please consider becoming a New Page Reviewer? Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time but it requires a good understanding of Wikipedia policies and guidelines; currently Wikipedia needs experienced users at this task. (After gaining the flag, patrolling is not mandatory. One can do it at their convenience). But kindly read the tutorial before making your decision. Thanks. ~~~~

Bittersweet seasonal greetings

Seasonal Greetings and Good Wishes
Seasonal greetings for 2017, and best wishes for 2018. Heartfelt thanks to you for your contributions, which have done much to enhance the encyclopedia and make me feel it's worthwhile to keep contributing. So here's to another year's productive editing, with old feuds put aside and peace, goodwill and friendship for all! Brianboulton (talk) 23:39, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Merry Christmas to all!

We wish you a Merry Christmas and a prosperous New Year 2018!
Wishing you and yours a Merry Christmas, and a Happy, Glorious, Prosperous New Year! God bless!  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 10:32, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:SchroCat/Archive_24&oldid=1083629397"