Jump to content

User talk:SchroCat/Archive 29

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 25←Archive 27Archive 28Archive 29Archive 30Archive 31→Archive 35

Death of Jeffrey Epstein

Regarding your comments on the talk page, I have made 8 comments since 21 November, including proposing the merge. You have made 5 comments since yesterday. I don't believe I'm badgering anyone. I'm just raising relevant issues for discussion.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:44, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

With the exception of the comment regarding the removal of the image, I've !voted and then answered questions about my choice. That's not badgering, it's answering the questions of another editor. Yours have been across the commments of several. I'm just asking that you, and MJL, both try to refrain for a while. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 07:49, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
Well, I've just answered comments on my merger proposal.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:54, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
It’s “a” merger proposal: just let the chips fall where they may. I don’t think it’s a valid article either and some of the rationales are dubious, but that doesn’t mean you have to keep chipping in at every opportunity. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 07:59, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

TFA

Would appreciate a view on this. Ceoil (talk) 11:57, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Special:Diff/929088775

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

WP:ABF much? I perfectly explained why I undid your edit (because you left POV phrasing in the article casting doubt on whether Jeffrey Epstein committed suicide). Also, you can kindly reconsider your decisions up to this point if you think that image was "culturally insensitive" because you have had ample opportunity to comment on the substance of the image, but you refused to even acknowledge I had a replacement already available.
I have been nothing but patient with you, but you are exhausting my good will. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 16:24, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) I am not following the discussions, very intricately but on the basis of editorial merits alone, I am unable to find much fault with the removal of the image. That part. imag was a weird choice, to be mild and the developing consensus at the RFC does not seem to be exactly going your way, MJL. ∯WBGconverse 16:43, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
@Winged Blades of Godric: Yeah, I'm not surprised that a thread titled "RfC on fabricated image" isn't going exactly my way. I can further explain my editorial decision on my own talk page if you would like. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 19:18, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for the accusation of ABF. I "left POV phrasing in the article"? There was no need for you to revert my edit: you could have just deleted the POV text, which is nothing to do with my edits at all. I have explained that fabricating images - any image - is not a choice I would advise, so your proposed fabricated image would be a slightly less bad one than the one that also manages to diminish a religion. I have also suggested an alternative, although you say that "they'll never see this meme shared as a Wikipedia quote box": I think you miss the point of what a quote box actually does. Can I suggest that discussions on this point are kept on the article talk page, rather than this little backwater of a page? - SchroCat (talk) 16:49, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
If I did not undo your edit, then the editor would not have been properly notified the individual (who is rather new). Also, I never accused you of anything; I merely suggested that was the course of your behavior (hence the question mark). This was not unlike what you did here on the article talk page.
I'm not looking to debate you on the merits of quote boxes versus images, so I have no clue why you bring this up. I'm just trying to politely inform you that you shouldn't feel so prepared to complain about the cultural insensitivity of an image when that isn't your primary concern, Schro.
My apologies if that suggestion offended you in some manner, but as I said I am at my peak levels of frustration here.
Your insistence that I somehow "fabricated" an image doesn't exactly help matters and show the good faith I would've liked to see here. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 19:18, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
  • MJL, I have just paid my first visit to Discord. The levels of bad faith you display there (I have started a sham RfC, I don't really care about the image, I'm doing this as some form of revenge over some grief you had with Eric) are ridiculous, paranoid and deeply untrue. Get a grip: you could not be further from the truth on any of those points, which display, at best, rank bad faith. Take this as a formal request to stay off this talk page. I don't like having discussions here with people who go round off wiki bitching about others behind their backs. - SchroCat (talk) 22:47, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

ITN recognition for Bob Willis

On 4 December 2019, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Bob Willis, which you nominated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:23, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

I went to support and edit conflicted three times, so I thought if that was happening I might as well post it. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:25, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

About the RfC at Talk:Epstein didn't kill himself

Hello, SchroCat! We have a situation now at this talk page. You started an RfC a few days ago, making it clear that you didn't like the doctored image being used as an example of the meme. There was discussion. The one you (and I) didn't like has been removed. Since then, someone has found a usable picture of a real, "in the wild" use of the meme. Everyone seems to want to use it in the article. But the feeling is that we can't use it, or do anything, until the RfC is either closed or withdrawn. You have been pinged but have not responded. That is your privilege, of course. But I can't understand why you wouldn't withdraw the RfC. Because basically, you have won; there seems to be consensus to use the photo of a real meme instead of the one you and I objected to. Give it some thought, OK? -- MelanieN (talk) 18:17, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi MelanieN, thanks very much for the message. I had seen the ping - along with the snarky message about it being an "irregular RFC"; this was following various untruths told about me on Discord (that I started a "sham RfC", I don't really care about the image, I'm doing this as some form of "retaliation for Special:Permalink/913682753#Eric_Corbett"). After all that, and when I've had several editors (funnily enough, all ones who have participated on an opposing side in an infobox discussion) at the RfC question my good faith in opening a recognised method of settling disputes, then I am happy to walk away and leave them all to it. Any admin can decide the situation at any point - I am certainly not needed. I appreciate that you cannot, as you've been involved, but perhaps Deepfriedokra would care to visit the talk page to look over the thread. I should point out that there are still two of those images present on Commons, which does beg the question as to why they are still there. Thanks again for your note. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 18:33, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
Doubt that I could be objective. I'd come I with the notion that it should be disallowed.-- Deepfriedokra


TFA today

Thank you for Maria Rundell, "something of a mystery figure. There is some confusing information about her life up until the point her husband died. After that she becomes a little more public, writes two books and has a feud and long-running court case with her publisher, John Murray. One of her books was something of a sensation: A New System of Domestic Cookery was published in November 1805. It was a huge success and the book sold around half a million copies over the next 75 years or so." - Thank you also for the noble "dark day" announcement. We miss Brian. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:49, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

spaced endashes

Please see MOS:CONFORM. – S. Rich (talk) 19:53, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Cheers

Damon Runyon's short story "Dancing Dan's Christmas" is a fun read if you have the time. Right from the start it extols the virtues of the hot Tom and Jerry

This hot Tom and Jerry is an old-time drink that is once used by one and all in this country to celebrate Christmas with, and in fact it is once so popular that many people think Christmas is invented only to furnish an excuse for hot Tom and Jerry, although of course this is by no means true.

No matter what concoction is your favorite to imbibe during this festive season I would like to toast you with it and to thank you for all your work here at the 'pedia this past year. Best wishes for your 2020 as well SC. MarnetteD|Talk 01:57, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Watch-list

What ho! We discussed keeping an eye on BB's Featured Articles to look out for bad edits, well-meant or otherwise. You said you'd look after his explorer stuff. Excluding those with a co-nom to do the honours, these seem to be the key articles, but I know I have missed some: BB wasn't big at blowing his own trumpet, and I can't find an up-to-date list of his FAs. I'm putting 41 other BB FAs on my watch list, mostly literary and musical.

Thine, Tim riley talk 20:56, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Blest if I can find it. More info please in due course. Meanwhile, as a fluent sfn-speaker can you kindly rescue me chez the mostly BB-TR article George Bernard Shaw, where someone has put an excellent pronunciation note in the first sentence of the lead which needs sfn-ing, which is beyond me. Tim riley talk
Done. There are a few other inconsistent ones (FNS 330-332) also inconsistent, and I'll sort those out shortly. - SchroCat (talk) 07:44, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
I suspect Schro means at WP:WBFAN? Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 08:08, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
Thats the one! Many thanks Caeciliusinhorto. I've found his own list tucked away too - in the "Main work to date" section at User:Brianboulton/Sandbox6. - SchroCat (talk) 08:35, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Io Saturnalia!

Io, Saturnalia!
Wishing you and yours a Happy Holiday Season, from the horse and bishop person. May the year ahead be productive and distraction-free. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:38, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!!

Christmas tree worm, (Spirobranchus gigantic)CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 23:13, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
Time To Spread A Little
Happy Holiday Cheer!!
I decorated a special kind of Christmas tree
in the spirit of the season.

 What's especially nice about
this digitized version:
*it doesn't need water
*won't catch fire
*and batteries aren't required.
Have a very Merry Christmas - Happy Hanukkah‼️

and a prosperous New Year!!

🍸🎁 🎉

Happy holidays

Hi Gavin, thanks for the card; it's much appreciated. I was about to leave a note for you anyway because I've been working on Martin Broszat, who was somewhat involved in debunking the Hitler Diaries, which brought me to read that article. It's very well-written, flows well and is very funny. I got about halfway through and wondered who had written it, which is when I noticed the star and found it was one of yours. So thank you for that, and best wishes for the holidays. SarahSV (talk) 05:21, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

  • Thanks Sarah, that's very nice of you to say. That was one of the more fun ones to write. I seem to remember reading one of Brozat's works for my degree - on the collapse of the Weimar Republic, if my memory serves. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 10:20, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Season's Greetings

Season's Greetings
Wishing you a Happy Holiday Season, and all best wishes for the New Year! Mystical Nativity (Filippo Lippi) is my Wiki-Christmas card to all for this year. Johnbod (talk) 16:39, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Season's Greetings

FWiW Bzuk (talk) 01:18, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Be furry this Christmas

Have a WikiChristmas and a PediaNewYear

Silly question - why did Schrodinger's cat die? Meanwhile, have a lovely Christmas. SilkTork (talk) 12:36, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Cheers SilkTork, you too. I hope your having a great time, and all the best for next year. - SchroCat (talk) 07:39, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2020!

Hello SchroCat, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2020.
Happy editing,
Betty Logan (talk) 13:22, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

Thanks Betty! I hope your having fun this Christmas. All the very best for next year too. - SchroCat (talk) 07:39, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Dispute resolution heads-up

Greetings! Be advised that New-polymath has opened WP:DRN#Robert Falcon Scott but has not mentioned you in the case. It looks like you two are the primary editors who have been discussing at Talk:Robert Falcon Scott. —C.Fred (talk) 16:20, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Happy Holidays

Hello SchroCat: Enjoy the holiday season, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, DBigXrayᗙ Happy Holidays! 15:43, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Season's Greetings1}} to send this message

Thank you DBigXray. You too! Have a great Christmas - SchroCat (talk) 07:39, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Nadolig Llawen

Martinevans123 (Santa's Oven-Ready Brexit Centre) ... sends you ...

... warmest seasonal wishes for ...Nadolig Llawen a Blwyddyn Newydd Dda.

Hoping that Christmas may bless you with peace, love and a Cuban groove... and wishing that you may find a little traditional fun ...

Cheers Martin. All the best to you and yours this Christmas, and have a great new year. - SchroCat (talk) 07:39, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Conniptions

...an excellent word, to be used more often in conversation  :) 09:14, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

It certainly is! A little old fashioned (and a little American), but still an excellent term! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 13:07, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
Here are some more little Americans for you. Let’s hope no one throws a wobbly. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:28, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Fowler

I am tempted to raise this at the FAC TalkPage. In my view his actions were disruptive and unacceptable. WP:NPA prevents me from being more explicit. Best wishes. Graham Beards (talk) 14:34, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Graham. It's not worth the effort, I think, particularly given the state of the FAC talk page at present. I see from his comments on his own talk page that he was going to continue being disruptive in different ways (it's clear he hasn't got a clue about the subject matter and is clutching at straws to try and justify a rather second-rate position with sub-standard and disruptive behaviour). With FAC reviews being turned into a circus like that, I'm not sure why I bother any more. - SchroCat (talk) 16:32, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
You can count on my full support but it is your call. If I were still a coordinator and had seen what was going on, I would have intervened. Anyhow, I wish you a happy new year. Graham Beards (talk) 16:56, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
Thanks Graham, you too! Hopefully next year will be free of clowns, but somehow I doubt it! Judging by the subsequent edits, this is a battlefield approach from someone who cannot ever be wrong. Playing "Gotcha!" in reviews by falsely creating problems through dishonestly selecting definitions and not understanding the weight of sources involved is a desperately pathetic game to play. Sad, but there you go - it takes all sorts to screw this place up. Cheers. - SchroCat (talk) 18:31, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

My sympathies. I went through this with Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki/archive2, where a reviewer wanted the article to be on a different topic. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:42, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

That looks like a bit of an awkward one too! It's one of the great things about WP that we can have specialist articles, with other specialist articles to cover other aspects. Unfortunately there are some who will complain about the likes of the military aspect of the bombings (or the biography of a pornographer) by dismissing them as "hobby topics", an approach that can be disruptive when it's used to block other people's work. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 08:14, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

A Christmas Carol

"Per source" is not a meaningful explanation for the revert at A Christmas Carol. That source (DeVito) was previously cited for the assertion that he was a money lender even though it did not claim that to be the case. Scrooge's identification as a businessman requires no citation because it is unambiguously stated in the text. It is also unambiguous in the text (and not original research) that he is a warehouse proprietor. Please restore the reverted edit. 73.71.251.64 (talk) 03:46, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

No. Aside from the fact that was your suggestion in the first place, the text does not say he was a "warehouse proprietor". Yes, he has a warehouse (although the term may have meant something a little different in Dickens's time), but that doesn't mean he was a "warehouse proprietor" and it doesn't explain why so many people were in hock to him. "Businessman", while a little generic, is entirely correct. And please note "requires no citation" has absolutely no place in anyone's thinking. Please see the policy on verifiability: "All material in Wikipedia mainspace, including everything in articles, lists and captions, must be verifiable". That means that everything must have a citation to a reliable source. - SchroCat (talk) 09:53, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

ITN recognition for Terry Jones

On 22 January 2020, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Terry Jones, which you nominated and updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:28, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Hello

Hello. My day centre teacher says there was nothing wrong with my edit. What was wrong? He says they are not prohibited and users can choose not to see them, in the same way I have high contrast for my eye sight. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BettyLou1931 (talk • contribs) 18:23, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

I am afraid I have no idea what this has to do with your day centre teacher. Your edit was not an improvement, so it was reverted. If you wish to discuss it, it's probably best to do it on the article talk page, and not on this talk page, which is something of a quiet backwater. Thanks - SchroCat (talk) 18:28, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
If this is what Wikipaedia is like, where new people are not welcomed and our changes reverted, I do not want to do this anymore. Yours Sincerely, Betty — Preceding unsigned comment added by BettyLou1931 (talk • contribs) 18:43, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
~Sigh~ No-one has said you are not welcome. People's edits are reverted frequently if they are not considered an improvement; it is not any reflection on you, but a judgement on the state of the article. This edit was not an improvement. I could go into more detail as to why, if you want to discuss it on the article talk page, which is where I've already suggested you need to discuss this. - SchroCat (talk) 18:48, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Sia

Hey, well, I know that the administator Muboshgu protected that page soon after one edit of mine restoring the elements (but it's there in the history anyway). I can't find the supposed discussion about a version that "passed" on his/her userpage, where's this agreement?Mr. Split (talk) 18:26, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

It was me that requested the page protection to stop the IP edit warring. I also opened a thread on the talk page for people to discuss the matter rather than continue the edit war. There is no "passed" version: Muboshgu would not have cared too much about which version s/he protected, but just acted in the best interest of stopping the edit war. It's best if you take part in the discussion on the talk page to get to a working consensus. - SchroCat (talk) 18:33, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
Mr. Split, this was the only discussion there was. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:59, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Tragedy or farce ?

Hi, "the history book on the shelf, is always repeating itself" [1].Graham Beards (talk) 23:42, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Ha! Plus ça change, unfortunately. After all the fanfare of the big oppose, I'd expected some serious, well-founded criticism, but I'm underwhelmed by attempts to object to "career", or questions over Mad Frankie. Oh well, if he insists, we'll go through the full charade, but it's not impressing anyone. - SchroCat (talk) 23:52, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
"Napoleon did surrender". He will and he will try to save face, hence his "collapsing" request IMHO.Graham Beards (talk) 00:01, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
I hope that is the case. Some reality seems to have come clear, as you say, but the renewed pushing on these new points feels all too familiar. - SchroCat (talk) 00:28, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi Graham, Many thanks for your comments so far in the farce that is "the complete redesign of how any article has ever been treated by an obdurate, tendentious and disruptive editor in the history of FAC". I have never seen such poor behaviour from any reviewer, and it is certainly something that should have been stopped some time ago. There is too little of any merit to justify such disruption. I am on the verge of walking away from the whole nonsense yet again – not just this review, but FAC as a whole, if this crap is allowed to run on and on.

Can I ask your advice on this most recent batch of rubbish? As a former co-ord, would you have thought it unreasonable if I had rejected every single "suggestion" being made? It's what I intend to do at the weekend, as I have yet to read anything of merit.

Given some of the suggestions of re-phrasing he has made in several places ("building a career in the business of striptease" is the latest example), I am fairly sure he is not a native English speaker (or, at least, not one who is flexible to accommodate British English). Complaints on "profession", "career", "series and "frequented"? This is a utterly ridiculous and spurious set of complaints.

FAC should be a positive process about article development. F&F is turning it into a flaming joke. The guy's a disruptive troll – a complete idiot who shouldn't be anywhere near FAC given his stated complaint against "hobby topics". The "review" he is undertaking isn't on a level playing field with any other article, and isn't about trying to polish off the last few corners: he has set out to deliberately sink this article, and doesn't care how facile his complaints, or how many lies he tells in the process. I stopped and restarted the review to see if a fortnight's gap would change his attitude. It hasn't. He has been even worse this time round, and I am at the end of my tether with the whole FAC process because of one silly little troll with a pathetic grudge.

Any advice you can give me on my question above will be greatly received, if I am still up for dealing with the dross by the weekend. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 20:58, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

He has a good grasp of technical grammar but English is clearly a second language. I think he is a native Hindi or Punjabi speaker. This "suggestion" for example is ludicrous "which became a gathering place for his criminal friends". It loses all the impact of "which was frequented by fellow criminals". But of course he cannot hear this. I am really annoyed with the coordinators' lack of help here. This would never have happened on my watch. By accepting the post they have a duty to act as a referee at FAC nominations to ensure this crap does not happen. I think they have been completely unaware as to what has been going on. It all started when Sandy paid Fowler a compliment following one of his more civil reviews. He now thinks he is a highly-regarded reviewer. We have proved him wrong and he doesn't like it at all. WRT his being wrong about primary sources, in a separate conversation I asked him if he had read the medicine projects policy on reliable sources, which he hadn't. There, primary sources are taboo because they are predominantly unconfirmed reports of research. Fowler seems to think that this applies everywhere else. I wonder if the coords have actually read your article. It looks and reads beautifully. It's the stuff that makes you proud of Wikipedia. Not like my boring virus articles. Anyhow I digress. All the coords have had FAC nominations and they know how vulnerable it can feel. It has got to the stage that one "oppose" can negate a plethora of "supports" and this has been encouraged elsewhere. Who could blame you if you were to walk away from FAC? But how about just responding with a simple "I don't agree but if the other reviewers do, I'll look into it". Or whatever. I am going to have a lot to say at the FAC TalkPage when this is over but they will probably ignore me as I'm clearly "dense". Graham Beards (talk) 21:30, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
I'm WORKING on it. I'm trying to make sure that its a united front from the FAC coords ... so that we don't have unavoidable blowback. Loki's beard, is it THAT difficult to wait some hours on something that has gotten this contentious? It didn't happen in a couple of hours, so it isn't going to be a quick solution either. I'm sorry that I am attempting to actually not just walk in and ban folks left and right from FAC, which, if I'm being honest, has occurred to me more than once in this long sad sorry spectacle. Is it THAT hard for everyone to take to heart the "comment on edits not the editor"? Or has that been forgotten in the last few years at FAC? No, I'm not happy with F&F's behavior either - he's commented plenty on other editors also, so I'm pretty much getting crankier and crankier the more these little side conversations go on. I asked for folks to let us have some time to deal with it... please let us have that time.

Folks, I just spent several hours re-reading the FAC, and the article. And the previous FAC. And the talk pages. And various other pages. All the while bouncing around in a semi-truck. Now I'm trying to distill that down, while ALSO being semi-productive in my own projects on Wiki. Frankly, I did some editing in between reading because it cleared my palette.. I said I'd get to it today, and it will happen. Can we try to keep the rotten tomatoes for the FAC coords until after I actually get something posted? Ealdgyth - Talk 21:50, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Your comment suggesting that people were "dense" wasn't particularly helpful either, Ealdgyth. So before you start pontificating on other people's unhelpful behaviour, may be you could moderate your own. Just a thought. CassiantoTalk 21:59, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Oh look: ~sigh~: suggesting we plagiarise a source in an FAC (and removing a couple of key words that changes from a decent sentence into lumpy, awful crap). So much for that nonsense: let's hope we don't have to deal with it again. - SchroCat (talk)

@FAC coordinators:

I am slightly at a loss with F&F's approach as it seems to be going way beyond any review I've ever seen (not just mine, but those of third parties too). It is uncollegiate, aggressive and goes beyond an acceptable level of rigorous criticism. Reading once again through the FA criteria, this article passes all those points, but F&F's approach of attempting to fail at any cost is disruptive and tendentious in the extreme.

I am going to hold off responding to anything he posts until the weekend (unless there is something particularly ridiculous that needs to be refuted). At least he may actually review something that needs dealing with by then.

There are several comments that I do not think need any action (they are either plain wrong, a matter of stylistic choice or outside the scope of any FAC review/FA criteria I have seen). If you could close off anything that does not need action or comment it would be helpful to clear some of the detritus. There is very little there (in my opinion, or in the opinion of the other reviewers, apparently) that needs action or comment from me, but if you could close down and indicate what needs addressing, I will consider these at the weekend. Wearily yours, thanks. – SchroCat (talk) 10:35, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

DS alerts

The box at the top of your page isn't sufficient I'm afraid. See WP:AWARE and use the DSAWARE template. Doug Weller talk 17:26, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Why don't you go and pontificate somewhere else? No one is interested in what you have to say. CassiantoTalk 17:50, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
Oh, FFS - this is supposed to be worthy of blocking Cass from commenting on people's talk pages??? I've seem some brain-numbing moves in my time, but stopping participation in discussion is the reverse of how things are supposed to work: people will only ever understand by discussion, Berean Hunter, not the absence of discussion. FFS 🤦‍♂️ - SchroCat (talk) 11:42, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
Go post at AN for a review and see if they agree with you then. It doesn't sound like he was encouraging discussion so much as trying to run someone off. If you actually believe that tripe you wrote above then post at AN and put your money where your mouth is.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 12:04, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
Not at home to self-awareness or mild, justified criticism, I see. And nice to know you think the concept of discussion is "tripe". 'Nuff said 🤦‍♂️ (and to claim, as you did in your edit summary, "not even you believe your tripe" is just a lie: you have no idea what I do or do not believe, so please take you prejudices elsewhere before posting uncivil slurs here again). - SchroCat (talk) 12:07, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
On the contrary, I think I'm a bit more aware than you. I'm open to accept criticism when I think it is valid but I don't think that is the substance of your complaint. I knew that you wouldn't post there (Personal attack removed). (Personal attack removed). I'll listen to a consensus of editors there if you can make a convincing argument. I don't think you can and you know it.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 12:16, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
(edit conflict) "folded like a cheap suit"? Good God man, just listen to yourself. I avoid AN and ANI because I'm not a member of the peanut gallery and I don't care that groups of your little friends will come to your aid for staggering lack of good faith or judgement.
You are being deliberately odious and obtuse here – so much so that it does look like you're trying to bait me into making equally uncivil responses to you. No self-awareness, and your reaction to even mild criticism of a bad decision is to start being petulant and throwing criticism at others.
Again, please don't lie ("you don't believe that crap yourself") I have already had to reaffirm that I meant what I wrote before, and I do so for the second time now. You are supposed to be an administrator, please try to live up to the standards expected of one, even if you have erred on this occasion. – SchroCat (talk) 12:25, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
And calling another editor “another enabler”? Are you trying to insult everyone who thinks you’re in error? This isn’t a great advertisement for the standards of Admins, is it? - SchroCat (talk) 12:52, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Oh, I don't that's entirely necessary. If someone is so backward as to think I need to have a formal notice despite my comment at the top, it'll only show them to be a braindead troll, and I will treat them accordingly.
Given the note there, I am hardly likely to ever try and argue I didn't have a formal notice so I am unaware of any restrictions - the Arbs seem to be a smart enough group of chaps and chapesses to see through any attempt I may make along those lines - not that I intend to breach the restrictions, or course. Thanks for the thought tho. - SchroCat (talk) 17:52, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) ... and talking of braindead trolls Martinevans123 (talk) 11:50, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Books & Bytes – Issue 37

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 37, November – December 2019

Read the full newsletter

On behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:10, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

The Great Britain/Ireland Destubathon

Hi. The Wikipedia:The Great Britain/Ireland Destubathon is planned for March 2020, a contest/editathon to eliminate as many stubs as possible from all 134 counties. Amazon vouchers/book prizes are planned for most articles destubbed from England, Wales, Scotland and Ireland and Northern Ireland and whoever destubs articles from the most counties out of the 134. Sign up on page if interested in participating, hope this will prove to be good fun and productive, we have over 44,000 stubs!♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:51, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Thank you ...

... for moving the sympathy comments from the FAC talk to Brian's talk. Would you find a way to have them on white background? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:39, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure there is. Archiving comes as blue, yellow green and red, but not white, that I know of. Maybe a (talk page stalker) has a better idea than I. - SchroCat (talk) 20:43, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
My thanks too SC. I am pretty sure that I have seen the closing of a thread in white (or something like it) at ANI or AN - though I could be wrong. Gerda Arendt you might ask at the WP:VPT to see if anything can be changed. MarnetteD|Talk 20:50, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
Oops messed up my ping Gerda Arendt. MarnetteD|Talk 20:51, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
I'd just not use the template, and write the comment in prose. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:58, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
I think it best if the comments from FAC were locked off while the other thread is left open. It's an archive thread from a different page, so shouldn't really be added to or ammended. It shouldn't make that much difference wither way, but one never knows. For what it's worth, I'm not overly concerned about the colour of the background: it doesn't change the sentiment of the words. - SchroCat (talk) 21:03, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Desturbathon

I saw that farther up the page and misread it as "desturbathon". It seemed apt.

So ... shifting focus. I've got an idea for how to create some lists. I'm looking for someone who has a long history of creating GAs and FAs but is burned out on FAC at the moment. If you know anyone like that, ask them to pick a few of their GAs and FAs that might reasonably be considered part of the same topic (not per the stringent Featured Topic requirements ... just, an arguably complete set of related articles, some of which they wrote). I'll sketch out my idea and get back with ... them. - Dank (push to talk) 01:09, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Hi Dan, Thanks for popping by. I'm not sure any of my bits would help - I tend to deal with disparate subjects so there isn't really a connection between them all (except in really over-arching categories, such as "Crime in London" or "London History"). As many of the articles I've dealt with are micro-topics they don't really have a theme to them. I'll have a think about others - Tim and Brian have a stack of religious figures between them - is that the sort of thing you were thinking of? Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 09:40, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
I've churned out a lot of Beta grade articles on Anglican luminaries but at FA/GA level BB and I between us could only offer Cosmo Lang and Randall Davidson. Between us (and other collaborators) we did a fair few FAs on classical composers, though. Tim riley talk 09:54, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
Excellent. I don't have a plan for how to write great lists, but I've got an idea for how to apply what the community already knows about blurbs to help create lists that might pass WP:FLC. It might be easier to illustrate it with some examples than to explain it. I'll think about "crime in London". I haven't been able to find any list of early British cookbooks or cookbook authors. Lists of composers is a great idea ... Tim, what lists of composers exist already, do you know? - Dank (push to talk) 16:46, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
Of these, the most promosing looks like lists of composers, for various reasons ... I'll go chat with Tim after a nice walk. - Dank (push to talk) 19:21, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
Wait, I need to have a chat on a technical point with some FLC people to find out if what I want to do is possible ... back later. - Dank (push to talk) 20:58, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
Ugh. I'm going to be the guinea pig here ... I'll report results as soon as I have them. - Dank (push to talk) 05:09, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

I'm curious Dank, why did it seem apt? :-)♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:21, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Hi Blofeld. "Desturbathon" sounds like a marketing guy's version of "endless drama". I think sometimes we assume that's inevitable, baked in to Wikipedia culture and policies. I don't know a lot, but that assumption sounds wrong to me. - Dank (push to talk) 15:24, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

I try to avoid the drama myself, but such is the site as you say. We could probably do with a De-scum-athon at some point too, rid of some the RFC riff raff eh Schro and Cass? Ha!♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:47, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

My apologies

I only wanted to clarify my concerns. I'm happy to do so further. --Ronz (talk) 01:13, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

No death in lead

Hello! I'm surprised that an expecienced editor like you does not seem to know about WP policy on deaths in the leads of bio articles, and that you would choose to revert this, against such policy, no less also leaving a rather notty comment about edit warring. Good faith? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 05:24, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Given we have very few policies, I doubt we have one that bars reference to death in the lead. Perhaps posting details of that "policy" to the article talk page would be a better step? - SchroCat (talk) 07:01, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
The closest I know of is MOS:LEADBIO, which says Unless the cause of death is itself a reason for notability, a single sentence describing the death is usually sufficient, and often none is included in the lead at all, just a death date. However, (1) this is descriptive and not prescriptive, and (2) it looks like the text reintroduced by Schro was only a sentence. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 09:17, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
"only a sentence" in the guideline refers to the body of the article, not the lead. Only the date of death goes in the lead.
An acceptable lead mention would be something like Operatic alto Druzilliah Schmidleft drove her truck off the Huntington-Scrantonville Bridge in 1956, killing herself and more that 300 people on a barge in the Nightmare River below. There's a death that is itself a reason for notability. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 10:37, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
I think you need to read the guideline a little more closely: unless it is notable, "a single sentence describing the death is usually sufficient". There is just a single sentence. I'm not sure how this breaches the guideline. - SchroCat (talk) 10:45, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
I addressed that above. Since you're not even reading what I write, this is useless. Better to have an RfC on at talk there. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 11:15, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
You have addressed nothing of the sort. You have misquoted a guideline and have ignored the part of the guideline that states quite clearly that "a single sentence describing the death is usually sufficient" - and that refers to the LEAD, not the body of the article, as you claim; (the clue is in the link MOS:LEADBIO which is about the LEAD in the BIO. The heading of the section makes it clear it's about the lead too). If you wish to open an RfC on the point, feel free to carry on, but it is not a terribly constructive step to take. - SchroCat (talk) 11:20, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
Technically, her death is already "described" in the first single sentence (as a February one). Not hating! Just saying. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:10, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
I think you'd be hard pushed to justify the date in brackets as a "description". - SchroCat (talk) 07:45, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
Fair point, I submit! Hard-pressed, though. Pretty sure about that much. InedibleHulk (talk) 11:00, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Risky business?

... an interesting Japanese band. But you should hear that whole 2013 album. What we all seem to crave is summed up by Track 2, I fear. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:51, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Mincemeat

Many thanks for the advice re. Op. Mincemeat, much appreciated. The changes made I feel add texture and detail to the very good Wikipedia article. Firstly mentioning Room 13 is key since this was a major part of Macintyre's book and will play a significant part in the upcoming movie. It is here where the plan was concocted and executed (see also BBC documentary).

And the second change refers to the precise name of the secret team and also refers to the fact that only two sets of hands were permitted to handle the documents (I would like to add a Note here, taken from Macintyre's book: ('Note: The only other person to touch the letters was Montagu. Too many sets of fingerprints might have alerted the Germans that these were no ordinary letters.')

Might these revisions add to the article? Please do let me know your thoughts and forgive me any errors in citations (and my inability to create the Note!). Please do get back to me.Tenthengen (talk) 23:56, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. At about 6,000 words, this is a relatively densely packed article as it is, and information superfluous for the operation has been kept to a minimum. It doesn't matter what a film has to say about a topic - we don't base the contents of an article on what will probably be a semi-fictionalised account of the events. I think the informaiton about Room 13 would be best off in the Naval Intelligence Division (United Kingdom) article (that's an article that needs a fair amount of work to bring it to scratch), as it is more relevant to that article than this. When adding it to that article, it would be best to avoid the 'purple prose' style of writing: "top secret team in Naval Intelligence consisted of eleven carefully selected individuals working from subterranean Room 13 in the bowels of the Admiralty". "top sectret" and "carefully selected" are fairly obvious, given this is a branch of intelligence during wartime, and "in the bowels" adds nothing; I'd even remove "subterranean", as the exact location in the building is inconsequential."
In terms of Patricia Trehearne, again, the exact name brings little to the party. She is not mentioned again in the article and neither is 17M. Adding that information to the article would only bloat it out a little, and possibly have the effect of making readers wonder why she is mentioned (and who she actually is, given we have no article on her) and what 17M is. Less is more in an article that has so many details relevant to the core subject.
I hope this gives some indication as to why there is no real need to add these two points. - SchroCat (talk) 08:20, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Grammar question

Hi Schro, I was wondering if you could take a quick look at the question at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Film#Is/Was_directed. Obviously the production and act of directing is past tense, but the film is something that still exists, so applying a credit in the past tense would imply that it is no longer true. Is there a grammatically answer to this? Betty Logan (talk) 20:05, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Hi Betty, short answer, no, or yes, however you look at it. I'll leave a slightly longer, and less cryptic answer on the MoS page. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 20:14, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

ITN recognition for Max von Sydow

On 10 March 2020, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Max von Sydow, which you nominated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Indefensible (talk) 23:20, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

ITN recognition for Roy Hudd

On 16 March 2020, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Roy Hudd, which you updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page.  — Amakuru (talk) 16:11, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

"Wikipedia:BLACKFRIDAY" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Wikipedia:BLACKFRIDAY. Since you had some involvement with the Wikipedia:BLACKFRIDAY redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Steel1943 (talk) 20:00, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Jessie Murray

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Jessie Murray you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Usernameunique -- Usernameunique (talk) 21:21, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Portrait of Adele Bloch-Bauer I

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Portrait of Adele Bloch-Bauer I you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Vami IV -- Vami IV (talk) 16:00, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Jessie Murray

The article Jessie Murray you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Jessie Murray for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Usernameunique -- Usernameunique (talk) 05:01, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

ITN recognition for Nipper Read

On 8 April 2020, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Nipper Read, which you nominated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 18:47, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Hattie Jacques

Hi SchroCat, in the Hattie Jacques article it mentions she attended "a local dance school, the Dean Sisters Academy". This appears to be the same dance school as in new article Edna Deane and its ref? Regards, JennyOz (talk) 10:27, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

AIV

You're very welcome! I honestly wasn't sure whether it was a good idea (interventionism, granny-how-to-suck-eggs, etc etc) but they were getting on my nerves and I thought it was so [original thoughts redacted] inappropriate that I just couldn't bear it. I am glad you didn't mind. Cheers 82.39.96.55 (talk) 11:06, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Didn't mind? I was bloody delighted! I was going to report after the next one anyway, so you've saved me a job. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 12:34, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Revert of 9th G7 summit

FYI, my edits to 9th G7 summit were because there was a mixture of mdy and dmy dates in the article. I picked dmy because it was an international summit. Using mdy dates is acceptable, as you changed (than you), especially considering the summit was in the United States. Truthanado (talk) 20:44, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Because it was in the US, it should never have been dmy, regardless of the international nature of the summit. - SchroCat (talk) 20:56, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Len Deighton

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Len Deighton you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Gatoclass -- Gatoclass (talk) 04:20, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Ruby Loftus Screwing a Breech Ring

Long time no talk. I hope you don't mind me tweaking the article; I do follow your edits and have became absorbed. Very interesting from a sociological/political pov, and up to your usual writing standard. Am scanning atm moment and leaving comments in edit summaries, but can consolidate on the talk page if you prefer. V nice work. Hope all is well in these surreal times. Ceoil (talk) 21:53, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

I'm delighted you are! Like all my stuff it needs a little bot of a polish to shine brightly. I'm happy with the edit summary comments, but if you think there is a bigger point or two to be made, then I'm happy looking there too - whatever is easiest for you. I won't be going any further than just the re-write, so no need to angle it to any artificial "standards", but just to improve what there is. Cheers - and I hope you're keeping safe and well - SchroCat (talk) 22:40, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
If this becomes a DYK a lot of people are going to be disappointed when they click. EEng 23:10, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
You filthy so and so, EEng! I'd not seen anything wrong with the title before then ;-) DYK? I think Serial Number expressed a reflection of my thoughts here. - SchroCat (talk) 07:48, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
great Schro; its leads to a new visual avenue for me, its obviously building on monumental works such as Black Circle etc. EEng, you need to wash your mouth out with salt, both myself and Schro are pure of heart and mooted for accention to heaven. Ceoil (talk) 23:22, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
I really can't imagine what you could be talking about. EEng 23:39, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
Glad. Hopefully when you do wash your mouth out, and I do think you do need to-frankly I was disappointed you found smut in that tile-it wont be with raw detergent, no matter what certain leaders might have you to believe. Ceoil (talk) 23:44, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
Ps, a large amount of the attitudes the painting was reacting against is really well satirised here. Ceoil (talk) 23:57, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

RedWarn

Hi! I noticed you using Twinkle, which I have some gripes with, so recently I have tried to solve in my new tool called RedWarn.

The RedWarn project was built with the aims to:
1. Make moderating Wikipedia more accessible in order to minimise the amount of vandalism or disruptive editing on the platform
2. Simplify many processes while also providing previews and descriptions in order to reduce errors
3. Make reverting edits as fast as possible without the need of any additional software


I am currently looking for editors who would be willing to test a very early version of it. If you are interested, let me know by either using the "Reply to" template or leaving a message on my talk page. If not, feel free to remove this message. JamesHSmith6789 (talk) 20:05, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Issue 38, January – April 2020

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 38, January – April 2020

  • New partnership
  • Global roundup

Read the full newsletter

On behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --15:58, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Eliza Acton

The difficulty is that as the text stands presently is picked up by spellchecking. My edit seems the least intrusive / most invisible way to get round it. Could you pl reconsider? Ingratis (talk) 17:36, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

No. Firstly I don't care what "spellchecking" picks up (do you mean spell checking software)? We highlight, by use of the text in place, that she spelled it in what we now consider to be an incorrect manner. Anyone actually reading the text is left in no doubt what the situation actually is. - SchroCat (talk) 17:47, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
This is exactly what "sic" is for but I'm not interested enough in this to argue with you.Ingratis (talk) 17:52, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
Good. I too am aware of what sic is for, but given the fact we explain the spelling within the text, there seems no point in taking this any further. - SchroCat (talk) 17:57, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Portrait of Adele Bloch-Bauer I

The article Portrait of Adele Bloch-Bauer I you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Portrait of Adele Bloch-Bauer I for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Vami IV -- Vami IV (talk) 02:01, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Cradock

--Tal1962 (talk) 07:52, 8 May 2020 (UTC)You keep vandalizing my information for Fanny Cradock and removing LOTS of data. I will keep adding it until you cease.

Tal1962, as I have mentioned in the edit summary, on the article talk page and on your own talk page: the information has been moved, not removed. It is all on the page Works of Fanny Cradock. Please stop dumping the poorly formatted and largely unreferenced rubbish back onto the page. - SchroCat (talk) 07:54, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
Tal1962, As you are not reading what I have said, and as you have seen fit to edit war rather than discuss, I have opened an RfC on this matter. I'd still love you to try to report me for what you think I've done - it could be educational for you to find out that moving information to a new and better page is not "vandalism", no matter how many times you say it is. - SchroCat (talk) 08:25, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Apologies

I want to apologize for what I said to you (and others) in March. Have a good one! StrangeloveFan101 (talk) 11:48, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Thank you StrangeloveFan101, that is good of you. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 15:11, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:SchroCat/Archive_29&oldid=999108249"