Jump to content

User talk:SchroCat/Archive 18

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 15Archive 16Archive 17Archive 18Archive 19Archive 20→Archive 25

Question

Have you got anything that needs reviewing, at PR or something? I'm looking for work, as my current nom is resting silently among the tumbleweeds. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:19, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Enthiran promoted

Happy to inform you that Enthiran is promoted! My first FA success! — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 13:54, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Please close

The peer review of Stefanie Rabatsch. Cheers in advance. :) Jonas Vinther • (speak to me!) 14:01, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you want me to do as you closed the PR on 29 March... – SchroCat (talk) 16:30, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I believed I did so too, but on the peer review page it says it's still open (notice the category). Jonas Vinther • (speak to me!) 17:42, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
It wasn't closed properly - should use the tag I've dropped in there now. - SchroCat (talk) 15:45, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Clanger

I shall be most grateful (and not a little astonished) if you don't make fun of the silly old fool too mercilessly at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of scheduled monuments in West Somerset/archive1. Ever yours, Tim riley talk 18:49, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

All sorted. Still, it's a good enough list to vote on it twice... - SchroCat (talk) 22:37, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Gimmebot

Hey, so I was closing an FLR (Spike Lee filmography) and in the instructions it talked about Gimmebot, which hasn't run in a couple years. It also looked like the last FLR to close had to be manually archived/talk page updated. Are the "bot" steps in the instructions done manually now, or is there another bot running? (I went ahead and manually finished this one.) --PresN 18:17, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

I tend not to worry abou the next steps. There is either a new bot that sweeps through, or a kindly editor takes the necessary steps. - SchroCat (talk) 18:21, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Jarrow March

I've just nominated this article at WP:FAC. It had a good peer review, but I would really like some fresh eyes on it – and if you have time, a sources review perhaps? Brianboulton (talk) 23:17, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

My pleasure on both! - SchroCat (talk) 07:22, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
The peer review was open for one day only?♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:57, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
I think it was a week Doc. - SchroCat (talk) 11:07, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
Ah I see, nobody commented after the first day! I didn't know about it so couldn't have commented! ♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:26, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
Well, doctor, the FAC seems to have died somewhat, so please feel free to have a go at it now. Brianboulton (talk) 18
59, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
Will do tomorrow or Thursday, you are permitted to email me or leave a message on my talk page you know though, I won't bite or send you into the piranha tank!♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:02, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

The final FLC nom of a list of Scheduled monuments in Somerset

As you have kindly added comments to one or more of the FLC nominations of Scheduled monuments in Somerset I wanted to let you know that the final list, List of scheduled monuments in Mendip, is nomination for Featured List status at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of scheduled monuments in Mendip/archive1. If you had any comments that would be great.— Rod talk 20:22, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Invitation

I'd like to invite you to join the WikiProject R&B and Soul Music. We are currently on demand for new members, the project was dying, but with your help we can revive it and make it one of the best WikiProjects. Make me sure that you'll think about this and remember cooperative works can do amazing things. Regards Dfrr (talk) 00:37, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 April 2015

List of Adolf Hitler's personal staff

Please retract the FL-candidate. Cheers in advance, Jonas Vinther • (speak to me!) 13:19, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Books and Bytes - Issue 11

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 11, March-April 2015
by The Interior (talk · contribs), Ocaasi (talk · contribs), Sadads (talk · contribs), Nikkimaria (talk · contribs)

  • New donations - MIT Press Journals, Sage Stats, Hein Online and more
  • New TWL coordinators, conference news, and new reference projects
  • Spotlight: Two metadata librarians talk about how library professionals can work with Wikipedia

Read the full newsletter



MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:31, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Hey. Multiple points.

Hey SchroCat. I just saw that Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of awards and nominations received by Lorde/archive3 was promoted, and even though my initial comments had been carried out by the nominator, I've just seen that as a result I had issues with how the new lead was written, but the nomination has been promoted before I got a chance to go back to the nomination as I've been away for 3 days (a notice was on my talk), and thus only just seen it. I was on the way to supporting, but I still feel that the lead has multiple issues and has been promoted prematurely (was only nominated on April 18) and with very little comment and very little support (what I mean is, only three supports), and, as such, I would not have supported until further work was carried out on the lead. This leads me on to me next point. My own nomination, Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of songs recorded by Ariana Grande/archive1, has been open since March 8 (two months tomorrow), has six supports, and has had all issues presented by Crisco, Rambling and Harrias addressed, and yet prior to today, had no activity between April 26 and yesterday, despite all issues by those three editors being implemented, which I would have thought would have resulted in the list being promoted at some point since April 26. Which leads me back to Lorde's nomination, as I'm surprised at how quickly that one was pushed through, with very little input from other editors, and when my comments hadn't been fully addressed.  — ₳aron 12:14, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi Aaron, I didn't see your part thread was still ongoing (and I wouldn't have checked a reviewer's talk page anyway). It's not the end of the world: FLs and FAs are not set in stone, so you can still continue the discussion on the talk page, or dip in and edit yourself if you feel like it. In terms of the Grande list, as I've already told you, I have recused myself from delegate action on this, so it's up to PresN or Giants to take the appropriate steps when closing. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 12:55, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
Okay, thanks. But if I was to edit the lead myself, I think I would be changing it too much from what was originally deemed as worthy of promotion. I'll ping Giants2008 and PresN save me copying and pasting and explaining two more times.  — ₳aron 13:46, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
There's no golden handcuff on any form of the article: you can edit any of them, even if it is recently promoted. Discuss the changes with the nominator on the article's talk page: he'll see that you're acting purely in good faith for the benefit of the article and you can agree on the changes there. Feel free to point this thread out to them if it helps. - SchroCat (talk) 14:00, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
I'll take a look at Grande today or tomorrow; I wanted to wait until I had enough time to read through the list before deciding to promote. --PresN 14:51, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
Have you had a chance yet PresN ?  — Calvin999 09:55, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 06 May 2015

Re : Liberal Democrats

I understand and appreciate your revert, in accordance with the guidelines of English Wikipedia. Yet, it would be grateful if you can note that owing to the general election, the respective sections can be updated very quickly. Therefore, I think a temporary empty section would not harm, and many other users including me, will be adding more related content properly. I would show better respects for actual and meaningful contribution in terms of content.Universehk (talk) 07:39, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

A title - and a neutrally worded one - can be added when the content is added, not just added and left blank. And please try and write the content in line with normal English and the MoS. - SchroCat (talk) 07:47, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

"Giovanni Paolo Panini – Modern Rome.jpg" have been nominated to be delisted

Link to delisting nomination--Craigboy (talk) 11:43, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Comment Requested

Comment requested in response to "Beyond WP:AOBF do you have any justification for keeping a lower resolution image with inaccurate colors featured?"--Craigboy (talk) 22:28, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

I have wasted enough time on your spurious actions. Your two deletes on the Commons files were speedily closed for being, frankly, ridiculous, and so far no-one considers your delisting of the images to hold any merit at all. The second version of this image, held in the Musee d'Orsay matches these colours, as does the official version put out by the Met. You have tweaked the colours and are misrepresenting the image. Enough is enough. Time for you to move onto something more constructive. - SchroCat (talk) 07:17, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Irataba FAC3

Irataba is back at FAC: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Irataba/archive3. We look forward to your comments there. RO(talk) 16:23, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 13 May 2015

RS

Would you consider Project Gutenberg gutenberg.org a reliable source? LADY LOTUS • TALK 13:42, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

  • As per the above! As the texts they hold are out of copyright, you can often find an original copy of the book at Google Books, Open Library, Archive.org (who hold loads of book texts), or even Amazon (using the "Look Inside" feature, or a free kindle book, if the source is old enough). Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 13:53, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 20 May 2015

Bligh

Hello SchroCat, how goes it? Brian and I have done quite a bit of work on the Mutiny on the Bounty article and now have it at peer review here. We would greatly appreciate any thoughts you might have if you can find the time. Cheers! —  Cliftonian (talk)  21:54, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Will do! Im away for a few days, but I'll be there when I can. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 13:21, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Audrey Hepburn role BN search request

Hi. Hope you're well. I recently completed the career history of Audrey Hepburn but am missing a source for an appearance on Sunday Night Theatre on the BBC. Her role was named as Celia and she appeared in the episode: "The Silent Village". My searches have determined that it is lost television program with no recording existing but I was wondering if it was mentioned in a old British newspaper such as a TV listing. I seem to remember that you have access to old British newspapers. Could you search for it? A bit of a long shot but the only place I can think of. Cowlibob (talk) 04:50, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

This piqued my interest Cowlibob. I hope you wont mind if I add that it probably aired on 5 August 1951. Yes this comes from IMDb so it should be taken with a grain of salt but I thought it might help SchroCat to narrow the search a bit. Thanks for your work on all things Audrey C and cheers to you both. MarnetteD|Talk 05:14, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
Second thoughts, no need now. Found refs for it. BBC's Genome project is a great resource. Cowlibob (talk) 06:52, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
Hi to you both. I hope you've got what you need as I'm away for a few days with only limited access to things (including Internet access!) the BBC a Genome is fantastic for the BBC, but doesn't cover the other stations in the UK, so if you need anything in future, let me know and I'll hunt around for you. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 11:20, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Oscar winners indication and accessibility

HesioneHushabye seems to have a problem with the markup for the winners in the Academy Award for Best Actress (particularly the double daggers). Can you explain to him that it is for accessibility reasons)?

--Birdienest81 (talk) 19:24, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 May 2015

Burning of Parliament

Hello Schrocat - have made a few suggestions for the above to try to address the concerns raised. Really hope they work for you and deal with the issues that are standing in the way of FA. Very happy, of course, to amend as you wish and can add the necessary Pevsner references as required. Best regards. KJP1 (talk) 17:13, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Biographies

Hey, SchroCat,
You work on a lot of biographies and I'm hoping you can answer a question about this edit to Peter Sellers. Is it true that this information format is no longer used on biographies? Thanks for any answer you can offer. Liz Read! Talk! 21:17, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

I think I saw a bot removing this from biographies last week. CassiantoTalk 21:20, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
Hi Liz, Yes there was an RfC at RfC: Should Persondata template be deprecated and methodically removed from articles? All because of the hideous and deeply flawed nonsense that is Wikidata which mistakes data for knowledge and facts for understanding, without ever really understanding the difference. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 21:38, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
Good to know, thanks. I don't visit the Village Pump very often so I missed this. Much appreciated! Liz Read! Talk! 22:24, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

June 2015

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Burning of Parliament may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • of the Clerk of the House and the Speaker's House, were devastated.{sfn|Bradley|Pevsner|2003|p=214}} Other buildings, such as the Law Courts, were badly damaged.<ref name="Times report 18th" /> The

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 10:35, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Uh...

Enough. I am sick and tired of the stupidity over IBs and will not have discussions about them on my TP.- SchroCat (talk) 11:18, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

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.

You said I was calling you a liar. I was not calling you a liar. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 08:37, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

I wouldn't worry what somebody as inept as User:Baseball Bugs has to say, just looking at his contribution history says it all. Does bugger all to improve the encyclopedia and spends all his time on here trolling forums. He relishes an opportunity to attack decent content contributors which he sees as some sort of arrogant A-team. He sees me, Eric and other featured article contributors as some sort of sinister "gang" which are a threat to public order or something and always get their own way. I'd not had any previous beef with him to my knowledge but I saw a negative remark from him along those lines a few months back during the Coffee thing which I found odd. It's jealousy above anything.♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:59, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Being a good content contributor does not exempt a user from the restrictions on using rollback. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 09:03, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
I would say that you're not welcome here Bugs, so please disappear. CassiantoTalk 09:04, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
I was helping to revert vandalism against SchroCat's page, or this page wouldn't be on my radar at all. If SchroCat wants me to stop posting here, I will. But it's not your call to make. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 09:08, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
Oh let him speak, I want to get to the root of why he loathes me and several others here. I probably did something to offend him in the Jurassic period and he's not forgotten. I'm a pretty fair guy, obviously you've not seen that from our previous interactions Baseball Bugs.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:06, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
People who troll arguments seldom ever need a reason to do anything Doc. CassiantoTalk 09:08, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
I don't loathe anyone here. And I've had rollback longer than you've even been here, and am always aware of what its boundaries are. I don't "forget". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 09:10, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
You've made it very clear you dislike me and other contributors here for whatever reason. I wish you'd spend more time writing and commenting on content rather than editors, but you're one of many. Knowledge Kid especially needs to start doing that. We're an encyclopedia at the end of the day, content matters above all the nonsense. Our readers care little if somebody used a rollback function more than once or whatever.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:18, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
And our readers would probably like to see infoboxes where there aren't any. I don't dislike anyone here. Don't confuse my challenging words with genuine dislike. And don't tell me that the rollback rule doesn't matter. It does matter. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 09:24, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
Infoboxes vary wildly in actual use and benefit for readers though don't they? It a lot of cases they're essential, things like aircraft and boats, settlements, even athletes. In arts biographies though more often than not they seem to function more as furniture pieces rather than really benefiting our readers.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:44, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
Have you surveyed the readers? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 11:03, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
@Baseball Bugs:: "And our readers would probably like to see infoboxes where there aren't any" - did you survey them or was that original research on your part? SagaciousPhil - Chat 11:13, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict) No, but neither have you. Comments from drive-by editors and IPs are aplit wherever I've seen them, so it's pointless trying to claim you know better. Enough on this. I want no more IB idiocy on this page. - SchroCat (talk) 11:18, 5 June 2015 (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.

The Signpost: 03 June 2015

Anushka Sharma

Hey, can you please review it for GA? - Yashthepunisher (talk) 19:22, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

PR

I'm totally jealous of the idea that you'll get some decent review time at PR. Last two times I had junk or nothing. But good luck, I'll take a look too if you like, I can do prose... The Rambling Man (talk) 21:08, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Cheers RM, the more the merrier as far as I'm concerned! Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 22:30, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library needs you!

The Wikipedia Library

Call for Volunteers

The Wikipedia Library is expanding, and we need your help! With only a couple of hours per week, you can make a big difference in helping editors get access to reliable sources and other resources. Sign up for one of the following roles:

  • Account coordinators help distribute research accounts to editors.
  • Partner coordinators seek donations from new partners.
  • Outreach coordinators reach out to the community through blog posts, social media, and newsletters or notifications.
  • Technical coordinators advise on building tools to support the library's work.
Sign up to help here :)

Delivered on behalf of The Wikipedia Library by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:16, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Wodehouse image

Are you sure that is Wodehouse in 1904? The source says it is him arriving in US in 1930. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:44, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

  • Sorry, I've just realised you were talking about the caption, which I had neglected to change. Thankfully someone else has sorted this for me. – SchroCat (talk) 06:21, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
File:Wodehouse with Gest Comstock Bolton and Kern circa 1917.jpg for you. :-) We hope (talk) 23:56, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
  • The solo image isn't as good as the one in the group, but I think I'd go for it in the lead, just because it is a solo image. I'd unhesitatingly ditch the Oh, Boy! image for the group shot. I only put the Oh, Boy one in to break up one of my slabs of prose: it doesn't in all truth illuminate the text much. Loud applause to We hope for this miraculous conjuring of two excellent PD images. (I spent hours on the case and failed dismally.) I think we can fit the 1904 image, without undue cramping, under the book cover of the boy racers if we move the latter up to the top of the section. Just my two penn'orth. Tim riley talk 15:30, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks

And you know why; I am not certain what has caused the recent kerfuffle. In the meantime, could you recommend a specialist in copyright? I have a few questions about adding an image, and I know that there is a minefield when going for Fair Use. Cheers! Scr★pIronIV 19:23, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Looks like someone hassling for little reason – and I don't know why there's the petty harassment. All very odd! The best person to discuss images with is Crisco 1492, who is something of an ace in those matters. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 19:58, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Another thanks

I know that I pinged one but let me add a full thanks for this. When I found that the reason behind my revert was flawed I thought I better revert that and rely on your having a handle on the situation so that you could get the article where it belonged. Cheers and have a pleasant weekend. MarnetteD|Talk 00:08, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Cheers for your actions. As always the talk page is the best place, although with the info well sourced in the relevant section, I'm not sure it'll be a long conversation! Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 00:21, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 10 June 2015

The thing is...

...if there is no "clique", then how come I knew, without looking, which editors were going to turn up on Cassianto's page to gripe? Meanwhile, I would say Chillum's well-meaning page protection was probably not needed, as it's often better to just let user talk page sniping run its course. But it's still advisable to have a separate, non-protected talk page. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:14, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Lest there be any confusion, I am not accusing anyone of sockpuppetry. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:57, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

It is odd that when one arrives, another follows. It happens frequently at the Ref desks, and at ITN too. It's like some kind of odd off-wiki alliance, maybe even socks are involved!! The Rambling Man (talk) 19:52, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Carin II

FYI, File:HMS Royal Albert FL18342.jpg probably doesn't depict Carin II. The sources are thin but the picture appears to depict a seized German customs vessel, which was also named Royal Albert for a time. Best, Mackensen (talk) 18:09, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Mackensen, I've looked into some archived images of Carin II, and you are entirely right that this isn't a picture of it - sadly. I cant find a PD image of it anywhere, which is a shame. Thanks for letting me know. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 06:53, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Bots


You are receiving this message because a technical change may affect a bot, gadget, or user script you have been using. The breaking change involves API calls. This change has been planned for two years. The WMF will start making this change on 30 June 2015. A partial list of affected bots can be seen here: https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/2015-June/081931.html This includes all bots that are using pywikibot compat. Some of these bots have already been fixed. However, if you write user scripts or operate a bot that uses the API, then you should check your code, to make sure that it will not break.

What, exactly, is breaking? The "default continuation mode" for action=query requests to api.php will be changing to be easier for new coders to use correctly. To find out whether your script or bot may be affected, then search the source code (including any frameworks or libraries) for the string "query-continue". If that is not present, then the script or bot is not affected. In a few cases, the code will be present but not used. In that case, the script or bot will continue working.

This change will be part of 1.26wmf12. It will be deployed to test wikis (including mediawiki.org) on 30 June, to non-Wikipedias (such as Wiktionary) on 1 July, and to all Wikipedias on 2 July 2015.

If your bot or script is receiving the warning about this upcoming change (as seen at https://www.mediawiki.org/w/api.php?action=query&list=allpages ), it's time to fix your code!

Either of the above solutions may be tested immediately, you'll know it works because you stop seeing the warning.

Do you need help with your own bot or script? Ask questions in e-mail on the mediawiki-api or wikitech-l mailing lists. Volunteers at m:Tech or w:en:WP:Village pump (technical) or w:en:Wikipedia:Bot owners' noticeboard may also be able to help you.

Are you using someone else's gadgets or user scripts? Most scripts are not affected. To find out if a script you use needs to be updated, then post a note at the discussion page for the gadget or the talk page of the user who originally made the script. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 19:04, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

SchroCat, I'm popping by to draw this past debate to your attention to a past dispute I was in regarding the editor who has the issue with redlinks in navboxes. While you and I appear to see eye to eye on the current redlink issue, we have had differences of opinion on other issues in the past, so I'm seeking feedback from you because of that (no one will accuse you of being in my "hallelujah chorus," LOL)! My question is this: On the redlinks issue, are we are best off just discussing the issue as is being done at present, or should action against the individual be looked at. I feel it is best that ** I ** not be the one do so, as he just took me to ANI over this, but ‎Dr. Blofeld mentioned the possibility. On the Horse breeds of France template, the debate then was over bidirectionality and redlinks both, and there too we had the issue of a guideline quietly being edited and then the same editor who changed the guideline going in and trying to invoke changes based on it. Frankly, in spite of what appears to be evidence to the contrary, I actually don't like to waste endless bandwidth on dramas, (the infobox wars are a case in point; everyone just battled into sheer exhaustion) yet sometimes a restriction on a clear pot-stirring pattern does a lot of good (such as here) but sometimes going after a single editor is just dogpiling on a scapegoat and doesn't solve the problem. Your thoughts? Montanabw(talk) 17:57, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 17 June 2015

Burning of Parliament

Hooray and congratulations! KJP1 (talk) 05:48, 22 June 2015 (UTC) KJP1 (talk) 05:48, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Ditto, a tremendous effort! CassiantoTalk 05:52, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
Exceedingly well done! Congrats!♦ Dr. Blofeld 06:27, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Many thanks to you all - very much appreciated! Thanks especially to you, KJP1, for your clarifications and help on the architectural side of matters, and for stepping into the fray with some timely and excellent additions. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 06:30, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

TFL notification

Hi, SchroCat. I just chose one of the lists you've worked on – List of works by Sax Rohmer – to appear on the Main Page on July 13. The TFL blurb can be seen here. Feel free to tweak it as necessary. Giants2008 (Talk) 02:22, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Cheers Giants2008, much appreciated. - SchroCat (talk) 07:40, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Reference errors on 24 June

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:22, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 24 June 2015

Thanks very much...

...for your support over at my RfA. I shall strive to be worthy of the trust which has been placed in me. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 08:16, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

  • My pleasure. I rarely venture to RfAs, but have been there twice recently for good-quality people who really don't deserve to be lumbered with the mop, but who will make good and balanced use of it when they do! Good luck with it all. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 08:33, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Oh noes

[1] What a "down"er. ;-) 50.0.136.194 (talk) 19:31, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Ah well, one life down - another eight to go... - SchroCat (talk) 08:36, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Harry Potter

Hi,

Just for clarity, when you say "especially when your arguments are being supported by anyone else", do you mean "especially when your arguments are not being supported by anyone else"?

Cheers. Chaheel Riens (talk) 10:04, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

List of people who were killed or injured in the 20 July plot

Could you please promote it to FL-status? Enough people have voted on the second FL-review page. Cheers in advance. Jonas Vinther • (Click here to collect your price!) 17:50, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

No. There are three supports and one oppose after 11 days. When I see nominators throwing away comments like "Enough people have already given a support vote so there is no need for me to act upon your latest comment, but thanks anyway", there is no way on earth I would fast-track a promotion. Deal with the comments that are there, deal with any others that come up at any stage, and if there are sufficient supports, no opposes, all comments have been dealt with and the nomination goes quiet for 4 or 5 days, I'll re-look at it. - SchroCat (talk) 08:29, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
Very well, I understand, then please withdraw the nomination; ain't gonna wait almost week! Jonas Vinther • (Click here to collect your price!) 11:10, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
The average FLC runs for a month to six weeks. It goes that long to ensure that it has has enough opportunity for the community to see it and make comments designed to improve the page, which is one of the main goals of the process. Are you sure you want me to withdraw the nomination just because you don't want to wait for the normal amount of time for it to run? - SchroCat (talk) 11:14, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
Yup. Jonas Vinther • (Click here to collect your price!) 11:16, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

* Next time you want to go to FLC, please think carefully about whether it is the right forum for you, and that remember that this is not a fast-track system. It angers me when nominators do not have the patience to allow others to view and comment on their work, but are simply chasing the bronze star. You've wasted the time and efforts of the reviewers who took part, which I think is rather disrespectful to them - especially when you choose to ignore reviewers coming in good faith, telling them that the list has enough support for you to bother looking at their comments: that is not a collegiate or respectful way to treat the thoughts of your fellow editors. - SchroCat (talk) 11:23, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

It angers me that people, including yourself, assume that I don't care or take the nomination serious when I realize what should be obvious to everyone. I suppose every single edit I've made to article has been semi-vandalism and loathed by the entire community. Oh well! Jonas Vinther • (Click here to collect your price!) 11:26, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
To be honest, the way you treat the FLC system and the nominators who visit the list in good faith angers me immensely, and I really don't care whether your feelings are hurt by someone saying that to you. If you want to go to FLC again, think very hard about it, and take on board that you may have to wait for up to two months for the consensus to develop. This is, like everything on here, a consensus-driven process, and not something that exists simply to rubber-stamp what you want to happen in the timeframe that you want it to happen. - SchroCat (talk) 11:31, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
No worries at all, won't be visiting the FLC system again. Jonas Vinther • (Click here to collect your price!) 15:16, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Kww and The Rambling Man Arbitration Case Opening

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kww and The Rambling Man. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kww and The Rambling Man/Evidence. Please add your evidence by July 13, 2015, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kww and The Rambling Man/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Liz Read! Talk! 18:29, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

JC's Girls

Hi Gavin,

Might you be willing to review an article I currently have up for featured status? It's called JC's Girls. Any constructive comments you might leave at the discussion would be greatly appreciated.

Neelix (talk) 20:06, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi there - good to see you back. Yes, I'd be delighted to have a look: I'll be there, probably tomorrow. – SchroCat (talk) 22:20, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

A double request

I have just sent The Ordeal of Gilbert Pinfold to WP:FAC after a very brief talkpage review which I didn't bother you with (you were battling the Burning of Parliament at the time). If you can add some brief comments to the FAC I'd be very pleased. At the same time I have opened a peer review for Jeremy Thorpe, a rather more substantial article, and would greatly appreciate any comments you can make there. Brianboulton (talk) 22:32, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

I'd be delighted to attend both in the next few days. It's good,timing: the heavy lifting on the Hitler Diaries is done, and I'll be taking it to PR in a week or so, after some cutting and pruning. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 22:35, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Peter Sellers

Sorry to bother you, but could you explain to me what consensus was actually reached in that talk discussion? Maybe I am missing something, but there was nothing regarding a collapsed infobox. Jhogins (talk) 20:33, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

What a waste of time and effort. You will need to look in the archives. There was a long discussion about whether to have an idiot box at all after it had been removed (without the whole of Wikipedia falling into a black hole). The close consensus was to revert to the previous version, which was the collapsed IB. it was accepted by all as the best compromise, and I doubt if anyone will thank you for pushing the agenda on it once again. If you do, then the question of whether to improve the article by removing the IB once more is bound to come up. – SchroCat (talk) 22:03, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
Ah. My interest in this arises as a result of what appears to be several Wikipedians challenging this consensus and you, for the most part, ignoring them. It seems the user K_scheik was the only one to start a discussion, but he/she did point out several other editors who had tried to edit this out, to no avail. I don't understand where your hatred for infoboxes stems from, after all, they're pretty standard throughout wikipedia. Jhogins (talk) 22:27, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
I have no "hatred" for IBs, so please don't try and misrepresent me again. You need to look a little more deeply than that thread. Some people lie IBs (I'm one of them: I,think,they are fantastic in the right places, but not everywhere). They are not "pretty standard" by any stretch and often do.mor heard than good, by dumbing a subject down to pointless factoids devoid of any context. I have no,wish to discuss this any further, as pointless discussions on something so minor and pointless takes up way too much time. - SchroCat (talk) 22:33, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
I'm not misrepresenting you, you called them "idiot boxes" in this thread, just now, less that three hours before you wrote your response. They're by far commonplace throughout wikipedia, in fact, as one of the users in the discussion pointed out, every person linked in the Peter Sellers article has an infobox, except for Peter Sellers. Infoboxes do not dumb down a subject, as K_scheik pointed out, the average attention span of a web user is now only 45 seconds. This statistic may be a little conservative as a quick search reveals it to be closer to 6-8 seconds. [2][3] However, my point is, the vast majority of people who go on wikipedia are looking for a single fact, not to read the entire article. I personally enjoy reading interesting articles, but these simple, basic, arguably essential factoids should be readily available, without the user having to click on anything. Jhogins (talk) 00:03, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
Dan Leno, a featured article, who features towards the end of the Sellers article, doesn't have an infobox. Please get your facts right. CassiantoTalk 07:32, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
I'm not a patient man, so instead of troubling you with writing a response, I'll start a discussion on talk page. Jhogins (talk) 01:13, 2 July 2015 (UTC)


I have none either, especially in single-issue POV-pushing time wasters who don't know their facts and who misrepresent my words. Coming up with nonsense like "as one of the users in the discussion pointed out, every person linked in the Peter Sellers article has an infobox" shows how little you know or read: that argument was shown to to be untrue than and still is now.

Don't bother coming back: I have better things to do with my time than argue about bloody IBs again and again. Do something useful with your time rather than stirring up a pot that no-one wants to see stirred. – SchroCat (talk) 06:22, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 01 July 2015

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:SchroCat/Archive_18&oldid=1258065603"