Jump to content

User talk:SchroCat/Archive 21

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 15←Archive 19Archive 20Archive 21Archive 22Archive 23→Archive 25

Merry Christmas

Best wishes for the holidays...

Season's Greetings
Wishing you a Happy Holiday Season, and all best wishes for the New Year! Hafspajen (talk) 11:53, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Happy Christmas!

Happy Christmas!
Have a happy holiday season. May the year ahead be productive and happy. John (talk) 18:37, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Isabella Beeton

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:01, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 December 2015

Nadolig Llawen

Martinevans123Santas Grotto ... sends you warmest wishes for a:

"Nadolig Llawen a Blwyddyn Newydd Dda"

May the true spirit of Christmas bless you with warmth and peace! ... And "Mele Kalikimaka" (Hawaiian Merry Christmas)!!

Season's Greetings

 Wishing you a Charlie Brown
Charlie Russell Christmas! 🎄
Best wishes for your Christmas
Is all you get from me
'Cause I ain't no Santa Claus
Don't own no Christmas tree.
But if wishes was health and money
I'd fill your buck-skin poke
Your doctor would go hungry
An' you never would be broke."
—C.M. Russell, Christmas greeting 1914.
Montanabw(talk)

2016

Happy New Year 2016!
Did you know ... that back in 1885, Wikipedia editors wrote Good Articles with axes, hammers and chisels?

Thank you for your contributions to this encyclopedia using 21st century technology. I hope you don't get any unneccessary blisters.
   – Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:44, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Happy New Year, SchroCat!

Happy New Year!

SchroCat,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. –Davey2010 Merry Xmas / Happy New Year 10:44, 1 January 2016 (UTC)


Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

List of James Bond films

There has been a mass (or should that be "mess"?) of SPA/IP edits at List of James Bond films, including the addition of quite possibly the most horrendous infobox you have possibly ever seen. I have started a discussion at the talk page, although I don't think there is much to discuss, frankly. Anyway I am giving you the heads up because I think I'm going to have my hands full. Nothing like kicking of a new year with a juicy edit war... Betty Logan (talk) 08:09, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Truly, truly awful! There is too little merit in that one for addition, and I was left utterly confused by it (and that's from someone who knows a fair amount about Bond!) - SchroCat (talk) 08:20, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

I was only trying to put up to date information plus I wasn't completely done with it yet. Why doesn't the 007 franchise have an the infobox, but oher franchises do? I used the Fast and Furious one as a template to put the Bond info in there. (162.206.28.243 (talk) 20:35, 31 December 2015 (UTC))

  • Firstly the Bond series is not a franchise: it is a film series. Secondly the method you used to try and work out the up to date values was questionable. Thirdly not every article has to have an IB, and in this case it is not a helpful addition to the page. – SchroCat (talk) 09:03, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Can you please not undo my edits on my user page please. I am trying to stay away from the mess of the past and from you guys. Also, the infobox is now on my user page so I don't have to go to other articles and interfere with them. I also know alot about Bond and I am a fan of the series. That user page belongs to me and I created it for a purpose. Thanks (Mi600740 (talk) 03:57, 2 January 2016 (UTC))

Again, please leave my user page alone, Thanks (Mi600740 (talk) 08:05, 2 January 2016 (UTC))

I have left a message on your talk page explainning just why you are not able to to use copyrighted images on your user page. – SchroCat (talk) 08:08, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Isabella Beeton

The article Isabella Beeton you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Isabella Beeton 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 Dr. Blofeld -- Dr. Blofeld (talk) 22:43, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Happy New Year, SchroCat!

Happy New Year!

SchroCat,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, old amigo, and thanks for your good and careful contributions to Wikipedia! --Tenebrae (talk) 01:02, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Peer review

My email is playing silly buggers, and I think you may not have had a brief note I sent a day or so concurring that the PR seems to have run its course. On to FAC once I've done that one fact-check at the British Library! Tim riley talk 17:17, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Excellent—and there was me thinking you were ignoring my rambling whining! I'll pull the plug on the PR and await BL developments. Pip pip – SchroCat (talk) 18:00, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Invitation to a virtual editathon on Women in Music

Women in Music
  • 10 to 31 January 2016
  • Please join us in the worldwide virtual edit-a-thon hosted by Women in Red.

--Ipigott (talk) 16:29, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 06 January 2016

January 2016

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Isabella Beeton may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"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:
  • lb. of salt, 1 oz. of black pepper, a few raspings, 10 gallons of water."{{sfn|Beeton|1861|p=65}}}}}} her sister later recalled that Isabella "was busy making [the] soup for the poor, and the children

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 14:43, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

PR request

User:SchroCat/litter tray 16

could you remove this page from Category:Pages using duplicate arguments in template calls. I tried to do it for you, by removing the duplicate "Author = ???", but apparently, you didn't like the fix. thank you. Frietjes (talk) 14:43, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

You can remove it from the Category page if you wish, but please don't remove fields work in my userspace. Thanks - SchroCat (talk) 14:45, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
fixed again. you just need to make sure that 'Author =' doesn't appear twice. you can do this by changing one to something else, commenting it out, or removing it. Frietjes (talk) 14:49, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

AWK - report from British Library sortie

The Scholes book is simply a collection of extracts from The Musical Times, and the one on his p. 493 is taken from the December 1929 issue, page 1097. Scholes missed out the envoi about AWK's own feelings, which I think is rather a pity. It's definitely worth a mention in the life section, I think, but it's your call, natch. Tim riley talk 13:36, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Tim riley, Is this OK for you? Feel free to tweak as you will. If you're OK with it, or with your edit to it, I'll drop it into FAC if you agree? - SchroCat (talk) 14:14, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
Fine with me, and bring on the FAC! Tim riley talk 15:19, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
And we're off! - SchroCat (talk) 15:30, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Could you spare a moment to visit Wikipedia:Peer review/Handel's lost Hamburg operas/archive1? Not for the purpose of providing a review (although you are most welcome) but to comment on an oddity that arises at the end of Tim's review. Very strange. Brianboulton (talk) 21:47, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Explained! I'll pop along shortly for a review too. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 22:05, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 13 January 2016

Lost operas

Handel's lost Hamburg operas has found its way to FAC, where further wise observations will be welcomed. Brianboulton (talk) 00:17, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Others will provide the wise, I'll just come up with observations! I'll be there shortly. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 08:29, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

PR

A certain old thespian is currently waiting in the wings here for any comments or criticisms. I would be much appreciative for any thoughts offered, if you have the time. Many thanks. CassiantoTalk 00:24, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 20 January 2016

Madonna song article lists opinion

Hi SchroCat, being a FL delegate, I wanted to have your opinion regarding two Madonna lists, List of songs recorded by Madonna and List of unreleased songs recorded by Madonna. The former I am already modifying for FLC, however my concern is should the latter be also merged to the former? Because the latter contains many WP:UNDUE and Non-notable content which borderlines on fanpedia. Please let me know your thoughts on this so that I can progress accordingly. If you think the latter can exist as independent article then I can modify it like List of unreleased songs recorded by Michael Jackson which is a Featured list now. What do you think? —Indian:BIO [ ChitChat ] 12:03, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi SchroCat, did you have a chance to look into it? —Indian:BIO [ ChitChat ] 18:16, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
I think it should be okay, as long as the unreleased list can carry citations from reliable sources. If it can, then you avoid the fanpedia problems, and can happily point toward the MJ lists as it being an appropriate set up for a similarly popular and productive artist. – SchroCat (talk) 20:37, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
Thank you, so I will progress with keeping the former about "recorded songs" and the latter about "unreleased recorded songs". —IB [ Poke ] 12:49, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 January 2016

Dr. No Revisions

I don't believe that it is ever stated in the film that the rocket being launched was manned. M just says it they were 'launching a rocket round the moon.' I could be wrong which it why I didn't revise what you wrote. If I am just let me know. SonOfThornhill (talk) 15:48, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Charlize Theron filmography

Hi. Hope you're well. I've replied to your source review. Thanks. Cowlibob (talk) 18:29, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi Cowlibob, my bad! Sorry about that – I completely forgot to go back when you pinged me. I'll do it now. Thanks for the nudge. – SchroCat (talk) 21:06, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 03 February 2016

A barnstar for you!

The Barnstar of Good Humor
I love the quote on your User page. I always liked Mark Twain. :)

From, Ilovebeaniebabies8804! (talk) 00:27, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. – SchroCat (talk) 22:05, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Birmingham pub bombings

Thanks. Hope I didn't seem 'terse'. I'm aware of some sentences meandering slightly on the article. I just note some editors don't have neutral mindsets, and valuable info. can be lost in mass reverts. K.S. --Kieronoldham (talk) 21:57, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

No problem. I think my edits should have retained neutrality, or made it more neutral, not less. Aside from that, my changes have been focused on the grammatical side of things, rather than changing the focus or altering the neutrality. – SchroCat (talk) 22:04, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
Quite possibly. In fact I agree with neutrality, although I do still take issue with the sentence regarding the PIRA internal investigation reading "conducted an internal investigation which confirmed the bombings had not been sanctioned by the IRA leadership" as that leads the reader to take this as truth (food for thought in the sealing of records pertaining to these attacks, eh?). I think a reinsertion of "he stated confirmed the bombings had not been sanctioned..." would not go amiss. Other than that, good job. Thanks again. Kez.--Kieronoldham (talk) 22:42, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Michael Hordern FAC

...has been started here. Thanks once again for all you help. CassiantoTalk 17:19, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 10 February 2016

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:29, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Daniel Craig/James Bond

Looks like the media has jumped the gun on the current "Daniel Craig quits Bond" story. The Independent reported that he was quitting Bond to take a part in a new TV series, but then "updated" the article with "The Independent has learnt that a decision on whether Craig will return as Bond has not been reached, but if he does appear in Purity it does not necessarily mean he will not be back to play Bond.". Either way the Jams Bond articles are going to take a battering today with all of this unconfirmed speculation. I have already had to remove some from the Spectre article so I'm just giving you the heads up. Betty Logan (talk) 12:12, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Betty - I'll keep an eye open. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 12:41, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Triple TFL

Hi SchroCat. Per WP:TFA oddities, multiple FAs have run in a single blurb on four occasions in the last few years, and one of those did have three FAs. I think the idea of featuring three Barrymores at once is fascinating and would encourage you to explore how the formatting works. TFL has never done something like this before, but I see no reason why it couldn't be done. Giants2008 (Talk) 23:22, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Please may I urge you to reconsider. --Dweller (talk) 10:51, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Please see my answer on the nom. I think that laughing at the greed and foolishness of German and British newsmen who danced to the tune of a second-rate forger is an apt subject for All Fools Day. The nom is open for others to comment how they see the matter, and I'll leave it in place to let a more general consensus develop. Thanks for the note here and on the nom, but I think that it is an appropriate subject for the day. - SchroCat (talk) 11:03, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
That's fine. As I said there, I have no grievance against those with a different perspective. --Dweller (talk) 11:18, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
Thanks Doug, I saw that, and I certainly appreciate your GF in what you've said here and there. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 11:35, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
Errrrrr, I'm not Doug. See the box at the top of my userpage. --Dweller (talk) 13:10, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
Ah, Dweller, apologies for that, but the sentiment on your goodfaith remains the same. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 13:12, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
Cheers. And no worries, common mistake, hence the notice! --Dweller (talk) 13:15, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

The Phantom Tollbooth

When you have a moment, could you look in at the peer review and see if you have any comments? Best,--Wehwalt (talk) 15:24, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Books & Bytes - Issue 15

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 15, December-January 2016
by The Interior (talk · contribs), Ocaasi (talk · contribs), Sadads (talk · contribs), Nikkimaria (talk · contribs), UY Scuti (talk · contribs)

  • New donations - Ships, medical resources, plus Arabic and Farsi resources
  • #1lib1ref campaign summary and highlights
  • New branches and coordinators

Read the full newsletter

The Interior via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:20, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 17 February 2016

Sorry for the phrasing

Having thought about it overnight, although I still oppose mainpaging that article on the April Fool's Day page, I can understand why you objected to the tone of my comments, and I apologize for that. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:02, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your note. Unfortunately it wasn't just the tone of your comment that I found irksome.
  • To dismiss the opinions of everyone else with "I am frankly shocked by some of the support rationales above" when one of the comments is from a current scheduler of TFAs and one from a former scheduler. Pretty much everyone who has commented in thread is a long-standing editor in good standing, and no-one else has needed to sneer at the opinions of others, except you.
  • To utterly dismiss a potential consensus by saying that if you disagree with it, you will ignore it and go behind the community's back to have others over-rule that it is, frankly, arrogant in the extreme.
  • You are not the sole guardian or determiner of what will or will not bring the project into disrepute, and to think that none of those that have supported give a toss about the reputation of something we have all invested heavily in, is mind-numbingly crass and insulting.
This is not to do with your "tone", this runs to something much, much more chilling that I find deeply unpalatable. I really do not wish to continue this any further, as I think your extremely unfortunate posting will have bullied potential supporters of the article, but I doubt you will lose much sleep over that. Well done. – SchroCat (talk) 19:11, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Mortara case

Hi Gavin, hope you're well. If you have a few minutes I have Mortara case up at FAC here—a 19th-century cause célèbre that captured the attention of much of Europe and America for a few years. Any comments would be gratefully received. Cheers, —  Cliftonian (talk)  20:03, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

It will be my pleasure: I'll be there shortly. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 20:05, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

GBS

After weeks of reading and writing, Brian and I have got GBS up for peer review, and you are hereby cordially invited to wade in. Tim riley talk 15:44, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

My pleasure. An Herculean and impressive task by you both! - SchroCat (talk) 17:39, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 24 February 2016

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:04, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Glad

Glad you struck this. Thank you. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 22:29, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Disraeli dispute resolution invitation

Hello. As advised, I seek dispute resolution regarding Disraeli’s assessment, available here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard and you are invited to provide your summary. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.16.1.254 (talk) 17:34, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

You were not advised to go to DR: you were advised to discuss the matter on the talk page. The discussion there is in progress, which is the appropriate venue for all interested parties. - SchroCat (talk) 17:40, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Senghenydd

Hope you don't mind. Collieries (and cotton mills) are my "thing" and on my watchlist. I'm always pleased to see articles on them improved. J3Mrs (talk) 09:59, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Not at all! Always nice to have the rough edges taken off. I'm working on the rest in my user space, so I hope to drop the remaining sections in there as I complete them. Cheers for your work - it's much appreciated. - – SchroCat (talk) 10:02, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
I look forward to reading them. If you need any help with terminology I started Glossary of coal mining terminology although I have no idea how to link it. I think its a good idea to refer to the coal mine as colliery as it can avoid all sorts of confusion. J3Mrs (talk) 10:06, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

J3Mrs You're welcome to contribute towards WP:WikiProject Wales/Awaken the Dragon and tackle some collieries to go towards it. There's some listed as core articles in the economy section of Wikipedia:WikiProject Wales/Awaken the Dragon/Core articles. If contests and prizes aren't your thing you could always just do a an article or two like SchroCat and just be a "participant" in the overall editathon. Entries are welcome between now and end of April.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:01, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Sorry Dr. Blofeld I have no interest whatsoever in editathons or awards. I just do whatever catches my interest on a much reduced scale these days. J3Mrs (talk) 11:26, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
Fair enough, but I don't think either myself, SchroCat or some of the others are generally all that enthralled about participating in "editathons" either, we all generally prefer to work independently and contribute what we want when we like. I do increasingly see how productive editathons can be though and I fully support them on the basis of productivity. The point is some sort of solid effort to get some important articles which might interest some of us up to decent status regardless of a contest or editathon. In 15 years most of the core articles are in an awful state. Some of the really important colleries really badly written and underdeveloped. They really need the work, even if editathons are totally not your thing. The question is, how else do we get people to get the work done? This is why I'm putting in the effort to try to coordinate something to bring about some decent changes. I wish more people would support it and see the bigger picture. If you can think of a better way to get people to bring all the colleries and notable articles up to at least Good article status I'd very much like to hear it!♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:50, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
Dr. Blofeld I don't think I'm to blame for the lack of colliery articles, I've started lots (mostly on the Lancashire Coalfield) and Eric Corbett and I got Bradford Colliery to GA but pertinent information is hard to find. Perhaps more editors would contribute if Wikipedia was more interested in content rather than the dreary politics and political correctness now fashionable. It has driven me away and most of the editors I respect. J3Mrs (talk) 12:14, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
Nope, you're partly the reason why some of them are in good condition like those! And exactly why we need more contributors like you! I agree completely on the " dreary politics and political correctness now fashionable". It's a massive problem for the site and I really think it's time a lot of people woke up to the fact that we're only an encyclopedia. And we're losing a lot of valuable editors because of it. It's just I know a lot of people think editathons or contests are a bit "lame" that's all. I just want to see something in which we can really focus on the core articles and quality and people see the bigger picture. Tower Colliery is likely going to remain like that for at least another five years. If we place a value on it, there's at least more likelihood somebody is going to improve it.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:20, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Indian censorship of Spectre

Hey SchroCat,

Do you mind taking a look at the Spectre talk page? I am questioning the continued inclusion of the film's censorship in India, because I think that it has very little relevance to the article; the way I see it, it amounts to "some users on Twitter were upset that a few seconds were cut", and I have noticed a trend over the past few years where the Indian point of view has been heavily emphasised; 2013 Indian Grand Prix was an excellent example.

However, my attempts at restarting the discussion have been stymied by SonOfThornhill, who refuses to let any discussion take place on the grounds that "a consensus already exists". Worse, he sits on the talk page and responds to everything immediately, cutting others out of the argument before they have a chance to join.

So can you please take a look and tell me what you think? Prisonermonkeys (talk) 06:12, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

I've moved it out of its own section, which fails WEIGHT, but it's still too much to include, tbh, and I've said as much on the talk page. I'd favour removing the damned thing altogether, and no reason why a new consensus shouldn't be reached (except I'm sure we'd see a huge amount of canvassing going on, and visits from people who have never edited or visited the article before! Having to deal with one or two specific editors, particularly the inept and crassly stupid ones, that made me move away from most of the Bond material: the inability to see that WP:CONSENSUSCANCHANGE as a method of trying to force a preferred choice onto a page is only one failing of one of the less useful members of the community. – – SchroCat (talk) 06:46, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for that. You should come to the Formula 1 pages sometime - "consensus" amounts to factions developing and retreating to their respective corners before stating and restating their positions over and again until one side gets exhausted and gives up. And heaven help you if you are persuaded to change your mind by the other side; they'll take that to be flip-flopping and use it to "prove" that your contributions aren't worth the paper they're written on. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 08:18, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 02 March 2016

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:00, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 09 March 2016

Spy-fi

Ever heard of it? Discussion at Talk:James_Bond#Spy-fi requires your wisdom. Betty Logan (talk) 22:17, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Not at all! If its real, it should be easy to find decent industry or academic sources to confirm its existence... – SchroCat (talk) 22:36, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Senghenydd colliery disaster

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Senghenydd colliery disaster 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 Dr. Blofeld -- Dr. Blofeld (talk) 09:40, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Senghenydd colliery disaster

The article Senghenydd colliery disaster you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Senghenydd colliery disaster 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 Dr. Blofeld -- Dr. Blofeld (talk) 13:42, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Civility Barnstar
For setting a good example and maintaining civility.  — Calvin999 11:45, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi Schro. How does the TFA text look? - Dank (push to talk) 19:23, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Source date confusion

Thanks for this. Things got a bit confused there. I had gone through the sources on that article checking various things (not everything, but quite a few things) and made a whole batch of corrections here. That version of the article had 2010 in both places: [1], [2]. That got changed from 2010 to 2009 in this edit. It stayed that way until the introduction got condensed with the ref put back in here. It should be 2009, not 2010 (I am pretty sure of this). I'll put it back to 2009. Talking of source checking, I noticed you did that for the Bernard Shaw article - is there an easier way to check the linking from citation to the full reference works, or is it just a case of clicking every link to make sure it works? I didn't mind doing that for the Pillar article, but it must be difficult for an article like Bernard Shaw with over 300 references. I have a vague memory that there is a script or gadget for this sort of thing. Carcharoth (talk) 01:54, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

@Carcharoth: If all you want to do is check that the URLs work and perhaps check for archived versions when they don't the Checklinks tool will automate the process for you. Very useful for articles with dozens and even hundreds of online refs. Betty Logan (talk) 03:14, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
Carcharoth, sorry for the delay in getting back to you: I thought Betty had covered the main point, but then remembered I also have a script installed that highlights errors in the sfn template. – SchroCat (talk) 15:07, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Pillar calling

I've closed the PR on Nelson's Pillar, and sent the old boy along to FAC. Any further cmts welcome there. Brianboulton (talk) 22:35, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Oh, and could you briefly revisit Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/George Bernard Shaw/archive1, just to confirm whether, as Tim asks, your comment/support there is a full sources check (I know you did the heavy work at the peer review). Brianboulton (talk) 10:10, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Brianboulton, will do. Tim riley, sorry I didn't respond: the ping didn't get through to me, but I'll have another look over them shortly. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 10:30, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Spectre (2015 film)

Has there been plans to nominate this article for GAN yet? Because its been well over a month since its grace period ended and I will have to take the topic its part of to be reassessed. GamerPro64 06:13, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi GamerPro64, not by me, unfortunately. My time is a bit limited at present, and there are too many entrenched editors determined to fight small corners to be able to make a clean overhaul of it without excessive amounts of grief. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 06:59, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
Is it all right if I just go ahead and nominate the topic for review? GamerPro64 03:53, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi GamerPro64, Of course – no problems. cheers – SchroCat (talk) 07:49, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

An image problem

I have just uploaded File:Sodavies.jpg, for the S. O. Davies article, under a fair use rationale. Unfortunately. since changing my laptop I've lost my image adjustment software, and the pic needs some tidying. Specifically, the lettering at bottom right needs to be removed, with perhaps some narrowing of the image. Is it possible for you to find a few minutes to do this? All for the Welsh cause... Brianboulton (talk) 23:48, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi Brian, All done, although let me know if you need anything else doing to it. Ignore the tag that is on there, which is there to alert someone (or something) that the old image can be deleted in a week. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 06:22, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
Thank you, that looks splendid! (Now I have to do the article...) Brianboulton (talk) 09:50, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Kalki Koechlin

Hey, I nominated Kalki Koechlin's article for WP:FA. I saw that you have previously been associated with other Bollywood articles, so your comments would be appreciated. If you find spare time, would you mind taking a look? Thank you! NumerounovedantTalk 18:24, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi Numerounovedant, I'll see if I can spare some time for a review, but I am a little stretched at the moment and may not make it round. Good luck with the nom. - SchroCat (talk) 09:19, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
No problem, Thank you! NumerounovedantTalk 18:57, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Formatting/ References

RE: (cur | prev) 20:57, 2 April 2016‎ SchroCat (talk | contribs)‎ . . (18,331 bytes) (-10,980)‎ . . (Reverted to revision 713238384 by SchroCat: Please read WP:BRD (when your edit is reverted, DISCUSS on the talk page, rather than edit war. This is not just about unsourced information: this is about the formatting of much of what has been added, w...) (undo | thank)

Hi SchroCat, Sorry for the confusion here - as you can tell we are new to Wikipedia. Anyway, many thanks for your comments concerning the Royal Variety Performance page. The sections that we deleted were very in-accurate so we replaced them with accurate wording and correct information. For your information, we work officially for the Royal Variety Performance and the Royal Variety Charity in an official capacity, so the information that we substituted is 100% accurate. As I say, we are however, new to Wikipedia, so we now understand the importance of doing many references, so we have started again and included loads of references. We have deleted, for now, everything that we have added without references, so we hope this is now ok? Please let us know if not, as we want to make the page as informative and as accurate as possible. Can you please let me know what the formatting problems are? Would be very much appreciated. Looking forward to your advice. Many thanks --Rodeocowboy36 (talk) 21:16, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Getting All Fool's Day/April Fool's behind us

Well, that was awkward ... I did see that you felt insulted by me, and normally I'd respond more quickly, but I didn't want to keep stoking the April Fool's discussion, because I expected it to be a disaster, and it was. Now that it's over ... I'm not going to apologize for insulting you because I didn't insult you, I carefully worded my comment as an attempt to understand and reflect what other people were saying. My thoughts and feelings really were the opposite ... I didn't want to attack you or your article, I wanted to protect it from the yearly circus on April Fool's. I hope we can be friends again. - Dank (push to talk) 13:25, 3 April 2016 (UTC) Well ... perhaps I can apologize for a lack of cleverness in my second comment, but I didn't mean anything by it, other than I couldn't think of a reply that would help. - Dank (push to talk) 13:31, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Formatting/ References

RE: (cur | prev) 20:57, 2 April 2016‎ SchroCat (talk | contribs)‎ . . (18,331 bytes) (-10,980)‎ . . (Reverted to revision 713238384 by SchroCat: Please read WP:BRD (when your edit is reverted, DISCUSS on the talk page, rather than edit war. This is not just about unsourced information: this is about the formatting of much of what has been added, w...) (undo | thank)

Hi SchroCat, Sorry for the confusion here - as you can tell we are new to Wikipedia. Anyway, many thanks for your comments concerning the Royal Variety Performance page. The sections that we deleted were very in-accurate so we replaced them with accurate wording and correct information. For your information, we work officially for the Royal Variety Performance and the Royal Variety Charity in an official capacity, so the information that we substituted is 100% accurate. As I say, we are however, new to Wikipedia, so we now understand the importance of doing many references, so we have started again and included loads of references. We have deleted, for now, everything that we have added without references, so we hope this is now ok? Please let us know if not, as we want to make the page as informative and as accurate as possible. Can you please let me know what the formatting problems are? Would be very much appreciated. Looking forward to your advice. Many thanks --Rodeocowboy36 (talk) 21:16, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Getting All Fool's Day/April Fool's behind us

Well, that was awkward ... I did see that you felt insulted by me, and normally I'd respond more quickly, but I didn't want to keep stoking the April Fool's discussion, because I expected it to be a disaster, and it was. Now that it's over ... I'm not going to apologize for insulting you because I didn't insult you, I carefully worded my comment as an attempt to understand and reflect what other people were saying. My thoughts and feelings really were the opposite ... I didn't want to attack you or your article, I wanted to protect it from the yearly circus on April Fool's. I hope we can be friends again. - Dank (push to talk) 13:25, 3 April 2016 (UTC) Well ... perhaps I can apologize for a lack of cleverness in my second comment, but I didn't mean anything by it, other than I couldn't think of a reply that would help. - Dank (push to talk) 13:31, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Harper

Hello Gavin, hope you're well. If you have the time and are interested I have William Harper up for FAC here. If you thought the UDI affair was something with Smith in charge, just try to imagine what might have happened if this chap had been PM of Rhodesia instead. Any thoughts you may have would be very much appreciated. Cheers, —  Cliftonian (talk)  09:49, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

My pleasure: I'll be over this afternoon to make a start. Cheers. – SchroCat (talk) 11:02, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Special Barnstar
For your effort to research the Senghenydd colliery disaster and promote it to FA status, the first of the Dragon contest. A hearty well done! ♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:44, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Doc – much appreciated! I've enjoyed the contest, and an FL and an FA aren't too bad! Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 19:56, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Indeed, though still 3 weeks left to get Roald Dahl himself up to GA status ;-)♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:27, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Even if it was just a 3kb prose expansion and cleanup that would count on the list. Each one doesn't have to be an FA haha!♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:48, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

TFL notification

Hi SchroCat. As was previously discussed at the TFL submissions page, I've decided to choose Rudolph Valentino filmography as TFL for May 6, his birthday. The blurb is here, in case you want to tweak anything. Cheers, Giants2008 (Talk) 02:14, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

That's great: cheers Giants. - SchroCat (talk) 11:58, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Emma Stone

After making her article a GA, I have opened a peer review for a possible FAC. If you have some time, consider reviewing it, Wikipedia:Peer review/Emma Stone/archive1. ツ FrB.TG (talk) 17:21, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Of course - no problems at all. If I don't get there in a couple of days, please give me a nudge. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 17:27, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Books & Bytes - Issue 16

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 16, February-March 2016
by The Interior (talk · contribs), UY Scuti (talk · contribs)

  • New donations - science, humanities, and video resources
  • Using hashtags in edit summaries - a great way to track a project
  • A new cite archive template, a new coordinator, plus conference and Visiting Scholar updates
  • Metrics for the Wikipedia Library's last three months

Read the full newsletter

The Interior via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:16, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Hello, SchroCat. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 20:00, 14 April 2016 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

 — Calvin999 20:00, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Wales on the march

My contribution to the April Welsh project, S.O. Davies, is now at peer review. Can you spare it a few moments of your time? Brianboulton (talk) 16:20, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi Brian, no problem: I have one other to complete first, and then I'll be with you. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 20:37, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Spy-fi spammer

Hi Schro, just giving you the heads up that our spy-fi spammer is back. Category:Spy-Fi films was deleted last month per Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2016_March_13#Category:Spy-Fi_films but Taeyebaar recreated it within days. He has created several other "spy-fi" categories that I have nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2016_April_17#Category:Spy-Fi (should you wish to contribute comments). He has also started spamming the Bond articles again too which is now on my watchlist but I am not going to engage with him on the articles (at least not yet) since it will be easier to tackle the spamming at source i.e. just get the categories deleted and let a bot do the clean-up. I think we need to nip this in the bud though. Betty Logan (talk) 21:24, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

~sigh~... why, oh why, oh why... - SchroCat (talk) 21:36, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Benfica list nom

As it happens, I also lack the bit and therefore will have difficulty closing the nom. I'll leave a note on FLC talk, and hopefully a friendly admin will take care of this for us. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:16, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

S. O. Davies

Now at FAC. Heads-up as requested. Brianboulton (talk) 19:49, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

English lesson

Hi Schro, could you have a quick look at some of these alterations. The change from "although" to "though" especially is bothering me. I keep saying it to myself and "although" sounds more right but I am wondering if this is a Brit/US English thing? Obviously I don't want to revert something to the incorrect form so I thought I'd get you to look it over first. Betty Logan (talk) 06:38, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

I've put back the "al", and made a few other changes, such as putting back the indef article that was removed etc. Thanks Betty. - SchroCat (talk) 13:46, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Disney stamp

The stamp was issued in 1968; all US postage stemps before 1978 are in the public domain, so the license on this is correct. But here's a link for more details on the stamp so the rest of the template can be filled out at Commons. We hope (talk) 15:43, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

  • Date=11 September 1968

You can use the link as a source because there's a lot of information at it.

  • Author=US Postal Service Artwork by C. Robert Moore & Paul E. Wenzel. Moore designed the stamp and Wenzel painted the portrait.

Excellent, thanks: now updated. - SchroCat (talk) 19:23, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Disney trailers

Let me try to track down the trailers at a place other than YouTube or Internet Archive and view them. Have seen some trailers at both places with no copyright notices, but when you see the same trailer at someplace such as IMDB and the like, you'll find the trailer with the notice intact. Disney and his company were and are sticklers for copyright notices and renewals. Let's see what turns up when I find & view the trailers. We hope (talk) 14:35, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

OK-you have to look around quite a bit because there are plenty of newer trailers online for VHS and DVD issues of both films. Getting harder and harder to find original film trailers. You need to ask Chris what he thinks re: spike.com because I can't vouch that it's a RS. Everyplace else was offering newer trailers for viewing. Didn't want to go to YouTube or Internet Archive.If they have the original one, there's no certainty it hasn't been altered to remove the copyright notice since both places would eventually remove the clips as copyvios otherwise. We hope (talk) 15:18, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Snow White at spike.com. This is the original trailer. I watched it, saw Disney with the 7 Dwarfs as seen in the screenshot and there were no copyright notices.
  • Cinderella This is the original trailer at Honest Trailers. The copyright notice appears on the screen at between 00.12 and 00.14.

Many thanks We hope! 50% isn't a bad ratio, especially as I'm not too sad to lose the Cinderella one - it didn't add too much to the article. - SchroCat (talk) 19:44, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Ping

Hi SchroCat. I was wondering whether you still think you might be able to peer review Title TK. I guess it was only 8 days ago that you said you'd try to do it, but it seems like such a long time to me. ;-) I really respect your writing and editing abilities, and your experience at FAC. I'm sure that the article would benefit immensely from any feedback you could give. Thank you. Moisejp (talk) 02:48, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi Moisejp, Sorry for the delay - I got carried away writing Walt Disney and it slipped my mind. I'll be there in the next 24 hours. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 07:35, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Emma Stone

Thanks for your review of the article at its PR. The article is now at FAC, should you choose to leave further comments. Cheers, FrB.TG (talk) 08:00, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:SchroCat/Archive_21&oldid=1079782252"