Jump to content

User talk:SchroCat/Archive 25

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 20←Archive 23Archive 24Archive 25Archive 26Archive 27→Archive 30

Over emphasising the film history of a stage actor

Hi. I searched for that link but I didn't notice it under the Legacy section. Don't you agree it should be under a dedicated section "Filmography", as most actors, as that's the word people look for?--Jbaranao (talk) 21:02, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Not really; I've added sections containing just a link before, but they've been removed and the link merged into the rest of the text. - SchroCat (talk) 21:45, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
Oh, I don't want to be rude, but you are very wrong. That's the standard for important actors. If that's the reason, I will modify it --Jbaranao (talk) 14:42, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, course I'm wrong while you are the font of all knowledge. It's NOT a "standard" by any stretch of the imagination. If you try and revert again, it will be edit warring and pointlessly poor form. If you have such a bee in your bonnet about it, open a thread at the film project. - SchroCat (talk) 15:22, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
c'mon! I am not the font of all knowledge, but I happen to have visited dozens of film-related articles lately for my work. Look, if you take the top 8 of this list, 100% include a section titled "Filmography", where you find the link to the main article. In some cases, with some text below. It is indeed the standard. Moreover, it is what you need: a quick search with your browser for "filmography", which Barrymore lacks--Jbaranao (talk) 00:15, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
Go open a thread on the film project. If you are determined to highlight the film history of a stage actor, there is little I can do to bring any sense to the conversation. - SchroCat (talk) 07:26, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Articles for Creation Reviewing

Hello, SchroCat.
AfC submissions
Random submission
~5 weeks
997 pending submissions
Purge to update

I recently sent you an invitation to join NPP, but you also might be the right candidate for another related project, AfC, which is also extremely backlogged.
Would you please consider becoming an Articles for Creation reviewer? Articles for Creation reviewers help new users learn the ropes of creating their first articles, and identify whether topics are suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. Reviewing drafts doesn't take much time but it requires a good understanding of Wikipedia inclusion policies and guidelines; currently Wikipedia needs experienced users at this task. (After requesting to be added to the project, reviewing is not mandatory. One can do it at their convenience). But kindly read the reviewing instructions before making your decision. Thanks. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 01:51, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

Happy New Year!
A happy, healthy and peaceful 2018 to you! We hope (talk) 00:31, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Anbe Sivam/archive1

Hello, SchroCat. I have nominated my first solo FAC. Do let me know if you wish to leave comments at the FAC by pinging me. Thanks.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 12:58, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Sorry Sven, I can't bring myself to do anymore Indian films. - SchroCat (talk) 15:53, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Reviewers wanted!

To any talk page stalkers, I've posted the Murder of Yvonne Fletcher up for featured article candidature, if anyone is interested in commenting. I've also got the brilliant Eliza Acton up at peer review. Cheers - SchroCat (talk)

The need to move on

SchroCat

Did you see this:

Thank you, S. I don't tend to bother with the Wiki-critique sites (I'm enough of a loser to spend too much time on here, but at least I get some enjoyment out of the researching and writing of subjects - I just wouldn't get any enjoyment from spending the same amount of time criticising people for doing something that they enjoy, but not actually creating anything). I have been in touch with the publisher about the infringement, but not to try and get work published, just to have the correct licence applied where it should be. He assures me that the electronic version and future prints of the hard copy will be changed either to re-word the text, or to include an appropriate licence. - SchroCat (talk) 13:11, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Five Red Herrings

Thanks for your pointer regarding the WP:SPOILER convention. I hadn't been aware of it previously, even though I have been editing for a decade! HLGallon (talk) 12:59, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

No problem - I don't think anyone can know all the various policies and guidelines here! - SchroCat (talk) 12:15, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Anbe Sivam FAC

I've changed it to commercial director. Hope that's a better alternative.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 14:45, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

The article has been promoted to FA. My first solo FA.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 14:38, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Excellent - well done! The first is always the hardest, but now you know the process and the standards, the next ones will be easier. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 14:48, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
I've been part of FACs before, SchroCat (Enthiran, Rod Steiger and Mayabazar), so I know the drill. This is my first time as a solo nominator. But, yes, the first one will always be hard.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 14:57, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Happy Pongal, Makar Sankranti, Lohri and Bihu to you!

Happy Thai Pongal, Makar Sankranti, Lohri and Bihu to you!

May all your endeavours have a fruitful beginning and prosperous ending!  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 09:55, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you Ssven. I'd not heard of this festival before, but found the associated article interesting reading. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 12:25, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Regine Velasquez/archive1

Hi SchroCat, as you are one of the most experienced and active FAC reviewers on Wiki, I'd like to check if it would be possible (and if you have the luxury of time) to provide feedback on an article I have listed up for FAC. Cheers! Pseud 14 (talk) 11:18, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Considering

I'm considering asking for a one way I-Ban. Saying this in case you might want to think about asking for one also. We hope (talk) 13:00, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Good thought We hope. Are you talking about one against the individual who has pasted untruths and half truths into a case that has nothing to do with me? I think that would be good, although a two-way ban would stand more chance of being achieved. - SchroCat (talk) 13:02, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
My opinion is that both are certainly eligible. We hope (talk) 13:31, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
I would be delighted if it could be achieved. Given the number of untrue statements in that summary (let alone the ones I've seen previously), it would be great if that particular troublemaker was asked to stop. - SchroCat (talk) 14:02, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
Let's continue considering this. ;) We hope (talk) 14:26, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Eliza Acton

Hi SchroCat, I don't think we have spoken ever. How are you? I saw your excellent update to the Eliza Acton article. I see there is a lot, a whole lot of book references, which is puzzling. How do you go about getting hold of them? Obviously some of them are in public domain, but a lot of them are not. Do you buy the books, or is it a library thing? I'm keen to improve the quality of any article I write. scope_creep (talk) 11:51, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi Scope creep, thanks for the note. It depends, is the short answer! Most of those with links to Google Books/Internet Archive sources I've accessed through there (although I already own some of them), one or two are library copies, and the rest I've purchased - all second hand through various places (although it can still all add up to a fair price per FA in the end). I try and use the books for more than one article, so Acton is my third cook: Isabella Beeton and Elizabeth David, and the books can be used for all three, more or less. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 11:59, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
thats cool. I thought there was some other mechanism of getting hold of sources that I'd missed. I do the same, but I need to buy more books. I'm planning to get the Appin Murder article up to FA, which will be my first one. I'm looking forward to it. I'm suprised that nobody has done it before. It is such a major event in scottish history. If I could get hold of them, use them for a couple months, and them sell, I would happy. scope_creep (talk) 12:20, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
The Amazon "Look Inside" facility is another way to get to free information (sometimes the Google Books "snippet view" gives a suggestion of something good in a book which you can then access through Amazon). That and Open Library are good for finding bits and pieces. Appin Murder looks an interesting topic, and its a surprise what interesting articles are up for re-writing. I co-wrote the Burke and Hare murders a year or so ago, which was a really interesting one. - SchroCat (talk) 12:38, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Request re File:Cornwall UK location map placenames.png

SchroCat/Archive 25 is located in Cornwall
Dodman Point
Dodman Point
Nare Head
Nare
Head
Portloe
Portloe
Fowey
Fowey
Falmouth
Falmouth
Penryn
Penryn
Mylor
Mylor
SchroCat/Archive 25 (Cornwall)

In 2016 you kindly added some place locations to the Cornish map. Could you possibly add a few more?

These locations are important markers in the Darlwyne story, and I'd be greatly obliged if you could deal with this for me. Brianboulton (talk) 22:41, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi Brian, no problems – give me a day or so and I'll see what I can do. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 23:23, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
Crisco 1492, Is there any chance you could help out on this one? I added the places on File:Cornwall UK location map placenames.png some time ago, but my PC subsequently died; I've got graphics tools on my new one that I've never used and I'm struggling to do what I have always managed quite easily before. Are you able to add these to a new three to the existing map? Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 17:14, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
  • I'm sorry that this request has, after all, proved problematic. I was hoping it could be done before an intended FAC nom, but I'll probably go ahead anyway and plead "work-in-progress" if anyone raises the issue there. Thanks for trying, anyway. Brianboulton (talk) 16:41, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Sorry Brian! For some reason the software I used on the old machine managed to do it in a fairly straightforward way, but I just don't understand the new stuff well enough to get it working. Thanks Chris. I tried the marker function as part of the "location" maps thing we have, but with multiple positions it just didn't work well enough, with too much overlap - As you can see from --->
I've tried shifting around the labels as much as I can, as well as altering font size, etc, but there just isn't the flexibility in the system to have, for example, a label further out, connected by a line to the marker showing the location, which is probably the best bet, given the clusters of locations involved. If you are able to do something at some point, it would be much appreciated. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 19:59, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

(←) @Brianboulton: I did the best could. Haven't edited images in a long time. Please check very carefully and see if OK Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 03:03, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes, this version works very well! See Loss of MV Darlwyne#Voyage, 31 July 1966. Once again, thanks for the time that has been given to resolving this, for which I am very grateful. Brianboulton (talk) 11:29, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for sorting this Lingzhi. - SchroCat (talk) 11:30, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
Glad I could help. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 14:15, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Yvonne Fletcher

When reading over the article, much of it is about the siege and background of the siege. Would it be more appropriate to split the article into two, one about the day of the killing and politics of the killing and the other about the politics and political aftermath? I choose to comment here and not the FAC because I don't want to detract from the excellence of the article or jeopardize the FAC. If you do choose to split the article in two, both could be FAs. Vanguard10 (talk) 07:37, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Vanguard10. I think the two are too closely interlinked to split apart. If we do split, it would also raise a clash with the scope of the Libya–United Kingdom relations article, and some may raise the question of whether there is a three-pronged wp:content fork between the articles. The murder of Fletcher (yes, to pre-empt my comment at the FAC, it should be titled "murder") was—and to a lesser extent still is—a major driver in British government policy towards Libya that we have to cover the repercussions within one article. At 3,870 words long (or 23 kB), I don't think it's too long to cover the subject (WP:SIZE discusses "30 kB to 50 kB of readable prose, which roughly corresponds to 4,000 to 10,000 words" and advises 50 kB as a trigger to consider a page split, so we're well within the bounds of readability and content scope. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 08:16, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Coffee

  • Coffee, I see you included me in a "badge of honour" collection of experienced editors who are not to post on an your talk page. What's very odd is that not only have I never posted onto your talk page, to the best of my recollection (and the interaction tool), I've only ever had a direct discussion with you once. Strange that I should be pinged and formally told not to edit the talk page I've never visited and have no intention of visiting! In a spirit of warm collegiality, however, please feel free to post to this page whenever you want, as long as it is in line with the aims of improving the encyclopaedia. Best wishes. - SchroCat (talk) 10:09, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

File:Eliza Acton 1799-1859.png

Hi SchroCat, you may like to know that File:Eliza Acton 1799-1859.png is tagged for deletion on Commons on the grounds that "author and source" are not given. The source is stated to be https://mypoeticside.com/poets/eliza-acton-poems#block-bio and the author is stated to be "An early photographer (before 1859)". This is therefore a somewhat remarkable action. You might like to think if the action can be halted; I've no idea how to bring the balm of reason to the fevered brow. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:41, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Still scratching my head. The editor first uploaded a larger image, then stated "File has no source" and slapped on a tag. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:43, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
Hi CC, I think it comes down to this commons thread, where they are wondering about whether it should be deleted or not. Nikkimaria has raised a similar query on the FAC page. It doesn't matter too much, as we can upload it locally as it'll pass as the identifier image at the top of the infobox. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 09:09, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
Having read through the Commons thread, it's been pointed out that at this page, it's not described as Acton, but someone entirely different. - SchroCat (talk) 09:21, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
Wheels within wheels... And so that makes 2 images of Acton both of somebody else. Fancy. Many thanks for looking at it. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:24, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
It's rather annoying, isn't it! Looks like we'll have to put a different image up top. Any thoughts? - SchroCat (talk) 09:28, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
If any image of Acton exists then it's not in a published book, I think. Choice is to look in any likely family archive, or to give up and use an illustration (of food or kitchen) from one of her books. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:33, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
Right, I've added the frontispiece from her best-known book in the hope we can add an actual likeness at some point in the future. - SchroCat (talk) 12:58, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Mud March et al

My limited selection of suffragist books provides very little information on the 1907 "Mud March". In an essay on Fawcett in Freedom's Cause, Fran Abrams mentions the march but provides no substantial information beyond that it rained heavily. Harold Smith, in The British Women's Suffrage Campaign 1866-1928ei, does briefly cover the march (pp. 23-24) and is accessible here. The slim Bondfield biography makes no mention of her signing the Open Letter, nor can I immediately find anything elsewhere in the Bondfield literature, although she was certainly involved in anti-war demonstration at around that time. Sorry I can't offer more. Brianboulton (talk) 11:22, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

  • Hi Brian, Thanks very much indeed for your labours. There are some slim picking elsewhere which I may add to the articles if I can summon up some enthusiasm. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 14:35, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
  • I'm going to the British Library tomorrow to do a spot of rummaging for another article. Are there any likely sources I can dig out for you while there?
And while I'm here, consider yourself duly pung about Osbert Lancaster's FAC which is now open. I hope to see you there in due course. Tim riley talk 09:35, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
You want to be talking to your Union, SchroCat, let 'em know you've gone full-time  ;) >SerialNumber54129...speculates 16:39, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
In that case, I want a pay rise – I'm not paid enough for some of the recent nonsense! - SchroCat (talk) 16:07, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
Cheers! >SerialNumber54129...speculates 16:39, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Moorgate tube crash image

Hi. I know you said you were in no hurry, but it has been a long time. I truly have only had one occasion when I had a big enough "timeslot" to try and give it the attention it deserves, and when I did - guess what, the result I got was crap. Still, that does mean I know how not to do it now - so I hope to have something we can all like in a few days. I do apologise that I've taken so long after taking it on. -- Begoon 10:06, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi Begoon, absolutely no problems at all - I'm just very grateful you're having a go at this! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 10:15, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Huh?

Has English changed so much while I was on Mars?

—and, as of 2018, still is—
—and, as at 2018, still is—

Could you point me to any guides that show this as new recommended usage? (I've been seeing a rash of editors changing sentences willy-nilly and destroying meanings, etc. and I'm beginning to wonder at my grasp of English, my native language notwithstanding) Shenme (talk) 04:44, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

It is not "new": "as at" is correct formal English; "as of" is an Americanism. (Although "as of" can also be 'correct' in BrEng, it is dependent on the context, and the point in time we identify here means that "as at" is correct; "as of", in BrEng, would be used when something was at a position that will not change.) Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 05:00, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
I found a Canadian cite saying
“As at” means as it is at that particular time only. It implies there may be changes.
Example: As at 9 a.m. today, 30 people were registered for the event.
“As of” means as it was or will be on and after that date.
A few other places, for "as of" and "as at", get into "before and up till", "then and after", "beginning at that point in time", and permutations and elaborations thereon.
I'll take what the nice Canadian lady said as quite fitting this situation, and that "as of" and the like are too imprecise. I acquiesce with all the grace a left-pondian can muster.
(Oh, the ignominy! As many times as I've slapped people with pointers to WP:ENGVAR and I missed this'un. I still like the English word 'metalling' as proudly retained by that South-pointing subcontinent. :) ) Shenme (talk) 05:17, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Keechaka Vadham/archive1

Hello, SchroCat. I have nominated my fifth FAC and second collaboration with Kailash29792. Do let me know if you wish to leave comments at the FAC by pinging me. Thanks.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 09:35, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Harry Archivers

Hi, thanks for trying here ... I hope it works; it is certainly well overdue! I will watch with interest, as archiving and I do not get along too well and it will be nice to see an expert at work! Best wishes DBaK (talk) 08:51, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

  • Thanks DBaK, but I'm not an expert - I just copy and paste from one I know that works! Hopefully it will work though - there's too much very old stuff there to keep in place. Thanks also for your edits, by the way - they have been excellent and very helpful. Cheers. - SchroCat (talk) 11:57, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for the very kind remark! Cheers DBaK (talk) 13:09, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

PS

PS I do hope that I’m not annoying you with my renewed fiddling at Moorgate! If you’d like me to back off a bit while you strive for perfection please say so. I hope the edits are helpful and mostly correct … I’m trying to check a couple of things about which I have Doubts! But I can certainly shut up and give you a bit of space if that would be more helpful. Best wishes DBaK (talk) 08:35, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

John Mowbray, 3rd Duke of Norfolk

Hullo, me again—You were kind enough to comment at this article's (somewhat informal!) peer review, and I thought I'd let you know it's now a featured article candidate. The discussion is here, and any further comments you may wishto make would be naturally very welcome. Thanks again! ...SerialNumber54129...speculates 11:17, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

FAC reviewing barnstar

The Reviewer Barnstar
FAC can't function without people like you contributing reviews. Thank you for the eight FAC reviews you did during February. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:00, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

2017–18 Bergen County eruv controversy

Would you have the time to weigh in at the peer review for the above article? Hope you're doing well.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:04, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

H.H. Asquith

I sometimes wander over there, look at what Tim, Wehwalt and I tried to do, and weep. And very sorry to see that Dr. B's gone. Is this place losing its charm?! KJP1 (talk) 18:47, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

  • Hi KJP1, HHA is a superb article (or rather, it was, when the FAC opened!) I've walked away from more articles than I care to remember because it just wasn't worth the effort in trying to clear up what was someone's pet project. Hey-ho, these things happen I guess, but it doesn't make it any less irksome. It's sad to see Doc B gone; I just hope it's more in the way of a Wikibreak, rather than anything permanent. As I said on his talk page, there seems to be a fair amount of grudge-bearing and pettiness going round at the moment, and a lack of focus on actually building an encyclopaedia, which is the fun bit of it, as far as I'm concerned. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 21:24, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
I'm sorry about Dr. Blofeld's departure, I had not heard. As for Asquith, I think it is still worthy, but there is no point in a renomination if it is just going to get filibustered. Again.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:53, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Notice for the record

Hi SchroCat, in the open Civility in infobox discussions arbitration case, a remedy or finding of fact has been proposed which relates to you.  Please review this decision and draw the arbitrators' attention to any relevant material or statements. Comments may be brought to the attention of the committee on the proposed decision talk page. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 19:02, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. Seen, laughed, scratched my head in wonder, and realised that despite me not being involved in contentious discussions since September 2016, some people are still after some form of punishment. - SchroCat (talk) 19:11, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

I thought I ought to make sure you understand that the thanks I just sent for your last comment at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Civility in infobox discussions/Proposed decision #Comments by SchroCat were sincere. Looking at that talk page, I must admit I was uncivil to the IP and I should have done better on that issue. My puzzlement was genuinely because I thought we'd arrived at an acceptable conclusion after considerable debate on the real concerns.

Anyway, let me promise my support if you remain in the firing line at that case. We've all managed to step away from conflict for quite some time now, and I don't see any value in anybody trying to rake up old differences. I hope Cassianto manages the same – despite often being on opposite sides of infobox debates, I can honestly say that I can't remember an occasion where he and I have had cross words, and I'd be really sad to see him sanctioned for the times where he's merely vented a frustration at the proceedings. Let's hope it doesn't come to that. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 21:33, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

  • Hi Rex, The 'thanks ping' didn't work, but thank you for your note here. Despite a petty grudge being the reason for my inclusion, the Arbs have rather sensibly seen that I have largely steered clear of the discussions for some time now. The downsides are that I do not think that the measures they are examining will in any way solve the situation, and that Cass – who is a far better editor than most of the complainants at the case – will be driven away from the project, as his ability to develop articles will be too severely curtailed by the restrictions. Sadly it looks like that is a probable outcome. – SchroCat (talk) 23:24, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Spare some small changes?

Taking the cap round for contributions, I have André Messager up for peer review. He's rather a neglected figure now, but was the last great composer of opéra-comique and opérette, and rather close to my heart in a quiet sort of way. If you are moved to look in and give me your comments it will be esteemed a favour. Tim riley talk 17:41, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

What ho! I'd be delighted – I'll be there in the next couple of days. Pip pip – SchroCat (talk) 14:37, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Murder of Yvonne Fletcher scheduled for TFA

This is to let you know that the Murder of Yvonne Fletcher article has been scheduled as today's featured article for April 17, 2018. Please check the article needs no amendments. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/April 17, 2018, but note that a coordinator will trim the lead to around 1100 characters anyway, so you aren't obliged to do so.

If you prefer one of the other free images, i.e. the window or the location, feel free to change the thumb. I remember this incident well, pleased to be able to run it on the anniversary, thanks Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:36, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up Jim, I've made a few tweaks to the text, but was conflicted in the final one by Dan, so I'll bow out and leave him to do his bit. I think the image is a good one - probably the best of the free ones. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 14:22, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Don't now if you're around much

these days, but if you're interested in...err...royal depositions (!!!) there's one at peer review if you fancy having a butcher's. No worries if turgidity isn't your bag! ;) Take care! —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap shit room 18:07, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Sounds... riveting? I'll be along shorty. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 20:55, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Tyler plaque

Belatedly, here's a photo of Tyler's memorial plaque at Tottenham. (As I'm not twelve feet tall there's some unavoidable perspective, since it's been set high enough to be out of the reach of the local Promising Young Artists.) I've intentionally not cropped it as I'm not sure how much of the surrounding brickwork you want to keep—if you go to https://tools.wmflabs.org/croptool/ and enter the filename it will allow you to crop out whatever you don't want. ‑ Iridescent 07:38, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Cheers Iri, that's fantastic. I'll trim it down a bit to get it to fit - it'll finish off the 'set' of other plaques that are on there. I'm much obliged. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 08:28, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Light show

Hi SchroCat, hope you are keeping well. Not sure if you are aware of this discussion but I thought I better give you the heads up to be on the safe side in case you want to comment on the matter: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Unban_request_by_Light_show. Betty Logan (talk) 03:30, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Betty. I hadn't seen the thread, so I'll keep an eye on it, although it looks like it's unlikely to gain much sympathy. They've managed to continue the same behaviour in the thread as that which led to their initial ban, which is never a great way to have things overturned! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 04:11, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Civility in infobox discussions closed

An arbitration case regarding civility in infobox discussions has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

  1. Any uninvolved administrator may apply infobox probation as a discretionary sanction. See the full decision for details of infobox probation.
  2. Standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for all discussions about infoboxes and to edits adding, deleting, collapsing, or removing verifiable information from infoboxes.
  3. Cassianto is indefinitely placed on infobox probation.
  4. The Arbitration Committee recommends that well-publicized community discussions be held to address whether to adopt a policy or guideline addressing what factors should weigh in favor of or against including an infobox in a given article and how those factors should be weighted.
  5. All editors are reminded to maintain decorum and civility when engaged in discussions about infoboxes, and to not turn discussions about a single article's infobox into a discussion about infoboxes in general.
  6. For canvassing editors to this case, Volvlogia (talk · contribs) is admonished. They are warned that any further instances of canvassing related to arbitration processes will likely result in sanctions.
Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Civility in infobox discussions closed

For the arbitration committee, GoldenRing (talk) 08:59, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Thank you GoldenRing. It's a shame that a petty grudge from one user dragged me into a situation where there was no finding or remedy against me. What a complete waste of time and effort, and it is a shame that his action did not receive any disapprobation for such a frivolous and misguided step. Hopefully he will re-adjust his mind frame, given the lack of support his attempts to smear me received. – SchroCat (talk) 09:19, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

St Donat's Castle

Well, good to see that nonsense is over. If you fancy a diversion, and can bear another bloody country house, this little Welsh castle is up for Peer Review, here Wikipedia:Peer review/St Donat's Castle/archive1. It has a rather surprising history. Your thoughts would be greatly appreciated, as ever. KJP1 (talk) 18:38, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi KJP1, I'm taking a very short break over the next week, but I'll take a hard copy with me and have a spin through it. I may be able to get a signal where I am, so I may be able to drip feed some bits through. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 20:35, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
That would be great. But there's no rush at all. Enjoy your break! KJP1 (talk) 21:38, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Octopussy

Octopussy, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. AIRcorn (talk) 23:22, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

There are other things to do in Paris

La Cerisaie, Taillevent, Ledoyen and Willy's Wine Bar notwithstanding. M. André Messager is now at FAC, and if you are minded to look in and comment it will be esteemed a favour. Tim riley talk 15:29, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Will do! I'm still under the weather a little, with a head full of cotton wool, but as soon as it clears I'll be along. Pip pip – SchroCat (talk) 21:28, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
No hurry whatever. Get well soon, old thing! Tim riley talk 12:56, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

"Idiotbox"

Please do not use this term. It's needlessly divisive and leads to conflict, which is something the discretionary sanctions are intended to avoid. It does nothing to resolve or de-escalate disputes. ~ Rob13Talk 16:04, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Nonsense. See For Dummies and get a sense of perspective (and leaving pointy messages like yours is even more needlessly divisive and leads to conflict). – SchroCat (talk) 16:28, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure I have added an infobox to an article with a summary of "this is getting big; time for an idiotbox", in a self-deprecating manner. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:23, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
Ha! Careful Ritchie, or you'll be up for a DS Alert and a pointless Arb-threat too! - SchroCat (talk) 08:59, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
Extended content
Enlighten me: would you call the thing on today's TFA (not by me) an idiotbox? - Or the on today's lead DYK (childhood memories pictured)? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:40, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Don't now if you're around much

these days, but if you're interested in...err...royal depositions (!!!) there's one at peer review if you fancy having a butcher's. No worries if turgidity isn't your bag! ;) Take care! —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap shit room 18:07, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Sounds... riveting? I'll be along shorty. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 20:55, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
Hi Serial Number 54129, I'm taking a very short break over the next week, but I'll take a hard copy with me and have a spin through it. I may be able to get a signal where I am, so I may be able to drip feed some bits through. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 20:35, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
No problem at all, take care! —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap shit room 09:29, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

TFA

Thank you for Yvonne Fletcher, "a bright and popular young police officer who was shot in the back by a gunman firing from a first-floor window of the Libyan embassy in London. It marked the start of an eleven-day siege, six Britons being held hostage in Tripoli for nine months and a break in diplomatic relations between the UK and Libya that lasted until 1999. The police investigation has never closed, and they have strong suspicions on the identify of the gunmen and the co-conspirators, some of their evidence can not be released in court because of national security. It's a shabby story for Fletcher's family, who have never been able to see Yvonne's killer brought to justice."! Sorry to have missed the FAC, too busy, for example with Psalm 84, GA today but I still feel need to work on it, and Walter Fink who devoted his long life to choral and contemporary music, inviting international composers to where I live (ITN for two days). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:45, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Thank you; that's very kind. – SchroCat (talk) 14:40, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
The psalm is today's topic on DYK. Traveling. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:53, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Elizabeth David scheduled for TFA

This is to let you know that Elizabeth David has been scheduled as today's featured article for 22 May 2018. Please check that the article needs no polishing or corrections. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/May 22, 2018. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:31, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

It's never something I look forward to, but if it must... – SchroCat (talk) 17:15, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
Shame you can't get a note from Matron.... ;) —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap sh*t room 17:20, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, I know. But I really try to get at least two women’s biographies in the months I schedule....Ealdgyth - Talk 17:31, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
At least, given the impact she had on British cooking habits. - SchroCat (talk) 18:20, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

What a fascinating article. I really enjoyed reading it. Mr Ernie (talk) 00:32, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Mr Ernie, that's very kind of you to say so. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 05:35, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

ARCA notice

You are involved in a recently-filed request for clarification or amendment from the Arbitration Committee. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#Clarification request: Civility in infobox discussions and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the Wikipedia:Arbitration guide may be of use.

Thanks, GoldenRing (talk) 22:22, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks: I shall comment there. – SchroCat (talk) 22:30, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Kal Ho Naa Ho/archive1

Hello, SchroCat. I have nominated my sixth FAC and my first one for a Hindi film. Do let me know if you wish to leave comments at the FAC by pinging me. Thanks.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 07:46, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Civility in infobox discussions: Motion

The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

Remedy 1.1 of the Civility in infobox discussions case is amended to replace dot point 3: *making more than one comment in discussing the inclusion or exclusion of an infobox on a given article. with the following: * making more than one comment in a discussion, where that discussion is primarily about the inclusion or exclusion of an infobox on a given article.

For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 17:54, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Civility in infobox discussions: Motion
  • L235, there were still unanswered points to be considered, particularly from Laser brain, who posted less than 20 minutes before you closed. His point is one that has been asked by several people (including one Arb), and it goes to the heart of why this case was a waste of time, as it allows IB warriors to keep pressing the same point time after time, without any regard to a standing consensus. As ArbCom have acted like ostriches on this point, and seem unable to accept responsibility when it's clear they make basic errors (and seem to be more interested in making smart-arsed comments than actually being useful), I have little doubt that they would have wheedled their way out of this questioning, but it is a point that will keep coming back because they have not done their job properly. – SchroCat (talk) 18:01, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
It's an inside job Schro. I can imagine the amount of private "do not respond" emails going backwards and forwards between the lot of them over the last few months. I believe it was so furious that Del have had to do an emergency stock take on keyboards this year. CassiantoTalk 18:11, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
  • L235, I'm not asking you to comment on the decision, but why it was closed when there were points still to be answered. If it's a just the stitch-up job we all knew it would be, that's fine, because the problem will keep coming back round because ArbCom are rather inept at dealing with problems properly, preferring to target individuals instead. But it still did not need to be closed before an Arb – any Arb – had dealt with the point so many people have raised. – SchroCat (talk) 18:32, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
    • On a phone right now – the committee also directed the timing of the enactment if the motion by email. Best, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 19:34, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
      • Of course. When it's pointed out to them that their action was not fit for purpose, they decided, star chamber-like, to bury the matter without answering some fundamental questions. Still, glad they'd left it long enough to allow one Arb to engage in something more akin to trolling than constructive; still, given who their friends are, and given that when I complained about a user action, that Arb tried to start an idiotbox argument with me, I'm not entirely surprised at the lack of backbone shown. It's all very predictable, but still a sickening sight to behold. – SchroCat (talk) 19:49, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

...[1]... CassiantoTalk 18:41, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

A thank you

The Reviewer Barnstar
Thanks very much for helping to review Mowbray—thanks to your helpful suggestions, it passed. I appreciate you taking the time and trouble to look in. Cheers! —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap shit room 14:50, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks SN - much obliged, and you are very welcome! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 10:23, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Barnstar of Diplomacy
I would like to award you this barnstar in recognition of your continued actions to find a positive resolution to this infobox mess, in spite of the clear obsfucation and stubbornness of the arbs to help create a resolution of their own. I had a conflict with Cassianto a while back, and upon reflection, reached out privately to discuss with him. I found Cassianto to be graciously forgiving of my bad behavior, and read much wisdom in his unconditional response to me, thanking me for my (self-admittedly limited) contributions to the project when weighed against his. Despite our conflict, he offered me encouragement and praised my efforts here at the project. I only wish for the same self reflection in those admins who are so eager to gleefully drop some ham-handed sanction. Mr Ernie (talk) 01:32, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Mr Ernie. Sadly I don't think there is a desire to actually look at the problem in toto, which would include looking at the problems we see so regularly (re-litigating, edit warring, hit lists, canvassing and all the gutter tactics that we know so well). They have taken the easy way out, which is to punish people for becoming frustrated by POV pushers. Part of the problem is that ArbCom is not fit for purpose: it does not know how to manage a volunteer base, nor now to actually arbitrate (which is, after all what they are there for). Instead they act like souped-up admins, and come to decisions to restrain and punish, which is the least effective way of dealing with problems, and will only ever lead to resentment and bad feelings. - SchroCat (talk) 10:23, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Re:infoboxes at Convergencia Sindical

This may surprise you, but I dislike discussing IBs except where there is no choice– and I have a choice here

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.

There is no requirement that information be given with an inline source - of course, these are preferred but its not absolutely crucial (especially, given the fact that a reference is already given in the article) [this is in line with WP:ILC. Also, WP:INFOBOXREF clearly states "References are acceptable in some cases, but generally not needed in infoboxes if the content is repeated (and cited) elsewhere or if the information is obvious." There's not a much more direct way to say that. Given that the content is repeated (from the text of the article) and has a proper source (the reference), I do not see how one could object to having an infobox in this case. 198.84.253.202 (talk) 17:18, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The referencing on that article is insufficient to back up the information that is present. There is no indication where the information is placed in the source, which is rather important. It's not a question of objecting to the IB, but of objecting to the inclusion of unsupported information in both the IB and the article. I'll also add that as I was reverting a bold edit, it's best to start a discussion on the article talk page to discuss the matter, rather than you reverting me. It's odd that there is so much interest in that backwater of a page, but spending your time filling the one line with inline citations from a reliable source is a better use of your time than posting here. – SchroCat (talk) 17:23, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
The referencing is credible and I see no reason to object to it - maybe yes a {{Template:page needed}} would be appropriate, but per the linked policy, there is actually no requirement for citations unless the information is likely to be contested - if the information is reasonable expected to be found in sources, which in this case applies... 198.84.253.202 (talk) 17:31, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
No, it's not credible. The material is being contested, and it needs to have a proper citation, inline and showing more information than just the book – a page number would be something to add, for example. This is the basics of WP:V. Get the stub sourced properly and feel free to put the IB back in. Who knows, you may even be able to stretch the 'article' to be longer than the IB, which would be a miracle. Either way, you could probably have found an excellent source, added it and added the IB in the same amount of time you've spent posting here. – SchroCat (talk) 17:39, 18 May 2018 (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.

MOS:LQ

Life really is too short for this...

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.

I'm not sure what your reasoning is here. One you revert because it's a full sentence, the other you revert because it isn't. These rationales contradict each other. As far as I could tell, none were full sentences (although they could have been syntactically) because they didn't start with capital letters. Hairy Dude (talk) 17:23, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

You need to look at LQ a little more closely. It does not have to be the whole of a sentence quoted from the source, it needs to be a sentence in a grammatical sense.

Could you please also not mess around with the formatting of page numbers in refs? If it is in the form 100–10, and is consistent throughout then leave it alone! The MoS considers the formats 100–10 and 100–110 as acceptable. – SchroCat (talk) 17:27, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
See MOS:NUMRANGE. Ranges should only be abbreviated when space is limited, when the style formally requires it, or with local consensus (basically WP:IAR situations). None of these apply here AFAICT.
Regarding LQ, my remark above re sentences was by way of explaining my rationale, rather than to defend it. I think the LQ guideline is open to interpretation either way - the only hard rule is that it should be present only if present in the original, but I haven't checked the sources in this case. I still don't get why you moved the full stop inside with the sentence fragments, though. Hairy Dude (talk) 17:43, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
Saints preserve us. The MoS is a set of flexible guidelines, not an inflexible stricture that has to be followed to the letter. As the current version is perfectly understandable, usable and without confusion it can be retained. - SchroCat (talk) 17:57, 20 May 2018 (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.

ARCA closed

Following a reopening, the recent ARCA has been closed and archived. For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 03:57, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Emily Davison selected as TFA for 8 June 2018

This is to let you know that the Emily Davison article has been scheduled as today's featured article for June 8, 2018. Please check the article needs no amendments. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/June 8, 2018.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:07, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Wehwalt. Again, it's never something I look forward to, but if it must... The only thought I have about the date, is that I know she died on the 8th, but the Epsom Derby is run on 2 June: would that make a better date to run? Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 21:07, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
(talk page watcher) Just a disinterested opinion, but I'd probably agre with the earlier date. It will sound cruel perhaps, but, she's almost certainly better known for the actual jump deed than she is for dying later (the nature of the beast, I suspect). I bet if you ask someone on the 88, they would recognise the act, and, ironically probably just assume she died there and then. Who was it, after all, who was it who said, "it is the act that is heroic, not the dying for it"? All imho, of course, you understand. —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap shit room 21:15, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
I scheduled it for the 8th because it was nominated for that date in the template. I'm open to changing it, but consider that many of the readers won't know the Derby is going on.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:25, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
Someone nominated it? I thought the guidelines suggested that nominators "should consult regular editors of the article before nominating it for TFAR"? Oh well, it will be what it will be. I'm not too fussed on the date, and agree that there the date of the Derby is unknown by most in the UK, let alone outside. - SchroCat (talk) 21:32, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
Thanks. It was in the template, on the talk page of TFA/R. Edwininlondon suggested it. I will usually take articles from there unless there is some difficulty. Thank you for being willing to let it run.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:39, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
Damn those peasants, it's the dashed Triple Crown! Bloody colonials, mutter mutter...  ;) —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap shit room 21:42, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
Sorry SchroCat, I was unaware of how this works, did not mean to bypass you. I'm not fussed about which date either, I just picked the day of death as it's instantly would be universally understood why it's featured. But then again, with some prose we can make that happen for Derby Day as well. Edwininlondon (talk) 11:59, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
No problems - no harm done. - SchroCat (talk) 12:09, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your share to "a woman who had an unlikely effect on British culture in the latter half of the twentieth century: through her first six books and numerous articles and essays, she managed to get the British to actually think about what they were eating. In doing so, she revitalised British home cooking, and her legacy is still preached by cooks today." --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:29, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

St Donat's Castle

Hello Schro, hope you're keeping well. St Donat's is finally at FAC, above and your thoughts would be much appreciated, should you have time. Regards. KJP1 (talk) 09:45, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi KJP1, all is good thanks, and I hope the same is true for you. I've just started on Tim's PR for Debussy, after which I'll be delighted to visit St Donat's. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 10:14, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Ramoscello d'olivo

    I'll also extend the olive branch
    Appreciated this post. Looking forward to more collab, no drama. I've thought about your perception that I had a grudgey axe to grind, and I'm sure it did seem that way. Want to say emphatically that I don't, and will be happy to just leave it all in the past. Have done so readily with many past disputes.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:12, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
Thank you: your post is appreciated. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 12:12, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

File:Sunny von Bülow.gif

Hi, I'm RonBot, a script that checks new non-free file uploads. I have found that the subject image that you recently uploaded was more than 5% in excess of the Non-free content guideline size of 100,000 pixels. I have tagged the image for a standard reduction, which (for jpg/gif/png/svg files) normally happens within a day. Please check the reduced image, and make sure that the image is not excessively corrupted. Other files will be added to Category:Wikipedia non-free file size reduction requests for manual processing. There is a full seven-day period before the original oversized image will be hidden; during that time you might want to consider editing the original image yourself (perhaps an initial crop to allow a smaller reduction or none at all). A formula for calculation the desired size can be found at WP:Image resolution, along with instructions on how to tag the image in the rare cases that it requires an oversized image (typically about 0.2% of non-free uploads are tagged as necessarily oversized). Please contact the bot owner if you have any questions, or you can ask them at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. RonBot (talk) 17:08, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Revision 844358429 to Lund’s Tower

Why is the infobox a ‘non-improvement’? It would be nice if you could discuss the removal of the infobox on a talk page instead of just removing it. Cosycoin (talk) 15:30, 4 June 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cosycoin (talk • contribs) 15:27, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Answered on the talk page, but to respond here too, An IB is not always an improvement. I could just of well reverse your comment: It would be nice if you could discuss the addition of the infobox here on this talk page instead of just adding it. I am sure that the original writers of the article would have had good reasons for not including one, so discussing it would have been appropriate. BTW, Could you please sign your comments with the addition of four tildes (~~~~)? - SchroCat (talk) 15:31, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
And given how one infoboxen warrior keeps diving into things straight after there is a post here, I really do think this talk page should be removed from her over-extensive watchlist... maybe that would lessen the temptation of 'thanking' other IB warriors, and soft canvassing/shit-stirring? - SchroCat (talk) 16:19, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
If you want I can remove this ‘Revision 844358429 to Lund’s Tower’ topic from your talk page because I made it and we have discussed the infobox on a separate talk page. If not then that’s fine I just don’t want to clog up your talk page. Cosycoin (talk) 16:54, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:SchroCat/Archive_25&oldid=1143292103"