Jump to content

User talk:SchroCat/Archive 26

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 20←Archive 24Archive 25Archive 26Archive 27Archive 28→Archive 30

TFL notification

Hi, SchroCat. I'm just posting to let you know that P. G. Wodehouse bibliography – a list that you have been heavily involved with – has been chosen to appear on the Main Page as Today's featured list for July 2. The TFL blurb can be seen here. If you have any thoughts on the selection, please post them on my talk page or at TFL talk. Regards, Giants2008 (Talk) 20:19, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Many thanks Giants2008 - and I hope all is well. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 13:23, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Welcome back

I am glad to see this has been sorted out. It would have been an immense loss to Wikipedia if the block had stood. Betty Logan (talk) 22:10, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Betty - for this and your earlier questioning of events when it all started. I won't go into the whys and wherefores online, but there was a need to CLEANSTART twice, and the reasons behind that (the stalking etc) seem to have been lost in all the noise. - SchroCat (talk) 22:25, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
I should also add my profound thanks to RexxS, Littleolive oil, Ceoil, Ritchie333 and all the others who commented on other pages, those who commented here and those who emailed me directly. Your very kind words were extremely helpful when I had no idea what was going on behind the closed doors of ArbCom. - SchroCat (talk) 22:30, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
Welcome back and hope to see you at FAC soon. You all know my opinions on blocking people who contribute hugely to the encyclopedia, given the problem we have retaining editors generally, so I won't repeat it here. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 22:31, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
Cheers Ritchie. All the kerfuffle was a little misplaced, but we get there in the end! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 22:52, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Good to see you back, SchroCat. The encyclopedia would be a drearier place without you. Regards --RexxS (talk) 12:52, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Rex. And thanks for pressing the point with the blocking admin too. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 03:59, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Wehwalt just scheduled this one, From Russia, with Love (novel). Are there any free images you like for the blurb? Maybe one of the Orient Express, or some scene from Istanbul? - Dank (push to talk) 01:09, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Dan. I've added one of the Orient Express, and added it to the article as well. Feel free to swap it out if you can think of better one. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 04:20, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Books & Bytes – Issue 29

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 29, June – July 2018

Hindi, Italian and French versions of Books & Bytes are now available in meta!
Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:03, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

File:10 Rillington Place quad poster.jpg

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) 17:12, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Wikiproject Military history coordinator election nominations open

Nominations for the upcoming project coordinator election are now open. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 UTC on 14 September! Voting doesn't commence until 15 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the coord team. Cheers, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:54, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. The conceit at TFA is that it's a daily column, up-to-the-minute. The reality sometimes disappoints ... but if we know that it's still there, then we usually prefer "where it remains". Do we know? - Dank (push to talk) 23:54, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi Dank, Yes, we do - according to the museum's website, it's still there. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 08:42, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Missouri Centennial half dollar

It is good to see you back and I hope to get to your Dickens shortly. Do you have time to review the above at FAC? For some reason it's having trouble getting reviewers.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:33, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

P. G. Wodehouse scheduled for TFA

This is to let you know that the P. G. Wodehouse article has been scheduled as today's featured article for October 15, 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/October 15, 2018, but note that a coordinator will trim the lead to around 1100 characters anyway, so you aren't obliged to do so. Thanks! Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:20, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Aberfan disaster scheduled for TFA

This is to let you know that the Aberfan disaster article has been scheduled as today's featured article for October 21, 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/October 21, 2018, but note that a coordinator will trim the lead to around 1100 characters anyway, so you aren't obliged to do so. This is different enough from the Wodehouse that it doesn't matter that you were the main contribuyor to both. Thanks! Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:52, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Jim, much obliged - SchroCat (talk) 13:57, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Milhist coordinator election voting has commenced

G'day everyone, voting for the 2018 Wikiproject Military history coordinator tranche is now open. This is a simple approval vote; only "support" votes should be made. Project members should vote for any candidates they support by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September 2018. Thanks, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:35, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Milhist coordinator election voting has commenced

G'day everyone, voting for the 2018 Wikiproject Military history coordinator tranche is now open. This is a simple approval vote; only "support" votes should be made. Project members should vote for any candidates they support by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September 2018. Thanks, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:22, 15 September 2018 (UTC) Note: the previous version omitted a link to the election page, therefore you are receiving this follow up message with a link to the election page to correct the previous version. We apologies for any inconvenience that this may have caused.

Changes to table

Hi -- I see you're correcting some numbers in the WT:FAC table, but I wondered if you'd noticed the date range? The table is based on the featured logs from February 17 through February 18. Oxenfree was promoted in June 18 -- that's why I didn't include that one in the table. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:32, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi Mike, Sorry - I missed that date and was working on the September 17 through August 18 dates at the top. I'm getting slightly confused abut what is now being looked at, given the stats being examined are all about different timeframes, rather than looking at the figures and activity from same period. If people are trying to establish trends and patterns, it's not possible without looking at the data from over the same timeframe. (Mind you, I'm lost in trying to see what the agendas are for a couple of people there - the weight of words means that any valid points are being lost in the kerfuffle!) Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 20:44, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
I agree, it's confusing. At the moment I'm focusing on trying to enter more data; I posted that table at Sarah's request. No doubt she'll comment on it shortly. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:47, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Never Say Never Again – UK cinema poster.jpg

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Never Say Never Again – UK cinema poster.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 04:27, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Edit revert at Burke and Hare murders

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.

Hi, I saw you reverted my edit at Burke and Hare murders. Although of course citation methods may vary, the footnote before the block quote is not uncommon; the template documentation actually calls it the "typical use". This is so that the footnote cannot be confused for part of the quoted material. If you feel strongly about it, don't mind the drive-by suggestion. Did you look at other parts of my edit before reverting, though? The use of the source= variable is not generally recommended for the quote template, and for the "19th century Edinburgh rhyme" it's just a duplication of the prose. The men's names are given redundantly in the lead image caption; the text has several varieties of "undertake" which don't seem to mean anything and can be omitted, and likewise other expressions can be simplified. Please don't wholly undo good faith edits without comment. Kim Post (talk)

Your edit was not undone "without comment": there was clearly a comment there that you have referred to above. I disagree with the documention there: it is not typical: typical is as it is in this article - after the quoted material. (I doubt this would have passed FAC if the citation had been anywhere but after the quote). On re-reading the template documentation, I also think that typical refers to all three bullet points. As the use is clearly correct, please don't change things just because you prefer it: things should only be changed if they are an improvement. As to the rest, my comment still stands: not an improvement. - SchroCat (talk) 05:59, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
I read your "not an improvement" as a comment on what you specifically addressed; sorry if I misunderstood. Leaving citation aside, I'm actually surprised some of the prose issues did pass by FAC. (Although it is, on the whole, a very solid article.) You don't think that cutting out unnecessary words and duplicated language is an improvement? In particular, when you undertake to do something you may fail or be interrupted despite your best efforts. If you successfully did something it's not necessary to convey that uncertainty. Kim Post (talk) 14:50, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
Maybe the nine reviewers at FAC (with around 400 FAs to their names) have a better idea of prose than you think you do? I don’t know, but that may be worth mulling over... Certainly some of the changes you made are poor when viewed from the point of formal British English, which may be one reason why. SchroCat (talk) 14:58, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
If there's no constructive discussion to be had here then I'll leave you to it. Kim Post (talk) 15:48, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
If you don’t want to look at things from another view, that’s fine. - SchroCat (talk) 18:48, 25 September 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.

Edit revert at Burke and Hare murders

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.

Hi, I saw you reverted my edit at Burke and Hare murders. Although of course citation methods may vary, the footnote before the block quote is not uncommon; the template documentation actually calls it the "typical use". This is so that the footnote cannot be confused for part of the quoted material. If you feel strongly about it, don't mind the drive-by suggestion. Did you look at other parts of my edit before reverting, though? The use of the source= variable is not generally recommended for the quote template, and for the "19th century Edinburgh rhyme" it's just a duplication of the prose. The men's names are given redundantly in the lead image caption; the text has several varieties of "undertake" which don't seem to mean anything and can be omitted, and likewise other expressions can be simplified. Please don't wholly undo good faith edits without comment. Kim Post (talk)

Your edit was not undone "without comment": there was clearly a comment there that you have referred to above. I disagree with the documention there: it is not typical: typical is as it is in this article - after the quoted material. (I doubt this would have passed FAC if the citation had been anywhere but after the quote). On re-reading the template documentation, I also think that typical refers to all three bullet points. As the use is clearly correct, please don't change things just because you prefer it: things should only be changed if they are an improvement. As to the rest, my comment still stands: not an improvement. - SchroCat (talk) 05:59, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
I read your "not an improvement" as a comment on what you specifically addressed; sorry if I misunderstood. Leaving citation aside, I'm actually surprised some of the prose issues did pass by FAC. (Although it is, on the whole, a very solid article.) You don't think that cutting out unnecessary words and duplicated language is an improvement? In particular, when you undertake to do something you may fail or be interrupted despite your best efforts. If you successfully did something it's not necessary to convey that uncertainty. Kim Post (talk) 14:50, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
Maybe the nine reviewers at FAC (with around 400 FAs to their names) have a better idea of prose than you think you do? I don’t know, but that may be worth mulling over... Certainly some of the changes you made are poor when viewed from the point of formal British English, which may be one reason why. SchroCat (talk) 14:58, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
If there's no constructive discussion to be had here then I'll leave you to it. Kim Post (talk) 15:48, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
If you don’t want to look at things from another view, that’s fine. - SchroCat (talk) 18:48, 25 September 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.

Have your say!

Hi everyone, just a quick reminder that voting for the WikiProject Military history coordinator election closes soon. You only have a day or so left to have your say about who should make up the coordination team for the next year. If you have already voted, thanks for participating! If you haven't and would like to, vote here before 23:59 UTC on 28 September. Thanks, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:29, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Just Asking

Are you a bot? TheBoiZurkelman (talk) 15:25, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

No. - SchroCat (talk) 15:26, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for doing [1] this. I'll keep it in mind. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.58.90.111 (talk) 15:21, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

No problems. A good rule of thumb to remember (and an easy way to check), is that at a very minimum, the end of each paragraph should have a citation to cover what was before it. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 15:23, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

James Bond

Hello
I notice you reverted my edits to the Television section here (and to the Casino Royale article); your edit summary said the episode was linked before... where is that? I couldn't see one, and the TV section ought to have a link to it, which is why I put it in.
Also, you are right about him being credited as James, but the name used throughout is Jimmy, and I think the name change should be mentioned, as it is with the Mathis and Leiter characters. Regards, Swanny18 (talk) 22:53, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Quite right on the link to the TV programme, which was my mistake. Even if it's a new section it doesn't need a new link, as it's not so far from the original. The name for Bond is credited as James (as opposed to the others, which differ), so we stick with that. - SchroCat (talk) 23:21, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Peer review/Thiruvilaiyadal/archive1

Hello SchroCat, been a while. How are things going on with your good self? BTW, Kailash29792 has listed this article about a 1965 cult classic film in Tamil cinema for peer reviewing with the intention of preparing it for FAC and subsequently taking it to FA. As always, your constructive comments would be deeply appreciated. Also do have a look at his other FAC. Thank you.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 08:17, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi Ssven2, All is good here, thanks - I hope you're also well. I'll try and have a look at the PR at some point soon, but I need some time to build up enthusiasm to review Indian cinema articles! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 18:51, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Scarface (1932)

I found your comment on Scarface (1932 film) about Rotten Tomatoes interesting and you make a good point. I decided to remove that statement from the lead in order to give it less emphasis. I have considered removing from the article entirely, since I do tend to agree that reviews contemporary with the film shed more light on its actual reception and quality. I have found it difficult to remove it completely, however, mostly because of the significance of the 100% Fresh rating for some people. I think there is some, if any, significance to it, especially considering there is an article about it. I wanted to ask you whether you think it's important to take it out of the article completely or whether I could do some reorganizing to decrease the emphasis it has on the page, while still keeping it in for those who would be interested to know the RT score. I understand and agree with your view of RT, but there are likely some who would disagree with you and maybe it would be best to keep it in the article to appeal to all readers (I imagine the average reader is looking up the article while they are watching the film or before deciding whether to watch it, to find some highlights about it they may find interesting or relevant, one of which may be an RT score) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skyes(BYU) (talk • contribs)

Hi Skyes(BYU), thanks for your note. I understand that some people "need" to see an RT score in there, even although they don't understand just why they are so awful, and what they do and do not show. Decreasing the emphasis would be a good step, and you can do this in two ways. Firstly not to open the Reception section with it - open it with your sentence "At the time of release, audience reception was generally positive" and run through all the older material you have. When you get to the end of that, you can then deal with RT as a more up-to-date review. You can also slightly de-emphasise by rephrasing (and losing the uber-horrible "Fresh" nonsense!) If you give a hint of what RT actually does, you can also include the years of the reviews, just to reinforce to readers that this is a modern view. Something along the lines of "The review aggregator website Rotten Tomatoes sampled 36 reviews from 2002 to 2018 and judged all of them as positive." should suffice. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 09:35, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
WP:AGG gives a good overview. Generally Rotten Tomatoes is not good for older films because the sample is usually not statistically significant, and as SchroCat says the newer reviews get mixed up with the older ones. For classic films there are generally better sources available for comparing contemporary reception and the film's modern-day reception. Betty Logan (talk) 10:57, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for your suggestions! I have integrated them into my article.Skyes(BYU) (talk) 19:16, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

To all page watchers

To anyone who is interested, I have just opened an FAC for Shergar, a fascinating tale of racing, high stakes, theft, ransom demands, and a sad end to a superb and friendly horse. All constructive comments are much appreciated. - SchroCat (talk) 13:10, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Books & Bytes, Issue 30

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 30, August – Septmeber 2018

  • Library Card translation
  • Spotlight: 1Lib1Ref spreads to the Southern Hemisphere and beyond
  • Wikimedia and Libraries User Group update
  • Global branches update
  • Bytes in brief

French version of Books & Bytes is now available in meta!
Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:43, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Restoration (England)

Why did you close the Talk discussion at "Restoration (England)"? I was genuinely trying to explain the reasoning for the wording of the page, rather than just engage in a broader discussion of the topic. Alssa1 (talk) 14:39, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi Alssa1, I know you were acting in entirely good faith, but the other user was not. He has been posting similar posts on other pages about how Britain isn't a democracy, how marriage can only be between a man and a woman, etc. It does not matter just how correct your information was, or how many sources you showed him, this user has a misplaced and unshakeable POV that he tries to use as a weapon, regardless of any annoying facts that get in the way. I can't quite work out whether it's a competence thing, or just trolling, but he's being disruptive, whichever it is. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 14:47, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Reviewers

Hello. Over the years we have both known very solid contributors who can sometimes be surly and dig their heels in. I don't think the recent debacle on talk FAC was different, and urge reconciliation. Thank you for hatting. Best. Ceoil (talk) 21:12, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

PS hope you had fun at Pixies, and the hangover was worth it. Ceoil (talk) 21:15, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
Cheers Ceoil, and thanks for archiving. It's not a great result, and I hope Tony returns to FAC at some point in the future. I would welcome him to any review on one of "my" articles if he chose to come back at any point. The Pixies were great, thanks, and the hangover well worth it! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 08:40, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
Hi SchroCat, have blocked you for 6 months for using the phrase "my" article. My god man, what were you thinking. Anyways, gives me ample time time to add 40 odd infoboxes. Ceoil (talk) 09:12, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
Excellent - I'll enjoy removing them when I come back from the block! ;-) - SchroCat (talk) 09:09, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Film music

Good day! Do you have any experience working on articles for film score composers? I've been slowly hammering on Joseph Bishara and I'm stuck in a bit of a "he scored this...and then he scored this" rut. If you want to meddle with it or leave any notes for me, I'd appreciate it. I'll eventually send it to GAN or FAC. --Laser brain (talk) 00:21, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi Laser brain, My pleasure. I'll take a spin over it a little later today. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 09:12, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
Thanks. It's a long way from done, but I could use some thoughts on the overall structure and avoiding repetition in the film music section. --Laser brain (talk) 12:17, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Pod

Hi Gavin, how are you? I hope all is well in your neck of the woods. As I mentioned I would be recently, I've nominated Pod for PR and would be super happy for any comments from you: Wikipedia:Peer review/Pod (The Breeders album)/archive1. Thank you! Moisejp (talk) 06:07, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Sure - I'll pop over there shortly. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 10:29, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Eric Pohlmann

Hi there, noticed this is still unsourced, he voiced Blofeld. Bond topic article! Care to sort it out? Cheers.♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:23, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Shocking that it's got nothing there at all. I'm struggling to motivate myself in topics I actually want to write at the moment, so I think I'll pass on this one. Cheers - and bloody glad to see you back - SchroCat (talk) 22:58, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
Haha no worries, yeah it's tough to be motivated these days. I may look into it sometime.♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:17, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

TFL notification

Hi, SchroCat. I'm just posting to let you know that List of works by H. Rider Haggard – a list that you have been heavily involved with – has been chosen to appear on the Main Page as Today's featured list for December 3. The TFL blurb can be seen here. If you have any thoughts on the selection, please post them on my talk page or at TFL talk. Regards, Giants2008 (Talk) 22:19, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Cheers Giants2008, much appreciated, and I hope you are well. I've made a couple of tweaks to the blurb, and I'll check the article shortly. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 23:37, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, SchroCat. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

A Christmas Carol

Just to let you know I've scheduled the above TFA for 8 February ... I mean 17 October ... no, 1 August ... well, actually, it's 25 December. Surprise, surprise. Enjoy having the comma-obsessed with your plum pudding.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:20, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Wehwalt. Did I see Laurence Olivier is also coming up? Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 07:38, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
Indeed. A good month for the classics.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:30, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Mincemeat edits

I cannot accept that Operation Animals is too tangential to the article on Operation Mincemeat. Its specific purpose, although not mentioned to ELAS or any other Greek resistance organisation, was to contribute to the deception plan for Operation Husky (the invasion of Sicily). If it is tangential, then so too is all the information about manoevres in Syria, forces in Tunisia using landlines rather than radios etc. I will restore it in a while.

The wartime usage of "Combined Operations" referred to Commando raids and other operations carried out under the auspices of Mountbatten's Combined Operations Headquarters, and was usually capitalised (certainly in Milton's work, if this is used as a reference). If not capitalised, it should not be linked to the article on Combined operations which is anachronistic and misleading. HLGallon (talk) 11:46, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

HLGallon, the information is too tangential, and threatening to edit war without bothering to discuss things is entirely the wrong way to deal with things. You have no more say on the content of the article than anyone else (me included). If you wish to see the tangential information in the article, open a thread or RfC on the talk page, rather than threatening to do so here. - SchroCat (talk) 11:53, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

November 2018

You actually wrote focus on the content not the contributors and then days later you restore a post which contradicts that principle? - Gothicfilm (talk) 07:31, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

No, I reverted your removal of the link. You know that editing other people's comments is a no-no, and your comment on it is sufficient rebuttal without the need for deleting part of it. - SchroCat (talk) 08:19, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Nominations now open for "Military historian of the year" and "Military history newcomer of the year" awards

Nominations for our annual Military historian of the year and Military history newcomer of the year awards are open until 23:59 (GMT) on 15 December 2018. Why don't you nominate the editors who you believe have made a real difference to the project in 2018? MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:26, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Pete Shelley

Buzzcocks Barnstar
For your excellent work on Pete Shelley's article after the sad news of his death. Nice work. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 10:53, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Many thanks Lugnuts - that's much appreciated. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 13:00, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

ITN recognition for Pete Shelley

On 7 December 2018, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Pete Shelley, which you nominated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. SpencerT•C 14:22, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Bet you were wondering what you get ;) great work with article. That was The Man. ——SerialNumber54129 14:34, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
It was in surprisingly passable shape, compared to many of his contemporaries - only a few gaps on cites, and not too much fancruft in there, so it's nice to give a nod to him on the FP. - SchroCat (talk) 14:43, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Quick grammar check

Would you take a quick look at this alteration please. Both versions read fine to me but I am wondering if there is a technically correct variant? Betty Logan (talk) 17:45, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi Betty, both are fine. The original is marginally better, but becoming a little dated now. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 19:06, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Tottenham outrage scheduled for TFA

This is to let you know that the Tottenham outrage article has been scheduled as today's featured article for January 23, 2019. 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/January 23, 2019, but note that a coordinator will trim the lead to around 1000 characters anyway, so you aren't obliged to do so.

We also suggest that you watchlist Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors on the day before and the day of this TFA. Thanks! Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:42, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Jim, Many thanks for the heads up. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 14:55, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Voting now open for "Military historian of the year" and "Military history newcomer of the year" awards

Voting for our annual Military historian of the year and Military history newcomer of the year awards is open until 23:59 (GMT) on 30 December 2018. Why don't you vote for the editors who you believe have made a real difference to Wikipedia's coverage of military history in 2018? MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:17, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Seasonal greetings

Seasonal Greetings and Good Wishes
Seasonal greetings for 2018, and best wishes for 2019 to all who continue to fight for good practice and higher standards in building this great encyclopedia. Brianboulton (talk) 11:07, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
Many thanks Brian! And the very same to you. May 2019 bring you all you wish for. Cheers Gavin - SchroCat (talk) 21:38, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Seasons

Gothic Seasons Greetings
Wishing you all the best for x-mass and hope all is grand and well. Ceoil (talk) 19:10, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
Cheers Ceoil - I hope all is well, and that your Christmas and new year is a good one. Gavin - SchroCat (talk) 21:39, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Happy Christmas

I salute you.

There is nothing I can give you which you have not, but there is much that while I cannot give, you can take.

No heaven can come to us unless our hearts find rest in it today. Take heaven.

No peace lies in the future which is not hidden in this present instant. Take peace.

The gloom of the world is but a shadow. Behind it, yet within our reach, is joy. Take joy.

And so at this Christmastime, I greet you, with the prayer that for you, now and forever, the day breaks and the shadows flee away.
— Fra Giovanni Giocondo, 1513
Peace and joy this holiday season. Kafka Liz

You too

And a Merry Christmas to you too. Your greeting was doubly welcome since it's actually my birthday too (don't ask how many...) Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:34, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Best to you and yours this holiday season. Peace and affection, Kafka Liz (talk) 02:45, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Merry Merry

Happy Christmas!
Hello SchroCat,
Early in A Child's Christmas in Wales the young Dylan and his friend Jim Prothero witness smoke pouring from Jim's home. After the conflagration has been extinguished Dylan writes that

Nobody could have had a noisier Christmas Eve. And when the firemen turned off the hose and were standing in the wet, smoky room, Jim's Aunt, Miss. Prothero, came downstairs and peered in at them. Jim and I waited, very quietly, to hear what she would say to them. She said the right thing, always. She looked at the three tall firemen in their shining helmets, standing among the smoke and cinders and dissolving snowballs, and she said, "Would you like anything to read?"

My thanks to you for your efforts to keep the 'pedia readable in case the firemen chose one of our articles :-) Best wishes to you and yours and happy editing in 2019. MarnetteD|Talk 08:07, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Happy Saturnalia

Happy Saturnalia
Wishing you and yours a Happy Holiday Season, from the horse and bishop person. May the year ahead be productive and troll-free. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:07, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Auric?

Just curious if your comment at the TFA discussion was inspired by Auric Goldfinger's "Once is happenstance. Twice is coincidence. Three times is enemy action."?--Wehwalt (talk) 13:17, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

  • Funnily enough it did float through my mind when I was writing it! I couldn't quite tweak it to a closer quote without non-Bond aficionados understanding what on earth I was on about! - SchroCat (talk) 13:18, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Books & Bytes, Issue 31

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 31, October – Novemeber 2018

  • OAWiki
  • Wikimedia and Libraries User Group update
  • Global branches update
  • Bytes in brief

French version of Books & Bytes is now available on meta!
Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:34, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Merry Christmas !!!

CAPTAIN RAJU(T) is wishing you a Merry Christmas (quite possibly a White Christmas).

Have a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year

This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove.


Spread the Christmas spirit by adding {{subst:User:Matty.007/template/Christmas}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message. If everyone who got this put it on two talk pages, we would have... lots of Christmas spirit! Have fun finding links in this message!

— 21:02, 23 December 2018 (UTC)


Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year

Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year

Hi SchroCat, I wish you and your family a very Merry Christmas
and a very Happy and Prosperous New Year,
Thanks for all your help and thanks for all your contributions to the 'pedia,

   –Davey2010 Merry Christmas / Happy New Year 21:07, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Austral season's greetings

Austral season's greetings
Tuck into this! We've made about three of these in the last few days for various festivities. Supermarkets are stuffed with cheap berries. Season's greetings! Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:02, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Xmas

FWiW Bzuk (talk) 01:43, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2019!

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2019!

Hello SchroCat, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2019.
Happy editing,
Walk Like an Egyptian (talk) 05:26, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

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

Merry Christmas to all!

We wish you a Merry Christmas and a prosperous New Year 2019!
Wishing you and yours a Merry Christmas, and a Happy, Glorious, Prosperous New Year! God bless!  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 16:43, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

Congratulations!

Dropping by to say that Tottenham outrage is by far my favourite FA ever. Amazing work bringing the chase to life! Joe (talk) 16:32, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Well done, SchroCat. A great effort. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:35, 23 January 2019 (UTC) (.... but hardly worth £80 in gold, silver and coppers, alas)

Belated thanks

...for your kind words at North-Eastern Area Command's FAC! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:54, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

My pleasure! A nice read, as always. - SchroCat (talk) 13:46, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Currency equivalency

Hello, SchroCat. Can you please fix this good faith attempt at a currency equivalency?: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Henry_Labouch%C3%A8re&type=revision&diff=880561518&oldid=877672189 Thanks for any help! -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:49, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

ITN recognition for Jeremy Hardy

On 1 February 2019, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Jeremy Hardy, which you updated and nominated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:07, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use File:Albert Pierrepoint, English hangman.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Albert Pierrepoint, English hangman.jpg. I noticed that this file is being used under a claim of fair use. However, I think that the way it is being used fails the first non-free content criterion. This criterion states that files used under claims of fair use may have no free equivalent; in other words, if the file could be adequately covered by a freely-licensed file or by text alone, then it may not be used on Wikipedia. If you believe this file is not replaceable, please:

  1. Go to the file description page and add the text {{Di-replaceable fair use disputed|<your reason>}} below the original replaceable fair use template, replacing <your reason> with a short explanation of why the file is not replaceable.
  2. On the file discussion page, write a full explanation of why you believe the file is not replaceable.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by creating new media yourself (for example, by taking your own photograph of the subject).

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:45, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Princess Alice

SchroCat, I have asked the folks at WP:SHIPS to check some of the metrics on the two vessels. Displacement is often conflated with grt and nrt (and I think the BBC may have done that in the Evans piece, especially as the numerical value of the stated "weight" of the collier is so close to its that of the net registered tonnage). I have not weighed in at FAC as these concerns can easily be addressed and such details are not of major importance to most readers. Regards, Kablammo (talk) 01:38, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

As I read this source, Bute/Princess Alice measured 171 grt when built, and 251 grt, 158 nrt in 1870-- there must have been some deckhouses or other enclosed space added in the interim. The Draught: 8.4ft depth is confusing-- depth is not the same thing as draught (depth is moulded depth or depth of hold, an interior measure of the hull), and this source does not say which is meant. Kablammo (talk) 02:39, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
Hi Kablammo, Thanks for your note here. You'll see that we don't use Clydesite to support any of the details. The figure of an 8' 4" comes from the Board of Trade Inquiry, when the detail was read out as "8' 4" depth of hold". For the other figures, see this thread from Lyndaship, who obtained the details from the Miramar database. The changes in weight from being built to the day she sank were because she had a complete overhaul, including new boilers, compartmentalisation inside, etc. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 09:06, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
Thank you. As the 8'4" is not draught I have removed the assertion; possibly we could link to moulded depth which does not have its own article but is linked to a more general article and section which defines it (and to confuse matters further, "moulded depth" is not the same as "depth of hold"). (This drawing shows the difference how depth includes part of the hull above the waterline.) The installation of new machinery could change the displacement but not necessarily the gross tonnage, unless additional enclosed space was added, as gt measures volume. It may be that the "ship" details could be in separate articles on the vessels, as is common. That would leave you an article free of the technical aspects of the ships which probably don't interest most folks. Best wishes, Kablammo (talk) 13:34, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

SC, is the 19 ft figure for Bywell also depth of hold? It seems large for the draught of a vessel that size. Kablammo (talk) 02:00, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Big smile

Hello S. I hope you are well. Your delightful edit summary brought to mind this bit of fun from my younger years. Cheers. MarnetteD|Talk 08:40, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Books & Bytes, Issue 32

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 32, January – February 2019

  • #1Lib1Ref
  • New and expanded partners
  • Wikimedia and Libraries User Group update
  • Global branches update
  • Bytes in brief

French version of Books & Bytes is now available on meta!

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:30, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Live and Let Die (novel)

Gavin, someone listed this at WP:TFAP for April ... any issues? I don't make the call on scheduling, but if it's good to go, I'll do a suggested blurb. - Dank (push to talk) 15:14, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi Dan, all good with me. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 19:34, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
This is to let you know that the Live and Let Die (novel) article has been scheduled as today's featured article for April 5, 2019. 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 5, 2019, but note that a coordinator will trim the lead to around 1000 characters anyway, so you aren't obliged to do so. We also suggest that you watchlist Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors on the day before and the day of this TFA. Thanks! Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:15, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
Many thanks Jim Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 14:40, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Eliza Acton scheduled for TFA

This is to let you know that the Eliza Acton article has been scheduled as today's featured article for April 17, 2019. 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, 2019, but note that a coordinator will trim the lead to around 1000 characters anyway, so you aren't obliged to do so.

We also suggest that you watchlist Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors on the day before and the day of this TFA. Thanks! Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:31, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Many thanks Jim Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 13:32, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

To any interested TPSs

To any TPSs, Tim riley and I have just finished re-writing Round the Horne and popped it into PR for comments. It would be bona to vada your dolly old ekes there for any fantabulosa thoughts you may have. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 21:26, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Ooooh, I do love good party, don't you, especially the Universal Party. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:10, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

TFL notification

Hi, SchroCat. I'm just posting to let you know that Agatha Christie bibliography – a list that you have been heavily involved with – has been chosen to appear on the Main Page as Today's featured list for March 29. The TFL blurb can be seen here. If you have any thoughts on the selection, please post them on my talk page or at TFL talk. Regards, Giants2008 (Talk) 03:53, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi Giants2008, thanks for your note, and I hope all is well. I’ve had a look at the page and it’s not FL standard at th moment: it’s had a shed load of junk dumped in there and there are a couple of unsourced sections and bits and pieces of unsourced material. We can’t run this one without giving it ans tikis overhaul first. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 06:24, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
Do you think that you will have time to clean it up to your satisfaction before the Main Page date? This topic isn't a specialty of mine, and real-life work has left me struggling to do much of anything on here at the moment anyway. If you can fix it up, great. If not, please let me know ASAP so I can swap the page out if need be. Giants2008 (Talk) 23:12, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
Hi Giants2008, I don’t think I will, no. I’m travelling with work for the next few weeks and can’t do any major new work for a while. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 12:26, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
Fair enough. I've now pulled the list from its scheduled date. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:34, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:SchroCat/Archive_26&oldid=1073320346"