![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
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)
![]() | |||
Hello, SchroCat.
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. |
![]() |
Happy New Year! |
A happy, healthy and peaceful 2018 to you! We hope ( talk) 00:31, 1 January 2018 (UTC) |
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
May all your endeavours have a fruitful beginning and prosperous ending!
—
Ssven2
Looking at you, kid 09:55, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
( ←) @ 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)
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)
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)
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. 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)
Has English changed so much while I was on Mars?
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)
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)
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)
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)
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! ...SerialNumber 54129 ...speculates 11:17, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
![]() |
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) |
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)
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 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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:
For the arbitration committee, GoldenRing ( talk) 08:59, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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. ~ Rob13 Talk 16:04, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
Extended content
|
---|
|
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)
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)
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)
What a fascinating article. I really enjoyed reading it. Mr Ernie ( talk) 00:32, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
... [1]... Cassianto Talk 18:41, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
![]() |
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)
![]() |
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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, 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)
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)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
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)
![]() | |||
Hello, SchroCat.
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. |
![]() |
Happy New Year! |
A happy, healthy and peaceful 2018 to you! We hope ( talk) 00:31, 1 January 2018 (UTC) |
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
May all your endeavours have a fruitful beginning and prosperous ending!
—
Ssven2
Looking at you, kid 09:55, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
( ←) @ 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)
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)
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)
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. 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)
Has English changed so much while I was on Mars?
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)
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)
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)
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)
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! ...SerialNumber 54129 ...speculates 11:17, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
![]() |
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) |
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)
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 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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:
For the arbitration committee, GoldenRing ( talk) 08:59, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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. ~ Rob13 Talk 16:04, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
Extended content
|
---|
|
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)
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)
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)
What a fascinating article. I really enjoyed reading it. Mr Ernie ( talk) 00:32, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
... [1]... Cassianto Talk 18:41, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
![]() |
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)
![]() |
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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, 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)
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)