This 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. |
Archive 25 | ← | Archive 27 | Archive 28 | Archive 29 | Archive 30 | Archive 31 | → | Archive 34 |
Regarding your comments on the talk page, I have made 8 comments since 21 November, including proposing the merge. You have made 5 comments since yesterday. I don't believe I'm badgering anyone. I'm just raising relevant issues for discussion.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:44, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
Would appreciate a view on this. Ceoil (talk) 11:57, 1 December 2019 (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.
WP:ABF much? I perfectly explained why I undid your edit (because you left POV phrasing in the article casting doubt on whether Jeffrey Epstein committed suicide). Also, you can kindly reconsider your decisions up to this point if you think that image was "culturally insensitive" because you have had ample opportunity to comment on the substance of the image, but you refused to even acknowledge I had a replacement already available.
I have been nothing but patient with you, but you are exhausting my good will. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 16:24, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
left POV phrasing in the article"? There was no need for you to revert my edit: you could have just deleted the POV text, which is nothing to do with my edits at all. I have explained that fabricating images - any image - is not a choice I would advise, so your proposed fabricated image would be a slightly less bad one than the one that also manages to diminish a religion. I have also suggested an alternative, although you say that "they'll never see this meme shared as a Wikipedia quote box": I think you miss the point of what a quote box actually does. Can I suggest that discussions on this point are kept on the article talk page, rather than this little backwater of a page? - SchroCat (talk) 16:49, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
On 4 December 2019, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Bob Willis, 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. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:23, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
Hello, SchroCat! We have a situation now at this talk page. You started an RfC a few days ago, making it clear that you didn't like the doctored image being used as an example of the meme. There was discussion. The one you (and I) didn't like has been removed. Since then, someone has found a usable picture of a real, "in the wild" use of the meme. Everyone seems to want to use it in the article. But the feeling is that we can't use it, or do anything, until the RfC is either closed or withdrawn. You have been pinged but have not responded. That is your privilege, of course. But I can't understand why you wouldn't withdraw the RfC. Because basically, you have won; there seems to be consensus to use the photo of a real meme instead of the one you and I objected to. Give it some thought, OK? -- MelanieN (talk) 18:17, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for Maria Rundell, "something of a mystery figure. There is some confusing information about her life up until the point her husband died. After that she becomes a little more public, writes two books and has a feud and long-running court case with her publisher, John Murray. One of her books was something of a sensation: A New System of Domestic Cookery was published in November 1805. It was a huge success and the book sold around half a million copies over the next 75 years or so." - Thank you also for the noble "dark day" announcement. We miss Brian. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:49, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
Please see MOS:CONFORM. – S. Rich (talk) 19:53, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
Damon Runyon's short story "Dancing Dan's Christmas" is a fun read if you have the time. Right from the start it extols the virtues of the hot Tom and Jerry
No matter what concoction is your favorite to imbibe during this festive season I would like to toast you with it and to thank you for all your work here at the 'pedia this past year. Best wishes for your 2020 as well SC. MarnetteD|Talk 01:57, 17 December 2019 (UTC) |
What ho! We discussed keeping an eye on BB's Featured Articles to look out for bad edits, well-meant or otherwise. You said you'd look after his explorer stuff. Excluding those with a co-nom to do the honours, these seem to be the key articles, but I know I have missed some: BB wasn't big at blowing his own trumpet, and I can't find an up-to-date list of his FAs. I'm putting 41 other BB FAs on my watch list, mostly literary and musical.
Thine, Tim riley talk 20:56, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
Io, Saturnalia! | ||
Wishing you and yours a Happy Holiday Season, from the horse and bishop person. May the year ahead be productive and distraction-free. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:38, 20 December 2019 (UTC) |
Happy Holiday Cheer!! |
in the spirit of the season. What's especially nice about this digitized version: *it doesn't need water *won't catch fire *and batteries aren't required. |
and a prosperous New Year!! 🍸🎁 🎉 |
Hi Gavin, thanks for the card; it's much appreciated. I was about to leave a note for you anyway because I've been working on Martin Broszat, who was somewhat involved in debunking the Hitler Diaries, which brought me to read that article. It's very well-written, flows well and is very funny. I got about halfway through and wondered who had written it, which is when I noticed the star and found it was one of yours. So thank you for that, and best wishes for the holidays. SarahSV (talk) 05:21, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
Season's Greetings | ||
Wishing you a Happy Holiday Season, and all best wishes for the New Year! Mystical Nativity (Filippo Lippi) is my Wiki-Christmas card to all for this year. Johnbod (talk) 16:39, 17 December 2019 (UTC) |
FWiW Bzuk (talk) 01:18, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
Have a WikiChristmas and a PediaNewYear | |
Silly question - why did Schrodinger's cat die? Meanwhile, have a lovely Christmas. SilkTork (talk) 12:36, 23 December 2019 (UTC) |
Cheers SilkTork, you too. I hope your having a great time, and all the best for next year. - SchroCat (talk) 07:39, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2020! | |
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 2020. Spread the love by adding ((subst:Seasonal Greetings)) to other user talk pages. |
Thanks Betty! I hope your having fun this Christmas. All the very best for next year too. - SchroCat (talk) 07:39, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
Greetings! Be advised that New-polymath has opened WP:DRN#Robert Falcon Scott but has not mentioned you in the case. It looks like you two are the primary editors who have been discussing at Talk:Robert Falcon Scott. —C.Fred (talk) 16:20, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
Hello SchroCat: Enjoy the holiday season, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, DBigXrayᗙ Happy Holidays! 15:43, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
Thank you DBigXray. You too! Have a great Christmas - SchroCat (talk) 07:39, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
Martinevans123 (Santa's Oven-Ready Brexit Centre) ... sends you ...
... warmest seasonal wishes for ...Nadolig Llawen a Blwyddyn Newydd Dda.
Hoping that Christmas may bless you with peace, love and a Cuban groove... and wishing that you may find a little traditional fun ...
Cheers Martin. All the best to you and yours this Christmas, and have a great new year. - SchroCat (talk) 07:39, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
...an excellent word, to be used more often in conversation :) 09:14, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
I am tempted to raise this at the FAC TalkPage. In my view his actions were disruptive and unacceptable. WP:NPA prevents me from being more explicit. Best wishes. Graham Beards (talk) 14:34, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
My sympathies. I went through this with Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki/archive2, where a reviewer wanted the article to be on a different topic. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:42, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
"Per source" is not a meaningful explanation for the revert at A Christmas Carol. That source (DeVito) was previously cited for the assertion that he was a money lender even though it did not claim that to be the case. Scrooge's identification as a businessman requires no citation because it is unambiguously stated in the text. It is also unambiguous in the text (and not original research) that he is a warehouse proprietor. Please restore the reverted edit. 73.71.251.64 (talk) 03:46, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
All material in Wikipedia mainspace, including everything in articles, lists and captions, must be verifiable". That means that everything must have a citation to a reliable source. - SchroCat (talk) 09:53, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
On 22 January 2020, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Terry Jones, which you nominated and updated. 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) 14:28, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
Hello. My day centre teacher says there was nothing wrong with my edit. What was wrong? He says they are not prohibited and users can choose not to see them, in the same way I have high contrast for my eye sight. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BettyLou1931 (talk • contribs) 18:23, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
Hey, well, I know that the administator Muboshgu protected that page soon after one edit of mine restoring the elements (but it's there in the history anyway). I can't find the supposed discussion about a version that "passed" on his/her userpage, where's this agreement?Mr. Split (talk) 18:26, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
Hi, "the history book on the shelf, is always repeating itself" [1].Graham Beards (talk) 23:42, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
Hi Graham, Many thanks for your comments so far in the farce that is "the complete redesign of how any article has ever been treated by an obdurate, tendentious and disruptive editor in the history of FAC". I have never seen such poor behaviour from any reviewer, and it is certainly something that should have been stopped some time ago. There is too little of any merit to justify such disruption. I am on the verge of walking away from the whole nonsense yet again – not just this review, but FAC as a whole, if this crap is allowed to run on and on.
Can I ask your advice on this most recent batch of rubbish? As a former co-ord, would you have thought it unreasonable if I had rejected every single "suggestion" being made? It's what I intend to do at the weekend, as I have yet to read anything of merit.
Given some of the suggestions of re-phrasing he has made in several places ("building a career in the business of striptease" is the latest example), I am fairly sure he is not a native English speaker (or, at least, not one who is flexible to accommodate British English). Complaints on "profession", "career", "series and "frequented"? This is a utterly ridiculous and spurious set of complaints.
FAC should be a positive process about article development. F&F is turning it into a flaming joke. The guy's a disruptive troll – a complete idiot who shouldn't be anywhere near FAC given his stated complaint against "hobby topics". The "review" he is undertaking isn't on a level playing field with any other article, and isn't about trying to polish off the last few corners: he has set out to deliberately sink this article, and doesn't care how facile his complaints, or how many lies he tells in the process. I stopped and restarted the review to see if a fortnight's gap would change his attitude. It hasn't. He has been even worse this time round, and I am at the end of my tether with the whole FAC process because of one silly little troll with a pathetic grudge.
Any advice you can give me on my question above will be greatly received, if I am still up for dealing with the dross by the weekend. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 20:58, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
Folks, I just spent several hours re-reading the FAC, and the article. And the previous FAC. And the talk pages. And various other pages. All the while bouncing around in a semi-truck. Now I'm trying to distill that down, while ALSO being semi-productive in my own projects on Wiki. Frankly, I did some editing in between reading because it cleared my palette.. I said I'd get to it today, and it will happen. Can we try to keep the rotten tomatoes for the FAC coords until after I actually get something posted? Ealdgyth - Talk 21:50, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
I am slightly at a loss with F&F's approach as it seems to be going way beyond any review I've ever seen (not just mine, but those of third parties too). It is uncollegiate, aggressive and goes beyond an acceptable level of rigorous criticism. Reading once again through the FA criteria, this article passes all those points, but F&F's approach of attempting to fail at any cost is disruptive and tendentious in the extreme.
I am going to hold off responding to anything he posts until the weekend (unless there is something particularly ridiculous that needs to be refuted). At least he may actually review something that needs dealing with by then.
There are several comments that I do not think need any action (they are either plain wrong, a matter of stylistic choice or outside the scope of any FAC review/FA criteria I have seen). If you could close off anything that does not need action or comment it would be helpful to clear some of the detritus. There is very little there (in my opinion, or in the opinion of the other reviewers, apparently) that needs action or comment from me, but if you could close down and indicate what needs addressing, I will consider these at the weekend. Wearily yours, thanks. – SchroCat (talk) 10:35, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
The box at the top of your page isn't sufficient I'm afraid. See WP:AWARE and use the DSAWARE template. Doug Weller talk 17:26, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
On behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:10, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
Hi. The Wikipedia:The Great Britain/Ireland Destubathon is planned for March 2020, a contest/editathon to eliminate as many stubs as possible from all 134 counties. Amazon vouchers/book prizes are planned for most articles destubbed from England, Wales, Scotland and Ireland and Northern Ireland and whoever destubs articles from the most counties out of the 134. Sign up on page if interested in participating, hope this will prove to be good fun and productive, we have over 44,000 stubs!♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:51, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
... for moving the sympathy comments from the FAC talk to Brian's talk. Would you find a way to have them on white background? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:39, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
I saw that farther up the page and misread it as "desturbathon". It seemed apt.
So ... shifting focus. I've got an idea for how to create some lists. I'm looking for someone who has a long history of creating GAs and FAs but is burned out on FAC at the moment. If you know anyone like that, ask them to pick a few of their GAs and FAs that might reasonably be considered part of the same topic (not per the stringent Featured Topic requirements ... just, an arguably complete set of related articles, some of which they wrote). I'll sketch out my idea and get back with ... them. - Dank (push to talk) 01:09, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
I'm curious Dank, why did it seem apt? :-)♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:21, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
I try to avoid the drama myself, but such is the site as you say. We could probably do with a De-scum-athon at some point too, rid of some the RFC riff raff eh Schro and Cass? Ha!♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:47, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
I only wanted to clarify my concerns. I'm happy to do so further. --Ronz (talk) 01:13, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
Hello! I'm surprised that an expecienced editor like you does not seem to know about WP policy on deaths in the leads of bio articles, and that you would choose to revert this, against such policy, no less also leaving a rather notty comment about edit warring. Good faith? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 05:24, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
Unless the cause of death is itself a reason for notability, a single sentence describing the death is usually sufficient, and often none is included in the lead at all, just a death date.However, (1) this is descriptive and not prescriptive, and (2) it looks like the text reintroduced by Schro was only a sentence. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 09:17, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
a single sentence describing the death is usually sufficient". There is just a single sentence. I'm not sure how this breaches the guideline. - SchroCat (talk) 10:45, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
a single sentence describing the death is usually sufficient" - and that refers to the LEAD, not the body of the article, as you claim; (the clue is in the link MOS:LEADBIO which is about the LEAD in the BIO. The heading of the section makes it clear it's about the lead too). If you wish to open an RfC on the point, feel free to carry on, but it is not a terribly constructive step to take. - SchroCat (talk) 11:20, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
... an interesting Japanese band. But you should hear that whole 2013 album. What we all seem to crave is summed up by Track 2, I fear. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:51, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
Many thanks for the advice re. Op. Mincemeat, much appreciated. The changes made I feel add texture and detail to the very good Wikipedia article. Firstly mentioning Room 13 is key since this was a major part of Macintyre's book and will play a significant part in the upcoming movie. It is here where the plan was concocted and executed (see also BBC documentary).
And the second change refers to the precise name of the secret team and also refers to the fact that only two sets of hands were permitted to handle the documents (I would like to add a Note here, taken from Macintyre's book: ('Note: The only other person to touch the letters was Montagu. Too many sets of fingerprints might have alerted the Germans that these were no ordinary letters.')
Might these revisions add to the article? Please do let me know your thoughts and forgive me any errors in citations (and my inability to create the Note!). Please do get back to me.Tenthengen (talk) 23:56, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
top secret team in Naval Intelligence consisted of eleven carefully selected individuals working from subterranean Room 13 in the bowels of the Admiralty". "top sectret" and "carefully selected" are fairly obvious, given this is a branch of intelligence during wartime, and "in the bowels" adds nothing; I'd even remove "subterranean", as the exact location in the building is inconsequential."
Hi Schro, I was wondering if you could take a quick look at the question at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Film#Is/Was_directed. Obviously the production and act of directing is past tense, but the film is something that still exists, so applying a credit in the past tense would imply that it is no longer true. Is there a grammatically answer to this? Betty Logan (talk) 20:05, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
On 10 March 2020, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Max von Sydow, 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. Indefensible (talk) 23:20, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
On 16 March 2020, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Roy Hudd, which you updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. — Amakuru (talk) 16:11, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Wikipedia:BLACKFRIDAY. Since you had some involvement with the Wikipedia:BLACKFRIDAY redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Steel1943 (talk) 20:00, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Jessie Murray you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Usernameunique -- Usernameunique (talk) 21:21, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Portrait of Adele Bloch-Bauer I you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Vami IV -- Vami IV (talk) 16:00, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
The article Jessie Murray you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Jessie Murray for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Usernameunique -- Usernameunique (talk) 05:01, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
On 8 April 2020, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Nipper Read, 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. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 18:47, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
Hi SchroCat, in the Hattie Jacques article it mentions she attended "a local dance school, the Dean Sisters Academy". This appears to be the same dance school as in new article Edna Deane and its ref? Regards, JennyOz (talk) 10:27, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
You're very welcome! I honestly wasn't sure whether it was a good idea (interventionism, granny-how-to-suck-eggs, etc etc) but they were getting on my nerves and I thought it was so [original thoughts redacted] inappropriate that I just couldn't bear it. I am glad you didn't mind. Cheers 82.39.96.55 (talk) 11:06, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
FYI, my edits to 9th G7 summit were because there was a mixture of mdy and dmy dates in the article. I picked dmy because it was an international summit. Using mdy dates is acceptable, as you changed (than you), especially considering the summit was in the United States. Truthanado (talk) 20:44, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Len Deighton you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Gatoclass -- Gatoclass (talk) 04:20, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
Long time no talk. I hope you don't mind me tweaking the article; I do follow your edits and have became absorbed. Very interesting from a sociological/political pov, and up to your usual writing standard. Am scanning atm moment and leaving comments in edit summaries, but can consolidate on the talk page if you prefer. V nice work. Hope all is well in these surreal times. Ceoil (talk) 21:53, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
Hi! I noticed you using Twinkle, which I have some gripes with, so recently I have tried to solve in my new tool called RedWarn.
The RedWarn project was built with the aims to:
1. Make moderating Wikipedia more accessible in order to minimise the amount of vandalism or disruptive editing on the platform
2. Simplify many processes while also providing previews and descriptions in order to reduce errors
3. Make reverting edits as fast as possible without the need of any additional software
I am currently looking for editors who would be willing to test a very early version of it. If you are interested, let me know by either using the "Reply to" template or leaving a message on my talk page. If not, feel free to remove this message. JamesHSmith6789 (talk) 20:05, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
Books & Bytes
Issue 38, January – April 2020
On behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --15:58, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
The difficulty is that as the text stands presently is picked up by spellchecking. My edit seems the least intrusive / most invisible way to get round it. Could you pl reconsider? Ingratis (talk) 17:36, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
The article Portrait of Adele Bloch-Bauer I you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Portrait of Adele Bloch-Bauer I for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Vami IV -- Vami IV (talk) 02:01, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
--Tal1962 (talk) 07:52, 8 May 2020 (UTC)You keep vandalizing my information for Fanny Cradock and removing LOTS of data. I will keep adding it until you cease.
I want to apologize for what I said to you (and others) in March. Have a good one! StrangeloveFan101 (talk) 11:48, 8 May 2020 (UTC)