Jump to content

User talk:SchroCat/Archive 11

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 9Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12Archive 13→Archive 15

Robert Farrar

Any luck? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:54, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

A little - I've emailed you the results. - SchroCat (talk) 12:17, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Profumo

I see you've discoverd my current project. It should be peer-reviewable by the weekend, and I'll drop you a line then. Brianboulton (talk) 20:14, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Fantastic. I met JP a couple of times at Toynbee Hall while I was working at a local university, (the university had connections to the charity): he was a charming and delightful man with a lovely manner and a gracious sense of humour. I have always admired his reaction to the scandal, which should be used as a model for modern politicians whenever they err. - SchroCat (talk) 20:22, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Linlithgow

Could you explain to me why, according to your opinion, he received the title '1ste Marquess of Linlithgow' and not 'Marquess of Linlithgow' (see London Gazette). And, why the title should not be in bold.

thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlecOostmalle (talk • contribs) 23:58, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Nothing to do with my opinion: it's to do with our Manual of Style. - SchroCat (talk) 00:01, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Which part of that manual? If you could tell me that, I would be very thankful.— Preceding unsigned comment added by AlecOostmalle (talk • contribs) 11:09, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

− *(talk page stalker) - When you come back from your block, see MOS:BOLD, which clearly is against the use you were promoting. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:21, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

I have explained to this editor, who asked the same question on my talk page. Tim riley (talk) 12:19, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Skyfall/Thunderball

Thought you may be interested in knowing that Guinness World Records has confirmed that Skyfall has beaten Thunderball, adjusted for inflation. They have Skyfall's gross down as $1.108 bilion and Thunderball down at $1.047 billion. Obviously, different adjustment methods can lead to different estimates but Guinness is usually regarded as authoritative in the matter of world records. I was going to update the articles myself, but there isn't an obvious insertion point in the Skyfall article so I opted to let you integrate the content if you'd prefer. The citation is:

Guinness World Records 2014. Guinness World Records Ltd. 2013. p. 203. ISBN 9781908843159.

Betty Logan (talk) 17:59, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

That's great - many thanks Betty! I'll get onto that shortly. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 19:09, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Discovered this too: [1]. There may be a few interesting facts that can be harvested; for example, fact 16 gives us an adjusted figure for the 1967 Casino Royale which could replace our slightly naughty OR one. Betty Logan (talk) 20:32, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
Shame we have 2005 figures for everything else! - SchroCat (talk) 20:46, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, the lack of adjusted data is frustrating. However, The New Yor Times has started pushing for adjusted data with changes to its stylebook, so hopefully these ludicrous false records that don't account for 50 years of inflation will hopefully come to an end: [2]. Betty Logan (talk) 20:57, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
Excellent! Let's hope it works into our modus operandi soon: with each addition to the Bond table, the questionability of the data becomes ever-more obvious—to me at least! With no true and unquestionable measure of the inflation in box office, I can't wait to strip out the inflation columns as soon as the MoS changes! - SchroCat (talk) 21:38, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
  • As I've discussed with Wehwalt before, there's no "true and unquestionable measure of the inflation" anywhere... especially if we're throwing currency conversion into the mix. But agree, we should have published estimates. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:23, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Kenneth Horne

I notice you've reverted my deletion of the DOB in the main copy 'as per PR'. I don't know what this means. But the DOB is always quoted in the lede, as the natural reference point. So it is unnecessary to quote it elsewhere. It is a purely mechanical detail, not a value judgment. Valetude (talk) 08:17, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

  • (talk page stalker) - A lede should simply be a summary of the article, introducing no new information. Hence, the birth date should also be in the body of the article. See WP:LEDE, particularly "The lead section (also known as the lead, introduction or intro) of a Wikipedia article ... serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important aspects" — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:27, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Indeed—exactly as above. Without the mention in the first section, the information is not supported by a citation, which isn't a terribly good thing for a good article. - SchroCat (talk) 09:05, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
I take your point about the DOB, when there's a citation. But could I suggest that DOB's without a citation might be exempted from the rule about no extraneous info in the lede? It's the one item that everyone can find by going to the first line. Valetude (talk) 21:35, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
I'm really not sure we would give exeptions to such a fundamental fact - and why on earth would we do that? I'm not sure that having the date of birth in the main body is such a heinous point that we give up on our rules about providing citations to support such information. - SchroCat (talk) 21:43, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 January 2014

Gielgud's Holmes

I have somewhere - equally lost in the heaps of stuff chez Riley as the Horne tape I promised and failed to deliver - a tape of an interview with Sir Ralph and Sir John in which the latter cheerfully admitted that his attempts at accents when playing the disguised Holmes were the subject of impersonations at theatrical parties: "Bring the coals up, matey!" in impeccable Oxford English. Something he and Kenneth Horne had in common. Tim riley (talk) 20:08, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

I listened to "The Adventure of the Empty House" a few days ago: it's the one where Holmes returns from the dead and surprises Watson by appearing in disguise as an old bookseller. I tell you one thing: it doesn't work on the radio when it's Gielgud's undisguised voice playing the role! - SchroCat (talk) 20:29, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Profumo affair

You've had a bit of a dabble at this – have you time to look in a bit more detail, at the peer review? I'd be very grateful. Brianboulton (talk) 21:47, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

I certainly shall, over the next day or so - and I'm sure it'll be an interesting read. JP was certainly an interesting character, and one certainly worth the effort. - SchroCat (talk) 23:25, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

MP RV reply

Hmm, I'll keep that in mind about their relationship. But the reason I changed the thing about her having a small part in the films is because her part in Skyfall seems like more than just a small part since it's a main role. Seems better for it to say "Although she has a small part in most films..." rather than "Although she has a small part in the films..." Would it be acceptable to change just that part back? Survivorfan1995 (talk) 22:23, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Certainly would - I've done that bit for you. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 09:02, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 January 2014

Sir Ralph

After my most stimulating and comprehensive PR ever, I have Ralph Richardson up at FAC. If you have time and inclination to look in, it will be esteemed a favour. – Tim riley (talk) 21:40, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

The Tower House

I really appreciate your most helpful edits and your encouragement. Many thanks. KJP1 (talk) 22:40, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

My pleasure! - SchroCat (talk) 22:52, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

PR

Hi Schro, I was wondering if you could be so kind as to drop by my PR of Drama dari Krakatau, open here. Any input would be greatly appreciated. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:51, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Certainly will do! - SchroCat (talk) 09:15, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. The discussion is about the topic Ian Fleming. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! --Regards, MrScorch6200 (talk · contribs) 16:30, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

DRN case closed

Hello, I am MrScorch6200, an assistant at the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. You recently filed the request or were a major party in the case titled "Ian Fleming". Unfortunately, the case had to be speedy-closed regardless of whether discussion began or not because there is no talk page discussion on the issue as required by DRN. When these issues have been addressed, you may refile the DRN request unless another noticeboard is more appropriate or otherwise directed. If you have questions please ask me on my talk page or the DRN talk page. Thank you! ----Regards, MrScorch6200 (talk · contribs) 17:47, 8 February 2014 (UTC) This message has been sent as a courtesy using a standardized template.

  • Additional comments by volunteer: If an editor is unwilling to discuss, see this guide.

A barnstar for you!

The Barnstar of Good Humour
For the success at Kenneth Horne, an article much worthy of it its new Featured status. Congratulations! CassiantoTalk 00:30, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Your policy on reverting edits

Hi there!

In stead of deleted information that just got added merely because references are lacking, could you simply ask for adding the references? Because right now you're being counterproductive.

In the case of the James Bond article, users could simply enter into the full article of the mentioned games to find all the information and references needed, which was why I originally didn't mention the references.

Thank you, Jurjenb (talk) 16:34, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

@Jurjenb: In future you need to add references when adding information: that is a rather basic point on Wikipedia. It is just not acceptable to put in unreferenced information into articles: that is counterproductive. It is also unacceptable to expect readers to go to a different page to see references. Furthermore, when you do add references into an article, please retain a consistent approach to the dating format. I now have to go in to ensure this is done properly. Again, that is counterproductive. - SchroCat (talk) 16:53, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Drama dari Krakatau

Greetings! This is a note to inform you that Drama dari Krakatau, which you have previously reviewed at the GA or PR level, has been nominated for featured article status. If you wish to revisit the article, your comments would be welcomed at the nomination page. Thank you! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:23, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 12 February 2014

Infoboxes

Boxes: Bad for cats
  • I certainly won't be giving up on writing it! That's the bit I enjoy most of all and the bit I want to keep up as much as possible: having to go through the same arguments over and over again just because an article is on the front page is a form of dramah I can do without, and there's one easy way to avoid all the grief that inevitably follows! It's a shame (and if others want to nominate the same articles I'll certainly not oppose), but articles on the front page have enough problems from petty vandalism and questionable "improvements" at the best of times, without having to drag up avoidable grief! - SchroCat (talk) 08:44, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
  • It certainly does - although I'm keeping an eye on the interesting thread to see what else pops up to use! There are some great images coming up there (gotta love the two-sided scans on ebay!) I need to get Hornung finished off soon and then I can crack on fully with it: it'll make a nice supplement to Tim's work to have them both Featured around the same time. - SchroCat (talk) 09:04, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Yeah, I think it'll naturally fall that way: I'm being a bit slow in getting going on this (too much going on at work, and I need to push Hornung on to completion first, which will still take some doing, unfortunately!) - SchroCat (talk) 13:26, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
  • I love the image and vote for the freedom of all cats. However, I believe in still good faith that infoboxes are not a matter of life and death, and that a box around the facts of birth and death of a person does not box that person's spirit, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:18, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
  • I have also decided not to nominate at TFA in the future. I was working towards getting Robey on the front page for his 60th anniversary since his death, but I can't be bothered with the grief. CassiantoTalk 15:48, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
  • I don't understand why leaving the Main page without your precious contributions follows from "not life and death", but there are more things I don't understand and don't have to. I like this move. If that is not the choice for you, you might consider a template on TFA day, modeled after my own:
template TFA mercy
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:04, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
  • LoL Gerda, thanks for the above message which made me smile: The thing is you can add any template you like, but you would still get people asking for a discussion only this time about the template that we added. They would also complain that it's not right that Gavin, Dr B and I should dictate that an infobox can't be added just because of it's TFA. In short, the template would be ignored and I envisage that nothing would change. Obviously I can't stop people nominating on my behalf, but I shall not endorse it and will instead be hiding behind the sofa with gritted teeth. I will embrace it, of course, once the ambiguity is removed from the current policy. CassiantoTalk 16:20, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Smiling is much better than gritted teeth, - I just returned from the dentist. I don't know - one of the many things mentioned above - what made your grief during the ages of war, and what could end it. The topic was new to me in 2012, and it took half a year to convert me, as you know. What do you think of the move I like? What do you think of the template made for me? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:32, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Wholly concur with you, SchroCat, about TFA. Why put oneself through the battering and bullying from the Gotta Have an Idiot Box fanatics? I too, I regret to say, am keeping the articles I have steered to FA hermetically secret, as far as I can, for that very reason. Tim riley (talk) 23:17, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Tim, you could also use the template above. Where do you see battering in the question "why does this article not have an infobox?" The question (which I never asked) isn't out of the world because Andy and I are restricted, and it will not go away if more people are restricted. 0.0001% of readers will always ask, that is one person once you reach TFA, no help against that, so use my template ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:33, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Thanks Gerda, but personally speaking, I'd rather avoid the issue altogether. The recent "discussion" in the ArbCom clarification shows that there are enough people prepared to use lies and stupid and intemperate language ("bullies", accusations of utterly non-existent "snark" and overly-emotive nonsense) that are only ever going to build up aggravation and annoyance in a never-ending downward spiral. I'd rather keep well clear of the nonsense. One thing I am glad to say, is that infobox discussions on talk pages do tend to be much more civil nowadays, but I think it may only be a matter of time before they start sliding into the morass of incivility we had a year or so ago—something I find deeply depressing. - SchroCat (talk) 11:40, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Here, we not on an article talk page, in no "morass of incivility" (when was that?), and I am a curious person. Repeating (hope I don't bore you): if only 1 of 10.000 readers asks the (civil, harmless) question "why not?" one will show up for every TFA there is. That is not disruption, but math, - be prepared to deal with it.
  • I remember that the last time Andy asked this question (after TFA) was The Rite of Spring (May 2013), - is my memory right?
  • Do you think the infobox for Frederick August Wenderoth is bad for readers?
  • How do you like the template for me?
Everybody welcome to answer ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:20, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Gerda, why are you trying to prolong a discussion about infoboxes here of all places - on the talk page of a user who has already said that he would like to avoid the issue altogether and wants to keep well clear of the nonsense? On the talk page of a user who has been driven away from TFA by repeated infobox discussions? Please find something else to talk about, somewhere else. BencherliteTalk 12:33, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Because here I can have a friendly discussion among people I all consider precious, and can possibly win more understanding for their position. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:51, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Gerda, much as I do enjoy chatting with you and seeing you around, I really don't want to have our only topic of conversation to be about infoboxes, however friendly the discussion. I'll say again what I have said in many other places previously: I am a big fan of infoboxes, but only when they are used in a positive way. An IB is absolutely crucial and vital on many pages; it is of great benefit on many others; it's hit-and-miss on some (depending on personal preference); and they are misleading and damaging on others. I've started 36 pages on Wikipedia, 25 are articles and I put infoboxes onto 17 of them, because the infobox was right and proper (the other 11 are lists and I've put IBs onto three of them). I did not put IBs onto the other pages because they were not suitable. (I've also added IBs onto several pre-existing pages and removed them from a small few on the same basis).
Gerda, you will have to accept that lots of people who are being somewhat lazily labelled as being "anti-infobox" are nothing of the sort: we appreciate all the positives they have to offer and are very happy to use them when they benefit an article, but just do not feel the necessity for putting them onto every and every page.
Above all, I think the discussions around the whole IB issue are divisive in the extreme and I for one and sick and tired of them. There is a lot more to Wiki than this one small point, but it has the effect of sapping the life and fun out of much of the editing experience and it's something I can do without. I hope you don't mind, but I really don't want to prolong the discussion any further and I hope that next time we converse it will be on a less irksome topic! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 13:34, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Thank you. I don't think you understood me (Yes, I believe that the question "Why no infobox?" should be treated as a harmless factual question, but that is not equivalent to "feel the necessity for putting them onto every and every page", - I don't feel any necessity, - not even all "my" articles have one), but it doesn't matter. If you look at my articles of four years you will find diverse topics. (For three of those years I hardly saw an infobox, working mostly in Classical. For half a year I was against them, as redundant, - seems familiar?) We could chat about many topics. I have a peer review open, did you know? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:35, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
I didn't know about your PR, and I will be delighted to pop along there tomorrow for a look and comment. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 20:38, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
Unfortunately waylayed today: I will certainly get there tomorrow, however. - SchroCat (talk) 22:16, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
No rush ;) - I just found this, kind of a source of a source, and wonder how I would include it,

Profumo affair

Brief courtesy message to let you know that Profumo is now at FAC. Brianboulton (talk) 17:57, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

It'll be my pleasure: I'll pop along there shortly. - SchroCat (talk) 18:51, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
Sorry to bother you with a bit of Profumo business, but a reviewer has questioned the use of a non-free image of Profumo in the article. This was to be expected. I have broadly stated my rationale for this in the FAC ( link here), but I would welcome input from other reviewers on this matter, if you can spare a moment. Brianboulton (talk) 22:03, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
Will pop along shortly for a look, although image reviews are not one of my strong suits! - SchroCat (talk) 10:11, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Bernard Lee

No no, I didn't know there was a thing about not having an infobox for his page. I saw you remove it the first time but that was when it only had occupation and birth date, I figured if it had more then it could stay. But Dr. Blofeld warned me about adding one back. No edit war, just wasn't aware :) LADY LOTUS • TALK 19:39, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Many thanks, Lady! All the best - SchroCat (talk) 20:08, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Sacred music

"Sacred music" is a standard term, so is "sacred cantata" (vs. "secular cantata"), - please see Bach cantata and Bach Cantata Pilgrimage. It doesn't say "holy", although some would go that far for Bach ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:36, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

No problems - feel free to revert if I don't get there first. The term "sacred cantata" suggests to me "praise to the cantata in the highest", rather than sacred being the subject, but certainly not a problem if it's a standard term! (This is the problem with a non-technical reader doing the review!) Sorry for the glacially slow progress of the PR, but will be finished this evening or tomorrow morning, as my off-Wiki workload has lightened considerably over the last day or so. - SchroCat (talk) 20:51, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
No problem, - it's good to have feedback from someone not too familiar with the topic, - most readers will be. I checked the Pilgrimage and think we could also use "church cantata" because the others (weddings, funerals, town council inauguration) were not part of it. I amused a friend - a former editor - today by saying if I learned one thing "on wiki" it's patience ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:14, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
I've switched back to the sacred cantata already, and I'll leave the decision on sacred or church with you. My own (entirely ignorant and very slight) preference would be "church cantata", which sounds like a different thing to the sacred version, but if the musicologists are happy with the sacred version, then let that stand! - SchroCat (talk) 21:20, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, will change to church per above, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:25, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Caption1
    Caption1
  • Caption2
    Caption2

Peer review request

Hi Schro, I was polishing up our article on the Streatham portrait in preparation for a run at FAC, and was wondering if you could be so kind as to participate in the peer review? No worries if you are too busy. Thanks beforehand. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:43, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Will do! I need to finish off Gerda's first, but should be there in a couple of days. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 16:39, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
Will be on this tomorrow. - SchroCat (talk) 02:20, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Danke. Am trying to finish my master's thesis today. Apparently my thesis counselor will be in Germany for two months (April–June) so if I want some of my registration fees back I need to defend my thesis by the end of March. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:31, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Sir John

Thank you for rescuing the article from my hamfisted copying and pasting. Phew! Tim riley (talk) 21:08, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

It really does look rather fine (your bit, not my c&p section!) Bravo to you! - SchroCat (talk) 21:09, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
Thank you, sir! Take my advice and never undertake the biography of someone who lived to his nineties and had a seventy-five year career. Sir Ralph was a stroll by comparison to this marathon. I've got something else already at peer review, and will slot Gielgud in as soon as the runway is clear. Your tables are coming on nicely too, I see. They're rather a marathon too, methinks. Tim riley (talk) 22:10, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
They certainly are something of a marathon - very long already and I've only covered four of fourteen pages from the Morley list! Just wish he wasn't so active! - SchroCat (talk) 22:33, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

February 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to E.W. Hornung may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • After publishing ''Dead Men Don't Tell Tales'' in 1899 and ''Peccavi'' in 1900,{{efn|''Peccavi'' concerns a clergyman who has sinned earlier in life: the title is Latin for "I have

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 19:19, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited You Only Live Twice (film), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Tsai Chin (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:07, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 19 February 2014

DYK for E.W. Hornung

The DYK project (nominate) 08:02, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Tremendous work on the article, BTW - I've always been a fan of his Raffles stories! Hchc2009 (talk) 10:58, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
Thanks very much! His Raffles stories are great - just a shame some of his other stuff hasn't stood the test of time so well! - SchroCat (talk) 11:22, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Recent revert

Since you reverted my edit, I think it would be nice if you weighed-in here with your thoughts. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 18:42, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 26 February 2014

Books & Bytes, Issue 4

Books and Bytes

Volume 1, Issue 4, February 2014

News for February from your Wikipedia Library.

Donations drive: news on TWL's partnership efforts with publishers

Open Access: Feature from Ocaasi on the intersection of the library and the open access movement

American Library Association Midwinter Conference: TWL attended this year in Philadelphia

Royal Society Opens Access To Journals: The UK's venerable Royal Society will give the public (and Wikipedians) full access to two of their journal titles for two days on March 4th and 5th

Going Global: TWL starts work on pilot projects in other language Wikipedias

Read the full newsletter


MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:00, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Deletion discussion invitation

Hi SchroCat! Since u have been a regular contributor to Bond-related articles, I thought I might notify u of an "Articles for deletion" discussion over at the Octopussy (character) article. I'd love to have your input! Survivorfan1995 (talk) 06:24, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi SchroCat! I am SleepwalkerPM. I was wondering why you deleted my addition to High Tension. I watched the movie again hoping to debunk the the criticism I had recently read in both Roger Ebert's review and a subsequent article listing the movie among the top movies with major plot holes. Reviewing the movie confirmed my suspicion that their are no plot holes. My contribution was intended to disabuse potential viewers of Ebert's apocryphal statement. I did not want this to discourage people from watching the movie.

If you will not allow my contribution to will you support my deletion of Ebert's quote. Thank you SleepwalkerPM — Preceding unsigned comment added by SleepwalkerPM (talk • contribs) 20:19, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Because your comment is just your personal opinion, and therefore isn't allowable. If you can find a reliable secondary source that supports it, then that's fine, but not without that source. - SchroCat (talk) 20:24, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Your reverts

Go off and do something more constructive with your time, these tables are on almost every major actors awards pageList_of_awards_and_nominations_received_by_Denzel_Washington,List_of_awards_and_nominations_received_by_Leonardo_DiCaprio, List_of_awards_and_nominations_received_by_Laurence_Olivier, List_of_awards_and_nominations_received_by_Tom_Hanks, , List_of_awards_and_nominations_received_by_Johnny_Depp, List_of_awards_and_nominations_received_by_Robert_De_Niro. etc etc etc etc etc why single one out how bloody childish you may as well go on delete about 50 other actor article with the same tables if you feeling that vindictive.--Navops47 (talk) 07:07, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

If you come to my talk page, please try and keep at least a veneer of civility when you post. - SchroCat (talk) 07:42, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Edit conflict?

Was this an edit conflict or...? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:03, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes! Didn't think that was supposed to happen, but it's happened to me before as well: thanks for letting me know - I've dropped it back in now. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 09:06, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Wildly approprate editing of another users talk page.

this edit is entirely inaproprate. You cannot edit a third party's comments on an editors talk page that is not your own. See WP:TALK "This generally does not extend to messages that are merely uncivil; " CombatWombat42 (talk) 23:30, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Utter rubbish. Grave dancing is inappropriate. Removal of such dross is entirely appropriate. I notice that you haven't bothered to message the uncivil troll at the heart of the issue, which would have been a damned sight more constructive. - SchroCat (talk) 23:38, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
The user is IMHO an idiot, but has not violated policy. You very clearly have. CombatWombat42 (talk) 00:07, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Was your AIV report itself vandalized?

I reported an unrelated vandal and noticed this odd-looking removal of your entry there. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 09:03, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi @Hobbes Goodyear:, thanks for the note. Not sure if it was vandalism or not, but the account has been blocked anyway, so I'll AGF on the part of the IP who deleted the report (for now!) Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 09:06, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

PR request

So, writer or actor next, eh? Me? Film... again. I've got Tjioeng Wanara up for PR here, and I would be much obliged if you could drop by and have a look. Thanks! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:23, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

  • Ah, I had my eye on that as well (though to be honest my head spins whenever we get to figures that are over $10,000 ... let alone millions). Thank you. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:36, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Sir John

I have been going round the talk pages of long-suffering Wikicolleagues soliciting their comments at the peer review, which I opened this morning. It seems almost impertinent to invite you, as we have been familiar visitors at each other's Gielgudian pages over the past month, but I suspect, and certainly hope, you will want to wade in with comments. Tim riley (talk) 13:10, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

I most certainly do want to! I feel I have a good grasp of much of his career, but only from the rather bitty perspective of his record, so something more coherently put together will be of much interest. - SchroCat (talk) 13:16, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Template:Jackie Evancho singles discography

Someone just created this Template, but as I understand it, only one of Jackie Evancho's singles was released officially (maybe I'm wrong, as I don't really understand "singles"). Does the Template make sense? Should it be combined with her main template? You can see it, for example, at the bottom of Prelude to a Dream. Thanks for any advice or help! -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:29, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm not an expert in templates, but isn't the singles temmplate just a duplicate of the discography one, but in a slightly different format? If so, then it's just a waste of time, IMO! - SchroCat (talk) 20:41, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Solo (Boyd novel)

I took the portal links out by mistake....William 18:46, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

No probs - thought that was what had happened. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 20:41, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Enid Blyton

Many thanks for your support. I believe consensus at WP:Ireland makes it clear... Any chance you could give this a read and comment at Wikipedia:Peer review/Enid Blyton/archive1? Hoping to get this core article up to FA.♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:06, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Will do! Something of a backlog forming at the moment, with Crisco and TimRiley ahead of you in the queue, but I'll get there! - SchroCat (talk) 16:20, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

(test) The Signpost: 05 March 2014

FA congratulations

Just a quick note to congratulate you on the promotion of E. W. Hornung and yes to FA status recently. If you would like to see these (or any other FA) appear as "Today's featured article" soon, please nominate them at the requests page; if you'd like to see an FA on a particular date in the next year or so, please add it to the "pending" list. In the absence of a request, the articles may end up being picked at any time (although with 1,326 articles in Category:Featured articles that have not appeared on the main page at present, there's no telling how long – or short! – the wait might be). If you'd got any TFA-related questions or problems, please let me know.

Having said that, I remember your recent comments at another venue. If you can think of ways to improve the TFA experience, my talk page / inbox is always open. Best wishes, BencherliteTalk 10:22, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

  • Although it may seem as if I'm editing in a daydream most times, I do remember most of the articles I work on, and I don't remember that one! @Bencherlite: many thanks for your note, and I'll have a long think about Hornung, although I'm conscious that it's two years to his 150th birthday, which may make a better time for him. By then, there may be a more clear situation for not necessarily having IBs on all pages (although I doubt it too much!) - SchroCat (talk) 10:54, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
Oops, template fail - missed a "|" to make an empty second parameter in {{FA congrats}}... you should have got the basic message not the full TFAR advert! i.e. (or should that be "i. e."(?!) Just a quick note to congratulate you on the promotion of E. W. Hornung to FA status recently. I know you know all about WP:TFAR and the "pending" list, so this is just a reminder to use them as and when suits you. Many thanks. Sorry! BencherliteTalk 10:59, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Congratulations on the Hornung FA! A very well-executed article and I look forward to seeing it at TFA/R for its day in the sun on the main page. Coincidentally Ian Rose closed it off and promoted moments before I was about to add in my voice of support and a few comments.--ColonelHenry (talk) 16:54, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

RE: TFL stats

Thank you for that. Considering Deepika Padukone, Weather Machine and Cyclone Rewa this year, and Paul Kagame last year were also affected by these technical issues, this tool is helpful. At least it puts a number rather than an "we don't know". © Tbhotch™ (en-2.5). 02:54, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Special Barnstar
For your efforts to promote E.W. Hornung to FA. Keep up the great work! ♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:25, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Many thanks! Nice to get a largely forgotten author up above his more-famous brother-in-law! - SchroCat (talk) 17:27, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

AN/I

Ring Cinema chose not to redact the ridiculous accusations of sockpuppetry regarding your account an mine, so I have opened a case at AN/I. You can find it at the following link: [3]. Participate/comment if you'd like. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 01:35, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, commented. - SchroCat (talk) 13:47, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Annie Hall themes

My past experience with the dissenting editor is that he is a master baiter and will not back down. The more anyone not on his side talks, the more he will use what you say against you. Consensus is the best course of action. Arguing with him gets you/me/anyone nowhere. He seems to love the back and forth and word-sparring. My opinion is that he seeks to wear his opponent down so he will "win" by default. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 16:21, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

I think Winkelvi's absolutely spot on in his perception of this. He's lost all credibility on here and he's contradicted himself on many occasions. Now he's trying to look as if he's being reasonable and trying to get Aymatth and Erik to sympathise with him as if he's genuinely concerned about themes. Basically I think it really comes down to the fact that he cannot accept that other people want to expand the lead of "his" article not that he really has severe issues with the themes. He's ignored Erik's question three times. Now he's looking for sympathy and apologies which is quite pathetic. He doesn't stand a chance of getting his own way with it and should on the 20 March when it is unlocked he start making a hash of the article it's pretty obvious that either it's going to be locked again or he is blocked. If he's half as intelligent as he thinks he is he'll walk away from this and get on with something useful. I suspect that he won't do so. Honestly Schrod I don't think it's worth even worth responding to him anymore.♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:11, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 12 March 2014

The Observer

Hello. The Observer became the Guardian's sister paper in 1993. You cannot call it that in a prior context, surely... Mezigue (talk) 22:27, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Space Jam

I feel I am being persecuted on the grounds of having a different opinion! That's hardly fair! Jdogno5 (talk) 00:44, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Nope: for not using the talk page and for edit warring. SEVEN reverts on a page against three editors is unacceptable. THAT'S why you've been reports for edit warring. - SchroCat (talk) 00:47, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

You mind explaining to me what's wrong with the last revision I created for Space Jam? Jdogno5 (talk) 10:05, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

You need to go to the article' stalk page and discuss it there. There is absolutely no point in discussing changes to articles on my page: the article's page is what editors watch, not this one, and that means that all interested parties can comment in the right place. - SchroCat (talk) 10:08, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

There is mention of rape in LTK

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. The thread is "License to Kill". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! EarwigBot operator / talk 18:17, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Keithbob, but if some editor can't be bothered to discuss something on an article talk page (or to discuss things in a vaguely civil manner), and doesn't understand the MoS, then there's little point. If they had gone to the article's talk page then it may have been a different matter. As the information that was questioned is supported by an academic source, in line with MOS:PLOT, then there really isn't much more to deal with. Thanks for your efforts. - SchroCat (talk) 14:14, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

[4]

Hi, although the word may be American in origin, there is still a reasonable amount of info which suggests that British English uses an 's'. Thanks, Matty.007 15:13, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

No, there is no "correct" BrEng spelling. There are two variations which are both correct. - SchroCat (talk) 15:16, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
Given that a British TV series uses the s spelling, and where there is a difference between British English and American English, when the difference is between a 'z' and an 's', I think s is used in B/E every time. If there is no variation, then 's' is presumably the more British spelling, and MoS and this table show that just about always British English use 'ise'. Thanks, Matty.007 15:23, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
You've obviously not come across Oxford spelling before? There is no hard rule on the non use of Z in English, especially when, as in the case of novelization, it's an American abomination of turning noun into verb. - SchroCat (talk) 15:31, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
I have, but I think the more commonly used spelling (at least, the one I use) is ise. Thanks, Matty.007 15:32, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
Even when incorrect? I'll also point out that the OED provides both spellings, and numerous UK publications will use one or other. In other words, there is no hard rule to use ~ize in this case (or in a few others too). - SchroCat (talk) 15:36, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
But it's not incorrect here, you said that there are two variations which are correct, and the traditional British spelling is 'ise'. Matty.007 15:38, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
You're basing that on an erroneous reading of the subject here. I'll dig out the references in a day or so about the Greek and Latin background to this, and why it's not such a hard rule as you suggest it may be. - SchroCat (talk) 15:41, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
I don't mind that much, it just annoys me to see (what I vier, perhaps wrongly) as an Americanism in a British template (I hope you can see what I am meaning). If we don't agree that it is wrong, I have no problem leaving it. Thanks, Matty.007 17:11, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
I agree with SchroCat here. Both variants are acceptable in British English, but if push comes to shove we defer to the OED's primary listing which is "novelization" in this particular case. Betty Logan (talk) 17:31, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 19 March 2014

Sir John

Glad (but not the smallest bit surprised) to see Gielgud's roles and awards given their own gold star. It's as fine a piece of work as Wikipedia – or anyone else – has to offer. Tim riley (talk) 08:07, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

You're very kind! You were a huge help (spiritual and temporal) during the writing andd FLC and my huge thanks to you for your help! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 08:57, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Ian McKellen

Why would you combine the two when he clearly has enough credits for two separate pages? You said it needs to be discussed properly but I don't see anywhere where you discussed it properly before deciding on your own to combine the two. There are tons of actors who have 3 separate pages, Tom Hanks, Robert Downey Jr, Denzel Washington, Clint Eastwood, Morgan Freeman, Samuel L. Jackson, Seth MacFarlane, Vanessa Redgrave, Benedict Cumberbatch, I could go on. The way it was looked sloppy, having 3 separate pages helps reduce the clutter and text size of each article, plus you had a filmography with all the awards ON TOP of an entire awards thing. LADY LOTUS • TALK 19:42, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Sloppy? Absolute nonsense. How many of those articles you've mentioned are featured? (one by my count), and there are many others which do combine the two. Why split off an actor's word from the recognition of that work? That sounds kinda sloppy to me... - SchroCat (talk) 19:53, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
Yea, sloppy. You had the filmography table WITH the awards in it AND the awards separate below it. And the filmography table itself was sloppy, needed to have the rowspans removed. And what does featured have to do with anything? This one isn't featured and wouldn't get featured the way it looks. LADY LOTUS • TALK 19:58, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
It's a work in progress which I hope to re-work and take to FLC soon. Yes, the awards section is not yet fit for purpose, but that's because I still need to do it. Three pages for one individual? That's just poor. I look forward to the discussion on the talk page of the Ian McKellen, roles and awards article. - SchroCat (talk) 20:03, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
Well it's actually on Talk:Ian McKellen, since it was more about the 3 of them in total. LADY LOTUS • TALK 20:07, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
Can I suggest you move it to the article in question, which would be more appropriate. - SchroCat (talk) 20:08, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for the move of the discussion thread: I have replied there. I do strongly advise that the other film and award articles you've listed start getting some references very quickly: they currently fail BLP and should be struck off entirely. - SchroCat (talk) 21:47, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Imogen Holst

Just to let you know I've now nominated Imogen at FAC. I will certainly keep an eye out for the Tranby Croft article; all I'll say at the moment is that I don't think Edward was a grandfather at the time of the scandal, though he may have been by the court case the following year – I'm sure you'll monitor the dates. Brianboulton (talk) 10:07, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Quite right! (There was one prior, but it was stillborn): the grandfather status was pre-trial, not pre-scandal. I'll tweak accordingly and have a good look at Imogen shortly. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 10:45, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 26 March 2014

Saving Mr. Bond

I know you keep most James Bond articles up to date, but did you notice in Casino Royale (2006 film) there are a few dead links (since long)? And A View to a Kill has a few tags? Kailash29792 (talk) 06:56, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi Kailash, Thanks for the Heads up. I hadn't seen the tags or dead links (it's a shame they don't pop up on our watch lists!) I'll make a start on them in a few days and work through them. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 07:39, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
View to a Kill now covered: CR to follow. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 08:12, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
CR now also sorted. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 09:13, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Reference Errors on 3 April

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:52, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 02 April 2014

The Signpost: 09 April 2014

Robey PR

To Lord Gavin of SchroCat, some fellows have been beckoned to Sir George's office, where your attendance would be very much appreciated. Sir George does expect some harsh comments, a few home truths, a lot of scandal, and the airing of some consistently controversial views. Don't worry though, he does claim to be the Prime Minister, so it goes with the job! Cassiantotalk 15:23, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

it'll be my pleasure! - SchroCat (talk) 15:41, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
I wonder what it is about wikipedia which attracts so many pointless editors.. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:09, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
It's a question I ask myself quite often! - SchroCat (talk) 20:41, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
It's always the ones who do the least work who are the most opinionated on the work of others too. Very active quality content contributors don't spend their time trolling the work of others and picking on the most trivial of things to complain about..♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:27, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
Sadly true - and yet those who "are active" (or "claim ownership") in a certain field are the first bunch to start throwing round ownership accusations at others simply for having the gall and audacity to disagree with them on very good grounds! - SchroCat (talk) 14:12, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
The whole sorry saga over at John Geilgud is indeed a sad day for the English language. I agree that it seems to be the same old idiots ruining the hard work of others. It almost makes me think that certain people over there stalk us as we keep seeing them rear their ugly heads at any article to which we have been party to. (I omitted to say "wrote" or "construct" as apparently that is OWN). IMO, having their usernames or edits pop up on a featured list or article is like seeing a Banksy pop up on the Arc de Triomphe. -- Cassiantotalk 18:03, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm sick and tired of the tag team ng attacks on everyone who dares to have a different point of view on this: we've all given our thoughts and opinions in the discussion section, but as soon as the name goes in the !vote section, they queue up to berate, bludgeon and attack. My AGF on this is stretched thin (certainly on two of the participants) and it is beginning to look like a co-ordinated attempt to ensure that anyone else would be unwilling to add their name for fear of also receiving such an aggressive response. - SchroCat (talk) 08:57, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Quite agree. This sort of thing is one of the most annoying things about wikipedia, as well as "pseudo experts" who do bugger all to improve wikipedia and sit around moaning about the efforts of others..♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:27, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Sadly the OWN aspect of the MOS is all geared towards articles, whereas I've recently seena lot of OWNership activity around aspects of the MOS itself, including the title, IBs, navigation templates etc. Big red lights and noisy klaxons go off when I see people saying "many of the people who don't like this title are quite heavily involved with monitoring the WP:MOS": it's rank, unbridled ownership of the very worst kind and leads to seagull editing at it's very worst. - SchroCat (talk) 11:14, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
I took it off my watch list. When Admins lie through their teeth to get their own way it's not a place I want to be. When admins are too involved to throw their weight around, they shouldn't, but it's exactly what's going on. It's sickening and pathetic that a bunch of owner-warriors feel the need to act like the lowest form of schoolyard bullies, but I guess that's how they get their rocks off! - SchroCat (talk) 06:17, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Tephrosia apollinea

Hello Gavin, I'm pleased to meet you. You have most forcefully requested backup of the "rubber stamp" statement at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Plants#Tephrosia_apollinea, so here I am. You mentioned misquoting, but I believe the quotes were exact, to the letter, and links were provided. Is that not correct? My description was also a very fair one of what actually happened there. No, of course the words "rubber stamp" were not used by the participants (nor did I say they were), but any softer interpretation of that interchange would really be less than honest. Were you aware that they were previously friends, and that Jaguar had reviewed, or had been asked to review seven articles for Dr. B. during the last month? You know that the GA reviewers are supposed to be impartial, and that there is a set arrangement at Wikipedia (imperfect yes) to submit and wait? Did you know about Dr. B. going around that arrangement and even withholding a nomination until the best hour for Jaguar his friend to swoop in and get the review? That doesn't sound a little less than impartial to you??? C'mon man, please consider if your friendship could possibly be clouding your critical thinking. There is no way to actually check references and check for broad coverage in a plant article (unless you were a plant supergenius) in just a few minutes. If someone asks for this kind of review from a friend and says it should only take a few minutes, that is actually asking for a rubber stamp review! That is exactly what happened. He was basically telling Jaguar to trust him that all the sources had been exhausted (although he was mistaken), and Jaguar did just trust him by providing what he described himself as the "world's fastest GA review". I encourage you to look closer. Best wishes, and good editing. --Tom Hulse (talk) 00:42, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Tom, I think you need to separate the request from the review here. Firstly there is no problem in asking for someone to review an article for you; the GA process is a tediously long wait (I've waited nearly five months for one previously), and speeding that process up just isn't a problem. Blofeld didn't ask for a rubber-stamp review - and that's where I have an issue with your statement: it puts a level of dishonesty into Blofeld's actions that just wasn't there. The request on Jaguar's talk page was a long way short of requesting a "rubber-stamp review" The review itself could and should have been have been more rigorous, yes, but that is some distance from an accusation of "asking for a rubber stamp review", and an entirely different aspect of the matter here. - SchroCat (talk) 06:13, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

@Tom Hulse: In fact for many articles like Aalborg I've requested reviewers to review them who I know will conduct a vigorous review because a thorough although not excessive review at GAN can put it in better standing later on for a possible FA. Arguing that I couldn't care less about the quality of the review is completely unfair and reveals a lack of understanding in a lot of the work that goes into wikipedia from myself and some of the editors I frequently review for and vice versa. I see GAN as an important process in wikipedia's development and I prefer a decent amount of criticism. I ask for people to review them because as Schro says it can sometimes take half a year before anybody will look at them and I trust most of the people I ask to conduct a fair and constructive review. At the time, yes, my assessment of having found all the sources I could find was true as I didn't have access to JSTOR, and I said that the review shouldn't take too long to do given the length not that he should pass it without a proper review. Stop twisting my words. And I asked Jaguar to review two films articles, one of which he'd expressed earlier interest in reviewing, and only one article on the culture of the Cook islands which had been at GAN for a while and hadn't been picked up aside from the plant article, hardly seven articles in the last month anyway. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:23, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Infobox length

You might want to comment on this proposal re infobox length. Barryjjoyce (talk) 01:39, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Books & Bytes - Issue 5

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 5, March 2014
by The Interior (talk · contribs), Ocaasi (talk · contribs)

  • New Visiting Scholar positions
  • TWL Branch on Arabic Wikipedia, microgrants program
  • Australian articles get a link to librarians
  • Spotlight: "7 Reasons Librarians Should Edit Wikipedia"

Read the full newsletter

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:55, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Another director PR

Well, I've managed to get off my butt and grab the biography I've had sitting on my bookshelf since December. D. Djajakusuma is up for PR at Wikipedia:Peer review/D. Djajakusuma/archive1, and I would be most obliged if you could take a look. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:15, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Will be delighted to. You may be interested in the discussion just started here, regarding the 'career history' lists you've reviewed previously. It may have ramifications for FL titles in the future (with the seeming insistence of some that a list must begin "List of...", so I'll post to FL and FLC talk too. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 16:33, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 23 April 2014

London Theatrical agency Al Parker Ltd

Hi SchroCat,

I have noticed that you seem to be the public conscience of British popular performance (and other arts) on Wikipedia and I have not wished to dispute what you would think best for a Wikipedia reading public.

I have today broadened the page to Albert Parker (director) at this editing mark >
https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Albert_Parker_%28director%29&oldid=605571700

It has been completely annulled by an another person.

Could you have a look at what I broadened the article out into ?

The three paragraph quote from the James Mason reference book gives authentic referencing to Al Parker's life in the USA and in England, I think.

I will leave it with you.

regards, --Laurencebeck (talk) 08:08, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi Laurence, I think you're right that the paragraphs are pertinent, but unfortunately the way of including the information isn't. We can't just drop in large chunks of text from other sources, even if we do point to the source. We need to rewrite the information in our own words, and then add the citation to show from where it comes. Use the information from the source, by all means, but not the words. I hope this helps. - SchroCat (talk) 09:15, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Bank War

Mr. SchroCat - Thank you for your restrained and constructive edits to Bank War. 36hourblock (talk) 00:16, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

The other Le Mez

For a brief while in the late 1970s, the beloved actor J. Le Mez was eclipsed in public attention by an overweight carpet salesman of the same name. He was one of those accused with the politician Jeremy Thorpe of conspiracy to murder, in a cause célèbre that immedeiately preceded the arrival in power of Mrs Thatcher. A rather less appealing Le Mez, I'm bound to say. I've written up the whole tawdry tale as another in my "political scandal" series: the Thorpe affair, now at peer review. Any comments there would be welcome. Brianboulton (talk) 16:43, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

It'll be a pleasure! I'll be there shortly. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 16:46, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
@Brianboulton:, before I change it and look a complete fool, is the correct spelling defendents or defendants? - SchroCat (talk) 18:19, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
It's me that's the chump; "defendant" is correct. Oh the shame, the horror... Brianboulton (talk) 19:04, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 April 2014

Goldeneye

Goldeneye scene filmed in the Swiss Alps

I gave two sources imdb and the other one I cant remember off the top of my head but is on my previous edit summary. That should be enough evidence. Since I cannot put a reference on the device I am on I kindly ask you to do it for me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.129.229.27 (talk) 12:55, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

No, you need to add a reliable source at the time you enter the information (see WP:BURDEN). Imdb does not qualify as a reliable source, and I am not sure moviedistrict does either. If you can find something on a reliable site, then add the citation within the text, not in an edit summary. (If you are able to edit the text to add a sentance, you can certainly edit to add a citation). I should also add that you should also not re-revert people if you are reverted: see WP:BRD and use the article's talk page instead. - SchroCat (talk) 13:01, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

How will I know if the site I find is reliable. There isnt exactly a lot of information on this scene on the internet btw. — Preceding unsigned comment added by an unspecified IP address

Books are always better than websites. As a general rule of thumb if you can't find,information from obviously reliable sites, then the fact is notable enough for inclusion in an article. - SchroCat (talk) 05:57, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Could you check the site out then : http://www.themoviedistrict.com/goldeneye/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.129.229.27 (talk) 06:18, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

It's self-published and therefore not reliable. - SchroCat (talk) 08:15, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Filmography naming system

I strongly object to this move to a "proper title". There is no consensus for such a move is there?♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:11, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

None at all - I thought I'd caught all these at the time, but I see I may have missed a couple: it may be worth you double-checking. As this was done while the discussions were ongoing, it was utterly inappropriate to have moved them all before any consensus developed. Fell free to swap it - and any others - back to where they were before. Sadly the main discussion continues to press the point, despite the main participant not actually understanding what the content of these articles actually are: trying to name apples and pears under the same title does not work it you're trying to be precise! I hope they manage to take that on board quickly, because there is little constructive coming out the discussions at the moment! - SchroCat (talk) 09:36, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Done.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:12, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Robey now at FAC

Greetings, just a note to let you know of Sir George's FAC which has just been listed. Thanks again for all your help at the PR! Cassiantotalk 09:38, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Will do! Just need to finish the Thorpe affair and I'll be there - before Thursday, as I'm off to Hong Kong for 10 days after that. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 11:02, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
Lucky sod! I have always wanted to go there! Business or pleasure? Cassiantotalk 19:33, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
Business(ish)! - the annual conference of the International Trademark Association. Networking, receptions, lots of standing around or walking, and a jolly good time to be had by all! I've squeezed a couple of extra days holiday on the end, just to make sure I see everything I want to. - SchroCat (talk) 19:39, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
Sounds like a lot of fun. I may suggest that for next year's holiday, although I suspect I will end up booking the Caribbean again just for a quite life! Cassiantotalk 20:05, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:SchroCat/Archive_11&oldid=1144614326"