Jump to content

User talk:SchroCat/Archive 9

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10Archive 11→Archive 15

Thanks

The Copyright Cleanup Barnstar
For resurrecting Players' Theatre with a clean version supported by secondary sources. Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:14, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
I had watchlisted that page in the hopes that I would someday get to see somebody start afresh. I had no expectation that it would be immediate. :) Thank you for pitching in by writing content we can keep. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:14, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
My pleasure (and I was just about to drop you a note to say thanks for cleaning up the copyvio that was there)! I have an excellent book about the first 15 years history of the theatre and hope to knock up something halfway passible by the time I'm done! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 16:18, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

The Great Ziegfeld

Hi, can you find me the original film poster for this?♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:13, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi Doc, Isn't the one on the article the original? - SchroCat (talk) 14:16, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
I don't think so, I think it is the equivalent to the posters we used to have in the Bond articles. Any idea what the fair use template and licensing would be for fair use of File:The Great Ziegfeld set.jpg? I really need the image to illustrate the one sequence which cost $222,000 even in 1936!♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:30, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
Got this one and this one, but not sure which is the original! - SchroCat (talk) 15:44, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
Made a couple of minor tweaks on the FUR too. - SchroCat (talk) 15:59, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Julianne at FAC (at last!)

Hello SchroCat! How are you? You may have noticed that I disappeared off the face of Wikipedia a few months ago. It wasn't at all planned, I just suddenly (for the second time) had a complete aversion to it, heh. I have an odd relationship with this place. =) But I'm back now, and since Variety magazine has put its reviews back online, Julianne Moore is now ready for FAC. Very little has changed since you last reviewed it. Back in March you said you'd be willing to chip in at the nomination; if you still feel able to comment that would be great, but only if you have the time and inclination. No worries at all if you are too busy.

I see you have a couple more FAs under your belt - congratulations! Hope all is well with you. (Disclaimer: this is being shamelessly copy + pasted from Cassianto's page, for ease, but the sentiment is genuine) --Lobo (talk) 16:34, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi Lobo, No problems - I'll be there to have a look through shortly. Glad you're back with us! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 16:40, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
Thankssss! --Lobo (talk) 17:24, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 21 August 2013

FAC: Symphony No. 8 (Sibelius)

Per your request, I am letting you know that I have now nominated this at FAC. Thanks for your interest. Brianboulton (talk) 21:21, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Kellie Loder

Hi Gavin,

Thank you very much for your comments at the Kellie Loder FAC. I have edited the article accordingly and have responded at the FAC. I would be glad to address any remaining concerns you have about the article. On a separate note, great job with the James Bond articles; they are quite impressive.

Neelix (talk) 10:20, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi Neelix, Thanks very much for your comments about the Bond articles - much appreciated! I'm going to hold off on my support for the moment until the comments from Jimfbleak are cleared up. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 15:36, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Peer Review

Are you finished with Wikipedia:Peer review/Mughal-e-Azam/archive1? You comments indicated that a little more was remaining. BollyJeff | talk 12:47, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

 Done Sorry for the delay! - SchroCat (talk) 10:09, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Million Award

The Million Award
For your contributions to bring James Bond (estimated annual readership: 2,656,000) to Good Article status, I hereby present you the Million Award. Congratulations on this rare accomplishment, and thanks for all you do for Wikipedia's readers. -- Khazar2 (talk) 03:00, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

The Million Award is a new initiative to recognize the editors of Wikipedia's most-read content; you can read more about the award and its possible tiers (Quarter Million Award, Half Million Award, and Million Award) at Wikipedia:Million Award. You're also welcome to display this userbox:

This editor won the Million Award for bringing James Bond to Good Article status.

If I've made any error in this listing, please don't hesitate to correct it; if for any reason you don't feel you deserve it, please don't hesitate to remove it; if you know of any other editor who merits one of these awards, please don't hesitate to give it; if you yourself deserve another award from any of the three tiers, please don't hesitate to take it! -- Khazar2 (talk) 03:00, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi Khazar2, Many thanks for the award: I had not come across this before, but I'm delighted that the articles have been read so much as they have been. Thanks again - SchroCat (talk) 09:35, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
You're actually one of first two dozen or so to get it--I'm working through a sample of qualifying editors in reverse alphabetical order. -- Khazar2 (talk) 11:32, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

It's a superb idea, and rewards contributors for quality on high traffic articles. At least Khazar has his head screwed on and realizes what is important, unlike certain others around here!! Hey Schrod check out this I think it's Peter Sellers's dentist character, I'm just waiting for his nose to fall on the piano and for him to start laughing a-la this..♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:02, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Bulldog Drummond...

Nice work on the article - it deserved some tender loving care! If it's any use to you, I've cleaned up a version of the "no-man's land" photograph - the cleaned version is here: . I'm not sure if you'd prefer the old one with the frame and text, or this version, so haven't altered the article itself. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:53, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Many thanks, Hchc2009! I'll drop the image in shortly as I think it's an improvement on the previous one. I've been meaning to get round to Drummond for a while, but with "Sapper" McNeile possibly going onto the front page in a few weeks (if it gets enough support at WP:Today's featured article/requests#September 28) I thought it best to try and get his most famnus creation polished up too! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 19:28, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Skyfall

Hi, could you please fix the actual small error rather than reverting that and much more?[1] Thank you. -- Puisque (talk) 20:09, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Puisque, 1. Do you have any idea what an edit summary of for? It's certainly not to put in something as brainless as "omg!" If you have explained your action in the first place then it would have helped everyone else understand what you are actually doing. 2. In future, if you are going to make changes to article, check the language and date variants before you make the edit, rather than expect others to tidy up after your "improvements". 3. You've still managed to fuck up the formatting and haven't bothered to sort it out: don't worry, I'm sure you're used to people cleaning up after you, but don't be surprised in future when one of them takes a bite out of you for it. 4. You need to remove the titles in capitals from the template they are against the MOS. - SchroCat (talk) 20:30, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
I had a look at this, and there are a couple of WP:EGG links too which need to be sorted out. Betty Logan (talk) 20:21, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, I apologize for my language and the "omg". Anyway, mistakes do happen as they did my date formatting here, so don't straight go and say I'm "used to people cleaning up after me"...
What are the EGGs that I put in the article? -- Puisque (talk) 20:29, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Rotten or Not

Rotten Tomatoes does not give mixed-to-negative reviews, as appears on a number of the wiki pages. That's what brought me to try to address the misleading phrases used on a number of pages.

The site gives a single "x%" number, and grants it one word/symbol - either "rotten" or "fresh". No need to try and be kind to the film's producers and try to soften the wording - no need to avoid using the specific result that Rotten Tomatoes gives.

I do agree that I may be should avoid repeating the words "x% positive approval rating" , followed by "x of x gave a positive review".

Stealing liberally from some of the better wording I've seen on a few wiki pages, I do see a cleaner and still descriptive format in:

--- The film is ranked as "fresh/rotten" by aggregator site Rotten Tomatoes, with x% of x critics giving a positive approval rating. ---

This gives a straighforward use of Rotten Tomatoes' words (a % symbol signifying rotten/fresh) and - I think - gets to your good point about just what "positive approval rating by critics'" means (mine was too wordy and confused)

What do you think?Jmg38 (talk) 08:18, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

I've just finished posting a question elsewhere about the use of the rather crass and misleading "fresh" and "rotten" tags, as I thought we had decided to stop using them on the basis that they are... well, crass and misleading. The most honest and straightforward way of putting forward what they do is to say:
"Rotten Tomatoes sampled 204 reviewers and judged 83% of the reviews to be positive."
"a positive approval rating" means nothing. The reviewers have not given any sort of approval rating, they have written a review of maybe a couple of hundred to a couple of thousand words that weighs up the positive and negative aspects of a film. RT, in all their crass dumbing-down heavy-handedness, turn a balanced and thoughtful piece of prose into a horrible and utterly misleading raw number. To compound their turgid non-sensical approach, they then add the woeful and infantile tags of "fresh" and "rotten" to something that is already badly flawed. I'll post here when I find out what the consensus at FilmProject is regarding the meaningless tags. - SchroCat (talk) 08:29, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
Would that suggest that all reference to Rotten Tomatoes should be removed? The RT site, crass or not, DOES bring it down to a single word, either Rotten or Fresh. I'm not defending RT - simply stating that if the consensus of FilmProject is to NOT use rotten/fresh, then maybe the real consensus is to NOT use RT at all? Seems odd to say of RT "we will use what you say - we just don't like what you say, so we won't use the words that define the entire 'special hook' of your website"! Jmg38 (talk) 08:45, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
No, it wouldn't suggest anything of the sort. RT is a resource to be used how we feel fit, not how they want us to use it. if we use one tiny aspect of their site so be it, but we are under no compunction to use their "special hook", no matter how infantile and crass they make it. RT is misused on most film pages with some editors thinking it is a holy grail to cover all aspects of a film's reception. it isn't. It's good for some things, not for others. - SchroCat (talk) 09:18, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 August 2013

Timothy Dalton

Why did you revert[2] my edit to Timothy Dalton?

Diffusing articles to more specific sub-categories is a fairly routine process. What was the problem here? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:20, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

The description of "English" is a moot one. He was born in Wales and has previously identified as being Welsh: he's also self-identified as being English, so British is the appropriate nationality here. - SchroCat (talk) 06:33, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
OK, I see where you are coming from. However, the article says that he was born in Wales to an English father and American mother, and left at age 4. It says nothing about assertion of either an English or Welsh identity. Do you have source(s) for either or both of those points?
If you have the sources, there seem to be two options:
  1. to categorise him as both Welsh and English
  2. to categorise him as British, being the more inclusive term.
However, in the meantime it makes no sense to categorise him as both British and English, which was the status quo ante, and which you have restored. English is a subcat of British, and per WP:SUBCAT "a page or category should rarely be placed in both a category and a subcategory or parent category".
So until there are sources confirming a more specific identity, I propose to remove the "English" categories, leaving him only in the British ones. Any objections? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:08, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
I've removed the English cats to leave the more correct British ones. - SchroCat (talk) 10:24, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

FLC

Hi, would you be interested in reviewing this nomination —Vensatry (Ping me) 06:38, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi Vensatry, Sorry - this slipped right passed me. Yes, I'd be delighted to review and I'll be onto it shortly. Just to let you know I have three going through FLC at the moment, so if you feel like commenting on any of Hattie Jacques career history, Stanley Holloway on stage and screen or the 1939 Sherlock Holmes film series I'd be much obliged! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 08:13, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Article Feedback Tool update

Hey SchroCat. I'm contacting you because you're involved in the Article Feedback Tool in some way, either as a previous newsletter recipient or as an active user of the system. As you might have heard, a user recently anonymously disabled the feedback tool on 2,000 pages. We were unable to track or prevent this due to the lack of logging feature in AFT5. We're deeply sorry for this, as we know that quite a few users found the software very useful, and were using it on their articles.

We've now re-released the software, with the addition of a logging feature and restrictions on the ability to disable. Obviously, we're not going to automatically re-enable it on each article—we don't want to create a situation where it was enabled by users who have now moved on, and feedback would sit there unattended—but if you're interested in enabling it for your articles, it's pretty simple to do. Just go to the article you want to enable it on, click the "request feedback" link in the toolbox in the sidebar, and AFT5 will be enabled for that article.

Again, we're very sorry about this issue; hopefully it'll be smooth sailing after this :). If you have any questions, just drop them at the talkpage. Thanks! Okeyes (WMF) 21:37, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

FAC request

Hi SchroCat. Apologies that I couldn't get around to doing a full review of "S&M" but am glad it passed afterward. If you have time, could you take a look at my FAC nomination any time? No pressure at all. Thanks in advance. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 18:57, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi Penguin, sure - I'll have a look over it for you. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 08:23, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

TFL dates

With TRM's unfortunate resignation from FLC, I guess I am the primary decision-maker for TFL stuff. If your list has enough support, we can still run it on the 28th. The other list can always be moved back a week; in fact, I've already moved it once before to accomodate another list. Giants2008 (Talk) 02:11, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Giants. I guess it depends on whether Bencherlite lists the main article for TFA (given his last comment on the nom page). Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 09:22, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 04 September 2013

Orphaned non-free media (File:Bulldrog Drummond - First edition.jpg)

Thanks for uploading File:Bulldrog Drummond - First edition.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Werieth (talk) 14:59, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Sept 28: McNeile / Whaam!

I have suggested at WT:TFAR that we restart both nominations for Sept 28 and avoid discussions based on (e.g.) the behaviour of a nominator in favour of discussions about the most appropriate article for the date (and the most appropriate date for the article). Are you happy with this? If anyone has imaginative ideas as to how and when both articles could grace the main page, that would be welcome too. (Please reply at WT:TFAR to avoid fragmenting discussions.) Thanks, BencherliteTalk 13:20, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

James Bond in film

Reason was because the original text didn't make it clear who was suing whom and why McClory was suing those who seemed to back him. The clarity I needed was offsite, where I learned there were two lawsuits, with MccLory claiming a portion of the $3 billion because he has co-created the character. Before dissolution of the suits, Sony had by then come into ownership of the property (this chronology being important to the clarity). I was unable to follow all this this just from reading this paragraph and so was trying to clarify without adding too many new sentences. SUM: The way it's written it's not easy/possible to follow a) the course of events b) the reasoning for the claims c) the number of claimants. AM/emg terminology : The suits were filed in US district court. Cheers. Tangverse (talk) 23:40, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Disraeli peer review

As I have very limited online access until Saturday evening, if you are able to take over the Disraeli review for the moment this might save time. Cliftonian has done a pretty good job, so it might not be quite such a monster. Brianboulton (talk) 07:50, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Many thanks Brian. Perfect timing, as I'm relatively free until Saturday evening, before flying off on a week's holiday, so good all round. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 08:08, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 11 September 2013

Proposed deletion of James Bond fandom

The article James Bond fandom has been proposed for deletion. The proposed deletion notice added to the article should explain why.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

Hey SchroCat, I saw this notice posted elsewhere and I thought you (and folks that work on Bond films) might have an opinion on this deletion. Liz Read! Talk! 19:42, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Main Page appearance: H. C. McNeile

This is a note to let the main editors of H. C. McNeile know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on September 28, 2013. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. If you prefer that the article appear as TFA on a different date, or not at all, please ask Bencherlite (talk · contribs). You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/September 28, 2013. If it needs tweaking, or if it needs rewording to match improvements to the article between now and its main page appearance, please edit it, following the instructions at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/instructions. The blurb as it stands now is below:

Bulldog Drummond, McNeile's best-known character

H. C. McNeile MC (1888–1937) was a British soldier and author best known for his series of Bulldog Drummond novels. McNeile started writing short war stories during the First World War; when these were published in the Daily Mail, they were under his penname, Sapper, which was based on that of his regiment, the Royal Engineers. After the war he left the Army and became a full-time writer, changing from writing war stories to thrillers, and from writing short stories to move increasingly to novels. In 1920 he published Bulldog Drummond, whose hero became his best-known creation: nine further Drummond novels followed, as did three plays and a screenplay. McNeile also wrote works that included two other protagonists, Jim Maitland and Ronald Standish and sales of his books ensured he was one of the most successful British popular authors of the inter-war period before his death in 1937 from throat cancer, which has been attributed to damage sustained from a gas attack in the war. Although seen by his contemporaries as an "upstanding Tory", his work came under criticism after the Second World War for its fascist overtones, xenophobia and anti-semitism. (Full article...)

UcuchaBot (talk) 23:02, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

H. C. McNeile

I see you reverted my changes. Could you explain how the wikilinks to publishers in citations are useful? Colonies Chris (talk) 09:13, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

For the same reasons that they were last time you asked. Even if you do not find them useful, others do and, at the very least, they are not not harmful and can happily remain in place without any damage being done. - SchroCat (talk) 09:20, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
"For the same reasons..."? Look at that exchange as hard as you like, you will not find any reasons given. Despite being asked many times, you didn't give any reasons. You simply kept asserting that they are useful without actually providing any examples of how they might be useful. Would you care to enlighten me? Colonies Chris (talk) 13:06, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
I'm sorry that you can't see any benefits in keeping the link, but what I do see in the exchange is that three people pointed out to you that they found the links useful. Of the participants in the discussion, only you failed to imagine what the benefits can be: I do not see why I should have to enlighlighten you if you cannot see what others find so easy to see. If it comes down to a point of policy or guideline, perhaps you could show me the section of MOS or similar where it states that the links to publishers should not be included in a bibliography? - SchroCat (talk) 13:12, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
Ok, so I must have a terrible lack of imagination. Be kind to me. Accept my failure to be able to imagine the uses of those links, and explain it to me. Why is that so hard? If you educate me, I'll be the better for it and you won't have to be bothered with my questions. Why won't you do that? Colonies Chris (talk) 14:38, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
Of course I will: as soon as you show me the section of MOS or similar where it states that the links to publishers should not be included in a bibliography. - SchroCat (talk) 14:43, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
It would be the action of a reasonable person to answer a reasonable question without having to be pushed. However, try this: WP:LINK#Principles. "Ask yourself, 'How likely is it that the reader will also want to read that other article?'" I'm asking that question and my answer is "very unlikely". You have a different view. You think it's potentially so useful to a reader that it should be linked. Why are you so unwilling just to explain your reasoning? You say that you personally have found such links useful. Please elaborate. Colonies Chris (talk) 09:48, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

PR

Howdy howdy howdy. How do you feel about bandit films? This one is up for PR if you have the time. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:46, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Looks interesting! I'm away on holiday later today for a week, but I'll be delighted to stop in when I get back again - I'll even take a hard copy away with me to have a spin through. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 07:28, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 18 September 2013

Main Page appearance: Terry-Thomas

This is a note to let the main editors of Terry-Thomas know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on October 4, 2013. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. If you prefer that the article appear as TFA on a different date, or not at all, please ask Bencherlite (talk · contribs). You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/October 4, 2013. If it needs tweaking, or if it needs rewording to match improvements to the article between now and its main page appearance, please edit it, following the instructions at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/instructions. The blurb as it stands now is below:

Terry-Thomas in May 1951

Terry-Thomas (1911–90) was an English comedian and character actor, known to a world-wide audience through his portrayals of upper class cads, toffs and bounders. His dress sense and style were striking, as was the gap of a third of an inch between his two front teeth. He worked his way through uncredited film parts in the 1930s before wartime service with Entertainments National Service Association and Stars in Battledress led to a post-war career on stage and then into How Do You View? (1949), the first comedy series on British television. He appeared in British films such as Private's Progress (1956), Blue Murder at St Trinian's (1957), and Carlton-Browne of the F.O. (1959). During the early 1960s he worked extensively in Hollywood, providing a coarser version of his screen persona in films such as Bachelor Flat, It's a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World and How to Murder Your Wife. After being diagnosed with Parkinson's disease in 1971, he spent much of his fortune on medical treatments. He lived in poverty towards the end of his life, existing on charitable hand-outs, before a 1989 charity gala in his honour brought him financial comfort for the remaining months before his death. (Full article...)

UcuchaBot (talk) 23:02, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Throffer

Thanks for the star! I was ready for a few people to call the article boring or over-technical, but I was slightly alarmed at the number of people who believe that the subject "doesn't exist"... J Milburn (talk) 15:38, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Also, I appreciate your comments on the talk page. J Milburn (talk) 15:40, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
My pleasure – for both! It's odd that just because people come across a term they are unfamiliar with, they should automatically object to it; I thought the object of an encyclopaedia was to inform and educate! All the best – SchroCat (talk) 15:44, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

My feelings exactly. Hey Schrod I saw your comments on the talk page of Chariots of Fire. You don't love the film do you? It's the worst Oscar winner I've seen to date IMO, the music is excellent though. I just found them extremely unbelievable as athletes let alone Olympians and found that I couldn't give a toss who won the race!♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:29, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

It's one of those films that you may or may not like on first watching, but after a while you see more and more of the flaws and visual cliches and its dated quite badly (which is surprosing for a "historical" piece! - SchroCat (talk) 10:44, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
To me it just looked like a bunch of Hooray Henrys running around a yard in their gym shorts and one saying "God will make me win and the other saying "I'm Jewish, I'm not inferior". I know the olympics weren't spectacular presentations back in those days but it didn't look authentic at all. None of the actors looked like athletes let alone world-class olympians and none of them looked as if they'd been trained in athletics for the film. I mean a a dyed blond-haired young Nigel Havers, wimpy body and everything, an athlete? I suppose the sentiment of the film was good, but i just found it rather dismal and I think the film was massively helped by its soundtrack which if you look beyond that it really isn't a great film. No where near as good as something like Reds (film) (or even For Your Eyes Only LOL) for 1981 IMO.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:53, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 September 2013

Kellie Loder

Hi Gavin,

The Kellie Loder FAC was successful! Thank you for participating in that conversation. I have nominated the article to go up on the main page here. Any constructive comments you would be willing to provide there would be greatly appreciated.

Neelix (talk) 17:45, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Terry-Thomas

Congratulations on having the article featured on the main page today. It's nice to see him recognized and I know you worked diligently on the article. There was so much about his career I didn't know about! Liz Read! Talk! 10:52, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Many thanks Liz – it's very good of you to say so.it was one of the more enjoyable articles I've done so far, partly because I watched a number of his films I'd not seen before. Thanks again. - SchroCat (talk) 11:04, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Barnstar

The Feather Barnstar
In recognition of your consistent creation of high-quality articles and lists on Wikipedia, and your encouragement of other editors' efforts to do the same, I award you this barnstar. Thank you for all you do with the project. Neelix (talk) 20:49, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Neelix, that's very kind of you indeed! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 20:58, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 02 October 2013

Main Page appearance

Hello! This is a note to let the main editors of the article List of works by H. C. McNeile know that it will be appearing as the main page featured list on October 21, 2013. You can view the TFL blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured list/October 21, 2013. If you think it is necessary to change the main date, you can request it with the featured list directors The Rambling Man (talk · contribs), Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) or Giants2008 (talk · contribs), or at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured list. If the previous blurb needs tweaking, you might change it—following the instructions of the suggested formatting. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. Thanks! Tbhotch.™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 00:56, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Cover of No Man's Land, a 1917 collection of war stories

H.C. McNeile's writing career lasted from 1915 until his death in 1937. McNeile was a First World War British army officer with the Royal Engineers, who wrote several short stories while serving on the Western Front; these were published in the Daily Mail under the pseudonym "Sapper", the nickname of his regiment. After the war he turned away from war writing and began to publish thrillers. In 1920 he wrote the novel Bulldog Drummond, whose eponymous hero became his best-known character; he went on to write ten Drummond novels in total as well as three plays and a screenplay. McNeile interspersed his Drummond stories with other novels and story collections, including two characters who appeared as protagonists in their own works, Jim Maitland and Ronald Standish.

Si Tjonat again

Hi Schro, since Amir got promoted the other day, any chance you could send me your comments for Si Tjonat? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:01, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Already done! I did a a few tweaks on the article and posted the rest of the (very few) comments at Talk:Si Tjonat#PR. Happy to have another look in a day or so when I've freed up a little time. (Good to see you at the election. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 09:23, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Nah – this was all Cassianto's work: I did nothing more than a very light bit of copy editing (if I don't even pick up a book to do any research then I've got no call to it at all!) I'm not sure I'll be a terribly good delegate, but I should at least stand up for something I believe in! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 09:49, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

NBSP forever!

Can I please request that your eagle eye checks out Michael Tippett (currently at PR) for breaches of the nbsp-before ellipsis rule? I really have tried, this time, but I fear that a few might have got away. Only if you have time, of course. Brianboulton (talk) 18:17, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

lol - it would be my pleasure to pop along and I'll try and spot something other than my usual spots! All the best - SchroCat (talk) 18:53, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

License tagging for File:Tippett old age.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Tippett old age.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.

To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 11:05, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Cheat sheet

Hey, thanks for responding in detail to my questions at the FLC election. As for a cheat sheet, were you aware I'd started User:The Rambling Man/FLC things to check... The Rambling Man (talk) 16:27, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi RM, I hadn't seen your sheet (honest!) but I'm glad to see that great minds think alike! I think if we can come up with some user-friendly guidelines to help people new to the FL process then we can bring high-quality editors/reviewers to be more regular attendees in FLs. There are a few great suggestions coming out of the process – Crisco's (for example) are something that we should probably look at taking on board anyway. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 07:47, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 09 October 2013

Holloway on stage and screen

Congratulations on the star! -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:12, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Many thanks indeed! We're slowly working on something about the songs and monologues to match! and hope to get this one up and running for FL too. Thanks again (and I'm only the one working on the technical side of your as Cass's earlier efforts!) - SchroCat (talk) 19:23, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Reviews

Just ping me if you have one coming up. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:10, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi Crisco, many thanks for the offer, which I will certainly take up when something arises. I've got nothing in the pipeline at the moment - Cass and I are slowly working our way through Hattie Jacques, but that's some way off at the mo! Please also ping me for any reviews: your articles are always extremely interesting and a pleasure to read. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 11:35, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Wilfred Knox

I see I have a guardian angel hovering. Thank you for the dabs, Schrocat. Tim riley (talk) 18:39, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

You are more than welcome – always a pleasure! - SchroCat (talk) 03:05, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

L'Arianna

You recently participated in the FAC review of L'Arianna which resulted in the article's promotion. Could you spare a minute to look at, and possibly make a comment on, a discussion on the article's talkpage, here, about a proposed change to the article's lead image. Many thanks. Brianboulton (talk) 21:54, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 16 October 2013

Thanks

Hi, SchroCat. Thanks for the barnstar and helpful advice you gave me on not letting the b******s get me down. Some of them had months ago, but I have already moved on from that now and that is water over the dam. If there is anything happening with the James Bond project lately please let me know. Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 00:46, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Cheers SJ - and glad to see you're back and in good heart! Not much movement on the Bond front at the moment: all is in pretty good shape and not much more needed for the moment - but that can always change fairly quickly! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 15:01, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
No problem. I was insulted and heckled by some disruptive users during my time here (and that did quite upset me sometimes), but fortunately, some of that has been dealt with back in April on ANI and even an administrator who blocked the user concerned (Fladrif (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) in this case, who has a long history of chronic disruptive behavior dating back to 2009) in that particular discussion finally acknowledged that he said some negative things about me a while back and apologized during that discussion. But all of that's water over the dam by now and I have moved on. Having dealt with a couple of disruptive users like Yourname (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Fragments of Jade (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), as well as Bambifan101 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), I know how to deal with disruptive editors like them. Sure I have blown up on users before, cursed at them, and tried not to do things like that again, but that's what separates me from part of my dealings with disruptive users. I unfortunately had to leave Wikipedia for a couple of months due to issues with long term abusive users and vandals like the ones I described earlier and due to an arbitration case on infoboxes concerning some users involved, as well as real-life issues in college as a graduate student, but having realized that Wikipedia can be enjoyable, I decided to come back to Wikipedia at the same time as User:Smerus, User:Tim riley-style. Cheers, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 03:24, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

The cat's meow

Wow, that's some pretty solid support there! BTW, I have a new PR here if you want to have a gander. Not too long an article, but it's definitely the best English source out there. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:50, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Not as solid as yours! I always knew there would be a runaway winner on this one - just fingers crossed on the second place! No probs on Fakih: I'll pop along there shortly. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 14:59, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
  • First run-through done with no further comments at PR, just the few edits I did. I'll have another read-through on the train tonight and let you know in the morning. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 14:59, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Die Forelle

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Die Forelle 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 ColonelHenry -- ColonelHenry (talk) 16:21, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Precious again

James Bond big picture
Thank you for quality articles and lists around James Bond, achieved in collaboration and precisely timed on today's Ian Fleming, also for fighting vandalism with cattle prod and flamethrower, - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:13, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

A year ago, you were the 282nd recipient of my PumpkinSky Prize, repeated in br'erly style, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:41, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Many thanks, Gerda: always appreciated! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 15:03, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

October 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to James Bond in film may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"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:
  • fantastical, so we decided to go back to the basics and update".{{sfn|Burlingame|2012|p=236}} Neal (Purvis and Robert Wade began writing a screenplay at the end of February 2004, while Pierce Brosnan

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 21:32, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Die Forelle

The article Die Forelle you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:Die Forelle for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Khazar2 -- Khazar2 (talk) 01:31, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 23 October 2013

Requested page move

Hi, you might be interested in participating in a discussion at Talk:Michael Powell.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:34, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Michael Tippett

Just to let you know that I have nominated Tippett at FAC, here. Any comments etc welcomed. Brianboulton (talk) 19:12, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

it would be my pleasure, as always: I'll pop in tomorrow when I have a decent enough spell to go over it once again. - SchroCat (talk) 20:04, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Books and Bytes: The Wikipedia Library Newsletter

Books and Bytes

Volume 1, Issue 1, October 2013

by The Interior (talk · contribs), Ocaasi (talk · contribs)

Greetings Wikipedia Library members! Welcome to the inaugural edition of Books and Bytes, TWL’s monthly newsletter. We're sending you the first edition of this opt-in newsletter, because you signed up, or applied for a free research account: HighBeam, Credo, Questia, JSTOR, or Cochrane. To receive future updates of Books and Bytes, please add your name to the subscriber's list. There's lots of news this month for the Wikipedia Library, including new accounts, upcoming events, and new ways to get involved...

New positions: Sign up to be a Wikipedia Visiting Scholar, or a Volunteer Wikipedia Librarian

Wikipedia Loves Libraries: Off to a roaring start this fall in the United States: 29 events are planned or have been hosted.

New subscription donations: Cochrane round 2; HighBeam round 8; Questia round 4... Can we partner with NY Times and Lexis-Nexis??

New ideas: OCLC innovations in the works; VisualEditor Reference Dialog Workshop; a photo contest idea emerges

News from the library world: Wikipedian joins the National Archives full time; the Getty Museum releases 4,500 images; CERN goes CC-BY

Announcing WikiProject Open: WikiProject Open kicked off in October, with several brainstorming and co-working sessions

New ways to get involved: Visiting scholar requirements; subject guides; room for library expansion and exploration

Read the full newsletter


Thanks for reading! All future newsletters will be opt-in only. Have an item for the next issue? Leave a note for the editor on the Suggestions page. --The Interior 20:43, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Good Article Barnstar
For your contributions to bring Die Forelle to Good Article status. Thanks from both me and my singing dryer, and keep up the good work! -- Khazar2 (talk) 15:52, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
Many thanks for your time on this, and for stepping in part way through. I suspect the discussion about the lyrics will rumble on for a while, but it should still be in good shape afterwards. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 16:10, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
My pleasure! -- Khazar2 (talk) 16:11, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Die Forelle

The article Die Forelle you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Die Forelle for comments about the article. Well done! Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of ColonelHenry -- ColonelHenry (talk) 16:02, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Bulldog Drummond

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Bulldog Drummond 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 Khazar2 -- Khazar2 (talk) 02:31, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Bulldog Drummond

The article Bulldog Drummond you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:Bulldog Drummond for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Khazar2 -- Khazar2 (talk) 18:21, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Good Article Barnstar
For your contributions to bring Bulldog Drummond to Good Article status. Thanks for yet another quality addition! -- Khazar2 (talk) 23:58, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
So are these books any good, by the way? Have you read any? -- Khazar2 (talk) 23:58, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
That's great news and thanks very much for another smooth review. I've read them all not too long ago (when I re-wrote the HC McNeile article): they are a bit like the Bond, Saint and Fu Manchu books: never to be considered high literature, but all in the same category of great adventure stories - if that's your cup of tea! The early ones are out of copyright, so can be downloaded free from Wikisource, Proj Gutenberg or Amazon Kindle, if you want to give them a quick try. Cheers! - SchroCat (talk) 07:05, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
I will have to try those, then.... I do love the Bond novels... -- Khazar2 (talk) 10:22, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
I had great fun writing up the Bond novel articles - a great excuse to read the books once again! Once you read Drummond, you can certainly see where Fleming got some of his inspiration: a blunt, no-nonsense hero who enjoys drinking martinis, battling foreigners who want to harm England: Fleming was a more polished writer with a journalist's eye for detail, but McNeile doe shave a certain way with him! - SchroCat (talk) 10:31, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Bulldog Drummond

The article Bulldog Drummond you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Bulldog Drummond for comments about the article. Well done! Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Khazar2 -- Khazar2 (talk) 00:03, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Main Page appearance

Hello! This is a note to let the main editors of the article Sherlock Holmes (1939 film series) know that it will be appearing as the main page featured list on November 11, 2013. You can view the TFL blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured list/November 11, 2013. If you think it is necessary to change the main date, you can request it with the featured list directors Giants2008 (talk · contribs), Crisco 1492 (talk · contribs) or SchroCat (talk · contribs), or at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured list. If the previous blurb needs tweaking, you might change it—following the instructions of the suggested formatting. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. Thanks! © Tbhotch™ (en-2.5). 00:48, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Basil Rathbone and Nigel Bruce in Sherlock Holmes and the Secret Weapon

A series of fourteen films based on Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's Sherlock Holmes stories were released between 1939 and 1946. The roles of Holmes and Dr. John Watson were played by Basil Rathbone and Nigel Bruce, respectively. The first two films were both released in 1939 through 20th Century Fox, which set the films in the Victorian era; the remaining twelve were produced by Universal Studios, which updated the stories to have Holmes investigating the Nazis. Universal also changed the production value of the films, lowering them to produce B pictures with lower budgets. Rathbone and Bruce continued their roles despite the switch in studio. In the 1970s four of the Universal Studios' films fell into the public domain; these were subsequently restored and colourised. Although the two 20th Century Fox films had survived complete and in good condition, those in the Universal series suffered badly over the years, with the unstable cellulose nitrate film found to be suffering from deterioration. In 1993 the UCLA Film and Television Archive started a restoration process on the entire series, with the costs met by UCLA, Warner Bros. and Hugh Hefner.

Also, congratulations on the FL election. As a director, do you want me to continue notifying you about the upcoming TFLs? © Tbhotch™ (en-2.5). 00:48, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi TBH, Many thanks! Don't worry about the notifications - I'll pick up the news in watch. Cheers! - SchroCat (talk) 19:53, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

WP:NICE

Hello SchroCat, I am currently following your link to the Lewis text, appreciate it. However, while I understand that nerves are frayed over there, and tempers are running short, you are crossing the line when you say that 'oakshade tends to misquote'. That is flat out calling them a liar. Binksternet does not see Oakshade's point, that this is a sticky wicket, but I'm leaning Oakshade's direction... source#4 is a pretty poor one, and wikipedia staying silent on the issue is non-preferable, if we can use the sources to either confirm exactly whose idea it was that Sellers be a specifically-Jewish conman, or alternatively, show that although Sellers was *attacked* for caricaturization of Jews, the attack was baseless. Not sure we have sufficient WP:RS to do either one. Anyways, I realize you are dead-on-correct that we have reliable sources that use the phrase "Jewish conman" ... but that comes with a whole-lotta-baggage. Keep cool, please, and I ask that you revise your comment about tending to misquote, by stripping that part right out. Thanks for improving wikipedia. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 18:13, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your note, but it stand 100% behind what I wrote. When I say "misquote", I refer to this comment, where is is indeed "misquoting" one of the sources. As to whose idea the Jewish conman was, the only source we have is The Northern Echo, 11 March 2005, P 13: "In 1980, it signed comic actor Peter Sellers to play South London spiv Harry Hodges in a commercial. On the first day of shooting, he got rid of the writer and created his own character, a Jewish con man called Monty Casino." Intake that to mean it was Sellers, but I'm sure someone would complain if I did! - SchroCat (talk) 18:24, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
I cannot see the contents from Amazon.UK , they say no eBook available, I'll see if searching for the oy-vay quote turns up anything... please hold, your call is very important to us..... Amazon's blurb about the Lewis book *does* sound pretty gossip-oriented to me: "...300 interviews with Sellers's family, wives, mistresses, enemies and co-stars to show how Sellers succeeded, and why it was at such terrible cost to himself and to those whom he professed to love." All that stuff about mistresses, enemies, and "terrible cost... to those he professed to love" gives me images of dime-store bodice-rippers, not clear-headed objective journalism. Are we really really *sure* that source#4 NorthernEcho and source#1 RogerLewis are not just stirring up trouble by making veiled accusations here? They don't seem strong enough to support the claim that Sellers intended to specifically caricaturize Jewish people as conmen. Obviously, wikipedia's text right now is not explicitly saying that either... but it does say 'jewish conman' which is ab-so-posi-lutely going to offend people. (And prolly has a lot to do with all the hullabaloo over on the talkpage, meguesses.) Anything which is challenged, or likely to be challenged, must be reliably sourced, right?
    Re your contention about past diffs... I'm not questioning *your* honesty. I had no doubt that you had actually seen Bad Behavior in the past, of exactly the sort you describe. But you're asserting something about the future: that oakshade *inherently* lies. That's not WP:AGF. You have to let bygones by bygones, and all that. This ain't grudge-o-pedia, right? It's supposed to be collaborative, and serious yet still fun. All the heat on the talkpage is not helping generate light.
    You *could* have just given me the google-link, without the swipe at Oakshade. And doing it that way gives you the High Moral Ground. It *also* improves the talkpage environment, because why add gasoline to the fire, right? But the most important thing is this: rather than you stressing about oakshade, and making sure everybody knows That Editor Cannot Be Trusted!!11!!!! ... just sit back, and relax. Part of the reason I came to your talkpage was to chew you out about WP:NICE, of course, but the main reason is because you seemed sensible about the sources-thing, which is where my concerns lie.
    Anyways, my advice is plain: assume good faith, and always be wp:nice, even when you know that, sooner or later, as sure as an egg in midair over the kitchen floor is destined to break, sooner or later some admin ... Binksternet for instance who has a pretty decent quickdraw ... will notice the problem, and correct it. In the meanwhile, though, keep yer nose clean. Still very strongly suggest you remove your statement, by self-revert, as part of WP:AGF-in-the-future, and apologize from crossing the WP:NPA line (even *true* personal attacks are not allowed... especially if they involve WP:CRYSTAL on your part). If oakshade turns a new leaf, then that's great, right? If they don't, sooner or later, the egg and the floor will be introduced, no need to push the egg faster, gravity will handle everything for you.
    Bonus, in the meantime, less sniping and less stress is better for all concerned. Am I gonna *force* you over there, or screw with your talkpage-comment to enforce my nazi-for-WP:NICE-ness stance? Course not. But I'm your mother, and you have to respect your mother, now go out there and make me proud. Or maybe I'm just a nutcase. You be the judge.  :-)     — 74.192.84.101 (talk) 19:01, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
Medication time, IP, medication time! -- CassiantoTalk 19:11, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
Meh, if you say so. I'll just go ahead and WP:AGF, and take that as an egg-joke. Nice dropshadow, registered UID. You can call me 74, please; think of it as a jersey identification scheme.
    My advice to you, based on your commentary at the article-talkpage, is the same as to SchroCat: avoid any hint of WP:NPA, because when you fail to keep your own nose clean, you are not using WP:ROPE correctly, and you can be accused later of taking the WP:BAIT. There is a practical reason for pillar four: it makes talkpages a friendly place, where work gets done, that IMPROVES the encyclopedia, and keeps people happy while doing it. If your position is strong, if your logic is sound, then you have no need for snark, homo sapiens hominem, and other useless behavior. You also give independent editors, seeing the discussion for the first time, a good impression.
    My impression is that SchroCat cares about the sources, but may not be seeing the connotations built into the article's current wording of "Jewish conman" in the same way I hear them. My impression is that Oakshade cares about the sources, and is making a good-faith attempt to try and correct the article, based on a mis-reading of source#1, a potential mis-reading of source#2, plus a mistrust of source#4 by itself. This is frustrating to SchroCat, who has responded badly, and stooped to saying Oakshade tends to misquote *in general*. Wrong tactic.
    Oakshade has frustrations of their own: frustration which sometimes becomes abrasiveness from SchroCat, and also from yourself -- if you really are a content-creator, who is licensing your work under GFDL and CC-BY-SA for the good of the wikiverse, then why are you so intent in your talkpage efforts? Why does every fifth comment I read from you, tell other editors to go away, move on, et cetera? You speak of guarding, and policing, and call WP:OWN just a cliche. Are you now going to tell me that pillar four is just a cliche, and that I should move on, and let you guard SchroCat's talkpage in peace? Awaiting your reply with interest.
    p.s. SchroCat, this is the first hit for some relevant terms, they seem to back up source#4 that the character was specifically-Jewish.[3] Any guess on whether the site is reliable, based on how correct-looking the rest of their Sellers bio is... my hunch is they are a clone of an old wikipedia version? On the other hand, if they check out according to your spidey-senses, then I'm leaning towards the way the article is worded at the moment. I'm also curious, why the issue of Sellers and Judaism gets no other ink in mainspace at present, except at birth and death; not that it is a problem, but Lewis at least seemed to think there was *something* worth complaining about. Is there anything to that? p.p.s. I'd never heard of Major Bloodnok, former regimental commander of the 4th Dynasties... that is priceless. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 21:07, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
I'm frankly bored of you and Oakshade, not to mention this monotonous conversation. I co-wrote Sellers with SchroCat and co-nominated it with him at FAC. That is why I "police" it. Oh, and I don't know what it has to do with it, but I have written more FA's than you have probably made edits, so yes, I am a content creator. --CassiantoTalk 21:19, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
And I do appreciate your frankness... plus I kinda got the idea that everybody was bored stiff with the subject of Monty Casino, from skimming down the lengthy talkpage, prior to my arrival. Thankfully, WP:REQUIRED always applies, so no need to feel obligated to discuss further. But since you ask why the content-creation has relevance, I'll explain. I caught the whiff that the *real* problem with the Peter Sellers talkpage was that you and SchroCat had made some dramatic changes, along the way including many improvements. I thank you for those, deeply. Looking at the page history, clearly it is much improved. That said... dramatic change, especially when for the better, simply cannot be the *whole* problem. There are too many unhappy editors.
   You and SchroCat feel proud of what you have done, quite rightfully, but simultaneously you want your work protected. That's not unreasonable; but you are not protecting it by bringing in other editors to help you protect it, and further improve it... but via attempts to drive editors away, so they don't mess up your(uh-oh) article. That's bad news, bad tactics, and not pillar four. As a content creator, there's seemingly no point in making folks unhappy; they should be delighted, to see wikipedia get better. If I had to choose between FA status now, with five unhappy editors, two against three... or FA status sometime in the future, but a strong supply of five-and-growing happy editors... I pick door #2. No need to assume false choices, though: it should be possible to be a content-creator, and still be WP:NICE.
    You two are obviously competent and skilled. Just be a bit nicer, and maybe the next article you take to FA status will *not* generate unhappy folks, and instead of the opportunity cost wasted on guarding things personally, you can get back to creating content, and let other more-than-happy-to-help-folks protect the mutually-created artwork. Improvements will always tend to make most folks happy, especially if you make them feel like collaborating contributors, rather than acting like they're getting in your way. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 06:11, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Anyhoo, I came here to see whether a quiet side-conversation would make more progress on sourcing than a loud talkpage thread. I'll continue posting over on the article-talkpage, now that it has settled down. I'm trying to verify Northern Echo now, having given up on Lewis for the moment... and having zero luck whatsoever. TheNorthernEcho has an online archive, but no Peter Sellers article for 2005 that is relevant. Source#4 is the crux, here, methinks, since it shows intent. Has either one of you seen it, personally? If so, please reply over in the article. Thanks for improving wikipedia. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 06:11, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 October 2013

Congratulations!

Congratulations, SchroCat! You have been elected as a new FLC delegate in the recent 2013 FLC Elections.

Since now, you are a delegate and as such, FLC is on your hands. Everything you need to know about FLC management can be found at User:Matthewedwards/FL. On that page, you will find:

  • How to manage FL candidates
    • How to close promoted and archived ones
    • The steps the bot does in case it stops working
  • How to manage FLRC candidates
    • How to close demoted and kept ones
    • The steps the bot does in case it stops working
  • More information about what pages need to be updates across the promoting/archiving steps.

Welcome to the team. It's a pleasure to have you in. Be comfy, and Happy FLC adminning! — ΛΧΣ21 15:02, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Congrats from me too. You're going to be fantastic at this; it's great to see two Wikipedians I admire as much as you and Cricso getting this position. -- Khazar2 (talk) 19:20, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
Many thanks to you both! It's very much appreciated indeed! - SchroCat (talk) 20:35, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
Congrats from me too, and also to Crisco. Betty Logan (talk) 00:18, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
FANTASTIC! What a great bit of news! -- CassiantoTalk 00:49, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
Many thanks to you all - and thank you again for your support during the process: it was all much appreciated! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 04:01, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Well done. Looking forward to seeing FLC and TFL blossom and grow under your guidance. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:28, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Many thanks RM! Now I just have to make good on the things I said in the election questions! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 20:00, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
A belated congratulations from me as well on becoming a delegate! Now I just hope we continue more of your work at FAC and FLC in the future. As I just told Crisco, follow the advice on Matthewedwards' FLC page and it should make performing closures and the like much easier. Giants2008 (Talk) 02:22, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
Many thanks - nice to hear that whenever it comes in! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 11:44, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

A reference problem

Hi! Some users have been working hard on Category:Pages with broken reference names.

Here you added a new reference ref name="BBC: DiD" but didn't define it. This has been showing as an error at the bottom of the article. "Cite error: The named reference REFNAME was invoked but never defined (see the help page)." Can you take a look and work out what you were trying to do? Thanks -- Frze > talk 18:33, 6 November 2013 (UTC) Please ping me

:{{ping|Frze}}:

Sorted: many thanks. - SchroCat (talk) 18:38, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Nefarious: Merchant of Souls

Hi Gavin,

Thank you again for reviewing the Kellie Loder article for its FAC. I now have another article up for featured status: Nefarious: Merchant of Souls. If you have time to contribute to its FAC here, I would appreciate any constructive comments you are willing to provide.

Neelix (talk) 22:01, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi Neelix, I've got a bit of a backlog at the moment (and a desk full of new work in RL), so it may not be for a little time, but I will try and get there. Feel free to give give me a nudge in a week or so if I haven't got round to it! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 22:09, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 06 November 2013

Congratulations

I am SoapFan12 ansd I would like to say Congrats on been elected elegate! You deserved this promotion! I am very happy for you! Congrats again, I hope you will have a wonderful ride as a new delegate!  — SoapFan12 (talk, contribs) 12:55, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks SoapFan! Much obliged to you. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 09:06, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 13 November 2013

Chaplin PR

Hi Schro, just to let you know that I have now opened the PR for Charlie Chaplin - if your very kind offer to review the article still stands, TrueHeartSusie and I would be delighted to have your comments. The page is here, and obviously you could start the review whenever you're free and can take as long as you like (I know that it's a very long article!) If you'd rather hold off until FAC, that's fine. Cheers, hope you are well, --Loeba (talk) 16:49, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi Loeba, Thanks for the note: yes, I'd be delighted to partake in the PR. I'm a bit jammed up in RL for a few days, but I'll certainly get there shortly. I see Brian B is there already, so if he leaves anything behind I'll see if I can spot it, but he's so thorough he'll probably get all the bits I would anyway! Cheers. - SchroCat (talk) 17:08, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Front page TFL

I think most of the FLC regulars agree that we should be on the main page at least twice a day at this point, but that doesn't mean the greater community will necessarily agree. The first step is to bring it up on an appropriate project page; if you choose TFL talk, you should mention the discussion at FLC talk since that page is usually busier. Assuming that we can stir up a consensus there (shouldn't be too hard), we'd have to start an RFC on the main page's talk page. If we put our best foot forward, we should be able to get a second day. Any issues we have need to be worked out before that point, as they will be brought up by critics and other concerned parties. You seem to have the right idea on how to proceed, so I'd recommend starting a discussion that links to the previous one. Giants2008 (Talk) 00:24, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Ellipsis alert!

My latest effort, Stella Gibbons, is now at peer review. I have really done my best to cure my nbsp amnesia when it comes to ellipses, of which there are many in the article, but as always I can't guarantee that I've caught them all. I'd be pleased if you would comment on this, or any other aspect if you can spare the time from your other duties. Brianboulton (talk) 22:15, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

My pleasure, Brian: I hope to pop along there shortly. All the best - SchroCat (talk) 11:08, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Reverts

Please stop interfering with my edits. See discussion at Talk:The Pink Panther (1963 film) first!! — QuicksilverT @ 00:00, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Sorry to jump on you. It looked as if we were working at cross-purposes, but your last two reverts look OK. — QuicksilverT @ 00:03, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
I'd left your edits all day until you changed the date on the Sellers article back to the correct version, and I looked into it further to confirm that what I had put in the three articles you changed earlier was, in fact correct in the first place. - SchroCat (talk) 00:06, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Template:Announcements/New featured content

The list should always contain the 15 most recent featured content, and therefore if you add a new FL, than please also remove the oldest FL from the list. Regards, Armbrust The Homunculus 16:30, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Also on Wikipedia:Goings-on the three-letter abbreviation is used instead of the full month-name. Armbrust The Homunculus 16:32, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
Yep - newbie mistake, sorry! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 16:37, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

FL Backlog

Hello, I would like to request that my nomination on Family Guy (season 4) could be putted in the backlog so it could receive more reviews, because right now, I only received information by Maralia of what needs to be changed, but didn't get a chance to do a full review, or come back and vote, neither as Taylor Trescott for the matter, in which were the only two users to respond to the nomination 3 weeks ago. Blurred Lines 18:51, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 20 November 2013

History of Chincoteague, Virginia

Just letting you know it's now at FAC, per your request at the PR.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:37, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:SchroCat/Archive_9&oldid=1168307966"