This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Hi, SchroCat. Shotgun reverting my valid and good faith edits at Cary Grant was uncool. I have rolledback my edits. You may introduce your edits discretely and based on MoS, guidelines, and policy. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 08:45, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
1. Please try and look at the edit honestly: this was no "shotgun" edit, and many of the small changes you made were retained;
2. Just because something is "good faith" does not automatically make them either an improvement, or mean they are untouchable to future alteration;
3. Your knee-jerk reversion was edit warring. please read WP:BRD and use the talk page;
4. Do not tell me how to edit. I edited appropriately, taking into account the changes you made, and the several changes made by others subsequently.
5. I stand by all the changes I made in that edit. Whether you like them or not is not my concern. The Grant talk page is where you should be heading for this, not complaining about what is, from my point of view, a perfectly valid edit I made in good faith to undo some of the changes you made in a large shotgun edit of your own. - SchroCat (talk) 08:51, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
Hi, SchroCat. I always look at things honestly. I did not knee-jerk revert anything. I reverted my valid edits. You reverted all my edits. I have not edit warred. You have. Please do not be dismissive of my edits. My edits are no bigger or smaller than yours. I put a lot of thought into each one. You reverted all my edits then walked on the page so my only choice was throw your baby out with the bathwater. I am sorry about that. That is the way Wikipedia is set up. They do not have a way to check-in, check-out pages to avoid edit conflicts, etc. I did not change any content to speak of in my edit. I am going to put my stuff back and I will respect your stuff if you respect mine. If you shotgun revert mine, and then walk on the page, I will have to throw the baby out with the bathwater again to restore my shotgunned. WP:BRD is an overcited essay, and it is marked as optional. Please do not use it as an excuse to unnecessarily remove my edits scot-free. Do not shotgun revert things. Edit discretely; preserve the good; excise what you think is bad. We are all trying to improve the page. Keep that in mind. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 09:26, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
1. "You reverted all my edits": Nope. Check again, and you'll see why I said you need to look at the edit honestly. (As a rough comparison, your edit added 5,052 character, mypartial revert took out 1,235 characters).
3. "I did not change any content to speak of in my edit": so why make the pointless changes? We are not bidden to include spaces in title headings, or within the citation template, so if the editors before you have not included them, why do you have to add them? There's no need, so don't do it;
4. "I am going to put my stuff back": (aside from the fact that's more pointless edit warring) what, the pointless spaces that do not need to be there? Are you really that petty that you need to add them just for the sake of it? Ask yourself if it changes the reader's understanding or enjoyment. If not, leave it to the judgement of the people overhauling the article. If you can't help yourself but somehow have to make such a pointless change, don't whine if it gets reverted because you've edit warred without going through the talk page;
5. "restore my shotgunned": as I've pointed out twice, your edit was not "shotgunned". Look at the edit and try and be honest with yourself please;
6. "preserve the good; excise what you think is bad." I did. Perhaps – especially given the number of editors who have questioned what you are doing – you should try and LISTEN to what's being told to you. I'm not sure whether it's a case of WP:ICANTHEARYOUorWP:COMPETENCE we're dealing with here, but you are being unnecessarily disruptive in forcing such a minor issue for so little benefit to the article, to your fellow editors and to yourself. It may be best for you to step away from the Grant article and develop something yourself where you can put all the unnecessary spaces in that you want.
I really don't want to continue this, but unless you want to post an acceptance that I have not "shotgunned" your edit, and that the spaces are pointless and need not be edit warred back into the article, then I suggest you don't post here again. – SchroCat (talk) 10:15, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
Quotes boxes are perfectly acceptable. Ask Loeba and TrueHeartSusie3 who've also contributed featured articles with them. IMO they look a lot more aesthetically pleasing than the horizontal quote boxes. Respect that other article writers have different preferences and move onto your next project.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:26, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
For your contributions to bring Cary Grant (estimated annual readership: 500,000) to Good Article status, I hereby present you the Half Million Award. Congratulations on this rare accomplishment, and thanks for all you do for Wikipedia's readers! We hope (talk) 11:42, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
That's very kind of you thank you, but I really did little more than a good copyedit - the extent of a PR, nothing more. Still, it really is most welcome! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 11:45, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
You were the voice of reason and action in the face of much soapboxing madness. :-D We hope (talk) 11:49, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
Hear hear! Yes it's due a formal PR sometime but not sure I can be bothered right now as I suspect it would turn into an infobox argument! Struggling to feel bothered to continue with Audrey! Annual readership of that is nearer 2 million odd!♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:32, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
They're not required by the MoS but the indents do, in my opinion, improve the legibility of bibliographies and make them look more like ones you find in printed books. I made similar changes to the featured article on Marilyn Monroe and they were welcomed there, but to each their own! It's heartening to see articles as important as Disney's at featured status in 2016, so thanks for your work on it. Ham II (talk) 18:10, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
Both styles accomplish exactly what they set out to do, but based purely on aesthetic preference I would opt for the bullet style too. Betty Logan (talk) 20:47, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
AFAIK, WP has no way to automatically create hanging indents, and the artificial line breaks are, indeed horrible. There are times that WP formatting and MOS differs from, say, MLA or Chicago style, and there is no bright line rule that says otherwise. Montanabw(talk) 17:58, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
Hi Ham, I guess the three responses (all unprompted by me) have echoed my thoughts on the matter. I think the extant version is more common on Wiki – and that's one of the reasons your changed jarred so,much on viewing. Aesthetically I have to say that I don't like it at all. Thanks for your explanation though: much appreciated. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 05:58, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
Why
Enough. I have better things to do than argue the toss here. I'm enjoying writing about one of the most inspiring individuals I've ever come across, and I don't need any further silliness to spoil my mood. - SchroCat (talk) 15:57, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Why do you think you get to pick and choose what gets discussion at RfA? Collapsing an entire discussion is on thing, but picking out comments from someone you don't think much of reeks of bias. HighInBCNeed help? {{ping|HighInBC}} 15:27, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
The comment was not being 'picked out' because it was yours per se. You tried to re-kindle something a few days after it came to a natural close and after it had been moved onto a different page (to an extent that looks like you're going behind someone's back as well). You know it's baiting, I know it's baiting, and you, as an admin, should learn when not to try and stir up a shit pot for absolutely no reason. The only bias here is that I don't like tendentious editing where the sole purpose is to goad someone into making an inappropriate comment. It's time you backed away from Cassianto as the very clear pattern of your behaviour is worryingly obvious. - SchroCat (talk) 15:33, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
All I know is that a lot of things are being said about people, but when anyone asks for this to be substantiated any tactic is used to avoid answering. It really is transparent.
My most recent interaction with Cassianto was me choosing not to respond to their disruption so your theory that I live to taunt him has a few holes in it. You tend to defend Cassianto regardless of the legitimacy of the situation so perhaps you should consider that you may be too close to the situation. HighInBCNeed help? {{ping|HighInBC}} 15:39, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
There are no holes in what I think about you and your approach. This is quite a coverage of interaction, given you do feck all in the way of content work. And yet you magically 'appear' in situations where Cassianto is present. Odd that, isn't it. As to the Mccandlish situation, even you would be hard pressed to hand out some form of punitive action, given just how much baiting Cassianto received and how quickly a block would have been overturned when the evidence would have been presented at ANI.
Chillum, Have you thought that you may be too close to the situation (I know I am close, but I actually write articles with Cass, I don't dream up ways to block him)? Have you ever thought that you may be the one who is at fault from time to time? You are happy enough to lecture and bully-block, but have you thought that this may not be the most constructive approach to take? If you stopped stalking his edits and stopped harrassing him it would do everyone a damned good turn. There are over a 1,000 other active admins who are willing and able to take difficult decisions, and yet it's always magically you who is happy enough to get your knee into the groin first. - SchroCat (talk) 15:49, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Another TFL notification
Hi SchroCat. I scheduled Works of Keith Floyd for an August 5 main page appearance. The blurb is here for you to tweak as desired. Cheers. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:12, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
Cheers Giants, much appreciated. - SchroCat (talk) 07:25, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
Hey, you marked this one as closed in the Closure log, but it doesn't look like you actually closed the nom, nor added it and Rajiv Gandhi Khel RatnatoWP:FL. Didn't know if you just got called away in the middle of it or what, but thought I'd remind you. --PresN 02:13, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
Thanks PresN. (I got distracted mid way through - I knew I shouldn't have started doing that when I was expecting a call from a client!) - SchroCat (talk) 06:26, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
Tinton5's edit warring
Tell me why the middle name cannot be included in the infobox? This is a common practice on this site. See pages Michael Moore and Nicole Kidman for examples. They have their middle names inside the box. Why make an exception here? Tinton5 (talk) 21:34, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
This is not the right place to discuss the matter. There is a thread on the talk page, (which is where you should have gone after the first time you were reverted, per WP:BRD. – SchroCat (talk) 21:36, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
[1]. I'm inclined to leave it, I think the post is a good illustration of disruptive editing by the IP, and I don't like to micromanage a talkpage too much. You'd better remove it yourself if you like. Compare my warning on their page. Bishonen | talk 11:42, 25 July 2016 (UTC).
Many thanks for their warning. I'll not remove it: I'm sure it would only inflame them further and lead to reversion. Water and duck's back etc... Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 11:44, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
Acroterion, it looks like the router has been reset by the IP, and the problems continue (he has reverted the nonsense on the page too. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 12:38, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
If you are free and interested, please do visit this and leave some constructive suggestions and comments. Having said that, you are free to ignore this if you wish to. Regards, Pavanjandhyala (talk) 05:37, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
American Film Institute recognition
Hi. I am very sorry of many complications I have inflicted. But I have already written to all talk pages of unaccessible (to edit) articles. So I hope we will make some settlements. Thanks for your patience.
Dr.saze (talk) 07:37, 08 July 2016 (UTC)
Technical advice sought
I hope you are well. I'm slowly getting back into some sort of editing groove. An article I've been messing about with on and off for months is Lieutenant Kijé (Prokofiev), which is gradually getting into shape. The musical examples in the "Themes" section were introduced by another editor; they are good, but is there any way you know whereby they could be made smaller? They are somewhat overblown at present. Brianboulton (talk) 18:51, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
Hi Brian, The <score></score> one is a new one for me, so no immediate answers. I tried a couple of more ungainly ways to try and shrink it, but with no luck. I've asked a question in an appropriate place, so can hopefully report back with an easy fix. Plan B is to create images of the score in question, whose size can be more easily manipulated. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 09:53, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, I'll check out the Help page for details. Creating images may involve issues of sourcing and licenses, so I'm not anxious to go down that route. We'll see how we go. Brianboulton (talk) 12:53, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
In case you find interest
Hello SchroCat. We recently participated in a discussion which motivated my filing of an Arbcom request. Although you are not a named party, your interest in the RFC mentioned juxtaposes to potential interest in the Arbcom request as well. I am therefore, inviting you to consider your own interest in the matter, and welcoming your involvement should you find it desirous. Best--John Cline (talk) 17:26, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
rvt
"(Undid revision 733235738 by TVC 15 (talk) As before, no, the hatting was deliberate. This is just the sort of comment that shows why we shouldn't be trying to host news articles)" Well, that explains why the tag moved, but it doesn't explain why you moved it, particularly after it said originally "Please do not modify it." What compelling revelation drove you to ignore that clear instruction? (See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:TRUTH#.22But_I_know_the_truth.21.22)TVC 15 (talk) 11:31, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
The same "compelling revelation" that led to the first capping of previous text, as I explained quite clearly in the edit summary. As to your "truth" essay, the same applies to your misguided POV comment. Let me counter with two policies: WP:NOTNEWS and WP:NOTFORUM. You should also take note of the notice at the top of the page that reads "This is not a forum for general discussion about 2016 Russell Square knife attack. Any such comments may be removed or refactored." – SchroCat (talk) 12:12, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
I do always try to assume good faith WP:AGF, but you apply what appear to be different standards to different reported events. Your explanation above does not align with, for example, the fact you don't seem to have nominated consistently other articles with the same number of dead and fewer injured, e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Meredith_Kercher. This latest murder and multiple stabbing episode has generated considerable news attention, and we haven't even seen the full investigation yet. Perhaps by "mental health issues" you were paraphrasing Winston Churchill, who called Islam madness, but that wouldn't make the event less notable unless you are applying different standards.TVC 15 (talk) 20:40, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
Whenever I see "I try to AGF, but...", it's a bit like reading "I'm not a racist, but...": I know there is no AGF anywhere near the thought process here. You talk of my failure of consistency at the the Murder of Meredith Kercher article, but I've never even heard of the page, let alone vistited it. And no, I was not being as utterly crass and idiotic as to liken one of the world's major religions to a mental illness. With an attitude like that, I request you do not post to this page again. - SchroCat (talk) 22:25, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
The Barnstar of Diligence
Because you're still awesome :) MisterShiney✉ 20:02, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, Mr S! With the lies and nonsense a couple of our more tendentious brethren have been saying about me recently, messages like this mean a lot. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 22:28, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
Kailash29792 has aimed to make it an FA. Feel free to leave comments and do let me or him know if you intend to do so by pinging either of us. Thanks. — Ssven2Speak 2 me 00:25, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
Morning. Not wishing to push you into a rushed promotion, but the odds and sods at the above FLC have now been resolved. Would you mind casting your eyes over it and close it out? Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:48, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
No probs - all done. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 07:22, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
Reference errors on 9 August
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:
Will try to look at it later this week. If you're currently online can you or a stalker review HMS Bristol (1910) as soon as you can. It's for the West Country Challange I'm running. I'm too tired to review another article today. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:40, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, if no TPS picks it up, I'll swing by in the morning. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 21:14, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
Beaten to it by Jaguar! I left a few comments anyway. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 08:02, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
The contest ends on the 28th August. If you feel like expanding an article or two by then go for it, anything on West Country, from a Cornish smuggler to clotted cream and Fred West is welcome ;-)♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:35, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
I'm on holiday for a chunk of that time, so I doubt I'll be able to do too much, I'm afraid! - SchroCat (talk) 08:39, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
Hi, here's another one of yours at TFA, I'm working on the TFA text now. - Dank (push to talk) 11:50, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
My apologies...
... for causing you to have to revert my earlier editinTerry-Thomas. On first reading, I thought the sentence "his favourite film to make" without a full stop looked strangely incomplete, as if some text had been left out or truncated. Then, I remembered MOS:CAPTION and reverted myself. I also thought the dates in captions ought to be consistent, hence the parentheses I added, in keeping with the first and two other captions in the article. But you obviously liked the way the captions were before I tried to improve them, and that's fine too.
With kind regards;
Patrick. ツ Pdebee.(talk)(guestbook) 18:34, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
RTL review
Hey SchroCat, can you read Ride the Lightning and share your opinion at its FAC page whether it passes the features article criteria? I see your name frequently at the WP:FAC and since we've never commented at each other's nomination, thought to ask you for a review. Thanks and have a nice day.--Retrohead (talk) 14:45, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
EdJohnston, my last edit of any type on that page was 20 hours ago. It was a second revert. At that stage I followed the guidelines as lain down, and reported bender's subsequent revert of my edit. I did not revert him, nor did I revert clpo's revert of an hour ago. I think any right-minded admin will see that I stopped at 2RR and discussed aspects of the talk page notice at the village pump discussion (why bender thought to open a thread there, rather than the talk page I don't know). As I have followed all the relevant policies and guidelines and not edited the page in any way for 20 hours, I would be at a loss as to how any admin could justify a block. SchroCat (talk) 22:43, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
Courtesy Notification: RfC Opened from a Discussion you participated in
Greetings,
I am sending this courtesy notification to let you know that a Request for Comment has been opened regarding whether or not to add an Infobox to Noël_Coward. The prior discussion has now closed so that a consensus can be reached on the matter.
Thank you,
-- Dane2007talk 19:23, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
What a bloody disruptive and tendentious farce. No doubt the flash mob will miraculously turn up again. What a stupid and ridiculous step to take. – SchroCat (talk) 19:36, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
No. It refers to Noel Coward. Feel free to comment there, it appears several of my stalkers have been there recently. – SchroCat (talk) 18:35, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
Nah, man, I'm on your team. No stalker here. Cheers mate. 161.113.20.135 (talk) 01:36, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
View on Infoboxes
Hey, I have seen you a lot on rfc's, I was wondering what your views on infoboxes extended to, for instance what types of articles do you think should get infoboxes and what shouldn't, I would assume countries and ships would in your view, but what else? Iazyges (talk) 05:42, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, but I find the thought of having yet another idiotbox discussion deeply depressing. I am sure you understand. I'll only add that I am a big fan of IBs when they are used properly. Sadly there is a culture of knee-jerk inclusion or addition of a box without any thought as to whether it is actually beneficial or advantageous to have one. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 05:42, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
Murder on the Orient Express
I do not warring anymore. But user Carniolus have written me a polite note about not using Listal references because they are not reliable (Listal pages can be recreate by everybody). So I decided to accord him and reedit every article with this links. So I beg you to left me do it. I cannot stand two different orders from both editors. Thanks. (and please... left me an answer as soon as possible here) Dr.saze (talk) 15:30, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
I have already seen your ruining of my edit and I am not so glad to write it but if you try to ruin me and my editing I will be forced to write a plaint about your destruction. And you should know I will be very sorry because I have thought we had already deal and good realtionship. I do not understand your behaviour... I have written a polite message to you and you are trying to disrupt my edits. Why? Dr.saze (talk) 15:48, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
Don't even try to threaten me. You are STILL not listening to what people are, are there are problems with your competence, and your propensity to edit war. – SchroCat (talk) 16:26, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
Don't you understand I do not want to edit warring. I only want to help the Wikipedia. I have tried to settle with you in the good way but you are still threatening me with blocking so I am powerless. Carniolus have written me about unrealible references which apply Listal pages so I had to listen him and I reedit EVERY ARTICLE. I am trying so hard to add there so much notable information and editors have already thanked me. Except of you, you are trying to ruin me. Can you understand this? Dr.saze (talk) 16:43, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
I am not trying to "ruin you" – that's a ridiculous thing to say. You are adding information that is trivial in many cases. When a film is only considered by a foreign film institute to appear on something as banal as a list, there is no point reporting that. There is an argument for inclusion if a film actually makes the list, but not just something that is considered. Furthermore, as I have pointed out to you several times, if you add information onto a page you need to use the appropriate spelling and date format, and not just cut and paste the same format among several articles. – SchroCat (talk) 17:08, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
Alright, I understand. But Rudy and Jeremiah Johnson are not foreign films. Sensei48 is not fair to me.Dr.saze (talk) 19:12, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
I believe that you should have addressed this to me on either your Talk page where I commented or on mine and not here on SchroCat's. I have discovered this comment quite by accident. In any case, I have not treated you unfairly by removing edits that a consensus of experienced editors have deemed non-notable and unconstructive to the quality of the articles. In fact, I have left untouched your 4th reversion edits (violating the 3RR policy) to Rudy and Jeremiah Johnson while waiting for comment here [2]. As you can see there and on your own Talk page, the consensus judgement is that AFI nominations are not notable and do not add to the quality of film article. I am therefore removing them from the aforementioned articles - and they should be removed from every article to which you added them. There can be no further additions of them to these articles - as you can see above, if you do so you risk losing your editing privileges.
Appearances on final AFI lists have been deemed acceptable and valuable by a majority of editors, so they can remain - and that gives me an opportunity to explain to you further how Wikipedia works. As much as I love what the AFI does, I find these lists of 100 films to be trivial, largely because of the 100 number. It is not a mark of special distinction for a film to be one of 100. Winning a Palme d'Or or an Academy Award or a BAFTA or other national, festival, or critics' award is. But that is simply my judgement of what is important, and an overwhelming number of editors who work here on films do believe that the AFI lists are significant. The result is that I must (and willingly do) subordinate my judgement to the consensus of editors, and I do not remove mention of those lists from articles. In this case of AFI nominations, your fellow editors are calling on you to do the same. Even if you think that AFI list nominations are important, a majority of responding editors do not. Participation in Wikipedia requires that you defer to the judgement of the majority. Sensei48 (talk) 21:13, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
Doc's just started up this contest about topics and articles covering Classical Hollywood cinema. Do express if you are interested or not by signing up under the "Editors Interested" section. Thanks. — Ssven2Speak 2 me 09:04, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
FAC mentoring scheme
You may have noticed discussions on the WP:FAC talkpage relating to various FAC issues, including the question of mentoring for first-time FAC nominators. At present only a very small percentage of the first-time noms get promoted; this can be very discouraging, and might well be turning editors away from FAC. In discussion with the FAC coordinators, Mike Christie and I have devised a simple, voluntary mentoring scheme for first-time nominators, the details of which can be found here (it hasn't gone live yet).
We hope that, as they become aware of the scheme, first-time nominators will take advantage of it. A link to the mentoring page will be included in the FAC instructions once we go live. But of course, we need mentors. We would like the scheme to kick off with a dozen or so names listed, hoping that many more will sign up eventually. Would you be prepared to act as a mentor? You incur no obligation by adding your name to the list; the extent to which you participate in the scheme is entirely a matter for you, and can vary from regular involvement to just once in a while. The objective of the scheme is to help first-time nominators who seek assistance. So please add your name here if you feel you can, or if you have queries or reservations about the scheme, please drop me a line. Brianboulton (talk) 12:37, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
Josephine Butler DYK
Hey Schro, I've just queried a hook sitting in Prep 6 at DYK, I noticed it was one of your articles so I thought I'd say hi, and ping. I might have misunderstood completely, but would you mind giving it a quick look? Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:38, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
Title TK
Hi SchroCat, how are you? I hope you're doing really well. At its most recent peer review, you mentioned Title TK was pretty much in good shape. Whenever you have time, could you please have a peek at its FAC? Of course, any new comments you may have about the article are also very welcome. Cheers, Moisejp (talk) 14:07, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
HiMoisejp, Thanks for the nudge: I'll be with you shortly to have a further look. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 10:14, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
Reference errors on 24 August
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:
Schrocat, in light of all the infobox disputes, what possibility would there be that a collapsed infobox (as on Frank Sinatra's article) could be viewed as a compromise between the pro and anti-infobox forces? The anti-IB get the look they want, the pro-IB get the data they want. Could it possibly be a win-win? I've proposed it before and both sides have expressed irritation, so if it makes no one happy, it might be the perfect compromise... at least until someone cooks up a solution that makes everyone happy. Which is not likely to happen soon. This snowball doesn't have much of a chance, but thought I'd toss it out anyway. Montanabw(talk) 22:19, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
HiMontanabw, Let me have a think; I'm a bit hacked off with the entire thought of IBs at the moment, given there has been a rush of summer madness needlessly breaking out, so the thought may not be for a while... – SchroCat (talk) 10:21, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
Feel free to take the time needed to be in a good Zenlike place on the issue. Bottom line is that it isn't going to go away, the issue inadvertently trashed the whole concept of localconsensus on wikiprojects generally (even those where subject area specialists have expertise on whatever issue it is...), and a lot of very good and talented editors who normally would have a lot in common and share many of the same goals for quality article creation and improvement are on opposite sides of the issue. As a result, we have too much emotion flying around over something that is really a tech and formatting dispute. Montanabw(talk) 18:41, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
FWIW, my own personal infobox axe is that I think infobox appearance should be more standardized, the templates have to have different parameters for, say, biology versus biography, but the color-coding should go. Just draw a line around the thing and be done with it, and use the uniform blue or light gray to do any necessary highlighting. Montanabw(talk) 18:41, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
HiMontanabw, I'll be at your list soon, if I can generate enough enthusiasm to get back into WP stuff. My morale is at an all-time low given the colossal knuckle-dragging stupidity rolling round at the moment. I referred to it in my comment to you on the Arb thread, with the RfC route being sub-optimal when it comes to our quality product. Sadly the RfC route ensures that piss-poor half-wits who haven't written anything of note get to vote stack on a knee-jerk basis without bothering to engage their brains first. That's absolutely no way to treat our top articles – and if you disagree, image how you would feel if it was an RfC on a point you deeply opposed happening on one or two or three of "your" articles. – SchroCat (talk) 08:34, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, my motivation is low right now too, (I missed seeing TRM's comment at the FLC for 10 days! My watchlist is too backed up!) For me it's because I've waded into the cesspool of AfD. That is a messy place to be, and rather toxic if you lean inclusionist, as I do. RfC does have the problem of being another drama-monger's paradise, and often the parties that come charging in are people who like RfC for its own sake and often take a position without understanding the issues, true. I just wish there was a way to bring in neutral but experienced users who were actual content contributors. But the problem is what to do when good people and experienced users get into these irreconcilable impasse situations. There used to be a mediation procedure, but DR/N doesn't work very well, it just keeps the same arguments going off the article talk page. Ah... om.... Montanabw(talk) 23:02, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
Since when was telling an admin that they have made a sub-par decision a blockable offence? This is one of the most ridiculous things I've heard in a long time. Talk about trying to shield one's friends from valid criticism while making the situation much, much worse - and never mind the fact the admin's chums have completely ignored WP:TPO to edit war the comment out and take such crass step. There is only one person who should have been allowed to edit, strike or remove that pointy but civil comment, and his friends are censoring matters. - SchroCat (talk) 10:59, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
The deletion of my comment by Doc James carries the following summary:
11:57, 29 August 2016 (diff | hist) . . (-757) . . User talk:JzG (Reverted good faith edits by SchroCat (talk): User blocked. (TW)) (current) [rollback 1 edit] [rollback] [vandalism]
If you define my comment as "good faith", is there any rationale that can justify blocking? - SchroCat (talk) 11:05, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
I left Doc James a message. Let's see what he makes of it; I think there has been a massive misunderstanding. BethNaught (talk) 11:06, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
Many thanks BethNaught. I just saw the comment on his talk page: he is in the wrong on the "Coward", and you have read it right. If he had said that in his first deletion I would have tweaked the thread to Noel Coward, natch. Thanks - SchroCat (talk) 11:09, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
This place seems to get worse by the day!♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:25, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
Shocking isn't it. And isn't it funny how many blocks you see after which the admin goes offline for a spell as soon as the comments pointing out factors they didn't see. Odd that... - SchroCat (talk) 11:32, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
JzG, You will have seen silliness on your talk page today to delete a comment that was in no way uncivil, although I freely admit it was pointy. To clarify—although I am sure you would not have read it as such—there was no insult in the use of the word "Coward" as the thread title, which was, of course, short for Noël Coward, following your close on the thread on that talk page. Why the two people who jumped to conclusions didn't take two minutes to look at what it may have been about before deleting the comment and—even worse—blocking me, I shall never know (or little care). The rest of my comment about the close still stands, as I do not think it was a good decision for the reasons I have given, but I do not think any admin a coward who puts their head into the lions mouth of an IB discussion. – SchroCat (talk) 11:32, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
Okay I accept the explanation that the title was about the article being closed rather than an insult directed at the editor in question and have unblocked. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:36, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
Good start Doc James. Then you can 1. Wipe this from my block log, and 2. Put back the message you deleted; if you wish to tweak the heading to Talk:Noel Coward, that is an option.
I will also add that if I see you use Twinkle inappropriately again (to delete comments as "good faith" while claiming the right to block), I will file an ANI report to have Twinkle removed from you. – SchroCat (talk) 11:36, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
Just seen this commotion pop up on my watchlist! Glad to see it has been sorted out. Welcome back Schro! Betty Logan (talk) 11:52, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
As an aside, I think "OK, accept explanation" is a bit of a weak unblock message because it still infers a level of guilt that shows up in the block log. Why not say it like it is i.e. "Misinterpreted a reference to an article as an insult"? Betty Logan (talk) 11:58, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
Thanks Betty! You're right: it was an obvious error on the blocking admin's part, but to try to avoid all acknowlegment of the eorr, or to (shock horror!) apologise is unsatisfactory. To ignore the comment I made to them after the unblock is curious - I would say rude, as my cup of good faith is running too low, but these days that's probably enough for an ArbCom charge! - SchroCat (talk) 12:29, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
Don't worry about it. I've been blocked a few times and had the block reverted within a few hours every time and nobody cleared the log! The downside though is that people like RO then used it as grounds to call me uncivil or the type who often gets blocked!♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:27, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
I know - if you look at mine, most have been cut short because the admin realised their mistake, but it doesn't stop our more tendentious bretheren from using it as a weapon! - SchroCat (talk) 12:29, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
Oh, man Blofeld, just saying "RO" is giving me PTSD... or at least some twitchiness... (looking for the garlic and salt... ) Montanabw(talk) 23:29, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
Good grief! This has been like watching a Two Ronnie's episode! CassiantoTalk 12:46, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
Burke
Discretionary notice, and just in case any passing admins are watching: When this happens, it's going to be about mine and Gavin's project. CassiantoTalk 12:46, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
PMSL - that's worth a block round here! - SchroCat (talk) 12:49, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
Hi there. I've started a new initiative, the Wikipedia:The 10,000 Challenge. It's a long term goal to bring about 10,000 article improvements to the UK and Ireland. Through two contests involving just six or seven weeks of editing so far we've produced over 1500 improvements. Long term if we have more people chipping it and adding articles they've edited independently as well from all areas of the UK then reaching that target is all possible. I think it would be an amazing achievement to see 10,000 article improvements by editors chipping in. If you support this and think you might want to contribute towards this long term please sign up in the Contributors section. No obligations, just post work on anything you feel like whenever you want, though try to avoid basic stubs if possible as we're trying to reduce the overall stub count and improve general comprehension and quality. Thanks.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:45, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
From leaving statement
Rise above it!♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:45, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
Hi there, instead of leaving WP, maybe it would be better to try to take some action against that admin? I agree with you that his comments to you were atrocious, and I felt he insulted the editors who had created the content on Noel Coward by explicitly saying he was giving "outsiders"' opinions more weight when he closed the RfC. I don't know what the procedure is for having an admin admonished or his "powers" taken away but would certainly support any such step. Smeat75 (talk) 12:59, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the comment Smeat - it means a lot - but little good comes out of ANI nowadays (particularly if you're dealing with an admin, who will be able to wheedle some excuse out of nothing, and be blindly supported by his friends, despite the truth of the matter). I think you are right about the bruised pride of the admin: they cocked up the close - that much is evident from the comments from neutrals on the ANI thread! It's not just this that's making me leave, however: there has been too much stupidity going on with too many people recently - particularly the ministrations of the MoS mafia, who wish to OWN the use of text and punctuation. (I've had to deal with irate US-based editors edit warring and going beserk about commas and capital letters, swearing they are right, when dealing with a BritishEnglish article, and where their opinion on grammar has been so deeply flawed - again, that's just one example of ridiculous attempts at bullying). Life is too short to have to deal with such closed and pointless individuals like this. - Gavin (talk) 13:58, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
I have to say that I love that Mark Twain quote on your user userpage! I hope you do not leave - perhaps consider taking a break until you feel able to come back. I have also had extreme problems with this admin - he has edited my edits and told lies about me here on WP (which ended up being closed by a non-admin!). But like you, I have little faith in AN/I or indeed ArbCom. I'm not sure what the answer is, but if we all leave, they win. I wish you all the best for the future. DrChrissy(talk) 19:26, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
Maybe you should appeal to the admin who mistakenly blocked you yesterday. He seems to take a strong line on harrassment and casting aspersions on someone's mental faculties is so far over the line you need binoculars to see it. A 3-day block would send a clear message. Betty Logan (talk) 20:02, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
LOL – I've seen several admins running for cover over this—ironic, given the supposed 'insult' for which I was blocked yesterday—so I suspect he'll also run a mile to take action against his chum. – Gavin (talk) 20:31, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
Seriously, after the garbage I deal with daily (and look where that's got me, Arbcom strike 3 and you're out &c.), I would suggest you continue to do what you're doing. The stuff you turn out is top notch and just because you don't suffer fools gladly, you shouldn't be made to feel that you need to leave Wikipedia. There are some clueless and incompetent editors out there, there are literally hundreds of "users" who just frequent drama boards. They are, frankly, pointless. But they will seek their five minutes of limelight because they are not able to actively improve the encyclopedia. So they just sit on the popcorn gallery and screech. You and I both know how much quality content we've provided, more than all the gallery combined fivefold. In fact, most of them don't dare edit the mainspace because they're so incompetent. Yet they feel qualified to chastise us. The irony. My best to you, as always, and my ongoing thanks for helping me create something like 157 good articles in the past year alone (yes, that's right everyone, because of SchroCat's dedication to the project, he helped me with sources for 157 good articles). Find me one single member of the gallery who has created content, assisted with content, done so much for the Wikipedia, and I'll eat my hat. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:12, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
Many thanks for your extremely kind words RM. I've had some fun times here, but the dross levels have risen too highly recently and a very small group have managed to (deliberately) suck the last vestiges of enjoyment from this: I would have probably opted for a break before the rather vile comment made earlier today. That was the last straw for me, unfortunately, and I'll be off once the last few articles are tidied up. Cheers – -Gavin (talk) 20:31, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
Welllll, the upside is that you get your life back, but the downside is that you don't get to see the hawks and the hangers-on tear me to bits in the next few weeks. I can't wait to see the worms crawling out of the woodwork to spill their guts, and given the massive upsurge on my talkpage visitors (like a drab DYK), neither can most other viewers. I should charge an entry fee. Good luck, don't be a stranger, remember who the good guys are etc etc etc. And thanks for all the fish/Telegraph snippets etc. I couldn't have created the most comprehensive coverage of The Boat Race in history without your help. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:35, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
I plan to chip in with my opinion when it kicks off (not that it will help much!) I enjoyed the Boat Race work - and it was great watching you pull them all together. I'll leave a nice pile of work as my 'epitaph', but I expect at least one troll move in to start downgrading some things. Hey ho – such is life! – Gavin (talk) 22:36, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
I hope that you stay around, SchroCat. Other than our difference of opinion on the infobox thing, we largely see eye to eye on many matters. I concur that the admin's actions were unbecoming to an admin, and I suggest that he be taken to task for that one, WP:ASPERSIONS applies. Montanabw(talk) 22:34, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
Thanks Montana, but having to deal too much with the self-appointed Guardians of the MoS (the worst of whom is a tendentious little stalker) on top of a recent rash of IB discussions has sucked the last remaining bit of joy out of things. Yes, the admin in question should be given a shredding for his comment, but so should admins like SlimVirgin, who I've provided the link to, but who lack even the basic courtesy of replying to me, let alone taking any action. There is little point when admins like that won't even take basic steps, just because it's one of their chums. That's too shoddy for words. – Gavin (talk) 22:36, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
Gav, I'm joining you. This place can do as it pleases. And that includes adding idiotboxes to all "my" featured articles - please, any warriors watching this from behind their filthy keyboards in their mum's spare bedrooms, help yourselves. I couldn't give a shit anymore; life is too short. CassiantoTalk 22:41, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
It really sucks that this has gotten the better of you, SchroCat. You and your work will be missed for sure. Snuggums (talk / edits) 00:40, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
Thanks Snuggums. Small groups of bullies have ground me down over time, but when it's combined with a moronic comment from an idiot admin and a second admin lacks the basic common courtesy to respond when something is put in front of her (let alone a backbone to actually take any action), it's not a place I want to spend any more time. I'm fairly thick-skinned, but when the admins are worse than the trolls....! Cheers - Gavin (talk) 08:53, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
I fully understand your frustration. You and your work, and your associates, have been targeted for years. But why should the best editors we have be driven away by the worst? Remember the words of the Persian Sufi: "This, too, shall pass". Your contributions, not just as a content editor but as a reviewer, researcher and helper and friend in times of need, are much too valuable to be lost. My advice: take a bit of a break but keep an occasional hand in, and when you feel like it, pick up the baton again. I am longing to see what you might make of Ernest Thesiger and/or Felix Aylmer! With all good wishes. Brianboulton (talk) 14:27, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
Hear hear. We really need you Gavin. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:33, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
All of the above. As I said on Cass' talk, shocked but not surprised. I've been considering it myself lately much more than I ever have -- it's like something's got into the water -- but for now I'd prefer not to give 'em the satisfaction. Everyone has to make their own decision though, and it's admittedly much easier not to get so directly involved in IB and other formatting discussions when you focus on military articles. You don't need me to tell you how great it's been reading and reviewing your work on Fleming and so many other subjects. Be assured that they will stay on my watchlist in the hope that you'll be back to steward them yourself after a well-deserved break. Talk to me anytime. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:30, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
Many thanks to you all. I will have several regrets about closing down: not getting all the Bond novels to FA will be an obvious one, but leaving the company of many of my fellow editors will be the main wrench. Thanks to you all for all the support and assistance you've given me and the articles,on which I've worked. Cheers – Gavin (talk) 07:01, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
Sieges
Hi, just wanted to say really nice work on the Siege of Sidney Street. For some reason I never watchlisted it, so all your hard work and the FAC slipped under my radar and I was pleasantly surprised to see it at TFA today. I took the article on the Iranian Embassy siege through FAC several years ago and recall looking at the Sidney Street article and finding it in a bit of a sorry state so i'm happy to see you've given it the attention it deserved. Best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:49, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
Hi Harry, Many thanks for your comment: it's much appreciated. It was an interesting one to do, and quite fun to do. Cheers – Gavin (talk) 22:05, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
Very sorry
Hi Gavin. I would just like to say how helpful I have found you and what a great contribution you have made. Wikipedia will be a much poorer place without you and Tim. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:40, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
Hi Dudley, Many thanks for your very kind words. I have always enjoyed seeing your lists coming through FLC, and your medieval articles are among the most professional material I think we produce: in future, whenever I pass through the front page as a reader I will take great delight if I see another of your works enlightening the world. Cheers – Gavin (talk) 19:03, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
This is your work. -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:14, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
In my opinion, this comment is in very poor taste, Ssilvers. Every responsible editor should try to de-escalate the infobox wars. Egging on the combatants on either side of the battle is not a good idea. Cullen328Let's discuss it 04:24, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
Gerda knows what she did. She has hurt Wikipedia immensely over the years, and now she and her friends have driven some of the very best content creators out of the project. She should be deeply ashamed of herself. I'm sure I can never forgive her. -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:33, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
RfC on Quote Boxes.
Hi SchroCat. This is just a message to let you know that I have recently initiated a 'support/opposition' section at the RfC discussing the issues surrounding the use of "quote boxes" (here). As you previously expressed a view on this issue over at the MoS talk page several days ago, you may wish to reiterate your opinion in a 'support/oppose' format. Best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:53, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
Arbitration Case opened
You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/The Rambling Man.
Please add your evidence by September 17, 2016, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/The Rambling Man/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration.
For non-parties who wish to opt out of further notifications for this case please remove yourself from the list held here
All-righty. The copy of the Pontefract handbill is at London School of Economics Womens Library. However they date it as being from 1883. Screencap of their page showing the 1883 datingScreencap of the handbill and the LSE text for it. larger copy of the handbill. Looking at the larger copy, you can see that the author of this text is Josephine Butler--at the bottom "Josephine E. Butler, Hon. Sec. of the Ladies' National Association." And so "Therefore Mrs. Butler requests" ;-). I'd upload the larger copy so this can be easily seen. It can be proven that she died in 1906, so the author has been dead for more than 100 years. Now you need to change the license to {{PD-old-100}}.
I stopped thinking about working up anything more for FA after the volume went up on the IB/MOS noise. The last article I sent to GA was Joseph Parry; was working on Devon Great Consols, could have sent it to DYK because it was more than 5X expansion. Intended to add more but found it too hard to concentrate on the article with all of the commotion that kept coming up re: IB and box quotes. My next project is to delete hundreds of archived images-photos, film posters & lobby cards because I won't be working here anymore. Will get to work on Florence Booth next. We hope (talk) 14:30, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
We hope, you are an absolute star! Thanks so much for this (and for Booth). The project will be much the poorer for your absence—your skills in the image finding and licensing field are superlative! Cheers – Gavin (talk) 15:35, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
Indeed she is. You are truly wonderful, We hope. CassiantoTalk 15:59, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
Florence Booth
I tried finding information on dating the photo in the Josephine Butler article but found an unmailed postcard and that's of no help. The younger photo of her in the Florence Eleanor Soper couldn't be positively dated either. So I uploaded File:Florence S. Booth Mrs Bramwell.jpg from a 1912 book published in New York.
Cass, the images for Harry Nicholls are in a separate folder. When/if times get better here and you decide to come back, they'll be around. :D Same holds true for any of Dr. B.'s projects. :D We hope (talk) 17:02, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:
— Ssven2 Speak 2 me 09:04, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
The Wikipedia Library
