Jump to content

User talk:SchroCat/Archive 15

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10←Archive 13Archive 14Archive 15Archive 16Archive 17→Archive 20

Happy New Year SchroCat!

Happy New Year!

SchroCat,
Have a prosperous, productive and wonderful New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. LADY LOTUS • TALK 12:36, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Happy New Year Schro, Cass, Tim, Brian, Ssilvers, Wehwalt and anybody else of quality I've missed!! May 2015 be a year free of trolls, vandals and bores as Brian put it! I wonder if we can go a month without encountering trouble. Hmmm...♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:01, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Many thanks to you both – it's very much appreciated, and the very same to you both! Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 09:59, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

May versus could

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Closing off: nothing constructive is going to come of prolonging this. - SchroCat (talk) 18:44, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Referring to my edit on Die Another Day, you are right that there is a difference between may + perfect tense clause and the substitution of could. My point is that using "may" in this sentence is a meaningless statement as it conveys no information at all, although many people assume an understanding by mentally interchanging it with "might" instead. Perhaps you could tell me exactly what the crucial difference is for you in meaning between the two phrases?--Mevagiss (talk) 11:14, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Could = ability, May = possibility. - SchroCat (talk) 11:19, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
Exactly - to say that M thought that there was a possibility of Bond giving information is not news to anybody, such a possibility always exists (because it isn't impossible - statistically nothing ever is). The concern is that he actually did, so he "could have". Further there is nothing showing that he did - so we don't say that "her belief that he leaked information", although that is meaningful as well since we are speaking about a belief. To say that "her belief that he may have..." is actually bad English as it duplicates information in an awkward way; the correct modal form is might for the past. May with the past is a way of emphasising total lack of knowledge by anybody although typically in conversation and particularly by journalists (and American English) this distinction is not recognised. Sorry if it seems a bit of a lecture but you raised the objection and I am defending.--Mevagiss (talk) 12:07, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
Good grief, life is too short for this. Lots of people could have done it, she was pissed off because he may have done it. This is entirely correct, and your lectures are not needed. Drop stick. Move on. - SchroCat (talk) 09:53, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
And don't be so bloody tiresome as to edit war. – SchroCat (talk) 18:37, 1 January 2015 (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.

Happy New Year!

Dear SchroCat,
HAPPY NEW YEAR Hoping 2015 will be a great year for you! Thank you for your contributions!
From a fellow editor,
FWiW Bzuk (talk) 21:12, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

This message promotes WikiLove. Originally created by Nahnah4 (see "invisible note").

Talk page revert

Just curious about why you removed a message from my talk – seemed harmless enough? Brianboulton (talk) 22:06, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Brian, I'm guessing it was a mistake and that Gavin hit the rollback button by mistake. I know he uses a touchscreen device and it's very easily done; in fact, I did the same with your post just a few moments ago! CassiantoTalk 22:14, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
Indeed — sorry Brian! - SchroCat (talk) 22:43, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

This is to inform you that E. W. Hornung, which you nominated at WP:FAC, will appear on the Main Page as Today's Featured Article on 20 January 2015. The proposed main page blurb is here; you may amend if necessary. Please check for dead links and other possible faults before the appearance date. Brianboulton (talk) 22:03, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

I made a few tweaks; check it out. Thanks for a lively article. - Dank (push to talk) 21:19, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
Many thanks to you both. The tweaks are good, Dank, thanks. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 08:01, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

Dear SchroCat,
HAPPY NEW YEAR Hoping 2015 will be a great year for you! Thank you for your contributions!
From a fellow editor,
FWiW Bzuk (talk) 21:12, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

This message promotes WikiLove. Originally created by Nahnah4 (see "invisible note").

Thanks Bzuk – the same to you! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 08:02, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:James Bond's Qs.jpg

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:James Bond's Qs.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 21:39, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Now back in use. - SchroCat (talk) 21:51, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 December 2014

Non-free use of File:James Bond's Qs.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:James Bond's Qs.jpg. However, there is a concern that the use of the image on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. Details of this problem, and which specific criteria that the image may not meet, can be obtained by going to the image description page. If you feel that this image does meet those criteria, please place a note on the image description or talk page explaining why. Do not remove the {{di-fails NFCC}} tag itself.

An administrator will review this file within a few days, and having considered the opinions placed on the image page, may delete it in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion or remove the tag entirely. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 23:09, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Special Barnstar
For your efforts to get John Barrymore up to FA status. It required an enormous amount of effort from yourself to not only research and write it, but to prune it with Ssilvers and the other reviewers after writing. For American cinema and theatre I think it is certainly a landmark achievement. Hope to see Lionel at FAC next :-) ♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:19, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
Many thanks, Doc! I'm not sure about Lionel: Ethel may be a possbility in a year or so – a great actor and an interesting life story to tell as well, but I can see myself doing the triumvirate of lists for them sometime soon! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 12:40, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Lillian Gish, Mary Pickford or Douglas Fairbanks spring to mind as particularly worthy from that period too. Gish especially.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:44, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

There's almost too many to choose from - Mary Astor is one I've thought about, and Rudolph Valentino, Errol Flynn and W. C. Fields too. I'm a big fan of Hedy Lamarr, possibly the most attractive woman I've ever seen, and an incredibly intelligent and innovative person too - she would be worth writing up, if only I can understand her inventions! - SchroCat (talk) 12:50, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Well, I'm trying to get back into writing the Kubrick article, a lot of distractions with other FACs right now though! I think I'm just going to override the current Kubrick article with my sandbox one a bit later once I've restored some of the original sourcing and resume with it from there. I've still got two biographies to go through but it would at least sort out the quote issue it currently has. I find I don't work well for long in sandboxes! I need the motivation factor! We both know of course why I had to work on it in a sandbox in the first place.. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:09, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Well, at least that part isn't an issue anymore! - SchroCat (talk) 13:34, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Congratulations on the star. I think you really can be proud of this excellent article. If you're deciding who to do next, you might consider Olivier. -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:52, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Many thanks! And a huge thanks once again to your copyediting and Americanising throughout. Olivier is indeed next, which I will be doing in conjunction with Tim riley. (Thankfully in British English!!) Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 16:58, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
You persuaded him to do it then? The last time I begged him to get Olivier to FA he almost choked on his glass bottle of red! CassiantoTalk 11:24, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
Wrong way – he volunteered and I took no persuading to join in. Should be fun, once I've got a handle on the man, although that's a struggle! - SchroCat (talk) 11:43, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Wow, that'll be some project.... Olivier really is a goliath of acting. Yeah Cass I mentioned it to Tim before and he did something similar and quaked in his little Tim boots I believe! Difficult to watch something like Sleuth and not recognise that he might have actually been the greatest actor ever to appear in a film! He was certainly one of them IMO.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:24, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

He was absolutely huge as an actor, but seemingly unloveable as a person, it seems. - SchroCat (talk) 11:43, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
Well, that he had the stamina and patience to keep up with Vivian for so long I think he deserves a medal for that alone!!♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:44, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
Watching Samson and Delilah earlier and yup Hedy is definitely among the most beautiful of Hollywood ever, certainly a good candidate! Gene Tierney, Maureen O'Hara, Jean Simmons, Ava Gardner and Paulette Goddard though I think are also right up there.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:37, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:James Bond's Qs.jpg

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:James Bond's Qs.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 22:23, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Projects for column width discussion

On Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Scheduled Monuments in South Somerset/archive1 you suggested informing other projects about the discussion I've started at Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates#Column widths in table layout. Which projects were you thinking of?— Rod talk 22:08, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

How about the following, which are probably the ones common to all such lists:
Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 22:16, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
Done.— Rod talk 07:12, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Instead of a cheque...

The Running Man Barnstar
Thank you for all you have done to help me with the Boat Race articles. Tonight we hit a landmark, over 50% of the race articles are now Good or Featured Articles, which is a monumental achievement considering that none of the articles even existed eight months ago. Thanks again. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:42, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Many thanks, RM! The credit is all down to you on this one - the rest of us are just hanging off your coat tails. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 08:31, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Gary Cooper peer review

Hello, SchroCat. First, let me me congratulate you on the John Barrymore article being promoted to FA. I know you put in a lot of hard work. It's a fine article. Yesterday I created a peer review request for the Gary Cooper article that was promoted to GA last month. During the GA review, you mentioned that you might be interested in participating in the peer review. If you have the time, please review the article and leave any feedback at the peer review page in preparation for FAC nomination. Regards, Bede735 (talk) 14:50, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Somerset Scheduled Monuments lists

Thanks for your helpful comments on Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Scheduled Monuments in South Somerset/archive1 which has now been promoted. I've now nominated List of Scheduled Monuments in North Somerset at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Scheduled Monuments in North Somerset/archive1 and would be grateful for any comments you might have. As you know there is a discussion about the column widths etc on these lists at Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates#Column widths in table layout. Thanks for any input.— Rod talk 21:21, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Happy New Year (song)

Can you keep an eye with the page? I doubt that similar patterns with Special:Contributions/Lam Thuy Van who removed hidden tag and added uncited genre. 115.164.191.249 (talk) 02:58, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

FL

Hello friend, my name is Jim Carter. I'm not interested in film related articles but I have worked on something which needs your help. I have expanded Abhishek Bachchan filmography article from this to this. It was also featured in DYK. Now I was thinking about FL but I'm not an expert so I want your opinion. All type of help is appreciated! Thanks, Jim Carter 05:06, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for fixing the table. Please let me know if I should go ahead and nominate it for FL as I don't generally work on lists hence I'm not enough experienced. Thanks, Jim Carter 12:12, 8 January 2015 (UTC)


Hi Jim Carter,

It's nearly there, but just not quite, largely because of the lead, I think. The lead is probably over long: it's about double the length of existing FL filmographies (see Aishwarya Rai Bachchan filmography, Rani Mukerji filmography, Hrithik Roshan filmography and Akshay Kumar filmography by way of comparison). Don't forget, we are not trying to tell the life story of the individual here, but reflect what the body of the article is saying (with some limited additional information to aid understanding).

Films

  • In the "roles" column there are three different ways of saying we don’t know the name (Unknown, TBA and N/A). I'd standardise these with a dash, which also stops the coloured box and centred font appearing
  • You need to sort the director of The Shaukeens, which is showing as [[]]]] (and include a reference as well)
  • I would remove the awards from the table (there was a similar discussion about them at this related FLC. We have a separate page for awards, so no need to double them up here.
  • Consider (but don't take my word as a cast iron one) removing the "Credited as" column, and drop his producing/narrating details into the "Notes" column instead: it'll slim down the table a bit, and there are only three rows that are affected by this

Television

  • What order are the rows in? You should re-sort to chronological.
  • You need refs for the two unreferenced ones

Refs

  • There are two disambig links in the references, both to IBN

That's a quick run through for you. The main stumbling block I see (outside some minor formatting issues) is the lead. If you get that right, the rest is relatively minor tweaking which people will pick up on at FLC. Hope this helps! Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 12:51, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Books and Bytes - Issue 9

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 9, November-December 2014
by The Interior (talk · contribs), Ocaasi (talk · contribs), Sadads (talk · contribs)

  • New donations, including real-paper-and-everything books, e-books, science journal databases, and more
  • New TWL coordinators, conference news, a new open-access journal database, summary of library-related WMF grants, and more
  • Spotlight: "Global Impact: The Wikipedia Library and Persian Wikipedia" - a Persian Wikipedia editor talks about their experiences with database access in Iran, writing on the Persian project and the JSTOR partnership

Read the full newsletter

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:36, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 07 January 2015

Happy New Year!

I have just returned from an absence of a few months as my life has been turned quite literally upside-down. I am still trying to adjust to seeing the sun in the southern sky instead of the north, and keep wondering where all the flies, ants and mosquitos have gone. I suppose I will get used to it.

Amandajm (talk) 18:17, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi Amanda! Long time, no speak - I'm very glad to hear that your absence was only temporary, and that you are back with us again. You'll find the place hasn't changed much - for good or bad! Cheers - 18:35, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Nomming at TFA

Hi Schro, could you include an edit summary when you nom something at TFAR? I'm going to start reviewing the TFA text and it would be easier if I could see in the history when something new pops up. - Dank (push to talk) 18:23, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Sorry Dan, it's one of my constant flaws, jumping in to act and not leaving a good summary: I'll try and remember in future! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 18:35, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks much ... it doesn't even have to be a good summary, anything will do ... the name of the article, or "new nom", or something. - Dank (push to talk) 18:46, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of awards and nominations received by Lorde/archive2

Hello, SchroCat. I can see that you have archived my featured list candidate for List of awards and nominations received by Lorde. I wonder if that means the list will be promoted or not. Much thanks, Simon (talk) 09:01, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

  • Hi Simon, Unfortunately it isn't being promoted: only one support after two months at FLC isn't enough of a consensus to promote, I'm afraid. You arefree to re-nominate, and to drop neutral notes to all those who commented previously, which should start things off well wit that one. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 09:14, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Internet Archive

Hi, I'm the author of the Internet Archive template. I'm concerned about your comment that it is not working as it might impact other pages. As for my side everything works as expected. The current search string in the article (query=Ernest%20William%20Hornung) brings up 114 hits, but the templated version below finds 122. Would it be possible could you tell me what happens when you click on the following, how many results and/or any error messages?

  1. Works by or about Ernest William Hornung at the Internet Archive
  2. Works by or about E. W. Hornung at the Internet Archive

Thanks. -- GreenC 15:44, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

  • "The search engine encountered the following error: Search engine returned invalid information or was unresponsive. We are working to resolve this issue. Thanks for your patience." That's for both the two options above, which is why I added the raw text link. The first link above gives the url of https://archive.org/search.php?query=%28subject%3A%22Hornung%2C%20Ernest%20William%2C%201866-1921%22%20OR%20subject%3A%22Hornung%2C%20E%2E%20W%2E%20%28Ernest%20William%29%2C%201866-1921%22%20OR%20subject%3A%22Hornung%2C%20Ernest%20W%2E%20%28Ernest%20William%29%2C%201866-1921%22%20OR%20subject%3A%22Hornung%2C%20Ernest%20William%22%20OR%20subject%3A%22Hornung%2C%20E%2E%20W%2E%20%28Ernest%20William%29%22%20OR%20subject%3A%22Hornung%2C%20Ernest%20W%2E%20%28Ernest%20William%29%22%20OR%20subject%3A%22Ernest%20William%20Hornung%22%20OR%20subject%3A%22Ernest%20W%2E%20Hornung%22%20OR%20subject%3A%22E%2E%20W%2E%20Hornung%22%20OR%20subject%3A%22Hornung%2C%20Ernest%2C%201866-1921%22%20OR%20subject%3A%22Ernest%20Hornung%2C%201866-1921%22%20OR%20subject%3A%22Hornung%2C%20E%2E%20William%20%28Ernest%20William%29%2C%201866-1921%22%20OR%20subject%3A%22Hornung%2C%20E%2E%20W%2E%22%20OR%20subject%3A%22Hornung%2C%20Ernest%20W%2E%22%20OR%20creator%3A%22Hornung%2C%20E%2E%20William%20%28Ernest%20William%29%2C%201866-1921%22%20OR%20creator%3A%22Hornung%2C%20Ernest%20William%2C%201866-1921%22%20OR%20creator%3A%22Hornung%2C%20Ernest%20William%2C%20Sir%2C%201866-1921%22%20OR%20creator%3A%22Hornung%2C%20E%2E%20W%2E%20%28Ernest%20William%29%2C%201866-1921%22%20OR%20creator%3A%22Hornung%2C%20Ernest%20W%2E%20%28Ernest%20William%29%2C%201866-1921%22%20OR%20creator%3A%22Hornung%2C%20Ernest%20William%22%20OR%20creator%3A%22Hornung%2C%20E%2E%20W%2E%22%20OR%20creator%3A%22Hornung%2C%20Ernest%20W%2E%22%20OR%20creator%3A%22Ernest%20William%20Hornung%22%20OR%20creator%3A%22Ernest%20W%2E%20Hornung%22%20OR%20creator%3A%22E%2E%20W%2E%20Hornung%22%20OR%20creator%3A%22Hornung%2C%20Ernest%2C%201866-1921%22%20OR%20creator%3A%22Ernest%20Hornung%2C%201866-1921%22%20OR%20creator%3A%22Hornung%2C%20E%2E%20W%2E%20%28Ernest%20William%29%22%20OR%20creator%3A%22Hornung%2C%20Ernest%20W%2E%20%28Ernest%20William%29%22%20OR%20title%3A%22Ernest%20William%20Hornung%22%20OR%20title%3A%22Ernest%20W%2E%20Hornung%22%20OR%20title%3A%22E%2E%20W%2E%20Hornung%22%20OR%20title%3A%22Ernest%20Hornung%22%20OR%20descriptio
I hope this helps! - SchroCat (talk) 15:49, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

I see, the URL is being truncated after 2083 characters. Can I ask what is your browser and browser version? -- GreenC 15:57, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

From this page I'm guessing your using IE. Looks like I will need to find a new search recipe that gets the same results but under 2000 characters or so. This is helpful thanks for your feedback. -- GreenC 16:02, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Correct on the IE, and it's version 11 I'm using. - SchroCat (talk) 16:15, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Fun with newspapers

As you know, I'm off on my travels tomorrow, but I've managed to get Girl Pat (1935 trawler) to peer review, in the hope that it will garner some comments while I'm away. Anything you can contribute will be much appreciated. No hurry, of course. The article is quite short, but took longer than I'd anticipated because I kept being distracted by fascinating bits of other news in all the newspapers that I searched, mostly kindly supplied by you. Did you know, for example, that the Daily Worker carried the polo results, on its front page? My favourite story was in one of the locals. It concerned a German boy who was bored with his music lessons, and decided to end them by setting fire to his violin. Unfortunately, he succeeding in burning his house down. His name was Otto Wanka – and I did not make that up. Brianboulton (talk) 21:57, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, SchroCat. You have new messages at Talk:Abhishek Bachchan filmography.
Message added 14:07, 14 January 2015 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Jim Carter 14:07, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Please take a look at the article. Should I go ahead and nominate it for FL? Thank you. Jim Carter 04:58, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
As you've ignored half my advice already, I'm not sure why you're back asking for more, but I would give the lead another copy edit before you do anything: "On the other hand" is unencyclopaedic and doesn't make sense in the context, and do we need FOUR refs to tell us that "Box Office India declared the third installment of the Dhoom series, Dhoom 3, "the biggest hit of 2013" two days after its release.[49][50][51][52]". To my mind, one reference from Box Office India should suffice; similarly, surely "Abhishek Bachchan is an Indian actor and producer" doesn't need three sources to say something that simple? Once you've done that and reconsidered the three points I left earlier that you haven't addressed, it would be time to take it to FLC. - SchroCat (talk) 08:26, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 14 January 2015

Peggy Ashcroft

It's one damn' thing after another. I have only just clicked through from our Olivier efforts to Dame Peg's article, and am horrified how dreadful it is. Emergency measures are being taken here. Not planning anything grand, you know, but a decent upper-middle B class is the least the lady is due. Do look in and dabble if inclined, but absolutely no obligation. Tim riley talk 21:41, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

You're right: it's awful! I'll pop in tomorrow to see what I can help with. - SchroCat (talk) 21:47, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
I've cobbled together something in my sandbox, which I think will just about pass muster for now. But I'm glad you're going to look in. Edit ad lib, natch. Tim riley talk 12:41, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
I'll be there this afternoon! Pip pip - SchroCat (talk) 13:07, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
Not too much for me to do, as you've covered it all so beautifully and economically. A few minor tweaks to links and per the MoS was all that was needed. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 15:21, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for that. I have dug up some US publicity photos, which Crisco has kindly vetted for copyright, and I'm waiting for the wizards in the photo workshop to remove the seller's watermarks. Once that's done I'll shift the revised version into the main space. In passing, what about this or this for the Olivier article instead of the 1960s Dame Peg image, once the boffins have worked their magic? Tim riley talk 17:33, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
Fantastic! Both are wonderful and either would be better than the rather unflattering one we have there now. [File:Peggy-Ashcroft-1936-1.jpg This] is the better framed image, but I prefer this by a smigeon. I'll leave the casting vote to you! - SchroCat (talk) 20:14, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Barrymore brothers 1917 photo

Would you be interested in making this photo a wiki-commons access public domain portrait of the 'boys'? It's stated to be from 1917.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-Y2cYZD_UVkI/TzpmxwGJw9I/AAAAAAAACAE/_yuRULxSikI/s1600/jack-and-lionel-1917.jpg

I once had it in Jack's external links. Glad to have found it again. Koplimek (talk) 16:53, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

That's a great one: I'll have a little dig round to see if it's been published at any point, which is the key date. By the way, I have JB (hopefully) in the queue for a front page appearance on his birthday (see here). Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 20:17, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

The Man with the Golden Gun

Why did you revert my edition? --Katous1978 (talk) 18:48, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

I explained why in my edit summary, which you should have read instead of coming here. As per WP:CITEVAR we retain the same format throughout. Nex time, please do not edit war when you are reverted for a reason: take that on board and act accordingly. - SchroCat (talk) 19:19, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

[1]

Thanks for that. Annoyingly, I was thinking Plymouth. I don't get south that often.... Adam Cuerden (talk) 08:11, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

LOL! No probs (and there was I blaming it on an American editor anyway!) Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 20:29, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Vivien Leigh

I see this is at FAR. I know you said you wanted to work on it.♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:24, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Cheers for the heads up. Still waiting for the book to come in at the mo, so may not be too much help until that comes in... - SchroCat (talk) 20:28, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
Perhaps let Sandy G know you intend working on it, or do you think it's best it is delisted and goes through a proper peer review and FAC? I think it's probably best that it is delisted for that reason, not to offend the original writer, but times have changed. It looks a stronger article than the Judy Garland one though!♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:25, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Account hacking

I received an email from Wikimedia today that 96.246.139.135 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has been attempting the password reset process on my Wikipedia account. Obviously it hasn't succeeded, but I'm just letting you know should my account start doing weird stuff or anything out of character. Betty Logan (talk) 14:59, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. Probably best you keep an eye on your emails too if there are issues - may be an easierway to sort things out, if things start going pear shaped.- SchroCat (talk) 15:48, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

TFL notification

Hi, SchroCat. I'm just posting to let you know that Works of John Betjeman – a list that you have been heavily involved with – has been chosen to appear on the Main Page as Today's featured list for February 13. The TFL blurb can be seen here. If you have any thoughts on the selection, please post them on my talk page or at TFL talk. Regards, Giants2008 (Talk) 23:21, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 21 January 2015

FL

Hello friend, please review this. And thank you very much for your help! Jim Carter 10:18, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

No problem on the help. As o reviewing, as I am one of the FL delegates I rarely review the articles with the intent on supporting, to ensure that I am able to close or act on the nominations without the possibility of a conflict of interest. Thanks - SchroCat (talk) 10:26, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Ok. No problem. Do you think that the List will pass now? Any further advices. Jim Carter 10:34, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Laurence Olivier

Are you certain that "He intended to join the Royal Air Force ..."? Other sources (Spoto 2001, pp. 147–148) have him attempting to join the Fleet Air Arm, following in the wake of Ralph Richardson. The flying lessons he undertook at Santa Monica, California were in float planes. He was a rotten pilot and after 200 hours, was no better than a neophyte, ending his training with a crash. Vivien Leigh commented that he was the just as reckless in the air as he was on the ground, driving sports cars. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 19:17, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Soto is the least reliable of the biographers. - SchroCat (talk) 19:57, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Your source is ...? See images and article FWiW Bzuk (talk) 20:12, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
My source is correct: you have not read the article properly, or have misinterpreted it. As per the article: "He intended to join the Royal Air Force" (my emphasis). It doesn't say he did, it says he intended to. If you read on, the remainder of the sentence says "and joined the Fleet Air Arm because Richardson was already in the service". - SchroCat (talk) 20:16, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Again, what source? See Beckett 2005, p. 147, Darlington 1968, pp. 56, 58. AFAIK, he always intended to go into the Fleet Air Arm, but then again, your source may have more information. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 20:12, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Coleman. As above, Spoto is the least reliable of the sources. - SchroCat (talk) 20:35, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Well, Coleman has the merit of writing an "authorised biography" and has at least two mentions of Olivier's intention to join the Royal Air Force, although all of his training was preparing him for a role as a pilot in the Fleet Air Arm, which likely came after he had decided to follow in the footsteps of his friend, who was also a disaster as a pilot. After two years, Olivier did resign his commission as a Lieutenant-Commander in the Fleet Air Arm. I did want to check on this as it was mentioned in the article on Vivien Leigh. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 20:58, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Hello, SchroCat. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

FWiW Bzuk (talk) 16:11, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Centered Photo Captions

Thanks for undoing all of my Americanized "periods". About half way through those I was thinking ... I think the British may do it this way. That turned out to be true.

I note that in your process of undoing my good faith edits, you also undid my centering of the captions on the two photographs. Don't you think it looks way better centered? If you were to ask the author I bet he/she would agree with me. Those captions are so short that they look odd flushed to the left as they are.EditorExtraordinaire (talk) 08:33, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

It's a practice I followed from time to time until I was told that it is against the MoS, which says somewhere that image captions should be plced to the left. That's unlike the sources on quotes which can go anywhere, but probably should to to the right if the quote box is on the right of the page. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 08:37, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

And yet, despite me saying it's against the MoS, you edit war your preference back into the article? Unbelievable... - SchroCat (talk) 08:52, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Ian Fleming

My summary was perhaps not very good. The problem is that "John and Evelyn Fleming" sounds like a married couple called Fleming. Moonraker (talk) 08:49, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Quite right: I've removed the Fleming from the line. - SchroCat (talk) 08:54, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Suzanne Farrington

Please add to the article if you can. I have only a few sources to go with and virtually nothing about her life after marriage. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 22:08, 27 January 2015 (UTC) Thanks for catching some of the faux pas; as you likely know, Canadians use a combination of Americanisms and British English, so we are often caught up by using the wrong terminology. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 22:29, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

I'll see what I can dig up. From memory it wasn't a huge amount, especially as the things I have are more focussed on Olivier, but we'll see. - SchroCat (talk) 09:15, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Gravy

PMSL, that's a great one, I'll definitely be using that one in future!♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:54, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Shame it's not an original - I have to confess that it's a Fryism! - SchroCat (talk) 13:30, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

shouty caps

Hi, What do u mean by shouty caps in this page? thanks.--Salman mahdi (talk) 09:46, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

I mean where whole words are in capitals. This is larely in the sources area of the page and, for example:
  • Amir-Moezzi, Mohammad Ali (2005). "SHIʿITE DOCTRINE". Encyclopaedia Iranica. Retrieved 2014-07-07.
should properly be:
  • Amir-Moezzi, Mohammad Ali (2005). "Shi'ite Doctrine". Encyclopaedia Iranica. Retrieved 2014-07-07.
Hope this helps! (Let me know if there is anything else from the review you need explained). - SchroCat (talk) 09:49, 28 January 2015 (UTC)


Regarding this page, In terms of the references, your refs refer to Tabatabaei 1977, but Shi'ite Islam is shown in the bibliography as having a 1979 publishing date. Why have a long bibliography, and still have a full book description in the refs, both of the books is referenced in the text, What do u mean by this note? Great thanks.--Salman mahdi (talk) 15:53, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

The refs have been cleared up a bit since I looked at it in November, so some of the comments won't necessarily still be true, such as regarding Tabatabaei. The second part (about long descriptions) is seen in footnote 30: (30.^ Jump up to: a b c d e f g h i j k l Encyclopedia of the Modern Middle East and North Africa. Gale Group. 2004. ISBN 978-0-02-865769-1), but the book is listed in the biography in full as well – the fifth book down. You need to use the Template:SfnRef to assign a name to the bibliography book which you can then use in the refs in the text. (I hope that makes sense, because I'm confusing myself while writing it!)

The bibliography still needs some work doing to it – there are still books listed that are not used, so it's best to strip these out and leave in place only the ones used. There are also a couple of multiple copies of books – for example, why are there three copies of:

I appreciate they are different publishing dates, but use one and ensure the citations are correct throughout and then get rid of the other two.

Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 16:08, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Have a look at this

User:Yulia Romero/Against editors who cry wolf I've just added it to my user page. We hope (talk) 16:24, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

lol – I've seen a fair amount of those this week, along with the faux outrage they'll show while being guilty of the same thing! Fingers crossed the disruption will quieten down, and we can all get back to busy work - and, of course, that Cass makes a reappearance again soon. As I've said elsewhere already a couple of times this year: "never let the buggers grind you down!" It's a horrible thing when such disgraceful comments drive good editors away. – SchroCat (talk) 17:14, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Thankfully Drmies closed the most recent (and most pointless) ANI thread down quickly; a third thread may have led to yet more needless bloodletting. A fourth could be a boomerang job, if it's as specious as the last one! Can I get back to filing FPCs for Crisco to find new areas of IP law to use to oppose?  ;-) SchroCat (talk) 17:25, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
  • *shuffles feet awkwardly* That's alright, one of my own noms from a few years back is likely to be axed for the same reason. I do like those political cartoons you've dug up; very attractive. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 17:28, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Lol - do you know I actually saw the other diptych as an FP and thougt that Wilton deserved to be up there too (despite being non-religious, I have a deep and abiding love of medieval religious iconography), so I'm going to shift the finger of blame squarely in your direction all counts! Ha! (Sadly I see the now-closed ANI thread has sparked off on Drmies's talk page with the same pot-stirrers. This issue is becoming divisive beyond belief now! I see heavier warnings or blocks on the horizon before it ends. - SchroCat (talk) 17:34, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
A lot of what I've seen happen on here in recent days is utter bollock dandruff! That's a Fry inspired one :-)♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:56, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
lol! (Another of his is "a load of loose stool water!", which I also think a fine one!) - SchroCat (talk) 18:09, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Where's the ice cream

  • Marriage A-la-Mode 1, The Marriage Settlement
    Marriage A-la-Mode 1, The Marriage Settlement
  • Marriage A-la-Mode 2, The The Tête à Tête
    Marriage A-la-Mode 2, The The Tête à Tête
  • Marriage A-la-Mode 3, The Inspection
    Marriage A-la-Mode 3, The Inspection
  • Marriage A-la-Mode 4, The Toilette
    Marriage A-la-Mode 4, The Toilette
  • Marriage A-la-Mode 5, The Bagnio
    Marriage A-la-Mode 5, The Bagnio
  • Marriage A-la-Mode 6, The Lady's Death
    Marriage A-la-Mode 6, The Lady's Death

The Signpost: 28 January 2015

Bramshill House

Good evening. Many thanks for your valuable input into the peer review. The article is now at FAC. All further comments and input will be much appreciated, cheers.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:31, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Hey

How are you? I value your Wikipedian opinion, so I would like to ask if you think that I have been too detailed on this article please: Top 10 artists with the most number ones on the U.S. dance chart.  — ₳aron 19:42, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi Aaron, I'll try and swing by today. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 09:14, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
I'm so excited for Spectre. Who do you think will sing the theme song? I reckon it will be Sam Smith, but I still really want Leona Lewis to do it.  — ₳aron 12:18, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
There's a rumour that it will be Sam Smith, but I do hope not! - SchroCat (talk) 12:26, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
If it is, they are just hopping on the back on his success, like they did with Adele (even thought "Skyfall" is a great song). I think doing the Bond theme would be great for Leona. I reckon her and Ryan Tedder could produce something amazing.  — ₳aron 12:28, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Bot?

Hi, with great thanks for ur aids, is there any bot or other such thing to help us to find the extra references or we must check it manually?--Salman mahdi (talk) 05:56, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately it's mostly a manual process. There are some scripts tha point out one or two things, but they are suggestive of where there may be problems, rather than pointing out the directly wrong things. - SchroCat (talk) 12:29, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

It's getting crowded at the top...

I have just nominated Girl Pat (1935 trawler) at WP:FAC, so any further observations or suggestions may be made there. Thanks for your interest. Brianboulton (talk) 16:38, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Time to ban the stalker

You seem to have a stalker [2]. Perhaps we need to get this IP banned. Giano (talk) 18:40, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

It's sorted! Giano (talk) 19:00, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
  • That's great - many thanks! They are a single-purpose account at the best of times, and are quick to just straight to edit warring and abuse to others when they don't get their way, so it's a very beneficial block! - SchroCat (talk) 19:06, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Pst

Schro, PLEASE, put up Crisco as a co-nom. If you check his talk page he has a supply of images there, and this picture you nominated, I recognized that imediatelly, it's there. Please, because we don't do this before ask each other if it's OK to do so. Maybe I am wrong, but I can't notice you asked him. If you did ask, then I appologize, but we must trust each other. If not, just put him up and wait until he signs it. Hafspajen (talk) 00:46, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Ah - I didn't realise he had it on there. Crisco 1492, Apols: I'm happy to add you as co-nom, unless you get there first... - SchroCat (talk) 00:50, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
Hope he is fine with that you singed it for him too. Hafspajen (talk) 01:06, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

List of works by Georgette Heyer fair use clarification needed

Hi. Hope you're well. I've been reviewing this list at FLC. I think you've worked on a lists similar to this. Would you think a non-free image of the author would be fair use for her list of works? Cowlibob (talk) 10:35, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

  • (TPS) Generally the answer (as far as I can remember) is that, on a list of works, a non-free image of the author serves a purely decorative purpose and so is not acceptable. BencherliteTalk 11:29, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the replies, I'd agree with that and have informed the nominator as such. Cowlibob (talk) 12:47, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Clarification needed on Peter Sellers reversion

You reverted some edits to the article on Peter Sellers with the summary statement: "Much of this is non-encyclopaedic; other parts are too range till to include". The non-encyclopaedic part I understand, but what does "too range till to include" mean? Just seeking clarification.--Jburlinson (talk) 17:44, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 04 February 2015

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Burking Poor Old Mrs Constitution. Wellcome L0019663.jpg
Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted
Your nomination for featured picture status, File:Burking Poor Old Mrs Constitution. Wellcome L0019663.jpg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. Armbrust The Homunculus 13:32, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Gary Cooper at FAC

Thank you again for your time and feedback during the GA and PR reviews of the Gary Cooper article. Throwing caution to the wind, I nominated the article as a featured article candidate. I would very much appreciate one last review and assessment when you have the time. By the way, it looks like Laurence Olivier and Casino Royale (novel) are well on their way to FA status—both excellent articles. Regards, Bede735 (talk) 14:29, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the note Bede, I'll be along shortly. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 16:45, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Twitter citations on Ariana Grande page

Hi,

I am not sure why you undid my edit of the Twitter citations on the Ariana Grande page. The title of a Twitter citation should not be "Twitter: [name] (verified account)" because that does not give the information needed as if the tweet was an article. Also, the "quote=" section is for quotes that are used in the article', and thus should not be the text of the tweet itself unless one is quoting the tweet in the article. Thank you.

Peter Dzubay (talk) 18:43, 6 February 2015 (UTC)Peter

I undid your edit because it was not an improvement. Your response here also shows that you are lagging behind the curve on this conversation: if you wish to take part in the existing thread on the article's talk page, in which the format is discussed more fully, rather than just relying on your opinion, that would be more beneficial than coming to this quiet backwater of the project. – SchroCat (talk) 18:47, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Could you do a source review?

Source reviews seem to be in short supply at FAC (though I see that Olivier has one, sniff sniff). Could you possibly do the honours for Girl Pat? Should be a doddle, as you provided me with many of the newspaper sources. I'd be most obliged. Brianboulton (talk) 21:47, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Of course! I'll be there shortly, possibly as early as tomorrow. – SchroCat (talk) 23:27, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Cite tweet

I've made {{Cite tweet}}, as a wrapper or {{Cite web}}. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:33, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

That's great, Andy, many thanks. - SchroCat (talk) 16:20, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
I'm not sure that this template makes sense- should the tweet number really have its own field? The number only exists for the URL of the tweet. Also, you're saying that the text of the tweet should be in the "quote=" field when that field is only supposed to be for what is quoted in the Wikipedia article. Thank you. Peter Dzubay (talk) 22:15, 7 February 2015 (UTC)User:Peter Dzubay
I'm not sure that this is the place to hold a court of enquiry into why you don't agree with the format: my talk page is hardly the place where such discussions should be played out. - SchroCat (talk) 23:19, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Giovanni Bellini, portrait of Doge Leonardo Loredan
Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted
Your nomination for featured picture status, File:Giovanni Bellini, portrait of Doge Leonardo Loredan.jpg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. Armbrust The Homunculus 23:20, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Your style

Hey. Hafspajen (talk) 00:00, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Virgin of the Rocks – da Vinci
Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted
Your nomination for featured picture status, File:Leonardo da Vinci Virgin of the Rocks (National Gallery London).jpg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. Armbrust The Homunculus 09:10, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/The Goddess of Love exhausts the God of War
Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted
Your nomination for featured picture status, File:Venus and Mars National Gallery.jpg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. Armbrust The Homunculus 13:38, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:SchroCat/Archive_15&oldid=1143366845"