Loading AI tools
 | This is an archive of past discussions about User:SchroCat. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 10 | ← | Archive 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 | Archive 18 | Archive 19 | Archive 20 |
Hey, do you want to improve "Skyfall" to take it to FA? — ₳aron 22:22, 6 March 2015 (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.
I just welcomed a new user who seems to come from a Japanese background. I recommend that you address such people on their talk page in very simple English because they may have no idea that article history and edit summaries even exist. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:48, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
- Gerda, I have no idea what you're talking about, but I can only presume—given the fact that you have emailed me about a bloody IB—that this is also somehow IB related. Please stop posting on my talk page and emailing me about IB matters: I do not care enough to be harassed about the flaming things. If you continue to use email and personal talk pages to try to discuss specific IBs—when the correct place is the article's talk page—I will consider that to be a deliberate attempt to evade the ArbCom restriction, and file a case with them accordingly. I have had an email from another editor about you on this exact same point recently, so I suggest you moderate your approach from now on.
- Please do not try and somehow play the victim over the ArbCom judgement against you: it was brought in because you were disruptive on talk pages; by using people's personal talk pages and the email facility, you are going way beyond the disruption you caused then. This stops now, please Gerda, before you force me to take a step I don't want to have to take.
- Gerda, I see you are also accusing me of ownership of the Ketèlbey article for removing an IB: that is an uncivil and contemptible, even for one of the more obsessional members of the IB clique. ArbCom draws nearer if you keep this up, and I strongly advise you strike your rather pathetic insult.
- Given your inability to remain civil, or even truthful, on this matter, I ask you not to post on my talk page again on any subject, unless it is preceeded by an apology for your unfounded slur, and you striking the comment. – SchroCat (talk) 09:06, 9 March 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.
- I did not accuse you of owning, you misunderstood completely, perhaps I have a language problem. Did you see who created the article (which I described as "own"). Not you! I didn't mention IB just above, - you did. I am sorry and apologize if I said something that you obviously misunderstood, and I think that I stayed civil, - tell me where not. - I removed the comment anyway, hoping that helps you. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:02, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
- Thank you for striking the comment, and for your apology. - SchroCat (talk) 11:48, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
You're lucky you even got an apology SchroCat, I didn't even get that!♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:34, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
 |
Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for featured picture status, File:Piero, battesimo di cristo 04.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 00:13, 10 March 2015 (UTC) |
Ghost ship now at FAC. Hope you can find her there. Brianboulton (talk) 00:17, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
With my great thanks for your helps, we have applied all the suggestions, would you please again review the article to see whether it has the qualities of the FA?--Salman mahdi (talk) 07:49, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
- Hi Salman mahdi, There's a few things aI think could strengthen this. Firstly the lead is a bit short and doesn't really tell those of us from a non-Islamic background why these people are seen as something special - or whether there is a longer-term impact they have (I don't know whether they do, but you get the idea!) The closest I can think of from a Christian point of view would be with the Saints, where there are patron saint, saints days, etc, and their names and effect are still felt today. Is there something similar that can be said about the Fourteen Infallible to give a little more context? The second thing I think could be improved slightly is the table. I'm not sure we need the fist column (the number), unless there is something particular about the number and the Infallible. I also think we could reduce the image size by about half, which would ease some spacing concerns elsewhere. Finally, the entries of prose in the table could be tightened in a few places - reducing the word count is alsways advisisble if possible, as the end result will be much tighter than before. Hope this helps! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 09:30, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
I've dealt with TRM at both SEWP and here, and both times he's opposed every FL or FA I've done unless an excessive list of demands are met. And, almost universally, he has asked for me to do them rather than actually go to the article and do them himself. That has always rubbed me the wrong way, as it's always struck me as trying to teach a lesson rather than actually improve an article. I have combined the content into fewer paragraphs, but I don't really see why it makes all that difference the absolute number of paragraphs, as much it does what is said in them. I also don't understand why he's pushing me in the direction of a ballooning article when there are actual basketball FLs. pbp 21:09, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
- That's right. I never improve articles, not one. I just sit here and bitch about them. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:42, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) No reviewer is obliged to make the edits, and their suggestions do not have to be taken on board, but then the reviewer doesn't have to support, if they feel that the standards are not up to scratch. Asking people to reduce the number of paragraphs in the lead is fairly common practice in featured content (articles and lissts): five paragraphs is a red flag to many on having a lead that isn't as tightly written as it could be - and our biggest FAs manage to get it to four. - SchroCat (talk) 21:44, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
- If you consider this lead to be too "loose", what could/should be removed? This somewhat seems disingenuous to me, because TRM seems to be asking for more (or different) content, but fewer paragraphs. Yes, there are long FAs with only four paragraphs. That's because they have long paragraphs. pbp 22:00, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
- It's partly because, as I quoted to you on the FLC, the MoS points to four being the maximum. If you try and put through a five paragraph page, someone will point it out to you. - SchroCat (talk) 22:03, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
- I've given you an example of a featured list where we have a decent lead and a decent history section. If you choose to ignore it, that's your call. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:07, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
- @SchroCat: @The Rambling Man:: You might want to check what I've done to the article. pbp 23:59, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
- If you consider this lead to be too "loose", what could/should be removed? This somewhat seems disingenuous to me, because TRM seems to be asking for more (or different) content, but fewer paragraphs. Yes, there are long FAs with only four paragraphs. That's because they have long paragraphs. pbp 22:00, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
Bump. pbp 17:52, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
- Purplebackpack89, I can't say too much about the article itself without becoming conflicted as an FL delegate. I intervene ocassionally (as I did here) to help keep.a review on track, but I try to keep out of the content side of things. – SchroCat (talk) 21:48, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
- Let me confine in you then that I am still frustrated with TRM; and with the fact that he or any other one editor can hold a FL hostage. It seems to me that he holds far too much power over FLs, and basically wants people to jump through hoops. I still don't understand why he lists minor fixes for other people to do that would take 2 seconds for he himself to do (and he has done this to me on numerous occasions). Why is he even still allowed to review articles after his ridiculous behavior? But I would note that I have done many of the things he wanted. I even got the lead down to three paragraphs. But I don't believe that the article should be formatted like the Bennett Cup article when there are FL basketball articles. pbp 22:34, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
- Look, you have to try and work with the reviewers: they have the article's best interests at heart. Yes, one editor can make life difficult at FC, but that's the downside of a consensus-driven system. I certainly wouldn't say he holds too much power: to be honest he holds as much as you do, or Bencherlite, or any other editor on the site. He is one voice only, just as we all are. As to him listing fixes, rather than doing them, that's very common: Ive been through FAC and FLC numerous times and I've seen some editors happy to tweak, and others who prefer to list: don't take it personally, it's obviously his personal style. It may be that you are getting too wound up over this. Take a couple days away from the article and do something else, and return when you're refreshed, with the mindset of trying to work with him. - SchroCat (talk) 09:24, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
- "Why is he even still allowed to review articles after his ridiculous behavior?" Is this a joke? It has to be, right? The Rambling Man (talk) 14:57, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
- Don't worry, TRM. There are now two other opposes besides yours, and we've all found different things about which to oppose: prose, sources, verifiability... The pity is that, underneath everything, there's probably a decent article waiting to be written, but PBP is going about it the wrong way and annoying reviewers in the process, which is the kiss of death at any review process. BencherliteTalk 15:09, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
- Bencherlite, personality clashes shouldn't matter in FLs. Part of the inherent problem in this process is that you have asked for sources that are very hard to find. Some of the things that could potentially be sources are in Italian, and I can't read Italian. And it doesn't help that you want a single source mentioning Nowitzki winning both the MVP and the Euroscar, rather than one for him winning the MVP and another for winning the Euroscar, which can be easily had (and, in fact, such sources are already in the article). But, yes, I am frustrated a bit with TRM in the interactions I've had with him, because he doesn't seem to understand that he rubs editors the wrong way. That is why he got himself an IBAN with Baseball Bugs. He often espouses an attitude that he knows best and that anything that's even a little different than the way he likes it is awful and worthy of a put-down of people with whom he disagrees. This was on display in his FL review, and in his comments on his IBAN. And the fact that he demands that nominators make teeny-tiny changes that he himself could make very, very easily. That just smacks me as kind of bad faith. You, Bencherlite, at least are willing to make those changes, so I don't really have any quarrel with you. pbp 18:14, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
- Do yourself a favour and re-read my opening comments at the FLC. Helpful, polite, useful. Then continue to read as you get more and more snippy about being told your list isn't ready for FL status. Add to that this outlandish claim that I should be disallowed from reviewing articles (after all, I've probably only reviewed around 1000, and you're just about the only person who has immediately assumed bad faith and started raging), it's little wonder your candidate is a dead duck. Try working to fix the issues rather than complain about the commentators. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:30, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
- Purplebackpack89, you won't attract new reviewers if you take a combative tone with those who have already started to review your article. If you have difficulties with my requests/suggestions, explain them and there may be a way round them. TRM is one of the most experienced writers and reviewers of featured lists that we have. Stop the ad hominem comments about TRM, please. You clearly don't know the full background about that IBAN and it's completely irrelevant to this process. I would listen to anything he says in his FLC reviews very carefully, because he is usually right (unless he's disagreeing with me, of course!) and because he wants only the best for the list and for the process. TRM was in charge of FLs at a time when the whole FL process was having to prove its worth, to prove that an FL star wasn't some worthless bauble but that it denoted something that could be held up alongside featured articles as the very best examples of Wikipedia's work. He doesn't come along and demand changes for the sake of making changes, but for reasons of complying with the FL criteria and raising standards. Every list of mine that he has reviewed (and I have a mere 20 FLs compared to TRM's 52) is the better for his involvement. And, yes, nominators can be expected to make changes, large or small, in response to reviewers' requests. That's perfectly normal. Sometimes reviewers will disagree among themselves, or with the nominator, about changes, and so having a record on the FLC page of what changes have been requested and why is a good thing. It also means that if a nominator is told "Do X, not Y" for this list, then the nominator will hopefully do X not Y for his next list before coming to FLC. I made some of the changes I did because you seemed unable to grasp the point, despite explanation, that you can't have 23 winners in 2 decades because 2 decades is 20 years, not more than 20. I left a hidden comment to that effect in the article; you deleted it without fixing the problem. Rather than repeat myself once more, I made the change. But I am not going to rewrite the article for you. So far you have been slow to accept simple issues such as changing the titles of references is not allowed, that WP:CURRENTLY is not my personal preference but a site-wide guideline on how to write articles, that reviewers are trying to help you. I hope this state of affairs improves. BencherliteTalk 09:43, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
- You know, I have a deep affection for FLC, and try to get back there wherever I can. I tried to make the community believe FL was serious, I tried to ensure we did the big things like comply with MOS, I tried to make sure we could compete, and get onto the Main Page. I treat every review the same, I want it to be the best it can be. If nominators can't see that, that's really their problem. If they continue not to see after they've been told, that's really their problem and then the help goes to a more deserving cause, as in this case. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:43, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
- Purplebackpack89, you won't attract new reviewers if you take a combative tone with those who have already started to review your article. If you have difficulties with my requests/suggestions, explain them and there may be a way round them. TRM is one of the most experienced writers and reviewers of featured lists that we have. Stop the ad hominem comments about TRM, please. You clearly don't know the full background about that IBAN and it's completely irrelevant to this process. I would listen to anything he says in his FLC reviews very carefully, because he is usually right (unless he's disagreeing with me, of course!) and because he wants only the best for the list and for the process. TRM was in charge of FLs at a time when the whole FL process was having to prove its worth, to prove that an FL star wasn't some worthless bauble but that it denoted something that could be held up alongside featured articles as the very best examples of Wikipedia's work. He doesn't come along and demand changes for the sake of making changes, but for reasons of complying with the FL criteria and raising standards. Every list of mine that he has reviewed (and I have a mere 20 FLs compared to TRM's 52) is the better for his involvement. And, yes, nominators can be expected to make changes, large or small, in response to reviewers' requests. That's perfectly normal. Sometimes reviewers will disagree among themselves, or with the nominator, about changes, and so having a record on the FLC page of what changes have been requested and why is a good thing. It also means that if a nominator is told "Do X, not Y" for this list, then the nominator will hopefully do X not Y for his next list before coming to FLC. I made some of the changes I did because you seemed unable to grasp the point, despite explanation, that you can't have 23 winners in 2 decades because 2 decades is 20 years, not more than 20. I left a hidden comment to that effect in the article; you deleted it without fixing the problem. Rather than repeat myself once more, I made the change. But I am not going to rewrite the article for you. So far you have been slow to accept simple issues such as changing the titles of references is not allowed, that WP:CURRENTLY is not my personal preference but a site-wide guideline on how to write articles, that reviewers are trying to help you. I hope this state of affairs improves. BencherliteTalk 09:43, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
- Do yourself a favour and re-read my opening comments at the FLC. Helpful, polite, useful. Then continue to read as you get more and more snippy about being told your list isn't ready for FL status. Add to that this outlandish claim that I should be disallowed from reviewing articles (after all, I've probably only reviewed around 1000, and you're just about the only person who has immediately assumed bad faith and started raging), it's little wonder your candidate is a dead duck. Try working to fix the issues rather than complain about the commentators. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:30, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
- Bencherlite, personality clashes shouldn't matter in FLs. Part of the inherent problem in this process is that you have asked for sources that are very hard to find. Some of the things that could potentially be sources are in Italian, and I can't read Italian. And it doesn't help that you want a single source mentioning Nowitzki winning both the MVP and the Euroscar, rather than one for him winning the MVP and another for winning the Euroscar, which can be easily had (and, in fact, such sources are already in the article). But, yes, I am frustrated a bit with TRM in the interactions I've had with him, because he doesn't seem to understand that he rubs editors the wrong way. That is why he got himself an IBAN with Baseball Bugs. He often espouses an attitude that he knows best and that anything that's even a little different than the way he likes it is awful and worthy of a put-down of people with whom he disagrees. This was on display in his FL review, and in his comments on his IBAN. And the fact that he demands that nominators make teeny-tiny changes that he himself could make very, very easily. That just smacks me as kind of bad faith. You, Bencherlite, at least are willing to make those changes, so I don't really have any quarrel with you. pbp 18:14, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
- Don't worry, TRM. There are now two other opposes besides yours, and we've all found different things about which to oppose: prose, sources, verifiability... The pity is that, underneath everything, there's probably a decent article waiting to be written, but PBP is going about it the wrong way and annoying reviewers in the process, which is the kiss of death at any review process. BencherliteTalk 15:09, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
- "Why is he even still allowed to review articles after his ridiculous behavior?" Is this a joke? It has to be, right? The Rambling Man (talk) 14:57, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
_-_Google_Art_Project.jpg) |
Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for featured picture status, File:Hieronymus Bosch - Christ Mocked (The Crowning with Thorns) - Google Art Project.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 12:01, 12 March 2015 (UTC) |
- Special report: An advance look at the WMF's fundraising survey
- In the media: Gamergate; a Wiki hoax; Kanye West
- Traffic report: Wikipedia: handing knowledge to the world, one prank at a time
- Featured content: Here they come, the couple plighted –
- Op-ed: Why the Core Contest matters
- Read this Signpost in full
- Single-page
- Unsubscribe
- MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:29, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
 |
Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for featured picture status, File:Titian - Portrait of a man with a quilted sleeve.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 12:50, 13 March 2015 (UTC) |
- Well, I finally gave it the (very little) push it needed. I'll not be doing a formal peer review, but I'd appreciate if you could drop by the talk page (Talk:Air Mata Iboe) and give comments if possible. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:42, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
- My pleasure. The antibiotics I'm on are now taking a bit more of an effect, so thinking is no longer painful for me (well, no more than it usually is!) I'll be there is a day or two. – SchroCat (talk) 15:26, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks muchly! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:46, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
 |
Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for featured picture status, File:Dieric Bouts - The Entombment - Artron.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 18:55, 10 March 2015 (UTC) |
Almost looks like Jimbo there :-)♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:15, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
Hi, any chance you and Cassianto could take a look at this and comment at the PR before it heads off to FAC?♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:14, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
- Yep - and sorry - I know I promised this some time ago, but it completely slipped my mind. – SchroCat (talk) 17:56, 15 March 2015 (UTC).
- Thanks, understandable, hope you're feeling a bit better.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:22, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
- Thankyou for your input into the peer review (hopefully your points can still be addressed!). The article is now at FAC. Cheers.♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:09, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
 |
Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for featured picture status, File:Vincent van Gogh - Van Gogh's Bedroom in Arles - Google Art Project.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 14:53, 17 March 2015 (UTC) |
Thanks for uploading File:London County Council Sewer Map, November 1930, showing Bazalgette's sewers.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) 00:42, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
Last year you kindly contributed to the above article's peer review or or FAC or both. An issue has arisen from yesterday's TFA appearance, and is under discussion on the article's talk. Briefly: an editor added into the text the cited information that Bondfield's was privately known as "Maggie", and then incorporated this into the lead so the subject appeared as Margaret Grace ("Maggie") Bondfield. I have removed the nickname from the lead, and stated my position on the talkpage. I would be pleased if you could visit and briefly comment there. Brianboulton (talk) 16:38, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
Hi. I was just about to finish promoting this list but it doesn't have your closure note, could you please add it? Cowlibob (talk) 21:42, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
- From the editor: A salute to Pine
- Featured content: A woman who loved kings
- Traffic report: It's not cricket
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:34, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
.
 |
Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for featured picture status, File:Rembrandt, Self Portrait at the Age of 34.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 22:14, 21 March 2015 (UTC) |
As you have previously commented on one or more of nominations of the lists of scheduled monuments in Somerset, I wondered if you would be kind enough to take a look at the List of scheduled monuments in West Somerset which is now nominated at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of scheduled monuments in West Somerset/archive1?— Rod talk 21:12, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
- News and notes: Wikimedia Foundation adopts open-access research policy
- Featured content: A carnival of animals, a river of dung, a wasteland of uncles, and some people with attitude
- Special report: Wikimedia Commons Picture of the Year 2014
- Traffic report: Oddly familiar
- Recent research: Most important people; respiratory reliability; academic attitudes
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:25, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
Hey. I'm worried that Crisco isn't actually up to par for reviewing FLCs, judging by how contradictory and misinformed he has been on my nomination. I think it's really worrying that an FLC delegate doesn't read comments and makes contradictions as a result. — ₳aron 00:02, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
- Hi Aaron, I'm going to give you the same advice I give to all people who have issues with their reviewers: try to work with them not against them. They also have the article's best interests at heart. Crisco is an experienced FL writer and reviewer, not some newbie on his first edits who doesn't know the ropes, and it is worth you considering his points carefully. Have you considered that, for example, the lead may actually be too long? I look at some of the bits I've done and I see that The Smiths discography (four studio albums, one EP, one live album, ten compilation albums, twenty singles, one video album and fourteen music videos) was covered in a 354-word lead. John Gielgud's eight-decade career was summarised in 291 words, so nearly 600 words to deal with less than 40 songs in four years could be seen as being heavy. That's just an example. Try to look at it from a neutral point of view (always difficult, I know when it is your own work under the microscope): if someone else had provided this length of lead for such a short career, what would be your impression? I've worked with you both, so I consider myself a neutral honest broker here, but I do think that the lead comes off as too heavy: it's supposed to summarise the list that follows, not nearly replicate it. If it helps, take a day or two away from the article and the review and come back and read it with a fresh mind on Sunday evening or something. Try and look at it neutrally, taking into account comments that have been left in the best of faith, and ask yourself for each sentence or phrase if it is really needed. This may not be the response you hoped for, but I hope it is of assistance. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 07:36, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks for your reply. I'm fully aware of who he is and what he has done, but the fact is that I can't work with someone who isn't paying full attention to what I'm saying and getting his facts wrong. Just because he is an experienced FL writer and an FLC delegate, it doesn't mean that I have to take everything he says as gospel and agree with him. As far as I'm aware, we write lists on very different subjects, so we most probably have different ideas of how to best write an article for the topic we are writing for. I am trying to take a neutral stance, but I genuinely don't see what he is saying. I don't a think a "one size fits all" approach can be applied to all leads in lists. — ₳aron 09:03, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
 |
Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for featured picture status, File:Rembrandt, Self Portrait at the Age of 63.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 15:02, 27 March 2015 (UTC) |
 |
Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for featured picture status, File:Mystic Nativity, Sandro Botticelli.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 09:56, 28 March 2015 (UTC) |
Any chance you and page stalkers could give this a read and post some feedback on the talk page. It gets over one million hits a year and I really think it would be good to get up to FA status. It needs to be treated as fairly as other articles, I think we can get it up to FA status with some decent input.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:32, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
When you have a moment free perhaps?♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:54, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
 |
Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for featured picture status, File:Hans Baldung Grien - Portrait of a Man - Google Art Project.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 08:32, 29 March 2015 (UTC) |
Hi SchroCat, the Arbitration Committee has declined the Infoboxes II arbitration case request, which you were listed as a party to. For the Arbitration Committee, --L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 06:26, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
- In the media: Wiki-PR duo bulldoze a piñata store; Wifione arbitration case; French parliamentary plagiarism
- Featured content: Stop Press. Marie Celeste Mystery Solved. Crew Found Hiding In Wardrobe.
- Traffic report: All over the place
- Special report: Pictures of the Year 2015
- Read this Signpost in full
- Single-page
- Unsubscribe
- MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:42, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
Hi,
I understand current Wikipedia policy on spoilers, but can you take a look at my comment here:
What about just moving possible Spoilers at the Very End for Recent Released Movies?
What would be wrong with just including spoilers at the very end of an article instead of at the very beginning in this case at the very top in the Casting.
Should the Casting info just be about the cast anyway and not about what happens to them?
Just my opinion on the matter and curious on your thoughts on the matter too.
Have a great day!
Brian DavisKbdavis07 (talk) 05:33, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
- My answer on the Spectre talk page stands: there are lots of reason why this won't work, not least of which is that we're an encyclopaedia, and have formats for laying out articles that does not mean dumping "spoiled" information into a generic trivia section at the bottom of articles: it goes where it's most appropriate in an article. – SchroCat (talk) 05:44, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
Schro, since you nominate so much, wonder if you ever read this here.... We had issues for long time - lack of people voting and good nominations never getting promoted because of lack of interest in voting. Still, I notice a tendency of only nominating but not participating in voting on others nominations. It would be nice if you, who nominated so many great pics lately could do that, like take a round like every third day or so, check out what's up... It looks like we are still having about the same issues as than. Hafspajen (talk) 15:03, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
- I do vote, but tend to do it in batches every week or so (although not always - I managed to do this one(!) this morning). There's no need to do it more often, as they noms are there for 11 days at a time, so weekly means I get to cover most of those I feel suitable. - SchroCat (talk) 15:10, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/File:VW-Vincent.jpg ... you won't get a next chance... Hafspajen (talk) 05:50, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
 |
The Photographer's Barnstar |
| For your efforts to increase our resource bank of quality paintings. Thankyou Sir! ♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:35, 31 March 2015 (UTC) |
- In the media: Wiki-PR duo bulldoze a piñata store; Wifione arbitration case; French parliamentary plagiarism
- Featured content: Stop Press. Marie Celeste Mystery Solved. Crew Found Hiding In Wardrobe.
- Traffic report: All over the place
- Special report: Pictures of the Year 2015
- Read this Signpost in full
- Single-page
- Unsubscribe
- MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:42, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
Holy Jesus, on this day of all days.... An "'s" on a plural noun ending with an "s"? Modern times, eh? You're on my assassination calendar..... The Rambling Man (talk) 20:27, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
 |
Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for featured picture status, File:Henri Gervex - A Session of the Painting Jury - Google Art Project.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 23:09, 5 April 2015 (UTC) |
Fair enough but what about the references in the "Film" column, I had moved them to the "+Filmography of Terry-Thomas" header about the tables, would that be ok? LADY LOTUS • TALK 13:15, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
- I did that in one of my earlier lists and I was wrapped on the knuckles by a couple of reviewers about it. I thought it was more logical, but it's against the MoS, I think. - SchroCat (talk) 13:28, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
- Well rats, I would agree that that is more logical but don't want to be wrapped on the knuckles for it ;) LADY LOTUS • TALK 13:46, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Hi. I'd be very grateful if you could give Castell Coch a read and comment at Wikipedia:Peer review/Castell Coch/archive1. Thanks.♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:08, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Hi, SchroCat - did you get a chance to see what Serialjoepsycho came up with regarding the table format for The_Fourteen_Infallibles? Thanks Atsme☯Consult 04:15, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
 |
Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for featured picture status, File:Lady with a Squirrel.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 19:27, 8 April 2015 (UTC) |
Listen, Schro, I was trying to find arguments; as much as I could to save that nom, and because I think that an artwork depicting a man from the 5-th century should not be asked upon any real likeness with the subject, but it would be nice if you would follow a bit that nomination. Maybe this should be discussed. Hafspajen (talk) 09:03, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
- I've been following, and I agree with you entirely, as I've already said in the nom, but I do not think that anything either you or I say on the subject will change the minds of the other two editors, just as we are unlikely to be swayed by their arguments. Both argument are equally valid, and it comes down to a mattr of opinion and taste only. - SchroCat (talk) 09:15, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
- Well, I am not sure about opinion - only. One can't really judge artwork like this. But the point is that one doesn't want a precedent -starting judging artwork if they are depicting enough likeness or not. How about Picasso, Mondrian, Matisse? Those artist's works bear with almost no likeness with depicted persons either. One have to be careful about what criteria is risen. This is not really about photographic likeness at all. --Hafspajen (talk) 09:56, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for uploading File:Ursula Andress in Dr. No.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.
If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. Stifle (talk) 11:28, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
- Traffic report: Resurrection week
- Featured content: Partisan arrangements, dodgy dollars, a mysterious union of strings, and a hole that became a monument
- WikiProject report: WikiProject Christianity
- Arbitration report: New Functionary appointments
- Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
- Read this Signpost in full
- Single-page
- Unsubscribe
- MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:38, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
Hello Books & Bytes subscribers. There is a new Visual Editor reference feature in development called Citoid. It is designed to "auto-fill" references using a URL or DOI. We would really appreciate you testing whether TWL partners' references work in Citoid. Sharing your results will help the developers fix bugs and improve the system. If you have a few minutes, please visit the testing page for simple instructions on how to try this new tool. Regards, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:48, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
_-_Google_Art_Project.jpg) |
Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for featured picture status, File:Titian - Portrait of a Lady ('La Schiavona') - Google Art Project.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 11:14, 12 April 2015 (UTC) |
 | Featured Article
| |
Indeed, well done Schro!♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:38, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Many thanks to all of you for thoughts and comments during the PR/FAC – it was all mcu appreciated! Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 15:58, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
 |
Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for featured picture status, File:Hendrick Averkamp A Winter Scene with Skaters near a Castle.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 06:53, 13 April 2015 (UTC) |
With thanks for your previous helps, may I ask you to help and guide us to make this article a FA? Salman mahdi (talk) 14:19, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
- Hi Salman mahdi, It's a bit out of my usual area of expertise. I will have a look over it shortly and see if there is anything I can suggest. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 07:40, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Congratulations to all the contributors to today's featured article. You deserve a lot of applause, recognition and appreciation. What a interesting and wonderful article.
- Bfpage |leave a message 11:45, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
I know you're busy with a thousand things but I've always trusted your input on peer reviews and featured noms. If you could, I'd love to see what your thoughts are on this one. Thanks so much. :) LADY LOTUS • TALK 12:33, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Hello SchroCat, since you are a FL director and deal with lists, would you care to browse your eyes on the above article and give some feed back as to whether its structure is fine, or it needs major restructuring for satisfying the WP:FLC criteria. —Indian:BIO [ ChitChat ] 04:58, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
- Hi IndianBio, At a brief glance, I'd say ths needs some fairly heavy duty work doing to it before it goes near FLC. The lead is too short, the opening sentence is cumbersome, there are several disambig links in there, some of the referencing is problematic - and that's just from a very quick glance. It's also a massive piece. I appreciate that this makes it comprehensive, but it does make it something of a mountain plough through! Sorry this probably isn't what you wanted to hear, but best you know the bad news up front. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 12:44, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
- No no, that is exactly what I wanted to hear. I know this is a mountain of work, but this feedback is very very helpful. —Indian:BIO [ ChitChat ] 13:31, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 |
Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for featured picture status, File:Giovanni Paolo Panini – Ancient Rome.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 20:44, 13 April 2015 (UTC) |
 |
Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for featured picture status, File:Giovanni Paolo Panini – Modern Rome.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 20:44, 13 April 2015 (UTC) |
Hello SchroCat,
You are receiving this message because you have a one-year subscription to Newspapers.com through the Wikipedia Library. This is a brief update, to remind you about that access:
- Please make sure that you can still log in to your Newspapers.com account. If you are having trouble let me know.
- Remember, if you find this source useful for your Wikipedia work, to include citations with links on Wikipedia. Links to partner resources are one of the few ways we can demonstrate usage and demand for accounts to our partners. The greater the linkage, the greater the likelihood a useful partnership will be renewed. Also, keep in mind that part of Newspapers.com is open access via the clipping function. Clippings allow you to identify particular articles, extract them from the original full sheet newspaper, and share them through unique URLs. Wikipedia users who click on a clipping link in your citation list will be able to access that particular article, and the full page of the paper if they come from the clipping, without needing to subscribe to Newspapers.com. For more information about how to use clippings, see http://www.newspapers.com/basics/#h-clips .
- Do you write unusual articles using this partner's sources? Did access to this source create new opportunities for you in the Wikipedia community? If you have a unique story to share about your contributions, let me know and we can set up an opportunity for you to write a blog post about your work with one of our partner's resources.
Finally, we would greatly appreciate it if you filled out this short survey. Your input will help us to facilitate this particular partnership, and to discover what other partnerships and services the Wikipedia Library can offer.
Thank you,
Wikipedia Library Newspapers.com account coordinator HazelAB (talk) 22:14, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
I have opened the 2nd FAC for the article. Please do let me know if you would like to make any comments. Thanks. — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 02:28, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks Ssven2, I will try and get to this shortly. I have a couple of things to clear up first, but I'll try and make it. Please nudge me in a week if I've not made an appearance! Thanks - SchroCat (talk) 07:45, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
- Will do, SchroCat. — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 08:20, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
Here's the nudge. 
— Ssven2 Speak 2 me 00:38, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
- Not a week yet!♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:46, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
_–_cropped.jpg) |
Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for featured picture status, File:Anbetung der Könige (Bruegel, 1564) – cropped.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 07:24, 15 April 2015 (UTC) |
Thank you for promoting the flc. It was passed within 20 days. Thanks!—Prashant 08:28, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
There's uncited genres in infobox that does not contains any article text. I think bot admin would revert that we're an IP. 115.164.177.121 (talk) 11:51, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
 |
The Running Man Barnstar | |
| Hey SchroCat, just a quick barnstar to say thanks for the many reviews of Boat Race articles you've conducted over the past year. As of this morning, I completed my (initial) goal of ensuing that every Boat Race had, not only its own article, but one that was either of GA or FA status: we now have 158 GAs and 3 FAs that we can all be proud of! It doesn't stop here, for me at least, I'm going to keep up with improving the quality of the GAs and look for more FA opportunities. Plus, there's the small matter of 70 Women's Boat Race articles to get up and running! But thanks again, I couldn't have done it without your help. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:43, 16 April 2015 (UTC) |
- My pleasure to help out at the astonishing feat that you've undertaken. The plaudits really should be aimed at you for this! Cheers -SchroCat (talk) 15:53, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
- And thanks, for about the 162nd time, for all the help with sources. It would literally have been impossible for me to have achieved this without your kind assistance. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:58, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
- Read this Signpost in full
- Single-page
- Unsubscribe
- MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:32, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
 |
Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for featured picture status, File:Hans Baldung Grien - The Trinity and Mystic Pietà - Google Art Project.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 13:56, 18 April 2015 (UTC) |
After a thorough and stimulating peer review I have put Maurice Ravel up for FAC. If you care to look in you will, as I hardly need say, be most welcome. – Tim riley talk 16:39, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
Hi. Hope you're well. The nominator for this FLRC has not edited for nearly a month. The article content creator has said they've resolved the nominator's concerns. Is it possible for you, Giants or Crisco to check this and close or should we wait for the nominator to return? Cowlibob (talk) 21:49, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
- Hi Cowlibob, I don't think we necessarily have to wait for the nominator, but I'll have a look over it tomorrow (hopefully) and see where we are. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 21:55, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
- Cowlibob, The article looks good, and I'll close the FLRC later today. It's one of those cases where the nominator would have been better to edit the article or use the talk page, rather than use the delisting process, but there you go! - SchroCat (talk) 06:45, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
Hi, please clarify your removal of my edit to the Skyfall page. I'm working on an assignment (long story) so I would love some info on your reasons to help me out. Thanks! Edanehy (talk) 07:57, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
- Based on this reading of the page, I believe your removal may have been hasty. I was referring not to the quality if the information in the section, but the name of the content. []. I am a relatively inexperienced user, but I do have a source for that material, and was planning on improving the presentation. Edanehy (talk) 08:09, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
- This is simple: we do not have Trivia sections. This is an encyclopaedia, and the first line of WP:TRIVIA clearly states "Avoid creating lists of miscellaneous information", which is what you had. The three pieces of information you had in the section were also unsourced, which was another good reason for the removal. Aside from that "The role of Kincade was intended for Sean Connery early on in production": this is already in the article. The Dench /Llewelyn screentime really is trivial nonsense and doesn't belong in an encyclopaedia—maybe on a fansite, but not in an encyclopaedia. The references to the other films in the series would be pertinent, but picking on one of the more crass references (and unsourced too) hardly seems the best way to go. There has been discussion on this final point before, with agreement to include something, but it's a question of writing it properly with reliable sources. – SchroCat (talk) 08:23, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
- Ok thanks! Appreciate the time taken to explain. Edanehy (talk) 12:23, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
Have you seen Back to Bataan? I swear that's where they got the inspiration for Blofeld's voice! Evil! I think they were trying to make him an evil Japanese guy in the film. Strong's speaking voice was just like the disguised Blofeld voice in Thunderball, you know, "My dear Prime Minister, two atomic bombs, numbers, 456 and 457, which were aboard NATO Flight 759, are now in the possession of SPECTRE. flawless diamonds off the coast of Burma etc" .! Strong would have made a great SPECTRE agent n0.3 in You Only Live Twice!♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:47, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
Quick question. Do you think the winners and nominees for Best Director in each ceremony category should be arranged in alphabetical order by either person or film? Someone changed the order a few days ago.
- --Birdienest81 (talk) 19:48, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
- In the media: UK political editing; hoaxes; net neutrality
- Featured content: Vanguard on guard
- Traffic report: A harvest of couch potatoes
- Gallery: The bitter end
- Read this Signpost in full
- Single-page
- Unsubscribe
- MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:45, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
Wikiwand in your browser!
Seamless Wikipedia browsing. On steroids.
Every time you click a link to Wikipedia, Wiktionary or Wikiquote in your browser's search results, it will show the modern Wikiwand interface.
Wikiwand extension is a five stars, simple, with minimum permission required to keep your browsing private, safe and transparent.
