User talk:SchroCat/Archive 16
 | 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 14 | Archive 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 | Archive 18 | → | Archive 20 |
Re: your edit summary, I disagree - Wikipedia has an entire article devoted to epitaphs. (Also, WP:TRIVIAL refers to entire sections of trivia, if you meant WP:HTRIVIA that is an WIkipedia essay and not a guideline or policy.) I can't find a guideline or policy stating that people's epitaphs are not to be included within articles about them. Barrymore's two epitaphs are part & parcel of the man's mythos. In my opinion they should be included since they indicate 1)how he wanted to be remembered or how his family wanted him to be remembered and 2)refer back to one of his greatest triumphs on the stage - his production of Hamlet in 1922. Shearonink (talk) 19:13, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
- I think that they are of very little worth, and even unencyclopaedic. Much time was spent re-writing the article fairly recently, and an awful lot of awful trivia was happily removed from the article. It would not be terribly helpful to start re-adding even more useless fluff to it! I am aware we have an article on epitaphs, but that doesn't mean we have to include it in articles: crudely put, we have articles on trivia and shit too, and that's not a reason for their inclusion in the articles either! - SchroCat (talk) 19:26, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
- Thank you for being so calmly thoughtful in your comments regarding my concerns about Wikipedia guidelines and policies in this matter and for treating my concerns with the utmost respect. One man's trivia - "Alas, poor Yorick! I knew him, Horatio; a fellow of infinite jest, of most excellent fancy" and "Good night sweet prince: and flights of angels sing thee to thy rest" - is simply another man's treasure. Shearonink (talk) 01:16, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
- I have to agree with Schro. I winced when I saw that addition. WP:SUMMARYSTYLE dictates that we provide an overview. We don't write everything under the sun. He is notable for his acting, not a (not particularly witty) epitaph on his gravestone. Note how even the RSes don't discuss the epitaphs in depth... (i.e. WP:WEIGHT applies too) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:26, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
- I agree with the above, Schro and Crisco. Actually I wish people would stop adding pics on graves and stuff too. Just takes a lot of place and it's not a too jolly subject. In that case the epitaphs are slightly better, but the persons life is so much more interesting. Hafspajen (talk) 03:51, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
- Don't talk to IP. Hafspajen (talk) 20:08, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
- Perhaps the information that was added could have been crafted better so as to not cause the wincing above, I don't know. As a film fan & theatre aficionado I simply thought that how Barrymore was remembered by his contemporaries was important...I have never heard of Lionel's choice of words for his brother's first epitaph characterized as being not particularly witty, I just thought it showed how much Barrymore's mourners continued to care - that they chose lines from Barrymore's greatest success on the stage as epitaphs for both of the two gravesites. I am sure that that I cannot change anyone's mind on including the information in the article, but would like to mention a few things:
- That the epitaphs exist is indisputable, so WP:WEIGHT does not apply...the epitaphs themselves are not some fringe theory or a minority viewpoint. What is at play here is editorial discretion and editorial consensus concerning article content.
- RSes do speak to the epitaphs, especially the more well-known first one...the title of Gene Fowler's Barrymore biography (Fowler was a friend as well as a biographer) is just that..."Goodnight Sweet Prince".
- Shearonink (talk) 19:00, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
- They are, however you try and force the point, still pointless fluff that tell us nothing more about Barrymore. So far three people have raised objections to the addition of the information, so how many do you need it to be before you take the opinions on board? - SchroCat (talk) 19:09, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
- I thought this was a discussion as to Wikipedia guidelines and policy and editorial consensus and discretion about including or not including John Barrymore's two epitaphs in John Barrymore. I haven't reverted the changes, I haven't gone back and added the epitaphs back in, I haven't edit-warred, I am trying to understand other editors' thoughts on this matter and so others have weighed in here. I still disagree but that's ok, I have forced NOTHING. I appreciate all the thoughtful contributions posted to this discussion. Shearonink (talk) 05:37, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
- I know you haven't: no-one has said that you have edit warred, etc. my comment about forcing the point was not an accusation of poor practice, but about the point that epitaphs are pointless fluff, despite comments to the contrary. I've not come across many decent articles that show the epitaph, as they are not often terribly encyclopaedic. - SchroCat (talk) 09:33, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
- I thought this was a discussion as to Wikipedia guidelines and policy and editorial consensus and discretion about including or not including John Barrymore's two epitaphs in John Barrymore. I haven't reverted the changes, I haven't gone back and added the epitaphs back in, I haven't edit-warred, I am trying to understand other editors' thoughts on this matter and so others have weighed in here. I still disagree but that's ok, I have forced NOTHING. I appreciate all the thoughtful contributions posted to this discussion. Shearonink (talk) 05:37, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
- I agree that the key here is editorial discretion and editorial consensus. Here are the facts: The epitaph "Goodnight Sweet Prince" was chosen by his brother Lionel; it is a line that Horatio says to Hamlet, so it is apt, without being especially witty; and a 1943 biography used the epitaph as its title (the book must have come out soon after the epitaph was placed at the grave). But there is no evidence, that I know of, that the line was especially meaningful to Barrymore. So, should we exercise our editorial discretion to emphasize a phrase chosen by his brother and echoed by a biographer, even though the subject of the article never mentioned it as important? Plus, the phrase is no longer on his grave, so even his son thought it was unimportant (the son replaced it with the most trite line from Hamlet). I must agree with SchroCat: I don't see what it adds to a reader's understanding of Barrymore, and including it would beg the introduction of the boring facts noted above. Certainly we can all agree that it is not essential. I think the article is better off without it. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:37, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
- "Not essential". Thanks for describing the editorial consensus about leaving the two epitaphs out in a neutral fashion - agreed. Shearonink (talk) 05:37, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
- Concur with Ssilvers that in this instance the proposed addition adds no value. On the wider question of using Find-a-grave I am, I confess, a bit overfaced by the various guidelines Template:Find a Grave#Usage guidance, Wikipedia:Find a Grave famous people#When adding information to articles, and Wikipedia:External links/Perennial websites#Find-a-Grave, but fortunately it doesn't matter for present purposes, since we evidently have a consensus for omitting the epitaph. Tim riley talk 23:11, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
- They are, however you try and force the point, still pointless fluff that tell us nothing more about Barrymore. So far three people have raised objections to the addition of the information, so how many do you need it to be before you take the opinions on board? - SchroCat (talk) 19:09, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
- Thank you for being so calmly thoughtful in your comments regarding my concerns about Wikipedia guidelines and policies in this matter and for treating my concerns with the utmost respect. One man's trivia - "Alas, poor Yorick! I knew him, Horatio; a fellow of infinite jest, of most excellent fancy" and "Good night sweet prince: and flights of angels sing thee to thy rest" - is simply another man's treasure. Shearonink (talk) 01:16, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
 |
Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for featured picture status, File:Edgar Degas, Miss La La at the Cirque Fernando, 1879.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 23:28, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
|
How should the performers table be formatted
I've initiated a discussion at Talk:86th Academy Awards of how the performers table should be formatted because Atomic Meltdown and I were in a dispute resulting in warnings about being blocked. I think there should be consensus, and since you are an expert on film articles, I would like your feedback, please.
I have opened the peer review for the film. Please do suggest any changes that I should make before I go for FAC. — Ssven2 speak 2 me 04:01, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
The Signpost: 11 February 2015
- From the editors: We want to know what you think!
- In the media: Is Wikipedia eating itself?
- Featured content: A grizzly bear, Operation Mascot, Freedom Planet & Liberty Island, cosmic dust clouds, a cricket five-wicket list, more fine art, & a terrible, terrible opera...
- Traffic report: Bowled over
- WikiProject report: Brand new WikiProjects profiled
- Gallery: Feel the love
FL
Hello SchroCat, a question: when shall this FLC will be closed? I think consensus is reached and is also 10 days old. Jim Carter 13:07, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
- When it's run a little longer. The most recent comment was only a couple of hours ago and it's normal to leave a couple of days or so after that. There's no rush to close, and the longer something runs, the more chance that little things get picked up and sorted. - SchroCat (talk) 13:13, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
- Okay. I just thought it is ready to be closed as 4 reviewer has supported. BTW is this your account? Jim Carter 05:43, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
- It'll close soon, don't worry, and if anyone else looks in to comment, then their suggestions can only strengthen the article, which is what's important. No, Schrocat.academic isn't me; this is my one and only account. - SchroCat (talk) 09:03, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
Valentine Greets!!!
|
Valentine Greets!!! |
|
Hello SchroCat, love is the language of hearts and is the feeling that joins two souls and brings two hearts together in a bond. Taking love to the level of Wikipedia, spread the WikiLove by wishing each other Happy Valentine's Day, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Spread the love by adding {{subst:Valentine Greetings}} to other user talk pages. |
The Kingsman
A friendly warning that you have reached your 3 revert limit for The Kingsman article. Please maintain the discussion on the talk page instead of continuing the edit war. If the consensus is to add the gag, then it can be added back to the article. It won't hurt the page with it gone for the time being, but if the consensus is to keep then please respect that as well. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 19:09, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks for the note – I'd realised that I'd got that far and had no plans for further reverts anyway. I will, of course, respect any consensus, as I always do. Cheers. – SchroCat (talk) 19:11, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
Olivier
I've just spotted the barnstar on my page and shortly afterwards clocked the reason for it. Well done to both of us, I say, for getting LO to Featured Article. It has been a huge pleasure working with you on it (and occasionally moaning at you about the difficulty of the task). I reread the article with a reasonably fresh eye yesterday, and I really believe one can't see the joins between the bits each of us wrote. Well played, partner! Tim riley talk 23:21, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
- Congratulations to both of you for a job well done on Olivier, and to you SchroCat for Casino Royale. It's a real pleasure reading well-written articles. Bede735 (talk) 00:05, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
- Many thanks Bede!
|
The Follow that! gold medal and bar | |
| For getting Laurence Olivier and Casino Royale to Featured Article and having John Barrymore on the front page all within twenty-four hours you qualify with flying colours for this award. – Tim riley talk 07:53, 15 February 2015 (UTC) |
You are very kind – it's a bit of a fluke having it happen with a few hours of JB hitting the front page (and the day after the Betjeman list was on the front page too!), but a very pleasant one! – SchroCat (talk) 09:39, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
I don't know what this is? Lol — ₳aron 11:11, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
- Hi Aaron, Hopefully it'll be the blurb that is used for S&M to go on the front page, probably on 7 March, if all goes smoothly! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 11:16, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
- Ah okay cool!
An award for you!
|
The Actors and Filmmakers Award of Excellence |
| For your work in promoting one of the goliaths of the acting world, Sir Laurence Olivier to Featured Article status. A mighty achievement to be proud of! ♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:43, 15 February 2015 (UTC) |
A hearty congrats too on promoting CR!♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:44, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
- Cheers Doc, much appreciated. – SchroCat (talk) 15:13, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
Courtesy notice
Hi SchroCat. This is a courtesy notice that you have been mentioned at ANI: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User SchroCat is vandalizing my talk page. Best, -- Diannaa (talk) 23:14, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
- Thank you Diannaa. I seem to remember that falsely accusing people of vandalism is a personal attack, so perhaps this user would be better off not crying wolf, but learning how to write, source, reference and link properly instead? Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 23:17, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
RE:
It is a sequel. Ralph Fiennes has taken over as M, as seen at the end of Skyfall. Plus Jesper Christensen is returning as Mr. White. I have called it a follow-up for your convenience.--Valkyrie Red (talk) 01:19, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
- FFS, stop edit warring and use the talk page. Have you never read WP:BRD? - SchroCat (talk) 02:47, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
Today's Featured Article: Notification
This is to inform you that S&M (song), which you nominated at WP:FAC, will appear on the Main Page as Today's Featured Article on 7 March 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) 10:20, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
- Many thanks Brianboulton: I've tweaked the text, added an image etc. I'll let Dank tweak and re-work as he sees fit. Many thanks to you both! - SchroCat (talk) 10:29, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
- It happens to be my dad's birthday. Were he still around, I'm sure he'd be delighted by the association with S&M! Brianboulton (talk) 11:08, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
- It could be worse – mine coincides with the start of the Second Word War, and was on the same day Gaddafi came to power: neither of them my fault, I'm glad to say! – SchroCat (talk) 11:12, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
- "Et tu, Brute?". That is my birthday. (And good job with the song article) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:35, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
- Well I shall raise a glass or two to you when it comes around again! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 11:52, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 |
Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for featured picture status, File:Jan Vermeer van Delft 024.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 08:44, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
|
 |
Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for featured picture status, File:Marriage A-la-Mode 1, The Marriage Settlement - William Hogarth.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 13:54, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
|
 |
Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for featured picture status, File:Marriage A-la-Mode 2, The Tête à Tête - William Hogarth.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 13:54, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
|
 |
Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for featured picture status, File:Marriage A-la-Mode 3, The Inspection - William Hogarth.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 13:54, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
|
 |
Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for featured picture status, File:Marriage A-la-Mode 4, The Toilette - William Hogarth.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 13:54, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
|
 |
Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for featured picture status, File:Marriage A-la-Mode 5, The Bagnio - William Hogarth.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 13:54, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
|
 |
Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for featured picture status, File:Marriage A-la-Mode 6, The Lady's Death - William Hogarth.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 13:54, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
|
Working on it now in my sandbox. Sorry, I'm behind in my work. - Dank (push to talk) 15:28, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks Dank. There are two articles on the go at the moment: the first is Wikipedia:Today's featured article/March 7, 2015 for S&M, and then the one at User:SchroCat/litter tray 15, wich is for Casino Royale, which I'll nom when TFAR opens up to nominations for 16 April. No rush on either of them as far as I'm concerned, and if you need me to do anything, please let me know. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 15:35, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
Dear @SchroCat:, I nominated this article for featured article, would u pls help us to make it a featured article? With my great thanks.Salman mahdi (talk) 15:42, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
- Yep, I'll try to look in there shortly. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 16:04, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
|
The Half Barnstar | |
To you for bringing Laurence Olivier to FA status. The other one's for Tim riley.  — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 10:00, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
|
- Many thanks Ssven2! That's very kind of you. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 10:17, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
- Would you like to point out any changes that I should make for Enthiran? I have opened the PR for the article before going for FAC (It is my first attempt at an FA).
— Ssven2 Speak 2 me 10:26, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
- I'll do my best to get there at some point this week (or early next), although I have something of a backlog of things on and off wiki that I am supposed to be doing at the moment! - SchroCat (talk) 10:30, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
- Would you like to point out any changes that I should make for Enthiran? I have opened the PR for the article before going for FAC (It is my first attempt at an FA).
 |
Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for featured picture status, File:Anthonis van Dyck - Equestrian Portrait of Charles I - 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 16:08, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
|
The Signpost: 18 February 2015
- In the media: Students' use and perception of Wikipedia
- Special report: Revision scoring as a service
- Gallery: Darwin Day
- Traffic report: February is for lovers
- Featured content: A load of bull-sized breakfast behind the restaurant, Koi feeding, a moray eel, Spaghetti Nebula and other fishy, fishy fish
- Arbitration report: We've built the nuclear reactor; now what colour should we paint the bikeshed?
Tim Page (presumably)
Hi. Why do you let somebody who is an obsessive fan of Jackie Evancho and who has publicly called me 'a thoughtless, nasty fellow' serve as the last word on my biography? This seems unfair to me. The person who wrote the previous edit before SSilvers seemed balanced and noted that I had spoken warmly of a lot of other young artists, naming several of them. This SSilvers has been trying to sum up my whole career by one article for the past two years, and it just isn't the truth. I've published many thousands of articles and championed a lot of young artists. Please read both entries dispassionately and I think you will agree. I was shocked to come upon this today. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mitegap (talk • contribs) 18:31, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
- I neither know nor care exactly who was the last editor of any article, but for articles about living people I care deeply about whether that article is in line with our WP:BLP policy. If there is unsourced information in an article about a living person, it should be removed without consideration, unless a citation from reliable independent secondary source can be found to support it? I will happily keep reverting the attempts to insert unsupported information that violates the BLP policy and apply to have the article locked to stop the IP editors involved from breaching that policy. I hope I've made my position entirey clear. – SchroCat (talk) 18:40, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
- Actually, you haven't made anything clear. Do you really need me to put together all the pieces that I've written about young artists, praising them highly? If so, I'll send you the links. It is vastly irritating that a person who has slimed me unmercifully since I published one controversial article is permitted to say the last word on a career of 35 years in an entry that takes up a disproportionate amount of what is meant to be a straightforward biography. Again, I said what I said, and I'm OK with that. But pretending that this is the whole story is simply calumny and bitchiness, which is not what is supposed to take place on Wikipedia. Regards, Tim
- Re: Kissin http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A35880-2005Apr7.html
- Re: Bachmann http://www.nytimes.com/1987/03/01/arts/music-debuts-in-review-a-violinist-a-pianist-and-a-soprano.html
- Re: Midori http://www.nytimes.com/1986/07/29/arts/unpretentious-prodigy-puzzled-by-all-the-fuss.html
- re: Hilary Hahn http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A36731-2005Feb18.html
- Hundreds of others upon request.
- PS -- Are you as much of a fan of "A Serious Man" as I am?
- OK, I'll try and make this even more clear:
- Read WP:BLP
- Take on board that any statement that is not supported by a citation from a reliable source should be removed.
- Look at the information I removed: ask yourself whether it has a citation or not
- Repeat stage 2
- If there is information that needs to be added to the article, do so, but only with a citation from a reliable source. I hope that is a little clearer now. - SchroCat (talk) 19:05, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
That's a little better, I suppose. I'll put all those stories up. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mitegap (talk • contribs) 19:08, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
All set -- but it will need some technical work from your end to put the sources in Wikipedia style. Thanks much for the help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mitegap (talk • contribs) 19:43, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
- I suggest you ask at the help desk to format it properly: it cannot be left in this state at all, I'm afraid. – SchroCat (talk) 19:46, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
Pretty sure I gave you all you need. Thanks again. Kind of cool to know how this is done!
- One thing: if I see you refer to the WP:AGF edits of any editor as vandalism as you did with this edit summary, I will file a report at WP:ANI. I do not care if you don't like or agree with the previous edits, but there was no vandalism. Accusing an editor of vandalism when there is none is a personal attack, which can lead to censure or being blocked. I strongly advise that you do not insult others in this way again. - SchroCat (talk) 20:50, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
I'm sorry -- I didn't mean to be offensive. But please take a look at what was done to the article about me by SSilvers last year, somebody who is ON RECORD as calling me "a thoughtless, nasty fellow". Are these the people you let misrepresent somebody's body of work, on account of a single article? In journalism, we recuse ourselves if we have to evaluate somebody whom we despise, particularly if we are on record as having insulted them. And I've been attacked before in a manner similar to this (not, I don't believe, by SS). You may know this already, but a rather distinguished public servant was once claimed to have been a party to both Kennedy assassinations on Wikipedia (!!!) although I agree with my colleague and friend Andrew Lih that the site has come a long way since then. In any event, bygones are bygones -- and thanks for teaching me how to use Wikipedia. It's been rather fascinating! Cheers and best wishes -- TP — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mitegap (talk • contribs) 22:00, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
I also just now attempted to remove my comment about vandalism but I don't know enough about how to use the site to accomplish this. Feel free to do it yourself if you'd like -- my computer skills are not very good! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mitegap (talk • contribs) 22:08, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
Your turn this time, buddy! Somebody has come along and mangled the thing, even ignoring "Day With Timmy Page." Now you can see why I was a little unhappy. Somebody will write a complete and thorough entry in the next few days -- in the meantime, please get rid of this nonsense. Cheers -- TP — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mitegap (talk • contribs) 01:32, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
I will have a scholar write a long entry in the next few days. In the meantime, check out this insanity. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tim_Page_%28music_critic%29&diff=647954959&oldid=647954201 Again, as always, trying to stay out of this myself, but somebody must protect those who cannot defend themselves. Fix this and we're cool. Cheers -- Tim — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mitegap (talk • contribs) 01:36, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
Here is the reference to "Day With Timmy Page." https://www.fandor.com/films/a_day_with_filmmaker_timmy_page Forgive me if I seem intense on this stuff, but I'm annoyed that my life is being slimed by a few people. As I stated above ==You may know this already, but a rather distinguished public servant was once claimed to have been a party to both Kennedy assassinations on Wikipedia (!!!) although I agree with my colleague and friend Andrew Lih that the site has come a long way since then." Um, well, I guess you DON'T, so I have to stand up. Let me know. No copies to anybody at present! Tim — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mitegap (talk • contribs) 01:44, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
- There has been no mangling that I can see: some of the formatting has been fixed, and the unsupported statements have been identified as such. There is nothing for me to do, even if I had the time to do it. - SchroCat (talk) 10:49, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
Upper-class Englishmen and upper class Englishmen
As far as I can see, "upper" here qualifies "class", and not "Englishmen", to form a compound adjective; and therefore (unlike "the upper class") it should be hyphenated, for the same reason as "Bach's 200-odd cantatas".
Am I missing something?
Regards,
Paul Magnussen (talk) 22:31, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
- Please see Upper class and the OED: "an upper class Englishman" is not hyphenated. - SchroCat (talk) 23:09, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
 |
Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for featured picture status, File:Pope Julius II.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 09:12, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
|
Terry-Thomas on screen, radio, stage and record
I've scheduled the above list to appear at TFL on March 16, in the assumption that the date is all right with you. If not, please let me know. Cheers. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:21, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
- That's great – cheers Giants. - SchroCat (talk) 09:35, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
 |
Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for featured picture status, File:Lady Seated at a Virginal, Vermeer, The 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 09:01, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
|
 |
Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for featured picture status, File:Triple Portrait of Cardinal de Richelieu probably 1642, Philippe de Champaigne.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 09:20, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
|
Peer review (utterly without pong)
Can I interest you in a peer review of Camille Saint-Saëns? I'm hoping to get the old boy up to FA standard, and comments at PR will be greatly appreciated, if you have time and inclination. – Tim riley talk 16:53, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
- You certainly can! I shall be there anon - SchroCat (talk) 22:43, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
Copy Editing
With my great thanks on your helps on the The Fourteen Infallibles, may I ask u, if u have time and it is possible, to help us on copy editing the article of Imamate (Twelver doctrine), I asked p-123, but he has problem with understanding Islamic texts or would u please introduce some one to help us on this issue?Salman mahdi (talk) 12:24, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
- I'll pop in and have a look shortly although I still haven't finished with The Fourteen Infallibles yet. I have absolutely no knowledge of Islamic texts, so will not be able to help in some aspects of the Imamate, but I will be able to spot and tweak some of the more obvious MoS errors I see. I'll have a think about whether there is anyone I know who has some knowledge that will be able to help more directly. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 12:31, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
- With my best thanks and regards.--Salman mahdi (talk) 12:42, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
 |
Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for featured picture status, File:Portrait of Doña Isabel de Porcel by Francisco Goya.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 15:50, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
|
Another list of Somerset scheduled monuments at FLC
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 Sedgemoor which is now nominated at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of scheduled monuments in Sedgemoor/archive1?— Rod talk 21:16, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
 |
Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for featured picture status, File:Vermeer, Johannes - Woman reading a letter - ca. 1662-1663.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 20:29, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
|
.
Check out at the the details - you could write an article.... Hafspajen (talk) 21:21, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
- Cheers Haffy - good idea, now done! - SchroCat (talk) 22:14, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
- Well done. Now do the same with the van Gogh portrait.... otherwise it will never make it, trust me. [1] [2] Two sources to start with. It has been a lot of controversies on van Gogh portraits...like here and also here... Hafspajen (talk) 23:02, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
- Cheers Haffy – I'll sort out something later today. – SchroCat (talk) 10:03, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
- A lot of the works by the grand masters aren't that hard to get articles out of. It's the more obscure artists who are trouble. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:10, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
- Exactly... I have like seven artist right now and all red links - nothing, just a gorgeous painting.... Shro, God bless you and you ways, do me a favor, when you are in Paris, OK? Check out a thing there for me. --Hafspajen (talk) 14:35, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
- Sure – if it's not too far from where I'm wondering! - SchroCat (talk) 15:11, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
- Exactly... I have like seven artist right now and all red links - nothing, just a gorgeous painting.... Shro, God bless you and you ways, do me a favor, when you are in Paris, OK? Check out a thing there for me. --Hafspajen (talk) 14:35, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
- Louvre. Hafspajen (talk) 15:57, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
- Yep - no probs on that one - SchroCat (talk) 16:10, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
- Cheers Haffy – I'll sort out something later today. – SchroCat (talk) 10:03, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
- Well done. Now do the same with the van Gogh portrait.... otherwise it will never make it, trust me. [1] [2] Two sources to start with. It has been a lot of controversies on van Gogh portraits...like here and also here... Hafspajen (talk) 23:02, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
Hafspajen has given you a ferret! Ferrets promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day much better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a ferret, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.
Haffy, Crisco, brief article created. Any idea on a title format? Self portrait (Van Gogh 1889 painting)? I'm not sure of the format used on art articles.Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 17:10, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
Van Gogh self-portrait (1889) Hafspajen (talk) 20:07, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
You're a star - many thanks indeed! All now uploaded Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 20:25, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
- Knew you could do it. And I knew it was his last ... and that's definitely a good topic for an own article, - it is NOT one of many... but his very last. Hafspajen (talk) 22:42, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
- It should be OK now - I agree that we probably can't justify an article for each image (although they are all covered in at least one of the books I have, so who knows...!) - SchroCat (talk) 22:49, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
- This painting made a lot of controversies, more on the article talk page, confusion about how the pic looks, is it brownis, backround is it blue, green is it and who is that. It was almost that I decided to go look myself. Would at least be good to know witch one of them is looking like the original. Hafspajen (talk) 17:12, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
- No problem - be glad to do it, as it was on my list anyway (I get to Paris at least twice a year, and there are at least two galleries per visit!) I'll have my iPad with me too, so will be able to do a pretty good comparison. It's sad to see how many people just go in to the Louvre, walk to the most over-rated picture in history and then leave without looking at anything else! I avoid the damned thing like the plague! I'll report back in early April- SchroCat (talk) 17:37, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
- Yeah, Mona is fine, but probably overrated. Hafspajen (talk) 18:23, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
 |
Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for featured picture status, File:Edouard Manet - At the Café - 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 13:47, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
|
 |
Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for featured picture status, File:Edgar Degas - In a Café - Google Art Project 2.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 03:09, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
|
The Signpost: 25 February 2015
- News and notes: Questions raised over WMF partnership with research firm
- In the media: WikiGnomes and Bigfoot
- Gallery: Far from home
- Traffic report: Fifty Shades of... self-denial?
- Recent research: Gender bias, SOPA blackout, and a student assignment that backfired
- WikiProject report: Be prepared... Scouts in the spotlight
 |
Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for featured picture status, File:Vincent van Gogh - Dr Paul Gachet - 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 13:31, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
|
Regarding your reversion of my edit to Kenneth Horne
Hello, SchroCat. I believe I addressed the concerns you expressed in my edit summary. As per the typographic conformity subsection of MOS:QUOTE, adapting the typography used within the quotation and the title of the work to that found within the rest of the article is appropriate, no? Regards, zziccardi (talk) 16:42, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
- It's one of the many areas where the standards of FAs are different from the MoS, which is flawed in a number of places. Even if it were advisible in the case of the quote (which it isn't), it doesn't justify changing the title either. Its one of those tiny things that really doesn't need to be standardised or tweaked if the origial has it one particular way. - SchroCat (talk) 17:09, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
 |
Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for featured picture status, File:Edouard Manet - The Absinthe Drinker - 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 09:50, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
|
I am not permitted to speak
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:45, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
A copy-edit favor
Hello Schro! I hope you are doing good in real life. I have a copy-edit problem with which I need a little help. Can you please copy-edit "FourFiveSeconds"? One user thinks the article has a close paraphrasing issue and placed a tag on it. I hope you have time. Thanks in advance!— Tomíca(T2ME) 17:18, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
- I'll try and swing by in the next day or so – I'm. Bit snowed under on no off wiki, but I'll see wht I can do. - SchroCat (talk) 09:47, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
- Caught you on a bad timing, I'm sorry. Still I would be thankful if you find a little time for it. Cheers! — Tomíca(T2ME) 11:26, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
Mud
You'll forgive the professorial tone I hope. Your point feels like a diversion because it leads back into the age-old attacks against MOS in general. Some believe that most of MOS is stuff that a few Wikipedians made up one day to suit themselves. Some believe that MOS is an attempt to match the expectations people have of professionally copyedited prose, with a few things (such as WP:LQ) that are observed by a minority outside Wikipedia but that we thought were important enough for our own purposes to insist on. It doesn't seem like an outrageous position to me to say that if we want people to think that we're an encyclopedia, then it certainly won't hurt to look like an encyclopedia. Again, this is a really difficult point to argue because of a trick the reading mind plays on all of us; it extracts information from punctuation, but stores the meaning it extracted without storing the punctuation (in the same way). That's why it's so difficult to teach punctuation ... people's brains are insisting that they not take punctuation seriously. What makes it even harder, of course, is that punctuation rules vary a lot depending on the tone or register of the writing, and to make it worse, punctuation rules are rapidly changing. Although people's expectations concerning orthography vary a lot and the varying standards are hard to learn, it doesn't alter the fact that they do have expectations, and if we misspell a word or mis-capitalize it or use punctuation in a nonstandard way, some of those people will make judgments about the quality of our work. It's no harder to spell something right than it is to spell something wrong, and there are advantages to spelling it right. - Dank (push to talk) 21:50, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
- But it's not a diversion at all (and a long way from an attack): we have evolved our own mature, fairly stable and unique MoS. That is something we should be proud of. The use of the ellipses you describe (technically not ellipses, per se) is something I've seen in a number of other places (The Times is a good example, as is the "Save As", which I don't see why you've rejected as an example, and Google use it in some of their search results too). Even if it wasn't, if we want to use it as "More...", there is no reason why it should not be used. It's not a counter-intuitive, indeed, it's the polar opposite, and it is, as the IP said in the last discussion, "inviting". - SchroCat (talk) 22:05, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
- Oh sorry ... just noticed "not an attack" ... I didn't mean you're attacking MOS, I meant that some of the words are dog-whistle words for the people who do ... I agree with your arguments in general, especially the part about MoS being stable and Wikipedians having the right to make the calls on these questions. I was surprised at the direction the conversation took ... I was prepared to cave on the flimsiest evidence, so I figured we'd all get on the same page sooner or later, but no one gave any example of "X..." meaning "See X" outside Wikipedia. Anyway ... if you want to add anything to the discussion, please do. - Dank (push to talk) 17:35, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
 |
Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for featured picture status, File:Johannes Vermeer, Allegory of the Catholic Faith, The Metropolitan Museum of Art.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 22:48, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
|
 |
Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for featured picture status, File:Johannes Vermeer - Gezicht op huizen in Delft, bekend als 'Het straatje' - 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 14:30, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
|
Page, again
Sorry to bug you again, dude, but the V----l Who Shall Not Be Called A V----l is at it again. It is preposterous to name one negative review of a profoundly controversial artist and make me seem some sort of habitual child stomper -- I wrote THE VERY FIRST major article on Midori and supported hundreds of other young people in a career that lasted 30 years. (These were mysteriously removed.) And it is to the premature commercial promotion of JE that I was objecting to, not her minor talent (one that still might blossom, as I said in several sections of the piece). Look, this is embarrassing: there was a perfectly decent biography there that I had nothing to do with that I still consider sabotaged by one gushy fan. In the past, Wikipedia has suggested that a distinguished public servant was part of the Kennedy Assassination, as I pointed out to you once before. This hardly falls into that category but it is derisive and misleading and if I have to go public, I will. Tim Page (sorry -- don't understand the way one leaves messages)
- A few things. Firstly, do not come to me talk page to bad mouth other editors. I don't care what beef you have with anyone else on or off Wiki, but it stays off my talk page, and off wiki (see WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF). Rise above whatever history you may have had and leave it at the door when you come on to edit. Secondly, you should probably stop editing your page, partly because of our WP:COI policy, and partly because you do not follow our basic methods of formatting, which mean you break up the text and referencing when you edit. See WP:COIADVICE for the guidelines of what you should and should not remove – and remember that just because you don't like the content that has been added, it does not make it vandalism or inclusion on a malicious basis. If you want things added, I suggest you use the article's talk page to point out additional sources. - SchroCat (talk) 09:13, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
Sorry about that -- as must be obvious, I have a lot to learn. I thought you wanted my comments removed. In any event, thanks much for making this fair -- that was all I asked for. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mitegap (talk • contribs) 15:11, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
The Tower House
Bramshill House passed FAC, thank you for your input. I've opened a peer review for William Burges's The Tower House. Comments will be most welcome. Cheers.♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:07, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
- No probs: I'll pop along there shortly. - SchroCat (talk) 15:51, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
Mary, Mary...
Poor, doomed Mary Celeste has reached PR at last. No solutions, but plenty to ponder on. Please give it a go. Brianboulton (talk) 21:44, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
 |
Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for featured picture status, File:Vincent van Gogh - Self-Portrait - 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 08:47, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
|
Hi. Hope you're well. Looks like the nominator on the above featured removal candidate is happy with the improvements and wants to withdraw their nomination. Regards, Cowlibob (talk) 21:25, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
- Cheers Cowlibob - all sorted now. - SchroCat (talk) 10:08, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
 |
Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for featured picture status, File:Maximilien Luce - The Quai Saint-Michel and Notre-Dame - 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 13:51, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
|
Books and Bytes - Issue 10
The Wikipedia Library
Books & Bytes
Issue 10, January-February 2015
by The Interior (talk · contribs), Ocaasi (talk · contribs), Sadads (talk · contribs)
- New donations - ProjectMUSE, Dynamed, Royal Pharmaceutical Society, and Women Writers Online
- New TWL coordinator, conference news, and a new guide and template for archivists
- TWL moves into the new Community Engagement department at the WMF, quarterly review
 |
Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for featured picture status, File:Self-portrait in a Straw Hat by Elisabeth-Louise Vigée-Lebrun.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 20:35, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
|
 |
Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for featured picture status, File:Wilton diptych; left-hand panel.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 15:00, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
|
 |
Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for featured picture status, File:Wilton diptych; right-hand panel.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 15:00, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
|
The Signpost: 04 March 2015
- From the editor: A sign of the times: the Signpost revamps its internal structure to make contributing easier
- Traffic report: Attack of the movies
- Arbitration report: Bradspeaks—impact, regrets, and advice; current cases hinge on sex, religion, and ... infoboxes
- Interview: Meet a paid editor
- Featured content: Ploughing fields and trading horses with Rosa Bonheur
- Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
 |
Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for featured picture status, File:Masaccio. Madonna and Child. 1426. 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 10:21, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
|
I have opened the FAC for Enthiran. Feel free to leave comments. — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 14:23, 7 March 2015 (UTC)