Jump to content

User talk:SchroCat

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Eric Blatant (talk | contribs) at 18:14, 6 July 2019. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Do not leave the ‎DS alert for infoboxes on this page.
I am aware of the requirements and restrictions and need no "reminding". Any placing of the note will be reverted, probably with an appropriate response.

TFA late notice

Just letting you know that Shergar will be TFA on 24 June. Must have missed reviewing that one.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:18, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for Shergar's "sorry tale. One of the finest racehorses of the 20th century, winner of the Epsom Derby, Irish Derby and King George VI and Queen Elizabeth Stakes in the same year he captured the public's eye through a series of wins. Two years after he was retired to stud, he was stolen and a ransom for £2 million was issued. Negotiations broke down, and the horse was never seen again. No individual or group has admitted responsibility, although an IRA supergrass says they were to blame. Whoever it was, it was a sad loss, mostly for the poor horse." --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:40, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Sellers scheduled for TFA

This is to let you know that the Peter Sellers article has been scheduled as today's featured article for July 24, 2019. Please check the article needs no amendments. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/July 24, 2019, but note that a coordinator will trim the lead to around 1000 characters anyway, so you aren't obliged to do so.

We also suggest that you watchlist Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors up to the day of this TFA. Thanks! Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:26, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hi Jim, Of all the articles I've worked on, that would be the one I'd least like to see on the MP (It's something I said to Dank some time ago too). I don't really have anything to do with it nowadays, so I don't know what state it's in; I don't know if Cass keeps an eye on it or not. I'm not sure it represents our best work any more, but if it is decided that it should run, I'll not demur. - SchroCat (talk) 15:52, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree with SchroCat, Jim, Sellers, unfortunately, has been one I lost interest in quite some time ago, and I unwatched it. It has been the most fucked about with article (all infobox related) I've had the displeasure to watchlist. I would lay my last breath on there being a whole heap of more fighting on TFA day; sadly, it is one I shall not be monitoring. CassiantoTalk 16:15, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that was my thought. Don't want to see a why the collapsed box" argument on the day. Not worth it.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:32, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OK, leave it with me, @Cassianto: Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:55, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalker) Yeah, look, I do have it on my watchlist, and I'd like to think it hasn't degraded too much, but the thought of it being on MP fills me with inertia... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:03, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Cassianto: I see that it's at WP:TFARP for the same date in 2020. Do you want to remove that? Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:44, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You may as well, Jim. I doubt either Gavin or I will feel differently next year. CassiantoTalk 18:06, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
OK Jimfbleak - talk to me? 19:35, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Petits Propos Culinaires

Far as I can see, there's 1 (one) good source, the brief article in the Daily Telegraph. That the journal's founder and editor referenced articles from PPC in books that he edited is to be expected, but does not contribute to notability. The other three references (not counting the link to the magazine's homepage) are only in-passing mentions. This does not seem to meet GNG, but given your edit summary, I am apparently missing something? --Randykitty (talk) 16:35, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I've quoted various articles quoted on the talk page; (there is also book published with a selection of some of them); and there are 60+ articles on JSTOR that reference the PPC. Given all that, I'm not sure its notability can really be questioned. If you think it can, please feel free to nominate it for deletion, but I'm not sure that will work out well. - SchroCat (talk) 16:42, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Have a look at WP:NJournals. That articles are cited is normal (even though 60 is not very much, but it's only JSTOR, so there may be more elsewhere), but even for peer-reviewed journals that is not taken as a sign of notability. Most of what you posted on the talk page appear to be more in-passing mentions. I can't find a link for the April 2014 article in The Observer, is that one more in-depth? That would make two acceptable sources and notability would not be a problem any more. --Randykitty (talk) 17:06, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
A non-notable journal has a book of its best articles published by a Random House imprint? Earth calling! Tim riley talk 17:22, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
T&F and JSTOR have numerous articles; the journal is also mentioned in the mainstream press (broadsheet, not tabloid), and some of the most notable food writers and food-related academics have written for it. There is also a book of selected articles from it. It passes either WP:NJOURNALS or WP:NMAG, whichever you think more appropriate. Given all that, if you still think there are problems with its notability, please do not hesitate to file an AfD, otherwise I think we're done here? - SchroCat (talk) 17:37, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Shergar

Hi there. I'm not really up for fisticuffs over this but would you mind please telling me what you thought was not in BrE? I don't really speak another dialect so I'm suffering slight bafflement here ... thanks and best wishes 2A01:4C8:100F:648A:681E:2606:49FF:53BC (talk) 17:11, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • The "that" is not needed and "coordinate" is more commonly American than "co-ordinate". Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 17:13, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • The "that" is not AmE in your view then? You just removed it because you did not like it? Seems odd - I find it sloppy writing without it and more formal and perhaps more encyclopaedic with it. Thanks re "coordinate"; personally I think you're wrong but I'm looking at a few sources and I certainly won't change it without some evidence. Best wishes 2A01:4C8:100F:648A:681E:2606:49FF:53BC (talk) 17:16, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • Type ("co-ordinate" or "coordinate") into Google and you'll get the gist. As to "that": it's not sloppy to remove it (so you added it because you did not like it without? - if you want to spin the table a bit) - SchroCat (talk) 17:20, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • What a horrible, pompous prick you are. Google is not a fucking dictionary - perhaps you could try a look at one? You don't like IP editors is your main and obvious problem; I hope you have enjoyed your afternoon's bullying session. Twat. Fuck off. 2A01:4C8:100F:648A:681E:2606:49FF:53BC (talk) 17:25, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
          • I was actually trying to be helpful (given several dictionaries and grammar sites come up in the results), but I guess there's no helping some people. Thank you for stopping by and sharing your wisdom with everyone. - SchroCat (talk) 17:29, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
            • How very odd! As a personal friend IRL I know you to be nearly as horrible and pompous a prick as I am, but you couldn't infer it from the above exchanges. It's odd what preconceptions people cling to. The idea that you boggle at helpful changes by IPs makes one smile (though the adjective is key here). I'm not sure what a fucking dictionary is. Perhaps some form of sex manual? At my age I'm glad Wikipedia isn't one; I don't think I could cope with the excitement. Tim riley talk 19:41, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you both for your additional comments. A little digging shows this to be a logged out editor who has said they're on a Wikibreak. It's a shame they didn't stick to their break, or bother to log in! - SchroCat (talk) 21:28, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I had a fucking dictionary once. I soon learnt that A is not for apple. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:14, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your statement

Most excellent, but do you mean "spurred" rather than "spurned"?--Wehwalt (talk) 15:16, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Do you want to nominate "Marchioness disaster" for August 20's TFA?

Hello SchroCat! I was just messaging you since you were one of the primary authors and FA nominators of "Marchioness disaster". I was wondering if you'd want to nominate this page of yours at WP:TFA/R for August 20, 2019 (the 30th anniversary of the tragedy), as you suggsted at WP:TFARP. Marchioness disaster is a great, well-written article, and it would be a nice TFA on that day - would you want formally nominate that page? Paintspot Infez (talk) 02:24, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Kal Ho Naa Ho/archive2

Hello there, SchroCat. Been a while. How's everything with yourself? Good I hope. BTW, I've nominated this film article about a poignant yet funny love triangle starring Shah Rukh Khan in the lead. As always, your comments would be most welcome and beneficial to the overall improvement of the article. Thanks.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 15:11, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost

I'll take this off the Arb page, as it's not really directly relevant, but I disagree that the Signpost is not a newspaper. In fact, according to our GA-rated article on the subject, it is exactly that, and cited by 3rd party sources as such. You may choose not to read it, but it has long been accepted that while it is subject to the same broad policies and terms-of-use as the rest of Wikipedia, it does operate under editorial independence. For it to be barred from investigating and presenting the facts on the central issue facing the community right now would, in my view, be to neuter its ability to operate at all. Again, perhaps you'd support disbanding it or forcing it off-wiki, but that's a move that would have to be suggested and voted on separately, not just through selective culling of articles. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 11:04, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Amakuru, Looking at the three refs from the lead (the three which support the "newspaper" claim), at least one of them calls it "a weekly newsletter"; the second one is in French, and I'd rather not base such a claim from a non-English source. (and I'd not believe what a GA says either!) Despite that, the Signpost newsletter is still under the remit of WP:BLP: "Material about living persons added to any Wikipedia page must be written with the greatest care and attention to verifiability, neutrality, and avoidance of original research." (Emphasis in the original) There is nothing in the BLP policy that gives any leeway on the words "any Wikipedia page". However much those that claim it's a newspaper try and twist and turn, they are still held accountable to basic policies.
The "central issue", as you call it, is not an attempted half-arsed hatchet job from rank amateurs on another editor. The various issues are: 1. The balance of power between WM and WP (the constitutional crisis); and 2. Harrassment - how we deal with it properly going forward. The people who edit Signpost are not experienced journalist or newspaper editors (and by "newspaper", I actually mean a proper newspaper). Neither do they have any knowledge in how to handle harassment, how to set up policies, pathways or a mechanism for reporting and investigating it, and how to support the real victims, rather than those that just cry wolf. (Here I make no judgement on any of those involved in the current Fram matter - I don't know who they are, and I don't want to know, but the point is that investigation - through, fair and sensitive - has to take place, and Signpost is the very, very worst place to do that - as the dross of an article showed. - SchroCat (talk) 11:22, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nudge

Good morning SchroCat. Just a nudge that you can nominate Marchioness disaster for TFA now as noms are open for August. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:30, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Gog - I've added it now. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 18:36, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations from the Military History Project

 Military history reviewers' award 
On behalf of the Military History Project, I am proud to present the The Milhist reviewing award (2 stripes) for participating in 7 reviews between April and June 2019 Peacemaker67 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 03:03, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep track of upcoming reviews. Just copy and paste {{WPMILHIST Review alerts}} to your user space

Shergar

Hello SchroCat. You have reverted my edits to Shergar with the sole comment "Don't do this again please" - the word "this" being a link to my edits. You seem to be demanding that I don't edit a page on Wikipedia, something which nobody has ever said to me before, especially without explanation. My edits were minor and to do with clarity and grammar rather than the facts of the article, so can you help me to understand the problem and why you have leapt in so aggressively? Best wishes, Eric Blatant (talk) 11:23, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, I haven't demanded you don't edit a page, and I have not "leapt in ... aggressively". The edit was poor and added extraneous text to the lead. The lead summarises the body well, and it's in the body that the detail lies. - SchroCat (talk) 11:52, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You just said "Don't do this again please", and "this" was a link to my edit of the page. In the absence of any other explanation, the clear meaning was that I shouldn't edit the page again, so yes, it did seem rather aggressive. If you revert a good-faith edit, it's polite to explain why, rather than just warning the other user off like that. Perhaps what you meant to say subsequently is that in your opinion the edit was poor. I only added two words to the opening para and they had nothing to do with detail. By reverting the edit, the page goes back to treating the IRA as plural, talking about proof rather than evidence, referring to "the Maxwell's house" (it should be either "Maxwell's house" or "the Maxwells' house") and not capping up Polaroid, a brand name. Nit-picking pedantry on my part perhaps, but I thought it was an edit which tidied up some minor discrepancies. I'm not going to get into an edit war and as you've requested, I'll stay well clear of the Shergar page in future. Eric Blatant (talk) 17:25, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hello SchroCat, you seem to have replied "Not 'nit-picking pedantry', just wrong on may ofte points you *think* you're right on", although that may be incomplete because you then deleted our whole discussion. I'd genuinely like to know which of the edits I mentioned you think I'm wrong about. Very happy to discuss politely rather than be deleted. Eric Blatant (talk) 18:03, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Play fair, SchroCat! To keep deleting our chat seems a bit cowardly. Explain yourself. Eric Blatant (talk) 18:13, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Stalk-lite

G Arendt, as you don't seem to be able to stop following me around, please take this page off your bloated watchlist and stop. - SchroCat (talk) 13:22, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:SchroCat&oldid=905079740"