User talk:SchroCat

Please leave a message; I'll reply here.

SchroCat Home ♦ Contributions . 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) Louvre. Hafspajen (talk) 15:57, 22 February 2015 (UTC) Yep - no probs on that one - SchroCat (talk) 16:10, 22 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. Give someone a ferret by adding {{subst:Ferret}} to their talk page with a friendly message. 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) 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) Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Goya's Doña Isabel de Porcel Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for featured picture status, File:Doña Isabel Cobos de Porc 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) Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Woman in Blue 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) Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Thirsty work from Manet 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) 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) Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/L'Absinthe 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 Op-ed: Text from Wikipedia good enough for Oxford University Press to claim as own In the media: WikiGnomes and Bigfoot Featured content: The Moon, Mars, Venus, and Saturn, in no particular order. Also, Kaiser Kong. 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 Blog: Join the Wikimedia strategy consultation Read this Signpost in full Single-page Unsubscribe MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:38, 27 February 2015 (UTC) Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Dr Paul Gachet – a late van Gogh 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) 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) Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Away with the green fairies 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)