User talk:SchroCat/Archive 22

Moonraker
Hi. Responding to your message on my talk page, could you provide a link to some information regarding the use of the indefinite article as a characteristic of British English? As a writer in British English myself, I do not view this as such. As a way of understanding my edit, can I offer a link to the description of the 'noun adjunct'. It may explain grammatically what is going on with this sentence, and the difference between saying "astronaut Holly Goodhead" and "an astronaut, Holly Goodhead". ClivePIA (talk) 14:30, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Additionally, I see no mention of articles (definite or indefinite) in this page on British English. ClivePIA (talk) 14:38, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

This piece describes some differences in the use of the indefinite article between British and American, but all relate to very specific situations, not to its use in general. ClivePIA (talk) 14:44, 29 April 2016 (UTC)


 * See Fowler's A Dictionary of Modern English Usage or The Complete Plain Words, by Gowers. To leave off an article is journalistic, lazy or informal in BrEng. – SchroCat (talk) 14:55, 29 April 2016 (UTC)


 * That link contains no mention of the actual issue, so didn't really help, I'm afraid.
 * I think you may have misunderstood my edit. This isn't about leaving something off - it's about a subtly different meaning for the sentence.


 * Here's the difference:


 * "Bond also meets an astronaut, Dr. Holly Goodhead, and survives" stresses that Bond meets an astronaut. An additional piece of information, between the commas, is that her name is Holly Goodhead.


 * "Bond also meets astronaut Dr. Holly Goodhead, and survives" stresses that Bond meets Holly Goodhead. The fact she is an astronaut is offered as a description (see noun adjunct, as before)


 * Both versions are grammatically correct in British English, but have slightly different meanings.


 * An alternative (a compromise?):
 * "Bond also meets Dr. Holly Goodhead, an astronaut, and survives"


 * This one brings the emphasis back to the name, but also uses an indefinite article. What do you think?
 * ClivePIA (talk) 15:11, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
 * "Bond also meets astronaut Dr. Holly Goodhead, and survives" is a poor use of the noun adjunct and leads to a jarring lack of article. Although the article as it stands does not need changing—it is perfectly correct as it is—the compromise would also work. – SchroCat (talk) 06:07, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Peer-review request for Catherine Zeta-Jones
Hi SchroCat, hope all's well at your end. I was wondering if you would like to post your observations about the Zeta-Jones article at its peer review? Would be awesome if you could. Cheers! -- Krimuk | 90 ( talk ) 02:17, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi Krimuk, I'll be along in a few days (RL intervenes in the meantime!) Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 12:20, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi Krimuk, I've been sightly more delayed than I'd have liked, but I'll be with you in the next day or so. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 11:15, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Not an issue at all, SchroCat. Looking forward to your comments. :) -- Krimuk | 90 ( talk ) 13:52, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun! Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from, SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 14:10, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Walt
Nice work over there. I'm thinking that the way to handle that section is to get rid of the big section "Biography" and then make each era a main section, allowing for subsections. In the 1950s-60s, you then could create three subsections, possibly titled something like "Motion pictures," "Television," and "Resorts". That draws the readers' eyes to the relevant material and helps organize it. Montanabw (talk) 21:37, 4 May 2016 (UTC)


 * A second thought: Some of the projects I've worked on, I have been told to try and avoid a "controversies" stand-alone section, but rather work the controversies in as they occurred chronologically -- and the honors too!   You could take the stuff about how he has been assessed posthumously and put it into a section titled "Legacy" or "Critical assessment" or something akin to that (the recent FAC for George Bernard Shaw did something along those lines with "legacy and influence" -- the rest was structured differently, but...). Just an idea.  Montanabw (talk)  21:46, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree—I typically put that stuff in something like the "legacy" section. "Controversies" will only attrack the POV warriors who want to itemize the subject's every perceived sin. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 22:47, 4 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Yep, I've moved it to the Personality and reputation section – the comments are about his personality and reputation, so the move is justified. I'm going to retain the overarching "Bibliography" section. It works well enough and separates the life story from the analysis of the life sections. (Not only does it follow the format of GBS, but most of my other FAs too – not that the second point should carry any weight).
 * I'm not convinced by sub-sections within what we have: it would create set of false barriers between what were the integrated facets of his life (the TV work and Disneyland were mutually supportive and one grew from the needs imposed by the other, for example. I'll sleep on it a little more tho and take a fresh look at it in the morning. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 23:30, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Barf
It's too bad you couldn't remove the other one (or both), but I don't blame you for not wanting to touch the first one—there are folk sitting there in ambush to accuse you of antisemitism. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 22:41, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
 * It's poorly put together as it is, but the religious aspect doesn't need to be repeated over and over: once is enough! – SchroCat (talk) 23:31, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
 * "Religious aspect"—just try dropping that one into the conversation and watch the pile-on! Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 00:39, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Featured article candidates/Title TK/archive1
Hi SchroCat, I'd like to thank you again for all of your feedback in the peer review for Title TK. I have now nominated the article at FAC. If you would be interested in participating in the FAC review, please do. Thank you. Moisejp (talk) 02:14, 4 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks Moisejp, I sall be thereshortly. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 07:27, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Featured Lists
Sorry, I'm such an idiot! I did know I should have only submitted one at a time, I just wasn't thinking right. Please remove the request for List of British films of 2014. Thanks and sorry again! Willowandglass (talk) 21:35, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Can you take a look at my main page request for the featured list List of tallest buildings in Hong Kong?
Thanks.

Wishva de Silva (talk) 10:06, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Congrats
Congratulations on From Russia, with Love. Great work! Moisejp (talk) 01:14, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks Moisejp! And thanks again for your comments and edits, which were much appreciated. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 07:46, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

scripts, walt disney

 * I don't recall precisely which script in User:Lingzhi/common.js brought up this warning on the Walt Disney page, but perhaps you should find out and add that script:Cite error: A list-defined reference named "Variety_biopic" is not used in the content (see the help page) Lingzhi &diams; (talk) 13:14, 7 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks, an editor copy edited out the information that was supported by the ref. I've removed the ref now, thanks. – SchroCat (talk) 13:31, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Good luck with your nom. Later Lingzhi &diams; (talk) 13:42, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Olivia de Havilland
Hello,. I hope you are doing well. I am preparing the Olivia de Havilland article for WP:FAC nomination and would appreciate any feedback or guidance if you have the time. You can add your comments to the peer review page. By the way, I enjoyed reading Walt Disney, which looks like its about to become WP:FA. Really nice work. Regards, Bede735 (talk) 21:36, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Many thanks Bede735, and I hope you are well. I have an overdue PR request for Catherine Zeta-Jones to do first, and then I shall be with you. I'm hoping to start on the Welsh lady today, and you within a day or so after that (as long as the Disney FAC doesn't go horribly wrong anywhere!) Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 08:10, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Assassination of Spencer Perceval
You seem to have restored or introduced an error here. No big deal; any idea what happened? --John (talk) 21:42, 11 May 2016 (UTC)


 * An oversight on one minor point. As you say, no big deal and thanks for picking it up. – SchroCat (talk) 21:53, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

List of U.S. Highways in Michigan
How soon can this be renominated? This is the only article that needs promotion for a Featured Topic, so it will be be renominated as soon as possible. I just need to know when that will be so that I can do so.  Imzadi 1979  →   07:54, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi . As far as I am concerned the article was good enough to go through, but just hadn't had enough support, so I'm happy if you renominate it straight away. - SchroCat (talk) 07:58, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Disney
Yes. I'd be glad to proofread. I'll try to get it done by the end of the weekend if not sooner. Finetooth (talk) 23:23, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Many thanks, Finetooth - much appreciated! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 08:21, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Apologies for the delay on this. I've been having a break plus I had a load of other reviews to do. Reading shortly.♦ Dr. Blofeld  08:55, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
 * No probs Doc - it's been pretty well attended to date to keep my busy in the meantime! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 09:17, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
 * As you have seen, I found a very few minor glitches and, I hope, fixed them. I've worked my way to the bottom of the article, and it's only Saturday. Yay! I'll keep a watch on the page, but otherwise I'm done. Best of luck with the remainder of the FAC. Finetooth (talk) 20:20, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

The Welsh Lady
Hi SchroCat. Many thanks for the peer review of Zeta-Jones. The article is now at FAC. Cheers! Krimuk | 90 ( talk ) 02:51, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks Krimuk90: I'll be there in a day or so for another read through. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 11:25, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Anbe Sivam PR
Hello, SchroCat. I've listed the article for PR here as I wish to take it to FA. Feel free to leave comments. Thanks. — Ssven2  Speak 2 me 01:14, 17 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi Ssven2, I'll try and get there in a few days. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 08:27, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Do not make personal attacks against millions of people
- Your edit summary here is a direct personal attack against millions of faceless and unknown individuals. If they saw this then I'm worried that they would feel as if their life was over, that they are worthless, and that they might, in the worst case scenario, cry. Not only that, but they would, as a result of your attack, throw themselves into their work which might cause them to become excessively tired. This will then leave them vulnerable to making mistakes at work which would result in their dismissal. This will cause them to develop a drink and hard drug problem and they will be divorced by their wife and chased by the Child Support Agency. The divorce and child maintenance fees would inevitably cost lots of money and they will fall into debt resulting in them having to rob a bank in order to pay everything off. I'm worried that they will then get caught by the police, be put in prison for 25 years, and the wife will elope with a Russian oligarch called Vladimir. This would therefore be all your fault for making such personal attacks.  Cassianto Talk   12:40, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
 * PMSL! There will be some who twist matters that way, when the grudge suits! – SchroCat (talk) 13:16, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
 * LMAO!!! This really made me laugh my ass off!!! Krimuk | 90  ( talk ) 14:40, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I kid you not,, people actually think this!  Cassianto Talk   15:07, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Wow! Krimuk | 90  ( talk ) 16:30, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Is this for real (non-involved user who stalks the watchlist) CookieMonster755 📞 ✉ ✓ 21:45, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Octopussy
An editor has requested a GA review at Octopussy. They haven't elaborated on what they perceive the problem to be but I'm just giving you the heads up. Betty Logan (talk) 04:58, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks Betty, I've watchlisted for the moment. I'm a little tied up, but may be able to help on fixing, as long as the problems identified don't run too deep (I haven't looked at the article yet). Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 07:25, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Norodom Sihanouk
Hi Gavin, I have nominated the above article for FAC, a biographical article about a late Cambodian monarch and Cold War figure. I have received feedback from the FAC that the article's prose has issues. I have done several rounds of proofreading and CE on my part, and right now I think a second pair of eyes to spot any problematic areas, if any. I welcome you to take a look at the article, and feel free to give any comments on the prose, content etc - on any areas that may need improvement from your perspective. (The FAC page is at Featured article candidates/Norodom Sihanouk/archive1) Pleased do not feel obliged if you are unable to do so, though it would be great if you can let me know about your decision on this. Cheers! Mr Tan (talk) 14:20, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks and request
Thank you so much for all the help with the Zeta-Jones article, and I would be very grateful if you could take a look at the Jessica Chastain article that I have listed for peer review. Krimuk | 90 ( talk ) 04:05, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi Krimuk, I'll see what I can do. I have a bit of a queue of reviews at the end, but I'll try and get there. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 07:13, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
 * No problem, take your time. Cheers! :) Krimuk | 90  ( talk ) 07:18, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

You accuse me of edit warring after just two edits?
Look. After knowing that the information was gone again for a good reason, I had just stopped, but, now, I am being accused of edit warring? Ouch! I am sorry to say that, but I am sensitive to accusations. Gamingforfun 3 6 5 ( talk ) 20:05, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Currently, I am suggesting here that I be banned. Gamingforfun 3 6 5 ( talk ) 20:15, 23 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Well you should have gone to the talk page to discuss (see WP:BRD and WP:STATUSQUO). As I mentioned in my first removal, it wasn't just because it bloated the IB (made worse with your second edit), but the information is suspect. That is an awfully long way from what any of the biographies have suggested his worth was (we discuss the value of the estate in the correct section and your figure is at least $4.5 billion out. – SchroCat (talk) 20:20, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

TFL notification
Hi SchroCat. I've got Arthur Conan Doyle bibliography scheduled for June 17. You can see the TFL here and see if it needs tweaking. Cheers. Giants2008 ( Talk ) 17:16, 23 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks Giants – much appreciated! Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 20:23, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Congratulations
Congrats on the promotion of Walt Disney to FA earlier today. Finetooth (talk) 20:07, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Nice job, SchroCat.  Montanabw (talk)  21:26, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
 * That goes for me too. A supurb article!   Cassianto Talk   21:51, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Very well done. Congrats. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 21:52, 21 May 2016 (UTC)


 * If you want to get even with your illustrious FAC and PR reviewers, Cow-tipping is up for GAN. Seriously.   Montanabw (talk)  02:54, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Many thanks to you all! And Montana, cow-tipping? Really?! ;) give me a day or so and I'll be along. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 12:24, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I'd rather prefer tractor-tipping myself, lol!  —  Ssven2  Speak 2 me 00:20, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi SchroCat, congratulations on Walt Disney. Sorry I didn't manage to finish my FA review. I've been on the road but meant to come back to the review when I get home in a few days. But it seems you got enough other reviews in any case. Please let me know when you have other articles up for peer review or FA and I'll try to contribute whenever I have time. Cheers! Moisejp (talk) 01:15, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi - thanks for the note, and thanks also for your excellent work at PR and all the edits you made. No problem on not finishing at FAC: thankfully it was a popular enough topic for a big turnout. Thanks again. - SchroCat (talk) 13:30, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

The FA barnstar and ribbon!

 * Many congratulations, SchroCat! You've written an extraordinary article on a very tricky subject. Thank you for continuing to inspire us fellow editors. :) Krimuk | 90  ( talk ) 04:05, 23 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks to you both: it was a fun one to write and opened up facets of him and his personality about which I had no idea. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 07:13, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Yes, amazes me how quickly you wrote it after the Welsh one!♦ Dr. Blofeld  11:34, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
 * You know sometimes there are articles that are a struggle - a real pain in the neck (often because of really obstructive and disruptive editors - the Sellers rewrite springs to mind) - and there are some which are an absolute treat to write: this was very much in the latter category. For such a busy and complex man he had quite a straightforward life (at least to write about anyway) and every other editor who involved themselves at PR and FAC was great to work with: a lot of involvement, all well-meant, all positive and all constructive. I still can't quite believe it was only five weeks from start to FA tho! - SchroCat (talk) 13:39, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Sorry
Sorry my "edit summary" was a bit out of line...wont happen again. -- Moxy (talk) 16:46, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Unfathomable, Mr Bond?
You really couldn't make it up. If you wish to add any comments >>> Talk:List_of_James_Bond_films.

Also, on another note I found this article at the BBC which performs up to date inflation adjustments on the box office: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-20026367. I double-checked the BBC's figure for Thunderball against the one Guinness World Records have and they are identical. If you want I could update this table to 2012 figures. It doesn't provide inflation adjustments for the salary or budget but we can use Wikipedia's built-in inflation adjuster for those because they were paid in a single currency anyway. Betty Logan (talk) 17:24, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I sort of am a bit mystified,, but I see this is the same person who commented in an earlier thread about the table. Bees in bonnet over such a long time is never a good sign! – SchroCat (talk) 19:46, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Oh man
Not helpful tone:. We gotta figure out a way to ratchet down the drama on these infobox things. You're "good people" and so are the pro-infobox folks. But this issue is right up there with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Climate Change and Abortion. At least as far as the "parties are unlikely to ever agree" aspect goes. But we really do need to figure out some kind of way to reach consensus that is not scorched earth, win/lose and filled with personal attacks and bad feelings. I've sometimes advocated the collapsed infobox idea, which, because it seems to piss off both sides equally, is perhaps a solution. But let's try to cool it with the insults (and {u|Cassianto}}, I'm pinging you also) figure out if there is any way of finding a middle ground. (I do wonder if the real issue beneath all the other arguments advanced is that infoboxes are a challenge to format if you aren't a computer programmer and thus rather difficult to do correctly if one is -- like me -- not great with markup syntax)  Montanabw (talk)  17:53, 2 June 2016 (UTC)


 * I'm happy to live and let live: you don't see groups of people going to, for example, the many, many IBs that Gerda has inserted and removing them, do you? I have always trusted the judgement of those interested in developing the article and who as a consequence will be involved in looking after any subsequent developments. There seems to be flexibility of approach from one 'side' and a militant "my way, or fuck off" from the other, regardless of whether the article is of interest to them or not. I'll lay extremely good money on the fact that only one or two people involved in those discussions had ever even heard of Butler before the discussions, and yet here we all are, with a hard line of "it must be this way", without any feeling for the subject or whether the IB is of any value on that specific page. So far all I have seen from the 'pro' side are the same arguments as always: Wikidata/'structured information' (refuted time and time again), looks (too subjective and only ever in the eye of the beholder) and expectations (nothing that a note and a pointer toward the talk page will solve). If the hard line of tracking and targetting the articles where the use of the IB has been considered by the editors of the subject—who are prepared to develop the article and safeguard it from vandalism and sub-standard edits—and the use of the IB has been found in that instance to be sub-optimal, then I don't think there could be any complaints if any additions of IBs were similarly targeted for removal. Should I now go and start stripping all the IBs Gerda has added over the last week or so (8 or 9 of them?) Would that do anyone any good? I think it would be as constructive and as beneficial to the project as the ongoing challenging of every removal of an ill-considered and pointless IB that seems to be the pattern at present. (To clarify: I am not in any way suggesting this as a course of action, because I trust the judgement of the individual developing and safeguarding those articles to do the right thing and to only include in the article something they consider to be beneficial. I trust that individual to do the right thing to those articles as I trust to do the right thing on the Zeta-Jones article. Both Gerda and Krimuk are the ones doing the hard work, and they will be the ones safeguarding and overseeing the articles within the boundaries of stewardship: it's their call (and the call of other interest parties too—I'm not talking anything approaching ownership here—as much as it is your call when you start and develop an article and decide to drive it to GA or FA).
 * I have a stack of books on Butler and I want to bring her article up to FA standard in the next couple of months (after a project I have with first), but I'm prepared to dump those books onto eBay and walk away from that page if it is to be the subject of harassment on one point of formatting from people who haven't heard of her, don't know what she did or how she did it, or what her legacy was.
 * I'm sorry to sound harsh on this (after a week of snide insults and misrepresentation from a couple of people who have not behaved particularly well in those discussions, I am a little short tempered on the point), but we seem to be in IB-ers wanting to 'have cake and eat it' territory, on topics where they have little feeling for the subject, or little interest in developing the article at all, as long as the flaming IB is forced in there, regardless of the thoughts of those trying to develop it.
 * To me the middle ground is to find one of the 5 million-plus other articles and develop it, rather than waste time on something so ridiculous as the ownership of the top right hand corner. Wiki is a big place, and why so many people are active on Butler's website while being so disinterested in developing the article is beyond me. Personally I have limited Wiki time, so to waste it in IB discussions is pointless, but I begrudge being bullied off articles I'm trying to improve. – SchroCat (talk) 19:28, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure an infobox discussion can be likened to an abortion discussion; I don't quite see the parallel there, sorry. Also, I'm not aware of these insults I might have thrown, so I don't quite see why I was (or wasn't, in this case) pinged by . I'm sure if I had, I'd have had Chillum breaking down my talk page door armed with a block notice by now. The cynics among us might assume, rather unfairly, you understand, that such soapboxing may be because someone might have something in the pipeline perhaps?   Cassianto Talk   22:47, 2 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi Cass, the parallel is that everyone has a dug-in position, won't easily budge, and any debate goes from zero to nasty in a flash. It was your tone at Moxy that I was looking at, mostly. And (lol) if you think infobox disputes will help my "pipeline", it's more the opposite! LOL!  (I was lightly pulling Drmies' chain -- and we seem to have both run afoul of Chillum, BTW).   Montanabw (talk)  02:55, 3 June 2016 (UTC)


 * SchroCat, if it is that important to you, then I will back off, as all that said, I don't want you to feel "bullied off". It merely seemed odd to me that it appeared you had not previously ever edited that particular article, though I did not go way back in its history, so maybe you had and I missed that.  As for the top right corner, I guess I too cannot figure out what offense exists there, or why it is ever so contentious, but I have long ago decided to choose only some infobox battles (essentially, I focus on existence, and generally prefer to avoid disputes over parameters or content -- for example, why there are two horse racing infoboxes, each with a different color stripe, is beyond me, but when I tried to consolidate them I got pushback, so I dropped that stick).   Montanabw (talk)  02:55, 3 June 2016 (UTC)


 * To both, at the end of the day, as I contemplate how someone who runs headlong into drama as often as I seem to could re-enter the "pipeline," one thing I think I AM trying to learn and practice is to just do my damnedest in article discussions to not use the word "you" or even a user's name in a critical fashion, but instead speak in the third person and try to focus on the topic, not the personalities. I do not always succeed, either, but I have noticed that when I do succeed, it's a lot better on my blood pressure.  (And if I have a personal issue, I try to take it to the user, as here, and keep it off the article page).  And basically, I was seeing that once again, an infobox discussion was getting ugly and this time I wanted to see if anything could ratchet down the debate or if any reasonable compromise would occur. I have had the pleasure of having some collegial and collaborative editing with each of you, even as we disagree on the IB issue, so thought I'd take a whack at it.   Montanabw (talk)  02:55, 3 June 2016 (UTC)


 * These comments above are illustrative as to why I like you so much, . You speak some sound common sense and you dictate yourself extremely well. I'll say again here: I'm not against infoboxes, I just don't like the idea of mass implementation for the sake of it. They have a job to do which they do excellently on political, sports and film articles, etc... but IMO, they really don't work everywhere, such as here. You're right, most info box discussions always do get very heated.  This can be troublesome when insults and PA's get thrown around, but mostly, it comes down to passions running high and what both sides see as "what's best for the article". I find it quite interesting, actually, but at the same time, hugely frustrating.  I get SchroCat's point above though: it is he who will be taking Butler to FA and to have one or two editors enforce something onto the article having had no prior engagement with it, smacks of massive annoyance.  I bet old Moxy won't be helping out on that one or ordering books from his local library to aid Butler's promotion. For that editor, I don't know why we bother to write articles at all.  We might as well be called Infoboxapedia and just have what that title suggests. There is a similar discussion going on at Catherine Zeta Jones, but I quit that discussion as things got way too personal.  The editors there are now free to do what the hell they like and I've since unwatched it. It's extremely unfair actually as the FAC nominator has worked extremely hard on it and has gone to all the trouble and expense in improving it.  They were in favour of deleting the IB, which I suggested, and it was binned. However, out came all the pro-IB crowd (who have never edited the article at all in the past) to condem such actions; they have since trampled all over the FAC by opening a RfC which has the possibility of derailing the FAC. A terrible shame. Something I won't be un watching, btw, will be your RfA, which I hope you're serious about.  I'm very much looking forward to that and will be hitting support in the same, confident fashion as o did before. And the you and Chillum bit?  I'm off diff hunting! ;)   Cassianto Talk   04:23, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I'll save you time:   LOL!   Montanabw (talk)  05:15, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Oh, he's such a charmer! Calling someone a cripple is acceptable? Good grief! (And I know you're a stalker here Chillum, so shame on you).
 * An early edit of mine on Butler, yes, but she's been on my 'to do' list since November. An inspirational person like she was deserves a much better article than the half-baked one we have up currently. I do appreciate your stepping back on the article: dragging an article up to scratch and through PR and FAC is stressful enough without a peanut gallery of any form. I can only echo Cass's comments that this is a typical comment and gesture from you – an appreciation that there is more to the project than circular conversations on a piece of formatted layout. – SchroCat (talk) 07:41, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Good old Chillum; an editor who prides himself on his "excellent" admin abilities, yet excels far more, in my opinion, as an even better FA writer. Looking at the thread you provide,, the next time he takes one of his daring user page photos and falls down causing a lifechanging injury, remind me to call him a cripple to see how he likes it. I'd hate for it to happen, obviously, but I'd be interested to see two things:
 * How he feels being called a cripple now that the shoe is on the other foot, so to speak;
 * How long it'll take him to block me when I do call him a cripple.
 * The mind boggles to see how he can consider the word "cripple" to be OK, yet takes offence to this. Unbelievable!  Cassianto <sup style="font-family:Papyrus;">Talk   10:49, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't single out that particular editor as overly troublesome, I've dealt with far worse. (see, e.g.  Talk:Equine-assisted therapy, or the ArbCom GMO case, which makes the infobox wars look like we're signing Kumbayah) But when the pipeline opens, it is certain off-wiki sites where I think we are all named in vain that provide significant entertainment and contribute to the popcorn consumption of all who watch the "pipeline" process.   Montanabw <sup style="color:orange;">(talk)  17:53, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Today's featured article/June 25, 2016
Hi Schrocat, Chris has just scheduled this for the 25th. How does it look? - Dank (push to talk) 03:33, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Elizabeth Alkin
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Elizabeth Alkin you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of SNUGGUMS -- SNUGGUMS (talk) 05:01, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Elizabeth Alkin
The article Elizabeth Alkin you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Elizabeth Alkin for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of SNUGGUMS -- SNUGGUMS (talk) 16:41, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Elizabeth Alkin
The article Elizabeth Alkin you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Elizabeth Alkin for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of SNUGGUMS -- SNUGGUMS (talk) 21:21, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Sam Waterston on screen and stage
Hello!

I looked at your contributions history and have re-nominated the list again. Do you think you could review it if you're still interested? Thanks. Arbero (talk) 15:39, 10 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi, I'll pop along shortly to have a look. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 09:56, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

DYK for Elizabeth Alkin
— Maile (talk) 12:11, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

To the man who works miracles
From your mysterious access to old broadcast records, is it possible for you to confirm whether, on 15 February 1995, there was a Radio 3 talk programme called, perhaps, "I am all imagination", featuring Michael Tippett with Natalie Wheen and some others? I'd be grateful for any help. Brianboulton (talk) 18:17, 14 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi, these are the 'appearances' of Tippett on Radio 3 that February and this was him broadcasting on 15 February. I've found this, broadcast from 20 February with Wheen interviewing MT. Are any of these what you're looking for, or is there something different you had in mind? Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 19:17, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your swift reply. Someone has added stuff to the Michael Tippett article, and cited part of it to "Tippett, (and others) with Natalie Wheen, I am all imagination, radio broadcast (BBC Radio 3, 15 February 1995)". I wanted to check that this broadcast had taken place. It seems that the contributor has elided two separate broadcasts, on 15th and 20th February, but that is probably the least of his/her sins. Other details are vaguely cited, e.g. lacking page refs, or not cited at all. And a lot of the added  text is copied word for word from  sources (which I happen to have). So not much of this extra material is likely to survive. All in a day's work. Brianboulton (talk) 22:23, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Books & Bytes - Issue 17
<div style = "color: #936c29; font-size: 4em; font-family: Copperplate, 'Copperplate Gothic Light', serif"> The Wikipedia Library <span style="font-size: 2em; font-family: Copperplate, 'Copperplate Gothic Light', serif">Books & Bytes

Issue 17, April-May 2016 by The Interior, Ocaasi, UY Scuti, Sadads, and Nikkimaria

<div style = "margin-top: 1.5em; border: 3px solid #ae8c55; border-radius: .5em; padding: 1em 1.5em; font-size: .9em"> Read the full newsletter The Interior via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:36, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
 * New donations this month - a German-language legal resource
 * Wikipedia referals to academic citations - news from CrossRef and WikiCite2016
 * New library stats, WikiCon news, a bot to reveal Open Access versions of citations, and more!

Cn
"Elias, the son of a potter, worked as a tailor's presser at a clothes factory, while Elsie, who was from a family of shipwrights, worked as a seamstress. " this was previously also backed by the Higham book. I don't think this is all verifiable in ELiot which was why I marked it.♦ Dr. Blofeld  12:59, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
 * , I thought it was? Add the ODNB as a ref: they carry the same info (or leave it to me to possibly add in about 30 mins). – SchroCat (talk) 13:08, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
 * OK, ah yes, ODNB, that wasn't a source I consulted, didn't even occur to me to look there when researching this!♦ Dr. Blofeld  13:14, 18 June 2016 (UTC)