User talk:SchroCat/Archive 28

Ian Fleming
I was reading through some of the Bond articles. There is some very nice work that you've done there. — Ched : ?    —  12:21, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi, thank you, that's nice of you to say so. At some point I'll get round to re-working the last part of the series and get all the books up to FA, but that may be some time away. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 14:15, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Head spinning
My head is still spinning. I hoped that wouldn't rise to the bait, was pleased to see that he did not, and there's still a case request? Unbelievable! -- S Philbrick (Talk)  21:22, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
 * It looks like MJL is more upset that Eric does not hold the project in some likeness of a holy icon, or trendy social media site (I don't know, I'm only going by the evidence he's posted). But the sooner people realise this is an encyclopaedia, and that different people interact in differnt ways, that there is no need to go 'full snowflake' if you don't like something, then the better this place will be. There will always be an anti-Eric crowd, and if it isn't him, it'll be somone else. I think it's human nature: we have to have some pantomime baddie to react against, and if it isn't Eric, it'll be.... Jimmy, or Fram, or whoever else says or does something mildly contentious that causes the usual feeding frezy we all know and love . - SchroCat (talk) 21:36, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
 * That's what always happens in the Real Housewives shows...every season some of or almost all of the leads gang up on one member of the group. Shearonink (talk) 22:23, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately for Eric, his 'season' is constant and consistent. I see one poster at the case request trying to drag in a comment from 2014 and for "his aggressive nose-thumbing when he was sanctioned for violating a topic ban": again there seems to be more anger that Eric has a Steptoe approach to Wikipedia, not a Stepford one. - SchroCat (talk) 22:38, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

To all (the good) talk page stalkers
I currently have London Beer Flood and Jane Grigson at FAC (the latter with . I have also just opened a PR on the SS Politician (the ship of Whisky Galore fame). On the basis of I always rely on the kindness of strangers / I get by with a little help from my friends (strike whichever is not appropriate), any input on any of those three would be most welcome. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 20:02, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

TFA
Thank you for Marchioness disaster, "a shocking occurrence. 51 people died after a large dredger ran over a night-time pleasure boat hosting a birthday party. After such a loss, the victims' families were treated shoddily by a stony-hearted bureaucracy: requests for an inquiry were denied; the hands were needlessly removed from the bodies; families were denied access to the remains; compensation was derisory. It took eleven years for decency to prevail in the form of an in-depth inquiry with far-reaching recommendations. It's the thirtieth anniversary of the tragedy this August"! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:51, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Second this. I'd never heard of that disaster before and I found the article to be fascinating. I can't believe it took that long to get it sorted out! I was appalled reading about how some of the bodies were treated. Mr Ernie (talk) 09:13, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Many thanks to you both. Like some of "my" other articles, it was difficult one to write, especially reading the survivors' testimonies. Still, it was ready for the 30th anniversary, so I hope it keeps the event in people's minds. - SchroCat (talk) 20:14, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Re ARC
Regarding this, I think you're misreading what they're proposing. By "review the current restrictions and sanctions against Eric Corbett to determine if they are sustainable and proving effective", they mean taking the target Eric's back by lifting the existing "banned from shouting at, swearing at, insulting and/or belittling other editors" sanction (under which he's automatically considered at fault if he reacts no matter what provoked it). &#8209; Iridescent 08:09, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Do they really? I'm looking at what they posted and not seeing that. I maybe wrong (very good chance of that), and obviously I wasn't party to the mailing list thread, but I'm not sure that some of those ArbCom members will see it like that. If I am entirely in the wrong, please feel free to remind me of my hubris! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 08:26, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

O dear lord!
WTF with this website= thing? I look at FAs I've worked on and the references are a mass of red error messages. Poor Brian must have a sea of them! Just as I started to regain a smidgen of enthusiasm for this place..... KJP1 (talk) 17:40, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
 * It's the usual thing of a far-reaching decision being made by a relatively small number of people in what is a fairly quiet backwater, then implementing it without engaging brain, common sense or the right processes. When these decisions normally happen, a bot comes along, changes everything (with a mention in the edit summary of the decision) and then the red error message is released - if it's post-bot, there should be very little left to sort out. - SchroCat (talk) 17:56, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Well said Schro. On the off chance you haven't seen it here is a link to the AN thread Administrators' noticeboard. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 18:06, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Cary Grant
Why did you remove the infobox about Cary Grant? That article was already lacking an infobox as it was and many other prominent articles already contain infoboxes. Cary Grant was one of the biggest Hollywood stars of the 20th century. Surely, he deserves an infobox. 20SS00 (talk) 13:23, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
 * There is a standing consensus that an infobox is not desired on that page. Interestingly, it seems like the edit notice about the infobox consensus is not visible to mobile editors. Wikipedia is way behind the curve in terms of mobile experience. Can you confirm that when you went to edit the page, the notice isn't visible? -- Laser brain  (talk)  13:31, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
 * 20SS00, ↑↑↑ What he said. Laser brain, I didn't realise the notice can't be seen on a mobile view, and that's very disappointing. I've added the same neutrally worded request as a hidden note to the edit screen so that no-one can miss it. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 13:40, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Just checking on the nuance here, but are we saying someone successful and famous "deserves" an infobox. Why?   Cassianto Talk  13:56, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Possibly for the same reason someone seems to be able to select their own closer of the RfC. - SchroCat (talk) 14:00, 6 September 2019 (UTC)


 * To the IP. I don't recall the Academy Awards ever handing out Oscars for infoboxes. GoodDay (talk) 13:09, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Senghenydd colliery disaster scheduled for TFA
This is to let you know that the Senghenydd colliery disaster article has been scheduled as today's featured article for October 14, 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 Today's featured article/October 14, 2019, but note that a coordinator will trim the lead to around 1000 characters anyway, so you aren't obliged to do so.

For Featured Articles promoted on or after October 1, 2018, there will be an existing blurb linked from the FAC talk page, which is likely to be transferred to the TFA page by a coordinator at some point.

We suggest that you watchlist Main Page/Errors up to the day of this TFA. Thanks! Jimfbleak - talk to me?  13:31, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks, much obliged. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 13:46, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Full stops
For the record ... If a full stop is textually important, e.g. the period I snagged, another word or two after it (the period, not the ellipsis) should easily keep future editors off it; consider also bracketed ellipses. Incidentally, I went to the source (just now) and couldn't find the sentence in question. (!)--Brogo13 (talk) 18:50, 10 September 2019 (UTC)


 * If the sentence ends in a full stop and then we are omitting words, then the full stop should be included before the ellipsis. I have no idea why you can't find the sentence: it's been there for the last 271 years! - SchroCat (talk) 19:11, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Pissing contest?
try that. Will you archive that? DuncanHill (talk) 13:53, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

ce (copy/edit)
May I please have a clue?--Brogo13 (talk) 20:18, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes: it wasn't an improvement. - SchroCat (talk) 20:21, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Finally
Well, wrong as I do consider this situation, I do suppose that the temporary sandbox below does give some/one resolution to the great thought experiment. As offered before, I am also willing to speak to the blocking admin on your behalf. I strongly suspect that an unblock request would be granted - although I do understand your reluctance to "bow down" to any such behavior. Still - I'm sorry to see this, especially in light of the already tense and drama filled situation(s) as of late. Take care Schro - and do feel free to ping if you wish. — Ched (talk) 11:25, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi, thanks very much for your offer – it's very kind of you to step up too. I think it was an over-reaction to remove the comment in the first place, and if GR had not decided to remove it then the rest of the kerfuffle wouldn't have taken place. Hey-ho. Worse things happen at sea, and at least I have my little workaround below. If something urgent comes up then I'll certainly give you and Carcharoth a ping to intercede. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 11:34, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Your comment at the Fram PD talk page
I've removed your latest comment as a clerk action. You are welcome to comment on the case but you should keep your remarks civil. You are expected to act with decorum in arbspace at least as much as on the rest of the project. GoldenRing (talk) 16:44, 20 September 2019 (UTC)


 * , Leave my comment alone please. You may not like it, but it is not an uncivil comment. You will be in breach of WP:3RR shortly. So stop now. - SchroCat (talk) 16:47, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
 * It may be best to leave this, or take it somewhere else and point to a diff of what you said and see if you can get consensus to post what you are saying. Otherwise it (and some person hovering over a block button) will become a distraction. Carcharoth (talk) 16:52, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Sadly, I see GoldenRing is unable to see the difference between criticising an action (or set of actions) and what actually constitutes incivility. Plus ca change, unfortunatly. - SchroCat (talk) 16:55, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I have extremely low expectations of anything being done correctly any more. I see that this "may be appealed to Arbcom"... I think I'd rather not - you never know where it will end up! - SchroCat (talk) 17:01, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I was going to suggest you appeal it, but I see what you mean. Have a think. If you want to appeal, I could write something (I have asked on bradv's talk page). Of course, appealing will mean more people see what you said, but is it that or the possibility that it might boomerang on you that you have concerns about (or maybe you don't trust that justice will be done)? Carcharoth (talk) 17:08, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Let me mull it over. I don't normally bother with appeals (I know when I've breached a technicality, as I have done here – in terms of edit warring with a clerk, something I did not initially know was a 'bright line' offence), and I haven't got anything too pressing on at the moment (aside from an article at FAC, one at PR and another in re-write stage)! Perhaps if GR had not removed the comment in the first place the resultant kerfuffle would not have happened. Anyway, that was to be my parting shot on the whole sad and sorry case. As I've said, the toxicity will just keep getting dragged on and on, but the opportunity to cauterise the wound passed some time ago. Many thanks for your offer though – it is much appreciated. - SchroCat (talk) 17:13, 20 September 2019 (UTC) updated - SchroCat (talk) 07:48, 21 September 2019 (UTC)


 * These people have an over-inflated sense of self-importance. Dissent must never be stifled, however unfavorable and unfounded it may be, unless that verges on sheer and gross abuse (which this was not, by a few many miles). Let's see how long do I and Mr.Ernie stay unblocked. &#x222F; WBG converse 17:36, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I pointed that out to Gorilla Warfare on Bradv's talk page earlier, - surprisingly, I had no response.  What we have here is a virtual dictatorship.  Thank god we have the ability to switch them off at the plug socket.   Cassianto Talk  17:51, 20 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Hi, , I appreciate the gesture very much, I really do. In the spirit of calm and peace, (as has asked for here) could you remove the comments, or, at least, not revert if one of the Clerks decides to double down on their poor decision-making process? I'd hate to see others get blocked for my actions. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 17:53, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Cool. I will not revert, if that gets reverted by a clerk. Let's see, though :-) &#x222F; WBG converse 19:04, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I think it's just been taken out - yours and Mr Ernie's. - SchroCat (talk) 19:05, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Brad the Brave has anyways removed the refactored version of it, devoid of any “incivility,” as an unassailable clerk action. I wonder if these clerks will remove the arbitrator aspersions from the pages in their zeal to civilize the case. Mr Ernie (talk) 19:09, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Whilst it's not ok with Bradv for Gavin to call an entire committee useless, it's ok for Bradv to call me a troll. Funny that.  Cassianto Talk  19:18, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Two ex-arbitrators (in good standing) have publicly noted that almost all clerk-actions are at-least vetted by a single arbitrator and that using clerks is their heavily-preferred method of dealing with civility (and like) stuff, for otherwise they are often later accused of having a bias and all that.
 * Now, Brad certainly seems to be over-eager with the trigger and is a textbook adherent of policy (does he know Kirill?; they will make a good pair) *but* it's undeniable that arbitrators have a strong role to play in these removals. &#x222F; WBG converse 19:19, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
 * And sometimes do it directly. - SchroCat (talk) 19:38, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
 * And sometimes do it directly. - SchroCat (talk) 19:38, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

I have asked here that an unblock be considered, as it is likely the case will be closed today. Carcharoth (talk) 11:41, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
 * ,, That is very good of you to chip in and request it on my behalf. I am extremely grateful. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 12:30, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
 * It’s pretty funny how everything works here. GoldenRing, who barely has 700 edits to the main space, has the power to stop you from your article work. Mr Ernie (talk) 15:19, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
 * 700? I think I've done 700 in main space since July (and that's not including article re-writes in my sandbox, either). Oh well, whatever floats their boat, I guess. I do prefer to see at least some effort to content building from admins tho - just so they know what it feels like to have some skin in the game. - SchroCat (talk) 15:25, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Various messages about content improvement

 * , Many thanks for your very useful comments at the PR. I will deal with them at 6ish tomorrow evening. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 07:52, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I see Nanny has sent you to bed without any supper for daring to question the infallibility of some Wikigauleiters or other. Silly boy!  Tim riley  talk   20:47, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Thankfully I've been let off the naughty step now, so I'll be up to mischief again shortly enough, I'm sure. - SchroCat (talk) 20:53, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
 * , Many thanks for your comment at the FAC. It is much appreciated. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 07:52, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
 * No problem, my pleasure. I hope, during this 48 hours, you are reflecting upon your recent behaviours and are considering...carrying on exactly how you have been. If not for the benefit of the failing project, then at the annoyance of the thoroughly incompetent, and hugely pompous Arbitration Committee and their sycophantic little helpers.  Cassianto Talk  08:19, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
 * "Little helpers"? They may be obese. Or do you refer merely to cerebral measurements?  Tim riley  talk   20:50, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
 * , you may still be in the process of sorting the close, but Arbitration/Requests/Case/Fram/Proposed decision is showing 50 or so "Expression error"s in big red bold type. - SchroCat (talk) 19:23, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
 * , Yep, something has gone horribly wrong, working on it. SQL Query me!  19:26, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
 * No probs, as long as you've noticed it, that's all. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 19:27, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Unblocked
I have unblocked you following a conversation on the clerks' mailing list. As the case is now closed, we agreed this block is no longer necessary to prevent disruption. I want to especially thank you for your comment asking others not to continue the edit war, and for your mature response to this block. – bradv  🍁  19:51, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks . I'm much obliged. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 20:16, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
 * , can you please answer my last question to you on the PD talk page. Thanks. Mr Ernie (talk) 20:59, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Aspirations?
I think you meant 'aspersions'? Carcharoth (talk) 10:52, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I did - many thanks. A combination of my stupidity, mild dyslexia and the spell checker picking the wrong word! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 11:04, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
 * And sadly it seems that picking up on the misspelling is a good way to poke fun at people, regardless of something like dyslexia. Never mind. We shall soldier on regardless. - SchroCat (talk) 18:14, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
 * He's a wrong'un, ignore him. I do, but he just socks me instead.  I ignore them too.   Cassianto Talk  18:30, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Also, be cautious about anyone who doesn't realise that dyslexia is an anagram of daily sex.  Tim riley  talk   22:00, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
 * lol, would that be limited to hard back?  Cassianto Talk  15:35, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
 * can't come up with a good way to use that, sadly. Best I have is: "Struggling to read, lady exits awkwardly without tea [8]" Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 07:55, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Arb / Fram
I like your threads under that header, and try to follow your good example. I know I can come across as a disruptive warrior holding a grudge, but wonder if that is supported by evidence. I think the Fram case shows that you and I agree where it matters, regarding the fair treatment of people, and only disagree where it doesn't, such as the style of the top in articles. Can we take it from there? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:37, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Books & Bytes – Issue 35, July – August 2019
 The Wikipedia Library Books & Bytes

Issue 35, July – August 2019 
 * Wikimania
 * We're building something great, but..
 * Wikimedia and Libraries User Group update
 * A Wikibrarian's story
 * Bytes in brief

Read the full newsletter On behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:58, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Sorry
I'm sorry, I honestly wasn't trying to insult you or anything even close to that. I hope you know that. If you didn't, then I hope you'll accept my apology. I'd seen you mention the issue before, and just thought the edit summary was very wrong, and it just seemed the natural way to write it. I'll try to be more careful in the future. — Ched (talk) 23:04, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi, Don't worry about it – I didn't take anyone's mention of it as an insult. I think some of those who have severe dyslexia do think of it that way, so some people assume that all levels are. Mine is so mild I don't think of it that way, but it's just annoying to have it mentioned in such a trolling way by someone I've pointed it out to previously. Cheers, and I hope all is well with you. – SchroCat (talk) 05:50, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
 * For reasons I'll not go into on wiki, it is a sensitive issue for me, and I respect that to be true with others. I wasn't fond of the way it's been mentioned in various places, and hoped you knew I meant no insult to you. — Ched (talk) 15:26, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Don't worry - I guessed the way you meant it, and I took it in the spirit in which it was meant. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 17:19, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Abbrevs
Hi Schro, Before you revert again, perhaps you could supply a ref for BrEng not abbreviating Co, Gen, etc. I've given mine (Oxford: 5. [in Br Eng] if the abbreviation consists only of the first part of a word, then you should put a period at the end: Wed. (= Wednesday); Dec. (= December)), and stated that the inline refs (i.e. Independent and Gentleman's Magazine) both use co. with a full-stop, as is the norm in this country (the UK). Thanks!, Ericoides (talk) 06:57, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Please use the article talk page to discuss, rather than edit war.
 * The link you have provided is for personal titles (Mr, Rev, etc). It's also disputed by Fowler's Modern English Usage. - SchroCat (talk) 07:17, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Please see talk page. Ericoides (talk) 07:49, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Fingers
No problem - I saw that you'd reverted yourself so I wasn't bothered. But thanks for the message. Deb (talk) 08:48, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

RfA comment
Hi, may I request you to kindly place a footnote after your struck off comment at Requests_for_adminship/Greenman like others have done. It is generally helpful to know where you ended up. -- D Big X ray ᗙ  07:47, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your message, but I don't think anyone would be that interested in where my thought processes took me. People should be able to determine their own judgement on the candidate without my prompting. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 09:10, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Annnndddd...I feel like an idiot. I was so focused on the # sign that I forgot basic logic. Thanks for the fix. -- Amanda  (aka DQ) 09:17, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
 * - when I tweaked it I was wondering if I was messing with some arcane piece of RfA legislation abut having a struck comment going first! I'm glad I wasn't messing things up - it certainly wouldn't be the first time. - SchroCat (talk) 09:19, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, Cyber's bot counted it as a double vote which led me there, I just tried to indent it a few ways, and it still kept saying "1." so I was like fuck it and moved it. MediaWiki doesn't play nice with the first item in a numbered list not being numbered. No RfA legislation, just stupid computer logic. -- Amanda  (aka DQ) 09:22, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
 * SchroCat thanks for the kind reply. The request was of course based on my personal opinion and not an arcane RfA legislation. I understand your reason. cheers.-- D Big X ray ᗙ  15:22, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Featured article candidates/Inter-Allied Women's Conference/archive1
Hi SC. I hope that things are going well with you. The FAC above has just been posted by a very nervous first-time FACer. If you had the time and the inclination, a run through by you would help to settle nerves. The nominator is more than happy to discuss faults, improvements and missing bits of MoS, but has a dread of things becoming confrontational. Not that that would ever happen on Wikipedia. I would do it myself, but I have put so much work into it, and acted as the FAC-mentor, and so feel that I have disqualified myself as a reviewer. Cheers. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:51, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi Gog, I shall take a spin over it shortly. I'll try to leave behind my hob-nailed 'kicking boots', and try not to be in a bad mood before I start! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 20:41, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I am sure that you will as smooth and graceful as ever, it is only us northerners who are prone to coming over all hairy-arsed. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:44, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi (and any talk page stalkers). I hope to be at this one today. If you have time, could you have a look at Peer review/Baker Street robbery/archive1, which has been languishing at PR for a couple of weeks without attracting any comment? Cheers. - SchroCat (talk) 06:12, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

TFA
Thank you today for Senghenydd colliery disaster, "an underground methane explosion in 1913 that killed 339 miners. A terrible and horrible tragedy, it remains the UK's worst mining accident, and it devastated the small community of 6,000 that serviced the colliery."! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:59, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
 * SchroCat, you revert things without having a discussion on the validity of your opinion. If you look at http://www.coalimp.org.uk/3.html you will see that the UK and everyone on the planet outside the USA uses Tonnes, not long tons. This is the second time you have reverted a valid input of mine without discussion. Avi8tor (talk) 14:19, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
 * That's not entirely true. Megatonnes are not used that often in the UK (or at least outside measuring explosions) - we still tend to use the older imperial weight, including in an official sense (we work in mph, and bridges show maximum weights in tons, not tonnes, for example). You added the megatonnes which put three different weights in in the sentence, making it too cumbersome to read (although it's bad enough with two figures in there). As for "discussing" things with you: 1. people do not need to discuss before reverting, only after it; 2. I would certainly challenge your description of "valid" (after all, if they had been "valid", I would not have reverted either of them, and changing BrEng to AmEng wasn't valid, and neither was this). - SchroCat (talk) 14:31, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Nothing in my edit prevented you from seeing long tons, If you want to use long tons they were included, however Britain uses Tonnes on their bridges despite your comments https://www.google.com/search?q=bridge+weight+limits+uk&tbm=isch&source=univ&client=firefox-b-d&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiY1pvLgpzlAhVIzhoKHSfcAsAQsAR6BAgFEAE&biw=1248&bih=1001 and kilograms in their grocery stores, metres for construction, Celsius for temperature and the Pascal for pressure. I agree they use miles for road speeds and distance, but apart from that they use metric. But, it’s not only people in the UK who read Wikipedia !
 * Wikipedia manual of style was written for an English language audience worldwide, and excepting (in some respects) the USA, everyone uses the System International (SI), the manual of style requires SI units. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Units_of_measurement
 * I’d appreciate it if you could revert back to include Tonnes. Thanks. Avi8tor (talk) 15:20, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
 * No, I won't revert it back, because there is a minimal chance anyone in the UK will understand the measurement. The whole long/short tons is confusing enough, and as soon as 90% of people see megatonne, they will think nuclear explosion or TNT. We use both in the UK and it is entirely incorrect to say only use metric for speed and distance. Go into a pub and ask for 0.473176L of beer and you'll probably end up wearing it. I'll repeat what I said last time: your edit put three different weights in in the sentence, making it too cumbersome to read and it's already bad enough with two figures in there without adding a third. Learn when to leave things alone please. - SchroCat (talk) 15:32, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Question about Bond. James Bond.
What image do you like for the blurb for Goldfinger (novel)? - Dank (push to talk) 18:57, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi, Perhaps File:An UH-1 Iroquois helicopter flies over the US Gold Bullion Depository.jpg? It's the only free one that is of anything useful and that falls naturally in the blurb, I think. - SchroCat (talk) 19:08, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Sure. - Dank (push to talk) 19:13, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Precious anniversary
Sorry that I missed some of your FACs, - unplanned Recent deaths work, such as creating Márta Kurtág yesterday and referencing Raymond Leppard today, comes up more and more the older I get, - makes me feel how limited our time is. I have a peer review open, Clara Schumann (written by many on the occasion of her bicentenary). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:17, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

New message from DisillusionedBitterAndKnackered
DBaK (talk) 18:05, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
 * No need to apologise – something already forgotten about and we all go through it regularly! - Editor with one of the shortest tempers on WP (talk) 19:11, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

do we learn grammar?
go look at the talk page, bud, and I know I sound snarky but can we try be friendly. I *know* I'm right; like, it's literally my job to. And I gave up teaching because having the patience to explain is hard. But if you want to actually discuss, let's go. Kingsif (talk) 08:36, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Don't call be "bud" or "man". I have posted on the talk page. You're not right, and it's arrogant in the extreme to think you know better than everyone else, particularly if you are basing "correct" usage on what journalists spew into articles, and particularly if you think writing "like, it's literally my job" is an example of correct English. - SchroCat (talk) 08:37, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I kind of just wanted to give a friendly response. So thanks for the reply, regardless its content. Kingsif (talk) 09:11, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Unspecified source/license for File:James and Rusty Humphries, 1972.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:James and Rusty Humphries, 1972.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time after the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like (to release all rights),  (to require that you be credited), or any tag here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * File copyright tags

This is an automated notice by MifterBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. NOTE: Once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. --MifterBot (Talk • Contribs • Owner) 06:45, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Disputed non-free use rationale for File:Diary entry of James Humphreys.jpg
Thank you for uploading File:Diary entry of James Humphreys.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator seven days after the file was tagged in accordance with section F7 of the criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:00, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

What's cooking?
Oh no, stuck with that boring old "meal-in-box" yet again? I hear ""Goat with Guinness" can make a very nice change at this time of year. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:19, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

TFL notification
Hi, SchroCat. I'm just posting to let you know that Roald Dahl bibliography – a list that you have been heavily involved with – has been chosen to appear on the Main Page as Today's featured list for November 8. The TFL blurb can be seen here. If you have any thoughts on the selection, please post them on my talk page or at TFL talk. Regards, Giants2008  ( Talk ) 21:22, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi, thanks for the heads up. I hope all is well with you you. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 06:52, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thanks, much appreciated! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 16:10, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Diagram showing the tunnel into Lloyds bank, 1971.png
Thanks for uploading File:Diagram showing the tunnel into Lloyds bank, 1971.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:28, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

File:Diary entry of James Humphreys.jpg listed for discussion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Diary entry of James Humphreys.jpg, has been listed at Files for discussion. Please see the to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:03, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

2001 edits
Thanks for your comments at the film article for 2001. Even though the article had citations clean-up and a GoCE review completed by experienced editors, your comments caused the article to be bumped off the nomination. For the most part it looks as if the citations you templated can be readily restored within ten or fifteen minutes of editing, because the copy edits for GoCE often moved closing clauses at the end of sentences into the middle of revised sentences, which removed the "closing citations" of sentences and paragraph. The remark left above (as I have linked it) is that this nomination will require an experienced co-nominator and, given your reading the article, I wonder if you would consider doing this as a co-nomination? CodexJustin (talk) 16:15, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi, Sorry it didn't get past the first hurdle, but I often find that most need a good copy edit after they have been through GOCE. I would advise that you let the person who copy-edited it know that citations need to cover all the information in an article.
 * I am a little on the busy side at the moment, but may be able to help in a while, unless you can get someone to assist in the meantime. wrote the Kubrick article and might be persuaded to help with the final bit of polish - he may still also have the sources, which I do not. Looking at the sources you have used, I don't see any from academic sources: are you sure that you have exhausted every possible avenue of research? I would be surprised if there are no references to this in various academic papers.
 * A quick check on just one of the source providers gives the following:
 * I am fairly sure that without some significant additional research, the article will not pass. An FA has to cover all aspects of a subject, and at the moment, this doesn't do it. If you want to come back after you've added information from the academic literature, I'd be happy to give it a final brush and polish, and then mentor you through the two review proceses. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 17:23, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
 * That's a very nice list, and Peter Kramer is the author of the very strong BFI book dedicated to this film from several years ago which is favorite reference for many students of this film. Regarding bringing in your Alex North citations, I think they might go better in the sibling Soundtrack articles since none of his composition was used in the final film. Of significance has been Michael Benson's comprehensive 2018 book Space Odyssey: Stanley Kubrick, Arthur C. Clarke, and the Making of a Masterpiece which I think dealt with most of the citations up to 2018. Possibly you might have some thoughts about joining in the editing and enhancing the article towards FAC. Let me know if this sounds like it might be interesting to you in joining the improvement process and possibly adjusting/upgrading the previous GoCE and citations editors which were just done. CodexJustin (talk) 17:28, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi CodexJustin, I don't have enough time (or inclination) to update the article almost from scratch, which is what it would have to be. The list of articles here is from one of the academic sources (Taylor & Francis), and you would need to search JSTOR, CUP, and a host of others to ensure you have got all the relevant information from the best quality sources. I just don't have enough enthusiasm for the film to go to those lengths, I'm afraid. If you do get all available sources, and work them into the article, I would be happy to mentor you through the process. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 15:25, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for getting back on this. Your requested citation requests in the article I did earlier this morning and it would be nice to see your review of the article. The Taylor and Francis list was interesting to read; when I do the search for JSTOR and Amazon for titles which discuss or mention 2001 as a film, the list goes over 500 citations, in comparison to the 221 citations already in the article. I'll look forward to your comments when time allows for you to glance at it. CodexJustin (talk) 16:52, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
 * P.s. I've added the extra citations you have requested over the week-end. It would be nice to see some of your further review; also I do not think that covering all "500 citations" is really needed at FAC unless you can explain more on this, even US President articles have potentially 1000s of citations, though only 200-300 are typically used for FAC articles. CodexJustin (talk) 18:43, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I've already said that I will review it when it's been finished. For FAs academic and peer-reviewed publications are preferred for sources. If you are not going to include academic sources then it will not be an FA. It is as simple as that. It's not necessarily about the number of citations: it is about both the quality of the sources, and whether all the sources have been examined and all the relevant information used in the article. If you have not read the sources then you do not know what is missing from the article. – SchroCat (talk) 20:23, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I am fairly sure that without some significant additional research, the article will not pass. An FA has to cover all aspects of a subject, and at the moment, this doesn't do it. If you want to come back after you've added information from the academic literature, I'd be happy to give it a final brush and polish, and then mentor you through the two review proceses. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 17:23, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
 * That's a very nice list, and Peter Kramer is the author of the very strong BFI book dedicated to this film from several years ago which is favorite reference for many students of this film. Regarding bringing in your Alex North citations, I think they might go better in the sibling Soundtrack articles since none of his composition was used in the final film. Of significance has been Michael Benson's comprehensive 2018 book Space Odyssey: Stanley Kubrick, Arthur C. Clarke, and the Making of a Masterpiece which I think dealt with most of the citations up to 2018. Possibly you might have some thoughts about joining in the editing and enhancing the article towards FAC. Let me know if this sounds like it might be interesting to you in joining the improvement process and possibly adjusting/upgrading the previous GoCE and citations editors which were just done. CodexJustin (talk) 17:28, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi CodexJustin, I don't have enough time (or inclination) to update the article almost from scratch, which is what it would have to be. The list of articles here is from one of the academic sources (Taylor & Francis), and you would need to search JSTOR, CUP, and a host of others to ensure you have got all the relevant information from the best quality sources. I just don't have enough enthusiasm for the film to go to those lengths, I'm afraid. If you do get all available sources, and work them into the article, I would be happy to mentor you through the process. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 15:25, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for getting back on this. Your requested citation requests in the article I did earlier this morning and it would be nice to see your review of the article. The Taylor and Francis list was interesting to read; when I do the search for JSTOR and Amazon for titles which discuss or mention 2001 as a film, the list goes over 500 citations, in comparison to the 221 citations already in the article. I'll look forward to your comments when time allows for you to glance at it. CodexJustin (talk) 16:52, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
 * P.s. I've added the extra citations you have requested over the week-end. It would be nice to see some of your further review; also I do not think that covering all "500 citations" is really needed at FAC unless you can explain more on this, even US President articles have potentially 1000s of citations, though only 200-300 are typically used for FAC articles. CodexJustin (talk) 18:43, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I've already said that I will review it when it's been finished. For FAs academic and peer-reviewed publications are preferred for sources. If you are not going to include academic sources then it will not be an FA. It is as simple as that. It's not necessarily about the number of citations: it is about both the quality of the sources, and whether all the sources have been examined and all the relevant information used in the article. If you have not read the sources then you do not know what is missing from the article. – SchroCat (talk) 20:23, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for getting back on this. Your requested citation requests in the article I did earlier this morning and it would be nice to see your review of the article. The Taylor and Francis list was interesting to read; when I do the search for JSTOR and Amazon for titles which discuss or mention 2001 as a film, the list goes over 500 citations, in comparison to the 221 citations already in the article. I'll look forward to your comments when time allows for you to glance at it. CodexJustin (talk) 16:52, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
 * P.s. I've added the extra citations you have requested over the week-end. It would be nice to see some of your further review; also I do not think that covering all "500 citations" is really needed at FAC unless you can explain more on this, even US President articles have potentially 1000s of citations, though only 200-300 are typically used for FAC articles. CodexJustin (talk) 18:43, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I've already said that I will review it when it's been finished. For FAs academic and peer-reviewed publications are preferred for sources. If you are not going to include academic sources then it will not be an FA. It is as simple as that. It's not necessarily about the number of citations: it is about both the quality of the sources, and whether all the sources have been examined and all the relevant information used in the article. If you have not read the sources then you do not know what is missing from the article. – SchroCat (talk) 20:23, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

2001 Space Odyssey to FAC? Sounds like a big task to me...♦ Dr. Blofeld  17:48, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
 * It seems that the article has been at GA level for 2-3 years now and it might be possible to move it closer toward an FAC nomination at this time. Your background from the GA for Kubrick, and with Kubrick sources, might give you a chance to start suggesting places where you might start to add edits or comments to nudge the article forward. CodexJustin (talk) 17:28, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

I don't like the threat.
You threatened me on my talk page as I was apologizing for my revisions. Don't threaten me again.... Elijahandskip (talk) 16:20, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
 * , if you go round accusing experienced editors of vandalism when it's been explained that it's deleting a duplicated table, then I will drop you to ANI. It's a promise, not a threat, but you take it just how you want it, and next time you're reverting three or four edits a minute, perhaps a little more circumspection would be useful. - SchroCat (talk) 16:23, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of James Humphreys (pornographer)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article James Humphreys (pornographer) 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 Freeknowledgecreator -- Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 11:02, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

GG discretionary sanctions

 * @SC, it was trolling. They just lifted LB's own (dserved) warning from their own page and copied it over: . ——  SN  54129  13:34, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Cheers - I followed the trail back and saw your warning to them. Looking at their edit history, I suspect they won't be around for long. - SchroCat (talk) 13:36, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Request
Hi SchroCat. I've been reviewing a RfA, and noticed a comment here that references a sandbox/work/litterbox page you had used for an article. I was wondering if it would be OK for me to restore a couple of edits from User:SchroCat/Littertray 2 during the January 18 edits. (it was deleted as U1 - user request in own space) I'd like to reference them in a comment or !vote because they reinforce one of my views. If you'd rather I didn't, that's fine as well. Either way is fine with me. — Ched (talk) 20:33, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi . Was that a draft version of Eliza Acton, as that comment on Iri's page suggests? If so, please feel free. If not, can you remind me what the page was about? Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 20:54, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's version I want to restore. You blanked the page shortly after, and began work on a different page, but I'm only interested in the Eliza Acton part.  TY — Ched (talk) 20:58, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Isarra
Although she's vanishingly unlikely to pass, the "only 300 edits in the last year" is deceptive. She's spend a sizeable chunk of the last few years writing this and working on the WikiProject X attempt to make the Wikiprojects fit for purpose. (I recommend m:Grants:Project/WikiProject X/CollaborationKit MVP/Final as required reading for anyone who wants a case study of the WMF running someone into the ground.) None of this shows up as edits in our logs because it all happens on Meta and MediaWikiWiki, but she's not someone who's just wandered in off the street. &#8209; Iridescent 21:31, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks . It may have been better if her opening statement flagged up some positives and wasn't so trite. Maybe that is a good enough reason to oppose, I guess? - SchroCat (talk) 21:44, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of James Humphreys (pornographer)
The article James Humphreys (pornographer) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:James Humphreys (pornographer) 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 Freeknowledgecreator -- Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 02:01, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

To the nice talk page stalkers
I have opened James Humphreys (pornographer) up for Peer review, should anyone be at all interested in crime and corruption in the 1960s and 70s. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 10:55, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
 * 'Ere ScroteCat, me ol' china... I get all me filthy porn c/o them large bathers down Old Compton Street. But fanks anyway! Martinevans123 (talk) 11:12, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Guidance
Hi Gavin, thank you for you advice which I have taken. We all have our moments of doubt. Graham Beards (talk) 23:47, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks,, all is good here thanks - I hope I find you similarly well. I don't agree with one of the opposes there (it's a judgement call on things, and everyone's mileage may differ), but I can't speak about the source review as I don't have access to the sources). I hope that the sources points can be sorted out though. It may be that this is such a huge and complex topic with so many different viewpoints on "blame", that not everyone will ever be happy with the result, but I hope this goes through - it's an excellent article and one I think is inordinately better than many of the other FAs we have. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 08:48, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

A survey to improve the community consultation outreach process
Hello!

The Wikimedia Foundation is seeking to improve the community consultation outreach process for Foundation policies, and we are interested in why you didn't participate in a recent consultation that followed a community discussion you’ve been part of.

Please fill out this short survey to help us improve our community consultation process for the future. It should only take about three minutes.

The privacy policy for this survey is here. This survey is a one-off request from us related to this unique topic.

Thank you for your participation, Kbrown (WMF) 10:45, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Sorry
No clue about how I managed to remove your questions :-( &#x222F; WBG converse 14:42, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
 * LOL - No problems - I guessed it was just an honest mistake. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 14:44, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

DYK for James Humphreys (pornographer)
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:01, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Books & Bytes – Issue 36
 The Wikipedia Library Books & Bytes

Issue 36, September – October 2019 <div style = "margin-top: 1.5em; border: 3px solid #ae8c55; border-radius: .5em; padding: 1em 1.5em; font-size: 1.2em">
 * #1Lib1Ref January 2020
 * #1Lib1Ref 2019 stories and learnings

Read the full newsletter Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:21, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Google Code-In 2019 is coming - please mentor some documentation tasks!
Hello,

Google Code-In, Google-organized contest in which the Wikimedia Foundation participates, starts in a few weeks. This contest is about taking high school students into the world of opensource. I'm sending you this message because you recently edited a documentation page at the English Wikipedia.

I would like to ask you to take part in Google Code-In as a mentor. That would mean to prepare at least one task (it can be documentation related, or something else - the other categories are Code, Design, Quality Assurance and Outreach) for the participants, and help the student to complete it. Please sign up at the contest page and send us your Google account address to google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org, so we can invite you in!

From my own experience, Google Code-In can be fun, you can make several new friends, attract new people to your wiki and make them part of your community.

If you have any questions, please let us know at google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org.

Thank you!

--User:Martin Urbanec (talk) 21:58, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Aberfan
Wow. The power of a show on Netflix plus the beauty of Wikipedia's collaborative excellence. You and everyone else involved in the article's continuing strength should be very proud. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 19:39, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
 * - That's a shed load of views for one day! I had noticed an upturn in minor edits today and wondered what had caused it, and now I know. Cheers TRM. - SchroCat (talk) 19:43, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Yeah, to be fair, The Crown did an evocative job of covering the tragedy. I knew about it, but the dramatisation caught me unawares. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 19:51, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I'll have to watch it - I've not seen any of them so far. 204,000 views on the 17th; 267,000 on the 18th, 206,000 on the 19th and 170,000 on the 20th. It got under 50,000 hits on this year's anniversary. - SchroCat (talk) 14:30, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I concur with Rambling Man. As a long-time maintainer of this article, you and all the other local editors deserve their laurels. The article is concise and informative, a pleasure to read. Warm regards, Spintendo  19:19, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
 * , that is very kind of you; thank you very much indeed. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 19:32, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

You reverted my edit at Murder of Yvonne Fletcher
You included the reason for your undo as "Why... ?".

I removed the link to Police ranks of the United Kingdom because the article does not appear to contain any information about "Woman Police Constable (WPC)" or the text linked ("Woman Police Constable"). (Flagrant hysterical curious (talk) 18:51, 30 November 2019 (UTC))
 * The rank is shown in the table. Although this is rather scant information, it shows the level she attained. - SchroCat (talk) 21:25, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Which version?
You reverted my edit to KH&C for no good reason because you did not state in which version your description appears: "They were discovered by the prison guard [sic]" No such scene in the English version, and I have never seen the American version anywhere. Have you seen it? Where is it available? Please supply link. Autodidact1 (talk) 23:59, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
 * They are shown in the closing scene being discovered by someone tidying his desk. - SchroCat (talk) 06:51, 1 December 2019 (UTC)