User talk:SchroCat/Archive 34

DB9
Hi. Hope I'm not bugging you or anything but could you possibly leave some comments on this peer review about the Aston Martin DB9 article? Thanks (and don't feel obliged to.) Best,  750h+ &#124;   Talk  18:39, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Hi 750h+, Thanks for the note. I'll see what I can do, but it may not be for a a few days. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 12:51, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks SchroCat for the response. I don't mind how long you need, I'd just like to make the FAC successful. Best,  750h+ &#124;   Talk  13:23, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
 * If you're aiming for FAC, I suggest you add the PR to Template:FAC peer review sidebar, which may help get some more eyes on it. I'll review it with FAC in mind, so it may be a bit picky and long, but it's best to get the pain out of the way at PR to ensure a smoother FAC. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 13:26, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you, SchroCat, for your swift response. I'm happy to address the comments 😊, this being my first FA-related thing. Best,  750h+ &#124;   Talk  13:41, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Revert on Emily Davison
Hi, could you clarify what in the MOS you refer to? It is quite standard to capitalise when referring to the king or queen. Will Thorpe (talk) 12:15, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Output
Hello SchroCat, sorry for this. But would you like to leave your output on the AM DB9 nomination? (The source review and image review have thankfully been concluded). Best,  750h+ &#124;   Talk  10:08, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Hi 750+, I will do. I'm just leaving it open for others before I come in - partly because I've gone over it too recently and want to read with a fresh pair of eyes, and partly because I have promised a couple of other reviews first. I've got it watchlisted, however, and I will be there at some point (it's going to take six weeks or so to get through, so there's plenty of time!) Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 10:47, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Oh okay, thanks for the response.  750h+ &#124;   Talk  10:52, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Hi, note that the nomination has three supports 😁!  750h+ &#124;   Talk  17:46, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Excellent. You’ve got a few others lined up to look over it too, and I am waiting for the right point to weigh in, so it’s all looking very positive at the moment. - SchroCat (talk) 04:57, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Sapper's Wife (H. C. McNeile)
According to birth and marriage records, accessible at FreeBMD, in the third quarter of 1891 Violet Evelyn B Douglas was born; in the fourth quarter of 1914 Herman C McNeile married Violet B Douglas; and in the fourth quarter of 1916 Michael A M McNeile was born to a mother with the maiden name of Baird-Douglas. It seems fairly clear from that information that her surname was not simply Baird, but Douglas, or possibly Baird-Douglas. So referring to her as simply "Baird" is erroneous. What exactly do the Sources you quote say ? RGCorris (talk) 15:58, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Well that’s a lot of WP:OR you’ve got going on. Exactly, the ONDB says “On 31 October 1914 he married Violet Baird (b. 1890/91)”. It’s possible that, as with some families, there is a difference in the names for sons and daughters. It’s not uncommon in some social circles. My family, for example, has men using double barrelled surnames, but women have the first part of the surname as the last of their forenames, and the second part of the surname as their only surname. It’s possible this is the case here. Either way, the ONDB trumps the OR and referring to her as Baird in entirely correct. - SchroCat (talk) 19:49, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
 * ps. Is there a reason we’re having this discussion on this quiet backwater of a page, rather than the article’s talk page, where other interested parties can chip in? - SchroCat (talk) 01:52, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Second FAC
Hi (I deeply deeply apologise for the number of messages I’ve sent) but the DB9's promotion is imminent (eight supports; I pinged the FAC co-ords to ask them if it could be promoted); David Fuchs allowed me to promote another article, and so that shall be this one, the Aston Martin Rapide. Would you mind taking a look at it? Best,  750h+ &#124;   Talk  05:46, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Hi 750, I’ll try and get round to it. I’ve got a few lined up to do before I can though. - SchroCat (talk) 10:24, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Death of Kevin Gately
Looking at the blurb at WP:TFAR. Collins (at "disorder") mentions "civil disorder", and the Cambridge Dictionary mentions "public disorder" ... do either of those work for you? (I don't like just "disorders".) - Dank (push to talk) 16:08, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Can we just rewrite the thing once it gets pushed over to WP:TFA? That way the final line can be dealt with too... Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 16:13, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Sure. - Dank (push to talk) 16:15, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
 * OK. As to your initial question, "disorder" wasn't right. Either civil or public has a legal definition attached to it (I think, but I may be wrong), so I just want to check that first. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 16:19, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Edward Windsor, Lord Downpatrick
Hello there! Thanks for your recent improvements to this page. Just so you know, there is another editor who keeps trying to revert the page back to a very old, outdated state. It doesn't make sense: That editor is trying to use an image from 2008 when there is a newer one from 2023, in addition to rejecting anything related to this guy's new profession (travel, not finance or fashion), according to various WP:RS. The version that you improved is the actual up-to-date one, so I'm re-reverting it to yours now. Please just be aware of the other editor, who is being non-responsive... Doctorstrange617 (talk) 16:35, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Here's one example of RS too: https://www.tatlerasia.com/lifestyle/travel/eddy-downpatrick-travel-interview Doctorstrange617 (talk) 16:36, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Well, I've asked the question on the talk page, which is always a good step. If he is still unresponsive, he can be dropped into ANI for disruptively deleting valid information on several occasions, but maybe there's a reason he's been doing it, so let's wait and see. - SchroCat (talk) 16:51, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that makes total sense. It's just weird to insist on using old information that can clearly and easily be updated, based on a quick Google search. Appreciate your input Doctorstrange617 (talk) 17:57, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Reminder to vote now to select members of the first U4C

 * You can find this message translated into additional languages on Meta-wiki. 

Dear Wikimedian,

You are receiving this message because you previously participated in the UCoC process.

This is a reminder that the voting period for the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) ends on May 9, 2024. Read the information on the voting page on Meta-wiki to learn more about voting and voter eligibility.

The Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) is a global group dedicated to providing an equitable and consistent implementation of the UCoC. Community members were invited to submit their applications for the U4C. For more information and the responsibilities of the U4C, please review the U4C Charter.

Please share this message with members of your community so they can participate as well.

On behalf of the UCoC project team,

RamzyM (WMF) 23:10, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Whisky_Galore!_(1949_film)
This is to let you know that the above article has been scheduled as today's featured article for 16 June 2024. Please check that the article needs no amendments. Feel free to amend the draft blurb, which can be found at Today's featured article/June 2024, or to make comments on other matters concerning the scheduling of this article at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/June 2024. Please keep an eye on that page, as comments regarding the draft blurb may be left there by user:dying, who assists the coordinators by making suggestions on the blurbs, or by others. I also suggest that you watchlist Main Page/Errors from two days before the article appears on the Main Page. Thanks and congratulations on your work! With Gately you have a back to back TFA!—Wehwalt (talk) 23:26, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Double showing? Don't think I've had one of those before. Cheers, Wehwalt. - SchroCat (talk) 08:33, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Piles of stones
Morning Schrocat - hope you are keeping well. You're certainly busy! The Secretum seems to be doing just fine without my two'pennorth, but I shall offer comments re. On Her Majesty's Secret Service. If you've time and inclination, I'd very much appreciate an extra pair of eyes at the FAC for Grade I listed buildings in England completed in the 20th century. It's currently enjoying one Support, and green lights from the Accessibility and Image reviews, but comments have now slowed to a crawl. All well here, although the builders are rather distracting. All the best. KJP1 (talk) 08:03, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Morning KJP1, it would be a pleasure: I shall be along there shortly for a look. Great to hear all is good there, and I hope the distractions all have a silver lining! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 08:32, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I had a look too (it's at WP:FLC! We get ignored and/or confused with FAC a lot, and I haven't figured out yet how I feel about that ... probably proud). It looks like you're sailing to victory, but if not, give me a ping. - Dank (push to talk) 11:56, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
 * - My, unpardonable, error, for which I apologise! And greatly appreciate the offer. SchroCat's comments have sparked a flurry of interest, so it should be alright, but I shall certainly take up the offer if necessary. Thanks again. KJP1 (talk) 13:41, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Any time. - Dank (push to talk) 13:58, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

RFA2024 update: phase I concluded, phase II begins
Hi there! Phase I of the Requests for adminship/2024 review has concluded, with several impactful changes gaining community consensus and proceeding to various stages of implementation. Some proposals will be implemented in full outright; others will be discussed at phase II before being implemented; and still others will proceed on a trial basis before being brought to phase II. The following proposals have gained consensus:

See the project page for a full list of proposals and their outcomes. A huge thank-you to everyone who has participated so far :) looking forward to seeing lots of hard work become a reality in phase II. theleekycauldron (talk), via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:09, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Proposals 2 and 9b (phase II discussion): Add a reminder of civility norms at RfA and Require links for claims of specific policy violations
 * Proposal 3b (in trial): Make the first two days discussion-only
 * Proposal 13 (in trial): Admin elections
 * Proposal 14 (implemented): Suffrage requirements
 * Proposals 16 and 16c (phase II discussion): Allow the community to initiate recall RfAs and Community recall process based on dewiki
 * Proposal 17 (phase II discussion): Have named Admins/crats to monitor infractions
 * Proposal 24 (phase II discussion): Provide better mentoring for becoming an admin and the RfA process
 * Proposal 25 (implemented): Require nominees to be extended confirmed

Thanks
Hi Schro, just a note that the Aston Martin DB9 nomination passed FAC :). Thanks for the comments, I deeply appreciate them 🥰🥰 and I'll try to leave comments on any nominations you have too! Best, 750h+ 00:18, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Hey I'm buying one of those when I win the Powerball. SchroCat, thanks for all your work here and elsewhere. Drmies (talk) 00:20, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Many thanks to you both for your comments! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 05:25, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Salable
Hey SC! Thanks for your fixes at PaL. In regards to your question about "salable", that's how the source spells it, and OED says that's the American spelling. The ENGVAR page says quotations should be left as-is, but if it's annoying I could paraphrase the quote around it to remove the Americanism. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 07:44, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Hi PMC, if it's what the quote has and if it's correct in AmEng, then there's no problem at all with it - I've never come across that particular difference before, so I'm glad I asked rather than just changing it! (I thought my AmEng was OK, but my latest rewrite has had to be extensively reworked by a couple of very kind Americans to ensure it's okay!) Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 07:58, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Upright
Regarding your edits at Kathleen Ferrier: can you explain what the difference is between 1 and omitting that parameter? (Also: You introduced a typo for the page numbers of "Leonard, pp. 74–7, 86"; according to article history, recte "74–75, 86".) -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 05:19, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Fixed. - SchroCat (talk) 05:25, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Narwhal (again)
I see you are back to FAC. Sorry if this comment is a bit late, but I'd appreciate a review of narwhal here. Thanks for your time. Wolverine XI  ( talk to me ) 09:45, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
 * No problems. I have a couple of other bits to sort first, but I’ll be there in a day or so. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 06:15, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Brighton
——Serial Number 54129 13:09, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
 * You'd probably find this interesting. Although it's a counterfactual, some of the authors are professional historians and make sound points despite arguing hypothetically. Unfortunately, in your case, the chapter is by one Simon Heffer, and— because Heffer—the entire piece is a hit job on Hezza. He doesn't look at 'what might have been' in, for example, Ireland or the north, a pretty glaring omission considering it's the basis of the chapter. It's a shame, but yeah, due Heffer, not an RS. Even so, it is good fun, and lots of names that are very much blasts from the past :)
 * Cheers SN - I've read a couple of the 'what if' books, and they're always a bit of a chuckle. The biggest laugh, however, is how Heffer is described as a "Leading Historian"! - SchroCat (talk) 13:17, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Indeed I had to to rewrite my message a few times so as to avoid BLPVIO etc...  ——Serial Number 54129  13:20, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Some people don't make it easy to avoid BLPVIO! - SchroCat (talk) 13:25, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

'Murder of Yvonne Fletcher' page
Good day.

You just reverted the edit made by DiddyOwnsYa, which I think is fair enough based on its content. I just wanted to ensure that you did not consider my subsequent edit, which has been struck through with DiddyOwnsYa's, to be disruptive, as all I did was correct that user's mistakes. I consider myself to be a very careful editor, although not perfect, by any stretch of the imagination, and a strike-through edit can look as though an innocent user is at fault, especially if not explained in the edit summary.

ZeroAlpha87 (talk) 12:47, 25 May 2024 (UTC)


 * And by 'mistakes', I mean spelling and phrasing, rather than facts. ZeroAlpha87 (talk) 12:51, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
 * DiddyOwnsYa is a trolling vandal who stalks me from time to time using different throwaway accounts. If you look at their history you'll see all they did was revert a series of my edits. There was nothing wrong with your edit, which certainly was not disruptive at all. - SchroCat (talk) 12:53, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you for confirming. I'm sorry that people like that feel the need to ruin it for decent editors.
 * Best wishes. ZeroAlpha87 (talk) 12:55, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Arthur Conan Doyle bibliography
I am still plugging away bit-by-bit at completing the bibliography. As always, any comments you might have on my edits there are welcome.

One question for you: ordinarily, we are told not to overlink by inserting repeated wikilinks to the same article. However, I'm not sure whether that rule fully applies to lists and tables. For example, The Strand Magazine is linked dozens of times, as are Sherlock Holmes and lots of other things. Is this desirable, in which case I'll add a bunch of links, or undesirable, in which case I'll remove many?

I'm also grappling with a more substantive question about the bibliography, dealing with the fact that many of Conan Doyle's works were published in both the UK and the US&mdash; and often around the same time in both countries. (This was especially true from 1891 to 1909, when the US copyright laws essentially required near-simultaneous publication to retain a valid US copyright.) The bibliography as currently formatted gives primary to the UK publications, which is understandable, but there are many instances in which the US version of a story or article appeared before the UK version, and others in which it's somewhat difficult to tell which publication was first. I'm still thinking through how that might best be addressed, and would welcome your thoughts on this as well. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:23, 30 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Hi NYB, thanks for the note and I hope you're keeping well.In terms of the links, the rules banning multiple links are normally not followed in tables (same as in IBs, etc) as they are used differently than article text is - much more about looking up singular pieces of information, rather than reading through, so the links are useful in different places. It's definitely not followed in sortable tables, as the first link will change whenever the table is re-sorted, so it's important to link them all to ensure that whichever sort is chosen, the first reference is a linked one.There are a few different approaches you could make with the publication. One is to only list the known first edition, regardless of publishing location - this is fine if the sources are clear on which was definitely first. The other main alternative is to follow what I did with Agatha Christie and list both UK and US publications - this only works if the works are more or less parallel, as they were with most of Christie's output. If there is sufficient parallel output, then it sounds like this may be a possible option for ACD. I quote like the way the Christie Novels section looks and feels - it covers both countries and has all the relevant info that anyone could want. That may be your best bet by the sounds of it? Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 19:52, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Request for a review
Hi, SchroCat! I'm Pbritti and I've nominated Free and Candid Disquisitions as my first FAC. It has two supports from both full reviewers and all image concerns have been addressed. However, given that most FACs appear to have at least a couple more supports, I'm reaching out to a number of FA regulars to ask if they have the time for a review. I'm asking you since you have experience with books (even if my FAC's subject is a much older and less narrative one than your most recent FA). I totally understand if you don't have time or interest, but any tips you can offer first-timer are more than appreciated. Best, ~ Pbritti (talk) 17:48, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Wow, that was greatly appreciated! Thank you for your comments and remedying the dashes! ~ Pbritti (talk) 13:51, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
 * My pleasure. Interesting article. - SchroCat (talk) 07:27, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

FAC
@SchroCat Hope you are having a wonderful day and are in good spirits. I, alongside Keivan.f, have listed the article Catherine, Princess of Wales at FAC. It would be greatly appreciated if you could leave a few comments to help further improve the quality of this already GA-class article. I assure you it will be a great read. Looking forward to your response. Regards and yours faithfully. MSincccc (talk) 10:23, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Hi MSincccc, thanks for your note. Sorry, but I find the topic of the royals about as tedious and meaningless as any other pointless modern pseudo-celebrity, so I'm going to have to pass on it. Good luck in your review, though. - SchroCat (talk) 11:20, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
 * @SchroCat Do you know any other user(s) who might be interested? You could recommend the nomination to them. In return, I would be happy to leave comments at any future FACs in which you are involved. Thanks for letting me know of your opinion though. Looking forward to your response. Regards. MSincccc (talk) 12:57, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
 * @SchroCat I have pinged multiple users whose names were mentioned on the FAC mentors page. However, most of them seem to have ignored my mentions and requests. Do you have any advice or solution for me? Looking forward to your response. It would be greatly appreciated. Regards. MSincccc (talk) 08:33, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, have patience. FACs take up to two months, sometimes longer. Continually pinging and pressing for reviews only annoys the regulars and makes it less likely that people will spend their limited online time in reviewing your nomination. Spend your time reviewing other articles - not only will it make people more likely to return the favour, but you'll learn a lot about both quality writing and how the FAC process works. - SchroCat (talk) 08:53, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Should I leave my comments for the article Ann Cook (cookery book writer) on its Peer Review page or on its FAC once it has been nominated? I have read it and would like to provide a few suggestions, even though Tim riley has already made excellent recommendations. It’s a good article, especially considering it comes from an area outside my expertise (cooking). However, it was an interesting read. Looking forward to knowing from you. Regards. MSincccc (talk) 14:30, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The PR would be great thanks (I prefer to get everything ironed out pre-FACfor an easier and quieter process there). Thanks - SchroCat (talk) 11:57, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Good to see the royals getting the same respect at FAC as they get from the rest of the country! :)   ——Serial Number 54129  14:44, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
 * @Serial Number 54129 I know that was going to happen. If you have any suggestions, please do let me know? Looking forward to your response. Regards. MSincccc (talk) 15:13, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Suggestions? Well, I think Bert Baxter suggested moving them all to a council estate in Milton Keynes, which seems a good start.  ——Serial Number 54129  19:27, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Sorry I was a little short with you
I stand by what I said and did about erasing my words on a talk page if you say I can't put them in the spot in which they're meant, but I would've said it gentler - I read your username too fast and thought you were the other guy. So, sorry. Anyway, have a good night Wikipedian339 (talk) 20:29, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Apology accepted, but you need to understand that while you have an opinion on the point, other people have the opposite but equally relevant and pertinent views. Threads on talk pages are discussions to (hopefully) come to an agreement or consensus. Discussions, therefore, need to be kept together for other editors to view. You cannot start a new thread separate from an existing one where you get to plead your point of view. It gives the impression - whether you meant it or not - of trying to stack the deck in your favour by being the only voice in the discussion. Discussions stay in the same thread. And please do not delete threads or comments on article talk pages: that is forbidden. Of use may be the policies and guidelines, which can be found at Talk page guidelines and Etiquette. - SchroCat (talk) 22:32, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

On Her Majesty's Secret Service at TFA
Recenseo, tueor: I'm guessing edit or review, and the other one I had to look up ... protect? Anyway, is this a good time for a TFA run for On Her Majesty's Secret Service? How about July 3? - Dank (push to talk) 16:09, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Hi Dan, Sounds OK to me. Do you want me to run up the blurb? (and yes - it means 'I write, review, protect') Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 16:36, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes please! - Dank (push to talk) 17:47, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Good time for Secretum (British Museum) as well? Say, on the 22nd? - Dank (push to talk) 23:41, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Yep, no problems. - SchroCat (talk) 03:49, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Changed my mind on Secretum, I need a Byzantine empress this month instead, but I'm sure we'll run Secretum soon, it's too good to pass up. - Dank (push to talk) 20:09, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
 * No problems. At least a draft blurb is ready for next time. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 05:55, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Elinor Fettiplace
@SchroCat While I have taken a considerable interest in the article (especially after going through your work at Ann Cook and Hannah Glasse, I am presently busy with a GA review and schoolwork. Hence would you mind me leaving comments at the FAC itself (when you list it there) ? Looking forward to knowing your response to the above.

Furthermore, congratulations on yet another successful FAC nomination. Regards MSincccc (talk) 08:18, 9 June 2024 (UTC)


 * @SchroCat Are articles related to cookery one of your major interests here on Wikipedia? Apart from it, which other categories are you interested in? I would be glad to help (though I am myself very much unfamiliar with cooking in real life until now). Looking forward to your responses. Regards. MSincccc (talk) 14:17, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
 * It’s one area I’m interested in, yes. - SchroCat (talk) 19:07, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Template for converting historic monetary values into present-day values
Hi Schrocat - I know I've seen articles where you've used the conversion tool that takes, say £50,000 in 1956, and gives a present-day approximation of value. But can I find the bloody tool! No I can't. Can you remind me where to locate it. Many thanks. KJP1 (talk) 13:26, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Hi KJP1, The details are all at template:Inflation/year. I've got one at note A of the first paragraph here with all the other wording. It's not always necessary, but I think it better to identify it's the CPI measure rather than anything else. There's a separate template at Template:Pounds, shillings, and pence for anything in LSD. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 13:36, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * ¡Muchas gracias! - just what I needed. I shall try and make a note, so that I don't forget again. KJP1 (talk) 16:29, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Private Case
Reading James Pope-Hennessy's, blessedly brief, biography of Lord Crewe, I find this reference to his father's library; "Not unnaturally, [Crewe] omits to mention the large and famous collection of pornographic and sadic literature which old Lord Houghton had lovingly assembled. This portion of the library Lord Houghton's heir made haste to sell". Our article on Monckton Milnes says he bequeathed his porn to the BM, but he obviously held back a bit! Might be worth a mention? All the best. KJP1 (talk) 17:42, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks for this, KJP: I'll have a dig around and see what there is that we can add. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 19:46, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Hi KJP1, I’ve done some digging on this, and I can’t find any reference to him giving any part of his library to the British Museum. The information isn’t supported by the citation in the article either, unfortunately. He did hold an extensive collection of erotic works, there’s ample proof of that, but it doesn’t look like the BM was the recipient of any of it. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 04:15, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Bernadette Peters
I'm not sure this edit is necessary -- Playboy regularly featured non-nude celebrities. But I'm not strongly against it. What do you think? -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:22, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
 * It’s possibly worth leaving it there. There will be a fairly large number of people who have never read Playboy and don’t know that it also featured non-nudes. - SchroCat (talk) 19:51, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:14, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

John F. Kennedy document hoax scheduled for TFA
This is to let you know that the above article has been scheduled as today's featured article for 23 August 2024. Please check that the article needs no amendments. Feel free to amend the draft blurb, which can be found at Today's featured article/August 2024, or to make comments on other matters concerning the scheduling of this article at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/August 2024. Please keep an eye on that page, as comments regarding the draft blurb may be left there by user:dying, who assists the coordinators by making suggestions on the blurbs, or by others. I also suggest that you watchlist Main Page/Errors from two days before it appears on the Main Page. Thanks, and congratulations on your work! Gog the Mild (talk) 14:34, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Gog. - SchroCat (talk) 20:42, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

OHMSS
Great work on the novel for FA! I have not read it-- I've read Casino Royale and Live and Let Die. Seen all the films and OHMSS (1969) is my favorite. Cheers, Jip Orlando (talk) 14:17, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Many thanks! If you enjoyed the film, you'll enjoy the book: the film is the closest adaptation from the book of all the Bond films. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 14:25, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Taylor Swift
The guide you cited (Manual_of_Style/Abbreviations) literally says: "Using United States instead of an acronym is often better formal writing style, and is an opportunity for commonality." Ippantekina (talk) 16:16, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I've replied on the article's talk page, which is where the discussion should take place, rather than this quiet backwater. The fact you've just copied here what you've already posted at the talk page is a bit bemusing, but maybe just let the conversation proceed there. - SchroCat (talk) 16:19, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Email
Hi, can you resend the email - it didn't get through but it worked for me. Graham Beards (talk) 12:51, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Hi Graham, resent. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 13:02, 15 July 2024 (UTC)