User talk:SchroCat/Archive 33

Hi, Schrocat, My Wiki expertise, such as it ever was, is way out of date, so I'm not even sure this is the right place to make this comment.

Anyway, I am curious about the instant reversion of my edit to Dorothy L Sayers. You reverted it without, so far as I can see, any indication at all of the reason. Is it now common practice to do reversions casually on the grounds that the reason is obvious to the meanest intelligence? Then write me down as mean.

Seriously, I suspect from experience long ago that I have transgressed against some current Wikipedia standards for submissions. I'd appreciate knowing just what I violated, and possibly information on what could have been done to avoid that problem.

Dandrake (talk) 17:57, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

(Non-Schro comment) @Dandrake: (Reply version) Plase remember to sign your talk page posts with ~~~~ which you did not do here.

I note the additional material you refer to. I also note that it is unsourced. I note that per policy it is up to you to reach a consensus on the talk page for such an inclusion. I note you have not done so.

I also note that your addition was factually misleading: In each of these cases the offensive comments are... from persons of the servant class or country bumpkins. It is true that Miss Climpson is quoting the cook, a servant, but Climpson, of course, is not. She is English gentry, and considers herself blessed to be white.^[1] Bumpkin my ring. Yours, et., ——Serial 18:06, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Hi Dandrake. There was an indication in the edit summary that it was in breach of WP:OR. Although the quote itself appears in the book, the rest of the edit is pure original research. There are already several examples of racism within the section (so it's not clear what another one would add to the article), and the analysis of the ones that are there is all connected to reliable secondary sources, rather than what we think about them, or something we have 'noticed'. The problems with OR are as eloquently outlined by Serial above: it doesn't always chime with what the reliable sources say - and it's them that we have to rely on. I'm also not sure whether people in various parts of the world would immediately grasp what a "country bumpkin" is. To me, it would not include a knight of the realm, which Sir Charles is. - SchroCat (talk) 19:03, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

More information Sources ...

Sources
[1] Baker, Jane Custance (2023-02-23). Fear and Clothing: Dress in English Detective Fiction Between the First and Second World Wars. Bloomsbury Academic. ISBN 978-1-350-24030-8.

Close

Today's TFA was a very interesting read, and I see you are almost solely responsible. Thanks for writing it! —Ganesha811 (talk) 14:37, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Good day! I was wondering if you'd be willing and able to perhaps provide a bit of mentorship and guidance with my first FA nomination. Back when I put the Perry County, Tennessee article up for GA status, a reviewer suggested it was potentially nearing FA status. Comparing it to the only US county article with FA status (Warren County, Indiana), my initial feeling is that it's pretty much there. However, I've been working on this article for so long now that I might be looking at it through rose-colored glasses and would appreciate any feedback or advice in getting it across the finish line. I've started off by submitting it for peer review, since the last review was done over a year ago for the GA nomination. In the interest of transparency, I also posted a mentorship request with Montanabw, but haven't heard back from them. Thanks! nf utvol (talk) 19:09, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Hi nf utvol, thanks for the message. I may not be the best person for this particular article, as it’s not in my area of expertise (I’m English and never been to Indiana), but I can certainly help you through the process and advise on what is and isn’t deemed okay or up to scratch. I’ll start by joining in the peer review and we can take it from there. I’m a bit tied up with RL stuff at the moment, so give me a day or so before I begin, but I’ll definitely be there. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 06:47, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Great, thank you so much! Wasn't sure if it was in your lane or area of interest, but looking at the list of mentors none stood out as particularly in line with this sort of article, especially those who have been highly active recently. Don't worry too much about having never been to Indiana, take a drive to Peterborough from the east and you'll pretty much get the experience of most of the state...flat farmland ending in a city that's somewhat rough around the edges but with a rather nice church. ;) nf utvol (talk) 17:10, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

• Hi Nfutvol, just a quick check to see if we can expect Perry County at FAC? There's no rush, obviously, but I think the article is there or thereabouts in terms of the prose - so it's up to you to push it through! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 12:26, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Hi SchroCat. I want to flip an image on its vertical axis. I have done it before, but now can't remember how to do it and can't find any information on how to do it. While searching, I found a discussion in which you offered to do that for an article. Could you please point me in the right direction? Thanks a lot. Regards, Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 16:17, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Hi Rui Gabriel Correia, Thanks for your note. I do it offline in something simple like MS Photos or similar. There's always an option to rotate or flip an image (I think it's even possible in Word). The only thing you have to remember is the bit of the MOS that says what not to do it on: artworks, faces, identifiable places or buildings, etc. I am by no means knowledgeable about these things, and if it's a more difficult piece of editing you need, the WP:Graphics Lab people are superb and helpful. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 17:56, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

If you have some time, could you take a look at the above FAC? Many thanks. Wehwalt (talk) 15:02, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

Hi Wehwalt, Yep, no problems. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 10:10, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Hi SchroCat. My apologies for not getting back to you. I asked for assistance here and then never got back to you. Thank you for your prompt and informative advice. I was not even aware that we mustn't flip faces! (which is what I wanted to do on that day), though I am certain I have seen/ read elsewhere here on Wikipedia that faces should always, where possible, be turned inwards, towards the centre of the page. Thanks again and regards. Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 14:42, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Congratulations, SchroCat! The article you nominated, Dorothy L. Sayers, has been promoted to featured status, recognizing it as one of the best articles on Wikipedia. The nomination discussion has been archived.

This is a rare accomplishment and you should be proud. If you would like, you may nominate it to appear on the Main page as Today's featured article. Keep up the great work! Cheers, Gog the Mild (talk) via FACBot (talk) 00:05, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

• Congratulations, SchroCAt. Great achievement.--Ipigott (talk) 07:15, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks Ian, that's very kind of you - although Tim riley did the most of the heavy work on article - I picked the easy bits and floated around the edges! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 09:27, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

You're too modest. The article stats clearly show you have been far more active than anyone else and are also responsible for more than half the content.--Ipigott (talk) 10:53, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Well done, SchroCat. Can we now call you Lord Wimsey SchroCat? Martinevans123 (talk) 11:40, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Sounds a bit formal... maybe just Lord SchroCat? - Lord SchroCat (talk) 11:42, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

You don't fancy "Lord Peter Death Bredon Wimsey Schrocat, DSO, 17th Duke of Denver", or something? But yeah, Lord Schrocat sounds just fine! Martinevans123 (talk) 11:50, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Maybe just Lord Death... 10:35, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Mmmmm, like it! Has a certain ring to it. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:09, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Or Dr Death... Tim O'Doherty (talk) 15:57, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Or how about Prince of Darkness?? Martinevans123 (talk) 16:43, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Hello SchroCat: Enjoy the holiday season and winter solstice if it's occurring in your area of the world, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, Cremastra (talk) 22:00, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Cremastra (talk) 22:00, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Hello SchroCat: Enjoy the holiday season and winter solstice if it's occurring in your area of the world, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:22, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

A very merry Christmas and wishes to you for a wonderful year ahead! -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:46, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

... for the lovely seasonal greeting! All the best to you and yours too, and happy editing! DBaK (talk) 21:04, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Cheers DBAK! - SchroCat (talk) 09:09, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

		Season's Greetings
		Wishing everybody a Happy Holiday Season, and all best wishes for the New Year! The Nativity scene on the Pulpit in the Pisa Baptistery by Nicola Pisano is my Wiki-Christmas card to all for this year. Johnbod (talk) 02:59, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Many thanks Johnbod! And all the best to you and yours. - SchroCat (talk) 07:27, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Hello SchroCat: Enjoy the holiday season and winter solstice if it's occurring in your area of the world, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, Jerium (talk) 17:04, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Jerium (talk) 17:04, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Many thanks Jerium - that's very kind of you! All the best to you and yours too. - SchroCat (talk) 17:23, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Hi SC, Dorothy L. Sayers is up for TFA in February. Fancy having a go at a blurb? Gog the Mild (talk) 18:37, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

Hi Gog, Thanks for the heads-up. I’ll pull something together for it. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 07:42, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

This is to let you know that the above article has been scheduled as today's featured article for 9 February 2024. Please check that the article needs no amendments. Feel free to amend the draft blurb, which can be found at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/February 9, 2024, or to make comments on other matters concerning the scheduling of this article at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/February 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 Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors from two days before it appears on the Main Page. Thanks and congratulations on your work! Gog the Mild (talk) 21:00, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Hi, Please contact Lotte Meitner-Graf Archive re Murial Mckay image - (now withdrawn from Getty)lottemeitnergraf.com we have the original negatives . . . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tbar16 (talk • contribs) 15:13, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

No thanks. We have appropriate licensing in place, and it's doubtful they would release the copyright, which would be the only benefit. - SchroCat (talk) 15:29, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

You might like to consider having a proper legal licence that is only available from the copyright owners, Getty have now withdrawn all of the licences they have issued! No "appropriate " licence exists . . . Tbar16 (talk) 17:29, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

We are using the image appropriately and acknowledge that the image’s copyright is held elsewhere, but that doesn’t mean we can’t use it. In terms of Lotte Meitner-Graf, I can’t see any indication of a connection through general searches, but that still doesn’t matter, considering the way we are using it. - SchroCat (talk) 17:39, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

Wishing you the best in 2024, on Wikipedia and off. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 17:54, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks David: you too! Thanks for all you do on here - and I hope next year brings you and yours all happiness. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 19:08, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

	Happy New Year!
	Hello SchroCat: Did you know ... that back in 1885, Wikipedia editors wrote Good Articles with axes, hammers and chisels? Thank you for your contributions to this encyclopedia using 21st century technology. I hope you don't get any unnecessary blisters. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:03, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Happy New Year elves}} to send this message

CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:03, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks Captain! That's very good of you. I hope you have a great 2024! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 19:09, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

SchroCat,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
–Davey2010^Talk 01:29, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Thanks Davey - you too! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 08:24, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

SchroCat,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
Abishe (talk) 14:58, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Abishe (talk) 14:58, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

I've just put Beulé Gate up for peer review here, with a view to taking it forward to FAC at some point in the future. If you get a moment to take a look and comment, I would be most grateful. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 11:58, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Hi UC, it will be my pleasure! I think I am very much in your debt, so it will be a pleasant change to put something down on my side of the ledger for once. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 12:28, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Tim riley may be interested in this one too. - SchroCat (talk) 12:37, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

I'll certainly look in. Tim riley talk 13:06, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Ah -- saved me a job, as Tim was next on my list to round up! Much obliged to you both. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 13:17, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

To make you feel hungry pray look in at a little article I ran up this morning. Once I've had my afternoon nap (old codger's privilege) I'll turn my attention to the Beulé Gate. Tim riley talk 14:35, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Hello again, (and a happy new year!). Me and another editor are collaborating on an article that's not very illustratable (about a phrase) and was wondering how to do it: I've put in a photo of the person who said it for now but ideally want something a bit more specific. I'm thinking about putting in the first (or one of the first) appearances of the phrase in print, so in a news report in one of the daily papers. You've done this a bit in some of your articles (example) and I'm wondering how it's done: is it a screengrab of something off of newspapers.com? Is it downloaded from a different archive? What tag would you put on it at Commons (relatively recent at June 1963, published in the UK)? If you've got any advice on this I'd be really grateful. Cheers, Tim O'Doherty (talk) 21:22, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Hi Tim, if it’s the 1960s it’ll still be protected by copyright, so that’s not possible, unfortunately. The Dando example was from 1832 which is why we could use it. - SchroCat (talk) 21:55, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Ah. That's what I was afraid of. I wouldn't've asked if it was a photo, but thought a string of five words might've been OK. Still, thanks. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 22:14, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

When you're done dealing with the above - which may take some time! - would you have a chance to look at the query I've left, here? I've run this little article up, Midland Bank, Poultry, and would very much like to know if the vault was used for filming. I hope you're keeping well. All is good here, although it's a bit like camping until Mr Pickford delivers all our stuff! KJP1 (talk) 14:31, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Hi KJP1! Responded on that page - it may trigger someone who has a different source that will explain something. I hope you've got enough stuff with you to keep comfortable - how long do you have to rough it before your stuff arrives? Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 15:32, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

My previous account has been blocked unfairly while I did nothing wrong. Please speak so that my account can be restored Amita2026 (talk) 13:35, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

You’ve opened a new account while your old one was blocked? There is nothing I can do to help you: you have managed to sink yourself. - SchroCat (talk) 13:53, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

No, this is not my spare account, I just created this account so that I can defend myself because it was blocked for no reason Amita2026 (talk) 13:57, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

I can see you have only just created this account, but that's part of the problem. How many accounts (live or blocked) do you actually have? - SchroCat (talk) 14:03, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

I made this account so I can explain that I'm not a malicious user because my previous account was blocked and I couldn't talk. Amita2026 (talk) 14:05, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

I'll ask again: How many accounts (live or blocked) do you actually have? - SchroCat (talk) 14:06, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Only this account and that account are blocked Amita2026 (talk) 14:08, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

So what about 100michel1, 1michel100, Brussels change, Turk Irap and Iran Turkey war? There seems to be excellent technical proof that these, Amita2025 and Amita2026 are all connected. - SchroCat (talk) 14:11, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Sorry you had to deal with that, Schro! I'm absolutely certain based on the technical data that all those accounts (plus several more!) are the same person and I'm very confident based on their edits that they're User:Iran Turkey war. The magic goggles have their uses! Best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:35, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) "SCIENTIFIC MARVEL OF THE CENTURY"!! Oh, and....congrats! 75.12% poof!! -- your's aye, The Single Sock of Glen Ord 123 (talk) 20:45, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Cheers Harry. No problems - it livened up a dull time on Sunday when work was not going smoothly! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 22:20, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Ah yes!

P.S. Your tyre pressures are too high for the South. Remember to take them down.

P.P.S. Try Guerlain’s ‘Fleurs des Alpes’ instead of Camay!

I bl**dy loved that thing! Surprised to read that it was a far from unqualified success. Great article.

Is it OK if I make annoying little minor edits or would you rather I stfu or confine myself to its Talk page? Cheers, DBaK (talk) 19:07, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Hi DBaK - glad you liked it - I remember being disappointed first time I read it (the lack of Bond!), but in hindsight it's far more interesting and involved than I remember! Feel free to tweak at will, or comment on the PR page - what ever is easy for you! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 19:29, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you! I will have a look. I claim no expertise in this field (well ... nor any other, really, apart from minor stuff involved with a couple of noisy things) so if I am being stupid, please just revert away! Cheers DBaK (talk) 19:54, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

I hope this finds you well. I just wanted to let you know, in case you didn't see it on your watchlist, that I've made a few additions and edits to the Arthur Conan Doyle bibliography, and expect to have more in the upcoming days. Since this is a featured list and I see you as the major contributor, I'd welcome your letting me know if you have any comments or questions about my edits. Thanks, Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:41, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Hi NYB - All is good here, thanks, and I hope you're also keeping well. I must admit that one had fallen off my watchlist, but your current edits all look good to me. I'll put it back onto watch and see if there are any problems (although I doubt it). If you need anything in terms of resources or have any queries about what I was playing at when I wrote it, feel free to drop me a line. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 21:21, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Is there a way to ask for the RfC on Talk: Fred Sullivan to close? It has been well over a month since the last comment and there is clearly no consensus. I am not well-versed enough in Wikipedia procedures to request it myself. Barbarbarty (talk) 22:46, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Hi Barbarbarty, You can leave a neutral request at WP:RFCL. Although my take is also that there is no consensus, don't hold your breath: some admins will count the votes and 25% to whatever their personal feelings are and close one way. It's not right by any measure, but I've seen it too many times to be surprised by it (and I have seen some absolute shockers in my time!) Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 23:15, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

I think, but OR, that this is Ian Carmichael's old home, at Grosmont, North Yorkshire. And I read, unfortunately in a non-reliable source, that he was cremated and his ashes scattered on the banks of the River Esk. All unusuable for those reasons! But I shall try to get to the FAC. KJP1 (talk) 09:10, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

This image has messed with your page layout! Feel free to delete. KJP1 (talk) 09:11, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Cheers Kevin! (Although before I read your comment I thought you were suggesting I was leading people up the garden path!) Sadly there is nothing in the Fairclough biography about the funeral or ashes scattering, although I don't doubt it for a minute. I'll see if the local press give it a mention - that sort of detail if meat and potatoes to them. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 11:01, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Offtopic comment: looks lovely! DBaK (talk) 11:03, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

It does, doesn't it - you can see why he lived there for 40-odd years and commuted down to studios and stages in the south - SchroCat (talk) 11:12, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Hi SchroCat, as you suggested, I have put up the article Sam Manekshaw for peer review. I believe you are very busy at the moment but I would still request you to join the peer review if possible. Thanks in advance, looking forward to your comments. Matarisvan (talk) 08:07, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Hi SchroCat, well done on the Ian Carmichael article--I was watching the whole process. You're very inspiring, keep up the great work :) 750h+ (talk) 08:20, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you 750h+ - that's very kind of you to say. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 08:46, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

This is to let you know that the above article has been scheduled as today's featured article for 5 March 2024. Please check that the article needs no amendments. Feel free to amend the draft blurb, which can be found at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/March 2024, or to make comments on other matters concerning the scheduling of this article at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/March 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 Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors from two days before the article appears on the Main Page. Thanks and congratulations on your work!—Wehwalt (talk) 16:32, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Cheers Wehwalt. - SchroCat (talk) 17:21, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Hi, just thought I'd let you know that I've decided to give FAC another try and have put Marshlink line up for review. I've solicited feedback by PR but I think it's time to just put it up for review and see what happens. So have at it. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:40, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Hey there SchroCat. I'm seeking urgent assist on the FA nomination of George Town, Penang. Participation has been rather minimal & in spite of the improvement I've been making, one of the mods is about to archive the nomination. Do let me know should you be keen to help. Thanks a bunch! hundenvonPG (talk) 14:28, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Hi HundenvonPenang, I’ll try and get there in the next couple of days. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 17:54, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks SchroCat. Looking forward hundenvonPG (talk) 00:51, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

I'd like to run a SchroCat FA (not a rerun) in April ... do you have a preference? (Blair Peach has been suggested, but that doesn't really fit with the mix I've got so far.) - Dank (push to talk) 18:07, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Hi Dank, I think I’m right in saying The boy Jones, Portland Spy Ring or Spaghetti House siege haven’t been up for their moment of vandalism, “improvements” or hours of subsequent talk page discussions discussions yet! Any of them of use? Cheers. - SchroCat (talk) 18:41, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

I saw The boy Jones and liked it, sounds good. - Dank (push to talk) 18:46, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

No probs, Dank. There's even a draft blurb for you too. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 20:05, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Hi SchroCat, thanks, I saw what you did with archiving rather than deleting on the Talk:Hitler Diaries page. Have read up, and will archive rather than delete in future. Would be nice if wikipedia was as easy as Git.

Wonder if you can help me on the Gerhard Weinberg page? It says Weinberg was under time pressure because he had to get back to teaching his US students. I thought he was taking up a new academic post in Germany, though can't remember where I read that. Left a citation required. Should there be a link from the Gerhard Weinberg page Hitler diaries controversy section to the main article? Corsac Fox Kazakhstan (talk) 13:36, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Hi Corsac Fox Kazakhstan, The only thing I can find on a quick search is pp. 304-305 of this, which refers to him making a quick visit over a weekend and being desperate to get a return flight to continue teaching. That should suffice. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 14:36, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Many thanks, that was the detail I was struggling to recall.

"As it happened, this was the day on which Newsweek’s nominated expert, Gerhard Weinberg, was due to fly to Germany to take up a temporary teaching post in Bonn. Maynard Parker was nevertheless determined to extract an article from him. Weinberg dismissed his last class on the campus at Chapel Hill at 11 a.m."

If he was on a schedule to fulfill his teaching commitments it would have been in Bonn, not Chapel Hill, North Carolina.

As the timing of his start in Bonn is not given, I think I will just remove speculation of why he might have been rushed. Though I think I'll leave it till I'm clear-headed tomorrow, having started on the pre-rugby beers ;-) Corsac Fox Kazakhstan (talk) 15:24, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Hi, Totally agree with your comments- back to working on it for a while before taking it back to FAC.

Just wanted to mention that the “Doctor in the house” article is actually used a few times- it’s just under a different title for some reason? I can only see it titled as “‘I ain’t no Bambi’: How a paediatrician ended up in politics”- but that is used a few times. On rereading it I realised it has good info about her parents which id taken out at GA review as I didn’t have a source so thank you for reminding me it existed! GraziePrego (talk) 21:14, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Hi GraziePrego, no probs. Just looking at the two articles, one was in the paper and one online. They are nearly the same, but they obviously went with a different title for the online version for some reason. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 21:39, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Hi SchroCat, sorry to bother you again, but could you possibly take a look at this sandbox? I want to bring it to FAC in the near future but don't think the prose is currently up to FA standard. Would appreciate some prose tips or where I could improve. Best, 750h+ (talk) 00:04, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

OK. I don't normally look earlier in the process than PR, and I have a couple of FACs lined up to review, but I'll try and get to it shortly, Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 21:40, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Oh, sorry about that. If you have something to do then I don't mind waiting until PR. The page is about finished so I can wait. 750h+ (talk) 23:37, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

So you're the one who helped bring her article to FA. My brother loves her whole bibliography. Just stopping by to say a small hello, nice to meet you. The Night Watch (talk) 14:37, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Hi The Night Watch, many thanks. I can't take all the credit: Tim riley probably did more work on it than I did. Nice to meet you too - and congrats on your recent RfA. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 14:46, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Hey. Hope you've been well. So I'm a little late to the thing, but I wanted to commend you for standing up for yourself after an innocuous request for more clerking by bureaucrats at that RfA, which is clearly needed, was met by sheer rudeness on Xaosflux's part. With not even an apology for doing so. I don't know why everyone seems to be walking on eggshells around them.

Well, I'm not gonna do that. Xaosflux, if you find too many hats to be a burden, then I'm sorry, but that's a you-problem. Opt out from whatever, but don't snap on users who are asking for clerking in good faith, which again, seems to be a pressing need. Especially when bureaucrats are not flooded with requests, do not do that much in the day-to-day. El_C 21:47, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks El_C. I don't know why they reacted that way: it was a good faith (and reasonable) request, made in a good faith manner. I wasn't quite sure why it received the response it did, but never mind - worse things happen at sea! Cheers, and I hope you're keeping well. - SchroCat (talk) 22:00, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

A few other TFAs fell through for April ... I guess this looks good to me to run on the anniversary of the death. Thoughts? Blurb is in the usual place. - Dank (push to talk) 03:12, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 05:10, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Hello SchroCat, I wanted to let you know that I nominated the article Knowledge for featured article status, see Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Knowledge/archive1. There has been little response so far and I was wondering whether you might be interested in taking a look. If you have the time, I would appreciate your comments. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:02, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

No problems. I'll see what I can do. - SchroCat (talk) 11:51, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Good article nominations | March 2024 Backlog Drive
March 2024 Backlog Drive: On 1 March, a one-month backlog drive for good article nominations will begin. Barnstars will be awarded. Interested in taking part? You can sign up here or ask questions here.
You're receiving this message because you have reviewed or nominated a good article in the last year.

(t · c) buidhe 02:39, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

I am very sorry SchroCat. I see that I have offended you, and my edits were not helpful here or on the article. An editor has sent me a message on my talk page about WP:OWN. I have written quite a few articles about coins, and gold and silver discoveries and collections. So I was attracted to the article. Please accept my apology for any boneheaded or snarky comments and edits. Great work on the article. Bruxton (talk) 18:20, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. - SchroCat (talk) 20:22, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Wonderful illustrations and research on the great gold robbery. Fantastic pacing and prose, brilliant work. No Swan So Fine (talk) 10:48, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Many thanks No Swan So Fine. It was a fun one to write too. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 20:03, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

I have noticed that a certain user who you may be already well-acquainted with has again used the Village Pump to link to the latest discussion occurring surrounding links in infoboxes. Is there really nothing that can be done about this? It just is a bit cringe-worthy how they constantly act as an impartial observer on this issue when I have never seen them find an instance where an infobox is not warranted. Barbarbarty (talk) 06:22, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi Barbarbarty, Although that IB warrior uses the pump inappropriately when advertising discussions on individual IBs, for the first time ever, they are probably advertising appropriately this time, as it’s a general discussion about the policy. Aside from that, I agree entirely with everything you say, and would probably go further, but they’re too insignificant to bother getting wound up about, and there is only such much bad faith and crass behaviour I can be bothered to deal with. - SchroCat (talk) 06:50, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Hey there! This is to let you know that phase I of the 2024 requests for adminship (RfA) review is now no longer accepting new proposals. Lots of proposals remain open for discussion, and the current round of review looks to be on a good track towards making significant progress towards improving RfA's structure and environment. I'd like to give my heartfelt thanks to everyone who has given us their idea for change to make RfA better, and the same to everyone who has given the necessary feedback to improve those ideas. The following proposals remain open for discussion:

• Proposal 2, initiated by HouseBlaster, provides for the addition of a text box at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship reminding all editors of our policies and enforcement mechanisms around decorum.
• Proposals 3 and 3b, initiated by Barkeep49 and Usedtobecool, respectively, provide for trials of discussion-only periods at RfA. The first would add three extra discussion-only days to the beginning, while the second would convert the first two days to discussion-only.
• Proposal 5, initiated by SilkTork, provides for a trial of RfAs without threaded discussion in the voting sections.
• Proposals 6c and 6d, initiated by BilledMammal, provide for allowing users to be selected as provisional admins for a limited time through various concrete selection criteria and smaller-scale vetting.
• Proposal 7, initiated by Lee Vilenski, provides for the "General discussion" section being broken up with section headings.
• Proposal 9b, initiated by Reaper Eternal, provides for the requirement that allegations of policy violation be substantiated with appropriate links to where the alleged misconduct occured.
• Proposals 12c, 21, and 21b, initiated by City of Silver, Ritchie333, and HouseBlaster, respectively, provide for reducing the discretionary zone, which currently extends from 65% to 75%. The first would reduce it 65%–70%, the second would reduce it to 50%–66%, and the third would reduce it to 60%–70%.
• Proposal 13, initiated by Novem Lingaue, provides for periodic, privately balloted admin elections.
• Proposal 14, initiated by Kusma, provides for the creation of some minimum suffrage requirements to cast a vote.
• Proposals 16 and 16c, initiated by Thebiguglyalien and Soni, respectively, provide for community-based admin desysop procedures. 16 would desysop where consensus is established in favor at the administrators' noticeboard; 16c would allow a petition to force reconfirmation.
• Proposal 16e, initiated by BilledMammal, would extend the recall procedures of 16 to bureaucrats.
• Proposal 17, initiated by SchroCat, provides for "on-call" admins and 'crats to monitor RfAs for decorum.
• Proposal 18, initiated by theleekycauldron, provides for lowering the RfB target from 85% to 75%.
• Proposal 24, initiated by SportingFlyer, provides for a more robust alternate version of the optional candidate poll.
• Proposal 25, initiated by Femke, provides for the requirement that nominees be extended-confirmed in addition to their nominators.
• Proposal 27, initiated by WereSpielChequers, provides for the creation of a training course for admin hopefuls, as well as periodic retraining to keep admins from drifting out of sync with community norms.
• Proposal 28, initiated by HouseBlaster, tightens restrictions on multi-part questions.

To read proposals that were closed as unsuccessful, please see Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase I/Closed proposals. You are cordially invited once again to participate in the open discussions; when phase I ends, phase II will review the outcomes of trial proposals and refine the implementation details of other proposals. Another notification will be sent out when this phase begins, likely with the first successful close of a major proposal. Happy editing! theleekycauldron (talk • she/her), via:

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:53, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi SchroCat :) I'm looking for people to interview here. Feel free to pass if you're not interested. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 07:02, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Hello, I have brought this article to a third FAC if you want to leave any comments again please? K. Peake 13:36, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

The article is back at FAC now, would you care to leave comments please? --K. Peake 13:37, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

• Hi Kyle Peake, I'm having a short break from FAC for the moment, so I am unlikely to be able to assist, but if the nomination is still ongoing when I come back, I'll try and have a look then. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 14:23, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

SchroCat, if you are free, I'd appreciate a prose review of Narwhal, preferably on my talk page. If not, I understand. Thanks for your time. Wolverine XI ^{(talk to me)} 07:33, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi Wolverine XI, I'm having a short break from FAC and all reviewing for the moment, so I am unlikely to be able to assist, but if if you're still looking when I come back, I'll try and have a look then. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 08:37, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

I understand. Wolverine XI ^{(talk to me)} 10:40, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi, SchroCat. I note you have concerns about the image I uploaded to the Aberfan disaster article. I can appreciate the U.S./U.K. copyright concerns, but the image was published in Indianapolis on the same day (as linked), the licensing tag speaks its own volumes, and Wiki's HQ are in San Francisco? I am sure you understand my sincere concerns here if something is act. wrong. Under the Technical requirements section of the Copyright notice article I read and follow this:

"Under the 1909 law, in effect until 1978, the notice for printed literary, musical, or dramatics works had to contain the name of the author, the year, and "Copyright" or "Copr." Other works did not need to include the year and could use the © symbol. In books or other printed works, the notice were required to have appeared on the title page or the page immediately following the title page." (The chapter immediately above does raise eyebrows, however.)

Please don't think I'm being defensive here; I'm just concerned that if something is wrong, then the guidelines I am following are missing something? Could be a grey/gray area.

Regarding the image you originally added in 2018, I agree it shows more detail of the devastation, but couldn't find as good a quality image displaying the range as the original Mirror you added. :)

Regards,

Kieronoldham (talk) 20:12, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi Kieronoldham, thanks for the note. I've asked Nikkimaria to have a look at it - she's probably the best licensing person on the site, so she'll be able to let us know if this is okay or not. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 20:19, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Thx, SchroCat. I am sure you appreciate my observation that if something is amiss, I would like to know what it is. Best regards. :)--Kieronoldham (talk) 20:27, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi Kieronoldham, this is from Nikkimaria about the image:

the new version is credited to the AP, which makes things a bit more complicated than that tagging would suggest - per Library of Congress "works published after 1963 and unpublished photographs in the collection may be protected even if they were not registered with the Copyright Office". From what I've seen Commons has typically deleted such images under the precautionary principle citing that LOC guidance.

I think that as it's an agency photo and given Commons's record on the points above, we need to tag it and let the discussion play out there to determine if it's OK or not. I'll return the original image to the slot for now, but if Commons say it's OK, then we can always swap back later. Does that sound OK? - SchroCat (talk) 09:08, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Sounds fine to me, SchroCat. Whichever way consensus goes is going to be intriguing to me. I think this is a bit of a gray area. Good to know this for future ref, though.--Kieronoldham (talk) 13:40, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

I see no one has edited the blurb yet to remove "thief". I don't have a preference among the 3 or 4 options, but would "burglar" be less POV and more acceptable for you? - Dank (push to talk) 18:59, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Hi Dan, it’s sort of OK, but I think we’re probably better off without pigeon-holing him. It’s not that either thief or burglar are wrong (he was a burglar), but that’s not why he was notable: it was because he was breaking into the palace that he hit the headlines, so I think it’s best that’s the key ‘hit’ of the opening line. I hadn’t changed it as I was waiting for dying to chip in.

If people insist on giving him an “activity” in the first sentence, then stalker would be my first choice, followed by burglar as second choice, but at the end of the day, I’m happy for whatever you and dying agree to do. Cheers. - SchroCat (talk) 21:06, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Okay. When I first looked at the blurb it said "was a [or an English] teenager" ... that didn't seem right to me because he wasn't (for most of his life). But how about "was a teenager in 1838 when he" or "was an English teenager" ... does that work? - Dank (push to talk) 21:49, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

How about ‘Edward Jones (7 April 1824 – c. 1895), also known as "the boy Jones", became notorious for breaking into Buckingham Palace several times between 1838 and 1841’? - SchroCat (talk) 22:09, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

I have no objection. A lot of people say that the first sentence of a bio blurb has to be "[person] is/was a [something]"; the teenager language might come in useful if they do. - Dank (push to talk) 22:54, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Sounds good to me! It looks like dying has altered the blurb already, so I think this is all now sorted? Let me know if you need my awkwardness again! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 06:23, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Always. All sorted. - Dank (push to talk) 12:37, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Well done that ed. It's great to see it all elevated. Cheers! Anna (talk) 21:23, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Many thanks Anna, that's very good of you to say. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 21:33, 6 April 2024 (UTC)