This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Season's Greetings | ||
Wishing you a Happy Holiday Season, and all best wishes for the New Year! Hafspajen ( talk) 11:53, 23 December 2015 (UTC) |
Happy Christmas! | ||
Have a happy holiday season. May the year ahead be productive and happy. John ( talk) 18:37, 24 December 2015 (UTC) |
On 29 December 2015, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Isabella Beeton, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Mrs Beeton became used as a generic name for "an authority on cooking and domestic subjects"? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Isabella Beeton. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, live views, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page. |
Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 00:01, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
Martinevans123
Santas Grotto ... sends you warmest wishes for a:
"Nadolig Llawen a Blwyddyn Newydd Dda"
May the true spirit of Christmas bless you with warmth and peace! ... And
"Mele Kalikimaka" (Hawaiian Merry Christmas)!!
Wishing you a Charlie Russell Christmas! 🎄 | |
Best wishes for your Christmas Is all you get from me 'Cause I ain't no Santa Claus Don't own no Christmas tree. But if wishes was health and money I'd fill your buck-skin poke Your doctor would go hungry An' you never would be broke." —C.M. Russell, Christmas greeting 1914. Montanabw (talk) |
Thank you for your contributions to this encyclopedia using 21st century technology. I hope you don't get any unneccessary
blisters. |
SchroCat,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable
New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. –
Davey2010
Merry Xmas / Happy New Year 10:44, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
There has been a mass (or should that be "mess"?) of SPA/IP edits at List of James Bond films, including the addition of quite possibly the most horrendous infobox you have possibly ever seen. I have started a discussion at the talk page, although I don't think there is much to discuss, frankly. Anyway I am giving you the heads up because I think I'm going to have my hands full. Nothing like kicking of a new year with a juicy edit war... Betty Logan ( talk) 08:09, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
I was only trying to put up to date information plus I wasn't completely done with it yet. Why doesn't the 007 franchise have an the infobox, but oher franchises do? I used the Fast and Furious one as a template to put the Bond info in there. ( 162.206.28.243 ( talk) 20:35, 31 December 2015 (UTC))
Can you please not undo my edits on my user page please. I am trying to stay away from the mess of the past and from you guys. Also, the infobox is now on my user page so I don't have to go to other articles and interfere with them. I also know alot about Bond and I am a fan of the series. That user page belongs to me and I created it for a purpose. Thanks ( Mi600740 ( talk) 03:57, 2 January 2016 (UTC))
Again, please leave my user page alone, Thanks ( Mi600740 ( talk) 08:05, 2 January 2016 (UTC))
The article Isabella Beeton you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Isabella Beeton 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 Dr. Blofeld -- Dr. Blofeld ( talk) 22:43, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
SchroCat,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable
New Year, old amigo, and thanks for your good and careful contributions to Wikipedia! --
Tenebrae (
talk) 01:02, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
My email is playing silly buggers, and I think you may not have had a brief note I sent a day or so concurring that the PR seems to have run its course. On to FAC once I've done that one fact-check at the British Library! Tim riley talk 17:17, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
Women in Music | |
---|---|
|
-- Ipigott ( talk) 16:29, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Isabella Beeton may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot ( talk) 14:43, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
could you remove this page from Category:Pages using duplicate arguments in template calls. I tried to do it for you, by removing the duplicate "Author = ???", but apparently, you didn't like the fix. thank you. Frietjes ( talk) 14:43, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
The Scholes book is simply a collection of extracts from The Musical Times, and the one on his p. 493 is taken from the December 1929 issue, page 1097. Scholes missed out the envoi about AWK's own feelings, which I think is rather a pity. It's definitely worth a mention in the life section, I think, but it's your call, natch. Tim riley talk 13:36, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
Could you spare a moment to visit Wikipedia:Peer review/Handel's lost Hamburg operas/archive1? Not for the purpose of providing a review (although you are most welcome) but to comment on an oddity that arises at the end of Tim's review. Very strange. Brianboulton ( talk) 21:47, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
Handel's lost Hamburg operas has found its way to FAC, where further wise observations will be welcomed. Brianboulton ( talk) 00:17, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
A certain old thespian is currently waiting in the wings here for any comments or criticisms. I would be much appreciative for any thoughts offered, if you have the time. Many thanks. Cassianto Talk 00:24, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
Hi SchroCat, being a FL delegate, I wanted to have your opinion regarding two Madonna lists, List of songs recorded by Madonna and List of unreleased songs recorded by Madonna. The former I am already modifying for FLC, however my concern is should the latter be also merged to the former? Because the latter contains many WP:UNDUE and Non-notable content which borderlines on fanpedia. Please let me know your thoughts on this so that I can progress accordingly. If you think the latter can exist as independent article then I can modify it like List of unreleased songs recorded by Michael Jackson which is a Featured list now. What do you think? — Indian:BIO [ ChitChat ] 12:03, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
I don't believe that it is ever stated in the film that the rocket being launched was manned. M just says it they were 'launching a rocket round the moon.' I could be wrong which it why I didn't revise what you wrote. If I am just let me know. SonOfThornhill ( talk) 15:48, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
Hi. Hope you're well. I've replied to your source review. Thanks. Cowlibob ( talk) 18:29, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
The Barnstar of Good Humor | |
I love the quote on your User page. I always liked Mark Twain. :)
From, Ilovebeaniebabies8804! ( talk) 00:27, 12 February 2016 (UTC) |
Thanks. Hope I didn't seem 'terse'. I'm aware of some sentences meandering slightly on the article. I just note some editors don't have neutral mindsets, and valuable info. can be lost in mass reverts. K.S. -- Kieronoldham ( talk) 21:57, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
...has been started here. Thanks once again for all you help. Cassianto Talk 17:19, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
Looks like the media has jumped the gun on the current "Daniel Craig quits Bond" story. The Independent reported that he was quitting Bond to take a part in a new TV series, but then "updated" the article with "The Independent has learnt that a decision on whether Craig will return as Bond has not been reached, but if he does appear in Purity it does not necessarily mean he will not be back to play Bond.". Either way the Jams Bond articles are going to take a battering today with all of this unconfirmed speculation. I have already had to remove some from the Spectre article so I'm just giving you the heads up. Betty Logan ( talk) 12:12, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
Hi SchroCat. Per WP:TFA oddities, multiple FAs have run in a single blurb on four occasions in the last few years, and one of those did have three FAs. I think the idea of featuring three Barrymores at once is fascinating and would encourage you to explore how the formatting works. TFL has never done something like this before, but I see no reason why it couldn't be done. Giants2008 ( Talk) 23:22, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
Please may I urge you to reconsider. -- Dweller ( talk) 10:51, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
When you have a moment, could you look in at the peer review and see if you have any comments? Best,-- Wehwalt ( talk) 15:24, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
Books & Bytes
Issue 15, December-January 2016
by
The Interior (
talk ·
contribs),
Ocaasi (
talk ·
contribs),
Sadads (
talk ·
contribs),
Nikkimaria (
talk ·
contribs),
UY Scuti (
talk ·
contribs)
The Interior via MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 19:20, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
Having thought about it overnight, although I still oppose mainpaging that article on the April Fool's Day page, I can understand why you objected to the tone of my comments, and I apologize for that. Regards, Newyorkbrad ( talk) 16:02, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
Hi Gavin, hope you're well. If you have a few minutes I have Mortara case up at FAC here—a 19th-century cause célèbre that captured the attention of much of Europe and America for a few years. Any comments would be gratefully received. Cheers, — Cliftonian (talk) 20:03, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
After weeks of reading and writing, Brian and I have got GBS up for peer review, and you are hereby cordially invited to wade in. Tim riley talk 15:44, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
Glad you struck this. Thank you. -- Dweller ( talk) Become old fashioned! 22:29, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello. As advised, I seek dispute resolution regarding Disraeli’s assessment, available here: /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard and you are invited to provide your summary. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.16.1.254 ( talk) 17:34, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
Hope you don't mind. Collieries (and cotton mills) are my "thing" and on my watchlist. I'm always pleased to see articles on them improved. J3Mrs ( talk) 09:59, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
J3Mrs You're welcome to contribute towards WP:WikiProject Wales/Awaken the Dragon and tackle some collieries to go towards it. There's some listed as core articles in the economy section of Wikipedia:WikiProject Wales/Awaken the Dragon/Core articles. If contests and prizes aren't your thing you could always just do a an article or two like SchroCat and just be a "participant" in the overall editathon. Entries are welcome between now and end of April.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:01, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
Hey SchroCat,
Do you mind taking a look at the Spectre talk page? I am questioning the continued inclusion of the film's censorship in India, because I think that it has very little relevance to the article; the way I see it, it amounts to "some users on Twitter were upset that a few seconds were cut", and I have noticed a trend over the past few years where the Indian point of view has been heavily emphasised; 2013 Indian Grand Prix was an excellent example.
However, my attempts at restarting the discussion have been stymied by SonOfThornhill, who refuses to let any discussion take place on the grounds that "a consensus already exists". Worse, he sits on the talk page and responds to everything immediately, cutting others out of the argument before they have a chance to join.
So can you please take a look and tell me what you think? Prisonermonkeys ( talk) 06:12, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
Ever heard of it? Discussion at Talk:James_Bond#Spy-fi requires your wisdom. Betty Logan ( talk) 22:17, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Senghenydd colliery disaster 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 Dr. Blofeld -- Dr. Blofeld ( talk) 09:40, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
The article Senghenydd colliery disaster you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Senghenydd colliery disaster 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 Dr. Blofeld -- Dr. Blofeld ( talk) 13:42, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
The Civility Barnstar | |
For setting a good example and maintaining civility. — Calvin999 11:45, 20 March 2016 (UTC) |
Hi Schro. How does the TFA text look? - Dank ( push to talk) 19:23, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for this. Things got a bit confused there. I had gone through the sources on that article checking various things (not everything, but quite a few things) and made a whole batch of corrections here. That version of the article had 2010 in both places: [1], [2]. That got changed from 2010 to 2009 in this edit. It stayed that way until the introduction got condensed with the ref put back in here. It should be 2009, not 2010 (I am pretty sure of this). I'll put it back to 2009. Talking of source checking, I noticed you did that for the Bernard Shaw article - is there an easier way to check the linking from citation to the full reference works, or is it just a case of clicking every link to make sure it works? I didn't mind doing that for the Pillar article, but it must be difficult for an article like Bernard Shaw with over 300 references. I have a vague memory that there is a script or gadget for this sort of thing. Carcharoth ( talk) 01:54, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
I've closed the PR on Nelson's Pillar, and sent the old boy along to FAC. Any further cmts welcome there. Brianboulton ( talk) 22:35, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
Has there been plans to nominate this article for GAN yet? Because its been well over a month since its grace period ended and I will have to take the topic its part of to be reassessed. GamerPro64 06:13, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
Hi GamerPro64, Of course – no problems. cheers – SchroCat ( talk) 07:49, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
I have just uploaded File:Sodavies.jpg, for the S. O. Davies article, under a fair use rationale. Unfortunately. since changing my laptop I've lost my image adjustment software, and the pic needs some tidying. Specifically, the lettering at bottom right needs to be removed, with perhaps some narrowing of the image. Is it possible for you to find a few minutes to do this? All for the Welsh cause... Brianboulton ( talk) 23:48, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
Hey, I nominated Kalki Koechlin's article for WP:FA. I saw that you have previously been associated with other Bollywood articles, so your comments would be appreciated. If you find spare time, would you mind taking a look? Thank you! Numerounovedant Talk 18:24, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
RE: (cur | prev) 20:57, 2 April 2016 SchroCat (talk | contribs) . . (18,331 bytes) (-10,980) . . (Reverted to revision 713238384 by SchroCat: Please read WP:BRD (when your edit is reverted, DISCUSS on the talk page, rather than edit war. This is not just about unsourced information: this is about the formatting of much of what has been added, w...) (undo | thank)
Hi SchroCat, Sorry for the confusion here - as you can tell we are new to Wikipedia. Anyway, many thanks for your comments concerning the Royal Variety Performance page. The sections that we deleted were very in-accurate so we replaced them with accurate wording and correct information. For your information, we work officially for the Royal Variety Performance and the Royal Variety Charity in an official capacity, so the information that we substituted is 100% accurate. As I say, we are however, new to Wikipedia, so we now understand the importance of doing many references, so we have started again and included loads of references. We have deleted, for now, everything that we have added without references, so we hope this is now ok? Please let us know if not, as we want to make the page as informative and as accurate as possible. Can you please let me know what the formatting problems are? Would be very much appreciated. Looking forward to your advice. Many thanks -- Rodeocowboy36 ( talk) 21:16, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
Well, that was awkward ... I did see that you felt insulted by me, and normally I'd respond more quickly, but I didn't want to keep stoking the April Fool's discussion, because I expected it to be a disaster, and it was. Now that it's over ... I'm not going to apologize for insulting you because I didn't insult you, I carefully worded my comment as an attempt to understand and reflect what other people were saying. My thoughts and feelings really were the opposite ... I didn't want to attack you or your article, I wanted to protect it from the yearly circus on April Fool's. I hope we can be friends again. - Dank ( push to talk) 13:25, 3 April 2016 (UTC) Well ... perhaps I can apologize for a lack of cleverness in my second comment, but I didn't mean anything by it, other than I couldn't think of a reply that would help. - Dank ( push to talk) 13:31, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
RE: (cur | prev) 20:57, 2 April 2016 SchroCat (talk | contribs) . . (18,331 bytes) (-10,980) . . (Reverted to revision 713238384 by SchroCat: Please read WP:BRD (when your edit is reverted, DISCUSS on the talk page, rather than edit war. This is not just about unsourced information: this is about the formatting of much of what has been added, w...) (undo | thank)
Hi SchroCat, Sorry for the confusion here - as you can tell we are new to Wikipedia. Anyway, many thanks for your comments concerning the Royal Variety Performance page. The sections that we deleted were very in-accurate so we replaced them with accurate wording and correct information. For your information, we work officially for the Royal Variety Performance and the Royal Variety Charity in an official capacity, so the information that we substituted is 100% accurate. As I say, we are however, new to Wikipedia, so we now understand the importance of doing many references, so we have started again and included loads of references. We have deleted, for now, everything that we have added without references, so we hope this is now ok? Please let us know if not, as we want to make the page as informative and as accurate as possible. Can you please let me know what the formatting problems are? Would be very much appreciated. Looking forward to your advice. Many thanks -- Rodeocowboy36 ( talk) 21:16, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
Well, that was awkward ... I did see that you felt insulted by me, and normally I'd respond more quickly, but I didn't want to keep stoking the April Fool's discussion, because I expected it to be a disaster, and it was. Now that it's over ... I'm not going to apologize for insulting you because I didn't insult you, I carefully worded my comment as an attempt to understand and reflect what other people were saying. My thoughts and feelings really were the opposite ... I didn't want to attack you or your article, I wanted to protect it from the yearly circus on April Fool's. I hope we can be friends again. - Dank ( push to talk) 13:25, 3 April 2016 (UTC) Well ... perhaps I can apologize for a lack of cleverness in my second comment, but I didn't mean anything by it, other than I couldn't think of a reply that would help. - Dank ( push to talk) 13:31, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
Hello Gavin, hope you're well. If you have the time and are interested I have William Harper up for FAC here. If you thought the UDI affair was something with Smith in charge, just try to imagine what might have happened if this chap had been PM of Rhodesia instead. Any thoughts you may have would be very much appreciated. Cheers, — Cliftonian (talk) 09:49, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
The Special Barnstar | |
For your effort to research the Senghenydd colliery disaster and promote it to FA status, the first of the Dragon contest. A hearty well done! ♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:44, 8 April 2016 (UTC) |
Thanks Doc – much appreciated! I've enjoyed the contest, and an FL and an FA aren't too bad! Cheers – SchroCat ( talk) 19:56, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
Indeed, though still 3 weeks left to get Roald Dahl himself up to GA status ;-)♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:27, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
Even if it was just a 3kb prose expansion and cleanup that would count on the list. Each one doesn't have to be an FA haha!♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:48, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
Hi SchroCat. As was previously discussed at the TFL submissions page, I've decided to choose Rudolph Valentino filmography as TFL for May 6, his birthday. The blurb is here, in case you want to tweak anything. Cheers, Giants2008 ( Talk) 02:14, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
After making her article a GA, I have opened a peer review for a possible FAC. If you have some time, consider reviewing it, Wikipedia:Peer review/Emma Stone/archive1. ツ FrB.TG ( talk) 17:21, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
Books & Bytes
Issue 16, February-March 2016
by
The Interior (
talk ·
contribs),
UY Scuti (
talk ·
contribs)
The Interior via MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 15:16, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
— Calvin999 20:00, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
My contribution to the April Welsh project, S.O. Davies, is now at peer review. Can you spare it a few moments of your time? Brianboulton ( talk) 16:20, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
Hi Schro, just giving you the heads up that our spy-fi spammer is back. Category:Spy-Fi films was deleted last month per Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2016_March_13#Category:Spy-Fi_films but Taeyebaar recreated it within days. He has created several other "spy-fi" categories that I have nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2016_April_17#Category:Spy-Fi (should you wish to contribute comments). He has also started spamming the Bond articles again too which is now on my watchlist but I am not going to engage with him on the articles (at least not yet) since it will be easier to tackle the spamming at source i.e. just get the categories deleted and let a bot do the clean-up. I think we need to nip this in the bud though. Betty Logan ( talk) 21:24, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
As it happens, I also lack the bit and therefore will have difficulty closing the nom. I'll leave a note on FLC talk, and hopefully a friendly admin will take care of this for us. Giants2008 ( Talk) 01:16, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
Now at FAC. Heads-up as requested. Brianboulton ( talk) 19:49, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
Hi Schro, could you have a quick look at some of these alterations. The change from "although" to "though" especially is bothering me. I keep saying it to myself and "although" sounds more right but I am wondering if this is a Brit/US English thing? Obviously I don't want to revert something to the incorrect form so I thought I'd get you to look it over first. Betty Logan ( talk) 06:38, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
The stamp was issued in 1968; all US postage stemps before 1978 are in the public domain, so the license on this is correct. But here's a link for more details on the stamp so the rest of the template can be filled out at Commons. We hope ( talk) 15:43, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
You can use the link as a source because there's a lot of information at it.
Excellent, thanks: now updated. - SchroCat ( talk) 19:23, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
Let me try to track down the trailers at a place other than YouTube or Internet Archive and view them. Have seen some trailers at both places with no copyright notices, but when you see the same trailer at someplace such as IMDB and the like, you'll find the trailer with the notice intact. Disney and his company were and are sticklers for copyright notices and renewals. Let's see what turns up when I find & view the trailers. We hope ( talk) 14:35, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
Many thanks We hope! 50% isn't a bad ratio, especially as I'm not too sad to lose the Cinderella one - it didn't add too much to the article. - SchroCat ( talk) 19:44, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
Hi SchroCat. I was wondering whether you still think you might be able to peer review Title TK. I guess it was only 8 days ago that you said you'd try to do it, but it seems like such a long time to me. ;-) I really respect your writing and editing abilities, and your experience at FAC. I'm sure that the article would benefit immensely from any feedback you could give. Thank you. Moisejp ( talk) 02:48, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for your review of the article at its PR. The article is now at FAC, should you choose to leave further comments. Cheers, FrB.TG ( talk) 08:00, 28 April 2016 (UTC)