User talk:SchroCat

Please leave a message; I'll reply here.

SchroCat Home ♦ Contributions Your GA nomination of Elizabeth Alkin The article Elizabeth Alkin you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Elizabeth Alkin for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of SNUGGUMS -- SNUGGUMS (talk) 21:21, 7 June 2016 (UTC) Sam Waterston on screen and stage Hello! I looked at your contributions history and have re-nominated the list again. Do you think you could review it if you're still interested? Thanks. Arbero (talk) 15:39, 10 June 2016 (UTC) Hi Arbero, I'll pop along shortly to have a look. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 09:56, 13 June 2016 (UTC) DYK for Elizabeth Alkin On 13 June 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Elizabeth Alkin, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Elizabeth Alkin—a publisher, nurse and spy for the Parliamentarian forces during the English Civil War—was nicknamed Parliament Joan? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Elizabeth Alkin. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Elizabeth Alkin), 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. — Maile (talk) 12:11, 13 June 2016 (UTC) To the man who works miracles From your mysterious access to old broadcast records, is it possible for you to confirm whether, on 15 February 1995, there was a Radio 3 talk programme called, perhaps, "I am all imagination", featuring Michael Tippett with Natalie Wheen and some others? I'd be grateful for any help. Brianboulton (talk) 18:17, 14 June 2016 (UTC) Hi Brian, these are the 'appearances' of Tippett on Radio 3 that February and this was him broadcasting on 15 February. I've found this, broadcast from 20 February with Wheen interviewing MT. Are any of these what you're looking for, or is there something different you had in mind? Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 19:17, 14 June 2016 (UTC) Thanks for your swift reply. Someone has added stuff to the Michael Tippett article, and cited part of it to "Tippett, (and others) with Natalie Wheen, I am all imagination, radio broadcast (BBC Radio 3, 15 February 1995)". I wanted to check that this broadcast had taken place. It seems that the contributor has elided two separate broadcasts, on 15th and 20th February, but that is probably the least of his/her sins. Other details are vaguely cited, e.g. lacking page refs, or not cited at all. And a lot of the added text is copied word for word from sources (which I happen to have). So not much of this extra material is likely to survive. All in a day's work. Brianboulton (talk) 22:23, 14 June 2016 (UTC) Books & Bytes - Issue 17 The Wikipedia Library Books & Bytes Issue 17, April-May 2016 by The Interior, Ocaasi, UY Scuti, Sadads, and Nikkimaria New donations this month - a German-language legal resource Wikipedia referals to academic citations - news from CrossRef and WikiCite2016 New library stats, WikiCon news, a bot to reveal Open Access versions of citations, and more! Read the full newsletter The Interior via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:36, 16 June 2016 (UTC) Cn "Elias, the son of a potter, worked as a tailor's presser at a clothes factory, while Elsie, who was from a family of shipwrights, worked as a seamstress. " this was previously also backed by the Higham book. I don't think this is all verifiable in ELiot which was why I marked it.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:59, 18 June 2016 (UTC) Doc, I thought it was? Add the ODNB as a ref: they carry the same info (or leave it to me to possibly add in about 30 mins). – SchroCat (talk) 13:08, 18 June 2016 (UTC) OK, ah yes, ODNB, that wasn't a source I consulted, didn't even occur to me to look there when researching this!♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:14, 18 June 2016 (UTC) Valid reversion of Cary Grant Hi, SchroCat. Shotgun reverting my valid and good faith edits at Cary Grant was uncool. I have rolledback my edits. You may introduce your edits discretely and based on MoS, guidelines, and policy. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 08:45, 19 June 2016 (UTC) 1. Please try and look at the edit honestly: this was no "shotgun" edit, and many of the small changes you made were retained; 2. Just because something is "good faith" does not automatically make them either an improvement, or mean they are untouchable to future alteration; 3. Your knee-jerk reversion was edit warring. please read WP:BRD and use the talk page; 4. Do not tell me how to edit. I edited appropriately, taking into account the changes you made, and the several changes made by others subsequently. 5. I stand by all the changes I made in that edit. Whether you like them or not is not my concern. The Grant talk page is where you should be heading for this, not complaining about what is, from my point of view, a perfectly valid edit I made in good faith to undo some of the changes you made in a large shotgun edit of your own. - SchroCat (talk) 08:51, 19 June 2016 (UTC) Hi, SchroCat. I always look at things honestly. I did not knee-jerk revert anything. I reverted my valid edits. You reverted all my edits. I have not edit warred. You have. Please do not be dismissive of my edits. My edits are no bigger or smaller than yours. I put a lot of thought into each one. You reverted all my edits then walked on the page so my only choice was throw your baby out with the bathwater. I am sorry about that. That is the way Wikipedia is set up. They do not have a way to check-in, check-out pages to avoid edit conflicts, etc. I did not change any content to speak of in my edit. I am going to put my stuff back and I will respect your stuff if you respect mine. If you shotgun revert mine, and then walk on the page, I will have to throw the baby out with the bathwater again to restore my shotgunned. WP:BRD is an overcited essay, and it is marked as optional. Please do not use it as an excuse to unnecessarily remove my edits scot-free. Do not shotgun revert things. Edit discretely; preserve the good; excise what you think is bad. We are all trying to improve the page. Keep that in mind. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 09:26, 19 June 2016 (UTC) 1. "You reverted all my edits": Nope. Check again, and you'll see why I said you need to look at the edit honestly. (As a rough comparison, your edit added 5,052 character, my partial revert took out 1,235 characters). 2. "I have not edit warred": yes, you did 3. "I did not change any content to speak of in my edit": so why make the pointless changes? We are not bidden to include spaces in title headings, or within the citation template, so if the editors before you have not included them, why do you have to add them? There's no need, so don't do it; 4. "I am going to put my stuff back": (aside from the fact that's more pointless edit warring) what, the pointless spaces that do not need to be there? Are you really that petty that you need to add them just for the sake of it? Ask yourself if it changes the reader's understanding or enjoyment. If not, leave it to the judgement of the people overhauling the article. If you can't help yourself but somehow have to make such a pointless change, don't whine if it gets reverted because you've edit warred without going through the talk page; 5. "restore my shotgunned": as I've pointed out twice, your edit was not "shotgunned". Look at the edit and try and be honest with yourself please; 5. "preserve the good; excise what you think is bad." I did. Perhaps – especially given the number of editors who have questioned what you are doing – you should try and LISTEN to what's being told to you. I'm not sure whether it's a case of WP:ICANTHEARYOU oder WP:COMPETENCE we're dealing with here, but you are being unnecessarily disruptive in forcing such a minor issue for so little benefit to the article, to your fellow editors and to yourself. It may be best for you to step away from the Grant article and develop something yourself where you can put all the unnecessary spaces in that you want. I really don't want to continue this, but unless you want to post an acceptance that I have not "shotgunned" your edit, and that the spaces are pointless and need not be edit warred back into the article, then I suggest you don't post here again. – SchroCat (talk) 10:15, 19 June 2016 (UTC)