User talk:SchroCat/Archive 7

Good Article promotion

	Congratulations!
	Thanks for all the work you did in making Dr. No (film) a certified "Good Article"! Your work is much appreciated. In the spirit of celebration, you may wish to review one of the Good Article nominees that someone else nominated, as there is currently a backlog, and any help is appreciated. All the best, – Quadell (talk)

Corporate names in lead sentences

Hello, SchroCat. You have new messages at WT:FILM.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

An Apology

Skyfall guy again. You clearly know what you're doing here, I clearly don't, and I'd like to say sorry for being out of line. All the best. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.102.123.80 (talk) 22:56, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, although I'll repeat what I said on the Skyfall page, that there really is no need for an apology. You should always raise the question if you think it's worth asking: next time it may be that you're pointing out genuine errors. Pretty much everyone gets lost when they first start on Wiki, but it really is worth while continuing to join in, as the rules are not really that cumbersome once you get used to the twisted logic behind them. I suggest you may want to consider creating an account. Doing so is free, requires no personal information, and provides several benefits such as the ability to create articles. For a full outline and explanation of the benefits that come with creating an account, please see this page. If you edit without a username, your IP address is used to identify you instead and, unfortunately, people are less forgiving of IP editors than registered users. - SchroCat (talk) 13:35, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice - I went and took it. No more preachy essays; I underestimated the discussion that goes into a Wikipedia page, and now intend to integrate myself into it a little more smoothly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zedell (talk • contribs) 15:43, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

That's great - and welcome! I should point out that if you leave a message on a talk page, you should "sign" your post by leaving four tildes (~~~~) - SchroCat (talk) 15:53, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Gotcha. (Zedell (talk) 16:20, 29 March 2013 (UTC))

The Signpost: 25 March 2013

• WikiProject report: The 'Burgh: WikiProject Pittsburgh

• Featured content: One and a half soursops

• Arbitration report: Two open cases

• News and notes: Sue Gardner to leave WMF; German Wikipedians spearhead another effort to close Wikinews

• Technology report: The Visual Editor: Where are we now, and where are we headed?

• Recent research: "Ignore all rules" in deletions; anonymity and groupthink; how readers react when shown talk pages

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 00:56, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Category:Military comedy television series

Created this, can you think of any others?♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 20:21, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Pacific Rim

Hello, there is currently a discussion in place re the title of "Pacfic Rim" on the Article Talk Page, that if you could swing by and provide some input that would be great. MisterShiney ✉ 12:41, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Skyfall

When/how do you want to do this?  — AARON • ^TALK 14:50, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Anytime is good for me, so whenever is good for you. How about you start by pointing out the major areas which are either missing altogether, or which are way to thin? I can start doing some digging to fill the gaps, or shifting info internally, if necessary. Sound like a good way to start, or do you think there is a better way? - SchroCat (talk) 15:12, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Have you got msn by any chance?  — AARON • ^TALK 15:14, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

No; you can get me on here or by email. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 15:38, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

I have emailed you  — AARON • ^TALK 15:50, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Cheers for these. They all look a pretty good start, so I'll get on to them this evening and start working my way through. I'll drop you a line if/when I run into trouble. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 15:56, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

		The Good Article Barnstar
		This 007 Good Article barnstar is hereby awarded for contributions to bring the overview article James Bond in film to Good Article status. Thanks, and keep up the good work! -- Khazar2 (talk) 15:42, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Fantastic news: thanks very much indeed! - SchroCat (talk) 15:44, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Reviewer

Hi SchroCat. I've added the reviewer right to your account in case it comes in handy. I'd say you're obviously experienced enough to use it properly if you need it. INeverCry 20:33, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi, and many thanks. I'm not familiar with how reviewing works, so I'll read up on it thoroughly first. Many thanks once again. - SchroCat (talk) 20:37, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Espresso-con-pana

Have you been following this? Betty Logan (talk) 08:24, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes. I'm not altogether clear on the logic or need for it, especially as everything is covered in a number of other articles, lists, a category and a navbox! Thanks for flagging it up. - SchroCat (talk) 08:26, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Look at this atrocious edit. We should revert it, but if we go into an article we have never edited just to revert one of his edits then it would look like wikistalking and only exacerbate the situation. If this disruption was just limited to the 007 articles it culd be contained, but maybe this should go to ANI if it's occuring on other articles too. Betty Logan (talk) 08:54, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Good grief! Let's hope it's picked up soon, or that a talk page stalker sees this and does it. It's so painful that my finger is twitching over the rv link! - SchroCat (talk) 09:01, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Chitty-Chitty-Bang-Bang

Not that I care much one way or the other, but all that detail about a court case about Thunderball belongs in the article about Thunderball. All that is relevant to Chitty-Chitty-Bang-Bang is that Fleming was involved in a court case and he became ill, and while he was recovering he wrote the book. — Pingku^dimmi 14:07, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

It is in the Thunderball article, but it does also belong in this one. If we were to outline a plagiarism case without at least the scant details the CCBB article already provides, then more questions would be raised than I am comfortable with. - SchroCat (talk) 14:46, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 01 April 2013

• Special report: Who reads which Wikipedia?

• WikiProject report: Special: FAQs

• Featured content: What the ?

• News and notes: Grants given for Wikipedia Library, six others; April Fool's Day ructions

• Arbitration report: Three open cases

• Technology report: Wikidata phase 2 deployment timetable in doubt

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 15:20, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Marie Lloyd peer review

Hello, I have listed Marie Lloyd at peer review with a GAC and FAC in mind. It's been three months of intense research, but I'm happy the article is now as complete as it ever could be. If you could spare the time, then It would be great to hear your thoughts (I know your away at the moment, so no hurry for this). -- Cassianto^Talk 16:45, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

No problem - I'll pop along there shortly, Mr Porter, and sit among the cabbages and peas and give the article a little of what I fancy. - SchroCat (talk) 18:16, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Main Page appearance: John Le Mesurier

This is a note to let the main editors of John Le Mesurier know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on April 12, 2013. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. If you prefer that the article appear as TFA on a different date, or not at all, please ask featured article director Raul654 (talk · contribs) or one of his delegates (Dabomb87 (talk · contribs), Gimmetoo (talk · contribs), and Bencherlite (talk · contribs)), or start a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests. You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/April 12, 2013. If it needs tweaking, or if it needs rewording to match improvements to the article between now and its main page appearance, please edit it, following the instructions at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/instructions. The blurb as it stands now is below:

John Le Mesurier (1912–83) was an English actor perhaps best remembered for his comedic role as Sergeant Arthur Wilson in the BBC situation comedy Dad's Army between 1968 and 1977. He debuted on stage in 1934, and became one of television's pioneering actors when he appeared in The Marvellous History of St Bernard in 1938. From there, Le Mesurier had a prolific film career and appeared in over 120 films across a range of genres, normally in smaller supporting parts in comedies; his roles often portrayed figures of authority such as army officers, policemen and judges. He took a relaxed approach to acting and described himself as a "jobbing actor", a term he used for the title of his autobiography. On one of the few occasions he played the lead role in his career, he received a British Academy of Film and Television Arts "Best Television Actor" award for his performance in the Dennis Potter television play Traitor. He later said that his parts he played were those of "a decent chap all at sea in a chaotic world not of his own making". After his death, critics reflected that for an actor who normally took minor roles, the viewing public were "enormously fond of him". (Full article...)

UcuchaBot (talk) 23:01, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Main Page appearance (2)

Hello! This is a note to let the main editors of the article List of James Bond novels and short stories know that it will be appearing as the main page featured list on April 15. 2013. You can view the TFL blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured list/April 15, 2013. If you think it is necessary to change the main date, you can request it with the featured list directors The Rambling Man (talk · contribs), Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) or Giants2008 (talk · contribs), or at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured list. If the previous blurb needs tweaking, you might change it—following the instructions of the suggested formatting. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. Thanks! Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 01:41, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

The first of the James Bond novels and short stories was published in April 1953. The central character, James Bond, is a British Secret Service agent; he was created by journalist and author Ian Fleming and first appeared in the novel Casino Royale. The books are set in a contemporary period, between May 1951 and February 1964. Fleming went on to write a total of twelve novels and two collections of short stories. Since Fleming's death in 1964, a number of other authors have written continuation works. The first of these was Kingsley Amis, writing under the pseudonym of "Robert Markham", who produced one novel. John Pearson then wrote a fictional biography of Bond in 1973 before Christopher Wood wrote two novelizations later that decade. John Gardner wrote fourteen novels and two novelizations between 1981 and 1996. After he retired, Raymond Benson wrote six Bond novels, three novelizations and three short stories between 1996 and 2002. After a hiatus of six years, Sebastian Faulks wrote a further novel, which was released on the 100th anniversary of Fleming's birth. This was followed in 2011 by a novel by Jeffery Deaver.

Lists at FLC

If you have time or interest, feel free to take a look at my two lists at FLC: List of awards and nominations received by Fiona Apple and List of songs recorded by Pink Martini. Thanks so much! --Another Believer _(Talk) 15:49, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

I'll pop along shortly to have a look. In the meantime, perhaps you'd be kind enough to have a look at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Terry-Thomas on screen, radio, stage and record/archive1‎ to suggest any improvements? Many thanks - SchroCat (talk) 18:23, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Help?

Since you were considering a review of Bleed Like Me and the review is currently complaining about the prose, wonder if you could take a look and possibly clean up the article a bit. Thanks. igordebraga ≠ 00:53, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm doing a few peer reviews at the moment, but will pop along shortly to have a look. I'm a bit swamped in RL and with a couple of other bits, but I'll see if there's much I can do. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 11:02, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

One good turn deserves another SchroCat. May I be as so bold to take this on. I have left some hidden comments within the article for you Igordebraga. -- Cassianto^Talk 19:52, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

James Bond

Just to let you know my thinking, I added "physiognomy" since Fleming only cited Carmichael's face as looking like Bond's, not his legendarily diminutive height or rail thin frame. (Of course, between you and me, it's easy to see what Fleming had in mind since Fleming himself and Carmichael look so similar.) Chaneykarlofflugosi (talk) 18:47, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 08 April 2013

• Wikizine: WMF scales back feature after outcry

• WikiProject report: Earthshattering WikiProject Earthquakes

• News and notes: French intelligence agents threaten Wikimedia volunteer

• Arbitration report: Subject experts needed for Argentine History

• Featured content: Wikipedia loves poetry

• Technology report: Testing week

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 09:24, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

OHMSS talk page

No problem. Chaneykarlofflugosi (talk) 14:19, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Hoagy Carmichael and James Bond

SchroCat, don't you think the caption for the Hoagy Carmichel photo in the James Bond article is inadequate and misleading? To simply state that Carmichael was "Fleming's view of James Bond" leaves open the question of how Carmichael, a figure who looms even larger in the 20th century than Ian Fleming and his fictional creation James Bond themselves, matched Fleming's view of Bond. Was it Carmichael's formidable songwriting ability (Carmichael co-wrote "Stardust"), his height (Carmichael was famously diminutive [short] while Bond was tall), his honky-tonk style piano playing (James Bond played no musical instrument), his warmly quirky personality, or what? Of course the truth was the resemblance between Hoagy Carmichael and James Bond for Fleming stopped strictly at their physiognomies, and that clarification in the caption would serve the article well for the sake of clarity since for every person who actually reads the article in full, there will inevitably be a hundred if not ten thousand more who'll just glance over the pictures and captions. When you deleted that, I substituted "facial features," assuming that you simply believed the earlier word would elude too many readers' vocabularies, which is probably sadly true for an article of this type, but then you deleted that as well. Chaneykarlofflugosi (talk) 14:44, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

The article covers it appropriately: it's not needed to have a mini-essay in the image caption. Your opinion that Carmichael was "a figure who looms even larger" than Bond is questionable, and really isn't pertinant. - SchroCat (talk) 14:55, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

I doubt that many people out of their teens would question that Hoagy Carmichael looms larger in the 20th century than James Bond, but in any case its pertinence is self-evident: Hoagy Carmichael conjures a much larger realm of thought than merely what he looks like, and I'm flummoxed by the notion that the addition of two words to a photo caption constitutes a "mini-essay." Maybe you should have another "Barnstar" for that one. Chaneykarlofflugosi (talk) 15:14, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

"I doubt that many people out of their teens would question that Hoagy Carmichael looms larger in the 20th century than James Bond": I strongly doubt that, and your POV is neither here nor there, to be honest. I'm also flummoxed, but in my case it's by your WP:POINTY little gibe, which is unneccessary and pointless. - SchroCat (talk) 15:23, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

You're right. I should have said, "...many people out of their twenties..." Chaneykarlofflugosi (talk) 15:34, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

As above, your POV is neither here nor there and certainly isn't pertinent. - SchroCat (talk) 15:36, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

I can't recall offhand ever having been so snappish about anything of such infinitesimal consequence and I apologize. I imagine that you must routinely make superb contributions so we're certainly in accord in trying to do that. Chaneykarlofflugosi (talk) 17:45, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Detail on Sellers commercials and recordings.

I have the misfortune to possess a copy of "He's innocent of Watergate" and the credits list "Ed Bishop". The gold bullion robbery spoof can easily be found on YouTube. Djdaedalus (talk) 21:37, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

It maybe good to accompany the information you are adding with the citation in that case? -- Cassianto^Talk 22:58, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

I will point out that it needs to be from a reliable secondary source, and please ensure that any links to other websites do not introduce contributory copyright infringements. - SchroCat (talk) 05:09, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Robbery spoof? Do you have a leesonce for that minkey?? ♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 18:09, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

25:47. They seem to be saying "We both have featured articles on wikipedia!"" ♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 18:54, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

lol - shame I can't find an interview with Fleming and Sapper or I could have had a clean sweep of all of them! I watched the rest of the film - I forgot just how ill he looked! - SchroCat (talk) 09:24, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

He looked painfully tired and ill throughout the film. Like almost too tired to stand up and speak. Can you add the bibliography and missing newspaper link to The Fiendish Plot of Dr. Fu Manchu, I lifted some from the main article.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 13:20, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Yey JLM on front page!!♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 11:08, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

It's great isn't it - just a shame that there have already been two attempts to stick an infobox in there! - SchroCat (talk) 11:11, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Jane Cobden

Many thanks for attending to the nbsps (my chronic aberration) and other small fixes. For better or worse I have sent the lady to FAC. Brianboulton (talk) 21:13, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Then the lady will be visited! I'll take another read through shortly. All the best. - SchroCat (talk) 21:37, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Vital articles

Cheers for chipping in at the RFC. From Gabe's comments it seems the three editors that reverted me serve as "gate keepers" which explains why they got in a huff when I pegged it over the fence, although it begs the question of where they where when some of this stuff was added. Personally I think the whole venture is ill-advised, and a better approach would be to get each project for core topics to draw up a list of 50 or so vital articles. It would get done much faster and I think it would produce superior lists. I suppose it is not that important what goes on the lists and what comes off it, the real problem is the influence it wields at TFA. Do you know if articles really get 4 points if they are on these "vital" lists, or am I misinterpreting the criteria? Betty Logan (talk) 05:52, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Betty, in answer to your question, none of the three editors you mentioned above were actively participating in the VA project when most of the "ill-advised" articles were added to the sublists, and several of us are simply trying to clean up the mess created by others over the last couple of years when individual editors simply added (and occasionally deleted) whatever they wanted, largely unmonitored. You are also laboring under another false assumption: some of the people who are now complaining most loudly about the present structured process of discussion and !voting on individual topics are among those most responsible for willy-nilly changes to the list based on their own personal and often inconsistent preferences. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 06:08, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

No, you've read it entirely correctly: Vital leads to 4 points for TFA, and I think it probably carries a little bit more weight than that too. It's only an issue if it's a date-related question, as you can get an FA onto the front page relatively easily if you're not fussed about on which day it appears. If there is competition for dates between two articles, then the points make a big difference. I agree entirely about throwing the lists out to the projects for them to work on: it would create a much more holistic and inclusive collection of articles than having a very small group of people working on it. (See my comments on this below). - SchroCat (talk) 11:59, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Vital Articles project: film discussions

SchroCat, I was quite sincere in asking you and other film project editors to participate in the established VA add-drop process. What was occurring previously was chaotically disorganized, and there has been a gradual ratcheting down of procedures to eliminate the anything-goes atmosphere that previously existed and devolved into a great deal of personal sniping and little productive action. As long as the list of 10,000 remains 300+ topics over its limit because of previous unilateral additions, the emphasis by necessity must be on deletions (with occasional swaps). The knowledge of interested editors such as yourself would helpfully inform the discussions of individual topics, but you have to be willing to engage in the discussion and !voting process on the main talk page of the Expanded Vital Articles list in order to have a voice. I ask that you do so, and I sincerely hope that you will. Regards, Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 05:56, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree that what was there before was not fit for purpose, but I am not at all convinced that the new regime is much of an improvement. It's a very low-traffic area of Wikipedia that people don't get involved with, or even know about. If you want to make it a true reflection of what can be considered "vital", then throw each and every section over to its corresponding project and tell them they have two weeks to provide a list of xx items that they consider "vital". The projects are frequented by interested, involved and knowledgeable editors who will be able to ensure that a workable and stable methodology is used to select the right items. If you advertise these "super RfCs" on the vital pages (and anywhere else appropriate, such as in Signpost), then it also allows the wider community to join in the discussions they wish.

If you don't throw it out to the people on the projects, then you'll just end up with a list of 10,000 of our most important and essential articles that have been voted into place by three or four editors, and I'm really not sure that is something that anyone wants. - SchroCat (talk) 11:49, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

SchroCat, I've been involved for about two months. I arrived on the scene when I saw that two recent VA regulars were locked in a death match that was about to get them both blocked. Since then, the rhetoric has been cooled and a more orderly process has been evolving. Admittedly, there remains much to be done and there is plenty of room for improvement of the process. Your suggestions are not bad ones and deserve consideration. I am, however, somewhat skeptical about turning over the VA lists to the sometimes parochial interests of isolated WikiProjects whose participation level is often not higher than three or four regulars; personally, I think these sorts of processes work best when a good mix of specialists and well-read generalists participate. Please understand that there have been efforts to publicize the ongoing VA update efforts on various notice boards, but establishing a workable framework for discussion was the first triage priority. (As for my own efforts, I was out of the country for most of the last 10 days with limited access, and I have just returned to regular editing in the last three days, more or less coinciding with Betty's last edit attempts.) Attracting and keeping new discussion participants is also difficult when the process is unclear and the discussion pages are full of extraneous side issues. Before a maximum effort is made to do so, the reorganization process needs to be completed. Your patience and interim participation in the existing framework would be appreciated and helpful. Frankly, we need more informed generalists such as yourself. My only biases are to increase quality participation and make the damn thing work well. If the right environment and organization are created, the details will work themselves out. Your participation can help make that happen. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 12:33, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

If the lists won't be passed on to the projects to work on directly, then it'll just be the same merry-go-round as before, but across all the lists. Three or four regulars working in a project will know more about their areas of interest than the three or four people working centrally on the vital lists. I've seen too much negativity from various people regarding the perceived "ownership" by projects, and I take it all with a rather large pinch of salt. (I'm not saying you come from this point of view at all, but most negativity directed at the projects seems to come from people who don't like one tiny decision one project has made and set out to undermine them on that basis alone). We have projects; they are full of interested, involved and knowledgeable people and that skill and knowledge needs to be leveraged to ensure the list is a valid representation of what the community as a whole sees as "vital".

There may have been efforts made to publicise the lists, but I've not seen any of them, and I bet most other people haven't either, which means that participation will remain low, with the same people involved. One more minor generalist like me won't make a blind bit of difference, because as soon as I am out of my very small area of knowledge then I'm as likely to choose articles the same way I'd choose dogs at a race track: nice name, lucky number, nice colour, etc. You need the experts who know the background and the form, and you'll mostly find them in the projects.

I appreciate what you are doing—and I appreciate that it is a thankless task—but unless you actively go to the community and involve them in the process, then the process is bound to remain a small group voting piecemeal in threes or fours to drop or include individual articles. - SchroCat (talk) 12:55, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

SC, the bigger, better notice effort is forthcoming. I promise. I need another two weeks to bang the discussion page into a well-organized structure in which any editor may feel comfortable registering his opinion and !vote on a single topic or on a wide range of topics. Keeping in mind, of course, that I am only a single editor, and I must get others to agree and buy in. Politically, that's a challenge, but it's do-able. And I agree wholeheartedly with your comments that the whole thing is not sustainable, stable or well-informed without wider participation; this point has been one of the central themes of my drum-banging for the past two months. Your participation (and that of Betty and other film editors) in the existing five film discussions (and any others you want to start) would be helpful even if you do not choose to participate in other discussions unrelated to film. Like the rest of life, I understand that we all make choices where to expend our Wikipedia time and efforts, and I empathize with your comment about generalists at the dog track. I made the commitment to see this thing through, and I'm going to do my best to make sure it's not a disaster; frankly, it can only get better compared to what it was.

As for the WikiProjects, I am an active participant in five or six of them, and I fully appreciate their benefits while recognizing their weaknesses. I absolutely want to increase WikiProject participation and have the benefit of their specialist insights, but I honestly believe that has to be balanced against the need to properly proportion the sublists within the context of the number limits of the 1,000 topic list and the expanded 10,000 topic list. No one is telling you, Betty or any other WikiProject participant to go get stuffed. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 13:32, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 15 April 2013

• Op-ed: How do we fix RfA inactivity?

• WikiProject report: Unity in Diversity: South Africa

• News and notes: Another admin reform attempt flops

• Featured content: The featured process swings into high gear

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 22:29, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

April 2013

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring, as you did at John Le Mesurier. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.  King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:20, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

SchroCat (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I did not breach WP:3RR, so a block is an odd one (and the WP:LETTER is rather an odd point for you to raise (it's a fair comment if I had entered it as a defence first, but I didn't, so it's a little off base there). The reverted information is in breach of WP:BLP as it's about an individual who is still alive (and claims to be the editor concerned) and as such requires a source. As for the incivility point you raised, when I went to ANI about a complaint involving a IP editor who called others "poisonous clueless cunts", I was informed by Bbb23—a fellow administrator of yours—that "Uncivil editing is condoned all the time at Wikipedia". A second administrator (Ritchie333) noted that "I don't think we condone incivility - we might tolerate it in context where patience has been sorely tested", which more than covers the point raised here. - SchroCat (talk) 22:44, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Accept reason:

See below. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:24, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Note to reviewing admin: I have also blocked the other user involved, and they have also requested unblock. You do not need to consult me before taking any action, but please be sure to handle both requests simultaneously (whether symmetrically, is up to you). -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:52, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Could I ask how long it normally takes for a review of this nature? Seven hours have gone by without a review, which seems a little odd and excessivly slow. Just to reiterate the point, There is no edit warring if the actions involve the addition of unsourced material relating to individuals who are still alive. See WP:3RR, particularly where it relates to WP:BLP. - SchroCat (talk) 05:59, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps you viewed the material as contentious enough to warrant the exception. Note that it says, "What counts as exempt under BLP can be controversial. Consider reporting to the BLP noticeboard instead of relying on this exemption." If you rely on it enough, eventually you'll run into an admin who does not view the situation the same way as you do. But given that two others support your view of the exception, I consider myself outvoted. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:24, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you KoH; your change of ♥ is much appreciated. - SchroCat (talk) 06:33, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Looking at that ANI report you probably didn't sufficiently outline the BLP nature of the reverts. If there is a BLP dimension it really needs to be crystal clear in the edit summaries and the report. Betty Logan (talk) 06:40, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Quite right. I've made that more clear in a post above and I hope he reads it before jumping back into edit war mode when the block is lifted. - SchroCat (talk) 08:10, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Third party comment

I endorse this unblock request. I do not think this block is justified given the circumstances. First of all, User:JohnClarknew was reverted by two editors at John Le Mesurier, not just by SchroCat; also, in the discussion above (User talk:SchroCat#Leave John Clark name alone, or edit war is inevitable) I clearly explained to User:JohnClarknew the notion of WP:BURDEN, and asked him to provide a source which he clearly ignored. Second of all, SchroCat did not technically violate 3RR, and I question whether he was guilty of edit-warring either: User:JohnClarknew was repeatedly adding an unsourced claim about a living person to a featured article that has only just recently been featured on the main page, so I think an exemption is warranted as detailed under WP:NOT3RR. Maybe this dispute should have been brought to ANI sooner than it was, but it's unacceptable to repeatedly add unsourced content about living people to the encyclopedia when you have been asked to provide sources. There should be no compromise in cases such as this Betty Logan (talk) 22:51, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Third party comment

I also endorse this unblock request and agree with the reasons SchroCat and Betty Logan have set out above. SchroCat has not edit-warred. Three editors plus myself agree the information has no place in the article. The other editor claims to be the actor mentioned. If so, this is a WP:COI. I further note that the other editor so easily and rashly threatened an edit war. - Fantr (talk) 23:48, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Skyfall : Unnecessary plot bloat ?

Eh, no. It isn`t/wasn`t "an unnecessary plot bloat". The plot, as reverted to by yourself, is completely different from what actually happened in the film. The vilan wasn`t, and in fact couldn`t have been, apprehended by Bond on his own. But I really can`t be bothered with getting into a revison war with you. I think Wikipedians who add (so long as it`s accurate) are where it should be.--JustinSmith (talk) 21:59, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Not really: it wasn't accurate. Bond overpowers his guards and captures Silva ready for removal back to Britain on his own. He doesn't need or use any helicopters for that, so it was an unnecessary bloat to quite a full plot section. BTW, when you edit into article space, it is preferred that you use stright quotes and postrophes ('), rather than the slanted or curly variety (`) as you did both in the article and on here. Thank you for discussing this and not just reverting. - SchroCat (talk) 09:50, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Jackie Evancho

Would you kindly weigh in on this discussion? I'd like to hear your opinion. -- Ssilvers (talk) 12:50, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Janson-Smith

re: this edit here. All sources hyphenate his surname. Or was there another reason? - Fantr (talk) 00:11, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, a cock-up on my part, I'm afraid! Self reverted to your correct version. Apols! - SchroCat (talk) 14:29, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Hey

So during my usual page trawling and coming across some, shall we say "interesting pages"? I discovered this one John Le Mesurier on stage, radio, screen and record, any chance it could be name changed to something a little more...easier to read? MisterShiney ✉ 16:30, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure of the point on asking my opinion and then changing it before I've had a chance to respond, especially when moving it to an absolutely abysmal alternative. The previous version may have been long, but it had the advantages of being self-explanatory, entirely correct and consistent with a number of other featured lists. - SchroCat (talk) 17:45, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough. If I'm honest...I got bored. Sorry. On reflection it was a bit Dickish. MisterShiney ✉ 18:02, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

PMSL! I'm not married to the current version, but last time this format of title was discussed no-one could come up with a better idea that wasn't somehow misleading. - SchroCat (talk) 18:46, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Wolfgramm strikes again

Link. I've re-requested page protection here. - Fantr (talk) 00:04, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Great stuff. I see that even James Bond Wikia has caught up with the fact the individual wasn't named and has deleted their page accordingly. (And I see that the cheeky buggers have copied substantial amounts of information from our articles onto theirs - see their articles on the M and Leiter characters)! - SchroCat (talk) 11:41, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Death of Niger the Perean

• Thanks for your comments, I confess, all my deeds are nefarious. But in comparison to the deletion of the Death of Niger the Perean, they are heavenly. ;-) TheManWithTheGoldenPen (talk) 11:30, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 22 April 2013

• In the media: Wikipedia inaccurate, says Florence; New Wikipedia app for breaking news

• WikiProject report: WikiProject Editor Retention

• News and notes: Milan conference a mixed bag

• Featured content: Batfish in the Red Sea

• Arbitration report: Sexology case nears closure after stalling over topic ban

• Technology report: A flurry of deployments

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 14:49, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Happy and Glorious: film or tv work?

re: this discussion. Do you have an opinion? I'm leaning to "tv" though it wasn't expressly shot for tv. As we all know it is a short film shown at a live event. I'm stumped. - Fantr (talk) 23:33, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

I think I'm leaning towards "short film" here. Its airing on television was subservient to its scheduling at the ceremony i.e. the TV broadcaster did not control its prermiere. Betty Logan (talk) 06:09, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Given recent events...

Of such blatant Personal Attacks form a certain editor, would you like to set up an ANI? -- MisterShiney ✉ 13:40, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

I've been trying to avoid such a drastic step, but after the the latest postings on the JLM talk page, in which he still refuses to accept the reliability of the obvious sources, I sadly think you are probably right. If he withdraws from the discussion relating to the reliability of McCann, then I'll draw a line under it. If he persists in the battlefield mentality and continues to turn the JLM talk page toxic with further trolling, insults and bad faith discussions, then I'm not that we will have any alternative but to go down the ANI route. - SchroCat (talk) 13:57, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Ok. It is a shame when it comes to that. But some people need to know that some behaviour isn't acceptable. I slapped a warning on his talk page about Personal Attacks to yourself, and then I saw he had said the same to me saying he was replying to me, which had no bearing on anything that I asked him at all. lol. Anyway, if you do go down that route then let me know. I am sure we must be missing something in translation here with him. -- MisterShiney ✉ 14:09, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

I must admit, my vocabulary knowledge has increased quite a bit recently...lol. -- MisterShiney ✉ 19:12, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Conversation has continued at User talk:Worm That Turned#JohnClarknew, by the way. Bencherlite^Talk 12:26, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Many thanks; I'll keep an eye on it. I suspect a certain amount of education will be needed, but when numerous parties have previously tried to explain some basic points, this has not always been received by an open mind, or in the spirit in which they have been offered. - SchroCat (talk) 13:50, 30 April 2013 (UTC)'

Deference time

Me and User:Fantr would like you to make your opinions known over at Talk:Skyfall so we can move forward with dealing with recent changes, if you wouldn't mind... Ta. drewmunn talk 20:05, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Farewell

I am sending this message to the users who I have closely collaborated with. I will be taking a temporary Wikibreak for at least 5-7 days to let off some steam and get myself reenergized. Some of the stress has got to me, so I think it's best if I should take a couple of days off. I also have final exams coming up as well, so I have more important things to worry about. I, however, will be here to contribute to some articles that I have worked on. Until then, farewell. With my very best and warmest regards, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 02:56, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Goldeneye change

Would you mind having a look at the Talk page for Operation Golden Eye? Do you have any objections if I change it? I won't wait much longer. I note that you waited *six minutes* before you made your change to this. Jeremy Duns (talk) 14:34, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

When I have a clear spot in the day I'll look over it. I am a little pressed at the moment. - SchroCat (talk) 14:40, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

You don't seem all that pressed, judging by the time you are spending working on a Terry-Thomas article. This is hardly controversial and I've provided urls for six primary sources. I don't want to get into yet another pointless discussion with you about a small change to an article based on research I've done and you haven't, so I'll wait a little longer to see if you have any genuine concerns about this. But I'm not going to wait long. As noted, when you reverted this to the wrong title you waited just six minutes to see if anyone objected. Jeremy Duns (talk) 17:31, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

As I have already said, when I have a clear spot in the day I'll look over it. Again, there is hardly any rush for this: there is no deadline on this. - SchroCat (talk) 17:35, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

No, but you made the change to the wrong one in six minutes. What was your rush? There's no rush, but neither is there any reason for me to wait longer than you did. Which I already have, by a great distance. I'll change it shortly. Jeremy Duns (talk) 17:44, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Not sure you'll be able to, but it is obvious that nothing I have to say will change your course. - SchroCat (talk) 17:47, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Of course - if you can find more than six primary sources about the operation listing it as 'Golden Eye'. Common sense says it's unlikely, though, doesn't it? I'll be bold, and make a small sensible change to correct your error in the title of this operation, shortly. Still time for you to go and have a look and make any sensible objections if you have them. Jeremy Duns (talk) 17:59, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

When I have a clear spot in the day I'll look over it. - SchroCat (talk) 18:00, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I take that to mean if you have not objected by tomorrow it's fine to change it. Deal? Jeremy Duns (talk) 18:32, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Edit warring discussion

I have started a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring about the WP:3RR violations we've had to deal with at Ian Fleming‎. It's at [1] if you want to comment there. SonOfThornhill (talk) 22:56, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Actor Terry-Thomas.jpg)

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

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:37, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 April 2013

• News and notes: Chapter furore over FDC knockbacks; First DC GLAM boot-camp

• In the media: Wikipedia's sexism; Yuri Gadyukin hoax

• Featured content: Wiki loves video games

• WikiProject report: Japanese WikiProject Baseball

• Traffic report: Most popular Wikipedia articles

• Arbitration report: Sexology closed; two open cases

• Recent research: Sentiment monitoring; UNESCO and systemic bias; and more

• Technology report: New notifications system deployed across Wikipedia

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 08:22, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Your email

Ask that at WT:MIL, please, that's very relevant to something we're going to be discussing soon. - Dank (push to talk) 12:17, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Un-barnstar

I don't have an appropriate barnstar to give you, but if I did, I'd give it to you. I always enjoy working with you and you're always delivering good stuff for the encyclopedia. It's a pleasure to say thanks to you for all you do. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:59, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

You are far too kind, but thank you so much! - SchroCat (talk) 21:23, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Re Gustav Holst

Just to let you know that Tim and I have nominated this at FAC. Thanks for your help. Brianboulton (talk) 15:29, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

How very annoying! I was looking in here to say the same thing and find myself lagging behind. (Old, old, Master Shallow!) Tim riley (talk) 18:34, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Well then, good Sir John, I shall come at both your behests! - SchroCat (talk) 08:58, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

TT

Where'd you get that image? It's nice; looks like a scan though. Might want to note the new source. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:24, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

File:Terry-Thomas in Where Were You When the Lights Went Out.jpg This one? - I wanted the image anyway for something else, so I purchased it. As that's still the right info, does the source need to be updated to reflect I now have the image, or will the ebay listing suffice? - SchroCat (talk) 14:34, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

• Probably worth noting that this is a scan of a purchased image (the online copy is certainly not 2000 pixels in height). As we're supposed to say where we got it, not doing so might be questioned at FAC.

Shame the paper is so scratched up, otherwise we could have tried to prep this for an FPC nom. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:40, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

• Good point: I'll add the details in. I'll try a re-scan at a higher res and see if I can play around with in-filling to brush it up a little more. You're right tho: the paper itself is not in a good condition, so there may not be too much that can be done. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 14:49, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

• Fingers crossed! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:51, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 06 May 2013

• News and notes: Candidates nominating for Foundation elections; Looking ahead to Wikimania 2014

• Technology report: Foundation successful in bid for larger Google subsidy

• Featured content: WikiCup update: full speed ahead!

• In the media: New Wikipedia for Schools edition; Anders Behring Breivik's Wikipedia contributions

• WikiProject report: Earn $100 in cash... and a button!

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 03:39, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Non-formal PR

Could you give a non-formal PR for Gagak Item at the article's talk page in preparation for FAC? It's a really short article, shouldn't take half an hour (if it passes it would surpass Miss Meyers by 100 characters) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:03, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

I will certainly be along there shortly. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 11:04, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:07, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

• No problems. A finished a longer, formal PR/FAC earlier this morning, so I will get round to this today. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 09:14, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Moneypenny Reversion

Hello, I noticed you reverted my edit to the section on Moneypenny, and am confused as to why; I mentioned the movie in which the change happens, and this is the same formula used in the rest of that section. No other line in that section has a reference, other than the mention of the movie. Can you clarify, or would you like to change it back? You seem to have jumped on mine a tad unfairly... DeeJaye6 (talk) 17:22, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

The whole article needs a complete re-write as it is, and you are right to point out that other parts are also poorly sourced or unsourced. Having said that, adding further unsourced material to a poor and unsourced article is not entirely helpful for the development of the article. On that basis, my reversion is hardly "unfair", but entirely justified in ensuring that the article does not slip into an even worse state that it already is. - SchroCat (talk) 17:45, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 13 May 2013

• News and notes: WMF–community ruckus on Wikimedia mailing list

• WikiProject report: Knock Out: WikiProject Mixed Martial Arts

• Featured content: A mushroom, a motorway, a Munich gallery, and a map

• In the media: PR firm accused of editing Wikipedia for government clients; can Wikipedia predict the stock market?

• Arbitration report: Race and politics opened; three open cases

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 04:13, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Assume Good Faith

Stop reporting that IP's edits just because it looks bad to you. And stop assuming bad faith. And stay off my talk page talking crazy to me. AmericanDad86 (talk) 07:12, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

The editor was sparking up a debate that was over. I'm reporting you for assuming bad faith. AmericanDad86 (talk) 07:13, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Just because you and I edit a similar article does not connote stalking. Wikipedia stresses to assume good faith. I happen to believe it looks better under the original version.AmericanDad86 (talk) 07:21, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Report away. If you need a forum to discuss your recent poor edits then it can be discussed more fully. - SchroCat (talk) 07:36, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Edit warring

‎SchroCat, I've initiated a discussion on the talkpage of the article and I am seeking a consensus. As of this point, the IP and myself would like the edit to remain as he had it. I'm going to invite the IP in on the discussion. I encourage you to participate. Thank you! AmericanDad86 (talk) 07:31, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

I see you have decided to continue the edit warring and to try and add citation tags to areas that don't need them. I'd suggest you stop until you actually know what you're talking about here. You can start with WP:LEAD as to why your latest set of edits are coming across as rather petulant. - SchroCat (talk) 07:53, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

What about the plot?! None of that's sourced whatsoever. AmericanDad86 (talk) 07:56, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

See WP:FILMPLOT. It doesn't have to be. - SchroCat (talk) 07:56, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Main Page appearance

Hello! This is a note to let the main editors of the article The Flashman Papers know that it will be appearing as the main page featured list on May 27, 2013. You can view the TFL blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured list/May 27, 2013. If you think it is necessary to change the main date, you can request it with the featured list directors The Rambling Man (talk · contribs), Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) or Giants2008 (talk · contribs), or at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured list. If the previous blurb needs tweaking, you might change it—following the instructions of the suggested formatting. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. Thanks! Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 05:24, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

The first instalment of The Flashman Papers by George MacDonald Fraser was published in 1969. The series of novels and short stories centre on the exploits of the fictional protagonist Harry Flashman, a cowardly British soldier and cad who is placed in a series of real historical incidents between 1839 and 1894. While the incidents and much of the detail in the novels have a factual background, Flashman's actions in the stories are either fictional, or Fraser uses the actions of unidentified individuals and assigns them to Flashman. During the course of Fraser's novels, Flashman goes from his expulsion from school into the army. Although he is a coward who tries to run away from any danger, he is involved in a number of notable military episodes from the 19th century, often taking actions that cause or affect subsequently infamous events. Flashman is a minor character in the 1857 novel by Thomas Hughes, Tom Brown's School Days; a bully who is expelled from Rugby School for drunkenness. The character was then developed by Fraser, and appeared in a total of eleven novels and one collection of short stories featuring the character. Although chronology of the main series finishes in 1894, Flashman lives on until 1915 and he is also found in his late 80s in another Fraser book, Mr American.

A Barnstar for you....

		The Porn Star
		Just because you are awesome at maintaining articles up to a good standard and it will drive someone insane because this is obviously a sign we are in "cahoots". MisterShiney ✉ 16:51, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

LOL - you are too kind! And I don't know who you could be talking about...! ;) Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 17:09, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Isn't it mysterious how civil conversations come after other editors "leave" the discussion....-- MisterShiney ✉ 20:40, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Always, and yet never a surprise! - SchroCat (talk) 21:28, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Introductory commas

Hi SC, I think introductory commas are widely used, in and out of Brit English. It's not particularly linked to dates. [2] [3]. Span (talk) 23:39, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

There is a gizmo one can use to say "I've a message for you on my talk page", but I get in a tangle with it, and so am leaving this message using words. Tim riley (talk) 13:26, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Many thanks, Tim. I have left an appropriate message refuting the above - an erroneous use of an American comma. - SchroCat (talk) 21:20, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

JWMT

According to the organisation, the Journal of the Western Mystery Tradition first published in 2001. It publishes articles on "occultisms, magical practices, mysticisms and esotericisms."

The publisher, Dr. Jeffrey S. Kupperman, "is a graphic and Web designer currently living in the Chicago-land area with his wife; he is the publisher and designer of the JWMT." Here is an interview. According to his own blog "Currently, Jeffrey is seeking out, or perhaps hunting down, a literary agent in an effort to get published. He is a member (card carrying and everything) of the Wisconsin Regional Writer’s Association."

The journal's contributors include Teresa Burns, author of the Dee article. Teresa Burns is the English Faculty Department Chair at the University of Wisconsin–Platteville. Her specializations are "Fiction writing, technical writing, alchemy and literature, American minority literature, especially Asian-American literature." She has a Ph.D. in Creative Writing and Literature from the University of Houston, and a B.A. in English and an M.A. in fiction writing from the University of Florida. She is the co-author of Shakespeare, John Dee and the Hermetic Revolution: Alchemy and Espionage in the Magickal [sic] Theatre of Elizabethan England. So far as I can tell she believes that Shakespeare may have been an occultist and spy named "Francis Garland". I only skimmed the article. Here is another sample article.

Her collaborator Vincent Bridges is a professor at the "Academy of Sacred Geometry" - google it if you wish.

No google news articles mention the JWMT. Google books lists only occult books and the like from niche publishers that mention the JWMT. - Fantr (talk) 20:54, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Oh dear! That's the problem with almost everything to do with Dee: it does invite the fringe elements on both sides. I'll do some further digging in somewhat more reliable sources to see if I can find something that will point towards the correct position. Many thanks for taking the time to look this up: it's good to get the judgement from an independent source. - SchroCat (talk) 21:04, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm also researching this issue. Hope to have everything ready for you within twenty-four hours. - Fantr (talk) 00:54, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

I've had no time to get round to this properly, but I've got these three:

• http://www.getcited.org/pub/102186864 (Citation only, and I have no idea of the contents)
• Watkins, Susan, and Mark Fiennes. The Public and Private Worlds of Elizabeth I. New York, NY: Thames and Hudson, 1998 (P. 39) (Cited by a third party and I've not read this myself)
• Macintyre, Ben: For Your Eyes Only: Ian Fleming and James Bond (This one I have seen!)

It's from a very brief skim, and I hope to have a little more in the way later in the week, unless you come up with a few more bits we can sift through. - SchroCat (talk) 08:32, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Sorry but I won't be able to finish until tomorrow. I already have these citations plus several others: BBC, Daily Telegraph, etc. You don't have to search further unless you absolutely want to. The other editor doesn't seem to understand that our duty is not to determine the truth but to report what reliable sources say. He demands that you find a source that doesn't lead back to McCormick/Deacon; but, unless I misread him, in the comments section of his article Licence to Hoax he admits that doing as much is near impossible! I don't have the actual quote in front of me but I address this and several other problems in my lengthy reply. - Fantr (talk) 19:55, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Another delay, another apology. I hope to have it ready next week. I'll say for now that although JDuns' position is correct - Deacon/McCormick has no credibility and the Dee/007 claim is likely false - there is no way to state this position as fact in the articles without coming up against wp:original research, wp:synthesis and wp:point of view. Thanks also for catching those reverts at Billion Dollar Brain, Play Dirty and M. - Fantr (talk) 19:19, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Fantr. I hope you don't mind if I chime in. I see your points. But how frustrating! To know he's unreliable, and yet to rely on his information. I understand the policies, but I think all make allowances for the reasonable interpretration of reliable sources. Any process of weighing whether a source is reliable is of course in some way a synthesis and an interpretation of material. The problem comes when the interpretation is unreasonable, or immensely convoluted, or following an agenda, or simply not one that most people would readily agree is reasonable. In looking at the Journal, the BBC, the Telegraph and so on, you haven't been conducting original research. You've simply been doing what is fundamental to weighing the reliability of any piece of information, which is to look at where it has been published before and judging the weight of all of those citations, and deciding which of the articles or books are the most credible for the information in question.

In this case, the BBC and the Telegraph and the University of Cambridge's news site are all generally reliable, but they're also not the only sources on this. Indeed, all of those sources lead back to the same one, McCormick, and then it's impossible to go any further back. So it becomes important whether or not he is a reliable source, or they're all built on a house of cards. And the easily verified fact is that McCormick is known for having published several other pieces of information that have no traceable source - it's already on his own Wikipedia entry, and I've given a few more examples in the discussion below. His unreliability has also already been noted elsewhere on Wikipedia - the fact that he was the source for the Skarbek-Fleming-affair-Vesper idea, but that there was no credibility to his untraceable witness, was placed on the Skarbek page in 2009, and has only just been moved to a footnote by someone because of a new biography. The wording of it was a little clumsy, but the reasoning was sensible, I think: 'In that latter period of her life, she met Ian Fleming, with whom she allegedly had a year-long affair, although there is no proof that this occurred. The man who made the allegation, Donald McCormick, relied on the word of a woman named "Olga Bialoguski"; McCormick always refused to identify her, and she is not included in his list of acknowledgments.' I suppose one could make an argument that this was original research, synthesis, and point of view - but I don't think it was any of those, but simply a sensible gauging and stating of the problem with the reliability of that particular piece of information (ie it's not very reliable for various reasons). The way it is now, as I explain below, is in citing a new biography of Skarbek, to much the same effect.

Similarly, I think one could solve this with something like: 'It has been claimed in several sources that John Dee used the glyph '007' (link to a few), but this information originated with controversial journalist Donald McCormick, who offered no credible source for it and has been criticised for making sensational claims without any supporting evidence (link to a couple of those criticisms).' It's not an enormous point, of course, so I don't propose we should spend too much time on it, but it seems counter-productive to cite information from a source who is widely considered unreliable, and can be seen to be by anyone who looks at the issue (and you've made that assessment of him yourself). If we keep citing McCormick because others have, without gauging his own reliability as the originator of the information, I think we're ignoring our own reasoned weighing of him as a source to needlessly follow policies that I don't think were meant to be followed so rigidly. I know there are other difficulties, namely making sure this is all clear to other editors who come along, but I'm sure there must be some way to make it clear that McCormick simply isn't a reliable source. I don't have any agenda on the issue other than being irritated every time I see one of his fabrications in the mainstream media! It seems a shame to keep perpetuating him as a reliable source, but I don't have strong feelings on it, and certainly don't wish to get into a dispute about it with either of you. I'm sure you'll work it out very well without me! Jeremy Duns (talk) 21:04, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the edits to the entry on me. You restored the one about my books being optioned and noted 'Doesn't matter if it lapsed or not: they still optioned it. The lapse should be recorded with a source tho'. I'm not sure how notable this fact is, but I think it should be one or the other, ie not in the entry at all, or in the entry but stated that the option has lapsed. The problem with sourcing the lapsing of it is that not everything is made public or announced - the BBC options, renews options and lapses options every week, but they don't generally announce it publicly and nor does anyone else. So the source for it is, well, me, the author of the books. I'd rather they still had the option, of course! If I'm not a good enough source for information on whether my books are optioned, I don't think this bit should be in the article at all, as it's misleading to say they were optioned but not note that it's lapsed. I hope that makes sense. And thanks again, Jeremy Duns (talk) 21:45, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

My pleasure. I agree that there should be something "closing off" the option. Did you (or could you) make reference to it on your Twitter thread? If not, then a note can always be added to that effect. - SchroCat (talk) 09:47, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, SchroCat. Yes, I've mentioned this on Twitter: https://twitter.com/jeremyduns/status/322338936859004929 I've also now added it to my website: http://jeremyduns.net/about/ I'm not sure why these are any more reliable than me saying so here, but I guess this is about the need for reliable sources? If so, I think my website would be a better source to cite than Twitter. Thanks for your help on this. I'm sure it seems a miniscule point, but Wikipedia is extremely influential - much more so than any other source that mentions me, including my own website - and it's perfectly possible for a TV producer to read one of my books, be interested in optioning it, Googling me, then reading my entry saying that the BBC has optioned them all, and shrugging their shoulders and moving on. So this seemingly tiny error on my Wikipedia entry could cost me a lot of money, and make a significant impact on my career. Unlikely, perhaps, but I think perfectly possible. Reading WP:AUTO again, I see it says 'you should feel free to remove obviously mistaken facts about yourself, such as marital status, current employer, place of birth, and so on.' This is an obviously mistaken fact concerning me, but it's admittedly a little more complicated than my marital status (though in some ways it relates to 'current employer'). I've read that policy and the ones on neutrality and conflicts of interest carefully and I hope I'm abiding by them, but occasionally reliable sources omit information, or get things wrong, and it's not always practical or in some cases even possible to alter errors that others publish, and occasionally they're not just about dates of birth and so on.

I'm also being less bold than the policies suggest I could be, because for the last few months a bestselling author has been determined to paint me in a negative light on Wikipedia, and he is equally determined to paint me in a negative light for trying to stop his attacks. He has already alerted one national newspaper in the UK to the fact that I've edited my own Wikipedia page - but neglected to mention I've done so openly, under my own name and following Wikipedia's own policies, having sought the guidance of other editors on my Talk page and the BLP noticeboard, and made small edits along with other editors to remove his own vandalism. He's also misrepresented some of the discussions you and I have had, here: http://jeremydunsjournalist.wordpress.com/2013/05/15/jeremy-duns-rewrites-his-own-wikipedia-entry/ and here: http://jeremydunsjournalist.blogspot.co.uk/2013/05/jeremy-duns-investigative-journalist.html These are two of several such sites he has set up - more on them here: http://www.theleftroom.co.uk/?p=2062

Sorry to take up so much space on your Talk page! But I wanted to thank you not just for the sensible edits, but also to explain my perspective, which is in the context of sustained, but rather ingenious, sockpuppet attacks on my Wikipedia entry and elsewhere (one of those sites is currently the fourth Google result on my name). And I also wanted to apologize for my incivility towards you in the last couple of weeks. You somewhat blindsided me after I'd made small edits to several articles with no disputes at all. I hope the context I've just outlined doesn't excuse, but at least partially explains why I haven't been in the best of moods with the online world in general, and with Wikipedia editors disagreeing with me. I had to spend a huge amount of time and energy in late March arguing for small, sane changes to my own entry to avoid being painted in an unfairly negative light, and at the same time fend off a newspaper wondering why I was doing so, having been alerted by the same sockpuppeting author. I don't expect you to be any less irritated with me, but perhaps you can see that the depiction of our conversations by this person is hardly a fair one, and see that even these very small changes by this new editor are in fact part of am extraordinarily concerted effort to sabotage my career by degrees. All the best, Jeremy Duns (talk) 12:47, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi Jeremy, All done. I normally steer clear of using a subject's own website (or Twitter feed or FaceBook page) to support something on their account, but sometimes it's the only place for certain information; it's also less of a problem if the information is "neutral" or not self-serving. In this case I'm fairly sure it's both true and not self-serving, so there isn't an issue. I think you're right to be less-than-bold on editing your own stuff: people get over-twitchy about COI (even without having a certain party stalking your edits!) and it's sometimes better to stay your hand on these things. From a purely practical point of view, the talk page of the article may be a good place for you to raise any questions or issues about the edits of others; I'll add your article to my watch list bother to pick up any questionable edits and any of your talk page questions. You're right about the need to point to a source: without Wiki is nothing and will fall into a shambles of mis-remembered nonsense, fancruft and down-right lies: the sources keep us (vaguely) sane, or at least twisted in the right direction!

Having taken a quick spin through your twitter feed and other bits, it's relatively obvious that it's one of only two or three people who have written those oh-so-charming blogs about you. Sadly your very laudable stance on plagiarism and sockpuppetry will always attract the disapprobation of those who have come under the spotlight, but they deserve nothing in the way of sympathy or leeway - and I will certainly not allow their petty vandalism if I see it on your page. I didn't like such dishonest editing of articles before, but even more so now, after you have shown my name also being misrepresented. You have my admiration for taking on such public figures and exposing their petty vanity and dishonesty.

Thank you for your apology too: I should probably also apologise for being a little over-protective of the article. Having recently had a series of attempts to place this sort of nonsense onto the Fleming page (which then boiled over into the ridiculous thread on the talk page) and a subsequent argument with a rather cantankerous COI editor on another article, I am afraid that you probably found me at my less-than-receptive best too. All the best. - SchroCat (talk) 19:53, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks again - apology happily accepted, and please let's now put all that behind us! Neither of us were in the best of moods, clearly. And that discussion is extraordinary. I note that he raises the John Dee nonsense, too. Please do have a read of my post on it sometime - it's one of several hoaxes McCormick perpetuated and several are still going strong. This last week has seen a revival in the mainstream media of his equally fraudulent fabrication about Fleming and Krystyna Skarkbek. I know this is original research, and The Journal Of the Western Mystery Tradition isn't a regular read of mine, but it's very unlikely that someone would debunk it falsely, I think, especially as I've never seen anything in a library or an an article or anywhere other than McCormick's book for this glyph. It's an appealing idea, as is the Fleming/Skarbek affair leading to Vesper, and Fleming luring Hess via astrologers - but this is all from someone who is known to have fabricated appealing and plausible-sounding sources on Jack The Ripper and several other topics. I think if you read my article you will, I hope, see what I mean. McCormick was a very clever hoaxer.

Thanks also for your other comments, and for making that edit. I have been raising concerns on my Talk page, and will continue to do so - the idea that I don't admire Ian Fleming because the article I wrote largely about how much I admire him seemed a little too silly not to simply undo, though! But I also did explain in detail why on the Talk page, and in making the edit said that if anyone disagreed to please join that discussion. I hope that was in keeping with the spirit of the policies.

Best, Jeremy Duns (talk) 20:02, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

I will have a read of your Dee information, and Fantr has been doing a little digging on that score too. All he can come up with is original research and delving into unreliable sources, but it does look like it points to the Dee information is all wrong. He should be coming back shortly with a little more info, at which point I'll drop the connection from the article and post something suitable about the source not being reliable. the problem we have is that it appears in a book. There are too many who will make the assumption that <published book = reliable source>, without any further question. We therefore need to make sure that it's nice and clear that the source itself is unreliable, as well as the information it contains. I'll have a spin through the various bits of info around to put something together and get it sorted. Your talk page comment is all well within policy. You are entitled to raise any number of points you wish on there. It's in the article space that people are automatically twitchy (and the Leather page shows the good reason why people are over-sensitive about such edits!) You are sticking within the guidelines, however, and your edits to your own page have not been promotional or self-serving, which is the point of it all. Your article (and talk page) are now on my watchlist, and I will keep tabs on the attempts of third parties to play silly-buggers with them! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 05:15, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

ps. I had an email from Andrew Lycett recently about the Fleming/Mincemeat connection. While he says that there are no paper records connecting the two, "I have a feeling that there is another reference to a connection, but, as I said, I will need to spend some time finding it". I get the feeling that MacIntyre also thinks there is an as yet unproven connection between the two, so I hope that between the pair of them, something comes to light! - SchroCat (talk) 09:41, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I missed this earlier. How intriguing! I'd be very interested to hear of any follow-ups. Jeremy Duns (talk) 22:49, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very much for that - much appreciated. I hope you don't mind if I take a quick detour into the other thing you mention, ie John Dee using the codename '007'. I've looked at Fantr's comments to you, or those I could find. I agree the Dee thing is a bit tricky because Wikipedia is so vast it has to have guidelines like this or it would be chaos. But usually you don't look at sources in a binary way, but weigh both the general reputation of a publication and of course the actual content of the article, crosschecking reputations and facts and so on. Also just general believability, which this doesn't really have. When I mentioned it to my wife she burst out laughing. I asked why, and she said 'Ian Fleming took the 007 codename from a 15th-century mathematician signing letters to Queen Elisabeth?' It doesn't really pass the smell test. Why did Fleming never mention it, if so? It's a cracker of a story for an interview. And as you say, it's not automatically the case that something in a book is more reliable than if it's published on a blog or a journal one's never heard of, or even a journal with a peculiar background. In the long conversation you mention above, the unnamed editor was insistent on the idea that 'it's in books so it must be true'. Books are often wrong. In the case of McCormick, he's known to have fabricated material on several topics, and on this one he's been criticised strongly. Here's one academic calling his sensational claims about Dee's espionage career 'worthless fiction': http://books.google.se/books?id=7Q-3AAAAIAAJ&q=shumaker+%22john+dee%22+%22worthless+fiction%22&dq=shumaker+%22john+dee%22+%22worthless+fiction%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=t_qZUavlHab54QTV8YDoAw&redir_esc=y I can't find it now, irritatingly, but The Times' review of his Dee book was also very damning, and came just short of alleging he's made stuff up in it.

Anyway, you hit the nail on the head: it's the source that's unreliable. Fantr wrote that I demanded a source be found that doesn't lead back to McCormick, but on my site admit that doing that is 'near impossible'. I think it is in fact completely impossible - that's precisely why it's clear he invented it. It's not about original research, but checking the reliability of the sources used. If a secondary source cites primary ones, a minimum requirement for it to be reliable is that those primary sources *actually exist*. When you look up McCormick's citations, they often don't say what he claimed they did, as with the examples I gave about Peter Fleming's and Sefton Delmer's letters, are totally untraceable because they're information he was conveniently given confidentially, or there is no record of them existing at all, as with Robert Hooke's 'An Ingenious Cryptographical System'. This is across a range of topics: Fleming, as I wrote about; Dee, as Teresa Burns discusses; and Jack The Ripper, as related here: http://www.casebook.org/dissertations/maybrick_diary/mb-mc.html In the case of Fleming, I've found *several* sensational claims of his that aren't in Pearson, Lycett or any other credible account (Fleming having an affair with Skarbek; luring Hess, a few others), all of which have inaccurately cited or non-existent sources. It's beyond any plausible coincidence.

So I don't think it's a matter of searching for a reliable source that debunks McCormick's claim. Nor it is enough that otherwise reliable sources repeat his claim. McCormick *originated* the claim - if no primary source for it can be found, such as a letter by Dee in a museum or library, the only reason to believe McCormick about it is if it's thought that he is generally a reliable secondary source. But looking at his work and its reception makes it clear he's very far from that, and is perhaps best known for fabricating evidence involving the Jack the Ripper case, as well as having originated several other sensational claims with highly problematic sourcing. So to use McCormick's claim, it doesn't matter who believed it afetrwards or what this journal's history is - the fact there aren't any sources for it before McCormick suggests he is the originator of the idea, and he is simply not a reliable source, despite having published it in books. I hope that makes sense, anyway! Best, Jeremy Duns (talk) 11:25, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Let me try and do a bit more reading on the background of McCormick's work: we may be able to avoid having that specific claim refuted if there is enough material to bring the whole source (or even just the author himself) into serious question, which should be a manageable task, given the subject. It's something we need to do carefully because the information will just be added back in unless we can put down a large enough marker to have it permanently marked as being unreliable. I've got a hideous workload this week, but we'll get it sorted shortly enough! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 11:59, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Sounds sensible. No hurry at all, though! McCormick's claims have been repeated dozens of times since the 60s, so it's hardly urgent. You might be interested in this, though, which gives an idea of how attractive and persistent his ideas are: http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/guywalters/100077600/james-bond-ian-fleming-and-the-spy-who-didnt-love-him/ As a result of this, Mulley's book totally fudges this central claim of the affair and inspiratio for Vesper, and instead states (citing my blog article!), that 'the only known source for the much-quoted story of Christine's affair with Fleming is McCormick, who claims to have seen [a] letter from Fleming praising Christine, and his supporting witness, an Olga Bialoguski (sic), who testified to McCormick that she was the sole person Christine confided in, and who is... untraceable. McCormick had already written a history of the British Secret Service, and a 'Spyclopaedia', both of which mention Christine without reference to Fleming. It seems that the opportunity to bring them together finally proved irresistible'. (p. 343) I argued the same in my article - a little more firmly! - but anyway, this provides another published source as well as the one I linked to above on Dee that strongly suggests that McCormick indulged in fiction, ie was unreliable. His Jack The Ripper hoax, involving his creation of a poem sent to the police, is discussed here: http://books.google.se/books?id=p3we4fvYXeIC&pg=PA140&dq=%22donald+mccormick%22+%22eight+little+whores%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=IxyaUZiOPMKl4gTugYG4Cg&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=%22donald%20mccormick%22%20%22eight%20little%20whores%22&f=false His own Wikipedia entry also lists a couple of other sensational claims he made that turned out not to have any actual sources. I'm in no doubt he was a hoaxer - his misrepresentations and omissions of what Peter Fleming actually wrote can only have been deliberate - but even if not, he's very far from reliable. He was the Cold War equivalent of your correspondent in the above discussion! Jeremy Duns (talk) 12:54, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Image check as requested

Hello SchroCat, following is the listing of all gallery images:

• File:Terry-Thomas_in_Burke's_Law_(1964)_Crisco_restoration.jpg - OK (see note 1)
• File:Terry-Thomas'_blue_plaque.JPG - OK (the sign lacks originality imo)
• File:Terry-Thomas'_ex-house,_London.JPG - OK
• File:Terry-Thomas_in_Mad_World_Trailer.jpg - OK (see note 1). Assuming the author is not T. Screenshot (sorry for the pun), i'd add Ernest Laszlo here, or just "Employee(s) of United Artists" similar to other images in your gallery.
• File:Terry-Thomas_in_How_to_murder_your_wife.jpg - OK (see note 1)
• File:Terry-Thomas_in_Where_Were_You_When_the_Lights_Went_Out.jpg - OK (see note 1)
• File:Red_Skelton_Terry-Thomas_Red_Skelton_Show_1968.JPG - OK
• remaining 5 images - all OK (see note 1).
• Useless image 1 - i agree (about the "useless" part)
• Useless image 2 - redundant (see author field improvement above).

1. (note) the images use a lot of "PD-US-no notice". There is nothing inherently wrong with that, but i don't know enough about film history to judge those cases. Generally speaking either such screenshots and promo images did never have a regular copyright notice at all, or some of them had one and you checked those cases in the copyright registry archives and didn't find a notice. Both cases should be OK, but may come up as question in a FA review. If all those images have a similar publication history, it may be worthwhile to copy/paste a simple explanatory statement in each image summary, why "no notice" is assumed (optional).
2. Aside from that general disclaimer and the "author" field nitpick, all else is OK.

Hope that helps with your preparations, if you need further help please let me know. GermanJoe (talk) 11:19, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

• Hi GermanJoe and thanks for checking out the images. Several of the publicity photos uploaded had the back of the photograph uploaded as well (to show there is no copyright notice) so those should be absolutely fine. Haven't looked at all of them though, just... three I think. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:39, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

• See this talkpage Template_talk:PD-US-no_notice with lots (and lots) of discussion about the topic. As FA-article images tend to come under higher scrutiny, it certainly won't hurt to provide and link the back images, when the situation is not obvious in itself. If back images are not available, a concise explanation of the publication and copyright situation in the image summary will have to do. GermanJoe (talk) 14:08, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

• Preaching to the choir here; I've been known to do image checks myself. All those I've uploaded (and I believe Schro too) have had both the back and front uploaded, then overwritten (but still available in the history). Not sure about the others. Schro, if you could hunt down backs of photos that would be fantastic. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:14, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

• Checking all download histories, it seems like all images have a back image available, derivatives have theirs in the original file's history. That's a great idea, i just didn't think to dig that deep in the file information (blame my employer, the break was too short). All images OK. GermanJoe (talk) 14:30, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks. I know another user (used to?) upload(s) free publicity photos and always includes the backs, unless published in a magazine (had it happen at The Shirelles, much to my delight). May have been what happened here. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:34, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

• Fantastic news all round: I thought it was probably OK, but nice to have confirmation on all of them for a future FAC. Cheers to you both. - SchroCat (talk) 16:31, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Phew, wonderful news. I always find discussions between two great minds fascinating to read. You guys have been a big help! --Cassianto^Talk 19:57, 21 May 2013 (UTC)