Open main menu

User talk:SchroCat

Do not leave the ‎DS alert for infoboxes on this page.
I am aware of the requirements and restrictions and need no "reminding". Any placing of the note will be reverted, probably with an appropriate response.
FACs needing feedback
Deactivators Review it now
Coropuna Review it now


Wow. The power of a show on Netflix plus the beauty of Wikipedia's collaborative excellence. You and everyone else involved in the article's continuing strength should be very proud. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 19:39, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Wow - That's a shed load of views for one day! I had noticed an upturn in minor edits today and wondered what had caused it, and now I know. Cheers TRM. - SchroCat (talk) 19:43, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, to be fair, The Crown did an evocative job of covering the tragedy. I knew about it, but the dramatisation caught me unawares. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 19:51, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
I'll have to watch it - I've not seen any of them so far. 204,000 views on the 17th; 267,000 on the 18th, 206,000 on the 19th and 170,000 on the 20th. It got under 50,000 hits on this year's anniversary. - SchroCat (talk) 14:30, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
I concur with Rambling Man. As a long-time maintainer of this article, you and all the other local editors deserve their laurels. The article is concise and informative, a pleasure to read. Warm regards,  Spintendo  19:19, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
Spintendo, that is very kind of you; thank you very much indeed. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 19:32, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Books & Bytes – Issue 36Edit

  The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 36, September – October 2019

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:21, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Google Code-In 2019 is coming - please mentor some documentation tasks!Edit


Google Code-In, Google-organized contest in which the Wikimedia Foundation participates, starts in a few weeks. This contest is about taking high school students into the world of opensource. I'm sending you this message because you recently edited a documentation page at the English Wikipedia.

I would like to ask you to take part in Google Code-In as a mentor. That would mean to prepare at least one task (it can be documentation related, or something else - the other categories are Code, Design, Quality Assurance and Outreach) for the participants, and help the student to complete it. Please sign up at the contest page and send us your Google account address to, so we can invite you in!

From my own experience, Google Code-In can be fun, you can make several new friends, attract new people to your wiki and make them part of your community.

If you have any questions, please let us know at

Thank you!

--User:Martin Urbanec (talk) 21:58, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

You reverted my edit at Murder of Yvonne FletcherEdit

You included the reason for your undo as "Why... ?".

I removed the link to Police ranks of the United Kingdom because the article does not appear to contain any information about "Woman Police Constable (WPC)" or the text linked ("Woman Police Constable"). (Flagrant hysterical curious (talk) 18:51, 30 November 2019 (UTC))

The rank is shown in the table. Although this is rather scant information, it shows the level she attained. - SchroCat (talk) 21:25, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Which version?Edit

You reverted my edit to KH&C for no good reason because you did not state in which version your description appears: "They were discovered by the prison guard [sic]" No such scene in the English version, and I have never seen the American version anywhere. Have you seen it? Where is it available? Please supply link. Autodidact1 (talk) 23:59, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

They are shown in the closing scene being discovered by someone tidying his desk. - SchroCat (talk) 06:51, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Death of Jeffrey EpsteinEdit

Regarding your comments on the talk page, I have made 8 comments since 21 November, including proposing the merge. You have made 5 comments since yesterday. I don't believe I'm badgering anyone. I'm just raising relevant issues for discussion.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:44, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

With the exception of the comment regarding the removal of the image, I've !voted and then answered questions about my choice. That's not badgering, it's answering the questions of another editor. Yours have been across the commments of several. I'm just asking that you, and MJL, both try to refrain for a while. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 07:49, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
Well, I've just answered comments on my merger proposal.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:54, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
It’s “a” merger proposal: just let the chips fall where they may. I don’t think it’s a valid article either and some of the rationales are dubious, but that doesn’t mean you have to keep chipping in at every opportunity. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 07:59, 1 December 2019 (UTC)


Would appreciate a view on this. Ceoil (talk) 11:57, 1 December 2019 (UTC)


The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

WP:ABF much? I perfectly explained why I undid your edit (because you left POV phrasing in the article casting doubt on whether Jeffrey Epstein committed suicide). Also, you can kindly reconsider your decisions up to this point if you think that image was "culturally insensitive" because you have had ample opportunity to comment on the substance of the image, but you refused to even acknowledge I had a replacement already available.
I have been nothing but patient with you, but you are exhausting my good will. –MJLTalk 16:24, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) I am not following the discussions, very intricately but on the basis of editorial merits alone, I am unable to find much fault with the removal of the image. That part. imag was a weird choice, to be mild and the developing consensus at the RFC does not seem to be exactly going your way, MJL. WBGconverse 16:43, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
@Winged Blades of Godric: Yeah, I'm not surprised that a thread titled "RfC on fabricated image" isn't going exactly my way. I can further explain my editorial decision on my own talk page if you would like. –MJLTalk 19:18, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for the accusation of ABF. I "left POV phrasing in the article"? There was no need for you to revert my edit: you could have just deleted the POV text, which is nothing to do with my edits at all. I have explained that fabricating images - any image - is not a choice I would advise, so your proposed fabricated image would be a slightly less bad one than the one that also manages to diminish a religion. I have also suggested an alternative, although you say that "they'll never see this meme shared as a Wikipedia quote box": I think you miss the point of what a quote box actually does. Can I suggest that discussions on this point are kept on the article talk page, rather than this little backwater of a page? - SchroCat (talk) 16:49, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
If I did not undo your edit, then the editor would not have been properly notified the individual (who is rather new). Also, I never accused you of anything; I merely suggested that was the course of your behavior (hence the question mark). This was not unlike what you did here on the article talk page.
I'm not looking to debate you on the merits of quote boxes versus images, so I have no clue why you bring this up. I'm just trying to politely inform you that you shouldn't feel so prepared to complain about the cultural insensitivity of an image when that isn't your primary concern, Schro.
My apologies if that suggestion offended you in some manner, but as I said I am at my peak levels of frustration here.
Your insistence that I somehow "fabricated" an image doesn't exactly help matters and show the good faith I would've liked to see here.  MJLTalk 19:18, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
  • MJL, I have just paid my first visit to Discord. The levels of bad faith you display there (I have started a sham RfC, I don't really care about the image, I'm doing this as some form of revenge over some grief you had with Eric) are ridiculous, paranoid and deeply untrue. Get a grip: you could not be further from the truth on any of those points, which display, at best, rank bad faith. Take this as a formal request to stay off this talk page. I don't like having discussions here with people who go round off wiki bitching about others behind their backs. - SchroCat (talk) 22:47, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

ITN recognition for Bob WillisEdit

 On 4 December 2019, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Bob Willis, which you nominated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:23, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Blimey Ritchie333, that was quick! I only posted the nom a few minutes ago! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 16:24, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
I went to support and edit conflicted three times, so I thought if that was happening I might as well post it. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:25, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

About the RfC at Talk:Epstein didn't kill himselfEdit

Hello, SchroCat! We have a situation now at this talk page. You started an RfC a few days ago, making it clear that you didn't like the doctored image being used as an example of the meme. There was discussion. The one you (and I) didn't like has been removed. Since then, someone has found a usable picture of a real, "in the wild" use of the meme. Everyone seems to want to use it in the article. But the feeling is that we can't use it, or do anything, until the RfC is either closed or withdrawn. You have been pinged but have not responded. That is your privilege, of course. But I can't understand why you wouldn't withdraw the RfC. Because basically, you have won; there seems to be consensus to use the photo of a real meme instead of the one you and I objected to. Give it some thought, OK? -- MelanieN (talk) 18:17, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi MelanieN, thanks very much for the message. I had seen the ping - along with the snarky message about it being an "irregular RFC"; this was following various untruths told about me on Discord (that I started a "sham RfC", I don't really care about the image, I'm doing this as some form of "retaliation for Special:Permalink/913682753#Eric_Corbett"). After all that, and when I've had several editors (funnily enough, all ones who have participated on an opposing side in an infobox discussion) at the RfC question my good faith in opening a recognised method of settling disputes, then I am happy to walk away and leave them all to it. Any admin can decide the situation at any point - I am certainly not needed. I appreciate that you cannot, as you've been involved, but perhaps Deepfriedokra would care to visit the talk page to look over the thread. I should point out that there are still two of those images present on Commons, which does beg the question as to why they are still there. Thanks again for your note. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 18:33, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
Return to the user page of "SchroCat".