Wikipedia

User talk:SchroCat/Archive 19

< User talk:SchroCat
Latest comment: 8 years ago by Ceoil in topic Diamonds Are Forever

P. G. Wodehouse

Latest comment: 8 years ago32 comments4 people in discussion

So! As I see it, there's five good images available.

1. William Tell Retold - could get a complete set of plates for this, but.. we don't actually have an article on the book, which leaves them in limbo a bit.

2. My Man Jeeves: Obvious, but not the best cover. Not entirely sure I can get something featureable out of it. Adam Cuerden (talk) 08:33, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

3. The Intrusion of Jimmy - good book, very good image. Quality is... okay. Think I can fix up a bad scan.

4. Oh, Lady! Lady!! - Cover to sheet music to one of his musicals; Alternative: http://www.loc.gov/item/ihas.100007121/ is basically the same for our purposes, but a different song.

5. Have a Heart - lacks article.

Give me your choice of order for them, and I'll get to work. Adam Cuerden (talk) 11:46, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

  • Hi Adam, Many thanks for these - hugely appreciated! I'm going to ping Tim riley as my co-nom of the main article to see if he has any thoughts on this too. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 08:30, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
    • Absolutely happy to go along with whatever is chosen. Tim riley talk 08:38, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
You're getting Have a Heart (musical) then. Get writing on that article. </maliciousness> ;) More seriously, from having read one of his autobiographies, Oh, Lady! Lady! appears to be one he considered highly important. Any choice as to which of the two songs? The rest of it's near-identical, so I'm not doing both.
Also, more seriously, I would like to see William Tell Told Again with an article. It's an interesting book, and beautifully illustrated. Indeed, I think all the possible subjects of restorations have merit. I just wish Project Gutenberg did better scans; we could probably get Psmith and Mike featured if they did. Ah, well! Adam Cuerden (talk) 10:20, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
Also, pinging @Tim riley: back. Someone has to choose. =) Adam Cuerden (talk) 10:27, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
Finally, joking aside, is this a good image to lead our article on ol' Plum? Adam Cuerden (talk) 10:29, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
Am I missing the point here? What are these images intended for? To illustrate the existing article or for some other page? If the latter, which? If I'm honest, though I strove to do the school stories, the light novels and the musicals justice in the bits of the article I wrote, I think the only images that are truly representative of what Wodehouse means to most present-day readers would be of the farcical stories of e.g. Bertie Wooster, Blandings, and Mr Mulliner. But without being certain where any or all of the above images is or are intended to go, I am a bit fogged. Sorry if I'm missing the obvious. 11:14, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
@Tim riley: Bibliography, biography, and/or pages on the individual works. And I wouldn't say just those: For example Anything Goes, at the very least, would be added to those. It's revived all the time. But there's limits to what can be done: Anything 1923 or later is pretty much right out, and that's pretty limiting to our image choices, I think you'll agree. There's a few stories with well-known characters - My Man Jeeves, Something [Fresh/New], and most of the Psmiths... and that's it; however, of those, all I have is a terribly-scanned My Man Jeeves, and someone who doesn't understand American copyright (or, at least, didn't realise only that need be considered for en-wiki)'s tiny, hugely scaled-down cover of Something New. Which doesn't even show characters anyway. Adam Cuerden (talk) 11:20, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
I am surprised that there isn't anything for William Tell Retold, and I'll probably have a stab at something once I've finished working on the Hitler Diaries scandal. I popped the File:WT-Cover.jpg into the Bibliography when I put it through FLC, but there is still a fair amount of space to add a few others to cover the whitespace on the right of the page. - SchroCat (talk) 11:59, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
Found it. William Tell Told Again. Though, that said? The people who uploaded the images for it are idiots. British book, uploaded with an American copyright claim - when the book's clearly in copyright in Britain. The images should be fine for Commons... if you can separate them from the text. Otherwise, they should've been on en-wiki from the start, and maybe en-wikisource if wikisource accepts America-only copyrights. Adam Cuerden (talk) 15:37, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
 
Progress so far. Adam Cuerden (talk) 11:39, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

That's fantastic - much better than the first version we had in there before! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 11:44, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Reckon it's done now... Adam Cuerden (talk) 02:35, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
That's a superb job, Adam - thank you very much for that! - SchroCat (talk) 07:14, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
  • If Adam noms I'll return and give it a thumbs up! - SchroCat (talk) 07:26, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
  • As usual I am way behind the curve! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 07:48, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Har. Speaking of behind, I'll email you an update. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 08:08, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
I will say, it came out a lot better than I had hoped it would. Adam Cuerden (talk) 08:17, 3 July 2015 (UTC)


Anyway! It's time... for the next image! What would be most helpful? One of the musicals? William Tell Told Again? Adam Cuerden (talk) 12:10, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

  • I uploaded a JPG of WTTA; the TIF is still available from Archive.org as well. Not much work needed for it.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 12:13, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
I think William Tell, given we have an article already. I've just kicked Hitler Diaries into PR, so have a little more free time, and I'll dig around in the sources to see if I can add to the article. I can't remember reading much about it (although that was in Tim's part of the biography), so I don't know if there is even enough to get it up to GA standard or not - we'll see! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 12:13, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
One point, Crisco 1492: The archive.org copies appear to be based on http://www.loc.gov/resource/rbc.2003juv55413/?sp=1 - I think we can get better copies direct from the LoC source. I'll need to fiddle about. Adam Cuerden (talk) 12:22, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Agree. If you can get a better copy, that would work great. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 12:39, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

 

How's this? It's from the Library of Congress copy - similar, but I think the Internet Archive does something to their PDFs - theirs looks rather less saturated and duller to me. Adam Cuerden (talk) 15:59, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Looks great, but I don't see why you are applying Wodehouse's lifespan to the cover. Any text there would be PD text. Only the illustration is copyrightable. If we were uploading the full PDF, though, we'd have to think of Wodehouse. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 16:43, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
Precautionary principle. If Commons wants a copy, they're welcome to it, but I'd rather have it here where it's guaranteed safe.
This is going to be more an issue with the interior illustrations, where fully describing them will require quoting Houghton's poem, stanza by stanza. Adam Cuerden (talk) 16:47, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Agree, if you'll be quoting extensively like you did with Tennyson. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 16:54, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
I'd prefer to, which is a problem for Commons. Probably. Who is Houghton, anyway? Adam Cuerden (talk) 18:00, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

http://www.sothebys.com/en/auctions/ecatalogue/2015/english-literature-history-childrens-books-illustrations-l15404/lot.187.html Do you see how to get the whole set? (Also have some William Tell Told Again up, but I could grab all of those.) Adam Cuerden (talk) 04:45, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Grousing about images

Latest comment: 8 years ago8 comments3 people in discussion

I really wish that people would actually look at what they're uploading sometimes. File:Intrusion_of_Jimmy_p073.jpg was labelled as a "house artist" of the publishing firm. It's signed. And the signature is not hard to read.

Anyway, just complaining, because I keep stumbling upon things like this, and it's a bit annoying. =) Adam Cuerden (talk) 10:44, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure why it's been labelled in the file name and in the description as Page 73. The writing on the actual image shows it's page 61, as does the link to the book itself! - SchroCat (talk) 10:54, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Actually, Schro, the page refers to the quoted text. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 10:56, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
  • So does the image - which sits between pages 60 and 61. Flick back and forth on the page-by-page view. - SchroCat (talk) 10:59, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
...Another excellent point. I bet they numbered it by pages in the PDF, which included the cover, flyleaf, etc. I suspect it's a Wikisource thing... Yep: https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Page:The_Intrusion_of_Jimmy.djvu/73 Adam Cuerden (talk) 11:12, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Good point, Adam. Schro, I usually label such pages "Plate after page X" or "Plate before page Y" to avoid any ambiguity... thought I'd done that here. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 16:45, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
  • @Crisco 1492: You weren't the original uploader; it's normal to presume they got things right. Adam Cuerden (talk) 04:12, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Yeah, but I could have sworn I'd noted the correct page number somewhere... maybe at the FAC? — Chris Woodrich (talk) 06:54, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Bentworth

Latest comment: 8 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

Hi, I'm currently in the process of bringing Bentworth up to FA after me and Dr. Blofeld finally brought it up to GA three years ago. I've been recommended to ask somebody uninvolved in the article to give it a copyedit, as some parts of the prose is looking rough. Its peer review has received extensive comments over the week and I think the only thing stopping it now are some parts of the prose, in particular below the History section. I'll forever be in your debt, thanks! JAGUAR  11:44, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi Jaguar, no problems - I have a couple of reviews to work through and then I'll be along, probably in a couple of days. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 11:46, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
Thanks! I'm looking forward to it. JAGUAR  11:46, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
Should be on this either later today, or tomorrow: I'm reviewing something at FAC at the moment, and you're next on the list. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 11:05, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library needs you!

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
 

We hope The Wikipedia Library has been a useful resource for your work. TWL is expanding rapidly and we need your help!

With only a couple hours per week, you can make a big difference for sharing knowledge. Please sign up and help us in one of these ways:

  • Account coordinators: help distribute free research access
  • Partner coordinators: seek new donations from partners
  • Communications coordinators: share updates in blogs, social media, newsletters and notices
  • Technical coordinators: advise on building tools to support the library's work
  • Outreach coordinators: connect to university libraries, archives, and other GLAMs
  • Research coordinators: run reference services



Send on behalf of The Wikipedia Library using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:31, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Something resembling an olive branch

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I was originally going to reply to your last post on the talk page regarding my decision to remove your comments, but I decided not to because: (1) I wanted to give myself time to calm down and not say something uncivil in the heat of the moment, (2) It's off-topic and has no business being on the Grande talk. I know we haven't gotten off to the best start, but this post is not meant to be an attack on you and is not meant to "threaten" you, so please read this and don't take it the wrong way.

First of all, I removed your comments because you posted them in an archived thread. The thread was closed because it was an off-topic mess of uncivil comments, some of which I will admit to making myself. I found the fact that you not only ignored the message to not make further replies, but also made a snarky comment calling a group of editors "tedious and unpleasant," to be highly distasteful. (I also found your re-posting of the comment just outside of the archive box to be quite POINT-y and unnecessary.)

Secondly, I would like to ask you one final time to not make personal remarks against me. I will admit that I have been pretty hostile to you in some of the discussions – and I apologize for that – but that is because I have taken major offense to your suggestions about my editing (one of your comments was something along the lines of "you don't know how to write a balanced article") and your repeated attacks on my character, calling me a liar, hypocrite, and saying I attempted to underhand a discussion, none of which are true. We may disagree on how the content in the Grande article should be presented, but I don't think that's an excuse to launch attacks and snide comments back and forth.

Of course, that applies to me as well, and I have been no angel. As I said, I apologize for the uncivil comments I have made to you. I also apologize for anything that you may have misconstrued as attempting to censor you in the RfC (such as the ANRFC request, which I only filed because I realized the discussion had gone on for over a month). I would like to put this dispute past us and handle the rest of the Grande matter maturely and respectfully. I hope you are willing to do the same. Cheers. Chase (talk | contributions) 06:07, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/My Man Jeeves

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I've added an alternative, if you'd care to select preference? I Adam Cuerden (talk) 19:44, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Query about a dubious GA promotion

Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hi. Hope you're well. I've noticed a dubious GA promotion of a key article [[1]], the biography of Ali, one of the key figures in Islam. The "review" is empty of comments [[2]] and has been reviewed by a reviewer who has significantly deleted content from the said article [[3]] which was subsequently reverted here as controversial [[4]] and has not been restored. Is there a mechanism on wikipedia to quickly reverse this seemingly obvious case of a dubious GA promotion. Cowlibob (talk) 00:04, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi Cowlibob, I'm not entirely sure (I don't do much with GAs anymore), but I've raised the problem at Wikipedia:Good article help#Questionable review, which should provide a pathway. It certainly shouldn't be a GA at the moment - a tag, stubby paragraphs, some rough prose and some issues with the sourcing should have meant this was given a good going over at the time. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 07:27, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 08 July 2015

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Parliament

Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

You may well know of it, but some really interesting early images of Parliament here [5] Regards. KJP1 (talk) 13:22, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Cheers KJP, I remember looking at them when I just started writing the Burning article, but never went back for some reason. At some point I'll get round to writing up the Palace of Westminster article, which isn't too bad at the mment, butcould be a lot better! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 07:35, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Books and Bytes - Issue 12

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

  The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 12, May-June 2015
by The Interior (talk · contribs), Ocaasi (talk · contribs), Sadads (talk · contribs), Nikkimaria (talk · contribs)

  • New donations - Taylor & Francis, Science, and three new French-language resources
  • Expansion into new languages, including French, Finnish, Turkish, and Farsi
  • Spotlight: New partners for the Visiting Scholar program
  • American Library Association Annual meeting in San Francisco

Read the full newsletter

The Interior 15:23, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 15 July 2015

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Beadle

Latest comment: 8 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Hi SchroCat, how are you? I will be getting to the Kujau–Heidemann FAC shortly. In the meantime I wonder if I could trouble you for a sources review for the Beadle FAC. If you could spare a few minutes to revisit and look over the referencing I would very much appreciate it. Thanks and I hope you have a great weekend. —  Cliftonian (talk)  06:36, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

I certainly will. I had a quick glance over it for the more common errors previously and saw nothing eg serious to deal with, but I'll have a more complete look shortly. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 07:03, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
Very much obliged sir. —  Cliftonian (talk)  07:14, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Bentworth

Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hi, thank you for your comments at the recent peer review. The article is now a featured article candidate, and it would be great if you could comment there. Thanks! JAGUAR  20:18, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

No,probs – I'll swing by shortly. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 08:05, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

.

Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
  Obligingly
Or?It implies having qualities that make one liked and easy to deal with. Implies cheerfulness or helpfulness and sometimes a willingness to be imposed upon. Hafspajen (talk) 22:16, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Haffy. Given the recent events elsewhere with sub-standard Amin decisions, it's nice to feel appreciated! – SchroCat (talk) 22:22, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Troll

Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

The troll who keeps vandalising my talk is popping up here and doing the same. I have a good idea who it is, but obviously can't prove it. I'm sure Gavin wouldn't say no to a bit of protection too as it appears this has been one of several occasions today where he has been the victim of a troll who is currently on a block...oops, did I just say that out loud!?!. CassiantoTalk 13:12, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Oddly I thought it was a different (i.e. unblocked) troll who has been known to bait people (and who has been doing it fairly recently too!). Either way it's tiresome knowing that if you respond in any normal way, some friendly grudge-holder – possibly even the same person, who knows – will be in there in an instant to pile on a pointless block and ratchet up the tension in an entirely unnecessary way! – SchroCat (talk) 10:31, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

File:Sayers—Whose Body, UK cover.jpg

Latest comment: 8 years ago7 comments3 people in discussion
  • Hi Schro, I noticed this image and was wondering what basis you'd used for the PD claim. Did you get access to a copy to see if the illustrator was anonymous, or...? — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:59, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Extensive searches elsewhere, rather than the book itself. No listings were found that gave any details. – SchroCat (talk) 06:19, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
    • Well, to claim PD-URAA, you'd need to show that the image is PD in Britain. That tag is missing. Also, if the creator of the cover art was anonymous, it shouldn't be credited to Sayers. If Sayers is the cover artist, the work isn't in the public domain. (The "author" in this case is the creator of the cover art) — Chris Woodrich (talk) 06:26, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Oh, Öh, Sayers never illustrated anything, as far as I know. Hafspajen (talk) 13:01, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Spectre article - revert of "unsourced" information.

Latest comment: 8 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion

The changes showed the sources, with a reference. Why did you say it was unsourced? Both the Madeleine Swann info and the intro had a source in 007.com, specifically this article http://www.007.com/new-spectre-trailer-released/ 78.146.47.250 (talk) 20:48, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

You cut and pasted the whole bloody thing from the official source??? That's even worse!!! That's a straight copyright violation that gets deleted in sight. We never, ever, ever cut and paste from the original source: reword if it needs it, but never copy anything. Despite that, it is not written in an encyclopaedic manner at all. – SchroCat (talk) 21:07, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
I reworked it, with different phrases - it wasn't exactly the same. Can I reedit the Madeleine Swann information? 78.146.47.250 (talk) 21:16, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
Utter rubbish: it was a straight COPYVIO, regardless of you changing a word or two:
  • Your version: "a cryptic message from the past sends James Bond on a rogue mission to Mexico City and eventually Rome, where he meets Lucia Sciarra, the beautiful and forbidden widow of an infamous criminal. Bond infiltrates a secret meeting and uncovers the existence of the sinister organisation known as SPECTRE.
  • Eon version: "A cryptic message from the past sends James Bond on a rogue mission to Mexico City and eventually Rome, where he meets Lucia Sciarra (Monica Bellucci), the beautiful and forbidden widow of an infamous criminal. Bond infiltrates a secret meeting and uncovers the existence of the sinister organisation known as SPECTRE."
  • Your version: "Max Denbigh, the new head of the Centre for National Security, questions Bond’s actions and challenges the relevance of MI6."
  • Eon's version: "Max Denbigh (Andrew Scott), the new head of the Centre for National Security, questions Bond’s actions and challenges the relevance of MI6"
  • Your version: "Bond covertly enlists Moneypenny and Q to help him seek out Madeleine Swann, the daughter of his old nemesis Mr White, who may hold the clue to untangling the web of SPECTRE. "
  • Eon's version: "Bond covertly enlists Moneypenny (Naomie Harris) and Q (Ben Whishaw) to help him seek out Madeleine Swann (Léa Seydoux), the daughter of his old nemesis Mr White (Jesper Christensen), who may hold the clue to untangling the web of SPECTRE. "
  • Your version: "As the daughter of an assassin, she understands Bond in a way most others cannot. As Bond ventures towards the heart of SPECTRE, he learns of a chilling connection between himself and the enemy he seeks, Franz Oberhauser."
  • Eon's version: "As the daughter of an assassin, she understands Bond in a way most others cannot. As Bond ventures towards the heart of SPECTRE, he learns of a chilling connection between himself and the enemy he seeks, played by Christoph Waltz."
FFS, to try and claim that you "reworked" the original shows you have absolutely no idea how to paraphrase anything, or about the basics of copyright theft. I've seen editors blocked for less obvious copying. I suggest you spend some time reading COPYVIO to ensure you understand what to do and what not to do next time. - SchroCat (talk) 21:43, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
Ok, I apologise. I didn't realise that what I did wasn't right, I was just trying to update the article with newly released information and I believed the source worded it best - how does this relate to using press releases etc? and on the Madeleine information, can that be updated? 78.146.47.250 (talk) 21:54, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Honestly, I think the smartest and safest way forward is to keep the old version intact. It worked just fine for weeks, has none of the problems that come with COPYVIO, and the updated version didn't say anything that tge old version did not already include.

Plus, it's a premise for an upcoming film. It should only be one short paragraph at most, not three. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 01:10, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Jeremy Thorpe – FAC

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

This is to advise peer reviewers of the above article that I have now nominated it at FAC, and will welcome any further comments. Brianboulton (talk) 20:35, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 22 July 2015

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

JC's Girls

Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hi Gavin,

Thank you very much for your review at the JC's Girls FAC; it is greatly appreciated. Might you be willing to perform a source review of formatting/reliability? The FAC has been live for more than two months now, and one of the FAC coordinators recently commented that no one has yet performed a source review for the article.

Neelix (talk) 20:43, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Will do: it'll be a couple of days, but I'll get there. Cheers. – SchroCat (talk) 21:41, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Kurt Vonnegut FAC

Latest comment: 8 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion

Hello SchroCat,

Not sure if you're interested but would you be willing to do a peer review over here for the Kurt Vonnegut article. I've asked Brianboulton, but I want the article to be the best it can be before I go to FAC. Sound good? (No worries if you're not interested or just don't want to :-) Cheers, --ceradon (talk • contribs) 11:55, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Hi Ceradon, I'll see what I can do, even though I am sadly ignorant of a lot of his work. I should be there early next week. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 13:27, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Well, if I don't inform you with the article I suppose I've failed! :-) And thank you. I look forward to your review. --ceradon (talk • contribs) 13:30, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
  • I am not quite sure how I should take the statement: "I've asked Brianboulton, but I want the article to be the best it can be before I go to FAC". I do my best, honestly. Brianboulton (talk) 21:43, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Oh no. No no no no no no. I didn't mean to insult you Brianboulton. I... oh Jesus. That was not my intention. I just figured the more eyes the better. I meant no offence really. Brianboulton. Now that I reread it I see how that might have sounded and I'm so so sorry. --ceradon (talk • contribs) 00:11, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Thy sins are forgiven thee. Brianboulton (talk) 08:47, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Yet another technical glitch

Latest comment: 8 years ago8 comments4 people in discussion
 
Test

I'm truly sorry to bother you again, but can you advise me about this: File:GeorgeDeLongPortrait.jpg? I uploaded this no differently from the hundreds that I've done before – so where is the image? And how can it be displayed on a user page? If this is something to do with Media Viewer, someone at WMF's scrotum is in danger. Brianboulton (talk) 22:01, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Curiouser and curiouser... The full-size image is there, but not as a thumb.... Let me have a ponder.... – SchroCat (talk) 22:19, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
tps - All new files have the same issue. See Special:NewFiles -NQ-Alt (talk) 22:31, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Thanks NQ! Brian, it looks like we need to wait until something technical is done somewhere by someone else, but at least you've done nothing wrong on this. - SchroCat (talk) 22:53, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the reassurance. I assume someone has taken this up? Brianboulton (talk) 08:51, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

@Brianboulton: I'm having the same problem with Sands Hotel and Casino, it's doing my head in! The main image just won't show!♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:19, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi Brian, there's a thread at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 138#photos in an info box which has reported it. I don't think the problem affects Commons upload (or a few other Wikis), but just en.wiki, it seems. – SchroCat (talk) 09:59, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

  • The problem seems to have been resolved - I can now get the thumbnail image in the normal way. Sorry about the gloomy old git on the right. Brianboulton (talk) 10:41, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Sands Hotel and Casino

Latest comment: 8 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Can you find a reliable source that it was used as a filming location in Diamonds Are Forever? One sources says the scene where Connery climbs on the elevator and scales the hotel roof and enters Blofeld's bathroom was the Sands Hotel. It didn't look like it, the hotel in the film seemed bigger.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:48, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

I'll see what I can find in the morning. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 22:12, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
I've got nothing in the book sources that makes the connection... - SchroCat (talk) 08:13, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Sources review

Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Do you think you could manage a sources review for Jeremy Thorpe's FAC? These are hard to come by these days, and don't seem to materialise unless you ask for one (I ought to do a few myself). Brianboulton (talk) 15:35, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi Brian, No problems - I shoud be able to get round to it this evening or tomorrow morning. While you're here, can I give you a gentle nudge to close off the Hitler's Diary FAC you began? Many thanks – SchroCat (talk) 16:36, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Phantom Local Nature Reserve

Latest comment: 8 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

I am planning to nominate List of Local Nature Reserves in Hertfordshire for FL but I have a problem with one site. According to the Natural England list, Three Rivers Council declared Batchworth Heath as an LNR, and I emailed the council to ask why it is not on their own list of LNRs. They replied that it is not an LNR, and they have asked Natural England to take it off the list, but so far this has not been done. This means that the list is now wrong, but if I note that it is wrong then the only source I can cite is a personal communication, which is OR. Any advice on dealing with this? Thanks. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:55, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi Dudley, go with "editorial discretion" and leave it out (and hope NE pull their finger out and edit their list). The alternative is to add it in, and keep an the NE website to see when they pull it. Given the circumstances, a note on the article talk or FLC page in explanation should cover any questions or comments. Hope this helps! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 16:33, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for your help. Dudley Miles (talk) 16:42, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 July 2015

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

SPECTRE edits

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I saw you undid a couple of my edits on SPECTRE. Just a quick note that I was focused on fixing the verb tense issues I saw and on sliding citations to the end of sentences (it bugs the hell out of me when they unnecessarily show up in the middle of a sentence and disrupt the flow). The Americanization of the British usages were unintentional, so thanks for restoring them. I actually did some reading up on the use of commas on introductory phrases in British English after I saw your edits, which was rather interesting. Thanks for leading me to something new today! :) Grandpallama (talk) 18:22, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

FLC criteria

Latest comment: 8 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

I have looked at User:NapHit's FLC candidate List of French Open men's singles champions and it has 8 paragraphs on the history of the French Open. I would have thought this belongs in the article on the Open rather than the list, but I cannot see anything in the FLC criteria. Is there a rule on this? Dudley Miles (talk) 22:35, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

I've not seen any rules that relate to it specifically, and it's normally up to reviewers to comment on the level of detail that accompanies each nomination. Most will have some level of background information, but the amount there seems to be a bit excessive, and it could probably be cut by over half, which would be to the advantage of the page as a whole, I think. - SchroCat (talk) 15:31, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the advice. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:39, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Book talk:Me. I Am Mariah... The Elusive Chanteuse

Latest comment: 8 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

I've asked quite a lot of people about this but nothing has been done. These are bad bot edits. Do you know why it would be doing this or know someone who can actually sort it?  — Calvin999 09:53, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

I suggest reporting the problem to the bot operator. The bot is technically edit-warring now so it should really be disabled. Betty Logan (talk) 10:08, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
I think someone already directed me to who is in charge of it.  — Calvin999 10:24, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi Adam, is this all sorted now (or at least has the bot driver been told of the problems?) cheers - SchroCat (talk) 16:27, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

It's just added everything back wrong.  — Calvin999 09:37, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Moonraker

Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Saw you ping some folks that you have Moonraker at PR. I'm not big on doing PRs, but if you put it up for FAC, ping me then, and I'd be glad to do a review - I was, oddly enough, something of a fan of the Roger Moore Bond films, and that one in particular, most likely due to the outer space angle (which I realize differs from the novel). Montanabw(talk) 23:33, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi Montana, Many thanks for the offer, which I'll certainly take you up on when I take that step – late August is the plan at the moment. Likewise, please add me onto your list of willing FAC participants for next time you're visiting there. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 05:03, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Hitler Diaries

Latest comment: 8 years ago6 comments4 people in discussion

A hearty congratulations! Hope you won't hold it against me that I'm taking a break from reviewing at the moment! Maybe by the end of the month.♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:10, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

  • Not a problem at all! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 11:03, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
Yes, well done – possibly the most entertaining FAC of the year. Thanks for your sources review on Jeremy Thorpe, I've attended to the various points except for the archiving thingy which being technical is obviously beyond me. Could you fix that? No hurry, as Graham has promoted the article anyway. Brianboulton (talk) 10:15, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Hi Brian, not a problem – I'll be there on Monday to sort it. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 22:24, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Congratulations, Gavin! It's a very interesting article. I hope you don't mind that I've added a navbox to the bottom. It looks like both of our FACs were promoted on the same day! Thank you very much for your general review and source review for the JC's Girls article. I have nominated it for a TFA here. I'd be glad to see Hitler Diaries hit the main page as well. Let me know if you decide to nominate it! Neelix (talk) 13:02, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
Thanks Neelix, much appreciated! I'll drop round to TFAR shortly to add my support. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 04:57, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Disruption on James Bond articles

Latest comment: 8 years ago8 comments3 people in discussion

I know you have removed certain articles from your watchlist, but certain James Bond articles have become unstable and perhaps would benefit from further input at the discussions on their respective talk pages. The articles in question are:

I am sorry to do this to you! Betty Logan (talk) 22:37, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Betty – all Watchlisted again, and I'll put my thoughts on the active thread shortly. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 04:58, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
Betty Logan, Chaheel Riens I'm out of the "discussion" on LTK. There are two editors with mind-blowingly crass and idiotic arguments who think that somehow their word is law, and who are prepared to ride roughshod over the thoughts and the consensus of others (let alone the canvassing one of them has undertaken). Life is too short to have to deal with people like this. - SchroCat (talk) 14:39, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
I took a look at the discussion last night and saw it going nowhere. I would say the next step is to form a survey of opinion, and if no clear consensus arises from that then WP:NOCONSENSUS applies. Betty Logan (talk) 14:46, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
The two editors pushing the point at the moment are both determined to act as sole arbiters of the wording that they want in, regardless of the existing consensus and regardless of the weight of sources that back i up. Such close-minded intransigence is deeply depressing to have to deal with. - SchroCat (talk) 14:49, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
SonofThornhill has put a compromise on the table. It is not perfect but in the name of peace (and saving our time and sanity!) I think we should take it, since it results in retaining the pertinent information and just altering the language slightly. It doesn't flow as well as the previous wording but I can live with it. Betty Logan (talk) 18:33, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
An unspaced em dash, rather than brackets, would improve the flow a little, but it's still a little cumbersome. – SchroCat (talk) 19:36, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
I've been on vacation, and only got back recently, or I'd have commented earlier. I should have just deleted it right at the beginning, but there you go... Chaheel Riens (talk) 18:00, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 05 August 2015

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of accolades received by Enthiran/archive1

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello, SchroCat. I have nominated the article, List of accolades received by Enthiran, for FLC. Feel free to leave any comments at its FLC page. — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 12:21, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Paterson Clarence Hughes

Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hi Gavin, this bio on an Australian Battle of Britain ace is at FAC after GAN and MilHist A-Class Review, and I thought might benefit from the eye of someone not closely associated with military stuff -- does that sound like you...?! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:56, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi Ian, No probs – I'll be there in the morning to have a look. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 01:15, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Kurt Vonnegut FAC

Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hello. We've gone to FAC with the Kurt Vonnegut article. Just a heads up. Cheers, --ceradon (talk • edits) 14:30, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping: I'm just going out for a few hours and going on holiday on Saturday, so I'll try and get there tomorrow to comment further. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 14:33, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 12 August 2015

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Bond Girl gets to play Dorothy Dandridge in her own production – drawn from a published bio by Earl Mills

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I think I can winkle a connection between your Wikipedia interests ( British popular culture ) and the biographies of Dorothy Dandridge by Donald Bogle and Earl Mills through the actress who has played a Bond girl, the very appealing and resourceful Halle Berry. I am entering this direct approach to you on your user page.

Would you please read this section on the Donald Bogle Wikipedia page:

Bogle's next book, a biography of actress Dorothy Dandridge, caused a sensation before its 1997 publication.[1] It sparked renewed interest in Dandridge's life, and several Black performers raced to make a film about Dandridge's life.[2] Whitney Houston acquired the rights to produce a movie based on Bogle's biography,[2] but Halle Berry brought Introducing Dorothy Dandridge to fruition.[3]

References

  1. ^ Brennan, Carol. "Donald Bogle". Answers.com. Retrieved April 10, 2009.
  2. ^ a b Maslin, Janet (June 19, 1997). "Hollywood's Tryst With Dorothy Dandridge Inspires Real Love at Last". The New York Times. Retrieved April 10, 2009.
  3. ^ "Halle Berry Brings the Passion and Pain of Dorothy Dandridge to HBO Movie". Jet. August 23, 1999. Retrieved July 29, 2014.

Could you please receive to yourself the impression that Miss Berry's production uses the Bogle biography as its script basis?

Hale Berry used a biography by Earl Mills (red link highlight) and quite a few times I tried various ways not to offend an editor who seems to have elected himself as Miss Berry's guardian. [ A recent entry on Miss Berry's Wikipedia talk page shows that: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Halle_Berry#X-Men:_Apocalypse ]

I might be willing to proceed on corrections in Wikipedia on popular British culture, but I can not feel it appropriate to enter into the delicacies of African-American sensitivities as they would exist in the immensity of the weight and explosive balances within the US Show Business world.

As you are a major Wikipedia editor and that the achievements of Miss Berry touches through to her casting in the Bond franchise, if you read that her "Wiki protector" is aggrandizing her on the Donald Bogle page, I am sure Wikipedia readers would not be misled if you edited beyond the power of the sensitive and demanding "protector," Malik Shabazz/Talk.

_regards, . .or otherwise, thank you very much . . --Laurencebeck (talk) 00:29, 15 August 2015 (UTC).

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Kalidas (film)/archive1

Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

The article on the first Tamil cinema talking picture is at FAC now. Feel free to leave comments at its FAC page. Thank you. — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 09:16, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

  • Hi Ssven, it looks interesting, but I've just gone on holiday, so don't have the ability to review for a couple of weeks. If the Nom rolls on into September, please drop me a line and I'll visit. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 13:53, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Multi-nom

Latest comment: 8 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Hey SchroCat, you may not have noticed but I'm winding my FLC brain up again and have a couple of noms, one with two supports, t'other with three supports, and was wondering if you'd be okay with me listing another? Alternatively we could rope in some keen reviewers, maybe yourself, or Cassianto or Tim riley or Dr. Blofeld? The Rambling Man (talk) 09:47, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi RM, I'm on holiday at the moment with only a patchy connection, so I won't be able to join the reviewing, but with the level of support you have on the other two noms, I wouldn't object if you added a third. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 12:16, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
Okeydokes, cheers, enjoy your holiday. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:18, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Hitler Diaries

Latest comment: 8 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion

What a wonderful read, thank you. I've read so many bits and pieces on this over the years, but it was great to see it all tied together. Excellent work. Gareth E Kegg (talk) 11:54, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

  • Hi Gareth, That's very kind of you to say so. Inspired by the Selling Hitler series I saw in the 80s, it was a fun one to write to! Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 14:03, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
Hi, there's no place in Berlin named Gatou. The last Berlin airfield the Nazis could use (with Tempelhof Airport already occupied by the Red Army) was Gatow Airfield just west of Lake Wannsee. --Maxl (talk) 20:37, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
Not to be confused with Gateau Airport in Vienna, known locally as Sachertorte. Tim riley talk 18:13, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
Ouch! – SchroCat (talk) 21:57, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 19 August 2015

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/The King of Brobdingnag and Gulliver

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
 
Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted
Your nomination for featured picture status, File:James Gillray The King of Brobdingnag and Gulliver.–Vide. Swift's Gulliver- Voyage to Brobdingnag The Metropolitan Museum of Art edit.jpg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. Armbrust The Homunculus 09:18, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Sean Connery

Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I don't know if you are aware of this, but BBC 2 aired a documentary about Sean Connery this week: http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b0674mg5/sean-connery-in-his-own-words. I think it was only shown in Scotland though. Well worth checking out, especially for the Bond stuff. Betty Logan (talk) 09:59, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Betty – I'm on holiday at the moment, so the Internet connection is a bit patchy, but it'll be around on iPlayer for a while after I get back, so I'll have a spin then. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 18:39, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Rod Steiger

Latest comment: 8 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Evening, any chance you could provide some input at the peer review?♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:22, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi Doc, I'm still on holiday at the moment, but if it's still running when I get back I'll pop round. – SchroCat (talk) 17:33, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
No worries, you've deserved every minute of it!♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:37, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 26 August 2015

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Most supports

Latest comment: 8 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Hey SchroCat, hope your holiday was great. I just wondered if we should now start a "most supports for a FLC" since Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of international goals scored by Wayne Rooney/archive1 has reached the magnificent total of 8 (eight) (per vidiprinter styling) which I'm not sure I've seen lately, apart from for a list related to Indian filmographies or awards. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:52, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Not if I evillly strike half of them first! ;) I've been away for a couple of weeks and not spun my eye over the noms yet, but I'll close this one now, as it seems silly to keep it open any longer! Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 21:01, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
No worries, I remember a time where we had to archive lists because they had one support and ..... nothing else.... The Rambling Man (talk) 21:12, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

FAC

Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Reread my comments, and yes they were vauge. I'll reread through the article, lets not declare war just yet :) You cant trout me at will. Ceoil (talk) 21:28, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

  • That's great – many thanks Ceoil; I look forward to your thoughts. Your articles are always interesting, and I'll be glad to get your input. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 21:35, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of accolades received by Mary Kom (film)/archive1

Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hey! All the comments has been resolved and there is no problem with it. Still it has not passed? I think you should look at it once again. Thanks!Krish | Talk 07:00, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

I have been on leave for three weeks and I have not had a chance to look at the FLCs since my return; I doubt I will have a chance to look at them for a few more days, as RL will be busy for a spell. – SchroCat (talk) 08:25, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Spectre poster

Latest comment: 8 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

Not sure if it's just me, but the poster presently featured looks like a stretched version of the British poster. Rusted AutoParts 18:55, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

  • Have you refreshed the page? I had the same problem until that. – SchroCat (talk) 19:18, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Poster lists Ralph Fiennes as "M", why do you change the article back to Gareth Mallory? 78.146.47.250 (talk) 21:22, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Because we don't base the cast list on the poster block. – SchroCat (talk) 21:40, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 02 September 2015

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Jeannette Expedition FAC

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Although you didn't comment at the peer review, I note some nifty editing on your part. I've closed the PR; the article is now at WP:FAC, and I'd be most grateful for any comment you can add there. Brianboulton (talk) 20:45, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 09 September 2015

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

George Formby Snr

Latest comment: 8 years ago11 comments3 people in discussion

You say "His influenza preceded the 1918 outbreak" but in the article lede it says " Tuberculosis and influenza—the latter contracted in the pandemic of 1918" and "Formby's health was further damaged in the influenza pandemic of 1918, during which he contracted the disease while appearing at the Manchester Hippodrome". I suppose you are arguing with yourself there; I hope it doesn't come to blows; "leave 'im SchroCat, 'e's not worf it!" (that's from my Eastenders script; strangely they haven't called me back about optioning it). Doesn't matter in the blurb except if he did get it in the pandemic it might be better to put the 1916 accident beforehand. Belle (talk) 13:44, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Quite right! I've tweaked accordingly to reflect the right info. Does that read OK? - SchroCat (talk) 14:00, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
Yes, that's turned out nice again (Badum-tish! Wrong Formby but work with me). Belle (talk) 14:21, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
:) SchroCat (talk) 14:27, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

While we're on the subject ... thanks for the thanks, and see WT:MOS#Wikipedia:Today's featured article/October 4, 2015. It seems to me there might be two tough calls here, a potential COMMONALITY issue and a question of whether to use the names the father and son used for themselves (without Snr and Jnr) or the names others assigned to them. - Dank (push to talk) 20:36, 18 September 2015 (UTC) Regarding your reversion ... want to talk about it here or on the TFA summary's talk page? - Dank (push to talk) 21:19, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Which particular terms do you think could be improved in terms of COMMONALITY? It's not one of the better parts of the MoS, given it forces a form of language that is neither feast nor fowl, and tends to end up with "fixed wing aircraft", rather than aeroplane or airplane, which is just too awful for anyone! - SchroCat (talk) 21:23, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
We can discuss it here, but I'm not too sure what there is to discuss, tbh. The 'a' singer isn't needed, the serial comma isn't needed (it isn't used in the article at all) and the "best known" has been seriously criticised elsewhere. – SchroCat (talk) 21:25, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
The discussion in Archive 1 may give us an easy way out. I'm fine with alternatives to "best known", but I'm not comfortable with "greatest", per WP:PEACOCK. "a comedian, singer and one of the" is common in speech, but it's widely considered ungrammatical (and is sure to be criticized at ERRORS) because it expands to "a comedian, a singer and a one of the". - Dank (push to talk) 21:35, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
It doesn't expand to anything of the sort, and is certainly not ungrammatical. Greatest isn't a peacock term, given the article. Dank, I'm extremely unhappy about your pinging of Tim on the MoS talk page without bothering to ask me. It's actions like this that make me not want to bother with TFA as it looks very, very much like you are going behind my back about the text. – SchroCat (talk) 21:42, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
I'm done discussing this, I'll give this one to Brian and Chris. - Dank (push to talk) 21:56, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you're trying to discuss... There is a minor disagreement about a minor piece of grammar; aside from that you've tried to have two conversations about the same matter on two threads, which is not the best approach to have. Chuck it all in the same mix and see how the consensus turns out is the way this place works best, not to divide and conquer or forum shop to get the answer you best want. To then say I trying to drive this conversation in a particular "direction" is neither helpful or true, so I'm not entirely sure what your aim is here. – SchroCat (talk) 22:20, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Diamonds Are Forever

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Cheers for the counter copyedits. I'm basically done reading through; I left you a few questions where I think clarification might help. Nice to see this one at FAC. Ceoil (talk) 00:28, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:SchroCat/Archive_19&oldid=1143366929"