User talk:SchroCat/Archive 2
 | This is an archive of past discussions about User:SchroCat. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
James Bond novels and stories
You nominated James Bond novels and stories for Good Article status. However, it appears to be more of a list and would therefore not be granted GA-class. Wikipedia:Good article criteria excludes lists from consideration. You should try Wikipedia:Featured list candidates first. maclean (talk) 11:24, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
- It's more of an article which contains lists, which is why I've gone for the article status. Additionally, the last list I put through the FL procedure was the List of James Bond films. We were advised—fairly strongly—that "Almost no lists become featured that can't be sorted." As this list template can't be sorted, there is no way it would achieve an FL status. However, as I feel this is an article, which contains lists within it—rather than a List with supporting text—the sortability is a somewhat moot point. - SchroCat (^ • @) 18:14, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
- The FL criteria only requires sortability "where helpful". This article format seems very similar to 'list of episodes'-articles like 30 Rock (season 1). maclean (talk) 20:59, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks - I've dropped the GAN (you were followed in your suggestion by someone else too), changed the title to List of James Bond novels and stories and taken it to a Peer Review in advance of the FL nomination. - Thanks again - SchroCat (^ • @) 23:25, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
- The FL criteria only requires sortability "where helpful". This article format seems very similar to 'list of episodes'-articles like 30 Rock (season 1). maclean (talk) 20:59, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
List of James Bond Novels and Short Stories
You claim that Bond "visits a prostitute" in HIGH TIME TO KILL or "has group sex" in MIDSUMMER NIGHT's DOOM. This is simply not true. This doesn't occur in any of my books, and Harker's article got it wrong just to be snarky in his newspaper article. I am Raymond Benson and the author of these books and I can assure you, I never had Bond have "group sex" (an orgy) or "visit a prostitute" (for the purpose of having sex). I don't know where Harker got his supposed information, but he apparently didn't read the books or stories. Please feel free to contact me through my website and we can discuss. Otherwise, your articles on Bond are very, very good! — Preceding unsigned comment added by RBinPerson (talk • contribs) 16:56, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
|
The Good Article Barnstar | |
| Thanks Schrodinger's cat is alive for helping to promote You Only Live Twice (novel) to Good Article status. Please accept this little sign of appreciation and goodwill from me, because you deserve it. Keep it up, and give someone a pat on the back today. --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 01:24, 29 December 2011 (UTC) |
PS I love James Bond too! --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 01:24, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
Featured Content
As we continue to wait on our topic, and I've given you support with your list, I wondered if you could take a look at another shot at something I started, if it interests you (reviewing the nomination, cleaning the article, whatever you like). Thanks. igordebraga ≠ 20:45, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
- No problems - I'll look over it in the next day or so. - SchroCat (^ • @) 14:03, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Interesting!
[1] :) --Nutthida (talk) 09:16, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
- PMSL - It's a nice try by the Royal Society of Chemistry, but I suspect that Three-Mile Island and Chernobyl have had more of an impact on public perception! - SchroCat (^ • @) 09:55, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
Please learn to read
"Red links are generally not included in either See also sections nor in navigational boxes, nor linked to through templates such as Error: no page names specified (help). or Error: no page names specified (help)., since these navigation aids are intended to help readers find existing articles. An exception is red links in navboxes where the red-linked articles are part of a series or a whole set, e.g. a navbox listing successive elections, referendums, presidents, sports league seasons, etc."
I understand some people don't know how to read and I'm tolerant about it, so thank you for your concern regarding my "vandalism". --194.145.185.229 (talk) 16:45, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
- I'm sorry: I have no idea what you're trying to say here as you seem to have ignored most of the generally accepted rules of English above. Just to clarify WP:RED for you: "It is useful in editing article text to create a red link to indicate that a page will be created soon or that an article should be created for the topic because the subject is notable and verifiable." The links in the Erast Fandorin article fulfil those criteria. - SchroCat (^ • @) 16:50, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
I'm trying to say: go and actually read WP:RED - especially what I quoted here above for you already. If you don't know how to read, learn to read. --194.145.185.229 (talk) 16:52, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
PROTIP: There's section there titled "Avoiding creation of certain types of red links". --194.145.185.229 (talk) 16:54, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Erast Fandorin, you may be blocked from editing.
Sigh. Why do you refuse so much to comply with Wikipedia guidelines, even when you were told about them? (No, I don't think you're REALLY suffering from functional analphabetism. You understand what's written there, you just refuse to acknowledge it - which is even worse.) --194.145.185.229 (talk) 17:01, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
In any case, and once again:
--194.145.185.229 (talk) 17:03, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
Oh, and also what you call "vandalism": Red links are useless in these contexts; if possible they should be replaced by a functioning link, or else be removed. --194.145.185.229 (talk) 17:07, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
And I think I deserve an apology for your accusations of "vandalism". --194.145.185.229 (talk) 17:09, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
- I think you should reconsider what you are talking about here. The red linking is not in a "See also" section, nor in a navigational boxes, nor linked to any template and as such they need to go back in. - SchroCat (^ • @) 18:45, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
Whilst or While
Hi there,
FYI with regards to this[2] edit, "Whilst" is no more grammatically correct than "While", the words are largely synonymous in UK English although "Whilst" is still considered to be archaic. --Deadly∀ssassin 01:00, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot’s recommendations. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information in the consent information sheet.
We have added information about the readership and quality of the suggested articles using a Low/Medium/High scale. For readership the scale goes from Low 
to High 
, while for quality the scale goes from Low 
to High 
.
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 02:35, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification
Hi. When you recently edited Bernard Lee, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Partners in Crime (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:02, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
We did it!
|
All Around Amazing Barnstar | |
| The James Bond films are now on the Good Topics! Thanks a lot, man! igordebraga ≠ 02:38, 24 January 2012 (UTC) |
Barry Nelson -- First Actor To Portray Bond
Before you undo my edit again to the page for "Skyfall", please read the page for Barry Nelson. Let's not start an edit war, okay? Stonnman (talk) 01:37, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
- I know all about Nelson (although it's a moot point about Bond as he played the American agent Jimmy Bond, not MI6 agent James Bond). I didn't remove the info because it was incorrect, but firstly because it's getting a little too far from the point made in the Skyfall article and secondly because "theatrical motion picture" is such an abomination of the English language it deserves to be annihilated with ignominy. - SchroCat (^ • @) 08:33, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
More information needed about File:BlackStilettoCover.jpg
Hello, SchroCat!
It was really helpful of you to you to upload File:BlackStilettoCover.jpg. However, we need to properly format the image license information in order to keep and use new images.
If you can edit the description and add one of these templates, that would be great. If you're not sure how or would like some help, please ask us at the media copyright questions page and we'll be happy to assist you.
Thanks again! --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 14:07, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Tinker, Taylor, Soldier, Spy - Budapest Café Scene
Hello, SchroCat!
This is really stupid to write "The interior hall of London's Leadenhall Market served as the location for the café scene, supposedly in Budapest" because that part of this film was shot in Budapest at Párizsi Udvar File:Párizsi_udvar_Budapest.jpg. I've read lots of articles on the net about this scene. Please Google for "Párizsi Udvar, Budapest" and you'll see that stating it was shot at Leadenhall Market is a fantasy!
- Do you have a good, reliable source that you can use that says that? If so, then please feel free to put in the Párizsi Udvar along with the source to back it up. If you don't have a good, reliable source then it can't go in, I'm afraid. PS, can you also sign your posts with four tildes (~~~~) Thanks - SchroCat (^ • @) 15:48, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
I live in Budapest, nearby Párizsi Udvar. I can recognise that place very well. I wonder what "reliable source" stated the Leadenhall Market as the location of the scene. This is incorrect, and makes no sense.
a) http://hjmvisscher.blogspot.com/2011/12/parizsi-udvar-paris-court-budapest.html
b) http://www.cinecraze.net/tinker-tailor-soldier-spy.html
I hope it is enough. Thanks.
Togneaux (talk) 15:58, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
Good Article backlog elimination drive barnstar
|
The Invisible Barnstar | |
| Thank you for contributing to the December 2011 Good Article nomination backlog elimination drive. AstroCog (talk) 23:48, 27 January 2012 (UTC) |
Skyfall picture
Sorry, should have stopped and read the reference on the picture. The original version just had an external link to the photo; I didn't realise you had changed it, and you gave no reason when you reverted my revision, so I was unaware you had adjusted the reference. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 01:32, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
- Hi there, no probs—I had the same concerns as you with the BBC version, which is why I found more concrete info. On top of that I missed your self-revert too! Cheers - SchroCat (^ • @) 09:28, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
Article Review
Could you take a look at the article 6th Asian Film Awards and provide feedback for improvement? To note, the winners' list is still pending. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 16:11, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
I have left a GA review at the talk page and placed the article on hold for now. Feel free to leave any questions at the review on the talk page. AIRcorn (talk) 16:41, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
- Impressive work. Some prose issues that need to be cleared up and you will have another Good article. AIRcorn (talk) 12:49, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
- Passed. Sorry about the delay. Congratulations. AIRcorn (talk) 10:21, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
|
|
The Good Article Barnstar | |
| Thanks Schrodinger's cat is alive for helping to promote M (James Bond) to Good Article status. Please accept this little sign of appreciation and goodwill from me, because you deserve it. Keep it up, and give someone a pat on the back today. --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 06:54, 6 February 2012 (UTC) |
RE: Uncredited should have a good, reliable source please
Dear Schrodinger's Cat,
On the article for Live and Let Die, I noticed that my mention of actor James Best (best known as Roscoe P. Coltrane) was removed due to not having a credible source. To be fair at you, I don't blame you. The reason I put it on there to begin with was due to the fact that at my job (Mercyhurst), there a fellow worker who asks me James Bond questions. A patricular one had to do with said man who played Billy Bob in an uncredited role. While trying to find said answer (which was a ball-buster), there was a picture of him from at least two sites, but they all said "Actor: Unknown". I don't know which site actually KNOWS it was James Best who was Billy Bob, so I hope you can accept my explanation for my action.
Alakazam (talk) 17:29, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Your recent edit revert, and general lack of edit summaries
I've started a discussion at Talk:List of James Bond novels and stories#Edit undone without explanation. Please respond there. Ylee (talk) 20:53, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
About me
Bad etiquette a person accused of being someone who is not. Look keep talking that mess.
- I'm sorry - I really can't understand what you're trying to say here: could you please try again? Could you also please sign your posts using four tildes (~~~~)? Thanks - SchroCat (^ • @) 19:47, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot’s recommendations. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information in the consent information sheet.
We have added information about the readership and quality of the suggested articles using a Low/Medium/High scale. For readership the scale goes from Low to High , while for quality the scale goes from Low to High .
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 03:12, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
O.H.M.S.S
Hi, I did some clean up of one the greatest Bond films and you have reverted the edits that I made in good faith - Do we really need to know how many times Lois Maxwell and Bernard Lee etc have appeared in the Bond series? - surely this is only relevant to the pages dedicated to these people.
The same also goes for all the excess info regarding a duplication of George Bakers dubbing of Lazenby - which should only be the casting section once and mentioned in the Baker part of the article only.
The mentioning of the Avengers with Rigg, Blackman and Magee once again that is not really anything to do with the Bond film(S) as these actors have starred in countless other tv shows and films and they are all mentioned on their own pages and to be honest it all seems to come across as excess clutter to the article as most of it is nothing to do with On Her Majesty's Secret Service.
Please email message me back with a solution / compromise or B#gger off!
And what a shame that Lazenby didn't go on to do Diamonds Are Forever....
Regards
Alphacatmarnie (talk) 21:37, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
- I reverted because the reviewer was happy with the info that was there when he passed it for GA, so I'm not sure why it should be removed now? I appreciate your edits were in good faith, which is why I didn't cite you for vandalism or anything silly, but there really was no need to remove it (although you may have a point with the George Baker stuff). As to the additional info, yes, it is needed on these pages as it adds a level of detail to the page that raises it from the banal listing of information to a rich text which is worth reading. The Avengers info, for example, shows the link between two Avengers cast in this film and the two Avengers cast who also appeared in other Bond films: it may act as a spur to get people to read about the Avengers article when they see the connection.
- The solution / compromise is to remove the George Baker info once again, but leave the remainder in there.
- As to Lazenby, I'm glad he didn't do DAF, but that's because I'm sorry anyone did it—an awful film that was the first step towards the spoof tripe that was the Roger Moore era! I would have liked to see GL in Live and Let Die - I think that would have given us all a chance to see if he would have made a great Bond - one film just wasn't enough for him
- Cheers - SchroCat (^ • @) 21:48, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Fair enough and good answers!
If Peter Hunt had directed Diamonds it probably would have been more character based rather than Guy Hamiltons over camp Connery is back romp!
Regards
21:51, 27 February 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alphacatmarnie (talk • contribs)
- Very true. Still, at least Lazenby wasn't shoved into Man with the Golden Gun - great premise, one of the best stunts of all time... and it's still a total turkey! BTW, I've removed the Baker info from Lazenby's listsing. Cheers - SchroCat (^ • @) 21:54, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Is there any footage whatsoever of the mythyical London chase over the roof tops and the Royal mail underground railway???
Regards
Alphacatmarnie (talk) 14:03, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
- I think that there is some that exists of the rooftop scene as I've seen stills from it - possibly in Benson's The James Bond Bedside Companion, although I'm not at home for a few days, so I can't check properly: I'll let you know when I get home if it is there, and whether it really is stills, or just some press shots taken during filming... - SchroCat (^ • @) 07:03, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
- My mistake: the stills are in Pfeiffer & Worrall's Essential Bond book. - SchroCat (^ • @) 11:19, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot’s recommendations. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information in the consent information sheet.
We have added information about the readership and quality of the suggested articles using a Low/Medium/High scale. For readership the scale goes from Low to High , while for quality the scale goes from Low to High .
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 00:41, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
Cadet Film Awards
<<Do you have a source for the "Cadet awards"? Strange that nothing comes up about them on a google search...>>
- Here ... I'm looking for the awards won by Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy, I'm checking here: (film_2011). Plus here's the site of the CADET FILM AWARDS: [3] 79.26.76.183 (talk) 17:17, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
- The first one is from another Wiki page and therefore isn't admissable. The second one is from a fan site and not the site of an official organisation and therefore isn't admissable... - SchroCat (^ • @) 17:20, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
- The Italians have decided to put these awards, why we do not do it too? 79.26.76.183 (talk) 17:27, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
- What they have done goes against WP:RELIABLE, one of the core Wiki policies. I'm afriad that unless an official or published source which is reliable in nature, whose background can be verified, then it isn't allowed in the article. - SchroCat (^ • @) 17:31, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
- And why do you think the choice of the Italians is unreliable? 79.44.63.25 (talk) 17:39, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
- They haven't used a reliable source to show where the information came from and there is no other way of verifying the information is correct. - SchroCat (^ • @) 17:44, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
- Excuse me, do you think they are on the Italian page some reliable awards that were not writings in English page? 79.44.63.25 (talk) 17:50, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
- I think someone has added the awards without adding a reliable source. That's not good editing, as it should be. - SchroCat (^ • @) 17:54, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
- Excuse me, do you think they are on the Italian page some reliable awards that were not writings in English page? 79.44.63.25 (talk) 17:50, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
- And what do you think of this award? I've just searched on Google. It comes from the Wikia site. It is one of the awards written in Italian page: [4] 79.44.63.25 (talk) 18:01, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
- Again, it's not from a reliable source—this is from a site who anyone can edit, so there is no way to verify the origin of the information. - SchroCat (^ • @) 18:04, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
- No, I checked. It's been written by the creator of that wikia. 79.44.63.25 (talk) 18:07, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
- Exactly - it would be like ME adding a page and then claiming it actually menat something. The writer of the wikia is not an industry insider, or have any knowledge of film, it's just the films they like. - SchroCat (^ • @) 18:15, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
- Really three members and ten unknown persons had participate in the vote. 79.44.63.25 (talk) 18:26, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
- Exactly... that's a nothing vote--there are bigger discussions in most pubs on most nights. Nothing is known about the participents (what makes them particularly knoweldgeable or worthy of comment etc) or about their criteria for deciding, or their knowledge of the film world etc. - SchroCat (^ • @) 08:05, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
Film festival
Hi, Schrodinger!
About this - Keep in mind, a film festival is of a much higher notability than, say, a regular cinema in Anytown. Also the text in Spanish from the source says:
- "En el programa del festival figuran unos cuarenta filmes, la mayoria de los cuales seran presentados en primicia mundial, entre los que se cuentan Man on Fire, de Elie Chouraqui, interpretado por Scott Glenn y Jade Malle, y The Living Daylights, en el que actuan Timothy Dalton y Maryam d'Albo."
Does this mean the worldwide premiere of this film was at this festival? Even though the other source said it was a Leicester Square... Unless this means the non-UK premiere? WhisperToMe (talk) 13:44, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
- The premiere was on 29 June 1987, some three months before the festival; it was released across most of Europe and the US before the festival started, so it's not really noteworthy, I'm afraid. - SchroCat (^ • @) 13:47, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
- Ah, ok. Well, let's see what the Film WikiProject says Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Film#Noteworthiness_and_being_screened_at_a_film_festival WhisperToMe (talk) 14:03, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
Dates
I was going to run a date script on Skyfall to change them to DMY, but got dragged away by someone. - X201 (talk) 13:45, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
- lol - not a problem really, I just like growling at bots sometimes ;) - SchroCat (^ • @) 13:47, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot’s recommendations. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information in the consent information sheet.
We have added information about the readership and quality of the suggested articles using a Low/Medium/High scale. For readership the scale goes from Low to High , while for quality the scale goes from Low to High .
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 01:15, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
Re: Ian Fleming's James Bond novels and stories
I'll try and get to it soon. There are many that should have been promoted a long time ago but my wiki time is almost nonexistant. You can try one of the other coordinators though I'll see if I can squeeze in some time tonight. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 14:45, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
- Wizardman, myself and others at WT:FTC have mentioned that we'd be willing to jump in and do some of the grunt work involved in closing a topic nomination; if you would like a hand closing any of them due to other concerns eating your time, I'd be happy to help if you just give an official sign-off on it so it seems legit. This Bond topic was, along with the Beatles one currently listed, one of the two topics I felt were clear cut for closing right away, as consensus seems overwhelming in each case (in different directions though). GRAPPLE X 14:50, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
- Cheers - Don't worry, I'm not hassling, I was only trying to find out the timeframe. Cheers - SchroCat (^ • @) 15:08, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
Blocking
- SchroCat (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
- 86.176.180.246 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
Block message:
Autoblocked because your IP address was recently used by "ThatManAgain". The reason given for ThatManAgain's block is: "Abusing multiple accounts: [[WP:ILLEGIT|Inappropriate use of alterna
Decline reason: It seems that you are ThatManAgain. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:49, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. SchroCat (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Thnks for not disturbing me to ask for further information or waste time by looking into this more closely: if you done so, you would have found out that there are TWO editors—myself and one other. Simply adding "It seems that you are ThatManAgain" doesn't even come close to the truth. I know who the other editor was and indeed both he and I have edited the same page following a discussion about it, but is as far as it goes. I'm sorry you can't see the truth in the mattr, but suggest that you look into this once again, a little more closely this time. SchroCat (^ • @) 11:57, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
Decline reason:
What you have just described above is an admission of meatpuppetry, which falls under the same issues as improper use of alternate accounts. You see, if two editors from the same IP edit the same article, we have no choice but to deal with it the same. Just as brother/sisters get blocked for editing the same articles, so will you. Please read WP:GAB very carefully in order to formulate your next request more satisfactorily (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:53, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
- Hi, I'm still waiting for this to be looked at properly. I am sorry you think I have two accounts, but suffice to say that I do not. You should please note that I have been editing since April last year and have had no accusations of impropriety against me since that time. Please also note the list of "Done so far" articles, which are the ones I have taken a role in getting to GA status, with others—this also includes two Good Topics. You'll see from this that I am an experienced editor who has spent a year improving Wiki, not disrupting, disturbing or vandalising it. A mistake has been made here in blocking me and I hope that you can appreciate this and the fact that another editor also uses this network. SchroCat (^ • @) 12:47, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
- If it had been dealt with properly and in a timely fashion there wouldn't have been a need for a second comment... - SchroCat (^ • @) 13:51, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
- We're all volunteers here. There's no time limit, and "rushing" things will lead to quicker declines. Comments like the above show you're not here to edit collegially, and that you do not understand this project (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:54, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
- If it had been dealt with properly and in a timely fashion there wouldn't have been a need for a second comment... - SchroCat (^ • @) 13:51, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
- Sorry to have to jump in here, but what the ever living fuck? Have there been any decisions where the two users, User:ThatManAgain and User:Schrodinger's cat is alive have demonstrated that they're acting in unison, or is it just that they share what is likely a dynamically assigned IP? Scottywong's tool suggests that they have edited one page within hours of each other. One. The other two pages on which they apparently "interacted", they posted days and weeks apart.
- So, I'm asking what the fuck? What is the basis for this block? Where is the WP:SPI case? Where is the complain anywhere else? The justification given is overly brief to the point of being ridiculous and the decline reason by Bwilkins above shows what seems to be a callous misinterpretation of the facts at hand, i.e., that they're two users presumably using the same ISP who has dynamically assigned their IPs together and tripped someone's sock senses. Your reply above, Bwilkins, is condescending and ignorant made to a user who is, besides this ridiculous block, in good standing (much more than me). Schro: do you want me to take this somewhere? ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 14:04, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
- Congratulations for blowing things out of proportion. Being unblocked is simple. They read WP:GAB. They follow it. Case closed. Railing away at people for delays, etc is not the way. Schro can be unblocked in seconds if they just do like everyone else does (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 14:23, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
- Schro's two posts above are not "railing" away. She asked you (or any other admin) to do your due diligence and actually check into the situation and check it out. If it turns out to be a wrongful block, and it seems from circumstantial evidence that this is likely to be a wrongful block, then that would have become evident and you should have unblocked. Instead, you decided to take issue with her very slightly peeved attitude and come back with that condescending bullshit above. If you didn't have time to dedicate to actually investigating the circumstances of the block, then you didn't even need to come in here. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 14:28, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
- There's nothing remotely condescending in my decline or comment. The editor admitted that they a) knew the other user, b) discussed the edits to the article with them, and c) they both edited it. WP:MEAT to the definition, and the block is therefore 100% valid (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 14:31, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
- Schro's two posts above are not "railing" away. She asked you (or any other admin) to do your due diligence and actually check into the situation and check it out. If it turns out to be a wrongful block, and it seems from circumstantial evidence that this is likely to be a wrongful block, then that would have become evident and you should have unblocked. Instead, you decided to take issue with her very slightly peeved attitude and come back with that condescending bullshit above. If you didn't have time to dedicate to actually investigating the circumstances of the block, then you didn't even need to come in here. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 14:28, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
- Congratulations for blowing things out of proportion. Being unblocked is simple. They read WP:GAB. They follow it. Case closed. Railing away at people for delays, etc is not the way. Schro can be unblocked in seconds if they just do like everyone else does (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 14:23, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
- Hi, Danjel. I'm glad it's not just me that thinks this is a pile of Kafka-esque nonsense! All I want is for the block to be lifted (but an apology from Bwilkins for insulting me wouldn't go amiss either!) Cheers for bringing some sense to this. - SchroCat (^ • @) 14:21, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
- So, I'm asking what the fuck? What is the basis for this block? Where is the WP:SPI case? Where is the complain anywhere else? The justification given is overly brief to the point of being ridiculous and the decline reason by Bwilkins above shows what seems to be a callous misinterpretation of the facts at hand, i.e., that they're two users presumably using the same ISP who has dynamically assigned their IPs together and tripped someone's sock senses. Your reply above, Bwilkins, is condescending and ignorant made to a user who is, besides this ridiculous block, in good standing (much more than me). Schro: do you want me to take this somewhere? ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 14:04, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
- If you'd like, I'll make a post at WP:ANI or wherever else you'd like. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 14:23, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
- Yes please Danjel - seems to be the only course opne. Bwilkins: I put in a request to be unblocked. You were insulting and rude in response. If it can be lifted in seconds, please do so. - SchroCat (^ • @) 14:26, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
- One declined unblock request, and you're going to have someone run to ANI? You probably still haven't read WP:GAB yet. Another admin will review your next one ... I'm simply trying to HELP YOU to address the issues that led to the block. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 14:33, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
- You're asking a user to jump through WP:GAB hoops when your only reason to have declined her last block was a decidedly unWP:AGF interpretation of what she said based on your reading of her attitude. I've interacted with you a few times, and I think you're a decent wikipedian, but you've got to accept that that is obtuse. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 14:37, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
- Um, re-check your timings on the edits. I didn't actually notice any "attitude" until after I declined the unblock, and the worst attitude is thinking that they don't have to follow process. There's a serious issue on the table, and this is all a red-herring towards that - but one that can be resolved; easily. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 14:41, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
- You're asking a user to jump through WP:GAB hoops when your only reason to have declined her last block was a decidedly unWP:AGF interpretation of what she said based on your reading of her attitude. I've interacted with you a few times, and I think you're a decent wikipedian, but you've got to accept that that is obtuse. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 14:37, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
- One declined unblock request, and you're going to have someone run to ANI? You probably still haven't read WP:GAB yet. Another admin will review your next one ... I'm simply trying to HELP YOU to address the issues that led to the block. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 14:33, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
- Yes please Danjel - seems to be the only course opne. Bwilkins: I put in a request to be unblocked. You were insulting and rude in response. If it can be lifted in seconds, please do so. - SchroCat (^ • @) 14:26, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
- You're right! "Process" is important, especially for admins. It's unreasonable, in the first instance, to block without actually investigating whether there's sockpuppetry at hand. No WP:SPI case... No apparent disruption to the project... No extenuating circumstances given in the block justification... ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 14:56, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
ANI Notification
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Sockpuppetry block on User:Schrodinger's cat is alive. Thank you. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 15:18, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
Unblocked
Having read your comments, I think that your explanation is reasonably plausible, so I have unblocked. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:22, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
- All good and thanks very much... except I'm still blocked from editing! - SchroCat (^ • @) 23:21, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
- ThatManAgain's autblock lifted - you should be able to edit now. —DoRD (talk) 23:27, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
- That's great—many thanks! - SchroCat (^ • @) 23:28, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
- ...and I see no autoblocks on you, so you should be good to go. Good luck (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 23:30, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
- That's great—many thanks! - SchroCat (^ • @) 23:28, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
- ThatManAgain's autblock lifted - you should be able to edit now. —DoRD (talk) 23:27, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
BWilkins, Just for the future—and I'm not trying to have a go or prolong this ridiculous affair any further, but please don't call me, or any other user, "a dick"—EVER. It's not polite or funny or nice to call someone a dick—would you like it if I were to call you a penis, or cock, would you? So try and remember that that's what "a dick" is, so think before you insult anyone else, please and try and remember WP:NICE, even in your summaries.
Just to put the record straight, I wasn't trying to be clever, but I was absolutely fuming that I was blocked for somewhat spurious reasons and I wanted to get it listed straight away. Please also be careful when accusing people of not editing collegiately: I showed you a list of articles I helped get to GA status, all of which were done with other editors, in other words: collegiately. Please look at facts and don't shoot from the hip when you're making such comments. Please also appreciate that saying to an editor that they "do not understand this project" is insulting to someone who has worked hard to make a tiny corner of the project a little better.
In respect of the "meat puppetry" accusation (again, avoid the term "meat puppetry"—it's against WP:CIVIL), perhaps a suggestion of WP:SHARE may have been more applicable?
I don't want to bang on, but it may have been a little better if you'd just thought about what you said before you said it: your words inflamed an already bad situation in this instance.
Thanks for your note on the autoblock and cheers - SchroCat (^ • @) 23:40, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
- Just for the record, on Wikipedia, a WP:DICK is a little more specific than "cock" or "penis" ... but if you did not know that or click on the link when it was originally provided, I can understand how you might think differently. Cheers (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 19:07, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
Block log barnstar
|
The block log Barnstar | |
| (award details) - I would like to use this opportunity to thank User:Schrodinger's cat is alive for his fine contributions to Wikipedia over the years and welcome him to the contributors who allegedly had a sockpuppet in violation of WP:ILLEGIT club. - Many thanks for all your work here. Respect and best wishes to you from Youreallycan 18:03, 12 April 2012 (UTC) |
- Bit late as your unblocked but you deserve this - Many thanks for your contributions - Youreallycan 15:25, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
Hey, I started a GA review at Talk:Colonel Sun/GA1. I look forward to working with you and happy editing :) Sadads (talk) 15:06, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
- Wanted to say I started adding comments on the page, Sadads (talk) 23:04, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
- Hi, I saw a few go through yesterday. Thanks for picking this up. Cheers - SchroCat (^ • @) 11:18, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
What's stated in the texts that followes end of The Spy who Loved me
Hello! You have removed my edit in article "Moonraker(film)". I think that in a text that states that Moonraker was intended to be filmed already in 1973, it's essential to also mention that it was not ment to be done in 1979 eighther. In the text that follows "The Spy Who Loved Me" (after cast etc) it's very clearly stated that "James Bond will return in For Your Eyes only". Perhaps that isn't the case on all DVD's, I dont't know. But it's a wellknown fact, that "Moonraker" was not the intended follower of "The Spy Who Loved Me" in 1977 due to the "post film texts" (don't know the correct english word for such texts, sorry to say) stated "For Your Eyes Only" as the following 007-film. However "The Spy WhoLoved Me" film had premiere some months before the NASA space shuttle flew (free but inside the atmospere) for the first time. (In september 1977, and it wasn't launched but flewn on top of a Boeing 747, then released and landed). This was indeed the reason for making "Moonraker" prior to "For Your Eyes Only". If my english wasn't good enough... , but You removed imperative facts whitout giving any reason. Boeing720 (talk) 01:13, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
- It was unsourced, in the wrong place, the and not phrased in the correct manner. - SchroCat (^ • @) 07:07, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
- My edit was put in the article text directly after where it is stated that "it should been done already in 1973" - and I fail to se that as an incorrect place to mention this issue. No source ? It was included as stated - in the after texts (casts etc) of the prevouis Bond-movie "James Bond will return in For Your Eyes Only". Sometimes mention of a source directly is better then a reference. Not in general, but somtimes. Reguarding phrasing - perhaps You could help me ? But OK if You cannot realize the connection between the first testfligts of the space shuttle as a plausable reason for the film company to finally film "Moonraker"
just skips that part. But a better source then whats stated in "The Spy Who Loved Me" is hard to find, i think. I urge You to reconcider. It's imperative facts in James Bond movie history. Boeing720 (talk) 09:50, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
- You need to find a reliable, independent secondary source before the information is included. See WP:SOURCES for more information. The film istself counts as a Primary, not secondary source and cannot be used. As it such an "imperative fact" then these references should not be diffcult for you to obtain. Secondly, it was in the wrong place in the article. The lead section should reflect what is in the rest of the article and not contain information that is not covered elsewhere in the article. See WP:MOSINTRO for more information. - SchroCat (^ • @) 10:14, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
- Before you complain again, yes, I reverted your edit again. You are right that For Your Eyes Only was to be filmed after The Spy Who Loved Me, but that is already referred to in the text at the Production section. What you've then done is to suggest why it might have been, which is not supported by the citation. Your phrasing of the statement is also not right, saying "this fact was most likely due", which are Weasel Words which should be avoided. - SchroCat (^ • @) 11:17, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
Bond 24
In this case it is not an exception. It only bares one source announcing it's being made, whilst no production on it has begun. Redirect until then. RAP (talk) 16:15 26 April 2012 (UTC)
Thought you might like...
this--Shirt58 (talk) 06:59, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
Goodbye
I'm not going into the reason, you can find it at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Admin_refusing_to_participate_in_dispute_resolution, but given your experiences recently with your block you can probably relate. I have never known anyone on here be as industrious as you are in getting articles promoted. It usually took me months and you seemed to turn them out on a weekly basis. You should have been treated better, all that work you did and you were treated like a common internet troll. I still believe in Wikipedia to an extent, but not some of the mechanisms that power it. Best of luck, and I have no doubt Skyfall will be joining the GA family soon. Betty Logan (talk) 05:21, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
Novelisation
Hi.
I know how to turn a noun into a verb - I don't know how to turn a noun into a vowel, as you initially suggested. Chaheel Riens (talk) 05:58, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
Thanks!
Thanks for the Barnstar. Much appreciated. Cheers. Welham66 (talk) 03:23, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
- My pleasure - the reviewer attempted an extensive copy edit and introduced a number of the errors which I failed to pick up on, so it really is very appreciated! (Although I should add that a number of the errors were mine - I had a complete mental blank every time I type von
Ritcher...Ricther... Richter! - SchroCat (^ • @) 06:48, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot’s recommendations. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information in the consent information sheet.
We have added information about the readership and quality of the suggested articles using a Low/Medium/High scale. For readership the scale goes from Low to High , while for quality the scale goes from Low to High .
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 00:12, 12 May 2012 (UTC)