User talk:SchroCat

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20
21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30
31, 32, 33, 34

This page has archives. Sections older than 2 days may be automatically archived by .

"doing what little one can to increase the general stock of knowledge is as respectable an object of life, as one can in any likelihood pursue" Charles Darwin

Articles seeking peer review
before featured article candidacy

January 12 Gaetano Bresci
January 18 William L. Breckinridge
February 10 Born to Run
February 17 Idris Bazorkin
March 3 Not Strong Enough (Boygenius song)
March 3 Muckrach Castle
March 6 Nezak Huns
April 2 Rain World
April 3 BP Refinery v Tracey
April 24 Nestory Irankunda
April 25 Ethics
May 3 Aishwarya Rai Bachchan
May 14 Knives Out
May 17 Bonn–Oberkassel dog
May 21 DJ Kool Herc
May 26 Igor Stravinsky
May 27 Vegas Golden Knights
May 27 Tapir!
May 27 Sergio Brown
May 30 Chinese characters
June 6 Jenna Ortega
June 6 Elinor Fettiplace

Unanswered peer reviews here.

New FAC and PR[edit]

To any friendly talk page watchers, I have:

If there is anyone who fancies commenting, I would be grateful. Cheers - SchroCat (talk)

FAC[edit]

@SchroCat Hope you are having a wonderful day and are in good spirits. I, alongside Keivan.f, have listed the article Catherine, Princess of Wales at FAC. It would be greatly appreciated if you could leave a few comments to help further improve the quality of this already GA-class article. I assure you it will be a great read. Looking forward to your response. Regards and yours faithfully. MSincccc (talk) 10:23, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi MSincccc, thanks for your note. Sorry, but I find the topic of the royals about as tedious and meaningless as any other pointless modern pseudo-celebrity, so I'm going to have to pass on it. Good luck in your review, though. - SchroCat (talk) 11:20, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@SchroCat Do you know any other user(s) who might be interested? You could recommend the nomination to them. In return, I would be happy to leave comments at any future FACs in which you are involved. Thanks for letting me know of your opinion though. Looking forward to your response. Regards. MSincccc (talk) 12:57, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@SchroCat I have pinged multiple users whose names were mentioned on the FAC mentors page. However, most of them seem to have ignored my mentions and requests. Do you have any advice or solution for me? Looking forward to your response. It would be greatly appreciated. Regards. MSincccc (talk) 08:33, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, have patience. FACs take up to two months, sometimes longer. Continually pinging and pressing for reviews only annoys the regulars and makes it less likely that people will spend their limited online time in reviewing your nomination. Spend your time reviewing other articles - not only will it make people more likely to return the favour, but you'll learn a lot about both quality writing and how the FAC process works. - SchroCat (talk) 08:53, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Should I leave my comments for the article Ann Cook (cookery book writer) on its Peer Review page or on its FAC once it has been nominated? I have read it and would like to provide a few suggestions, even though Tim riley has already made excellent recommendations. It’s a good article, especially considering it comes from an area outside my expertise (cooking). However, it was an interesting read. Looking forward to knowing from you. Regards. MSincccc (talk) 14:30, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The PR would be great thanks (I prefer to get everything ironed out pre-FACfor an easier and quieter process there). Thanks - SchroCat (talk) 11:57, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good to see the royals getting the same respect at FAC as they get from the rest of the country! :) ——Serial Number 54129 14:44, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Serial Number 54129 I know that was going to happen. If you have any suggestions, please do let me know? Looking forward to your response. Regards. MSincccc (talk) 15:13, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestions? Well, I think Bert Baxter suggested moving them all to a council estate in Milton Keynes, which seems a good start. ——Serial Number 54129 19:27, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On Her Majesty's Secret Service at TFA[edit]

Recenseo, tueor: I'm guessing edit or review, and the other one I had to look up ... protect? Anyway, is this a good time for a TFA run for On Her Majesty's Secret Service? How about July 3? - Dank (push to talk) 16:09, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dan, Sounds OK to me. Do you want me to run up the blurb? (and yes - it means 'I write, review, protect') Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 16:36, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes please! - Dank (push to talk) 17:47, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good time for Secretum (British Museum) as well? Say, on the 22nd? - Dank (push to talk) 23:41, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, no problems. - SchroCat (talk) 03:49, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Private Case[edit]

Reading James Pope-Hennessy's, blessedly brief, biography of Lord Crewe, I find this reference to his father's library; "Not unnaturally, [Crewe] omits to mention the large and famous collection of pornographic and sadic literature which old Lord Houghton had lovingly assembled. This portion of the library Lord Houghton's heir made haste to sell". Our article on Monckton Milnes says he bequeathed his porn to the BM, but he obviously held back a bit! Might be worth a mention? All the best. KJP1 (talk) 17:42, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this, KJP: I'll have a dig around and see what there is that we can add. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 19:46, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I was a little short with you[edit]

I stand by what I said and did about erasing my words on a talk page if you say I can't put them in the spot in which they're meant, but I would've said it gentler - I read your username too fast and thought you were the other guy. So, sorry. Anyway, have a good night Wikipedian339 (talk) 20:29, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Apology accepted, but you need to understand that while you have an opinion on the point, other people have the opposite but equally relevant and pertinent views. Threads on talk pages are discussions to (hopefully) come to an agreement or consensus. Discussions, therefore, need to be kept together for other editors to view. You cannot start a new thread separate from an existing one where you get to plead your point of view. It gives the impression - whether you meant it or not - of trying to stack the deck in your favour by being the only voice in the discussion. Discussions stay in the same thread. And please do not delete threads or comments on article talk pages: that is forbidden. Of use may be the policies and guidelines, which can be found at Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines and wikipedia:Etiquette. - SchroCat (talk) 22:32, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]