User talk:SchroCat: Difference between revisions

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 15 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.

Regarding this, I think you're misreading what they're proposing. By "review the current restrictions and sanctions against Eric Corbett to determine if they are sustainable and proving effective", they mean taking the target off Eric's back by lifting the existing "banned from shouting at, swearing at, insulting and/or belittling other editors" sanction (under which he's automatically considered at fault if he reacts no matter what provoked it). ‑ Iridescent 08:09, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Do they really? I'm looking at what they posted and not seeing that. I maybe wrong (very good chance of that), and obviously I wasn't party to the mailing list thread, but I'm not sure that some of those ArbCom members will see it like that. If I am entirely in the wrong, please feel free to remind me of my hubris! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 08:26, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WTF with this website= thing? I look at FAs I've worked on and the references are a mass of red error messages. Poor Brian must have a sea of them! Just as I started to regain a smidgen of enthusiasm for this place..... KJP1 (talk) 17:40, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's the usual thing of a far-reaching decision being made by a relatively small number of people in what is a fairly quiet backwater, then implementing it without engaging brain, common sense or the right processes. When these decisions normally happen, a bot comes along, changes everything (with a mention in the edit summary of the decision) and then the red error message is released - if it's post-bot, there should be very little left to sort out. - SchroCat (talk) 17:56, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well said Schro. KJP1 On the off chance you haven't seen it here is a link to the AN thread Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Is there a semi-automated tool that could fix these annoying "Cite Web" errors?. MarnetteD|Talk 18:06, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you remove the infobox about Cary Grant? That article was already lacking an infobox as it was and many other prominent articles already contain infoboxes. Cary Grant was one of the biggest Hollywood stars of the 20th century. Surely, he deserves an infobox. 20SS00 (talk) 13:23, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@20SS00: There is a standing consensus that an infobox is not desired on that page. Interestingly, it seems like the edit notice about the infobox consensus is not visible to mobile editors. Wikipedia is way behind the curve in terms of mobile experience. Can you confirm that when you went to edit the page, the notice isn't visible? --Laser brain (talk) 13:31, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

20SS00, ↑↑↑ What he said. Laser brain, I didn't realise the notice can't be seen on a mobile view, and that's very disappointing. I've added the same neutrally worded request as a hidden note to the edit screen so that no-one can miss it. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 13:40, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just checking on the nuance here, but are we saying someone successful and famous "deserves" an infobox. Why? Cassianto^Talk 13:56, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly for the same reason someone seems to be able to select their own closer of the RfC. - SchroCat (talk) 14:00, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

To the IP. I don't recall the Academy Awards ever handing out Oscars for infoboxes. GoodDay (talk) 13:09, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is to let you know that the Senghenydd colliery disaster article has been scheduled as today's featured article for October 14, 2019. Please check the article needs no amendments. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/October 14, 2019, but note that a coordinator will trim the lead to around 1000 characters anyway, so you aren't obliged to do so.

For Featured Articles promoted on or after October 1, 2018, there will be an existing blurb linked from the FAC talk page, which is likely to be transferred to the TFA page by a coordinator at some point.

We suggest that you watchlist Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors up to the day of this TFA. Thanks! Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:31, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Jim, much obliged. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 13:46, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

For the record ...
If a full stop is textually important, e.g. the period I snagged, another word or two after it (the period, not the ellipsis)
should easily keep future editors off it; consider also bracketed ellipses. Incidentally, I went to the source (just now)
and couldn't find the sentence in question. (!)--Brogo13 (talk) 18:50, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If the sentence ends in a full stop and then we are omitting words, then the full stop should be included before the ellipsis. I have no idea why you can't find the sentence: it's been there for the last 271 years! - SchroCat (talk) 19:11, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

May I please have a clue?--Brogo13 (talk) 20:18, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes: it wasn't an improvement. - SchroCat (talk) 20:21, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think you meant 'aspersions'? Carcharoth (talk) 10:52, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I did - many thanks. A combination of my stupidity, mild dyslexia and the spell checker picking the wrong word! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 11:04, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed your latest comment as a clerk action. You are welcome to comment on the case but you should keep your remarks civil. You are expected to act with decorum in arbspace at least as much as on the rest of the project. GoldenRing (talk) 16:44, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]