User talk:SchroCat: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 17:41, 24 March 2015 editDr. Blofeld (talk \| contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers, Template editors636,284 edits →"they're worse than the vandals"← Previous edit		Revision as of 17:50, 24 March 2015 edit undoDr. Blofeld (talk \| contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers, Template editors636,284 edits →"they're worse than the vandals"Next edit →
Line 72:		Line 72:
	:I'm sure you will. Interesting how much more militant the "pro" lobby has been recently; it's almost as if they've been gearing up for something. As to my comment, there is nothing to discuss here: bad decisions by those with the tools are harmful, as your comment in the same thead at least partly acknowledges. {{u\|HJ Mitchell}}, I also look forward to you discussing with Ched (in the thread above) ''his'' personal attacks in the shape of unwarranted and untrue ownership allegations. Sauce for the goose, and all that... – ] (]) 17:07, 24 March 2015 (UTC)		:I'm sure you will. Interesting how much more militant the "pro" lobby has been recently; it's almost as if they've been gearing up for something. As to my comment, there is nothing to discuss here: bad decisions by those with the tools are harmful, as your comment in the same thead at least partly acknowledges. {{u\|HJ Mitchell}}, I also look forward to you discussing with Ched (in the thread above) ''his'' personal attacks in the shape of unwarranted and untrue ownership allegations. Sauce for the goose, and all that... – ] (]) 17:07, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
	::Sure, he shouldn't have protected the page. He should have left it to another admin. But the only ''harm'' done is the appearance of impropriety—the end result is the same. Anyway, you're entirely capable of expressing your opinion on the protection without making comments like that about the admin responsible, so try to think of a time when you've cocked up and would have appreciated being cut a little slack. And accusing you of ownership is not really a personal attack. It's a characterisation of your edits; you might feel it a ''mis''characterisation, but that doesn't make it an attack. Best, ] \| ] 17:27, 24 March 2015 (UTC)		::Sure, he shouldn't have protected the page. He should have left it to another admin. But the only ''harm'' done is the appearance of impropriety—the end result is the same. Anyway, you're entirely capable of expressing your opinion on the protection without making comments like that about the admin responsible, so try to think of a time when you've cocked up and would have appreciated being cut a little slack. And accusing you of ownership is not really a personal attack. It's a characterisation of your edits; you might feel it a ''mis''characterisation, but that doesn't make it an attack. Best, ] \| ] 17:27, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
	:::HJ, it still looks wrong you being involved in this, you stated that you're a friend of Andy's and his pro infobox agenda. Now I always had you down as one of the good admins HJ, but you getting involved with this is rather suspicious to me. Since when has there been a problem with a hidden message in a talk page? This to me seems like the first step towards enforcing one. Given the circumstances in which an admin blocked the article in his preferred version when being involved in an editing dispute I see nothing wrong with what Schro said, in fact admins who are able to force something using their tools are more dangerous than vandals on here in my book, especially when they have an agenda because of personal allegiances. ♦ ] 17:36, 24 March 2015 (UTC)		:::HJ, it still looks wrong you being involved in this, you stated that you're a friend of Andy's and his pro infobox agenda. Now I always had you down as one of the good admins HJ, but you getting involved with this is rather suspicious to me. Since when has there been a problem with a hidden message in a talk page? This to me seems like the first step towards enforcing one. Given the circumstances in which an admin blocked the article in his preferred version when being involved in an editing dispute I see nothing wrong with what Schro said, in fact admins who are able to force something using their tools are more dangerous than vandals on here in my book, especially when they have an agenda because of personal allegiances. I think this hidden message dispute is a front for launching a new RFC and trying to force an infobox. I don't blame Schro for being defensive here. And you betcha Andy's network are all alerted by email to the cause. We're in for a joyful couple of weeks of constructive and vitally important infobox discussion, hip hip hooray!♦ ] 17:36, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Revision as of 17:50, 24 March 2015

Please leave a message; I'll reply here.

SchroCat

Home ♦

Contributions

Template:Archive box collapsible

Margaret Bondfield

Last year you kindly contributed to the above article's peer review or or FAC or both. An issue has arisen from yesterday's TFA appearance, and is under discussion on the article's talk. Briefly: an editor added into the text the cited information that Bondfield's was privately known as "Maggie", and then incorporated this into the lead so the subject appeared as Margaret Grace ("Maggie") Bondfield. I have removed the nickname from the lead, and stated my position on the talkpage. I would be pleased if you could visit and briefly comment there. Brianboulton (talk) 16:38, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Featured list candidates/List of Narcissus horticultural divisions/archive1

Hi. I was just about to finish promoting this list but it doesn't have your closure note, could you please add it? Cowlibob (talk) 21:42, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi Cowlibob, I'm not sure how I managed to forget that, but it's all now in place. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 22:54, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 18 March 2015

From the editor: A salute to Pine

News and notes: SUL finalization imminent; executive office shake-ups at the Foundation

In the media: NYPD editing articles regarding allegations of police brutality and misconduct

Op-ed: Does the Wikimedia fundraising survey address community concerns?

Featured content: A woman who loved kings

Traffic report: It's not cricket

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:34, 21 March 2015 (UTC) .

Misplaced Pages:Featured picture candidates/Rembrandt s-p, based on a Titian, among others

Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for featured picture status, File:Rembrandt, Self Portrait at the Age of 34.jpg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Misplaced Pages:Featured picture candidates. Armbrust 22:14, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes: it is allowable and beneficial

It reeks of a violation of WP:OWN, and it is wrong. I won't get into a petty revert war with you, but you are wrong on this. — Ched : ? 23:35, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Utter nonsense on all counts. Alerting people to a consensus to avoid an edit war, and asking them to discuss on a talk page is absolutely fuck all to do with ownership. Your opinion is noted, dismissed and ignored as being utterly flawed. - SchroCat (talk) 23:37, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Though I don't agree with the language of the notice, I do agree that the action is not a violation of WP:OWN. Anyway, your work on the article's much appreciated, and I've used bits of it to expand Jill Esmond. Alakzi (talk) 00:10, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you Alakzi: there is nothing remotely "OWN-y" about it at all, and I fail to see how such a conclusion could be drawn. Thank you also for your comments about the article, they are much appreciated, and it's great to see Esmond being given a more suitable article too. - SchroCat (talk) 10:31, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

"they're worse than the vandals"

No matter what you think of somebody's edits or admin actions, there is absolutely no excuse for comments like this. Please comment on content, not on contributors, and imagine how you would feel if somebody spoke to you like that if they felt you had made a mistake. If this conduct persists, regardless of it origin, I will request a second arbitration case on infoboxes in order to examine the conduct of all parties and with a view to asking ArbCom to authorise discretionary sanctions to curb the disruptive conduct. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:28, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm sure you will. Interesting how much more militant the "pro" lobby has been recently; it's almost as if they've been gearing up for something. As to my comment, there is nothing to discuss here: bad decisions by those with the tools are harmful, as your comment in the same thead at least partly acknowledges. HJ Mitchell, I also look forward to you discussing with Ched (in the thread above) his personal attacks in the shape of unwarranted and untrue ownership allegations. Sauce for the goose, and all that... – SchroCat (talk) 17:07, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Sure, he shouldn't have protected the page. He should have left it to another admin. But the only harm done is the appearance of impropriety—the end result is the same. Anyway, you're entirely capable of expressing your opinion on the protection without making comments like that about the admin responsible, so try to think of a time when you've cocked up and would have appreciated being cut a little slack. And accusing you of ownership is not really a personal attack. It's a characterisation of your edits; you might feel it a mischaracterisation, but that doesn't make it an attack. Best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:27, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

HJ, it still looks wrong you being involved in this, you stated that you're a friend of Andy's and his pro infobox agenda. Now I always had you down as one of the good admins HJ, but you getting involved with this is rather suspicious to me. Since when has there been a problem with a hidden message in a talk page? This to me seems like the first step towards enforcing one. Given the circumstances in which an admin blocked the article in his preferred version when being involved in an editing dispute I see nothing wrong with what Schro said, in fact admins who are able to force something using their tools are more dangerous than vandals on here in my book, especially when they have an agenda because of personal allegiances. I think this hidden message dispute is a front for launching a new RFC and trying to force an infobox. I don't blame Schro for being defensive here. And you betcha Andy's network are all alerted by email to the cause. We're in for a joyful couple of weeks of constructive and vitally important infobox discussion, hip hip hooray!♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:36, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Revision as of 17:41, 24 March 2015 editDr. Blofeld (talk \| contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers, Template editors636,284 edits →"they're worse than the vandals"← Previous edit		Revision as of 17:50, 24 March 2015 edit undoDr. Blofeld (talk \| contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers, Template editors636,284 edits →"they're worse than the vandals"Next edit →
Line 72:		Line 72:
	:I'm sure you will. Interesting how much more militant the "pro" lobby has been recently; it's almost as if they've been gearing up for something. As to my comment, there is nothing to discuss here: bad decisions by those with the tools are harmful, as your comment in the same thead at least partly acknowledges. {{u\|HJ Mitchell}}, I also look forward to you discussing with Ched (in the thread above) ''his'' personal attacks in the shape of unwarranted and untrue ownership allegations. Sauce for the goose, and all that... – ] (]) 17:07, 24 March 2015 (UTC)		:I'm sure you will. Interesting how much more militant the "pro" lobby has been recently; it's almost as if they've been gearing up for something. As to my comment, there is nothing to discuss here: bad decisions by those with the tools are harmful, as your comment in the same thead at least partly acknowledges. {{u\|HJ Mitchell}}, I also look forward to you discussing with Ched (in the thread above) ''his'' personal attacks in the shape of unwarranted and untrue ownership allegations. Sauce for the goose, and all that... – ] (]) 17:07, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
	::Sure, he shouldn't have protected the page. He should have left it to another admin. But the only ''harm'' done is the appearance of impropriety—the end result is the same. Anyway, you're entirely capable of expressing your opinion on the protection without making comments like that about the admin responsible, so try to think of a time when you've cocked up and would have appreciated being cut a little slack. And accusing you of ownership is not really a personal attack. It's a characterisation of your edits; you might feel it a ''mis''characterisation, but that doesn't make it an attack. Best, ] \| ] 17:27, 24 March 2015 (UTC)		::Sure, he shouldn't have protected the page. He should have left it to another admin. But the only ''harm'' done is the appearance of impropriety—the end result is the same. Anyway, you're entirely capable of expressing your opinion on the protection without making comments like that about the admin responsible, so try to think of a time when you've cocked up and would have appreciated being cut a little slack. And accusing you of ownership is not really a personal attack. It's a characterisation of your edits; you might feel it a ''mis''characterisation, but that doesn't make it an attack. Best, ] \| ] 17:27, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
	:::HJ, it still looks wrong you being involved in this, you stated that you're a friend of Andy's and his pro infobox agenda. Now I always had you down as one of the good admins HJ, but you getting involved with this is rather suspicious to me. Since when has there been a problem with a hidden message in a talk page? This to me seems like the first step towards enforcing one. Given the circumstances in which an admin blocked the article in his preferred version when being involved in an editing dispute I see nothing wrong with what Schro said, in fact admins who are able to force something using their tools are more dangerous than vandals on here in my book, especially when they have an agenda because of personal allegiances. ♦ ] 17:36, 24 March 2015 (UTC)		:::HJ, it still looks wrong you being involved in this, you stated that you're a friend of Andy's and his pro infobox agenda. Now I always had you down as one of the good admins HJ, but you getting involved with this is rather suspicious to me. Since when has there been a problem with a hidden message in a talk page? This to me seems like the first step towards enforcing one. Given the circumstances in which an admin blocked the article in his preferred version when being involved in an editing dispute I see nothing wrong with what Schro said, in fact admins who are able to force something using their tools are more dangerous than vandals on here in my book, especially when they have an agenda because of personal allegiances. I think this hidden message dispute is a front for launching a new RFC and trying to force an infobox. I don't blame Schro for being defensive here. And you betcha Andy's network are all alerted by email to the cause. We're in for a joyful couple of weeks of constructive and vitally important infobox discussion, hip hip hooray!♦ ] 17:36, 24 March 2015 (UTC)