User talk:SchroCat/Archive 30

Jazz timeline

There's no way to avoid opinion when it comes to something as ambiguous and subjective as a jazz timeline. To attempt such an grandiose project involves finding multiple sources for every sentence, with sources saying specifically and clearly "This is one of the most important events in jazz and for year XXXX". And that of course is an opinion. There aren't enough sources in the tiny field of jazz to get anything like a balanced, neutral view. The timeline will be a collection of opinions and personal preferences and nothing more. It will give readers a false impression, asserting opinions as facts, and I suspect that is part of the appeal for the creator of such articles, the temptation to be the Arbiter of History to instruct us little children. The exact thing Wikipedia is not. Worse, it will be one of those "articles" that prompts someone to say, "They did it, why can't I" which has already been used by the creator of this article, a person, I might add, who has a habit a creating hundreds if not thousands of make-work articles for busy editors by writing brief, inchoate impulses that lack proper sourcing. For ten years there have been at least ten one-sentence "articles" on the jazz project backlog about German jazz festivals. I tried discussing them but received no cooperation. These articles will never be developed, but it does no good talking sense to the starry-eyed and grandiose. You can bet when I try to get one of these articles deleted, I will be challenged to a duel over them. People fight deletion to death. It's so dumb, counterproductive, and...uncivil? Yes, why doesn't any of this behavior I have described get called uncivil? What's civil about it? Why is outrage reserved for the use of "bad words" and insults but rarely applied to actual behavior?Vmavanti (talk) 12:16, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

• As I said on that talk page, if there is a reliable source that says 'X was a key event in 1922 in the jazz world', then that event is suitable for inclusion on a timeline, There isn't much point in trying to challenge things if they are based on reliable sources, it becomes the editor's POV that is at fault if such challenges are made. - SchroCat (talk) 12:22, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Not just "key event". It must say "the most important event in year XXXX" for a timeline to be reliable. Most timelines are about actual historical events, such as a birth or death or the signing of the Declaration of Independence. Timelines that privilege opinion and interpretation over facts are subjective and therefore not real timelines. To say "X was a key event in 1922 in the jazz world" is an opinion whether the source is reliable or not. Therefore a timeline comprising nothing but such statements is nothing more than a collection of opinions. Is this your idea of the purpose of Wikipedia? Is it to collect facts or to collect opinions?
Vmavanti (talk) 12:29, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

No, it doesn't have to be "the most important event" for a year. If a timeline is a collection of key events, there is nothing to stop there being more than one in a year (1974, for example, had the Three-Day Week, two general elections, a state of emergency in Northern Ireland, extensive Provisional Irish Republican Army bombing of the British mainland, several large company collapses and major local government reorganisation - and that's just in the UK!).

As to it being based on the opinions of reliable sources, pick up a biography and read the first few pages. Does it contain every single event that took place during that time, or does it show the ones that, in the opinion of the author (possibly an expert on that topic) should be included. When we, as WP editors, pick up those facts for inclusion, they are included as the basis of the opinion of the book's writer. Reflecting the reliable sources is what WP is all about - it's in our DNA to do so. If an editor decides not to include encyclopaedic information that is in the reliable sources, then that's a problem, as their POV is getting in the way of producing the encyclopaedia. - SchroCat (talk) 12:49, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Jazz Club. "Nice!" serial ^# 13:01, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

I don't take it to extremes. That's one of my points. You're suggesting it's a matter of degree, that biographers select, and I agree with that. A biographer asks questions that vary in degree of importance, distinguishing between birth place, birth date, favorite color, and the name of one's third grade teacher. That's called prioritizing, and it's based on principles of selection. But we're not biographers, are we? It ought to be enough for contributors to get the facts right and leave the cheerleading and editorializing to other web sites and avenues. You may not realize how much variation there is in jazz discographies, how difficult it can be simply to find the accurate release date for an album. The same album can be released at different times, in different countries, with different album covers and number of songs, by different companies. It be recorded by one company, published by another, and distributed by another. I've done enough work in genealogy to know that, contrary to one's faith in the mighty word "Official", which is used all the time on WP, even something as "reliable" as a birth certificate can be wrong. People lie. People writing the certificate make mistakes. My great grandfather was illiterate, and he signed "X" on his Ellis Island documents. Did they even spell his last name correctly? I don't know. It's only faith that says they did. A timeline suggests importance. That's how people read them. I think most timelines are subjective, but some are more subjective than others. If there are a lot of people working on Wikipedia because they want to be "influencers", in today's teenage girl vernacular, then they are in the wrong place. Readers aren't children, and we aren't their parents.
Vmavanti (talk) 14:20, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

That's all well and good, but at the end of the day, as a tertiary publication, our job is to reflect what the sources say. If a timeline is written inline with the policies of verifiability, no original research and neutral point of view, then it is a welcome addition. - SchroCat (talk) 14:26, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

"the creator of this article, a person, I might add, who has a habit a creating hundreds if not thousands of make-work articles for busy editors ". LOL, has he even checked my editing history in the last 8 years or so??† Encyclopædius 14:42, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

@Vmavanti: "For ten years there have been at least ten one-sentence "articles" on the jazz project backlog about German jazz festivals. I tried discussing them but received no cooperation. These articles will never be developed, but it does no good talking sense to the starry-eyed and grandiose. You can bet when I try to get one of these articles deleted, I will be challenged to a duel over them. People fight deletion to death. It's so dumb, counterproductive, and...uncivil?" You really don't know me very well do you? Ask Markussep or anybody with experience, I am happy to db-author any article which can't be expanded or we think is a dud. If you find any article of mine which clearly can't be expanded I will NOT fight to keep it, quite the opposite. The reality is that most of the stubs I created can be expanded but not many people are working on German topics. You seem to have conveniently forgotten that I also reviewed a lot of Eddie Hugh's articles and promoted them to GA hardly the sign of somebody idle and uncivil...† Encyclopædius 16:26, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm v. glad to hear that, Dr Blofeld, but that hasn't been my experience. Time will tell I guess, and you will get plenty of opportunity to help.
Vmavanti (talk) 16:33, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Why do you think I set up Wikipedia:The 50,000 Destubbing Challenge and have run contests like Wikipedia:The Great Britain/Ireland Destubathon Vmavanti? I've made more effort to get articles improved than most people here. I also made a proposal a few years back to nuke all of the sub stubs I created and it didn't get support. Your perception of me seems to be severely hampered by one negative encounter with me over something and things I might have done ten years ago. † Encyclopædius 16:46, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

I apologize if I have offended you. I appreciate the work you've done. On this matter I am happy to be wrong.
Vmavanti (talk)

ITN recognition for Ann Katharine Mitchell

On 18 May 2020, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Ann Katharine Mitchell, which you nominated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Stephen 01:47, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

If you're contemplating expanding the article I'll be pleased to collaborate or otherwise help in any way I can. Let me know here or in person. Tim riley talk 22:15, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

I am, particularly now her son has provided details of some good sources. I'll get digging and ping anything over to you I find. - SchroCat (talk) 07:43, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Death of James Ashley

Hi Gavin! Hope you're keeping okay. Seeing as you've written similar-ish articles in the past, I wondered if you wouldn't mind having a look at Death of James Ashley. It's not finished yet (I've got a bit more to do on the impact and then it needs some polishing and a proper lead section before I do anything with it) but I was hoping you could have a quick read through and tell me if it's readable and it all makes sense. I'll definitely be back to the war memorials but I think I might do a few police shootings/incidents first. Best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 08:36, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi Harry, Good to hear from you. All is OK here thanks, and I hope you're also well. No problems - I'll pop along there shortly to have a look over it. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 12:01, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for having a look! I did wonder about the hyphenation. Glad to hear you're ok; my mrs and I are both "key workers" so things are largely carrying on as normal for us. Did it all make sense and not repeat itself? Best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:12, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

I've dropped some thoughts on the talk page, but I'll go over it all again in the morning when I'm less tired. Overall in good shape tho. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 22:35, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks a lot! I'll have a look through your comments and hopefully polish the article off on my day off tomorrow. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 09:40, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Cheers Harry. Hope you and the missus stay safe. - SchroCat (talk) 09:44, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Hey Gavin, thanks a lot for your feedback there. I've been working through it as time allows. I'm not in any rush, but I think I might take it to FAC. If I was to stick it up at GAN in the next couple of weeks, would you be interested in doing the review? I don't normally use GAN because I find the results aren't worth the wait, but I don't have the luxury of MilHist A-class as FAC prep in this case. Best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 10:32, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Harry, No problems: I'll be happy to. I'll stick mostly to the GA criteria, but make sure I have the FAC in mind too. Let me know when you're done with the tweaking. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 11:27, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

I've put it up at GAN now. I do believe I've made all the tweaks I wanted to and addressed everything you mentioned on the talk page. The lead feels a bit too long for the size of the article, but there's a lot to summarise with all the investigations, recriminations, criminal cases, and then a civil case that made it to the House of Lords. What do you think? Best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:17, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Ann Cook (cookery book writer)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Ann Cook (cookery book writer) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Chiswick Chap -- Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:01, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Georgiana Hill (cookery book writer)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Georgiana Hill (cookery book writer) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Therapyisgood -- Therapyisgood (talk) 13:01, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of File:Route of South Eastern Railways (1840s).jpg

The file File:Route of South Eastern Railways (1840s).jpg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No longer needed

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:00, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

A Balloon Site, Coventry

Hi SchroCat, I've just taken the liberty to create a quick Wikidata item for A Balloon Site, Coventry, an article you created a month ago – because it was listed on the "Wikidata: Possible Paintings report, as part of Wikidata-project Sum of All Paintings. If you are making more articles about paintings (or, for that matter, anything) would you be so kind as to also create a brief WD item for it so it can start to be picked up by any relevant reports and begin to be edited by the team? The more detailed the better, of course, but at minimum to use the "instance of" property + linking to the WP article would be a big help. Thanks, Wittylama 11:30, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Wittylama, thank you. As to adding something to a WP article that links to WD ... no, I’d rather not. My opinion of WD is so low that the idea of linking something of quality here to something so awful there makes me shudder. - SchroCat (talk) 21:20, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Just checking

Hi -- just checking; did you mean "natural" here? As it stands I think your post contradicts itself. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:40, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Mike! Now corrected. - SchroCat (talk) 12:42, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

And thanks for commenting there. It's been an effort to stay civil; I would have thought the original discussion was conclusive, but C. A. Russell insisted on an RfC. At least this will put it to bed so it doesn't have to be litigated again. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:46, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, I took a spin over the long thread and was a bit surprised that very few voices were so vocal and managed to sink the whole thing. As you say, let's hope an RfC gives sufficient weight to closing it down for good. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 12:48, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Regine

Hi SchroCat! Hope all is well! Been idle for a while and hunkering down gave me time to re-work Regine Velasquez. Your inputs have been valuable during the last FAC. Trying my hand on bringing it back at FAC. Not sure if you're still around these days, but if you have the luxury of time, would appreciate your inputs there. Cheers! Pseud 14 (talk) 21:48, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi Pseud 14, for various reasons (well, one trolling one), I don't do much at FAC anymore I'm afraid. Good luck with it tho. - SchroCat (talk) 12:44, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

No worries, think i might have a clue, but perfectly understand!. Cheers! Pseud 14 (talk) 15:46, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

"Tabloid fluff"

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

How is the information I added to the Caroline Flack page "tabloid fluff", when it is sourced from Flack's own autobiography? Its not from a newspaper, let alone a tabloid one. It may well not be unencyclopedic but I think you need to rethink whether Flack's book is "tabloid fluff". Some would consider such an assertion quite rude and disrespectful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AmSam13 (talk • contribs) 23:05, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

There is nothing rude or disrespectful in what I said at all - in fact it’s quite a stretch to pretend it is. You do, however, need to learn the difference betweeen trivial bollocks and encyclopaedic content. Not everything in a biography (or autobiography) deserves to be in an encyclopaedia. Oh, can can you remember to sign your name too, please. - SchroCat (talk) 23:09, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

You were not being rude or disrespectful to me but to Caroline Flack, claiming that her writing in her own book is “tabloid fluff”. I don’t disagree that what I attempted to add was unencyclopaedic, you’re a senior editor and if that’s what you decide when you review changes made to a page. I suggest, however, you stop characterising Flack’s own autobiography Storm in a C Cup as tabloid fluff. AmSam13 (talk) 09:23, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Oh for crying out loud: I was not being rude or disrespectful to anyone, and you're talking out of your backside if you think I am.

People write all sorts of things in their autobiographies, which are written to be sold and make money for the author - that is their only reason for being. That does not mean that they contain thoughts and ideas of pure gold spun into a delicate gossamer-like wisps with words as wise as Solomon. Quite often an autobiography contains dross (Alan Shearer talked about creosoting a fecking fence, for crying out loud) or tabloid fluff. That is not being disrespectful of anyone or anything, but it is a measure of the contents of the book. Now, unless you have anything sensible to add, I wouldn't bother continuing along this vein. (And while we're on the subject, there really is no need to try and cram such tabloid fluff into biographies. You need to learn what is important information to add about a subject, not just the titillating nonsense that you'll find in tabloid newspapers.) - SchroCat (talk) 09:36, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Your GA nomination of Elinor Fettiplace

The article Elinor Fettiplace you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Elinor Fettiplace for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Amitchell125 -- Amitchell125 (talk) 18:21, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Georgiana Hill (cookery book writer)

The article Georgiana Hill (cookery book writer) you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Georgiana Hill (cookery book writer) for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Therapyisgood -- Therapyisgood (talk) 13:41, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Elinor Fettiplace

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Elinor Fettiplace you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Amitchell125 -- Amitchell125 (talk) 04:41, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Quarter Million Award

	The Quarter Million Award
	For your contributions to bring Portrait of Adele Bloch-Bauer I (estimated annual readership: 330,000) to Good Article status, I hereby present you the Quarter Million Award. Congratulations on this rare accomplishment, and thanks for all you do for Wikipedia's readers! Reidgreg (talk) 14:09, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

• Thank you, Reidgreg! I had no idea the readership was that large for that one. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 14:14, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Ann Cook (cookery book writer)

The article Ann Cook (cookery book writer) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Ann Cook (cookery book writer) for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Chiswick Chap -- Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:41, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Georgiana Hill (cookery book writer)

The article Georgiana Hill (cookery book writer) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Georgiana Hill (cookery book writer) for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Therapyisgood -- Therapyisgood (talk) 16:41, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Any advice?

Hi SchroCat, I hope you're doing well. I hope you don't mind me reaching out - you closed the ANI thread I opened earlier today. Thank you very much for your ANI work, it's appreciated by the community.

Obviously I'm not coming here to relitigate the events from over there, but the close happened at such a point that I didn't get a response to my question as to what would have been the suggestion as to do in this case - so I thought I'd ask you, as the closer. Because the user in question hadn't engaged with me, I wasn't aware that rollback had been removed from them; in this scenario, what would you have done, or what would you recommend that one should do?

Any advice would be genuinely appreciated, thank you Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 18:14, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

As several people advised at the time, you should have let it go and moved on. I don't know what your aim was (and I don't particularly care either), but as Cassianto had voluntarily given up the tool upon reading your post, there was nothing for anything for anyone to discuss. Neither your second post on his talk page, nor your posting at ANI should have taken place. You should have moved on. Posting this here suggests you still haven't moved on, and I still don't think you've got the message from everyone who posted in that thread that you should let it go. I strongly suggest you forget the whole thing and move on. There is an encyclopaedia to write, and this sort of nonsense doesn't get it done. - SchroCat (talk) 18:30, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

ITN recognition for Amadou Gon Coulibaly

On 9 July 2020, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Amadou Gon Coulibaly, which you nominated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. —Bagumba (talk) 09:19, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

File:Vincent van Gogh - Van Gogh's Bedroom in Arles - Google Art Project.jpg scheduled for POTD

Hi SchroCat,

This is to let you know that the featured picture File:Vincent van Gogh - Van Gogh's Bedroom in Arles - Google Art Project.jpg, which you uploaded or nominated, has been selected as the English Wikipedia's picture of the day (POTD) for July 8, 2020. A preview of the POTD is displayed below and can be edited at Template:POTD/2020-07-08. If you have any concerns, please place a message at Wikipedia talk:Picture of the day. Thank you! Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:49, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Bedroom in Arles is the title given to each of three similar oil-on-canvas paintings by 19th-century Dutch Post-Impressionist painter Vincent van Gogh. The picture shows his bedroom at 2 Place Lamartine in Arles, France, known as the Yellow House, where he lived in 1888. The door to the right opened onto the upper floor and the staircase, the door to the left was that of the guest room he held prepared for Paul Gauguin, and the window in the front wall looked out onto public gardens. The first version of the painting was damaged in a flood, so he painted a second. The paintings vary slightly in their colours and details, especially with regard to the pictures hanging on the walls. This picture is the third, a reduced-size version painted in 1889 for his mother and sister. It was acquired for the French national collections in 1959, and is on permanent display in the Musée d'Orsay, Paris.

Painting credit: Vincent van Gogh

Recently featured:

• Tadoba Andhari Tiger Reserve
• Giuseppe Tominz
• Capitole de Toulouse

Hi Cwmhiraeth, thanks for the note. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 12:16, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

File:Hans Holbein, the Younger, Around 1497-1543 - Portrait of Henry VIII of England - Google Art Project.jpg scheduled for POTD

Hi SchroCat,

This is to let you know that the featured picture File:Hans Holbein, the Younger, Around 1497-1543 - Portrait of Henry VIII of England - Google Art Project.jpg, which you uploaded or nominated, has been selected as the English Wikipedia's picture of the day (POTD) for June 28, 2020. A preview of the POTD is displayed below and can be edited at Template:POTD/2020-06-28. If you have any concerns, please place a message at Wikipedia talk:Picture of the day. Thank you! Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:18, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Henry VIII (28 June 1491 – 28 January 1547) was King of England from 1509 until his death. This oil-on-panel portrait was painted by Hans Holbein the Younger c. 1537, depicting the king in a near-frontal pose similar to that used by the artist in a number of other portraits. It is a markedly linear picture without background distractions; Henry gazes into the distance, with his head, hands and general demeanour imbuing his personality with a sense of solidity and strength. The painting is in the collection of the Thyssen-Bornemisza Museum in Madrid, Spain.

In 1536, Henry suffered a leg injury in a jousting accident. The wound festered chronically for the remainder of his life and became ulcerated, thus preventing him from maintaining the level of physical activity he had previously enjoyed. He became grossly obese, and this hastened his early death; the view that he suffered from syphilis has been dismissed by most historians.

Painting credit: Hans Holbein the Younger

Recently featured:

• Birth
• San Lorenzo, Turin
• Virginia

• Thanks for the heads up, Cwmhiraeth. I hope all is well with you. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 11:34, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Elinor Fettiplace

The article Elinor Fettiplace you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Elinor Fettiplace for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Amitchell125 -- Amitchell125 (talk) 20:41, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Books & Bytes – Issue 39, May – June 2020

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 39, May – June 2020

• Library Card Platform
• New partnerships
  • ProQuest
  • Springer Nature
  • BioOne
  • CEEOL
  • IWA Publishing
  • ICE Publishing
• Bytes in brief

Read the full newsletter

On behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:13, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Chandler's Ford shooting ‎

Hey Gavin! You were a massive help with Ashley, which got its star the other day with relatively little fuss. I don't suppose you'd be interested in having a look at my latest project, the Chandler's Ford shooting? As you can see it's not quite finished yet, but I don't think the main body is going to change much unless I've missed a major source. No rush, it might be next week before I get back to it, but if you had time to read through it (it's only a thousand words so far) and pick any nits that stood out I'd appreciate it. Best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:34, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi Harry, I saw Ashley had gone through FAC - well done. It certainly deserved to pass. Chandler's Ford Looks like an interesting one, and I’ll swing by there shortly to have a look. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 03:39, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Florence Petty

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Florence Petty you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of SNUGGUMS -- SNUGGUMS (talk) 03:02, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Florence Petty

The article Florence Petty you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Florence Petty for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of SNUGGUMS -- SNUGGUMS (talk) 01:21, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

We're almost there. Just one final bit to do before it's ready to become a GA. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 21:49, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

infoboxes

Thank you for your comment about using the correct process during discussion about infoboxes.--MerielGJones (talk) 10:22, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

MerielGJones, it is so refreshing to see you deal with this in this manner. As has been pointed out on your talk by PackMecEng, this subject is very contentious and infobox discussions usually end up at a noticeboard somewhere. The courteous and professional manner which you have displayed will set this discussion apart from all the rest and will be a note to all those who force boxes onto a page through edit warring and incivility that they are approaching it from the wrong way. Let's hope this discussion is used as an example of how to do things properly. Cassianto^Talk 10:33, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Vandalism

The article Ennio Morricone has been vandalized, and needs a rollback. Grimes2 (talk) 20:57, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi Grimes2, do you mean that something needs to be WP:OVERSIGHTed? If so, I can't: I'm not an Admin (thankfully). - SchroCat (talk) 21:05, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Love Island (2015)

Hello SchroCat, it's me, ya boi. Just wondering, do you think it's right that the intro of the Love Island page has been purged of all mentions of the controversies it has caused because of the suicides linked to the show? A admin who is a fan of the show has removed the small paragraph about it, saying it shouldn't be there. I'm not convinced this is right, what do you think? AmSam13 (talk) 12:36, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm not that interested in the programme, but neither WilliamJE or ThisIsDanny are admins, and both have been here long enough to know that they should not be edit warring in this manner. Both WilliamJE and ThisIsDanny also know how to find the article's talk page where I have opened a thread about the matter. I hope that ALL parties stop edit warring, leave the information in place and discuss further instead of reverting once again. Some of the edit summaries giving a reason for removal are just plain wrong, so if you could ALL make sure your comments are in line with the relevant policies and guidelines, then it will make a consensus easier to arrive at. - SchroCat (talk) 13:06, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your assistance. I have added to the talk page discussion in the hope of discussing further.AmSam13 (talk) 13:22, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Florence Petty

The article Florence Petty you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Florence Petty for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of SNUGGUMS -- SNUGGUMS (talk) 12:22, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Hugh Walpole revert

Hi SchroCat, would it suffice to include "Walpole was a descendant of Horatio Walpole, 1st Baron Walpole"? Not including any such detail seems quite an omission given that so many of his direct line of ancestors are notable enough to have articles here, particularly given the name "Walpole" is a fairly uncommon one and someone reading the article may well wonder about a link. Thanks for your feedback 78.144.69.56 (talk) 23:54, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

I'd say it was of no relevance to Walpole's life and career, and should be omitted. The ancestor is, of course, notable so far as his own article is concerned, but not here. Tim riley talk 08:09, 15 July 2020 (UTC) Later: I spoke too soon. Walpole ancestry is of passing relevance, and in fact, is already mentioned at the appropriate place in the article. We don't need it twice, though. Tim riley talk 08:14, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

That's very interesting; based on other articles that's not the impression I would necessarily have had, so thank you for clarifying that as it will colour my future contributions. Best regards. 78.144.69.56 (talk) 13:59, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Stone-cold killer

I really laughed when I saw the image here [1]. Let me guess: fair-use trouble? EEng 03:52, 19 July 2020 (UTC) P.S. Got back out of bed to say I'm impressed by the amount of work you've done. Also insomnia.

LOL - I thought it an appropriate one too. I hope the work has a beneficial outcome. It's not normally my role to play peacekeeper or mediator, and I don't think I'm doing a very good job, but I do know how to review an article to help get the best out of it, which is my only aim here. If both parties damn me in equal measure I'll probably have been as fair as I can be. - SchroCat (talk) 08:20, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

FYI

You may know this already, but just in case: if you don't want to get pings from someone anymore, you can add them to your mute list. Preferences-->Notifications-->Muted users. It has made me a much happier person on occasion. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:32, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Cheers Floquenbeam; I'd forgotten about that function. (It would have been better not to have been messaged and pinged so many times or have an innocuous talk page message deleted in breach of TPO, but there you go!) I'll add that to get some peace and quiet. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 16:44, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Jane Grigson scheduled for TFA

This is to let you know that Jane Grigson has been scheduled as WP:TFA for 23 August 2020. Please check that 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/August 23, 2020. Thanks! Ealdgyth (talk) 14:24, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Ealdgyth, although I have no special rights over any articles, I would rather none of the articles I have taken to FAC appear on the MP. There is too much grief and trouble involved, and no upside at all. - SchroCat (talk) 14:30, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

@WP:TFA coordinators That's not something we can decide as an individual editor. It'd likely need a RfC, quite honestly. --Ealdgyth (talk) 14:33, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Ealdgyth, on further consideration I am a little annoyed by this. "That's not something we can decide as an individual editor" (I've leave aside how is "we" a "single editor"); as it is a single editor that decides to select (in this case you); it can be an individual editor (again, you) that decides not to select. Is there a reason you are deciding not to allow a nominator's wishes on this occasion? I and others have requested articles didn't run previously and those wishes have been honoured - as a basic courtesy if nothing else. Is this article of such high or strategic value that it must be run? If not, there is no reason not pick another one. As I've mentioned below, there are other reasons, one of which is that I am likely to be away around then, and if an article I have worked on has the misfortune to be on the front page, I would rather be around to deal with questions, comments or the drive-by editors making major changes. - SchroCat (talk) 07:40, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

As I've said, I have no special rights over any articles, and if it is decided that it should be run against my wishes, then I am aware there is nothing I can do to stop it. - SchroCat (talk) 14:37, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

I sympathize, I'd love to have avoided the main page with most of the articles I shepherded, unfortunately, my hands are pretty much tied on this. I can't unilaterally decide such a change. --Ealdgyth (talk) 14:48, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

I suppose it very much depends on who you get. There's those who are only too happy to respect the wishes of the principle writer, and those who, well, are not. Cassianto^Talk 15:01, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

FWIW, I agree with Ealdgyth on this, and currently all the actual TFA scheduling ( as opposed to blurb-writing) is done by the two of us and Wehwalt Jimfbleak - talk to me? 19:24, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Jimfbleak, this is very inconsistent. Without going diff hunting, I'm pretty sure there was a time when you approached me, asked me my thoughts about putting one of mine on the MP, I said thanks but no thanks, and you didn't schedule it. Or did I just imagine that? Cassianto^Talk 06:14, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

This one, perhaps. I’ve also has a request accepted in the past too. I’m a bit bemused and saddened by it all, to be honest, but little surprises me here any more. If it’s a new practice that the nominator’s wishes are overruled or ignored, then there is little I can say or do to change matters. - SchroCat (talk) 06:19, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Just more contempt being shown, nothing new. The principle writer/nominator is considered the lowest form of life around here and this has been the case for many years now. WP values people who award each other silly boxes containing pieces of cake and cups of tea more than they do the people at the business end of the set up who try and achieve the website the best reputation possible out there on google for being the leading online encyclopaedia. They are all too happy to accept your hard work, dedication, expense and time that you've put into writing a featured article, but the moment it earns the gold star, two fingers are raised to the wind in your direction and you're completely forgotten about. And of course, the moment you start complaining about it, you are accused of having ownership issues. If we were volunteers within another organisation, we'd have walked away a long time ago. Cassianto^Talk 07:19, 28 July 2020 (UTC)4

Well said, Cassiantodolist. I bet our Jane never put "pieces of cake in a box" ! Who needs them damn silly boxes anyway. I'd settle for "Cake by the Ocean"! Martinevans123 (talk) 08:49, 28 July 2020 (UTC) ... Liam sends you his very best two-fingered salute up your FA wind ... [2]

• Jim, I am aware of who selects, but there is no reason not to ignore or override the wishes of others. I have had such request allowed previously, and I've never seen such a request turned down before as far as I can remember. Why has the practice now changed? - SchroCat (talk) 07:40, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Schrocat, I think there is a difference between a request not to run a particular FA and asking us not to run any. Hundreds of hours of reviewers' time has been vested in those FAs, and I don't think that we can ignore their efforts in giving you a veto. Cassianto, I'm sorry that you feel that what amounts to an ad hominem is the best way to advance your case. You know full well that between us the current TFA coordinators have contributed a least a couple of hundred FAs, and I don't understand why you are trying to suggest that we are remote from the process ourselves. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:29, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Jimfbleak, let's leave the petty interpretations (ad hominem) of what each other says and discuss this like adults, no holds barred; sadly, not everyone is like you and the other coordinators. You may like the idea of your FAs appearing on the MP, and that's great, more power to you, but there are others who don't share this enthusiasm as they don't like to see their hard work trolled and vandalised in the name of "improvement", and then for resulting, troublesome talk page threads in the days after, discussing something that someone has introduced which you don't have a say about. I've become ambivalent about the MP - Little Tich, for example, didn't have any trouble when he appeared a week or so ago - but others simply don't want the trouble. I've been an advocate for a long time of locking the article altogether on MP day and just leaving the talk page open. That way, the article remains intact, the author's work is retained and respected, and those who want to change something are forced to discuss it first - something that should happen all of the time. Cassianto^Talk 08:38, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Jim, reviewers review the article to ensure it is at the right standard for FA at the point of the review. There is no direct connection between the review process and TFA (ie there is no reference in any of the FA criteria that an article has to appear at TFA and reviewers at FAC do not review an article with TFA in mind). I would like this particular FA not to run please. - SchroCat (talk) 08:40, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

But that's not what you said in your response to Ealdgyth, whose decision it is, which can only be read as as a blanket withdrawal. I've always enjoyed your FAs, and I think it's a great pity that you feel this way. And I don't think Cassianto's comments about a barnstar-sharing out-of-touch cabal trampling over hoi polloi are anything more than pot-stirring for the sake of it. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:50, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Well Ealdgyth can take this as a request that I would like this particular FA not to run please. There are numerous reasons behind this, one of which is that I am likely to be away that week. - SchroCat (talk) 08:55, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Jimfbleak, stunning. Cassianto^Talk 22:10, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

ITN recognition for Peter Green (musician)

On 28 July 2020, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Peter Green (musician), which you nominated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Stephen 23:59, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

ITN recognition for Alan Parker

On 31 July 2020, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Alan Parker, which you nominated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page.  — Amakuru (talk) 20:38, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

		The Alan Parker Barnstar
		Bloody good work with that SC! ——Serial 12:41, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Cheers Serial Number 54129. It wasn't in bad shape in the first place (I gave it a bit of a polish a couple of years ago, so it hadn't declined too much since then). Shame the old boy hadn't done more work: he was a classy director - one of the best British ones of the last part of the 20th century. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 13:30, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Reversion of edits for findagrave entries

I note your wholesale reversion of six edits that I made today, which added findagrave entries to the external links sections of the pages. You also requested that I "stop adding this as a link to various pages". I have re-read WP:FINDAGRAVE-EL; contrary to your implied rejection of the link, there is no mandatory exclusion regarding findagrave entries as external links.

Whilst I accept that some of the edits were to findagrave entries that did not include images and location information of graves, WP:FINDAGRAVE-EL is quite specific that "Sometimes, a link is acceptable because of a specific, unique feature or information that is not available elsewhere, such as valuable images and location information of graves." I have therefore reverted your reversion of the entry for Danny La Rue, and will verify whether or not others I added do meet the requirements of WP:FINDAGRAVE-EL, and act accordingly as I see fit within the guidelines. If you still have concerns, I respectfully recommend you see arbitration for the removal of the findagrave entry for that page. PårWöet (talk) 16:25, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

ParWoet, It's a crap site that really, really shouldn't be used. Please don't just revert (that is never the best course of action), but use the article talk page to discuss, per WP:BRD. - SchroCat (talk) 16:35, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Your somewhat emotive opinion that "It's a crap site" will never justify a rejection of its use as an external link. When you ask me to not just revert but use the article page to discuss, remember that it was you who made the first reversion with the bald statement as I noted in my first paragraph above. As you yourself wrote, "Please don't just revert (that is never the best course of action), but use the article talk page to discuss, per WP:BRD."

As you considered it worthwhile to revert my additions to pages today - of which there are six first and one second reversion, you may wish to consider discussion BEFORE reversion, rather than continue and, apparently, search my previous edits and, for example, remove one change I made to the pre-existing findagrave entry for Richard Burton, otherwise your efforts may have the appearance of a personal vendetta. Please, in future, if you do not agree with the addition of a findagrave entry, discuss first before you revert and not afterwards. Bear in mind that a second same-day reversion of the same thing accompanied by an unqualified rejection is not conducive to further discussion and smacks of edit warring. At the same time, I maintain that it is acceptable to make edits to add a findagrave entry that I claim is justified within the terms of WP:FINDAGRAVE-EL, and it is not acceptable to simply revert them without entering into a discussion that does not consist of a mere single opinion rejection.PårWöet (talk) 16:52, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Wrong on many levels there. If you add something sub-standard, I do not have to discuss removing it - that's just not the way this place works. You make a Bold (but poor) edit and I Remove it, then it's time for you to Discuss. I'm not going to discuss removing crap before I remove it - I certainly don't have to do that at all. If you don't like what I've reverted, then use the article talk pages to discuss for wider input: I doubt you'll get much take up here. - SchroCat (talk) 16:58, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Hipal

You're right about him being creepy, He got one of his friends to topic ban me after i disagreed with his edits on the Karlie Kloss article. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Karlie_Kloss#Political_views Jaydoggmarco (talk) 05:55, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

CITEVAR on Mary Celeste

FYI, I have just left a belated explanation and call-for-discussion on the talk page: Talk:Mary_Celeste#Citation_style --Quuxplusone (talk) 00:46, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Mary Celeste

SchroCat, by the Grace of God! I read three books on the "Mary Celeste"; all of the Authorities on the subject talks in the case of "Dei Gratia" about a British vessel. I talking about Charles Fay, Paul Begg and Brian Hicks (and it was also explicit mentioned at the salvage hearings in Gibraltar). At least mention this significant detail then; you own history and the Wiki readers that. This is confusing and inaccurate, especially pertaining to the own page of the "Dei Gratia". 85.144.166.19 (talk) 22:02, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

As volunteers, mystery IP, we don't owe anyone anything. Cassianto^Talk 22:12, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

@Cassianto: The IP geolocates to Amsterdam. Perhaps spent a bit too much time in the Bob Marley Café eh  :) ——Serial 04:23, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Following the 1867 Constitution Act, the Canadian Confederation existed from that date. Although there was still some oversight from the UK government (the UK controlled Canada's foreign policy, for example), it doesn't mean that a ship built and launched in Canada in 1872 and flying under a Canadian flag and with a Canadian owner and crew should be described as "British". Canadian is the correct word to use in the MC article. - SchroCat (talk) 07:25, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Sinatra

Re: this. Now I get it that you're brassed off with the RfC, as are a whole bunch of other people. I'm not going to take any action on that because I'd like somebody to close the RfC with the inevitable "no consensus"; however, it pretty much makes it impossible for me to sanction any other editor on that thread that you might want me to, because all they've got to do is say "aha, but why didn't you sanction SchroCat for telling another editor to bugger off?" and I'd have to do it, if nothing else to be fair. Can't you just ignore it? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 23:53, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

That’s an editor who I have had dealings with before (where they were acting appropriately too). Ritchie, when I specifically ask not to be pinged and the next person pings me, it’s a deliberate action to rile - it’s baiting and nothing else. I already had the page unwatched so as not to respond, so getting the ping I’d asked not to get is doubly unwelcome. - SchroCat (talk) 01:48, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Raise you!  :) check this page for trolling par excellence: I got pinged 5 times in one night, got two message alerts, and when I told em not to ping me again, they accused me of threatening them and then used the fucking "thanks" feature. All in 24 hours. Some people... ——Serial 04:23, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

SN, That’s a step beyond even the normal passive-aggressive baiting! - SchroCat (talk) 13:51, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

• More disruption. - SchroCat (talk) 06:37, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
• this is just idiotic; is there an admin who will ask them to stop being disruptive? - SchroCat (talk) 09:27, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

  SchroCat, nope, deathly silent, as always. Cassianto^Talk 15:43, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

ACE2020

Hi. It looks to me as if the drafter(s) of the RfC might be being personally selective on what points they will allow to be discussed in their draft RfC. Perhaps it's just simply up to everyone else to expannd the RfC with additional topics for discussion, particulary in regards to the several issues surrounding Voter Guides. For example (among the other suggestions with their rationales), you suggested that the guides should be dropped but I don't see that being up for discussion. However, as I take little interest nowadays since I abandoned my watchlist, I could of course have missed something, but that said, scrapping the voter guides is something I would come out of retirement for to strongly support .Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:11, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, forgot the link. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:14, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

• Hi Kudpung, I hope there is some openness to the framing of any process: I’ll be adding something about scrapping them if possible, with a second choice of not advertising them. I’ve always been perplexed why people need to be told how to vote by a third party. - SchroCat (talk) 05:21, 29 August 2020 (UTC) I've added two proposals onto the RfC (1.1.13 - 1.1.16); let me know if you think the wording needs any alterations. - SchroCat (talk) 07:50, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. I would have put it more strongly than that about deprecating the guides altogther - some of them would be clearly blockable PA and incivility anywhere else and if I were (still) an admin I wouldn't hesitate to do the blocking. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:47, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi Kudpung, I’m happy to consider alternative wordings if you can suggest the sort of thing you mean. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 13:48, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps: Completely deprecate guides to candidates. Rationale: Guides are frequently thinly disguised attack pages against individuals and groups and contain personal attacks; such guides breach WP:POLEMIC. The guides are of questionable use and there is ample opportunity to question the candidates and discuss them - people do not need to be told how to vote by someone they don't really know, who may be working to a different agenda. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:16, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Looks good: now done - SchroCat (talk) 15:41, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Discussion at AE

There is a discussion concerning you at arbitration enforcement. Barkeep49 (talk) 20:39, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

SchroCat, There is a discussion concerning you at arbitration enforcement...SchroCat....SchroCat, are you there?

Retiring?

Do hope you'll reconsider. GoodDay (talk) 18:32, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

File:Albrecht Dürer - Portrait of Dürer's Father at 70.jpg scheduled for POTD

Hi SchroCat,

This is to let you know that the featured picture File:Albrecht Dürer - Portrait of Dürer's Father at 70.jpg, which you uploaded or nominated, has been selected as the English Wikipedia's picture of the day (POTD) for September 21, 2020. A preview of the POTD is displayed below and can be edited at Template:POTD/2020-09-21. If you have any concerns, please place a message at Wikipedia talk:Picture of the day. Thank you! Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:46, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Portrait of Dürer's Father at 70 is an oil-on-linden-panel painting attributed to the German painter and printmaker Albrecht Dürer. Although a master goldsmith and well travelled, Albrecht Dürer the Elder, the painter's father, lived in poverty all his life. With his much younger wife, he fathered 17 children, of whom only two reached adulthood. He was supportive of his son's precocious talent and sent him to an apprenticeship with Michael Wolgemut, one of the most highly regarded painters in Nuremberg at the time. This portrait was painted in 1497, on his son's return, but whether it is the original work, or one of several copies done in the artist's workshop, is unclear. The painting currently hangs at the National Gallery, London.

Painting credit: Albrecht Dürer (attributed)

Recently featured:

• Marriage A-la-Mode: 6. The Lady's Death
• James A. Garfield
• Mount Stuart House

Arbitration Appeal

You are involved in a recently-filed request for clarification or amendment from the Arbitration Committee. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#2020 Infobox Arbitration Enforcement and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the Wikipedia:Arbitration guide may be of use.

Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:36, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

I know you've scrambled your password but given some posts putatively from you as an IP I thought it best to include you. Barkeep49 (talk) 22:36, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Books & Bytes – Issue 40

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 40, July – August 2020

• New partnerships
  • Al Manhal
  • Ancestry
  • RILM
• #1Lib1Ref May 2020 report
• AfLIA hires a Wikipedian-in-Residence

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --10:15, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Books & Bytes – Issue 40

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 40, July – August 2020

• New partnerships
  • Al Manhal
  • Ancestry
  • RILM
• #1Lib1Ref May 2020 report
• AfLIA hires a Wikipedian-in-Residence

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --14:26, 10 September 2020 (UTC)