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.

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)[reply]

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

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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

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)[reply]

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

• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Great Gold Robbery 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) 21:00, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to Talk:Frank Sinatra, did not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use your sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. What is with this "noise reduction"? You can't just collapse and hide someone's arguments because you don't like them. Also, "noise reduction" sounds inflammatory. Please don't do this. Specifically, see this. I-82-I | TALK 07:00, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]