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

October 31 Hogwarts Legacy
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
March 15 Arthur O. Austin
March 27 February 1983 North American blizzard
April 2 Rain World
April 3 BP Refinery v Tracey
April 5 Narwhal
April 11 Chetana Nagavajara
April 11 Ann Cook (cookery book writer)
April 13 Charles the Bold
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

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)

'Murder of Yvonne Fletcher' page[edit]

Good day.

You just reverted the edit made by DiddyOwnsYa, which I think is fair enough based on its content. I just wanted to ensure that you did not consider my subsequent edit, which has been struck through with DiddyOwnsYa's, to be disruptive, as all I did was correct that user's mistakes. I consider myself to be a very careful editor, although not perfect, by any stretch of the imagination, and a strike-through edit can look as though an innocent user is at fault, especially if not explained in the edit summary.

ZeroAlpha87 (talk) 12:47, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And by 'mistakes', I mean spelling and phrasing, rather than facts. ZeroAlpha87 (talk) 12:51, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

DiddyOwnsYa is a trolling vandal who stalks me from time to time using different throwaway accounts. If you look at their history you'll see all they did was revert a series of my edits. There was nothing wrong with your edit, which certainly was not disruptive at all. - SchroCat (talk) 12:53, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for confirming. I'm sorry that people like that feel the need to ruin it for decent editors.

Best wishes. ZeroAlpha87 (talk) 12:55, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]