User talk:Cassianto

SEMI-RETIRED

This user is no longer very active on Wikipedia.

For my "stupid text"...

You're red now...

...per your request at RFPP. If you decide to return, it can always be undeleted. Good luck with wherever you go from here, and perhaps we'll see you back sometime. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:14, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Pff, the world's gone to hell in a hand basket. That said, you do need to choose your battles more carefully. There is no doubt that you have been targeted on several fronts, with either baiting or grind down the key tactic. But....I hope you reconsider, I always respected your input and view on article work, and share (with many others) your more general concerns. You play a large role at FAC that we can ill afford to loose, and are a voice of reason....if you dont mind me saying...up to a point of red mist :) Anyway take a breather man, climb some trees, and maybe reconsider. Ceoil (talk) 22:17, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes, your new red signature looks so much cooler, dude. Really stealthy, in fact.... Climb trees? hmm, why not try some Giant Redwoods?? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:30, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Well yes. Cassianto was always a gentleman to me and my collabs; reviewers of his ability and attention to detail dont grow on trees. Cass's retirement is a real blow, but at least we still have.....fly by night neebs, meta data, and peace and love on AN/I. Well done to those involved, for instilling and leading with such perfect people management skills; our core mission of CIV reigns pure! Ceoil (talk) 03:10, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Infoboxes ARCA

The amendment request in which you were involved has been archived at WT:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Infoboxes#Amendment request (October 2016). The motion to open a case did not pass. For the Arbitration Committee, Miniapolis 19:56, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Citizendium

Hi, Cassianto, I saw your red name today, sad but no surprise. Fancy copying your favourite articles to Citizendium exactly as you want them? Trolls and infoboxes strictly verboten, a wiki just for you. We could do with your expertise. Anyway, I hope to see you again somewhere. The very best, Rothorpe (talk) 23:47, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Cassianto. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Peace and goodwill

I do know what it feels like to have one's carefully crafted Featured Articles messed about with, but getting angry about it rarely achieves anything. Not anything good anyway. SpinningSpark 18:25, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm all for constructive edits, and I invite those wishing to improve any FA to do so. But a hell of a lot more can be achieved by simple discussion on an article's talk page, such as you and I did on Marie Lloyd, rather than pinning up ambiguous tags. Because of your detailed concern, I was able to rectify the problem promptly and to your satisfaction, I hope. Adding a {{huh}} temple, however, told me nothing about what that editor wanted fixing. I haven't yet masted the ability to mind read, unfortunatley, so the tag was both unhelpful and unnecessary. As I've said elsewhere, I think featured articles should be treated with respect. That means they should be treated differently to stubs, starts, and other lesser articles where tagging is normal and discussion first should be the preferred avenue to take. Cassianto^Talk 19:06, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

About me/you

There are two things at stake here, Cassianto: the one is communicating, the other is canvassing/cabaling. Lots of editors and admins email each other, I'm sure. To jump from that to the allegation that blocks or whatever are orchestrated is quite another thing. Again, that it's "possible" for one admin to ask another admin to block doesn't mean it happened here--besides, the original statement was that Mike V read comments on IRC. That's an entirely different thing. For some anecdotal "evidence": I've never been asked to place a block on someone's behalf. I've been asked to look into things, and it happens quite frequently that I disagree. It's possible, of course, that there are cabals where one tags another and then it happens, but without evidence, making such claims is...is almost...presidential. I mean elect-presidential. And while I see lots of potential problems in that entire thread, I owe it to everyone not to jump to conclusions--in fact, to not let others jump to conclusions. TRM may disagree with that, but the next time he may find himself in that corner, being accused without evidence of something as fundamentally wrong as tag-team editing. Drmies (talk) 17:01, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Aside from those with whom I share a good working relationship, I stopped emailing administrators a long time ago after one particular admin made one of my emails public by cutting and pasting into user space. I appreciate that there was a lack of evidence with regards to TRM's claim, but I've always found him to be a decent and honest editor and one of the only people who I'd trust; so I have no reason not to take his word for it. As you say: "it's 'possible' for one admin to ask another admin to block" and I certainly wouldn't put it past some of them. Cassianto^Talk 21:40, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

I didn't think my claim, that Mike V worked with other admins offwiki in a clandestine and untraceable manner before leaping back to Wikipedia to take unilateral decisions, was lacking in evidence. Mike V said as much himself. Ironically he's accused me of lying twice in the face of real evidence, so I have no faith in him at all any longer, nor, it seems, does the community at large other than his admin mates and a few groupies. I guess that's what happens after a long time on Wikipedia. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:44, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

I must've missed his admission. But I'd have put money on it, admission or not. Cassianto^Talk 22:20, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Well he said "Your conduct was brought to my attention from comments made by other administrators on IRC." so he's clearly using off-wiki techniques before handing out his own version of justice. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:24, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks; if I'm honest, I did miss that, not surprising owing to the amount of comments and interest this has generated today. I stand corrected. Drmies, there you go. What do you think about that? Cassianto^Talk 22:28, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Sounds like he read comments made in a semi-public forum and decided to pursue them. Pursue them unwisely, perhaps--but I don't see any evidence of cabalistic behavior here. Nor is IRC untraceable, I think--don't they keep logs? And doesn't this presuppose that all the admins on that channel are "in" on it? Anyway, you all think what you want to think. I won't be able to change your mind, but if such accusations are made in a public forum, I will comment on them. Sayonara. Drmies (talk) 04:00, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Seasons

	Nollaig shona duit
	Posting this early as off on holidays shortly. I see above you admitted you might be wrong for the first time. Your usually on point and vocalising my POV, but congrats on this breakthrough. I do hope you can return to content soon, you are sorely missed. Ceoil (talk) 08:18, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, yes quite an occasion; who'd have thought it! It also gave me the chance to see how it felt to be "belittled" by that nasty Rambling Man - he doesn't scare me, y'know ;) I'll come back to content creation when I see an improvement in the way the project treats content creators. But the project have made it clear that the content creator is the lowest form of editor there is so I think, "what's the point!?" A step in the right direction took place yesterday with someone's departure, so who knows, I may be back sooner than I think and hopefully with SchroCat and Tim in tow. Wishes of a happy Christmas to you and yours, Ceoil, and of course to 'er in doors. Cassianto^Talk 13:21, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Merry Merry

Season's Greetings, Cassianto! At this wonderful time of year, I would like to give season’s greetings to all the fellow Wikipedians I have interacted with in the past! May you have a wonderful holiday season! MarnetteD|Talk 16:33, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Merry Christmas to all!

	We wish you a Merry Christmas and a prosperous New Year 2017!
	Wishing you and yours a Merry Christmas, and a Happy, Glorious, Prosperous New Year! God bless!  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 11:36, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Oi! Cassy, me ol' f***ing china

Martinevans123 ^{(Santa's Drop-in Centre)} ... sends you ...

... warmest seasonal wishes for ...
Nadolig Llawen a Blwyddyn Newydd Dda.

---

Hoping that Christmas may bless you with peace, love and understanding... and wishing that you may find your true star...

Best wishes to you and yours!

Hello Cassianto: Enjoy the holiday season and winter solstice if it's occurring in your area of the world, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, Pauciloquence (talk) 12:30, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Season's Greetings}} to send this message

Merry Christmas

	Merry Christmas Cassianto!!
	Hi Cassianto, I wish you and your family a very Merry Christmas and a very Happy New Year, Thanks for all your help on the 'pedia!    –Davey2010 Merry Xmas / Happy New Year 22:04, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Holiday card

Wishing you a Charlie Russell Christmas, Cassianto!

"Here's hoping that the worst end of your trail is behind you That Dad Time be your friend from here to the end And sickness nor sorrow don't find you." —C.M. Russell, Christmas greeting 1926. Montanabw(talk) 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Happy Holidays

	Season's greetings!
	I hope this holiday season is festive and fulfilling and filled with love and kindness, and that 2017 will be successful and rewarding...Modernist (talk) 23:13, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Merry, merry!

From the icy Canajian north; to you and yours! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 02:05, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Happy Hogmanay!

		Happy Hogmanay!
		Wishing you and yours a Happy Hogmanay. May the year ahead be productive and harmonious. --John (talk) 21:18, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Cassianto!

Happy New Year!

Cassianto,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
–Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 12:52, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Happy New Year 2017!

To you and yours! May you have a happy, prosperous and joyous one! God bless!  — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 12:38, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

My apologies for bludgeoning, harassing, and antagonizing you

I didn't mean to antagonize or bludgeon you. When I saw your comments, I thought negatively and jumped into wrong conclusions about you. To make you feel any better, I must apologize for making comments about you. We got off at the wrong start, and I shouldn't have antagonized you. Well, I've been here for more than ten years, yet we barely interacted with each other. I realize I shouldn't have beaten a dead horse on Sinatra. I shouldn't have made bad comments about you and others. I see you made a reply at Doc James. Yes, my communication skills here are poor, and my judgments on others haven't improved. I'm doing my best to see people in positive light, though that wouldn't make up my past errors with others. Still, I hope you and I get along and not make any more petty battles. Okay? Handshake? --George Ho (talk) 23:52, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Unfortunatley, the ball is now rolling on Sinatra, so the damage there is done. The IP is constantly reverting the hatting and I'm fearful that you've now shaken the hornet's nest to such an extent that the jungle-drums will be too loud to ignore. But I appreciate you coming here and and acknowledging your wrongdoing. Cassianto^Talk 00:06, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

For the record, I struck out my comment about the coding of collapsing. I guess I have to listen to others then. Back to Sinatra, until someone else does the RFC, I'll stay out of the Sinatra infobox then. George Ho (talk) 00:13, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

I believe you have an agenda and that by doing what you've done, an RfC is now imminent, regardless of whether it's you or someone else starts it. Another RfC, as with Kubrick, would be wholly disruptive. But then why should you or anyone else whose had nothing to do with the improvements of the article care? Cassianto^Talk 00:27, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

I requested protection on the Sinatra talk page at RPP. Fingers crossed, hoping that the hopping stops. And another discussion would be less likely if protected. George Ho (talk) 00:36, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Oh the irony, but thanks all the same. Cassianto^Talk 00:43, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

User:JohnCD, Possible hoax; Thanks for message

I thought I would comment here because my user page is getting cluttered and there is no reason to invite further responses and add to the confusion there. I very much appreciate your further message. It eases my embarrassment. I am still somewhat upset with myself for not being more skeptical and handling the matter more cautiously. I now see this is not something I should have taken at face value and spread around widely but rather should have asked a few people for advice. But it seems not to be something I should be too disheartened about. Some comment, advice and criticism is justified and should be appreciated when given in that spirit. I am in no position to put it otherwise. Thanks again for your followup and keeping an eye on this. Donner60 (talk) 13:59, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

No problem. I won't hear of your embarrassment. You have nothing to be embarrassed about. You acted in good faith, notified the right noticeboard, and spoke to the right people. It should never have reached JohnCD's talk page though, not until things had been verified. And those posting messages of condolences should also have realised that. Cassianto^Talk 14:02, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

I thought I would check in briefly to see the status. I am preparing a presentation on the Battle of the Somme and am now hard press to get it in complete order on time. I was sorry to see that the report about JohnCD was in fact genuine. I thank you for your understanding and encouragement. I hope that our further interactions will be under calmer and less sad circumstances. Donner60 (talk) 06:10, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Amazing ...

I see your talk page is being with littered warnings; isn't it amazing that your contributions are gaining so much attention yet the disruption being caused by Beatley is totally ignored? SagaciousPhil - Chat 19:21, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I know. It's hilarious! I would suggest it's probably a sock of either one of the "editors" who have just trolled my talk page. I see one of them is also an admin. They are showing a biased neglect of duties, in my opinion. Cassianto^Talk 19:24, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Want some popcorn? Cassianto^Talk 19:41, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Not to worry-got you a clean-up committee.  :-D We hope (talk) 19:51, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

A couple of thoughts

1. Thank you for your message about Wikipedia:Don't template the regulars. However, if I wish to send a message of a type which is sufficiently commonly needed that there is a standard template for doing so, then using that saves time and does no harm.
2. No matter how much you dislike someone's posting a message to you, no useful purpose whatever is served by telling them to fuck off. At best, it gives the impression that you are an uncollaborative and hostile editor, and at worst it may anger or offend someone. I strongly suggest giving thought to the possibility of instead giving a constructive explanation of why you disagree. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 19:24, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Fine, sorry if I offended you, but don't come to my talk page, armed with a tag and warn me when you've clearely ignored the other editor. I would suggest you look at the whole picture, rather than just part of it, before coming along to poke me. Cassianto^Talk 19:26, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict)@JamesBWatson: Please could you take the time to look at the edits and talk page of the editor I mention above? Thanks. SagaciousPhil - Chat 19:30, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Further still, might it pertinent of me to suggest that you visit the contributions of the other editor and see how many times they've been told by other editors (including another administrator), that they are to stop adding infoboxes and discuss like an adult. I don't suppose you will as you're clearly here on an agenda. Cassianto^Talk 19:32, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

• Still nothing. JamesBWatson, why don't you have the decency to respond to our concerns? Do you accept our points that you are coming accross as very biased? Cassianto^Talk 19:46, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Biased? He's clearly abusing his power! And you're a saint. Toddst1 (talk) 19:51, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

You report me for incivility in one edit, then snipe at me in the next. I would suggest you are a hypocrite, Toddst1. Cassianto^Talk 19:54, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Hey, JamesBWatson, take a look at Beatley's edit warring here. Will you be issuing a warning? Cassianto^Talk 20:22, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

• Hello, Cassianto. I have just logged in, and seen your ping, so I have come here to reply. The reason I didn't, as you put it, "have the decency to respond", is that I wasn't on Wikipedia at the time.

You ask if I will warn Beatley about edit-warring. No, because looking at his editing history and other related history, I see that he clearly knows full well about edit-warring, and has been doing it a lot, so I shall block the account.

I don't usually "template the regulars". I am not at all sure why did so this time. Maybe there was something in your editing which gave me the impression you were an inexperienced editor, or maybe there was some other reason that I don't remember, or maybe I just didn't think. You evidently attach more weight to the matter than I do, so I'll try to remember to avoid doing the same again, as it is possible that there are other editors who feel as strongly about it as you do.

You say that I had "clearly ignored the other editor". However, at the time when I posted to you about edit-warring, Beatley had edited the article in question only once, and had made no reverts there at all. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:05, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

It seems you do very little research, JamesBWatson, when it comes to administering anything, whether it be a block, tag, or otherwise. If you'd have done so with regards to me you'd have seen that I've been here for seven years and have 23 Featured Articles to my name. If you're not familiar with FAC, and like to hang out at the dramah boards, you would have seen me at ANI countless times for many things, including fights against POV pushers; blatant vandalism which is dressed up in the other editors favour in the form of WP:3rr; curt words of advice to people who seem to know what they're doing, but choose to ignore the rules; and daring to swear at baiters (which I'll continue to do, by the way) who come to my talk page to instigate an argument. From there after, I'm trolled for months, but see no sign, with the exception of a few friends like Ritchie333, Floquenbeam, John, and SlimVirgin, from any of the partakers who joined in the public flogging of me at the ANI thread? Couple that together with the fact you thought Beatley was an innocent party in all this then I find it highly appropriate that I should arrive at this opinion of you. I'm wholly surprised you thought I was "inexperienced".

My signature is red for a reason; it's owing to people like Toddst1 and Beatley that I no longer write for the project. The Infobox polizia have driven far too many people away, including four, very good friends of mine, all of whom were invaluable to the project. I now strictly concentrate on the protection of my FAs; the battles of the friends I have left; and incidences where, like yesterday, I get hauled to the dramah board on the advice of, supposedly, accomplished administrators like Favonian who, up until yesterday, I thought was OK. Cassianto^Talk 20:08, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

I am not sure whether there is any point in this, as you evidently go in for IDHT, but I will make one last attempt to clear up just a couple of your misunderstandings. I did not say that "Beatley was an innocent party", I said that he had not edit warred on the particular article on which I warned you about edit warring. I did not say that I thought you were inexperienced, either, I said that I did not remember why I used a template, and vaguely suggested a couple of possibilities, one of which was that there might have been something in your editing which gave me the impression you were an inexperienced editor. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 20:16, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

No there's not, but I'd hate for you to run away with the thought that a measly 12-hour block of Beatley justifies you the feeling of triumph that what you did was good and thoroughly investigated with an appropriate outcome. It wasn't. This person will be back, as bold as brass, in 6 hours time, adding his shite to tons of pages in the name of "article improvement". He'll come here, I'll tell him to f*** off, and it'll be another group meeting at the ANI echo chambers for another round of "Let's ban Cassianto". I didn't say you said he was innocent. Your lack of action with regards to his warring - yes, it takes two people to edit war, remember? - was convincing enough for me to assume that you considered this editor to be innocent. Look, I thank you for the block, of course I do, but it was too little, too late. As for your friend, Todd, well, I can see why he's no longer an administrator. Especially with such moronic comments like this and this. Happy editing. Cassianto^Talk 20:26, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Oh, for crying out loud! So now I've been added to your shit list? I assume this is about my comment on Toddst1's talk page, which referred to his AIV report. I told him that AIV is the wrong place for such complaints, ANI being more appropriate. That's just the way it is. I also did tell him in so many words that it was likely to be a waste of time. Do you object to my choice of section header? You are in no position to be prissy. Now, presumably I'll be told to leave your talk page, never to return. Sayonara! Favonian (talk) 20:41, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Bloody hell, calm down, I may've been under the wrong impression. I had a problem with the ambiguity of your wording. Did you mean "the actions" of me were worthy of an ANI thread, or those of Beatley? Or both? Cassianto^Talk 20:57, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

I expressed no opinion on the matter (and have none when it comes to infoboxes), merely pointed out which board was the right one for such discussions. Favonian (talk) 21:02, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm not going to beat this to death as I like you; but I do feel a more neutrally worded response could've been given. Cassianto^Talk 21:12, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Peace in our time, then. Feeling is mutual. Wish you'd go back to content work. I'm Danish, so bluntness is congenital. Favonian (talk) 21:16, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

I wished I could, too. But content creators are treated appallingly by both the community and the hierarchy. Until that improves, I don't hold out much hope. Although if I'm honest, getting this to FA is tempting. Cassianto^Talk 21:31, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Cassianto. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Replied. Cassianto^Talk 22:17, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

FA

Hey Cass, I had a couple questions about featured articles and FAC process. First, when youre writing an FA article, do you take it via peer review, GA or just go straight to FAC? And second, my biggest problem when writing articles is prose and grammar. I took Battle of Antioch (218) through A-class and it passed. That said, id like to clean up the prose to a higher standard per Lingzhi. I think my research is solid just not my writing. Im not likely to take that small article to FA, but, itd be good practice for a future article. Im thinking Burebista would be a good candidate for FA in the near future, but, Ill see about that after GA. Cheers, Mr rnddude (talk) 05:29, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Some of the seasoned editors jump straight to FAC, but when starting out, it's best to do GA, PR and FA in that order, because you will hopefully learn a lot about the feedback along the way and not just get torn to shreds on prose and MOS adherence in ten minutes. Milhist A-class articles are often very good candidates for FAC, as they will generally assume that the article is completely factually accurate and complete, and the main stumbling block then is to get the best copyedit you can. Nick-D and Peacemaker67 might be able to help you as they have done a lot of milhist FAs. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:00, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

The Military History Wikiproject's A-class criteria were deliberately designed as a somewhat "watered down" version of the FA criteria, so there should be a clear pathway from A-class to FA status. Nick-D (talk) 10:33, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

As per Ritchie, Mr rnddude, I would always recommend doing a Peer Review first before even attempting to go to FAC. I would then have a look back at previous FAC’s, which are on the same subject field, to compile a list of possible reviewers who may be interested in taking part in your FAC. Ian Rose is an FA delegate, but he also has a great interest in anything to do with military history; likewise, so does Dank, who, if requested, may conducted one of his excellent copy edits for you.

Personally, I’ve never bothered with GA, or any of the lower classes, and have opted straight for FA. Strictly speaking, you don’t really need GA to progress to FAC. But beware; it can be a tough experience and there will be criticism, so GA can be more beneficial if it's your first attempt at FAC. It's very important to prepare yourself for some harsh comments. It's imperative to remember that the reviewers are on the same side as you and only want what's best for the article; any criticisms are not to be taken personally. Do not go into FAC thinking it will be a breeze. If someone says something about your work which you consider to be rude, do not make a big thing about it as you will lose respect and nobody will bother helping you out with reviews in the future. Another way for you to garner interest would be for you to review someone else’s FAC and ask them to return the favour. There is nothing wrong in approaching editors, either by a ping or a polite message, on their talk pages.

I can take a look for you and edit where it needs, but looking at it, it will require a lot of copy editing. I’ll try and get round to it but I can’t make any promises as I’m semi-retired for a reason. Hope all that helps and if there’s anything else, please contact me. Cassianto^Talk 12:14, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Ritchie333, Nick-D and Cassianto. Ritchie, that's actually why I took my article via MILHIST's A-class, but, not all the articles I work on are MilHist articles; Talk:Gaius Antonius Hybrida and Talk:Burebista (for some reason) are key examples. Battle of Antioch is MILHIST, obviously, so I took it to A-class; which failed first time round due to significant use of primary sources. Incidentally, Cass, it was Ian Rose who actually passed Battle of Antioch (218) through the final step of A-class. I had three supports and a neutral - Lingzhi neutral due prose. I figured that there would be a fair amount of copy-editing involved to get it FA prose worthy; "professional and engaging". I didn't realize people went GA -> peer -> FA though, I always thought it was peer -> GA -> FA. I've been skipping peer review and doing MilHist B-class -> GA-class -> A-class -> intend to go FA-class. I might revise that to put "Peer review" either before or after A-class in the future. I'm thinking after GA and before A because if I do peer review after GA then I can choose whether to have it vetted a final time through A-class before FA-class or skip A-class all together - As I will need to do in some cases. [A]ny criticisms are not to be taken personally - understood. I'm not expecting it to be an easy process. Three reviewers looking for the best possible content, it can only be expected that any article nominated would be searched through with a fine toothed comb. I'd appreciate your help with prose if you have time to give it, if not all good, it's "my" work so its fair for me to bear the responsibility of improving it. I also didn't realize that a sort of "quid pro quo" - Another way for you to garner interest would be for you to review someone else’s FAC and ask them to return the favour - was an acceptable approach. I'm in the midst of doing an A-class review for someone else, but, will be working on Battle of Antioch in the meantime. Thanks for the help, Mr rnddude (talk) 13:21, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hi all, not a lot I need add to the above. I certainly agree with getting as many eyes as possible on an article before attempting FAC. In terms of structure, comprehensiveness and referencing, there shouldn't be much difference between A-Class and FA, but FAs tend to be held to a somewhat higher standard of prose, MOS compliance and accessibility to the general reader. FWIW I do take articles through GA as a matter of course but with some I stop there if I don't think they meet A/FA standards of comprehensiveness. I don't find it necessary to do PR as well as ACR on the way to FAC, but it may help, as you could attract a broader audience. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:32, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Just to add: last autumn we agreed a mentoring system through which first-time FAC nominators could be assisted through the process by a more experienced hand. Although the system is voluntary. I believe the coordinators should promote it actively; the current nominations Star of Bengal seems pretty much a textbook case for using the system. If I were fit, I'd jump at the chance to mentor this. Brianboulton (talk) 19:08, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Blocked

I was asked on my talk page yesterday by an editor about your behaviour at Talk:Bernard Lee. My first thought is, yes, you are wikihounding and rude, but nothing more. I then see you were brought to ANI about the same talk page. While the talk was mostly about the other person and them being blocked, Drmies had this to say, Cassianto, please tone it down. Your use is more acceptable/less blockable, but still not OK. I'm not warning on your talk page since you likely don't wish to see my beautiful name there, but I hope this suffice.

You've been active on Talk:Kristen Stewart. Among the things you've said are I would suggest that you go away and grow up. and You're the only one who's being pathetic. You were warned by Mlpearc to be civil, you then attacked them. You've also been active on Talk:Anne Stanback and were warned by JamesBWatson. This discussion on Emir of Wikipedia's talk page is disturbing as is User talk:Cassianto#A couple of thoughts.

If just one incident happened, you and/or the other person would be warned and nothing more. Everything taken together, which has been in a span of a week, you are currently out of control. Everything you are touching is turning hostile. You need a wikibreak. On Talk:Kristen Stewart, you said, Firstly, as you can see, I've never much cared about being blocked so why should I start now? This website needs me more than I need it, so why should I care? Well, I guess you won't care about me forcing a wikibreak. I try to stay away from the infobox wars and I'm not familiar with you. But, if this is a pattern, I think a topic ban might be in order or at least is getting closer. Bgwhite (talk) 09:41, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Fascinating. Well, soon, the only people left on this "encyclopaedia" will be incompetent administrators and vandals. I'm sure you'll all all have a lovely time. While you seem to be in a pontificating mood, perhaps you'd like to have a word with one of the editors in question who appears to be trying to harass me using the thank button. Or perhaps not which, I suspect, will be more of the case. Cassianto^Talk 11:56, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Calling Bgwhite's mood "pontifical" is one of the reasons this kind of thing will happen: no one enjoys being patronized. Thinking that us incompetent admins enjoy handing out blocks to longtime editors is just foolishness; Bgwhite is probably the least likely admin to be blocking someone like you. I wasn't going to get involved, since you seem to reserve special venom for me, but someone's got to tell you. Drmies (talk) 14:55, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

It's true that no-one likes being patronised; but it's equally true that no-one likes being misrepresented. For example: bringing up the ANI as an indicator of likely bad behaviour holds less water when, with just a skim read to the end, it would be clear that that report boomeranged on the filer. Just FYI. O Fortuna!^{...Imperatrix mundi.} 15:01, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi, Cassianto. I'm sorry to see this. Could you be more specific about the thanking? The log shows who they thanked and when, but not for what edits they thanked you. Only you can see that, in your alerts. If it's a user you're on bad terms with, thanking you may certainly be dubious. Bishonen | talk 15:21, 16 January 2017 (UTC).

What makes you think I've lumped you in with the "incompetent admins" brigade, Drmies? I will admit, you've certainly not been your old, approachable self, of late, especially since your stint on ArbCom, but I'd never think of you as being incompetent. Maybe you're feeling particularly vulnerable, or is this a sorry attempt to try and put words in my mouth? Cassianto^Talk 15:24, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi Bishonen, lovely to hear from you. The editor in question thanked me for this edit which did not involve them, and this punctuation error. Why would I be thanked for such an edit, or two? Especially by someone who is still moaning behind my back and insisting that I purposely called the son of a recently deceased friend "a troll". I admit, I did call the IP a troll as JohnCD's death had not been verified and they seemed to be bludgeoning the fact without providing verification. I posted this immediately and Iridescent agreed. We were both equally sceptical about the IP being a relative, but I apologised immediatly upon verification. Apparently, and in the circumstances, I should've known this IP to have been a relative. Cassianto^Talk 15:37, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

However... I wrote up a note to MSM about the thanking, but hadn't posted it when I noticed you apparently "thanked" MSM for this edit on Jan 12, compare his post on BGWhite's page. What was that about? Maybe he picked up the pointless thanking from you? Bishonen | talk 16:01, 16 January 2017 (UTC).

I thanked him as I took the removal to be an acceptance that he had read and taken my advice. Sorry, are you now about to tell me what my motive was? Cassianto^Talk 16:06, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

No. But I've changed my mind about asking him what his motive was — I'll just AGF, as you suggest in your edit summary. For myself, I've never had any notion of thanking somebody for removing a comment of mine; it actually annoys me when they do. However much they're "entitled" to do it, it's hardly civil, IMO. It feels like they've slammed the phone in my ear. But your mileage may vary. Bishonen | talk 16:18, 16 January 2017 (UTC).

This sums up MSM's opinion of Cassianto quite succinctly. O Fortuna!^{...Imperatrix mundi.} 16:22, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Maybe this was also my fault, FIM. Maybe I subconsciously channeled the user in question in order for him/her to serve up this piss-taking edit? It's good to see them being told to stop with the sarcasm though, isn't it? You couldn't make it up. Cassianto^Talk 19:10, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Well, don't message him then, Bishonen. It's simple really. I didn't ask you to and I don't particularly want you to, if I'm honest. I also have no idea what the "mileage" comment is supposed to mean, but I thank you for popping by, nonetheless. Happy editing! Cassianto^Talk 16:36, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

• Ill thought out blocks like this are something I've had to come to accept in every dispute that I've ever been involved in. Sure, I accept, it's not big of me to swear; likewise, it's not big of me to respond to fire with fire. If I've stepped out of line, I apologise, and if I've offended anyone, I apologise more so. But frankly, I don't think I have stepped out of line. But I tell you what I have done to my detriment; I have cared too much for too long about the articles I have invested time and money into researching and writing. That also goes for the those articles researched and written by others. I'd even go as far as to say that if I saw a piece of hard work written by, say, any of the people involved on the other side of this dispute, then I'd stick up for them too. My problem is that I react too heavily to the people who, like you say, Laser brain, sail through and enforce their unearned POV onto articles they consider to be theirs without any regard for the feelings and thoughts of the principle author. This is what pisses me off. Do these editors get reminded of their behaviour? No. Do I hound them like they hound me? No. Do they get told not to canvass administrators for a quick favour and to instead, take it to a more public area for others to have a say? No. Do they get pulled up for harassing me via the "thank" feature? No. Do they get told to wind their neck in with comments like this when they accuse me and others of a like/minded opinion of "whining"? No. Do I get pulled up for reacting to any of this? Well, yes, actually, frequently. This is a waste of time and this is why I doubt this will ever change. As per my policy, as usual, I won't be appealing. Cassianto^Talk 18:00, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

@Bgwhite: I think this is a quite ham-fisted action against one player in a large-scale problem, and I encourage you to reverse yourself. The infobox debates have grown wide in scope and toxic in rhetoric. If you are at all interested in the concept of fairness, I ask you to consider this: It costs little to sail around and start RFCs, and leave drive-by comments about infoboxes where the opportunity exists. You can see the same names everywhere it pops up. However, it costs much for the editors who are invested in these pages, and who have to repeatedly defend their decisions. It's no wonder things get heated. I don't know what the answer is. Our short-sighted arbitrators have seen fit to repeatedly punt this problem back to the community even though the community has repeatedly shown itself unable to deal with it. Blocking one participant in this morass is no sort of answer. This place is really starting to disgust me. --Laser brain (talk) 16:46, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

• I see Bgwhite has taken to ignoring you too Laser brain. Perhaps he's too busy taking high fives from his sycophants over on his talk page. I think this is wholly inappropriate and is tantamount to WP:GRAVEDANCING. I shouldn't for a minute imagine anything will be done about it, however. Cassianto^Talk 21:30, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
  • I've made a second request to Bgwhite that he address my concerns, per WP:ADMINACCT. I also realized (per his own admission) that he was part of the pro-infobox brigade at CZJ and it's thus doubly inappropriate that he took administrative action here. --Laser brain (talk) 22:56, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
    • Laser brain Today is a holiday the U.S. As I mentioned in the only post I written today, I haven't had much time. I've been with family. Don't expect people to edit 24-hours around the clock. Cassianto did the same exact thing in accusing JamesBWatson of not responding to them up above in #A couple of thoughts. JamesBWatson's response was The reason I didn't, as you put it, "have the decency to respond", is that I wasn't on Wikipedia at the time.
    • Per your "part of the pro-infobox brigade", you are distorting my words. My quote is I have commented in a couple of them that the infobox should stay. The ones I commented in contained the same two groups and I've seen those two groups in other discussions. Those discussions have been civil. Two comments in 11 years aren't part of a brigade. Don't twist words.
    • If you think this is about infoboxes, then you are dead wrong. I never once said they were. The vast majority of Cassianto's edits over the past week have been in discussing infoboxes. However, it's Cassianto's behaviour in those discussion that are the problem. Other people have also had problems in the same discussions and one even got blocked. However, as I stated earlier, If just one incident happened, you and/or the other person would be warned and nothing more. Everything taken together, which has been in a span of a week, you are currently out of control.
    • If one doesn't like the message, attack the messanger, which is what you have only done.
    • For Cassianto's actions... I thought I explained my actions in blocking Cassianto, but will do it again.

1. Cassianto's actions for the past week has revolved around three article talk pages. These have spilled over to an ANI discussion and some user talk pages.
2. Cassianto has been warned atleast three times because of their behaviour in the past week.
3. (Personal attack removed). In addition to the ones I listed above, another example is when Mitchumch did their first post stating they supported an infobox. Cassianto's response was, And where were you canvassed from? About five and 1/2 hours later Cassianto changed it, quoted Mitchumch and stated, There. We can all chat bullshit, can't we?. Cassianto comments aren't about infoboxes. They are uncivil. They are about attacking the messenger.
4. While Cassianto attacked Mitchumch, GoodDay and We hope responded to Mitchumch with civil comments. Their comments were related to Mitchumch comments, not Mitchumch.

• Bgwhite (talk) 03:06, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Seeing as I was pinged, I'll make a comment. I recommend that this block of Cassianto be repealed, as IMHO an editor should only be blocked if he/she was committing vandalism on articles. Also, Wikipedia would be quite a boring & stale place, if we get into the habit of blocking our more spirited colleagues :) GoodDay (talk) 03:24, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

I am also in agreement with the statements of both Laser Brain and GoodDay. I personally mind the superficial civility of the "pushers" as it's blatantly ersatz to avoid being blocked, etc. ARB has declined two fairly recent requests to reopen the IBox issue, thus the problem continues keeps coming up.We hope (talk) 04:22, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

@GoodDay and We hope: That is your opinion. It also appears you two are involved with Cassianto, so I also understand siding with him. Policy states one can be blocked for personal attacks, harrassment and gross incivility. You actually think responding to a new person on a talk page with And where were you canvassed from? and then We can all chat bullshit, can't we? are ok? If somebody you didn't know did that to you..? You actually think contantly attacking people and not discussing the merits are ok? This is just spicing up Wikipedia to keep it from being boring? We all have our bad moments and our bad discussions, but atleast a week of constant attacks at multiple places. May I remind you both of the Fourth pillar, Editors should treat each other with respect and civility: Respect your fellow Wikipedians, even when you disagree. Apply Wikipedia etiquette, and don't engage in personal attacks.. I won't speak anymore here as I don't think I can say anymore. Bgwhite (talk) 06:05, 17 January 2017 (UTC)