Please leave a message; I'll reply here.
A brownie for you!
||A brownie is a flat, baked treat made of dense, rich chocolate cake. They are usually served as squares or bars. Hafspajen (talk) 20:27, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
- Thankyou Hafs CassiantoTalk 00:26, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
Not sure how being listed by Guinness isn't notable but being a "cancer survivor" is. Pretty sure more people survive cancer than get recognized by Guinness. I am confused what you mean by "clutter within the templates" though. I manually listed the category I did not interact with any templates. Ranze (talk) 20:54, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
- Your POV notwithstanding, the Guinness website didn't even say she had won an award so the information was wrongly attributed anyway. The article is a diabolical mess and if I had the time or the inclination, I'd bin it and start again. I don't even get why she won a Guiness award; for what? CassiantoTalk 21:00, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
Evening, any chance you could provide some input at the peer review?♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:22, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
- Will do Doc. I may be a few day though. CassiantoTalk 22:25, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
Shooting the moon
Hi Cass, this is a courtesy note to let you know that the Moonraker (novel) article you kindly peer reviewed, is now at FAC. Should you have any further thoughts or comments they will, of course, be most welcome. All the best – SchroCat (talk) 15:12, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
United States v. Washington is undergoing evaluation for possible promotion to Featured Article at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/United States v. Washington/archive1. If you feel up to it, I would love for you to stop by and assist in assessing this article. GregJackP Boomer! 17:35, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Wbm1058
Hi Cassiato. I hope you don't mind me suggesting that you might wish to consider stepping back somewhat from ths RfA now. Your comments are not likely to influence the outcome at this stage and they may well be simply perceived as disruptive. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:12, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
- @Kudpung: If admins like Chillum are allowed to pester people as to why they are opposing the RfA, then Cassianto should be allowed to ask users who support an RfA without an explanation why they support the candidate (and this is coming from someone who supported the RfA, despite the (legitimate) concerns regarding the lack of content creations). By saying what you said in your latest post here, you are basically creating a double standard. I don't think you meant it that way, but it certainly can (and might have already) rub the wrong way with some editors. Sportsguy17 (T • C) 03:28, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
- It's fairly clear, they have managed to harass me into submission, via ANI threats, now they want to silence anyone else that opposes the nom and seeks clarification. Of course, no one, not a single admin, have addressed the wikibullying and harassment on the other side of the issue. Not one. GregJackP Boomer! 04:56, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
Hi guys; Kudpung, firstly, I'm not trying to influence the outcome. All I want are explanations from people as to why they want to support a complete stranger to have a set of powerful tools. This isn't someone, by the way, who they know; I bet 85% of the supporters have never even met the nominee. I would also say that a large majority of that 85% snow voted and didn't even bother to check their hunch that the nominee "seemed like a good person". I would therefore consider it to be entirely appropriate to ask people for their reasons if those reasons have not been given.
It's also not tit-for-tat; ie, opposers are given grief, so therefore the supporters can have some of it back. This is a serious process which people are not taking seriously. Last night I had the misfortune to run into someone called Juliancolton. The exchange between us on the RfA was bitter, all because I asked him to explain a few things. We had a snarky exchange of words on the RfA and as I left he then abused the "thank" feature by using it to provoke me into further arguing with him. Julian colton is an administrator. This, apparently, is the type of behaviour becoming of an administrator. I decided to challenge him about it on his talk page, with evidence, and then blow me down, good old Chillum showed up, by pure coincidence, like an unwanted smell. He then tried to dig up past arguments between he and I, like the time he published a response to a private email I sent him asking for him to give me my talk page access back. He did this, not because of a technical fault (i.e email not working, misguidance, etc...) No, he did this to publicly humiliate me, and he achieved that. Chillum is also an administrator. This, again, is behaviour expected of an administrator? The result of that incident was the Rambling Man sending him back under the stone from where he had crawled and Chillum was forced to admit defeat in those circumstances.
It's specimens like Chillum and Colton who shouldn't have the tools if they think it's ok to go around and behave like that. And I bet if I counted up their iVotes I'd find they were mostly made up of people who voted without a rationale. I would therefore hate to think that owing to careless voting we are electing more Chillums and Coltons into the fellowship. CassiantoTalk 10:14, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
Cassianto, I recently submitted my second FAC (Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Romney Literary Society/archive1) and as I'm rather new to the FAC process, I was wondering if you could do me the honor of taking a look at this article and provide me with some feedback. I'm eager to improve this article so that it warrants FA status, and I thought it best to seek your guidance (should your schedule allow for it, of course!) -- West Virginian (talk) 14:46, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
My copy editing
Well, Cassianto, I think you may have overstated the facts a bit, but thanks for the complement. --Biblioworm 15:48, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
- Not at all. I've seen what you do and like what I see. CassiantoTalk 16:08, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
So...I know you may not be particularly familiar with the topic of American sports (correct me if I'm wrong though), but can you tell me in terms of style and general content (like how much of what, etc.) I would need for this article to have a shot at attaining FA status at some point? (If copy editing has something to do with it, then I invite you to help with that as you like.) Sportsguy17 (T • C) 18:14, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
- No problem Sportsguy17, I'm open to anything, although I'm unsure how much of my ignorance will get in the way of my understanding of the prose. On first glimpse I would say that it is not ready for FAC. It really does need a copy edit; the lead alone is too long at five paragraphs and it should be trimmed down to four, as per WP:LEAD. It may do you a favour to open up a peer review and to invite some names along for FAC advice. I'd be happy to take part, depending on real life of course. I'm doing one for GregJackP, then Dr. Blofeld and then SagaciousPhil, to name but a few, so my visit to Ramirez won't be for some time yet. CassiantoTalk 23:06, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
- I apologize. Even though I was not trying to suggest that your ignorance would hinder your ability to understand the text, I struck that remark. Anyway, I may take you up on a peer review, given that you're pretty busy in both real life and on the site, which I understand. I do agree that work will be needed for it to become a FA. Thanks for the lead advice and I'll take the article to the Baseball WikiProject for further advice/review. Best, Sportsguy17 (T • C) 23:47, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
- Whoa! What is it with everyone apologising to me today? I am ignorant of baseball; I'm admitting that, and I'm not suggesting for a minute that you insinuated it. I'm English and know nothing about baseball, but that's not a reason not to read this article. Hell, I might even learn something! ;-) If I can help in any way, just let me know, I'd be happy to. CassiantoTalk 00:00, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
- Well then; no harm, no foul. After all, everyone is allowed to read any article they please, and you can often learn a lot from a GA or FA. In fact, I read some your FAs. Similarly, I don't know a lot about English music, albeit having read through a few of those articles, I thought it was very interesting (and well written, of course ;D).
- Also, feel free to help out any time. For right now, I'll work on the lead for Ramirez and open a peer review, but along with that, I have this to finish (additional suggestions there would be appreciated, if you wouldn't mind). Anyways, thanks for the advice thus far and good luck with your endeavors on this site. :) Sportsguy17 (T • C) 00:48, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
I am here to apologize for the lack of info put into my support vote, it took me some time to realize that there should be explanation as to why to support. Do bear in mind this is the first time I'm voting in an RfA, I will make sure the next time whether support or oppose, that I will provide a thorough explanation. Secondly I am also here to give thanks for all your contributions, such articles like George Formby on screen, stage, record and radio a detailed article on George Formby's career! Such articles like this are fantastic and well written, it adds a subtle emphasis on the person and its just so perfectly done. I recognize your work as some of the finest here on Wikipedia, and the many editors who have helped you in the process of it and other great articles available to view. Thanks Cassianto. --CyberWarfare (talk) 20:40, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
- CyberWarfare, you really don't need to apologise. You supported at the RfA, I asked for a bit more information, you gave it, I thanked you, and that was that. You have nothing to be sorry about as it was you're provocative to support,; I just wanted a bit more information as to why you were supporting, that's all. Let me explain: When people support at an RfA, it should be a requirement for them to add a supporting comment as to why they want to see the nominee hold the admin tools. It has become customary for people to just say "support" and that's it. That to me is not good enough. As I have pointed out in the thread above, these tools come with a lot of power and they shouldn't just be given out to any Tom, Dick, or Harry as they can be, and in fact are, abused. We currently have a lot of editors with the tools who perhaps shouldn't have them. I'm not saying this nominee shouldn't have them, on the contrary; I just want people to justify their support that's all. Re the Formby list, that is very kind of you. It's not often people pay compliments around here. Alas, in that case of Fomby, all the praise belongs with my esteemed colleague. I just went along for the ride, that's all. Thank you for taking the time to write to me tonight, but I'm sorry you felt the need to apologise; nonetheless, it was nice meeting you and you're welcome back at any time. If there's anything I can do for you around reviewing, sourcing, or just advice, drop me a line. CassiantoTalk 22:34, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
File:Playbill for Moonbirds on Broadway 1959.jpg as promised! ;-) We hope (talk) 13:29, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
- Is it Christmas already? :-) CassiantoTalk 15:51, 31 August 2015 (UTC)