User talk:Cassianto/Archive 12

Frederic Chopin Edit Reverted

Please explain why you reverted an edit I made to the Frederic Chopin page. In the section "In literature, stage, film and television", I added the appearance of George Chakiris, an Oscar-winning actor, as Frederic Chopin in the BBC television series Notorious Woman. I don't understand why Chakiris' performance was removed from a section that includes television. Thank you. EnglishTea4me (talk)

(talk page stalker) @EnglishTea4me: Based on your recent edits, suggest you take a look at WP:IPC and this RfC - many of your changes have lacked supporting sources. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:25, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have a reliable and verifiable source for this information. If I include the source, may I reinsert the content? EnglishTea4me (talk)

Just because it exists, doesn't make it fair game to be added. It's uninteresting and leaves the article open for more trivial rubbish to be added. Cassianto ^Talk 18:05, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sir Arthur Sullivan

I am importuning close colleagues to look in, if they are inclined, at the peer review for Arthur Sullivan. Ssilvers and I are planning to take the article to FAC, and if you are inclined to look in at the peer review and give us your comments, it will be esteemed a favour. – Tim riley talk 22:54, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Possibility of providing your input on a Peer Review for Regine Velasquez's entry

Hi Cassianto,

I'm writing to ask whether you would consider having a look at the article. I'm aware that you've been significantly involved with PRs. I've given it a major rewrite and complete overhaul. I began working on the article late October when it looked like this and somehow ended up rewriting the whole thing and aiming for potentially FA. This isn't a process I've been through before, but I have been reading the reviews here in preparation, and am familiar with FAC demands. I would very much appreciate a fresh set of eyes and happily address any concerns you may have.

Thanks! Pseud 14 (talk) 08:31, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Semi?

I blocked the IP that was hassling you but did you also want semi-protection on your page for a bit? ♠PMC♠ (talk) 09:12, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you and yes please. Cassianto ^Talk 09:33, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done! One week for now, if you need it adjusted for more or less time just ping me :) ♠PMC♠ (talk) 09:36, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your signature

Please be aware that your signature uses deprecated <font> tags, which are causing Obsolete HTML tags lint errors.

You are encouraged to change

'''<span style="text-shadow:7px 7px 8px Black;">[[User:Cassianto|<font face="Papyrus">Cassianto</font>]]<sup>[[User talk:Cassianto#top|<font face="Papyrus">Talk</font>]]</sup></span>'''

: Cassianto ^Talk

to

'''<span style="text-shadow:7px 7px 8px Black;">[[User:Cassianto|<span style="font-family: Papyrus;">Cassianto</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Cassianto#top|<span style="font-family: Papyrus;">Talk</span>]]</sup></span>'''

: Cassianto^Talk

Respectfully, Anomalocaris (talk) 19:41, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Cassianto^Talk 20:16, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! —Anomalocaris (talk) 21:51, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, then I'll put my point across here...but it needs to be said

Krimuk2.0, shall I tell you what is disappointing? It's having good faith advice rudely reverted and not being able to reply to it; so I'll do it here instead. If someone tells you to "fuck off", then take it as read that that is exactly what they want you to do. Whether the WP:CIVIL cretins at Wikipedia like it or not, it's the way humans interact with each other, or it certainly is around my neck of the woods. We are just as human behind a keyboard as we are in real life. If someone is rude to us in the street we don't go over a slap them with a template as in all reality, we'd probably slap them with a right hooker. So if you want to do neither, just tell them in a few succinct words so they get the message. More often than not, templating someone during a dispute is as bad as saying a naughty word. Cassianto^Talk 18:27, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I did apologise to him after reading your message. What I thought disappointing was you choosing not to see my side of the story here at all. Sure, I was at fault for pasting the template at his page instead of initiating a conversation, and thanks for calling me out on that, but I wish you'd see why I did what I did. Anyway, I'm sorry if I offended you. I really admire your work and have had a great experience with you in the past, and I don't wish to tarnish that. Apologies again. --Krimuk2.0 (talk) 18:32, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm impartial as I like you both. Davey is a fabulous editor, as are you, but in all reality I'll call it as I see it. You were wrong to template him; I know Davey and I know he could take being called a prat, and accept it, if he knew he was being one. But templating him was the worst thing to do as it comes across as bot-like and is devoid of human emotion. And sometimes, it's good to show a bit of emotion. We are human after all. Cassianto^Talk 18:38, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely agreed. And I'm unequivocally sorry for all this mess. In hindsight (always in hindsight :D), I did react disproportionately over a rather simple matter. I hope you don't hold it against me. Cheers, Krimuk2.0 (talk) 18:43, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all, happy editing! Cassianto^Talk 18:47, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ever notice-

The box wars are fueled by seemingly "nice", "polite" actions like "thanking" someone.

23:08, 10 December 2017 (diff | hist) . . (+734)‎ . . Cary Grant ‎ (inclusion of infobox)
23:32, 10 December 2017 Gerda Arendt (talk | contribs) thanked Davidbrookesland (talk | contribs)
12:14, 11 December 2017 (diff | hist) . . (+234)‎ . . Talk:Cary Grant ‎ (→‎"Idiotboxes" ?: nothing justifies the lack of an info box in this article)
12:24, 11 December 2017 Gerda Arendt (talk | contribs) thanked Jojhutton (talk | contribs)
11:59, 11 December 2017 (diff | hist) . . (+625)‎ . . Talk:Cary Grant ‎ (→‎"Idiotboxes" ?: new section)
11:07, 11 December 2017 (diff | hist) . . (+907)‎ . . Talk:Cary Grant ‎ (→‎Why does Cary Grant not have an infobox when so many other actors do?: new section)
12:26, 11 December 2017 Gerda Arendt (talk | contribs) thanked Davidbrookesland (talk | contribs)
12:24, 11 December 2017 Gerda Arendt (talk | contribs) thanked Davidbrookesland (talk | contribs)

Nicely matched. Saturday's skirmish. We hope (talk) 12:42, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I just met two people today who share my views. I never heard of them before, but they will hear from me. My thanks are open, "die Gedanken sind frei", you are invited to keep following me. Kindly also list thanks for you, and for Cassianto. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:49, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

merely returning the "compliment" Es ist mir Egal. We hope (talk) 12:57, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) I think it would have been nice and polite to ping me and the others mentioned, I do that now: Davidbrookesland and Jojhutton, do you feel fueled to war? - I confess that I hate the word "idiotbox", but it doesn't fuel me to fight. Ignore. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:59, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What a fake. You know the frequent infobox discussions are disruptive Gerda and here you are encouraging it. Clearly you have no respect for others. Worming around behind the scenes is worse in my book than if you commented in the discussions yourself.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:11, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I try to ignore that as well. I don't go to these discussion, and I would tell everybody to stay away if asked, from the greatest time sink I met on the project. I will keep thanking people for edits that deserve my thanks, many very small, and some thanks to you. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:27, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why do edits which encourage more time wasting and bickering deserving of thanks Gerda?♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:35, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just three examples. I thanked for the (unexpected but welcome) edit adding the infobox, I thanked for questioning the term "idiotbox", and I thanked for pointing out that the READERS not the editor should be what guides our work. (Emphasis from the edit I thanked for.) What about the option to let an infobox stand, without wasting time of arguing (why call that "bickering"?), for the readers' sake? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:53, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"What about the option to let an infobox stand, without wasting time of arguing (why call that "bickering"?), for the readers' sake?" Because we've had the same argument at least half a dozen times on the same article and it always results in unpleasantries. Encouraging further discussion is disruptive unless you think that every single article on Wikipedia should have an infobox like some sort of uniform and think that more important that pointless recurring arguments.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:05, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And what about the opinion to omit the box without all this bickering? Boxes aren't mandatory and that was acknowledged with the ARBCom case-they are optional. There wouldn't have been a case to start with if they were required on every article. All readers don't want boxes any more than all streets are one-way, as in the statement "What about the option to let an infobox stand". No idea how you can try speaking for all who read WP and say "it's for the readers"-a blanket statement that does not cover everyone. We hope (talk) 14:13, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Of course they are optional. I didn't add one to Cary Grant (or other articles mainly written by authours who don't like one and whose view I respect, articles such as Pelléas et Mélisande, or the composer that you recently "rescued" by adding references). I didn't say (speaking for myself or even "for all who read WP") today "The consensus so often referred to in this discussion is not relevant..... only the convenience of READERS (not of editors) is important.". It was Davidbrookesland who said so, - please talk to them, not me. I only thanked for the edit because I believe it can't be said often enough. I am well beyond my usual 2 comments per discussion. Can we leave it? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:22, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You are the one who joined the discussion on this TP. We hope (talk) 15:26, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For the use of the place

	For the use of the place
	This bunch says thanks and we'll remember to sweep up after ourselves! ;) We hope (talk) 15:31, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Uhh-uh, it's like Epping country club. Open to everyone! >SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 22:59, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

FYI

taken here We hope (talk) 16:17, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unlocked

Hi there! On a FAN of the article above (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Unlocked_(Alexandra_Stan_album)/archive5 ), you complained about "the article [being] still in two minds with regards to whether it wants to be in AmEng and BrEng". Would you have time to work with me to rectify such issues, as I would want to bring the article up to FAN soon. Best regards and thanks; Cartoon network freak (talk) 21:34, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bittersweet season's greetings

		Seasonal Greetings and Good Wishes
		Seasonal greetings for 2017, and best wishes for 2018. Heartfelt thanks to you for your contributions, which have done much to enhance the encyclopedia and make me feel it's worthwhile to keep contributing. So here's to another year's productive editing, with old feuds put aside and peace, goodwill and friendship for all! Brianboulton (talk) 23:39, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You to Brian, have a great Christmas and New Year. Cassianto^Talk 19:45, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas to all!

	We wish you a Merry Christmas and a prosperous New Year 2018!
	Wishing you and yours a Merry Christmas, and a Happy, Glorious, Prosperous New Year! God bless! — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 10:37, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You to Ssven2, have a great Christmas and New Year. Cassianto^Talk 19:46, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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 and contributions on the 'pedia! ,
–Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 13:26, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You to Davey, have a great Christmas and New Year. Cassianto^Talk 19:46, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Seasons' Greetings

...to you and yours, from the Great White North! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 17:03, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You to Bzuk, have a great Christmas and New Year. Cassianto^Talk 19:47, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nadolig Llawen a Blwyddyn Newydd Dda

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 have a good run in 2018!!

You to Martin, have a great Christmas and New Year. Cassianto^Talk 19:47, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Holidays

Happy Holidays

From Stave one of Dickens A Christmas Carol

Old Marley was as dead as a door-nail. Mind! I don’t mean to say that I know, of my own knowledge, what there is particularly dead about a door-nail. I might have been inclined, myself, to regard a coffin-nail as the deadest piece of ironmongery in the trade. But the wisdom of our ancestors is in the simile; and my unhallowed hands shall not disturb it, or the Country’s done for. You will therefore permit me to repeat, emphatically, that Marley was as dead as a door-nail.

So you see even Charles was looking for a reliable source :-) Thank you for your contributions to the 'pedia. ~ MarnetteD|Talk 00:32, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Holidays

	Season's greetings!
	I hope this holiday season is festive and fulfilling and filled with love and kindness, and that 2018 will be safe, successful and rewarding...Modernist (talk) 12:00, 24 December 2017 (UTC) (UTC)[reply]

For you-

Since some things never change , here's a useful tool for you . We hope (talk) 15:02, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ibid. We hope (talk) 15:27, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas! - In Germany, we still celebrate. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:20, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion

Hello Cassianto,

Please consider not poking at the block-evading IP troll on their talk page. Far better, in my opinion, to ignore them. If vile behavior from that IP resumes after their block expires, I will happily block for longer.

Happy New Year! Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:38, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year!

	Happy New Year!
	A happy, healthy and peaceful 2018 to you! We hope (talk) 00:31, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

best wishes

	Belated Merry Christmas
	For standing up against anti-own template,warriors. This also goes to Shrodo, another astute voice pleading into the void. Ceoil (talk) 00:04, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers Ceoil, and the same to you! I hope you and yours had a great new year, and all the best for 2018. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 13:22, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Aberfan

Hi Cass, and a very warm happy new year to you. A few months ago you were kind enough to comment on the PR for the Aberfan disaster. After a slight delay to allow some of the images to become PD, the article is now at FAC. Any further comments would be most welcome. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 13:21, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

About bloody time! Happy to. Have a great New Year! Cassianto^Talk 13:24, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Revdel

For future reference, I have found that e-mailing a friendly WP:Administrator to ask for this works really well, and avoids the Streisand effect. Cheers. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 12:21, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, transparency is always the best policy. It's not my fault if I post a concern to ANI only for it to be besieged by idiots. Cassianto^Talk 14:29, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hey listen... Babs may be a yuchna, but she’s no shnook already. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:49, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I trust that you weren't including me in your besieged by idiots sobriquet. I merely offered a friendly thought, which you are free to disregard. Not my issue. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:47, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You can trust, implicitly. As far as I can see, you didn't even take part in the thread, so I don't see how you made the connection. Anyhoo, thanks for the advice; I'd never even heard of the Streisand Effect until today. Cassianto^Talk 20:25, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Really?? I think ANI is pretty much awash with the damned stuff. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:51, 10 January 2018 (UTC) [reply]

It is indeed. Although I'd be spoilt for choice at picking a friendly administrator to email my request to. Cassianto^Talk 21:21, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hahahaha. I feel I have fatally corrupted you. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:27, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That happened long ago, Martin. Although I now fear I've run out of songs to link to. Cassianto^Talk 22:02, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I know you like to focus on good article content. But we haven't even started on the singles yet. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:23, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Request

Hi Cassianto, I was wondering if I can ask for your help/or just tips in drafting a infobox criteria (that needs to be followed prior to any comment about including/not including infobox), similar to your input at Talk:Michael Hordern. As you mentioned, if gaming "consensus can change" is a problem, I was thinking perhaps having a streamlined prerequisite in WP:INFOBOX might be a good place to start to reduce future time sink. Best, Alex Shih (talk) 07:17, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Alex, hope you're well. Absolutely, can I get back to you on this in a few days? Cassianto^Talk 08:33, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes of course! Thanks for your time. Alex Shih (talk) 08:39, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Pongal, Makar Sankranti, Lohri and Bihu to you!

Happy Thai Pongal, Makar Sankranti, Lohri and Bihu to you!

May all your endeavours have a fruitful beginning and prosperous ending! — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 12:21, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cary Grant

Just curious, why'd you delete my notification about responding to your post on the Cary Grant discussion? Banaticus (talk) 16:57, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just curious, why don't you provide me with a link? Cassianto^Talk 18:33, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rather than edit war over your deleting my opinion in the Talk:Cary Grant RfC

I can't force you to discuss on your talk page, it is yours to delete from. But I do want to state my opinion. And yet not edit-war. So, unfortunately, There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. GRuban (talk) 19:52, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There wasn't any need to start AN/I report as I've already closed the RfC just now. I just wanted to ask, maybe I missed something, but I did not notice the bot closed anything? Alex Shih (talk) 19:55, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How coincidental is it, GRuban, that you flag your support on an article that's had its RfC template removed, yet minutes before, engage with Sagaciousphil (who reverted you on Carolina Nairne) who's been active on Grant's RfC? Cassianto^Talk 20:00, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all. I'm quite grateful to Phil, she did the right thing, and I told her as much. (For other readers, there was a source calling "Nairne" "Nairn". I added the "e", being sure it was in error, but no, it actually said "Nairn" in the source. Phil reverted, quite properly; though with a comment implying that I had hurt her feelings, which I certainly didn't mean to, so I apologized!) We all fix each other's errors here, that's why the Wikipedia works. --GRuban (talk) 20:05, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not coincidental - just stalking, right? Cassianto^Talk 20:08, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. I find many, maybe most, of the topics I want to work on by following random links. I've written Modest Stein from a request on a person's talk page, Barnaby Conrad III from a comment on a noticeboard, Circle of Chalk from a FAC review, a dozen articles from two deletion discussions. And even by following user edits - though that naturally rarely leads to complete new articles, it quite often leads to improving the Wikipedia: after I had an argument with User:Softlavender, I added an image to an article she worked on, and she later asked me to add more. After I had an argument with User:SchroCat, I added an image to an article he was trying to get to FA. And - just today even - SchroCat improved Modest Stein right back! It works quite well. I've got a quote at the top of my user page about it ... I found it by following a user link! --GRuban (talk) 20:22, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In future, do not stalk me, or any other editor, between articles. Now you have openly admitted that's what you do, if you go through my edits again and pop up on another article I am working on, I shall use the diff of your comment and drop you into ANI. For the record, your addition and comments at the FAC I was running were not welcome. I suspect the same is true for others you have also stalked. - SchroCat (talk) 20:37, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry you feel that way, but I believe contributing to what other editors edit is a perfectly legitimate use of the Wikipedia. And I do believe your contribution to Modest Stein improved it, and am grateful for it, even if you did delete my comment saying as much. This isn't a war. This is a joint effort. We are all on the same side, the side of trying to contribute to the "summary of all human knowledge". That's a really good thing. Anything that leads to article improvement should be encouraged. --GRuban (talk) 20:50, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, passive aggressive behaviour that makes other people feel uncomfortable, annoyed or angry is not acceptable. Following other editors around is WP:STALKing, and if you do it to me again I will file a report on you at ANI. You can take that as official notice. Given Sagaciousphil's comment below, and the fact she has stated she feels harassed by you, if I see you doing it to her, I will also file an ANI report on her behalf. You may take this as official notification too. It is not acceptable. - SchroCat (talk) 20:56, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I had been refraining from commenting after becoming extremely upset this morning and then even more so after watching some of the antics taking place throughout the day. As a female editor (which I thought was fairly common knowledge and there is a template that is readily available to check anyway when people have the courtesy to use it) who has previously been subjected to hassle from banned and/or indef blocked users - Coat of Many Colours and Singora plus others, administrators like Drmies are aware of this and some of the personal problems it has caused - I find it very unsettling that (a) I was described as "an attack dog" by Jcc recently and, despite requests by others to an Admin, to address and at least reprimand/warn, no action was taken; and (b) that GRuban, another male editor, has started to follow me around (see Bute witches where he arrived after encouraging me to comment on Talk:Josephine Butler only to ridicule me there when I did so. He then miraculously appeared on Witchcraft in Orkney today after he had made an incorrect edit that I reverted on Carolina Nairne. What is at the root cause of all this? In my opinion, it seems to be IBs and the GGTF/WIR crew. SagaciousPhil - Chat 20:42, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Apologies, I admit, I did assume Phil was a male name, was just informed of your pronoun preference, correcting above. I'm also quite grateful for your reversion, as I wrote, and I hope the edit on Witchcraft in Orkney was an improvement. (I changed the link to archipelago to point to the more specific archipelago, Orkney, because, in my humble opinion as someone who knew what an archipelago was is not as knowledgeable of what Orkney was, one was needed.) As above, it's a joint effort, and I'm not going to admit that having someone edit "your" article should be seen as a hostile act. I also didn't intend to ridicule you after you gave the example of "Josephine" usage, you gave a good citation, which was appreciated, and could well have helped turn the resolution of the question. Which is what we're all here for, after all, not to "win", but to get to the best article? I still disagreed, and explained why, but surely that's not ridicule? --GRuban (talk) 20:56, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dont try and play a snide little OWNership accusation by using "your" in inverted commas. That is gaslighting and your passive-aggressive approach to editing is rather distasteful. Editing should be an enjoyable activity, but when someone stalks your edits, it becomes unpleasant, nasty and very creepy. - SchroCat (talk) 21:01, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Couldn't agree more, and GRuban seems to be a notorious stalker. Eric Corbett 21:30, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Agree editing should be an enjoyable activity. Still disagree about whether anyone owns any articles here, but we're clearly not going to resolve that now and here. Let me thank you for your work, as an author of many FA's you are clearly a better writer than I am, and I enjoyed reading Tottenham Outrage, it's a fine job, I hope you make more. I hope you (the plural you this time) have a good day, I did not intend to ruin it. --GRuban (talk) 21:14, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page watcher) GRuban, whatever your intent you're coming across as a really, really, creepy stalker in virtually every word of your posts above, and I can entirely see why every other person in this thread is finding your continued presence unwelcome. To add a little more weight to what SchroCat says above, now you've been told by every single person to comment that your "following user edits"—which, when done in the circumstances in which you're doing it, is an explicit breach of Wikipedia policy—is unwanted, I won't hesitate to take you to ANI, Arbcom, or block outright as appropriate if I see you harassing any of them again. If you want to make this official I can give a {{Uw-harass4im}} on your talkpage, but you've been here long enough that I'd expect you to know a basic policy like WP:HARASS without having it explained to you. ‑ Iridescent 21:25, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comment, will try to seem less creepy. Eric, Schro, and Phil, apologies, and I'll avoid fresh forays into your collective hair for a while. I didn't intend to tick you all off, but clearly did. Hopefully I can make it up to you someday. --GRuban (talk) 21:30, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You can start by deleting the ridiculously mocking post Astme has just posted on your talk page. Cassianto^Talk 21:49, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Request to end Mary Shelley's infobox request.

Hello, I would like to end the Mary Shelley infobox request please. I have decided that it is not needed there and even if it was. We will get no where with the lack of consensus. Thank you and have a nice weekend. In Memoriam A.H.H. (talk) 20:03, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Tin Foil Hat Award

	The Tin Foil Hat Award
	For being attacked by people wearing them. :-D We hope (talk) 01:43, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for January 24

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited John Johnson (1807–1878), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Camden (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:20, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A page you started (Theatres designed by Frank Matcham) has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating Theatres designed by Frank Matcham, Cassianto!

Wikipedia editor TheLongTone just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

What a pleasure to come across this article while new page reviwing. I used to work in the theatre, and I much regret the fact that there are no specialised theatre architectsa anymore. IMO the 'theatre consultants' who now work with the architects make a pigs ear of things. The fouled up the Hackney empire by pissing around with the rake, ignorant of the fact that Matcham knew his craft better than they do.

To reply, leave a comment on TheLongTone's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

TheLongTone (talk) 15:22, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Seeking your opinion

As you consistently apply high quality content to biographies, I would like you to take a look at this image removal and its explanation. I am unsure what is meant by "images should not look off the page" and I hope that you could provide some guidance. Many thanks in advance! Scr★pIron^IV 17:12, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@ScrapIronIV: Whatever they do mean by that (and no, I have no idea either) has no grounds: according to WP:PIC, the easiest way to handle multiple floating pictures is to alternate them left then right (or right then left); this way they do not come into contact with one another, and so cannot stack up in an unattractive way. Which seems, in certan, circumstances, to actively encourage it. Further, MOS:IMGLOC also states that multiple images can be staggered right and left, and even WP:IUP (which is actually policy) implicitly allows it. >SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 17:24, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The "Looking off the page" bit is that if there is a face (best with the man in the pic), they should be facing into the article, and not off away from the text. I'll see if I can dig out the MoS guideline. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 17:32, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds highly iffy to me. And in any case, the picture had two people, looking at each other, which means which ever side it's placed, one of them is always looking off-side. >SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 17:37, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's in MOS:IMGLOC: "It is often preferable to place images of people so that they "look" toward the text." Not a hard and fast rule so much as a "preferable" guideline, but it depends on where other images are placed. If there are two faces (as in the Harlow one, the man's face is the more obvious of the two, so I'd default to the left, unless other images knock it around a bit. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 17:37, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for the clarification. It looks like more than one image on that page should be adjusted. I'll try to adjust it later. Happy editing, all! Scr★pIron^IV 19:35, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

DYK

Hello! Your submission of John Johnson (1807-1878) at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Philafrenzy (talk) 18:16, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid that Cassianto is unable to respond, as he's been blocked and his talk page access removed. Eric Corbett 18:59, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Civility Barnstar

For all the baiting and trolling and outright liars you've faced on such a regular basis, there are very few who would have put up with what you've had to. Most of those attacking you at the moment do so from the safety of the mob, but none have been as productive as you, and most wouldn't be able to be as beneficial to the project as you have been. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 21:18, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

		The Purple Barnstar
		You've suffered at the hands of "twats and knobheads and fuck-knuckles and wankers". Stay you. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:45, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Special Barnstar

This place is going downhill rather quickly and it doesn't seem like it's getting any better!, I recall seeing a discussion somewhere about how we're losing our valuable content creators ..... no fucking wonder! - The community is aparently getting rid of everyone one by one and soon there won't be any fucker left on here!,

Anyway thank you for all of the wonder articles you've created and thank you for your contributions here,

Don't let the bastards win!, Take care Cass. –Davey2010^Talk 22:06, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Writer's Barnstar
	For the excellent Michael Hordern article, especially the most interesting section about his experiences in WW2. Mr Ernie (talk) 17:59, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Civility in infobox discussions case opened

You were recently listed as a party to a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Civility in infobox discussions. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Civility in infobox discussions/Evidence. Please add your evidence by February 17, 2018, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Civility in infobox discussions/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:50, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for John Johnson (architect, born 1807)

On 26 February 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article John Johnson (architect, born 1807), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that John Johnson and Alfred Meeson designed the Alexandra Palace (pictured) in north London? You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, John Johnson (architect, born 1807)), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

— Maile (talk) 00:02, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notice for the record

Hi Cassianto, in the open Civility in infobox discussions arbitration case, a remedy or finding of fact has been proposed which relates to you. Please review this decision and draw the arbitrators' attention to any relevant material or statements. Comments may be brought to the attention of the committee on the proposed decision talk page. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 19:02, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I thought it was rather petty of you to revert my edit on the Olivier page. This information is useful since it's something that often comes up. I could add more references if you feel one is not enough to make the information "reliable", but I feel WP is already drowning in references. Best wishes, Adrian Dadge (talk) 00:11, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure that etioning it here four months later will make a difference :D !!! —SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 00:49, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well I for one think that any etioning one does, no matter how small or late, can make a difference. E Eng 01:10, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well; I suppose it could make a ifference. —SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 10:51, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute resolution

I've opened up a discussion mentioning you here:

Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Edward_Colston