User talk:Cassianto/Archive 9

Moors Murders?

Hi Cassianto. You seem to have forgotten to add an edit summary for that revert? Just two questions immediately sprang to mind: 1. "Ann West, the mother of Lesley Ann Downey, was at the centre of a campaign to ensure that Hindley was never released from prison, and until West's death in February 1999, she regularly gave television and newspaper interviews whenever Hindley's release was rumoured." Do you think that sentence is adequately supported by the existing source? The ip edits seemed an improvement. 2. "Then Home Secretary David Waddington imposed a whole life tariff on Hindley in 1989, after she confessed to having been more involved in the murders than she had admitted." The source for that, again not a very good one, suggests it was 1990, as the ip had put. When was it? Not too sure why you reverted after only 16 minutes, with no explanation. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:29, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

At a shade under 100,000 bytes, I think the article is already a tad too long. 737 bytes, is a lot for an article already at an uncomfortable size. I started a discussion to see what others think. But it does beg the question: if the information was that important, why was it not there in the first place? Cassianto^Talk 22:40, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Many thanks. A good idea. So your edit summary would have been something like "sorry, no more room"? Martinevans123 (talk) 07:30, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I get the point about edit summaries. Cassianto^Talk 07:51, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for opening up the discussion thread. Yes, what the ip added may have been "a bit long-winded", but they actually reduced the prose reliant on that rather poor old BBC source. There is no way what is currently in the article is adequately supported by that source. They also corrected an error in the year of Waddington's decision - which I have now restored. I'm sure that in many other articles an ip edit like that might be accepted and used as the basis for an improvement. But there really seems little point in arguing against consensus form the usual crowd (unprovoked personal insults notwithstanding). The article might as well have a banner at the top "No ip edits, thanks." But thank you for discussing rationally. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:04, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

A great many articles could usefully profit from such a banner. Eric Corbett 21:07, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

How would disgruntled former editors ever fill their time, one wonders. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:12, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

You might wonder, I couldn't care less. Eric Corbett 21:17, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

"Once again" that's quite apparent. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:19, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Rod Steiger/archive1

Dr. Blofeld's next FAC of which I'm a co-nominator. Feel free to leave comments at the FAC page. — Ssven2 ^{Speak 2 me} 02:19, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

All reviewing is off for me for the time being I'm afraid, I just don't have the time sorry. Cassianto^Talk 05:29, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Fleming

I've decided not to remove the star from my userpage in contrast to your polite request. If you wish to make a complaint against me, feel free to do so, if not, this matter is officially settled. Cheers, Jonas Vinther • (Click here to collect your price!) 20:11, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Jonas Vinther I think it's utterly underhand of you to try and claim that you have had much impact on the article. It would be better if you removed the star from your page, lest people think you are an dishonourable editor. – SchroCat (talk) 20:19, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

To be percectly honest, I don't really care what some editors think of me. It's not about that. It's about improving the encyclopedia—and that I have, and currently doing. Peace, Jonas Vinther • (Click here to collect your price!) 20:26, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

You did very, very little for the article – certainly less than any peer reviewer or the attendees at the FAC. Your claim of having the star on the page is dishonest and dishonourable. If you can't be bothered to do the proper work yourself, you really shouldn't be a parasite, trying to live off the efforts of others. – SchroCat (talk) 20:35, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

You say "It's about improving the encyclopedia", yet you haven't explained which improvements you've brought to Fleming's table. Like I said to you earlier, you conducted a review, most of which was refuted. Can you again please explain why you think you're entitled to wear a featured article on your user page under "contributions". Also, I suppose you think these 10 edits justify you to also wear Gary Cooper's article on your user page too. Cassianto^Talk 20:46, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

You're an iditor Cassianto for not properly checking my improvements to Gary Cooper's article before using it as garbage against me. Jonas Vinther • (Click here to collect your price!) 21:00, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Bede did 99% of the work on the Cooper article I think. Jonas did make some notable changes. Perhaps Jonas you could just add (minor copyedits) to your user page to keep everybody happy. I think you actually have the potential to produce your own featured articles, those will be ones you can really display with pride. Why not try to get some of the Nazi related ones up to FA?♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:03, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

My contributions to Fleming are debatable, but I'm not even going to DISCUSS Cooper! THIS is how the article look before I started editing it, and THIS is how it looked after I started editing it. Absolutely no freaking doubt I significantly contributed to that article regardless of which point of view you see it from. I have made just as many, if not more, edits to Cooper than Bede, but those are not shown in the articles history as I improved the article in my sandbox. I mean look, LOOK at THIS edit for Christ sake!!! Jonas Vinther • (Click here to collect your price!) 21:12, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

So if they're debatable, please remove Fleming from your user page. Or was you only coming here to make trouble? Cassianto^Talk 21:17, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

The extent or importance of my said contributions are (obviously) debatable, but not their existence, so eat a pancake. Jonas Vinther • (Click here to collect your price!) 21:56, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

But Jonas, you used to add GA icons to your user page every time you reviewed an article? I remember when somebody raised that question. JAGUAR  22:03, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Yup, if I reviewed an article and made so many changes it went from being a fail to a pass, yes, I added it to my userpage, correct. Jonas Vinther • (Click here to collect your price!) 22:06, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

I have no idea what "eat a pancake" means, but I'm taking it to mean something derogatory. Quit being a dick head and remove it from your user page, there's a good boy. Cassianto^Talk 22:11, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

One of your kællinger already did it, so world peace! Jonas Vinther • (Click here to collect your price!) 22:32, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

And just for the record SchroCat, I never claimed to having helped bring the article to FA-status, I merely claimed I contributed to an article that is of FA-status, so get your facts straight. Jonas Vinther • (Click here to collect your price!) 22:35, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Except you didn't. Cassianto^Talk 22:56, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

OK, I think enough has been said on this. Jonas, Bede did request a great deal of input over Cooper. I reviewed it extensively for GA and then a number of us further reviewed it before the FAC after my concern with it were met. I was honestly under the impression that it was largely a solo effort by Bede and I don't believe he co-nommed the article with anybody else. I don't remember seeing your name once during any of the reviews, I may be mistaken. It does look like you're claiming to have written the entire article when you didn't, though perhaps you made enough of the copyediting to add it to your user page with (some additions and copyedits) in brackets. Can you please do that and we can move on? If not then I can see other editors complaining about it in future. Ultimately it doesn't matter, we are a collaborative project, but a lot of work does go into promoting articles and if you didn't actually fully write an article and take an article to FAC but simply edited it then you should say so IMO.♦ Dr. Blofeld 06:59, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Heads-up

Cassianto, the right way to make indented comments in numbered lists is to begin with a hash and follow with colons, like this:

# first numbered item

#: inserted comment

# second numbered item

giving:

1. first numbered item

   inserted comment

2. second numbered item

When you just use colons, as you've been doing at the last two or three RfAs, you break the numbering. --Stfg (talk) 08:24, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

• Many thanks Stfg, I never was very technical. Cassianto^Talk 08:25, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Your warning to me

Did you notice that I added two WP:RS to an article, and then two editors(including an Admin) blanked that section, because they didn't like what the RS actually said? Surely that is not proper Wikipedia procedure? Nicholas Griggs (talk) 05:17, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

My concerns are not with the content of the edits, it's with the warring. Sort the content dispute out on Butterworth's talk page. Cassianto^Talk 05:55, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

An award for you!

The "I'm not an odious twat, I'm a true British gent" Award of Excellence

'Bout time you deserved a barnstar for your outstanding civility displayed towards Chillum and Rationalobserver of late, two editors whom the "Cult of Corbett" may raise eyebrows at. Here's to your health sir and for being one of the least odious chaps around here at the moment and telling it how it is. At least you're honest and know a real odious twat when you see one! ♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:52, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

LoL, cheers Doc! Cassianto^Talk 17:34, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

HAHA, well that's one I'm sure which hasn't been given before ;-) Now I must get back to my writing, being an elite wikipedia editor, one of the site's best content contributors of course. Of course we both brag about that all the time, right? ;-) There was me thinking I was a humble volunteer dedicating my free time to a good cause. Ah well.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:50, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

More to the point, I think you need this one:

Pony!
Congratulations! For creative use of very bad language and fierce defense of what is right and just, regardless of personal cost, you have received a pony! Ponies are cute, intelligent, cuddly, friendly (most of the time, though with notable exceptions), promote good will, encourage patience, and enjoy carrots. Treat your pony with respect and he will be your faithful friend! Montanabw^(talk) 21:32, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

To send a pony or a treat to other wonderful and responsible editors, click here.

You do realise that in Welsh "cas y Ianto" means "the nasty Johnny", don't you? (.. or maybe that's just a load of old pony?) Martinevans123 (talk) 21:58, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Haha, thanks to both. How apt my user name means "the nasty". Some would say this was picked deliberately; I assure you it wasn't :) Cassianto^Talk 17:48, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

If you ever cross the border into Wales you might just catch the Welsh Open B-boy Championships: some say this is nasty, but I say it's well sick, innit. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:29, 25 September 2015 (UTC) (hope you like a bit of caveman fish)

GregJackP's page

That had nothing to do with whether I liked it or not, I'm merley enforcing WP:POLEMIC . KoshVorlon 17:28, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Well don't. Cassianto^Talk 17:32, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Doesn't work that way, it's policy, it gets enforced. KoshVorlon 17:41, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

And who are you to enforce it? Cassianto^Talk 17:43, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

No one in particular, however anyone can enforce Policy, not just sysops. KoshVorlon 18:27, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

There was no breach in policy, which makes your "enforcement" all the more laughable. Cassianto^Talk 18:33, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

WP:POLEMIC is not policy nor does it apply here. Please let it go. - 185.108.128.6 (talk) 18:38, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Hey

Hiya Cass, replying to this here. "lovely to see you back for another season" - haha well put, that's exactly what I do isn't it? Appear for a season and then go off again. I like to keep a low [as possible] profile these days which is why I'm not announcing a return or anything (plus I have no idea how long it will last, I'm sure I'll need a break again!) But yes, HELLO! Things are good with me, hope they are with you and the family too. --Loeba (talk) 19:01, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Ha, you do come and go as you please, but it makes perfect sense. I haven't been very active on here all that much recently; I did start this, but I've dried up and lost my enthusiasm a little bit owing to the politics which govern the encyclopaedia. All is good my end. We are moving in the new year so I'm just getting everything ready for that which will should prove to be very stressful! I took a read of Emma Thompson the other day and I enjoyed it a lot. She's a wonderful actress, although she's a little too left for my liking. Nanny McPhee is certainly no stranger in my house. Cassianto^Talk 19:26, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Ah thanks re Emma. Although I was also looking at it the other day and thinking it needs some polish! It will do though, I just wanted her to have decent coverage. Her leftiness is part of why I love her haha; you'll notice that's a theme with all my projects actually. I think she's just as delighted as I am with the recent promotion of someone who's been my MP my whole life! Exciting stuff (but nevermind if we have different views). To go from real politics to wikipolitics: the behind-the-scenes stuff here is pretty ridiculous - the only option is to ignore it IMO. I also highly recommend clearing your watchlist and only adding back a select few pages! That has definitely made it easier for me to edit and not get frustrated/feel resentment. Otherwise it's just drama and distractions everywhere. Good luck with the move! --Loeba (talk) 20:47, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I see good luck is also in order for your new job at the BFI. Tell me, do they ever play any Ealing films there? I'd also be interested to hear of your favourite, if you have one. Cassianto^Talk 07:29, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

They actually played Hue and Cry on one of the days I worked there in August. And I remember them doing a big restoration/re-release of It Always Rains on Sunday, which I watched recently and thought was excellent; one of their best. But my favourite is Kind Hearts and Coronets. There's a channel called "London Live" that always shows Ealing films (mostly obscure ones), do you have it? --Loeba (talk) 08:38, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I have it. My better half appears in the Pineapple Studios series quite often when she was a dancer, so it's pretty much on all the time in our house (and before some wag comments, no, it's not Louie Spence). Kind Hearts and Coronets is particularly wonderful; it usually features in the top spot in most people's top five. They also play the rarer films too; I watched The Goose Steps Out two days ago which was a complete joy. My own personal favourite would have to be The Lavender Hill Mob, followed closely by Champagne Charlie, which is one of their rarer ones. I've just found their website so I'm going to make the effort and get up there to watch a screening, once the move is out of the way. Cassianto^Talk 15:03, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

A peer review, if you have time...

(and inclination, of course). Can I interest you in Streatham's leading non-Irish Irish composer, who is now at PR? All comments gladly received if you're disposed to look in. (Quite understand if you're not, naturally. I know how busy you are.) – Tim riley talk 18:48, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

A favor?

Hello there! I hope you're not busy as I would like to ask you for a favor. When/if you have some time, please have a look at Sonam Kapoor and see if you can give it a copy-edit. Thanks for your time and sorry for bothering you. -- Frankie _talk 21:08, 8 October 2015 (UTC) Frankie _talk 21:08, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

I'd like to help out, but my enthusiasm is at an all time low at the moment. Cassianto^Talk 21:25, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Of course I am not forcing it on you. Even if you don't want to help, I am completely okay with it. Thanks for replying and on a side note I know that this place sucks. -- Frankie _talk 21:50, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Adios

For now, It's time to go. Real life is pretty hectic for me at the moment; work is going completely mental and a family move is scheduled for the new year (albeit only 20 or so miles up the road). I'm sure all this shit will be here when I return, which I shall, at some point, but I'm certainly not in a hurry. Cassianto^Talk 17:49, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Sorry to see you leave. I understand you're busy right now and this is a distraction though. Best of luck and hopefully you'll be back at some point.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:00, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

I too am sorry to hear you're leaving. Hope you'll be back and everything turns out well. JAGUAR  14:04, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

All I can say is good luck and you will be missed. -- Frankie _talk 18:10, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Yeah take care and get the move sorted :) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 18:40, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Quite a shock. I do hope everything is ok with you. Try and return when you can. :) Martinevans123 (talk) 19:23, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

You will be missed, take the time you need, but we hope to see you back! Montanabw^(talk) 03:22, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Join in the choir of wishes, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:42, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

When you return, I will make sure Oscar Wilde gets slipped in to a few more articles (oo-er). Adios. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:03, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for welcoming me into the world of article creation, and all of the useful advice you have given me. I wish you well in all you do, and hope to see you wandering around here on occasion in your retirement! Scr★pIron^IV 15:15, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

I hope this didn't have anything to do with a certain Monomaniacal Mouthy Airhead (Retired). That person has been pretty much wiped from the map for the wildly self-serving comments they seemed to have no control over making, and I can't imagine that if that person would return, that their, um, singular interest in themselves, wouldn't be rather quickly used to identify them. John Carter (talk) 17:19, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Blocked

I have blocked you for two weeks for violating out sockpuppetry policy to avoid scrutiny. Admins, this is a Checkuser block. Please contact me if you have any questions. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 17:36, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Without elaboration, I haven't got a clue what you are talking about. Yes, the two logged out reverts of comments made by someone grave dancing over Eric's block, was me; had I have known I was logged out at the time, I'd have happily adjusted my signature as I don't want my address in the public domain (hence why I created an account in the first place). I was logged out, accidentally, presumably because of inactivity over the last week or so. But since I'm out of this hell hole for the rest of the year, I couldn't really care about the block; I'm more pissed that it's now on my log. Seeing as you now know about this, I trust you'll be wiping my IP address as a security measure? Thanks. Cassianto^Talk 18:49, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

This block seems to lack some common sense... --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:00, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm afraid the Arbcom (puppeted by the Foundation) is now operating a Stalinist Zero Tolerance police policy regarding Eric now - you are just the latest victim, there will be many more. Guerillero knows full well you didn't realise you were logged out, but he wishes to survive so is just carrying out orders. Giano (talk) 19:02, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Piss poor block, Cassianto is not the type to create sock accounts. There's a BIG difference between reverting trolling edits as an IP and creating a sock account and wreaking havoc. I'm sure even the good Chillum on a mountain in Canada somewhere would think this inappropriate as Cass is retired anyway, but probably can't do anything because of the "rules".♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:08, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

This isn't trolling --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 19:17, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Oh OK, I thought it was a revert of one of the grave dancers Eric frequently gets.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:07, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

It was. Cassianto^Talk 20:25, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) What, removing a sycophantic display of appreciation for a controversial desysop? Why would someone want to "thank" someone for conducting such a controversial move in the first place? I can understand someone thanking a bloody vandal, but not an action such as this. Cassianto^Talk 19:45, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Guerillero, WP:AGF is a fundamental principle. So just to be clear, you are accusing Cassianto of knowingly logging out and editing to avoid scrutiny? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:26, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Agree - and the comments removed were blatantly disruptive and anyone would have removed them as a matter of course. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:59, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

So c'mon Mr Guerillero, where are you? I see someone else has had to do half your dirty work for you by removing my IP address. Cassianto^Talk 20:28, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

I was the one who oversighted the edits in question. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 20:33, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

And a complete fucking mess you made of it. You have still yet to offer decent justification for your block. I'm agreeing with Giano here; this has nothing to do with my "socking" and more to do with your agenda towards Eric. Cassianto^Talk 20:40, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Guerillero, can you please also answer my question above? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:38, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Unblocked

You have been unblocked per AGF that you edited logged out by mistake. IMO you had no reason to hide, as the edits weren't disruptive: compare the highly respected users protesting against the block above. @Guerillero: The user has said the IP was his, so CU gives no special authority here. It's purely a question of whether or not to assume good faith. About oversighting the edits in question: you must have done that after I hid the IP, because at the time I did, it was all hanging out in the page histories. Bishonen | talk 20:39, 24 October 2015 (UTC).

Agree with the unblock and the rationale. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:43, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Good call Bish, but worried the arbs will take you to Level V which is burning at the stake for daring to challenge their authority. Cassianto has retired at least until the end of the year anyway.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:50, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

The wouldn't dare! The Arbs are currently slinking and slanking around trying to preserve what little dignity they think they have left. I blame the Foundation for this fiasco, it understands so little of what is happening on the factory floor that its instructions are now making the Arbcom members appear even more ridiculous than they already are. Giano (talk) 21:00, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

• NeilN thanks for your support here; Bishonen, thanks for the unblock. Guerillero, please stay out of my way. Cassianto^Talk 20:48, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

• Good move Bish: AGF is something that is often in short supply these days. – -SchroCat (talk) 21:01, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Also, Cassianto is not the type to hide his feelings, and would put his name to any action or thoughs he might have. Ceoil (talk) 21:56, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Cassianto, could you please create a recognisable sock account so you can be blocked properly while you are retired. Something with a classical or Latin feel often goes down well. ... On behalf of the 'ErbCom Committee: Martinevans123 (talk) 10:13, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Don't worry Bish, if you do get desysopped (unlkely) I'll nominate you in a new RfA. Doug Weller (talk) 10:23, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

I'd be surprised if I was, Doug Weller — since when is a CU block sacrosanct? — but if it came to that, you may be sure I wouldn't bestir myself to request adminship again. Would you nominate Darwinbish? Bishonen | talk 16:40, 25 October 2015 (UTC).

WP:CUBL is the policy in question, but that being said I think a desysop of far from appropriate here. NativeForeigner ^Talk 02:29, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Well, that's nice, NativeForeigner, but referring WP:CUBL is just wikilawyering here. Common sense will inform you it's not the kind of situation CUBL is for. Please compare my unblock notice above, where I explained that CU has no special authority here, as Cassianto had said the edits were his. I did that in response to Guerillero's original claim of CU privilege and request to be contacted "if you have any questions" (and, if you like, in response to his WP:CUBL link, too). G made that claim and that request before C took ownership of the IP edits. I'm assuming he wouldn't have done it afterwards, because I credit him with common sense too. And for my part I wouldn't have unblocked if Cassianto had denied making the logged-out edits, or if he had ignored the imputation, because then my internal reasoning would have been: "He either did or he didn't, but obviously a CU like Guerillero knows more about it." In the situation as it was, though, G knew no more than I did. Don't give me CUBL. It's not the hats, it's the knowledge. Bishonen | talk 11:20, 26 October 2015 (UTC).

Oh, I'm just speaking in general terms why Template:Checkuserblock exists. Not specifically to this case. NativeForeigner ^Talk 23:04, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Re: JackTheVicar

I didn't want to needlessly embarrass you, but you've posted the wrong SPI. You can find the right one here. The one you posted concerned the possibility of additional sockpuppets, which is an entirely separate matter. Viriditas (talk) 06:39, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Whether it was the correct one or not, it was linked and has resulted in no further action. What was the crux of that one? They, at the time of wring, both made a typo, so therefore it must've been the same person? Your conspiracy theory that someone using an identical camera to someone else has to be a sock is the only thing that is embarrassing here. Cassianto^Talk 10:35, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Again, you are referring to a completely different case, not the one under discussion on the talk page. And the "conspiracy theory" about the camera is part of the evidence offered by the blocking admin in the appropriate SPI. You're apparently quite confused. I defended JackTheVicar until I looked at the evidence offered against him, at which point I changed my mind. Viriditas (talk) 10:43, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

It's one I came across and was one to do with the same person. Therefore, they amount to the same case, albeit an offshoot of the original. I fail to see why you think I'm confused about this? My issues is not that I think they are same person, they probably are, it's with the weak evidence. Cassianto^Talk 10:48, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Suillus bovinus/archive1

...seems to be unpopular...hopefully not because prose is boring :P ...can you take a layperson's look and let me know if unappealing? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:23, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Of course I will . I'll try and get to it today at some point. I'm only really able to get to small articles like this, so this is perfect. Cassianto^Talk 12:58, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Mayabazar

I've nominated this article for FAC which also happens to be my first attempt. It is also the first Indian Telugu film article to be nominated for such status. If interested, please leave your comments here. All constructive comments are welcomed. Yours sincerely, Pavanjandhyala (talk) 09:09, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Mullum Malarum FAC

Kailash29792 has nominated the article for FAC. Feel free to leave comments at its FAC page.  — Ssven2 ^{Speak 2 me} 09:31, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

note

I know that I've disagreed with you in the past. If I've said anything that was offensive to you, I do apologize. I do truly and honestly appreciate all the hard work you do to provide good content to this project. I haven't said it before, so I say it now: Thank you. — Ched :  ?  21:53, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm scratching my head trying to remember our disagreement but I shan't ask you to elaborate. And there's certainly no need to apologise as any offence (if any) has certainly been forgotten about. I really do support your block wholeheartedly. If I did have one criticism though it would have to be the length, perhaps, but that could've easily been adjusted. I greatly appreciate the note Ched, thanks for popping by and here's to some good future interactions. Cassianto^Talk 22:29, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

GD's crystal ball.

I've seen this coming. In November 2014, I advised & pleaded with Arbcom, to not ban anybody at the end of the GGTF case. My advice shouldn't have been overlooked. :( GoodDay (talk) 22:16, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

No, but then we all know the lunatics are running the asylum around here. Cassianto^Talk 18:57, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

RE RO:

Suggest no longer interacting with Lynn or KG except in regards to RO's behaviour. No point in indulging their activism. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:02, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

I agree. Cassianto^Talk 11:36, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

WP:AGENDA really should be strengthed for time to time. This is an encyclopaeda, which seems to have been forgotten by many who prefer to spend their lives on the dramah boards and away from the 'sharp end' of editing and improving articles. - SchroCat (talk) 11:59, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Notice how everything these days quickly turns into a gender harassment discussion..♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:09, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Kev's page

Glad you saw it; blink of an eye and you miss it these days. Giano (talk) 20:17, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

The man is a troublemaker and it beggars belief that he is an admin. He is now reverting me as he is so desperate not to answer my questions to him. Fucking lunacy! Cassianto^Talk 20:21, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Have patience, I'm quite sure all will be explained here. Giano (talk) 20:24, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Oh well, perhaps not. It seems anyone who takes an alternative view or attempts to point out his errors to Kevin is a troll. He should go a long way on the Arbcom. Giano (talk) 07:56, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Apologies Cassianto if I excerbated the issue on ANI, however after the latest 'misunderstanding' of KG there (where he takes the complete opposite meaning from what I actually said), coupled with his repeated assertation on his talkpage that (I assume he is referring to you and I) brought up the gender crap, I have come to the conclusion its a waste of time engaging with someone who insists on interpreting everything to take maximum offense. Only in death does duty end (talk) 07:51, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

I have pondered whether to let rip at Kevin, as we have not exactly been the closest of friends on here, but he's standing for arbcom and I'm not, and I feel my concerns have to be aired. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:46, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

I'd err on the side of caution if I were you; Gorman thinks it's ok to play by the rules of poetic licence when it comes to telling the truth. Cassianto^Talk 20:03, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

You misinterpreted my comments - which never suggested that either of you brought up the gender issue to begin with - but only suggested that you and OIDDE were the first to bring it up after 28 unblocked in sections that should have been about RO's behavior (for any passersby, if you take a look at the "arbitration" subheading, you'll note the truth of this.) Kevin Gorman (talk) 20:08, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm tempted to revert you, but then that would make me just as bad as you, wouldn't it? Did you notice that I even closed the off-topic discussion with a view to ending the dramah about gender and Eric? I even left a closing note, sating that it was off-topic, which some idiot reverted in order to keep the off-topic discussion alive. It's only because I like Sarah that I didn't revert back to the archived version. Cassianto^Talk 20:20, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

You'll note I didn't start reverting you until you hit a certain point - and bluntly, I would expect you to revert me if I hit the same point. Certainly you can see what I meant with regards to this section? Or did you close that section yourself before Sarah did? If so, I missed it. Kevin Gorman (talk) 20:25, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

It was a valid point: I honestly didn't know whether you were playing dumb in order to rile me, or if you genuinely didn't get it. I see nothing uncivil in asking that. Matters were of course made worse by Dial running off to the noticeboards in order to get me blocked. It's pretty pathetic really. Cassianto^Talk 20:41, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

OK, so I didn't want to trawl through diffs, but here we go. And here's who reverted. So, through the process of investigation, it appears your ally DD2K kept the discussion alive. What do you have to say about that? Cassianto^Talk 20:52, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

I was referring, quite specifically, to the arbitration subheading not included in that closure or unclosure, which contained a valid suggestion (albeit one I didn't think was a great idea) that arbitration be considered - which instead of discussion of the merits of the idea, had you and Only in death instantly suggesting that any attempt at arbitration would be hijacked by some sort of GGTF-mafia. I've barely ever spoken with Dave by the way - just because two people both disagree with you doesn't mean there's a cabal going on. As slakr and Ed both pointed out to you at the ANEW report, it's not really appropriate to editwar with someone else in their own userspace, let alone with personal attacks thrown in. If they're part of my cabal too, I'm suddenly excited - I have quite a bit of respect for them :) Kevin Gorman (talk) 20:58, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

If it was warring, I'd have been blocked. Look, I think this has died a death now, so why don't you go your way and I'll go mine. Cassianto^Talk 21:23, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Jesus loves you!

Elizium23 (talk) 02:57, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Blocked

Letting shit go is good

Enough of this behavior. Your comments are incendiary and baiting. Too combative, right now.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 18:20, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Again, I couldn't give a fuck, and I wont be appealing. I was going off for Christmas anyway. Cassianto^Talk 18:22, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

I'll try and drop the block length, but jeez Cass, I can't work miracles - if other people are winding you up, let it go, it doesn't matter. I could have easily blocked the IP who kept blanking content I was adding on an article today, but I didn't. Here's how to do a slanging match, anyway. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 21:36, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

"Your bag is weakening, Sir !" Martinevans123 (talk) 22:08, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Retirement?

I wish you'd reconsider, Cassianto. GoodDay (talk) 14:01, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Have a decent break completely away from the site and come back when you're ready to contribute again. We still remember your many fine contributions!♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:12, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Resilient Barnstar
	I hope this is only a temporary absence, and that you'll be back with us, hopefully early next year, all refreshed and ready to put together another superb article for us. I'll miss your help and friendship while you're away and I'll float a couple of possible ideas your way in a couple of months to see if any of them can tempt you back. Pip pip! – SchroCat (talk) 10:37, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Indeed, seconded. Hopefully we can look forward to further articles like Joseph Grimaldi at some point. Look after yourself amigo.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:57, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Thirded, what those two ^^^^^ said. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:11, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Me too :-) Graham Beards (talk) 17:44, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

I also, but hoping for less fatalism. Ceoil (talk) 22:03, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

And from me. Come back soon, mister. Kafka Liz (talk) 06:54, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

I wrote Cass, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:08, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Season's Greetings

File:Xmas Ornament.jpg

To You and Yours!

FWiW Bzuk (talk) 16:48, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

Merry Christmas and Happy New Year!
A very Merry Christmas and Happy New Year to you and all your loved ones, and a joyous and prosperous 2016. All the very best from your friends: Cliftonian, Mrs Cliftonian and the two little Cliftonians. —  Cliftonian (talk)  20:35, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

A very happy Christmas and New Year to you!
May 2016 bring you joy, happiness – and no trolls or vandals! All the best Gavin / – SchroCat (talk) 16:14, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Indeed SchroCat. Cass, should you ever feel like returning I'd love to see you get David Garrick, a vital article, to FA.♦ Dr. Blofeld 07:32, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Terriss & Millward

I would welcome your input on a suggestion I've just made on their 'presumably' being lovers in the William Terriss article Talk section. Robocon1 (talk) 11:20, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

PR request

• Hi Cass. I've managed to polish up another old GA (was inspired to do so after acquiring a first edition copy of the book) and was wondering if you could contribute to a peer review at Wikipedia:Peer review/Allah jang Palsoe/archive1. Thanks. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 08:04, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

This looks like an interesting subject and I'll happily look in a day or two. Hope you're well! Cassianto^Talk 08:11, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

• Been better, to be honest. But the family is healthy and baby is getting cuter than ever. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 08:26, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

• Having a healthy family is the main thing, and is something I'm pleased to share with you . I have found that having a break away from this place over Christmas has done me the power of good. It's even compelled me to finish Michael Hordern, which I shall acheive in a day or two, and has prompted me into purchasing two rather expensive books on Frank Matcham, my next project. I will also attempt to squeeze out a possible FL from him too. Cassianto^Talk 09:11, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

• Impressive! I should have a fairly free schedule this month, so if either gets to PR, let me know. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 09:14, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

• Great, I will take you up on that. I may also need to run a Non-free image past you, more specifically one of these, more preferably this. It would replace the not so good NF one that currently adorns the page. But I shall mail you nearer the time about this if that's ok. Cassianto^Talk 10:06, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

• Personally I'd go with a crop of this one. I think the one you linked to is a bit too close-up for an infobox picture. The rights for fair use should be okay. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 10:09, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

• That's great, thanks for the advice Chris. That is a nice image, I must admit; I only went with the linked one because it shows a more humorous side to his personality. I do have another image indoors on my iPad which I rather like which I found on eBay a few months ago. I'll email it over later for your thoughts. Also, could I get away with using a NF image of him as King Lear, who was perhaps his best known character? I speak a lot about Lear in the article and it would really help for illustrative purposes. Cassianto^Talk 10:30, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

• I'll wait for it. If the costume obscures him enough for identification, you might be able to get through with two images. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 10:53, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

You got mail

Hi Cassianto, I just sent you an e-mail. :-) Greetings from German Wikipedia, --Paulae (talk) 18:51, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Done, per responding email. Cassianto^Talk 19:13, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

BBC Tribute to David Bowie

The tributes to David Bowie has lasted all day today on 24 Hours News and put everything else on hold (except the weather forecast) and well worth viewing. Sorry that you missed it. Dickie birdie (talk) 19:17, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

How do you know I missed it? Or are your snide comments intended on being as such? Cassianto^Talk 19:19, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Will Gompertz described David Bowie as the Picasso of Pop, nothing wrong with that. Dickie birdie (talk) 19:20, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm now lost as to what you are talking about. Maybe you can provide a link and we can discuss it on the talk page. Maybe you can also rope in RyanT whatever his name is to chip in seeing as the cat appears to have caught his tongue. Cassianto^Talk 19:44, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

But did you ever see Will Gompertz and Max Wall is the same room... ?? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:01, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

You're requested to comment at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Future Perfect at Sunrise as a party

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Future Perfect at Sunrise and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. As threaded discussion is not permitted in most arbitration pages please ensure that you make all comments in your own section only. Additionally, the guide to arbitration and the Arbitration Committee's procedures may be of use.

Thanks, --QEDK (T 📖 C) 11:41, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

I hope this isn't too annoying...

but I'm afraid I've mentioned you here. Sorry. --Dweller (talk) 11:38, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Not at all Dweller, this has made my week! Cassianto^Talk 21:57, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Laurence Olivier

Well, the article referred to the other film as his "last film", when it clearly wasn't; Sky Captain was, so I thought I'd mention it. No need to get upset and start making threats. DetroitWheels74 (talk) 20:03, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Oh really, and where are these "threats" that I have supposedly made to you? Cassianto^Talk 20:10, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Ethel M. Dell

Dear Cassianto, We corresponded once about your valuable work on Marie Lloyd. It's a bit out of your line, but I think you know a lot of good people, and the article on Ethel M. Dell, George Orwell's bete noire, and Wodehouse's, could use strengthening. She was, according to Orwell, English womanhood's favorite novelist from 1911 to 1939, broadly popular, he was surprised to note, among all classes and types. Ruskin said, "Tell me what you like and I'll tell you who you are." She could tell us something about who those women were. If you happen to know anyone who does the English popular novel, would you pass this request along? Profhum (talk) 01:34, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Good

...to see you back, mister. Kafka Liz (talk) 20:34, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Liz, and what a pleasant message to ease me back into things; much nicer than the welcome home gift I recieved from a well-known incompetent a few days ago. Cassianto^Talk 21:02, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

That's a shame to see. I seem to have missed this particular drama, but I'm always saddened when editors I respect are at odds. I'm still happy you're back, though, for whatever that's worth. Kafka Liz (talk) 06:16, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

It's worth a lot, thanks :) Cassianto^Talk 08:10, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Isabella Beeton

Many thanks for your comments at the recent PR for Isabella Beeton. I have dropped the good lady into FAC for comments and thoughts. If you have time for any, I'd be delighted to hear with them. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 15:05, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Just seen this having got back from a nice, but rather graffiti strewn Roma. I have noticed that the link needs initiating on Beeton's talk. Cassianto^Talk 18:24, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

I spotted that on the Ketelbey FAC too - I think the bot is playing up, as the page is already up and running. I'll drop a note somewhere and see if it can be sorted. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 08:11, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Bowie and religion/spirituality

Hi. You left me a message previously about Bowie (and me being a keyboard warrior). From the work you have done on the article you have greater knowledge of Bowie than myself, so I'm asking you to take a look at the new addition to Bowie's religion and spirituality. Does it accurately represent him? That first quote (if legit) about his belief in God seems conclusive. Thoughts? WisconsinPat. (talk) 18:45, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Oh yes, that's because you reverted me without discussion, thus contravening WP:BRD. Keyboard warriors tend to force their own viewpoint without adhering to rules, hence my name calling. Anyway, since I'm here, I'm afraid I don't care much for his spirituality, what his religion was, or which animal, if indeed, he wanted to come back as. It's the man the performer and his music I'm more interested in; sure, give it a paragraph at most, but to dedicate an entire section to it is frankly stupid. Cassianto^Talk 18:53, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Disability Arts Online

Many thanks for helping with that article. I really appreciate it. It is one of a number that came out of an editathon at Goldsmith's Uni where I trained several new editors, some with disabilities themselves, to make a start on editing Wikipedia. They have planned two more sessions and are looking for trainers (hint, if you're interested). I am also looking at ways that they can network and have regular editing sessions, so anybody in the London area (note for talk page stalkers) who would like to get involved with a very worthy endeavour could just drop a note on User talk:JTdisabilityartsonline or let Richard Neville know at the WMUK office. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 00:51, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

!

Vandal!  ;) SchroCat (talk) 20:03, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

lol, piss off...I hoped no one had noticed! Cassianto^Talk 20:04, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Also, having now told you to piss off, can I ask a favour? I'll email you... Cassianto^Talk 20:05, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

You can always ask...! - SchroCat (talk) 20:10, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Arbitration case request motions proposed

There are two motions proposed (here and here) regarding an arbitration case request where you are a named party. For the arbitration committee, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 13:08, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Before I waste my time there, maybe you'd care to answer my point on your talk page first. Denying others the right to excersise their free speech is vastly more important to me. Cassianto^Talk 13:17, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Don't beat up on Liz, Cass, she's doing what she's told by Arbcom. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:24, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

After all, it's the only explanation as to why she left Arbcom's pal's comments over the word limit, including suggestions that I have no "common decency", that I am lacking "a brain", despite being asked by another editor for it to be removed. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:29, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

I wasn't aware she was ArbCom's gofer. But seeing as she is, she must expect to be met with contrary views/verbal beatings when she goes about conducting their dirty chores for them. Cassianto^Talk 13:34, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

My apologies

My apologies for the problems I may had caused in welcoming new editors. I just wanted to welcome the new editors who signed up and provide them with information about the project. Thank you-RFD (talk) 18:52, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Like I say, it's not a problem; The Rambling Man, I'm sure, will assume good faith, but there are some on here who would think of nothing than dragging you to ANI or another moron-infested time sink. Not only that, but it looks like you're endorsing such edits. You really must watch who you welcome in future. Happy editing RFD! Cassianto^Talk 19:00, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

I sent a message to The Rambling Man apologizing for causing any problems and I did mention yourself. Thank you-RFD (talk) 21:35, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

There really is no need to keep apologising RFD. Cassianto^Talk 21:55, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Mr Badger?

Will take a look. I remember that fondly, though it came out later in the States. Kafka Liz (talk) 16:44, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

I got confused about this the other night and thought he played Toad in 1983; he didn't, he actually provided the voice for Badger that year but played Toad 20 or so years previous to that. An indication, certainly, that one is nearing old age when such roles are swapped so subtly! Cassianto^Talk 16:59, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Well, I'd really like to see the adaptation of Whistle and I'll Come to You. Huge M.R. James fan, seriously. Kafka Liz (talk) 17:20, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Cassianto, I look forward to the eventual FAC; this is really very well done. It was a most enjoyable read and broadened my horizons, the mark of a first class article. Ceoil (talk) 23:35, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

I really appreciate you looking in and value your terrific copy edits. Thank you. Cassianto^Talk 23:45, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi!

Hi, not sure you remember me and how active you are these days but I would appreciate it if you make constructive criticism in my ongoing FAC. Thank you. -- Frankie _talk 21:16, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes, of course I remember you. Unfortunatley, what little time I do have on here is committed elsewhere at the moment. I will try and find some more time in a week or so should the nomination still be open. Cassianto^Talk 22:54, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Good news/Bad news

Hello C. The good - The two one act plays by John Mortimer that featured Hordern have been released on DVD. The bad - I could not find where they are available in a region 2 release. I have the DVD and they are an enjoyable watch so maybe you will be able to find them streaming on the web somewhere if you are interested. Cheers. MarnetteD|Talk 23:01, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

DYK for James Murray (physician)

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:02, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

The great PR siege

Hi Cass, I've been working on the Siege of Sidney Street recently, and I've just taken it to PR. If you have time, and if the topic is of interest, would you be able to take a look? Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 22:52, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

FA review

Hi Cassianto. Can I ask for a review on Ride the Lightning, which I recently nominated for an FA? The nomination is here. All the best.--Retrohead (talk) 13:09, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

I am up to my eyeballs at the moment, but I'll try and get round to it in a week or so. Cassianto^Talk 11:31, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

re

I honestly wasn't having a dig at you Cass (in US: "taking a shot at you")- if it reads like that, then I apologize. As far as continuing the discussion, I'm content either way. (continuing, or dropping it). — Ched :  ?  02:20, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi Ched, no I understand, and I really did AGF. I was just curious to know a bit more about your point 2 on Montana's page. My "joke" to SchroCat had nothing to do with the late Dreadstar, and was to do with the even more recently departed Terry Wogan (for clarity, it wasn't a joke about Wogan, but to do with him calling a TV an "idiot box", a word which SchroCat and I lovingly adopt for an alternative for an infobox). Unfortunately, and devoid of any intentions on my part, it was made to look like it was a dig at Dreadstar by people who linked the word "grave" in the header to "infobox" in the link (SchroCat and I previously locked horns with Dreadstar over an infobox issue). Drmies posted a bollocking/request to SchroCat in the wrong section about a mickey-taking description of Dreadstar (which was made prior to his death); I pointed out to Drmies that we were having a private joke and that he had posted it in an inappropriate place; Gerda became upset, so did Littleolive oil; I became annoyed as more and more people were becoming involved, and the whole thing has been turned into a monumental mountain out of what is, a minuscule molehill. What a palaver! Cassianto^Talk 02:43, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

I didn't get upset, but speechless, and it was not about anything on this talk. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:59, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

OK - concessions first: 1) While I generally appreciate an infobox, I want/wanted the arguments to stop, so I was the one who filed the original Arbcom infobox case. 2) I had communicated with Dreadstar in email even after he quit being active. In as much as one can consider an online acquaintance a "friend", I did very much consider him a friend. I think his death was felt very deeply by those who cared for him. He and I were both the same age, and both had similar beliefs and interests. So indeed, *I* certainly feel a great loss at his death.

I did see the "grave" thread, but didn't really relate it to the "Dreadfulstar" comment. I'm familiar with the TV/Idiot Box parlance, but wasn't aware of infobox/idiot box correlation. I have no particular thoughts as to where the Drmies' comment was made.

Now - full confession: I did mention in email to several people (including Drmies) my disdain for the "Dreadfulstar" comment. I did so because I realize that I'm not objective in the subject, and wanted fresh un-involved eyes to review it. So perhaps I'm as much to blame as anyone. I have no idea if he ever read my email as there was no reply; perhaps he saw it in passing. IDK.

My general point was, that if I feel I need to make to make a snide or derogatory comment about someone - I think it's better form to do it to their face (their talk page), or at the very least in a conversation they are already engaged in.

I absolutely find no fault with your actions, in fact, I admire you for sticking up for someone you collaborate with. I also have a lot of respect for your contributions to content (which exceed my own by far). I also don't blame Olive for extending the discussion because if the "Dreadful" comment hadn't been made to begin with, there would not have been a discussion.

I think your point about making a mountain out of a molehill is well made.

I think that's pretty much all I had to say, but will listen. With great respect, — Ched :  ?  03:23, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

• Ya know Cass, and this is just idle thoughts in my mind: I bet that if just you and I sat down together alone, we could hash out a solution to the "infobox/idiot box" debate as it pertains to composers. Oh well, that's not the way wiki works. No use dwelling on "what if" I suppose. Hope all is well with you and yours. — Ched :  ?  05:34, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Thank you ever so much for those kind comments Ched. We will, I fear, never agree on Infoboxes, but then wouldn't it be a boring place if we all agreed on everything?! To answer a point you made above: I've never shied away from telling someone the truth on their talk page (have you seen my block log? ;), but I don't troll, am never unnessesarily nasty, and only have this project as my best interest. My latest article is imminent at FAC and you are, of course, more than welcome here, or there, anytime. SchroCat is indeed a friend and I'd stick up for any of my friends on here - you included. In fact, I'd stick my oar in just about anywhere where I saw unfairness and bullying. Oh, and If you and I were to sit down and discuss Infoboxes, then the bar better have plenty of beer and wine in as we would be there a hell of a time ;) All the best, Cassianto^Talk 14:02, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Michael Hordern

With pleasure. Well done. Ceoil (talk) 19:51, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

No?

You asked ;) - "Information removed". Did you know that I was against infoboxes because they are redundant? It's still on the talk of Samuel Barber. (Quote: "Gerda is, of course, absolutely right that an infobox doesn't contain any info that isn't already present in the article, but it isn't meant to: its purpose is to summarize the info in an "at a glance" way.") I learned in half a year what I repeated recently: some date in prose is not the same information as something declared as a date of birth, with distinct year/month/day. An arrangement of birth name/date/place and death date/place is helpful to readers searching for just one bit of that information, compared to having to look at various spots in a sometimes long lead. - Even if that was redundant - which it isn't for me: it isn't harmful. No? But potentially helpful even if not to you personally? Then why remove? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:56, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

The date of birth and death is on the first line of the lead, no? You cannot get any more helpful than having it placed there as it's literally the first thing someone sees when they go looking for the information which they so crave. Cassianto^Talk 18:14, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Not going to repeat the exact misunderstanding I noticed on a certain composer: data not only meaning date, but the whole set. I learned in half a year, but I didn't learn how to pass it. What can we do? Do you have an answer to: "a different way to show the data of birth and death together at a glance, which is standard for printed encyclopedias"? - Did you read the (now amusing) Barber-discussion? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:34, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

So to clarify: We have a lead to summerise the body and an infobox to summarise the lead? What would be the point of that in an article with a short lead? Cassianto^Talk 18:40, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

No ;) - I tried to explain that in the first entry (obviously not able to express myself, sorry). Perhaps also read the thoughts of Nikkimaria regarding the Italian approach with a templated lead sentence instead (on the composers project). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:57, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

I try again. We do not have an infobox to summarise the lead. We would like to have an infobox to show facts from the article for readers with different needs or wishes. Even if you don't have their needs and wishes, nor understand them, perhaps even think the readers should have more noble ones: I am willing to serve them, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:50, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

But the lead shows facts from the article, only in a more grown-up, and educational way. Cassianto^Talk 10:35, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

The Phantom Tollbooth

If you can be spared from improving the next one, could you look at this peer review? Many thanks.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:26, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

I had this read to me in the 80's when I was a small boy, so it'll be a pleasure to revisit this again. I'm done over at Hordern's FAC, btw. Cassianto^Talk 17:50, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

WP:CITE

Just to make it a quicker job, which part of the guideline specifically covered that? I should probably read it all anyway but still... dannymusiceditor ^{~talk to me!~} 02:18, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Common bloody sense should tell you that it's not good to cite the same source after every sentence. Cassianto^Talk 08:46, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Of course, but there were only a few that jumped out at me as possibly unconnected to the same source. Somebody told me one time that every one of them should be cited and I suppose it was only sensitive to that particular article, and not this one. dannymusiceditor ^{~talk to me!~} 17:09, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Mortara case

Hello there Cassianto, I hope you're doing well. If you have a few minutes I have Mortara case up at FAC here. Any comments would be gratefully received. Cheers, —  Cliftonian (talk)  20:00, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi Cliftonian, yes I'd love to. I'll get to it at the weekend, if that's ok? Cassianto^Talk 14:36, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Kate n Sidney

Hi Cass, Many thanks for your recent comments at the Siege of Sidney Street PR. I've now moved this on to FAC, should you have the time and inclination. Many thanks once again. – SchroCat (talk) 16:55, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

George Bernard Shaw

Greetings! Can Brian B. and I interest you in the peer review of GBS's article? All comments gratefully received if you have time and inclination. Tim riley talk 15:53, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Congrats!!

Many many congratulations C for this. Usually the time zone I am in means that I miss all the fun so I am happy to be the first to say Well done. Cheers. MarnetteD|Talk 23:17, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

If it wasn't for your help and my excellent colleagues and friends, it wouldn't have been possible. Many thanks Cassianto^Talk 23:30, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

I was glad to help. I will expand my post to include a big thanks to all those that took part. It was great fun to see where the article was when you started the FAC and then watch as everyone's input continued to improve it. Enjoy your Sunday. MarnetteD|Talk 23:35, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Nicely done. Very well written an enjoyable read. Kafka Liz (talk) 00:43, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Why thank you. Again, I wouldn't have what I have today if it wasn't for the help of others; especially that of a certain little Irishman whose help was very much appreciated. Next, something a bit more grizzly. Cassianto^Talk 07:21, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Oi, less of the little! But yeah very nice work Cassianto, you certainly can write. Looking forward to Burke and Hare. Ceoil (talk) 11:25, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Burke and Hare, now that's something I could really get my teeth into. Kafka Liz (talk) 12:01, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Sorry I'm late for the congrats, I hadn't realized it had been promoted! Well done!♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:08, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 29

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Dagenham Civic Centre, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page ITV (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 10:36, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Your helpful review

Precious again, your detailed constructive comments which helped to improve Christ lag in Todes Banden, BWV 4 to FA!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:58, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Social Work

Reply for "No reason to hide rogue ip's. Or do you you have something to hide?" Meaning http://www.thefreedictionary.com/rogue, better put as independent otherwise its misrepresentation. Above that the word IP-hopper and even adding the IP I used by a certain editor Jim1138 shows rogue nature and it seems to be intended for Wikipedia:Harassment. Moreover that same editor seems to add IP's as it goes under the heading, when IP's are already shown. It would be more accurate if the editors attempts are read along with http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-trending-35787730 If such activities are validated for some certain sakes. This sort of anti-social attempts will continue to mask under policies and so on.59.98.249.148 (talk) 17:01, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

You cannot harass a group of people. If you decide to counter that by saying that this isn't a group and is in fact you alone, then please bear in mind WP:SOCK. A breach of of this will almost certainly see you blocked. Cassianto^Talk 17:24, 18 March 2016 (UTC)