![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
![]() |
The Technical Barnstar |
For recognising where drama is, and working to avoid it. MaranoFan ( talk) 10:24, 23 March 2016 (UTC) |
The consensus on Wikipedia is that the city is called DERRY. Please do not revert MOS changes. Thank you. xxx — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.152.123.85 ( talk) 23:22, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
Hey, I just re-nominated Kalki Koechlin's article for WP:FA. If you find spare time, would you mind taking a look? Thank you! Numerounovedant Talk 18:10, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
Hi, Cassianto. I've protected the article for four days in the hope that the content dispute will be worked out on talk. Please don't tell me who's right or wrong in the dispute, because I don't really care. And could you avoid Caden's page, please? There's so much history between the two of you that your posting there can't possibly do any good. Please stick to article talk. Bishonen | talk 19:19, 13 April 2016 (UTC).
Hi Cass, A brief note to let you know that Walt Disney is now at FAC, should you wish to visit and comment. Cheers! – SchroCat ( talk) 07:42, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
How about that, for a change? FAC Requiem (Reger), for the grave (centenary 11 May, soon), - and Brian did the norefs part already, -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 11:32, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
Hi Cass, I have recently been working on Walt Disney, which is now up for PR. If you have any plans to return in the near future, any thoughts or comments on his huge figure would be much appreciated; if not, enjoy your break and hope to see you back soon. Cheers – SchroCat ( talk) 11:39, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
Please don't engage in personal attacks as you did here. You can express your thoughts without name calling. HighInBC 22:00, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
Experience tells me that no amount of debate is going to sway you on your opinions about personal attacks. Suffice it to say the policy starts with "Do not make personal attacks anywhere in Wikipedia". The policy is just as enforceable regardless of your acceptance of it. I won't say another word on the matter unless the personal attacks continue. HighInBC 01:19, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
I have decided that this part of our no personal attack policy needs clarification. I assume you will have an opinion on the matter. The discussion can be found here: Wikipedia_talk:No_personal_attacks#Personal_attacks_against_groups_of_people. Hopefully we can get to the bottom of what the community expects in this matter. HighInBC 02:58, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
Cassianto our last exchange on this page ended with you deleting a comment I placed on this talk page with the editorial comment "Enough. Go and improve an article somewhere. You are really trying my patience now.)", yet now you add a comment to a talk page of an article that you have never edited and to which my first edit was made 11 years ago.
How does your comment (in the context a discussion to improve an article): " Yes PBS, boor off and go and do something constructive with your time." meet the requirements of talk page guideline: "Comment on content, not on the contributor: Keep the discussions focused upon the topic of the talk page, rather than on the personalities of the editors contributing to the talk page."? -- PBS ( talk) 05:59, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
"you have never edited and to which my first edit was made 11 years ago") and do something vaguely constructive elsewhere. – SchroCat ( talk) 06:53, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
Why did you have to link me to nucklevee, people are actually edit-warring to keep an explanatory note for a word that has actually been removed per talkpage consensus... Only in death does duty end ( talk) 13:52, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Hello, I'm
BracketBot. I have automatically detected that
your edit to
Olivia de Havilland may have broken the
syntax by modifying 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just
edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on
my operator's talk page.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot ( talk) 19:30, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
Hi Cassianto. I was wondering if you would like to post your observations about the Zeta-Jones article at its peer review? Would be awesome if you could. Cheers! Krimuk|90 ( talk) 06:07, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
@
Cassianto: I have uploaded a COA for
Archbishop Lawrence Booth & have provided evidence/references - see Talk. I should hope Wiki wishes to provide the best info but in this instance it would seem egos are getting in the way of admitting they are wrong.
L'honorable (
talk)
21:36, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
PS. qv.
Burke's Extinct and Dormant Baronetcies &
www.exploreyork.org.uk. I do not wish to argue about this for long when it is so patently correct - please advise. Many thanks.
I sent you a private email. Please read and let me know what you think. My condolences are with you during the period of blocking. CookieMonster755 📞 ✉ ✓ 18:25, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
I wont offer any sage advice, but here is some wellington boots resembling pints of Guinness. Apparently all the rage in Paris, don't you know. Ceoil ( talk) 08:45, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
Hello, Cassianto. I've listed the article for PR
here as I wish to take it to FA. Feel free to leave comments. Thanks.
—
Ssven2
Speak 2 me
04:49, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
Thank you so much for all the help with the Zeta-Jones article, and I would be very grateful if you could take a look at the Jessica Chastain article that I have listed for peer review. Cheers! Krimuk|90 ( talk) 05:57, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
Hi Cass, You have previously been good enough to review one of the previous Bond novels; I have recently filed Dr No, Fleming's sixth Bond novel, at PR for further consideration. If you have the time or inclination, I'd be grateful for any comments you may have. No rush and no compunction at all, obviously. Cheers – SchroCat ( talk) 13:12, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
You probably shouldn't be directing what you said here at anyone. Just sayin'. Misceditor1000 ( talk) 00:19, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
For calling another editor "piece of shit" and "a filthy, disgusting specimen" [1] I am giving you a 72 hour block for personal attacks. I have warned you instead of blocking you on many occasions and it has not prevented this behaviour so a block is the next step. HighInBC 00:40, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
I was confused at first because I was not sure who they were talking about. I see now the person in question self identifies on their user page and it is clear they were indeed implying you were homophobic when you were in fact just belittling a another user for not having your illustrious editing history. The comment was beyond the pale and I have given a block accordingly.
In the future you can report this sort of thing to me or a noticeboard instead of choosing to engage in similar behaviour. HighInBC 00:59, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
Given that Newyorkbrad has unblocked Curly Turkey and their last edit indicated they are away from the wiki I have removed your block as time served. I see no value in one of you being blocked and the other not. I appreciate that you were provoked but you were also engaging in provocative statements. Let us chalk this up to a learning experience.
I would also like to say I think you have misjudged User:BU Rob13. In their 11 months here they have made over 30,000 contributions to this site. If you take the time to look at their contributions you will see they have given a lot to this project. HighInBC 02:39, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
You reverted my change adding the radio program The Black Museum to Scotland Yard with the simple comment "fascinating". Was that in error? "The Black Museum" was set in Scotland Yard's building and dramatized cases solved by its officers. I didn't want to simply revert your reversion without reaching out to you, but I don't see why it should not be included in the article, and your comment would tend to support that. SixFourThree ( talk) 14:31, 1 June 2016 (UTC)SixFourThree
( talk page stalker) I often think the "in popular culture" sections are just trivia magnets. I'd suggest deleting it all and leaving the opening sentance about how it is cultural shorthand for policing in popular fiction: there is no need for any of the multiple (and rather tenuous) examples given. – SchroCat ( talk) 16:04, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
Hi Cass, Many thanks for your comments and edits on Dr No. This is now at FAC, so if you happen to be passing through at any point and wish to make further comments, I'd be grateful to receive them; no problems if you are tied up with other matters, of course. Cheers. – SchroCat ( talk) 07:50, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
Precious again, your consistency in keeping Franz Kafka "clean"!
-- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 10:07, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
![]() |
The Million Award | |
For your contributions to bring Cary Grant (estimated annual readership: 500,000) to Good Article status, I hereby present you the Half Million Award. Congratulations on this rare accomplishment, and thanks for all you do for Wikipedia's readers! We hope ( talk) 11:44, 28 June 2016 (UTC) |
Thank you for your comments for Rossini's damned good music, - I feel it could be a FA some day, and if you want to be part of improving and nominating you are welcome. - Regarding the thread Oh man, where my name was often mentioned but I can't reply: I can't help thinking that a load of words on talk pages could have been avoided (or used for better purposes, like writing articles) if what I called " a little extra service for readers" about a year ago (13 August, to be precise) would have been kept or changed, instead of deleted. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 13:54, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
ps: it was on the Main page, illustrated by a featured picture, thanks to Adam Cuerden ;) -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 17:38, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
I don't know about you Cass but I think we've long been due an essay on this haha!♦ Dr. Blofeld 07:57, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
I've had about six or seven different accusations today and whenever I've asked to be shown evidence to back this accusation up not one person has done it. So I request you kindly, find me, where specifically, I hung BMK out to dry. Show me, where specifically, I called for a block orequivalent punishment. When you do that, I'll show you exactly where I said not to sanction BMK. Perhaps, even show you where I took back my words and did not hang you out to dry. Do me this one courtesy. After six accusations, ranging from liar to obstructionism to hanging out an editor to dry, I'd like just one to be based on merit. Mr rnddude ( talk) 15:18, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
I'd like to move on and let you get on with whatever you are working on. The diff where I called for BMK not be sanctioned is here [3]. Specifically, "needed addressing, not sanctioning." The very same comment which you responded with telling me I should be ashamed. Your call on whether you still think that or not. The diff, that you should be insulting me for is here [4], I used this one, because I removed the three comments (edits) in one go. That's all I have from my side, I don't know if there's anything you want to say, or sling, to me. So, for now, because I think, neither of us have an particularly wish to talk to the other, I think it's best that go our separate ways. Thank you, and have a good day. Good luck bringing more articles to FA standard. Bye, Mr rnddude ( talk) 05:55, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
HighInBC, can I politely ask you please stop inserting yourself into these conversations and take Cassianto's talk page off your watchlist? The comments clearly do not produce the effect you want (which is presumably a more civil conversation) and - as seen above - have the reverse effect. There are over 1,000 other admins who can handle this. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:27, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
" All God's Chillun Got Rhythm, I read as "All God's Chillum" ;-) Chillum got rhythm.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:11, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
Did you use Photoshop to create this picture File:Cassianto3.jpeg? -- Rainbow Archer ( talk) 15:38, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
10 July |
---|
Took only 300 years to restore a good name. - Thank you for your work on the article. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 06:24, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, Cass - very much appreciated. SagaciousPhil - Chat 21:00, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
Sorry about that misunderstanding earlier. I was just removing some of the unnecessary details involved with the Marilyn Monroe article as suggested by one its top editors. Informant16 July 17, 2016
the first paragraph of this [6]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.28.36.149 ( talk) 12:32, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
Hey, what is it that you specifically object to in this revert? My most recent edit corrected the date of the event to July, although you could just as well have done this yourself. And what is this about administrator stuff? Sandstein 07:25, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
Kailash29792 has aimed to make it an FA. Feel free to leave comments and do let me or him know if you intend to do so by pinging either of us. Thanks. — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 00:24, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
What ho! I've recently been working on a biography of a fascinating and important figure, Josephine Butler. The lady is now at PR for comment and consideration, and if you have the time and inclination I'd be grateful for any comments you may have (I know, however, that you are extremely busy in RL, so no pressure on you to comment). Cheers – SchroCat ( talk) 14:12, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
I meant to check those articles because the killing of Jo Cox was listed there. But I guess since you don't think it counts, I just removed it from those lists. You're welcome, I guess. Parsley Man ( talk) 16:24, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
The information that you have reverted from the Harry Nicolls (comedian) profile is inconsistent, as wikipedia has allowed our theatre heritage charity in the past to add factual information regarding the restoration of famous theatrical memorials and the installation of commemorative blue plaques. We would contend that this information is not encyclopaedic as it is a factual event and demonstrates a continued interest in the individual who is being commemorated. If you compare the information that you have reverted to other wikipedia profiles, you will see that information of this kind, plays an important part in establishing the person contribution to our collective heritage.
There is a new RfC at Plummer v. State RfC, dealing with the Internet meme section. Please visit and comment on the proposed language for the section. This is revised from the first proposal, and you are receiving this notice due to your participation in the first RfC. GregJackP Boomer! 20:35, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
Hi, I recently moved categories regarding criticisms of the school system and decided to add Kubrick based on the information in the section regarding his early life. I feel that he belongs there but if people want to remove him that's okay. MrAlienGuy101 ( talk) 20:29, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
Appreciate your note. Things do get heated at times. Coretheapple ( talk) 14:20, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
Hi, I don't think we've communicated before but I just put my 2p in at Blackpool Tower, sorry to disagree but, well I don't know anyone who calls it anything else. I looked at what you were up to and noticed your interest in Matcham. This is the Lucky Seven Bingo Club, EH's description, not mine so you'd never find it. It's a Frank Matcham theatre. It has an awful article at Theatre Royal, Wakefield but a nice pic. Hope this is useful. J3Mrs ( talk) 20:41, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
And thanks for the edits. I was getting rather exhausted! KJP1 ( talk) 20:33, 17 April 2017 (UTC) KJP1 ( talk) 20:33, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
Welcome back from me too. Hard to stay away, nay? Rothorpe ( talk) 19:55, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
The article is undergoing a FAR here. Please provide comments before it is closed. Thank you. — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 09:01, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
Good evening Cassianto. Thank you for the link to WP:BRD, which I had now reviewed. I don't consider your removal to be a necessity as laid out in the WP:BRD page however I shall leave it undiscussed. My initial edit was to add some additional detail to the events. However, I have no appeal to discuss in much details these awful events. Thank you for your time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bbx118 ( talk • contribs) 21:48, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello, Cassianto -- I was just looking at the latest edits to Bernard Lee. I see that in this edit, you removed "in" and replaced it with a comma, thereby modifying an edit just previous to yours in which an IP editor added "in Manchester" after "Rusholme". Since I had never heard of Rusholme, I clicked on the link and saw that it is a neighborhood or district within the city of Manchester. The way it is worded now:
it makes it seem as if "Rusholme, Manchester and Cardiff" are three separate cities. Just going by what I read in the article on Rusholme, "Rusholme is an inner-city area of Manchester, England, about two miles south of the city centre", it is not a separate city. I think it would help readers not familiar with either Manchester or Rusholme somehow to indicate that Rusholme is part of Manchester. However, neither the addition of "in Manchester" nor removing "in" and adding a comma seem to help much
With this wording, it could still sound like three separate cities, with the third "in" inadvertently left off. Perhaps this is what you reacted to after the addition of "in Manchester". Perhaps being more explicit would help:
(a) During the 1930s, after graduating from RADA, he initially worked in repertory theatre in Rusholme, a neighborhood of Manchester, and Cardiff...
Another possibility would be to change "Rusholme" to "Manchester", and it would be accurate as long as Rusholme was not a separate city at that time:
(b) During the 1930s, after graduating from RADA, he initially worked in repertory theatre in Manchester and Cardiff...
What do you think? Best regards, – Corinne ( talk) 03:06, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
Here is the sentence again for easy reference:
Since Rusholme is a neighborhood (district?) of Manchester, I believe Manchester should be followed by a comma. It would then look like this:
Either way – with or without the comma after Manchester – it looks like three separate cities. There should be some way of indicating that Rusholme is part of, or is included within, Manchester. I suggested one way – adding a phrase such as "a neighborhood (district?) of" before "Manchester". However, as you pointed out above, setting off "a neighborhood of Manchester" (or some similar phrase) with a pair of commas around it might suggest that it is some other neighborhood of which we don't know the name. It might work if the phrase were set off in dashes:
(1) During the 1930s, after graduating from RADA, he initially worked in repertory theatre in Rusholme – a neighborhood/district of Manchester – and Cardiff before beginning work on the West End stage in thrillers, such as Blind Man's Bluff.
Another possibility, suggested by FIM, is to put Manchester in parentheses (brackets):
(2) During the 1930s, after graduating from RADA, he initially worked in repertory theatre in Rusholme ( Manchester) and Cardiff before beginning work on the West End stage in thrillers, such as Blind Man's Bluff.
A third possibility is to change "Rusholme" to "Manchester":
(3) During the 1930s, after graduating from RADA, he initially worked in repertory theatre in Manchester and Cardiff before beginning work on the West End stage in thrillers, such as Blind Man's Bluff.
I think any of these would work, but I lean toward the third choice because it is more concise. What do you and FIM think? – Corinne ( talk) 16:28, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
I'll reopen the FLC so you can put your comments there, cheers. The Rambling Man ( talk) 08:38, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
Hi Cassianto,
Apologies for the delay but I dislocated my shoulder Easter Sunday and its still not quite back to full working order.
Sorry for the bad block. Without repeating everything that was said or done I believe that I read too much into the comment you left and misinterpreted it as being meant in a threatening manner hence the block. I don't believe a 3 month block for threatening another user would have been overkill if it had indeed been the case. Hopefully you can see where I was coming from and understand that at that time it seemed a reasonable action. Happy to discuss further if you want to. Amortias ( T)( C) 09:02, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
![]() |
The Technical Barnstar |
For recognising where drama is, and working to avoid it. MaranoFan ( talk) 10:24, 23 March 2016 (UTC) |
The consensus on Wikipedia is that the city is called DERRY. Please do not revert MOS changes. Thank you. xxx — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.152.123.85 ( talk) 23:22, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
Hey, I just re-nominated Kalki Koechlin's article for WP:FA. If you find spare time, would you mind taking a look? Thank you! Numerounovedant Talk 18:10, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
Hi, Cassianto. I've protected the article for four days in the hope that the content dispute will be worked out on talk. Please don't tell me who's right or wrong in the dispute, because I don't really care. And could you avoid Caden's page, please? There's so much history between the two of you that your posting there can't possibly do any good. Please stick to article talk. Bishonen | talk 19:19, 13 April 2016 (UTC).
Hi Cass, A brief note to let you know that Walt Disney is now at FAC, should you wish to visit and comment. Cheers! – SchroCat ( talk) 07:42, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
How about that, for a change? FAC Requiem (Reger), for the grave (centenary 11 May, soon), - and Brian did the norefs part already, -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 11:32, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
Hi Cass, I have recently been working on Walt Disney, which is now up for PR. If you have any plans to return in the near future, any thoughts or comments on his huge figure would be much appreciated; if not, enjoy your break and hope to see you back soon. Cheers – SchroCat ( talk) 11:39, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
Please don't engage in personal attacks as you did here. You can express your thoughts without name calling. HighInBC 22:00, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
Experience tells me that no amount of debate is going to sway you on your opinions about personal attacks. Suffice it to say the policy starts with "Do not make personal attacks anywhere in Wikipedia". The policy is just as enforceable regardless of your acceptance of it. I won't say another word on the matter unless the personal attacks continue. HighInBC 01:19, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
I have decided that this part of our no personal attack policy needs clarification. I assume you will have an opinion on the matter. The discussion can be found here: Wikipedia_talk:No_personal_attacks#Personal_attacks_against_groups_of_people. Hopefully we can get to the bottom of what the community expects in this matter. HighInBC 02:58, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
Cassianto our last exchange on this page ended with you deleting a comment I placed on this talk page with the editorial comment "Enough. Go and improve an article somewhere. You are really trying my patience now.)", yet now you add a comment to a talk page of an article that you have never edited and to which my first edit was made 11 years ago.
How does your comment (in the context a discussion to improve an article): " Yes PBS, boor off and go and do something constructive with your time." meet the requirements of talk page guideline: "Comment on content, not on the contributor: Keep the discussions focused upon the topic of the talk page, rather than on the personalities of the editors contributing to the talk page."? -- PBS ( talk) 05:59, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
"you have never edited and to which my first edit was made 11 years ago") and do something vaguely constructive elsewhere. – SchroCat ( talk) 06:53, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
Why did you have to link me to nucklevee, people are actually edit-warring to keep an explanatory note for a word that has actually been removed per talkpage consensus... Only in death does duty end ( talk) 13:52, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Hello, I'm
BracketBot. I have automatically detected that
your edit to
Olivia de Havilland may have broken the
syntax by modifying 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just
edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on
my operator's talk page.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot ( talk) 19:30, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
Hi Cassianto. I was wondering if you would like to post your observations about the Zeta-Jones article at its peer review? Would be awesome if you could. Cheers! Krimuk|90 ( talk) 06:07, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
@
Cassianto: I have uploaded a COA for
Archbishop Lawrence Booth & have provided evidence/references - see Talk. I should hope Wiki wishes to provide the best info but in this instance it would seem egos are getting in the way of admitting they are wrong.
L'honorable (
talk)
21:36, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
PS. qv.
Burke's Extinct and Dormant Baronetcies &
www.exploreyork.org.uk. I do not wish to argue about this for long when it is so patently correct - please advise. Many thanks.
I sent you a private email. Please read and let me know what you think. My condolences are with you during the period of blocking. CookieMonster755 📞 ✉ ✓ 18:25, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
I wont offer any sage advice, but here is some wellington boots resembling pints of Guinness. Apparently all the rage in Paris, don't you know. Ceoil ( talk) 08:45, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
Hello, Cassianto. I've listed the article for PR
here as I wish to take it to FA. Feel free to leave comments. Thanks.
—
Ssven2
Speak 2 me
04:49, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
Thank you so much for all the help with the Zeta-Jones article, and I would be very grateful if you could take a look at the Jessica Chastain article that I have listed for peer review. Cheers! Krimuk|90 ( talk) 05:57, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
Hi Cass, You have previously been good enough to review one of the previous Bond novels; I have recently filed Dr No, Fleming's sixth Bond novel, at PR for further consideration. If you have the time or inclination, I'd be grateful for any comments you may have. No rush and no compunction at all, obviously. Cheers – SchroCat ( talk) 13:12, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
You probably shouldn't be directing what you said here at anyone. Just sayin'. Misceditor1000 ( talk) 00:19, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
For calling another editor "piece of shit" and "a filthy, disgusting specimen" [1] I am giving you a 72 hour block for personal attacks. I have warned you instead of blocking you on many occasions and it has not prevented this behaviour so a block is the next step. HighInBC 00:40, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
I was confused at first because I was not sure who they were talking about. I see now the person in question self identifies on their user page and it is clear they were indeed implying you were homophobic when you were in fact just belittling a another user for not having your illustrious editing history. The comment was beyond the pale and I have given a block accordingly.
In the future you can report this sort of thing to me or a noticeboard instead of choosing to engage in similar behaviour. HighInBC 00:59, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
Given that Newyorkbrad has unblocked Curly Turkey and their last edit indicated they are away from the wiki I have removed your block as time served. I see no value in one of you being blocked and the other not. I appreciate that you were provoked but you were also engaging in provocative statements. Let us chalk this up to a learning experience.
I would also like to say I think you have misjudged User:BU Rob13. In their 11 months here they have made over 30,000 contributions to this site. If you take the time to look at their contributions you will see they have given a lot to this project. HighInBC 02:39, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
You reverted my change adding the radio program The Black Museum to Scotland Yard with the simple comment "fascinating". Was that in error? "The Black Museum" was set in Scotland Yard's building and dramatized cases solved by its officers. I didn't want to simply revert your reversion without reaching out to you, but I don't see why it should not be included in the article, and your comment would tend to support that. SixFourThree ( talk) 14:31, 1 June 2016 (UTC)SixFourThree
( talk page stalker) I often think the "in popular culture" sections are just trivia magnets. I'd suggest deleting it all and leaving the opening sentance about how it is cultural shorthand for policing in popular fiction: there is no need for any of the multiple (and rather tenuous) examples given. – SchroCat ( talk) 16:04, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
Hi Cass, Many thanks for your comments and edits on Dr No. This is now at FAC, so if you happen to be passing through at any point and wish to make further comments, I'd be grateful to receive them; no problems if you are tied up with other matters, of course. Cheers. – SchroCat ( talk) 07:50, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
Precious again, your consistency in keeping Franz Kafka "clean"!
-- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 10:07, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
![]() |
The Million Award | |
For your contributions to bring Cary Grant (estimated annual readership: 500,000) to Good Article status, I hereby present you the Half Million Award. Congratulations on this rare accomplishment, and thanks for all you do for Wikipedia's readers! We hope ( talk) 11:44, 28 June 2016 (UTC) |
Thank you for your comments for Rossini's damned good music, - I feel it could be a FA some day, and if you want to be part of improving and nominating you are welcome. - Regarding the thread Oh man, where my name was often mentioned but I can't reply: I can't help thinking that a load of words on talk pages could have been avoided (or used for better purposes, like writing articles) if what I called " a little extra service for readers" about a year ago (13 August, to be precise) would have been kept or changed, instead of deleted. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 13:54, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
ps: it was on the Main page, illustrated by a featured picture, thanks to Adam Cuerden ;) -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 17:38, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
I don't know about you Cass but I think we've long been due an essay on this haha!♦ Dr. Blofeld 07:57, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
I've had about six or seven different accusations today and whenever I've asked to be shown evidence to back this accusation up not one person has done it. So I request you kindly, find me, where specifically, I hung BMK out to dry. Show me, where specifically, I called for a block orequivalent punishment. When you do that, I'll show you exactly where I said not to sanction BMK. Perhaps, even show you where I took back my words and did not hang you out to dry. Do me this one courtesy. After six accusations, ranging from liar to obstructionism to hanging out an editor to dry, I'd like just one to be based on merit. Mr rnddude ( talk) 15:18, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
I'd like to move on and let you get on with whatever you are working on. The diff where I called for BMK not be sanctioned is here [3]. Specifically, "needed addressing, not sanctioning." The very same comment which you responded with telling me I should be ashamed. Your call on whether you still think that or not. The diff, that you should be insulting me for is here [4], I used this one, because I removed the three comments (edits) in one go. That's all I have from my side, I don't know if there's anything you want to say, or sling, to me. So, for now, because I think, neither of us have an particularly wish to talk to the other, I think it's best that go our separate ways. Thank you, and have a good day. Good luck bringing more articles to FA standard. Bye, Mr rnddude ( talk) 05:55, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
HighInBC, can I politely ask you please stop inserting yourself into these conversations and take Cassianto's talk page off your watchlist? The comments clearly do not produce the effect you want (which is presumably a more civil conversation) and - as seen above - have the reverse effect. There are over 1,000 other admins who can handle this. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:27, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
" All God's Chillun Got Rhythm, I read as "All God's Chillum" ;-) Chillum got rhythm.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:11, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
Did you use Photoshop to create this picture File:Cassianto3.jpeg? -- Rainbow Archer ( talk) 15:38, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
10 July |
---|
Took only 300 years to restore a good name. - Thank you for your work on the article. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 06:24, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, Cass - very much appreciated. SagaciousPhil - Chat 21:00, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
Sorry about that misunderstanding earlier. I was just removing some of the unnecessary details involved with the Marilyn Monroe article as suggested by one its top editors. Informant16 July 17, 2016
the first paragraph of this [6]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.28.36.149 ( talk) 12:32, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
Hey, what is it that you specifically object to in this revert? My most recent edit corrected the date of the event to July, although you could just as well have done this yourself. And what is this about administrator stuff? Sandstein 07:25, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
Kailash29792 has aimed to make it an FA. Feel free to leave comments and do let me or him know if you intend to do so by pinging either of us. Thanks. — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 00:24, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
What ho! I've recently been working on a biography of a fascinating and important figure, Josephine Butler. The lady is now at PR for comment and consideration, and if you have the time and inclination I'd be grateful for any comments you may have (I know, however, that you are extremely busy in RL, so no pressure on you to comment). Cheers – SchroCat ( talk) 14:12, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
I meant to check those articles because the killing of Jo Cox was listed there. But I guess since you don't think it counts, I just removed it from those lists. You're welcome, I guess. Parsley Man ( talk) 16:24, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
The information that you have reverted from the Harry Nicolls (comedian) profile is inconsistent, as wikipedia has allowed our theatre heritage charity in the past to add factual information regarding the restoration of famous theatrical memorials and the installation of commemorative blue plaques. We would contend that this information is not encyclopaedic as it is a factual event and demonstrates a continued interest in the individual who is being commemorated. If you compare the information that you have reverted to other wikipedia profiles, you will see that information of this kind, plays an important part in establishing the person contribution to our collective heritage.
There is a new RfC at Plummer v. State RfC, dealing with the Internet meme section. Please visit and comment on the proposed language for the section. This is revised from the first proposal, and you are receiving this notice due to your participation in the first RfC. GregJackP Boomer! 20:35, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
Hi, I recently moved categories regarding criticisms of the school system and decided to add Kubrick based on the information in the section regarding his early life. I feel that he belongs there but if people want to remove him that's okay. MrAlienGuy101 ( talk) 20:29, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
Appreciate your note. Things do get heated at times. Coretheapple ( talk) 14:20, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
Hi, I don't think we've communicated before but I just put my 2p in at Blackpool Tower, sorry to disagree but, well I don't know anyone who calls it anything else. I looked at what you were up to and noticed your interest in Matcham. This is the Lucky Seven Bingo Club, EH's description, not mine so you'd never find it. It's a Frank Matcham theatre. It has an awful article at Theatre Royal, Wakefield but a nice pic. Hope this is useful. J3Mrs ( talk) 20:41, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
And thanks for the edits. I was getting rather exhausted! KJP1 ( talk) 20:33, 17 April 2017 (UTC) KJP1 ( talk) 20:33, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
Welcome back from me too. Hard to stay away, nay? Rothorpe ( talk) 19:55, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
The article is undergoing a FAR here. Please provide comments before it is closed. Thank you. — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 09:01, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
Good evening Cassianto. Thank you for the link to WP:BRD, which I had now reviewed. I don't consider your removal to be a necessity as laid out in the WP:BRD page however I shall leave it undiscussed. My initial edit was to add some additional detail to the events. However, I have no appeal to discuss in much details these awful events. Thank you for your time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bbx118 ( talk • contribs) 21:48, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello, Cassianto -- I was just looking at the latest edits to Bernard Lee. I see that in this edit, you removed "in" and replaced it with a comma, thereby modifying an edit just previous to yours in which an IP editor added "in Manchester" after "Rusholme". Since I had never heard of Rusholme, I clicked on the link and saw that it is a neighborhood or district within the city of Manchester. The way it is worded now:
it makes it seem as if "Rusholme, Manchester and Cardiff" are three separate cities. Just going by what I read in the article on Rusholme, "Rusholme is an inner-city area of Manchester, England, about two miles south of the city centre", it is not a separate city. I think it would help readers not familiar with either Manchester or Rusholme somehow to indicate that Rusholme is part of Manchester. However, neither the addition of "in Manchester" nor removing "in" and adding a comma seem to help much
With this wording, it could still sound like three separate cities, with the third "in" inadvertently left off. Perhaps this is what you reacted to after the addition of "in Manchester". Perhaps being more explicit would help:
(a) During the 1930s, after graduating from RADA, he initially worked in repertory theatre in Rusholme, a neighborhood of Manchester, and Cardiff...
Another possibility would be to change "Rusholme" to "Manchester", and it would be accurate as long as Rusholme was not a separate city at that time:
(b) During the 1930s, after graduating from RADA, he initially worked in repertory theatre in Manchester and Cardiff...
What do you think? Best regards, – Corinne ( talk) 03:06, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
Here is the sentence again for easy reference:
Since Rusholme is a neighborhood (district?) of Manchester, I believe Manchester should be followed by a comma. It would then look like this:
Either way – with or without the comma after Manchester – it looks like three separate cities. There should be some way of indicating that Rusholme is part of, or is included within, Manchester. I suggested one way – adding a phrase such as "a neighborhood (district?) of" before "Manchester". However, as you pointed out above, setting off "a neighborhood of Manchester" (or some similar phrase) with a pair of commas around it might suggest that it is some other neighborhood of which we don't know the name. It might work if the phrase were set off in dashes:
(1) During the 1930s, after graduating from RADA, he initially worked in repertory theatre in Rusholme – a neighborhood/district of Manchester – and Cardiff before beginning work on the West End stage in thrillers, such as Blind Man's Bluff.
Another possibility, suggested by FIM, is to put Manchester in parentheses (brackets):
(2) During the 1930s, after graduating from RADA, he initially worked in repertory theatre in Rusholme ( Manchester) and Cardiff before beginning work on the West End stage in thrillers, such as Blind Man's Bluff.
A third possibility is to change "Rusholme" to "Manchester":
(3) During the 1930s, after graduating from RADA, he initially worked in repertory theatre in Manchester and Cardiff before beginning work on the West End stage in thrillers, such as Blind Man's Bluff.
I think any of these would work, but I lean toward the third choice because it is more concise. What do you and FIM think? – Corinne ( talk) 16:28, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
I'll reopen the FLC so you can put your comments there, cheers. The Rambling Man ( talk) 08:38, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
Hi Cassianto,
Apologies for the delay but I dislocated my shoulder Easter Sunday and its still not quite back to full working order.
Sorry for the bad block. Without repeating everything that was said or done I believe that I read too much into the comment you left and misinterpreted it as being meant in a threatening manner hence the block. I don't believe a 3 month block for threatening another user would have been overkill if it had indeed been the case. Hopefully you can see where I was coming from and understand that at that time it seemed a reasonable action. Happy to discuss further if you want to. Amortias ( T)( C) 09:02, 29 May 2017 (UTC)