This 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. |
Archive 5 | ← | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 |
Little Tich has been scheduled for the above date as
Today's Featured Article. I'd appreciate it if you could check the article one more time to make sure it's up-to-date. You're welcome but not obligated to edit the text that will appear on the Main Page; I'll be trimming it to around 1100 characters. Thanks! - Dank (
push to talk)
03:53, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
Can you please explain why you felt the need to remove so much sourced information and photos from the article above? In future, please discuss rather than revert and conduct yourself in a more civilised fashion. 89.242.207.189 ( talk) 09:30, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
You're referring to the wrong edit, I'm referring to edits made on June 17th. 89.242.196.207 ( talk) 11:39, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
Hadn't noticed the copy-vio - I'm out of practise that way. It doubly doesn't belong in the article if that's the case. Kafka Liz ( talk) 18:00, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
See if these help-not quite sure at present where you'd like to put them. We hope ( talk) 22:29, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
Hi, Cassianto! There was a discussion a while ago about the infobox in the actress' article. At the time, it was decided that the article was better off without infobox because the ib is basically the first two sentences (it is ridiculous). When did they find a consensus to add it back? – FrB.TG ( talk) 12:05, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
Just curious, why did you remove the part about Daniel Craig being signed on as James Bond for Bond 25? RyanDanielst ( talk) 15:00, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
Yes it did. Thank you. RyanDanielst ( talk) 00:23, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
Anniversary | |
Precious the coprolite is here to remind you that it was one year ago this week you left Wikipedia over the infobox conflicts. We hope ( talk) 00:29, 28 August 2017 (UTC) |
Congratulations! | |
Well done! So delighted to hear your wonderful news! SagaciousPhil - Chat 10:31, 15 September 2017 (UTC) |
Congratulations! :-)♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:57, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
Many congratulations from the all the 333 family too. I would expand on that but as you haven't said what the good news is on-wiki I'd probably get desysopped for WP:OUTING, so I won't. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:56, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
From me too-more refreshments! ;)
We hope (
talk)
16:20, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
Bishzilla is incapable of discretion]. Congratulations! Cigars to all! bishzilla ROARR!! 14:50, 20 September 2017 (UTC).
Welcome back! I know you have your hands full at the moment with a few things, but I have recently been working on the rather shocking Aberfan disaster; the article is now at PR. Should you have the time and inclination, I would be absolutely delighted to hear any thoughts and comments you may have about its suitability for a push to FAC. Cheers – SchroCat ( talk) 14:13, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
This is to let you know that the Dan Leno article has been scheduled as today's featured article for 18 October 2017. Please check the article needs no amendments. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/October 18, 2017. Thanks! Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 15:42, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
Cass, if I was to put this up for PR, could I tap you for thoughts. Ceoil ( talk) 15:51, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
Thankyou Ceoil for your work on it!♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:29, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
7&6=thirteen (
☎) has given you a
Dobos torte to enjoy! Seven layers of fun because you deserve it.
To give a Dobos torte and spread the WikiLove, just place {{ subst:Dobos Torte}} on someone else's talkpage, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. |
7&6=thirteen ( ☎) 21:30, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
Many thanks indeed for the second sandbox, that will be very helpful. One other thing, I cannot archive my Talkpage, which now has more entries than can easily be read. Any advice much appreciated, or feel free to go ahead and do it! So where is Frank up to? I've left some comments at Aberfan, and must leave some at St Fin's, but it would be great to offer some up on the architectural impresario. Thanks and all the best. KJP1 ( talk) 12:28, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Spa Pump Room, Hockley, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bath ( 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) 11:40, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
Following on from the Dan Leno discussion on Dan's talk page, I'm scheduling January 2018 next time out. I suggest that in early December you email or post on my talk page to remind me and say which of your unused FAs you would like to run, assuming they're all still available. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 18:15, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
Hi Cassianto. It looks like some of your talk page archives were moved and then deleted by mistake.
I see England, I see France, I see Drmies's underpants. [4] Bishonen | talk 20:56, 5 October 2017 (UTC).
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. [Nothing personal, Cassianto--I am looking for a good way to stop this. Or you could tell me you'll stay away from the AfD.] Drmies ( talk) 21:36, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
Hi! I've requested a peer review for Fawad Khan, it was listed as GA but failed FAC. It'd be kind of you to review it.( Wikipedia:Peer review/Fawad Khan/archive1). Thanks Amirk94391 ( talk) 03:59, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
How very big of you. Jump out of know here to defend a dreadful user. Aren't you a big user. You clearly along with the other user have an issue with the Mirror as a source. even when it is part of a wider set out sources. This appears to be cherry-picking the removal of one source as it is disliked. I cannot for the life of me get my head round this kind of hatred and minutiae on this topic. If you have an actual reason beyond. Don't like, I would like to hear it. I cannot though see that simply because a newspaper is a tabloid, and part of a large number of sources, it should be removed. What next there is a secret code of which sources can and cannot be used, even when they are part of a wider context. Are all blogs removed, even when used with other sources. Are TV news reports from Fox removed because of its tabloid nature.Where does this stop. This feels like you jumped out to defend someone on an issue I have never seen you on before, and as far As I can tell you and I have never interacted before. This smells fishy, and stinks of canvassing. Threatening me also goes to back this up. If you genuinely wanted to resolve the issue there is a talk page for constructive discussion, perpetuating the edit conflict, makes you just as bad as you think I am. Do you not see the hypocrisy. I welcome you to the discussion, I do though take issue with threats, and with blasé ignorance of an issue, and no attempt to have a discussion on the topic. Look at it from my point of view. I am having a discussion with one user, and then along comes another defending them to the back teeth, and starts making treats against me. You need to see that is confrontational. Discussions, are on going, I am just not going to engage in the distractions and futility being attempted by the user you are defending to the hilt. talk first or nothing good will occur. I have been more than constructive, by adding a boat load more sources, and all the other user and now you want to do is, fixate on one of those sources. It seems very odd to me, almost like a crusade against the Mirror. Sport and politics ( talk) 18:13, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
I have replied to your comment on my talk page. Please will you reply. Rillington ( talk) 22:33, 20 October 2017 (UTC)}
Try not to use insults when addressing other editors that you are having disagreements with, even if you feel there has been provocation. It doesn't help to resolve the ongoing issues and usually just gets the other editor's back up. See WP:DR for suggestions on dispute resolution. If you think another editor is engaging in a pattern of unconstructive editing and they are not willing to discuss the matter, then ANI is the place to sort it out. Thanks. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 14:14, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
This 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. |
Archive 5 | ← | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 |
Little Tich has been scheduled for the above date as
Today's Featured Article. I'd appreciate it if you could check the article one more time to make sure it's up-to-date. You're welcome but not obligated to edit the text that will appear on the Main Page; I'll be trimming it to around 1100 characters. Thanks! - Dank (
push to talk)
03:53, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
Can you please explain why you felt the need to remove so much sourced information and photos from the article above? In future, please discuss rather than revert and conduct yourself in a more civilised fashion. 89.242.207.189 ( talk) 09:30, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
You're referring to the wrong edit, I'm referring to edits made on June 17th. 89.242.196.207 ( talk) 11:39, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
Hadn't noticed the copy-vio - I'm out of practise that way. It doubly doesn't belong in the article if that's the case. Kafka Liz ( talk) 18:00, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
See if these help-not quite sure at present where you'd like to put them. We hope ( talk) 22:29, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
Hi, Cassianto! There was a discussion a while ago about the infobox in the actress' article. At the time, it was decided that the article was better off without infobox because the ib is basically the first two sentences (it is ridiculous). When did they find a consensus to add it back? – FrB.TG ( talk) 12:05, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
Just curious, why did you remove the part about Daniel Craig being signed on as James Bond for Bond 25? RyanDanielst ( talk) 15:00, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
Yes it did. Thank you. RyanDanielst ( talk) 00:23, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
Anniversary | |
Precious the coprolite is here to remind you that it was one year ago this week you left Wikipedia over the infobox conflicts. We hope ( talk) 00:29, 28 August 2017 (UTC) |
Congratulations! | |
Well done! So delighted to hear your wonderful news! SagaciousPhil - Chat 10:31, 15 September 2017 (UTC) |
Congratulations! :-)♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:57, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
Many congratulations from the all the 333 family too. I would expand on that but as you haven't said what the good news is on-wiki I'd probably get desysopped for WP:OUTING, so I won't. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:56, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
From me too-more refreshments! ;)
We hope (
talk)
16:20, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
Bishzilla is incapable of discretion]. Congratulations! Cigars to all! bishzilla ROARR!! 14:50, 20 September 2017 (UTC).
Welcome back! I know you have your hands full at the moment with a few things, but I have recently been working on the rather shocking Aberfan disaster; the article is now at PR. Should you have the time and inclination, I would be absolutely delighted to hear any thoughts and comments you may have about its suitability for a push to FAC. Cheers – SchroCat ( talk) 14:13, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
This is to let you know that the Dan Leno article has been scheduled as today's featured article for 18 October 2017. Please check the article needs no amendments. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/October 18, 2017. Thanks! Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 15:42, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
Cass, if I was to put this up for PR, could I tap you for thoughts. Ceoil ( talk) 15:51, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
Thankyou Ceoil for your work on it!♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:29, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
7&6=thirteen (
☎) has given you a
Dobos torte to enjoy! Seven layers of fun because you deserve it.
To give a Dobos torte and spread the WikiLove, just place {{ subst:Dobos Torte}} on someone else's talkpage, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. |
7&6=thirteen ( ☎) 21:30, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
Many thanks indeed for the second sandbox, that will be very helpful. One other thing, I cannot archive my Talkpage, which now has more entries than can easily be read. Any advice much appreciated, or feel free to go ahead and do it! So where is Frank up to? I've left some comments at Aberfan, and must leave some at St Fin's, but it would be great to offer some up on the architectural impresario. Thanks and all the best. KJP1 ( talk) 12:28, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Spa Pump Room, Hockley, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bath ( 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) 11:40, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
Following on from the Dan Leno discussion on Dan's talk page, I'm scheduling January 2018 next time out. I suggest that in early December you email or post on my talk page to remind me and say which of your unused FAs you would like to run, assuming they're all still available. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 18:15, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
Hi Cassianto. It looks like some of your talk page archives were moved and then deleted by mistake.
I see England, I see France, I see Drmies's underpants. [4] Bishonen | talk 20:56, 5 October 2017 (UTC).
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. [Nothing personal, Cassianto--I am looking for a good way to stop this. Or you could tell me you'll stay away from the AfD.] Drmies ( talk) 21:36, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
Hi! I've requested a peer review for Fawad Khan, it was listed as GA but failed FAC. It'd be kind of you to review it.( Wikipedia:Peer review/Fawad Khan/archive1). Thanks Amirk94391 ( talk) 03:59, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
How very big of you. Jump out of know here to defend a dreadful user. Aren't you a big user. You clearly along with the other user have an issue with the Mirror as a source. even when it is part of a wider set out sources. This appears to be cherry-picking the removal of one source as it is disliked. I cannot for the life of me get my head round this kind of hatred and minutiae on this topic. If you have an actual reason beyond. Don't like, I would like to hear it. I cannot though see that simply because a newspaper is a tabloid, and part of a large number of sources, it should be removed. What next there is a secret code of which sources can and cannot be used, even when they are part of a wider context. Are all blogs removed, even when used with other sources. Are TV news reports from Fox removed because of its tabloid nature.Where does this stop. This feels like you jumped out to defend someone on an issue I have never seen you on before, and as far As I can tell you and I have never interacted before. This smells fishy, and stinks of canvassing. Threatening me also goes to back this up. If you genuinely wanted to resolve the issue there is a talk page for constructive discussion, perpetuating the edit conflict, makes you just as bad as you think I am. Do you not see the hypocrisy. I welcome you to the discussion, I do though take issue with threats, and with blasé ignorance of an issue, and no attempt to have a discussion on the topic. Look at it from my point of view. I am having a discussion with one user, and then along comes another defending them to the back teeth, and starts making treats against me. You need to see that is confrontational. Discussions, are on going, I am just not going to engage in the distractions and futility being attempted by the user you are defending to the hilt. talk first or nothing good will occur. I have been more than constructive, by adding a boat load more sources, and all the other user and now you want to do is, fixate on one of those sources. It seems very odd to me, almost like a crusade against the Mirror. Sport and politics ( talk) 18:13, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
I have replied to your comment on my talk page. Please will you reply. Rillington ( talk) 22:33, 20 October 2017 (UTC)}
Try not to use insults when addressing other editors that you are having disagreements with, even if you feel there has been provocation. It doesn't help to resolve the ongoing issues and usually just gets the other editor's back up. See WP:DR for suggestions on dispute resolution. If you think another editor is engaging in a pattern of unconstructive editing and they are not willing to discuss the matter, then ANI is the place to sort it out. Thanks. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 14:14, 24 November 2017 (UTC)