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. |
Welcome back! | |
A toast to your return, my friend! We hope ( talk) 19:08, 6 March 2015 (UTC) |
Many thanks We hope. It's Friday and I shall enjoy just that! Cassianto Talk 19:13, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
The Special Barnstar | ||
for suggesting that all should not respond to baiting, not just admins. But admins should since they have the blocking tool Wowee Zowee public ( talk) 20:43, 14 March 2015 (UTC) |
I have opened the 2nd PR as the article's first FAC is withdrawn due to MoS issues. Feel free to leave comments. — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 14:35, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
Last year you kindly contributed to the above article's peer review or or FAC or both. An issue has arisen from yesterday's TFA appearance, and is under discussion on the article's talk. Briefly: an editor added into the text the cited information that Bondfield's was privately known as "Maggie", and then incorporated this into the lead so the subject appeared as Margaret Grace ("Maggie") Bondfield. I have removed the nickname from the lead, and stated my position on the talkpage. I would be pleased if you could visit and briefly comment there. Brianboulton ( talk) 16:39, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
I've just lost all my bloody responses to you in an edit conflict! KJP1 ( talk) 16:16, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
Thankyou for your input into the peer review. The article is now at FAC. Cheers.♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:09, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
Very much appreciate your input into the article and your Support. KJP1 ( talk) 05:56, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
Hi Cass, Many thanks for your thoughts on Live and Let Die at the recent peer review. The article is now at FAC for wider consideration should you wish to comment further once the spurious block expires. Cheers - SchroCat ( talk) 09:31, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
Hi Cass, You were kind enough to comment at PR and FAC on Casino Royale; could I ask for a similar favour for the next instalment of the Bond series: Live and Let Die, which is now at PR? Any thoughts or comments would be greatly appreciated. Cheers – SchroCat ( talk) 11:59, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
So I'm being accused of being a racist now am I [1]? ♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:02, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
Sledgehammer, nut, censorship, loss of perspective by an involved admin. Hands up who is surprised.... No? No takers? - SchroCat ( talk) 21:18, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
If you've got some free time - a look over the smoothness of the prose of either Telopea oreades or Corona Borealis, both of which are at FAC but moving slowly, would be much appreciated...sometimes I find that retrospectively when reviews are slow it's because the prose might have put folks off......cheers, Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 12:26, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
I have opened the 2nd FAC for the article. Please do let me know if you would like to make any comments. Thanks. — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 02:47, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
In a bold spirit of cooperation, might I impose upon you to take a peek at my first article? I caught a red-link on the Hemi page, and created an article on the red-linked Fiat 130 HP Grand Prix racer. It's not in depth, or anything - I just want to ensure that I have made no egregious mistakes. Thanks in advance! ScrapIronIV ( talk) 19:21, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
Just a quick question about WP:BLP sources. If an online source is no longer available (taken down by the site) then what is to be done with the assertions that are attributed to it? The original information was supplied in a .pdf on the subject's website, and is no longer available. As the individual is an entertainer, the only replacement sources I have been able to find are from entertainment sites, and I have been told that those are unacceptable sources. Thanks for your advice! ScrapIronIV ( talk) 20:19, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
Indeed, Cassianto. I spent a long time lurking before dipping my oars into the water here, and then there were bad first impressions. I have learned a few to stay away from, and I am pleasantly surprised at how mistaken I was of others. At this point, I am trying to take things more slowly, assess more, act less quickly. Like my Army days, it's a question of rules, not emotions. I am learning to be more rules-oriented again. I think the most important thing for me to succeed here will be to stay away from subjects I am passionate about. That, and realizing that I just may be wrong sometimes - to admit it, learn and move on. At my age, that's not as easy as it used to be. So, I will stick to things I know very little about, learn more about research and sourcing, and actually try to contribute - not "promote" or "defend." ScrapIronIV ( talk) 14:35, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Albert Chevalier, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Richmond ( 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) 09:21, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
Hi Cass, I have recently been working on the Burning of Parliament, which is now at PR for comment. Any input you could have would be much appreciated. Cheers – SchroCat ( talk) 20:02, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
/info/en/?search=User_talk:Floquenbeam#Sorry_for_everything. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HondaS2200fan ( talk • contribs) 17:17, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
Can you tell me why you reverted my sourced edit with the edit summary 'no, I don't think so'? AusLondonder ( talk) 20:08, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
Thanks so much for the kind message and the barnstar - you made my day! Helenabella (Talk) 08:45, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
You once asked me what my intentions were with this article, and I never responded. What would be the next step to improve it, maybe get it up to GA status? Scr★pIron IV 19:02, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
It is as comprehensive as the sources I have available to me can make it. There is, unfortunately, not an awful lot of material I can find on it. I will take a look over at WP:GAN - I have never visted that part of Wikipedia. Scr★pIron IV 19:53, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
I think the Nielsen photo issues are the most difficult image problem I've had to try solving. With the requirement for dual licensing, if you have the requirements for one license, you don't for the other. I managed to get a photo from a HathiTrust book last night which is PD in the US-so that can be our "if all else fails" choice, and I see that the Nielsen Museum has uploaded some CC acceptable licensed photos to Flickr.
If I stay away from those picturing his wife's sculpture (copyright concerns), I should be able to upload some of them to Commons; they can "flesh out" the article if needed. I realize the other photos should be included in the article, but with the deadline looming large, there's just not enough time for someone to contact the Museum and the Danish Royal Library to ask about OTRS. There's nothing stopping anyone from trying to get approval on the photos after the Featured Article decision has been made and to include any approved at a later time. Think that someone like Crisco, who hasn't uploaded any photos and isn't a main editor of the article, should make any photo removal decisions which might be necessary. Anyone who says WP has no deadlines isn't involved with the Carl Neilsen FAC! :-D We hope ( talk) 13:43, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
Hi Cassianto. I didn't add any substantial information to the Palmyra article. I believe it was an anon editor who added the unsourced ISIS sentence in the history section. I just did a few minor copyedits throughout the article in order to improve the flow and readability. Regards. Gizza ( t)( c) 07:47, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
The information that you, so kindly revised!, was new source material, I have now sourced this CORRECT information to the best of my ability (not being an html pro) and as such information is not simply avaliable at a simple web link! so don't go randomly revoking good peoples' work! Tad102 ( talk) 18:10, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
Good evening (or morning, or night), Cassianto, how are you? All well I hope. This is a note to let you know that Mutiny on the Bounty, on which Brian and I have been working over the past month or so, is now up at peer review here. Any contributions you might care to make would be more than welcome if you can find the time. Cheers and all the best, — Cliftonian (talk) 21:59, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
Just put up Ahmed Zayat. Entertaining character, racehorse owner and entrepreneur. Owns American Pharoah. Montanabw (talk) 07:46, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
Dr. Blofeld, I am not a tenditious editor and I do appreciate your work - just wanted you to know that. Secondly, Montanabw, you've been on WP long enough to know that casting aspersions is actionable whether you name the editors or not. It's easy enough to find out who you are referring to and I take issue with your incivility. I have never had the opportunity to collaborate with Blofeld, Cassianto, you or the other nameless editor you referred to but you are poisoning the well. Perhaps if you had taken a different approach, I would have been happy to review the GAN for you. Please get that attitude adjusted and AGF. Thank you. -- Atsme 📞 📧 13:41, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
(watching, yes, Cassianto, one of your fans): The article is already under review, and, ScrapIronIV, Eric just patiently waits for that block to go away, I just wait for my parole to go away - only 6 more months minus 2 days ;) - try to take the negative easy and build content, - I have a friend who wrote me IGNORE IGNORE IGNORE once, and it really helps, - I enjoyed the ride on an article with you! -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 14:14, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
Time for a beer award | |
Time for a nice cold beer, I'd say. Winter has hit hard here and it is 7 C...so I am drinking a guiness. But I do like Hoegaarden and I saw this picture....curious... Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 08:09, 5 June 2015 (UTC) |
Cas: it's barely 10 degrees here (it's supposed to be summer) and that isn't allowing for the wind chill factor! I must bear in mind this isn't a social network, so I'll try to decide whether to do some more work on our latest feminist, have a stroll through the components of a fascinating building or do some more expansion on an interesting character. And I'll have some Chardonnay or a gin and tonic, please. SagaciousPhil - Chat 09:00, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
I am so jealous. Take photos. Australia is so goddamn far from anywhere...my son wanted to go see a castle...and the closest castley-looking thing is Borobudur.... Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 09:27, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
Cassianto, please find me 10 missing articles on Saint Barthélemy I can put up on the Intertranswiki board. I'll need your help stubbing a few of course :-)♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:12, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
I know you are on vacation (and I do hope you are having a marvelous time!) but if you think of it, I cam across some information about John Grimek, and am looking to improve his article. It is an area I am personally unfamiliar with, and would appreciate collaborating again with you on some article content. The biggest challenges I am facing are image acquisition Strength & Health magazine covers were used in the past, but deleted in 2007 for fair use counter example #8. As he was the subject of (multiple) covers of that magazine and was also its editor, I think it might actually be appropriate. I went into the article's history, and the fact that he was also the magazine's editor was not taken into account when the image was deleted. The other issue I am coming across is that articles on this subject are often blogs or personal histories, and the only biography I know of his life was published in England, and out of print now. Personal histories may work; I have an electronic copy of the Iron Game History issue from which was dedicated to his life after his passing, and induction to the IBFF Hall of Fame. Scr★pIron IV 14:30, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
Grazie caro Cassianto! (I hope you don't mind me removing your kind welcome message to avoid misunderstandings - I prefer to contribute as a gf logged-out editor). Regarding Jack Bologna, I was intrigued to find out where he and his family emigrated from. According to Dickens's Memoirs of Joseph Grimaldi (primary/secondary sourcing?) they moved to London from Genova. Best, 109.146.70.40 ( talk) 20:52, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
I was going to ask if you were interested in expanding this I just started but as Stronzo blocked you I guess not.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:34, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
Just for clarity, and out of politeness, your talk page being protected, and then unprotected, is being discussed at WP:ANI, at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Chillum overstepping reasonable boundaries of adminship. The Rambling Man ( talk) 17:12, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
Evening Cass, Tim riley and I have been working on P.G. Wodehouse and have now launched him on both the main page and now at PR. If you have time when you're back from the beach, or inclination, your thoughts would be much appreciated. Pip pip! – SchroCat ( talk) 21:06, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
Tantrums and Tomfoolery |
---|
== User conduct ==
Hello, Recently it's been brought to my attention that there are some concerns about your recent conduct. Please take the time to review the civility policy and become familiar with the expected level of conduct towards other users. Thanks, Mike V • Talk 22:45, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
Please stop with the persistent uncivil comments, such as this. Further instances will result in a block. Mike V • Talk 16:23, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
|
I have blocked Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi for personal attacks here. The behaviour others here have not been much better. Further personal attack blocks can be handed out if people are not able to converse without resorting to childish name calling. Chillum 18:54, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
Cassianto, I have blocked your account for 48 hours for persistent personal attacks towards others. I have also revoked your talk page access since you have used it to continue to make inappropriate comments. If you wish, you may appeal your block through UTRS. Mike V • Talk 18:58, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
Thought you might be interested in the ongoing discussion about sock-puppetry and ip-falsifying software at Impact of paid editors and false ip software on admin elections
Cheers,
Scott P. ( talk) 00:10, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
I briefly thought Wikipedia had been taken over by Himmler or Pol Pot. Glad to see you're now acknowledged again as existing. Meanwhile, P. G. Wodehouse is at PR, courtesy of self and another old lag. All comments gladly received once you're back from your break. Tim riley talk 20:35, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
Not another peanut gallery... Time for another lock! ;-)♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:49, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
Mike V and Chillum, is there a reason as to why I'm still blocked and Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi is allowed to edit here?. That's funny, I didn't see an appeal? Chillum continues to make the rules up as he goes along, why am I not surprised? Cassianto Talk 16:40, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
I am not sure why you are pinging me or what this has to do with you. I blocked a user for personal attacks and this user responded in a mature fashion that led me to believe the block was not preventative any more. Are you suggesting that I should not reverse my own blocks without some sort of special process? Chillum 19:55, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
-- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 13:17, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I have seen that you have contributed a lot to article creation. But please don't use swear/indecent words in talk pages. And don't see blocks as punishment. Even @ SchroCat: has made huge contribution to articles. Joking/taunts without any cuss words can be allowed if they are not personal attacks. You see movies have ratings like PG-13, Universal according to profanity. It's not nice that two valuable contributors of Wikipedia will have such block logs. I think you know how to deal with such users WP:DNFTT WP:DNIV. You are blocked mostly for personal attacks, Schrocat for Edit Warring. Problem is that during Edit War, administrators don't check which side is correct WP:CIRCUS. You know you are right and the other user is wrong, but still the administrator will give warnings to both of you. Due to 3-revert rule if you revert for 4th time, you will be blocked, even if you have improved the article. Administrators can't be expected to have knowledge about every field from Arts, Sports, History, Geography, Science, Movies, Commerce, Crime, Technology, Politics, Economics and pass their judgement: "This edit is correct, that edit is correct".
I also hope you won't abuse me back for writing this on your talk page. -- Cosmic Emperor 07:06, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
Hope you're well, glad to see things cooling down around here. The offer still stands, if you need assistance in the future with disruptive editors than please drop me a line, there's much we can do. Meanwhile, where's that beer? The Rambling Man ( talk) 21:16, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
Please stop taking every chance you get to argue with me and others on my talk page. It seems when one argument ends you try to start another. You are welcome on my talk page if you have a specific concern involving me, but it is not the place for what I can only describe as heckling. Chillum 23:00, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
Hello Cassianto, how are you? I wonder if I might be able to tempt you to look in at the peer review for Sir Hugh Beadle. If you can find a few minutes any thoughts would be very much appreciated. Cheers and I hope you're well. Have a great week. — Cliftonian (talk) 08:25, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
As is required at ANI I am giving you notice that you are involved in a discussion there:
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Seeking_review_of_an_unblock_of_mine regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.
Your concerns are important to me so I am seeking further review of my actions from the community. Chillum 21:57, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
Wondering how exactly this helps the encyclopedia....♦ Dr. Blofeld 06:35, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
I reserve the right to identify a dishonest twat when I see one!♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:50, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
Anybody interested in expanding Twatt, Shetland? That would make a good TFA!♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:41, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
I think it is pretty pointless arguing for/against the EC block itself. The issue is the circumstances of the action and the position of the person, not the outcome per se. We reap what we sow. Turning it into a block/unblock !vote will get nowhere and the thread will just be hatted as being the usual EC drama with no consensus on either side. That's why I can't be arsed to say anything there: it will just get lost in the noise. - Sitush ( talk) 12:13, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
What I said at 30. of oppose still rings true...♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:05, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
Дэмий балай ямар нэг ачаалал ! ;-)♦ Dr. Blofeld 07:49, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
Hello Cassianto. If you remember me, you told me that you would participate in a peer review for Palmyra. The article was finally copy-edited by the Guild and I asked for a peer review Here. If you are still interested then I would be very glad. Cheers.-- Attar-Aram syria ( talk) 07:24, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
Although there is no unblock request, I have reviewed this block and recommend commuting the block to "time served." Despite provocation, the type of comment for which Cassianto was blocked does not foster a collaborative environment, and the record of prior blocks for personal attacks is unfortunate. Nonetheless, I find the block to be unnecessary, and in any event, excessively long. I also do not see a good basis for pulling talkpage access, which I recommend be restored even as block review proceeds. Requesting input from Mike V and any other reviewing admins. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 21:48, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
It's generally considered bad form to revoke talk page access from the person you've blocked, barring blatant abuse. Reaper Eternal ( talk) 22:27, 1 July 2015 (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. |
Welcome back! | |
A toast to your return, my friend! We hope ( talk) 19:08, 6 March 2015 (UTC) |
Many thanks We hope. It's Friday and I shall enjoy just that! Cassianto Talk 19:13, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
The Special Barnstar | ||
for suggesting that all should not respond to baiting, not just admins. But admins should since they have the blocking tool Wowee Zowee public ( talk) 20:43, 14 March 2015 (UTC) |
I have opened the 2nd PR as the article's first FAC is withdrawn due to MoS issues. Feel free to leave comments. — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 14:35, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
Last year you kindly contributed to the above article's peer review or or FAC or both. An issue has arisen from yesterday's TFA appearance, and is under discussion on the article's talk. Briefly: an editor added into the text the cited information that Bondfield's was privately known as "Maggie", and then incorporated this into the lead so the subject appeared as Margaret Grace ("Maggie") Bondfield. I have removed the nickname from the lead, and stated my position on the talkpage. I would be pleased if you could visit and briefly comment there. Brianboulton ( talk) 16:39, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
I've just lost all my bloody responses to you in an edit conflict! KJP1 ( talk) 16:16, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
Thankyou for your input into the peer review. The article is now at FAC. Cheers.♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:09, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
Very much appreciate your input into the article and your Support. KJP1 ( talk) 05:56, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
Hi Cass, Many thanks for your thoughts on Live and Let Die at the recent peer review. The article is now at FAC for wider consideration should you wish to comment further once the spurious block expires. Cheers - SchroCat ( talk) 09:31, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
Hi Cass, You were kind enough to comment at PR and FAC on Casino Royale; could I ask for a similar favour for the next instalment of the Bond series: Live and Let Die, which is now at PR? Any thoughts or comments would be greatly appreciated. Cheers – SchroCat ( talk) 11:59, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
So I'm being accused of being a racist now am I [1]? ♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:02, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
Sledgehammer, nut, censorship, loss of perspective by an involved admin. Hands up who is surprised.... No? No takers? - SchroCat ( talk) 21:18, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
If you've got some free time - a look over the smoothness of the prose of either Telopea oreades or Corona Borealis, both of which are at FAC but moving slowly, would be much appreciated...sometimes I find that retrospectively when reviews are slow it's because the prose might have put folks off......cheers, Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 12:26, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
I have opened the 2nd FAC for the article. Please do let me know if you would like to make any comments. Thanks. — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 02:47, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
In a bold spirit of cooperation, might I impose upon you to take a peek at my first article? I caught a red-link on the Hemi page, and created an article on the red-linked Fiat 130 HP Grand Prix racer. It's not in depth, or anything - I just want to ensure that I have made no egregious mistakes. Thanks in advance! ScrapIronIV ( talk) 19:21, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
Just a quick question about WP:BLP sources. If an online source is no longer available (taken down by the site) then what is to be done with the assertions that are attributed to it? The original information was supplied in a .pdf on the subject's website, and is no longer available. As the individual is an entertainer, the only replacement sources I have been able to find are from entertainment sites, and I have been told that those are unacceptable sources. Thanks for your advice! ScrapIronIV ( talk) 20:19, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
Indeed, Cassianto. I spent a long time lurking before dipping my oars into the water here, and then there were bad first impressions. I have learned a few to stay away from, and I am pleasantly surprised at how mistaken I was of others. At this point, I am trying to take things more slowly, assess more, act less quickly. Like my Army days, it's a question of rules, not emotions. I am learning to be more rules-oriented again. I think the most important thing for me to succeed here will be to stay away from subjects I am passionate about. That, and realizing that I just may be wrong sometimes - to admit it, learn and move on. At my age, that's not as easy as it used to be. So, I will stick to things I know very little about, learn more about research and sourcing, and actually try to contribute - not "promote" or "defend." ScrapIronIV ( talk) 14:35, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Albert Chevalier, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Richmond ( 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) 09:21, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
Hi Cass, I have recently been working on the Burning of Parliament, which is now at PR for comment. Any input you could have would be much appreciated. Cheers – SchroCat ( talk) 20:02, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
/info/en/?search=User_talk:Floquenbeam#Sorry_for_everything. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HondaS2200fan ( talk • contribs) 17:17, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
Can you tell me why you reverted my sourced edit with the edit summary 'no, I don't think so'? AusLondonder ( talk) 20:08, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
Thanks so much for the kind message and the barnstar - you made my day! Helenabella (Talk) 08:45, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
You once asked me what my intentions were with this article, and I never responded. What would be the next step to improve it, maybe get it up to GA status? Scr★pIron IV 19:02, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
It is as comprehensive as the sources I have available to me can make it. There is, unfortunately, not an awful lot of material I can find on it. I will take a look over at WP:GAN - I have never visted that part of Wikipedia. Scr★pIron IV 19:53, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
I think the Nielsen photo issues are the most difficult image problem I've had to try solving. With the requirement for dual licensing, if you have the requirements for one license, you don't for the other. I managed to get a photo from a HathiTrust book last night which is PD in the US-so that can be our "if all else fails" choice, and I see that the Nielsen Museum has uploaded some CC acceptable licensed photos to Flickr.
If I stay away from those picturing his wife's sculpture (copyright concerns), I should be able to upload some of them to Commons; they can "flesh out" the article if needed. I realize the other photos should be included in the article, but with the deadline looming large, there's just not enough time for someone to contact the Museum and the Danish Royal Library to ask about OTRS. There's nothing stopping anyone from trying to get approval on the photos after the Featured Article decision has been made and to include any approved at a later time. Think that someone like Crisco, who hasn't uploaded any photos and isn't a main editor of the article, should make any photo removal decisions which might be necessary. Anyone who says WP has no deadlines isn't involved with the Carl Neilsen FAC! :-D We hope ( talk) 13:43, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
Hi Cassianto. I didn't add any substantial information to the Palmyra article. I believe it was an anon editor who added the unsourced ISIS sentence in the history section. I just did a few minor copyedits throughout the article in order to improve the flow and readability. Regards. Gizza ( t)( c) 07:47, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
The information that you, so kindly revised!, was new source material, I have now sourced this CORRECT information to the best of my ability (not being an html pro) and as such information is not simply avaliable at a simple web link! so don't go randomly revoking good peoples' work! Tad102 ( talk) 18:10, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
Good evening (or morning, or night), Cassianto, how are you? All well I hope. This is a note to let you know that Mutiny on the Bounty, on which Brian and I have been working over the past month or so, is now up at peer review here. Any contributions you might care to make would be more than welcome if you can find the time. Cheers and all the best, — Cliftonian (talk) 21:59, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
Just put up Ahmed Zayat. Entertaining character, racehorse owner and entrepreneur. Owns American Pharoah. Montanabw (talk) 07:46, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
Dr. Blofeld, I am not a tenditious editor and I do appreciate your work - just wanted you to know that. Secondly, Montanabw, you've been on WP long enough to know that casting aspersions is actionable whether you name the editors or not. It's easy enough to find out who you are referring to and I take issue with your incivility. I have never had the opportunity to collaborate with Blofeld, Cassianto, you or the other nameless editor you referred to but you are poisoning the well. Perhaps if you had taken a different approach, I would have been happy to review the GAN for you. Please get that attitude adjusted and AGF. Thank you. -- Atsme 📞 📧 13:41, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
(watching, yes, Cassianto, one of your fans): The article is already under review, and, ScrapIronIV, Eric just patiently waits for that block to go away, I just wait for my parole to go away - only 6 more months minus 2 days ;) - try to take the negative easy and build content, - I have a friend who wrote me IGNORE IGNORE IGNORE once, and it really helps, - I enjoyed the ride on an article with you! -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 14:14, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
Time for a beer award | |
Time for a nice cold beer, I'd say. Winter has hit hard here and it is 7 C...so I am drinking a guiness. But I do like Hoegaarden and I saw this picture....curious... Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 08:09, 5 June 2015 (UTC) |
Cas: it's barely 10 degrees here (it's supposed to be summer) and that isn't allowing for the wind chill factor! I must bear in mind this isn't a social network, so I'll try to decide whether to do some more work on our latest feminist, have a stroll through the components of a fascinating building or do some more expansion on an interesting character. And I'll have some Chardonnay or a gin and tonic, please. SagaciousPhil - Chat 09:00, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
I am so jealous. Take photos. Australia is so goddamn far from anywhere...my son wanted to go see a castle...and the closest castley-looking thing is Borobudur.... Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 09:27, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
Cassianto, please find me 10 missing articles on Saint Barthélemy I can put up on the Intertranswiki board. I'll need your help stubbing a few of course :-)♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:12, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
I know you are on vacation (and I do hope you are having a marvelous time!) but if you think of it, I cam across some information about John Grimek, and am looking to improve his article. It is an area I am personally unfamiliar with, and would appreciate collaborating again with you on some article content. The biggest challenges I am facing are image acquisition Strength & Health magazine covers were used in the past, but deleted in 2007 for fair use counter example #8. As he was the subject of (multiple) covers of that magazine and was also its editor, I think it might actually be appropriate. I went into the article's history, and the fact that he was also the magazine's editor was not taken into account when the image was deleted. The other issue I am coming across is that articles on this subject are often blogs or personal histories, and the only biography I know of his life was published in England, and out of print now. Personal histories may work; I have an electronic copy of the Iron Game History issue from which was dedicated to his life after his passing, and induction to the IBFF Hall of Fame. Scr★pIron IV 14:30, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
Grazie caro Cassianto! (I hope you don't mind me removing your kind welcome message to avoid misunderstandings - I prefer to contribute as a gf logged-out editor). Regarding Jack Bologna, I was intrigued to find out where he and his family emigrated from. According to Dickens's Memoirs of Joseph Grimaldi (primary/secondary sourcing?) they moved to London from Genova. Best, 109.146.70.40 ( talk) 20:52, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
I was going to ask if you were interested in expanding this I just started but as Stronzo blocked you I guess not.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:34, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
Just for clarity, and out of politeness, your talk page being protected, and then unprotected, is being discussed at WP:ANI, at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Chillum overstepping reasonable boundaries of adminship. The Rambling Man ( talk) 17:12, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
Evening Cass, Tim riley and I have been working on P.G. Wodehouse and have now launched him on both the main page and now at PR. If you have time when you're back from the beach, or inclination, your thoughts would be much appreciated. Pip pip! – SchroCat ( talk) 21:06, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
Tantrums and Tomfoolery |
---|
== User conduct ==
Hello, Recently it's been brought to my attention that there are some concerns about your recent conduct. Please take the time to review the civility policy and become familiar with the expected level of conduct towards other users. Thanks, Mike V • Talk 22:45, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
Please stop with the persistent uncivil comments, such as this. Further instances will result in a block. Mike V • Talk 16:23, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
|
I have blocked Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi for personal attacks here. The behaviour others here have not been much better. Further personal attack blocks can be handed out if people are not able to converse without resorting to childish name calling. Chillum 18:54, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
Cassianto, I have blocked your account for 48 hours for persistent personal attacks towards others. I have also revoked your talk page access since you have used it to continue to make inappropriate comments. If you wish, you may appeal your block through UTRS. Mike V • Talk 18:58, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
Thought you might be interested in the ongoing discussion about sock-puppetry and ip-falsifying software at Impact of paid editors and false ip software on admin elections
Cheers,
Scott P. ( talk) 00:10, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
I briefly thought Wikipedia had been taken over by Himmler or Pol Pot. Glad to see you're now acknowledged again as existing. Meanwhile, P. G. Wodehouse is at PR, courtesy of self and another old lag. All comments gladly received once you're back from your break. Tim riley talk 20:35, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
Not another peanut gallery... Time for another lock! ;-)♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:49, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
Mike V and Chillum, is there a reason as to why I'm still blocked and Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi is allowed to edit here?. That's funny, I didn't see an appeal? Chillum continues to make the rules up as he goes along, why am I not surprised? Cassianto Talk 16:40, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
I am not sure why you are pinging me or what this has to do with you. I blocked a user for personal attacks and this user responded in a mature fashion that led me to believe the block was not preventative any more. Are you suggesting that I should not reverse my own blocks without some sort of special process? Chillum 19:55, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
-- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 13:17, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I have seen that you have contributed a lot to article creation. But please don't use swear/indecent words in talk pages. And don't see blocks as punishment. Even @ SchroCat: has made huge contribution to articles. Joking/taunts without any cuss words can be allowed if they are not personal attacks. You see movies have ratings like PG-13, Universal according to profanity. It's not nice that two valuable contributors of Wikipedia will have such block logs. I think you know how to deal with such users WP:DNFTT WP:DNIV. You are blocked mostly for personal attacks, Schrocat for Edit Warring. Problem is that during Edit War, administrators don't check which side is correct WP:CIRCUS. You know you are right and the other user is wrong, but still the administrator will give warnings to both of you. Due to 3-revert rule if you revert for 4th time, you will be blocked, even if you have improved the article. Administrators can't be expected to have knowledge about every field from Arts, Sports, History, Geography, Science, Movies, Commerce, Crime, Technology, Politics, Economics and pass their judgement: "This edit is correct, that edit is correct".
I also hope you won't abuse me back for writing this on your talk page. -- Cosmic Emperor 07:06, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
Hope you're well, glad to see things cooling down around here. The offer still stands, if you need assistance in the future with disruptive editors than please drop me a line, there's much we can do. Meanwhile, where's that beer? The Rambling Man ( talk) 21:16, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
Please stop taking every chance you get to argue with me and others on my talk page. It seems when one argument ends you try to start another. You are welcome on my talk page if you have a specific concern involving me, but it is not the place for what I can only describe as heckling. Chillum 23:00, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
Hello Cassianto, how are you? I wonder if I might be able to tempt you to look in at the peer review for Sir Hugh Beadle. If you can find a few minutes any thoughts would be very much appreciated. Cheers and I hope you're well. Have a great week. — Cliftonian (talk) 08:25, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
As is required at ANI I am giving you notice that you are involved in a discussion there:
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Seeking_review_of_an_unblock_of_mine regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.
Your concerns are important to me so I am seeking further review of my actions from the community. Chillum 21:57, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
Wondering how exactly this helps the encyclopedia....♦ Dr. Blofeld 06:35, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
I reserve the right to identify a dishonest twat when I see one!♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:50, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
Anybody interested in expanding Twatt, Shetland? That would make a good TFA!♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:41, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
I think it is pretty pointless arguing for/against the EC block itself. The issue is the circumstances of the action and the position of the person, not the outcome per se. We reap what we sow. Turning it into a block/unblock !vote will get nowhere and the thread will just be hatted as being the usual EC drama with no consensus on either side. That's why I can't be arsed to say anything there: it will just get lost in the noise. - Sitush ( talk) 12:13, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
What I said at 30. of oppose still rings true...♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:05, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
Дэмий балай ямар нэг ачаалал ! ;-)♦ Dr. Blofeld 07:49, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
Hello Cassianto. If you remember me, you told me that you would participate in a peer review for Palmyra. The article was finally copy-edited by the Guild and I asked for a peer review Here. If you are still interested then I would be very glad. Cheers.-- Attar-Aram syria ( talk) 07:24, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
Although there is no unblock request, I have reviewed this block and recommend commuting the block to "time served." Despite provocation, the type of comment for which Cassianto was blocked does not foster a collaborative environment, and the record of prior blocks for personal attacks is unfortunate. Nonetheless, I find the block to be unnecessary, and in any event, excessively long. I also do not see a good basis for pulling talkpage access, which I recommend be restored even as block review proceeds. Requesting input from Mike V and any other reviewing admins. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 21:48, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
It's generally considered bad form to revoke talk page access from the person you've blocked, barring blatant abuse. Reaper Eternal ( talk) 22:27, 1 July 2015 (UTC)