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 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | → | Archive 12 |
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.
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
.
Mike V •
Talk
15:17, 1 July 2015 (UTC)Mike V, you are a bad admin, guilty of stalking and harassment and of carrying a grudge against this user. That's a sign of being too WP:INVOLVED in my book. - SchroCat ( talk) 16:56, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
I have a feeling Mike V was somebody who helped me out once with OTRS agreements in the commons and was very helpful and decent. I do hope this isn't the same guy as this kind of thing is just the opposite of helpful to the site.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:28, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
Oh dear. Can everyone calm down and take a breath? Cassianto is one of the best content writers I have seen, and I have been impressed with his work ever since Peter Sellers' FAC many moons ago. I believe he was about to give a much needed improvement to Michael Hordern and now the brakes have been slammed on to those improvements. Meanwhile, Mike V is also a hard-working admin and checkuser who has come to the rescue with some unblock requests of mine and been very helpful. So there, you're both good guys in your own way. Have a man-hug or a beer, the pair of you.
And indeed, reading the above conversation, I see Cassianto apologised for misbehaviour, and Mike V ignored it and threatened a block for personal attacks anyway. If you say that, you're almost wishing the conversation to develop into a block and increase the temperature in the discussion. We should always try and defuse disputes, not ramp up the volume to "go ahead punk, make my day" levels.
Now, technically, I can unblock Cassianto in as much the button is pressable but I will catch absolute hell if I do, and given all the grief at Arbcom over the last few days, that's the last thing we need. I don't want Cass to be "Eric Corbett Mark II" with the associated soap opera. So @ Mike V:, can we please compromise, drop Cass' block down to 48 hours, turn his talk page access on, and if he says "<bleep> off", ignore it. I'm afraid admins need a thick skin sometimes and even in my short tenure I've been insulted several times. Admin actions upset people - just the way it goes. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:40, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
@ Mike V: See, this is why blocks of very prolific editors like this cause more trouble than they're worth. They create divide and long term resentment between admins and editors and expose how weak the system is on here when the blocks are reverted, if nothing else. It honestly looks to us as if you've been itching for a few weeks to get one over on Cassianto. While I do think Cassianto could be a little less aggressive in his edit summaries, it's more important that he cracks on with building content. In any blocking decision I think an admin really needs to look at "how does this help the encyclopedia" rather than "Thou shalt not swear, anybody who does will be blocked".♦ Dr. Blofeld 05:39, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
Hi Cass, After a recent re-write, the Hitler Diaries are now at peer review, should you have the time and inclination. Any and all thoughts on the article are most welcome. Cheers – SchroCat ( talk) 11:58, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
Hi. Thanks for your kind edit summary. Think you should self-revert however. While that beginning of RfC rule would be applicable, I think in this instance BLP trumps RfC. What do you think? Onel5969 TT me 19:51, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
We hope The Wikipedia Library has been a useful resource for your work. TWL is expanding rapidly and we need your help!
With only a couple hours per week, you can make a big difference for sharing knowledge. Please sign up and help us in one of these ways:
Send on behalf of
The Wikipedia Library using
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk)
04:31, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
I didn't like to bother you while you were engaged with the hosts of Midian, but since you seem to have have emerged victorious, can I draw your attention to a couple of reviews where your comments would be valued? They are The Ordeal of Gilbert Pinfold, at FAC, and Jeremy Thorpe at peer review. Take all the time you need. Brianboulton ( talk) 22:49, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
This morning, I discovered to my embarassment, that I expanded the "wrong" Bach cantata, BWV 2 instead of 9, well both on hymns by the same hymn writer. So in haste I expanded BWV 9 and nominated for GA (it's for today), thinking that I would have weeks to really make it good until someone might look. Wrong ;) - Need to get in that the hymn was written in prison, the poet facing a death sentence, - but not now. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 12:41, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
Hi Cassianto ! Would you be interested in reviewing or commenting on my newly opened FAC for the article Too Much Too Soon (album)? If not, please feel free to ignore this message. Cheers! Dan56 ( talk) 05:14, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
Many thanks for your excellent comments on the recent Hitler Diaries PR; the article has now moved on to FAC, should you wish to comment further. Thanks again – SchroCat ( talk) 11:54, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
Hi, thank you for your comments at the recent peer review. Bentworth is now a featured article candidate, and it would be great if you could comment there. Thanks! JAG UAR 20:17, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
Whoa, so many requests! Seeing them I don't think you'll consider this one – can you take a look at my nomination? Regards. -- Frankie talk 18:32, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
Can I get some please? This has gone on the whole morning now. Cassianto Talk 12:53, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Recently I have come across citations from Twitter, Facebook and YouTube. They seem to be appearing more frequently. I had always thought these were not acceptable sources; am I missing something? A sea change in the encyclopedic world that accepts such as valid primary sources? Thanks! Scr★pIron IV 20:04, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
This is to advise peer reviewers of the above article that I have now nominated it at FAC, and will welcome any further comments. Brianboulton ( talk) 20:38, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
sorry but i am unable to seem to find a way of replying directly to your comment to the information i recently posted on the Charlie Chaplain info page, it seems to me that because i said i originally found out about this from a facebook page you automatically presume that it is wrong without even reading the news articles attached. The letter is believed to be correct by family and research has taken place to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the person who wrote it lived at the address quoted and was in a position to know the facts. it has also been used in radio programmes and verified by film experts. (and this is all stated in the news articles). this to me gives enough doubt to at least discuss the information and not just dismiss the information without any thought. Mbb123 ( talk) 06:36, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
The Original Barnstar | |
It's been a few days since we have known (in Wikipedia) each other, and I think you are an amazing contributor – George Formby, an example of your work. Thank you for not being offended by the last thing I did. :) Frankie talk 11:10, 27 July 2015 (UTC) |
What ho, and all that. I'm being a pest on the Bond front again, with book three of the series, Moonraker, which is now at PR, should you have either the time or inclination to visit. Many thanks and pip pip. – SchroCat ( talk) 22:35, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
You have repeatedly removed vandalism from Franz Kafka, thank you! - New question, this time regarding his navbox. I believe that it should contain the original titles also, but they were removed. Discuss? -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 09:13, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
Cassianto, I was just reviewing your previous outstanding featured lists, and I was wondering if you could impart some of your guidance and wisdom regarding two FLCs I have in the queue: Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of tallest buildings in Brooklyn/archive1 and Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Attorneys General of West Virginia/archive1. Whether informally or formally, I wanted to see if you had any suggestions for improving either of these lists. I always welcome and solicit input, especially from experienced editors such as yourself. Thanks! -- West Virginian (talk) 14:16, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
Any chance of you looking at my latest Indian cinema FAC? It just reached the older nominations marking point. Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Dilwale Dulhania Le Jayenge/archive1. BollyJeff | talk 21:25, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
Any idea whether it is common for people who are basically inactive to pop up at RfA? - Sitush ( talk) 19:21, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
Why does Montanabw need admin tools though is the question?♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:02, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
( talk page stalker)Hi all, my Spidey-senses were tingling. Why do I "need" the tools? I have accumulated a collection of times I wish I had them: User_talk:Montanabw/snarkives! (I suppose that's troll bait for an RfA, but ...) LOL! But seriously, doing stuff like moving DYKs into the queue, and revdel BLP attacks are a couple things. For example, this week I wished I'd had them for this. Luckily I had a friendly admin fix it, but there isn't always an admin available who can act promptly. Montanabw (talk) 16:30, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
Everyone isn't pleased with it, though. I'd wanted to change the citation style for a while but didn't do it. It was necessary now to sort out all the problems with the citation names. We hope ( talk) 18:27, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
I'm just glad I did Dr. B.'s Beverly Hills Hotel Flickr pix before starting Skelton. With all of that text still looming before my eyes, who knows what photos he might have gotten! (But it may have been interesting.) :-D We hope ( talk) 19:17, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
File:Reverend Andrew Reed.jpg :-) We hope ( talk) 22:55, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
Hi, why did you revert the image I added to the George Robey article? Uncommon fritillary ( talk) 22:05, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
Apparently I erred in thinking that an image illustrating Robey's early career would be a useful addition that might be of interest to someone. If it was badly placed, that could be easily fixed. And why is an image from an 1899 publication still protected by copyright? I apologize for marring the aesthetics of your featured article. Uncommon fritillary ( talk) 23:04, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
This article is currently a FAC. Although you have made some edits to it, I ask you to do another re-check, as the article has been somewhat revamped since. Kailash29792 ( talk) 06:01, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
I just scheduled this list, which you suggested at WP:TFLS, for September 4. Cheers. Giants2008 ( Talk) 21:48, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
Hey if you have a moment let me know if the prose of this one ( Imperator torosus) is ok...things are slow so it might be a tad....dry...... Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 11:58, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
On 16 August 2015, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Snaresbrook Crown Court, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the foundation stone of the Snaresbrook Crown Court building was laid by Albert, Prince Consort? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Snaresbrook Crown Court. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, live views, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page. |
— Chris Woodrich ( talk) 01:03, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
Cassianto, if you have an issue with Chillum's adminning, you know where to find his talk page. The talk page of someone who's blocked and can't post to it is definitely not the place for long bickering threads. Thanks. Opabinia regalis ( talk) 07:08, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
I can't help but notice just how many core, prolific editors here think little of Jimbo. And in turn it is reciprocated, he clearly has little respect for us. I guess we'd all like somebody heading the project who shares our passion for content instead of somebody who seems more interested in his social/political standing than the encyclopedia.♦ Dr. Blofeld 06:40, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
Non content contributors always come up with that excuse. "There's more to building an encyclopedia than actually writing content". The fact is if they cut the administrative bullshit there wouldn't need to be that much more to building it than writing content. Yes, vandals need to be kept at bay and disputes need to be resolved, but a large part of the problems are caused by the bureaucratic system on here and obsession with civility above content. Regardless of how important they think they are, content is more important than anything to this site, and the fact that Jimbo's list as you said would likely contain most of the major content contributors here says it all.. A pantomime.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:06, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
A brownie is a flat, baked treat made of dense, rich chocolate cake. They are usually served as squares or bars. Hafspajen ( talk) 20:27, 22 August 2015 (UTC) |
Not sure how being listed by Guinness isn't notable but being a "cancer survivor" is. Pretty sure more people survive cancer than get recognized by Guinness. I am confused what you mean by "clutter within the templates" though. I manually listed the category I did not interact with any templates. Ranze ( talk) 20:54, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
Hi Cass, this is a courtesy note to let you know that the Moonraker (novel) article you kindly peer reviewed, is now at FAC. Should you have any further thoughts or comments they will, of course, be most welcome. All the best – SchroCat ( talk) 15:12, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
United States v. Washington is undergoing evaluation for possible promotion to Featured Article at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/United States v. Washington/archive1. If you feel up to it, I would love for you to stop by and assist in assessing this article. GregJackP Boomer! 17:35, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
Hi Cassiato. I hope you don't mind me suggesting that you might wish to consider stepping back somewhat from ths RfA now. Your comments are not likely to influence the outcome at this stage and they may well be simply perceived as disruptive. -- Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 02:12, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
Hi guys; Kudpung, firstly, I'm not trying to influence the outcome. All I want are explanations from people as to why they want to support a complete stranger to have a set of powerful tools. This isn't someone, by the way, who they know; I bet 85% of the supporters have never even met the nominee. I would also say that a large majority of that 85% snow voted and didn't even bother to check their hunch that the nominee "seemed like a good person". I would therefore consider it to be entirely appropriate to ask people for their reasons if those reasons have not been given.
It's also not tit-for-tat; ie, opposers are given grief, so therefore the supporters can have some of it back. This is a serious process which people are not taking seriously. Last night I had the misfortune to run into someone called Juliancolton. The exchange between us on the RfA was bitter, all because I asked him to explain a few things. We had a snarky exchange of words on the RfA and as I left he then abused the "thank" feature by using it to provoke me into further arguing with him. Julian colton is an administrator. This, apparently, is the type of behaviour becoming of an administrator. I decided to challenge him about it on his talk page, with evidence, and then blow me down, good old Chillum showed up, by pure coincidence, like an unwanted smell. He then tried to dig up past arguments between he and I, like the time he published a response to a private email I sent him asking for him to give me my talk page access back. He did this, not because of a technical fault (i.e email not working, misguidance, etc...) No, he did this to publicly humiliate me, and he achieved that. Chillum is also an administrator. This, again, is behaviour expected of an administrator? The result of that incident was the Rambling Man sending him back under the stone from where he had crawled and Chillum was forced to admit defeat in those circumstances.
It's specimens like Chillum and Colton who shouldn't have the tools if they think it's ok to go around and behave like that. And I bet if I counted up their iVotes I'd find they were mostly made up of people who voted without a rationale. I would therefore hate to think that owing to careless voting we are electing more Chillums and Coltons into the fellowship. Cassianto Talk 10:14, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
Cassianto, I recently submitted my second FAC (Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Romney Literary Society/archive1) and as I'm rather new to the FAC process, I was wondering if you could do me the honor of taking a look at this article and provide me with some feedback. I'm eager to improve this article so that it warrants FA status, and I thought it best to seek your guidance (should your schedule allow for it, of course!) -- West Virginian (talk) 14:46, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
Well, Cassianto, I think you may have overstated the facts a bit, but thanks for the complement. -- Biblio worm 15:48, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
I am here to apologize for the lack of info put into my support vote, it took me some time to realize that there should be explanation as to why to support. Do bear in mind this is the first time I'm voting in an RfA, I will make sure the next time whether support or oppose, that I will provide a thorough explanation. Secondly I am also here to give thanks for all your contributions, such articles like George Formby on screen, stage, record and radio a detailed article on George Formby's career! Such articles like this are fantastic and well written, it adds a subtle emphasis on the person and its just so perfectly done. I recognize your work as some of the finest here on Wikipedia, and the many editors who have helped you in the process of it and other great articles available to view. Thanks Cassianto. -- CyberWarfare ( talk) 20:40, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
So...I know you may not be particularly familiar with the topic of American sports (correct me if I'm wrong though), but can you tell me in terms of style and general content (like how much of what, etc.) I would need for this article to have a shot at attaining FA status at some point? (If copy editing has something to do with it, then I invite you to help with that as you like.)
Sportsguy17 (
T •
C)
18:14, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
File:Playbill for Moonbirds on Broadway 1959.jpg as promised! ;-) We hope ( talk) 13:29, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
Evening, any chance you could provide some input at the peer review?♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:22, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
You or Schro have anything to add or are you still on a break? ♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:19, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
Ditto! I'm lined up for Brian's first (starting tomorrow), should get to you by Tues pm or Weds. - SchroCat ( talk) 12:14, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the kind words. Maybe I'll see ya 'round some time. Cheers! Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 12:39, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
This is a note to all participants in the recent peer review. Many thanks for your help; the article is now at WP:FAC Brianboulton ( talk) 20:41, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
Hi Chris, I have a slightly rough Diamonds Are Forever (novel) which is at FAC for a final polish, should you have the time and inclination. No rush, given the many calls on your time. Cheers – SchroCat ( talk) 20:48, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
In cases of blatant vandalism it is best to report to WP:AIV. While some admins require a final or only warning prior to blocking, policy allows obvious vandals to be blocked without warning. This does not mean that an administrator is required to, but they may. Frankly I see no reason in giving a full ladder of warnings to someone who is clearly acting in bad faith.
If I was the first person to get to every single vandal report I would imagine that the rate of blocking without warning for people who replace portions of a page with "poopy" and such would go up. While it is fully within the discretion of an administrator to decide to act with more leniency towards such vandals, I am not one to do so.
If you find that an obviously disruptive user/ip is not being prevented from being disruptive via the regular red tape you can come by my talk page and I will look at it personally. If a page is being disrupted while you are trying to work by persistent vandals I will certainly consider semi-protection and probably be a bit more liberal about it than an average admin on a noticeboard. I do indeed seek to use my tools to improve the project, and if I can help you protect the encyclopedia let me know how. Chillum 21:25, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
The Editor's Barnstar | |
For your tireless contributions towards improving the article content of the encyclopedia. I really appreciate the hard work you do here. Chillum 23:05, 12 September 2015 (UTC) |
Wow, I'm gobsmacked!! I'm most impressed Chillum.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:05, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
Cassianto , please stop asking every supporter at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/APerson who fails to give a detailed rationale to expand on his or her reasons. You've made your point, and this is becoming disruptive. A mention in the General Comments section of why you think detailed rationales are needed would be appropriate, but repeated more or less duplicate comments, along with heated words at least when people challenge your request, does not contribute positively to the discussion. There is long-standing practice that such comments will be read as agreeing with the nominator's reasons. Perhaps that should change, but it hasn't changed yet. DES (talk) 00:03, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
( talk page stalker) @ DESiegel: and @ Worm That Turned:, an admin, Chillum, who was harassing editors who opposed RfAs pointed out that we should question supporters who did not put a reason down for their support of a candidate. I would suggest that you either tell Chillum and the others who are harassing those of us who oppose a nomination to either back off of us, or that you leave Cassianto and the rest of us alone. In other words, treat both sides fairly or STFU. Regards, GregJackP Boomer! 08:03, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
Another ( talk page stalker) This attempted enforcement of double standards reminds me of a fairly recent RfA where some oppose comments were diligently removed but a support from a known sock puppet still remains. SagaciousPhil - Chat 08:20, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
"I can point you to a number of pages that explain that, but you've been around long enough to know better"I'm stuggling to see where you are AGF with this comment, despite your preaching that particular lesson. I didn't know that RfAs don't require an explanation of support either, and I've been here for a fair time too: maybe you should take a leaf out of your own book? Perhaps this lack of explanation in the popularity contest explains why we have so many piss-poor admins jumping on GF comments and harrassing long-term editors? - SchroCat ( talk) 08:28, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
Cassianto, GregJackP, indeed anyone, I personally would like to see more eyes towards resolving the logjam at Talk:Ron "Pigpen" McKernan/GA1 and less badgering of support voters at RfA, if that's alright with everyone. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:26, 16 September 2015 (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 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | → | Archive 12 |
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.
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
.
Mike V •
Talk
15:17, 1 July 2015 (UTC)Mike V, you are a bad admin, guilty of stalking and harassment and of carrying a grudge against this user. That's a sign of being too WP:INVOLVED in my book. - SchroCat ( talk) 16:56, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
I have a feeling Mike V was somebody who helped me out once with OTRS agreements in the commons and was very helpful and decent. I do hope this isn't the same guy as this kind of thing is just the opposite of helpful to the site.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:28, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
Oh dear. Can everyone calm down and take a breath? Cassianto is one of the best content writers I have seen, and I have been impressed with his work ever since Peter Sellers' FAC many moons ago. I believe he was about to give a much needed improvement to Michael Hordern and now the brakes have been slammed on to those improvements. Meanwhile, Mike V is also a hard-working admin and checkuser who has come to the rescue with some unblock requests of mine and been very helpful. So there, you're both good guys in your own way. Have a man-hug or a beer, the pair of you.
And indeed, reading the above conversation, I see Cassianto apologised for misbehaviour, and Mike V ignored it and threatened a block for personal attacks anyway. If you say that, you're almost wishing the conversation to develop into a block and increase the temperature in the discussion. We should always try and defuse disputes, not ramp up the volume to "go ahead punk, make my day" levels.
Now, technically, I can unblock Cassianto in as much the button is pressable but I will catch absolute hell if I do, and given all the grief at Arbcom over the last few days, that's the last thing we need. I don't want Cass to be "Eric Corbett Mark II" with the associated soap opera. So @ Mike V:, can we please compromise, drop Cass' block down to 48 hours, turn his talk page access on, and if he says "<bleep> off", ignore it. I'm afraid admins need a thick skin sometimes and even in my short tenure I've been insulted several times. Admin actions upset people - just the way it goes. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:40, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
@ Mike V: See, this is why blocks of very prolific editors like this cause more trouble than they're worth. They create divide and long term resentment between admins and editors and expose how weak the system is on here when the blocks are reverted, if nothing else. It honestly looks to us as if you've been itching for a few weeks to get one over on Cassianto. While I do think Cassianto could be a little less aggressive in his edit summaries, it's more important that he cracks on with building content. In any blocking decision I think an admin really needs to look at "how does this help the encyclopedia" rather than "Thou shalt not swear, anybody who does will be blocked".♦ Dr. Blofeld 05:39, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
Hi Cass, After a recent re-write, the Hitler Diaries are now at peer review, should you have the time and inclination. Any and all thoughts on the article are most welcome. Cheers – SchroCat ( talk) 11:58, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
Hi. Thanks for your kind edit summary. Think you should self-revert however. While that beginning of RfC rule would be applicable, I think in this instance BLP trumps RfC. What do you think? Onel5969 TT me 19:51, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
We hope The Wikipedia Library has been a useful resource for your work. TWL is expanding rapidly and we need your help!
With only a couple hours per week, you can make a big difference for sharing knowledge. Please sign up and help us in one of these ways:
Send on behalf of
The Wikipedia Library using
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk)
04:31, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
I didn't like to bother you while you were engaged with the hosts of Midian, but since you seem to have have emerged victorious, can I draw your attention to a couple of reviews where your comments would be valued? They are The Ordeal of Gilbert Pinfold, at FAC, and Jeremy Thorpe at peer review. Take all the time you need. Brianboulton ( talk) 22:49, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
This morning, I discovered to my embarassment, that I expanded the "wrong" Bach cantata, BWV 2 instead of 9, well both on hymns by the same hymn writer. So in haste I expanded BWV 9 and nominated for GA (it's for today), thinking that I would have weeks to really make it good until someone might look. Wrong ;) - Need to get in that the hymn was written in prison, the poet facing a death sentence, - but not now. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 12:41, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
Hi Cassianto ! Would you be interested in reviewing or commenting on my newly opened FAC for the article Too Much Too Soon (album)? If not, please feel free to ignore this message. Cheers! Dan56 ( talk) 05:14, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
Many thanks for your excellent comments on the recent Hitler Diaries PR; the article has now moved on to FAC, should you wish to comment further. Thanks again – SchroCat ( talk) 11:54, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
Hi, thank you for your comments at the recent peer review. Bentworth is now a featured article candidate, and it would be great if you could comment there. Thanks! JAG UAR 20:17, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
Whoa, so many requests! Seeing them I don't think you'll consider this one – can you take a look at my nomination? Regards. -- Frankie talk 18:32, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
Can I get some please? This has gone on the whole morning now. Cassianto Talk 12:53, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Recently I have come across citations from Twitter, Facebook and YouTube. They seem to be appearing more frequently. I had always thought these were not acceptable sources; am I missing something? A sea change in the encyclopedic world that accepts such as valid primary sources? Thanks! Scr★pIron IV 20:04, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
This is to advise peer reviewers of the above article that I have now nominated it at FAC, and will welcome any further comments. Brianboulton ( talk) 20:38, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
sorry but i am unable to seem to find a way of replying directly to your comment to the information i recently posted on the Charlie Chaplain info page, it seems to me that because i said i originally found out about this from a facebook page you automatically presume that it is wrong without even reading the news articles attached. The letter is believed to be correct by family and research has taken place to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the person who wrote it lived at the address quoted and was in a position to know the facts. it has also been used in radio programmes and verified by film experts. (and this is all stated in the news articles). this to me gives enough doubt to at least discuss the information and not just dismiss the information without any thought. Mbb123 ( talk) 06:36, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
The Original Barnstar | |
It's been a few days since we have known (in Wikipedia) each other, and I think you are an amazing contributor – George Formby, an example of your work. Thank you for not being offended by the last thing I did. :) Frankie talk 11:10, 27 July 2015 (UTC) |
What ho, and all that. I'm being a pest on the Bond front again, with book three of the series, Moonraker, which is now at PR, should you have either the time or inclination to visit. Many thanks and pip pip. – SchroCat ( talk) 22:35, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
You have repeatedly removed vandalism from Franz Kafka, thank you! - New question, this time regarding his navbox. I believe that it should contain the original titles also, but they were removed. Discuss? -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 09:13, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
Cassianto, I was just reviewing your previous outstanding featured lists, and I was wondering if you could impart some of your guidance and wisdom regarding two FLCs I have in the queue: Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of tallest buildings in Brooklyn/archive1 and Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Attorneys General of West Virginia/archive1. Whether informally or formally, I wanted to see if you had any suggestions for improving either of these lists. I always welcome and solicit input, especially from experienced editors such as yourself. Thanks! -- West Virginian (talk) 14:16, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
Any chance of you looking at my latest Indian cinema FAC? It just reached the older nominations marking point. Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Dilwale Dulhania Le Jayenge/archive1. BollyJeff | talk 21:25, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
Any idea whether it is common for people who are basically inactive to pop up at RfA? - Sitush ( talk) 19:21, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
Why does Montanabw need admin tools though is the question?♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:02, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
( talk page stalker)Hi all, my Spidey-senses were tingling. Why do I "need" the tools? I have accumulated a collection of times I wish I had them: User_talk:Montanabw/snarkives! (I suppose that's troll bait for an RfA, but ...) LOL! But seriously, doing stuff like moving DYKs into the queue, and revdel BLP attacks are a couple things. For example, this week I wished I'd had them for this. Luckily I had a friendly admin fix it, but there isn't always an admin available who can act promptly. Montanabw (talk) 16:30, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
Everyone isn't pleased with it, though. I'd wanted to change the citation style for a while but didn't do it. It was necessary now to sort out all the problems with the citation names. We hope ( talk) 18:27, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
I'm just glad I did Dr. B.'s Beverly Hills Hotel Flickr pix before starting Skelton. With all of that text still looming before my eyes, who knows what photos he might have gotten! (But it may have been interesting.) :-D We hope ( talk) 19:17, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
File:Reverend Andrew Reed.jpg :-) We hope ( talk) 22:55, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
Hi, why did you revert the image I added to the George Robey article? Uncommon fritillary ( talk) 22:05, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
Apparently I erred in thinking that an image illustrating Robey's early career would be a useful addition that might be of interest to someone. If it was badly placed, that could be easily fixed. And why is an image from an 1899 publication still protected by copyright? I apologize for marring the aesthetics of your featured article. Uncommon fritillary ( talk) 23:04, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
This article is currently a FAC. Although you have made some edits to it, I ask you to do another re-check, as the article has been somewhat revamped since. Kailash29792 ( talk) 06:01, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
I just scheduled this list, which you suggested at WP:TFLS, for September 4. Cheers. Giants2008 ( Talk) 21:48, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
Hey if you have a moment let me know if the prose of this one ( Imperator torosus) is ok...things are slow so it might be a tad....dry...... Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 11:58, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
On 16 August 2015, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Snaresbrook Crown Court, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the foundation stone of the Snaresbrook Crown Court building was laid by Albert, Prince Consort? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Snaresbrook Crown Court. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, live views, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page. |
— Chris Woodrich ( talk) 01:03, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
Cassianto, if you have an issue with Chillum's adminning, you know where to find his talk page. The talk page of someone who's blocked and can't post to it is definitely not the place for long bickering threads. Thanks. Opabinia regalis ( talk) 07:08, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
I can't help but notice just how many core, prolific editors here think little of Jimbo. And in turn it is reciprocated, he clearly has little respect for us. I guess we'd all like somebody heading the project who shares our passion for content instead of somebody who seems more interested in his social/political standing than the encyclopedia.♦ Dr. Blofeld 06:40, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
Non content contributors always come up with that excuse. "There's more to building an encyclopedia than actually writing content". The fact is if they cut the administrative bullshit there wouldn't need to be that much more to building it than writing content. Yes, vandals need to be kept at bay and disputes need to be resolved, but a large part of the problems are caused by the bureaucratic system on here and obsession with civility above content. Regardless of how important they think they are, content is more important than anything to this site, and the fact that Jimbo's list as you said would likely contain most of the major content contributors here says it all.. A pantomime.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:06, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
A brownie is a flat, baked treat made of dense, rich chocolate cake. They are usually served as squares or bars. Hafspajen ( talk) 20:27, 22 August 2015 (UTC) |
Not sure how being listed by Guinness isn't notable but being a "cancer survivor" is. Pretty sure more people survive cancer than get recognized by Guinness. I am confused what you mean by "clutter within the templates" though. I manually listed the category I did not interact with any templates. Ranze ( talk) 20:54, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
Hi Cass, this is a courtesy note to let you know that the Moonraker (novel) article you kindly peer reviewed, is now at FAC. Should you have any further thoughts or comments they will, of course, be most welcome. All the best – SchroCat ( talk) 15:12, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
United States v. Washington is undergoing evaluation for possible promotion to Featured Article at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/United States v. Washington/archive1. If you feel up to it, I would love for you to stop by and assist in assessing this article. GregJackP Boomer! 17:35, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
Hi Cassiato. I hope you don't mind me suggesting that you might wish to consider stepping back somewhat from ths RfA now. Your comments are not likely to influence the outcome at this stage and they may well be simply perceived as disruptive. -- Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 02:12, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
Hi guys; Kudpung, firstly, I'm not trying to influence the outcome. All I want are explanations from people as to why they want to support a complete stranger to have a set of powerful tools. This isn't someone, by the way, who they know; I bet 85% of the supporters have never even met the nominee. I would also say that a large majority of that 85% snow voted and didn't even bother to check their hunch that the nominee "seemed like a good person". I would therefore consider it to be entirely appropriate to ask people for their reasons if those reasons have not been given.
It's also not tit-for-tat; ie, opposers are given grief, so therefore the supporters can have some of it back. This is a serious process which people are not taking seriously. Last night I had the misfortune to run into someone called Juliancolton. The exchange between us on the RfA was bitter, all because I asked him to explain a few things. We had a snarky exchange of words on the RfA and as I left he then abused the "thank" feature by using it to provoke me into further arguing with him. Julian colton is an administrator. This, apparently, is the type of behaviour becoming of an administrator. I decided to challenge him about it on his talk page, with evidence, and then blow me down, good old Chillum showed up, by pure coincidence, like an unwanted smell. He then tried to dig up past arguments between he and I, like the time he published a response to a private email I sent him asking for him to give me my talk page access back. He did this, not because of a technical fault (i.e email not working, misguidance, etc...) No, he did this to publicly humiliate me, and he achieved that. Chillum is also an administrator. This, again, is behaviour expected of an administrator? The result of that incident was the Rambling Man sending him back under the stone from where he had crawled and Chillum was forced to admit defeat in those circumstances.
It's specimens like Chillum and Colton who shouldn't have the tools if they think it's ok to go around and behave like that. And I bet if I counted up their iVotes I'd find they were mostly made up of people who voted without a rationale. I would therefore hate to think that owing to careless voting we are electing more Chillums and Coltons into the fellowship. Cassianto Talk 10:14, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
Cassianto, I recently submitted my second FAC (Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Romney Literary Society/archive1) and as I'm rather new to the FAC process, I was wondering if you could do me the honor of taking a look at this article and provide me with some feedback. I'm eager to improve this article so that it warrants FA status, and I thought it best to seek your guidance (should your schedule allow for it, of course!) -- West Virginian (talk) 14:46, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
Well, Cassianto, I think you may have overstated the facts a bit, but thanks for the complement. -- Biblio worm 15:48, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
I am here to apologize for the lack of info put into my support vote, it took me some time to realize that there should be explanation as to why to support. Do bear in mind this is the first time I'm voting in an RfA, I will make sure the next time whether support or oppose, that I will provide a thorough explanation. Secondly I am also here to give thanks for all your contributions, such articles like George Formby on screen, stage, record and radio a detailed article on George Formby's career! Such articles like this are fantastic and well written, it adds a subtle emphasis on the person and its just so perfectly done. I recognize your work as some of the finest here on Wikipedia, and the many editors who have helped you in the process of it and other great articles available to view. Thanks Cassianto. -- CyberWarfare ( talk) 20:40, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
So...I know you may not be particularly familiar with the topic of American sports (correct me if I'm wrong though), but can you tell me in terms of style and general content (like how much of what, etc.) I would need for this article to have a shot at attaining FA status at some point? (If copy editing has something to do with it, then I invite you to help with that as you like.)
Sportsguy17 (
T •
C)
18:14, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
File:Playbill for Moonbirds on Broadway 1959.jpg as promised! ;-) We hope ( talk) 13:29, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
Evening, any chance you could provide some input at the peer review?♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:22, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
You or Schro have anything to add or are you still on a break? ♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:19, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
Ditto! I'm lined up for Brian's first (starting tomorrow), should get to you by Tues pm or Weds. - SchroCat ( talk) 12:14, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the kind words. Maybe I'll see ya 'round some time. Cheers! Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 12:39, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
This is a note to all participants in the recent peer review. Many thanks for your help; the article is now at WP:FAC Brianboulton ( talk) 20:41, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
Hi Chris, I have a slightly rough Diamonds Are Forever (novel) which is at FAC for a final polish, should you have the time and inclination. No rush, given the many calls on your time. Cheers – SchroCat ( talk) 20:48, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
In cases of blatant vandalism it is best to report to WP:AIV. While some admins require a final or only warning prior to blocking, policy allows obvious vandals to be blocked without warning. This does not mean that an administrator is required to, but they may. Frankly I see no reason in giving a full ladder of warnings to someone who is clearly acting in bad faith.
If I was the first person to get to every single vandal report I would imagine that the rate of blocking without warning for people who replace portions of a page with "poopy" and such would go up. While it is fully within the discretion of an administrator to decide to act with more leniency towards such vandals, I am not one to do so.
If you find that an obviously disruptive user/ip is not being prevented from being disruptive via the regular red tape you can come by my talk page and I will look at it personally. If a page is being disrupted while you are trying to work by persistent vandals I will certainly consider semi-protection and probably be a bit more liberal about it than an average admin on a noticeboard. I do indeed seek to use my tools to improve the project, and if I can help you protect the encyclopedia let me know how. Chillum 21:25, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
The Editor's Barnstar | |
For your tireless contributions towards improving the article content of the encyclopedia. I really appreciate the hard work you do here. Chillum 23:05, 12 September 2015 (UTC) |
Wow, I'm gobsmacked!! I'm most impressed Chillum.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:05, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
Cassianto , please stop asking every supporter at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/APerson who fails to give a detailed rationale to expand on his or her reasons. You've made your point, and this is becoming disruptive. A mention in the General Comments section of why you think detailed rationales are needed would be appropriate, but repeated more or less duplicate comments, along with heated words at least when people challenge your request, does not contribute positively to the discussion. There is long-standing practice that such comments will be read as agreeing with the nominator's reasons. Perhaps that should change, but it hasn't changed yet. DES (talk) 00:03, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
( talk page stalker) @ DESiegel: and @ Worm That Turned:, an admin, Chillum, who was harassing editors who opposed RfAs pointed out that we should question supporters who did not put a reason down for their support of a candidate. I would suggest that you either tell Chillum and the others who are harassing those of us who oppose a nomination to either back off of us, or that you leave Cassianto and the rest of us alone. In other words, treat both sides fairly or STFU. Regards, GregJackP Boomer! 08:03, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
Another ( talk page stalker) This attempted enforcement of double standards reminds me of a fairly recent RfA where some oppose comments were diligently removed but a support from a known sock puppet still remains. SagaciousPhil - Chat 08:20, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
"I can point you to a number of pages that explain that, but you've been around long enough to know better"I'm stuggling to see where you are AGF with this comment, despite your preaching that particular lesson. I didn't know that RfAs don't require an explanation of support either, and I've been here for a fair time too: maybe you should take a leaf out of your own book? Perhaps this lack of explanation in the popularity contest explains why we have so many piss-poor admins jumping on GF comments and harrassing long-term editors? - SchroCat ( talk) 08:28, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
Cassianto, GregJackP, indeed anyone, I personally would like to see more eyes towards resolving the logjam at Talk:Ron "Pigpen" McKernan/GA1 and less badgering of support voters at RfA, if that's alright with everyone. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:26, 16 September 2015 (UTC)