User talk:Cassianto/Archive 11

Wikipedia:Today's featured article/July 21, 2017

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)

Meh, is it really? I can't say I'm too overjoyed about this, if I'm honest. Ok, I'll check it over. Thanks. Cassianto^Talk 08:14, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Why not? It looks like you put a tonne of work into it. Idle curiousity, that's all. — O Fortuna ^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 08:04, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

That's exactly why; a tonne of work all ready to be mucked about with by college kids bored during computer lessons. Oh, and this is infobxless, so expect at least one conversation about "why doesn't this have an infobox" blah, blah, blah... I've never been a fan of TFA. Cassianto^Talk 08:14, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

I see what you mean. It puts your head above the parapet for you. Bloody hell. — O Fortuna ^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 08:42, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

P.S. I was thinking of sticking an infobox somewhere...  ;)

I can think of a number of places ;) Cassianto^Talk 14:55, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Not a problem. This was the last one I scheduled last night, so it's not difficult to change it. - Dank (push to talk) 12:20, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Dan. I should embrace the fact that all my hard work will adorn a page seen by hundreds and thousands of people across the world, but past experiences have taught me that TFA is more trouble than it is worth. Cheers Cassianto^Talk 14:55, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for working hard on the article. It's a perfect example of a fascinating subject that I doubt I would have ever heard of had you not put in the effort. Mr Ernie (talk) 18:53, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks very much Mr Ernie. There's not enough praise around here for hard work, so when it comes, it comes with much satisfaction. Tich was a great article to do; he was hugely talented and one of the groundbreaking acts on the Music Hall scene. Today, he'd be buzzed off the Britain's Got Talent stage quicker than the time it took him to walk on, I'd imagine, but he certainly earned his money and the Victorians seemed to lap him up.

Until the bods that be decide to lock featured articles on TFA day, I will, with a heavy heart, keep opposing the ones I've written from appearing. Cassianto^Talk 19:50, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Will Hay

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)

(watching) At a glance, I saw that you didn't follow simple editing rules such as no references in the summary (it should be referenced below), no links to common countries, focus on major facts in infoboxes. I didn't have to look further to know that I would also have reverted you. On top of this: it wasn't even Cassianto who reverted. Civilised fashion would indeed be appreciated. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:01, 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)

How is anybody supposed to know that? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:47, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Please study WP:BRD, it is you who needs to discuss. I was now the third to revert. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:54, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

• IP: My cuts to Will Hay were because of a number of reasons; firstly, the writing was terrible; secondly, the images were illegal; and thirdly, the sources were unreliable. Oh, and before I forget, fourthly, I don't need to discuss anything with you first, as you suggest. Kind regards. Cassianto^Talk 17:38, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Good catch

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)

Bbb23 would be very brave to block Ceoil in light of this. Cassianto^Talk 18:04, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Heh, I'm not brave. I'm also still looking for my half brain cell. So much stuff in there.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:06, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Oh dear, you say this like I aimed it at you. It wasn't. But if you find it, keep hold of it. ;) Cassianto^Talk 18:21, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

• Or very bold, in the Irish sense. But I'm hoping that won't happen. Bbb23 is not a bad guy, in my experience, and he clearly has a sense of humour :) Kafka Liz (talk) 18:11, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
  • He doesn't strike me as being a bad guy at all, hence his comment above. But a block for 3rr for a copy vio would be an injustice and wouldn't last very long. Cassianto^Talk 18:21, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Agreed.

Kafka Liz (talk) 18:31, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

• Bbb23, I must say, I'm rather disappointed that you've threatened a block BEFORE actually looking into the circumstances. It took me less than a minute to investigate this and come across the copy vio. Making threats on innocent people is not very fair. Cassianto^Talk 18:55, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Treading the boards...

• Variety page 9 9 November 1907 "Lauder Big Drawing Card". New York Theatre where Lauder was playing was considered an "advance vaudeville" venue.

• New York Clipper page 15 21 May 1919 "Knighting of Lauder". The vaudeville community considered him one of their own and and a leading community member. The news story remarked that never before had a vaudevillian been given such an honor.

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)

Thanks very much, that's very helpful. I've put them here so I can use them later.. Cassianto^Talk 04:59, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Kristen Stewart

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)

(talk page watcher) @FrB.TG:, right underneath, by the looks of things. — fortunavelut luna 12:20, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

I gave up on the Kirsten Stewart article after the first RfC, I'm afraid, shortly after some imbecile opened up another RfC as a result of not getting their own way the first time. It appears the lunatics conquered the Asylum on their second attempt. Have you seen it? It's pathetic. Maybe we should have another RfC on how to get rid of it; I bet we'd be accused of being disruptive if that were the case. I do hope the same thing does not happen on Harry Lauder. Cassianto^Talk 12:57, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

I was thinking of maybe expanding it sometime, but I would definitely want the infobox to go away beforehand. It appears that ain't gonna happen even if we achieve another consensus to remove it - the editors will somehow find a way to add it back. Well, she is a terrible actress anyway and I don't want so much drama for a box, a complete waste of time it would be. – FrB.TG (talk) 21:21, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

My advice would be to leave it alone then. I wouldn't bother trying to make anything out of the article when all the time you have people there wanting to hold you to ransome over a bloody infobox. Cassianto^Talk 03:31, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Daniel Craig

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)

Diff, please. Cassianto^Talk 15:53, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Found it. Right, firstly, Daily Mirror is not a reliable source, see WP:NEWSORG and WP:NOTNEWS, among others. The Mirror is a tabloid newspaper and is considered to be as reliable as its rivals, The Sun and the Daily Mail, etc. Secondly, your use of the word "scheduled" is too vague to be considered noteworthy. It is not confirmation of such news and is subject to change at any point in the future, see WP:CRYSTAL. Hope that helps. Cassianto^Talk 16:32, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

(Obviously nobody cares about the Daily Express as all it does it print old pictures of Diana, or, occasionally, Madeleine McCann). Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:45, 12 July 2017 (UTC))

Yes it did. Thank you. RyanDanielst (talk) 00:23, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Anniversary

	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!

	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)

• I just noticed that your self-requested block expired today too [not sure if that merits "Congratulations" though]. ;-) SagaciousPhil - Chat 11:08, 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)

Hand 'em round!

[Bishzilla is incapable of discretion]. Congratulations! Cigars to all! bishzilla _ROARR!! 14:50, 20 September 2017 (UTC).

Welcome back

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)

Thanks. I've seen you working on this and I will report at the PR over the next few days. I must say, I'm looking forward to reading it, very much. Although I suggest you sort the co-ordinates out as no matter how brilliant the article is, not repeating the co-ordinates, directly below where the coordinates are already given, is a fate worse than death. Cassianto^Talk 22:08, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

I know - crucifiction time for me for forgetting that random factoids should be left in unexplained places, out of context, with little thought and even less sense! SchroCat (talk) 07:14, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Dan Leno scheduled for TFA

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)

Thanks, but I'm not particularly interested, sorry. I dare say there'll be the usual bun fight over the infobox, which will no doubt result in yet another block. Fun times ahead. Cassianto^Talk 17:26, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Saint Fin Barre's Cathedral

Cass, if I was to put this up for PR, could I tap you for thoughts. Ceoil (talk) 15:51, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Of course you can, and I'd be happy to. Tip me the nod when it's up. Cassianto^Talk 17:15, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

I dont know how to this fancy - [1] Ceoil (talk) 18:23, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Greatfully recieved. Could you give me a few days? I have one for Gavin, above, and then I shall get straight onto it. Cassianto^Talk 18:33, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

nay hurry here. Ceoil (talk) 19:34, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Thankyou Ceoil for your work on it!♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:29, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

A Dobos torte for you!

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)

More simple Wiki things that completely defeat me

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)

Not at all. I've created an archive box for you on your talk, as you'll see, and have left some instructions. You can get a bot to do it for you but I like to do it manually as I can control recent discussions better without having them archived halfway through. Frank is coming along nicely, albeit rather slowly. It's been difficult not straying too much into talking about his buildings, so I may have to proof read before I go live with it to make sure. Feel free to look in and tweak if you feel the need. I have a feeling that they'll be a list article on the back of this one too. Cassianto^Talk 15:39, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

You're a star! Many thanks indeed. And Frank is coming on very well, I see. Let me know if there's anything I can do. I'm surprised at how few of the theatres have articles, given their scale and their centrality in so many big cities. If there are any in particular where, as examples of his style, it would be good to have a little spin-off, just shout. I may do one now, as a thank you. Best regards, KJP1 (talk) 15:53, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

You can buy a bit of his house, but it's not listed. [2] KJP1 (talk) 16:11, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Though Pevsner's got it, of course. [3] KJP1 (talk) 16:18, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Ha, sounds like a bargain to me! Good old Nick, although he doesn't give a date of Frank's seaside home, which is a shame. It's funny; It is slap bang opposite the Cliff's Pavillion, a rather nondescript, tinted double glazed box with rendered exterior. It's hideous and is somewhat ironic that it is situated right outside the master of theatrical Victorian design. There are a couple of his early theatres that I was surprised didn't have articles; and George Bridgeman, Frank's mentor, doesn't have one either. He sounds like an important architect, especially around Devon, and was instrumental in his designs for Isaac Singer's palatial-like Manor House, Oldway Mansion. Frank had something to do with the house's in-built theatre, apparently. Would Pevsner have mentioned that, I wonder? Cassianto^Talk 17:20, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Theatre, yes, Frank, no. "the pièce de résistance is Paris Singer's magnificent imperial stair, inserted on the site of his father's private theatre".(Cherry|Pevsner|2004|p=840) KJP1 (talk) 17:41, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Thought as much; the sources I have speculate that Frank might've had a hand in the theatre's design - principally because he had just returned from studies in London - although the sources also couldn't confirm it. I think there's a good chance he probably did. Cassianto^Talk 18:30, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 3

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)

January 2018

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)

Will do, cheers Jim. Cassianto^Talk 19:40, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Deleted archives

Hi Cassianto. It looks like some of your talk page archives were moved and then deleted by mistake.

• Archive 6 was moved to Archive 3 and then Archive 3 was deleted
• Archive 8 was moved to Archive 4 and then Archive 4 was deleted
• Archive 9 was moved to Archive 5 and then Archive 5 was deleted. 6, 8, and 9 exist as red-linked redirects. That's how I happened to notice the problem. Please let me (or any admin) know if you want any of these restored. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 20:46, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Hello Diannaa, thanks for taking a look at this. For sometime, and for some unknown reason, I was missing an archive "3", "4" and "5", so set about moving them all down one to fill in the missing archives. Some idiot IP, sometime in May 2016, filled an archive in with a simple "hey" which created a blue archive so I assume that this was part of the reason why the archive chronology became messed up. I moved them all down one but wanted the redirects deleted as it all became too confusing. Does this make sense? Cassianto^Talk 21:15, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, kinda sorta. So is it okay to delete the three red-linked redirects (6, 8, 9)? I suggest archives 3, 4, and 5 need to be restored as well. That's the stuff that appears to have been deleted in error. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 21:25, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Yea, I suppose. Ideally, I'd like all archives in a chronology order, less the three that are duplicates, or in this case, redirects. Would deleting the redirects delete the archives they're redirected to? Cassianto^Talk 22:05, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Archives 3, 4, and 5 were already deleted. This was done because you tagged them for deletion. I think you meant to tag the redirects and tagged the wrong pages by mistake. They were restored a few minutes ago by Bencherlite. I am now going to delete the redirects. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 22:13, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Ok, I think all is tidied up now - archives 1 to 11 in order, and the code at the top of the page tweaked so that the archiving carries on at 11 not at 15 as before. Bencherlite^Talk 22:17, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Great, thanks very much to the both of you. Much appreciated. Cassianto^Talk 22:40, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

I see England, I see France

Mein Pants

I see England, I see France, I see Drmies's underpants.[4] Bishonen | talk 20:56, 5 October 2017 (UTC).

Hex-cuse me. Do you know the piano's on my foot?!

"You 'um it son, I'll play it"

It's ok, they've been found. It appears they were hijacked by someone's socks. Cassianto^Talk 21:58, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

You just can't trust those sock fetishists who live on George Street, can you?! Martinevans123 (talk) 22:10, 5 October 2017 (UTC) ....Nazi teabagging, anyone?

Notice of noticeboard discussion

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)

Peer Review of Fawad Khan

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)

Threats now

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)

When you calm down, and your inane thread at ANI finishes, I'll talk to you. But it would not be appropriate to do it now. Cassianto^Talk 18:54, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Guy Fawkes Article

I have replied to your comment on my talk page. Please will you reply. Rillington (talk) 22:33, 20 October 2017 (UTC)}

Caution- keep it civil please

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)

Kindly keep your cautions to yourself, I don’t much care for them. Thanks. Cassianto^Talk 15:35, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

P.S. Thanks for your self reverting that. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:16, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

I didn’t do it for the reasons you are probably thinking. But if it makes you happy, then so be it. Cassianto^Talk 15:34, 24 November 2017 (UTC)