This is an archive of past discussions with User:Cassianto. 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.
This is a note to let the main editors of Marie Lloyd know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on June 18, 2014. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. If you prefer that the article appear as TFA on a different date, or not at present, please ask Bencherlite (talk·contribs). You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/June 18, 2014. If it needs tweaking, or if it needs rewording to match improvements to the article between now and its main page appearance, please edit it, following the instructions at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/instructions. The blurb as it stands now is below:
Marie Lloyd (1870–1922) was an English music hall singer, comedienne and musical theatre actress, known as the "Queen of the Music Hall". She was best known for her performances of songs such as "The Boy I Love is Up in the Gallery" and "Oh Mr Porter What Shall I Do", and was both criticised and praised for her use of innuendo and double entendre. She made her professional debut in 1884 and thereafter frequently topped the bill in London's West End. Between 1894 and 1900, she became an international success when she toured France, America, Australia and Belgium. In 1907, she assisted other performers during the music hall war and protested for better pay and conditions for performers. During the First World War, she helped the war effort and toured hospitals and industrial institutions to boost morale. Lloyd had a turbulent private life that was often the subject of press attention. She also suffered from bouts of ill-health and became alcohol-dependent. In later life, she was still in demand and had success in 1919 with her renowned performance of "My Old Man (Said Follow the Van)". Lloyd was taken ill on stage at the Alhambra Theatre, London, and died a few days later. (Full article...)
You (and your talk-page stalkers) may also be interested to hear that there have been some changes at the TFA requests page recently. Nominators no longer need to calculate how many "points" an article has, the instructions have been simplified, and there's a new nomination system using templates based on those used for DYK suggestions. Please consider nominating another article, or commenting on an existing nomination, and leaving some feedback on your experience. Thank you. UcuchaBot (talk) 23:01, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
I actually got back during the small hours of the morning, but have forgotten to remove the tag; I shall pop by in a bit. Cassiantotalk19:30, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
"I dood it!"
... or, at least, if I were We hope I'd say that. The article on Red Skelton is at peer review in preparation for the FAC gauntlet. Since you're quite well versed with actor biographies, we'd be much obliged if you could leave some feedback. You might even see a familiar face or two ;). On an unrelated note, do you have anything that needs reviewing? At FLC or anything? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:44, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
That looks like a very interesting subject! I will pop along in the next day or so. My activity on here has been infrequent of late owing to RL, but I shall certainly make time for this! Cassiantotalk07:15, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
discography and stage performances
Thank you for giving us all the details about Dan Leno's performances - his discography and appearances - who was great in "life's mundane subjects, mixed with comic songs and surreal observations", - you are an awesome Wikipedian!
A small thank you for your help at the PR for Red Skelton! Not sure if you need/want more Stanley Holloway photos, but we have 2 of him on Broadway with My Fair Lady and one as a Skelton guest at Commons. We hope (talk) 13:28, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
Well thank you very much! Skelton has all the hallmarks of a success at FAC. Sorry I didn't get to finish the review, but others beat me to it and fixed all the obvious problems. I read through it thoroughly and couldn't spot anything glaringly obvious. Looking at Holloway, I think the article would benefit from a picture of Alfred Doolittle which I think would aid the reader in visual representation of one of his most notable characters. As long as the PD status is ok, I should think it a safe bet for you to add. Thank you very much for that and I will hopefully see you at FAC. Good luck! Cassiantotalk15:22, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks again for your very nice comments! I've added the photo of Holloway as Doolittle to the article; it's one of my own uploads. This one seems to be a better look at him in character than the one sitting in the chair at Higgins' home. Think I added it according to the way the other photos were done. Again, many thanks! We hope (talk) 15:47, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Frank Randle, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Variety. 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.
Thank you very much. There's no hurry, as one source that I want is still a month away from actually getting here. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:57, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
No, and nor had Bad Sir Brian B, as he mentions on the FAC page. If I'm ignorant, it's comforting to be joined by so eminent a co-ignoramus. Don't imagine you're going to get away with this outrage scot free! Tim riley talk15:33, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
I take no pleasure in at last discovering a noun which you and the equally imminent Brianboulton have not heard of. I discovered this c.1997 at college. Whilst there, I must admit, I preferred little Lauren. She was far better looking and could do the splits in a number of unimaginable positions. Ahem... Cassiantotalk15:54, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
oops! God only knows what I meant to say! I feel that my journey back to dunce's corner from smart-arsedom is even more imminent after that error. Esteemed is of course what I meant to say. And your right, having met you (and Tim), I can confirm that you have both been around for years... haha Cassiantotalk18:47, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
The Teamwork Barnstar
Thanks for your help with Red Skelton! Your advice and edits are part of the reason the article is now an FA. Thanks once again! We hope (talk) 13:58, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
You are too kind, although I feel your efforts would have been successful without my mucky mitts all over it. The article is a credit to you and I hope you stick around to do another. Cassiantotalk18:18, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
And now you're being too kind! :) Will probably take a hard look at Perry Como and Ernie Kovacs next, not to mention many deep breaths. :) Never thought I'd do an FA, but the more I kept working on Skelton, the more it started falling into place. Also need to keep a promise I made to Paul some time ago re: Paul Weston, the husband of Jo Stafford. Not sure there's enough material to go to FA with the article, but from my end (the number of bookmarks in my browser devoted to the man), it looks like there's certainly enough to have a nice GA. Thank you so much for the barnstar! We hope (talk) 21:57, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
Hi Dennis, sorry I have been away all day and have only just seen this. It looks all sorted now though, which is good. I haven't got to the block/unblock scenario yet, but it looks like that was a complete waste of everybody's time as well! All the best Cassiantotalk18:44, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
About an ark
My latest creation, Noye's Fludde, jointly with Alfietucker, is now at peer review. It would make an ancient editor very happy if you would cast a critical eye over it. Brianboulton (talk) 15:04, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
Ha, I shall be happy to. Cassiantotalk23:13, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
Reference Errors on 4 August
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:
Hello, WP:The Wikipedia Library has record of you being approved for access to JSTOR through the TWL partnership described at WP:JSTOR . You should have recieved a Wikipedia email User:The Interior sent several weeks ago with instructions for access, including a link to a form collecting information relevant to that access. Please find that email, and follow those instructions. If you were not approved, did not recieve the email, or are having some other concern or question, please respond to this message at Wikipedia talk:JSTOR/Approved. Thanks much, Sadads (talk) 21:07, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
Note: You are recieving this message from an semi-automatically generated list. If you think you were incorrectly contacted, make sure to note that at Wikipedia talk:JSTOR/Approved.
I wonder, could you spare a moment to revisit the PR and give your opinion on an issue raised by the redoubtable SchroCat? Brianboulton (talk) 09:31, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
Another Big Issue seller waving at you: Jules Massenet, the second greatest composer born in 1842, is now at FAC. If you have time and inclination to look in, it will be esteemed a favour, Tim riley talk21:54, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
I know you said you were interested in this. I'm rather tied down with the Kubrick stuff right now and you are probably busy too so we'll have to put in on hold I think. Brian Blessed is one I might find time for though in the near future, love that man to bits!♦ Dr. Blofeld12:51, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
Thanks Tim, although I didn't really do much; Gavin was the leader in this one with me just grabbing onto his tail for the ride. I would love to do Formby Snr next, but we are stumped by the lack of sources. Cassiantotalk09:30, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Now don't go singing SchroCat's praises. With two FAs in one day he'll be insufferably smug, and if his two FL candidates get through as well, there'll be no doing anything with him. And I have just found out he was born in Yorkshire God's own country bloody Yorkshire. Tim riley talk17:28, 20 August 2014 (UTC) With additions by SchroCat (talk)
Late-to-the-party congratulations for Formby's promotion, and hope that the TFA (shifted back a couple of days, as you may have seen) goes well. Cheers, BencherliteTalk13:55, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
May I pick your brains, my dear Cassianto? At peer review you commented (and I agreed) that the article was probably better suited to the GAN route than the FAC. Doctor B, however, has pitched in good and proper, to very considerable effect, and I should value your candidest view of whether FAC may now be the way to go, if you can face reading the article again. If I may intrude on the hospitality of your talk page I am pinging (see how modern and clever I am with the jargon!) @Cliftonian:, whose views on GAN/FAC were the same as yours. Blunt opinions, please, perhaps on the PR page (still open) or my talk page rather than here, in the circs.
PS. As SchroCat and I were both at the BL this morning, in adjoining reading rooms, we took 15 mins out for coffee in the open-air café in the quad. All very decorous, and not a drop of wine to be seen. Tim riley talk18:18, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
I don't think the article benefits from your additions. The article is featured and so has undergone many reviews from many editors over the last year. For a start, a lead section should be no longer than four paragraphs long. It should summarise the entire article, which in its current state, does very nicely indeed. Your edit bloats it unneserssarily and is not an improvement IMO, sorry. Cassiantotalk22:13, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) Six paragraphs in the lead was too many. It's also not advisable to change the formatting of the referencing either. A couple of US commas went in there, which wasn't an improvement, and neither was breaking the flowing prose into short, choppy sentences, which reduces readability. - SchroCat (talk) 22:32, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
Paragraphs: understood. Regarding the reference, do you mean the addition of semicolons? If so, aren't they a standard means of presenting a list in prose (with the benefit of being distinct from any commas used between them)..? Apologies if I've misunderstood your point. If, elsewhere, you mean I removed or replaced some commas, I probably did; as much as shortening sentences might (but not necessarily) reduce flow, so can constructions, for example, such as ", and". Regards, Sardanaphalus (talk) 14:35, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
No, I don't mean anything to do with semi-solons: it's to do with the inclusion of templates into the references. They are not needed, and to have them only in the lead and not elsewhere is questionable. The comma point consists of the addition of US commas to the text where they are not used in BrEng. The final point is that your version was inferior to that that exists: it was full of short, choppy sentances, which had replaced some good, flowing prose. That is not an improvement. - SchroCat (talk) 15:02, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
Re the reference, I recalled and so switched to the page-number templates while inserting s to prevent linewrapping between an abbreviation and number, but, yes, I suppose the resulting string of templates isn't as efficient. I'm not sure, though, which commas counted as US, so I'd be grateful if you'd point these out. I'm also now more unsure what you have in mind as short, choppy sentences, especially if the text was now full of them. Here's a "diff" of the sentences before and after:
Sentences before and after
Before
After
Sir Charles Spencer "Charlie" Chaplin, KBE (16 April 1889 – 25 December 1977) was an English actor, comedian, and filmmaker who rose to fame in the silent era.
Chaplin became a worldwide icon through his screen persona "the Tramp" and is considered one of the most important figures in the history of the film industry.
His career spanned more than 75 years, from childhood in the Victorian era until a year before his death at age 88, and encompassed both adulation and controversy.
Chaplin's childhood in London was defined by poverty and hardship.
As his father was absent and his mother struggled financially, he was sent to a workhouse twice before the age of nine.
When he was 14, his mother was committed to a mental asylum.
Chaplin began performing at an early age, touring music halls and later working as a stage actor and comedian.
At 19 he was signed to the prestigious Fred Karno company, which took him to America.
Chaplin was scouted for the film industry, and made his first appearance in Keystone Studios's Making a Living (1914).
He soon developed the Tramp persona and formed a large fan base.
Chaplin directed his films from an early stage, and continued to hone his craft as he moved to the Essanay, Mutual, and First National corporations.
By 1918, he was one of the best known figures in the world.
In 1919, Chaplin co-founded the distribution company United Artists, which gave him complete control over his films.
His first feature-length was The Kid (1921), followed by A Woman of Paris (1923), The Gold Rush (1925), and The Circus (1928).
He refused to move to sound films in the 1930s, instead producing City Lights (1931) and Modern Times (1936) without dialogue.
Chaplin became increasingly political and his next film, The Great Dictator (1940), satirised Adolf Hitler.
The 1940s were a decade marked with controversy for Chaplin, and his popularity declined rapidly.
He was accused of communist sympathies, while his involvement in a paternity suit and marriages to much younger women caused scandal.
An FBI investigation was opened, and Chaplin was forced to leave the United States and settle in Switzerland.
He abandoned the Tramp in his later films, which include Monsieur Verdoux (1947), Limelight (1952), A King in New York (1957), and A Countess from Hong Kong (1967).
Chaplin wrote, directed, produced, edited, starred in, and composed the music for most of his films.
He was a perfectionist, and his financial independence enabled him to spend years on the development and production of a picture.
His films are characterised by slapstick combined with pathos, typified in the Tramp's struggles against adversity.
Many contain social and political themes, as well as autobiographical elements.
In 1972, as part of a renewed appreciation for his work, Chaplin received an Honorary Academy Award for "the incalculable effect he has had in making motion pictures the art form of this century".
He continues to be held in high regard, with The Gold Rush, City Lights, Modern Times, and The Great Dictator often ranked among industry lists of the greatest films of all time.
Sir Charles Spencer "Charlie" Chaplin, KBE (16 April 1889 – 25 December 1977) was an English actor, comedian and filmmaker who is considered one of the most important figures in the history of the film industry.
He rose to fame during the silent era, becoming a worldwide icon through his screen persona "The Tramp" and a co-founder of United Artists, the first film distribution company owned and run by actors rather than by major studios.
His career spanned more than 75 years, encompassing both adulation and controversy, from childhood performances in Victorian England until a year before his death at the age of 88.
Born in London, Chaplin's childhood was defined by poverty and hardship.
His father was absent, leaving his mother to struggle financially and he was twice sent to a workhouse before the age of nine.
When he was 14, his mother was committed to a mental asylum.
(↕create join)
Chaplin began performing at an early age, touring music halls and later working as a stage actor and comedian.
At 19, he was signed to the prestigious Fred Karno company.
This took him to America, where he was scouted for the film industry and made his first screen appearance in Keystone Studios's Making a Living (1914).
Soon thereafter, he began developing the "Tramp" persona and formed a large fan base.
By 1918, he was one of the best-known figures in the world.
Chaplin had begun directing films relatively early in his career, a craft he continued to hone as moved to the Essanay, Mutual and then First National corporations.
In 1919, he co-founded the distribution company United Artists, which, when his First National contract expired in 1922, meant he could exercise full control over the films he made.
His first feature-length picture was The Kid (1921), followed by A Woman of Paris (1923), The Gold Rush (1925), and The Circus (1928).
Despite the rise of sound in film during the 1930s, he continued to make pictures without dialogue, producing City Lights (1931) and Modern Times (1936).
(↕create join)
Chaplin became increasingly political and his next film, The Great Dictator (1940), satirised Adolf Hitler.
The 1940s were a decade marked with controversy for Chaplin, and his popularity declined rapidly.
He was accused of communist sympathies, while his involvement in a paternity suit and marriages to noticeably younger women caused scandal.
An FBI investigation was opened, forcing Chaplin to leave the United States and settle in Switzerland.
He abandoned the Tramp in his later films, which include Monsieur Verdoux (1947), Limelight (1952), A King in New York (1957), and A Countess from Hong Kong (1967).
Chaplin wrote, directed, produced, edited, starred in and composed the music for most of his films.
As a perfectionist, his financial independence enabled him to spend years on development and production.
His earlier films are characterised by a combination of slapstick and pathos typified by the Tramp's struggles against adversity.
Many contain social and political themes, as well as autobiographical elements.
In 1972, as part of a renewed appreciation for his work, Chaplin received an Honorary Academy Award for "the incalculable effect he has had in making motion pictures the art form of this century".
He continues to be held in high regard, with The Gold Rush, City Lights, Modern Times, and The Great Dictator often ranked among industry lists of the greatest films of all time.
Perhaps it's the "After" version's second-third paragraph that fixed your attention..? It's interesting to see this format draw out some of the shortcomings in both versions. Regards, Sardanaphalus (talk) 00:39, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
No more than four paragraphs: understood. I suspect it was the extra blank lines that supplied the sense of bloat. Are you also saying, though, that:
"who rose to fame in the silent era" is more significant than "who is considered one of the most important figures in the history of the film industry" – i.e. that if only the first sentence of the article could be read, "Sir Charles...Chaplin...was an English actor...who rose to fame in the silent era" is preferable to something like "Sir Charles...Chaplin...was an English actor...who is considered one of the most important figures in the history of the film industry"..?
making the first mention of United Artists in the opening rather than the current third paragraph is too early..? (Perhaps, though, with a shorter accompanying description.) UA is/was unique in being the first of its kind and still, nominally, exists, with a name that (thanks to e.g. the Bond movies) may be recognised by a wide readership..?
Dipping in here too: UA is important, but is only one aspect of Chaplin's life and legacy. There's nothing wrong with the current position in the third para, IMO. - SchroCat (talk) 15:02, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
Its seminal, industry-changing nature and continuing appearances at the starts/ends of movies old and new isn't enough to make it a bit more than another aspect of Chaplin's accomplishments (even with Chaplin as co-founder rather than sole founder)..? Sardanaphalus (talk) 00:39, 3 September 2014 (UTC) PS Am now away until weekend.
Your POV on UA notwithstanding, the lead roughly follows the chronology of the article, and UA is introduced alongside Chaplin's film work, so moving it away from that filmwork is counter-intuative. Regardless of how seminal you think the studio is or was, it has its own article in which to make all those claims, while this one focuses on all the facets of Chaplin and his life, of which UA was just one part. With all the work that's needed on the millions of articles we have, I'm not sure spending hours bouncing opinions together on an already excellent article is constructive: there are many, many more articles that need such time and attention spent on them, and I'd prefer to do just that: I suggest you also move on to work on any one of the parlous articles we have, rather than distract on discussions on how best to guild the lilly. - SchroCat (talk) 09:03, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
On Jones? No, the parenthesis help there, by acting as a separation from the rest of the sentence. They basically make what is contained within it invisible from the sentence, thus being able to link what was before the date of birth to what comes after. To my English eyes, this looks correct. A dozen or so FAs can't be wrong. Cassiantotalk10:13, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for educating my not so English eyes, for which the things in parenthesis don't exist, so I would read "GW, DBE is a Welsh soprano." See what I mean? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:22, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
Without wishing to get into an infobox discussion, I would say no to it being a vandalistic edit. However, I dare say that some on here would think that having a missing infobox is vandalism, for which I vehemently disagree and make no apologies for ;) Cassiantotalk15:37, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
Read, read, read. I looked at the edit because a little thing, mobile edit, might (!) have been vandalism. It wasn't. It was only removing a space between two sentences commented out. Why someone would make the effort I don't know, I normally have a space between two sentences. I have no trouble with the content. I simply don't understand the meaning of the second, particularly "without discussing changing", - if you want to be understood word it differently. Posiibly my lack of English, that's why asked for education. - I was busy on the list of Mozart's masses, remember? Comments to names? - I declared my liberty some time ago, DYK ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:05, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
Like I say, this in my mind isn't vandalism, just someone who doesn't know (I like to assume good faith; note the parenthesis) ;). If I remember correctly, Brian uses the double space after a full stop. I think there maybe something technical behind it. At least one space should be used after a full stop, and in fact any clause come to that. Are you referring to the two "ing"'s? Yes, I agree this does sound odd, I'll take a look. Cassiantotalk18:13, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
We agree, it wasn't, said I, no? - Removing the only space is odd at best. I stopped removing one of two spaces years ago when I noticed it was intentional. What I removed later today was worse, - removal a service of QAI ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:28, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
After the son came the father is all very much in the cart-before-the-horse territory, but the little clean up of the Formby Snr article got a little out of hand and turned into an overhaul. For better or worse, the Wigan Nightingale is now at PR for comments, criticism and complaints. If you have the time or the will I'd be delighted to hear your views, but I appreciate that your Wiki time may be limited. Pip pip – SchroCat (talk) 22:41, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Auguste van Biene, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hull. 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.
I don't know you, but I do have some experience with both Chillum, and administrators on this wiki in general. I'd hate to see a good content contributor like you get blocked for incivility. I can understand your frustration, but it's just not worth it, Cassianto. LHMask me a question21:06, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
Hello, thanks for the concern. I'm done now, my point has been made. As for the future, Wikipedia is a big place and hopefully I will have nothing to do with him again. Cheers! Cassiantotalk21:10, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
The civility thing has really blown out of control at the moment, it needs to be brought down a peg or two and laughed at for a bit..♦ Dr. Blofeld18:21, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
I am completely confused as to what "incivility" actually means! I'm even more perplexed when someone accuses me of it when all I'm doing is pointing out facts. Sure, I appreciate that some would find things ruder than others, but when I base an assumption on a user who openly displays on his or her user page that he or she loves sex, adores pornography and only recognises heterosexual marriage, one cannot be blamed for pointing out that the image projected from the user boxes is that of a "nymphomaniac, porn obsessed, suspected homophobe". That is NOT uncivil, but a distorted (maybe) picture of what I imagine someone to be like in real life, based on their user boxes. Surely, THAT is the whole point of user boxes, right?
Some people are probably wondering why I won't drop it? Well, my wife and I have gay friends; in fact, I attended their wedding not so long ago. They would be aghast (but not surprised, I suspect) at the thought of someone only recognising straight marriage and not theirs. But I can't think like that, because that is uncivil of me lol... Cassiantotalk18:36, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
A bottle of wine, The Party and I'm Alright Jack! tonight chaps. I'm going to raise a glass a bottle and see the Sellers article off on its way back to C-Class and the depths of obscurity. The numpties won the day; if he wasn't banned, I dare say Light show would be dancing with delight that the article will be shit again! Cassiantotalk19:15, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
The use of the word "Incivility" strangely seem to be inversely proportional to lack of content, the less an editor contributes with content the more chance they're going to exist purely to template regulars.. BTW I was think of proposing merging Peter Sellers into the Stanley Kubrick article, what do you reckon? Light show would be over the moon!♦ Dr. Blofeld20:02, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
What a great idea Doc! And to justify it, we could say that it was because they both worked on a few films together. I'll post an RfC tag on the other Sellers morons talk pages; they'll bound to be on board! Cassiantotalk20:17, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
Ha, the word moron reminded me of an Indian editor from the wiki dark ages User:Sarvagnya. I think he was one of the earliest of that ilk that I encountered on wikipedia. Sort of like the trolls who inhabit the Sellers talk page but on Bollywood films. Which I've noticed over the years is very rare for India, most Indian wikipedians I know are very pleasant and productive people. He once tried to destroy an image agreement I had and used to gatecrash FACs with opposes. He used to be extremely obsessive over sourcing and used to troll articles stating "non RS, blablabla" in edit summaries and plaster tags on articles, and I think he once tried to claim The Times of India wasn't a reliable source! He was one of the worst, for sure.♦ Dr. Blofeld09:22, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
Hi, Cassianto! I wonder if you wouldn't mind adding the above to your watchlist. Hordes of well-meaning students are doing a project on it. They are very polite, but I'm feeling a little overwhelmed. Just to have another experienced watcher would be nice. Cheers! Rothorpe (talk) 21:43, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
Hello Rothorpe, how lovely to hear from you. I have now added it to my watch list and I shall dish out detentions to all those who behave badly. Hope your well! Cassiantotalk21:47, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
I'm all good. Back at work tomorrow having had a lovely long weekend in Bath with the family. I have been working on Alec Hurley tonight, the estranged and rather put-upon second husband of Marie Lloyd. You caught me as I was about to sign off for the night actually. In my absence, I pointed them in the direction of FA for them to take a look at and digest; they may as well learn from the best! – Cassiantotalk21:58, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
Bath, scene of my last ever job, teaching the usual variety of foreigners, in 1994! The Polygon, I think it was, in one of those curved terraces. I saw the note you added: many thanks! Rothorpe (talk) 22:50, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
Happy Wikibreak but....
...please come back when you can. Your superb contributions speak for themselves, but your exuberant backstage editorial comments have been a delight and a support these past few years, and I for one will miss them. Tim riley talk23:03, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
Give the poor old bugger a break, will ya? Seeing the two of you bickering and calling each other names, well it doesn't lead to anything positive. Set an example and maybe he'll follow your lead. Cheers. --Pete (talk) 17:50, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
I doubt it: the outbreak of insults and people telling others to "Fuck off" was not started by Cassianto (or me, come to that), so perhaps your calls for people to behave should be focused elsewhere, on the toxic originators of the problem? – SchroCat (talk) 17:59, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
Last time I checked there was no marshmallow blanket under my butt, I don't know how long ago (if ever) I quoted poetry, and I was certainly not listening to a Piano Concerto No. 21 in C-minor (FYI, Mozart's 21st is in C major — I always like when people get their facts straight). None of this seems relevant for the fact that "some people just do not get on". Last time I checked, we had "comment on content, not on the contributor" to mitigate that on-wiki. --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:17, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
Irony, and sarcasm, don't work very well in Wikipedia discussions, that's why I took the "marshmallow ... etc" contribution quite literally. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:26, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
I "grasped" the irony in the marshmallow comment, don't worry about that, that's why I had such fun replying to the comment and the comment only (not the contributor).
I've been around for some time, you know, don't worry about that either.
Re. "distance yourself from Jimbo Wales and his civility police" — seems a rather clueless comment to me: I never "associated" me with them (don't even know whether "civility police" is a thing — I can't remember expressing myself on something I'm not even sure of it exists), so don't see how that distancing would work. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:53, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
There's an editor on here called Caden. He can't write articles, knows nothing about what makes a high quality article and instead, spends his day reverting other people. Yesterday, I was told to keep away from his talk page because I pointed out that he might enjoy pornography a little bit too much. Don't worry though, Caden likes pornography and openly advertises this fact on his user page. Caden, however, plays the incivility card when you remind him of this fact, something which is embarrassing for him, but hilarious for the rest of us.
Here, I transcribe the removed comments onto my talk page for all to see. Having complained that I was rude to him, he left this edit summary "you two are dirty, disgusting old perverts". Funny that, as I personally don't get off on pornography.
The removed exchange was this...
Dr. Blofeld - "Has all that jerking off to pornography affected your eye sight??"
Cassianto - "I believe 'wanker' is the word that you're looking for".
Dr. Blofeld and I simply reminded Caden of his love for pornography, with Dr. B using the term "jerking off". Being English, I translated this into "wanker" (I.e, someone who "jerks off"). Caden, the sensitive fellow that he is, removed the posts on his talk page where I was supposed to have called him a wanker. Frustrated with people making opinions of him based on his user boxes, Caden took me to ANI, which he lost. Again. A bit embarrassing for poor old Caden 😏.
Of course, ANI brought the lunatics out of their asylum who criticised me for my "apparant" incivility. They were also blind (probably through wanking themselves) as they seemed to opine that I called Caden a wanker, which I didnt.
LMAO. I'm the filthy one apparently when he's the one with a pornography user box and is a project member!!! It was intended in good jest that he seems to watch a lot of porn and can't see that the Paris montage isn't exactly "ugly". If he didn't have such a user box I'd not even have imagined saying that!! What hypocrisy!!♦ Dr. Blofeld13:19, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
Unfortunatley "jest" and Caden don't go together in a sentence terribly well. What made it even more funny was that User:Metropolitan and some person called Ian something or other sided with the complainant when they hadn't even read the diffs correctly. They just tossed in a few supporting posts in favour of Caden; I can't stand tossers. Cassiantotalk13:27, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
And let's not forget that I was responding to a direct personal attack on my image in the first place!!.. Who would have taken that to ANI other than a complete humourless time waster..Conclusion? Caden, shut up about my work and stay well away from me and I promise I'll do the same..♦ Dr. Blofeld13:32, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
I saw that Caden had said you watched porn and that you're disgusting. From what I've seen so far, you're no such thing Doctor.Amanda Smalls18:54, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
Ha, right your confused. I don't watch porn, no. It is seedy, embarrassing and something which Caden enjoys. Draw your own conclusions as to who is "disgusting" on that one. Caden advertises his seedy activities on his user page. Cassiantotalk18:58, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
You didn't, you thought I was the disgusting one, but I will assume good faith and put it down to confusion. Did you see the homophobic user box about marriage? Cassiantotalk19:09, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
Cassianto, I asked you to stop mocking Caden for his user box. Did you think I was joking? I wasn't. Please don't do any more stuff to stir this situation up. Please. --John (talk) 20:34, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
Cassianto, I have blocked you for 48 hours for personal attacks. To all people involved: to the extent that this whole kerfuffle was sparked by disagreements over the Paris page, please also see my final warning at Talk:Paris#Behavioral warning (it goes for all namespaces including user talk). Fut.Perf.☼20:47, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
John, I respect you hugely and I should've listened to you the first time. I will belatedly take your advice from now on. Fut.Perf. I have no idea who you are, but do what what you like, I couldn't really care. Oh, and for your information, Paris had nothing to do with it, but thanks for that stunning piece of guess work 😏. I won't be appealing; not because I think that the block was justified (it wasn't), but because I can't be arsed. Cassiantotalk08:29, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
I find it curious that Fut.Perf. is willing to block something like this, even when John was already on the case, but that direct personal attacks like this (after edit summaries like this) go uncommented on (let alone the incivility and personal attacks of Ian Thomson at ANI, which was equallymore block-worthy). I'm not entirely sure of the standards being adhered to here, or whether some others are teflon-coated and will avoid any censure, let alone a block. What is sure is that there is a lack of consistency in approach that is unhealthy. - SchroCat (talk) 14:52, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
Sadly I see that future perfect has been editing and has ignored the double standards involved in his actions. I see he is also acting as a one-man censorship bureau, with his statements on both ANI threads essentially closing off any comments, and ensuring they remain archived. Because of his actions, this matter will remain unresolved and the toxicity will stay bubbling away beneath the surface of that article. I stepped away from it some time ago (the bullies had their way, unfortunately), but this means that they will remain on the page, ready to force the same issues again at some point in the future. Very sad. - SchroCat (talk) 11:24, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
The rude bastard ignored my private email to them as well. In it, I pointed out that since I was unable to defend myself against some horrible little troll called Kintetsubuffalo who told me to go fuck myself in an edit summary and was grave dancing with clogs on, perhaps they might like to block them too seeing as they were being uncivil to me, like I was apparently to Caden. But no, it appears that Future Perfect Sunrise has double fucking standards. It wouldn't be the first time an admin has displayed such disgusting double standards, and I'm sure it's not going to be the last. Future's Perfect Sunrise, it appears, is not so fucking perfect after all, and is instead a filthy overcast skyline full of hypocrisy and double standards. Cassiantotalk11:46, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
Hi Cassianto, we haven't met before, but some of your posts over the last few days have made me smile. I see this daft block is your first - don't let it radicalise you or alter you. Just accept that some people have a very limited sense of humour or in some admins' case no sense of humour at all. I just looked through the pages you have edited and started - they are very good indeed. Keep it up; we need a few laughs around here. Giano(talk)16:59, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
Hello Giano, thanks very much for your kind post. This whole experience has not left me bitter as being so would have meant a win for the trolls. I shan't return in a hurry as real life is a bit hectic for me at work, but I shall pop up towards George Robey's TFA to defend it against the usual vandals and POV pushers. I don't know what this block was supposed to have achieved actually as my "behaviour" will remain unchanged when I am allowed back on tomorrow. I'm glad I have said what I have said to various "editors" on here over the last few weeks, and if the situation ever arose again in the future then I would conduct myself in exactly the same manner. I final warning from John would have been far more effective for me personally as I respect him a lot and loathe the idea of disappointing him further. I'm glad you liked my work, that means a lot coming from an editor such as yourself. I hope we can collaborate some day in the future. Cassiantotalk11:57, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
Having seen the work of both you and Giano, any such articles would be spectacular. And having seen the "work" of FutPer (such as it is), I'm glad you're not letting his shitty block get you too down. LHMask me a question12:41, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
Heh, true/ditto/agreed........in fact I was just posting to ask if you could let me know what you think of the prose of Australian raven which is at the snake pit at present...I must stop writing about obscure things and choose something with broader appeal...well, sometime/mañana anyway......Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 19:59, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
Great Tom
Just wanted to clear up in a little more detail about the disagreement over which Great Tom is being talked about in the Whitechapel Bell Foundry page. Great Tom, Oxford was cast in 1680 by Christopher Hodson, an itinerant founder based in London. He came to Oxford to recast the eight bells at Merton College and at the same time was employed by Christ Church to recast the bell previously cast by Keene of Woodstock. All of this work took place in Christ Church meadow. You will note that Hodson's name does not appear on the list of founders based at Whitechapel.
Great Tom of Lincoln was cast by Thomas Mears II in 1835. See the spreadsheet shown as the reference on the Whitechapel page, or it is listed here simply as 'Bourdon'. Thomas Mears II was casting bells at Whitechapel between 1810 and 1844.
Thanks; my main problem was the lack of source as any information added without a reference would be seen as WP:OR. I have checked the source and I'm satisfied with its reliability. I remember going to the Whitechapel Bell Foundry as a spotty faced youth as part of my teenage hobby of bell ringing. It was fascinating and well worth a visit if you have the time and inclination. It's certainly a hidden gem among the now dilapidated and rotten East End of London. Cassiantotalk20:50, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
Guy Fawkes Night
What was wrong with adding Parkin to the See Also section on the Guy Fawkes Night page? Parkin is traditionally eaten Guy Fawkes Night in northern England, and other commonly eaten foods are already there such as Treacle Toffee...
By all means take it to the talk page and see what others think, but I happen to think that this is unnessersary. I have never even heard of Parkin cake or Bonfire toffee. Cassiantotalk23:03, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
Hello, I see there has been a Great Controversy and this is locked, so I can't change a semicolon to a full stop. Greetings! Rothorpe (talk) 18:29, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
Can you or Master Riley find anything more on this? I was watching the Connery film The Offence I know you recommended a while back and spotted Ronald Radd in it, an article I started back in 2007 having seen him in one of my favourite series Randall and Hopkirk Deceased. I searched for his name in the British library resource and came up with the Kettering Savoy! Appears that the place became a shit hole before demolition, but in its Golden Age in the late 40s and early 50s seemed to be a decent theatre.♦ Dr. Blofeld13:10, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for such an interesting article! Why do you have the notice on your user page that you are taking a Wiki-break when I see that you've been editing? I'm just curious, the notice above says that you nominated the article for FAC, but did you also write the article? If so, it's very good. CorinneSD (talk) 17:45, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
(watching) I can only answer the last question: if you want to know main editors to a featured article, you go to the talk, click on "identified" and see who nominated for FAC, most often those who were the main contributors, here just one: Cassianto. It's different from nominating to appear as today's featured article (TFA) which I often do for others, including this one. You find it in the related nomination. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:26, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
I certainly do not want to get into an edit war, so I'm going to bring up the issue of User:Ssilvers recent edits here so you can all comment. Ssilvers changed some of my edits back to the way they were. Regarding the placement of comma or period inside or outside of final quotation marks, I was following [[MOS:LQ]. If the quote ends in a complete sentence, the period should go inside the final quotation marks. If he quote ends in an incomplete sentence, or sentence fragment, the comma or period should go outside the final quotation marks.
Regarding my use of a colon (changed by Ssilvers to a semi-colon), the individuals mentioned (Hardacre and Stuart) are examples of the theatrical colleagues who were present at the wedding. Thus, a colon is appropriate.
Regarding my change from "and" to "but also", I think "but also" better points out the contrast between the two halves of the sentence. I also think using "but also" makes the sentence more interesting. CorinneSD (talk) 23:42, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
I agree about the quotes. As far as I know, those quotes end in a complete sentence. As for the semicolon, it separates two independent clauses, so I think the semicolon is correct. I think "but also" is the wrong conjunction. I don't think the two halves of the sentence are contrasting, but rather consistent. I think "but also" is jarring and perplexing. I'm certainly interested in what Cassianto thinks about these. -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:32, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) I know that Cassianto is normally pretty hot when it comes to his punctuation, especially around quotes, and he always edits in line with LQ (being British, it is his and my default setting anyway) I suspect he got the punctuation correct in this regard, and I certainly wouldn't change it one way or the other without a source to hand. In terms of the others, a semi-colon is correct (Pitt Hardacre and Stuart were not congregation, so it's not a list: they were part of the wedding party, and so the phrase is a separate section of the sentence). In terms of 'and/but also', I'd probably settle with 'and': if I see 'but', my mind is thinking a contrary stance to the preceding words ("surprised the press but was expected by fans", etc). The current form, to my mind, intimates in a rather elegant way that both press and fans were worried and surprised. Just my penn'orth on the matter, which you can take or ignore as you will. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 08:52, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
Cassianto and I don't always agree about punctuation, but I have carefully reread the article (no hardship with such a fine piece) and I agree with Ssilvers and SchroCat that the version that passed PR and FAC was pretty much on the nail without later intervention. Tim riley talk17:53, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
User:Ssilvers, here are the sentences at issue regarding ending punctuation:
1) For his routines, Robey developed a characteristic delivery described by Cotes as "a kind of machine-gun staccato rattle through each polysyllabic line, ending abruptly, and holding the pause while he fixed his audience with his basilisk stare."
The part enclosed in quotation marks is not a complete sentence. Thus, according to WP:LQ, second paragraph, which I will quote here, the final quotation marks belong inside the period:
"Where a quotation is a sentence and coincides with the end of the sentence containing it, terminal punctuation should normally be placed inside the closing quotation mark. Where the quotation is a single word or fragment, terminal punctuation should be placed outside."
2) You are right about the Shakespeare sentence.
3) Regarding "and" vs. "but also", I think I was thinking of the entire clause as "which not only surprised the press but also worried fans who thought he might retire". In that construction, the material following "but also" is not contrasting. It is additional, but different information. In my opinion, even if the initial "not only" is left out, the meaning of the construction is retained with "but also". If it were only "but", that would indicate contrast. I still think that is a much more interesting and meaningful clause than "which surprised the press and worried fans who thought he might retire".
4) I'm not going to argue with you over the semi-colon vs. the colon since both are correct, but I don't understand User:SchroCat's statement: "Pitt Hardacre and Stuart were not congregation, so it's not a list: they were part of the wedding party, and so the phrase is a separate section of the sentence." One use of a colon is to introduce examples of what's before the colon. There are two names there, both examples of "various theatrical colleagues". I don't think it is required that the entire wedding party be named. But, actually, a better wording would be:
1) I agree that you are quoting the right rule, but I think you are interpreting too literally the clause "single word or fragment". The Wikipedia article on Quotation mark sheds some light on this. It says of logical quotation: "include within quotation marks only those punctuation marks that appeared in the quoted material but otherwise to place punctuation outside the closing quotation marks." So, if a substantial quote ends with punctuation (even if it is not, gramatically, a complete sentence), that punctuation should go inside the quotation marks.
3) I appreciate the suggestion, but it appears that everyone disagrees with you. We all read this article at Peer Review and again at FAC, and it appears that most readers think the sentence is better as is. I don't remember exactly how this sentence evolved, but I certainly read the article many times before it was promoted to FAC, and I don't think your suggestion captures the meaning intended.
4) I agree that your suggested sentence is fine, but I also think that the sentence is fine as is. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Of course, we appreciate your interest in the article, but we have all been working on, and thinking about, this article for some time. In fact, I first started contributing to this article in 2008, and since Cassianto decided to do a major expansion of the article in March 2014, we worked pretty hard on it. SchroCat and Tim were both very helpful commenters along the way. I can report that this article received very thorough review by a large number of commenters. So, if someone has a new suggestion for it, we are all ears, but it should be a clear improvement, not merely an attempt to substitute their style for Cassianto's. As to your other two comments here, they are good questions, and Cassianto needs to check the sources to resolve them. I understand that he is currently very busy in RL, so we may need to be patient. -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:42, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
Time for a PR?
Morning Cass, I know your time is limited at present, but if there is a possibility you could swing by the Barrymore peer review I'd be most grateful. If you're not able to make it, that's not a problem, but it will mean that you'll have to make the FAC! ;-) Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 11:03, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
Personal attacks
Hi, Cassianto. I'm glad that TRM has friends who feel so strongly about his departure (which hopefully is short-lived). When wikidrama get's you down, it is good to feel supported. That said, you can be supportive of TRM and critical of recent events without alluding to other contributors with invectives such as "douchebags" or "the filthy troll" [4][5]. Insulting other contributors isn't likely to make anything better for anyone. I hope you can find other, more civil, ways to express your displeasure over what has happened. However, if you want to persist with the name calling, don't expect any additional warnings from me. Dragons flight (talk) 00:57, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
Irrespective of the fact TRM and I got along, it pisses me off to see great editors simply give up because of a few halfwits who created hell and merry weather at ANI simply because TRM corrected their shoddy edits. I feel you are barking up the wrong tree by coming here because I don't believe in civility over content creation. I would ask that you, your dove, and your olive branch go and mediate somewhere else. Cassiantotalk01:05, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
Dragons flight, There has been more than enough dramah from this event, including the loss of a good editor because of the actions of an editor with a longstanding grudge. Enough is enough, the matter is closed, and no threats or further extended dramahs are needed. - SchroCat (talk) 12:07, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
Regarding this, SchroCat was not a respectable and considerate editor in the discussion. Do you think he was? He may be aware of the policy of civility, but he chooses to ignore it. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me)21:53, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
Erik, Before I start getting agitated and reverting to base Anglo Saxon, you are not the civility police and you are not the individual on Wiki who monitors or comments on my behaviour, so mind your own damned business and trot over to fulfil your mission on the FA film articles - you remember the big issue that breaks the encyclopaedia? Time you did something on tha, rather than focussing on me. - SchroCat (talk) 22:02, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
I am expressing a concern that your conduct as an editor is detrimental to others. The discussion at Paddington is not the first time I have seen your abrasiveness, and it was not even a major issue at stake here. I weighed in as a third opinion. We could have debated what is appropriate to summarize or not, or you could have just left the matter behind. I'm asking you to consider how you come across to other editors in various corners. Thinking that you're right does not entitle you to be disrespectful. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me)22:10, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
And I give not a toss about your opinion, tbh. You may try and run FilmProject as your own personal fiefdom, but pointy little comments like this do not automatically make you somehow more superior to anyone else. You don't like my conduct? Good, I don't like your supercilious attitude, so that puts us in a nice footing. Just avoid commenting on me and what I do, and I'll carry on improving articles and telling timewasters to avoid being dramah fiends. Get off to FA and sort out the supposed problem you think you identified on Paddington and I may habve better thoughts about you, but if you come in, crap on a converstion, then not follow up with the other articles, your attitude and approach will remain devisive and poor. - SchroCat (talk) 22:19, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
I think you have made excellent contributions and can make insightful comments in discussions. However, I have noticed for some time now that you have been hostile toward other editors on numerous occasions. The point of being civil is to ensure a pleasant editing environment. I'm asking you to consider your words toward other editors and whether or not they are conducive. As for film FAs, I've supported guidelines to ensure that the aggregate critical response is properly attributed, and I've participated in various discussions to encourage that. The Paddington discussion was just the latest; I think a previous similar discussion was The Maze Runner. I really would like to have infinite time and resources to fix up all the old film FAs, but I don't. Fine if you disagree with me on summarizing that kind of content, but I think a specific referencing approach ensures that the summary sentence is grounded in something already published, such as Los Angeles Times reporting critics' thoughts in a nutshell. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me)22:56, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
Last time I had the misfortune to interact with the other editor, they turned out to be the most patronising editor I have had the misfortune to come across. You want to point your civility comments somewhere: aim them at her. As I've said before: go to the FAs and do the same thing there. If not, then revert the stupidity on the Paddington page. It's a shit citation and a shit situation as you well know. The citation will be out of date in a day or two, and the whole thing was a monumental waste of time and effort started by one troublesome editor. I'm sick and tired of the whole situation which has wasted most of the day and almost all my patience. It ends now. - SchroCat (talk) 23:11, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
Erik, yes I think SchroCat was completely right in trying to explain to you and your wingman the importance of the points discussed. You both chose to ignore him and fought with complete bloody ignorance causing him to leave the page. Furthermore, I agree with him that if you think film articles are flawed in how they are written then you should go and do something about it at FA. I guarantee you that you will fall flat on your arse and make a complete spectacle of yourself, similar to what you are now doing here. Cassiantotalk23:44, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
SchroCat, I think I recall the incident you're referring to. I'll be sure to talk to SummerPhD if I see incivility on her part next time. I do agree that the article's content will probably evolve shortly, but I think we will find even more worthy references to encapsulate what critics thought of the film. I hope the rest of your day and evening goes better.
Cassianto, I did not choose to ignore him. I expressed concern over how the summary sentence was conceived, but the discussion really did not go that far between me and him. I do try to encourage a best practice of summarizing critics' thoughts in several ways. If a film article is a FA candidate, I will keep an eye out to make sure a good, referenced summary sentence is written. I'm not sure why you're wishing me ill in that. In any case, thank you for tolerating this exchange on your user talk page. Hope your evening goes well also. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me)00:04, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
Erik, next time you add to Paddington, use the right date format: it's a British English article, sp please edit accordingly. When you ahev done that, perhaps you and Summer can go to the FAs and start removing the plague of adequately supported and resonable summary lines that is blighting the encyclopaedia. The pair o you created enough stupid drama on one article over it: perhaps you'd like to justify such an approach in the high profile articles. (I'll put good money on the fact tha you'll both chicken out of that tho) - SchroCat (talk) 08:56, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
Barrymore FAC
Hi Cass, as you were busy during the Barrymore PR, I wonder if you have time to pop along to the FAC? No problems if you don't - I understand how limited your time is at the moment. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 23:23, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
Christmas greetings
Seasonal Greetings and Good Wishes
Christmas greetings for 2014, and best wishes for 2015. Here's to another year's successful editing, with peace and goodwill to all! Brianboulton (talk) 19:24, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
You'll have a very Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year and that we'll see your face here on a regular basis again in 2015 if not before! We hope (talk) 19:37, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
Season's Greetings!
Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2015 !!!
Hello Cassianto! As we gather to celebrate the changing of years and reflect on the meaning of life, the universe, and everything, I would like to wish you and yours a merry Christmas and a happy New Year. Attached is a small snack which I hope will give you the energy to continue being an amazing person and editor in the coming year.
For those who care, I am back, albeit on a smaller scale. My friends will already know the reason why I took a hiatus, but others may not. For those interested, it was purely for career reasons I left and not a direct result of the fuckwits who dragged me through the dirt a month or so ago; you know who you are and I'm sorry to disappoint you. Having said that I'm not out of the woods just yet and I may disappear again in a month or two for the same reasons. In the meantime, I'm not planning on writing any FA's just yet but I'm open for anything else. CassiantoTalk18:31, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
