Misplaced Pages

This is Cassianto's talk page, where you can send him messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Shortcut User talk:Cassianto

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12Auto-archiving period: 10 days

If I have left you a message: please answer on your talk page, as I am watching it. If you leave me a message: I will answer on my talk page, so please add it to your watchlist. Please click here to leave me a new message.

Misplaced Pages: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 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 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 08:14, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

I see what you mean. It puts your head above the parapet for you. Bloody hell. — O Fortuna 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 16:45, 12 July 2017 (UTC))

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

July 2017

Please stop attacking other editors, as you did on Ariana Grande. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Specifically, your edit summary on this revert is a clear violation of WP:CIVIL. I presume you would not accept this kind of treatment from other editors, and you should stop engaging it in yourself. This is not your first warning for this kind of abuse. General Ization 17:32, 14 July 2017 (UTC)