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.

I am currently very busy in real life so unfortunately, I will be unable to commit to any reviews or major expansions at this time. I'll still be about, however, so please feel free to leave me a message about anything else and I'll get to it when I can. Thank you. Cassianto

A yes for No?

Hi Cass, You have previously been good enough to review one of the previous Bond novels; I have recently filed Dr No, Fleming's sixth Bond novel, at PR for further consideration. If you have the time or inclination, I'd be grateful for any comments you may have. No rush and no compunction at all, obviously. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 13:12, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

May 2016

You probably shouldn't be directing what you said here at anyone. Just sayin'. Misceditor1000 (talk) 00:19, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Do you think this comment was acceptable? Cassianto 00:24, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

I asked him what he thought since I'm unsure. Misceditor1000 (talk) 00:29, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

You don't have to be Peter Tatchell to work out that the insinuation was homophobia. That's far worse than any f-bomb. Cassianto 00:35, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Blocked for personal attacks

For calling another editor "piece of shit" and "a filthy, disgusting specimen" I am giving you a 72 hour block for personal attacks. I have warned you instead of blocking you on many occasions and it has not prevented this behaviour so a block is the next step. HighInBC 00:40, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

I don't care. I trust you'll be doing the same with CT then? Insinuating I'm homophobic is tantamount to slander, is it not? Or maybe you agree with that? Cassianto 00:44, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

I am trying to figure out what they meant here: User_talk:Curly_Turkey#Commentary. It would help me if you explained what you think they meant. I can see more than one possible interpretation of the comment and I would like to know yours. HighInBC 00:47, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Rest assured I have every intention of following up that comment. HighInBC 00:49, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

I swallowed a bitter pill by having an editor with 11 months editing experience preaching to me the "rules" of WP:BRD, or at least his interpretation of it. I pointed out that advice from him wasn't necessary. CT comes along and asks me why I haven't slagged him off for being gay. I loose my temper and say what I say. Even suggesting that I might be homophobic is disgusting and grossly offensive to me. Cassianto 00:51, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

I was confused at first because I was not sure who they were talking about. I see now the person in question self identifies on their user page and it is clear they were indeed implying you were homophobic when you were in fact just belittling a another user for not having your illustrious editing history. The comment was beyond the pale and I have given a block accordingly.

In the future you can report this sort of thing to me or a noticeboard instead of choosing to engage in similar behaviour. HighInBC 00:59, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Advice accepted, snark not needed. Cassianto 01:03, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

The language used was inappropriate and I understand the grounds for blocking, but I also understand the perceived provocation. If this block were appealed and I were the reviewer I would reduce it to time served. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:17, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

I am fine with that. However I will point out the other party I blocked is also claiming provocation and is also seeking an unblock. I think both parties provoked each other and they both stepped out of line. I think any solution to this should not treat the two differently. HighInBC 02:21, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Given that Newyorkbrad has unblocked Curly Turkey and their last edit indicated they are away from the wiki I have removed your block as time served. I see no value in one of you being blocked and the other not. I appreciate that you were provoked but you were also engaging in provocative statements. Let us chalk this up to a learning experience.

I would also like to say I think you have misjudged User:BU Rob13. In their 11 months here they have made over 30,000 contributions to this site. If you take the time to look at their contributions you will see they have given a lot to this project. HighInBC 02:39, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

So glad your unblocked and can make tasty edits to Misplaced Pages and once again be apart of the Misplaced Pages community. Cheers, CookieMonster755 03:21, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Revision to Scotland Yard

You reverted my change adding the radio program The Black Museum to Scotland Yard with the simple comment "fascinating". Was that in error? "The Black Museum" was set in Scotland Yard's building and dramatized cases solved by its officers. I didn't want to simply revert your reversion without reaching out to you, but I don't see why it should not be included in the article, and your comment would tend to support that. SixFourThree (talk) 14:31, 1 June 2016 (UTC)SixFourThree

Aside from the fact it's not reliably sourced, can you tell my why you think such trivial rubbish should be included in this article? Cassianto 14:41, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

A source can certainly be provided. And if you're going to argue that there shouldn't be an "In popular culture" section in the Scotland Yard article, then that's a conversation worth having. But so long as there is one, and a "Radio" section to boot, then a radio series about Scotland Yard detectives set in the Scotland Yard building itself is self-evidently worthy of inclusion, regardless of your opinion on its quality. SixFourThree (talk) 16:18, 1 June 2016 (UTC)SixFourThree

It's trivial bullshit and I shall delete it on sight. If you want this information added, I suggest you incorporate it into the relevent television programme's article. New Scotland Yard is a government building, not a film set. Maybe you'd also like to add Yes Minister to the Palace of Westminster article? Cassianto 19:43, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

The article is for the various buildings which have gone by that name dating back to 1887. There is a substantial "In popular culture" section listing examples of Scotland Yard itself appearing in films, literature, television and yes, radio. I can see an argument made for eliminating the 'entire section', but what's your rationale for deleting one single example of such a portrayal in popular culture, provided that example is sourced? SixFourThree (talk)SixFourThree

Just because it has an "In popular culture" section, doesn't make it right. I'll take a look later and boldly delete what I consider to be rubbish. My reversion of your edit is nothing personal. Cassianto 15:48, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Didn't mean to suggest that I thought it personal, only arbitrary. SixFourThree (talk) 16:59, 2 June 2016 (UTC)SixFourThree

(talk page stalker) I often think the "in popular culture" sections are just trivia magnets. I'd suggest deleting it all and leaving the opening sentance about how it is cultural shorthand for policing in popular fiction: there is no need for any of the multiple (and rather tenuous) examples given. – SchroCat (talk) 16:04, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Petite messe

Thank you for your comments for Rossini's damned good music, - I feel it could be a FA some day, and if you want to be part of improving and nominating you are welcome. - Regarding the thread Oh man, where my name was often mentioned but I can't reply: I can't help thinking that a load of words on talk pages could have been avoided (or used for better purposes, like writing articles) if what I called "a little extra service for readers" about a year ago (13 August, to be precise) would have been kept or changed, instead of deleted. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:54, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Dr No

Hi Cass, Many thanks for your comments and edits on Dr No. This is now at FAC, so if you happen to be passing through at any point and wish to make further comments, I'd be grateful to receive them; no problems if you are tied up with other matters, of course. Cheers. – SchroCat (talk) 07:50, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Of course; sorry, I've not been round much but I'll get there in a bit. Cassianto 22:52, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

No personal attacks

Hello, I'm SMcCandlish. I noticed that you made a comment that didn't seem very civil, so it has been removed. Misplaced Pages is built on collaboration, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page.

NB: Addressing the same user's arguments about the same thing on two pages, especially after that user explicitly referred from one discussion to the other, is standard operating procedure, not "stalking". User talk pages are not webforums for free-form venting. Please stay off my talk page if you have nothing constructive or substantive to communicate (especially given that you were very recently blocked for WP:NPA violations). If you have a substantive disagreement with my positions at either the Dr. No or Grant pages, then those are the places to post them. (PS: I have no fucking problem with vulgarity; you're just not in a position to make indefensible accusations of WP:HARASSMENT, a serious charge, nor to tell me where I can and cannot post in article-talk space, and I know you've been around long enough to know that.)  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ≼  19:00, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

It's not uncivil to point out the truth. Your behaviour is creepy and your attempt to open up a heated discussion after Ritchie333, an admin, hatted it is disruptive. Cassianto 19:09, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

• Raising the point of someone's block log to be wp:pointy is a twattish thing to do, so stop being so obnoxious here and elsewhere. You went into the Dr No article being obnoxious and trying to throw your weight around: it hasn't worked, and your ridiculous and petty point about quote boxes is unnecessary. I see you've got a bee in your bonnet about the boxes (and have bludgeoned enough people in previous discussions that didn't go your way). Ever thought you might be barking up the wrong tree, and that other people may have a different idea that you might way to step not? Time for you to be disruptive/obnoxious elsewhere. – SchroCat (talk) 19:13, 26 June 2016 (UTC)