|
Please leave a message; I'll reply here.
| This is Cassianto's talk page, where you can send him messages and comments. |
|
Shortcut
|
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 08:36, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
|
Content
How about that, for a change? FAC Requiem (Reger), for the grave (centenary 11 May, soon), - and Brian did the norefs part already, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:32, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
- If you say so Gerda. Cassianto 12:36, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
- Too late, failed, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:12, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
- It wasn't a promise; I just didn't understand what you said. However, it's all just clicked into place. Sorry I missed it. Cassianto 22:14, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
- It's on the Main page, DYK, and will be again on 11 May, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:18, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
Invite
|
|
|
|
You have been invited to join the Meghan Trainor WikiProject, a WikiProject on the English Misplaced Pages dedicated to improving articles and lists related to Meghan Trainor. If you are interested in joining, please visit the project page and add your name to the list of participants. Thank You.
|
I know you're AWOL, but just in case...
Hi Cass, I have recently been working on Walt Disney, which is now up for PR. If you have any plans to return in the near future, any thoughts or comments on his huge figure would be much appreciated; if not, enjoy your break and hope to see you back soon. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 11:39, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
- (talk page stalker) Not that huge, surely? Martinevans123 (talk) 12:46, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
- I'll see what I can do, but internet is going to be a problem for me thanks to the idiots at Talk Talk. A great subject by the way! Cassianto 23:13, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
- They get everywhere. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:08, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
- yes --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:13, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
- Careful Gerda, otherwise you'll have Chillum turn up on your talk page with one of his stupid warnings. Cassianto 22:18, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
- I was about to say (above) that it is kind of chilling that Reger died with the proofs next to him of "Der Mensch lebt und bestehet nur eine kleine Zeit" (man lives and exists only for a small time), --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:22, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
- Chillum doesn't worry about small things like that, Gerda! Why let that stop a good, patronising message, such as the one below? Cassianto 22:27, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
- I have been warned of ANI for notifying project classical music of a discussion on a cantata, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:30, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
Can I tempt you back briefly?
Hi Cass, A brief note to let you know that Walt Disney is now at FAC, should you wish to visit and comment. Cheers! – SchroCat (talk) 07:42, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
Please refrain from personal attacks
Please don't engage in personal attacks as you did here. You can express your thoughts without name calling. HighInBC 22:00, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
- You cannot personally attack a group of people, in the same way that you cannot libel them, so please engage your brain before you troll my talk page. Cassianto 22:11, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, Cassianto, just act your age for once. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:05, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
- Hi Cassianto, you may recall that you were a very active participant in my RfA – I count 20 of your signatures on that page. No hard feelings. I'm not gonna chew you out for expressing your opinions on Jimbo-talk. Just curious to know whether you have any issues with my edits or admin actions since I got the bit last August. Also, I understand if you're reluctant to name names, but would you care to give me an idea about which articles or content areas are "policed in an unfair and unjust way"? And, what is the nature of the unfair policing? Thanks--wbm1058 (talk) 00:18, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
- I know you think that, however there is nothing in the policy to suggest that it is okay as long as you refer to a vague group of people. They are still people. Please just try to treat other editors with a reasonable level of respect. HighInBC 00:46, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
- And there's nothing in the policy which says that it is not okay, so my answer to you remains the same. Cassianto 01:08, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
- Wbm1058, although I've presented it, I do not want to open the can of worms by being any more specific than I have been, for the fear of making things personal. All you need to know is that it goes on and there are plenty of my collaborators who would say the same. Of course there are bad admins, it's the same with any group of people. There's also some bloody good ones too, all of whom I have a good relationship with. Unfortunatley, It's the bad ones who let things down for most. Ritchie333 was the last successful RfA I supported and I was damn glad that I did. He is a wonderful editor, an even better writer, a nice chap, and he is not shy to make bold, and sometimes controversial decisions (his band is bloody good too). With regards to your RfA, I can't remember how I voted; if I opposed then it was nothing personal, and I had my reasons for doing so; the main one being, probably, your lack of creating quality content. That, for me, is one of the main reason why I would oppose anyone who I didn't know. Cassianto 01:33, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
- I understand. For my first year or two here, I was nearly exclusively focused on content. Just perhaps not in areas that you've worked in; I was doing a lot in 1970s-80s computers and electronics. I was aware of a lot of things that needed gnome-type fixing, but I mentally "put on blinders" to that so I wouldn't allow myself to get distracted from making my narrow work area really nice. I just didn't start any new articles myself, as articles on most anything worth covering had already been started before I got here. I've found that at RfA content work that involves improving existing articles that are badly in need of work doesn't get as noticed as much as new articles, especially if your work is spread out among many articles. Somewhere along the line the blinders fell off and I started fixing random stuff and then I started patrolling for mistakes that I noticed nobody else was fixing. wbm1058 (talk) 02:47, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
Experience tells me that no amount of debate is going to sway you on your opinions about personal attacks. Suffice it to say the policy starts with "Do not make personal attacks anywhere in Misplaced Pages". The policy is just as enforceable regardless of your acceptance of it. I won't say another word on the matter unless the personal attacks continue. HighInBC 01:19, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
- Don't threaten me and stop skirting around the issue; if you want to block me then block me. You won't, of course, because you can't. I've not been "personal" about anyone, as to be personal would require one on one, not one on thousands. I shouldn't have to explain this to you, the clue is in personal attacks. Moreover, I find it odd that I should be talking about bad administrators and then suddenly you pop up. What's the matter, worried I was going to mention you? Cassianto 01:33, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
- I agree with you re characterizing your comments as personal. However I think they're somewhat uncivil. That said, while the project perhaps has too much tolerance for incivility, it's hard to fault you for being moderately uncivil on the talk page of someone who has been a bit that way themselves at times... wbm1058 (talk) 02:47, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
I have decided that this part of our no personal attack policy needs clarification. I assume you will have an opinion on the matter. The discussion can be found here: Wikipedia_talk:No_personal_attacks#Personal_attacks_against_groups_of_people. Hopefully we can get to the bottom of what the community expects in this matter. HighInBC 02:58, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
- That's nice for you. I thought you said you were saying no more on the matter? Or did you get bored by getting no reaction out of me? Cassianto 09:51, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
Keep the discussions focused
Cassianto our last exchange on this page ended with you deleting a comment I placed on this talk page with the editorial comment "Enough. Go and improve an article somewhere. You are really trying my patience now.)", yet now you add a comment to a talk page of an article that you have never edited and to which my first edit was made 11 years ago.
How does your comment (in the context a discussion to improve an article): "Yes PBS, boor off and go and do something constructive with your time." meet the requirements of talk page guideline: "Comment on content, not on the contributor: Keep the discussions focused upon the topic of the talk page, rather than on the personalities of the editors contributing to the talk page."?
-- PBS (talk) 05:59, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
- Personally I find admins who blatantly edit war to sub-standard work to be a bigger disgrace to the project than anything else. You behaviour on that article has been fecking disgusting to be honest, and the ongoing disruption you are causing is getting up towards the level of tendentious nonsense close to trolling. Constructive discussion ended some time ago on the points you continue to press, and it's time you dropped the last vestiges of ownership you have on the page (
"you have never edited and to which my first edit was made 11 years ago" ) and do something vaguely constructive elsewhere. – SchroCat (talk) 06:53, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
- Well, I'm really being besieged by them today, aren't I! Cassianto 09:52, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
|
