Please leave a message; I'll reply here.
Blocked for personal attacks
For calling another editor "piece of shit" and "a filthy, disgusting specimen"[1] 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? CassiantoTalk 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. CassiantoTalk 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. CassiantoTalk 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 Wikipedia and once again be apart of the Wikipedia community. Cheers, CookieMonster755 📞 ✉ ✓ 03:21, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
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? CassiantoTalk 14:41, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
- [2] 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? CassiantoTalk 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. CassiantoTalk 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)
ps: it was on the Main page, illustrated by a featured picture, thanks to Adam Cuerden ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:38, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
Hello, Cassianto. Please check your email – you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
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. CassiantoTalk 22:52, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
Kafka
Precious again, your consistency in keeping Franz Kafka "clean"!
--
Gerda Arendt (
talk) 10:07, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
- That's more like it; spontaneous, sincere, and not disguised as a pointy order. I'll take that as 2016's belated reminder, thanks. CassiantoTalk 17:17, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
For your work
![Million award logo.svg](https://web.archive.org/web/20160703170547im_/https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b6/Million_award_logo.svg/100px-Million_award_logo.svg.png) |
|
The Million Award |
For your contributions to bring Cary Grant (estimated annual readership: 7005500000000000000♠500,000) to Good Article status, I hereby present you the Half Million Award. Congratulations on this rare accomplishment, and thanks for all you do for Wikipedia's readers! We hope (talk) 11:44, 28 June 2016 (UTC) |
- Thank you, but with just seven edits over a two-day period, I'm in no way entitled to this. CassiantoTalk 17:14, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
- You were there to make a positive difference when needed. I think Dr. B. would agree. ;-) We hope (talk) 17:30, 28 June 2016 (UTC)