User talk:Cassianto/Archive 10

A barnstar for you!

	The Technical Barnstar
	For recognising where drama is, and working to avoid it. MaranoFan (talk) 10:24, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks very much, MaranoFan much appreciated. Cassianto^Talk 23:55, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

WP:IMOS

The consensus on Wikipedia is that the city is called DERRY. Please do not revert MOS changes. Thank you. xxx — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.152.123.85 (talk) 23:22, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Please discuss this here and stop warring. Cassianto^Talk 23:24, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

@Cassianto I've already reported the rouge IP. Not much else you or me can do but wait. Cheers! TJH2018 talk 02:00, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Many thanks, TJH2018. Cassianto^Talk 07:08, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Now blocked I see, TJH2018. There seems to have been a sudden drive of idiots just recently around here! Thanks very much for taking the time to report the matter. Cassianto^Talk 23:58, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Hey, no problem . You wouldn't want to see the number of reports I put in daily. Happy editing! --TJH2018 talk 00:05, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Kalki Koechlin

Hey, I just re-nominated Kalki Koechlin's article for WP:FA. If you find spare time, would you mind taking a look? Thank you! NumerounovedantTalk 18:10, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

@Cassianto: Hey sorry to bother you again, but any reply would be appreciated. Thank you! NumerounovedantTalk 18:14, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Please see above note. Cassianto^Talk 21:51, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, I believe it wasn't there when I left teh message that left me unaware. NumerounovedantTalk 07:15, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

The Beatles (album)

Hi, Cassianto. I've protected the article for four days in the hope that the content dispute will be worked out on talk. Please don't tell me who's right or wrong in the dispute, because I don't really care. And could you avoid Caden's page, please? There's so much history between the two of you that your posting there can't possibly do any good. Please stick to article talk. Bishonen | talk 19:19, 13 April 2016 (UTC).

What makes you think that I think you give a shit about who the villains are in this? Heck, I don't even know myself. All I know is that where Caden is, there's trouble. I'm inclined to run to the hills with you. Cassianto^Talk 19:46, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Just concentrate on your rubber, Cassi, not iron, ok? Martinevans123 (talk) 19:59, 13 April 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)

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^Talk 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^Talk 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)

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^Talk 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^Talk 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^Talk 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)

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^Talk 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^Talk 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^Talk 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 Wikipedia". 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^Talk 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^Talk 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^Talk 09:52, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Sigh

Why did you have to link me to nucklevee, people are actually edit-warring to keep an explanatory note for a word that has actually been removed per talkpage consensus... Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:52, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

I did no such thing; you linked yourself by involving yourself. I merely signposted you to two discussions which prompted OpenFuture into stalking me. Cassianto^Talk 13:55, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Rabbithole effect. Now I'm looking at stuck looking at Scottish island myths... But really, of all the stupid things people have to slow-mo edit war over. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:02, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

I could think of worse articles to be "stuck" looking at. The article is excellent and it certainly taught me something which I had never come across before. But unfortunatley all that it is now being ruined. Cassianto^Talk 14:05, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

May 2016

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Olivia de Havilland may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• experience, one I would never get over … Maybe he was the love of my life."{{sfn|Meyers|2011|p=87}}{{#tag:ref|On April 29, 1945, at the home of producer David O. Selznick, Huston, who knew about de

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 19:30, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Peer-review request for Catherine Zeta-Jones

Hi Cassianto. I was wondering if you would like to post your observations about the Zeta-Jones article at its peer review? Would be awesome if you could. Cheers! Krimuk|90 (talk) 06:07, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Archbishop Booth

@Cassianto: I have uploaded a COA for Archbishop Lawrence Booth & have provided evidence/references - see Talk. I should hope Wiki wishes to provide the best info but in this instance it would seem egos are getting in the way of admitting they are wrong. L'honorable (talk) 21:36, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
PS. qv. Burke's Extinct and Dormant Baronetcies & www.exploreyork.org.uk. I do not wish to argue about this for long when it is so patently correct - please advise. Many thanks.

The only advice I can offer you is to discuss the change on the article's talk page. Cassianto^Talk 21:52, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

What Talk Page - I thought I had discussed the subject ad nauseam. Is this how Wiki is supposed to be - anyone can pick a subject (in this case heraldry) which they know little about and then cause untold extra unnecessary discussion? L'honorable (talk) 21:57, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
PS. not that bothered - let them come to their senses & then discuss...

No, you've spoken with Hchc2009 on his talk page and Ealdgyth has asked you to discuss the matter there. Failure to talk about it there not only causes confusion for everyone else, but denies you the chance to have the CoA added to the page. Cassianto^Talk 22:00, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

But I have added to that page - I've now got an argument 4 people - I need 4 screens... This is all so pointless. L'honorable (talk) 22:04, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

I can't quite work out if you are trolling me or you are are genuinely missing the point. Follow the link to the talk page in my last comment here and discuss everything there. It's not really that difficult to understand. Cassianto^Talk 22:09, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Please rest assured that I am most definitely not trolling you. The only reason I contacted you was because another editor got you involved. Anyway I can scarcely believe how daft an argument can erupt when relevant citations etc have been given - not very friendly I must say. Could someone sort this out please? Thanks. L'honorable (talk) 22:14, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

See your talk page. You should have had a notification, but if you haven't, you need to go here. Cassianto^Talk 22:22, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

@Cassianto: I do not know how to broach this but I am grateful for any help I get. With regards to Wiki, yes, I am not au fait with its systems etc. but I also saw no reason for the bombardment of messages about something technical (ie. heraldry) but also simple (if you know how). Anyway, clearly not the best example of Wikipedians co-operating, but maybe we can do better next time? Best L'honorable (talk) 03:50, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

• Freddie (and Frederina) got fingered because one faked up a coat of arms and the other added it to a couple of articles. Freddie don't know much about heraldry. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 05:19, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Hello, Cassianto. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 18:25, 15 May 2016 (UTC). 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.

I sent you a private email. Please read and let me know what you think. My condolences are with you during the period of blocking. CookieMonster755 ^{📞 ✉ ✓} 18:25, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, CookieMonster755, response shortly. Cassianto^Talk 18:40, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

You're welcome. I just replied to your last email, so feel free to check your inbox. CookieMonster755 ^{📞 ✉ ✓} 21:17, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Yes, we all know what happened here. There's no point in continuing to go on but Drmies should know for future reference to never use me as the scapegoat when I'm clearly not to blame for an uneasy relationship between two editors which has gone on for years.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:14, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Whatever

Wellingtons, in the Guinness style

I wont offer any sage advice, but here is some wellington boots resembling pints of Guinness. Apparently all the rage in Paris, don't you know. Ceoil (talk) 08:45, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Probably should and some picture of socks too....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:15, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

A gift from Uncle Billy. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:27, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Obviously my gross incivility is the reason why the block hasn't been lifted. Cassianto and High BC were on the very best of terms before I came along and got all uncivil. I destroyed a great friendship! ;-) I'm sure Cassianto has better things to do on holiday than having to put up with this place anyway!♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:00, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Well you do claim on your user page to be one of the world's foremost evil men. But I don't believe everything I read. Some admins many have other standards. Ceoil (talk) 14:19, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Indeed! ♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:22, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Good job you're on holiday. You might need those boots? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:40, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

"The community"?! Shame on you. You should have realised by now that this encyclopedia is, in fact, written by thousands of enslaved battery kittens mercilessly hung up on coatracks Martinevans123 (talk) 17:38, 16 May 2016 (UTC) ...occasionally supported by a few primates, of course.

Yes, I know. I just thought that attributing it to Jimbo was, perhaps, a little too far-fetched. Cassianto^Talk 19:26, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Anbe Sivam PR

Hello, Cassianto. I've listed the article for PR here as I wish to take it to FA. Feel free to leave comments. Thanks.  — Ssven2 ^{Speak 2 me} 04:49, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks and request

Thank you so much for all the help with the Zeta-Jones article, and I would be very grateful if you could take a look at the Jessica Chastain article that I have listed for peer review. Cheers! Krimuk|90 (talk) 05:57, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

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^Talk 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^Talk 00:35, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

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? Cassianto^Talk 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^Talk 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^Talk 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)

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^Talk 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? Cassianto^Talk 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) —Preceding undated comment added 15:45, 2 June 2016

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^Talk 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)

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^Talk 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. Cassianto^Talk 17:17, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

For your work

		The Million Award
		For your contributions to bring Cary Grant (estimated annual readership: 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. Cassianto^Talk 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)

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.

WP:TWAT

I don't know about you Cass but I think we've long been due an essay on this haha!♦ Dr. Blofeld 07:57, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

There'd be no shortage of citations, certainly. Cassianto^Talk 12:59, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Show me, please.

I've had about six or seven different accusations today and whenever I've asked to be shown evidence to back this accusation up not one person has done it. So I request you kindly, find me, where specifically, I hung BMK out to dry. Show me, where specifically, I called for a block orequivalent punishment. When you do that, I'll show you exactly where I said not to sanction BMK. Perhaps, even show you where I took back my words and did not hang you out to dry. Do me this one courtesy. After six accusations, ranging from liar to obstructionism to hanging out an editor to dry, I'd like just one to be based on merit. Mr rnddude (talk) 15:18, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

You said: You obviously seem to care or you wouldn't be getting worked up over others disagreeing with you." -- Knowing that I don't care one jot. You said this to get a further reaction out of me and that is troll-like behaviour. If you're not a troll, then why are you now getting "worked up"? Cassianto^Talk 16:16, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

No, Amaury said that, I never did. At least read the signature properly. Mr rnddude (talk) 02:00, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Also for that matter, I don't know you Cassianto, so why one earth do you think I know whether you care or don't. I love it when editors make accusations, then quote you, and it's not even you who said it. Mr rnddude (talk) 02:33, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

I'd like to move on and let you get on with whatever you are working on. The diff where I called for BMK not be sanctioned is here[3]. Specifically, "needed addressing, not sanctioning." The very same comment which you responded with telling me I should be ashamed. Your call on whether you still think that or not. The diff, that you should be insulting me for is here[4], I used this one, because I removed the three comments (edits) in one go. That's all I have from my side, I don't know if there's anything you want to say, or sling, to me. So, for now, because I think, neither of us have an particularly wish to talk to the other, I think it's best that go our separate ways. Thank you, and have a good day. Good luck bringing more articles to FA standard. Bye, Mr rnddude (talk) 05:55, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Look, I don't know you and I've never interacted with you before. I've seen your argument on other threads (you need to stop being a dramah board monger, is my advice) and see some sense in what you write elsewhere. I'm certainly not going to judge you long term over this. BMK is someone who I have also never really interacted with. I've seen him around and we've bumped into each other on a couple of occasions. As far as I know we've never had a cross word. I have no agenda by sticking up for him; I'd have done it to anyone, including the people who I perhaps don't really see eye-to-eye with.

I'm a fan of the underdog, and always have been. If I see someone being beaten up unfairly with pillars and essays at ANI, I tend to say something, especially if the thread is straying off subject for the worse, or if someone is being a dick. Most of the time, I steer well clear of ANI, it's a horrible place and full of trolls. The thread of which we speak was deteriorating; a thread which, for all intents and purposes, was designed, when it was first filed, to report one incident of wrong-doing. If it had've stuck at that, that's fine; generally, I wouldn't have commented, unless it involved me, or if I had a point to make about the actual incident. But if I see it quickly becoming a lynch mob meeting point, and find those loitering wanting to turn the thread into a character assignation, that is not on and is when I say something. Those doing it are undermining the real reasons as to why they're there in first place: to report the initial incident. Bringing someone's block log into the foray is unfair, and comes across as desperate; desperate inasmuch that it is only being used to highlight and bolster up the complainer's little argument. Sure, it is beared in mind, but it is grossly unfair to block someone based upon it. Every situation is different; every situation has a different story to tell; and every situation should have a different outcome based in the relevent incident, not previous ones. You cannot be tried for the same "crime" twice. Burke and Hare murders will be the next FAC, which I'm quite behind on, so with your permission, I'll get on with that now rather than continue with this. I really do appreciate your comments here. Cassianto^Talk 07:50, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Permission granted, thanks for the response, see you around. Mr rnddude (talk) 07:56, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, to drag you away from work, promise it'll be quick. Regarding your advice, best solution; don't take every little comment about myself so personally, except for overt and excessive PA's, just let it slide otherwise. Mr rnddude (talk) 08:11, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Aspersions

While you are at it can you substantiate your accusation that my blocks are personal[5]? If you don't feel like doing that please read WP:ASPERSIONS. HighInBC ^{Need help? {{ping|HighInBC}}} 15:21, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Common bloody sense tells us that Chillum. And don't uncover your tendentious bating on the RfA talk page: you know you're either baiting or trying to look like you got the last word in, so for once just do the right thing and leave well alone. - SchroCat (talk) 15:25, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

HighInBC, can I politely ask you please stop inserting yourself into these conversations and take Cassianto's talk page off your watchlist? The comments clearly do not produce the effect you want (which is presumably a more civil conversation) and - as seen above - have the reverse effect. There are over 1,000 other admins who can handle this. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:27, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

"All God's Chillun Got Rhythm, I read as "All God's Chillum" ;-) Chillum got rhythm.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:11, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Software

Did you use Photoshop to create this picture File:Cassianto3.jpeg? --Rainbow Archer (talk) 15:38, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

10 July

10 July

Took only 300 years to restore a good name. - Thank you for your work on the article. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:24, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Thank you

Thanks, Cass - very much appreciated. SagaciousPhil - Chat 21:00, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

My pleasure :) Cassianto^Talk 21:28, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Hey

Sorry about that misunderstanding earlier. I was just removing some of the unnecessary details involved with the Marilyn Monroe article as suggested by one its top editors. Informant16 July 17, 2016

There's no misunderstanding from where I'm sitting. You appear to be a vandal. Cassianto^Talk 23:21, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Please read

the first paragraph of this [6]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.28.36.149 (talk) 12:32, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

What's your point? Cassianto^Talk 19:36, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Kristen Stewart

Hey, what is it that you specifically object to in this revert? My most recent edit corrected the date of the event to July, although you could just as well have done this yourself. And what is this about administrator stuff?  Sandstein  07:25, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Who the fuck do you think you are? Rather than telling me to fix it, why don't you? You've obviously aware of the error too. Cassianto^Talk 07:27, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes, and that is exactly what I did in this edit. Why did you revert it?  Sandstein  07:27, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

You reverted a WP:CRYSTAL piece of information; you then reverted me again, fixing the error as you went, and which I was not aware of. Is there any reason why you entered 2rr unnessersarily other than to have the last word on the matter and leaving an edit summary of "Then fix the error", suggesting to me that you were reverting to the CRYSTAL version whilst at the same time, not acknowledging that you had actually rectified the issue? Not behaviour becoming of an administrator, do you think? Cassianto^Talk 07:35, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Well, I assume others do read what they revert, but I see that I must adjust that expectation. To be very clear, you do not have an objection to the content in the fixed form, or do you?  Sandstein  07:45, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

There's no need for patronising comments, thank you; yes, I should've read the revert correctly, but at the same time, you should've left an edit summary that indicated you'd actually fixed the problem. Also, you didn't need to revert me entirely as my issue involved one word, not the whole sentence. You could've edited that in a normal screen, thus avoiding 2rr, but you didn't. In future, please don't abuse the revert system as you did. Cassianto^Talk 07:53, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Actually, your revert did involve the whole sentence, so I'm a bit at a loss to see what I could have done other than putting the sentence back in with the correct word. Be that as it may, I'm so glad we're on the same page now as regards the content. May I ask you to put it back in so that we don't give the appearance of continuing the edit war?  Sandstein  08:03, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Done, with a rare apology. Cassianto^Talk 08:06, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Thank you.  Sandstein  08:12, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

WIkipedia:Peer review/Andha Naal/archive1

Kailash29792 has aimed to make it an FA. Feel free to leave comments and do let me or him know if you intend to do so by pinging either of us. Thanks.  — Ssven2 ^{Speak 2 me} 00:24, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Time for a summer PR?

What ho! I've recently been working on a biography of a fascinating and important figure, Josephine Butler. The lady is now at PR for comment and consideration, and if you have the time and inclination I'd be grateful for any comments you may have (I know, however, that you are extremely busy in RL, so no pressure on you to comment). Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 14:12, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Clarification.

I meant to check those articles because the killing of Jo Cox was listed there. But I guess since you don't think it counts, I just removed it from those lists. You're welcome, I guess. Parsley Man (talk) 16:24, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

The category's you are adding has sod all to do with the Killing of Jo Cox. Just so you know. Don't attempt to revert me again or you'll be reported. Cassianto^Talk 16:27, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

"The category's you are adding has sod all to do with the Killing of Jo Cox." I don't understand what you mean by that... Parsley Man (talk) 16:31, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

The murder, as far as I understand it, was not terrorism. Cassianto^Talk 16:39, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Oh, okay. Parsley Man (talk) 16:45, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Harry Nicholls reverted information regarding memorial restoration

The information that you have reverted from the Harry Nicolls (comedian) profile is inconsistent, as wikipedia has allowed our theatre heritage charity in the past to add factual information regarding the restoration of famous theatrical memorials and the installation of commemorative blue plaques. We would contend that this information is not encyclopaedic as it is a factual event and demonstrates a continued interest in the individual who is being commemorated. If you compare the information that you have reverted to other wikipedia profiles, you will see that information of this kind, plays an important part in establishing the person contribution to our collective heritage.

Wikipedia neither allows or disallows such information; it is a matter for common sense and what's encyclopaedic which determines its usage. The restoration of an old grave is not encyclopaedic but mere trivia. Cassianto^Talk 16:24, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

New RfC at Plummer v. State

There is a new RfC at Plummer v. State RfC, dealing with the Internet meme section. Please visit and comment on the proposed language for the section. This is revised from the first proposal, and you are receiving this notice due to your participation in the first RfC. GregJackP Boomer! 20:35, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Stanley Kubrick

Hi, I recently moved categories regarding criticisms of the school system and decided to add Kubrick based on the information in the section regarding his early life. I feel that he belongs there but if people want to remove him that's okay. MrAlienGuy101 (talk) 20:29, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

It's very easy for categories to become out of control and I'm afraid by adding that, we are opening the floodgates for more irrelevant nonsense. Cassianto^Talk 20:32, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Hey there

Appreciate your note. Things do get heated at times. Coretheapple (talk) 14:20, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Matcham

Hi, I don't think we've communicated before but I just put my 2p in at Blackpool Tower, sorry to disagree but, well I don't know anyone who calls it anything else. I looked at what you were up to and noticed your interest in Matcham. This is the Lucky Seven Bingo Club, EH's description, not mine so you'd never find it. It's a Frank Matcham theatre. It has an awful article at Theatre Royal, Wakefield but a nice pic. Hope this is useful. J3Mrs (talk) 20:41, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi, and thanks for dropping by. No, I don't believe we have spoken, but I've seen you about - thanks for your work. With regards to the Tower, fine, but I think we should at least explain in the lede section that the listing of Grade I is not exclusive to the Tower alone, because it's not. In addition to that, and regardless of the fact that the Tower article is kept as it is, I believe we should create separate articles for the other buildings located within the "complex" that Roxy the dog speaks of. I think it's important to note that the four areas; the Tower, Ballroom, Roof Garden, and Circus, form a Grade I group. If we are saying that the Tower is worth of its own space, then I believe, the ballroom at least, is also worthy of an article of its own. Once created, it shouldn't be given much space in the Tower article at all.

I've long been into Matcham and consider him to be unique among British architects inasmuch that he was completely unqualified and yet he was one the best in the business. His interiors, and especially his auditoriums, are a very special place to be. His ceiling designs, in my opinion, came second only to those of Thornhill. I agree, the Theatre Royal article is terrible; in fact, most of his articles, are terrible, if I'm honest. I have some books at home, and have others on order, so hopefully, as the months progress, I can brush a few up. Cassianto^Talk 21:51, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

I thought you wanted to change the name, I can see nothing controversial about describing the complex so I added it. It's just a poorly-constructed article, there should be a section on each area. As somebody I respect here once said, "so much to do". J3Mrs (talk) 22:31, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

I did, as the article talks about the Grade I group, and not solely the Tower. I'm happy that the "complex" is at least explained now. Cassianto^Talk 03:02, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Happy to help, I've not been to Blackpool for donkey's years, but I've been to the top of the tower, and the circus and even danced there with my dad. I'm sure you can improve it and if I an help just ask. :) J3Mrs (talk) 09:26, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Great, that's an offer I shall undoubtedly take you up on. I'm embarrassed to say that I've never been to Blackpool at all (I think the closest I came to it was a fleeting visit to East Preston). My grandparents were competition ballroom dancers and they frequently visited there back in the 1950s. They became familiar faces there, so much so that they came to know Reginald Dixon, personally; come to think of it, I think there may even be a photo of me and him in their back garden in Berkshire somewhere in the archives. Anyway, much invited snooping can be conducted here. Cassianto^Talk 10:04, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Welcome back!

And thanks for the edits. I was getting rather exhausted! KJP1 (talk) 20:33, 17 April 2017 (UTC) KJP1 (talk) 20:33, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. A great article. I've supported but have left small nitpicks. Cassianto^Talk 20:37, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Not sure you know or remember me but good to see you back. Hope it's a better and more worthwhile experience this time around. – FrB.TG (talk) 11:59, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Do you do GA reviews? I have 2 1 open, a hymn and a cantata, focused on content, DYK? The FAC that we talked about before finally made it. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:17, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

I've only ever done one, Charles Chaplin, and I can't say the process won me over that much. I can certainly take a look and leave some comments, if that's ok. Cassianto^Talk 20:14, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for offering, - just edit or comment on the talk page. GA reviewing means you have to do it all, - that's why I never do it, I couldn't judge the prose. I find FA reviewing much easier where you just give your share. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:03, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Welcome back from me too. Hard to stay away, nay? Rothorpe (talk) 19:55, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. To be honest, I came back to get Frank Matcham off the ground as the books, which I bought sometime last year, were being moved from one room to the other by me my nagging wife who kept threatening to dump them off at the local book bank if I didn't "find a home for them". How are you? Hope all is well. Cassianto^Talk 20:08, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Fine, thanks. Let me know if you need any help with Matcham. Rothorpe (talk) 02:24, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Kalidas (film)

The article is undergoing a FAR here. Please provide comments before it is closed. Thank you.  — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 09:01, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Moors Murders

Good evening Cassianto. Thank you for the link to WP:BRD, which I had now reviewed. I don't consider your removal to be a necessity as laid out in the WP:BRD page however I shall leave it undiscussed. My initial edit was to add some additional detail to the events. However, I have no appeal to discuss in much details these awful events. Thank you for your time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bbx118 (talk • contribs) 21:48, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

You can discuss this matter on the article's talk page. You appear to be trying to discuss this everywhere but there at the moment. Cassianto^Talk 03:06, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Bernard Lee

Hello, Cassianto -- I was just looking at the latest edits to Bernard Lee. I see that in this edit, you removed "in" and replaced it with a comma, thereby modifying an edit just previous to yours in which an IP editor added "in Manchester" after "Rusholme". Since I had never heard of Rusholme, I clicked on the link and saw that it is a neighborhood or district within the city of Manchester. The way it is worded now:

• During the 1930s, after graduating from RADA, he initially worked in repertory theatre in Rusholme, Manchester and Cardiff before beginning work on the West End stage in thrillers, such as Blind Man's Bluff.

it makes it seem as if "Rusholme, Manchester and Cardiff" are three separate cities. Just going by what I read in the article on Rusholme, "Rusholme is an inner-city area of Manchester, England, about two miles south of the city centre", it is not a separate city. I think it would help readers not familiar with either Manchester or Rusholme somehow to indicate that Rusholme is part of Manchester. However, neither the addition of "in Manchester" nor removing "in" and adding a comma seem to help much

• in Rusholme, in Manchester, and Cardiff...

With this wording, it could still sound like three separate cities, with the third "in" inadvertently left off. Perhaps this is what you reacted to after the addition of "in Manchester". Perhaps being more explicit would help:

(a) During the 1930s, after graduating from RADA, he initially worked in repertory theatre in Rusholme, a neighborhood of Manchester, and Cardiff...

Another possibility would be to change "Rusholme" to "Manchester", and it would be accurate as long as Rusholme was not a separate city at that time:

(b) During the 1930s, after graduating from RADA, he initially worked in repertory theatre in Manchester and Cardiff...

What do you think? Best regards,  – Corinne (talk) 03:06, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello. I put a comma there to avoid the awkward in/in repetition. I must admit, I had no idea I was modifying an ip's contentious edit. I would be in favour of removing Rusholme completeley and keeping to just Manchester and Cardiff, as Rusholme is simply an area of Manchester. I don't think we'd say "...he worked in Hackney, London and Cardiff..." which is pretty much the same. Of the examples you give above, I'd lean to deleting Rusholme and just keeping to Manchester and Cardiff. Your A Example could look like "Rusholme, a neighbourhood of Manchester (which we don't know the name of), and Cardiff. Also, "neighbourhood" is frightfully American, and wouldn't we say "neighbourhood in Manchester? Cassianto^Talk 07:16, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughtful reply. I didn't mean to suggest the other editor's edit was contentious. I only saw it after I went back in the revision history. I agree with you that example (a) above is not so great, and I'm glad you like the idea of changing Rusholme to Manchester. I didn't know "neighbo[u]rhood" was just American. What word do you use in England for a small area of a city? Regarding the preposition, in the U.S., "a neighborhood of" and "a neighborhood in" are both used, but "in" is probably better. So, do you want to go ahead and change Rusholme to Manchester?  – Corinne (talk) 14:43, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) "...in Rusholme (Manchester), and Cardiff" might work.

I can do, or as FIM says above, Manchester could go in brackets? Cassianto^Talk 18:21, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

I think either way is fine. The one with Manchester in parentheses (brackets) introduces a new place to readers, i.e. Rusholme, which I think is fine.  – Corinne (talk) 14:50, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

If I'm honest, I don't see what is really wrong with it now. Cassianto^Talk 15:23, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Here is the sentence again for easy reference:

• During the 1930s, after graduating from RADA, he initially worked in repertory theatre in Rusholme, Manchester and Cardiff before beginning work on the West End stage in thrillers, such as Blind Man's Bluff.

Since Rusholme is a neighborhood (district?) of Manchester, I believe Manchester should be followed by a comma. It would then look like this:

• During the 1930s, after graduating from RADA, he initially worked in repertory theatre in Rusholme, Manchester, and Cardiff before beginning work on the West End stage in thrillers, such as Blind Man's Bluff.

Either way – with or without the comma after Manchester – it looks like three separate cities. There should be some way of indicating that Rusholme is part of, or is included within, Manchester. I suggested one way – adding a phrase such as "a neighborhood (district?) of" before "Manchester". However, as you pointed out above, setting off "a neighborhood of Manchester" (or some similar phrase) with a pair of commas around it might suggest that it is some other neighborhood of which we don't know the name. It might work if the phrase were set off in dashes:

(1) During the 1930s, after graduating from RADA, he initially worked in repertory theatre in Rusholme – a neighborhood/district of Manchester – and Cardiff before beginning work on the West End stage in thrillers, such as Blind Man's Bluff.

Another possibility, suggested by FIM, is to put Manchester in parentheses (brackets):

(2) During the 1930s, after graduating from RADA, he initially worked in repertory theatre in Rusholme (Manchester) and Cardiff before beginning work on the West End stage in thrillers, such as Blind Man's Bluff.

A third possibility is to change "Rusholme" to "Manchester":

(3) During the 1930s, after graduating from RADA, he initially worked in repertory theatre in Manchester and Cardiff before beginning work on the West End stage in thrillers, such as Blind Man's Bluff.

I think any of these would work, but I lean toward the third choice because it is more concise. What do you and FIM think?  – Corinne (talk) 16:28, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Or you could say he "worked in repertory at the Rusholme Theatre in Manchester and in Cardiff....." which reads better. J3Mrs (talk) 16:49, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

...Two Rusholme Theatres? -he had his work cut out for him  ;)

• I'm puzzled at how much text this is generating! I'd be happy to sit with {{u|J3Mrs)' version. To me, that's better than all of them (no offence FIM). The brackets sorry, parenthesis, looks a bit odd. Cassianto^Talk 17:06, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

I agree with 3Mrs that her version reads well. I think with his/her comment in small text just above, FIM was suggesting, only half seriously but with some justification, that J3Mrs's version could suggest that there was a Rusholme Theatre in Manchester and another in Cardiff. A way to avoid this slight ambiguity would be to reverse them and put Cardiff first:

• worked in repertory in Cardiff and at the Rusholme Theatre in Manchester....."

This rearrangement would only be unsatisfactory if it was important to mention Manchester first. But it is a little odd to mention the theatre at which he worked in Manchester but not the theatre at which he worked in Cardiff. A balanced sentence would be to either give theatre + city and theatre + city, or just city + city.  – Corinne (talk) 15:35, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

NCFC managers list

I'll reopen the FLC so you can put your comments there, cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:38, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Ok. Cassianto^Talk 08:45, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Apologies for the delayed apology.

Hi Cassianto,

Apologies for the delay but I dislocated my shoulder Easter Sunday and its still not quite back to full working order.

Sorry for the bad block. Without repeating everything that was said or done I believe that I read too much into the comment you left and misinterpreted it as being meant in a threatening manner hence the block. I don't believe a 3 month block for threatening another user would have been overkill if it had indeed been the case. Hopefully you can see where I was coming from and understand that at that time it seemed a reasonable action. Happy to discuss further if you want to. Amortias (T)(C) 09:02, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

No, I don't understand where you were coming from, sorry. You need to engage more and block less. If you had have done, the block would never have occurred. That's the key to being a good admin. I respect you for coming here, nonetheless. Cassianto^Talk 12:38, 29 May 2017 (UTC)