User talk:Cassianto/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 10

L'Arianna

There is a discussion here about a proposal to change the lead image of this recently-promoted article. As someone who participated inthe FAC review you may wish to comment. (Note that the currently-displayed lead image is the proposed alternative, not the FAC-approved image). Brianboulton (talk) 11:29, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

What a poor show! I have commented there, cheers for telling me Brian. -- Cassianto^Talk 12:15, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

FAR for Albert Ball

Hello, Cass,

I have combed through your comments and answered all. I recall your remark that reviewing the lede would be your last step. Not to sound plaintive or anything, but are we now done?

Georgejdorner (talk) 19:04, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	For diligence, perseverance, and thoroughness in the Featured Article Review of Albert Ball. Georgejdorner (talk) 23:21, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

That is very kind of you! I really enjoyed the reading through Ball, I'm only sorry it was all in parts. All the best! -- Cassianto^Talk 17:13, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Heartiest congratulations on getting Little Tich up to the high standards you are setting for a series of music hall stars biographies! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 15:45, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the star. Up there with the best of 'em now is Mr Relph. An FA is only as good as it's reviewers, and of course you were one of them! I couldn't be happier with his promotion. :-) -- Cassianto^Talk 18:05, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Just a quick note to congratulate you on the promotion of Little Tich to FA status recently. If you would like to see this (or any other FA you may have helped to write) appear as "Today's featured article" soon, please nominate it at the requests page; if you'd like to see an FA on a particular date in the next year or so, please add it to the "pending" list. In the absence of a request, the article may end up being picked at any time (although with 1,331 articles in Category:Featured articles that have not appeared on the main page at present, there's no telling how long – or short! – the wait might be). If you'd got any TFA-related questions or problems, please let me know. Thanks, Bencherlite^Talk 17:53, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Many thanks Bencherlite. It's not his turn yet, but I will surely nominate him at a more appropriate time. Not keen to miss out (and with the help of Gerda Arendt) I have nominated another. All the best! -- Cassianto^Talk 18:05, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

I spotted that. In fact, I spotted that possible date a long time ago... (!) Bencherlite^Talk 20:12, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

...and that's why you are so good at TFA! I was really rather pleased with myself for "spotting" that!  :) -- Cassianto^Talk 20:53, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Just wanted to add my congrats! Keep up the great work Cass :) --Loeba (talk) 11:51, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Loeba. I'm thinking George Robey next, but not before Hattie with SchroCat. -- Cassianto^Talk 17:34, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Ha, I just watched Waterloo Bridge (1931 film) and they mentioned George Robey. I thought of you :) Loeba (talk) 18:06, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Haha, excellent. He was the halls first knight did you know and he was very big in his day. I have never heard of that film before, I may just order it. -- Cassianto^Talk 02:06, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Maurice Leyland

A little later than planned, after something of a break, but here I am begging for cricket reviews. Slightly shorter than usual, and hopefully not drifting into lists of stats. Any comments on Maurice Leyland welcome at the PR here. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:49, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Great news! I shall pop over soon. -- Cassianto^Talk 06:54, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Reconsider

You said he should reconsider. Reconsider what? Those who didn't listen to him should reconsider. Not everyone can take [[[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#Reductio ad absurdum from NE Ent|absurdity]], - it helps to have written on Kafka ;) - I miss him. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:17, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Reconsider leaving WP, I didn't think that was all that ambiguous. Like I said, RexxS was very helpful to me, and I hope he reconsiders leaving WP and comes back soon. -- Cassianto^Talk 12:30, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

I was told to be silent ;) - Reluctantly, I will speak a little louder. He left because he could not take an absurd situation. (I could.) The situation is still the same. - If those who created it - not listening to him - would reconsider and change it, he might return more easily than if not. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:57, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

I crave for a harmonious and unanimous atmosphere on WP where everybody can agree on everything. Sadly, I don't ever think that can be possible. It is true, I differ somewhat to you and others on infoboxes, but it's still sad to see editors go after such a public dispute. I underestimate just how strongly some feel on the subject sometimes. Let's hope this is just a wiki break :) -- Cassianto^Talk 13:57, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

I decided to stay about a year ago, - tempted very much to leave then. Once I decided not to have others decide for me, I can stick to that ;) - If editing make sense to me , I don't care if the rest makes sense. It doesn't, the template shows it in a nutshell. As far as I know I live in peace with almost any user, but have to be admonished that Wikipedia is no battleground. Not one diff provided, btw. I like to have an infobox for an article, as I like a cover for a book, very simple. I respect if someone doesn't like one, but he should clearly say so, not come with these arguments ... - you know them all ;) - I think we can agree on this and much more? - Have a look at what I am really passionate about, link from the first word on my user page, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:39, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Oh dear, I'm glad you stuck around Gerda! Believe it or not, I like to have an infobox in some articles too (Sports, geography, science, film etc..) I even considered one here, but figured the box would look pretty short and redundant. I do agree, I have never been one for skirting around the issue and a more direct approach is sometimes needed. However, I am now deciding to steer clear of such discussions at ANI and other public places as it really is a never ending loop of the similar arguments you and I have seen many, many times before. Your passion on the linked word would have been my passion as a review, alas I don't think there is much more there for me. If you can wait until FAC, I would be pleased for a reminder then :) -- Cassianto^Talk 16:04, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, all good news! - There are no "public places" because it has been decided that the no-no-topic can't even be discussed. (See Talk:Georges Bizet if you have to know more, but I understand everyone who wants to stay out ;) ) Signpost announced "After the war", - also absurd, we can't speak of after the war if peace treaties are forbidden. Compromises have been found, you saw L'Arianna, and I think to have "opera" on top is worth it, because otherwise it looks like an article on a picture. I could imagine something similar for your link above, because it looks like a cartoon at first sight. - With amusement I follow a complicated routine of

• Being asked to work my magic
• Place an infobox on an article talk
• Someone else has to copy it to the article

instead of a simple: I see an article without an infobox, add one drop and the case if it's reverted, - but the other makes for more conversation (happened yesterday, see my talk). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:15, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

I wholly agree with you. It's a bit strong calling it a war, this kind of headline only fuels anger IMO. This is precisely why I try to avoid such "wars". A discussion is more accurate, not to mention desired, but this can sometimes become heated depending on the participants (not our learned friend SchroCat you understand). Yes, good idea on L'Arianna, having the "opera" above. I didn't see it like that to be honest, but I can see how others would think the image was the article itself. -- Cassianto^Talk 19:09, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

The term was first used in 2005 (click on the Website in the infobox if you don't believe me, - also see that we had some fun in Teh Case), - I wonder for how much longer. My attempt at arbitration was so much simpler than what we have now ;) - We will have the chance to elect new arbs, I go for this one (here is why, but you can simply search for the name and find good ideas), hoping that he runs. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:50, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Requested page move

Hi, you might be interested in participating in a discussion at Talk:Michael Powell.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:34, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Books and Bytes: The Wikipedia Library Newsletter

Books and Bytes

Volume 1, Issue 1, October 2013

by The Interior (talk · contribs), Ocaasi (talk · contribs)

Greetings Wikipedia Library members! Welcome to the inaugural edition of Books and Bytes, TWL’s monthly newsletter. We're sending you the first edition of this opt-in newsletter, because you signed up, or applied for a free research account: HighBeam, Credo, Questia, JSTOR, or Cochrane. To receive future updates of Books and Bytes, please add your name to the subscriber's list. There's lots of news this month for the Wikipedia Library, including new accounts, upcoming events, and new ways to get involved...

New positions: Sign up to be a Wikipedia Visiting Scholar, or a Volunteer Wikipedia Librarian

Wikipedia Loves Libraries: Off to a roaring start this fall in the United States: 29 events are planned or have been hosted.

New subscription donations: Cochrane round 2; HighBeam round 8; Questia round 4... Can we partner with NY Times and Lexis-Nexis??

New ideas: OCLC innovations in the works; VisualEditor Reference Dialog Workshop; a photo contest idea emerges

News from the library world: Wikipedian joins the National Archives full time; the Getty Museum releases 4,500 images; CERN goes CC-BY

Announcing WikiProject Open: WikiProject Open kicked off in October, with several brainstorming and co-working sessions

New ways to get involved: Visiting scholar requirements; subject guides; room for library expansion and exploration

Read the full newsletter

Thanks for reading! All future newsletters will be opt-in only. Have an item for the next issue? Leave a note for the editor on the Suggestions page. --The Interior 20:08, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Albert Ball FAC

Hi there, just checking if you'd be happy for your resolved comments to either be collapsed or moved to the review's talk page... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:51, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Hello Ian, yes either is fine with me. The article appears in great shape! Will you do it, or do you want me to pop across? -- Cassianto^Talk 22:54, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Done, tks! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:31, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Request?

Hey there Cass, hows things? I wanted to ask a favour of you, which you by no means have to agree to. If I nominated Chaplin at GAN, would you be up for completing the review? I've decided it's probably a good idea to put it through GA first, in case it doesn't pass at FAC. Since you said you'd be willing to participate in a peer review of the article, I thought maybe I could ask you to do this instead, and then that would free you from PR duties. =) There's still things I want to do with the article (including trying to trim it down, which I'm sure you'll be happy to hear!), so it wouldn't be for a couple of days. What d'you think? I know it's a big undertaking so will completely understand if you'd rather not. Best, --Loeba (talk) 16:38, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Hello Loeba, willing very much so, yes; able? probably not. I haven't the faintest idea on how to review GAN's. It is a territory that I have never strayed into. I'm worried that if I did take it on, I would not give you a decent review thanks to my lack of understanding surrounding the mechanics of GAN. Don't get me wrong, I'm happy to learn but do you really want to be held up by someone who has as much understanding of GAN as my 90-year old nan (who is still struggling with a microwave btw). I am flattered nonetheless :-) -- Cassianto^Talk 19:36, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Oh if you can do FAC reviews I'm very confident in your ability to do GA reviews! The criteria are pretty clearly laid out here, and the standards are quite a bit lower than FA. But I'm sure that if you completed a prose/content review just like you would at PR or FAC, along with evidence that you've considered the sources/images/broadness, it would be fine. What do you think? If you're really not comfortable with the idea it's okay, but I definitely think you'd do it well :) --Loeba (talk) 20:24, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

The reviewing is not the problem, it's all the archiving, tags, codes etc that baffles me. Sod it, yeah go on then! The yearning to review it is to strong to hold in, I'd love to do it! --Cassianto^Talk 21:06, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Ohh I see! Well hopefully you'll find it's not too complicated (the instructions are all laid out on the GAN page). Thank you so much! I'll let you know when I've added the nomination - there's still quite a bit to do but hopefully in the next couple of days. --Loeba (talk) 21:43, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

I am thoroughly looking forward to it. Ping me when your up and running, (and it should coincide with a week off work, so there shouldn't be a delay in me starting my read through). Thanks again for thinking of me! -- Cassianto^Talk 21:54, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Just so you know, there's a bit of a dispute going on at the Chaplin talk page, so I want to wait until that passes over before nominating. There's still a couple of sections I want to look over as well. I'm now going back to work after a week off, just as you're beginning one heh, but hopefully it won't be too long until we're ready to go. --Loeba (talk) 21:53, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

...and just so you know, Lightshow/WikiWatcher has form:here,here, here, here, here, here, right the way through here (far too many to mention), this FAC. Based on this, some may call him disruptive; I'll let you make your own mind up though ;) . --Cassianto^Talk 22:10, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Yeah I know what s/he's like, but since "stability" is a GA criteria it's best not to have the review while there's a content dispute going on (however unfounded the complaints may be). Cheers --Loeba (talk) 23:04, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Wise decision. Ping me when he disappears :-) -- Cassianto^Talk 23:07, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure stability and that particular editor go hand in hand - if the current stupidity on the Sellers talk page is anything to go by! - SchroCat (talk) 23:12, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Right, I've added the GA nomination - you can start the review whenever you're ready by following the link at Talk:Charlie Chaplin. I probably still want to make some edits to the "Style and themes" section, but it will likely take a day or two for you to get there, right? Also, is it okay if I ask you to check the images at the end? A couple of them still need their PD explanations improved, but I plan to do this tomorrow/very soon. Cheers! --Loeba (talk) 22:25, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, no problem. I may have to go via a third party for some advice around the images as my knowledge is somewhat sketchy! but I'll keep that to my talk page! Joe won't mind he is a very accomodating chap. I'll start my read through today :) -- Cassianto^Talk 09:31, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm happy for GermanJoe to comment on the images at the GAN page (that would be useful in fact, as it happens I was hoping to get his opinion during the PR anyway), but I do still need to edit the descriptions of some of them...I may change a couple too. I should get to this tonight though. Thanks so much again! --Loeba (talk) 16:23, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Special Barnstar
	Congratulations on getting Little Tich up the FA status!! ♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:27, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

That is very kind of you Doc. I enjoyed writing the article immensely -- Cassianto^Talk 18:44, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

I really owe you and Schrod another of these for your work to date on Hattie Jacques, dealing with the silliness on the Sellers talk page and for your incredibly thorough review of Charlie Chaplin at GA, one of the best GA reviews I've ever seen. Keep up the terrific work you do on here and let us rise above the site's petty assholes with grace! I'll try to add to Jacques over the next few days.♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:47, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

I really appreciate your kind comments Doc. I have been feeling somewhat neglectful over Hattie just recently what with Chaplin, Sellers and my dominating RL commitments. However, SchroCat is a very patient colleague, but I think even he is finding things tough what with the idiots who are currently squatting on the Sellers talk page. Chaplin was a joy to review; I asked the girls if they wanted a thorough review, and Loeba typically said she was well up for the challenge. Charlie will do big things at FAC I feel. Looking forward to your much needed additions on Ms Jacques in the coming weeks!

Good Girl Gone Bad FAC

Hey Cassianto! How are you? Do you have some spare time to view and check the article and give some comments at the FAC? I would be grateful. Cheers! — Tomíca^(T2ME) 14:37, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Will do. Cassianto^Talk 23:33, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Nefarious: Merchant of Souls

Hi Cassianto,

Thank you again for reviewing the Kellie Loder article for its FAC. I now have another article up for featured status: Nefarious: Merchant of Souls. If you have time to contribute to its FAC here, I would appreciate any constructive comments you are willing to provide.

Neelix (talk) 15:12, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi Cassianto,

No worries; I can understand that life gets busy. Thank you for the congratulations! I was really pleased to see the article featured; I've submitted it to go up on the main page here.

Neelix (talk) 23:51, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Reply

I didn't mean to be rude. I always blank my talk page after a while. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Greenclayton (talk • contribs) 07:47, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Glastonbury Tor

Thanks for all your copy editing (and hidden comments) on Glastonbury Tor which have really helped to improve the article. Is there anything else you think needs doing or has it reached a point where i could nominate it for GA?— Rod ^talk 09:41, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi Rod, I am desperate to get back to it and certainly haven't forgotten. I have had 101 things on at the moment but I will try and get to it today. All the best! --Cassianto^Talk 09:51, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the additional comments & "who" tags, which I hope I've dealt with. Some time ago you left a hidden comment "THIS WHOLE ABOVE SECTION IS CONFUSING: WHAT WAS ST. MICHAELS, WAS IT THE FIRST, SECOND OR BOTH?" & commented on this again today, I hope this had previously been dealt with by explaining that both old & "new" churches were dedicated to St Michael, but I wouldn't feel comfortable removing your comment unless you feel it has been addressed enough.— Rod ^talk 20:47, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

I have just read it Rod and it now makes perfect sense. Please do the honours and remove it. Good work! -- Cassianto^Talk 20:50, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

William Burges

As you may have seen, Billy Burges has made TFA today and I wanted to drop you a line of thanks for all of your efforts at FA. Your contributions, enthusiasm, insight and humour greatly improved the article, and made the, rather arduous, process a pleasure. With thanks and best regards. KJP1 (talk) 07:37, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your contributions, an example of spirited collaboration, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:11, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

...and bloody good he looks too! I have my pitchfork at the ready, and will wait to prod the vandals and vagabonds back into the audition rooms of The Jeremy Kyle Show! Cassianto^Talk 08:55, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for guarding Burges. If you have a minute between pitchfork uses, tell me if you think that my new infobox (my own) is repetitive and ugly? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:01, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Well it's not repetitive as the information is not repeated to the left; ugly, certainly not! Not while there is a picture of you there ;) Cassianto^Talk 20:03, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

There is a small picture of me and a larger red picture of how I am perceived ;) - It repeats information from my talk, and more or less the only reason not to have it there is that it would not go well with the TOC, - even now that I shortened the title of one of my nicest barnstars, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:50, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Main Page appearance: Joseph Grimaldi

This is a note to let the main editors of Joseph Grimaldi know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on December 18, 2013. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. If you prefer that the article appear as TFA on a different date, or not at all, please ask Bencherlite (talk · contribs). You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/December 18, 2013. If it needs tweaking, or if it needs rewording to match improvements to the article between now and its main page appearance, please edit it, following the instructions at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/instructions. The blurb as it stands now is below:

Joseph Grimaldi (1778–1837) was an English actor, comedian, dancer, and the Regency era's most successful entertainer. He popularised the role of Clown in the harlequinade that formed part of British pantomimes during the 1800s, and became a key pantomime performer at the Drury Lane, Sadler's Wells and Covent Garden theatres. He first appeared on stage at Drury Lane as "Little Clown" in the pantomime The Triumph of Mirth; or, Harlequin's Wedding, while still a boy. Other successful roles at the theatre followed, but he left in 1806 and took up theatrical residencies at the Covent Garden and Sadler's Wells theatres. As he matured, he began performing as "Clown", for which he created the whiteface make-up design still in use today. The numerous injuries he received as a result of his energetic performances led to a rapid decline in his health, and his early retirement in 1823. He rarely appeared on stage thereafter, and struggled to recapture his earlier success. Living in obscurity during his final years he became an impoverished alcoholic. Grimaldi died at home in Islington, aged 59, having outlived his wife and his actor son Joseph Samuel. (Full article...)

UcuchaBot (talk) 23:01, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Grown up?

From your note on our respected BBoulton's talk page: "I grew up with the Carry Ons". I put it to you, young Cassianto, that nobody who loves the Carry Ons as much as you and I and SchroCat do can ever properly be said to have grown up at all. And a good thing too! I loved working through your Hattie article. Tim riley (talk) 18:42, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

That is very true Tim. Even my grandfather laughs at them (and he's in his late 80s!) I become quite juvenile when watching scenes like this Classic stuff! Cassianto^Talk 19:41, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Me not grown up? Yah-boo-sucks to the lot of you! - SchroCat (talk) 19:54, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Seasonal greetings

	Christmas greetings for 2013 and best wishes for 2014. Peace on earth and goodwill to all May you take pleasure in all you do and find success and happiness
	Brianboulton (talk) 21:48, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Will Hay

You're the one who moans and complains when people don't reference information and I did, http://homepage.ntlworld.com/trevor.buckingham/willhay9.htm, and you still reverted it, what was that about? Or do you just feel the need to revert people's information when they give you an opinion? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Greenclayton (talk • contribs) 16:32, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) That is the link to a blog site, and so is utterly worthless. Please see WP:reliable to see how to select a reliable source. You should note that even with a reliable source, not all information should be in an article, and saying which Hay's best known film is to contemporary eyes, is something that should not be in any article. - SchroCat (talk) 17:20, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

I moan and complain when someone adds unsourced or unreliable information and then abuses me when they don't get their own way. As SchroCat points out, the source you are trying to use is about as reliable as your retirement banner on your talk page. Cassianto^Talk 19:05, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Joey on the Main Page

• Who'd a thunk it! Congratulations! -- Ssilvers (talk) 06:25, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

• Looks great! Like uplifting pic there better than the first in the article ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:12, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

• Good job! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:12, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

• Late to the party, but hear, hear to all the above! - SchroCat (talk) 09:22, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

• Indeed, well done Cass!!♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:50, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks to all my colleagues for the kind notes. Gerda, the TFA image was a brilliant move (irritatingly, it was Ssilvers idea so unfortunately I can't lay claim to that! ;) -- Cassianto^Talk 09:08, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

• Hey Cassianto, I see that you've got several previous TFAs; congratulations for your most recent one. Epicgenius (talk) 13:22, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
  • That is very kind, thank you. Cassianto^Talk 15:11, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Chaplin FAC

Hey there Cass, hope you're well and getting into the Christmas spirit and all that. Chaplin's FAC has finally begun! It would be great if you can chip in, all the best --Loeba (talk) 18:00, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

FAC

Hi, can you review this nomination if you get time. —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 04:40, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

	A very happy Christmas and New Year to you!
	May 2013 bring you joy, happiness – and no trolls or vandals! All the best Gavin / SchroCat (talk) 20:39, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Hugh Walpole

I have at last got Hugh Walpole up for peer review, and if you have time and disposition to look in, I shall be in your debt. Quite understand if not, naturally, though as you have kindly sent me some corroborative detail I am rather hopeful. – Tim riley (talk) 16:34, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Greetings!

	Happy New Year, 2014
	From Amandajm (talk) 10:22, 2 January 2014 (UTC) Wells Cathedral, Somerset, photographed by Rod on a December morning

Thank you and to you. I hope to see the above as an FA very soon! -- Cassianto^Talk 14:55, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Gizzmo

What ho! Thanks for Walpole comments: just the job! Now, I'm after a favour. How do you get that "I'll reply here" label at the bottom right of this very page? Very sensible and useful, as the etiquette for such things has never been really settled. I wonder if you would be kind enough to add a similar label to my talk page for me when you have a moment? Tim riley (talk) 11:26, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Greetings in 2014 Tim and I hope this will be a good year for you and your family. Walpole was a pleasure; I was travelling for much of last night so took the opportunity to read Mr Walpole. He certainly was an interesting character. The message you see at the bottom of this page can be activated by displaying this code <div style="margin-bottom: 4.25em; position: absolute; bottom: -5em; right: 1em; "><div style="font-style: roman; background-color: #CBEBFF; font-weight:bold; border: 1px steelblue solid; color:black; padding:5px 5px">Please leave a message; I'll reply here.</div></div>. I have added it onto your talk but can't see it in the preview screen. I'll add it, save it, and play around accordingly to get it at the bottom, so apologies in advance for a plethora of "This user left you a message on your talk page" e-mails". --Cassianto^Talk 14:39, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

• Incidentally, it worked and now sits at the bottom of your TP :) -- Cassianto^Talk 14:47, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Excellent! Thank you so much, my technically competent friend! I used to be able to write a bit of uncomplicated html code, but I struggle with Wikipedia's arcane codings, and I'm in your debt. Tim riley (talk) 15:15, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Page moves

Sorry to step on your toes. I didn't realize you were working on the Hattie Jacques article. I should have checked first. I was just aiming for consistency based on lists in Category:Filmographies. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 12:18, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

The reason you didn't realise was because you didn't discuss it first. You can't just go around moving pages when you feel like it. The renaming of an article is a huge change to make and others may have an opinion on it first. I have swapped Hattie, Peter Sellers and Terry-Thomas back and would request that you discuss it on the talk pages which has been initiated by SchroCat. Cassianto^Talk 12:33, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	For yet another Featured Article in the form of Hattie Jacques! A pleasure working with you as always, and fingers crossed on WP:Today's featured article/requests#February 7! – SchroCat (talk) 13:57, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

• Very kind. I edited the blurb slightly but it looks all good! I can't wait for the next one! -- Cassianto^Talk 19:03, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Excellent news!!♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:10, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

FAC

Hugh Walpole, fresh from peer review, is now at FAC. If you have time and inclination to look in, it will be esteemed a favour. – Tim riley (talk) 12:43, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Silly?

I looked at a few Indian actresses and saw several which have what the TFA beauty is missing (random examples of different quality: Devayani (actress), Jayasudha, Nethra Raghuraman, ...). Did it occur to you that someone might simply think to improve Wikipedia? AGF? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:57, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

It occurred to me that they had already improved it when they deleted it in the first place ;) Cassianto^Talk 20:02, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

I think I was not precise enough: Soerfm who added, didn't "delete in the first place", --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:13, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Precise enough for me. He added a box where there is a discussion on the talk page discussing it. He was invited, but has not taken part. Per BRD this was the correct thing to do. Cassianto^Talk 20:19, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

If you see something missing in an article, do you go to the talk page to find out if it was discussed? Some readers don't even know that article talk pages exist. I admit that I normally don't look there (perhaps I should), and that's all I will admit ;) - Did you see that my shop is closed? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:16, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

My job requires me to be inquisitive and if I see something obvious missing from anything, I stop to ask questions as to why that thing is missing. That's just me and I know people are different; for instance, I gate crashed Beerest 2's talk accusing him of ignoring a discussion. He hadn't a clue what I was talking about and I felt rather silly. We live and learn. I just went back on your contributions and saw. What was behind that decision? -- Cassianto^Talk 21:44, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't know what you saw. No decision. Top of my user names time and reason in one: "for the season", with a link to where it hurts, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:53, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

C'mon Gerda, even you have to admit that this box is silly? What does this tell us that the first line of the lede doesn't? Cassianto^Talk 21:01, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

PR request

Hi, can you review this article when you get some time. —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 16:10, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Nancy Mitford

If you have time, a peer review has now opened for my article on this estimable lady. Comments welcome. Brianboulton (talk) 22:14, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

That's good to hear. I should get around to it in the next day or so. Best as always, Cassianto^Talk 23:07, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Any chance of a visit here? The PR is somewhat short on comments. Brianboulton (talk) 09:51, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Mitford again

I've sent Nancy on to FAC, if you can spare a moment for another look. Brianboulton (talk) 16:04, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Abe Waddington

If you have the time or inclination, I'd appreciate your thoughts on Abe Waddington. I'm afraid he's another cricketer (what else??). He had a peer review quite a long time ago and has changed a lot since then thanks to some useful sources. I'm wondering if it is worth having a stab at FAC. Any comments on the talk page would be greatly appreciated. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:11, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm just doing it on the article talk page this time. Sorry for not being clear! Sarastro1 (talk) 18:12, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Ah, no worries. -- Cassianto^Talk 18:14, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Kenneth Horne at PR

Hi Cass

For better or worse I have the rather wonderful Kenneth Horne at peer review, with an aim to push to FAC (unless the comments suggest otherwise!) Would you have the opportunity to review and comment after your wikibreak? There's no rush, and certainly no pressure, if you're piled up with other commitments. Many thanks! - SchroCat (talk) 00:13, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Main Page appearance: Hattie Jacques

This was dropped on my talk page—I see no reason why it shouldn't be on yours too! Pip pip - SchroCat (talk) 23:34, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

This is a note to let the main editors of Hattie Jacques know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on February 7, 2014. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. If you prefer that the article appear as TFA on a different date, or not at all, please ask Bencherlite (talk · contribs). You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/February 7, 2014. If it needs tweaking, or if it needs rewording to match improvements to the article between now and its main page appearance, please edit it, following the instructions at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/instructions. The blurb as it stands now is below:

Hattie Jacques (1922–80) was an English comedy actress of stage, radio and screen, known to a world-wide audience through her portrayals of strict, no-nonsense characters in 14 of the Carry On films. She started her career on stage at the Players' Theatre, London, before progressing onto radio, where she appeared in three popular BBC series, It's That Man Again, Educating Archie and Hancock's Half Hour. Her cinematic debut—in Green for Danger—was brief and uncredited, but she grew to have a prolific screen career. Jacques developed a long professional stage and television partnership with Eric Sykes, with whom she co-starred in the long-running series Sykes and Sykes and a.... The role endeared her to the public and the two became staples of British television. Her private life was turbulent: she was married to the actor John Le Mesurier from 1949 until their divorce in 1965, a separation caused by her five-year affair with another man. Jacques, who had been overweight since her teenage years, suffered ill-health soon after the separation from Le Mesurier. She died in 1980 of a heart attack. (Full article...)

UcuchaBot (talk) 23:02, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Invitation to join WikiProject Freedom of speech

• WP:WikiProject Freedom of speech

There is a WikiProject about Freedom of speech, called WP:WikiProject Freedom of speech. If you're interested, here are some easy things you can do:

1. List yourself as a participant in the WikiProject, by adding your username here: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Freedom_of_speech#Participants.
2. Add userbox {{User Freedom of speech}} to your userpage, which lists you as a member of the WikiProject.
3. Tag relevant talk pages of articles and other relevant pages using {{WikiProject Freedom of speech}}.
4. Join in discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Freedom of speech.
5. Notify others you think might be interested in Freedom of speech to join the WikiProject.

Thank you for your interest in Freedom of speech, — Cirt (talk) 18:07, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Profumo affair

Can I interest you in the peer review for the Profumo affair which has been occupying my time recently? It'll be open for a while, so please take your time. Brianboulton (talk) 21:55, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

You certainly can. I shall pop along shortly. -- Cassianto^Talk 22:37, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Colin Firth on stage and screen

Not sure if this interests you, but his stage credits need researching and listing.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:42, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

I will have to pass on this for the time being. I am too strapped for time as it is unfortunately. -- Cassianto^Talk 16:19, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Sir Ralph

After my most stimulating and comprehensive PR ever, I have Ralph Richardson up at FAC. If you have time and inclination to look in, it will be esteemed a favour. – Tim riley (talk) 21:44, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Curious

Judging from your only other experience at NFCR (for Hattie Jaques[1]), where you actually support inclusion of copyrighted/non-free material when you knew that it was copyrighted, I find it hard to believe that you would now think that we cannot ever use copyrighted material, or that using it amounts to copyright infringement. What did you read to come to this conclusion? Your current understanding of NFC and the NFCC is not how the policy is generally interpreted or applied. Doc talk 05:09, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Hattie's daffodil scene was synonymous with her and was one of the most iconic scenes of her Carry On career. It also helps us understand about that character as it displays Hattie in a matronly pose in costume. Inclusion of that photo was completely justified for that very reason and because we spend a whole paragraph talking about it. Not only that, but had it of been allowed, then SchroCat and I may well of had it as a lead image as owing to Hattie's era, ALL photo's of her were copyrighted. The Hendrix mugshot is neither informative, pertinent, interesting or necessary. There are a number of free images available, all of which act as suitable alternatives. Also, the image is unattractive and unnatural and shows the guitarist in a posed and almost fake position. Your investigations of me have exposed nothing and I'm now *curious* to known how on earth you have such time for things. Cassianto^Talk 08:24, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

"...unattractive and unnatural and shows the guitarist in a posed and almost fake position." See WP:IDONTLIKEIT, particularly the part about subjective opinions on the NFCC. Doc talk 08:38, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

The very thing I have just accused you of on the review page as you cannot accept anybody else's views other than your own. Me calling an image unattractive and unnatural is a personal thing and I would never solely use this to oppose an inclusion. The fact that it is not encyclopaedic and is being used unnecessarily is a whole lot more pertinent to my reasons. Cassianto^Talk 08:48, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

I certainly do accept the views of others, and not only my own. To say that I don't is to dismiss me in a very simplistic way that is not even accurate. I expected a lot better from you ;> Doc talk 09:08, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

So why the resistance? If you expected better from me, then you should realise that aesthetics forms no part of my arguments around the NFCC. Cassianto^Talk 09:24, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

I have helped clarify the NFCC points you were saying the image failed. If you disagree with my summary, or want to add other points that the image fails based on the NFCC, please correct as you see fit. Cheers :) Doc talk 09:33, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I wasn't aware that I had to list them individually, which in hindsight would have helped. I agree with your clarifications, many thanks ;) Cassianto^Talk 09:38, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Ralph Richardson

Now then, if, and only if, you have time and inclination, I'd be grateful for your comments at PR. But if you are still snowed under, please consider the request instantly withdrawn. I have, in truth, already been privileged to welcome an all-star cast of peer reviewers, but another star will nonetheless be most welcome. Quite understand if not, naturally. Ever thine, Tim riley (talk) 00:00, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Hello Tim, well I certainly have the inclination and as for the time, well that's freed up somewhat on the work front, so I'm now finding a few extra hours to myself. I will finish off Horne for Gavin and pop along to Sir Ralph immediately after. Hopefully by then, my new Robey book would have arrived and I can get the old sod finished. -- Cassianto^Talk 00:38, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

@Tim -Great choice for someone to write about. Will have a look too. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:53, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

PS:@Cassianto - given you found Hydrus easy to read, I buffed up Tucana too. Don't quite feel as happy with it as the first one, but appreciate all feedback - its at FAC now....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:53, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Thx for input - let me know if anything else I need to do.....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:48, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I forgot to add my support. Now done! -- Cassianto^Talk 11:40, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

PR

Hi Cassianto, I was wondering if you could be so kind as to drop by my PR of Drama dari Krakatau, open here. Any input would be greatly appreciated. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:50, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Greetings, I'm just finishing one off, then over to Brian boulton and then to you. I envisage a couple of days.  :) -- Cassianto^Talk 12:13, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

• Danke. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:48, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Spectator archive

Afternoon, I'm not sure if you're aware, but The Spectator has recently made available online a copy of its entire archive. It's got a pretty good search facility, all the text in html, and ability to zoom into and out of page images to see where articles run over the page. I'm not sure how long it has been up and running, but I'm pretty sure it wasn't there six months ago when I was looking! There is a decent obituary of Robey by Compton Mackenzie which you may find particularly interesting. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 16:15, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Nope, I wasn't aware of it. Wow! I shall start using it straight away! -- Cassianto^Talk 17:38, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Drama dari Krakatau

Greetings! This is a note to inform you that Drama dari Krakatau, which you have previously reviewed at the GA or PR level, has been nominated for featured article status. If you wish to revisit the article, your comments would be welcomed at the nomination page. Thank you! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:23, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Profumo

Sorry to bother you with a bit of Profumo business, but a reviewer has questioned the use of a non-free image of Profumo in the article. This was to be expected. I have broadly stated my rationale for this in the FAC ( link here), but I would welcome input from other reviewers on this matter, if you can spare a moment. Brianboulton (talk) 21:58, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Post-holiday request!

Hi Cass, Could I put in a request for a PR when you have a chance? It's for the writer E.W. Hornung, who is only remembered nowadays for one of his characters, rather than the rest of his considerable output. There's no rush, so whenever you get the chance, it would be much appreciated! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 21:52, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Sophie Dahl

Hi there, the fact you reverted my entire edit of Sophie Dahl is a little silly. Whilst the image was copyright, my fault for some licensing issues, it is indisputable that a lot of the statements you placed on the page are subjective. A lot are also untrue, or badly stated. The infoxbox is also hardly useless, it is used by most notable models and is clearly useful for that category. As a result, I will be re-examining my edits to reinstate the ones that have no grounds for removal.

Londonstudent13 (talk) 23:06, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) You could be accused of edit warring if you did that. Could I suggest that you discuss the proposed changes on the article's talk page to get to a consensus for change? As to the infobox, there is often no need at all to have one (depending on the article), as all the information can be seen by moving your eyes a few inches to the left, where the leads says it all. - SchroCat (talk) 06:27, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

St Hill

Very interested; any new information is great! Sarastro1 (talk) 21:25, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Can I tempt you...?

Following a very productive and useful PR, E.W. Hornung has made his way to FAC for wider consideration. If you have a spare moment to review the article I'd be most grateful. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 13:45, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

You certainly can, and I certainly will :) Cassianto (talk) 17:19, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Wiki signatures

It appears you may be up on the subject or at least can point me in the right direction. Wikipedia signatures have a limited number of characters for styling; how does one get around this through, say, a .js or .css file, and then call it up using "~~~~"? Thanks in advance. —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 05:50, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Hey ATinySilver, you can customize how your signature appears to you (but not others) using CSS - instructions are at WP:CUSTOMSIG. Customizing how it appears to others using js/css is usually not considered a good idea, for reasons outlined at that page. Nikkimaria (talk) 07:02, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Much obliged. —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 07:09, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Approprate editing of another users talk page.

this edit is not OK. I have no opinion as to the content of your edits but per WP:TALK do not remove third party comments from other peoples talk pages, it is very inappropriate.CombatWombat42 (talk) 23:27, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

I'll tell you what is inappropriate and that's the edit that I reverted. It's a pity you can't look beyond that and use your common sense before you start engaging with me. Oh, and get the link right next time! Cassianto^talk 23:36, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

John Gielgud

I have put the John Gielgud article up for peer review, and if you have time and inclination to comment there, you will have the gratitude of Tim riley (talk) 13:04, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

PR request

Hi Cass, how's it going? I plan to take Tjioeng Wanara through FAC in a bit, and was wondering if you'd care to take a look at the PR here. Thanks. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:22, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

I would be delighted. It maybe a few days yet, but I will be sure to visit. Cassianto^talk 21:01, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Enid Blyton

Many thanks for your support. I believe consensus at WP:Ireland makes it clear... Any chance you could give this a read and comment at Wikipedia:Peer review/Enid Blyton/archive1? Hoping to get this core article up to FA.♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:06, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Are You Experienced

Hi. As you recently reviewed the article, would you care to weigh in on this discussion? It concerns whether a particular review quote should be removed from an article. --John (talk) 00:38, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

D'Oliveira affair

Cliftonian and I have got this article at PR here. It's cricket, but not quite the usual fare and moves more into politics. You may well be familiar with the tale, and any comments would be much appreciated as I'd like to get this one right. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:29, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Just to inform you that the article is now at FAC here, and any further comments would be appreciated. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:38, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Robey

No problem; it would be a pleasure and I'll hopefully get there sometime this week. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:04, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Harry Lauder

Can't really see how your new lede scores over mine. His unpopularity among many Scots people is a significant and less-known aspect of the Lauder legend, and should certainly feature in the lede. Also some points in the lede do not support notability, such as the final sentence. Valetude (talk) 09:09, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

I wasn't aware that it was a completion?! The lede is not finished so please feel free to add to it. Cassianto^talk 10:19, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't understand what is meant by 'completion'. I thought the articles were in a continuous state of evolution, except featured articles. Valetude (talk) 15:43, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

It was a typo of competition. Your comment suggested we were in competition with one another. Oh, and don't be fooled by the claim that featured articles are complete; there is always room for improvement. Cassianto^talk 15:50, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

The other Le Mez

For a brief while in the late 1970s, the beloved actor J. Le Mez was eclipsed in public attention by an overweight carpet salesman of the same name. He was one of those accused with the politician Jeremy Thorpe of conspiracy to murder, in a cause célèbre that immediately preceded the arrival in power of Mrs Thatcher. A rather less appealing Le Mez, I'm bound to say. I've written up the whole tawdry tale as another in my "political scandal" series: the Thorpe affair, now at peer review. Any comments there would be welcome. Brianboulton (talk) 16:50, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

About my FAC nomination

Thank you for your advice. I think there will be a consensus on what to do on the article's talk page soon. If you are interested, welcome to join!Forbidden User (talk) 06:34, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

History of KFC

There were other official nationwide slogans at the same time which were eventually dropped in favour of the finger lickin good one. These were "We fix Sunday dinner 7 nights a week" and "North America's Hospitality Dish" as detailed here: [2] Tom (talk) 18:58, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

No problem, odd that there were three! I'll shut up then ;) Cassianto^talk 19:02, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Thorpe affair

Just to let you know that I've nominated this at FAC, and that your comments will be most welcome there. Brianboulton (talk) 19:09, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Sgt. Pepper peer review

Hi, Cassianto. I've put Sgt. Pepper up at peer review and I would appreciate any comments and/or suggestions you have for improving the article in preparation for FAC. Cheers! GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 16:39, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Will do Gabe. Maybe a bit of a wait though. I'll be along to you after I have been to Crisco. Cassianto^talk 19:44, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks much and no worries. Tim is also busy this week with prior commitments, so I'll likely leave the PR open until the first week of May, or later if needed. Cheers! GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:01, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

I know that you're a bit busy right now with Robey, but I hope that you can still find the time to provide a peer review for Sgt. Pepper. There is no need to rush, as I plan on keeping the PR open for at least another week or so and longer if needed. Cheers! GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 17:03, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, sorry Gabe, real life has been far too demanding; coupled together with Robey I haven't had a minute to devote to elsewhere. I also owe Brian a review of his, which we have both agreed on at FAC. I was going to wait for your FAC rather than hold the peer review up, but if you don't mind waiting then I can make a start in the next few days. Cassianto^talk 18:55, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

No worries; I'll gladly wait at least a few more days for your review. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 19:22, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

• I'm notifying editors who commented at the Sgt. Pepper peer review to inform them that I've nomed the article at FAC. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:24, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Removal of FAC promotion template

Why remove this? [3] Graham Colm (talk) 16:21, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

I already explained on Nikki's page, it was a copy and paste error. I put it back immediately upon realising. Cassianto^talk 16:29, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

He really wanted more input and criticism, that was the reason eh Cass :-)♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:52, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Indeed. I have been shouting more, more more!!! Cassianto^talk 19:26, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

The bees in Riley's bonnet. (First in a series of 100)

You know how I bleat on about the "according to writer Joe Bloggs" construction? Well I've just discovered we've actually got a whole Wikipedia article on it, under the name of False title, a term that's new to me but a damn' sight snappier than "preposed appositive". It's a fair and balanced article, too. You may like to draw it to the attention of BrEng writers who transgress. Tim riley talk 20:10, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Wow! Thanks. As yet, nobody has questioned me about my use of the definite article, but I will happily push them in the direction of this extraordinarily helpful article. I was thinking of you today actually; I decided to check in on Gielgud and was curious as to why this wonderful article is still wallowing in the pits of obscurity when it should, by all accounts, be up there with the best of them. Cassianto^talk 21:40, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm having a spot of author's block, and am putting off doing the post-PR tweaks for the Gielgud article and for Falstaff. I shall be there in due course, God willing. Give me time! Tim riley talk 20:43, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

I used to omit the false title and write: "According to John Smith", but editors were forever asking me: "Who is John Smith and why does his opinion matter?" So I caved and now add the false titles everywhere, which can be jarring and repetitive, but at least its not as bad as some journals that give you a brief resume with the introduction of scholars. E.g. "According to the Cambridge University professor, Chair of the Bigshot Society, and the author of I know a lot of stuff." GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:41, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Your BrEng, my dear Gabe, is fine. I need more help when I venture into writing AmEng (Cole Porter, Jerome Kern et al) than you seem to with the Queen's English. And there was no sniff of a false title in your recent Sgt. Pepper article, which to the most expert eye (i.e. mine) was BrEng through and through. The key thing about the false title is not that if gives the person a swift job-title, but that it omits the definite article, and I moan and nag about this at PR and FAC incessantly, with only occasional intervals for rest and refreshment. Tim riley talk 20:59, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Well, that's very kind of you, Tim, and thanks for the clarification. FTR, Cassianto taught me this rule and deserves the credit for the absence of false titles at Sgt. Pepper, and all my work in BrEng really – this is apparently a sticking point for some in AmEng. If you taught it to Cassianto then I guess I should thank you as well, so thanks for all you do – not just for Wikipedia, but for Wikipedians also. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:08, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

I do remember being taught it at university but I slipped into bad habits by omitting it in the preceding years before I joined WP. It may well have been Tim who reminded me of it again; I now use it religiously. Cassianto^talk 21:41, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

As do I; its really grown on me, and now it seems odd to not include the definite article, so thanks, Cassianto and Tim! GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:46, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Helping the old codger

Excellent! Many thanks, dear Cass. Please note that any rude remarks about technically incompetent old buffers will be met by savage retaliation in some form or other that I have yet to work out. Tim riley talk 21:42, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Matron may take a dim view of such violence. If ever there was such a humorous juxtaposition, then it would be TR and HTML! Cassianto^talk 21:48, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

PR request

Cass, After a hefty re-write, the royal baccarat scandal—or Tranby Croft affair, if you prefer—is up for peer review. If you have the time, or inclination, I'd be very grateful to hear any thoughts or comments you may have. Much obliged if you can, but entirely understandable if your hands are full elsewhere! – SchroCat (talk) 13:07, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Nope, I'll be there, and very much looking forward to it! Cassianto^talk 16:03, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Teamwork Barnstar
	Thanks for lending your talent to the Sgt. Pepper peer review and FAC. Because of some wonderful teamwork during the last month, the article is among the best on Wikipedia today. I couldn't have done it alone, and I hope that someday I can return the kindness and generosity that I've enjoyed during this process. Cheers! GabeMc (talk|contribs) 16:19, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

The pleasure was all mine Gabe! A thoroughly deserved promotion, and one I have come to consistently expect from you. Btw, the bot seems to have gone on strike so we maybe waiting a while for archiving. Sir George is still waiting in the wings as unfortunately I don't know how to do it manually. Cassianto^talk 01:56, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Special Barnstar
	Congratulations on promoting George Robey to FA! ♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:50, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Stephen Fry we intended to work on at some point!♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:53, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Congrats from me too. A top-flight article, and something of which both you and Wikipedia should be proud. Tim riley talk 20:30, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you to both for all your time and efforts in making it possible. Cassianto^talk 21:21, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

De nada. Would David Garrick interest you or Tim riley at all, or is he too early and not comical enough? He's mentioned a few times in the Althorp article I'm writing as a friend of the Spencers and has some portraits in the house today.♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:45, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

We started on Garrick at one point, but it's such a big beast of an article that it sort of tailed off! - SchroCat (talk) 08:56, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Funnily enough, Garrick was a planned project between Gavin and I about a year or so back. We made a start but then it just fizzled out in favour of Le Mez and a few lists. Garrick was Joseph Grimaldi's era and he was a friend of Joey's father, so certainly not too early for me. However, the sources on him are vast and I'm afraid I couldn't devote what little time I have to such a big subject at the moment. Cassianto^talk 08:56, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Yeah I thought it might be a beast to take on which might put you off!♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:46, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Whisky Galore! (film)

I'd guess you've probably seen it. Just finished watching it!♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:47, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

I have indeed. It is a superb film based on a true story; one of Ealing's finest films IMO! It was also one of the first films for John Gregson too. I may have to watch it again at some point now! Cassianto^talk 14:27, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

The Lavender Hill Mob was a great one! I'll never look at the Eiffel Tower in the same way again hehe! ♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:27, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

The police officer at the end who stands on the police car and whistles (played by David Davies) used to be a police officer in Southend-on-Sea Borough Police and joined at the same time as my father in 1961. Also, did you spot Desmond Llewelyn and Robert Shaw? Cassianto^talk 18:24, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Passport to Pimlico still one of my favourites of all time... - SchroCat (talk) 18:32, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, very good. Give Champagne Charlie a try. Stanley Holloway in the music hall! What could be better! Cassianto^talk 18:51, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Yup, Passport great too, I'm a big fan of Rutherford. You might just be Burgundian living in London, you never know LOL! Yup I spotted Desmond, I didn't spot Robert Shaw though! Will watch Champagne later in the week! ♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:05, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Shaw was the forensic scientist at Hendon when Stan and Alec run amuck among the crime exhibits. It was real blink-and-you'll-miss-it.

We have quite a few resident Huanca people on wikipedia it seems :-)♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:39, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Do you agree with me that Michael Powell was one of the best film directors ever? What did you think of Peeping Tom. Had it been released 13 years later he'd have been heralded a genius at the time! I can't believe such a classic ruined his career! It's one of those films in which the subject matter tarnishes a lot of people's perception of it and can't see that it's an actual masterpiece of a film.♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:55, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Absolutely agree. Powell was far ahead of his time. My personal favourite of his was The Battle of the River Plate. Another such director was Alberto Cavalcanti, the great Ealing director. As well as Champagne Charlie, give Dead of Night a watch too. It was a film made up of different scenes, with each one directed by the cream of Ealing studios, including Cavalcanti. I saw Peeping Tom many years ago, so can't really remember much of it unfortunately. Cassianto^talk 19:05, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Oh yeah I really loved The Battle of the River Plate. I spotted Christopher Lee as the greasy Brazilian and even Patrick Macnee in it too briefly on deck next to Quayle! He's one of those rare directors in which nearly every film seems to be great with a collection of masterpieces. Stanley Kubrick IMO is unsurpassed, he had a full bag of masterpieces, but Powell and Hitchcock come close to also being the greatest directors ever I think, although Hitchcock did have a few duds like Jamaica Inn and Lifeboat. Peeping Tom is a creepy film, granted, but it's brilliantly made and really way ahead of its time. It belonged to the New Hollywood era of the mid 70s of ground-breaking films though rather than 1960! ♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:17, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

About to watch The Small Back Room...♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:33, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Good film! Your taste is impeccable dear Doctor! Cassianto^talk 17:52, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Ping me when you've finished with my points at FAC..♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:46, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

All done I think, other than one which I shall work on when I am near to the books. Thank you very much for the comments. It is surprising how much needed doing this late on into the FAC. Your review has been invaluable as always! Cassianto^talk 17:52, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Excellent work! Thanks. Supported. Rare to see that much support in one FAC! About to watch Champagne Charlie!♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:34, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

See what you make of it. I loved it. The scenes and attention to detail are impeccable. this should get you in the mood. Enjoy! Cassianto^talk 18:45, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately couldn't find it online!♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:48, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Well, what did you think of it? Cassianto^talk 21:30, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

The clip? Yeha it looks good but I want to see the full film! I watched Destry Rides Again instead! Just finished watching Hitchcock's Sabotage. Blowing a boy up on a bus!♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:40, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

No the actual film. Sorry, I thought you said you were watching it the other day. Hitchcock eh, seen Frenzy? Cassianto^talk 21:45, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

I was and then I said "Unfortunately couldn't find it online!". I've only got a handful to see now, Frenzy is one of them!♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:38, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Have you or Schrod seen Mr. Hulot's Holiday? One of the funniest films I've ever seen, [4] Strongly recommended it's a classic! Check out 35 to 37 minutes for example!♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:39, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Sadly not seen it. I'll have to give it a spin sometime! - SchroCat (talk) 20:13, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Me neither. I will try and order it next week. Cassianto^talk 21:01, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

If you enjoy French films, try the absolutely cracking La Grande Vadrouille: it held the French box office record from its release in '66 until Titanic broke it in 1997. It's got two of the best French comic actors around (Bourvil and Louis de Funès), and also features "the big moustache". Well worth a watch! - SchroCat (talk) 21:12, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

I've seen it yup! That's another good un! Mr Hulot's Holiday just has been smiling all the way through it, it definitely creates a good mood!♦ Dr. Blofeld 06:57, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Robey again

I left a few comments on Robey's talk page about a few things that may have slipped through the cracks. Would you kindly consider them? Happy editing! -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:03, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

FA congratulations

Just a quick note to congratulate you on the promotion of George Robey to FA status recently. If you would like to see this (or any other FA) appear as "Today's featured article" soon (either on a particular date or on any available date), please nominate it at the requests page. If you'd like to see an FA appear on a particular date in the next year or so, please add it to the "pending" list. In the absence of a request, the article may end up being picked at any time (although with about 1,307 articles waiting their turn at present, there's no telling how long – or short! – the wait might be). If you'd got any TFA-related questions or problems, please let me know. Bencherlite^Talk 18:19, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Hello, my plan was to wait until the 60th anniversary of his death in November. I think it may be too early to add this right now. Cassianto^talk 18:42, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Alas, I see this date has already been taken up which is a shame. Cassianto^talk 18:25, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Nothing's decided for November - TFARP is just a place where people park their ideas (and sometimes park other people's ideas) as a bit of a long-range warning system. See you tomorrow, I gather. Bencherlite^Talk 18:45, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Excellent news that you'll also be there: this is looking like quite a gathering! Best - SchroCat (talk) 18:50, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

See me tomorrow? By jove, that is good news! This round of coffee is going to cost poor old Tim a fortune! Cassianto^talk 19:40, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 6

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Music Hall Strike of 1907, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Matinée (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:53, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

PR request

SS Arctic disaster: sad story indeed. Any comments would be most welcome. Brianboulton (talk) 20:35, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Ada Blanche

Miss Blanche is now appearing at an article near you. If you feel moved to look in, your expert eye will be most welcome. If Ssilvers, Jack1956 or SchroCat should chance to see this note, the same goes for them, too. Tim riley talk 12:09, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

• Will do, once I've finished enjoying myself in Crete! (Or until I can find a free wifi signal to piggyback onto!) - SchroCat (talk) 12:04, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

• I'm flying out to New York in a couple of days, but should be able to look in tonight. Cassianto^talk 15:25, 15 June 2014 (UTC)