User talk:Cassianto/Archives/2020/January

Was thinking about you
...recently and all the great articles you’ve written or contributed to. Especially all the great British theater articles. Hope all is well! Mr Ernie (talk) 02:20, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

FYI
FYI -- -- sorry this took as long as it did. Best, Kevin ( aka L235 · t · c) 22:29, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Arbitration case opened
You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kudpung. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kudpung/Evidence. Please add your evidence by January 28, 2020, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kudpung/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, CodeLyoko  talk  04:58, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

The Ninth
I just reverted an addition to Beethoven's Ninth, please check it out and tell me if you can agree with the edit summary,. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:35, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
 * What does this have to do with me?  Cassianto Talk  17:41, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
 * You invited to discuss the topic of BRD on your talk page, remember? I'd like to find out where we have common ground. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:16, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I discuss infoboxes on my talk page so as to get around my restrictions and to cause Sandstein a mischief by not being able to block me. BRD is not exclusive to infobox discussions and I can discuss BRD anywhere and away from prying eyes. I will look in.  Cassianto Talk  20:20, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I am not interested in infoboxes. I try hard to make 2020 the year that I don't participate in infobox conflicts. I want to find where have common ground regarding BRD, because you seem to think that an edit 7 years old can be regarded as bold, and I wonder if I understood you right. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:39, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is bold, and it can be reverted at any time, regardless of what "silent consensus" may exist.  Cassianto Talk  21:31, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Who says so? The guideline is long, - what I read is (under bold) "Stop editing the page long enough to see if anyone objects. Depending on the nature of your change and the traffic on the page, this may take anywhere from mere minutes to more than a week." I read "a week". Not "7 years". - Today, I had to revert the same thing again, - my edit summary got a little sharper, and I gave the IP a welcome message. - I am quite proud that I heard of a birthday today, 100, an architect, alive, and managed to expand his brutalist master piece to make a DYK possible. I took one of the pics. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:35, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Common sense says so.  Cassianto Talk  22:51, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I must have uncommon sense then, because my sense tells me that after a month, an edit can be considered accepted and stable. Franz Mazura died. Sad. See. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:30, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid you must. Tell me, if I sent an old friend a letter asking them if I was mentioned in their will, and I were to receive no reply, should I presume that upon their death, they "silently" agreed with me that I should receive £1million, a dusty old Grandfather Clock and their collection of Feargal Sharkey LPs?  Cassianto Talk  23:53, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Now what has that to do with my question? I fail to understand what you mean by silent agreement. - When I read the guideline, I get the impression that two weeks are already a time frame after which an edit can be regarded as uncontested. When I suggest something on a talk, I say that I will implement if no objections within a week. That's seven days, not seven years. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:59, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Oh, you don't have a clue either what Jgc, or whatever their bloody name is, was saying a year ago? Me neither.  Well at least we can agree on something I suppose. When I start building a featured article candidate - such as I'm doing here, I always link to it and ask on the talk page for any objections to me replacing what is there with my version.  If nothing is said within a week, I replace it.  It's an obvious improvement.  You need to understand that not everybody likes infoboxes on certain articles.  Therefore, your scenario is different.     Cassianto Talk  00:06, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Removal of edit to Spectre (2015 film)
Before removing my edit, I would have greatly appreciated it if you had the posed the question to me first as it is one which I considered in some detail before making my edit.

My answer is as follows:

(i) It speaks further to the idea that the film had something of a troubled production and indicates that the legacy of this was felt after the film's release;

(ii) it suggests something of the seriousness of the injuries sustained, unfortunately, in the accident already referred to;

(iii) it indicates the profits from the film may have taken a hit;

and

(iv) it permits the natural inclusion of a more up-to-date reference which provides information not available at the time either of the references already cited in connection with the accident were written.

If you want to remove material which does not actually refer to the film itself then I would suggest that much of the article should be junked, otherwise, in my humble opinion, there is no justification for reversing my edit. It is not something I would have done personally and at the very least you could have left intact the improvements to the existing references I had made. Edwin of Northumbria (talk) 02:41, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Recent edit
Revert trolling; stay off this talk page, "Moonythedwarf". Dr, you're welcome anytime.  Cassianto Talk  18:19, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
 * More baiting? There must be something in the water. - SchroCat (talk) 18:52, 29 January 2020 (UTC)