User talk:Cassianto: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 20:59, 18 September 2014 view sourceSchroCat (talk \| contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers112,887 edits Undid revision 626132138 by NeilN (talk)Don't template the regulars and don't threaten what you don't have the power to do← Previous edit		Revision as of 22:21, 18 September 2014 view source HighInBC (talk \| contribs)Administrators41,786 edits →September 2014 Next edit →
Line 156:		Line 156:
	::Yes. An attack is calling someone names that any reasonable person would find objectionable. I'm pretty sure "'''...he is a porno-obsessed nymphomaniac, who, unfortunately, has homophobic tendencies'''" qualifies as a personal attack. Please don't do it again.- ]] 20:07, 18 September 2014 (UTC)		::Yes. An attack is calling someone names that any reasonable person would find objectionable. I'm pretty sure "'''...he is a porno-obsessed nymphomaniac, who, unfortunately, has homophobic tendencies'''" qualifies as a personal attack. Please don't do it again.- ]] 20:07, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
	:::{{u\|MrX\|Try}} looking at his user page: he likes pornography, fact. He likes sex, fact. He only believes in marriage between a man and a woman, fact. Quite apart from there being too much information about his sexl-ife, I find the fact he ignores gay marriage homophobic and quite offensive. What part of those points do you have a problem with? ]] 20:12, 18 September 2014 (UTC)		:::{{u\|MrX\|Try}} looking at his user page: he likes pornography, fact. He likes sex, fact. He only believes in marriage between a man and a woman, fact. Quite apart from there being too much information about his sexl-ife, I find the fact he ignores gay marriage homophobic and quite offensive. What part of those points do you have a problem with? ]] 20:12, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

			It does not matter if you see it as an attack or not. It is an attack. Any further examples of such behavior will result in a block. Only warning. ] 22:21, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Revision as of 22:21, 18 September 2014

Please leave a message; I'll reply here.

This is Cassianto's talk page, where you can send him messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Shortcut

User talk:Cassianto

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12Auto-archiving period: 10 days

Music Hall

I'm putting some of the information I added on the Music Hall article back up, such as George Formby Sr. being one of the highest paid entertainers of his day in the Music Hall and Charlie Chaplin jnr. starting off his career, it isn't unsourced it even says on the articles of the two performers. Cheers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Greenclayton (talk • contribs)

Charlie Chaplin

Hello:

https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Charlie_Chaplin&curid=5142&diff=623629879&oldid=623626268

(Undid revision -- See WP:LEAD)

Please explain. Regards, Sardanaphalus (talk) 00:06, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't need to, that's why I provided the link. Cassianto 07:26, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't understand what in WP:LEAD prompted your action. Please ~~explain~~ indicate, communicate, help. Sincerely, Sardanaphalus (talk) 15:28, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't think the article benefits from your additions. The article is featured and so has undergone many reviews from many editors over the last year. For a start, a lead section should be no longer than four paragraphs long. It should summarise the entire article, which in its current state, does very nicely indeed. Your edit bloats it unneserssarily and is not an improvement IMO, sorry. Cassianto 22:13, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Six paragraphs in the lead was too many. It's also not advisable to change the formatting of the referencing either. A couple of US commas went in there, which wasn't an improvement, and neither was breaking the flowing prose into short, choppy sentences, which reduces readability. - SchroCat (talk) 22:32, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Paragraphs: understood. Regarding the reference, do you mean the addition of semicolons? If so, aren't they a standard means of presenting a list in prose (with the benefit of being distinct from any commas used between them)..? Apologies if I've misunderstood your point. If, elsewhere, you mean I removed or replaced some commas, I probably did; as much as shortening sentences might (but not necessarily) reduce flow, so can constructions, for example, such as ", and". Regards, Sardanaphalus (talk) 14:35, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

No, I don't mean anything to do with semi-solons: it's to do with the inclusion of templates into the references. They are not needed, and to have them only in the lead and not elsewhere is questionable. The comma point consists of the addition of US commas to the text where they are not used in BrEng. The final point is that your version was inferior to that that exists: it was full of short, choppy sentances, which had replaced some good, flowing prose. That is not an improvement. - SchroCat (talk) 15:02, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Re the reference, I recalled and so switched to the page-number templates while inserting  s to prevent linewrapping between an abbreviation and number, but, yes, I suppose the resulting string of templates isn't as efficient. I'm not sure, though, which commas counted as US, so I'd be grateful if you'd point these out. I'm also now more unsure what you have in mind as short, choppy sentences, especially if the text was now full of them. Here's a "diff" of the sentences before and after:

Sentences before and after

Before

After

Sir Charles Spencer "Charlie" Chaplin, KBE (16 April 1889 – 25 December 1977) was an English actor, comedian, and filmmaker who rose to fame in the silent era.
Chaplin became a worldwide icon through his screen persona "the Tramp" and is considered one of the most important figures in the history of the film industry.
His career spanned more than 75 years, from childhood in the Victorian era until a year before his death at age 88, and encompassed both adulation and controversy.
Chaplin's childhood in London was defined by poverty and hardship.
As his father was absent and his mother struggled financially, he was sent to a workhouse twice before the age of nine.
When he was 14, his mother was committed to a mental asylum.
Chaplin began performing at an early age, touring music halls and later working as a stage actor and comedian.
At 19 he was signed to the prestigious Fred Karno company, which took him to America.
Chaplin was scouted for the film industry, and made his first appearance in Keystone Studios's Making a Living (1914).
He soon developed the Tramp persona and formed a large fan base.
Chaplin directed his films from an early stage, and continued to hone his craft as he moved to the Essanay, Mutual, and First National corporations.
By 1918, he was one of the best known figures in the world.
In 1919, Chaplin co-founded the distribution company United Artists, which gave him complete control over his films.
His first feature-length was The Kid (1921), followed by A Woman of Paris (1923), The Gold Rush (1925), and The Circus (1928).
He refused to move to sound films in the 1930s, instead producing City Lights (1931) and Modern Times (1936) without dialogue.
Chaplin became increasingly political and his next film, The Great Dictator (1940), satirised Adolf Hitler.
The 1940s were a decade marked with controversy for Chaplin, and his popularity declined rapidly.
He was accused of communist sympathies, while his involvement in a paternity suit and marriages to much younger women caused scandal.
An FBI investigation was opened, and Chaplin was forced to leave the United States and settle in Switzerland.
He abandoned the Tramp in his later films, which include Monsieur Verdoux (1947), Limelight (1952), A King in New York (1957), and A Countess from Hong Kong (1967).
Chaplin wrote, directed, produced, edited, starred in, and composed the music for most of his films.
He was a perfectionist, and his financial independence enabled him to spend years on the development and production of a picture.
His films are characterised by slapstick combined with pathos, typified in the Tramp's struggles against adversity.
Many contain social and political themes, as well as autobiographical elements.
In 1972, as part of a renewed appreciation for his work, Chaplin received an Honorary Academy Award for "the incalculable effect he has had in making motion pictures the art form of this century".
He continues to be held in high regard, with The Gold Rush, City Lights, Modern Times, and The Great Dictator often ranked among industry lists of the greatest films of all time.

Sir Charles Spencer "Charlie" Chaplin, KBE (16 April 1889 – 25 December 1977) was an English actor, comedian and filmmaker who is considered one of the most important figures in the history of the film industry.
He rose to fame during the silent era, becoming a worldwide icon through his screen persona "The Tramp" and a co-founder of United Artists, the first film distribution company owned and run by actors rather than by major studios.
His career spanned more than 75 years, encompassing both adulation and controversy, from childhood performances in Victorian England until a year before his death at the age of 88.
Born in London, Chaplin's childhood was defined by poverty and hardship.
His father was absent, leaving his mother to struggle financially and he was twice sent to a workhouse before the age of nine.
When he was 14, his mother was committed to a mental asylum.
(↕ create join)
Chaplin began performing at an early age, touring music halls and later working as a stage actor and comedian.
At 19, he was signed to the prestigious Fred Karno company.
This took him to America, where he was scouted for the film industry and made his first screen appearance in Keystone Studios's Making a Living (1914).
Soon thereafter, he began developing the "Tramp" persona and formed a large fan base.
By 1918, he was one of the best-known figures in the world.
Chaplin had begun directing films relatively early in his career, a craft he continued to hone as moved to the Essanay, Mutual and then First National corporations.
In 1919, he co-founded the distribution company United Artists, which, when his First National contract expired in 1922, meant he could exercise full control over the films he made.
His first feature-length picture was The Kid (1921), followed by A Woman of Paris (1923), The Gold Rush (1925), and The Circus (1928).
Despite the rise of sound in film during the 1930s, he continued to make pictures without dialogue, producing City Lights (1931) and Modern Times (1936).
(↕ create join)
Chaplin became increasingly political and his next film, The Great Dictator (1940), satirised Adolf Hitler.
The 1940s were a decade marked with controversy for Chaplin, and his popularity declined rapidly.
He was accused of communist sympathies, while his involvement in a paternity suit and marriages to noticeably younger women caused scandal.
An FBI investigation was opened, forcing Chaplin to leave the United States and settle in Switzerland.
He abandoned the Tramp in his later films, which include Monsieur Verdoux (1947), Limelight (1952), A King in New York (1957), and A Countess from Hong Kong (1967).
Chaplin wrote, directed, produced, edited, starred in and composed the music for most of his films.
As a perfectionist, his financial independence enabled him to spend years on development and production.
His earlier films are characterised by a combination of slapstick and pathos typified by the Tramp's struggles against adversity.
Many contain social and political themes, as well as autobiographical elements.
In 1972, as part of a renewed appreciation for his work, Chaplin received an Honorary Academy Award for "the incalculable effect he has had in making motion pictures the art form of this century".
He continues to be held in high regard, with The Gold Rush, City Lights, Modern Times, and The Great Dictator often ranked among industry lists of the greatest films of all time.

Perhaps it's the "After" version's second-third paragraph that fixed your attention..? It's interesting to see this format draw out some of the shortcomings in both versions. Regards, Sardanaphalus (talk) 00:39, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

No more than four paragraphs: understood. I suspect it was the extra blank lines that supplied the sense of bloat. Are you also saying, though, that:

"who rose to fame in the silent era" is more significant than "who is considered one of the most important figures in the history of the film industry" – i.e. that if only the first sentence of the article could be read, "Sir Charles...Chaplin...was an English actor...who rose to fame in the silent era" is preferable to something like "Sir Charles...Chaplin...was an English actor...who is considered one of the most important figures in the history of the film industry"..?
making the first mention of United Artists in the opening rather than the current third paragraph is too early..? (Perhaps, though, with a shorter accompanying description.) UA is/was unique in being the first of its kind and still, nominally, exists, with a name that (thanks to e.g. the Bond movies) may be recognised by a wide readership..?

Yours, Sardanaphalus (talk) 14:35, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Dipping in here too: UA is important, but is only one aspect of Chaplin's life and legacy. There's nothing wrong with the current position in the third para, IMO. - SchroCat (talk) 15:02, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Its seminal, industry-changing nature and continuing appearances at the starts/ends of movies old and new isn't enough to make it a bit more than another aspect of Chaplin's accomplishments (even with Chaplin as co-founder rather than sole founder)..? Sardanaphalus (talk) 00:39, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
PS Am now away until weekend.

Your POV on UA notwithstanding, the lead roughly follows the chronology of the article, and UA is introduced alongside Chaplin's film work, so moving it away from that filmwork is counter-intuative. Regardless of how seminal you think the studio is or was, it has its own article in which to make all those claims, while this one focuses on all the facets of Chaplin and his life, of which UA was just one part. With all the work that's needed on the millions of articles we have, I'm not sure spending hours bouncing opinions together on an already excellent article is constructive: there are many, many more articles that need such time and attention spent on them, and I'd prefer to do just that: I suggest you also move on to work on any one of the parlous articles we have, rather than distract on discussions on how best to guild the lilly. - SchroCat (talk) 09:03, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

In that case, sorry to've distracted you/Cassianto. Best wishes, Sardanaphalus (talk) 08:25, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

You haven't distracted me, I just don't see your edit as an improvement. Cassianto 09:16, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Keswick again

May I pick your brains, my dear Cassianto? At peer review you commented (and I agreed) that the article was probably better suited to the GAN route than the FAC. Doctor B, however, has pitched in good and proper, to very considerable effect, and I should value your candidest view of whether FAC may now be the way to go, if you can face reading the article again. If I may intrude on the hospitality of your talk page I am pinging (see how modern and clever I am with the jargon!) @Cliftonian:, whose views on GAN/FAC were the same as yours. Blunt opinions, please, perhaps on the PR page (still open) or my talk page rather than here, in the circs.

PS. As SchroCat and I were both at the BL this morning, in adjoining reading rooms, we took 15 mins out for coffee in the open-air café in the quad. All very decorous, and not a drop of wine to be seen. Tim riley talk 18:18, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

PR for the Wigan Nightingale

Evening squire,

After the son came the father is all very much in the cart-before-the-horse territory, but the little clean up of the Formby Snr article got a little out of hand and turned into an overhaul. For better or worse, the Wigan Nightingale is now at PR for comments, criticism and complaints. If you have the time or the will I'd be delighted to hear your views, but I appreciate that your Wiki time may be limited. Pip pip – SchroCat (talk) 22:41, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Just a quick update to let you know George Formby Snr is now at FAC, if I can persuade you to pop over for a review? Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 20:25, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

George Formby

Precious again, Formby as TFA, the unlikely star, "too stupid to play the bad guy and too ugly to play the hero"! Simple question: I saw the honorific without a comma, - both right? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:55, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you Gerda, although SchroCat should take the most credit on this one; my time is scheduled for my birthday, later this year. Re Gardiner, he should've had a comma as the honorific would otherwise form part of his name without the clause. I checked a dozen FAs before making the edit so it appears correct. Cassianto 09:48, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, will copy to Gwyneth Jones, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:04, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

I did it, but have the next question: now it looks like the suffix is born and is a soprano, no? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:07, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

On Jones? No, the parenthesis help there, by acting as a separation from the rest of the sentence. They basically make what is contained within it invisible from the sentence, thus being able to link what was before the date of birth to what comes after. To my English eyes, this looks correct. A dozen or so FAs can't be wrong. Cassianto 10:13, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for educating my not so English eyes, for which the things in parenthesis don't exist, so I would read "GW, DBE is a Welsh soprano." See what I mean? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:22, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I see. The parenthesis act as a clause and allows one to stray off the subject momentarily (just like this). Cassianto 10:26, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

How do you like Ernst Roth? See also, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:06, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Back to Formby: I wanted to find out if this edit was vandalism, read the sentence several times, it still didn't make sense. Can you educate me further? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:47, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Without wishing to get into an infobox discussion, I would say no to it being a vandalistic edit. However, I dare say that some on here would think that having a missing infobox is vandalism, for which I vehemently disagree and make no apologies for ;) Cassianto 15:37, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Read, read, read. I looked at the edit because a little thing, mobile edit, might (!) have been vandalism. It wasn't. It was only removing a space between two sentences commented out. Why someone would make the effort I don't know, I normally have a space between two sentences. I have no trouble with the content. I simply don't understand the meaning of the second, particularly "without discussing changing", - if you want to be understood word it differently. Posiibly my lack of English, that's why asked for education. - I was busy on the list of Mozart's masses, remember? Comments to names? - I declared my liberty some time ago, DYK ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:05, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Like I say, this in my mind isn't vandalism, just someone who doesn't know (I like to assume good faith; note the parenthesis) ;). If I remember correctly, Brian uses the double space after a full stop. I think there maybe something technical behind it. At least one space should be used after a full stop, and in fact any clause come to that. Are you referring to the two "ing"'s? Yes, I agree this does sound odd, I'll take a look. Cassianto 18:13, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

We agree, it wasn't, said I, no? - Removing the only space is odd at best. I stopped removing one of two spaces years ago when I noticed it was intentional. What I removed later today was worse, - removal a service of QAI ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:28, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Lost in translation, we agree. I altered it slightly, better? Cassianto 19:08, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

September 2014

Please do not attack other editors, as you did on Talk:Heterosexuality. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. This is not nice. - Mr X 20:00, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

How is this an attack? Do you even know what an "attack" is? Cassianto 20:02, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes. An attack is calling someone names that any reasonable person would find objectionable. I'm pretty sure "...he is a porno-obsessed nymphomaniac, who, unfortunately, has homophobic tendencies" qualifies as a personal attack. Please don't do it again.- Mr X 20:07, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Try looking at his user page: he likes pornography, fact. He likes sex, fact. He only believes in marriage between a man and a woman, fact. Quite apart from there being too much information about his sexl-ife, I find the fact he ignores gay marriage homophobic and quite offensive. What part of those points do you have a problem with? Cassianto 20:12, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

It does not matter if you see it as an attack or not. It is an attack. Any further examples of such behavior will result in a block. Only warning. Chillum Need help? Type {{ping|Chillum}} 22:21, 18 September 2014 (UTC)