User talk:Cassianto/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Welcome to WikiProject Film

Welcome!

Hey, welcome to WikiProject Film! We're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of films, awards, festivals, filmmaking, and film characters. If you haven't already, please add {{User WikiProject Film}} to your user page.

A few features that you might find helpful:

• Most of our important discussions about the project itself and its related articles take place on the project's main discussion page; it is highly recommended that you watchlist it.

• The project has a monthly newsletter. The newsletter for November has been published. December's issue is currently in production; it will be delivered as a link, but several other formats are available.

There is a variety of interesting things to do within the project; you're free to participate however much—or little—you like:

• Want to jump right into editing? The style guidelines show things you should include.
• Want to assist in some current backlogs within the project? Visit the Announcements template to see how you can help.
• Want to see some great film article examples? Head on over to the spotlight department.
• Want to know how good our articles are? Our assessment department has rated the quality of the majority of film article in Wikipedia. Check it out!

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask another fellow member, and we'll be happy to help you. Again, welcome! We look forward to seeing you around! Peppage^ಠ_ಠ 14:39, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Your HighBeam account is ready!

Good news! You now have access to 80 million articles in 6500 publications through HighBeam Research. Here's what you need to know:

• Your account activation code has been emailed to your Wikipedia email address.
  • Only 407 of 444 codes were successfully delivered; most failed because email was simply not set up (You can set it in Special:Preferences).
  • If you did not receive a code but were on the approved list, add your name to this section and we'll try again.
• The 1-year, free period begins when you enter the code.
• To activate your account: 1) Go to http://www.highbeam.com/prof1; 2) You’ll see the first page of a two-page registration. 3) Put in an email address and set up a password. (Use a different email address if you signed up for a free trial previously); 4) Click “Continue” to reach the second page of registration; 5) Input your basic information; 6) Input the activation code; 7) Click “Finish”. Note that the activation codes are one-time use only and are case-sensitive.
• If you need assistance, email "help at highbeam dot com", and include "HighBeam/Wikipedia" in the subject line. Or go to WP:HighBeam/Support, or ask User:Ocaasi. Please, per HighBeam's request, do not call the toll-free number for assistance with registration.
• A quick reminder about using the account: 1) try it out; 2) provide original citation information, in addition to linking to a HighBeam article; 3) avoid bare links to non-free HighBeam pages; 4) note "(subscription required)" in the citation, where appropriate
• HighBeam would love to hear feedback at WP:HighBeam/Experiences
• Show off your HighBeam access by placing {{User:Ocaasi/highbeam_userbox}} on your userpage
• When the 1-year period is up, check applications page to see if renewal is possible. We hope it will be.

Thanks for helping make Wikipedia better. Enjoy your research! Cheers, Ocaasi ^{t | c} 20:35, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Leno FA

Warmest congrats to you and Ssilvers! It's a thoroughly deserved promotion. And what may we expect to see next from the Cassianto FAC studio? Tim riley (talk) 14:29, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Tim! Dan was a very interesting person to research and I'm very happy with the finished result. I still have the clog dancing belt image to add, just as soon as I can get upto the V&A to take a picture of it! My next project? I honestly don't know. I'm going to take a look around over the next few weeks and decide who I find interesting enough. Joseph Grimaldi, Seymour Hicks or maybe even the Carry On's are all possible runners -- Cassianto (talk) 15:44, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Congratulations, Chris! Re:Trixinixie, she also needs to read WP:COI (and WP:CITE). All the best! -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:14, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Right back at ya! Without you, Leno would still be lurking in start class! As for Trixienixie, I suspect of course any policy will be ignored. Still, at least we have confirmed he/she has a conflict of interests. Or maybe I'm just a cynical old FA contributor :-D -- Cassianto (talk) 15:44, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

HI there, its Miss Tixie Nixie here. I am a complete novice (apologies) and trying my best to add accurate information. I therefore apologize for any inconvenience I may have caused to anyone by not adding all the symbols correctly. I am indeed a volunteer with The Music Hall Guild of Great Britain and America and often get invited to their commemoration events, so I am just reporting back the news and facts as I find them that relate to the theatre and music hall people they celebrate, because I see it as important public information. The Music Hall Guild have their own website so do not need me to advertise the lovely work that they do but I understand how you can think I am trying to advertise this charity but I assure you I am not and I have not even mentioned to them that I have been adding information to Wiki. I hope someone gets to see this message. (Tixienixie (talk) 13:22, 17 April 2012 (UTC)TixienixieTixienixie (talk) 13:22, 17 April 2012 (UTC))

Thanks for your time

Many thanks for recording your thoughts on how to improve the School of Advanced Military Studies article. I'll certainly do as you suggest. I just wanted to pass on my appreciation for your time invested. Best regards, --Airborne84 (talk) 01:54, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

That's ok. I hope my points help in what is promising to be a very good article. -- Cassianto (talk) 22:08, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Sorry about that

I didn't realize I had accidentally removed your comments with this edit. I was having problems around that time, kept getting "loss of session data" warnings when I hit save. P.S. Congrats on Dan Leno! Mark Arsten (talk) 02:40, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Alec Douglas-Home

I don't know how enthused you are about Tory politicians of the mid 20th century, but I have Sir Alec up for FAC (Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Alec Douglas-Home/archive1) should you care to look in and comment. Quite understand if it's not your thing. Tim riley (talk) 14:54, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I would be happy to Tim, although Official Monster Raving Loony Party is more my politcal persuasion  :-) I will take a look tomorrow. -- Cassianto (talk) 20:21, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you

		The Guidance Barnstar
		I just wanted to show my gratitude for all your help and advice in my first few months as a Wikipedian. Danesman (talk) 19:17, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Wow, thanks! I'm greatful for this show of appreciation. -- Cassianto (talk) 00:11, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Re: Late Spring PA

Thank you for your comments. I have replied to Tim Riley's comments on his talk page and also, just now, on the PR archive page. I will respond to your suggestions within the next few days. Thanks. Dylanexpert (talk) 13:40, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

I have put the Cast list in table format not only to eliminate white space, but to make it easier to read. I took the four citations that were in the middle of the sentence to which I believe you were referring and moved them to the end of the sentence. I have put citations in both places in which the phrase "pillow shot" appears in quotes and eliminated the quotes around the phrase in all other instances. Done! Dylanexpert (talk) 03:42, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Joan Crawford

Hi. As you're semi involved at this point, I would like to let you know that I have attempted to begin a discussion about including or finally removing the link to that fansite on the Crawford article talk page. If you have a free moment, your input is welcome. Thanks! Pinkadelica^♣ 20:32, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Absolutley I'll see you there! -- Cassianto^Talk 20:52, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi. I'm sorry for the late response. I see that you already reported the IP user. Not sure if they'll be blocked but I think reporting them is the best way to go. It's amazing that (s)he hasn't bothered to respond to the discussion but went back to edit warring. Sheesh. Pinkadelica^♣ 18:27, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

WikiProject Country Houses

I was wondering if you or you know anybody who'd be interested in such a project. One of my chief loves is British country houses and I don't at present see a project set up to help coordinate it and to collaborate over. If interested let me know and I'll consider making a proposal.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:55, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm afraid I wouldn't be very active. As much as I love architecture (especially Audley End House which I live up the road to) my knowledge is very limited. I would, however, dip in and out from time to time if that's any good? -- Cassianto^Talk 07:24, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Main page appearance: Dan Leno

This is a note to let the main editors of Dan Leno know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on June 21, 2012. You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/June 21, 2012. If you prefer that the article appear as TFA on a different date, or not at all, please ask featured article director Raul654 (talk · contribs) or his delegate Dabomb87 (talk · contribs), or start a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests. If the previous blurb needs tweaking, you might change it—following the instructions at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/instructions. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. The blurb as it stands now is below:

Dan Leno (1860–1904) was a leading English music hall comedian and musical theatre actor during the late Victorian era. He was perhaps best known, aside from his music hall act, for his dame roles in the annual pantomimes that were popular at London's Theatre Royal, Drury Lane from 1888 to 1904. As a youth, he was famous for his clog dancing, and in his teen years, he became the star of his family's act. As a solo artist, he became increasingly popular during the late 1880s and 1890s, when he was one of the highest-paid comedians in the world. He developed a music hall act of talking about life's mundane subjects, mixed with comic songs and surreal observations, and created a host of mostly working-class characters to illustrate his stories. In 1901, still at the peak of his career, he performed his "Huntsman" sketch for Edward VII at Sandringham. The monarch was so impressed that Leno became publicly known as "the king's jester". Leno continued to appear in musical comedies and his own music hall routines until 1902, although he suffered increasingly from alcoholism. This, together with his long association with dame and low comedy roles, prevented him from being taken seriously as a dramatic actor. He suffered a mental breakdown in early 1903 and was committed to a mental asylum, but was discharged later that year. After one more show, his health declined, and he died aged 43. (more...)

UcuchaBot (talk) 23:01, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Congratulations on Dan Leno's front page bow! -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:06, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

And warmest congrats to you too. I wonder who nominated it? Or are they just picked at random? Still no matter, never has the main page looked more interesting!  :-) -- Cassianto^Talk 06:54, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Congratulations indeed! However did you find the time to do so much for Burges? KJP1 (talk) 06:49, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank's for the message. I will always make time for Burges, whom I feel, will be making his appearence in the not to distant future . -- Cassianto^Talk 07:07, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Precious

	discography and stage performances
	Thank you for giving us all the details about Dan Leno's performances - his discography and appearances - who was great in "life's mundane subjects, mixed with comic songs and surreal observations", --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:28, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Ahh, thanks a lot! I shall treasure it always! -- Cassianto^Talk 08:40, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Clown

I've been a bit busy and shall probably continue to be so for a couple of weeks, but I'll poke about when I get an odd 5 minutes. It's probably best to write it "in full" and then cut it down rather than try to condense it as you go along. I'm think we need to weave the JS story more into the body rather than leaving it until the end, as a lot of his decisions in his later career were based around trying to do the best for his son. Yomangani^talk 15:25, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Blast! I just left a message on your TP on this very subject. Yeah no problems with that. It's great knowing your backstage and when you do pop up you make vast improvements. I am just getting to JS (he has been quite in Boz up till now) but he is due to make an appearance in a few pages time. As I go along, I am very tempted to create a secondary article entitled "Stage performances of Joseph Grimaldi" and link it in with this, much the same as I did with Leno. Thanks for the advice. I shall just continue as I am and suffer the many cut backs when it gets copy edited. All the best and speak soon! -- Cassianto^Talk 15:34, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

John Smith's Brewery

Yeah that would be great if you could email that birth certificate to me, purely for personal reasons as I'd love to see it. My email is [obscured for privacy reasons] Your reference should be more than enough evidence for the Wikipedia page. This is incredibly good work as even the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography and a history of the John Smith's Brewery that I own don't name his birth date. Farrtj (talk) 18:19, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for that! If you help out with the article in any other form then please by all means to so. Farrtj (talk) 18:34, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

will do. And just have! Enjoy! -- Cassianto^Talk 18:36, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Would you be willing to do the peer review yourself? It's just that the queue for peer review is pretty lengthy. I might need some help re: referencing. Farrtj (talk) 19:35, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

I can do. Give me a week as I'm a bit busy at the moment. Withdraw from FAC and I will help out. If you list on PR page, I will pick it up in due course. If someone comes along in the mean time whilst it's listed then I will chip in during the PR. -- Cassianto^Talk 19:48, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

The John Smith image is described as "by unknown photographer" in the ODNB. No idea where he was educated, but if the ODNB doesn't say then I guess no one knows. I have deleted the flow-breaking "Beers" section. Farrtj (talk) 20:33, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

If it's on ODNB I would suggest it's not OK as it's copyrighted. Reasonable steps will have to be made to ascertain who the photographer was. If it can be proven the photo was taken before 1923 then it should be OK but the source would need to be changed to that. ODNB was *not* before then (it was 2007) so the *origin* will have to be known. If unknown, might I suggest approaching the brewery or library (as its part of ODNB) to see if a book has a photo in there of Smith which was pre 1923. I will also have a look about. But like I say, I am no image expert. The greatest of articles all to frequently suffer problems at FAC due to its images. So I would say try to do the research or face loosing it at FAC. -- Cassianto^Talk 20:48, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Surname usage

does his full name have to appear again? FA's of the similar say differently. Opt for surname only usage.

When you say "again", do you mean after appearing in the lead? The lead is supposed to be a summary of the body, so traditionally, anything that appears in the lead can usually be found in the body. I'm not familiar with the style of removing the full name from the first instance in the early life section. Can you point me to any guidelines or policies in that direction? Generally, when we say "surname only usage", we mean after it has already appeared in the lead and the first instance in the body. If someone is saying something different, that would be news to me. Viriditas (talk) 01:26, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

As far as I know there are no guidelines, the only one being WP:SURNAME, However, this says nothing about having a full name having to be mentioned in the body. It just says:

"After the initial mention of any name, the person should be referred to by surname only, without an honorific prefix such as "Mr", "Mrs", "Miss", or "Ms"."

I am used to seeing the surname appear only in articles, and that goes for the opening line in the body. Sure the full and proper name appears in the lede, butthis, this, this, and this - who are of similar notoriety and profession, have the full name omitted from the body. Maybe it is just one of those strange unwritten rules WP offers up from time to time and is a matter of personal preference. If that's the case we shall have to agree to disagree. It's your review, go with what you feel's best :-) -- Cassianto^Talk 04:07, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

That's what I thought you were referring to in the first place. Why would the full name only appear in the lead? I think you (and obviously others) are misinterpreting the guideline. I see that several FA bios have been changed for this reason, which appears to be a mistake. This is the fifth time in the last two weeks that I've been in a discussion with editors who have literally interpreted a guideline and/or policy in a way that it wasn't intended. This is not your problem, but it is apparently a growing problem that needs to be addressed. Having been aware of the SURNAME style guideline long before it was ever codified, I believe it began as a style guideline in journalism, possibly the AP Stylebook or some other related style guideline. Now, while an encyclopedia article can be written in a news style, it is not a news article. That's a really important distinction to keep in mind. One way to look at this is to review how obituaries are written. Going from memory, full names in obituaries are only written once, and while obits might have a summary news lead or use pyramid style, they don't have Wikipedia-style lead sections. SURNAME is intended primarily in instances where we refer to the full name of a person in the first instance, and in good journalistic style, refer to only their surname in subsequent uses. The "first instance" in this example, was never intended to imply the name of a biographical subject in the lead section, and I'm not sure how this misinterpretation began. Viriditas (talk) 08:29, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Manual of Style is not the world's most comprehensible document, and I cannot say if it pronounces on this matter, but I can conscientiously say that in the twelve featured biographical articles with which I have been closely associated it has been Xxxxx Yyyyy Zzzz in the lead but just Zxxx at the start of the main text. I cannot swear to it, but I am pretty sure that the same goes for all the featured biographical articles in the FAC reviews of which I have taken part. I find the resulting articles very comfortable to my eye. I don't think trotting out "Sir Somebody Something, OM" twice is of any help to the reader. – Tim riley (talk) 15:31, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

"Why would the full name 'only' appear in the lead?" Because, IMO it is an unnecessary repetition. We know who we are reading about and, as Tim point's out above, to repeat it would not be at all helpful. Like I said, it seems to be a grey area and if its added or not added would be down to a person's personal preference and for discussions to take place, like this, to find a consensus. -- Cassianto^Talk 16:21, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

In bio articles, I agree that the full name only needs to be given once, in the Lead; after that we need only the last name, unless there is an issue of confusion with other family members. The name by which the person was best known should be the title of the article. Since this is the article about this person, no one is going to forget their name, and so repetition would be pointless. If you look at the many FA bio articles, they do not repeat the full name, and so there is ample precedent for use of only the last name. -- Ssilvers (talk) 01:08, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

The only problem is that you are wrong; there is no such "precedent" and many FA bio articles do repeat the full name. For example, if we sample FA bios that have a given name and a surname starting with the letter A, we find that roughly half repeat the name in the lead and in the body. These include: Abu Nidal, Adam Gilchrist, Adelaide Anne Procter, Adolfo Farsari, Adrian Cole, Alain Prost, Albert Kesselring, Alexander Cameron Rutherford, Alexis Bachelot, Alfred Russel Wallace, Alice Ayres, Alister Murdoch, Ambrose Rookwood, André Kertész, Angus Lewis Macdonald, Ann Bannon, Anna May Wong, Anne Frank, Anton Chekhov, Antonin Scalia, Art Houtteman, Arthur Percival, Arthur Sifton, Augustus Owsley Stanley, Austin Nichols. We are talking about repeating the name of a biographical article title in the lead and in the body, which is neither unnecessary nor rare, but actually, quite standard and expected. Lead sections almost always repeat information from the body (see WP:LEADCITE). In terms of referencing, I would expect to see the information in the lead repeated in the body. The intent of WP:SURNAME was never to count the "initial mention of any name" as starting in the lead section, but to limit repeating the number of times the full name was used in the body of the article. This appears to be another literal misinterpretation of a guideline. Viriditas (talk) 03:22, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

With the greatest possible respect, there is a certain lack of logical thinking in the above comment. If (AGF) "roughly half" the FA biographies repeat the subject's full name in the text, then by a simple arithmetical process you'll easily discover that roughly half don't repeat it. I call that ample precedent. I cannot guess how many editors have commented on my various FAC nominations over the years – at least thirty different people, I imagine – and to the best of my recollection not one of them has raised this point. It isn't a matter on which I feel passionately, and if there were a consensus in favour of repeating the full name I wouldn't have a fit of the vapours, but happily as there is demonstrably no such consensus the question does not arise. – Tim riley (talk) 14:16, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

That's a specious response. The sample does not represent an "ample precedent" nor does WP:SURNAME refer to using surnames in lead sections. The lead is expected to repeat content in the body, including names. You've made a poor assumption that because half of our bios do not, that must imply a style guideline is being followed. However, as far as I can tell, that is not the case. What I am seeing is a mixture of different styles, with no ample precedent in evidence. My main point isn't that I disagree with this style–in fact I have no strong opinion on it, as I am fairly open to different styles being used when they are required. The point that I'm making is that SURNAME was never intended to be cited for this precedent as our lead guidelines support repetition for the purposes of summarizing the topic, including the name of a bio subject. At least one editor in this discussion has argued that it helps the reader to avoid repetition, but one can also argue that it hurts the reader to remove it, since the lead as well as elements of the body should be able to stand alone in isolation from each other, to facilitate reader browsing habits. Viriditas (talk) 23:03, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

I struggle with the previous addition. It contradicts non-existent statements: if User:Viriditas would be kind enough to read my earlier additions carefully he/she will see that I have not mentioned WP:SURNAME, nor have I suggested that a style guideline is or is not being followed. I have simply mentioned my own practice, such as it is, and that of the FAC biography candidates I have reviewed. As to precedent, Viriditas evidently uses the word in a different way from the rest of the world. See the Oxford English Dictionary in this context: "an example by which a comparable subsequent act may be justified". As on Viriditas's own admission half the sampled FAC biographies follow one course and half follow the other, there is, if words have any meaning at all, ample precedent for either. – Tim riley (talk) 10:02, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Chaplin

Hi there, thanks for the message! I completely understand that you are busy at the moment, so please don't stress about not being able to be actively involved in the overhaul of the CC article. It's just great to know that there is someone else besides me and Lobo who is interested in it and can give advice on it! Good luck with completing the article on Grimaldi; I read the Dan Leno article you have worked on and really liked it, I'm definitely looking forward to reading the one about Grimaldi! -- TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 20:40, 25 June 2012 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3

• Not so great on his Hollywood years, but if there are any grey area's around CC's early time in Britain, I may be of some help. I will do my best to dip in and out, on breaks from Grimaldi and a pending featured list attempt on Dan Leno's discography. I think you two have done immensely well in getting CC back to scratch. Well done! -- Cassianto^Talk 21:45, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Leno peer review

I have asked for help at the Discography and Comedy projects and from a few of the people from our FAC. You might go over to FLC, and see if you can identify a few people there who seem experienced *and helpful* (that, is, not just anyone) and invite them, on their talk pages, to give us comments here. Hope we get some good comments.  :-) -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:53, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Your email

Hiya! Thanks for the email, I hope you don't mind if I respond here? It sounds to me like both images would be worth uploading to the Commons (I'm sure they must be PD). Does the 1891 census include a mention of the Chaplins? Of course that wouldn't prove his birth place though. Even the M15 were unable to ascertain that location! How on earth do you have a copy of his army enrolment certificate?! I've never even seen that included in a Chaplin book (I don't think). I'm pretty sure it would have been reproduced in newspapers at the time actually, since there was a bit of fuss over the whole thing. I would be interested to see it, but I'm fairly sure it could be uploaded to the Commons for everyone to see. Would you be willing to do that? All the best, --Lobo (talk) 12:31, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

I dont know if it is PD. It is not my image or scan so permission may have to be sought. The info given re the use of images are "Images may be used only for purposes of research, private study or education. Applications for any other use should be made to The National Archives Image Library, Kew, Richmond, Surrey TW9 4DU, Tel: 020 8392 5225. Fax: 020 8392 5266." I can call them and find out if this criteria fits in with WP if you like?

What I have access too + more

I have access to many many things when it comes to ancestory. Including

• Wills and probate,
• Census records,
• Birth records,
• Death records,
• Telephone directory,
• War certificates including medals,
• War grave interments,
• British Army WWI Medal Rolls Index Cards, 1914-1920 2,350 
• British Army WWI Pension Records 1914-1920 271 
• British Army WWI Service Records, 1914-1920 506 
• British Commonwealth War Graves Registers, 1914-1918 50 
• Charterhouse Register 1872-1910 14 
• England, The National Roll of the Great War, 1914-1918 17 
• Gateshead, Durham, England, Roll of Honour, 1914-1920 4 
• Great Britain Army War List, January 1893 64 
• Scottish Soldiers in Colonial America, Part III 2 
• The French and Indian War from Scottish Sources 2 
• UK Royal Navy Medical Journals, 1817-1857 5 
• UK, British Army Prisoners of War, 1939-1945 52 
• UK, Casualties of the Boer War, 1899-1902 20 
• UK, Citations of the Distinguished Conduct Medal, 1914-1920 6 
• UK, De Ruvigny's Roll of Honour, 1914-1924 23 
• UK, Military Campaign Medal and Award Rolls, 1793-1949 12 
• UK, Naval Medal and Award Rolls, 1793-1972 165 
• UK, Navy Lists, 1908, 1914
• Electrol register's
• Incoming passenger lists for migration and travel.

Basically anything! I have helped out many many people on here when it comes to determining unknown dates of birth, death, residence, war service etc etc.

Schhool

By the way, for Chaplin, I hold 1891 census, 1901 census, war service certificate. I also have the following from a school inventory which Chaplin attended. The details are as follows:

• Name: Chas Chaplin

[Charles (Charlie) Spencer Chaplin] 

• Age: 6
• Birth Date: 16 Apr 1889
• School: Addington Street School
• Borough: Lambeth
• Admission Date: 2 Sep 1895
• Parent: Charles
• Notes: Addington Street School (0412) opened in 1877. Closed or reorganised in 1938
• Reference Number: LCC/EO/DIV08/ADD/AD/006

It can be referenced as London School Admissions and Discharges, 1840-1911, London Metropolitan Archives

Census record for 1891

The 1891 census has the following information on it:

• Name: Charles Chaplin

[Charles Spencer Chaplin] 

• Age: 2
• Estimated Birth Year: 1889
• Relation: Son
• Mother's name: Hannah Chaplin
• Gender: Male
• Where born: Walworth, Surrey, England
• Civil parish: Newington St Mary
• Ecclesiastical parish: Walworth All Saints
• Town: London City
• County/Island: London
• Country: England
• Street Address:
• Occupation:No
• Condition as to marriage:No
• Education:No
• Employment status:No
• Registration district: St Saviour Southwark
• Sub-registration district: St Peter Walworth
• ED, institution, or vessel: 29b
• Piece: 362
• Folio: 42
• Page Number: 5
• Household Members:
• Hannah Chaplin 24
• Sydney J H Chaplin 6
• Charles Chaplin 2

To reference this you need to format it like this: Census Returns of England and Wales, 1891, The National Archives of the UK (TNA): Public Record Office (PRO), Class: RG12; Piece: 362; Folio: 42; Page: 5.

I will call the national archives and report back to see if it would be ok to use. By all means call them too as if there is a demand it may go in our favour. If not, then a mention in the body with the correctly formatted reference would suffice I think. If you need me to look up anything at all for Chaplin as well as future projects, don't hesitate to drop me a line. And if you want me to send you the original scans drop me an email. I will more than likely have it. :-) -- Cassianto^Talk 14:54, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Ahh, you're accessing this stuff from the National Archives - is that right? Thanks for typing out the info! I'm not sure there is anything there that could reference the article, Chaplin has received extensive research and it's all available in the biographies if needed, but it it is interesting to see! It could be seen as proof that he was born in Walworth (I personally think he probably was), but I don't dare make that suggestion if even the biographers are unsure. As for the war certificate, I feel like anything produced by the army/government (especially that early) must be PD, but I suppose that could be wrong. Only go to the trouble of contacting them if you feel inclined to. :) --Lobo (talk) 18:38, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Correct (via ancestry.com). I have a subscription which searches everything. I will find out if it's PD and upload it. -- Cassianto^Talk 19:19, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Peer Review?

Hi [Cassianto], I have Marshall Applewhite up for peer review at the moment, and am trying to drum up some reviewers. He had a brief career in music, but then started an unusual religious group--you might find it interesting. No problem if you're busy though, Mark Arsten (talk) 23:02, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Hicks filmography

I don't think that this is better, because it makes it harder to read across the rows. Plus, you could use the white space on the right for images.... Up to you. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:41, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

OK, I'll revert. I didn't think there were any images. I'll have a look round. -- Cassianto^Talk 08:32, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Stanley Holloway

Hi there, great article on Hollway—very enjoyable to read, as well as being informative. Just to let you know that your first reference (the BMD search) now has a dud return that reads "Out of date reference The database in use when the search was performed (bmd_1322564104) is no longer available. Please re-run the search". Cheers - SchroCat (^ • @) 09:53, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi Cassianto, No probs on the BMD ref. I saw the Leno article—another very impressive piece of work it is too. I only found out about the Sellers and Leno connection a couple of years ago: interesting that both of them seem to have fallen into the troubled soul/tortured genius category at some point in their lives. As a start I'm hoping to get Sellers up to a GA—it's a fairly decent article which just needs a bit of a shake up and a little polishing here and there, so it should be okay for that. After that I'll see about an FA. I've not done an FA before, although I nominated Ian Fleming a couple of days ago, so I'll see how that one goes. I'll certainly drop you a line as and when I need advice in the future! Many thanks - SchroCat (^ • @) 16:16, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Please see your e-mail. -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:44, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Fleming

Hi Cassianto, Thanks for your note. I'd be absolutely delighted to see any docs you have on Fleming—it's always great to drop in some key references from such sources to really bolster the secondary sources. Thanks very much for the offer: it's very much appreciated. - SchroCat (^ • @) 00:08, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi. yes I was keen on improving the film side of things as he has a lot of biographical info but not much on his films. But he said there was a reason for that. I'm afraid my version might be too much for him.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:17, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Quite agree. Articles on actors should have a good coverage and also have some reviews by film critics. Doesn't have to be quite as intense as the Clint Eastwood article though..♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:54, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Charles Macklin

Sorry, mate, you are, of course, correct! I did go a wee bit overboard on the 'overlinking'!! Will try to 'restrain' myself and not do it again. Apologies once again. Laggan Boy (talk) 14:40, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

No problem. -- Cassianto^Talk 14:45, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Nonfree content on your userpage

Per the policies on the usage of non-free images on Wikipedia, non-free images are not allowed on pages outside of the article namespace, including userpages. An image on your user page is copyrighted and unlicensed, so I had to remove it. I'm sorry if you are upset by my editing your page without your permission, but this is a rule where Wikipedia allows no exceptions. I want to make sure you know that this isn't personal. Feel free to contact me if you have any questions, or to seek another editor's opinion at the WP:MCQ discussion board. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 01:32, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

While I embrace WP's rules and conditions of use, I take umbrage at another user making alterations to my userpage without prior consultations with me first. Having read the guideline, the image will now remain off of my page. This, I want known, is not out of respect for your edit, but as a commitment to adhere to WP's policies and guidelines (however much I disagree with them).

Second to that, may I remind you of this old maxim; "People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones". I suggest you take a look at WP:TALKCOND, a guideline which you should digest as soon as possible. It strikes me that you need to get your own talk page/user page into some sort of order first instead of going around worrying about other peoples. -- Cassianto^Talk 05:41, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

The Rambling Man arbitration proposed decision posted

A proposed decision has been posted in the open The Rambling Man arbitration page. Please review this decision and draw the arbitrators' attention to any relevant material or statements. Comments may be brought to the attention of the committee on the proposed decision talk page. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. If you are not a party, you may opt out of further notifications regarding this case at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/The Rambling Man/Mass Message List. For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:36, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

Precious

Six years!

How about a fresh start? I like this message to my friend, "and here's to the future". - Every editor is a human being, no editor deserves to be treated like dirt, and I'll listen to all complaints of me not following that. - Six years ago, you said you'd always treasure this, DYK? Happy days, then. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:57, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Into Each Life Some Rain Must Fall. Flooded with them hundreds 17:26, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Nadolig Llawen

Martinevans123 ^{(Santa's Oven-Ready Brexit Centre)} ... sends you ...

... warmest seasonal wishes for ...Nadolig Llawen a Blwyddyn Newydd Dda.

---

Hoping that Christmas may bless you with peace, love and a Cuban groove... and wishing that you may find a little traditional fun ...

Re:Re:Why?

Nobody is in a "position of power" here, we are all volunteers and although some may think they are the all singing and all dancing, they are not. What you find unreasonable, permit me to suggest, is that someone has displayed a differing opinion to you and you don't like it. May I politely suggest that if this is a report on someone's behaviour, then in the interests of transparency, you take it to ANI. But do expect the report to be expeditiously filed away. In the meantime, and away from fetishising over infoboxes, feel free to review any one of the many articles we currently have at WP:GAN. That would be a more sound use of your time.

- Cassianto @ 15:22, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Let me preface by saying that I'm not here to attack you. I'm here to be serious.

So let me ask you something, if nobody's in a position of power here, why are there administrators and bureaucrats here? I can answer that: to make sure Wikipedia is in tip-top shape. Let's pretend no one's in a position of power on Wikipedia for a second, why would you and others contest and fight tooth and nail with editors over adding infoboxes if no one's in a position of power? Anyhow, Wikipedia has and always will be an openly editable free encyclopedia, so why shouldn't others add infoboxes to these good and featured biographical articles. Do they REALLY diminish the quality of biographical articles that much? Do they hurt something or someone? Just look at COUNTLESS other biographical articles of notable people with infoboxes, and tell me they ruin the whole article. Please, for the sake of people who use Wikipedia as a resource and the site itself, give up this pointless (and rather petulant) fight. It's not needed and it's not helping anything.

- Thatstinkyguy (talk) 16:45, 11 March 2020 (UTC)Thatstinkyguy

References

"I can answer that: to make sure Wikipedia is in tip-top shape" Well they're doing a dreadful job, aren't they. This place has been broken for many years. To answer the hyperbole in your Oscar acceptance speech above, no. No, they do not hurt anyone. No, they do not hurt something. No, they do not diminish the quality in some biographical articles (sports, political, military). But they do on other biographical articles. Unfortunately, a few numpties stopped me from deleting infoboxes that had been forced on to articles without discussion. Otherwise, I would be deleting the whole lot of them and asking for a discussion to take place on the article's talk page on the merits of including an infobox - but like I say, this place is broken. Cassianto^Talk 19:32, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Complaining in numerous locations that you don't like the fact people disagree with you isn't need or helping anything either. Perhaps you should think of that (and please don't reply to me here or elsewhere: I am not interested in a conversation with you, I'm just trying to point out that the world (and WP) is a big enough place for people with opposing views, and you don't have to keep berating them in numerous threads. - SchroCat (talk) 16:48, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Comment from Sotuman

I left a comment on RexxS's page in reply to your comment. Since he removed it, I'm not sure whether you were notified and apologize beforehand if you already were. Thank-you note You the man(converse) 20:21, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

(watching) @Sotuman: I'm not surprised he chucked it. You were explicitly told not to post on that page again, and I have no idea what possessed you to think it was OK to do so a couple of hours later. ——SN54129 20:29, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

@Serial Number 54129: Good point. You the man(converse) 20:07, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

continuation

Okey-doke. So I see your final post, now archived, was

Not much to discuss. When warning someone, regardless of what tools someone has, make sure you give out the same advice to the other person, if that other person is conducting in the same behaviour, and regardless of what side of the debate you are on. It is only your view that admins have some sort of different rule to abide by; we are all supposed to be governed by the civility pillar, not just some. I think what's happened here as you and Zero0000 have been WP:INVOLVED. That's pretty much all there is to it. If you need any more clarification, feel free to come to my talk. Cassianto^Talk 15:43, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

And I'll reiterate: WP:ADMINACCT requires admins to be held to a higher standard. That is not my view; it is the view of the community and is WP policy. And it should be your view, too! You shouldn't have to put up with behavior from an admin, who has unequal power, that you might just blow off from a non-admin! Our admins should be consistently treating other editors, and especially non-admin editors, with exceptional civility.

The exact same behavior might earn a non-admin an eyeroll and earn an admin a talk page admonishment. In this case, there was a talk page admonishment for the admin and a talk page request-for-strike for the non-admin. I personally hold influential non-admins to a higher standard, too, which is why I posted to the other editor's talk, and why I've done that before with influential non-admins. I don't necessarily expect them to comply, though. :)

Is there anywhere that you and I can come to an area of agreement here? I'd sincerely like to believe we had a productive discussion. --valereee (talk) 17:17, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

I enjoy talking and enjoy debates, so you're very welcome here. It's a shame that Zero0000 chooses to stifle debate, but then that's their problem. Right, does ADMINACCT override the civility policy? I only ask as 5P4 makes no mention of differentiating between admins and non-admins, and 5P5 goes as far as to say that WP has no firm rules, including, I imagine, what is included in ADMINACCT. Anyway, all this is irrelevant; what is obvious is that you cannot bollock one editor and not the other, when both are being equally bullish to the other. It looks very bad applying a warning to someone who is on the opposite side of the dispute to you whilst allowing the person you agree with to seemingly get away with it. Any bollocking should've been applied by someone neutral to the dispute and in equal measure. Cassianto^Talk

Cassianto, I hope this is what you're asking: ADMINACCT is inherent in the five pillars. We all need to be civil to one another, no matter what our access level is. ADMINACCT doesn't lessen the requirements for other editors. It only increases the requirements for admins. --valereee (talk) 18:58, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Fantastic, at last, we agree on the need for everyone to be civil to one another, no matter what our access level is. And if it's not, both are to get warnings, right? What does 5P5 say? "Wikipedia has policies and guidelines, but they are not carved in stone..." I read that to mean, "we have rules that are there to be broken, and although we'd rather you didn't, it can be justified so long as common sense is applied where common sense is needed". Common sense would dictate in this situation that someone saying "before patience wears thin with your tendentious commentary" is worthy of a word in the lughole just as much as someone saying "don't worry about it, Valereee. The singular of 'admin who barely squeaked through RfA' is not 'editor whose opinion anyone pays attention to'". Would you not agree? I've had admins be uncivil to me and I've met fire with fire and it's me who's been blocked. Where is ADMINACCT in that situation? Cassianto^Talk 19:07, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Whether or not to remark on a particular uncivil behavior isn't carved in stone. Editors have different levels of tolerance. Mine is extremely low for admins, slightly higher for influential non-admins, pretty relaxed for casual occasional editors, and very high indeed for complete newbs. You should feel free to remark on incivility that violates your own level of tolerance. But, no, I don't hold everyone to the same standards. And again, I recommend you don't either. You shouldn't put up with bad behavior from an admin ever. Period. It just plain should not happen. Also FWIW I'd highly recommend not 'meeting fire with fire.' Instead, attempt to de-escalate, perhaps by posting a civil comment on the user talk, like I did with RexxS. --valereee (talk) 17:24, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

What's the point of complaining about rogue admins? I've come to learn that complaining about admin roguery gets you no where. AN and AN/I brings all the trolls to the yard; going direct to the admin's talk page solves very little; hitting up other admins to warn on your behalf is met with a reluctance to get involved, so you kind of give up and walk away with what little dignity you have left. I've had a few admins follow me around for years, checking on my every move, pouncing on me when I even so much as warmly react to someone winding me up. I've had an ArbCom case, all about me, inanely dressed up and entitled "civility in infobox discussions", which had the front to advertise that the case was about the incivility of "everyone" in such discussions, yet it was only me who walked away with a sanction after most of the committee were INVOLVED (and infobox discussions are still a minefield of toxicity, to this day...so that worked well!). To counter all that, however, there are a handful of admins who I respect hugely and who I would listen to, and take criticisms from, in a heartbeat, if I were wrong in a dispute. I won't name names, but they know who they are. Incivility is a subjective topic; some would block for being polite but blunt, others would let the odd "fuck off" slide if it were said in response to clear trolling. The fact is, what is "incivility"? It means nothing. Everyone is cantankerous from time to time; nobody knows the reasons why someone is cantankerous from time to time, whether it be online frustrations or private life stress, yet everyone seems to have an opinion on it. I think Iridescent says it very well here. Cassianto^Talk 18:01, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Cassianto, I'm sorry that's has been your experience. I'm not going to trawl your history to try to figure it out, but it sucks that any well-intentioned editor would ever feel harassed.

I agree that incivility is subjective. For me a crucial piece of information is when it's pointed out to you on your talkpage, do you respond,"oh, wow, I'm sorry, I didn't mean it to come off that way" or do you just delete the post(s) that pointed it out? --valereee (talk) 20:18, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

I have struck things that I've said in the heat of the moment, that I've then thought, actually that was a bit harsh; usually, this occurs after a walk with my dog or a tinker in the garage, after I've given it some thought. If it's something like that, then I do apologise (usually privately); but to apologise does suggest wrongdoing, and if I've said something which I think is rather innocuous at the time, and someone takes offence to it, or even worse, they take offence on someone's behalf, then how am I to know it's offensive at the point of saying it? An apology would be, in this instance, wholly insincere. I'm sorry they've chosen to take offence, sure, but that's the by-product of being able to speak freely. Own it. Stifling debate and denying people the chance to speak freely causes more harm than good, in my opinion. And that's why so many people don't get on. If we were all just to try and understand each other and talk things out, it wouldn't be such a bad place and half the problems wouldn't exist. It's also easy to be someone who you are not from behind a keyboard. I'm convinced that even the most strained of relationships on here could be settled over a beer in a pub. Cassianto^Talk 23:03, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

"Did you spill my pint!?!" Yomangani^talk 23:30, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Wow, I'll apologize in a heartbeat, and mean it completely sincerely, even when I did nothing intentionally hurtful. If something I said came off as hurtful to someone else and I didn't intend to hurt them, it's worth apologizing for in my book. And if I did intend to hurt them, I should be ashamed of myself. :) A sincere "I'm sorry, I didn't intend that to come off that way" costs me nothing and can go a long way toward repairing relationships both on and offline. --valereee (talk) 10:36, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

But to apologise for something that you said in good faith, or didn't intend the outcome of, makes a mockery of the intention of the word itself. It loses its meaning if said often enough. "Racist" is another word; this was thrown about during the Brexit drama towards (nearly all) of the people who voted for Brexit. "Racist" is a serious word, but it was used to describe people who were not racist, therefore the meaning of it became seriously weakened. It therefore became "just a word", something the "other side" would say because they lost. I worry that if we say sorry for everything, the word becomes moot, irrelevant, a ticket to be able to say what the hell you like, in any situation, safe in the knowledge that you always have the word "sorry" to fall back on. Saying "sorry" admits wrongdoing and is a plea to the other party to forgive your wrongdoing. Sure, you're sorry they've chosen to take offence, but not because you've caused it, because you didn't intend to. So why say sorry? Let's not forget, offence is not given, it is taken, and why should anyone apologise for something that is beyond their control, in an otherwise benevolent situation. Jordan Peterson, a hero of mine, insists that in order to talk freely you must be willing to risk offending someone, otherwise we would end up living in a society where freedom of speech is suppressed. That is not a society I wish to live my life in, for much the same reason I never want to be part of a totalitarian state. And I think we'd all agree on that last one. Cassianto^Talk 11:07, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, I think we'll have to agree to disagree on this one. I don't think apologizing weakens future apologies. I don't get the analogy with overusing the term racist. I disagree that an apology is a plea for forgiveness; it might be followed by one, but they aren't at all the same thing. I disagree that offense can only be taken, not given; that's just semantics. I can choose not to take offense, but I can't tell anyone else they ought to do the same. I do agree that sometimes in order to make a point you must be willing to risk offending someone, but I don't see trying to do your best to make your point without being offensive as being in any way threatening free speech. Not even a little bit. --valereee (talk) 12:01, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

You don't see some apologies as being insincere? Do you not think it's possible to apologise under duress? Do you not think some people only apologise if they are forced to? Do you think it possible that an apology can be given in exchange for a reward? The small child who wants a chocolate bar, but before he has it, he has to apologise for breaking his sister's toy? Would this be an insincere apology? No, you shouldn't tell anyone else they ought to do the same as you; but you are in no way culpable if they choose to do something you didn't intend for them to do. Cassianto^Talk 12:41, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Ernest Berry Webber

This has been hugely expanded over the last two days by myself, with some help by KJP1. It would be good to see at least a DYK come out of it, if nothing else. To anyone watching who knows about these things, please help yourself should you wish to collect a nomination credit. Cassianto^Talk 17:06, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

I volunteer, - any hint at what might be especially worthwhile mentioning, with which pic? - My most recent was Beati.--Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:37, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

@C: I don't. DYK sucks balls :p ——SN54129 19:19, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Thank you Gerda. Webber was a skilled architect, born at the wrong time. The Great Depression and two world wars ruined most of his plans; building competitions were commonplace in the 20th century and if there was a competition to be had, Ernest was there! However, everyone was skint, so many of his winning designs were quite often used to prop doors open instead. I think his best building was his earliest, the Civic Centre and guildhall in Southampton, which he won as a result of having entered a competition. Its Grade II* listing is an indication of how good this building was. That might be a good hook. Cassianto^Talk 17:53, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

I'll look, but supermoon first ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:10, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Let me suggest that Hammersmith Town Hall = "an unfortunate building" + Grade II might make a better hook. EEng 18:27, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

"DYK that Hammersmith Town Hall, London, designed by Ernest Berry Webber, was called "an unfortunate building" by the architectural historian Nikolaus Pevsner?" - SchroCat (talk) 18:38, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Christ, you two are negative sods! His one and only time on the MP and he's being mugged off by a critic! And it's the most aesthetically displeasing of all of his buildings, to boot. But I kind of like it. It does jump out on you more, I have to say. Cassianto^Talk 18:51, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

My idea was to contrast that, in the hook, with the fact the it ended up Grade II. EEng 18:58, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Second class rating? He should have been so lucky. - SchroCat (talk) 19:52, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I see that actually. That's a good contrast to make. Cassianto^Talk 19:12, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

• It's here. Not sure about the "hook", if that's what they call it. Cassianto^Talk 20:01, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Bloody dull. The "unfortunate" Grade II would be better. (But I have to agree with SN about that part of the front page most of the time) - SchroCat (talk) 20:42, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Oh yes, so do I, but in lieu of it never getting past C class, DYK is the only thing left available. I don't have much time for the MP at all, if I'm honest. Cassianto^Talk 20:51, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

”Mugged off by a critic”! An example of his work is being critiqued by Sir Nikolaus Pevsner, unarguably the most quoted critic of English architecture that ever lived. He should be bloody grateful! KJP1 (talk) 21:35, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

I'm sure he'd have found it to be both an honour and a pleasure to be critiqued by Pevsner; but is it something anyone, let alone Webber, would have wanted to be remembered for, designing Hammersmith's most "unfortunate building"? Cassianto^Talk 06:21, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

I am often critiqued for my hooks (see here) but stubbornly try to say something positive(ly) that the person did - here: put 10 years of his life into one building). Feel free to add ALT hooks to the nom. DYK wants sensation, and I'm almost out (waste of time, see Jessye Norman and the hook trouble). ITN is more factual, and reaches more readers (see?). - listen (more on my talk, and perhaps you can add to the translation question at the bottom) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:56, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

John le Mesurier's Filmography.

Hello, Please could I ask you to tell me why the accuracy of 'The Inn Way Out' has been removed from the Le Mesurier's 'Filmography' ? Thank you. Heath St John Heath St John (talk) 20:27, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Heath St John, unsourced. "Reel Streets" is a user generated website and is not a reliable source. Cassianto^Talk 20:45, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Hello. This is all knew to me. , However, being always ready to learn, having read thus far, I've already reached the part where it reads: :This must already have been discussed extensively on the 'Talk' Page; do, I'll try this. I haven't just added to Wikipaedia information obtained from the objected-to Source, 'Reelstreets'. I just happened to mention that Website, in the Notes, to allow Readers the opportunity to compare past and present locations. No, the real Source was myself. I watched the film, last night, in disc. The films in the Public Domain, and somebody advertised a copy of it online, so I bought it. I take it, upon my giving you my reassuring Word,that this is now accepted, as I'm not given to try and mislead people on a Website that exists for the purposes of disseminating the truth; for truth it is. I'd be grateful if you could reply, please. Thanks. Heath St John Heath St John (talk) 21:08, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Heath St John, unfortunately, you cannot cite information for a film by using yourself as the source, based upon the fact that you sat there last night and watched it. That is utterly ridiculous and is not how this website works. Cassianto^Talk 05:06, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Good morning. Very well; I offer you my word that it's true; I have the film in the same room as myself; and these are called, "Utterly ridiculous". I shouldn't usually speak so sharply to a stranger, but to have been so unhesitatingly spoken to, (especially since Wikipaedia's own Guidelines, ((which you sent to me !)), direct the Talkers to be "Civil" and, I think, "Unemotional"; and, knowing it to be factually accurate, leads me to have to try and learn about the Dispute Resolution Process. I really should have liked this to have been a friendly exchange, between people whose sole interest was a personally-disinterested search for the truth; instead of which, I've encountered again a very-ready sharpness of manner; hardly one which should've been enjoyable to meet at the Reception Desk of a Public Library. However, I've tried to follow the Guidelines on the DR's Notes, by speaking of it first. Thanks for sharing what there is in you, personally, to give. But, I'll try and learn about the Process, and pursue it there, instead, I think, as I've the seemingly "Ridiculous" is, in fact, very often true. Heath St John

It would be a brave library that put Cassianto on reception to front up its customer service drive! KJP1 (talk) 11:09, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Hello. Thanks for your interest. I shall always assume the best of intentions from all whom I meet, till personal experience proves otherwise. However, to date, prompted only by the one dealing I've had, I feel such employment opportunity of which you speak shouldn't be offered by a Reference Library. Thanks again for your interest. Stalking the truth through the DR process is going to be tiresome, but necessary. Heath St John (talk) 13:08, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Heath St John - Actually, it's very simple. Statements on Wikipedia need to be Verifiable. We do this by Referencing them to Reliable Sources. Your personal experience of having watched the movie isn't a reliable source. You don't need Dispute Resolution, you just need a Reliable Source. KJP1 (talk) 14:33, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Heath St John, I don't quite understand why you keep mentioning "dispute resolution". There has been no "dispute". Cassianto^Talk 15:13, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Hello. If it's the decision of Wikipaedia that I, myself; my word; and, the very article which, were I to trouble to go into another room, should find, are not "Reliable source[s]", then it's suddenly become a website which, equally,is less than a "Reliable source" to me. I see, in writing this, however, Wikipeadia's dilemma. However, it is true; John le Mesurier did star in 'The Inn Way Out', in 1967; and, if anybody troubled to read this, at least I've published it in here; for the time being, presumably. To know now that truth is omitted from the Site because the truth can't be proved, makes the Site a questionable one. For example, should there be any reference to religion, for example, since the Truth espoused relies upon faith:"Blessed are those who haven't seen, yet believe", for example. I leave this for others to continue. I know that I've done my duty. Best to all. Heath St John

Heath St John (talk) 15:23, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, I've just seen your previous note. I mentioned the DR Page, because, (remembering my admission that this is "All knew to me"), a Page in which I was mentioned, when I opened it, refered to 'Dispute Resolution'. I'm pleased I made the admission, as I seem to have entered a world of disputation, when all my desire was only to offer a simple, single unacknowledged fact to the world. Best to all. Heath St John (talk) 15:54, 15 September 2020 (UTC)