User talk:Giano II/archive 5

Hello[edit]

I will file an RfC against you if you harass me any further. She does not have any relation to me; you can tell this by going through her contributions and judging by her writing-style. We do, however, share similar interests, but not very strong interests. Remove your ridiculous comment. —Eternal Equinox | talk 21:36, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Still with us then? You must behave in whatever fashion you see fit - I merely pose the question I am sure most other editors are wondering. You are the architect of your own misfortune. Giano | talk 21:39, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are the epitome of hell. —Eternal Equinox | talk 21:41, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So my adversaries never tire of telling me Giano | talk 21:50, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's true enough that the question immediately occurred to me. It looks relatively unlikely, though. I sure wouldn't want to be nominated by such a puppetmaster though. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 21:43, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Beautiful. —Eternal Equinox | talk 21:45, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No I'm sorry Eternal you can't be Marilyn, cos we all know she is dead, that sock would not last 5 minutes. What about Edith Piaf, she was dreary little woman too, that might last a little longer. Other than that I can't think of anyone else you could be Giano | talk 21:50, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe God? —Eternal Equinox | talk 22:05, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well I see his page his page is protected just like yours, but I don't think so. Anyhow don't let me keep you, run along now and play outside. Giano | talk 22:09, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm already outdoors. —Eternal Equinox | talk 22:12, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Giano, be careful![edit]

Oh, noes, file an RFC! Giano, are you mad, to invite such a fate? Prepare yourself for hell, that's all. Bishonen | talk 02:25, 8 June 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Hell is other people's baked goods. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 02:50, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I may be slow but...[edit]

Don't say I don't do anything for you. -- Fr a ncs2000 21:58, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, my house! —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 21:59, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It may look posh but it's actually quite small inside. Probably why this style of construction didn't catch on in Aylesbury... -- Fr a ncs2000

22:02, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PS there's these two as well, in case you're interested. -- Fr a ncs2000

Thanks Graham, that's terrific, but it doesn't look like I remembered from almost 25 years ago, it's surely the end of a mostlye demolished building. Anyhow hopefully that will be the incentive to finih the page. BoG stop stalking my page or I will RFC you! Giano | talk 06:14, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bring it!—Bunchofgrapes (talk) 15:00, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well in 1860 it looked like this, with Long Lional still running along the side of it separating it from the White Hart. Again in 1911 it was exactly the same. Perhaps your memory is playing tricks with you? -- Fr a ncs2000

09:44, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've just noticed Graham - why are you flying the tricolor, I though you would have supported England in the world cup? Giano | talk 16:52, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Having trouble counting to three, dear? Those are the six stripes of the rainbow flag. Bishonen | talk 16:59, 10 June 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Oh!!! I hadn't got my glasses on. Giano | talk 17:01, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Engerlaaand, Engerlaaand, Engerland Engerland la laaaa[edit]

In all the time that you've known me do I appear to be the sort of person who would even understand football, leave alone shown flags in support of it? For Eurovision, no problem, maybe even for the Olympics. Right now I just wish the World Cup would go away... -- Fr a ncs2000 17:40, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the phrases that Francs2000 was looking for were "In-ger-ler-ernd" and "we are going to score more goals than you".

-- ALoan (Talk) 09:51, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah well, I'm sure someone will score some goals for you, but will it be England, hohohohoho! Dream on ALoan! Giano | talk 14:00, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well thank you Giano, the Italian flag has been printed off and is flying from my car as we speak. What's that noise, it sounds like glass breaking followed by a car alarm...? -- Fr a ncs2000 15:31, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FYI[edit]

You might be interested in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review#FAs with citation problems. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 20:08, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No I'm not interested! If people prefer to make lists of the shortcomings of others work, rather than write FAs themselves, then that is a pity for them! But thanks for bringing it to my attention Giano | talk 21:09, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Signpost updated for June 12th.[edit]

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery


Volume 2, Issue 24	12 June 2006	About the Signpost

From the editor: RSS returns
English Wikipedia reaches 1,000 Featured Articles	Administrator desysopped after sockpuppeting incident
Meetups And Newsworthy International Assemblages	News and Notes: Wikimedia board resolutions, milestones
Wikipedia in the News	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report On Lengthy Litigation


Home \| Archives \| Newsroom \| Tip Line

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list.

Message delivered by Ralbot 01:37, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

exemplar of 2a prose[edit]

Hi Giano

I note your views concerning the new referencing requirements for FAs, the thorny issue of how it affects existing FAs, and the debate you had with Wackymacs about it.

I thought you'd like to know that I've been asked a few times for examples of model prose in FAs, and I recommended Sanssouci.

Tony

Excellent - so, to create the perfect article, we simply copy and translate something from German Wikipedia (for its precise phrasing and formal grammar), pass through an Italian (for flair and panache), and add a few other bits and pieces (including a soupçon of English fiddler, and a dash of Australian). -- ALoan (Talk) 11:01, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually ALoan, I have just read that properly, you are being bloody rude! I did a complete hatchet job on Sanssouci, through out most of it, imported other bits, and still managed to keep the original, nominating, authoring editors (who had done the real hard work) happy. Called in you and the others for back-up, all in the space of the week it was on FAC. Sanssoucci was not so much an FA as a fucking miracle! Giano | talk 20:37, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rude, moi? Shome mishtake, shirley. -- ALoan (Talk) 20:57, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanyou Tony. So basically what I've always said write it, and then get your mates to check it and their ten pence worth! Giano | talk 12:18, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Belton[edit]

Thanks for your note. The MGC’s time there is only a very short part of Belton’s history but it is an important one in that the corps was a significant link in the chain of events and organizations which won the First World War. My brother knows more about this subject than I do and I shall be seeing him before the end of the month so I’ll let you know what references he has. Meanwhile, there are some bits and pieces available, though you have probably found them already by Google search. http://www.1914-1918.net/mgc.htm summarizes the MGC’s history but with no more than a mention of Grantham. (The depot was in the southern end of Belton Park, which runs into the northern end of Grantham so in this connection, for Grantham, you can read Belton. Indeed, some of modern Grantham is on land which was formerly wartime military camp but I believe that most of the army property outside the park was used by non-MGC units. The Wikipedia article Machine Gun Corps repeats the story and is based on material from The MGC Old Comrades’ Association. The link in the article is now dead but seems to have been replaced by this one http://www.machineguncorps.co.uk/ . There is a bibliography on http://www.regiments.org/regiments/uk/inf/MGC.htm#monu . There are several links like this http://www.ozigen.com/tree/p621.htm ,which mention training at Belton but are brief . However, this gives a little more incidental detail http://www.jjhc.info/heathleopold1966.htm . Here we get a hint of the conditions there http://walterwildgoose.blogspot.com/ . (RJP 21:27, 15 June 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Belton House footnotes[edit]

/me is ashamed. I'm sorry! I abase myself in apology! I went medieval on the Footnote Extravaganza! I couldn't stand it — you realize there are as of now only FOUR actual references that you've used? And all those footnotes went on and on making a full meal of each of those four books over and over... I'm sorry, I couldn't stand it, it was killing me. Revert if you don't like it (and if you wish to kill me). Meanwhile, please add places of publication in the References section, where I've indicated it, and if you have the books handy. (Incidentally, what I've done is a simple standard reader-friendly academic-journal system, as used in the balloon article, and as opposed to a Special Barbed Wire Wikipedian Erudite-Looking Weirdness Used Nowhere Else.) Bishonen | talk 21:03, 16 June 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Well done - it needed doing. I was leaving it for another round of copyediting.

Kinsman, eh? -- ALoan (Talk) 21:41, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmph! Well what is the word I wanted then? Giano | talk 09:24, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whyn't you just read my edit summary? The word is cool. Having it linked is bad. The link leads to an article about Kinsman as a surname. I unlinked it. Bishonen | talk 09:31, 17 June 2006 (UTC).[reply]

My fault for linking it, most likely. Why haven't we got an article on kinsman (not as a surname)? We could move the current one to Kinsman (surname). -- ALoan (Talk) 09:09, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DYK[edit]

On June 17, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Belton House, which you created. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

smurrayinchester^{(User), (Talk)} 21:20, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nice houses[edit]

Nice work on expanding Belton House from an outhouse of an article to a castle! ... and also your many other architectural articles. Have a nice mansion as a memento! With regards and respect... ++Lar: t/c 21:54, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Giano | talk 22:06, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A little more work and condensing before it is finished yet, but thanks. I am quite smugly please with the lead foto, and the garden and church one. Amazing as I just poited the camera and fired, no fiddling and twiddling at all. Giano | talk 08:30, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Belton House Images[edit]

I notice that you've uploaded all of the images that you took of Belton House as GIFs. GIF is not a suitable format for the image types you have uploaded. It is limited to 256 colours and is suited to diagramatic files and simple shapes. Photographs are far better uploaded as JPEGs. David Newton 21:57, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know the difference, I just upload from the camera to the computer, and then computer to wikipedia - some hidden robot somewhere does all the GIF and JPEG stuff, nothing to do with me! Giano | talk 22:06, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Check out Imagemagick, it can convert stuff for you. Most modern cameras save as jpeg already... ++Lar: t/c 22:10, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They look beautiful on Firefox. Splendid article, Giano. Among your best. --Wetman 02:38, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies[edit]

Regarding Neo-Renaissance, please accept my apologies if i have been discourteous. I stumbled across the article and it didn't seem to have been edited (other than the odd tweak) for about a month, I was impressed by it's quality and so was bold and submitted for peer review. No offence was intended, actually the reverse. --Mcginnly 00:34, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry. Ghirla and I have undertaken a mammoth 19th century project and are taking our time so we don't loose interest and entheusiasm. Giano | talk 08:31, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good stuff. By the way, whilst architectural history isn't exactly my field. I do remember a lecture once where I was told that Ruskin argued that; Venetian gothic was a particularly apt style for mercantile buildings (for obvious reasons). There's a profusion of examples in manchester such as:-[2] and [3] and [4] and [5] and [6] and [7]. If you'd like me to get some photographs for your article I don't live too far and I'd be glad to help. Regards --Mcginnly 19:10, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Willoughby marriage[edit]

You got your message in very smartly. I had altered the link then noted the problem you pointed out. While I was still trying to reconcile the pieces of information, I got notification of your communication. My easiest course is to revert my alteration but that would still leave the question of which Lord Willoughby the dead daughter was lined up for. There were two lines of Lords Willoughby, de Eresby and of Parham. They were on opposite sides in the Civil War. I guess that your source does not make the matter clear, as you have not already clarified the matter in the article. The de Eresby line was the one prominent in Kesteven. You will of course have noted the Baron Willoughby de Eresby article. I shall leave it to you to revert my meddling so that our actions do not conflict. Sorry. (RJP 20:00, 18 June 2006 (UTC))[reply]

BP[edit]

I saw that you made a comment that came and went. Apologies if you don't like the changes - he is only trying to help. -- ALoan (Talk) 10:29, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Belton House[edit]

So? Let me know when (if) you'd like a bit of a copyedit. Sillily, I haven't actually read the article yet, it strikes me. And how would you like those notes? (I'm only trying to help, too... ). Bishonen | talk 19:37, 19 June 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Signpost updated for June 19th.[edit]

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery


Volume 2, Issue 25	19 June 2006	About the Signpost

Foundation hires Brad Patrick as general counsel and interim executive director	NY Times notices semi-protection policy
Meetups And Newsworthy International Assemblages	Undeletion of images now made possible
Adam Carr's editing challenged by Australian MPs	News and Notes: Project logo discussions, milestones
Wikipedia in the News	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report On Lengthy Litigation


Home \| Archives \| Newsroom \| Tip Line

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list.

Message delivered by Ralbot 23:30, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings![edit]

Greetings, Giano!
I've been away for about six weeks. I am pleased to see some of my articles have been patrolled in my absence (e.g. Katie Holmes). Haven't heard from you in a while. How are you doing? PedanticallySpeaking 16:53, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The south front[edit]

Yeah, yeah, it may have been known as the south front, but isn't "south" rather awkward for an encyclopedia entry? I'm going to change it to "north", a much more encyclopedic word. Bishonen | talk 21:38, 21 June 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Please do not attempt to disrupt me, when angered I am extremely unpleasant, nasty and vindictive, not too mention vitriolic and grudge bearing, and I may just shoot that balloon out of the fucking sky......OK? Giano | talk 21:44, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Surely that's the back not the front? Paul August ☎ 21:46, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't push it sunshine! Giano | talk 21:47, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm sorry, but I really am that picky! All right, I have a compromise suggestion: "southernmost." This is my final word. Bishonen | talk 22:13, 21 June 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Belvedere caption[edit]

What on earth are the machine gun corps and so on doing in the image caption to the "belvedere" pic? They seem quite extraneous. Are they hiding behind the trees? Also the link belvedere goes to a disambiguation page. Please check it out. You may have to edit the disambiguation, because I can't tell what to link to from it. Bishonen | talk 12:33, 22 June 2006 (UTC).[reply]

It is Belvedere (structure), the army are hiding in the trees because they were based in the park during the wars, take them out if you like, I just thought ir was nice to give them a plug! I'm like that kind, caring and thoughtful. I won't edit in case you are in there. Giano | talk 12:46, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Help![edit]

Help, I've linked overthrow! Now you're gonna have to write a stub and a disambiguation! (Incidentally dream team was a powerfully useless link.) Bishonen | talk 16:41, 22 June 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Rosing Park[edit]

Palace of Pena: "the volume movement have an unusual architecture" (Wikipedia)

Hello, Giano, the World Cap distracts me from Wikipedia these days, yet I don't give up and even started to revise Baroque architecture, where the coverage of English and French Baroque is limited to a couple of disjointed sentences. I'm not sure that I will be able to add anything informative without an expert's help, however. I liked your Belton House immensely. As for Rosing Park, I have a DVD with a documental about the locations where the last year adaptation was filmed. Burghley House seems a little too grand for the social milieu described in the novel, don't you think? Belton House suited the role so much better. But then the new film is full of other anachronisms, you know. --Ghirla ^-????- 18:01, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I cannot agree that the St. Pete Duma is Gothic. I thoroughly concur with your assessment of the Berlin Town Hall, its similarity with the Belfry of Bruges cannot be overlooked. --Ghirla ^-????- 18:03, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the Italian squad was lacklustre in the Saturday match. Back in 1948, La Squadra Azzurra beat the Yanks 9:0. What, do you want to turn back the time? :) --Ghirla ^-????- 18:24, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmph! We have no need to turn back the clock. You ain't seem nothing yet! Forza Italia. Point me again at the St Pete's I said was Gothic, I'll have a second look Giano | talk 18:29, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Could it be something along these lines?

Well, it so happens that I completed Mansfield Park a week ago and my head is still full of this book. I recollect that the director of the latest film justified his choice of Burghley House by saying that Lady Catherine personifies the old-money gentry. I believe it was the similarity of names - Bourgh, Burghley - that made them connect the two. Belton House worked fine for me in the older film, although I agree that it was not that modern. If you want a modern house, you should review these in the first place. It's quite unlikely that Capability Brown has had a hand in this project, however. I will add more observations to the talk page later --Ghirla ^-????- 17:56, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation...[edit]

Sorry to keep inventing stubs for you to write, but Saloon is also a dab page. Bishonen | talk 20:06, 22 June 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Er. And I've linked enfilade. Uh, it turns out to be a military concept only. Dab page needed. Well... how could I not have linked it? Bishonen | talk 20:17, 22 June 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Mmmm, yeah. You've linked dilettante, I see. Needs a stub, sorry. Bishonen | talk 21:23, 22 June 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Er? What?[edit]

The "Great Dining Room" takes its name from the chequer-board floor? Not getting it. Bishonen | talk 20:54, 22 June 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Neither do I, it shoulf be the Marble Hall! Giano | talk 21:43, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why would you play marbles on a checkerboard? —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 21:51, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are you all being deliberatly obtuse? I do I really have to expain what a chequer board floor is? Giano | talk 21:53, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Does it have something to do with the Chancellor of the Exchequer? Oh, these crazy British things just give me a headache! —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 22:21, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Then take an aspirin. If you don't know BoG, I'm certainly not going to tell you Giano | talk 22:28, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mail. Bishonen | talk 22:22, 22 June 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Nominate![edit]

Nominate now! Bishonen | talk 22:51, 22 June 2006 (UTC).[reply]

about a Belton House ref[edit]

"Halliday, E. E. (1967). Cultural History of England. London: Thames and Hudson"

While looking for ISBNs to compelte the article's references, I've found plenty of references about either this or an "Illustrated Cultural History of England", but almost all of them are credited to a "F[rank] E[rnest] Halliday", allother things (editor and year) being identical. Could you look up whether or not your copy has an ISBN or full author name somewhere to confirm? Circeus 23:56, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Giano's gone to bed, Circeus, he's on European time. I'm sure you can assume that your book is the one intended, and that the "E.E." is just a Freudian typo. Bishonen | talk 00:17, 23 June 2006 (UTC).[reply]

I never expected him to answer on short term. I just like to check things thoroughly. Circeus 14:20, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Belton House[edit]

So you took the pics; does that mean you live in England, not Sicily as I'd assumed? Tony 09:47, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your support Tony, I appreciate it. "Assumed" didn't some one once say that "assume" makes an "ass of U and me"? - Lets just say I am a very well travelled mongrel;-) Giano | talk 13:02, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Belton House[edit]

I'm not too familiar with them myself, but I think I've managed to get it to produce something sensible now. Kirill Lokshin 13:16, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ghirlandajo[edit]

How well do you know Ghirlandajo? (you can reply here, I've watchlisted you) Ideogram 20:56, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Belton House measurements[edit]

No problem on those measurements...they must not want anyone to take pictures? I wonder what the purpose of that is...maybe so they can sell theirs? Though I am one of those natural resources people, I admire architectural achievements of all types. Supposedly, my ancestors had Shirley Plantation built and also Carter's Grove...I must have been descended from one of the younger sons...you know primogeniture! Oh well, good job on Belton.--MONGO 21:55, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I think primogenture is marvellous. But you have a couple of potential FAs there. Yes they do sell their fotos, and sadly I have yet to perfect the art of mobile phone photography, especially when looking furtively over the shoulder at a elderly lady who is a National Trust guide, giving the impression of having won both world wars single handedly for the British. I shall keep seeking for the dimensions. Giano | talk 22:01, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A request[edit]

Hi Giano, we've never really met, except that I have voted to support a couple of your FAs. I have noticed, though, that you've made great contributions to architectural topics, and I wanted to propose something to you which you might like to consider. You might be busy now with Belton House or other things, I am busy at the moment as well, finding footnotes and preparing Expressionist architecture for PR, so the time frame for me is not to really start for a couple more weeks. I wanted to see if you wanted to help collaborate on the article Architectural theory. Right now it is a very short stub, but I think it has potential and after my current project am going to devote most of my efforts towards this article. It seems to me that you are more fit to cover Vitruvius and Palladio, and maybe more than I am, and wanted to offer this for you to consider collaborating or just to hear your opinions. By the way that animated compound tetrahedra is amazing. DVD+ R/W 20:39, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Goodness me! That is a huge subject, I'm not sure that it can even be covered in one limited encyclopedia article. At the moment I am involved with a massive 19th century architecture project, which I am already neglecting, and I have also just agreed to a collaboration on another major project - so I really do not have the time at present for what would have to be a very highly re-searched and referenced page. I shall certainly put it on my watch list and add anything that comes to mind I think necessary as it arises. Thanks for asking me. Good luck with it Giano | talk 12:53, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

E.E[edit]

Yes, I'm aware of the RFA against her, and I do plan to comment. However, I'm a bit busy with work, so this will have to wait until tomorrow. Regards. Oran e (t) (c) (e) 19:06, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ho, hum, another day, another Giano FA[edit]

Congrats on Belton House, GIFs and all! —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 22:16, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, yawn, another FA? Thanks for reverting the troll, btw. I've indef-blocked the account now (and the IP for one week). Bishonen | talk 22:19, 27 June 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Thanks for the good wishes, I never really understood all that GIF business so was glad it passed in case there was a pile on on the subject. Funnily enough some kind soul (I think it was Brian 007 or (whatever he is called) did convert it to a ping or whatever but it just put the house bang on the tilt (English say: on the piss) which I hade edited out in the first place. I seem to become more confused by the moment these days. Giano | talk 15:36, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

West Wycombe Park: naive and unencyclopedic - well, we were all young once. How many aliases have you got? -- ALoan (Talk) 21:55, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't a clue what you are talking about ALoan, you've obviously been drinking far too much of that disgusting warm beer in the today's lovely sunshine. Giano | talk 22:06, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RFAR[edit]

The RFAR has been accepted, did you notice? Not "opened" yet, though: you'll get an official message from a "clerk" when it is. Bishonen | talk 23:37, 29 June 2006 (UTC).[reply]

I took a look. Oh dear, at least one of the earlier names of that person rings a discordant bell. Yes, "I'm leaving Wikipedia now!" (and coming back with a different name next week). What a pain in the posterior. -- Hoary 14:01, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mentmore[edit]

That description from the seventies: would anyone of your acquaintance happen to be able to come up with any reason for it not to be called "original research"? -- Hoary 14:01, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fire in de hole[edit]

OK, I'm starting something for John Vanbrugh Enterprises right now! The bits of text are from the present wiki article, and my headings will probably be gone without a trace soon. You know me, I begin at snail's pace. And if we're lucky I pick up speed and and end in a tortoise-like rush. There is an embarras de richesse of material for it, but the problem is to swallow the "Through eyes misted with tears, Thomas cast a final look..." type of narrative of the fat library books I've got. I'm looking high and low for a drier, to me more palatable, account to complement the fat books--something like a chapter in a general social history of London, perhaps. Please give me a shout if you find anything suitable. Good that you're packing the books! :-) Bishonen | talk 21:29, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment removal[edit]

Why are you removing legitimate good-faith comments from other users' talk pages? Please respond here rather than on my talk page.Timothy Usher 09:57, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

[8] Please read Bishonen's edit summary. Thank you Giano | talk 10:03, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are you her keeper? The reason I ask is this: I want to know whose comments to remove from my talk page, yours, Bishonen's or both. By appointing yourself to act on her behalf, you needless complicate and prejudice what is otherwise a straightforward decision. Despite her edit summary, Bishonen may well have chosen to keep channels of communication open.Timothy Usher 10:07, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly doubt it; in my experience Bishonen is able to express herself quite clearly. She has asked you not to post again on her page. Please respect her wishes and stop making a nuisance of yourself. Thank you Giano | talk 21:22, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Great word "nuisance". :-) Netscott 01:05, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Eternal Equinox[edit]

Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Eternal Equinox. Please add evidence to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Eternal Equinox/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Eternal Equinox/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, --Tony Sidaway 11:24, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fire and brimstone[edit]

You have the perfect starting point! The churches are missing in my Reddaway library book, The Rebuilding of London, from 1940. That's about "the secular and greater work", apparently much less known, at least in 1940. "With... no chronicler to tell of the efforts of the dispossessed, it has been overlaid and forgotten. The city government left voluminous records, but the maze of its committees have many centres and no single clue... The focal point is the struggle of the community to survive destruction." The book doesn't look to be very much about architecture, even, so far. No pelmets. :-) More social and economic. He's dug into those records. Note the publication date, 1940—during the Second Great Fire of London—he draws some parallels in the preface.

I like this book! Much more serious and informative than the two modern ones, see References. I'd love to know what you think of it— I see amazon.co.uk has one hardback copy, hint hint. :-) What's your Haliday book?

You know, this is a huge subject. Maybe we'll be forced to do a whole web of articles. (Groan.) Bishonen | talk 17:38, 1 July 2006 (UTC).[reply]

OMG it's still going on[edit]

It never ends! People spend their lives obsessing about this! I've had it with this nonsensical wiki system that immediately unravels every sensible decision ever made! I'm going for an interview with the Encyclopedia Britannica on Monday! Bishonen | talk 02:19, 2 July 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Well my little Princessypoo, in my vast experience those that are obsessive about addressing the titled in growing and lavish forms of obsequiousness are generally those that never meet the titled, those that address a Grand Duke with "G'day mate" are often amongst the highest born. many of those republican sounding Wikipedians are probably polishing their tiaras as we speak. Incidentally odd name that User: Codex Sinaiticus sounds like a cure for hay fever. Speaking of which I am suffering terribly, and have to fly tonight, so will not be about tomorrow - so keep the home fires burning. Giano | talk 10:36, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

English Baroque[edit]

I spinned off the stub from Baroque architecture to collect some of the redirects, which formerly led to Baroque, which is of little help to our readers. The data and even some sentences on this page have been gleamed from your own articles in WP. Now you are welcome to rewrite it at will when you have time and inspiration. You may also want to check talk page. I also cut French Baroque into a separate article and will add Dutch Baroque and Spanish Baroque after today's football match. Good luck to you and to your team, Ghirla ^-трёп- 06:26, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Featured articles[edit]

Going by your success in raising Buckingham Palace to featured article standard, I'd appreciate guidance on 2 questions:

Where are the guidelines for featured articles, esp. length and province of introduction, etc.? I have found some advice on wikipedia but can you give me the full monty on this?
How does an article become featured? Do you need to submit it as such or does Wikipedia sweep around looking at them, etc.? Do you have to propose it in a certain class to which it might pertain? etc. Any advice on this welcomed.

Thanks. -- FClef 20:00, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well there are lots of theories on how to write the perfect FA, but first of all read this [9]. Some people find this usefull too [10] others have passed an opinion here [11]. Whatever - having followed all the wise advice and written what you think is the perfect page then you can (only if you want to) get some improving ideas from your peers here [12] (I seldom bother). Having done all of that one lists the page here [13] and then I always say a few times "Sancta Maria, Mater Dei, ora pro nobis peccatoribus, nunc, et in hora mortis nostrae. Amen. " while flogging myself with a small whip - it seldom fails. Giano | talk 20:44, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for helpful suggestions and for making me laugh into my cocoa before bedtime! Would you please take a look at Trooping the Colour and give any opinion on its discussion page. I did not originate the article, but have made many material contributions and major edits to it. I hope it could be a London Portal article next June but do not know how to arrange that. -- FClef 23:24, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Baden-Powell House on WP:FAC[edit]

The Baden-Powell House article has been adjusted in compliance with your feedback and recommendations (highly appreciated). Would you care to adjust your opinion accordingly? Wim van Dorst (Talk) 22:39, 4 July 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Hi Giano, the additions to the B-P House article are very useful. They follow exactly the lead I was working on, to add more building information. I'll do some editing, and include the architect as well, Ralph Tubbs, and therefore I'll copy-edit the wording 'lesser architect'. Important question, though: do you have a good reference for the comparison that you make between BPHouse and the other two buildings you mention? Wim van Dorst (Talk) 21:13, 5 July 2006 (UTC).[reply]

scouts[edit]

Seems to have been dealt with the right way before I got to it. Thanks anyway. Tony 02:10, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Architecture of Aylesbury[edit]

So what does this article need to be completed then? -- Fr a ncs2000 08:35, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

About two hours, 500 references and inline cites and some entheusiasm! I've not forgotten it, I have several of similar size on the go at once, then every now and agian I surprise myself and finish one! Giano | talk 08:38, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Inline cite and editing reversals[edit]

Thanks for helpful comment on my Trooping the Colour edit. Please can you leave message here showing me 1. How to REVERSE an edit? (so that I don't have to type tons) 2. How to make an inline cite, as you suggested, of my T the C program -- FClef 12:52, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is conventional to add new sections at the bottom of a talk page, not the top. I have moved them for you.

To reverse an edit, the easiest thing to do is open an old version of the page from the page history, and then save it; or you could cut and paste the parts that you want to restore from an old version into the current version. Otherwise, you will need to retype.

Inline citations can be done in many ways - the easiest is to add a Harvard citation, like this: (Smith, 2006) or this : (Jones, p.26). See WP:CITE. -- ALoan (Talk) 13:48, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Signatures and references incorporating Talk page[edit]

I know about the 4 tildes for a signature, but is there a quick way of doing a signature such as yours which incorporates the "talk" option? Also is there a way of referencing an article's "talk" page so people can click on it and go there directly?

And finally, what is that little arrow that takes you directly to a page? (looks like an arrow in an envelope?) Che? (as Manuel used to say in Fawlty Towers) - How do you do it? -- FClef 12:52, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your user page is at [[User:FClef]] (User:FClef); your user talk page is at [[User talk:FClef]] (User talk:FClef). Similarly, Baden-Powell House has a talk page at Talk:Baden-Powell House.

To get a reference to your talk page in your signature, you will need to edit your preferences. See WP:SIG and WP:SIGHELP.

I think that arrow just denotes a link (you are probably using the monobook skin, where I think it is standard. I use the classic skin and don't see it - links are just red or blue. Again, I think you can change this in your preferences.) -- ALoan (Talk) 13:48, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the arrow in question is the external link icon, perhaps? You automatically get those when linking an external site, as opposed to a wiki page. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 14:50, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yes - in classic, they are just a different shade of moody ablue. -- ALoan (Talk) 14:59, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Trooping the Colour [edit]

Yes, I can see where you are coming from on everything you've said. You will be covered with relief to know that I didn't write the "incident" para with which the article ends. Nor did I write the introduction.

I have done alot of work in cleaning up the middle of the article. I inserted the bullet points to clarify the article, which, though informed, was muddy.

Regarding the uniforms, these are dealt with on the appropriate regimental pages of the Foot Guards companies, but I could put in a bit more. I have not yet inserted any pix and am something of a technophobe.

In all, thanks, but probably I have not the time to dedicate for all the work required to get it to FA standard. Would you like to shine some of your sunny beams to the article? (I imagine you don't have time either...)

By the way, and a propos of nothing in particular, I saw the new Tom Stoppard play, Rock and Roll, last night. It deals with events in Czechoslovakia 1968-1990, Marxism, and Ancient Greek poetry and myth (Reminiscent in some ways of Brian Friel's "Translations"), along with the contextual rock music, from Bob Dylan, through the Rolling Stones, Plastic People of the Universe (groundbreaking 70s Czech band), Pink Floyd (with and without Syd Barrett), and Guns and Roses. Great. -- FClef 12:52, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have not read the article, but bullet points often help with a list; however, they seldom make prose better. I will give the article a copyedit if I have time, but please don't give up: you may like to get a peer review and then nominate it as a Good article. -- ALoan (Talk) 13:48, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

YES, they did it. Congratulations! Wim van Dorst (Talk) 20:42, 9 July 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Fratelli d'Italia

L'Italia s'è desta

Dell'elmo di Scipio

S'è cinta la testa.

Dove'è la Vittoria?.

Le porga la chioma;

Chè schiava di Roma

Iddio la creò.

Stringiamoci a coorte,

Siam pronti alla morte:

Italia chiamò!

Thank you ALoan! Yes it is a catchy little number, and I shall be belting it out on Sunday!

CHORUS:

Let us join in cohort,

We are ready to die!

Italy has called!

Let us join in cohort,

We are ready to die!

Italy has called! (and I am going!)

Sì!"

You can all sing along with me for the weekend here [14] just click on "ascolta l'inno" (3rd from top is best!)

Please sign the visitors book below, if you wish to share in the glorious victory[edit]

;-) Paul August ☎ 02:30, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you enjoyed the game as much as I did. (Amusing anecodte: I was 2 weeks old when Italy won in '82. My father threw me up into the air repeatedly, with my grandmother screaming about how he was going to kill me. After their win yesterday, I grabbed him under the shoulders and threw him up in the air a few times :) Raul654 07:53, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Song of Cavaradossi from Tosca[edit]

Aw! Puts me in mind of my holiday in Rome-Spoleto-Florence-Venice in '04. Perhaps I could remind you of the song Puccini gives Cavaradossi in Act 2 of Tosca, in which Cav rejoices at the Marengo battle result, thus spilling the beans about his collaboration with the French? (Probably only the first 5 lines are singable as a football chant, turned back towards France of course)

Vittoria! Vittoria!! L'alba vindice appar che fa gli empi tremar! Libertà sorge, crollan tirannidi!

TOSCA (wittering away) Mario, taci, pietà di me! (etc.) (Simultaneous singing begins)

CAVARADOSSI Del sofferto martir (SCARPIA - venomously: Braveggia!, etc.) me vedrai qui gioir; etc. etc.

Sono con voi.

-- FClef 22:30, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Very moving, thank you. I shall be back on Monday with the trophy!Giano | talk 08:24, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Oh well done! I commend your pains, / And everyone shall share in the gains" (Hecate, congratulating the witches halfway through Macbeth). Great stuff. -- FClef (Talk) 20:21, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alessio Tramello[edit]

It was an exciting game!!

As per the title above, I'm hoping that you, or someone you know, might be interested in expanding/improving the above referenced article on an architect. I have noticed some of your edits and took a chance on posting here. (I was trying to save the original one sentence stub from the trash bin and got interested but do not have the background to pursue much further). If not, that's fine as well. No reply necessary; I will watch for awhile, anyway. Cheers! Stormbay 01:40, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

History of Sicily[edit]

Have you seen that this week's WP:COTW is History of Sicily? I have added a discreet link to Sicilian Baroque. -- ALoan (Talk) 09:47, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you ALoan, I hadn't seen that in fact I tend to avoid Sicilian pages as they make me bad tempered when people edit them, and pontificate on a subject about which they generally know nothing. So on the basis of "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly do not submit it." - I don't. Sic Bar was the exception to my rule because there are not too many other editors about in the Baroque architecture department. I'm sure though History of Sicily will be a fascinating read about a beautiful race. Giano | talk 17:47, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. But how about Bencher, which may interest you professionally? Or Fontanellato, with its delightful Parmesan rocca? -- ALoan (Talk) 11:10, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly, I'm too busy in the real world to concentrarsi on anything serious here at the moment. I just click the computer over for a little light relief with a cup of coffee once or twice a day. Bencher looks very dull, and Fontanellato doesn't grab me either - never even been there. No at the moment all I can do is the odd edit (when necessary to preserve my good reputation!) and look after pages that interest me from dumb edits. Anyway Parmesan sound more like BoG than me. I would hate to trespass in his territory. Giano | talk 16:51, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently I do tobacco now. The Swisher Sweets article is atrocious, you know. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 16:57, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeeook! Who on earth would smoke those? I'll stck to my Marlboro lites. What is happening to this place? Giano | talk 17:01, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yes, and here is a sad eit I 've spotted [15] I must compose one of my poems for his page, he was always so admiring of my works being poetical himself. I don't think it lacks modesty to say that some of my poems were probably the inspiration for his. I feel an ode coming over me now! Giano | talk 17:06, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shining example[edit]

Hi Giano

Having complained about the article provided at Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment as the ideal FA-class article—a most unsatisfactory piece, Medal of Honor—they invited me to suggest a replacement. I mentioned Sanssouci, but alas, one of them complained about the referencing (I don't really understand, since I'm not up-to-date on referencing procedures). Do you have another suggestion, or do you want to alter the referencing? (It would be lovely to have Sanssouci recognised in this way.)

See the discussion at:

Wikipedia_talk:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team/Assessment#The example chosen of the ideal FA-class article

Tony 11:09, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Very flattering thank you but I was only one of a team of copy editors, and added some further facts and information not on the original German version. I've never understood all this formatting of references, I just write and cite my sources when I think they are required. If someone wants to fix the references up in another way that's fine by me (ALoan is probably the man). Sadly though in my experience once a page becomes "wiki-famous" it seems to become a target for everyone to rip it to pieces, so I don't think I will disclose my favourite and (IMO) best page. Giano | talk 17:35, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

IG Farben Building FAC[edit]

Hello, I posted the IG Farben Building on the FAC on the 17th July. It's currently got a support consensus, but only from 4 people. I'd be more comfortable with a stronger consensus and was wondering if you might be prepared to comment on the article? Many thanks. --Mcginnly 11:03, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for your support. --Mcginnly | Natter 03:38, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks[edit]

Talk: Buckingham Palace[edit]

I have made substantial additions to the History section, with concomitant additions to Footnotes and References.

I do hope that you like the material, which mostly deals with the early history of the site. -- FClef (Talk) 23:55, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Amazing! Giano | talk 22:08, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks (blush) - I've had those in mind for a couple of months, but just worked up the energy to synthesise it all over the last couple of days. I do recommend both the new books to you.FClef (Talk) 00:19, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think not![edit]

I no longer wish to be in the company of an idiot (Fred) who can make such a ridiculous suggestion [16] So I think I'll leave too. Giano | talk 22:31, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It hasn't been accepted and passed. Take a break - and come back. KillerChihuahua^?!? 22:40, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Killer-sweety, but it's time to go and implode, before I'm pushed. Fred's a fool from Colorado (that's even worse than Idaho) who want's to shoot the witnesses, but there's too many other rural dolts like him here all having oozed and seeped into authority - and I'm far too short tempered, opinionated and outspoken to put up with them many further. It's all been a laugh though - so take care all of you. No one is to post any further daft and sentimental messages (Yes ALoan - that includes you, although I am still very sorry I put that telephone mast into your very informative obelisk page) and BoG hope the limp clears up soon! Geogre do be careful with that gun Oh and darling Bish - good luck with the hot page - it'll go to straight to FA. Anyone wanting my famous Sicilian recipe for home barbecued puffer fish straight from the sea - (always ensures a peaceful thanksgiving with the in-laws) - can apply in writing enclosing a cheque made payable to me at Palazzo Splendido in the Caymen Islands. As you all know I am not a spiteful or vindictive person - so don't give Fred a good kicking, and do be sure to give EE a warm welcome on her inevitable return. Oh and look after Sic Bar for me (it's the only one I care two cents about). Wetman you are the the cleverest man on the site so please look after the Italian architectural pages, and save them from the day-trippers. I can't even come back as a sock as you will all spot the commas and spelling - so this is really it. I can't write any more as I'm unable to see the keyboard for my soft and gentle tears plopping onto the keys - and the very dirty and worn comma key is smidging - farewell...............for the last time Giano | talk 23:59, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh Giano, come then! how could you ever have got into such a bind? Keeping bad company? An on-line encyclopedia "that anyone can edit" is in its very nature bound to be a constant compromise with medicrity. Your own attention-span is three times as long as the average coxcomb's: just work productively elsewhere, and come back in a few months to articles that have been slathered with humbug, comparing current versions with your last version, and tidy up after the puppies... --Wetman 00:17, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Look Giano, I don't think you can leave, until Italy defeats us Yanks in footsie. Paul August ☎ 04:10, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Now it's time for me to address those lines you left on my talk page: "I leave this site for five fucking minutes, and what do I return to? - Shock!" Please don't take arbitrators' antics too seriously and check your mail more often. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 12:53, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ghirla please don't resort to bad language - it displays a lack of vocabulary (personally I never swear) and Paul for the 100th time it is footie not footsie! Of course as usual Wetman is quite right, I must return - I can't wait months as he suggests - who knows in months we could all be dead or worse - so here I am. One can't allow retired lawyers from Colorado to get one down - however democratically elected and ill informed they may seem to be - perhaps in real life he is a famous politician - he certainly has the attributes. For a while though I think I shall give wikipedia less attention. It's becoming horribly like the real world. Giano | talk 22:19, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

[[:Image:Americangothic.jpg|thumb|centre|Eternally Obnoxious and Fred were not pleased to see the Epitome of Hell ^[1] returned]]

^ Quote by Eternal here [1] From when I was trying not to be too rude!

BTW, I, too, believe FB is starting to "show his age" while making arbitration decisions - I've had to correct many spelling/grammar errors as well as missed votes on things he authored. And believe it or not, he is 64 this year - which makes me wonder how much longer he wants to serve after his current term ends next year... Editor88 01:16, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think 64 is always too old, quite a lot of people manange to lead fairly active lives at 64, in fact thinking about it I'm nearer 64 then 18 myself. However, Fred does neet seem to have grasped the simple mechanics of this case, a carried out a thorough alalysis. Giano | talk 06:35, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You go, guy![edit]

Excellent work, Giano! (or should that be "ingenio?") I rest yours sincerely FClef (but you can call me "Elizabeth") -- FClef (Talk) 20:11, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eternal Equivox[edit]

Don't let it bother you; with that level of vociferous support I'd be extremely surprised if anything came of it for either you or the others. Stepping back from it, I think old Fred Dibnah is trying to demonstrate what an even hand he has, by making all parties (EE anyway) feel that the enquiry isn't a fait accomplis at this stage. Motions for a vote of no-confidence are probably ill-advised at this stage when nothing has actually been determined, it will only serve to antagonise an Arbcom who probably believes he is acting in good faith. It just means you'll all have to just swallow your pride a bit at the affront of the Proposed Remedies. You shouldn't have to, but there you are......if it really pisses you off - get a steam engine:- "Steam engines don't answer back. You can belt them with a hammer and they say nowt." --Mcginnly | Natter 22:42, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your note on my talk page. I thought the "proposed remedy" was inappropriate and therefore expressed my view even though I'm a relative newcomer here and have no reason to get involved in other people's arbitration cases (and never plan to be a part of one myself!). That being said, my strong advice is that you limit any future comments on the arbitration to responding to specific evidence, etc. if any is added, and let other people raise any institutional issues that need to be raised. I agree that a proposal for a "vote of no confidence in one of the arbitrators" is not going to be viewed as a dispassionate evaluation of the proceedings when it's offered by a participant in a pending case, however unwarranted. Plus I don't share a uniformly negative view of this particular arbitrator, though IMHO he missed the boat in this particular instance. Regards, Newyorkbrad 00:09, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Barbara Cartlandiana[edit]

Thanks for the thanks. Whenever you feel less alienated, please consider taking a look at Cound hall and its deletion discussion (where I have added a couple of relevant links). The nominator was upset with me comparing this house favourably to an ugly concrete platform in Glasgow (it turned out that he had actually photographed the platform in question). up+land 09:17, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Winslow Hall[edit]

Go to the History tab, and click on View logs for this page. You'll see the following:

14:27, 20 February 2006 Quadell (Talk | contribs) deleted "Winslow Hall" (Listed on WP:CV since September).

I'm afraid the article is completely lost now, and can't be restored.

Please don't remove Speedy tags - that's considered vandalism. If you don't agree, add a hangon tag, as suggested by the Speedy tag itself.--MichaelMaggs 21:42, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll do what the hell I like if someone dares to delete one of my pages. Giano | talk 21:47, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've restored the page -- please remove the copyvio notice yourself and leave a short explanation regarding your original authorship on the talk page, if you would? —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 21:51, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Who but me writes in that style? Giano | talk 21:52, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have no doubt. I just want to make sure others coming along can have some idea of what happened there. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 21:53, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am very grateful to you for restoring the page which I wrote in my earliest days here. It seems odd that people can say something is copyvio without naming where they claim it is from. Especially as so many sites are now merely mirroring wikipedia, perhaps the admins so keen to delete should check these things first instance. Is there no training for these people? Anyhow, thanks for your help Giano | talk 22:12, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the process goes something like this: one person says J'accuse, copyvio! and someone else is meant to say nonono, I wrote it! (or challenge the first person to trial by combat, if preferred). If no-one speaks up to deny the possible copyvio, the article is deleted. That article was listed as a possible copyvio for about 5 months! You should see WP:PROD - articles can be deleted almost automatically after 5 days if no-one objects. Fortunately, deleted articles are rarely irrecoverable - remember that there are plenty of friendly admins out there, with the mop and shiny buttons not accessible to mere mortals, and everything. -- ALoan (Talk)

Of course, who can blame Giano for becoming more aggravated than the reality of the situation merited, when he was getting great data like "I'm afraid the article is completely lost now, and can't be restored". —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 23:18, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, quite. And the Cound Hall AFD debacle. -- ALoan (Talk) 23:26, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wow! I hadn't seen. Who knew Tups could come out with such a swinging roundhouse of a personal attack? I mean, mentioning Jordanhill railway station, man he is lucky I don't step right over there and ban him for two consecutive life terms. And you Giano! Suggesting a Google search or something?! If you weren't already being hung out to dry I would show you something else. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 02:21, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I did not suggest anything as mundane as a google search, a quick flick through his Pevsner would have given him all the information he needed instantly, obviously couldn't be bothered to walk as far as his bookcase! Giano | talk 06:51, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well for jeeper's sake, they are both just halls! What's so darn important about a hall? I've got a couple of halls in my house too, complete with a hall tree and a hall closet. Paul August ☎ 03:18, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What the hell is a hall tree? sounds like some sort of bourgeois foliage, I suggest you throw it out immediately and replace it with a receptacle for holy water which is what I have in my hall. Which keeps one safe and sound when leaving the hous. I'm going to put another over the computer. Giano | talk 06:41, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps a hall tree is some sort of hatstand? -- ALoan (Talk) 09:37, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I expect it's something very American and very unpleasant indeed, rathet like a bidet possibly? Giano | talk 12:37, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Giano. Glad to see that an Adminstrator was able to undelete the article for you. I stand corrected!--MichaelMaggs 05:54, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of "needs infobox"[edit]

I think you may be misinterpreting the "needs infobox" section of the "needs-infobox" parameter of the BioWikiProject template, which you commented on here. The goal is to have an infobox for each person with a biography greater than a glorified stub. By the way, if you have a problem with the way the infobox is formatted, you may wish to join that WikiProject and see if you can effect a change, instead of calling their product "ugly." Captainktainer * Talk 07:23, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Surely this is not yet again the same debate we had here [17].Over the last year I, and many other editors, have made our feelings fully known on this subject in many places including here [18] - is this the same info box you are talking about?, because if it is, I have seen it called a great many worse things than ugly Giano | talk 07:34, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is like a herd of goldfish - little or no collective long-term memory. Why must every article be forced into the same little pigeonhole? -- ALoan (Talk) 09:39, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The "goal" may "be" (passive constructions should be avoided) to stick a box on every biography, but that goal is not endorsed, approved, or even tolerated by a sizeable segment of the Wikipedia population. There is no inherent virtue to having a box that outweighs not having a box. There is no inherent value to a template, a box, a chart, a map, or any other graphical element. These things must never be confused with content, especially as they derive their content from the text. Those who write the text have some priority over those who add the illustrations, and it's no surprise that they feel like the hosts that infoboxes are parasites upon. The basic rule is not to apply an infobox without talk page consensus. If there is no consensus (not if there fails to be a consensus against it), don't put it on. Geogre 11:33, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I know I'm in the middle of a bad run with Wikipeia at the moment, and probably seeing things with jaundiced eyes, but it seems to me but the longer I'm here the more the place becomes an inner collection of clubs made up of people who "don't" imposing new rules, regulations, and codes of conduct on those that "do". Am I alone in getting tired of fighting the same battles every three months. Giano | talk 12:46, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PS: BTW it's a "shoal" of goldfish ALoan - one has to learn these collective nouns by heart when learning English as a foreigner! Giano | talk 12:48, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On Wikipedia, it is definitely a herd of stampeding goldfish. Trust me.

The best antidotes I have found to wikipolitics and the wikifiddlers are either taking a break, or getting stuck in and doing some doing. Have a calming walk through the Jardin des Plantes or along the terrace at the Château de Saint-Germain-en-Laye. -- ALoan (Talk) 13:08, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Been on holiday then ALoan? Giano | talk 13:29, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I know what you're talking about, Giano, obviously, but there's nothing wrong with the people who aren't "doers." I think that there is a rage for order that can result in microscopic obsessions and manias. Some people come here already with such (q.v. the language warriors, the nationality purifiers, the race clarifiers, etc.), but most people genuinely care about their pets, so I don't think we're going to help anything by deprecating them. Most of the people who add boxes believe that they help, and it's not for anyone else to tell them that they're wrong. I hope we can establish, though, a procedure that will keep people from tromping off to war again and again over these matters. If we need to open a content RfC to find the ways graphical elements and summaries can be added when helpful without taking priority, then let's do it. I mistrust anyone who invokes "always" (e.g. "all schools are notable" or "all schools are not" or "all bioboxes should be added" or "no plot summary boxes should be added," or any other "all"s). Geogre 13:58, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have an illuminating story to add here. I don't write biographies. And I don't really have a feel for how they should best be organized, a problem I've had in working on the one bio article I've tried my hand at. Yesterday I saw a "Welcome to the biography Wikiproject" template message get slapped down on a user talkpage I was watching. It included this bullet point:

Starting some new articles? Our article structure tips outlines some things to include.

Well! Article structure tips! Sounds good! I present for your nauseation the tips:

Create a new page. (See m:Help:Starting a new page for details.)
Create an outline for the biography article you started:
- Add {{subst:Biography}} into your article page and save. (See m:Help:Template for details.)
Add the appropriate infobox
Add the appropriate categories
Add the Wikipedia:Persondata's persondata template
Add it to the List of people

$%#&! —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 14:48, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am quite capable of taking Geogre's hint so my lips are zipped, sealed, and glued together. I've always beleived if one can't say anything nice then best say nothing at all! Therefore BoG I can make no comment on what looks to me like some very good, helpful and wise advice. I'm thinking of getting some of those little boxes for my own page actually - the sort that tell people "A bad tempered bastard lives here", "This user would like to be a concert pianist but can only play the first 5 bars of the moon light" and "This user is not gay, but strongly suspects his neighbour may be" all those sort of useful things I see on other people's pages, so from now on I'm going to make more of an effort to be nice, kind and conforming. So if you'll excuse me I shall take myself off to the RFA page to vote "support" for todays batch of another 400 admins no one has ever heard off. Good afternoon everyone! Giano | talk 15:26, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mmm - my tips for a biography: find someone you want to write about, find some sources, and write. Works a treat. Ideally ~~plagiarise~~ derive substiantial support from a recently-published obituary or two, or ~~plagiarise~~ translate something from French or German (using Google or babelfish if necessary, although machine translations often need translating from machine English). As long as there is some content, a wikignome will slap categories and correct the stub templates and so on, and disambiguate your infelicitous links to the wrong article or redlinks, for you. I have been looking back at my braglist today - I am surprised how many articles have not changed substantially but for the odd bit of wikifiddling here and there (like swapping "Normanby" - as in "Duke of Buckingham and" -for "Normandy"). For example, of the former, John Vinelott, Anthony Marreco, Carol Mather, June Lloyd, Baroness Lloyd of Highbury; of the latter, Odoardo Beccari, Jean-Baptiste Oudry. Not highly polished gems, perhaps, but probably the best free online biography of any of them. -- ALoan (Talk) 16:14, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Beccari is a case in point here: the first line says "Odoardo Beccari (16 November 1843 – 25 October 1920)" and blow me down, almost exactly the same information is in the bloody infobox with his photo (like Giano in his youth, I am sure). WHY? -- ALoan (Talk) 16:18, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rather like me now actually ALoan! (apart from the fact he is cross eyed and has a moustache) Yes I know what you mean, verty few of my efforts have changed substantially either, except BP which is the only one I've ever done on a popular subject, which just goes to prove it is less stressful to write on obscure matters - I shall shortly be doing an in depth and exploratory biography of Ivor Boozy-Luncheon, the well known architect famous for his small errections and, of course, "Dunromin", 14 Hight Street Preston Plucknett. Giano | talk 18:42, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yeah and I sorted poor Odoardo, no don't worry Geogre I left a perfectly reasonable explanation on his talk page. Giano | talk 18:53, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Recovering are we?[edit]

Uhmm, some of the above seems dangerously close to your having a sense of humour again Giano, of course much of it is just sarcasm, which isn't quite the same thing. Nevertheless I see reasons to hope for a full recovery. I may have to think about reverting this edit someday. Perhaps when the next World Cup thingie comes around again, and you get a chance to tie us in foosball again, will that will improve your humour? Paul August ☎ 20:00, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think not I would rather play "footsie" note the "S" and not with you - nothing personal you understand, I just like a shaven leg for that particular game! I am fully recovered thank you very much, in fact I was just recovering over on "the whatever it is called EE workshop page", one thing I can't abide is slackers! - You know the sort of people who wear bath robes downstairs afer 7.30 in the morning. Giano | talk 20:06, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Architectural history[edit]

Hello. I've noticed some joyless gnome has tagged Architectural history as needing 'cleanup' (Whatever that means). It is a pretty poor article which I'm going to tinker with. To start, I've added some references of books I possess - unfortunately my book shelf is sagging under the weight of modern architecture material but nearly devoid of architectural history books before circa 1850. ('Architectural history' at University, all those years ago, zoomed through 7000 years of history in 2 weeks and then spent the next 5 years discussing everything from William Morris onwards). Could you recommend any good books that give good concise overviews? PS. I already have Deitsch, Deborah K (15 Jul 2002) Architecture for Dummies, Hungry Minds Inc, U.S., ISBN 0764553968. --Mcginnly | Natter 12:37, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

[Caveat: I'm not Giano and I don't know what I'm talking about. But:] The very title of that book inspires an auto-da-fé. Try abebooks for Pevsner's Outline of European Architecture: not the greatest, but available in profusion and at a silly low price. Watkin's History of Western Architecture is well regarded but I don't know it. And now, an intelligent answer from Giano..... Hoary 14:00, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks to you both. I've heard of Watkin's book too. By an amazingly serendipitous coincidence I actually bought World Architecture 2 weeks ago for £5 from Oxfam - It was still in the back of the car (forgotten about along with 'Visions of Britain' by Prince Charlie haha) - I didn't recognise it at first from Giano's description because the cover says 'Hitchcock, Henry Russell, Bookplan' but low and behold - inside Coppleston, Trewin (ed) - brilliant! thanks!--Mcginnly | Natter 21:49, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No wonder there a millions still starving if Oxfam only charges £5 for such a fantastic book - I hope you feel honour bound to send them a further £50 when you have read it! Giano | talk 21:56, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the really bitter pill is that 'Visions of Britain' was £5.50.--Mcginnly | Natter 22:08, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's odd isn't it that a man who can afford and enjoys the real thing wants all his future subjects housed in a twee pastiche - perhaps he had a disfunctional upbringing Giano | talk 22:15, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- Not so odd, but certainly worrying. His 'Vision of Britain' is a twee pastiche - (I can't help but suspect the twee utopianism extends beyond architecture into all walks of modern life -- with adultery and divorce the notable, convenient exceptions). The feeling that comes over is that messy, chaotic, multi-cultural britain is all a bit of an eyesore from where he looks out from his estates. Perhaps he might consider funding the housing shortage.......--Mcginnly | Natter 23:36, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah but he has, I don't know why, but it would give me huge pleasure to see its inhabitants rioting, overturning police cars and covering the place with graffiti - just me being perverse I suppose! Giano | talk 06:21, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Boxes and templars[edit]

Ok, folks, tell me what's wrong with boxes and templates. I've begun [19] writing up my idears. Geogre 14:08, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Duca di Lante?[edit]

Giano, at Villa Lante you—well, I guess it was you— wrote that the villa didn't come by that name until it was sold to the Duke of Lante in the C17. Are you sure that's right, I ask, not having an Almanach at hand. Duca di Lante? --Wetman 12:07, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The first duke in this family, if I recall correctly, was Ippolito Lante Montefeltro della Rovere, who was created Duca di Bomarzo in 1646. See here for details. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 14:17, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find where I got that from certainly not my English books which I have with me here, perhaps it was one of my Italian ones which are in Sic, - Duke OF Lante was probably my Anglification of "Duke Ippolito Lante", I'm a lot more wised up on English titles than I was then! (the problem has arisen because we/I did not cite our refs so often in this far off days when I wrote that!) however I have found the following [20]. This site here http://www.primitaly.it/lazio/viterbo/bagnaia/uk.htm] endorses the late naming of the villa as Lante (but it is only a tourist page, not the best ref in any nationality. I will dig about and see what else I can find - in the meantime change it - if you think it may not be correct - but I don't think it would have been called Lante if it was not owned by the Lante. I will ref and cite what comes from my English books later this evening or tomorrow. Giano | talk 20:32, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Giano's change solves the issue: "...sold to Ippolito Lante Montefeltro della Rovere, Duke of Bomarzo..." Ghirla's apposite genealogy link seems to show that, in the family Lante Montefeltro della Rovere, a title Duca Lante della Rovere, was indeed created, for Don Filippo (1800-1881), Principe di Cantalupo, etc. (A Kingdom of Italy coinage, imitating Earl Spencer, Earl Temple etc?) The earlier, and familiar, ducal title was indeed duca di Bomarzo. --Wetman 06:27, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I do have my uses, but.......was it sold or did it pass? Answers please Giano | talk 20:49, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Those confusing romance languages[edit]

sorted out at last! (This cognointellectual leap is explained in the edit summary.) -- Hoary 09:40, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry you have lost me, is it some form of new sexual position like 69 and 42? Giano | talk 22:30, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

would you please explain what happens in 42? The 4 I can hack, but the 2 seems fraught with risk.--FClef (talk) 01:29, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, dos-à-dos does sound rather stiffupperlippily British. As for an explanation of the dread "42", do remember that this page may be read by ladies, children, and lapdogs. -- Hoary 02:31, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

archINFORM[edit]

Giano, are you familiar with the archINFORM online database? There is a stub on it that is now nominated for deletion per WP:WEB (too low Alexa rank). The article itself is actually a rather pointless stub; I have tried to argue that the topic is worth an article (in analogy with academic publications), but people just keep dropping by with "delete per nom" votes. (I could have spent the time I have used on that AFD actually improving the article but I'm sick of it now.) up+land 05:31, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ArchINFORM[edit]

I would like to make several points:

I did not revert you. I edited the page without viewing the page history.
My edits were merely to a)remove unsourced and slightly boastful content ("The most complete global online-database concerning architecture", "It forms an important record of the architecture of the 20th century") and b)remove unimportant or generalized content("The database which can be used by anyone registered, has a search engine which allows a particular project to be found by listing just architect, location or key word"). In short, standard cleanup.
Using language such as "rather stupid person" is a serious breach of Wikipedia:No personal attacks and Wikipedia:Civility.

Deltabeignet 02:38, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Removing an entire paragraph written by me with the words "cut biased and/or useless context" justifies my attitude towards you. Pease note: I do not write biased or useless information. Finally, do not quote "Wikipedia:Civility" etc. to me. I suggest you read such advice yourself, and absorb some of the information found there Thank you. Giano | talk 06:29, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I fail to see how your remark could be justified; "There is no excuse for personal attacks on other contributors". I do deeply regret my phrasing and apologise for any offense. Deltabeignet 21:48, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop quoting clever wikipedia pages at me, which are meant to show me in the wrong - as I never read such pages. Thank you for your appology - I forgive you. Giano | talk 21:54, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Meat[edit]

This user is made of meat.

Have you by any chance seen this? So, while I was watching P&J, you were communing with the Dashwoods? -- ALoan (Talk) 17:53, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You've lost me ALoan Giano | talk 18:49, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What is all this with meat - I am very sensitive vegan, and I do not find this blood amusing. I find one lettuce leaf and a small nut alternated with a lentil quite sufficient for my needs. Giano | talk 19:42, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Disconnected[edit]

In case you've e-mailed today I won't see it for a while, please see post on Geogre's page. Bishonen | talk 20:58, 14 August 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Signpost updated for August 14th[edit]


Volume 2, Issue 33	14 August 2006	About the Signpost

Editing for hire leads to intervention	Meetups And Newsworthy International Assemblages
Report from the Chinese Wikipedia	News and notes
Wikipedia in the News	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs and Internal Operational News	The Report On Lengthy Litigation


Archives \| Newsroom \| Tip Line \| Single-Page View	RSS Shortcut : WP:POST

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:06, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Palladian architecture[edit]

Thanks for your notice, but I'm well aware of the problem. I have several large articles on my hands, written months ago, such as Russian Revival and Russian Enlightenment, which I lack time to post, and I also prepare the article about Architecture of Kievan Rus, which is as far from Palladianism as possible and looks pretty idiotic in its present form. And Baroque architecture lacks passages about Central and Eastern Europe. I'm also getting involved in Russian Wikipedia and it doesn't help to accelerate my progress, either. I will take a vacation next week and read up on the subject. Cheers, Ghirla ^-трёп- 13:44, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well at least you are still here - which is good. Giano | talk 19:43, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration[edit]

Thanks for your note. See also the ongoing discussion on the case's workshop page. I continue to find the idea of a one-month (or one-minute) ban for your comment absurd. But you would need to lose at least two more votes for that to happen so you probably won't get your holiday after all. Regards, Newyorkbrad 20:39, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To whom it may concern[edit]

I would like it known I consider the discussions taking place here [21] and here [22] to be not only excruciatingly embarrassing for wikipedia, but ridiculous in the extreme but I am sincerely grateful to the many who have pleaded my case and passed comment. However, I would like us all to take a step back, and think "Why are we, a group of intelligent adults, arguing about the rights and wrongs of recommending fugu to a disruptive editor who happens to be in Japan" - it's all just a little daft isn't it? So lets not waste any more time on it. It will all come to nothing.

The positive outcome though of this, is that it has highlighted my concerns about the logic and intellect that is applied in the upper echelons of Wikipedia. Too many mediocre, lacklustre people are allowed to become admins and climb the ladder, as a result the management team is not impressive, and in my opinion some serious hiring and firing needs to take place. At the moment there are too many bad eggs in this omelette, someone at the top needs to be ruthless and singly focused - and that is what is lacking here. Quality management will attract quality editors. The kids are taking over the kindergarten, and there is too much dithering and discussion to stop them. I shan't leave over all this, but it will be a long time before I feel the same way about the project again - but thanks to you all. Giano | talk 07:13, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah Giano, some resist becoming editors at all, and it isn't purely snobbism! --Wetman 09:39, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I concur that some Wikipedia contributors deserve better admins and arbitrators, as I expressed this point of view many times. At least arbitrators are not elected for life, as admins seemingly are. It was the community that elected these arbitrators and we have to live with this until the next election. I was shocked how lightly these guys think of their duties though, just check the MP3 discussion of English Arbcom here. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 13:57, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For the benefit of those of you following this unseemly debacle please note: I shall never speak to the Arb-com privately. [23] You can all rest assured on that, I promise! Giano | talk 18:46, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

G'como. Seriously. Please take some deep breaths. I thought you spoke inappropriately here. :-( Bishonen | talk 19:33, 17 August 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Sorry dearest, the man is incapable of answering a simple question. A question incidentally he first referred to himself. Does he think I should apologise to EE? Is that so difficult a question. Then having conducted the discussion in open and public forum , he suggests a private message to the judges. Darling, people have fought revolutions and died to avoid that sort of comment - My whole life is based on the open court system - I spoke inappropriately? The appropriate thing would have been delivered far faster and with a clenched fist - so he had the wiki-equivalent. I regret nothing Giano | talk 20:40, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Geez G - there we were having a nice quiet conversation behind your back, and there you roll in, all guns a blazin.......Can't you leave us to talk about you in peace!--Mcginnly | Natter 20:52, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not my style McG, did you ever here about the kid who always had to stick his finger in the hornet's nest? - well you just met him ;-)Giano | talk 20:56, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Then Giano, wonders why he sometimes gets stung! Paul August ☎ 20:59, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

License tagging for Image:Dashwoods of West Wycombe.gif[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:Dashwoods of West Wycombe.gif. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 19:04, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

It wasn't untagged, it was typo-tagged and I just fixed it. — mark ✎ 19:26, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I am completely lost - what is the problem here? Giano | talk 21:29, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's no problem. Mark fixed a typo and made it all better; you had uploaded the file as ((PD-art}} rather than {{PD-art}} (opening parentheses rather than braces). —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 22:35, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you BoG (and Mark) why doesn't someone just strangle (slowly) wikibot or whatever its daft name is, and have done with it? Giano | talk 22:38, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome! As for Orphanbot, I find its messages a little threatening (see this new user's talk page, I think he may have left because of that), but I do think it does good work. It would be nicer of course if it also recognized typos like the one you made. — mark ✎ 07:00, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

O magnum mysterium - category deletion? Buckingham Palace[edit]

Dear Giano, Can you tear yourself away from weightier matters to shed any light on this? I reproduce below a note I have written to User:wub. Please leave me a msg here if you can explain what's gone on.

Re: Category:British Cultural Icons Hello, wub. I have contributed to both Buckingham Palace and Trooping the Colour. I see that on both of these you recently removed the Category:British cultural icons with AWB, citing CFD. Relatively new to Wikipedia, I confine my activities to writing and the odd merge, and was unaware of this. Can you tell me what has happened to this popular and useful category? Has it been deleted? Or has it been merged? What has happened to the many articles which were under this category?

I will watchlist this page and check back here for an answer or would be grateful to hear from you on User talk:FClef

I am copying this note to the Help Desk and to a couple of Wikifriends more experienced than I, to see if they know what the fate of this category is. Best wishes. -- FClef (talk) 20:10, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Giano . -- FClef (talk) 20:20, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know tha answer I am afraid. I would immagine the category went through the normal deletion process. To be honest I don't really like that sort of category, one man's icon, is another man's nightmare - too much dependent on opinion rather than fact. Giano | talk 18:29, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Solved. Thanks, I see where you're coming from and indeed that seems to be the general tenor on the debate at [24]. -- FClef (talk) 22:01, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

West Wycombe[edit]

Image:West WycombeRoomlayout.gif was bad. We are asked to: a) upload to the commons, b) use PNG or SVG rather than GIF. Don't dither - 256 colours should be enough for a line drawing providing your drawing program picks a sensible palette of solid colours. -- RHaworth 18:18, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for deleting the image. Regarding your advice I haven't the remotest idea what "we" are talking about, nor do I much care. *1* Giano | talk 18:41, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some folks at Commons (commoners, in other words) want .png and .svg files instead of .gifs, which is their prerogative, and you're supposed to scan using a 256 color scale with "dithering" turned off. It should probably be a grayscale. Each project seems to end up spawning a group of regulars, and with some of the sister projects these spores develop into colonies. The commoners are bizarre to me. Imagine the most prickly and abstruse cat fighters and image wire-pullers on Wikipedia and then magnify them by four fold, as they have no consideration for the use of these things. They get to be purists. The fact that .gif is far better for grayscale and line art than .png is unimportant to them. They are the Commoners, and they are ruling. Use the image you want, so long as it's free, and upload just to .en, if they're going to want to delete an image for not being .png. Geogre 21:28, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What is confusing me Geogre (and I do so agree with you) is that the particular package that created that very clever picture, can be rotated to look anyway I wish, including inside out, and I intend to use it very widely indeed on architectural pages as soon as I have the complete drop of it (which may take some considerable time) and because I can rotate it any way I wish , acheived by forming shadows, this is acheived by dithering - stupid expression anyway -so I shall be dithering for some time to come, and in the very far future when I have the complete drop of it, I shall dither in some trees and things also - so there RHaworth! Giano | talk 21:48, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Geogre, please don't blame us muleteers (de:Kärrnerarbeit) for our mules, those are prickly creatures which are very aware of their limitations and will refuse everything that goes beyond their power. GIF is particularly unsuited for photography; the 256 color limit translates in a hint more than six shades of red, green and blue each. Look at the sky near the horizon in Image:Belton._Belvedere.Giano.gif, where are not enough blue shades and at the trees on the left, where the dithering pattern is the size of the leaves. Dr Zak 04:23, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but at 300px it illustrates the article very well, and is far better than a lop sided print. So with my photography it is that or nothing. Giano | talk 06:45, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*1* Nor do I much care reads as rude an arrogant, I hope you do not mean it that way. The GIF/PNG/SVG debate I do not care much about either. Dithering is a well established term which you ought to know about since it affected the quality of the image being discussed. The whole point of the Commons is that it enables a single upload to be shared by all the Wikimedia projects - remember that there are languages other than English. -- RHaworth 10:11, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding rude and arrogant you appear to be in a class of your own. I upload images solely for the benefit of the pages I have written, where they do very well. If some other page are able to benefit then that is great, and I am pleased. However, I am not interested in computers and their machinations, I do not understand them, I do not want to understand them. Funnily enough I am aware of one or two other languages. Now why don't you make yourself useful and upload them to commons yourself, if that is your speciality interest.Giano | talk 10:19, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unfinished[edit]

Hi Giano, I trust you are well. May I ask for a moment of your time? I've recently been working on the article unfinished work, progressing towards FA status at the moment. Some comments there say how the architecture section is woefully short, and needs some more work. While I was originally intending for the majority of such content to go into unfinished building, I accept that it would be worthwhile including some examples in this article. There are many buildings that have been partially constructed, but do you know of any prominent examples of unfinished architecture, ie. notable incomplete plans, designs, or the like? I'd appreciate any pointers you have on the issue. Thanks, violet/riga (t) 18:44, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I shall have a think, the one's that immediatly spring to mind are Herrenchiemsee and Neuschwanstein, but I'm sure I can come up with some better ones, there is Goodwood House as well, I'm syure in half anb hour we can have hundreds Giano | talk 18:47, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - they're good examples of unfinished constructions. Coincidentally I was just reading about Mad King Ludwig (Neuschwanstein is amazing!). It may be difficult, but do you have any notable examples of incomplete designs (ie. the building was never even started but the plans are famous nonetheless)? violet/riga (t) 18:56, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well ther is Sir Christopher Wren's plan for London after the fire; was not built on the same plan for it on which Holkham Hall was based on an unused plan for Palladio’s Villa Mocenigo [25], but that's not a v good example because Mocenigo was eventually built but to a different plan (Wetman, if you are watching am I correct on that). Robert Adam designed many garden pavilions for Kedleston Hall which were never executed, I've some copies of their plans I could upload for you, but you really need something more famous, almost every notable architect has unexecuted plans, I'll have a hunt about in some books later this evening for a really famous one. Inigo Jones Palace of Whitehall was never built, but it was started. Giano | talk 19:22, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Her you are from our very own site

Part of a proposal for the replacement of the palace drawn by Christopher Wren in 1698. The palace was never rebuilt.

Following this [26] up wil probably solve a few problems too. Giano | talk 19:48, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're a star. I've been able to expand the section quite nicely now - thanks for your extremely speedy response. violet/riga (t) 20:39, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Roll back[edit]

Angel, are you sure you know what "using rollback" means? Just in case: Tony Sidaway didn't use rollback to remove the recall nomination on BoG's page. Lar did use rollback to revert Tony's removal. (In many people's estimation, this is equivalent to Lar calling Tony a vandal.) Bishonen | talk 21:09, 21 August 2006 (UTC).[reply]

I meant to use the "assume good faith" rollback, hope I remembered. I immediately went to Tony's talk page and talked it through, I think all is cool. I don't see him as a vandal per se... ++Lar: t/c 21:23, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Angel cake, I have not got a clue what rollback means (other than it's what one does to a carpet before a party) such antics are all part of BoG's page not mine - poor BoG, he would not be told. With the current thinking in high places, I wouldn't be surprised if they don't ban him for a month at least. I wonder if I can help in some small way? Giano | talk 21:54, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Condottieri[edit]

As an educated person who is a native speaker of Italian, Giano, what is the singular of condottieri, those Renaissance leaders of warbands? After deciding, you might look into the connected Talkpage. Do you have a definitive Italian dictionary at hand?--Wetman 23:47, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Voting[edit]

I'm canvassing votes for our mate in Cambridge at Charles Matthews Election Candidate. Perhaps you might like to make a contribution?--Mcginnly | Natter 10:38, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd rather vote for John Prescott as PM

Waddesdon Manor[edit]

Curious about your reasoning for removal of Waddesdon Manor from cat [Châteauesque architecture] -- it seems to accord well with the definition of "Châteauesque" given in that article. --mervyn 07:37, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Waddesdon Manor is a faithful reproduction of a chateau designed by a Frenchman, there are no anomalies its design as a chateau, chateauesque houses are houses in the style of a chateau, often large 19th century houses which have one of two chateauesque type features such as a turret, or mansard roof, to give them the "air" of a chateau but without these features would be just normal houses for the location they are in. I thought long and hard before putting Waddesdon's close relation Halton House in the chateauesque category. and finally decided it that it is basically a Victorian Mansion with some French embellishments to give a chateau appearance. Waddesdon though is thoroughly a chateau, therefore not "chateauesque" as it has no concessions in external architecture to the architecture of its location or time. I hope this explains my view. Giano | talk 10:18, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Waddesdon Manor is not a "faithful reproduction", it is a mélange of Loire château elements, albeit a superbly executed one (complete with Victorian porte-cochère!). I would argue that if "Châteauesque" is the term that Wikipedia is using for the "neo-chateau" strand in Revival styles in 19th-century architecture, then the whole spectrum of victorian chateaux should be included, ranging from the high-status, least "debased" examples like Waddesdon Manor, down to the low-status, most debased examples of suburban turreted villas. Otherwise you need to define how a separation is made. Hope you follow? --mervyn 11:07, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No I don't follow. Waddesdon is a prime example of Neo-Renaissance architecture (where photographs of the manor are used to illustrate) rather than a bourgeois mongrel architectural style which is basically what chateauesque architecture is. However, your understanding of architecture is obviously far superior to mine so place Waddesdon in whichever category you feel most suitable. I am well aware that Waddesdon is a melange of authentic styles - I wrote the page. Giano | talk 11:17, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your reply makes it seem as if I am trying to be awkward or personal, which I'm not. I am just saying that the definition of Châteauesque as it stands, does not exclude Waddesdon Manor -- but it is that article (Châteauesque) that needs our attention I think. --mervyn 12:42, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Turkette[edit]

I think you may want to hold off on integrating the word into daily conversation. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 17:28, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And there was me thinking they were part of your culture.....I'm devastated to see my new word AFD'd - not that we would ever use any such object ourselves. I note you want a page on napkin rings - even with your obsession with food and gluttony you surely do not use the same napkin twice. You'll be advocating a page on fish knives and doilies next. Amusingly (to me anyway) I've just seen on fork etiquette you all eat in that way because it allows "The dropping of the left hand into the lap near a pistol or another knife, however, was an important safety precaution" what a load of blx, who thinks this rubbish up? Turkettes and pistols at the dinner table, you'll be telling me you Americans allow small children in the dining room next. Giano | talk 22:43, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't look at me. I like food, but know nothing about table manners, American, Continental or otherwise. I can only imagine what it is like when the Gianos dine; just imagining the elegant dance of the butlers dutifully handing out (from the left) wet naps for your soup-spattered chest wig and gold-effect medallion brings a small tear to my eye. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 23:04, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am shocked an amazed that we are missing such table necessities as the fish knife and napkin ring, when we have the spork and the butter knife. Is this serviette ring meant to be a sort of tourniquet, or perhaps Turk's head? -- ALoan (Talk) 13:34, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ALoan you marvel, that's the word I was seeking tourniquet, allthough I have found "torquette" which I think is much the same thing. I'm very surprised BoG does not have torquettes and tourniquets on his dining table like the rest of his compatriots - perhaps they are not so civilized in Idaho as the rest of the USA. In fact I may start a new page User: Giano/All American turckette as my small contribution to the culture of that great country. Giano | talk 16:00, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You certainy were helpful at the AfD! I can't wait for the noobs to roll in and take you at face value there. I'd make a joke about who needs a tourniquet and where it best be applied, but, you know, don't want to be banned and all. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 16:05, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No I certainly don't want to be banned, in fact I heve just this minute been sorting out the last person who banned me here. People would do well to remember the "curse of San Giacomo". Giano | talk 16:12, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, the EE case is about to close, and you're not going to be banned after all, so there. Now, as a relative newbie, I ask, should I take the time to read through the Carnildo evidence, or let it go? Newyorkbrad 22:35, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In a nut shell: I was talking to two admins on the Admins notice board (details here [27]}on the subject of paedophiles editing Wikipedia, Carnildo did not like the conversation and banned all 3 for hate speech indefinitely with no warning. Other admins unbanned within 3 minutes, Jimbo was very cross with Carnildo, and he was desysoped almost instantaneously. I am still stuck with a block log [28] that accuses me of "hate speech", and Carnildo now wants to skip about as though nothing has happened, and has never shown remorse or apologised. So I am very cross. There you have it. Giano | talk 07:38, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Lar[edit]

I'd really appreciate it if you'd consider letting go of that conversation. We're starting to tread into the realm of blockable civility violations (WP:CIVIL obviously) and he's already changed his response. Further taunts and namecalling might end up with the result of suspension of your editing privilages. If you feel the need to reply, please do it here. ~Kylu (u|t) 00:47, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So long as my block log [29] unjustly and ridiculously accuses me of hate speech I will not forgive or forget. So please take your veiled threats elsewhere. As long as Carnildo keeps re-applying to be an admin I will continue to defend myself. Giano | talk 06:28, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that certainly convinced me to hasten over and register my opposing vote. "Treading the realm of blockable civility violations" indeed! --Wetman 09:23, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yet more splendid behaviour. Giano gets a civility warning (and rightly so), so you rush over to oppose Carnildo? Where's the logic? --kingboyk 12:41, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well let me tell you, I find being accused of hate speech pretty uncivil. I find still having "Hate Speech" on my block log uncivil, and having Carnildo still refusing to acknowledge it was uncivil or apologise for his incivility very uncivil. So I suggest you take your further accusation of my incivility somewhere they will be more appreciated. Or are you too planning to block me to shut me up? Giano | talk 12:55, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We'll be discussing what can be done about your grief. I can't promise results, but your concern is likely to be one that affects more users, and may be solvable. Best wishes, Samsara (talk • contribs) 09:01, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since you asked[edit]

Hi,

Regarding Carnildo's RfA, when I said all parties behaved badly, I meant precisely that. Everyone might have handled the matter more sensitively, realizing that the subject was emotionally-charged. As Jimbo himself said, the situation originated over "one stupid userbox." In tense times, escalation of one's rhetoric is often a poor choice, even when provoked by another. You might have responded to being blocked less angrily; indeed, from your questioning of my generalization to your conversation with User:Lar today, it seems clear that you lack the ability to view this matter dispassionately, even six months after the fact. This is only my opinion, of course, but I consider calmness a virtue in nearly every circumstance. This is a flaw I see in your conduct. Best wishes, Xoloz 05:37, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Spot on. I do not view it dispassionately or calmly. How would you like through through Carnildo's arrogance and stupidity and bad judgement to have a block log labeling you unjustly a user od "hate speech" Six months later I still have it - are you even aware of that?

Do you really want someone else to be labelled with an unjust wiki criminal record. "Hate speech"- that is criminal in many European countries including UK, and very unpleasant, it is also slanderous, a word we are not allowed to use on Wiki (I use it guardedly - without making, or insinuating any legal threats) However, In real life such a slur would finish my career, the very stigma, however unjust - dirt sticks - do you really not know that? It means if ever interviewed by the press, I can never announce that I have edited Wikipedia, because the dirt would be dug up. It makes Wikipedia a dabgerous place to be.

Then you have the audacity to come here defending and wanting an admin who goes around brandishing that term with no justification and no remorse. This is a very public forum. Do you think that will encourage new editors, or those prominent in their fields to remain? - Do you think that is good for the project? Giano | talk 06:42, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think your block entry is unjust and should be expunged. See this VP entry and please consider supporting it, perhaps something could be done developmentwise. ++Lar: t/c 11:37, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am not allowed to speak to you, in case Kyly of the Kindness Campaign banns me. Please go away. Giano | talk 12:43, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That is an incorrect characterisation of the warning you received, and I believe you are well aware of it, and are merely stating it that way for dramatic or rhetorical effect, but this is your talk page, refactor my words away completely if you like, with my blessing. I nevertheless do think your block should be expunged. ++Lar: t/c 13:46, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lar is being nice here. You should be as concerned about your future block log as much as your past block log. However badly you feel about past incidents, it is no excuse for current bad behavior. As long as you remain civil from here on out, you can conduct any conversations you want, please don't mischaracterize incivility warnings as some sort of gag order. NoSeptember 13:55, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

What's an "incivility warning"?[edit]

The term "incivility warning" is new to me. Have the authors of the warnings above considered that incivility isn't a block reason? Please see WP:BLOCK. Are you really claiming that Giano is disrupting the site — posing a threat to it? Also, I ask Xoloz and NoSeptember to please not take a purely technical or numerical view of incivility. Read your own words, look into your hearts, and please tell me if you would feel civilly treated if you were to receive admonitions as pompous as those you have placed on this page. Bishonen | talk 16:08, 30 August 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Thank you Bishonen. These veiled threats to block me are indicative of some very ruffled feathers indeed. NoSeptember is merely being presumptious and trying to frighten me, in order to gag me. He obviously has had no dealings with me in the past, or he would not try to pull such a foolhardy stunt. Giano | talk 16:17, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever pomposity you perceive in my message is your perception, it isn't there. It is true that I have not interacted with Giano in the past AFAIK, I hope this does not suggest that those who have interacted with him have conceded to him a higher tolerance for incivility and misinterpretation than to a typical user. I can honestly say that I would feel civilly treated if I received my message. There is no threatening there, only encouragement to remain civil. Somehow Giano perceives my saying "please don't mischaracterize incivility warnings as some sort of gag order" as an attempt to gag him, the exact opposite of what the words say. Indeed, I would like to have him have his full say, which is why I have been reading the various pages on which this conversation has been conducted. Incivility (and related actions) are indeed one form of disruption and can lead to the driving away of other valuable contributors. Encouraging users not to go down that road is quite reasonable. Does the fact that several of us have noticed this trend not give you pause? I appear to be the fourth admin on this page to encourage civil discussion and to notice that statements of others are (deliberately or not) misinterpreted by Giano. It begins to stretch the limits of believability. If Giano chooses to characterize or perceives this as a series of threats, that is beyond my control. I continue to request that he engage in civil discourse and take care not to mischaracterize the meanings of what others have written. This I encourage him to do (not to be misperceived as a threat). NoSeptember 17:44, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

"You should be as concerned about your future block log as much as your past block log." is a clear threat. Giano | talk 17:46, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps because you haven't interacted with me you don't know that I am not in the habit of blocking people for incivility. I was not suggesting that I would ever block you, but with three previous admins mentioning incivility concerns about you, I do think that the possibility that someone else would get to the point of blocking you is not too remote to be considered. It wasn't a threat, but I could have been clearer. NoSeptember 17:52, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I note you are now climbing down from your threat. The sudden interest in me by so many admins all on the same course is fascinating isn't it, all with the same veiled threats - good thing I don't have a suspicious mind, otherwise I might go looking for an orchestrator, perhaps you are all psychic Giano | talk 17:56, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have no threat to climb down from. But the most encouraging news is that you seem to be posting more civilly now than you were previously. I thank you for that. NoSeptember 18:01, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

With so many of Carnildo's henchmen here do I have a choice. You're threat is quite clear, you made it, at least have the guts to stand by it. Giano | talk 18:07, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to say, but that is another misinterpretation (though understandable). I have had no interactions with Carnildo AFAIK, nor am I active in the image area of the project at all. I keep myself informed about the RfAs of desysopped admins as part of my admin project. I don't have strong feelings about him one way or the other (just the same he probably won't mess up as an admin in the future sense that I have of most admin candidates). Cheers, NoSeptember 18:18, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Well that was the first of the threat makers disposed of, now where are the others, care to form an orderly line? Aspern 18:22, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Aspern, we have quite enough strife here without you ading to it, run along Giano | talk 18:26, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is disappointing to me that some people seem to not read the literal meaning of a message without putting a perceived spin on it. At least two users have done that to my message above. When I intend to warn a user, I am clear that I am issuing a warning, and I will stand behind it. This feels like a staged wikidrama to me. To those in the audience, thanks for watching. NoSeptember 18:54, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

You came here, uninvited of your own free will. You threatened me with a block that was unjustified and without foundation in wiki-law. If you are unhappy with the response you have received then go away and take your threats with you. Giano | talk 20:28, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is an open resource, including your talk page. I feel free to read any page I want to, and the basic standard of civility applies on every page at Wikipedia including talk pages, and it never hurts to remind everyone of that fact. I hope you agree. NoSeptember 22:28, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

To whom it may concern[edit]

For the benefit of anyone thinking of coming here to threaten me with blocks please take note and listen well. When accused without foundation of "Hate Speech" I become very unpleasant. I become unpleasant to those who accuse me, and those who defend them. I have never made "hate speech" those that say I did are liars. Those who defend liars can describe themselves. So whatever you think of yourself, or however you justify your actions please don't waste your time here. Carnildo has accused me of hate speech. He is a liar. He has not apologised, he has shown no remorse. He is a liar. You want him as an admin? That's your decision, but please just don't try to alter my opinion. I have still the block log saying I make hate speech - what has he got? - those fine admins above, and I wish him joy of them. Hate speech may not be much in the wonderland you all live in, but in my world it's quite a big deal. Giano | talk 20:45, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please note: For posting the above, the truth, I have been banned for 48 hours [30]. Giano | talk 07:25, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked (48 hours)[edit]

I'm afraid your rampant incivility towards others has persuaded me to block you for 48 hours. Please note that this gives you an excellent chance to calm down, review the policies regarding civility (see WP:CIVIL and WP:WQT particularly) and to reassess your behaviour towards others here. You're no martyr, Giano, and continuing to badger users for their votes (Lar on the RfA for instance) is simply going to make a bad situation worse.

Please note that this isn't a punishment, it's a "time out" to give you a chance to recover and take time away from the Wiki. You do good work here, and I'd hate to lose you as a contributor, but the attitude really needs adjustment, my friend.

Oh, and there was no "veiled threat" implied by me earlier, I'm sorry you felt that there was. ~Kylu (u|t) 01:59, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's an "out" available from me for you, by the way. Please see User talk:Kylu#Further civility points for an easy way to persuade me to unblock you. I'm "1RR" admin, also, so if another admin unblocks you feeling that this is unfair (though I'd really ask them to review the pages in question, see WP:AN/I#User:Giano & WP:CIVIL) I won't reblock. Please, though, do use this time to reconsider how you're approaching others. It doesn't have to be this confrontational, really. :( ~Kylu (u|t) 02:46, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've unblocked. Some discussion on User talk:Kylu. I believe the situation was calming down already and I really hope this doesn't re-escalate it -- please Giano? —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 04:05, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That was welcome, Bunchofgrapes. I should think Giano is apoplectic: do count to a hundred, Giano. Or a thousand. You know, whatever we may say, we are also judged in part on our contributions of content to the Mainspace articles. I must have missed something in User:Kylu's last 1000 edits. Only 10% of them are in Mainspace articles, but those seem all to be spelling corrections and reverting of vandalism (both important actions to be sure). I failed to find any contribution of content; surely I've missed something. Let us all maintain a sense of balance, even when enforcing proprieties. --Wetman 04:52, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks BoG and Wetman, as I'm always saying where do they find these admins? Giano | talk 07:10, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PS: Actually I wasn't apoplectic but fast asleep having sweet dreams throughout the whole bout of imcompetency - I don't suppose Kyly is on your admirable list is she BoG? Giano | talk 07:13, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is totally unaceptable[edit]

It seems to me that you are acting in an uncivil manner on User talk:Kylu. Please remain civil and don't resort to making personal attacks ~~or instigate edit wars~~ Misfunction of the template - sorry Giano. Daniel .Bryant 09:47, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Acting in a manner on a person" is awkward in English. It would have been more idiomatic to have posted "It seems to me that you are acting in an uncivil manner concerning User talk:Kylu."--Wetman 18:10, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Carnildo-style admins vs. hard-working editors[edit]

Oh my god, I see that the split between wikilawyering admins and writing editors of WP is getting ever wider. Please check Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Discretion blocks by admins for related discussions. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 08:20, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh God that looks far too long and dull to read and assess Ghirla, it makes no difference what I say anywhere anyway. Giano | talk 12:41, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Request[edit]

Please remove the statement which says that you will not pay as much respect to admins who don't write 1FA per year. This is per the Wikipedia guideline WP:TPG, which states that "...treat the other person in the discussion as a fellow editor, who is a thinking, feeling person, trying to positively contribute to Wikipedia, just like you".

Oh, and I'd appreciate it if you removed the personal attack about me on your archive 6 - unfortunately, I used the generic {{civil2-n}} template, which happens to mention edit wars. I didn't imply that you were creating edit wars, as this was a misfunction of the template. If it would satisfy your needs, I will edit the template that I added accordingly. Oh, and please limit this discussion to this talk page, and not mine, to keep this discussion progressing logically. Daniel .Bryant 08:39, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the bit which I unintentionally accused you of. See this diff. So, if you wouldn't mind, remove the personal attack you made against me User talk:Giano/Archive 6, so this issue doesn't have to go up the WP:DR chain any further than I need to. Daniel .Bryant 08:41, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel, I consider it insensitive of you to use templates for established users at all. It's offensive in and of itself, besides the fact that this time they made you say things you didn't mean (they're of course likely to). Please consider using human language for communication. I also think you're speaking Newspeak when you say the "issue" will "have to" or "need" to progress up the dispute resolution chain unless your demand is obeyed. No, it won't need to go anywhere. You might want to take it somewhere. That's different. Please consider whether you really feel it necessary to resolve a "dispute" in an archive, Daniel. To me that looks simply punitive. Bishonen | talk 10:18, 5 September 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Again, your opinion, however WP:NPA doesn't distinguish between archives or not. All someone has to do is remove it, and I will go. Not before it is, though. And if you have such a probelm with all the warning templates, why not TfD them all? Daniel .Bryant 10:23, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't be a dick. Cheers, Ghirla ^-трёп- 10:28, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't realise that enforcing Wikipedia policies now constituted acting like a "dick". Maybe I should heed your advice and, say, totally ignore WP:VAND...which is more suitable to be tagged as "acting like a dick" - following Wikipedia policy, or vandalising? Daniel .Bryant 10:40, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No definition of being a dick has been provided. This is deliberate. If a significant number of reasonable people suggest, whether bluntly or politely, that you are being a dick, the odds are good that you are not entirely in the right. This situation needs to cool down, the slight against you was just that, a slight. Apparently (and amusingly) it appears that one's "dickiness" can be attested by a vote. I second Ghirlas motion and respectfully ask you to modify your dicky behaviour. Thanks --Mcginnly | Natter 11:08, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I could "modify" the personal attack so it doesn't exist, and I'm sure that my "dicky behaviour" would "modify" with it. Daniel .Bryant 11:12, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good afternoon everybody! How very nice to see so many of you gathered here. Now first Mr. Bryant, what exactly is the personal attack you are complaining of? - did you, or did you not accuse me of starting edit wars. A false accusation you have not chosen to redress in almost a week. Giano | talk 12:40, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Remove the promise to be uncivil, please[edit]

You need to remove the promise to be uncivil from your talk page. Such conduct is utterly unacceptable. I removed it once, and I see you've reinstated it, proving your intentions to be deliberately uncivil. Deliberate incivility is grounds for a block; if you do not turn from this course your continued participation in this project will not be welcome, and you will be asked to leave. Kelly Martin (talk) 13:42, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, you do not see I have re-instated - I did not. No you do not see a promise to be uncivil. Please check you facts. Thankyou Giano | talk 13:44, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I re-instated it - I didn't see what business it was of yours what Giano has on his talk page, surely that's a matter for him - and your reasons for it's removal are fallacious - there is no promise to be uncivil.--Mcginnly | Natter 13:50, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I concur. The war admins vs. editors is hitting up! I suppose that most admins should stop threating hard-working contributors with blocks and get to editing themselves. Giano is right in proclaiming that our aim is writing an encyclopaedia, not wikilawyering or protecting abstract admins from imaginary incivility. Please stop bickering and start writing articles instead. Thanks, Ghirla ^-трёп- 13:53, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Most amusing[edit]

I found it most amusing that, after seeing the big notice at the top, I hit the 'user contribution' and was greeted with a screen full of non main namespace edits. Going back another screen there was only 2 in total. So I guess only admins are supposed to write articles, Giano? --Gmaxwell 14:00, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not one word (in my defence) in response to this anyone please. Other things have been a little pressing of late it is true, but I'm quite happy with my contribution to WikipediaGiano | talk 14:04, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I prefer to ignore Gmaxwell as well, especially after he blanked my user page several months ago. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 14:07, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me, Giano. GMaxwell, that was pretty embarrassing. Tomorrow on the 6th, and again on September 9, the Main page will feature articles authored by Giano (Belton House and then Simon Byrne)[31], as it has so often done before, and very good they will look. You, by contrast, are looking like a fool today. Bishonen | talk 18:12, 5 September 2006 (UTC).[reply]

It was a pleasure[edit]

I only said what should have been said, that is that some editors count more than others, and the community should be grateful of their work, and so of your work. I fully understand your frustration regarding admins that hardly touch the namespace; even if your idea of how to make admins would sure cut me out (I like working on short or medium-size articles best):-) Ciao,--Aldux 22:58, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I "have" one FA, but would certainly fail to make the one per year requirement. We will have to fight against Giano's dastardly plans to de-admin us! Paul August ☎ 02:27, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Paul, what makes you think that would happen? Maybe Giano's plan would motivate some less-than-stellar administrators to contribute more to Wikipedia instead of spending their time posing as Wiki Politeness Police and censoring speech they find impolite. Now that would be a double win for the Wiki community. Askolnick 03:02, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if I confused you, I was trying to be ironic (see below). Paul August ☎ 13:21, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are actually missing my point which is the whole point of us being here is to produce a first class encyclopedia, the only way that can be achieved is through first class articles. No one writes an FA (which can be short) completely alone, I can barely write English, ALoan and Bishonen go through mine with a fine tooth comb before they even reach the FAC page, then there are the whole load of editors who comment on the FAC itself and thus further improvements, all the principal editor does is regurgitate facts from books hopefully in an interesting and comprehensive fashion, anyone can do that, and everyone should. No one owns a page for this reason.

Also writing an FA is amazing, the most rewarding I have ever done were the New Zealand architects, when editors I had never met took to the streets of far away New Zealand taking fotos for them, that was a real Wiki-community thing, and it was great. I would like everyone to experience that sort of thing - it makes sense of the whole community working together, and shows how fantastic this project could be, if everyone forgot for a while their own agenda.

Then we come to the admin thing, in my view there are some admins here who do not pull their weight in actually producing the encyclopedia. There are indeed hundreds who have no time to write because they are shouldering the massive amount of admin tasks and have no time (so I think I will change my banner to "strive"). However, there are others who (in my view) prance about like failed ordinandi from a Catholic seminary, they contribute nothing, if they wrote anything in their early days this has stopped, while they now run about misinterpreting wiki laws and generally attempting to tell others how and what they should be writing, what standards of writing and behaviour is expected of them etc etc etc. These people are (in my view) disruptive. These are the ones I would like to see weeded out. However it won't ever happen, as to "name and shame" them would be declared uncivil by them, and I would be banned by them. So the situation is depressingly likely to continue for eternity, so we must put up and shut up, except I'm not very good at shutting up. But writing this I have just realised what can't be cured must be endured, so I'll take my beautiful banner and the Utopia it represents down, or at least modify it, I've grown rather fond of the bull. Giano | talk 13:39, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oops. I fear I've been misunderstood (I will have to dial down my irony a tad — though I thought "dastardly" was a dead give-away). In any case I agree completely with the sentiments expressed by Giano above. Paul August ☎ 13:21, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations[edit]

Hi Giano, I see that Belton House is on the main page. Congratulations on another featured article. Here's to many more. DVD+ R/W 02:17, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'm quite pleased about it too! Giano | talk 08:24, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for being brief earlier, I didn't mean to be rude. I just don't like writing about vandals much and I was only on Wikipedia for a second before I had to go, so I could only reply quickly. So that said, here is another FA congratulations, for Simon Byrne. I like this one too. DVD+ R/W 03:40, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

R e s p e c t[edit]

Hi Giano, Is there a difference between 'someone being treated with less respect than they feel they deserve' and 'someone feeling they have been insulted'? Regards, Ben Aveling 06:54, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That is a good point, and I am anxious not to make someone feel insulted hence the banner. Over the last few weeks I have heard administrators make pronouncement on facts with which others and (sometimes) I have not agreed, when challenged these admins have claimed the challengers to their views are being uncivil to them (ie not showing respect). To show non-agreement, frustration, even anger and disappointment are natural human functions and differ from incivility and lack of respect. If an admin feels his view is infallible, and does not wish to be challenged then perhaps it is best he does not post here, that way he will not have hurt feelings or take offence. I have my views, and I have a right to air them. Doesn't it say somewhere: "Being an admin is no big deal" - Giano | talk 07:29, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. I think that being frustrated, angry or disappointed with somebody does show a lack of respect. Not everyone here is worthy of respect, but it's generally better to err on the side of generosity. All the best, Ben Aveling 08:15, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your note[edit]

You're welcome, and I'm sorry you're being put through the ringer. This is the only thing that really matters around here, so congratulations, and keep your chin up. :-) SlimVirgin ^(talk) 08:01, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, my views too! Giano | talk 08:25, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Belton House on the Main Page[edit]

Looking good there! Bishonen | talk 08:22, 6 September 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Doesn't it make you feel all warm and cosy inside to see your beautiful copy-editing so admired! Giano | talk 08:26, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Did I copy-edit it...? Oh, well, in any case, if there's admiration, or preferably falling down and worshipping available, just lead me to it! Most appropriate, if I may say so! Queen Bishonen | talk 08:30, 6 September 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Belated congratulations on the Belton House article - it's a peach. --Mcginnly | Natter 13:33, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, back to pugilism tomorrow, my favourite subject. Giano | talk 17:34, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Less bull campaign[edit]

Actually, I was thinking about this last night, and had already decided that I needed to spend more time on actual articles for a little while.... and then I saw the, erm, 'discussion' on here.

I hereby grant you a complete and irrevocable license, to the fullest extent perrmitted by law, to be as rude to me as you like until either a) I've particapated in a few more featured articles or b) I renouce my adminship. ;) The Land 08:53, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm never rude in fact I'm charm personified today, and I've altered my critera to "strive to write an FA to retain status" I realise some admins are genuinely busy on worthy admin type things, and also the FAC page can be a dangerous, dark and hostile place. Anyway writing is far more fun than admining. Thanks for dropping by. Giano | talk 09:00, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brympton D'Evercy[edit]

You're welcome -- it's an excellent article and only needed the odd semi-colon to be perfect (-: Mhardcastle 09:39, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reverted your revert on Belton House, sorry[edit]

Because you only caught one of the vandals. Bishonen | talk 14:06, 6 September 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Gosh I was grease lighting like you! Giano | talk 14:09, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Laughing uncontrollably[edit]

I just saw this [32]. I don't know why, but I found the concept of you gifting a goat named Cecilia to be very very funny! Thanks for giving me a good laugh. Cheers -- Samir धर्म 15:13, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see nothing funny in having a highly travelled goat, she was holidaying on Bishonen's page untill she was neglected, and had I not currently a bull at the top of my page of whom Cecilia is jelous she would be living there, having been now spurned by ALoan she is grazing arownd the site looking for a new home so beware. She is named Cecilia after a close maternal relative of my wife whom she resembles. Giano | talk 15:22, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Boo, your admin standards FAC'ing suck![edit]

FAC^k the WP:FARC! Long live the FARC-EP!

I was promoted as admin (supermajority support, thank you very much ;) with ~600 mainspace edits. Now I have slightly more, but still, none of the articles I authored have been FAC'd, nor have I tried FAC'ing them, or any other entry. There is only one FARC for me and that's the FARC-EP! Long live their heroic struggle! El_C 13:33, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't think I don't know just what has brought about this regretable attitude [33]. I can hardly be blamed if she now chooses to marry me instead. Giano | talk 16:08, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What can I say? There must be something appealing about a man who calls for overthrowing imperialism by waging armed-struggle in imperialist-dependent countries and intensifying the legal struggle in imperialist ones! El_C 21:58, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are times Elc when I find you very hard to follow. Giano | talk 22:14, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Put some (FAC'ing!) effort into it and break the mental shackles! El_C 22:45, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I have it. You want me to nominate one of your pages for FA. Why so shy and coy? I'll go and sift through them now, I'm sure I shall have something of yours for the FAC page crew to get their teeth into soon. No, don't protest - you are too modest. I can detect a guilty conscience when I see one, but don't worry it will be my pleasure Giano | talk 23:04, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Really, I am only interested in indoctrination — that would be funny, though! El_C 23:29, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My, look at that Main Page[edit]

Don't you get tired of seeing your FAs all over the Main Page? Look at it now: Simon Byrne, featured article of the day, appears so soon after Belton House that BH is still listed among its "Recently featured" links. Do you actually write half the FAs in the place, or is that just how it looks?
About adding to that section: you might as well add info there as anywhere, because it's going to be part of our joint FA on the rebuilding eventually—isn't it? The fact is I don't want the section in the present article. It's getting too long anyway. What I want there about the rebuilding is something like a one-paragraph summary—summarising the not-yet-written separate fullscale rebuilding article. A tall order, you say? Yes, well. Yeah. Bishonen | talk 00:26, 9 September 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Ah, the sweet smell of chestnuts roasting on an open fire... I look forward to seeing a whole suite of articles.

You produce such excellent FAs, Mr G, and so exquisitely polished and referenced. ;) Well done, signore. Did you notice how your article has now been "claimed" by Wikipedia:WikiProject Boxing on its talk page? If you are lucky, they will add an infobox... -- ALoan (Talk) 02:00, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm thinking we need a new talk-page template, along the lines of

File:User Saurav Bhowmik1.jpg

This talk page has seven beautiful tags on top! One beautiful tag! Two beautiful tags! Three beautiful tags!...

I'm also just going to go ahead and console Giano on the days when he doesn't have a TFA, rather than congratulating him when he does: it'll be less typing for me surely. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 02:24, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Now now..let's not allow Mr G's head to swell like a Montgolfier balloon, ere it float over the channel to end up in the land of croissants...if he's lucky;> But those are great articles. I especially enjoyed today's Simon Byrne, which I had the pleasure of supporting in some small measure. Plus, we are in your debt for sparing the main page from the reproductive habits of Pokemon or the latest Gwenn Stepani single.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 02:31, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Guys for all the kind words. I would be lying if I didn't admit it is a huge fillip after the events of recent days to see them both listed there. So thanks all for dropping by. Giano | talk 08:22, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Early conceptions of the Channel Tunnel[edit]

You have my reply sir. And thank you for asking a substantive question;>--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 02:31, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unproductive comments on talk pages[edit]

This comment, which you left on my talk page, is really quite unproductive and nominally offensive. Please refrain from leaving such unproductive, antagonistic comments on other editor's talk pages. Given your supposed campaign for "less bull", it seems quite hypocritical of you. Kelly Martin (talk) 17:48, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of posting here I recommend people read this comment here [34] which rather sums up my feelings too. Ghirlandajo too has made this comment "There are more editors who buzz around than those who actually write stuff." [35]. I have recently been threatened with a ban by the arbcom for my attitude to Eternal Equinox, who they felt they could not ban [36], she is now back trying to cause mayhem. Ghirlandjo is being set up on the Requests for arbitration [37]. An arbitrator who could not be bothered to accurately assess what I had written left this message [38]. In addition it seems to take longer each day to maintain the standard of pages I have already written from both deliberate vandals and the genuinely ignorant.

Those in authority here seem to care more about their own infighting and rules and regulations than encyclopedic standards and maintaining them. It seems to me the Kelly Martins and Tony Sidaways (and a dozen more just like them) of the site are on huge ego trips, and there is no-one here who cares enough to do anything about it. In fact quite a few people do care, but sadly they are the less strident and militant so in that way wikipedia becomes an "animal farm". I don't know if there is a solution, but I don't like the way things are going. Giano | talk 21:57, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So does this mean Kelly won't be joining our WP:BULL campaign?--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 13:25, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

May I suggest not going gently into the good night, but rather raging against the dying of the light? Or at least registering with the Disgruntled Breakfast Club? There is some relevant discussion on User talk:R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine). -- ALoan (Talk) 23:29, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Go gently into the night? When have you ever known me go gently anywhere? No, I am just very unhappy about the whole feel of the place here at the moment, Carnildo's so called RFA did not help either, so when one has lost all respect for, and confidence in the Arb-com what does one do. That is the question I am deliberating in my mind. At the end of the day they are only editors just like the rest of us and they must be made to be comletely accountable, and stop behaving like a heavy handed junta, or they will have nobody worthwhile left to govern. Giano | talk 08:57, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Being of optimistic disposition, I'm sure the current bullshit will subside for while and then flare up again and onwards until things are changed or the whole project eats itself. In the meantime, I'm at least taking some pride from this [39]. --Mcginnly | Natter 10:15, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I'm sure Tony Sidaway will have an opinion on that too! Giano | talk 10:20, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I agree entirely about the place "feeling" awful at the moment. People suddenly seem to have become rather intolerant and trigger-happy, or perhaps it was like that all along, and I have only just noticed it. All I can think of at present is to stick with it and do what I can to try to stop things sliding into the abyss. Just look at the furore that has broken out at Wikipedia talk:Did you know (of all places) at the moment.

Given the way things have gone in the past few weeks, I have serious concerns for the quality of the encyclopedia going forwards. Some people seem to treat this place as some sort of social rules-making experiment (the "bull" to which the banner refers) rather than seeing the rules as an aide to writing encyclopedic content. They also don't trust the ordinary editors to make the right decision about what rules will be effective in achieving that over-riding aim, rather seeking to impose their will on the people doing the writing, and they don't care who they piss off along the way, trusting that new editors will replace casualties who fall by the roadside along the way.

It has the feel of the retreat from Moscow, with the Cossacks, hunger and disease picking us off one by one... -- ALoan (Talk) 10:28, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed entirely. (Hi Cecilia) -- Samir धर्म 10:32, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not so much a retreating soldier as part of a "fickle and ill-informed populace." [40]. Speeking of cossacks, I'm surprised he hasn't left a message here yet! Giano | talk 13:04, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

♪ Do you hear the people sing? ♪ Singing a song of angry men? ♪ It is the music of a people who will not be slaves again! ♪ -- ALoan (Talk) 18:28, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm - literary uses of singular their, anyone? Caxton? Shakespeare? Jane Austen? Thackeray? -- ALoan (Talk) 19:25, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

sloppy blocks[edit]

Thanks for the link. On the topic, I actually wrote my thoughts on that which you may have missed. Please take a look at this and this (I have yet to respond to a latter). I don't see things as pessimistically though. All blocks I discusses were erroneous but honest errors. The problem with harassment by Tony I think is fairly recent. I don't think he's always been that way and things may yet cool down. Ciao! --Irpen 10:27, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mail[edit]

You have. Bishonen | talk 17:27, 12 September 2006 (UTC).[reply]

So I see my little blossom flower thankyou:-).............G

Apropos, you mentioned on Bish-talk that my e-mail does not work. I don't understand why it does not work for you - I got the Plautus round-robin, for example. -- ALoan (Talk) 12:20, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A favour, if I may?[edit]

Hi Giano, Can I ask a big favour? I'm trying to get Intelligent design to featured article status, and I could really use your help. I'm pretty sure the first thing to do is work out in what ways it falls short? I know you've got a good understanding of what an article needs to have to qualify. Could you have a look at the article, and add your thoughts at Talk:Intelligent design#Featured Article? Regards, Ben Aveling 23:36, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, I looked at it the other day and thought it looked very good, but you are going to have a hell of a job to get it stable enough - and as far as I am aware there is no precedent for a protected article to become featured. -- ALoan (Talk) 00:15, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Double standards[edit]

I responded to your observation on my talk and sent other comments by mail. You may have noticed that arbitrators do not converse with each other on talk pages, why should we? It is not safe to let one's thoughts shared and known, when even e-mails are not private here any more. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 15:16, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Take a breath[edit]

Giano - I was going to unblock you, but FloNight beat me to it. I'd appreciate it if you could tone it down just a notch. Raul654 21:25, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- .-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.

The following is lifted from here [41]

Tony, I beg to differ -- with courtesy but most seriously. All you have done in your comment is convince me that if you were a b'crat, I'd have to ask you to stand for recall. John Reid 11:05, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You could fucking whistle. --Tony Sidaway 11:14, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And you could tone down your comments. That was uncalled for. Even if John Reid was the most abbrasive person since Jack the Ripper, such comments as the one you just made are out of line here. Please calm down. --Durin 12:49, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Absolutely not. Ridiculous threats deserve to to be treated with loud and resounding contempt. --Tony Sidaway 13:59, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's not often I am totally amazed by hypocrisy on such a grand scale [42]. Giano | talk 14:06, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Sidaway then removed my last comment with this startling edit summary [43]. Seems there really is one law for some, and another for him. No one liftes a finger to stop him. So please some-one explain the difference Giano | talk 21:32, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Giano, I unblocked you because I do not think a block was needed. I'm not sure that you need to keep posting messages on talk pages, either. The messages are bothering some other users and that is not a good thing. FloNight 21:39, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Flo - medicine is always nasty, but one must always take a long term view (very liberal translation of an old Sicilian proverb) Giano | talk 21:43, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh dear. Well, I have been gainfully employed on other things. -- ALoan (Talk) 21:56, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Giano, please take it easy. You are not here to run for RfA, RfB or god forbids, ArbCom, that is to satisfy your power instincts like someone who does nothing for encyclopedia development. You are the valuable contributor and we all treasure you. Don't let this nonsense let you down. Brush this off and please write another FA. Tony will either chill out dramatically or will run himself out of here. Wikipedia is smarter than him, you or me. Just write articles and rest assured that people here appreciate it. You know what I am going to do? I am so tired of this crap. I am going to find an article that needs my input now and will see what I can do for it. Just ignore Tony for a moment. --Irpen 22:18, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Irpen, and you too ALoan, and all the others on WP AN/I but I really think there has been far too much ignoring of Mr Sidaway and his masters for far too long, and I'm not sure I want to ignore them anymore - but then does one really want the bother of it all? I shall sleep on it, see you all in the morning. Giano | talk 22:25, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Giano (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Giano has taken his concerns about the recent Carnildo affair beyond the level of reasonable discussion and has begun to make quite hysterical and false accusations [44] [45]. I've given him three hours to reconsider his words and cool down a bit. --Tony Sidaway 21:14, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that a block was necessary here... I don't read anything that makes it look like there's any danger to the project, and it isn't obvious to me that the comments are designed to upset any contributors. Jkelly 21:23, 14 September 2006 (UTC)-[reply]

I agre with Jkelly. I'm going to unblock, and leave him a message on his talk page asking him to be a bit cooler. Raul654 21:24, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hrm, Flonight beat me to it. Raul654 21:24, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree with the block, but Giano definitely needs to cool it. There's room for civil discussion, and then there's accusations of conspiracy, corruption, and cabalism. True or not, the latter doesn't help a damn thing. Mackensen (talk) 21:26, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I think it had gotten far beyond the stage where asking him to cool it would have worked, though. We'll see how it goes. --Tony Sidaway 21:29, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, for the delay in posting. Keep getting edit conflicts. Giano will not respond positively to a block so I unblocked. --FloNight 21:31, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I support getting Giano to return to the excellent work he has done in FA's and to try and let the situations outside of that become the past, as they should be. I also hope folks aren't going around undoing Tony Sidaway's admin actions, knowing that he cannot revert them since he is under an administrative 1RR ruling. Let's not undo others admin actions as this is the second time in less than 24 hours an admin has changed Tony's blocks.--MONGO 21:34, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"[T]his is the second time in less than 24 hours an admin has changed Tony's blocks." Seems to me there are two ways to interpret that statistic.... —Nate Scheffey 21:45, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here's here all week folks! Mackensen (talk) 21:48, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tony, the block was uncalled for, especially of an editor you hadn't even warned, that I can see. The block summary was even more so.[46] "Hysterical" is untrue and a personal attack, and now it's there in the log for evermore. Please consider the formulation of block summaries with particular care, as they are extremely difficult to remove or change, and it's in practice never done. This was discussed extensively, recently, in relation to Carnildo's "hate speech" summaries, which still remain in several block logs—Giano's, as luck would have it, being one of them. Bishonen | talk 21:35, 14 September 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Yes, the block was uncalled for (and particularly bad form). Better to risk a bruised ego by undoing an improper block than to let it stand out of some misguided notion of politeness. Friday (talk) 21:36, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid we'll have to differ on this,Bishonen. Giano's accusations of skulduggery and malice are beyond anything that is ever acceptable on Wikipedia. --Tony Sidaway 21:38, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, well, you don't usually mince words yourself, Tony. A month ago you were accusing a fellow admin of "Pure, unadulterated malice. Disgusting." Haukur 21:55, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tony weren't you also just fighting with Giano on the crat board? [47][48] I notice you've also started doing more refactoring of those discussions after I asked you to stop. JoshuaZ 21:43, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And where is this "skulduggery and malice?" From the two diffs you provided, the editor disagreed with Taxman's re-promotion of Carnildo and discussed it. They didn't explicitly attack either Carnildo or Taxman with anything more than opinions. I don't think dissenting opinions deserve a block, and if something in the grey area like this does, it is better to discuss your problems with the editor first, especially if you've had problems with them before. There was nothing urgent or dangerous about this matter which required an immediate block. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 21:47, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is not Giano but Tony Sidaway[edit]

I see a big problem here and this problem is not Giano (talk · contribs), but Tony Sidaway (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Tony has turned the entire Wikipedia into a battleground between himself and anyone who dares to disagree with him. Tony has lately resorted to a more fiery methods of intimidation, including frivolous arbcom submissions and, most amazingly, blocks when the opponent is especially voiceful. His own recent activity ranged between foul language, personal attacks, intimidation and gross abuse. There is no single contribution into a single article in mainspace, which is also noteworthy.

Until Tony will stand in front of ArbCom for his contempt of everyone but himself, he needs time to chill out. I call on the community ro consider giving him a time to cool off. Perhaps a 1-3 day block will be enough for him to take a good use of a wikibreak, cool down and come back somewhat chilled out. --Irpen 21:46, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Again already? He got blocked just a couple of days ago as a naughty essay-deleter :) [49] Haukur 22:16, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I thought it had been established that cooling-off blocks didn't do any good. Heaven knows there are howls of protest whenever one's proposed against a non-admin. Mackensen (talk) 21:49, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is that sarcasm or do you agree that cooling off blocks do no good? —Nate Scheffey 21:55, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've never seen them work, really, because it's difficult for someone to take a block in good grace. I don't blame you for asking, though. Mackensen (talk) 22:00, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They work well if they're permitted to. I don't disagree with the unblock (all my blocks are subject to review and overturning with my implicit permission). I think we would have done well to permit Giano the time to reconsider the quite hysterical and false accusations of skulduggery and malice of his recent comments. --Tony Sidaway 21:58, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are wrong. This block would not have cooled Giano off. His comments were not hysterical. Saying so doesn't make it so. All of your blocks are subject to review regardless of your permission. —Nate Scheffey 22:06, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, my impression is that he does post any potentially controversial blocks up for review, so I cannot see what you meaning is on this point.--MONGO 22:18, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since he said "all my blocks" I'm not sure where you got "potentially controversial blocks" from. Regardless, my meaning is that on Wikipedia all of our actions are subject to review, no permission necessary. —Nate Scheffey 22:47, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Sidaways' latest is another of those blocks that will obviously have the opposite effect of its stated intent. This needs to be addressed in WP:BLOCK. —Nate Scheffey 21:52, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blocking isn't the answer. Furthermore, I'd encourage you to be careful with "voiceful" (I suspect you meant "forceful"). There's a very important line between arguing your point forcefully and trolling. It's often hard to tell the difference, and people have varying levels of tolerance. When in doubt, moderate one's language. Mackensen (talk) 21:53, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(four edit conflicts) Agree that the problem is Tony. Disagree on the block. Other solutions are needed. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 21:56, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I believe Giano may be more than a little upset at the way Tony responds incivily to a civil (and might I add hypothetical) statement, then, called on it, says "ridiculous threats deserve to to be treated with loud and resounding contempt." Noting that one would call for Tony's recall if he were a bureaucrat is not any sort of threat that I can discern. Tony is being incivil; he has been consistenty policing post-Carnildo discussion to what seems to me a disruptive point, and he should perhaps block himself for three hours for a calm-down, if he finds such blocks generally effective. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 21:54, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Did anyone bother to discuss the blocking with Tony before reverting his action?--MONGO 22:02, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think there was about as much discussion with Tony about unblocking as there was between Tony and Giano before he imposed the block. -- ALoan (Talk) 22:07, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi ho[edit]

If no one minds I'm going to attempt to stifle and censor discussion by proposing that this matter best be handled as dispute resolution between Giano and Tony Sidaway. Tony reported his block, the block has been undone. Nothing's going to be accomplished here save much grumbling and drama. We all know where the dispute pages are; we all know where to discuss the blocking policy. Administrative action isn't needed here. Mackensen (talk) 22:00, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've got nothing further to say on the matter. Hopefully Giano will calm down now that more eyes are on him. --Tony Sidaway 22:03, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(multiple edit conflicts) I see two issues here. If people agree that cool-off blocks do not work, why Tony is not yet reprimanded for the cool-off blocks against respected users who simply dare to disagree with him? I mean, some people cry foul loudly but since Tony does not care about the community's perception of himself, there is no consequences for him whatsoever. At the same time, he lately runs completely amok and that's not just me who says that. He needs not a cool-off period but a wiki-break. If he, like all of us, is such a wikiholic that he can't call a wikibreak by himself, the wikibreak must be called on him by the community. The disruption by Tony to an entire Wikipedia has become intolerable. Personally, I won't care if he blocks me. First of all, someone will likely unblock, and, second, I am here to write content and I will use the time to write an article or two on a hard-drive. But other users are more britle and take unfair blocks closer to heart. Tony's behavior drive out Wikipedians, and not those who like him spend their entire time chatting and lawyering, but those who write a FA once every 2-3 days. Users like the G-3 (Giano, George, Ghirlandajo), the Worldtraveller, 172 is hardly contributing. What the hell is happening? --Irpen 22:05, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(Record number of edit conflicts) I strongly endorse the unblocking. I had been following the discussion on WP:BN today and Tony Sidaway was an active participant in it, disagreeing with several of the other users contributing. In the process, Tony made remarks that by his own admission on his talk page were uncivil and "over the top." Resort to the page history at BN is necessary because throughout the day, Tony refactored the discussion by deleting several comments that he disagreed with. Although BN is a project page rather than an article, Tony's blocking here was the equivalent of blocking to gain an advantage in an edit war, widely considered an unacceptable practice.

Under the circumstances, while I do not agree with everything Giano had to say, and I find that the ongoing debate on Carnildo's re-sysoping has become somewhat sterile, Tony certainly should not have been the blocking admin -- even had Giano said anything that could have warranted a block, which he did not. User:Giano is not some random troll to be driven away; he is a major contributor to the encyclopedia, who has had two featured articles on the Main Page within the past week, and is entitled to express his opinions on an administrative noticeboard, particularly where he is doing so more civilly than the person who chose to block him.

We are at the point that we have some valuable contributors who are living in fear of administrators will block them if they say something out of touch with the mood of the day -- not in an article, but in project space where meta-issues are supposed to be debated. A strong consensus should emerge from this that it's time for some folks to step away from the block button. Newyorkbrad 22:09, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Who are the contributors that are leaving for fear of being blocked for speaking their minds?--MONGO 22:16, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I cleaned up the BN and was thanked for doing so by several editors, including one bureaucrat. It doesn't matter what good Giano is doing elsewhere, his activities on use talk pages were inflammatory accusations of malicious skulduggery and he had been warned to stop. Newyorkbrad's false accusation of blocking to gain advantage in a dispute is unworthy of response. --Tony Sidaway 22:18, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Newyorkbrad, a relatively new editor, is also one of the most thoughtful commentators on meta-issues I have seen. You demean yourself by dismissing him thusly. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 22:20, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thoughtful he may be, but when he's wrong he's wrong. --Tony Sidaway 22:21, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He's not wrong. You are wrong. Dismissing his accurate and well reasoned objection as "unworthy of response" demonstrates conclusively that your civility issues need to be formally addressed. —Nate Scheffey 22:28, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Surely all opinions judged wrong by you are not "unworthy of response"? —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 22:24, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No. Only the clearly ridiculous ones. --Tony Sidaway 22:43, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thoughts on Two Users[edit]

User:Tony Sidaway is dedicated to this project. He has clearly spent thousands of hours serving Wikipedia as an administrator, as the ArbCom clerk (time-consuming and tedious I'm sure), and in meta-debate as well. When doing his job well, he is one of the most valuable Wikipedians. Unfortunately, Tony has his rough edges: by his own admission, he is sometimes uncivil; he says what's on his mind and minces no words; and lots of people have had to urge him more than once to cool down; and he's acknowledged that he has a fiery temper, to the point that he is subject to restrictions not placed on any other administrator. But he's put in his time; he's been subject to vicious personal attacks off-wiki for his work here; and he withstands it all and continues to work for Wikipedia. User:Giano is dedicated to this project. He has clearly spent thousands of hours serving Wikipedia as a contributor to some of our best articles, and more recently to some extent in meta-debate as well. When doing his job well, he is one of the most valuable Wikipedians. Unfortunately, Giano has his rough edges: when provoked, he sometimes skirts the edges of civility; he says what's on his mind and minces no words; and lots of people have had to urge him more than once to cool down. But he's put in his time; he's been subject to inane block summaries and proposed (fortunately not enacted) ArbCom remedies; and he withstands it all and continues to work for Wikipedia. There is a place for both of these people here, and it's not sitting behind blocks. Newyorkbrad 22:34, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well put. Jkelly 22:37, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The problem here is that what Giano has been doing is far beyond incivility. It is clearly false accusations, without evidence, of malicious wrongdoing. He remains very, very worked up about this, which is a shame, because we'd all like him to cool down and stop adding this stuff to user talk pages and trying to whip up hatred against other Wikipedians. Those actions are real problems. We may differ on what to do about them, but they won't go away just because we ignore them. --Tony Sidaway 22:54, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"we'd all like him to cool down and stop adding this stuff to user talk pages" I bet you would; but what stuff exactly Tony? Giano | talk 22:58, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If that's what is happening, and there is a real behaviour problem, it isn't obvious enough yet, given that a whole bunch of us here couldn't see the block as even a necessary evil. If there is a problem that goes beyond Giano's... level of emphasis, it needs a lot more spelling out -- an RfC level of spelling-out, I'd suggest. Jkelly 23:05, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

//sigh// Well, I was hoping that perhaps what I wrote would induce Tony Sidaway to acknowledge that Giano has his merits, and Giano to recognize that Tony Sidaway has his. Not working out that great so far, is it? Tony likes to write that he's "not one of life's mediators," and it looks like perhaps I shouldn't quit my day job either. Newyorkbrad 23:35, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi[edit]

I keep encountering the above discussion all over the place. No wonder everybody involved is confused.

On the block, Giano, I do understand that you may feel that there is a justifiable grievance to express, but I really felt that you had finally gone completely overboard and started ranting hysterically and that a short time of reflection would have helped. Such statements as "I smell a rat" and "even Angela is involved, there are no innocents here" should really never, in my opinion, be uttered by one Wikipedian about another. I had hoped that by permitting others to deal with your problematic editing, which had--now admit it--gone on for weeks now, I would somehow enable you to get your bearings again. But when this didn't happen I thought I should give you a little reminder that we mustn't go around spreading hatred about people on Wikipedia. It just isn't what it's for.

Well it looks as if in taking that action I only encouraged your persecution complex--for which I apologise. I really don't know you from Adam, except that your behavior in promoting incivility and hatred has become a problem. --Tony Sidaway 00:09, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is the most hyprocritical apology I've seen at Wikipedia. It looks like Tony still refuses to see what started it. Let me remind then. This all started with the significant outrage caused by Carnildo's RfA debacle. I don't know this old/new admin, I did not even vote, but we all saw that the outrage was significant and not some trollish whining of disgruntled losers or whoever. Tony, with his usual contempt started to intimidate the dissenters and went as far as blocking one of them whose reaction was strong but in no way fell under WP:BLOCK. This caused even greater outrage. After that Tony refused to apologize or even admit a controversy but instead went on crusade and highjacked a meaningless arbitration against the same user turning the ArbCom into a complete charade. Now unapologetic Tony even dared to repeat the same offense, throwing a block on a second user who was not intimidated to be afraid to oppose Tony's action voicefully. Outrage was even greater and now Tony comes and delivers this tongue and chick appology still refusing to admit any wrong-doing.

In all this time (or for months before) Tony did not make a single meaningful edit to an article space that makes me think that he sees the Wikipedia is some kind of popular forum with games for influence and respect imposed by sheer brutality of the words and actions. The two users above, unlike Tony, kept pulling FA level articles one after one.

Now this insulting "apology". Is there anything else I forgot? --Irpen 00:32, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Irpen, please don't do this. You are feeding giano's paranoia by falsely claiming that I blocked Ghirlandajo in order to intimidate dissenters in the Carnildo RFA. --Tony Sidaway 00:45, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Giano does not have a paranoia. He is just stronger than me and more attached to the project in that he didn't dismiss the matter as easily as I was forced to do. Carnildo's RfA demonstrated to the community that "an editor can make the most gross and unfounded allegations, indulge in heinous abuse of admin powers, display no remorse, not apologise, and then expect everything to be all right and become an admin again" (it's just a quote). Your blocks are far from helping to alleviate our fears; they display that even major contributors are viewed as a herd of sheep who are not supposed to voice their opinions in admin space for fear of blocking. There is an old fable "The Wolf and the Lamb" about the situation we have here. --Ghirlandajo 07:27, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Now now, you know full well it wasn't for expressing opinions, but for inflammatory edits inciting hatred and treating Wikipedia like a battleground. You've got a history of this, and so does Giano. The only difference is that Giano's accusations are far, far beyond the pale. --Tony Sidaway 07:42, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I never treat wikipedia as anything but encyclopaedia and never edit outside main space when I don't have to. By checking your contributions, I've got an impression that you are involved in some serious games for influence here. Me, Giano, etc are just very small bricks in this Cyclopean masonry. I don't know why Angela had to leave the Board but this may be connected. That's just an impression I've got. Now block me if you feel like it. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 08:13, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tony, please don't continue this. Attempting to dismiss others' legitimate concerns brought to your face as "paranoia" is insulting. My claim of your reasons for blocking both of them for simply fearlessly standing up to your intimidation stands.

Best yet, please leave alone the users who are here to create an encyclopedia in mainspace and let some sensible admins who actually write content talk with them when needed. Those admins know that their job is to create a best environment for content creation. Whatever games for influence you are playing here, keep the content creating editors out of them. --Irpen 00:56, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I dismissed the claim that I blocked Ghirlandajo in order to intimidate people I disagreed with because it's a flatly false and fatuous claim. I dismiss the claim that Angela and the arbitration commmittee and who knows else are guilty of some malicious manipulation as paranoid because it is clearly false, baseless and apparently made sincerely. --Tony Sidaway 02:40, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tony I don't think Giano is alone in thinking that your block of Ghirlandajo was an attempt to intimidate. Do you consider yourself so beyond reproach that you think only the paranoid could question your motives? Paul August ☎ 03:51, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're confused. I've described Giano's claims that Angela, the arbitrators and the bureaucrats are involved in some strange and malicious manipulation as paranoid. The allegation that I blocked Ghirlandajo in order to intimidate people in a matter of which I was barely aware at the time I blocked him is simply false and the precise circumstances are known to those who use the administrators' IRC channel. Making such false allegations, I warned irpen, feeds Giano's paranoia. --Tony Sidaway 04:24, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

	Campaign for less bull more writing
	This user believes all admins should make a significant contribution to at least one featured article before being considered for adminship, and should make a significant contribution to at least one featured article per year or stand for re-election to retain their status.
	We are here to write an encyclopedia

This is a Wikipedia user talk page.

This is not an encyclopedia article or the talk page for an encyclopedia article. If you find this page on any site other than Wikipedia, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user to whom this talk page belongs to may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia itself. The original talk page is located at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Giano_II/archive_5.

Wikimedia Foundation

Please add your comments below, preferably at the bottom.

Old messages are at

Please leave new messages at the foot of the page[edit]

And now, for something completely different[edit]

Hi Giano. Does the bull have a name? I'm just curious and nosy. Also wanted to lighten up a very heavy talk page. I have suggestions if it doesn't. Take care -- Samir धर्म 06:59, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hercule pronounced as in Hercule Poirot Giano | talk 07:46, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That fits... he sort of looks like a Hercule. -- Samir धर्म 08:09, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Happenings of last night[edit]

Now everyone is a little more calm in the best Agatha Christie style I shall now explain the events of last night to you all, first for the benefit of all the new editors we have to have a little history, months ago I made two comments (follow it all from here [50]) regarding the wisdom of allowing known paedophiles to edit. For this I was immediately banned for "hate speech" by Carnildo, of course that was ridiculous and Carnildo was immediately de-sysoped. We then fast forward to Carnildo application for re-sysoping [51], I was one of the chief opponents because Carnildo had never apologised or expressed understanding of how bad for wikipedia his actions had been.

Then we had the Eternal Equinox arbitration fiasco, and it was indeed a fiasco, Arbitrators felt in spite of her atrocious behaviour they could not ban her, but would ban me for one month for annoying her, not three hours, a week, but a month! [52] Everyone was incredulous, I don't think anyone could really believe it was a serious proposition, yet strangely two Arbitrators supported it, one with the famous words, "pour encourager les autres". One thought is that it was to encourage Carnildo to re-apply for adminship, or was it already known he was going to apply on a certain date - how convenient it would have been if I were safely out of the way for a month.

Well I wasn't banned I was there and very vocal. The RfA went against all tradition and set a new precedent of promoting without consensus, this could not have happened if all members had not been fully consulted. The inevitable fall out would have been assessed and a mode of dealing with it decided in advance. (If they truly thought there would be no fall-out, then they are so out of touch they should all resign en masse). Hence I posted [53]. Which is exactly what the arbcom is doing, they have been repeatedly asked by the editorship to come forward and explain, but they do not, we are treated with silent disdain - there are many of them - where are they? All we have is Kelly Martin (arbitrator emeritus as she terms herself) informing us we are a "fickle and ill-informed populace." [54]. Still a resounding silence so I posted this [55]. Of course that was far to close for comfort, so I was immediately blocked by Tony Sidaway the arbitrator's clerk.

Tony Sidaway is permitted by the Arbitrators to be their unofficial mouthpiece, for ages I thought he was an arbitrator so confident are his pronouncements. He is allowed a latitude permitted to no other editor. Through him they judge the mood of the encyclopedia. The problem is for the Arbcom now, is that they have permitted the guard dog to reply to the mail and answer the telephone for far too long - never a good idea.

I still have ""hate speech"" on my block log, Carnildo has never once contacted me or apologised so I feel slapped in the face in by the Arbcom. However, more importantly by riding rough shod over the views of the ""fickle and ill-informed populace"" they have insulted us all. They have bought this on themselves.

The Arbcom have altered without consultation the whole ethical ethos of the encyclopedia - they should at least explain as a united body - why? Does the view of the editorship count or has consensus gone out of the window. The Arbcom needs to come down from on high (all of them) re-assure editors they are valued, and get the place back to writing an encyclopedia, unhindered by minor buzzing admins who contribute nothing. Then they need to examine themselves and decide where they want the encyclopedia to go and how.

I thank all those who have been friendly to me, also the ones who doubt the validity of what I am saying; and I ask those who think I am paranoid to just have a hard think for five minutes. For anyone who may be wondering/hoping: No, I have no wish for personal power here, not even to be an admin and I have no intention of leaving at all, not of my own free will anyway. I just want to write an encyclopedia and express a legitimate view when necessary. Giano | talk 08:55, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

HI Giano...I sent you an email.--MONGO 09:03, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Giano, yesterday I opined that Tony Sidaway's blocking you was not right. Today I'll risk incurring your wrath by opining that your theories are ill-founded. There have been mistakes made in recent weeks, but you take matters way too far with your theorizings and it really is time to reduce the level of venom.

The idea of banning you for a month -- a genuinely stupid idea, and your and my paths first crossed when I posted to the arb page and said so -- was proposed by Fred Bauder. It received one other vote, Charles Matthews', in support. Four arbitrators specifically voted against it, while the other five never registered views one way or the other as the case sat on the shelf well after its sell-by date had expired. I find it simple enough to explain the proposal on the basis that Fred and Charles Matthews misjudged the nature of your comment to EE and reacted badly -- and lost the vote. They accomplished nothing except to get you angry. There is no connection readily inferred between this and Carnildo's situation, and I doubt very much that Charles Matthews was a key decision-maker there. How the ArbCom's voting down a ban furthered some master plan is not clear to me.

There are other objections to your suggestions of yesterday, but I'll stop there, for I suspect my words thus far will already be ill-received. I am reminded though of the old saying that we should not impute to malice what can be readily understood as error, or even disagreement. Newyorkbrad 09:52, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're sanitizing the old saying, Brad. Bishonen | talk 10:25, 15 September 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Well, there is always the chance that it was a horrendous cock-up (oops - personal attack and profanity there). Forgive me for asking, but is there any evidence for this wide-ranging conspiracy? -- ALoan (Talk) 10:50, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Giano, you're expecting a level of generosity and courtesy that is simply inappropriate in this context-- more to the point, have you any tweaks to offer Jockey-Club de Paris? --Wetman 11:07, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As per your suggestion I've thought about it for 5 minutes. My God Giano, I think ALoan, Bishonen etc. need to sit you down with some more Port and soothing words before you completely lose the plot. Without any evidence to the contrary I'm definitely in the 'cock-up over conspiracy' camp. Accusations of incompetence we could probably sustain, but this? Really? Doddery old User:Fred Dibnah made a mistake I think, Charles Mathews was positioning for his candidacy at the board and you were unfortunate collateral damage, but a wide ranging conspiracy that it was all engineered to keep you out of the way of Carnildo's RfA? Why just you and not EL_C too if that were the case? Come on man, sit, take the weight off, pour yourself a glass and we'll go and shout our lungs out at the footie referee from the safety of the terrace, but not this. --Mcginnly | Natter 11:17, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) My dear foolish friend Giano, the footsie thing has gone to your head. While the conspiracy theory you propose hangs together just enough for a nice plot for a made for TV movie, I suggest using Occam's razor to cut your grand conspiracy into a little pile of unconnected cock-ups. I do like the "guard dog" bit though. And as for Angela please read this. Paul August ☎ 11:57, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

While you are all speculating the possibilities of my grand (possibly hypothetical) conspiracy theory, I note no-one is so keen to address what is in fact hard fact. The arbcom refusing to answer why they ignored consensus, and why Sidaway is allowed to get away with so much. Efforts by many others to ask these questions are currently being very rapidly archived and deleted her [56]. I should hurry before you miss the show, just look at those diffs and edit summaries they go on over two pages. Fascinating stuff. Just look how busy Mr Sidaway is archiving and deleting away. Giano | talk 11:42, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with ALoan and others that we don't have enough evidence of a wide-scale conspiracy and nothing good will come of unfounded accusations on talk pages. I was also misled by Tony Sidaway's habit of regular posting ArbCom's decision on "behalf of the Arbitration Committee" and his confident pronouncements into assuming that he is a former arbitrator or that his actions are somehow sanctioned by the ArbCom. When I was blocked by him, I even applied to one of the administrators for explanations, erroneously believing they work in tandem. We have since been told that this may not be the case. If so, I don't think a community block is a solution. If the community feels that Tony's behaviour is beyond the pale[57], the issue should be settled using the proper dispute resolution procedures. Sulking and pouting is unlikely to sanitize the climate here. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 12:17, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He had been editing almost continuously (largest gap about 3 hours) since 17:24, 13 September 2006. I think has gone for some sleep - he has been gone for 4 hours now. -- ALoan (Talk) 13:41, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, spoke too soon - the usual polite conversation with User:Friday. Perhaps I should remove his talk page from my watchlist - the amount of traffic makes me feel a bit like a wikistalker. Anyway, I thought his favourite article was interesting. But it is a pity that he does not want to write Janet and Jane, don't you think. -- ALoan (Talk) 15:31, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Giano - I withhold judgement on the conspiracy theories (ok, I don't really believe them to any extent but do acknowledge that behind-the-scenes politicking has a bigger impact on goings-on than anyone could wish for) but I must say something to you that has needed to be said for a long time now. Ready? Bureaucrats and Arbitrators are two different groups of people, with some overlap. You keep lumping them together willy-nilly, and it's a little hard to follow. Now, some of the 'crats apparently did consult with the at least some of the Arbs prior to the Carnildo promotion, so it's understandable that you do so, but I have become worried that you don't realize there is a difference at all. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 15:36, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I feel like I've walked into a real mess. People setting editors against admins, attacking the arbitration committee, and generally behaving in a way that I've never seen Wikipedians behave before. I think a few people taking wikibreaks wouldn't be a bad idea. --Tony Sidaway 19:26, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are you volunteering, Tony? Giano tells me that the fugu in Japan is really most enjoyable.

Tell you what - if you don't edit for a week, I won't either. -- ALoan (Talk) 19:47, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It has come to my attention that Tony has gone on a week-long wikibreak. True to my word, I will do likewise. Have fun. (My latest FA will never get finished at this rate - I have had to renew the books for the second and last time. See if you can spot which one it is from my edit history - there will be a prize for the best addition when I get back.) -- ALoan (Talk) 18:48, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, that is a funny way to take a week long wikibreak. I was looking forward to some time off... -- ALoan (Talk) 09:44, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A triffle[edit]

Could someone help me - I'm looking for a diff regarding the Tour de France (I think) illustrating some jaw droppingly amusing parochial ignorance about France that had me giggling the other day - I thought I'd seen it posted here but I can't find it - any ideas?--Mcginnly | Natter 12:16, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Leaving[edit]

I have left. I shall not be returning. Giacomo. [18:39, 15 September 2006 {UTC)]

This is a tragedy. -- ALoan (Talk) 19:08, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Take a break. I went through a really rough patch in early June. Over time my feeling changed enough to enjoy editing again. Hopefully a few days off will help. Take care, FloNight 19:19, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just have no words! Maybe it's a dream? --Irpen 19:24, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I also left, due to me being mistreated (in my estimation) by a long-term user who would not apologize or promise to refrain from blocking or reverting me in the future. Eventually, I came back. I did so because the goal of the encyclopedia is worthwhile, and is more important than the flawed personalities involved. I truly hope you reconsider and return. You are highly valued here. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 19:52, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It would indeed be a tragedy if you were to stay away, Giano. Without good editors like you, no encyclopedia. All the rest is fluff. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:55, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's very sad to see this, but for those who are urging his return, I should point out that this edit said that he had scrambled his password, and he seems to have disabled his e-mail, so unless he left his preferences so that Wikipedia still has his e-mail address but that other users can't e-mail him (I'm not sure if that is a valid option), he may not be able to return as Giano. An absolute shame. Perhaps he might, in his own time, choose to register another account. I'm sure many people would welcome him back. Giano, if you're reading this, thanks for all the work you did for the encyclopaedia. AnnH ♫ 22:19, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am second to AnnH. Pleae return. This project is to valuable to leave it in the hands of (Personal attack removed) . I am sure the account retoring thing is somehow a doable thing for the developers. abakharev 22:52, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fuck! Paul August ☎ 02:41, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to see you go. Everyone is a human being and good contributors are valuable. Sometimes, in the bizarre politics of this place, that gets forgotten. Take care. Jonathunder 04:12, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is very dispiriting. --Wetman 04:38, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Giano/Giacomo, Please don't leave! To be honest, I was amazed by the various controversies. My perception of you from when I joined and first started writing was as a knowledgeable and witty person and I was surprised to see all the aggro and controversies bedevilling your talk page. I am sure you don't need to be in any of those, and that you should be doing what you do best (ie, producing FA's).

You must be aware that Wikipedia is not the same without you. "Plis, Missus Anna, do not leave us in darkness!" (as whined by the Siamese children at the end of The King and I).

By the way, on a completely different topic, do invest in Georgian London, by John Summerson - tremendous on architecture as well as history. On the other hand, you probably have it already. And just think, where could you get such light relief from colleagues such as -- FClef (talk) 09:49, 16 September 2006 (UTC

I sincerely hope you will come back, although I can understand that you're taking a step back after the disgusting things that have been happening here. Be well. — mark ✎ 20:11, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To a friend I did not know I had, don't let the awfulness that is the present Arbitration Committee get you to leave the joys of article writing to other, inevitably less knowledgable and less helpful, writers. Never give in — never, never, never, never, in nothing great or small, large or petty, never give in except to convictions of honour and good sense. Never yield to force; never yield to the apparently overwhelming might of the enemy. David | Talk 20:45, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I feel bad. I just got to know you and read your exceptional FA's on the main page. In the spirit of leaving ruminants on talk pages, here's a water buffalo. He also wishes that you come back -- Samir धर्म 21:52, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Giano, hope you like the barnstar here I have left you for your wit, generosity, knowledge and fortitude. Least one can do. -- FClef (talk) 23:35, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how I feel about this project, but the Citizendium may be a project that will better suit your temperament. Given your penchant for writing Featured Articles, I would imagine that you would rapidly become a valued and respected contributor there. Captainktainer * Talk 02:35, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Giano has left. I hope he returns with another name if he feels like it, but I can think of one, and only one, reason to do so. Prior to our participation, the world wide web had nothing on some major topics, and now, whatever faults any of our articles might have, people have access to information. Before I started here, a Google search for "A Tale of a Tub" turned up nothing germane to Swift's greatest work. Now, it turns up my maiden FA in the top 10 hits, and readers of that essay will have some background that was unavailable without investing in a rare book (the 1920 and 1958 Oxford edition) and a professor with some interest in the material (the synthesis of decades of reading on the work). The people, though, are secondary, if not tertiary. I don't like people in general, and I like e-people generally less. I am only back from strike because I have decided that the monkeys who are committing absurdities on the site are genuine when they say that they've never heard the names of the major article contributors, that they're sincere when they confess to never reading anything longer than a stub, that they are puffing up like fugu to enact their adolescent desires for attention. Their interests in the project are mainly confined to personal admiration, personal vexations, and Aspberger's-like obsessions with boxes and filing things. Since they have demonstrated an inability to read and understand what is said to them, since they boast of having no time for reading books (or articles longer than stubs), there is no point whatever in trying to communicate with them. I have decided that I will IAA (Ignore All Assholes). If they don't seek consent, much less consensus, then they needn't be heard when they speak. If one of them sarcastically says, "Then I should be blocked, too!" I will block him. If one of them says, "Then you should probably delete the Facebook, too!," I will do so. Generally, though, I will simply not look at nor respond to those incapable of having a conversation and I will not concern myself with the opinions who are only interested in their own. A purely altruistic motivation means genuinely egotistic behavior where the egoists are concerned. They have prevailed by breaking the rules and knowing that their opponents (the ones in favor of the rules) won't do the same. Therefore, they are to be ignored. Geogre 02:39, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, all that remains is the hope for divine intervention. I can think of a few more putrid "boils" that need lancing. From a great height. -- ALoan (Talk) 23:28, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What's this? Leaving! Surely not - I departed on Friday to London for the open building weekend, thinking I'll take some pics and offer them to Giano to cheer him up a bit - I come back, You've bloody left! Well here's the Staircase of the Queen's House in Greenwich and I'll keep the rest until you return. --Mcginnly | Natter 13:01, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome Back Giano! the place just isn't the same without you. True to my word here's another London Photo.

I would urge people who care about this situation to add your voice here. Perhaps some good could come of this yet. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 13:12, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Slim but the above thread seemed to relate to a lot of other issues and users unconnected to Giano, Ghirla etc. I've started a new thread at User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#ArbCom_confidence If anyone would like to contribute. --Mcginnly | Natter 12:30, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just back for a quick gasp![edit]

Thanks for all the kind words (those of you who have said kind words anyway) much appreciated, but I realise there are still things here I need to do, for how long though I'm unsure, it all depends.

My attempts to give up wikipedia appear at the moment to be as successful as my many attempts to quit smoking, so I hope this edit will prove to be just one quick gasp. I think one thing we all agree on is that Wikipedia has a big problem, apart from me, that is. There is a haemorrhage of quality editors who feel belittled and undervalued by the treatment they receive here by an overbearing and sinister arbcom, and too many little buzzing admins. The only way to rectify this is to allow those valued editors a voice, and a very loud one too. There are many editors, all valued, and contributions range from boring (to me, categories) to writing front page articles, or numerous 500 word pages. There is one chap in wikipedia's basement (I will not embarrass him here, but I'll email his name to anyone who asks) who should be lauded and barnstarred for his work in categories, but I doubt many of you have ever heard of him.

The arbcom are now teetering on the edge of losing control - as demonstrated by the bizarre attitudes and sayings here of J Forrester and Kelly Martin (James don't ever join the army - your men would shoot you in the back if you behaved like that - you are an officer here, behave like one). As for Kelly Martin her unpleasant veiled threat to Geogre is despicable. In my view her repeated overbearing pronouncements make her unfit for the sensitive office she assumes.

At the moment the arbcom have lost touch and need to be re-ordered. This can be achieved simply and painlessly: J Forrester and K Martin who have shown their majestic lack of appreciation of the mood of the encyclopedia, should resign immediately, in Martin's case also all sysop and any other rights she may have. This will immediately prove to the editorship that there is change is in the air. Tony Sidaway needs to be prevented from arbcom clerking permanently, and as for Carnildo, whose RFA began this whole affair, well not much can be done there - he is once again an admin - so leave it alone.

Following the resignations (dismissal if necessary) of J Forrester and Kelly Martin a selection of highly valued and respected contributing editors should offer themselves in an extraordinary election to the arbcom, with two of them being elected. Geogre, Bishonen, ALoan immediately spring to mind, but their must be many others in other corners of the encyclopedia, the net should not be confined to admins but to the rank and file, one does not need a block button to have a worthy opinion - even here.

I would advise debate on this now, but not for too long, the arbcom can save itself or throw itself on the mercy of the encyclopedia - the encyclopedia being its editors. Giano 20:34, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I protest!!! Not a qucik gasp, but rather take a long break, then return to us. Giano, rise above the idiocy and dont let the bastards win. I don't much care how many quotes and sayings I've hacked together, I am attempting to express what I find I do not have words to adequately express - my horror that you are leaving. Reconsider. KillerChihuahua^?!? 20:41, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't suppose you have a light do you Killer? Giano 21:51, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Um... you're not planning on torching anything are you? KillerChihuahua^?!? 21:59, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, with oil [58] Don't suppose you are an admin are you Killer? I've nevr taken much notice of who is or who isn't, but these things seem important to some people. Giano 22:07, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I had missed that - good news. Not the smoking, the wikiholism. Yep, I'm an Admin, do you need something adminny done? KillerChihuahua^?!? 23:54, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Or I'm guessing you are asking me to consider endorsing your position on AN? Let me think about this... KillerChihuahua^?!? 23:57, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No not at all, I would never be so vulgar as to ask anyone to join my cause, I think I'm on the right track and that is enough for me. Ms Martin, Mr Sidaway and their like have bullied and belittled for far too long, and now I'm going to stop them, single handedly if necessary. No I was just wondering who in fact I knew who were admins, it seems most of the people I know, which is odd isn't it - what is it about me that attracts the attention of so many admins, my fine physique, tanned skin and dark good looks I expect! Giano 12:55, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, that confrontational attitude isn't going to get you anywhere - all that's likely to happen is that the ArbCom and the rest of the senior admins will close ranks, and somewhere along the line Jimbo or the ArbCom will call you a troll, and that will be that. While I think a large proportion of the Wikipedia population would agree that change is absolutely necessary, I'm not at all convinced that barging head-on into the bulwarks of power is going to get you anywhere; in fact, I think it might harden the hearts of your "opposition." Think of it this way - how would you effect change in a large professional organization that has not totally and utterly collapsed? Would you go around making accusations, even if they're true? Or would you lay out your objections to the current status quo, assemble a coalition of other interested parties, and act using the processes that have already been established?

I say all this because I agree that we have deep and systemic problems at Wikipedia. We have lost so many experts - Kim van der Linde, yourself as a contributor of content (judging by your Giano II contributions), just to name two- and the experts are those whom we should be trying to recruit. The fact that Larry Sanger has managed to get roughly a thousand people - many of them experts, some of them previous Wikipedia contributors - to sign up for his Citizendium listserve is telling. Being that I am absolutely convinced that the long-term effect of Citizendium will be harmful to Wikipedia and to the openness of information itself (Daniel Brandt is already posting that he'll be holding his own bio hostage and making legal threats against anyone who expands it, which will be aided by the real name requirement), I think it's vital that we bring the winds of change to Wikipedia in a forceful, effective, reasoned manner, without tilting at windmills. At present, though I agree with many elements of your platform, I hesitate to support you because of the way in which you are pursuing your goals.

I truly, strongly urge you to reconsider the manner in which you are lodging your protest, and would hope that others would join in calling for reasoned, effective action. Captainktainer * Talk 13:20, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to the above, only one thing has brought a smile to face today, (and I mean no offence Captainktainer) it is "how would you effect change in a large professional organization that has not totally and utterly collapsed?" - the reason I smile is because an expanding encyclopedia that does not value academic exellence is not an encyclopedia, as an encyclopedia it has collapsed around our ears, as Sidaway and Kelly chase off the contributors. I'm not quite sure quite what Wikipedia is now but I'm sure a term will come to me later. I look at them answering the secret summons to arms, signing in on the WPAN and I could weep for them. Giano 18:39, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just lodging my appreciation for your taking the torch up for this. I'm a lowly nobody too, but you have my support. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:41, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do not put yourself down we don't recognise "lowly nobodies" on this page. We all started of "nobodies" and some would like to see us return there. Fame/notoriety on wikipedia is a very mixed blessing indeed, believe me! All editors who contribute are equally valuable, just the work of some receives more recognition than the work of others, and sadly those who seem to want to control the place do not want the inconvenience, and disruption to their chatting, of writing an encyclopedia which is kinda sad, don't you think? You are not a nobody you are a contributor to Wikipedia which makes you here a rare commodity. Keep up the good work. Giano 19:10, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to disappoint ...[edit]

I'm afraid I'm not an admin any more. I did run for the ArbCom in January and actually outperformed Fred Bauder (who was appointed). David | Talk 22:13, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

you are spot on,[edit]

and I hope people will listen to you. I've just voiced similar concerns, and I realize it might already be worse than I thought. The problem, exactly as in real life, is that the editors who are here to write an encyclopedia wouldn't dream of accepting an arbcom position and be bogged down in politics (I know I wouldn't). But this is no excuse not to look for ways (policies) of protecting the prolific ("protect the prolific!", how is that for a slogan to call for change?). Just imagine... turning this back into an encyclopedic project. all the best, dab (ᛏ) 18:15, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am just reading up on all this. O my, I don't understand at all. Why is Carnildo an admin again? It is completely indefensible to promote somebody based on a 61% majority. We used to demand 80%, with arguable exceptions for majorities as low as 75%. But 61%??? I would like to object in the strongest possible terms, whatever happened to the Wikipedia I knew and respected? We do not need any conspiracy theories in the face of this, we just need to address the obvious cock-ups. The bureaucrats involved were clearly not acting on behalf of the community, whatever their reasons. This is simply not the way to do it, and it now seems that finally (after years of empty allegations), a "cabal" has formed, meaning eminences grises that are here for hierarchy, not encyclopedicity, and who have managed to find nooks and crannies where they can not be easily dislodged by the mere sanity of the community. Further, I share your impression that it is exceptionally bad style for the arbcom to cultivate a lapdog, sorry, watchdog to communicate with the hoi polloi. WTH?? This just reeks of aristocratic pretensions ("The Government of Wikipedia"). What the hell is going on here? I've been happily fighting trolls in my corner of Wikipedia, thinking no evil, and now I seem to wake up to the realization that Wikipedia has been pulled from under my arse? Giano, I am very grateful for your striking up some noise about all this. This calls for reforms. We need fresh air, even if that means tearing down much of the encrusted power structure. The alternative is an exodus of actual editors (like you and I daresay me). dab (ᛏ) 20:23, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This here encyclopedia[edit]

I know you're very unhappy with some officers here, but please don't let this thing burn out of control. I happen to think you were wrong in suggesting self-identified paedophiles should be banned, and I think it was wrong for you to be blocked for it. I would have voted for Carnildo's re-adminning, but I think he shouldn't have been promoted without clear consensus. I think TS was wrong to block you for a "cooling off" period, and I think your aggressive edits on the Bureaucrat's Noticeboard were out of line, and I think Tony was wrong to "archive" the comments he didn't like. There's plenty of unpleasantness to go around from all quarters.

It's very unlikely that anyone will be demoted over this, regardless of what you do. Nothing good will come out of pressing the issue. From here, a good outcome would be if you and they simply agreed to hate each other, and went on working on Wikipedia as separately as possible. A bad outcome would be if you left, due to a grudge, and they stayed. If you stick around, you'll delight some of us, and maybe it would disappoint others. Isn't that enough?

All the best, – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 20:23, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

oh yes good will come of it. Giano, for all I can see, is not pursuing personal grudges, he is defending Wikipedia. There may be a time for de-escalation and hushing up, but it seems that this is a time for rising a stir until the things that have been allowed to get as far beyond acceptibility as they have are addressed. If there is one editor who can channel his anger towards productive results, I think it is Giano. dab (ᛏ) 20:31, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You reackon that do you Dab? I think the place just becomes sadder by the moment [59]. Giano 21:55, 20 September 2006

(UTC)

Not a mutiny but preservation[edit]

I think it is now time for a long hard think about the future of Wikipedia, and where it is, or is not going, and what happens to all the articles etc when it is gone. No one in authority seems to have the slightest care that this ship is charted into the eye of a storm. The captain seems to have delegated, to the first officers, who are all having a cocktail party in their cabin and the crew (who the officers regard as revolting) are being served by a steward they have attempted to throw overboard so the question is is it wise to jump ship or go down with her. That is what I am thinking. Giano 08:17, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mmm. Not waving, but drowning. -- ALoan (Talk) 09:47, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Giano, I think the time has come to quit painting disaster scenarios and plot a course forward. What has to be done next? I am confident we can give a lot of weight to a petition, for once shamelessly emphasizing the weight of our contributions. You spew out FAs. I estimate that I oversee about 0.1% of all of en-wiki; both Ghirla and me are among the top 100 contributors in terms of mainspace edits. I do think that we should not be shrugged off as hysterical clients. If we say that we think something is seriously wrong, I do think that we (meaning you, Geogre, ALoan, RDH, Ghirla and probably a fair number of other senior editors) should rightly be given a serious and fair hearing. But I think you need to cleanly separate the objective cock-ups and blatant nepotism that has already occurred from mere scenarios of bad things that may yet happen, or speculations of goings-on behind the scenes. Let's focus on what has in fact happened and what we want to do about it. I for one want to get rid of admins considering themselves the government of Wikipedia. We have many people with seriously skewed perceptions about their own role. Admins who concentrate on admin tasks are janitors, they do important menial labour, but that shouldn't give them much weight in a meritocracy. Janitors in my university have the right to throw people out and to tell me off for littering, but they wouldn't dream of assuming an air of running the institution. Arbitrators are handed some judicial powers which they should exert with utmost care and a willingness to listen to community feedback. They should ideally be replaced often (if there are willing and competent candidates). So, what are our complaints, and what do we want to see changed? I should say that scheduled expiration of bureaucrat and checkuser rights (re-apply after a year if you want to keep them), clear guidelines on how to deal with serious bureaucrat cock-ups (which sadly seem to occur now; this was not necessary in the past), no 'emeritus' or 'clerk' court positions, as well as a reasonable de-admining process would be steps in the right direction. regards, dab (ᛏ) 10:32, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think we need to make the transition from "plain" editor to admin less sharp. Pretty much nothing an admin does is irreversible, and many hands make light work. It needs to be easier for editors to become admins, and easier to remove admin abilities. The default should be that any editor in good standing can be an admin. Any admin candidate should be promoted if they meet simple criteria (and I think we cannot avoid setting a time limit, like 3 months, and a edit count, like 1500 edits in main space) unless serious concerns are raised by objectors (and by serious I mean actions that are not conducive to fostering a happy working environment and so producing an encyclopedia). We must trust bureaucrats to make that decision, but they must explain which issues that think are serious and which they think are not serious when making the decision.
On the other hand, we must have a mechanism to provide feedback on admins who are causing problems, and remove their buttons where there are serious concerns. I would suggest that if, say, 5 admins petition for recall of a particular admin, then we should have a "discussion" as to whether the person should keep the admin buttons. Again, the question is not consensus, nor even a majority, but whether there are serious concerns, and again we should trust the bureaucrats to make that decision, explaining which issues they think are serious.
I think we need to deprecate extra-wiki mechanisms. Fine, people talk to people outside Wikipedia by e-mail or IRC or even face-to-face (gosh!), but former members of ArbCom should not be participating in an ArbCom mailing list nor on the ArbCom IRC channel. If ArbCom want to ask for anyone's help or opinion in a specific instance, so be it, but non-members should not routinely read and contribute to their internal discussions.
I think the setting up of "unofficial" positions, such as "clerk" and "arbitrator emeritus", which give some patina of power over "lesser" editors, must be deprecated. No-one elected the clerks, no-one elected "emeritus" arbitrators (as far as I am aware, "emeritus" means someone who has kept the fancy title, either as a sop to their ego or to establish their "authority", but that is all - otherwise they have retired from their front-line position; it does not mean someone who used to have a role and keeps doing it despite having lost the job). Fine, the arbitrators need help with shuffling their papers, and some people want to help them. Let them; but they don't need a fancy hat and shiny badge to do so.
I think we need more transparency in processes - bureaucrats need to expain what they are doing and why (I have had a private communication about the Carnildo RFA that I will not discuss here, save to say that it would have helped if the relevant people had expressed their concerns openly at the start, without trying to conceal the relevant issues).
Finally, I want people to fully and frankly explain their views, but we need more civility, dammit, and fewer personal attacks. Full and frank discussion can take place without swearing or denigrating the others contributing to the discussion. That can only operate on a personal level, as a matter of politeness and etiquette - and you can't impose politeness at gunpoint. Imposing blocks for breaches should be an absolute last recourse. In particular, "cooling down" blocks have a habit of heating things up. -- ALoan (Talk) 11:49, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure you are right, but I for one, at the moment, cannot see a way forward here. Funnily enough I an not one of those academics who need their egos massaging and cosseting, but many academics do, and the best academic institutions spend a great deal of time massaging and cosseting huge egos - and for a very good reason - to retain them! I can hear the squeals from Lar and co from here - but it is a fact, it is true and Wikipedia needs to remember it. As a rule of thumb academics tend to resent being ordered about by the teaboy. (Arbcom take note).

It will come as no surprise to many to learn that in RL I am not an academic, my ego can take many knocks and frequently does, neither am I a clairvoyant, but I can see all to clearly the future here. I'm afraid too many are understandably quickly cowed by the threats and deep hostility that meets any wish for change, to wish to stand up and demand it. Every request is met by a dozen "yes men" whistled up out of the bar (IRC if you prefer). Writing a worthy encyclopedia is now second to personal power. For change and progress to happen, there has to be an overwhelming wish to see them. and here too many seem to be happy admining, blocking, making new friends, and ornamented their pages with all their preferences from sex to food. I've invested a lot of time here, and at the moment I don't feel inclined to invest any more until I can see if it will be time well spent. I'm not bloody and I'm not bowed or cowed just sick of banging my head against a brick wall. May be "The Citizendium Project" is a way forward - I don't know, I shall certainly explore it. The Carnildo affair certainly opened a can of worms, and they sure as hell weren't spaghetti.

Good luck ALoan, I hope you can cope with being Trotsky! Giano 12:35, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

if it took the Carnildo affair to get this in the open, so be it. We need to do away with the tendency to turn WP into a replacement myspace where people host their personal profile and look for friends (death to userboxen, then, if that's what it takes). Away with people who are obviously here for personal power and feeling indispensible: dispense with those, I want to talk on eye level with fellow editors, not haggle with bureaucrats and would-be honorary assistant of the bureaucrat's yes-man emeritus' clerk. And FFS, I want a population of admins that selflessly acknowledges that it is their job to massage the egos of the occasional academic that condescends dipping their toe into this Wikipedia thing, cleanin out the trolls in their paths, and not to massage each other's ego about how great they are at running such a great project. To quote Mr. Fawlty, "whatever happened to service??". I am pessimistic about Citizendium, Giano, but I would be into participating in a wikistrike, maybe go over to sulk on Citizendium for a while, demanding that our concerns are duly recognized and some sort of remedy policy put in place. If you walk away now, Giano, you are just another burnt out editor. If you participate in some orchestrated threat of brain-drain by disgruntled editors, suggesting actable remedies, you may have a considerable impact. You do carry a lot of weight, by the sheer value you have added to the project, and all the shiny badges have not yet succeeded in eradicating all traces of respecting editors by their respective merit. dab (ᛏ) 13:30, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do agree with the concerns voiced. I have repeatedly maintained that we should primarily concentrate on the task that brought us together here: to build an encyclopedia, and to protect the contents once the same acquire encyclopedic standard. All other issues are secondary. BTW, I migrated to this page from Sundar’s talk page. --Bhadani 14:47, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Attitude check[edit]

"Ms Martin, Mr Sidaway and their like have bullied and belittled for far too long, and now I'm going to stop them, single handedly if necessary."

What a deplorable attitude. Please don't come back unless you actually want to work on improving the encyclopedia, instead of perpetrating some personal vendetta. - Mark 16:39, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see your 21, Gosh! long trousers then Giano 19:14, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you mean here. Please clarify. - Mark 02:19, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm rather surprised you think Giano is the problem there. Maybe you're not familiar with Giano's contributions, I suggest changing that and getting some informaiton as to what's been going down recently. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:54, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm aware of Giano's good track record of contributing to articles. But if their only motivation for staying on Wikipedia is to engage in more of the same conflict that has already gone on, then they shouldn't stay. As Giano loudly proclaims at the top of their talk page, "We are here to write an encyclopedia". If, however, I misinterpreted Giano and instead Giano wants to put an end to the conflict and get on with it, then I do apologise. - Mark 02:19, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the point here is that Giano is complaining (rightly or wrongly, I don't know) about other people's attitude towards him and others. I have read some of the background to this, and I think Giano and his ilk are raising some very valid points. I am disappointed that people are not working towards a consensus on this. Both sides seemed deeply entrenched, and both sides need to start trying to work together. Not just the other side, but you as well! Carcharoth 17:31, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree entirely. Conflict helps nobody. We're working on an encyclopedia here, not a political party. Stubbornness does not help to get the work done. - Mark 02:19, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thatcher RfA[edit]

This user is currently up for adminship - expires tonight - he's expressed this opinion [60] in relation to consensus and banning and is also applying to be an ArbCom clerk [61] for you info. Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Thatcher131. regards --Mcginnly | Natter 18:39, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus? What an extraordinary word for you to use - what exactly does it mean. Yes I remember Mr Thatcher well, busying about the place. I don't think I'll bother to proffer an opinion I'm sure our masters will decide in their infinite wisdom what is good for us. Giano 19:13, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration case[edit]

An arbitration case has been submitted to review the actions surround the recent Giano case on AN. I've listed you as an involved party, and you may wish to view the case here. --InkSplotch 18:04, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You wouldn't believe me, Giano, but I expected repraisals from minute to minute all day long. I may imagine their panic after you returned to normal editing today. Now there's gonna be a huge bazaar... --Ghirla ^-трёп- 19:05, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I honestly don't know how you mean this statement. I'm not trying to launch or extend attacks on anyone, but many have wanted ArbCom to speak on their own behalf throughout this and I felt it was time. Giano, your statement on the arbitration page is rather cryptic, and I was hoping to encourage you to express fully what you feel right now. I don't think anything is a foregone conclusion at this point (i.e., this isn't a kangaroo court), and the only way we'll be able to sort this all out is to express our views fully, in a neutral forum. --InkSplotch 23:50, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Inksplotch, If you wish to discuss the Carnildo|Kelly Martin debacle, I would imagine this is the correct forum here, failing that your own talk page, or the IRC channel where I believe Wikipedia matters are now openly aired. Please do not involve me, or my talk page. Ghirlandajo - I love that image on Egyptian Revival architecture, it's almost has an art-deco feel combined with the Egyptian, perhaps that sort of concrete 1930's style of the Egyptian needs to be more brought out do you think, especially if you could find some more examples - we could expand n that theme - what d'you think? Giano

The Queensway Tunnel [62][63][64] [65][66][67] isn't a bad example by Herbert James Rowse who seemed did quite a bit of egyptian art deco I believe. --Mcginnly | Natter 08:55, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They are very good, I had never really admired that sort of Egyptian?1930s?Cinema architecture, but it really is a style of it's own if you think about it, more than just a sub of Art deco - it would make a very good page, easy to get fotos of too - electric light bulb growing out of my head! Giano 09:00, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm on dial-up just now, so I can't investigate the building in detail. It is cetrainly not typical for Soviet architecture. The architect might have seen the Egyptian Gate by Adam Menelaws; they are mentioned in Pushkin (town) and in this album. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 19:59, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Giano[edit]

Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Giano. Please add any evidence you may wish the arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Giano/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Giano/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, MacGyverMagic - Mgm|^(talk) 22:16, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But[edit]

I still don't know what "behind the skips" means. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 02:34, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Skip (container) it is where they hide the things they want to sell rather than throw away. I love our local tip, I do most of my Christmas shopping there! Giano 06:12, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is the top link on skip! -- ALoan (Talk) 09:32, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rotundity[edit]

Giano, why the uncertainty within what is now Italy between rotonda and rotunda? (See e.g. the first para of Villa Capra.) I'd guess that they reflect different versions of Italian and that Florentine and (earlier) Venetian Italian show a difference, but guesses aren't sufficient. The words are weighing on my mind after my recent return from Estonia, where little rotonde or rotunde seem popular (notably that just up the hill from the old building of the University of Tartu) and are delightfully labeled rotund, giving them a particularly self-satisfied air. -- Hoary 04:32, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why not add a few words here [68] where all will be made crystal clear, I now have a mental block over which to use when speaking any language. Incidentally why has University of Tartu got that horrible box thing, giving among other things it's telephone number, are we now a "telephone directory"? and even a hedgehog may have gathered it is in Tartu, it's hardly likely to be in Paris, Texas is it? That same illiterate hedgehog may have also gathered that "Universitas Tartuensis" is Latin rather than Estonian or whatever it is the natives speak in those parts. I think when I have finished the small local difficulties I am having elsewhere, I shall divert my full attention to info-boxes. Nice to here from you Hoary. Giano 17:47, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And always a delight to have a word from you, Sir. (The little local difficulties really are too silly; I thought I might make a stern comment, but each time when I tried to read what was necessary in order to do so, I nodded off. So I contented myself with a single riposte to another comment. Sorry about my laziness here.) Yes, we certainly see eye to eye over infoboxes. My most coherent attack on the silly things is here; it was inspired by a rating of Pierre Rossier, not my work but instead that of Pinkville; as he puts it: I can't think how an infobox actually helps anyone at all. But if Time magazine is one's academic ideal, then I suppose that would alter the judgement. -- Hoary 14:13, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing good[edit]

Greetings. Earlier, I said "Nothing good will come out of pressing the issue." It appears I may have been wrong. On the down side, this RfAr threatens to take up a good deal of your time, leaving little for you to write the wonderful articles you are famous for. I hope I'm wrong about that as well. All the best, – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 20:58, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thus far Mr. Giano seems to have done a reasonable job of continuing to focus this week on the important things in life, i.e. the articlespace, as compared with some of the rest of us. Newyorkbrad 21:01, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am still writing, but held up waiting for the arrival of a new book from Amazon whch will complete my latest page, but without it I have come to a grinding halt - so am so to speak left kicking my wiki-heels. The RfAr has taken up litle of my time in fact I have hardly been following it, and now it is almost impossible to follow, I tune in from time to time, see a comment that takes my interest and add a comment, but for the most part I don't really know many of the people commenting there and don't have a clue what they are talking about - I'm sure someone will tell me when it is all over. Thanks for looking in though - I appreciate it! Giano

Clerk[edit]

Hi. I saw your most recent comment on the arbitration and on FloNight's page. FYI, I believe that User:MacGyverMagic rather than FloNight is clerking "your" case. But I was quite astonished by what I had read so thank you for confirming that someone other than me was discomfited by the remark in question. Newyorkbrad 09:28, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well my views on how "in touch" some people are are well known. However I think that little gem, is one that does want quietly and quickly sweeping under the carpet. Giano 09:36, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, although MGM may respond that only Fred Bauder should delete his own comment (cf. the response to my proposal for deleting erroneous block information including quotations from 1984). Newyorkbrad 09:41, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I might consider removing it at some point, but I'd prefer it if you asked Fred to so himself first. Just point him here and let him know Newyorkbrad thinks the same. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:19, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Beep?[edit]

Hello, dear Giano II, may I call you II? Are you by any chance still online? Bishonen | talk 22:00, 1 October 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Certainly not, I went to bed ages ago, I need my seven hours or peaceful and restful repose! No you can't call me II! I wish I had chosen something more imaginative for my re-incarnation - Valentino rather appeals. Giano

Hebrew epigraph[edit]

Dear Giano - could you please translate the Hebrew epigraph quoted at the top of your page? The little Hebrew I have doesn't quite run to that. You may if you wish reply to my talk page.

Hope you have had a spiffing Autumn equinox - or should I say Yom Kippur?

Cheers. -- FClef (talk) 00:13, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"If the flames seize upon the cedars, what will the hyssops on the wall do?

If the leviathan is brought up with a hook, what will the small fish do?

If drout hits the dashing torrent, what will the waters of the purling brook do?"

And no you should not say Yom Kippur, I am of the faith that celebrates Michaelmass, but I'm quite happy to celbrate Yom Kippur with friends if they ask me - in fact I'll go anywhere for a free drink!, and my many Jewish friends do seem to like a good party Giano 08:24, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I get your drift. Skilful use of metaphors in terms of the wiki-universe I must say. I enjoy parties and Midnight Masses as well, but draw the line at mortification of the flesh. -- FClef (talk) 22:04, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem - plus random question[edit]

Glad to help defuse the situation. Hopefully this will all be over soon, and we can go back to editing (well, in my case more wikignoming and category rambling). Since you seem to be quite knowledgeable on several subjects, and I saw mention of Italian and Egyptian stuff at various points on your talk page, I was wondering whether you would know anything about the name Ptolemy? I did some work a while ago on Ptolemy (name), and I am trying to find out what has been written about the history of the name and how it spread to other countries and what forms it took there. In particular, where the spelling Ptolemy in English originated from. I don't expect you to knwo anything about this, but I thought I'd just ask, more in hope than expectation! :-) Carcharoth 11:43, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reply on your page. Giano 12:04, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Carcharoth 12:12, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

don't talk to me[edit]

All posts by you to my talk page will be summarily removed. --Ideogram 21:21, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gosh, wow.

Don't worry, Giano (II). Your posts will always be welcome on my talk page. -- Hoary 11:48, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Talk to me[edit]

FGS, is hotmail eating my messages? you don't seem to be receiving them! :-( This is the exact same trouble BoG was having, with Hotmail. What am i supposed to do? Have you not even received that text I proofread?? Bishonen | talk 19:31, 3 October 2006 (UTC).[reply]

I have nothing from you, but a very nice one from BoG asking to join somethinh called Gmail, which is very kind of him. Such a thoughtful boy Giano 20:08, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Try and send it again, but don't worry too much I'm not sure I want to Fa any more pages in the near future so it can wait - who cares about a grotty old Swedish Palace anyway, there are some very nice ones in Norway, I'll do one of those instead. Giano 20:11, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You should be ashamed, the Swedish palace is gorgeous. May I post it, since hotmail has turned cannibal? Methinks to remove the last couple of sentences, as getting thereby a more rounded and dignified final paragraph, ok? Otherwise I have changed nothing but a few typos. Will you trust me to put it in the right place? I think it's absolutely lovely. Bishonen | talk 20:43, 3 October 2006 (UTC). PS, primarily, though, i have sent again, please check your mail.[reply]

A Gmail invite would be very welcome, if anyone has one spare. My wikipedia mail is currently down (along with the computer it works on). -- ALoan (Talk)

I'm not on Gmail, ask BoG, he gets a free holiday if he signs up any more. Giano 11:07, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I am Gmailed up now, thanks to User:Ghirlandajo. It is excellent. I recommend it to you. -- ALoan (Talk) 13:52, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Spaniards in Italy[edit]

If you ever get time, I would be grateful if you would take a look at Collegio di Spagna. I've had some notes on it on my computer for a year, planning to try to get hold of some better references, but decided I might as well post it here for the rest of the world to improve. There is one book on its early history which I have seen in a catalogue but have not had access to (Berthe M. Marti, The Spanish college at Bologna in the fourteenth century : edition and translation of its statutes, Philadelphia: Pennsylvania U.P.; Oxford U.P, 1966) but probably a lot more in Italian or Spanish. up+land 11:35, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

E-mail[edit]

I've e-mailed you, please check. It's quite urgent, as I put a rather delicate question about bathroom fittings at Drottningholm—kind of thing I can't very well ask on the wiki—sorry if I'm a little fastidious about these things. If hotmail is still eating my messages, and you won't use the gmail thing, I guess this is goodbye. Oh, Giacomo! [/me weeps] Goodbye! Bishonen | talk 15:51, 4 October 2006 (UTC).[reply]

I have your email, my mail works perfectly when you send it to the right address! Gmail (thankyou all for your kind invitations) will not allow me to join as it does not like my real name, and I have no intention of changing that. I can't help the name I was given even if it is rather long! Ar for your email I have answered but to save you loging on of course we don't need to discuss the plumbing arrangements at Drottningholm, my public would not be interested in that sort of mundane thing, and no I do not beleive a Swede invented the flushing lavatory, no more than I beleive your theory concerning the automated musical rising lavatory seat. Please try and confine your input to arcitecture and historical fact, rather than concerning yourself with the plumbing and wellfare of the servants. Giano 16:04, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Real name? Pah - I am Aloan Aloan. I am often a.b@bbc.co.uk when an e-mail address is demanded. -- ALoan (Talk) 16:30, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are Aloan Aloan because I typed the same name in both "First name" and "Last name" fields which are required to send an invitation. This needs to be fixed. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 09:19, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so - you can change it on the sign-up page, IIRC, and you can change it in preferences anyway, I think. -- ALoan (Talk) 13:29, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, do not be tempted to give gmail any sort of real name in the first place! (Is there no excuse you won't drag out for avoiding unfamiliar technology?) —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 16:31, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I always assumed they were your real names Giano 18:03, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My sister Bunchofbananas begs to differ. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 21:11, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah - like Chinese family names. Could be worse - see the Indian names#South Indian names, paricularly Indian names#Initials. -- ALoan (Talk) 21:23, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ideogram[edit]

Concerning this. I've had some experienced of dealing with Ideogram. The guy views WP as a free chatroom. Don't fall into the trap. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 12:54, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is a personal attack and a failure to assume good faith. I am surprised, Ghirla, that you choose to forget that I spoke in your favor during the RFAr about you, which failed by the closest possible margin. Don't give me cause to speak against you at the next one. --Ideogram 05:33, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Half-finished pages[edit]

You should be able to find pages you were working on by looking in user:Giano's contributions, or try Special:Prefixindex to find subpages if you know the main page. Hope this helps. Thatcher131 14:32, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Giano, I sent you a new invitation. For me, Gmail is incomparably less stressful than Hotmail. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 10:50, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please no one send me emails untill tomorrow. Something has gone horribly wrong somewhere, and I am locked out of all accounts (no I did not leave the capital lock on). Anyone who has emailed today, I have not been able to access. I'll set up another account tomorrow, but as I can't access an account it will have to be a brand new hotmail one Giano 19:57, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Right new Wikimail enabled, anyone who has emailed today please try re-sending to this address. Thanks Giano 20:23, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

sprechen voux italiano;[edit]

Giano, assuming you can speak and read Italian well (I've been wrong before), check out talk:John Keogh. An it.pedia user wanted to refer me to a fellow who has patented the wheel in Italy who has name collision with the Irish rights campaigner. I can't figure out much about the Italian fellow, but he sounds curious enough to have a second article for. Geogre 17:40, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You have lost me, the man who patented the wheel is Australian, so what is the problem? Giano 17:51, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh. It's just that Alexander de Rossi was asking about a new article on the guy, and I had assumed, since he was an .it editor, that there was information on the .it site but not on ours. Never mind. Geogre 19:42, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked[edit]

I've given you a short cooling off block. This edit is unacceptable [69]. Whatever people do off-wiki, Wikipedians don't behave like that. Quite unacceptable.--Doc 22:53, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedians behave just like that all the time please read Kelly Martin's evidence for an example, she is the respected and "much thanked" ex arbcom member I suggest you address the root of the problem first. Giano 10:58, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unblocked[edit]

I have unblocked you, please see [70]. Bishonen | talk 23:34, 12 October 2006 (UTC).[reply]

I agree with unblocking, but still please in the future do not indulge into the personal attacks against other Wikipedia editors including their Off-Wiki activities. Your comment was removed by Doc Glasgow, please do not reinsert it. If you think the Kelly Martin's blog is relevant for the case, please present the evidence in the neutral, civil manner. If it is irrelevant, then just live it alone. Happy editing. abakharev 01:07, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tell that to Kelly and Cyde, not me! Giano 10:55, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Presentation[edit]

Hi Giano, Forgive my asking this, but why not just present the evidence and let it speak for itself? Regards, Ben Aveling 03:10, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What you mean like Cyde presents Kelly's evidence and the Arbcom thank her? Giano 10:54, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanking Kelly[edit]

With respect to this question my reason for proposing we thank Kelly is to put a decent end to the matter. I am fully aware that we could in detail set forth a number of infractions, but what would be the point. She did do good work, volunteer work, for a long time. She is now gone. RIP Fred Bauder 11:56, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RIP? Fred! Kelly is very much alive, you know that and I know that. I wish I had never read her bloody evidence - I was rightly furious when I read what she had written and that clerks had allowed such a post to remain for so long. Why on earth was it there, if it was not to respond to? - And is this belated edit [71] supposed to rectify all the harm, talk about "shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted".

You write, Fred, "a decent end to the matter" there is nothing "decent" about this case at all. It was a pointless ill conceived case that should never have been brought, and I do wonder why exactly it was brought. If it did not have my name slap bang at the top of it I would have lost interest in weeks ago. You are full aware you could detail "a number of infractions" concerning Kelly but you want "a decent end" - would then de-sysoping Geogre have been a "decent end"?

If it was meant to clear the air it has failed miserably. There are now more unanswered questions and discontent than there ever was before. My own view is that possibly the whole business should be abandoned, every shred of evidence and word written about it deleted beyond restore in the hope that mass amnesia may occur, but that is not going to happen. So we must wade our miserable way through it until those who thought their machinations on IRC were more important than what occurs on Wikipedia accept they were wrong, or people die of old age. I suspect the latter will be the sooner. However, we have started so we must finish it seems.

I read somewhere on WPANI someone saying what they tell their children in these matter, well I tell my boys if someone punches you, you punch them right back. And while people keep saying "Giano should be quiet", "he was wrong to respond" others still keep throwing the punches, where will it end, I don't know, but I do doubt it will be "decent end" Giano 10:36, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, G, it will come to tears once the smoke clears. While I don't generally believe what one says off wiki should necessarily be held against them here, I did, out of morbid curiosity, dive into the "Kelly diaries" and likewise found her ventillation of spleen most unseemly for one who is regarded as such a prominent community leader. However, I found this ~~ranting~~ entry provides a particulary interesting window into her mindset [72].

In it (s)he divides us up into what she perceives as two castes: The meritorious, all-knowing geeks of the old guard (of which she is presumably a member) and a great, unwashed, untouchable mass of clueless, non-geek newbies. The Anonymous commentor's reply sums up my feelings also. Except at the end about "leaving in a huff" and "having a lot to give". A Huff is the only way one of "Ms" Martin's temperment could possibly leave, though I found it commendable she left of her own volition. We've all seen what she has to "give", and overall the project and community are better off without it. Keep in mind, at the start of the year I was one of her supporters, I even voted FOR her for arbcomm. I now, sincerely regret that vote and am glad things turned out the way they did. But It wouldnt be the first time I was wrong about someone, right G?;>--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 09:32, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've got to disagree with you, Giano and RDH. Kelly has done good work on the server side and the programming side. I don't have any objection to her being thanked for that. At the same time, she has rarely resolved conflicts on Wikipedia amicably and has been the eye of a number of storms. My objection is that there was no evidence offered for the things that could/should be thanked and no clause indicating that such thanks was conditioned by dissatisfaction with her behavior with users. As a somewhat notoriously antagonistic and dismissive person, she has done a great deal to aggravate tensions, and as a "shoot first and belittle later" administrator, she has been effective at vandal fighting and awful at user management. I couldn't see any reason in this case to thank her, and I could have easily accepted thanks that was specified in some manner or conditioned. "Thanks for the code, but you shouldn't be talking to users or interpreting policy by yourself" or "Thank you for the coding; we love your work there, please accept this promotion to codezone elect" would have done it. Given the weight of the evidence of user complaints, the thanks were kind of bald, there. Also, I didn't like the potential loopholes of some of the vagueness in "regain them in the normal manner," as they implied that the plaintiffs didn't need to know what those methods were or that the arbitrators didn't want to specify, since they might wish to reassert her privileges without public scrutiny.

All that is separate from the blog thing. That blog entry is right up there with the worst ArbCom suicides I've ever seen from people like His Excellency.

As for blocking Giano II for evidence...that was unheard of. Do we ever take a clipping (a diff) from /Evidence to AN/I and say, "Can I block this person for this?" I've never seen it done. Geogre 21:38, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah well, when people are taking the queue from Ms Martin who knows what will happen next, Wikipedia's IRC admins are her toys, and she plays with them well. Giano 21:46, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

'Oo'sa naughty boy then[edit]

To **Giano**, for standing up to bullies and standing up for the beleaguered writers, I present this award along with my respect.R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine)

Yes, you deserve it...and no I'm not one to give out frivillous barnstars.

Sir Claude MacDonald and I present Giano with the Order of the Waxed Moustache, for his continuing gentlemanly attention to Hannah Primrose despite long and dreary interruptions. -- Hoary 03:18, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you both for your very generous awards, be assured that all I ever do is for the greater good of Wikipedia, however odd it may seem at the time! Giano 20:45, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's is an honor to now be among your "enablers"--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 10:58, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gosh do I have "enablers" where is that quote from, I must have missed that one Giano 11:26, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why it is from this lil gem of civility and decorum, by one who would ban us for lapses in those areas.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 11:10, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah Cyde, the man who posts othet people's insults and lies claiming it to be on their behalf on their behalf, and then doesn't like it when others respond. Giano 12:16, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and author of this lil philosophical masterpiece.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 13:55, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A question[edit]

Hi Giano, Trust you are in fine fettle. I was wondering if you might consider a question? I'm amassing a lot of source material for inclusion in Islamic architecture. Copplestone (p.160 in my copy) cites the Masjid-i-Jame Friday mosque of Yazd as being comparable, in terms of it's structural expression with western medieval buildings and King's College Chapel, Cambridge in particular - there's a photo comparison here. The comparison is undeniable but might be coincidental (or just as the natural result of both gothic and islamic architecture sharing a parentage with byzantine - there's also the cultural clash in Spain to consider - see Giralda) - unless I can find a concrete link between the two I'm inclined to leave the comparison out. What do you think? --Mcginnly | Natter 20:36, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Surely the similarity is coincidental? The pointed ogive arch may have a common origin, but Gothic pinnacles and Islamic minarets have entirely different functions. The pinnacles of Gothic buildings provide some additional mass to resist the thrust of the arch; the facade of that mosque is much heavier in design, and the minarets are arguably simply decorative (one would be needed, to call the faithful to prayer, but two?). -- ALoan (Talk) 22:29, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly ALoan, no two minarets are sometimes used to provide architectural balance and decoration see Bab Zuela Mosque in Cairo [73] (which in reality looks like a Norman castle with two incongruous minarets stuck on top and also see Masjid-i-Jami [74] and on our own page here. (Yazd Province) Regarding Mcginnly's theory there is no doubt of the Byzantine influence very early on in English architecture, and the early Normans were certainly aware of the more Byzantine progression to Islamic designs see the Kempley wall paintings [75] note the minarets on the building painted above the window, and one could with some imagination see Islamic influences in the west front of Wells Cathedral, except it is considered to be Early English Gothic, descended from Romanesque which is descended from Byzantine. Then of course there were the crusades when Englishmen went out the Holy land and saw Islamic architecture but it would have been considered heretical to use such designs for Christian worship. Later Islamic influences seem to appear in English art art, for example in 1420 the Bedford Book of Hours had illustration like this [76]. I think though we are getting into the realms of own research and wild imagination, seeing what we want to see etc. King's college Chapel is officially Perpendicular Gothic or a blending the Perpendicular Gothic with the Renaissance. Interestingly on my copy (1970) while on Page 160 Cropplestone is describing the Masjid-i-Jami in detail he is not making that comparison, I wonder if he changed his mind, I do though see where he is coming from, and I agree with him it is comparable in structural expression, but I don't thing the Mosque or any Islamic architecture influenced the design of King's, and I think to include such architectural philosophy may be too deep for an encyclopedia article, but perhaps then I'm falling into the sin of patronising and belittling the reader! My view is if in doubt best leave it out. Giano 08:55, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think we are agreeing, Giano. Certainly, the pinnacles/minarets on both buildings creates a similar degree of architectural balance, but I doubt whether there is any causal connection between the two. For example, to pick a modern example, there are two pinnacles on the Petronas Towers, with an pointed arch/bridge between them. -- ALoan (Talk) 09:36, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks fellas - I thought it was a bit tenuous. --Mcginnly | Natter 11:34, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New articles[edit]

Hi Giano the Second, I noticed List of notable Renaissance structures and added a couple things. Are they ok? Also would you mind if I added it and any subsequent ones to Portal:Architecture/New article announcements or would you add them? Best wishes, DVD+ R/W 20:45, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please do you what you like, the list is not my work, but a text dump from Renaissance architecture which I have been cleaning up, and trying to make more user friendly and coherent Giano 21:59, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alas, I provided a link to Google Books, because I could not find a free image in Commons or elsewhere. There are very few free images illustrating the interior of Renaissance structures, in general. Probably because they are more difficult to take. Some institutions (like Russian churches) don't allow photographs of their interiors. Anyway, I think the image may wait until April. There are other things that may be fixed without Michelangelo's staircase. P.S. Don't worry about the template police; we will keep them at bay. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 12:51, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there![edit]

Hi Giano II! I just rolled back this edit you made, as it is rather inappropriate and uncivil, as I'm sure you already know. I invite you to participate in Wikipedia as fully as you wish, but try to remain on-topic and keeping in line with the basic notions of appropriate social graces. Cheers hoopydink^{Conas tá tú?} 20:39, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How dare you roll back one of my edits. This whole case it centred on me. I insist you put it back instantly. In fact I will do so myself instantly. Please do not be so presumptuous again. Giano 20:45, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again! We're probably not going to reach any sort of agreement, as I certainly feel that your comment was unwarranted, and while I understand and empathise with your originally being unjustly blocked, I feel that this doesn't give you license to rant (which was what your comment was/is, in my opinion). Wikipedia is just a website and not a big deal in any sense of day to day life, so I hope that your stress will be soon be allieviated. Cheers hoopydink^{Conas tá tú?} 21:42, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly suggest you go and find something useful to do on the site. Giano 21:50, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd reccomend the same to you, mate. Attempting to disrupt Wikipedia by thinly veiling attacks with flimsy rhetoric is a ridiculous use of one's time, no? hoopydink^{Conas tá tú?} 21:54, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

......and I am not your mate! Giano 22:18, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation[edit]

Dear Giano II, Hope you've had a good weekend. I have enjoyed a nice bowl of orecchiete bolognese this evening, though I'm sure it would have tasted better in Italy. But to the point... I have written a new article - flypast. You'll see that it's taken several weeks. I hope you will visit it and that you like it. (There is a small section on the Italy World Cup celebrations. If you can pretty it up in any way or add any other graphics or images to it, feel free to do so. Actually, if you can alter the Festa della Reppublica caption to reflect a blue (i.e., existing) article, that would be nifty. You can reply on this talk page, or mine, or at the article if you are so minded. Thanks, and best wishes to you. -- FClef (talk) 01:45, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Domenico Pino was an interesting chap - decorated soldier in Napoleon's army, involved in the revolt that scuppered Eugène de Beauharnais' royal aspirations, married a ballerina and sold the Villa d'Este (Como, not Tivoli) that she inherited from her rich first husband to Caroline of Brunswick.

I wonder if he is related to the Grants. -- ALoan (Talk) 14:39, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am certain he almost certainly is connected in some way to dear Lady Sybil. I'm becoming very fond of the dear old thing and thinking of taking her into the safe custody of user space while she is elevated further in rank to an FA. As a matter of fact she used to psend a great deal of time at her father's villa in Italy near Naples which is certainly too much of a coincidence to be ignored. Giano 16:54, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure what ALoan's message is doing here (possibly he meant to add a new section to your Talk Page, Giano). Any positive feedback or action re my Invitation above will be appreciated. -- FClef (talk) 15:33, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If I do it will have to be as a section here Festa della Repubblica note the spelling one "p" and 2 "b"s. Flypast is very good but sadly I returned straight to England from Germany so was not in Rome for the celebrations, so have no fotos of those momentous celebrations, but I may know someone who does, I will find out for you. Giano 16:46, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK. If you're successful, I hope you or a friend might put into Wikimedia Commons a free license one of the World Cup flypast, which would transform the article's last section. Grazie. (Incidentally, re the Lord Mayor's Show on 11 Nov. this year, you might find the first couple of paragraphs here interesting.) -- FClef (talk) 21:06, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ludwig Persius[edit]

Hi Giano, I've just moved Ludwig Persius to Friedrich Ludwig Persius - he's mentioned on Sanssouci - Curl gives his full name and so I amended the article and moved it to the full name with some redirects - trust this is ok with you. --Mcginnly | Natter 21:46, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fine with me, I had to click to remember who he was; I only copy-edited and tweaked Sanssouci. Giano 22:14, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sybil Grant[edit]

It's a good start, but please see my comments. The point is: don't try to inflate her importance. Yes, she is notable, but not having been on the Titanic or not having become Prime Minister is not terribly interesting. Biruitorul 07:11, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the useful tips. I'm hoping it will be a featured article when it is finished. Giano 07:42, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's always a chance, and I'm glad to have been of help. Biruitorul 14:22, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On October 25, 2006, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Sybil Grant, which you created. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

Hi Giano. This kind of classical article with wacky facts and tall stories is exactly what we need for DYK! Keep it up!

		The Epic Barnstar
		This barnstar is awarded to Giano for his continuing efforts to improve coverage of interesting material from the historical era. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 00:07, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Elonka[edit]

Thank you for participating in my recent RfA. Unfortunately consensus was not reached, and the nomination was not successful. However, I appreciate that you took the time to comment, and I did pay close attention to your thoughts, as I find it a valuable thing to understand how I am perceived by others in the Wikipedia community. Though the RfA was unsuccessful, I intend to continue contributing in a positive manner to Wikipedia, and if there is anything that I can do in the future to help further address your concerns, please do not hesitate to contact me. --Elonka 10:10, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your literary masterpiece[edit]

You'll find it in userspace. Blnguyen put it on DYK and the cops moved in, so there didn't seem much else to do. Bishonen | talk 01:34, 26 October 2006 (UTC).[reply]

WP:AN & Giano Heading[edit]

It was not moved to the archive. It was partly placed into an archive box & still present on the page. Your edit it caused it to be double posted so I reverted it as there's no need for it to be there twice. Also, the only part that was placed in the archive box was the exchange between Geogre and Doc that did not discuss you. Thanks. -- JLaTondre 21:48, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pierre Rossier[edit]

Hello, Having read a number of the excellent articles you've written/worked on I wondered if I couldn't borrow your well-honed critical eye to look at "my" Pierre Rossier article which is a FAC? It's been languishing on the FAC page for several weeks and has four "support" votes (with none opposed). Thanks for your help! Pinkville 02:19, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's a very fascinating page, I love old fotos, I keep meaning to spend more time looking at the FAC page, problem is a quick glance down the list so often gives the impression there is nothing other than computer games and animes, that unknown names often are instantly subconsciously categorised as animes too, which is sad because there seems to be some interesting pages there at the moment. Giano 09:35, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reading and voting, and for your comments. As for FACs, surely there's nothing more fundamental than anime and computer games! The list is uncharacteristically interesing at the moment, but I imagine Final Fantasy XXX is just around the corner... Pinkville 11:50, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Stinking" FACs[edit]

Please see my explanation here. Gzkn 02:32, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Waddesdon Manor[edit]

I have made the edit I mentioned for your approval, I had exaggerated it was only 3°ccw. This can be uploaded under the original title if it is an improvement. DVD+ R/W 19:16, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Giano, I've been thinking about this one for a while, and have been wanting to ask you if I could rotate the first image just so slightly. It looks to me to be spun ~10° counter clockwise. The one you uploaded is Image:Waddesdon, entrance facade.gif and it has since been brought to the Commons by Germans as Image:Waddesdon entrance facade.gif - so maybe it would be good to not have two versions and to make sure your account is linked properly and so credited there. Also, I should have a draft of Château de Maintenon translated by the end of today so that will be blue. As always, DVD+ R/W 18:02, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not bothered about the credit, just change it if it is crooked - but a little unfair of you to be so cruel, I can't help having one leg shorter than the other ;-) Giano 20:00, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mary Seacole[edit]

Thank you very much for taking the time to take a cleaver to the article - I have not yet reviewed in detail, but I can see already that its focus has improved substantially. It seem a shame to lose some of the detail, but the article will be better for it, I am sure. Thanks again. I am very grateful. -- ALoan (Talk) 11:20, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not doing anymore untill you have OKd it and approved it, you can revert whatever you like my version is only a suggestion, I wonder though if like my HdeR page it would be better left as a highly researched and factual page rather than abreviated for an FAC beauty pageant. Whateverit needs either way some interest holdomg pictires which could have captions highlighting important parts of the text Giano 12:45, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gosh - nice images :) I am particularly glad for Count Gleichen - the NPG also has some photos[77], and there are his scultures too, such as the colossal Alfred the Great in Wantage (right), although he is perhaps better known for busts of - no surprise -the Royal Family and prominent politicians.

Sadly, I am not likely to have the time to get to MS today, but I will be taking her to FAC at some point. HdR should be FACed too, IMHO. -- ALoan (Talk) 12:11, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Apology[edit]

Hey Giano. I now realise I have never actually apologised to you for acting like a complete dick towards you back in August (I think it was August...), at the height of the...unfortunate...incident that I don't need to specify, because you'll know what I'm talking about. My "request" for you to do a variety of things, which were presented in unintentially demanding tones, were totally out-of-line, and for this I sincerely apologise. I won't make excuses (although I could if I wanted to...), because there is no doubt that my behaviour contravened AGF and CIVIL, to which there is no defence, in my opinion. Although I don't 100% agree with the now-shelved bull campaign, I have learned to respect it, and may even consider following it if I am granted the sysop buttons in the future. So again, sorry for all the ridiculous behaviour I showed towards you when things were at its' most heated, and I wish you well in all your writing endeavours - if I could write half the FA's you do, I'd be more-than-satisfied. I wish you all the best with all your editing, especially West Wycombe Park, which looks like it will be +FA very soon :). Cheers, Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 21:49, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Daniel, With eloquence like that I'm sure you'll soon have dozens of FAs in your pocket. Please don't worry about apologising, when one stirs up a hornets nest as often as I seem to do, one has to expect to be stung once in a while. My serious advice is forget the sysop buttons and concentrate in the FAs and you'll find life here much more rewarding, and meet more interesting people.Giano 08:22, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't realise you liked cricket :) We sure could do with a FA writer over at WP Cricket. All the best, Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 05:13, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An English education made me a fast bowler with a very nasty spin! No I shall stay with what I do best, all thos ball rubbings and tamperings would be far to contentious for me, I like the quiet life. Giano 09:08, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A-hem. -- ALoan (Talk) 13:22, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, very nasty spin indeed ALoan Giano 13:47, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I was clearing my throat more at the "We sure could do with a FA writer" than the "fast bowler with a very nasty spin". -- ALoan (Talk) 14:14, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I see, I thought you wanted to hear about when I took three wickets in one over for my school at a rather well known cricket ground not that I would ever be so boastful as to mention it if course. Perhaps they don't realise you are a FA writer of enormous fame and prosebiotic skill because you are just too modest. Giano 14:26, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Marriage[edit]

I don't know.... it's so confusing.... Could I take life in the limelight? Could you truly be happy with someone who has so few articles to her name (and none of them featured)?.... I must think on this. freppie 23:23, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A rather huge favor[edit]

Hey there. So I have Kroger Babb up at FAC right now, and I have one guy who's making some broad statements about the prose in the article. I'm not getting specifics, which is frustrating, and as much as I want to ignore it, he's made some good points in other FACs. Could I ask you to give it a one-over and see if you catch anything glaring? I understand if you're bogged down in other places, but I'd really appreciate it. Let me know. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:51, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I saw that name listed and didn't bother to look thought it was a component of a computer or something. Ah! I see the thorn in your side is Tony, well he and I don't always see eye to eye on prose matters, although I think we have amiably agreed to differ, but if you want to know what he's after (I'm not very good at imitating his style) he like all the prose to short sharp and to the point, with no unnecessary words at all. Everything has to be very matter of fact and precise - no waffle and twoffle. He's written a page somewhere about how to do it - ask him where it is, it was on the old Giano watch list but not the new one. There is a list somewhere of what he considers perfect FAs - he did mention Bishonen's [[[edit] Great Fire of London]] as being almost suitable, and once mentioned Sanssouci but I suspect he was being polite there.

Yeah, the funny thing is that I reviewed those first. Kinda difficult when a guy's whole life revolved around waffle and twoffle, but them's the breaks. I just don't want this to crash and burn because of nonspecific complaints, I suppose.

I always like to throw in a bit of sex and violence to keep the reader interested along the way - in a biography a death bed scene is quite useful for wrapping it all up I find (a picture of the house's or person's mausoleum seems quite popular in my experience too) beyond that unless I'm doing a hatchet job I'm the worst copy-editor there is, can barely speak English and always have to have two friends at least copy-edit prospective FAC for me. Look what I've just done to Mary Seacole ALoan is still in hospital recovering Giano 16:28, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind Mary Seacole, Giano, I still want to see Sybil Grant - your original vision of Sybil Grant that is - finished exactly how you envisioned it. Perhaps it could then become the mainpage featured article on this date. Newyorkbrad 16:32, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sybil, I'll have you know, was a very important and much under appreciated historical figure, as it is because some people have no appreciation of fine prose, the world will never know the many significant world events she influenced - who rescued Annastasia, why did Hitler commit suicide or was it murder - who was Mussolini's unknown mistress, who was driving that Fiat Uno in the Alma tunnel - these things will now never be known Giano 17:09, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Will never be known unless you stop being coy and tell us. Come on bystanders, I'm trying to start a groundswell here. Newyorkbrad 17:18, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All he is is sex! Anyway, thanks anyway, I totally understand. I'll keep trying, I suppose. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:26, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps Sybil may condescend to allow a few memoirs to escape for a Christmas special, then I can be finally banned for ever in a blaze of glory, and all the other Wikipedians can have their Christmas Fairy wishes granted Giano 17:27, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

About that blaze of glory, wait! or postpone it indefinitely. I have a favor to ask too Giano. Would you take a look at this article, and peer review, Wikipedia:Peer review/Claude Nicolas Ledoux/archive1 and review or edit the article if you'd like? Anyone else reading please do too (hint). Congratulations from me as well on your new featured article. DVD+ R/W 20:10, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arc de Triomphe[edit]

Giano, sorry I forgot to apologize for removing this image - unfortunately it is non free so it can't be used on user pages... Arniep 16:37, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry, the honour and glory of The Republic will survive Giano 17:10, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hope you like the birds new home... Arniep 17:11, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That is rather a decision for the bird, who seems at present to be stuck in the corner Bishonen placed her - but never mind all birds are welcome here, it's a lovely foto she will love to roam in it, the Bird that is not Bishonen, well she would probably like to too - daft bloody language how can one "to too", its just lke when I "had had" - I think I'll go and join the It Its or that the It's It? Giano 19:02, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is it? Arniep 15:17, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No! not "it" "It." Mama mia why do I stoppa on this site? Giano 15:27, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't you mean whya do I stopa? Or is it why do I a'stop (or is that Borat?). Arniep 15:30, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ever you hadda a Sicilian haircut? - Taka di piss outa the waya we speeka - you gonna get one - real soon. Giano 15:40, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FA congratulations![edit]

Congradulations to Giacomo, notorious *bon vivant* and builder of the West Wycombe Park Featured article, here wearing his becoming "Ottoman" dining club garb. Bishonen 19:57, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Allow me to offer my congratulations as well! Though maybe not as creatively as Bish. It's a marvelous work and you should be quite proud! Cheers! *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 23:45, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My congratulations as well -- my, what a long way this little article has travelled! What a pleasure to see Bishonen's "add featured star" notation next to it on my watchlist. Good work, and best wishes to you on many more of the same! — Catherine\^talk 09:35, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Of course I remember copyediting this one -- I remember thinking that I hoped you would not be one of those editors who gets prickly and defensive about having the awkwardnesses in their language copyedited, because I could see that you had the potential to be a great contributor. Sure am glad you stuck around! — Catherine\^talk 08:53, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Me prickly? - Moi? Giano 09:31, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar[edit]

Architecture Barnstar

For your unrelenting turnout of the highest quality featured articles relating to architecture I award you the first Architecture wikiproject barnstar.

This award was introduced by the WikiProject Architecture on 14 November 2006. --Mcginnly | Natter 20:54, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re email see Blood eagle. --Mcginnly | Natter 13:45, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds very like the initiation rite to join IRC-Admins! Giano 13:51, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That bird thing[edit]

Wow... wow... tell me how you did that... I want it. KazakhPol 05:03, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How do I get it so that it stays on the bottom right for visitors of the page? KazakhPol 07:14, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fête champêtre[edit]

I vocab stubbed the article because I felt that was the closest stub category. The only other category would be culture, or very possibly art history. Jeodesic 18:11, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Art history? A Fête champêtre is simply a picnic with mailed invitations, where the guests are dressed for a garden party but lie about on the ground (never done at a garden party), and are entertained with professional music. To add that to the article would be original research! The art of life rather than the history of art... but who am I?...- -Wetman 05:57, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Baron Oranmore and Browne[edit]

I had to share this with you. Whilst trying to discover who Mereworth Castle had been sold to in 1930, I came across the obituary of a hapless Dominick Browne, 4th Baron Oranmore and Browne on the telegraphs website:-

"When his parents were involved in their accident at Southborough, Kent, in 1927 Dominick knew that peers were supposed to be buried in lead coffins. He therefore ordered one from a local undertaker, whose men managed to get it upstairs to receive the body. Unfortunately, they found it too heavy to carry downstairs and put it into a service lift; the ropes broke, sending the casket crashing through the basement. On the death of his mother two days later, the hearse with her coffin caught fire, and another vehicle had to be ordered."

Poor bastard. --Mcginnly | Natter 23:26, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Poor bastard? - daft bastard! Funnily enough I am very read up on that subject at the moment, as in my research I discovered that poor old "H de R" had three coffins, which was the custom for the rich in the late 19th early 20th c, the lead coffin being the middle one, so what they are supposed to do is pop them in the inner most comfy one, then carry that downstairs to the heavy lead one and then pop the inner into the lead, which is easier for all concerned, then on "terre firma" pu the lead into the ornate and brass handled outer one - there very simple you see. I decided it was all too macabre and bizarre so am not isung for H de R but it will doubtless be useful for someone somewhere - how about that for DYK ALoan? I'm sure not a lot of people know that! Giano 08:44, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's clear why we're taller now on average - the pall bearer must have been built like brick outhouses. What was the purpose of the lead coffin? Presumably so their noblenesses didn't end up as crushed worm food but were left to decay in their own space? --Mcginnly | Natter 15:44, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bishonen demonstrating smoldering passion under furs.

Had you been brought up in Europe you would know the answer to these things. It seems to be my lot to explain the macabre today. The aristocracy (and in most European countries anyone else who has made a fast buck) are not buried like common garden people in the ground but in private vaults underneath churches - (having spent one's life avoiding the common herd one certainly doesn't want to meet them in death for eternity - does one?) Anyway I digress in a vault a lead coffin is better because it lasts for ever. So when thirty years after stashing Granny on her shelf one returns with Uncle Fred one does not one to actually see Granny (or even her Granny) in person, so to speak - The other reason is health it, is not very pleasant for the people worshipping in the church above if the obvious happens - are you following me? There is a story by Consuelo Marlborough in her biography about what it was like one day in the chapel at Blenheim Palace after her father-in-law had been stashed on the cheap underneath it. It is not lunch time reading Giano 16:02, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the explanation. I assume you mean continental europe, unless the english channel is widening and we're currently drifting off in the atlantic, encouraged by the magnetic pull of big macs and gun crime. --Mcginnly | Natter 18:12, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't regard the English as European, they are too like the Swedes and the other Vikings and assorted Nordics to be European, they are not passionate enough - Bishonen is passionate but only since she met me. Giano 18:40, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think you mistake the Mediterranean countries for europe - have you not been to the highland games - go there and tell them you think there's not enough passion in northern europe - I'm sure they'll demonstrate. A gentler soul - I put it down to too much demonstration under furs, why expend on public demonstrations? --Mcginnly | Natter 00:41, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bwahahaha. Since I met dear Count Vronsky, you mean. Bishonen | talk 05:15, 18 November 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Service wing![edit]

T:TDYK! -- ALoan (Talk) 00:04, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No I don't think so, we'll leave that for now as I want to work on the page later today if I have time from RL job, and I can't do that if every Tom Dick and Harry are popping in to change the punctuation and add their 50000000 lire. Later perhaps Giano 08:36, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RFA Thanks[edit]

Thanks!
Thanks for your input on my (nearly recent) Request for adminship, which regretfully achived no consensus, with votes of 68/28/2. I am grateful for the input received, both positive and in opposition, and I'd like to thank you for your participation.
Georgewilliamherbert 04:53, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Great stuff[edit]

Your new article is so interesting! Bishonen | talk 04:57, 18 November 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Thank you Bishonen, why is that complement from you making me feel very nervous? - It should be called an "architectural history of servant's quarters" it has to have a more detailed interior section yet. Someone will soon be complaining there is no Upstairs, Downstairs lifestyle comparisons section with a perky and chirpy Milly and Molly toiling 18 hours a day, 7 days a week for nothing while being simultaneously groped by the footman and the evil master. Thinking about it, that could be an interesting page after all. I suppose there should be a "life of the servant section", but I've written it as a reference to my own work here, and I don't do horror, human tragedy or "the less fortunate" so it will have to suffice. and before anybody thinks of it, NO, it does not need a trivia section linking to Upstairs downstairs Giano 09:19, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A plea for help[edit]

Would you mind having a read over Palais Strousberg? I've translated it from German and I'd be very grateful for a fresh set of eyes. Cheers. --Mcginnly | Natter 18:08, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It will be my pleasure..be afraid...very afraid....Giano 09:21, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Giano, don't pull any punches either, I'm nearly unoffendable when it comes to article criticism (just as well you say). --Mcginnly | Natter 09:42, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Villa Molin[edit]

I've just done this: rather more your territory, Giano. Any raw gaffes? --Wetman 13:26, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Very nice Wetman, just made a couple of small changes. Giano 14:48, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template talk:Revivals[edit]

There is a new proposal here. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 08:54, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Ghirla, - an interesting proposal. To be honest I am sick of arguing the obvious on Wikipedia, I just had a look (from the proposed template) at Mediterranean Revival Style architecture not a style with which I am familiar, where amongst the illustrations which apparently were inspired by, and re-kindled an interest in, Renaissance palazzi is this Image:Former ATSF Station in Orange CA 7-14-04.jpg. While the small 19th century revival template is useful and serves the purpose for which it was intended, I am sick and tired to death of seeing these huge and multiple templates plastered over almost every article. Yesterday I removed some foul little bourgeois house [78] which was no more Greek than my left armpit, from Greek revival. I think we would all do far more good cleaning up the architectural pages we already have before creating new templates linking to them. Perhaps I'll start the ball rolling with Foul little bourgeois buildings where I can lump all these horrible pictures together. Giano 09:15, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PS: It gets better in the lead of Mediterranean Revival Style architecture click on "rekindled interest in Italian Renaissance palaces" and one is aiimediatly hit in the face with the real revival, that must confuse people trying to see the resemblence. Giano 09:20, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Giano, if you think the proposal is useless, why don't you say so to the guy who came up with it? If nobody comments, he will implement it. I believe Mediterranean Revival is a style in which Persian palaces in Chess City are built. Persia and Kalmykia is very Mediterranean, you know. This is a sort of archcruft if you ask me. I don't think you can do much with ignorant editors in wikipedia. Let them have their way as long as they cite sources for their whimsical assertions. If a source is provided, the ignorance is that source's, not Wikipedia's. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 09:25, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK OK OK you win - I have made a comment. Giano 09:28, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh shit! I've just seen who created that amazing link! I think I'll go and some paid employment for the rest of the day and keep my mouth shut. Giano 09:32, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I presume you mean this one? Surely not that nice and comprehensive template?? I'm afraid I can't seriously attend to architectural topics now, that's why I asked you and Wetman to solve the matter by yourselves. I'm in the middle of a major overhaul of Russian-Viking topics, so my thoughts run about the 8th or 9th century in the moment. After returning from Pazyryk and certain Sarmatian locations, I am stuck in Bjarmaland and the finest building I have seen there was this one. I hope to return to Mediterranean climes by the end of the month and then perhaps will add a couple of revival arcticles that have been long overdue. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 09:42, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Palais Strousberg[edit]

Thanks for your comments and feedback. I've ripped it out to Word and it's ready for a strip down, oil change and rebuild. I like your suggestions to improve paragraph flow - 1.lead - 2.mini bio on strousberg - 3. micro bio on orth - 4. Architecture section header with build costs, style appraisal etc. - 4a. Exterior - 4b. Interior - 5. Strousberg's bankruptcy - 6. Use as the british embassy - 7. Fate of the palais.

I'd (at least) already thought it needed a better ending and the 'fate' section needed to be last - there's a bit of a problem with your proposals however. The plans all relate to the palais after the British embassy modifications. So it makes sense to put that before describing the building (where I can easily describe how the building was initially and how it was changed in closely related paragraphs). If I'm putting the embassy before the building description then I need to put the bankruptcy before that. So my proposed running order becomes:- 1.lead - 2.mini bio on strousberg - 3. micro bio on orth - 4. Strousberg's bankruptcy and a social history splurge about the wider implications 6. Use as the british embassy including some of the key events that the embassty played a part in 4. Architecture section header with build costs, style appraisal etc. - 4a. Exterior - 4b. Interior - 7. Fate of the palais.

What do you think? --Mcginnly | Natter 23:39, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, we all have oour own funny little ways and because I like one way over another doesn't mean it's absolute. I wouldn't (apart from te rear extension have thought the layout and use of the rooms had changed that much, unless there was a huge internal rebuild and re-design). The micro bio on Orth should come immediatly before the arch section. Strousberg's bankruptcy and a social history splurge about the wider implications and use as the Brritish Embassy including some of the key events that the embassy played a part in should all be in one penultimate section, and not too long. Apart from that fine, allthough I think the room key should be incorporated into the text. Anyway only proferring my opinion, no offence taken if you don't agree. It's a good page whatever you do. Giano 07:26, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rosebery Studs[edit]

I have other priorities but may do a brief bit on Mentmore and Crafton but I don't really know much. My efforts to document the owner's significant involvement in Thoroughbred racing is in the hopes that a knowledgeable Brit will come along to Wikipedia and get involved in the WikiProject Thoroughbred racing. Handicapper 14:30, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanx. I will for sure. Handicapper 15:43, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Mentmore Towers According the National Horseracing Museum [79] (and other highly credible websites), Mentmore Stud was in Leighton Buzzard. I have no concept of the area, but when I did a MSN map seach for travel distances, Mentmore was reported as 4.9 Miles from Leighton Buzzard which is why I thought because the Duke also rode horses that he probably built another stable close to the castle. Handicapper 19:39, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a website I found yesterday that has considerable detail about Crafton with maps, photos and so on. [80] .

I've only skimmed over it but note these quotes:

"To the south east of the hamlet along the road to Crafton Lodge, the ground is lower lying and it is here that the two studs of Reddings and Crafton Stud are located. To the east the land rises up again to Mentmore Towers and its parkland. "

"The stud at Reddings was established in the early 1850s by Baron de Rothschild and later maintained by Lord Rosebery. This was an extremely successful stud which bred a number of Derby winners including Sir Visto in 1895, Cicero in 1905 and Ladas in 1894 who had a stone plaque added over his stable door. Hawbridge Stables - Plaque over door to commemorate LADAS." Handicapper 22:05, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As best as I could gather, Rothschild built two stables near Wentmore. Maybe when you get a chance you could read this and guide me as to consolidating the two stales into one article and perhaps a separate one on Mentmore Stub. Handicapper 22:05, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What do you think of Crafton Stud Farms and write about the two. Then a separate one for Mentmore Stud. Here is something weird. If as you say, Mentmore stud was not built until about 1912 then I don't understand this usually very reliable website [81] that shows these horses, who would have died long, long before 1912, are buried at Mentmore Stud, Leighton Buzzard:

King Tom b. 1851
Macaroni b. 1860

Handicapper 22:58, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanx again. I actually think I'm beginning to understand it. Maybe though you can elaborate on Hawbridge Stables? Although it may be a while, I'll try to add to your effort, in particular a list of horses and major stable wins for cross referencing. Meantime, if you have more info or pictures, that would be great. Handicapper 23:46, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry[edit]

Giano, sorry but I reverted you here taking no position on the issue as of now. Please do not give some here an excuse to block you. Too many are looking forward for an opportunity to do this. We can't afford this happend as we need your contributions. Stay cool and Cheers, --Irpen 22:05, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's kind, but I am going to revert you reverting me - from where I am sitting (in RL pretty horrid and crowded at the moment,) it is inevitable, this present arbcom gets away with blue murder - they need to have their errors pointed out, that man (CM) has not one grain of moral fibre and was happy to land Bishonen in the shit while washing his hands. - I'd rather be banned for ever than watch him get away with that, while Fred writes up the next list of punishments for Bishonen as prescribed by the Inquisition. Not one one of them on this present arbcom is man enough to lift a finger to stop what is going on. Giano 22:15, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I promised myself after you last scolded me that I would never again try to save you from saying whatever you wanted to say, so I will simply point out that there is an election to pick five new members of the committee starting a week from now, with a number of very promising candidates running, and it would be very nice if you were here to vote in it. Regards, Newyorkbrad 22:18, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My Dear Brad check out the results of the Arbcoms findings as to my reinstallation etc. and boring etc. - nothing happened. I am ineligible to stand or vote. No problem though I have no need to - so that is hardly the issue is it? - So what do you suppose is the issue? No doubt for raising these pertinent issues I shall shortly be banned, Lar and co. will come forward with their views (Free passes! ad nauseum.....God help you all) - and God help the project - If the ban ever expires I will be back, (no doubt IRC is buzzing as we speak) but in my absence think on! Giano 22:29, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You've lost me completely now. You're certainly eligible to vote in the election, and for that matter, as far as I know would have been eligible to run as well (though you would have been a poor choice for the part). Newyorkbrad 22:33, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed you do seem rather lost! In fact you are rather tiring strolling around with an opinion there and an opinion here, do you have a role here? other than as a very indifferent commentator who fails ever to get a wet foot? Giano 22:42, 25 November 2006 (ETC.)

I appreciate your championship, Giacomo, and in fact did not appreciate having my actions with regard to moving the Heller article referred to as "manoeuvres" by CM. It wasn't exactly for the enjoyment of it that I involved myself more deeply with prof02, it was specifically because of this request, as I took it to be, from CM. But I ask you to please self-revert that comment on the RFAR now. It's unnecessary, and the little woman has had all the protecting she needs. Bishonen | talk 23:31, 25 November 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Giano, I've reinstated the reversion. A reasoned statement regarding Charles' conduct added to whatever statement you make on the arbitration request would be fine, but a personally-directed remark is inappropriate there. Kat Walsh (spill your mind?) 23:36, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Opus Dei RFC[edit]

Giano-- I noticed that you were closely involved in the FAC on the Opus Dei article way back in September of 2005. There had been a lot of trouble getting that article worked out due to the existence of a large number of single purpose accounts that show up to promote OD here on wikipedia. (I see from your comment the FAC discussion that no less than 3 different brand new accounts showed to vote in that discussion, for example).

Anyway, puppetry notwithstanding, I've recently done a major rewrite on the Opus Dei article and am requesting comments on its talk page. I think the new page is better, but the aforementioned single-purpose accounts have been reverting it pretty consistently. Could you look over the page and comment on whether the rewrite is an improvment and maybe help out in the ensuing discussion? --Alecmconroy 14:18, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mail[edit]

You have. Bishonen | talk 19:16, 28 November 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Greek revival[edit]

You're on. Right after Palais Strousberg, British Embassy in Berlin and Vault (architecture). --Mcginnly | Natter 23:34, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Belton House[edit]

Regarding your comments on my addition of Belton House to the category:1688 architecture. My understanding is that the architecture year categories are much the same as the book year categories or the album year categories - that is, they are for sorting by year all the works of architecture of sufficient notability to be included in Wikipedia, not just the most important ones. The article, as I read it, states that "Between 1685 and 1688 the young Sir John Brownlow and his wife had the present mansion built." The architecture year categories list buildings by year of completion, so I'm not sure what the problem is. Please correct me if I'm wrong. Thanks! Christopher Busta-Peck | Talk 21:10, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is categorising any singular architectural work to one isolated year is totally meaningless. Especially when that work is unusually retrospective. So why do it? Giano 21:58, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New Section regarding Kelly Martin[edit]

Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. -- Tawker 23:07, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Shown your true colors" looks like a personal attack to me. I don't know what you saw it as -- Tawker 23:19, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously you have a very limited perception of what is happening on Wikipedia. Giano 23:22, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tawker, it's persons that are elected for arbcom, not some abstraction. It's quite appropriate to ask questions aboout a candidate's past history. Please don't try to intimidate users from asking questions of general interest of ArbCom candidates. It's absolutely the wrong context for it. Bishonen | talk 23:23, 2 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

As I am obviously about to be banned by admins supporting Kelly Martin for daring to question her, I am signing off for the evening. Do people really want a member of the Arbcom who has this kind of following? Giano 23:39, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh hell no, I'm not even considering the block button. I just found the tone of your question to be a bit harsh and a bit pointed. We do try and be nice and WP:CIVL tho w/ arbcom elections I know its kinda hard at times when emotions run high -- Tawker 23:46, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"We do try and be nice and WP:CIVL" Nothing is ever civil where Kelly is concerned is it?. Don't you dare come here now trying the regroup and change strategy; behaviour such as yours follows the amazing Ms Martin about, Nothing has changed and your threats are merely indicative of things to come if she were ever to be allowed any power again. Giano 07:57, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That page is for questions not for comments. If you wish to make comments either keep them short and wait until voteing starts and them make them with the vote or make them on the relivant users talk page. Either way keep the question page for questions.Geni 08:15, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Those comments are pertinent to the questions which follow for the second time will you please leave my section there alone. I suggest you do not revert again. Thank you Giano 08:19, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Then link to the diffs in your questions. In fact your questions make perfect sense without the comments.Geni 09:53, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LOL. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 09:23, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

M Ledoux[edit]

No, I'm not despomdemt about it, thanks for comsoling me though and also for your edits there and at the review :-) It thought the PR went pretty well, though Bishonen said she would review it but never did - it's not too late Bishonen. I sent a few articles to GAC last month, never had before and knowing that they weren't quite FA, thought maybe they were GA. Oh well. When they are improved later they should go to FAC rather than GAC. Take a look at this it:Ville medicee, that list has a wealth of villas to translate, as many as all the chateaux. If you want to help you should, but save some for me, I'm sure you are faster. DVD+ R/W 14:04, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't like translating, it always comes out stilted or backwards and I can't see it, whereas if I write it myself it makes perfect sense at least to me. I'm going to be working in Firenze in March and April, so will probably do a few Tuscan articles then, while I can go out with the camera and get exactly what I want, I like to get the small architectural details etc besides the big overview. Giano 14:13, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Very well then, lucky you to get to go to Firenze. I don't mind stilted and backwards myself. I look forward to seeing your few Tuscan articles after March and April. DVD+ R/W 14:25, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A "trap"[edit]

You called it a "trap". Ignoring the assumption of bad faith issues, do you think it is a bad idea to not comment negatively on fellow candidates? I wasn't trying to trap anyone, merely give good advice. A lot of people took that advice, and are doing well because of it. Geogre has no one to blame but himself for assuming such bad faith of me that he ignored my reasonable advice (which was delivered to all 37 ArbCom candidates, it wasn't nearly just for him). Maybe it's time to get over old disagreements and start anew? --Cyde Weys 23:02, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Cyde - I don't want to start anew with you. I don't like you, I don't trust you. I have no reason to assume any good faith where you are concerned. You and those that live in the court of Queen Kelly worry me. What will you all do when she is gone? Giano 23:11, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Palladian architecture[edit]

PA is at FAR - no canned message, since you know the drill. Regards, Sandy (Talk) 01:00, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reply[edit]

Check your mail, sir. And thank you again, dare I say, my friend--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 16:57, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn[edit]

I appreciate your support, but have decided to withdraw from consideration for a position as an arbitrator. The community has overwhelming found me to be too controversial to hold that position. Thanks again for your support.--MONGO 20:03, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A small gift[edit]

File:Royal Brackla (Hart).jpg

A drink to calm your nerves during ArbCom. Cheers! Ganymead

Thanks I may just drink it, and have a use for the empty bottle! Giano 22:57, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cyde's Question for Paul August[edit]

You may know that I supported both Paul August and Geogre, just in the last few days, therefore I'm hoping you'll take this better from me than from someone else. I write this with the deepest respect for your excellent article contributions.

Cyde has the right to ask civil questions of candidates, even if they are inflammatory, even if they incite candidates to criticise each other. In fact, how a candidate reacts to an inflammatory question is an important judge of their suitability - they'll get much more heat than that as an arbcom member. Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2006/Candidate statements/Questions for Paul August#Another question from Cyde Weys is a tough, but perfectly legitimate question. Please don't remove it again. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 21:37, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Response[edit]

I have not and do not support Kelly Martin for Arbcom. I have never made any public--nor private--statements in support of her holding that position. I petitioned to have her removed last year, and I opposed her previous candidacy, and I endorsed the original RfC concerning her behaviour. I do not know who Elaragirl is and find her manner disgraceful. Just because I find fault with your position does not make me Kelly Martin's supporter. I think you'll find I've supported other candidates, several of whom you yourself have supported, and my conscience on that matter is quite clear. I have had nothing to do with the events of today, save asking an innocent question of clarification for which I was much abused. If you have proof that I've acted unethically, abused my position or abused the community's trust in any way, I demand that you bring this proof forward so that it might see the light of day. If you want my opinion, Kelly Martin brought most of her troubles upon herself, but she's hardly the only person who has done so. Good evening to you as well. I expect an answer. Mackensen (talk) 00:15, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I apologise unreservedly if I have wronged you. I'm afraid Mackensen your comments on Bishonen's page made you appear rather hostile, in fact I'm at a loss to know why you popped up in that section [82] with your comments at all. Was it concerning you? - No. When Bishonen did not give you the response you obviously wanted you appeared to be having a "hissy fit". One is allowed to disagree with you, especially as you are quite free with your opinions. It is a pity we have to wait for you to feel personally wounded before you make your position and feelings on the behaviour on certain others clear, especially as you have not hesitated to jump in with seemingly barbed comments. However, I am delighted you now condemn those who have been wrongly branding Geogre with various insults and slurs. If your comments lead people to draw wrong conclusions that is perhaps something for you to examine personally. However, I note your conscience is clear. Giano 09:36, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I thank you for your response. Mackensen (talk) 11:35, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Renaissance Architecture[edit]

Hi Giano!

Of course I've checked the history file. I rewrote the intro myself, months ago. It hhad been changged since then but the new information was not well integrated, which is what I have donne. I don't go around removing useful, pertinent information. What I do is edit it in. You may not immediately see what you have previously addded, but it will be there somewhere.

I have been reading about, writing about and teaching Art History for the past 50 years. There might be more competent editors in this field than I am, working on that page, bbut i hhave seen no signs of them! I am currently sitting at my computer surrounded by two thousand books, of which the majority of them are Art History. I am using seven of them to write ediit the current page. The previous editors have cited only one very general encyclopedia. I have that one to hand as well. How much expertise do you want?

--Amandajm 14:12, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Such a pity then that you left the remainder of the page in such an unsatisfactory condition, following the completion of your lead, and that subsequently your edits have left the article in such chaos that it appears less than concrete jungle. Giano 18:24, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- Giano, it took quite a while to source and write the material to go around the pics. I don't know at what time you looked at it. It's morning here. By the time I went to bed, the pics had been found appropriate place, the paragraphs on the three major architects of the early Renaissance were written and it was perfectly clear from the headings what direction the rest of my editting was taking- Bramante, Sangallo, Raphael, etc

With all your expertise, haven't you young men ever got anything nice to say? Your arrogance is astounding!

--Amandajm 21:58, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arrogance? - Your quote: "There might be more competent editors in this field than I am, working on that page, bbut i hhave seen no signs of them! " so I suggest you teach yourself some manners or stay off my talk page. Thank you Giano 22:01, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Brettingham[edit]

Hara kiri? (Or perhaps I should say seppuku...) -- ALoan (Talk) 22:53, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am finding it increasingly stressful writing here, not because just of MB and PA but the whole damn shooting match. I am sick of a self elected police force that never writes itself determining regulations for the work of those that do, and then criticise when their ever increasing demands are not met. I'll probably return, but for now I am sick of the place. Giano 23:01, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry to hear that you are stressed. Don't let the buggers get you down. I was looking at the FARC from February - the "fact" has been added to the same point that was brought up then and was dismissed from a great height.

I have been busy in real life recently (see how my contributions are down) but I find writing short articles on obscure topics keeps my spirits up. You might enjoy that too?

Or perhaps a wikibreak would do you good? It is a good time of year to take a break - get some fresh air, and I'll hope to see you back in earnest in January. -- ALoan (Talk) 23:13, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My opinion. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 09:16, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Or engage yourself in the exciting debate we're having over at talk:Expressionist architecture about whether Gaudi should be considered an expressionist - and indeed, what that might mean I can see your twitching now, so I'll retire. --Mcginnly | Natter 23:59, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll second ALoan's comments, who will cover architectural history and glorious manor houses in your absence? Sending Wiki-love. *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 00:01, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DYK[edit]

On December 8, 2006, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Carabosse, which you created. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

Hello again Giano. GeeJo has kindly nominated one of your articles for DYK. Many thanks again, Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:59, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

re- Palazzo Stronzata[edit]

So WTS am I supposed to do with it now? It's too funny to delete!

--Amandajm 23:07, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

M.J.K. Smith[edit]

My dear old thing! Perhaps Ted Dexter too? -- ALoan (Talk) 18:51, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

principle[edit]

I respect your contributions, but I am unhappy with the position you state about voting. (IRC is a different matter entirely)

Pure "one man one vote" is typically non-optimal, and is strongly disempowering to all parties involved compared to consensus. That, and the final action of a consensus system would be to compromise on consensus itself.

That's why I feel so strongly that pure voting is evil, and must be fought off at all times and at all costs. I have staked my reputation and any of my resources on this at many times and in many places. It is integral to my contributions to the wikimedia foundation.

That's why I made a countercomment to your comment.

My apologies that we must clash. If you hadn't given the advice to have steward elections be a pure vote, I may well have not stated any opinions at all.

Kim Bruning 01:11, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If people did not challenge my right to experess an opinion in what is called an "election" you would not have to tolerate my advice. More impotantly I have been contacted by a producer with a public radio show called Weekend America. Who is looking into a story about the ArbCom elections and was wondering if I might have a few minutes to talk about my experience in Wikipedia. Tempted and anusing as that might be, I have strong feelings on blabbing to the media and those that do it, but does Wikipedia have a policy on this? I'm sure I am not the only obe to be singled out Giano 07:14, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As for policies, I know of none, but you might ask someone like UninvitedCompany, or Mindspillage. As for how special you are, that producer also contacted me, as well as a few others, you can see some of those contacted here However, as for whether you are the only "obe to be singled out", I think probably so. Paul August ☎ 19:22, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, I shall not be commenting, everything I do is above board and onwiki, that way others have their chance to comment legitimately and a right of redress. It is not my style to talk about others only when I know I am safe from reproach! Giano 08:29, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Farcflag.PNG[edit]

Hello Giano archive 5 (2006), an automated process has found an image or media file tagged as nonfree media, such as fair use. The image (Image:Farcflag.PNG) was found at the following location: User talk:Giano archive 5 (2006). This image or media will be removed per statement number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image or media will be replaced with Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg , so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. The image that was replaced will not be automatically deleted, but it could be deleted at a later date. Articles using the same image should not be affected by my edits. I ask you to please not re-add the image to your userpage and could consider finding a replacement image licensed under either the Creative Commons or GFDL license or released to the public domain. Please note that it is possible that the image on your page is included vie a template or usebox. In that case, please find a free image for the template or userbox. Thanks for your attention and cooperation. User:Gnome (Bot)-talk 11:54, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[1] Quote by Eternal here [1] From when I was trying not to be too rude!

[1]