User talk:Giano/archive 27

November
Cassia javanica, Torremolinos
	... with thanks from QAI

red admiral
	... with thanks from QAI

Commons problems

I seem to recall you were not a fan of Commons, and after this I wholeheartedly endorse your view. Is there a campaign to do something about it, or can I just moan here? Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:34, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) I would recommend uploading the file to English Wikipedia, and adding {{keep local}}. I can't guarantee you won't get any objections, but at least we have the opportunity to store images that meet fair use criteria here. --RexxS (talk) 17:21, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, there is no campaign; just make sure that you always use the keep local template and bite hard anyone who comes near it. Giano (talk) 16:51, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Ritchie333: If you want to make really sure Commons can't touch it, upload it here with {{gfdl-self|migration=not-eligible}} as the licence and make double sure before you upload not to include any template beginning "CC" or "PD". That particular combination of licences is valid on en-wiki but not on Commons, so SFan's disruptbot can't move it to Commons even if he wants to. (It has the unfortunate side effect of obliging all reusers to include this entire very long document with it, which is fine for other websites who can just put in a hyperlink but renders it worthless for printing, so don't use this on anything you can imagine any print media wanting to reuse in future.) ‑ Iridescent 18:25, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

IMO {{keep local}} is much more simple. But making sure before uploading that a file has a) all necessary information without the need to make assumptions and b) no derivative work issues is also good. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:48, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The {{keeplocal}} template doesn't work; it politely asks people not to move the file to Commons, but the Commons people regularly ignore it and move the file anyway. ‑ Iridescent 15:03, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

See, I was thinking it wasn't the file being on Commons that is the problem, bzt rather that it being deleted from here is. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:29, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unless he's changed the bot, then once it's on Commons SFan will FFD it from here regardless; the deleting admin is supposed to check the page to see if there's a keeplocal tag, but in practice they generally don't. As Giano can testify, we have a loooong history of files being copied to Commons, deleted here as duplicates of files that exist on Commons, and then deleted or overwritten on Commons. ‑ Iridescent 17:25, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bishzilla likes to use {{esoteric file}}. Bishonen | talk 21:25, 28 March 2019 (UTC).[reply]

I did chuckle at this patronising lecture towards Schwede66. I don't think he'd have passed an RfA with almost 100% support if he didn't know how to sign his posts. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:23, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking of Commons, which I try not to do, I was immensely amused by the title of this imagage File:Charles-x-and-his-sister-clotilde-mounting-a-goat.jpg which I stumbled across today. I edited it’s caption on a page to make it slightly less ambiguous. Perhaps, it’s just me who has an agriculturally minded brain. Giano (talk) 20:55, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I see even now, no one on Commons has the intelligence to rename the image. One despairs, one really does. Giano (talk) 20:45, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There isn't really a procedure on Commons to rename a file - though I think an admin can do it. Johnbod (talk) 16:51, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Then that really does prove what a stupid site it is. They can come here, steal and delete our pictures, name them what they like, but can’t change the name of an image which wrongly implies beastlyphillia or whatever it’s called. Giano (talk) 20:45, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bestiality, Excellency. See also Zoophilia. HTH --RexxS (talk) 01:11, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My view exactly. Giano (talk) 11:46, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I thought it unlikely to be in regard to this Philthy Animal. LessHeard vanU (talk) 15:16, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ah good. I see the less than amusing double entendre of that image has finally been changed. Thank you whoever. It’s quite surprising that joking about cheating in a photographic competition can be spotted faster than an image suggesting bestiality with children. I suppose one can always find offence if one searches hard enough. Then, perhaps only I saw offence there. Funny old world. Giano (talk) 20:58, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

commons squandering money

Ah LHVU how very nice to see you restored to us. This place has gone very downhill lately. I see a huge Commons banner is banner is currently inviting all unclogged in visitors to Wikipedia to send in photos to celebrate pride.” Now, I’m privately very proud of my wife, children and stamp collection, but I suspect that’s not what’s required. What on earth all this has to do with writing an encyclopaedia God alone knows. People should remember it is an encyclopaedia not a vehicle for editors promoting their individual sexuality, politics or creed. Wikipedia should be entirely neutral on all subjects. A divorce from Commons is long overdue. Giano (talk) 21:03, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It will be gone by the autumn, because Pride comes before a fall... LessHeard vanU (talk) 08:57, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Very droll LHVU, but where is all this prize money coming from? I see they want people to air their health concerns too; that will be positively riveting. Giano (talk) 12:33, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The present controversy

WP:FRAMBAN Jehochman ^Talk 19:36, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I’ll be dead of old age before I can read through that, what’s the nutshell version? Giano (talk) 19:39, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not particularly eloquent. Perhaps others will help me. As far as I can tell: persons unknown complained about Fram's "incivility" such as using the words "fuck" and "bullshit". That what was in the diff provided by WMF to Fram when they told him about being banned. Apparently a new, secret process is available that lets WMF ban users from individual Wikipedia's for purported behavioral issues. Naturally, they sprung this on us without advance notice or any sort of rationale of why it was necessary to supplement ArbCom's existing process. Upon stirring up widespread outrage, the usual dissembling and calls for calm and patience have been supplied by those who fancy themselves in power. The outrage has only intensified, with approximately a dozen admins resigning. There are 100+ comments at the futile request for arbitration, named for WJBscribe (talk · contribs) who along with Bishonen (talk · contribs) and Floquenbeam (talk · contribs) had the insolence to act against a ban for which no reasonable justification was provided. Jehochman ^Talk 19:45, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Be meek or they will come for you next. Jehochman ^Talk 19:47, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mmmm, I have just been skimming through it all. As usual, Bishonen seems to have read the situation correctly. I expect the WMF is staffed by power mad, naive American teenagers and unemployable oddballs from England and that’s the cause of it all. They won’t come for me, I’m far too small fry these days. Wikipedia always has been a funny place. Giano (talk) 19:56, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi darling. I'll just add that Floquenbeam and I, who both unblocked Fram, and WJBscribe (bureaucrat) who re-sysopped Floquenbeam after WMF had desysopped him, henceforth wish to be known as "the Fram 3".[1] Fame! (Well, I wish it. I haven't actually asked Floq or WJB.) Bishonen | talk 20:14, 24 June 2019 (UTC).[reply]

Ugh. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:18, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oh Dear, I turn my back for five minutes and just look what happens! What on earth have you all been doing allowing the WMF to get above itself. Is it not bad enough that vast sums are being given away encouraging people to send in photos of God knows what, and now it’s banning and desysopping all and sundry. I can see I have been away too long. Giano (talk) 20:33, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you have, and I'm so glad to see you back again. But I'm trying to figure out how to leave. I don't work for the WMF and can't let them think I accept the idea; it makes me sick. Thank you for posting at Jimbotalk. Arbcom appears to have let us down for good and all. Help? Yngvadottir (talk) 22:06, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I’ll try. Remember, we have all the negotiating power. They can’t possibly write and maintain the encyclopedia without us. Also, facts will eventually come out showing that this case is not what it looks like. Jehochman ^Talk 22:28, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

To correct my statement above, the naughty words are a red herring. This FRAMBAN appears to be about harassment and stalking. I think the ArbCom diff was cited to help protect the victim(s) from further harassment by others. Fram’s explanation lacks critical details. This definitely isn’t the hill any of us want to sacrifice our wikilives for. Jehochman ^Talk 23:29, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Part of what I just said at FRAMBAN. IIRC the WMF never said anything about incivility in this context. Thank you for trying to help, but the issue remains that they have grabbed power they must not be allowed to grab. The unannounced change to their policies allowing partial bans, followed by the ban for one year of an admin from this project alone for offenses the only specifics of which shared with the banned user do not violate this project's policies (it may or may not be relevant that they are an admin; two of the three diffs shared with them can be read as part of their admin duties) and the failure to give any justification to the community except statements to the effect that they are our bosses and a statement from the Chairman of the Board of Trustees equating us all with Gamergaters, constitute the issue. I am not insensitive to the problem of harassment. In my recent history here is an issue in which I argued on the losing side on behalf of editors who had expressed concern about potential for harassment. But Fram has not been given critical details, and we have been treated as subordinates. I cannot stand for this disrespect against those of us who contribute to this project, and I must point out that the axe could fall on any of us tomorrow, without any means to respond to the concern, to make corrections, or to defend ourselves; this is a form of harassment. Yngvadottir (talk) 00:06, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This was not an edge case. The decision to ban Fram was correct. The diffs can’t be shown without inflicting further harm on the victim. We should have a community discussion about how to handle matters like these and how WMF and ArbCom fit together. I don’t know the answer. Jehochman ^Talk 00:26, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How do you know all this? Eric Corbett 00:35, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent question Eric, my thoughts exactly. Don’t dismiss what he says though, the ArbCom has always leaked like a sieve. However, it has dealt with far worse things that what Jehochman is suggesting. So what’s so special now?Giano (talk) 13:00, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I do know that it is not (just) about Fram. (I'm far from alone in making this distinction. Time and again on the FRAM page people have pointed out that they are not friends of Fram, or have reservations about his/her approach.) It is about their treating us like dirt and the fact we can none of us now feel safe here unless we affirm our loyalty as subjects. I didn't sign on for that and I don't want that for editors less articulate and with more to fear from sticking their necks out than me. Let's say for argument's sake that were I to see the evidence, I would agree with your interpretation of it as harassment. That would not change the fact that by disappearing the perpetrator for a year from our project, with high-handed and in one case insulting explanations, the WMF has destroyed all basis for trust that it respects us as editors, our project, our procedures (ArbCom, with all its flaws), and will not disappear someone tomorrow from our project for something you and I would not agree is harassment, with equal finality. Yngvadottir (talk) 00:37, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's not really about Fram at all, as I think you're suggesting Yngvadottir. Eric Corbett 00:41, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your concerns. Please stay and help us make sure they are addressed. It will take time and effort. What’s needed is a zero knowledge proof where WMF can prove there was harassment without identifying the victim. I’m not sure how to do that yet, but I think we can find a way. We also need a way for the accused or their advocate to view the charges and respond. Jehochman ^Talk 00:43, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What's needed is an end to this perpetual procrastination in the hope that the problem will disappear, which comes right from the top. Nobody really believes - well I certainly don't anyway - that there was anything that could be considered "harassment" outside of the snowflake environment of west coast America. Time for some honesty, not more "let's be thoughtful and kind, and just wait until it's all blown over". Eric Corbett 00:48, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I assure you it’s not going to blow over any time soon. Have a look at WP:BN and what’s happening there right now. Jehochman ^Talk 00:52, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

At an absolute minimum the accused needs a way to defend him/herself! But what right does the WMF have to be the judge, jury, and executioner even if they could prove it? We have ArbCom for that. (We know that nothing rising to the level of concern of, for example, paedophilia advocacy was involved, because for such matters the WMF pulls the plug on the account for good and on all projects.) It's their arrogation to themselves of absolute rights over all of us editors that is the issue here. The very first thing needed is a full apology from them. If it was me you were asking to stay, I appreciate the trust in me that implies; but I won't stay as a serf and I don't want any other editor to be regarded as a serf. Having them back way, way down is the non-negotiable first thing. Then we have a little time to deal specifically with the rights of the accused, after we are recognised as partners in discussing such rights. Yngvadottir (talk) 00:55, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. WMF has to allow a hearing and they have to retract their promise of preserving anonymity of the accuser. There’s no way they can guarantee that because the accused can always leak the identity. It’s going to be a huge fight until there’s agreement. Jehochman ^Talk 01:27, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect Giano and Eric may be able to follow your twists and turns better than me. But isn't what they did to conceal at least in part what the punishment was for, so that the editor in question cannot know what person(s) made the accusation(s)? Also for me and many others the core issue is returning this to ArbCom—at the very least having the WMF do it through ArbCom, as the representatives we empower to deal with difficult and private issues. Because we have no reason to trust the WMF, especially after this. Yngvadottir (talk) 02:22, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What everyone is overlooking is that it is not for the WMF to be doing anything concerning the editorship of the encyclopaedia, that is the job of the ArbCom and no one other. If there is something which can’t be disclosed to the rest of us that is fine, it has happened many times before and will again, the ArbCom can act in camera. The only possible exception could be if the WMF is acting to prevent a RL crime, in which case they should be involving the police, and that is the real question, is there RL crime? In fact, it’s the only question and it needs answering. Giano (talk) 13:10, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
To me it looks like a run of the mill case that ArbCom could easily handle. There might be something else WMF is looking at that I don't know, but what I see justifies a one year ban, and if there was RL crime involved, I'd expect WMF to issue a global lock, not a finite duration ban for a single wiki. Jehochman ^Talk 13:14, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I expect it was all down some trigger happy, half-witted intern in the office, who is now being covered by incompetent superiors because he’s the second cousin of Jimbo’s neighbour’s previous wife. This sort of thing happens all the time in organisations which are badly run. Nepotism lives. Giano (talk) 13:22, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The most convincing explanation yet. Eric Corbett 14:29, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I expect the adults are so busy “studying” the extremely “energetic” photographs entered to that ridiculous, money-wasting competition that the entire shop is being minded by 17–year-old Marvin who is high as a kite on weed. Giano (talk) 18:06, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mail call

Hello, Giano. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Bishonen | talk 08:39, 29 June 2019 (UTC).[reply]

Notice

An issue you may wish to comment on has been raised at ANI. Fæ (talk) 14:38, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your interest, but I have no intention of commenting there. It is not within Wikipedia's or the WMF's remit to be expressing any opinion or promoting or disapproving of any form of sexuality, creed or race, and it most should certainly should not be spending money raised to build an encyclopedia doing so. I shall not most definitely not be publicly expressing my own views on sexuality, creed and race. Giano (talk) 14:55, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Would you both please stop this needless conflict over comments on the user's own talk page? Please, we all have bigger problems to worry about. No need to fight with each other. Jehochman ^Talk 18:22, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Giano, would you please strike the offensive remark? This may save everybody a lot of trouble. Jehochman ^Talk 18:38, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I have no idea which offensive remark, taken out of context, you are referring to. I strongly suspect any competition relating to sexuality in any form will be seized on by odd people of all sexual persuasions anxious for the greater public to witness their antics (solo and accompanied), if that view is offensive to anyone then they must be very naive. I do not think Wikimedia (or whatever it’s calling itself) should be wasting its money in such ways. It should make it clear that people of all sexual persuasions, race and creed are welcome to edit. It should not be singling out any one particular group with monied incentives, otherwise the pot will soon be empty. Giano (talk) 19:42, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Giano, we've never interacted, and I have no reason to doubt your good faith - indeed, the friendly chat you're having further up this page with a bunch of editors I admire and respect suggests to me that you have probably got a long history of contributing a ton of good stuff to the encyclopedia, so I don't pretend to be in any sort of position to lecture you about how stuff works. Nevertheless...

You've said that you don't know what the offensive remark was. Just so you're in the picture, it was this one. I think that it's pretty clear that the target of your criticism was the use of Wikimedia funds for a project that you don't think benefits the encyclopedia. That seems to me to be a perfectly reasonable position (not one I've got a firm view on, but reasonable nonetheless); however, in making your point, you did make a few comments which some editors have reasonably been upset by. I appreciate that this is your talk page, but ultimately it's still a public forum, and making jokes like that about people's sexuality is likely to upset people. I'd urge you to consider clarifying that the WMF was the target of your ire, and removing (or rephrasing) the original post.

FWIW, I'm posting here because I'm heartily sick of the cats-in-a-sack approach to communal harmony that seems to have descended on us lately. I respect the editor who raised the ANI report against you enormously; I want to extend that same respect to you, and I hope that we can come to a conclusion to this that doesn't involve a massive bunfight or anyone being blocked. We need more bridges, and fewer wedges, between us. GirthSummit _(blether) 23:43, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. I see that the offending comment was removed (and the relevant ANI thread closed) before I actually posted the above comment. Well, that will teach me to type more quickly. I'll just shuffle off then. GirthSummit _(blether) 00:41, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please don’t worry, I haven’t really been following the thread, but I’m glad it’s closed. I do hope people didn’t waste too much time on it. My point was, as most people managed to grasp, that once money is offered for information, then the system becomes open to abuse. In a competition such as the one so vigorously promoted, fraud would be very simple. Regarding the wedding photograph analogy, people should research why a bride removes her veil before the priest pronounces the Mass complete. Regarding writing to the WMF about ones health (sexual or otherwise), it should be strongly discouraged. As I believe I mentioned in a Wikipedia essay about ten years ago: one should never mention ones illnesses, unless death is within ten minutes. Then, and only then, one may say: “I have felt better.” There is nothing so boring as the health of other people, especially those one doesn’t know. I hope that clears that up. Giano (talk) 08:02, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tudor Revival architecture

Giano, I don't know if you've noticed, but this, which you mostly wrote in WP's Upper Palaeolithic, was having great chunks ripped out of it as unreferenced. Typically, these were the accurate bits, while those sourced to dead links on US real estate sites were left. I've restored, and am working through & expanding on the early period. If you have sources handy on your bits, where I won't have much detailed coverage in my handy sources, please wave your wand and sprinkle some ref magic around, Cheers (not an admin) Johnbod (talk) 15:28, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oh dear, I see what you mean. It must have fallen off my watchlist. I don’t remember writing it, but it’s definitely stuff I know so I must have written it in the olden days, when one just churned out knowledge without bothering to have a reference if it was common knowledge. I’ll see what I can find. People are tiresome aren’t they? Giano (talk) 15:43, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'll also take a look. I must have sources for large chunks of this. KJP1 (talk) 16:37, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's good, the more the merrier. @Johnbod, I've quickly found a couple of references, will look for some more during the week. Can't find one for the difference between Queen Anne in USA and UK, although the term isn't really used in the UK anyway- unless for the real thing. Looking at the USA Queen Anne page, I would question if some of those hammer houses of horror weren't some form of bastardised Second Empire. Were I feeling more kindly towards Wikipedia (which I am not) I woudl probably rewrite that page with far more emphasis on the beginnings of the Arts and Crafts Movement. I'm not sure some of those 21st century Bourgeois boxes should be there at all. Three bits of black wood on white painted concrete blocking is not Tudor revival, not in my book anyway. Giano (talk) 16:41, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks both, Aslet & Power deal with Queen Anne Revival (in UK) also. Johnbod (talk) 16:59, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Battersea Town Hall

Dear Giano, how odd - two architectural style queries in one day. I'm currently doing a Good Article Review for Battersea Town Hall. I'm slightly at a loss as to the most appropriate link for its architectural style. Mountford described it as "English Renaissance", and Historic England call it "free Classical". Pevsner doesn't venture an opinion! I'm wondering if any of Renaissance Revival architecture / Queen Anne style architecture / Arts and Crafts movement#Architecture / Edwardian Baroque architecture might be suitable? Or any other that you think more apposite? We don't seem to have a link for Wrenaissance, but that might not be right anyway. I'd much appreciate your thoughts. Hoping you are keeping well in these difficult times. Thanks and best regards. KJP1 (talk) 16:25, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I see, reading the article above, that Tudorbethan has been described as "Free English Renaissance". Would that be better, perhaps? KJP1 (talk) 16:42, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not it wouldn't and neither should Tudor revival. Funnily enough, I created a red link this afternoon to Curzon Street Baroque, which your building probably is - a sort of corruption between Baroque, Second Empire and a great deal of wishful thinking. For now, Free Classical is probably best - it's mostly Baroque with a French Renaissance roof; although, you could probably get away with Second Empire architecture........just. It's one of the only UK buildings Ive seen which would fit into Second Empire architecture in the United States and Canada. sometimes boxes can be a nuisance. Giano (talk) 16:53, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The main entrance block seems clearly English Baroque revival, not that's that's a term used afaik, but in the parts behind the style seems to go a-wandering. As Giano says, or the variable Queen Anne style architecture. Johnbod (talk) 16:59, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks indeed for the prompt replies. I shall advise the nominator to go with Free Classical, though it's a pity there's nothing to link to. I used "Osbert Lancaster's Curzon Street Baroque" at Sandringham House, but it was not great so I might look to fill that redlink in. All the best to you both. KJP1 (talk) 17:24, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It’s really more of an interior design term, although I have heard it applied to 1930s exteriors and buildings as a whole. Upton House which was rebuilt and designed in the 1920 or early 30s springs to mind. I wouldn’t have thought Sandringham was in any way Baroque more Jacobethan. Giano (talk) 19:19, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And it was indeed to describe the interior that Simon Jenkins used the term. KJP1 (talk) 19:31, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I suppose it is, particularly the dining room. Queens Mary and Elizabeth the QM lightened and brightened it up in the 20s and 30s. It was a disparaging term though, also known as Buggers’ Baroque! [2] so perhaps the term needs using sparingly. Giano (talk) 19:36, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

KJP1: I’ve just acquired an old copy of Osbert Lancaster’s book Pillar to Post to help with Curzon Street Baroque, and as a result, I think we could probably call Battersea Town Hall Edwardian Baroque. The clincher for me was spotting the round windows at the side when I googled for further images. These according to Lancaster are a necessity of the style as are the wide curve topped windows. Also Lancaster’s cartoon of the style shows a mansard type roof which was something I originally felt was wrong. So all in all, I think you could get away with saying Edwardian Baroque. The ref if you want on is Page 58 of the 1941 edition. If you decide to stick with Whatever you decided upon, then that’s probably good enough too. Giano (talk) 21:24, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

just seen you are already there. Good. Giano (talk) 21:29, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tagishsimon - Giano, most helpful and many thanks. As you say, the editor's gone with Edwardian Baroque but the reference will be extremely useful. Curzon Street is shaping up very nicely! All best wishes. KJP1 (talk) 03:31, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Any page stalkers out there?

Anyone with image copyright knowledge who can work out how I can use this image [3]? It’s a satirical image of Baroque drawn by the man who gave the satirically named Baroque page I am currently writing. The two belong together like gin and tonic. Can’t understand why I can’t use it, I’m sure I should be able to. All advice welcome, just don’t suggest I speak nicely to Commons. Giano (talk) 18:45, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Regards. Dr. K. 20:38, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much Dr.K. I am in your debt. Giano (talk) 20:43, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Don't mention it, Giano. It was my pleasure. Thank you for that great article. Cheers. Dr. K. 20:47, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Far from great or finished, but should be amusing and hopefully informative when I’ve done with it. Giano (talk) 20:54, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely. Even though it is under-construction, the contents and the topic are very interesting. From this preliminary state I can imagine how nice and well-crafted the finished article will be. Dr. K. 21:09, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Now that my very interesting new page is nearing completion [4] (just the final and the tricky LGBT sections to finish) does anyone know how I can put the Blenheim dining room picture as the same frame as the Sandringham picture, as I want them to be in direct comparison with each other. It will also help solve the sandwiching which I don’t see a able to resolve. Any help gratefully received, also anybody who knows about LGBT things can watch over my shoulder tomorrow and alert me if I look like bring the wrath of God down on myself - I’ll have to tread carefully there. Giano (talk) 14:26, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Let me have a try. KJP1 (talk) 14:33, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Something like that? You can change the text of course. KJP1 (talk) 14:41, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

FRAMBAN

Hi. As far as any of us can ascertain, in the absence of compelling evidence, this issue is about civility and personal attacks. You probably do not realise what a fine line you are walking yourself with comments like this. Just sayin' - so as RexxS, said, best drop it. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:30, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Is it indeed Kudpung? Then, you clearly seem to know more than the thousands of other editors here, perhaps you would care to enlighten us all further? As for Rex, unless he has developed some cosmic super human powers of Wikipedian foresight, his reply was posted almost 24 hours before my own so I doubt he’s speaking to me. However, I will be leaving it, but only because like most other reasonable editors here, I am sick to death of it and know that little said by anyone here on the factory floor will make the slightest bit of difference. We only write the Encyclopaedia, and of what little importance that is. You might also care to remember that according to Jimbo, we are living under a benign "constitutional monarchy", so unless we have suddenly become a totalitarian dictatorship or Junta curtailing free speech, criticism of Wikipedia's politicians is quite acceptable. No one asked them to stick their heads above the parapets and obtain power over the rest of us, and that includes you too. Giano (talk) 08:57, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

For anyone not following above

Kudpung's uninvited post on this page was caused by my disappointment at reading [5] this post by Jehochman

"Did you see this press releast from Wikimedia DC effusively praising the FramBan? [6] You can see Wikimedia DC board of directors here. [7] Gamaliel disclosed that he is a member of this same board. [8] Next have a look at the evidence Fram presented against Gamaliel that forced a resignation from the ArbCom (quite a painful thing, I'd guess): [9] Surely this has nothing to do with Gamaliel and his Wikimedia DC buddy Kirill Lokshin falsely denouncing me for deleting the Signpost's disputed article about Fram.[10][11] When I innocently asked Kirill to retract his baseless accusations, his angry responses exceeded all reason. [12] Finally, 28bytes asks an interesting question. [13] Very curious isn't it, and this is just the tip of the iceberg."

Anyway, as you can see above, I have had my veiled warning to shut up and not comment further, or be blocked or banned too. So you can form your own opinion, while I quietly work away on the project. Giano (talk) 09:39, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Knäckebröd for you!

Have some delicious knäckebröd! Bishonen | talk 17:33, 14 July 2019 (UTC).[reply]

Thank you my Darling, Liebling flower, have some Arrosticini in return. Thank you also to my very own “gay, courageous pirate crew” for your “buggering” about with my Baroque. I shall attempt to get the page finished tomorrow. It looks a better for your collective efforts. Quite nice to be back with you all, just like the good olden days. Giano (talk) 20:56, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Do any of my courageous crew think they could upload this [14] as "fair use." It is Osbert Lancaster's own drawing of the style he named. I woudl have thought we could use it, but I can never fathom all the explanations and it will only be loads of Bots and their owners will plaster me with deletion templates if I attempt it. One of those real examples of a picture speaking a thousand words. Giano (talk) 18:06, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Could be done, but I suspect the "Baroque" one in the same article would have to go in that case. Is that ok? Johnbod (talk) 18:18, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well I suppose so, but couldnt they be used as a comparison between true and sham Baroque or something like that? I like the true baroque one best, but I suppose we are here to inform. At the end of the day, if it wasn't for Lancaster the page wouldn't be here at all.Shall we go for it ad see who objects? Giano (talk) 18:21, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Curzon Street Baroque — time for DYK?

Is it time to put this charming and amusing article on DYK? Ohoy, the gay piratical crew? I have difficulty with nominating for DYK, I find it very thorny. Anybody? Are you ready for it, Giano? I suppose the obvious hook would be something like

DYK that the 1920s-1930s interior design Baroque revival style Curzon Street Baroque was also known as Buggers' Baroque?

It would be nice to work in the word "London", I guess, for context for a global audience, but I'm not sure how. Heck, it would also be lovely to work in some of the playful black cupids with gold underpants or the old leather bound hymn books hollowed out to become cigarette boxes and ancient gilt prie-dieux transformed into cabinets for the disguising of gramophones, but hooks usually seem to be very short. Bishonen | talk 09:02, 16 July 2019 (UTC).[reply]

DYK, Oh what an honour. Sadly, I won’t have time to edit for 24 hours (I can’t see what I’m doing on the phone). So please hook what you like. Just don’t go and upset anyone. Giano (talk) 09:07, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't have to be done today, just within a week of going to mainspace. ——SerialNumber54129 08:42, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Is anybody up for nominating the article for DYK? @Johnbod, KJP1, Dr.K., and RexxS:? Bishonen | talk 08:32, 17 July 2019 (UTC).[reply]

I was thinking about that a few days ago, but I think that the nomination window has expired. The article should have been nominated by 9 July. Dr. K. 09:47, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(11 July, but doesn't matter much.) Giano, make it a GA and you can nominate during the 7 days after it gets the quality. Or: fill some related red link and make a hook which also mentions this, - they get almost as many clicks as the bold article. Sorry that I missed it, busy - all year, it seems - to follow up on Recent deaths. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:58, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I see, writing the article in mainspace won't do for DYK. Great principle. :-( I actually looked for a rule about the age of the article at DYK before I posted here, but couldn't find one. It really is a baffling area. Bishonen | talk 10:28, 17 July 2019 (UTC).[reply]
You can write in Main space, just nominate no later than 7 days after beginning. (Regardless of how unfinished it is then!! You can finish afterwards.) - Teh rulez: Wikipedia:Did you know#Eligibility criteria. Sadly quite clear about new = 7 days. And then they linger in the process of reviewing and taking to prep. I have one open written in April, aiming at her birthday in May. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:27, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It is a week from having achieved the 1500-character mark. Dr. K. 10:59, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I'll do it - should be ok re timing, given the mitigating circumstances of Giano's well-known addition to tennis. Johnbod (talk) 13:04, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Template:Did you know nominations/Curzon Street Baroque. You won't get a fair use pic on the main page, so I've gone with Sandringham. Johnbod (talk) 13:27, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Giano, Gerda has some comments there, to be dealt with at your convenience. No rush, as she says above. Johnbod (talk) 14:33, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So I see; I have responded. I’m not territorial or glory Serling about this, any one wants to remove commas or whatever, please feel free. I’m travelling at the moment so spasmodically here. Giano (talk) 19:36, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Slightly less public

Gerda Who is Benton? Secondly, I think my FA days are behind me, but nice of you to say it. Giano (talk) 19:29, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, no idea, just a message: "Harv error: link from CITEREFBenton,_Benton_and_WoodArt_Déco_(1910–1939)2010 doesn't point to any citation." I thought you added that Sfn, but perhaps someone else? - I said GA (my initials), not FA. Look at Unionskirche, Idstein. You can just nominate as it is, and a reviewer says yes or no, - why not? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:35, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, probably a paragraph I wrote and then changed or deleted. I’ll remove it. No, I’m not into GAs or FAs any more, too much time jumping through empty hoops for people who know even less about the subject than the nominator and/or writer. What fun and luck to have GA as your initials, I can think of several editors who ought to have FA as theirs. Giano (talk) 19:44, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, and understand ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:49, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It links to footnote 39. Giano (talk) 19:57, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

yes ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:43, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I really enjoyed this article, it was brilliantly referenced. Thank you. No Swan So Fine (talk) 14:50, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your kind words. It is something a little different, I just hope with so many references, a little humour still manages to shine through. Giano (talk) 18:35, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of File:PiazzaQ3.JPG

The file File:PiazzaQ3.JPG has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

unused, no encyclopedic use. per WP:NOTWEBHOST

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. CptViraj (📧) 13:32, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Prod declined. --RexxS (talk) 13:52, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You might add where it is to the file though, Giano. Johnbod (talk) 14:48, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's probably in the same place as CptViraj's rather pointless RfA vote. Cassianto^Talk 20:51, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Johnbod: It's the Piazza del Quirinale and the Quirinal Palace. I've added a brief link to each of the images in the series. Presumably, they'll all get PRODed soon. No, wait, I have an idea ... that should fix it. --RexxS (talk) 15:49, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

”No encyclopaedic use”!!! CptViraj, you are very fortunate Rex saw this ridiculous nomination before I did. Of all the presidential palaces in the world, this should be instantly one of the most recognisable for its architectural merit. By comparison the White House is mundane, predictable and suburban, the Casa Rosada is common, and as for Lutyens’ Viceroys’ Palace, or whatever the Indians are currently calling it, we won’t even go there!I do not waste my time by uploading images of no encyclopaedic use. Giano (talk) 19:24, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Giano, just upload them to Commons - no one makes that sort of complaint there, though there do join hundreds of others. For once, we even have some decent interior photos. And a cracking table setting, prepared for all eventualities! Johnbod (talk) 00:37, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I'd be proud to eat egg on toast off that :) ——SerialNumber54129 09:16, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder why they’ve done an American place setting with coffee cups and pots on the table. Cups go on the table at the end if the meal not during and in a presidential palace, footman should carry the pot, and wine decanters stay on the side-table. If they must do these mock ups, I wish they do them properly. Interesting, that we now have interior pictures, it was a lack of them that lead me to abandon the page I was writing, I must see if I still have it in a long overwritten user page. Giano (talk) 16:46, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page watcher) At a guess, the china itself is of particular notability (I know virtually nothing about ceramics but Johnbod can probably tell you whether it's significant), and they wanted to include at least one example of each item in the full dinner service. That's not at all uncommon for the table settings in the open-to-the-public portions of historic buildings. ‑ Iridescent 16:53, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think they're showing the full service (Doccia perhaps), rather than taking service à la française to new heights. Johnbod (talk) 16:58, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

American place settings can be handy. For instance, two nights ago we were having clam bake at our campsite and I used the stainless steel coffee cups to serve broth for dipping the clams. (We were travelling incognito so didn't have a full set of table wares and servants.) Jehochman ^Talk 20:14, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose “campsites” must be very useful whilst discovering and charting more of your wild and savage country Mr Hochman, but from what I’ve read, more than sufficient has been discovered already. Furthermore, to travel without your staff, shows a lack of self-respect. The Lady Catherine de Burgh (talk) 20:42, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect your Ladyship, Mr. Hochman's arrangement sounds typically American: egalitarian and very practical. Also scalable enough for an informal dinner at the Governor's Mansion, if not the White House. Dr. K. 21:01, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

”Egalitarian” and “practicality” and “campsites” are not words with which I choose to be overfamiliar, the French were very into all that ridiculous nonsense - what with their liberty and fraternity and unchaining themselves in a public spectacle, and what did they get for their trouble? That diminutive Monsieur Macron. It’s the same with the Americans and that frightfully vulgar Mr Trump - it will all end in tears. Thank Goodness, at least we British, are now choosing our glorious leaders from the right schools. There is hope! The Lady Catherine de Burgh (talk) 21:18, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So true, your Ladyship. Although, I'm afraid, your latest choice of leader is just the Etonian version of the leader of the free world. Dr. K. 21:42, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Eton’s standards in that era seem to have been eased, allowing any idiot to attend, so long as their family had the right connections. The same seems to have been allowed at Wharton. Jehochman ^Talk 12:48, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A pedant writes; Eton has always allowed anyone to attend provided their family can stump up the fees and they got their name on the waiting list soon enough. That's what the "public" part of "public school" means. ‑ Iridescent 15:07, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

At the risk of sounding heretical to her Ladyship, given the unprecedented changes and the rise of populism in the US and the UK, it wouldn't be too far-fetched to imagine state dinners at 10 Downing Street and the White House where the main course would be clambake while drinks would be served on dual-purpose stainless steel cups, followed by a good movie of appropriate relevance. There is nothing more tradition-breaking, populist or egalitarian than that. Dr. K. 17:27, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just gonna put this here. ‑ Iridescent 18:23, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hahaha! Here I was thinking about a brave new world, only to be reminded that there's nothing new under the sun. If something similar happens under the new leadership, I guess we can classify this as History repeating itself. Dr. K. 18:36, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A brave new world requires brave people to inhabit it and they are, for the first time in history, in very short supply! We are heading towards a precipice with lunatics here, there and everywhere - in Washington, London, Hong Kong, Moscow, Pyongyang and Tehran, none of them will be happy until they’ve show us all the size of their weapons. I’ve built my ownbunker at Scrotum Towers and advise you all to do the same. The Lady Catherine de Burgh (talk) 21:01, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

+1. Well said, your Ladyship. Dr. K. 21:22, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note

I deem your comment over Eric's t/p to be a clear breach of WP:WIAPA (vide and peculiar sexual practices and those practicing them). Please be more careful, that you have been already warned. Regards, ∯WBG^converse 07:12, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Really Godric! If you think I was referring to homosexuality, you have a very narrow, antiquated and, frankly, disgraceful view about what constitutes a “peculiar sexual practice.” I think even my very late and very Catholic grandmother took a more tolerant view than thar. You need to travel more, you are clearly missing out on a lot of what life has to offer both legal and hopefully illegal. Giano (talk) 07:59, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your opinions on what I am missing in my life is irrelevant. Also, I have never mentioned of your's treating homosexuality as one of those peculiar sexual practices; you have synthesized that.

You have been already asked to stay clear of engaging in doublespeak in a particular domain and our next meet will be in AN. ∯WBG^converse 08:27, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You linked to a closed ANI thread on alleged transphobia and transgender issues, so you were clearly suggesting that was your thought. I could mention by name and provide more detail of the practices I had in mind, but I would have thought as an adult and user of the internet you would be slightly more aware, than you clearly are, and it wouldn’t be necessary for me to provide a less than gratifying explanation. As for double speak, some things are best left unsaid, unless of course one gets a kick out of such discussion.Giano (talk) 08:44, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Architectural decoration

Giano: Since I've had to blow past 4 edits this month, I spent a lot of time fixing a copyright-violating article, Germania Bank Building (New York City). The source of the copyvio was this document. I thought I'd managed to summarise and rephrase it all adequately, and found we had little articles on most of the decorative details mentioned to which I was able to link, but came up short on cheneau. The French Wikipedia article is linked with eavesdrip, although eavestrough would seem more accurate? It mentions "sima" in Classical architecture. What is being described with reference to the bank building does not appear to be a rain gutter at all, but an ornamental crown above the cornice. Perhaps it is the front face of the rain gutter? Google search suggests it may also be spelt chêneau, but that may be under influence from the place names. Can you elucidate, perhaps suggest somewhere I can point a redirect? Things are somewhat complicated by someone else further cutting my rewrite as still copyright-infringing; I've restored the bit about the cheneau with further changes, but if it isn't there in the version of the article you see, that will be why. Thanks if you can help. Yngvadottir (talk) 19:16, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Yngvadottir, without physically climbing up to look it’s impossible to be sure, but I suspect that is a very ornate parapet gutter. Normally that’s a lead lined stone conduit hidden from front view by a parapet. In this case the whole thing is possibly made of copper of more likely copper coping with lead hidden behind. Without looking it’s impossible to know. But whatever, it’s almost certainly a parapet gutter of some description. See [15] See also Sima (architecture), but that’s not really what I suspect this is. It’s more likely a parapet gutter masquerading as a sima. Giano (talk) 19:58, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve just edited the article and put in an indisputable description. However it’s only really a sima if the whole roof were to be copper and what you see from the ground is just a final “flick up” at the ends of the downward slopes of the pitched roof. If the roof and “flick up” are of different materials then it’s a parapet. Sorry I’m not explaining this terribly well, so ask if confused. Giano (talk) 20:26, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds right - the iw link from fr:Chéneau to eavesdrip certainly seems wrong (of course these days too complicated to fix). I've redirected parapet gutter to Rain gutter, where we seem to cover all varieties of gutter, unlike the French. That could do with a checkover from someone who understands these things, which I don't. I'd never heard of an eavestrough, I must say. Johnbod (talk) 20:28, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, neither have I. The more I think about it, it’s likely the architect wanted to convey the classical sima idea, but I doubt that’s what it really is. There will be a water gutter up there behind that, but I suspect it’s just a copper plated parapet with a lead gulley behind. Drainpipes obviously hidden in the walls, always a recipe for damp walls after and huge expense 50 years! Giano (talk) 20:39, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Judging by fr:gouttière, the French distinguish between a gutter supported on brackets and extending in front of the wall, and an eavestrough or concealed gutter, which they call a chéneau and is functionally the same as the sima (I should have looked for a sima article but am not sure I would have understood it if I had.) I'd move the interwiki link for chéneau, but we have one article, they have two, so that's impossible. Thanks for your edit, Giano; I tweaked it a little. So it is indeed the front of the gutter. I wonder how widely "cheneau" is used in English to be just thrown in there by the Landmarks Commission? Yngvadottir (talk) 21:07, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It’s not a term I use or am familiar with. It’s sort of explained here]. I shall be sticking with parapet gutter. Giano (talk) 21:15, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of File:Bramham Park.gif

The file File:Bramham Park.gif has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

unused locally, no reason to retain local copy per WP:NOTWEBHOST

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. CptViraj (📧) 16:19, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed your notice because I place a “keep local” template on the image years ago. Giano (talk) 18:44, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- @CptViraj: The policy you are relying on for your proposed deletion is WP:NOTSTORAGE, which states "Please upload only files that are used (or will be used) in encyclopedia articles or project pages". I think you'll find by even the merest glance at Special:Contributions/Giano that he is almost certainly the encyclopedia's foremost contributor to articles on the subject of architecture. With that in mind, how would you rate the chances that at some point in the future he is likely to make use in an encyclopedia article of the photograph of a Grade I listed 18th-century country house? If you are willing to concede that the chance is reasonably significant, then perhaps you may also be willing to concede that your proposed deletion could quite possibly be misguided?
  Greetings, Excellency, from sunny Stockholm! --RexxS (talk) 20:07, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Rex. For clarifying, and many greetings fro grim, grey London. Giano (talk) 07:38, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Noted, my apologize. -- CptViraj (📧) 12:00, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

English literature and copyright

As many of you will know, like my great friend Bishonen, I have a deep love and understanding of the finer English literature and poetry. So can I quote a 1936 poem in full in a page about that poem? It would be helpful to know before I write the page in too much detail. Giano (talk) 17:42, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Another of your devoted friends shares that love (but sadly much less of the understanding) of fine literature, Excellency. But sadly, I also am aware of the strictures of List of countries' copyright lengths, which explains that the usual term for which copyright lasts in the UK and the USA is 70 years post mortem auctoris (as your illustrious ancestors would put it). The author, Osbert Sitwell died in 1969, which leads me to suspect that his poem won't come out of copyright until at least 1 January 2040. That may turn out to be rather late for me to have a chance to appreciate it, but should allow you to write the article at a leisurely pace.

Greetings from muggy Munich! --RexxS (talk) 19:41, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You do get about don’t you? Can I quote selected lines? It is one of the greatest works of the English language, far better than those dated old novels and plays Austen and Shakespeare used to churn out. Giano (talk) 20:03, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes you can - take a look at Wikipedia:LYRICS#License_considerations. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:06, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Aha! So could I start each section off with a different verse as a block quote and then analyse it? Giano (talk) 20:23, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, although I wouldn't suggest doing that for every single verse. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:26, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I shall see what I can do. The trouble is every verse is needed to explain the wit, the people and the politics. Thanks for your help. Giano (talk) 20:29, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You can use <poem>...</poem>, Excellency, to keep the formatting of a poem like this:

Arma virumque cano, Troiae qui primus ab oris
  Italiam, fato profugus, Laviniaque venit
litora, multum ille et terris iactatus et alto
  vi superum saevae memorem Iunonis ob iram;
multa quoque et bello passus, dum conderet urbem,
  inferretque deos Latio, genus unde Latinum,
Albanique patres, atque altae moenia Romae.

It retains line-breaks and indentations just as you present them. It's very convenient for quoting verses next to normal article prose. --RexxS (talk) 20:57, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Curzon Street Baroque

Hi, I'm working on formatting the references, but it's slow going. You need to add page numbers. In general, articles can be cited in the references section, books in the bibliography (or "sources") section. In future, please use either regular or Harvard citation style; see WP:Citation templates and Help:Sfn. Yoninah (talk) 13:48, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you [[Yoninah, as far as I’m aware when referencing to a written book, I have used page numbers. Perhaps there in confusion because Tinniswood wrote both a book and a web page used as references. Please don’t waste your valuable time if it’s slow going. I’m really not that bothered about DYKs, FAs and GAs. I haven’t a clue about Harvard and regular cites, and find using either a complete mystery. So long as there is a decipherable way of referring to refs that’s good enough for me. If there is a missing page number, I a, more than happy to provide it, as o own all the books used. Giano (talk) 16:53, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I feel I ought to remind you, Yoninah, that we have agreed that editors should not change the style of references in an article without first seeking consensus for the change. The result of an ArbCom ruling in 2006 is summarised in WP:CITEVAR. This allows editors developing articles to use whatever style of referencing they are most comfortable with.

Of course, both you and I will agree that using citation templates and shortened footnotes makes the references more robust and functional, but we should not be demanding that other editors do the same. It's a job we can do ourselves in good time. Incidentally, I fixed the Harvard reference errors in the shortened footnotes you added. If you're working with Harvard-style refs regularly, I'd recommend adding importScript( 'User:Ucucha/HarvErrors.js' ); to your custom JavaScript page, User:Yoninah/common.js. It will show up any Harvard-style short references that don't match the full citation. --RexxS (talk) 20:46, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@RexxS: if you take a look at the references that I did not change, you will see one-word refs—no publication, date, page number, etc. If you think this defers to the page creator's referencing system, so be it. But it is not acceptable for DYK. I am returning the hook from the DYK prep area to the nomination template in the hopes that the referencing can be sorted out one way or another. Yoninah (talk) 20:50, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Yoninah: Allowing what is acceptable for DYK to dictate how an editor develops an article really is the definition of the tail wagging the dog. The references that you did not change clearly refer to the full citations defined in the Curzon Street Baroque #Bibliography, which is sufficient to identify the source. "Charlish" refers to https://web.archive.org/web/20190704161319/http://www.culturewars.org.uk/index.php/site/article/a_style_that_sings_and_dances/ which is an online article, so has no page numbers. Similarly for "Woods". Waldock's essay is only eight pages of double line-spaced text including citations, so a page number is hardly needed, but I've supplied one anyway.

Nevertheless, it would be helpful to have the page number for current reference number 29, "O Sitwell, Rat Week". If Giano can look that up, would that then meet your concerns? --RexxS (talk) 22:03, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you RexxS I see someone has found the page on E books, it is the same page number in the written book too. Although in that particular case, I didn’t quote the page number though as I was just attributing the poem to Sitwell rather than his book of the same name, just as if I said “Onward into the Valley of Death etc” I would attribute it to “A Tennyson, The Charge of the Light Brigade.” Thank you all for sorting this referencing thing out for me, I can quite see why Eric got so grumpy, as he chose to live permanently on the world of DYKs and GAs. Really is too much pedantics. I think when my next page on a very similar subject goes live, we will leave it to languish unread. Pity though as it’s going to have some very amusing quotes. Giano (talk) 16:08, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

DYK nomination of Curzon Street Baroque

Hello! Your submission of Curzon Street Baroque at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah (talk) 20:55, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I didn’t contribute to DYK and life is far too short for all of this. Really, it’s only a silly page that I wrote for fun some months ago that some people thought would be something that some people May Not Know! I’m sure most people are jolly glad that they don’t know. The There are far more weightier and worthy pages to concentrate upon, so please forget it. Giano (talk) 21:41, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

DYK nomination of Curzon Street Baroque

Hello! Your submission of Curzon Street Baroque at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! RebeccaGreen (talk) 14:55, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing your comment just above, perhaps you don't want to do any more on this article. There are some references that need additional information, as per my comment at the bottom of the DYK nomination discussion. If you don't want or aren't able to add the info, it would be great if you could say so there, so the DYK editors don't spend more time on it. If you can add the info, this will make an interesting, fun and silly DYK, but without the referencing fixed, it seems unlikely to be used. RebeccaGreen (talk) 14:55, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you RebeccaGreen and Serial Number, I don’t have any preferences at all, I just use the only way I know how. Ive addedthe missong book. There’s obviously a problem with http://www.culturewars.org.uk/index.php/site/article/a_style_that_sings_and_dances/, which is a bloody nuisance. I’ll try and source that from elsewhere, it’s hardly a controversial view. I still can’t help wondering, though, if this is a suitable subject for the Main Page. The disparagement of Homosexual decorators is not everyone’s cup of tea, especially when written for fun rather than with a serious agenda. I do hope it doesn’t upset anyone if it’s ever allowed on the Main Page. Giano (talk)

I found the article by Nicky Charlish at the Internet Archive, Excellency, at https://web.archive.org/web/20190704161319/http://www.culturewars.org.uk/index.php/site/article/a_style_that_sings_and_dances/ so I've updated the article to use that. Problem solved.

I've also used a little trick that highlights the relevant entry in the Biblography section when the short footnote is clicked. That may help any reviewers who have difficulty spotting that the Charlish citation refers to the Charlish source, and so on. --RexxS (talk) 18:39, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Rex. I was beginning to think perhaps this very flippant article wasn’t wanted on the Main Page. I can quite see why Eric, who lived in this environment, was permanently on a short fuse. I don’t think we’ll bother with the plaudit seeking again, far too much fuss over nothing; especially this piece of fluff. Giano (talk) 20:21, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Usually they go rather smoothly to the approval stage - the rapids start after that, with sinister fiddlers waiting in the dark. But sometimes they get all tangled up at review. We'll get there in the end, especially with RexxS's help. Johnbod (talk) 21:22, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I understand, Excellency. But you could also say that the fuss brings more eyes to the article, and may have resulted in some improvements like finding another source for Charlish and adding the Lucie-Smith cite. It's not all bad news, and I remain optimistic about the willingness of good folks like my friend Johnbod to help out. Your efforts have galvanised a disparate bunch to add a source here, to correct a spelling there, and so on. It's what makes Wikipedia the amazing place it is. Thank you. --RexxS (talk) 21:24, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You are both correct. I don’t mean to be tetchy, I an just naturally bad tempered. We are shining a glorious light on what our gay friends had to endure comparatively recently. Far better to do it with a smile than a grumpy frown. However, I think I will stick with more conventional architecture in future, which may be a problem as I have Osbert, Sybil and two queens waiting in the wings. Giano (talk) 21:46, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Corbett case

I notice you mentioned that Carolmooredc had organized this operation against Eric Corbett. I had not idea because I've not paid that much attention to this dreary topic. Carolmooredc and I have history.[16] Could you point me to a link that shows her activity? Jehochman ^Talk 11:41, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Did I really?, how odd. I’m afraid Jehochman, I must be going senile faster than I thought. Could I have nice refreshing diff for that. I can’t recall ever having heard of that editor. Giano (talk) 19:47, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is I who am losing my mind. Sorry, I think I misread something. It was another editor. Jehochman ^Talk 19:52, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oh what a relief. I’ll risk another glass of brain cell killing wine to celebrate. Giano (talk) 20:02, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Curzon Street Baroque

On 28 August 2019, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Curzon Street Baroque, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the 1920s–1930s interior design style Curzon Street Baroque (example pictured) was also known as Buggers' Baroque? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Curzon Street Baroque. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Curzon Street Baroque), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

— Maile (talk) 12:01, 28 August 2019 (UTC) [reply]

Thank you, and all who helped! - I have Redoute, in the same set, and expansion of the architectural part would be nice. I am busy, going to sing on Sunday! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:01, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks to all those who helped put the references in the amazingly difficult and prescribed format. It was much appreciated and quite beyond me. Nice to be part of a team. Giano (talk) 14:35, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations, sweetheart! It's fantastic to see a top editor such as you highlighting and showcasing the talents of gay people in a lovely article like that. A happy day for Wikipedia’s LGBT community! Bishonen | talk 17:16, 28 August 2019 (UTC).[reply]

What a kind thing to say, although, I really can’t accept such undeserved praise. Much of the world’s greatest art has been created by gay people without any assistance from me, although I’m not sure Curzon Street Baroque falls into that category. It’s a fun little page though, only marred by the refusal of any assistance when I requested it from one of the Wikipedia LGBT community’s leaders. Hardly surprising, as a group, their work isn’t more widely known. Never mind, the page got there in the end. Giano (talk) 17:33, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

5,447 views - a decent score. Johnbod (talk) 13:31, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Corbett's userpage

Restoring it to his last version seems reasonable, and I have no objection to it. I was mostly just removing the unnecessary scarlet letters. I'm sad to see Eric go, since he contributed so much to the WP:GAN process. :( In any case, good luck! Reaper Eternal (talk) 17:48, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The edit summary was not intended for you. Thanks for the wish for good luck, I expect I shall need it. Giano (talk) 17:55, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Socking spree in Harrods

That was golden. Haukur (talk) 11:08, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's all really rather a sad spectacle, and another botched and badly managed affair, just like the Framban. Evidence has been stretched and manipulated to fit devious and mischievous ends. As usual, it will be the project which pays the true price. Doubtless this will rattle and prattle on for a few more days and then we'll all settle down until the next cock-up is manufactured by those in authority over us. It wouldn't be half so bad, if any of Eric's adversaries had any wit or charm, but they don't - just a collection of lacklustre, grey miserable people with as much appeal as a Victorian mausoleum in a suburbian cemetery om a wet, windy November afternoon. Giano (talk) 11:39, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm rather partial to a suburban Victorian mausoleum! KJP1 (talk) 13:37, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yerse, but your photo was taken in Spring and by a visitor rather than one entering for eternity. Giano (talk) 14:24, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

September 2019

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to delete or edit legitimate talk page comments, as you did at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard, you may be blocked from editing. [17] Andy Dingley (talk) 17:24, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(insert eyeroll emoji here) Yes Giano, it could not possibly be true that you did this by accident in an edit conflict, and it is of course impossible for Andy to ask about it first, instead of immediately accuse. I am considering deleting all {{uw-**}} templates in order to force humans to interact with other humans like they were humans. Adding this template to this talk page is the height of idiocy, and a symptom of what is wrong with all of us. I suppose it's nice that he didn't say "Welcome to Wikipedia", though. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:31, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

To the best of my knowledge I have not deleted or altered anyone’s edits. If Andy Dingley (whosoever he happens to be) thinks after 15 years here, I am deliberately doing so he had better block me now. Trolling idiot! Giano (talk) 19:12, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The diff looks as if one user's post was inadvertently deleted when adding a comment, and it happened to me the same, before. Good faith seems in short supply these days. See my talk page for a more personal September 2019 message, but - coming from Bish - personal, of course. I removed my own post, but no no no not even when you are a bit ashamed. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:18, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have not troubled myself to look at the diff, nor do I intend to. Posting there this afternoon was full of conflicts, and for some stupid reason, the archived section showed as the above section; it’s a wonder anyone managed to post there at all. So if some new and inexperienced Admin (where on earth do they find them?) wants to take me on, he is welcome to try. However, it’s more likely just a new admin trying to make a name for himself. I have seen this many times before, been here too long I think. Giano (talk) 19:40, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

From what I can tell, Andy Dingley is not an admin. I think this failing project has suffered enough. Cassianto^Talk 20:36, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Really? What is he then? Giano (talk) 20:39, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
He's the person who's edit you accidentally overwrote. This could have been resolved in 10 seconds: Andy: "Hey Giano, you overwrote my post. Did you mean to?" Giano: "No, must have been a glitch, sorry." Andy: "No problem, it happens". --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:41, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is all far too confusing, can one be blocked by a non-admin for posting and accidentally overwriting an edit (if that’s what I did). I’ve never even heard of this Dingle person before. Perhaps he works for the WMF who are far more powerful than Admins and Arbs these days. Giano (talk) 20:47, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe he's off the telly? Cassianto^Talk 21:14, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Being a fan of old American science fiction, I rather fancy Mr. Dingle, the Strong from the Twilight Zone. (sorry, but the good Dr. Who was not available to me while I was growing up) — Ched (talk) 22:04, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Calling for a genealogist

Are there any genealogists out there stalking my page? I have a feeling that the subject of my scintillating new page is not all he says he is. The dashing Italian marchese and cavalry officer does not seem to be in the Libro d'Oro, which doesn't necessarily mean a problem, but what is a problem is my research seems to show him being born in Shoreditch, London, which is an unusual place for members of the Italian nobility to be born. Does anyone belong to one of those expensive sites that trace people's ancestors. Giano (talk) 13:44, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I do. If you email me the details I'll see what I can find. Cassianto^Talk 13:55, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No secret and he's long dead. It's this man here the Marchese Piero Malacrida de Saint-August, also known as Peter Malacrida. Not only does the British BMD site show him born in Shoreditch in 1989, but this site] shows his aristocratic lineage dying out in 1763, which is very unfortunate. That he was rich and than he was a playboy is not in doubt. A lot of my sources call him "mysterious." He arrived on the London scene fully formed and then disappeared. Howver, I have found him in Dublin and dying there forty years after his "disappearance." British sources have him dying in 1980 and Irish in 1984, still calling himself a marchese. Interesting. Giano (talk) 14:02, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking more so I can send you copies, should you wish to see them. Just confirm, is he 30? You say he was born in 1989. Cassianto^Talk 14:53, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've found a will of probate for a Peter Charles Malacrida who died at 28 Shrewsbury Road, Ballsbridge, Dublin, leaving an estate of £11,188. His death date is shown as 22 April 1983. Is this him? Cassianto^Talk 15:04, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, you have him. Giano (talk) 15:05, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thats a very good start because the sources have confusing dates of death, the English kill him off in 1980 and the Irish 1983. Giano (talk) 15:07, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wonderful. I've sent you the copy. I'll have a dig about for some more. Cassianto^Talk 15:38, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

He seems to have changed his name from Piero to Pier to Peter. His wife, Nadja, is better known, but surprisingly doesn't have her own page here, Nadja Malacrida. Giano (talk) 15:43, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Giano, I have a subscription to Ancestry.com. What is your source for him having been born in Shoreditch? There is a Peter Malacrida who was born there in 1887, rather off his birth date of 1889 and he died in infancy. Obviously the wrong person. The site has a listing for "Pier Maria Malacrida" on the passenger list of a ship arriving in New York in September 1921, birth year c. 1890, nationality "Italian", occupation "journalist". He returned to the UK in January 1922. Gaetano Malacrida appears to be his father. He was a physician who lived on Lake Como and Milan and wrote several medical books. Voceditenore (talk) 16:11, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So did I. I think this might've been in hand. Never mind. Cassianto^Talk 17:46, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Our man is Piero L M Malacrida de Saint-August, but he also called himself Pier and Peter. I suspect you have him. I found the Shoreditch birth on the UK Free BMD site, so probably is the wrong one. Giano (talk) 16:15, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lake como area would fit nicely too with the aristocratic Malacrida's although they are using the surname plus area title surname far too early. The "de" rather than "di" is also suspicious, although if they were of Swiss origin perhaps not. Giano (talk) 16:17, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yea, he gives his second forename as Maria here [18], so you definitely have him. Giano (talk) 16:20, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

On his marriage record to Louise Nadja Green on Ancestry.com, his full name was given as "Pier Luigi Carlo Maria Malacrida". Best Voceditenore (talk) 16:23, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks that's really helpful and explains why he is Anglicised to Peter Charles on his death. Is there anything about the him being a Marchese? Giano (talk) 16:27, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

His marriage record lists his occupation as "Marquess and writer", but then that's obviously information supplied by him. Voceditenore (talk) 16:48, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I cant find him in the Libro d’Oro, but that is far from conclusive, probably just my edition. However, it was not unknown for some people to “promote” themselves, especially if they were interior decorator type people, and Italian titles could come from various origins rather than a single monarchy which makes them harder to verify. It’s where his vast fortune came from that is interesting, and where he went after 1935 before turning up in Ireland 20 years later. He was considered “mysterious” at the time, so would be nice to solve a few puzzles. Thanks for your help. Giano (talk) 17:52, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all your help above. I think I’ve pretty much exhausted all sources, so I’m done with the mysterious marchese, who will have to remain a man of mystery. Shame he was a stub already as DYK May have produced some more info. Giano (talk) 09:50, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Giano, you have expanded the article well over 5 times, which means he is eligible for DYK, no probs. 13:05, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

... just needs a nom by Friday. Should I? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:13, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your turn, I think, Gerda! Thanks! Hooks, Giano, or anyone? Johnbod (talk) 13:27, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know ... that Piero Malacrida de Saint-August's first wife was far more interesting than he was?

--RexxS (talk) 13:58, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be thankful for a bit more about HIM ;) - or do I really have to read the article? - I mean, yes, I'm willing to do so and curious, but right now work on one whose birthday is today, and tomorrow want to focus on Clara Schumann, because her bicentenary is on Friday, and she should look presentable ;) - She was the first piano teacher at Dr. Hoch's Konservatorium, and was pictured on a German bank note (with that building in the background), DYK? - Free concerts around her music all days of this week at the place! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:14, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think we’ll leave it, a: because I don’t know how to format the refs; b: it should have been about her not him; c:I smell a big rat with him and his background. Giano (talk) 15:37, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

note:

I was the one that asked for Eric's page to be protected. I notified Eric when I did. He's requested that the protection be removed. I've honored that request. I thought I should be upfront with you about it - even it it means you now think less of me. — Ched (talk) 15:41, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all, I knew it was you, I didn't agree with you, but that doesn't mean I happen to think any less of you. Giano (talk) 17:26, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Piero Malacrida de Saint-August (again)

So Piero studied engineering at Leeds, but it doesn't sound like he ever worked as an engineer. Do you know when exactly he started with the interior design, and with writing about it? I ask because I have written that when he and Nadja met, he was a "journalist and former cavalry officer". And I thought I'd add something about how he started with interior design in the late 1920s. Would that be right, do you think, or was he already doing it when they met? Does Tinniswood have anything to say on the subject? Bishonen | talk 20:54, 20 September 2019 (UTC).[reply]

No, is the simple answer. Tinniswood only mentions this internationally important couple on about five pages, where they seem to have “arrived” fully formed. I’ll email you the relevant pages tomorrow. My own research suggests that Malacrida was generally more a “posh” bathroom designer than interior designer, I don’t think he ever designed any interiors at all for real people, more wealthy industrialist type people. I’ll email the pages in the morning. Giano (talk) 21:10, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cecil Roberts

Aha! Thank you! I had just been wondering why we didn't have an article about the guy. It turns out we have! Bishonen | talk 18:48, 21 September 2019 (UTC).[reply]

Happy to help. The early 20th century poets have always poked my spirituality. Who can forget Jane Austin’s sensitive and moving words following The Battle of Balaclava? Giano (talk) 19:08, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely. "Beauty is truth, truth beauty" and so on [is too overcome to type more]. Bishonen | talk 20:28, 21 September 2019 (UTC).[reply]

One can’t beat an ode. As Walter de la Mare so memorably and momentously wrote, encapsulating the zeitgeist of that traumatic era:

Mummy there's a wabbit in the garden;

says Charlie whose just three.

Mummy there's a wabbit in the garden

has he come to play with me?

Who can fail to weep when reading that. Giano (talk) 21:21, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

With "poked my spirituality", did you mean "spooked my spirituality"? Bishonen | talk 21:31, 21 September 2019 (UTC).[reply]

Possibly, Yes.Giano (talk) 08:35, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please

abide by WP:MINOR; the last edit of your's to revert me did not fit. Regards, ∯WBG^converse 20:22, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Godric, you are being even more tiresome than usual. Please go away and write a page or try and do something useful. At the moment, for reasons best known to yourself, you are a trolling Bishonen and now trolling me. You are making a complete fool of yourself. Please stop. Giano (talk) 20:27, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Giano reported by User:Winged Blades of Godric (Result: ). Thank you. ∯WBG^converse 12:27, 27 September 2019 (UTC) How surprising it is, that those who troll fro trouble generally find it. Giano (talk) 13:14, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I appear to be secretly blocked

It woudl appear the good old days are returning to us! Giano (talk) 11:32, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"This account is currently blocked. The latest block log entry is provided below for reference:

11:29, 13 November 2019 K6ka talk contribs blocked Giano talk contribs with an expiration time of indefinite (account creation blocked) (Suspected compromised account)

View full log"

It's not secret if there's a public log for it... @K6ka: I don't think Giano's account is compromised, he's just trying to make a point. – Joe (talk) 11:40, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

if it is not told to me: it is a secret. Don't try to justify your committee's covert activities. It won't wash here. Giano (talk) 11:42, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

K6ka isn't on ArbCom. He was responding to an AIV report. – Joe (talk) 11:47, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I do apologise, I thought you were on the Arbitration Committee. Giano (talk) 11:49, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oh dear. I've unblocked, as I can say with confidence that the account is not compromised. If it talks like a duck and walks like a duck, it's Giano. Bishonen | talk 12:06, 13 November 2019 (UTC).[reply]
- Thank you very much. Yes, it is indeed me. How very perceptive of you to spot it. I did think Wikipedia had moved on a little from these subversive, silencing blocks issued by Arbs and their lackeys in secret. Probably orchestrated off-site on some clandestine chat channel I wouldn't be surprised. Poor Eric's monumental list of pages of FAs and GAs must be a huge embarrassment for them - very hard to explain. I woudl try and suppress his contributions too, if I was responsible for his absence. Giano (talk) 12:12, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Oh no! It's not Giano, it's Lady Catherine! Bishonen | talk 12:17, 13 November 2019 (UTC).[reply]

I do hope she's not blocked as well, she takes a very dim view of inefficiency amongst the staff. Giano (talk) 12:19, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. --Jehochman ^Talk 16:39, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that the administrator who blocked you as a compromised account (which you're not), is now himself being suspected of being compromised. GoodDay (talk) 16:51, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Although that possibly bad-faith accusation is likely to result in a boomerang. Chris Troutman (talk) 16:52, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence? K6ka has been acting weirdly for sure. Maybe they are just incompetent or malicious, instead of compromised. That's reassuring...Jehochman ^Talk 17:52, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What a fucking toxic, depressing place ANI is. I felt Jehochman was unfairly treated there by Pradixicae, is that their name? They certainly did not come out of that looking particularly good. Cassianto^Talk 18:18, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with ANI is that every wrongdoer is summoned there and ends up having it on their watchlist. Jehochman ^Talk 18:32, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. I think you're being ultra reserved in calling them wrongdoers. Cassianto^Talk 20:10, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My real life (yes, I do have one) has caused me to miss this less than exciting afternoon. It seems we are returning to the dark Wikipedian days which so many of us fought to overturn - Surreptitious blocks, off-site scheming coupled with an Arbitration Committee instructed from elsewhere. I recently noted with some joy, however, that candidates for the forthcoming election no longer have to give their private details and names to the WMF; so I encourage as many as possible to put their names forward. Giano (talk) 20:33, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Too late, the nomination period has ended. Giano, I have reverted your latest insertion of Eric Corbett's page at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee. I see what you're doing, but please stop. Bishonen | talk 20:46, 13 November 2019 (UTC).[reply]

Never mind, nobody in their right mind would wish to join that cringing, lack lustre cohort of WMF toadies. We are all better off ploughing our own furrow and doing what we know to be right. Giano (talk) 20:55, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I see I missed high drama. The nerve of blanking Eric's user page. Thank you for drawing attention to it, I'm glad you are unblocked, and I've thanked Scottywong for restoring the page; I also owe thanks to all of you who assembled to express your disgust. Yngvadottir (talk) 22:48, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you would

Please refrain from making edits such as these, it would be appreciated. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 20:43, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

life can be very tiresome, but the totally despicable Arbs have made their point, for no other reason than pure malevolent spite. Attempting to suppress evidence of the many pages Eric Corbett created and raised to GA and FA is beneath contempt. I shall continue to ensure all who visit Wikipedia are aware who actually writes the project. Giano (talk) 20:49, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- If you want to make a point that's fine (even though it's incorrect) - but unless you cease disrupting Wikipedia to make it you will be blocked. Thryduulf (talk) 21:33, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that’s the universal cure for all evil here. However, what people like you are always too stupid to see, is that if you drive people underground, they will always need to pop up for air. Moral: Treat people like worms and they will tend to behave like snakes. So don’t complain when you get bitten. Giano (talk) 21:37, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Is it a coincidence that you come here and offer a needless warning, at a time when you're nursing a candidacy at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2019/Candidates? Cassianto^Talk 21:39, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Thryduulf (talk) 21:40, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it is. I believe you, if thousands wouldn't. Cassianto^Talk 21:42, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oh well, at least he’s here, the other Arbs are disassociating themselves, on their talk pages, from Eric’s edits as fast as they can. The world hasn’t seen such hurried activity since Lady Macbeth and Pontius Pilate installed new bathrooms. Giano (talk) 21:48, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Beware, Giano, it’s the silly season. Several candidates will try to differentiate themselves by taking a hard line against “problem” editors. A better candidate strategy is to relax and avoid escalating disputes. Jehochman ^Talk 01:35, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lummee... will this place ever mature? LessHeard vanU (talk) 17:09, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

....and you young man can keep your clever comments to yourself! My nephew has enough to contend with without your less than smart ejaculations. Fortunately my celebrated perception alerted me to the commencement of the silly season, so with that in mind, I have put my fountain pen to writing paper and begun another of my highly informative election guides. Everything one needs to know and a great deal more than necessary about the candidates. There are one or two hopefuls, though, this year, which is a great improvement on previous elections. My succinct and concise guide will save people endless hours trawling through dull questions and their less than honest replies, not to mention all those boastful statements telling porkies about themselves. The Lady Catherine de Burgh (talk) 18:16, 15 November 2019 (UTC)t[reply]

My apologies, m'Lady. Will I still be required to provide your sinister browed aunt The Dowager Christina with her supply of natural oils at the usual address? I must regretfully point out that your perceptions of the candidature of some local clique, while certainly likely entertaining, is of no import to me as I intend to be no less infrequent a visitor to these climes as I have recently been. LessHeard vanU (talk) 17:04, 16 November 2019 (UTC) ps. The Slovian Attache to the Republic of Cameroon sends his regards.[reply]

TFA

Bramshill House is the FA today. (And I've pinged you from a report I have made at WP:ERRORS.) You had more involvement in the article than I did, but of course lead editor was Eric, and I see Gerda has thanked him on his talk page. Yngvadottir (talk) 17:20, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oh Hell! Did I, are you sure? I can’t even think what it looks like. This is what happens when a bunch of incompetents ban an editor who still has work to be showcased! I’ll take a look on Eric’s behalf. If it’s something serious we will have to get him to fix it by email and proxy. Giano (talk) 18:39, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Busy today, I didn't look at all contribs, just who was mentioned in the FAC. Thank you, Giano, also for speaking up for achievements! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:20, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Don’t worry. To be quite honest, Garda, I can’t remember editing the page, so my contribution must have been very small indeed. Giano (talk) 21:25, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Being disruptive and harassment

Giano, your editing has been disruptive and your harassment isn't going to be tolerated. I've blocked you for 72 hours. Please do not repeat this. If you want to edit then please stick to articles. Thank you,
— Berean Hunter (talk) 20:27, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Berean Hunter, what you removed was not harrassment, and neither you nor anyone else is in a position to tell Giano to "stick to articles". You're not sticking to articles either. ---Sluzzelin talk 20:57, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Berean Hunter, funny you should be here, seeing as it was you who also blocked Eric's sock. Tell me, is it your intention to run off every editor who has ever done anything good on this failing project? Cassianto^Talk 21:09, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take that as a yes then. Cassianto^Talk 19:33, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Cassianto^Talk 21:20, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Cassianto, Thank Goodness the Arbcom and their friends aren’t currently in charge of Honk Kong. When criticism of the ruling elite isn’t permitted.......Giano (talk) 21:29, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, I don't much care for AN or it's evil twin sister (too twisted and corrupt for my liking), but you have to play these people at their own game. It appears the peanut gallery are out in force, so I expect someone will wind it up soon and crack on with trying to block another productive editor from somewhere. Cassianto^Talk 22:02, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes it’s worth playing the long game. (Yes, yes, in the long run we’re all dead so the long run doesn’t matter. I mean a long run that’s not quite that long.) Jehochman ^Talk 02:15, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

- Long game, short game, it’s all the same to me. Never look back and never appolagise is a pretty good maxim for life. 72 hours for posting that to a little watched talk page has done Eric far more good than I ever could. Then the pure, but predicted joy of watching the well organised militia troop out like the marching chocolate soldiers to endorse the block. Sometimes, it’s dull always being right and I do feel guilty - it’s rather like thieving candy from a baby. I shall spend the remaining time listening to a little Wagner, always so inspiring when one is surrounded by so many less than heroic figures. Giano (talk) 19:15, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Did you say Wagner? See, I could say useless block at WP:Great Dismal Swamp, but it probably would be useless. Music is always better. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:26, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Alberich, a rather unpleasant little dwarf, bullying the Nibelungs.

I did indeed say Wagner, in particular, Der Ring des Nibelungen. All of Wikipedia passes through, such fun spotting the characters. I, however, despite not being an Admin, am not prepared to be treated as a Nibelungen, nor am I (as very weirdly wished for on the Admin’s board yesterday) going to die. So at the risk of mixing my metaphors, the Chocolate Soldiers are not quite going to cut the mustard and you dear Gerda wont have to sing the Liebestod here just yet. Giano (talk) 20:46, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Alberich I saw was thunderous in renouncing love and cursing the ring. My Liebestod is in the fly, which doesn't even include those blocked for no good reason. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:55, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I saw Christine Goerke, as Brunhilda, at the Met in the early part of this year and thought her superb, but the critics panned her. Which just goes to show Wikipedia and Wagner have so much in common - No matter how much you give, non-performers will always queue to knock you down. Giano (talk) 21:44, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Could you give her article a lead? I'm too tired right now. - Critics and I often disagree on voices ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:54, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly, circumstances prevent my doing that right now! But as a consolation here is my sainted aunt, in her prime, preparing for my return and taking on my detractors. Giano (talk) 22:01, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say immediately, no? - My Brünnhilde is Dara Hobbs who shed a real tear in the Liebestod of 2012. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:11, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I an not quite ready for any Liebestode yet tearful, over my dead body or otherwise because I am going nowhere. We have the elections to look forward to, always a fun, diverting time over the season of communal good cheer! Talking of the Met, I saw Elīna Garanča there about ten years ago, now her weeping over my corpse just might be an incentive to die - should any of our chocolate soldiers have the nouse to arrange it. However, I rather think the Met may partly be one of Wikipedia’s problems: most Americans here do seem to be a worryingly long way from New York in so very many respects, don’t they? Giano (talk) 22:37, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Although it is perhaps unconventional to be deadly serious on Giano's talk page, I've just gone round and cleaned up a bunch of well-meaning but poor quality edits that made (IMHO) the respective articles worse. In the case of Eric's contributions, especially the FAs, I think we could be in real trouble in the long term of looking like a laughing stock when somebody points to something like the Cottingley Fairies and thinks "who wrote that unsourced crap?" not realising that it was added by an IP in South Korea with no edit summary while nobody was looking, and the one subject expert who could quickly defend and fix it is indefinitely blocked. This is not good. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:29, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ritchie333: The people who run this project (elected and employed) could not give a flying cuss whether the project is a laughing stock or indeed has any seriously good pages. Their only concern is that everyone says pretty please and thank you and holds a porcelain tea cup with a crooked little finger. The fact that most of us drink out of mugs, live in the real world and can sometimes be tetchy, especially when concentrating on a serious page is of no consideration and such crimes are therefore punishable by wiki-death. I sometimes think it's a problem caused by different nationalities and cultures. However, ultimately the problem is that Randy in Boise is given a huge leeway denied to long standing editors who have a few serious pages in their edit list. Nobody seems to be denying Eric's forced departure is a loss to the project's content; which clearly indicatives that content is not paramount. It's rather like saying the James Bond books should now be rewritten by a 14-year-old schoolchild in Oklahoma because Ian Flemming was a bad tempered, violent sadomasochist who drank too much and cheated on his wife. As far as I know, only one of those vices pertains to Eric. Giano (talk) 16:23, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly, the sadomasochism...after all, he stuck this place for over thirteen years! ——SN 54129 16:53, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(cue IP adding infobox without edit summary in 3 .... 2 .... 1 ..... Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:56, 18 November 2019 (UTC))[reply]

As the quality of a page improves, the threshold of competence required to edit it increases proportionally. So while Randy could edit his favourite list of Pokemon (that has been tagged "requiring more citations" since April 2009) without too much problem, he wouldn't be able to do anything about Bramshill House without understanding the underlying facts and peer reviewing that has gone into the prose. And consequently when they are reverted by one of the editors who has spent several months of their life working on the topic with an exasperated "aww jeez not this again", they run off to complain to the civility police, who don't understand the quality / competence level graph. Or, to vaguely paraphrase Orwell - civility good, competence better. Or indeed, to paraphrase Antandrus, we need Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against incompetence. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:36, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It is indeed a problem, and I don't know the answer. Without blowing my own trumpet, I probably know as much about architecture and English country houses as most of those interested in those subjects here, but I'm not able to edit Bramshill House other than in the most general terms because I don't know it and it's not on my radar, and more importantly it's not seriously covered in any of my thousands of books and neither is it a subject covered exhaustively on the internet. So if Wikipedia is serious about its intent to pass on knowledge, and it knowingly accepts hundreds of thousands of edits from a single editor (as it has done with Eric), then it has a moral obligation to keep that editor if only to further and preserve its own aims. Giano (talk) 17:15, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So, L235 reverts Ritchie333 who reverted Berean Hunter who reverted Giano and his talk page message about whether ArbCom feel embarrassed at having one of Eric's FAs appear on the MP the other day. L235, so keen to be backslapped and adulated by said committee, now plans to show the talk page message to ArbCom which, ironically, is what Giano was blocked for. Shouldn't we now block L235 for this "disruptive" behaviour? Maybe Berean Hunter could oblige? What say you, Berean Hunter? Cassianto^Talk 19:01, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think generally speaking all round, we should talk more and block less. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 00:15, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, with established editors, I'm in favour of talking far more and blocking not at all. When I was teaching, I often felt that punishing a naughty child was a mark of my failure to get through to them. Handing out blocks leaves the same impression. Except that we're now dealing with grown people, and frankly, that isn't the way to solve problems among adults. --RexxS (talk) 01:05, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you both, emphatically. I tried talking to somebody who calls themselves "Kudpung" a week or two ago in the hope that they and I could sort out our differences (I complained to them about his personal attack against Eric, whilst Eric was blocked, a week or so previously). Almost immediately, "Kudpung" accused me of "harassment", "making personal attacks" and banned me from his talk page. He even threatened to disclose something that I had done that had "seriously breached our policy", despite never actually disclosing what it was that I had done - another attempt to shut me up. I told them that suppressing this kind of discussion was the worst thing that they could do as it just saves it for a rainy day, but he wouldn't listen and knew better. Suffice to say, it was saved, and I had a whale of a time making his ACE nice and awkward instead. Cassianto^Talk 07:40, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The whole place stinks of corruptions

There’s an amazing thread here: a former checkuser hasn’t a clue what he’s doing, so just uses the logs for browsing and gossiping - exactly where he gossips about the logs we aren’t told. However, now he’s to be reinstated after a little retraining on confidentiality by someone with whom he had a chat at some meet-up. Now what is even more astounding is that both the chatty checkuser and his naive mentor are candidates for Arbcom. One just couldn’t make it up. Giano (talk) 20:57, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

[19] Ah yes, Beeblebrox, an admin who considers Eric to have been "harassing" someone (no diff provided) and you to have "vandalised" a talk page by posting a legitimate question on it. Don't worry though, because Beeblebrox then considers Eric's "harassing" behaviour to be "equally as stupid as gravedancing" and demands that both should "not be tolerated". Funny that, because when Eric was being gravedanced by MJL and BabbaQ, Beeblebrox was deathly silent on the matter. Hmmm... Cassianto^Talk 21:30, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, well he has is amply rewarded for his loyalty. What’s incomprehensible is that the rank and file just accept this. I would have thought a CU gossiping about the logs was akin to a priest breaking his confessional oath - clearly Wikipedia’s elite has even less integrity and honour than even I imagined. Giano (talk) 21:42, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

i hope you two are having a good time in your little discussion here. Please do go on, but please do not ping me again over it as there's nothing here that interests me one bit. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:28, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"enjoy your little therapy session boys" ... really? ---Sluzzelin talk 05:54, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think Beeblebrox it's me that needs therapy, although it's very sad that you think therapy is a cause for disparagement and sarcasm. I, and I'm sure many others, find the thought of you needlessly rifling through the check-user files for material to share in a chatroom or similar to be very concerning. That you had to have it explained to you that the files are confidential is beyond belief. Then, despite having been caught with your fingers in the till, you are given the tools back is completely astounding, and says as much about the fools who hand these tools indiscriminately out as it does about you. Let's just hope your ill gained privileges do't give you private information concerning a user's mental health. Giano (talk) 16:41, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

no permanent place

Giano, as soon as I had written that we have no permanent place, I saw your estate gone. Sad. It contains vivid memories of a missed friend, and his ashes in an urn. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:18, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't gone anywhere and my ashes are certainly not in an urn! No Liebestoden yet, unless they are going to be sung by Elīna Garanča, then I might just consider it. I woudl just like my page to be a temporary space, a bit like the Fourth plinth, Trafalgar Square. If idiots want to make an example of me, as they clearly do, then that seems a very good way to do it! Giano (talk) 18:33, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Don't get me wrong, I don't miss you because you are still here and speak of love. I'm mourning the loss of the ashes of the builder of your palace, in the small urn on the right. Have you looked at your user page recently? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:40, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gerda, this is getting very complicated. I haven't looked at my page in years, While I'm sure Mateus Vicente de Oliveira was a sad loss at the time, I don't really think it's necessary to mourn him still. Giano (talk) 18:50, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Look now. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:44, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What Gerda was skirting around, Excellency, is that your user page was built by our friend, Jack Merridew, whom we still miss. The tiny urn on the extreme right of that image was a clickable link to his talk page. --RexxS (talk) 20:07, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh! I see. If I missed the announcement , then I sincerely regret it; but has Jack left us in the very strictest sense of the word? I’m not seeing it by a very quick link following. Giano (talk) 20:14, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

November 2019

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you make personal attacks on other people, as you did at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2019/Candidates. Comment on content, not on fellow editors. Bbb23 (talk) 20:34, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I surrender. You can have the election pages anyway you please. I’m sure Check User tools are handed out very wisely only to those of the highest moral calibre after exhaustive investigation into their conduct. How’s that? Giano (talk) 20:50, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cut it out, please

Hi Giano - No, I've not disappeared into the ether. But I do have a request for you. Please stop reverting the election commissioners. While I understand the point you're trying to make, you're doing so in the wrong place. If you have a complaint about a particular candidate, make it on the talk page of their candidacy. Of course, by the time I save this, you may already be blocked, and it could well be an indefinite block. So please cut it out. Risker (talk) 20:36, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What a huge relief, I thought they had done away with you. I’m sure Beeblebrox is a fine, upstanding member of our community, so I will drop it. I’m equally sure I will be indeffed sooner or later, it’s inevitable when one sees Wikipedia so clearly. Life’s a bore isn’t it? Nice to see you here, I hope you’re well and happy. Life is good. Giano (talk) 20:46, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I was kind of busy working on the longterm strategy, which was...interesting. It certainly gave me a better picture of the global movement, which is (in a lot of cases) not quite on the same page as English Wikipedia, for a lot of reasons. There's this ongoing impression that English Wikipedia is American, which is of course pretty absurd to anyone who actually participates here; in fact, it's the only project that gets contributions from just about every country on the globe, with the exception of the intentionally global Commons and Wikidata projects. On the other hand, I've learned about issues that other projects have that simply would never have been tolerated here, even in the darkest days of this project. There's something to be said for being big - it's really hard to enforce a uniform belief system that is out of step with the rest of the world; it's a lot easier to do so when dealing with essentially monocultural projects with limited access to quality references in their native tongue and so on. So yes, I'm still around, and I still poke about in various topics. Got to meet a mutual friend in Sweden not too long ago, and it was probably the best part of that trip (aside from a delicious traditional salmon dinner at the closing). I have no public opinion on Beeblebrox - I'm sticking to my traditional "functionaries do better when they keep their mouths shut about everyone, pro or con" position on all the candidates. Risker (talk) 21:10, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I hope they are paying you well. You are one of the few who probably deserve it. The other “projects” do have their problems. Fortunately for them, I’m not one of them, I’ve tried three and tend to agree with you. Glad you had a good time in Sweden, I hate fish (apart from scallops) and hope never to eat it again - It’s what happens if you are reared near a seaport. I admire our friend very much. Sadly, I don’t do wiki meets, perhaps I should. But then I look at some of those in a London and think best not. Giano (talk) 21:27, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Risker, having just re-read your above. I am surprised to read: “There's this ongoing impression that English Wikipedia is American, which is of course pretty absurd to anyone who actually participates here.” I’m not sure I agree with you there. I certainly don’t feel that sentiment is absurd, and I certainly participate here. Giano (talk) 22:05, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I look at it more from the content perspective. About 1 in 7 of our biographical articles are about football players (the European kind of football, that is), and of them, only about 5% of them play in North America. More than half of the geographic locations with an article are outside of the "traditional" English-speaking countries of the US, UK, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. This is not the case for most of the other projects. People-wise, it's a little less clear, but I'd venture to say that about half the editors are from the US, which makes sense in terms of population within the English-speaking world. Risker (talk) 23:35, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The statistic one usually sees is that c. 40% of en:wp editors come from the US (or possibly Nth America). I wonder what an edit-weighted figure would be? I'd be amazed if even 1% of our 170,000 (isn't it) football players ever played in North America (or set foot there for that matter). How many players in America qualifying under WP:NFOOTY have there ever been - under 1,000 I shouldn't wonder? The average en:wp footie bio subject played a few matches for a low-ranking (but of course "fully-professional") team, (probably in Scotland) before WWII & is also buggering up our BLP stats because he died some years ago & nobody noticed. Johnbod (talk) 23:45, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

See this new Signpost item - US is just over 40%. Johnbod (talk) 21:55, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ive no idea what the statistics are, but I always get the impression that it’s the American editors who dominate the message boards; it’s not a problem, I have American blood myself (if there is such a thing). However, there is a strange puritanical morality here. I wonder why that should be. I always feel I’m expected to speak in a Sunday voice while adopting all sorts of progressive codes and ethics. My problem is that I just find beautiful, lovely smiling and charming people, tedious beyond measure. It’s a funny old world. Giano (talk) 22:42, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The use of "we"

Hi Giano, I just wanted to reach out to say that in American/Canadian English using "we" when speaking on behalf of a group is perfectly acceptable and quite normal. It isn't just for "a crowned sovereign". It was probably used by her due to the fact she is American. Best, TheSandDoctor ^Talk 22:26, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And I'm sure this will fall on deaf ears, but there certainly wasn't any reason to personally insult her while you were at it. I realize you've been getting away with acting in this manner for a very long time, so in a way the community is as much to blame for it as you are, but it's really tiresome and unnecessary. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:24, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the use of "we" is entirely correct in the message you have pointed out. Katie is a member of the committee; there are other members of the committee. They are collectively "look[ing] forward to introducing ourselves to [the person receiving the message]" as a fellow committee member. As she is speaking for the committee, and is a member of the committee, she should not speak of it in the third person, but would correctly speak of the collective opinion in the first person plural. "We" is correct here. Risker (talk) 00:26, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oh for God’s sake Beeblebrox, do the world a favour and go bury yourself somewhere the sun doesn’t shine! To others: At the risk of being pedantic, the Arbcom is a singular non-personal, inanimate entity it has no feelings and can express no views. Of course, its members can express views when unanimous. But, of course, they are not currently unanimous on welcoming all the new members, so we must assume it’s the Royal We. Giano (talk) 21:49, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. Not just pedantry, but strained pedantry. I wish I knew whether the use of “we must” there at the end is intentional, or unintentional, self-parody. E Eng 15:53, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well spotted Eng it was deliberate and intended to raise the question of should one say we, when the we in question is not unanimously behind one? Giano (talk) 17:06, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Can't say I'm surprised that your reaction to being asked to not hurl unnecessary personal insults was to suggest I throw myself into a hole, that's more or less what I expected. I suppose I have a foolish streak of optimism that made me think that just maybe you'd see how needlessly inflammatory your chosen wording was, but clearly that's not the case. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:17, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So you’re “not surprised” and it’s “what you expected.” Good! So why come her in the first place? That is a rhetorical question, please don’t feel the need come here again to justify yourself. You were a concerning checkuser, and as an Arb I find your access to privileged information troubling. Giano (talk) 17:06, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Beeblerbrox, you are being inflammatory and escalating a situation rather than resolving it. Apparently you'd like to see Giano banned, and your using a strategy akin to sea lioning. This is unkind and unwise. I hope you will stop. I also want to refute Bbb23 (talk · contribs) who seems to assert that administrators opinions are more worthy than those of other users. [20] If Giano doesn't want me to collapse "superfluous" content on his page (in an effort to stop these attempts to bait him), he can do so without any help from Bbb23. Jehochman ^Talk 15:08, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Beeblebrox, the giveaway is that you start your comment with an assumption of bad faith And I'm sure this will fall on deaf ears. How do you expect anything good to follow after you write fighting words? Jehochman ^Talk 15:10, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) It is you who are being disruptive here. Your logic about hatting is twisted. Giano is perfectly capable of hatting or removing the comments here. It doesn't work the other way around to justify you doing so. I didn't comment here, but I would have - and now do - issue a formal warning that if Giano personally attacks another user, he risks being blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:13, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to see I’m on your watchlist Bbb23; I’m not the least surprised to see you. Wherever we see Beeblebrox, there you are like the proverbial body servant two paces behind. Giano (talk) 17:13, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

May I suggest that you should never block any good faith user. Blocking a user for perceived incivility is itself incivil and will only make things worse. And, "no, it is you who are being disruptive here." What makes you think you know better than I do? Proof by assertion isn't valid. Jehochman ^Talk 15:33, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

All incivility is percieved incivility, for everything that is labeled as uncivil is done so by the person who percieves it. If someone percieves a comment to be uncivil, it is not uncivil for themselves to do what they thus percieve to be enforcing civility. Vermont (talk) 18:12, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be happy to comment on Giano's diff and ask him to desist if that is appropriate. If Giano has done something wrong, it would be useful for somebody to post a diff. So far, this conversation has no diffs relating to Giano's editing, but I presume people are whinging about this, which is factually accurate but is not presented in a spirit of collegiality, and thus unhelpful. I consider the first comment by SandDoctor to be appropriate, but all the ones that follow are "superfluous" because they are also unhelpful. It is passing strange for people to criticize Giano for behaving a certain way while behaving that way themselves. Jehochman ^Talk 15:36, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Jehochman, obviously, the new Arbs are a touch sensitive to criticism. Never mind, I expect they’ll soon get used to it. Let’s face it, they can’t ban the whole community, much as they would doubtless like to. Giano (talk) 17:13, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't criticism, it's just picking at straws in an attempt to induce annoyance, which was the achieved result. It seems plainly obvious to anyone reading that it's a boilerplate welcoming on behalf of the members of the arbitration committee, and being a group of people thus uses "we". I could understand you arguing that it's better to use "the Arbitration Committee" in place of the word "we", however jumping right to "wow I guess she thinks she's the queen" is utterly nonsensical. Vermont (talk) 18:12, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Goodness Me! Who are you? I don’t think we’ve met before. How flattering a complete stranger has me on their watchlist. I must be more infamous than I thought. Giano (talk) 18:48, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In one of his aphorisms (Minima Moralia) Theodor Adorno wroteWir sagen und Ich meinen, ist eine von den ausgesuchtesten Kränkungen. I hazard to guess that a reflection along these lines, that we live under an obligation to assume personal responsibility for whatever one does, says or writes, subsists in G's remark. One may disagree - usage commends Katie's choice - but it is generally sensible in dialogue to cull the sense of a dissonant perspective. Much of civilization consists in lending an ear to a marginal view, that expresses what is lost on those of us ensconced in the 'normalcy' of routine, linguistic or otherwise.Nishidani (talk) 19:04, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Those are precisely my reflections right before I go to bed each night, the secular version of prayer - and I do it in English, German, French, and every once in a while for variety Hebrew and Arabic. When I'm feeling particularly energetic, I sing them.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:14, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Quite! Thank you. In my experience, before assuming: it’s always best to make sure the entire team is behind you before employing the plural we, otherwise one can be accused of self-aggrandisement. The Royal We, was only ever really used by dictators and autocrats allegedly speaking on behalf of a united nation. Although, some constitutional monarchs still do use it in formal addresses. It’s best avoided in everyday speech by the less exalted. As alway, with Wikipedia, subtlety is lost. I’m sure the Arbcom members will soon bury (dare one use that word?) their reservations about certain new members, and be publicly very welcoming indeed. Giano (talk) 19:27, 17 December 2019

Season's Greetings

		Season's Greetings
		Wishing you a Happy Holiday Season, and all best wishes for the New Year! Mystical Nativity (Filippo Lippi) is my Wiki-Christmas card to all for this year. Johnbod (talk) 16:39, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, and a very happy Christmas to you too. Giano (talk) 08:56, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Io Saturnalia!

		Io, Saturnalia!
		Wishing you and yours a Happy Holiday Season, from the horse and bishop person. May the year ahead be productive and distraction-free. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:29, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Ealdgyth, that looks a lot more fun than my real-life Christmas of grumpy old people, drunken young people and an odd couple, who we don’t know, who my wife felt sorry for. Merry Christmas indeed. Giano (talk) 09:54, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Season's Greetings!

Faithful friends who are dear to us

... gather near to us once more.

May your heart be light

and your troubles out of sight,

now and in the New Year.

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:41, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you SandyGeorgia, nice to hear from you, it’s been a while. Happy Christmas to you too. Giano (talk) 09:56, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Be well at Christmas

	Have a WikiChristmas and a PediaNewYear
	We don't always appear to agree, but I respect your contributions to the project. Be well. Keep well. Have a lovely Christmas. SilkTork (talk) 16:23, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you SilkTork, I’m sure we have the same common goal. Happy Christmas. Giano (talk) 12:07, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Precious anniversary

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:43, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

I'e replied over at my own talk page but I just realised that the last time I logged in on this account was in 2012!!! role^player 23:39, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yerse, Roleplayer, it’s been a long time. I’ve replied there. You won’t know, but we have a way of pinging each other now, not that I can do it. Giano (talk) 21:42, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]