Per your request I have unprotected your talk page. Phil Sandifer undeleted the history a few days ago to use as evidence. If there were any edits that should have remained deleted (harassment and such) please let me or any other admin know. Welcome back. Thatcher20:26, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks but no, this page for some odd reasom is never vandalised or me harassed - they would have to be very brave to attempt such a thing. Giano (talk) 22:03, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
hell, Hoover & McCarthy are rolling in their graves - who knew Bolsheviks were so lacking in subtlety? Anyway, I just fell off the welcome wagon for a quick tipple & toast- to interesting times! sNkrSnee | ¿qué?21:01, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Without prejudice to our doubtless differing views on the issues surrounding the arbitration, it is good to know you are still with us. Happy New Year.--Docg20:47, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh God, are we on different sides? What a pity we all can't realise we are on the same side. Never mind, I have found a pill for the addiction. Giano (talk) 21:28, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Very wise, so am I. I'm continually amazed at what some on Wikipedia are prepared to argue over. I have never once passed a comment at #admins and in spite of this I am a well rounded educated perfectly ordinary human being. How can this be, how have I managed to survive so long? Giano (talk) 21:35, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome back, Giano. Nice to see you back. --Tex 21:44, 3 January 2008 (UTC) (oh, yeah. and what is wrong with a red signature???) --Tex21:45, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just want to say it's nice to see you on here. We've been on opposite sides and same sides so many times I've lost count. Just wanted to say ... I'm glad to see you here - Alison❤21:44, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Heck with that, I did my heavy lifting this morning with a bit of help from NoSeptember above. Blue is a much better colour on you, Giano. Risker (talk) 00:24, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Don't any of you have anything more productive to do than post here?" ... er, no! Why do you ask? :) Welcome back Giano. Queluz is looking awesome. ++Lar: t/c02:38, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Giano, though we have not been much in contact, I have always admired, and continue to admire, your tireless and brilliant writing, and your integrity and fearlessness when it comes to defending the spirit of this place against those who undermine it in the name of its preservation. I'll stick a star on your user page if you permit. If only others could be convinced to come back as well. Would that every editor could be given a warm welcome (-back) in the firm knowledge that the excesses of self-righteousness among some overly visible Wikipedians will never again be tolerated. Kosebamse (talk) 13:12, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome back, Giano. Thank you for conceding Wikipedia the benefit of your always outstanding collaboration, despite some grudges that may be troubling you. Best regards, Húsönd00:49, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Husond (and others above) - yes we all have our crosses to bear! In the meantime I see someone overnight has added the word "simpler" is that a word, my limted English tells me it should ne "more simple" but I'm not sure anyone know the answer? Giano (talk) 09:11, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That was me. To me, simpler sounds slightly better than more simple. (Well, obviously: otherwise I wouldn't have changed it.) I'm puzzled by the love of WP writers for such constructions as more well known, when to me better known is far less awkward. Also, since English has such a puny amount of inflectional morphology, I feel a certain duty to give it some exercise before it dies off completely. -- Hoary (talk) 08:09, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Simpler sounds fine to me, Giano, and "more simply" ("Expressed more simply.") but you'll recall my error on condottiere eh...--Wetman (talk) 08:00, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Giano. Good to see you back! I've added some more comments at Wikipedia:Featured article review/Robert Lawson (architect) and (of course!) I've reversed your revert on Lawson. The explanation is at the Review - and it centres on the sources - my source trumps yours ;-)! I haven't been through the whole article - and I only picked on that section because the peacock claim of "The building has long been regarded as one of the finest pieces of architecture in Dunedin" did stand out somewhat. Regarded by whom and when? The source as now found reveals that the school themselves are making that claim. But this doesn't stand up against a Professor Emeritus, of the University of Auckland writing in the national Encyclopedia of New Zealand. I don't have the time or knowledge to go through the whole article, but if that section is typical, the rest of the article might benefit from checking for reliable sources; and, as you worked on it and know the sources, you are probably one of the best placed to do that work. Keep well. 00:19, 5 January 2008 (UTC) Bugger - forgot to sign properly SilkTork *SilkyTalk00:23, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ever heard of it? It came up in my bio of John Michael Wright, and I'm intrigued as to what it is. It appears as an important item on the resume of just about every great Catholic artist of the period, yet finding information is impossible. All I got was in Danish, of all things.--Docg12:49, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think: It was an organization set up to promote literature and the arts originally called the "Congregation of St. Joseph of the Holy Land". It received Papal recogintion in the mid 16th century.. The Organization is still going strong but known from 19th century as "The Papal Academy of Fine Arts and Literature of the Pantheon" Its aims to promote the study, operation and improvement of Literature and Fine Arts, with particularly in regard to sacred art and images connected with the Christian faith - more so the Catholic interpretation of it. It is all very tied up with the Vaticano Council for Culture. I'm not sure they exhibited in the Pantheon in Rome though - I always assumed they were the greatest artists of their generation so therefore enshrined in some idiomatic Pantheon. I have a book somewhere, the question is where? I'll get back to you. Giano (talk) 13:06, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The DNB has "On 10 February of the same year Wright was also elected a member of the Congregazione dei Virtuosi, having been proposed by a Pietro Ferreri. This was a charitable organization concerned with promoting religion by means of the arts. It also organized an annual exhibition in the Pantheon, where Wright must have measured himself against the best painters working in the city." - that's where Iget the Pantheon thing. But this could be erroneous.--Docg13:18, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Pantheon theory was my assumption so could well be wrong, it just seems an odd cold curved and open place to exhibit art - even today it is far from ideal. There is a better translation than mine here [2] although no information. Giano (talk) 13:22, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Giano. I see that you authored a FA on Belton House and decided to ask you for a favour. I recently put an article that I wrote , Western Chalukya architecture into FAC, but it was not promoted. The reasons mostly had to do with grammar, prose etc. However, I felt that if someone like you could read my article, you may have some ideas that I could incorporate into the present article and improve its presentation, format as well. Hope you have the time. thanks.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 14:47, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What I nice scholarly page. Thank you for bringing it to my attention. I am very surprised it failed, especially after all the hard work you did to try to address all the comments [3] If you truly want it pass then remove a lot of the valuable information and make it shorter and more concise. Were I you, I would be very proud of having written it and leave it exactly where and how it is at the moment. My sole knowledge of Western Chalukya architecture comes from reading your page and I feel I am now very educated on the subject.
However, if I were going to renominate it myself I may have made the page longer by adding a final section detailing how the architecture is appraised today - a sort of summing up and continuation of the final paragraphs of the lead. Perhaps I would also have make the final long table into a separate page/list. You might just like to consider those two points. However, well done for writing it. If Raul is reading this then I ask him to respectfully to take a second look at the page and its FAC. Let me know how you get on. Giano (talk) 16:31, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Giano, I was actually thinking about asking you to take a look at it before I failed the nom, but I decided against it. I don't think size is a problem with that article. I am concerned about issues of organization and possibly factual correctness that were raised during the nomination. Dinesh - I'll tell you what. If you feel ready, why don't you renominate it now? Raul654 (talk) 16:35, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So long as the copyright is OK you can do more or less what you like with them. Personally, I don't like galleries - you can squeeze a lot of images into a page if you are clever (or have a clever friend see Queluz National Palace) but don't lose them as they are very beautiful and descriptive for the page. Giano (talk) 18:16, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi again. I have taken care of the table, created a "see also" link page for it, moved the "Temple deity" section to the bottom so people can focus on the real architecture (per user:Rodw) and am in the process of repositioning the images. user:Wetman stepped in to help with one more round of copy edits. Do you think I can re-nominate now? thanks.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 20:11, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is such a thorough comprehensive page, no matter how you write it someone somewhere will always think they could have written it better in an other way. So yes, live dangerously, nominate it now and be prepared to make some more changes and it ought to pass FAC. Remember it is not a widely known subject so be prepared to be asked for more cites than you may feel strictly necessary. Giano (talk) 22:35, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That was fast! I can't vouch for the factual correctness, but would certainly support it assuming any contraversial facts are cited. If it is was renominated - I would like to see that table elsewhere (not lost just with its own page referred to in the article) but that is not a reason to oppose and I wouldn't. Giano (talk) 16:42, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Before anyone decides to renominate this article in a hurry, let me point out that the article has major outstanding problems of cohesion and coherence, and by that I don't mean organization of sections. I mean problems of flow of prose and more importantly flow of information in prose. If you give me ten minutes, I'll pick out two paragraphs in the article and annotate them on the talk page of the article. I'm sure, once I point out the problems, user:Dineshkannambadi will try to fix them as best as he can, but I guarantee you that I will then find two more paragraphs and do the same, and two more ... Coherence (which includes logic, time order in paragraphs, etc.) takes time. Give me ten minutes, and I'll post something on the Talk:Western Chalukya architecture. Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk»16:53, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Since a crowd seems to have gathered here, I'll drop off my note here. Giano, I hope you dont mind. Thanks.
My 2 cents - I was away on a break the last month or so and I returned to see that the article had not been promoted. I must say that I am very surprised that it hasnt been promoted. The article surely needs some ironing for better prose. But beyond that I do not see any problems with the article that it should fail a FAC nom. Nor are the problems with the prose so great that it should fail the nom solely on those grounds. The article is probably the most scholarly piece you'll find about the subject anywhere on the internet.
imo, most of the 'concerns' expressed on the FAC was simply unabashed trolling and nitpicking than anything genuine. its a pity that dinesh failed to spot the trolling and continued to respond in all earnestness to some of the 'concerns' there. Sarvagnya17:44, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We don't use the word "Trolling" on this page ever! I think you and Mr Fowler had better save any more comments for the new FAC page. Giano (talk) 18:16, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I wanted to point a couple of things in the copy edits to the first para of the Evolution section.
One of these distinguishing motifs of the The Western Chalukyan architectural style was an articulation that can still be found throughout modern Karnataka.
I am a bit confused here. motif and articulation are both patterns except articulation includes projections and recesses (according to the authors I have referred to). what is the best definition of a motif.
Dammit I though we had motif there is a difference but it is too late at night and I'm too tired to explain it. I see a friend of mine has the page "in use" at the moment I will have a second attempt at clarification tomorrow. Giano (talk) 22:30, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Giano, please ignore the latest comments by Fowler. Please continue with your constructive work. I will discuss with Raul how to deal with this reviewer.thanksDineshkannambadi (talk) 23:35, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Bloody sinebot just conflicted me. No that page has too much emphasis on repetition rather than a common feature of a style, I have some orphan-images on the site tucked away for just such a page it is about time I wrote it. Thanks for the help though. Giano (talk) 22:57, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the "mystry" sentence w.r.t artifical illumination in the inner parts of the shrine, this is what the book says,consequently a small oil lamp was usually burning day and night, to illuminate by its fitful glimmer, the object of worship, which thus gained in mystry, what it lost in visibility. The palpable darkness, pierced only by the reflected light from the inner most prominent portions of the image, was calculated to impress the approaching worshipper with that wholesome awe which was becoming to the occassion, and , to wrapt up in his religious frevour, he could believe he saw the sentinet movement of the deities grim features as the lights rays flickered over them.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 00:02, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Giano, Fowler has been warned by an admin that if he continues to disrupt FAC activities in any manner, he will be blocked. You have nothing to worry about now. Please proceed.thanks.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 00:59, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the conclusion paragraph you requested for, I was thinking of writing on the past and present research activities, brief (two line) details of Seminal works by scholars on the Western Chalukya monuments, efforts by Archaeological survey of India to protect these monuments and such. Is this what you had in mind? thanksDineshkannambadi (talk) 03:34, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have just left a message on the FAC page. If others are planing to re-write the page soon (and they have a perfect right to do so) there seems little point us wasting our time on it. I am only re-working your version and ideas for the page, I am not re-writing it. Do you the difference? However, "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly" is rightly one of Wikipedia principles cast in stone (not even I could campaign for that one be changed - and I would not want to) but when their us a declared intention to re-write a page one can see when one's efforts would be a waste of time. Sadly, this is just one of those occasions and there is nothing at all you or I can do but accept it. Yes, your suggestions for the conclusion were what I had in mind - a modern day appreciation. I know this is not the answer you want to see but we cannot alter Wikipedia's founding principles and I don't like wasting my time. I'm very sorry for you, I know what it is like to invest hours of time and entheusiasm in a page and then have it riped to pieces. It is hard but you have to accept it. Giano (talk) 10:34, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Giano, I have left a message for Raul because I was not sure how to handle this new situation. However, I still feel you should not let some users get under your skin. Some people thrive on such things. Thanks.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 13:45, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Dinesh, no one is under my skin, I just feel if the page is about to be re-written completely then it is a waste of my time (and anyone else's) helping to preserve and improve your version. I think you have been very unkindly treated, and if I were in your shoes I would be beside myself with anger and hurt - you have a right to feel aggrieved. I have never read such messages [4] on the FAC page and elsewhere like it before. I note he has apologised but the situation has not gone away, nor do I imagine it will[5][6]. They have a right to re-write the page and no-one can stop them. To announce this to an editor who has written the page and is working his socks off on the FAC page, as you are, seems wrong but under Wiki-law I don't think it is. Etiquette is nice but it is not enforceable and anyway should not prevent a principal Wikipedia principal such as "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly". For myself, I am trying very hard to avoid conflict at the moment, I am tired and unsure what I am doing on Wikipedia at the moment. I certainly don't want conflict on the FAC page which I always think of as my own home ground. Giano (talk) 14:03, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Giano, for lending Dinesh a hand on this article; it has been most painful watching this from the sidelines, as I recused myself early on because of some related issues, leaving it to Raul. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:48, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I can assure you it is very painful from where I am sitting too. I don't know what the answer is. I have never before seen a wiki-situation like it. I doubt anyone has. I have never felt so sorry for another editor before. Giano (talk) 19:22, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am obligated to maintain a stance now that is as neutral as possible or recuse myself if I can't, so I'll just leave it at painful. It's most kind of you to help out in a charged, controversial atmosphere. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:00, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In that case Dinesh you are quite within you rights to use the term, if that indeed was the spelling I would put it in inverted commas, then there is nothing anyone can complain about! It looks like all your hard work is up and runing. Giano (talk) 19:40, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the remaining section I promised, its ready and will be typed in today. Another reviewer wanted more detailed info on influence of WCA on other arch. styles. So I will try to club the two together. I will call it Influence and apprecitation.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 19:39, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That is great, really great, I just swapped the two paragraphs over - I just think it reads better that way as a conclusions. One last thing, now we have the extra space could some of the pictures crowded in the section above, come down to the new section to improve the visual appearence of the layout? Giano (talk) 07:23, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'd rather you held off for a while, it is intended to be serious advice and provide encouragement and it is far from finished yet. Giano (talk) 22:58, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No I'm quite happy for people to copyedit during the hours of darkness when I am asleep and you are all roaming the site. Giano (talk) 10:27, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much for your kid words regarding Introduction to Evolution. It started a bit rough; but fortunately, our critics were for the most part specifically brutal. Which is fair, in that they responded as we made the corrections. I couldn't help but notice the immense frustrations in the rather lengthy thread above regarding an FA attempt. Actually I was browsing over FA attempts, looking to see if my drive-bye voters were doing the same on other pages, and read some of the commentaries related to the above. I hope those that are behind the sense trying to make it the best it can be; ignore some of the rather unspecific, non-constructive commentaries and continue to sort out the good from the bad advice. I found the FA attempt to be meaningful. What some seem to not understand is that it is the FA review process itself that contributes to an article being FA worthy; assuming one offers specific suggestions and not just derogatory commentaries.--Random Replicator (talk) 23:04, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Er, was it not done yet? It's been mentioned on That Site, you know. You didn't have it properly marked with {{inuse}} boxes and suchlike so you can't well blame me for reading it in advance! I've posed a question on the talk (which is of utmost importance, at least IMHO) as well. More seriously the constant need to sort out the real advice from the not quite as real makes this a most fascinating and enjoyable read. You really ought to write more essays! ++Lar: t/c17:04, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh shit! I wondered why it was getting so much comment, I will have to stick a Spumoni on it. It is suppose to be a serious attempt to encourage people to write more FAs. Giano (talk) 17:09, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes good idea. Very impresive. You need to hire a publicist. Well I now finally have time to go and have a look at the other place and see what they have to say. Trouble is every time I log out here I have this horrible feeling I won't be allowed back in. Giano (talk) 21:33, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well I can't find anything there Lar must have imagined it. I never can find anything there though why don't they index? Giano (talk) 21:40, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Giano. I just found out a while ago that Wikipedia still didn't have an article about the Festetics Palace, one of the most famous and visited palaces of Hungary. In fact, not even the Hungarian Wikipedia seems to have it. Wow. *swoon* Anyway, I just started a stub on it but I'm a such a lousy writer you know, so if you happen to check it out and find it interesting, please consider sprinkling a pinch of your prodigious editorial skills. :-) Best regards, Húsönd03:51, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've only recently learned not to rhyme them with "aesthetics", but googling about has drawn up some details. Is the gateway (right) from the building campaign following 1745, which is what it looks like, or from the 1880s extravagant extensions? Lurking as ever, Wetman (talk) 06:19, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ah yes I rememember the lady well, she popped up in Prince's Palace of Monaco did rather better for herself in Hungary it seems. I'm not doing any proper writing untill after the termination of this silly Arbcom case. It would not be fair if I had to ask one of the Arbs to finish it for me. Giano (talk) 09:03, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It looks as if they went ahead with the marriage before the Monaco divorce had completely gone through. Flickr has some shots showing some very tartaned-up portraits. --Wetman (talk) 10:45, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed your concerns here about the evidence I presented on some of the history between Tony, Bishonen and you among others. The introductory text was meant to be general; obviously, you don't have a long history of interpersonal disputes with Bishonen, for example, even though the way that text was originally phrased one could think that that was what I was saying. In any event, since I'm not presenting any evidence of off-wiki disputes I've dropped the mention of that altogether. --bainer (talk) 10:30, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I don't have any off-wiki disputes with anyone. I am quite capable, honest enough, and unafraid enough, of making my ponts quite clearly on Wiki. Wikipedia would be abetter place if others felt the same way. Giano (talk) 10:36, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Filiocht, author of some of Wikipedia's greatest FAs at the time, has the unique distinction of being one of the only prolific FA writers to be elected to the Arbcom. - what about Kirill Lorshkin (4), and what about myself (10)? Raul654 (talk) 22:09, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You, as a pillar of the community, are not supposed to be reading such seditious rubbish - you'll be editing on WR next. we can't have you baned too. Besides which I was just testing to see who was reading it? Giano (talk) 22:15, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm just pulling your leg ;) -- the guide is amusing though. On a more serious note - if you do have suggestions for ways we can reform the process, I'm all ears. Raul654 (talk) 23:29, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Contrary to what many people think I, I think, I don't think the process needs huge reform the page is actually a serious attempt to convince people that anyone can write a FA if they have some support and encouragement just so long as they are interested in the subject. Too many people say they can't do it when they can, or are frightened to stand up and say I have written this I would like it to be a FA. Once you have done it once the rest is easy. Giano (talk) 23:38, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Mr. Pellegrino, he did say one of... that does not leave you out, after all. Oh, and you spelt Lokshin wrong, some pillar of the community you are. Finally, perhaps Fillocht's FAs are just... better than yours? (grinning, ducking, running away) ++Lar: t/c14:14, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
flit in* Though we might disagree on quite a bit, your guide so far is quite amusing, and useful to boot. (Especially the Day on the main page section. Your summary pretty much caps what happened when Chicxulub Crater got to the front without me knowing, and I was reverting every time I looked at the watchlist... :/) Good job. *flit out* David Fuchs (talk)23:53, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oar in* Might I suggest this to illustrate Bishonen's Toilette. It did grace her talk page at one point, but it is probably in a deleted revision now. *Oar out* Yomanganitalk02:04, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Four years of being an FA, and now A Tale of a Tub is on FAR. It contains all this uncited stuff! Stuff that anyone who read the f*cking thing would get immediately has to be cited. If you say that Simon Le Gre is an evil character, you'd better have a footnote, because recognizing a plain fact is speculation. Utgard Loki (talk) 15:18, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ugh. Oh well: "<ref>Cliff's Notes 43.</ref>" etc etc etc. -- Hoary (talk) 15:28, 14 January 2008 (UTC) ... PS I see A Tale of a Tub is there with Crushing by elephant, which is only one of the most (morbidly) fascinating FAs I've ever read. How can one write articles so they're proofed against this nonsense and still find time for a "life"? -- Hoary (talk) 15:33, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Who says it's an allegory?" That's about all that anyone needs to know about the FAR listing. (The answer, by the way, is Jonathan Swift, William Wotten, Richard Bentley, Samuel Johnson, John Nichols, Henry Fielding, Alexander Pope, and every reader of the damned book. The book... which is NOT A NOVEL.) Geogre (talk) 19:39, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh sear Utgard, you do seem a little cross. Take deep breaths. This is all getting very silly isn't it? I'm thinking of setting up my own brand of FA, I mean we have FAs and GAs and BAAs I may set myself up in opposition wit IAs (intelligent articles) over which I will preside. I think this would solve a lot of stress. It is a great pity that people just cannot concentrate on adding more high quality to the site and stop worrying about the high quality that is already here. I think I may add a section on FARC to my essay, that will serve them right. Giano (talk) 15:39, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fin MacCool, you must come down from the chariots and fight! No, Connachtman, it is true that I will not. If you do not, I will write a lampoon on all the Ulstermen. Well, let the Ulstermen never suffer a satire on my account, says the great Finn, and he leaps from his chariot and strikes the Connachtman dead with an ashen spear. Geogre (talk) 19:36, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sometimes one can be really surprised - we've just worked up vampire for FAC (It is a little, erm, big though hopefully we can keep it in one piece) and in the process while sniffing out sources came across a couple of surprises:
Over the past 20 years I'd heard alot from various places on a link between origins of vampire folklore and porphyria, and it was only when I looked into it I found how tenuous the link was. In essence, one guy made a short paper at a conference in 1985 drawing some pretty long bowstrings and didn't proceed to publish it. Descpite being discounted by experts in the field, the media caught wind of it and it romped into popular culture.
There were plenty of other examples in this field along the way but that was the best. I guess it's why I like inline reffing now and......trust no-one......in an X-files sorta way...cheers, Casliber (talk·contribs) 22:16, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No one is disputing the need for reffing unknown or controversial facts and that one certainly needs reffing, as does the assumption that George III suffered from porphyria, and were it claimed that George III was a vampire that would need reffing too, but would you also want to ref that George III was the son of Frederick, Prince of Wales? or that he was King of England or was married to Charlotte of Mecklenburg-Strelitz? Giano (talk) 22:44, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well it depends where you draw the line. I have NFI about Florentine culture apart from blundering around Florence as a backpacker 15 years ago - remember being impressed by the Florence Baptistry though.... -but seriously I didn't know who Vasari was. It can be rticky when talking to a neophyte exactly how many steps back one needs to explain things...The FAs I have done have been pretty obscure so I haven't given much thought to the issue with referencing really obvious things...
Mm, when one whispers the suggestion— when commonplaces are tagged for referencing— that to one who hasn't actually read anything in a field, everything is unheard-of, furiously insulted editors drive past and shoot out one's windows. --Wetman (talk) 00:05, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Apology for the &c. has Swift saying that "for the allegory...." There are notes to every edition past the 5th (that's 1705) from William Wotton talking about the "allegory." There are notes from every editor who has ever done an edition in the preface about the "origins of the allegory." However, we have someone demanding a citation that there is an allegory in A Tale of a Tub. Honestly, it only takes reading the book... or not even reading it, reading anything about it or reading just the introduction from any edition (I do mean any edition, too). The point is that there is a distinction between cruft, where fans talk to each other about their shared pleasure in a pop culture event, and then there is common knowledge. If something is contained in three or more contemporary printed sources, it's common knowledge and should not be cited. The A Tale of a Tub article seems to discuss pretty much only stuff that "everyone knows" who studies the period, and therefore it's good for new readers of the book, organized for experienced readers of the book, and comprehensive enough to be useful for teachers of the book. That's pretty good. Now, if it went off to say that the whole book is about Swift's potty training, or that it's the only great book he wrote, or that it reflects his psychic torture at being an orphan, or that it shows a hatred of his Irish roots, or any one of the thousands of silly things that critics have said, it would need heavy citation. Utgard Loki (talk) 13:43, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The article on the Queen's House contains the statement "However, although its style is generally called Palladian, its most specific precedent is not by Palladio but rather Giuliano da Sangallo's Villa Medici at Poggio a Caiano." It's not referenced although, great buildings online alludes to a quote from Banister Fletcher speculating that "Perhaps modeled on the Medici villa at Poggio a Caiano". I'm a bit wary of Fletcher these days, don't have my copy to hand, and know that you and Wetman are quite the authority in these matters. What's your view? At the very least the article's statement needs some qualification, but again, we are discussing antecedants, and one academic's speculation may be as valid as another, unless we have Jones's diary containing specific and bountiful praise of the Villa Medici, it's difficult to see why that was singled out rather than other candidates - or just a synthesis of his study tour to your motherland. --Joopercoopers (talk) 12:49, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Perhaps" indeed I see a vague passing resemblence but one needs a lot of imaginination. The villa has a loggia which surrounds the entire it providing a terrace for the piano nobile which was added when the villa was altered (it used to be the Villa Ambra was owned by the Strozzi). The internal courtyard was also transformed into a huge high salone. It has some nice frescoes so perhaps it is the interior he is thinking of. Do we have Villa Medici at Poggio a Caiano? <after preview - No.> Perhaps Wetman knows more. Giano (talk) 13:15, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was once going to do an article on the Villa Medici at Poggio a Caiano (they possibly kept the Medici Giraffe there), so I know the Italian WP has some photos (ahh, there it is, cunningly concealed under its name). Anything jump out at you? I don't see it myself. La limonaia looks vaguely similar. Yomanganitalk13:21, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks G and Y. There's a link to Poggio a Caiano, the town. I don't remember any frescoes at all in the Queen's house - it has a nice sparse elegance to it - the Navy keep a collection of some of their artworks there which are quite interesting I recall. If the Villa's portico was also added at the same time as the logia then we are perhaps getting closer to a passing resemblance, (proportion, central splitting stair, etc) but it's all very speculative and tenuous from where I'm standing, unless I hear otherwise from someone else, I'm off to change Queen's house to say it's palladian classicism.--Joopercoopers (talk) 13:24, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've just been looking at Jone's original plans for the Queen's House they were infact "H" shaped. I'm pretty sure the Villa Medici Poggio a Caiano was more square , it does have some recesses in its facades but no so pronounced as to make it an "H". Giano (talk) 13:37, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed - I think the road to Deptford or somewhere used to run through it. The theory doesn't hold up - Jones was in Italy in about 1606 - well the loggia and additions where already there in 1599 according to IT. I've heard enough - out with it! --Joopercoopers (talk) 13:40, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is a picture here showing the recess in the facade, I think it is wishful thinking, i would be interested though in Wetman's view, the theory has obviously come from somewhere. Giano (talk) 13:50, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank God for that, if I'm very nice to you will you bequest that book to me? I wonder how the theory originated - I just would never look at the two and connect them. Even after you mentioned it and I did look at both buildings I had to stretch my imagination to see it - odd! Giano (talk) 20:59, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You're always nice to me Giano, although the nice gold leaf tracery in the vaguely art-nouveau cover means I'm loath to give it up this lifetime - but as you wish, in the unlikely event Giano outlives me, let this be a modification of my will. Although if you can't wait until your dotage I suggest cultivating the habit of lurking in secondhand bookshops while Mrs Giano is spending your children's inheritance on Italian leather shoes.--Joopercoopers (talk) 21:29, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
When Mrs G has finished with shoes, she then has to buy outfits to match them, there is nothing left for books. I'll send you some of my lovely home made sweets (am old Sicilian recipe) be sure to take two within half an hour of each other! Giano (talk) 21:37, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
...oop: ignore that inadvertently saved fragment. I wonder if I were originally responsible for this bit of blarney: the immediate source is certainly greatbuildingson-line.com. There's no very telling connection with Poggio a Caiano (one of us lot does have to translate Italian wikipedia article for a Villa Medici at Poggio a Caiano article— Jimmy Wales said somewhere that the major articles have all been started at least! And the structure's making and re-fashioning in two campaigns for two queens is not the bland execution of a single abstract architectural idea after all; I haven't seen John Bold, Greenwich: An Architectural History of the Royal Hospital for Seamen and the Queen's House [Yale University Press] 2000.) Surely, as the Queen's House is now, the rhythms of 2-3-2, the central loggia embedded within the severe block, and the invisibly flat roof are the dominating features: I don't see them at Poggio a Caiano. That embedded portico is essentially Palladian-Jonesian. Delete the phrase, say I. --Wetman (talk) 22:40, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, thanks Wetman, I was just a little worried about you there, my Granny used to tail off like that after the third martini. Giano (talk) 23:10, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I did start translating the Italian article a while back, as it's rather nice and the photos are pretty good too (though not quite to the Queluz standard). I stopped because it uses adjectives and gives opinions without accompanying them with inline citations and I didn't feel I was up to defending it from the "who says it is 'the most interesting'? citation needed" crowd. Yomanganitalk23:28, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to do it in userspace, I can probably reff it afterwards. If you get stuck just paste in the It. and I will sort it. Giano (talk) 23:30, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Right, I'll do that then. I haven't the time to do much else for the next couple of weeks or so, a paragraph here and there will fill the odd moment nicely. Yomanganitalk23:37, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, it has a cracking end to the opening paragraph, The Platonic "Demiurgos". I don't understand it even in English. A ghostly wikipedian rattled his chains at me and pointed out we should have a page like [8] as well. I think he should come back and do it himself. Don't try concealing yourself behind that pillar, I can see you (though I doubt my entreaties will do any good, I've already tried sending the fishapod to get Bishonen back with no success) Yomanganitalk01:47, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Giano I may admire your article writing, but your recent comments RE:Durova aren't helpful, in my opinon. You are, at this very moment, simply giving more ammunition to your detractors. Please, please, just back away slowly. There are only a few options here:
Any administrators/arbitrators who agree with you will be forced to enforce "civility,"
Any administrators/arbitrators who disagree with you will gleefully enforce "civility."
There is almost zero chance of anyone being swayed by your recent comments, and in my opinion they make it far less likely that any action will be taken regarding anyone else.
While you clealry don't know this IP from a hill of beans, is there no one who you may confer with on this? Someone you respect, but has less of a reuptation for intemperance?
I don't really see what Durova has to do with this case, trudging along in those proverbial moccasins. I have put up with this for quite long enough. I am sick of hearing about Duova in her moccasins. I am also sick of the way this encyclopedia is being run. The Arbcom has been looking for a reason to "gleefully" get rid of me for too long, one can't forever be bashing one's head against a brick wall. What do you imagine they have been doing all this time? Sometimes it is better to stand up and say what one thinks and happily live with the results than forever sit there watching a complete deterioration. Giano (talk) 07:07, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I adhere to the belief of catching more flies with honey, but in the case of IRC... what recourse is left but incivility? Inappropriate behavior on the channel is condoned because it's "off-wiki." The policy page on wiki can't be edited because it turns out the people who run the channel don't have to follow the official policy of ownership. So what's left? The problems with the channel have been going on for ages, and now we have arbs and former admins chastising good faith contributors for having said "enough is enough." It took a fiat from Jimbo to get the ArbCom to even consider the case, and it's starting to look like they're going to gloss over all the problems that are apparent to anyone who isn't in the inner circle. At this point, what other options are left? We've already lost a great admin over this... enough is enough. AniMate07:23, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Look over the list of new committee members and consider the positions of each of the members listed as active.
Finally examine /Proposed decision and see who has commented on what to date.
Note that there are currently no remedies in place even to be discussed, and that there is only one finding of fact that's passing. The "dialog" in this arbitration is running to waste products. This arbitration is a reactive one, and thus any outcomes are going to be clouded. It might be sensible to spend some time considering from scratch what the problems are and how to address them. 59.101.166.142 (talk) 10:04, 16 January 2008 (UTC) (but really 152.91.9.144)[reply]
Someone wants to start from scratch? Someone already did. It's too bad, though, that no one cares about the problems. As for Durova, she's injecting herself into the discussion. Why she wants to be the center of attention is something known only in her own heart, but arguing, "I was never mean to the Arbs" is, at best, anecdote. At worst, it invites precisely the response Giano gave: "You weren't rude to the Arbs because you were caught doing something that was so horribly wrong that, if you had been rude, you'd have never gotten only a slap on the wrist." It's actually disruptive behaviour on her part to introduce an irrelevancy ("I wasn't mean" (implied: you're being rude to Morven)), or it's an attempt to get an apology for how poorly her own pitiful corse was treated. Either way, it's right and meet so to protest at her comments. If the arbitrators have halos around them, whereby none may approach without due obeisance to the sacred nimbus, then the rest of us should be warned. Otherwise, Morven is a user. Durova is a user. Giano is a user. On the other hand, these dire warnings are coming from IP's, which are not users. Utgard Loki (talk) 13:02, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Buona sera. very busy day in RL - where my undoubted talents are appreciated, so I have not yet evaluated the watch list to see any salacious latest developments, if indeed any of them have been brave enough to post a proposed remedy - which I doubt. As I said last night the upshot of the previous attempts by the Arbcom to rid the encyclopedia of me have failed because I have ever only ever told the proven truth. I have just once been "reminded to be more tolerant and nice" (or words to that effect) - one does try - believe me one tries. This latest fiasco must be the largest trial for 3xR in the history of Wikipedia - with the death penalty being demanded. What a hoot. I see one of my very latest FAs has been nominated today at Wikipedia:Release Version Nominations[10]. Glad to see I still do have my uses to the Jimbo, he obviously doesn't want me banned from there, that must be quite a few of them making money for Wiki now (Ah! 11 it seems, I wonder what is wrong with the others). Does the Arbcom have any idea how ridiculous they are making the project look with this case? One despairs, one truly despairs. I'm not prepared to put up with this any longer from them. they want to be guided by Gerard and Sidaway and co? - they can choose how they want the project to proceed. As an encyclopedia or a refuge for the likes of their staff. Giano (talk) 18:51, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You know, the ArbCom became a farce of a kangaroo court when the started referring to themselves as the "Committee" (capital 'C'!) and instituted a cadre of subordinate Clerks (capital 'C'!) to do their bidding. Somebody has to speak truth to power and say that the emperor has no clothes, and that the "Arbitrators" (capital 'A'!) are not better than everybody else. 75.116.4.29 (talk) 23:41, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The problem the Arbcom are having is that this case started out quite clearly as a "Get Giano et al" case which the Arbcom seized on in delight (I think the minute miniscule possibility of me ever getting on the Arbcom at some time in the future was the final panic). The Arbs problems behan when suddenly a few more began to take an interest and the title of the case had to be altered from "Giano" to "IRC". Now so many more people are watching it they cannot just "get Giano et al" and that is their problem . It is the "just" of course they should never have accepted the case without anticipating its logical conclusion first and realising that quite a few people actually agree with "Giano et al". The ostrich syndrome strikes again. I did advise at the time, bit of course I'm allowed to know nothing. That says more about the Arbcom than it does about my friends and I. If they try and sanction me for anything more than three reverts then they know they are on a very sticky wicket - as it will be false and crooked and of course for accepting a case of this size for just three reverts makes them again look rather silly. So who is to be the scapegoat/s? - Now, I love goats but I'm buggered if I'm going to be one. So you can all see the huge dilemma they have, and of course who got them into this mess? Giano (talk) 08:46, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
From my point of view: We have, fact #1: an edit war with nine editors. One of them used admin tools to try to win. One broke 3RR. Then we have fact #2: people saying that the admins.irc channel has never been a place where bad behavior is tolerated, and Giano privately e-mailed a log to any who said that. Those are the facts. However, a previously unheard of editor who seemed to come out of (and go back to) nowhere lodged an RfAr saying that Giano was not following policy in giving out the logs. Mysteriously, ArbCom took the case.
It was lightning quick for me to point out that there is no policy on how to hand out logs, and there is no policy on Wikipedia forbidding even making them public, that we've been through this already. Woosh! The case is still accepted, but now on no grounds. Seriously. The complaint was gone, but a case is going. There's one sign of doom for the case.
Next, we have the edit war as the only potential case, or determining that ArbCom has power to control the en.admins.irc channel. The case was, hypothetically, commanded by Jimbo who said that ArbCom did have control. Well, that was news to everyone, but it makes mud out of dirt, because now ArbCom has been commanded to work out how they control en.admins.irc and to rule on the behavior there (so it won't be worked out on Wikipedia pages).
In usual cases, "proof that other forms of mediation have been tried" is required, but, in this case, no one has asked, and, oddly, no one has considered the fact that the edit war (remember the edit war? that's the case we're left with) had one "side" (those wanting change) trying to get dialog on the article talk page, and no communication whatever in any form, either on talk pages or article talk pages from the people lodging the complaint.
So, ArbCom has accepted a case that has no complaint left in it. It has been ordered to do something that it is resolutely refusing to address, and it is supposed to rule on the bad behavior of people who were trying to get dialog and who were trying not to violate policies.
Is it any wonder that it can't and won't do anything? All it can do is indict itself, insult long standing users, and make its members look really arrogant and really unwise. Geogre (talk) 12:05, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The curent case can now be summed up "It should also be noted that to say that Bishonen was targetted rather ignores the time she spent dancing around in front of Tony with a target strapped to her chest[11]. Yeah, hundreds of women go out of their way to attract and deserve abuse - I seem to have heard that before somewhere - are the Arbs letting the owner of this vile and disgusting quote run loose? I'll check back in a moment. Giano (talk) 19:58, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yep he's still posting away unchecked. Perhaps now other editors are begining to realise why all faith in the Arbcom has gone. This case is centred on just such insult and comment, and yet is is being allowed to continue even here on Wiki by a flawed and failing Arbcom. Perhaps others will now understand why I and others feel this cannot be allowed to continue. Giano (talk) 20:02, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Was I the only one to catch the irony of him uttering the above statement and then going on to mention how others were engaging in "deeply unhelpful hyperbole"? Am I the only one on that page who knows what hyperbole means? --Tex20:15, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But, you see, Snowspinner isn't being hyperbolic, because he means it literally, I guess. Other people say that being called "arsehole" and "problem user" on IRC is bad, and Snowspinner says that's hyperbole, while, obviously, the victim must have really wanted it -- why else would she object to it? If we forget the reference to chests for a moment, I like the "strapped to her chest" language where he wants to imply that Bishonen in the admins.irc channel is a suicide bomber, while Tony (not an admin) there is just the fool who got too close. This betrays such a truly, deeply, disgusting apishness as to be unforgivable, literally. One thinks of calling for respiradol. Geogre (talk) 21:20, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh well he obviously regrets it now [12] they always do when challenged and caught. what a pity the Arbcom as a united body did not have the guts to challenge such a remark. That says as much about them as it does about Sandifer really. Giano (talk) 20:20, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
He regrets it enough to rewrite it as if there had never been such a statement or to remove the thread so as to pretend that he never was so vile. How very Bush administration of him. Geogre (talk) 21:20, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I will not be editing any more this evening. I am just thoroughly disgusted by the Arbcom for allowing such a situation to develop. They knew what they were doing, they have just been siting back and watching the entertainment. They are as much a disgrace as Sidaway and his mates. I am too angry to edit at the moment. It's certainly not me that needs to be sent packing. I hope they are examining themselves in that sacred mailing list. In the morning I hope to see some resignations. Giano (talk) 21:24, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And I hope to see an end to the war in Iraq in the morning, but I think we are both doomed to be disappointed. Seriously, if the ArbCom was actually looking at itself or honestly examining the problems that lead to this latest debacle, the case would already be closed. Geogre said it quite well above, and the case has come to a stand still because the issues they originally wanted to pursue are no longer viable. Some brave Arb is going to have to step up and have the courage to put down actual and meaningful findings of fact and remedies, or like so many other recent cases, this is going to come to a sad, sputtering end with admonishments for everyone to play nice and no substantive or meaningful decisions. AniMate22:26, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Since I've invoked Sir John Vanbrugh's name I thought I should alert you and the ArchHist Lurkers here to a very much expanded former limping stub, which would be improved by many eyes and hands. Do you know this house, which is only a name to me? How about the wainscoting designed by James Gibbs in the picture gallery? --Wetman (talk) 05:59, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ah a great expansion Wetman. You seem to have the all information I have too. I have added a couple of 19th cent prints but cannot find anymore information - will keep looking. Giano (talk) 18:25, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
probably but if you are the only editor, and you do not care for others seeing your bad spelling and copyediting then there is no harm, but if someone else has made an edit then you must get a history merge. Giano (talk) 11:34, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
On behalf of The Cabal™, I can confirm Giano's right here; as long as he's the only contributor to the article he can do what he likes with it without violating GFDL. — iridescent19:08, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
With regard to your article in development, a good source is "Lost London" by Hermione Hobhouse (Macmillan, London 1971). Contains a great deal of detail about the many grand homes of the aristocracy which were demolished in the 18th and 19th centuries to make way for an expanding city. There was an American edition published by Weathervane Books of New York in 1971 (ISBN0517167026). Sam Blacketer (talk) 21:54, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. That book may be useful for the sequel - if there ever is one. The present page because of size is limited to houses in the countryside demolished during the 20th century. I may do a whole series but first I have to try and get episode 1 finished. For those reading my FGTFA one of the disadvantages of writing in user space is there is never the necessary kick up the ass to finish a page. Giano (talk) 18:30, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
On 17 January, following a series of edits to Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/IRC/Proposed decision, User:FloNight protected the page and added the following in an edit summary: "I protected the page from all editing until the case is closed or edits all agree to make all productive comments about the proposed ruling and not other editors". Flonight has not left any further messages as yet, so I am posting this message to all those who edited the page in this period, and asking them to consider signing this section at Flonight's talk page indicating that they will abide by this request. Hopefully this will help move the situation forward, and enable the talk page to be unprotected (with any necessary warnings added) so that any editor (including those uninvolved in this) can comment on the proposed decision. Thank you. Carcharoth (talk) 05:44, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think I must have edited that page less than anyone else, I shall certainly not be editing it again. I am rather selective about the company I keeep. Giano (talk) 07:15, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What's more, "stop talking about users" is a fine thing, except Snowspinner was doing nothing but talking about character, mindset, intentions, etc. He was doing this in a clumsy effort to focus on "people who need to be punished in the name of prevention" at arbitration. This is because there is no defined case. There are no facts under dispute, because there is no complaint that has any definition, so no one can talk about anything but users. FloNight's protection is, therefore, at least poorly framed. If it kept Snowspinner from trying to cover up his frightful insult, then it's good, but if it keeps anyone from getting that damned case closed, with apologies to me and Bishonen and you, then it's not a good thing. (And I agree with you, Giano: such continually inflammatory "defense by attack" from Snowspinner is worthy of its own case.) Geogre (talk) 12:12, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Carch is doing his best and what he thinks is right and helpful. Just as I did when I added the truth to that bloody page. I had no idea that any Wikipedia pages were owned by anyone. It seems no-one else did either. I am still amazed that anyone reverted my edits, especially the one saying that the Arbcom had no control over #admins. That fact had been stated by the Arbcom so many times. Female editors have been insulted in that channel by a non-admin - so what was wrong with saying so? Now women are insulted on Wikipedia too, and few seem bothered. I am not a great defender or champion of women's rights most of the women I know are quite capable of doing that for themselves. However, all people wherever they are, and whoever they are have a basic right to be treated honourably and decently. If the Arbcom won't stand up for that basic right, then it must fall to others to do so. I regret nothing! I am becoming increasingly tired of repeating myself and being portrayed as the villain here while simultaneously trying to do what is right. I've reached a stage now where I only feel I am here to stop the pages I edit sinking into the mud - perhaps that in itself ought to tell me it is time to go - I don't know what to do at the moment, I'm sick of it all. If I were on the Arbcom I would be considering my position - but they are not. So it falls to us here to consider our own positions, it seems the Arbcom give us a choice - put up or shut up! I'm not very good at either. Giano (talk) 13:36, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No question about Carch. I wasn't impugning him at all. I was questioning the language of the protection, and now I have gone farther. Geogre (talk) 14:56, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Geogre. :-) I think AniMate put it well above:
"Seriously, if the ArbCom was actually looking at itself or honestly examining the problems that lead to this latest debacle, the case would already be closed. Geogre said it quite well above, and the case has come to a stand still because the issues they originally wanted to pursue are no longer viable. Some brave Arb is going to have to step up and have the courage to put down actual and meaningful findings of fact and remedies, or like so many other recent cases, this is going to come to a sad, sputtering end with admonishments for everyone to play nice and no substantive or meaningful decisions." - AniMate
One of the problems I think ArbCom has is institutional inertia (which is usually an advantage, except when there is a need to restore confidence). It was originally set up with the three tranches in order to avoid radical change (I think). The trouble is what do you do when radical change is needed? Newyorkbrad may have been elected with a huge amount of support, but he is only one voice among 15 (more in fact, when you include the retiring arbitrators and the past arbitrators who can post to the mailing list). The input of new blood to the ArbCom may not truly be felt until the retiring arbitrators finish the cases they are involved with. Also, while I understand the arbitration committee want to be able to consult past arbitrators on past cases and for advice in general, I think one hugely symbolic act they could make would be to restrict arbcom-l to just the current arbitrators, and have an emeritus mailing list that is for past and current arbitrators, with cross-posting between them as necessary. Maybe it will happen, I don't know. Carcharoth (talk) 00:12, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You do know who the list manager is for that mailing list, don't you? Of course it would be child's play to set access to the mailing list to "archive" for the former arbs (that would mean being able to read once a week or once a month) or to set for read-only. However, there is the additional worry about those archives, which appear to be rather full of slanderous statements, given the reaction to Giano's vote total. This case is worse than the Dreyfus Affair (Bishonen's user page bears a quote from our article on Dreyfus), because the "charge" that was supposed to justify arbitration (not ruling) vanished before acceptance. In effect, it was a case that was accepted without a case, and, of course, without any attempts at prior mediation. This is in addition to the fact that it has now gotten tied up into two things that are absolutely out. One is that they have set themselves (foolishly) the task of a content dispute (to say that someone has made bad edits (not vandalism) to David Gerard's vanity page, they have to make a content ruling about the RIGHTVERSION). The other is that they have to rule about how to resolve IRC disputes. They shouldn't do the first, and they won't do the second, and they are making pronouncements without any findings or reasoning on either one. Basically, this case is logical sepuku. They should apologize and close the thing. Geogre (talk) 15:16, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, unless the arbitrators set up their own mailing lists, not much can be done about Gerard running that one. I said it would be symbolic only. Maybe you are right, though, in that the mailing list should be managed by a current arbitrator. Anyway, have you seen Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles#Final decision? Oodles of unanimity there and some interesting changes. Scroll down to the "Working Group" bit. That could either be very good, or very, very bad. Carcharoth (talk) 03:46, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Giano. Wanted your opinion on some edits to the section "Temple deities".
A part of what was in "Temple deities" has been moved up by one section, to the last two paragaphs of "Sculpture" sub-section, starting with In what was a departure from convention...... This was done because it pertained to deity sculpture in detail. I am inclined to believe this is a good move. In fact I have divided the "sculpture" section into three sub-sections, "figure sculpture", "deity sculpture" and "miniature towers" for ease of reading.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 01:48, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Another part of "Temple deities" has been moved into "Apprecitation" section and sub-titled "Notable temples". What do you think of this?. I had originally put it in the Temple deities section because it discusses deities, their general details without going too deep into sculptural issues. It also discusses deities other then Shiva and Vishnu that the Chalukyas built temples for. I feel that section was better of in the original location.thanksDineshkannambadi (talk) 01:48, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have made a couple of minor changes which make the prose a little more concise. You could probably find a few more places where you could do this. To be honest I think you could keep nit-picking for ever, and doubtless some will. I think it is there already at FA level. Nothing on Wikipedia is ever truly complete as its always changing. Giano (talk) 11:55, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the kind words. I am now looking forward to writing three more articles on distinct medieval architectures from Karnataka state, South India. But ofcourse, this effort will take time and few more trips to India and lots of reading and researching. I am glad you are around to encourage and appreciate.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 20:48, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Giano! Interesting image... what's the provenance of it, do you know? The description on en could stand a note as to where the image comes from, I should think. Also, once that's cleared up, do you have any major issue with the image being on commons so that when the article is translated into other langs the image can be used? ++Lar: t/c23:33, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is a steel engraving from Jones's Views of the Seats, Mansions, Castles &c, of the Noblemen and Gentlemen of England, Wales, Scotland and Ireland... in six quarto volumes (London, 1829-30). Volumes i-iii covered England. Jones planned a bigger venture of which this was to be part, a Jones' Great Britain Illustrated. Never came to fruition. Jones & Co premises in Finsbury Square, London, was "The Temple of the Muses": this quite remarkable establishment begun by James Lackington and sold to Jones & Co. is illustrated here in an etching-aquatint with hand colouring. And here's the exterior. It burned down in 1841. The Wikipedia article on James Lackington deserves to be improved. Perhaps Lar would work up the hints given here, and we'll all pitch in to help...--Wetman (talk) 02:55, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK I also uploaded interior and exterior views of that "The Temple of the Muses" booksellers, added them to the Lackington article and piled up some potential sources on the talk page of it. Lackingtons' autobiography (which I believe he wrote himself!) is available on Google Books for those interested enough to plow through it. The chap seems enterprising enough but not really my cup of tea. ++Lar: t/c00:13, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Giano. I visited the Pena Palace this afternoon and, as expected, here are a few pictures I took at my favorite place in the whole of Portugal. Hopefully they will draw your interest into this palace and consider expanding its article (or stub disguised of an article, if you will).
From the road to the palace.
North side.
Clock tower.
Front.
The Triton window.
Yellow tower.
Arches.
Clock tower.
Back terrace and view towards the Atlantic.
Terrace.
The Moorish minaret.
Going down, looking upwards.
For the first time I went inside the palace (mostly due to a mistake of three palace guards who for some reason thought that I was with a guided group of tourists passing nearby. They practically ordered me to join them and go inside, before I could explain that I hadn't paid for that access). Anyway, this time I wasn't as lucky as I was at the Queluz Palace. Surveillance is harder to avert so I couldn't take many pictures inside. But now that I know my way around, I'll have better luck next time.
Chapel.
Noble Room.
Kitchen.
Also for the first time, I visited the immense park surrounding the palace. Exploring Pena Park is quite a relaxing, yet thrilling experience. Particularly the fern garden, it makes you feel like you're in the Cretaceous. Some pictures of Pena park below:
Temple of the Columns.
The Queen's Table, one of the Queen's favorite spots.
Shells Pond.
Fern Garden.
Fern Garden.
Fern Garden.
Bird Fountain.
Lake Valley, five lakes to where flow all waterways in the park.
Holy smokes, Husond, you have certainly managed to get some beautiful pics there. Some surely should be put up for QI or even FP on Commons... it looks like it was a very gorgeous day for taking pictures today... wow. ++Lar: t/c03:08, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well I did in fact nom one for FP on Commons, and I also asked my dear Epouse to categorise and wfy the information which she is working on as I write this. ++Lar: t/c04:43, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Amazing photographs Husond - they need a FA to go with them. I wonder if the Arbcom have a fighting fund to spring content-editors, such as yourself, from prison when arrested in the cause of Wikipedia's mainspace articles. I very much hope someone can one day write a page to do justice to them. At the moment I have no enthusiasm at all for writing for Wikipedia so I'm having a break from it all. Giano (talk) 19:20, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I understand your renewed frustration, and hope that you overcome it soon. Frustration is much easier to stomach if you just eat small, well seasoned portions of it. Drink generous amounts of the praise you constantly receive in order to balance pH. If symptoms persist, try Arbcom-seltzer. You may also remember that you don't have just enemies, but also many friends. :-) Best regards, Húsönd20:22, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hey. I've been struggling to get any comments at my requested peer-review of Highlanders (rugby). I was wondering if you would be able to spend a few minutes reading through the article and adding any comments or suggestions here? Thanks. - Shuddetalk06:10, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I'm not really editing at the moment. Just go straight to FAC with it - it looks fine, they will sort any minor problems there. If you must PR it - then ask the Arbcom to review it, they seem to have little to usefully occupy their time - the mainspace interest will be an interesting novelty for them after all the private chatting. Giano (talk) 19:26, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was rather interested in that theory - I've heard it a lot - and I wondered what the evidence actually was. So here's some initial findings. Of the 15 current arbs 8 have userpage writing brags - many have impressive credentials:
Now, I suspect some of the others will also have impressive contributions - but are more modest. (And, you'll agree, having FAs etc is not the be all and end all of being a content writer.) Certainly, few arbs have the impressive record of the like of yourself, but then you are pretty well in the .01% of elite content contributors. But I'd certainly have to conclude that serious writers are very well represented amongst arbs. Indeed whilst non-content grunt work can probably get you through RfA, it seems that the community tends to choose content contributors to serve on its arbitration committee. I certainly think your claim "there are those of us who write, those of them who rule", is simply not supported by the facts. Unless you are implying that only the elite few of multiple FA writers are qualified to rule. Now, my research here is superficial, and can perhaps be rebutted otherwise.--Docg22:03, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid you have misread me Doc. if you look again I say those who serve those that rule. I am referring to those in the chat rooms of IRC who pop out to gain adminship and only pop out again to do the bidding of their masters. I think you will find there are quite a few of those. Talking of DYK type editors, and you being such an expert, does JPGordon contribute in that department? Giano (talk) 22:11, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You seemed to be suggesting that there were three groups - "those of us who write, those of them who rule, and those of them that serve those who rule". But anyway, I tend to agree that we have too many admins passing RfA with no significant content work whatsoever (and that's even setting a low bar). Indeed I've been a lone voice opposing them recently. It would be interesting to see whether those who "serve the masters" or those who tend to agree with you are most prone to having few content contributions. I wouldn't presume the answer to fall either way.--Docg22:20, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I tend to vote on RfA after closely looking at contributions too, and generally oppose those with nary a GA or DYK - I dislike the idea of a schism, jeeze, the work isn't that sprcialised that we need specialists surely. Having admins with no article writing experience is risky, especially at AfD and some of the debates arising there I feel. cheers, Casliber (talk·contribs) 22:47, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think looking for GAs and DYKs is just crappy instruction creep. One needs to look for some article contributions regardless of any pursuit of baubles. I didn't know what DYK was when I was sysopped. Admin specialism is fine - but at least some familiarity with content writing is essential. Indeed all the evidence suggests that if people have the type of eloquence and clear thought that makes them effective in policy debates and dispute resolution then they will be reasonable writers too. Admins without those skills are fine if they stick to the mindless gruntwork - they are not fine when they get out of their intellectual depth otherwise.--Docg23:09, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's good if you're pressed for time. Not so much DYK but GA and FA require the person to exhibit some degree of diplomacy or collaboration. Choir...hmmmm..alalalalalalalalaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaalalalalalalalalaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaallalaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaallaalal...(my best impression then) cheers, Casliber (talk·contribs) 23:13, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Brags on a userpage don't impress me much (yes, I do it, but it's not how I want to be judged). I could have 40 DYK's instead of 4 if I'd heard of the DYK process a few months earlier, but that's neither here nor there. I do have to confess that my content contributions have dried up dramatically since I became an administrator, which is precisely what I vowed would not happen. I think I'm going to have to promise here to have an article on FAC by the end of February, so that people can nag me and shame me until I get around to doing it. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:41, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yup. Sorry, I am just amazed at the widescale slash-and-burn by editors some of whom contribute nothing to mainspace outside merging and deleting material going on at present....speaking of schism between writers and others. And when they hover around AfD and policy pages the fun really starts...cheers, Casliber (talk·contribs) 00:06, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Since this is Giano's page, I shall speak with the freedom that Giano represents and demands; Bollocks, sysopping is all about clerking, supporting, and doing the chores that leave the writers to the freedom of producing articles - if the admin to be has some experience of article writing then they have some insight to the needs of said editors; but adminning is primarily a sordid little task of process, revision, tidying, checking, referring and all the tedious shit that shouldn't encumber the editor. That's it, simply. Human nature, being what it is, means that sometimes admins feel underappreciated (is there a Obvious Typing Mistake Rectified Without Fuss Barnstar? - because until just now I deserved several) and get a bit testy when those editors who are allowed the luxury of not needing to know that the wheels need oiling from time to time start taking potshots at the lack of "contributions" of those whose talents and energies are utilised in servicing (and, yes, regulating - because the writers cannot be bothered with such mundane things unless it directly involves them) the needs of the community. Oh, yes, there are those who are going to be more enthralled with the effects of wielding the (damned slight) powers that are conferred by the extra buttons, as there are those who believe that the mop is just another bludgeon to use in their quest to maintain their point of view in the Wikipedia. However, I would suggest - cos I can't be fucked to find any data to back up this claim - that the ratio of so inclined sysops to POV orientated or SPA editors is even less than the general admin/editor balance.
Y'know what my general criteria when reviewing RfA candidates is? Communication! Are their talkpages (article and userspace) anything close to their article/project space count? Do they always use edit summaries? I am not interested whether they have lovely shiny articles with an FA or GA badge on them - since there are plenty of people with perfectly sound reasons for voting yea or nay on that basis - but whether they can actually commit themselves to that magical concept called "consensus" (hey - alliteration within prose!) and actually pull disparate people together to create this thing they call Wikipedia.
I have voted for you, Giano, because I recognise that ArbCom needs to have a singular view that is different to the singular views that have previously dwelt there - a balance and reaction to some of the positions that appear entranced there. I have supported you in disputes where your contempt (not too strong a term, in context, I feel) for the niceties of convention and practice has permitted the community to examine issues that may have otherwise not been bought to their attention. I have stood in admiration at your bravery and chivalry and loyalty in regard to your passion in defending both your understanding of Wikipedia and those you favour with your friendship. Without your contributions, past, present and hopefully future, this place would not be as good or as noble.
You are, however - in my opinion, for what that is - wrong to berate the individuals of ArbCom for the failings that you perceive. You do not understand process, and you do not understand the working of process, as far as I can tell. You do not see the necessity of taking the middle ground between the angels and the demons, or the need for there to be grey instead of only black and white. As there are editors who are unable to understand why such an insolent and "disruptive" editor as you are permitted to vex the workings of the encyclopedia - and never mind the content - you are unable to see why certain editors are allowed to continue editing when you believe their conduct renders them unsuitable to remain here. They remain because you remain; it is not them or you - it is them and you or neither. That is what ArbCom do, what the admin cadre do, what the wikignomes and vandal fighters and new page patrollers and the image deleters and all those other useless lackeys who don't put more than a few words once in a while to article space do. They give you, and your friends and colleagues, and even your opponents, the base on which you produce your work and even the framework against which you hang your complaints and harangues. We (or I - because I think there are going to be a lot of red faces when they read this drivel and realise I am lumping them in with me) do not ask for your praise or thanks, just an acknowledgement that we are all working together, however imperfectly, toward the same general goal... can somebody remind me what that is again? Oh, yeah... that!
Sorry, Giano, but it needed saying by somebody who remains on your side (whether you feel you need it or want it or not) but your otherwise excellent stance as regards the need for continued reform of Wikipedia and its functions/institutions is getting a little vexatious when you begin questioning the desire and motivations of the resource pool that supplies the admin/bureaucrat/steward and other lackeys that also contribute to the place. Call out the individual for the particular mistake, by all means, but please don't diss that group for being what they are - ultimately we are only a reflection of what the community believes is required.
For the 1000th time I am not referring to the 100s of Admins who work hard around the place, for God's sake most of my friends are admins. I am referring to that very vocal community of Admins who only leave their chatroom to log in and give somebody a kicking. Giano (talk) 10:43, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah... I suppose that is the problem of rhetoric, what gets left out... Can I just say that the incidence of some individuals appearing within some of the functions of Wikipedia, and even of their influence there, does not mean that the function is broken, in my opinion, and leave it at that? LessHeard vanU (talk) 11:37, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nice to see 'LessHeard vanUnew found spirituality, especially after he spent and enormous amount of time assembling a huge amount of irrelevant evidence regarding the editing of a particular article demonstrating his lack of understanding of the editing process:presented by LessHeard vanU This resulted in the Arbitration comments from link give below and the comments in bold:
However, this resulted in no consequence for LHvU, unlike the mere editors involved. Better he stick with his mop than waste everyone's time by precipitating another arbitration, then collecting irrelevant and time-consuming Evidence. Mattisse18:51, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You and some of the kind readers of your talk page may take interest in the discussion here. Specifically, the exchange ongoing between Francis and I on the use of "old", "dead", archaic or hard to find sources. Lawrence § t/e23:56, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, the Arbcom don't like me expressing opinions in Wikipedia space. I had better not give an opinion in case I am vicimised by them. Giano (talk) 07:19, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm noticing that some folks are doing odd things with the refs on this article, and I do recall that there was something unusual in the way that they were set up at the time (two sources with the same name?). Can you motivate yourself to take a look and/or explain the situation on the talk page? Greatly appreciated. Risker (talk) 04:09, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Would you mind casting your eye over my rather embarassing attempt at Italian translation of here? Actually, the English could probably do with a going over too, if anyone's so minded :-) Joopercoopers (talk) 11:42, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, if they are, then we've got it wrong at pietra dura too - "opere di commessi (approximately, "Works of the commisariat")" - which is quite likely of course on wikipedia :-) I'll go and read a book.....--Joopercoopers (talk) 23:47, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
FYI he is referring to a television commercial shown in the United States. [15][16] I expect he is expressing that he thinks this proposal is not strong, or "hefty", enough for his liking. I don't think it is in reference to you, personally. Rockpocket19:50, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It appears that Fred is suggesting that the remedy is wimpy, "of, pertaining to, or characteristic of a wimp" "A timid or unadventurous person" because you are a "bull in a china closet". If you do not like the reference, please take it up with Fred. Thatcher19:57, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is just typical of the ignorance that anyone not from the USA has to combat on Wikipedia. Sadly, such tolerance does not appear to work in reverse. Giano (talk) 19:58, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thatcher, being the clerk on that arbcom case, I know it is your job to ask Giano nicely not to edit a page he should not be editing. However, color me surprised when I went to Fred's talk page to see what nice message you sent him and saw nothing from you. Surely you don't approve of this edit whereby Fred calls Giano a "bull in the china closet," a "disruptive personality" and a "bad apple"? If Giano cannot edit that page to defend himself, surely Fred shouldn't be baiting Giano on the proposed decision page. It is your job to ensure we have decorum on those pages, how about leaving Fred a nice message asking him not to call people names? SGT Tex (talk) 20:15, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was going to leave you a message about Lawson (I e-mailed and it bounced back. It'll be saved at FAR—it really is web-based, AFAICS, and I'll do it myself, even if it takes a month or two).
And then I noticed the above thread. Do you want to be banned? That's neither rhetorical nor aggressive. I think maybe you do want to be banned—a last burst of POINT, so to speak. Editing Proposed decision is just providing a reason for arbs to agree to hardlines. They're just people, after all (I don't buy the cabal nonsense—if a cabal existed, Wikipedia would work better.) But even someone sympathetic is going to think "wtf do we do?—well, ban from this namespace, I guess." It will be horrible to enforce some of the remedies being discussed.
But you don't want to be banned from anywhere, right? I think you don't want to be. You talk a lot about the mainspace (and have contributed in kind). Do them one better and only contribute to it. Do it for a month—just mainspace, of your own accord—and who can argue with you? Offer it, and abide by it. Just a thought. Marskell (talk) 21:42, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think when we have reached the stage we have now, where we have Bauder (the head, and most senior Arb) trolling me (remember that is a word I hardly use) on the decision page itself, with the Clerks warning me off for responding, I think all gloves have now to come off, what few niceties that remained have to be cast aside. Now, only the naked and very unattractive truth, about the Arbcom, is evident for all to see. I would not trust any of the old ones further than I could spit them. The rest of you can make your own choices. I think we deserve better. Giano (talk) 22:32, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Giano, I think you've made your point. Fred has made his point. Please, I beg you, leave it for now. Stop editing the Proposed decision page. Let others have their say, and calm down. Please. Carcharoth (talk) 23:49, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Que? I have not edited it for at least half an hour, and then it was only to propose it for speedy deletion, I don't know why i did not do that months ago, such a sensible move. Have no further fear "Wimpy" is going to bed. what a shower. Giano (talk) 23:52, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK. I'm going to post to the Proposed decision talk page to try and head off any further reaction. Please accept what I say there in the spirit it will be said in. It is purely trying to calm things down - if you disagree with what I say, please come to my talk page first. Carcharoth (talk) 00:07, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I aked several times for the offending comment to be removed. It was left there as a deliberate act of spite. It seems it is quite all right for Americans to use language, and insults, which editors on this side of the Atlantic find offensive but not the other way around. Thank you Thatcher for clarifying that. I would rather be blocked for 8 hours then let "you lot" think I had given up on the Arbcom's offensive behaviour. You have the power, I have none. Giano (talk) 07:56, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Giano, can I make you an offer? You frequently make some good points, but have sometimes raised them in the wrong way, or a way that causes drama and makes it less likely that the points you raise will be addressed (or even if they are, not without collateral damage). Could I ask whether you would consider making such points on your talk page first, and then see what others think? I often agree with you, and I could maybe suggest ways to make your points more effectively (or make them for you if I agree with you), and I think others could as well. I'm not trying to stop you making any of your points, but I am suggesting that anything that you feel outraged about might be better handled with a preliminary step like this. Would you consider voluntarily agreeing to work on the "outrage" issues like this for a few months, or even indefinitely if you find you prefer it this way? Carcharoth (talk) 09:31, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Seconded. You have exceedingly important things to say and I do not want them to be overlooked because everyone wants to shoot the messenger. I would be happy to bring forward any points you thought need making that you might be concerned about being able to make in an effective way. Just ask. ++Lar: t/c17:27, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Lar, I think I will probably post all my future comments on the subject in a far safer and more friendly forum, a place you might say that I intend to make my own off wiki-chatroom, a place most of us read anyway to find out what is going on here. If my views are to be forbidden here, I have little choice. Giano (talk) 17:55, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Could just be me, but I think he means a different place, if the recent users there are any indication (Giano apparently missed 666 by 2 users, or so the scuttlebutt has it)... sorry if I blithlely blew past your sarcasm/tongue in cheekness there, Risker :) More seriously, Giano, I don't think your VIEWS are forbidden here... it's just how you sometimes choose to make yourself heard that gives some people heartburn. I'll reiterate, you're often right, and a lot of people know it. ++Lar: t/c18:43, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't it all rather anglo-saxon-middle-class to suggest our Italian friend here, deports himself in the 'socially required manner' - I'd have thought that a global project might give Latin temperaments some latitude. I've seen Giano accused of disruption for telling an obvious troll she might try the 'fugu' when she was duplicitously claiming to be in Japan. He caught her out, but Mr Bauder and others apparently wanted sepuku from Giano. --Mcginnly | Natter18:54, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Far too messy and painful for me McG, anyway I'm far too selfish to commit suicide or hari kiri (or whatever the natives in those parts call it). I don't do social requirements, especially those of the middle classes. One is either bred or illbred in my experience (and that can never be altered). It seems we all expected to curb ourselves unless we are on the Arbcom, then we have carte blanche to be as ignorant and rude as we like. I see the offending page looks set to be deleted (if only people listened to me in the first place) but won't the Arbs look even more silly debating edits to a page that does not exist? This place become more surreal by the moment. Giano (talk) 19:33, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Ministry of Magic. Post-teener exiles from MySpace are acting out role-playing personas of great deliberative judgement that no one would dream of offering them in real life. You've been distracted by this far too long, Giano. Drop from your Watchlist all pages that irritate you, or that seem to attract mosquitos, and get back into your creative swing. --Wetman (talk) 20:13, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That might be an accurate description of some admins (though not all the teenage ones are like that, and some of the adult ones are just as bad), but the arbitration committee, by and large, as far as I can tell, are quite old enough to have never gone near MySpace. Carcharoth (talk) 14:06, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wetman, you are quite right, I had the two volume work produced by Sotheby's for the Easton Neston Sale (you must get it - it's your dream book) for Christmas. It is full (overflowing, in fact, with 18th century prints and 19th century photographs none of which have ever seem the light of day (well the internet anyway), but how on earth am I suppose to start a page when surrounded by morons intent on me being prohibited from writing it. I'd rather write it and have someone pay me for it, than have yet another page sink into the mud. Twice I have asked by email the "Arbcom" to revert drastic edits to existing FAs in the last week, both times they have failed to respond (perhaps they don't know what a FA is) or perhaps they want to see me and my works in the mud. Sad people. As soon as this current mess is over rest assured a normal service will be resumed. Giano (talk) 21:01, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
PS: For the non-editing masses observing this page, Wetman is one of Wikipedia's most educated and proficient editors on encyclopedic subjects. You probably won't have heard of him. Giano (talk) 21:01, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I think I found one of the articles and have (with other editors, in no manner of collusion - we just all know that a link to 1999 isn't helpful to anyone reading a FA) made some efforts to restore to its previous glory. What is it about your articles that attracts so many people to try to rewrite them? Land sakes, I clean up more junk out of them than I do out of the Richard Gere article. Risker (talk) 14:22, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
...because Giano's thoughts are expressed in flexive sentence structures that relate ideas to one another by means of appositives and dependent clauses, often more than two, or open telescopically in periodic structure, tiring American lip muscles. --Wetman (talk) 00:58, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wasn't trying to bowdlerise Wikipedia at all. That line just seems a bit sarcastic to put in a factual article; after all, a stud book is supposed to be for pets and race horses. Moyabrit (talk) 22:07, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What on earth gave you that idea? The records of noble pedigree were started to stop heavy intermarriage, in the days before people hung their family trees in their lavatories for the amusement of their guests. The whole thing became confused when the Americans started to publish social registers in the 19th century, but the Almanach and Libro d'Oro had a far more practical use, lets face it no one wants to marry their granny's bastard, by mistake, do they? Giano (talk) 22:12, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also because the Church in the early medieval period had a good earner requiring hefty payments for certificates confirming that no relationship of consanguinity or affinity existed between the parties in upper-class marriages (often done retrospectively, when there were several children - potential bastards - just to make it interesting), and also in case a plague etc brought about a claim to the estates of very distant cousins. Johnbod (talk) 00:54, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Don't worry, I'm sure Brad has read it an received the message. I don't think anyone else reads the page. I hope rthey all have monumantal headaches this morning, and I'm not referring to me. Giano (talk) 08:56, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I see there looks to be some likelihood of this resolution passing [18]. Designed no doubt to prevent their errors and stupidity being publicly pointed out in future. Have the Arbs not yet seen the foolishness of their ways? No doubt the little, non-writing, Admins on IRC will have some kind of competition to see who can be the first to achieve fame by blocking me. Let's face it, fame won't come to them any other way. I'm afraid the Arbs were very ill-advised ever accepting this case. They now seem to want to cause even more mass disruption rather than accept they made a very silly mistake. One cannot really help them to see the error of their ways. However, when an entire case has been based on pure spite and revenge, I suppose one cannot really be surprised at the outcome. Giano (talk) 12:40, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's insane. "Judged to be an assumption of bad faith?" Can anyone even understand that phrase? Can anyone hope to have it mean something? Can I judge your assumptions? Doesn't that require a crystal ball, Ouija board, and chicken bones? If anyone rushes to achieve such fame, I hope that it, she, or he is willing to explain how it "judged" your assumptions. Also, what if you're right and someone does have "bad faith?" What exactly is bad faith? Is it faith in luck or faith in ArbCom or faith in Buddha? Effective remedies require clean language and clear thinking. I see no evidence of any of those: hence, acceptance is a mark of insanity: ira brevis furore est.Utgard Loki (talk) 15:32, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reverting to English for the benefeit of the few who don't speak Italian here, the whole root cause of all the current trouble is here [19]. The only people who refuse to see that are the Arbs. Now I wonder why that is, that they feel this page is more important than the content of the encyclopedia? Giano (talk) 19:40, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And surprise, surprise within seconds of me passng comment [20] IRCs page is saved for them yet again. Is it any wonder people are losing their patience? Giano (talk) 19:46, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I expect the little admins are getting above themselves, and their squeaking is reaching new heights of excitement as the competition organized by the Arbs to see who can be first to ban is opening. Giano (talk) 22:47, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Giano, do you remember I said last time that I'd say something early on if I thought you were going over the top? Well, I think you are approaching that point again. For the sanity of everyone involved in this case, do you think you could cut down a little bit on the hyperbole and the satirical depictions of Arbcom and #admins? I noticed your responses to Doc glasgow over on that talk page, and you seemed to be one of the last (along with me) to pick up on the fact that he was using a subtle brand of irony (ie. he hasn't really received leaked e-mails from the Arbitration Committee). I read some of what you write and think "funny - but he probably isn't being serious". Well, I'm not so sure now. I mean this in all seriousness - let others fight this battle for you. You have done more than enough. Carcharoth (talk) 23:12, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Do you know something? I actually no longer care what anyone on Wikipedia says or does - such is my disgust. That the Arbs and admin's chatroom is placed above content, says far more than I ever can. Giano (talk) 23:18, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is a big and wild place, Giano, as you know, of course. It is perfectly possible to edit for a year and a day without ever getting involved with ArbCom or #admins ever again. Please don't let this case sour you (or others) on the whole Wikipedia experience. Carcharoth (talk) 00:17, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Giano...relax my feral friend! You are no good to any of us gone. Take a deep breath, count to 11,675,334 and above all do as I say not as I do :-) Fond regards Sarah777 (talk) 01:45, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Giano, I definitely agree with you that some of the project's admins are doing their best to turn Wikipedia into a farce by using their positions to push POV, or by playing power games with each other and regular editors, and the ArbCom and/or Jimbo should be doing more to combat this. But, this is the system that we have. Sometimes, we have to work within it. Cla68 (talk) 01:51, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You know, though, I think there ought to be a dark line between people blowing off steam in their user talk pages and people making "accusations" elsewhere. I hope, if I get irritated, I'm allowed to say, in my own user talk page, "This is the worst piece of shit article I've ever seen" of some article or other, or "That's the biggest back stabbing I've ever seen" of some person, and this should not be understood as going out to molest people. Giano II, on his own user page, has grumbled dramatically, but the Arbs and admins should have nice, big egos and should be able to let it roll off their backs. Is someone who is happy with things going to be "influenced" by someone else's discontent? I don't think so. The most that will happen is that they'll think, "Wow, this person is really discontented." Well, oh la, life goes on. There is too much here about the contents of peoples' hearts, and who the hell knows what lurks there? (Yes, The Shadow knows, but The Shadow ain't an admin here.) Utgard Loki (talk) 15:54, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Giano, usually as a smug anglophone I can be happy with the dictum Englisch über alles except inthe field of mycology as most anglophones are mycophobes unlike the dedicated mushroom eaters of Italy, France and Germany and points east. Any italian lore that can be input onto Boletus edulis, Entoloma sinuatum or Boletus satanas among others would be much appreciated if you ever partake of funghi. It has been raining +++++ here for a few weeks and we have things popping up everywhere, but 95% of australian fungi are undescribed... :( cheers, Casliber (talk·contribs) 22:42, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Casliber. I do not write about fungi! I do though have one or two useful recipes up my sleeve, such a pity Bishzilla and Bishonen seem to have sampled them. Giano (talk) 23:17, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Aah well, unlike just about everything else, there is alot more in other languages than in English and thought you may be interested as a distraction anyway. We do get alot of dried porcini here now (yum) cheers, Casliber (talk·contribs) 01:12, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This arbitration case has closed and the final decision may be found at the link above. Giano is placed on civility restriction for one year. Should Giano make any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith, Giano may be blocked for the duration specified in the enforcement ruling. All parties in this case are strongly cautioned to pursue disputes in a civil manner designed to contribute to resolution and to cause minimal disruption. All the involved editors, both the supporters and detractors of IRC, are asked to avoid edit warring on project space pages even if their status is unclear, and are instructed to use civil discussion to resolve all issues with respect to the "admin" IRC channel. For the Arbitration committee, Thatcher04:06, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The "sop" to the community for this decision was that, huge changes would be implemented at #admins by healthy debate involving rank and file editors, the result of these promises was this:[24]. Nothing changes, where the Arbonauts are concerned. Giano (talk) 19:46, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I hope you will reconsider and return soon. You have no restrictions placed on you that keep you from being able to fully participate in Wikipedia. FloNight♥♥♥12:47, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Flo, I've left this message on your talk page, but perhaps it is best to put a copy of my thoughts here as well.
I too wish that Giano would stay and continue to participate in Wikipedia. From the perspective of the encyclopedia, he is an incredibly valuable contributor; from the personal perspective, I have learned a great deal about editing and greatly value the encouragement he has given me. Giano's mainspace edits are legendary, and his contributions on the meta side have significantly improved content and behaviour with respect to "The Troubles," addressing paedophilia-related activity on this site, abusive blocking and transparency here on Wikipedia. His meta positions have been supported by the wide community despite his sometimes excessive zeal; many who "opposed" Giano's election to Arbcom commented that he had the right ideas but his approach wasn't suited to being an Arbcom member. It is difficult to know whether the changes in Wikipedia culture could have been made without Giano's rhetoric and focus on issues. Let's compare the defense of !! and the granting of rollback to non-administrators: Both involved walking very fine lines and pushed the community hard into a new direction, with high-flying rhetoric and violation of WP conventions. Giano got warned for being rude and violating unwritten rules (which remain unwritten, as the community cannot come to a consensus on what those rules are); Ryan Postlethwaite was invited to join a special Arbcom subcommittee.
Just about anyone can make the list of administrators who would be watching every word written by Giano, ready to whack him with a block, whether deserved or not. One snippy comment in a FAR. One snotty response on his talk page. Another Eurocentric allusion that goes over the average American's head. "Obscene trolling: knows German" may well be the standard. Heck, there are several statements in his essay - a poignant and humorous final gift to our community - that would incite some admins to block him. And no AN or ANI discussion, just another report to WP:AE that nobody questions or reads. And if someone does question the block, then we're back to the drama that nobody needs - not the community, not Arbcom, and not Giano either. From that perspective, with such a huge "kick me" sign pinned to his back, who can blame Giano for walking away? Hundreds of others already have. Risker (talk) 14:21, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) Well said, Risker. Why would anyone want to participate here after being singled out and insulted this way? When I look at how other people insult Giano, and how Giano often takes it on board (look at, for example: User_talk:Giano/Exploding_Houses#Sorry where Giano calmly and patiently explains matters after being insulted) I think the charge that Giano is the big problem here (as evidenced by being the only person mentioned by name in the ArbCom decision) is ludicrous. Any "refocusing of enthusiasm" is likely now to be to Wikipedia's detriment. As for the suggestion that Giano was impeding rewriting a policy page, I find that laughable. That page was the way it was for what, a year? It could have been rewritten at any time, and in fact that is what Giano was trying to spur. Could he have done it better? Sure. But let he who is without sin cast the first stone. I don't see the arbcom decision as being the last thing to happen in this little affair and I think (as I said on my own talk) it's going to end badly. Which is really unfortunate. Will WP persevere without Giano's contributions if he doesn't come back? Yes, but article space will be a poorer place, and we also will miss out on the thoughtful and insightful comments in metaspace. Will Giano get on with life without WP? Probably, if he can actually manage to stay away (it's hard, WP is so addictive). But both WP and Giano will be the poorer for it. ++Lar: t/c14:35, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I hope that now that the case is closed that Giano will take the Committee's feedback seriously. As someone that has supported and defended Giano in the past myself, I found myself no longer able to do it because it was becoming a chronic pattern of conduct. Lar, I hope that Giano will follow the example of users like yourself that purposely choose to moderate their language and conduct on site to match our policies. My main concern was that Giano did not indicate that he planned to modify his conduct in the future, and in fact never acknowledged that it was a problem while most other involved parties did so. His choice to continue making provocative edits such as edit warring during the case and like putting the Proposed Decision page up for deletion) are the reason that the case closed with a finding against him and not others. I hope that you and others that he has listened to in the past will encourage him to come back as I feel he has much to offer. Thanks for your thoughts. FloNight♥♥♥16:12, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The choice was his to engage in highly provocative behavior that is well outside of policy and in my opinion has impeded the Community from writing a reasonable IRC guideline. Wikipedia is based on the idea that decisions will be made through calm collaborative discussion. It is impossible for that to happen when several editors raise the level of discourse to the point that most thoughtful people give up and walk away. Giano has a history of doing this. My goal is to re-focus his enthusiasm toward supporting our dispute resolution processes to achieve his goals. I opposed remedies that would stop his participation in Wikipedia policy making as I do value his opinion. As a high profile editor he needs to lead by example. Please encourage Giano to return as I feel that Wikipedia will be a better place with him here. Thanks for your thoughts. FloNight♥♥♥14:36, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Flo, the problem with this remedy is that it paints a bullseye on Giano's head, when he arguably already had one on it, hence half the problems with the insults and the various blocks (some justified, but some definitely not). In my view -- and I'm sure Giano will not thank me for saying this -- a block would have been preferable, if any sanction were needed, because at least the block would be served then done with. But to leave a poorly defined parole hanging over him for a long time is humiliating, and it's the humiliation that has driven him away, as it was bound to. SlimVirgin(talk)(contribs)15:50, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Committee made the decision that we thought overall served the best interest of the Community. The majority of the Committee felt that it was the best of several options. It is hard to make a Finding like this against someone that you respect and agree with about many things. But I feel that Giano left us no other choice. Plese encourage him to return. Thanks for your thoughts. FloNight♥♥♥16:21, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Remedy arbcom passed was always a poor one. I've criticised attempts to put Giano on civility parole before. The problem with it is it would allow hotheads to block Giano, and at the same time allow Giano (if he chose) to push at the bounds in search of the the drama of an unjust block. The remedy made Giano's departure unfortunately inevitable, and the only thing to do is to give Giano credit that he chose to leave like this, rather than waiting for the drama of being dispatched by a poor blocking decision in the future, which would have been far more disruptive for the community. However, neither will I be too hard on arbcom. Whilst there is an idiotic community minority on one side who want Giano gone or silent, and a minority on the other for whom Giano can do no wrong, most sane people badly want Giano to stay, and will defend his right to express his wiki-views, however, they don't want any more "Franken-Giano"ism. By that I mean Giano's tactic of: 1) using heated and polarising rhetoric 2) painting everyone who doesn't agree 100% as part of the problem 3) assuming that everyone critical of the methods and tone wants to silence the message 4) never admitting any wrong on his own part 5) assuming bad faith of anyone that dares to be critical. Basically, we need Giano to remember that the aim in every dispute is to seek some form of dispute *resolution*, not to wage perpetual warfare. Now, there is simply not any arbcom remedy that can compel that, that can leave Giano free both to edit and to comment, but compel him to comment in a different fashion. So arbcom can either do nothing (which has been what they have done up till now) or pass some unsatisfactory remedy that will doubtless result in him leaving. The only person who could have given a way out here was Giano. Had he indicated at any point that he'd reflect on the widespread criticism of his tactics (a criticism shared even by many who agreed with his messages) I would immediately have called for the case to be closed without sanction and sang "Alleluia". Even now, were Giano to even hint at a desire to proceed a little differently (or just to start doing it), I'd call for arbcom to remove the sanction immediately. Giano, if I can help you find a way back, you only have to ask.--Docg16:52, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Giano, I probably have no business weighing in here, since we've never been close, but that Southern Belle has an awfully large waistline and eyebrows in desperate need of a serious shaping and waxing, so I have a vested interest in seeing you stay around to replace that picture. How come Raul gets a great physique, and I get bushy eyebrows? :-))
I went through a singularly unpleasant experience one month ago in an ArbCom case, and as horrible as that experience was (do you 'spose the Arbs understand how awful it is?), I know it was nothing compared to what you've been through. From my read of things, you ended up there partly for defending Bish's honor; it's sad that should be necessary.
I'd really hate to see Wiki lose your writing and your presence. After what happened to me, I doubted for many weeks I would even want to return to Wiki or could find the restored enthusiasm and energy I used to enjoy here. I knew I couldn't come back unless I could find a motivation to continue with joy. Two things made a difference for me and brought me back in spite of the serious shortcomings we all have to deal with on Wiki: friends and a forced break. The bottom line is that, no matter how bad it can be, there are some really fine editors here on Wiki and they enrich my life. I hope the thought of interacting with other editors like Yomangani, who also took a long break and returned with enthusiasm, will help you find a way back to us. Because I was traveling to remote areas with limited internet access, I had a semi-forced break after the ArbCom closed, and that time off was crucial in helping me regain my footing. So please consider seriously taking time off to reconsider, and while you're thinking it over, you may find that the exceptional people you know on Wiki may come to mean more to you than the unpleasant things about The Way Wiki Works. You can always use the WikiBreak Enforcer to give yourself a pre-determined amount of time to think things over. Whatever you decide, I hope you'll be happy and be well. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:30, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The subject may entice you, even though the little start I've made hardly sketches the outlines of the subject. Was a gabinetto always a close-stool or necessary? Was it ever a studiolo? --Wetman (talk) 12:49, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
...my understanding of the Wikipedia project is that its strength comes from a vast number of people making small changes. However, the process self-selects to self-destruction - to wit, people who have lots of free time get the most power. But those people are usually the ones who are involved in order to gain personal prestige - the antithesis of Wikipedia in the first place. They're experts in the expert-less community.
So the community automatically becomes run by unstable people who care more about their personal power than the results. And this becomes impossible to stop, because reasonable people by definition will not be obsessed enough to fight the tendency.
Not all, or perhaps even most, of the powerful accounts (admins, arbitrators, etc) in Wikipedia are unreasonable people. But, as the Essjay, BADSITES, IRC, Weiss/Overstock.com [25], and other episodes have shown, the few who are unreasonable and in positions of authority, and who seem to enjoy using "private" mailing lists and IRCs to further their personal agendas, often cause immense problems for the project and to those editors who are actually here to try to write quality articles or measurably improve article space in some other way. Giano is helping fight this and is often successful in doing so, to the great benefit of the project.
Interesting thesis, but I'm not sure it is correct. It's "strength comes from a vast number of people making small changes" - now, I think there was some evidence to show that was NOT the case, that the bulk of our contributions (excepting vandalism) was actually by 3-4,000 regulars. I'd also point out that whilst passers-by might fix typos or occasionally contribute an article stub on something they care about, almost all our quality work (GA FA etc) is done by a regular core of "experts". Could this just be that you done like one perceived regular core, because you belong to another perceived one? I say perceived, because I think it is a myth to assume that there are two distinct camps of "writers" and "admins 'experts'". There are certainly some admins that seldom write, but in fact of the influential ones do. I note, for instance, that nearly ALL people that get elected to arbcom have made high-end content contributions.
Why I'm being slightly critical here, is that I think everyone has been far too fast to shout "THEY are the problem" and then engage in rhetorical flourishes to show why, supported by a few meagre anecdotes for evidence. Now, it may well be that we do have a group of people whose net contribution is negative (or more likely could be more positive), but before anyone rushes to that prognosis, I'd suggest some careful and objective research. "my understanding of" is perhaps a poor basis for making sweeping statements, when those statements tend to further polarise the community. And I suspect, admittedly not on clear evidence either, that rhetoric that tends to polarising the community is perhaps the most destructive feature of the recent disputes. Just some thoughts.--Docg09:15, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I don't agree totally with the quote either. I think it was more true a year ago than it is now. I'd say that the group of Wikipedians that this applies to is small and growing smaller, thanks in part to Giano's and others efforts. But, it still exists to some degree. Also, what the quote doesn't address, and this applies to your statement that all of the ArbCom members have high-end content contributions, is that some of the "obsessive" Wikipedians aren't seeking personal prestige. They're seeking influence so that they can push their personal POVs easier. There are several admins, at least one of whom is a former ArbCom member, who have developed quite a reputation for pushing and protecting certain POVs in certain subjects. Cla68 (talk) 10:13, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hang on. I've no doubt that there are some people "seeking influence" to push POV, and the example you cite is particularly notorious (I will not defend that individual). However, I think you are still using anecdote as justification for sweeping generalities and assuming bad faith. Are you really suggesting that most "obsessive" wikipedians are either power-hungry POV pushers or non-writing and problematic? Where is the evidence? As for the assertion that Giano has reduced the number of wikipedians that fall into whatever "problem admin" category you envisage, can you explain how Giano's activity has helped reduce this? Logic? Evidence? I'd say, that one of the problems is that we've had far too many sweeping generalisations that attempt to caricature some problem "group" from a few anecdotes and bad experiences. I'd say that part of the solution is to avoid polemicist rhetoric and stick to calm, balanced, analysis of any problems, explaining why we think this is a problem and assuming that most people want to work to minimise any problems we can specifically isolate. I think we've had enough of divisive partisan paranoia based on poor evidence and analysis with logic jumps.--Docg19:04, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Here is one of my favorite works of Ludwig Van's. It seems highly fitting and appropriate considering it is about one gallant hero's struggle against tyranny. Bernstein and the Vienna Philharmonic did it justice, quite unlike what the ArbCom did for you. I hope it helps inspire you to continue the fight in whatever manner you see fit.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 11:20, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Giano. I was asked to write a signpost tutorial about how to get an article to featured article. This is my first draft. It is based on my own page: User:Yannismarou/Ten rules to make an article FA. It is today during writing the tutorial that I first read your own essay, which impressed me I must say. I would be grateful If you had the time to check the draft, offer any comments you would like, check the prose, and propose me any improvements you regard as useful. Thank you in advance!--Yannismarou (talk) 15:59, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Giano, there is a "consensus" being manufactured in this critical article (it defines Wikis handling of inbuilt systematic bias). I strongly feel you should read the talk pages; look at the history and I'd appreciate your views on how to proceed or other advice. Regards, Sarah777 (talk) 15:47, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Giano, maybe you should add prophet to your resume. You saw this coming like global warming too. Yet another example of why you should be sitting on the ArbCom instead of driven away by it! So many of Wiki's problems could be avoided by heeding your sage words. But, alas, being a voice in the wilderness is one of a prophet's occupational hazards.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 06:32, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I know you may not be around to read this, Giano, but I wanted to share with you (and who ever else happens to stumble on this page) that Kosebamse has taken a look at the IRC case and posted a very astute analysis at his/her talk page.[26] You are missed. Risker (talk) 15:41, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hey.. please come back. Cant believe you can give up like this and walk away. The project needs you more than they need a dozen trigger happy admins. Please please come back. Take a break if you want.. but please come back. You cant let them run you off like this.. not for wikipedia's sake. Sarvagnya23:48, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No one deserves the abuse that Giano went through. If he comes back, there will only me more malicious and organized efforts from those with tools to stop him from actively contributing. I support him leaving. Wikipedia is a heavily flawed project that is well on the path to self-destruction. 216.37.86.10 (talk) 16:08, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You may be right, but leaving the field to the bad guys doesn't help those of us who want Wiki to work. The notion that a vote of 60% is consensus but not a vote is the kind of intellectual cretinism that is dooming this project. Too many Arts Grads and not enough scientists is you ask me! (Apologies to Giano) :-) Sarah777 (talk) 22:59, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Giano II. I'm not sure if we've met before, but alot of editors here seem upset about your pending departure. I'm curious, who are you & why are you leaving Wikipedia? GoodDay (talk) 23:42, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Giano, it is shocking and surprizing to see you have decided to go away. Please re-consider your decision, and do come back. - KNMTalk01:22, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just a brief visit to check the page, thanks to all of you for the very nice messages above. Kosebamse sums things up perfectly. I'm very sad that Bishonen, and Geogre are not/barely editing, and strongly urge them to return, I appreciate their support, but their absence is damaging to the project, and it would please me to see them return, far more than does their absence. I never doubt their loyalty and belief in me, they don't have to prove it. Bishonen has been shamefully treated, but I would love to see her and her style returned.
Sadly, I shall not be returning myself so long as the Arbcom's vicious, spiteful, petty and, above all, planned and manipulative sanction is imposed on me. The very second I even commented on something I did not agree with every squeaking little Admin on IRC would be breathing down my neck hoping for the chance to block - and would do so, at the slightest hint of my ire or displeasure (some of them would even be provoking it) - This would then lead to maximum disruption (as certain Arbs well know, anticipate and hope for). I am as angry, still, as I was a month ago, at the way this project is managed. Most people, at least privately, accept the Arbcom case was a stitch up, from its over rapid start, to its overdue finish. I seriously do not think my behaviour and actions have in any way damaged the project [27], in fact, over the years, quite the reverse. I think the behaviour or certain others achieves that goal far more successfully. I just ruffle a few over preened feathers of some very vain birds, and, of course, point out some unwelcome truths to some other birds with their heads firmly buried in the sand. However, the truth will always emerge eventually, no one can stop that, not even the Arbs.
So, thanks for all the support and the emails, I think I have finally answered them all - Keep on writing, the content of this site is still brilliant and can't be bettered anywhere, and it continues to improve. Who knows - one day I might even be on that bloody Arbcom! Giano (talk) 13:10, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's true that I won't edit while Giano is under a humiliating and unreasonable restriction, but I'd like to get it on record that that is not the only reason I've withdrawn from editing at this time. It's only one out of three. The others are what I consider the corruption of the RFAR/IRC process (per User talk:Kosebamse and the dissenting opinion and other commentsof arbitrator Paul August); and also the disrespect and indignities with which the arbitration committee, bodily and in many cases individually, treated myself and my friends. Examples:
Corruption: Is there any form of "unseemly conduct" described in the final decision principle "Decorum" that Fred Bauder has failed to perpetrate during the process? Such conduct, "including, but not limited to, personal attacks, incivility, assumptions of bad faith, trolling, harassment, and gaming the system, is stated to be "prohibited", and presumably liable to be sanctioned in some way; but clearly not if an arbitrator is doing it. I wrote to Fred Bauder and upbraided him, but received no reply; a non-responsiveness intolerable from a regular admin, as has been determined in many RFAR's, but, apparently not at the top.
A more significant piece of corruption, because it put the parties in startlingly unjust positions vis-a-vis one another, was that one party to the case, David Gerard, had free access to reading the arbitrators' secret mailing list, and thus knew what they were discussing, what they thought important, etc.; the other parties did not. The collection of excuses that were made for this was a cringingly feeble thing. I wrote an e-mail to arbitrator Paul August, of whose good faith and interest I had hopes, protesting the inhumanity and injustice of this and other aspects of the proceedings. I hoped he would pass it on to their mailing list, but have no means of knowing whether he did (his reply was brief and cool to the point of nullity).
Disrespect: This was what the intensively studied "Proposed decision" page looked like for weeks on end. Not a lot like the tidied-up final decision, as you can see. Note the way Giano, Geogre and I are locked in its stocks by UninvitedCompany and by means of various careless, thoughtless, incivil comments from arbitrators who call over and over for "civility" from the parties, and pity themselves for being "sick, sick, sick to death" of having to do with these rude users; yet few of them extend a smidgeon of civility to these users. As for empathy, forget it, bury it, and dance on the grave. This protest from a well-known user gives some perspective. Not least in the reaction of (then) arbitrator Mackensen, who calls it a sample of a "hypersensitivity". Doc glasgow, of all people, hypersensitive?--does some frightening petrification of the imaginative and sympathetic faculties happen at the moment users join the arbcom? It looks a bit like it. (They surely shouldn't be on it for three whole years if that's the case.)
Not editing is not merely, or mainly, a demonstration to show my loyalty, Giacomo. Two thirds of it is that, finding myself kicked from the calm waters of "respectable admin" to the maelstrom of "problem user", and having seen from the inside how the top proceedings of our dispute resolution can be conducted, I just never seem to feel like editing any more. I know that you still value, and in some ways, love, the project. You're not really disillusioned about it like me. Well, we both have room to change, possibly.--Bishonen | talk20:19, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You will probably despise me for making the comparison, but in my opinion, yourself and JzG are among the elite Wikipedia editors for a simple reason: when you're not going off the deep end over something that tickles your bonnet, you both have the ability to take a dispassionate view, distill the essence into a very few words, and cover all the points in a readable discourse.
Congratulations on your excellent analysis. I would only have been able to muster "Yawwn" as a comment, you have done much better. Here's hoping you'll be back in force soon - but a calm force. A much wiser 'pedian pointed out to me that if you are getting emotional about something, it's probably better to let someone else deal with it. Again, my great respect for your contributions to Wikipedia, and looking forward to more of the same... :) Franamax (talk) 21:47, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In the first instance you are quite correct. If you check my history you will see I am completely consistent, always. It is transparently obvious to anyone with half a brain that Wales is innocent as charged, someone just needed to point it out.The charity world can be a very uncharitable place. Nice to see, the loyal Arbonauts, our leading Wikipediams, as usual when required seemed to be conspicuous by their absence, no doubt pre-occupied chatting elsewhere. Giano (talk) 22:03, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm, the "first instance" - does that mean that you do in fact despise me? :)
I have checked some of your extensive history, as I do for all those editors I've found respect for. You are certainly consistent. I think my point about emotionalism still stands.
As regards the "loyal Arbonauts" (and certainly any establishment eventually has "members of the establishment"), their lack of response could be down to another aphorism - "keep your powder dry". Alternatively, they are feeling emotional about the issue, and are heeding that wise advice to let someone else deal with it. In any case, you have taken the lead and pretty much said it all. What more could anyone add other than "what he said!"? Franamax (talk) 22:21, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
sadly, that is not the loyal Arbonauts usual response to one of my pronouncements, never mind, I'm sure thay have their agendas. No, I don't despise you, I'll forgive anybody a monumental faux pas - once! Giano (talk) 22:29, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Given that the first step was an intentional pas-en-merde, I'll accept your forgiveness and run off now with head and neck still connected. :) Franamax (talk) 22:44, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I just read your post on Jimbo's talk page and it certainly is a exeptional analisis, I wish half of the admins could present such honesty when posting their opinions. - Caribbean~H.Q.22:50, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, bang on the money. Seriously, if this was an employee in my company it would not make the HR department's radar. Very small beer, and not at all uncommon as growing pains for a tiny organisation whose profile has escalated beyond all imagining in such a short time. Guy (Help!) 23:12, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, it was an attempt to prove publicly how as an body we are capable of sorting, knowing and undertsanding our own problems, without cover up. When this is permitted one often sees the problem is not quite as bad as painted.This is certainly the case here. Then just as I think we are one step forward, we go two steps backwards [28]. Giano (talk) 07:18, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, this ex-arbonaut (are there suits?) felt like keeping his head down because he's had enough drama to last a lifetime. Thank you for what you said. Mackensen(talk)03:44, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think time will prove you lucky to be "ex" Mackensen. I suspect now the crisis is passing, and Wales has rightly survived, people will begin to wonder, why the Arbs, normally so rapid and keen to investigate every wrong doing, and tampering with a page, were so silent. The experienced and vindictive ones named at the top of this page were particularly silent. I think when we look at the last few days with the benefit of hindsight, and we will, it won't be to their credit. For the first time ever, the Godking (I think we can stop calling him that now) needed some serious help, his highest body of advisors either failed to give good advice or were chattering elsewhere. Perhaps even, they did not wish to be seen on Wales's side. This whole thing has been nothing but a board room battle, not even a particulary dirty one, compared to some I have seen. Over and end of story - for some. Giano (talk) 08:04, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No no no, please don't be insulted, I love Australians all of them, every single one, but it's the wine, like the Germans you keep the best, and send what you don't want over here. Now the Kiwis on the other hand, their whites can't be bettered, and they are very near Australia aren't they? Giano (talk) 19:51, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
'tis in a very lovely part of Australia called Margaret River, a nice place with a temperate climate and often nice and cool when the rest of the country is sweltering over summer hols (Dec/Jan/Feb). My other half likes it very much...so we go there quite a bit..it is where I hunted taking lots of photos of little blue blurs until I got a good snap of this little critter, which I was then so proud of I polished it up to FAC...Casliber (talk·contribs) 22:24, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
well they are both OK, in fact very nice. I was jusy looking at you page, I see you are a naturist, I think if I was there I'd rather sample the wine than lok for birds. Giano (talk) 23:02, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What's that got to do with it? I think it is very brave with all those snakes and spiders and things, that they have there. Giano (talk) 23:42, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was just wondering whether Cas might be providing the early bird with its meal. And now I'm wishing I could get this image out of my head. Thanks a lot, Giano. Yomanganitalk00:22, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As you know being a key part of that crowd, the discussion was started, restored and is being continued by long running ax-grinders with Jimbo. Don't think others don't see through this. Transparently using 'concern' as a reason to air Jimbo's dirty laundry and create drama is by definition disruptive editing. For that reason alone it can and should be ended and archived. You want to discuss Jimbo's personal imbroglios? This isn't the place for it; do it offsite. FeloniousMonk (talk) 16:00, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No assumption needed on my part, Giano's history of having an ax to grind on the topic is a matter of record both on and offsite, easily enough found. And having read his comments is why I archived the discussion and why I'm here. Ever hear the term 'oblique attack' or 'damning with faint praise'? Wikipedia is not the place to air anyone's dirty laundry. Period. FeloniousMonk (talk) 16:13, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A number of people disagree with you FM (see two threads above) but apparently that does not matter. I would note that so far you seem to be the only person reading Giano's statement as "damning with faint praise" and you might want to consider whether you are merely misinterpreting.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs16:19, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Plenty of strong Jimbo supporters are also involved in the thread, and indeed I thought that 2 known Jimbo critics, Giano and Cla, were being very supportive and constructive in the thread, sure Bram was being less so but that is not sufficient reason to throw out the whole thread. Thanks, SqueakBox16:24, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how any reasonable person could consider Giano's airing of Jimbo's dirty laundry and the thinnly-veiled gloating of those two can be seen as being 'supportive and constructive' much less "very supportive and constructive." FeloniousMonk (talk) 16:27, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I read yesterday on one of the mailing lists a very well known and prominent lady editor bewailing the fact that Wikipedia no longer has a community spirit, she is correct the community spirit that it had when I cam here 4 years ago is all but gone, or at best vastly reduced. The reason for this 100% is that too much is now said off wiki which could, and should be said, on wiki. The last time, I looked the much overdue debate concerning J Wales was amounting to a vote of confidence. He needed to know how we all felt, and we needed to now how we all felt - so what is wrong with that? You Felonius Monk would rather everyone was bitching in some secretive corner - well then you are a fool. Giano (talk) 16:53, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not surprised you'd be arguing for more drama on the project, not less. And looking at the historical pattern of the players there that "secretive corner" is WR. That discussion should remain there. This isn't the place. FeloniousMonk (talk) 17:08, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
More like Dr. Strangelove. Anyone doubting there aren't peopl involved there who are gunning for Jimbo need only read the last 24 hrs of posts there. FeloniousMonk (talk) 17:20, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You sure showed me. How are you not deliberately generating drama, again? You seem to be the only one in these discussions that has thrown AGF out the window. 216.37.86.10 (talk) 18:54, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Bugger off my page, all of you, or we shall have the loyal Arbonauts summonsing the newly refreshed Squeakies from IRC to ban me for incivility. Now, I'm sure none of you want that. Giano (talk) 17:29, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I want you to rest. You've done your best, but Wikipedia cannot be saved. Please save yourself from further stress and let this site die. 216.37.86.10 (talk) 18:54, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What a very depressing attitude! I have returned completely invigorated and ready to take on the world, but in deference to those who made their feelings felt in the recent unfortunate Arbcase, I shall not be editing at all in main/article space, only in Wikipedia space - that way everyone is happy. Giano (talk) 19:58, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ah! To be banned for incivility - a badge of distinction to be worn with pride. Someone should make an appropriate Barnstar. Sarah777 (talk) 21:50, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Giano, I echo all the other shreiks of excitement at your return, but I wanted to ask you a favor: could you make sure that the words 'Jimbo, fiddled, and girlfriend don't ever appear in the same sentence again? I may need therapy from reading those words so close together. :-) --SSBohio21:58, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is what I meant by emotionalism not serving you well. Or us well. Maybe rhetoric or histrionics is the better term. Anyway, if you're getting pissed off, maybe best to ignore the wankers. You've got a great vocabulary. Bet you could improve an article :) Come on, try a small one! We tried Montreal for GA and got beat down, help us out! Franamax (talk) 10:05, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nonsense, it needed saying. Few people have had more run ins with Wales than I have, but if one is going to destroy someone's reputation, then it should be done with firm evidence, not a pack of exagerations, half truths and misrepresentations. Seves you right with Montreal, for mucking about with GA, complete waste of time, go for a FA instead. Giano (talk) 10:51, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For all your work around here in telling like it is, and making the Wiki a better place. You really are doing it, and we need more people like you. Not to mention your article work, of which I am eternally jealous. dihydrogen monoxide (H20) 11:30, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Though I too am full of dihydrogen monoxide, I haven't written any FAs at all (or, come to think of it, even got a PhD). Ah, how depressing. Though that's outweighed by my delight to see you back, Giano, and in fine form. Your reappearance might encourage me to nudge something FAwards, were it not for the fact that I'm about to head off to some sceptred isle off the far west of Eurasia. While I'm over there enjoying the novelty of computer-free, smokefree pubs, could you possibly pop this in an envelope and send it to Bishonen? Thank you and toodle-pip, Hoary16:14, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"So how do you become one of Wikipedia's upper crust—one of the several thousand whose words will live on for a little while, before later verbal fumarolings erode what you wrote? It's not easy. You have to have a cool head, so that you don't get drawn into soul-destroying disputes, and you need some practical writing ability, and a quick eye, and a knack for synthesis. And you need lots of free time." Not very accurate is it Hoary? Giano (talk) 17:12, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, no, you are yourself, and most excellently so, whereas I am merely full of it (particularly after a pint of Young's), or of something that rhymes with "it", or whatever. ¶ As for Giano's question, hmm, if the "upper crust" is taken to mean the phrase that follows it, then I think that NB is probably on the ball. Of course I can't be sure: although what he says seems to be true for a number of usernames (some of whom do get into those disputes from time to time, but chug along most productively when away from them), I know little or nothing about any but [pause while I consider] one of these editors, and thus for example merely presume that (unlike me) they have lots of free time; however, I realize that I may later learn that the simple explanation is they're geniuses who in their little free time read up and rewrite not twice but ten times faster than I do. ¶ Of course what's bloody annoying is that if one doesn't get into the occasional soul-destroying dispute (and perhaps even if one does) with, say, the denizens of some "WikiProject", then one will find that one's own articles have got buggered up courtesy of the Project's concern with "standardization" (i.e. conformance with their own well-intentioned but [insert string of pungent adjectives here] standards). -- Hoary (talk) 06:53, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Giano. I'm pleased to see you chose to return, and in some style too. I was interested to read your take on Jimbogate, not for the first time I think you are on the money there. Anyway, I mainly wanted to apologise for not replying to your email last month. I was, and still am, musing on its contents. The main reason I didn't reply was because I was having a bout of, shall we say, paranoia over I could trust with off-wiki communications and your email arrived at a rather unfortunate time. Rockpocket22:43, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Rockpocket. Yes, I am on the money there rest assured, it will all be proved to be something blown up out of all proportion. In my experience most things are on Wikipdia, but if ever there is a choice between an easy solution and a difficult one, Wikipedia always choses the difficult one. Sorry to hear about your concerns if you have a problem - email me. Regards Giano (talk) 22:54, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Giano. If you're trying to 'get under my skin'? it won't work (as I've no grudge against you). If you're just pulling my leg? no problem. GoodDay (talk) 18:01, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not at all. I just wonder what your interest and connection is with these problems, I don't think I've encountered you before, and the fact you need to ask this question [29] suggests you were not au fait with the Troubles Arbcase - so why the keen interest now? Giano (talk) 18:33, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
no, no the more the merrier, I just notice now one of the posse is vandalising the socks edits to the detriment of the encyclopedia now, I wonder what that is supposed to acheive? Do two wrongs now suddenly make a right? Giano (talk) 18:52, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I'm a little slow tonight, let me get this quite clear, are you saying all sock puppets should have all their edits removed, regardless of whether they are good or bad? Giano (talk) 19:09, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Darned if I know. But UC has started a poll over at Wikback as to whether he should be encouraged to change the name. Right now it is standing at 57% in favour. Risker (talk) 19:19, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Clariying- res to Giano. Blocked editor's sock-puppets shouldn't be permitted. Puppet masters who identify themselves & their puppets are permitted. GoodDay (talk) 19:17, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
GoodDay, very simply put - thousands of excellent edits a day are made by "blocked" or "banned" editors. It is distinctly to the disadvantage of the encyclopedia to remove those edits. Nobody should care about the person behind good, constructive edits. Deleting good content because it may have been added by a "banned" or "blocked" editor defeats the purpose of the encyclopedia. Our content must always be our primary focus, and the social management of editors should only be done with an eye to their effect on content. Risker (talk) 19:24, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Very well Rockpocket, I have reverted the posse here [30] because I fail to see how re-inserting poor grammar helps the project. Perhaps you would all now lke to come up with an idea for correcting the other errors that your friend has re-inserted. Giano (talk) 19:26, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you wish to correct error then do so, as the policy says "Users are generally expected to refrain from reinstating edits made by banned users. Users who reinstate such edits take complete responsibility for the content by so doing." Counter-revolutionary got into a bit of hot water by acting as a proxy for DL, even though the edits themselves were not particularly problematic, so its not something I would recommend you do too often. But one should always do what ones thinks is best. Personally, I think any cost/benefit analysis should encompass the bigger picture, rather than focus on some typos (Hell, Vk certainly introduces more typos than he fixes anyway). Rockpocket19:50, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'll say it again, blocked or banned editors' edits? shouldn't be permitted; editing Wikipedia isn't a 'right' it's a 'privillage'. Example- Hitting somebody on the head from behind with a real hammer or a soft rubber hammer is still an assault. GoodDay (talk) 19:30, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You are an extremely dense person, it is quite obvious that Giano (such a talented young man) is referring to the diffs, he highlights above - you need to study your grammar! Any more of this rubbish from you, and I shall personally have a word with Mr Wales - a very close and dear friend, it's well know that he has a twinkle where I'm concerned, why he became entangled with that dreadful journalist creature God alone knows, when he could have had me. Now be off with you and write a page. It's a well known fact that half of Wikipedia is written by socks and the like. Catherine de Burgh (Lady) (talk) 19:46, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
After just being both insulted and threatened by Catherine? I depart this discussion. PS- Mr Wales created Wikipedia, but he doesn't run it. If he tried to? he'd violate Wikipedia's spirit of community & collaboration. GoodDay (talk) 20:00, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm, a conversation about sockpuppets and then Little Stupid turns up. That warrants no action whatsoever...err...further investigation...err...checkuser, blocks, and random accusations of bad behaviour. The ShadowYomanganitalk23:37, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sockpuppetry can only be considered good or evil (by a moderate mind) based on what the sock does.
Socks editing in areas away from those that got the author into trouble should be judged on their merits.
Knee-jerk reversion of all edits by Socks (however excellent an edit may be) is a form of power-abuse (probably not psychologically different from the pleasure certain school-masters got from sadistically torturing their pupils).
There is a line between discipline for the sake of reasonable order and the enjoyment of the power of punishment for its own sake; a pleasure that mixes elements of sadism and the joys of dominance. (I'm being very cautious here...nod, wink).
I'm not sure all our Admins understand this.
While I think the current charges against Jimbo are a joke there is a certain poetic justice in it - he empowered the anally-retentive control-freaks in the first place.
These comments DO NOT apply to Rockpocket - least there be an doubt caused by juxtapositional considerations.
Those to whom they do apply will, no doubt, recognize themselves and thus may get upset at these remarks.
Sarah, printing all of this here, is speaking to the converted, you need to take it elsewhere. You are correct, as I never tire of saying, we have too many little admins running around without a clue how to handle a situation, we now have one playing with petrol on top of a bonfire with a "rules are rules" attitude. I'm not interested in the psychology that causes this condition, only in the cure. This petty damaging of the encyclopedia by reverting good and valuable edits, and in at least one instance re-inserting a mistake seems a curious way of solving a problem. People think I'm soft where VK is concerned, far from it, I have insisted from the outset, he is in need of placing under very exacting sanctions and control now it seems it is some of the admins who have all too recently involved themselves with this case that need controlling. I've told various admins the obvious solution, which will work, but they don't want to here it. So that. I'm afraid, is that. Let stupidity reign. Giano (talk) 08:23, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It does seem now that if I attempt to deal with a problem, any little admin can call me a troll, and then attempt to have me banned. How clever our arbcom are. Giano (talk) 13:50, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't suppose so either, but it will doubtly be a frequent happening, as they all start to jump on the bandwagon. Giano (talk) 14:01, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You could always try the "I can be more civil than you are, while still pointing out that you're acting like an imbecile" approach. :) Or not. :) ++Lar: t/c20:00, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No Lar, you are quite wrong. today I have seen these edits [31][32][33] and many other similar from those supporting a certain viewpoint in the Troubles dispute, because I have another view on how to solve the problem. The fact these people have been trying to solve the problems with limited success for God know's how long is neither here nor there. If I point it out I am a troll, if I object the Admin Brown Haired Girl tried to have me banned on the civility thing. This is exactly what Ms Nite and her less than glorious Arbs hope to see happening. You see the more the little Admins complain, the more I appear the disruptive one, quite clever of them really, and that is why I stopped editing for so long, but then I thought sod them, the Arbs vindictively and spitefully created this mess, now they can sort it because it will happen again and again and again. If I behaved like this [34] our amazing arbs would gleefully call it trolling, except of course in this instance its one of their Admins, fortunatly on this occasion other editors sent her packing with a flea in her ear, while the brave Arbs wrung their hands in mock horror. Giano (talk) 20:17, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not disagreeing with what you're saying. I'm just asking that you try to help those who try to stick up for you :) ++Lar: t/c02:08, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I was going to pop by and offer you a cup of tea, but it looks like a bit of Irish whisky might be more appropriate. ;-) Is it just me or does it seem a little odd that all the people complaining about this situation are unable to meet the description of uninvolved administrator? Ah well. Never a dull moment with your talk page on my watch list. Risker (talk) 15:47, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Some people may remember my friend !!, while he has left, there is always a chance he may return. He cannot is he has been deleted. You may like to comment either way here [35]. Giano (talk) 16:23, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Now now...she's doing a very good job over in Featured Images. That was simply a grammatical error on the part of the nominator. Risker (talk) 23:03, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Giano. I notice you are editing a bit. (I hope you're following your own advice and keeping the mainspace in mind...)
Two months on, I'm still trying with the referencing on Robert Lawson (architect). I have a hold of Mane-Weoki (1992) and was hoping it would match the article. Eek, it doesn't. Not that the descriptions are totally different, but there are divergences. Do you recall what your primary source for the article was, if not that one? Cheers, Marskell (talk) 19:36, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, I have not looked at it for months, in line with the Arbcom's intentions, I am barely editing. I really can't be bothered to have Brown Haired Girl vexated again. The references are all listed, and if something is not there, it will be because it is an obvious uncontroversial fact. I seem to remember New Zealand's leading architectural expert cast his eye over the page, obviously the people at FARC are even more expert. Giano (talk) 19:56, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed we are, life is almost a Gothic novel, and you do [37] seem, like Mane-Weoki, to be confused by your Gothics. People used to say on Wikipedia: "a picture spoke a thousand words," now it seems only an inline cite is allowed to do that. What a loss to the project that is, the editor can no longer,now, have even the freedom to highlight the obvious. Giano (talk) 20:50, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Giano, I have open what is clearly the primary published source on this subject (Mane-Weoki). I have an article that doesn't agree with that source (mainly your writing). Perhaps Mane-Weoki is confused?—I don't know. You would know better, and if you've published reliably why you know better, we can cite it. If an article is to reject a main source, it must do so with other published analyses. This demand isn't a loss to the project in the slightest—it's what's strengthened Wikipedia. If you are implying that the descriptions in the article are based only on your looking at photographs (or perhaps seeing the buildings in person) it only strengthens the fact that it should be removed.
I didn't post to you tonight to leave things badly. A few people have gone out of their way with this article just because it's yours and editors think of you fondly. That's certainly why I am spending the time. But you've told me flatly that you cannot identify a primary source. Thus I think it should be removed. Marskell (talk) 21:12, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I really don't care - what you do. If you realy want to give the community a laugh - Ask one of the arbs to break off from their chatting on IRC and reff it, let's face it they do precious little else that's of use - demote it, do what you like - it's Wikipedia's loss, not mine. Giano (talk) 21:21, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just in case anyone is wondering, I am so bitter with this filthy disgraced Arbcom, I don't think I shall ever contribute anything of worth to wikipedia again. Giano (talk) 21:26, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure you will find all you need to know on my user page. Yes, I am, but I regard the Arbcom as incompetent, spiteful and vengeful and altogether rather stupid, so I am ignoring it; and if you want to see further damage done by this apology for an Arbcom see here [38] if they had one scrap of moral fibre between them, at least half would have resigned by now. It seems they don't. Giano (talk) 22:34, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
and as I said their poor judgement only leads to this sort of ridiculous disruptive waste of time [39], [40],[41] but of course that is their determined intention. They really do need to be replaced. Giano (talk) 09:53, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you want to talk it out on the talk page instead of calling it trolling. No Wikipedian should call a well made edit "daft", especially not one on civility parole. I have thick skin, but I hate to think that you might treat other Wikipedians with such contempt.
I don't think it is a good idea to assume the reader knows the subject before they have read it. Sometimes people look things up in the encyclopedia because they are ignorant of a fact. (1 == 2)Until22:48, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That isn't the point. IMO location by country should always be a priority in any article, and letting our readers (many of whom are hopefully uneducated third world children) know that is absolutely necessary and I wouldn't expect guillotine not to mention France in the opening either. Thanks, SqueakBox23:16, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is an Americanism to keep announcing precise geographical locations after every town, and it is certainly not needed after London, in a page referring to its great fire. Do we say in Europe "Washington, America"? - No we do not, so in a page about a major European city we credit the reader with minor intelligence. Giano (talk) 23:21, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I call them when I see them, Giano, and your talk page is such fun to read. As it happens, I agree with you that London, England is not really required (why not London, Britain or London, United Kingdom?) Our readers may be ignorant, but if they don't know where it is, surely they can just click on the damn thing and all will be revealed in the very first line. Rockpocket17:36, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well I don't agree, and I certainly don't think that if it is an American concept that that makes any difference. Do not underestimate the level of ignorance in the world, there is nothing more irritating that any article that fails to locate itself geographically, and I for one will keep editing to repair this wherever I find it. Mistaking one London for another is simply not the poiont. Thanks, SqueakBox23:30, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just out of curiosity, isn't that why we do all that wiki-linking? So someone can click on "London" and find out all about where exactly London is? Isn't that one of the things that makes us different from a dead-trees encyclopedia? Oops, how presumptive of me. Risker (talk) 23:29, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, we get more precise than that, geographically speaking... we've got templates to add precise geographical coordinates so that you specify the latitude and longitude of the place you're referring to, to six decimal places if you want. That proves to be very useful for things like the new software for the iPhone that shows you WP articles relevant to your current location, as well as Google Earth's layer that shows clickable purple balls at spots that have an article on them. It's because of gadgets like that that I've become obsessed lately with getting those geo-coordinates in every article that they possibly make sense in... which in turn has gotten me out of the wikidrama rut I've been in for the last year or so and back to actually doing something useful to improve the encyclopedia. *Dan T.* (talk) 23:52, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
...and, seeing tonight's 60 Minutes piece on the Svalbard Global Seed Vault made me want to find its exact coordinates to get them in the article, but I see somebody's done it already... how accurate is the location given there? Will it be sufficient to let future archaeologists find it after some global catastrophe, if they have a dump of the Wikipedia article? *Dan T.* (talk) 00:12, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
London. Or in American, "London, period". ¶ I read: there is nothing more irritating that any article that fails to locate itself geographically There's no accounting for irritation: for me, what's most irritating is misinformation, and the likelihood that anything and everything in Wikipedia could well be wrong. ¶ As for talk of geographical coordinates to six decimal places, I do understand how this could be useful for "smart" bombing and so forth (and conceivably articles on specific buildings), but I look forward to its use for such entities as London (or "London, Britain" or whatever) as this will supply me with an extension of the (presumably unintended) amusement I derive from city populations specified to the nearest person. -- Hoary (talk) 09:33, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would have thought it perfectly obvious when linking to the fire of a medieval city, presided over by Charles II of England which is linked to singularly as London that one actually meant "the London", not some other obscure town no one has ever heard of, let alone been to called London, Arkansas. Anyway the problem now seems tobe solved, hopefully to the satisfaction of out more geographically and historically confused American cousins. Giano (talk) 09:44, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not a good way to read an encyclopedia though, having to click on a link to find out where London is. BTW the UK didn't exist in 1666. Thanks, SqueakBox17:41, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You know, it's ironic that there is another city called London not 200 km from where I sit, but here in Canada (and Europe, and Australasia, and Asia) when we say "London" we mean the one where the fire happened. When we want to talk about our local London and there is any chance the meaning would be ambiguous, we add modifiers. Risker (talk) 17:47, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ah Mr Wetman, but has that sorted the annomalies? I assume you are referring to Sarausa, Pruvincia di Sarausa, shame I never saw that debate earlier, because where else would Syracusa be, but Sicilia, Italia.
This proves my point, methinks, hbecause I certainly had never heard of Syracus in Italy or elsewhere till just now. Thanks, SqueakBox21:21, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
An pray where did you imagine the first American to name a town Syracuse had found the name? I assume you had heard of London? (the large town in England)? Is geography not taught in American schools? Giano (talk) 21:25, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea what they teach in American schools. I grew up ooh 25 miles from the origianl London, so I do know where it is, but the point is not confusing Syracuse or London with somewhere in North America but that I didn't know where any Syracuse was and I imagine I am writing for people who may not know where any London's are (especially when you consider that these articles maybe being translated into multiple languages). I am motivated to write for the ignorant not the already knwoledgeable23:54, 24 March 2008 (UTC). Thanks, SqueakBox
These geographic clauses following each plave name rather dfeat the pont of the blue link, I strongly feel that the original place names should be allowed to stand alone. However, don't worry, I'm not about to make a campaign of it, I have a much bigger fish to fry at the moment. Giano (talk) 00:05, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Interested in your views on Arbcom. They made a ruling in a case I was involved in - that terminology cannot be applied to a historical event unless the exact terminology was used at the time of the event (despite the terminology not existing back then) - even if the event meets precisely the modern definition of such terminology. This you may or may not find interesting; though I guess you are forbidden to comment by the geniuses above at Arbcom. Sarah777 (talk) 23:01, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Had a quick look, too late at night for my small brain to grasp, give it to me in a nutshell, and I'll take a look in the morning. Giano (talk) 23:18, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nuance and understanding are not at the fore of ArbCom membership. Being selected is. Imagine the fun the people editing James I of England would have if they could not say "homosexual" because the word did not exist until the 19th century and the category did not exist until the 20th. It appears now there is a fishing expedition at user talk:Geogre to try to find some charge. Apparently, there is some kind of odd game of semantics making the rounds. Looks like he's ninety percent gone from Wikipedia out of boredom or disgust, and some people are mistaking that for weakness or disfavor. Utgard Loki (talk) 17:02, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I understand why you could be upset at john, but this is a little disapointing. I saw it as some kind of threat - you should know that taking things elsewhere isn't what we do here. I personally have a lot of respect for you and I honestly thought you were way above this - just take a step back and think about things for a minute. Ryan Postlethwaite23:20, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You have absolutely no respect for me at all so don't be so bloody hypocritical. By elsewhere I mean of course IRC, isn't that where you and all your buddies and the Arbs hang out, and where if we want to discover the truth concerning Wikipedia we are all forced to go these days? You see Ryan, I will get to the bottom of this, the very bottom, and if one way draws a blank, I shall go in another direction. I know the truth, all I have to do is prove it. Giano (talk) 23:25, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was reading this evening and came across a reprint of a copper engraving of the Winter Palace. My first impression was that it was vaguely palladian in its style — the pillars, the portico-like entrance, the long narrow building — but it appears from our article on the palace that I was wrong, and it is rococo (not one of our better articles, I'm afraid - very disorganized and somewhat confusing), which in turn appears to be an offshoot of baroque architecture. Having "followed the links" further, I agree that Winter Palace more closely resembles Sanssouci, particularly in its ornamentation. What, besides the ornamentation, differentiates rococo architecture from palladianism? I have a feeling I am missing something rather major here that simply isn't clear in the articles. Risker (talk) 03:40, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speaking of which, the Winter Palace article is in such a dire shape. If Giano and Ghirla would ever be able to put aside some time and bring it to a decent condition. Maybe Ghirla would even consider a comeback, even a temporary one :( But seriously, I would help with Russian sources if Giano would be willing to work on the article and Ghirla would not join. But I know they are both busy enough. So, no pressure. --Irpen05:44, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was thinking of doing a re-write of it ages ago [43] - I's worked very well with Ghirlandajo in the past, but I suspect like me he won't want to. Especially, as it now seems pages are FARC'd if the author/s does not want to include erronious fact just so thay can have a cite [44]. Giano (talk) 07:14, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh for pity's sake. The reference sources were crummy and not all of them were available for those working to ref the article; it won't be an issue for any articles you write today, because you're doing the inline referencing as you go now. Heck, I'd be happy if you just cleaned up Rococo so that it was understandable. Rewriting the Winter Palace article would be fantastic, though - something to keep you busy until Husond gets his hands on the Pena Palace books. Risker (talk) 07:41, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ah! I'd come here to ask that - is everything on hold until then? Giano that exploded cutaway is very pretty and interesting, but not very good for extracting floor plates from. --Joopercoopers (talk) 12:39, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Think of Palladianism as a square plain fruit cake - Baroque as a round fruit cake with frosting and a few sugar roses - and Rococo as a round strawberry souflee disguised as a wedding cake. Giano (talk) 13:01, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid if we can now only use references available to all 5 million editors, and every page has to be written by a committee in agreement on each fact then the future looks pretty bleak. Furthermore, I don't need keeping busy, I have a very omportant research job on go the moment. Giano (talk) 08:01, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Giano, remember me from my last FAC? Well now I have the above article in FAC. Tony1 objected to the prose and Taxman wanted more info on certian issues (which I am working on). If you are available, I think your experience will help in better organizing, presenting and polishing this article. If you are busy, can you point me to someone who could help me. I left messages for users: Awadewit and Willow, but with no luck. thanks.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 21:43, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Whoo hoo hooo, if Tony1 is being bloody on the prose, I shall take to the hills, but I'll have a look, but to be quite honest Kannada literaure...I don't suppose by any slim chance it's a mispelling of Canada? - No I thought not. Giano (talk) 22:20, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No Doc, like so many in that channel, you misunderstand - I'm only nterested in those who are ex-admins and non-admins in the channel. Thanks for the info though. ,ost kind. Giano (talk) 23:39, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe anyone has researched the list you're after, however if you check the access list against the admin log, you'll get there.--Docg23:56, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) No, but it may reduce incivility on the wiki, which is necessary and appropriate, and which I ask you deeply to consider. Nobody - arbitrator, admin commenting, or bystander, has asked you to change views. The issue here is that the areas the community has strong agreement on, include civility. That's less about what you wish to say, than how you say it. Having strong views, is okay. Having questions (as you describe) - if asked appropriately and with good faith in your wording, and without gaming the system and trying to test the envelope, is self-evidently okay. But incivility - explicit, implied, or subtle - is not okay. FT2(Talk | email)07:21, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No problems FT2, you don't want your IRC problems discussed here, we can all go to WR to discuss them - that is obviously your ill thought out plan - makes little difference to me. Flo was keen to preserve the Gerard's IRC page now she seems afraid to discuss it. I obviously should not have left the message at Winter Palace about concluding it today - obviously too much for all you Arbs to bear. What fools you are. Giano (talk) 07:27, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have copied the #wikipedia-en-admins access list into your userspace. See User:Giano II/access list. Everyone on that list has access to the channel. Just to give one example entry:
[03:16] -ChanServ- 20 5 Betacommand 3h 19m 55s
This is the entry for user:Betacommand. The number immediately preceeding his name (5, in this case) is his access level -- the higher the number, the more things he can do. A minimum of 5 is required to get into the channel (or, more precisely, to invite yourself into the channel). The time code following the name is the amount of time, in days/hours/minutes/seconds, since that user logged into the channel. Raul654 (talk) 07:21, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Never mind all that, Flo announced her grand intentions of having uninvolved committee of editors looking at reforms in IRC, it was supposed the good thing to emerge from the IRC Case - and what has it all come to, what happened, what did Flo actually do? Daring to ask results in a ban, daring to be angry that nothing has happened results in a ban and further loss of content for the encyclopedia. Well I will keep on asking and asking and asking. You had better come up with the answer Flo and FT2 as to why that did not happen. Because the question will not go away. Giano (talk) 07:43, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Here's the other list, the on-wiki one, back to normal sized print. See User:Giano II/Onwiki list. The names in black are people who have not been in the channel for the past half year or longer. The bold ones are non-admins, but there are a few not marked that way. Not sure what bells and whistles you have in your preferences or monobook, but if you cursor over the names, you should be able to verify which channel name goes with which member; there are quite a few differences. Risker (talk) 08:04, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Giano it doesn't matter how many times a paranoid man shouts "conspiracy", it doesn't make it true. It doesn't matter how many times you say you are being censored for your opinions, it doesn't make it true. It doesn't matter how many times you claim that your civility isn't arbcom's main issue, it is. Now here's the facts - the access list is open - and all the information you want is public. Has someone compared the access list to #en-admins with the admins on en.wp? Perhaps not. But then we have no paid civil service here - people research what interests them. If this interests you, do the leg work and make a list. As to "have major changes been made to en-admins?" The honest answer is no. And none are likely in the foreseeable future. It was debated at length (I believe) - there was no consensus for any major change. You are not going to like that, but there it is.--Docg08:12, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Doc - where is Flo's promised committee - where? why is not there regulating - just answer the question, can none of you quite see what the question is? A partial answer is here [47] Now why should the Arbs want to suppress regulation and investigation of IRC, and why didi they not announce this when Flo proposed it, when the eyes of the community were upon them? You will answer there was nothing to investigate, which begs the question why propose it in the first place. Now I have logs showing incivility which would never be tolerated on Wikipedia happening in the immediate past - and some riveting discussions, one even with FT2 himself discussing Danny. So do I pretend these things don't happen, do I go to WR, or do I say I must be a good polite boy and say nothing, keep my head down and write pretty pages for the Encyclopedia. Well I'm very good at the latter but pretty hopeless at the former. Now I'm off to spend the day looking at the Terracotta Army at British Museum with my kids - a great deal more intelligent than the company here. So I shall leave you all to dwell on your naivity. I hope to see an improvement in behaviour generally from you all when I return. Giano (talk) 08:27, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh for goodness sake. You are obviously incapable of conversing without attacking. I have no knowledge of the ins and out of the history. But there's nothing doing on IRC reform. Period. No conspiracy, no abuse, just a no consensus to do anything. NO consensus that any particular change would solve any particular "problem". Flo isn't/wasn't in control of that, it is just what came out of discussions. And frankly, you talking about the incivility of others is just laughable. You are quite entitled to continue arguing for IRC changes. No-one will stop you or expect you not to. There's no censorship, indeed wikipedia is perhaps far far too tolerant of people banging drums, and climbing on the furniture to make a point. Nothing much is going to change. We are not dwelling on our naivety, but on your self-focussed paranoia. Giano, there are huge issues with wikipedia, huge structural problems with how we do things. A gaping lack of leadership. A total unwillingness to sort out BLPS and libel issues. And you would have us constantly straining on the gnats of your own obsessions, well, we've moved on.--Docg08:39, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
FT2: What' was "incivil" in Giano's comments. Please be specific. Giano has many comments on FloNight's page. There is a satire of her continued silence. Was that "incivil?" Was there a characterization of her motivations, mentality, words, etc. that was scandalous? I see repeated questions... well, one, actually... and continued "no one is going to answer because the answer is already somewhere else." Again, there is no basis of this block. Furthermore, 31 hours is a non-standard time. How did you arrive at that? Isn't the usual to begin with, perhaps, 12 or 24? I see no justification for this at all. If "any admin may block on any perception of incivility" is in force, may "any admin unblock?" Is there some magical force where any single administrator gets to determine for all others what is not allowed in speech on Wikipedia? Can we say, again and again, that pictures of David Shankbone's penis are perfect, because we're not censored, but this piece of speech (a question) must not be allowed? When that speech is interrogative and does not involve charges of real life illegality, etc. (no "you're a Nazi/Communist"), it cannot be instantly blockable. If you want to see someone merely trying to get anger, look at the bottom of my user talk page. Giano was trying to get a user to answer about why that user thought something was a good idea one day and a bad idea the next, and why the "resolution" of a case by ArbCom was abandoned without a word to the community. Those are legitimate, and it is poor service (what ArbCom is supposed to be about -- service, not power) to keep running away and blocking the questioner. Geogre (talk) 10:38, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:AE It may be you are in the minority who would not see the comments made as uncivil. I know some have very strict civility views, some very broad through to uninterested.
In general any admin may block; if the block is improper or grossly unfair then there will in most cases be a rapid consensus to that effect. Realistically, most admins block light, not heavy, a lot of the time, and hope for change. I know I've done many more 24 and 48 hour blocks than 1 week/1 month/3 month blocks, for example, and I would imagine that's fairly typical.
No. 12 is not a "usual" for gross incivility. See the block log (long), and text-search for blocks of civility. 24 - 72 and indef seem common; I hadn't checked but I guess it says something about judgement and consensus - by far the most common length (3 of the most recent 6 or so depending how you judge it) is 31 hours.
The question is not censored. The manner of asking it with egregious ofence to others is. And WP:NOT#CENSORED applies to articles, not other pages.
If this was about "power" I wouldn't have been racking my head to try and help Giano improve; I wouldn't be trying to explain so he can see the issue and understand what is asked of him; and I wouldn't be this approachable. Giano is a valued editor. However see my comment here -- so are others, and so is the communal fabric of the project which in no way is helped by insulting others gratuitously.
I'm just wondering how long it is appropriate to wait for answers before one starts to be a bit more pointed in one's questioning. This matter was supposed to be addressed thoroughly quite some time ago, there was talk of committees and groups and the like, offered as part of the remedies, but I don't see much action on that score. Instead it seems there was a fair bit of buck passing, which Giano pointed out... and he got a "schoolboy" (31 hour) block for his trouble. I'd suggest that the use of 31 hours was deliberately insulting, but that would be a failure to assume good faith, so it must have been an oversight by the blocking admin. ++Lar: t/c11:59, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the assumption. My weighing up of the length was roughly this: The arbcom decision said "may be blocked briefly, and for repeated instances up to a week". That implies the first one is brief - probably 24 hours. However it was aggravated and repeated, so I did not feel 24 would be fair. Nor did I feel 48 was a suitable length for a first instance, although the circumstances and back-history warranted it, the enforcement was mild, especially for the first time. It is important not to be punitive. So I opted for 31, the usual length for "a day and a bit more". Oddly when I checked the log just now for the question above it turned out that 31 seems to be a quite usual length too.
(edit conflict) As for the rest, Giano was not blocked for "pointing out" anything. he was blocked because he made uncivil/grossly uncivil comments to several other users on several occasions, when under a (repeated and very clearly emphasized) restriction to not do so. If you (or indeed anyone) have specific questions on IRC, may I suggest WT:IRC is a good place to post them?
Last, as an arbcom member I'm fairly sure that I know what we have committed to do. "(6) Policy and procedure changes regarding Wikipedia IRC channels will be addressed separately by this committee". Part of that has been done -- openly and without pressure it should be noted. (For example, I was discussing IRC changes with James within a week of arbship, in early Jan 2008, long before anyone requested it.) I suspect that more is yet to be done when we see how that's working out. No fixed timetable since we want to sort genuine problems from "hype" and see how it all beds in, what happens when real problems arise. And those don't happen to a non-trivial level very often. FT2(Talk | email)12:28, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Brief is 15 minutes. It's the first choice in the drop down. I've given out 15 minute blocks before, they stopped editing that many viewed as problematic. 31 hours is not brief, in my view, it's verging into where some might view it as punitive for an editor that you're personally involved with. But more generally I don't see the incivility that you do, as I said at the AE page (after reviewing your lengthy summation first...) ++Lar: t/c12:35, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I also note you dodged the larger question, what happened to this wondrous IRC council/committee/task force that was supposed to be set up? ++Lar: t/c12:37, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. It doesn't really address why what's been done differs from the way the case stated things, but ok. I personally have no concerns about IRC, other than that ArbCom hasn't come to grips with the issues that others raise. I don't share the view of some of IRC as a bad thing but if ArbCom says they are going to proceed in a certain manner, they ought to do just that. ++Lar: t/c12:45, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Any time I think of actively contributing to the mainspace, I just visit this page. Thanks for helping me come to my senses, FT2, and anyone else involved in this game. SashaNein (talk) 13:17, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Doc g raises a good point about other issues being just as important, if not more so. Anyway, I've just been reading through what happened (though not in great detail). Giano was a bit aggressive with his questioning, but I would like to point out that the arbitration committee are also role models, and more so than Giano. What behaviours are people learning when they see the reaction shown here by arbitrators? Regardless of how people perceive their own behaviour, that perception isn't always what other people remember or learn from an incident (presuming that there is anyone actually watching all this). Some people will, wrongly, think that blocking for asking questions is now OK, or that extreme politeness is needed to avoid blocks (well, with some people it is). I think the best thing to do is for people to carry on talking constructively to each other, and for someone to produce regular updates on what is happening with IRC. I've been vaguely following things (I saw the subpage in Cbrown's userspace, and the list Ryan linked to is also good), and some progress seems to be being made, but not being on IRC I can't definitely judge how things are going in there (specifically in the admins channel). I would also suggest that the arbitration committee not overuse the magic panacea of forming subcommittees and task forces. Sometimes they just need to be decisive or restrict themselves and let the community deal with the rest of the problems. Carcharoth (talk) 13:24, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh and can someone point out to Thatcher, when he has finished his rant [49]] Flo has not been abused she has been questioned (there has been no incivility) because she was the one going to set the committee/working party up and throwing the sops to the community. Now she has to answer why all her grand ideas amounted to nothing, the very second the community was looking the other way. If the Arbs dod not agree with her, why let he carry on and pretend they did. The Arbcom is in trouble, and they had better get used to it. Giano (talk) 14:03, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Giano, I am discussing Thatcher's comments with him, and I will point out what you have said. Might I suggest that now you have raised the issue, you let others question what has and hasn't happened? I don't want to see tempers flaring on either side, and I want to see everyone talking productively. Would you consider stepping back a bit for now (from your talk page) and from the whole issue for a few days (after your block expires)? Carcharoth (talk) 14:23, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand the purpose of continuing to pester FloNight about IRC. She stated clearly that she wanted to establish a working group but there was no support from the rest of the Arbitrators. She has made it clear that she has not been involved in recent discussions concerning channel operations. I'm sure you are aware that Freenode is separate from Wikipedia; the IRC channel operators have gotten together and had whatever discussion they had, separate from Wikipedia, just as Wikipedia's policies and guidelines are not determined by Freenode. The results of that discussion are in Cbrown1023's user space, the people to talk to about it seem to be Cbrown, RyanP and FT2. I know you wish things were different. I know Jimbo asked that Arbcom assume a stronger oversight role. I know Flo tried to set up the working group. Arbcom has apparently declined to adopt the oversight role that Jimbo requested, and did not support the establishment of a working group. What is the point of continuing to pester Flo about it? Thatcher14:48, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think you raise an excellent point there, Thatcher. Rather than bugging one ArbCom member piecemeal, perhaps the entire ArbCom ought to be asked why they have declined to adopt the oversight role Jimbo requested (I actually read it as more of a mandate than a request, frankly). Maybe there is new information we are unaware of. Maybe ArbCom thinks they've discharged that mandate by delegating (informally?) to Cbrown, RyanP and FT2 ? I don't know. But I think these are valid questions to all of arbcom. That said, to this matter: Did Giano get snippy? Oh, yes, as per usual. Did he have a point? Oh yes, as per usual. Was it maybe made in not the most effective way? Oh, yes, as per usual. Is he still an awesome guy anyway, faults and all? Oh, yes, as per usual. :) ++Lar: t/c15:35, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To "to Cbrown, RyanP and FT2" What is this FT2? has some form of responsibility for IRC and he dares to block me for raising an issue regarding IRC - WTF is goimng on? Giano (talk) 15:43, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What is going on is that we are all trying to calm down. FT2 blocked you for incivility, not for asking questions. If we all calm down, we will get answers faster. And sometimes you have to wait a day or so for answers to arrive. So calmness, communication and patience, please. If by the time your block has expired, answers haven't arrived and been documented, and linked from, somewhere other than talk pages and arbitration enforcement pages, then I will support further questions being asked. How about it? Just wait a few days, and see how things go. Carcharoth (talk) 15:50, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not my style, that FT2 person has set this whole thing back months. He has a plain conflict of interest, had I wished to comment incivilly on the Arbcoms deceitful U turn, beleive me I could have done. I had no idea he had any responsibility for IRC, obviously another one that can't live without his chatroom. Well he needs to realise this "was" an encyclopedia, not a place for socialising. Giano (talk) 15:56, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Giano, I think FT2 fired a "warning shot" with his 31 hour schoolboy block. Think about what the next block will be--maybe a week, maybe a month, maybe indef. That is the effect of giving you a 31 hour block--next time the block will have to be more severe, for a respected arb issued the first one, and that could not have been in error! (!)
I'm not surprised that a heavy user of the Admin channel would over react to Giano's questioning. That is probably seen as insanely disruptive by a heavy user of that channel. Let's face it, the community came pretty close to advocating the disbanding of the channel in the first place. For the rest of us that do not have a dog in this fight, forget that IRC exists and look at Giano's main space contribs and ask the question: What is being prevented? I submit that the only thing being prevented is excellent main space contributions.
But since Arbcom adopted the "keep Giano in a cage, where he can write FAs and not intrude upon our delicate sensibilities", none of this is surprising; I am suggesting that this situation is going to escalate,whether intended or not, if you persist in enforcing bright line rules on Giano (example: "gotcha! You said fuck...blocked for 1 week"). Clearly, the ability to hold Giano to bright line rules enables a "clean kill" and once again, the reaction to what Giano is saying is more disruptive and detrimental than what he is saying. daveh4h17:36, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What and be blocked for having the temerity to address an Arb, who is so full of conflicted interest he would not know it if it jumped up and bit his own behind. You can ask FT2 (that independent Arb) exactly what in his discussions they had to say about a) RFAR:IRC; b)Tony Sidaway; c)Bishonen. They have done nothing! and that is what this whole unpleasant business is about. The second the spotlight was off them the Arbcom renegaded and wimped it. They must be kicking FT2 blocking me was the daftest thing he could have done. It is now clear they will do anything to shut people up from asking awkward questions. They made a huge error ever accepting the case, especially in light of who proposed it, and now they keep compounding their errors. This is going to lead to disaster after disaster. They thought they were so clever, from where I'm standing they are now looking far from clever. Giano (talk) 16:53, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Now why could I not had this brief succinct and to the point answer last night [51] without all the fuss and prevarication and disruption which FT2 has caused. Mmmmmmm? You do have to admire our Arbs - don't you? Giano (talk) 19:34, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
ummm, you pretty much did get that answer last night, you just wanted it from flonight, not ft2. I agree with you on nearly everything, so implore you to keep cool, please. It seems that ft2 is the only one dealing with the issue, so you will have to wait on him for answers. The others seem less interested in participating in reform of the irc system, so my view is that it's better not to bother them with it. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 21:39, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
They voted quite clearly to adress the problem [52] the second the community took their eyes off them they did a huge and very quiet U turn, when I started to ask awkward questions I was banned, and still am. You want to be ruled by a crew like that? I don't. Giano (talk) 22:14, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Giano, for what it's worth, I reviewed your block. I don't care much about IRC -- I'm rarely there, and I didn't follow the IRC ArbCom case at all. I also don't really care what questions you were or weren't asking FloNight, or even what the answers are. So please take this as a comment from an uninvolved admin. I still think that several of your comments over the last couple months have been uncivil, and that it was reasonable for a block to be implemented on your account, to restrict the flow of uncivil comments onto Wikipedia, and to enforce existing ArbCom sanctions. I do have a question of my own now: Whether or not you agree with it, you are under a requirement to be civil. Do you plan to abide by it? --Elonka22:59, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Elonka, we had a brief exchange on my page that you may recall. I just wish to say that the "incivility" rule needs to be suspended because it is being applied across Wiki in a totally arbitrary and abusive manner. We need some very specific rules about what constitutes 'incivility' (akin to 3RR) - such power is simply not safe in the unregulated hands of 1,500 anonymous Admins. Sarah777 (talk) 23:07, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am feeling restless and unsettled today. I have been trying to read the writings of a Mr. FT2. Have you heard of him? Well, I must say, he tends to go on and on....and on, until I can no longer stand it. I feel I would rather clean the stables! I will be riding later this day if you care to join me.
Your email on Wednesday lifted my spirit. ;-) Let's talk more and see if we can figure out the best approach to take. I'll email you in the morning with some specific ideas to see if you think that they will work. Take care, FloNight♥♥♥02:40, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Assessment of Little Moreton Hall, Kedleston Hall & Ascott House
Hi, Thanks for your message about assessing Little Moreton Hall, Kedleston Hall & Ascott House as start class when reviewing all National Trust houses for the new Wikipedia:WikiProject Museums. As you know these things are a subjective judgment & we are still developing the criteria at: Wikipedia:WikiProject Museums which you would be very welcome to participate in. They are all good interesting articles, but as you requested a few comments on other things which could be done. Little Moreton Hall - well referenced, but more could be said about the contents (as opposed to architecture) & NT ownership (eg when did they aquire it & how) - I have put this one up to B class. Ascott House & Kedleston Hall are completely unsupported by inline citations & I feel these are needed before they could make B class. I would personally add an infobox using Template:Infobox Historic building, but as we discussed on Brympton d'Evercy I know you dislike these. I hope these comments are useful.— Rodtalk14:34, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I don't like info boxes, in fact I detest them. In line cites are only needed for contraversial or disputed facts, and Little Moreton Hall is notable for not having contents. Giano (talk) 14:43, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A quick glance puts the first at GA+ class, easily, and the other two, most probably. Of course, with an infobox, I'd relegate them to "borderline deletable".--Docg15:02, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In line cites are only "required" for controversial or disputed facts - however they are good practice at all times, for dates, names, styles etc - these enable others to check what has been written & get further information. If you would like me to I can go through & add "citation needed" tags, but I'm sure you are aware of where they would be helpful. Perhaps an edited saying "Little Moreton Hall is notable for not having contents" would be useful?— Rodtalk14:54, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure you mean well, but Giano is one of our best writers. Have you heard the expression "to try to teach your granny to suck eggs"?--Docg15:02, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't think of trying to teach Giano to suck eggs - I was asked on my talk page why I had rated them in the way I did. We have previously had long discussions about Brympton d'Evercy & the benefits (or othewise) of GA reviews. I have personally guided several articles to FA & even more through GA, so I feel I am aware of some of the issues. You may not find infoboxes useful/attractive or whatever but many others do & I find them a useful summary. — Rodtalk15:14, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for your advice, but the pages will have to remain "start" standard if that is the case. I am just hapy they are one up from a stub. To be honest i had forgotten I ever write them, so it is nice to see them popping up on the watch list. I may soon start my own grading of pages. Just think of the fun I could have with that. Giano (talk) 16:35, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A box promises to contain, and things that can't be neatly contained can't be put in boxes. A box suggests "this is the real deal," and if the real deal could be put in a box, then there would be no need for articles. A box says, "Here is your PowerPoint bullet point list, so you can find all the world reduced to a reductive summary; please do not strive to understand complexity, for that is for suckers." A box says, "Wikipedia is just like your primary school text book: full of colors and 'bites' of infotainment." A box says, "I, the box maker, have just pissed all over this article and written a counter-article, and it's short, so read it instead." A box may be found useful by some people, indeed. We call those people "non-readers." Utgard Loki (talk) 16:47, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why can my page never be nice, like other people's pages ful of happy lovely things, and cheerful smiling happy people - all waving and singing gospel songs and doing beauriful things. There's only Spumoni who is ever cheerful around here Giano (talk) 16:50, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There you are you see [53] carcharoth understands me, and I took all the pretty photographs myself too, just so our American cousins can se what a real old English manor looks like - even if it is a complete fake. Giano (talk) 16:56, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You have become a kind of User untalk:Jimbo Wales, a place where opinion is voiced regardless of the page owner - even though it is addressed to you. You are both the Unfounder and the UnArbCom in the eyes of many. How do you like your crown of thorny comments? LessHeard vanU (talk) 16:57, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Trust me Giano, you shouldn't encourage me to start singing if you want people to be happy and doing beautiful things. Nice photos, by the way. Mine always seem to have extraneous objects in them. Risker (talk) 16:59, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps I ought to become an admin after all, then I can block you all for interupting me, trying to upload a half finished bloody plan that has taken nearly all of the last day of my holiday, looks terrible, has hours more to do on it, and now won't fucking upload cos I've saved it in the wrong bloody format, and I only want to see how it looks so far - bugger the Winter Palace! Giano (talk) 17:06, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would stand as nominator. Remember, you do not have to show a need for the tools - just trustworthiness in potentially using them... hmmm... My offer still stands! ;~) LessHeard vanU (talk) 17:14, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks LHVU, but all that mop and bucket stuff, I have never used a mop and bucket in my life, and fiddling about with vandals and civility, categories, filing, table manners and telling people what to do, sounds like a cross between a school teacher and a housemaid - not my style at all - I like to please myself - I suppose none of you know how I can upoad a doc.file? You may as well make yourselves useful seeing as you are all admins. Giano (talk) 17:35, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Japers, Giano - I don't know how to do stuff! I'm an admin; I stop people doing stuff... The creative bits are best left to the pure writers, and the techy bits for the rest of the editors! I'm sure there will be some of the latter around here some time later. Hopefully they can assist... LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:51, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You mean a .doc file I take it Giano? And we aren't all admins. I take it you mean you can't upload an image with .doc, in which case you have a technical problem, give me a shout if you want a hand with technical problems and I will see what I can do. Thanks, SqueakBox20:57, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, no don't worry, I rang the bell, and the butler knew the answer, thank God for people with mops and buckets, all sfely uploaded now, thanks for the offer. Giano (talk) 21:19, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Spellchecker did that? Good grief, I don't envy you. Incidentally, I did a little research into the new trendy phrase, "extraneous hoopla". I've written it up as a sort of DYK on my user page. Risker (talk) 14:23, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your help in getting the good ship SS Christopher Columbus to Featured Article status. The nomination went swimmingly, it was clear sailing all the way, no one turned up to torpedo it, and she passed easily.
that's the ticket!
Ah, Giano... you may not have had as many edits to Chris as some of the other folk I'm thanking, but you had loads to do with it just the same. Thank you, my friend. Enjoy your free pass (see right), I know I am going to! And stop bribing E! ++Lar: t/c22:32, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know how any of that can be an FA, except that The Rock was heard to say, "We're lost! We're lost!" in the December to Dismember. Now that is the kind of FA writing that has a proper selection of footnotes with sortings, licensures, tags, tag teams, and other things, all of which are the most important things of all -- not this elitist history and culture stuff. Utgard Loki (talk) 15:56, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Helo - I've followed some of your articles which are very good - you use images a lot. Can you point me the right way to sort out the copyright problem. I uploaded a picture I made here
which should not be a problem, but the warning message does not give precise instructions about how to fix it, just links to various long and incomprehensible online documents. Help gratefully appreciated. Latinist (talk) 11:18, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you really did make it yourself, you just select the appropriate tag from the drop down list, in this instance {{PD-self}, Giano (talk) 12:00, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I want this deleted [55] can someone do it for me, I have speedied it with good reason, but others seem to feel my reasons are not good enough. Bisnonen, Geogre, someone anyone - can you do it for me - Thanks. Giano (talk) 22:27, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
He uses a different title for each major revision, and doesn't want the old versions around to confuse things, since the work has been corrected and revised. Scary that I know that. Risker (talk) 23:53, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am uploading over the top of the old one, but once in a while it is a major revision, and I change the name on my computer, amd knowing how some people can't help interfering I want the old revisions out of the way, so no well meaning soul can ever revert and make the article meaningless, I shan't be arownd to look after these pages for ever, and I would like them to have a sporting chance, the current plan will probably be quite different to the completed one, especially at the rate that Alex is finding new room, bu my calcilations he only has 1,450 to go. Eventually many of these rooms will have small pages of their own, with yet another simplifired version of the plan, highlighting a particular room in red, so it is all quite complicated. This is not a new page, but a major project.Giano (talk) 16:54, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Giano, I understand what you mean about the brighter pictures, but do you agree it would be better to have a picture without a cherry picker crane in the foreground?
Pete Richardson (talk) 06:54, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No I don't. The pictures in the article were taken expressly for the purpose of illustrating points raises in the text. While the crane is regrettable, (only 1 of the images changed had a crane) the original images still illustrate the hard architectural fact better than a glimpse of the house taken at an angle "peeping" through trees, in poor light. Giano (talk) 06:59, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough - I hadn't considered the relationship of the text to the pictures. The lighting wasn't perfect in mine, but I do think the composition was more agreeable. However, given the status of that page, it doesn't deserve to be messed with on a whim, my apologies.
Pete Richardson (talk) 07:20, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. Why not go back on a nice day and take the south front, full on, minus the bloody crane? When writing about country houses etc, it is always important to remember this is an encyclopedia not a "come and visit us, we are so beatiful, all the kids will enjoy the day out" type brochure, and the images have to be as factual as the page - rather than beautiful. Giano (talk) 07:47, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I liked it there so much that I'm sure I'll go back some sunny day. Very good point for the pictures on here, I'll bear that in mind in future. Many thanks for your comments.
Pete Richardson (talk) 08:42, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Belton House, the north facade. The 17th-century double room design enabled greater symmetry between facades, while allowing the body of a crane to be nestled next to the steps.
There's not enough information in the image to remove the crane entirely, but I've minimised its impact a little until somebody takes a nicer pic (or until somebody is prepared to spend more than five minutes removing it from the image). Yomanganitalk10:06, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh you are so clever, I wish I cpuld do clever things like that. I think you are one of the wisestwikipedians I know of. Clever, intelligent,witty, charming, useful, did I say clever....actualy Yomangani, I'm working on something quite big at the moment, I may need your help some time in the futur placing one or two inages - well actually about 1500 - Giano (talk) 12:18, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently I'm already in trouble with the Crane Liberation Front, so I don't want to be hanging around the Winter Palace when the Bolsheviks rush in (although I saw the beginning of Anastasia a couple of weeks ago and appeared that the Imperial family all got on a train out of Russia during the extremely well-mannered revolution, so maybe it isn't that risky after all). Yomanganitalk12:39, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Of course the Imperial Family lives on! All you have to do is look, here and then here. And don't even need photoshop (gosh didn't the groupies look better in the old days!).--Docg12:52, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well sadly for the groupies, there is not going to be much about the last Romanoffs, because contrary to what is on the internet, they did not actually like the Winter Palace, and spent as little time there as possible. Giano (talk) 12:55, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This [56] has displeased me greatly, unless the Arbcom want to see an immense amount of incivility they had better turn out and vote to save it because I no longer have the original on disc! Giano (talk) 18:33, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well the image looks safe now. Thanks. This new editor User:Kelly does seem to be something of a keen deletionist, seems to spend every spare moment nominating for deletion, perhaps there is a prize? I wish I was such a fast learner, should go far on Wikipedia. Giano (talk) 12:05, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh dear, and it appears there is to be a "in future" [57] - why am I just getting a horrible feeling - why me, why my images - Oh God, life can only get better. Giano (talk) 17:20, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What I want to know is why she is changing .gif files to .jpg files, there is a noteworthy difference in format that can affect future changes - .gif files are more stable and degrade less than .jpg files as they are revised. Risker (talk) 17:26, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, there - I did not convert any files, I have just been moving them over "as is"...the file that was converted from GIF to JPG was done by somebody else. Is there a problem? Kellyhi!17:28, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Some people just can't help fiddling arownd. I just take the pics I want for my pages and upload them, I do not understand the finer points, nor do I care. When there is a problem you will be the first to know, and if you nominate any more images I want for deletion, there will be a problem. Giano (talk) 17:32, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am very sorry if I upset you...I was only cleaning up the free images and moving some to Commons. I am not a keen deletionist; most of the images I flagged for deletion were old unused personal snapshots or leftover spam images. I did nominate some orphaned images that seemed abandoned and that I thought the Commons might not want - I apparently made a mistake regarding your balcony image and I'm sorry. Kellyhi!17:37, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(unindent) Sorry Kelly, I did not read the full history of that Southcote image, and missed that someone else had converted it some time before. One issue that has been seen quite often here on en-WP is that people upload images, often for future use, they get moved to Commons and deleted here, and then they get deleted at Commons but there is no notification to the initial uploader that their image is now nowhere in Wikimedia space. Giano is not unique in his wish to keep images on en-WP; quite a few others have encountered this problem over the last few years. As well, finding moved images on Commons can be quite a Byzantine task due to the differences and irregularities in classification. It's more a reflection of different processes on the projects. Risker (talk) 17:44, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's a problem I've noticed a lot too. The first you realize it's been deleted is when a red link appears in the article. I find it helps to add to the top of the WP image page, "please retain a local copy if this is moved to the Commons." SlimVirgintalk|edits17:48, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, I created a special template for that. After the Neil incident when he was blocked for not wanting his images moved to commons, there was a discussion that ended up that the deletion policies were modified. Now, the mere presence of the image in Commons no longer requires the deletion of the local copy. Just place {{KeepLocal}} on your images (that what I do) or place {{NoCommons}} if the image is already copied there but not yet deleted.
Some editors, like myself, don't wont to deal with commons for the reasons I stated elsewhere. Also, there is indeed a lot of confusion with commons' ever changing and fluent policies, its capricious admins, spurious rules of checkuser access and, location and mislocation of images.
You cannot force anyone to not copy any of your commons-compliant images, but you can at least make sure, that the local copies are kept here. HTH, --Irpen21:31, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Are you saying that the hundreds of images I have taken can be uploaded to commons and then deleted withot me knowing? Giano (talk) 21:42, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've just seen one of my favourutes Image:Belton House 2006.Giano.gif has gone to commons with nothing here - all seems very strange behaviour. 21:50, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
The "wrong" with these people, Giano, is what we all know. They don't come here to write the Wikipedia but for social reasons: chat, make friends, chatmore, make a "career", write bots, "write policies", go 'round telling others what to do (or to put it another way "enforce policies" whimsically), invent the awards and award them to each other, chatmore, reverse the RL hierarchy, disparage the "timid and ill-informed populace" at the "private" channels, post there diffs and talk like they own the place, etc., etc., etc. I am not saying anything that you don't yet know or, perhaps, even said yourself.
But as for the images, legally speaking anyone has the right to copy the freely licensed image to commons. That often this is done with violations, that is the uploading history not being preserved, is another point which happens less now. You have to be prepared to see any and all of your images copied to commons. But you can make sure that the local copy is retained. This is my suggestion: use this template. It worked for me. I even succeeded asking the bot-owners to respect the "KeepLocal" and "NoCommons" templates and not tag the images for deletion. So, the images won't be "moved" but just "copied". As for copying, why not for what I care? --Irpen22:18, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have no problem with people using and copying, I use commons myself. It is the removing completely I object to, I have just seem now that I can't edit half of them because they have gone elsewhere, I've uploaded to many to add the template to, but I will in future. Giano (talk) 22:22, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Risker (your rollback not working?) [58], but I was not born yesterday, and had just finished typing my acceptance speech. Now the world will never get to read it. In view of recent events, and an offer made to me, privately, which I am considering, PM was being very perceptive. I have decided to help share that great burden which Jimbo has so manfully and with such panache hitherto carried alone. All of you rank and file common editors must not regard me as changed, and if you want to talk to me at any time, my chief-of-staff Ms Bishzilla's undersecretary will advise on a place for you to wait as I walk past. My use name will name be changing from Giano to User: Oh Holy and most gracious One, but don't clutter up my talk page with your dull trivia about pages and content as it is now reserved for important people like Arbcom members who will want to post there begging favours etc. Wikilove and warm greetings etc. etc. etc. to you all . Giano (talk) 06:59, 1 April 2008 (UTC) )(aka: Oh Holy and most gracious One (talk) 07:01, 1 April 2008 (UTC))[reply]
My rollback works fine - I wanted to leave a snotty edit summary, that's all. In any case, this is a day of celebration. Did you know that Bishapod has been canonised? It is true! and today is Bishapod's Feast Day! There is even a website detailing all the special events being held in St. Bishapod's honour; and of course, here there is the Special Main Page event. So it looks like you won't be the only Oh Holy and most gracious One - you'll have to share that honour with a plushie. Risker (talk) 07:06, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I really can't let this day pass without apologising once more for my uncivil comments at this illustrious talk page. I have self-imposed a 31 minute cool down block, and expect better of myself when I return. (I'm just glad I didn't get the attentions of either bishzilla, or little stupid - the former's death rays may be terrible to behold, but it beats being dribbled on to death.....) Privatemusings (talk) 10:52, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well I am just shocked and horrified by your behaviour Privatemusings, when I am on the Arbcom behaviour such as yours will be severely dealt with, very severly indeed. Your head will be impaled on the front page as a warning to other editors who may attempt to step out of line, and introduce light releif into the proceedings. Giano (talk) 11:40, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Giano, I was watching another thread at WP:ANI when I saw the one about rollback and you, then made a passing comment without paying much attention to who had started the thread. Anyway I wanted to let you know, I would have likely commented no matter who was being talked about and as it happened, reading the thread was helpful to me because it made me aware that current practice here on rollback's threshold of use is not vandalism, but non-controversy/no need for an edit summary. Given this a) your use of rollback has been utterly a non-issue as explained in the thread but b) at least the thread was helpful in bringing me up to speed on the consensus about rollback! Cheers. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:36, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I see all of the images I took for West Wycombe Park have disappeared from Wikipedia to commons without so much as a word - this is really pretty bad, how can they be deleted from Wikipedia with no word of notification. Now they are only on commons and this one Image:West Wycombe 3 (Giano).png " released into the public domain by its author, PNG crusade bot at the wikipedia project" Well bolox to that, I am its author, if I copy a book to do I suddenly become it's author? Giano (talk) 12:06, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am not complaining about attribution, so much as moving to commons and deletingg from Wikipedia - where it can now de deleted with no one knowing anything about it her, because no one even bothered to tell me it had been deleted and moved. Giano (talk) 18:17, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
and it iis still happening here is another gone as I was writing the above Image:Brympton DEvercy.gif why are my images all being moved, I just don't see why thet can't stray here as well. There not evn that great pictures by commons standards. Giano (talk) 18:28, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In theory, you are correct. In fact, it is not at all uncommon for images to be deleted from Commons. Worse yet, the categorization system sometimes makes it impossible to find the "right" image there, even when one knows it should be there somewhere. Giano, my suggestion to you would be to open an account on Commons and put all of your photos on your watchlist there, then log in once every few days to see which ones they propose to delete. Just remember to use your same login including password and email account, so you will be ready for Single User Login when it is offered to us plebes in the near future. Risker (talk) 21:45, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This policy of deleting Wikipedia images as soon as they are uploaded to commons will end in tears - you see if I am not right, may be not this year but one day. From now forward I shall just upload with the
{{KeepLocal} template, but for how long will that be good? Here for instance Image:Tong Castle Shropshire.jpg has whizzed of to commons - why - I have not even finished the page for which it us destined, I may well upload a better version or never use that one at all. No one on Wikipedia ever looks further than tomorrow - I upload potentially useful images all the time, I stop the car and photograph useful buildings all the time, now these people want to upload all to commons and delete others as orphans because I have not yet had the time or inclination to write the page - what sort of clever policy is that? This Kelly is just going through every image I ever upoad - thousands - why? I have better things to do with my time than keep logging into commons to see if Wikipedia has decided to throw away the images I upload Giano (talk) 21:49, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(ec)I'm pretty sure that you can set preferences on Commons so that you get an e-mail (if any items on your watchlist are edited. Or you can just remove the 'W' from the {{NowCommons}} template to turn it into {{NoCommons}}, in which case it won't be deleted, but users from other projects can easily find the same image on Commons. {{KeepLocal}} is for images that have not yet been copied to the Commons. Kellyhi!21:52, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
being less shy and retiring than I probably should be, I thought I'd pipe up here (although I'll be careful how I sign!) - in truth, there's an unspoken movement which is gathering pace to move all images to commons - many people cannot understand why 'english wikipedia' should have images at all - they all should be available to all of the projects, is how the thinking goes. Not really having thought about it, but having had pic.s nearly deleted from commons without my noticing (my fault mind, wrong / missing licensing stuff) - my jury's out. It's not being discussed anywhere (why bother, when you can just go and do it!) - and to be honest the way the tide seems to be heading to me, we simply won't have local images in a year or so..... just a tuppence worth.. Privatemusings (talk) 21:56, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting point, Giano. And thanks for that information, Kelly. Last night, I experimented and uploaded a photo; it isn't all that good, and it is solely intended for my userpages, instead of the traditional pet/family/similarly too personal photo. I've since been informed that any photo that isn't in an article *should* be uploaded to Commons for everyone to use. (Sound about right, PM?) Now really...why would Commons want personal photos of individual wikipedians, their kids, their dogs, their snakes, their failed efforts at baking bread, their bathrobes, etc.? Well..I have no interest in uploading a barely average image to commons, but if someone copies it there I suppose I shall survive. Risker (talk) 21:59, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Giano, that unless some kind of system for notifing users when images are moved to commons, and deleted from en.wikipedia is developed (AND SOON) there will be tears and dhrama. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 00:30, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I also think that Kelly, knowing my views, continuing to plave a NowCommons template on picture I have uploaded (several more throughout the night) is rather extraordinary behaviour, when she could just as easily place a no commons template. Giano (talk) 06:21, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Can someone keep an eye on these images for me today, as I'm away. I have not the time to retag all the ones Kelly ghas deemed suitable for seletion, I have already wasted the hour on this that I had planned to spend on the new page - it is impossible to get on with writing here these days. Giano (talk) 07:07, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Won't be able to do much during daylight hours today, Giano, but I will go over to Commons this evening and start watchlisting the images that have been transferred, and try to set up something on en-WP to keep track of the rest of the images still here. I have another project in mind for the weekend that you might find of interest as well. Risker (talk) 14:00, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Giano, do not be deceived. This has nothing to do with "sharing" content with other projects and has everything to do with fair use. Specifically, commons does not allow fair use content. The anti-fair use crowd have been desperately trying to purge the English Wikipedia of all fair use by any means necessary. Since they have lost the battle to end all fair use through consensus, they now resort to exploiting policy to achieve their goals through unscrupulous tactics such as this. First, they started mass deleting images that were *obviously* mistagged and could have been fixed in an automated fashion. Then they mass deleted any fair use that just had a boilerplate, demanding that a 2-3 sentence explanation be given for each image, despite most being *obvious* cases. Now, this is their final assault. To truly get rid of fair use, they must make all content hosted on the commons. I happen to prefer freely-licensed images, but I'd rather have some image rather than no image at all. Lack of content other than text is truly awful in a media-rich world. You can see the dramatic effect it has had on the quality of many articles, now that so many fair use images have been deleted. Quality has taken a major hit and if it weren't for people like you and a few others, it could have been much worse. For that, I thank you for your constant hard work despite the petty attacks by some rather useless administrators who have developed a cult of personality. Anyways, like you hinted, these so-called freedom activists don't really do anything useful for the project like write articles or find free images to replace fair use ones. Rather, they seem to only to abuse process and make it suck more and all in the name of freedom. These are the same one-issue activists that make projects like Debian really suck, since half the effort is wasted debating them over what is free and what isn't. Quite frankly, I think all bots should be totally banned. If you can't be bothered to take the time to personally do your own edits, then you shouldn't edit at all. --Dragon695 (talk) 12:07, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I see. Well I think the history of this sad image is quite interesting [59] as it is not so much a book cover as a photograph taken by myself - I find all this very confusing. Giano (talk) 12:37, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if you feel like hosting a debate here on the use of fair use images in Wikipedia but it's a challenging issue that I think will continue to cause problems for the project in the future. Cla68 (talk) 16:18, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Discuss what you like here. Another half hour wasted - have ing to revert a bot that still wants to delete images, even those with the please keep template [60] - how does one put a bot out of action? Giano (talk) 21:57, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's the same problem as ever. -Bots don't work on individual cases: they work globally. -Bot mentality is similar. When one is young, one thinks in absolutes in every area of life, and then one realizes that there are nuances, exceptions, oddities, and things that are impossible to define. It is not possible to say "no fair use" or "fair use is fine," because both statements are discussions of attributes without context. I.e. the happy upload plaster -bot that throws up every Warner Brothers Recording Artist is obviously bad, and the impossible copyright status of a 1930 book cover that is out of print (but which might have been renewed the last day of the author's daughter's life) is obviously fine. There is no way to make a universal law and then unleash a -bot.
What's more, "fair use" is itself a recognition of the fact that copyright is sometimes tight, sometimes very tight. It is a legal acknowledgment of times when context is the sole determination of legality. To use anything or make any statement that obliviates examination and careful consideration of context -- each and every single one -- by judgment and intelligence and deliberation -- is a priori wrong, if not stupid.
I'm an existentialist: I get suspicious when anyone starts talking about universal cases when it comes to human beings. (Yes, a Kierkegaardian, so there are universals, but not with "the crooked timber of humanity.") Geogre (talk) 22:23, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well this particular bot has a button on it that will blow it up [61] except when I pressed it, like all things on Wikipedia it can only be destroyed by an admin - so you go an press it Geogre - and give it a kick from me while you are there. 22:29, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For your information, Windows XP is an operating system, while Excel is an application program that runs under the OS (in this case, a spreadsheet program). They're both by Microsoft, so naturally they're pieces of crap, and you should use something better that's open-source. But how is this relevant to Wikipedia? *Dan T.* (talk) 16:13, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know, how it's relevant, perhaps Risker is just inquisitive. I don't do operating systems, and things like that, far too complicated. My last computer went very odd after I tried to fix it by squirting WD40 into it, which was strange because in my experience WD40 fixes most things. Giano (talk) 16:58, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My wife has found out the hard way that squirting WD40 into me doesn't really fix things. Still, done the right way it does render me unconscious for a few hours, which provides a welcome hiatus. If she were to squirt in a very large quantity maybe it would fix me for good. If anyone's interested, Dan T. is on the money when it comes to XP, but (open-source) OpenOffice so sedulously apes MS Office that there's not much between the two behemoths. Except the price: a lot for legal MS Office, zero for legal OpenOffice. This difference makes the choice simple for me, and the clincher is that MS Office won't run on my computer. Anyway, OpenOffice displays XLS files. ¶ 'Nuff of that. I've recently been disturbed by the mediocrity of articles on buildings -- Pitzhanger Manor, Wotton House, Moggerhanger House, etc -- designed or remodeled by John Soane. I've done some fiddling with them and hope I haven't thereby messed them up, but somebody much more knowledgable about architecture (Joopers, even Giano?) would do a much better job, I'm sure. -- Hoary (talk) 23:30, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah yeah, I know all about the evil Microsoft conspiracy theories and terrible software. Unfortunately, since files written in OpenOffice don't work terribly well with the version of Excel I must use at work, and we are restricted in loading software anyway (an appropriate security move, given what some of my colleagues might put on their computers), I am stuck with Microsoft products. C'est la vie. ¶And you're quite right about those articles, Hoary. Seems there's always something to fix up around here, isn't there? Risker (talk) 23:40, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. A user asked to be removed from the access list of the admins channel, and also asked to be removed from a few on-wiki copies of this access list, for privacy reasons. Two of those pages were in your user space. I have removed the two mentions of the editor in question: here and here. I hope this is okay with you. - Mark05:16, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just to make clear, in case anyone reads this before investigating further, that Giano only reverted the ip once while other editors also reverted (as said, the ip reverted far in excess of 3RR) including at least one other editor twice. However the ip only commented on the actions of Giano at User talk:Jimbo Wales, which lead me to believe that the ip was disruptively targeting Giano. In any case, I have issued a short block on the ip on that basis. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:40, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting to look at the IP's edits before Buckingham Palace - all Irish topics. Wonder if that has anything to do with your earlier comments elsewhere, Giano. Risker (talk) 19:55, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Of course they were to do with earlier comments I made today, I questioned a decision of an Admin in a contraversial area, and this is the result - a trolling anon. - Oh well I have broad shoulders (thank God) - Thanks a lot all of you. Thanks too to all the Arbs who broke off from their chatting to resolve the situation, having cleverly placed me a position unable to defend myself! Giano (talk) 20:13, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Giano, I came here after your latest snipe on my talk page. Your comments here, read together with your latest on my talk page, appear to be an allegation that I was in some way involved in whatever this dispute here is about. Please either file an ANI complaint or a checkuser ... or drop your unfounded sniping. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 22:11, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Giano, it is extremely unlikely (less likely than Jimbo turning up at your house with a bottle of really expensive wine, together with a third of ArbCom singing "Hosannah") that BrownHairedGirl has anything to do with the trolling - she is the type of admin that I wish I could be in some areas. No individual can be responsible for the actions of their "disciples" - or for anyone who sees an avenue for attacking someone they do not care for. In this instance I think that your disapproval of BHG (or her WP personae) has clouded your judgement. I really think the best thing is to step back - both of you - in this matter. Please. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:27, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
...and what makes you think Jimbo and I don't often share a bottle of Dom P together, while being serenaded by the Arbcom accompanied by Uninvited Company on his organ? Giano (talk) 22:31, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What on earth are you talking about LHVU? Please remember this is an intelligent page, only posted on by the intelligent. I have never eaten a pastie in my life, and that film was appalingly awful. And who on earth is St Bunyan - I hate Cornwall, all those one sided trees, and people thinking they are "new age" or whatever, when frankly they are just unwashed and odd. Come to think of it half of them probably edit Wikipedia. Giano (talk) 18:00, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi again, If you feel Palazzo Pitti is high importance please feel free to change it, however you could take a look at The "importance scale" on Wikipedia:WikiProject Museums/Assessment which says "Major Museums of specific types" & "Well known Museums" are Mid with "National Museums", "Types of Museums" & "International Museum Organisations" are High. It would be great if you would join the discussion about these at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Museums where perceptions of "greatest paintings" can see if they get general acceptance - but I don't think the sites selected for your ashes will make it into the criteria.— Rodtalk19:32, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh I really can't be bothered. I expect it's just another dreary stop on most people's intinery. Who cares anyway? Those that are interested know where it is. Giano (talk) 19:34, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop the edit war over at User:Vintagekits. There is absolutely no policy in WP:BP or anywhere else that supports either view in this rather trivial incident to get excited about. Most blocking admins do tend to replace the whole userpage with the blocked template, because;
the blocked user cannot edit Wikipedia with that account anymore, so what is the point of having a userpage, and,
a simple page made up of the blocked template makes it much clearer to passers by that this account is now inactive. There have been pranks occuring where people apply blocked templates to others / their own userpages for a laugh, and it could get mistook for one of those.
Had a respected and reputable admin decided the page had to be blanked that would be one thing, but Kittybrester trolling is quite another matter [64]. The reason why the page should not be blocked are adequatly explained in it's history and elsewhere. The Editor has written and created many valuable pages. Do not come here threatening to block me - because it cuts little ice, and does not alter my views or actions in the slightest. Giano (talk) 12:36, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If there are things people need from the userpage, then they can get it via looking through the history. And all the admins involved in this are respected and reputable thankyou, there's no need to snap like that. The userpage has been protected once, we shouldn't have to do it again. We have discussed this elsewhere, and if you continue to be disruptive and contradict anyone else, you will be blocked for edit warring. That will be a shame, and no-one, at heart, wishes to do that to you. That is the decision of more than one person / admin. Please stop. Thankyou. Lradrama13:11, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Don't come here threatening and telling me not to be disruptive, you clearly have no idea of the problems many are anxious to avoid in that area. I suggest you go and do some research. Finally, if you want to make a name for yourself I am happy to advise you, but I suggest you do it in the normal way, your 10 minutes of fame for blocking me, will hardly put you in the celebrity bracket! Giano (talk) 13:20, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think Kittybrewster could have been more communicative with the manner in which he advanced his approach. Likewise, Lradrama's approach comes across as overly intimidating and distant. There's no urgency here. El_C13:33, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Don't worry E1 C we are quite used to such behaviour on this page, in fact it is deliberatly intended by the Arbcom - I hate to dissapoint. If ever anyone ever wanted banning for deliberated disruption it is them. I'm sure it gives them a little thrill every time it happens, and allows Uninvited to have a whinge from the organ loft that is his own chatroom.Giano (talk) 13:38, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid you've got the totally wrong end of the stick here. I am not doing this for fame or celebrity or anything at all like that, what do you think I am? I'm am no attention seeker (and if you look at my userpage - the big, fat, Awesome Wikipedian AWARD is just one of the reasons why I'm perfectly happy with my administrator 'image' at the moment). That's the first time ever I've been forced to point out good things about myself to others, and trust me, I don't like having to do it. If you want to be patronising when all I was doing was making a request, then I want nothing more to do with you. I won't ask next time...I'll just do what needs doing. Lradrama17:14, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've changed my mind after thinking about this. Someone left a very valid point in our discussion. Giano II, despite having a very curious way of discussing things here, has made some very valuable contributions to Wikipedia also. I cannot block someone like this, and the edit war has stopped anyway now. We've reached a conclusion that if the malarky continues, the userpage will be protected. End of argument. Lradrama18:27, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You can't block me because you have no reason to block, if you take the time look at the edits you will see there are no 3Rs. Now go and do your research, and I don't need you to point out the value my contributions. Giano (talk) 20:21, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I beg your pardon? what on earth are you talking about now? Have admins such as yourself nothing more useful to do about the project? I suggest you go and find constructive to do. Giano (talk) 22:59, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Giano, I happened to notice you were working on the Winter Palace article - there are a lot of freely-licensed images here. If there are any you would like, just let me know and I'd be happy to copy them to the project for you. Kellyhi!12:44, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I think we have those views. Images needed are those taken in the courtyards, or from the small estern garden, or (in our dreams) very good quality interior shots - having said Alex and I have uploaded some brilliant watercolours of the interiors - this could be one of the good pages, but it os going to be a very slow job, as it need to be thought through, and I'm still incertain how to play it - using so much information but still keeeping the page reaonably concise and interesting. Giano (talk) 13:25, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I grabbed some interior shots - not sure if you can use any of them but have a look when you get a chance:
This is just a sampling of some that I was able to dig up...if this is the type of thing you're searching for, or have any special requests, I will be happy to try. I found many interior Hermitage shots, but I'm not sure if you're interested in any of those or just strictly the Winter Palace for now. Kellyhi!16:32, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Some of those we have, some we don't - thanks - the courtyard one is good. The Hermitage is not being included in the page, this was the result of opinions sought on the tal pages of both by the editors concerned with the pages. hence the page will concentrate just on the palace and events prior to 1918, rather than it's renaissance as part of the Hermtage. I'm not sure how this will pan out, but pan out it will. Giano (talk) 16:40, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I will pull together as many images as I can and try to organize them into some kind of semi-coherent galleries on Commons, organized by room, if possible. I'll drop you a note when I'm done, if it's OK, and you can have a look at the images to pick out the best. If I can find enough good images, some of the links from the piano nobile diagram could possibly be to galleries on Commons rather than individual images...what do you think? Kellyhi!16:47, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have said all I wish to here [65]. I shall not be commenting further as I'm tired of these protracted Wikipedia threads where whichever 14 year old shouts loudest and last gets to carry the day. We all know, if only privately, some of the factions and behind the scenes politics that VK was fighting against. His methods may have been wrong and misguided, and I may not condone his behaviour, but I can give him some understanding. I have never yet trashed the grave of an an enemy or a friend, an I have no intention of being party to such petty, puerile and pointless actions now. You must do as you think best Alison. Giano (talk) 09:18, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's twice in 24 hours when I have unequivocally agreed with you - MONGO and Vintagekits. Obviously Bishzilla has burned some sense into one or both of us. Guy (Help!) 15:05, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it worrying isn't it, God knows what Bishzilla will say when she returns from her sunny sojourn at my Palazzo Splendido, Caymen isalnds. (all credit card booking accepted).Roar, I expect. Giano (talk) 15:08, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Needless to say I am not happy about the way things turned out either. Sometimes drama gets whipped up to the point where it takes on a life of its own - I'm pretty sure if that had been any other user and I'd unblocked in the way I did, there would have been next to no reaction. Instead I end up having to reblock because the masses feel that punishment of this nature achieves something. Sad days, indeed. Orderinchaos15:36, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In my real world existence I am an educator. I have found in that context that punishment for its own sake only makes things worse rather than solving anything, and what is better is a measured approach to things. In my view blocks are handed out all too readily for certain kinds of offences (and I use that word with a deliberate double meaning), and never readily enough for the ones that actually harm the encyclopaedia. If one works in content and it becomes necessary to rid an article or subproject of a thoroughly tendentious SPA troll, it's almost impossible and can take weeks or months, seeing valuable editors driven off the project in disgust in the meantime, unless you can prove they are a sockpuppet. Orderinchaos16:02, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In the great scheme of things I don't regard "get lost," in the heat of a moment, as particularly offensive. The Admin was presumptious and patronising. I'm afraid in my considerable experience many of these admins are promoted after being here for a few months, voted for by their friends, and then want to strut about with shiny little badges expecting due deference. Sadly, for them neither the world nor Wikipedia functions in quite that way. That one should be so stupid as to think he could block Mongo for a week for the crime of failing to massage his ego beggars belief, but there you are - the clones all squeak with anger at a perceived insult to one of their own. Of course, it all boils down to damn the content, but protect the cliques and the egos. What should have happened was that the blocking admin should have been immediately de-sysoped and sent for re-training. Giano (talk) 16:49, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't either - I've heard far worse from my students! :)
Re the general point, I think the sad reality on the modern Wikipedia is that compared to even 2 years ago when I first arrived, many admins are not editors, and stopped being so a long time ago (a case of "ye shall know them by their contribs"...) If they do go into mainspace it's usually solely to revert vandalism or continue a battle with someone they are already in a dispute with. Solid editing is the main thing that makes the encyclopaedia what it is, creates our best articles and develops the reach of knowledge we cover, and yet this has become an extremely low priority for many of the "new generation" of admins (although plenty of readily identifiable exceptions exist). Orderinchaos13:12, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am encouraged by the fact that so many are now coming to that few, but until the arbcom are forced (and it will eventually be by force) to accept that view little can change. The power structure of Wikipedia is now so at odds with the fundametal concepts of the project, that the encyclopedia either will improve or implode. Giano (talk) 13:43, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well it does look like the Arbcom are now being forced kicking and screaming to accept the case after so many voted with suspiciously indecent haste to reject it, the trouble is having seen how quick they were to reject before half the evidence was presented - what confidence can one have in them? Giano (talk) 11:50, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your support in my RFA, that didn't quite make it and ended at 120/47/13. There was a ton of great advice there, that I'm going to go on. Maybe someday. If not, there are articles to write! Thanks for your support. Lawrence § t/e17:51, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am truly sorry, you could have been one of the best. Let's face it you could hardly have been worse than some I could care to mention today. Giano (talk) 17:54, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Giano, just letting you know I removed your section in the arbitrators voting section. As I hope you can understand, to leave such comments there will create a major headache in many cases to come. I'm sure the arbitrators will see your most recent comment via the use of a subsection, which will appear in the table of contents (and stand out a tad!). Edit summary; happy to discuss if you disagree. Cheers, Daniel (talk) 12:56, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry. It occurs to me that my comment probably unhelped someone. They had been aided entirely, but then my reference to Monty Python unhelped them. Utgard Loki (talk) 18:39, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's most kind, thank you for pointing that out. What a sad day when we can no longer ask one of our Arbs a straight, honest and civil question. When exactly were you promoted to the Arbcom 1=2?, or are you just some form of staff? Giano (talk) 22:34, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I know from history that you endorse the fact that Wikipedians are allowed to remove content from their user talk pages, this is also accepted by the community at large. I would grant this courtesy to any user who was having a message repeatedly reverted back onto their page against their will. You have done well to chose a neutral and topical venue to re-post your concerns, your posting at Wikipedia talk:CheckUser is a perfectly reasonable way to pursue these concerns. Thanks. (1 == 2)Until22:38, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much for pointing that out - Have you read the message immediatly above this? Bonsoir, I'm going to bed now. So I can be bright and perky in the morning. Giano (talk) 22:57, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
While the ft2 stuff was maybe inappropriate, the comments at the checkuser page seem fully appropriate and not "a disruptive dispute". I have some of these same concerns, especially as folks seem to be trying to control 'drhama' by hiding questions about things that are mostly non-issues that we just havn't dealt with yet. So, I disagree with the characterization that giano is itching for a block for these questions, it's really just getting them to the right place. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 23:02, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is inappropriate coming so shortly after a warning and giano's statement that he's done with editing for the evening. Please unblock or change to token notice block. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 23:05, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I just find it confusing that the same action brought praise from one admin, a warning from a second, and a block from a third. Is there any wonder why people are concerned at the broad-brush remedies being established by Arbcom? One can never tell how something will be interpreted. Risker (talk) 23:09, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Kwsn, he had just been warned and responded positively to it by moving the question he was asking to an appropriate place, and by saying he was going to bed. Please undo the block. SlimVirgintalk|edits23:10, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)I'm inclined to agree with SV here. Blocks are meant to prevent disruption and right now, I'm not seeing how this block has achieved that given 1) he'd already stated he was done for the day, and 2) he wasn't sufficiently warned IMO - Alison❤23:12, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A 48 min block may be appropriate in this case but not 48 hours, IMO, given his comment on dropping the issue. Thanks, SqueakBox23:15, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(ecx8!)Risker is spot-on. Can we have some consistency, please? At least note that he was praised for lowering the temperature by someone else and contact the other fellow to see what you might be missing...--Relata refero (disp.)23:17, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This user has made no effort to show regret at calling me a stalker. What is more he has a history if civility violations and shows no sign of stopping. This block is preventative. Simple pointing out that he stopped edit warring is no justification for personal attacks. This is a valid block, here is your diff[70]. Being called a stalker really sucks, consider I have been stalked in the past. Sometimes I think the defense of this user is automatic, and not based on circumstances. (1 == 2)Until23:16, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, except this user has been uncivil so long that he has been given an arbcom ruling that he needs to stop. He will be uncivil again. The block is not unnecessary, per WP:BLOCK block may be user to "Encouraging a rapid understanding that the present behavior cannot continue and will not be tolerated". This is a perfect example of that. Giano was not unaware of the rule, he just does not want to follow it. (1 == 2)Until23:20, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
FT2 removed them, and Giano was edit warring to put them back. FT2 is allowed to remove comments from his own page. Giano stopped just short of 3RR. (1 == 2)Until23:24, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Edit summary from the diff YOU provided : "m (Reverted edits by Giano II (talk) to last version by Until(1 == 2))". Editted by YOU. Please don't fib. Minkythecat (talk) 06:16, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I should point out that I had, myself, hesitated about blocking outright rather than leaving a stern warning. Giano is under an Arbcom civility parole, and is very much aware of the behavior he must not engage in— in effect he has a permanent warning attached. While the timing is regrettable, the block itself is quite defensible. I am neither endorsing the current block nor calling for an unblock. — Coren(talk)23:21, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
One sign of stopping was his announcement that he was going to bed. And one circumstance was the frequency which the "1 == 2" username had turned up to make tut-tutting comments. -- Hoary (talk) 23:27, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think Giano's stalking comment was his way of saying that 1==2 seemed to be following him around Wikipedia - ie. wiki-stalking (I don't actually think that was the case, but those with large watchlists sometimes give that impression). This is, of course, completely different from being stalked in real life. When 1==2 said "consider I have been stalked in the past", I am unclear what type of stalking he is referring to - wiki-stalking or real-life stalking? Anyway, as a compromise, I suggest that someone set the block to expire before Giano gets back. Might avoid drama all round. Carcharoth (talk) 23:36, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wiki stalking occasionally turns very nasty and I am sure Giano knows Until and that he has undergone some very nasty stalking. Thanks, SqueakBox23:56, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This really is becoming f'in farcical - if trigger happy admins want to polarise the community and transmogrify previously civil editors into irate factions this is a frickin great way to go about it. I'm starting to feel like a few more of us should start being as vociferous as Giano. --Joopercoopers (talk) 23:52, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks all of you, friends in need are friends indeed! I shall be away for most of today, when I return I expect the matter to be sorted. I have 100% evidence that this block was called for and orchestrated on IRC#admins. I expect those admins concerned to no longer have access to IRC by 17.00 GMT today. If they are still there, then we shall have to discuss fully why, and what can be done to resolve these ongoing issues, but hopefully that won't be necessary. This is exactly the sort of disruption the Arbcom planned with their petty sanction, let's just see if they truly want to prolong this now regular disruption. I am in contact with one of the more reasonable Arbs, or at least one who seems anxious to calm troubled waters, so hopefully a solution is at hand. Thanks again. Giano (talk) 06:41, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, Giano, thanks are due to you. It's great to see a prolific, great writer able to cut through the bull and actually have the principles to stand up for what's right. The abuses perpetuated by kiddies / social inadequates need addressing before this can ever be called an encyclopedia - keep up the good work! Minkythecat (talk) 06:55, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I turn my back for ten minutes, and all hell breaks loose again. Sheesh. You know what occurs to me... just as a thought...? Maybe, just maybe, blocks should be for emergency situations. Utgard Loki (talk) 12:33, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Too late - I think all pretence of following the rules has broken down - our God king has declare Giano a Thomas a Becket and there's more than enough idiots around to rid him of his troublesome priest. Still on the plus side we'll have a martyr for the praising.--Joopercoopers (talk) 13:22, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Utgard, very succinct as always. I have just posted the following on ANI, but i think things are more read here, si I will ost my views here too:
I am not opening a debate with FT2 on the block - it was wrong - end of story. I 've had quite enough of his prevarication and doublespeak. The block was organized and inspired on IRC, rather than in discussion on Wiki, as it should have been. I had already remarked on the the coincidence of 1=2 being constantly at my shoulder, with his clever comments, a couple of days before. My comment to 1=2 was in fact quite good humoured, any fool could see I was clearly not suggesting that he is following me about in Ragusa with a poisoned unbrella. This sort of troublemaking block orchestrated on IRC, will be the last such there. I am now completely resolved to see that pointless chatroom cleaned up or closed. They have had their chance. A couple of weeks ago FT2 informed us there was no problem (remenber he had to block me to prove the point for asking). Well now we know he was either lying or mistaken, frankly it matters not which, in short he has have blown his chance. We can all see now there is a problem, and if he and the Arbs won't tackle it, then I will. That also includes the foul mouthed discussion which took place there after the block. I have logs from three separate sources and continents all identical. If the Arbs refuse to ban editors from IRC who abuse the chat room, then that chatroom must be closed for the good of the project. I will not be shut up by Arbcom members such as we have, trying to hide problems. Giano (talk) 12:30, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
They can't prevent admins from running their own, private IRC if they want to, it just needs to be taken completely off wiki, like SlimVirgin's and JzG's cyberstalking and investigations email lists. If the admin IRC can't be policed properly, as Giano points out, then the admin IRC page needs to be deleted and the IRC needs to be run privately, off-wiki. And any admin decisions made there, of course, will still be subject to valid, intense recrimination on-wiki. Cla68 (talk) 19:47, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Intense recrimination cannot be made when IRC is used to discuss "evidence" privately. After all, it's easy enough for people to get their stories straight privately. Of course, if there was a Wikipedia Review IRC, would be interesting to see some admins views on that... Minkythecat (talk) 19:50, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Admin decisions made, canvassing, complaining about other editors, and lobbying have all been shown to have occurred on the IRC and the "private" (secret) mailing lists. We can't prohibit people from organizing and participating in privately-run IRCs and mailing lists. It's their own business. But, when we find out that the members of those lists have been using those forums for monkey-business, and the Durova incident shows that they have, then we take them to task on it and perhaps even desysop some editors. But, how do we prohibit them from organizing their own private/secret chat rooms or message boards? Cla68 (talk) 19:55, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid that is not going to happen. We have the weakest ever Arbcom in Wikipedia's history, who seeks only to humour and please IRC. The fact their promised, and voted for, review or IRC reform was delegated to the worrying FT2 who decreed "no problems" rather confirms that. Wikipedia has a huge problem, and it "aint" me! Until an Arb, or J Wales, has the guts to stand up and say publicly -"What is happening here is wrong" as some do in private, nothing is going to change. Just make sure you vote Giano in the next election, and hope there are some writing editors left. Giano (talk) 19:56, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I can't believe Ainsworth is still banging on about those mailing lists! They were irrelevant back then and they are probably even more irrelevant now, for all I know, having unsubscribed months ago. Guy (Help!) 22:20, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As you write this, please remember that if you make edits that are personal attacks or assumptions of bad faith, you may be blocked, per the arbcom sanction. — Carl (CBM · talk) 21:56, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If anyone comes to the conclusion that blocking Giano over a userspace essay is best for the project, my already flagging faith in this community will probably hit a record low. Heimstern Läufer(talk)02:47, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Because you care about what people say about you on IRC: a discussion about blocks
Giano II is subject to an editing restriction for one year.. Should Giano make any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith, Giano may be blocked for the duration specified in the enforcement ruling below.
Will, civility blocking promotes incivility and drama. A better plan is to remove or refactor incivil remarks, slowly if necessary (like "slow revert"; would we call this "slow refactor"?). JehochmanTalk02:49, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Tell that to the ArbCom, who imposed this probation. If you'd like to appeal their decision you're welcome to do so. In the meantime Giano should respect the project nd his fellow editors. ·:· Will Beback·:·05:02, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why don't you just ban him, already? It's quite obvious there's enough co-conspirators that can do whatever they please to silence his dissent. One man can only be sniped at so many times by an organized group that can play in the toolbox before he just can't take it anymore. Wikipedia isn't supposed to be some sort of stupid sick game where drama is encouraged from those in charge, but that's what it has become. SashaNein (talk) 04:10, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Giano, again I ask you: Do you have an explanation for why you shouldn't receive a block for what appears to be intentional incivility, and assumption of bad fatih? You seem to have gone out of your way to express yourself offensively. Surely you don't think that doing so is appropriate. ·:· Will Beback·:·06:24, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I just can't get over the impression that the recent set of escapades at this page by some above is nothing but trolling in the purest form of the distressed editor. I was looking for any other explanation and could not find it. I am not supporting everything Giano, although I think his heart is in the right place on most issues, but even with his mistakes I can't make sense of what is happening here.
Just two recent examples. Giano created a placeholder for an essay at his talk. No content yet and CBM plants this. Does this look helpful by any stretch?
Next, ANI thread several hours old seen by hundreds of admins. Seems to have cooled down and suddenly this. Or is it just me?
I am trying hard to find any other reasonable explanation and I can't. Is it possible that this is so simple? I know that "trolling" is a strong word but that I am not alone in seeing this activity as such makes this unpleasant explanation ever more plausible.
Sigh. I doubt it was the ArbCom's intention to sanction that kind of activity. Or was it? No, can't be. But why then the arbs don't react? --Irpen05:51, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This situation is exactly what the Arbcom planned, and just as they planned it. I forecast hundreds of little Admins leaping out of IRC anxious for their moment of fame - and here they are. Well done Arbcom, a brilliant victory, except the sanitised stage managed log above reads more like a fantasy than anything any of us know as an true IRC log. They are in it up up their necks, we know it, and they know it. Giano (talk) 06:04, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest I am not that interested that happen in the heads of other editors and at any rate I would not put it to wiki per WP:BLP and WP:OR. I hope if some lowlifes planned dark plans you will be smart enough not to fall into their trap. There are a lot of work to be done (to me for today it will be some work for my employer first). If you allow me, I will archive all that nonsense Alex Bakharev (talk) 06:21, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You can put those "edits" in any plave you feel most fitting for them Alex. I expect I can probably be banned for archiving these days. Thanks. Giano (talk) 06:23, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've just read most of your essay, "A fool's guide to writing a featured article", which I found highly enlightening and entertaining! An article I'm currently working on, Elaine Paige, has been put up for a peer review by myself, but it hasn't really sparked much interest. I was wondering that if you had some time to spare (I know time is always of the essence here on Wikipedia) could you perhaps briefly skim the article and give some suggestions for improvement? If I'm feeling brave enough, I might even nominate it for FAC, it depends really. If you haven't the time, then no worries. Many thanks. Eagle Owl (talk) 19:29, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Made some comments here for you [75]. It's almost there, as someone else has just said also, just check on those refs to make sure they meet the criteria. Giano (talk) 07:05, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh hell! people will think I write about nothing but palaces, I do seem rather stuck on them of late, better do another boxer to counteract all this culture next - could be quite apt really a quick biff zap pow. Giano (talk) 07:07, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Do a neglected Neapolitan pop star! An Edit Piaf of Sicily or a Madonna of Roma would surely hit the main page. (Deader is better, of course, but "stable information" doesn't seem important at FAC anymore.) Geogre (talk) 10:38, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Giano, I've posted at both FT2's talk page and at the WP:AE thread. I have asked everyone to calm down, and I think one thing that would go a long way towards that would be if you apologised to FT2 for the edit summary you used. Please. For the sake of all our sanities, just apologise, however grudgingly or briefly. Carcharoth (talk) 17:00, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I shall be making a post regarding FT2 in a while. It will be full and very frank, and contain information that I would not in other circumstances be happy to post on Wikipedia. It will not contain an apology. Giano (talk) 18:13, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The AE thread has been closed. I think (and others agree) that this was essentially a continuation of the long discussion about the past block/unblock. There were many questions and comments about that block/unblock. The continued queries about different aspect of the issue blended in with the block discussion kept the discussion going long past the time of an ordinary discussion about a block/unblock.
I hope everyone that asked and answered a question about the block will reflect on whether continuing the discussion was helpful or caused more stress. Less (from everyone) can be more... :) Have a nice night. Take care, FloNight♥♥♥23:13, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps it would have been best if those who cooked up the sanctions against me had though of where they were going to lead before imposing them. I'm afraid FT2's distortions of the truth have now become part of the problem too. I may post further on this in the morning, at the moment I am taking advice on future steps. Giano (talk) 23:19, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I hope, Flo, that those who block and set the conditions for blocks are considering whether they increase or decrease stress, as well. I am not sure that stress reduction is the goal of Wikipedia. Massagers do that better. However, the stresses brought out by discussion of the block and particularly the issues behind it are necessarily stressful to those people adhering to a corrupt and corrupting medium. How much utility to the project would be lost by the abandonment of the sooper sekrit channels? How much disruption would be lost? I see the cost/benefit analysis purely in favor of getting rid of the "some admins, some others, some times, all secret" IRC playground, as I have yet to hear of a single good thing it specifically does for Wikipedia. I don't ask even for a long list -- just one good that it does that is not done better otherwise. Like Diogenes, I hold my lamp and wait. Geogre (talk) 01:08, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for voting in my RfA, which passed with 194 supporting, 9 opposing, and 4 neutral. Your kindness and constructive criticism is very much appreciated. I look forward to using the tools you have granted me to aid the project. I would like to give special thanks to Tim Vickers, Anthony and Acalamari for their nominations. Thank you again, VanTucky
Hello Giano you may remember me from the day a chance remark on your talk page led to me being blocked indefinitely. As you may know, I am appealing my block to the Arbcom. Only one problem: they are ignoring every email and communication I am making with them, despite having invited me to make this appeal in December. If there is any help you or your friends could give, I would be so grateful. Yours, Peter. Peter Damian (talk) 17:26, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No I didn't know, but having done some quick re-search I do now. To be quite honest, no, I don't remember you ever posting here, or anyone ever having been blocked for posting here - how exiting - what on earth did you say? I can't find you in my history either, are you sure you have the right person? I am Giano II - the Devil's representitive on Wikipedia. I see you have been blocked again since posting, well my email works, if no else provides the link or explanation first. Giano (talk) 18:20, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have had a good look into your case today, all I can find are diffs and links which seem to lead to dead ends. I cannot even find any records of your RFAR from December 2007. Which is very odd. However, I have also found one or two things which I personally find disturbing. If you have followed my wikipedia career you will know that while I'm not averse to charging head on into trouble, I usually understand at least the direction and path I am following. In this instance I don't think I'm the right person to battle on your behalf. Bearing in mind the other person concerned in this case, any input from me would be misjudged and misconstrued by others. I also find the subject matter nauseating. As you are forbidden from commenting on Wikipedia, I think you need to find someone who is completely even handed, respected and unafraid of what they may unearth, to represent you. I'm sorry, it cannot be me. Giano (talk) 17:36, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've reverted your addition of this, since it seems to have been added with no reason. There should be either a specific discussion about this on the article's talk page, or there should be a pointer to a more centralised discussion, since I see you have added this message to many such articles without any good reason for it being added given. DDStretch (talk)21:49, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Those with the attention span of a gnat, and inability to read what is in the first four lines of the lead, and those who enjoy seeing high quality images reduced to the size of postage stamps may see the need for a box. Those of a higher intelligence may prefer to read, learn and enjoy a page. Giano (talk) 09:19, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Do you want a truly incivil comment? Because beleive me I can furnish you with one if you want. In the meantime go and talk to the Arbs - whose intention it was that people like you should be popping out of the woodwork every five minutes over every trivial matter. They may have to time to waste, I do not. Giano (talk) 11:21, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Question - is there a different meaning of enfilade besides the one the link leads to? Perhaps something more architectural? This definition just doesn't seem to fit very well in this sentence: "Designed as an enfilade and a ceremonial route to the throne room, the processional route begins with an external horseshoe-shaped staircase which leads from the court of honour to the open gallery known as the Gallery of Hercules." Just seems a little odd to have a combination ceremonial route and firing range, but what do I know about medieval castles? Risker (talk) 05:31, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Solved my own problem by linking to Wiktionary, where there is an architectural definition. On the other hand, Illustration #3 may need some work still. Is it intended to represent the palace as it exists today? If so, D is an existing chapel, not a future one; and C now includes private apartments and the Napoleon Museum. Copy edit has been done, I'll try to identify any wonky reference sources later today. Risker (talk) 08:17, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it is, I will create Enfilade (architecture), trouble is I am pushed today so won't have time to find a ref, can you watch it so that no twit deleted it. Or better still perhaps Wetman will feel the urge to add something. Thanks. Giano (talk) 09:31, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Much better, thanks. I've put it on my watchlist, and it has passed newpage patrol so, barring someone being terribly silly, the page should be fine. Did you have a chance to consider the points for Illustration 3? I'm working on the references now. Risker (talk) 17:21, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh you are kind! I appreciate it, I can never find my own typos etc. Don't worry about the private apartments, I don't think they are mentioned in the page anyway, I think the Napoleon Museum is in the little bottom left hand corner without a letter, so better to ignore than make an error. Giano (talk) 17:46, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I wouldn't have mentioned them if they weren't in the text :P but am happy to just change the chapel over and leave out the apartments and museum. Now I remember why bunched references are such a nuisance, to change one of the series means finding all the rest of them and making sure they're okay. Risker (talk) 18:02, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've swapped over two of the three "Royal Scribe" references to Edwards; the only one left is the quote on Illustration #16. Edwards doesn't really give me anything suitable to replace the caption quote; however, she refers to another book, Monte Carlo and Public Opinion, published in England in 1884, that is bound to have all kinds of scathing quotes in it, as it is a series of essays giving reasons for the casino to be closed. Risker (talk) 18:50, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
All Royal scribe cites have now gone, Wetman has managed to find the source for the far better quote! so all is well that ends well. Giano (talk) 19:00, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Tell me about it. I wrote a "good" article on a contemporary musician based almost entirely on printed sources, because the web-based info was of such poor quality. Risker (talk) 19:14, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Recommended reading: this, the links therefrom, and the contributions list. The last of these shows real intelligence. As well as something like its opposite. Perhaps the latter is understandable, but I've got more pressing things to do with my time than investigate. Maybe he'd better decide if he wants to be (a) an editor, (b) an attention-seeker, or (c) both. If he settles on (a), I'm willing to consider his predicament. -- Hoary (talk) 10:56, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the link. That banned user has no other recourse for becoming again "an editor" than by managing to rouse a little attention for his predicament. The choice you present him with is in other words non-existent. I can appreciate the lack-of-time argument, but not your superior taunting of a user whose situation you have not investigated—no, not even with a superior compliment thrown in. "Call yourself an admin," Hoary? Bishonen | talk11:33, 27 April 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Bishonen, he got my attention, by his turn at Wales's user talk page. I then followed him up to the Postmodernism page. A quick look suggested that his edits there were (their summaries aside) good. I told him so, and also chided him for his edits on Wales's page. I had no idea who he was, and wasn't much interested. He then gave the link to "Wikipedia Review", which I took. I ignored the tedium running through most of that page and concentrated on what was then near the end. It was easy to which writer there he was, and his username sounded familiar. So he'd now got my attention. He then chose to continue rather silly behavior -- a pity, as he seemed able to improve "Postmodernism" further. I haven't investigated his past and wouldn't do so even if he concentrated on cutting gibberish from "Postmodernism": I have to complete something in time for a Wednesday morning deadline. I'm willing to be persuaded to investigate his past, and alleged or actual injustices, some time after that (although I have to show my sister around the big city). ¶ I'm surprised that you would describe what I wrote as "superior taunting" but I shan't object. ¶ To my continuing surprise, yes, I'm an admin. I rarely call myself that. I try to prevent messes, and when they occur, mop them up: you'll know the score. If I'm asked to contribute beyond the normal call of duty, I'll usually listen and sometimes help. If I'm asked by somebody who seems distraught, I'm willing to make allowances. If, wearing my administrator hat, I chide somebody, that person certainly doesn't have to apologize (and indeed is welcome to defend himself); but if he simply continues, I'll probably spend my time elsewhere till he calms down. And if this makes me seem callous, so be it. ¶ Again, this fellow has got my attention. No matter what he does, I wouldn't do anything on his behalf till later this week at the very earliest. But my mind is still open. -- Hoary (talk) 13:08, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Greetings - sometimes silly behaviour works better. I have considerably tidied up the Postmodernism article. Another admin (see my talk page) has suggested I just open up another account and edit from there. I suppose I could. But I would rather do it the orthodox way. It seemed a bit dishonest to sneak in, and leaving the Wales's message seemed the best way. If you look at the more recent edits, they have no silly comments. And no taunting was intended, it was just a way of attracting attention. I must admit I was greatly cheered up to meet with 2 people (Hoary and the other guy) who actually do realise that we are trying to build an encyclopedia here. 86.133.180.53 (talk) 17:49, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have requested an amendment of your civility parole
As a courtesy, I would give you notice I have made a request here to amend the wording of your parole. I do this without any expectation that you are at all interested in such details, or that you would expect it to effect you in how you conduct yourself.
Well I can't see anything there. Not that it matters, the parole was dreamt up by the Arbcom in the hope that I would be so antagonzed by idiots and the IRC chatterers that I would give up and dissapear, and leave them with nice clean hands - well they have dirty hands and I am still here, so the whole thing was rather a waste of time, as this morning's fracas rather proves. I would not waste my time trying to reason with this Arbcom if I were you LHVU, as they don't see things like other people. Giano (talk) 14:50, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I put it in the wrong place - they have moved it (I'll stick the link here when I find it) - but it is an attempt to make it easier to deal with requests to the admin boards to execute blocks per Arbcom Enforcement. LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:55, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, but I shall not be looking, all that will happen will be certain "editors" using is a further opportunity to "slag me off" in a pompous and self-righteous way, when they would be better deployed writing a page.Giano (talk) 16:59, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
to LHVU - while an interesting adaptation, I think the previous irc clarification request is a better solution in this case (get the nutters who have it for G out of the picture), and a broader discussion of a) civility, and b) 'established contributor' v. 'unestablished'. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 04:31, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Giano, well done on starting this one. I have added the Palace of Westminster, with plan and description. Feel free to re-write if you wish, as given your architectural expertise you are better placed. By the way, I note all the shenanigans that regularly take place on Wikipedia and therefore offer you tea and sympathy...
Excuse the state of the tablecloth, but fun comes at a price. (Photo by Monica)
Hello Giano you may remember me from the day a chance remark on your talk page led to me being blocked indefinitely. As you may know, I am appealing my block to the Arbcom. Only one problem: they are ignoring every email and communication I am making with them, despite having invited me to make this appeal in December. If there is any help you or your friends could give, I would be so grateful. Yours, Peter. Peter Damian (talk) 17:26, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No I didn't know, but having done some quick re-search I do now. To be quite honest, no, I don't remember you ever posting here, or anyone ever having been blocked for posting here - how exiting - what on earth did you say? I can't find you in my history either, are you sure you have the right person? I am Giano II - the Devil's representitive on Wikipedia. I see you have been blocked again since posting, well my email works, if no else provides the link or explanation first. Giano (talk) 18:20, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have had a good look into your case today, all I can find are diffs and links which seem to lead to dead ends. I cannot even find any records of your RFAR from December 2007. Which is very odd. However, I have also found one or two things which I personally find disturbing. If you have followed my wikipedia career you will know that while I'm not averse to charging head on into trouble, I usually understand at least the direction and path I am following. In this instance I don't think I'm the right person to battle on your behalf. Bearing in mind the other person concerned in this case, any input from me would be misjudged and misconstrued by others. I also find the subject matter nauseating. As you are forbidden from commenting on Wikipedia, I think you need to find someone who is completely even handed, respected and unafraid of what they may unearth, to represent you. I'm sorry, it cannot be me. Giano (talk) 17:36, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I found this really interesting story about the joys of being on the main page. No dongers so far, or at least if there was one I missed it, but all the rest seems to be coming true. Have a good Monday. Risker (talk) 06:10, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To quote from a certain excellent essay: " Mind you, it is not as bad as it used to be when "the bloke with the big donger" used to appear as regular as clockwork enjoying his own company in a very gymnastic way in the lead every twenty minutes - but it's still a shock and it gets worse." If Giano has any sense, he'll wipe this out and let you find it in the history. Risker (talk) 17:44, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you both. No - very quiet, just some demands for some more footnotes on the talk page, I'll dig some more out tomorrow, no point to day; and so far that is it, it is so boring it has hardly been vandalised at all. Giano (talk) 12:50, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's because they haven't woken up yet in Monacco - still sleeping off last nights brandy and cigars - wait until they're all over dined, it'll be rife. --Joopercoopers (talk) 14:13, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Giano, as you probably know, this Sunday the Easter also arrived to the Eastern Orthodox world. To mark this event and make a small present for you, here is the great piece of one of my favorite Ukrainian painters depicting this event in my homeland as he saw it a little over 100 years ago. Enjoy! --Irpen07:59, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You might find this little outfit to be just what you need for those interesting little tête-à-têtes you're so fond of[78]. I think the colour would suit you. Risker (talk) 22:55, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Have you ever seen an ancient suit of armor up close, in a museum? They're tiny--ancient man was much smaller than modern man. Unless Giano is 5' 1", he may need to strip off part of that armor and use it as beachwear. A steel codpiece as a thong? Lawrence Cohen § t/e23:00, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was taken sightseeing to the Tower of London as a child and remember Henry VIII's suit of armour. It was quite small, but mother was very amused by it's proportionately extremely capacious cod piece with an ingenious hinge and locking pin arrangement. Clearly being the playboy king of england allowed some artistic license in these matters. --Joopercoopers (talk) 08:28, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Do you know? - I read this thread earlier, and just knew someone was going to mention that - trust it to be you JC. Giano (talk) 08:30, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Those terms are fine by me, they should appease the sceptical as they look pretty weasel-proof (I like the idea of including clauses against even trying to wikilawyer them). If he will sign up for that, I think it will be a good result for the project. Only one thing: the subject area might eb slightly wider, perhaps including all sporting articles not related to the Troubles, broadly interpreted. I think he wants to work on Olympic subjects other than just boxing, but I could be wrong about that. Guy (Help!) 09:37, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've added the Bastard pics of the Bastard study in the Bastard house, but the sizing is all to cock. Can you fiddle please Giano? Captions probably need tinkering with as well as I don't know my cornicing from my coping. Cheers Jasper33 (talk) 20:05, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A few months ago I was able to, through lengthy discourses with arbcom-l (ones which especially emphasized their own responsibility, publicly), to arrange for a new approach toward dealing with pro-pedophilia activists (including self-declared ones). The result was highly positive: these were to be banned on sight, and all discussion (including appeals) were to be facilitated in private with the Arbitration Committee. For months and months the new policy worked without any substantive objections from admins, not to mention outright rebellion.
Que in Carnildo a few days ago who went to unblock a recently-banned self-identified account (blocked by Dmcdevit). The account was re-blocked a few days later by an AC member (Morven), although unfortunately with zero consequences or even a warning from our benevolent Committee. Then today, Carnildo maintains that he "would have reacted more forcefully if the user hadn't apparently left the project a month ago", adding that "there's no real point in fighting a battle for someone who isn't here anymore." Which seems to be a declaration of rebellion with the AC and their decision, and a willingness to "fight" it out in the future (including undiscussed unblocks, ones not cleared with the AC).
Therefore, I am going to ask that the Pedophilia RfAr (which infamously desysop'd Carnildo for having blocked both yourself & yours truly indefinitely for "hate speech") to be reopened so his conduct is examined and his sysop flag removed for breach of ethics. Any thoughts? Best, El_C21:49, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Committee is already doing it out of concerns similar to what you have stated. If you want, send a post to the mailing list fully stating your concerns. FloNight♥♥♥22:13, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks El C, my views on the suitability of paedophiles, professed paedophiles and paedophile sympathisers to edit any public project such as this where minors not only edit, but have access to email and talk page messaging facilities is widely known, and remains completely unchanged. It is my view, that all of us have a moral duty of care to those editors we believe to be minors. For the time being I'm happy give the Arbcom an initial opportunity to sort this one out before I dive in. I shall watch with interest. Giano (talk) 22:32, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For sure, Giano; I'll keep you updated on my end. Granted, the controversial, low-support RfA-resysoping of Carnildo (disgracefully, without him even touching on the underlying issues that led to the desysop —and especially seeing how he was nominated by Committee member Uninvited Company) was a significant step backwards for the project on that front. But the new AC policy (or shall we say, directive), which I am proud to have initiated, more than offset that, I find. Now we have Carnildo regressing back (not surprisingly —if anything, I'm surprised it took him over a year into his resysophood and many months since the new AC directive). I, too, am pleased to give the AC the opportunity to deal with the matter privately, especially, considering the positive precedence they recently set as per the new directive. Best, El_C22:55, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Any announcements from ArbCom as the result of this investigation is going to be very interesting - and potentially shake bureaucratship and RfA's foundations to its very core. - Mailer Diablo06:00, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I note your statement here with interest. Are you able to point me to where BHG was warned for using her admin tools to block Vk? I'd be interested to see that. What are you trying to achieve here, to score points over admins you've disagreed with, or to write an encyclopedia? Can you honestly say, hand-on-heart, that allowing Vk to edit again is likely to be a net benefit to the project? Please answer here, I'll watch it. Thanks in advance. --John (talk) 15:51, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[80] perhaps you did not realise FLo Night is an Arb. I have no need to score points, regarding VK if I did not feel he is of net value to the project I would not be wasting my time trying to defend him. If he can be left unhindered and unantagonised he would be of very great use. I have not time for those who are not. Giano (talk) 15:55, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your prompt reply. I have lot of time for you and your contributions, although I often disagree with your methods. I even voted for you last time you ran (as did the editor you are defending, several times as it later emerged). I wish you could stand up for this troubled editor without maligning the good intentions of those like myself and BHG who hold a different position. Best wishes to you, --John (talk) 16:03, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was very grateful for all the suport I received. I just did not realise I had quite so much of it from VK. I think you are confusing pointing out things that need ponting out with maligning. Keeping secret what needs to be in the public domain is seldom malignant in my experience, in fact, quite the reverse. Giano (talk) 16:06, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've seen that you've contributed before to the Mary Seacole article, would you like to become involved again? Rudget (Help?) 17:52, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, I have not realy got the time, I was really just helping ALoan who was trying to get it to FAC standard, and felt he could not see the wood for the trees, as at his request, I did a little de-forrestation. It had become on his very long term projects. Thanks for asking. Giano (talk) 19:36, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not at all, you ought to look at some of the stuff I removed, it was quite a hatchet job, as I recall. You may want to re-ad some of it, or at least find it of use. Giano (talk) 20:27, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Giano. As I wrote in my e-mail, here are a few pics I took yesterday at Quinta da Regaleira. I hope they draw your interest to this most astonishingly remarkable place.
Thanks Husond, that really is Gothic fantasia, we shall have to do some research on that one, I have never seen anything like it, it certainlt deserves a proper page - do you have any further info? Giano (talk) 22:16, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'll e-mail you the estate map. I haven't started looking for references yet, so far I have only a brief description of the place written on a pamphlet I brought from there. I'll be using that as the beginnings of this article's expansion, and I will also be translating information from the IPPAR website. Regards, Húsönd02:28, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Great thanks, just as soon as the Russian house is finished, we will have a good look at it, in the meantime you might want to like at this this, looks like two of a kind - architecturally it is not as rare, as a first glance, as you may think. Regards. Giano (talk) 09:06, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[81] Always great to see excellent contributors turning over a new leaf. Let's hope this is a model for addressing similar situations in the future. Risker (talk) 13:26, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Giano. Would you be interested in Albert Memorial? I've taken it as far as I can (well, maybe a bit more on the history from the nice online history), but the architectural stuff is a bit beyond me. Any advice? Carcharoth (talk) 14:47, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My first ever flat in London was almost opposite the bloody monstrosity, I know what it looks like, it is ingrained in my mind for ever. Giano (talk) 15:18, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, very true I never went underneath it, regarding other monstrosities, I will stick my neck out and say I am not wild about the 19th century cladding and alterations to the Duomo at Firenze. Strangely, and fortunatly for the tourist trade, it always seems to look better in photographs than it does in reality. If you look up at the brickwork above the marble cladding it is quite beautiful - but there you are - odd things happen. Giano (talk) 23:10, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I had a quick look: Florence Cathedral#Façade: "This neo-gothic façade in white, green and red marble forms a harmonious entity with the cathedral, Giotto's bell tower and the Baptistery, but some think it is excessively decorated."Image:Duomo Firenze.jpg - I see what you mean. It doesn't quite work, does it? Oh well, back to Victorian London! Carcharoth (talk) 23:50, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, the poor old Duomo is one of those buildings that has the first impression of being fantastical and wonderful, rather like meeting a painted courtesan, and like meeting a painted courtesan, as one comes know her, one realises all is not as it seems,and there are flaws not juts the features but also the personality. So dreadful is the exterior that while one is still in the throws of rapture the interior is a dissapointment, it is only later one finds its simplicity a relief. San Lorenzo is, in my view, the finest church in Firenze, even the Medici Mausoleum, in all it's vulgar marble glory is open and honest. Giano (talk) 09:00, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Greetings, Giano. I notice that you've done a lot of work on Libro d'Oro, even to supplying a self-made image of a copy. Do you happen to possess, or have access to, a copy of the most recent (22nd) edition? Over the past few months a user named Mctrain (now indef blocked as a sockpuppet of the original Vitus Barbaro proponent, Tiki-two) has been readding a bunch of dubious material to Barbaro family and elsewhere—you may have noticed his activities on various Italian villa articles. Now that he's gone, at least for a while, I thought I'd start trying to clean up some of the material he's introduced. The main source he's cited for the material relating to the Barbaro family and various members thereof is Spreti's Enciclopedia storico-nobiliare italiana, which I can, without too much trouble, get my hands on to check his contributions. But he's cited the Libro d'Oro to introduce another mention of Vitus B., and I can't locate a local copy of that. He's not above playing fast and loose with sources; he likes to cite difficult-to-locate ones, and when he created an article about the supposed Vitus B.'s supposed mother, it took me some effort to track down the sources he cited, only to find that not one of them mentioned the lady or supported any of the information in the article. Anyway, if you can give me any Golden Book help, I'll appreciate it. Deor (talk) 22:21, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I well remember "Prince Vitus of America" from some time ago, I think that User:Gustav von Humpelschmumpel was on the Barbaro track, and may be able to help you. As far as I know the Barbaro died out years ago. Even in the unlikely event that the heir to the Barbaro was alive and kicking in America, as an American citizen he would be exempt from holding any titles under American law - I beleive Americans have to renounce titles on obtaining citizenship - I'm sure someone watching this page will know the answer. I dont have a Libro d'Oro della Nobiltà Italiana with me at the moment, a 23rd edition was published in 2005. I'm sure if you email Il Collegio Araldico, (info@collegio-araldico.it) they will tell you what you want to know, they are usually quite helpful on these matters. Giano (talk) 22:47, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thanks. (I find it hard to keep straight all the stories about Prince Vitus, but I think the most recent version of his activities, propounded by one User:Save venice late last year, had him currently living in Monaco rather than the United States.) Deor (talk) 23:39, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I got there from Bishonen's awards page and just assumed that if it had an award it must be in mainspace. I only read the first two lines of the article and noticed an "unencyclopedic" phrase which I rectified. Then I read a couple more lines and suddenly realized I was reading a parody in user space. Egg on face there I'm afraid :/ Gatoclass (talk) 08:57, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your support at my recent Request for adminship. Good to know you think I’m reliable enough. I hope you find I live up to your expectations. Best, Risker (talk) 16:24, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For all your contributions to featured content, especially the articles related to New Zealand architecture. Thanks for all your work. Shuddetalk13:13, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Although you opposed me in my recent RFA I will still say thanks as from your comments and the other users comments that opposed me I have made a todo list for before my next RFA. I hope I will have resolved all of the issues before then and I hope that you would be able to support me in the future. If you would like to reply to this message or have any more suggestions for me then please message me on my talk page as I will not be checking back here. Thanks again. ·Add§hore·Talk/Cont16:19, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there, I've written this article as an attempt to introduce the articles on DNA, Gene and Genetics in a completely non-technical and approachable way. I was looking for some good editors with no background in science to look this over and advise me on how it could be improved. Would you have time to help with this? All the best Tim Vickers (talk) 16:39, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wherever a regular editor is telling the self-important that they're wrong, Giano will be there. Wherever editors work for months, spending fortunes to get resources, and then have arrogant children with high school diplomas tell them that the pictures have been deleted because tags have changed, Giano will be there. Wherever a guy just tries to get by, making good articles, and the IRC channels begin buzzing with how he needs to be banned forever, Giano will be there. Geogre (talk) 17:55, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why are you doing this? You know that it'll get reverted and you'll be asked to stop. I'd really like you to be free of restrictions as soon as possible but that needs you not to go on disruptive crusades. Sam Blacketer (talk) 14:52, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I always thought that this was too broad...especially the part about assuming bad faith, which is so open to misintepretation that it is bound to be problematic. But one thing I do know is that the majority of arbcom has a lot of respect for your work overall.--MONGO15:04, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, it was always the intention of the above mentioned that I be plagued by irritants from IRCAdmins to such an extent that I stopped editng - which I more or less have since then. Cowardly way of going on, really. Giano (talk) 15:06, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I concur that IRC stinks, but what can we do? I tend to use the preview button before I post a comment since my original comments are full of things that might make some whine that I am not being nice.--MONGO15:14, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I dunno what we can do Arbs/IRC can one trust any of them, is there in fact a difference - let's face it they had no business accepting the case in the first place - it was a cook up between them all from the first moment. I think most people know that. Indeed, have they yet acted on their decision to reform IRC? - No! The only decision they were remotly interested in one was the on to "get " me. Even the other Arbs knew it was a bad move but FloNight, Deskana, UninvitedCompany, Kirill Lokshin, Sam Blacketer, Morven and Jpgordon wanted me out and were determined to pursue that goal. They are liars. The arbcom was deceitful about this case from the very moment it started Giano (talk) 15:22, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Though I am but a peon, you have my support as always. I have long believed that those who are emotionally charged such as you and I are at times, should be accepted as being sometimes prone to making bold/strongly worded/passionate comments at times. I was always hoping that the arbitrators, who are probably less likely to respond passionately to various things, would understand that not everyone is as calm or as composed as they are. I think I should consider myself lucky that I have not had a civility restriction placed on me...but what many might refer to as my incivility, is actually just me being earnest and frank.--MONGO16:10, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I see Giano and Cla68 as definitely two different editors with two different agendas. Prior arbcom cases involving Giano do not show any evidence that he is vendetta driven or has been engaged in hounding, baiting and wikistalking other ediotrs for protracted periods of time.--MONGO03:52, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I know little about Cla68's case beyond what very respected editors are emailing me from both sides. The one thing I know for sure is that I don't trust the arbcom to fairly adjudicate it - so I will loook into it. Giano (talk) 18:54, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't recognize the ridiculous civility restriction, it was dreamt up by the devious for application by the chattering stupid. Anyway those particular Arbs are not cool and composed, they are simply devious, or perhaps they just wanted to please Fred Bauder - who knows. Whatever, sadly, the other Arbs are too weak to rein them in; but at least 1=2 was firmly ignored on IRC this afternoon, so there are some changes for the better - at least some people are learning from their mistakes. I just hope those same Arbs will not be allowed to behave in similar dishonest vein on another current arbitration case. At least the community is starting to see through them, albeit very slowly. Giano (talk) 16:39, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Without any comment on the decision itself (since I have never been totally convinced either way), it is not right that you edit this page. Firstly, your conflict of interest (and I do not refer to the policy by that name, which is irrelevant here) is obvious: even if it were to be removed as a sanction by community or committee, it would not be your role to mark that removal. Secondly, the fact of the committee's having made the resolution (which is what that page marks) is beyond question and does not rely upon its being accepted. I don't quite know why you are making the edits: is it because you think it makes an effective change or because it winds up members of the committee? Sam Korn(smoddy)17:37, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My enemies don't need an opening they need firing! Most intelligent editors now completely dismiss "the committee" - or at least the "Gang of 7." They are regarded as people not to be trusted or admired. In short, the 7 should be sent packing. It is not only that the decision was plain wrong, the case should never have been accepted in he first place, whether it was the "Gang of 7's" agenda to be rid of me, or just plain toadying to Fred Bauder, perhaps they even thought it would stop me telling the truth about them! Whatever, I neither know nor care. However, most people accept it was one of the those reasons. So if the committee are too cowardly, and inept, to do anything about it, then others must - that is why I edited those pages. Why should we have to look at evidence of these incompetents' spite and malevolence. So untrustworthy are they, I would not want to see them judging a singing canary.
We see this so called arbitration committee making mistake after mistake and no one lifts a finger about it. They strut about receiving just about enough support from the few remaining fools and henchmen on IRC to remain in power - while most of the serious editors just ring their hands in despair or simply disappear. It is like watching the antics of a deluded self serving third world junta in the final days before an implosion. The "Gang of 7" wanted rid of me, and they may get their wish. Thanks to their efforts, I no longer see the point of editing, but I won't be going quietly. Wikipedia deserves and needs better than these sad, but vicious apologies for Arbs. How many more have to be driven off just to protect their cosy little nests and egos. They don't need me editing their decisions they need firing! Giano (talk) 18:45, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with the first part of your statement. I think that those who would like you gone will be forced to stoop to baiting you, if you don't do it for them. The project is amazingly tolerant of poor behavior (see the cla/sv/fm arb case for acres of text on admin and other poor behavior). --Rocksanddirt (talk) 21:41, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I see from the above section that things are heating up again round here. Should I go and upload some pictures I have of French chateaux, or should I go read about the latest developments? Sorry if this strikes the wrong tone, but coming back from a holiday and seeing the same old disputes going on is rather tiresome. Maybe Arbcom should be limited to behavioural disputes that affect article content, rather than disputes that are just interpersonal disputes and don't affect articles? I'm as guilty as many of typing far too much in project space and project talk pages and noticeboards, but the old saw about "writing an encyclopedia" is as true now as it was then. Carcharoth (talk) 18:21, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It may have escaped your notice, the so call bunch of imcompetents known as the Arbcom are not interested in content, I doubt they even know it exists! Giano (talk) 18:42, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've managed to avoid even looking at, let alone editing, in the Wikipedia namespace since I got back. <checks> Oops. I see I edited a WP:FAC and a WP:TFD. Will have to WP:TROUT myself. Seriously, though, both the chateaux I visited had spiral staircases. The Francis I spiral staircase at the Château de Blois, and the even more famous double helix staircase at the Château de Chambord. I distinctly remember reading something someone wrote on Wikipedia about spiral staircases. Was that you? Carcharoth (talk) 19:49, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it was me, but what the fuck does that matter? i'm just the uncivil bastard who disrupts the place, while the Arbcom lies its head off. Giano (talk) 20:06, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was trying to find the article where you wrote something on spiral staircases. I found imperial staircase and Stairway#Spiral and helical stairs, but the former is not the right article, and the latter is not yours. Can you remember the article I am thinking of? About Arbcom, I've been away for a bit. Is there something simple to point to that I am missing? Something that happened in the past week? I know things were never really satisfactorily concluded, but sometimes you have to be realistic and consider that you might not get what you want from all this. You and others know that you are not what still others make you out to be, and surely that is the important thing? Carcharoth (talk) 22:29, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I can't remember either, I know the one you mean, there is something here [82], there may have been some more on Renaissance architecture, but that has changed a lot since I was last there. I can't rmember. On the Arbcom thing - No, nothing n the last week - it's just I don't want to live with their lies and deceit - they are a bunch of bastards - that is their problem not mine. Giano (talk) 22:43, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A spiral staircase can take you up as well as down. Let's see some good edits, whenever you're ready to make them. -- Hoary (talk) 10:31, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]Neorenaissance#Features of the Neo-Renaissance is what I was thinking of, thanks. I thought that the picture there was of the Henri II staircase by the chapel (built later), but I see it is in fact the Francis I staircase by his royal apartments on the other side of the Chambord chateau. By the way, on a complete aside, Grand Staircase is a geological feature. Is there enough at Grand Staircase of the Titanic and Grand Staircase (White House) to warrant a separate article about grand staircases? Is it a distinct architectural term, different from imperial staircase? Anyway, this guidebook I have is talking about how the architectural style varies around this Henri II (or chapel) staircase from early Renaissance pediments to classical pediments on the final bits from 1685. I had to look up dormer (they seem to be talking about the windows on the wings either side, rather than the staircase), but I see what they mean. Is a tourist guide book a reliable source for this kind of thing? Carcharoth (talk) 06:57, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, because it will always tell you "their's is best" when often there are better examples elsewhere. Grand staircase, it just a meaningless grandiose term from the French - meaning the great, largest or principal staircase in a building. The term is not worthy of a page, as any form of staircasdee could be the "grand staircase" and frequently is.Giano (talk) 10:35, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thanks. I'll stick to clear factual stuff and cross-check with other sources. I'll drop back here when the pictures are up, just to let you know so you can look at them and critique my efforts if you want. Carcharoth (talk) 11:14, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
About your recent frustrations, may I recommend either a sustained period of content editing or a proper break? I find a complete break for a week or two really does help, and so does content editing. I wouldn't worry too much about your reputation or that of arbcom. Well, when I say that, I mean that your reputation is the only one you can really affect, and I wouldn't worry about those people who are too inflexible to change their minds. Better to let your (editing) actions speak louder than words for those who are prepared to change their minds, and to let arbcom do their work - no-one can agree with all their actions and decisions, but specific (and calm) criticisms are better than generalised and hurtful comments. It is clear by now to anyone watching that you disagree with their decision in your case, but at some point you have to let things go. That's my advice, anyway. Talk to it about people off-wiki as well, including arbitrators as well if you are still prepared to talk to them - I think you will find some of them (including some of those that you are maligning) are more approachable off-wiki than on-wiki (it is understandable that many arbitrators are more formal on-wiki, and some are just, to be frank, overworked or no longer interested, from what I can see). Hope that helps for what it is worth. Carcharoth (talk) 06:57, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thatcher, how do you mean "dispute it elsewhere"? Where would that be? As Ryan points out, it's a closed case. Seriously, where are you advising Giano to dispute it? Mmm? Bishonen | talk19:05, 26 May 2008 (UTC).[reply]
If the argument is that the AC should be ignored, then anywhere that isn't an AC page would be more appropriate. If a statement that a remedy is to be ignored must be made, I would suggest a user page as the appropriate location. Sam Korn(smoddy)19:47, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Like here? Giano removed that with this edit. Should he really have to put it back? Maybe I should go and catch up with what has been happening, or is this just more of the same? Carcharoth (talk) 19:52, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
He doesn't have to do anything. I'm merely suggesting that that would probably be the place to put it, if you really do have to make this kind of protest. I personally would not put it in that big box because I think coloured boxes of this sort are ugly, but that's beside the point.
Thank you. No, Giano doesn't have to do anything, and nothing he does is of interest to the AC; hence presumably his frustration. If, against appearances (with your colored boxes), you're interested (seriously) in any (serious) discussion I might offer, here is my shot at it. It's in fact on a userpage (this one). I bet that was widely read ! <sarcasm>. Only one arbitrator (Paul) has even spoken to me (in private e-mail) after the case. After Kirill called me a "problem user" during it. I'd be ashamed if that indifference was mine. I expect it's such selective deafness that is provoking Giano into editing arbitration pages the way he is. It seems to be the only way to stop our top brass in the middle of a yawn. It does not become you to take the attitude you do, Smoddy. Bishonen | talk23:02, 26 May 2008 (UTC).[reply]
I am not going to issue a further block but your existing one should be considered as concurrent for the same duration for this. Stifle (talk) 16:03, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Complete rubbish! The liars on the arbcom accepted a case they had no business accepting, they intended it purely to try and "get me", and they failed. Their position is untenable, they are a walking disgrace to the project. Morally they are no better than Daniel Brandt! - at least one knows what side he is on! So take your block and stick it where the sun don't shine!God what a project! The lying bastards can't even do their own dirty work! Giano (talk) 16:22, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, come on... expressing an opinion on a talk page that he doesn't like a process (without naming anyone) is a blocking offense? I'm no great fan of Giano, but aren't admins - let alone arbs - supposed to be more thick skinned than this? I've had worse abuse today alone and haven't felt the need to block anyone. Have any of the Arbs actually taken offense at any of this? — iridescent16:57, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Crikey, Giano - just because they're all out to get you, it doesn't mean you're not paranoid! Take a break from it all; all the best, Johnbod (talk) 17:07, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think Stifle was sent by anyone. I suspect Thatcher, Ryan and Sam Korn realised that the situation had calmed down and that blocks wouldn't help. Stifle is perfectly capable of assessing the situation on his own. Carcharoth (talk) 17:09, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh dear. I thought that it was a bit strange that no-one had blocked Giano for those edits. In some ways, I suppose Thatcher, Ryan Postlewaithe and Sam Korn not saying anything at the time might mean something, but maybe they were just trying not to respond themselves, while still not standing in the way of anyone else who might decide to block. Stifle, I have one question - are you trying to show that the sanction is unworkable (as in that people can come along later and block even if the people initially involved don't seem that bothered - Ryan and Thatcher used page protection, and Sam didn't seem to object to the language being used), or are you trying to show that short blocks create less drama? OK, that was two questions. The block probably expired while I was writing this... Carcharoth (talk) 17:09, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Carch, you are rather missing the point, the sanction is there to allow me to be blocked the second I ever start posting the truth - that is how it works and why the whole daft case was cooked up and accepted. The problem is everyone now knows that is how it works, so each time I am blocked the Arbcom appears more ridiculous than the last - everyone except the Arbcom can see that - which rather proves my point. If they weren't so devious one would pity them. Like some third world Junta. Probably planning to have me bumped off as we speak - buried in concrete or something. Giano (talk) 17:13, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We have an article on that, don't we? Cement shoes. Seriously, it was a short block. Just ignore it and concentrate on specific actionable criticisms. Some of your criticisms seem wide of the mark, and that doesn't help the genuine ones. I'm off now for an hour or so. Carcharoth (talk) 17:26, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
well I'm off out for dinner now - have a plesant evening all of you - don't get carried away and let the Arbs inspire you to write a page or anything equally daft will you? Giano (talk) 17:38, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
While I support you in general, Giano, I think altering the decision pages of completed ArbCom cases is not a reasonable thing for you to do. There are some ArbCom decisions that I myself think are ridiculous, but I don't go around trying to change history by altering the pages announcing them. *Dan T.* (talk) 22:48, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Turns out that Artichoke2020 had in mind to start his own personal list of potential FAR candidates, and was starting from the Arts&Architecture section, so your next potential FARs were first, but not alone; he's now asked to have his list speedy deleted. Perhaps someone got him to stop by pointing him to Sandy's existing list of articles that will go to FAR? Eventually those articles will either have to be re-referenced or de-featured, but I'd follow Sandy's expectations rather than this editor's. She's just heading out on holidays or I'd ask her what her usual practices are, but I think it's adding one or two articles a week to FAR. Risker (talk) 20:31, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Swamp him in butter and eat him! failng that I am sure he is writing FAs 2/dozen and Wikipedia will be the richer for it. Giano (talk) 20:33, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, but Arts are only ever eaten at lunch, does one want hard liquor then? - Or do other races eat them later in the day? Rather like drinking a cappuccinno in the afternoon. Giano (talk) 20:46, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
They are often served as an appetizer or hors d'oeuvres over here, although I am hard-pressed to say that we are "another race" - and you're darn right I want hard liquor, or at least some suitably buzz-inducing cocktail, with the hors d'oeuvres. And a popular summer afternoon beverage here is what is called the "ice cap" which is capuccino and crushed ice whipped into a frothy, highly caffeinated confection that will prevent us from taking naps at our desks. We are a very uncultured people over here. Risker (talk) 21:53, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Talking of vegetables, I discovered that the Loire Valley is famous for asparagus. The vegetable of kings apparantly, thanks to the Sun King himself, who made it a royal dish. Sadly, Wikipedia doesn't yet seem to have cottoned on to this. Actually, no, I will have to eat my esparge shoots, as our article Argenteuil does mention the connection, though Sologne does not (lots of asparagus grown in the sandy soils there). And yes, we do have User:Asparagus. We also have the original User:Artichoke (the account was created but has not been used yet), and doubtless as many other editorial culinary delights as people are willing to keep typing in... Carcharoth (talk) 21:58, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I thoight it was first eaten bu the British who called it sparrow grass - supposed to be an aphrodisiac - can't say I have ever noticed it myslelf, but then so are oysters and champagne one upsets my stomach and the other sends me to sleep with flatulence - so both fail. Giano (talk) 22:01, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, but I do know a very good aphrodisiac that really works - amazingly well in fact - lasts for 8 hours, and need to be eaten two hours before required. Answers by email, all major credit cards accepted. Giano (talk) 22:19, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh for pity's sake, I wasn't thinking of the aphrodisiac aspect, I was just trying to think of something you could eat without digestive problems. Obviously I have spent far too much of my life feeding finicky eaters. Risker (talk) 22:22, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Which is why I am about to make some nice casarecce bolognese. Finally off-call and can enjoy a nice glass of wine with it. Risker (talk) 22:33, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speak for yourself. I plan to have an enjoyable evening copy editing and trying to straighten out my SUL problem, and for that I need the energy from the pasta carbs. You, on the other hand, are off to bed, of course the idea of a plate of casarecce bolognese is too onerous to be considered. Although the glass of wine might be a propos. Risker (talk) 23:51, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sighs at all the food talk, eyes his tiny diet container of "Wedged Potatoes with Sliced Beef Steak".. looks around at work (where I couldn't drink, even if I wanted to)... *grumbles* :) SirFozzie (talk) 04:54, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Aww, poor SirFozzie. If it helps, my dinner was funny-shaped pasta (that has a cool name but was mainly purchased because it was on sale) in meat sauce, and the wine was the dregs of a bottle I opened on the weekend and figured I'd better finish before it turned to vinegar. I can pass you my top-secret, nearly calorie-free "flavour enhancer" recipe to spice up those diet meals if you'd like - doesn't involve asparagus, artichokes, oysters, or any of the other delicacies or beverages mentioned above. ;-) --Risker (talk) 15:11, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Giano. I've just read through Belton House and wanted to say what a great job you've done! However (not to dampen the mood), I was wondering if you'd be able to re-upload the pictures in anything other than .gif files, as they seem to have lost some of their colour? Regards, Craigy (talk) 05:03, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am aiming to nominate this article for GA and to be a FA on 21 June. If you can suggest any improvements to the article please let me know.--Vintagekits (talk) 12:38, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Giano, how are the duties of being a great and famous Wikipedian treating you? I just finished a featured article project this evening and was wondering if you wanted to make a push on the Winter Palace. I was tinkering away a bit on it tonight. --JayHenry (talk) 03:00, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Have a go by all means, that it is quite an important section as it is the conclusion, and I have some ideas for where it is going, but am waiting for a new book from Amazon to be delivered, also I am just a little busy elsewhere in real life at the moment, the sub-pages for the rooms etc need developing too, it is truly a monumantal project. Regards. Giano (talk) 06:11, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Giano. Are you still locking horns with Arbcom? If ya don't wanna respond, that's cool (just delete my question, no big deal). GoodDay (talk) 18:32, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting question, I wonder why you ask it? The simple answer is, I don't know. I am not here much these days. I hope, one day, to finish Winter Pal, that's about it. Edits such as this, which are of such monumental ignorance [90]; have rather confirmed my belief that the project is now run by Admins of such little value and foresight that there is little hope for it - hopefully, I am wrong. Yes, I am still of the opinion that the present Arbcom, as a body, are directionless. They are as headless ants (is that mixing metaphors?). I suppose the answer to your question is, head banging has never been one of my favourite pursuits - they don't have the horns to lock with mine. Giano (talk) 20:48, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ciao, ti avviso che l'articolo Holkham Hall è stato proposto per la rimozione dalla vetrina. Sei pregato di partecipare alla discussione o di migliorare la voce - anche dato che io voglio tradurla in italiano. Felice di conoscere un'altra persona della mia nazionalità =) Mojskaall you want07:23, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So I see. I wish I could say the same. Please speak English here, it is extremely vulgar to speak in a language in order to exclude others. Giano (talk) 19:49, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Gino,
I am new at this so sorry in advance for any mistakes! Regarding your comments on the Saunders Goode Mansion in Town Creek Alabama...I agree with the majority of them. However, I feel that you should be aware that I have seen the house many times in person and done extensive research on the history of it and...Yes...It has been altered drastically. Many things which are now prominent to the house were not even features in the original construction. Sad that such a magnificent home is now left to run down and decay! Not to mention the fact that it was altered this way in the first place. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.214.214.15 (talk • contribs) 15:02, 13 June 2008
Hi. I'm not Giano (note the extra a), but I've moved your comment to the bottom of the page, and added a signature for you... it's convention to put comments at the bottom of talk pages, and to sign your comments with ~~~~ ... that will expand into a datestamped signature. Unfortunately, it may not be easy to get a response on this as you did not point to what article you were referring to. Do you mean Town Creek? Giano appears not to have edited it. There does not seem to be an article on a mansion named Saunders Goode. Perhaps you could clarify what you meant.? ++Lar: t/c23:40, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I amended the "Palladian" assertion to read "It is an example of the kind of vernacular classicism that a talented amateur with access to some architectural books could produce for a local builder to follow." this seems more accurate. --Wetman (talk) 08:24, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Wetman. It's always sad to see an old house in such a state of dereliction, whatever its architectural value. If you click on the image and look at it properly it is in a sad state of repair - pity. I am still stupid enough to think buildings have souls, well some, so I hate seeing them in disrepair - is there not an "Historic Buildings of Alabama Society" lots of botoxed ladies to give charity balls to save it? Giano (talk) 19:55, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
When the wood sections are that badly in need of paint, there's rot in them. The house may be in an undesirable section: Lawrence County, Alabama, sad to relate, is a "dry" county. Parched throats, rising damp. Alabama!--Wetman (talk) 23:13, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
!!!You mean dry as in.... I can hardly bring myself to say it..no vino? I did not know such places still existed. Now that is very sad, I suppose then, that means no charity balls to save the architecture - well no one is going to pay a fortune to stand and talk to a botox-face without a drink in their hand, are they? Giano (talk) 23:37, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
C'mon though, this is a joke isn't? There is nowhere now in the civilized world, where if one one wants to hit the gin at 6, it is forbidden. St Alphonse Gabriel of Chicago spent his life securing the right for his countrymen to enjoy a martini, has this been throw back in his Italian face? Surely if this were true, the American tourist authority would advertise it broadly. Any way what sort of person would want to spend their life without a drink? Giano (talk) 18:50, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I wish it were so, but there are in fact counties in the US where the purchase, and posession of alcohol is prohibited. Generally they are in southern states, and generally very rural areas, and generally there is a neighboring county with a nice large roadhouse right on the county line. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 19:25, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well I just feel very sory for them, can you imagine not being able to legaly put gin into the vermouth? Odd race the Americans - what on earth do they drink when they have colds and the flu? I wonder if property prices are cheaper there? Giano (talk) 21:27, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I should imagine they are all very unhappy, half the fun of a bad cold is being able to drink malt whisky with hot water at 11 in the morning, and imagine a winter Sunday with no Bloody Mary before lunch, or a summer Sunday with no Widow Clickit before lunch _ I wonder what they do with themselves. Are they the sort of American who have five wives and drive about in those little horse drawn buggies, with hundreds of children in the back? Giano (talk) 21:43, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it's certain sects of the Mormons (and a few other cults) that have the five wives, and the Mennonites and Amish who have the horse-drawn buggies, but the former tend to be west of the Mississippi and the latter two north of the Mason-Dixon line. Unfortunately the only terms I can come up with to describe this particular cultural group would probably have me labeled racist or something worse. And I've always preferred gin and lemon hot toddies for cold, the citrus clears the sinuses more effectively. Risker (talk) 22:14, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Risker, though use rum. The area of the country I am from (California) has the distinction that most towns had as the first permenant structure a Saloon, and the second one a Brothel. So I understand your confusion about the parts of the country where the masses are denied basic human dignity. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 22:40, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And does edit! I've just learned that as a museum, Sir John Soane's Museum is of low importance. I'd never have realized that, if it hadn't been for Wikipedia. I'll toss my various books about Soane's works into the trash over the weekend. Thank the gods for Wikiprojects; they do such a good job of standardizing articles! -- Hoary (talk) 15:05, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, I have on occasions had my own experiences in this department [91]. After all, Florence is just a little run down lil ol' provincial hillbilly town in Tuscanland. Nothing of importance there. Giano (talk) 18:07, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, no, too dangerous! and don't be uncivil to me you bastard, and don't blaspheme the Lord! I'm not sure if this one is "unknown" or just of "unknown importance" probably unknown - once you've seen one Madonna, you have seen the lot. As a student, I worked a summer as a guide there, and was paid a fortune to take a particularly well known family on an individual tour - I thought they seemed a little board, then the little heir to this mercantile empire said "we jus' wanna see the nood on the clamshell." It seems he is now editing here and tagging pages. AGiano (talk) 18:58, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nude on a clamshell? <quizzical frown> Oh, hang on, you mean The Birth of Venus (Botticelli), right? You know, I can't really imagine "Giano" as a tour guide in a museum, though come to think of it, maybe I can start to visualise it if I get the right atmosphere and audience. Hmm. Wikiversity has already been started. Wikimuseum doesn't have quite the same ring to it, but you never know. Or Wikitourguides or something? Carcharoth (talk) 12:21, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Giano. I've started to expand this a couple of days ago. I'm really enjoying it and I'm glad I found a lot of online material for it. Feel free to join in anytime you feel thrilled for it. :-) Best regards, Húsönd16:25, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Don't like blood marys at all, either in liquid or regal form. Baby guniness, malt, or gin and tonic are more my bag. No idea what crown heads are, but there you go. Ceoilsláinte22:25, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK: First of all don't name drop, if Kings and Queens stayed there say who and when. "throughout the centuries" is naff (there have only been 2 centuries anyway) Mary II died before both house and painting were created, is is unlikely to have rested her crowned head there. The story actually relates to Mary wife of George V, and the most likely reason the painting was put in the attic was not because it may offend her, but they wanted it out of her sight because she was likely to nick it! Hostesses dreaded her descending to stay because she used to say "my eyes are caressing that object" over and over until good manners forced then to give it to her, by which time she normally had it off the wall, and half way back to London, anyway. Giano (talk) 22:33, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Giano. I have reverted a recent comment on yours because it "outs" another editor who chose to change accounts for a justifiable reason. Please don't do that. Feel free to reinstate the comment without that particular piece of information if you would like. Rockpocket16:56, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh Kittybrewster here [92] that was just an inspired guess, he was calling himself the milkman the other day, one never know where one is with that duplicitious crew, and don't tell me what to do!Giano (talk) 18:51, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have re-reverted. Consider this an official warning that if you do that again you may be blocked until you agree to stop outing editors. I am not messing around, Giano. You may think you are being clever, but you are not in possession of all the facts. Please stop it. Rockpocket18:59, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How can I out without a checkuser, any fool can see - you want a fight you can have one, but i doubt it will get Lauder back! This gang use multiple accounts to argue their own ends all the time! Giano (talk) 19:02, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to me that when things get too boring and drama-less we can always count that if 1=2 is not around, Rockpocket would be happy to replace him to inflame things by blowing up every issue related to Giano through escalating provocations, warnings and block threats. Why can't these two just leave it to others to patrol Giano escapes me. --Irpen19:12, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Everyone loves blocks of established editors without consensus to do so. Maybe there will be a desysoping this time around. Still, I doubt it. HiDrNick! 19:21, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, It would be too much to ask Giano to quit agitating whenever the fancy takes him. Perhaps, instead of blaming me, you might ask Giano why he can't leave it to others to patrol Lauder et al?
Anyway. Giano, as everyone can now see have blocked you indefinitely. The moment you agree to stop naming editors who have the right to anonymous editing, I will unblock (or any other admin can too). Just to let you know, feel free to respond with as much outrage you can muster and try and turn this into another Arb/admin-bashing brouhaha if you want, but I ain't buying it. Its simple: stop naming editors who have a good reason to edit anonymously, and you get unblocked. Rockpocket19:22, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No way, unblocking is enough to "put it right". Rockpocket has been a hassle long enough with misuse of admin tools. With an abuse so obvious, do we still need an arbcom to desysop? --Irpen19:29, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, unless rocket goes on a blocking spree of all giano's non admin friends and admirers such that it becomes an 'emergency', it will take a full hearing. And therefore very unlikely. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 19:32, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Am I bothered? It seems I am supposed to be psychic, and some odd deal has been cooked up to allow Kittybrewster to edit as someone else, but seeing as this crew do this all the time without official sanction, I fail to see what has changed. Considering, I made the edit at least 48 hours ago without a problem, I wonder what has changed so suddenly? Perhaps Sussexman has permission to edit here also with a different name. All very curious! Perhaps Rockpocket would like to enlighten us as to what exactly is going on. Giano (talk) 19:25, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Giano, what is going on? Random snarkyness gets an indef block? why am I still here then? I join Ryan in asking you to undo the block. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 19:27, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Concur with Ryan. All I am seeing is a bunch of usernames mentioned in Giano's post, all of them known Wikipedia editors, at least two of them being known sockpuppeters. Not quite sure where this came from, Rockpocket...three days after the fact, as well. Risker (talk) 19:28, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh I think Rockpocket has been seduced and beguiled by what is laughingly referred to as the noveau monde! It will transpire to be a huge mistake for him. He needs to appreciate a fine sherry and leave the cheap champagne alone. Giano (talk) 19:32, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rudget, I respectfully request that you do not unblock, and I suspect that Giano II will agree: Rockpocket has given himself more than enough rope here, and we're all curious to see what he's going to do with it. HiDrNick! 19:42, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not sufficient. Identifying one account as a "sockpuppet" of another account is not by any stretch "outing" an editor, as the Wikipedism has it. Since User:Rockpocket is perfectly aware that "outing" an editor specifically means identifying an editor's actual real-life name, "outing" in this case is a misuse of the vocabulary, perhaps a conscious one. Surely this was not an intentional effort to intensify a toxic atmosphere. One would expect an admission of error here on the part of an editor with a sense of honesty. --Wetman (talk) 19:39, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Wetman, something very odd is going on here, very odd indeed. In the moments since Rockpocket instigated this storm, I have had an email informing me that User: Kittybrewster "has permission to edit anonymously" who has given this permission - and why? Why is this "Berks/Kittybrewster" allowed with "permission" to argue for Sussexman's return? I think we should be told! Giano (talk) 19:43, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am not going to edit war with you, but please do not call my removal of your comment "trolling". Assume good faith and realize I did it to protect the privacy of other Wikipedians. The last thing I want is to inflame the situation, and I resent your constant implications that I am every time I have a differing opinion than you. 1 != 220:02, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
1=2. What "privacy" is involved here, may I ask. A user starts editing from a new account doing everything he did with an old account. The new name just screams the old one. Who is violating anyone's privacy. Please no straw men. --Irpen20:14, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not going to bring up the whole kerfluffle regarding the accounts you linked. I'm just going to ask you NOT to add the section again to CR's talk page. You've been asked by the talk page owner not to add that statement again. Please respect their wishes THIS matter as a favor to me, ok? If you want to discuss the other side of this, you have my email, right? SirFozzie (talk) 21:02, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keeping cool is always a good idea. However, I don't understand why a bunch of users who shared IP addresses (Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Sussexman) are being treated with kid gloves and why pointing out the quacking duck in the room is suddenly a grave offense in this one instance. I will be asking some questions. Thatcher21:24, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thatcher: I'm not responding to that above, and I've taken great pains to endorse an unblock on the blocking admins page and the ANI discussion. I'm just requesting that Giano not re add the section on another talk page who has requested that Giano not re-add the statement. The whole situation is out anyway, so re-adding the statement on CR's talk page would be only out of sheer bloody-mindedness. SirFozzie (talk) 21:30, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Giano, since you have gone and done it again (as I said above, this can only be considered sheer bloody-mindedness) I have applied a short preventative block of 3 hours to you. Come on man, THINK, climb down from here, you're in the right on the situation as a whole (look at ANI!), you're throwing it away over an issue that you've already WON on! SirFozzie (talk) 21:42, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You are some very worried men [93]. You have cooked up some deal, are the Arbcom in on this? I regret nothing. I have some impertinent message from Rockpocket posted on my page, when he gets worried because I am cross, he sends me an email, expaining "You may not be aware". You had better start practicing some very good answers! Giano (talk) 21:45, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Come on, Giano, use your head. You and I have talked about the whole thing before. Do you REALLY, TRULY in the bottom of your heart think I'm part of some conspiracy here? Do you think I would say the things I've said above if I didn't think you were truly RIGHT in this? Come on man, you're brighter then I am. You're taking a win and turning it into a defeat. Stop the DE, and move on! SirFozzie (talk) 21:48, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I dunno Fozzie, but it's not looking too good is it? Very worrying, very worrying indeed, but at least everyone knows I won't give up on this until; the last piece of truth has been dragged kicking and screaming out into the open, I hear quite a few screams already. You can block me as much as you like, I will just go and shout elsewhere, is that what is good for Wikipedia? Whatever deals have been struck with Kitybrewster, his rights to anonymously "edit in peace" is null and void by his involvement in the campaign to unblock Sussexman, thereby outing himself. If you can't see that Fozzie, then you are in on this too. Giano (talk) 21:56, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Giano, I'm going to copy what I said in the ANI discussion.
1=2, you're not on the right track here. Kittybrewster decided to make another account due to what he considered a threatening atmosphere on WP due to past history (actually, considering the amount that has gone under the bridge, I think that word should be all caps and bolded, like HISTORY). Now, that would have been fine, except the new account did all the same things that KB did, and showed a remarkable amount of prior knowledge of the people, personalities and issues of the prior history. To be quite frank, to the extent that any "outing" occured, KB/Berks did it to himself. You're allowed to call the Elephant in the Room an elephant. Endorse the unblock.
That part, you are FULLY in the right on. But after CR asked you to not post on his talk page any more? After you were already at 3 Reverts on CR's talk page? Giano, listen to me here.. you WERE being disruptive. Look at what I said above. Look at the fact that even folks like Ryan agree with the block for DISRUPTION, not for outing (and it's only 3 hours.. if I had waited a few more seconds, you would've been blocked for 24!). I truly AM on your side in all of this. Just don't post that part on CR's page any more.. it's counterproductive, man. SirFozzie (talk) 22:01, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Cut the crap! What has been agreed, by whom and why. How is it I am blocked for outing a sock arguing for the re-instatement of Sussexman. I want Rockpocket's tools and then an explanation. I am only just starting on this. Giano (talk) 22:05, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think that we all agree the first block was bad - I don't think you were in any way outing an editor, you were disclosing an alternate account of someone that has had problems on their main account - one could argue that it's abusive sockpuppetry although we have to recognise the privacy concerns. My problem with it was that KB effectively wanted to vanish, but without vanishing - you can't come back with a new account if you don't want your previous one being brought up at a future date, especially if there were concerns over his editing. Anyway, back to the latest block - I've got to agree with SF on it because it was a straight forward case of 3RR. Take a break for a couple of hours and we can sort the KB mess out tomorrow when everyone's thinking straight. Ryan Postlethwaite22:13, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Ryan (again) I prefer to start now, while all are online. Having given me two threatening messages here, the lamentable Rockpecket sent me an email: The gist of which was (naturaly, I don't quote directly): "Kittybrewster has permission to edit anonymously so long as he does not also edit from another account at the same time or edit in a disruptive manner. There is a valid reason for this, which you clearly are not aware of, or else you would not be outing him." I want to know who gave that permission and why? Surely that is not so hard. Then I want to know why I was blocked for pointig out that the Kittybrewster socj was arguing for Sussexman's return. Then I want to know why I was told not to edit CR's page and allow Kittybrewster/Berks to have the last word. Whose ruling was this, and why is such attempts being made to stop me pointing it out. Who gave permission? Surely that is simple enough for you? Giano (talk) 22:24, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(unindent) I think the reason why you were asked to stop was probably to reduce the drama level and probably stop the antagonistic effect. Whilst I respect KB has a privacy concern with the old account, I can't help but think that something isn't quite right when you look at the problems we've had with him in the past. A disclosure from the start would have meant that we wouldn't be having this discussion now; everyone would have been in the loop about his new account and people wouldn't have had to bring it up again. What I would say is that you weren't properly blocked (let's face it, given the consensus after the first block, we can't technically call it a block) for "outing" KB, it was merely because of the reverting that took place given that VB had already reverted you and clearly didn't want that on his page. We can certainly look at terms of KB editing with this new account. I think there needs to be a firm understanding that no more accounts will be created. Ryan Postlethwaite22:35, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What is that quaint expression you Brits have? You can fool all the people some of the time, and all the people none of the time. Well I am not British and I'm fooled very seldom. Lets look at this: We have the infamous Sussexman, and his supporters pleading for his return. We then have his supporter being "permitted" to use socks to lend added wait to the pleas for return. Who has permitted this and why? Are any of this "gang" one person/one account or is there something else afoot? It seems permission is granted for some very odd things, and those who dare to point it out are silenced. Very foolish to think threatening me on my page would silence me, or make the problem go away.... I wonder. Giano (talk) 22:46, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would certainly hope that no further accounts are created. One has to wonder under what conditions the "permission" was granted to create this one, and I can only assume that it included staying away from anything "Troubles" related, given the recent negotiation for Vintagekits and how firmly everyone on all sides agreed to that. And once the new account started editing in that area, why did nobody tell him that the agreement to privacy was null and void, since he had now essentially linked the accounts himself? As I mentioned to Rockpocket, if even I could spot it was the same editor, anyone with knowledge of the Troubles would have spotted it long before. The fact that Counterrevolutionary's talk page seems to be on the watchlist of a lot of people, and they didn't think it was a privacy violation for several days after the fact, tells me that the dual identity was well-known. Indeed, if removing himself from Troubles related issues was part of the deal to get a new account, then I wonder what corrective actions are required to address the behaviour of the KB/Berks accounts. We simply cannot have any more socking related to this issue. And exactly who gave permission for this to happen? It's actually American, and it's "You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can't fool all of the people all of the time." Risker (talk) 22:49, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rockocket says he gave permission for the sock to deceive, and has now given further permission [94] "I happen to know that the editor in question will now edit anonymously from another account (the name of which I am aware)." Will anything ever be trustworthy again in that department, was it ever? Another quaint British expression refers to "waggonloads of monkeys." Curiouser and curiouser, I wonder if the Arbs knew of this, as they are so closely involved in hearing pleas for Sussexman's return. Giano (talk) 22:57, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I see that on his talk page. I am sorry, but people who go about making it perfectly clear exactly who they are really don't have any right to claim privacy violations when people point out their identities. If Rockpocket is the one who gave the permission, he messed up by failing to put in place any set of conditions, or telling the editor that all bets were off when the editor was making it perfectly clear who he was. I don't believe the rule is "tell one admin and you can get away with running serial accounts and claim secrecy." I'll have to go check the sockpuppet policy again; heaven only knows what someone has put into it since the last time I looked. Risker (talk) 23:03, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with GoodDay, and would add that either KB should be retired and blocked, or the new account should be and the user go back to using KB. And would add that rocketpocket should either completely disengage from admin activities in this area/with these users or put and evaluate real oversight of kb. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 23:14, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I (as Risker and others do) have some considerable trouble with the notion that someone gets to start over, over and over, changing names but not habits. This editor has been warned, by some who know the new identity, that they need to discontinue their old ways, old editing behaviours, or there will be someone who will put 2 and 2 together again. Doing sums is not in and of itself a reason for blocking, I don't think. But I do agree with those who point out that there are more effective ways of raising the issue than edit warring. The issue needs raising, make no mistake. But no style points to you, Giano for the moves this time... maybe a bit more finesse next time? You've used more finesse than this in the past, you know you have. ++Lar: t/c23:11, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Bugger finesse. let's have the truth. Interestingly this is what I actually said:
I'm afraid the problem is with you people is that you think you can all sign in and out with different names and that the rest of us are all too stupid to see it. For instance you, Berks, are quite clearly Kittybrewster or another of the "gang" - if indeed you are all separate people rather just one adult with an identity crisis. So you see, there is not a lot of confidence placed in any of you is there? The question is not, when is Lauder returning, but who do you think you are fooling?
Now is that, or is not the truth, do I even say I think it definitely is Kittybrewster? I just point out what is now known to be fact and truth, but of course being Wikipedia, it is easier to ban the messenger. I think Rockpocket should be de-sysoped for this, and then a proper investigation into Sussexman and all the socks surrounding him. what is so unreasonable about that? Giano (talk) 23:14, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rockpocket saw nothing wromg with his socking friend arguing for Sussexman's return, the only fault he saw was me mentioning it. Fire him! Giano (talk) 23:22, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What I have found out so far is that Kittybrewster felt he had received a threat to his safety, and switched to a new account in an attempt to improve his privacy. I'm not sure it was officially "approved" so much as this is a courtesy we extend to many editors and I believe he informed a few checkusers/Arbitrators. As far as I can tell, the account(s) were not used abusively (no double-voting or commenting as if he was two people). Kittybrewster appears to be an editor in good standing--no outstanding blocks or bans, so I don't see this as being a problem. Of course, he continued to edit in an identifiable manner, which is no one's fault but his own, and I think any charge of "outing" is patently ridiculous. At this point Kittybrewster has declared an intent to open another new account, and he has been warned that it is no one's responsibility but his own to maintain his privacy, and if he edits in an identifiable manner he will not be protected. I don't know whom he feels threatened by; perhaps he would tell you his new account if you asked.
I have mixed feelings about the blocks. In my version of an ideal wikipedia, you would post your comment, then someone would tell you "He is trying to quietly use a new name for privacy, it would be polite to respect that" and you would do the polite thing and drop it or pursue discussions privately. I think C-r is within his rights to ask you not to post to his talk page and to remove your comments. I do not think it was necessary or wise of Rockpocket and 1=2 to appoint themselves defender of C-r's talk page. I think it was also unnecessary and unwise for Rockpocket and 1=2 to appoint themselves defenders of Berks' privacy, as Berks' gave away the game himself through his edits. The first block for "outing" was unacceptable. By the time of the second block you had been told that KB had adopted a new account for privacy reasons; it would have been far better to pursue inquiries quietly or to just be polite and let it drop. Instead, having poked the anthill with a stick a few times already, you gave it another good poke to see what else you could stir up. So the perverse result is that the second block was reasonable, but that you wouldn't have acted in that manner but for the first block (maybe). I don;t have any simple solutions to this. Thatcher23:23, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well let's just see how successful the campaign to restore Sussexman/Lauder/God know's who is - shall we? At the moment I would not trust anyone involved with this mess for a single second. The only think that needs to happen fast is de-sysop Rockpocket, and then find out what other accounts this "gang" are editing under. Giano (talk) 23:28, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's a situation that I have not been monitoring before now but I will be in the future, if that means anything to you. Feel free to contact me in the future if you have concerns. Thatcher23:43, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(ec)Thank you Thatcher, I will respond to your mention of me by saying that when a user removes something from their talk page and asks that it not be returned, then that is no longer the appropriate place regardless of the merits of the content of the message. Their are sock puppetry noticeboards. I personally would not have made that block and that is one issue.The reverts of Giano's posts against the page owners preference are another issue and those reverts of Giano's repeated posts were reasonable in the spirit of our policy that people can remove content from their page. In hindsight I could have provided more information in my edit summary. Until(1 == 2)23:31, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Do not think I am in any way molified or pacified. I shall be dealing with this tomorrow very thoroughly. Kittybrewster has many accounts we shall take a look through them all. Then we will discuss Rockpockets de-sysoping. Have this one on me to be going on with User:MrsBucket, we'll take a look at some more tomorrow. Giano (talk) 23:47, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I just can't help but bring up a recent incident over a totally different editor who attempted to start over because the comparison is really obvious. An editor who does write a lot of content and sources his edits, has, at the same time, some obvious POV issues and is prone to edit warring. His block log reflects that but nowhere he was close to being banned from the site. Now, a certain admin took it upon himself to monitor that editor closely for whatever reason. So far, so good. The said admin decides that the editor needs to be blocked for 10 days at some point. I cannot comment on that since I was not following that user's edits. Perhaps a block was justifiable. Now, it gets interesting. A user waits out his block and after the block runs out, starts a new account and abandons the old one. After a while, an edit pattern similarity becomes suspicious to an admin and he leaves a permanent mark in the user's block log through a 1 second block pointing out to the old account to make sure, the user carries on the block log from the old account.
Now, we are not talking about a talk page message that can be removed, admin-oversighted or even fully over-sighted. We are talking about a permanent block log earmark, something that was removed only once in the Wikipedia history. Apparently, it was considered OK, despite WP:BLOCK explicitly prohibits blocks whose sole purpose is leaving a negative record. I did not see the said admin reprimanded in any way.
Giano did much less, left a message at talk about something so blatantly obvious and about an editor so blatantly disruptive that does not even compare to the case above. Apparently, this user has "permission from Rockpocket" and this makes a whole lot of difference. Giano gets blocked indefinitely, Rockpocket remains unapologetic and 1=2 is all over pages to cheer the Giano's block. Now, if this is all how things are supposed to work, Wikipedia is deeply screwed up. --Irpen23:40, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
He's not retiring, at least I don't think. I think he's bringing a bit of humour into proceedings - "got away!" strikes me as he's making a light hearted comment. I may be wrong, but I suspect Giano is annoyed, but letting everyone know he's ok deep down. Ryan Postlethwaite00:11, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Dunc. I have made my very strong feelings known [95] To me a sock arguing for the return of Sussexman is akin to deception. This deceit appears to have been known and fostered by admins. To say I am disgusted is an understatement. After all the work to calm The Troubles, that Rockpocket canbehave like this is deplorable. I was not in on any secret, I just made a vague and inspired guess. I want all the "Troubles socks" exposed and public, otherwise there really is no way forward. Giano (talk) 07:24, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Giano, Rockpocket requests that I do not post at his page. He did not have to ask since I already said all I have to say that is discretion blocking needs conferring, blocking an editor indefinitely on the whim should result in desysopping and admin's unhumble demeanor always make matters worse. But I just want to make an unrelated observation regarding the further exchanges you had with that fellow.
Now, there seems to be an argument as to who said what and when in your email exchanges with him. I think the problem here is that this email correspondence occurred in the first place. I recommend against talking off-record with people who might misrepresent you at some point. Talking onwiki has this beauty of an easy to check who said what and when and no BS flies. People who talk off-line with untrustworthy individuals open a possibility of this "you said in the email to me that..." stuff. Do you remember how Durova managed to dupe Alex into believing that her action against !! was prompted by an ugly email harassment campaign against female editors and when Alex ask for clemency over her because of that she retracted that stuff claiming that she never said that making Alex look like a fool? It is best to keep all correspondence with the individuals who might later misrepresent you onwiki. Just a suggestion. --Irpen21:14, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not to worry some actions are more obvious than confused admins [96] Perhaps that will be the end of the story. Rockpocket seems determined to have the last word, and is now reverting me on his page. I call that being a bad loser. I wonder what the wicked elf's view on that is, he does seem remarkably quiet to night, as do some of the more vocal others. Oh well another day over in the great encyclopedia. Giano (talk) 21:21, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, reverting people at their own talk indeed makes no sense. But please heed to my advise regarding being a little more wise who to talk with off-line. This may be the most important conclusion from this another day in the great encyclopedia. --Irpen21:28, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is the edit that seems to be unsettling so many [97]. As I said above, just another day in the life of the encyclopedia, but at least we seem to be rid of Robert1/Sussexman/Lauder.....or are we? Who knows what are admins know! Whooo hooo hooo kind of spooky isn't it? Giano (talk) 21:34, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't imagine ya care if ya're blocked, but please don't revert people on their page, Giacomo. Since you don't want people to do it to you, ya know? Please? Bishonen | talk21:35, 26 June 2008 (UTC).[reply]
I don't recall ever attempting to deceive on my page, but at least Alison was brave enough to sort the matter. Giano (talk) 21:39, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why would someone who has never read anything about any Medici villa that wasn't mostly color photos and folded vertically in three, have any opinion whatsoever on the names of these villas? I just don't comprehend where the opinion arises, or from what. How could I have an opinion of Fermat's Last Theorem? Where would it come from?--Wetman (talk) 01:18, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have not participated in the RockPocket debate at all (there are already plenty of participants and plenty of teh dramaz), but I have been following it pretty closely. From one editor to another, I would strongly urge you to just let it go at this point. Whether it's fair or not, if you keep pressing this issue it's just going to get uglier and uglier, and it could come back to bite you, and hard. I have no comment about the thread itself -- only that pressing the issue on ANI is not going to result in anything positive. It really is just not worth it.
You may be right, I don't know. Should we let the Admins brush it all under the carpet again. Then when the inevitable happens, and it will with those particular people, very shortly, we can have even more hand wringing and wise pronouncemets from Fozzie and Rockpocket on how to address the problem. Giano (talk) 15:47, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Admins"? That's me! How have I screwed up now? Or do you perhaps mean "arbcommers"? Perhaps belatedly, I've just a few minutes ago realized that those people are into some, well, how better can I phrase it than to say that they're into some truly weird shit. Today's keyword is nem. con., which I think is not supposed to mean that nobody is being conned. -- Hoary (talk) 16:53, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, somewhere along the line everyone has let go of the root cause behind all of this issue, which actually has no bearing on Giano at all - Kittybrewster's use of alternate accounts is the central issue. I have attempted to reorient the ANI subthread to the discussion that should have been taking place. The fingerpointing in all directions has been unhelpful, and the editor whose actions most need to be brought to the attention of the community has probably been merrily editing away using sock number 347 and enjoying the fireworks display, while people of good faith (whether rightly or wrongly) have been busy bashing each other about. Risker (talk) 17:02, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have just commented on ANI, you are completely correct in your assessment, and this is exactly why I am still so furious and angry. Had I not spotted this abusive gaming of the system, those admins would still be allowing it to continue. Giano (talk) 17:05, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Giano my friend, sometimes it is difficult to get a sensible word in edgewise when you're in one of your flights of high dudgeon. :-) Let's see how the community responds to this proposal. I will pop a note onto Rockpocket's page as well. Risker (talk) 17:15, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Giano, you are right to drop the rock into the pond, but you err in waiting to see which way the frogs jump. Throw your clear light on any situation, then move on to write articles with attractive folk ...like me. --Wetman (talk) 17:26, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It was more fun hearing listening to you rant about how incompetent the arbcom it than it is to see the current proof of it.
Kind of like the difference between having a light conversation about how one thinks that his neighbor may be a little touched in the head as opposed to the reality of seeing that neighbor alone in his apartment, wearing a tattered robe and mumbling incoherently while surrounded by stacks of old newspapers and cat poop. Versaversa (talk) 12:12, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
From the road to the palace.
North side.
Clock tower.
Front.
The Triton window.
Yellow tower.
Arches.
Clock tower.
Back terrace and view towards the Atlantic.
Terrace.
The Moorish minaret.
Going down, looking upwards.
Chapel.
Noble Room.
Kitchen.
Temple of the Columns.
The Queen's Table, one of the Queen's favorite spots.
Shells Pond.
Fern Garden.
Fern Garden.
Fern Garden.
Bird Fountain.
Lake Valley, five lakes to where flow all waterways in the park.
![[55]](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image:GsWinterPal.jpg&curid=16655496&diff=202154718&oldid=202075475){kind=link}
![[56]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Images_and_media_for_deletion/2008_March_31#Image:Balcony.gif){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
![[59]](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image:Gianolibrad%27oro.gif&action=history){kind=link}
![[60]](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image:Sale_1.jpg&action=history){kind=link}
_Staircase.jpg){kind=link}
_Staircase_2.jpg){kind=link}
