User talk:Giano/archive 21

Actions at AE

You do not get to remove good-faith requests, no matter how baseless you may find them. If you do that again, I will block you from editing. Courcelles 16:44, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

What's your definition of a "good-faith request"? Eric Corbett 16:47, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

The AE admins are good at dealing with requests they consider meritless quickly, so basically any request that is not vandalism (WP:AGF) should be left there for disposal of through the proper method. (I am speaking in the general case, not commenting on this request.) Courcelles 16:53, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Could I care less?......... Giano (talk) 16:57, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

@Courcelles: The AE admins may be good at dealing with requests they consider meritless, but are abysmally poor at dealing with requests that actually are meritless. So your objection misses the point. The good faith of the poster of any meritless request - such as the one in question - makes no difference to the lack of merit in the request. Or is that too difficult to understand? --RexxS (talk) 17:05, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

If it is actually meritless, it will be disposed of in the usual manner. Thinking it is meritless does not give someone the right to disrupt the process and just remove it themselves. Courcelles 17:09, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

• All Wikipedians (even me) have a right to revert trolling, and where I see it, I shall do so. However, putting that aside, I am overjoyed that being a Wikipedia administrator gives you an interest and occupation in life Courcelles, but your conversation interests me no more than you administrating fascinates me. So please go and delight people with you administrations elsewhere. I hope I make myself clear. Giano (talk) 17:53, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

My user page

I will not waste our time with a request for you to be civil. Please stay off my user talk page permanently. Thank you. Gamaliel (talk) 21:10, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Oh bugger off! You are boring me to death with your ridiculous posturing and vindictive actions. Nonentities like you bring out the worst in people - me included. Trying to make a name for yourself by purely vindictive actions against Eric Corbett (Wikipedia's current villain of the moment), then having the audacity to say "Je suis Charlie" on your talk page, when the very meaning of freedom of speech is a completely alien concept to you. Now sod off before I loose it completely. Giano (talk) 21:17, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

February 2015

Please stop attacking other editors, as you did on Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:24, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Get lost! Giano (talk) 10:24, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Gender Gap on Wikipedia

It's my belief that the above subject is silly and blown out of all proportion. Why? I have no idea, but it's a big fire that is being stoked by a few editors who's agenda one can only speculate upon. I've stayed out of it until recently, but it now seems, that if a female editor takes against a male editor (for reason's best to known unto herself) she needs to receive special treatment and the Arbcom support this view. I don't agree with that. I believe that, in the civilized Western World - where most of us edit, women are equal to men, but I also believe that men are equal to women. Giano (talk) 19:12, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Quickie drive by

Dropping in to say hello! I fell in love with your hummingbird, and cloned it for my user page. Hope that's ok? Atsme☯^Consult 17:01, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

You're welcome Atsme, but he's actually a very rare and endangered Italian Freedom Bird, and his name is Spumoni. Like many male birds, he's far more colorful than his mate. The species is known for it's fearless and protective nature, but beware when he or any of his feathered friends are attacked, he has a very nasty peck. By sharing, you are making the species less endangered. Giano (talk) 17:09, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Would it help if I told you I was Italian? Mamma is 100% - grandparents didn't speak English. Can I please keep it? Atsme☯^Consult 17:12, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, but you must take great care of him, and take full responsibility if he attacks any visiting idiots to your page. Giano (talk) 17:14, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

I promise I will, and I will make sure he isn't overworked which is why I added him to my user page and not my talk page. It's all I can do to keep visiting idiots out of my life, never mind my page. Atsme☯^Consult 17:17, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Tracy Park

This building that was an influence on Black Beauty with Grade II listed entrance gates has had an "unfortunate" history of copyvios and revdels and is now sitting as a lonely stub. It could do with some TLC from a few willing volunteers. Are you in? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:14, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I think I can do that one, and use Pevsner. However, I can't do all that complicated referencing the article uses - far too stressful. Giano (talk) 20:35, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

I can loan you a pentagram and some candles if you'd like? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 21:01, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Just so long as I'm not required to write anything about golf courses. As a game, I don't dislike golf - I play it myself (sort of), but I do dislike the people who tend to inhabit golf clubs. The men are usually badly dressed, pompous oiks full of pretentious bonhomie and the women even worse - far worse - usually suffering from a complete charm by-pass. Golf clubs seem to bring out the worst in people. Giano (talk) 13:08, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Don't get me started. I have spent years as a gigging musician playing functions in golf clubs, the most notorious being one where you cannot get the gear from outside onto the stage without lugging the whole lot up a fire escape. In fact, File:Fatar studiologic sl 990 xp.jpg was taken at the bottom of said fire escape after I thought I was buggered if I was going to lug that up a flight of stairs again. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:02, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

I can imagine golfing people all jigging about to music - all those thin faced women with big mouths and teeth and bobbed peroxided hair dancing with their braying menfolk with badly cut hair hair and protruding stomachs. Giano (talk) 15:40, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

There is a photo of me somewhere on the internet after playing piano for a society church service where, due to a tragic miscalculation of dress sense and a lack of sunglasses, I look unchangingly like a Conservative MP. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:52, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

If you'd like me to check over the references after you've finished updating, I'd be more than happy to do that and I'll ensure that they fit with the current style used. Just ping me. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 15:32, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

That might be a very good idea. At the moment, I'm still researching it - quite fascinating. I'll ping you when I'm done. Thanks

The article is in good hands now - excellent. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:52, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

I think RexxS without more info, I've done about all I can there - over to you. Giano (talk) 16:10, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi Giano, I've started to add information about the house in the Estates section, but I've only included a description of the western facade, the extensions to the left and the tower to the right. The remaining Gothicy sides ought to be described, but I'm a bit out of my depth on that part, especially as I've never seen it and don't have a copy of Pevsner to hand. It would also be nice if there was a quote by him to summarise the architecture - the house is quite a jigsaw, and I'm not sure all the pieces fit together :) Anyway, many thanks, (talk) 23:09, 22 February 2015 (UTC).

—Noswall59I thought I'd already described the architecture, some of it's now in the history section. It's not so much a jigsaw - as poor architecture. One has to be careful of being too POV even Pevsner's (which is actually Verey and Brooks') and confine oneself to the occasional "heavy", "incongruous" and "loose form of Grecian/Gothic/Tudor" and hope people get the message. There's no point giving to detailed a descriprion, but I'll expand a little later today. We've got to be careful not to rush too fast at this, if you look at this picture here that small, single story section sandwiched between the main house and the colonnade is probably real, genuine 17th century Palladianism. Not quite Inigo Jones, but not far off, and streets above the architecture elsewhere. If I'm correct, that rather disputes the former house as being gabled Tudoresque. More research I think, but we are running out of resources. Giano (talk) 08:27, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

As far as I can see, that part of the house is not mentioned in Pevsner, nor in Kingsley. The English Heritage listing explicitly states it's 19th century. Kingsley says the following: "In 1595 the park was sold off by the Tracys, and in the next few years a house was built there that later acquired the name Well House. This was a small gabled building, which by 1718 apparently possessed a hall and kitchen on the ground floor and three chambers above'". He mentions no further changes until the alterations made by the younger Robert Bush c. 1800. At the end of the day, if the sources don't exist, we can't say otherwise; plus, if it were a worthy example of Palladianism, it is surprising that the Pevsner authors make no mention of it. (It might be that it was part of the alterations made by Bush, but that's pure conjecture on my part). With that in mind, I think much of the architectural description is well on its way to be complete, and the history section too seems to be getting there nicely. We still need sources for the freemasonry part, though. Anyway, many thanks, —Noswall59 (talk) 19:01, 23 February 2015 (UTC).

Oh there' no hurry, you'd be surprised what turns up eventually - which part of the Freemasonry part are you unhappy with? At the end of the day, a Freemasonry symbol is just that, and if added by the country's leading Freemason to his own home can probably be taken as a safe assumption of Freemasonry. Giano (talk) 21:20, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

I've done a first pass over the refs - there wasn't much to do as they were already quite tidy. The only problem is I can't find the book referred to as "Verey and Brooks 1980, p. 808" - the current reference number 9. Is that an earlier edition of the 2002 book? Cheers --RexxS (talk) 16:49, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

I've altered this ref - it is the 2002 edition. Cheers, —Noswall59 (talk) 17:36, 23 February 2015 (UTC).

Thanks [[RexxS, you're right, sorry, I am indeed using the 2002 edition I was looking at the page listing all the editions and it looked like 1980 was the final edition. The 2002 is ISBN 0 300 09733 6. Giano (talk) 22:55, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

February 2015

This is your only warning; if you make personal attacks on other people again, as you did at User talk:Rationalobserver, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 21:37, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Just curious...are you going to warn RO for targeting another user on your talk, Coffee? Civil hit requests are still hit requests, after all. Intothatdarkness 21:42, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

RO did not attack that user, they simply said that I should pay attention to their edits. As I have RO's edits on constant refresh, I'd say I'm fairly on top of whether she is or is not violating our policies here. Currently, she is not. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 21:47, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

(ec)Thanks. You might also want to consider paying attention to the conduct that leads up to those suggestions. Not criticizing; just pointing out that it is possible to conduct those campaigns without cursing or open attacks. Intothatdarkness 21:51, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Ah coffee, you may be able to help: I remember once when I was a boy at school, clandestinely watching a totally shocking film where nuns masturbated while a handsome priest was burnt at the stake. I doubt Eric is very handsome, but tonight I am minded of that film. can anyone remember its name - I think it may have had Jeanne Moreau in it? Giano (talk) 21:50, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

The Devils. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 12:34, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 2 days for attempting to harass other users. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by emailing an administrator or ArbCom. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:33, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Enough is enough. I warned you at my talk page and here that making attacks at other editors through your comments would not be allowed, and you decided to cross the line again at Eric's talk page. You're acting ridiculous, and you've now earned a block. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 22:13, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

You do seem to be rather an impetuous person Coffee; I expect you'll grow out of it. Giano (talk) 22:17, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

PS: can we just have the example (diff) of this dreadful transgression. Purely for the amusement of our more sane editors. Giano (talk) 22:21, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

• Oh well! Coffee is obviously too ashamed to post the diff, so I will [1] and I stand by every word of it. What a fucked up place this now is, when posting the truth earns a block. Giano (talk) 23:13, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Good heavens, that was it? I saw that and didn't even blink. I'm sorry Giano--and Coffee--maybe I'm just too used to academic common rooms. Yngvadottir (talk) 17:04, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

How nice to hear from you again Yngvadottir; this was never really about my edits, it was ore about denying the truth, which is why Coffee has to be desyssoped or community de-tooled (which sounds very unpleasant). Gang warfare has to be nipped in the bud. Giano (talk) 17:23, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Did blocking Giano bring bonus brownie points from Jimbo or something Coffee? You seem rather trigger happy with your blocking tools.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:58, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Funnily enough Dr B I don't think it was so much J Wales he was trying to impress, but the wimminfolk and one of the arbs. They must be very annoyed by all this now. Giano (talk) 17:23, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Well there is some good news anyway, Bramshill House passed FAC!♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:32, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

What took you so long? My Tracy park will speed through like a torpedo, at least it will it I can find some reffs. Giano (talk) 18:34, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

EddieHugh did a very thorough review with it which took a while! I was thinking about taking Althorp to FAC but I'm not too confident on the history section in particular.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:43, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Nah, I've a few books about it, but it's really not that interesting a place. What is more interesting would be a bio on one its owners, Princess Di's grandfather. Now, there's a story and not much known, but it's all there - cruel husband, crashing snob, bad father and a complete philistine, he even had the relations of 300 years taken out of the family vault and cremated because he begrudged them the price of a new coffin (not many people know that). I'd go for him and give Althorpe a mention en-route. Giano (talk) 18:49, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

A friendly recommendation

Although you have the right to comment on anything you wish, might I make a friendly recommendation that you (and Eric, should he see this), ignore all the mess (by taking all the drama breeding grounds off your watchlists, for instance; this meter might be helpful) and do much more pleasurable things? I will not comment on what my personal opinion on "the mess" is, as it would be very foolish to get myself involved, but I will say that I think it's a shame that Wikipedia's good content contributors are getting themselves blocked over things that are not worth the trouble when you really think about it. Of course, as I said, if you feel that doing so would essentially be allowing others to keep you from saying what you really think, I'll say no more. --Biblioworm 23:23, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm afraid that writing content does not preclude me from having or voicing opinions. It just means I have less time to play silly buggers with fools. Sorry, don't seem to be able to sifn with this phone thingn but c'est moi.

Talkpage access restored

I'm not the right admin to meddle with the block; I don't like it, especially not the extension for complaining about it in the first place; but that's neither here nor there. But I very much dislike to see a good contributor gagged by having talkpage access removed, especially on such flimsy grounds. It's normal, indeed expected and allowed, to be upset and rude under a block. Only in egregious cases should a block be extended for it, and only in extreme cases should tpa be removed. I'm restoring it.

Coffee, I see you recently returned to editing after a four-month break. Might you be a little out of touch? Not that the norms have changed in that space of time, but they may have become fuzzy to you. Whether or not, it was a poor idea to unblock Rationalobserver and block Eric Corbett, two users in long-term conflict as everybody knows, within five minutes of each other. And then you went on to block Giano, who had been vocally taking part in the very same conflict. Having already unblocked RO and blocked Eric, you should really have left it to somebody else to deal with Giano. You have acted like a cowboy admin.

I note especially the idiosyncratic way you did the unblock of RO. You're supposed to confer with the blocking admin before unblocking. When Ddstretch told you that on your page, you responded "I just moved forward in the same motion that I'm used to when I made this judgment". Does that mean you're used to ignoring policy and common practice on this point? And intend to continue doing it that way? ("Except in cases of unambiguous error or significant change in circumstances dealing with the reason for blocking, administrators should avoid unblocking users without first attempting to contact the blocking administrator to discuss the matter".)

I'm not saying I object to the unblock of RO as such, as long as she is held to the promises she has made. (Her volte-face in such a short time might be a little incredible, after all the warnings and the advice she had been given, which hadn't made a dent in her attitude. But let's hope.)

Just in case the wheel warring policy| is unclear to you, I should probably warn you that you'd be violating it if you were to re-remove Giano's talkpage access now that I've restored it. Bishonen | talk 11:10, 28 February 2015 (UTC).

• Thank you Bishonen. However, you seem to be the master of understatement today - describing Coffee as a "cowboy admin" does not even begin to describe the depths of deceit and corruption that has been going on here. A few militant women and their hangers-on (not exemplary of the project's female editors at all) are now able to have editors blocked and completely silenced on trumped up charges, and then going one step further with their lies able to have their private IPs discovered - why? one wonders. Well it's not a great many steps from there to work it out. Coffee will obviously have to be desyopped to restore confidence and this whole thing nipped in the bud. Assuming that is, that thouse ruling us want this nipped. Of that, I am unsure. But rest assured, I will not let this drop. They've chosen the wrong stooge here. Giano (talk) 11:23, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

• Good call, Bishonen (just ECed with Giano). The "personal attacks" were never block worthy in the first place, and nor was the warning clear enough for the block to be valid. Astoundingly poor judgement - particularly to extend the block as well as removing talk page access. T'was the equivalent of going "neh neh neh, I'm right, you're wrong, and there's nothing you can do about it". Giano, I'd be a little careful; I wouldn't go as far to call for Coffee's head at this point, but they really need to make sure they're more careful/sensible in future. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 11:25, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

• I am not in the habit of calling black people 'niggers' and if only for that accusation alone, he has to be desysopped. Furthermore, very regrettably for User:Coffee, Lukeno94, I am still blocked for denying that Wikipedia has a problem with a group of militant females (free speech is banned here now), only my talk page (removed because of a false accusation) has been restored. Giano (talk) 11:28, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

• I know, Giano; I was just agreeing with Bish's position. The whole thing is a sordid mess. Also, I'd be very careful throwing that word around if I were you - regardless of the context, there's always going to be someone who will jump on you for it. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 11:41, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

I am the most racially indiscriminating person that anyone will ever be able to meet. I will not be accused of that by some jumped up incompetent admin and allow him to keep his tools. Giano (talk) 11:43, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

• I'm not actually seeing any evidence of Coffee accusing you of being racist, I'm afraid. It's also pretty obvious to anyone with half a brain cell that the IP wasn't you, but was merely an opportunistic vandal. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 11:54, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

(watching) There's a thread on ANI already about misconduct, unfortunately as confusing as the whole thing, sorted out only by Bish, - can we give moar power to wise female admins? Advise blockers to seek advice before blocking? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:09, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

My experience has been that wisdom and foolishness have nothing to do with gender - but that's just me. — Ched :  ?  12:12, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

I agree completely and think that wise male admins, such as you, Ched, could supply the same counseling, but in a different voice - which could make a difference, or not. What do you think of my slogan? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:35, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

unblock request

Hi Giano, pardon my interrupting, but I did want to mention one thing. Even though it is outside the current operating procedure (conferring with the blocking admin.), my thinking is this: Given this, I can't imagine Coffee (he's been pinged plenty for now) would object to any admin unblocking you if you are requesting that. If on the other hand, you'd rather let things run their course, I completely understand that as well. In consideration of Bishonen's "wheel" comment though, I would confer with her before doing so.

Also: I don't see that anyone has notified you, but you are mentioned in an ANI thread here. If you wish anything copied there, I'm sure plenty of people would be willing to do so (myself included) — Ched :  ?  12:07, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't do unblock requests when it is clear to anyone with half a brain that I should not be blocked in the first. When I am unblocked, then I promise you all of Wikipedia will be very aware of it. No one calls me a racist. Giano (talk) 12:18, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Understood. — Ched :  ?  12:21, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

• Block lifted per WP:AN/I discussion. Happy editing. Jehochman ^Talk 13:22, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Jehochman but what's to be done about Coffee now? I think he's been out of order with the frequency of blocks and the reasons for some of them. If he's going to lock a page he needs to prove people are sockpuppets first before taking heavy handed action. I have nothing against him personally, but when I see decent editors liberally given blocks like this I really do question the reason for it.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:26, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

I left Coffee a bit of advice, but I'm not aware of his history. Perhaps somebody will compile a precise statement and ask Coffee to respond. If that fails, there's always requests for arbitration, but I wouldn't be in a rush. Jehochman ^Talk 13:28, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

• Giano wasn't blocked for sockpuppetry or racism. He was blocked for personal attacks/harassment - a rationale that was just as bogus, but it's important to note those facts. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 13:28, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
• Thank you Jehochman' I had hoped these problems with zealots posing as admins were a think of the past; it appears not. Quite why User: Coffee has been quite so misguided is one of the things that will now have to be addressed. An apology will not suffice for such behavior, and if he sets foot on this page, he will be reverted. Thank you for your help, you go some way to restoring confidence in this place. @User:Lukeno94, beleive me coffe knew quite well what he was doing, or he would have made it quite clear - after all he is supposedly an experienced admin. Giano (talk) 13:30, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

• I know that, but I also feel it's important that we call out the actual reason as being bogus, rather than using ones that were never actually given - gives people like Coffee less of a leg to stand on. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 13:35, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

• Coffee has no legs to stand on; he'll be desysopped for this; if he's not, then the pernicious infection has infiltrated ore than we thought. Let's not forget that Eric Corbett still remains blocked - a victim of nothing more than vicious gang warfare. Giano (talk) 13:42, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

I'd really appreciate it if you'd watch your mouth. This is a cowboy admin and I'd like something to be done about it. Your hyperbolic rhetoric shines all the light on you, and seriously increases the likelihood Coffee will walk away unaffected by any of this. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 18:36, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Do you really think there's the remotest chance of that happening. It may but it will be a long and very nasty battle. It always is on Wikipedia to see the right thing done, but we will get there in the end. Unfortunatly, for all the talk about them, nice, pretty manners don't achieve much here. Giano (talk) 18:42, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

The problem, at least with Coffee and Eric, is that arb did rule that blocks of this kind are advisable if there's a breach of the terms. Eric did stray into commenting, even if very minor, which resulted in him being blocked. These cowboy admins apparently think they're doing their job following the arb ruling. So I can understand that aspect of it, but I just can't see the point in such blocks. They do nothing but cause further resentment and hostility. You're never going to change Eric, whatever the duration of the block. Coffee isn't to blame for all of the problems with the site, he's just another cog in a whole line of trigger happy admins who seem to genuinely think this is beneficial to wikipedia imposing blocks liberally like this. You've got to question why does Eric really need to be blocked. And the more you look into the pros and cons the more you realise that they're doing this purely for a pat on the back from fellow cowboys and holier than thou guides on how to behave on a utopian wikipedia rather than a genuine will to improve the encyclopedia. The massive time wasting and ill feeling their actions cause should make it pretty clear to an intelligent person that this isn't an effective solution. So whatever becomes of Coffee, it's not going to solve the problem in the long term. What we really need is to overhaul the admin system on here and put an end to such blocks and find more intelligent ways of dealing with certain issues. If I had it my way I'd have elected "modifiers" rather than administrators, dropping all the sanctimonious pretenses that come with imposing things on others. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:03, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

I've found an amazingly good strategy for dealing with Wikipedia: "Stupidity doesn't require any response." Only respond to intelligent comments, and you'll be much, much happier. Jehochman ^Talk 22:13, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Colonnette as an architectural term

I've been trying to do some improvement of Bristol Cathedral and come across the phrase "a deep entrance arch of six orders with Purbeck marble colonnettes and enriched mouldings to the arch". I have no idea what colonnette means, a quick search just seems to find "small column" (or possibly a type of tap), and I was wondering if you could help?— Rod ^talk 14:58, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

@ Rod: You'd know them if you saw them: they are used to convey lightness and elegance. Suposedly a feature of Gothic architecture, they are more often found in Byzantine. They are they indeed small, thin columns; on their own they are purely decorative and non load bearing, but sometime you see them in groups of four or more, and then they can be load bearing, sort of safety in numbers. here you've got some being decorative, but beyond a bit of buttressing, not really doing much structurally even though they are pretending to support the blind arcade. this demonstrates how useful they are standing alone as structural supports! here they are en masse, taking a wight, but if you look carefully at the design, they are not really bearing a serious weight, but there is safety in numbers. [2] they are closer together and taking more of a strain. Sometimes you will see them as a three of four (I can't find a picture) beneath one capital, then they are load bearing, but appear as one faceted column. They can also be the little stone columns that you see in large tracery windows. Hope this makes sense. Giano (talk) 17:55, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

• Here we are some colonettes being really useful and taking a weight, but it does beg the question of when does a cluster of colonettes become a column. Giano (talk) 18:15, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict):::Brilliant yes that makes a lot of sense (more than the sources I'd been looking at). I'm having trouble finding a good photo of the arch doorway (its generally in a lot of shade) but this, this or this might help. Do you think they are decorative or structural (or a bit of both). Your comment about Byzantine got me thinking..... This end of the cathedral was designed by John Loughborough Pearson and completed in 1888 so Gothic revival, but could it have been influenced by Bristol Byzantine?— Rod ^talk 18:19, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

They don't look like they are doing much structurally; I suspect they are pretending to support the ornamental tracery decorating the vault above them above them, but I doubt the vault itself would fall down completely if they were taken away anymore than it would if you chipped the tracery away - that isn't how vaults are built. Of course, I can't say for sure without really seeing them. To answer your second question: No, I don't think there's much influence of Bristol Byzantine in Bristol Cathedral; through Romanesque, there's Byzantine influence in most Gothic architecture, but not especially so there. Bristol Byzantine indeed - who thought that one up? Sounds like the Bristol Tourist Board may have had a hand in that. Giano (talk) 08:34, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks - I've just added "decorative" to the Colonnettes. If you fancied taking a look at the rest of the article to ensure I haven't many any silly architectural errors that would be great.— Rod ^talk 17:49, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

It is the people I miss (not the project)

Good day. LessHeard vanU (talk) 10:08, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

• How very nice to here from you LessHeard vanU; are you rejoining our happy band? Giano (talk) 13:26, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

I am not. I would too quickly become frustrated by the politics of the place, and I would not wish to use the project as a social site. Until yesterday I had not logged in for over a year, but I do miss many of the people - including you - that I knew. LessHeard vanU (talk) 10:17, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

I love you too LessHeard vanU. The politics remain the same, and the writing and stuff goes on, but a little honing of one's social skills does no harm. I've only been blocked once in ages now, and that was by some American kid with issues, so didn't really stick. You should give it a try again. Giano (talk) 18:42, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Linkspam

Wow, look at your guy's contributions.[3] Nice. I've warned them. Feel free to help remove those links, if you've got time for a little wikignoming. Bishonen | talk 22:59, 18 March 2015 (UTC).

Thank you Bishonen; they all look to be reverted now. I looked at the Breathless Beauty thing, I expect David Cholmonedely and Tom Coke are thrilled to see the houses they spend millions preserving described as "Beauty in Decline." Giano (talk) 16:28, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Isabaeau

Thank you for stopping by and for your kind words. It meant a lot, coming from you. Btw - you were right that something was off about this quote, [4]. Either I transposed it incorrectly or it got changed since the article was written, but it's fixed now. Victoria (tk) 18:06, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

It's a great page Victoria, and I was pleased to see it so beautifully written. Issie and I go back a long way, so it was very pleasing to see her name in lights. Giano (talk) 22:36, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Ruth Guler

I rescued this from death by CSD this afternoon. I've already pinged one of your colleagues about this, but this woman and her hotel played host to the Prince and Princess of Wales, amongst others, and she seems from all accounts to be a complete and total nutbag, so I think it's quite possible she or it are documented in your book collection somewhere. Any thoughts on how to proceed? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:02, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, Ritchie333, I think she may be beyond my help. Giano (talk) 19:29, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Treasurer's House

Would you be kind enough to take a look at the architecture of the Treasurer's House. It is described here, here and here but it is complex (different parts of the building from different centuries and multiple revisions) and I don't think our article does it justice (and I'm a bit confused about which bits are significant enough to be included/described).— Rod ^talk 10:16, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Sorry Rodw, I somehow missed your post here! profuse apologies. Coincidentally, when you made it, I was in Wells Cathedral (the real place not the page) and actually was thinking about Wikipedia and you (well mostly Amanda!). These things cannot be explained. Giano (talk) 18:45, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Bots and nobots

Hi Giano. I am looking into our uses of the {{bots}} and {{nobots}} templates with an eye towards improving our documentation. Your user talk page was one of several that uses both templates in a meaningful way. At the top of your user page, you have {{bots|optout=ifd, nolicense}} and then later you have the {{nobots}} template. Is your intention to block all bots, but then because some bots might ignore nobots, you are attempting to catch those by also using the bots template with specific parameters? Or is there another behavior that you intend? Thanks. --B (talk) 20:47, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Civility

Please don't make personal attacks as you did here when you told another editor to "pack up your ovaries and go away". gobonobo ^{+ c} 23:33, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

You may want to do a little research into history Gobonobo, although doing so prior to starting this thread would have been better. Even without the research before posting - I'd hardly call that a personal attack. — Ched :  ?  23:48, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

There's clearly a theme at work here, but I dare not mention its name. Eric Corbett 00:30, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

@Ched: I would like to think that an administrator like yourself would be concerned with sexist/sexual barbs like this. Giano has in the past accused the GGTF of "Gestapo like posturing" and has a history of incivility towards women editors as evidenced by his block log. Even taking into consideration the context of the discussion, "pack up your ovaries and go away" is a direct attack on a person based on their sex and was repeated in this edit summary. gobonobo ^{+ c} 00:47, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

One has to wonder which hallucinogenics are at work here. Eric Corbett 00:52, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

I stopped worrying about which hallucinogenic was at work a long time ago. It obviously affects the ability to read, though, as anybody who actually scans the discussion on Eric's talk page finds this:

• Eric Corbett: What is your purpose when you start discussions like this? Lightbreather (talk) 18:12, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
• I was just the one vilified for having the ovaries to speak it. Lightbreather (talk) 18:26, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
• Lightbreather, what exactly are you doing here? I suspect it's looking for trouble. You say: you have "the ovaries to speak it." Well good for you, and we'll take your word on that. Well you know very well that Eric has the balls to be very blunt, but he is showing extreme restraint. So I suggest that you pack up your ovaries and go away. Giano (talk) 18:37, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Somehow the "ovaries" comment, introduced by Lightbreather, has become "sexist/sexual barbs" when Giano repeats it. And an administrator like Ched is supposed to be concerned about that? So here you go, Gobonobo, I've repeated it again (although in context this time). If it's any help, I've only got a history of incivility towards idiots. --RexxS (talk) 01:30, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for that summary. I was a student in the 1970s, and tried most of the hallucinogenics then on offer. By far the most powerful beast was LSD, an amazing thing that I would never take again after having been strafed by German Stukas while I was in the middle of St Albans. They were so realistic it was untrue, but yet there was a slight veil that made you wonder ... sometimes you can't even trust your own brain. Eric Corbett 01:49, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Frank Zappa described musicians on drugs as "assholes in action" - and who am I to argue with such a legendary rock figure? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:28, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Oh dear, as ever, I'm late to the party. User:Gobonobo, if you have a problem take it to ANI, Arbitration or anywhere that you feel your views may be better appreciated; but not here, is that clear? Giano (talk) 18:42, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Hey, you're a poet, but did you know it? ---Sluzzelin talk 20:38, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

No, plagiarism [5] I'm afraid (Andrew Lloyd Webber); except I had to censor the original as it would have been deemd sexst and belittleing (by some anxious folk here at least), but the sentiment prevails. Giano (talk) 07:19, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

User talk:Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry

Further to WP:OWNTALK, I'd say that's a terse invitation to stop posting on his talk page. If you have a grievance or whatever, you know what the venues are for that. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 21:37, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Thank you FreeRangeFrog; I was merely trying to explain to others on Chase Me's behalf how important it was that Wikipedia is seem to be honest and transparent, especially as our Founder is so prominent and admired in the Labour political salons of London. I expect that in the fullness of time the Arbcom will exonerate Chase me completely, but that will rather leave Wikipedia wide open - won't it? Giano (talk) 21:44, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Honestly I have no opinion about that nor am I involved in any way, but if someone wants you off their talk page (or removes a comment of yours from it) then you should stay away from it out of simple courtesy. Reverting their removal is very pointy. I'd imagine Richard has enough to deal with right now. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 21:48, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

I think it's probably best to have no opinion. However, I'm afraid Richard has brought this upon himself - it's not as though he's inexperienced; he's a very high profile and official member of the Wikipedia UK Team, so I expect he's able to stand on his own two feet and I hope will have taken immense consultation at a very high level before taking such a step. Giano (talk) 21:54, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Grant Shapps

edit warring, WP:3RR - please stop Mariamullins (talk) 09:13, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Some things, like fact and the truth, are a little more important, so please stop edit warring yourselfGiano (talk) 09:15, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

My Goodness Me Mariamullins, I am surprised that such a new editor with such a small list of of contributions should involve themselves in something like this and be so quick off the mark too. Giano (talk) 09:30, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. BabelStone (talk) 09:54, 3 May 2015 (UTC)