User talk:Giano II/archive 12

King William IV

Hello, Giano. I suppose I am not intended not to use a heading, even though the first heading will look oddly empty once I leave my message... It might be less confusing to people who think like me (though not as elegant) to use a level-one heading above. Or proper text and a line.

Anyway, I am too sleepy to think of a good way to write the same thing without sounding repetitive, so I hope you will not mind my simply linking you to this. In the grand scheme of things, it is the path of least wastage. Waltham, The Duke of 03:34, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

• I have repleid on Casliber's page.  Giano  09:56, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Image thumbnails

Seeing [1], you might want to click on Special:Preferences and select the Appearance tab and set the Thumbnail size to the larger 300px. I believe Tony1 crafted a guideline at some point that counseled against setting thumbnail sizes directly in articles, but daft if I can find it. Anyway, that may help with your more general reading needs. MBisanz ^talk (with his coke bottles on) 10:16, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I have no idea or understanding of these matters. Left to my own devices, I always just do: [image|thumb|left/right|px|caption] which works very well, and was how I had that page until somebody decided to fiddle about with it. I have no idea what is wrong with it now, but I will strongly resist any attempt to reduce images to the sizes of mean little postage stamps swamped by hectares of text - if anything was ever designed to turn a half interested child off the page that would be it. I'm not going to keep reverting people, I usually wait until there is a lot wrong and then go in with a hatchet. As I did removing half the gallery that had nothing to do with the style. Please feel free to do whatever you like to the images so long as they stay an interesting size that is large enough to see. What is this obsession with midgit images - anyway?  Giano  13:14, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that the best image resolution depends on your screen resolution and also in part on your font size. Occasionally I use my EeePC 701. On its tiny screen the current first picture of the article takes 24% of the total screen space, which is way too much. On the screen that I am using right now it's 5.2%, which isn't really enough. Hans Adler 15:48, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

It must be very difficult for you, I wonder why they can't invent something to deal with it. However, at least you are computer literate. Many, like me, are not and just have to make do with dull bog standard screens - so at least those we are writing for can see what they are doing.  Giano  18:49, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

If it was as easy as that it wouldn't be a big problem. But netbooks such as the EeePC are very common nowadays, and for average people in some countries are the only computers they can afford. On the other hand the big computer screen I use at work is quite typical for a modern desktop computer, e.g. as offered to students in a computer pool. Sometimes they have even larger screens.

But of course you needn't worry about these technicalities. I was merely trying to explain where the obsession with tiny images comes from. Hans Adler 19:00, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Giano, give the preference setting a try; Matt and Hans are right. People should be free to set image preference that work well for their equipment. You using a medium sized display (say 1000+ pixels across)? Great, set your images larger; someone else using a handphone will get small images and general readers will get a modest default. How web pages look varies a *lot* on different displays. Cheers, Jack Merridew 19:08, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

For what it's worth, featured picture contributors force display sizes all the time. Apparently there's also a code for setting image size as a multiple of the viewing default size, which produces a display that varies according to how an individual's preferences are set. But readers need an account to set preferences and most people who have an account never learn how to change theirs. So the preferences options are not a good solution for general readership. Within the visual arts there's a good argument to be made for forced pixel sizing: important data may fail to display adequately if the sizing is variable. For example, the whole purpose of illustrating a cornice is lost if the convenient Blackberry version is incomprehensible. Giano is probably right. Durova⁴⁰³ 19:53, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

There certainly will be exceptions; I do it, sometimes. I've not seen the multiple setting you're referring to and will go looking (or take a hint;). As to the default, I would support boosting it a bit, 180px→200px would be good; I believe there's been some talk of this, but as is typical, much talk goes on forever with no result other than exhaustion. A better solution would be a percentage of the user's viewport width: something around 20% with a min/max limit. Cheers, Jack Merridew 20:03, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I do not understand any of this. However, most people cannot afford blackberries and mini-screens and many people do not think "Oh I'm logging into wikipedia, I must re-set my computer" We need to supply a page that is clear and comprehensible to most people and most people have a normal screens - like mine!  Giano  21:12, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Just try Matt's suggestion: Special:Preferences and then click the 'Appearance' tab and then select a larger image size from the second group of options (labeled 'Thumbnail size' in the section 'Files'). Hit save and presto, larger images all over the place. If you don't like it, change it back.

There are other preferences you should consider: click the 'Editing' tab and then adjust the 'Editbox dimensions: Rows' to a bit more than 25 (I use 40), but you may prefer 30-35 per your screen; also, be sure the 'Widen the edit box to fill the entire screen' choice is turned on.

I do agree that 180px is on the small side. The argument you want to be advancing is to get that bumped up a bit for everyone, including the general readers. I expect that the current 180px is from the days of screens smaller than yours and typical readers of today. Cheers, Jack Merridew 21:42, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Jack - people do not log onto Wikipedia and want to go through this complicated rigmarole, they want to click and see and look at want they want to! An image the size of a postage stamp is a big turn off - I am turned off, he she it is turned off - Our duty is to the reader not ourselves.  Giano  21:45, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

That's what I was getting at in my third paragraph immediately above: The argument you want to be advancing is to get that bumped up a bit for everyone, including the general readers. Get the default 180px changed, and *everyone* gets larger images in millions of articles (some of which don't suck;). You can't fix millions of pages and bots and editors following the manual of style will relentlessly undo hard-coded image sizes. The core reasoning behind the MoS position on this issue *is* to help general readers browsing without an account. When the 180px default was set, screens were small, and many, many, people have small screens; smaller than what you likely are using. Some have *huge screens*; like 2560px across. And there's always next year. Consider iPhones and such; they're the future of out general readership. In the developed world, most people have a computer. In most of the world, most people have a handphone and no computer. They are who this project is for. Cheers, Jack Merridew 22:08, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

• My missions and crusades do not involve altering computer defaults or re-writing the manual of style - I have spent my Wikipedia life studiously ignoring both. So long as I don't have to personally confront postage stamp images, I am happy to leave such debates to others who understand such things. I can't help remembering that very nice page that poor Doc Glasgow or (Scottish Mick or whatever he calls himself these days) wrote, a very nice FA yet the unfortunate heroine looked like a midget in the lead - I thought it spoilt the page and all his efforts.  Giano  22:13, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

• OK, I'll give it a rest. There is a long-running discussion out there somewhere and I'll see if I can find it again and dip an oar in. A Scottish Mick? ;) Infoboxes tend to be 200-250px (not sure what the MoS says) so 'she' would have been a bit more readily viewed than an ordinary floating image. Anyway, there are a lot of techniques for grouping images and more effectively laying-out pages and you should feel free to ping me on anything you'd like my to fuss with. Oh; my pet-peeve is the image 'upright' attribute: given a column of image where some are landscape and some are portrait, they should all be the same width, and 'upright' hoses that. (what was the crossword solution?) Cheers, Jack Merridew 22:45, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

• Aha! here she is, I was looking for Bonnie Prince Charley's granny and it seems she was his daughter Now look, someone has since wisely forced the image to be a little bigger (although I would still have it larger) than it was. In fact, it is actually discussed here [2] at the pages FAC itself - there seems to be no strict rules at all - which is as it should be for the more artistic pages.  Giano  22:58, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

  …and I made her portrait a tad larger, still; the default, sans-upright. And I see @ MOS:IMAGES that the default is "soon to increase to 220px". Seems you're onto something.

  see here. you have to turn subtitles on (lower right corner) Cheers, Jack Merridew 00:10, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

  • Furthermore: it's no use hey presto-ing me either, mr Merridew. Instead of enjoying the picture I was trying to embiggen, I expect to spend my prime plowing through the SeaMonkey prefs in a stupor of boredom, because those groups of whatevers aren't there (they have absconded to Internet Explorer, no doubt). I hate computers! Oh how I hate them! Bishonen | talk 01:04, 19 January 2010 (UTC).

• The MoS was changed some months ago to allow image sizes to be forced, so that people don't have to look at tiny thumbnails. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 01:34, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you Slim, there is indeed a God. What people cannot understand is exactly what Durova is saying above - the detail in an image needs to be apparent. Wikipedia is not just for the clever dick few who know how to tinker about with computer settings.  Giano  07:44, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of James Blunt: Return to Kosovo

The article James Blunt: Return to Kosovo has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

This article does not meet the general notability guideline or the guideline established at WP:MOVIE. This film has never been widely distributed (only a VERY limited DVD release); It is not historically notable; It has received no awards (not even any nominations); It has not been selected for any national archive; And it is not the subject of any educational program. The fact that it has received only 11 votes at IMDB signifies its insignificance.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

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

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Onthegogo (talk) 00:38, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

• Don't be so bloody ridiculous.  Giano  08:17, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Architectural playfulness

Hi Giano. Long time no see. I stumbled on this article Captain Robert Bennet Forbes House and I was wondering about the architectural style where classical archetypes were purposefully misaligned and mismatched and mixed. I can't remember when that was done. Was it actually done first in late Roman Times? I think I remember seeing some Palazzos done in that style, but I can't remember the name of the archtiect, the style, or the period. Thanks for any help or insights you can offer. Grazzi. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:54, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

That's one of the most interesting American houses I have seen - so many of them don't seem to to look permanent if you know what I mean (all that clapboard). Wetman is the person to ask, as I don't really understannd American architecture. When you say mixing the styles on some palazzi - I think you mean that some mix the classical orders - which is not quite the same - as the orders do sort of harmonise with each other, whereas styles don't always. That house looks to me to be Greek revivalish, and very much in the mode of John Soane (he was doing that sort of thing just a few years before your house was built) - although the hexagonal tower on top is a little unusual - obviously shades of Villa Capra there. The "Soane" style looks to have been adopted for the warmer climate,but on the whole it's quite a conventional example of the style - take a look at this house here [3] by Soane. It's a nice building though, albeit a little garish in its colour scheme, looks nicer in the old photograph at the bottom of the page - there something of the Petit Trianon about it, but by the time the Trianon was built things were moving ontoward neoclassicism so that's OK too. Interested to hear what Wetman thinks. Thanks for asking me.  Giano  08:15, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm... I think I was referring to either later Roman architecture, mannerist architecture of the Renaissance (Giulio Romano and Baldassare Peruzzi for example), or 18th century French architecture like that of Claude Nicolas Ledoux and Étienne-Louis Boullée. Unfortunately I don't know which. And Michael Graves does some postmodern type "neoclassical" features in his buildings. Very confused here. But I agree with you it's an interesting house. I'm going to see what else I can find on the architect. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:33, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Ah Ledoux, I had forgotten him [4] - mixing styles? - did he realy do that? or are people in transition when they "blend"? - I don't know. Very interesting subject - as I say, Wetman is the person who will know.  Giano  19:53, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't know if mixing styles (or orders) is the right way to describe Ledoux's work, but he was certainly a tour de force his designs. As far as the architect of the house I stumbled on, Isaiah Rogers, he did some impressive work as well and I added some photos to his article. It is certainly in the neoclassical vein and he didnt' shy away from dramatic effects either. Quite interesting I think. His mentor Solomon Willard was a carpenter first, did stone work and architecture later, also in a neoclassical style. But his article is woefully without photographs. There are some on Commons so I will try to add them if I can remember. Thanks for helping me strain my cluttered thoughts on architectural styles, periods, architects, etc. etc. It's been very interesting and enlightening. Quite fun to see how these different architects designed buildings using historical influences and established vocabularies. Very entertaining. Thanks again. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:29, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Your userspace article

Sorry, didn't realise your reasoning behind the articles in userspace till too late. I made two small changes, but when I realised what the purpose of the page was I did a rollback. You can revert my rollback if you like, the edits are pretty minor. Up to you. But sorry, I should not have edited the page. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 14:15, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

P.S. that article is really shaping up! I'm considering having another look at it in a month, as it's pretty interesting, if incomplete. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 14:24, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Randy from ????

As a fellow visitor to Bish's wonderful talk fests, I just have to ask what you have against Boise in particular? It is true that Idaho is a state with limited population and a low economic base, but many fine people were born there and went on to contribute both nationally and internationally. I come from a much smaller Idaho town, and I don't walk very funny or lose my way tooo often. Of course, I'm personally pretending Sarah Palin doesn't exist. Sigh! Perhaps you could rotate Randy's residence through all the US state capitols? Randy from Juneau? WBardwin (talk) 02:48, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

It's a quote; take it up with Lore Sjöberg ;) Jack Merridew 03:35, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I see --- thank you. And Giano says he stole the excerpt from Dream Guy? So, poor little Boise is denigrated on all sides. Sigh, yet again. Although I still have relatives in Boise, my annoying Idaho born cousin Randy now lives in Chicago. Let's blame everything on him! Randy in Chicago. WBardwin (talk) 03:43, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

• My Dear Mr Bardwin, in my beloved nephew's absence, allow me to reply. I'm sure that your cousin is a most delightful person - one can't help one's birthplace and it would be cruel to blame the child for the parent's lack of suitable residency. Indeed, one of my late husbands was born in Pinner! can you imagine anything more shameful? but I never held it against him, even though, naturally, I was born in Belgrave Square and he did have a ghastly habit of saying "ever so" which I always felt was very "Pinner." However, I find it quite extraordinary that 99% of Americans, a nation normally (as is living proof here) so concerned, quite rightly, with moral fortitude wish to call their offspring Randy - such an irony. In France, a most civilised race (apart from their obsession with bidets), one has to choose names off an approved list, which stops the lower orders giving their children cruel or ridiculous names, as is their want. Indeed, my own children, Trig, Trog, Track, Sofa-Table and Whatever-I called-it, are a living testimony to children living up to the names of the noblest and highest aspiration and calling. My great nephew, Giano's youngest, deal little Quasimodo (who has inherited the family's high born looks) also proves this most admirably. Lady Catherine de Burgh (the Late) (talk) 12:34, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Removal of my comment

Was this an accident? [5] Ripberger (talk) 08:36, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Loooks like it. How extraordinary, I did not see you there at all, when reading or editing. Gremlins I expect. I have put you back.  Giano  08:42, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Ah, no problem. Thanks :). Ripberger (talk) 08:44, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

WP:BITE

Please don't bite newbies: [6] --BozMo talk 10:40, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Bite him? I'll bloody chew him and spit him out in tiny pieces if he adds any more crap like that to a page I have edited.  Giano  14:04, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Ownership issues much? - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 22:11, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

How dare you come here, trolling? and try and be so bloody clever? You are so devoid of a sense of humour that you are unfit to comment on this page, now go away 4/3.  Giano  22:14, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

• See what happens when you don't use Warning Template 4(b)(var.4)? (It has been updated since I last wrote!) LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:48, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you LHVU, that's the desired result. I don't use templates, they are for the masses; I am perfectly capable of expressing myself quite clearly.  Giano  14:04, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Do you know who he is? I blocked another obvious sock but have you seen the same pattern before? I don't like templates either but it does help if you given some sort of explanation for onlookers. --BozMo talk 14:19, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

The explanation I gave was very clear. Nope, I have no idea - no one I have come across before. I have seem the patern before though, all sorts of wierd people write about fictitious aristocratic people on Wikipedia, then become those people in real life (for fraudulent or just self-aggrandisement purposes) and are beleived, by the naive, because they get google hits. The last such person was a fictitious Italian/American prince (no relation to this one) who tried to put himself into a palazzo I had written up. If you look the person concerned was writing quite coherently and reasonable, it was entirely beleivable - and then Wikipedia is left with egg all over its face.  Giano  14:24, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

oops

You accidentally removed my comment when you posted this. That is okay, I have put it back. Chillum ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 20:51, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, seems to be becoming a habit today, I wonder if it's to do with European servers being behind European or something.  Giano  21:09, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

ANI

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 21:20, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Please, Giano, I ask that no longer respond there - I have archived that discussion. I would also ask that you take yourself away from the Civility guidelines talkpage, at least until you have regained your composure. Mark.

I did not place myslef on that page. Ta-bu and co were happy to discuss me, with not one courtesy post here to tell me over two or three weeks my name was mentioned over 20 times - is that civil or courteous - you tell me? No diffs did they provide for the alledged civility? It was trial and deffamatory - is that civil? you tell me? Now Ta-Bu claim to be an authority on civility - and hate to have my opinion? Are these people civil?  Giano  21:58, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I'll take the rap for that. I'd assumed that the Page-in-question, was on your watchlist (due to your previous posts), I blundered (by not notifiying ya here). Surprise, I'm not perfect. My apologies. GoodDay (talk) 22:02, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I understand your anger, because you and I know that there are people behind these little nametags and when someone invokes "Giano" in any proximity to the term "civility" they are more likely talking without any knowledge of the history, or the background. You have, through no fault of your own, become a totem, and one which different people find convenient to fly their particular prejudices from. However, anger is not useful here. Presently, withdrawing in a dignified manner is. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:24, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

LHVU, the punchline is "I can lead a horticulture, but I can't make her think." I'll send you the whole joke later. → ROUX ₪ 22:26, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm not in the least angry, I cannot imagine what gave you that impression. However, I do find such trolling edits as this [7] rather disspointing from one who has such an interest in good manners. Whatever, if someone would convey to him that his posts here are not welcome, I would be very grateful. Thank you.  Giano  22:32, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

My dear Giano, when your spelling becomes imprecise then I know that something is distracting you from your usual attentiveness - if not anger, then perhaps "passion". I have indeed requested the editor not post upon these pages, and in a perfectly incivil manner. I hope the point is understood, since he is not such a bad person - as, of course, we all are. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:39, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Ah yes English, such an erratic language, no wonder no one can spell it of speak it. What sort of a language has to rely on its American cousins to give it "y'all" for a plural "you". Of course, I would never resort to an Americanism - interesting thing though "you" - no nice polite civil version either, that must be hard for those native speakers so beloved of civility.  Giano  22:45, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

That is because "you" is the plural, and the singular form is "one". One (you) should be aware that singular fact, and so should the rest of you (many ones). In common speech, extending the vowel determines yue singular and yoo(o) the many. Hmmmm... that sounds quite logical, I wonder if any of it is true? LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:55, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

One expects that you are correct, but if I was told this by a multitude or just you, how would I reply differently? You see it's not so easy. Now I have just spotted some jiggerypokery shuffling on another page in order to distort, confuse and re-present. I wonder why such things are permitted. Wikipedia is indeed a mystery to me, perhaps I should become an admin and behave in such fashions myself, but I think I would rather go to bed with and leave them to it. The civility police will never triumph, they can try to rule by fear, block and distortion, but everyone can see they are little more than.... well I'm sure you know what I'm thinking, I don't need to spell it out. Poor people. Goodnight and nice dreams.  Giano  23:04, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

(pssst....Giano....speaking of ladies with stars by their names, I must point out this: "...perhaps I should become an admin and behave in such fashions myself, but I think I would rather go to bed with and leave them to it..." Your preposition needs an object; your proposition, on the other hand, appears to have already had one.) And incidentally, tirade though they may well have been, your comments on the star-method of civility enforcement were impeccably-written and have made me jealous in at least three or four major ways--not least of which is that I, who pride myself on my rants, couldn't have written it that well in a hundred years. I applaud your ability, even while quirking an administerial eyebrow at your Wiki-manners. You, sir, are Full of Win.)

Ah the much lamented star system, in a way I almost wish they would introduce it, just imagine the fun we all could have with it. Anyway, I am not done with that subject. If I am introduced as a subject of debate by those who have not the common good manners, civility or honesty to inform one, then it falls to me to see it is fair and balanced. That the current civility policies now being forced through by Ta-Bu and his cronies are based on flawed and dishonest debate is matter to be lamented and symbolic of the self-appointed civility police that currently goos-steps around the project. Anyway I must go, I have only just logged in, and need to see if Tan-Bu has restored my comments or is still insisting on a misrepresentation of his own making.  Giano  08:01, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

As far as I'm concerned, you're welcomed to continue to participate. All sides need to have their say, nobody owns that discussion. GoodDay (talk) 15:33, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Your query

Have had a look at the page. Beautiful article! One question first before rotation and perspective correction: would it be possible to reupload any of the originals? Several of the images have ordered dithering, which reduces color depth. These images have been edited in a nonreversible way that doesn't do the subject justice. If you have the original unedited photos available I could provide much better edits, such as improvements to contrast. Best wishes, Durova⁴⁰⁹ 00:55, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I suspect that was my own original editing:-( I deleted the originals year or so ago in a blitz in a failed attempt to speed this computer up - I will have a hunt through the discs, but I rarely save to disc anything that does not feature a member of my vast and grinning family. Thanks for looking and trying, anyway as far as I'm concerned its the architecturual features that are important not the chocolate box effect so please go ahead.  Giano  07:54, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Okay, should be easy enough to do. This is reminding me to write up a blog post of tips for preserving digital photographs. Two tips worth mentioning especially for saving family memories:

1. Digital cameras usually record in JPEG format, which needs to be burned to disk in order to be stable. JPEG has an unusual algorithm that wants to overwrite itself each time it's viewed. If a JPEG is stored on hard disk and it's viewed multiple times, it's going to degrade. (A lot of people don't realize why and how their kids' birthday party photos turn to mush).
2. If you want to convert a JPEG photograph into a more stable format for hard disk storage, TIFF or PNG are good formats. That ordered dithering might have been induced by converting in and out of GIF format.

Durova⁴⁰⁹ 20:33, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you Durova, I shall leave it in your capable hands. It all makes me very glad that Mrs G prints all the best ones out, trims the to look like proper fotos and then glues them into her multiple albums in exactly the way her great granny did - sweet. An another completely different note - is it just this computer, or has everyones editing font become so tiny only a munchkin with a magnifying glass can read it?  Giano  22:20, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) You're welcome. Have edited the lead image. Tried to adjust the floor plan but the file appears to have embedded properties that don't make the edit display well. Perhaps you could name a British archive that's known for maintaining good images about architecture? We've got volunteers who are negotiating with museums and libraries; it might be worthwhile to submit a request. Durova⁴⁰⁹ 22:45, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

That's much better, thank you. I'm not surprised with the floor plans, they are a 3D thing that can be rotated and viewed from all angles, so I expect they are odd. They never will straighten up, even on the progam they are designed in, if they did everything would return to being flat if you follow me. Thanks.  Giano  22:50, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

ANI notice - again

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 08:24, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Tbsdy, you are becoming monotonous and dull. You cannot exclude people because they don't happen to agree with you. It is a great pity, but one I fear you will have to learn yo live with. You attempted to force through a policy, based on a deebate largely centred on me (about which no one thought to inform me). Now I share my views with you and that debate, you are unhappy. That realy can't be helped.  Giano  08:31, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

You said that you are willing to lose edits from the talk page. I have hereby given you appropriate notice that this is being discussed at ANI, that's the only reason I have come to your talk page. I will constrain further discussion to that area. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 08:34, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

• Can you read Ta-Bu? I said what a pity it would be if - I am a notoriously bad merger and mover. Now run along and put my the page back into context and we can have an end to this.  Giano  08:36, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

MfD nomination of User:Giano/The spooky "Curse of Giano"

User:Giano/The spooky "Curse of Giano", a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Giano/The spooky "Curse of Giano" and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:Giano/The spooky "Curse of Giano" during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. --Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 11:49, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Tbsdy, why do you insist on poking the bear? You've started 2 AN/I threads about Giano now and then gone on to nominate one of his user pages for MfD (one which is basically a joke) - I suggest you move onto something else and focus on things other than Giano. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 11:56, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

It's an attack on a whole raft of admins, that's why. Why shouldn't I add it? I can't understand why you are all so intimidated by this editor - he's no bear! - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 12:01, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

You are making yourself look very foolish TSBDY.  Giano  13:43, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Due to overwhelming consensus to keep, I think you are right. I've withdrawn it. My thoughts on your general behaviour remain the same - you are one of the most horrible editors I've ever come across, and I am willing to say this directly to your face, I have no need to say it behind your back. Of course, I also think that your article writing skills are amazing, what can I say? I admire your ability, but I don't admire you. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 15:40, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and P.S. look, I really didn't know that you have dyslexia. Seriously. I myself have clinical depression, so I know what it's like to battle something that you can't help. One thing I can admire about you is that you are evidently someone who has never let disadvantage get the best of you, and I have a lot of respect for that. I guess that's an olive branch, not much of one I suppose given what I wrote above, but still, it's one I hold out. I'll understand if you don't accept it, it's fine with me, but it's worth a shot. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 15:44, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Not to worry Ta-Bu, these things happen. I'll take your olive branch; we seem to have been replaced by a far more absorbing and satisfying subject [8]. Now, I must go and see if it's possible.  Giano  18:15, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh brother. I'm not getting involved in that! - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 00:19, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Recall proposals

Perhaps this might be of interest to you, take a peak. GoodDay (talk) 18:48, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

• I would refer you to my edit of a few moments ago [9].  Giano  18:50, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

We need a list of forbidden words on Wikipedia. PS- If George Carlin could see us now. GoodDay (talk) 19:07, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I know it is stupid, but yes, we do need a list of naughty words. We have people from all cultures and all walks of life and standards of education. It is a unique project. If it takes a list of universal naughy words then sobeit. At least we can debate which are the most grossly offensive and demand a block for even thinking them. I am more than happy to start listing them, my life, it seems, has not been a sheltered as some here. Giano 

Blenheim Palace

Hello, I just wanted to say (I'm sure you realised) that I reverted your edit to Blenheim. I get the impression that it is only you who does not want the Infobox on the page which is rather silly! I trust you will catch my drift. I'm not a regular architecture Wikipedian I just think it is important for people to be able to quickly view the enlightening information!

Au revoir LouisPhilippeCharles (talk) 18:10, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

• Bon Soir, and as you can I have reverted your pointless disinfo-box. Many people hate these boxes, including me - I am a regular architecture Wikipedian and co-incidentally the primary editor of the page. If you bother to read the lead you wil see it contains all the information necessary and in the box. Excluding "Region: Europe and North America" Which I am sure most people can work out for themselves. Adieu.  Giano  18:26, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I hadn’t noticed that this was going to be an issue when I began editing but it appears there is a consensus that the infobox should be included. I noticed that you've undone the inclusion of the box by a number of other editors. One goal of WP:WHS is to include the info box on all WHS. I'll start a discussion on the matter on the article talk page. In the mean time, I plan to return the box because you appear to be the only person opposed to it.--Labattblueboy (talk) 19:24, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

There is no discussion on the talk page and you are tag teaming!  Giano  19:25, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

No tag teaming here. Just apparently commenting on the same subject. I will however confine my comments to the article talk page, as requested.--Labattblueboy (talk) 20:11, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I think you will find, that even my worst enemies here, will agree that I have been on Wikipedia long enough to know tag teaming when I see it - as do they. My advice is don't!  Giano  21:19, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I had long ago given up trying to fight the boxen, although I try occasionally to bury them lower down and out of the way (which still gets reverted). Aren't we expected to be thankful and to give praise for them as a kind of manna from heaven that makes us so much smarter (and lead images quite a bit smaller)? ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:37, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

No, we are not, we never give up - ever! Anyhow, I have been meaning to give a Blenheim a makeover for some time now, I wrote it when I was fairly new, and it's too long and convoluted and quite fankly dull. So I'm going to re-write it and sex it up a little - the filming stuff can get hived off to a page of its own and quite a lot of other stuff too, the same as I did to Sanssouci (oneof quite a few WHS, I have edited, that seems to manage to exist and convey their messages without the dreaded dis-info box) hence the two new lead images at Blenheim - take a more lively approach. Who knows it may even end up an FA - even without a disonfo-box. Watch the page.  Giano  22:47, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I've thrown down the gauntlet if you are in fact serious about the FA status.--Labattblueboy (talk) 02:03, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I find it rather amusing that I am not the first person to try and insert an Infobox, which mean's no harm to anyone least of all Blenheim itself..your tone is rather rude also! I have indeed read, thus bothered to read the introductory paragraph and have also noticed that it has been decided (by you of course) that there will be a large rewrite of the page! I think this is a case of ownership of the article, if I have not said already! After the "rewrite" I will add in the Infobox myself in accordance with the already mentioned WP:WHS! Also, it is Louis Philippe Charles, not Philip! LouisPhilippeCharles (talk) 09:42, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

You must do what you think best.  Giano  10:05, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Seeing all the help and attention this article is getting, I can't help but want to pitch in, and I'm pretty sure this closely related subject should be a see also from the palace article: Blenheim Ginger Ale. ;) Or maybe you'd rather stay thirsty? ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:58, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't thik he will see a lot more action and drama there, until I paste the new version in - then I expect our new League of Architecturalists will come out to play again.  Giano  09:05, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

My view on the current editing at Blenheim Palace.

I wrote this page in 2005. In that time it has barely changed apart from the additions of a trivia and a few facts - some good some irrelevant, I don't own the page so they have for the most part remained. For the last 5 years, I have constantly maintained the page. My attention was really drawn to it last night when there was tag teaming to add an info box. Re-reading the page for the first time in a while, I was stuck that it appeared dated, in as much as Wikipedia's style, a greater need for references etc. and not least my style has moved on since April 2005.

So, having transferred my latest architectural page from user to main space just yesterday, I decided I had the time to re-write it. Unusually for me, I started to do this in mainspace: in the space of a few minutes I was constantly reverted and then the "inuse tag" I had put on to prevent conflicts was removed. The resasons for the reversion given were that I was not following the MOS - a manual I know inside out and back to front. I then decided it would be prudent to follow my usual and undisputed practice or writing in user space. Now, it appears that others who have hitherto shown no interest in the subject too wish to re-write it, and I am challenged as a bet (I have declined) to make it a FA by a certain date. As the page has had no major alterations in the last 5 years and one of those wishing to re-write is Ta-Bu-Sh-Da-Yu with who I have recently been in dispute, I consider this sudden interest to be nothing more than trolling. I am more than happy to let Ta-Bu play there is that is deemed good for the project. I am more than happy to have someone else examine this matter. I don't expect any admin action per WP:HOUND to be taken considering Ta-Bu is somehow an Admin. I just find it all rather sad. However, in the meantime I will continue the re-write in user space where most of my edits have always taken place.  Giano  10:32, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

In the Lead, I was a little bothered by "the palace and the Churchills were saved from ruin by an American marriage. Thus, the exterior of the palace remains in good repair and exactly as completed." I didn't like the term "an American marriage" (sounds like a liturgical form, rather than a description of an event). I also didn't like the unprovable second sentence - the claim sounds overegged to me - both the sequitur "Thus" (if it was not for the marriage, it may still have been the case through some other event) and the exceptionally unlikely case that nothing has deteriorated at all. Cheers --Dweller (talk) 13:49, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Well that may not be in the re-write in that form. However, in reality they were virtually bankrupt, had sold all the furniture, pictures and jewellery and most of the land and London House - The palace was empty. Then the Duke married a Vanderbilt and refurnished and redorated the papace while still on his honeymoon! That can be all fully referenced because Miss Vanderbult rook exception. So yes, I would say an American marriage save them - she certainly said that and wrote a book to prove it! Incidentally, they had been tided over by a leser American heiress a few years earlier, and yes, it is externally as completed, renovated of course, that can be referenced too.  Giano S 13:58, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry if I wasn't clear. I meant three things. 1) "an American marriage" sounds like a style of wedding, not a marriage to an American 2) the implication of the "thus" is that without it, doom for the house was inevitable. This cannot be proved - he could have married a South African heiress. Or the entire family may have been blown up in a freak accident and it passed to a rich cousin. Or they could have sold it. Historical inevitability is a real thorny one. 3) It's impossible to state that everything is as it was, as things degrade over time, even if well-maintained and not altered. --Dweller (talk) 14:28, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I see what you mean, well I have already altered that in the re-write, we now have American Duchesses, although I suppose if we are going to be pedantic (and I supect we are :-) they were not really American the moment they became Duchesses. The whole page is havinhg a big edit, shuffle, rethink and change of emphasis. At the moment is too long and straggly and not punchy enough, too many repetative images of the same thing have crept in. In needs the complex nuances of the architecture explaing and ullustrating, enlivened by some anecdotal stuff and a bit of a wow factor, which at the mment it is sadly lacking. Give me some time on the re-write, then when its looking more or less finished come and comment on the talk page - i might come and prompt you.  Giano  14:35, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I'd be happy to. Thanks for your work. I love Blenheim. --Dweller (talk) 10:52, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

RE:Please espect user space and inuse tags

So sorry, it was my mistake MaenK.A._Talk 12:16, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Don't worry about it - you won't do it again will you? :-)  Giano  12:29, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

A dark day for wikipedia admins

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=123527833

As a wikipedia editor, this article amuses me immensely. Jtrainor (talk) 12:47, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh Dear! That's not going to go down very well. I already think I see it everywhere.  Giano  12:51, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

February 2010

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Talk:Blenheim Palace. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. Jeni ^(talk) 17:04, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I am happy to be blocked to prevent the WP:HOUNDING that is taking place on that page.  Giano  17:05, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

• Giano, leave it, walk away, you have been tranquil recently and block free , walk away it looks like baiting to me, don't rise to it. Off2riorob (talk) 17:09, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

It is complete and utter baiting and trollong, my wikipedia new fouind League of Architecturalists, people who have hitherto shown no onterst in apage or its subject suddenly want to re-write it as they see me doing so. Perhaps, I go and write autofelatio, and make it easier for them.  Giano  17:11, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

You do realize how many idle observers like yours truly have recently ticked "watch it" on Blenheim Palace, expecting more gems of sepeciman and bahvior ilk ... and now you suggest we must watch precisely what? please. How about picking a nice but atrociously dull subject, perhaps a fossil jellyfish or medieval dentistry... just to make the opponents bleed. NVO (talk) 18:17, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

• No, stick with Blenheim, even I am intrigued now, I'm sure we shall soon the 8th Architectural Wonder of the World.  Giano  18:31, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Let them work on that article if they want to, take it of your watchlist, have a cup of tea, you have been nice and quiet for a few months, chillin out, I have been impressed with that. Off2riorob (talk) 17:14, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

No I shall be safe to 3 revert there, the Admins are deliberatly not watching the page, they cannot have it both ways ignoring their own trolling sepeciman amd blocking me, not even the worst of them would be stupid.  Giano  17:16, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I have just added Blenheim Palace to my watch list. Sometime if you could tell me what's going on I will try to help. --BozMo talk 19:33, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

That's realy kind, thank you. It's fascinating isn't it, the things I've done and essays etc to encourage architectural interest and then along comes Ta-Bu and picks up one of the most difficult to explain in the whole of the Renaissance influenced world. One could not wish it on one's worst enemy. I'm pretty cool about it now, and like the rest of Wikipedia watching the page with detatched fascination.  Giano  20:18, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

ANI

There are some whiners butt-hurt about comments you made. -- 32.175.156.35 (talk) 21:30, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Or, to put it into English without the modern heavily idiom laced inflects - yet again there is a thread at WP:ANI regarding you. Regretfully the complainer could not be bothered to extend the courtesy of notifying you of the thread. Still, there we go. 30 a day and a bottle of wine and it's still bloody stressful :) Pedro :  Chat  21:36, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

As a general observation - You seem to have gotten around to claiming that you're being wikistalked on that page, after much confrontation. Wikistalking, if it's happening, is prohibited and actionable. If you think it's happening to you, it would be a lower drama and lower stress response to file a polite ANI report than to do what you did there earlier. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:56, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I learnt long ago never to rely on ADMINS, but to fight my own batles - or is it that no admins have noticed that page all day long? Sorry, GWH, Admins have no rights there now, I'm dealing with it, no buton no magical powers, I just do it. the Admins have missed th boat.  Giano  22:42, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Complex stuff, GWH, but you will of course provde diffs on MY talk page (here to help you out) of exactly where I have made such claims. Or you can retract your lies. Up to you. Pedro :  Chat  22:04, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

That may be asking for too much from good ole GWH. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:07, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. Pedro :  Chat  22:10, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

ANI thread closed. Good. I'v easked GWH for some explanations. Comedy will no doubt ensue but I'm not exactly that fussed anymore. Loving Wikipedia. Pedro - the admin who hates admins. There's a slogan..... Pedro :  Chat  22:25, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Uh, WTF?

Oh, You thought I was talking to you, Pedro? I was talking to Giano...

It didn't occur to me that anyone could misinterpret that, but obviously you and others did. My apologies. It certainly wasn't aimed at you. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:38, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I See (replying to GWH) Pedro :  Chat  22:51, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I see. Replying to IP. Pedro :  Chat  22:51, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

• edit conflicts en masse. GWH, I don't know about other people, but did you notice that I currently claim on ANI that Giano is being wikihounded? [10] (It seems we're not supposed to call it "wikistalked" any more, [11] but it's exactly the same thing.) I claim it. Me. Not Giano. Bishonen | talk 22:53, 12 February 2010 (UTC).

Hush!

Shhhh! I can't hear myself edit. The Admins have pased on this all day and ignored it. So I shall deal with it myself. It aint a problem, a little cruel perhaps, but sometimes one has to be cruel to be kind, rather like breaking the neck of a fallen bird.  Giano  23:00, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Please stop deleting ANI threads

That's not ok. It rises to the level of blockable disruption, as I am sure you know.

Please leave it alone. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:20, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

You've missed your chance on what's blockable here sunshine!  Giano  23:21, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

You have a tactical victory - others who were not directly involved agreed that Tsbdy might be doing something wrong.

Please do not escalate from having won into a pyhric victory, by doing something to get yourself blocked, after having won your point.

The deletion is not helping you in any way. Please stop. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:23, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh, come on. Removing the thread seems to me to have been a concilliatory step by Giano. If anyone blocks Giano over these trivialities, I hope they're willing to turn in their badge at the end of the day. WJBscribe (talk) 23:26, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I have no bone to pick in the underlying conflict, but I am under the impression we really really really don't want people removing ANI threads like that, even if they were ultimately nonproductive or pathetic or whatever. Archive early, maybe, collapse, maybe, but delete?

If I'm wrong on this, please point me to policy or precedent... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:28, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

• GWH, I am not the least concerned with what other Admins belatedly and clearly reluctantly feel one of their own has done. I have known these things all the time. There is no respect here for Admins at all. I fight my own battles and I win them. If you want to block, that should have happened hours ago and not to me. Sorry, but you are now like the road sweeper after the horses of the Lord Mayors Show.  Giano  23:30, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

They do describe it as "the mop"... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:36, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes they do, don't they. I supose we must all do what we can. Perhaps now things have settled you would like to move that ridiculous and trolling "bounty banner" from the top of Talk:Blenheim Palace and then we can all settle back to the dull routine of our editing lives - or would you prefer I remove it?  Giano  23:39, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

a helping hand

Hi. I was just noticing some of the stuff on my watchlist and thought I'd offer a helpful hand. I've made a few tweaks to the live article and thought you might like similar nits ironed-out in the userspace version. I see you've an in-use tag on it, so I'm pinging you. I'll chip-in on the talk page, too, once I read a bit more. Cheers, Jack Merridew 17:26, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

That's really kind, but I really would not bother. I'm going on a fishing trip tomorrow night for a couple of days so it will be safe then, but I'm not sure much of what is there is going to remain, it may be a waste of your time. Thanks for the offer. It will need loads of copyediting much later.  Giano  18:38, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I have it watched, too, and will help as I can and when it's not 'in-use'. I'll also wait until you've moved it further along. Enjoy your trip; even a bad day fishing is better than… a lot of thing. Mebbe you'll catch a few handy trout. Cheers, Jack Merridew 19:06, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks, I'll take the "in use" off before I go and if you want you can have a go, but honestly, I am not planing on much remaining. Not many trout where I am going, more nasty big things with teeth, so we shall be well matched.  Giano  20:18, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

• If you're planning on tearing a lot away before going forward, I'll not put to much into it (I've not rad the userspace draft, yet). Also, visit WP:AN; at the bottom. And enjoy the trip; we'll try and keep the place from burning down while you're away ;) Cheers, Jack Merridew

I'll be here for a few more hours yet, trying to get the bloody plan formated before I finish it. When I have finished it, you might like to have go at sticking links in it, so it's sort of a 3D interactive - do you know what I mean? I don't know what they are really called.  Giano  20:33, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Courtesy notice

You are being discussed on my talkpage. I know you know, because you have commented there - but really the discussion is about how the actions of others from the past impinge upon the freedom of others to act now. While you are of course free to comment and request generally, and specifically in matters where you feel you are misquoted, I would ask you to allow me to try and bring about some understanding why this situation exists... with as little distraction as possible. If possible. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:19, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Whatever you like. However, I have seen numerous quotes attributed to me this evening, many of which are either appocryphal or exagerated. I have disengaged from the editor in question.  Giano  22:23, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I would love to see a rational explanation for why Giano is so villified on this site, but all I ever see is a lot of "sound and fury, signifying nothing". --Malleus Fatuorum 22:26, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

"Est Wikipedianorum talia facere", I'm afraid, Malleus. It's not a novel phenomenon, unfortunately. To paraphrase the same author writing of another famous Italian:

“ You blocks, you stones, you worse than senseless things!

O you hard hearts, you cruel men of Wikipedia,
Knew you not Giano?

”

--RexxS (talk) 07:32, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

[Bishzilla, deeply moved, bursts into unrestrained tears, stuffs all little users and server kittens in her pocket, and tramps off to comfort herself by climbing the Reichstag. ] bishzilla _ROARR!! 22:55, 15 February 2010 (UTC).

Every time you discuss Giano, we have to consume three extra kittens to keep the servers fueled up. Please, think of the server kittens!

I've been wondering if a notice like this would help at all. Franamax (talk) 21:34, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

File:GBP expiremanatl.jpg missing description details

Dear uploader: The media file you uploaded as File:GBP expiremanatl.jpg is missing a description and/or other details on its image description page. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors to make better use of the image, and it will be more informative for readers.

If the information is not provided, the image may eventually be proposed for deletion, a situation which is not desirable, and which can easily be avoided.

If you have any questions please see Help:Image page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 23:01, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Dear goodness me. And with a rationale of "will get it deleted in a few days". Giano, when will you please realise you are dealing with a bunch of six year olds? What a terrible mistake on your part..... Pedro :  Chat  21:15, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Notification of proposed topic/interaction ban on Tbsdy

See here for the proposal. Since you're an involved party I thought you should know. Thanks. Equazcion ^(talk) 23:49, 14 Feb 2010 (UTC)

• It's not really something I need to comment on; I have no intention of editing the BP page for at least a month or so - probably longer. However, I do share your views.  Giano  16:54, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Architectural Eye

Hi. I have been working on The Avery Coonley School for sometime, with hopes of an eventual FA. User:Moni3 was kind enough to copyedit what I have, and suggested I ask you to cast your expert eye on the descriptions of the architecture. The architectural connections to Wright, Jenson, and others are actually one of the most important aspects of the history, and I want to make sure I describe them in an accurate and compelling way. Alas, I am no architect. If you have any comments on how those passages (or anything else) might be improved, I would be glad to hear them. Thanks.

--Nasty Housecat (talk) 16:58, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Love the name, my wife has one, it hates me - probably edits Wikipedia in its considerable amount of spare time. I took a look at the page, I would have supported it at FAC had I known. I can't realy help with the architecture - that sort of fresh air and sunshine style of the 20th century is not really my field. Sorry I don't really like to comment on things I don't understand fully.  Giano  09:15, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Blenheim Palace

Giano, when might you be finished with User:Giano/Blenheim Palace? I am going to be starting work on User:Russavia/London; photos of two of the buildings at Commons:Category:Russian Embassy, London - in doing research on 13 Kensington Palace Gardens I came across references to this book from 1898 - it is available for download in pdf format here. There is an extensive description on Harrington House (now the Russian ambassadors residence) from pages 476-500, and contained within these pages are numerous floor plans. When you are done with the Blenheim Palace article, could I possibly con you into doing plans for this building as seen on your examples page? I have a feeling that the embassy article, if done right, could be FA material, so would appreciate any assistance you can give on that with diagrams and the like. Cheers, --Russavia ^{I'm chanting as we speak} 20:20, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I cannot see the plans there, the link does not work for me, but I'm on a terrible connection at the moment, see if you can upload a plan (it won't be copyright if it's an old building) and then I will take a look. The plans I do don't really work for a huge buildings (like Blenheim), but if your building is no larger then Belton House or Buscot Park, that should be no problem. I can only do exploding type drawings though, roofs are beyond me!  Giano  09:12, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I will see if I can extract the plans from the PDF file and put them up on commons (if they are out of copyright). --Russavia ^{I'm chanting as we speak} 10:20, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Italian speaker help needed

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&oldid=345141999#Why_some_.28unsourced.29_BLPs_are_a_huge_problem

Hi. Could you please read this news link, and specifically determine of the "Giuseppe Provenzano" mentioned in this story is the same man as Giuseppe Provenzano, former President of Sicily? Thanks.

http://www.repubblica.it/online/cronaca/impmafia/impmafia/impmafia.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.136.35.108 (talk) 08:52, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I am not getting involved in Italian/Mafia politics or anything else even remotely connnected to it.  Giano  09:08, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Villa Wolkonsky

OK, you say you don't get involved in Italian politics or anything remotely related to it. How about rewriting and expanding Villa Wolkonsky some day? It is the official residence for the British ambassador in Rome, and there does appear to be a bit of information on it [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] and plenty more. Being an Italian in Pommyland, it would be a fitting article for you to work on in the future, don't you think? --Russavia ^{I'm chanting as we speak} 10:19, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Hannah Primrose

I have no idea why you rv my edits to the Hannah Primrose article given that it is jam-packed with POV, OR, innuendo, etc. You did not leave any reasons or explanations for your action, and I rv back to my version. I hope you will not engage in edit warring. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 22:11, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I really think you would be well advised to leave the page alone. It is not full of POV and all facts are fuly referenced. You are making an issue for reasons best known to yourself, and I will revert you as I revert all vandalism if you continue to remove known and referenced fact and add ridiculous trolling tags.  Giano  22:14, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I did not compare you to Streicher. I compared the extremely offensive and anti-Semitic sounding comment (which you credit to Henry Miller) to something from "1930s Germany". In any event that comment was made at 23:10, 23 February 2010 and you just responded at 13:06, 24 February 2010. Wherefore the delay? Did one of your associates give you good advice on trying to get me blackballed. In any event I did not compare you to Streicher (as explained ) above, so I am going to say this now: Do not ever leave a threat on my talk page. Take it wherever you want but -- REPEAT -- Don't ever leave a threat on my talk page again!. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 13:29, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

• Not Henry Miller, Henry James an altogether different kettle of fish, you realy do need to wise up and know your stuff before challenging my integrity on matters of antisemtitism. As I said, you ever liken me to Julius Streicher or anyone of that ilk again and I'll take you to Arbcom. That's [17] is a threat and it's also a simple statement of fact, and for the benefeit of the "civility police" constantly watching this page, I would go as far as to say that likening anyone to a ant-semetic murdering Nazi thug executed for crimes against humanity is rather uncivil - a pity none of you can see that too.  Giano  13:36, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't think you need to worry about the civility police -- after what you and others have gotten away with, it is pretty obvious that I am the only one they ever seem to notice. Again I didn't liken you to Streicher and I don't care what you think about it. As a matter of fact stay off my talk page completely from now on, as I will yours, and take your issues to the admins you already have in your pocket. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 13:57, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

• I understand you have had problems on this project befoe and suffered a long term ban. One wonders why you have been allowed to return. However, just watch whose work you liken to that of a Nazi thug in future and don't go removing referenced factual information from FAs. In fact, had you read properly beyond the lead to get to the referenced section you would not find yourself looking so stupid now. No matter, I have a feeling you won't be here long enough to learn our little ways.  Giano  14:04, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Where's the page for "classics" ('classick'ed WP quotes) when you need one?

for the benefeit of the "civility police" constantly watching this page, I would go as far as to say that likening anyone to a ant-semetic murdering Nazi thug executed for crimes against humanity is rather uncivil - a pity none of you can see that too.

Because it bears repeating: "I love you, Giano". ;) Your_greatest_fan —Preceding undated comment added 14:40, 27 February 2010 (UTC).

• Thank you. I'm afraid Wikipedia's civility police are a bunch of mealy mouthed hypocrites who would not recognise a real insult if it jumped up and savaged their retentive little behinds. Their only concern is for nice pretty manners and respect for their own position.  Giano  18:42, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Architecture

Hello, Giano. An article I've recently worked on includes a portion of architectural content. It's about a lighthouse in France, and is an older fr-wikip featured article. I expanded it from the French language content; a translator has also said they'll proofread it when they can.

Although I tried hard to get it right, as somebody who unfortunately doesn't know modillions from castellation, terminology errors may've crept in. I wondered if you might take a look, or perhaps recommend someone? Thanks, Whitehorse1. 19:19, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

• I think it's a very nice and very interesting page. I have made one or two very small additions that a more observations from the images than referenced fact. I've just had a quick scan of the French version and can see no errors of translation.  Giano  19:55, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Thanks so much for your improvements, and your kind words. The additions, small or no, really flesh out the section, which tended to only focus on the upper structure before. I genuinely appreciate you taking a look at the translation, too. It's something I felt unsure about, so I'm pleased to hear it looks okay. Take care, Whitehorse1. 20:53, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

No problem - any time.  Giano  20:57, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Windows

Another editor is wondering whether there is specific terminology for the type of window visible above the entrance to this church with two smaller arches topped by a circle to form a larger arch. I thought you might know the answer. The clover leafy part of the ones at Notre Dame are quatrefoils (does that make the big one with six petals a hexafoil)? Are the paired arch windows type of lancet windows? It seems to me they would be too wide and double-"lance". Is there a name for that type with a circle above them in the arch? ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:40, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

A Gothic Geometric Window with hexafoil. See [18]. – iridescent 18:05, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

You could say that, but I would say it was Gothic window divided by tracery into 2 lancets surmounted by an oculus depicting a "whatever-it-is" with six lobed foils. Each lancet is composed of two trefoil lancets supporting a quatrefoil. You could say hexafoil, but if you look the window illustrated has a distinct decorated centre (oculus) which is intended to be more distinct than the decorated quatrefoils of the lower windows. There may be a name for the window as whole, but I don't know of it. Others may quite rightly describe the window using other terms -I don't think there is a right or a wrong.  Giano  18:09, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Very helpful. Thank you both.

As long as I have you here :), what style of architecture would you say this is? I was wondering about it and came across the Szalonna (town) article, which is illustrated with a roof line that has a somewhat similar double slope. Is that a Hungarian style? Does it have a name? ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:00, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

• I don't know what the correct term is, I have seen it called "pepperpot" which it's not - that is something completely different and also "a candle-snuffer roof" - which is also wrong. If you call it a witch’s hat roof (which I do) everyone will know what you mean. They were common in may north European castles from from very early on see Château de Maintenon, allthiugh there they may have been added by Mansard much later, but that's the only example I can think of off-hand, and they are all conical too. I don't know what you would really call your American church, I cheated and looked at the page and see it is called American Craftsman. Perhaps it is, I don't know the style, but to me, it looks sort of Thai - not high enough to support the grand roof, so the roof looks oriental as a result, perhaps it's supposed to look Oriental. I was always told the roof shape developed to stop avalanches of snow falling in people's heads (think Swiss chalet), but that cannot be the reason in Thailand (Ohio? - what's their climate like?). Interesting old thing, architecture isn't it. I would go so far as to say your church roof was not influencedby Europe at all, and you need to look further east.  Giano  19:37, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

There are some (not many) churches in this style in Scandanavia and northern Germany (see File:Glomminge church tower.jpg, File:Herrljunga kyrka, den 9 maj 2006..JPG or File:Lüdingworth, Kirche.JPG for instance. If I remember right, Ohio was settled largely by Danes, so they may have brought the style with them (although it's certainly not what I'd consider a typical Danish church spire). If Bish is reading this she may know if it's a Scandanavian style and if so what it's called. – iridescent 19:48, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

The craftsman identification seems to me to have more to do with the materials and construction than the architectural motif, but what do I know. I guess it's all related. It's interesting you reference Thai architecture Giano, because I was thinking some Japanese Temple have that kind of double pitch ...? The architect's name is Harry Wachter and some of his work can be seen here, especially his solo work seems to show more of the gabling and "crafty" roof lines. (I think the other stuff is what's referred to as "Richardsonian"?)

His Brinkerhoff flats, which are described in that source as "witchy", have "arched gables decorated with carved and openwork decoration, narrow roof dormers almost like slits, and a diamond motif repeated in the windows". It looks like something Austrian or Eastern European to me, but I guess it's English? I don't have a great deal of expertise on these styles. The source says he was designing many "truly unique, witchy looking Shingle... borrowed from the English Arts and Crafts Movement."

There's also a statement about one of his buildings that "The Mills and Wachter-designed building is still the object of scorn today by members of the congregation... derided as some as an ugly mostrosity." :)

Some of the later 19th Century architecture I've come across is very fun with lots of cupolas and interesting roof features and strikingly unusual facades. I think maintenance may have been an issue because the later neoclassical stuff is a lot less exravagantly ornate and seems far less intriguing.

As far as national origins, there seem to have been a lot of Germans arriving in the area around that time, including a large Jewish community in Cincinnati that established Manischevitz. In fact some of the Eastern European arrivals seem to have taken on German to fit in and there were two golf clubs in Cincinnati one for Ashkenazi and another for the more recent Eastern European arrivals. I thought that was interesting. Meanwhile there were lots of German Catholics in other parts of the state such as the Land of the Cross-tipped Churches. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:59, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Looking at the picture of the Brinkerhoff flats, they are definitely Scandinavian in inspiration. However, regarding the Ohio church, I am 99% sure that the architect was looking more towards the east than the west. I could be wrong, I have no references or sources - just a hunch - look at the tower - it's square not round, and that little turretty/oriel window thing rising from it to become another pinnacle - it's pure oriental temple - all the proportions are wromg for a European inspiration - I would actualy go so far as to say the style is definitely in this vogue. Now,when you've finished laughing, you have a look and the eaves the gables the heights, the proportions and in particulat the pinnacles.  Giano  21:38, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, I just don't know. But the guy's partner Miller did a church that had a double pitch roof, although I can't find a good source with pictures, and the sources I can find seem to indicate it's a Craftsman, neo-Gothic style with British influences. I like that Thai building though. Maybe I'll have to get off Ohio and head for some more exotic locales. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:12, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

No, don't bother. It's wedding cake architecture even by Oriental standards, as I suspect is the Ohio Church - just an architect having some fun - very successfully.  Giano  22:18, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh, wow, Giano, that Thai Temple is a monstrosity. Where did you find that? People actually worship in that thing? It looks like it has devil horns all over it. Tex (talk) 22:40, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Indeed they do, and we must all try to be open minded. Something I excell at.  Giano  22:41, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

• Cripes.. it's more like a UFO. I'm glad to say I've never seen anything like it, Iridescent. Glomminge and Herrljunga, by contrast, appear quintessentially Scandinavian to me. Scania (Skåne) is choc-a-block with such churches, they're the country churches of my childhood. However, as Giacomo knows too well, I don't know the first thing about architecture, and not what anything is called. Incidentally, Giano dear, did you notice this little reminder to bureaucrats I posted? Or the recent Mattisse development? Bishonen | talk 23:18, 3 March 2010 (UTC).

• I'm expect you spent a lot of time in those churches too, I think I shall do a tour of Sweden this summer, I may drop in on you - we could pray together. I'm sorry, I am not interested in Mattisse and her so called "mentors", I could have written that inevitably sad story six months ago, but as usual nobody thinks I know what I am talking about and so have to learn the hard way - Arbs can oversight obvious jokes on personal whim (to Risker), but Admins must not block other Admins for similar. They too will learn - eventually - I suppose how ridiculous they are when they come out with these oppossing views depending on who they are dealing with. If ever we needed proof that "admins" and "Arbs" are special we are seeing it this evening.  Giano  23:27, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh goody, I like windows, especially ones which use a local flower I have varying success at growing - the waratah :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:00, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

That looks more like a kalaidascope than a window - where is it?  Giano  21:44, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

here is the church. Funny - I drive right near this place about twice a week. I must stick my head in next time as they might have some other nice windows etc.....Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:06, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

• Mmmm, I just looked at the website - I would not go in there if I were you. "We are a diverse, friendly group of people who share an extraordinary hope." In my experience it's best to avoid "diverse frienedly people with extraordinary hope." Also, Never trust a priest that smiles like that. Before you know it, they have you claping your hands, leaping about the aisles and shrieking "Hallelujah" and "Praise the Lord" during Mass like demented banshees. Be very careful Casliber, is a Wikipedia page worth the risk?  Giano  08:27, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I promise to duck in and out on a non-Sunday with a helmet and earplugs on...but if I come back and make 800 odd edits to Anglican Communion....then something might be up :/ Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:20, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

• Well do be careful, become an "Anglican" and you won't be able to spend eternity with me and the other Wikipedian Catholics! You will be down below, spending eternity with debauched harlots and drunks getting up to God knows what sinful practices.  Giano  09:34, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

It was Henry IV of France who said "Paris is worth a Mass"...so I guess wikipedia is worth...well whatever it is that Anglicans do...the other place with decorative waratah stained glass windows is Sydney Town Hall but last time I went there.....look who I met. Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:38, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Well! If that's the alternative, it ought to encourage people to lead to good decent lives and try and get into Heaven.  Giano  09:53, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

At the Australian meetup, Jimbo was surprised to learn Giacomo El C had baked the biscuits special brownies. (Where are you, honey? Come back and have my babies!) Bishonen 21:52, 5 March 2010 (UTC). Alternative: The problem with cheating at golf was that one had to remember where one had hidden one's opponent's ball.  Giano  21:59, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

A potential source of images

Hi Giano, found a resource that might be useful in your area. The Library of Congress rare books division has recently digitized a book of architectural designs by Abraham Swan, published 1759.[19] These are generalized illustrations of Georgian architecture available at very high resolution (featured picture potential). Seems to be a period and style that interests you, and good illustrations can be hard to come by. Let me know if there's anything in it that would be particularly useful for your article work. Best wishes, Durova⁴¹² 22:56, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

That's very interesting indeed, thank you. So, if I understand these things correctly, I can upload those images as copyright "expired because of age"?  Giano  07:47, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, these are all public domain. Better still, the full TIFF versions of these files are nearly 50 MB. That means high quality digital restoration is feasible. Durova⁴¹² 21:58, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Help!

Hi Giano, I noticed that a certain Bavarian palace became featured on the German Wikipedia two weeks ago and proceeded to translate it. At the moment, the article also contains 5 paragraphs from the original English version. So it's all still work in progress and far from FA quality.

I am not sure that the overall structure is ideal, so I wonder if you could find a few minutes for a quick scan of the article and for the administration of some specific advice before I start working on the more superficial problems that I can see with my untrained eyes. It doesn't seem to make much sense to fix the prose while there may be more fundamental issues. Hans Adler 13:24, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Funnily enough, I have quite a few books about Ludwig's castles, as I child I had a bit of a thing about Newschwanstein and went there a couple of times. Sadly though, most of them are in German, a a language I can sort of understand and sort of speak, but not to the necessary lever of an architectural reference book, I think a couple might be in Italain or English; I'll take a look and see what I think, and what I have.  Giano  16:32, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I took a look! What a mess! Where does one start. German efficiency and order seems to have broken down there. I think it needs to start with a single "Concept and ethos" combining all the early history of the site and what Ludwig was all about and seeking (quite a bit pruned from what is already there. Then have an "architecture" section with interiors as a subsection. Then have a single "After Ludwig's death" detailing what was complete in 1886 a and what came later. The War and Nazis etc can be a subsection if that. Then conclude with an up-to-date section explaining that its swarming with tourists etc.

There seems to be quite a lot saying very little, The architecture especially needs hyping up and better explaining and all in one place. I would take it it into user space and first just stick each paragraph in an appropriate section so that you can see what is repeated or unnecessary. Then I think it will be clearer what needs doing - I think you will have to be quite ruthless with a lot of the text and shred it. The fill in some gaps as they become obvious. If the paragraphs are filed and ordered the page will start to write itself. I won't edit unless I'm asked as too many cooks can be dangerous.  Giano  17:38, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks a lot, that is very much what I expected to hear; only given that this article became featured with 13:2 votes I thought that perhaps I am just seeing things. I tend to start projects and then abandon them at some point, so I stopped working in user space and generally do everything in place, so that when I run out of steam there are still improvements in the live article. So far as I am concerned you are very welcome to do with the article whatever you want.

You sound quite enthusiastic. Obviously there is nothing better that could happen to the article than for you to take over. If you are interested in that I will gladly step back and become a minor assistant. Perhaps you would consider working on it later, when you have finished Blenheim Palace and perhaps some other prior projects? In that case I guess it would make sense for me to simply leave the article as it is for now, to avoid working for the shredder. Hans Adler 18:19, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I am keen on Neuschwanstein, to be honest I have looked at it a couple of time over the years and thought about it (although, Herrenchiemsee is the one I wil truly elevate one day). You are right, the trouble with user-space is that one can get sluggish and be slow to finish and pick up other things. However, with that particular page, I can see no option (for my mind-workings) than to take it ito user-space and spend hours filing, sorting and shredding. You saw it first, go for it, I'll keep an eye. Seriously, you do it.

My style is all very well, but it would be a bit dull if all the major European buildings are the same in style and format. You do it; I am happy to pad the architecture bits out, if you ask, besides which bloody Blenheim, with so much hitherto unpublished information, is proving more interesting than I anticipated.  Giano  21:15, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Brilliant, let's put it this way: I will have fun until I give up in despair or simply run out of steam as usual. Meanwhile I will shamelessly pick your brain until you stop me and of course let you have your way with the architecture bits. I have restructured the article in the way that I understood your advice, and it already looks much cleaner. I have moved Ludwig's last days to the last section, so that the article ends with the most exciting bits. (If anybody asks I will have convincing explanation ready that has nothing to do with drama!) My editing style is a bit different from yours, so I think I will still give the in situ operation a try. Hans Adler 21:55, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Good idea!:-) One very minor point - I failed to mention earlier - the er...."info-box" - a sovereign always "commands" an architect - he is never a "client." I also doubt the architects saw themselves as part of a "team." That said, I shall leave it in your more than capable hands. It's looking better already. Please ask though...whatever.  Giano  22:27, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

As a mathematician I rarely have to worry about infoboxes. This one seems to be quite bad and inflexible, and due to Germany being in an upright position the map takes a ridiculous amount of space for little profit. But for the moment I can live with the infobox as a reminder that the article is unfinished. This will probably save me some edit warring. Hans Adler 00:08, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Pity that Neuschwanstein Castle is not a World Heritage Site. Considering that their infoboxes are relatively small, actually include useful information unlikely to be mentioned in the article body (i.e., the specific criteria), and are almost certain not to include inaccuracies, they are probably amongst the most harmless. I am working on such an article (excruciatingly slowly), and at least I know that I don't need to worry about this issue. Waltham, The Duke of 21:40, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I have simply reduced the infobox to reasonable dimensions by removing the map. I am even beginning to like it in its current state.

Unfortunately I am having trouble with the images. There are so many good ones available that I am running into display reasons. I put a dozen or so into two galleries, but today I had my first drive-by gallery extension. Serves me right. Hans Adler 20:53, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Blenheim Palace

Hey there; just saw you were working on a draft of this article. If you'd like some help, give me a poke; I've got some sources on the political use of the Palace during the 1920s, and a lot of academic journal articles (the library, Vanbrugh's general work, the organ, furniture and the "Blenheim Palace Controversy" are all sourced up to the neck in academic articles, f'rinstance). Ironholds (talk) 04:16, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

• That's very helpful thank you. Please put anything you think might be useful on the talk page here User talk:Giano/Blenheim Palace. I am keeping the page heavily based on architecture - with some mention of contents. More than any other, it's an architect' house and the architecture is it's most important factor. I will not be placing much emphasis on politics, the inhabitants or the grounds - as they can all be and will be covered elsewhere. One of the problems with the present page (my fault - I wrote it) is that it rambles on for ages about the Churchill's and their feats rather then the house, so I confining mention of any individual only in direct relation anything they acheived at the Blenheim. The images are going to be limited to only those that serve a true illustrative purpose. An amazing picture of a butterfly is realy not much use to anything but a page on butterflies. I have already started another page here User:Giano/Blenheim Palace, the grounds (more of a text dump at the moment) and if anyone wants to take that over, they are welcome. I think the 9th Duke's own page needs to be considerably expanded as his life was interesting, even if he was, by most accounts, rather an unpleasant charactor. Also we lack a page on Gladys, Duchess of Marlborough which would be a fun page to write, especially as she was barking mad and had a pretty lively life. I think all of these pages need writing and then making "see also" to Blenheim and linked to in the text.  Giano  08:09, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Certainly the way to do it; I meant more for context in the short "history" section that I assume will be contained in it than as a large chunk of the article. I'm fully agreed with you there; articles about buildings should be focused on buildings, not the people who inhabited on them. I'll post a list this evening, since I don't have the journals to hand at the mo. Ironholds (talk) 10:58, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

• At this stage, and this may change, I'm not sure there will be a shorty history section. I think "history" may be better explained when neccessary and applicable within the text. The problem though with a house like Blenheim that was just plonked on the landscape rather than evolved is that there is no natural progression or chronology. as far as the house is concerned not a lot happemed from completion until the very end of the 19th century, then there was a little internal industry and then again time has stood still. Certainly, the people were fascinating, I am already thinking of an Inhabitants of Blenheim Palace page. I know of at least one author, TBSDY, who is already heavily researching, so perhaps he may beat me to writing that particular page.  Giano  18:49, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't know if you are aware of it (or interested), but there is apparently a bounty on this article. Waltham, The Duke of 21:23, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I am aware, and I'm not the least interested. If we are going to start bringing money into Wikipedia, I doubt Jimbo could afford me or half the other content editors here. I work at my pace, in my time. I am currently waiting for a new book and the page will continue when it arrives. I doubt very much it will be finished by whenever it is - the only thing I guarantee is that it wil be comprehensive and informative when I put it into mainspace.  Giano  22:45, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually, the money is donated to the Wikimedia Foundation in the winner's name... But I see your point, and mostly agree myself. Waltham, The Duke of 08:37, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

There is actually a very long story involved to that particular bounty, and I am not going there. I strongly advise others to do the same. Blenheim will go into mainspace when it is to my satisfaction and not one moment before. I no longer do FAs anyway, I will bring it what I consider to be FA standard, but it won't be FAd, at least not by me, so it hardly matters.  Giano  08:45, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I shouldn't know about the bounty's back-story. But once again it is impressed upon me what a pity it is that A-class isn't more widely applied.

PS: You doth indent too much. Waltham, The Duke of 17:34, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Thou usest obsolete grammar incorrectly. Hans Adler 18:38, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Erm, it waseth intentional? No? I didn't think you'd believe that. Seriously, I am aware of the existence of dost (I have even read the King James Version of the Apocalypse for ideas), but I am out of practice. And I'm not really sure where do is supposed to be used, now that I think of it. Waltham, The Duke of 20:10, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for having been rude, this is a pet peeve of mine. For me as a German it's trivial to keep the more common forms apart (basically they sound German to me), and I am regularly irritated by published texts that use them totally incorrectly in order to make things sound archaic. I will try not to repeat this so that I won't ever get into the situation of having to read "waseth" (*sound of fingernails on a blackboard*) again.

I am not entirely sure about all the uses of do either, probably something like I do, thou doest, he/she/it doeth, we do, you do, they do. Hans Adler 21:34, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I didn't find your correction rude for a moment; the phrasing actually seemed humorous to me.

I do remember noticing the similarity with German forms at a time when I remembered enough from that language to be able to speak in it, and, in any case, English and German have a common origin. I can certainly sympathise with regards to the misuse of words and forms, as I am Greek, and English has borrowed heavily from my mother tongue. Most loans are used as prefixes, or have otherwise been adapted, but the few examples of original grammar left in common use (rather than in scientific terminology) are generally bungled. "One criteria" makes my hair stand on end. And the saddest thing is that one day this will probably be the norm; indeed, it's how languages evolve, and I shouldn't be surprised if "criteria" became the singular in the future and "criterias" the plural. "The hoi polloi" is already considered standard usage. I know it ought not to annoy me so much—the Anglicisation of non-English words is just as legitimate as the Hellenisation of non-Greek words—but it's sometimes hard to swallow. Especially now that the flow has reversed and we are importing unmodified English words wholesale into our vocabulary. Waltham, The Duke of 19:00, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

"Visa" already is correct as a singular. In German the singular is still "Visum". One of the best examples for atrocities becoming correct is the Italian word "stage". It was imported from French and means internship. But the "correct" pronunciation is, or at least is becoming, the English one. Hans Adler 22:29, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

"Criterion" is a losing battle, see these edit summaries^{criterias → criteria, followed by criteria → criterion}   pablo_hablo. 01:12, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Pretty much; 'oe' becomes 'o' sometimes (non-standardised spelling back in the days of the quill pen); "I do, thou dost, he/she/it doth" ... so I suppose one could say "thou indentest too much" or "My lord the Duke indenteth overmuch". If you wanted to.   pablo_hablo. 21:47, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

"My lord the Duke indenteth overmuch." Lovely. :-) Waltham, The Duke of 19:00, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

• Would you all please be careful because this page is watched by the civility police. Any remote mention of anything Anglo-Saxon is likely to have them creeping out of the woodwork and I do not want their salivations or your blood on my carpet.  Giano  22:46, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Don't worry; my blood is blue, so it washes easily.
  • I can understand that people find being corrected in public rather offensive, usually because it lowers them and makes them vulnerable to criticism. However, this is an encyclopaedia; we are supposed to be accurate. Furthermore, the community is largely anonymous, and its members are nominally equal, so people around here ought to be much more comfortable with being corrected. Personally, I ask people to correct me when I am wrong, because I hate spreading misinformation. I have long said that, and I shall continue to do so. And with this declaration, perhaps some over-zealous defenders of civility may be discouraged from taking offence on my behalf. Or at least one hopes so.
  • All that said, I'm not sure I see the relation between civility and Anglo-Saxon subjects. Does this mean we can discuss bees but not wasps?</bad joke> Waltham, The Duke of 19:00, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
    • You want to be corrected when you are wrong? It is a great privilege for me to break the news to you: Your blood is not blue. You are the victim of a popular misconception. [20] Hans Adler 20:49, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
      • What? Nooooooo! I've been living my entire life in a lie! Waltham, The Duke of 22:23, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Why is it some people like Bishonen and Malleus can have a salon of smart and entertaining people exchanging biting wit and repartee on their talk pages and all I can have is you two bickering on? All we need now is the civility police and we can have a tea total cocktail party. "Fucketh offus".  Giano  22:46, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Just a slight correction Giano. Latin came before early modern English. Therefore it is "Fuckus offeth". As you can clearly see the Latin ending rightly precedes the English one. The original Latin expression had the same ending (-us) on both components. While of course in modern English both endings were dropped in favour of the familiar shorter (and more blockable) version. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 00:30, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Well no, there's another problem here; –eth is a verb ending and –us is a noun ending. So your example would mean (if anything) "the fuck goes off" whereas Giacomo's would be more in the spirit of the imperative.   pablo_hablo. 00:59, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

You smoked me out Pablo. I thought what's the harm in trying my theory but here I am picking up the pieces. What the hell, nevermind. I have noticed however that I am definitely picking up some bad habits here. Must be the atmosphere. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 01:21, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

WP:SYNTH

Giacomo, could I get your opinion on this? I think it's very synth-y, but I could be wrong. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:46, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I am just so horrified that I can barely speak. I hope you are all blocked for a very long time. That page is bordering on the seditious.  Giano  09:23, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Very entertaining!

I just found this. It has been transferred to Commons and used in a couple of articles. Along with the lion's head toilet paper rolls, no doubt! Have you any idea where the perpetrator is? Amandajm (talk) 10:36, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I know exactly who the perpertrator was.  Giano  11:24, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I say nothing (look at the last entry in the table). Does anyone actually check sources any more? – iridescent 12:10, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Are you volunteering to go to Madrid for verification? Hans Adler 12:20, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Complete Madrid Codex v.1, complete Madrid Codex v.2. Enjoy. (Or do you think a genuine Leonardo manuscript would be tagged "Creator:Bishonen"?) – iridescent 12:34, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I thought that Bishonen is eclectic enough to be interested in Leonardo's work and perhaps scan a piece or two from his infamous toxic phase. (Hmmm, the red link suggests I got the grammar wrong?) Please assume good faith! Hans Adler 13:13, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Teehee! [Little Toxic Personality giggle happily at electric Bishonen.] Come 'shonen! We climb Reichstag without Big Zilla! Little Toxic Personality (talk) 20:32, 17 March 2010 (UTC).

Now that I've been made aware that the Toxic Personality herself is, in fact, Leonardo, everything is more clear. Raymond Bertrand de Got 20:36, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

It is? [User:Little Stupid is still trying to understand any of it. Draws a bow at a venture: ] Was it User:!!? Could have been! Vulgar fellow! Little Stupid splash! 01:04, 20 March 2010 (UTC).

Winter Palace

Please see Talk:Winter Palace#"Tsar" after 1721 - thanks much. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 23:58, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Robert Lawson

I see that you have substantially contributed to Robert Lawson (architect). The article has been nominated as a good article, but needs some attention to ensure that it meets the standards. The assessment is here. In particular, the article needs strengthening in its referencing. Can you help to improve the article to the required standards, so that it passes as a good article. I would greatly appreciate it. Thanks, Adabow (talk) 11:58, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

I'll take a look, but I don't really care for "good articles."  Giano  22:29, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Your edit to Robert Lawson (architect), was - according to you - to remove the "absurd" infobox. Most, if not all biography articles should have infoboxes. I will revert your edit. Please find consensus for such an issue. Thanks, Adabow (talk) 07:45, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

• If you check you will discover that the info box shopuld not be added without notification and concencus from the principle authors. There is no rule demanding such a box and I do not beleive you to be a principle editor of this page [21]. Thank you for your interest, I have reverted you.  Giano  09:22, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

ANI notice

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.-- Cirt (talk) 22:26, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

It is a great pity that you did not think to post her before plastering "cite" tags all over a FA. Respect Wikipedia's ettiquette, and you may just be respected in return. Good evening.  Giano  22:28, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Rollback

I have removed the rollback rights from this account, as you have misused it multiple times over the past several months. As you are an experienced user who had the right for a long time, I don't think it's too much to ask that you never use it except to revert blatant vandalism. Tim Song (talk) 22:39, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I saw you had listed the my reversion of erronious facts at Mentore Towers as misuse. And indeed this one too [22]. How ignorant you are - learn your facts and wise up or hand in the tools you are obviously unfit to hold..  Giano  22:41, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Erroneous though they are - and I was well aware of that when I cited that diff - they re not blatant vandalism, which you yourself seems to have tacitly acknowledged when you explained the reasons for the revert. The fact that it needs to be explained means that rollback is inappropriate. Tim Song (talk) 22:48, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Oh go find a page to write and edit - do something useful, little Admin, who on earth are you anyway? I have never heard of you.  Giano  22:50, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

John Vanbrugh

Eyjafjallajökull in April 2010. Welcome back!

Giano, in case you haven't seen this - Wikipedia:Featured_article_review#John_Vanbrugh - just needs a sprinkling of inline fairy dust I think. Johnbod (talk) 02:44, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

In that case, I am sure that the person who nominated it and thinks that to be the case will have no problem finding the references. In any case, I see that "Cirt" is there, and that we means we can all be "certain" of one thing. I shall leave such games to those who have the time and inclination to play them.  Giano  06:59, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

ANI discussions

In regards to this, I think it would be more productive for you to start a new section rather than continue the discussion as is. First, it would allow that section to be resolved and we can all move on. Second, it would keep the new section focused. Third, I can guarantee that more people will pay attention to an entirely new section than comments buried halfway down an existing section. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:24, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

No, I realy cannot be bothered. The second I am insulted some petit-admin always comes along and kills the conversation to stop me responding. It seems to be a complete mystery to some that so many of us have no desire to have magical powers of any form.  Giano  12:31, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

I have withdrawn my remark as uncivil. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:10, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Oh I really wouldn't bother, it's only supposed incivility from me that's perceived as a problem from the little admins and their squeeky followers.  Giano  17:21, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Eyjafjallajökull in April 2010. Welcome back!

John Vanbrugh

With regards to Wikipedia:Featured article review/John Vanbrugh/archive1, I apologize for not informing you. I only looked for the FAC nominator and missed the top contributors. Regards, —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 18:17, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Not to worry, I leave Wikipedia's sewers to those who feel most comfortable there.  Giano  20:31, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I don't really feel comfortable there, hence why I rarely nominate articles at FAR. :-) Writing about ships is much more fun than going through an article's references a'la Wikipedia:Featured article review/Puerto Ricans in World War II/archive1. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 05:17, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Robert Lawson

Please stop altering the record of the article history. The article was put up for GA status in good faith; that it failed is part of the record. While your work on the article in the past has been most helpful, you must allow others to work on it too.-gadfium 20:56, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

• Then get the grammar right on the "good article" template! Or I will remove it again. If these people profess to know so much, why is their grammar so vile and wrong? "...a Arts good article" these people are a joke! Giano  20:59, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

You have a valid point about the grammar. Feel free to take it up at the appropriate venue; perhaps Template talk:FailedGA. Would it be an acceptable compromise if I substed the template on the RL talk page and fixed the grammar there?-gadfium 21:03, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

My prose is crap, I can barely speak English. That is deemed by those who make the template and deem what is good. Who am I to dare to comment?  Giano  21:07, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Working

It's working! :-) Bishonen | talk 18:37, 29 April 2010 (UTC).

Of course it's working! My darling nephew has the highest of contacts, a hotline to the top! Just place a little faith in him! Lady Catherine de Burgh (the Late) (talk) 23:22, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Howdy Cate, try not to revert article changes. We wouldn't want others mistaking you for a sock. GoodDay (talk) 15:11, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Sections

Hi GoodDay. Please try to start a new section when you start a new post on this page. We wouldn't want other people mistaking you for me. Please post only matters of interest. Thank you. Bishonen | talk 14:21, 1 May 2010 (UTC).

This is Giacomo's talkpage, not Bishonen's. If Giacomo wishes me to start a new section on his talkpage 'or' even wishes me not to post on his talkpage, I shall comply. PS: Nobody will ever mix me up with Bishonen (thank goodness). GoodDay (talk) 14:36, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

I am glad to hear it's working. By the way, why are you talking to yourself, Bish? Hans Adler 17:11, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Hans. Oh, that's merely because GoodDay has forgotten that Lady Catherine de Burgh (the Late) told him not to post on this page any more. *I* wouldn't forget such a thing, but meh. Bishonen | talk 17:33, 1 May 2010 (UTC).

I rather think it was me that requested GoodDay to cease posting on this page, it may have been my beloved and highly respected great-grand-aunt, but I beleive it was me. It was a while ago, has something changed to make him think that situation has changed? It has not.  Giano  17:51, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Nothing had changed, I'd merely forgotten. GoodDay (talk) 19:49, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

ANI notice - WP:POINT violation

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. -- Cirt (talk) 22:32, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh How exiting. Are they going to find out if JV was an architect an dramtist too?  Giano  22:34, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Of books and dinosaurs

an alternative to books?

While I know I've outlived much of my former usefulness, I'd hate to think books might be consigned to the same fate. While this old dinosaur still draws breath, I'll treasure my little library. Thanks for the tip, though – I'll be off to my local Oxfam shop in the morning to see what I can find ;). Best regards, --RexxS (talk) 21:30, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, they are very good those Oxfam shops, but what always worries me is what has the previous owner died from and could I catch it from the book, It's not the healthy and living who give away their books - is it? Anyway "Vanitas Vanitatum, Omnia Vanitas" I must hurry away I have a little pyre to organise in Wikipedia's behalf to halt the flow of badly referenced FAs.  Giano  21:51, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Are you still working your way through the Index Librorum Prohibitorum? I can assure you that a good gas fire is a much cheaper way of keeping warm. As for the disease risk, I've taken the sensible precaution of joining WP:WikiProject Medicine as prophylaxis against such an event. One of my great regrets is that I didn't offer that advice to your sainted aunt in time. --RexxS (talk) 22:29, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

I guess she can still troll haunt that project if she wants to. Hans Adler 22:59, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

She haunts many places I can assure you. Regarding you point Rex, I cannot look at medical pages because I always develop all the systems within minutes - neither do I like editors with "Doctor" in front of their user names - funny way of making a living either asking people to take their clothes off, donning a rubber glove (for nefarious purposes) or chopping people up; often all three. Extraordinary behavior.  Giano  07:36, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Please dont change my section heading

Dont do it again. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 22:35, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Stick

Sorry. It's all to easy to assume, when you haven't had any sort of break or holiday in years, that "the usual suspects" are to blame. Best, Rodhullandemu 23:11, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Civility Issue

Do NOT call other people's work here as 'rubbish' as that falls under uncivil behavior and can thus be a blockable offense if repeated. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 00:53, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

But what if it is rubbish? Does your idea of civility prevent you from telling the truth? Sad if it does. Malleus Fatuorum 01:46, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

In its original form, the essay was naive rubbish. I am sorry that offends, but it was and it needs to be said. Now, you Matt57, do not come here telling me what to do and what not to do. You are the one shouting and screaming like a banshee, not I. Please exercise some editing restraint and common good manners. You are premitted you view and I mine - the only difference is you are interested in my view and I not the least in yours. Now let us return to our content work; I'm sure yours is excellent and missing your input.  Giano  08:31, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't think I agree with Giano's comment regarding the essay, but it wasn't a personal attack and wasn't uncivil enough for us to justify doing anything about it.

Matt57, while I understand that you've got a point, it does nobody on Wikipedia any good if we act too thin-skinned in dealing with things here. There are valid reasons to try and encourage civilized and relatively polite discourse in general, but that does not mean we block everyone who's rude on sight.

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:52, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree on your "thin skin comments". Plus calling the essay "rubbish" pales in comparison to It's a very stupid essay and Is this essay written by morons?. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 03:00, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you Doctor K, you see other editors are allowed to say these things without a problem. Howver, when I make a milder criticism it seems to upset all manner of folk. This is because if I describe something as "rubbish" then it generally is "rubbish." I wish I had been able to have such retribution of my former teachers who frequently returned my school essays with far worse comments written over them. Clearly we have a more sensitive generation in our midst.  Giano  08:24, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

You are very welcome Giano. I agree with you. When one is sensitive to literary criticism, such as your comments about the essay, there is a natural tendency to try to shoot the messenger and not heed the message. But as we can see from the comments of others, this essay is clearly deficient. Honest literary criticism should be encouraged not stifled. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 12:30, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

It's a pity that the complaint fails to distinguish between criticism of an edit and criticism of an editor. Nobody owns articles here, and the work does not belong to "other people". It is understandable that editors feel affronted when their efforts are criticised – even with an epithet of "rubbish" – but the nature of our project allows no redress for that affront. I'm sorry, but editors just have to develop a thick skin when it comes to criticism of their contributions. Luckily Giano has gone boating, so won't be troubled by this. --RexxS (talk) 05:58, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Indeed I am not troubled, after a night's sea fishing I am happy and relaxed. However, when Georgewilliamherbert pops up here and says I am not uncivil then I become alarmed - I must be going soft. Funnily enough, I have rarely found the need to say the worst swear words and seldom resort to Biblical nouns when referring to other editors; I am quite able to get my point across without such language. This whole essay fiasco really is very foolish, I would like to think it had been written for a joke. It only came to my notice when my attention was drawn to Matt's references to me on Jimbo's page yesterday. I can't say I had ever heard of him before (or indeed any of his friends), but then that is so often the case - lesser known editors often become more prominent by referring to me. I wish him well with his future pages and content.  Giano  08:18, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to thank you for escalating Matt57's conduct in an even-tempered and appropriate way, and I will make sure that all parties are satisfied by the result. If refering to you makes us lesser known editors more prominent, would you accept my nomination for you to be an admin? Hipocrite (talk) 13:22, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Sadly, I must decline, the imminemt rise in status (is such a thing possible) of my esteemed great-grand-aunt [23] would only lead to charges of nepotism.  Giano  13:29, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't see how the life-force component of a soul rising to arbcom in any way prevents me from raising my prominence by nominating you for admin. I might even do it just to make you decline. Hipocrite (talk) 13:41, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

PS: given that it's a soul, would one really consider arbcom a "rise" or actually one of the circles of hell? Perhaps it's wedged between Hersey and Fraud - wait... Violence is already there... Hipocrite (talk) 13:42, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

PPS: Clearly, the earth is spinning into hell. Not only did you raising an issue to ANI get action, but the other party has been blocked... for incivility. Cats and dogs sleeping together, I tell you. Hipocrite (talk) 13:47, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Has he? Oh dear, I shall make no comment. I realy must decline your kind offer, I coud not bare the spectacle of seeing you dragged through the streets of Wikipedia trailing your intestines by the voting editors and regular Giano-bashers. You must remain in obscurity.  Giano  13:51, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

• FWIW, I thought you handled that quite well, even when the peanut gallery emerged. We'll see how this plays out, I suppose. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:44, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I always handle all things to my complete satisfaction, there is only one thing to do with a peanut and I do it. People love to hate me, probably because I have ths iritating habbit of generally being proved right. Sometimes, it takes a while, but sooner or later the editor concerned bites the dust. I put it down to frequent bridge playing and yacht racing, one learns to evaluate one's assets and take few risks.  Giano  20:31, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I always found that taking risks while yacht racing paid off with usually high rewards, but the class and number of boats and the setting and the luck and wind have something to do with that. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 20:41, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

In the Bay of Biscay?  Giano  20:45, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I have to plead ignorance of local conditions there; I've never sailed on that side of the Atlantic. I'm a west coast US person, and haven't done international regattas or competition. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:00, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, let's just say, that had you done so, you would confine your risks to bidding in no trumps.  Giano  21:06, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

• Giano, while I'm sure you're aware of this already, remarks like "get the hell off my page" and "don't let me detain you from your stalking" aren't helpful and they don't help your case. If you have a problem with an editor that you can't resolve calmly and civilly, you should just disengage, not rise to the bait and, if it persists, take it to ANI but you're wise enough to know that as soon as you give the peanut gallery some ammunition on you, the focus will shift away from the problem you're trying to get resolved. Take care, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 08:55, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your advice. I don't actually have a case because I don't have a problem. If I have problems I deal with them - very effectively. In response to your other comments "Get the hell off my page" [24] was an angry, but controlled response to being templated [25] by what turned out to be a drive-by non-admin referring to a long dead reversion (note reversion - not an edit war) is perfectly reasonable. Especially, as I had already edited and intimated I would not be pursuing the matter almost 9 hours earlier. I have not edited that page before or since - or do you have evidence to the contrary? You may also like to note that I did not say "fuck off" or even "piss off." Heaven forbid! Now, as for "don't let me detain you from your stalking" I think you need to read the editor's original comment to which I was replying [26] - in which he says he was "stalking a page". His word not mine. Furthermore, had you read the reply correctly, you would have seen that I placed "stalking" within inverted commas [27]. That should have alerted you to the fact I was quoting. While it gives me great pleasure to be quoted in Wikipedia, however, I do like the quotes to be accurate and in context. Thank you for you interest in this matter.  Giano  09:17, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

It was meant to be interpreted as more of a note than a warning. I think you're wise to commit to saying no more on the matter. As for Wales, I don't see where our "esteemed founder" comes into the matter- we're all grown ups, I'd like to think we can resolve our own problems. Let me know if I can be of assistance with anything and, er, try and stay out of trouble! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:11, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

• It's since come to my attention that I was mistaken on ANI, and I've struck my remarks accordingly. I hope you'll accept my apologies. Kindest regards, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:22, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

OK, it's not really your lucky day is it? :-)  Giano  20:31, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Per Te, Giacomo

This user has made more mainspace contributions to Wikipedia than Jimbo Wales.

Should you wish to use it, or for anyone else if it applies to them too.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 02:42, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I propose the following alternative text: "This user has made over 1500% more mainspace contributions than Jimbo Wales." Or you could use "more than 16 times as many". (The number is based on WikiChecker data for Giano, Giano II and GiacomoReturned, 4,881+7,669+707=13,257 against Jimbo's 800.) But then, normally only newbies compare their contributions with Jimbo's. Hans Adler 07:32, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Very imodest and I shall not coment on it - anyway, he doesn't seem to like me any more [28]. That horrible box thing (thank you Ghost) can stay until the page is next archived. Anyway, it's not the number of contributions that are important, but overall value and net worth to the project.  Giano  07:52, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I was wondering?

In light of recent events showing your chivalrous nature, perhaps you could do me a favour? My elderly aunt is visiting your neck of the woods soon, and as you're quite adept at protecting the more mature lady from advances of a vulgar and despicable nature would you be available to chaperone? You will be handsomely compensated obviously? 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 14:19, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I find that I have sufficient elderly aunts of my own to protect and keep out of trouble. Anyway, do you think the goat ridden mountains of Sicily a suitable environment for an elderly aunt?  Giano  17:41, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Misquotes of the day

• TSBDY says: [29]
• Years ago Giano said [30] and just 24 hours ago Giacomo had said: [31] and [32]
• Folowing an ironic reference by me to my notoriously bad spelling [33], TSBDY has this to say [34].

I shall continue to defend myself here neither will be engaging with anyone on the subject of TSBDY here, if you have something to say, take it to ANI or his blog anywhere but here.  Giano  20:59, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Prisssy

Giano, Jimbo has spoken to the efect that he does not like you (no crocodile tears pls) and alot of new and want-to-be admins are thus waiting in the grass to bait and block you. I'm sure you know this already, I'm just saying watch out for youself. The vulgarity essay is beyond funny, but this could become law given the current climate - the civility police are using the commons disaster to push their agenda, and this could be disasterous for anybody who does not care to cloak their meaning behind a facade of please and thanks. You are doing very well standing for the content people in the trenches, but to say, they are out to get you, but you will be defended. Ceoil (talk) 23:12, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

(wakes up bleary-eyed from content production) huh? I was about to ask where the discussion was but never mind I can go find. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:09, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Sadly, I think what you say is true Ceoil. "With all due respect", of course. Mealy-mouthed words from third-rate intellects. Malleus Fatuorum 00:32, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Malleus when will you learn to indent properly?? I read...oh god reading reams of banter back and forth always reminds me of the Goodies episode ("Oh no! The Marcel Marceaus are going to mime all 4 hours of the Murder on the Orient Express! Aaaargh!) Casliber (talk ·' contribs) 00:40, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

I will put your indiscretion down to your "bleary eyes" Casliber. I was replying to Ceoil, therefore my indention was perfectly correct. Your "correction" makes it seem like I was replying to you, which I was not. With all due respect, please do not take it upon yourself to decide what I did or did not intend to do, or make judgements on my competence to say exactly what I meant to say. ;-) Malleus Fatuorum 00:59, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Rustic?

It will all turn out well anyway, since Giacomo enjoys a position of particular reverence here with good reason. Not everyone realises that he is descended from another famous Italian, Seneca the Younger, who first stated the basis of our civility policy: Errare humanum est, sed perseverare diabolicum. We forgive people's mistakes until they insist on repeating them. Giano's civility essay should be required reading for all wannabe admins. Agree with it or not (Jimbo doesn't), it certainly represents a perspective shared by many editors, and the sooner folks realise a "one-size-fits-all" civility policy cannot possibly accommodate the rich variety of humanity present, the better. --RexxS (talk) 01:13, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

My preference has always been for a separate American wikipedia, where the high school kids can have free rein with their pop culture rubbish, and a proper English wikipedia, run by rational adults. Just a dream, I know. Malleus Fatuorum 01:42, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Those rustic simpletons from the New World, always tracking shit in the path of the civilized people of Britain and its continental cohorts... Surely there ought to be some way to keep the lower classes from mucking things up? Nathan ^T 03:26, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Now now Nathan, no toilet words here...:) Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:59, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

When was the New World added to the list of toilet words...John Vandenberg ^(chat) 06:11, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

When the Crown saw fit to dump the Empire's misfits in lands far across the sea; across several seas, in the mates' case ;) Cheers guys, Jack Merridew 06:32, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

I was under the impression that the toilet word was 'rustic'. Hopefully, Giano will be able to confirm the style for us. --RexxS (talk) 08:40, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the little hut, I will lock myself in it, if the going gets rough. If it happens it happens, and just for the record Rex, it's a lavatory (bog, thunderbox, loo or even a pissoir) - only the twee and smug "go to the toilet" and it is never, repeat never, a "bathroom" or a "restroom" - they are from completely different purposes and to confuse the two is uncivilised. A before anyone mentions "bidets" they are purely for the handwashing of socks and boxers in hotel bathrooms and for nothing else.  Giacomo  09:18, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Quite right, Giano. Kittybrewster ☎ 09:35, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh, you snobs. The little hut is actually a bronze age comfort zone. Bishonen | talk 12:14, 16 May 2010 (UTC).

Indded we are, and indeed it is, and it's probably equipped with "double-ply-extra-strength-soft-luxurient-pink-toilet-tissue." However, do the people who buy such "paper" (and there must be millions) ever consider the personal problems they are admitting to by the need to acquire such a durable product?  Giacomo  19:44, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Well I much prefer.....(long pause)...oh god I can't go round discussing my toilet paper preferences on a public forum...(runs and hides behind own Victorian values) Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:52, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

But are Victorian values big enough to hide behind? Take my advice and hide behind the Victorian dunny. --RexxS (talk) 22:28, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

I am at a loss to add anything witty apart from the somewhat off-topic Australian witticism "Hope yer chooks turn into emus and kick yer dunny down" (chuckle) Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:28, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Got yer back, G. cheers… Jack Merridew 09:53, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

At to the trisk of trite, this is too apt and funny. Funny always wins trite so [35]. Some people fucking walk around the fucking garden of fucking eden maoning, fucking moaning... Ceoil (talk) 00:14, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Please do not post anything on this page which is not scripted in accepted "USA Office speak." It is offensive to our beloved founder, his disciples and all of those who work in USA offices and struggle to come to terms with the courseness and teriblemess of the lives of those of us who do not work in such harmonious and civil surroundings.  Giacomo  13:38, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Ah yes, those poor harmonious and civil, frail, useless hippy, I need a leader, bastards. Officially I delcare that in this May actual conversation and interaction is suspended and we all live in the soft lovely bubble these poor harmonious and civil frail useless hippy, I need a leader, bastards will block all and sundry to attaint. Plan or what. Ceoil (talk) 14:54, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Great Giano maybe make exception for poor monsters who only do Dino-speak? T-RexxS (talk) 16:14, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Montacute House

I've made my usual tweaks, Giano, and— not that I haven't read the posts above— have added an idea about the paired stairs that I got from Nicholas Cooper.--Wetman (talk) 22:44, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that, it needed a good copy-edit. The paired stairs are very interesting (those of a lavatorial pursuasion above wait with bated breath, there's a bit for you in a moment) and I have a theory - the stairs nearest to the Hall and Great Chamber are wider and more decorated than those at the other end of the house, we know that they were used for formal processions of food going to the Great Chamber; is this an early example of a designated great and back stairs - I suppose not, Knole has its Great Staircase, but Hardwick sems to have only one to the principal floors, numerous others, but only one with a clear intent of going from top to bottom. Perhaps I'm wrong, but our friend Monsieur Girouard makes a great thing of backstairs saying in the late 17th century section (page138) "the revolutionarry invention of backstairs" and "the gentry walkiing up the stairs no longer met their last night's faeces coming down them" Well it looks to me as though they had not had to do that for a hundred years or more, because the stairs nearest the kitchen at Montacute, though symerical with, are definitly inferior to the ones at the other end of the house. However, I don't have a reference to say this.  Giacomo  07:03, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Fourteenth- and fifteenth-century gentry houses often had a double-height great hall that reached the roof, and no upstairs communication between the "high end" of the accomodations— reached from the dais end of the hall, usually to the right upon entering— and the "low end"— the screens and buttery end of the hall, and therefore "high" and "low" ends of the house. Nicholas Cooper makes a good point that symmetry in facades moved ahead faster than symmetry in plan. The "high end" staircase was still the grander. True service stairs as part of a separate servant traffic circulation are a C17 development— I think, but I'd have to do more reading and less thinking... --Wetman (talk) 16:24, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

• Yerse, I see what you mean about staircases, but Montacute's hall is not double height - all very interesting, but to be honest, I don't see the problem (referred to by M Girouard and others) that the Great Hall presented to symmetry - so many later houses had large halls (as opposed to Great Halls) at their centre - am I missing something obvious?  Giacomo  18:16, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh, look what I found! external symmetry! hierarchic plan!

No, I didn't mean to imply that it was, at Montacute: the old-fashioned medieval double-height hall simply made the "high end"/"low end" of hierarchic-plan houses the more separate and required two stairs. The early hierarchic Great Hall lies at right angles to the entrance porch, was entered not in the middle but beyond the "low" end, in the screens passage, and was identified on the outside by its great big windows, which marred the symmetry that was being striven after, from c1480 at the earliest, onwards. Nicholas Cooper gives an example in Barrington Court, Somerset (c1550), of a house achieving symmetry on the outside, but still with a non-symmetrical hierarchic plan; the symmetrical entrance front (now the garden front) isn't shown in the Wikipedia illustration, unfortunately. The central cross Hall linked to a central Salon beyond, in a house symmetrical in plan and in elevation, was a C17 development. That was my thought, which is N. Cooper's actually.--Wetman (talk) 21:50, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

I can't get the #@!! disinfobox at Barrington Court to accept the better image, at right!--Wetman (talk) 21:57, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Now that is interesting, I know Barringtom Court well, it now a showroom for reproduction furniture (the sort that its makers say is not repro, but the type that is so overpriced it will be the antique of tomorrow - someone dear to me attempted to bankrupt me there one afternoon) and I wanted to say that it was the proto-type for Montacute, there are huge similarities, but could not a find a referenc to support this. I'm sure I have a book on Barrington somewhere, I will take a lok at the article - I have quite a lot of stuff on Dorset and Somerset. Don't fiddle with the info box, just remove it, that's what i always do, often it takes months for its perpetrator to ven notice, by which time one's fingerprints are well disguised.  Giacomo  22:01, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

You could ride from one to the other in the course of a day, couldn't you.--Wetman (talk) 00:33, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

You have mail

Check your email. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:27, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

• and so must you.  Giacomo  18:32, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

From me too. –xeno^talk 01:01, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

• I had forgotten about it - forget it. Incidentally, you can tell User:Wehwalt [36] that you did not give me rollback rights - as far as I'm aware, Doc Glasgow did! - and very kind of him it was too. However, that incident merely proves my my favourite proverb: "take nothing from Wikipedia, then Wikipedia can take nothing from you" and I strongly advise you to the same with the whole silly business, you'll only be plagued by numerous idiots wanting favours and asking daft questions every five minutes. Power does strange things to people, just look at Wehwalt, completely obsessed with me, since I displayed just how double his standards are [37] - some may even call his constant sarping about me spiteful, I just call it typical Junior Wiki-Admin behaviour. No wonder people get so pissed off with them; they all say one thing, but do another. Good luck anyway - you will need it.  Giacomo  07:59, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

In the past, user:cirt was also user:smee - there is currently a redirect there added by Cirt. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Smee&redirect=no. That user name was blocked 3 times for 3RR. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&user=&page=User:Smee&year=&month=-1&tagfilter=

Prior to that, user cirt was user:Smeelgova - which also has a redirect added by Cirt. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Smeelgova&redirect=no That user name was blocked 4 times for 3RR. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:Smeelgova

So, it would be a stretch for Cirt to claim: "I had never received "various sanctions"; I had been blocked 3 years ago for edit-warring." unless he forgot. 99.150.255.75 (talk) 16:42, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I was rather picking that up from my own research [38]. I seem to rmember Smee, I think we have "history" but I cannot remember the where and when. I am not a great fan of Xeno's, but it's wrong to se anyone penalised for just doing their job because other editors want to point score on old vendettas. I wish I had known that when the sanctimonious were pouring all over me when Smee was on ANI moaning about my rollback of his trolling [39] - but the peanuts all have doible standards, so I don;t suppose it would have made any difference. Thanks anyway.  Giacomo  16:50, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

!

Vous m'avez malpris. Il semble que je fais le mieux moi-même en ce situation-là.

Personne n'est pas plus suprenné que moi, mais tant mieux. BlancheNeige.Revanche (talk) 07:55, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

• Je ne peux pas vous aider; vous avez besoin de l'aide d'un spécialiste. Veuillez arrêter les messages d'écriture ici. Merci et au'revoir.  Giacomo  12:50, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

vigna del canonico Panicale on the Aventine

Giano, since 1750 the vigna del canonico Panicale on the Aventine has been given as the find spot of the Roman Cupid and Psyche in the Musei Capitolini. I've asked about the phrase (vigna is well understood, of course) at Johnbod's talkpage: User talk:Johnbod. Any thoughts to add?--Wetman (talk) 20:00, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Remaining adults at Wikipedia under siege, 15th century

uz canz haz rolzbackerz ;)

Please leave new messages below == == Please leave new messages below

- I have been trying to email this to all my contacts, but can't work out how to do it to "send all", but it's probably best here - so read on: - - Dear All, - - I hope you are well - or at least some of you. - - This is my first and hopefully last mass email. So some of you will find yourselves in company that you normally avoid. However, i want to publicise my latest cause: As most of you know, I have a difficulty writing and after a enduring numerous comments and jibes, I have founded Category:Dyslexic editors. - - I think I have proved that people like me can write a half decent page and be respected as a "content editor" (in content at least) so others like me or some of you need to know that if they have something to contribute they don't have to be shy about their spelling, grommet or whatever, someone will sort that out for them, it's facts that matter. - - Should any of you feel that you fall in to the same category, you might like to consider aiding yourselves - I am looking a little lonely there at the moment. - - G - - I have run spell check onthis, which is why it's so good. - - :Some days, I aspire to dyslexic... LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:21, 29 May 2010 (UTC) - ::Just remember, the red squiggly line is your friend (in spell checker..), unless set to the wrong country (mine always seems to end up on damn US spelling...) Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:28, 29 May 2010 (UTC) - ::*I don't get a red squiggly line, I get a "you have fucked up - which of these alternative do you wany moron." Anyhow, even if I got a squiggly line it would not stand out because I don't spot things like that - I read what I think and want to read and then only spot it later when reading it cold - there are many different forms of dislexia - everyone is different - and it's about time people wised up; it's no different to being gay, heterosexual or barking mad - one does not choose one just gets on and accepts the hand dealt at birth, but I am sick and tried to death of clever buggers leaving smart-ass edit summaries and wise-crack comments - so that is going t stop, not just for me, bit all the millions (I am not alone) of others too. I was lucky I always had Bishonen and many others one pace behind copyediting and covering my tracks, many others don't have them and there si no reason at all why they can't edit too - so long as they have something to offer. Just think, there are probably millions of Giano's just waiting to descend and edit.  Giacomo  20:58, 29 May 2010 (UTC) - :::You may be lonely in the Wikipedia category, but in the real world, you have the company of Einstein, Picasso, Edison, and most likely Da Vinci, as well as other many others who have demonstrated the ability of human creativeness to overcome difficulties. Keep producing the wonderful content; any of us can tidy up details like spelling afterwards. --RexxS (talk) 21:04, 29 May 2010 (UTC) - ::Thak you Rex, indeed I have often wondered if I am not Einstein re-incarnated, I can draw far better than Picasso (very odd if you ask me - his stuff) and as for Edison, I don't need a light bulb when I walk into a room. However, as you say not being able to spell has nothing to do with IQ or ability and we are going to dispell that myth once and for all and stop the clever edit sumaries - we rightly don't insult others who are "different" so why dislexics?  Giacomo  21:11, 29 May 2010 (UTC) - :::re: not insulting others who are "different"....honey, you ever tried being a fat chick??? It's a great way to realize that half the world never drags their thought level out of fifth grade... GJC 22:00, 1 June 2010 (UTC) - :::::::::Glady! Women are never fat, some of them just have voluptuous Botticellian curves. Remember that.  Giacomo  22:07, 1 June 2010 (UTC) - - == Suggestion == - - You might want to consider changing the name of Category:Dyslexic editors to Category:Wikipedians who are dyslexic. The former implies an article category while the latter talks about a Wikipedian category. The call is up to you, but I won't be suprised if someone else doesn't bring this up in the future. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 03:32, 30 May 2010 (UTC) - :It never ceases to amaze me. Well spotted. Moriori (talk) 03:49, 30 May 2010 (UTC) - ::Good idea - done. Category:Wikipedians who are dyslexic.  Giacomo  07:28, 30 May 2010 (UTC) - Lexdyslics of the world - untie! --Joopercoopers (talk) 10:51, 30 May 2010 (UTC) - ::Tres amusant JC: What do you get when you cross an agnostic, a dyslexic and an insomniac? Someone who lies awake all night wondering if there's a dog. Giacomo  10:57, 30 May 2010 (UTC) - :::I think I prefer yours. Very good. Actually, the most extraordinary minds I've known in my life, have all been dyslexic for some reason. Why are you bucking that trend? --Joopercoopers (talk) 18:11, 3 June 2010 (UTC) - ::::Ah, but could they be regarded as trolls and general little shits in 5 languages?  Giacomo  19:18, 3 June 2010 (UTC) - - == May 2010 == - :Not at all. I am removeing a deliberate smear by ab Admin who has shown double standards of the highest form. If you re0instate this lie again, I shall revert.  Giacomo  12:12, 31 May 2010 (UTC) - ::*I would rather be blocked than do nothing while Wehrwalt is allowed to peddle mistruths.  Giacomo  12:14, 31 May 2010 (UTC) - :::*Very well, it may remain, but i shall expect appollagies from all who reverted and Wehnwalt when Xeno explaoins the truth and the comment struck! - ::::well you will just look rather foolish and supportive of a vindictive Admin then won't you.  Giacomo  12:19, 31 May 2010 (UTC) - :::::*Giacomo, why don't you simply discuss this with the user, rather than going in with "all guns blazing". Failing that, just put a note underneath the message saying you feel you are being misrepresented, so users reading that page will get both sides of the story, and leave it at that - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 12:24, 31 May 2010 (UTC) - ::*My vast and past experience tell me, that if I do that nothing will happen. Wehrwalt deliberatly says these things to get a reaction, so it is best to give him one. It is a lie, in no way have I attempted or indeed succeeded in fooling Xeno on any matter anywhere. Simple as that! Xeno will confirm this, or we can prove it at arbitration or in any other forum of his choosing. We will not keep having these deliberatly manufactured myths and lies about me.  Giacomo  12:27, 31 May 2010 (UTC) - ::*:First, it's best to assume good faith, not every one making a comment which you find offensive is doing it because they enjoy watching you get angry. Even if it was a purposely attempt to get at you, it's not best to give them the reaction they are looking for, it's best just to ignore them. Think about it, if they are doing it just to get a reaction, and you don't give one, they get bored, if you do give one they think "that was fun, I'll do it again". If you don't want comments like that about you, then the best way to go is not to just remove them yourself (nothing would ever be so simply on Wikipedia ;D), instead discuss it with Wehwalt, I think you'll be surprised with the results. If you explain what you feel the problem with the comment is (e.g. you feel it implies you were deliberately attempting to trick xeno into moving the rights across) he may be happy to refactor the comment. If he refuses to discuss it in a civil, productive manner, then get someone else involved. The key thing is to avoid just getting angry and edit warring over it, since that's not helping anyone. Best, - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 12:36, 31 May 2010 (UTC) - ::We are talking of the "type of person" who feels that he is qualified to preach on civility, but also feels an editor calling another editor a "cock sucker" is not uncivil. I find that indefensible and choose not to waste my time inconverstion with such people. If they attack me, I simply revert their lies and inuendo, that is the only way to deal with such "types." That Wikipedia choses to venerate such folk as "Admins" is a complete mystery to me, but then so much of Wikipedia's double standards is that to me.  Giacomo  12:41, 31 May 2010 (UTC) - - == John Vanbrugh‎ == - - Perhaps your little tagger needs a dose of Alexander Pope's familiar description of the villa of "Timon", who

-

"Shall call the winds through long arcades to roar
- Proud to catch cold at a Venetian door"

.--Wetman (talk) 19:12, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

- ::I'm afraid where "my little tagger" is concerned I have a complete sense of humour failure. There is only one thing I wish for him at a Venetian door - and it involves a splosh!  Giacomo  19:34, 31 May 2010 (UTC) - - ==Please don't do this== - This edit removed the comment of another editor without justification and included a personal attack. You know not to do this kind of thing having been round the houses on WP:AN/I more times than I've had hot dinners, so don't repeat it or you'll get blocked. Fences&Windows 15:06, 1 June 2010 (UTC) - *If you block me for that, I will make sure that the entire of Wikipedia realises what a bullying disgrace that Treasury Tag is. He solicited an unlawful block and is currently harrassing another editor. Take you sanctimonious defence of his comments and place them somewhere approtiate and go away!  Giacomo  15:19, 1 June 2010 (UTC) - - *Fences and windows, please see the unprovoked personal attack of TT against me here, where he links the phrase "I will not be engaging further" to DFTT. It was one of the nastiest attacks I had to endure in all of my time here, and that does not happen often at all. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 16:57, 1 June 2010 (UTC) - ::*I am afraid DrK, that your attacker is a rather vindictive person, one only has to read his dialogue here [40] to see how having solicted and obtained a block, he was so smugly keen for it to remain. I find that very distasteful, I'm quite sure others do to. The people who love to moann and complain about me delivering the truth in a robust fashion really should concentrate on the less onvious, but infinitly worse forms of Wiki-behaviour.  Giacomo  17:03, 1 June 2010 (UTC) - :::*I noticed the solicitation even before you pointed it out. I find these actions distasteful as well. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 17:07, 1 June 2010 (UTC) - ::::*I haven't looking into this in depth, but I do think it would be worth pointing out a few things. Firstly, Dr.K, there's no need to dramatise this, being called a troll isn't a particularly severe attack, and is no worse than Giacomo calling TT a bullying troll, so I don't quite understand why you are trying to condemn TT Giacomo. Giacomo, you really need to stop removing other's comments, there was nothing (that I can see) wrong with the comment you removed. Simply disagreeing with another editors opinion is not a reason to remove their opinion, and is not at all how Wikipedia works, if you continue removing other's comments you may find yourself blocked. Please take a read through WP:TALK to better understand how to contribute to discussions in a collaborative manner. Cheers, - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 17:17, 1 June 2010 (UTC) - :::::*Kingpin13 please do not presume to lecture me on what constitutes a grievous personal attack and unprovoked at that. I am not used to being called any terms from internet harassers and I have not been thus far except on this incident. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 17:23, 1 June 2010 (UTC) - ::::::*I'm not encouraging TT's calling you a troll, but saying it's one of the nastiest personally attacks you've suffered doesn't really help, since it's a borderline attack, and not at all serious (it's actually very common for much worse attacks to be given out, this isn't as rare as you imply, you've been called worse), and secondly telling Fences about it isn't the first thing you should be doing, try discussing it with TT, since it's so minor, it doesn't really require immediate admin action. As well as that, complaining about another editor calling you a troll, while accusing that editor of being a "internet harasser" could seem rather contradictory - treat others how you wish to be treated. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 17:32, 1 June 2010 (UTC) - :::::::*If you count vandals and SPAs maybe I have been called worse but among established editors I do not recall any such insult, so do not try to minimise the magnitude of the insult. I also think I have the right once attacked to define the type of character who would do such a thing and calling them an internet harasser I think fits and it is not contradictory but rather expected self-defence. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 18:28, 1 June 2010 (UTC) - I would have been happy to block TT for that comment if you had shown it to me at the time. Prodego ^talk 17:43, 1 June 2010 (UTC) - ::yes, I'm sure, but no one ever actually does - do they? admins are always wise after the event, as Norton has found to his cost.  Giacomo  17:44, 1 June 2010 (UTC) - :@Prodego: Thank you very much Prodego. I appreciate your nice gesture. Take care. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 18:34, 1 June 2010 (UTC) - :Giano, I so very nearly blocked you for this. Get the hint about WP:NPA or I will block you. You can make your points without attacking people. Poor behaviour from others is not an excuse for your own poor behaviour, as WP:NOTTHEM explains. - :Giano, Dr. K, if you have a problem with TT's comments to you then raise it with him or at WP:WQA. I am making no defence of TT's comment or actions; I have previously stated at AN/I my belief that his actions towards RAN could constitute harassment and have just suggested an interaction ban. Fences&Windows 17:45, 1 June 2010 (UTC) - ::block for the truth! oh go away and take your foul little tools with you! If half of you spent as long thinking as you do playing with your tools Wikipedia would be afar better place.  Giacomo  17:47, 1 June 2010 (UTC) - ::@Fences: Thank you Fences for your comments. Although a new admin, I find you to be very competent and fair and I have seen you around for some time now and I was impressed with many of your comments. I also agree with your proposal of an interaction ban between RAN and TT. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 18:49, 1 June 2010 (UTC) - :::Just a note that I agree completely with Fences, those kind of comments are not acceptable, this is not the venue to be attacking and complaining about TT. Giacomo, saying it's the truth doesn't make it okay, it makes it worse. There is no need to express your hatred towards another editor here, regardless of how justified or unjustified it may be, it's possible to raise issues about or with an editor without resorting to simply attacking them. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 17:56, 1 June 2010 (UTC) - ::::*Indeed, if Lady de Burgh were still with us she would comment that your warning might save several admins from moral turpitude or even blindness. Jehochman ^Talk 18:02, 1 June 2010 (UTC) - ::::::*Indeed Lady C may well say that. Howver, Kingpin is correct, this is not the venue for attacking. A great pity that so many clever and wise people looked the other way when it was happening to Norton yesterday. Now go away before I really become uncivil. I suggest you don't return.  Giacomo  18:06, 1 June 2010 (UTC) - :::::::::*PS: (not you JH, you're always welcome)  Giacomo  18:07, 1 June 2010 (UTC) - ::::::::::Thank you very much Giano now that you've made it abundantly clear you don't want me here anymore ;) I'm getting the h--- outta here. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 18:53, 1 June 2010 (UTC) - - == Please do this == - - Keep up the good work. Too many editors (though a very small % overall) on wikipedia become insane hall monitors, and there's little way for them to even understand how badly they are behaving, because the "good side" is usually too proper to call them out on it.--Milowent (talk) 17:21, 1 June 2010 (UTC) - :I agree. There are things done in the name of wp policies and rules that when looked at from a wider angle constitute bullying and harassment. Distasteful and condemnable behaviour. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 17:30, 1 June 2010 (UTC) - ::Funny 1986 essay on hall monitors for those unfamiliar with the US school practice.[41]--Milowent (talk) 17:39, 1 June 2010 (UTC) - ::*I think we have seen some real progress today on Norton's behalf. People now seem to be looking agains and realsing that all is not what it may have seemed. It's just the same old problem: the less well known editors are easier to drive off and victimise than the likes of me. Could you imagine if I uploaded my old school foto, anyone daring to nominate it for deletion; we see photos of people on 1,000s of user pages that the uploaders clearly cannot have taken themselves. This is a nasty episode made more unplesant because if I had not shouted loudly the victimisation would still be going on unnoticed. Wikipedia's admins should be ashamed of the last 36 hours and looking to how thay can exert a duty of care and look beyond their precious overused tools.  Giacomo  17:46, 1 June 2010 (UTC) - :::*Your action at ANI was badly needed. The treatment of RAN by SPAs, socks and others over the past week has been shocking. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 18:40, 1 June 2010 (UTC) - ::::*Well they are trying to close the thread now, but what I think was most dispicable and vile of all was even his user page image "me in Sweden two years ago" was nominated for deletion. Why was that? Any reasoning behind that little gem? Are all user page images to be nomonated for deletion. Here is a friend of mine (typical of a 1000 pages) File:Jeanne Griffin 1974 makeup style.jpg doesn't look like she took that one herself - does it? so why just Nortons user page image. Some people has a great deal of explaining to do, and I won't rest until I have heard it.  Giacomo  18:46, 1 June 2010 (UTC) - :::::*It was clear and unwarranted harassment on a grand scale, and from multiple sides. User:Wikidemon on a previous ANI thread about the SPA sock user:Ocean Mystic Researcher harassing RAN, had asked how could RAN be more beleaguered than he already was and how could this stop. I have never seen such emotional violence being perpetrated, in such a short period of time, on an established user in all of my over four years here. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 19:11, 1 June 2010 (UTC) - ::::::*I agree, it shocked even a hardened campaigner like me. Seems to be the way wikipedia is going though, drive away anyone you take a dislike to. Malleus Fatuorum 21:25, 1 June 2010 (UTC) - ::::::::*I know someone has just nominated another of his pages in the last our or so, it's horrible. He needs a few friends right now. Some of his stuff probably is not notable enough, I have just left him this message [42] to try and take the pressure off. It's easier for us, people know us (yes you too Malleus) so we are not such easy targets. These people just want to distress rather than offer a solution and so the leser known editors go under whereas we "the better known" have a whole crew fighting the bullies on our behalf. It's just like the school playground without the responsible teacher keeping a watch. Tres nasty.  Giacomo  21:33, 1 June 2010 (UTC) - :::::::::* I pointed this out to Claritas, the nominator, and they agreed to hold-off for a few days. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 21:58, 1 June 2010 (UTC) - :::::::::*There is indeed a deep unfairness here Giano, and it's undoubtedly true that some admins will be less likely to take on either you or me, especially you, even when perhaps they ought to. It's no secret that I think most of wikpedia's policies were designed by smackheads thinking about the most effective way to run an infants school, but those smackhead ideas are what the kiddies are taught to believe. The only way that can be changed is by rational adults tearing down the absurd WP:CIVIL and by rationalising the equally absurd WP:NPA. Malleus Fatuorum 22:55, 1 June 2010 (UTC) - ::I dunno, it's rather like smacking one's head against a brick wall. I didn't think any culture permitted what we have seen today and yesterday (it actualy looks like I was late to the party and it had been going on for days) - Treasury Tag is still commenting and voting delete amost as we speak and no one is lifting a finger to stop him, not even the Arbs who are so say monitoring the situation. Note Brad advised himto back off yesterday. Wikipedia is a jungle run by a group of blind methodisy and Baptist old ladies - I can see no other explanation.  Giacomo  23:02, 1 June 2010 (UTC) - - * Giano is perfect, thank you so much to him for bringing this to light, blah blah blah. We all get it. Now can we drop the "all administrators are scum and should be ashamed of themselves" line? Not one person brought this into the public eye until today. Sysops don't have telepathy, so criticising us is unfair and pointless. Go ahead and do it if you like; I doubt anybody gives a toss. Just don't come crying, Giano, when next time you "shout loudly" and are ignored. People are willing to be treated like crap only for so long. We made substantial progress with this issue today, and, as is said elsewhere in this thread, the issue is (very rightly so; don't get me wrong—I'm pretty displeased by this whole thing) receiving proper scrutiny; it's just a shame that that progress is poisoned by comments like ones made here. Direct your energies instead at supporting Richard, because from what I gather this issue is far from over. AGK 21:48, 1 June 2010 (UTC) - ::You Admins had you chance to scrutenise this over the last few days and failed. Instead "admins" chose to template the user with threats [43]. Yes progress has been made today, and yes you looked at it - are you Wikipedia's only Admin? Are the rest unable to read? (that would not surprise me). The reason it was looked at today was because I made one hell of a stink! Had I not, he would be languishinging and even more persecuted right now. And don't forget, people wanted that thread closed from the moment it opened and I did not see many other reputable admins there at all - did you? I expect nothing from admins - nothing.  Giacomo  21:55, 1 June 2010 (UTC) - - :::You do realize that the "last few days" have been the Memorial Day weekend in the U.S? Many of the usual U.S. based admins were on holiday. Yworo (talk) 21:58, 1 June 2010 (UTC) - :::::Fascinating - and the rest of the world? The rather lage place outside of the USA?  Giacomo  22:03, 1 June 2010 (UTC) - ::::::Can't speak for them. My point was that there were less admins than usual to deal with the same volume of issues. I suspect one thing or another was bound to be given short shrift. Your issue had the bad luck to be one of them. Yworo (talk) 22:07, 1 June 2010 (UTC) - :::::(edit conflict × 2) I wonder if the low presence of uninvolved administrators had anything to do with you mouthing off about how all administrators are useless, corrupt, and spineless? But I take your point. Not many people offered comment. The job got done anyhow. We can't do much else (it can't be proven conclusively that Treasury Tag did or did not nominate Richard's files for deletion out of malice; and AGF must prevail) here, so TT's promise to recuse from interaction with RAN will do for now. If he breaks that then we can look at an interaction ban or something else to make everybody act like adults. AGK 22:08, 1 June 2010 (UTC) - :::::*And for how long do you feel this promise will last [44]. - ::*Probably, that's why i kept out of all the thread yesterday, while the responsible Admins dealt with it or are you suggesting they feel the same way about all those commenting yesterday?  Giacomo  22:12, 1 June 2010 (UTC) - :Giacomo, I thank you for your intervention. FWIW, my absence there was quite deliberate, because I thought the situation was being adequately handled by the removal of the AfD requests, and there was no actual need for my involvement in the part I can do best, which is afd/Deletion Review. I was unable in other contexts to help the last few people I tried to help--though this is in some part because they did not follow advice on how to deal with the matter. But I find that it is apparently not true that I am as impervious to criticism as I seemed to think I was, and the repeated failure has considerable upset me. I hope that when next needed the feeling will have passed,and I will treat it as additional experience that will make me more effective. Am I wrong is seeing some parallels? DGG ( talk ) 22:38, 1 June 2010 (UTC) - ::Dunno about parallels! I was not actually criticising you, but I suppose generally speaking my experience of admins has not been a possitive one. I find it horrendous what was allowed to happen, I thought I was immune to be shocked by what I see on wikipedia, but thi has truly shocked me - Stifles horrible templating post on Norton's page, Treasury Tags succesful soliciting that terrible wronfful block and gloating to Gwen Gale who should have known better gagging him - yuk. Had he been more high profile it would never been allowed to happen. That is the disgrace of all this.  Giacomo  22:48, 1 June 2010 (UTC) - :::Wikipedia is obviously not run honestly, but surely that's no surprise to you. Malleus Fatuorum 23:28, 1 June 2010 (UTC) - - - {| style="border: 1px solid gray; background-color: #fdffe7;" - |rowspan="2" valign="middle" | - |rowspan="2" | - |style="font-size: x-large; padding: 0; vertical-align: middle; height: 1.1em;" | The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar - |- - |style="vertical-align: middle; border-top: 1px solid gray;" | I hereby award this barnstar to Giano for almost single handedly turning the tide against a gang of ill meaning socks, admins and editors who were harassing a low profile but highly productive editor and who prior to Giano's intervention had hoodwinked majority opinion into condoning them. FeydHuxtable (talk) 13:18, 3 June 2010 (UTC) - |} - - - - Just to say thanks for helping to restore faith in wikipedia with your noble intervention. (Not that im asking for you to carry on, as it would be too high a price for you to be blocked, and it looks like enough has been done to raise the profile of this issue so justice can prevail.) FeydHuxtable (talk) 13:18, 3 June 2010 (UTC) - ::That's very thoughtful and kind, I have not had one of thos for ages. thank you.  Giacomo  19:10, 3 June 2010 (UTC) - - == Closing statement == - - B didn't write anything except "closing". The Wiki software included the current title of the section when editing it as a section. Sheesh. Yworo (talk) 20:48, 1 June 2010 (UTC) - ::*I beg to differ: "Requestor consents to closing thread, nothing good is going to come out of this --B (talk) 20:36, 1 June 2010 (UTC)." - Actually, quite a lot of good came of it. Do you have something useful to tell me? or would you like to misrepresent some more facts?  Giacomo  20:53, 1 June 2010 (UTC) - PS: and "sheesh" to you too!  Giacomo  20:55, 1 June 2010 (UTC) - :::OK, I thought you meant the edit summary. I agree with you about the editorial comment, and reclosed it without it. :-) Yworo (talk) 20:56, 1 June 2010 (UTC) - :::::It really is like pulling teeth these days with these people, why do I bother?  Giacomo  20:57, 1 June 2010 (UTC) - ::::::Well, I'm sure I don't know. I myself am learning to drop things if it gets too tedious. Or, at least, drop them in somebody else's lap and then forget them :-) Yworo (talk) 20:59, 1 June 2010 (UTC) - - ==Response to your odd and rather threatening query== - No one suggested that I nominate an article for AFD or told me to do so. I saw at AFD several articles of very dubious notability which had been closed after a few hours because the nominator was said to be a sock. That is fine but it does not establish notability of the articles, and some of the articles seemed to clearly fail the applicable notability guidelines, so I nominated them for AFD. Thanks for asking. Edison (talk) 22:21, 1 June 2010 (UTC) - :*Thanks for replying.  Giacomo  22:25, 1 June 2010 (UTC) - - == A littl gem == - This a lovely edit Stifle [45] templating an established editor already under stress and duress with threats of a block. You must be very proud of yourself. Don't you ever dare to criticise me again, in my conduct, I am worth 10 of you.  Giacomo  21:39, 1 June 2010 (UTC) - :I will criticise whomever deserves criticism, thank you. Now kindly butt out of other people's conversations; Mr. Norton has been online over these past few days, if he has an issue with my conduct he is more than capable of taking it up with me. Stifle (talk) 08:08, 2 June 2010 (UTC) - :::I should think he is completely intimidated by you! As you clearly intend him to be. For an admin of long standing, your conduct is inexcusable.  Giacomo  10:52, 2 June 2010 (UTC) - ::::In the event that that is true, which is denied, I shall be happy to deal with you or whatever other advocate Mr. Norton chooses if he notifies me of such choice. I strongly suspect, however, that it is his preference that the matter be left be, rather than stirred up. Stifle (talk) 14:30, 2 June 2010 (UTC) - ::::::Stifle, the only people who would not like this matter stirred if you and your cohorts. Until I well and truly raised this issue's profile yesterday, you and they were getting away with your abhorent bullying behaviour. That somehow Gwen Gale and other (usually rational) Admins allowed themselves to be fooled and dragged along is puzzling, but looking at the smoke screens and shrieks you were all kicking up, not altogether surprising. Well fear not, I am keeping a close eye on this situation and will be doing so until it reaches what I consider to be a satifactory conlusion, a conclusion which at the moment it appears to be steadily cruising towards. So, I suggest you go off and do whatever it you do here and leave Norton and his works alone.  Giacomo  14:41, 2 June 2010 (UTC) - :::::::That I will gladly do, and have in fact been doing for most of today. I strongly suggest you do the same rather than injecting yourself into others' disputes. For the record, I must deny having been involved in "abhorrent bullying behaviour" and would point out that I have assisted RAN prior to this whole thing kicking off, offered to assist him again, and warned TreasuryTag; I do not operate in a black and white world and deal with users based on their actions, not their identities and beliefs. Stifle (talk) 14:46, 2 June 2010 (UTC) - ::Your warnings and offers of help are mere shame-faced backtracking. Now unles you would like somemore home-truths I suggets you stop posting here.  Giacomo  14:48, 2 June 2010 (UTC) - :::I'm sorry you feel that way. In fact, you will find that I assisted RAN in finding a correct file tag well before all this kicked off; not a lone example. Again, I deal with users based on their actions, and if something I do turns out to be incorrect, I will rectify my behaviour. Stifle (talk) 14:55, 2 June 2010 (UTC) - ::Oh dear, I had hoped this was not going to be necessary: You and some other admins joined in a mass kicking session of one editor. An editor who is known for being mild and pretty meek, but had upset Treasury Tag. Having tormented him, blocked him, deleted his pages and nominated even his user-page image for deletion you all thought you were all getting away with it. You Stifle were in the thick of it voting and templating like mad. Then along I came very belatedly and made a huge stink and others started to take an interest and view what had been going on - and lo and behold we find mass harassment and bulying. That now with the full glare of spotlight you and others now seem to be deserting the odious Treasury Tag ([46][47] refs for odious) and keen to help Norton is to be commended. However, do not expect me to be fooled for one second. You have trashed your own reputation, don't come here trying to restore it. You will get no sympathy or understanding on this page.  Giacomo  15:27, 2 June 2010 (UTC) - :::I do not, and have never, expected either sympathy or understanding from you; I just wish we could get along more. I am not going to attempt to disprove any of your allegations, as I don't expect you will accept what I say. I genuinely do wish to be on your "good side", although I don't expect I will make it there. You could help matters by moderating your words somewhat; you are entitled to dislike people but need not shove it down everyone's throats. Stifle (talk) 15:50, 2 June 2010 (UTC) - ::::Many people find me very easy to get along with. Many Many in fact. Basically, apart from when dealing with traffic police and taxmen, I am a very honest person and I don't suffer fools and hypocrisy at all and I do not speak in the language of an 18th century courtier at Verailles. If you want to get on me, you will find it very easy, you just have to meet the criteria.  Giacomo  15:56, 2 June 2010 (UTC) - :::::I think I share most of those criteria. I also think that if a person rectifies their improper conduct, it is worse than had the conduct never happened but better than persisting in the said conduct. And whilst I speak French, I also don't speak in the language of the aforementioned courtier. - :::::If the criteria to meet include "do not enforce policy", then I am unable to meet them; otherwise it is likely that I am. Stifle (talk) 16:01, 2 June 2010 (UTC) - :::::: Giano: Strike or remove your slurs against Treasury Tag. Criticise whomever you like, to whatever length you like; but don't abuse them. If you think that referring to another contributor (irrespective of how questionable his edits are) as "odious" is acceptable on this project, you are mistaken. AGK 17:32, 2 June 2010 (UTC) - :::::::Giano gave two diffs as reference for his "odious". Odious simply means "hateful" and Giano merely makes the error of applying the quality of the actions to the person. Giano actually hates the actions, not the actor, as AGK is doubtless aware. I suggest an end to this thread.--Wetman (talk) 18:02, 2 June 2010 (UTC) - :::::::: We shouldn't have to play semantics: 'odious' is a totally inappropriate adjective to use in reference to one's peer. It means repulsive or very unpleasant. I really wish Giano would just make his points without using slurs like that; it pains me to play "civility police" (though I'm sure some of my colleagues enjoy it very much :)). AGK 18:42, 2 June 2010 (UTC) - ::Please do not refer to me as TT's peer. He is not a peer and certainly not my equal. I am quite capable of deciding what is "odious" behaviour and what is not. Thank you.  Giacomo  18:57, 2 June 2010 (UTC) - ::: Of course you are. Just don't use labels like 'odious'. AGK 19:07, 2 June 2010 (UTC) - - == Blocked == - - You're blocked for 16 hours for making personal attacks[48][49] (news flash: referring to a user as 'odious' really is not allowed!). In repeatedly denouncing all Wikipedia administrators as useless, spineless, and incompetent, you seem to have come to think that it's also acceptable to insult specific editors; this is wrong. I'm sorry to see that you weren't adult enough to avoid causing me to play civility police. AGK 19:06, 2 June 2010 (UTC) - :Since when is Giacomo's opinion about somebody a "personal attack"? It's a personal remark, for sure, but an attack? No. Just because it is negative and you may not agree with it, doesn't make it so. Aiken ♫ 19:22, 2 June 2010 (UTC) - :: Be quiet you odious cretin. … Not nice, is it? Labels like 'odious' aren't appropriate on a project that thrives on collaboration and on people behaving like adults. (I seriously don't think you're either odious or a cretin, btw.) AGK 19:24, 2 June 2010 (UTC) - :::It's not very nice if you meant it (which you didn't). Giacomo probably did mean it, but banning all negative opinions about people is a bad idea. And, btw, I have never heard of any child use the words "odious cretin". Aiken ♫ 19:26, 2 June 2010 (UTC) - - TreasuryTag has a history of disruption, baiting, biting and edit warring across over a dozen articles using 4 different account names and has - been blocked for it by over a dozen different administrators. - - TreasuryTag block log - - Rambutan block log - - Porcupine block log - - Circuit Judge block log - - Treasury Tag's behavior invokes in me strong dislike, aversion and intense displeasure. The behavior actually is [50] Audio (US)^ⓘ - Uncle uncle uncle 19:28, 2 June 2010 (UTC) - :(edit conflict) A very bad idea, actually. It's a shame that the expression of dissent is a job we can give to somebody who will do it without making personal remarks, as otherwise Giano wouldn't be blocked today. As it stands we can do without comments like the ones he made; this I don't see changing at any point soon. I'm presently going offline until tomorrow so I'll reply to any more comments then. AGK 19:30, 2 June 2010 (UTC) - ::Your block is way beyond reason AGK. Over the last 24 hours I've been told repeatedly what a disagreeable person I am, but I suppose that because it was a series of administrators venting their spleens and not Giano, that was OK. This playground is pathetic. Wake me up when you start to apply the same standards to your "peers" that you do to others. Malleus Fatuorum 19:31, 2 June 2010 (UTC) - ::Giano (or Giacomo, whichever) says things as they are. He's not afraid to hold back his opinion. This does not make him a bad editor, or a threat to the project. Blocking solves... what? Blocking prevents... what? He's going to come back, probably angrier than before, and won't be changing his ways. Only in extreme cases of negative personal remarks (such as libel or racism) would a block be acceptable, especially on a long-term editor. Aiken ♫ 19:35, 2 June 2010 (UTC) - :::Giano has been naughty, and he must be punished. Malleus Fatuorum 19:39, 2 June 2010 (UTC) - - ::::I think placing a block that will obviously cause controversy, right before leaving for the night, is a bad call, AGK. Aiken ♫ 19:40, 2 June 2010 (UTC) - :::Long-term editors are (or at least, should be) held to the same standards as everyone else. If the account had 20 edits and said things like that, they would be blocked without further thought. The Wordsmith^Communicate 19:40, 2 June 2010 (UTC) - ::::Would they? Why would they be blocked? Offering an opinion is not a "personal attack". no matter what you may believe. Malleus Fatuorum 19:43, 2 June 2010 (UTC) - :::::If it's my opinion that you're a (insert multiple profanities here), that's not a personal attack? --B (talk) 19:46, 2 June 2010 (UTC) - ::::::Certainly not. If it was, then every administrator here would have been blocked. Personal remarks are not personal attacks. Malleus Fatuorum 19:51, 2 June 2010 (UTC) - :::::::In my opinion, that's (insert multiple profanities here) ridiculous. --B (talk) 19:56, 2 June 2010 (UTC) - ::::::::You're just as entitled to your opinion as I am to mine. Malleus Fatuorum 19:58, 2 June 2010 (UTC) - ::::You can't really compare new editors to veteran editors. Giacomo has been here many years, contributed thousands of edits, and he is going to get treated differently to a new editor - precisely because he isn't new. Aiken ♫ 19:50, 2 June 2010 (UTC) - :::I'd call it the straw that broke the camel's back. Giacomo has achieved his desired result. This is called passive–aggressive behavior - if you spend your life screaming that "admins are abusive" and picking fights at every turn, eventually someone is going to tire of it and block you. If it hadn't been AGK today, it would have been someone else tomorrow. Giacomo, you need to assume good faith and not pick fights over everything. Sure, there are people with agendas, but most of us just want to do what needs to be done to keep things running smoothly and don't really have a dog in the fight. --B (talk) 19:45, 2 June 2010 (UTC) - ::::You appear to be looking at this through admin blinkers. All this has done is to confirm the view that administrators do indeed act capriciously, stupidly, and one-sidedly. Malleus Fatuorum 19:48, 2 June 2010 (UTC) - ::::: In what way is blocking somebody for calling another editor odious 'stupid'? AGK 10:57, 3 June 2010 (UTC) - ::::::Strange you should object to the 'stupid' - shall we take it as read you accept the capriciousness and one-sidedness on the ground they're not so 'personal' - that pretty much sums up what's wrong with the civility policy. --Joopercoopers (talk) 11:07, 3 June 2010 (UTC) - :::::::: Insulting and wrong, all in one sentence. Quite an achievement JC. AGK 13:02, 3 June 2010 (UTC) - ::::::(edit conflict) I note that Malleus did not refer specifically to your block as 'stupid'; only that some administrative action confirm his view that some actions are stupid, etc. I would not go so far as to call it stupid; that would be uncivil of me, and probably inaccurate. However, it could be argued, given the context of many editors' indignation at RAN's recent treatment, that feelings were running high. It might have been anticipated that blocking Giano, rather than calming the situation, could lead to further drama. In those circumstances, I hope you wouldn't be offended if I opined that making the block, then logging off could be construed as 'unwise'. --RexxS (talk) 13:09, 3 June 2010 (UTC) - - *This block is absolute odious bullshit. Until Giano stepped up, horrible things were being done in the name of the project. TT's behaviour, while not using the term "odious", was indeed odious. One should not be punished for artfully offering social cues to those who desperately need them to learn how to interact successfully with the human race. I have only done this once before, but I feel I have to do it a second time: I am going on a hunger strike until this block is ended.--Milowent (talk) 19:49, 2 June 2010 (UTC) - :I think that's a little over the top, Milowent. Aiken ♫ 19:51, 2 June 2010 (UTC) - ::The wife's meatloaf is tormenting me already.--Milowent (talk) 19:54, 2 June 2010 (UTC) - :::Just a note that I endorse this block. Personal attacks against others aren't exceptable. Milowent, go eat some meatloaf :P - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 20:18, 2 June 2010 (UTC) - ::::I take this as a personal attack against my hunger strike. I demand you withdraw it.--Milowent (talk) 20:33, 2 June 2010 (UTC) - There is something seriously wrong with the system when the editor who energetically targets another editor through mass deletion nominations and equally energetically insults other editors who in good faith participate in these AfDs gets a free pass and the editor who defends and champions the rights of the victim gets blocked for using unsuitable epithets. It is a clear message that such unprovoked, gratuitous and aggressive behaviour and emotional violence on a semi-epic scale targeted against a single, meek and hapless editor is allowed as long as it remains underground and undiscovered but for purely cosmetic reasons mere words will be used against you and get you blocked. In the process some people will be enjoying the show from the sidelines. I suggest that this awkward display of power be reversed. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 20:23, 2 June 2010 (UTC) - *Well said. TT put up an editor's own picture of himself on his userpage (and many other pictures) for deletion, in obvious retaliation for disagreeing with him in AfD. Did he earn a block? No, he earned hand-wringing and "oh that's not quite cricket" responses.--Milowent (talk) 20:33, 2 June 2010 (UTC) - **Thank very much Milowent. You raised some great points as well. Take care. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 20:38, 2 June 2010 (UTC) - - ==Some editors are so odious that not one of the administrators on Wikipedia would ever want to unblock them== - The official Wikipedia banning policy has stated: "Some editors are so odious that not one of the administrators on Wikipedia would ever want to unblock them." [51]. - - *When are the editors determined to be odious? - *Can you only call them odious after they are banned but not before they are banned. - *Was Giano too early in calling Treasury Tag odious? - *Should he have waited for the administrators to determine if Treasury Tag was odious or not before he stated his opinion on the matter? Uncle uncle uncle 20:42, 2 June 2010 (UTC) - :Ha ha! Great job! You get a gold star for that one! --B (talk) 20:47, 2 June 2010 (UTC) - ::Second that. Great (and greatly amusing) find. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 23:16, 2 June 2010 (UTC) - - == Me blocked and odious shenanigans == - Regarding Richard Norton and my block, it seems that bullying, harassing, intimidating and making another editor's life complete hell are permissible. Admins illegally rollbacking his edits and voting for even his user-page image to be deleted are permissible. While this is all going on, it is permissible for him to be wrongly blocked (gagged) as a result of repugnant and odious soliciting by his enemy (for mild, innocuous comments made on another project). When that block is deemed on ANI to be very wrong, it is permissible for him to be templated mercilessly, for hours on end, and further of his pages nominated for deletion. Beam me up, up out of this, in the strange world I inhabit, to attempt to make another person feel he is worthless shit is "odious." I stand by every word, and believe me, if I were not glacially in complete control of my temper, I could think of a few more very descriptive adjectives for what I have seen over the last 24 hours. You can block me from here to Eternity, but nothing will alter my opinion of those responsible for (and defending) this deplorable, revolting, odious and shameful happening.  Giacomo  20:53, 2 June 2010 (UTC) - - == Unblocked == - - I shall now notify AGK of my actions and rationale. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:34, 2 June 2010 (UTC) - - :Excellent call LHvU. I also agree completely with your unblock rationale. Thank you. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 21:45, 2 June 2010 (UTC) - ::*Thanls LHVU that's very kind and thoughtful. We seem to live in dark and worrying times.  Giacomo  22:36, 2 June 2010 (UTC) - :::Here's a handy resource by which you might wikilawyerishly glean further slurs to comment on editors, not content... seeing as how your mirror seems to be a bit foggy :) Gwen Gale (talk) 22:41, 2 June 2010 (UTC) - ::Oh that is interesting, it means "obnoxious" as well. Someone other called him that yesterday too [52]. Quelle coincidence; these things cannot be explained - can they?  Giacomo  22:51, 2 June 2010 (UTC) - ::Excellent move on a bad block. --HighKing (talk) 13:44, 3 June 2010 (UTC) - *What a fascinating display of hypocrisy. Administrators like Gwen Gale commonly make "personal attacks" on other editors, but when they do it, it's OK, because they're omniscient and invulnerable. In their own heads at least. Malleus Fatuorum 23:11, 2 June 2010 (UTC) - ::Malleus, given you seem take the very being of admins as a personal attack, I understand what you mean and I don't mind. Gwen Gale (talk) 00:08, 3 June 2010 (UTC) - :::I doubt that you could even begin to imagine how much I despise you and your kind. Malleus Fatuorum 00:30, 3 June 2010 (UTC) - ::::Malleus, I politely suggest that you (and all the others here) disengage. There doesn't have to be a battle here, everyone can just walk away from this. The Wordsmith^Communicate 00:40, 3 June 2010 (UTC) - :::::There has to a battle somewhere, else the idiot children will take over. Why not here? Malleus Fatuorum 00:47, 3 June 2010 (UTC) - ::::::No, no battle is necessary today. I see a lot of people being uncivil, but more of the same is not going to cure it. I'm an administrator; if you want to and can do so like a reasonable adult (I believe that you can), I would be happy to listen to your concerns and discuss them with you on my talk page, through email or any other means of communication you prefer. The Wordsmith^Communicate 00:56, 3 June 2010 (UTC) - :::::::Please don't try to patronise me, makes me feel slightly queasy. Malleus Fatuorum 01:01, 3 June 2010 (UTC) - ::::::::I'm not at all trying to patronise you; if that is how it came across I apologise. I was merely telling you that I was willing to listen to your concerns. The Wordsmith^Communicate 01:09, 3 June 2010 (UTC) - :::::::::Yeah, right: "if you want to and can do so like a reasonable adult ...". You're a dishonest joker, just like the rest of your admin mates. Malleus Fatuorum 01:15, 3 June 2010 (UTC) - ::::::::::You'll notice that I followed that with a belief that you can. Meh, your loss. I'm actually fairly new to the admin cabal, haven't even received my membership card yet. If you change your mind, the offer still stands. The Wordsmith^Communicate 01:26, 3 June 2010 (UTC) - :::::::::::Don't hold your breath. Malleus Fatuorum 01:36, 3 June 2010 (UTC) - ::::::::::::I won't. Breathing is good, I hope to keep doing it for a while yet. The Wordsmith^Communicate 01:48, 3 June 2010 (UTC) - :::::::::::::This conversation leaves me breathless. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 02:02, 3 June 2010 (UTC) - ::::::::::::::Please see a doctor immediately. Killiondude (talk) 19:13, 3 June 2010 (UTC) - :::::::::::::::You are killing me dude :) Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 20:48, 3 June 2010 (UTC) - :Yay! I can eat now!--Milowent (talk) 01:04, 3 June 2010 (UTC) - - == Reply == - - For technical reasons, [53] wasn't a brilliant move, since the <archive> tag you added has no effect...! ╟─TreasuryTag►presiding officer─╢ 19:42, 3 June 2010 (UTC) - ::Do you seriously imagine that I am the sort of person who spends my time learning how to archive and make little wiki-widgets? I have not the remotest idea how to archive a page or wish to have. I just thought it important at this moment in time, for others to see that I had attempted to nicely bring the thread to a conclusion. Thank you for bringing that to our attention.  Giacomo  19:48, 3 June 2010 (UTC) - :::{{hat}} and {{hab}} are the easiest to use, should you ever feel so inclined --B (talk) 20:06, 3 June 2010 (UTC) - :::::No,thanks anyway, it's only when I have one of my impending very dark prophecies that I want to close a thread. They don't happen often. Let them yack while they may.  Giacomo  20:08, 3 June 2010 (UTC) - ::::::<1996html><blink>Awhile back I was told I should watchlist Malleus' page for dramawatching, and while its been enjoyable, this page should also have been a recommendation.</blink></1996html>--Milowent (talk) 21:34, 3 June 2010 (UTC) - ::::::::No, you were corrctly informed, it's a more high class and intelectual drama over on Malleus' page - he's one of those educated sorts or radical. I'm just a thicko from the mountains. Stick with Malleus' page.  Giacomo  21:45, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

== Your recent complaint about misuse of rollback on ANI ==

Your recent complaint about misuse of rollback on ANI

May I ask what your goal in posting the complaint about Fastily on ANI, rather than initiating dispute resolution against him, was? Stifle (talk) 08:21, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

yes, you may ask.  Giacomo  09:58, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

What was your goal in posting the complaint about Fastily on ANI, rather than initiating dispute resolution against him? Stifle (talk) 11:31, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

• Because Stifle when it was decided that I loose rollbck rights for reverting accepted erronious iformation and reverting Smee's (or whatever he currently calls himself) agrevations the desired site for the drama fest to discuss it was ANI [54]. I did not notice you complaining then of the wrong location; so I assumed that was the corect meeting place for those interested in such matters. In any case, regearding Fastily, it was the correct location as it directly pertained to the hounding of Richard Norton. That it is now decide that an Admin continuously illicitly rollbacking in order to hound and distress is quite in order, I expect my rollback rights will be restored very soon for the lesser offence. Or is reverting Smee and removing false facts a greater offence in your view than a pack of thugs hounding and bullying? As it happens I would not have the rollback back if Jimbo crawled to me with them on a silver plate; as I have always said: the only way to sort things here is to accept nothing and give a great deal, then disreputable admins have and their disciples have no power over one. However, many thamks for reminding me that people were keen to see fastily absolved, I had better go and attend to that. I'm sure with your compete volte-face ([55] & [56]) in the Norton case, you will agree with me that needs attending to. Giacomo  18:18, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

  Would you say that the ANI post led to more drama than dispute resolution would have? And do you want rollback back, you can have it if you want. Stifle (talk) 18:27, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

  No thank you Stifle, I think these tools are more important to you and your friends than they are to me.  Giacomo  18:34, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

  (edit conflict) I don't think he will. But asking was a nice gesture on your part Stifle. You can make it an even better gesture by granting him rollback without having to ask thus resetting the previous drama to point zero. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 18:38, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

  OK. I await with eagerness your reasoning for why you chose ANI over the less dramatic dispute resolution. Stifle (talk) 18:44, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

  My beloved nephew does not require any ghastly little tools. Tools are things for those who want to play with them. Besides which, so ridiculous is the rollback tool that I have been happily rollbacking on my nephew's behalf for the last month or so, which rather proves how stupid the whole process and dubious the honour is - doesn't it? Now Mr Stifle, I suggest you send one of the ANI henchmen round to wrestle them off me too, as I shall be delegating my rollback to my third under footman. Lady Catherine de Burgh (the Late) (talk) 18:46, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

  Third under footman? The organisation of your court your highness rivals even those in Byzantium. I am at awe. Farewell. (Bowing, and exiting walking backwards) Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 18:50, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

• "As it happens I would not have the rollback back if Jimbo crawled to me with them on a silver plate; as I have always said: the only way to sort things here is to accept nothing and give a great deal, then disreputable admins have and their disciples have no power over one." I really couldn't agree more. The same goes for this new half-assed reviewer status; who gives a shit for the administrators' pretty baubles? Can you believe that I once had a barnstar taken away by an idiot administrator who fell out with me, and I was told by another that I would no longer be allowed to review at GAN? There's something seriously wrong in the state of Denmark, but most people are looking in the wrong direction. Sack all of the administrators; let's see how many could get through another RfA. I'd guess about 10% or so, the rest are just dross. Malleus Fatuorum 19:54, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

• Count me into that 90%. Good times. Pedro :  Chat  20:54, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

• It's interesting, I think, to see how few of the current administrators believe that they'd get through another RfA, and equally interesting to see their excuses for that. Whatever their excuses though, they're almost certainly right; they wouldn't. Malleus Fatuorum 21:12, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Interesting indeed Malleus, but is any action being taken against Fastily? I have just spent 30 minutes looking and can fnd nothing. I don't initiate formal processes myself ever, because while I'm a good sprinter and stayer and boxer, as a jumper, I'm abysmal.  Giacomo  21:20, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Giacomo: We're waiting for Fastily to log onto Wikipedia (or, if he already has, to post a response to your complaint). I'd rather we waited a few days than rush into a decision. Some breathing room usually helps to prevent stupid decisions, anyhow. AGK 21:23, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Compete bollox! You have the difs! In RL, does one wait for a known crininal to strike again? Or are fingerprints and DNA enough? If I do soemthing wrong, Admins and their friend get on to ANI right away have an orgasmic hug. Go deal with it - sort!  Giacomo  21:27, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't initiate formal processes either, largely because I have no faith in their honesty. Malleus Fatuorum 21:31, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Giacomo, I believe there is something being prepared. Whether it'll be effective is another thing altogether. Aiken ♫ 21:34, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

• Oh I don't doubt there is something being prepared, probably the next victim when they have popped me out of the way. Rollacking as a form of bullying is quite unacceptable and I shall keep saying so until the very moment I am banned. Therefore, I await the announcement of their "preperations" with the same glee that a turkey anticipates Thanksgiving. I was just looking at the AN thread (the one trying to ban me), it bears near identical similarities to their orchestrated deletion pages of Richard Arthur Norton. MickMcNee racing up and down the thread, like a greyhound, hectoring anyone who disagrees with him. The only difference is that Treasury Tag is forcibly recused from one page and not the other. Strange times. If these people are allowed to take over the project, God help you all.  Giacomo  09:37, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

• I hope so because I am not the sort of person who waits very long. I was just wondering who the "we" who are "waiting for Fastily to log onto Wikipedia" are. Either AGK has joined the exaulted ranks of my esteemed, rocking and rollbacking aunt (entiltled to the "we"), or their are more than one waiting, in which case it would be nice to know who.  Giacomo  21:39, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

User:Giano subpages

When I first encountered them, I declined to delete your Giano subpages because I didn't realise that your username had been changed. If you have any more subpages that you want to be deleted, would you please include in the deletion rationale a note that the username has been changed? Thanks! Nyttend (talk) 00:55, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes sorry, I just realise that the names did not marry. Thanks for that anyway, I think that was the lot. Even I never write more than 6 pages at once.  Giacomo  00:57, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Courtesy Notification

A proposal has been raised to formally recognise your special status on Wikipedia as editors champion. If you dont feel able to accept this, please delete the discussion or advise so it can be archived. FeydHuxtable (talk) 18:15, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure its a very good idea Fred, but so much is written about me already, what's a few more words? We could certainly all do with a laugh and something joyous and amusing - so go with it if you want to, we might even see some of the sparkling wit, sadly devoid of late, that used to make editing Wikipedia so much fun. I just hope anybody being amusing does not get harrangued, blocked or both.  Giacomo  18:24, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Giano, don't you find my wit sparkling enough? I'm devastated, as I thought I was vintage Dom Perignon when after all I discover I'm only a cheap bottle of spumante, of the kind one receives along with panetone.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:52, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I got fired from my first architectural job, for sniffing the panetones. --Joopercoopers (talk) 07:54, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

The proposal reminds me of some horror movie theme I can't quite place where the townspeople release some fearsome monster/virus to combat something terrible, and well, you can guess what happens. This comment should not be construed to suggest that Giano is a monster/virus in any way.--Milowent (talk) 19:36, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Myself, I've always thought of Giano as the spider the old lady swallowed to catch the fly...--Wetman (talk) 23:13, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

From Giano's perspective, it's probably closer to the point in Gladiator where the emperor can't kill him but can't let him live. "The slave who defied a God-King," no? Recognizance (talk) 23:43, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Well it looks like we are in for a long drama seaon as McNee and Treasure ar planning an arbcase next. Looking at the threads with them on earnestly commenting on me ad-nauseum, I am reminded of Batman and Robin minus the glamour of the batmobile; it's going to be one very long dull summer; I hope you are all prepeared for it. I must find a long, big page to bury myself in and shut them out.  Giacomo  09:52, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Anything Treasury Tag does is independent of me, and vice versa. The Conspiracy is all in your head. Still, are you cast as The Joker in this scenario? Too funny. MickMacNee (talk) 13:40, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

And where did he say there was a conspiracy? You and TT are the prime mveoers on this; maybe independently, maybe not. Who know? Minkythecat (talk) 14:03, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

McNee and Treasure ar planning an arbcase. He is not planning anything with me, and vice versa. Still, who knows eh?. MickMacNee (talk) 14:40, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

You are planning an Arbcom, case, which may well backfire. I'd be surprised if TT wasn't panning one himself. Guess what? That makes Giano's comment perfectly correct unless of course, you intend to use it to damn him. That is, by completely misinterpreting it, taking out of context etc. Minkythecat (talk) 18:03, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

No, if that was what he meant, he would have said, cases, plural. It's clear what he meant, whether either you or he wants to admit it after the event or not. Clearly he does not, all he wants to do is complain about obnoxious people, while he calls them silly names and refers to the Others Who Cannot Be Named who mysteriously always agree with him. It must be some kind of ironic stage play, given all the Shakespeare references below. MickMacNee (talk) 19:13, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

• Mick, I will put this as politely and civilly as I possibly can. You have started to bore me. I find you deathly dull and while, I'm sure, in you chosen field of Wikipedia you are interesting, here you are not. In fact, not only are you very uninteresting, you are unwelcome. I won't imitate your friend, Treasure, by reverting you, but please do not post here again. Thank you.  Giacomo  19:51, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

• I only ever post here when you say something directly about me that needs correcting. So, with your cooperation, in future I shan't ever have the need to post here again, will I? Is that clear? MickMacNee (talk) 20:34, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

It seems these days, that no one is allowed to voice any opinion anywhere without an obnoxious, harrasing comment from McNee. No one mentioned a conspiracy, one just reads what is written. The only good thing is, I'm not the only person getting sick to death of the less than dynamic duo.  Giacomo  17:43, 6 June 2010 (UTC)#

Indeed, Giano, why is why any such case should also include the activities of said complainants. Minkythecat (talk) 18:00, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

A Midsummer Night's Dream

Titania adoring the Ass-headed Bottom. Oil on canvas by Henry Fuseli, c. 1790

Rather apt for this time of year, Dr.K.'s addition reminded me instantly of this little exchange amongst the mechanicals:

• BOTTOM: Thisby, the flowers of odious savours sweet,--
• QUINCE: Odious? odorous!
• BOTTOM: --odours savours sweet

(Quiller-Couch reading)

I suggest that you should always use "odorous" in place of "odious" – it would have the advantage that we'd all understand it, and it would keep the civility police off your back. Even if it's a bad idea, this touch of Shakespeare ought to give this place some parity with Malleus's talkpage as a venue for the culturally inclined. --RexxS (talk) 15:57, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

"And by and by I will to thee appear. Exit." It is indeed from Shakespeare. Thank you for this delightful detail. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 18:48, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

• Very droll. However, in the meantime worse than odorous, "Something is rotten in the state of Denmark" so let's attend to that.  Giacomo  21:44, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

The resolution of Denmark's problems requires the demise of all the protagonists. I'd rather see you cast as Prospero than as Hamlet. --RexxS (talk) 22:13, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Wasn't he the Duke of Milano?  Giacomo  22:14, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

He was indeed. An educated, powerful man who forgave all his enemies in the spirit of reconciliation. He still sorted out the problems though. --RexxS (talk) 22:20, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Did he get to be called "Excellency"?  Giacomo  22:20, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Shakespeare doesn't tell us, but I'd like to think so, Excellency. --RexxS (talk) 22:37, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

I think we can now be confident that at least this thread has reached Malleus's talkpage literary standards. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 23:09, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Yerse, but ...and I hesitate to ask...I have never understood - why was he called Bottom? Why not something like Hugo, Barnaby or Johnty - the sort of names (I speak from experience) that other not very bright English people give their not very bright offspring? I have never come across another awfully nice, but dim English person called Bottom.  Giacomo  06:59, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Well his given name was Nick. Shakespeare often named his characters to reflect their nature or role, for example Pistol ("Pizzle" i.e. penis) was a bit of a dick. Nick Bottom was a weaver, but someone more erudite that I would need to find a linkage there. It is perfectly possible that the Bard simply intended that Bottom was an arse (which means we could refer to someone as a "Nick" to avoid calling them something that would start an AN/I thread). --RexxS (talk) 14:27, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Are you quite sure it was Nick with an "N"?  Giacomo  14:55, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure. I'm afraid that a character called "Dick Bottom" would have been too much even for a 16th century audience. --RexxS (talk) 15:59, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I suppose so. Pity.  Giacomo  16:04, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

"You Odorous Pistol, you! Stop acting like such a Nick." You may be on to something here. Bielle (talk) 18:29, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Nick is used in many parts of the UK to describe "A groove or cleft in the flesh of a person or animal" (OED). The "nick of your arse" is thus the cleavage between your bumcheeks. This is possibly why Shakespeare chose 'Nick' as the weaver's forename. (NB this is my opinion only, and I've no interest in supplying citations in support).   pablo_hablo. 19:04, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for sharing that with us; it's a theory I have not heard explored before. Intresting........Doesn't "Old Nick" mean the Devil?  Giacomo  20:16, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

The Midsummer Night's Dream quote that often comes to my mind, when reading Giacomisms, is, of course, "Well roar'd, Lion!". ---Sluzzelin talk 20:33, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

A wish for Bish

I hope your friend gets well soon. Illnesses are no laughing matter. GoodDay (talk) 23:36, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. I'm sure she will soon be fine.  Giacomo  06:23, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Re: The informal approach

Thanks for the support. It does amuse me that someone so apparently taken with rules and guidelines chose to delete your comment from his talk page, in violation of WP:TALK. Best, --Richardrj ^{talk email} 12:57, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Don't worry, nothing that happens on that page is ever a surprise to me - you carry on as you are - formality and strict obedience are not required - this is Wikipedia not the Society of Jesus.  Giacomo  13:01, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

John Vanbrugh

Are you going to discuss the matter on the talk page? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:43, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

No I wrote it once and got it through FAC, if you feel your abreviated and very sterile version is better then please revert. I have rather lost interest in poor old John Vanbrugh. I'm sure you know far more about the subject than me.  Giacomo  20:46, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

 Done -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:48, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure your work is very "nice."  Giacomo  20:50, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

---Sluzzelin talk 20:56, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. When perhaps less than desirable attention has become focused elsewhere, in a month or so, I'll just be vetting "new" and "old" versions with a cumulative diff, supplying reasonably demanded citations and vetting which edits are authentically improvements. As is my usual practice. --Wetman (talk) 23:10, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

• Thank you Wetman; that's very reassuring to know.  Giacomo  06:40, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

This is a brilliant photograph. What does Pupa mean? --Joopercoopers (talk) 22:00, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Trust you to spot that one JC; I like to insert these things to see who is paying attention to my articles! Pupa means doll/beauty/belle - it's also a brand of colurful cosmetics. Much as I would like to say that is Mrs G and I visiting the Trevi fountain, sadly it is not. She is Francesca Cipriani [57] pulling off a stunt as I happened t be passing - which just goes to prove my theory that researching the Baroque is never dull!  Giacomo  22:20, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

PS: better explanation here [58].  Giacomo  22:23, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm fully behind her Endemol concerns. 10 years of my life have been blighted by that bastard programme infecting my living room annually. --Joopercoopers (talk) 22:45, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

BTW I threw 4 euro in the Trevi fountain the last time I was there and 'wished to return' under happier circumstances - it was my honeymoon to my first wife. I've yet to return, to whom do I apply for a refund? --Joopercoopers (talk) 22:47, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

That is so sad JC - I've often wondered where that money goes - it does work though, you will return and perhaps even get to meet Franceca there- I think I might write a page on her - seems a delightful girl and far more "wiki-interesting" than some dead old architect the sort of person who might get me some recognition for my work and a mention on DYK - we will have to find some interesting fact about her.  Giacomo  22:57, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

It is only sad I've not been back, although having never been to Florence, Venice, Palermo or Milan, I'm in no hurry. I'm leaving Tuscany to corpulent retirement, as most English seem to. If you know the Venetian 'Francesco' from the Telly - drives an Alpha and likes sailing down the Adriatic in between espressos - I'd appreciate an invite, seems like a lovely fellow when he's not persuading us that Venice is actually sinking under the shear weight of American tourists. --Joopercoopers (talk) 23:26, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Pack your wellies and go in October: rain-soaked piazza, gray Adriatic light, attentive waiters, old women in churches, empty galleries: the proper mood of Venice is elegaic. (October is the month for New York, too.)--Wetman (talk) 23:45, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Wetman is correct, allthough there are still tourists all yera these days, but they do decline. It's pretty cool (literally) in February too - mists swirling in off the Lagoon - you can see the real atmospheric Venice then. Young Francesco has done pretty well for himself; funily enough, his mother is a Sicilian aristocrat.  Giacomo  06:18, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Giano, I see in the photo you took of La Cipriani, that you describe her as a starlet?!!! Now, isn't that just overrating her talents a wee bit? I know I wrote an article on Fabrizio Corona and did add the dubious soubriquet actor to his lead, due to the memorable scene in Squadra anti-mafia - Palermo oggi 2 of him strutting into a supermarket in a pair of the tightest jogging shorts imaginable (Thank you Canale 5, thank you Silvio B.). However, the only way La Cipriani will ever get an acting role is perhaps in an Italian remake of Baywatch and they cast her to wear Pamela Anderson's swimsuit. How can you even consider doing an article on her when there isn't one of Valeria Marini?!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:40, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

but the multi-talented Valeria is bright blue. I think Cipriani has amazing talents, at least two very obvious ones. Seems a delightful young lady to me - very animated.  Giacomo  07:43, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I see she 'does have an article? Now when did this happen and why wasn't I informed of this momentuous event? "Shame, eternal shame, nothing but shame....."--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:44, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Autoreviewer/Edit reviewer

It's my decided opinion that "Autoreviewer/Edit reviewer" - Protection will be just one more stick for the Admins to wave and threaten the ordinary editor with. It will be a creeping fungus on all pages and spread to all FAs and GAs. Ultimately, protection will kill "The Encyclopedia any one can edit?" and probably encourage ownership and multiple other problems.

If you don't have this God given tool, or the Admins have removed it from you, you can't edit them even a page you have monitored for years. This smeans if I refuse it or am not given it, I can't edit my own work without Admin approval - can you imagine me, or an editor like it "Please Custard Trifle (14 year old Admin), please may I add a fact to Bolloxwold Castle - you are such an expert?" It is absurd and will kill the spirit of the project. I advise you to all decline it too and sink the daft idea.  Giacomo  07:05, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

The main reason for flagged protection appears to be to deal with a perception that Wikipedia is not properly defending BLPs adequately from vandalism. The secondary reason appears to be to provide something lighter than protection or semiprotection whereby people are allowed to edit, but their edits are processed by a trusted user before being seen by a wider audience.

I'll give you the reviewer flag if you want it, but I can't right now because it isn't switched on. Stifle (talk) 08:15, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I do not want a reviewer flag, but thank you for the offer. It will ultimately become one more admin weapon and threat. If by trusted reviewer, you mean an admin, then we have al seen what happened when a "trusted admin" declared hiself an authority on the Baroque. This protecttion will not be confined to BLPs, it will spread through to FAs, GAs and any page written by an admin who wants to claim ownership or a page. It will discourage valuable edits by "dive in" educated people who do not care to have their edits censored bt acnied 14 year old youths who know nothing about the subject. It is aginst the whole ethos of Wikipedia.  Giacomo  08:51, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I understand your concern, Excellency, about the ER-flag being another stick to beat mere content contributors with. Nevertheless, I am persuaded that vandalism consumes far too much time; time that could otherwise be used in productively improving articles, and flagged revisions will marginalise vandalism. I'd be willing to see how it goes, particularly if it tends to restrict itself to BLPs, where I doubt that I'll even encounter it. The snag with its wide-spread introduction is obviously that there won't be enough ER-flagged editors to cope with the workload, and I suspect that your good self will come under increasing pressure to "take up the flag" (or cross) for the sake of architectural topics, where no-one would dare to claim greater expertise. But think about it! – "Citation needed" – rejected! – "Section deleted" – rejected! I must stop now as the tears of joy brought on by such thoughts make it too difficult to continue. --RexxS (talk) 16:47, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I can't see any reason why abusive "flagging" of articles (or whatever it's called) would be treated as anything less than abusive full-protection is now. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 17:34, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

J.d, I think you're missing the point. The issue isn't abusive flagging of articles; it's that any admin with a grudge will be able to unilaterally ban anyone they have a grudge against from editing anything at GA/FA level, simply by revoking their "reviewer" right. Given the farce of rollback and edit-filter-editor, I have no confidence at all that this isn't exactly what will happen. – iridescent 17:54, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Pending Change protection doesn't prevent anyone from editing an article, the opposite is the case. And it should (should!) hardly ever happen that edits of autoconfirmed users aren't immediately published to readers. If the backlog there gets longer than a few minutes, then we either need more active reviewers, or fewer pages with that protection level.
I don't spend enough time on AN so I don't know about recent problems with editors removed from user groups. But like Moni keeps saying, if someone removes it out of spite, without pointing at a list of vandalism being reviewed by that editors, there are enough folks who will put it back. And you, Iridescent, are always just a few keystrokes away from doing it yourself. Amalthea 20:12, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

• Quite right. Many of us are already sick to death of bullying, bossy, vindictive litle admins. This is just one more set of tools for those who like to collect such things, it will lead to nothing but more admin abuse, threats, ANI threads etc., and anyone who thinks it will stop at BLP is very mistaken, it will soon spread to FAs, GAs and another page a particular Admin decides to claim ownership over. Ultimately, it will be censorship and a deterrent to any drive-by person with something of interest to add. Are we to assume that Admins who have never written a page in their lives are suddenly expert on all matters? Am I to have run early Renaissance facts past some 14 year old mini-admin before I can add them to a page I have been editing for years? I have not forgotten the car-crash that occurred last time some "trusted" Admin declared himself an authority on the Baroque It's ridiculous and an insult to all long standing editors, that they should have to go cap in hand and ask for some "rights" from an Admin, just to edit page that one has worked hard on for years. It;s an insulting and ludicrous idea and I, for one, will be having nothing to do with it.  Giacomo  18:01, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Maybe you'd get on better with admins if you didn't continually attack all of them? Being an expert on all matters doesn't really come into it, as we don't except OR, auto-reviewers would just have to be able to research. Remember admins are chosen by the community, and if you feel that a particular admin is being abusive, you can technically get them banned by the community. Anyway, surely any editor with auto-reviewer status would be able to update the article? As for having to get the right, you don't have to go "cap in hand" to an admin, right above you were just offered it, did you ask? No. I've seen plenty of editors granted rights which they didn't ask for. All that said, I'm not particularly in support of this idea, but haven't read about it anywhere else (I've been away from Wikipedia for about two days, so I'm a bit behind the times ;D), I just wish you'd manage to make your points without constantly suggesting admins are abusive scum. Anyway, to answer your question, no you wouldn't have to run your updates by a 14 year old "mini" (?) admin, there's plenty to choose from, and you could even pick a non-admin. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 18:15, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

• I loathe most admins. I detest them and I despise them. With the exception of half a dozen, I would not trust most of the bullying breed further than I can spit them. Any remaining respect I had for the Admin concept evaporated in the disgusting episode of last week. My block log is full of them fighting to get their name on it, that is why most of the blocks are overturned by the very few intellignet ones because they were bad blocks! This latrest "con" is nothing more than a charter for more of their filthy abuse and tricks.  Giacomo  18:24, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Cutting and pasting this, since you appear to have missed it: "I think you're missing the point. The issue isn't abusive flagging of articles; it's that any admin with a grudge will be able to unilaterally ban anyone they have a grudge against from editing anything at GA/FA level, simply by revoking their "reviewer" right. Given the farce of rollback and edit-filter-editor, I have no confidence at all that this isn't exactly what will happen." – iridescent 18:18, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

(ec x2) Ah, sorry. Unfortunately, I would have to agree with you on that, and I have about as much idea as you about how to fix it. By the by, where did someone decide that all GA/FA articles would be flagged? Flagging BLPs is a good idea, but why should we flag all FAs, much less GAs? That makes no sense any more than semiprotecting them would make sense. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 18:22, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I wasn't really aware that admins removing rights because they have a grudge against a user was a big problem, I expect involved would apply as any where else, and the user could always request review from another admin. Again, it isn't that I support this, it's just that I dislike the way it's constantly suggested that the majority of our administrators abusive. In reply to jd, I don't think it was, it looks like Giano just brought it up as a possibility, and what he thinks will happen - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 18:27, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

It is what will happen. This is an ill thought out concept - what happens then? I write a half decent page - some nasty litle Admin-troll comes along and GAs it, then I am forbidden to edit it, expand it or maintain it. If people don't trust Admins, that is hardly my fault. I've been trolled by too many of them. I know what happens.  Giacomo  18:30, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

For the third time, Giacomo: No, you are not forbidden to edit it! Again, where do you get this from? It is simply not true. Amalthea 20:12, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't require the majority to be abusive, just a significant minority, which there undoubtedly is whether or not you choose to believe that. Malleus Fatuorum 18:32, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

All autoconfirmed users are automatically reviewed except in some rare cases, so this shouldn't prevent you in any significant way from editing flagged protected articles. And admins can't remove 'autoconfimed'. Plus, the right to review other users' edits is going to be granted semi-automatically on a large scale basis. Even if a rogue admin would remove it for no reason, it wouldn't significantly impact your editing, but we're still going to take measures so that it shouldn't happen, if we have to then make it only removable by bureaucrats or even stewards.

Never FAs and GAs have been planned to be placed under pending changes, usage is limited by the protection policy, in the same way as for semi-protection, and restricted to 2000 articles or so for the trial. Please don't assume the worst. Cenarium (talk) 18:56, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

The only way it will be affecting my editing is that I shall be ignoring any article that is flagged protected, as I do not intend to accept any rights unless and until there are proper procedures in place to prevent the potential for abuse surrounding the threatened or actual removal of those rights. Malleus Fatuorum 19:04, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Which procedure do you suggest or would be ok with ? What do you think of a process with a consensus-based discussion closed by an uninvolved admin, hold on a specific page ? Cenarium (talk) 19:35, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Such discussions always seem biased in favour of the administrator clique and their hangers-on, starting off with the presumption that the administrator must be right and the editor wrong unles proved otherwise by tediously circular debate. The absolute minimum I want to see is that administrators do not have the ability to remove this new status, and preferably any other as well. Malleus Fatuorum 19:47, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Would it be acceptable if the reviewer usergroup could only be removed by bureaucrats, and requests for removal closed by uninvolved bureaucrats ? Cenarium (talk) 21:38, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

That would certainly go some way to dispelling my reservations about this new user group, which actually takes away the rights that editors like myself already have. I have dug my heels in because the lack of other admin baubles like rollback is neither here nor there to any sane individual, which is why I refuse them. Malleus Fatuorum 23:27, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

• 101% agreement with Malleus.  Giacomo  19:07, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

You guys...literally...am I the only editor around here who recognizes all you dudes are reinforcing your own civil disobedience while women editors are telling you to nut up and consider the practicality of your highly principled decisions? Am I? Good gracious. This matter can be oversimplified in many ways (battle of the sexes included), but the only result I see occurring should your worst fears come to fruition is that content suffers and you are all complicit in that degradation if you refuse to fight for content. Just as complicit as the 14-year-old admin who gets his panties in a twist when you question his authority. --Moni3 (talk) 19:12, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Moni, you seem to be unaware, you, the arb..Admin, are the saleswoman! We, the common punters, have the right to buy into this or to say - you've gotta be kidding! You are Kidding!  Giacomo  21:44, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Not sure who left this, but I'm not an arb (*wild cackle*), just an impotent admin who uses those rights rarely. You have the right to disengage from society do you? And complain about how content will suffer? When you could scrap for content and get knocked around again by some dorkus majorus, but be able to enact some kind of change? See, this rude screaming that Giano and Malleus engage in, it changes attitudes. Some admins think twice now about blocking because someone said fuck. And they read the comment more critically to see that it's not abuse, but criticism about someone's actions. I don't get why you guys don't want to pursue this further and continue to change people's minds by accepting the price that your autoreviewer rights will be taken away a lot in the beginning then start to decrease as the admins and editors who actually know what you do restore them. Patterns, people...patterns. Change hurts many people. Get through it. I mean, you guys are already screaming about things being unfair so it's a role you seem fairly eager to take on. What the fuck is disengaging and allowing your articles to deteriorate going to prove? --Moni3 (talk) 20:38, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not complaining about change, I welcome change, but only if it's for the better. What this proposal does is to hand yet another stick to the admin corps with which to beat regular editors, and I think they've already got too many sticks. Wikipedia will no doubt stumble on without me, and I dare say even Giano, but for me—obviously can't speak for Giano—this is a Spartan moment. I don't expect anything to change because of my stand, and I doubt Giano does either, but I'm determined to make it nevertheless. Malleus Fatuorum 21:48, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Oh come now. This isn't a battle. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 22:10, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

It is for me. Malleus Fatuorum 23:22, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I left the message! I don't have to sign on my own page. Moni, You seem very keen to vend your wares. You remind me of those odd religionists who knock at doors - refusing to take "No, we are Catholic" for an answer - but failing to apreciate Catholics never defect.  Giacomo  21:44, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Or we try something like this? --Joopercoopers (talk) 19:14, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Ah the Arbcom! Is Rlevse still an Arb, I have not looked recently.  Giacomo  19:38, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

He is - unless he resigned in the last 4 or 5 hours. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 20:07, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

• I have to say that I am concerned that there is indeed another granting of a "responsibility" to editors that was previously assumed and that may be removed by an admin, where removing the "responsibilities" that were bestowed by the community upon these admins remains a difficult and rare course of actions. All that was needed was the flagging of BLP's and the swift and proportionate sanctioning of vandals, by a cadre of accountable sysops (and there are very many good sysops, as proven by the fact that most people can only name a few dozen of the hundred active ones - and not of all them unkindly, not even by Giano but possibly Malleus Factuorum, may his tribe increase... ;~))LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:14, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

[Hehehe] Close, but no cigar, LessHeard! That's Malleus Fatuorum (no 'c' in the surname as in fatuous) - the "Hammer of the Foolish", may his tribe increase! Not to be confused with facetious (as in this comment), which interestingly happens to be one of the only two three words in the English language with all the vowels used once and in alphabetical order. --RexxS (talk) 23:45, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

That is, aside from "abstemious". And "adventitious". And "tragedious". – iridescent 00:10, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Wonderful! I learned a new word: "tragedious", like a tragedy. I'm sure we'll be able to find much use for when commenting in future. "Abstemious" was the other word I was thinking of. For those with a mathematical bent, you'll notice that "adventitious" contains all the vowels in alphabetical order, but has two 'i's. --RexxS (talk) 00:36, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Rollback misuse

There is an apparent consensus that WP:ANI is in fact the correct place to discuss and call attention to rollback misuse. I therefore withdraw any past, present, or future contentions to the contrary. (Well, past and present anyway.) Stifle (talk) 08:15, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you Stifle, that's very big of you to tell me - respect.  Giacomo  08:51, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Long standing content editors to be disnefranchised by any passsing Admin!

This looks like a very serious incident to me and I very much hope that all editors are watching this closely. It's their own fault if they suddenly find themselves banned from pages they have written and watched for years, if they are not.  Giacomo  20:10, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I think this is what we've been waiting for, tbh. Best way to prevent admin abuse? Dilute their power - slowly debungle the tools. Permission will be used as a weapon, but there are plenty watching each other backs. Your talking to a very innocent old cow, that said. Ceoil (talk) 23:08, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Was "debungle" a Freudian slip? It was a stroke of genius anyway. Malleus Fatuorum 23:14, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

My ability to spell is not sophisticated enough that I might know either way. Freudian whaat? I'll go with genius anyway. Ceoil (talk) 23:26, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

"Debungling the tools" was a stroke of genius, whether Freudian or not. Malleus Fatuorum 23:29, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

A question

Hello, I'd like to ask you please, if you have a time, and a wish to help me with an article I'm going to write. It is about an old building in Bern. I got interested in that building after reading a story about a spy, who once lived there. I know very little about architecture, and my English is less than perfect. So under help I meant that the article will probably need a complete re-writing, but it will not be a big article. If you are to help me, may I please ask if you speak German because the sources are in German? Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 05:40, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm happy to help, but first, point me at a picture of the building, to see if it's in a style I understand. I do speak German, but I don't speak it very well, I can just about understand it - so long as have time to figure it out or people speak very slowly. Yeah, I am happy to have an input - the architectural side is usually pretty visual anyway - and explanations of a styles or reasons for a style can be found in the text books in most languages; so not understanding the architectural references should not be an insurmountable problem.  Giacomo  06:42, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. There is no good image of the building, at least I found none. Here is a source with not very descriptive image. I am going to write the article anyway, just to tell the story about the spy, who lived there. I will add it to my user space probably later today, and let you know, when I do. If you'd be interested to work on it, it will be great, but if you will not, I will of course understand.
BTW while I am here, you have a broken link on your user page [59] Too bad it was deleted. It was funny. Best.--Mbz1 (talk) 14:04, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it was very funny and very true, but it was startingto unsettle too many people. I will take the reaminder of this converstion over to your page, it is probably quieter there. This page gets more like an asylum every day.  Giacomo  21:43, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Hear me out for a sec

I know you've stated, in no uncertain terms, that you don't want the new bits. IMO, for a misguided reason, but that's besides the point. Are you sure you don't want it? I most certainly do not approve of how you (mis)use project space — or your motivations for doing so — but there has never been any question that your mainspace contributions are both valuable and anything but abusive; and it would actually annoy me that you could be hindered at them no matter how unlikely because someone might someday abuse their position into bullying you about it.

I will personally kick the virtual butt of anyone who uses threats of removing that bit from anyone for any sort of political reason — or any reason that isn't directly plain, unambiguous vandalism or BLP violations. That includes anyone who attempts to coerce or bully you about it. If nothing else, you know I have absolutely no qualms about stripping bits from people who abuse them fast enough that they ablate on the way down; and even hinting at bullying someone who isn't a vandal about slapping them with a vandal protection device (which, ultimately, is what the flagged revision deal is about) is abuse I would not tolerate. — Coren ^(talk) 14:37, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

That's very sweet of you Coren - perhaps you might find a form of words over here to convey your personal but kicking policy to the great unwashed. As it seems any attempts to suggest to admins en-masse that they should have their wings clipped, is greeted with the perennial Turkeys voting for Christmas response - they seem to think that in the event of a malicious removal a quick conflab on ANI and restoration of the reviewer bit will be sufficient - good to know that desyssop will be the natural consequence of a vexatious removal. --Joopercoopers (talk) 15:10, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

• Thank you Coren - I appreciate your coming here, but I have seem ANI threads (and Arbcases too) started for malicious reasons before becoming huge destructive pile-ons,becoming nothing more than a malicious kicking session by the ignorant and uninformed especially if I am the subject (I am thinking particulary of former Arb Wizardman's comments about me only last week on ANI, all because I had exposed a bullying episode with Admin involvemant. Certain Arbs/Admins will be just waiting for the slightest excuse to disenfranchise me. Funnily enough, I wrote a very short BLP today(only my 3rd - I think - ever), purely co-incidentally to all of this, I happened to read about a man who sounded extremely impressive amd article worthy in this morning's paper, and while I was quickly writing it, it occurred to me than in a few hours I won't be able to do that - or freely edit it ever again - you are right, it's all a great pity for the enccclopedia. However, I have no intention of taking anything that can ever be used against me again. Rolling back an Admin's trolling on an FA, his soliciting on ANI and the criticism of me removing erronious facts from another page were enough, following another ANI pile-on, to loose me the ridiculous rollback tool, a tool that Admins are permitted to mis-use at length was enough to finally convince me of the admin corruption of this place - allthough I have now been told I can have rollback back anytime, from now on I take nothing. Putting me aside for one moment, on more general grounds - this is the end of the "Encyclopedia anyone can edit", and that is a travesty that has been smuggled in through the back door - with few people aware what is going on. It's all a gret shame.  Giacomo  15:30, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, not really. It changes things from "the encyclopedia where almost anyone can edit most articles" to "the encyclopedia where almost anyone can edit all articles, but it might not show up instantly on some of them". You know very well that not everyone who presses that edit button is well-intentioned, or competent; the question has been (and remains) "how to deal with that reality?". Protection and semi protection was one way, and now we're trying something else. In the end, and that might be where we differ philosophically, I see "everyone can edit" as an invitation to participate that's accessory to the real objective: a reasonably reliable encyclopedia.

At any rate, I'm certainly not going to force anything onto you; just know that if you end up needing the bit you'll find no shortage of people to flip it on. — Coren ^(talk) 15:56, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

... and no shortage of those looking for an excuse to flip it off. Malleus Fatuorum 16:06, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

No indeed. You'll find no shortage of people willing to presume ill will, smear illusory adversaries, and treat the project like some sort of battleground where their enemies must be scored against in their imaginary little game. — Coren ^(talk) 16:27, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Back to square one then! Anyone who ever wonders what sort of bollox I have to put up with, here is a rubbish comment from a recently retired Arb and admin from just last week, when they wanted me community banned for exposing bulying. [60] Coren can never understand why people become so angry and don't just take this crap lying down, touching their forelock to the admin. Coren, it's outright negative lies like that from senior Wikipedians that make the rest of us mistrust Admins  Giacomo  16:53, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

The problem with that assertion is that it presumes that admins have any sort of exclusivity for poor behavior. They do not. The non-admin assholes are just as frequent (proportionally), at least, than the adminy ones; albeit somewhat less visible for the lack of bits.

You're presuming causation where not even correlation is evident, and basing your (oftentimes immensely abrasive) behavior on that flawed premise. Does that mean you're wrong in any specific case, or even in general? Perhaps not. But what it does mean is that when you have genuine grievances for which redress would be appropriate, you find few people willing to listen to you in the first place. — Coren ^(talk) 17:42, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

• Not very neatly side-stepped. I have just proven above, Arbs and Admins will come out with all manner of rubbish and lies in ANI threads concerning those perceived as public enemies. My famous block log is full of bad blocks by malicious Admins that have been swiftly overturned. Regarding the thread above, did I hear anyone officially say "Wizardman, that is a vindictive lie, you should appologise, how can an Arb possibly not know how to check edits?" No, the ANI thread just ploughed on-and-endlessly-on putting the boot in until it fizzled out. To his great credit, Ceoil raised the matter of Wizardman's edit and was quickly blocked! Was the daft, trolling (it had no chance of succeeeding) thread's nominator penalised or ctiticised for starting the thread or for his behaviour before? No! So you see Coren, I have no wish to accept anything, that has even the remotest possibility of ending in a ANI thread. At the moment I have the right to edit where I like, and I do like, in fact, I like very much. However, even that, it not worth the hassle of more trolling Admins. This is going to be the end of Wikipedia, as we know it, and the start of Admin censorship and displayed ignorance.  Giacomo  18:09, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

• I very nearly got banned from posting to ANI for having the temerity to suggest you are not a net benefit to the project, a view a good many people agreed with. Much as it would suit you to see anyone who even dares to question your value here be punished, it's not going to happen, and that's not because all admins are corrupt lying bastards as is your meme now. For 99.999% of other editors, there would have been a swift and predictable response to your repeated characterisations of me as a daft troll, which goes way beyond your previous childish insults which were simply ignorable or a source of amusement by comparison, especially if your response to any feedback was similarly on form. Still, good luck with not accepting Reviewer status, you will be getting it automatically whether you want it or not as far as I can tell, I will be anyway, and you will have to make a big scene if you want it removed. That is, if you ever do of course. I have my doubts. There are too many parallels to past Great Stances here. MickMacNee (talk) 18:30, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

• It's very easy to get it removed, as I did yesterday evening. No need for a "big scene". Malleus Fatuorum 18:33, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Oh, you intended for me to opine on that comment specifically? I think Wizardman went off the deep end in hyperbole; a sin you should be intimately familiar with. I certainly have not examined your content contribution in depth, but it doesn't take much observation to note you are both knowledgeable and productive in, at least, architecture; it seems clear on its face that an assertion that you haven't done anything of value since 2005 comes from somewhere deep in la-la land.

On the other hand, I can't possibly agree with much of the behavior you display around the project space. Blanking the ANI thread? Really? You can't be so blind as to not realize that this could serve no purpose other than stimulate those who feel you are a detriment to the project. You can't be surprised that millers start picking up torches and pitchforks by now when they see you pick your lance up and mount your horse! Hell, I am not convinced you are a net positive for the project when you get into one of your dramatic phases.

As for flagged revisions... well, I listen to you speak of the End of Wikipedia and I hear Hollywood lamenting the End of Cinema when television arrived on the scene. It's a change. A fairly minor one, at that. The world isn't going to end, and you're not going to find yourself a sudden victim of oppression or censorship (whether you have the bit or not). — Coren ^(talk) 18:34, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't remember voting in any RFA's where administrators were given the right to add or remove the Reviewer status. What is the time frame for existing administrators to go through a new RFA to be given the right to add or remove the Reviewer status bit? I would think that you'd want at least five hundred to pass an RFA that allows the new rights before enabling flagged revisions on the site. That process could have been started a year ago. Uncle uncle uncle 20:51, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, like that's gonna happen. Administrators have many rights that didn't exist when they passed their RfAs, so it's hardly breaking news that they've been given another one. Any rational person could only come to the conclusion that the introduction of this trial has been handled either incompetently, or corruptly. For instance, until a couple of hours ago these were the criteria for being granted this wonderful new "right". Notice the attempt to marginalise anyone who has a block log? Malleus Fatuorum 21:12, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Well spotted Malleus, I saw that earlier and then with all the kerfuffle with replying to Coren forgot about it - this whole thing is disordered and disorganized; I think all the little admins must feel all their Christmases have come at once. Which of them added that about the "block log" do we know?  Giacomo  21:22, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Looks like it was User:RobLa here. Aiken ♫ 21:32, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

It is just appalling; not one othem understands what this is supposed to be about, or even which hymn sheet they are supposed to be universally singing from, yet they are to be "administering" the system. One depsairs, one really does.  Giacomo  21:36, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

The biggest concern of mine is that we are currently (as far as I know) able to edit articles as we please, and our edits show up immediately. This change means that this is no longer the case. No one should have to apply, or have applied, an extra right in order for them to go about their usual business improving articles. My other concern is, as others have said, the idea that admins can unilaterally decide whether or not someone can or cannot have this extra "right" - bearing in mind that this was something that we had already. Aiken ♫ 21:40, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

The crux of the issue, for me at least, is who has the right to take this new "right" away, or as will inevitably happen, threaten to take it away for some ill-defined misdemeanour. It ought to have granted to every autoconfirmed editor, automatically, and as it actually removes existing rights, its removal should not be in the purview of one cranky administrator bearing a grudge. Malleus Fatuorum 21:55, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Well I have jusr asked Xeno to remove auto-reviewer from my account - I have no wish for it - I have done very well without it and will continue to do so.  Giacomo  21:57, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I have none of these rights, and I refuse them all until the system is fixed. All the huff and puff surrounding this new one ought to have been about how to remove the right, not about how to grant it, but of course the control freaks had their way. Malleus Fatuorum 22:01, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Well it appears unbeknown to me that I do [61] apparently losing this "right" means that everytime I write a page some Admin will have to read it to make sure I don't use naughty words. Personally, i hope it is Wizardman forced to read every boring word I write.  Giacomo  22:03, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

On a point of information, the autoreviewer right is completely different from the reviewer right. Autoreviewer means your new pages don't show up in the patrol queue. Reviewer, as mentioned above, means your changes to flagged pages will go through straight away. Stifle (talk) 08:28, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

• For the 101st time, I do not want any "rights" that admins can take away. If that means some unfortunate Admin is going to have to read every edit I make - good! They can fix my spelling while they are there.  Giacomo  12:55, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

• I initially thought that I'd just ignore any article that had this new feature applied to it, but instead, I think I may make loads of edits to all of them. :lol: Malleus Fatuorum 21:16, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Malleus, you are a mind reader, my own thoughts entirely. I hope we dn't conflict each other.  Giacomo  21:19, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi, If you look here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Pending_changes#Reviewing you will see it says, Reviewer rights can be granted by administrators, at their discretion based on the above guidelines. Except for reviewer rights removed at the request of the user, removal of the permission is only possible after review by the community or the arbitration committee....So as it stands now the issue of such removal doesn't exist. Off2riorob (talk) 21:32, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you Off2riorob, we have all seen the pile-ons of admin led "reviews by the community" - no thank you. When led by certain Admins, the community is incapable of reviewing clearly its own behind. Quite happy as I am.  Giacomo  21:38, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Ok. I understand your concerns. I don't see that experianced guality contributors such as yourself have anything to worry about in regards to this tool, best wishes. Off2riorob (talk) 21:56, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure we don't. I have always regarded Admins as necessary evils, that they will now be one step behind me correcting my spelling and punctuation can only serve to help me and the encyclopedia, I just hope they perrform their duties properly and don't try to stray into new territory by interfering with the content.  Giacomo  21:59, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I could use someone following me round correcting my spelling. I don't think anyone would dare to mess with your content contributions, not after what happened the last time it was attempted at the Blenheim Palace article. Off2riorob (talk) 22:05, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

yes, and that was one of their "trusted admins" too. So think what would happen there today - he (the trusted Admin) would re-write the page and my edits wouldnot be allowed to show - now aint that just marvellous?  Giacomo  22:08, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Interesting senario, that would only have happened if the article was pending protected and you didn't have reviewer rights and other editors did not review your edits and assess them as fine to add and add them. An impossible senario I think, as I imagine someone would have been available to review and accept your edit... perhaps in disrupted unusual situations such as that one the new tool would create more issues than it would solve. We are about to find out anyways in the trial. Best regards to you Giano. Off2riorob (talk) 22:59, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Now there's a question I haven't seen answered anywhere. Say Giano makes an edit to one of these protected articles and it goes into the queue. Then say I come along and "approve" it. Who gets "credit" for that edit in the page history? Does it show up as a Giano edit or does it show up as my edit? What about if I approve of his edit only after I fix a typo? Do we share credit for the edit? Tex (talk) 13:47, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

See [62] ("[accepted by Xeno]"). I'm not fond of that "accepted" - I think it should just say "sighted" or something. –xeno^talk 13:52, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

No I'm pretty sure it's 'accept' as in 'accept all legal responsibility for someone else's potential libel'. --Joopercoopers (talk) 14:01, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Interesting. So now is there an "accepted" counter that all the RFA dweebs reviewers will be disecting when one is at RFA? Do all of the edits that you have accepted show up in some log somewhere? Tex (talk) 14:29, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

But of course [63]. –xeno^talk 14:51, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

It's unlikely that anything at FAC would be protected in this way. Isn't one of the FAC criteria stability? So you probably won't be seeing a lot of it there. Yes there's a log I believe. --Joopercoopers (talk) 14:48, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

• No, the real problems will come when someone changes one of my facts to an erroneous fact such as here [64]. Then when I revert it to the correct version as here [65] (for which I lost rollback) there will then be a complete shit storm because I doubt the reviewer/admin will have a clue which particular Baron de Rothschild built which particular house - so what happens then - ANI threads no doubt because wicked Giano has said, accept my edit immediately or words to that effect.  Giacomo  15:27, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

talk back

Hello, Giano II. You have new messages at Mbz1's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

--Mbz1 (talk) 00:52, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

A star for you

		The Writer's Barnstar
		For the wonderful work you've done on Herrengasse 23. Best regards--Mbz1 (talk) 03:50, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much. We'll have to see if we can do a little more.  Giacomo  06:49, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

FYI

DYK nomination here.Please feel free to change the hook, if you'd like. Best.--Mbz1 (talk) 16:24, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Could not resist

		Barnstar of good Humor
		For the best laughs I have ever had on Wikipedia. Best regards--Mbz1 (talk) 03:50, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. It seems everyone who comes into contact with me ends up crying for one reason or another.  Giacomo  18:17, 16 June 2010 (UTC)