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)
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)
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)
The article James Blunt: Return to Kosovo has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
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)
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)
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)
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)
Was this an accident? [5] Ripberger ( talk) 08:36, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
Please don't bite newbies: [6] -- BozMo talk 10:40, 8 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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, Durova 409 00:55, 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. Durova 409 22:45, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)
Perhaps this might be of interest to you, take a peak. GoodDay ( talk) 18:48, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
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)
There is no discussion on the talk page and you are tag teaming! Giano 19:25, 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)
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 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)
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)
So sorry, it was my mistake MaenK.A. Talk 12:16, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)
There are some whiners butt-hurt about comments you made. -- 32.175.156.35 ( talk) 21:30, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
I see. Replying to IP. Pedro : Chat 22:51, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
“ | You blocks, you stones, you worse than senseless things! O you hard hearts, you cruel men of Wikipedia, |
” |
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)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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Because it bears repeating: "I love you, Giano". ;) Your_greatest_fan —Preceding undated comment added 14:40, 27 February 2010 (UTC).
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)
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)
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)
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)
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, Durova 412 22:56, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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 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)
Please see Talk:Winter Palace#"Tsar" after 1721 - thanks much. KillerChihuahua ?!? Advice 23:58, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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 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)
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)
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)
It's working! :-) Bishonen | talk 18:37, 29 April 2010 (UTC).
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).
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)
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)
Dont do it again. -- Matt57 ( talk• contribs) 22:35, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
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, Rodhull andemu 23:11, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)
OK, it's not really your lucky day is it? :-) Giano 20:31, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)
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 K 303 14:19, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Check your email. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:27, 24 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/?title=User:Smee&redirect=no. That user name was blocked 3 times for 3RR. http://en.wikipedia.org/?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/?title=User:Smeelgova&redirect=no That user name was blocked 4 times for 3RR. http://en.wikipedia.org/?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)
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)
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)
- 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 - Kingpin 13 ( 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, - Kingpin 13 ( 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. λogos πraxis 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. λogos πraxis 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, - Kingpin 13 ( 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. λogos πraxis 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. - Kingpin 13 ( 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. λogos πraxis 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. λogos πraxis 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. λogos πraxis 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. - Kingpin 13 ( 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. λogos πraxis 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. λogos πraxis 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. λogos πraxis 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. λogos πraxis 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. λogos πraxis 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] - 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 - Kingpin 13 ( 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. λogos πraxis 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. λogos πraxis 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. λogos πraxis 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. λogos πraxis 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. λogos πraxis 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. λogos πraxis 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...! ╟─ Treasury Tag► 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 ==
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)
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)
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)
Rather apt for this time of year, Dr.K.'s addition reminded me instantly of this little exchange amongst the mechanicals:
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)
I think we can now be confident that at least this thread has reached Malleus's talkpage literary standards. Dr.K. λogos πraxis 23:09, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
I hope your friend gets well soon. Illnesses are no laughing matter. GoodDay ( talk) 23:36, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
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)
Are you going to discuss the matter on the talk page? -- Eraserhead1 < talk> 20:43, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
This is a brilliant photograph. What does Pupa mean? -- Joopercoopers ( talk) 22:00, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)
Or we try something like this? -- Joopercoopers ( talk) 19:14, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
-- Mbz1 ( talk) 00:52, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
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)
DYK nomination here.Please feel free to change the hook, if you'd like. Best.-- Mbz1 ( talk) 16:24, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
The article James Blunt: Return to Kosovo has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
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)
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)
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)
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)
Was this an accident? [5] Ripberger ( talk) 08:36, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
Please don't bite newbies: [6] -- BozMo talk 10:40, 8 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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, Durova 409 00:55, 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. Durova 409 22:45, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)
Perhaps this might be of interest to you, take a peak. GoodDay ( talk) 18:48, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
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)
There is no discussion on the talk page and you are tag teaming! Giano 19:25, 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)
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 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)
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)
So sorry, it was my mistake MaenK.A. Talk 12:16, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)
There are some whiners butt-hurt about comments you made. -- 32.175.156.35 ( talk) 21:30, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
I see. Replying to IP. Pedro : Chat 22:51, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
“ | You blocks, you stones, you worse than senseless things! O you hard hearts, you cruel men of Wikipedia, |
” |
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)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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Because it bears repeating: "I love you, Giano". ;) Your_greatest_fan —Preceding undated comment added 14:40, 27 February 2010 (UTC).
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)
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)
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)
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)
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, Durova 412 22:56, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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 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)
Please see Talk:Winter Palace#"Tsar" after 1721 - thanks much. KillerChihuahua ?!? Advice 23:58, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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 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)
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)
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)
It's working! :-) Bishonen | talk 18:37, 29 April 2010 (UTC).
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).
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)
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)
Dont do it again. -- Matt57 ( talk• contribs) 22:35, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
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, Rodhull andemu 23:11, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)
OK, it's not really your lucky day is it? :-) Giano 20:31, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)
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 K 303 14:19, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Check your email. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:27, 24 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/?title=User:Smee&redirect=no. That user name was blocked 3 times for 3RR. http://en.wikipedia.org/?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/?title=User:Smeelgova&redirect=no That user name was blocked 4 times for 3RR. http://en.wikipedia.org/?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)
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)
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)
- 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 - Kingpin 13 ( 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, - Kingpin 13 ( 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. λogos πraxis 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. λogos πraxis 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, - Kingpin 13 ( 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. λogos πraxis 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. - Kingpin 13 ( 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. λogos πraxis 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. λogos πraxis 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. λogos πraxis 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. - Kingpin 13 ( 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. λogos πraxis 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. λogos πraxis 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. λogos πraxis 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. λogos πraxis 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. λogos πraxis 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] - 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 - Kingpin 13 ( 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. λogos πraxis 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. λogos πraxis 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. λogos πraxis 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. λogos πraxis 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. λogos πraxis 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. λogos πraxis 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...! ╟─ Treasury Tag► 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 ==
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)
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)
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)
Rather apt for this time of year, Dr.K.'s addition reminded me instantly of this little exchange amongst the mechanicals:
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)
I think we can now be confident that at least this thread has reached Malleus's talkpage literary standards. Dr.K. λogos πraxis 23:09, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
I hope your friend gets well soon. Illnesses are no laughing matter. GoodDay ( talk) 23:36, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
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)
Are you going to discuss the matter on the talk page? -- Eraserhead1 < talk> 20:43, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
This is a brilliant photograph. What does Pupa mean? -- Joopercoopers ( talk) 22:00, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)
Or we try something like this? -- Joopercoopers ( talk) 19:14, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
-- Mbz1 ( talk) 00:52, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
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)
DYK nomination here.Please feel free to change the hook, if you'd like. Best.-- Mbz1 ( talk) 16:24, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
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)