Do you know anything about his original St Paul's, Covent Garden? Specifically I'm wondering whether the clock had any decoration or whether Hogarth has added it to this image to make a point. Yomangani talk 00:50, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
I have found an architectural drawing that show a boxy clock protruding with sculpture above - [2] - and another with very different detailing - [3]. New images will be arriving shortly. -- ALoan (Talk) 10:04, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Hi Giano. I'm a long-time lurker on this site, usually just reading about things that interest me and fixing minor typos and such. I came upon an article ( Wounded Knee incident) that I really think needs a complete re-write and I would appreciate your advice on how to go about it. I've noticed that you often do a lot of writing on one of your subpages and then put the article in the main space. To fix this page, should I copy and paste the Wounded Knee incident page into a subpage under my name where I can work on it at my leisure? I would then re-write it completely, fixing all the citations and such. Would I then copy and paste it back into the mainspace article or how does that work? I also don't want to get into an editing war with previous editors of that page, so should I announce my intentions on the talk page first? Any advice you can give me would be appreciated. -- SGT Tex 18:31, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Your recent edit to Arbuthnot ( diff) was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to recognize and repair vandalism to Wikipedia articles. If the bot reverted a legitimate edit, please accept my humble creator's apologies – if you bring it to the attention of the bot's owner, we may be able to improve its behavior. Click here for frequently asked questions about the bot and this warning. // MartinBot 18:40, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
The Featured Article Medal | ||
I was pleased to see that another article you are the primary contributor to has been on the main page as today's featured article. Good job. MONGO 21:22, 2 June 2007 (UTC) |
Thanks Mongo, and a present from Doc - how kind I love.....choke, splutter cough....... Giano 13:22, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the help with " Eyes of the Insane", which is much appreciated. I'm going to have to read up on key changes etc. and brush up my skills in that department. LuciferMorgan 08:32, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Thought this might interest you if you haven't seen it- it was built by George Keith, 5th Earl Marischal for whom I just made an article (someone who was actually notable). Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 15:18, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
I have dug out my (very old) matriculation documents and it appears you may be correct in that upon application I could have made an application years later for an automatic MA, a sort of upgrading of the BA upgraded. Either I had forgotten that or I am just getting old and demented. I telephoned my brother who was at Baliol and he said "of course, you know that!" But I don't remember that at all, I'm afraid. So my full and profuse apologies to you. I had returned 12 years after graduating and studied for a MA in a different subject. I had to apply for acceptance and all my work was assessed. Maybe I am confused. I don't mean to be abrasive but I don't think the internet is the most brilliant form of communication and people's comments often appear very aggressive and rude. One responds accordingly, although one should not. Regards, David Lauder 07:52, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
(Crossposted to assorted "people I've run into and whose opinions I respect")
I realise it's totally outside your field, but if you get the chance could you take a look at the article on Broadwater Farm I've recently created? I do think it deserves it's own article - yes, it might be most famous for events that happened 22 years ago, but having it as a redirect to Broadwater Farm riot seems to me as ludicrous as redirecting Germany to World War II or Northern Ireland to IRA. However, now I've set up incoming links it's likely to be a beacon for POV-pushing, so I'd like to get opinions on (a) what a NPOV will be on something like this where the two POVs are likely to be diametric opposites, (b) whether you think it can/will ever be stable (and whether it's worth trying to keep stable) and (c) how much of a focus ought to be on the riots as opposed to the place itself. If any of you feel the urge I'd also appreciate anyone who feels able/willing putting it on their watchlists, as I suspect it's going to be heavily vandalised & spammed — iridescenti (talk to me!) 00:04, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Funny how there has been a steady stream of "Keeps" on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Arbuthnot, 6th Viscount of Arbuthnott since 14, 5 June 2007 when User:Kittybrewster posted a little note at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Peerage#AfD_of_peer. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 15:53, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
This messege here is canvassing per WP:CANVAS because the messege is notneutral since he shows his view that "it is notable". Now this guy has had many warnings for canvassing but now that be blanks his page no admin can see the previous warnings. Now I for one think that if an editor chooses to blank/hide his history then they should already be treated with suspicion and especially if they have already recieved warnings. What course of action should/can be taken!?-- Vintagekits 16:20, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
"Merging is sensible" Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Arbuthnot, 6th Viscount of Arbuthnott. I presume therefore this applies equally to all other aristocrats where the only only notable thing on them is something about undercharging rent on the family estate (or equivalent). Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 21:25, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
You are trolling for a block. Stop it, now. Get a sense of proportion. There are other battles to fight. This is old. Moreschi Talk 11:08, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
Please try to maintain civility, and please do not make comments that could be viewed as personal attacks. To avoid any confusion, I am referring to these edits: "Many users do not comport themselves in a collegial manner...", "Kelly Martin is not an admin, having given up her adminship voluntarily 'under a cloud'...", "while many admins use it responsibly others do not...", "the channel is regarded by some editors as the Lubyanka of Wikipedia...". Further, this could easily be regarded as a snide attack against David Gerard, even if that is not what you intended. And this could easily be regarded as a sarcastic aside against Kelly Martin, even if that is not what you intended. We must be sensitive to how others will perceive what we say, even if we are commenting in good faith. -- bainer ( talk) 13:10, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
Giano, could you please back off on this page for a day or two to defuse any unnecessary unhappiness on a fine Saturday morning/afternoon. I will try later today to add a couple of sentences to the article which try to address the substance of your concerns without getting into personalities. Newyorkbrad 13:43, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
Given this edit, I have blocked you for 24 hours in order to prevent further instances of incivility. I suggest you make the most of this time in planning how you will cooperate with Brad and others who have offered their help in documenting the issues you have identified in a civil fashion. -- bainer ( talk) 14:40, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
What the hell? That "incivil" statement is simply true, unless you want to maintain that she's not one of the few, that there are many others? How common is it, exactly? Or is it a dirty secret the revelation of which is "incivil?" Nonsense! Unblocking. Have you posted on AN/ or AN/I IN ADVANCE? Did you just decide to do this because you had nothing to do? Did you get prompted? This is ridiculous. Geogre 14:51, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
Er, where's the incivility?
Giano referred to Martin by her first name, a familiarity that I thought was indulged in only by fans of Elvis Presley. It strikes me as distinctly odd, but not incivil. He makes a clear, factual statement and provides a reference for it. The reference seems to support what he says about Martin, though it says nothing about its alleged uniqueness. I don't know -- Is he incivil in having ignored some "consensus" somewhere? Or is it incivil (uncivil?) thanks to being egregiously trivial, or something? (Yes, really, Giano, I wonder why you give a [incivil word deleted] about boring issues like this when you could instead be enlightening and entertaining us all with architecture 'n' stuff. Leave trivia to boring people!)
Giano, I do have to say that while I've never yet had an epileptic fit or any hint of one, your [incivil word deleted] colibrì drives me nuts. Could it be this that drives otherwise reasonable people to flip their lids and imagine "incivility" in your writing? -- Hoary 15:00, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
Christ Giano, find something better to do. You can't honestly use the same defense of "I was baited into it" yet again, because you clearly weren't baited into anything here — you brought it upon yourself through unnecessary, trolling edits to the #admins channel wiki page. -- Cyde Weys 15:31, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
I realise I have probably doomed myself, but I've protected the page to try and make people discuss changes on the talk page. You know, like we're supposed to. I will not be happy with anyone who edits it while it's protected. Neil ╦ 20:16, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
Hi Giano,
We haven't really talked before so first of all I'd like to say that I'm pleased to meet you (although it probably would've been better to do this in other circumstances). Now on to the issue...
to my understanding, the en-admins page is basically meant for people to know what the channel is used for and to grant\remove access, it isn't supposed to be an official page showing both POV's (pro and against IRC) and it's not an article, maybe it's better placed in meta or off-wiki. I'm not necessarily saying that you're wrong, just that the issue with IRC needs to be resolved in a different way, and editing this article won't do much to affect the current situation. By the way, people avoid discussing blocks in the channel as much as possible anyway, and are not supposed to use it as the reason for a block and if they do, they get fucked anyway (and no, there was no discussion prior to your block nor did anyone suggest to block you). The channel has some disadvantages but it certainly has benefits as well, it's not the pure evil dragon's lair you make it out to be and TBH, it's better to have a big discussion with a lot of admins rather than having an admin going to his like-minded admin friend on messenger for advice, when he knows he'll get the answer he's interested in (and yes, this is what goes on in a different language wikipedia). Yonatan talk 21:17, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
Please do not attack other editors. If you continue, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia.
Giano, why did you follow up this borderline uncivil comment with this clear insinuation that this editor has mental health problems? Please refrain from making personal attacks on Wikipedia; comments on an editor's opinions or the edits that they have made, do not comment on them personally. -- bainer ( talk) 00:56, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
This edit to a protected page [12] just about sums up the IRCadmins channel and the way Wikipedia is run completely. What a dump. I bet David Gerard has no objection to it staying locked. Why not just write the whole bloody encyclopedia on IRC, it can be truly how he and his friends want it then. Giano 08:24, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
The core problem of Wikipedia is the inherent division between mainspace and talkspace. People interested in talking are sooner or later absorbed into off-wiki channels of communication. People interested in editing start to suspect them of engaging in some unseemly activities. People interested in talking suggest the latter join them in those off-wiki channels. Those who join IRC have no time left for mainspace editing, so they lose interest in mainspace. Those who don't join IRC will still suspect that something inappropriate is going on behind the scenes. This division of editors has always been present, but it's getting more and more pronounced as time flies by. I don't have a ready remedy to heal these wounds, except, as Kelly Martin suggested, barring mainspace editors from posting their comments in admin space :) In short, this is a very ancient problem that can't be resolved in an hour or two. Either IRC is part of Wikipedia and then its logs are open to discussion and arbitration, or IRC is not part of Wikipedia and there should be no pages pointing from Wikipedia to IRC. But, in fact, the links are everywhere. Even at the top of WP:RD/H, for crying out loud. -- Ghirla -трёп- 15:39, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
#wikipedia-en-admins should be renamed to #wikipedia-en-backstabbers-club -- I have tons of logs where multiple users have been attacked, the channel is a disgrace. Ironically the channel is full of non-admins, haha. Matthew 17:53, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
When making accusations, please try to be very specific about who you are talking about and provide evidence when doing so. This sort [17] of widely aimed insulting accusation is inappropriate for Wikipedia. Don't just call a large group of people dishonest and untrustworthy without backing it up or even making it clear who you are talking about. This is not the first civility issue I have noticed with you, if you cannot make your point without tossing around insults, perhaps you need to rethink your point. (H) 19:52, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
I am only asking that you follow the policy that enjoys consensus on Wikipedia. I am not engaging in any sort of coordinated attack against you, I am asking you to stop insulting people and argue based on the value of your logic and reason. (H) 20:20, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
You are seeing enemies where there are none. Frankly you are being rude, I am going to stop responding to you for now, but continued incivility and personal attacks can be considered disruptive to Wikipedia. (H) 20:24, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
I have protected WP:WEA due to your silly edit war. I am now off to irc to see if I can persuade the cabal to block you. Guy ( Help!) 20:54, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
Giano, you're a damn good contributor to articles. I enjoy reading your work. You're a skilled writer, and I appreciate the fact that you participate in the project.
I would like to suggest that you consider the possibility that you have become overly fixated on the meta-process of how Wikipedia is run, in particular the notion that there is persecution on the part of the administrators. We are far too busy to persecute anyone; like you, we are volunteers who do this out of the goodness of our hearts and the desire to share our knowledge and wordcraft.
You have ignored your article on Mario Bianchi di Ciampino for three days.. and for what? Your article on Exploding Houses has been untouched for weeks... and for what? Anger, bitterness, spite?
I would like to quote Lord Byron. "Hatred is by far the longest pleasure," Giano, and you seem to be getting quite a lot of emotional satisfaction from the antipathy you are continually expressing. I would like to suggest to you that you let go of this antipathy; it may feel satisfying, but it is ultimately hollow. In the long run, even a few months from now, people will care about the articles. They will not care about the arguments, the bitterness, the exposes of sinister corruption and cabalism and conspiracy and crime and crookedness. The energy that you have put into your complaints about the fact that administrators talk to each other on IRC, could have been spent on improving articles. That is what people read. That is what people come to Wikipedia for. To read the articles, not to read about the petty, ultimately worthless disputes.
We are not your opponents, Giano. Really. We're not your enemies, your foes, your rivals, your nemeses, or your adversaries.
I want you to write articles, to add new and interesting facts to articles, to rewrite sentences for elegance. Because you're good at it. Because you'll feel better about yourself when you've done it. Because it's what we need, and it's what you need too. DS 21:31, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
There are a half dozen conspiracy theories swirling about this incident, each one more bizarre than the last. Karl Marx said that history occurs twice, "the first time as tragedy, the second as farce." I think we're into the farce stage on this one. Jayjg (talk) 02:32, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Just another day, for #admins suppressing the truth on Wikipedia. They really should just write the whole encyclopedia there in secret, and save us all the trouble. Just imagine the new and interesting slants and angles they could pur on everything.
I love the last summary "that's enough edit warring, Giano" If they would just allow my comment to stand there would be no warring at all. Sadly #admins want the last word recording their version and then just to archive - perhaps their world does indeed work like that. It certainly seems to here. Giano 06:55, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Wallis, The Duchess of Windsor, I have removed "maitresse en titre". I have chosen not to include the "Singapore clinch": it is outside my area of expertise. :) DrKiernan 06:58, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Chat, please? Bishonen | talk 12:56, 19 June 2007 (UTC).
I have been encouraged over the last few hours by many emails. It is good to know that not everyone seems to think I am just stirring up trouble for the sheer love of it. However what is sad is that apart from the usual few no one seems brave enough to speak out. Personally, I don't see how an encyclopedia can go forward to be something great when it is ruled by just a few who seldom edit - James F, Tony Sidaway, Kelly, and several others.. you all know the names you don't need me to list them here. These few martial vast armies of little admins (who also seldom edit) to block and hinder anyone who rocks the boat. They hate anyone who contributes at a high level and dares to voice an opinion of how the place should be run - in this way the good editors driven off. Its a form of self preservation I suppose - they appear intelligent by comparison with what is left. Power and an editing intellect are not allowed to go together on Wikipedia. Sad for the future and sad for us all, but I am one of those people who always has to say what is on my mind and I think the management of Wikipedia stinks to hell and Jimbo should be a man and take some serious action to save his own project - the problem is I'm not sure how much a man/leader Jimbo is anymore. He seems content to watch his project consumed by mediocrities. Obviously, at present I have fundamental problems with Wikipedia and don't want to donate too much more of my time any more until things change for the better. Giano 20:52, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
But you're not donating any of it any more, are you ... :-( Please come back. Wiki needs you and I miss you. Bishonen | talk 15:32, 23 June 2007 (UTC). P.S. Bishonen | talk 08:12, 24 June 2007 (UTC).
Giano, your contributions are too valuable to lose and I encourage you to return when you feel like it...which is soon I hope.-- MONGO 09:04, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
Giano you are one of the best contributers to our encyclopedia that I have met. I am sorry for your troubles and hope you will return. Paul August ☎ 18:00, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
Hopefully you come back soon, Giano. Wikipedia needs more editors like you, not less. SirFozzie 22:27, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
I know how you feel. 'Odi et amo ... excrucior. Sigh. -- ALoan (Talk) 11:21, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
OK, I've nominated your Hanna on WP:FAC and there's not a thing you can do about it. Won't you come and shepherd her through it? Please? Bishonen | talk 18:37, 25 June 2007 (UTC).
Thanks for the input. I have replied on Wetman's page. The only thing that I find irritating is that Wetman decided to insult my intelligence rather than just arguing calmly. I may not be an expert on architecture, but I have heard the term balustrade being used in the context I cited, so I checked dictionaries to see if I was correct (again, admitting that I don't know everything). I found that the dictionaries backed up the defintion I'd heard, and I updated the article based on that as the current information was uncited.-- Jcvamp 22:27, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
I am aware that banisters aren't the handrails, nor the whole assembly of handrail and balusters, but the term is often used in that way. I had originally said that this was erroneous in my explanation (see my first revision), but as there were citations suggesting otherwise, I thought this may have been seen as POV.
I still think that it's worth mentioning that this use is common, albeit erroneous.-- Jcvamp 22:43, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
Hi Giano, there are quite a few decent pictures of houses in Essex which have possibly been destroyed on this webpage http://www.antiquemapsandprints.com/scans/scans125.htm - one which I know was demolished is Weald Hall, (knocked down in 1946 after war damage)- the home of Hugh Smith, ancestor of the Earls of Derby. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 19:12, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
Hi Giano. Could you please add some more information on Image:2-002563seacliff.jpg, i.e. where you got it from, and when exactly it was taken? If you can find out the source, we might be able to strengthen the PD claim (if it was done by a Dunedin City employee (or by someone in the health services as such), we'd likely be in the clear. PS: my apologies for our earlier spat. MadMaxDog 22:49, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
Hi Giano, the picture Image:BakstCarabosse.jpg you have updated is really smart. It's from the great Leon Bakst and depicts beautifully the wicked Carabosse. I unfortunately can not use it to illustrate my article fr:Fée Carabosse because the license doesn't allow it (unlike other works by Leon Bask). I'm a bit desappointed because I can not find any other relevant image on commons and because I like this one so much. Would it be possible to use a license that fits wikipedia versions in other languages ? Thanks aforehand for your help. Best regards. -- Jibi44 20:27, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
I believe that I have addressed all of the concerns you raised for Mary Martha Sherwood. I have also copy edited the article two more times. Please indicate on the the FAC review whether or not it has your support yet. Thanks. Awadewit | talk 21:59, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
Could you tell me in a nutshell what this page is about? I'm searching for information about Borri the Alchemist and Bandiera the Astrologist who entertained Christina of Sweden in Hamburg, while she expected in dismay some bad news from the papal conclave. They both seem to be mentioned in Italian Wikipedia, no? -- Ghirla -трёп- 22:04, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
Another day another Giano FA on the Main Page ... Paul August ☎ 05:54, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Hi. It looks like you missed my comment about the minnow/brook Talmud lines in the FAC. My question is, if the Chronicle wrote 2 lines, why are you giving 3? And why 2 only slightly different translations? -- AnonEMouse (squeak) 13:13, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading Image:2-002563seacliff.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.
As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{ GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{ non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.
If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 17:14, 3 July 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. howcheng { chat} 17:14, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
I have responded to your remark on my talk page on Talk:West Wycombe Park. Greenshed 22:29, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Honey, are you sure you want User:Giano/Exploding Houses to stay deleted? It seems so sad! :-( Bishonen | talk 11:38, 4 July 2007 (UTC).
Giacomo, help! Bishonen | talk 09:47, 7 July 2007 (UTC).
It appears that the "fact" that Chamberlain was bastard son of Henry Fane was an assumption made by a certain person from the statement in this file [31] that Vere Fane wrote to his half brother Henry Chamberlain. Chamberlain is also mentioned with the Fanes in this file [32]. Do you think this is enough evidence for us to state as fact the Chamberlain was Fane's illegitimate son? Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 16:34, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
[34] - Do we really want notes in the footnotes which discredit the claims in the article? Why not remove the claim till proven? Corvus cornix 18:14, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
I would like to place my opinion about what is going on with the Barbaro page. I have the Zorzi book on Venetian villas and it clears talks about Venetian nicknames and the H.H. and N.D. titles of Venetians. I also know that what you wrote now is not fully correct. Only the San Vidal branch became extict, the Calabrian branch with the silk is still up and fine and they also stil have the N.H. title so they are still Venetian. Also, for what it is worth, Vitus is a real guy. He was at the Pebble Beach Concours Car Show in California in 2002 with the Heads of Bentley design. I'm sorry, this is where I saw Vitus at Pebble Beach Concours d'Elegance Thost 02:07, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Oh, One last comment. I don't understand your point about bringing in the whole Grimaldi family tree. What does that have to do with anything. Barbaros are Barbaros and Grimaldis are Grimaldis. More over there are two different Albergos. One is Venetian and one Genovese. The two families are "tied" not related. One Albergo is saying will make the silk and will let the other Albergo ship it. That is what the original article was saying. Albergos are not just in Genoa. The page you listed about the Grimaldi family was just dicussing what their particular Albergo was the 28 or whatever familes. The Barbaros have their own different one. I think you are messing up a very complex history. It also seems like the sources you are using now are out of date- there is more current scholarship on the topic since those books were written- just my thoughts. Thost 02:20, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Excuse me Gustav, I noticed you added a statement about San Francesco della Vigna being the family's first church, that statement is not really written appropriately. The Barbaro family was only associated to it beacuse they married into the Giustinian family. It was officially a Observant Franciscans church built for the Badoer-Giustinian family. In comparison to Santa Maria Zobenigo which the Barbaro family paid for and has several memebers of the family carved on the front of. Zobenigo church also has the Barbaro family arms on the front too. What you did now is place a minor tidbit that over-shaddows their true family church. You are not writting this history in accordance with the true soul and spirit of the family. You are just patching together tid-bit facts that are really minor and even inconsequential to the bigger picture of this family. I don't think you really understand what this family was really about very well. You should look at www.savevenice.com clearly states the church as a Badoer-Giustinian church. Just piecing together tid-bits of facts don't make for good Wikipedia articles.
EXCUSE ME
I am very aware of that stupid salt reference that you found with an onlin search- it was proven to be a mistake with the Barbarigo family which is unconnected. I would like the full source for that. i know what you are doing now is complete bull. You are using bullshit sources.
You can not try to base your information about the "gondola days" exhbition without sighting it. Vey sneaky giano. Moreover you just told a lie. THE CURTIS FAMILY NEVER OWNED VILLA BARBARO,_THEY NEVER HAD A SUMMER RETREAT AT VILLA BARBARO You are a liar Giano. Give it up you are out of you league with your bogus research. The person that created the true Barbaro article was a serious, serious historian that used sources from real research libraries, not your desperate online searches- complete bogus article. When you are done I will flag this whole thing to be deleted from known inaccuracies and bogus sources used!!!!!
This is nothing more than ego and vanity on your part- you can not do a better job than what was the original article. You want to help. Return the article the way it should be and blank the talk page and we are done. There is nothing wrong with that original article. Untill justice is done to this family-no will have peace. I will not let some jerk hoaker and some novice historian ruin the true Barbaro history. You want to have peace than do what is right, or be prepared for a never ending battle until justice is done. I will come to this page everyday to check and flag everyday till is need I will email Wikipedia to complain about what you have done every morning. IT WILL NEVER END UNTILL ALL OF THE ASSHOLES THAT RUINED THIS PAGE GET WHAT THEY DESERVE !!!!!
Substantiate that the Barbaro family were deans and professors of the University of Padua, What source are you using for that claim!
GIANO IS TRYING TO COVER UP HIS LACK OF AUTHORITY ON THE TOPIC BY REDIRECTING. HE IS OUT OF HIS LEAGUE ON THIS TOPIC AND REFUSES TO RETURN THE PROPER ARTICLE BECAUSE HIS EGO AND VANITY WILL NOT ALLOW HIM TO. HE KNOWS WHAT THE RIGHT THING TO DO IS. THIS WILL NEVER END UNTILL JUSTICE IS DONE. THE FIRST THING I WILL DO EVERY MORNING IS EMAIL WIKIPEDIA ABOUT YOUR INABILITIES AND PROBLEMS YOU HAVE MADE ON THIS PAGE. YOU WANT THIS TO END, THAN STOP BEING ON AN EGO TRIP AND RETURN THE PROPER ARTICLE!!!!!
I can tell how much fun you and your new friend were having, but I'm afraid I had to block him. Bishonen | talk 09:45, 10 July 2007 (UTC).
Hello! In September 2005 you indicated your desire to be notified if and when I was nominated for bureaucratship again. As per your comment, I'm letting you know that I'm up for bureaucratship for the third and final time at Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship/Andrevan3, and your opinion would be welcome. It has been a while, so if you're no longer interested, I apologize and understand. Cheers, Andre ( talk) 22:07, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
I JUST WANTED TO SAY
I THINK GIANO IS A FINE EDITOR.
HE WRITES A LOT OF GOOD FEATURED ARTICLES.
Raul654 15:56, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Ah, I've gone red all over Giano 16:54, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Wow! The Rambling Man 16:55, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Instead of destroying the original article, why don't you just flag the original article for in need of citations. Then the public is made aware and citations can also be added- that sound fair to me. Clearly, those sources are real with ISBN's and the info I was able to look into is true. I think if people are so heated about this matter, than clearly they must feel that what has happened is not right.
When you have calmed down, check the history page. I was not the one to revert you, I was asked to look at what remained of the page and sort something out that was reliable. This, with others, I have done. That you do not like it is your problem not mine. Now please stop this silly behaviour before you are banned agin. Giano 18:51, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Per your non-request. ;) Peace. Lsi john 19:52, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
..even when you weren't here.. I awared Thee (King of America)...
Left over cake.
Marie had some extra. Peace.
Lsi
john 22:32, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
(Fortunately, spelling in edit comments doesn't count). Peace. Lsi john 22:34, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Hey Giano, If you think that the article wasn't legit- did you ever look at history number 02:55, 10 June 2007- I emailed the poor guy who was working hard on it and told him that he didn't have to put all the footnotes in. The dude already cited everything and just had to finnish it by placing the footnotes at the end. I caught him just in time! I knew the guy who was worlking on it. He is a professional historian.I can't stand those Barbaros (posted anonymously by User: 65.54.97.190)
Looking at recent "activity" on your talk page, would you perhaps want it semiprotected for a short while?— Ryūlóng ( 竜龍) 23:38, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks in part to your support, I am Wikipedia's newest bureaucrat. I will do my best to live up to your confidence and kind words. Andre ( talk) 09:33, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
More work of our friend here [38], also possible things on Special:Contributions/65.54.155.48 that need checking. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 11:03, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Don't know if you might be interested in this Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/William Bruce (architect) - I know nothing about the subject and won't be commenting, but I'm sure it in your oeuvre? -- Joopercoopers 14:28, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Feel free to hate the admin IRC channel, but pushing your opinions about it on Wikipedia:IRC channels/wikipedia-en-admins is stepping over the line. Please stop making the same edits repeatedly. EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:36, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
The edit warring was unhelpful. But, there's no reason that pro-chat-room opinions belong on the page any more or less than anti-chat-room opinions belong there. It's project space, and the feelings toward IRC in the project are mixed. The page should reflect this. Friday (talk) 21:43, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
I have blocked you for 3 hours for edit warring on Wikipedia:IRC channels/wikipedia-en-admins. Please, find some other way to express yourself. Friday (talk) 21:48, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Hi - Just thought I'd drop by and see if there's any particular problems with WP:WBFAN you might want to talk about. As I mentioned on Sandy Georgia's talk page I created this mainly to provide a spot for the overly competitive types to compete that might actually help the 'pedia (unlike, say, edit counting). If there's anything there you find annoying or unjust or plain inaccurate, please let me know. At this point the page is automatically generated roughly daily from the source lists at (for example) Wikipedia:Featured articles nominated in 2007, which are not quite automatically generated from the monthly FAC log files (and can certainly be fixed directly). -- Rick Block ( talk) 04:13, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Please see my comments here Raul654 21:23, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Could you have a look at Willen. The church is English Baroque but not sure if it is appropriate to put whole article into that category. Your call. -- Concrete Cowboy 12:20, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Nice to see you back Giano, it's awfully quiet without you. I expect you've been busy with the horses or something. -- Joopercoopers 16:13, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Connell66 has smiled at you! Smiles promote
WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{
subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Giano do you know if there is particular style of "German" Baroque as a number of German palaces are described as "Baroque" but the style seems often quite different from those in England, Italy or France i.e. Ludwigsburg Palace, New Palace (Potsdam), Schleissheim_Palace#New_Schleissheim_Palace, Schönhausen Palace, Palais Porcia, Palais Preysing, Charlottenburg Palace, Dachau Palace. None of these are in the Baroque Architecture category. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 10:43, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
To anybody watching - here is a nice page languishing on FAC for (ten days or so) [46] I think it is OK, others perhaps will not, either way someone has taken the trouble to write it, they are proud of it - so please someone who looks at my talk page go and have a look and make a comment. It is very disparaging to write a a page, especially a FA and have hardly any comment and the VC of NZ is a very worthwhile topic - and No I do not beleive I have ever communicated with the author. Giano 20:32, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for shovelling out the kitty-litter. (I wonder if it might be somehow related to this.) -- Hoary 03:38, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
but I need your help. There's a discussion about, well, Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_July_29#Category:Men_with_unusually_large_penis I'm trying to give an example who isn't a modern pornographic actor, and vaguely remember someone, hopefully you, probably chatting with Bishonen, referring to an article about an early twentieth century society man ... ladies man ... gigolo ... known for such unusual dimensions. Do you remember the reference? -- AnonEMouse (squeak) 14:46, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
To answer AnonEmouse's question, Milton Berle was reknowned for having a large penis. Supposedly, at the gentlemen's club, people would challenge him to contests, and he'd win ever time. Raul654 19:47, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
"Probably chatting with"... who?? I note that not one of you "courageous" gentlemen has had the temerity to broach this so-called subject on the lovely little Mrs Bishonen's own page. At least I assume you haven't, since none of you mention missing any of what my dear departed husband used to refer to as your "vital bits". I don't doubt that she would have relieved you of them if you'd brought your indecencies to her chaste page. A woman of action! Catherine de Bourgh (Lady) 14:21, 2 August 2007 (UTC).
Giano, I've never heard of this brilliantly realized neoclassical dream, the Cisternone di Livorno or heard of Pasquale Poccianti, its architect, until I saw this somewhat bitter image Image:Caos davanti al Cisternone di Livorno.JPG. A translation for Wikipedia? -- Wetman 03:31, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
Debate has been restarted at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Chicago Board of Trade Building and your voice has not been heard.-- TonyTheTiger ( t/ c/ bio/ tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 06:14, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
Hey. Are you fluent in Sicilian? El_C 22:08, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
I was cruising through recently uploaded images—have you looked at the |excellent WikiCommons images of Palladian villas by H.A.R.?— and a good one looked as if it would be filed forever, like the Ark of the Covenant at the end of Indiana Jones. Thus the article. It could use some knowledgable vetting and tweaking. -- Wetman 21:13, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your support. -- Joopercoopers 10:55, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
In an effort to improve my (woefull) Italian, and as a spin off from Parchin kari (Moghul Pietre dure) I'm trying to translate the Opificio delle pietre dure from the it.wiki. In the phrase "Si realizzarono così opere d'arte di straordinario valore, dai mobili a oggetti vari, fino a copie perfette di pitture da appendere, che oggi arrichiscono i musei di tutto il mondo testimoniando la genialità e la tecnica degli artigiani fiorentini" - how would you translate "dai mobili a oggetti vari"? from funiture to all sorts of objects? I'm also stuck on "arrichiscono" is it something like "consensus" - "Today all the museums of the world attest to the genius and skill of the Florentine craftsmen."? -- Joopercoopers 12:58, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
No! - "Today enriching the museums of the world with the skills and genius of the Florentine artisans." is how I would phrase it. It is a spelling mistake for "arricchiscono" a conjugation of the verb "arricchire" meaning to enrich. Translating is easy if you just write out the literal meanings and then rewrite the whole thing in your own words but keeping the general meaning - as often a tense or verb used in Italian sounds completely wromg when literally translated.
"mobili a oggetti vari" means "furniture and multiple other pieces" you could substitute "various other objects d'art" - but objects d'art is a little naff and sounds like a doily or serviette. "varying other objects" does not sound quite right. I hate doing translations because to make the meaning sound correct in another language one often has to slightly alter the literal meaning. Hope that helps. Giano 14:55, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your help with this, couldn't have done it without you. Took me long enough though! ++ Lar: t/ c 13:53, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Hi Giano, I have just come across some of the images you have uploaded (specifically the ones in the
Belton House Article and have noticed you have saved them in the GIF format. The only problem with
GIF is that
1) They have larger file sizes than
PNG or
JPGs
2) They can only handle 255 colours, which means they have to be indexed, often making photos speckley
Therefore, I would ask next time you photograph something, save it in the JPG format, so no quality is loss. As for the existing GIF's, I am going to try and get rid of the speckles and save them as JPG's. >
Rugby471
talk ⚔ 07:05, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
I was referring to myself in that comment, that I admired your nerve, but that my opinion would not count for much. This comment was made earlier by Rockpocke t, [49] and I asked him who was being referred to. Since I supported VK, for what I believed to be an unjustified block, I’m assuming Rockpocke t, was referring to me. I thought you would have read it already and know what I was referring to. Your right though about the languge, it is a bit strong! -- Domer48 18:18, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
... you have mail - Alison ☺ 19:57, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
You seem to think Vk isn't aware of why he was blocked. That is one interpretation. The other is that he is very aware, but he knows to publically prove it Alison would have to release personal information about another editor. So, he would rather plead innocence and take advantage of the conspiracy theories that others are so keen to culture.
You should also be aware that Vk has a history of denying all wrong doing, even in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. But then again, you didn't seem to have a problem with his actions detailed at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Vintagekits either. Maybe you were also swayed by his claims of innocence then, and how he can prove it. Perhaps you were not aware, though, that Vk failed to provide the smoking gun that "can prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that these people are neither my sock or meatpuppets". After all that grandstanding and self-rightousness, he never provided any proof, despite multiple requests and an assurance he would be unblocked and offered an apology when he did so. Why? Because he didn't have any, of course.
So, if you wish to buy into his games then more fool you. I can assure you, I have interacted with Vk for long enough to have heard this line before. Rockpocke t 23:05, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading Image:NT Belton book.gif. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the " my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 00:56, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
I hope you don't mind, but I have nominated both of your excellent articles for WP:DYK. They may appear on the Main Page in the next few days, exposing them the wider audience that they so clearly deserve. -- !! ?? 19:07, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
How exciting - my DYKs very rarely get any vandalism. Your cisterns are clearly pulling in the crowds. Well done. -- !! ?? 22:14, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Is there any reason the sections at the end are called "References" and "Bibliography," instead of the usual "Notes" and "References"? Can I change the section names, and also put all the books with full publishing information into the new "References" section? Or, on second thoughts, maybe you should do the references section yourself. You know how to use that horrible thrice-detested cite template, and I don't. Bishonen | talk 19:19, 21 August 2007 (UTC).
The Arbcom proposal's being put together on his talk page so he can edit/comment prior to it being sent off to arbcom during his blocks — iridescent (talk to me!) 18:21, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
-- Andrew c [talk] 20:52, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
If you are truly trying to help there you could do worse than read up on some of his history. Sarcasm and the like are unhelpful. -- John 20:18, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Ok, Giano, now that was funny! Farce indeed - Alison ☺ 21:18, 23 August 2007 (UTC) (you're enjoying all this, aren't you?)
Alison, i hope you took note of this ? Bishonen | talk 22:21, 24 August 2007 (UTC).
I have filed Wikipedia:Request for arbitration#User:Vintagekits and you are a mentioned party, SqueakBox 21:47, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Giano, have you ever heard of any of these? -- Hoary 23:52, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Hello, Giano, I've just come across your sub-page (which is the polite way of describing it). I look forward to having the opportunity to critique it thoroughly if and when you move it to a public area. I have to say that at the moment it's just so much misapplied labour.
In the meantime, you might like to consider these points:
Have you worked out the 'Billy Wrong' reference yet? ( Billy Wright).
If you want to take the claims of a great conspiracy theory directed against Vintagekits seriously, that is, of course, your perogative. It does, as your page demonstrates, require a selective interpretaion of evidence that becomes increasingly absurd as conjecture is stacked on top of out-of-context diffs. It also requires completely ignoring one's own common sense: after all, just, perhaps, everyone else is right about the situation and you and Vintagekits are the ones out of step. But then, no-one likes admitting that they have made a mistake.
Finally, it'd be nice if you could refer to your fellow editors with a modicum of respect.-- Major Bonkers (talk) 09:40, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
How dare you remove my comment from the Vintagekits ArbCom. You are not an administrator and I insist upon it's return immediately. David Lauder 20:45, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
I must say.. I am a novice editor (more of a lurker actually, I've had this account since '04) and I came across the ArbCom with the Republicans v. the Establishment sqaubble... it really is monstrous, and from reading your responses, etc., you seem to be a fair-thinking guy who has his head screwed on right.. shame some people don't see it that way, all they see is "us and them", I suppose, and anyone attempting to be in the middle is immediately an enemy - this goes for both sides, though the baronets seem to see it that way the most.
Anyway, I'm just dropping in to congratulate you on the way you've handled yourself, and I'm going to be a much more prolific editor in the future - mostly small edits, mediation, etc., cos I'm not that much of a big writer, but I do have experience with moderation of issues.
Keep up the good work.. and let's hope the ArbCom gets somewhere! DeusExMachina 04:47, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Giano, forgive me for sticking my nose in, but I thought I should point out that your statement to ArbCom is headed "Statement by uninvolved Giano" when in fact your name is in the list of involved editors at the top. This has been commented on by User:David Lauder. Congratulations on an insightful contribution, and also on your painstaking work in User:Giano/some thoughts. Scolaire 08:37, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
I hate to air dirty laundry, but I wanted to know if this was still your opinion, as it was a year and a half ago:
"We have people of all ages editing, we do not want or need those who have an inclination or even pretension towards paedophilia. Those that state even in jest that this is their orientation should be banned permanently. Our talk pages may be public, but contact can lead to email contact and then God knows what. It's just not worth the risk. Ban them. Giano | talk 17:39, 5 February 2006 (UTC)"
I was looking at the wheel warring article and was looking at the moral panic over pedophilia userboxes. I'm divided as to what to do about self-identifying pedophiles on Wikipedia... what's your call? DeusExMachina 06:44, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for drawing attention to that copyright violation. I've rewritten it, and trimmed out some of the extraneity about his relations, but there's still an essential void at the heart of the article that I'm not really competent to remedy — it doesn't really say much about him as a performer at all. What was the nature of his acts, what styles and themes did he use? All that's there is a rather sterile list of song titles, and it's a pity. Apropos of which, my complements on your work-in-progress on the Cooper Baronets, which I quite like, even in the present rough-hewn form. (Was the choice of a sheep-dip fortune deliberate, or am I reading too much into this?) It attempts to capture the gestalt of the family, something that I'm all too painfully aware is lacking in the summaries I've written for other baronetcies. Unfortunately, my access to research libraries is in large measure curtailed right now, and so I'm generally forced to work with the London Gazette and whatever information is washed up on Google Books at present. Trying to get a really satisfying biography with only those resources is a bit like trying to extract the cow back out of the bouillon cube, alas. Choess 17:50, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. — BQZip01 — talk 06:38, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Hello. The above named arbitration case, in which you were named as a party, has opened. Please submit your evidence directly on the case page, or, if needed, submit it via email to an arbitrator or an arbitration clerk.
For the Arbitration clerk committee,
-
Penwhale |
Blast him /
Follow his steps 11:46, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Giano, in photos added to Commons, 2 September, there are numerous excellent photos of Villa Torrigiani, inside, outside, garden and grotto. (You'd have to scroll back to previous pages there to view them all). I know nothing of the place save what I glean from Georgiana Masson. Is the Villa Torrigiani interesting to you? -- Wetman 20:26, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
You're an educated man, Giacomo—do you know any more articles for my excellent new category ? It has a population of two at present. There isn't a page on Hannibal Crossing the Alps, maybe you'd like to create one ? Bishonen | talk 22:31, 5 September 2007 (UTC).
A bit tenuous, but a favourite -
The Slave Ship - Turner chucking his hat in with the abolitionists. Slavers (historical figures) crossing the atlantic. --
Joopercoopers 22:56, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
How about "crossing the Styx"? I'm sure lots of artists have had a go at various forms of that. Have a look at the article on Joachim Patinir for some commentary on his painting Landscape with Charon Crossing the Styx (see Image:Patinir3.jpg). Then you have Saint Christopher carrying the Christ Child across a river ( Image:Bosch65.jpg). And what about Moses and his gang crossing the Red Sea? Nicholas Poussin did The Crossing of the Red Sea. Carcharoth 23:03, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
How about Crossing of the Red Sea (Bronzino)? Rosselli's and Chagall's are cited in their respective articles. Would you accept The Discovery of America by Christopher Columbus? Or Landscape with the Fall of Icarus, though I suppose he didn't make it all the way across? Good luck! HG | Talk 23:23, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Hi. Maybe this is impertinent, but in my usual WP sphere of work, this kind of Category would be put into an AfD debate (e.g., due to WP:NOR.) So, I'm curious if this category is for fun, or you guys just happen to be less disputatious around here. I did contribute above, so please take this in good cheer. HG | Talk 13:31, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
I thank you very much for your heartening comments about the Taj Mahal article. I take pride in starting a drive to improve that article. In the course of working on it, I met some dedicated and creative editors. I have edited in several controversial areas and am about sick of WP's constant spiral toward the boobacracy, but those editors have proven resilient, and raised the scholarship of WP, and deserve much credit. Thanks for giving them a little. -- Nemonoman 04:06, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
As a card carrying socialist, I have to let you know that you are the first person in my entire adult life to have referring to me as "right wing". I'll cherish that, and may even put it on my user-page. Thanks! Rockpocke t 20:44, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
placing my topic on your active talk page, sorry. -- FClef (talk) 19:30, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Giano, you have now made a series of contributions to the RFA on The Troubles in which you have delivered personal insults to other editors. What exactly are you trying to achieve? -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 19:54, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Do you know anything about this Victorian architect, aside from what's on the Net? He did 33-35 Eastcheap, described as the maddest excess of Vic. Gothic (Pevsner), or, more intriguingly, as "the scream you wake upon at the end of nightmare".....Hmm. -- FClef (talk) 19:32, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Have started an article on Robert Lewis Roumieu. If you are able to contribute, please do. I will be adding significantly to it over the coming days. Cheers. -- FClef (talk) 20:04, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Hi, I rated this article as a B for the new Somerset wikiproject because the Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment says "Commonly the highest article grade that is assigned outside a more formal review process." I would suggest putting it up for Wikipedia:Good articles & I can't see any reason why it wouldn't be successful (with the possible exception of some of the comments I put on the articles talk page in Feb).— Rod talk 18:41, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
[67] Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 12:36, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Congratulations, I see this article is scheduled for 27 September, Featured Article wise. I know you were not the only person involved but you played a major role... Nice work! ++ Lar: t/ c 03:59, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Image:GladstoneandRosebery.gif - this image has been licensed under {PD-art}}. If there is no information on the date of death of the author, then there can be no certainty that he or she has been dead for more than 100 years. 196.2.106.88 09:14, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Congratulations on making the Main Page - your article is a true masterpiece. It is so nice to see two such masterful articles in succession. Bravo! -- !! ?? 09:38, 26 September 2007 (UTC).
Not sure if you saw this or not, Gianobunny: there is a question for you at
Talk:Hannah Primrose, Countess of Rosebery#Marriage section.
KillerChihuahua
?!? 20:58, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Well done Giano. Very cultured article. Blnguyen ( bananabucket) 02:02, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:GladstoneandRosebery.gif, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the image description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. 41.208.252.4 09:54, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
no problem - Preston Station is a desperate enough place for all sorts of unlikely sorts of social breakthroughs to occur! One for you: What is the name, and date if possible, of the early Renaissance free-standing triumphal arch in Naples - not the Castel Nuovo one, but the one you pass exiting the right-hand corner of the piazza in front of the station ? For Royal Entry. Thanks Johnbod 21:02, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Re: this comment - Amandajm had 9 concurrent FAC noms, which we both know is too many. Rather than scold or otherwise discourage him, I decided to let him come to the conclusion that conclusion on his own, and he did. Per his request, I've closed all his FAC noms but two (Leonardo da Vinci and Restoratation of the Sistine Chapel Frescos), which is a reasonable work load. Raul654 02:26, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Giano I've expanded this stub to include the architecture that's being referred to in the expression. I suggested that "Carpenter's Gothic" might also apply to C19 structures in New Zealand and New South Wales, a suggestion crying out for editing by you. -- Wetman 23:20, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm sure you'll want to be celebrating..... One Night In Hackney 303 09:06, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Sorry to bother you about something you'd probably rather not have to deal with, but Save venice has been making edits that bother me, although they are far outside my area of experise. Does the article Palazzi Barbaro-Dario look OK to you? The article's title yields zero Google hits, and the main reference he includes ("Palazzo Barbaro-Dario, Venice.JC-R.Net") seems to refer to a Web site that in fact has no page titled "Palazzo Barbaro-Dario" (although it does have one titled "Palazzo Dario"). Are we seeing a recrudescence of the Barbaro nonsense? (Note the IP he edited from when he forgot to log in.) Deor 23:34, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
(UTC)
"The Marchioness di San Giorgio had passed away in February, 2001, and is succeeded by her only 'son' Dr. Anthony Cremona Barbaro LL.D as the 9th Marquis di San Giorgio (St.George - unm.)." not so fast Gustav - are Maltese titles different from those of Italy which dictate "Those titles created with the provision of succession by, in addition to male heirs general, female heirs general as well, shall be borne by the ladies only until marriage, and do not entail rights to succession." - somehow I doubt it. Giano 13:52, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 19:40, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
I have excised all reference to Barbaro but I am not sure about the claim that Rawdon Brown committed suicide there. This link says he bought it in 1838 and sold it 4 years later? Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 19:53, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
You consider all my work for Wikipedia to be vandalism?- how dare you say that, after I in good faith discussed matters with you in depth, referenced sources, and believed that all of our discussions were because you and others had a real interest in Venetian topics- please stop picking on this page- when you fully know I am not a vandal- and please stop changing your position all the time. You are perpetuating lies about this page. I will not move on to any more pages for wikipedia till I know that previous work that I researched and discussed is not vandalized by perpetuating lies. Is it always like this working with Wikipedia- if it is Wikipedia will sure crash and not grow with more information- this is nonsense. My work is not vandalism- and you know that. Save venice 13:07, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
It's back; I was wondering if you could stop by and chime in with your opinion on the sources being supplied. -- Haemo 05:21, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
Sorry to disturb, but I have just noticed - you may know this already - that your talk page archives are not in your user space (i.e. subpages of User:Giano II or User talk:Giano II).
For example, User talk:Giano archive 1 is the talk page for a (non-existent) user called User:Giano archive 1, and User talk:Giano archive 2 (2005) is the talk page for a (non-existent) user called User:Giano archive 2 (2005), if you see what I mean. Perhaps they should be moved to subpages, such as User:Giano II/archive 1? -- !! ?? 22:19, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
This is getting boring, although not as boring as the List of POW camps in Italy.
Anyway, the table below explains where the original archives were, where Giano moved some too, and where they now are.
The old ones are linked to in various places and should probably be retained (or reinstated) redirects; the intermediate ones are not and probably should be deleted; and the new ones are probably the best place for them to stay going forwards.
I'm beginning to be sorry that I ever mentioned it. -- !! ?? 11:47, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Sorry to bang on about this, but the deleted pages in the first column should be undeleted and/or redirected to the corresponding pages in the last column (pace demands for publication, they all have inbound links), and the pages in the middle column should be deleted. -- !! ?? 09:24, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Usual rule is that, if someone doesn't have an article about them, they are not notable. Now that he has (and I expect it will survive), he becomes notable. Yes, I know that Wikipedia shouldn't be the arbiter of notability but it is as good a rule as any to reduce cruft. -- John Maynard Friedman 12:10, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Crumbs! Wikipedia is not quite yet at the stage where it defines notability. There are plenty of notable topics (people, pleaces, things) that are as present redlinked. -- !! ?? 12:55, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
It's great to see you adding to this gem again! Bishonen | talk 14:13, 9 October 2007 (UTC).
Roy Strong takes a large chunk of credit, I think, having organised "The Destruction of the Country House" at the V&A in 1974; perhaps he just reflected the zeitgeist. The guidebook is like gold dust.
[71] - from £30 for a scuffed copy to £76 for a good/very good one with dust jacket (!)
See also The Decline and Fall of the Country House, The Burlington Magazine, Vol. 116, No. 860 (Nov., 1974), p. 633
According to a footnote at Mereworth Castle, there were five Palladian houses in Britain based on Palladio's Villa Rotunda - Mereworth Castle itself; Nuthall Temple, Nottinghamshire [demolished]; Henbury Hall, Cheshire; Chiswick House, Greater London; and Foots Cray Place, Kent [demolished]. -- !! ?? 16:45, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
"Demolition of British country houses in the 20th century"? --
!!
?? 09:45, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
"Lost houses" does not quite cut it: lots of houses were "lost" before the 20th century. But it could be worse: Le déjeuner sur l'herbe is languishing at The Luncheon on the Grass. Ugh. -- !! ?? 13:26, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
At least the name stops you getting confused by the Picasso sculpture, or the album, I suppose... -- !! ?? 13:53, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
G, re the Welsh you might have a look in Lloyd, Thomas. The Lost Houses of Wales , this is a survey, complete with photographs of country houses in Wales demolished since c.1900 - apparently. From memory Penrhos Hall on Anglesey - now the location of Penrhos Country Park had one of the seats of Lord Stanley of Penrhos [73] [74]. It had a fire at some point before I was born, and I think was demolished in the late '70s early '80s - I've no idea of it's original architectural beauty, Anglesey is a bit of backwater, but the stanleys had a lot to do with the development of Holyhead as a port to Ireland, so it might have been noteworthy. Unfortunately I can find practically nothing about it on the interweb - Just a thought. -- Joopercoopers 16:12, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Much of the artistocracy are fond of doing that to themselves, or each other. -- !! ?? 16:40, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Ah here you go with picture too. Apparently still standing in 1972. I wonder if they sued the architects that gave them those incongrous wings...-- Joopercoopers 17:09, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Not this place? Usually called "Penrhos Court" but also, rather confusingly, sometimes " Penrhos Hall". -- !! ?? 17:56, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Giano (some way above): Yes, it is my intention to write Wikipedia's longest and most terminally boring page yet. You realize, I hope, that you are setting yourself up for competition with some truly nutball stuff. I think it's better if you limited your aspirations to the longest and most terminally boring page about architecture and urban history and design. A fine strapping young fellow such as yourself will surely have little trouble eclipsing this (which incidentally causes me to revise my understanding of the word "city"). -- Hoary 20:46, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Dropping in for coffee again - nice drawings and leads here. -- Joopercoopers 15:21, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Giano, can you take a look at San Francesco della Vigna, regarding the Caneletto painting, does campo correctly translate to field or should it be square? Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 17:14, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
- - Please Giano, there really isn't any need to remove Alison's comments, can't you just leave it? Ryan Postlethwaite 08:39, 15 October 2007 (UTC) - ::I am merely restating my own comments which unpalatable as they may be to her happen to be the truth. Giano 08:41, 15 October 2007 (UTC) - :::And she van muster all the troops she likes [76] (Hy! all on IRC - exited sqeeking sounds) Giano 08:43, 15 October 2007 (UTC) - ::::I've just got up Giano, I don't have time for IRC. There was no need to remove Alison's comment as well as re-add yours, it was just asking for trouble, just be a little more respectful to other users talk pages in the future please. Ryan Postlethwaite 08:47, 15 October 2007 (UTC) - ::Don't worry she has now removed my comment and protected her page from me - oh the joys and conveniences of having an admin's tools. I'll just carry on writing something for her to upload to Verupedia then she can have her name all over it. Giano 08:49, 15 October 2007 (UTC) - ::: Really? - Alison ❤ 08:51, 15 October 2007 (UTC) - ::::Oh get back to your chatting on IRC! Giano 08:52, 15 October 2007 (UTC) - :::::Actually there's this amazing thing called watchlists that lets you see changes on pages you like :-) -- Deskana (talk) 11:00, 15 October 2007 (UTC) - ::::::I don't think most of the IRC crowd are logged in to wikipedia long enough to need a watch list. Otherwise why would so many people I have never heard of have my page watched - I don't beleive we have met - have we? Giano 17:25, 15 October 2007 (UTC) - :::::::I don't think so, but I have Alison's page watchlisted and when your name showed up on it I checked your contributions and talk page and found this. This is something I do frequently with all the pages I have on my watchlist. Infact, I don't recall anyone ever directing a comment to me on IRC about you. -- Deskana (talk) 17:27, 15 October 2007 (UTC) - :Amazing! anyhow not to worry everything is now sacharine sweet once again in Alyson's lala land [77] Giano 17:30, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your contributions! Nishkid64 ( talk) 06:04, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Yes, that woudl be good. Essentially, I am working on the version you sent me, fixing up disambiguation links. I am also removing some, as the links are incorrect (for instance, I am sure you do not mean axis to be an album by a heavy metal band or a the Axis powers in WW2). Also, take a look at The Cantos version on Vero when you have a chance. Danny 13:33, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi again, Can you please tell me exactly where to put the new image. Thanks. Danny 14:17, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Giano, please help us be rid of the nonsense here. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 15:55, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for voting on my RFA! Although ultimately it was unsuccessful, I do appreciate the feedback. I will definitely try and increase my mainspace activity to what is hopefully satisfactory to you, and hopefully next time I will have improved enough for your support. Thanks again! -- daniel folsom 21:23, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Your offline encouragement was very helpful, as were your edits, much appreciated. ++ Lar: t/ c 23:17, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
I made a mistake. I had never seen the template before, and I am sorry for editing Quadrant (architecture). But please assume good faith. Mistakes happen, and that is no reason to jump down someone's throat. I promise it won't happen again.
Also, I am free to change my talk page however I see fit. I would appreciate it if you wouldn't bring it up again, as it seems to be a silly vendeta. Thank you. -- lifebaka ( Talk - Contribs) 19:03, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading Image:Olga Rudge.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the " my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 13:48, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
If you were to decide that the pair of pilotis apparently supporting Palazzo Giano posed an unreasonably difficult problem to the chauffeur of Lady Catherine's Isotta-Fraschini, and decided to remove one and donate it to a Worthy Cause, what would you be left with? -- Hoary 09:53, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
The above named Arbitration case has closed. The Arbitration Committee decided that [a]ny user who hereafter engages in edit-warring or disruptive editing on these or related articles may be placed on Wikipedia:Probation by any uninvolved administrator. This may include any user who was a party to this case, or any other user after a warning has been given. The Committee also decided to uplift Vintagekits' indefinite block at the same time.
The full decision can be viewed here.
For the Arbitration Committee, Daniel 08:23, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Noting your recent interest in the Credenza, perhaps you would prefer something a little more "delicate", "charming" and "coquettish"? -- !! ?? 17:57, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Giano, I love you too. But as for your comment on Tony's page, making sure he read your response to his rudeness is enough. It does not matter whether it is deleted or not by him oh his friends. I thought I better post it here first before the 3RR warning from certain quarters pops up.
Now that I said it, whoever came here to post the 3RR warning, please use the space below. But please consider not posting it. Giano knows 3RR and blocking him has always done nothing good to the project or the blocker. -- Irpen 22:43, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Giano, you may think you're in trouble, but check this: "large nasty security guys [...] along with 27,000 studeents" are after me. I'm so scared! Should we charter a plane and escape to Tristan da Cunha? -- Hoary 16:20, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Americans ... no idea of how to spend money tastefully ... Aw common Giano, admit it, you'd love to have a big pickup truck fully stocked with loaded firearms. In fact, if you are ever out this way I'll give you a ride in mine. It's not quite as special as this lil' babe, but still plenty big!
About the arbcom - I think you should run for all the regular reasons, and also to show that you don't need to be an admin for the post.
Here's a thought - if you won, do you think someone would have to vacuum the super secret arbcom mailing list archives to remove the possibly many nasty things said about you behind your back, prior to giving you access?
respectfully - I am not Paranoid 22:42, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Please leave new messages below:-
Have you got evidence to the contrary that I was on IRC at the time of making the "removing alisons edits" comment? -- Ryan Postlethwaite 12:03, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Giano (and anyone else who happens to drop by here), I would appreciate if you help Wikipedia be rid of this garbage. It is run by a company named Soylent Communications, and well you just need to look at that page to see why we should not be linking to anything they create, let alone having a template for it. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 14:26, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
But I find myself wholeheartedly agreeing with you on something. "Admins should be given a dedicated, exclusive to them, page to discuss business openly rather than in the secrecy of #admins." You're 100% right on that one (I assume that's what WP:AN was originally meant to be); I've never even applied for a password to #admins and don't intend to ever do so; if something's really so secret it can't be accessible to everyone, that's what email's for. Having never paid them the slightest notice I've no idea how arbcom elections work, but if I'm eligible to vote in them count me in. If nothing else it would make things interesting. — iride scent 00:02, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
I was pleased, too, to see your name appear on the ArbCom election list. It will be intereseting to see how many other names go up before the nomination period ends. Hopefully not too many! Carcharoth 00:08, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi Giano. Would you have time to have a look at Catherine de' Medici's building projects? It is an article on architectural history that I thought you might be interested in. I'm not the author (heaven forbid!) but I have been taking part in the peer review, and some advice is needed on whether the architectural terminology is up to scratch. Love the election picture up top! :-) Carcharoth 00:36, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
...but your recent article on the martin heifer is redundant, and has been since 2003. I've tagged your version for a merge, since some of your info isn't in the older article. DS 01:36, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Right... but Giano is a little busy, it looks like, Gustav. [79] It may not be a good day to introduce templates in his life. Bishonen | talk 21:38, 6 November 2007 (UTC).
Sorry, you're really out of luck, Gustav. See the fluboxes on my page. [80] [81]. :-( Bishonen | talk 21:54, 6 November 2007 (UTC).
Could I ask for a favor? I did a quick Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Assessment of an article on Sophia Magdalena of Denmark, a former Queen of Sweden, and said it was almost a B, suggesting better referencing, and expansion to more than the current article's focus on rather prurient rumors. The editor, very politely, said that those prurient rumors are really what she is most remembered for, and even asked if we should include a certain, very graphic, historical cartoon rather prominently featured on the Swedish Wikipedia article about her! Now I'm a proud, card-carrying member of Wikipedia:WikiProject Pornography, but this is beyond my expertise. I would like to call in someone who has written a number of Wikipedia:Featured articles on historical personages who have had their share of scandal for advice. Could you (or any of the others with similar experience that I know watch this talk page) please weigh in on Talk:Sophia Magdalena of Denmark? Thanks. -- AnonEMouse (squeak) 18:33, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm sure she was very happy to see him. -- !! ?? 23:33, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi Giano. I noticed you wrote this at User talk:Fred Bauder: "To Vintagekits Rockpocket is red rag to a bull and Rockpocket is fully aware of this - it all smacks of the goading that brought about this case in the first instance. This needs stopping ASAP." You then followed up with "Rockpocket took the Arbs decision pretty hard and is having a problem accepting it, and I think is determined to make his prophesies come true. It's difficult for all concerned."
Now, as one of the subjects of Vintagekits' campaigns of abuse on and off-wiki, I quite accept that it is difficult for all concerned. I would respectfully request that you ask yourself if comments like these are making it more or less difficult for all concerned. I respect your right to defend even a highly problematic editor's right to fair treatment, but I am concerned that in this case you may be getting your priorities wrong in criticizing a good and fair admin, without (as far as I can see) taking any action to constrain the behaviour of the problem editor who is actually breaking policy (and the terms of the Arbcom remedy).
If you see anybody "goading" Vk then of course you must speak up; but I'd be grateful if you could exercise the same duty of care towards Rockpocket. Thanks for your consideration. -- John 23:46, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Hey, did you mean to remove my comment here? -- John 18:25, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
You may have posted a message to a different RfA than intended: you posted here at VanTucky's RfA, saying that he has "no edits to his name", when in fact he has over 17,000 as shown here. Just wanted to let you know. Maralia 13:46, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Bishonen | talk 17:51, 13 November 2007 (UTC).
<sigh> That is not an inexpressibly vulgar monster truck but my Arbcom campaign vehicle in which I am travelling wikipedia spreading my message of hope and light to the thousands of downtrodden Wikipedians who are looking to me for salvation. To many this is as exiting as the second coming. Giano 18:12, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Hello. Regarding the recent revert you made: You may already know about them, but you might find Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace useful. After a revert, these can be placed on the user's talk page to let them know you considered their edit was inappropriate, and also direct new users towards the sandbox. They can also be used to give a stern warning to a vandal when they've been previously warned. Thank you. -- Jack 19:08, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Hohohoho, I've just seen the headline for this section on the "watch list" how dissapointing it must be for those rushing over here full of glee! Giano 19:52, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
...thank you for your participation. I withdrew with 83 supports, 42 opposes, and 8 neutrals. Your kind words and constructive criticism are very much appreciated. I look forward to using the knowledge I have accrued through the process to better the project. I would like to give special thanks to Tim Vickers and Wikidudeman for their co-nominations.
(unindent) In light of the two threads above I must point out this conversation. Draw your own conclusions, everyone. — iride scent 23:40, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
I have made some comments at talk:Bramall Hall. As a recent contributer to the article, you may wish to comment further. Regards, Mr Stephen 14:30, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Rightly or wrongly I edited a sandbox of yours a while back re (something like) the above; if that article has hit main space could you provide a link? Aatomic1 18:04, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Hummmph!
I just enlarged Eleanora and slightly trimmed the caption to fit better. I hope you like it.
Amandajm 03:52, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Palazzo Pitti has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. ( Caniago 14:44, 16 November 2007 (UTC))
OK, I'm back... having just read a little more of the article.Oh very nicely expressed. beautifully written in fact. The paragraph about the Palazzo today. I don't know when you wrote it (I presume it was you who wrote it) But the whole rigour of editting and slapping NPOV on things means that they simply won't let you get away with using a word like "magnificent" and you have happily used a dozen of them annd effectively created a picture of what the building is really like. Which is what one aims to achieve. Basically, anyone with a handbook can tell you the dimensions, the type of stone and the fact that it has windows and rustication. But it takes a great deal more than that to create a sense of the power of the building.
I've just done one on the Architecture of the medieval cathedrals of England, and I referrred to the views of Salisbury as stately, Norwich as serene, Lincoln as majestic, Durham as dramatic, and then thought "oh damn! I can't say any of that... not unless i can back up every single adjective! That is what you are up against! I think that it is probably time that art editors went into revolt and made it clear that if we are going to really write about art, we need to do it using the right language. ... Amandajm ( talk)
Haha, good one. -- John Reaves 20:16, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Why are you edit warring over this? It's not remotely reasonable to ask for references on a project-space page. Friday (talk) 22:31, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
............and? Giano ( talk) 22:51, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
This unreferenced tag that you keep re adding, it appears it is being reverted by multiple editors. Please take care not to re add it until you can generate consensus on the talk page. Blocking can be used to prevent disruption. Regards, Mercury 22:46, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm replying here to prevent the fire forest to continue further on his page :). The autoblock was created with the block, but autoblocks don't reset when the blocks are manually removed. And since they are really hard to spot, Durova probably wasn't aware of its existence :). -- lucasbfr talk 00:11, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi Giano, I hope you are well. I took this photo recently, which I think shows the style of the Canterbury College buildings quite well. Sorry about the stupid "Open" sign on the right, but hey, what can you do? Take care - Gobeirne ( talk) 08:41, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Congratulations on Prince's Palace of Monaco—another lovely FA to hang on your belt! What is it, your 16th? 17th? Bishonen | talk 14:12, 19 November 2007 (UTC).
Thanks for the feedback re First Church photo. I don't have any other photos of Lawsons work at the moment but if there are some specific ones you'd like I can take a look. Knox Church could be quite good at the right angle / lighting. XLerate ( talk) 08:47, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Please leave it closed. Take it to RFAR if you want, extending the shitstorm on ANI will have no productive outcome. Guy ( Help!) 15:42, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
You have already reached the limit of 3RR on ANI today: [93] [94] [95] [96]. If you continue to edit war in this incident or future incidents you are likely to be blocked. — Carl ( CBM · talk) 16:32, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Giano, you and I haven't really interacted before. Let's suppose there's been a good faith misunderstanding. I made a mistake when I blocked an editor the other day. It was the culmination of several mistakes and I take full responsibility for them. I reversed the myself promptly, apologized, opened my actions to scrutiny, and pledged changes so that no mistake like that will happen again. If I understand correctly, this was someone you've worked with closely and respect, and if that's the case then he can be proud to have earned such loyal friendship. I can't turn back time. Can we talk? Durova Charge! 22:40, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
<ding> -- Dweller ( talk) 17:10, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Shrill comments like "a narrative of vicious and malicious lies written by yourself" bring discredit on the project.
[100] Please tone it down. Thank you. -
Jehochman
Talk 23:08, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
(edit conflicted 2x) Jehochman, please strikethrough. Giano has a right to be upset.
Giano, and it was about an hour before I received anything confirmable about my mistake. As soon as that happened, I acted promptly. I apologized immediately to the person I'd blocked in error and if your feelings are hurt also I'm very sorry. Durova Charge! 23:12, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Giano, I'm not going to wade in with who's wrong or right. I'm content in not giving a damn here. I may be getting the timezones muddled, but it doesn't look like the diffs you give support your hints. The account was blocked at 18:08 and unblocked at 19:13 (the 65 min). Durova posted at 16:48 (which I'm guessing is 18:48) - 40 min after the block. NYB then replied at 16:57 (18:57?) - and just 16 min later the block was lifted. Now, two things, that means NYB had only 9 min to investigate the block after it was reported - so his findings were very much preliminary. Second, the block was actually lifted very promptly after it became clear that respected members of the community were indicating disquiet. Now, it's quite possible I'm reading that wrong, and it is also possible I'm assuming too much good faith (but, heck, that's not always bad). Perhaps you can show me where I'm going wrong.-- Docg 01:41, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi Giano...I see that User:!! posted on his talkpage [104] that he and Durova were having a private discussion and that the information would remain between them. However, I hope we at least learn if they reached some kind of an understanding, and if they did, perhaps we could all move on from this matter.-- MONGO ( talk) 11:56, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
I've emailed you Giano, I'd appreciate it if you could reply when you have a spare minute. Thanks and take care, Ryan Postlethwaite 00:16, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
My wife always likes that Lakeland caravan stand at agricultural shows, quite why we have to travel hundreds of miles to buy a sandwich box is beyond me, funny though, perhaps she has met you? while I lurk outside sucking my teeth. Odd world ism't it. Giano ( talk) 00:36, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi. I'm Ral315, editor of the Wikipedia Signpost. We're interviewing all ArbCom candidates for an article next week, and your response is requested.
Please respond on my talk page. We'll probably go to press late Monday or early Tuesday (UTC), but late responses will be added as they're submitted. Thanks, Ral315 » 04:47, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi Giano. Im the person who JeHochman tried to ban for making an edit to the Durova page. I have a story to tell, and I'd like very much to please be contacted by you at my safe email of why.not.relax@gmail.com, from which point I can properly identify myself. Thanks in advance. 85.5.180.48 ( talk) 12:09, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Oh no no no, you have a message for me you can either post it here, or work out a way of emailing me - You are obviously not blocked and my wiki-mail is enabled. So create an account and register an email. I do not solicit information from anonymous IPs and their equally anonymous email addresses. I only ever look only at what is presented to me.Incidentally, you are wrong on one score, I am not an Admin so stand exactly the same chance of being blocked as you. Giano ( talk) 13:59, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
You've made your point, the people at Wikipedia Review now have the full details of how to evade detection in future, for which I am sure they are most grateful, but posting the contents of private emails without the sender's permission is a pretty low blow and has resulted in ArbCom sanctions before now, not that I guess you give a damn.
I know you are upset and I know !! is upset, but seriously this has escalated out of all proportion from a 75 minute block for which the blocking admin has apologised. Guy ( Help!) 18:07, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
OK Jimbo. You want a loving encyclopedia - I for one do not find the paste below from Durova which constitutes her "evidence" as particularly loving - do you? I would advise everyone to be very careful of making even the most innocent edit. Giano ( talk) 18:11, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
So here it is the diffs are pathetic the narrative describing one of our respected editors, who I know well, repulsive. Happy with that are you Jimbo, you think an Admin like Durova will foster your happy loving encyclopedia?:-
(Private correspondence removed. If reverted I won't remove it again, but pasting private correspondence onsite is impolite, IMHO. Also, last I heard, the person who writes an email owns the copyright for it. Summarizing or commenting on an email message is OK, but pasting it wholesale is probably a copyright violation.) Kla’quot ( talk | contribs) 04:52, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
I've removed the text of the email once again out of consideration of the user who wrote it. Leaving it there is cruel to both her and the subject of the email. Please don't put it back. Besides the fact that the user can, in fact, claim copyright on the email she sent, the email was, in fact, stupid and embarrassing; the actions she took without anyone responding to the email were irresponsible and careless. Your putting it here further adds to her public humiliation--whether that is your intent or not--only makes the situation horribly worse. Her behavior has been questionable, I completely agree. I promise you it will be addressed. This is not the way. Cary Bass demandez 15:55, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
I suggest you post the "evidence" on WP:SAND so JzG can't delete it. Keep up the good work in any case! 79.101.144.21 ( talk) 18:10, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Duvora looks like an idiot, everyone else like a dick. WR get to laugh at us for week. And that's that. Nice work if you can get it.--
Docg 18:15, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Something of concern to me is the note that "They don't know this list exists." (where "they" are the "enemy" that congregates in "attack sites"). This is followed by a link to a diff that contains this comment:
The clear implication is that there's a private mailing list out there, whose very existence is kept secret (unlike, say, the ArbCom list, which is private but its existence and membership list is publicly known). This sounds a lot like the dreaded "cabal", whose existence is always denied ( WP:TINC). From the context of the linked diff, it sounds like this secret list is in fact organizing and canvassing concerted responses to such things as WP:ANI threads, meaning that the "amen chorus" of support for various blocks and bans may be less than fully spontaneous. Ironically, the message goes on to accuse the attack site crowd of using teammates to create or obstruct consensus, which seems to be an act of projection (attributing to one's enemies what one is in fact doing oneself). *Dan T.* ( talk) 14:37, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Right! We have had the laugh now let us stop yodelling to each other, take the combs from under our noses and cease goose stepping and ask the serious question. Durova had her chance above last night and blew it. I know the full answer and I'm reluctant to give it but it needs to be in the open, and it will be, so hopefully some one will come forward because we need to know. Who were the high ranking Admins and Arbs that Durova said reviewed that rubbish and OKd the block because any person who reviewed that was either very stupid or up to something. We are told the Arbcom are clean [108]. So who is fibbing? Either way I think you all know how this continues - but we do need to know. Someone is not being totally honest somewhere - who? Giano ( talk) 20:02, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
In case anyone is wondering, I have no idea who this editor is but it is certainly not !!. Giano ( talk) 22:04, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
...does anyone doubt for a moment that Ot;kG (Obscene trolling; knows German) is destined to become the greatest new meme at all the worst sites? It's almost too perfect. sNkrSnee | t.p. 22:10, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Begin "Top Sekrit" double ROT13 encrypted transmission
The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar | ||
For showing guts of steel to stand up against people who violate the principles behind this wiki in the name of "preserving" it. *Dan T.* ( talk) 03:03, 23 November 2007 (UTC) |
Thank you. Giano ( talk) 07:49, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Do not put that email back up again or you will be blocked from editing. Cary Bass demandez 17:31, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Sorry if it appeared I removed any text from here, I can only think a bit was oversighted while I was in the edit window, as a large amount went when all I did was add 2 lines of comment! Anyway sorry if it seemed like it was me.:) Merkinsmum ( talk) 17:39, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
You are blocked, for the reasons I explained above. You have persistently reinserted material that is of questionable content to your talk page. You are free to contact the Foundation regarding this block, but bear in mind, i have done it as a representative of the Wikimedia Foundation. Cary Bass ( talk) 17:58, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
In the States we have a holiday prior to which much food goes on sale, and occasionally Spumoni is included in the sales. Yesterday, due to a buy-one-get-one-free sale, I had the opportunity to get a half gallon of Spumoni for free. I thought this would be a good opportunity to show the kids why Spumoni is not served at the 31 Flavors Ice Cream Parlor. I had the Spumoni in my cart, but as I approached the checkout, I thought better of my decision, returned the Spumoni and selected a half-gallon of Gingerbread flavored ice cream. As expected, the Gingerbread flavored ice cream was terrible, but nowhere near as truly awful as the Spumoni would have been. Maybe next Thanksgiving the kids will be old enough to handle Spumoni. Uncle uncle uncle ( talk) 19:51, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
You are misrepresenting that conversation. I was directly referring to DTobias's remark, just above, and someone mistook that part of my remarks as referring to you. It did not. I referred to people who are not here to build an encyclopedia. Your content contributions are voluminous, high quality, and much appreciated.
That doesn't change the fact that your behavior in terms of trolling and carrying on the way you do is unacceptable. You know this. And you will either change it or be banned from Wikipedia. You have caused too much harm to justify us putting up with this kind of behavior much longer.-- Jimbo Wales ( talk) 01:04, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Here is a very interesting discussion by Kelly Martin of the status of the material that Giano was blocked for posting. Bishonen | talk 17:48, 25 November 2007 (UTC).
The Socratic Barnstar | ||
For telling it like it is. -- Mr Which ??? 02:39, 26 November 2007 (UTC) |
I require your assistance on Ybor City, Tampa, Florida, an article I ran into a while back and noted that the tone was, while interesting to read, probably inappropriate for a Wikipedia article and I took it up with the author on the talk page. He initially took into consideration my concerns, but then he reverted himself, returning it to its original form. I didn't want to cause a confrontation so I left it alone, but kept it on my watchlist.
Recently though, another editor made note of the fact on the talk page and replaced the tone banner I originally put on the article those months ago. The author reacted violently to this and promptly reverted him, citing consensus, though to be fair the consensus consisted of his views and another editor affiliated with the Tampa WikiProject. I replaced the banner and aired my concerns again when it flashed on my watchlist, and then I was promptly accused of sockpuppetry and the banner was reverted again by this same author.
Since you are an author yourself, having written many articles, I was looking for your input. I am not actually sure whether I am in the right, and I do not have enough encyclopedic writing experience to press the point any further. Could you go to that article for me, read it, and give your evaluation on the talk page? The editor who is involved is clearly a good writer but I don't know how to talk to him. If you cannot assist, could you refer this to someone who can?
I immediately thought of you though, as you're probably one of the most experienced and talented Wikipedia editors I know. DEVS EX MACINA pray 04:07, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Let's have a look at it tomorrow, but as a rule of thumb one generally does not begin an encyclopedic article with the words "Mr. Ybor Comes to Town". It sounds more like Noddy and Big Ears than Wikipedia. Giano ( talk) 23:35, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
I have requested you be added to the list of parties at this arbitration. Mercury 04:08, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Giano, you rock. Did you see this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Noromasiobmij ( talk • contribs) 20:15, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
For your kind words of encouragement. I simply hope that the effort to reduce "drama" does not result in a railroaded solution for anyone. I am stunned at how quickly this case has gone from acceptance to proposed decisions.
Incidentally...I spotted you in the above picture. No, not the one with the bus, the campaign photo. You're the one with the red boots, right? Risker ( talk) 22:49, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
I think you accidentally posted to the wrong page. [120] - Jehochman Talk 21:00, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
To the arbitrators! you judged Durova in five minutes flat and then left the case open to Tony Sidaway's comments (what is he doing on every arb page anyway) and prattle about me in the hope something more definitive could be resolved. Presumably a nice long block. While Jimbo and his threats hover on my page, an aggrieved creature called Agne berates !! on his page and ANI for feeling uncharitable. What are you all so frightened of? I want to know who are the famous 5 [121] . Just look at the scramble taking place as we speak to close the case - we are seeing Wikipedia history in double time. Giano ( talk) 21:37, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
You have been added at as a party to the above Arbitration case per this passed motion. On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Cbrown1023 talk 00:32, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
An interesting side note, I think, is the ire directed at Giano for having the temerity to be righteously indignant at Durova's flatly bizarre logic for concluding that !! was a malicious editor. Giano is only a problem when other Wikipedians are being stupid. When people aren't behaving stupid enough to set him off, he's a perfectly productive (and in fact quite good) article editor. But when he detects stupidity in progress, he turns into some sort of FrankenGiano and goes off on a rampage, tearing through the pretty paper walls the wikicommunity has set up to protect its sensibilities while trying, in his unimitable and somewhat lovable way, to protect the project he quite clearly cares about deeply. I used to strongly dislike Giano, mainly because I and others I identified with had been the target of his rage. Having watched him go off on someone who, at least this time, I agree deserved it, gives me a new respect for him, and I'm much more inclined to forgive him for the arrows he slung at me back in the day. Giano isn't perfect, and I think sometimes his indignance is misplaced, but I can't question his commitment to the project. Jimbo's threat to ban him was stupid, and reflects how badly Jimbo has lost his way on this project. - Kelly Martin's blog
On a more serious note, Giano, we (the arbcom) have probably spent more time discussing you over the last two years than any other person on Wikipedia. We like you as a article writer/editor, but (as KM implies above) your participation in any dispute tends to make this much more inflamed and ugly - even when you're right (which, I happen to think, is most or all of the time). Your methods are simply too destructive. So, I'm going to put the question to you directly -- what do we do? Raul654 ( talk) 03:42, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
"anyway, this is a very thoughtful email, which is the kind of person you seem to be"
Unsolicited outside opinions from people who just can't help themselves...
I hope that all present can forgive me some distaste for being compared to the Gestapo, and not considering that within the bounds of honest criticism and acceptable discourse. Civility is still policy, and I think it's important, especially coming from a respected figure in the community. It may well be necessary for Giano to speak as he does, but can all the people assembled here say that if I or other members of the committee spoke as he did, acted as he did, and treated other users as he did, that you would let it pass with equanimity? Consider this an arbcom election question. Mackensen (talk) 13:43, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Un-indent. I will clarify matters. I never attributed the things Kelly Martin said to Giano; I offer Giano the opportunity to denounce those remarks. The cap does not fit, but if I let that remark go it is strongly implied that I don't challenge it. Perhaps I'm over-sensitive. Perhaps I'd like to see people be more careful in their utterances. Giano above complains about critics being tarred with a wide brush--a not unfair criticism--and then does the same to the bureaucracy. Let's stop this now. Mackensen (talk) 14:37, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
I'll step back here. Maybe I am over-sensitive. Maybe because I'd never consider expressing myself this way I can't deal with it from others. I'll put my cards on the table. I don't give a damn about power games, cabalism, or criticism. Criticize away. What I do care about is politeness, civility, respect, and transparency in conduct. All these things are lacking today, from all sides. I'm leaving arbcom at the end of December; someone else will have to fix it. I don't think your conduct, Giano, is geared toward fixing those first two points. I take the position that good things flow from them. Maybe this is naive or wrong-headed, but I value the form in addition to the content. Mackensen (talk) 14:48, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Yes, there are unanswered questions, but this discussion can definitely do without reference to the Gestapo or HUAC, reference which I strongly denounce. El_C 15:13, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Kelly Martin recently wrote in her blog:
“ | A less likely possibility is that she [i.e. Durova ] will turn to trolling Wikipedia the way I did after I stepped down. Anybody who does not recognize that my ArbCom run last year was a giant troll, set specifically to catch Geogre, is a fool. Likewise, the adminship nomination I "allowed" a few months ago was also trolling. Wikipedia is terribly easy to troll ... [126] | ” |
Some links:
And the references to the Gestapo and the HUAC are... ? -- !! ?? 17:53, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Hello! As we did for last year's election, we are again compiling a Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2007/Summary table. This table contains a column "Portfolio" for links that display candidates' pertinent skills. I will be going through each candidate's statements and gradually populate the column, but this may take some time. Please feel free to add some links in the form ?UNIQ4c49a9df5a32a8ab-nowiki-00000001-QINU? if you feel it shows conflict resolution skills, or ?UNIQ4c49a9df5a32a8ab-nowiki-00000002-QINU? otherwise. It would also be helpful if you can check if the information about you is correct.
My motivation is that as a voter, I don't want to just rely on a candidate's words, but also see their actions. Moreover, I believe a portfolio of "model cases" to remember in difficult situations can be useful for each candidate, as well. I believe that conflict resolution skills are most pertinent to the position, but if you want to highlight other skills, please feel free to use a new letter and add it to Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2007/Summary table#Columns of this table. — Sebastian 05:33, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Swalwell.2C_Alberta Fred Bauder ( talk) 18:47, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Uninvited has crafted two "proposals" regarding you. In one, you would be banned for 90 days. In the other, you would be restricted for one year to only working in discussions about Featured Articles. You may want to weigh in, if you think it might help. Mr Which ??? 00:52, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Since MONGO isn't here to give you this... Risker ( talk) 07:28, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
I wish I had your nerve. Too often I worry about what retaliation comes next. --健次( derumi) talk 06:38, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
I think people will be lining up to thank you. My thoughts on this are already here [ [128]]. I for one never knew you before, but I think I know you now. sNkrSnee | ¿qué? 12:01, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
(cf. User talk:Giano II/archive 7#ArbCom questions)
Sorry I missed this comment, and apologies that the questions aren't better. I'd truly love to find a set of questions that would be useful in preparing a better guide for voters (if you have any ideas, I'd be happy to consider them for next year's guide). That having been said, do you want me to refer voters to your comment about the questions, or just indicate that you've chosen not to answer the questions? Ral315 » 15:38, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
I have a question for you. It stems from your actions related to the current arbcom case you are involved in and your run for arbcom.
The arbitration committee has a very high traffic mailing list (around 15 people generating upwards of 70 emails per day) used to discuss matters of interest to the arbitration committee. These matters include not just pending cases, but stuff related to past cases (requests for clarification, change in situation, etc), checkuser findings, personal opinions and musings, etc. Everything said there is by necessity considered very confidential - not just the content of what is said, but (generally) the topic of conversations as well. (In fact, we prefer not even to advertise its existance) And certainly no quoting from that list is allowed, without explicit prior consent from others. Why do we have a non-transparent communications channel like that? Because privacy concerns aside, having people - (and I mean no disrespect by this) people like you - screaming in our ears while we brainstorm ideas is not conducive to the best decision making. (Think ANI on steroids)
If you were given access to this mailing list, how would you treat what is discussed there? Could we trust you to continue to treat the list as confidential, or would you repost material to Wikipedia if you judged it to be relevant? Raul654 ( talk) 15:44, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Allow me to say that the ArbCom case about Durova's actions against !! hit close to home. In a previous incarnation, you and I got crossways about something (that I was wrong about, I'm certain) and as such, going into this issue (first at AN/I, and then at ArbCom--I avoided the RfC) I was prepared to oppose you. It gradually became clear to me that not only were your inentions (protection of !!'s reputation, and utter repudiation of both a bad block and a nefarious "sleuthing" list) just, but so were your methods. It quickly became clear to me that there was a concerted effort to have this incident be as minimalized as possible, from the highest levels of the project. As such, dire problems often require dire solutions. Would I have had the courage to challenge the god-king himself? I can say categorically, no. Though this isn't my first rodeo at WP, I'm not nearly so experienced as you, nor do I have the same courage you displayed in facing Jimbo as you did. Risker's post regarding the "little people" of WP said it all. If you haven't read it yet, revisit the RfC (or take a look at GRBerry's response at the ArbCom, which links it). He said everything I'm trying to say to you now, but much more eloquently.
In short, what I'm trying to say is, "Thanks." Without experienced non-admins like yourself to stand up to the sleuths and bullies of the project, there are many of us who would simply fade away into WP oblivion, either blocked, or discouraged by the project's lack of transparency in matters such as this. Keep fighting the good fight, Giano. Regards, Mr Which ??? 15:46, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. Wikipedia:Private correspondence. • Lawrence Cohen 19:25, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Fred Bauder routinely uses the term "wimpy" in commenting on remedy proposals that he believes (rightly or wrongly) are excessively lenient. Often, he writes "wimpy, wimpy, wimpy"; this is a reference to an old series of television commercials for plastic garbage bags, in which sturdy " Hefty, Hefty, Hefty" bags were contrasted with easily ripped "wimpy, wimpy, wimpy" ones. Fred (and Jpgordon, who followed Fred's wording in this instance) have both explained that that "wimpy" was a reference to the alleged insufficiency of the remedy proposal and not a personal comment about any editor, and given that I have seen Fred use the wording many times before on proposed decision pages I readily credit them. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 20:40, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
To Bishonen: When I drafted my workshop proposals, as you observe, Giano was not yet a party to the case and I did not believe he would become one. I tend to draft a paragraph of background about each of the major participants about whom I am going to propose substantive findings; here, that included Durova as well as User:!! Mackensen and Kirill, in putting the first draft of the final decision together, did not use either of these paragraphs, but they were incorporated later by Paul August; and the "User:!! urged" remedy was added to the proposed decision at my instance in specific response to the astonishing conduct of administrator Hu12 on !!'s talkpage. I see that someone else has already drafted "Giano thanked"; I would be glad to draft something more, but I fear that we are beyond the stage of the case where arbitrators are reading the workshop any more. Whether any portion of the proposed decision is, as you posit, "stupid" is left as an exercise for the reader. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 21:29, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Er... the sentiment is understandable given you were blocked. But note that it's not Jimbo's Arbcom any more, or any less, than it's Jimbo's Wikipedia. He did found the thing, and does still run it whenever he feels like. He doesn't feel like often, which is a good thing, but it is still a bit of a contradiction in terms to be completely opposed to Jimbo and supportive of the Wikipedia. No? This may eventually change, but for now the Wikipedia is still 90% what Jimbo intended, so it's rather hard to differentiate between them. Steven Wright had a line about something like that. "I support the war," he said, "but I don't support the troops." -- AnonEMouse (squeak) 20:58, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Giano, I know that you and Tony have a heated history. But please, sometimes you can be your own worst enemy. Please try to achieve at least a modicum of self-censorship. You need to consider style issues as well as substance; I think he wants you to cross over an edge that it would be better for Wikipedia if you don't cross, and you are walking very close to the edge. GRBerry 22:40, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Before I go to bed, I should let you know that I have only just now - because I had only just thought of it - raised the issue of who sent you the copy of Durova's report. I don't know if you know who it was, but I am raising the point that whoever did was also violating some pretty big principles and that the people effected by you posting it do not include that individual. You may wish to consider that point. LessHeard vanU ( talk) 23:18, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Let's leave it all now,I'm tired of it, once they officially inform me of their decision I shall not be returning. So lets finish it . Thanks for all the messages and support. Giano ( talk) 07:26, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Giano, you're a good writer, a good editor, and a good scholar. I hope you choose to continue with the project in general, and to let go of all this needless internecine drama. In my opinion, you are far too prone to perceive malice where none is intended. Please consider Hanlon's Razor.
Wikipedia will continue with or without you, but it would be a better project with you. DS ( talk) 01:42, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar | ||
For defending the project from erroneous blocks by publishing evidence to exonerate User:!! |
However, imbibing isn't your only option here. Please reconsider, it isn't too late to recognise the gods.-- Docg 02:49, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
[130] -- KTC ( talk) 04:02, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
{{User:Lawrence Cohen/Gianobox}}/ User:Lawrence_Cohen/Gianobox - based on KTC's above link. I've added it to my user and talk page. • Lawrence Cohen 04:13, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Mine is on my userpage, I changed it because I'm not voting as a protest vote (though of course I agree with the sentiments.) Merkinsmum 14:21, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Well, duh!!! [131]
In fairness, I think a lot of people in the community have a hard time separating the editors who happen to be arbs from the office of Arbitration Committee member. The dispute resolution system can be very confusing as well; how many times have we seen cases be rejected by Arbcom because an RFC wasn't done first? Well...perversely, the steps were actually followed this time - attempts at discussion with the individual were unsuccessful, so an RFC was filed, which was still open at the time the Arbcom case was filed and accepted. And of course, most editors have a black mark or two in their copybook and so are chilled from filing an Arbcom case because their behaviour conceivably could be reviewed too. Risker 17:41, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Is the individual who sent the Durova "investigation" email to you directly privy to confidential material, be it posts on Arbcom-l or checkuser information? If not, are you aware of any leaks of posts to Arbcom-l or checkuser information outside of their intended recipients? Thank you. Spatalker 18:52, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
The Outlaw Halo Award | ||
Integrity is what you tell yourself, honesty is what you tell others. I give this award to Giano for his honesty and integrity and for his diligence and persistence in the pursuit of justice. - Epousesquecido 19:27, 30 November 2007 (UTC) |
Thank you Epousesquecido that is a truly amazing award, is it unique to me? Giano 23:01, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
I will begin doing so. Unfortunately, I've just gotten a very "nice" note from JzG regarding my lack of edits, and how they probably indicate that my voting for you and then going on a "blue strike" from editing would be no great loss to the project. After all this, he still can't figure out why I might have taken such an interest in !!'s case. Not every account is what they seem... Anyways, I'll do my best to ignore both him and Rockpocket, and get back to editing the project. Thanks for all you do. Mr Which ??? 13:45, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
The words 'drama' 'create controversy' and 'disruptive' all seem to be used with similar intent as 'troll'. Merkinsmum 14:22, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
My first (and intended to be only) comment to that behemoth ANI thread that started with !!'s block came five days after the events, when a fresh-faced admin who'd been active in the entire conversation said he not only wanted the thread closed, but deleted as an "attack page." I simply said that it should be treated as any other ANI thread - closed in the usual process and archived - and that a good chunk of the drama was from people saying the thread was an attack page and should be closed and deleted. For that, I was told not to troll. I wonder if that admin had any idea that some people might be a tad ticked off at being called a troll, and instead of skulking away or having a verbal pissing match, might actually be moved to constructive response. See, Giano...it wasn't you that dragged me into this mess, it was Mercury. He's the one who made me realise that the secrecy, usurpation of power, patronization, and devaluing of individuals within the community was making Wikipedia *not fun*. It wasn't your actions that emboldened me to write an outside opinion in a high profile RFC - it was being called a troll.
I'll be getting back to my usual routine of vandalism reversion in my handful of articles, my bits of wikignoming here and there. And yes, I'm developing an article that I should manage to get into mainspace in a week or so - it's a little article, as is appropriate for a little editor to write. But I am far less likely to sit on the sidelines and hold my tongue in the future. Thanks for caring enough about the encyclopedia and its community to put yourself on the line. Godspeed - and good luck in the election. -- Risker 15:49, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The Arbitration Committee admonishes Durova to exercise greater care when issuing blocks and admonishes participants in the various discussions regarding this matter to act with proper decorum and to avoid excessive drama. Durova ( talk · contribs) gave up her sysop access under controversial circumstances and must get it back through normal channels. Also, Giano is reminded that Wikipedia is a collaborative project which necessarily rests on good will between editors and the Committee asks that Giano consider the effect of his words on other editors, and to work towards the resolution of a dispute rather than its escalation within the boundaries of the community's policies, practices, and conventions. Finally, !! ( talk · contribs) is strongly encouraged to look past this extremely regrettable incident and to continue contributing high-quality content to Wikipedia under the account name of his choice. Again, further information regarding this case can be found at the link above. On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Cbrown1023 talk 17:36, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Barnstar of Integrity & Goodness | ||
For bravery, integrity, and service to Wikipedia and the wider public with these qualities. 85.5.180.9 23:06, 1 December 2007 (UTC) |
Seconded. edward (buckner) 12:37, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Thirded. (Every time you archive the last barnstar on your talk page, it's the cue for somebody to give you another one!) *Dan T.* 13:30, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
I see the Durova arbitration has closed, with you still unsanctioned, and still dancing on a tightrope over the Niagara Falls. Congratulations! For your awesome balancing act for the benefit of Wikipedia, you are hereby awarded the Tightrope Trophy. It represents the amazing Charles Blondin carrying Jimbo Wales safely across the Falls. Bishonen | talk 15:06, 2 December 2007 (UTC).
Congrats, hope my comments are not hurting anything. Travb ( talk) 00:35, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Did you ever expect to get 200 supports and be added to WP:200? :-) Having said that, with some recent withdrawals, you are now officially the candidate with the most number of oppose votes (currently 155). Carcharoth ( talk) 01:48, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
And now you are up to 250 votes - including two who have reconsidered their original position. Well done. Risker ( talk) 22:27, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Got there first! — iride scent 23:01, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
It's now a moot point, as it appears to have fallen victim of the new "remove comments I don't like" policy. I'm sure there's a reason why elections for the relatively trivial post of admin are allowed to become lengthy discussions of the pros & cons of a candidate ( this is a particularly fine example), but when it's actually a vote for something important, a new "no discussion" policy magically appears from nowhere. Not that it will make any difference, since Arbcom elections are decided on a one-man-one-vote basis, and I think we all know which way the one man's going to vote. — iride scent 18:03, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Another way of looking at it. You are 8th in the net supports column, but 11th in the percentages column. Though the 7th guy in the net supports column is nearly 20 ahead of you, it isn't impossible to suppose that you might get a net increase of 20+ supports over the remaining days of this election. I don't think anyone really knows how long Wikipedia's tail of voters is. Carcharoth ( talk) 07:57, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Enough of this rambling about usernames and trolls and elections. Your fame comes from your writing and editing skills. So I'd appreciate your editorial comments on this article I've drafted before I send it off into the world to be suitably vandalized [139]. Anyone else reading this, feel free to jump in... -- Risker 23:13, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks all for your copyedit assistance and advice, you can now see it at James Blunt: Return to Kosovo. With a little luck I'll get the image uploaded in a day or two, now that the article is in mainspace and I can add a fair-use image. Risker ( talk) 03:01, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Chase me I'm the cavalry asked you a question on your arbcom candidate question page. I took the liberty of providing him with the Readers Digest version of the case here [140]. I hope you don't mind. Risker 05:16, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Separate heads-up on a different matter, just in case you weren't following [141]. Risker ( talk) 20:35, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
I replied (and made a separate section for our little conversation) at User talk:SebastianHelm#Giano. — Sebastian 18:03, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
FYI [142]. Risker 20:04, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Easy man. I see where you're coming from on the whole Wikipedia:Private correspondence proposal, but don't get too worked up yet. The whole Durova fiasco was rather unique. I think the general principle behind what you did there should be addressed, but I'm just not sure your wording was the right way to go. Sχeptomaniac χαιρετε 01:12, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
I tagged the canvassing issue as resolved, and (at Risker's suggestion) placed the discussion behind show/hide tags. The discussion is there for the record, and I don't feel comfortable archiving it during the election - but, this way, the casual voter won't see canvassing and go ZOMG Conspiracy! without seeing the Resolved tag and actively clicking through anyway. I hope this works as an alternative to actual archival. Good luck with your candidacy, ZZ Claims ~ Evidence 04:55, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
...regarding who posted what when on your talk page. If it helps, I think this [ [143]] was the first time that document was added; it was then removed as vandalism and trolling, and you then observed it was neither and restored it. Hope that helps. sNkrSnee | ¿qué? 07:08, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
People often ask me about mailing lists. I only subscribe to one. I discovered this list a few weeks ago, it is truly amazing what one can learn. I strongly advise you all joining it, no need to give your user name any email will do. Well worth the effort. Giano ( talk) 20:04, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
but what is so nice about is it is a public list. All email sent to the list is available in public archives, both on and off Wikimedia servers. Those that do not wish for people to come across their emails, email addresses or real name on search results are warned not to post. Giano ( talk) 20:51, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Hello hello. You all probably hate me for the position I took on FT2. But it was done in good faith. There is a lot of nasty bullying going on. This refers. If you could help to stop this. I have offered to delete the offending page and do the rest by email. Best edward (buckner) ( talk) 20:17, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Have this award, said to have been created by the Joan of Arc vandal- wierd! Merkinsmum 02:25, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Hey, I'm leaving now. Cannot believe what has happened, and the threats. About to scramble password - can you please ask that my IP not be blocked, for reasons at least one of the administrators will understand. Best edward (buckner) ( talk) 09:22, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
As I mentioned before, I've had my brushes with you, but to call you a liar, I felt like someone needed to say something. But, if you'd rather we not respond to lunacy like that, I'll certainly refrain from doing so. Mr Which ??? 15:23, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
sorry -- Dweller ( talk) 17:50, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
The Editor's Barnstar | ||
I hereby award you this barnstar for your most appreciated expansion of Queluz National Palace. Best regards, Hús ö nd 19:52, 7 December 2007 (UTC) |
Your edits are great, really well done! Fsouza ( talk) 21:50, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
By the way, I haven't been to this palace for many years, but I think I'll go there next month. Since you know a lot about the palace, if there are any details of it that you think we're lacking pictures of, just tell me and I might well take some pictures for the article. Regards,
Hús
ö
nd 02:29, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
WP:PANACHE should probably redirect to your user-page. Best Regards, Amerique dialectics 17:37, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Check your email. Risker ( talk) 05:33, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
And again. Risker ( talk) 22:46, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Found myself on this page after following the links from Sagrada Família, and thought the writing sounded familiar - sure enough, your name features heavily in the history. I did a bit of cleaning up, which included a revert to an older version as three paragraphs had been wiped out by somebody's edit along the way; but when I had arrived, there was an unreferenced tag on the article. Maybe you might like to revisit this chestnut? Risker ( talk) 14:39, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Giano, please stop this childish behavior. If you persist, you will be blocked. Thanks, Crum375 ( talk) 20:22, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Just got home. Very nice, you are a FAC machine! I'll do a quick somewhat bold edit, so please don't FAC right now. A detail: do you like the eighteenth century or the 18th century, as I should pick one? Bishonen | talk 17:10, 10 December 2007 (UTC).
Giano, you know better. Comments such as this are beyond the pale; do not repeat this. Matthew Brown (Morven) ( T: C) 01:29, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
As someone who's had numerous disputes with Giano, I'd like to commend such comments as the one above which was deemed "beyond the pale". I'm not saying the comment was warranted (I don't know anything about the situation), but at least he's actually speaking honest and openly. Wikipedia needs to stop being the equivalent of a nanny state. However, I do commend Giano for backing off. Ruffling feathers only results in a block, and isn't worth it. LuciferMorgan ( talk) 11:44, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Morven, High, and any others who are stunned by such talk, please wake up to language. The comments were not "incivil." They were profane. Profane talk is not good or bad. It is offensive to little old ladies, church socials, and Victorian gentlemen's clubs, but it is not lacking in civility. For many groups, the civil bonds are cemented with profane speech. I wish people would cut the crap, indeed. By that, I mean that they should cut (out) the chatter that has the value of crap. They should also cut the blushing lily pretense. They should not attempt to use politeness as a substitute for substantive discussion. If Wikipedia, which blubbers constantly, "Wikipedia is not censored for content" as its users (and HighInBC was a big fan of this) defend photographs of women wearing ejaculate on their necks, is going to switch tack and say, "Wikipedia is censored for profane words, and users who employ any word or phrase not acceptable to the Dallas Junior League will be censured," then the hypocrisy should be enough to be genuinely shocking. Geogre ( talk) 00:05, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
I did independent checks of all the indented names, and my findings were consistent on the ones with low votes. There are one or two others that may need some clarification, but it appears they may be related to sockpuppet accounts. Not sure if there is a problem really if only one of the socks voted, but that may be too big a question and I am not really sure if you or any other candidate "want" those votes all that badly. Risker ( talk) 02:00, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Hi. Looking at this source given in Queen Maria's article, there is a significant discrepancy on who rules and who was named regent. That source says Maria, not Pedro, ruled until Joao, not Pedro, was named regent. The palace article stresses Pedro and does not mention Joao at all. I am not in a position to evaluate right or wrong on this, just noting the discrepancy. -- JustaHulk ( talk) 18:08, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
In my defense, had I been forced to guess I would have been right. Great article, though. Congrats -- Christopher Parham (talk) 01:01, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Giano, as a trained architect and degreed civil engineer, I am afraid that I miss the ingenuity in the stairs. Perhaps the picture does not do it justice. Enlighten me, please. -- JustaHulk ( talk) 18:25, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks Giano, I alluded to the ingenuity then in the caption. I fear that I cannot really see the illusion in the picture but no doubt it is visible in the actuality. See if you like the caption like that or put it back as it was. -- JustaHulk ( talk) 19:58, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
I agree that they are lovely; that is why I wondered if you meant "artistic" rather than "ingenious". We can readily see the beauty in the picture; I, for one, miss a level of ingenuity that rises above the wondrous architecture of the structure as a whole. That is all that I was referring to. I will take the word of your source. I do not think I am lacking in the soul or imagination department, I drank enough wine in my youth to carry me, and I can appreciate opera though I have never devoted the time to learning it. Your comment kinda reminds me of the little game played on me as a freshman engineering student at the Cooper Union by a couple of Fine Art majors, i.e. "C-L-O-S-E, what does that spell?" I "failed" that one too. -- JustaHulk ( talk) 01:08, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Regarding you comments [146] please remember Vk came to my talk page over this and made incivil comments entirely uninvited and unprovoked by me. So, assuming you are the one mentoring him, if you/he would like my continuing voluntary disengagement please advise him to afford others the respect he demands. If he chooses to come to my talk page uninvited with that sort of language, then he is going to get such a response. That is not "poking in the hope of a reaction". Rockpocke t 21:08, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Your old pal Mercury -- he of proposing that you be added as a party at Durova, archiving AN/I threads regarding Durova, etc. -- had placed himself in the "administrators open to recall" category. Over the course of his three months as admin, he's made many controversial decisions, and his most recent at the Angela Beesley DRV caused several editors to request recall. He opened a recall RFC (conveniently in his userspace), and asked for people to take a position. Initially, it was moving in his favor, at 25-5. In the last day or so, people who had "experience" with Mercury's (mis)use of the tools started showing up, and the count his 10 or 11 supporting recall very. He summarily shut it down, removed himself from the "open to recall" category, and told any of us who were pissed about it to take it to dispute resolution, or directly to ArbCom. I've provided a link to his dramatic closure of the recall petition for you to have a look at when you get the chance. Thanks, Mr Which ??? 23:07, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
I thought you'd break 300, and so you have! Congratulations. Maybe you'd best act as amicus curiae in some Arbitation Committee fact-finding over the coming year, and develop a track-record there as a consistent observer. All the diffs are laid out publicly for any thoughtful outsider to comment upon. -- Wetman ( talk) 08:19, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
I also think 8 arbs will be likely be appointed. 5 to replace the resigning ones, 6th to replace Flcelloguy for inactivity since May (what a pity!). This gives us 6 minimum. However, expanding the top slice to 8 would allow Jimbo to appoint Rebecca and Raul, something I assume he would like to do since he likes them. I have nothing against these two particular candidates, btw. But generally, having an election whose rules are not announced in advance thus allowing the Master to adjust the appointments to his tastes seems crooky to my taste. But who cares? Anyway, I bet a bottle of Courvoisier that there is no way in hell that Jimbo would appoint Giano. I would be pleased to loose. So, any takers? -- Irpen 17:10, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Well, not 8 then, maybe 9 new arbitrators! (Didn't know Flcelloguy had been inactive). Wow, if an arbitrator retired, that would push the total up to 10 and include you know who! Irpen, where's that Courvoisier? :-) As for "II" being unimaginative, I'm now trying to think of imaginative ways to mark account reincarnation. Two. 2. Deux. B. Secondo. The Sequel. The Return. Hmm. Giano - The Sequel. Now that would have been imaginative. Carcharoth ( talk) 18:45, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Starting from left:
I'm probably going to be disappearing again. This time, I will certainly do a better job of covering my tracks. One of them (I have my suspicions who), had a secret checkuser run on me because of my participation in the whole Durova Affair. It was then used during my participation in a relatively minor issue at AN/I, after another user outed my first account. Admittedly, I did a poor job of disappearing the first time, choosing to do so into a little-used approved sock. The tag I placed on it identifying it as such was not oversighted (not sure if this was my mistake or the steward's), but I think that the whole situation further illustrates just how rotten the Arbcom process is currently. That a member would feel it necessary to run a secret checkuser on a supposedly "disruptive" non-involved editor during that case of all cases, is both ironic, and a bit disgusting. For the record, my vote was cast for you, using my old account (which had suffrage), and I wish you all the best. Fully realizing that WP:300 or no, Jimbo isn't appointing you, I'm glad of your run anyway. You and editors like you are what make WP bearable. Keep up the good work! Mr Which ??? 20:22, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Hi again Giano. I went to the Queluz Palace this afternoon and took a few pictures. I've just uploaded four of the interior, as you requested. Apart from the king's bedroom one, I've already forgotten the names of the other rooms in the pictures (I may search for them later though). I'll upload more pictures of the interior/exterior tomorrow, as I have to study for an exam now. :-/ Anyway, I thought that you could have a look at these and possibly find them useful for inclusion, especially if you already know their respective rooms. Best regards, Hús ö nd 21:08, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
I wow Husond! I know which they are don't worry - wow wow wow that's more exiting than a seat on the arbcom, we shall have to try and stop the FAC, while a re-write the interiors section, it will have to be Tuesday! Well done that's terrific! Giano ( talk) 22:14, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Hi again, I'm back from a very busy day and I've just uploaded the rest of the pictures in case you'd be interested to review them for eventual insertion in Queluz National Palace. Thank you for the compliments by the way, I'm very glad to have contributed for the visual improvement of this excellent article. Well, I don't recall seeing any no-picture signs inside the palace, but it's most likely forbidden anyway. Three or four women were surveilling the entire palace but they obviously couldn't keep a permanent watch on every single room, so they patrolled back and forth like androids. I just had to wait till the coast was clear in order to take the pictures. I couldn't do that in every room though (such as the Ambassadors' Room), coz they would linger and not go away sometimes. And indeed, I was very surprised with the virtual absence of visitors on a Sunday afternoon (when admission to the palace is actually free of charge). I counted only four visitors (including myself). Anyway, here go the pictures. Some of them came slightly tilted, I didn't notice that from the camera preview. I'm a lousy image editor, so perhaps you or someone else could rotate them just a few degrees in order to fix that.
Hmm, is the FAC ending later today? :-/ I'll drop by later and support. Best regards, Hús ö nd 02:25, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
I know nothing about big feet, but I've given the article a good review at FAC, after having done a tiny bit of copy editing. The combination of excellent prose and gorgeous photos made for a very pleasurable noontime break. I checked the layout using two different screen resolutions and it seemed fine on both. Risker ( talk) 17:47, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Excuse me if I show ignorance here - rococo (with a lower case "r") and Baroque (with an upper case "B") are used throughout the article. The Rococo article is written with an upper case "R". I note Rococo refers to style and Baroque to a time period and this may well be the reason for the difference. On reading through I interpreted both as being used in a sense of architectural style, so they 'just look wrong' being different.-- Alf melmac 08:23, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Oh man, I can't believe I just did that! I'm so sorry, I just found about the elections less than an hour ago, and I have been racing against the clock to get my vote in. I bet I did this more than once. Well, your right, there is next time. Thanks for informing me! :) -BlueAmethyst .:*:. ( talk) 00:09, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Hello, could you please confirm the account on Meta is you, by providing a link to your userpage there, otherwise your vote will not count. Thanks. Red rocket boy 03:26, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
I know you're busy with actual content creation [I'm trying to get back into doing more of that ;)--the palace article looks really good, BTW], but if you get a chance, you might want to take a look at this thread I started at AN/I. It's in regard to a horrendous block placed by a Guy you know pretty well from the whole Durova fiasco. If you don't feel like weighing in, I totally understand. But, I've rarely seen more bite-y behavior from an admin on WP. Mr Which ??? 00:29, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
(<---undent)
Archiving is a curse. Be aware that that's just one editor's opinion. It's like a "fact" tag: it weighs exactly as much as any other edit. I believe that "archiving" is used foolishly very often. The proper use of it is to make the page easier to read. When an issue is a few hours old, when more opinions are coming in, and when there is still consensus forming, any archiving is illicit: it's then being used not to aid the reader, but rather to try to stop the conversation. We're about conversation. If two parties are only involved, and if they're debating each other, then both need to get off AN/I and go to proper media. If it's more than that, it's an issue, and issues don't go away when they're painted purple. Mind you, I haven't looked at the above, so I'm not endorsing, but I will say that archiving is getting overused and misused. I wouldn't suspect a friend. I would suspect merely someone trying to assert the divine right of admins, which I always find suspect. Geogre ( talk) 18:23, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Giano, you will be amused, though not surprised, to hear that according to a paper published November 4, by Reid Priedhorsky, Jilin Chen, et al. (University of Minnesota), "Creating, Destroying and Restoring Value in Wikipedia" ( in this pdf file), "only one-tenth of 1 percent of Wikipedia editors account for nearly half the content value of the free online encyclopedia, as measured by readership."
Alas for the measurement by readership, whereby Penis and Paris Hilton doubtless get more hits than any architecture article. Nevertheless.... -- Wetman ( talk) 15:17, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
The Portuguese version of the only external link [153] on Pousada de Dona Maria, Queluz, contains a section on the history of the building. I'll use it to extract some material for the article. Regards, Hús ö nd 17:06, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Your recent edit to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents caused the entire bottom of the page to appear in a grey box. Could you fix your edit, please? And while you're at it, could you reword the comments to be less confrontational? Nobody is going to desysop Guy at WP:ANI. You'll have to file an RfA. Corvus cornix talk 23:21, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Glad you think so. I pride myself on being constant. Corvus, I could not care less what the ANI page looks like if sections are archived before I or anyone else has finished commenting. Especially when that archiving is being done hurriedly to spare the blushes of a bad admin. If an admin is bad the Arbcom or Jimbo can remove him - simple as that. It has happened before and will happen again. I am delighted you did not vote for me, in my support column you would have found yourself amongst a very different crowd, many of whom would quite like to see some changes about the place. Giano ( talk) 23:44, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
I did do my homework, and, lo and behold, I find Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pedophilia userbox wheel war. And lo and behold, Carnildo was desyssoped after an RfA(r). So your contention that the arbcom has ever stepped in and desyssoped somebody out of process has yet to be verified. Corvus cornix talk 23:58, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
On your assorted stately-home meanderings, are you planning to do anything with Ham House and Marble Hill House at any point? I'm in the process of writing a batch of linked articles on the geography of the area (first priority, to make something decent from the truly wretched Hammertons Ferry — "the ferry operates on the river", indeed) and in doing so have noticed just how sorry these articles are, given the architectural significance of the houses - but as I know virtually nothing about 17th-18th Century architecture, anything I do with them will just be an internet cut-and-paste job. — iride scent 02:36, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Congratulations on bringing Queluz National Palace to Featured Article status. I'll look forward to seeing what comes next! Risker ( talk) 05:00, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Congratulations on bringing Queluz National Palace to featured status, Giano! :-) I'm extremely satisfied that my pictures came on a good time and helped this achievement. However I think that you are still the one to be most congratulated. Without your intiative, thorough research and hard work, the pictures wouldn't have done it. So, if you are interested in the articles I suggested, perhaps we could start working on the Sintra one. Sintra is both a town and a municipality with so much to see and write about (such as the Queluz National Palace, which is naturally within its borders). I currently live just a five minute drive from Sintra, so it's not hard for me to provide visual resources (I already have quite a few pictures of Sintra at my gallery). By expanding Sintra, you'll realize that one will at the same time gather a lot of material about its palaces, such as the Pena Palace, my favorite and certainly one of Europe's most beautiful buildings. Again, congrats! Best regards, Hús ö nd 13:01, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
The Editor's Barnstar | ||
Not that you lack recognition, but here's a barnstar for bringing Queluz National Palace to featured status. Thanks for your dedication. Best regards, Hús ö nd 13:01, 20 December 2007 (UTC) |
I wasn't going to insert this, but I think the term for what the architect did with the steps was a form of forced perspective. He didn't do it the usual way (tiny steps higher up to make them look farther away), but he did do forced perspective by having the diagonals differ from the horizontals. Geogre ( talk) 15:23, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Dear Sir, you are cordially invited to join a discussion on this matter at WikiProject British Royalty. Yours in anticipation, D B D 16:45, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
I've got a few in mind I'm thinking of writing from scratch, and I could use all the help I can get, once I upload my initial work. Are you interested in working on an author article, as well as a minor historical figure or two? Mr Which ??? 02:01, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Was reading David Lauder's talk page.. you actually like our wines? Didn't know anyone actually liked our wines, even though we seem to be making a hell of a lot of it these days. DEVS EX MACINA pray 07:22, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Pardon me if this is a waste of your time but after recently discovering you are behind the Queluz National Palace article I wanted to thank you for the wonderful read and the smarts I acquired. Cheers, 76.10.141.10 ( talk) 15:59, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Giano, I am now formally reporting to you User:Philip Baird Shearer for WP:edit warring and abuse of Admin powers on List of massacres. ( Sarah777 ( talk) 18:39, 23 December 2007 (UTC))
You violated the 3RR on Wikipedia:IRC channels/wikipedia-en-admins. Continuing to edit war may result in a block. David Fuchs ( talk) 22:35, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
I seem to find myself blocked. Never mind, I am quite sure that Wikipedians are quite used to seeing me threatened and blocked for making them aware of what is going on. In short, a non admin in the #admins channel two days ago harassed, insulted and intimidated a female admin in that same channel. What he was doing there I have no idea. When I pointed out his behaviour was unacceptable it was unceremoniously removed [156] and the usual crowd of "men" from IRC accused me of personal attack [157] attempts to then mention that such behaviour exists in the Admins' private channel has too been reverted by admins [158] Finally, I stopped attempting to report fact after Jimbo interfered [159]. Now I am blocked [160] for adding a truthful codicil to Jimbo's statement and the truth once again is removed.
If any of you reading this are being discussed by Admins in #Admins, do you wish to have those Admins hectored and insulted by Tony Sidaway if they do not agree with his point of view? Do you want your admins to sit silently and listen to a female Admin being called a "bastard bitch from hell" and an "Arsehole" until she leaves the channel. As Tony (a non-admin) says on IRC in his own words "this is an admin channel and often admins are talking about problem users" - funny that isn't it? Merry Christmas to you all. Giano ( talk) 23:04, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Giano was blocked for a whole ONE HOUR for edit warring (not be me), not for comments about en-admins. Let's not make this more dramatic than it is. Were there unacceptable comments in #admins? Yes. Was editorialising and making comments on a particular case in an wikipedia essay and then edit warring the way to highlight it? NO. Please can we seperate the issues out. -- Docg 23:13, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Giano, please don't engage in conspiracy theories. "They are obviously very concerned" - who's 'they'? And about what? Since I'm included in they "they" I guess, let me be clear. Yes, I'm concerned. I'm concerned about incivility in #admins - people should not have impunity to be incivil there (just as they should not have it on wikipedia either). But I also reject your methods. I reverted you on the essay page because your method was inappropriate NOT because the concerns expressed should be silenced. Indeed I've done nothing this evening other than raise those same concerns via private communications to various parties. This is not a black and white, them against us, guys in white hats versus the evil cabal, issue. It is possible to take your concerns seriously whilst rejecting your methods (indeed your methods only serve to increase the noise, not the communication).-- Docg 23:28, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
I extended your block to 24 hours, because it's clear that a one-hour block isn't solving this problem. -- Core desat 23:31, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Interesting coincidence that at the same time Giano is blocked for this, and Tony appears to have gotten a short "cooldown" from #-admins, Willbeback has proposed that the proposed "private correspondence" policy should be approved because he perceives it to be accepted by the community. Risker ( talk) 23:42, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
I have unblocked you. The block was unhelpful. Now let's try to decrease conflict and find real solutions.--
Docg 23:42, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Giano remains autoblocked, could somebody please release him? The new autoblock thingy is a total mystery to me. (Is it supposed to be an "upgrade"? Grrr.) Bishonen | talk 23:55, 23 December 2007 (UTC).
The very best of the season to you and yours, Giano...and the same greetings to anyone else who happens to stumble on this page over the coming days. My goodness this seems to be a popular place, you might want to consider setting up a little bar over in the corner, my friend! Risker ( talk) 23:58, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Merry Christmas, Giano! I see from the above you've been celebrating Festivus! I hope you have a happy holiday and a happy new year! Sincerely, Ripberger ( talk) 00:56, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
Can't this page ever stay clean for more than 20 minutes? Merry Xmas, by which I mean something horrible that deserves a good blocking. sNkrSnee | ¿qué? 02:56, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
I've been convinced through discussion that I was a little hard on you in reverting your earlier personal attacks on my talk page, and that the language I myself used was grossly inappropriate and tantamount to a personal attack. I apologise sincerely for that lapse. Your attacks were baseless, hurtful and untrue, but I should have ignored them or responded to them in a less provocative fashion. -- Tony Sidaway 02:17, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
Unsupported, Tony? And where is an attack? Onwiki, I suppose? Cause I have not seen one and I checked the diffs. This is a noce thing, Tony, of speaking onwiki. -- Irpen 03:32, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
Most importantly, Giano had guts to say things in the open and what he said was not improper in any way. Tony, however, says things in secret forums and then tries to write policies that would give him impunity to continue doing so and removed the totally warranted posts as "trolling". This is devious and very ungentlemanly. -- Irpen 02:55, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
You want I "present evidence", is it, Tony? OK, but please be aware that you're the only one who's obsessed with this. I did not bring it up again, you did. I have now suggested several different kinds of evidence on your page, since you insist. Good ones, though me e-mailing you isn't one of them. I simply don't want to have e-mail contact with people who speak to me the way you do. Keep it public, please. Bishonen | talk 10:54, 24 December 2007 (UTC).
<sigh> <sigh> <sigh>... (See Doc's talk page history). This sighing is infectious. I've never been so simultaneously tempted to try out IRC and to avoid it like the plague. Carcharoth ( talk) 13:37, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
Do you know anything about his original St Paul's, Covent Garden? Specifically I'm wondering whether the clock had any decoration or whether Hogarth has added it to this image to make a point. Yomangani talk 00:50, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
I have found an architectural drawing that show a boxy clock protruding with sculpture above - [2] - and another with very different detailing - [3]. New images will be arriving shortly. -- ALoan (Talk) 10:04, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Hi Giano. I'm a long-time lurker on this site, usually just reading about things that interest me and fixing minor typos and such. I came upon an article ( Wounded Knee incident) that I really think needs a complete re-write and I would appreciate your advice on how to go about it. I've noticed that you often do a lot of writing on one of your subpages and then put the article in the main space. To fix this page, should I copy and paste the Wounded Knee incident page into a subpage under my name where I can work on it at my leisure? I would then re-write it completely, fixing all the citations and such. Would I then copy and paste it back into the mainspace article or how does that work? I also don't want to get into an editing war with previous editors of that page, so should I announce my intentions on the talk page first? Any advice you can give me would be appreciated. -- SGT Tex 18:31, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Your recent edit to Arbuthnot ( diff) was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to recognize and repair vandalism to Wikipedia articles. If the bot reverted a legitimate edit, please accept my humble creator's apologies – if you bring it to the attention of the bot's owner, we may be able to improve its behavior. Click here for frequently asked questions about the bot and this warning. // MartinBot 18:40, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
The Featured Article Medal | ||
I was pleased to see that another article you are the primary contributor to has been on the main page as today's featured article. Good job. MONGO 21:22, 2 June 2007 (UTC) |
Thanks Mongo, and a present from Doc - how kind I love.....choke, splutter cough....... Giano 13:22, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the help with " Eyes of the Insane", which is much appreciated. I'm going to have to read up on key changes etc. and brush up my skills in that department. LuciferMorgan 08:32, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Thought this might interest you if you haven't seen it- it was built by George Keith, 5th Earl Marischal for whom I just made an article (someone who was actually notable). Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 15:18, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
I have dug out my (very old) matriculation documents and it appears you may be correct in that upon application I could have made an application years later for an automatic MA, a sort of upgrading of the BA upgraded. Either I had forgotten that or I am just getting old and demented. I telephoned my brother who was at Baliol and he said "of course, you know that!" But I don't remember that at all, I'm afraid. So my full and profuse apologies to you. I had returned 12 years after graduating and studied for a MA in a different subject. I had to apply for acceptance and all my work was assessed. Maybe I am confused. I don't mean to be abrasive but I don't think the internet is the most brilliant form of communication and people's comments often appear very aggressive and rude. One responds accordingly, although one should not. Regards, David Lauder 07:52, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
(Crossposted to assorted "people I've run into and whose opinions I respect")
I realise it's totally outside your field, but if you get the chance could you take a look at the article on Broadwater Farm I've recently created? I do think it deserves it's own article - yes, it might be most famous for events that happened 22 years ago, but having it as a redirect to Broadwater Farm riot seems to me as ludicrous as redirecting Germany to World War II or Northern Ireland to IRA. However, now I've set up incoming links it's likely to be a beacon for POV-pushing, so I'd like to get opinions on (a) what a NPOV will be on something like this where the two POVs are likely to be diametric opposites, (b) whether you think it can/will ever be stable (and whether it's worth trying to keep stable) and (c) how much of a focus ought to be on the riots as opposed to the place itself. If any of you feel the urge I'd also appreciate anyone who feels able/willing putting it on their watchlists, as I suspect it's going to be heavily vandalised & spammed — iridescenti (talk to me!) 00:04, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Funny how there has been a steady stream of "Keeps" on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Arbuthnot, 6th Viscount of Arbuthnott since 14, 5 June 2007 when User:Kittybrewster posted a little note at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Peerage#AfD_of_peer. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 15:53, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
This messege here is canvassing per WP:CANVAS because the messege is notneutral since he shows his view that "it is notable". Now this guy has had many warnings for canvassing but now that be blanks his page no admin can see the previous warnings. Now I for one think that if an editor chooses to blank/hide his history then they should already be treated with suspicion and especially if they have already recieved warnings. What course of action should/can be taken!?-- Vintagekits 16:20, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
"Merging is sensible" Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Arbuthnot, 6th Viscount of Arbuthnott. I presume therefore this applies equally to all other aristocrats where the only only notable thing on them is something about undercharging rent on the family estate (or equivalent). Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 21:25, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
You are trolling for a block. Stop it, now. Get a sense of proportion. There are other battles to fight. This is old. Moreschi Talk 11:08, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
Please try to maintain civility, and please do not make comments that could be viewed as personal attacks. To avoid any confusion, I am referring to these edits: "Many users do not comport themselves in a collegial manner...", "Kelly Martin is not an admin, having given up her adminship voluntarily 'under a cloud'...", "while many admins use it responsibly others do not...", "the channel is regarded by some editors as the Lubyanka of Wikipedia...". Further, this could easily be regarded as a snide attack against David Gerard, even if that is not what you intended. And this could easily be regarded as a sarcastic aside against Kelly Martin, even if that is not what you intended. We must be sensitive to how others will perceive what we say, even if we are commenting in good faith. -- bainer ( talk) 13:10, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
Giano, could you please back off on this page for a day or two to defuse any unnecessary unhappiness on a fine Saturday morning/afternoon. I will try later today to add a couple of sentences to the article which try to address the substance of your concerns without getting into personalities. Newyorkbrad 13:43, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
Given this edit, I have blocked you for 24 hours in order to prevent further instances of incivility. I suggest you make the most of this time in planning how you will cooperate with Brad and others who have offered their help in documenting the issues you have identified in a civil fashion. -- bainer ( talk) 14:40, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
What the hell? That "incivil" statement is simply true, unless you want to maintain that she's not one of the few, that there are many others? How common is it, exactly? Or is it a dirty secret the revelation of which is "incivil?" Nonsense! Unblocking. Have you posted on AN/ or AN/I IN ADVANCE? Did you just decide to do this because you had nothing to do? Did you get prompted? This is ridiculous. Geogre 14:51, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
Er, where's the incivility?
Giano referred to Martin by her first name, a familiarity that I thought was indulged in only by fans of Elvis Presley. It strikes me as distinctly odd, but not incivil. He makes a clear, factual statement and provides a reference for it. The reference seems to support what he says about Martin, though it says nothing about its alleged uniqueness. I don't know -- Is he incivil in having ignored some "consensus" somewhere? Or is it incivil (uncivil?) thanks to being egregiously trivial, or something? (Yes, really, Giano, I wonder why you give a [incivil word deleted] about boring issues like this when you could instead be enlightening and entertaining us all with architecture 'n' stuff. Leave trivia to boring people!)
Giano, I do have to say that while I've never yet had an epileptic fit or any hint of one, your [incivil word deleted] colibrì drives me nuts. Could it be this that drives otherwise reasonable people to flip their lids and imagine "incivility" in your writing? -- Hoary 15:00, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
Christ Giano, find something better to do. You can't honestly use the same defense of "I was baited into it" yet again, because you clearly weren't baited into anything here — you brought it upon yourself through unnecessary, trolling edits to the #admins channel wiki page. -- Cyde Weys 15:31, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
I realise I have probably doomed myself, but I've protected the page to try and make people discuss changes on the talk page. You know, like we're supposed to. I will not be happy with anyone who edits it while it's protected. Neil ╦ 20:16, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
Hi Giano,
We haven't really talked before so first of all I'd like to say that I'm pleased to meet you (although it probably would've been better to do this in other circumstances). Now on to the issue...
to my understanding, the en-admins page is basically meant for people to know what the channel is used for and to grant\remove access, it isn't supposed to be an official page showing both POV's (pro and against IRC) and it's not an article, maybe it's better placed in meta or off-wiki. I'm not necessarily saying that you're wrong, just that the issue with IRC needs to be resolved in a different way, and editing this article won't do much to affect the current situation. By the way, people avoid discussing blocks in the channel as much as possible anyway, and are not supposed to use it as the reason for a block and if they do, they get fucked anyway (and no, there was no discussion prior to your block nor did anyone suggest to block you). The channel has some disadvantages but it certainly has benefits as well, it's not the pure evil dragon's lair you make it out to be and TBH, it's better to have a big discussion with a lot of admins rather than having an admin going to his like-minded admin friend on messenger for advice, when he knows he'll get the answer he's interested in (and yes, this is what goes on in a different language wikipedia). Yonatan talk 21:17, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
Please do not attack other editors. If you continue, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia.
Giano, why did you follow up this borderline uncivil comment with this clear insinuation that this editor has mental health problems? Please refrain from making personal attacks on Wikipedia; comments on an editor's opinions or the edits that they have made, do not comment on them personally. -- bainer ( talk) 00:56, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
This edit to a protected page [12] just about sums up the IRCadmins channel and the way Wikipedia is run completely. What a dump. I bet David Gerard has no objection to it staying locked. Why not just write the whole bloody encyclopedia on IRC, it can be truly how he and his friends want it then. Giano 08:24, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
The core problem of Wikipedia is the inherent division between mainspace and talkspace. People interested in talking are sooner or later absorbed into off-wiki channels of communication. People interested in editing start to suspect them of engaging in some unseemly activities. People interested in talking suggest the latter join them in those off-wiki channels. Those who join IRC have no time left for mainspace editing, so they lose interest in mainspace. Those who don't join IRC will still suspect that something inappropriate is going on behind the scenes. This division of editors has always been present, but it's getting more and more pronounced as time flies by. I don't have a ready remedy to heal these wounds, except, as Kelly Martin suggested, barring mainspace editors from posting their comments in admin space :) In short, this is a very ancient problem that can't be resolved in an hour or two. Either IRC is part of Wikipedia and then its logs are open to discussion and arbitration, or IRC is not part of Wikipedia and there should be no pages pointing from Wikipedia to IRC. But, in fact, the links are everywhere. Even at the top of WP:RD/H, for crying out loud. -- Ghirla -трёп- 15:39, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
#wikipedia-en-admins should be renamed to #wikipedia-en-backstabbers-club -- I have tons of logs where multiple users have been attacked, the channel is a disgrace. Ironically the channel is full of non-admins, haha. Matthew 17:53, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
When making accusations, please try to be very specific about who you are talking about and provide evidence when doing so. This sort [17] of widely aimed insulting accusation is inappropriate for Wikipedia. Don't just call a large group of people dishonest and untrustworthy without backing it up or even making it clear who you are talking about. This is not the first civility issue I have noticed with you, if you cannot make your point without tossing around insults, perhaps you need to rethink your point. (H) 19:52, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
I am only asking that you follow the policy that enjoys consensus on Wikipedia. I am not engaging in any sort of coordinated attack against you, I am asking you to stop insulting people and argue based on the value of your logic and reason. (H) 20:20, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
You are seeing enemies where there are none. Frankly you are being rude, I am going to stop responding to you for now, but continued incivility and personal attacks can be considered disruptive to Wikipedia. (H) 20:24, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
I have protected WP:WEA due to your silly edit war. I am now off to irc to see if I can persuade the cabal to block you. Guy ( Help!) 20:54, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
Giano, you're a damn good contributor to articles. I enjoy reading your work. You're a skilled writer, and I appreciate the fact that you participate in the project.
I would like to suggest that you consider the possibility that you have become overly fixated on the meta-process of how Wikipedia is run, in particular the notion that there is persecution on the part of the administrators. We are far too busy to persecute anyone; like you, we are volunteers who do this out of the goodness of our hearts and the desire to share our knowledge and wordcraft.
You have ignored your article on Mario Bianchi di Ciampino for three days.. and for what? Your article on Exploding Houses has been untouched for weeks... and for what? Anger, bitterness, spite?
I would like to quote Lord Byron. "Hatred is by far the longest pleasure," Giano, and you seem to be getting quite a lot of emotional satisfaction from the antipathy you are continually expressing. I would like to suggest to you that you let go of this antipathy; it may feel satisfying, but it is ultimately hollow. In the long run, even a few months from now, people will care about the articles. They will not care about the arguments, the bitterness, the exposes of sinister corruption and cabalism and conspiracy and crime and crookedness. The energy that you have put into your complaints about the fact that administrators talk to each other on IRC, could have been spent on improving articles. That is what people read. That is what people come to Wikipedia for. To read the articles, not to read about the petty, ultimately worthless disputes.
We are not your opponents, Giano. Really. We're not your enemies, your foes, your rivals, your nemeses, or your adversaries.
I want you to write articles, to add new and interesting facts to articles, to rewrite sentences for elegance. Because you're good at it. Because you'll feel better about yourself when you've done it. Because it's what we need, and it's what you need too. DS 21:31, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
There are a half dozen conspiracy theories swirling about this incident, each one more bizarre than the last. Karl Marx said that history occurs twice, "the first time as tragedy, the second as farce." I think we're into the farce stage on this one. Jayjg (talk) 02:32, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Just another day, for #admins suppressing the truth on Wikipedia. They really should just write the whole encyclopedia there in secret, and save us all the trouble. Just imagine the new and interesting slants and angles they could pur on everything.
I love the last summary "that's enough edit warring, Giano" If they would just allow my comment to stand there would be no warring at all. Sadly #admins want the last word recording their version and then just to archive - perhaps their world does indeed work like that. It certainly seems to here. Giano 06:55, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Wallis, The Duchess of Windsor, I have removed "maitresse en titre". I have chosen not to include the "Singapore clinch": it is outside my area of expertise. :) DrKiernan 06:58, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Chat, please? Bishonen | talk 12:56, 19 June 2007 (UTC).
I have been encouraged over the last few hours by many emails. It is good to know that not everyone seems to think I am just stirring up trouble for the sheer love of it. However what is sad is that apart from the usual few no one seems brave enough to speak out. Personally, I don't see how an encyclopedia can go forward to be something great when it is ruled by just a few who seldom edit - James F, Tony Sidaway, Kelly, and several others.. you all know the names you don't need me to list them here. These few martial vast armies of little admins (who also seldom edit) to block and hinder anyone who rocks the boat. They hate anyone who contributes at a high level and dares to voice an opinion of how the place should be run - in this way the good editors driven off. Its a form of self preservation I suppose - they appear intelligent by comparison with what is left. Power and an editing intellect are not allowed to go together on Wikipedia. Sad for the future and sad for us all, but I am one of those people who always has to say what is on my mind and I think the management of Wikipedia stinks to hell and Jimbo should be a man and take some serious action to save his own project - the problem is I'm not sure how much a man/leader Jimbo is anymore. He seems content to watch his project consumed by mediocrities. Obviously, at present I have fundamental problems with Wikipedia and don't want to donate too much more of my time any more until things change for the better. Giano 20:52, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
But you're not donating any of it any more, are you ... :-( Please come back. Wiki needs you and I miss you. Bishonen | talk 15:32, 23 June 2007 (UTC). P.S. Bishonen | talk 08:12, 24 June 2007 (UTC).
Giano, your contributions are too valuable to lose and I encourage you to return when you feel like it...which is soon I hope.-- MONGO 09:04, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
Giano you are one of the best contributers to our encyclopedia that I have met. I am sorry for your troubles and hope you will return. Paul August ☎ 18:00, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
Hopefully you come back soon, Giano. Wikipedia needs more editors like you, not less. SirFozzie 22:27, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
I know how you feel. 'Odi et amo ... excrucior. Sigh. -- ALoan (Talk) 11:21, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
OK, I've nominated your Hanna on WP:FAC and there's not a thing you can do about it. Won't you come and shepherd her through it? Please? Bishonen | talk 18:37, 25 June 2007 (UTC).
Thanks for the input. I have replied on Wetman's page. The only thing that I find irritating is that Wetman decided to insult my intelligence rather than just arguing calmly. I may not be an expert on architecture, but I have heard the term balustrade being used in the context I cited, so I checked dictionaries to see if I was correct (again, admitting that I don't know everything). I found that the dictionaries backed up the defintion I'd heard, and I updated the article based on that as the current information was uncited.-- Jcvamp 22:27, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
I am aware that banisters aren't the handrails, nor the whole assembly of handrail and balusters, but the term is often used in that way. I had originally said that this was erroneous in my explanation (see my first revision), but as there were citations suggesting otherwise, I thought this may have been seen as POV.
I still think that it's worth mentioning that this use is common, albeit erroneous.-- Jcvamp 22:43, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
Hi Giano, there are quite a few decent pictures of houses in Essex which have possibly been destroyed on this webpage http://www.antiquemapsandprints.com/scans/scans125.htm - one which I know was demolished is Weald Hall, (knocked down in 1946 after war damage)- the home of Hugh Smith, ancestor of the Earls of Derby. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 19:12, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
Hi Giano. Could you please add some more information on Image:2-002563seacliff.jpg, i.e. where you got it from, and when exactly it was taken? If you can find out the source, we might be able to strengthen the PD claim (if it was done by a Dunedin City employee (or by someone in the health services as such), we'd likely be in the clear. PS: my apologies for our earlier spat. MadMaxDog 22:49, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
Hi Giano, the picture Image:BakstCarabosse.jpg you have updated is really smart. It's from the great Leon Bakst and depicts beautifully the wicked Carabosse. I unfortunately can not use it to illustrate my article fr:Fée Carabosse because the license doesn't allow it (unlike other works by Leon Bask). I'm a bit desappointed because I can not find any other relevant image on commons and because I like this one so much. Would it be possible to use a license that fits wikipedia versions in other languages ? Thanks aforehand for your help. Best regards. -- Jibi44 20:27, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
I believe that I have addressed all of the concerns you raised for Mary Martha Sherwood. I have also copy edited the article two more times. Please indicate on the the FAC review whether or not it has your support yet. Thanks. Awadewit | talk 21:59, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
Could you tell me in a nutshell what this page is about? I'm searching for information about Borri the Alchemist and Bandiera the Astrologist who entertained Christina of Sweden in Hamburg, while she expected in dismay some bad news from the papal conclave. They both seem to be mentioned in Italian Wikipedia, no? -- Ghirla -трёп- 22:04, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
Another day another Giano FA on the Main Page ... Paul August ☎ 05:54, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Hi. It looks like you missed my comment about the minnow/brook Talmud lines in the FAC. My question is, if the Chronicle wrote 2 lines, why are you giving 3? And why 2 only slightly different translations? -- AnonEMouse (squeak) 13:13, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading Image:2-002563seacliff.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.
As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{ GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{ non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.
If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 17:14, 3 July 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. howcheng { chat} 17:14, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
I have responded to your remark on my talk page on Talk:West Wycombe Park. Greenshed 22:29, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Honey, are you sure you want User:Giano/Exploding Houses to stay deleted? It seems so sad! :-( Bishonen | talk 11:38, 4 July 2007 (UTC).
Giacomo, help! Bishonen | talk 09:47, 7 July 2007 (UTC).
It appears that the "fact" that Chamberlain was bastard son of Henry Fane was an assumption made by a certain person from the statement in this file [31] that Vere Fane wrote to his half brother Henry Chamberlain. Chamberlain is also mentioned with the Fanes in this file [32]. Do you think this is enough evidence for us to state as fact the Chamberlain was Fane's illegitimate son? Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 16:34, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
[34] - Do we really want notes in the footnotes which discredit the claims in the article? Why not remove the claim till proven? Corvus cornix 18:14, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
I would like to place my opinion about what is going on with the Barbaro page. I have the Zorzi book on Venetian villas and it clears talks about Venetian nicknames and the H.H. and N.D. titles of Venetians. I also know that what you wrote now is not fully correct. Only the San Vidal branch became extict, the Calabrian branch with the silk is still up and fine and they also stil have the N.H. title so they are still Venetian. Also, for what it is worth, Vitus is a real guy. He was at the Pebble Beach Concours Car Show in California in 2002 with the Heads of Bentley design. I'm sorry, this is where I saw Vitus at Pebble Beach Concours d'Elegance Thost 02:07, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Oh, One last comment. I don't understand your point about bringing in the whole Grimaldi family tree. What does that have to do with anything. Barbaros are Barbaros and Grimaldis are Grimaldis. More over there are two different Albergos. One is Venetian and one Genovese. The two families are "tied" not related. One Albergo is saying will make the silk and will let the other Albergo ship it. That is what the original article was saying. Albergos are not just in Genoa. The page you listed about the Grimaldi family was just dicussing what their particular Albergo was the 28 or whatever familes. The Barbaros have their own different one. I think you are messing up a very complex history. It also seems like the sources you are using now are out of date- there is more current scholarship on the topic since those books were written- just my thoughts. Thost 02:20, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Excuse me Gustav, I noticed you added a statement about San Francesco della Vigna being the family's first church, that statement is not really written appropriately. The Barbaro family was only associated to it beacuse they married into the Giustinian family. It was officially a Observant Franciscans church built for the Badoer-Giustinian family. In comparison to Santa Maria Zobenigo which the Barbaro family paid for and has several memebers of the family carved on the front of. Zobenigo church also has the Barbaro family arms on the front too. What you did now is place a minor tidbit that over-shaddows their true family church. You are not writting this history in accordance with the true soul and spirit of the family. You are just patching together tid-bit facts that are really minor and even inconsequential to the bigger picture of this family. I don't think you really understand what this family was really about very well. You should look at www.savevenice.com clearly states the church as a Badoer-Giustinian church. Just piecing together tid-bits of facts don't make for good Wikipedia articles.
EXCUSE ME
I am very aware of that stupid salt reference that you found with an onlin search- it was proven to be a mistake with the Barbarigo family which is unconnected. I would like the full source for that. i know what you are doing now is complete bull. You are using bullshit sources.
You can not try to base your information about the "gondola days" exhbition without sighting it. Vey sneaky giano. Moreover you just told a lie. THE CURTIS FAMILY NEVER OWNED VILLA BARBARO,_THEY NEVER HAD A SUMMER RETREAT AT VILLA BARBARO You are a liar Giano. Give it up you are out of you league with your bogus research. The person that created the true Barbaro article was a serious, serious historian that used sources from real research libraries, not your desperate online searches- complete bogus article. When you are done I will flag this whole thing to be deleted from known inaccuracies and bogus sources used!!!!!
This is nothing more than ego and vanity on your part- you can not do a better job than what was the original article. You want to help. Return the article the way it should be and blank the talk page and we are done. There is nothing wrong with that original article. Untill justice is done to this family-no will have peace. I will not let some jerk hoaker and some novice historian ruin the true Barbaro history. You want to have peace than do what is right, or be prepared for a never ending battle until justice is done. I will come to this page everyday to check and flag everyday till is need I will email Wikipedia to complain about what you have done every morning. IT WILL NEVER END UNTILL ALL OF THE ASSHOLES THAT RUINED THIS PAGE GET WHAT THEY DESERVE !!!!!
Substantiate that the Barbaro family were deans and professors of the University of Padua, What source are you using for that claim!
GIANO IS TRYING TO COVER UP HIS LACK OF AUTHORITY ON THE TOPIC BY REDIRECTING. HE IS OUT OF HIS LEAGUE ON THIS TOPIC AND REFUSES TO RETURN THE PROPER ARTICLE BECAUSE HIS EGO AND VANITY WILL NOT ALLOW HIM TO. HE KNOWS WHAT THE RIGHT THING TO DO IS. THIS WILL NEVER END UNTILL JUSTICE IS DONE. THE FIRST THING I WILL DO EVERY MORNING IS EMAIL WIKIPEDIA ABOUT YOUR INABILITIES AND PROBLEMS YOU HAVE MADE ON THIS PAGE. YOU WANT THIS TO END, THAN STOP BEING ON AN EGO TRIP AND RETURN THE PROPER ARTICLE!!!!!
I can tell how much fun you and your new friend were having, but I'm afraid I had to block him. Bishonen | talk 09:45, 10 July 2007 (UTC).
Hello! In September 2005 you indicated your desire to be notified if and when I was nominated for bureaucratship again. As per your comment, I'm letting you know that I'm up for bureaucratship for the third and final time at Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship/Andrevan3, and your opinion would be welcome. It has been a while, so if you're no longer interested, I apologize and understand. Cheers, Andre ( talk) 22:07, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
I JUST WANTED TO SAY
I THINK GIANO IS A FINE EDITOR.
HE WRITES A LOT OF GOOD FEATURED ARTICLES.
Raul654 15:56, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Ah, I've gone red all over Giano 16:54, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Wow! The Rambling Man 16:55, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Instead of destroying the original article, why don't you just flag the original article for in need of citations. Then the public is made aware and citations can also be added- that sound fair to me. Clearly, those sources are real with ISBN's and the info I was able to look into is true. I think if people are so heated about this matter, than clearly they must feel that what has happened is not right.
When you have calmed down, check the history page. I was not the one to revert you, I was asked to look at what remained of the page and sort something out that was reliable. This, with others, I have done. That you do not like it is your problem not mine. Now please stop this silly behaviour before you are banned agin. Giano 18:51, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Per your non-request. ;) Peace. Lsi john 19:52, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
..even when you weren't here.. I awared Thee (King of America)...
Left over cake.
Marie had some extra. Peace.
Lsi
john 22:32, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
(Fortunately, spelling in edit comments doesn't count). Peace. Lsi john 22:34, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Hey Giano, If you think that the article wasn't legit- did you ever look at history number 02:55, 10 June 2007- I emailed the poor guy who was working hard on it and told him that he didn't have to put all the footnotes in. The dude already cited everything and just had to finnish it by placing the footnotes at the end. I caught him just in time! I knew the guy who was worlking on it. He is a professional historian.I can't stand those Barbaros (posted anonymously by User: 65.54.97.190)
Looking at recent "activity" on your talk page, would you perhaps want it semiprotected for a short while?— Ryūlóng ( 竜龍) 23:38, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks in part to your support, I am Wikipedia's newest bureaucrat. I will do my best to live up to your confidence and kind words. Andre ( talk) 09:33, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
More work of our friend here [38], also possible things on Special:Contributions/65.54.155.48 that need checking. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 11:03, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Don't know if you might be interested in this Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/William Bruce (architect) - I know nothing about the subject and won't be commenting, but I'm sure it in your oeuvre? -- Joopercoopers 14:28, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Feel free to hate the admin IRC channel, but pushing your opinions about it on Wikipedia:IRC channels/wikipedia-en-admins is stepping over the line. Please stop making the same edits repeatedly. EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:36, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
The edit warring was unhelpful. But, there's no reason that pro-chat-room opinions belong on the page any more or less than anti-chat-room opinions belong there. It's project space, and the feelings toward IRC in the project are mixed. The page should reflect this. Friday (talk) 21:43, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
I have blocked you for 3 hours for edit warring on Wikipedia:IRC channels/wikipedia-en-admins. Please, find some other way to express yourself. Friday (talk) 21:48, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Hi - Just thought I'd drop by and see if there's any particular problems with WP:WBFAN you might want to talk about. As I mentioned on Sandy Georgia's talk page I created this mainly to provide a spot for the overly competitive types to compete that might actually help the 'pedia (unlike, say, edit counting). If there's anything there you find annoying or unjust or plain inaccurate, please let me know. At this point the page is automatically generated roughly daily from the source lists at (for example) Wikipedia:Featured articles nominated in 2007, which are not quite automatically generated from the monthly FAC log files (and can certainly be fixed directly). -- Rick Block ( talk) 04:13, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Please see my comments here Raul654 21:23, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Could you have a look at Willen. The church is English Baroque but not sure if it is appropriate to put whole article into that category. Your call. -- Concrete Cowboy 12:20, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Nice to see you back Giano, it's awfully quiet without you. I expect you've been busy with the horses or something. -- Joopercoopers 16:13, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Connell66 has smiled at you! Smiles promote
WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{
subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Giano do you know if there is particular style of "German" Baroque as a number of German palaces are described as "Baroque" but the style seems often quite different from those in England, Italy or France i.e. Ludwigsburg Palace, New Palace (Potsdam), Schleissheim_Palace#New_Schleissheim_Palace, Schönhausen Palace, Palais Porcia, Palais Preysing, Charlottenburg Palace, Dachau Palace. None of these are in the Baroque Architecture category. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 10:43, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
To anybody watching - here is a nice page languishing on FAC for (ten days or so) [46] I think it is OK, others perhaps will not, either way someone has taken the trouble to write it, they are proud of it - so please someone who looks at my talk page go and have a look and make a comment. It is very disparaging to write a a page, especially a FA and have hardly any comment and the VC of NZ is a very worthwhile topic - and No I do not beleive I have ever communicated with the author. Giano 20:32, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for shovelling out the kitty-litter. (I wonder if it might be somehow related to this.) -- Hoary 03:38, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
but I need your help. There's a discussion about, well, Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_July_29#Category:Men_with_unusually_large_penis I'm trying to give an example who isn't a modern pornographic actor, and vaguely remember someone, hopefully you, probably chatting with Bishonen, referring to an article about an early twentieth century society man ... ladies man ... gigolo ... known for such unusual dimensions. Do you remember the reference? -- AnonEMouse (squeak) 14:46, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
To answer AnonEmouse's question, Milton Berle was reknowned for having a large penis. Supposedly, at the gentlemen's club, people would challenge him to contests, and he'd win ever time. Raul654 19:47, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
"Probably chatting with"... who?? I note that not one of you "courageous" gentlemen has had the temerity to broach this so-called subject on the lovely little Mrs Bishonen's own page. At least I assume you haven't, since none of you mention missing any of what my dear departed husband used to refer to as your "vital bits". I don't doubt that she would have relieved you of them if you'd brought your indecencies to her chaste page. A woman of action! Catherine de Bourgh (Lady) 14:21, 2 August 2007 (UTC).
Giano, I've never heard of this brilliantly realized neoclassical dream, the Cisternone di Livorno or heard of Pasquale Poccianti, its architect, until I saw this somewhat bitter image Image:Caos davanti al Cisternone di Livorno.JPG. A translation for Wikipedia? -- Wetman 03:31, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
Debate has been restarted at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Chicago Board of Trade Building and your voice has not been heard.-- TonyTheTiger ( t/ c/ bio/ tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 06:14, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
Hey. Are you fluent in Sicilian? El_C 22:08, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
I was cruising through recently uploaded images—have you looked at the |excellent WikiCommons images of Palladian villas by H.A.R.?— and a good one looked as if it would be filed forever, like the Ark of the Covenant at the end of Indiana Jones. Thus the article. It could use some knowledgable vetting and tweaking. -- Wetman 21:13, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your support. -- Joopercoopers 10:55, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
In an effort to improve my (woefull) Italian, and as a spin off from Parchin kari (Moghul Pietre dure) I'm trying to translate the Opificio delle pietre dure from the it.wiki. In the phrase "Si realizzarono così opere d'arte di straordinario valore, dai mobili a oggetti vari, fino a copie perfette di pitture da appendere, che oggi arrichiscono i musei di tutto il mondo testimoniando la genialità e la tecnica degli artigiani fiorentini" - how would you translate "dai mobili a oggetti vari"? from funiture to all sorts of objects? I'm also stuck on "arrichiscono" is it something like "consensus" - "Today all the museums of the world attest to the genius and skill of the Florentine craftsmen."? -- Joopercoopers 12:58, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
No! - "Today enriching the museums of the world with the skills and genius of the Florentine artisans." is how I would phrase it. It is a spelling mistake for "arricchiscono" a conjugation of the verb "arricchire" meaning to enrich. Translating is easy if you just write out the literal meanings and then rewrite the whole thing in your own words but keeping the general meaning - as often a tense or verb used in Italian sounds completely wromg when literally translated.
"mobili a oggetti vari" means "furniture and multiple other pieces" you could substitute "various other objects d'art" - but objects d'art is a little naff and sounds like a doily or serviette. "varying other objects" does not sound quite right. I hate doing translations because to make the meaning sound correct in another language one often has to slightly alter the literal meaning. Hope that helps. Giano 14:55, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your help with this, couldn't have done it without you. Took me long enough though! ++ Lar: t/ c 13:53, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Hi Giano, I have just come across some of the images you have uploaded (specifically the ones in the
Belton House Article and have noticed you have saved them in the GIF format. The only problem with
GIF is that
1) They have larger file sizes than
PNG or
JPGs
2) They can only handle 255 colours, which means they have to be indexed, often making photos speckley
Therefore, I would ask next time you photograph something, save it in the JPG format, so no quality is loss. As for the existing GIF's, I am going to try and get rid of the speckles and save them as JPG's. >
Rugby471
talk ⚔ 07:05, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
I was referring to myself in that comment, that I admired your nerve, but that my opinion would not count for much. This comment was made earlier by Rockpocke t, [49] and I asked him who was being referred to. Since I supported VK, for what I believed to be an unjustified block, I’m assuming Rockpocke t, was referring to me. I thought you would have read it already and know what I was referring to. Your right though about the languge, it is a bit strong! -- Domer48 18:18, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
... you have mail - Alison ☺ 19:57, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
You seem to think Vk isn't aware of why he was blocked. That is one interpretation. The other is that he is very aware, but he knows to publically prove it Alison would have to release personal information about another editor. So, he would rather plead innocence and take advantage of the conspiracy theories that others are so keen to culture.
You should also be aware that Vk has a history of denying all wrong doing, even in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. But then again, you didn't seem to have a problem with his actions detailed at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Vintagekits either. Maybe you were also swayed by his claims of innocence then, and how he can prove it. Perhaps you were not aware, though, that Vk failed to provide the smoking gun that "can prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that these people are neither my sock or meatpuppets". After all that grandstanding and self-rightousness, he never provided any proof, despite multiple requests and an assurance he would be unblocked and offered an apology when he did so. Why? Because he didn't have any, of course.
So, if you wish to buy into his games then more fool you. I can assure you, I have interacted with Vk for long enough to have heard this line before. Rockpocke t 23:05, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading Image:NT Belton book.gif. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the " my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 00:56, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
I hope you don't mind, but I have nominated both of your excellent articles for WP:DYK. They may appear on the Main Page in the next few days, exposing them the wider audience that they so clearly deserve. -- !! ?? 19:07, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
How exciting - my DYKs very rarely get any vandalism. Your cisterns are clearly pulling in the crowds. Well done. -- !! ?? 22:14, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Is there any reason the sections at the end are called "References" and "Bibliography," instead of the usual "Notes" and "References"? Can I change the section names, and also put all the books with full publishing information into the new "References" section? Or, on second thoughts, maybe you should do the references section yourself. You know how to use that horrible thrice-detested cite template, and I don't. Bishonen | talk 19:19, 21 August 2007 (UTC).
The Arbcom proposal's being put together on his talk page so he can edit/comment prior to it being sent off to arbcom during his blocks — iridescent (talk to me!) 18:21, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
-- Andrew c [talk] 20:52, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
If you are truly trying to help there you could do worse than read up on some of his history. Sarcasm and the like are unhelpful. -- John 20:18, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Ok, Giano, now that was funny! Farce indeed - Alison ☺ 21:18, 23 August 2007 (UTC) (you're enjoying all this, aren't you?)
Alison, i hope you took note of this ? Bishonen | talk 22:21, 24 August 2007 (UTC).
I have filed Wikipedia:Request for arbitration#User:Vintagekits and you are a mentioned party, SqueakBox 21:47, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Giano, have you ever heard of any of these? -- Hoary 23:52, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Hello, Giano, I've just come across your sub-page (which is the polite way of describing it). I look forward to having the opportunity to critique it thoroughly if and when you move it to a public area. I have to say that at the moment it's just so much misapplied labour.
In the meantime, you might like to consider these points:
Have you worked out the 'Billy Wrong' reference yet? ( Billy Wright).
If you want to take the claims of a great conspiracy theory directed against Vintagekits seriously, that is, of course, your perogative. It does, as your page demonstrates, require a selective interpretaion of evidence that becomes increasingly absurd as conjecture is stacked on top of out-of-context diffs. It also requires completely ignoring one's own common sense: after all, just, perhaps, everyone else is right about the situation and you and Vintagekits are the ones out of step. But then, no-one likes admitting that they have made a mistake.
Finally, it'd be nice if you could refer to your fellow editors with a modicum of respect.-- Major Bonkers (talk) 09:40, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
How dare you remove my comment from the Vintagekits ArbCom. You are not an administrator and I insist upon it's return immediately. David Lauder 20:45, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
I must say.. I am a novice editor (more of a lurker actually, I've had this account since '04) and I came across the ArbCom with the Republicans v. the Establishment sqaubble... it really is monstrous, and from reading your responses, etc., you seem to be a fair-thinking guy who has his head screwed on right.. shame some people don't see it that way, all they see is "us and them", I suppose, and anyone attempting to be in the middle is immediately an enemy - this goes for both sides, though the baronets seem to see it that way the most.
Anyway, I'm just dropping in to congratulate you on the way you've handled yourself, and I'm going to be a much more prolific editor in the future - mostly small edits, mediation, etc., cos I'm not that much of a big writer, but I do have experience with moderation of issues.
Keep up the good work.. and let's hope the ArbCom gets somewhere! DeusExMachina 04:47, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Giano, forgive me for sticking my nose in, but I thought I should point out that your statement to ArbCom is headed "Statement by uninvolved Giano" when in fact your name is in the list of involved editors at the top. This has been commented on by User:David Lauder. Congratulations on an insightful contribution, and also on your painstaking work in User:Giano/some thoughts. Scolaire 08:37, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
I hate to air dirty laundry, but I wanted to know if this was still your opinion, as it was a year and a half ago:
"We have people of all ages editing, we do not want or need those who have an inclination or even pretension towards paedophilia. Those that state even in jest that this is their orientation should be banned permanently. Our talk pages may be public, but contact can lead to email contact and then God knows what. It's just not worth the risk. Ban them. Giano | talk 17:39, 5 February 2006 (UTC)"
I was looking at the wheel warring article and was looking at the moral panic over pedophilia userboxes. I'm divided as to what to do about self-identifying pedophiles on Wikipedia... what's your call? DeusExMachina 06:44, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for drawing attention to that copyright violation. I've rewritten it, and trimmed out some of the extraneity about his relations, but there's still an essential void at the heart of the article that I'm not really competent to remedy — it doesn't really say much about him as a performer at all. What was the nature of his acts, what styles and themes did he use? All that's there is a rather sterile list of song titles, and it's a pity. Apropos of which, my complements on your work-in-progress on the Cooper Baronets, which I quite like, even in the present rough-hewn form. (Was the choice of a sheep-dip fortune deliberate, or am I reading too much into this?) It attempts to capture the gestalt of the family, something that I'm all too painfully aware is lacking in the summaries I've written for other baronetcies. Unfortunately, my access to research libraries is in large measure curtailed right now, and so I'm generally forced to work with the London Gazette and whatever information is washed up on Google Books at present. Trying to get a really satisfying biography with only those resources is a bit like trying to extract the cow back out of the bouillon cube, alas. Choess 17:50, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. — BQZip01 — talk 06:38, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Hello. The above named arbitration case, in which you were named as a party, has opened. Please submit your evidence directly on the case page, or, if needed, submit it via email to an arbitrator or an arbitration clerk.
For the Arbitration clerk committee,
-
Penwhale |
Blast him /
Follow his steps 11:46, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Giano, in photos added to Commons, 2 September, there are numerous excellent photos of Villa Torrigiani, inside, outside, garden and grotto. (You'd have to scroll back to previous pages there to view them all). I know nothing of the place save what I glean from Georgiana Masson. Is the Villa Torrigiani interesting to you? -- Wetman 20:26, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
You're an educated man, Giacomo—do you know any more articles for my excellent new category ? It has a population of two at present. There isn't a page on Hannibal Crossing the Alps, maybe you'd like to create one ? Bishonen | talk 22:31, 5 September 2007 (UTC).
A bit tenuous, but a favourite -
The Slave Ship - Turner chucking his hat in with the abolitionists. Slavers (historical figures) crossing the atlantic. --
Joopercoopers 22:56, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
How about "crossing the Styx"? I'm sure lots of artists have had a go at various forms of that. Have a look at the article on Joachim Patinir for some commentary on his painting Landscape with Charon Crossing the Styx (see Image:Patinir3.jpg). Then you have Saint Christopher carrying the Christ Child across a river ( Image:Bosch65.jpg). And what about Moses and his gang crossing the Red Sea? Nicholas Poussin did The Crossing of the Red Sea. Carcharoth 23:03, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
How about Crossing of the Red Sea (Bronzino)? Rosselli's and Chagall's are cited in their respective articles. Would you accept The Discovery of America by Christopher Columbus? Or Landscape with the Fall of Icarus, though I suppose he didn't make it all the way across? Good luck! HG | Talk 23:23, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Hi. Maybe this is impertinent, but in my usual WP sphere of work, this kind of Category would be put into an AfD debate (e.g., due to WP:NOR.) So, I'm curious if this category is for fun, or you guys just happen to be less disputatious around here. I did contribute above, so please take this in good cheer. HG | Talk 13:31, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
I thank you very much for your heartening comments about the Taj Mahal article. I take pride in starting a drive to improve that article. In the course of working on it, I met some dedicated and creative editors. I have edited in several controversial areas and am about sick of WP's constant spiral toward the boobacracy, but those editors have proven resilient, and raised the scholarship of WP, and deserve much credit. Thanks for giving them a little. -- Nemonoman 04:06, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
As a card carrying socialist, I have to let you know that you are the first person in my entire adult life to have referring to me as "right wing". I'll cherish that, and may even put it on my user-page. Thanks! Rockpocke t 20:44, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
placing my topic on your active talk page, sorry. -- FClef (talk) 19:30, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Giano, you have now made a series of contributions to the RFA on The Troubles in which you have delivered personal insults to other editors. What exactly are you trying to achieve? -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 19:54, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Do you know anything about this Victorian architect, aside from what's on the Net? He did 33-35 Eastcheap, described as the maddest excess of Vic. Gothic (Pevsner), or, more intriguingly, as "the scream you wake upon at the end of nightmare".....Hmm. -- FClef (talk) 19:32, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Have started an article on Robert Lewis Roumieu. If you are able to contribute, please do. I will be adding significantly to it over the coming days. Cheers. -- FClef (talk) 20:04, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Hi, I rated this article as a B for the new Somerset wikiproject because the Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment says "Commonly the highest article grade that is assigned outside a more formal review process." I would suggest putting it up for Wikipedia:Good articles & I can't see any reason why it wouldn't be successful (with the possible exception of some of the comments I put on the articles talk page in Feb).— Rod talk 18:41, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
[67] Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 12:36, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Congratulations, I see this article is scheduled for 27 September, Featured Article wise. I know you were not the only person involved but you played a major role... Nice work! ++ Lar: t/ c 03:59, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Image:GladstoneandRosebery.gif - this image has been licensed under {PD-art}}. If there is no information on the date of death of the author, then there can be no certainty that he or she has been dead for more than 100 years. 196.2.106.88 09:14, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Congratulations on making the Main Page - your article is a true masterpiece. It is so nice to see two such masterful articles in succession. Bravo! -- !! ?? 09:38, 26 September 2007 (UTC).
Not sure if you saw this or not, Gianobunny: there is a question for you at
Talk:Hannah Primrose, Countess of Rosebery#Marriage section.
KillerChihuahua
?!? 20:58, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Well done Giano. Very cultured article. Blnguyen ( bananabucket) 02:02, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:GladstoneandRosebery.gif, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the image description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. 41.208.252.4 09:54, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
no problem - Preston Station is a desperate enough place for all sorts of unlikely sorts of social breakthroughs to occur! One for you: What is the name, and date if possible, of the early Renaissance free-standing triumphal arch in Naples - not the Castel Nuovo one, but the one you pass exiting the right-hand corner of the piazza in front of the station ? For Royal Entry. Thanks Johnbod 21:02, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Re: this comment - Amandajm had 9 concurrent FAC noms, which we both know is too many. Rather than scold or otherwise discourage him, I decided to let him come to the conclusion that conclusion on his own, and he did. Per his request, I've closed all his FAC noms but two (Leonardo da Vinci and Restoratation of the Sistine Chapel Frescos), which is a reasonable work load. Raul654 02:26, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Giano I've expanded this stub to include the architecture that's being referred to in the expression. I suggested that "Carpenter's Gothic" might also apply to C19 structures in New Zealand and New South Wales, a suggestion crying out for editing by you. -- Wetman 23:20, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm sure you'll want to be celebrating..... One Night In Hackney 303 09:06, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Sorry to bother you about something you'd probably rather not have to deal with, but Save venice has been making edits that bother me, although they are far outside my area of experise. Does the article Palazzi Barbaro-Dario look OK to you? The article's title yields zero Google hits, and the main reference he includes ("Palazzo Barbaro-Dario, Venice.JC-R.Net") seems to refer to a Web site that in fact has no page titled "Palazzo Barbaro-Dario" (although it does have one titled "Palazzo Dario"). Are we seeing a recrudescence of the Barbaro nonsense? (Note the IP he edited from when he forgot to log in.) Deor 23:34, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
(UTC)
"The Marchioness di San Giorgio had passed away in February, 2001, and is succeeded by her only 'son' Dr. Anthony Cremona Barbaro LL.D as the 9th Marquis di San Giorgio (St.George - unm.)." not so fast Gustav - are Maltese titles different from those of Italy which dictate "Those titles created with the provision of succession by, in addition to male heirs general, female heirs general as well, shall be borne by the ladies only until marriage, and do not entail rights to succession." - somehow I doubt it. Giano 13:52, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 19:40, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
I have excised all reference to Barbaro but I am not sure about the claim that Rawdon Brown committed suicide there. This link says he bought it in 1838 and sold it 4 years later? Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 19:53, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
You consider all my work for Wikipedia to be vandalism?- how dare you say that, after I in good faith discussed matters with you in depth, referenced sources, and believed that all of our discussions were because you and others had a real interest in Venetian topics- please stop picking on this page- when you fully know I am not a vandal- and please stop changing your position all the time. You are perpetuating lies about this page. I will not move on to any more pages for wikipedia till I know that previous work that I researched and discussed is not vandalized by perpetuating lies. Is it always like this working with Wikipedia- if it is Wikipedia will sure crash and not grow with more information- this is nonsense. My work is not vandalism- and you know that. Save venice 13:07, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
It's back; I was wondering if you could stop by and chime in with your opinion on the sources being supplied. -- Haemo 05:21, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
Sorry to disturb, but I have just noticed - you may know this already - that your talk page archives are not in your user space (i.e. subpages of User:Giano II or User talk:Giano II).
For example, User talk:Giano archive 1 is the talk page for a (non-existent) user called User:Giano archive 1, and User talk:Giano archive 2 (2005) is the talk page for a (non-existent) user called User:Giano archive 2 (2005), if you see what I mean. Perhaps they should be moved to subpages, such as User:Giano II/archive 1? -- !! ?? 22:19, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
This is getting boring, although not as boring as the List of POW camps in Italy.
Anyway, the table below explains where the original archives were, where Giano moved some too, and where they now are.
The old ones are linked to in various places and should probably be retained (or reinstated) redirects; the intermediate ones are not and probably should be deleted; and the new ones are probably the best place for them to stay going forwards.
I'm beginning to be sorry that I ever mentioned it. -- !! ?? 11:47, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Sorry to bang on about this, but the deleted pages in the first column should be undeleted and/or redirected to the corresponding pages in the last column (pace demands for publication, they all have inbound links), and the pages in the middle column should be deleted. -- !! ?? 09:24, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Usual rule is that, if someone doesn't have an article about them, they are not notable. Now that he has (and I expect it will survive), he becomes notable. Yes, I know that Wikipedia shouldn't be the arbiter of notability but it is as good a rule as any to reduce cruft. -- John Maynard Friedman 12:10, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Crumbs! Wikipedia is not quite yet at the stage where it defines notability. There are plenty of notable topics (people, pleaces, things) that are as present redlinked. -- !! ?? 12:55, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
It's great to see you adding to this gem again! Bishonen | talk 14:13, 9 October 2007 (UTC).
Roy Strong takes a large chunk of credit, I think, having organised "The Destruction of the Country House" at the V&A in 1974; perhaps he just reflected the zeitgeist. The guidebook is like gold dust.
[71] - from £30 for a scuffed copy to £76 for a good/very good one with dust jacket (!)
See also The Decline and Fall of the Country House, The Burlington Magazine, Vol. 116, No. 860 (Nov., 1974), p. 633
According to a footnote at Mereworth Castle, there were five Palladian houses in Britain based on Palladio's Villa Rotunda - Mereworth Castle itself; Nuthall Temple, Nottinghamshire [demolished]; Henbury Hall, Cheshire; Chiswick House, Greater London; and Foots Cray Place, Kent [demolished]. -- !! ?? 16:45, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
"Demolition of British country houses in the 20th century"? --
!!
?? 09:45, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
"Lost houses" does not quite cut it: lots of houses were "lost" before the 20th century. But it could be worse: Le déjeuner sur l'herbe is languishing at The Luncheon on the Grass. Ugh. -- !! ?? 13:26, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
At least the name stops you getting confused by the Picasso sculpture, or the album, I suppose... -- !! ?? 13:53, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
G, re the Welsh you might have a look in Lloyd, Thomas. The Lost Houses of Wales , this is a survey, complete with photographs of country houses in Wales demolished since c.1900 - apparently. From memory Penrhos Hall on Anglesey - now the location of Penrhos Country Park had one of the seats of Lord Stanley of Penrhos [73] [74]. It had a fire at some point before I was born, and I think was demolished in the late '70s early '80s - I've no idea of it's original architectural beauty, Anglesey is a bit of backwater, but the stanleys had a lot to do with the development of Holyhead as a port to Ireland, so it might have been noteworthy. Unfortunately I can find practically nothing about it on the interweb - Just a thought. -- Joopercoopers 16:12, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Much of the artistocracy are fond of doing that to themselves, or each other. -- !! ?? 16:40, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Ah here you go with picture too. Apparently still standing in 1972. I wonder if they sued the architects that gave them those incongrous wings...-- Joopercoopers 17:09, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Not this place? Usually called "Penrhos Court" but also, rather confusingly, sometimes " Penrhos Hall". -- !! ?? 17:56, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Giano (some way above): Yes, it is my intention to write Wikipedia's longest and most terminally boring page yet. You realize, I hope, that you are setting yourself up for competition with some truly nutball stuff. I think it's better if you limited your aspirations to the longest and most terminally boring page about architecture and urban history and design. A fine strapping young fellow such as yourself will surely have little trouble eclipsing this (which incidentally causes me to revise my understanding of the word "city"). -- Hoary 20:46, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Dropping in for coffee again - nice drawings and leads here. -- Joopercoopers 15:21, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Giano, can you take a look at San Francesco della Vigna, regarding the Caneletto painting, does campo correctly translate to field or should it be square? Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 17:14, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
- - Please Giano, there really isn't any need to remove Alison's comments, can't you just leave it? Ryan Postlethwaite 08:39, 15 October 2007 (UTC) - ::I am merely restating my own comments which unpalatable as they may be to her happen to be the truth. Giano 08:41, 15 October 2007 (UTC) - :::And she van muster all the troops she likes [76] (Hy! all on IRC - exited sqeeking sounds) Giano 08:43, 15 October 2007 (UTC) - ::::I've just got up Giano, I don't have time for IRC. There was no need to remove Alison's comment as well as re-add yours, it was just asking for trouble, just be a little more respectful to other users talk pages in the future please. Ryan Postlethwaite 08:47, 15 October 2007 (UTC) - ::Don't worry she has now removed my comment and protected her page from me - oh the joys and conveniences of having an admin's tools. I'll just carry on writing something for her to upload to Verupedia then she can have her name all over it. Giano 08:49, 15 October 2007 (UTC) - ::: Really? - Alison ❤ 08:51, 15 October 2007 (UTC) - ::::Oh get back to your chatting on IRC! Giano 08:52, 15 October 2007 (UTC) - :::::Actually there's this amazing thing called watchlists that lets you see changes on pages you like :-) -- Deskana (talk) 11:00, 15 October 2007 (UTC) - ::::::I don't think most of the IRC crowd are logged in to wikipedia long enough to need a watch list. Otherwise why would so many people I have never heard of have my page watched - I don't beleive we have met - have we? Giano 17:25, 15 October 2007 (UTC) - :::::::I don't think so, but I have Alison's page watchlisted and when your name showed up on it I checked your contributions and talk page and found this. This is something I do frequently with all the pages I have on my watchlist. Infact, I don't recall anyone ever directing a comment to me on IRC about you. -- Deskana (talk) 17:27, 15 October 2007 (UTC) - :Amazing! anyhow not to worry everything is now sacharine sweet once again in Alyson's lala land [77] Giano 17:30, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your contributions! Nishkid64 ( talk) 06:04, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Yes, that woudl be good. Essentially, I am working on the version you sent me, fixing up disambiguation links. I am also removing some, as the links are incorrect (for instance, I am sure you do not mean axis to be an album by a heavy metal band or a the Axis powers in WW2). Also, take a look at The Cantos version on Vero when you have a chance. Danny 13:33, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi again, Can you please tell me exactly where to put the new image. Thanks. Danny 14:17, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Giano, please help us be rid of the nonsense here. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 15:55, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for voting on my RFA! Although ultimately it was unsuccessful, I do appreciate the feedback. I will definitely try and increase my mainspace activity to what is hopefully satisfactory to you, and hopefully next time I will have improved enough for your support. Thanks again! -- daniel folsom 21:23, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Your offline encouragement was very helpful, as were your edits, much appreciated. ++ Lar: t/ c 23:17, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
I made a mistake. I had never seen the template before, and I am sorry for editing Quadrant (architecture). But please assume good faith. Mistakes happen, and that is no reason to jump down someone's throat. I promise it won't happen again.
Also, I am free to change my talk page however I see fit. I would appreciate it if you wouldn't bring it up again, as it seems to be a silly vendeta. Thank you. -- lifebaka ( Talk - Contribs) 19:03, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading Image:Olga Rudge.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the " my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 13:48, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
If you were to decide that the pair of pilotis apparently supporting Palazzo Giano posed an unreasonably difficult problem to the chauffeur of Lady Catherine's Isotta-Fraschini, and decided to remove one and donate it to a Worthy Cause, what would you be left with? -- Hoary 09:53, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
The above named Arbitration case has closed. The Arbitration Committee decided that [a]ny user who hereafter engages in edit-warring or disruptive editing on these or related articles may be placed on Wikipedia:Probation by any uninvolved administrator. This may include any user who was a party to this case, or any other user after a warning has been given. The Committee also decided to uplift Vintagekits' indefinite block at the same time.
The full decision can be viewed here.
For the Arbitration Committee, Daniel 08:23, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Noting your recent interest in the Credenza, perhaps you would prefer something a little more "delicate", "charming" and "coquettish"? -- !! ?? 17:57, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Giano, I love you too. But as for your comment on Tony's page, making sure he read your response to his rudeness is enough. It does not matter whether it is deleted or not by him oh his friends. I thought I better post it here first before the 3RR warning from certain quarters pops up.
Now that I said it, whoever came here to post the 3RR warning, please use the space below. But please consider not posting it. Giano knows 3RR and blocking him has always done nothing good to the project or the blocker. -- Irpen 22:43, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Giano, you may think you're in trouble, but check this: "large nasty security guys [...] along with 27,000 studeents" are after me. I'm so scared! Should we charter a plane and escape to Tristan da Cunha? -- Hoary 16:20, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Americans ... no idea of how to spend money tastefully ... Aw common Giano, admit it, you'd love to have a big pickup truck fully stocked with loaded firearms. In fact, if you are ever out this way I'll give you a ride in mine. It's not quite as special as this lil' babe, but still plenty big!
About the arbcom - I think you should run for all the regular reasons, and also to show that you don't need to be an admin for the post.
Here's a thought - if you won, do you think someone would have to vacuum the super secret arbcom mailing list archives to remove the possibly many nasty things said about you behind your back, prior to giving you access?
respectfully - I am not Paranoid 22:42, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Please leave new messages below:-
Have you got evidence to the contrary that I was on IRC at the time of making the "removing alisons edits" comment? -- Ryan Postlethwaite 12:03, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Giano (and anyone else who happens to drop by here), I would appreciate if you help Wikipedia be rid of this garbage. It is run by a company named Soylent Communications, and well you just need to look at that page to see why we should not be linking to anything they create, let alone having a template for it. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 14:26, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
But I find myself wholeheartedly agreeing with you on something. "Admins should be given a dedicated, exclusive to them, page to discuss business openly rather than in the secrecy of #admins." You're 100% right on that one (I assume that's what WP:AN was originally meant to be); I've never even applied for a password to #admins and don't intend to ever do so; if something's really so secret it can't be accessible to everyone, that's what email's for. Having never paid them the slightest notice I've no idea how arbcom elections work, but if I'm eligible to vote in them count me in. If nothing else it would make things interesting. — iride scent 00:02, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
I was pleased, too, to see your name appear on the ArbCom election list. It will be intereseting to see how many other names go up before the nomination period ends. Hopefully not too many! Carcharoth 00:08, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi Giano. Would you have time to have a look at Catherine de' Medici's building projects? It is an article on architectural history that I thought you might be interested in. I'm not the author (heaven forbid!) but I have been taking part in the peer review, and some advice is needed on whether the architectural terminology is up to scratch. Love the election picture up top! :-) Carcharoth 00:36, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
...but your recent article on the martin heifer is redundant, and has been since 2003. I've tagged your version for a merge, since some of your info isn't in the older article. DS 01:36, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Right... but Giano is a little busy, it looks like, Gustav. [79] It may not be a good day to introduce templates in his life. Bishonen | talk 21:38, 6 November 2007 (UTC).
Sorry, you're really out of luck, Gustav. See the fluboxes on my page. [80] [81]. :-( Bishonen | talk 21:54, 6 November 2007 (UTC).
Could I ask for a favor? I did a quick Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Assessment of an article on Sophia Magdalena of Denmark, a former Queen of Sweden, and said it was almost a B, suggesting better referencing, and expansion to more than the current article's focus on rather prurient rumors. The editor, very politely, said that those prurient rumors are really what she is most remembered for, and even asked if we should include a certain, very graphic, historical cartoon rather prominently featured on the Swedish Wikipedia article about her! Now I'm a proud, card-carrying member of Wikipedia:WikiProject Pornography, but this is beyond my expertise. I would like to call in someone who has written a number of Wikipedia:Featured articles on historical personages who have had their share of scandal for advice. Could you (or any of the others with similar experience that I know watch this talk page) please weigh in on Talk:Sophia Magdalena of Denmark? Thanks. -- AnonEMouse (squeak) 18:33, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm sure she was very happy to see him. -- !! ?? 23:33, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi Giano. I noticed you wrote this at User talk:Fred Bauder: "To Vintagekits Rockpocket is red rag to a bull and Rockpocket is fully aware of this - it all smacks of the goading that brought about this case in the first instance. This needs stopping ASAP." You then followed up with "Rockpocket took the Arbs decision pretty hard and is having a problem accepting it, and I think is determined to make his prophesies come true. It's difficult for all concerned."
Now, as one of the subjects of Vintagekits' campaigns of abuse on and off-wiki, I quite accept that it is difficult for all concerned. I would respectfully request that you ask yourself if comments like these are making it more or less difficult for all concerned. I respect your right to defend even a highly problematic editor's right to fair treatment, but I am concerned that in this case you may be getting your priorities wrong in criticizing a good and fair admin, without (as far as I can see) taking any action to constrain the behaviour of the problem editor who is actually breaking policy (and the terms of the Arbcom remedy).
If you see anybody "goading" Vk then of course you must speak up; but I'd be grateful if you could exercise the same duty of care towards Rockpocket. Thanks for your consideration. -- John 23:46, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Hey, did you mean to remove my comment here? -- John 18:25, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
You may have posted a message to a different RfA than intended: you posted here at VanTucky's RfA, saying that he has "no edits to his name", when in fact he has over 17,000 as shown here. Just wanted to let you know. Maralia 13:46, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Bishonen | talk 17:51, 13 November 2007 (UTC).
<sigh> That is not an inexpressibly vulgar monster truck but my Arbcom campaign vehicle in which I am travelling wikipedia spreading my message of hope and light to the thousands of downtrodden Wikipedians who are looking to me for salvation. To many this is as exiting as the second coming. Giano 18:12, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Hello. Regarding the recent revert you made: You may already know about them, but you might find Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace useful. After a revert, these can be placed on the user's talk page to let them know you considered their edit was inappropriate, and also direct new users towards the sandbox. They can also be used to give a stern warning to a vandal when they've been previously warned. Thank you. -- Jack 19:08, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Hohohoho, I've just seen the headline for this section on the "watch list" how dissapointing it must be for those rushing over here full of glee! Giano 19:52, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
...thank you for your participation. I withdrew with 83 supports, 42 opposes, and 8 neutrals. Your kind words and constructive criticism are very much appreciated. I look forward to using the knowledge I have accrued through the process to better the project. I would like to give special thanks to Tim Vickers and Wikidudeman for their co-nominations.
(unindent) In light of the two threads above I must point out this conversation. Draw your own conclusions, everyone. — iride scent 23:40, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
I have made some comments at talk:Bramall Hall. As a recent contributer to the article, you may wish to comment further. Regards, Mr Stephen 14:30, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Rightly or wrongly I edited a sandbox of yours a while back re (something like) the above; if that article has hit main space could you provide a link? Aatomic1 18:04, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Hummmph!
I just enlarged Eleanora and slightly trimmed the caption to fit better. I hope you like it.
Amandajm 03:52, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Palazzo Pitti has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. ( Caniago 14:44, 16 November 2007 (UTC))
OK, I'm back... having just read a little more of the article.Oh very nicely expressed. beautifully written in fact. The paragraph about the Palazzo today. I don't know when you wrote it (I presume it was you who wrote it) But the whole rigour of editting and slapping NPOV on things means that they simply won't let you get away with using a word like "magnificent" and you have happily used a dozen of them annd effectively created a picture of what the building is really like. Which is what one aims to achieve. Basically, anyone with a handbook can tell you the dimensions, the type of stone and the fact that it has windows and rustication. But it takes a great deal more than that to create a sense of the power of the building.
I've just done one on the Architecture of the medieval cathedrals of England, and I referrred to the views of Salisbury as stately, Norwich as serene, Lincoln as majestic, Durham as dramatic, and then thought "oh damn! I can't say any of that... not unless i can back up every single adjective! That is what you are up against! I think that it is probably time that art editors went into revolt and made it clear that if we are going to really write about art, we need to do it using the right language. ... Amandajm ( talk)
Haha, good one. -- John Reaves 20:16, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Why are you edit warring over this? It's not remotely reasonable to ask for references on a project-space page. Friday (talk) 22:31, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
............and? Giano ( talk) 22:51, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
This unreferenced tag that you keep re adding, it appears it is being reverted by multiple editors. Please take care not to re add it until you can generate consensus on the talk page. Blocking can be used to prevent disruption. Regards, Mercury 22:46, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm replying here to prevent the fire forest to continue further on his page :). The autoblock was created with the block, but autoblocks don't reset when the blocks are manually removed. And since they are really hard to spot, Durova probably wasn't aware of its existence :). -- lucasbfr talk 00:11, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi Giano, I hope you are well. I took this photo recently, which I think shows the style of the Canterbury College buildings quite well. Sorry about the stupid "Open" sign on the right, but hey, what can you do? Take care - Gobeirne ( talk) 08:41, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Congratulations on Prince's Palace of Monaco—another lovely FA to hang on your belt! What is it, your 16th? 17th? Bishonen | talk 14:12, 19 November 2007 (UTC).
Thanks for the feedback re First Church photo. I don't have any other photos of Lawsons work at the moment but if there are some specific ones you'd like I can take a look. Knox Church could be quite good at the right angle / lighting. XLerate ( talk) 08:47, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Please leave it closed. Take it to RFAR if you want, extending the shitstorm on ANI will have no productive outcome. Guy ( Help!) 15:42, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
You have already reached the limit of 3RR on ANI today: [93] [94] [95] [96]. If you continue to edit war in this incident or future incidents you are likely to be blocked. — Carl ( CBM · talk) 16:32, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Giano, you and I haven't really interacted before. Let's suppose there's been a good faith misunderstanding. I made a mistake when I blocked an editor the other day. It was the culmination of several mistakes and I take full responsibility for them. I reversed the myself promptly, apologized, opened my actions to scrutiny, and pledged changes so that no mistake like that will happen again. If I understand correctly, this was someone you've worked with closely and respect, and if that's the case then he can be proud to have earned such loyal friendship. I can't turn back time. Can we talk? Durova Charge! 22:40, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
<ding> -- Dweller ( talk) 17:10, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Shrill comments like "a narrative of vicious and malicious lies written by yourself" bring discredit on the project.
[100] Please tone it down. Thank you. -
Jehochman
Talk 23:08, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
(edit conflicted 2x) Jehochman, please strikethrough. Giano has a right to be upset.
Giano, and it was about an hour before I received anything confirmable about my mistake. As soon as that happened, I acted promptly. I apologized immediately to the person I'd blocked in error and if your feelings are hurt also I'm very sorry. Durova Charge! 23:12, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Giano, I'm not going to wade in with who's wrong or right. I'm content in not giving a damn here. I may be getting the timezones muddled, but it doesn't look like the diffs you give support your hints. The account was blocked at 18:08 and unblocked at 19:13 (the 65 min). Durova posted at 16:48 (which I'm guessing is 18:48) - 40 min after the block. NYB then replied at 16:57 (18:57?) - and just 16 min later the block was lifted. Now, two things, that means NYB had only 9 min to investigate the block after it was reported - so his findings were very much preliminary. Second, the block was actually lifted very promptly after it became clear that respected members of the community were indicating disquiet. Now, it's quite possible I'm reading that wrong, and it is also possible I'm assuming too much good faith (but, heck, that's not always bad). Perhaps you can show me where I'm going wrong.-- Docg 01:41, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi Giano...I see that User:!! posted on his talkpage [104] that he and Durova were having a private discussion and that the information would remain between them. However, I hope we at least learn if they reached some kind of an understanding, and if they did, perhaps we could all move on from this matter.-- MONGO ( talk) 11:56, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
I've emailed you Giano, I'd appreciate it if you could reply when you have a spare minute. Thanks and take care, Ryan Postlethwaite 00:16, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
My wife always likes that Lakeland caravan stand at agricultural shows, quite why we have to travel hundreds of miles to buy a sandwich box is beyond me, funny though, perhaps she has met you? while I lurk outside sucking my teeth. Odd world ism't it. Giano ( talk) 00:36, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi. I'm Ral315, editor of the Wikipedia Signpost. We're interviewing all ArbCom candidates for an article next week, and your response is requested.
Please respond on my talk page. We'll probably go to press late Monday or early Tuesday (UTC), but late responses will be added as they're submitted. Thanks, Ral315 » 04:47, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi Giano. Im the person who JeHochman tried to ban for making an edit to the Durova page. I have a story to tell, and I'd like very much to please be contacted by you at my safe email of why.not.relax@gmail.com, from which point I can properly identify myself. Thanks in advance. 85.5.180.48 ( talk) 12:09, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Oh no no no, you have a message for me you can either post it here, or work out a way of emailing me - You are obviously not blocked and my wiki-mail is enabled. So create an account and register an email. I do not solicit information from anonymous IPs and their equally anonymous email addresses. I only ever look only at what is presented to me.Incidentally, you are wrong on one score, I am not an Admin so stand exactly the same chance of being blocked as you. Giano ( talk) 13:59, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
You've made your point, the people at Wikipedia Review now have the full details of how to evade detection in future, for which I am sure they are most grateful, but posting the contents of private emails without the sender's permission is a pretty low blow and has resulted in ArbCom sanctions before now, not that I guess you give a damn.
I know you are upset and I know !! is upset, but seriously this has escalated out of all proportion from a 75 minute block for which the blocking admin has apologised. Guy ( Help!) 18:07, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
OK Jimbo. You want a loving encyclopedia - I for one do not find the paste below from Durova which constitutes her "evidence" as particularly loving - do you? I would advise everyone to be very careful of making even the most innocent edit. Giano ( talk) 18:11, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
So here it is the diffs are pathetic the narrative describing one of our respected editors, who I know well, repulsive. Happy with that are you Jimbo, you think an Admin like Durova will foster your happy loving encyclopedia?:-
(Private correspondence removed. If reverted I won't remove it again, but pasting private correspondence onsite is impolite, IMHO. Also, last I heard, the person who writes an email owns the copyright for it. Summarizing or commenting on an email message is OK, but pasting it wholesale is probably a copyright violation.) Kla’quot ( talk | contribs) 04:52, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
I've removed the text of the email once again out of consideration of the user who wrote it. Leaving it there is cruel to both her and the subject of the email. Please don't put it back. Besides the fact that the user can, in fact, claim copyright on the email she sent, the email was, in fact, stupid and embarrassing; the actions she took without anyone responding to the email were irresponsible and careless. Your putting it here further adds to her public humiliation--whether that is your intent or not--only makes the situation horribly worse. Her behavior has been questionable, I completely agree. I promise you it will be addressed. This is not the way. Cary Bass demandez 15:55, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
I suggest you post the "evidence" on WP:SAND so JzG can't delete it. Keep up the good work in any case! 79.101.144.21 ( talk) 18:10, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Duvora looks like an idiot, everyone else like a dick. WR get to laugh at us for week. And that's that. Nice work if you can get it.--
Docg 18:15, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Something of concern to me is the note that "They don't know this list exists." (where "they" are the "enemy" that congregates in "attack sites"). This is followed by a link to a diff that contains this comment:
The clear implication is that there's a private mailing list out there, whose very existence is kept secret (unlike, say, the ArbCom list, which is private but its existence and membership list is publicly known). This sounds a lot like the dreaded "cabal", whose existence is always denied ( WP:TINC). From the context of the linked diff, it sounds like this secret list is in fact organizing and canvassing concerted responses to such things as WP:ANI threads, meaning that the "amen chorus" of support for various blocks and bans may be less than fully spontaneous. Ironically, the message goes on to accuse the attack site crowd of using teammates to create or obstruct consensus, which seems to be an act of projection (attributing to one's enemies what one is in fact doing oneself). *Dan T.* ( talk) 14:37, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Right! We have had the laugh now let us stop yodelling to each other, take the combs from under our noses and cease goose stepping and ask the serious question. Durova had her chance above last night and blew it. I know the full answer and I'm reluctant to give it but it needs to be in the open, and it will be, so hopefully some one will come forward because we need to know. Who were the high ranking Admins and Arbs that Durova said reviewed that rubbish and OKd the block because any person who reviewed that was either very stupid or up to something. We are told the Arbcom are clean [108]. So who is fibbing? Either way I think you all know how this continues - but we do need to know. Someone is not being totally honest somewhere - who? Giano ( talk) 20:02, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
In case anyone is wondering, I have no idea who this editor is but it is certainly not !!. Giano ( talk) 22:04, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
...does anyone doubt for a moment that Ot;kG (Obscene trolling; knows German) is destined to become the greatest new meme at all the worst sites? It's almost too perfect. sNkrSnee | t.p. 22:10, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Begin "Top Sekrit" double ROT13 encrypted transmission
The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar | ||
For showing guts of steel to stand up against people who violate the principles behind this wiki in the name of "preserving" it. *Dan T.* ( talk) 03:03, 23 November 2007 (UTC) |
Thank you. Giano ( talk) 07:49, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Do not put that email back up again or you will be blocked from editing. Cary Bass demandez 17:31, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Sorry if it appeared I removed any text from here, I can only think a bit was oversighted while I was in the edit window, as a large amount went when all I did was add 2 lines of comment! Anyway sorry if it seemed like it was me.:) Merkinsmum ( talk) 17:39, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
You are blocked, for the reasons I explained above. You have persistently reinserted material that is of questionable content to your talk page. You are free to contact the Foundation regarding this block, but bear in mind, i have done it as a representative of the Wikimedia Foundation. Cary Bass ( talk) 17:58, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
In the States we have a holiday prior to which much food goes on sale, and occasionally Spumoni is included in the sales. Yesterday, due to a buy-one-get-one-free sale, I had the opportunity to get a half gallon of Spumoni for free. I thought this would be a good opportunity to show the kids why Spumoni is not served at the 31 Flavors Ice Cream Parlor. I had the Spumoni in my cart, but as I approached the checkout, I thought better of my decision, returned the Spumoni and selected a half-gallon of Gingerbread flavored ice cream. As expected, the Gingerbread flavored ice cream was terrible, but nowhere near as truly awful as the Spumoni would have been. Maybe next Thanksgiving the kids will be old enough to handle Spumoni. Uncle uncle uncle ( talk) 19:51, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
You are misrepresenting that conversation. I was directly referring to DTobias's remark, just above, and someone mistook that part of my remarks as referring to you. It did not. I referred to people who are not here to build an encyclopedia. Your content contributions are voluminous, high quality, and much appreciated.
That doesn't change the fact that your behavior in terms of trolling and carrying on the way you do is unacceptable. You know this. And you will either change it or be banned from Wikipedia. You have caused too much harm to justify us putting up with this kind of behavior much longer.-- Jimbo Wales ( talk) 01:04, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Here is a very interesting discussion by Kelly Martin of the status of the material that Giano was blocked for posting. Bishonen | talk 17:48, 25 November 2007 (UTC).
The Socratic Barnstar | ||
For telling it like it is. -- Mr Which ??? 02:39, 26 November 2007 (UTC) |
I require your assistance on Ybor City, Tampa, Florida, an article I ran into a while back and noted that the tone was, while interesting to read, probably inappropriate for a Wikipedia article and I took it up with the author on the talk page. He initially took into consideration my concerns, but then he reverted himself, returning it to its original form. I didn't want to cause a confrontation so I left it alone, but kept it on my watchlist.
Recently though, another editor made note of the fact on the talk page and replaced the tone banner I originally put on the article those months ago. The author reacted violently to this and promptly reverted him, citing consensus, though to be fair the consensus consisted of his views and another editor affiliated with the Tampa WikiProject. I replaced the banner and aired my concerns again when it flashed on my watchlist, and then I was promptly accused of sockpuppetry and the banner was reverted again by this same author.
Since you are an author yourself, having written many articles, I was looking for your input. I am not actually sure whether I am in the right, and I do not have enough encyclopedic writing experience to press the point any further. Could you go to that article for me, read it, and give your evaluation on the talk page? The editor who is involved is clearly a good writer but I don't know how to talk to him. If you cannot assist, could you refer this to someone who can?
I immediately thought of you though, as you're probably one of the most experienced and talented Wikipedia editors I know. DEVS EX MACINA pray 04:07, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Let's have a look at it tomorrow, but as a rule of thumb one generally does not begin an encyclopedic article with the words "Mr. Ybor Comes to Town". It sounds more like Noddy and Big Ears than Wikipedia. Giano ( talk) 23:35, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
I have requested you be added to the list of parties at this arbitration. Mercury 04:08, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Giano, you rock. Did you see this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Noromasiobmij ( talk • contribs) 20:15, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
For your kind words of encouragement. I simply hope that the effort to reduce "drama" does not result in a railroaded solution for anyone. I am stunned at how quickly this case has gone from acceptance to proposed decisions.
Incidentally...I spotted you in the above picture. No, not the one with the bus, the campaign photo. You're the one with the red boots, right? Risker ( talk) 22:49, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
I think you accidentally posted to the wrong page. [120] - Jehochman Talk 21:00, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
To the arbitrators! you judged Durova in five minutes flat and then left the case open to Tony Sidaway's comments (what is he doing on every arb page anyway) and prattle about me in the hope something more definitive could be resolved. Presumably a nice long block. While Jimbo and his threats hover on my page, an aggrieved creature called Agne berates !! on his page and ANI for feeling uncharitable. What are you all so frightened of? I want to know who are the famous 5 [121] . Just look at the scramble taking place as we speak to close the case - we are seeing Wikipedia history in double time. Giano ( talk) 21:37, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
You have been added at as a party to the above Arbitration case per this passed motion. On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Cbrown1023 talk 00:32, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
An interesting side note, I think, is the ire directed at Giano for having the temerity to be righteously indignant at Durova's flatly bizarre logic for concluding that !! was a malicious editor. Giano is only a problem when other Wikipedians are being stupid. When people aren't behaving stupid enough to set him off, he's a perfectly productive (and in fact quite good) article editor. But when he detects stupidity in progress, he turns into some sort of FrankenGiano and goes off on a rampage, tearing through the pretty paper walls the wikicommunity has set up to protect its sensibilities while trying, in his unimitable and somewhat lovable way, to protect the project he quite clearly cares about deeply. I used to strongly dislike Giano, mainly because I and others I identified with had been the target of his rage. Having watched him go off on someone who, at least this time, I agree deserved it, gives me a new respect for him, and I'm much more inclined to forgive him for the arrows he slung at me back in the day. Giano isn't perfect, and I think sometimes his indignance is misplaced, but I can't question his commitment to the project. Jimbo's threat to ban him was stupid, and reflects how badly Jimbo has lost his way on this project. - Kelly Martin's blog
On a more serious note, Giano, we (the arbcom) have probably spent more time discussing you over the last two years than any other person on Wikipedia. We like you as a article writer/editor, but (as KM implies above) your participation in any dispute tends to make this much more inflamed and ugly - even when you're right (which, I happen to think, is most or all of the time). Your methods are simply too destructive. So, I'm going to put the question to you directly -- what do we do? Raul654 ( talk) 03:42, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
"anyway, this is a very thoughtful email, which is the kind of person you seem to be"
Unsolicited outside opinions from people who just can't help themselves...
I hope that all present can forgive me some distaste for being compared to the Gestapo, and not considering that within the bounds of honest criticism and acceptable discourse. Civility is still policy, and I think it's important, especially coming from a respected figure in the community. It may well be necessary for Giano to speak as he does, but can all the people assembled here say that if I or other members of the committee spoke as he did, acted as he did, and treated other users as he did, that you would let it pass with equanimity? Consider this an arbcom election question. Mackensen (talk) 13:43, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Un-indent. I will clarify matters. I never attributed the things Kelly Martin said to Giano; I offer Giano the opportunity to denounce those remarks. The cap does not fit, but if I let that remark go it is strongly implied that I don't challenge it. Perhaps I'm over-sensitive. Perhaps I'd like to see people be more careful in their utterances. Giano above complains about critics being tarred with a wide brush--a not unfair criticism--and then does the same to the bureaucracy. Let's stop this now. Mackensen (talk) 14:37, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
I'll step back here. Maybe I am over-sensitive. Maybe because I'd never consider expressing myself this way I can't deal with it from others. I'll put my cards on the table. I don't give a damn about power games, cabalism, or criticism. Criticize away. What I do care about is politeness, civility, respect, and transparency in conduct. All these things are lacking today, from all sides. I'm leaving arbcom at the end of December; someone else will have to fix it. I don't think your conduct, Giano, is geared toward fixing those first two points. I take the position that good things flow from them. Maybe this is naive or wrong-headed, but I value the form in addition to the content. Mackensen (talk) 14:48, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Yes, there are unanswered questions, but this discussion can definitely do without reference to the Gestapo or HUAC, reference which I strongly denounce. El_C 15:13, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Kelly Martin recently wrote in her blog:
“ | A less likely possibility is that she [i.e. Durova ] will turn to trolling Wikipedia the way I did after I stepped down. Anybody who does not recognize that my ArbCom run last year was a giant troll, set specifically to catch Geogre, is a fool. Likewise, the adminship nomination I "allowed" a few months ago was also trolling. Wikipedia is terribly easy to troll ... [126] | ” |
Some links:
And the references to the Gestapo and the HUAC are... ? -- !! ?? 17:53, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Hello! As we did for last year's election, we are again compiling a Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2007/Summary table. This table contains a column "Portfolio" for links that display candidates' pertinent skills. I will be going through each candidate's statements and gradually populate the column, but this may take some time. Please feel free to add some links in the form ?UNIQ4c49a9df5a32a8ab-nowiki-00000001-QINU? if you feel it shows conflict resolution skills, or ?UNIQ4c49a9df5a32a8ab-nowiki-00000002-QINU? otherwise. It would also be helpful if you can check if the information about you is correct.
My motivation is that as a voter, I don't want to just rely on a candidate's words, but also see their actions. Moreover, I believe a portfolio of "model cases" to remember in difficult situations can be useful for each candidate, as well. I believe that conflict resolution skills are most pertinent to the position, but if you want to highlight other skills, please feel free to use a new letter and add it to Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2007/Summary table#Columns of this table. — Sebastian 05:33, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Swalwell.2C_Alberta Fred Bauder ( talk) 18:47, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Uninvited has crafted two "proposals" regarding you. In one, you would be banned for 90 days. In the other, you would be restricted for one year to only working in discussions about Featured Articles. You may want to weigh in, if you think it might help. Mr Which ??? 00:52, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Since MONGO isn't here to give you this... Risker ( talk) 07:28, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
I wish I had your nerve. Too often I worry about what retaliation comes next. --健次( derumi) talk 06:38, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
I think people will be lining up to thank you. My thoughts on this are already here [ [128]]. I for one never knew you before, but I think I know you now. sNkrSnee | ¿qué? 12:01, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
(cf. User talk:Giano II/archive 7#ArbCom questions)
Sorry I missed this comment, and apologies that the questions aren't better. I'd truly love to find a set of questions that would be useful in preparing a better guide for voters (if you have any ideas, I'd be happy to consider them for next year's guide). That having been said, do you want me to refer voters to your comment about the questions, or just indicate that you've chosen not to answer the questions? Ral315 » 15:38, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
I have a question for you. It stems from your actions related to the current arbcom case you are involved in and your run for arbcom.
The arbitration committee has a very high traffic mailing list (around 15 people generating upwards of 70 emails per day) used to discuss matters of interest to the arbitration committee. These matters include not just pending cases, but stuff related to past cases (requests for clarification, change in situation, etc), checkuser findings, personal opinions and musings, etc. Everything said there is by necessity considered very confidential - not just the content of what is said, but (generally) the topic of conversations as well. (In fact, we prefer not even to advertise its existance) And certainly no quoting from that list is allowed, without explicit prior consent from others. Why do we have a non-transparent communications channel like that? Because privacy concerns aside, having people - (and I mean no disrespect by this) people like you - screaming in our ears while we brainstorm ideas is not conducive to the best decision making. (Think ANI on steroids)
If you were given access to this mailing list, how would you treat what is discussed there? Could we trust you to continue to treat the list as confidential, or would you repost material to Wikipedia if you judged it to be relevant? Raul654 ( talk) 15:44, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Allow me to say that the ArbCom case about Durova's actions against !! hit close to home. In a previous incarnation, you and I got crossways about something (that I was wrong about, I'm certain) and as such, going into this issue (first at AN/I, and then at ArbCom--I avoided the RfC) I was prepared to oppose you. It gradually became clear to me that not only were your inentions (protection of !!'s reputation, and utter repudiation of both a bad block and a nefarious "sleuthing" list) just, but so were your methods. It quickly became clear to me that there was a concerted effort to have this incident be as minimalized as possible, from the highest levels of the project. As such, dire problems often require dire solutions. Would I have had the courage to challenge the god-king himself? I can say categorically, no. Though this isn't my first rodeo at WP, I'm not nearly so experienced as you, nor do I have the same courage you displayed in facing Jimbo as you did. Risker's post regarding the "little people" of WP said it all. If you haven't read it yet, revisit the RfC (or take a look at GRBerry's response at the ArbCom, which links it). He said everything I'm trying to say to you now, but much more eloquently.
In short, what I'm trying to say is, "Thanks." Without experienced non-admins like yourself to stand up to the sleuths and bullies of the project, there are many of us who would simply fade away into WP oblivion, either blocked, or discouraged by the project's lack of transparency in matters such as this. Keep fighting the good fight, Giano. Regards, Mr Which ??? 15:46, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. Wikipedia:Private correspondence. • Lawrence Cohen 19:25, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Fred Bauder routinely uses the term "wimpy" in commenting on remedy proposals that he believes (rightly or wrongly) are excessively lenient. Often, he writes "wimpy, wimpy, wimpy"; this is a reference to an old series of television commercials for plastic garbage bags, in which sturdy " Hefty, Hefty, Hefty" bags were contrasted with easily ripped "wimpy, wimpy, wimpy" ones. Fred (and Jpgordon, who followed Fred's wording in this instance) have both explained that that "wimpy" was a reference to the alleged insufficiency of the remedy proposal and not a personal comment about any editor, and given that I have seen Fred use the wording many times before on proposed decision pages I readily credit them. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 20:40, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
To Bishonen: When I drafted my workshop proposals, as you observe, Giano was not yet a party to the case and I did not believe he would become one. I tend to draft a paragraph of background about each of the major participants about whom I am going to propose substantive findings; here, that included Durova as well as User:!! Mackensen and Kirill, in putting the first draft of the final decision together, did not use either of these paragraphs, but they were incorporated later by Paul August; and the "User:!! urged" remedy was added to the proposed decision at my instance in specific response to the astonishing conduct of administrator Hu12 on !!'s talkpage. I see that someone else has already drafted "Giano thanked"; I would be glad to draft something more, but I fear that we are beyond the stage of the case where arbitrators are reading the workshop any more. Whether any portion of the proposed decision is, as you posit, "stupid" is left as an exercise for the reader. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 21:29, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Er... the sentiment is understandable given you were blocked. But note that it's not Jimbo's Arbcom any more, or any less, than it's Jimbo's Wikipedia. He did found the thing, and does still run it whenever he feels like. He doesn't feel like often, which is a good thing, but it is still a bit of a contradiction in terms to be completely opposed to Jimbo and supportive of the Wikipedia. No? This may eventually change, but for now the Wikipedia is still 90% what Jimbo intended, so it's rather hard to differentiate between them. Steven Wright had a line about something like that. "I support the war," he said, "but I don't support the troops." -- AnonEMouse (squeak) 20:58, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Giano, I know that you and Tony have a heated history. But please, sometimes you can be your own worst enemy. Please try to achieve at least a modicum of self-censorship. You need to consider style issues as well as substance; I think he wants you to cross over an edge that it would be better for Wikipedia if you don't cross, and you are walking very close to the edge. GRBerry 22:40, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Before I go to bed, I should let you know that I have only just now - because I had only just thought of it - raised the issue of who sent you the copy of Durova's report. I don't know if you know who it was, but I am raising the point that whoever did was also violating some pretty big principles and that the people effected by you posting it do not include that individual. You may wish to consider that point. LessHeard vanU ( talk) 23:18, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Let's leave it all now,I'm tired of it, once they officially inform me of their decision I shall not be returning. So lets finish it . Thanks for all the messages and support. Giano ( talk) 07:26, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Giano, you're a good writer, a good editor, and a good scholar. I hope you choose to continue with the project in general, and to let go of all this needless internecine drama. In my opinion, you are far too prone to perceive malice where none is intended. Please consider Hanlon's Razor.
Wikipedia will continue with or without you, but it would be a better project with you. DS ( talk) 01:42, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar | ||
For defending the project from erroneous blocks by publishing evidence to exonerate User:!! |
However, imbibing isn't your only option here. Please reconsider, it isn't too late to recognise the gods.-- Docg 02:49, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
[130] -- KTC ( talk) 04:02, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
{{User:Lawrence Cohen/Gianobox}}/ User:Lawrence_Cohen/Gianobox - based on KTC's above link. I've added it to my user and talk page. • Lawrence Cohen 04:13, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Mine is on my userpage, I changed it because I'm not voting as a protest vote (though of course I agree with the sentiments.) Merkinsmum 14:21, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Well, duh!!! [131]
In fairness, I think a lot of people in the community have a hard time separating the editors who happen to be arbs from the office of Arbitration Committee member. The dispute resolution system can be very confusing as well; how many times have we seen cases be rejected by Arbcom because an RFC wasn't done first? Well...perversely, the steps were actually followed this time - attempts at discussion with the individual were unsuccessful, so an RFC was filed, which was still open at the time the Arbcom case was filed and accepted. And of course, most editors have a black mark or two in their copybook and so are chilled from filing an Arbcom case because their behaviour conceivably could be reviewed too. Risker 17:41, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Is the individual who sent the Durova "investigation" email to you directly privy to confidential material, be it posts on Arbcom-l or checkuser information? If not, are you aware of any leaks of posts to Arbcom-l or checkuser information outside of their intended recipients? Thank you. Spatalker 18:52, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
The Outlaw Halo Award | ||
Integrity is what you tell yourself, honesty is what you tell others. I give this award to Giano for his honesty and integrity and for his diligence and persistence in the pursuit of justice. - Epousesquecido 19:27, 30 November 2007 (UTC) |
Thank you Epousesquecido that is a truly amazing award, is it unique to me? Giano 23:01, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
I will begin doing so. Unfortunately, I've just gotten a very "nice" note from JzG regarding my lack of edits, and how they probably indicate that my voting for you and then going on a "blue strike" from editing would be no great loss to the project. After all this, he still can't figure out why I might have taken such an interest in !!'s case. Not every account is what they seem... Anyways, I'll do my best to ignore both him and Rockpocket, and get back to editing the project. Thanks for all you do. Mr Which ??? 13:45, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
The words 'drama' 'create controversy' and 'disruptive' all seem to be used with similar intent as 'troll'. Merkinsmum 14:22, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
My first (and intended to be only) comment to that behemoth ANI thread that started with !!'s block came five days after the events, when a fresh-faced admin who'd been active in the entire conversation said he not only wanted the thread closed, but deleted as an "attack page." I simply said that it should be treated as any other ANI thread - closed in the usual process and archived - and that a good chunk of the drama was from people saying the thread was an attack page and should be closed and deleted. For that, I was told not to troll. I wonder if that admin had any idea that some people might be a tad ticked off at being called a troll, and instead of skulking away or having a verbal pissing match, might actually be moved to constructive response. See, Giano...it wasn't you that dragged me into this mess, it was Mercury. He's the one who made me realise that the secrecy, usurpation of power, patronization, and devaluing of individuals within the community was making Wikipedia *not fun*. It wasn't your actions that emboldened me to write an outside opinion in a high profile RFC - it was being called a troll.
I'll be getting back to my usual routine of vandalism reversion in my handful of articles, my bits of wikignoming here and there. And yes, I'm developing an article that I should manage to get into mainspace in a week or so - it's a little article, as is appropriate for a little editor to write. But I am far less likely to sit on the sidelines and hold my tongue in the future. Thanks for caring enough about the encyclopedia and its community to put yourself on the line. Godspeed - and good luck in the election. -- Risker 15:49, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The Arbitration Committee admonishes Durova to exercise greater care when issuing blocks and admonishes participants in the various discussions regarding this matter to act with proper decorum and to avoid excessive drama. Durova ( talk · contribs) gave up her sysop access under controversial circumstances and must get it back through normal channels. Also, Giano is reminded that Wikipedia is a collaborative project which necessarily rests on good will between editors and the Committee asks that Giano consider the effect of his words on other editors, and to work towards the resolution of a dispute rather than its escalation within the boundaries of the community's policies, practices, and conventions. Finally, !! ( talk · contribs) is strongly encouraged to look past this extremely regrettable incident and to continue contributing high-quality content to Wikipedia under the account name of his choice. Again, further information regarding this case can be found at the link above. On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Cbrown1023 talk 17:36, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Barnstar of Integrity & Goodness | ||
For bravery, integrity, and service to Wikipedia and the wider public with these qualities. 85.5.180.9 23:06, 1 December 2007 (UTC) |
Seconded. edward (buckner) 12:37, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Thirded. (Every time you archive the last barnstar on your talk page, it's the cue for somebody to give you another one!) *Dan T.* 13:30, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
I see the Durova arbitration has closed, with you still unsanctioned, and still dancing on a tightrope over the Niagara Falls. Congratulations! For your awesome balancing act for the benefit of Wikipedia, you are hereby awarded the Tightrope Trophy. It represents the amazing Charles Blondin carrying Jimbo Wales safely across the Falls. Bishonen | talk 15:06, 2 December 2007 (UTC).
Congrats, hope my comments are not hurting anything. Travb ( talk) 00:35, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Did you ever expect to get 200 supports and be added to WP:200? :-) Having said that, with some recent withdrawals, you are now officially the candidate with the most number of oppose votes (currently 155). Carcharoth ( talk) 01:48, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
And now you are up to 250 votes - including two who have reconsidered their original position. Well done. Risker ( talk) 22:27, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Got there first! — iride scent 23:01, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
It's now a moot point, as it appears to have fallen victim of the new "remove comments I don't like" policy. I'm sure there's a reason why elections for the relatively trivial post of admin are allowed to become lengthy discussions of the pros & cons of a candidate ( this is a particularly fine example), but when it's actually a vote for something important, a new "no discussion" policy magically appears from nowhere. Not that it will make any difference, since Arbcom elections are decided on a one-man-one-vote basis, and I think we all know which way the one man's going to vote. — iride scent 18:03, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Another way of looking at it. You are 8th in the net supports column, but 11th in the percentages column. Though the 7th guy in the net supports column is nearly 20 ahead of you, it isn't impossible to suppose that you might get a net increase of 20+ supports over the remaining days of this election. I don't think anyone really knows how long Wikipedia's tail of voters is. Carcharoth ( talk) 07:57, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Enough of this rambling about usernames and trolls and elections. Your fame comes from your writing and editing skills. So I'd appreciate your editorial comments on this article I've drafted before I send it off into the world to be suitably vandalized [139]. Anyone else reading this, feel free to jump in... -- Risker 23:13, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks all for your copyedit assistance and advice, you can now see it at James Blunt: Return to Kosovo. With a little luck I'll get the image uploaded in a day or two, now that the article is in mainspace and I can add a fair-use image. Risker ( talk) 03:01, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Chase me I'm the cavalry asked you a question on your arbcom candidate question page. I took the liberty of providing him with the Readers Digest version of the case here [140]. I hope you don't mind. Risker 05:16, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Separate heads-up on a different matter, just in case you weren't following [141]. Risker ( talk) 20:35, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
I replied (and made a separate section for our little conversation) at User talk:SebastianHelm#Giano. — Sebastian 18:03, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
FYI [142]. Risker 20:04, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Easy man. I see where you're coming from on the whole Wikipedia:Private correspondence proposal, but don't get too worked up yet. The whole Durova fiasco was rather unique. I think the general principle behind what you did there should be addressed, but I'm just not sure your wording was the right way to go. Sχeptomaniac χαιρετε 01:12, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
I tagged the canvassing issue as resolved, and (at Risker's suggestion) placed the discussion behind show/hide tags. The discussion is there for the record, and I don't feel comfortable archiving it during the election - but, this way, the casual voter won't see canvassing and go ZOMG Conspiracy! without seeing the Resolved tag and actively clicking through anyway. I hope this works as an alternative to actual archival. Good luck with your candidacy, ZZ Claims ~ Evidence 04:55, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
...regarding who posted what when on your talk page. If it helps, I think this [ [143]] was the first time that document was added; it was then removed as vandalism and trolling, and you then observed it was neither and restored it. Hope that helps. sNkrSnee | ¿qué? 07:08, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
People often ask me about mailing lists. I only subscribe to one. I discovered this list a few weeks ago, it is truly amazing what one can learn. I strongly advise you all joining it, no need to give your user name any email will do. Well worth the effort. Giano ( talk) 20:04, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
but what is so nice about is it is a public list. All email sent to the list is available in public archives, both on and off Wikimedia servers. Those that do not wish for people to come across their emails, email addresses or real name on search results are warned not to post. Giano ( talk) 20:51, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Hello hello. You all probably hate me for the position I took on FT2. But it was done in good faith. There is a lot of nasty bullying going on. This refers. If you could help to stop this. I have offered to delete the offending page and do the rest by email. Best edward (buckner) ( talk) 20:17, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Have this award, said to have been created by the Joan of Arc vandal- wierd! Merkinsmum 02:25, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Hey, I'm leaving now. Cannot believe what has happened, and the threats. About to scramble password - can you please ask that my IP not be blocked, for reasons at least one of the administrators will understand. Best edward (buckner) ( talk) 09:22, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
As I mentioned before, I've had my brushes with you, but to call you a liar, I felt like someone needed to say something. But, if you'd rather we not respond to lunacy like that, I'll certainly refrain from doing so. Mr Which ??? 15:23, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
sorry -- Dweller ( talk) 17:50, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
The Editor's Barnstar | ||
I hereby award you this barnstar for your most appreciated expansion of Queluz National Palace. Best regards, Hús ö nd 19:52, 7 December 2007 (UTC) |
Your edits are great, really well done! Fsouza ( talk) 21:50, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
By the way, I haven't been to this palace for many years, but I think I'll go there next month. Since you know a lot about the palace, if there are any details of it that you think we're lacking pictures of, just tell me and I might well take some pictures for the article. Regards,
Hús
ö
nd 02:29, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
WP:PANACHE should probably redirect to your user-page. Best Regards, Amerique dialectics 17:37, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Check your email. Risker ( talk) 05:33, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
And again. Risker ( talk) 22:46, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Found myself on this page after following the links from Sagrada Família, and thought the writing sounded familiar - sure enough, your name features heavily in the history. I did a bit of cleaning up, which included a revert to an older version as three paragraphs had been wiped out by somebody's edit along the way; but when I had arrived, there was an unreferenced tag on the article. Maybe you might like to revisit this chestnut? Risker ( talk) 14:39, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Giano, please stop this childish behavior. If you persist, you will be blocked. Thanks, Crum375 ( talk) 20:22, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Just got home. Very nice, you are a FAC machine! I'll do a quick somewhat bold edit, so please don't FAC right now. A detail: do you like the eighteenth century or the 18th century, as I should pick one? Bishonen | talk 17:10, 10 December 2007 (UTC).
Giano, you know better. Comments such as this are beyond the pale; do not repeat this. Matthew Brown (Morven) ( T: C) 01:29, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
As someone who's had numerous disputes with Giano, I'd like to commend such comments as the one above which was deemed "beyond the pale". I'm not saying the comment was warranted (I don't know anything about the situation), but at least he's actually speaking honest and openly. Wikipedia needs to stop being the equivalent of a nanny state. However, I do commend Giano for backing off. Ruffling feathers only results in a block, and isn't worth it. LuciferMorgan ( talk) 11:44, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Morven, High, and any others who are stunned by such talk, please wake up to language. The comments were not "incivil." They were profane. Profane talk is not good or bad. It is offensive to little old ladies, church socials, and Victorian gentlemen's clubs, but it is not lacking in civility. For many groups, the civil bonds are cemented with profane speech. I wish people would cut the crap, indeed. By that, I mean that they should cut (out) the chatter that has the value of crap. They should also cut the blushing lily pretense. They should not attempt to use politeness as a substitute for substantive discussion. If Wikipedia, which blubbers constantly, "Wikipedia is not censored for content" as its users (and HighInBC was a big fan of this) defend photographs of women wearing ejaculate on their necks, is going to switch tack and say, "Wikipedia is censored for profane words, and users who employ any word or phrase not acceptable to the Dallas Junior League will be censured," then the hypocrisy should be enough to be genuinely shocking. Geogre ( talk) 00:05, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
I did independent checks of all the indented names, and my findings were consistent on the ones with low votes. There are one or two others that may need some clarification, but it appears they may be related to sockpuppet accounts. Not sure if there is a problem really if only one of the socks voted, but that may be too big a question and I am not really sure if you or any other candidate "want" those votes all that badly. Risker ( talk) 02:00, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Hi. Looking at this source given in Queen Maria's article, there is a significant discrepancy on who rules and who was named regent. That source says Maria, not Pedro, ruled until Joao, not Pedro, was named regent. The palace article stresses Pedro and does not mention Joao at all. I am not in a position to evaluate right or wrong on this, just noting the discrepancy. -- JustaHulk ( talk) 18:08, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
In my defense, had I been forced to guess I would have been right. Great article, though. Congrats -- Christopher Parham (talk) 01:01, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Giano, as a trained architect and degreed civil engineer, I am afraid that I miss the ingenuity in the stairs. Perhaps the picture does not do it justice. Enlighten me, please. -- JustaHulk ( talk) 18:25, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks Giano, I alluded to the ingenuity then in the caption. I fear that I cannot really see the illusion in the picture but no doubt it is visible in the actuality. See if you like the caption like that or put it back as it was. -- JustaHulk ( talk) 19:58, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
I agree that they are lovely; that is why I wondered if you meant "artistic" rather than "ingenious". We can readily see the beauty in the picture; I, for one, miss a level of ingenuity that rises above the wondrous architecture of the structure as a whole. That is all that I was referring to. I will take the word of your source. I do not think I am lacking in the soul or imagination department, I drank enough wine in my youth to carry me, and I can appreciate opera though I have never devoted the time to learning it. Your comment kinda reminds me of the little game played on me as a freshman engineering student at the Cooper Union by a couple of Fine Art majors, i.e. "C-L-O-S-E, what does that spell?" I "failed" that one too. -- JustaHulk ( talk) 01:08, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Regarding you comments [146] please remember Vk came to my talk page over this and made incivil comments entirely uninvited and unprovoked by me. So, assuming you are the one mentoring him, if you/he would like my continuing voluntary disengagement please advise him to afford others the respect he demands. If he chooses to come to my talk page uninvited with that sort of language, then he is going to get such a response. That is not "poking in the hope of a reaction". Rockpocke t 21:08, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Your old pal Mercury -- he of proposing that you be added as a party at Durova, archiving AN/I threads regarding Durova, etc. -- had placed himself in the "administrators open to recall" category. Over the course of his three months as admin, he's made many controversial decisions, and his most recent at the Angela Beesley DRV caused several editors to request recall. He opened a recall RFC (conveniently in his userspace), and asked for people to take a position. Initially, it was moving in his favor, at 25-5. In the last day or so, people who had "experience" with Mercury's (mis)use of the tools started showing up, and the count his 10 or 11 supporting recall very. He summarily shut it down, removed himself from the "open to recall" category, and told any of us who were pissed about it to take it to dispute resolution, or directly to ArbCom. I've provided a link to his dramatic closure of the recall petition for you to have a look at when you get the chance. Thanks, Mr Which ??? 23:07, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
I thought you'd break 300, and so you have! Congratulations. Maybe you'd best act as amicus curiae in some Arbitation Committee fact-finding over the coming year, and develop a track-record there as a consistent observer. All the diffs are laid out publicly for any thoughtful outsider to comment upon. -- Wetman ( talk) 08:19, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
I also think 8 arbs will be likely be appointed. 5 to replace the resigning ones, 6th to replace Flcelloguy for inactivity since May (what a pity!). This gives us 6 minimum. However, expanding the top slice to 8 would allow Jimbo to appoint Rebecca and Raul, something I assume he would like to do since he likes them. I have nothing against these two particular candidates, btw. But generally, having an election whose rules are not announced in advance thus allowing the Master to adjust the appointments to his tastes seems crooky to my taste. But who cares? Anyway, I bet a bottle of Courvoisier that there is no way in hell that Jimbo would appoint Giano. I would be pleased to loose. So, any takers? -- Irpen 17:10, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Well, not 8 then, maybe 9 new arbitrators! (Didn't know Flcelloguy had been inactive). Wow, if an arbitrator retired, that would push the total up to 10 and include you know who! Irpen, where's that Courvoisier? :-) As for "II" being unimaginative, I'm now trying to think of imaginative ways to mark account reincarnation. Two. 2. Deux. B. Secondo. The Sequel. The Return. Hmm. Giano - The Sequel. Now that would have been imaginative. Carcharoth ( talk) 18:45, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Starting from left:
I'm probably going to be disappearing again. This time, I will certainly do a better job of covering my tracks. One of them (I have my suspicions who), had a secret checkuser run on me because of my participation in the whole Durova Affair. It was then used during my participation in a relatively minor issue at AN/I, after another user outed my first account. Admittedly, I did a poor job of disappearing the first time, choosing to do so into a little-used approved sock. The tag I placed on it identifying it as such was not oversighted (not sure if this was my mistake or the steward's), but I think that the whole situation further illustrates just how rotten the Arbcom process is currently. That a member would feel it necessary to run a secret checkuser on a supposedly "disruptive" non-involved editor during that case of all cases, is both ironic, and a bit disgusting. For the record, my vote was cast for you, using my old account (which had suffrage), and I wish you all the best. Fully realizing that WP:300 or no, Jimbo isn't appointing you, I'm glad of your run anyway. You and editors like you are what make WP bearable. Keep up the good work! Mr Which ??? 20:22, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Hi again Giano. I went to the Queluz Palace this afternoon and took a few pictures. I've just uploaded four of the interior, as you requested. Apart from the king's bedroom one, I've already forgotten the names of the other rooms in the pictures (I may search for them later though). I'll upload more pictures of the interior/exterior tomorrow, as I have to study for an exam now. :-/ Anyway, I thought that you could have a look at these and possibly find them useful for inclusion, especially if you already know their respective rooms. Best regards, Hús ö nd 21:08, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
I wow Husond! I know which they are don't worry - wow wow wow that's more exiting than a seat on the arbcom, we shall have to try and stop the FAC, while a re-write the interiors section, it will have to be Tuesday! Well done that's terrific! Giano ( talk) 22:14, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Hi again, I'm back from a very busy day and I've just uploaded the rest of the pictures in case you'd be interested to review them for eventual insertion in Queluz National Palace. Thank you for the compliments by the way, I'm very glad to have contributed for the visual improvement of this excellent article. Well, I don't recall seeing any no-picture signs inside the palace, but it's most likely forbidden anyway. Three or four women were surveilling the entire palace but they obviously couldn't keep a permanent watch on every single room, so they patrolled back and forth like androids. I just had to wait till the coast was clear in order to take the pictures. I couldn't do that in every room though (such as the Ambassadors' Room), coz they would linger and not go away sometimes. And indeed, I was very surprised with the virtual absence of visitors on a Sunday afternoon (when admission to the palace is actually free of charge). I counted only four visitors (including myself). Anyway, here go the pictures. Some of them came slightly tilted, I didn't notice that from the camera preview. I'm a lousy image editor, so perhaps you or someone else could rotate them just a few degrees in order to fix that.
Hmm, is the FAC ending later today? :-/ I'll drop by later and support. Best regards, Hús ö nd 02:25, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
I know nothing about big feet, but I've given the article a good review at FAC, after having done a tiny bit of copy editing. The combination of excellent prose and gorgeous photos made for a very pleasurable noontime break. I checked the layout using two different screen resolutions and it seemed fine on both. Risker ( talk) 17:47, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Excuse me if I show ignorance here - rococo (with a lower case "r") and Baroque (with an upper case "B") are used throughout the article. The Rococo article is written with an upper case "R". I note Rococo refers to style and Baroque to a time period and this may well be the reason for the difference. On reading through I interpreted both as being used in a sense of architectural style, so they 'just look wrong' being different.-- Alf melmac 08:23, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Oh man, I can't believe I just did that! I'm so sorry, I just found about the elections less than an hour ago, and I have been racing against the clock to get my vote in. I bet I did this more than once. Well, your right, there is next time. Thanks for informing me! :) -BlueAmethyst .:*:. ( talk) 00:09, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Hello, could you please confirm the account on Meta is you, by providing a link to your userpage there, otherwise your vote will not count. Thanks. Red rocket boy 03:26, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
I know you're busy with actual content creation [I'm trying to get back into doing more of that ;)--the palace article looks really good, BTW], but if you get a chance, you might want to take a look at this thread I started at AN/I. It's in regard to a horrendous block placed by a Guy you know pretty well from the whole Durova fiasco. If you don't feel like weighing in, I totally understand. But, I've rarely seen more bite-y behavior from an admin on WP. Mr Which ??? 00:29, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
(<---undent)
Archiving is a curse. Be aware that that's just one editor's opinion. It's like a "fact" tag: it weighs exactly as much as any other edit. I believe that "archiving" is used foolishly very often. The proper use of it is to make the page easier to read. When an issue is a few hours old, when more opinions are coming in, and when there is still consensus forming, any archiving is illicit: it's then being used not to aid the reader, but rather to try to stop the conversation. We're about conversation. If two parties are only involved, and if they're debating each other, then both need to get off AN/I and go to proper media. If it's more than that, it's an issue, and issues don't go away when they're painted purple. Mind you, I haven't looked at the above, so I'm not endorsing, but I will say that archiving is getting overused and misused. I wouldn't suspect a friend. I would suspect merely someone trying to assert the divine right of admins, which I always find suspect. Geogre ( talk) 18:23, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Giano, you will be amused, though not surprised, to hear that according to a paper published November 4, by Reid Priedhorsky, Jilin Chen, et al. (University of Minnesota), "Creating, Destroying and Restoring Value in Wikipedia" ( in this pdf file), "only one-tenth of 1 percent of Wikipedia editors account for nearly half the content value of the free online encyclopedia, as measured by readership."
Alas for the measurement by readership, whereby Penis and Paris Hilton doubtless get more hits than any architecture article. Nevertheless.... -- Wetman ( talk) 15:17, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
The Portuguese version of the only external link [153] on Pousada de Dona Maria, Queluz, contains a section on the history of the building. I'll use it to extract some material for the article. Regards, Hús ö nd 17:06, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Your recent edit to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents caused the entire bottom of the page to appear in a grey box. Could you fix your edit, please? And while you're at it, could you reword the comments to be less confrontational? Nobody is going to desysop Guy at WP:ANI. You'll have to file an RfA. Corvus cornix talk 23:21, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Glad you think so. I pride myself on being constant. Corvus, I could not care less what the ANI page looks like if sections are archived before I or anyone else has finished commenting. Especially when that archiving is being done hurriedly to spare the blushes of a bad admin. If an admin is bad the Arbcom or Jimbo can remove him - simple as that. It has happened before and will happen again. I am delighted you did not vote for me, in my support column you would have found yourself amongst a very different crowd, many of whom would quite like to see some changes about the place. Giano ( talk) 23:44, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
I did do my homework, and, lo and behold, I find Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pedophilia userbox wheel war. And lo and behold, Carnildo was desyssoped after an RfA(r). So your contention that the arbcom has ever stepped in and desyssoped somebody out of process has yet to be verified. Corvus cornix talk 23:58, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
On your assorted stately-home meanderings, are you planning to do anything with Ham House and Marble Hill House at any point? I'm in the process of writing a batch of linked articles on the geography of the area (first priority, to make something decent from the truly wretched Hammertons Ferry — "the ferry operates on the river", indeed) and in doing so have noticed just how sorry these articles are, given the architectural significance of the houses - but as I know virtually nothing about 17th-18th Century architecture, anything I do with them will just be an internet cut-and-paste job. — iride scent 02:36, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Congratulations on bringing Queluz National Palace to Featured Article status. I'll look forward to seeing what comes next! Risker ( talk) 05:00, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Congratulations on bringing Queluz National Palace to featured status, Giano! :-) I'm extremely satisfied that my pictures came on a good time and helped this achievement. However I think that you are still the one to be most congratulated. Without your intiative, thorough research and hard work, the pictures wouldn't have done it. So, if you are interested in the articles I suggested, perhaps we could start working on the Sintra one. Sintra is both a town and a municipality with so much to see and write about (such as the Queluz National Palace, which is naturally within its borders). I currently live just a five minute drive from Sintra, so it's not hard for me to provide visual resources (I already have quite a few pictures of Sintra at my gallery). By expanding Sintra, you'll realize that one will at the same time gather a lot of material about its palaces, such as the Pena Palace, my favorite and certainly one of Europe's most beautiful buildings. Again, congrats! Best regards, Hús ö nd 13:01, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
The Editor's Barnstar | ||
Not that you lack recognition, but here's a barnstar for bringing Queluz National Palace to featured status. Thanks for your dedication. Best regards, Hús ö nd 13:01, 20 December 2007 (UTC) |
I wasn't going to insert this, but I think the term for what the architect did with the steps was a form of forced perspective. He didn't do it the usual way (tiny steps higher up to make them look farther away), but he did do forced perspective by having the diagonals differ from the horizontals. Geogre ( talk) 15:23, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Dear Sir, you are cordially invited to join a discussion on this matter at WikiProject British Royalty. Yours in anticipation, D B D 16:45, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
I've got a few in mind I'm thinking of writing from scratch, and I could use all the help I can get, once I upload my initial work. Are you interested in working on an author article, as well as a minor historical figure or two? Mr Which ??? 02:01, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Was reading David Lauder's talk page.. you actually like our wines? Didn't know anyone actually liked our wines, even though we seem to be making a hell of a lot of it these days. DEVS EX MACINA pray 07:22, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Pardon me if this is a waste of your time but after recently discovering you are behind the Queluz National Palace article I wanted to thank you for the wonderful read and the smarts I acquired. Cheers, 76.10.141.10 ( talk) 15:59, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Giano, I am now formally reporting to you User:Philip Baird Shearer for WP:edit warring and abuse of Admin powers on List of massacres. ( Sarah777 ( talk) 18:39, 23 December 2007 (UTC))
You violated the 3RR on Wikipedia:IRC channels/wikipedia-en-admins. Continuing to edit war may result in a block. David Fuchs ( talk) 22:35, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
I seem to find myself blocked. Never mind, I am quite sure that Wikipedians are quite used to seeing me threatened and blocked for making them aware of what is going on. In short, a non admin in the #admins channel two days ago harassed, insulted and intimidated a female admin in that same channel. What he was doing there I have no idea. When I pointed out his behaviour was unacceptable it was unceremoniously removed [156] and the usual crowd of "men" from IRC accused me of personal attack [157] attempts to then mention that such behaviour exists in the Admins' private channel has too been reverted by admins [158] Finally, I stopped attempting to report fact after Jimbo interfered [159]. Now I am blocked [160] for adding a truthful codicil to Jimbo's statement and the truth once again is removed.
If any of you reading this are being discussed by Admins in #Admins, do you wish to have those Admins hectored and insulted by Tony Sidaway if they do not agree with his point of view? Do you want your admins to sit silently and listen to a female Admin being called a "bastard bitch from hell" and an "Arsehole" until she leaves the channel. As Tony (a non-admin) says on IRC in his own words "this is an admin channel and often admins are talking about problem users" - funny that isn't it? Merry Christmas to you all. Giano ( talk) 23:04, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Giano was blocked for a whole ONE HOUR for edit warring (not be me), not for comments about en-admins. Let's not make this more dramatic than it is. Were there unacceptable comments in #admins? Yes. Was editorialising and making comments on a particular case in an wikipedia essay and then edit warring the way to highlight it? NO. Please can we seperate the issues out. -- Docg 23:13, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Giano, please don't engage in conspiracy theories. "They are obviously very concerned" - who's 'they'? And about what? Since I'm included in they "they" I guess, let me be clear. Yes, I'm concerned. I'm concerned about incivility in #admins - people should not have impunity to be incivil there (just as they should not have it on wikipedia either). But I also reject your methods. I reverted you on the essay page because your method was inappropriate NOT because the concerns expressed should be silenced. Indeed I've done nothing this evening other than raise those same concerns via private communications to various parties. This is not a black and white, them against us, guys in white hats versus the evil cabal, issue. It is possible to take your concerns seriously whilst rejecting your methods (indeed your methods only serve to increase the noise, not the communication).-- Docg 23:28, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
I extended your block to 24 hours, because it's clear that a one-hour block isn't solving this problem. -- Core desat 23:31, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Interesting coincidence that at the same time Giano is blocked for this, and Tony appears to have gotten a short "cooldown" from #-admins, Willbeback has proposed that the proposed "private correspondence" policy should be approved because he perceives it to be accepted by the community. Risker ( talk) 23:42, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
I have unblocked you. The block was unhelpful. Now let's try to decrease conflict and find real solutions.--
Docg 23:42, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Giano remains autoblocked, could somebody please release him? The new autoblock thingy is a total mystery to me. (Is it supposed to be an "upgrade"? Grrr.) Bishonen | talk 23:55, 23 December 2007 (UTC).
The very best of the season to you and yours, Giano...and the same greetings to anyone else who happens to stumble on this page over the coming days. My goodness this seems to be a popular place, you might want to consider setting up a little bar over in the corner, my friend! Risker ( talk) 23:58, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Merry Christmas, Giano! I see from the above you've been celebrating Festivus! I hope you have a happy holiday and a happy new year! Sincerely, Ripberger ( talk) 00:56, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
Can't this page ever stay clean for more than 20 minutes? Merry Xmas, by which I mean something horrible that deserves a good blocking. sNkrSnee | ¿qué? 02:56, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
I've been convinced through discussion that I was a little hard on you in reverting your earlier personal attacks on my talk page, and that the language I myself used was grossly inappropriate and tantamount to a personal attack. I apologise sincerely for that lapse. Your attacks were baseless, hurtful and untrue, but I should have ignored them or responded to them in a less provocative fashion. -- Tony Sidaway 02:17, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
Unsupported, Tony? And where is an attack? Onwiki, I suppose? Cause I have not seen one and I checked the diffs. This is a noce thing, Tony, of speaking onwiki. -- Irpen 03:32, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
Most importantly, Giano had guts to say things in the open and what he said was not improper in any way. Tony, however, says things in secret forums and then tries to write policies that would give him impunity to continue doing so and removed the totally warranted posts as "trolling". This is devious and very ungentlemanly. -- Irpen 02:55, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
You want I "present evidence", is it, Tony? OK, but please be aware that you're the only one who's obsessed with this. I did not bring it up again, you did. I have now suggested several different kinds of evidence on your page, since you insist. Good ones, though me e-mailing you isn't one of them. I simply don't want to have e-mail contact with people who speak to me the way you do. Keep it public, please. Bishonen | talk 10:54, 24 December 2007 (UTC).
<sigh> <sigh> <sigh>... (See Doc's talk page history). This sighing is infectious. I've never been so simultaneously tempted to try out IRC and to avoid it like the plague. Carcharoth ( talk) 13:37, 24 December 2007 (UTC)