User talk:GiacomoReturned: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 16:43, 29 May 2010

The Wikipedia philosophy can be summed up thusly: "Experts are scum." For some reason people who spend 40 years learning everything they can about, say, the Peloponnesian War -- and indeed, advancing the body of human knowledge -- get all pissy when their contributions are edited away by Randy in Boise who heard somewhere that sword-wielding skeletons were involved. And they get downright irate when asked politely to engage in discourse with Randy until the sword-skeleton theory can be incorporated into the article without passing judgment.

—Lore Sjöberg, from "The Wikipedia FAQK"

This, the funniest thing I have seen on wikipedia, was stolen from DreamGuy

File:Animalibrí.gif

Old messages are at:

User talk:Giano II/archive 1 (From Oct 2004)
User talk:Giano II/archive 2 (From Jan 2005)
User talk:Giano II/archive 3 (From July 2005)
User talk:Giano II/archive 4 (From Jan 2006)
User talk:Giano II/archive 5 (From July 2006)
User talk:Giano II/archive 6 (From Jan 2007)
User talk:Giano II/archive 7 (From July 2007)
User talk:Giano II/archive 8 (From Jan 2008)
User talk:Giano II/archive 9 (From July 2008)
User talk:Giano II/archive 10 (From Jan 2009)
User talk:Giano II/archive 11 (From July 2009)
User talk:Giano II/archive 12 (From Jan 2010)

Essays and thoughts:

Pages that might be interesting to edit and improve - help yourself!

List of Dukes of Osuna

Please leave new messages below

Prisssy

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

At to the trisk of trite, this is too apt and funny. Funny always wins trite so [1]. Some people fucking walk around the fucking garden of fucking eden maoning, fucking moaning... Ceoil (talk) 00:14, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Montacute House

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You have mail

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

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

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

I had forgotten about it - forget it. Incidentally, you can tell User:Wehwalt [2] that you did not give me rollback rights - as far as I'm aware, Doc Glasgow did! - and very kind of him it was too. However, that incident merely proves my my favourite proverb: "take nothing from Wikipedia, then Wikipedia can take nothing from you" and I strongly advise you to the same with the whole silly business, you'll only be plagued by numerous idiots wanting favours and asking daft questions every five minutes. Power does strange things to people, just look at Wehwalt, completely obsessed with me, since I displayed just how double his standards are [3] - some may even call his constant sarping about me spiteful, I just call it typical Junior Wiki-Admin behaviour. No wonder people get so pissed off with them; they all say one thing, but do another. Good luck anyway - you will need it. Giacomo 07:59, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

!

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

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

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

vigna del canonico Panicale on the Aventine

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