User talk:Giano

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)
• User talk:Giano II/archive 13 (From July 2010)
• User talk:Giano II/archive 14 (From Jan 2011)
• User talk:Giano II/archive 15 (From July 2011)
• User talk:Giano II/archive 16 (From Jan 2012)
• User talk:Giano II/archive 17 (From Jan 2013)

This user has been on Wikipedia for 19 years, 8 months and 29 days.

File:Animalibrí.gif

SG for Little Moreton Hall

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:59, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Much as I would like to claim credit, any credit for the current page is entirely due to George Ponderevo. Giano  16:48, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

It was the same who said he owed it all to you, - you two gentle men, please share ;) - Anyway, the translation is only a small portion. With that stunning picture, it will be seen. On the German Wikipedia, the equivalent of DYK stays on the Main page for two days, one pictured, one not. - Will you forgive me the infobox? It was in place before I knew you were against it. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:06, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

That's because despite all the bad press Giano and I are gentlemen, not the more usual teenage bling collectors and know-it-alls who seem to be so attracted to Wikipedia. As for infoboxes, to be truthful I'm pretty much agnostic about them, but they do often extend too far and distort the articles's layout, so if push came to shove I'd be against unless viewing them was optional, as with LMH and Montacute Hall. But I'm quite resigned to seeing LMH with a daft and pervasive infobox in the not too distant future, and I accept there's nothing I can do to prevent it. Grey goo wins every time. George Ponderevo (talk) 22:54, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Not a teenager myself, I am still learning. You know that one of my teachers is Br'er Rabbit, who said that wiki is both an encyclopedia and a database, and for the latter function infoboxes are helpful. If an infobox lacks features, I add them, as just now |text= to {{Infobox musical composition}}, to fit Messiah better, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:06, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

All I'll say is that he had some good ideas, and some not so good ideas, but he pressed all of them way too hard. George Ponderevo (talk) 23:34, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Not with me ;) - Did you know that the stats for the above are quite impressive? - ... that I have a teenage friend who writes DYKs on women scientists and FAs on constellations? ... that I rarely use "gentle" when I pass Precious but remember one besides you (20 December 2012)? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:15, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

• Once and for all, I am not against info-boxes on all subjects, only on a buildings/subject where the history is complicated and and an info-box either has to over-simplify,confuse or mislead. I would not personally create one, but if others want them and feel them useful then so be it. Historic buildings are not suited to oversimplification. Their façades tell the story, and it's up too us (not a little box) to accurately explain that façade and its evolution. Funnily enough, I was redesigning Harrods last night [1] and even improved its info box - it's a factual, simple business page, as fas as I'm concerned it can have a box. That in a nutshell is my view on info-boxes - horses for courses.  Giano  09:30, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

  I've been giving some consideration over the past couple of days as to my continued participation here, if any. In the past I've done a lot of copyediting, but that's just a black hole that could easily swallow you up. I'm edging towards the idea of simply adding those articles I feel are missing, and leaving the dross to be, well, dross. In other words using Wikipedia as a repository for new stuff I'm interested in, and what's here already can go hang. These interminable discussions about stuff like infoboxes or citation styles are just so tiresome. I guess we all need coping strategies, and that might be mine. I had been thinking about trying to improve Rufford Old Hall, but I find I can't be arsed in the current environment. George Ponderevo (talk) 12:12, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

I rather think you'll find that once you've 'added' a missing article, a neo-Nazi from Boise will come along and 'improve' it so that it complies with what he imagines and probably are the diktats of a whole self-elected politburo (that you didn't know existed); and if you dare to disagree, a whole bunch of misfits will chorus and shriek like gang if sex-starved female hyenas: "Wikipedia:Ownership of articles."  Giano  16:27, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

There is that. But on a happier note I've just picked up a new Mitshubi Shogun today, so the world looks good. How shallow is that? George Ponderevo (talk) 16:40, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

are you saying you'd rather have a new car then edit Wikipedia? Now, I know which I would rather do BBBBBbbbbbrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.......gone

Perhaps I'm saying that I can afford to buy a new car, and insure it, unlike so many of the admin trolls who think they're in some way better than me. George Ponderevo (talk) 17:50, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Well I should hope so. It's a well known fact that most admins are still waiting for their parents to remove the stabiliser wheels from their bikes.  Giano  18:32, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Not your other account

According to this diff of an edit made by Gerda, GiacomoReturned was replaced by GregJackP. I'm sure this is Wrong(tm), but complaints to mediawiki developers are unlikely to achieve miracles. In the meantime, it may provide some small amusement. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:00, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

diffs are tough reading, better compare before and after ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:06, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

• Mmmmm cannot pretend to even understand that page - what is it? I see the horrendous Mattisse is listed there; I thought she was a complete pain the arse - can I put that there?  Giano  20:44, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

oh that all seems very confusing; I can see one ex-arb listed under several names - am I the only person who knows what's really going on around here?  Giano  20:50, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes. Bishonen | talk 21:08, 20 February 2013 (UTC).

No, but you're the only one who still cares. (Unusual list you have there, Gerda—I'm sure people like Karanacs and Nev1 are just delighted that you've categorised them in the same group as Mattisse, Rlevse, Betacommand and pals.) – iridescent 21:28, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

I didn't start it, I don't categorise, just move. More get missed than return, that's for sure - and "every editor is a human being", --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:38, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

probably you are the only person, - you were missed, so are others, some disagree but - read top - only positive messages are wanted ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:06, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Oh rest assured; I am quite positive about my feelings for a tribe of socks belonging to a disgraced Arb who who only survived as long as he did thanks to other Arbs protecting him. I am just waiting for the next sock trial that they hypocritically dare to prosecute. A shame to see 'Less Heard' there though; I like him. I suspect if Wikipedia was a more transparent place he would probably still be here.  Giano  08:21, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Picking up George's beloved phrasing, I tell you as gently as I can that I respect your feelings, - do the same with mine if possible. My story with Wikipedia is much shorter than yours, example: I met Alarbus about a year ago, was instantly fascinated, and heard the name Jack Merridew for the first time when Alarbus retired, the third person I missed, I didn't scream any more. - Compare today: someone sees a future. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:11, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

well I expect I too would feel kinder, if I had not has to witness other Arbs lying to protect to his oversight abuse and dragging in an oversighter and God knows who else from other projects, his multiple socking (Arbs again lying to protect him) and then proving he had not the first clue about Wikipedia by proving himself to be a serial plagiarist. All in all I wasn't terribly impressed - then two Arbs told me I was mental for failing to be impressed, and to think people ask me why I don't like Coren. Looking at most of the Arbs, I've known straighter corkscrews.  Giano  14:00, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

And Arbcom loves you too, Giano… (Only one person has ever been expelled from Arbcom, and it wasn't Rlevse. Just saying.) Gerda, "every editor is a human being" would be considerably more convincing if your list didn't consist to a significant degree of the same few human beings under multiple identities (this is a particular highlight). – iridescent 16:23, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

"every editor is a human being" was said by Geometry guy, in a context, - I have kept the longer quote on my user ever since. When I use it, I mean the person, not "identities". Next example (of my limited story): I was on good terms with MathewTownsend, I didn't know Matisse, other than this. - --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:39, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

• No, they didn't expel him; they were probably on bended knees pleading with him to stay - assuring him how they would all continue to cover for him while they simultaneously drove off truly great editors like User:Geogre for far lesser 'crimes'. Most of them are a disgrace and handicap to the project; they are to be detested and truly despised they are not interested in the project, merely their own tarnished glory. They pirouette around the project like second rate ballerinas in tawdry tinsel.  Giano  17:38, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

• No, they didn't expel him. No, Giano, they didn't beg him to stay either, but they dickered with him and let him withdraw on his own quite far-reaching terms, while admonishing the very large user who had blocked him for disruption and dishonesty (and who may eat them all for breakfast some day). What was that, humour? Never mind, Giano, it's old. Most of the arbs then aren't arbs now (or so I think; I can't be arsed to make an actual count). Nice diff from that Mattisse sock, Iridescent. Bishonen | talk 19:13, 21 February 2013 (UTC).

• Well, as everything that mattered was in camera, I don't suppose we shall know the whole truth until the next time Wikipedia Review cares to inform us. I believe Coren has been an Arb for some considerable time; then there's Brad the perennial that never quite blooms, and Kirill Lokshin who seems to have been there since he escaped in 1917 - yawn.  Giano  20:53, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

• Clarification of my previous: who had blocked him for disruption and dishonesty. Not, she was admonished for disruption and dishonesty. Man, there wouldn't have been stone upon stone left of wikipedia if that had happened. Bishonen | talk 21:11, 21 February 2013 (UTC).

• The whole business was very unsavoury and badly and amateurishly handled. The Arbitration Committee is incapable of comprehending that most basic fact of life - fresh air kills bad smells. I shall never forgive them for driving Geogre off with their petty, nasty and spiteful persecution while protecting one of their own who had committed wiki crimes that were a thousand times more serious. Pure spite and jealousy of a great editor. I am just waiting for the next similar witch-hunt, my guns are spiked and charged.  Giano  21:26, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Abba and flared jeans

2006, dear Giacomo, not 1976...! LessHeard vanU (talk) 10:47, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Fashion spreads very slowly to some parts of the world.  Giano  13:43, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Infoboxes and suggested closing

Just wanted to say that the suggested closing is very well done. The problem is that it's ever-ending, as you so succinctly said, and a battle I've been fighting too long, that's taken off too much skin, and ultimately will drive me away. Nonetheless wanted to thank you for taking the approach you have. And I support what you've written. Btw - nice to see you back. Truthkeeper (talk) 00:53, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

• No, don't let it drive you off. I doubt the infobox problem will ever be truly solved, but the collapsed version does seem to me to be the only acceptable compromise. However, eventually, the pro-boxers will find ways around it and everything will arise again. It's always been a mystery to me why people have to wander in off the Wikipedia street and start tampering with articles in which they have no interest and knowledge. This great desire for everything to look the same and be uniform reminds me of 1960s China or one of those extraordinary places run by a 'dear leader'. Something in people's chemistry I suppose; the answer is to not let people get you down.  Giano  10:45, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

• I think that "discussion" has taken enough casualties now. Will you or a TPS please try archiving again? Otherwise it will go on and on as it has for days. Obviously nothing will be achieved but editors are falling by the wayside. Thanks again for trying. Truthkeeper (talk) 00:36, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

• Sadly, I don't think it would make any difference one way or the other. I was told I was behaving like a spoilt child for doing it last time. It's rather like a bar room brawl, it won't end until every chair , table and mirror has been smashed. Then the participants will survey the wreckage and go off to find a new bar.  Giano  08:16, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you

For opening up the bullying and intimidation that has been going on behind the infobox wars. My big fear when I leave wiki is not so much that my talk will be clogged with grave stone bot message warnings about whatever the fuck, but that any articles will be ruined by templates and boxes left by my now legion foes. Its inevitable and depressing. Ceoil (talk) 01:25, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

I hadn't realised the bullying aspect until it arrived on a couple of pages in which I have strong interest. I've never been a very easy person to bully. Bullies are always easy to deal with, they like dark, secretive corners. One just has to drag them kicking and screaming into the sunshine. You have to remember that the majority of editors never create a template, but just churn out content. Templates certainly can be very useful, but never as useful as content; their creators need to remember that. One can have content without a template, but one can't have a template without content.  Giano  10:51, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

File:Ascott House Front.png

Hey Giano, howzit, mate in relation to File:Ascott House Front.png, User:Black Kite has uploaded this file but it says that you are the copyright holder of the image, and that you have released it into PD. The image itself is pretty low resolution, and looks like it might be a scan? I'm wanting to get it up on Commons, so that it can be used across all of our projects, but before I do so, I need to make sure everything is in order. Could you send in permission as per WP:OTRS and we can get it done. This is especially important because the uploader is different to the copyright holder. Cheers, Russavia (talk) 04:38, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it is indeed a photograph taken by myself. It's obviously a scan or mucked about version of this photograph File:Ascott House Front.jpg; also taken by me. How lucky the project is to have such a skilled photographer as me - I should turn professional. However, I strongly disprove of Commons since some fool uploaded many of my images, then deleted half of them and did something strange to the others which made then have huge and very obvious pixels. It tool a great deal of time and effort to get them back to normal again. Anyway, it's nice to see you here; I thought you had been driven off years ago - some of us just seem to go on and on and on. We must be mad.  Giano  08:11, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Hey mate, no problem. I can understand the issues you've had with Commons in the past. Would it help to put your mind at ease if I help you thru this very quick and painless process; then we can at least get these photos over there as well so that other people on other projects can use your photos too; you can keep the local copies here if you wish. With OTRS in place, there is no reason for people to fuck around with the images, deleting them and other such things. OTRS will consist of a single email from yourself, which I will attend to myself. I'll get the text done up for you, and all you will need to do is to send it in, so if you are cool with that, let me know mate. Cheers, Russavia (talk) 08:30, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

P.S. Yeah we are mad; we actually believe in the ideals of this project--too bad the ideals don't match the reality much of the time though. Russavia (talk) 08:30, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't care what you do with them, so long as the image used in Ascot House also remains on here on Wikipedia. I don't do processes even short and painless ones. I'm sure you can sort it.  Giano  08:35, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Info-boxes

Good gracious! Have I intruded into an archived page? So sorry! Be that as it may, I heartily agree with your conclusion that the matter should be left flexible. Reading the page I was struck by your firm but polite resistance to bullying. Bravo! Tim riley (talk) 19:24, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Grazie, Giano--Smerus (talk) 19:44, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

it would appear that the zealot has arisen yet again [2]. The poor man is quite unhinged on the subject; I suppose he will have to be banned for a year or two again, So sad. Anyway, the motion was carried. We can collapse if there is dissent on the page over a need for an infobox.  Giano  20:00, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Whatever, I won't be taking any further part in the debate until Andy (how ever it's spelt) is banned again. People are using spurious disabilities and reasoning to gain the high ground rather then accept a reasonable compromise. It's obnoxious. As far as I'm concerned the debate is closed, and info boxes where there is no agreement amongst the principal editors may be collapsed. Zealots have no place on Wikipedia.  Giano  20:37, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

On the accessibility red herring, I'm rather puzzled as to how it is that those too disabled to be able to click on a "show" button are able to navigate hyperlinks anywhere on the web. Every single wikilink must be such a trial for the poor dears.George Ponderevo (talk) 21:32, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

I was wondering when someone would be so beastly as to notice that. We shall soon have to allow for breast feeding mothers who can't click because their boobs and babies are in the way of the mouse.  Giano  21:35, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Wells

I hope I'm not intruding on other stuff, but just wanted to check on Wells Cathedral. I'd be grateful if you could keep an eye on this (if you aren't already) to see if you think the editors have addressed your points. There is quite a lot that has been added on misericords which you may want to look at, and I'm not sure where you stand on the current procession stuff. I'm feeling a little lost by some of the architectural discussion, so I'm quite happy to wait for you to have a look. And is it better to pass the GA and continue the discussion after with a view to FAC (or whatever else is intended), or do it as part of the GA review? I'm happy either way. Thanks for your help so far. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:25, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

• No, don't worry, I am quite able to do several things at once. When I looked a while ago, there was one query still remaining about the raison d'etre for the cloisters. I have not looked at the misericords; I will do first thing tomorrow. To be honest, I think it's really a GA already, and perhaps I'm being a little pedantic - I just have a personal hatred of architectural supposition - perhaps I'm tying to exact FA standards on it.  Giano  22:30, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

PS:Just looked the Misericords are fine all referenced and as they shoudl be.  Giano  22:33, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, your help has been invaluable on this one. I agree on it probably being a GA already, but I think we may as well do it properly and make it as good as possible. I'm quite happy to wait for that last bit as you know infinitely more about architecture than I do. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:45, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

If I may make one general point, I think it's kind of an embarrassment, and even naff, to use Britannica as a source. Specialist encyclopedia's fine, but not general ones. At least I don't think so anyway. George Ponderevo (talk) 00:23, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

... and one final point, what does this mean? "...although possibly influenced by carvings of acanthus leaves or vine leaves, cannot be not easily identifiable as representing any particular plant". Makes no sense to me. George Ponderevo (talk) 02:05, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

It means it was carved by a useless carpenter.  Giano  07:57, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Then I've changed it to "cannot be easily identified ..."

Thanks

Just a word of thanks for your contributions to the latest infobox farrago. I rarely join these wearisome debates, but appreciate your willingness, and that of a few others (e.g. the above Ponderevo) to take a stand. Your overall summary of the situation is spot on. Brianboulton (talk) 20:16, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

The truth I think is that those who initiate such discussions rely on the fact that most editors will have no stomach for the fight, and why should they? Editing is a hobby after all, not a job, and I'd imagine that only masochists would come here to be abused; Wikipedia needs more editors like Giano, I was frankly astonished to see objections raised to the infobox currently used at Pendine Museum of Speed for instance, and I think it's high time the motivations of these infobox warriors were examined more closely, including those who raise spurious accessibility issues that are widespread throughout the whole of Wikipedia, and indeed throughout the whole web. George Ponderevo (talk) 20:34, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

I just directed some of them to an essay I wrote years ago. Sadly, it seems they wouldn't know an insult if it jumped up and bit their wooden legs. [3].  Giano  21:17, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Sadly your posting was considered to be one of those "personal attack" thingies and was removed. Some people are resistant to any form of learning.George Ponderevo (talk) 21:27, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

I expect they followed the link that I left them and had to take a couple of placebos to get over the shock of finding that I catalogued them years ago.  Giano  21:34, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you from me too. I'm a bit like Brian in terms of finding these farragos wearisome, although I did participate in this one, despite frequently having to bite my virtual tongue. By the way, I only discovered it because I happened to still have the Village Pump on my watchlist where the farrago was "announced". I found it very telling, although not at all surprising, that the editor who initiated it did so without even placing a notice on the talk pages of the articles concerned. Voceditenore (talk) 10:09, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Re: Informers

How individual arbs voted in explicitly stated below the text of the motion on WP:AC/N, unless I'm misinterpreting your request. As far as 'revealing informers', we don't disclose correspondence without the consent of all parties. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 14:23, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

That's the finished whitewashed vote - no one is believing that. Any more than anyone seriously believes there is an informant. If there is an informing email; I shall soon have it, but somehow I suspect there isn't one. Just yet another illicit checkuser snoop - probably done by Coren.  Giano  14:27, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

What vote are you actually looking for, then? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 15:02, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

I am referring to the true vote that took place on the Arbcom mailing list - not some cooked up rubbish to prove unanimity to load of fools that you wrongly assume don't know any better. Now was there an informer or was this whole thing cooked up to get Malleus? If you are not going to tell the truth don't bother to come back. Liars are not welcome here.  Giano  18:51, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

If it was cooked up to "get Malleus" then it has backfired. It's quite clear to me that the informant was Demiurge1000, on one of his fishing expeditions to find that secret admin account he seems to be convinced I have. (If I really had a secret admin account he'd have been booted out long ago.) It's also quite clear to me that Coren overstepped his authority by a country mile in carrying out a private CU, and drawing unsupportable conclusions from it. George Ponderevo (talk) 19:01, 14 March 2013 (UTC)