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)
• User talk:Giano II/archive 18 (From July 2013)
• User talk:Giano/archive 19 (From Jan 2014)
• User talk:Giano/archive 20 (From July 2014)
• User talk:Giano/archive 21 (From January 2015)

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

File:Animalibrí.gif

A quote, that sadly can't be attributed to me

Gender Gap on Wikipedia

It's my belief that the above subject is silly and blown out of all proportion. Why? I have no idea, but it's a big fire that is being stoked by a few editors who's agenda one can only speculate upon. I've stayed out of it until recently, but it now seems, that if a female editor takes against a male editor (for reason's best to known unto herself) she needs to receive special treatment and the Arbcom support this view. I don't agree with that. I believe that, in the civilized Western World - where most of us edit, women are equal to men, but I also believe that men are equal to women. Giano (talk) 19:12, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Quickie drive by

Dropping in to say hello! I fell in love with your hummingbird, and cloned it for my user page. Hope that's ok? Atsme☯^Consult 17:01, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

You're welcome Atsme, but he's actually a very rare and endangered Italian Freedom Bird, and his name is Spumoni. Like many male birds, he's far more colorful than his mate. The species is known for it's fearless and protective nature, but beware when he or any of his feathered friends are attacked, he has a very nasty peck. By sharing, you are making the species less endangered. Giano (talk) 17:09, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Would it help if I told you I was Italian? Mamma is 100% - grandparents didn't speak English. Can I please keep it? Atsme☯^Consult 17:12, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, but you must take great care of him, and take full responsibility if he attacks any visiting idiots to your page. Giano (talk) 17:14, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

I promise I will, and I will make sure he isn't overworked which is why I added him to my user page and not my talk page. It's all I can do to keep visiting idiots out of my life, never mind my page. Atsme☯^Consult 17:17, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Tracy Park

This building that was an influence on Black Beauty with Grade II listed entrance gates has had an "unfortunate" history of copyvios and revdels and is now sitting as a lonely stub. It could do with some TLC from a few willing volunteers. Are you in? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:14, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I think I can do that one, and use Pevsner. However, I can't do all that complicated referencing the article uses - far too stressful. Giano (talk) 20:35, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

I can loan you a pentagram and some candles if you'd like? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 21:01, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Just so long as I'm not required to write anything about golf courses. As a game, I don't dislike golf - I play it myself (sort of), but I do dislike the people who tend to inhabit golf clubs. The men are usually badly dressed, pompous oiks full of pretentious bonhomie and the women even worse - far worse - usually suffering from a complete charm by-pass. Golf clubs seem to bring out the worst in people. Giano (talk) 13:08, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Don't get me started. I have spent years as a gigging musician playing functions in golf clubs, the most notorious being one where you cannot get the gear from outside onto the stage without lugging the whole lot up a fire escape. In fact, File:Fatar studiologic sl 990 xp.jpg was taken at the bottom of said fire escape after I thought I was buggered if I was going to lug that up a flight of stairs again. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:02, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

I can imagine golfing people all jigging about to music - all those thin faced women with big mouths and teeth and bobbed peroxided hair dancing with their braying menfolk with badly cut hair hair and protruding stomachs. Giano (talk) 15:40, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

There is a photo of me somewhere on the internet after playing piano for a society church service where, due to a tragic miscalculation of dress sense and a lack of sunglasses, I look unchangingly like a Conservative MP. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:52, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

If you'd like me to check over the references after you've finished updating, I'd be more than happy to do that and I'll ensure that they fit with the current style used. Just ping me. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 15:32, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

That might be a very good idea. At the moment, I'm still researching it - quite fascinating. I'll ping you when I'm done. Thanks

The article is in good hands now - excellent. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:52, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

I think RexxS without more info, I've done about all I can there - over to you. Giano (talk) 16:10, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi Giano, I've started to add information about the house in the Estates section, but I've only included a description of the western facade, the extensions to the left and the tower to the right. The remaining Gothicy sides ought to be described, but I'm a bit out of my depth on that part, especially as I've never seen it and don't have a copy of Pevsner to hand. It would also be nice if there was a quote by him to summarise the architecture - the house is quite a jigsaw, and I'm not sure all the pieces fit together :) Anyway, many thanks, (talk) 23:09, 22 February 2015 (UTC).

—Noswall59I thought I'd already described the architecture, some of it's now in the history section. It's not so much a jigsaw - as poor architecture. One has to be careful of being too POV even Pevsner's (which is actually Verey and Brooks') and confine oneself to the occasional "heavy", "incongruous" and "loose form of Grecian/Gothic/Tudor" and hope people get the message. There's no point giving to detailed a descriprion, but I'll expand a little later today. We've got to be careful not to rush too fast at this, if you look at this picture here that small, single story section sandwiched between the main house and the colonnade is probably real, genuine 17th century Palladianism. Not quite Inigo Jones, but not far off, and streets above the architecture elsewhere. If I'm correct, that rather disputes the former house as being gabled Tudoresque. More research I think, but we are running out of resources. Giano (talk) 08:27, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

As far as I can see, that part of the house is not mentioned in Pevsner, nor in Kingsley. The English Heritage listing explicitly states it's 19th century. Kingsley says the following: "In 1595 the park was sold off by the Tracys, and in the next few years a house was built there that later acquired the name Well House. This was a small gabled building, which by 1718 apparently possessed a hall and kitchen on the ground floor and three chambers above'". He mentions no further changes until the alterations made by the younger Robert Bush c. 1800. At the end of the day, if the sources don't exist, we can't say otherwise; plus, if it were a worthy example of Palladianism, it is surprising that the Pevsner authors make no mention of it. (It might be that it was part of the alterations made by Bush, but that's pure conjecture on my part). With that in mind, I think much of the architectural description is well on its way to be complete, and the history section too seems to be getting there nicely. We still need sources for the freemasonry part, though. Anyway, many thanks, —Noswall59 (talk) 19:01, 23 February 2015 (UTC).

Oh there' no hurry, you'd be surprised what turns up eventually - which part of the Freemasonry part are you unhappy with? At the end of the day, a Freemasonry symbol is just that, and if added by the country's leading Freemason to his own home can probably be taken as a safe assumption of Freemasonry. Giano (talk) 21:20, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

I've done a first pass over the refs - there wasn't much to do as they were already quite tidy. The only problem is I can't find the book referred to as "Verey and Brooks 1980, p. 808" - the current reference number 9. Is that an earlier edition of the 2002 book? Cheers --RexxS (talk) 16:49, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

I've altered this ref - it is the 2002 edition. Cheers, —Noswall59 (talk) 17:36, 23 February 2015 (UTC).

Thanks [[RexxS, you're right, sorry, I am indeed using the 2002 edition I was looking at the page listing all the editions and it looked like 1980 was the final edition. The 2002 is ISBN 0 300 09733 6. Giano (talk) 22:55, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

February 2015

This is your only warning; if you make personal attacks on other people again, as you did at User talk:Rationalobserver, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 21:37, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Just curious...are you going to warn RO for targeting another user on your talk, Coffee? Civil hit requests are still hit requests, after all. Intothatdarkness 21:42, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

RO did not attack that user, they simply said that I should pay attention to their edits. As I have RO's edits on constant refresh, I'd say I'm fairly on top of whether she is or is not violating our policies here. Currently, she is not. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 21:47, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

(ec)Thanks. You might also want to consider paying attention to the conduct that leads up to those suggestions. Not criticizing; just pointing out that it is possible to conduct those campaigns without cursing or open attacks. Intothatdarkness 21:51, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Ah coffee, you may be able to help: I remember once when I was a boy at school, clandestinely watching a totally shocking film where nuns masturbated while a handsome priest was burnt at the stake. I doubt Eric is very handsome, but tonight I am minded of that film. can anyone remember its name - I think it may have had Jeanne Moreau in it? Giano (talk) 21:50, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 2 days for attempting to harass other users. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by emailing an administrator or ArbCom. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:33, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Enough is enough. I warned you at my talk page and here that making attacks at other editors through your comments would not be allowed, and you decided to cross the line again at Eric's talk page. You're acting ridiculous, and you've now earned a block. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 22:13, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

You do seem to be rather an impetuous person Coffee; I expect you'll grow out of it. Giano (talk) 22:17, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

PS: can we just have the example (diff) of this dreadful transgression. Purely for the amusement of our more sane editors. Giano (talk) 22:21, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

• Oh well! Coffee is obviously too ashamed to post the diff, so I will [1] and I stand by every word of it. What a fucked up place this now is, when posting the truth earns a block. Giano (talk) 23:13, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Did blocking Giano bring bonus brownie points from Jimbo or something Coffee? You seem rather trigger happy with your blocking tools.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:58, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

A friendly recommendation

Although you have the right to comment on anything you wish, might I make a friendly recommendation that you (and Eric, should he see this), ignore all the mess (by taking all the drama breeding grounds off your watchlists, for instance; this meter might be helpful) and do much more pleasurable things? I will not comment on what my personal opinion on "the mess" is, as it would be very foolish to get myself involved, but I will say that I think it's a shame that Wikipedia's good content contributors are getting themselves blocked over things that are not worth the trouble when you really think about it. Of course, as I said, if you feel that doing so would essentially be allowing others to keep you from saying what you really think, I'll say no more. --Biblioworm 23:23, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm afraid that writing content does not preclude me from having or voicing opinions. It just means I have less time to play silly buggers with fools. Sorry, don't seem to be able to sifn with this phone thingn but c'est moi.

Talkpage access restored

I'm not the right admin to meddle with the block; I don't like it, especially not the extension for complaining about it in the first place; but that's neither here nor there. But I very much dislike to see a good contributor gagged by having talkpage access removed, especially on such flimsy grounds. It's normal, indeed expected and allowed, to be upset and rude under a block. Only in egregious cases should a block be extended for it, and only in extreme cases should tpa be removed. I'm restoring it.

Coffee, I see you recently returned to editing after a four-month break. Might you be a little out of touch? Not that the norms have changed in that space of time, but they may have become fuzzy to you. Whether or not, it was a poor idea to unblock Rationalobserver and block Eric Corbett, two users in long-term conflict as everybody knows, within five minutes of each other. And then you went on to block Giano, who had been vocally taking part in the very same conflict. Having already unblocked RO and blocked Eric, you should really have left it to somebody else to deal with Giano. You have acted like a cowboy admin.

I note especially the idiosyncratic way you did the unblock of RO. You're supposed to confer with the blocking admin before unblocking. When Ddstretch told you that on your page, you responded "I just moved forward in the same motion that I'm used to when I made this judgment". Does that mean you're used to ignoring policy and common practice on this point? And intend to continue doing it that way? ("Except in cases of unambiguous error or significant change in circumstances dealing with the reason for blocking, administrators should avoid unblocking users without first attempting to contact the blocking administrator to discuss the matter".)

I'm not saying I object to the unblock of RO as such, as long as she is held to the promises she has made. (Her volte-face in such a short time might be a little incredible, after all the warnings and the advice she had been given, which hadn't made a dent in her attitude. But let's hope.)

Just in case the wheel warring policy| is unclear to you, I should probably warn you that you'd be violating it if you were to re-remove Giano's talkpage access now that I've restored it. Bishonen | talk 11:10, 28 February 2015 (UTC).

• Thank you Bishonen. However, you seem to be the master of understatement today - describing Coffee as a "cowboy admin" does not even begin to describe the depths of deceit and corruption that has been going on here. A few militant women and their hangers-on (not exemplary of the project's female editors at all) are now able to have editors blocked and completely silenced on trumped up charges, and then going one step further with their lies able to have their private IPs discovered - why? one wonders. Well it's not a great many steps from there to work it out. Coffee will obviously have to be desyopped to restore confidence and this whole thing nipped in the bud. Assuming that is, that thouse ruling us want this nipped. Of that, I am unsure. But rest assured, I will not let this drop. They've chosen the wrong stooge here. Giano (talk) 11:23, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

• Good call, Bishonen (just ECed with Giano). The "personal attacks" were never block worthy in the first place, and nor was the warning clear enough for the block to be valid. Astoundingly poor judgement - particularly to extend the block as well as removing talk page access. T'was the equivalent of going "neh neh neh, I'm right, you're wrong, and there's nothing you can do about it". Giano, I'd be a little careful; I wouldn't go as far to call for Coffee's head at this point, but they really need to make sure they're more careful/sensible in future. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 11:25, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

• Regrettably for User:Coffee, Lukeno94, I am still blocked for denying that Wikipedia has a problem with a group of militant females (free speech is banned here now), only my talk page (removed because of a false accusation) has been restored. Giano (talk) 11:28, 28 February 2015 (UTC)