This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Save venice(talk | contribs) at 13:07, 6 October 2007(please stop reverting to lies about this page). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 13:07, 6 October 2007 by Save venice(talk | contribs)(please stop reverting to lies about this page)
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. --SGTTex18:31, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You first create the page User:SGT Tex/Wounded Knee incident then paste in the existing page and re-write it, privately in user space, then when you have finished just paste your new page back into main space, and announce it as a re-write in the edit summary. Take note though of any useful information which may be added to the page between these stages. So it is probably a good idea to announce on the talk page what you are doing, so others don't waste their time. The problems arise if anyone else edits the page in your use space (which they should not do without an invitation)then you cannot just past back because you would lose other peoples credits in the history - so you ask a friendly admin to merge the history pages. It is quite simple really. Giano23:12, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest I know very little, bit the first paragraph concerns me as in 1631 the Ist Duke of Bedford was only 15 and was not to be Ist Duke of Bedford for another 78 years. However his family did own that area so there is likely a connection but the area would have been owned by The 4th Earl of Bedford in 1616 (not Earl not a Duke). The epidemic that swept London in 1665 is generally referred to as Bubonic plague or just The Plague rather than Black death. Thirdly according to our page here Pygmalion opened at Her Majesty's Theatre. I would be very surprised if a play would open in a Church porch in London - very surprised indeed. As for the avenue of Star's I think that was one of London's five minute tourist wonders. Giano15:35, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I hadn't noticed how poor the article was (as it didn't say anything about the clock I ignored the rest). Two seconds of googling revealed that you are correct, it was commissioned by Francis Russell, 4th Earl of Bedford, but I think the "opening" was just referring to the opening scene not the opening performance. I've corrected it anyway as it was unclear at best. Yomanganitalk00:54, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure whether the clock that is there now is the original, there was a fire in 1795 which destroyed part of the walls, and this undated sketch shows a sticky-out clock, and though it lacks the figure of Father Time and the inscription shown by Hogarth, this undated but probably earlier sketch looks like it has something adorning the clock. Anyway, enough clock-based discussion, I shall go away and try to discover "the truth". Yomanganitalk00:54, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have found an architectural drawing that show a boxy clock protruding with sculpture above - [1] - and another with very different detailing - [2]. New images will be arriving shortly. -- ALoan(Talk)10:04, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Inigo Jones' St. Paul's had perished in the Great Fire. Hogarth knew it only from engravings: what's to be discovered is which engravings, and what use did he make of them, because no one within living memory had seen Jones's Paul's. --Wetman20:46, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Are you sure? I thought Covent Garden escaped the Great Fire, and I haven't seen anything that mentions the church burning until 1795. There's this rather jolly picture of Londoners waving it goodbye. Hatton recorded the inscription on the clock as Ex hoc Momento pendat Eternitas in New View of London in 1708 but doesn't mention the figure above. I found a good deal of information on it at British History Online [3], I'll go and update the article eventually. (And if some Latin scholar can give the correct translation of that inscription I'd be grateful...From the Moment hangs Eternity? sounds a bit odd to me. Let's see...Amo, amas, amat.) Yomanganitalk23:01, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oop. St Paul's Covent Garden. Jones did some work on St. Paul's Cathedral, which did perish. Ignore me.--Wetman03:01, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I despair of this site
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. // MartinBot18:40, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Cut it out 1NIH, I despair of this site, what the hell is going on when even some ignorant bot is now revert warring. I'm going out for the evening. When I get back the owner of that bloody bot had better have it sorted! Giano18:46, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the building in this photograph Image:Keith front.jpgno it is not strictly Scottish baronial but I can understand why it has been called that. My impression from just looking at the house suggest from the differing window height an old house 16th century probably that has been much altered, the left hand wing being the older, the tower with the conical roof terminating the older section. The entrance section and building to the right is probably 18th or more probably 19th century as is the uppermost story of the tower and it's roof. someone in the early 19th century made a valiant attempt at unifying the features on a restricted budget - but the whole effect is quite pleasing in a Scottish sort of way - it probably is a loose sort of Scottish baronial, I certainly would not revert the statement that it was Scottish baronial. There is a nice little section of Renaissance ballustrading in there too suggesting French/Scottish 16th century architecture, but I suspect that may be 19th century faux. This is all my guess from looking at the image, I am quite prepared to stand corrected. Giano22:32, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think that the term Scottish Baronial was interpreted differently by different architects. It was not a strict application (like neo-classicism). Sometimes a full make-over of an existing building could not be afforded and so it ended up in different styles. Regards, David Lauder07:56, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for all your responses- it turns out the person that authored the article User talk:Brendandh actually lived there for 15 years, the house having been bought by his step grandfather in the 50s just before a farmer was going to rip the roof off- see his response to me about the architectural aspects and historyhere. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel20:48, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well that's just fine and dandy Gustav, but which of us is winning the prize for identifying the feature? - more to the point what is the prize - money I hope! Giano20:53, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Moi? Ego? I am mortified that you could say such a thing - poor old Mona I always thiught she was a miserable looking woman - probably hormonal. Giano21:35, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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 Lauder07:52, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps we are all a little more forthright than we would be face to face in real life. However, at the moment (in real life) I am writing to the Head Traffic Warden (or whatever he calls himself) for the Borough of Kensington and Chelsea - and if you think I have been forthright or even ascerbic to you - you "aint" seen nothing! Giano08:52, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have taken on that council before and also Westminster council. You must fight your corner against these local authority tyrants who represent nobody. David Lauder09:33, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Broadwater Farm
(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)[reply]
Scandalous. The right way to conduct a "test case" to free up a project's articles for deletion is to keep them in the dark until after you've finished managing the vote. (I found the AfD without the aid of that note, BTW.) Choess15:58, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unless that note could be countered by a note at a Wikiproject where the opposite vote can be taken for granted to be canvassed from a group of the same size that is likely to have the opposite opinion I think it is clear that that action will skew the afd from being a true reflection of community consensus. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel16:34, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The reason AfD is not a vote is so that the closing admin can have broad latitude to disallow arguments solely based on WP:ILIKEIT or WP:IDONTLIKEIT when determining consensus. There's no reason we should forgo the expertise of WikiProject Members in order to eliminate their emotional involvement when AfD already has a mechanism (admin discretion) to eliminate purely emotional arguments. AfD does not need a Fairness Doctrine. Choess23:24, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
More Kitty Kanvassing!
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!?--Vintagekits16:20, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well you all have two choices: (I) Put up and shut up; or (II) Make a case and present it to the Arbcom. I personally am sick of all these silly antics and am ignoring it all. I could write 3 million pages or so on every minor "nobile dei" but I have not the inclination or the energy nor do I frankly care about them or the people who hold them in such high esteem. Wikipedia is huge, it is not running out of space let the editorship decide what sort of encyclopedia they want. I for one am not editing a social register. Now if you will excuse me I have some pages to work on. Giano22:41, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yup. As much as the Arbuthnot articles are mostly crap - there's plenty of total crap out there if you really want to delete something. If the basic information is verifiable, then /shrug/. The guy is a noble nonentity, ergo there's no more information in the sources because he's probably done nothing else, so the article will always be a stub, but who really cares? Why not go fix up the article on a more important biography, like Paris Hilton instead? (By the way, it really is a mess)--Docg23:24, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Further to that, if you want something to put the Arbuthnot articles in perspective, you can always come join the sort through the 4500 articles a bot's just dumped in Category:Stubs, roughly ⅓ of which are being prodded or speedied — iridescenti(talk to me!)23:45, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To be quite frank the whole Arbuthnot business now sends me to sleep. Someone who loves titles should starts a new series category: Counts of Ciampino that should be fascinating. There must be 100s who could go in that all as un-notable as the last. Yawn, please no one post anything further on non-notable titled people on this page. Giano23:02, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
They are notable for having been ennobled in an Airport, no?
"The Italian Kings last act at Rome’s Ciampino Airport, when he was about to go into exile as a result of WWII, was significant in the history of title creations. Some 200 “Counts of Ciampino” were created that day. A crowd of loyal supporters were waving a last good-bye to their king. At the time the king was giving some last instructions to a financial attaché, he said “fa i conti” (do the accounts) while he was waving back to the crowd. But his appointments secretary standing on the other side of him understood an alternate translation of “ fa i conti” (make them counts)...and he erroneously did make each of them a count!"[5]. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel00:07, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh very well researched Gustav, I have started the new series here with Count Bianchi di Ciampino anyone wishing to add informative and useful information on this remarkable man and his interesting life may do so - feel free and help yourselves - I see the possibility of a new FA looming. Please all of you expend your energies concerning notable titled people on that page not here. ThanksGiano07:34, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not call me a troll, there are no edits on that page that are not true. Wikipedia:IRC channels/wikipedia-en-admins is a page anyone can edit, so I am edoting it. There is no rubbish there it is all true fact. IRC Admins can either live with the facts or prove what I'm saying there is true. Giano11:09, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How on earth is editing a page wasting time and what is faked - exactly in my edits - I think you will find everything I have said is true - not even one single exageration. I'm afraid allwikipedia pages must be true we cannot make exceptions for admins who like to chatteron IRC Giano
I see the trumpet has sounded and they are all dutifully trooping out now to revert - I particularly love this edit summary [6] what on earth have negros to do with it? I think we are entering the realms os sensationalism to keep the page how IRC admins want it. Giano11:28, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, I really have a problem assuming good faith with you after after your cheap comment about negros when you know perfectly well what a Fairy refers to, and the term IRC fairy has been around for ages. Don't try to get clever with me and try to sensationalise my edits. You don't want to talk about it is up to you, go some place else then. I do want to talk about IRC. Before I edited it I have never in all my years on Wikipedia seen such a blatant and one sided piece of propaganda,and that it was edited by those same admins who run the channel is shameful and a disgrace. That people as usual when this subject come up try to silence me says more than I ever could. That the page is, I expect shortly to be protected, as it was before I got my hands on it - lowers Wikipedia and gives ammunition to its enemies. Giano12:22, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Surely you're aware by now of the history of the term "IRC fairy." It's not an innocent saying. It is, in my mind, a hateful thing to say. I do believe that some of the things you mentioned could and probably should be mentioned at the wikipedia-en-admins page, but just as I have an obvious conflict of interest, so do you -- neither of us are really neutral, outside parties in this, and it would be disingenous for either of us to pretend otherwise. – Luna Santin (talk)12:31, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What on earth is so bad about an IRC Fairy, there are loads of them sitting about all day being frightfully importants and never editing a page. Anyway as you agree the term exists so it should be explained on the page concerned. I did not start that page. I have never once been on IRC so I have no COI - why do you think I should? Giano12:34, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the phrase has been used to badger several editors off of this project, some of whom I considered good friends, and I'm very hurt that you toss them aside with such a cavalier attitude. As for your other claim, I should hope that even you recognize that a passionate user is probably not a neutral user. – Luna Santin (talk)12:38, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your channel has driven more editors off wikipedia than anythng else. Established editors who don't just quite toe the lone to certain IRC admins are blocked following discussions there, othere was case only recently - or did you not know about that? Giano12:40, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's not "my channel," I'm just one user in that channel. Similarly, this is not "my Wikipedia," I am just one user. I do agree that there have been problems, even serious ones. I personally would like to do more to resolve these issues. I do not feel, however, that harassment and arguing -- by any set of users -- are the best way to solve the problems we should all be facing together. – Luna Santin (talk)12:44, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
well go and write about some of thos problems on that glowing whiter than white page - that no one is allowed to edit honestly. Don't tell me about them, I know all there is to know about that bloody channel. I and my friends have all been blocked as the results of the spite and inhabits that place. I won't be commenting for an hour now, as I expect one of the IRCAdmins is already cooking up the famous " IRC cool off block" to shut me up. What a shower. You must be so proud of them. Giano12:52, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You claim to have hundreds of logs, and to know everything there is to know about the channel. How is it, then, that you seem to believe I am your enemy? – Luna Santin (talk)12:54, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Last comment for a while: Quick hurry over there, you and your friends have forgotten to remove some of my edits to the lead - Quickly, someone may see them Giano12:57, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a lot of things but never racist [8] If you knew the page was not telling the whole truth why not sort it yourself? No you aand the others just read it and let it remain as a piece of propaganda. Just look at the fuss when it was edited, is any other wiki page so POV and biased and whiter than white. Giano13:05, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I hadn't intended to accuse you in that way, only to convey how deeply hurtful I feel the phrase is -- I apologize for the miscommunication on my part. For the rest, I actually had no idea that page existed, before tonight, and to be honest, I'm still not sure why it does. Provided a reasonable compromise can be reached, I would be happy to collaborate on a description of issues related to the channel. – Luna Santin (talk)13:08, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You are mistaken - everything there is true. Now pLease refer to my comment above "I won't be commenting for an hour now, as I expect one of the IRCAdmins is already cooking up the famous " IRC cool off block" to shut me up." Now please take that message back whence you came. Giano13:12, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am not using IRC, I noticed your initial post to WP:ANI since I have that page on my watchlist. I would urge you to take what I have said into consideration - we all must be sensitive to how others will perceive our statements. I am of course not asserting that you intended to be offensive, but the edits I have referred to are easily capable of being understood that way. Please refrain from making any more uncivil statements. --bainer (talk) 13:19, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have not made one uncivil statement, or said anything that is not the truth! If wikipedia chooses to have whiter than white page on the Admins channel then so be it. I call it propaganda and rubish. Now it seems no one who is not a fully paid up memeber of IRCadmins can edit that page so I call that COI. You seem a little oversensitive so perhaps you had better overt your eyes from that page. Giano13:23, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have just edited the page concerned with a reference. Now which of the above statements is not true? It is a wikipedia page on an important wikipedia subject it is important it is factually accurate and correct. Now whicj is not true? Giano13:40, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is not what you are saying but the manner in which you choose to say it. In these edits, you make the accurate observation that there are no formal processes relating to access to the channel, but you do it while making snide remarks about David Gerard. Several other users have offered to work with you to help you make these observations in a civil fashion, and I urge you to accept their offers. Further edits like the one I have just cited will only result in a block. --bainer (talk) 14:19, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Brad has offered and his help is welcomed, I can assure you all further edits will be fully referenced in accordence with Wiki policies. Giano14:21, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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. Newyorkbrad13:43, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Brad Hi, - there is no problem I am just planning to remove a little POV and add some background to the page with references. I may even make it a FA. Thanks for the interest though, any help always welcome - "This is the encyclopedia anyone can edit" - Cheers Giano13:46, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Giano is blocked
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)[reply]
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. Geogre14:51, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I expect it was all decreed on IRC Geogre as I prophesied, I am indeed clairvoyant, my powers cannot be explained. Giano14:53, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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? -- Hoary15:00, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If in that rude and incivil fashion you are referring to my bird "Spumoni" (a very rare Sicilian love bird) please alter your tone. He decorates and adorns many of my user page he is my personal logo and crest. Also to you Hoary it is Ms. Martin, only close friends such as myself may say Kelly, I expect Thebainer did not know that - what is a "bainer" anyway - I don;t think I had better speculate. Giano15:06, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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 Weys15:31, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why hello Cyde, I am not saying I was baited at all, in fact I'm not saying I was doing anything except improving a rather badly written page with little content - I was merely portraying the greater picture of the admin's channel. Giving some bckground information. It seems odd that telling the truth can be trolling. I see nothing has changed and the IRCadmins still like to think they run wikipedia - well they do not, and if that page does not soon start to be far more informative then I will make it my life's work to see that it gives the whole pictiure on that channel. I quite understand that its inhabitants are ashamed at what goes on there but so be it. Giano16:09, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reason #1002 for Why admins should not use admin tools to block people in situations where they are personally involved.. I'd block the blocker for 24 hours, for misuse of admin tools. Good thing I don't get to vote here. Lsi john15:42, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Surely you know I'm not an admin? I could not even if I wanted to; but HEY! Oh look every one the nasty little page has been protected to save it from the truth [9] Wikiadmins just cannot bear the scrutiny. How sad is that? Giano20:19, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I know you're not an admin, Giano. And I haven't protected it to stop you editing. The page had descended into a back and forth edit war, and I will block anyone who tries to edit it while it's protected. All I want is for everyone to discuss controversial changes on the talk page of the article (page, whatever this is), like we do for everything else. I appreciate it's a topic you feel strongly about, but that doesn't give you carte blanche to do what you like and edit war to keep it that way (and the same goes for the people who disagree with you). Me, I don't feel that strongly either way, I just would like to see everyone approach this in a civilised way. Neil╦20:36, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh don't be so naive, IRCadmins is not a civilized place. It is a bear pit of "follow my leader" or be kicked out. Daft little newbie admins brown nose the big boys do their favours and are rewarded. Today has proved that. However rejoice, Wiki-admins is nothing to do with Wikipedia so anything we say about it here cannot be held against us on this site. That is correct isn't it? Giano20:44, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but. (how many discussions start like that?) Castigating the concept of an exclusive club for admins and their friends is one thing, but slandering people just obfuscates your point. There are more constructive and productive ways to go about rewriting the page than the dramatic way you chose to go about it (and then swearing you would change it to your version or be martyred). Yes, there are some moral issues with IRC admins. I am not a big fan of it myself, the three or four times I've been in there (mostly to find an online veteran I could ask something in private as they tend to be too l33t to be in the main channel, and once out of idle curiosity) I have only seen one productive conversation.
But is it more morally acceptable to be rude and make nasty and sly little digs at other people who (however misguided you believe they may be) are trying to help? And to do so knowing you can always get away with it? I agree with your goal, and would rather see en-admins gone, but there's better ways to do this, and I know you know that, so I can only think you've chosen to do it this way to make a point. (not a WP:POINT, this isn't a threat). Neil╦21:23, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm gona repeat myself and chime in with Neil here. It's tough to support you when you're being snide and rude. And, I want to support you. From what I see, it seems there may well be a nice little club going on. And, if so, that should be resolved. But it won't be, if you obfuscate your point, with distracting commentary. When you do that, it shifts the focus away from the meat and onto the table. Lsi john21:27, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If that is the case, why don't the lot of you get off the bandwaggon, get off your high horses and solve the bloody problem then. At the moments you seem to be like knits in my hair. Giano21:34, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Mostly because a) Everyone is dealing with the ruckus and, for my part b) I'm not an admin. and c) I don't know enough about exactly whats going on, having only just learned about it via your block. Lsi john21:37, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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). Yonatantalk21:17, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yonatan, while I don't support nasty comments, I am not sure that I agree with your conclusion that editing the article won't do much to affect the current situation. Maybe it will take a squall to bring the proper attention on the situation. Point in fact, I was not aware of the problem until now. Lsi john21:24, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not make personal attacks
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)[reply]
bainer, this is an example of why I came to the conclusion that you're an involved editor. You jumped from ill health to mental health problems. I have no idea who the guy is, and I certainly don't read mental health problems into the diff you just provided. I think the comment by Giano is inappropriate, but you've read far more into it than I did. I read it as a sarcastic retort, which may or not have implied the other person doesn't handle stress well on a physical/health level.
When someone reads so much more into something than is actually there, it implies they 'know something about the situation', and thus they 'are involved'.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide an even clearer explanation than I did previously.
ps. and IMO the closest he came to a Personal Attack, was using the word troll. The ill-health comment was simply rude and uncalled for. Lsi john01:33, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This edit to a protected page [11] 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. Giano08:24, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Giano, I would appreciate if you stopped posting on ANI for the time being. The fact is that nobody reads it, except those people who spend their whole day on IRC. You can't change them, can you? Some people are here for mainspace edits, others seek chit-chat and/or power. If I were Jimbo, I would have made it clear that the latter are not very welcome, as our purpose is to write the encyclopaedia. Since I'm not Jimbo, I can't see any reason for running from one noticeboard to another and shouting in a fit of mad rage. It's not going to change anything. Imagine a thousand people, most of them sysops, who chat on IRC and post their messages to the mailing list on a day-to-day basis. It's their modus vivendi, it's their second job. Do you think they will shut up just because you and me think their way of communication and decision-making is inherently corrupt? You may check the thread started by James on Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive89 and the upper thread on WP:AN to get some idea how deeply entrenched that thing is. --Ghirla-трёп-14:25, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think I am coming to realise that wikipedia can never truly flourish because it needs intelligent people to write the pages and intelligent people will not be ruled by a bunch of misfits, schemers and kids who rule from a distant place rarely writing anything of value. If an Arbcom member steps out of line this motley collection plan a persecution until they are again in control. If an ordinary editor like myself adds a few true facts to a page that are not to their taste he is blocked. The general editors writing the site and the few decent admins can either accept this situation or do something about it. I will not accept it, not now or ever. #admins is a cancer slowly destroying wikipedia. Giano15:07, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You may start from voting on the ongoing elections of the Wikimedia Board, since Wikimedia Foundation donates funds to freenode to keep the channels afloat. --Ghirla-трёп-15:43, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
For what it's worth, I have started a thread here, that might help address the problem. Whether or not it goes anywhere, will depend on the silent majority speaking up, staying on point, and keeping heated accusations out of the conversation. Lsi john16:13, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually for what it is worth when I see content such as this [14] being removed and censored I feel Wikipedia is no longer a place I wish to be. Frankly it and #admins actually stinks. That a whole multitude of editors aren't looking at that edit and saying "what the fuck is foing on" mkes me ashamed to be here? Giano17:37, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Giano, you've said you were quitting on at least one prior occasion. Is there any way you can establish this time as credible, or is this merely another faux Good-bye? --Cyde Weys18:00, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why Cyde you misunderstood me, like the wife who once loved her husband and then was wretchedly betrayed, I am staying and staying and staying and every day I am here Wikipedia will be aware of it. The only way to be rid of me is to ban/murder me, now if that happens merely because I am telling the truth about the obscene behind the bike shed behaviour of some, less than admirable, admins and their "close friends" then so be it. Giano18:04, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Like I said, its an age/generation thing. The wood-shed was where you were taken to be switched (spanked) with a willow branch for bad behavior. And, sadistic parents allowed you to pick out your own branch. (as if it was a favor to you). Lsi john18:58, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Right.. yeah..OK. er..yeah well all parents are different... I was actually thinking more of school kids playing around behind the bicycle sheds enjoying more, if illicit, pleasurable activities obviously a very bad metaphor - hopefully Cyde knew what I meant. Giano19:23, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I knew what you meant. It was my metaphor which seems to have gone awry. Now, pick out your branch please. Lsi john19:28, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Gosh Ghirla, you are better than Sherlock Homes. Good thing we are not like Kelly we could see all sorts of conspiricy theories tere. Giano19:27, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I beg your pardon Cyde? I assume this is some wiki-code, I don't follow these things you will have to explain on short words. Giano18:14, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
IRC
#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. Matthew17:53, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Are you the same Matthew who has just been slung out? Beacause if you are according to David Gerards' version of the beautiful page [15] that is not possible. Giano17:56, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm the Matthew who was "banned" from WMF channels "by order" (he literally said that) of JamesF (because I wouldn't reveal how I have real time access to en-admins). The guy believes a "ban" on IRC is the same as a ban on Wikipedia. Matthew18:16, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Shock! - horror! - Falling back in amazement! how can such an evil person as you be on my page? This cannot be true, see the link above it says access cannot be withdrawn - the beautiful holy page said so. (though I think they have ammended it since my improvements) Giano18:22, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Accusations, civility, and personal attacks
When making accusations, please try to be very specific about who you are talking about and provide evidence when doing so. This sort[16] 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)[reply]
Do you really think that is bothers me now - this place is so corrupt I wonder where you filthy lot are coming from next. The misfits on #admins are pulling the strings and you the little people are dancing - this is better than a puppet show. Giano19:55, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh yeah one more thing - even this was too much for you [17] You are beyond redemption - you lot would not know the truth if it hit you between the eyes. Giano19:58, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I can't take it any more. Do you really enjoy when IRC folks issue blocks for your account? I don't want to see that again. Will be editing in Russian Wikipedia tonight. Good night, Ghirla-трёп-20:15, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dunno - fogotten how to speak it, - thought you had gone to Russia. Giano
You'd better refresh your Italian. You may be surprized how good it may feel to forget about English for a month or two. Do you really think this language is superior to Italian? It seems very dubitable to me. --Ghirla-трёп-20:24, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
not superior, the pint was to bring the joys of italian architecture to the philistines - I remember some very amusing times when I first started Palladian architecture - from soem of the American editors who thought it had begun in Miami or somewhere equally odd. 20:27, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
So, the philistines. You see that the philistines are fond of IRC and some other little toys. Why do you take them so seriously? Do you really think they are worth so much attention? Have you come to Wikipedia to write about Palladian architecture or to struggle against KM, DG, and Co? OK, the philistines are corrupt. So what? They always are. --Ghirla-трёп-20:35, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Bugger off back to your cronies on #admins or wherever it is you normally hang out. There is no logic and reason fighting you lot - you are too corrupt Giano20:22, 17 June 2007 (UTC)\[reply]
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)[reply]
Actually, you have the foundation for a making a good case. But, I'll have to agree that you're taking shots at everyone here and, from what I can tell, at least one of them is an ally and another is at least neutral. I'm beginning to wonder if you want the problem fixed, or just enjoy (what is becomming) ranting about it. If you aren't going to rationally address specific issues, and make rational (and calm) suggestions, then it will end up being pointless and only (sorry to say) disruptive. It will end up being about you instead of about the problem.
Thats my two cents. I'm all about fixing things that are broken, but I have no desire to do nothing more than complain about them. Lsi john20:39, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like Giano decided voluntarily to follow the road suggested by Kelly Martin. I suggest he should be higher than that. Tender yourself more dearly. Look at Wetman. What a good man he is. He would never stoop to discussing anything with people he feels are intellectually dishonest or corrupt. --Ghirla-трёп-20:46, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wetman (bless him) truly is one good Wikipedian and probably a saint. I am not. I cannot bear allthe lies and deceit of this place, it can either change or stay as it is, I hope it will change - I here there is one piece of good news coming shortly though as a result of all this!!!! Giano20:49, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please be calm. You are seriously deluded in thinking the matter is worth your efforts. David Gerard will always preside over the ArbCom discussions, whether you like it or not. Look, they have drained Wikipedia talk pages of all meaningful discussion. The mailing list is four times as long as WP:VPP. When I can't edit Wikipedia, there is a window that tells me that I should go to IRC for the time being. Are they happy about it? This is a big question, mate. --Ghirla-трёп-20:53, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know why the ever needy WMF should make donations to Freenode, but perhaps it explains why IRC is so persistently advertised in Wikipedia (which claims to be free of ads). As I understand, Jimbo does not want the issue to be discussed in Wikipedia at all. Can we do anything about it? If you feel that Wikipedia discredited itself, maybe you should try Citizendium. --Ghirla-трёп-21:06, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No if I start writing again I think I'd rather be paid for it. Besides which i've just been told it won't last a year. yes funy that isn't it - I stopped donating last year when I found that out. Giano21:15, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, you seem to be asking too many questions. Wikipedia editors are not supposed to do that. They are expected to be quietly chit-chatting on IRC under the supervision and guidance of David Gerard or whoever runs the channel now. --Ghirla-трёп-21:19, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I always ask questions, i have a hyper-active and enquiring mind. Which is why I am who I am, and have an ability to make friends and enemies in equal numbers - so Jimbo may have a big shock one day! Chatting, like lunch, is a waste of time - something to do in the sun when one is old. Giano21:26, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you invoke Jimbo's name so often today? You have been told by someone that he shares a beer with Jimbo, so what? I don't think it's a big deal. If I had shared a beer with Jimbo, I would have asked him why Wikipedia advertises an external website (Freenode) as persistantly as it does. Many people ask me in private, and I don't know what to respond. --Ghirla-трёп-21:30, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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. DS21:31, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
First of all "Exploding houses" is being worked upon in a file and is held up while I wait for a new book from Amazon; and I have another page I had planned to FAC last week but I'm not quite happy with it yet as I can't find a particular reference I want. As for that flower of the Italian aristocracy Mario Bianchi di Ciampino I really don't think we need to go too far down his avenue. Regarding the other matter, I am sick to death of seeing little kids promoted to adminship twittering away on #admins and being of no purpose other than lackeys and voices of support to certain other people. Those people are a hindrance to Wikipedia. This is supposed to be a community not an ant heap. And this worker ant will not sit happily and quietly at the bottom of the heap and watch the rubbish happening higher up. That bloody page can either reflect the truth or be deleted, while it remains as it is it disgraces every other page on Wikipedia. Giano21:55, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oranges for Giano.
We say in Russia that you can't expect oranges from an apple-tree. How can you expect from a project aimed at truant adolescents and cranks with nationalist agenda on their minds to be delicate to the high-quality inquisitive editors like you are? This will never happen. I have proposed the panels of content arbitrators on linguistics, history, arts, mathematics, etc when most current admins did not know about Wikipedia. Nobody seems to be interested. We are told that we should argue or mediate with cranks until we collapse from exhaustion. You know they still discuss on the mailing list that "deletionism fails to serve the readers" as they did three years ago. You may return three or five years later: they will still be discussing the same thing. Very few people actually care about content or know what a mess mainspace has turned into. Come on, why should we care? Il faut cultiver notre jardin. --Ghirla-трёп-22:13, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I think you mean, very few 'owner/admins' realize how much of the public actually knows what a mess wikipedia mainspace is. When I have discussed wikipedia with family, friends, and business associates, they have either not heard of wikipedia, or they say.. hahaha! yea right! thats a good place to go for valid information.. NOT! A good friend of mine forbids his kids from using wikipedia for anything at all, due to the nonsense he's seen in articles here. How's that for credibility. Lsi john03:30, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm an old geezer promoted (to my considerable surprise) to adminship and I have no interest whatever in "IRC", something I've never used and never wanted to use for any purpose. People there can plot my assassination for all I care. Last night (my time) I unleashed this particular twittering (and this too) and to the best of my knowledge no Wikipedia "steward" or other Pooh-Bah vandalized it or even noticed it. Why should they, when there are so many other cultural phenomena of Earth-shaking importance? -- Hoary03:20, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Latest conspiracy theory
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)[reply]
Another day dawns for the IRCclics.
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.
[20] ('The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it' and in red letters at that, top and bottom. You missed this how, exactly?)
[21] (→The latest venom from the IRCadmin channel - a very long way from archived)
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. Giano06:55, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What a very frightened nervous little baby dragon you are [25] and [26] Reading your comments above, It always amazes me the intellectual stumuli than emanates from #IRCadmins - always so stereotyped and typical of its leaders (of whom you are not one, however much you like to imagine you are), a group who finding themselves unable to contribute anything of value or interest to the encyclopedia set themselves up in a chat room making pronouncements intended to disguise their lightweight abilities. Ruling wikipedia through a cult of bullying, belittling and misuse of admin tools. You must be very proud to belong to such a club, but they seem to be teaching you well. Congratulations. Giano07:48, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, what do you get out of putting the commentary you had originally placed on WP:WEA if it was kept there instead of forcing an edit war? It's not even an "article" that needs to be fixed for neutral point of view. It's barely an essay. If you feel that they don't contribute anything, why do you care so much about the existance of the channel? There's been nothing "proclaimed" in the channel that makes its way onto Wikipedia that stays that way. Any block is immediately overturned because there's an inherent fear of "Oh no, it's a secret place that we can't see what happened." The channel gets boring fast, especially when it comes to dealing with WP:BLP, WP:OTRS, and other meta level Wikimedia idiocy to save Wikipedia's ass from litigious individuals. Jimbo shows up in the channel at times; does that make him part of the "cabal"? Kat Walsh is in there. Danny Wool is in there. Stewards with local adminship are in there. In my eyes, Wikipedia is neither benefiting or losing anything in your constant issues concerning what may or may not be going on "behind closed doors" as you believe. Putting in your final word after someone else archived the discussion (Navou was the one to do it) was disruptive. If you want to add your incredibly worrying issues back to ANI, you'll definitely have a chance within the next couple of hours. The only impact the channel has is that when someone fucks up and chalks it up to discussion in the channel, the whole community has a shit hemmorage and starts throwing accusations left and right and then an ArbCom or two start up. I really do not want any of this bullshit to cause any more drama than there already is. You are an amazing writer, but you love attracting drama. Stop beating a dead horse.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 08:11, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry heard it all before. Did not believe it then, and nothing I have seen or heard since has made the slightest difference. Perhaps you don't know as much as you think you do, and merely putting an archive box on a discussion does not terminate that discussion - there has in fact ben much debate on archive boxes. Wikipedia can be edited by anyone and that includes pages concerning IRCadmins channel, I'm glad you agree it is a poor badly written page (rather confirms my views concerning the leaders of that channel) so it is ripe for improvement. If I don't do it, I can promise you someone else will, so you can either ban about 100 people, keep the daft little page protected (as censored by #admins) or delete it. I may write a FA on the subject one day - I'm sure plenty will be willing to help and furnish me with some cites and logs, in fact the more I think about it, the more it seems to be a good idea - by the way, you are bound to know, I hear a rumour that Kelly Martin has just "voluntarily" resigned her access to the channel - is that correct? Giano08:27, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Is there any need for these improvements as you state? All I've seen you add to the page are your opinions on the whole matter of there being a private channel that ultimately fucks up every couple of months (of which you have probably been the butt of based on your intense focus on making things "known"). Putting an archive box doesn't terminate the discussion, you're right, but it means the discussion goes elsewhere. If you have issues with the page, you bring it up on the talk page. You don't continue to harp in a forum that already decided that what was being discussed was unnecessary. I can honestly see that page either being deleted completely or refactored into something that won't require your improvements.
"that there are no featured articles that are about aspects of the project" - You are forgetting - IRC is nothing to do with Wikipedia. Giano11:29, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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. Giano20:52, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Come back, Giano. I haven't had much to do with you, but I know you're a fantastic editor, and you've done great good on Wikipedia (your article writing is outstanding, and you really helped to calm down the Essjay situation). Also, I don't like to see Bishonen sad; she's been very nice to me! ElinorD(talk)16:20, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And the Great One, coming to stomp on foolish blockers.
Forgive me for butting in, but have you considered staying here in Wikipedia, but just not creating content? You might gain real insight into how your block-plotters think. A few miles standing still in their shoes... Jd271816:50, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Giano, your contributions are too valuable to lose and I encourage you to return when you feel like it...which is soon I hope.--MONGO09:04, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Oh Giano, you've let yourself become so distracted from what is wholesome and productive, and amusing. You mustn't let yourself be drawn into these confrontations, which excite the lowest instincts of the canaille. I long for you to have a project that I can offer tweaks for. --Wetman08:04, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Giano, tho we have never directly interacted before, I am familiar with your hard work, your unfailing dedication and wholehearted commitment to our project. As I'm returning from a short wikibreak for personal reasons, I've just learned of your decision; and I can't possibly not tell you you're truly unique, a beacon of light and principles in a sea of darkness. I won't beg you to reconsider in a tearful way, only to ask you to listen to your heart when you've had a much needed rest of a few days, and follow it. I deeply hope you choose to stay with us... seeing another Star falling from our sky would be saddening beyond words. Love, Phaedriel - 18:20, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the above messages. Can I just make clear - I have not left or gone anywhere but I going to be spending a lot less time on Wikipedia because the kerfuffle here [27] has totally sickened me towards the people supposedly running the place. That David Gerard and his sidekicks can claim ownership of a page and then protect it just to preserve their own world of half truths is so against the spirit of Wikipedia, and all I once believed it stood for, is appalling. That no one in authority dares to say to these people "Hey WTF is going on here?" says more about Wikipedia than I ever could. Giano09:44, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the Pevsner quote. Giano, good to see you up and about. Tell me your subpage projects when you have some and let's have some larfs. --Wetman21:14, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Balustrade
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.--Jcvamp22:27, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
About banisters
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.
Thanks Gustav, I'll take a look and make a note of that but Exploding House is put on hold for the forseeable future, at the moment I just want to improve some existing pages that interest me and nurse the current FAC through the increasing red tape. Giano19:24, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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. MadMaxDog22:49, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Carabosse
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. --Jibi4420:27, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I uploaded it as [28] Public domain, but my very good friend Ghirla seems to have changed the tag, which implies he knows something I do not. He is not a copy-vio-fiend so he probably has a very good reason - I suggest you ask him, I'm sure he will help you out if he can. Giano20:36, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, {{PD-art}} demands from the artist to have died more than a century ago, while our poor Bakst passed away in 1924. --Ghirla-трёп-21:54, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Gosh, another 17 years to wait ;-) I don't know much about licenses, but would it be possible to use the same as those applying to the same artist ? --Jibi4409:04, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Oh it is a load of rubbish basically. A door in a the villa Palombara that has a load of hebrew mumbo jumbo, and other things that people think are referrring to the journeys of the argonauts among other things.One of those things people like to speculate about, in a way similar to the inscription on the obelisk at Shugborough just a lot of hype to drag in the tourists I expect. Giano22:21, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Don't look: the usual. Give it three days and check it against the last serious version. Congratulations once again, Giano!--Wetman06:39, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but I would worry that no one was interested if it was not vandalised at least a few times - just think all the little children while inserting interesting facts about themselves and their friends' bodily functions must read, if only by accident, at least, one informative fact before pressing save. That makes me feel good. Giano08:10, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I fell asleep after reading "the house is long and rectangular"... Only joking! :-) Very interesting article. BTW, what happened to the Prince's Palace of Monaco one, did that ever get FA or Main Page? I see not, as it is A-class. I also see one of the images got deleted from Commons. Seems it was a Flickr image with too restrictive a license. See here. Carcharoth13:00, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I have not looked at Monaco for ages, it is not good enough to be an FA, anyway I already have one FAC at the moment, I can only nirse one at a time, but the Monaco page is not good enough anyway.
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)[reply]
Solved: "If the flame seize on the cedars, how will fare the hyssop on the wall: if the leviathan is brought up with a hook, how will the minnows escape" is in fact two lines. I asked for a translation and received one - the translation ran to three lines and that was what was quoted as the translation, looking at it again I think that translation was also less than clear, so I have paired it down now to its most literal and basic meaning and left it at that. Giano14:03, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Go on, have Bishonen undelete it, the title alone is worth it...and congratulations on Hannah getting through relatively unscathed. Anybody interested in neglected 18th century bawds? She's only short but not a lot of people seem interested in commenting. Yomanganitalk00:16, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No. Very unpleasant family, I'm sure I did one of their palazzi ages ago, ley me go and have a look, I have a feeling their's is the very vulgar creation on the grand canal covered in broken glass mosaics after they sold it to a noveau glass manufacturere, let me go and see if I can find it, then you can add it. Giano09:56, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just realised where is my bloody foto gone from that page Palazzo_Barbarigo.gif I took it myself so there can be nothing wrong with it - I'm sick of the bloody image police here, take your eye of a page for five minutes and it is ruined - can't some admin, do something useful, go and find it and undelete it. FGS. Giano10:05, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But Giano, the deletion was over a year ago. Which of course doesn't make its deletion any more palatable, but I think makes its recovery impossible. Though I may have misunderstood some technical point here. -- Hoary10:18, 7 July 2007 (UTC) (useless as always)[reply]
Have I got to police every single page I write all the time, to stop fools massacring them - do people think I risk life and limb standing and climbing about in vaporetti for my own personal pleasure - whoever deleted it can jolly well go and find it again - or wikipedia can do without it. Giano10:23, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest whoever deleted it drown themselves in the grand canal trying to take another one. I am just now thinking and minded to look at my other Venetian palazzi that are not on my watch list. The edit summaries if this Ca' Rezzonico are not attractive either "remove bombastic stuff" indeed. Giano10:45, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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 [30] that Vere Fane wrote to his half brother Henry Chamberlain. Chamberlain is also mentioned with the Fanes in this file [31]. Do you think this is enough evidence for us to state as fact the Chamberlain was Fane's illegitimate son? Gustav von Humpelschmumpel16:34, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
FFS! I only left it there because you put it there - get it off! Untill I have time to check it all out Giano20:38, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Removed. Sorry about that. I was hoping Burke's would back it up but it says nothing at all about it. Although usually they say who the father of the first title holder was and the fact that is lacking might well indicate illegitimacy. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel20:46, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well we all become older and wiser because of our mistakes - don't worry about it. I expect we have not heard the last of this "distant/wrong side of the sheets/Arbuthnot" - anyhow even more fun are the Arbuthnot's Italian cousins, they seem to be related to everyone from the ancient Romans downwards picking up "Prince Vitus of America" along the way - who says Wikipedia is ever dull? Giano20:56, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I take back all concillatory and kind messages to you Gustav - you are prat!!! do you check my edits [32] No you do not! As pennance you are condemmed to 12 months Arbuthnot watch! Giano21:01, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Woops! Sorry I reverted to the wrong edit. Anyhow it looks like it may be true after all (Chamberlain not Barbaro). If you look at this search on Google Books and click on "Basil Hall Chamberlain: Portrait of a Japanologist" By Yuzo Ota- it references the autobiography of Houston Stewart Chamberlain where he explains that his grandfather Sir Henry Chamberlain, 1st Baronet was brought up with the Fanes but when when he fell in love with his half sister he was informed of his true parentage and was carted off to Portugal! Gustav von Humpelschmumpel21:06, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is all too much to cope with - Harriet having illigitmate relations, Prince Vitus ascending the throne of all the Americas, we shall next be told that Bishonen VIII is the rightful Queen of Scandinavia and that her cousin is Ghirla I, Tsar of all the Russias, I am going to lie in a darkened room and drink vodka. Giano21:11, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A means to expedite an ends! Check out the edits to Villa Barbaro it seems this family died out in the 18th century. Perhaps it is better to confront this problem in referenced "article space" and have the problem out in the open and solved by accurate referencing rather than allowing these stupidities to go one. Revert me if you wish, I'm not that bothered - but who knows who is reading these pages and believing them - a reference to the truth can do no harm. As I said revert if you want to. Giano19:46, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. At the end of the day Wikipedia has to be based on published references and published facts - so I see no harm in leaving them where they are - it is up to those who do not agree to find published facts supporting their own point of view. The references I have given are all from highly reputable sources. Giano20:21, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You are becoming very tiresome of late Gustavus! Why don't you go an contribute to coffee table book a subject almost as interesting and fascinating as toilet paper holder, and probably owned by the same sort of people. I'm sure your talents will be appreciated there, far more than mine, where I have already had to assert myself. Giano20:30, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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'EleganceThost02:07, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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.Thost02:20, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to explain the ties to the Grimaldi which you are so keen to have in the article then please do do. I keep repeatedly asking you to do so. As the Grimaldi's albergo was entirely Genoese and you say that the Barbaro were nothing to do with Genoa, I am truly interested. However, anything you insert into the article must be cited to a published reference book - including the page number. The Barbaro branch that were Patricians of Venice appear to have died out, if they have not then please again correct the article - giving again a page number referring to a reference book. Please also bear in mind that an American citizen cannot be a Patrician of Venice, a Princely Count or hold any other Italian title. It is my understanding this is law under the laws of both the USA and the former Serene Republic of Venice. If you know different then please insert in the article - again with page number and reference. Giano06:27, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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.
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!!!!!
Woah, there, gentle person. This seems to be getting a little more heated than it probably needs to be. No, I'm not Giano, and I don't know if he'll appreciate my replying, but hopefully somebody stepping in here will help calm this down a bit. Perhaps it's time for a breather? – Luna Santin (talk)08:36, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Luna no this is fine. Now "who ever you are" - wise up! we are all trying to help you and the Barbaro page out here, you are the one who often seems to be confused, so why don't you go and read my edit here [34] and then go and do some research of your own. Giano08:42, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WHEN PEOPLE WHO ARE NOT EXPERTS THINK THAT THEY CAN DO BETTER THAN AN ORIGINAL ARTICLE THAT WAS WRITTEN BY A BARBARO EXPERT THAN YOU ARE NOT HELPING ONE BIT
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 !!!!!
I really do have to say that I feel your language is not very aristocratic. You are being very silly and just a little rude. Now do calm down. All you are being asked to is cite some reliable references, which is what we all do here. Now either cite some references or give up, because no matter how much of a nuisance you choose to make of yourself Wikipedia is not going to alter its rules on references just for you. Giano08:58, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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!!!!!
GIVE ME THE SOURCE THAT SAYS THAT_YOU ARE JUST GOING ON HUNCHES NOW AS EVIDENT WITH THE GRIMALDI FACT AS SOURCED PREVIOUSLY> YOU WILL BE REPORTED TO WIKIPEDIA> YOU ARE A BOGUS SHAM THAT IS MAKING UP YOUR OWN HISTORY
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)[reply]
YES, GIANO IS A BOGUS EDITOR WHO IS SET OUT TO DESTROY TRUE BARBARO HISTORY. HE WILL NOT RETURN THE PROPER PAGE THAT EXISTED PERFECTLY FINE WITHOUT A SINGLE REMARK ABOUT IT. UNLIKE BOGUS "GIANO HISTORY" THAT HAS EVERYONE UPSET.WE WILL MAKE IT VERY CLEAR TO EVERYONE THAT WIKIPEDIA IS BOGUS AND IS A SOURCE THAT SHOULD NEVER BE TRUSTED WHEN THEIR OWN NAZI EDITORS SET OUT TO DESTROY GOOD ARTICLES. HE LIES ABOUT ASKING FOR SOURCES. THE BEST SOURCES WERE ALREADY LISTED ON THE ORIGINAL ONE AND WERE ALREADY LISTED MANY TIMES AFTER> HE IS A LIAR OF THE HIGHEST CATEGORIE> HE IS DESTROYING BARBARO HISTORY WITH HIS BOGUS EDITING< HE SHOUL BE REMOVED IMEDIATELY ON WIKIPEDIA!!!!! THIS WILL NEVER END UNTILL JUSTICE IS DONE!!!!
Always a popular page this - most people find normally my main space edits a very dull and acquired taste. Giano17:02, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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. Giano18:51, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for all the messages (well some of them) left here today. They have all been appreciated. "Tomorrow is another day" - or whatever it was Rhett or Scarlet said. Giano22:20, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For enduring obnoxious posts
..even when you weren't here.. I awared Thee (King of America)...
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)
Note the same ip previously posted to your page- [35]
Thanks for the offer, but he is so frustrated he will only go somewhere else. So he may as well stay here where we know where he is. The sad thing with the original [36] page on the Barbaro family a lot of it may well be true but an awful lot may well be not. The links to antiquity could have been claimed by them but are certainly false, and so confused is "our friend" that yesterday he was even challenging his own remaining facts thinking they were the work of others. Anyway there are enough editors looking at it now and researching it so it should soon be reliably expanded - if not to its former size. I removed as "our friend" suggested the information on the Palazzi Barbaro and created that page for that information so hopefully that should keep him happy on that score. We even how have a painting "The glorification of the Barbaro" which should thrill him to bits but however angry he becomes today we are not having Wikipedia full of unsourced rubbish because someone is jumping up and down and shouting - whatever their motives and no matter how desperate they are becoming. He will just have to be patient while all the facts are checked and researched properly. Giano06:35, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Giano and Gustav, I was looking at this rather unfortunate situation here, but let me put a theory a out there that might be a possiblity for this rather weird situation: I think think that this could be a college fraternity prank between frat brothers using the same computer. Maybe there really is one guy out there in the group that is genuinely trying to do something positive for Wikipedia by expanding the Barbaro family page with his reasearch, and then there is another frat brother or brothers trying to destroy what this other brother did, which may have been positive for Wikipedia. That could then explain why some edits seem positive and negative from the same source. Sadly, we can never know if the info on the previous Barbaro family article was good. That one guy said that he emailed the other to not put citaions in. This could be a frat prank between brothers that got out of hand. (anonymous)
Dunno! We mere Italian boys have always been deeply suspicious of the American frat boys - aren't they more in paddling themselves and each other and other equally odd behaviour rather than re-writing the Libro d'Oro? Giano20:27, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, the irony, Giacomo–WBardwin of all people got caught by collateral damage from Thost's block, so I had to undo the autoblock on Thost's IP. Obviously those IPs are dynamic, anyway. I don't think we can keep the guy out, we're simply blocking our own by trying. Bishonen | talk08:10, 11 July 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Don't worry he is obviously not a regular editor, otherwise he would know better than to think I will give in because of a little abuse. The sooner he realises that Wikipedia deals only in solid, hard facts the better and faster the page will be improved. Giano08:29, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
We cross posted, I was just posting this [38] - I don't think I know enough about the Goths to know wether his latest edit is right or wrong - the habbit seems to start with these sort of "possible true" edits and then build up over about the next ten to a whopping lie. This is getting to be too big a problem for us on our own. Can't some developed do something clever and magical with their IPs or something - I don't understand computer science either! Giano11:11, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This one too [39]. Unfortunately they seem to use dynamic ips which you can't block as lot's of different people use them. All we can do is look out for the 65. and 4.142 edits and look through the edit histories to see what else they have mangled. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel11:13, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Good idea - the Serb page will be OK that will be very strongly watched by its editors. That Fenwick school place must be appalling, obviously the staff are unable to supervise and occupy the children. If I was a parent I would ask for my money back. Odd that I see it is Roman Catholic they are normally very good, perhaps the Jesuits are softer in America that in Italy Giano11:22, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly the person is a former rather than a current pupil of Fenwick and is actually now at the Uinversity of Chicago (as above)? Re: the Serb edit he changed it from Greek to Roman (i.e. "pro" Italian) and is still there so that needs to checked. I've started the page here- feel free to add things that need to checked User talk:Gustav von Humpelschmumpel/Illinois Hoaxer. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel11:28, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that JC - a great page - I have made a few comments - I advise others to take a look at a very interesting page. Giano14:55, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
I agree completely so please all of you stop warring. This is not a mainspace article but matter of opinion - you have yours I can have mine. Now please learn a little tolerance. Giano21:48, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Why not. I tried to make it a little more precise [43] but is doesn't show up how I thought it would, perhaps someone knows how to do it. Giano12:24, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I was going to do so later, but if you have the time, I don't think there at that many - I'm undecided about St Paul's Cathedral and some of the Wren Churches. Giano12:27, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK I have added them all. I'm sure we have lots more hanging about, I think the architects can go in the category too. Giano14:24, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you JC. Yes, I have been very busy harvsting the goats. Glad to see in my absence that the standard of FACs has improved considerably, not only is there William Bruce (architect) which is excellent but also another amazingly page Chicago Board of Trade Building so nice to see some nice proper informative factual pages being nominated, rather than those solely concerned with the ever changing and dull manual of style (which only seems to be of interest to those that enjoy writing it) - pity the architecture pages attract so little interest though. All we need now od for Geogre or Bishonen to nominate a page and we have perfection and harmony on Wikipedia. Perhaps I should go away more often if this is how things improve - stop that exited squeaking on #wiki-admins, I'm only joking. I am here to stay. Giano16:38, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Smile
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.
There is definitly a nothern European style of Baroque and then there is "Bayerischer Barock" (Bavarian Baroque]] which is a completely over the top combination of onion domes and amazing roofscapes looking almost Russian at times [44] while internally it is often more like a fairground than anything seen at Schonbrunn, with astoundingly overfed putti clutching overweight pets it is completely riotious - someone really should so a page on it sometime - but there is also the more serious and solid stuff in Bavaria also such as Nymphenburg - I wonder if the German wiki has anything on it? Giano11:02, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually Germany does seem to have been enclosed totally by the Empire although perhaps it would be worth separating out the Holy Roman Empire section into smaller bits as it covers such a vast area? Gustav von Humpelschmumpel11:43, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Personally I would be very wary of touching that page - its principal editors are a very clever and knowledgable pair so there is probably a very good reason for the way it is done, why not have a word with Ghirlandajo who seems to be the main contributor or Wetman who would certainly have pointed out if there were any errors and merky areas. I'm not really that clued up on Baroque without a text book in hand. Giano12:35, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To anybody watching - here is a nice page languishing on FAC for (ten days or so) [45] 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. Giano20:32, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have no wants or unwants - I'm merely publicising a page that has had little attention good or bad - I'm sure your knocking will lead to improvement, one can't better a good knocker it also says so much about Wikipedia:Good articles. Giano21:46, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Pardon me for butting [just my butt, not the other thing] in: If you were to replace "known" with "rumored", then how about Dillinger? (Love that discussion, by the way: WP earnestness at its most hilarious.) -- Hoary14:58, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Funnily enough Anon I don't go about peeking at other mens' penis. No I don't remember any such conversation with Bishonen, ask her perhaps she is interested in such monstrosities. Personally I have always hated ostentation in any form - and especially those men that seem to feel the need to wander about locker rooms for ages towelling their backs for an unnecessary amount of time making the rest of us feel the need to change quickly squeezed into a corner. No help here sorry. Giano18:17, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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. Raul65419:47, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"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).[reply]
Could we now please close this subject, it is a very well known medical fact that at moments of great exitement we are all (well perhaps not you Lady C) the same size.[citation needed] Which renders the whole catgory pointless. Giano14:44, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[46] Such well known medical facts JC do not require citing. Additionally many people derive great comfort from such knowledge. I am very well versed on medical matters and strongly resent being asked to cite such obvious facts. Giano15:47, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Lady, you are probably not aware of the fact that the last time I mentioned something completely unrelated to this on the lovely Ms. Bishonen's talk page, she ... well ... I can't even say it, and can only link to what she wrote. Just imagine what she would write if I wrote this! I shudder to contemplate. --AnonEMouse(squeak)15:59, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh! What a tender, captivating document! I feel quite disordered — quite bouleversée — at discovering such depths of selfless love and maternal affection... That is the most modest and touching confession I've seen outside of the works of Mr Bulwer-Lytton! Mrs Bishonen is clearly even more exceptional than I thought her. But you... You callously wave such a monument to tact and discretion in the air for all to see! You "link" to it... and from this unspeakable discussion. You're a cad, sir. A squanderer of a good woman's love. Have you no... oh, well, obviously not. I have no more to say to you ! Catherine de Bourgh (Lady)17:41, 2 August 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Nice photo and article, I think though we can do better! Just as soon as I return to the real world, and have time for more than five consecutive moments on wikipedia. Giano06:30, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have made my comments and opinions perfectly clear once already. I have no idea why the FAC has to had to be restarted but I my earlier comments still stand. Giano11:51, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It was a really odd re-start - apparently Tony and Sandy are more equal than others - In the interests of encouraging the author would you perhaps be prepared to support again? --Joopercoopers12:28, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I support the article 100% as I made very clear. As far as I could see the greater majority were keen to promote and the consensus of opinion was to promote. I do not intend to play games for the benefit of those that don't like consensus. If pages can only be promoted to FA status with the consent of Sandy then Raul may as well retire and give her sole rights to promote as she sees fit, and those of us who write the odd page could then apply to her and her friends rather than seek the community's opinion. At present my opinion is as good as Sandy's and Tony's - I have given my views on the page once I shall not do so again. I am certainly not playing silly buggers everytime Sandy and co do not like a view on a FAC. Giano19:53, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Wetman, for me that link does not work; at the moment I am far from home and cannot really edit properly - I just check in and see what is going on - you know more about all these architectural matters than any of us...so......! Giano21:33, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Wetman, yes we are rusticating and Augusting - playing goatherds and goatherdesses with Mrs Giano and all the little Gianos who are all in training to join me on Wikipedia - all formed in the same mould we shall be a formidable team. I'm sure your brain is far from an "empty peapod" - remember the famous proverb "He who casts the empty peapod to the north wind composts on the south wind" - these old sayings are so true and should not be lightly cast aside. Giano21:39, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Brilliant on the Big Basin! That image said Gianogianogiano to me, breaking into your villeggiatura. New York this August has clusters of days like a Canadian summer: so little traffic that my Avenue at night is like a country road: by 3 a.m. a sweet breeze smelling faintly of greenness and salt river and mown lawn blows in: What wond'rous Life in this I lead. I've tweaked in my usual way: do be selective about what you retain. More at my User talk:Wetman. --Wetman00:14, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was just following your advice and looking at this [47] - Oh what enviable holdidays one can have when one is not accompanied by a platoon of litle voices saying "do they sell ice-creams"; "I need the loo" and "can we go the beach now" - perhaps one day a more sophisticated form of holiday will return for me too! Giano06:41, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not mine at all - a friend (D.Recorder) wrote it, posted it to FAC where it sat unloved for a while - he then went on holiday and asked me to keep an eye on it. It's been very quiet really and I was worried it might fail for lack of interest. Nice to see you back. --Joopercoopers12:11, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I see, well it looks as good as one of yours, I never checj histories - that is just how inbiased I am! I'm not back just yet, just having a couple of hours wroting up something that has been on my mind for a while. Giano12:16, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I see Wetman's piqued your interest - one of the wierdest buildings I've ever seen. Is there any explanation for the half dome? I was wondering if the resultant plan semi-circle might provide secure top lighting to the interior of a building which presumably was rarely occupied, but it's impossible to see from the photo. --Joopercoopers12:33, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To be quite frank - I know as little as anyone else about the building, I have just translated the original Italian and am now trying to research further and find out a little more - of course coming from a country where one has so much of the "real thing" these pastiches arowse little interest that they do elsewhere <said with no modesty whatsoever>. Giano12:38, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Italian
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."? --Joopercoopers12:58, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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. Giano14:55, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
He's pulling your leg, Joops, pay no attention. I'm a professional translator. The phrase really means "the cellphone of various eggs." (Those are enriched eggs.) Bishonen | talk13:08, 17 August 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Sarcasm JC is the lowest form of wit! I'm often surprised at the modesty of a great nation that supplied the world with its culture and refinement. Giano21:06, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I know. I had the rather odd experience of being shown around Pompeii and Herculaneum by an actor who happened to be playing Benito Mussolini in a play in Sorento. He'd also spent some time in Cornwall and was rather fond of saying "come one! choppy choppy". Pointing out the scandalous neglect of the 20 year old earthquake damage at Herculaneum he insisted that "since we built your roads, when you go back to the UK - please write to your MEPs and implore them to fix the damage." It was hard to refuse him. --Joopercoopers12:54, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I always feel the British have always been an ungrateful race, one arrives at considerable personal inconvenience, gives them law and order, good roads not to mention baths and personal hygiene, endures their God forsaken climate, not to mention building a wall to keep the Scottish out, which if they had not been to idle to maintain would have prevented many of their problems, and what grattitude does one get? None. Giano13:02, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Very nice indeed, I see you have even had a "do you know" on it, always nice when someone nominates a shiny new page for one of those. Well done. Giano14:56, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Image Formats
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. > Rugby471talk⚔07:05, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The fotos in the article do not look at all speckly, they look fine. I do not known how to alter my camera or computer to comply with your request; anyhow they do the job required, I did not upload them to be computer wall paper screen savers. Giano07:11, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Whoah, I'm not make a personal attack here, i'm just stating a fact. Maybe they don't look speckly in the article at very low resolutions of about 200px, but go to the image description page and click on the image (to view the image standalone) and does that look normal to you ? > Rugby471talk⚔16:33, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I did not upload it stand alone but to perform the task which they do perfectly well. If you want to fiddle about with them fine but I'm not greatly interested in anything but the article. Giano16:36, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well all I can say is I hope I don't come across you again in the 'pedia > Rugby471talk⚔ —The preceding signed but undated comment was added at 07:23, August 21, 2007 (UTC).
Fine, you just fiddle about but don't bore me with the details. I am about as interested in the composition of an image as I am the workings of a vacuum cleaner. Giano08:09, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Poison
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 Rockpocket, [48] 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 Rockpocket, 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! --Domer4818:18, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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. Rockpocket23:05, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think so many are playing with so many socks at the same time there, there everyone's feet are becoming very smelly indeed and it all needs to be properly investigated. Nothing more, nothing less. Some of those caught up in this have been quite happy to hint at and give their real names and details. Others have behaved in extraordinary if not bizarre ways - I look forward to seeing exactlt what has been going on there. Giano06:53, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you there. Vk is by no means the sole agitator here. However, without meaning any disrespect to him, he was the one foolish enough to get caught first. Rockpocket07:03, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sadly I am only me, but I do not need to be a "competent attorny" to known that he who gets caughts first does not absolve the sins of the others. I am going to watch this with interest. I may even open a book on who is who. Giano07:09, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'd love a first edition of that book. And yes, I agree with you both - nobody is squeaky-clean in this case, which is why the gleeful rubbing of hands from the sidelines is so galling right now - Alison☺09:13, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned non-free media (Image:NT Belton book.gif)
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. BetacommandBot00:56, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
BTW Giano, you realise you've just replied to a Bot (ie. a computer, something that can't have a conversation with you > Rugby471talk⚔ —The preceding signed but undated comment was added at 07:25, August 21, 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)[reply]
Actually I do mind! Do you imagine I want the great unwashed pawing all over these pages, vandalising and announcing which of their incontinent friends "enjoy their own company" on a frequent basis?. If I want to converse with moronic kids I have bred my own, I have only to leave my study walk down the stairs and receive "uuuuhhhgrunt" as a greeting. I do not need to associate with them here. I remember clearly the last time I met a editor as keen as you! Giano19:27, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No no, said wearily you must do as you think best. I am currently on a pilgrimage here. I'm sure the great unwashed will be very grateful! Giano20:09, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
The Cisternoni
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 | talk19:19, 21 August 2007 (UTC).[reply]
No you may not! The Biblio are the books in the Italian version and refer to the bits I translated, the refs are the books I used to verify what I added. One has to be very particular. Giano19:22, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You do realize this means there's no section called "Notes" at all? Even though there are in fact notes in the text? Unusual. Bishonen | talk19:23, 21 August 2007 (UTC).[reply]
I must say, it's very rewarding to show Giano the rabbit, then just put my feet on the handlebars and whizz down like this. --Wetman21:31, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well you won't think so when you have stayed awake all night reverting the great unwashed from "do you know", who actually "do not want to know" - and don't you have something to write about Rocce? Giano
Not sure I've ever seen a point where VK hasn't had something to add, though... At the moment he seems to be creating a long list of people he doesn't like as parties to the dispute. Not sure if I should feel flattered or angry not to be on it. — iridescent(talk to me!)18:30, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
VK is his own worst enemy. It is not up to him to be running this show, but the blocking admins to be trying to find a proper solution. He can run about his page like a caged animal as long as he likes but it won't change anything, that can only happen on the arbcom page. Giano18:56, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
BTW you said you hadn't seen any VK threats on-wiki; there's one here for example. (Not posted on his talk page as I don't see any need to give them any more rope to hang him — although someone's no doubt going through his entire edit history as we speak); I personally never had any problems with/abuse from him even at the height of the Arbuthnot Wars — iridescent(talk to me!)22:48, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well I know - don't you? he seems to like editing some interesting pages, with some interesting fellow editors. Me - I just live and learn and watch. One thing though that many people say about me is that I'm no push over, I am not at all gullible, and I see right through people. No matter how insensitive you will get the truth from me. Whatever is going on one thing is certain I will get to the bottom of it no matter how much some members of the arbcom want to keep it in camera. So I hope no-one is planning a white-wash. Giano22:15, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think we can now safely assume the current rants against me on Kittybrewster's page are just a sample of what happened to Vintagekits [54]. I hope Fred Bauder is taking note. Giano22:50, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But, they're not in the Social Register! Everyone who's in the Social Register deserves a Wikipedia article. At least everyone in the New York Social Register. I don't think they're in the new Almanach de Gotha. Now, everyone ever listed in the Gotha deserves a Wikipedia article, for starters. Then there's everone mentioned in an inscription in Corpus Inscriptionum Graecarum and all the posts for fresh horses in the Antonine Itinerary...--Wetman05:59, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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:
One of your headings is 'My interactions with these editors', which actually then has nothing to do with your interactions, just being little more than a cursory look through various editors' block logs and Talk pages. Given that the campaign of disruption has been going on since, at least, January, perhaps you should cast your net wider.
Your critique seems to me based largely on my posts left, at various times, on Rockpocket's Talk page, Alison's Talk page, and BrownHairedGirl's Talk page, and associated links from those posts. These are only my special pleadings, however; the problem with Vintagekits is that his edit-warring encompasses the entire range of the Anglo-Irish 'interface'; as far as I am aware, all of the flash-points identified here, and including some of his own; eg. Mairéad Farrell and The Falklands War. In each case, there is no attempt to find a solution, but straight into reversion, edit-warring, and abuse. If you want to be comprehensive, you should move beyond the Baronets issue and look at the full picture.
So far, at least as I read it, you have failed to find your smoking gun of equivalent bad behaviour from both 'sides'. If you want to keep digging, good luck to you, but I shouldn't think that you're going to find anything better than you've already got and some of your interpretations - eg. my 'Aytong' and 'Arrer' comment - are (amusingly) wrong-headed (move it to a public space and I'll put you right - although quite what it's got to do with the present situation is beyond me). I should also point out that Vintagekits' present claims are not about 'the Scottish editors' per se, but about a conspiracy of Admins out to get him. You'll need to look at Zoe (whose User page was tagged with a 'persistent vandal' template, a similar joke later being played on David Lauder), MrDarcy (see his Talk page), and all of the present crop of Admins involved with him, excluding SirFozzie, and (presumably) Bishonen.
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.
I, on the other hand, am here to comment on a different subpage altogether, and I will be brief: I look forward to watching progress on The Cooper Baronetcy, Giano - glad to see you're still writing FAs for this odd little project. :-) KillerChihuahua?!?23:01, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Puppy! Where hve you been - such a lot to catch up - No my baronets are not going to be a FA just a little mental exercise in research. Giano07:09, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Giano, your "little mental exercises" generally trump most people's "exhaustive research". As you are well aware I am sure. As to where I've been, the Real World has been taking too much of my time and efforts, but I try to put in as much time as feasible here. Whether that's an overall boon or curse to the project I will leave for others to judge. KillerChihuahua?!?09:33, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh I can ssure you, Puppy, that the heady and seductive mix of insecticide coupled with Frinton-on-sea will make these baronets a page like no-one else's baronets - none of this wandering arownd claiming honory positions handed out to all and sundry with a title and mediocre army careers wil be necessary with mine! I may even add some rivetting images of dancing the nights away in the 1920s - not to mention the exitement rhodeoing in Argentina Giano13:51, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Out of order
How dare you remove my comment from the Vintagekits ArbCom. You are not an administrator and I insist upon it's return immediately. David Lauder20:45, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Either replace my comment (only) in the correct place or I propose to make a complaint to the admins. You are out of order removing anyone's comments. You have no right. David Lauder20:50, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note that you're not supposed to comment on other editors' statement in ArbCom requests in their statement area. Instead, either add it to the talk page or add it to your own statement - Alison☺21:12, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In the unlikely event that anyone is remotely intersted in the above thread this [56] is the edit that Mr Lauder is objecting to. Immediatly after making it I made this edit on his talk [57] which he deleted [58] as he did to the admin who then came to explain to him the correct procedure [59]. I see he has now followed advice and finally made a statement. Giano21:42, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Thanks. I suspect the Arbcom will avoid the issue and allow it to fester on. You are correct, anyone who does not agree 100% with "the Baronets" is indeed the common enemy. The "Republicans" are easier to reason with, for the simple reason that many are just editors writing about the subject - not real life players in the dramas of which they write but it is a difficult problem to solve as the baronets seem to think they are. Giano06:19, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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. Scolaire08:37, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I neither know nor care who said I was "involved" it is immaterial. I am only involved in as much as, as an outsider looking on I feel I can see things more clearly than those who are involved and present a clearer view to those who may find this case confusing. I also have experience in dealing with the editors involved albeit in different matters. Thus I can clearly see the qualities of both groups. However, this is supposed to be solely about VK - and he's not all bad so I hope people will come to realise that. Regarding the length of statement, I shall do a shrug to that. if someone wants to make a point of it, I'm sure they shall and there is little I can do about it. Giano19:51, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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? DeusExMachina06:44, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am not commenting on any situation about which I know nothing. Basically, I stand by what you quote me saying then. However, I would advise against outing someone publicly in wik-space without consultation at a very higher lever first - are you 100% sure of your facts etc. Giano07:40, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Entering someone else's conversation here but be aware also that when you "out" someone as an alleged pedophile, what they're doing might be both acceptable & legal where they live - Japan & Mexico have ages of consent of 13 & 12 respectively, for example — iridescent(talk to me!)11:45, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Harry Lauder
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. Choess17:50, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Hi Giano; on the Vk talk page you refer to some "workshop" (I read someone else saying something about it in edit comment (it may have been Penwhale above, now that I think of it). Question: What workshop? Where? (Sarah77721:53, 8 September 2007 (UTC))[reply]
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? --Wetman20:26, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Wetman, that is very interesting. Yes I do know that villa, and somewhere have a lot of information about it but at the moment I am tired of Italian Villas and real life is taking over. However I have made a note of it on my page of interesting things that I will write up some time. While on that page I found one of my favourite images Image:Putto swimming.gif I must find a home for him some time. Giano21:38, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I was thinking, too narrowly, only about paintings calledX Crossing Y. (Maybe that could be a subcat of my new cat, in fact.) Thank you! Bishonen | talk22:47, 5 September 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Also, about the Milvian Bridge one: wow, very fine carnage and destruction, it's like a really lively AfD discussion, but there's not a lot of crossing going on. Did I say "Paintings of people fighting on geographical features"? No, I don't believe I did. Bishonen | talk22:52, 5 September 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Ah, but they want to cross the bridge! :-) As for more, I'm thinking that famous people will be a good bet. I'm thinking Joan of Arc for some reason. There must be a painting of her crossing something. Carcharoth22:54, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think this is a famous pic (in fact, I think it is some history book illustrator releasing their stuff, or someone scanning old illustrations out of a book), but here, we have "Alexander the Great With his Troops Crossing the Jaxartes". As for paintings specifically called "X Crossing Y", sorry, you'll have to wait for Giano to come up with some ideas. :-) Carcharoth22:54, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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 | Talk13:31, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that one would be even more up my alley. But how would you handle WP:SYNTH objections? I mean, how would you folks decide whether Sickness & Suicide & 'ssasinations don't belong with Death too? HG | Talk18:11, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is all far to heavy now, I do seem to remember that dear Lady Sybil in a previous existence [62] attempted to cross the Alps or was that Napoleon - one forgets these things - is she any good for the new category? Giano18:17, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The normal method is to ensure categories are easily definable. For example, Category:Biblical art seems reasonable. In practice, it is harder than it seems. As long as there is a solid core of indisputable members (eg. all the "Death of..." paintings), then things are usually pretty safe. Another way to handle it is to look at a broad sweep of articles, and assess where the current differences lie. Is it easy to divide a category up? Are lots of the entries people, with some buildings and animals mixed up with the people? Are there historical divides, geographical divides. All very tricky. Categories can be slippery things though, which is why lists can be easier to build up, and the advantage is that they can be annotated. On the other hand, lists are more prone to WP:OR accusations. A classic case of an interesting but controversial list is List of books with the subtitle "Virtue Rewarded". Carcharoth20:27, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[Bishonen blushingly realizes she's had too much free time once or twice lately. ] Well, at least I don't spend it decorating my stupid userpage with awards and bragsheets and stuff! I make fun lists and categories for everybody to enjoy! [Cheers up. ] Bishonen | talk23:02, 6 September 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Your comments @ Taj Good Article Review
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. --Nemonoman04:06, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Right wing
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! Rockpocket20:44, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was, and I was addressed directly. Have to say, the "right wing" comment kinda made me chuckle more than anything else. Didn't you know that Wikipedia Is Communism ;) - Alison☺20:48, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I didn't realise I was excused from the clique. I was on that page until I began asking questions that Vk didn't like, so he deleted my comments. In case you missed them, Vk claims Franks details were passed on to him by another individual, unprompted by Vk, but declines to tell us who that is. So it appears we have someone else investigating the personal details of other editors and passing them around. All a bit of craic, eh? Rockpocket21:32, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose VK is just exercising what little choice is left to him - now the Judge has decided in advance of the trial who can blame him? Regarding your other point: No mystery there at all, Frank's "real name" was posted by him all over Wikipedia, and while it is has now been over-sighted, it is still, as of yesterday, on Wikitravel. The surname coupled with his initials was so unusual his address came up on Google - the only instance of it! I managed to find that out all by myself just yesterday - I expect now there will be a big rush on wikitravel to oversight that last remaining trace. The true mystery though, now that Frank is inferring a new name on citizendum which ironically demands real names, is how he knew the address matched his Wikipedia name if it was not his name - if you follow - all very confusing isn't it. As I have yet to see evidence of a threat, and Frank, or Wahid, or whatever he is currently calling himself, insists on plastering his details all over the internet is what is the problem - If I posted on one internet site "Hello My name is Giano Huckleschmidt and I live in London" and on another site: "please rent my apartment in Belgrave Square, London apply to Giano Huckleschmidt" and someone put 2 and 2 together and came up with four I could hardly be surprised or outraged could I? Now if someone said I am coming to blow up and destroy your apartment in Belgrave Square that would be a little naughty, but so far I have seen no proven evidence of that - have you? Giano21:54, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't begrudge Vk exercising his right to delete comments at will. But the whole point of my questions were to try and convince myself that he might have a point about being set-up. Spitting his dummy when the questions began to show there is more to this than his story that he would have us believe doesn't help him one iota.
Someone else pointed out how easy it would be to find Frank's address via Google. As you say, it wasn't difficult. However, that is somewhat beside the point. Maybe I am just not nosy, but I have never bothered trying to find out anything personal about any editor here on Wikipedia. Why would one care? After all, its the content, not the contributor that matters, right? It worries me that the individuals involved here are not content with issuing threats and insults to each other on-wiki, but that they feel the need to go and investigate the personal details off wiki, irrespective about how easy or difficult it is. I simply can't conceive that this would serve any legitimate purpose, and it certainly holds the potential to be very sinister.
I certainly don't advertise anything personal about me publicly. However, privately I don't hide my identity either (I use an identifying email address). Therefore half a dozen of the people in this case could have my telephone number, home address and picture of me by now. I participate here under the impression that our editors should maintain a standard of politeness, civility and security. When I hear that at least one person is actively sourcing the personal details of other editors and passing them around, it genuinely worries me, especially since no-one has offered an explanation for the purpose of this. Add that to occasional allusions to serious threats and it worries me even more. Does this strike you as a standard of politeness, civility and security that we should tolerate on Wikipedia?
You clearly are not a student of human nature - some people are nice, others are nasty, some are inquisitive (that's me) and some just like to see fair play (that's me too). If I edited controversial pages I would be very careful of my own identity that is just common sense, in fact I think that applies to the internet completely, one only has to read the newspapers to see horror stories concerning the naive and stupid meeting up with the downright criminal. Regarding you and VK it would appear you have lost his trust - did you ever have it? I don't actually know what VK gets up to, or much care, what i do care about is that he is being very unfairly treated at the moment - he has been judged and found guilty on the word of one dodgy witness who has yet to produce the evidence. Now there is a word for that - any idea what it is? Giano22:31, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was under the impression that the nasty and downright criminal should have no place on wikipedia, leaving the nice, inquisitive and fair editors (and even the naive and stupid) to work together harmoniously. This is the basis on which I have been operating. Vk's trust is ephemeral, one only has it for as long as it suits his purpose. You only have to look how quickly he turned on Alison to see that. Its easy to trust those who agree with you, only in disagreement is trust tested. The person is trust most on this project is the person that is utterly and fundamentally opposed to my views on the issues I care about most. That's real trust.
I have no sympathy for Vk anymore. I did for a long time, but you can only give people so many chances. I don't have any respect left for him either. Multiple times now, I have offered him my support in return for honesty and each time he lies and continues to agitate, goad, insult and abuse. I would be the fool if I fell for that again. I, personally don't believe anyone is being unfair about Vk's treatment, but even if it was - I'm past caring. He has made his bed and now he has to lie in it. My hope now is that the efforts of everyone will instead go towards exposing all the other agitators, liars and abusers that operated in this murky little corner of Wikipedia and that they meet the same fate. They all deserve each other. Rockpocket22:56, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For someone past caring - you seem very interested. I know nothing, or hardly nothing about VK's editing or past, and even less about Ireland and its politics but I know a stitch up when I see one, if people are allowed to behave like that who will be next? Giano22:59, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm past caring about the latest justification so that Vk can wikilawyer his way out of his 10th block in 8 months. I care very much that we don't have to go through this again in the coming weeks and months should we unblock him to carry on his charade. By the way, you might be interested in this. Your response to Fred was more than a little dramatic considering he said the same thing over a week ago and no-one seemed to care then. Declining to review Vk's block then kind of implies he thinks it is justified, don't you think? So why the hysterics when his opinion is quoted by Alison now? Like I said to Sarah, I'm beginning to think of these bursts of indignation on Vk's page like buses - there will always be another one for people to jump on before too long. Rockpocket23:22, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You sound like Inspector Javert, with VK being some kind of Jean Valjean... relentlessly pursuing your quarry until its end is nigh. I think VK's actions were quite reprehensible, but if you are truly unbiased you'd see that the so-called "Establishment"'s methods, including those of W.Frank and Kittybrewster, are equally heinous and should be punished, if not as harshly, but certainly harsher than you would currently give them. DeusExMachina23:33, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And what exactly would I "currently give them" that demonstrates my bias? As far as I am aware I have yet to comment on any remedy regarding Kittybrewster (as has everyone else, because none have been proposed). My opinion regarding Frank is to "support a fairly long sanction" and I provided the evidence of his obvious sockpuppet. I also on record supporting a ban on Astrotrain and Conypiece (both "Establishment" editors) and oppose a ban of Padraig (an Irish Republican editor). I make that supporting a long block for 1 Establishment editor and 1 Irish editor, and a long ban for 2 Establishment editors and no Irish editors. So, please provide something other than a vague impression you have based on your ignorance of my record, in support of your accusations. Rockpocket07:21, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well there are quite a "few young men" singing "an angry song". However, as the evidence is "damning but secret" and the man who provided it has fled the scene and many others who have never seen it are saying it must be acted upon, I see little that can be done for VK at the moment. Strange times we live in. Giano06:15, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Repeating a straw man doesn't make it any more convincing, Giano. The evidence that got Vk blocked, and remains private, was not provided by Frank and is not the mythical email supposedly threatening arson. It was written entirely by Vk, on wiki, and Vk knows what it said. Vk can help himself by emailing his side of the story to ArbCom and telling the truth. Its that simple. Rockpocket07:21, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So how do you know this? Are you saying that Fred does not have the evidence either - we all know what VK has said on Wiki? He is being tried and sentenced for what is being said he said off wiki - as you well know! The "Damning but secret" evidence - a secret is only a secret when no one knows it - we all know what he posted on wiki! Giano07:23, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I know Fred has access to everything that justified the block in the first-place. If he has additional evidence, I am not aware of it. You say "He is being tried and sentenced for what is being said he said off wiki", but the facts do not back that up. Currently, I am the only one that has provided significant evidence against Vk in the case. Everything I have provided is either on-wiki, or emails that Vk admits to sending. I am the one that proposed the findings of fact and the remedies, all based on the evidence I provided and the single bit of over-sighted evidence. Nothing, provided or proposed, is done so on the basis that Vk sent a threatening email to Frank. Nothing. Now, if there is additional evidence then A) that should be provided on the evidence page or B), if it must remain private, the person that has that should make it clear they are supporting or opposing based in evidence unseen by the rest of us. Everyone else should (and has, as far as I am aware) made their decision based upon the evidence currently provided. If you don't think that evidence is sufficient to justify the proposed remedies then by all means say so. That is fine. But what is not helpful is the insinuation that everyone is basing their decisions based on some email that probably doesn't exist. They are not. Rockpocket07:38, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There are far too many tangeant pages to this case, so I'm not responding to you here, beyond pointing out that even if as W Frank claime he has received emails from VK threatening him the Arbcom would not be able to sanction VK because of them - the Arbcom may only consider evidence placed and posted on wikipedia itself. This was one of the findings of the infamous "Giano case" findings which save some prominent Wikipedians from serving long blocks themselves. Giano09:45, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So whats the problem then? If ArbCom will only consider evidence on wiki (and that which has since been oversighted) then the infamous email is irrelevent, as it has been made very clear that it will not be provided. Why all the fuss? Rockpocket17:28, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's got nothing to do with any email, and Giano knows this. All of VKs transgressions leading up to this block were on-wiki. It's all pretty clear really & W. Frank's mythical emails have nothing to do with it - Alison☺17:36, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"W. Frank's mythical emails have nothing to do with it" You are suddenly singing a different tune Alison, does this mean you will now be proposing a motion that WF is banned for telling lies about VK and trying to dop him in the mire, when in fact all VK did (on this occasion) was make a veiled reference to a street in Glasgow where WF may or may not live. I live in a part of London with a near identical name, perhaps he meant to send the email to me! This is all becoming too stupid for words. Giano17:53, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've stated exactly that from the very day after VK was blocked. I repeatedly stressed that this had nothing to do with emails. I can show you the diffs to support that from way back, if you'd like to see them. So stop trying to slap that one on me. It's. Got. Nothing. To. Do. With. Emails. - clear enough? And yes, I might just propose something of that nature, given that I've already weighed in on the arb case stating clearly how I felt; "Agreed. In particular, his use of IP addresses in a way to avoid identification was unhelpful, to say the least - Alison ☺ 07:02, 7 September 2007 (UTC)", etc, etc. Honestly, Giano, do you actually bother to analyse what I've been saying all along or do you get some idea as to what you think I've said and run with it. Right now, you're actually hindering VK's case. Seriously. Your arguments have degenerated into farce and cliché. At least we all agree on the "too stupid for words" bit. - Alison☺18:13, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Let me get this clear: Vk emailed something to someone (other than Frank), which is as damning (or almost) as the mysterious email he may/may not have sent to Frank? But it can't be shown for some reason unless Vk himself decides to show it from his prison cell? But Vk claims he can't show it because, just like Franks email, it doesn't exist. Is that a reasonable summary of the situation? (Sarah77710:58, 12 September 2007 (UTC))[reply]
God knows, I have only just logged on for the first time in hours - and yet to check my watch list. Has there been an amazing development - as I understand it: W Frank "says" VK threatened him in an email, bit he won't show it to anyone, but WF and Fred Bauder have had telephone conversations at some some stage although I thought it was before these events when he was banned as as sockpuppet (WF that is) Now Fred says he has evidence that is damning but secret (he may have said private - I can't be bothered to look), which can't be the evidence we have all seen on wiki (now oversighted) because we have all seen it. I have suggested nothing from VK can be so private that it can't be re-emailed to VK cos he sent it in the first place and must no what it said, so if they re-email VK his emails so he knows what they are, then he has no excuse for not knowing what is in them - of course there is the possibility they do not exist - or (heaven forbid) they are faked - who knows in the weird and wonderful world of wiki what is going on - these are the things that occur when one tries to run a quasi-legal system with no clear rules on conduct and codes of admissibility or evidence. Giano16:50, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do yourself a favour and loose the attitude, then stop accusing me of sexism (or whatever it is called). Then if you are able check the diffs. I merely reply, and that seems to be one of the problems with some of the editors involved with his dispute, all very good at dishing it out, until the replies start coming in, then it is always attack and re-attack, I had thought you were above that - oh well we all make mistakes. Perhaps that is why this dispute has gone on and on. Good luck with your problems here and your tediously dull and low achieving baronet pages they all look set to stay with you - Oh well I expect their relations are always glad to read them. Giano21:26, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
BHG, don't you think it's a bit of a pity to put that petty stuff right under the plaudits for Giano's best page ever (on the Main Page yesterday)? As for hissy fit, speaking as a female, I'm very sure that I've seen more men than women accused of them. Bishonen | talk21:58, 27 September 2007 (UTC).[reply]
I'm off to bed, I can't be doing with all this sexism claptrap - I blame Emily Pankhurst, if she had stayed at home and brought up her children properly the world would be a far better place. Giano22:13, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
singing quietly on way to bed: "I'm a woman! W-O-M-A-N", followed by "I enjoy being a girl".....and "Harvest Moon" - yes, I know it's an irrelevance, but have you seen that wonderful moon these last couple of nights? :-) --FClef (talk)23:12, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's because it is very cold and the hawthorn and the blackeberries are early, which means it is going to a long hard winter! (just one of the many interesting things I know) Giano06:05, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Bishonen, it doesn't matter in this context whether Giano has written one featured article or 500 of them, unless you are saying that this gives an editor a licence to go around insulting people.
That RFA is there to try to bring an end to a long series of disputes which caused a huge amount of disruption and far too many raised tempers. Today three editors in succession politely asked Giano not generate more antagonism, and he responded with insults. That's why I want to know what he is trying to achieve, other than trolling.
Making this comment on the workshop page is in my opinion one of the most disgusting spiteful edits I have seen on Wikipedia in years [64]. It looks to me like BHG is not quite the person she likes to portray herself as. Giano06:28, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Giano, that section of the RFA makes interesting reading: until you joined in, it was a polite discussion of a proposal unsupported by evidence. At least four editors on that page (including two admins and one uninvolved party) asked you politely to stop generating more antagonism, and your response was to accuse those concerned throwing "hissy fits", and then to escalate. If you are not just throwing your weight around in the warm glow of having written an FA, then perhaps you would like to explain why exactly you persist in setting out to generate antagonism? Could it be that you actually meant it when you wrote on your draft evidence page that "The author of this page works erratically, he is nasty, bad tempered, and quite horrible to be near"? --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 09:53, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you could provide a diff in support of the accusation you made here: "For ages all we heard about was the evil Vintagekits" ? I'd be interested to see where anyone called Vintagekits "evil"? If all you are doing is "responding to diffs" then that shouldn't be too difficult, right?
I believe it is that sort of hyperbole that is inflaming the situation. You clearly disliked the reference to Julian Clary, yet appear to have no issue with calling others' names. Can you not see that all you are doing is being drawn into the same type of poor behaviour you accuse others off? I really think, for you own welfare, you should take a break from this discussion, because your contributions are getting very close to trolling and it does not appear to have escaped the attentions of the abitrators. Rockpocket06:37, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Frank and some other editors including you have portrayed VK as "evil" call it "wicked" "nasty" "obnoxious" whatever you like, it amounts to the same. BHG has patrolled these "Troubles" pages like a headmistress but it now seems she rarely listens or weighs and balances facts correctly. If getting to the truth is trolling then that is sad - banning me for getting to that truth, no matter how unsavoury it now appears to certain editors, would be an interesting move. One of the most simple and obvious truths of the whole problem is that if BHG and Alyson had realised sooner the limitations of their peace-keeping abilities and asked for more experienced assistance a lot of the troubles of The Troubles may well have been avoided. I think I have said "almost" all I have to say on the subject now. Giano07:08, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you would like to provide diffs of the "other editors including [me]" using the terms "evil", "wicked", "nasty" or "obnoxious" in reference to Vk. It doesn't amount to the same when it is a straw man, you see. If your allegations are to be taken seriously, you need to start supporting them with more than a general impression you wish to portray. Lets see the diffs.
As for the "limitations of their peace-keeping abilities", are you now seriously suggesting that these editors are to blame for the current situation because they were unable to keep other editors from violating policy? I find that rich, because when they did take firm action you were leading the campaign supporting those editors who are violating the policies in the first place. They take action to deal with the problem and you criticize them, and then you criticize them for not taking action. Seems very hard to please you, Giano. Perhaps you should become an admin yourself and show us all how its done. Rockpocket07:48, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You know very well how you have wished to portray Vintagekits, so please stop splitting hairs it cuts no ice. I have no wish to be an admin at all - thanks for the offer of nomination though. I find to many admins are lacking in the experience to handle the situations in which they find themselves, perhaps that is age or whatever - I don't really care. However, the efforts of the combined admins so far have hardly been a resounding success have they? - or do you feel the current situation is to be applauded? You seem to forget the current arbcom case was launched solely with VK in mind - perhaps you feel he was the sole problem, well it seems that is not the case - so be happy that firm attempts at resolvolution are now being made. Giano08:10, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
R.L. Roumieu
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)[reply]
I have heard the name but that is about it. I would beware mirror sites repeating the same false information, I would have thought he was a little late to be described as a "Huguenot architect". That in Britain, implies to me, looking back to the era of Eggington House etc. I could be wrong perhaps it was a common reference in Britain at that time but I have not come across it before. Giano20:20, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So I see, I have been studiously ignoring it! I have limited wiki-time at the moment and what there is has been rather devoted to matters Irish - when that is over I want to get "Exploding houses" finished and in mainspace for FAC, it has been hanging about for too long and The Monaco castle needs a good final polish before FAC. I don't want to get involved again in a dispute over what is today a minor family. I archived the talk yesterday as it was ridiculously long, just had a glance at the page and restored my rather witty image, it looks like I deleted it by accident ages ago. I'm of the opinion if he wants to write a long ranting page about such an obscure subject that no one can understand let him. The European branches of the family meet the notability guidelines, so it can always be sorted out later when he has tired of it, has it out of his system and gone away. What we cannot have though is the return of that high school kid claiming to be the last of the Barbaro or whatever he was, one can't have an Italian title unless one is listed in the Libro d'Oro and Vitus Barbaro of the US of A most definitely is not. Giano12:56, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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/c03:59, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Giano was not what...? Sure he was. Unlesss adding categories or changing endashes to emdashes counts as "involvement". If there ever was an FA with a "sole author", Hannah is it. Bishonen | talk08:41, 24 September 2007 (UTC).[reply]
The other person I had in mind was you, Bishonen, since you contributed somewhat substantially as well, or so the article history suggests in terms of edits... I'm not sure if the actual work split was 95-05, 90-10 or 80-20 or what, but you did do things. After that it drops off to a jot here and a tittle there, or so it seems to me. Hope that helps clarify my remarks. ++Lar: t/c09:57, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The history (which shows only number of edits, unless you view the diffs) is disproportional then. :) But then Giano does tend to do huge gobs of article work in one single edit. You'd think he doesn't have editcountitis and only cares about making an encyclopedia, or something. I however insist on continuing to believe that your edits helped get the article past the non content FAC hurdles. Do indulge me, won't you? ++Lar: t/c11:38, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Bishonen as usual was of an enormous help, as were all the copyeditors and tweakers - I always work with a support cast of thousands! Before anyone else feels the need to chip in by pointing out that the article existed long before I arrived on the scene, let me explain I actually started it under my first and original Wiki-name. The help one receives is one of the nice things about editing on Wikipedia. Giano11:50, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Five months' gestation, Giano, with a result more nuanced than most encyclopedia biographies; an excellent read, with a deep undercurrent of sadness. Really good work. --Wetman06:29, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks ONIH (your wit is sparkling too) Coffee JC? Have a glass of this - a little early in the day but we have lots to celebrate including ONIH's own moment of glory on the front page next week!
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. 196.2.106.8809:14, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But makes it highly unlikely the estate of this 'unknown' person will be ascerting their copyrights. Fool. Congratulations Giano its a ripping tale once again. --Joopercoopers09:52, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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).[reply]
{{PD-old}} is the correct tag, as it is a photo, not an artwork. When it comes off the main page, someone should change that. Technically, the point about not knowing the date of death of the author is correct, but in reality the situation for very old photos is that records were not kept of who took the photo. Detailed and lengthy research might possibly uncover who took the photo and any descendents, if they exist, and how the photo got from there (Dalmeny House, 1879) to here (Wikipedia, 2007), but most sensible people recognise that pictures this old are almost certainly public domain. In any case, if someone pops up and can prove ownership, we just change the information and switch to a fair-use claim or remove the picture. But until that happens, the current tagging is fine. Carcharoth12:46, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. You appear to be confused as to Wikipedia's policies regarding old photographs. I'm sure that if you bother to check it out you will save yourself a lot of trouble, otherwise you are going to be attempting to delete thousands of 19th century phitographs from thousands of Wikipedia bios. The photograph in question has been through the FAC process where all of these things are very closely scrutninised and no problems were found. A very good explanation of the problem is given here to you [67]. Please consider registering an account. Thank you for your interest in the page. Giano12:43, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Preston & Naples
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 Johnbod21:02, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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. Raul65402:26, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fine, no problems. I could see things were going to become a little difficult. One small thing, if you read the comments on Leonardo da Vinci's FAC you will find that he is in fact a mother of 4 - not that that affects the quality of the writing of course. Giano06:32, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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. --Wetman23:20, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've not been ignoring you Wetman but seeing what info is available here - in short - not much. Will keep looking. Not a lot in any of my books. Giano07:21, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'd always give you more than a day! If there were architect-designed wooden Gothic structures in C19 New Zealand, I simply figured that carpenters' vernacular Gothic ones must follow. Didn't you write an article on a New Zealand architect working in this mode? --Wetman08:58, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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.) Deor23:34, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's OK, I understand your concerns - I have been watching, there is indeed a Palazzo/Palazzi Barbaro-Dario in that location, allthough that is about all I know about it - it is older than the Palazzo Barbaro on the Grand Canal which tallies with the page too. I will double check with some better reference books later today. Giano 06:16, 3 October 2007
(UTC)
I have made few edits, I expect they will be contraversial in certain quarters, bit it is now more accurate. Giano08:21, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not so sure, these odd things can happen in Italy take Villa Almerico-Capra or even Villa Capra-Valmarana, I personally don't feel certain enough to remove it, if you do I won't revert you but I wonder if it would lead to a needless revert war with no certainty of right on your side. More re-search I think is needed by all, butat least Prince Vitus has not yet made an appearance. Giano12:06, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I really cannot be doing with Prince Vitus someone else can deal with him. I have just altered the Pallazi to make it into the singular, if you decide to re-add then you will have to revert me there. I have also added my superstition I like that makes it more interesting tothose who are not that bothered about the architecture. Giano12:13, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You do surprise me, if we have any more trouble the pages will have to be semi-protected, I had hoped by helping him out we may be able to avoid this. Giano12:25, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
They are very sneaky as they add some information that is true but other info that is hoax which is the most destructive type of vandalism as people often fall for it. This diff shows what information was added since the article was unlocked. I think we need to remove most of that information if we cannot verify it with our own eyes. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel12:37, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure how to handle this one, the page has only been unprotected a few days - I suppose we have to find someone prepared to re-protect and/or block the socks and IPs ect- regarding the information I suppose the answer is if in doubt take it out. I now very little about the Barbaro, and oddly none of my books seem to mention much about them, which does surprise me as they are fairly notable at one tim in Venezzia. Giano12:41, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I have found them- I thought they were webpages but I saved them as screenshots from an online reference which can't be found by search engines- Chalmer's biographical dictionary (1911) has quite a bit on them and also the Dictionary of Biography and Mythology, will start adding the refs.... Gustav von Humpelschmumpel12:59, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Giano, does this tree look legitimate to you? If so it might be true that there was a branch of Barbaros survived later than we knew of but I can't see how this Pietro Barbaro is linked to the earlier Venetian group? Gustav von Humpelschmumpel13:11, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have just been reading the Italian sites of the two palazzi, it seems the Barbaro can sometimes be called Barbaro-Volkoff but no mention of Barbaro-Dario, but i'm sure i found reference yesterday to the two combined - will keep looking, juts going to look at your site. Giano13:16, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
it couls be genuine. know way of knowing, i would like to see a hard copym don't forget Barbaro and its similar words means Barbarian - there are probably hundreds of unconnected families withthis name noble and ignoble. Giano13:18, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"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. Giano13:52, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If I have the genealogy corrct is not Dr. Anthony Cremona Barbaro supposedly the father of our Prince Vitus (I may be totally and mentally and permanently confused) I am just wondering who has supplied all this information, if the tree is correct then I beleive all the titles must have stopped years ago withthe death of the father of "the Marchioness di San Giorgio had passed away in February, 2001" - are you folowing me? The title should have gone back up the line and then sideways not down through female descent. If there are no male descendents then it becomes extinct and the family with it. There are a few very rare cases in European nobility where special dispensations are made for one generation only such as the English 2nd Duchess of Marlborough and the present hlder of the Duke of Medinaceli is a woman - (but I think Spanish titles, are the one exception and can pass to a woman when there is no male heir) but elsewhere such exemptions occur usually only very close to the creation date - I doubt there was any reigning monarch arownd when Grandpa Barbaro departed his mortal coil to permit the female succession. Giano15:17, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You may also want to chck out the deletion debate from this article here [68] there is all too much co-incidence here for my liking. Giano15:30, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think this Maltese San Giorgio branch is genuine. None of the titles have anything to do with Italy as they were granted after Simone Barbaro moved to Malta in the arly 1700s. Vitus claimed to be the representative of the Albergo branch which he claimed was descended from Giosafat Barbaro but so far I can find no evidence of that. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel15:32, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Giano I am now completely convinced the Albergo branch is fake. The reference given for "until the 19th century before the Albergo branch permanently moved to their silk producing baronial estate in Catanzaro" in Palazzo Dario is "A History of Venice" by John Julius Norwich. I have checked this book and it says nothing about the Barbaro Albergo branch. Also, the reference given for the claim that the Albergo branch were granted the title of Grand Prince of Transylvania was "The Congress of Vienna" by Harold Nicolson. I have checked this book and there is no mention of Barbaro whatsoever. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel16:28, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Giano, they tried to add it back with lots of obscure sources but I think I spotted a hole in their story. They claim that the Sala dell'Albergo in the Chiesa di San Rocco di Venezia is so called because of its association with this Albergo branch of the Barbaro. However a search suggests it merely means "Hall of the Hostel" and I can find not one entry on the internet or in any book that links a Barbaro to the Chiesa di San Rocco di Venezia. Can you confirm that this translation is correct and that it is unlikely this room had anything to do with a family named Albergo? Gustav von Humpelschmumpel18:39, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes and no your babelfish is half correct, the translation does in fact mean Hall of the Albergo, Albergo meaning in this instance the corporate trading group or fraternity, a place where its members could meet and do their entertaining, I believe the nearest equivalent would be the guild halls in London etc. In this instance Albergo quite definitly means a trading group of merchants or investers. Nothing to do with one singular family name. Giano18:52, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, actually the translation is from this page which also says the hall was built "for meetings of the Banca e Zonta". Anyway it is clear it has nothing to do with a family named Albergo so I will confront "Save venice" with this on the talk page. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel18:57, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, take the above back, I have just been told my a Venetian expert (my wife) in this instance Albergo is connected purely with hospitality, and was a place for one of the Scuole di Venezzia (charitable organizations caring for the poor) to do their business and entertain. Most certainly nothing to do specifically with Barbaros at all. 19:01, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
I got that impression from Google Books which said the room was constructed for "meetings of the fraternity". Do you (or your wife) have any accurate information on the Palazzo Dario (preferably not including Barbaros....)? Gustav von Humpelschmumpel19:04, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Shit! I added that! I will try and find (yet again) where I found it, I don't want to get too involved in all of this, I studiously avoid all this Italian aristo stuff as it is a minefield. Giano20:40, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am still doubtful of most of the claims but it appears that the Palazzo Dario was indeed passed down to Dario's son in law Vincenzo Barbaro. However, "Save venice" is claiming that the Barbaros owned it continuously from Dario's death (in 1494) to the 19th century, yet I can find no source to that effect despite hours of searching, which is somewhat strange if the Barbaros really had owned it for nearly 350 years. Conveniently "Save venice" is now claiming that this is proven by the "Enciclopedia Storico Nobiliari Italiana" by Vittorio Spreti which is a huge multi volume tome that I doubt can be found in British libraries (it is in some US libraries and I presume Italian). Gustav von Humpelschmumpel21:44, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How about - Giovanni Dario left the palazzo to his daughter Marietta's husband Vincenzo Barbaro. After insulting a high ranking officer of the Serene republic Barbaro was publicly stripped of all rank and subsequently murdered. Marietta died of shame and after her death came a succession of mottly owners. Giano21:53, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
PS: above is not inside knowledge but the most informative information yet [69] albeit a tad downmarket but a jolly good read and quite fun! Giano22:03, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well found, that is a good list of owners if we can verify it with other sources. It doesn't seem to suggest that the Barbaro ownership continued after Vincenzo but I'm sure save venice will claim it did. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel23:00, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing contraversial or otherwise that helps us there, that is not widely available on all the other English sites. Giano18:38, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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 venice13:07, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not attack other editors. If you continue, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia.
Bishonen | talk 18:37, 25 June 2007 (UTC).
Per your non-request. ;) Peace.Lsi john 19:52, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
![[28]](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image:BakstCarabosse.jpg&oldid=91982155){kind=link}
![[44]](http://www.myenglandtravel.com/images/home-images/g_konigsee.jpg){kind=link}
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).
){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
