User talk:Giano II

File:Animalibrí.gif

Old messages are at:

• User talk:Giano II/archive 1 (2004)
• User talk:Giano II/archive 2 (2005)
• User talk:Giano II/archive 3 (2005)
• User talk:Giano II/archive 4 (2006)
• User talk:Giano II/archive 5 (2006)
• User talk:Giano II/archive 6 (2007)
• User talk:Giano II/archive 7 (2007)
• User talk:Giano II/archive 8 (2008)
• User talk:Giano II/archive 9 (2008)

• Essay: A few thoughts on writing Featured Articles

• Wikipedia's most shameful and disgraceful moment. Begun by Ncmvocalist [1]; two diffs I never want to lose.

Please leave new messages below

I see you withdrawing, Giacomo, and I can't say I blame you, after the flamefest in your honour yesterday. One can only take so much hypocrisy, and I'm getting a bit nauseated myself. But I still don't want the most high and noble order of Giano-bashers to have the pleasure of seeing your page empty. Therefore I'm posting this explanation of what "trolling" (civilly used many a time yesterday by one of our most notable proponents of "civility") means. Pay attention, for my words are gold:

If you say it, or I say it—no matter what "it" is—then it's "trolling"[2]. But if the identical point is made by a bureaucrat, even if it's merely to agree with us trolls, then out come the humble respects. Knowing who to kick and who to lick, that's the whole art of climbing on Wikipedia.

Bishonen | talk 18:44, 16 July 2008 (UTC).

Of course, some of us may view the impetus as "trolling", but can restrain ourselves. El_C 18:59, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

And part of it is knowing what not to climb, something that the AN threads showed not everybody has yet grasped. Guy (Help!) 19:07, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

• Not so much withdrawing as licking my wounds - not that I have any! The important thing now is to ensure THAT is never allowed to happen to anyone else again, no matter what the encouragement or the perceived crimes. God the crusades are lining up, so with future crusades in mind I have posed a question here [3]. Thanks for all your support yesterday - all of you. Giano (talk) 19:14, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

It seems though Kirill's planned slugfest to eradicate me failed, making them look even more ridiculous, the Arbcom are still hell bent on revenge [4], no doubt they think giving a few of their obsequious toadying Admins/henchmen (I expect 1=2 and Ryan Postlethwaite top the list - certainly it would reward them for services rendered) carte blanche to block me and forbidding anyone else the opportunity to unblock me will solve their problems, and help maintain the secrecy of the way Wikipedia is policed and ordered. When one sees that this foolish and miserable Arbcom even allow the "owner" of #Admins to comment [5] - one cannot but help wondering where it is all going to end. The Arbcom now do not even attempt to deceive the ordinary editors, they feel their power is so absolute they can be as transparent as they like and none dare object. I'm not going to invoke Goodwins law, I'm sure others can draw those similarities for themselves. Well, I have news for this sad and failing Arbcom, people are objecting, but not on Wikipedia - too many, of those who care for the project, now realise, this is not a safe open forum - in which to have any views which oppose the prescribed and dictated beliefs of those who control Wikipedia. My sole belief is that Wikipedia should be policed from Wikipedia, yet the organized harassment this has brought me is clear to anyone capable of tracing history files. The Arbcom can appoint as many of their toadying Admins as they like, my message remains the same, but thanks to the Arbcom it is going to be taken more vociferously, with more evidence to further forums - all attempts by me over the last few years to discuss this rationally with the Arbcom have been rejected. I am left with no option. In the meantime keep donating to Wikipedia, so it can pass your money on to IRC [6]. Giano (talk) 22:11, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Giano you may find these links interesting from a historical perspective regarding IRC group contacts - and indeed Freenodes desire that they "just want to make sure that (1) your board has control over your presence here, and (2) any users labeled as being officially involved with your project are being labeled so correctly. How we got from Freenode trying to make sure the board has control to "we have no effective jurisdiction" remains a mystery to me.[7][8][9] --Joopercoopers (talk) 09:13, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks JC, yep, life sure is a mystery isn't it. Why would a poor hard-up charitable foundation like Wikipedia give all those thousands of dollars to a chatroom over which it has no control - no wonder poor Jimbo is confused [10] - so am I. He drinks two very nice bottles of Chateau Yankypee with prospective backers for the good of the project, and is slaughtered for extravagance, but IRC are handed $5000 and are applauded - most odd.

The Arbcom agreed here that IRC#admins was a source of conflict [11] and they agreed to address the issue here [12] - In short the Arbcom has renegaded on it's own decisions, it has done nothing to address the issue, yet wants me to abide by its findings regarding me (actually that was the first case they dragged me into for ulterior motives) Tough luck Arbcom, that is not the way the world works. To cover it's own failings the Arbcom now seeks to penalise me further, and drag me into every possible case in an attempt to shut me up for pointing it's shortcoming out - extraordinary behaviour, I wonder why that is? Well Arbcom, I will tell you this now, I won't shut up, until this is sorted. And if you appoint five Admins/stooges with powers to shut me up, those Admins on appointment will become dead to me (whoever they are) I will not communicate with them in any Wikipedia-space, by email or in any other way, and that will not cease in February 2009, it will be permanent. That's how colluders in deceit have to be treated. When Wikipedia is policed by and from Wikipedia then I will shut up. Giano (talk) 20:25, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Corruption in management is "behaviour that may involve fraud, theft, misuse of position or authority or other acts that are unacceptable to an organisation and which may cause loss to the organisation, its clients or the general community. It may also include such elements as breaches of trust and confidentiality. The behaviour need not necessarily be criminal." Corruption management is an integral part of good governance and management practice. Executive management needs to be committed to the pro-active prevention of corrupt conduct in a systematic way in order to enhance the operation and reputation of the organisation. Corruption is a major drain on the effective use of resources for education and should be drastically curbed by improving transparency and accountability in education. Corruption "increases transaction costs, reduces the efficiency and quality of services, distorts the decision-making process, and undermines social values." - http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Ethical_Management_of_the_English_Language_Wikipedia/Overview WAS 4.250 (talk) 12:22, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Message to the ArbCom mailing list

[13] I hope Paul is around. Bishonen | talk 22:41, 29 July 2008 (UTC).

Editcountitis

Hiya. Interiot's tool is back up at [14] See also this wannabe Kate tool: [15]. Bishonen | talk 12:17, 5 August 2008 (UTC).

Bastard brothers

Hi, I'm not sure why 'Image sizes are essential to stop great white spaces and dissaray of page' in the Bastard brothers article. The standard thumbnail images in that section looked fine to me, I think its the extra long captains that mess up the page, could they be shortened? (WP:CAP) BarretBonden (talk) 23:06, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

No, because the captions are explaining important architectural facts relevant to the images. Secondly, it is important that the page looks correct for passing customers rather than logged in editors. Giano (talk) 06:26, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

You be nice to bastard brothers! Is that an incivil remark? My best friends in the world are bastard brothers. (Image sizes would be better if we could specify percentage, but we can't, so we need to put in sizes. This means, unfortunately, that we have to assume that display sizes are getting standard, and they are, but occasionally someone will show up from a computer using a CGA card and wonder. We can't edit for them. We have to stop those rivers of white. I agree with Giano and regard image sizes as another element of authorial input in article construction.) Geogre (talk) 13:36, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

The only white I could see is opposite the TOC, which desizing the lead pic reduced. I often see rivers of white where others (IE vs firefox etc) don't, but could see no problem here - where were/are they? Johnbod (talk) 13:57, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

If I go to the trouble of specifying image sizes it is for a very good reason. Architecture is a highly visual art, and that extends to pages about it, the asthetics of a page are just as important as the content, huge images of minor points shold not tower over small images of major points. Secondly, T do not wish to look at great images bordered bu think snakes of text and white. I have reverted you. Giano (talk) 15:40, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Benjamin Mountfort FAR

Benjamin Mountfort has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here.

I am very sorry that you feel the page "shows" how dreadful it is. Now that you have been clever enough to teach yourself how to nominate pages for FAR, perhaps you would now like to teach yourself how to sign your name. That would be of far more use. More use still would be to cite some references for this [16] page which you state on your page you started. Then you may start to criticise the work of others. Giano (talk) 18:00, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Sima shows how bad it is, alright. One would normally put in σίμος for the Greek, one would make the plural appropriate in English as Simae, etc. In fact, one could look the term up in English to get more usage help, and, of course, there are only a few hundred public domain illustrations that one could use... those ancient Greeks being notoriously lax about protecting their copyrights. Geogre (talk) 11:51, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

But have you seen the conversation over at the FAR? People are <hand to brow> talking about taking books out of the library! I know, unprecedented! Only to be encouraged I think. --Joopercoopers (talk) 13:19, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Glad to hear it, because I returned all the books to the library years ago, and have no intention of getting them back out, just to satisfy the latest wiki-whim. However, that is Gadfium (a genuinely nice helpful editor, most of the Kiwi ones are) offering to help. Not at all like some editors who frequent that particular wiki-basement. Giano (talk) 15:21, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Dig 'em, StonedInBaffinIsland, or what you will

Very well stated, and restrained, response to Chillum's amazing ability to quick change into mitre and robe and opine without being informed. Geogre (talk) 11:45, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Commentary

Calling longtime contributors 'useless twits' isn't polite or necessary. Please refrain from doing so. --MZMcBride (talk) 20:17, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

In short, stop stirring and trolling and get lost! Go back to IRC and let Chillum cry on your shoulder there.Giano (talk) 20:29, 7 August 2008 (UTC)