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)

Essays:

• A few thoughts on writing Featured Articles

• A few thoughts on Wikipedia (unfinished)

Nasty things:

• Wikipedia's most shameful and disgraceful moment.Supported by the Arbcom, but begun by Ncmvocalist [1]; two diffs I never want to lose.
• Yet another embarrassing and dismal attempt by IRC#admins supporters to have me silenced - fails! In spite of FT2's best efforts
• My views in 2007 on the Arbcom etc
• [2] Join the Arbcom & entrust your personal details to Wikipedia]
• IRC Chan Ops and Arbs & others who seem to want to be in authority
• The IRC page of the chanel's owner
• The death of IRC#admins

• Giano's advice of the day: "dans ce pays-ci, il est bon de tuer de temps en temps un amiral pour encourager les autres" for the benefit of those non French speakers "in this country, it is good from time to time to kill an admiral to encourage others" In other words do be carful when trying to be intelectual and using quotes of the great, it can backfire horribly [3] if one is less than great.

DYK for Arabian Hall of the Winter Palace

On 10 November, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Arabian Hall of the Winter Palace, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Thank you for your contributions! - Cheers, Mailer Diablo 16:36, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

St Petersburg

Giano,

About your great Winter Palace pages. I was wondering if we needed to disambiguate the St Petersburg part, at least in the lead of all of your pages. Being American, when I see St Petersburg, I think of a place in Florida. Looking at the two pages, St. Petersburg, Florida and Saint Petersburg, it looks as if the "St" is actually spelled out "Saint" for the Russian city. Is the abbreviated "St" used interchangeably in Russia? What are your thoughts? Tex (talk) 16:28, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Mmmm....., to be honest the place in Florida had not sprung into my mind, but I see your point - does anyone actually write Saint Petersburg. I really don't want to write that in full, but nor do I want to say St Petersburg, Russia, as it would be like saying Paris, France, especialy as I know my friend, Wetman, has a story on the subject. I suppose we had better wait and see what others say. Giano (talk) 16:45, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I guess the Florida place was on my mind because I recently plowed through a lot of the American history pages and ran across that one. Anyway, it wouldn't be that hard to search and replace St Petersburg with Saint Petersburg, but as you say, the folks who read this page will probably have an opinion and I'd like to hear from them. Tex (talk) 16:55, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

St Petersburg redirects to Saint Petersburg. So does St. Petersburg, although most style guides will tell you to leave the stop off "St". But look. (OK - I admit, it was not him, but he left it after this.) -- Testing times (talk) 17:57, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Is there a Winter Palace (Russian: Зимний дворец) in St Petersburg, Florida, that was, from 1732 to 1917, the official residence of the Russian Tsars? I think it's unlikely to cause confusion otherwise. Yomangani^talk 18:13, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Given the log cabin, I'm not sure I could say one way or the other. -- Testing times (talk) 18:40, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah well whatever, but I'll tell you what after this I don't intend to do another St Pete's page for a very long time. I have never come across so many contradictory references trying to write a page ever. It's getting to be a chore now, but only a couple more pages to get into mainspace and I'm there. Giano (talk) 18:31, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Rooms

I don't quite understand the question. The hall occupies the entire space between the windows, there is no place for a lavatory. Years ago I spent hundreds of hours around there, and I still remember something. Whether we need coordinates in such articles and how they should be sourced is another issue (there is a small difference between different map systems on the web, but not significant enough, and the 0.0001° precision is ok for such a large hall), but as the Jordan Staircase has coordinates (which were wrong until recently, by the way), why not? Colchicum (talk) 19:06, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

There was a secret lavatory hidden behind the curtains of the throne, for the sole use of the Tsar on state occasions. I was just concerned that you may have mistaken it. Giano (talk) 22:28, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Winter Palace

Hi, you were very helpful last time, how can I tell if this image is free [4]. it says all rights reserved, but it is not lit up in green like the thing below it, does that mean it is not copyright? Giano (talk) 08:35, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi Giano. I'm afraid it's not free, the key bit is "All Rights Reserved". The bit below is a symbol which shows it can be seen by anyone, as opposed to just the photographer's friends; for some reason Flickr colours in that symbol but not the copyright one.

If a photo's free it'll say "some rights reserved" instead of "All rights reserved", and have either the Creative Commons BY or BY-SA logos, as in these two pictures. [5] [6] However, beware the non-commercial or no derivatives symbols as in this one [7] as these make the work non-free by Wikipedia standards. Alas, most of the Creative Commons licensed stuff on Flickr is for non-commercial use only, so truly free photos are a small minority.

You can search for free stuff on Flickr by going to the advanced search page and ticking "Only search within Creative Commons-licensed content", and both of the boxes "Find content to use commercially" and "Find content to modify, adapt, or build upon". Doing that on "Winter Palace" brings up 112 hits, a few of which are of a different one in Mongolia, and "Hermitage museum" brings up 130. Not many good ones of the interior of the palace I'm afraid, but if you find anything which would be useful and would like some help uploading it, just let me know.

As for the picture you asked about, if you like I could send the photographer a message and ask if he'd be willing to change the licence so it can be used on Wikipedia. Obviously there are no guarantees, but I'm told that that people on Flickr are often quite helpful if asked nicely. Were you planning to use it on the main Winter Palace page or a sub page? It might help if I could point him towards a draft page to show him where it would be used.

Cheers, Iain99^{Balderdash and piffle} 21:37, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

That would be good, it is this page here. Some recent interior shots of high quality woould make a nice change from all the old watercolours, which though good, are not exactly contemporary. Thanks. Giano (talk) 22:32, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

OK, I've sent him a message, we'll see what he says. Iain99^{Balderdash and piffle} 23:56, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Alas, he hasn't replied to my message, but he's uploaded pictures since I sent it so he's obviously been logging on. I guess that's a "no" then. Sorry. :-( Iain99^{Balderdash and piffle} 19:24, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Not a disinfo-box, but something unifying

Talking of my recent works, I want some advice from those of you who are generally in tune with my thoughts, as the end comes into sight of what I think most people will forgive me for thinking of as "my category" (don't worry, I'll get over it) I want something like a banner or a logo to tie what may become {Category: Winter Palace} (a sub-category of Hermitage) together, to make it clear they are in fact more one big page than a small category (there will be 20 pages when I've finished). If something like that could be invented then perhaps I won't create a Winter Palace category and leave them Hermitage - as that is what it is today. Especially as I hope others will start to add to the little room pages with the contents they contain today, that way Wikipedia's abysmal coverage of the State Hermitage Museum can be improved. I don't want a disinfo-box or anything that reduces the lead image to a postage stamp, or encourages idiots to keep adding further silly facts; but something that presents the page as part of a greater page - nor do I want little double headed crowned eagles winking cheekily from the corner of the page either (they'd frighten Spumoni). Any ideas? It's a difficult one isn't it? Giano (talk) 08:59, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

How would you feel about a "navbox" template at the foot of each page with links to the associated pages? - look for example at the foot of Touchen End. Nancy ^talk 09:05, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, that is just the sort of thing I was thinking of, can they be livened up and made to look a little more inviting? Sort of add a logo or something? Giano (talk)

Definitely, yes. Many existing ones have either a logo or a photograph to add a bit of interest. Nancy ^talk 09:12, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Great, I'll hunt about for a logo, something that is common to all the pages, trouble is i don't want naff things like crowns and eagles - does Russia have a logo type thing now? They did have the hammer and scyckle, but i don't want that either. Lemme go look at their flag. Ah does modern St Petersburg have a crest or a flag Giano (talk) 09:18, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

How about this Image:Coat of Arms of Saint Petersburg large (2003).png sort of modern but refering to the Imperial past as well? Is that allowed? Giano (talk) 09:20, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Looks just the thing. I'd be happy to pull something together for you this evening if you let me know how you'd like it - title, sub-section headings etc & what pages are to be included in the lists. Nancy ^talk 09:41, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

That would be great, thanks; the pages done so far are all listed here [8]. I htink, it need the main Winter palace page to be given prominence and then list the others. Giano (talk) 11:38, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

How's this? Nancy ^talk 19:28, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

That is really brilliant! I think we will have to leave the poor old cabin out as it's not really a room, but otherwise it is exactly what I wanted I wonder what twit in the MOS banned the definite article, but never mind that can't be helped. Thanks so much that is truly great, do you want to add it to the pages in mainspace? Giano (talk) 20:06, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Frankly, I don't like the crest. What does it have to do with the Winter Palace? The navbox is good enough without it. Colchicum (talk) 20:17, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Also I am not sure how they should be ordered, but this should be changed, because now the order is random. If the modern Hermitage room numbers are of some use, Arabian Hall – 155, Malachite Room – 189, Field Marshall's Hall - 193, Small Throne Room – 194, Armorial Hall – 195, Military Gallery – 197, St. George's Hall – 198, Apollo Hall – 260, Gold Drawing Room – 304, Grand Church – 271, Alexander Hall – 282, White Hall – 289, Private Rooms – 157-188 + 303, Rotonda – 156, Neva Enfilade - 190-192. Colchicum (talk) 20:36, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I've taken Peter's Cabin out - I guess it can go in as a "See also". The order is fairly arbitrary at the moment - I just worked down the list - the template is in mainspace now so nothing stopping anyone with more of a clue than I rearranging as they wish. In the meantime I'll add it to the articles. Nancy ^talk 21:08, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Move to mainspace

I note your request here. If it hasn't been done by another passing admin by the time I get home today, I will move it then, archive the talk, etc. I'd do it now, but the computer I'm on is archaic. Risker (talk) 12:47, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I need it to go, I am getting too attached to it! I'm working fast to finish the last pages before I return to real life and drudgery on Monday - then I can turn my attention to other matters. Giano (talk) 12:54, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I think I moved everything you wanted, should be all set. MBisanz ^talk 12:55, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, you make a great mid-wife. I expect we will all spot the mistakes now, and all the Winter palace experts will appear too. God it's like waiting for exam results all over again. Giano (talk) 12:58, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

on an amusing note: I have just seen the pages first edit ever [9] - well it has to be an improvement, but does rather support my arguement for the use of "The." Giano (talk) 13:00, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

No interwiki shown

For some reason i fail getting the interwiki shown on the article about the Grand Church/ Would you have any idea how to fix it?Muscovite99 (talk) 20:14, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, trial and error has just made the Russian lang display, but made the nav template in the wrong place. It's something to do with having a gallery on the page, in my experience if the galler is not last it ruins everything that comes after it. I expect someone will know what we are doing wrong. Giano (talk) 20:21, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I fixed it: the closing tag was wrong, it was <gallery/> instead of </gallery>. Cheers, Amalthea^Talk 12:33, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Catherine de' Medici

Many thanks for your kind comments. Sorry I didn't answer earlier, but I have been on a wikibreak, so to speak. Seems I missed a front-page day, thank goodness! qp10qp (talk) 15:54, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

DYK for Grand Church of the Winter Palace

On 15 November, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Grand Church of the Winter Palace, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Cirt (talk) 16:48, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Image repairs

I saw a thread on your talk page or somewhere a few days ago about GIF image repairs. Image:FA stats by type (February 2008) barchart.gif and Image:FA stats by type (February 2008) piechart.gif have their thumbnails broken. I noticed someone repaired your images. Any ideas on who to ask? Carcharoth (talk) 19:19, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Black Kite and Amadjm did some for me, but I have 100s more to do, sometime when I have time. Apparently, you have to download them and convert to JPEG or something like that, perhaps they'll just switch the bloody thing back on soon and all the problems will be solved. Giano (talk) 10:20, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Hello Giano, I'm still working on your blanky images, and improving the quality as I go. Up to Holkham Hall. There are some that are not worth the effort, or simply won't convert well by the means that I am using. You'll notice that they are getting clean blue skies, rather than square-patterned skies. It's boring, and I wish you would kindly ask one of your children who is good at fiddling with digital images. Or better still, learn to do it yourself. Since one gets small thanks around here.

I have left a request on the Warwickshire project page, in the hope that someone might provide a decent image of Compton Wynyates. Do you know anyone in Warwickshire? If so, get them motivated.

I observe that you have done some writing on William Wardell. I'd like a reference for the spires of St. Pat's being out of proportion with the building. "Some" can "say" anything they like. I don't think anyone in Melbourne complains about them.

I can probably dig up a bit more local information on Wardell, and reference the article a bit better, because it's rather lacking in references. I saw a big church in London with very Wardellish features and I don't know what it was.

Concerning Italianate architecture in Australia, the master of the Italianate style was James Barnet. Amandajm (talk) 11:23, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I did do some writing there, i think I wrote it. You obviously failed to notice I removed the fact shorty after you plastered the "cite tag" on the page, this was becasue the references used to write that page were long ago returned to their owners. However, luckily, a quick google soon found a reference for the fact here: [10]

• "The three spires of St Patrick's cathedral, added long after Wardell's death, were re-designed, and though beautiful it is doubtful whether their increased height has kept the proportions so well as in the original design"

of course it is quite easy to see that both tapering and heigt are all wrong. The cathedral's own website hints at it too:n[11]

• "Its proportions are perfection themselves: when they appear not to be harmonious, it is due to the work of others who added to or altered the building without fully respecting the concept and architectural philosophy of the original designs."

• "The heights of all three spires and of the central tower were considerably increased in the 1930s when the time was opportune to complete the building."

• "In the alterations of the late 1930s, it was rebuilt in the present form which would almost certainly have not met with Wardell's approval."

I'll leave it you to re-add the fact. Thanks for the link on Australian Italianate architecture, I have no plans at present to explore that avenue of architecture. Giano (talk) 15:34, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

DYK for Cabin of Peter the Great

On 16 November, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Cabin of Peter the Great, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Cirt (talk) 06:06, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Block for sockpuppetry

I and several other checkusers have checked your and User:Catherine de Burgh's editing activity, and it's blindingly clear you're running the account as a "good hand" account in your run for arbcom. As such, I've blocked the account indefinitely and you for 24 hours, and notified Arbcom and Jimmy Wales.

I was reminded I'd checked this account in late 2006; chatting to Bishonen in IRC confirmed it was in fact yours. She convinced me not to block you for it then, saying you wouldn't do anything serious with it and were only playing. It appears you're doing a lot more than that. Please don't, it's antisocial behaviour and easily caught once anyone looked - David Gerard (talk) 21:48, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Is this a joke? HiDrNick! 21:54, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

No, it's not a joke. Several checkusers looked over the evidence and concurred that it was blindingly obvious before action was taken - David Gerard (talk) 22:12, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

So obvious that Giano might be surprised anyone thought this was secret? WJBscribe (talk) 22:15, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid you're a little out of touch. You don't exactly have to be one of Giano's IRC buddies to know that this is an accout of his. That's some mighty fine checkusering there, Lou. HiDrNick! 22:45, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

• I should wonder that by inferring Giano is a "bad hand" (the type that creates FA's, GA's, and writes articles admired by the majority) you have not admitted that it is Giano's opinions that you (and those who think like you) have deemed to be "bad". Clarification, even in such a morally bankrupt manner, is welcome. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:57, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

David, I don't think that this is the best thing you've ever done. Calling the Catherine de Burgh account a good hand account stretches credibility. Especially considering the answers that the account gave to questions for ArbCom. Were you going to block Bishzilla for being a good hand account for Bishonen? Considering the two Bishes are even more related then Catherine de Burgh and Giano,and considering the past history between you and Giano, this smacks of payback and absolutely HORRIBLE judgement. Please reverse it. Immediately. SirFozzie (talk) 22:00, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Wholeheartedly agree with you her Fozz. BigDunc^Talk 22:02, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry for the purposes of attempting to appear as multiple users is precisely what WP:SOCK is about. I suggest appeals go to the arbcom. Giano has been busted utterly in this particular case - David Gerard (talk) 22:14, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I suggest you be ready to try to defend this on AN shortly, then. SirFozzie (talk) 22:15, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Nope, that isn't what WP:Sock#Good/Bad hands says, and that is the basis of the block. Also, since you seemed a little vague (it was hard to tell, since you didn't respond in public) on the editing of the IRC page on that ArbCom, which involved this editor again, which is supposedly your area of expertise you will forgive those who question your understanding of policy here as well... LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:27, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

This feels a bit like someone blocking their parents on discovering they aren't really Santa Claus. I was under the impression that the fact Lady Catherine and Giano were alternative accounts of each other is common knowledge. WJBscribe (talk) 22:17, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Exactly! This was a commonly known sock. A joke account. FloNight♥♥♥ 22:19, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Eh?--Santa (talk) 22:53, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I didn't know about it. Which is not to set me up as a particularly vital or important user who should know about things. Quite the contrary, I've followed the entire Giano saga with at best passing interest, though I have definite opinions about it. But I cannot imagine that I am the only person who did not know about this, and whose opinion would change if he did. Commonly known does not equal universally known. The sockpuppet rules are not designed merely for the benefit of those who are up to speed on the latest gossip. Phil Sandifer (talk) 22:55, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Dreadful call. There was no way that sock was ever going to win the election, even if Giano could keep the façade up (Giano's not subtle enough for that). If you were truly worried that the election might be successfully gamed - why not quietly e-mail Giano and ask him to admit the sock openly or withdraw the nomination. That would have been drama-reducing. Now........of well, the reaction is as predictable as it is boring. You did this for drama, and now Giano gets to up the drama by going to arbcom....... you two are too alike.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 22:20, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

• Appalling block. It suggests to me that either not a lot of thought actually went in to it, or ... well, other possibilities would be assuming bad faith if I were to voice them. What possible major disruption to Wikipedia could be caused by a commonly known sock of Giano's running for ArbCom? Not to mention that calling CdB a "good hand" account is a personal attack on Giano. Ludicrous, and that's putting it mildly. Black Kite 22:29, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
  • I do not think an insinuation that Giano's edits on his main account are known to be disruptive or provocative is a personal attack, or even terribly controversial. Phil Sandifer (talk) 22:55, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
    • Horribly one-sided and biased, Phil. Have some of his edits been disruptive or provocative, sure. But have a vast majority of his edits been FA/GA quality? Even More obviously true. Trying to call CdB's accounts Good-hand compared to Giano requires a stretch of the imagination unknown to mankind. SirFozzie (talk) 23:02, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
    • No, it's not controversial, it's just plain wrong. As SirFozzie says, the vast majority of Giano's edits are positive, and trying to spin it any other way to justify this comically ill-advised - and thankfully rapidly community-reversed - block doesn't sit well at all. Black Kite 23:10, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
      • I was unaware of our "accounts that are used for disruption and incivility are excused if they have sufficient good edits" policy. You crazy kids keep passing new policies without telling us old folk, don't you. Phil Sandifer (talk) 23:28, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
        • The sarcasm sits equally badly, to be honest. Black Kite 01:27, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
• Lady Catherine's responses at these questions for the candidate are recognizably similar to what one might expect from, say, Dame Edna, possums. Humour concerning the Arbitration Committee and its election is not welcome, it is perfectly clear, especially coming from Giano. I, for one, wouldn't dare snicker at the Arbitration Committee, or whisper a complaint about their rationales for blocking right and left. --Wetman 22:33, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Brought up at AN for a quick reversal of this ludicrous action. SirFozzie (talk) 22:37, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Wowsers, this could be on CNN BREAKING NEWS. Seriously though, where's the proof of sock-puppetry? GoodDay (talk) 22:46, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Ridiculous

I have a few questions, David.

1. On what ground were Giano and Lady Catherine CheckUsered?
2. I'll say again that Giano was playing, if you need to hear it. In what sense was he doing anything else? Er, did any of you CheckUsers actually read Lady C's election statement, and her answers to questions? They were satirical (and effortlessly taken in that spirit by those posting individual questions to her). Please don't tell me you took them as an actual attempt to get on ArbCom, because that's ridiculous.
3. What's with the special treatment of Giano? How come you didn't block me for running Bishzilla as a good hand account trying to get on ArbCom? Wasn't that pretty obvious sockpuppetry for a much longer time? Bishonen | talk 22:32, 18 November 2008 (UTC).

Even if Giano and Her Ladyship are socks, I see no harm. Bearian (talk) 23:01, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I'm wondering what is more tragic here. That Gerrard found a parent on wikipedia, or that the parent disappointed him?--Santa (talk) 23:09, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

• Probably pointless, but I've asked arbcom for a temp desysop here (please see RFAR). Moreschi (talk) 23:14, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Very pointless, I would imagine this is the work of the Arbcom. Giano (talk) 23:22, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Was Giano or the other account suspected of puppeting? Or are all the Arb candidates being checked? rootology (C)(T) 23:21, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Apparently David Gerard has known these accounts were linked since 2006 (see above, in the block notice) and only acted now, for whatever reason. SirFozzie (talk) 23:22, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

• Having reviewed this nonsense--and it is utter nonsense, I support at least a temporary desysop of Gerard, until he can learn to handle the tools with more alacrity and less acrimony. ^S._D.D.J.Jameson 23:34, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Just to say that it wasn't common knowledge to me, most normal users who don't know the dramatis personae on wiki I imagine, and several others I know too. So I could have decided to vote for Giano/CdB, as may others, and I would have been misled into doing so. Giano made it clear he was not going o run this year due to an Arb/jimbo possible veto if he were to get in. I presumed he was telling the truth when he said thhat and didn't have another account going on. Sorry if this seems gormless, funny or naive to the rest of you in the loop but I doubt I was the only one (not that I mind horribly, but it is a bit deceptive to run for arbcom and not make who you are/your other account clear in your statement etc. Boring I know!:) Sticky Parkin 23:38, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

RIP Lady Catherine

We now see this disgraced Arbcom and its checkusers for exactly what they are [12]. Lets not invoke Godwins Law, but go quietly away and contemplate the life of the late Lady Catherine. Giano (talk) 23:11, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Does anybody have any clues as to who the Cate account was? GoodDay (talk) 23:19, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Giano, do you have any objection to marking the account as your alternate? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:22, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I bloody well do! She never voted, she never swayed concencus, she just parodied and that's what the Arbcom could not bear, could not bear at all. They all want kicking out, but you just watch Gerard will escape scot free, his abuse of checkuser, as happens so often with the others completely overlooked. So yes I do bloody object, the account is dead. Giano (talk) 23:25, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

• Furthermore the Arbcom and their Gerard have just proved that no-one who values their privacy must ever trust Wikipedia with their private information, names and addresses. Who know what sort of person may end up with it. Giano (talk) 23:34, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

You refuse to mark the account as yours? If you'd done so in the first place none of this would have happened. If you have any other accounts this would be a good time to acknowledge those as well. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:20, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

My accounts are all known to the Arbcom and always have been. Giano (talk) 01:22, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

It's admins who do most of the work blocking socks. If you don't want your socks to be blocked then you should let admins know about them too. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:16, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Admin's (this one, and most he knows) do not block alternate accounts/"socks", they block abusive sockpuppets. Having an alternate account run for ArbCom under a "no chance" rationale is not abuse, unless you are so subsumed into the systems and procedures created for the purpose of supporting the creation of the encyclopedia that lack of gravitas toward the mechanisms is deemed "disruption" - in which case you need a break and/or a humour injection. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:30, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I hope CdB is not withdrawn from the election, despite her sudden passing. A deceased user with a blocked account might not finish last. Gimmetrow 02:57, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Just wanted to let you know that I will still be voting for Lady Catherine, if only on my user subpage I plan to make on which I explain my rationales for supports and opposes. And Bishzilla, too, incidentally. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 03:57, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Opinion on silliness

What do you think of List of notable people who wore the bowler hat, Giano? Is this something that can be made into a valid article, or should it just be zapped? DS (talk) 23:28, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations

	Happy block day	from the ANI season ticket holders' club
	Wishing Giano II a very nice celebration on the occasion of his 30th block! Don't forget to save us all a cup of tea!

Thank you, but now the investigation starts:Who are the several other checkuser who have ilegally invaded my privacy? WHO? Giano (talk) 23:40, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

But are you Cate? I hope not. GoodDay (talk) 23:44, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

The investigation begins

• wow. what a spectacularly bad effort at intimidation of giano and those of his 'ilk'. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 23:46, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it was, but who are the several checkusers who were so iresponsible, who now can we trust with private information? Giano (talk) 23:50, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Who's Cate? GoodDay (talk) 23:53, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Why me of course, at least two Arbs have known for three months, and at least two checkusers, (actually 3) there was no secret at all, so no excuse to check user, it was a fishing trip to to try to find private information, nothng more nothing less, and what did this "person" Gerard want it for? Giano (talk) 23:55, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

As David Gerard stated above, he knew that the two accounts were related in 2006, so I'm not sure why this was happening now. SirFozzie (talk) 23:58, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Why wasn't the rest of us (i.e Wikipedian in general) informed of this double-identity? GoodDay (talk) 00:01, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I knew about it and i'm a simple vandal reverter who's never spoken to Giano to my knowledge. Not sure how it was such a secret?--Cube lurker (talk) 00:03, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't aware of it (as I AGF in these matters). I feel dissapointed by this discovery. And It's not just because I found the CATE account annoying. GoodDay (talk) 00:06, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to think that all too real Miss Reighly's wink is Her Late Ladyship's final salute to Wikipedia. Perhaps all her message was: don't take yourselves too seriously. Giano (talk) 10:39, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sore anymore, Giano. Forget about, Cheers. GoodDay (talk) 00:57, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

• Don't worry, have a laugh at this instead, Her late Ladyship's passing is being marked by a template fest one can only speculate what her comments would have been

Speaking of the CU and not the block

You may be interested in Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Statement_by_Avraham -- Avi (talk) 10:41, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Gerard said multiple checkusers - Who? how many? names not prevarications please. What are you doing with the information? Who was the banned user you thought Lady C was? I don't beleive a word of this, the name of the banned user, and there had better be some jolly good similarities, I am not letting this drop. Giano (talk) 10:43, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Just as your privacy needs to be protected, so does others. If you believe yourself to be unfairly targeted, I suggest you contact the Ombudsman. You can believe or disbelieve me, that is your prerogative, but I do not think I have ever done anything here on wikipedia to allow anyone to think I would even consider prevaricating. As all checkusers have already spoken on the RfAr page, the ones who ran the CU yesterday were Thatcher, then I, and then David. That is all. I am doing doing nothing with the information, as you are not a banned user so my suspicions were allayed. It would be a gross breach of privacy, and unfair to the banned user, for me to say who it was, but the suspicions had to do with editing style, and not any CU information. As the logs will show to the Ombudsman, yesterday's checks were run AFTER discussion among the CU's as to whether or not the project needed protection, not before. Your name did not come up until it was seen that you were CdB. Also, realize that the block and the CU are two different things, and the fact that a CU was run and discussed does not mean the the "multiple" CU's concur or oppose the block. That is an issue for you, DG, and ArbCom. My point was the the CU was not run in malice, but ignorance as to your relationship with CdB and in good faith trying to protect the project as is the responsibility of a CU. -- Avi (talk) 11:05, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

So finally, we now have one proven lie, it was not multiple, but 3. 2 of whome already knew who she was. Now for you, who on earth has ever had an editing style like that? You insult our intelligence. You don't even have the grace to appolagise. I think you were bunch of schoolboys on a fishing trip, what were you going to do with the info? Threaten to out me? What? There was no justification for this what so ever! You cooked this up with Gerard now get yourself off the hook. Who on the Arbcom was behind this? If they had a grain of decency between them, Gerard would have been fired by this morning. Giano (talk) 11:09, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Giano, multiple means greater than one, so that is not a lie. Secondly, at least one of the three had no idea, and another may never had had, o may have forgotten. You forget that the information is not kept by the foundation servers for more than a short while, and the old CdB check may not have turned anything up either. Checkuser is not magic, you know. Thirdly, it is irrelevant as to how unique you though CdB to be, a reasonable concern arose, and as you did NOT make it the relationship between you and CdB clear anywhere, the suspicions were valid. Lastly, as I said, I, and NewYorkBrad, have the e-mails necessary to prove the chronology is as I said, so your claim about "cooking" is both false and insulting. I understand you are frustrated, but please take a step back and see that your claims have no merit. Why would I want to target you? Where would the malice be? What is between you and David is between you and David. -- Avi (talk) 11:17, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I shall take a step back when I have got to the bottom of this, if Gerard says go jump in the lake presumably that is what you do. I could not give a stuff who you are emailing now you have been caught. There was no excuse for a cjeckuser at all - we will find out what you wanted the information for, and it certainly was not the good of the project. There was no reasonable concern and you damn well know it. You have all been caught completely red handed. You dare to talk of malice, I don't beleive a word you are saying, and neither do half the others reading this page. It confirms what I have aleays said aboutthe trustworthiness of half of you people. The kindst thinh one can say is that Gerard has made you appear incompetent.Giano (talk) 12:36, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I have a minute before I present. I understand your frustration, Giano, but your comments are unbecoming. In my opinion, your antipathy with DG is coloring your equanimity. There was a valid reason to run a checkuser on CdB as per the foundation's requirements (possible disruption to the project). Neither Thatcher nor I knew it was you prior to that. Thatcher having run one in the past does not mean that there was a connection, depending on how stale the IPs were. As NewYorkBrad confirmed, the CU portion of this unfortunate mess was performed in good faith and in accordance with the rule. David Gerrad's block is something completely separate from the CU, myself, and Thatcher. Whether you choose to believe Thatcher, NYB, or I, or not, speaking for myself, I am sorry that you had to undergo this frustration, although, I will say, that all of this could have been avoided had you either had a link between CdB and Giano, or had you answered Thatcher's request with an email. -- Avi (talk) 19:09, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

• In defence of the CU fraternity, DG comments he only requested that they confirmed his findings (which facts he was aware of anyway, I understand). The responsibility for the block is all his - you may ask of me whether one can drown in water; my confirmation does not mean that I also conclude that user:() is a potential murderer because he takes swimming lessons... LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:35, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

• But which of the acceptable uses of CU does this fall under? I don't see "Suspicion of a joke account" listed on WP:RCU. Either the request should have been rejected or the policy on use of CU needs to be rewritten to reflect its actual application. Yomangani^talk 13:44, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

• I'm not privy on how CU's review each others work, but since the checking CU takes responsibility (well, David seems to be trying to share it around a bit - but generally) for performing the initial check then a reviewing CU need not ask "why", only if the determination of the data appears correct. Per my analogy above, why would I wish to know if someone wants to check if you can drown in water? LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:50, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

• According to Thatcher's statement at ArbCom, he made the check on behalf of "another checkuser". However, if this was to confirm the findings of a checkuser already run by David Gerard then perhaps a note should be added to the Checkuser policy to the effect that fishing trips by those with the Checkuser permission are acceptable and that they should not feel themselves bound by the restrictions placed on its use which govern the requests by users without CU. Yomangani^talk 14:08, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

There are times when one CU will ask another to look at the results, especially if some of the data is inconclusive. CU's are governed by the foundation's policies, none of which have been violated here. -- Avi (talk) 19:10, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

In reply to this and your recent post somewhere up there, I refer you to my recent edit here [13] Your reasons for checkusering me are so ridiculously cooked up, that I have half a mind to spill the beans and give everyone a good laugh at your expense. Be grateful I have more honour than you and your fellow checkusers. Giano (talk) 19:15, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Treating Wikipedia like a WP:MMORPG

Not everyone is glued to the ArbCom or AN(I) threads, so not everyone is aware of your antics. The fact that CdB's account is a parody was obvious, the fact that it belonged to you was not. This is a reply to your comment at AfD [14]. Pcap ping 11:14, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, and no-one is bothered by your attention seeking antics trying to have a page deleted because you have never heard of the subject, and who are you anyway, never heard of you!Giano (talk) 12:32, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

You should be more civil Giano. Your comment here and on the AfD page look like you think it is everyone's duty to keep up with the in-crowd, while the comment by a valuable but less famous contributor like Pcap doesn't count. --Apoc2400 (talk) 17:59, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

ArbComm election

With the unfortunate passage away of Lady Catherine, have we any hope that you will run for ArbComm this year? I continue to believe that the committee would be better off with you as a member. I believe you have still 5 more days to graciously accept the opportunity to serve should the unwashed masses decide to later grant it to you. GRBerry 15:53, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

That's very kind, but the present Arbcom have made it quite clear they will not accept me, and Jimbo has said he will not apoint without their permission. Fianlly, there is no way in hell I am giving them my name and address (if Mr Gerard does not already have it) I am rather choosy who I want on my doorstep. Giano (talk) 16:27, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I thought a ArbCom candidate had to be an Administrator. GoodDay (talk) 16:36, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Only of they want the IRC vote and appro. Giano (talk) 16:37, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I thought about being a candidate (one time); but I decided there was too much brain work, so dropped the idea (also, I though it was limited to Administrators). GoodDay (talk) 16:42, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Did you? What an extraordinary notion, I have seem no evidence of brainwork in the last 24 hours at all - I don't think that is requisite of the job at all. Has Gerard been fired yet? Giano (talk) 16:45, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Giggle giggle. GoodDay (talk) 16:50, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

You are welcome to, and are, making your point to both Jimbo and Arbcom and any number of individual user talk pages. This drama fueled forest fire is not going to to persist on the ACE pages anymore.--Tznkai (talk) 22:57, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

P.S The joke isn't in my opinion funny, but that can go on if, when, and where you like, since the community seems to find acceptable.--Tznkai (talk) 22:57, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

There is nothing at all amusing about the likes of Gerard being able to check up at whim on the private details of any editor he likes. He is a disgrace! If this is what Jimbo thinks is fine, then he is a disgrace too! - Why has the "man" not been fired? Giano (talk) 23:00, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

If by "fired" you mean "stripped of CheckUser and administrator privileges" then the answer is "because no one with the ability to do so is willing or desires to, yet." I'd have to check, but I think pretty much any such removal would be done ad hoc or by investigation by ArbCom or for CheckUser, Ombudsman commission.--Tznkai (talk) 23:11, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

There is nothing even vaguely amusing about anyone being RCU'd in the name of wikipedia; that is the real problem. Thanks, SqueakBox 23:07, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

They were just a bunch of "God knows what" on a fishing trip! To see what or who they could find - now they are caught - why are they not fired? Giano (talk) 23:11, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Visitors

Well, now he has your name an address, maybe he will visit. You'll need to makes sure that you recognise him when he calls, so I thought I'd give you some help. Because he may well look like this, which I suppose is better than that.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 19:49, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Fortunatly for me, I have sons. The former they have seen each Sunday, the latter...well you can draw your own conclusions. I'm sure you can appreciate my concern. I joined Wikipedia for (cringingly said) quite high motives. "That" was not one of them. Giano (talk)

Scott, the very fact that you can say that shows you do not understand how checkuser works. See Risker's excellent essay on this. We do not have addresses, children's pictures, or pets . -- Avi (talk) 21:51, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Pets. I have only fish. My platy has just had three babies (she ate the rest). I've called them Jimbo, Giano and Gerard.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 22:30, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

How sweet, what a shame one is growing into a shark that is going to eat the other two. Anyway, the level of information is imaterial, Gerard, a very odd person indeed, has no right to it - I take it he has not been fired since I last logged in? Giano (talk) 22:42, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I can totally empathize with you. Some conservatives got hold of my identity and spread it on the Internet. I do think Her Ladyship CdB provided me with joy. RIP. Bearian (talk) 23:49, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

She was completely harmless, a bit of fun, but she has done us all a great service, No one else is ever going to have their privacy invaded by Gerard again [15]. Giano (talk) 23:59, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

The problem is RCU, Gerrard is just a symptom. Anyone with a modicum of knowledge can evade RCU to troll/pov push but for any regular editor it is indeed a massive abuse of privacy. Thanks, SqueakBox 01:09, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

One Day...

One day, this project will be edited, administrated and governed by people with as much quality and ability as Giano. Until that day, why should anyone be surprised that Wikipedia has critics, has people prepared to attack it, has proof that it defames senior politicians so many times? As long as we are governed by an individual, whether it be one who is prepared to alter articles for sexual favours or not, we are on to a loser. We've grown up, it's time to change. Any project that attacks someone of Giano's ability is a total farce until the community stands up and says "No, we are not having this, we have grown, we are beyond this stage". Wikipedians grew out of Jimbo Wales's cradle, but babies don't stay in the cradle forever. GTD 01:20, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that is my hope too. In the meantime we must not allow ourselves to be teated in this way. I have an idea why they wanted my private information, but I'm not going to voice it just yet. Soon one of them will say that my keeping demanding Gerard and cohorts dismissal is disruptive, personaally I find an unjustifiable invasion of privacy far more disruptive, they can be ban me here and I will take it more loudly elsewhere. To say they though Lady catherine was Greg Kose is plainly ridiculous - Lady C only wrote one page Alice Reighly do they image the charming and long dead Ms Reighly paid Lady C for the biography? This is all wrong - we canot keep taking this and leting them get away with it. Giano (talk) 08:12, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Naive. So long as the self-selected are self-elected and there is government by a "CEO" who can be bought, whose venality is public record, and whose intelligence is individual (rather than communal), there is an inevitable and inexorable commitment to dullness. You can reverse a wrong, but that is like putting your hand in the water. Slap at the waves all you like, but the tide is coming in, and all are drown. Utgard Loki (talk) 15:48, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I probably am naive, but I am not giving up on this, it has bever been fully explained why I/Lady C was checkusered, the Greg Kohs story is bolox and everyone knows it, just an invention. Why having discovered it was "only" me why email Gerard - no reason to do so at all - what the F had it to do with him? I'm afraid the more the three of them prevaricate the deeper the hole they are digging for themselves, if they has a shred of honnour they would have all resigned before they are fired. So naive maybe I am, tenacious - I have barely started. Giano (talk) 15:57, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Thatcher, Brad, etc...

(Similar to a comment left at FloNight's talkpage just now) Giano, the block against your account is universally regarded as being wrong. Your objection to the block, and the objections of many others, have been upheld nearly unanimously by commenting administrators and arbitrators. I won't say you've won, because clearly you see this as a long term issue unrelated to having the "right outcome" on a particular block.

On the other hand, your arguments for abusive use of checkuser access by Thatcher and Avraham, and the protection of such abuse by the arbitration committee (including NYB), are not nearly as strong or well regarded. Frustrating as that is, I think if your comments continue to be as heated as they have recently been (taking into account your apology to Thatcher) you risk sparking yet another dramatic convulsion. Maybe a break to calm down a bit and take stock would be worth considering? Avruch ^T 18:01, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I lost the plot this afternoon, such is my anger, but it's an anger that is gaining in momentum - David Gerard is not the sort of person who should be permitted reponsibility, he has proved himself untrustworthy. Editors here are volunteers, they do not, and should not, have to tolerate people who in real life they would avoid. I realise that is an unpleasant fact, but he has no right to the abuse his powers in the way that he does. He struts about the encyclopedia bullying and intimidating, and the Arbcom appear to encourage him in this. One wonders why? It seem that in this at least many agree with me. J Wales need to wake his ideas up, and take note of the views of his editors. Giano (talk) 18:19, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/?diff=prev&oldid=252874249.

I think you misunderstood my comment. I was not suggesting dropping the entire matter; simply that particular discussion on the Candidate_statements talk page, what with a duplicate of it being held on RfAr this very moment.

Sorry for any confusion, AGK 18:31, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

In memoriam

You sir are a cad and a bounder of the first order. There I was on the verge of proposing to one I believed to be the finest English gentlelady of our time, capable of behaviour not seen since Mrs Routledge interrupted her watercolouring the tattooed posteriors of elderly lepers to confront the Kaiser's Navy with her trowel; only to learn that what I believed to be a veritable memsahib billowing under full sail was merely electronic trickery. Has any chap been so foully deluded since dear Melchie fell for a show girl?

ϢereSpielChequers is offering you a Wiki Beer! Liquid refreshment promotes WikiHarmony and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the harmony by offering a beer to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Cheers, and Happy editing!
Best served refrigerated (not applicable in England). Temperature and Alcoholic strength varies according to age, religion and geographic location of recipient, US residents below the age of 21 are best advised to keep this beerstar until travelling in a country with less ageist drinking laws. NB This Beerstar is compatible with all known fake IDs

Well, whats done is done, please join me in raising a glass to a fragrant memory. ϢereSpielChequers 18:29, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

IRC

You left a message on my talk page saying you presumed that I approved of David Gerard's checkuser of your sock two years ago, and his subsequent discussion of it on IRC. I have no knowledge of what checkusers Gerard did two years ago and I don't use IRC. The ArbCom has rejected the case accusing Gerard of improperly using checkuser. If your privacy was violated that would be a problem, but I haven't seen any evidence of that. Please be careful that your own behavior doesn't cross the line into harassment. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:08, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Just you watch me! I have no idea who you are, but to me you are little more than a troll! - and we all know how to deal with such as those. Giano (talk) 23:13, 20 November 2008 (UTC)