User talk:Giano II/archive 10

Happy slush-trudging season

I was going to say Happy New Year, Giano; but in my part of the world where these matters are regimented, the New Year has ritually ended, and what I should instead write on my postcard is that I humbly look at and dance for you while it's cold. So as we at the extremes of Eurasia move from commercial fantasizing about a "white Christmas" to actual trudging through grey slush, my warmest regards to you, though I'll spare you the dancing.

In the last couple of days I've observed and been tangentially involved in some of the silliest WP groupthink and clearest repudiation of this, so I'm more than normally interested by your essay, which I intend to print out tomorrow and read in the train. -- Hoary (talk) 12:47, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Well I have just arrived here to find real live grey slush, trains cancelled, and Britain in its usual state of chaos at 0.5cm of snow; and explaining to overexited tiny olive skinned ones that one cannot tobaggan or ski in grey slush. Such is my exiting life. Giano (talk) 12:56, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Right then, all jump into your car, or a friend's car, or a hotwired enemy's car -- you sedentary Brits have surplus millions of cars, this should be easy -- and drive to Uffington. Look for a parkplatz for the horse and castle. You'll all be impressed (and likely frozen too). I've found that it impresses guests from afar in warm weather and cold, though of course sleet doesn't help. It can be blowy up there; I remember thinking the skin on my hand might freeze onto my camera when I once changed film [remember that stuff?] up there at a temperature that actually was probably no less than 3°C. Fleece and down, that's the ticket. -- Hoary (talk) 15:47, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I remember slush… vaguely. Hey, Happy New Year. If I can be of any help with stuff, I'd be glad to chip-in. It's going to be a good year; be happy. Cheers, Jack Merridew 14:19, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Advice

Hi Giano,

I've just finished reading your article, 'A fool's guide to writing a featured article', plus a few other examples of your work, which I have generally found to be of a very high standard.

As I am relatively new on Wikipedia (started 15 September 2008), I am looking for some guidance.

Currently I have been working on article Pope John Paul II, with an aim to raise it to 'Good article' and eventually 'Featured article' hopefully. I wonder if I could be so bold as to ask you to have a look and give me your honest opinion. I would appreciate any tips, pointers, advice (or even collaboration, if you have the time and/or interest). Any help would be greatly appreciated on my part. Kind Regards, Marek.69 ^talk 18:49, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, I don't do GAs, and am no longer writing FAs, but that looks like a very good page to me, a little tidying arownd the edges and it ought to be a FA. However, and this is serious advice, if that is your first attempt at an FA - then leave the late Pope alone. He is far too famous and contraversial, to FAC him he would be a minefield - the page would never be comprehensive enough for some, and a magnet for the POV of others. Find an easier target to cut your FAC teeth with - this would be a disparaging experience for a FAC novice, it can be disparaging enough for those of us who know are way arownd the place [1]; when you see reviewers begin "I haven't read the article, but..." then it is time to leave FACs alone. If you chose to ignore my advice (and most people do), let me know and I will help you out with it, to see if it can be FAd, but I strongly advise against it - make the page as good as you can, then go enjoy yourself with another page, and forget FAing the late Pope. Giano (talk) 19:27, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Giano on the FA stuff. The system appears to have serious issues with even remotely controversial subjects these days. It looks like a pretty good article to me. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 19:33, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Giano, I appreciate you taking a look and your advice. I still have a lot of input to add to this page, so I will be making the page as good as I can. If you have any suggestions, please drop me a line. As for the FA, I have no intention of walking into a minefield just yet, so I might just put that off for the time being. I'll let you know if I change my mind. Cheers Marek.69 ^talk 21:22, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

The point is, do you think it's good enough yet? Once it's good enough, fair and well-rounded and quite thorough, then I'd move on for a while, work on something else, then come back and review it yourself, privately, to your own standards. And carry it forth in that way. Wikipedia articles are never "finished". And if they are a great deal better than the average, they'll attract undesirable attention, like Buckingham Palace.---Wetman (talk) 23:46, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi Wetman, personally, I don't think the article is good enough yet. It's a little disjointed in places and could flow a lot better. I am working on this. Also a lot of the ‘facts’ need to be checked, I've started, but still long way to go, and its been mentioned that weblinks need formatting. So I think it still needs a fair amount of work before it's good enough. As previously mentioned, I am not in any particular hurry to take this to FA, so in the meantime I'm just enjoying myself improving it and would welcome any help and collaboration. Cheers. Marek.69 ^talk 10:58, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I think the problem is the praiseful tone. Wikipedia is not hagiography. Bishonen | talk 13:49, 9 January 2009 (UTC).

If he is canonized it will be hagiography. No way round that. Yomangani^talk 14:29, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Clearly, you haven't seen Talk:Sarah Palin lately.

When I saw Bish with an edit summary of "hagiography" I thought, oh good! Giano is writing a bio of Bishonen! But alas, such is not the case... KillerChihuahua^?!? 13:51, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh, all right, so it is hagiography. [/me starts a page on User:Little Stupid, and another on User:Silly Little Puppy ]. Bishonen | talk 13:58, 9 January 2009 (UTC).

user page

Hi. If you would like, I could build you a next generation user page. I did just tweak the 'vile colour'. Cheers, Jack Merridew 10:51, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

What a good idea, so long as it is restrained and tasteful (like me), and has none of those nasty horrid little boxes announcing I speak little Mandarin, virtually no Portuguese and like to live an alternative lifestyle you can do what you like to it. Giano (talk) 13:49, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Great. I'll take a stab at something tomorrow ( it's getting late here ;) I'll likely put it a subpage for your comments. I'm no fan of all the silly boxes, so no worries there. I'll look at what you've done, got parked as subpages, mebbe Lady Bonkbuster. Leave a few ideas, if you like. Think of it as a portal to your work. Cheers, Jack Merridew 15:33, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

"A portal"? Goodness, I have never had one of those. Just think I can direct people to my portal when they complain I don't write enough, I shall enjoy that. Giano (talk) 15:36, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Or portfolio… I do wicked humour, too (see my pages). This will be fun. Thanks. It is your userspace, so you da boss. Cheers, Jack Merridew 15:45, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

No, no, I'd like a portal like a large proscenium arch framing the page - very architectural - that people can pass through - of course Spumoni has to stay too. Giano (talk) 16:39, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I can do that; will go on an image hunt. There must be lovely stuff out there. A nice architectural rendering of some great building. Blueprints, hi-res photos of great theaters, &c.. I know a _lot_ about theatre. Cheers, (and good night) Jack Merridew 16:48, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Not a theatre one an Baroque one, something like the one at the centre of this this would be good Giano (talk) 16:54, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I'll be looking at a bunch of images. There are a couple of ways to go here; I'm thinking a very symmetrical bit of imagery framing the content in the middle; if it's muted a bit (almost a watermark) text can go right over parts of it. This will take a few iterations along the lines of; See? and getting feedback. This is why I'll work on a test page until you like. I'll probably tweak your main page in the right direction in parallel. Anything you don't like, revert or tweak, of course. Cheers, Jack Merridew 04:59, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

See;

• User:Giano II/Portal

The specific image, colours and text can easily change (as could the dog bit, which I saw a cartoon-strip about here recently). The image should have reasonable left/right symmetry and be fairly tall if you want much text over it. This whole approach will not work for long pages. We could, simply do something else below the image; something like a portal; Portal:Architecture or one of the others. Another option is smallish boxes with vertical scrolling; I don't much like these.

You want an edit notice on your talk page, too? see mine for lulz; the specific message varies over time.

Cheers, Jack Merridew 09:41, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

That's very good, but could we look through the arch (minus the gates) and see this, (the main part - centred) and then click on a different window for a different department - complaints - pages - requests etc? Giano (talk) 09:47, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I didn't see your reply immediately; I've been tweaking things, so look again. Refresh now, and see each oldid;

• Winter Palace gate zoomed-in
• Winter Palace gate
• right now, it's using;
• File:Tempietto05.jpg with zooming. oldid

I'll change to the image you suggest next. And I can make the windows into links; I think, wiki can be limiting.

Cheers, Jack Merridew 10:42, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I've switched to File:Queluz Palace fountains.JPG and am still thinking about the window links.

You're thinking of a composite image, right? The Russian Arch and the Portuguese Palace? That would be best done in Photoshop which is not my strong suit (and I've not looked at the licenses on these images). Maybe get Durova to help? Ya, I know... there be drama afoot, but maybe we could all just sit down and share a crack pipe or two, and let shite go. I'll proceed on my own for now. Cheers. Jack Merridew 11:25, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

No really I do not require Durova's help - it would be mentioned for ever more and eternal gratitude required. I can make composite images - I think - and will do that, then the same principal as a clicky map can be applied - Gosh this is going to be so impressive people will come from miles around just to stand and stare at my portal. Giano (talk) 11:29, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I certainly hesitated before that post. I've not been following the details of late. The windows can certainly be done, it's just messier on a wiki as opposed to on a website you have full control over. Keep the image large and hi-res. I'm zooming in on the interesting parts of the images. If you crop away uninteresting bits, fine, but big is good. You are running a largish screen, right; it fits for you? For something like this I care little about crappy computers and browsers. We're thinking grand here. Glad you're liking it. Cheers, Jack Merridew 11:40, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

The two windows on the left of the second floor are 'hot' — for the moment, they link to your user and talk pages with plain titles on them (the balloon when you hover over them). Damn things are a bitch to calibrate; not quite sure why, but it's certainly related to the games I'm using to move the image around and clip overflow. You're not seeing the whole image on the portal page; compare with the original. We can put little labels under the windows, too; links, or not… Cheers, Jack Merridew 14:48, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

For something like this I care little about crappy computers and browsers. Right now I'm using a fine browser on a crappy computer. What me to throw away the latter and add to landfill and global warming? Usability, Jack: how does it look in Amaya? Or Lynx? Ask yourself: What would Jakob say? Best of luck with it! -- Hoary (talk) 15:18, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I do have Amaya, however I don't use it. Its rendering of that page reinforced that. It is an authoring tool, not a regular browser, so I'm not surprised. Lynx I don't use; there's no hope there. I have tested this on a bunch of browsers and it is coded with solid techniques. Give me access to the raw xhtml and style sheets and I'll do better. There certainly is room for improvment in wiki's accessibility. I also checked it on my handphone; it was still usable. Switching to an image sized for this purpose will help with some of the issues. Cheers, Jack Merridew 12:30, 19 January 2009 (UTC) (I don't get the Jakob reference, but fear I should)

Thanks I am working on a composite picture as we speak. Giano (talk) 20:04, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

This is what I had in minsd File:Domus G.jpg with all the windows and doors leading to a user page: Pages I like, pages I am working on, awards, complaints, arb cases (and other such things) that have amused me, keeping diffs that may be useful or make people laugh, ect ect ect. Giano (talk) 21:52, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I can use that; I've saved a local copy and will nudge this along as I can. The pages you'd like linked with be subpages such as;

• User:Giano II/Awards containing most of the current user page
• others about the same... subpages can get nice treatments, too.

Cheers, Jack Merridew 12:30, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I like the portal idea of this one can the main talk page be the big window in the middle? Thanks. Giano (talk) 08:39, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Ya, any rectangle in the image can be a link. We could have hidden one; some piece of the sky...

fyi, this may have to wait a bit due to real life issues. Cheers, Jack Merridew 09:02, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Updated; I've changed images again and have linked all of the second floor windows. You should make a list of just what you would like. The image is a bit off-centre and I've nudged it and cropped off a few bits. It would be best if the image was exactly symmetrical. Also, it would be best to leave all text out of the image so that it can be changed and formatted. Cheers, Jack Merridew 10:35, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

(ec) I see you like. Enjoy. fyi, the left window links to the user page itself so you should find another target. Shuffle as you see fit; you should be fine as long as you're careful with any tweaks to the code. Adding imagemap rects is fairly straightforward. If you want more text in the box, the size needs adjusting. This could probably be made automatic; just didn't yet. Cheers, Jack Merridew 11:50, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh thank you, this is marvellous isn't it - so much more eficient I shall start transfering all the moaning minnies above to their own area in a momant. Giano (talk) 11:39, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

(ec2) I can add formatting to whatever page you end up with. I just added the Prologue page to this talk page; I see this as something for all pages; at least that's how I see it. Consider an WP:Editnotice for your talk page. Really try mine; It offers on of about a dozen Lord of the Flies quotes. Cheers, Jack Merridew 11:50, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh that's great, can we move the text to the first window and start a page caled Giano on Giano? Also can we do away with beware the dog and have Spumoni (my bird) flying all over the page? Giano (talk) 11:45, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I'll cut the dog; the image I'll have to think on a moment; it's certainly doable. I didn't realise the bird was 'Spumoni'. Cheers, Jack Merridew 11:50, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

 Done. You want the whole text box gone? i.e at User:Giano II/Giano (which left window links to); just so you know; an urn down-right links to my user page; cut if you like, it was just a demo of a non-window link. Cheers, Jack Merridew 12:01, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

yep I thik so, no leave your urn that will be handy, could Bishonen's talk hace a downstairs window, it would be happy to have a quick link to her, on and geogre's page I often quite like to look at what is happening there. Good isn't it?

I added the first floor links; some of the links are duplicates of second floor ones; change them to whatever you like. I think you should keep the translucent box; it's cool. This whole page is cool; there be some nice tricks in there. Cheers, Jack Merridew 12:27, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Nice picture. GoodDay (talk) 18:28, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Arley Hall

As a relaxing diversion, could I tempt you to cast your eye over Arley Hall, ahead of its GA nomination? I know the prose still needs some work, and that's in hand, but your architectural expertise would be invaluable. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:30, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Nice page, nice fotos, but it needs a heavy copy-edit, I will have a proper look tomorrow. In the meantime - does it have to have "design team" for one man in the info box? I will leave the need for an info box to you, Giano (talk) 23:40, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not the author of the article, but I'm kind of persuaded by infoboxes, although I realise that you're not such a fan. Anyway, thanks for agreeing to take a look. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:45, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

You want an info box, you can have one, the primary authors get to chose. I have given one para some architectural terms and tightened up. I'll take anoter look tomorrow. It's late. Giano (talk) 23:53, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the work you have done on this. I wondered how you came across it - and then discovered the message on MF's talk page. Any more improvements welcomed; it's pretty obvious I am not a professional writer! Peter I. Vardy (talk) 11:58, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Moscow Kremlin

Hey Giano, I am going to try and get a group of editors together in order to expand greatly our coverage of the Moscow Kremlin. Just look at the number of articles to be created and expanded....

If I can get a few editors together, would you be interested in joining us? --Russavia ^Dialogue 09:11, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

to be honest, I don't want to comit to anything further until I have finished the Winter Palace series, I still have one page left to finish there. Thanks for asking, if you have any problems with the 18th and 19thcentury stuff give me a call, I am not too familiar with Russian architecture before then. I do have a book about the contents of the kremlin if that is nay help. Giano (talk) 11:49, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Polite architecture

FYI. NVO (talk) 03:27, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

• Addressed. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. Giano (talk) 13:38, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

"It is a term used to encompass all aesthetically led architectural styles and fashions."

Is this what architectural theory has come to? Please point me towards the exit. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:55, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid CoM whether you like it or not the term polite architecture exists and is used fairly frequently, especially in the UK in conservation areas and the work pertaining to them. I'm not sure that I agree that it is "a term used to encompass all aesthetically led architectural styles and fashions." That seems a little to encompasing and sweeping. I saw written somewhere in this debate over the last day or so that Blenheim Palace could be described ar polite architecture, I don't agree with that at all, because that particular house was breaking new ground at the time it was built, so obviously the page is going to have to be pretty well referenced to suport such views. It's a complex subject so it needs to be written by someone who understands it too. However, it is very much a page Wikipedia needs to have and I shall read it with great interest. Giano (talk) 13:25, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, all architecture has an aesthetic. Whether it's a Mies box or a Gropius or a Falling Concrete Wright construction, it's "aesthetically led." I can see how the sentence is a real stinker, and it doesn't communicate to this amateur consumer of architecture (I consume architecture non-professionally). Is it architecture whose sole purpose is aesthetic? (Are there such things outside of follies?) Is it architecture built in imitation of an existing aesthetic?

I think I get it, but I don't, really. It would seem to denote architecture whose function was to primarily establish class membership or as a display of wealth. Thus, a London house for a country squire that was dripping with ornaments would be "polite" architecture (with the root on "politic"), but to say that it is aesthetic in a particular manner misleads. Utgard Loki (talk) 13:58, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments. I actually agree with you Giano and with you Utgard (I think your last paragraph has it about right). A building is polite in the sense that it follows high architectural period styles (of Europe) like the Baroque. My recollection is that it had to do with the nouveau riche building fancy houses with the artifice of the so-called high archiecture period styles like Baroque in order to blend in with the landed gentry aristocrats as part of an effort to take on the appearances of the aristocratic class with whom they wanted to socialize. Although there were certainly public buildings built in the style also, in a similar desire to be taken seriously. At the very least I hope someone clarifies in the article that this is a bit of architectural theorizing and no one actually set out to build a building that would be referred to as "polite architecture". Over here in the colonies, terminology of that sort is not well fancied. In fact, calling one of our buildings polite might be considered a bit of an insult. Is it ever wise to quiety kill a crazed piece of creative writing as the best way to get a more considered (not to mention sourced) article? Did you see that the Eiffel Tower is being referred to as polite architecture as well? I tried to focus the article a bit, but wild horses or cats are easier to tame. I suppose some sources will have to be hunted down, but reading haughty British architectural theorizing isn't my first choice for a weekend activity. Cheerio! ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:22, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

In short: if you want to see "polite architcture" go to England's nothern towns where newly rich mill owners built Italianate, villas complete with belvedere towers; Gothic revival churches and Renaissance chapels (for the good of their own souls rather then those of their exploited workes) all out of the local stone using local architects who never quite understood the plot or had the resources to fully endorse it. Giano (talk) 21:47, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

John Donne in St. Paul's?

Giano, a lot of sources record his tomb in St Paul's where he was Dean. Inigo Jones did a lot of work on old St Paul's before the fire. Did the monument survive, to be reinstalled? Here's the image. --Wetman (talk) 22:00, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Woops yes, my mistake it in St Paul's and must have somehow survived. The Holles statue is in the Abey. I wil revert myself. Giano (talk) 22:10, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

RFC

The RFC on you started out unfocused and ill-humored, but it's now just getting absurd. "I wuz once here and I saw a Giano. It turned me into a newt so i thinks it should be blocked" is about where they are now. Utgard Loki (talk) 19:45, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh? Is it still going on? I thought it had finished ages ago, that was why Phil was taking out an RF-Arb, one can't keep track these days - I must get around to putting them on my watch-list sometime. I see you have discovered my new "complaints department" do feel free to make use of it, such a useful facility I thought, alowing me to keep this page for more important maters and debate. Talking of newts have you hear the one about the newt, the dope smoking koala and the crocodile? Giano (talk) 21:16, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Will you please stop talking about the members of the ArbCom! I happen to have great faith in the crocodile. It says that it's sorry. Utgard Loki (talk) 20:14, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I was not talking about the Arbcom. For whom I have the very highest respect; I was talking about crocodiles, in particular Australian crocodiles (or alligators or whetever they call them in those parts) it was a very funny joke I heard at a dinner last week - apparently there is a dope smoking koala up a tree and along came a newt...........anyone wanting to here the joke has only to ask, but it is long and involved. Probably best to email. Come to think of it, I'm not sure I can rmember the punchline, I thik the newt (pronounced "noot" cos that's how Australians say newt) gets confused with the crocodile. Come to think of it Americans can't say the "yew" sound either, or at least George Dubya can't, I wonder why that is?Giano (talk) 20:21, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I've been told that Court Whigs changed the old pronunciation nu to reflect Dutch nieuw in the circle of William III, ca 1690-1700. Northerners, Cockneys and Americans didn't get the memo.--Wetman (talk) 03:37, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Admin required

Could some kindly Admin please blend the histories of these tqo page User:Giano/Nicholas Stone and Nicholas Stone, and further information can be easily added to mainspace now. Thanks. Giano (talk) 12:36, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Done. :-) Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:42, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much, that is great. Giano (talk) 12:43, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

What is an OTRS account as described here File:Sandro Pertini6.jpg and can I use this image in my new page? Giano (talk) 17:43, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

You can use the pic, WP:OTRS is a system for recording free licenses that the WMF maintains and is run by volunteers. MBisanz ^talk 17:44, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. Very useful. Giano (talk) 17:45, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Random question

I was working on a totally unrelated matter, {Fashion Architecture Taste (FAT), and in case you want to have a look a couple of us also started the Kees Christiaanse and Wiel Arets articles. They could use some photos} and stumbled on a user that had previously created the same article (before it was deleted by a gunslinger). In looking into their contributions I saw that they in turn had deleted one of an anon's comments here (as from Moulton). Anyway, I had investigated the case of Moulton a while back, and I was wondering what ever happened to him? Is he still around or is he gone for good? I see Peter Damien is still able to conduct divisive and disruptive experiments to promote his off wiki endeavors, but from what little I gleaned Moulton's work, it seemed in the general spirit of inquiry at the heart of Wikipedia. Just curious. Sorry if I'm opening a can of worms. Chao! ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:09, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Not at all, but I am not the best person to ask about these matters. You need to contact one of Wikipedia's WR regulars or even one of the Arbs who often posts there. I expect, they are all far better informed than me on such things - no one tells me anything. Giano (talk) 21:18, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Moulton is one of the rare handful of users (I know of maybe 3) who are actually banned from all 760+ WMF wikis[2]. Lar (talk · contribs) can give a better blow-by-blow, but suffice it to say, Peter's intentions and work are far superior to Moulton's. MBisanz ^talk 21:27, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

My observations of moulton's work were that he was interested in researches, not so much in 'encyclopedia'. PeterD is trying to work on the encyclopedia. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 21:29, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Just a moment here, before we have a mass pile on of informative comment. I am not greatly interested in Moulton, in fact I have never come across him on Wikipedia - in short, he interest me not. When he starts making unhelpful edits to pages I edit, or making silly, puerile or banal comments concerning me or my interests on wikipedia then I will look into him. At the moment he does not, and there are plenty who do - so they get my attention. Nor am I remotely interested in medieval philosophy so my path with Peter D is unlikely to cross here either. Giano (talk) 21:37, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks all for the responses. I shouldn't have phrased my inquiry the way I did and have struck out my unsavory attacks. I would refactor, but I don't want to compound my errors. I take it from MBisanz's reply that the key difference is that Moulton wasn't much of a contributor then? When I say I investigated I should make clear that it was just cursory, and I found his work interesting. Anyway, I apologize for the disruption to your page Giano. Thanks to all for your responses and thoughts. Perhaps if there is more to say my talk page would be a better place to carry on the conversation. But my questions have generally been answered, so thanks again. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:52, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I wonder what Giano has against medieval philosophy? ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:55, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, your page would be a better place. I don't want to discuss people I do not know or have no interest in here (that goes for all others I have never interacted with too) I have nothing against medieval philosophy other than that I find it very dull and disinteresting, but I am delighted others do not find it so. Now can we terminate this thread now? Thank you. Giano (talk) 23:37, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Contemporary architecture

Giano, are you interested in any of the contemporary architects? Do you work on those articles? ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:15, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I am working my way through history to get to them. Giano (talk) 07:03, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Clicky map

Hi Giano--good to see your head still above water. Yes, the clicky map will still be easy. I could add numbers to the image too... been meaning to sit down with Photoshop and do some work on Wiki anyways (I owe Casliber a map too--and now he's great and powerful!). Where would you want the numbers? If you have just a general idea, I can work up something quick and from there it's easy to move them around a bit. Probably easier to tell me move the 6 a little to the left after a rough draft than to try to explain exactly now. --JayHenry (talk) 04:28, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, replied on your page. Giano (talk) 07:02, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Mattisse RfC

In your Outside View, I added some references to Mattisse's disruption of the FAR process in her vexatious nomination of Buckingham Palace, so people can see a recent example of the bad behaviour you describe. (I agree it needs to go to an RFAR.) In case anybody removes my input for formal reasons, you might want to put it back and say you want it in there as part of your view. Diffs are useful! Bishonen | talk 10:41, 3 February 2009 (UTC).

Thank you Bishonen, I think this is one of the few times, i have felt an editor to have gone beyond the pale and require permanent and lasting removal. Giano (talk) 11:39, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I will take a look, too, later, I hope. The user, to me, has shown the sort of bad behavior that should at least lead to extreme restrictions, voluntary, and removal if he cannot abide by those restrictions. That said, I also think that this person's behavior is a mirror image of previous uses of these processes. FAC can be saved. FAR and FARC, on the other hand, are loaded guns laying on the parlor table. It's not surprising that a disgruntled party goer picks them up and begins firing. I cannot see any use to those two processes, and I have seen many instances of harm, and so all we have, in Mattisse, is what we had in Lucifer Morgan, or some of the now-admired users: the endless wrangling of formalism to justify personal pique. Yes, the person is wrong, but the person couldn't be so effectively disruptive without these two ready to wear insults. Geogre (talk) 12:03, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you, but it is not the needless FARCing that is the main problem, it is this users general behaviour in many areas. There are very good and hard working editors, to mainspace, not necessarly friends of mine, but people I can, and do, work quite well with, whose lives have been made completely wretched by Mattisse - Sandy Georgia for one, their only crime being trying to do their given job. Mattisse's insults and allagations seem to be ignored in "certain circles", I suppose because "certain circles" do not interest themselves in mainspace. I can think of no other reason why this is tolerated, I certainly see no outstanding contributions only hampering and trouble to the building of the project. I have been ignoring her for too long, I should have spoken up earlier, now this stupid sanction is almost over I shall have to concern myself more with these matters, the problem is the second I go near an Arbcase there are those (some highly placed) who like to twist it to centre on me, so I have been too cautious of late.Giano (talk) 12:43, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I think enough is enough and if the problems have not stopped in the last month it needs to go to ArbCom. Sorry Giano :-) --Dweller (talk) 16:29, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Well as you know I have limited confidence in Arbcom, although this new lot have yet to be tested, and even the old Arbcom would have a job twisting this one to nclude me - so it will be interesting to see what happens. Giano (talk) 16:49, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I no longer edit FAC article or review, nor FACR

This should take care of the problem. It has been made amply clear that I am not wanted there, so I accept that. I hope this will allow me some peace. I am not I perfect person by any means by I was doing the best I could there editing and reviewing. I was not good enough. I was heavily criticize, so I will go. I am not a quick with words as you, so I concede that I cannot stand up for myself with you, and I am not allowed to use the words and accusation you do as they the are collected ended up in extremely ugly RFC, the point of which was to point out my every fault in a magnified way with the goal of driving me way. I did think that I was helping at FAC at the time because I received so many rewards and much praise. But praise is meaningless, I know, as FAC wants me gone. You are not the only one who does. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 15:44, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I think you are very quick with your words and edit summaries. You seem to forget your RFC started a long time and with a lot of other people before I showed up. Giano (talk) 16:23, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Mattisse confuses me. It is very clear form the RfC and other comments that people just want less namecalling, baseless accusations, and edits of articles/reviews that are to prove a point (as we want from everyone). --Rocksanddirt (talk) 21:13, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Not here Rocky, take it to the RFC. Giano (talk) 21:14, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

To be clear, that is something that I believe would reduce the harm. Random insults will bring their own rewards, but frustrating process pages or using them to frustrate people is, to me, much more problematic. Geogre (talk) 11:13, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

list restructure

Hi Giano, in regards to your last comment on WP:AE, please see the committee notice "New mailing list structure", and the discussion on the talk page. David Gerard is no longer on arbcom-l, and isnt a list admin on either arbcom-l or the new "functionaries-en" list. See also bugzilla:17197 Cheers, John Vandenberg ^(chat) 12:53, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

And all the saints say, "Amen!" Geogre (talk) 13:07, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

...and I say amen too, after years of battling we at last have one improvement - Why isn't Risker's name there? Giano (talk) 13:16, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

She's on the mailing list as shown here, so I presume you are asking why her name isn't on the announcement? She, Sam, and Bainer didn't get their votes in on time.--Tznkai (talk) 14:02, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes indeed I was, how very careless of her, Sam and Bainer; I've never missed a deadline in my life, but then of course, sadly, not everyone is like me - are they? I'm just so glad that the other 13 have been paying attention to my wishes and instructions over the last years. Giano (talk) 18:12, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Ah come on Giano, it wasn't carelessness; in any case, I am currently a list moderator on arbcom-L. Oddly, the most significant thing I have learned since becoming a list mod is how much Russian spam comes from Australian email addresses. I have a feeling it is probably good that I have automatic image blocking on my defaults. Risker (talk) 19:32, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

What on earth is "arbcom-L" - is that what you have to use while still Learning to be an Arb? I can't imagine why the Australians are sending Russian spam, but seeing as Tony1 and the Russian editors are amongst our best, it can only be a good sign. let's face it, if I were marketing naughty products, I wouldn't think the arbcom mailing list would be a very worthwhile place to spam - or is there something we should know? -No, don't answer that, we have too much information already these days. Giano (talk) 20:08, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I believe "l" stands for "list", as in "mailing list". It was an old designation, as new lists are now apparently created without the 'l' designation. Shows how old arb-l is. Carcharoth (talk) 23:41, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Monacute House

Please re-visit Talk:Richard Ponsonby-Fane to see if I you can think of a way to polish a restored and re-focused reference to Montacute House? --Tenmei (talk) 02:15, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Have posted a reply there. Fascinating man, now there I suspect is a biography waiting to be written. You should be able to have some fun there. Giano (talk) 20:22, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Vanbrugh and heraldry

OMG how boring heraldry is.[3] That gave meaning to his architecture? Meaning ? [/me falls asleep at the thought.] Bishonen | talk 16:37, 8 February 2009 (UTC).

I have blocked you for 24 hours for incivility.

This kind of edit summary is not acceptable.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 20:33, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Link leads to some censored material? What did you say Giano?? Sarah777 (talk) 22:13, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

While not commenting on the validity of the original block, I have reblocked to allow Giano to edit his own talk page. That feature is used very sparingly - only pre-emptively in the cases of vandals like Grawp. Viridae^Talk 20:46, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

• Note the diff cited has been oversighted deleted. Avruch ^T 20:49, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Nope, the page has been deleted. Its still in the deletion log. Viridae^Talk 20:51, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

• You're right, my mistake. Avruch ^T 20:53, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I find Giano's creation of that article much more troubling than the edit summary. It looks like an article written just to ridicule the subject for his negative opinion on Wikipedia. BLP issues, to put it mildly. Cool Hand Luke 21:32, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I would suggest Luke, that before you say anymore, you go an discuss the reason for the articles creation with your fellow Arbs. Giano (talk) 21:38, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I assume the edit sumary in question was me saying that attributing an article to me in mainspace was making us look like idiots. Wikipedia articles are never attributed in mainspace, especially very high profile ones. The article was created to rebut a serious erronios fact the journalist in question mad in a high profile Sunday newspaper today. He claimed his article was inaccurate - he did not have an article. The article I wrote was factual and fuly referenced. The errors have been discussed on the [WikiEN-l] List for the last 24 hours. That Wikipedia's hierachy have belatedly awoken is hardly my fault. Giano (talk) 21:44, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

??? I need a scorecard. I assume Jimbo's use of the edit summary as the block reason was an acceptable "front" for article creation being the real reason, which made sense from several angles. And, frankly, I was inclined to cut him some slack on that given the circumstances. Is the politics even more convoluted? (n.b. I'm writing as an ordinary user here, mostly). -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 21:47, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

The summary in question is hardly even uncivil considering that they were linking to your user page in the mainspace of an article during an edit war. That was no big deal. This article, on the other hand, was created to call that reporter a liar. That's a BLP problem, especially when you accuse him of falsely claiming something, while citing a source that says it "doesn't look like" he was right. Cool Hand Luke 22:34, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

• The page Luke was written to set the record straight. It was factual and it was referenced. The matter was widely known and discussed for 21 hours before I wrote the page. The page was openly writen, I also discussed it with an Arb at the time I was writing it. I posted openly concerning it on the Admins Notceboard, where upon it was vastly edited and expanded by others. The page needed to be written by an editor, who if checked would be seen to be a reliable mainspace editor; my mainspace edits are reliable. You are reading far too much into this, and quite frankly I find your aspertions insulting. You need to discuss this with your suddenly silent colleagues, and say no more here. Giano (talk) 22:44, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

If blocks are "preventative not punitive", what was this block meant to prevent, and why could that prevention not have been first attempted by a warning, if not a polite request, here? Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 21:59, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Yow! Jimbo just unblocked. Events move fast around here ... -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 22:02, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

• You have been unblocked, Giano. [4] Pedro :  Chat  22:04, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

• • Jimbo, you need to read up on our policies some. You don't protect the usertalk page in a situation like this, and you don't use "cool-down blocks" ever. The reason that not doing those things has become policy is that doing them is counterproductive. It has bad effects. And I should have mentioned: you don't block in this situation, either; not even in an illjudged block-unblock cycle. Assume good faith. Bishonen | talk 22:10, 8 February 2009 (UTC).

• • • Bish - could someone set out in chronological order what led to this block - who did what, when. It seems an amazing intervention and we should be allowed know why it happened. Sarah777 (talk) 22:20, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

My quick take: Giano threw some gasoline on today's bonfire. Jimbo got angry and blocked him for it, claiming "incivility" as the nominal reason. Then he realized it was creating even more problem, and unblocked. While I can't say I'm on his side here, I do have a certain amount of sympathy. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 22:25, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Just another Yank who thinks that the British Right Wing newspapers (and especially Right Wing newspaper journalists) are unable to lie, fabricate and spin bollocks out of the whole yarn... Wrong again. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:31, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Any editor who wishes for a copy of the so called "hatchet job" article (as deleted) may email me for one. So long as it comes from an established user through wiki-mail, I will send it. It was not a hatchet job, it was a brief bio-stub, filling what was clearly a vacancy. Giano (yes, it is he, with a new password) (talk) 22:03, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't think there would be a problem with you user spacing it either?--Tznkai (talk) 22:36, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

From Jimbo's comment here, I think that anyone is free to write a draft article in userspace (like Ryan P has done here). Trouble is, restoring and moving the history now (to userfy to Giano's userspace) will make things very confusing. It would (I think) make it look like Jimbo deleted a userspace draft. For the record, Giano, I think Ryan's userspace draft is fine, and would favour that being moved into mainspace at some point, and the full history restored so people can see what you wrote (and I, for one, don't think it was a hatchet job at all - not a great article, and not created at the right time, but definitely not a hatchet job). Discussion could then continue on the talk page as to what is appropriate to put in the article. I don't think mentioning this single newspaper article he wrote recently is appropriate in an article about Hattersley. I'd still wait a week or so before doing this though. There is no rush here, and having an edit war erupt over this article would not be a good idea. Carcharoth (talk) 00:13, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Uhh. Anyone remember the first case that got bad press? It was Siegenthaller. Notice that the article then reflected the controversy, as it had legitimately made news, and I don't recall anyone going into Emergency War Powers over it. In fact, I think John Siegenthaler still has some reference to the debate about Wikipedia in it, mainly because it is the most substantial news splash made by the man in the 2nd half of his life. The point is that "do not mention Wikipedia on Wikipedia" is a bit... new. It's a bit odd, too. When one begins to worry about what They are saying, then the next step is to assure yourself that They are listening in to your cell phone and talking to each other via Morse Code in the eye blinks of passersby. Geogre (talk) 10:57, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Sure, it would be ridiculous to have an absolute ban on self-reference to Wikipedia given that Wikipedia is such a big thing in today's world. However, it's also necessary to have some proportionality to counter the natural tendency for Wikipedians to pay particular attention to Wikipedia and perhaps regard its internal tempests-in-teapots as more important in the greater scheme of things than they actually are. Siegenthaler's Wikipedia conflict was particularly newsworthy because it was the first major Wikipedia conflict that got heavily noticed by the outside world. There's likely to be diminishing outside interest in other such conflicts as they became more commonplace, and that should in turn be reflected in our own coverage. *Dan T.* (talk) 14:10, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

How, though, does that equal a block and accusations of a "hatchet job?" No matter how you look at it, that was just plain weird. Utgard Loki (talk) 14:25, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I think we can fairly criticize Giano for poorly balancing the article (room for legitimate disagreement at least) - hatchet-job I think most will agree was way over-the-top. I have no comments or thoughts on the block that are remotely useful right now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tznkai (talk • contribs)

It could be said at the time it was deleted that the journalist's claims (or the claims in his article) regarding his Wikipedia biography compromised 33%? of the page. However, it should be remembered that the page was only a few of hours old when deleted, and it seems a whole team were still working on it up until that moment. Please also rmember every fact was referenced and cited. I may have been the creator, but I was far from the sole author. How many Wikipedia articles are "brilliant" in their earliest infancy? It was clearly tagged a "stub" from stage 1 in order to encourage expansion. Giano (talk) 16:21, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Hattersley

I find that your actions in the Hattersley mess were, all things considered... pretty much justified. In your place (I spent the weekend horribly sick and only heard of this just now), I would have placed less emphasis on the meta-topic, but we're all individuals and we all write differently.

Hope to read more of your work in future. DS (talk) 23:12, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Warmly seconded. Welcome back, Giano. -- Hoary (talk) 00:39, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

You may have to wait a while Dragonfly, until matters in hand have been dealt with to my satisfaction. In the meantime why has this page been deleted Talk:Giles Hattersley, is debate now forbidden on Wikipedia, unless sanctioned by Jimbo. In fact if people want a debate, we could have one verbosely titled: What is the point of having an Arbcom - if the self styled "monarch" acts unilaterally, at whim, and without consultation of them?

History is littered with stories of such monarchs, their governments and their people, and most of these stories have very nasty endings indeed. There was a time, when I would have settled for an apology and retraction of his ridiculous allegations that I write hatchet pages, but while that may have pacified me, it would hardly help the project or the next victim of whom he wants rid, while in one of his rages. Giano (talk) 08:58, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Would it helps things, if I claimed to be Giles Hattersley's father? GoodDay (talk) 16:46, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

The restored article (as approved by Jimbo) contained an error, which had not been present in the deleted version - it claimed his MA was in fashion, whereas it is (as Giano correctly had it according to the references) in fashion journalism - now this is quite important for an article about a journalist. DuncanHill (talk) 16:54, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

It seems that Xerxes still thinks the original was somehow an attack. It took me until today to realize that it was supposed to be an attack on Wikipedia. That's how poor the discussion of the block has been. The original seemed to be reportage. Now, if you ask me, and no one ever, ever, under any circumstances, does, all the reportage articles should go. Let people die, and then write actual biographies of them. While they're living, just link off to some dammed fan site or other. Let the riff deal with the raff. Heck, let 'em be dead and settled in to the mausoleum. Otherwise, Wikipedia has never once had a coherent guide for what "in the news" constitutes appropriate and what does not. Should there be an article on Timothy Geithner's press conference of yesterday? Should there be one for the next great album by YourBand? No sense. No reason. No reasoning. As for this case, some dude screamed, and an article said he screamed, and Xerxes thought it was a massive attack on Wikipedia. How you get there from here is still mysterious. Utgard Loki (talk) 17:22, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

You might like to note the Listed Building Consent application now before South Somerset District Council 09/00710/LBC.

Likewise, the new owner is Judge George Glossop (famed for ordering a veil to be removed a couple of years ago) and his family. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.169.32.250 (talk) 15:22, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I would love to note, but I can't't are you going to give me a clue. Giano (talk) 15:52, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I have looke the stupid sight won't work with the reference number, do give me a clue here. are you sure it is George Glossop, if it where I think you may ne talking about it is another judge. Anyhow, I don't approve of discussing Judge's private residences on the internet so lets not go there, but I am intrigued - very intrigued. Giano (talk) 16:09, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Buckingham Palace introduction revision edit war

Dear Giano II. Indeed, with your summary reversion of my edit after a clear injunction that whomever disagreed with it should improve it, not merely revert it, it is taking on the look of an edit war. I take it you like big content heavy Intros, then? Would you be one of the page custodians you referred to? Please advise. Cheers.Wikiuser100 (talk) 12:42, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Lots of people watch that page, because a lot of people have to watch it. An open review went on of the article not once, but twice, and then a third time. Consensus among voters at FAC, then at two FARC's, was that the article was best in its present form. Any change to the status quo needs to have an extraordinarily compelling need to overcome a wide consensus. Arguments over one person's preference for how a lede should look are beside the point. Yes, there are people out there who think that lead paragraphs should be one-liners. I have my view of the mentality that prefers staccato data over syntactic information, but the essential factor in this edit war is this: this is not a matter of one person vs. another or one person's preferences being superior to another. It is a person with an itch vs. a consensus. Wikipedia works best, when it works at all, when there is consensus. Geogre (talk) 13:50, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

e/c with Geogre. Giano not being around, I'll respond to you, wikiuser100, hope you don't mind. You issued an injunction? (Wiktionary: "an order; a mandate; a decree; a command; a precept; a direction.") I believe it's not about what Giano likes or doesn't like, but about the Featured article criteria. See point 2: a featured article "follows the style guidelines" (=WP:MOS), including (point 2a) the MOS guideline for the length of lead sections. Compare this edit summary. Bishonen | talk 14:08, 21 February 2009 (UTC).

Don't F with an FA. And when the MOS is on your case, then best run.--Scott Mac (Doc) 14:20, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

(Woo, bad Scott bad.[5])--Scott Mac (Doc) 17:15, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

OK Scottie, keep your kilt clean, I would be very surprised if Jimbo choses to pass this way in a hurry in the near future. I still have some unfinished business there, but for the time being have decided to write a page and see what happens. In fact the new page is very eccentric, like its former owners, I am looking forward to writing them up! Giano (talk) 17:27, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Occupied for centuries by people famous either for their crimes or indeed nothing much. You could certainly paint quite a picture here.--Scott Mac (Doc) 18:25, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you all for chiming in. "Consensus" in this case amounting in the end so much politics, the net fallout of a conflict that caused some people to be burned and others to coalesce together into something resembling a "consensus", which ends up in favor of maintaining an article in a less well written form over a better one. From my POV.

And, yes, I ended up reading an eye-numbing amount of material at Giano's Talk page boning up on all this after the fact (when I did not hear back over-promptly after getting my nose whacked with a rolled up newspaper for objecting to edits that I did not realize had been backed on-high: as stated above, don't mess with this, that, and the other). No matter if the article ends up the poorer for it. At least I didn't have some Cerberus unleashing their pet bot to label my now clearly ill-guided (that is to say, uninformed, not un-illuminated) efforts vandalism and end up dragged down in it to the point of exasperation and relent. Life is much more important than getting all gummed up in this kind of stuff here. Though it is awfully hard to always retain that detached perspective when encircled in a virtual world by harpies, er, I mean, cyber friends, one has never seen or met hurling bots and barn stars and threats of eternal banishment this way and that. Right, Giano? Odds are we'd be fine having a drink over it all at your Caribbean getaway.

As for the "injunction", plead me guilty to word on the brain. I'd just edited an article where I searched long and hard for the appropriate one characterizing a warning (proscription, caution, prohibition, interdiction, notice....) printed on a piece of paper. It was late. My brain was inelastic. Evidently it still is. Anyone like to volunteer a better one (not including an "order", "mandate", "decree", "command", "precept", or "direction"), without the potentially but not inherently belligerent aspect of "challenge" yet retaining the inference of an invitation to step up to a set of circumstances and meet them. "Injunction" in the context I used it meaning (to me), "Hey, you started the revert thing (with nothing but snippy explanations, nothing remotely approximating the genteelness and dignity of saying "Uh, hey. Better check the Talk page (to find out what you are wading into...)," the way Giano did. Kudos, Giano.); "Say, you there, please stop undoing my restores without giving cause...." (Or at least a pointer towards discovering that it was indeed a hornet's nest both ahead and behind, whether the editor whose name I am leaving out here (Don't need any thunderbots flung my way by perfect strangers.) had been part of that swarm or not.)

Hey, sorry about your travails at the B.P. page, Giano. I understand now you birthed it, and gather there is a good deal of gatekeeping and trail maintenance to do on such a popular and public sort of topic. Mainly thanks to subpar drive-by edits and, it seems, some goblin that goes by the name of a famous Impressionist. Too bad. Thank you for your polite injunction, er, caution, er, prescription, er heads-up, er suggestion that I lift the petticoats on B.P.'s past dramas and bone up on the players. And for not over-reacting to my exasperated ("Not this again...?") post that kicked this thread off.

Duly chastened (but still unable to wade through all that abatis masquerading as an introduction, FA guidelines or not), I'm outta here. Cyberspace is safe again. Hail "syntactic information", "staccato data" be gone.

We ever meet, I'm buyin' the drinks. Belly up, everyone. Wikiuser100 (talk) 23:47, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Don't worry, I love anyone who buys me a drink. Giano (talk) 11:02, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Roger. Cheers. Wikiuser100 (talk) 11:42, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry

That was just me being stupid - no reason to drag you into it. Tom Harrison ^Talk 22:19, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh don't worry at all, no need to apologise to me, or to him for that matter, he has loads of time. I only looked in to see if anything interesting was going on, not as though there is anything else to do here is there? When did Jimbo last write a decent proper page for instance? Giano (talk) 22:28, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi there!

Thanks for your very supportive comments.

It seems extraordinary that someone would write this:

1. Accusations against Tony1 (talk · contribs) and Ohconfucius (talk · contribs) of baiting.
2. "back the hell off, try reading WP:DICK yourself, as you really are being one"
3. "Please just shut up now, I'm sick of this disruptive trolling of yours on this talk page"

Then start an ANI on me and Ohconfucius.

See the re-opened WQA on this amazing rudeness:

Wikipedia:WQA#User:Daedalus969

Tony (talk) 16:05, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

It is all most odd. Wikipedia does move in very mysterious ways indeed. Giano (talk) 10:23, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Tony, I'm thinking that entire ANI thread needs to be blocked or pilloried or something: it's been a long time since I saw something so rude and childish. (Just noticed Daedalus, too, calling you and Oh trolls, straight out—for all the world as if that wasn't a personal attack.) The low point, besides the name-calling, may be the rapier wit response to my post, that the editor (an admin, yet) couldn't care less what I say. Ooh, shattering! But I may be biased, since it was a reply to me... ok, the low point, contextually, has more likely been Gwen Gale's "Thank you, along with my best wishes." (Believe it or not, even that got defended.) Bishonen | talk 10:31, 27 February 2009 (UTC).

• I'm afraid Tony, this is ultimate result of what happens when people see the Arbcom nervously fidgeting and biting their finger nails while other "editors" make such atrocious comments as this [6] even when they have the wrong end of the stick completely [7] . As an example to you, Tony, here is the sort of editor our Arbcom and Admins like to see [8] nice people agreeing and helping the Arbcom, writing lovely pages with nothing nasty in them. I'm afraid Tony you must leave the real world and start editing in La La Land. If you like you can come and join me and write about beautiful fairytale palaces, I'm doing Versailles at the moment, of course I'm not going to do the nasty Revolution bit, in case it upsets the French who didn't mean to chop off all those silly people's heads and smash the place up. Wikipedia is becoming a very fey place of golden sunshine, smiling children and extremely pretty manners. Now, if you will forgive me, I must skip off back through the tulips and finish my beautifully softly focused page <smiling beatifically and blowing kisses to all> Giano (talk) 13:47, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

A la lanterne Giacomo ! La tricoteuse 14:09, 27 February 2009 (UTC).

Fringe science (spammed to the G-men)

How lovely. ArbCom encourages civil fringe science POV-pushers by topic banning ScienceApologist for six months. Oh how that will improve the encyclopedia. I'm starting to ask myself if en-wiki should even have an arbcom. If it's an advantage, you know? I believe most wikipedias manage without.

See the arbiters voting on the ban here. Bishonen | talk 10:11, 27 February 2009 (UTC).

Sorry, I dare, not speak - remember I know nothing, only try to harm the encyclopedia, do immense harm and only write hatchet jobs; and that is on the rare occasions I am not trolling, being incivil and disrespecting Admins or stirring up unnecessary drama. What do I know about the machinations of those running the bloody place. Giano (talk) 10:20, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Oops, my apologies, I forgot it was you there ! Bishonen | talk 12:49, 27 February 2009 (UTC).

• Don't worry my dear, I am just revising up for my new essay the User: Giano/ Helpful hints for the Wikipedian on etiquette and nice pretty manners. Where I shall not only be imparting such wisdom as "only babies use a spoon - use a fork for everything, except soup" (not than anyone with a degree of breeding would ever order soup, something for old people's homes and the dentally challenged), but I think it would be nice, now that we are all so civil and gentile, if lady editors wore white elbow gloves and a ribbon in their hair when editing, and gentleman editors shave and get dressed before editing first thing in the morning. This will inspire us to edit more politely and thoughtfully of each other. Also a fresh flower arrangement in a pretty vase beside the computer instead of that empty beer bottle and overflowing ashtray would be beneficial. Giano (talk) 14:36, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, just don't forget to put some pearls of wisdom from your ever-popular grandmother in that essay, she raises the tone of anything. In fact, your entire extended family (you know the ladies I mean) add glamour and wit wherever they appear. Bishonen | talk 14:56, 27 February 2009 (UTC).

That is indeed very true. "Manners maketh man" and also the lady. There is nothing so nice as a freshly scented and powdered lady wafting and editing a page on flora or music etc. While we men edit the sciences and politics. Giano (talk) 15:01, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Splayds (also known as Spknorks) are a combination of knife, fork and spoon in one utensil. I am sold on these. Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:47, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Resplendence

Giano, I am a little disappointed in you for having toned down the hyperbole in this article. Before your series of deadeningly sensible edits, the article had suggested that the gentleman in question was a minor figure in an early sketch for a proposed Python film; depressingly, his existence in "real life" now looks all too plausible. -- Crispin Hoary-Thunderbirds (9th Marquis Squidgygate)

Thank you, yes, it is a pity, but I found the sight of a fully grown man burdening a childrens's pony, being tacked by two scruffy grooms in what appears to be a less than smart livery yard located in a landfill site somewhat less than resplendent. It all suggests a certain falling of standards, even if these straightened times. However, I see my changes have been reverted once already. Sad, sad people. Giano (talk) 07:16, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps the domain of the fellow's resplendence is, quixotically, limited to his own imagination. Perhaps he should be riding a very small motorcycle rather than Rocinante. What would the late Lady Catherine have said? -- Crispin Hoary-Thunderbirds (9th Marquis Squidgygate) 07:59, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Lady catherine would have been shocked to her core. More interestingly the editor afraid to log in who made this summary [9] is unaware that I was riding larger horses than that when I was aged 9, and neither did I (nor do I still) need 2 women and a pile of old concrete bricks to get me into the saddle. Wishing to see pages concerning the aristocracy presented in a non POV, interesting and factual fashion does not mean I loathe them, it means I will not read about them in a toadying fashion as though written by Mr Samgrass from Brideshead Revisited. The Queen of England may look resplendent in her robes and crown, though even that is a matter of opinion, a grown man on a kid's pony does not, by any stretch of the imagination. Now would someone plase go and warn that user, or better still checkuser him. Giano (talk) 08:31, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

You are welcome to your horse, Sir, but I hope you won't be photographed with it. Grown men don't need horses. On the other hand, write-ups of the occasional surviving proponent of eighteenth century attitudes might benefit from repeated application of the word "Lord". For then the toadying is obvious even to the denser reader. -- Crispin Hoary-Thunderbirds (9th Marquis Squidgygate) 09:00, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

[densely ] His Lordship's been blocked by TenOfAllTrades.[10] Dame Bishonen | hold forth 21:22, 4 March 2009 (UTC).

The palace pwned :-(

It looks like Buckingham Palace is going down in flames on WP:FARC. :-( Well, at least its defeaturing can't be anything to do with User:Mattisse, can it? No, no, she can't have commented or voted. Least of all today, which is exactly one month after she "vowed" on her RFC to have to have nothing more to do with FAC and FARC, never to nominate or comment there, etc etc,[11] thus according to User:SilkTork bringing "a suitable closure on this RFC."[12] Oh, but look, she's actually been quite diligently editing the various FAC pages since then... how curious. Perhaps I've simply imagined the whole thing. Bishonen | talk 21:06, 4 March 2009 (UTC).

Yes, I can think of a suitable closure too, but good manners prevent me outlining it. Poor old BP, no one loves it, not even those who live in it. I wonder what will happen to it now. Giano (talk) 22:54, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Blah - the Simple English Wikipedia Entry on Buckingham Palace is all that anyone needs anyway. Much less blah, blah, blah there - just the facts, I have much improved the spelling on the page. There are only 24 articles that are judged to be simple and good enough to be recognized as officially good and simple. One of them is on Gothic Architecture. I didn't understand a thing - someone should create a Really Simple English Wikipedia. 144.189.100.25 (talk) 00:42, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, and it has one obvious mistake too - I have reverted it on our own humble offering to many times to mention - it is Normanby not bloody Normandy! Now, lemme go and look at Gothic as I'm in a very Gothic mood this morning; if people feel BP needs delisting. then that says more about the people currently editing Wikipedia than it does about the page. Giano (talk) 07:17, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Ħaġar Qim

Hey there. I've been working on Ħaġar Qim and wondered if you'd take a look at it; what might I do to get the article featured? the roof of this court is too high to be yours (talk) 00:20, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

• Profuse apologies, I replied to this days ago, but must have pressed preview instead of save. I like everything about the page. If you must have an info box, then I really admire the way you have put 4 images onto it, it grabs the eye and attracts it whereas most onto boxes look dull and with too small pictures. I always imagine I am writing for a bored 14 year old. That;s why I like lots of pictured with captions explaining what is often buried in the text. Yours is a clean bright easy to read and page. Now regarding FA, I have rather turned from them so am not really aware what demands they make these days. Unless things have changed since I was last there - some reviewers will say - too many short paragraphs and that the references are not formatted properly. The lead is too short. I don't necessarily agree, but that is what they will likely say. If I were to make any suggestions at all, it would be that you make the lead a little more broad. Then , combine the first two sections Overview and Location. The page starts (proper) "Features of temple architecture reveal a preoccupation " You need to slow down - hang on the reader will think - what temple are we talking about - start with the location, who built it and why and then. Start the article with "The megalithic complex of Hagar Qim is located atop a hill on the southern edge of the island of Malta" so at least we all know where we are - do you see what I mean? I have it on my watch list - I'll make some suggestions (if you like?) as it progresses. Take it slowly step by step and the page will write itself. Good luck. Giano (talk) 10:04, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

No problem. I agree that the infobox pic works well, it would be great to get better pictures for the rest of the article. I'll act on your suggestions, further feedback would be very helpful. We'll have to see how things turn out, but I really do think the subject is interesting (and important) enough to benefit from closer work and merit featured status. ja fiswa imċappas bil-hara! (talk) 06:29, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

What holiday, Giano?!

Giano, I am not on holiday. I happen to live in Sicily, in the foothills of Etna not too far from Acireale, as a matter of fact. Thanks for your help and advice. I never realised the building near Piazza Porta Gusmana was not Baroque, but instead art nouveau, built in the 1920s!!!!!! That's a 300 hundred years mistake. Madonna mia, what a faux pas!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:14, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Then you are fortunate to live in such a pleasant part and civilized part of the world. The building is not exactly art nouveau either, but has influences of that period, it was probably built in the late 19th centurt/early 20th century to blend in with surrounding building. It could even be earlier and altered later - who knows? Giano (talk) 18:20, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Most of the authentic Baroque buildings in Acireale are located south of the Piazza Duomo. Most of the structures to the north are relatively modern. May I inquire as to whether or not you are Sicilian? Your command of English is excellent.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 09:54, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Yep, I have visited Acireale once or twice (well three times to be precise) but I don't know it well, I am judging the architecture by appearances - often the best way. Do you really think that such a person as myself could possibly be a Siculu? Giano (talk) 19:13, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

No lo so, beddu.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:37, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Your "menu"

Giano, you're well-known as a very skilled editor and your pagers have some really useful stuff. But why do you make it difficult to find it? Honestly, the "visual metaphor" menu on your User page is one of the worst I've seen, because the hotspots give no clue as to where they lead. If I hadn't already known that what I was looking for was on one of your pages, I'd have shrugged and walked away. If others react that way, your efforts will have been wasted. Philcha (talk) 21:05, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I'm sorry you think that. I think it best if people have to hunt about, I don't like those pages that just say "me, me and more of me" even if that is what mine does say, at least mine is more subtle. I was going to ask someone to make the lady's bottom a hotspot sometime, there are one or two lists I would like to put there. Giano (talk) 21:19, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't like "hunt the hotspot" menus and could find you some scathing comments by usability experts - but the idea of making the lady's bottom a hotspot appeals to my playful side. Perhaps if you used a different pic - possibly a collage like a noticeboard, with various pics - I'm not sure what sorts of lists you had in mind, perhaps a cropped version of File:Mooning.jpg would make the point.

I understand your comment about pages that just say "me, me and more of me" - but I think that's the function of User pages, and helps others to know what sort of person they're dealing with. In any case a simple list menu would not be immodest if the content's worth having on Wikipedia (which the item I was looking for is). --Philcha (talk) 23:52, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Pictures

Dear Giano

Thanks for the article on Sicilian Baroque

You will find below a link to a couple of relevant pictures

Fell free to use them should you find it useful for the article

http://picasaweb.google.com/molinovarennes

Varennes (talk) 11:24, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks that's terrific, are thar all free to use? Sometime in the not too distant future I am planning to give Sicilian Baroque an overhawl to freshen it up, and some of thise would be very useful indeed, also for another Sicilian page that I have had in my mind for a while. Thanks. Giano (talk) 13:43, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
Yes they are free of use, I took them recently. If you have any need on Emilia Romagna, I also have a few others pictures to share Varennes (talk) 16:46, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Prod to review

Giano, could you look at Il Salviatino and judge whether or not that page should be deleted? It is in the {{prod}} process now and the minimum time limit has passed. I'm not a fan of the article content, but you might see something worthwhile there that I wouldn't. GRBerry 21:58, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Probably is worth a page, but that is pure copyvio [13]. Giano (talk) 22:04, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Flagged as such. Perhaps you could put it on your maybe eventually list... the oldest items on mine are 2.5 years old. GRBerry 22:14, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deleted by me under G12; a shame as the article would be worthwhile in my opinion, but not as a rip off of someone elses work. Pedro :  Chat  22:19, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Hampton Court Palace

Hi, we're looking to do a quality improvement to the article, so that it can used as a showcase article on the London Portal. User:Iridescent put your name in the frame; and (to me) it fit perfectly. I'd understand if you didn't want to work further on English Royal buildings; but I'd hope you'd consider it as recreation. Thanks Kbthompson (talk) 19:20, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

No, not at all, I love English buildings. I think it's great that people want to improve Hampton Court, (I just read it) there is certainly scope for improvement. I curently have four pages I am working on, so I don't want to commit to a 5th, besides which I almost always only do pages that no one else wants to, or are completely abysmal (often both); Hampton Court does not fit that bill, so I don't feel guilty. I do have loads of books on the subject so if you want to write it, and need something obvious referencing, give me a call, or likewise just need some architectural advice or an opinion please ask. Thanks for thinking of me. Giano (talk) 19:45, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

If you do get any time to add a few points, tweak a few places - and above all add refs; it's abysmally short on refs. Then I would be much obliged. Personally, I'll add it to my list - but I seem to be running the portal; so, if I can only get that under control ... I'm sorry that when Buck House keeps it's status we can't use that to celebrate (previous selection). Good luck and thanks for taking the time to think about it. Kbthompson (talk) 22:17, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

It's now on my watchlist; if I had the time I would do it, but I must finish what I have already started. If you want a London page to showcase, albeit a small page, I recently worked on this one with a small team. I thnk it looks quite good, but then I supose I am biased. Giano (talk) 23:00, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

File source problem with File:AlexanderHall.jpg

File Copyright problem

Thanks for uploading File:AlexanderHall.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, 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, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 02:06, 24 March 2009 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 02:06, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

The file's description page said, and says, who created it and when, and how it thus falls in the public domain. No problem here -- though I can understand how a hasty reading of this unfortunately "improved" image (since that time un"improved" by me) -- might have given such an impression. (My own relevant ticking-off message is here, if anyone's interested.) -- Hoary (talk) 02:57, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

• It is a great pity that people like Skier Dude do not bother to check images, their links and their histories before rushing about plastering templates everywhere. I fail to see how such people can be of any worth to the project, but certainly potentially damaging. Thank you Hoary for your observance, I note you have notified the uploader of the rogue image which appears to be the exterior of an ill-designed mental institution rather than an interior of the Winter Palace. Obe wonders if anyone actually bothers to look before plastering their templates. Giano (talk) 07:17, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

• This "dude" seems to do a lot of this kind of thing. I can understand that nitwits upload dodgy files all the time and that sending off dozens of deserved warnings can make dudes doze off and sleepily send off an undeserved warning. What amazed me is how this process sets off other processes: I reverted the image (in very awkward style) and as a result of this got a message from some other botty on my own talk page telling me that the file I had uploaded (I'd uploaded none) had been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image. Course it had. Further, if that little botty can only recognize templates, it should have seen that a PD template had already been attached. The algorithms of these botties would benefit from more scrupulous wiping. All rather a bore, but I tend to shrug it off and move on. -- Hoary (talk) 07:40, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Yerse, and then people wonder why I become a trifle tetchy at times. Giano (talk) 08:54, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

And I've re-listed it again for the following reasons:

I did check the image - as opposed to the above statement, and found that there is no source provided for the image.

The basic issue is that there is NO SOURCE -where is it from, did the uploader take it himself? Is it from another website that may have (c) on the image? If the uploader did take it himself, an additional {{pd-self}} w/a simple explanation that he is the photographer would suffice.

The Description does not say "who created it and when" - for the photograph. Yes for the painting itself, but not for the actual photograph thereof. Granted that the picture itself may be PD, but without a source the photograph could come from a private collection or news service, etc. This happens quite often with cropped Getty & AP images.

PS - I do take umbrage to the statement "I fail to see how such people can be of any worth to the project, but certainly potentially damaging." Do you really think that of me? REALLY?

PPS - I did delete the overwrite copy (G6), as it did not have any pertinent information added when it was uploaded.

PPPs - want to see lots of useless notifications for image warnings - just look at the page history of my talk page :-O) Skier Dude (talk) 00:00, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Having seen such edits as this [14] Yes, I do really think that of you. How on earth can you possibly think that image is copyright? You clearly are editing heavily in a field about which you have no comprension. Giano (talk) 07:59, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

So you're not asking about the source of the painting, you're asking about the source of the reproduction of the painting. Yet just one or two centimetres below your template, we read: This image is in the public domain because under United States copyright law, originality of expression is necessary for copyright protection, and a mere photograph of an out-of-copyright two-dimensional work may not be protected under American copyright law. Does this mean what it says, or doesn't it? If it doesn't, remove it. I presume that it does, and have therefore removed your template. -- Hoary (talk) 00:14, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

(after e/c) Skier, if the image is a slavish 2D copy of a 2D non-copyright work, it attracts no copyright. Why then is the creator identity important? It's a free work, whether Getty Images or myself took it. It's just plain free. It has no artistic value or creative input by the author of the photograph, so no property rights accrue. I'd agree that it would be nice to know who made the specific image, but in the end, who cares? What policy says that the source of a free image must be specified, when the image upload itself already says that it is free, and does not claim it is the uploaders own work? Just asking... Franamax (talk) 00:16, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

But let's centralize discussion not here but here. -- Hoary (talk) 01:58, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Oooh, has someone found the castle of the "Your image has been deleted because it has been discovered that it was not done with the new template that was only just invented (and your image has been deleted after being moved to Commons where we are in charge, and now all articles that employ that image have an empty box)" people? If so, let me get my shield and spiked club. I'm ready to squish some unthinking and inflated armies of darkness. Geogre (talk) 09:54, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

If you're going to spike clubs, I'd suggest Lysergic acid diethylamide. Everyone in the club might have a transformative experience. Then again, many of them might just freak out and we would have - Wikipedia. :( Franamax (talk) 11:21, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Don't do it! It's a trick! If you do that, you'll be in the middle of storming the castle, and you'll all trip. Utgard Loki (talk) 12:22, 26 March 2009 (UTC) (Now, where was I going? Where have I been?)

Wrongful block

Resolved

• Anyone who supported this block "17:04, 9 April 2009 Sandstein (talk | contribs) blocked Giano II (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 24 hours ? (Personal attacks or harassment: in recent edits related to the RfA of User:Neurolysis)"

as justified will be removed from this page without comment. Defending oneself from an unprovoked, lying and vicious personal attack on a highly public national newspaper blog is justified. I would do the same thing again. Please don't come here telling me I was wrong - I was not! Where there was once a few cracks between me and many of Wikipedia's Admins there is now an irrevocable chasm. Giano (talk) 18:20, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

• Thank you LHVU, [15] "Block log); 23:09 . . LessHeard vanU (talk | contribs) unblocked "Giano II (talk | contribs)" (Noting that Neurolysis (talk · contribs) published falsehoods off wiki besmirching Giano II's character and editing of the encyclopedia.)" now Telegraph readers following Neurolyis thoughtful links can see exactly what I have to battle against here, and what sort of people Neurolysis and Sandstein are. I appreciate it, thank you. Oh, and to the Arbs and Co, still debating (after 3 days) the oversight, don't worry, I prefer this version, it is somehow more honest and revealing.Giano (talk) 07:48, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Please leave new messages below.

At least your block log tells both sides of the story now. I for one understand why you were upset, and would be infuriated if I were in your position. I supported his RFA, and was very surprised to see his comments on the newspaper blog. His comments were inappropriate and hopefully out of character. Landon1980 (talk) 04:20, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, thank you. The modifications do much to restore one's confidence in Admins, some of the more mature ones anyway. Lets hope other Admins consider carefully now before rushing to block everything that moves. Giano (talk) 07:29, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Apologies

At least we can work out the apology thing: I'm trying. Geogre (talk) 16:50, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Geogre, at the moment I don't feel impartial enough, or in the correct frame of mind, to comment. Giano (talk) 19:53, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Wouldja' lookit' that

My god, we seem to agree on something. (Though you might want to substantiate your oppose and save yourself *some* of the pile-on). [16] Nice skeleton, btw. --Der Wohltempierte Fuchs ^(talk) 00:56, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

People know me well enough to know that when I say something is not a good idea, then that is is not a good idea. Giano (talk) 07:18, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Ghoulish sweet tooth

Giano, I wonder if you have any insight on a tri-colored cookie/bar/cake referred to as a Rainbow cookie, Venetian Cookie, Italian flag Cookie, Napoleon Cookie, Seven Layer Cookie, Seven Layer Cake, and tri-color cookie. It contains almond paste and apricot jam (or like substitute). There is a dispute over what the "real" name is and regarding the history and origin of these cookies. I'm assuming your family had something to do with their invention? The sources I have found indicate they show up in Italian bakeries, but like your pizzas they seem to have translated across all cultural divides. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:56, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure such colourful confectionary may be eaten in Italia, but I have personaly never come across this particular delight; it looks to have all the ingredients and e numbers to send kids crazy, literally. I note one of the references contains this gem "These cookies are always my contribution when my fathers extended Italian family, originally from Philadelphia." Perhaps therein lies your answer. on the talk, someone liken this cake to a cannolu, that is quite wrong, the cake illustrated is a Sponge cake; layered sponge cake is as popuar in Italia as elsehwere, so I ecpect this is just a patrioic version that someone had dreamt up. Giano (talk) 21:51, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks very much for your response. Much appreciated. I'm partial to calzones with plenty of ricotta cheese. And brick oven pizza with bufala mozerella of course! If you're ever around 228 Street and Broadway in the Bronx, Sal's makes a good sandwich. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:52, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I thank you as well! I suspect that these cookies originated in one of the Italian neighborhoods in Brooklyn (or so the people around me when I grew up claimed!), where there are Italian flags showing outside of almost every house. :) In that neighborhood, they are never called 'rainbow cookies', but referred to by other names. Actually, if you know of any names for the layered sponge cake (particularly with almond paste - it ends up tasting like pignoli cookies), it would be very much appreciated! but if you don't have the time or don't know offhand, you don't have to bother. Thanks again! Luminifer (talk) 01:41, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) That's right! 20th-century Italian-American, probably invented, I thought, in New York, where that other Americanism, "cookie" also originated. Cookie applied to this dolce or pasticceria (which is right usage, Giano?) is a shibboleth marking an out-of-towner. The essential ingredient, besides almond extract (marzapane incorporated into the cake batter in upscale "traditional" versions) and chocolate coating is food coloring, Allura Red AC, scarcely a traditional ingredient of ye Old World, where amaranth doesn't give the same "flag red". Two preceeding inventions it depends on: hard chocolate coating and the petit four... and the Tricolore itself is not as antique as the Stars and Stripes, after all...--Wetman (talk) 02:06, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Wow, well put, Wetman, thanks! I wish I could find a source so people would stop reverting it back to "rainbow cookie" and removing my text about possible Brooklyn origins. :) (FWIW I grew up with them as 'seven layer cake' at all the local Italian bakeries in the 1970s - but I am sure it goes back further). Luminifer (talk) 02:34, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Maybe not that many years further! I'm betting post-World War II. Fruit of a little Original Research today, courtesy of a friend who's as thoroughly New Yorker as he is thoroughly Padovano. His mother does not remember these pasticcerie from her youth but remembers that recently she's seen them at Cadore, where they summer, at Pasticceria Fiori, which seems to be keeping up a High Italian Style.--Wetman (talk) 08:54, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Oooh, next, show that Neapolitan ice cream isn't from Naples. I'm sure it isn't, as, being ice cream, it more or less couldn't be, and I can't imagine Neapolitans being any more fond of wasting a stripe of every box of ice cream than I was as a child. We threw away scores of boxes of .33 full boxes of strawberry ice cream, the chocolate and vanilla being eaten. Geogre (talk) 10:22, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes Wetman, but do they import them from the USA for the tourists like they do the Pepperoni? On the subject, in my dim and distant childhood, we joined my parents in the holidays in Britain where my father was then posted; to improve my English, my parents purchased me a 7 year old English playmate (he is responsible my stunning command of Anglo-Saxon) anyhow his mother a Cockney lady of great girth and humour in between feeding me fish and chips and other luxurious fried and fast foods banned at home, served Angel cake, this however bore no resemblence to that on our Wikipedia, but was a tricolor sponge cake cemented with strawbery jam, it would appear that there is a version of this, tricolor sponge, by ambiguous names all over the world. lets face it, it hardly needs to Heston Blumenthal to invent it - does it? Giano (talk) 12:28, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Yep, that's angel cake all right. I'm fascinated to hear that your childhood playmate's mother was a Cockney lad :) DuncanHill (talk) 09:14, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Now that's bizarre - I read that three times to make sure I really was seeing it right! DuncanHill (talk) 09:17, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Funnily enough, I was reading some of your posts disbelievingly too, just at the moment you posted here. You should be careful Wales is losing the arguement, not a situation he likes, be careful you are not threatened with a long block too. Giano (talk) 09:25, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh it wouldn't surprise me at all. There's very little he could do (or have done) that would surprise me any more. DuncanHill (talk) 09:28, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Taking things to extremes

Hi Giano. I discovered User:Giano/A fool's guide to writing a featured article somewhere when my mind was wandering as I worked on Second-round simplified Chinese character and first want to thank you. You managed to teach me about Wikipedia while talking about dongers just enough to also keep me entertained.

Anyway, I was wondering if you or someone who watches this page might give the article a once-over both in general and to see if I'm starting to take the citations to extremes as you mention on your guide. The article when I found it had no references whatsoever and I think I might have over compensated a bit. Thanks in advance. Recognizance (talk) 08:26, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

No, I don't think you have over compensated at all, I read it all the way through and was very interested. A page on such a subject needs to be thoroughly referenced, there are not many well known facts about Chinese writing. It's a good page. Giano (talk) 09:12, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I wish I had seen your discussion of user space vs main space before I committed myself though. Now I can't help feeling obligated to finish what I started. Recognizance (talk) 18:45, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Well that is no bad thing, I have two or three pages in users space that I need a kick up the ass to finish, and if they were in mainspace would have been finished. It's a good page keep going; your reward will be seeing a page that you know (and Wikipedia knows) is better than anything else on the subject elsewhere. 19:38, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Maybe not anything else, but anything readily available on the internet to be sure. Do you think this link might pass the reliable source test? The about us page makes it sound credible and I have no reason to doubt the veracity of the information, but I'd be lying if I said it wasn't a random page from Google. Recognizance (talk) 20:11, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to butt in, but to Recognizance, User:Ealdgyth is a great person to talk to if you have concerns about the reliability of a source. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 20:35, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Edit conflict: I was about to say, I don't think it is a good reference, true as it obviously is, but a lot of people watch this page, who may be able to help you (I am proved right already by Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs)- so keep watching this section. To be honest the subject is completely beyond my knowledge - completely and utterly beyond. Giano (talk) 20:44, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I'll keep her in mind as a person to bug in addition to Giano. And I had a feeling you were going to say as much about the sourcing. My lack of familiarity with the topic was the reason I chose this article to research, but some things can't be helped. I may have to go back to Mr Buchanan for a bit in the meantime. Recognizance (talk) 23:56, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

...Actually I think I just struck gold. I checked my email and had a response from the author of that article saying he'd be glad to help out later in the week. Recognizance (talk) 01:51, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

A great song you may enjoy

This just came on the radio and I thought you might enjoy it. DuncanHill (talk) 10:48, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

We are the Tudor House Preservation Society. Long live strawberry jam and good old Notoriety.

Oddly enough, while some Little Englander sorts might have taken it as an endorsement, and some later Front-y sorts might have liked it, it was just the usual bucolic nostalgia, and that great Canadian band, The Band, was simultaneously doing the same thing for the U.S. heartland that only one of them had ever known. (And he was one of the ones who didn't write songs.) Geogre (talk) 11:53, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Good laugh

This made me chortle with a certain amount of glee, and I wanted to thank you for it.--Tznkai (talk) 21:06, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

One does one's best, Tznkai; one does one's best. Giano (talk) 21:54, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Brilliant words of wisdom from H. Fielding

In Covent-Garden Journal, #5, Henry Fielding wrote,

"Again, who but a Mad-man would engage with an Enemy that is invulnerable! ...several of the Enemy... did in certain Skirmishes with our Forces, receive such Blows on their Heads with the sharpest Weapons, as must have proved fatal to any common Man; but to our great Surprize we found that they were not in the least hurt by these Blows, that many did not feel them, and some did even declare they were never hit. In real Truth, as Grass escapes the Scythe by being low, a Man may escape the sharpest Satire by the same means: For Ridicule may bring any Person into Contempt; but what is already the Object of our Contempt, can never be raised to be the proper Object of Ridicule."

This is always the problem with satire as a weapon: it only works against people who still have a sense of shame. Once that's gone, you might as well reach for a mace or a pointéd stick. Utgard Loki (talk) 18:51, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Bollox, that is a surender policy. Ever heard of Achilles heel. No one, but no one is invulnerable, where would we all be if that was ever beleived. Giano (talk) 18:56, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Excellent use of the word "bollox" there, and spelled in my preferred way as well. As you say, nobody is invulnerable to satire, no matter how many misguided souls believe otherwise. --Malleus Fatuorum 19:04, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, Utgard is a master of satire, and satire is sometimes very clever so to appreciate it one must also be very clever and many people are not. So I see where he is coming from, but if satire misses the Achilles heel then one looks elsewhere for another weapon. Now most admins use their block buttons as weapons, but that's not subtle, clever or indicative of any great brain or intelect. In fact, a person with man given weapons threatening a person without them, has a dispicable name in most languages. So the question is - how to flay a fool without weapons or satire - what is it that can give those without magic buttons greater powers than those with them, now that would be a secret worth knowing. Giano (talk) 21:35, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, indeed, I think there is a form of parody that can work against those who are "already the Object of our Contempt." This is the "apparently sincere" flattery that is so effusive that it "accidentally" betrays the weakness of the fool's argument. I.e. it takes an investment of time and requires a good deal of acting, but it amounts to feigning wholehearted agreement with the fool, and then excited, enthusiastic, eager, salivating agreement with the fool, and then such agreement that the fool's own mushy-headedness is made clear to the fool himself. By these means, the fool appears to "rise" to a level worthy of satire, on the one hand, and, on the other, the fool might learn to discriminate true from false, and, finally, in the best of all possible worlds, the fool may wish to amend his positions to be less foolish. It takes great skill to pull it off, though. In another life of many decades gone by, I passed off as a youngster eager to subscribe to the newsletter of a sage crank and managed to flay the creature by such means. It was pleasing, but it took forbearance I lack these days. One must be more dispassionate than I find I can currently muster. Geogre (talk) 00:09, 21 April 2009 (UTC) (These days, dispassionate means indifferent.)

Takes too long. Besides, "satire or sense can Sporus feel?" (Pope, Epistle to Arburthnot). Thing is, when you go to beat up an idiot, you have to choose your weapons carefully. Using satire on someone who can't tell irony from iron oxide isn't going to work. That sort of person needs a punch in the nose or a big jug of Ritalin, depending upon the age (you can't punch minors in the nose: the target is too small and elastic and insufficiently sanguinated for satisfying results). If they simply go on, despite satire, or say, "Oh, did you use an offensive term when you pointed out my bad behavior?" then you have to find another tactic. That's what Fielding meant by saying they were invulnerable: they're invulnerable to satire, and that was the only weapon he had about him as Alexander Drawcansir. (On the other hand, as Captain Hercules Vinnegar, he issued an arrest warrant for Colley Cibber on the charge of "Murder of the English Language.") Utgard Loki (talk) 12:30, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree

I agree with you, again! What a brave new future we are encountering. Chillum 14:38, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Chillum, I'm glad you agree, I thnk most responsible people will too. We may disagree on some comparatively trivial wiki-matters, but on real life common sense I think most right thinking people feel the same way. This is something I feel very strongly about. I hope this gives him a much needed wake up call and kick where it very much hurts. He needs to delete a lot of his site; he not only foolishly gives his young children's names and dates of birth, but even states which school they are going to, and the name and details of their dog, their holidays, their activities - it is quite incredible. One despairs, one really does of some people. Giano (talk) 14:53, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

at the very least, I doubt wikipedia is the popular hangout for people who would use such information for the most malevolent purposes, but it is surprising what people post and expect the wrong people will not find. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 15:47, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Expect the worst and you will never be dissapointed. Giano (talk) 15:57, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

One of the costs of anonymity, transparency and low barriers of entry is increased susceptibility to crazies and ne'erdowells of all sorts. It only takes one. (Nice call on this one Giano.)--Tznkai (talk) 22:14, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be a good idea to remove the link to Giano's comments? I understand Giano's talk page is very popular, so the less people who know of this the better. Just a thought. Jack forbes (talk) 16:00, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Removed, but a better idea would be to get those childrens private details off the internet. Along with their pets' names and any other ways that a wierdo could make himself appear familiar to them. Giano (talk) 16:04, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more. Jack forbes (talk) 16:05, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I've just had another thought (two in one day!). Is there no rule on wikipedia that forbids an editor from potentially putting another person in danger even if it's unintentional, in particular children. I know the editor say's there is no danger but as more than one person has pointed out, who knows what could happen. It's one thing putting your own details out there for others to see, but children? Jack forbes (talk) 16:47, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't know, it is obviously not ilegal in the USA, just foolhardy so I don't suppose there is anything one can do, but point out the irresponsibility of the matter, which has been well and truly done. Giano (talk) 17:01, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

The information is not published on wikipedia, it's on a personal web site, so such a rule wouldn't be applicable. Rules aren't the answer to everything anyway, or even the answer to very much, as they can always be circumvented. The editor has been made graphically aware of the potential dangers of his actions, and it is now a matter for him whether he considers that he is putting himself or anyone else in danger. FWIW I think he's been very silly, but it's for him to decide what information he considers it appropriate to reveal about himself and his family, not wikipedia. --Malleus Fatuorum 17:02, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

But it is linked from Wikipedia, so editors do have the right to opine, on the matter. However, ultimately that is all that editors can do. Giano (talk) 17:04, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Yep, absolutely right, and it is quite proper that they do, but no new rules, please. --Malleus Fatuorum 17:16, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Article Collaboration and Improvement Drive

Giano, given your love of things architectural, I thought you may have some ideas for here - Wikipedia:Article Collaboration and Improvement Drive. Someone was interested in resurrecting this and I figured it actually serves well for dusting and polishing some basic articles on widely accessible articles, hence barley and yellow...latest choice is buckethead, not mine but I guess that is democracy at work. I was wondering if you had any thoughts on basic widely-accessible architectural articles which would be easy for neophytes and children to improve and are in an easily-improvable (euphemism here) state. I thought of bridge and brick. Any ideas? Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:29, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

• ashlar. Giano (talk) 19:55, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Aha. never heard of that. Can be a bigger article no doubt (?) Always nice to write about something that is aesthetically pleasing :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:49, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, I would not want to be the one to have to write it, but there is something tangeably pleasing a about a block of dressed stone, and historically architecturally it's more important (to my mind) than brick. Giano (talk) 21:56, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Ok, my knowledge on architecture is very minimal - I did think seriously about doing it at university but was scared off by significant unemployment rates (pity really, I do like looking a buildings and thinking about aesthetics or lack thereof and urban design) and became a doctor. Ok, I will throw it up and see if any fish bite, or heck I might just go down the library and then write about something inorganic rather than organic for a change. Are there any definitive books on the subject? Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:06, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Clarification

Regarding this edit. I would like to clarify that it was not my intention to modify your comment, only to quote it. I accidentally hit ctrl-x instead of ctrl-c. That is I cut when I meant to copy. I reserve the refactoring of other people's comments for truly egregious content. I do think your comments could have conveyed your point better without the vitriol, but I also believe it is more effective to implore you than it is to start changing your comments. I don't want you to misunderstand me, just as I am trying hard not to misunderstand you. Chillum 19:48, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

You have mail! Giano (talk) 19:53, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

E-mail from Giano to me published per his request Chillum 20:10, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Have you the remotest idea what is going on there? the very remotes? You are so out of your depth it is not true!

G

Not the most informative e-mail. I will try not to take offense at your opinion of me. Chillum 20:01, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Please publish the email in full here. It was a wiki-mail I have not a copy of it, or I would. And when you return here with it, please explain why VK cannoy have a picture of the assembled Royal families of Europe in mourning on his page, without you calling it an attack and imposing further sanctions! Giano (talk) 20:06, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm willing to unblock Vintagekits. Please see the discussion at WP:ANI. Have a nice day. AdjustShift (talk) 20:04, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

That's great news. Thank you. Giano (talk) 20:06, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

In response to your question, I have no problem with his picture of the assembled Royal families of Europe. The problem was his repeat of his earlier personal attack[17] that I warned him would result in loss of talk page usage if he continued. Frankly I think if left alone VK would have gotten his block extended. Chillum 20:12, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

I see, so he says to BrownHairedGirld (who has just wrongfully, as an involved admin, blocked him): "You are a disgusting and disgraceful example for an admin." Chillum, I do hope you know what you are doing, cool off blocks etc have long been frowned on. When this matter is thoroughly investigated, I hope you are not seen as another busy little bee who should have known better. I prefer to think of it as fools treading where angels fear, i hope I am correct. Giano (talk) 20:18, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

So far my actions on Wikipedia have stood up to scrutiny rather well over the years. I welcome any sort of investigation into today's dealings. Chillum 21:30, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

DYK, if you slur the second and third consonants of "contentious" in the correct manner you get "consensus"?

Giano, your edits to mainspace are treasured, but your comments in other places are not as always valued - certainly by the subject - and while you may not think that detailing the failings of others is not contentious it is strangely apparent that others do. They, too, may be wrong, but therein lays the crux of contentiousnessicissity. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:26, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure you are quite right LHVU, but should one beat about a bush or just grub it out with a JCB? Sometimes one has to be cruel to be kind, and no one is kinder than me. Now, I would not have another sherry if I were you. Giano (talk) 21:31, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

I am not eating cherries, they do not compliment the ale I am quaffing... LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:34, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

;-) FloNight♥♥♥ 22:17, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Re:William Mason

Hi Giano - saw your comment on Peter Entwisle's usertalk page and thought I'd give you a little heads-up on this. I've been sort of unofficially mentoring him a little on WP, since I know him in person. Peter can be quite opinionated on articles, but often justifiably so - he is one of southern New Zealand's major writers on the subject of art history, architectural history, and early colonial settlement (he's one of those rare things - a Wikipedian with an article about him). As such, though he will sometimes make fairly wholesale changes, what he adds is almost always very worthwhile material - it just requires a bit of cleaning up afterwards since Peter is not as au fait with the workings of Wiki markup or other WP-related issues as many other editors. Grutness...wha? 05:44, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, thank you. I had rather gathered that. However, even the opinions of experts can sometime be contraversial and open to challenge; there is always more than one theory doing the rounds as I'm sure Peter would be the first to agree. I don't think the thoughts of those who choose anonymity over publicity (or whatever the opposite to anonymity is) should carry any less weight because who knows who anyone is? I too, am delighted to see a home grown NZ architectural expert writing (long overdue) and very much look forward to see his future articles and works on the many NZ buildings and architects not yet covered at all. It's nice to hear from you again Grutness, it seems a long time since we worked together on thos pages - in fact it was a very long time ago!!! Keep in touch:-) Giano (talk) 08:58, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I will :) By the way, you may be interested to know that I'm in the process of trying to get another Dunedin-related article to FA status, though there's not a big architecture connection this time (the most notable feature is that Anscombe once lived there) - have a look at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Caversham, New Zealand/archive1‎. Point taken about the POV stuff, by the way, though I'd think it would be difficult if you're writing about a subject of which you're a major authority. Grutness...wha? 11:26, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

The trouble is, if one is writing a book about a subject on which one is a major authority, there are usually some financial benefits, the benefits here are somewhat limited. Anyway on the subject I would refer you to the caption at the top of the page. Taking a look at your page in a few seconds. Giano (talk) 11:59, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Please join

Please join the arbitration against me. All negative comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration under my name. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 20:41, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Will beverages and a snack be provided? ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:26, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure you are quite capable of making the negative comments all by yourself, Mattisse. Giano (talk) 21:53, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I am not capable of understanding. I wish you would comment. I walked into your world of the hated unaware. At that time, I believed in the Wikipedia principles and such and so your reaction was unexpected, as was all the support you received. At least three administrators defended your personal attacks, while acknowledging that they were personal attacks. So obviously, there is a big block of Wikipedia that I fail to grasp. I though it was all about improving articles, and that is not true. So I do not understand and need to "get it". Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 22:01, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Please go away and take your self pity with you. I shall not be commenting on your RFArb because it would bore me. It will proceed very well to a satisfactory conclusion without any help from me. My views concerning you are widely known, and I'm sure someone will quote the diffs if they want them. Now, good evening. Giano (talk) 22:32, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

ANI

Just a quick note, you're currently being discussed at ANI - I've marked the issue as being resolved at the moment, but I thought I would let you know about the presence of the thread in case you're interested, and in case the resolved tag doesn't stick around. Nick (talk) 21:28, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be easier to notify Giano when he's not being discussed somewhere? – iridescent 21:30, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

You took the words right out of my mouth Iridescent. Congratulations by the way, nice to see another historic building featured. Now, I suppose I had better go and see what they are saying this time. life's never dull is it? Giano (talk) 21:52, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, and thanks for all your help on that one. Now, I need to hope someone with an interest in stadium design does White Hart Lane, as it's too significant a building to ignore when it comes to any prospective "buildings of the Moselle valley" topic, but I have no interest in Victorian football stadia and no particular desire to learn. – iridescent 11:49, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Well don't look at me mate, the football I could do, the stadia no way. I must have a look at this "buildings of the Moselle valley" topic, either I am missing something or the Moselle valey isn't where I thought it was. Giano (talk) 11:56, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

River Moselle (London). With Bruce Castle and Noel Park out of the way, the only two big ones left are White Hart Lane and the crime against architecture that is Broadwater Farm. (I'm hoping that if I close my eyes long enough, the wretched Lordship Lane article will disappear of its own accord.) – iridescent 12:03, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I see, and there was me thinking not with some justification that that horrible sweet perfumy wine was British, which would explain a lot. The Brits should not be allowed to make wine in the interest of good taste, the only thing on a par with it is Australian Chardonnay. Giano (talk) 12:13, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Gosh, I just looked at Lordship Lane, Haringey! It's...er....very comprehensive, isn't it? Giano (talk) 13:01, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Still not as bad as this – the amount of work that must have gone into this pointless exercise still leaves me speechless. – iridescent 13:08, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Well it might be handy, if the satnav goes awry, such as mine did an hour ago coming down the Brompton Road. Giano (talk) 16:01, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I peeked at that ANI report & I'm shocked to learn, that Cate de burgh hasn't been buried yet. GoodDay (talk) 14:30, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Then peek again, because she has been buried and is now one if the undead, her incisors are growing and she's looking for you. Giano (talk) 16:01, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

She doesn't scare me at all, I'm indistructable. GoodDay (talk) 18:10, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Now you've both got me curious. Who is this mysterious Lady Catherine de Burgh? I believe I once wrote an article on a kinswoman of hers. From which century has she emerged and where does one find her edits at Wikipedia?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:16, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

The lighter side of the news

I was going to leave well enough alone with the stuff about stress and whatnot, but I figured you could use a posting unrelated to wiki-drama. I gave up (for now) on Chinese character reform. They all learn English in primary school anyway. I started reading about a chap named Ota Benga and created my own space where I could look up Trekkie-like details about his life. Outside that I think I'll start with Ostend Manifesto and work my way up the ladder of article complexity.

And from the category of "I was always curious but never had an occasion to ask": why/when did you go from Giano to Giano II? Recognizance (talk) 23:53, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I just saw this! Man, Ota Benga would definitely be a better colleague than the flea circus I work with now. Utgard Loki (talk) 17:02, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry you gave up on Chinese character reform, it's a good page, very interesting. Some Chinese clients recently gave me a fountain pen, with what they said was my name engraved on it, but for all I know it could say "Giano is a fuckwit" (an probably does)- I was hoping to decipher it at some stage. Just looked at your new page, have you something against writing about communal garden subjects, like the rest of us? It'll be good.

Regarding the name: It's a long story, in a nutshell, I was blocked for "hate speech" for saying paedophiles should be discouraged from editing. The Admin was immediately desysopped. Some time later, a Bureaucrat decided to re-promote the former Admin. He was once again an admin, I still had guilty of hate speech on my block log. A developer was asked by Arbcom to clean it off the block log. The developer said - No! So I said: "sod that for a game of soldiers" and changed my name leaving the dirty block log behind. Them some time later the developer did wipe "hate speech" off the block log, but I had been Giano II too long to bother to change back by then. It was the first time I was ever blocked, and I have never looked back. If I see something wrong I point it out, which is why there is a block log as long as your arm upon which hundred of little Admins have scrawled their names - most of them have been rightly reverted within minutes. Most of the Admins listed there, I note, usually eventually befall the curse of Giano - one day I must work out some statistics. Giano (talk) 12:14, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Also, according to a pen I recently saw, the Chinese think Giano is a fuckwit, whereas they haven't commented on Giano II. Yomangani^talk 12:19, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Very wise of them. Giano (talk) 12:43, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I think part of the obscurity in my choice of topic comes from your and another essay that basically said choose something obscure and it will prolong your wiki-life. But it's mainly because if I'm going to spend hours on end and not get paid for it then it had better be something interesting where I'll learn something I didn't know before. Interesting story - more evidence that I should have run away rather than consult you in the first place. Recognizance (talk) 14:18, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

No, have no fear, the curse is only enacted if you put your name on my blocklog; before he blocked me, Jimbo had long luxurient curls. Giano (talk) 16:03, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

It's actually becoming associated with you that I'm afraid of, not you per se. But sarcasm aside, if there's ever a "garden" topic you want to collaborate on, I'm open to it. Recognizance (talk) 23:50, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

With such a charming offer, how could Giano resist entering into many collaborations on obscure subjects about which Recognizance doesn't know but would be ready to learn something.--Wetman (talk) 00:38, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

No, that was Giano's original point - it doesn't have to be obscure for me to learn something. At least now I know what that Ota Benga-size drinking fountain is for. Recognizance (talk) 01:25, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

As in, you can have any colour you want, so long as it's white....an ode to Henry Ford and Vita Sackville-West :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:31, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Well funnily enough, No, I don't really do historic gardens. My perfect garden would be lots of running water with rocks, rhododendron, azaelia and the odd strange temples poking out, all beautifully conrtived to look as natural as possible, sort of Stourhead meets Tibet in the Monte Cimini. Giano (talk) 08:38, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

My only requirements are that the front be separate from the back, where you can arise from a paved place in sun or shade and travel to an unexpected place, then come back by a different route.--Wetman (talk) 15:25, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm glad I decided to drop you a line. You and your peanut gallery are quite entertaining. If anyone's looking for a slice-of-life topic, I just discovered drinking fountain has never had its own article. I'm sure there has to be some sort of story to tell there. Recognizance (talk) 21:21, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I think fountain could do with improvement first; I'm glad the Trevi Fountain at least had a mention, albeit as an afterthought, and where is Versailles and I would have thought the Angels and Demons' fans would have put in a mention of the Piazza Navona. No, it seems Cudahy Gardens in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, are far more suited for the lead. I say nothing. Fortunately for Milwaukee, I am not in an editing mood of late. Giano (talk) 21:59, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

FYI

FYI. rootology (C)(T) 04:43, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Nice idea, it could work, with a great deal of praying and good will. I have replied in full here [18]. Giano (talk) 08:52, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

RFA Everyking

Hi Giacomo, I noticed you supported Everyking for admin. Does that mean you'll go for adminship yourself soon? I don't quite know why I had this association... but your post "Wikipedia is fortunate such people exist" kind of got me thinking along those lines. ;-P Bishonen | talk 21:01, 12 May 2009 (UTC).

Oh! I had not thought about it like that, NO, it does not, I have quite enough Wiki-power as it is - thank you and have no wish to be an admin, in fact I think the whole process and circus borders on the vulgar. My support for Everyking [19] who I have known for a great many years is based on trust and an in-depth knowledge. He really believes in this project and everything he does is intended to be for its benefit. Of course, he has been controversial at times, but he is completely sincere and dedicated. I can't think of another admin candidature (since your own of course) that I feel deserves so to succeed. It's sad to see so many opposing who don't understand the essence of the man. If everyone cared as much about wikipedia as he does, it would be a better project. Anyway, i see you have supported him too and BoG has returned to do so. Just like the old happy days.Giano (talk) 21:12, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

• PS:Furthermore, if every current Admin was brave enough to say this [20], we would have a lot less problems on Wikipedia, I can see why so many Admins do not want Everyking making his feelings known. God, it will be sad is this man's RFA fails, so much hope for a fairer place down the drain. Giano (talk) 07:05, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Apology

I know you told me to stay away from here, but I do want to apologise, and I want to do it without the chance that I might only be doing it for personal gain. I don't intend to run for RfA again (I have been mulling it over, and might, but it certainly won't be soon if such a thing occurs), so that is out of the picture. I did intend to email you, but it seems that you have it disabled.

I am sorry for what I implied and otherwise stated about you on the blog. It was wrong of me to post such utterly defamatory comments over an editor which I evidentially knew so little about. I wrote those comments in ignorance, mostly of your excellent work in content creation, but also in ignorance of your good interactions with the community -- unlike I suggested, the number of entries in your block log certainly does not correlate with your demeanour (which, after reading through a good few pages of your archives, seems to be rather good). I did not think. That is not an excuse, not a justification, and certainly not a reason, but it is what caused it. I was stupid in making the comments in such a prominent place, I was stupid even thinking of making such comments anywhere, and I was stupid to believe the comments to be appropriate in any way, shape, or form.

I am sorry that you thought I lied about talking to you about this earlier. I had thought that I had talked to you about this back in March, but that appears to have not been the case. Again, not an excuse, but I have a memory disorder that sometimes leaves me muddled with my memory, sometimes to the point where I remember events that never happened, and don't even remember recent events upon triggers. It was clear that it had not been on-Wiki (because I did check my contributions from around the time that I believed that we had discussed the issue), and I'm not sure where I thought it had been, and now my memory of that is practically gone, so I guess it never occurred. I will mail the Telegraph later to have the offending comments removed, hopefully in light of the nature of my comments they will oblige.

I don't want there to be bad blood between us. I'd really like to put this behind us and get along. What I wrote there is certainly not what I think about you now, and I don't even think it was what I thought about you then, to be honest. I like you, both as an editor and as a person.

If you want to continue this discussion in private, feel free to mail me at neuro.wikipediagmail.com, or just drop me a message back either here or at my talk.

Thanks for your time reading through this wall of TLDR. :) — neuro^(talk) 00:23, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing that I had my email disenabled, I must have done that without realising it - I thought life had been more quiet than usual. I hope you can sort things out with the Telgraph blog, however, I rather suspect they will regard the subject as yesterday's news, which indeed it is. Thank you also for your appology; it is accepted. Regards Giano (talk) 09:17, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I've sent them a mail, I'll tell you if I get a reply. — neuro^(talk) 23:10, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

• While I accept you apology in the spirit given, no way will I support the RFA of a person who was prepared to swear black was white and reprimand me for pointing out certain truths - just to see you sysoped. Flying Toaster was at best naive at worst..well let's not go there. I have firmly opposed sich an unsuitable candidate. Giano (talk) 18:31, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

To think I thought the days of IRC all stopping chatting to vote one of their own onto Adminship were over - how wrong I was! Giano (talk) 22:49, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Giano, I have to agree with you on this one. I originally supported – I don't think her failure to know what Neurolysis was doing on another website can be held against her, and I think a lot of the "no content contributions" opposes are unfair as she does seem to have written a number of articles – but I can't recall any "request for …" (with the exception of a couple of AFDs on bands where a fan club has rallied fans to vote) where the "IRC pile on" effect has been so blatant. I don't necessarily hold it against Flying Toaster – it's entirely possible that someone else is canvassing on her behalf and she has no control over it – but it all looks very iffy. – iridescent 23:07, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Maybe not, but her insistance that Neurolysis had appologised (when he had not) and her pompous reprimands of me for insisting he had not, coupled with Neurolysis surprise and belated apology (above) the moment she launched her own candidacy - well.....! Quite frankly, I was not born yesterday, even if the 100 or so IRC supports and those that run this site think I was. This candidate has acheived little here and the days of IRC conspired Admins should be well and truly over. Giano (talk) 09:12, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Whatever else may happen, I swear to you, this apology and her RfA have absolutely no connection. I swear it to you. — neuro^(talk) 13:18, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

To put your mind at ease, looking through IRC logs for the last few days I do not see any discussion on this topic. Ah, after reading your other post on WP:AN I see you are perhaps talking about the public Wikipedia channel, I was referring to the private admin channel. Chillum 13:38, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Time now for 2groups of editors each with their own Admins.

I think the time has now come for us to have two forms of editors - those that support and abide by IRC placed Admins, and those who refuse to acknowledge them, but continue to write the project. This IRC problem has gone on for too long. We are repeatedly told it is sorted and monitored, yet, once again, the Arbcom have failed to act, it's time to sort it ourselves before we are overrun with "Boriss" and her likes. I for one am not going to abide by the actions or decisions of any Admin promoted by IRC in future. Comment here [21] Giano (talk) 09:30, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Editors should be forced to choose. Either they participate on Wikipedia 'or' IRC (not both). If this isn't done? IRC should be abolished. GoodDay (talk) 15:19, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

No it's far more simple, there will in future be editors who wish to be ruled by a IRC Admins and editors who wish to be ruled by Wikipedia Admins (ie: Wikipedia Admins being those who have proved their value by editing Wikipedia in a worthwile way), one simply declares one's stance and that is that. If such as Flying Toaster are promoted I shall not acknowledge their status, that is all that need to be done - I'm sure a user box or something can be created - even attached to a sig to avoid confusion. One merely selcts one's police force. This has been coming for ages, the Arbs claim to have looked at the problems and failed, now it's just time to ignore them and go it alone. Many of us are sick to death of IRC and its machinations. This way IRC is happy and those writing the project are happy. Giano (talk) 15:26, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I've never been to IRC, but I've heard alot of bad things about it. I agree, a potential Wikipedia Administrator's qualifications should not include his/her participation at IRC. GoodDay (talk) 15:32, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm afrais as long as the Arbs rely upon it for supprt and Jimbo frequebts it (only when he wants to know something) it's always going to be a problem. That does not mean that the ordinary rank and file editor has to supprt the status quo. Giano (talk) 15:38, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I hope, for Wikipedia's sake. The rank & file don't divide the Administrators into legitimate & illegimate. Such a schism on Wikipedia, would be very damaging. GoodDay (talk) 15:43, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

It has already happened amongst the Admins, the rank and file now need to recognise tha and decide which camp they want to be in. I will not be ruled from IRC others can make their own choice. Giano (talk) 15:47, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Okie Dokie. GoodDay (talk) 15:50, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Giano, I'd like to comment on the matter as someone who uses the wikipedia IRC channels. Now, I've only used it for a few months, but I've yet to see any cabal-like behaviour like vote-rigging or canvassing. To be honest, I first joined the channels to see if complaints like yours were true, but after several months I can only conclude they can't be. Crikey, I usually log off after a few hours, as conversation (if it can be called that) usually consists of people asking for admin help in dealing with vandals, and apparently dozens of users logging on, then off, then on again. It gets boring, frankly. I've certainly never seen any canvassing about...well, anything really, and the one time someone started bitching they were firmly told by an Op to stop or be booted. I hope you can take this comment in good-faith, and don't see it as that of a member of some kind of IRC Cabal. Cheers, Skinny87 (talk) 16:04, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

That the chanel is for the banal is not in dispute, the problem is when the banal decide they are bored there, and having done little on wikipedia, decide it would brighten their day if they became an Admin, then chattering chipmonks break off from IRC for 10 seconds to all vote support, which is what has happened here. Admins are suposed ot be people wirthy of respect - people who have proven their worth and commitment. Commitment to Wikipedia not a chat room for the inane. So the time has now come to sau enough. Giano (talk) 17:46, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

From a practical point of view I think this is already happening. There's a large number of administrators I wouldn't piss on if they were on fire, but a still significant number whose opinion I do take seriously when it's offered. --Malleus Fatuorum 18:31, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Administrators are not a ruling class anyways. Chillum 16:23, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I can think of more than a few who fit The Ruling Class... --Alf ^melmac 16:51, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh don't talk rubbish Chillum, of course they are, if not why do some many of the IRC lot want to be one. Giano (talk) 17:46, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

You are being ridiculous Giano. Prodego ^talk 18:20, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

You can block me Chillum, but I can't block you, so you're clearly talking rubbish. --Malleus Fatuorum 18:27, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

(jumps up and down and waves hands in the air) does anyone listen these days? Have we or have we not been reviewing admin conduct at arbcom lately? Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:40, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

• Dunno! Have you? I think everyone has been too busy chatting to notice. I certainly have had more pressing things to think about. Has it made any difference? Giano (talk) 21:43, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

"Reviewing" clearly isn't good enough, when some arbs think that poor admins deserve chance after chance after chance to stop abusing their position, when they have no intention of stopping. Majorly talk 21:43, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

• (ec) The only two I can think of are Aitias and Jayjg, both of which concluded with "it doesn't matter what they've done, we can't take their precious admin button away from them". Which are you thinking of, Casliber? –  iridescent  21:47, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I think the whole thing is tired and folorn, when we have admins supporting prospective Admin's with comments like this [22] perhaps it is time to pack up and go home. Giano (talk) 21:52, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Connnolly ought to be taken to task for that comment, but we all know that he won't be. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:07, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

@MF - huh? which comment? @iridescent - have a look at some of the completed requests this year - Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/MZMcBride, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/SemBubenny are two older completed ones, in addition to oneo ther open case looking at admin conduct . Also note that if a person has not been desysopped, it does not mean there have been no sanctions, and obviously past history will be taken into account with future cases. Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:11, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

(facepalm) ...sigh. I see. Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:13, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

No doubt the Arbcom imagines it is doing some good, maybe even it is, but the thing to do is tackle the problen at source. In a few hours we will have yet another IRC-Admin -why? Geogre explains here [23] and only a small handful care. That is truly sad. Giano (talk) 12:16, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Big Hug

I love you too darling William M. Connolley (talk) 21:33, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I expect you probably do. Giano (talk) 21:36, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

This RFA

Salut Giano. Didn't want to spoil your pretty talk page so I've put this here - do with it else as you wish. Anyway, I just noticed you referenced my Opp where I ref'd this article. Just thought you may be interested to clock how several of the fan club - including one partial to the candidate's efforts in article creation generally - scrambled to attempt to improve it. Sort of sums up to me what some of us were on about. All the best Plutonium27 (talk) 21:29, 18 May 2009 (UTC)