User talk:Giano II

File:Animalibrí.gif

Old messages are at

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

• [1]
• [2]

File:LimassolCarnival.JPG

The 2007 Spumoni Arbcom campaign road-show will be visiting you shortly

This is great advice, Giano.

I will begin doing so. Unfortunately, I've just gotten a very "nice" note from JzG regarding my lack of edits, and how they probably indicate that my voting for you and then going on a "blue strike" from editing would be no great loss to the project. After all this, he still can't figure out why I might have taken such an interest in !!'s case. Not every account is what they seem... Anyways, I'll do my best to ignore both him and Rockpocket, and get back to editing the project. Thanks for all you do. Mr Which^??? 13:45, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Why? Guy is one of the guys I've always liked and respected, and I refuse to let what I consider to be atrocious behavior in this case to shake my belief that he's a reasonable person and a wise one. I think, however, that he has allowed "the terrorists to win," as it were (said with rueful irony, not accusation). The objective of the people at BADSITES is to destroy Wikipedia in revenge for perceived slights they have suffered. Whether consciously or not, they are finding the success that terrorists find: by getting the target to be afraid, by getting the free society to clamp down, by getting the society to fear each member as a potential spy or villain, real damage is done -- damage that no attacker could possibly have achieved. I am sure Guy understands this process as well as anyone who has gone through 9/11 and 7/7 does (if not those who studied the Popish Plot, the Gunpowder Plot, and the Gordon and Porteus riots), but what has happened with the BADSITES is that people have become extremely emotional about it. Additionally, they are having their very livelihoods threatened. The consequences of some of these people could be extremely dire.

I completely agree with them that the BLP and privacy intrusions of people upset about this or that must be handled definitively, with a sharp blade and a quick stroke. There is no excuse, ethical or medical, for what they are attempting.

It's merely that no threat can allow us to destroy ourselves with fear of the threat, and we cannot abandon our prior principles due to the severity of them. We cannot chase shadows of villains.

I do not know why Guy is remaining at such a high pique over this particular matter, and I don't want to speculate. However, the loss of any contributing voice is silence on all of us. Even the loss of the loudest dissent is the loss of our most critical principles. The loss of people going beyond the rules, attempting to harm, attempting (not potentially attempting) to betray and put at play things more than merely pixels on a screen and bytes on a server, is necessary and laudable. We have no precogs, though, and auditions for the role are a sad sight. Geogre 14:03, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid I can't totally agree with you here, Geogre, although I think in other posts lately you've shown some great insight and perception. There is a hostile atmosphere in certain areas of the project if you take a contrary view to that of certain user accounts. Also, I've seen that the "rules" aren't always applied fairly and equitably. In those situations, it seems like the same few admins/editors are always involved. I contend that if those few admins left the project, the hostile atmosphere I speak of would evaporate immediately and the entire project would be for the better of it. Cla68 14:20, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

(Cla68, are you talking to me or Geogre?).

Geogre, clarified above. Cla68 14:28, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't want to talk past Giano here. However, I see more fallibility than evil in most of the people who are here so angry. I absolutely agree that some folks have been and are wrongheaded, but I also think that this case has been unusual in that a fair number of folks have been acting out of their character, out of their long time habits.

Let's put it this way: if a person is acting because of a power trip, that person is a problem. If a person is doing it because she is "right" and the other side is "too stupid"/"new"/"trollish" to be spoken to, then that's a problem. If a person is doing it because he is "right" and has reasons that can't be revealed, because they're only for the initiated, then that's the philosophy of the Apocrypha, not Wikipedia. If a person is behaving that way because he or she is simply too tired of going over the same old ground, has many cases already supporting the position, etc., then that is a person whose emotions are compelling her to post, and some more impersonal body needs to speak, or the person needs to hand off the case to someone else. In those cases, the participants need to set out true arbitration ("this is the minimum I can accept, and this is something I simply can't accept; this is what I would like to see, and this is what I think would look bad; this is what I want to say, and this is what I don't want said at all"), where those who will never compromise in matters where there is no policy are going to be the losers.

My concern is when anyone is convinced -- often by experience and private discussions and private knowledge of the other person or fears of what the other may be -- that he or she is so right that it's time to assert power.

Don't get me wrong: I'm a hypocrite. I assert power, too, in my own way. I bluster. I shout. I make the mistakes everyone does. I do not use the block button, though, and I may have hit the "protect" button awry twice or so in ... 4 years? That's not because I'm good. It's because I stay away from the vandal/protect/defend stuff and concentrate on articles. I do that because I know myself well enough to know how I'd fall, otherwise. I wish others would rotate more frequently, "recuse" more often, and hand off. Geogre 14:42, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Geogre, the reasons and motivations for the power trips that these certain editors/admins are on are probably as varied as the number involved. The end result is the same, a hostile environment for people who don't agree with them and make their disagreement known in certain forums. Cla68 15:02, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Some more words

The words 'drama' 'create controversy' and 'disruptive' all seem to be used with similar intent as 'troll'.Merkinsmum 14:22, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

True, very true, but let's keep the message simple as Troll seems to ecompass all of those things also. Giano 14:26, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Drama? Drama? Drama? Drama? Let me get my gun. Geogre 14:43, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

It is rhetoric from the leadership of a community that tells the community what words designate people who are to be attacked: Witch, Jew, Communist ... It is not the word so much as the implicit approval by leadership of a process that amounts to substituting who is making a claim for objective evidence of a claim. WAS 4.250 15:47, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I don't know....the word "troll" can have its uses...

My first (and intended to be only) comment to that behemoth ANI thread that started with !!'s block came five days after the events, when a fresh-faced admin who'd been active in the entire conversation said he not only wanted the thread closed, but deleted as an "attack page." I simply said that it should be treated as any other ANI thread - closed in the usual process and archived - and that a good chunk of the drama was from people saying the thread was an attack page and should be closed and deleted. For that, I was told not to troll. I wonder if that admin had any idea that some people might be a tad ticked off at being called a troll, and instead of skulking away or having a verbal pissing match, might actually be moved to constructive response. See, Giano...it wasn't you that dragged me into this mess, it was Mercury. He's the one who made me realise that the secrecy, usurpation of power, patronization, and devaluing of individuals within the community was making Wikipedia *not fun*. It wasn't your actions that emboldened me to write an outside opinion in a high profile RFC - it was being called a troll.

I'll be getting back to my usual routine of vandalism reversion in my handful of articles, my bits of wikignoming here and there. And yes, I'm developing an article that I should manage to get into mainspace in a week or so - it's a little article, as is appropriate for a little editor to write. But I am far less likely to sit on the sidelines and hold my tongue in the future. Thanks for caring enough about the encyclopedia and its community to put yourself on the line. Godspeed - and good luck in the election. --Risker 15:49, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I think I'm going to cry.........Giano 15:54, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Smartass. Note to Arbcoms - really, it's just friendly banter. Risker 15:59, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

You know, I thought Mercury was going to get remedies aimed at him or her. That individual's actions certainly were beyond politeness, civility, and proper execution of the role of administrator. Furthermore, had his attempted wielding of power not been frustrated, he would have warranted a separate case. That's just my opinion, but let's be clear: who among the "one side" used buttons to enforce its will and who among the other did? Bad, bad, bad scene and an even worse omen. (I'm going to go vandalize blank space by filling it in with words! Not today, though. Something has given me a migraine. I wonder if I can block someone for it?) Geogre 13:30, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

After Mercury was warned, he didn't use his admin tools again in relation to the case, which is probably why he wasn't named in the arbitration case. Crum375 "courtesy blanked" the original discussion on ANI and I thought the reasoning that it was to "protect !!" was a little weak since most other discussions involving other editors on ANI aren't "courtesy blanked." Carey Bass blocked Giano over Durova's email which was probably inappropriate since he was apparently on Durova's list. The arbitrators later ruled that only uninvolved admins should block editors in that situation. That's all I can think of. Cla68 20:36, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Crum375, that is a name I keep hearing lately time after time it crops up on and off wiki. Funny that. Interestingly Mercury now seems to be "Nathan" [3] not sure I would want a name change on the eve of the election. Giano 20:57, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm trying to find a way to sign my RealName here on wiki. Sounds more serious and less playful. I'm going to have to change it up a little more later tonight. I don't think the election will hinge on my signature, or at least I hope not. Regards, Nathan 22:18, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I can fix it later if that is preferable. Mercury 22:21, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

One more thing, who semi-protected the ANI page during the incident? That was unprecedented. Cla68 22:12, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Both Durova [4] and Mercury [5] were involved with protection of ANI and ANI subpages. Uncle uncle uncle 22:52, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I really would go back to Mercury if I were you! Giano 22:41, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

We've also seen discussion indicating that two admins were administering invitation-only email forums (and their names were immediately removed from the list pages after becoming "public") in which the participants apparently complained about productive editors that they had personal animosity against and possibly discussed on-wiki admin actions. Although arguably not against any rules or policies, I think most of us can form an opinion on the merits of this type of behavior and the ethics of those who would participate in it. Cla68 23:05, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Durova

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The Arbitration Committee admonishes Durova to exercise greater care when issuing blocks and admonishes participants in the various discussions regarding this matter to act with proper decorum and to avoid excessive drama. Durova (talk · contribs) gave up her sysop access under controversial circumstances and must get it back through normal channels. Also, Giano is reminded that Wikipedia is a collaborative project which necessarily rests on good will between editors and the Committee asks that Giano consider the effect of his words on other editors, and to work towards the resolution of a dispute rather than its escalation within the boundaries of the community's policies, practices, and conventions. Finally, !! (talk · contribs) is strongly encouraged to look past this extremely regrettable incident and to continue contributing high-quality content to Wikipedia under the account name of his choice. Again, further information regarding this case can be found at the link above. On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Cbrown1023 talk 17:36, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

• I think we can all live without needing to be reminded of this strange series of events too often. A motion pased 6:3 is far from unanimous (For the case, there were 12 active Arbitrators, so 7 votes were a majority in this instance one abstained) The case has certainly made us all re-evaluate our thoughts [6] I hope now we can all be allowed to move on. Giano 17:50, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar

		Barnstar of Integrity & Goodness
		For bravery, integrity, and service to Wikipedia and the wider public with these qualities. 85.5.180.9 23:06, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Seconded. edward (buckner) 12:37, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Thirded. (Every time you archive the last barnstar on your talk page, it's the cue for somebody to give you another one!) *Dan T.* 13:30, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Well we had better leave this one here for a while then but they are not archived they go onto my user page. Thanks to you all though. Giano 14:07, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Tightrope Award

Tightrope Trophy for Giano.

I see the Durova arbitration has closed, with you still unsanctioned, and still dancing on a tightrope over the Niagara Falls. Congratulations! For your awesome balancing act for the benefit of Wikipedia, you are hereby awarded the Tightrope Trophy. It represents the amazing Charles Blondin carrying Jimbo Wales safely across the Falls. Bishonen | talk 15:06, 2 December 2007 (UTC).

Thank you. The best part of of the case being over is that you have returned, the worst part is that !! no longer wants to be here and has gone. So this stupid and needless affair has cost us both a friend and Wikipedia a great editor. Giano 15:09, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

It don't matter. !! will be all around in the dark - !! will be everywhere. Wherever you can look - wherever there's a fight, so hungry people can eat, !! will be there. Wherever there's a syop beatin' up a guy, !! will be there. !! will be in the way guys yell when they're mad. !! will be in the way kids laugh when they're hungry and they know supper's ready, and when the people are eatin' the stuff they raise and livin' in the houses they build - !! will be there, too. - WAS 4.250 16:53, 2 December 2007 (UTC)#

Thank you for sharing that with us all WAS. Giano 16:57, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Please all admire my efforts at User:Merkinsmum/Homages. Merkinsmum 21:16, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Impressive. Hey, what do you all think of User talk:Lar/ArbCom2007/Giano? Can an arbcom election be this exciting? :-) Carcharoth 08:55, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Very kind, perceptive and flattering of Lar ! Well I've got the 100 votes I wanted to personally feel I was doing the right thing, so I can relax and enjoy it now. "Better to have tried and failed than never to have tried at all" as my Granny used to say to me each miserable school exam results day. Giano 09:15, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Congrats, hope my comments are not hurting anything. Travb (talk) 00:35, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

WP:200

Did you ever expect to get 200 supports and be added to WP:200? :-) Having said that, with some recent withdrawals, you are now officially the candidate with the most number of oppose votes (currently 155). Carcharoth (talk) 01:48, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

And now you are up to 250 votes - including two who have reconsidered their original position. Well done. Risker (talk) 22:27, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Ha!

Got there first! — iridescent 23:01, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Wow I didn't think it opened for another 50 minutes - and I'm not "pompous". Giano 23:10, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Ha ha [7] I was right - gives you time to re-write it. "Giano is a kind and thoughtful person who loves children and animals and helping people" Giano 23:13, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I'll buy the "loves animals" part, I guess... :) Give 'em hell, Harry! ++Lar: t/c 00:09, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

My fault - forgot that we're now on GMT and an hour off UTC. I'll strike the "pompous", but the "arrogant" definitely stays — iridescent 00:15, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

It's now a moot point, as it appears to have fallen victim of the new "remove comments I don't like" policy. I'm sure there's a reason why elections for the relatively trivial post of admin are allowed to become lengthy discussions of the pros & cons of a candidate (this is a particularly fine example), but when it's actually a vote for something important, a new "no discussion" policy magically appears from nowhere. Not that it will make any difference, since Arbcom elections are decided on a one-man-one-vote basis, and I think we all know which way the one man's going to vote. — iridescent 18:03, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I have not noticed, I am deliberatly trying not to look more than three times a day, relying on Gurche's page for the odd update. Far more interest than I ever thought, and I'm realy pleased there are so many supports, I was frightened there would be 100s of opposes and about 4.5 supports. Giano 18:19, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm following things a little bit more closely. I hope you don't mind me pointing out that Raul has just overtaken you in the support column. You are still in front at the top of the oppose column, though. :-) Carcharoth (talk) 17:45, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

How very re-assuring. Giano (talk) 17:48, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

And now you are ahead of Raul again (support column only). This is actually quite exciting. I get the feeling this could be a long two weeks. I've just realised, to my horror, that I will be away the final weekend and may only be back in time to catch the final few hours of voting. :-( The only question is whether to cast my remaining votes then or now. BTW, loved the spaniel comment. Carcharoth (talk) 22:02, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Another way of looking at it. You are 8th in the net supports column, but 11th in the percentages column. Though the 7th guy in the net supports column is nearly 20 ahead of you, it isn't impossible to suppose that you might get a net increase of 20+ supports over the remaining days of this election. I don't think anyone really knows how long Wikipedia's tail of voters is. Carcharoth (talk) 07:57, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

And now to change the tone of this page

Enough of this rambling about usernames and trolls and elections. Your fame comes from your writing and editing skills. So I'd appreciate your editorial comments on this article I've drafted before I send it off into the world to be suitably vandalized[8]. Anyone else reading this, feel free to jump in... --Risker 23:13, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Seeing as I'm here... "a poignant song describing graphically the horrors of war" needs to go, you couldn't get a purer piece of original research if you tried. Other than that, looks fine albeit still a bit stubby. — iridescent 00:43, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Ooh thanks for that, you're right. Probably better to use a description from a professionally written review. Still stubby yes, I think it will get fleshed out better after the full release (I have the date but it is not from an acceptable source). Risker 01:16, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks all for your copyedit assistance and advice, you can now see it at James Blunt: Return to Kosovo. With a little luck I'll get the image uploaded in a day or two, now that the article is in mainspace and I can add a fair-use image. Risker (talk) 03:01, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Heads up - question answered

Chase me I'm the cavalry asked you a question on your arbcom candidate question page. I took the liberty of providing him with the Readers Digest version of the case here[9]. I hope you don't mind. Risker 05:16, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I've just answered him too, so he should have a good view of the situation now. It seems though are combined efforts were not enough to convince him he has opposed :-( Giano 09:11, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I look at it this way. One treats people decently, one answers them honestly, and one doesn't kick them when they're down. Integrity demands a terrible price, but its reward is being able to hold one's head up. And you, sir, can certainly hold your head up. Risker 09:19, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Separate heads-up on a different matter, just in case you weren't following [10]. Risker (talk) 20:35, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Our conversation

I replied (and made a separate section for our little conversation) at User talk:SebastianHelm#Giano. — Sebastian 18:03, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Replied again. — Sebastian 20:18, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Voting problems?

FYI[11]. Risker 20:04, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Private Correspondence proposal page

Easy man. I see where you're coming from on the whole Wikipedia:Private correspondence proposal, but don't get too worked up yet. The whole Durova fiasco was rather unique. I think the general principle behind what you did there should be addressed, but I'm just not sure your wording was the right way to go. Sχeptomaniac^{χαιρετε} 01:12, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm nor worked up at all. I have dropped the matter. Policy is best worded explicitly or not at all. Giano (talk) 07:07, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

OK, guess I misinterpreted your mood there. I personally think policy needs to clearly spell out the principles before getting into specifics, though. Have a good one. Sχeptomaniac^{χαιρετε} 17:14, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Suspected Canvassing

I tagged the canvassing issue as resolved, and (at Risker's suggestion) placed the discussion behind show/hide tags. The discussion is there for the record, and I don't feel comfortable archiving it during the election - but, this way, the casual voter won't see canvassing and go ZOMG Conspiracy! without seeing the Resolved tag and actively clicking through anyway. I hope this works as an alternative to actual archival. Good luck with your candidacy, ZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 04:55, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I did not mean "archive", I maeant archive box things, my fault. I'm sure it's fine. Giano (talk) 07:10, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

hello, MathSci has updated his candidate question to you

...regarding who posted what when on your talk page. If it helps, I think this [[12]] was the first time that document was added; it was then removed as vandalism and trolling, and you then observed it was neither and restored it. Hope that helps. sNkrSnee | ¿qué? 07:08, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

WikiEN-l mailing list

People often ask me about mailing lists. I only subscribe to one. I discovered this list a few weeks ago, it is truly amazing what one can learn. I strongly advise you all joining it, no need to give your user name any email will do. Well worth the effort. Giano (talk) 20:04, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I've been reading it for a long time. I've been putting off subscribing because I know I would spend more time typing out long replies instead of, um, doing the same here. No, I mean editing articles. Um. <looks at contribs list> Hell. It's election season. Who writes articles then? Carcharoth (talk) 20:34, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

but what is so nice about is it is a public list. All email sent to the list is available in public archives, both on and off Wikimedia servers. Those that do not wish for people to come across their emails, email addresses or real name on search results are warned not to post. Giano (talk) 20:51, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Clearly we need shorter election seasons, then. Or put them all together into one season (instead of having the board be at a different time). SOMETHING anyway to reduce the impact on article production. OK, now, everyone, back on your heads. ++Lar: t/c 20:57, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I will have you know that, as soon as I figure out how to do dates properly in my references, I will have started *and* completed my first article, and that during election season. And read and posted to wiki-en-L, which I subscribe to using my "Wikipedia only" gmail email address. Doesn't trace back to anything but my Wikipedia account, for which I have a username I don't use anywhere else, and a password I don't use anywhere else. What would give you the idea I've been on the 'net for a while? Risker (talk) 02:36, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Help

Hello hello. You all probably hate me for the position I took on FT2. But it was done in good faith. There is a lot of nasty bullying going on. This refers. If you could help to stop this. I have offered to delete the offending page and do the rest by email. Best edward (buckner) (talk) 20:17, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Someone has to do something about this. edward (buckner) (talk) 21:03, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Hang on I am looking now. Giano (talk) 21:13, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

• Heck! Well! there is lot to read there isn't there. This seems to be a very controversial field indeed, I think it would be be very wrong for me as a candidate in the current election to pass comment. Since declaring myself as a nominee, I have asked no questions of other candidates or cast any votes. I don't want to pass any comment on any other candidate. I hope you understand. Giano (talk) 21:32, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes I do. Quite understand. I have contacted the relevant organisations. edward (buckner) (talk) 21:44, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually I left the message here because a number of 'good' people drop by your page and it seems relatively safe to me. On the other hand this issue has completely redrawn the idea of 'good'. My idea of good you can find in my new animal rights section. Sorry for the term, sounds like swampy the eco warrior and all that. I'm not into the black balaclavas & all that. But do believe in English decency to animals and all that. Hope that remark doesn't earn a block. Best edward (buckner) (talk) 21:48, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Not at all, I have a spaniel licking my feet under the desk as we talk and a worn out labrador sleeping in its basket (dreaming of "fesy wesants") as I type. Giano (talk) 21:52, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

In the interest of promoting sweetness and light, you are hereby granted the coveted Random Chocolate Chip Smiley Award
originated by Pedia-I
(Explanation and Disclaimer)

Have this award, said to have been created by the Joan of Arc vandal- wierd!Merkinsmum 02:25, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

"Giano d'Arc-en-ciel". I crack me up! sNkrSnee | ¿qué? 15:29, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Retiring

Hey, I'm leaving now. Cannot believe what has happened, and the threats. About to scramble password - can you please ask that my IP not be blocked, for reasons at least one of the administrators will understand. Bestedward (buckner) (talk) 09:22, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Hey, hang on don't go, there is very little on Wikipedia that cannot be sorted out. Think again before you go, they can always email you a new password. Relax take a deep breath, have a couple of days away and then think again. Giano (talk) 11:12, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually I haven't scrambled the password, because didn't know how to set new password - you have done this once, I believe? edward (buckner) (talk) 11:55, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes I have. I think you need a wiki-break. I would take it if I were you. Attacking editors for any reason on an outside blog, as you have done, is very much against all my Wiki-principles. At least here they have the right of reply. However, the allegations you are making are very serious indeed, I strongly advise you to be 101% sure of your facts before repeating them anywhere at all.Giano (talk) 12:20, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I am 100% sure of the facts. edward (buckner) (talk) 12:39, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

If you see the last interchange with Ryan you will see he made me promise not to pursue any outside action in any context in return for unblock. I wanted the unblock for a reason I can explain privately. Since I won't go back on a promise, even when made under duress, I have no option except to pursue this here. The reason I did not want to pursue this here was because of the incredible bullying (to the extent that when complaining about the bullying, I was threatened with a block). So, if there is an option to pursue within WP, is there a way of preventing this kind of behaviour? Someone who could ensure fair play on both sides? edward (buckner) (talk) 13:29, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Try Wikipedia:Mediation. Giano (talk) 13:31, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry

As I mentioned before, I've had my brushes with you, but to call you a liar, I felt like someone needed to say something. But, if you'd rather we not respond to lunacy like that, I'll certainly refrain from doing so. Mr Which^??? 15:23, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

• I am just not rising to the bait,and I don't want anyone else to either. I appreciate all the support, I really do but I am big enough, old enough and ugly enough to deal with the problem if I need to, and I don't. Thanks though. Giano (talk) 15:39, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Vote

sorry --Dweller (talk) 17:50, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Not to worry, my reward will surely be in heaven if not on Wikipedia. Giano (talk) 17:53, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Well done

		The Editor's Barnstar
		I hereby award you this barnstar for your most appreciated expansion of Queluz National Palace. Best regards, Húsönd 19:52, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Your edits are great, really well done! Fsouza (talk) 21:50, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

By the way, I haven't been to this palace for many years, but I think I'll go there next month. Since you know a lot about the palace, if there are any details of it that you think we're lacking pictures of, just tell me and I might well take some pictures for the article. Regards, Húsönd 02:29, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

If you have a camera on your phone, some of the interior would be great, but you have to be very careful not to get caught. One of the main block facing the square would ve very good too. Thanks. Anything we have not already would be useful. There are quite a few more on commons, biy i think I have already the best from there. Regards. Giano (talk) 09:11, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Re: Panache

WP:PANACHE should probably redirect to your user-page. Best Regards, Amerique^dialectics 17:37, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Just a quick note

Check your email. Risker (talk) 05:33, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

And again. Risker (talk) 22:46, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Spire

Found myself on this page after following the links from Sagrada Família, and thought the writing sounded familiar - sure enough, your name features heavily in the history. I did a bit of cleaning up, which included a revert to an older version as three paragraphs had been wiped out by somebody's edit along the way; but when I had arrived, there was an unreferenced tag on the article. Maybe you might like to revisit this chestnut? Risker (talk) 14:39, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Now there is some nostalgia, I had long forgotten about that very old page, I've not been there for years. Interestingly that was how I first met Geogre (what a happy day for Wikipedia that has proved to be) it was a sort of collaboration. I don't think we even used references at that time, let alone footnotes and cites. How carefree we all were when young. Giano (talk) 15:44, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Thought you might get a kick out of it. The writing is so much more fluid and elegant than so many of the articles developed today. When I read articles like this, it makes me wonder if we have lost something along the way. Risker (talk) 15:54, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I still write 'em, and I'll be long gone before I ever put in a footnote. I put references. I use parenthetical references for matters that are likely to be challenged. That's actually what policy requires. Other than that, I strive to have a thesis (gasp!) and development (screaming from the ladies and children!) so that the article actually has something to say. These are obviously not properly academic, I'm told by people who have no academic publications or credentials, and I need to learn from them how to be scholarly. Nothing to do but blow a raspberry and go one's way. Let them have their rock 'em sock 'em editbots. Geogre (talk) 20:39, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

WP:POINT

Giano, please stop this childish behavior. If you persist, you will be blocked. Thanks, Crum375 (talk) 20:22, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Grow up, get real and don't be absurd! Policy is not in your dictat. Giano (talk) 20:27, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Seems like Crum just drew no lessons from past events. Condescending tone, block threats, same old. Ridiculously silly. --Irpen 20:33, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

For anyone interested, I am threatened with a block (yet again) because I am objecting to certain clauses in a new policy which aims to suppress disgraceful and poisonous evidence such as "Durova's" ever being made available on Wikipedia again [13]. I have been reverted and ignored on the relevant discussion page countless times . So it is up to you all what you want there. Giano (talk) 20:37, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

• User:Crum375, if you are trying to administer a warning, you absolutely must indicate what it is that you're warning about, why you're warning, and what you believe is violating policy. If you block and count the above as a "warning," I will probably not be the first to reverse you. Above all, however, you should consider discussion and speaking with someone, rather than shouting at someone. Our goal is to avoid conflict, not assert our will. Geogre (talk) 20:42, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Aha Geogre, but who is instructing Crum? That is the question. Giano (talk) 20:44, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

It really doesn't matter who is instructing whom. What matters is applying our policies properly. If you are accused of WP:POINT, then I will have to be accused of worse. I've ignored that page entirely up until now, because 1) it was doomed to stupidity, 2) it was irrelevant, 3) it would need to be voted for before it became policy, and at that point it would fail so ingloriously as to hopefully teach the gravest dullards a lesson, 4) it was an edit war from the very start. However, if we want the thing to be not #1 or #2, it needs drastic changes. Tony Sidaway has many virtues, but policy architect is not one of them. Geogre (talk) 20:51, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I know, I know, I have told them it was unworkable - would they listen? - No. However, it is just the sort of think that passes through the back door. Has to be stopped. Giano (talk) 20:53, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

If you want some insight into what's going on read this article: A Group Is Its Own Worst Enemy[14] by Clay Shirky - V (talk) 05:44, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Just stumbled upon this. Let's just say that in my past incarnation, I was punitively blocked by Crum for alleged disruption. I had to appeal to people far further up the ladder than Crum to get it undone. I say that to say this: angry and punitive blocks are not beyond him, so tread carefully. Mr Which^??? 18:42, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

• As Noddy used to say in my childhood "Oh crumbs!". Giano (talk) 18:50, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

FAC machine

Just got home. Very nice, you are a FAC machine! I'll do a quick somewhat bold edit, so please don't FAC right now. A detail: do you like the eighteenth century or the 18th century, as I should pick one? Bishonen | talk 17:10, 10 December 2007 (UTC).

I think 18th. Thank you ma petite fleur. Giano (talk) 17:46, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh! oh! oh! oh! ..."in the late 18th century" jumps out as tiresomely "pop" in paragraphs of text— to my eye— almost as baldly as "a 12-year old Scotch, or "asked him 3 or 4 times over", and the like. Oh, I'm a faded antique with letter-paper that spells out the name of my numbered Manhattan street. I'm like one of Anne Rice's aged vampires that just can't keep making these necessary modern adjustments any more grizzle grizzle grizzle. --Wetman (talk) 09:37, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh! oh! oh! /me find kindred spirit at last! 'Zilla also have trouble modern adjustments, speak only delicate Mesozoic, no tiresome pop! P. S. Not understand eighteen... or 18. 'Zilla only count to hrair, regret! [ /me stuffs the faded little antique in pocket and lumbers off. ] bishzilla _ROARR!! 12:55, 11 December 2007 (UTC).

Its no good one cannot live in the past. You must both try to be more like me. I am a very modern cool sort of person. Giano (talk) 13:27, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Incivility

Giano, you know better. Comments such as this are beyond the pale; do not repeat this. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 01:29, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

For the record. This comment was directed at me and I don't find it at all incivil. Let's not try to switch subjects from the real problems that plague Wikipedia, to the unneeded civility talk. --Irpen 01:36, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, ya that is uncivil. It may not have been uncivil to you but it was very uncivil to others. 1 != 2 01:52, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

"Let's not try to switch subjects from the real problems that plague Wikipedia, to the unneeded civility talk." DEVS EX MACINA _pray 01:59, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

But if we do, we should at least wait for those mysterious "others" tо who this was "incivil" to say so and while we wait we can do some content writing. --Irpen 02:06, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Morven. It does seem people that people do become confused after chatting with Durova doesn't it? It seems we shall never be able to cut through the rubbish and find out what happened here. Don't worry I can recognize a warning when I see one. I'll back off. Giano (talk) 07:19, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

As someone who's had numerous disputes with Giano, I'd like to commend such comments as the one above which was deemed "beyond the pale". I'm not saying the comment was warranted (I don't know anything about the situation), but at least he's actually speaking honest and openly. Wikipedia needs to stop being the equivalent of a nanny state. However, I do commend Giano for backing off. Ruffling feathers only results in a block, and isn't worth it. LuciferMorgan (talk) 11:44, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Lucifer. Obviously one cannot discuss such matter here. I am just reading with interest the comments Morven is making off-wiki. Giano (talk) 13:52, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Morven, High, and any others who are stunned by such talk, please wake up to language. The comments were not "incivil." They were profane. Profane talk is not good or bad. It is offensive to little old ladies, church socials, and Victorian gentlemen's clubs, but it is not lacking in civility. For many groups, the civil bonds are cemented with profane speech. I wish people would cut the crap, indeed. By that, I mean that they should cut (out) the chatter that has the value of crap. They should also cut the blushing lily pretense. They should not attempt to use politeness as a substitute for substantive discussion. If Wikipedia, which blubbers constantly, "Wikipedia is not censored for content" as its users (and HighInBC was a big fan of this) defend photographs of women wearing ejaculate on their necks, is going to switch tack and say, "Wikipedia is censored for profane words, and users who employ any word or phrase not acceptable to the Dallas Junior League will be censured," then the hypocrisy should be enough to be genuinely shocking. Geogre (talk) 00:05, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Pleasantly put, although it jibes somewhat with my own undereducated and very likely quite mistaken view of Victorian gentlemen's clubs, which I'd thought tolerated "gentlemen" who uttered the most robust language when in their cups. As a non-American not in the US, I get the impression that WP is rather like a microcosm of US society, with its apparently schizoid attitudes toward human naughty bits and their depictions, and toward language. I found the indignation over J Jackson's momentarily televised nipple hilarious; the bloviatocracy may fulminate about individual words and clauses uttered by politicians but must take seriously the bullshit "discourse" in which these are embedded. (Read Frank Rich and Matt Taibbi for refreshingly sane views on all this silliness.) -- Hoary (talk) 01:47, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

What's curious to me is that Wikipedia is like that microcosm's negative image. American speech has lost many of its taboos on language, and everyday gatherings of mixed sex and class, will utter several of the FCC's "seven dirty words." Corporate boardrooms will rebound with "shit" and "damn" and "ass." Impolite, gendered anatomical terms remain taboo ("tits," "cunt," "pussy," "cock," but not "dick" or "balls"), with "cunt" being the most taboo word in American English. On the other hand, as every teen of both sexes gazes upon and downloads images of the most violent and ridiculous carnal behavior, our culture grows more reactionary about nudity. Famously, Wikipedia is populated by teenagers. They are being ridden by the demons of their hormones, as are the young adults and the transgendereds, etc. They act like a negative image of America. They say, "(hee hee) We should have really, really lots of penis pictures" (the ultimate visual taboo), but commonplace "shit" (and now "crap") is alarming. "Taboo creates fetish," the man said, and Wikipedia illustrates that its users' interest in fetish lays atop a highly offended sensibility. Geogre (talk) 10:24, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

By the way, I do agree that Giano was being impolite. I just think that being impolite is normal sometimes, and we make it worse by pointing and jumping up and down. Impoliteness is usually bred from frustration, and that frustration will rarely by ameliorated by drawing attention to the method instead of the content. Geogre (talk) 10:32, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

• Please be calmed all of you. In future I will endeavour never to go "beyond the pale" again and remain firmly within the bounds of petite bourgeoisie behaviour in future. Giano (talk) 07:16, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Checking Suffrage

I did independent checks of all the indented names, and my findings were consistent on the ones with low votes. There are one or two others that may need some clarification, but it appears they may be related to sockpuppet accounts. Not sure if there is a problem really if only one of the socks voted, but that may be too big a question and I am not really sure if you or any other candidate "want" those votes all that badly. Risker (talk) 02:00, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Regent

Hi. Looking at this source given in Queen Maria's article, there is a significant discrepancy on who rules and who was named regent. That source says Maria, not Pedro, ruled until Joao, not Pedro, was named regent. The palace article stresses Pedro and does not mention Joao at all. I am not in a position to evaluate right or wrong on this, just noting the discrepancy. --JustaHulk (talk) 18:08, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I had better investigate further, my source says she was too bonkers to rule and he did it all for here, better look at some more sources. Thanks. Giano (talk) 18:13, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Looks like you are right and I had a bum source, well spotted. Apparently she was always a "lttle odd" but did manage to rule at first. Bishonen is copyediting thee at the moment i will make the change ASAP. Giano (talk) 18:19, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Cool, also the source mentions that there was a previous structure there than Pedro inherited and tore down to built the mini-Versailles. Also, if it was his intention to copy Versailles, that should be mentioned. --JustaHulk (talk) 18:28, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

• I'm concerned here my source the Dyne's book clearly says Pedro became Prince Regent so I need to look further into it. The wiki article supports your findings too, so I will just look elsewhere for a few minutes. No there was a hunting lodge, it is mentioned somewhere on the page, but none of the sources say it was on that particular site. There is no evidence that he was creating Versailles - why should he, he was not King, and had no expectations to be, his father - the King was building his own version of Escorial at Mafra Queluz was just a villa really in a very fashionable style. The Versailles thing is just one of those things people say, the same is said about Sanssouci but the ethos as at Queluz was far different. Giano (talk)

• Cool. /zilla got mad at me anyway 'cause I wrote gilted instead of gilded and threw me off the page. User_talk:JustaHulk#Justahulk crazy! Go green?. --JustaHulk (talk) 18:43, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Maps

In my defense, had I been forced to guess I would have been right. Great article, though. Congrats -- Christopher Parham (talk) 01:01, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't see it

Giano, as a trained architect and degreed civil engineer, I am afraid that I miss the ingenuity in the stairs. Perhaps the picture does not do it justice. Enlighten me, please. --JustaHulk (talk) 18:25, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

"reached by flights of ingeniously designed graduated steps, creating an illusion of a longer and higher perspective" Giano (talk) 19:15, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Talking of stairs could you try and work some magic on the stairway article as it's a complete mess. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel (talk) 19:31, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I like the Lego illustration for alternating tread stairs (I used to spec out a lot of Lepeyre stairs). You are right, it is a mess. I will do what I can, but only slowly as I have very little wiki-time. --JustaHulk (talk) 20:04, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Giano, I alluded to the ingenuity then in the caption. I fear that I cannot really see the illusion in the picture but no doubt it is visible in the actuality. See if you like the caption like that or put it back as it was. --JustaHulk (talk) 19:58, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

• Oh for heaven's sake just look at them, they are flowing with complete liquidity, spilling out at the bottom. You could walk to heaven up those stairs. The eye is split half way up IImage:Palacio Queluz Robillion4.JPG to make sure you cannot focus on the top - they are monumental but if you look at side wall they are climbing only a short distance. What more do you want of them - a double somersault? Just imagine standing at the bottom, looking up where would you go? Giano (talk) 21:31, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

• Is the effect like an autostereogram, when viewed in a photo, in that some people can't easily see it? I'm not seeing it either, but I'm sure its there in person. Lawrence Cohen 22:01, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

You have to have a soul and an imagination and love opera and copious amounts of wine......Giano (talk) 22:05, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Soul, check. Imagination, check. Wine, sometimes check. Opera... I suppose I fail. Lawrence Cohen 22:07, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

the last two allow the soul to breath. Giano (talk) 22:10, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Okay, now I have to start worrying about myself, as I pass three out of four, and if the opera is Mozart then heaven forbid I will have passed Giano 101 with flying colours. Now I have to worry about "obscene trolling, knows German" --Risker (talk) 22:14, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

• I will rudely interpose: The balustrade increases in height, relative to the level of the steps. Thus, if you look at it, you see a very short line. If you look at the steps, you see many. There is a visual paradox there, then. Your eyes see "too many steps," and you interpret those as "a very long stairway" because the only way for the effect to be real is if perspective changed or the steps went for a great distance. Giano is right, but it's like looking at half a metaphor. It's the difference between the implied distance of the balustrade or stair wall and the implied distance of the steps that creates the visual effect. Geogre (talk) 11:36, 14 December 2007 (UTC) (I look good, too.)

Imagination is vital in opera; otherwise 14 stone, thirty year old plus women screeching about being untutored in loves mysteries (in a language that is not their own) on account that they are only teenagers is liable to prove perplexing. My reaction is to dismiss it as bollocks and then go off and try to persuade sceptical onlookers that JW Turner, van Gogh and Pollock are able to describe emotion by the use of coloured oils on canvas... To each their own. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:38, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I suspect you may not be Italian? Giano (talk) 22:39, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

But we can all agree on the operas of Philip Glass. I could not understand Einstein on the Beach, but I knew that I wasn't supposed to, on a libretto level, but I understood the visuals and the music... and such fantastic music. Opera can be ok. "High Opera" tips you off with its first word. (I also can tolerate Acis and Galatea some of the time. I can sometimes tolerate The Beggar's Opera, but only when done with non-opera voices.) Geogre (talk) 11:39, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

First of all, if there is in fact a heaven, then surely to God (get it? hah!) it at least has an escalator. LHvU, I'm pretty sure you're thinking of soap operas - real opera has Viking helmets, special effects, and lots of great songs about killing da wabbit, or conversely a banjo-hating blowhard who gets pwned by "Leopold". But I guess not everyone is as sophistimicated as me. sNkrSnee | ¿qué? 23:51, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

"...soap..."? LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:47, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree that they are lovely; that is why I wondered if you meant "artistic" rather than "ingenious". We can readily see the beauty in the picture; I, for one, miss a level of ingenuity that rises above the wondrous architecture of the structure as a whole. That is all that I was referring to. I will take the word of your source. I do not think I am lacking in the soul or imagination department, I drank enough wine in my youth to carry me, and I can appreciate opera though I have never devoted the time to learning it. Your comment kinda reminds me of the little game played on me as a freshman engineering student at the Cooper Union by a couple of Fine Art majors, i.e. "C-L-O-S-E, what does that spell?" I "failed" that one too. --JustaHulk (talk) 01:08, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

"Artistic" can't ever be a useful style-designation when one of talking about works of art or architecture. At Queluz a very tricky design problem— approach steps built on a terrace corner that cannot appear to lead the eye/feet into an unmeaning and blind corner of the building beyond— has been deftly solved. Thus the "ingenious". --Wetman (talk) 02:07, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Well the page is now looking very nice indeed, thanks for all of your help. One thing before I nominate it for FAC, does anyone know whether that complicated citing systemm the one that goes "a" "b" "c" etc. for the same page numbers is obligatory? Personally I don't like it much but if it is obligatoy I suppose I ought to do it. Giano (talk) 13:26, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

It most certainly is not, and I've never used it once. Common sense is obligatory. Bishonen | talk 13:31, 13 December 2007 (UTC).

The last four words by Bish should be framed and posted as a watermark into every policy page. In fact, it alone could replace most of the content of the Category:Wikipedia policies and guidelines. --Irpen 15:56, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

FYI

Regarding you comments [15] please remember Vk came to my talk page over this and made incivil comments entirely uninvited and unprovoked by me. So, assuming you are the one mentoring him, if you/he would like my continuing voluntary disengagement please advise him to afford others the respect he demands. If he chooses to come to my talk page uninvited with that sort of language, then he is going to get such a response. That is not "poking in the hope of a reaction". Rockpocket 21:08, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

How on earth I can be mentoring anyone, I am not an Admin. That honour is yours - remember it! Giano (talk) 22:33, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I seem to have an email from you that suggests a different story (I will not repeat it here though, as you know, publishing private emails is not cool). Whether you are or are not, if you are going to wade in and accuse me of "poking in the hope of a reaction" then at least have the decency to check who poked whom. Rockpocket 00:02, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Surprisingly perhaps I seldom keep old emails, so I'm not sure what I said to you, but I expect it is nothing I have not said publicly elsewhere. It is no secret to anyone that I have given VK some advice in the past, whether he takes it or not is entirely up to him, because I am not an admin and have no authority, or wish to have it, to impose my advice on anyone - so I am certainly not mentoring. My skills lie on other directions. I have also told you many times I thnk you are the wrong person to deal with Vintagekits. It may or not be your fault but you are as a muleta to a bull where Vintagekits is concerned and you know this. Giano (talk) 10:42, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

That may be so, but if Vk does not welcome my involvement he would do well to consider two things. He should realize that engaging with me on my talk page, uninvited, is not the way to ensure my disengagement. Secondly, he should realize that he is as "muleta to a bull" where Kb et al is concerned. If, as he states, he wants to avoid antagonism, then he should avoid antagonizing others. It works both ways. Rockpocket 18:12, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

As far as I know (said cautiously and without checking anybody's recent contributions) they are now keeping away from each other. So unless VK suddenly finds a notable brother of his own to write about and KB to edit we should all be happy and quiet for a few weeks. Giano (talk) 18:16, 14 December 2007 (UTC)