User talk:Giano II

He has a dream

This editor believes it is wrong that Wikipedia is policed from an external Admin's channel over which it has no control.

Police Wikipedia from Wikipedia

File:Animalibrí.gif

Old messages are at:

Essays:

A few thoughts on writing Featured Articles

A few thoughts on Wikipedia (unfinished)

Nasty things:

Wikipedia's most shameful and disgraceful moment.Supported by the Arbcom, but begun by Ncmvocalist [1]; two diffs I never want to lose.
Yet another embarrassing and dismal attempt by IRC#admins supporters to have me silenced - fails! In spite of FT2's best efforts
My views in 2007 on the Arbcom etc another link I can never find when I want it.

Statement of support

For what it's worth, I think the civility restriction you're under is complete BS. You seem spicy, but harmless as far as the project is concerned-- an interesting bit of local flavor, rather than something nasty that should be watched. Every government needs it's gadflies. Jtrainor (talk) 23:17, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Completely unrelated to the above (although you know my thoughts on the subject), thanks for your kind gesture this morning. Risker (talk) 02:23, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What's a civilty restriction? Does it mean you'll be blocked the momment you utter colorful language? GoodDay (talk) 15:29, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is, on the one hand, meaningless, and, on the other, malicious. It says that any administrator may block without warning at any incidence of "incivility." By those same persons' interpretations of the truly deletion-worthy WP:CIVIL, they already do block just about anyone for any incidence of "incivility" without warning. However, it was intended to be a mark of malice, I think, and a way of some arbcom members saying that they dislike Giano and want to make his experience at Wikipedia so uncomfortable that, without finding that he had violated any policies, they can drive him off. This is why the gesture is worth every syllable of invective that anyone can possibly level at it. It was petty, dishonest, ill-conceived, bilious, and stupid, and the same adjectives apply to pretty much everyone involved in writing and passing it. Utgard Loki (talk) 17:46, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Utgard, I could not have phrased it better myself, but have no fear I have never acknowledged the sanction, or taken any notice of it. In fact, the only people who seem remotely interested in enforcing it are those that passed it and their friends - funny old world isn't it? Giano (talk) 19:40, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Concur with sentiments of Jtrainor above. Ombudsman (talk) 02:22, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I also concur, with the extention that I'm just a gadfly, with limited useful contributions. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 06:29, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So you must post carefully, Giano. Okie Dokie. GoodDay (talk) 16:26, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Absolute nonsense, to "post carefully" and change in anyway would be to acknowledge the sanction, and give even a tiny little piece of credence to the opinions of Flo Night; Deskana; The Uninvited Co., Inc; Kirill, Sam Blacketer; Matthew Brown (Morven); jpgordon who were so keen to implement the sanction [2]]. In fact in the recent words of one of my children, when asked to accompany his mother to see The Duchess, "I would rather eat my own lung" than change my editing in any way, shape or form. Giano (talk) 19:26, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So you're giving it the William Wallace approach, no apologies, no compromise; cool. GoodDay (talk) 21:43, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Petition

Time to get some community involvement to persuade the deadlocked Arbcom about how counterproductively disruptive this sanction is. I think we should petition them and have started one at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/petitions/Giano - I'm not sure petitions have been done before, but I'd rather it didn't turn into a drama - If you disagree, don't sign, simple as. Regards --Joopercoopers (talk) 12:04, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nice thought JC, I appreciate it, but this sanction will stand and stand and stand - and everyday it stands, those Arbs can look at it, and so can all of we. Let's hope in December we have a new Arbcom, a completely new Arbcom, an Arbcom we can respect. Giano (talk) 19:30, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now, now, we can respect the current Arbcom, regardless of its merits. It is a theoretical possibility, and some editors still do it. I'd much rather aim for the higher standard of an Arbcom that actually deserves our respect. That is a dream or vision to reach for. GRBerry 19:43, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You may respect whomesoever you like, I shall do the same. Obviously we have different standards. I have never respected anything other than those with the highest intent, and fail to see any point of doing otherwise. To encourage mediocrity is, in my view, odd. Giano (talk) 19:49, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CIV

Hi Giano, I attempted to start this discussion at the talk page of the policy that, being abused more than any other, obviously needs to be fixed. Maybe even such policy is not needed at all? I am not sure, but I am sure that if this page is to exist and shine the {{policy}} tag on its top, it needs a complete overhaul. You are one of the editors, whose input would be especially valuable to improve this page. Please take a look if, of course, you have time. Thanks, --Irpen 05:07, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is a very nice idea Irpen, but I no longer enter into debates which are likely to be hijacked by members of the Peanut Gallery - life is far too short, Wikipedia is now run, and indeed encouraged to be run, by their cackling chorus, and quite frankly their obsession with civility, and using civility (or rather their misguided view of civility) as a mask to disguise their own real lack of value sickens me. If these debates ever cleared the air and improved things, I would join, but they don't. Thanks for leaving the message. Giano (talk) 07:06, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Palazzo Pitti

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

Do you have a name, or are you asahmed of what you do? Giano (talk) 06:43, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But you "have been notified," now, and that's the only objective. Communication isn't one of the goals, and reasoning with people is absolutely unheard of, unsought, and too dangerous. The implicit goal is a world where FA, FAR, and GA are all, like the assessments, to be done by -bots, without any of that scary intelligence or community involved at all. Dumb people don't like it when they have to admit that they're dumb, and so they put up laws and screens and regulations and forms to excuse their appalling lack of brains, consideration, and skill. Utgard Loki (talk) 12:57, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:Civility

Hi there. I recently quoted you at Wikipedia talk:Civility#Discussion of civility at recent Request for Arbitration. Would you have time to check that I haven't misrepresented what you said? There are several other threads on that talk page that you might be interested in as well, and a proposal to rewrite the policy. For the whole recent story, read downwards from Wikipedia talk:Civility#A Big Question: Does this page make sense?. This will need to be advertised more widely to get more balanced input, but for now I'm notifying those I quoted from the RfArb, and a few other editors who have either written essays on this, or have been active on the talk page recently. Apologies if you had this watchlisted anyway. Carcharoth (talk) 06:13, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Carch, no I don't have it watchlisted for a very good reason. Please see the response to Irpen above - In short, I no longer converse with the Arbcom or their Peanut Gallery. Thanks for trying to help. I appreciate it. Giano (talk) 07:07, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wonderfull

For all its irritations, sometimes WP really comes up with the goods - have you read the particularly fascinating related page Yingzao Fashi - which I got to from Ancient Chinese wooden architecture? Astonishingly the Yingzao Fashi has never been translated into English, so western academic discourse of Chinese architecture has always suffered from a lack of consideration of key texts - imagine trying to understand Classicism without De architectura. --Joopercoopers (talk) 12:05, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Amazing indeed, I always feel I have missed out by not understanding Chinese architecture - there is that amazing castle, whose name esacpes me, in the Crocklestone book - I suppose the "name escapes me" says it all. I hate feeling ignorant. Giano (talk) 21:26, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here it is, we have it, Himeji Castle - I wish I knew enough about it to write it up, but I don't, all a mystery to me. Giano (talk) 22:08, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Couldn't resist

... namedropping. Sorry, I was feeling snarky. [3] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:44, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's horrid isn't it? Giano (talk) 21:23, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have replied to the ridiculous idea here [4] Let us hope that is the end of it - FAs eminating from IRC - what a hoot. Giano (talk) 21:50, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if I'm more furious, disgusted, dejected, discouraged ... or just plain nuts and out of touch because I still can't understand, "what were they thinking"? Must be time for my garden. Of course, it won't be the end of it, and I'll have to adjust the way I process FACs to allow for off-Wiki canvassing and block voting, and I'll have to spend a whole lot more time answering things like "Well, so-and-so told me on IRC that SamSmithSucksSocks.com was a reliable source". SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:52, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sandy, when IRC are writing FAs and they are receiving votes of support (as they surely will), that is the time for Wikipedia to pack up and you and I to go home. The only articles that would pass would be on subjects you and I are too innocent to understand - with grammar to match. Giano (talk) 21:55, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Beg to differ, Giano: that will be the time when those who currently do FA's and FAC will want to shut down the concept and practice of FA. However, they will find that all their ranks have been replaced, neatly and overnight, by the chat-FA people. They might start off with one powerful, everywhere-at-once zealot of the IRC FA, but they will have swung the "consensus." They will then go to demote all the FA's that this group has ever promoted, although that will be a month or two later. How do I know this? Well, as a person who understands and upholds academic integrity and publication-standard work, I have seen it happen once already, as you have. It will be time for bitter justice, except that it isn't justice. It is no justice when each standard gets overwritten with a more bot-owned, instantly-processed, less deliberative standard; it's just dumbing down. To me, there isn't much difference between "object! no footnotes" and an IRC FA. Both are non-deliberative, non-constructive, unintelligent, and mean spirited. Geogre (talk) 10:07, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wish that I had the luxury to only object against a page for lack of footnotes. Its hard to find pages that were well-written enough for that to even become a real consideration. I would definitely trade no footnotes for high quality in everything else. Apparently, every named storm ever will become a featured article, just like every highway ever, and the only people willing to really contribute to pages like Ada Lovelace just want to replace the page with penis. Backwards backwards backwards. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:36, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The good writers quit writing them long ago. Modernist Poetry is at FAR? The Cantos were at FAR? Why? Footnotes. I will never, ever, ever seek or allow sought FA on any article I have written again. I prefer, any day, that an article be ignored by all than that fools try to instruct me about things they do not understand. I will not conform to a form in lieu of content. If parenthetical citations to sources for statements that are controversial are not sufficient, then I will never, ever be part of this wretched excuse for a waste of time again. Academic writing requires citing material that is not common knowledge and any quotations. It is not a bed wetting undergraduate's sweaty palmed footnote festival. Geogre (talk) 18:10, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Winter Palace

Giano—good to see you back in action! The image thing is a simple fix--whenever replacing the old image the new image file has to be the exact same size for the clicky map to still work. I don't have access to a photo editor on the computer I'm at right now, so I can't resize, but it will be a quick fix tomorrow. I will crack my books back open and see if I can help a bit push this across the line. --JayHenry (talk) 04:25, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I am always in action - one way or another! - thanks for the help I appreciate it, the page is looking quite big, so will shortly be drastically pruned, but I keep realising more sections have to be written - but it is looking OK. Giano (talk) 07:01, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the modified version in the clicky template. The only difference is you added rooms 44–48? I'll modify the template to make those rooms clicky too. --JayHenry (talk) 15:50, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much, I do love clicky plans, I could play with them all day. Giano (talk) 16:06, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:StateroomsWP.JPG

Is the current version of Image:StateroomsWP.JPG what you wanted? Pegasus «C¦T» 08:39, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it is - thank you. Giano (talk) 12:30, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Flo

Thank you for your email which I note you have forwarded to Jimbo and NewYorkBrad. Presumably you also forwarded to them our private converstion. I won't post your email or any details of our conversation as that is strictly against the rules. However, I shall reply here because you obviously chose to email me as a Wikipedia Arb rather then a friend with whom one has occasional conversations.

That you think it is even possible that I (who cannot type three words without a spelling mistake or a grammatical mistake, could successfully sock for four years is very amusing. More amusing still (to me anyway) is that you even consider that a user of #admins could possibly write the content which I churn out month after month year after year. I do have one sock who must be know to half of Wikipedia, but sadly that sock is not an admin, although rumour has it she may run for Arbcom - she would probably be bettre at it than many existing Arbs.

I appreciate that it must ve very distressing for you that #admins leaks like a sieve and is far from secure, but as the Arbcom has decided, so many times, it has no jurisdiction there, so it is not really a Wikipedia matter. Sorry I can not be of any further help. Regards. Giano (talk) 17:56, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Giano, No, I did not forward them our private discussion. And I approached you discreetly by email to discuss the situation as I do consider you a friend. Regards, FloNight ♥♥♥ 18:07, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Ms Night, I too wish it to be widely known that I have never used a secret radio transmitter in my life, not even in the darkest days of the war, when so many cruel and unkind things were being said against me. Regarding socks, I did once knit one for the war effort, but it was returned because it was impossible to find a one legged soldier with a foot of those dimensions. On the subject of the forthcoming Arbcom elections, it is indeed true, that I have been implored to ascend the Wikipedian throne, where I shall no doubt be seated in glory with charming, handsome Giano on my right hand and that nice Mr Jimbo (pity about the dress sense) on the left, and the Arbcom such as it is sitting on the steps - However, I have yet to unveil my diary for December - so you must all bate your breath. Catherine de Burgh (Lady) (talk) 19:11, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Lady Catherine, I had no idea you were the famous Lord Haw-Haw! Yet another piece of the puzzle falls into place..! Bishonen | talk 19:17, 26 September 2008 (UTC).[reply]

There is one small thing bothering me here Flo? What on earth has it to with the Arbcom, Jimbo and NewYorkbrad that the sanctity of #admins is breeched, and possibly cast to the four winds. While I know you agree with me that the issue of #admins is problematic, you and your fellow Arbs don't seem to be doing much to address that situation - do you? You, yes you Flo with some cohorts, sanctioned me for incivility while agreeing to address the situation - and in pure Anglo-Saxon have so far, almost a year later, done "fuck all" towards addressing the situation. In fact the Arbcom is now belatedly on record as saying it has no jurisdiction over IRC. So why am I being threatened for allegedly breeching it's high security - it is surely nothing to do with Wikipedia - your Arbcom has said this. Was the conversation I quoted between a checkuser and an Arb sufficiently worrying for you to take such action? I hardly think so. So what was your problem? You infer I should warn them I am there, but would that not spoil the fun? - and as nothing supposedly wrong ever happens there - what is the point? Most of those on #admins (who contribute nothing of worth to the encyclopedia) regard IRC as a game and toy, well so do I now - a very amusing toy, so long as I think, regard and uphold the project, itself, as the important factor, where is the harm? - but where do NewYorkBrad and Jimbo fit into the picture? - or was their inclusion in this just another threat to shut me up? If so, it has failed miserably. Go chat Flo.........Giano (talk) 19:45, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What happened?

Giano, you even deleted my humour comments; always know your audience. GoodDay (talk) 22:58, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was for the best beleive me.........Giano (talk) 22:59, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okie Dokie. Feel free to the delete this discussion aswell. Cheers. GoodDay (talk) 23:02, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shhhhhhhh! I have gone to bed. Giano (talk) 23:03, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Images

Giano, I note that you've been rather irritated by goings on here and at Buckingham Palace, but there is a somewhat related matter with certain common elements that has been ongoing here for quite some time (so long now that I'm becoming embarassed to be a part of it). You might want to take a gander, and perhaps make a comment if you feel brave enough. Cheers. --G2bambino (talk) 23:06, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, the Monarchy of Canada is a subject of which I know nothing. I have no opinions on it at all. Giano (talk) 20:54, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was just about the images. But, no worries. --G2bambino (talk) 02:26, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Per your essay

Quoth Giano "If you don't already know an experienced FA writer, you can always leave a message on my talk page" Quoth WilyD "Perhaps all is not lost?"

I have very little idea where I am going with this. Perhaps writing is just not my strength. But, I guess "How does one make friends?" is the question I pose to you, if you'll deign to answer it. I've been told it's important, but not the mechanics of actually doing it. Cheers, WilyD 16:28, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Somebody please be nice a friendly to Wily D here - Risker where are you? You are very good at this type of thing. Sound just your type of page too. Giano (talk) 16:45, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since Wikipedia is not— in spite of a widespread misapprehension among the jejune— an extension of MySpace, Ling.Nut's suggestion that one "start making friends with some of the better-known copy editors" was intended as a suggestion one make collegial requests from experienced editors for the input of some suggestions and some early editing of one's projects. Most are quite ready to offer editorial help. Do make friends in your real life, if any.--Wetman (talk) 17:06, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your help Giano. Wetman, I rather gathered that, but as the supply of copyeditors is much lower than the demand, how to round them up is less clear. Even the League of Copyeditors is defunct.

As for real life friends, I find it much easier to let the wife manage that, and not be bothered with it. But it wasn't my intention to ask Giano for advice on making real life friends, which I believe he understood. WilyD 17:10, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, good day gentlemen, I heard there was mention of my name over here. WilyD, if you leave me a message on my page with links to the article and any reviews, I will be happy to take a look at it. I'll be honest, I'm a bit swamped in RL, but I will see what can be done. Giano, thanks for the compliment. ;-) Risker (talk) 17:15, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Boldly writing bold essay in bold name space with bold opinion per WP:BOLD

A new essay. I call it wp:no-no, and I invented it after seeing one too many "must change all the images per MoS#section and Twoguysagreeing," etc. Utgard Loki (talk) 18:46, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ping

[5] --Tznkai (talk) 20:19, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As a matter of clarification concerning your comment on SirFozzie's page: its comments like "dubious and treacherous services." and "never read such bolox in all my life" (bollocks perhaps?) that I feel are over the top. If you want to criticize Fozzie as some sort of crypto-Arbcom cheerleader, there are plenty of ways you can make that case with more restrained language. --Tznkai (talk) 20:29, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Has your opinion been invited? Tznkai? I don't believe I have heard of you before. In a world the size of Wikipedia, that in itself speaks volumes. Giano (talk) 20:36, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He is a former Arbcom clerk (probably did other stuff as well), who recently returned after a long break (well over a year). I hadn't heard of him before either, but he is not someone new. And judging people on whether you've heard of them is a bit risky. You run the risk of restricting yourself to a cabal of "current" people. Oh, and no comment on the dispute that led to this. Carcharoth (talk) 21:08, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing wrong with my memory, it is razor sharp - so long as someone makes an impression on it, I still remember Filiocht as though it were only yesterday, that he made a run for it. Giano (talk) 22:12, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That reminds me, I saw a comment by Filiocht (the real person, not the WP editor) on a news article comment section somewhere. Bit pointless as I can't remember the article. Hmph. Memory, eh? Carcharoth (talk) 22:17, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My involvement is an administrator/wikipedian and the issue is your incivility against SirFozzie. I pointed out two lines in particular that were the trouble. You can stand by every word if you wish, but you will have to do it elsewhere. Civility is a requirement on Wikipedia.--Tznkai (talk) 22:29, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you take your civility and discuss it somewhere else. I am not interested in it. Giano (talk) 22:55, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the advice

In the tradition of your chilly and snowy palace, I've begun a small group project about vegetable and fishmongers. rootology (C)(T) 22:53, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll keep my eye on it. Giano (talk) 22:54, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Block 10/2

You have been blocked for a period of 12 hours for incivility on User talk:SirFozzie. Unblock will be granted upon commitment to refactor and or remove offending comments/phrases. To contest this block, please reply here on your talk page by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} along with the reason you believe the block is unjustified, or email the blocking administrator. For alternative methods to appeal, see Wikipedia:Appealing a block.

--Tznkai (talk) 22:59, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh please. I note the additional comment in the block log: "Will unblock upon user's commitement to refactor/remove offending statements". I am sorry but User talk:SirFozzie#Your Arbcom Manifesto contains no comment so terrible that a user must be blocked should they refuse to remove it. It is this use of blocks to stifle criticism that troubles me most about "civility blocks". Giano's comments to SirFozzie are harshly worded but it is content (not the contributor) that is described as "bolox" and Giano makes it clear why he believes the content to be inaccurate. I find it particularly worrying when we are talking about a statement of candidature for approaching ArbCom elections - are we really saying that if someone feels such a statement is misleading, they cannot call it rubbish due to our civility policies? Oh, what an interesting election that would prove to be... WJBscribe (talk) 23:08, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I think you just proved that such criticism can be done civilly. --Tznkai (talk) 23:11, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, he proved that critizing a bad block can be done civilly. ++Lar: t/c 23:40, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On ANI here. Not a good block. rootology (C)(T) 23:09, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you unblocking Moreschi. What Tznkai failed to mention was that he also blocked me from editing this page - obviously I sign of the freedom of speech we shall have to endure if such people are elected. Giano (talk) 23:25, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It blocked you editing this page? rootology (C)(T) 23:28, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, indeed he did. Giano (talk) 23:30, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I asked in that ANI thread. I got no idea how that happened, I can't see any record of it? rootology (C)(T) 23:34, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure you couldn't edit your talkpage? There is a new feature that allows admins to block users editing their talkpages (which seems a little unwise as this is the most common source of appeals) but it doesn't seem that Tznkai used it here. Compare Tsnkai's block to this test one. If there's a bug with this new feature, the devs need to be informed promptly. WJBscribe (talk) 23:34, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have been here long enoughm and been blocked enough to know if I can or cannot edit my own talk page. I am told Tznkai is experienced. So I draw my own conclusions. Or is wikipedia now to be like my bank and blame all errors on software problems? Giano (talk) 23:37, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I prefer not to assume malice where it is not necessary. This *is* a new feature and the log does suggest that Tznkai didn't mean to stop you editing your talkpage, so actually I think this is a problem with the software, yes (and I realise this must sound pretty implausible to you). WJBscribe (talk) 23:39, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Very implausible! and as I said to the bank only yesterday, if people can't work the software they should not be allowed anywhere near it. Giano (talk) 23:40, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is potentially the case that no admin on this project can work the software at the moment. None of us can now be sure if we block someone whether or not they will be able to edit their talkpage... WJBscribe (talk) 23:42, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe try to block an account with matching settings as Tznkai appeared to do to Giano (based on the logging), with their talk page on the same protection level, and see what happens? Then try again with the no talk page editing bit set "on", but otherwise the same? It either was set by Tznkai and didn't log, or kicked in by accident and didn't log. You can do me for testing if you want (just note it as a software test :P) rootology (C)(T) 23:42, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We can coordinate on the dread IRC if I can't edit my talk after. rootology (C)(T) 23:43, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I found the root of the bug - turns out if the autoblock is enabled, it inhibits affected users from editing their talk pages regardless of the original block's settings. (I'm not sure why an admin would turn the autoblock on for an established contributor whose chances of abusive sockpuppetry are nil... but it looks like the block was pretty bad in the first place.) krimpet✽ 07:42, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Giano, about Sir Fozzies's arbcom candidacy...Sir Fozzie was one of the main ones to take the initiative and try to get the Mantamoreland/Gary Weiss fiasco settled once and for all, in which he was largely successful. That may not seem like much, but remember what has happened to other editors who tried to do something about that situation. If you elect to run again, Giano, you'll probably also have my vote, for what it's worth. Cla68 (talk) 00:06, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Giano, I wanted to tell you that you always deserve to be blocked and equally never deserve to be blocked. Its one of those strange Wikipedia things. I wish someone would limit themselves to 12 hours when blocking me. :) Email me if you want to chat. Also, the same glitch hit the Wikiversity servers. Its strange. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:48, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ottava Rima, please be sure to report the problem, as it appears to be more widespread than might have met the eye. Your comment is the third I have heard in just these few hours. Risker (talk) 01:53, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've started a thread on this (not the first one, I know) on ANI. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:56, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think we were the first to report it. That was a few days ago. I can double check. Risker, do you know how to get to the Wikiversity IRC? Ottava Rima (talk) 01:57, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you all, but I have better things to employ my time on Wikipedia than discussing Fozzy's puzzling decision to run for the Arbcom on an "Anti-present-Arbcom" ticket. Nor do I have time to discuss the little Admins who not only have no clue concerning the current state of Wikipedia's politics or even any clue how to use the magic buttons they were so wrongly and inappropriately given by people who should know better. All of this merely confirms what I am always telling you all, but does anyone listen............Giano (talk) 07:17, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bruce Castle

As the only person I'm aware of here who's actually knowledgeable about Elizabethan architecture, could I ask for any comments regarding Bruce Castle? I've expanded this one significantly; however, because it seems to be to be a distinctly uninteresting building architecturally (and no sources seem to actually exist for its construction), I've deliberately skimmed over the architectural side to focus on the "notable residents" aspect. Do you think I've taken it too far to the opposite extreme, in leaving out the architectural "history" to this extent? (The large numbers of redlinks aren't an issue; as they're almost all Lords-and-Ladies, they're all valid links which will be created when Kittybrewster or BrownHairedGirl get round to them).

Many thanks in advance (looking at the above, looks like you've other things on your plate right now)… – iridescent 00:14, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Best I can do off the top of my head [6] not a lot one can say with no supporting references, but there is nothing contraversial there, that can be debated or a cite demanded. Remove what you don't like or want. I suggest you try to get hold of the Pevsner for that area of London. He is bound to have something to say, I don't always agree with him, but he was a nice old boy and at least got himself published a criteria which seems to satisfy the more zelous Wikipedians. Giano (talk) 07:09, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I know Bruce Castle well, was there last week visiting the archives. The recent much expanded editions of Pevsner by Bridget Cherry do have something about Bruce Castle which is worth looking up. I would say that the article might benefit by adding information about the 19th century extension built for Rowland Hill's school, and about the unsympathetic 20th century extension in front of it. From memory it is Grade I listed, the only building in Tottenham with this grade. Also, aren't there some gravestones in that strange yard that has all the old post office letterboxes in it? Sam Blacketer (talk) 11:01, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for your expansion. I will try to dig out Pevsner.

I have a photo of the grim extension, but I was trying to avoid adding it as it's so damn ugly. As that section is faitly text-heavy (despite my adding that excerpt of ~~godawful doggerel~~ classic literature to break the flood of wordiness), I'll add it in.

The stones in the strange yard with the postboxes aren't gravestones, they're the dedication plaques for assorted hospitals, almshouses etc in the area destroyed by bombing. (I have photos of them – and the postboxes – as well, plus a lot of views of the interior and of architectural detail; I dislike galleries, but I may add one).

Irritatingly, I know that a high quality oil-painting of the house in 1686, prior to reconstruction, exists – it hangs in the main reception hall – but an annoying man shooed me away when I tried to photograph it, and I can't find a reproduction anywhere. – iridescent 15:22, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That ANI thread

Yes, I archived it, for two reasons - one, because it had been agreed that the block was wrong and it had already been reversed; and two, because the thread was wandering off into an argument about a different editor's edits completely. I can completely understand why you are annoyed about it - it was a poor block - but you know as well as I that the next correct venue is RFC, not clogging up the incidents board. Cheers, Black Kite 18:27, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]