I enjoyed your Basildon Park page so much that I felt it would be worth a visit this summer. To assist any others who feel the same, here are the coordinates 51°29′57″N1°7′18″W / 51.49917°N 1.12167°W / 51.49917; -1.12167. Zooming in to 'street view' using Google Maps eventually presents the viewer with a pleasant photo gallery. I have no idea whether you feel strongly about the inclusion of coordinates in your articles, but they are there for your use, if you so wish. --RexxS (talk) 09:24, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You cannot enjoy it! I have barely started it - there's nothing on the page to speak of yet. It is worth a visit though - one of the best I have seen - perfect and genuine Palladianism totally unspoilt, inspite of the contents even the doors and dado rails all being collected from other houses being demolished in the 50s and 60s - really fascinating, not often have I been so enthuesed over a page. Thanks for the co-ords I wil add them later. By the way, no need to call me "Excellency" - Sir will do for infomal occasions. Giacomo 09:55, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But Excellency, "Sir" is an informal address for mere Monarchy, none of whom seem to have contributed anything worthwhile for decades! Surely you deserve better. --RexxS (talk) 10:18, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for the barnstar you've given to me! For quite some time already I have been a great admire of your work. You probably do not remember, but one time I even dared to make a small change in one of the articles you wrote, and you left this message at my talk page. That message made me very happy! But of course I could have never dreamed that one day you will give me a barnstar :)
About Sandstein. I saw you thanked them for the images. Too bad they did not understand what axe you are talking about :) . I would have liked to be able to thank them too, it is what I would have done, for any other editor, who took images for the article I started, but I was told more than once to stay off their talk page. If you are to give the editor barnstar or something like this, and you feel comfortable to say that Mbz1 is also thankful for nice images that came just in time for DYK, it will be great.
Best wishes, and thank you very much for allowing me to see you at work!--Mbz1 (talk) 20:26, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, you just keep finding and writing up the buildings that no one has heard of - even the seemingly ugliest building has a story to tell - and unlike BLPs and Michael Winner not even the ones still standing will complain and be a problem; so it's a quiet corner of Wikipedia, especially if the building is relatively unknown. I am currently looking at the White House (have you ever seen so many photos of the same thing and view on one page) so life may get interesting quite soon, but you stick with the little houses and you will always be safe and happy. Giacomo 21:49, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have just been looking at this: Largest Historic Homes in the United States. Of all the "homes" (God, I hate that word) linking from it - only the White House can be described as a proper page - these really are buildings that need a better write up. Giacomo 22:30, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Giacomo, I was looking hard to find an old building that might be of interest to you, and I believe I found one. The sources are all in German, but there are lots of images there, and some plans that I do not understand of course. I would not revile what I am talking about, let's call it a mystery castle for now. If you are to write the article, it will be time consuming I'd say. My involvement will be minimal. I will start the article, and provide you with the sources I have found. Of course it is not an urgent work. I know you are busy with other things. So, what say you? Best wishes.--Mbz1 (talk) 18:22, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A mystery castle - well that is intriging, but, you know, there is nothing to stop you writing it - nothing at all! I will happily look in and check the English (don't all laugh at once), put things into architectural language and explain what is architecturaly going on. At the moment I am working on a page that I really want to finish - I also need to get my "Exploding houses" page finished in the near future and also my "explanation of common architecture" page too, as they are both fundamental to the way my future Wiki work is going to be going - so I am prety tied up with those and real life too. However, you get it started and let's have a look, but you will be the principal editor. Giacomo 21:36, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
On June 25, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Herrengasse 23 (Bern), which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
Hey G, I am beginning work on an article on the diplomatic missions of the Russian Empire at User:Russavia/RusEmp. London was one of the few places where the Empire had an actual embassy (most of its missions were either missions or consulates). The Empire itself has had representatives in London dating back to 1706 (refer to http://www.rusemb.org.uk/ambassadors/). Not all of these ambassadors were housed in a permanent embassy as such. Do you know of any sites or databases that I could refer to which would give details on the buildings which the Russian Empire had used as embassy chancelleries? I believe the current embassy in Kensington Palace Gardens were obtained by the Soviet Union; so the Empire would have used other buildings in London, and it is details of those, and perhaps also photographs, that I am trying to identify and track down. Any info you may be able to find would be great. Cheers, --RussaviaI'm chanting as we speak 16:04, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The last Tsarist Ambassador to Britain was Alexander Konstantinovich Benckendorff. I have a foto somewhhere of him (it may be de Staal) with Edward VII and a handful of Rothschilds, I'll look it out. The Imperial Russian embassy in London was Chesham House, Chesham Place, London. there's a little about it here. It seemt the Bolsheviks retained it for a while. There's more here "On the south side Nos. 29-37 were built by Cubitt in the 1840s. Nos. 30-31 were knocked together by Cubitt in 1852 and given a separate entrance at the back, to form a single residence for the Russian Ambassador of the time. (The Ambassador threw a party for the 200 workmen who had been working on the project.". I think it is still there, but converted to appartments. Giacomo 21:23, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that info G, it's a good starting point for me. Having a look at the area now, you are right, they are apartments, and they are pretty pricy apartments at that. All owned no less than by Duke of Westminster, apparently! If you do find that photo, in due course, could you let me know. Cheers, --RussaviaI'm chanting as we speak 09:56, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have started the article, and planning to add something more to it, but it really needs a touch (read most of the work) of the Master. Of course the master should have fun while working on the article. So, here's the deal. I will point you out to two sources in German I have found about the place. They have some historic images. If it might be of any interest for you to work on the section about the castle and the garden, it will be great. If there's no interest for you to do it, it is perfectly alright. I will write something myself, and put it to the main space. Somebody will fix it later on. So here are my sources, but please once again, agree on working on the article only, if you believe you will have some fun. Best wishes. [1] and [2]--Mbz1 (talk) 02:21, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It looks very interesting, but at the moment I realy want to get a page I am working on into mainspace, especially as others have gone to a great deal of trouble taking fotos of one of the missing rooms now in America - so that has to be my priority. I will have a quick copt-edit ect. Giacomo 07:40, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's OK, please do not worry about copy-edit. You are too good of the writer to spend your time copy-editing my English, and I mean it. Best wishes.--Mbz1 (talk) 11:22, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Brilliant user page mate!!! -- roleplayer 18:54, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, much as I would like to accept your kind award - I cannot. I had a designer in to do the job! Giacomo 19:46, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't create the template for mine either, but I still took the credit when someone awarded me for it! I get so few awards... *sob* -- roleplayer 20:52, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But.. but... Excellency! – You giving the award to Jack would be like Vanbrugh crediting the brickies for Blenheim. --RexxS (talk) 00:10, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
On July 7, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Schloss Reichenbach, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
I don't think that I should have this. I only did a couple of copy-edits. It is the work of User:Mbz1. A user who, in my opinion, should have a special award from J Wales for the uniquely high quality images he has donated to Wikipedia. Giacomo 17:54, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I will, that shold not be to arduous to tanslate and hopefully expand a little, however, I am going to finish this before I get sidetracked again. I am trying to finish what I start these days, I was sidetracked by Hughenden Manor last week, so need to return to Berkshire this week!Before jetting off. Giacomo 07:28, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fair use rationale for File:Brympton lake.gif[edit]
Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Brympton lake.gif. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.
If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:35, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Brympton lake.gif, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. ╟─TreasuryTag►hemicycle─╢ 20:40, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Aha Treasury Tag, orgasmic in your delight no doubt so orgasmic you are oblivious to the post above. Please feel free to delete if you feel it will improve the encyclopedia! 22:20, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
Well, Excellency, I would be disappointed to lose the image, as it still gives the clearest view of the detail of the South Front. As a small compensation, I found a modern photo of the South Front here. I've added it as an external link to the article, but as you can see, the modern penchant for foliage everywhere obscures the present aspect. --RexxS (talk) 22:47, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That is a beautiful image, but architetcuraly, as you say; it's not worth much. I am not going to enter into a game of silly buggers with Treasury Tag and his trolling - no doubt Batman will arrive on the scene any moment to support his views - so let them get on with their "improvements" to the encyclopedia. RL is pretty dire at the moment, so I'm not here much anyway - in the great scheme of things Wikipedia is all pretty trivial - "here today and (it seems) very much gone tomorrow." That house has stood for 400 years, I'm sure it will survive a kicking from Boy Wonder. Nice support though Rex and all you say is completely true! :-) Giacomo 23:07, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What, nominating an image for a community-led deletion discussion is trolling now? ╟─TreasuryTag►constabulary─╢ 23:08, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Running to dispute every comment certainly seems somewhat WP:POINTy and this comment is deliberately obtuse, so trolling? Some people could interpret such actions that way. Nev1 (talk) 23:10, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You clearly have no idea what trolling actually is. Since the false accusation stems from ignorance rather than malice, therefore, I can't be bothered to take it further. ╟─TreasuryTag►constabulary─╢ 08:07, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry to hear about RL and sympathise; it's not been too kind to me of late. If there's ever anything I can do – even just offering a sympathetic ear – you're always welcome. I have email enabled. Regards --RexxS (talk) 23:59, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've voted per policy, and I'd do it again if I see another one while I monitor your page for the lies and other bullshit you like to maliciously propogate about me to your kool-aid drinking disciples. That's just how your name calling inspires me to improve the pedia Giano, I'm not about to feel bad about it just because you feel like slipping into victim mode every now and then. MickMacNee (talk) 13:59, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Is "kool-aid" anything like Band aid? I'm not sure I'd want to be drinking it, whatever you meant, although I guess it was probably just intended as a gratuitous insult. You have to admit that there was no lie involved in His Excellency's prediction that you'd be along to the deletion debate, right? Anyway, to be accurate, NFCC#1 is policy, while the interpretations of it at WP:NFC#UULP is a guideline; so you have to engage your brain to discern whether the latter provisions should actually apply in a given case. I still don't think the image is replaceable, particularly since a new photograph will not reveal the architectural detail in the way the 1976 image does, but I don't expect you to appreciate such a subtle point. --RexxS (talk) 14:38, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Of course you don't expect me to, that's your role as a devotee. You don't actually have the first idea what my knowledge or experience of NFCC is, just like Giano has no clue what my relationship with TT is, but it's stops neither of you acting out like this. Still, if you genuinely think you've come up with a novel argument re. this image and NFCC, then you go right ahead and try and argue it, but that's a debate for the Ifd page, not the holy temple. This page is strictly for name calling and jolly laxity only. MickMacNee (talk) 15:37, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'll take devotee as a compliment, as in "an enthusiastic follower or fan". So thank you. You're absolutely right I have no idea about your knowledge of NFCC, but I assume you'll grant me the same courtesy. If it's any help, I actually think "fair use" is a flawed concept – it doesn't exist where I live – but Wikipedia would be so much the worse were it not applicable. I have already made my arguments at IfD, so I won't be so tiresome as to continually repeat them ad nauseam there – a practice I can recommend to other participants – but thank you anyway for the suggestion. I do like your idea of keeping this page for those lighter moments that so enhance our experience of Wikipedia. Would it be ok if I redirected WP:Jolly laxity here, or do you think should it really should be pointed at User talk:Bishonen? --RexxS (talk) 16:31, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. I'm currently going through poorly-named images and this one came up in my travails. If you can identify it, please help to do so. If free, as claimed, it should be on Commons. Same applies to File:DSCN1016.JPG. Regards. Rodhullandemu 01:28, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Funny how my images seem to be under scrutiny all of a sudden. Yes it is free, I took it myself (as claimed) I could identify it, but will not so so until I write the page about it. In the meantime you can write "18th century mansion built of Bath stone, with Italianate alterations." It's rather a nice house isn't it? Giacomo 11:33, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually you could have a competition to identify it to encourage an interest in architecture - I'll award a Emu barn star to who ever gets it right first. If not call it "Baths stone mansion" Giacomo 11:40, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm, it reminds me of Wilton House, which you wrote six years ago. Your pictures seem to show the southern and western aspects of a less grand residence, but I'm struck by the similarity. Knowing that the aristocracy tended to have other residences in the vicinity, I'm wondering if there's any connection with the Earl of Pembroke in your pictures? --RexxS (talk) 14:06, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nope!
Giacomo, it may in fact please you to learn that there is no specific scrutiny of your images by Rodhullandemu: a quick check of his recent activity shows that he has been routinely renaming files to have useful names since at least the end of June; I didn't bother going back before that. I'll make an ignorant stab at guessing the house too. It reminds me slightly of Plas Newydd, so I'll hazard a guess that James Wyatt is involved. Am I warm? BencherliteTalk 14:18, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Very good Bencherlite. You are very warm. Giacomo 19:25, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'll make an ignorant stab that it's a rear view of Dyrham Park. – iridescent 16:00, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Much later: Those floating pediments above the windows should provide a clue. Giano was there in a mid-October, it would seem.--Wetman (talk) 16:09, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The second shot triggered it. It's the Sims house I built where everyone hooked up and cheated on each other, trapping that one guy in the wall 'til he died. No doubt still haunted. Had great window treatments. --Moni3 (talk) 19:08, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yoy are not going to get an Emu Star with guesses like that. Giacomo 19:25, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You will have to be a little more precise LHVU, these awards are not just given away; it is very cool though isn't it? Giacomo 22:25, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A pun, G, upon the Latin motto at the bottom right of the image... However, placing one's superior wallpaper on the outside of a building is always cool! LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:42, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Seems to have been the motto of Joseph Bonaparte, so I'm pursuing his connection with Florence – but that's huge. Will report on results in several weeks at this rate. --RexxS (talk) 01:47, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That is it, I should think. G will confirm and present, I suppose. LessHeard vanU (talk) 10:58, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
[Gag]... Oh noes ... please don't tell me the unfortunate Sluzzelin will be expected to keep the hairy freak on his page? Bishonen | talk 11:32, 25 July 2010 (UTC).[reply]
It is indeed, the Galleria Sciarra, one of several images for a new page. Sluzzelin will now be presented with the magnificent, sought after trophy. Congratulations. Giacomo 12:56, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh well. At least I nailed the date.--Wetman (talk) 17:16, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You did indeed Wetman, and I can understand your dissapointement at not being awarded the prestigious trophy. I have about 6 more fotos of the Galleria to upload, and unless sombody else wants to, will create a stub in the near future, but I've no real time to concentrate on proper writing anything at present. Giacomo 06:41, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I was far more impressed by Wetman's educated guesswork than by my brute-force googling (just like I'm more often impressed by Wetman's educated guesswork at the Humanities desk than by my brute-force googling there). I just really wanted that Emu, but now that I have it, I won't be posting the fruits of my googling for these contests anymore (I'll still participate silently, for my own enjoyment though). ---Sluzzelintalk 17:39, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Don't undercut yourself Sluzzelin: brilliance in googling doesn't just happen: serendipity strikes only the prepared. My own guesswork would be more educated if I'd ever concentrated on shopping in Rome: so many distractions.--Wetman (talk) 18:36, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I sometimes feel that Wetman would be capable of greater architectural observations, had be to spend hours outside the great couture houses of Europe, holding Mrs G's pooch - a pooch which like myself suddenly feels an overwhelming queasiness in its stomach the second Mrs G hits the revolving doors. Hence, we both wait nervously outside in the rain. Giacomo 18:47, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
...or might learn to identify the makes and years of passing automobiles! Ah tropical fish! you never have to take them out in the rain. Btw, does Jacopo Strada interest you?--Wetman (talk) 23:48, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ultimately, to me, the sight of Mrs G in high heels and fur will always be better than an Angelfish, but there are certain cars, that could sway my loyalty - quite a few in fact. Mr Strada does interest me, but I am doing nothing, untill I have time to finish the Basildon Park page - I have started and never finished too many pages already. Giacomo 20:16, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Usually I rely on the camera metadata but in this case I did not know you. (I made that statement just to protect myself--it was not until I saw the number of photos which you took and uploaded on wikipedia that I saw you can certainly be trusted!) Please accept my apology. I too had a problem with one of my older (an outdated Fuji model) cameras giving a date in January 2006 for a photo I took here in April 2010. In this case, I just made a short statement in its image talk page on WikiCommons here: [3] That is why I usually use my newer Canon camera which has both superior resolution and the correct metadata as in this photo. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 23:21, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not to worry. It is important to remember we are masters of the gadget not the reverse. Giacomo 16:58, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A little obvious, you think? ;-) [4] -- ChrisO (talk) 19:48, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The page is a badly written, snobby and name-dropping disgrace. I can stand to watch it no longer. Giacomo 19:53, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The more the merrier. You're doing good work so far - please feel free to muck in. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:55, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No I have seen enough, ghastly page. I just felt qualifying Roman Catholic with "Christian" was too much [5]; it does seem to be written for the ignorant. And as for his sister being a friend of the late Princess of Wales - words fail me - so what? I believe his grandmother was a friend of Wikipedia's very own Late Lady Catherine, perhaps that important and very relevant fact should be mentioned also. When the fuss has died down, it needs a complete rewrite by someone capable of stringing two logical words together. Giacomo 20:08, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree entirely. Regrettably it's not possible at the moment due to a disruptive editor's complaints getting the article locked, but I do hope that you might be willing to contribute to an overhaul of it when it's unprotected again. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:22, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have mixed feelings about such pages. Is the man really notable? I suppose he is, he has a recognized political party, but these "Little Englanders" will all be forgoten in 50 years time. In the great scheme of things are they worth the effort? Dunno. Giacomo 20:31, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Have you any idea what publication your image of the palace originally came from? I am looking for an early illustration of it. Thanks Wilus (talk) 15:02, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just a stab in the dark, but you modified [:File:HamptonCourtKipKnyff1708.jpg|this] image for your key, and that looks like the only "illustration" likely to fit the bill. Risker (talk) 23:40, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently Jan Kip and Leonard Knyff, Britannia Illustrata: Or Views of Several of the Queens Palaces, as Also of the Principal seats of the Nobility and Gentry of Great Britain, Curiously Engraven on 80 Copper Plates, London (1707, published in the winter of 1708 – 09).--Wetman (talk) 23:56, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Tudorbethan architecture[edit]
A very separate "issue"- question, if you have thoughts, is that Category:Neoclassical architecture and Category:Classical Revival architecture overlap-coexist, and seem to duplicate. I'm ignorant on the difference, is it U.K. vs. U.S. term usage, a real distinction, a merge opportunity, or too silly to think about ?
Thanks for your attention to design clarity, cheers---Look2See1t a l k → 00:25, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding Palladianism: Palladian architecture is only loosly based on the concept of Palladio, Palladio himself did not invent Palladian architecture, so it is not a revival style, but of form of architecture popular from between roughly 1645 to 1760. It's popuarity was interurted by Baroque and Rococcco, but it ever really went away, untill from about 1760 it was slowly superseeded by Neoclassical architecture. I have never heard of classical revival architetcure Neoclassical architeture is the definitive term for the style populat from about 1760 to 1825. The terms are nothing to do with USA v Europe, they are the same in both places. Category: Palladian Revival architecture needs to be moved to Category: Palladian architecture - I will propose it on the cat's talk page - as for Category:Classical Revival architecture, I'll take a look at that later and see exactly what it is suppoed to be. Thank you Wetman for pointing out the damm; that is indeed a "classic." Giacomo 14:41, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have just looked at Category:Classical Revival architecture and the entirely USA pages its contains, and having seen this, this, and finally this, I really do not have the lust to take it on, the category needs deleteing and almost everything in it - demolishing - and as for this well let's just hope the style stays confined to the USA! Quite frankly, the category is full of misattributed buildings, many of so little worth they should not be in Wikipedia anyway. It seems the term is meant to be all encomapssing of every style since the Ancient Greeks with the exception of Gothic. I don't realy see the point of it; it's meaningless and tells one nothing. It's not the same as Neoclassical at all. Giacomo 16:07, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I love it! (But you'd missed the bathroom fittings, tsk tsk. I have added them.) I've merely started a "light copyedit". Bishonen | talk 17:30, 25 August 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Thank you. Funily enough, the house has a stupendous 1930s art deco bathroom on display - truly, perhaps you would like to write it up - even the loo is disguised as an armchair - which I think is very cool! Giacomo 17:41, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How are you this fine September day? I hope you are keeping well. Stifle (talk) 11:45, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am fine and why do you want to know? ----
And I would be better still is this bloody stupid Blackberry thoing let me sign my name
Giano, to get to the "~" key that is used to sign your name, press the "sym" button (right next to the space bar) and the "~" is right above the T. At least that's how you find it on my American Blackberry, it might be different on yours. Tex (talk) 17:16, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, thank you, I'm home now. There is a sort of "longways on" thing above the T, I wondered what the "sym" button was for. I shall try it out tomorrow; I much preferred my old phone, I could use that without all this funny business. I remember a happier day when one just picked up the phone made a simple phone call and that was that. This thing wants to know if I am calling someone's office, mobile or home before it finally condescends to connect me - it should mind it's own business and remember it's a phone and who is paying for it. I suppose it's nice to know that I can edit Wikipedia even when on the motorway - I wonder if checkusers can detect who it is? - they need something to do other than peek and pry about. Now that could be very funny - I must expirement and see. Giacomo 19:49, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You're one of the encyclopedia-builders I respect most and I was merely interested as to your welfare. Stifle (talk) 20:59, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's very reassuring Stifle. Giacomo 21:19, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How terrific to be joining you all. I hope we don't get another storm and that Lady C. has that piano bolted down tight. Poor Bishonen! And doing so well with the Chopin, too! What a deathless moment when they all went through that window. Good thing the lid was up, eh. I must say Bishonen is a genuine trooper: where did they find that ukelele? And we said that an encore couldn't top the act! --Wetman (talk) 00:40, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's true Mrs Bishonen does need to practice her Chopin - her fingering is not all it could be, but have no fear dear Mr Wetman, you and I will soon be entertaining our friends, you seated at the (bolted down) Steinwey in your white nautical dinner-jacket, cigarette holder in hand; me standing alongside, in my black satin, and pearl choker as we play and sing a selection of Ivor Novello's little ditties. Lady Catherine de Burgh (the Late) (talk) 08:11, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And, no têtes de fantaisie, Lady Catherine?
May I explain to the rest of you. You see, friends, on last year's cruise Someone Nameless retrieved Giano's dinner card from the threshhold of his stateroom door, and, using purloined green ink, and more than passably imitating Her Ladyship's beautifully controlled hand, added, to the card's lower right corner: Têtes de fantaisie
After luncheon, Giano completely disappeared and was not seen or heard from all day. As eight o'clock rang and the company sat to table, Giano made his glittering entrance, bowing his head to get in the door. He was wearing an enormous papier-mâché sultan's turban, tinted with watercolour and hung about with cut-glass drops improvised from the chandelier in Giano's stateroom.
There was a moment of silence, broken by Her Ladyship's somewhat chilly "And what is the meaning of this, Giano?"
Giano never lost his poise for a moment, and carried through dinner with great aplomb, I must say. Later, the cut-glass pendants were returned to the chandelier. As in a game of Murder, some likely suspects aboard Scrotum were eliminated afterwards, by deduction, but the Culprit was not found.--Wetman (talk) 10:02, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ah that beloved youth, Giano, I keep his foto on the piano always, to remind myself of that happy occasion - what a master of disguise he is. Was ever an aunt so blessed? Lady Catherine de Burgh (the Late) (talk) 11:41, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You were right, it is a certain anticlimax. All I've done is revert ignorance and unhelpful prose.--Scott Mac 08:26, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yerse, there is a very good reason why I no longer do FAs; after the first dozen-or-so times even the main-page-rewarding invitation to tea with Jimbo loses its novelty. With so many experts on her, one wonders why the unfortunate woman languished unwritten and unloved for so many years. Giacomo 18:20, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's the idiots who think improving an article equals 1) translating it into American or 2)enforcing NPOV by making sure it is fair to modern day Jacobites. 3) Turning good prose to simple boring English for those with a reading age of four. It just makes you want to scream "I've worked on this for three years whereas you've not even once read it properly, so please f*** off". However, I'm sure such sentiment is anti-wikipedian.+--Scott Mac 19:36, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh I say it to people all the time, don't worry anout it. It rather all comes back to Randy in Boise and the Peloponnesian War. One just has to learn what to ignore and for how long to ignore it before one erupts. For weeks, I have been dropping heavy hints while seemingly studiously ignoring someone assembling galleries of monumantal proportions, tilting the balance on architectural pages, little knowing that's what categories and blue links are for - sooner or later I shall have to put a stop to it - and then everyone will say how mean I am, but c'est la vie and so on. I spent a happy morning earlier this year, in Rome, traipsing around the Stuart palazzi and their nearby churches - I recomend you do the same and then hike off to St Peters to see the memorials - it's very therapeutic and puts things very much into perspective - some of us know and breath the subjects others alas, merely read abreviated biographies and a few websites and feel they know the lot. Giacomo 21:48, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The difference between what's good and what isn't sometimes has very little to do with what the FA/GA reviewers think. I've had a failed GAN and I've refused to make changes demanded at FAC; we each have to do whatever we feel is in the article's best interests, no matter the consequences. I think it's sometimes called integrity. MalleusFatuorum 23:14, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
True, but once a page is written and one has left it alone for a few weeks, one has to accept certain edits by others, even if one feels they are not always in the articles best interest, otherwise the peanuts all arrive on the talk page or ANI screaming "ownership." The dilemma is knowing where to draw the line between the well meaning, but fairly harmless dumbing down of an article and screwing that article's perspective to such an extent that the page loses its integrity. I don't think its so much one's own integrity, but knowing where to draw a line in the sand. Giacomo 07:20, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have nominated Simon Byrne for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. -- Cirt (talk) 02:37, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Cirt you are a troll, go away. Giacomo 07:12, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I seem to have locked horns with one of your many fans over this article. Why do I do it? MalleusFatuorum 21:59, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Very good question. If you imagine that the sewage pit that is Cirt's FAR/C page is a good place to improve the encyclopedia, then you are very sadly mstaken. It's a place to avoid like the plague. If a page is unfortunate enough to be nominated by him there, then I really beleive for the harmony of the project it's best to let that page sink anonymously into the mire and let him and his friends swim about in the filth alone and unaided. I'm not trivialising the hard work you have done there, but it's not a place for serious productive editors. You don't belong there. Giacomo 09:19, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your response. Sorry about my failure to sign my post. I had in fact discovered how to do it, but forgot.
I'll check carefully on any restrictions on 'own research', but I'm assuming that, once something has been published by a regular royalty-paying publisher, and has been reviewed in national papers and so on, the research will be seen as validated. I will, of course, give references wherever I feel they are necessary.
You go right ahead; I'm sure the "own research" wil be fine; once published, as far as Wikipedia is concerned, it becomes the "word of God." Giacomo 16:26, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The rewrite is now done.
I've had no option but to reference my own work on occasion. But as you say, this should be acceptable in a published work (neither vanity-published nor self-published). At least my attempt to link to my own online account of the big fight failed, since Wikipedia (rightly, in my opinion) won't accept Suite101. I've used Frank Keating's Guardian article instead.
Hi GiacomoReturned, I was interested in your comment that Unity Mitford was categorically not a cousin of Churchill. In this text she writes a letter to Churchill addressed "Dear Cousin" (ref 107). I'd guess this is where the term 'cousin' in this connection has sprung from. I imagine she means 'cousin' in the old sense - of a distant relative of equal-ish age. There is still a family connection here, they wrote to each other; do you still not think it's worth mentioning, qualifying what the term meant. It goes to underline how high powered and connected the Mitford family was and why Unity was not arrested on re-entering Britain. Best wishes Span (talk) 21:21, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid writing to someone does not make them a relation. Unity Mitford was vaguely related to Churchill's wife Clementine, but I have a feeling that was through bastardcy - I'm sure it's easily checkable. She was most certainly not Churchill's cousin - his mother was an American Jerome and his father's brother was the Duke Of Marlborough. I expect if you go back far enough, we are all "cousins." Giacomo 21:35, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This appears to be the anser:Lord Reddesdale was a first cousin of Clementine Churchill, so Unity was Clementine's cousin once removed. Giacomo 21:46, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
To complicate matters further: "Clementine Churchill's biographer Joan Hardwick has surmised that all Clemtine's mother's "Hozier" children were actually fathered by her sister Clementine's husband, Algernon Bertram Freeman-Mitford (1837-1916, better known as a grandfather of the infamous Mitford sisters of the 1920s - that looks ot be the connection." Howver, I have also read authoritively that Bay Middleton was Clementine's father, one cannot help but wonder what the unfortunate Mr Hozier was doing while all this was going on. Giacomo
What is it about horsemen and riding? In addition to sporting Bay, we also have this jockey who was quite successful with royal and noble ladies.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 06:43, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
They have one vital statistic in common with their horses I expect. Giacomo 06:53, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading File:Vyne1.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.
You are a stupid bloody bot, just read what is written or pack up! Giacomo 16:07, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fair use rationale for File:Hairy Maclary.gif[edit]
Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Hairy Maclary.gif. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.
If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk 19:03, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh go getta life, I realy have better things to do with my time. Giacomo 21:19, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And for a specific reason for this block, I expect to hear from SarekofVulcan his rendition of "Pinball Wizard". Or "I Don't Know How to Love Him" from Jesus Christ Superstar. --Moni3 (talk) 20:07, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
...and the auto-blocker too would be helpful. Giacomo 20:21, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
On a purely procedural basis, I've cleared the autoblock. (I was not the unblocking admin) Courcelles 20:24, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for clearing that up, I was trying to do that now and was puzzled to find no autoblock in place. I understand this doesn't mean you endorse with my actions. Nev1 (talk) 20:26, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Organ grinder, its an idiom, that is correct but it is also an insult, as you know. Off2riorob (talk) 20:28, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Never presume to know what I know. There is another idiom about presuming and assuming, but no doubt one of your friends will block me if I tell you what it is. Giacomo 20:30, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how it's appropriate to call Off2riorob or anyone else an organ grinder's monkey. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 20:31, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
then learn to speak your own language and perhaps you might. Giacomo 20:33, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Giano, you should really stop using bloomy language on Wikipedia, especially when trying to communicate with admins. Most editors here don't give a monkey's wench for good English. There is a reason why Wikipedia's language has a reputation for being cold and impersonal. You are not yet one of those who are to blame for that, obviously, but don't worry – they won't stop blocking you before your literature organ has gone through the grinder and you are one of them. Resistance is futile and disruptive. HansAdler 20:49, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No matter! we all need to concentrate our efforts on encouraging malleuys to return following his equally unjust block. Giacomo 20:55, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
C'mon Giano, both you and Malleus seem to go out of your way to push the envelope. In your own case I put it down to raw emotion, Malleus I dunno. I'm aware that you're particularly sensitive to any hint of abuse of #en-wikipedia-admins and I support you on that. But read my post at the AN/I thread, just talking is no big deal - unless it spilled over on-wiki. I'm a little gobsmacked at you being blocked over "organ-grinder not the monkey", especially considering you're Italian and that is the stereotype. But yeah, you can reach the same ends without getting everyone all fired up about the words you use. Franamax (talk) 21:23, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am a musician and the monkey is a businessman. He doesn't tell me what to play, and I don't tell him what to do with his money.
You forget, we are approaching the silly season of Arbcom elections. When prospective candidates like to play Mr Tough Guy on this page - they never seem to learn what a dangerous game that is. Giacomo 21:30, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Surely not? Surely the editor who did two such blocks, so swiftly and uncontroversially overturned, can't think it would help get elected to ArbCom? Am I missing something here? Fainitesbarleyscribs 21:42, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
ArbCom elections are an IQ test? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:45, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well I'll go the foot of our stairs! (Another idiom but not a naughty one). Fainitesbarleyscribs 22:22, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Me myself, I've been thinking about that for a few weeks now, it's getting around time for silly season to start up. I'm committed to eat only organically-grown popcorn this year. I have been actually predicting this, but I didn't tick the "Giano" box on the sekrit admin-betting site for ACE2010-related threads and blocks. Don't tell me what I'm forgetting, I can forget what you told me from last year all by myself. ;) (And I'm not imputing those motives to Sarek anyway, just a general observation) Franamax (talk) 21:47, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think this whole thing is becoming more and more silly and desperate. Of all the times I have beenblocked, this is probably the most amusing and silly. [6] and scraping of the barel. Giacomo 21:49, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Funny you should say that because when I was called a "cocksucker" on Wikipdia [7], it was deemed not to be incivil [8] until I proved otherwise. So fine, monkey would be quite mild compared to what i am used to. So you se Baseball, the hypocrisy of this place just rolls of my back. Now do you have something pertinent to add or are you just here to see your name in lights? because I am getting just a little tired of all this stupidity. Giacomo 22:00, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You should make it known that you are above petty insults, Giano. I know you're an intelligent man, and you don't need to stoop to that to make an effective argument. In fact, it very much undermines what you have to say, as very few people are willing to listen while they are being insulted. However, calling somebody a cocksucker is completely unacceptable, so I am sorry that you had to go through that. If I had seen it, I would have taken swift and decisive action. There are a few bad apples, but not the entire admin corps is like that. In the future, if somebody does something particularly odious to you, feel free to come talk with me and I will do my best to rectify the situation. The WordsmithCommunicate 22:12, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's certainly very obvious that the admin corps only see what they want to see, and not at all clear how their eyes can be opened. MalleusFatuorum 22:25, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not all of the admins are like that. The ones that are tend to cluster around ANI, so bringing issues there is usually counterproductive. If somebody comes to my talkpage with a problem, I do my best to solve it with a minimum of drama. The WordsmithCommunicate 22:36, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We shouldn't all have to have a friendly admin in our back pocket. Particularly when one admin can tell stories about an editor at ANI, but when the editor objects, he's blocked. Coming to you after the fact doesn't undo the damage. ANI is a circus. Evidence diff below from Giano. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:39, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am in nobody's back pocket, but I recognize that ANI is a mess and doesn't adequately get things done. I offer an alternative to going to that cesspool, in that I can often take care of the same situations quickly and quietly. The WordsmithCommunicate 22:49, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ah Malleus, think of the devil and he appears - I hope this is not a fleeting visit? I was just grinning at this edit [9] and thinking of you. Giacomo 22:30, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still groaning over that boner. What's a willy, anyway? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:35, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't lower the tone of this august page. What have willies got to do with this anyway? Giacomo 22:39, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"What's a willy" is the reflection of my clueless naivete-- I asked MF that once, because I really didn't know what a willy was after he referred to one. "What's a willy" is all I can think of to describe the boner that was GWH's post. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:41, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
@Baseball Bugs: Do give it a rest with the inane remarks, Bugs, because I can feel an urge to call you a "dumbass" coming on almost irresistibly. Please don't feed that urge, or I very well may "personally attack" you by calling you that, and then I'll be blocked, and then where will you all be? Just stop and we'll all be fine. Bishonen | talk 22:40, 19 October 2010 (UTC).[reply]
I've still seen no heads on stakes and I'm still as mad as Hell, so a fleeting visit it was. MalleusFatuorum 22:42, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is Wikipedia, the only head on a stake will be yours - or mine Giacomo 22:47, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I can confirm that these things are handled very unevenly. I think it's mostly a matter of attention. Less than 24 hours ago I was told on-wiki that I smell like an overfat rat, and asked to stroke nice and slowly over an easter-egg link pointing to a common sexual practice. I was warned, however, that my scientific career is unlikely to be successful. (Please do not go hunting for this. There is an additional dimension. OTRS has been contacted but hasn't reacted yet, and it's probably a good thing that the admins appear to be blind.) HansAdler 22:49, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And your mother smells of elderberries! Bishonen | talk 01:03, 20 October 2010 (UTC).[reply]
I just want to let you know there are those of us that look to you as a hero for what you do around here. I hope you never retire. However, really comparing Malleus to yourself?! Wow. Without getting blocked myself... um... ok, I guess there isnt much I can say... I have had run ins with that user and frankly the user is just a... well I hope stays retired. Just wanted to lend my support as one anti-janitor to another.Camelbinky (talk) 00:04, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am sure it's genuine. I had a strange situation myself with Malleus once. (Nothing about "incivility", just misplaced stubbornness that I guess had to do with wiki friendships.) Not so bad that I would have wished him away, but I see the differences between Giano and Malleus very clearly. HansAdler 00:25, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And so do I. Giano and I are not the same person, and I do not always see your own contributions as being altogether positive, but I have the good sense to keep my mouth shut when you open yours; try it for yourself. MalleusFatuorum 00:36, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
CB, Although I agree that His Excellency Giano is a hero to many of us, I rather hope that in the far future he'll be remembered best for the amazing content he has provided. Time will tell. You know, Malleus is actually on the side of the angels as well. I know it's difficult to appreciate if you've had a bad experience with another editor, but it's true nonetheless. Years from now, there's a good chance you'll have forgotten whatever it was that upset you, but you'll still be able to look at the content Malleus has given to Wikipedia and see the value of him being here. --RexxS (talk) 00:39, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop all this talk of heros (true as it may be) the important thing here to stay united in acheiving a common goal. Yesterday, the civility police and narrow minded scorred huge own goals, torpedoed at least one of their own future Arbcom elections and generaly made themselves look ridiculous. This is proven by the speed of ANI archiving and various comments on talk pages all over the site I've never had any major problems with Malleus, and even if I had, I strongly beleive one picks one's allies according to ones wars. Stick tightly together and we can acheive something here - Perhaps we need to form a trades union. Safety in numbers. Giacomo 06:51, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
“
We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow - Lord Palmerston (1 March 1848)
”
Sorry for boxing your comments in, but it was a tactical move, as in my judgement I had to keep Cirt focused and the conversation tight. It would have been too easy for the conversation to have morphed into something else and for people to wriggle out of their responsibilities. I was willing to give Cirt a face-saving way out as another tactical move. Not editing a couple of articles for a just over a week is not a problem, and it will discourage anyone who does not want me to edit the article on Targeted killing from closing the RFC on the Assassination talk page prematurely. I guess you are from the UK so as Aleksanr say "simple". -- PBS (talk) 06:21, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. As you probably realise, you had right on your side, so you did not need help you needed publicity and fresh air on the matter. Once you got it the problem was solved. Giacomo 06:43, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it was particularly insightful. That's why I included it in my summary closing that thread. The WordsmithCommunicate 06:01, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I think we could be spared many of Wikipedia's woes and dramafests if guilt were to be established and proven before sentence was pronounced and executed, rather then left to the whim and mood of any passing Admin and a group of shrieking peanuts on ANI. Giacomo 15:35, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Robespierre would have hated you, Excellency. Are you suggesting that ANI should repeal its Law of 22 Prairial? --RexxS (talk) 16:35, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Glad to hear it, Robespierre was a very unsavoury charactor. probably would have had CU and OS rights here. Giacomo 22:12, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In your case, I doubt it. Giacomo 17:06, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Eh that makes no sense. I'm not the Queen, I'm the profanity fairy. You really need to do better with your comebacks. I give you a C- for effort only I'm afraid. Theresa Knott | Hasten to trek 17:10, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
and a drunken fairy at that, I suspect. Giacomo 17:50, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well you suspect wrong I'm afraid, No booze today no booooooooooooooooze. Oh well never mind. I give you a C+ this time. A little bit better but still not up to scratch. Theresa Knott | Hasten to trek 18:41, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure you are quite right. Giacomo 19:25, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Treading on toes is too easily done here - especially if accolades and honours are being dealt out. I've always thought it a bit unfair that DYK is confined to brand new articles, rather than any interesting new fact to any article, but I am not that bothered about it. I have a few, but DYK is not an accolade I actively seek. In fact, I once created a new page, then a couple of days later (before I had had chance to finish it) saw it on the front page attributed to someone else - who had leapt in, added a "scintilating fact" and took the credit - so it's already is a moveable feast. Obviously, that's how some make their names and good luck to them, but I don't see much worthiness or respect in it. Improving what is already here, to a decent standard, is my chief interest here now. Giacomo 09:44, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think the answer is probably neither; I only recently noticed your contributions as well, after seeing you appear on ANI. It's likely we've just not crossed paths until now. GiftigerWunsch[TALK] 20:18, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, if you have time and energy would you please comment about the Thatcher BLP and its state of NPOV, relating to the thread here and the linked discussion. Talk page stalkers also very welcome to input thoughts. Off2riorob (talk) 14:07, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I only involve myself in content and POV disputes when they concern a page with which I am closely involved and that does not happen very often. It would be very wrong of me to concern myself with Mrs Thatcher having never edited the page. Giacomo 15:11, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Stalker" having very specific and negative denotations, we lurkers prefer the term lurkers, familiar enough in Internet culture.--Wetman (talk) 18:00, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, yes, excuse me I meant no slight. There is some critique presented on the talkpage today at the article and as there seems to be a consensus that the article basically needs rewriting for NPOV, lurkers that have time to perhaps work on a section would be greatly appreciated. This is a BLP that was viewed over a quarter of a million times last month and has had a NPOV template on the top of it for almost two years. Talk:Margaret Thatcher#Partial critique - Off2riorob (talk) 18:05, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. I agree with you on the computers front. Perhaps all Wikipedia's problems would be removed if we did away with computers and contributors had to submit articles and proposed alterations in handwritten drafts before posting them (Royal Mail, not email). We'd lose the teenage "LOL YOU SMELL" vandalism; we'd lose the "OMG, someone just this minute did something on a reality TV show, I must update the article now" nonsense; and someone who was tempted to borrow too heavily from previously published sources probably wouldn't bother, on the basis that writing out eight or nine sentences in over-close paraphrase was too much work compared to restating the essentials in two... It would, of course, also prevent accidentally editing whilst logged out, but that's beside the point! BencherliteTalk 19:28, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I was just delighted that when I logged out again and did a minor edit to see what my IP was to discover the IP had not been causing terrible vandalisms and obscenities since I was last logged out. I once switched on the computer to find myself indeffed, not that unusual for me, but on this occasion it seemed I had not been pointing out the inequacies of certain admins, but my IP had been on a vandalising spree while I was quietly sleeping. As my esteemed aunt would say: These things cannot be explained. Giacomo 19:36, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly your computer was acting out your fantasies of spree-vandalism whilst you weren't looking... BencherliteTalk 19:50, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is a mystery, rather like the dream where one is frolicking naked with beautiful handmaidens on a Carribean beach and wakes up to find oneself in Ischia, surrounded by German OAPs with sand in one's speedos. Giacomo 20:01, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So, when you have a choice between handy Caribbean SpreeVandal maidens and German old-age pensioners you prefer the latter? That's weird. No wonder you are being blocked all the time. HansAdler 22:40, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"The dichotomy between one's dreams and one's reality is a fundamental tragedy of the human psyche." --RexxS (talk) 00:36, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As someone who has been on the receiving end of Mick's (you know which Mick I'm guessing) editing style from time to time, it might be useful for anyone who is taking his "side" in recent discussions, to let us know what good he actually does around here, in terms of article improvement.
He's good at turning up at AfDs apparently, and from edits on the Northern Ireland article talk page, he's good at supplying walls of text and slightly, slightly paranoid rants. Inbetween, he allegedly does some edits to articles.
If someone could weed out what good he does, and gets him to stick to that, that might be an improvement. Otherwise he's just proving to be offputting to anyone else editing articles. WikiuserNI (talk) 10:42, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How dare you come here talking about sides in such a manner. It's all this perenial talk and taking of sides which creates Wikipedia's problems. I have no idea what "good" he does, I have seen nothing proven either way. The point is that indeff bans should not be based on the opinions of who happens to be online and loudest at a certain time and shouting about on ANI. I have seen editors banned as a consequence of such actions deliberatly decided when it's known all their supporters and friends will be safely tucked up in bed. ANI has become a kangeroo court and it's is a far from just court. Wikipedia's editors are far too fond of passing sentence before proving a crime has been committed. I agree, there is a certain amusing irony that McNee is to be executed by the very sword he has used so often, but that does not make it correct, proper or a credit to the project. Those that want to see the back of him should take the matter to arbitration, which is the nearest thing Wikipedia has to a fair hearing. Giacomo 12:00, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just out of curiosity, why did you want Scott to go the extra mile? You said arbitration is "the nearest thing Wikipedia has to a fair hearing"; why shouldn't that process overturn the block? Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:55, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No reason at all why it should not and no reason at all why it may not ban him for ever. However, there is every reason why he should not be blocked to satisfy a clamouirng lynch mob whipped up on ANI. Giacomo 16:28, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think ANI is a preferrable way to sanction tendentious WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT POV-pushing editors rather than prolong the agony of editors working in an area to have to present evidence, follow a case, and somehow remain sane for weeks. Even without the arbitration request, that sort of editing can put people off the article space forever, if not for a long time. But all of this is irrelevant to this case so I'm obviously digressing.
He's been unblocked by Scott. I think we need more people to go the extra mile (except in cases of vandalism and the problem I just described); in fact, I wish you were around to persuade more people in the way you did with Scott. A few admins get extremely territorial over certain blocks that they make; they refuse to amend/lift such blocks themselves, and they make the situation worse by refusing to let others absent an appeal to the Community or Committee. They also know that nobody wants to spend their time on-wiki with an arbitration request (so that becomes the unfortunate incentive for admins to not do anything in those situations - see also Mick's comments prior to being unblocked and this response to the unblock). Anyway, I appreciate the time you took in this case. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:16, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I had not noticed that. Sandstein will just have to get over himself and realise he is not a one man Arbitartion committee, but an admin the same as all the others. If Scot Mac does not retract (and he's not the type to do that) then Sandstein can take McNee to arbitration and I will watch the case with interest, but at least he will have a fairer hearing than he did being lynched on ANI. I have lots of ideas for a fastrac Arb service, with more sort of elected junbior arbs sitting in 3s like magistates hearing this sort of thing, but with the "office" unreasonably demanding volunteers identify themselves - I doubt much will change in the current climate as there will be too few intelligent people wishing to identify themselves. Giacomo 17:48, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
but with the "office" unreasonably demanding volunteers identify themselves - I doubt much will change in the current climate as there will be too few intelligent people wishing to identify themselves. Indeed, I noticed that vexing issue pop up at Brad's talk; I'm still pondering on how that could be addressed. Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:52, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It could be shelved rather than addressed, by having a legion of junior arbs (long term proven, but elected editors, without any magical CU and OS powers) who hear smaller case in 3s (perhaps a senior arb could chair them) and get through half the boring low grade stuff (people like Mr McNee for instance who are problematical rather than criminal) - similar to magistrates and circuit judges rather than Supreme Judges - this would speed the process up, stop the ANI lynchings and stupid RFCs and have some sort of ordered justice system, rather than the mayhem of pot-luck we have at present. Giacomo 19:00, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've always believed Wikipedia could do with a little more "transparently chosen" power-users, rather than relying on the arbitrary metric of the "who turns up". I mean we have absurd elections for ombudsmen, who constitute half a committee, that makes non-binding recommendations to another committee, and crats who have very limited powers. Ridiculous. And then we've got the choice between filing an arbitration that will take ten weeks to be resolved, or filing a report at ANI and hoping for the best (while ten hours are wasted in screeds of repetitive talk and politicking). Much better if we said, "admins shall not block any regular user for any more than 24 hours". If you think a block longer than that is required, then you block for 24 hours and file a report with the discipline committee, whose five duty members will pronounce within that same 24 hours. Not too hard really. --Scott Mac 00:59, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Too hard for the clowns in charge of this circus though. MalleusFatuorum 01:02, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with this circus is that no one much is in charge. Getting consensus for any significant change is impossible, and any attempt to lead change by arbcom or Jimbo would lead to howls of anti-authoritarian protest. I wonder if those who tore down our leaders from their elated pedestals considered that there's one thing worse than bad leadership, and that's no leadership. They got what they wished for - arbitrary mob rule, lynch mob justice and anarchy. Maybe someone should re-invent a "godking".--Scott Mac 01:31, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A benevolent dictatorship is of course the best of all worlds, but sadly ultimate power ultimately corrupts, so it never works. MalleusFatuorum 01:38, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, a structured democracy with accountable authority figures is the least worst option, but we don't have that. The question is whether a possibly corrupt and not terribly competent dictator with attendant oligarchy might have been marginally preferable to anarchy, mob-rule and legislative stagnation.--Scott Mac 01:43, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I guess we'll never know, because nothing can be changed here now. MalleusFatuorum 02:24, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We could always recruit a "real academic" to take change [10]. Hahaha.--Scott Mac 01:35, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I saw that on WR yesterday too. I thought it of the bright spots of the day. I think we do have leadership or at least the basis of a leadership, the problem is that (like in RL) the people who are elected are often found to be not quite what they claim. Scot says "I wonder if those who tore down our leaders from their elated pedestals considered that there's one thing worse than bad leadership.." I don't agree with that, the leadership here two or three years ago was based in nepotism and it was failing, it was no torn down it committed suicide. I think we need a committee of Super-Arbs completely elected not "sort of elected but ultimately chosen" and then below them a body of elected junior arbs (without CU, OS) hearing content and lesser cases with clearly defined limits and powers regarding their sentencing. The super arbs could then have more time for the really serious cases - that overflow into RL and perhaps be an ultimate court of appeal. If you like Junior Arbs deal with motoring offences and shoplifting and the senior Arbs the murderers and traitors. Whatever, these are all things that could be thrashed out. The important thing is to take Wikipedia's justice out of the hands of the mob-of-the-moment and place it into elected and trusted hands. Giacomo 09:04, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I did have an idea when the WP:ACPD was going down in flames that it could have actually gone ahead with everyone as a "member" as long as we had a bunch of people clerking and making sure the pages were really structured. We could have a wiki-in-wiki conference where we try and thresh out issues over, say, two months. The critical issue would be to have the relevant discussion pages really well-structured and navigable, and a bunch of folks ready to move off-topic reams of text to the talk pages. Maybe some time in January or February when all the northern hemisphere folks are toasty warm inside their houses and all the Australians are fleeing the stinking heat into nice airconditioned rooms.....Casliber (talk·contribs) 02:35, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps, I have rather lost faith in Wikipedia's ability to decide anything logical and useful. We are about to have ten plus new arbs who on appointment will all become carbon copies of the existing arbs - because such people are the only ones who will survive a voting system that is designed to appease the majority and then the handpicking of the survivors by Jimbo. We have a project whose leader jump on a bandwagon to condemn editors who don't say "prety please" but collaborate to defend a plagiarist. Not really a lot of hope - is there? Giacomo 09:44, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh I dunno...wait at least and see who nominates (and is successful I suppose) Casliber (talk·contribs) 10:16, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, nothing will change becase every three votes "yes" can be countered by one vote "no." It is system designed by and for the peanut gallery. Giacomo 11:33, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, not in the Arbcom elections; those are going to be counted as a straightforward "number of supports minus number of opposes" fashion this year, as I understand it. (Given that 11 arbs are now to be elected, there seems a reasonable chance that this year the number of vacancies will exceed the number of candidates, and every candidate will be elected. I'm half tempted.) – iridescent 11:44, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh that's interesting, I had not seen that. I mught stand too then, but that still leaves the matter of identifying oneself to the sinister sounding "office"! Giacomo 11:46, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The other interesting aspect different is secret vs. open voting and how it will impact on various candidates. I am not sure how results would have differed last year had it been open though. I was having a bit of a rest from close analysis at that stage. Casliber (talk·contribs) 02:33, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What a small place. Here I was a few days ago quietly enjoying your eloquent, and yes, elegant, arguments on behalf of Mick which you made to Scott and today, unexpectedly, I had to tell you personally. It was a high calibre and principled defence. Especially when undesirable editors are sometimes treated as almost disposable, replaceable and interchangeable. Almost like a commodity such as a burnt-out lightbulb. Thank you. Take care. Dr.K.λogosπraxis 20:36, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sadly, one can only defend the defensible. I'm sure if someone trawled through my edits they would find sentences and paragraphs with similarities to those in reference books - writing on narrow historical subjects with limited references that is inevitible. What is not inevitable and impossible to defend is manufacturing a huge volume of knowingly plagiarised "work" frequently submitted for awards and basking in the daily kudos. I shall make no comment on his behaviour when discovered. As you point out on Rlevse's page, I don't bear grudges, but neither will I ignore those who bring the project into huge disrepute - one has to be quite ruthless about that or Wikipedia is sunk. An Arb must surely know the difference between original own writing and plagiarising, if he doesn't then God help the project. I have not one jot of public sympathy or compassion for him - it's as black and white as that, this is not an area where one can afford a generosity of spirit. Arbs have to set an example, if they don't they must go. Giacomo 21:15, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Giano, I didn't expect this response from you. My message had nothing to do with the Arb politics but since I replied on Rlevse's talk to you and I had mentioned Mick in my reply I thought it would be natural to express my thoughts regarding how you acted on Mick's behalf. But I guess the political temperature must be really high when coming to express my thanks for your defence of the underdog I get a lecture on Arb accountability. I also guess since you raised these points I have to reply, so I'll give it a shot. Naturally I agree that there are lessons to be learned from the latest debacle and that they have to be analysed and closely scrutinised for the good of the project. Political catharsis is a nasty process and it cannot be avoided. I understand your point regarding Mic vs Rlevse, as that of an underdog versus a privileged Arb who made some bad decisions and therefore must be criticised for reasons of transparency and accountability. I agree with this point too. Now, and ironically, in a belated fashion, I understand that my asking you to not turn my comment on perspective on Rlevse's talkpage into criticism of Rlevse could be seen as political interference on my part which in effect could be used to neutralise your criticism. At this stage I have to apologise to you. You see I am not a good politician. I thought that I could moderate a discussion on Rlevse's talkpage and keep the tones down due to what I perceived to be the tragic circumstances of a friend leaving the project. My eye was on the human element of the affair, as opposed to the political dimension. I was obviously wrong to reply to your comment because I did not mean to interfere in the exercise of political criticism. But I would not have needed to reply to your comment if I did not add my good wishes for Rlevse on his departure in the first place. Lesson learned. I should not have left a message on Rlevse's talkpage if I were not prepared to take political flack for it because by leaving a friendly message to a political figure it was taken as a political act. Talking about cynicism in politics. No room for human factors, or errors, there. Dr.K.λogosπraxis 22:34, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps we all need to settle down and right a page. I may be looking for hidden meaning where there is none. What is that expression "when one has touched poison one should not touch one's friends" well it has probably lost something in translation, but I'm sure my meaning is clear. Giacomo 22:52, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Coincidentally I was also thinking about writing a page. You are right. I should. Also thank you for the nice expression. It is very apt. I now came to realise what politics really entail. You have been enmeshed in this for such a long time your reaction is understandable. But I am sure that my respect for you as a friend and editor transcends all this. Politics be damned. Take care. Dr.K.λogosπraxis 23:11, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Giacomo (Giano?) - yes, I'm back :), thoughy not nearly as active as I used to be. It's been a pretty hard year, so i'm not spending as much time online as I did. Grutness...wha? 09:13, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I bet it was the link I added to the Robert Lawson article :) I've been extending the article on Princes Street, Dunedin, one of the city's main streets. Grutness...wha? 09:26, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it was there I saw you. Fun writing that wasn't it? - a long time ago. I have given up writing on NZ subjcts as there are far more NZ editors now better qualified in all respects, but they are still on my watch list. Sorry to hear about your health (I had a look at your user page after I posted) do what I do, deal with stress by drinking wine and shouting at the screen. Giacomo 10:09, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm with you on the drinking wine bit, but I try to avoid shouting at the screen. The spittle leaves ugly marks which show up all too well against the white of the edit window.-gadfium 18:12, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not if you wear a surgical mask with a small hole (to permit a straw for the wine) while editing. Lots of editors do, in no way does it look odd. Giacomo 19:18, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If only I could afford the luxury model with the blinkers. It's much easier to refrain from changing the formulations used in the source avoid original research when you wear one of these. HansAdler 20:44, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Under no circumstances are you to edit someone's post as you did here. You know better than this. If it happens again, you will be taken to ANI. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 14:59, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Under no circumstances collaspe one of my edits again - or indeed assume control of another editor's talk page! If you have a problem go to ANI - it will be my pleasure. Giacomo 16:05, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I can collapse any edit I find that is unnecessary, highly POINTy and just plain rude, which all your edits are. WP:RTV and WP:STICK are in effect on Rlevse's talk page and all related pages to Rlevse. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 16:14, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I will comment on RLevse as I see fit. What you find "rude" or not rude is neither here nor there and of no interest to anyone else. Now I suggest that you mind your own business and run along and find something useful to do. I'm sure there is something you can be getting on with that will occupy you usefully. Don't come back here because the adults might start to get cross. Giacomo 16:18, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Dude, I am probably older than you, so you can drop the "adults" Incivility thing. Do it again, I go to ANI and you wind up blocked again. It really makes no difference to me (or anyone else I bet) since you offer nothing to the community but a bad attitude and snarky comments. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 16:22, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Now I've seen it all. Homer's talk page says he's 29-- Giano, you child you ! "I go to ANI and you wind up blocked again" ... ah, the benefit of 20–20 hindsight. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:00, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You haven't seen it all before you have seen this, followed by this. Quite a bit to read, but an eye-opener about the workings of Wikipedia. Some people are so immature that it's simply not funny. HansAdler 20:09, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Now I've seen it all. Was Neutralhomer sanctioned in any way, Hans? Was Toddst1, for declining the unblock request? Or whoever it was that declined the second unblock request? Any ANI threads, RFCs, or RFARs? My guess is not. I have an idea: there should be a "reviewing unblock requests ban" for admins who have demonstrated that they don't have the required independence of mind. Desysopping is a big deal and difficult to get done (except when it's Geogre); but this is only one minor thing, yet extremely important for abused users. It shouldn't be very hard to get the ArbCom to institute such bans by simple motion. Bishonen | talk 23:22, 5 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Wouldn't it be simpler to make WP:COMPETENCE a policy and make infractions against it sanctionable? Of course there were no consequences against Neutralhomer:
By the way the user was since blocked indefinitely, but of course continued editing under the static IP address with no further complications. Obviously removing a Whois template is much worse than block circumvention. HansAdler 23:49, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Now, now, Herr Adler. Bear in mind that you must view what an experienced Wikipedian tells you as gospel.[11] Me, for instance. I have informed you of the ideal course of action. Bishonen | talk 00:08, 6 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Please go to ANI or indeed any place that's not here. I could suggest a few places, but my natural good manners prevent that. Reading the insults you have delivered here so far, it is quite clear that you you have some underlying issues. Please get them sorted for your own sake. Giacomo 16:26, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The petty party continues. Vodello (talk) 17:07, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Giano just can't help feeding the trolls. I find that threats on Talkpages should always be ignored. After a few days, when one is editing other threads of discussion, one can quietly blank the offensive attack.--Wetman (talk) 19:54, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a compassionate person Wetman, I cannot bear to look at the starving millions without giving a little help. Howver, this is all designed to detract from the main points here - you don't need me to spell them out. I expect at this very minute certain people are trawling my edits for plagiarism or signs thereof - Wikipedia is suddenly a very ugly place, this has been brought about by giving vulgar supremacy to those whose priority is not content. Giacomo 20:43, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Jimbo Wales publicly gave them priority on November 23, 2007.[12] Bureaucrats on WP:RFA have expressed that "lack of content creation" is no longer a valid reason to oppose. The result is a lot of new admins that have exhibited anywhere between poor and zero knowledge of site policy and/or guidelines, from WP:N to even WP:MOS. Sometimes I wonder if the articles I expand are even going to be there in 18 months. They say anti-vandals are the ones discriminated against, even though their userpages are completely flooded with barnstars for having a profound ability to click an undo button to erase hours and hours of content creation. I haven't kept up with any attempts the usual suspects have made to have you banned over the past year or so, but I'm sure events like today that have been blown out of proportion have happened far too often.
Anyway, best of luck in today's petty party to try and get you banned or blocked for 3 months or wtfever. You are a net positive for Wikipedia, and it's unfortunate that this oligarchy is trying to erase the problematic confrontations they started in the first place so long ago. Vodello (talk) 23:48, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. You are very lucky to have a have "roll back" and "undo" botton, the twits on ANI removed mine ages ago for using it against them. We have to find our amusements here weherever we can. 09:15, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
I don't know about the corrupt admins, but my 'amusement' is writing articles. :) Vodello (talk) 19:41, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That is mine, you can choose from or all of the others. LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:22, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Glenfiddich is acceptable, although a little pedestrian (the women like it). Laphroaig is an acquired taste (but well worth the sore heads spent acquiring it!). If you want easy quality, go for the Talisker - bit more pricey than the Glenfiddich but worth it. Chivas Regal is a blend, generally useful for watering plants, although this one is, I grant, better than most.--Scott Mac 01:27, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Scott. Laphroaig is my favourite. Giacomo 09:17, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh. Right... Hmmmm... I suppose it is the Wikiway, thank the critic/reviewer and ignore the original content producer; best I stick to sysopping, then... LessHeard vanU (talk) 11:17, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Aha yes, quelle coincidence, I did not see your name up there. Whatever have I done to deserve such a generous gift? Thank you so much. Giacomo 11:44, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As you well know, it is my payment for that disturbing "Arbs in their Underwear" link you sent me - now that I have remunerated you, can you please stop sending me that stuff!? LessHeard vanU (talk) 11:50, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My wife is connected, distantly, to the clan that had the original distillery... That is the only reason. LessHeard vanU (talk) 01:32, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
One on the far left, we only sell to gullible American tourists, and the one on the far right is given to the inevitable Christmas-visiting Aunt who insists on adding pollutants like lemonade.--Scott Mac 01:34, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What about Johnny Walker Blue Label? I've never tried it because I wasn't sure if it was worth the price. Otherwise, I think Japanese scotch and American bourbons are underappreciated. Cla68 (talk) 01:33, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Blends are seldom worth the price. Why on earth pay more for a bastardised malt. "Japanese scotch" sounds like a disease, and American bourbon is best kept unappreciated.--Scott Mac 01:36, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This one has done well in several international competitions. Scotch is popular here in Japan. When I go to my favorite cigar bar in Shibuya, I'll often drink a number of imported single-malts, but I can never remember the names of the ones I liked the next day. I guess I need to start writing this stuff down before I leave the bar. I'll take your advice on the Blue Label. I assume if one wants to drink blended whiskey it might as well be Irish or Canadian. Cla68 (talk) 01:52, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'd only drink a blend to economise. So if the blend costs more than the malt - take the malt. Oh, and if you must drink a cheap malt, there are plenty of Scottish ones. I'd no more drink Canadian than I'd buy a New York Yankees hat made in China ..... oh, wait.--Scott Mac 02:10, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A question constantly asked in my house, and the answer is always the same: I drank it.--Scott Mac 01:37, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's a shame that import duties and taxes make good scotch so expensive in the states. Still, Bourbon isn't too bad, and cheap bourbon has the advantage of all those nasty fusel oils with their own peculiar intoxicating effects. Now there's an acquired taste!__WC XXXIII (talk) 02:58, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Can I put in a word for Mortlach? Very flavoursome & different. I see that's the one that's been finished. Johnbod (talk) 00:59, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Plagiarism discussion from Rlevse TALK moved to WP:VP[edit]
I see nothing there - which is not surprising. This is all to be swept under Wikipedia's extremely large and already long infested carpet and I have been asked not to comment further and I won't. It's immportant when picking challenges to pick those which one can win. If Rlevse returns and wants to be an Admin or an Arb again then I shall comment again. Most people can tell the difference between proper sourcing, attributing, copy pasting, plagiariasm and copyvio I don't think this is a huge problem, when caught ordinary editors can be advised and, if neccessary, given a slap on the wrist. The only real problem here was that Levse was an Arb and should have known better and after being caught his behaviour deteriorated, and that so many people were prepared to defend that behaviour, but this is what happens when content is placed secondary to administrationt and power grabbing. Giacomo 00:19, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ah! It looks like it yes, but I did not post to that page. There's no point dicussing it further as anyone who criticises him is to be condemned by Jimbo and the Arbcom for upsetting him. So let's leave his memory sainted and wait for his return before commenting again. Giacomo 00:31, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
May I make a suggestion? Instead of edit warring over a thread closure (I have better things to do than block you for that), why don't you make a serious statement of what you perceive as the issue and what action you believe should be taken and see if the community agrees. As I understand it, we're talking about a three lines of plagiarised text which caused some embarrassment because it was in the TFA. Am I missing something? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:40, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Try reading the thread, rather than trying to close it. Oh and do not even try to threaten me. It hold no water. Giacomo 20:41, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not threatening you. I have better things to do, like get to the bottom of this (if the bottom is there to be found) rather than get into a pissing contest. You're advocating a complete ban from editing. Surely you realise that's completely unrealistic and totally disproportionate? I'm the second or third admin to close that thread, but maybe people would listen if you had a sensible suggestion. At the minute, the only thing coming from keeping the thread open is more drama. How is that benficial? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:51, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No it is not completely unrealistic. He has habitually plagiarised, he needs mentoring and regulating, No one seems prepared to accept there si a problem. The FA Director himse;f has commented that the thread is valid, are you more qualified than he? Have you even read the thread or just been sent here frrom elsewhere? Giacomo 20:57, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have read (and participated in) the thread and I haven't been sent by anybody. It's completely unrealistic in that it will never happen. You say he has "habitually plagiarised", is there any more plagiarism than what was discovered in the FA? More importantly, why must we have this discussion now when it's unknown if Rlevese is ever going to return to editing, much less reclaim their various bits and positions? Why not come up with a suggestion that's likely to generate serious discussion rather than just create more drama? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:06, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you really had done even a little homework you would already know the answer to this question, which is that the copyright and plagiarism problems appear to be widespread with Rlevse's articles. I realise that you and certain others like Sandstein want to avert your eyes from that and stifle healthy discussion of the issue by threatening blocks for disruption, but still. MalleusFatuorum 21:23, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Users who edit disruptively or refuse to collaborate with others may be blocked if they continue. In particular the three-revert rule states that making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block. If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the talk page to discuss controversial changes. Work towards wording and content that gains consensus among editors. If unsuccessful then do not edit war even if you believe you are right. Post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Secretaccount 22:50, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But it appears that User:Gwen Gale has hatted/archived, and I'm not sure the discussion had actually run its course. Not sure where I personally stand at the moment on the larger issue, but was eager to see the discussion progress, in all its various fora. Saebvn (talk) 21:54, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with her closure and summary there ("If Rlevse edits beyond tagging his own userspace, some admin action through community consensus may be needed"). If he's just tying up loose ends before he leaves for good, there's no point having the discussion; I imagine he knows it will re-start if and when he comes back. I do (strongly) disagree with protecting his talk page, but some things really aren't worth fighting over. – iridescent 21:57, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning towards agreeing with you, Iridescent. Certainly if Rlevse comes back, some discussion will be needed. As he is now on a "break," it seems likely that he will return, at some point. ..."but some things really aren't worth fighting over." Agree, again, which is why I invited Giano to be bold, and why I'm likely not going to revisit the issue myself unless it ripens in the future. Sorry if that's shirking the issue (or being moderately indecisive). Saebvn (talk) 22:02, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think you were quite bold Giano, but I don't think you were untowards. Only saying. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:10, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Arbcom have lied over this, they will continue to lie, assist him in the writing and postings of statements staements. Lock his page and unlock as he reqests and you, you fools will go along with it. Good luck Gwen - you will need it. Giacomo 22:40, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And it now appears you've un-archived and reactivated. Bold. Saebvn (talk) 22:45, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The editor in question is back [13]. The matter needs to be addressed. Not swept away. He's testing the water, he needs to be told the temperature. Giacomo 22:48, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh; things like this (below) and its progeny. Exactly what I was afraid of. Saebvn (talk) 22:52, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Let them do what they like. They are a public laughing stock afraid to take action against a serial plagiarist on whom they have fawningly given every honour. No wonder they all feel foolish and stupid and want the whole thing silenced as quickly as possible. "Oh please Giano, do back off, he is so upset and never coming back can you find it in you heart to ........" Yeah, I found it - what a fool I was. Never trust an emailing Arb again. Giacomo 22:58, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry you've been blocked (see next section, below). While specifically not condoning your behavior, I think it's important that the conversation not be concluded unilaterally. Even if the administrators have concluded that no administrative action is warranted, at this time, at ANI, the issue should be on the table generally, somewhere. The ANI noticeboard is an administrator's noticeboard, and it tends to move fairly quickly. Perhaps that's not the best place for the conversation. So be it. Perhaps the conversation need not be re-started until the editor in question manifests a clear intent to return. So be it. But, based on what I've read of the record, and based on the segments of the record that have been erased or are otherwise unavailable to public scrutiny, I think the issue remains a valid one for community discussion. I don't know the editor in question, just as I don't know you, or the interpersonal relationships involved here, or anything that may have transpired by e-mail. However, I'm an interested member of the community, and our integrity seems to be at stake. Now, whether the ultimate discussion takes place on ANI or elsewhere, let the community, or the administrators serving it, set up a place for discussion -- wherever. I'd just like the discussion to be had. Somewhere. At some point. And after having a full record available for community inspection. Saebvn (talk) 23:17, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The reason I am blocked is because the Arbcom think I am in league with Proabouviac, the editor who blew the whictle as an anon. I am not. Simple as that. All deals with the arbcom are now off. Giacomo 23:20, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think there's some truth in that. I know for a fact that the reason the comment made by the anon IP was initially brushed aside was precisely because the anon had been very quickly identified as being Proabouviac. It's difficult to understand why the blocking of an anon editor took precedence over any investigation of the plagiarism claim ... well on reflection I suppose it's not that difficult really, just distasteful. MalleusFatuorum 23:29, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This block comes as no surprise. Yet again abusive admins are aiding and abetting ArbCom's conspiracy. Only now, instead of being stashed away in its hidden files, the conspiracy has been revealed and promulgated; they have no shame. Rather, they sweep Rlevse's dishonest activities under the carpet, and shut down anyone who expresses dissent. Wikipedia is heading down a slippery slope, and I won't hesitate to say that this is the beginning of its demise. Vivalet (talk) 23:59, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Blocked for 48 hours: the reasons are at WP:AN3. --Mkativerata (talk) 23:06, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh dear, how convenient for you all. Giacomo 23:06, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Don't play dumb Giacomo; you're well aware of the edit warring rules, and you were given considerable lattitude considering your very first revert made it clear that you intended to make your point even if it meant edit warring; you could have been blocked for this sooner but you were given some extra rope to hang yourself with, it seems. GiftigerWunsch[TALK] 23:09, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think you may be misinterpreting who has actually hanged themselves here, as the extent of this problem becomes ever more evident daily,HISTORY OF WAT PASANTIDHAMMA, as does the extent to which the wikipedia establishment is prepared to go to hush it all up. MalleusFatuorum 23:14, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) Unless I'm missing something here, Giano last touched the page in question at 22:41, you warned him at 22:47 and he immediately stopped, but Mkativerata then blocked him 20 minutes later apparently for the hell of it. Even by Wikipedia's low standards that looks a particularly shitty block. – iridescent 23:16, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And, I think I recall the block initially being for 24 hours then somehow being increased to 48. Saebvn (talk) 23:20, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The initial block was 48h; another admin stated that they were about to block for 24h but was beaten to it with a 48h block. The fact is if Giacomo agrees to stop reverting the closure of the thread, he can be unblocked. But given his comments thus far, it seems unlikely to actually happen. GiftigerWunsch[TALK] 23:23, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Immediately stopped? When I warned him, there was nothing for him to revert; it had been left open again. As mentioned at WP:AN3 as well, Giacomo made it very clear from the start that he intended to keep the thread open by any means necessary. GiftigerWunsch[TALK] 23:22, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
after EC with Malleus.You have what you want. Silence on the matter of RLevse - at least from me, but are you going to ban all the others too, the press all the wronged authors; it's a dangerous path to go down, but I suspect you have gone a little too far to turn back now. Never mind, you know what you are doing don't you - just like Rlevse. Giacomo 23:17, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
For the record Giacomo, no one has banned you; you have been blocked from editing for 48 hours (or likely until you agree to stop edit warring). Admins have even attempted to compromise so far; note that the most recent close notice from Elen acknowleged that it may need revisiting if Rlevse starts editing again, but that altering the wikibreak notice hardly constitutes a reappearance. By all means if you see the user reappear, re-report: but until then, what exactly did you get yourself blocked for? If you're pushing for the user to be blocked, what difference does that make while the user is away? And presumably you intend to keep an eye out for a return: at which point discussion can be resumed and whatever necessary action can be reconsidered. I honestly don't understand why you've gone and broken 3RR and gotten yourself blocked just to try to push for sanctions against a user who may well never edit again. GiftigerWunsch[TALK] 23:28, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You clearly have a very limited understanding of what exactly has been going on. Giacomo 23:31, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree, therefore I don't understand? Smooth. GiftigerWunsch[TALK] 23:40, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Why would a user "who may well never edit again" change a retired template to a wikibreak one? Doesn't that stretch credulity just a little beyond breaking point? MalleusFatuorum 23:33, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Unless I'm misremembering the diff (I'll go take another look), I believe they changed it to a "permanent wikibreak" note; it was reminiscent of WP:RETIRED. Either way if they return to do more than alter the wikibreak notice, they can be monitored, blocked, whatever. I still don't see the grand injustice which makes this worth edit-warring over. GiftigerWunsch[TALK] 23:39, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think it says "indefinite," not "permanent" at this time. Saebvn (talk) 23:41, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, that is the case, and admittedly that's an important distinction. I trust that Giacomo will be ready to pounce, as it were, if and when Rlevse does return, however; this edit-warring really seems unnecessary to me, nothing has actually been gained from it. At the moment I have no opinion as to whether or not sanctions may be necessary against Rlevse, but it certainly doesn't seem either urgent or preventative (and I'm sure the mention of that word will get a snort from Malleus as usual) to block Rlevse while not even editing. GiftigerWunsch[TALK] 23:46, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If I read Giano's suggestion correctly it was to block Rlevse while investigations were ongoing to determine the extent of the problem and what should be done about it, investigations that there is some curious reluctance to undertake. If Rlevse doesn't reappear while the investigations are underway then no harm done; if he does, then further harm may be prevented. What's so hard to understand about that? MalleusFatuorum 23:58, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Goodnes me, this is getting quite comical now - really not sandstein's finest hour, first this [14] and then someone else has the temrity to say it too [15]. Being the Silence-in-Cheif must be a hard life - all these threads full of seditious people. Well I am going to have to reluctantly go to bed and leave you to fly the flag without me. What a place Giacomo 23:50, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fuck. I've been trying to post that same gracious remark on ANI, but you can't see the wood for the edit conflicts. I wonder if there's some trick to being able to edit a thread like that? Some people seem able to. Anyway. Goodnight honey. Bishonen | talk 00:22, 8 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Aye, the trick is to block everyone with whom you are in conflict.--Scott Mac 00:32, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And to "archive" every thread that asks questions you can't answer. But I saw you just edited, Doc! Is it a matter of luck only? Bishonen | talk 00:34, 8 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Seems in this case the trick is to martyr yourself to try and come off as a sympathetic figure. Resolute 00:48, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Your comment could apply at least as much to Rlevse as to Giano, if only you had eyes to see it. MalleusFatuorum 01:22, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Or you could say that as the thread is still open and active two hours after Giano's block, there is consensus that Giano's judgement was correct – it was not yet ripe for closure. The fact that it is still open now shows that the block was preventing nothing. I don't know whether His Excellency will post an unblock request, but this block is now merely punitive, and needs to be reversed sooner rather than later. --RexxS (talk) 01:30, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Unblock requests demand obsequience and an explicit recognition of the saintliness of the blocking administrator. Nobody with an ounce of self-respect would request an unblock rather than serve out their time. MalleusFatuorum 03:02, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed it can, and I was aware at the outset it could be applied to either. Ultimately, I am sympathetic to neither editor. Both should have known better. Resolute 02:35, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But only the non-admin was punished. Quelle surprise. MalleusFatuorum 03:02, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I suspect Rlevse's days on ArbCom are over, so I wouldn't say he suffered no consequences. Resolute 03:07, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Great, I have no opinion on Rlevse. But what was being prevented by this block? (Yes, I know it's been lifted by now, but all the same)---Sluzzelintalk 03:09, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Giano, I have unblocked you per discussion on Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Discussion_on_Giano_block. As the AN/I page seems to eventually settle to your version I guess there is no danger that you immediately go into another revert war. Still, please, avoid edit warring and other discussion especially in the next 48h as it will be me who would be responsible for those disruptions. Giano, you know that I admire you as an editor and as a supporter of the Wikipedia principle but can you find a way to enforce wikifairness and wikiprinciples without violation of wikirules especially as simple and unversal as 3RR Alex Bakharev (talk) 03:11, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Now you made me curious. What's your definition of "tag teaming"? --Conti|✉ 09:02, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Tag teaming is four Admins reverting one editor who is attemtong to have a legitimate discussion in a legitimate place on a subject upon which many wish to comment. Especialy after one of the Admins had reverted a warning on tag teaming [16] in the early stages before admins panicked and lost control of the situation. Giacomo 09:15, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. Looks like we have different definitions of the term. In mine, tag teaming requires some kind of coordinated effort, otherwise it's just different people coming to the same conclusion independently of each other. --Conti|✉ 09:26, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well unless they all publish their emails and chats I don't suppose we shall ever know the depth of it. What we do know is that the events of last night was a testing of the water by Arbcom and Levse Supporting Admins to test the water on his behalf. Well they found out that it is pretty hot. They suffered a conclusive defeat and were sent a firm message. Hopefully now they will realise the error of their ways and look at ways of clearing up the mess he has fled rather than persecute those pointing out the problem. Giacomo 09:58, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, please. It's much easier to explain it all with the usual chaos. I guess Arbcom is doing nothing because they can't agree on anything, and it would be a bit unusual anyway so there is not much pressure for them to agree. A lot of individual people are pulling in opposite directions for their individual reasons, and it's inevitable that sometimes more than one person is pulling on the same rope. The problem with conspiracies is that it's impossible to win against them, either because they don't actually exist or because you would never suspect them. Just assume there is no conspiracy, and you will be a lot more successful. HansAdler 10:07, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Too many Arbs have been too closely involved with the entire Rlevse matter. Helping him write pathetic parting statements, then posting them for him. While others emailed his critics asking for "understanding at this difficult time." Then 24 hours after everyone backs off, allows his page to be blanked and protected, he is back! I'm afraid Hans, it's my beleif that the arbcom are pulling very much in the same direction. Anyway, I would imagine that this is the end of the matter, they are all treating their burnt fingers and we can get back to writing. Giacomo 10:12, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I do not know if the question has been covered anywhere but we should have an essay on the Plagiarism vs. Original research issue. There are some interesting opinions on the topic presented in the on-going discussion, including some by you. We could start by collecting them all on one page. If you have time, you could start work on this. If not, maybe you would like to post diffs to the most interesting statement, so I can start collecting them. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 01:52, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
...and here is one position for the opposite camp:
When a sentence or passage from somewhere else is reprinted verbatim in Encyclopædia Britannica it isn't plagiarism – it is the high point of someone's academic career.
...and a nice photo to go with it? ..betwixt copyvio and OR...Casliber (talk·contribs) 02:29, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's a lot more satisfying if you get credited for it though, or even better, paid for it. I will never forget the joy of the unexpected royalty cheque I received for the syndication of a short technical article I'd written. That beats barnstars hands down every time. MalleusFatuorum 03:35, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks to all of you who posted on my behalf over what can only be described as a shameful tag teaming and very wrong block. The fact that the thread survived me shows that many editors want this matter dealt with not shoved under the already very filthy carpet. Bullying and hectoring Admins can no longer be allowed to behave like this towards the "lesser editors" who want to see some transparency. Retired/away editors cannot be allowed to rule by proxy, when the truth is that they are not retired or on wikibreaks but fugitives from justice and explanation. This reminds me of the days when European nobility were allowed to skip abroad to escape their crimes and a blind eye was turned when they came home for a few days - and we all know what became of most of Europe's nobility. It just took a long time. Giacomo 08:24, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed your post as it clearly says at the top " Only members of the Arbitration Committee or the Committee's Clerks may post on this page, but all editors are encouraged to comment on the talk page." Please don't do this again. Thank you. Dougweller (talk) 14:52, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Dougweller, I too hope it won't be necessary again. Giacomo 15:26, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Giano. I've been following a little of the recent discussions you have been involved in. I have a serious question I would like to ask. Have you ever thought of running for adminship? I have no idea how you would do, perhaps you have a better idea. The reason I ask is that generally it is easier to change things you don't like if you are in the right position to do so. Alternatively, perhaps you think you can make your points better not being an admin. Just a thought. cheers! Jack forbes (talk) 16:32, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Jack, I have a very clear idea of how I would do in an RFA. I think I have quite enough power as is it and I have never had the least inclination to be an Admin. I think power that is earnt is far more powerfull than that won in a competition. Giacomo 16:39, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I have no desire for power on here, but if you are using any power you have to improve things then more strength to your arm. Not forgetting that with power comes a little bit of responsibility. Cheers! Jack forbes (talk) 17:24, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Everything I do here is to improve the project. Even if people don't always realise it at the time :-) It's sticks and stones at times, but overall I think I have been of net benefit for the ordinary editor who is here to write. Giacomo 17:33, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As one who has been through that gauntlet already, I can only say, "Good luck - you'll need it!" ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 16:34, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Enjoy your well-deserved break. I see that dear old Simon is still at FAR, and I've no intention of touching that article again while it's there, but I was wondering if you had any objections to me going back to it once the FAR is over? I grew kind of attached to the chap. MalleusFatuorum 15:12, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am removing the material you posted on my talk page, since you have a copy elsewhere. Thanks. --Diannaa(Talk) 22:53, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I realise now that I should not have deleted that page. Sorry about that. My intention was to protect the recently departed user, not the people who made those horrible posts. --Diannaa(Talk) 23:12, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Bugger the recently departed user! He was not the one being attacked, and what is more the one being attacked (me) is more thna happy for all to see it! I turn mu back for five minutes and the place becomes even more odd. Giacomo 23:14, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I see now. I have seen the seamy underside today for sure (there was another nasty post this morning about a different drama, too). Well, see you around. --Diannaa(Talk) 23:20, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ah nasty post on Wikipedia? I find that very hard to beleive. Been here long before being given your amazing admin tools? Giacomo 23:22, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well I thought a daily reading of ANI was good prep, but still some shockers today, I tell you. --Diannaa(Talk) 23:31, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just undelete the page and we'll say no more about it. Giacomo 23:34, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A very stupid idea. presumably some little person wants to re-ignite a dying bonfire. Giacomo 21:20, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As a note: the original page was restored by the deleting admin, and the same editor who nominated your subpage for deletion has also nommed the restored original page. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:27, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Per my comment above. Giacomo 21:21, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am taking a short Wikibreak in order to refuel and see to my RL. In the meantime, all of you must beware of challenging Arbs or trying to get to the bottom of any suspected machinations. If you do, in the best Soviet style traditions the Arbs will convict you of insanity [17][18]and [19]. Quite funny really.
According to at least one Arb, this problem is clearly the humble FAC reviewers fault ("The real issues here"), not the author's ("what exactly are the pack of editors at FAC really doing during these article reviews " [20]. It's unbeleivable, isn't it? Perhaps, we must all be mad to put up with it. Happy editing, copy-pasting and plagiarising to you all and may your barnstars and tools be many. See you soon Giacomo 08:32, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
PS:If anyone knows how to lock those links (or whatever it is you do) please do so for me. Thanks.
No problem. Those are all diffs, they're naturally durable. It's only page section links that need the special hocus-pocus against linkrot. Bishonen | talk 16:56, 10 November 2010 (UTC). [reply]
Sadly, when one is up against Arbs trying to cover their tracks, the links are far from durable - anyone wanting to see the Arbs saying I am mad can read ut all here here where I have recreated the page. Giacomo 22:51, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
From the little of the wikidrama that I have seen, you seem to always get the short end of the stick. cheers.--Guerillero | My Talk 05:11, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I frequently get that impression too. Thanks. Giacomo 12:15, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have often been the target of cutting comments and jokes. On those occasions, I get the sword end of the schtick. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 12:21, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well it can't be so bad, or you would not keep watching this page and returning for more. Giacomo 21:08, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Its easy to make fun of someone with such big pointy ears, at times what we need round here is a giggle bomb, often this place is overly up its own ass. Off2riorob (talk) 12:52, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The KGB, the FBI and the CIA are all trying to prove that they are the best at catching criminals. The Secretary General of the UN decides to give them a test. He releases a rabbit into a forest and each of them has to catch it. The CIA goes in. They place animal informants throughout the forest. They question all plant and mineral witnesses. After three months of extensive investigations they conclude that the rabbit does not exist. The FBI goes in. After two weeks with no leads they burn the forest, killing everything in it, including the rabbit, and make no apologies: the rabbit had it coming. The KGB goes in. They come out two hours later with a badly beaten bear. The bear is yelling: "Okay! Okay! I'm a rabbit! I'm a rabbit!"
No because I am not prepared to identify at any price or under any condition. Some people may not bother about having their names, photographs and reputations trashed all over the internet and the stress caused to their families from that and possible litigation from the supposedly wronged, but I do. I also think it is irresonsible of The Foundation to expect people to do so. I have been writing here since 2004; if I am under 18, that would make me 11 or 12 when I wrote my first page; if that's the case, I am such a prodigy Wikipedia is lucky to have me anyway. And even if I scorred a trillion votes, I doubt Jimbo would appoint me. Giacomo 08:29, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That would explain the spelling then :) Casliber (talk·contribs) 23:56, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"I doubt if he [Giano] will last much longer at Wikipedia". I think that Mr Wales needs a new crystal ball. MalleusFatuorum 15:59, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well balls are very useful things whatever they are made of, and without them one is left looking very silly. Giacomo 16:05, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree - I think if Giano got the vote percentage, and there was a successful negotiation on ID, he'd be inCasliber (talk·contribs) 23:56, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that the ballot is secret now might change things all sorts of ways. Anyway back to writing articles...Casliber (talk·contribs) 00:36, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It may improve his numbers, but Wales would not assign a seat to Giano at 90 or even 99%. I've got a few college basketball season articles to work on, as well.. Agent VodelloOK, Let's Party, Darling! 04:12, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Would you be willing to have a lawyer of your own choosing certify to WMF that you are of legal age? That should be acceptable to WMF if all they want to do is verify age. JehochmanTalk 20:32, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I really don't think so. Giacomo 21:34, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have been following the discussion at WT:ACN regarding the document submission requirement. If you were elected, and (1) did not seek Checkuser or Oversight permissions, (2) did not look at any such private data, and (3) did not participate on any mailing lists discussing such data, you should clearly not be required to identify. That is to say, if you were an arbitrator who only arbitrated, not participating in other "government" functions, you would not actually have access to any "non-public information", so the Wikimedia Foundation privacy policy would not apply. Just something to consider, have a nice day. — NGQ Jon 06:55, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, that was something that had crossed my mind. Being an Arb who considered only presented evidence, deliberated in public and refused to hear secret agendas and back chanel biting - that certainly would be a novelty. Certain others would claim such an arb could not do the job properly; I'm not so sure. Giacomo 08:38, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think I'll have whatever you're drinking ;-) - dunno whether to laugh or cry..... good luck, I guess!!! Privatemusings (talk) 10:17, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yerse, I did have one or two problems filling in the form - is it OK now? Giacomo 10:19, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
heh... you'd stuffed it up good and proper ;-) - I fixed it (I think) - and I also dropped you down the order to your alphabetically accurate spot (sorry). Congratulations on your recent engagement by the way, and are you going to stop the Italian pretense for the election? ;-) Privatemusings (talk) 10:25, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Dear GiacomoReturned, thank you for nominating yourself as a candidate in the 2010 Arbitration Committee elections. On behalf of the coordinators, allow me to welcome you to the election and make a few suggestions to help you get set up. By now, you ought to have written your nomination statement, which should be no more than 400 words and declare any alternate or former user accounts you have contributed under (or, in the case of privacy concerns, a declaration that you have disclosed them to the Arbitration Committee). Although there are no fixed guidelines for how to write a statement, note that many candidates treat this as an opportunity, in their own way, to put a cogent case as to why editors should vote for them—highlighting the strengths they would bring to the job, and convincing the community they would cope with the workload and responsibilities of being an arbitrator.
You should at this point have your own questions subpage; feel free to begin answering the questions as you please. Together, the nomination statement and questions subpage should be transcluded to your candidate profile, whose talkpage will serve as the central location for discussion of your candidacy. If you experience any difficulty setting up these pages, please follow the links in the footer below. If you need assistance, on this or any other matter (including objectionable questions or commentary by others on your candidate pages), please notify the coordinators at their talkpage. If you have followed these instructions correctly, congratulations, you are now officially a candidate for the Arbitration Committee. Good luck! Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 10:24, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, I wish to keem my Argentinian Latino antecedents very secret. Giacomo 10:28, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Giano, you want to find some way of presenting consolidated edit count figures. Your current username has only 1729 articlespace edits, which isn't very impressive. Also you need to opt-in on the count figures per month etc, which are currently not set up & only you can do. Click "count" on the template below your nom & follow the redlinks - doesn't take a moment. Johnbod (talk) 10:44, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, I have never counted edits, I always write in user space because of my spelling and grammar and confused way of working, I like to things to be organised before they go "public". Giacomo 10:49, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
PS: The count does work, it leads to a pie graph thing. Giacomo 11:10, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but the two bits below need a quick "opt-in" from you. And you should make the much bigger numbers under your previous names easily available somehow, if only by adding links to the equivalent pages to your statement. Johnbod (talk) 12:24, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
but what an i supposed to type in to create the page - I never get all this technical stuff. Giacomo 12:33, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just bash the redlinks, sorry bluelinks, there, type XX and enter. Johnbod (talk) 12:39, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Would you like me to add quick links like count to the other usernames on your statement? - but only you can do the 2 opt-ins for each. Johnbod (talk) 12:45, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think that might save us all a great deal of time :-) I have just typed in XX and all I can see is XX. This is all very confusing Giacomo 12:47, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Did you type "space xx"? Only you can edit those pages, but I've added the links for the others to your stmt, which each have the two opt-ins. Johnbod (talk) 12:57, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
well GiacomoReturned's count seems to be working now (can you see it?) but we have an insumpontable probalem with Giano and Giano II, I don't have a password for them. Giacomo 13:04, 23 November 2010 (UTC) + :::well GiacomoReturned's count seems to be working now (can you set it?) but we have an insumpontable probalem woth Giano and Giano II, I don't have a password for them. Giacomo 13:04, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ah! Oh well. Unless anyone knows a solution. Good luck on the campaign trail! If this doesn't work out you could try the Irish Parliament for January. They seem to be in a similar pickle, & I expect you get paid. Johnbod (talk) 13:09, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalker) At a purely technical side of things, an administrator could opt those accounts in (as admins can edit users' .js and .css files) - Kingpin13 (talk) 13:11, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Kingpin if you can do that you will be my est friend for ever. can you do all 3 or just GiacomoReturned, which still is not working. Giacomo 13:14, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'll hold you to that ;P. Well opted them all in. Ping me any time if you want them removed. Also, your GiacomoReturned edit count seemed to be working fine before, see here - Kingpin13 (talk) 13:23, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Kingpin you are indeed my best friend for ever. Giacomo 13:24, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Looking forward to seeing how this comes out -- I may very well shock myself and vote for you. :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:51, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That would shock me too Sarek. Giacomo 14:10, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Best of luck, you will have my support. Mo ainm~Talk 14:39, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Best of luck in your upcoming trial by fire. As in previousyears I have a series of questions I ask candidates. This year there are restrictions on the length and number of questions on the "official" page for questions, restrictions which I do not agree with, but which I will abide by. I nevertheless think my questions are important and relevant (and I am not the only person to think so, in previous years they have drawn favorable comment from many, including in at least one case indepth analysis of candidates answers to them by third parties). You are invited to answer them if you so choose. I suggest that the talk page of your questions page is a good place to put them and I will do so with your acquiescence (for example, SirFozzie's page already has them as do the majority of other candidates). Your answers, (or non-answers should you decide not to answer them), that will be a factor in my evaluation of your candidacy. Please let me know as soon as practical what your wish is. Thanks and best of luck. (please answer here, I'll see it, and it keeps things together better) ++Lar: t/c 18:26, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If Sir Fozzie has them, I am sure I will be delighted to have them too. I will answer them willingly as and when I have time, but as I'm sure you will appreciate, those posing a single question will have to take priority. Giacomo 20:07, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delighted in turn. Added. ++Lar: t/c 22:18, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I just asked a fairly open-ended question at your arbQ page. If you want me to narrow it down a bit, I can, but I think it's better off generic. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:08, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Giano, sorry, it's a strict limit of 400 words. I've relocated your "disclosure" here and linked from the statement. Please feel free to reorganise the text in another way if it suits you better. Tony(talk) 00:52, 24 November 2010 (UTC) (on behalf of the election coordinators)[reply]
"Disclosure: I have one sock/alternative account Lady Catherine de Burgh (deceased) (count) I don't use her much, but she's very much designed to spread a little satire and hopefully humour around the place. She had a brief predecessor Catherine de Burgh (count) very much a humour account.
More seriously, like most people, I first edited briefly as an IP then briefly as Conte Giacomo (count), but I was never very happy with that name, (don't know why I chose it), then I became Giano (count), then Giano II (count) and then finally me. Regarding the "content" edits as GiacomoReturned, it appears they have gone down under this name, I don't think they have, it's just late in my manifestation as Giano II because of my poor spelling etc I began to write pages in User space and then paste them over into mainspace, the userspace showing the painful births are then deleted, so the mainspace edits appear to have shrunk as a result."
Oh I had missed that - well spotted. I see Ms Kinney felt the need to change my question to put herself in a better light [21]. Oh well, I shall be fighting cleanly, others may do as they wish. Some of us have standards. Giacomo
While I'm not sure the portion of your question that she removed was really needed, at least she could have answered the questions that remained on the page instead of going off on some completely unrelated tangent. Tex (talk) 20:51, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ms Kinney and Coren's atacks on me are now deleted and surpressed inspite of consensus. [22]. It's because of things like this, the way the ordinary editors are treated by Arbs, that I am fighting this election. Giacomo 08:51, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Very bizarre, at least yours had a few votes to delete it allthough not consensus, mine was an overwhelming keep [23]. Wikipedia is indeed a mysterious world, but hopefully, if I'm elected, will become far more open and honest place [24]. Giacomo 10:19, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How very... outlandish. (wordsmyth.net never lets me down!) I have posted a question here to the closing admin Jc37. Bishonen | talk 12:17, 26 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
In the States we have a holiday (Thanksgiving) prior to which much food goes on sale, and occasionally Spumoni is included in the sales. Yesterday, due to a buy-one-get-one-free sale, I had the opportunity to get a half gallon of Spumoni for free. I thought this would be a good opportunity to show the kids why Spumoni is not served at the 31 Flavors Ice Cream Parlor. I had the Spumoni in my cart, but as I approached the checkout, I thought better of my decision, returned the Spumoni and selected a half-gallon of Gingerbread flavored ice cream. As expected, the Gingerbread flavored ice cream was terrible, but nowhere near as truly awful as the Spumoni would have been. Maybe next Thanksgiving the kids will be old enough to handle Spumoni. Uncle uncle uncle (talk) 19:51, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
I doubt it - and don't f*** with my template again, or the kids get it! Giano (talk) 19:59, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
You were correct - it's three Thanksgivings later, and kids still are not able to handle the awfulness of Spumoni. Uncle uncle uncle 18:46, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Glad to hear the kids are well. Whay a hoot, I had forgoten that. Giacomo 18:49, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hope you don't mind, I was answering an OTRS email from a chap who has a project to visit and photograph every cathedral in France, he was struggling a little with some of our licensing stuff so I suggested he might like to have a chat with you as you are, if I recall, more than slightly interested in architecture and I know that you are an excellent writer of content and very experienced with our processes (albeit not always in the way you'd prefer). Cheers, Guy (Help!) 00:05, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Me? I'm always being templated for the wrong licence or something - even in trouble because I failed to set my camera date up properly so it told a different date to the license. Happy to give him some pointers - he might like to see my vomiting gargoyles at Rheims Cathedral in a thunder storm - come to thnk of it that's when the camera went funny. Giacomo 00:12, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Careful with what's included in any outdoor photo in France; French copyright law is weird. They have no legal concept of "freedom of panorama", and some things which seem "obviously" public domain (most notably the lighting of the Eiffel Tower) still count as copyrighted. – iridescent 00:27, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I know, you have to be very careful on a private hotel beach not to get the lady with the protruding nipples and all over tan having sun cream rubbed into her by the old man with a medalion in a thong. Giacomo 00:31, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A medallion in a thong? It doesn't get much weirder than that. Bishonen | talk 00:37, 27 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]
"old man with a medalion in a thong"! Really, that's the last time I employ you to take my holiday photos.--Scott Mac 00:41, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
where else would you keep it, you can't let it get lost in the sand. Giacomo 00:52, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There are so many things I hate about beach holidays it's difficult to know where to start. My number one hate though, without any shadow of a doubt, is fag ends stubbed into the sand. I remember being very impressed some years ago on holiday in Spain when I saw some gigantic sand tumbling machines wandering up and down the beach late at night, but I was less impressed at ... well, I'll leave it to your imagination. MalleusFatuorum 01:15, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How much work should I do on a page in my sandbox before throwing it in the encyclopedia?[edit]
If I get all the work done, previously, the thing will be finished product, have the organization and style I want, and be bristling with deletion-repelling footnotes and such. That said, I kinda worry about it languishing in my box, and also like the feedback of having it really on the net, available for Google searches and the like.
Here is a practical example: User:TCO/Sandbox/Amanar. Should I try to get it spiffy (probably still needing help with images or categories or things like that as is, but as spiffy as I can?) Or just get a decent amount of copy down, as here, a stubtag (need to figure out how to add those) and throw it over the wall?
Here's another example: Stover at Yale. I started that article, then wandered away and it's pretty much a mess now. Half-written plot-line and needing a lot of pruning (I wrote long, then clip). And no one improved it after I wrote what I did.
I always work to completion in user space, with friends criticising on the talk page (if they are brave enough). I've wrote my thoughts on the subject here ages ago. Don't worry about pages languishing unloved, this has been in various of my user pages for about three years, but it is coming on nicely and should be finished by the Spring. I always have about three on the boil at once, that way you never get bored. This one is half finished. You can put pages in mainspace from their conception or just as soon as they are comprehendable, many don't even wait for that. In fact, many pages are never comprehendable. No one will nominate for deletion a new page someone is working on, if they do I shall bite them very hard. If you are worried you can always put the "in use" template on it for 24 hours or so - you do that like this {{inuse}. Ask again if you want to know more. Giacomo 19:00, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Yeah, had read your FA "how to" article recently. I have kind of come along to the opinion that relatively more work should be done in sandbox first. I use to be of the "content is king", "let me build the house" school, that didn't like people nuking articles under creation. But I sort of agree with the nukers, not for the same reasons exactly, but it just makes sense to get something that is at least at good "draft" stage, in terms of some critical mass. And there's also a control and consistency bonus.
I do still sort of wonder. For instance, if it is something that one never really intends to get to FA and just wants to get something out into Google space. Like a short bio, for instance RVC Bodley. It seems like there would be some natural point of creation and then launching. I did decide to launch Amanar after I had done most of what I could do easily last night. Getting an image or doing a real search of old periodicals (hard copy) would be pretty arduous and didn't think I would get to it ever, or soon.
And sometimes people do build an article up. While SAY languished as a mess for over a year, with no substantial edits added, Michael Wolff (journalist) got a pretty substantial improvement (maybe even by him, but it's good writing and not overly self-praising), so sometimes someone does actually build substantial new content (not just a factoid or categorie thingies). Hmm...
As far as I'm concerned the natural point of launching is when you've done enough to be sure that the article won't be immediately tagged for deletion, simple as that. MalleusFatuorum
Is it desirable to preserve the edit history from the sandbox?[edit]
Look for instance at Virginia House, as of 27NOV (I need to learn how to paste diffs). (Btw, thought you would like the pretty pictures and it being an article and all nice and all in the article. No?) Anyhow, in the edit history, there's basically nothing! Like a baby born as a man. On the other hand, when I moved Amanar to mainspace, the edit history was maintained. I guess the former is kind of clean. And prevents some forms of vandalism or mischief. But also lose some ability to go back. Which approach is better, do you think? TCO (talk) 20:32, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm no expert, but I believe that the preferred way is to preserve the article history by moving your sandbox article into mainspace. MalleusFatuorum 21:18, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If more than one person has edited the sandbox, it's a legal requirement that the history be preserved. If you're the sole editor, it's entirely up to you whether you move the sandbox (and preserve the history) or cut-and-paste (and start the history with a clean slate). – iridescent 21:24, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(After EC:)If you are the sole editor in userspace you can do with it what you like, which is why I often condense 750 userspace edits into 1 mainspace edits, but if anyone else has edited your user space then you have to have an arb perform a merge. However, if someone (or more likely someone's bot) has come uninvited into one's user space and just corrected a couple of minor spelling errors or made a vandalistic edit, then I think it's Ok to turn a blind eye to those edits. Incidentally, TCO, I see you have been here since April 2007, about time you knew how to paste diffs - please ask, someone will be happy to tell you. Giacomo 21:28, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Diff learning performed. Agreed, I'm deliquent. But busily surfing the learning curve. Give me a chance. (And I've been banned more than 50% of the time, so haven't actively edited that much since 2007. TCO (talk) 21:44, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think you need to learn a little more... perhaps on another page? Hint! Giacomo 21:49, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you get elected it will be a huge victory for the content people in the trenches. I would'nt worry too much that it will currupt you, some chance, more that the whole thing will become more trasparent and representaive.[25]. An arbcom with you, cas, and Iridecident........wiki suddenly seems like not such a waste of time. Viva the proles! Ceoil (talk) 09:54, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The last remark appears out of place; I'm looking forward to hear the Princess chastise your inconsiderate anarchism. On the subject, it appears that "the proles" are in no rush to vote, so the other party has a strong lead. East of Borschov 11:07, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well I shall not be voting at all, fortunately most candidates seem to be behaving very honourably too. Watching people under presure change and justify their views can be very revealing, I've always maintained the response to a measured question is more telling than anythng else. That's what people will see from me in arbitration cases, if I'm elected, open questioning, clear evaluation and no dependence on the (seemingly not so) secret files and off-site conversations. Giacomo 11:16, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I also liked your answers to questions and general approach. I think you'd be an interesting addition to arbcom. However, this identification demand may be a sticky wicket. I understand your concern on that point, but fear that it may keep JW from appointing you. ScottyBerg (talk) 14:51, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Arbs are chosen by the community. Jimmy Wales only "ceremonialy" appoints them after the vote. I'm not really after a metallic gold chain and tarnished key to the secret files. I will abide by the community's vote; it seems others may be worried by the way that vote is going. I of course have no access to the count, so have no idea. Giacomo 15:02, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The opposing argument is that ID is "required." I'm not familiar enough with the requirements to know who's right. I just hope this difficulty is surmounted as I liked what you had to say, especially your general opposition to "secret" evidence. ScottyBerg (talk) 16:00, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There are occasions concerning stalkers and editors who have suffered Rl harasment and crime from other editors; their experiences should be kept cofidential. However, I am not qualified to counsel or deal with people who have suffered in such ways, beyond throwing a tissue and some comforting words at such victims I would not be much use. The perpetrators of such crimes in my view should always be reported to the appropriate RL authorities rather than dealt with by a quasi-judicial Arbcom, so I don't feel the community will be losing anything by me not having acess to secret documents. We shall just have to wait and see what the community thinks best. In my view, hurdles are for jumping over, not keeping one imprisoned. Giacomo 16:08, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You got my vote. [26] was a rebuke I won't forget (and deserved). --BozMotalk 17:07, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, that's 3 votes I've got so far, I wonder how many more I have to get? The rebuke/threat was not to you , but our hoaxer; I often wonder how much rubbish like that [27] there is lurking unspotted on Wikipedia; just the sort of thing the press like to report in sneering terms. I bet there's tonnes of it out there. Giacomo 17:41, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Reminds me of a joke. A man from Connecticut is jumping up and down on top of a manhole yelling "Five, five, five". A visitor from New York asks what he's doing. The Connecticut man says he's practicing a local custom that is loads of fun, "Try it yourself". So the New Yorker jumps up...and the Connecticut man removes the cover...and the New Yorker falls into the hole. "Six, six, six!" JehochmanTalk 19:12, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
have you considered a career in public entertainment, Jehochman? because I would not give up the day job if I were you. Giacomo 21:13, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Since you want to know...I voted for you. --Guerillero | My Talk 19:57, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wow! Thanks, that's 5 now. How any more do I need? Giacomo 20:13, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is fantastic. I bet nobody else has 6 votes. Giacomo 07:50, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot vote for you but then I cannot vote for anyone because I scrambled my passwords to all accounts I could have voted from. If I could vote for you I wouldn't but then I wouldn't vote for most of the other candidates either. I wondered if you thought my picture User:Polargeo 2/ACE2010 of you was accurate or not? Polargeo (talk) 13:46, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I look a damn sight more attractive than the one below and above. Giacomo 13:53, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Polargeo (talk) 13:58, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Why have you scrambled your password; I have not been following your exploits lately? Giacomo 14:06, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It all started with the climate change arbcom case when I was put under the general topic ban of remedy 3. I resigned my admin tools and have been drifting ever since. Polargeo (talk) 14:12, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I see, well let me tell you from experience that scrambling passwords is something one always regrets, can't you get them to email you a new one, of have you scrambled the email too? Regarding the tools, well I'm sure you will be happier without such weighty resposibility. Giacomo 14:15, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Of course I removed the email each time before scrambling. I don't give a monkey's about the responsibility it is just a handicap to not be able to see deleted contributions. Polargeo (talk) 14:21, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Use your imagination, it's probably far more fun. Anyway poking about through deleted edits is a bit like walking in an empty cemetery - jolly unhealthy. Giacomo 14:27, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ahh but there is so much stuff THEY don't want you to see :) Polargeo (talk) 14:56, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
......and most of it very dull. Giacomo 14:58, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I can only admire your optimism but as an ex admin who recently had access to this stuff I think many deletions are political particularly with the recent ability of admins to hide revisions. If you cannot see it you cannot argue with it. Polargeo (talk) 15:31, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well you should write an expose page and join me as the devil incarnate. Giacomo 15:36, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Briefly, have you seen [28] (I have tried to follow the sprawling discussions but didn't notice this one linked), and what is your view after reading it? Gimmetoo (talk) 17:44, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Seems to have been an usually high number of withdrawals this season. I'm just looking forward to next week, when Mr Wales tries to justify his decision not to ratify Giano, as he inevitably will. MalleusFatuorum 01:32, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You and I should have offered our services, Malleus. There might have been a more colourful set of justifications. Bishonen | talk 03:35, 5 December 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Very possibly, and you both should have offered your services. Anyway, it's all out of our hands now, we shall just have to wait and see what happens next week. By now, the community "en masse" will have made clear what they want in their leadership; we just have to abide by their decision. Giacomo 22:41, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think you and I both know the powers that be are hoping against hope that you won't get enough votes for your decision not to identify to be a problem. Next week should be interesting. MalleusFatuorum 23:30, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If Giano is elected I think Jimbo will appoint him, if only to pull the rug from under his (Jimbo's) critics. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:24, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
After last week's comments from Jimbo (in the middle of the voting) I would be very surprised if I have even 25% support - as we have been told identifying is purely because of age, I do wonder if Jimbo seriously thinks I am under 18 - I must have been one hell of an 11 year old back in 2004. Whatever, we shall all just have to wait and see; in the meantime I have a page to finish which will be far more interesting, If only to me. Giacomo 07:13, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Given the overall calibre of the field 25% support might well be competitive. That's about the fraction of my votes that were "support." Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 21:34, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's a rather gauche chandelier, darling... have you had the decorators in again? - I'd get them back..... :-) Privatemusings (talk) 09:25, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You are clearly a person of very little taste. This year's tree in the very understated and subdued Salone Rosso at Palazzo Splendido, is a symbol of refinement and expressive of the straightened financial circumstances in which the world currently finds itself. It's a pity that your invitation to sip a glass of economy vintage Krug beneath it on Christmas Eve will be lost in the post. Giacomo 09:32, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's right! You're barking up the wrong tree here Pm! :P - Kingpin13 (talk) 11:46, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Talking of which looking at the youtube video you said you were in perhaps you could settle an argument we were having translating the title. I am sure it is named after a Bianchi bike "Italia Campione del Mondo" meaning as "Italy, mundane mushrooms" but the wife says she thought it meant "Italians ring bells on Monday"? --BozMotalk 09:34, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Very amusing; it means. Italy, World Champion. I'd forgotten that was there, I must find something more recent to give people a hint of my features. That trombone is becoming to heavy to keep blowing. Giacomo 13:38, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Good grief. Sack your election agent, next time I run the campaign.--Scott Mac 01:01, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Forty or so percent isn't at all bad given the hill Giano had to climb. MalleusFatuorum 02:18, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Commiserations. I was going to post something along the lines of MF, but he beat me to it and said it alot more eloquently too. Casliber (talk·contribs) 02:28, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not too worry, hardly a surprise to anyone. The important and realy great thing is that Iridescent and Casliber were voted in, I am thrilled about that. Thanks to all 260odd of you who supported me, I appreciated it, I can't thank you individually, as I don't know who you all are. It's true, I would have liked a few more votes, but considering the many comments from Jimbo mid-election, and Chase me Ladies' chattering on IRC, I think I did very well all things considered. So onwards and upwards. Tomorrow, is another day etc - who knows what the future holds for 2011. I hope it's happy New Year for everyone. Giacomo 10:03, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Congratulations on running a thoughtful and well ordered campaign - and congratulations as ever for avoiding the straitjacket... LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:39, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Congratulations on avoiding a huge distraction from doing what you do best, Excellency (despite my support). I was also pleased that Iridescent and Cas gained so much support - as well as Ellen. Only slightly less importantly, I've straightened out your File:TrenthamBalustrade.jpg; would you like me to do another copyedit on Destruction of country houses in 20th century Britain, perhaps tomorrow? --RexxS (talk) 18:41, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Rex, that's brilliant. Yes please copy edit whenever you like; it may be a good idea to put up the "in use" template, I may be tampering on and off for a while; I'm not completely happy with it, but a good copy edit is esential. Giacomo 21:48, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am sad to see you were not elected, ArbCom would have benefitted from your voice and input, even though some members would have found you difficult to work with. It is disappointing that Jimbo declined to behave appropriately for a constitutional monarch and stay out of the election. :( Anyway, you had my support and well wishes from others in the community, hopefully that is some consolation. EdChem (talk) 02:30, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sad too, no denying it, but never look back, only forward. Giacomo 07:16, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Davvero adesso. Il lampadario è abbastanza squisito. Dr. Dan (talk) 01:52, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Old proverb: "You should never judge a person by their lampadari" Giacomo 10:06, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, when I ran Dr. Dan's comment through the Google language tool, it said "The chandelier is delicious." Delicious??? Well, I guess it was speaking to taste, but even still, I would have guessed "exquisite". Risker (talk) 15:14, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No it is simply delicious darling. Positively edible. Polargeo (talk) 15:18, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The problem here is attempting to plod through life using the Google anything. Please attempt to learn the language, bambini. Neither delicious nor greedy, the chandelier is simply quite "exquisite" (squisito), as is the truly very understated and subdued Salone Rosso at the Palazzo Splendido. Ditto regarding the Albero di Natale. You must know many are living in rather hard times and appropriate deference to that fact is certainly in order. That explains the austerity in the salon. And further invitations for the Krug ceremony seem destined to be lost in the post as this jabber continues. Dr. Dan (talk) 02:03, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Very true Dr Dan, you should all beware babel fish! You will also not in these hard and megre times, I have had to sell the carpet and furniture to pay for the Krug, which is also exquisite. Giacomo 07:13, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I nominated it for DYK and will see how it goes. The hook itself is cited - but some overzealous reviewer might be keen to see the whole shebang cited. What I do these days is often use the comment-out box <!-- this reference cites the previous paragraph/previous five sentences/whatever--> so I don't have to stick the same ref after several sentences in a row..Casliber (talk·contribs) 07:27, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks you for nominating it. I hope not, I think it's only the taxation paragraphs which are quite complicated where the reference on the end covers all, but they are all pretty well documented historical fcts. i thought about condensing them all, but they are quite important as they documant the slow progression of the decline of the country house Giacomo 09:30, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
PS: I left it up to someone more knowledgeable than me to choose a good picture. If you have any favourites I can add - a good pic often gets alot more hits I think. Casliber (talk·contribs) 07:29, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nice article; I saw it on the DYK suggestions page. Eaton Hall would be my favourite pic, incidentally. There are a couple of "notes to self" left in the article, where you planned to look for refs: in the "Direct causes" paragraph and the "Loss of wealth through taxation" sub-paragraph. Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 08:37, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks yes, i am still reffing it as we speak, this is the problem with writing about a subject you know and finding the refs later, but it had ben lying in userspcace and word processor for almost 4 years, I decided it was now or never! Giacomo 08:49, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just saying, probably a bad idea to remove an arbcom announcement from their noticeboard...I would put it back if I was you. Ks0stmIf you reply here, please leave me a {{Talkback}} message on my talk page. 20:18, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The arbcom needs to tell the truth, then there noticeboard may be a place people respect. I shan't revert it again, but I do hope others will, these people need to be taught what is acceptable and what is not. Giacomo 20:20, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You could perhaps just ask nicely; I've found people tend to respond much more positively and openly to polite requests. Playing with their toys, so to speak, is only going to get you in trouble in the end. Ks0stmIf you reply here, please leave me a {{Talkback}} message on my talk page. 20:26, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nicely? With this Arbcom? I think like honesty, that's not a word in their vocabulary. Giacomo 20:28, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well another core concept is that sometimes, people just have to agree to disagree if politeness and compromise can't bring about a solution. Invariably there are times in life where I disagree with my parent's decisions, but if they are unwilling to work with me and come to a solution that makes both me and them happy, which is the better solution...to put up a long, drawn out, ugly fight that will get me grounded for a week or for me to just accept it, cut my losses, and try again another day? By the way, I'm on my iPod touch and will not be able to respond once this section gets longer than one edit box, which will be soon. However, I will be back on a while later. Ks0stmIf you reply here, please leave me a {{Talkback}} message on my talk page. 20:35, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Since you were reverted by another editor, I did something less dramatic and replaced your username with the generic "anyone", not least since it seems you weren't the only one who tried it. Perhaps you could take this as your cue to let the associated talk page thread die its natural death? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:45, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously, Giacomo, I am hoping one of your page readers will be able to help me - I am just using your highly trafficked page... I am hoping that someone will be able to provide me with a banner I can place across the top of my talk and user pages to which I may add text - so other contributors are better informed of my thoughts (and thus make the place more collegiate, etc.) I leave the background, text style, borders, etc. to those more talented than I, but I want the message "This editor has found no evidence that the Arbitration Committee are not after all a Den of Crazy Pigs!" to be both easily accommodated and read. I hope one of your well disposed readers can provide me with the necessary. Cheers, LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:08, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh I'm sure one will be happy to oblige. I usually use Jack Merridew he's very clever at things like that and doesn't charge. I would ofer you some help myself, but after this evening's two episodes of Coronation Street, I am completely exhausted. Sally has thrown Kevin out, Tyrone is devestated and Ashly has been killed by a tram, but they think Peter may be Ok, but i think he will peg it. So I am off to bed with my new relaxing book about Irish castles being burnt by nasty Irish Republicans - all for my next page. G'night. Giacomo 22:17, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This editor has found no evidence that the Arbitration Committee are not after all a Den of Crazy Pigs!
- Color can be added to the text for additional effect.s Off2riorob (talk) 22:19, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
or...
This editor has found no evidence that the Arbitration Committee are not after all a Den of Crazy Pigs!
I have had enough of this place and am going away for a while. There are too many things here now with which I just cannot agree or want to watch while saying nothing - you all know what they are. I don't say I am gone for ever because I have tried that before and failed miserably - so we shall just have to see what happens; it must be like quitting smoking, sooner or later one succeeds. This is not a spontaneous action prompted by tonight's recent happenings, but more a culmination of continued events and pressures over the last month or so - there comes a time when it all just appears to be more effort that it's worth and that time has come. In short, Wikipedia has lost its sparkle for me and I'm probably making it too noisy for all of you.
Perhaps Wetman would be kind enough to tidy
this up and stick it in mainspace - he can wax lyrical over that horrible staircase he thinks is so wonderful. If anyone slaps "cite tags" on the new "Lost Houses" page, its all in the reffs and probably in the cited refs already - I have not made anything up, I promise. I think its cited enough, but you know what some people are like :-)
If the Christmas tree is still up on Epiphany can somebody take it down - and I do not want a "retired sticker" because they look like tombstones. You can leave the page as it is in case I return. I won't be socking because with my English and spelling it's a waste of time - so don't bother looking or pouncing on and banning every poor bastard who can't spell. I think that's about it. Thanks to all those who have supported me over the years (I expect the email will still work) and goodbye and farewell to all those who have not. On the whole it's been a laugh. Thank you. Giacomo 23:50, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Many people resign after an unsuccessful election, but you ought not to be one of them. MalleusFatuorum 23:58, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merry Christmas, Giano; mellow, it's just teh wiki. Cheers, Jack Merridew 00:01, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You know, although your choice is understandable, by leaving you make the place poorer for those of us who stay. Let it be 'ciao' and not 'addio' ... Simon Kidd (talk) 00:28, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merry Christmas, Excellency. Just as Jack said. Regards, --RexxS (talk) 00:36, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Simon Kidd expressed it well. Not to be mawkish but I can't help thinking your not being elected was a blessing in disguise. Arbcom tends to change people and never for the better (Risker used to be pleasant rather than condescending, for example). Anyway enjoy the holidays in whatever way you choose. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:13, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps Giano might want to explain why I am so very, deeply disappointed in him over this episode. What you are taking as condescension is, well, not. Risker (talk) 02:30, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hello GiacomoReturned, Ks0stm has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Go on, smile! Cheers, and happy editing! Ks0stmIf you reply here, please leave me a {{Talkback}} message on my talk page. 04:29, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply] Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Cheer up, at least we didn't get Sandstein on arbcom. (Though all it'll take is one putatively elected arb jumping ship... heigh ho, now I'm sad.) darwinbishBITE 00:34, 11 December 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Darwinbish, are you cruising for an incivility block? Bishonen 00:34, 11 December 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Yes. It's shameful for a person of my attainments to have a clean block log. darwinbishBITE 00:34, 11 December 2010 (UTC).[reply]
block reason: No user with this many contributions should have a clean block log. CONFORM PEON. J.delanoygabsadds 01:19, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Kiss your ankles good-bye, JD. --RexxS (talk) 02:50, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Is that the sanitised Californian version? Here in good ol' blighty we say "kiss your arse goodbye". MalleusFatuorum 19:26, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Kiss your ankles??? Ain't never heard of that one, and sounds like a contortionist's farewell...Casliber (talk·contribs) 21:04, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Little Ankle Biter (aka User:Darwinbish) already has a fearsome reputation for chewing through many users' talocrural joints. I find it an egregious violation of WP:BEANS, Malleus, to suggest she sets her sights any higher. --RexxS (talk) 21:15, 11 December 2010 (UTC) (from the unsanitised West Midlands)[reply]
[Good twin User:Darwinfish giggles with vicarious delight.] My sister is fearsome! RexxS is funny! darwinfish 22:46, 11 December 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Hear hear. A thoroughly engaging, enjoyable and informative read. Nancy talk 18:46, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A nice article indeed. The title's wrong of course though, it ought to be "Destruction of country houses in 20th-century Britain". I'd move it, but I don't want to incur the wrath of Giano. :-) MalleusFatuorum 19:29, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Good news, it was a long way to main space... NVO (talk) 22:07, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, is it finally live? That's great! HansAdler 22:14, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oops. I see it's not all good news, though. HansAdler 23:25, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I saw this and was reminded of a book on a similar subject that came out recently: Lost Victorian Britain, by Gavin Stamp. I've read some of Stamp's other books, and I might be getting this one as well, as the subject of 'lost' architecture is a fascinating one. Carcharoth (talk) 04:13, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, but I'm not sure I am back; I had an email about some cites needed for the new page, so rather than let imformation be removed I came and added some more refs. probably the start of a slippery slope, but we shall see. I see nothing has changed, except the requirements for sucessful Arb candidates - good job I did not get enough votes because in addition to only being 12 and half, I have two convictions for bank robbery, three for bigamy and now eek out a meagre living as an international spy and pimp.. Giacomo 14:15, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Someone's given Destruction of country houses in 20th century Britain a nice green lovely tick of green-lighting for DYK, so it will end up in a queue and appear on the main page soonish - the next question is thinking of a nifty hook for that Vynes one on Wetman's page once moved into mainspace....Casliber (talk·contribs) 13:24, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's good news, but you won't be able to see the other page there because it already has a page. Anyway, it's only content, what the hell does that matter here; I'm sick of churning it out just so others, who on their own admitance are incapable of writing a simple clear statement, can swan about in public taking the credit for the project. [30]. Giacomo 20:42, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Three and a half million articles of which probably well over 90% are complete dross. Nit really that much of an achievement. MalleusFatuorum 22:50, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
On the subject of the article on houses (British, 20th-century, destruction of), I've marked a couple of places where someone (I presume you in the circumstances) had written between the ref tags "find page number" or the like; there are also a couple of ISBNs that seem to have either too few, or too many numbers. Whilst I was at it, I took the liberty of fixing a few extra things (consistency of date format, "p. 10." in references where that format was missing, etc), but no editorial changes I think. Interesting stuff! BencherliteTalk 14:11, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think that is the lot; I'm glad you think it's interesting, as a social history I think it is fascinating - I could have written a lot more on the subject, but I don't think anyone would have ever read to the end - I'm still far from happy with the clumberome title, its original working title, Exploding Houses, was alays the best one to my mind. Giacomo 15:09, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The second sentence of the article starts with "collectively termed by several authors, 'the lost houses' ... ", so I wonder whether there isn't sufficient support amongst the sources for the article's title to be changed to "Lost houses" or something similar. The category's name is "Britain's lost houses", and I imagine that there is no special dispensation regarding categories and NPOV, verifiability, etc. I think it would also fit the article's tone better; "Exploding houses" sounds a bit too jolly, which would apparently be the correct tone for the mid-20th century, but would offend modern sensibilities (mine included).
For all it's worth, the current title seems just fine to me, though its descriptiveness does not warrant the bold treatment in the introduction. I think I'll read the article in edit view and do some copy-editing at the same time; I thought I saw some inconsistent punctuation in the captions. (evil grin)(wears rubber gloves)Waltham, The Duke of 16:11, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I know you have a valid point about "lost", but it just makes me think of absent minded people and stray dogs. Or worse, those dreadful people who beat about the bush uable to say the word "dead" as in "I have lost a loved one" as though they have been careless with a great aunt on a crowd. Also, I wonder if the present title fits what is considered an acceptable "encyclopedia title" and some people won't go there expecting to see a manual on how to demolish a house. All very puzzling. Giacomo 17:00, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Destruction of country houses in 21st-century Britain" does sound a bit like a manual. The article is about the 20th century, however, and the title's capitalisation means that the article is not about a book of this name; I cannot imagine what else one might make of it.
I do understand your connotations of the word lost, but I tend to think that the nature of houses as (normally) immovable objects makes the meaning "misplaced" nonsensical in any context other than fiction. Maybe that's just because I am not a native speaker of English. In any case, I do join you in your dislike of the use of lost instead of dead, but these connotations of tragedy might be a good thing in our case—and at the same time perfectly neutral, since it is what experts call these houses. Indeed, every phenomenon of such a magnitude tends to have a name, and I find it would be fitting to use it as the article's title; its simplicity is also a plus. To temper the "tragically lost" effect we might go with title case ("Lost Houses"), if the sources support it, though I have my doubts. Waltham, The Duke of 14:01, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well I am very open to pursuasion on this, my only stipulation is the title must stipulate "Britain, 2Oth century and country house" (which means it's never going to be a short title) If not, we will have every Tomaž, Rikard and Heinrich adding every building thats ever been demolished anywhere at anytime. Giacomo 15:02, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Giacomo, thank you for being so kind with me! Thank you for trying to understand me! Mbz1 (talk) 21:34, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. There is a certain irony in that every day we are bombarded with a deliberatly photographed hypnotic-like image of Mr Wales (apparently seeing a vision) begging for money to support a project which fails to support those who donate the most. Your images are amongth the finest of anything donated to Wikipedia, yet Mr Wales and those claiming to be in charge fail constantly to turn those penetrating eyes to the fact that certain Admins, who contribute so little, apparently delight in hounding those who give so much. Not for the first time am I minded that Wikipedia has lost its way and become a playground for the power crazed who would not know an encyclopedia if it fell off a shelf on to their heads. Happy New Year. Giacomo 11:01, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
_-head.jpg)
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Users who edit disruptively or refuse to collaborate with others may be blocked if they continue. In particular the three-revert rule states that making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block. If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the talk page to discuss controversial changes. Work towards wording and content that gains consensus among editors. If unsuccessful then do not edit war even if you believe you are right. Post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Secret account 22:50, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
![[3]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File_talk:Downtown_Surrey_Gateway_(2010).jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
