User talk:Giano II/archive 17

Archives from 1 January 2013

Rollback
When I restored rollback to your sainted aunt (a k a mrs Rollbacker) I recollected (eventually) that you too might have mislaid yours in some exotic location, which was indeed the case. Fixed. Bishonen &#124; talk 11:21, 15 January 2013 (UTC).
 * That's most kind, but if you check the ANI noticeboards from centuries back you will see that the so called Wikipedia community of doubtlessly very polite, but failed editors and second-rate admins decided in their infinite wisdom that I am not a suitable person to be trusted with such magical powers. However, I'm sure that my esteemed and noble aunt will be more than delighted to have such tools, although of course her high and impartial position in the Wikipedia hierarchy will prevent their use. Perhaps you would care to grant them to her secretary and factotum extraordinaire, Miss A V Corpus. Thank you. Giano (talk) 12:19, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh, that must have been in your impetuous youth, I don't care. I was just considering Miss Corpus. What do you think of the Reverend Deepthought and Lady Catherine's personal masseur, Lars-Göran or whatever his name is? Would the feature be useful to them, and, more importantly, would Lady C approve? Bishonen &#124; talk 14:29, 15 January 2013 (UTC).
 * Well it would be useful for rolling back all those little bots that crop up here, and idiots that wish to include all their own houses and various holiday snaps in pages on architecture. Not to mention those that need to lecture the rest of us in etiquette and examples of what they are imagine are nice manners. I don't think the Rev Deepthought requires it; he tends to dwell on higher matters. Miss Corpus definitely needs it as I believe she intends to join the civility police and run for adminship. She's developed a crush on Malleus and wants to bring herself to his attention as a dominatrice by blocking him all the time. Giano (talk) 14:46, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Ah. She might want to start by giving her opinion on ANI, and here. I recommend following User:Kww around and agreeing with him. Malleus Fatuorum admires feisty women, I'm sure. You do recollect that rollback is for obvious vandalism only? For mere idiocy, use the "undo" feature. Rollback in your own userspace is acceptable. Such as rolling back bots, indeed…  to fend them off, I've just now taken the liberty of adding some code at the top of this page. I'm not sure it works — I've tried several ways on my own page previously, without success (I see you already have the , which they merely laugh at) — but this one comes recommended by RexxS and seems effective so far. Well, I expect the bots will step up the arms race momently. Bishonen &#124; talk 16:47, 15 January 2013 (UTC).

Edward Lovett Pearce
Hi Giano, do you remember writing this in 2004? (14 November 2004) "Bellamont, Another of Pearce's earliest commissions occurred when he was commissioned by his uncle-in-law Thomas Coote to build Bellamont House, at Cootehill," I'm very keen to know the people (their names) that are in this relationship. Can you tell me? With kind regards, Eddaido (talk) 07:02, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Goodness me; did I write that? - that was a long time ago - obviously before the days when we had access to so many pictures - we shall have to liven the page up. No, I have no idea about his relationships and relations. I wonder if that Mormon site where people can trace their family trees would be any help. Giano (talk) 16:05, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Mormon? I don't understand. Where did you get the idea from, its there in the first published version (of your first major creative effort for WP I think). What are the pictures you refer to? In admiration, Eddaido (talk) 04:13, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh I see: well, the page is all explained, referenced and sorted now. Don't worry about the Mormons (actually it may be the Amish or Jehovah's Witnesses - someone like that anyway) had a website, where people of doubtful parentage could type in their name and up came their grandmother's second cousin's grandfather. I'm sure it was very useful for them, but the website seems to have disappeared - I expect once everyone had found their lost relations they stopped using it. Regarding pictures - I see the page needs a few more - I am attempting to track down some incompetent admin who stupidly deleted the picture that I did place there in the lead; leave it with me  I shall soon have it back and the admin concerned will be very sorry indeed. Giano (talk) 16:15, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * As I know little or nothing about architecture and I've made a category specially for ELP in Wikimedia and you have uploaded some new images to Wikipedia (not Wikimedia but you know much more than I do about these things) would you consider writing to this firm of architects becaause they claim to have worked on some of his houses here's Castletown and persuading them to donate good quality mages to Wikimedia if only on the grounds that it would be a further assurance of their long term conservation? Best, Eddaido (talk) 01:30, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
 * That is weird, there hsould have been an edit clash there and the system just swallowed that you had changed this page while I had it open (for 8 hours or so). And thanks for about the Mormons I'm sure you're quite right there. They don't call here any more. I have re-organised the images of Henrietta Street and put them in Wikimedia. Curiously enough no available images of numbers 9 and 10 can be found which is where the architect above might help if he feels like it I'm just going to link bad pics of 11 and 12 to ELP. Happy day, Eddaido (talk) 01:37, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
 * These things cannot be explained, but then a lot of weird things happen on Wikipedia. Right! It's no use me writing to an eminent firm of architects, one simple check of me on Wikipedia would show that I am regarded by Wikipedia's hierarchy as 'a danger to the project' and a general 'ne-er-do-well' No it has be an eminent Wikipedian - who represents all that is finest and most trustworthy in the UK Wikipedian World: I suggest you approach User:Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry or User: David Gerard. Both hold high official positions and command the respect of Mr Wales - they should be able to do the trick nicely. Giano (talk) 10:21, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, yes, but I Know you and I don't know them if you see what I mean. I'm gonna have to think about this . . anyway would the official approach work? Thinking. We have to find some clear images somewhere, if I have any luck will notify here. Oh I see, that is what an uncle-in-law is. I had (mistakenly) translated it to mean a spouse's uncle. I so often get these things wrong, Eddaido (talk) 01:47, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Is it of interest that Pearce's grandfathers were respectively a Turkey Merchant (lived Constantinople?) and an early almost-nabob? Eddaido (talk) 01:55, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I am an inclusionist. So anything that's of interest regarding the subject should be added. Giano (talk) 13:39, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Elizabeth Wilbraham
I don't know if you're aware of John Millar's theory that Wilbraham was an influence on Wren and had a hand in the design of Buck House. Interesting. Anyway, I wondered if you had an opinion on this statement by Millar that Little Cassiobury in Watford was definitely designed by Wilbraham because the house has "little one-window-wide breakfronts at either end of the façade" which only she used during the late 17th century. Can you recall other houses with similar features built during that period, which have a known designer other than Wilbraham?  SilkTork  ✔Tea time  14:19, 29 January 2013 (UTC)


 * It's a lovely theory, but it worries me. I'm sure she was a very clever woman and gave her friends lots of ideas. Just like today, once people get some money they often think they are arbiters of taste and design. In that period, there were lots of patrons/gentlemen architects who employed others to put their ideas into workable drawings - sometimes with happy results and some less fortunate. You could take this collusion between gentleman and draughtsman (remember the term architect was never used) a step further and say that was the relationship between Vanbrugh and Hawksmoor. Upper-class women often had influence and it was accepted so there's no reason to suppose her opinions would not have been sought and they could just as easily and unremarkably instructed a draughtsman as they could their chef or gardener.


 * I looked at the house, little Cassiobury, and imediatly thought it was much later - so I checked my Pevsner and found it had been 'rehabilitaed' by Clough Williams-Ellis circa 1930 - which accounts for the slightly incongruous roof. I'm still not happy with its dating and the idea that she also designed Winslow Hall; if you look at the plans of LC here and  compare with the plans for Winslow hall, which are all as one would expect for the period. look at the chimneys at Cassiobury, they are all over the place and the plans show that they always were. I would have expected to see at least one corner fireplace too. I can't prove anything any more than our learned American friend, Mr Millar, but I would say that those plans are not by the same hand.


 * No, I don't know anyone using those narrow projections in that way at that period, but Hawksmoor did and was almost at the same time - perhaps a year or so later (we don't have an exact date for Cassiobury - do we?) They are a slighly Baroque feature, but there's no way Hawsmoor would have designed LC. I've also looked at old prints of Stowe (before alteration) I have not noticed the same projections that Mr Millar refers to - the Stowe projections were wider and quite common. Perhaps I have not found the right prints?


 * Now take Little Cassiobury itself it's clumsy and over busy and ill-proportioned - it jars it's amateurish - now look at Winslow Hall it's in harmony with its proportions. The same can be said of Wooton  (yes, unsurprisingly considering the patron, it does have a look of Buckingham House) as for Badminton House, I've always thought it looked odd, but anyway, any input from her would have been swept away long ago in the 18th & 19th centuries.


 * I have a lot of documentation regarding the building of Winslow - I really doubt her input there. The patron would not have moved in her social orbit. and neither could he have really afforded Wren, which is why the master just kept an eye on the project and probably provided the drawings. great architects were subject to the whims and ideas of their clients, look at poor old Wren having to keep revising Marlborough House because the Duchess thought she knew best, but no one attributes the house to her.


 * To conclude, I don't know, but it's my opinion Little Cassiobury was not designed by the same architect(s) as Wooton and Winslow. That's not to say that one or the other was not designed by her. I have not looked at the other houses Mr Millar mentions - I must find the time some day. If she did design them, she must have been a very busy bee. She must have been like Robert Adam - who would have had to produce about 6 houses and 24 fireplaces for every day of his life. Giano (talk) 17:52, 29 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks Giano. Interesting that Hawksmoor also used that design feature, considering Millar's claim of the Wren connection.  SilkTork  ✔Tea time  21:04, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't read to much into those projections; they are just a Baroque feature. Look here at Wentworth Castle. It's very similar to Wooton, but one has to be very careful about attributing a house to an architect just because something looks similar; one could just as easily say that Wilbraham was the secret architect of Caserta - she wasn't. Giano (talk) 22:39, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
 * While there may be a story behind his claims of Wilbraham's design influence on various buildings, I do find his assertion that she was definitely the architect of a house based on one design feature to be quite bold. Even if it was a favourite design feature of hers, that wouldn't prevent someone else copying the idea. That's generally how ideas spread, after all. The most he could say was that it was probable, unless he had some other connection, such as correspondence between her and the owners. Anyway, thanks for looking into it.  SilkTork  ✔Tea time  23:12, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm sure that isn't a professional architect alive or dead, who, after preparing plans with full client consultation, has not the heard the dreaded words "My friend thinks we ought to move the kitchen, bathrooms and all the plumbing." I suspect that Lady Wilbraham was such a friend. Giano (talk) 09:03, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Infobox
bzzt, please see Little Moreton Hall here, - it was your user page designer who converted me to the value of infoboxes, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:38, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Too late: I have already dealt with the matter. I have no time for drive-by glory hunters seeking to get their name on the history of FAs in such a vandalstic and antagonistic way. They should all be eternally banned along with all other invasive and irritating insects. Giano (talk) 16:30, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
 * To late for what, for a look? - "the principal editors' discretion" is a nice phrase I will want to borrow, - yesterday I added an infobox to an article I created and maintain, - it was reverted, a funny feeling ;) (now the discussion is on the talk) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:15, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
 * If you create an article and maintain the article, and the principal content editors all think it's useful, then there's no reason not to have one. Giano (talk) 21:14, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Did you see this was different? I created AND added the infobox, someone else reverted it. I placed it back, now the question is on the talk. No discussion (so far) for the single cantatas I created (example), but I was twice reverted for a similar one that was there before, at "the principal editors' discretion" --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:53, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
 * If you created and maintain the page, you should be allowed the info-box - if you feel it helpful. As I have never edited that page (not even to fix a stray typo) it would be most improper for me to suddenly pop up there and opine. That view is not permitting you to 'own' the page; it's simple good manners and etiquette - a subject on which so many here erroneously claim to be experts. The problem we currently have at Wikipedia, is that every tin-pot-tyrant and control freak who fixes a typo, now feels that makes them an expert on the subject and allows them to dictate how the page should be. Andy Mabbet has wandered in off the street and now feels it's his prerogative to alter the page and add unwanted info boxes. It is not his prerogative and I find it very concerning that such people are now 'Wikipedians in Residence' at esteemed organisations, and permitted to represent Wikipedia at such places as Wiki Academy Kosovo 2013. It does not bode well for the next influx of Eastern European editors if they are taught that such ill manners are acceptable behaviour. Someone needs to take Mr Mabbet in hand and tell hi that this behaviour is not acceptable for a leading Wikipedia - sometimes, one wonders if anyone is actually running this show. Giano (talk) 08:50, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
 * A few comments: I would love you to read "my" articles and correct, minor changes in place, discussing major changes on the talk! - On Little Moreton Hall, the only change (I saw) was changing the existing infobox from "invisible" to "building", - I don't know enough about "invisible" to tell if that was needed to make data accessible. - I suggested in the FAC Richard Wagner to add an infobox, it was treated as a risk for the article to become an FA. - No, I don't know who is "running this show", ideally it should be we the editors of articles we don't own. - Please see my talk for poem and picture of the day ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:26, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Unacceptable
and were utterly unacceptable; as were their edit summaries. Do not do that again. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:14, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I shall do as I see fit. I just feel very sorry for the people of Kosovo and in that museum where you claim to be 'Wikipedian in Residence' if this is an example of you bullying and dictatorial behaviour. It's about time you grew up. I am more than happy to be blocked if it stands up to bullies like you.   Giano   17:22, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:35, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Come here again and I will revert you. You are a bully, a troll, and very sore loser. Now piss off.  Giano   17:38, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Giano, please don't revert again if someone reverts your latest revert of the revert of your revert. Some admins are hotheads. If you can make the case that it's a bad-faith nomination, then you got it. Drmies (talk) 18:12, 14 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Giano, are you sure about this? Andy is wrong (IMHO) about the infobox issue, but this TFD is unrelated to that disagreement. Nothing whatsoever to do with it. In fact, he's probably right about this TFD. You're risking grasping defeat from the jaws of victory, by making this about your reverts instead of the infobox disagreement. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:15, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
 * No, Floque it's very much to do with it, allthough a little convoluted if you are new to the debate; so I'm quite sure. @Drmies: I don't think I need to make the case. Pigonwing seems to be doing that very well for himself. What an extraordinary man - I wonder who appointed him to all these eminent jobs representing Wikipedia? The place in my absence seems to have gone to the dogs. Good job I came back.  Giano   18:18, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Giano, I'ze not smart enough for this template stuff. I just want to make sure there's no blocks thrown around. This bit about the dogs, I resemble that remark. Woof, Drmies (talk) 18:21, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Could you give me a clue about how it's related? Saving me 14 hours of trying to figure out what threads to read?  Just pointing me in the right direction would be a favor. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:21, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Because he's trying to delete the box that has been proposed as the compromised solution.  Giano   18:22, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I know, but that's not the TFD you're reverting. You're reverting his nom of a fairly useless talk page archive box. this one. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:24, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh I can't wear glasses all the time; can you go and revert the right one then.  Giano   18:27, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't think there is one that needs to be reverted, although after Andy Mabbett's shennanigans at Montacute House I can see how you might easily have jumped to the conclusion that you did. George Ponderevo (talk) 18:34, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅ NE Ent 18:36, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
 * (multiple e/c's) Well, I really hesitate to point you to the right one, Giano :). Can we maybe leave it at this: (a) I'll restore Andy's harmless TFD nom; (b) You'll agree not to revert the other nom, because many, many people have commented on it now, and there is no way a revert of a thread with 20 people commenting would stand; (c) I'll point you to Templates for discussion/Log/2013 February 11, which is the place you should comment (with superhuman restraint, so focus remains on the right thing and doesn't get side-tracked). --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:37, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
 * If we all stuck to that which we understand the world and Wikipedia would be a far better place. The man is little more than common troll in need of a shave. If that's the best we have to publicly represent us - God help us.   Giano   18:58, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Giano, could you please reconsider the comment you just left on TParis's talk page? What he said was exceedingly foolish, yes, but calling him (as a person) a fool won't help at all; it will only make things worse. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 20:19, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
 * No, I could not. He is clearly an idiot. Perhaps you could give him some guidance. I would so hate to see a repeat of the Durova socking affair; I've already noticed similarities between them. I think these things are best nipped in the bud.  Giano   20:20, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't think a single edit is a good basis on which to make that evaluation, but even if it was, or if there were other grounds, could you please do me (well, the entire community, really) a favor and not say it out loud (as childish as that sounds)? The last thing we need is the escalation of drama this will inevitably cause, and it will do no good. :( You can point out problems and criticize his edits, but calling him as a person a fool or an idiot won't cause him to look within and seek guidance. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 20:26, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Making thinly veiled accusations that someone is a sock is several more of a personal attack than Giano's comment -- Guerillero &#124;  My Talk  20:33, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I know, it is difficult. It's always problematic when the little children want to join in with the adults; do we have some form of creche where he could be looked after? Are there no verbal reasoning tests or anything for them before they join us here?  Giano   20:36, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I completely agree, Guerillero, and I hope it didn't seem like I was threatening admin action or even an "official warning" or whatever against Giano or anything like that; I absolutely, totally was not (and am not). It's just that, with the ANI thread closed, we need to try to de-escalate this situation, and calling someone a fool, no matter how much the caller was provoked, will only accomplish the opposite. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 20:38, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Well then, what exactly are you doing here. I suspect you are spoiling for a fight. If so, I am more than happy to give you one. If not, go away before I start to point out several similarities between our little staff sergeant and the last such run in I had like this.  Giano   20:41, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Just trying to defuse the situation, but I see that I haven't succeeded. I'm sorry, I'll withdraw. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 20:49, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I think that might be wise.  Giano   20:50, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Good God; I've just been told that the idiot's an Admin. One despairs, one really does.  Giano   22:06, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Which of them? See my edit here, dear. Bishonen &#124; talk 22:16, 14 February 2013 (UTC).

SG for Little Moreton Hall
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:59, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Much as I would like to claim credit, any credit for the current page is entirely due to George Ponderevo.  Giano   16:48, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
 * It was the same who said he owed it all to you, - you two gentle men, please share ;) - Anyway, the translation is only a small portion. With that stunning picture, it will be seen. On the German Wikipedia, the equivalent of DYK stays on the Main page for two days, one pictured, one not. - Will you forgive me the infobox? It was in place before I knew you were against it. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:06, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
 * That's because despite all the bad press Giano and I are gentlemen, not the more usual teenage bling collectors and know-it-alls who seem to be so attracted to Wikipedia. As for infoboxes, to be truthful I'm pretty much agnostic about them, but they do often extend too far and distort the articles's layout, so if push came to shove I'd be against unless viewing them was optional, as with LMH and Montacute Hall. But I'm quite resigned to seeing LMH with a daft and pervasive infobox in the not too distant future, and I accept there's nothing I can do to prevent it. Grey goo wins every time. George Ponderevo (talk) 22:54, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Not a teenager myself, I am still learning. You know that one of my teachers is Br'er Rabbit, who said that wiki is both an encyclopedia and a database, and for the latter function infoboxes are helpful. If an infobox lacks features, I add them, as just now text to Infobox musical composition, to fit Messiah better, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:06, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
 * All I'll say is that he had some good ideas, and some not so good ideas, but he pressed all of them way too hard. George Ponderevo (talk) 23:34, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Not with me ;) - Did you know that the stats for the above are quite impressive? - ... that I have a teenage friend who writes DYKs on women scientists and FAs on constellations? ... that I rarely use "gentle" when I pass Precious but remember one besides you (20 December 2012)? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:15, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Once and for all, I am not against info-boxes on all subjects, only on a buildings/subject where the history is complicated and and an info-box either has to over-simplify,confuse or mislead. I would not personally create one, but if others want them and feel them useful then so be it. Historic buildings are not suited to oversimplification. Their façades tell the story, and it's up too us (not a little box) to accurately explain that façade and its evolution. Funnily enough, I was redesigning Harrods last night and even improved its info box - it's a factual, simple business page, as fas as I'm concerned it can have a box. That in a nutshell is my view on info-boxes - horses for courses.   Giano   09:30, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I've been giving some consideration over the past couple of days as to my continued participation here, if any. In the past I've done a lot of copyediting, but that's just a black hole that could easily swallow you up. I'm edging towards the idea of simply adding those articles I feel are missing, and leaving the dross to be, well, dross. In other words using Wikipedia as a repository for new stuff I'm interested in, and what's here already can go hang. These interminable discussions about stuff like infoboxes or citation styles are just so tiresome. I guess we all need coping strategies, and that might be mine. I had been thinking about trying to improve Rufford Old Hall, but I find I can't be arsed in the current environment. George Ponderevo (talk) 12:12, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I rather think you'll find that once you've 'added' a missing article, a neo-Nazi from Boise will come along and 'improve' it so that it complies with what he imagines and probably are the diktats of a whole self-elected politburo (that you didn't know existed); and if you dare to disagree, a whole bunch of misfits will chorus and shriek like gang if sex-starved female hyenas: "Wikipedia:Ownership of articles."   Giano   16:27, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
 * There is that. But on a happier note I've just picked up a new Mitshubi Shogun today, so the world looks good. How shallow is that? George Ponderevo (talk) 16:40, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
 * are you saying you'd rather have a new car then edit Wikipedia? Now, I know which I would rather do BBBBBbbbbbrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.......gone
 * Perhaps I'm saying that I can afford to buy a new car, and insure it, unlike so many of the admin trolls who think they're in some way better than me. George Ponderevo (talk) 17:50, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Well I should hope so. It's a well known fact that most admins are still waiting for their parents to remove the stabiliser wheels from their bikes.  Giano   18:32, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Not your other account
According to this diff of an edit made by Gerda, GiacomoReturned was replaced by GregJackP. I'm sure this is Wrong(tm), but complaints to mediawiki developers are unlikely to achieve miracles. In the meantime, it may provide some small amusement. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:00, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
 * diffs are tough reading, better compare before and after ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:06, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Mmmmm cannot pretend to even understand that page - what is it? I see the horrendous Mattisse is listed there; I thought she was a complete pain the arse - can I put that there?  Giano   20:44, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
 * oh that all seems very confusing; I can see one ex-arb listed under several names - am I the only person who knows what's really going on around here?  Giano   20:50, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes. Bishonen &#124; talk 21:08, 20 February 2013 (UTC).
 * No, but you're the only one who still cares. (Unusual list you have there, Gerda—I'm sure people like Karanacs and Nev1 are just delighted that you've categorised them in the same group as Mattisse, Rlevse, Betacommand and pals.) – iridescent  21:28, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I didn't start it, I don't categorise, just move. More get missed than return, that's for sure - and "every editor is a human being", --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:38, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
 * probably you are the only person, - you were missed, so are others, some disagree but - read top - only positive messages are wanted ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:06, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh rest assured; I am quite positive about my feelings for a tribe of socks belonging to a disgraced Arb who who only survived as long as he did thanks to other Arbs protecting him. I am just waiting for the next sock trial that they hypocritically dare to prosecute. A shame to see 'Less Heard' there though; I like him. I suspect if Wikipedia was a more transparent place he would probably still be here.  Giano   08:21, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Picking up George's beloved phrasing, I tell you as gently as I can that I respect your feelings, - do the same with mine if possible. My story with Wikipedia is much shorter than yours, example: I met Alarbus about a year ago, was instantly fascinated, and heard the name Jack Merridew for the first time when Alarbus retired, the third person I missed, I didn't scream any more. - Compare today: someone sees a future. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:11, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
 * well I expect I too would feel kinder, if I had not has to witness other Arbs lying to protect to his oversight abuse and dragging in an oversighter and God knows who else from other projects, his multiple socking (Arbs again lying to protect him) and then proving he had not the first clue about Wikipedia by proving himself to be a serial plagiarist. All in all I wasn't terribly impressed - then two Arbs told me I was mental for failing to be impressed, and to think people ask me why I don't like Coren. Looking at most of the Arbs, I've known straighter corkscrews.   Giano   14:00, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
 * And Arbcom loves you too, Giano… (Only one person has ever been expelled from Arbcom, and it wasn't Rlevse. Just saying.) Gerda, "every editor is a human being" would be considerably more convincing if your list didn't consist to a significant degree of the same few human beings under multiple identities (this is a particular highlight). – iridescent  16:23, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
 * "every editor is a human being" was said by Geometry guy, in a context, - I have kept the longer quote on my user ever since. When I use it, I mean the person, not "identities". Next example (of my limited story): I was on good terms with MathewTownsend, I didn't know Matisse, other than this. - --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:39, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
 * No, they didn't expel him; they were probably on bended knees pleading with him to stay - assuring him how they would all continue to cover for him while they simultaneously drove off truly great editors like User:Geogre for far lesser 'crimes'. Most of them are a disgrace and handicap to the project; they are to be detested and truly despised they are not interested in the project, merely their own tarnished glory. They pirouette around the project like second rate ballerinas in tawdry tinsel.   Giano   17:38, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
 * No, they didn't expel him. No, Giano, they didn't beg him to stay either, but they dickered with him and let him withdraw on his own quite far-reaching terms, while admonishing the very large user who had blocked him for disruption and dishonesty (and who may eat them all for breakfast some day). What was that, humour? Never mind, Giano, it's old. Most of the arbs then aren't arbs now (or so I think; I can't be arsed to make an actual count). Nice diff from that Mattisse sock, Iridescent. Bishonen &#124; talk 19:13, 21 February 2013 (UTC).
 * Well, as everything that mattered was in camera, I don't suppose we shall know the whole truth until the next time Wikipedia Review cares to inform us. I believe Coren has been an Arb for some considerable time; then there's Brad the perennial that never quite blooms, and Kirill Lokshin who seems to have been there since he escaped in 1917 - yawn.  Giano   20:53, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Clarification of my previous: who had blocked him for disruption and dishonesty. Not, she was admonished for disruption and dishonesty. Man, there wouldn't have been stone upon stone left of wikipedia if that had happened. Bishonen &#124; talk 21:11, 21 February 2013 (UTC).
 * The whole business was very unsavoury and badly and amateurishly handled. The Arbitration Committee is incapable of comprehending that most basic fact of life - fresh air kills bad smells. I shall never forgive them for driving Geogre off with their petty, nasty and spiteful persecution while protecting one of their own who had committed wiki crimes that were a thousand times more serious. Pure spite and jealousy of a great editor. I am just waiting for the next similar witch-hunt, my guns are spiked and charged.  Giano   21:26, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Abba and flared jeans
2006, dear Giacomo, not 1976...! LessHeard vanU (talk) 10:47, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Fashion spreads very slowly to some parts of the world.  Giano   13:43, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Infoboxes and suggested closing
Just wanted to say that the suggested closing is very well done. The problem is that it's ever-ending, as you so succinctly said, and a battle I've been fighting too long, that's taken off too much skin, and ultimately will drive me away. Nonetheless wanted to thank you for taking the approach you have. And I support what you've written. Btw - nice to see you back. Truthkeeper (talk) 00:53, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
 * No, don't let it drive you off. I doubt the infobox problem will ever be truly solved, but the collapsed version does seem to me to be the only acceptable compromise. However, eventually, the pro-boxers will find ways around it and everything will arise again. It's always been a mystery to me why people have to wander in off the Wikipedia street and start tampering with articles in which they have no interest and knowledge. This great desire for everything to look the same and be uniform reminds me of 1960s China or one of those extraordinary places run by a 'dear leader'. Something in people's chemistry I suppose; the answer is to not let people get you down.   Giano   10:45, 10 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I think that "discussion" has taken enough casualties now. Will you or a TPS please try archiving again? Otherwise it will go on and on as it has for days. Obviously nothing will be achieved but editors are falling by the wayside. Thanks again for trying. Truthkeeper (talk) 00:36, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Sadly, I don't think it would make any difference one way or the other. I was told I was behaving like a spoilt child for doing it last time. It's rather like a bar room brawl, it won't end until every chair, table and mirror has been smashed. Then the participants will survey the wreckage and go off to find a new bar.  Giano   08:16, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you
For opening up the bullying and intimidation that has been going on behind the infobox wars. My big fear when I leave wiki is not so much that my talk will be clogged with grave stone bot message warnings about whatever the fuck, but that any articles will be ruined by templates and boxes left by my now legion foes. Its inevitable and depressing. Ceoil (talk) 01:25, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I hadn't realised the bullying aspect until it arrived on a couple of pages in which I have strong interest. I've never been a very easy person to bully. Bullies are always easy to deal with, they like dark, secretive corners. One just has to drag them kicking and screaming into the sunshine. You have to remember that the majority of editors never create a template, but just churn out content. Templates certainly can be very useful, but never as useful as content; their creators need to remember that. One can have content without a template, but one can't have a template without content.   Giano   10:51, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

File:Ascott House Front.png
Hey Giano, howzit, mate in relation to File:Ascott House Front.png, User:Black Kite has uploaded this file but it says that you are the copyright holder of the image, and that you have released it into PD. The image itself is pretty low resolution, and looks like it might be a scan? I'm wanting to get it up on Commons, so that it can be used across all of our projects, but before I do so, I need to make sure everything is in order. Could you send in permission as per WP:OTRS and we can get it done. This is especially important because the uploader is different to the copyright holder. Cheers, Russavia (talk) 04:38, 12 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes, it is indeed a photograph taken by myself. It's obviously a scan or mucked about version of this photograph File:Ascott House Front.jpg; also taken by me. How lucky the project is to have such a skilled photographer as me - I should turn professional. However, I strongly disprove of Commons since some fool uploaded many of my images, then deleted half of them and did something strange to the others which made then have huge and very obvious pixels. It tool a great deal of time and effort to get them back to normal again. Anyway, it's nice to see you here; I thought you had been driven off years ago - some of us just seem to go on and on and on. We must be mad.  Giano   08:11, 12 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Hey mate, no problem. I can understand the issues you've had with Commons in the past. Would it help to put your mind at ease if I help you thru this very quick and painless process; then we can at least get these photos over there as well so that other people on other projects can use your photos too; you can keep the local copies here if you wish. With OTRS in place, there is no reason for people to fuck around with the images, deleting them and other such things. OTRS will consist of a single email from yourself, which I will attend to myself. I'll get the text done up for you, and all you will need to do is to send it in, so if you are cool with that, let me know mate. Cheers, Russavia (talk) 08:30, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
 * P.S. Yeah we are mad; we actually believe in the ideals of this project--too bad the ideals don't match the reality much of the time though. Russavia (talk) 08:30, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't care what you do with them, so long as the image used in Ascot House also remains on here on Wikipedia. I don't do processes even short and painless ones. I'm sure you can sort it.  Giano   08:35, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Info-boxes
Good gracious! Have I intruded into an archived page? So sorry! Be that as it may, I heartily agree with your conclusion that the matter should be left flexible. Reading the page I was struck by your firm but polite resistance to bullying. Bravo! Tim riley (talk) 19:24, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Grazie, Giano--Smerus (talk) 19:44, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
 * it would appear that the zealot has arisen yet again . The poor man is quite unhinged on the subject; I suppose he will have to be banned for a year or two again, So sad. Anyway, the motion was carried. We can collapse if there is dissent on the page over a need for an infobox.  Giano   20:00, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Whatever, I won't be taking any further part in the debate until Andy (how ever it's spelt) is banned again. People are using spurious disabilities and reasoning to gain the high ground rather then accept a reasonable compromise. It's obnoxious. As far as I'm concerned the debate is closed, and info boxes where there is no agreement amongst the principal editors may be collapsed. Zealots have no place on Wikipedia.  Giano   20:37, 12 March 2013 (UTC)


 * On the accessibility red herring, I'm rather puzzled as to how it is that those too disabled to be able to click on a "show" button are able to navigate hyperlinks anywhere on the web. Every single wikilink must be such a trial for the poor dears.George Ponderevo (talk) 21:32, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I was wondering when someone would be so beastly as to notice that. We shall soon have to allow for breast feeding mothers who can't click because their boobs and babies are in the way of the mouse.  Giano   21:35, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Wells
I hope I'm not intruding on other stuff, but just wanted to check on Wells Cathedral. I'd be grateful if you could keep an eye on this (if you aren't already) to see if you think the editors have addressed your points. There is quite a lot that has been added on misericords which you may want to look at, and I'm not sure where you stand on the current procession stuff. I'm feeling a little lost by some of the architectural discussion, so I'm quite happy to wait for you to have a look. And is it better to pass the GA and continue the discussion after with a view to FAC (or whatever else is intended), or do it as part of the GA review? I'm happy either way. Thanks for your help so far. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:25, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
 * No, don't worry, I am quite able to do several things at once. When I looked a while ago, there was one query still remaining about the raison d'etre for the cloisters. I have not looked at the misericords; I will do first thing tomorrow. To be honest, I think it's really a GA already, and perhaps I'm being a little pedantic - I just have a personal hatred of architectural supposition - perhaps I'm tying to exact FA standards on it.   Giano   22:30, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
 * PS:Just looked the Misericords are fine all referenced and as they shoudl be.  Giano   22:33, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks, your help has been invaluable on this one. I agree on it probably being a GA already, but I think we may as well do it properly and make it as good as possible. I'm quite happy to wait for that last bit as you know infinitely more about architecture than I do. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:45, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
 * If I may make one general point, I think it's kind of an embarrassment, and even naff, to use Britannica as a source. Specialist encyclopedia's fine, but not general ones. At least I don't think so anyway. George Ponderevo (talk) 00:23, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
 * ... and one final point, what does this mean? "...although possibly influenced by carvings of acanthus leaves or vine leaves, cannot be not easily identifiable as representing any particular plant". Makes no sense to me. George Ponderevo (talk) 02:05, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
 * It means it was carved by a useless carpenter.  Giano   07:57, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Then I've changed it to "cannot be easily identified ..."

Thanks
Just a word of thanks for your contributions to the latest infobox farrago. I rarely join these wearisome debates, but appreciate your willingness, and that of a few others (e.g. the above Ponderevo) to take a stand. Your overall summary of the situation is spot on. Brianboulton (talk) 20:16, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The truth I think is that those who initiate such discussions rely on the fact that most editors will have no stomach for the fight, and why should they? Editing is a hobby after all, not a job, and I'd imagine that only masochists would come here to be abused; Wikipedia needs more editors like Giano, I was frankly astonished to see objections raised to the infobox currently used at Pendine Museum of Speed for instance, and I think it's high time the motivations of these infobox warriors were examined more closely, including those who raise spurious accessibility issues that are widespread throughout the whole of Wikipedia, and indeed throughout the whole web. George Ponderevo (talk) 20:34, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I just directed some of them to an essay I wrote years ago. Sadly, it seems they wouldn't know an insult if it jumped up and bit their wooden legs. .  Giano   21:17, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Sadly your posting was considered to be one of those "personal attack" thingies and was removed. Some people are resistant to any form of learning.George Ponderevo (talk) 21:27, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I expect they followed the link that I left them and had to take a couple of placebos to get over the shock of finding that I catalogued them years ago.  Giano   21:34, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you from me too. I'm a bit like Brian in terms of finding these farragos wearisome, although I did participate in this one, despite frequently having to bite my virtual tongue. By the way, I only discovered it because I happened to still have the Village Pump on my watchlist where the farrago was "announced". I found it very telling, although not at all surprising, that the editor who initiated it did so without even placing a notice on the talk pages of the articles concerned. Voceditenore (talk) 10:09, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

? Ref for E shape & Barrington Court
Hi, Do you have a reference to support the claim that "like many Elizabethan mansions, is built in an 'E' shape, a much-used plan in this era, often said to be a tribute to Elizabeth I" which is used on Montacute House? I've also used it on Barrington Court & wondered if you would be willing to take a look at that article which has similarities and links with Montacute and/or Fairfield, Stogursey which I've recently started?&mdash; Rod talk 21:38, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
 * It's one of those things that I've read many times, but can't offhand say where. I will have a look tomorrow and find it. I know Barrington quite well (nice gardens) - I  have always meant to look up the very Edwardian type house next-door to it, as I prefer it to the main house, which is a bit of an odd thing to do.   Giano   22:10, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry Rod, I forgot all abut this, I will start searching ASAP.  Giano   18:27, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for looking - it would have been nice if it were true - I have removed it from Montactute and Barrington.&mdash; Rod talk 09:06, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, thinking logically, it was daft of me to have ever believed it. Perhaps a ref will appear later, but I suspect it's an old patriotic theory has be debunked.  Giano   09:15, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

OK to email you?
Hey mate, wanted to find out if it might be ok to email you with some bits and pieces of different goings on around the place -- you may know of various editors who might be interested in knowing what is going on, may be able to take it further, etc. I know this is a bit "cloak and dagger" in terms of this message, but I guess it will make itself clear if it's ok to email you? Russavia (talk) 00:14, 22 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Ha, you sure do know who to approach for cloak and dagger things, don't you? Giano knew about the latter part of what was revealed here at least four days before anyone except arbcom did, which I'm still rather curious about ;) (My subconscious knew that Giano would know that, but I don't know how he knew it, nor how I knew that he would know it.)


 * I never thought of him as an expert on aircraft, though. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:32, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
 * You are right on both counts Demiurge; allthough, I think it was a little more than four days . This was also also intended to be a subtle hint to the Arbs about the trouble that woudld follow if they behaved stupidly about Malleus and George. Obviously, I am too subtle these days.


 * Anyhow, mY knowledge of aircraft is confined to the interiors and bars (none of this drink only water on a flight rubbish) of A380s and 747s; so you you won't find me much use, but email by all means. I like to keep my ear to the ground.   Giano   09:56, 22 March 2013 (UTC)


 * (talk page stalker) Yes, you're too subtle. Do like I do: I've decided to always emphasize any forceful opinion I may have by appending this illustration. Subtle don't work around here! Bishonen &#124; talk 13:13, 22 March 2013 (UTC).


 * (ec) Too subtle for me, anyway! I did see the null edit, and spent a minute or so wondering what it meant, without seeing the light. I also considered reverting it, but couldn't think of a reason.


 * I seem to have almost the opposite problem; too subtle for admins, but not for arbs.


 * Commons only seems to have two images of bars in the A380; maybe more would be beneficial. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 13:20, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I am a great believer in learning from history, but history has taught me that's something that never happens on Wikipedia. One thing that does always happen here though is that "every dog has his day" and that "pigeons always come home to roost." - so I suppose there is hope. One of my few remaining Wiki pleasures is saying "I told you so", and I certainly have ample opportunity to indulge myself there. If people had voted me to be an Arb when they had the chance, we would not be having half these problems now. As it is, we've had successively loads of incompetents and others there only for the tawdry glory of it all; no one with any balls or foresight, and this is the result. So "as you sow, so shall you gather"; and Wikipedia is now certainly gathering. I feel very sorry for Brad and Risker the only ones with a grain of common sense; Kirill is learning, but he's such a painfully slow learner and Worm does his best in difficult circumstances - as for the rest....one despairs, one really does.   Giano   13:41, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Apropos of something presumably somehow connected with parts of the above, you were mentioned in the excitingly-titled section User talk:Russavia. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 11:46, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you Demiurge1000; I missed your post (until a friend emailed me) someone posted after you, and I only saw that. Thank you for alerting me; I have not been following Russavia's moves and was unaware of his predicament. I was only saying to a senior Wikipedian a few days ago that it now seems Sandstein and his sidekick are running the whole show - they are like some Teutonic Batman and Robin, aren't they? I'm unsure what I can do; normally, one would appeal to reason and common sense, but those virtues long ago departed this site. Is there a page where I can bring myself quickly up to speed on this?  Giano   17:49, 28 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I guess a lot of it is at User talk:Russavia and at Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement (the latter now hatted, as is the general practice with these things). But it also seems to be spread all over the place in both space and time; for example the "Eastern Europe topic ban" for which Russavia has just been blocked, was presumably enacted some years ago as part of the general Eastern Europe arbcom mess. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 18:16, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh yes, that. I seem to remember saying at the time that all those involved on the Eastern European mailing list should be perma-banned because otherwise here would be recurring problems - as of course, there now are: Russavia was very much the victim and innocent party there - few editors will remember the deceit and damage caused by that conspiratorial mailing list. I expect most of them are back now, or are back with different names. Sometimes, I think I have been here too long.  Giano   18:36, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Architecture in early modern Scotland
Giano, you're so good at this stuff! Would you like to take a look at Talk:Architecture in early modern Scotland/GA1. I'm sure that I have missed all the important things that ought to be said in reviewing this! What's more, I got distracted and have been very neglectful.

Amandajm (talk) 15:10, 23 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I'll take a look for anything obvious, but I don't like GAing because I don't like criticising other people's hard work. I take the view that if they are clever enough to get something to that standard; it's probably good anyway. Let me look, but the main editor will probably wonder who this person is butting in (I've not heard of him before); I'm sure you known enough to do the job.  Giano   16:29, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Duly done .  Giano   18:26, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Will I never learn to trust my own instincts !  Giano   21:44, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Hummph!
 * Thank you! I thought that your expertise was worth having and that your comments were pertinent.
 * Amandajm (talk) 23:48, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
 * It all rather confirms my feelings about GAs. One man's GA is another man's mediocre bit of fluff (that page is somewhere between the two - leaning towards being good). If we must have GAs, then they would be better served if they were appointed by a panel of three - someone who understood the subject, someone with perfect grammar, and someone who understood Wikipedia millions of silly rules. The latter would either be impossible to find or quarrel endlessly with the editor who understood the subject.  Giano   11:03, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * They have always been for the badge-collectors, I reckon. I took a small part in the DYK process for a while, that was the same. Soon makes you lose the will to live. We have voting now, I think if an article gets a thousand positive votes then it might be worth going through some sort of review to see if it should be flagged as a decent example of how to write an article, but the existing process doesn't seem to me to add anything as far as the reader is concerned, other than to flag as "good" articles which are often materially factually inaccurate, because the review is driven by someone with an agenda. Guy (Help!) 00:17, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Nothing wrong with wanting to collect a few badges; I was certainly keen in my salad days here to do so; it's when people keep ramming their badges down everyone's throats that I get a little tired, and worse still those that seem to feel that all badge-winning articles must identically resemble each other.   Giano   15:00, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Pulteney Bridge
I know its not one of your classic country houses, but could you (or any of your talk page stalkers) offer anything on Pulteney Bridge's architecture? The peer reviewer suggested the architecture is "rather meagre" and suggested "Could we have some comments on the architecture of the bridge, as recorded over the years by expert commentators?" I'm having real problems finding anything suitable & any help would be appreciated.&mdash; Rod talk 14:17, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * There's no such thing as 'meagre architecture.' I will have a trepidatious look, I have had my head bitten off for commenting on someone else's review; so I shall tread warily.  Giano   15:31, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh that bridge - it's bloody world famous; how can anyone call that meagre?  Giano   15:32, 24 March 2013 (UTC)


 * "For example, no year or date is given for the design or construction until the end of the section where, incidentally, the information given is different from that given in the infobox." Ha hahahahaahaahha haha.


 * "What are "high segmental arches?" Oh dear, we are dealing with an architectural novice.

Happy for you to put comments here or on my talk page if you don't want to put them on the peer review page & I don't bite heads off. I think the "meagre" comments was about my writing about it rather than the architecture itself.&mdash; Rod talk 15:39, 24 March 2013 (UTC) I am reading Pevsner's Bath as we speak do you want me to add to the architecture section - or tell you hat he says - I already have linked the segment bit.  Giano  15:43, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Very happy for you to edit the article - Your prose etc and use of architectural terms would be better than mine.&mdash; Rod talk 15:49, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I doubt that. anyway, having waded all through Pevsner using 500 words to describe tombstones, he gallops over the bridge in about 25 words!  Giano   15:52, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Have a look in my sandbox and copypaste what you like. Pevsner was no use, so I've just done a visual description which does not need referencing.   Giano   16:59, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks - brilliant I have copied across.&mdash; Rod talk 17:04, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

G'day!
Sorry, but I'm feeling rather sick of rude people! I tend to use other people's rudeness as a reason to be rude back which isn't nice.

Fixing that flipping article was better than banging my head or drinking half a dozen tinnies with a bottle of Bundy as a chaser. Amandajm (talk) 15:20, 25 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Rudeness is in the eye of the beholder, and it's not always unhelpful to tell it like it is; sometimes it's the only way. As it happens, I find you to be consistently rude yourself, but I don't go whining to your talk page. Malleus Fatuorum 17:47, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't think (I hope not) it's me that Amanda is complaining about Malleus!!! Amanda has had a little local difficulty with a GA she was reviewing; this became protracted and the editor concerned understandably thought it might be better if he found another reviewer - despite Amanda's best efforts to set him on the right road. The problem was he was driving to Dublin and Amanda was driving to Adelaide - if you get my meaning.  Giano   19:05, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Regardless, I'm complaining about her. Malleus Fatuorum 19:08, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * No probs. By the way, are currently we on the same side on ANI? I'm not sure. Are you in favour of a legitimate return of Peter Damian? I'm not. However, I'm sure we can debate with no hard feelings.  Giano   19:25, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm very much in favour of the return of Peter Damian, just as I am of Ottava Rima. Not sure if that makes us on the same side or not, but I'm wearing a white hat. (Actually I'm not, that was just a figure of speech. I've always hated hats, especially when worn indoors.) Malleus Fatuorum 19:35, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Ottava Rima does not much concern me - one way or the other. My view is that a return of Peter Damian (in any guise) would be regrettable. We all spend a great deal of time here hiding behind silly names and protected by no legal threats. However, sometimes we have to accept that there is a real world out there. I've a long Wikipedia memory, and he once made a threat to another editor (not me) that I personally found unacceptable; so we shall have to differ on this one.  Giano   21:13, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. I'm beginning to think that all this hiding behind pseudonymous user names is all a bit silly and childish. Sure, we have to have user names, but some of the editors I most admire here are quite open about including their real names on their user page, and I'm giving serious consideration to following their example. Besides, tracking down my real life identity isn't so difficult, given the ease with which ex-administrator Rodhullandemu managed to find a picture of my house and email it to me to prove he knew where I lived. He was a master of the art of "administrator abuse".Malleus Fatuorum 21:26, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * All threats deigned to make us feel threatened in our real lives should result in a life-time ban without appeal. Regarding anonymity, that's something we all have a right to; there is a case for registering one's name with the site owners/overseers and continuing to edit with a user name, but we have had some pretty odd people come and go at the top of the Wiki tree; and I wouldn't want to suddenly to see my name bandied all over the internet by some wierdo from California or Cadiz because s/he has fallen out with Jimbo or whoever.  Giano   08:03, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Got to agree. If people choose to link Wikipedia identity and real-world identity, then fine. If they express a clear preference for not doing so, then that is their right per policy and tradition and anyone who tries to break the code is doing something fundamentally un-Wikipedian. The sole exception is where people are deliberately hiding their identity in order to do something which, if their identity were known, would be clearly unacceptable (such as using sockpuppet accounts to make conflicted edits). Even then we should err on the side of caution.
 * There are excellent reasons why people might choose not to link their Wikipedia identity with their real world identity, which have been discussed at length and are emphatically not theoretical. Our ability to cover several topics neutrally would be materially impacted if this protection did not exist. But even if that were not true, why on earth should we tolerate outing people who clearly do not want to be outed, and have done nothing wrong (other than perhaps disagree with some people)? This intolerance of dissent seems to me to be very hypocritical, since it is usually at the core of the accusations made against the targets of such people.
 * Incidentally, I had not noticed that you're back to your original and unadorned username. This makes me happy. Guy (Help!) 00:10, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
 * If you are happy Guy, then I am happy too.  Giano   10:17, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Do not
Pull shit like this again IP editors have as much rights as you, Darkness Shines (talk) 21:40, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh no they don't.  Giano   21:41, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I can only assume your rejoinder is meant to be humorous, what with this being the thingy anyone can edit, Darkness Shines (talk) 21:47, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Certainly no humour intended at all.I assume your efforts to speak English are an attempt at humour?  Giano   21:50, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
 * No sorry, my englsh tends to be impaired after a bottle of Glenfiddich, your excuse being? Darkness Shines (talk) 21:57, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, I had gathered you were a drunk.  Giano   21:58, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Darkness Shines (talk) 22:18, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

So I am tolling an blocked anon am I? on your 4rth revert? Darkness Shines (talk) 22:33, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Excellency, you know how high a regard I have for you, so may I humbly request that you do not revert on AE again. There are plenty of others who are watching the page, and I have explained as clearly as I can at ANI why it is not a good idea to have IPs filing AE requests. It would seem completely pointless to get yourself blocked for xRR when you have the high ground in the argument. Your obedient etc. RexxS (talk) 23:16, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh you are far too late; I went to bed hours ago, and am now up again! What a silly mess; if the Arbcom had taken my advice and perma-banned those dishonest Eastern European mailing list people, then we would not have these situations. I have no time for drunks and anons wherever they come from. I think people (ie Sandstein) forget that Russavia was then very much the innocent victim, and remains so today. However, we have an encyclopaedic ruled by Sandstein, a cowering Arbcom, and a Corps des adminastrateurs guided now by anons and drunks. What a misfortune. Thank goodness I remain constant to point these failings out.  Giano   09:38, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Advice Polack
Hi. You seem to have taken an interest in Advice Polack, and I wonder if you'd mind participating in the discussion at Talk:Advice Polack. As you'll see there, one editor forcefully insists that the sources aren't reliable, but so far the discussion hasn't been very fruitful. I gave up the fight a few months ago, but perhaps you can help break the deadlock. EEng (talk) 18:06, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's a fascinating page in many ways - and what an interesting history of editors it has; and even more interesting to watch them being flushed out of the woodwork here. Fascinating stuff.  Giano   18:35, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I think this will get things back on track, if the admin is still online. EEng (talk) 20:58, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I hate to be the one disappointing you, but nothing will get this one back on track. It's been deemed not a matter for the little editors (like you and I) to concern themselves with.  Giano   21:19, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh ye of little faith. I think it will be restored. EEng (talk) 21:53, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
 * It's true that the Lord and I do move in mysterious ways.  Giano   22:03, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Ah indeed! The unfortunate Mr Polack (in a disembowelled form) has been returned to us.  Giano   09:45, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Burlington House
Not unlike Sidney Smirke, I have made some additions to Burlington House. Do you approve? Perhaps they inspire you to expand the article.--Wetman (talk) 18:25, 31 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Sorry for the delay, I have been taking advantage of some late snow for a couple of days. Yes, I know Burlington House very well, funnily enough I was there only a month ago to see the Manet exhibition, and found myself more absorbed by the architecture that the paintings - a good exhibition, but in spite of timed tickets, they had allowed too many people in - that reminds me; I meant to write and complain. Anyway, it was easier to view the architecture than the paintings. I will take a look and see what reffs I can find, one dare not write a word without them these days.  Giano   19:14, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Raynham Hall
Is Raynham Hall as it now stands, improved enough to tempt your hand?--Wetman (talk) 19:27, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I seem to remember in my youth it was held up and used a text book example, but of what, I can't remember Palladian morphing into Baroque? I think there is some anomalie or confusion about the interior, or a I thinking of somewhere else? I'll have a good look and hunt about next week.  Giano   21:13, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Holzhausenschlösschen
Little Holzhausen palace is on a very small scale, but I trust this recommendation and ask you for help with architecture, - terms I don't know even in German, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:26, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
 * V Interesting, I'd like to take a proper look next week when I have more time and a better broadband connection.  Giano   20:53, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you, expert ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:12, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I like what you did! Never heard of that nordic roof. - Once a GA nom failed because my lack of architecture ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:10, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I suggest you read the talk page, I have a few more comments.  Giano   20:14, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry Gerda, it's a nice page with possibilities, but I cannot work with anyone as intransigent and strange as Andy Mabet. Incidentally, the word should be patron not client in the infobox. Sorry.  Giano   21:11, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I confess that I was amused about his 1 April find. - Define "involved": he only added the infobox. Dr. Blofeld started the article, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:28, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
 * He added the infobox? Who'd have guessed! Malleus Fatuorum 22:54, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
 * What a pity. Sorry, I just cannot be bothered to engage with him . Infoboxes don't bother me on pages where the editors want one and that I haven't written, but life's too short to interact with Andy Mabbet. It's a pity there's no exact English word for "palazzina" as that would best describe the house and its original concept.  Giano   07:30, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
 * No pity needed ;) - As said before (ANI), he added it, I didn't say "imposed it". - Thanks for helping the article further, I really appreciate that. Sources: the German article was translated, its sources are a book, I don't have it - the typical problem when taking things over from the German WP. - I like "palazzina", didn't know, learning, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:43, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

User page protection
Please let me know if you did not want it protected for some reason. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:39, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
 * That's fine - thanks foe that.  Giano   21:14, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

I mentioned you
Oops and sorry, but thought you should know that I mentioned you here. Truthkeeper (talk) 20:36, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I'm on a belated Easter holiday and currently have very limited internet access so will not really be editing for another couple of days. I have been watching the Bach infobox furore with interest, but have not commented because I have never edited that page. You were right to quote me on ANI, my view remains unchanged, let those that write a page's content have the last word on the subject - that seems the fairest and most satisfactory solution. Andy Mabbit is obsessed with infoboxes and is similarly obsessed with having his own way; quite why he is permitted to upset so many editors (on pages about which he knows nothing) is a mystery to me, but then so much of Wikipedia is mystery to me.  Giano   20:52, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, I mentioned you because I really think you got it right. I also think the "don't comment unless previously edited the page" is a good rule to follow and one I've stuck to until Bach - but will adhere to in the future. Enjoy the holiday! Truthkeeper (talk) 21:39, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Excuse me, I don't understand, what do you mean by "furore"? - I suggested an infobox for Bach as for Kafka, - what do you mean by "obsession"? - I moved on when I felt it was not welcome enough and suggest rest, trying to learn, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:04, 5 April 2013 (UTC)


 * The discussion at MOS infoboxes talk,, began on March 6th and continued until around March 20 with a few casualties along the way. The Bach discussion began the next day on March 21st and was archived today, April 5th, with a few more casualties. And now there's the Carmen discussion taking place on multiple pages with the potential for more casualties. So far we've seen one editor lose a clean start, an AN/I thread calling for sanctions against productive content editors, and another editor willing to forgo a TFA. That's a furore. Truthkeeper (talk) 22:26, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Carmen left the Main page quietly, no furore, - I still think the infobox with her pic would have been the more interesting choice, - but peace if possible ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:37, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

File source problem with File:Mentmorehannahinhall.jpg
Thank you for uploading File:Mentmorehannahinhall.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.

If the necessary information is not added within the next days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please refer to the image use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a [ list of your uploads]. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 07:16, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
 * It says quite clearly Watercolour painted circa 1863.  Giano   09:50, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Hello Giano,

You have a couple of pictures of an 18th century mansion (Wiltshire) in Wikipedia. Where (in Wiltshire) was it taken? Do you know the name of the mansion? The pictures are beautiful.

Thank you,

JoN

I have photographed more pictures of buildings for Wikipedia than I can remember. If you give me a link I will tell you where it is. However, there was a house in Wiltshire which I thought so summed up the small, perfect English country house that it was best that it remained anonymous and was best used just as an example, but I suppose that it is a bit silly - so which one are you thinking of.  Giano 

Hello Giano,

Here is the link. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:18th_century_mansion_built_of_Bath_stone,_with_Italianate_alterations_2.JPG

Kind regards,

JoN

That's the rear of Hartham Park, near Corsham. The other image is a side view of the same house.  Giano  06:42, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Hello Giano,

Thank you very much for the name of the house.

Kind regards,

JoN

Basildon Park
Hi Giano

Is it ok to use your cut away 3D Basildon Park image in a book on the architect of Basildon John Carr?

Thanks John


 * Of course it is; help yourself. Glad you like it. Let me know when it's published; I will buy a copy. They are here File:Baspianonobile.jpg and here File:Basupper.jpg; there are also these two from a diferent angle which I decided not to include in the Wikipedia article File:Basildonparkrearview.jpg and File:Basildon Park rear view.jpg; they are all uploaded into the public domain.  Giano   16:35, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

User talk:Russavia
Your are now on 4RR here and also violating TPG, maybe stop now? Darkness Shines (talk) 21:34, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually, no, I'm not as you will find out.  Giano   21:35, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Ah it seems you have. Some of you trolls just seem determined to want trouble at any cost. Soon you will be happy and get it.  Giano   21:37, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I count four reverts, from your initial removal of a comment to your "in the interests of peace" revert. I am unsure why you are calling me a troll or seem to think I am looking fror trouble, I was just asking you to stop edit warring. And please do not issue pointless threats of giving me trouble. Darkness Shines (talk) 21:42, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Go and look up the rules you idiot and stop trolling here.  Giano   21:45, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

I hope you are well, Excellency. I see that you are being, so to illustrate the meaning of the first exception to WP:TPO, I hereby grant you permission to correct, edit or delete comments on my talk page at your discretion. I would encourage others who share my concern to grant you similar permission as well:
 * --RexxS (talk) 21:54, 15 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Granted. (Though I have misgivings about "correct"; Giano's keyboard is such that attempts to correct typos may result in more typos than there were to begin with. Wholesale deletion of comments should work much better.) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 02:58, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Hmph! Typos I may occasionally make, but I always make my meaning perfectly clear. I was much amused by the silly little Admin in poor Ryan's daft ANI thread (see below) who said he had "thought about blocking me." Silly child do they teach them nothing about Wikipedia's rules and protocols before replacing their rattles with Admin tools.  Giano   17:23, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Notice
Hello. There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Ban proposal for User:Russavia. Thank you. Ryan Vesey 22:07, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
 * What a very misguided, but revealing thread Ryan; you clearly have never played poker. Silly boy.  Giano   06:19, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Peer review request
I've commented; it looks good to me. Good luck with it.  Giano  19:59, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your comment; really appreciate you taking the time to give it a read. - Shudde  talk 01:45, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Somerset architecture GAs
Following your previous comment I wanted to let you know I've nominated Montacute House for GA - you said you would be willing to help out if the reviewer came up with any architecture debates (I wonder if there will be any comment about the collapsed infobox). While I was at it I also nominated Barrington Court and Pulteney Bridge where you previously helped with a description of the architecture - the review for that one has started at Talk:Pulteney Bridge/GA1 if you wanted to comment?&mdash; Rod talk 19:41, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Hmph! I am too nice for my own good.  Giano   19:42, 23 April 2013 (UTC)


 * If there is any comment Rod then just point the reviewer towards Little Moreton Hall, an FA with a collapsed infobox. Malleus Fatuorum 22:17, 23 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I'll soon be about done with the GA review of Pulteney Bridge, so now would be a good time to make any additional observations you may have. Malleus Fatuorum 20:44, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I only wrote/re-wrote one brief paragraph, I cannot take any credit or blame for the page. I'm sure you know what is what Malleus. I'm happy to leave it to you.  Giano   21:06, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. If I get stuck with any architectural term I'll be right back, but I think Rod and I are getting there. Malleus Fatuorum 21:45, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
 * BTW, that excessively long infobox is causing the text to be squeezed in the first section. Do you think I ought to insist that it should be collapsed? Malleus Fatuorum 22:15, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

I dropped a few thoughts on Montacute House on the talk page, and one was a question about whether the image placements were as good as they could be. I've mentioned your name there, Excellency, as I know you invest effort into making sure that the images make an attractive contribution to an article. Cheers, --RexxS (talk) 23:00, 23 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Sorry Giano, I didn't notice that you had put the in use tag up, therefore you and I were working on the Ground floor section simultaneously. Malleus Fatuorum 13:05, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh were we - who won?  Giano   14:43, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I did. But if you think your version's better then by all means overwrite mine. Malleus Fatuorum 14:54, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
 * No, yours is more or less what i was planning. I just dumped and lumped the text pour example. Leave that section as it is, and I or you can do the next. I'm tied up in RL for the next couple of hours if you want a go.  Giano   15:25, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I have to pop out now, but I should be back in an hour or two and I'll tackle the next then if you or someone else hasn't got there first. Malleus Fatuorum 15:33, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Wow you have all be busy while I've been at work. Giano MF has commened on the Pulteney Bridge review about the sentence "On this southern side, the buildings is of a principle floor at street level, with a low mezzanine, separated by stone banding, above." saying "Something not quite right there". Any thoughts on that as I think you wrote it?&mdash; Rod talk 17:43, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
 * No thoughts at all; I had better go and see what the miserable sod is objecting to. 18:07, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, just call me Mr Grumpy. I haven't looked at Barrington Court, but it's clear to me that the nominations for Pulteney Bridge and Montacute House were premature. Not blaming anyone, but I'm seriously concerned about the sourcing for the bridge, and I'm a whisker away from failing it. Malleus Fatuorum 22:38, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Ok - you're "Mr Grumpy". Timing is always going to be a problem with audited content, of course. On the other hand, if you ask a question such as "has Montacute House been improved dramatically by your efforts and those of Giano today?", then the answer is "undoubtedly, yes!". And that's the important bit in any event. --RexxS (talk) 23:12, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I've worked it out & changed it now - thanks.&mdash; Rod talk 18:11, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Very clever of you. I failed to spot the error.  Giano   18:13, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

The reviewers comments at Talk:Montacute House/GA1 ask for an expansion of the lead and mention a couple of uncited paragraphs. I see the 2nd & final paras of Ground floor and the 3rd para of second floor with no citations. Do you have any sources we could use?&mdash; Rod talk 12:53, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I've reffed all I believe needs reffing and some that I didn't think need reffing too. I've made a minor expansion to the lead, but it's hard to know quite how to do that without waffling and going off subject. I would quite like to spice the page up by writing about Lord Curzon "sinning with Elinor Glyn On a tiger skin" in the Great Hall, but I fear it would be going off subject. I really think anything now not reffed (eg: "bedrooms lead off the Long gallery") is too obvious to need a ref.    Giano   13:56, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Brilliant thank you. "Sinning" with does sound interesting but you are right it may not be directly relevant to the house. I will wait and see what the reviewer says following your edits (& MFs grammar improvements).&mdash; Rod talk 14:15, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Can I pick your brains as well... I've just found this article which describes the house as a "exquisite gallimaufry of French styled Gothic". I don't even know what a "gallimaufry" is, it sounds like something from Doctor Who?&mdash; Rod talk 14:18, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
 * According to Google a "gallimaufry" is a confused jumble or medley of things; it's also a hash made from diced or minced meat which more accurately describes that article. It's so full of errors that I can't begin to be bothered to list them. We cover and explain what its trying to say far more accurately in the 2nd para of the architecture section.   Giano   14:27, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the comment re Montacute House - but I think it was more your work than mine. I think it has definitely improved the article & I don't think the reviewer was giving an "easy ride" I think it was just clear that it met the criteria. Now ... how do you feel about Brympton d'Evercy....&mdash; Rod talk 20:28, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
 * No, no and double no! It's too long and I cannot be bothered to dig up all the references again - if I ever even had them; I wrote it years ago and most of it was stuff I have known for ever. It also needs a better plan, and I haven't the time to make one - those plans take ages. Really nooooo.   Giano   20:32, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
 * OK - I've got plenty of other stuff to be working on (when I've finished marking dissertations) but at least you have seen a more positive version of the GA process than you did last time.&mdash; Rod talk 20:35, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Very true! Today, I have had what I think is my longest ever Wikipedia day and tomorrow when back in RL I may feel differently.   Giano   20:44, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

I think Victorian Gothic may be outside your usual areas, but if you'd be kind enough to take a peek at Tyntesfield I'd be grateful.&mdash; Rod talk 19:13, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Agree to disagree or more likely not, well, absolutely not, then
I think we can agree that we've exchanged enough unconstructivism at Piotrus' RfA. You once wrote a long time ago "We are writing this encyclopedia to serve the enquiring public." Why and when did disdain for those who don't suck up to you, delivered via pointed repartee, take center stage? One day the quaking of WP admins at the mere mention of your name will be, instead, the jiggling belly fat of WP editors laughing uncontrollably. Once upon a time you believed there were higher goals to aspire to on WP than to become a caricature of your worst personality traits where behaving badly earns badges of honor. If you're going to hold yourself up as a rebel, your goals and conduct must be always virtuous, otherwise you just come across as, well, prickish at best. (Last but not least, you certainly don't know me as well as the box you've been trying to stuff me into of late. Had to mention that.) VєсrumЬа ►TALK 22:20, 25 April 2013 (UTC)


 * What have you been working on recently Vecrumba? Giano and have been working on a few things together, including Montacute House and Pulteney Bridge. You on the other hand seem to have done fuck all. Malleus Fatuorum 22:35, 25 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Well, if it weren't for the attack gangs I'd be back on my rewrite of the History of Riga, also, it's been quite a while since I worked on the history of Russians in Latvia.
 * At the moment, however, I'm working off-Wiki on a navigation redo of a web site that I'm still maintaining for a friend who passed away several years ago, on the history of Latvian aviation. I have some other web projects going on as well. My activities with regard to bringing reputable content to the web aren't limited just to WP. I find a balance of on- and off-Wiki web activities works the best for me. Am I correct in assuming all your content eggs sperm are in one basket?
 * Alas, Pulteney Bridge doesn't appear to be in either of my old Books of Bridges, I was hoping to have a useful source or artwork to add, given its historied past. I'll be sure to take a look at the article. I've never said Giano isn't a comptetent, capable, and productive editor, only that eventually the community will tire of the price to pay, just like your piss-poor attitude here.
 * BTW, I noticed the article doesn't have any structural diagrams, I added a link to a perspective study at the Tate. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 00:45, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I'd be prepared to make a bet with you that "the community" will tire of your "piss-poor attitude", and those like you, long before it agrees to banish Giano and I to the depths of whatever Hell you believe in. We're trying to build an encyclopedia, not make fun of other editors we either can't get on with or don't agree with, a lesson you ought to learn. Malleus Fatuorum 01:51, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you Malleus; I could not have put it better myself. The way in which the numerous objectors are being hectored and bullied at Requests for adminship/Piotrus 2 is quite concerning. It's interesting that those so concerned with civility and pretty manners here are always completely disinterested in downright intimidation.  Giano   07:09, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
 * The longer you've been around here the more vitriol you're expected to soak up without complaint. I'm rather surprised that either of us are still here to be honest. Maybe we share the same European obstinate stubborness gene? Malleus Fatuorum 14:50, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Well! Seeing as what is now considered an acceptably civil way of supporting ; I can't help but feel that you and I should be running a finishing school for young ladies because our manners are obviously way above what is now acceptable here. However, I have just made an interesting discovery, but I will tell you about it later; let's just say some of these amazing and prolific Polish pages are not all they are cracked up to be.  Giano   15:00, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, I'll be looking forward to that, if you go back to Poland-Lithuania times I'm reasonably well versed in that topic area. As for the rest, it's time for WP to grow up and not act like a frat club. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 23:05, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
 * How do frat clubs act? Many of us were lucky enough to be born in Europe, so the frat club concept is an entirely alien one to us. Maybe the problem with Wikipedia is that it's controlled by those who used to be frat club members, and therefore believe that to be a normal part of everyday life. Which it isn't unless you're an American dickhead. Malleus Fatuorum 23:23, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I think it's something like a mutual spanking society, which must be rather jolly after 8 pints down the local pub; except they don't let them drink at that age in the USA, so it's really quite worrying as there is no excuse.  Giano   08:24, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Collapsed infoboxes
It'll be very interesting to see if we can get a GA using that collapsed infobox to go along with the FA using one, written largely by you and my mate George, whom God preserve. Malleus Fatuorum 20:21, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I just thought of George also, following his example in the small improvements, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:01, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I'll try to follow George's example, but in my own inimitable way. Malleus Fatuorum 21:04, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I miss this


 * Precious makes no sense without the reference ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:22, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
 * It's a shame that George was chased away, but that's water under the bridge now. I did what I could. Malleus Fatuorum 21:30, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
 * To remember a great example keeps the water flowing ;) - different topic: architecture. Gothic St. Lamberti, Hildesheim has a paragraph on architecture that I don't even understand in German, the (strange) translation is commented out. Any chance to derive some sense, perhaps looking at pictures? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:17, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
 * As I've said before, I'm an architectural ignoramus. Giano is your man. Malleus Fatuorum 22:19, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
 * There you are: St. Lamberti, Hildesheim all tidied up - the 'cruciform depicting angels' on the font cannot be the right term, we need a clear picture to see what exactly it is.  Giano   13:11, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Stunning! Thank you! - I have off-wiki work going, will appreciate in greater detail later, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:25, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Couldn't let this one pass. Never heard of a cruciform font but it appears it was a Early Christian jacuzzi.
 * Hot tub!
 * Explanation
 * and it is the in thing in all the latest ecclesiastical sports centres!
 * Salisbury
 * LA
 * Orhtodox, Picture, and Antipodes! -- Clem Rutter (talk) 17:28, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Orhtodox, Picture, and Antipodes! -- Clem Rutter (talk) 17:28, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Clem; however, the font in question,, is not a cruciform font!  Giano  22:33, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
 * But you unearthed angelic choirs around it, thank you again, now I had time to enjoy! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:41, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Baptismal form: we need to distinguish the Becken (basin?) and the Deckel (cover). The cover is different in style and has the angels. The basin has St. Lambert, St. Godehard, St. Bernward and a "Kreuzigungsgruppe" (scene of figures around Christ on the cross, - I asked for the term already for St. Martin, Idstein and still don't know it). Unusual here: the cross itself is not pictured, and Mary and St. John look away from Jesus. The cover has 36 dancing angels, 11 male, 25 female, + 8 saints. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:55, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
 * 1904 book on baptismal fonts Look at the illustration section at Perpendicular Fonts. Ewelme Oxfordshire shows a Font bowl, with a large Font cover which is raised by pullies. Boring as it may be- those are the words used then- I had hoped for a little Mediaeval Latin.
 * New Catholic Encyclopedia describes the changing baptismal rites from early baptism by immersion, to the baptism by infusion that the perpendicular fonts were built for. The cover was to prevent the theft of the blessed water, which in the thirteenth century was believed to have magical powers. Again the word used is cover. If we follow  we see the word bowl used in two meanings- but also the classification of base, basin and cover. The bowl being the interior of the basin- I would suggest that for immersion there was just the basin, with infusion in a basin designed for immersion, a smaller bowl contained the water, around 1100 the cover became necessary to protect the water in the bowl from theft. By 1200 in Northern Europe- immersion had gone, and the bowl became the font. Hence the two words bowl and basin were interchangeable. In 1209 the cover became used to seal the font and thus enforce papal authority when he excommunicated a rebelling king or priest. There is a lot of work out there on the subject- but enough for tonight.--  Clem Rutter (talk) 02:34, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm liking these collapsed infoboxes more and more. Just added another one to Beeston Castle. Malleus Fatuorum 01:31, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

About Requests for adminship/Piotrus 2 - plain comment
Giano: hadaway and shite. Peter in Australia aka --Shirt58 (talk) 13:32, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, I saw it the first time. Very clever and amusing; you'll have to ask your parents for an education for your next birthday.  Giano   13:39, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Meh. I again ask for your help with Weavers' windows.--Shirt58 (talk) 11:17, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry; it's not a subject that I know anything about.  Giano   14:12, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Weavers' cottage- note sent to Shirt58. -- Clem Rutter (talk) 09:27, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Real Ale for students at Polyversities should subsidised, actually. Student Grant aka --Shirt58 (talk) 10:01, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Barrington Court
What do you think of Barrington Court's recent promotion to GA? It seems pretty thin to me, I doubt I'd have passed it. Malleus Fatuorum 20:47, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I am not going to say a word about Barrington Court. I have hated the place since the day my Venetian mother-in-law bought a genuine Elizabethan style table there, it was made of ye olde solide oake and she then expected me to arrange and pay its shipment (think Venice - delivery - no roads!) - it weighed about 5 tonnes and would have been cheaper to have bought the bloody house itself. Secondly, I am silent because I am feeling a bit guilty because I may just inadvertently savaged a newby at another of Rod's prospective GAs! So for the next 24 hours, I am only saying nice things.   Giano   21:04, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Ach, Rod asked me about that article earlier. To be perfectly honest I think he's rushing in and nominating articles that aren't ready. But you ain't seen me, and I never said that, right? Malleus Fatuorum 21:09, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
 * More interestingly still, "where have my yellow "You have New messages gone"? This evening all I have a little red thing at the top of the page - where is the fun in that next time we are blocked - it will break down with the overload.  Giano   21:14, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
 * It will indeed. Any bets on who'll get blocked again first? My money's on you. You're a dangerous radical, whereas I'm just a tramp shouting at passing strangers in the street. Malleus Fatuorum 21:18, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
 * No, it will certainly be you. If you hang on long enough, Sandstein will probably pop in here for a drink later on - such is my cachet.   Giano   21:22, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
 * You may be right. The ArbCom enforcer would probably be technically within his rights to block me for having posted (twice?) on an RfA page. Such is life. Malleus Fatuorum 21:26, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh God, you haven't have you? You should be like me, post once every five years and cause a storm when you do. Trouble is I always end up feeling sorry for the people I oppose, but then they don't really need the tools, one can have far more fun without them.  Giano   21:30, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Hey Malleus, hey G, how you guys. Article looks good. Did you see this photo? Might it be suitable for the lede? There's also this photo I uploaded. Would you like me to look to see if I can find other higher resolution photos for the article? Also, glad you could both use the other photos I uploaded, it was my pleasure :) Russavia (talk) 02:06, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

More Somerset architecture
Thank you for your help with Montacute House, Barrington Court and Pulteney Bridge which, with you input and that of others, have now all achieved GA. Work on Tyntesfield is still continuing in that direction. I've now been looking at some of the other houses in Somerset and wondered if you (or any of your talk page stalkers) would be interested in taking a look at: Clevedon Court, Hestercombe House, Leigh Court, Lytes Cary and/or Nettlecombe Court, many of which are included at List of National Trust properties in Somerset. Any help or guidance in improving these articles would be gratefully received.&mdash; Rod talk 08:00, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

DYK for St. Lamberti, Hildesheim
Allen3 talk 09:17, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Baroque in Poland
I am out of ideas where to ask, so perhaps you or your page stalkers will know - any ideas where to ask for a volunteer to do a B-class review? WP:POLAND can't help as it has been listed on our list for ~half a ear year and nobody cares to do it (I can't as I am one of the main contributors). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 12:16, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Sadly, I don't even know what B Class is? Doubly sadly, I am really busy in RL at the moment. Malleus may know what B Class is, but Polish Baroque is a very specialised subject indeed; Malleus is a man of huge talents and surprises, but Polish Baroque may not be be of them. Have you tried User: Wetman? The problem and great shame with so many of the Polish architectural pages is that there are are so few English speaking references to use and check against. As I'm sure you will appreciate, Polish is hardly a user-friendly language even for those of us who can get by in two or three European languages, and I don't feel happy with a Babel-fish/Google translation.   Giano   19:16, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I just took a look,it begins: "The Polish Baroque lasted from the late 16th to the mid-18th century." If that's true, Poland must have invented it at least 25 years before the rest of Europe - it needs an expert, and I'm not an expert in the Polish field.  Giano   19:20, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that's got to be somebody confusing "1600's" with "16th century". Volunteer Marek 03:38, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
 * No. it's more likely someone not understanding the subject. It did begin (just) in the late 16th century, but rarely and always in Italy; it then spread slowly. It's possible that it arrived in Poland simultaneously, but I would strongly doubt it. If only there were just one good, authoritative book translated into English; the refs one can find on-line tend to be touristy and unreliable: "Come to sunny, tropical Poland, the birthplace of Renaissance and Baroque art." I will keep looking.  Giano   07:10, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I may ask them when I expand the article further. For now, after reading it again, I decided to fail it myself due to not covering all the aspects I think it should (it's pretty easy to do a B-class review, much less work than a GA review: ). B-class review, btw, are pre-GA reviews done by some (very few) WikiProjects. I know of only three that do them: MILHIST, BIO (where they had a few months backlog before I took it over yesterday, lol) and POLAND (where for the most part I do them myself, too :>). Cheers, --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 04:04, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Tyntesfield
Hey G, Tyntesfield I see you've been working on. Do you want some more photos of that? You know I am a man of many resources, and I am sure I can find some fully sick photos if you want them.

Better yet, when you work on an article, drop me a msg on me talk and I'll see what I can find for that article. Good idea, non? Russavia (talk) 02:44, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

There's two photos I didn't even know I uploaded last month (I do bulk uploads to Commons) that I reckon might be suitable for that article -- both are high resolutio, good quality. Especially like the 2nd one which gives a nice overview of part of the estate. Russavia (talk) 03:04, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you Russavia, sadly, Tyntesfield seems to have gone quiet due to copyvio issues and concerns over just how much detail needs and should be included. I'll certainly let you when the need arises.  Giano   07:12, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
 * In relation to Tyntesfield, be damned with concerns over how much detail needs and should be included -- you know what is needed, so do what you gotta do. What are the copyvio issues, perhaps I can help?


 * But I see you are onto Mount Vernon now -- looks like your and Malleus' puppy. Want me to see what I find in terms of cool pics? Cheers, Russavia (talk) 15:11, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
 * A lot of the issues with the article are detailed at Talk:Tyntesfield where many have been resolved, but perhaps not others. It would be useful to have a quick summary of what is still outstanding.&mdash; Rod talk 16:26, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Dealing with copyright violations on any scale is complicated because of the article history, and strictly it needs to be stripped back to its last clean state and rebuilt from there. Malleus Fatuorum 17:41, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid that I agree with Mallleus, the page stunk to the heavens of copyvio and pretty badly written copyvio at that. It wants demolishing and then re-writing from scratch; it's a lot better than it was, but (in my opinion) meanders off subject too much and has too much trivia, and there are too many people who want all that stuff included so I think it's best if I leave it alone - I'm too squeamish for detailed accounts gynaecology, bombing raids, Luftwaffe navigation and hospitals. Give me nice, clean bricks and mortar any day.  Giano   08:14, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
 * To get back before the copyvios you would have to go back to this diff and alot of good work since then would be lost.&mdash; Rod talk 19:13, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
 * That's the way it has to be though, and we'd need to get an admin to delete/oversight the intervening article history. I got bitten big time with Grace Sherwood, even though all I'd done was copyedit the article, and I've got no intention of ever going through that again. Malleus Fatuorum 19:24, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Wait a minute, so Trident13 has added all sorts of copyvio into the article, and he hasn't been blocked? I have reverted the article to its state as per the diff above. We really shouldn't leave copyvio's in the text for an extended period of time. Unfortunately with that revert, there's so much work lost. I'll try to add back in text from some of your guys' edits. Russavia (talk) 21:24, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
 * He probably didn't express the opinion that some of those mouthing off at the various drama boards were sycophantic admin wannabes; that's the kind of comment that gets you blocked here in this best of all possible worlds. Content can go hang, very few care about that. I'm no longer even allowed to be critical of admins or the system by which they're chosen, which gives you another clue as to what's gone wrong here. Eric (talk) 03:04, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I hear ya Eric, lord knows I hear you! Russavia (talk) 03:20, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I think you've still got a way to go, but I can see that you're a contender. Eric (talk) 03:23, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I did add various messages at User talk:Trident13 asking for discussion, but have not received any response.&mdash; Rod talk 10:05, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I am going to revert you Russavia because I think there has been so much rewriting of late, that there can be little copyvio remaining - if any. Also, such a major revert should be the result of a talk-page discussion. I dobt very much this was a deliberate copy violation, more a lack of understanding of our little ways.  Giano   08:04, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I think this discussion is best held here .  Giano   12:56, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
 * OK, G, I was going to go through the article tomorrow and see what's what, but if you are confident there is no copyvio left, I'll leave it at that. I guess it's my "Commons mind" jumping into action at the mention of copyvio, better to be safe than sorry and investigate it. But if that's been done, I'll leave it :) Russavia (talk) 19:21, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not certain how it works, but we may need to get an admin involved to oversight some of the article history. Eric (talk) 19:49, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Yep, definitely need an admin to oversight the history. You can see an example of how it will look if you look at the history for LAN Colombia. Russavia (talk) 20:41, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I really think that this conversation need to be held here. My talk page is unlikely to tbe on the watch list of all those who have edited the page; especially that of whoever it was who inserted all the copyvio.  Giano   21:16, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Balbardie House1910.gif
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Balbardie House1910.gif, has been listed at Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 12:08, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
 * It's 103 years old and most certainly is out of copyright. Delete it and I shall immediately upload it again.  Giano   14:00, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Where did you get the image from? If it's a book and we know when it was published then it may well be public domain but if it's an unpublished photo then it is still in copyright. NtheP (talk) 16:17, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Seigneurial tower
Can I pick your brains again... I'm working on Hestercombe House (at User:Rodw/Sandbox/Hestercombe House) which includes the phrase "While the overall design and air could be described as Italianate, also present in the same entrance facade are examples of high Victorian Gothic, such as an Italianate seigneurial tower confused in design with a campanile tower. This tower complete with a glazed loggia is crowned by a French-style mansard roof with oversized chimneys masquerading as Renaissance ornament." What is a seigneurial tower and should it have an article? Also do you have any references to hand which could be used to cite these claims?&mdash; talk 10:34, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * To Rod. As far as Italianate houses in England is concerned a seigneurial tower is the same as a belvedere tower (although nothing like the one pictured in the belvdere tower article). Look at pictures of Osborne House - I think it has a couple of them. Correctly speaking a seigneurial tower is a tower on a manor house (seigneurial house/important gentleman's house), that added a little grandeur and also served as look out. In English, Victoria Italianate house, the belvedere/seigneurial tower of ten looked more like a campanile (bell) tower because it has what looked like a belfry on top which was in a fact a glazed room for admiring the view.   Giano   11:39, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Looking at it the hideous thing is almost Second Empire rather than Italianate. I think yo could say that tower is almost in a class of its own.    Giano   11:47, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * PS: If I wrote that, you can scrub it out; it's only a visual description so doesn't really need reffs. I wonder why I described that tower as High Victorian Gothic - it's not really Gothic at all - more the sort of mismatched architectural elements that was turned out in the High Victorian period.  Giano   11:57, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * It was added with this edit on 17 Sept 2008 (wikiblame is a wonderful tool).&mdash; Rod talk 12:08, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Mount Vernon
Hi Giano...I'm going to toss a few more references into the Mount Vernon article this weekend and then back off so you can work your magic on it. I have no doubt that you and Eric Corbett will be able to get the article through GAN and FAC if you so choose.--MONGO 16:58, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Great. I won't be around at all next week, as I'm going to look at some seriously good architecture in France and do some equally serious eating and drinking. Will take a look the week after next.  Giano   21:21, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
 * What architecture in France? I've been doing a shitload of uploading to Commons of various old French estates and chateaux, etc. Can you drop some hints? Enjoy ya week off. Russavia (talk) 21:27, 25 May 2013 (UTC)


 * The more I look at this article, and the more I read, the more work I can see needs doing before we're anything like ready for GAN. A little depressing really, as on the face of it it looked like quite a nice little thing. Eric   Corbett  00:46, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
 * ... in better news though I think I've finally sorted out the mystery of who built the first Mount Vernon. Eric   Corbett  03:08, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Ichthus
Hi, I thought I would drop you a note to say that I mentioned an article you worked on in this month's issue of Ichthus. If you wish to receive the full content in future, please drop me a note on my talk page.-- Gilderien Chat&#124;List of good deeds 22:01, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

You're back!
Pass Lady Bracknell the cucumber sandwiches! Bishonen &#124; talk 21:34, 9 June 2013 (UTC).
 * Yes indeed I am back and was looking forward to sharing my holiday snaps with a series of pages on Renaissance chateaux, but it looks as though I shall be waylaid having to defend another page for a while. Anything interesting happened in my absence?  Giano   10:33, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

File source problem with File:Yachtingmed.jpg
Thank you for uploading File:Yachtingmed.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.

If the necessary information is not added within the next days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. Please refer to the image use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a [ list of your uploads]. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 18:10, 16 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I left dear Sfan a note, pointing out that 100+ year old images are copyright-non-infringable (is that a word?). Perhaps you could have a word with the lad. 178.197.254.3 (talk) 21:42, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Maybe if you know where the image comes-from it would calm his anxiety. Whoever held copyright has 'kicked the old bucket' for sure.  Maybe Sfan needs that explained?  (death, copyright, etc)  178.197.254.3 (talk) 21:45, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
 * One would guess that the words "Illustrated London News" in large letters at the top of the image provide some clue to its origins. 78.149.172.10 (talk) 21:50, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes well. That would have required me to get-out my spectacles, and squint.  ;)  193.239.220.249 (talk) 10:28, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Presumably you weren't suggesting that was my obligation. :) 193.239.220.249 (talk) 10:30, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Small victory in the infobox wars
You probably have no interest in sports cars, but I thought it may encourage you to know that an article I recently nominated at FAC with a partially collapsed infobox was promoted with hardly a comment. Eric  Corbett  23:39, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
 * That is encouraging indeed, and when uncollapsed the information therein seems to be of use, not such trivia as the necessary tyre pressure when it has children, suitcases and an overweight granny on board. Actually, I am very interested in sports cars and have owned one or two in my rather unexciting life.  Giano   07:29, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Block/unblock yesterday
I noticed your comment on blocks at AN. Did you see my unblock yesterday? A disgraceful business, though it wasn't the blocking admin (Drmies) that was at fault IMO. If you remember this case, ending in this feeble motion, the main player this time was that same admin with a new name. A disgrace waiting to happen, after the weak arbcom action. And I don't doubt there'll be another after this NO action yesterday. There is no other system than arbcom for reigning in abusive admins, and they aren't doing it.

Presumably it'll be time soon for BWilkins to get taken to ArbCom and let go without action. If anybody can be bothered, after the form shown. I wonder if the Worm That Turned… no, I don't really wonder anything about him, I just wanted to link him. :-) It would surely save a lot of time to just mark the word "desysop" as "historical". Shall we propose it as policy? Avoid comparing the draconian way Geogre and MONGO, excellent sysops as well as superexcellent contributors, were desysopped in the old days — you'll only get vertigo. Bishonen &#124; talk 13:38, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Very true my dear, but I have rather given up my noble crusade to rid Wikipedia of its cretins, despots and the slightly odd and just accepted that it attracts them like flies to a dung heap. To quote what is not an old Sicilian proverb "I suspect it's a case of birds of a feather fucking up together."  Giano   13:47, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah. I just thought I'd link PumpkinSky's post to the individual arbs, too, I think he'd like that. Excuse me for bothering you with it — I can see from the timestamps that you'll scarcely have taken the time to click on my diffs to begin with. I do understand you have better things to do. Me too, actually; just wanted to crow about my fine unblock, I suppose. Early and late, we waste our time in this place. (Wordsworth.) Bishonen &#124; talk 14:25, 28 June 2013 (UTC).
 * I have clicked your links and very interesting they were too, but I am now an unwell Wikipedian. I can't be expected to strain my eyes reading diffs and overtax my limited energies before opining - you must remember that unwell Wikipedians have to have allowances made for them. Now! If you'll forgive me I must go to the shops and buy some more medications.  Giano   14:32, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh dear, have you got a blocked nose again? Bishonen &#124; talk 14:36, 28 June 2013 (UTC).
 * You'll wish you'd been nicer when I'm no longer here. But don't worry, I'm not one to complain about my ailments and dreadful, excruciating pain that's wracking through my body. Just put a flower on my page once in a while and think kindly of me!  Giano   15:56, 28 June 2013 (UTC)






 * I meant leave flowers after I have passed over to the other side; not before! There's no need to be impatient. Anyway, I am feeling a little stronger today.  Giano   09:44, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Now look what you did with your "unwell Wikipedian" nonsense: mislead PumpkinSky into wasting perfectly good sympathy on you! Bad wiseguy! I bet your nose isn't even really blocked at all. Bishonen &#124; talk 12:54, 29 June 2013 (UTC).


 * (using my pet's account —  Ched  ZILLA  14:06, 29 June 2013 (UTC)) Hey Giano - very sorry to read about the health concerns.  I wish you a very speedy recovery.  Cheers. User:Ched
 * I'd like a status update on that list of admin abuses and what's being done about them. Also, I'd leave you a flower but the kind of flower that I'm thinking of right now is probably blacklisted. Yours truly, 207.157.121.92 (talk) 14:45, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm so terribly sorry

 * Thank you Worm for your sympathy and understanding. I'm not one to complain and bore others with my health; one must just struggle valiantly on; these horrible inflictions must be seen as a test from above. The medications seem to be easing the pain just a little as I struggle to contribute to Wikipedia.  Giano   16:25, 29 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Dear Sir (or your Majesty - my failing memory does not recall the official and proper title). I would also like to extend my wishes that you have a most wonderful health care system at your disposal.  Perhaps the WMF would be willing to share their vast wealth if that is not the case; since there are so few people drawing on the income they receive.  I noticed a (rather tacky IMO) "buy, buy, buy - get it now while it lasts" ad recently for the wiki store .. maybe some of that money would be accessible? — Ched :  ?  18:48, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
 * My symptoms will baffle any health care system; I expect it's something completely unknown and incurable - indeed the pharmacist in Lloyds was horrified that I was able to struggle in to her store for advice, and confessed that she had never seen anything like it. She was a great deal more sympathetic than Bishonen, but then Bishonen has no medical training or expertise.  Giano   21:07, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Since it's completely unknown, ie new, it should be after you and you should write an article on it. Pumpkin Sky   talk  21:19, 29 June 2013 (UTC)