User talk:Giano II/archive 14

Amazing innit?

Compare this with the recent unblock request by a certain editor posted on the same noticeboard? No replies to my problem, and the IP went on violating BLP until blocked independently of my report. Plenty of replies on the other issue though wasn't there? 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 13:16, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well I hope you have more luck then me when you point out the strange goings on at Wikipedia [1]. These days, I don't think Wikipedia is the best place to solicit for blocks, extending them or retaining them. But when we have Arbs who prefer and encourage their secret places and chanels and courting their adoring throng on IRC to being open and honest, it can be no surprise when the little admins follow suite and behave in the same fashion. No wonder the ordinary editors like ourselves rarely have a clue to what is going on - it's all behind closed doors - Oh dear, there I go being "paranoid" again. Giacomo 13:32, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But ... but ... Excellency, "Just because you're paranoid, it doesn't mean they're not out to get you". Happy New Year, anyway! --RexxS (talk) 18:07, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Houses in trouble

Prospero año y felicidad!

Wow, that's an ambitious page you've started! I expect fireworks! Bishonen | talk 21:50, 2 January 2011 (UTC).[reply]

No, it will be fine; if it takes as long to hit mainspace as the last one did, The Troubles will be ancient history. Happy new year to you too. Giacomo 10:37, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it is proving a fascnating subject and I am learning a lot as I go along - it's giving me a real lesson into the origins of The Troubles from both perspectives. Already I have had to correct and re-write hundred of my own false assumtions. In fact, so long as it remains completely referenced, factual and neutral it might be or real interest to all involved in "Irish matters". Before it goes into mainspace I shall ask two Troubles editors to read it through first for neutrality and POV. I don't anticipate any problems at all. Giacomo 12:07, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Appeal for book title from Giacomo

I had an audiobook in my car last year, the title of which has completely gone from my brain. An autobiography - young boy growing up in Ireland as a member of the protestant Ascendency, however, he's not very rich, lives on a gloried farm, has several brothers ans sisters, a barking mad father, a long suffering mother; his family own an auctioneers business somewhere in the South. He had an odd chrstian name, one I had never heard before. Sort of plotless nothingy book with a strong "feelgood" value. Anyone know the title, so I can get it as a ref for my new page. Giacomo 08:09, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

got it: Rathcormick: A Childhood Recalled by Homan Potterton. recomend it to you all, very balanced and probably a pretty true picture. Giacomo 22:59, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi I've noticed with interest your project on Big House in Ireland, particularly with regard to thier wholesale destruction in 1920-23. If you like I can forward you some stuff that I've written (and references) for a project outside wikipedia on this (it's The Irish Story, which I see you've come across already).

Just a note though to avoid confusion; there were two distinct spells of Country House burning in the Irish Revolutionary period. The first was in the Irish War of Independence between Autumn 1920 and the Truce between the IRA and the British in July 1921. In this period the IRA burned houses specifically as a reprisal for the British forces burning of thier fighters' and supporters' houses. As a result, most destruction was limited to south Munster where the guerrilla conflict was most intense.

The second and much more destructive phase was in late 1922 and early 1923 in the Irish Civil War. In this period the Anti-Treaty IRA burned over three times as many houses as they had in the earlier conflict and the distribution was much more widespread. THe ostensible reason was that many big landowners had become senators in the Irish Free State Parliament, but in fact it ammounted to a wholesale attack on the property of the old landed class. It could also be that the Free State forces were less able or willing to protect the Big Houses than the British had been.

I hope that's of use, let me know if you'd like me to forward you those references.

Jdorney (talk) 02:30, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thank you; that would be really helpful and any information very welcome. I have emaill enabled. While I started the page with the intention of it being about the big houses burnt during the conflict, I have come to see that the complete indifference with which they were regarded after the conflict was just as damaging, if not more so. The page is sort of writing itself as I research (I have come to this field knowing nothing of the houses or with any preconceived ideas about the conflict - probably the best way) and I'll let it go where it leads me, and then rewrite it and concise down when I have finished - so any information is very welcome. When it's finished I would like it to be a sister page to Destruction of country houses in 20th-century Britain which I have just finished. That deliberatly only touches on Nothern Ireland because the circumstances were so different and would have made that page too long and laborious. Thanks for your offer - it's appreciated. If you prefer, just add anything you think should be included (with refs) to the talk page. Giacomo 08:17, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Giacomo, I'm going to send you an email today with a word attachment. It'll be easier to digest than a big lump here on your talk page.Jdorney (talk) 15:40, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Funnily enough, I sent you an email about 5 minutes ago. Giacomo 15:42, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Remember Mitchelstown.jpg can someone tell me the siginicance of this cartoon, I know all about the "Mitchelstown Massacre" and can see that it's Gladstone in the background and he coined the phrase "Remeber Mitchelstown" what I want to know is what the cartoon is trying to say or satyrise, I can guess, but I'd like to be sure. Giacomo 17:19, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure but it could be an allusion to the writing on the wall story in the Old Testament book of Daniel. alanyst ^/talk/ 17:39, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Giacomo, just checked my email and it seems I'm not getting mail from wikipedia. Tried to sending one to myself. Nothing. So anyway my email is jdorney66ATgmail.com. My stuff on houses burnings in 1920-23 is ready to be sent. I'll wait for your mail and then reply as can't find the mail function on your page and am not sure if it's working right now anyway. Re Mitchelstown, this refers to an incident in 1887 when the RIC (police) opened fire on a crowd at Mitchelstown during land agitation ,killing three people. Can't figure out the cartoon though! Jdorney (talk) 17:43, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, I think it is the mitchelstown masacre being used for political gain somehow, but I'm not sure quite how. PS: Try ading a "@" into your email address, it may work :-) Have just tried to send you an email. Giacomo 20:56, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

...and it has just come bouncing back, something is wrong somewhere. My wikipdia mail is working fine. Giacomo 20:58, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, how about I just cut and paste what I have on you talk page after all? Jdorney (talk) 22:32, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

just tried mailing again. Giacomo 22:43, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Got it, stand by! 22:50, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Goddit! and replied. Thanks so much. I have to go to bed now, it's been a long wikipediaring day, one of my longest ever I think. I can't remember the last time I was so absorbed or interested in a subject here - I normally write and reference afterwards, so this is a novel experience, but the trouble is so many references contradict each other; I'm still not sure I have quite got my head around the exact causes of the "Mitchelstown Masacre" and it has to be right before it goes into main space - on this subject more than any other! Thanks for your help and hopefully future help too. Giacomo 23:16, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Moore Hall

Hi, just came across this account, http://www.oreillydesign.com/moorehall/mornp.html by Lord Moore himself,of the burning of Moore Hall, County Mayo by the Anti-Treaty IRA in February 1923. Jdorney (talk) 12:04, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

brilliant thanks, havejust lost hours of work when the power suddenly failed - teach me to save more often I suppose, so I don't suppose I will get that far today. Giacomo 12:12, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File copyright problem with File:PiazzaQ.JPG

Thank you for uploading File:PiazzaQ.JPG. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 22:54, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There was a typo in the license tag (Giano accidentally typed "PDiself" rather than "PD-self"). I've fixed it. Everything should be in order now. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:57, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Brad. How pleasant life would be if everyone were so observant. Giacomo 23:13, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am now very concerned at how many images we may be losing because of this sort of nomination for deletion. Fortunately Brad noticed the typo that 'Sfan00 IMG' was unable to recognise, although since Sfan00 spent no more than a minute examining it, perhaps we can understand why. It's equally fortunate that this tagging of one of Geogre's uploads was spotted by Ktr101, who was kind enough to add a PD template - the file tagged for deletion was an image of a book title page dated 1718, which couldn't fail to be in the public domain. The question troubling me is what happens when nobody spots the tagging in time? I wonder how many valuable images we have to lose before someone puts a stop to this sort of indiscriminate deletion? --RexxS (talk) 01:54, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's a problem. It's the 2nd such incident I experienced this week; while I don't dispute the onus is on the original uploader to ensure it's properly tagged, I am far from the only person here who makes frequent typos and fails to spot them. There does seem to be some sort of competition to see who can have the most deleted in the least possible time, which is a little concerning. Giacomo 11:48, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Handel's collection of paintings

Dear Gianno, I need some support. I made a list this morning of painters under George Frideric Handel. Handel owned quit a few paintings which were sold in 1760 after his death. I was very surprised to see so many names I had never heard of. It does not list his collection of paintings, because that would be impossible to finish. Now there is someone from Sidney who likes Handel but obviously he is not interested in paintings and reverted it. Can you give your opinion? Taksen (talk) 12:57, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's all very interesting, but were I you, I think I would just say: "Handel was a great patron of the arts, and owned a large and extensive art collection which included works by Canaletto and Carracci and other great masters." The long list of names can be distracting from where the emphasis of the page should lie. There is no reason why Wikipedia can't have a page George Frideric Handel's art collection which could be very comprehensive and generously illustrated as the works will be long out of copyright. I'm sorry, I suspect this may not be the answer you were seeking, but that is how I see it. Giacomo 13:58, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your quick reply. I moved your answer to the Handel talkpage and I appreciate your advise. I am glad you liked the list too. It will be difficult to add more than names, as the information is very scarce.Taksen (talk) 16:31, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to help; could you make it clear on Handel's talk page that I did not post there. I seldom post with opinions on the content of "proper pages" unless I am in some way connected to them - I am aware of how deeply irritating this can be to the primary authors; thanks. The new page looks very good, I love the lead painting, I always imagine one of our esteemed lady Arbs to have a similar wise head. Giacomo 19:35, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A question regarding architecture

Giano, the other night my son and I were driving through the centro storico of Acireale and in one of the twisting, tortuous backstreets we passed an old dungeon-like building that appeared to be straight out of the medieval period. Of course, my son was driving rather fast so I didn't get the chance to examine it and I need not add that I did not have my camera with me. Is it possible that there are structures in Acireale which date from the medieval period? Thank you.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 13:38, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, I don't know. I lnow some buildings survived, but I have a feeling that that Camastra rebuilding demolished what little the earthquake left behind in the rebuilding program. I'm not that knowldgable about Acireale - I've never seen a very old building there, but then I've only ever been there a couple of times and they were very brief. I'll keeo looking. Giacomo 07:48, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sale

Hello GiacomoReturned,

Your recent edit to Winslow Hall was incorrect regarding the sale.

Please check your facts before making edits that may misinform other Wikipedia users.

Regards Tom —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.29.42.45 (talk) 22:45, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Uh maybe you (Tom) should provide some details as to what was wrong, based on reliable sources which you should also mention? Making things up in articles about architecture is not something most people would imagine Giano to be capable of.

I'm no expert on the topic (in fact my knowledge of it largely comes from Giano's articles and from having been forced to tour some of the buildings in question, at a young age, by my well-meaning parents) but a brief look at your comment led me to jump to the conclusion that your current approach is not the most constructive one. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:04, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The sole edit from this passer-by.--Wetman (talk) 07:06, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Wetman and Demiurge. There has been reason to correct some anonymous edits concerning that page before. Some anonymous person was keen to promote the "real estate agent" references promoting Christopher Wren's input, which is not well supported in scholarly documentation and opinion concerning the house [2]. Had Wren indisputably designed the house, it would of course be considerably more sellable and valuable. I have no idea if a sale has taken place, I know enough about selling houses in England, to know that until the money has changed hands and the new owner is in possession nothing is certain, no matter what an estate agent might claim. We shall all have to wait, watch and see, but I have yet to see a reliable reference that it's sold, especially as the press has twice erroneously announced it sold, once to Tony Blair and once to Cliff Richard. Wikipedia should beware of falling into the same pit without good references. I'm not really nterested in editing at the moment - so it can wait.

Funnily enough I drove past Winslow Hall only yesterday. Had I seen this comment I would have stopped and taken a photograph. It is now derelict, its windows falling in, and two of them on the main (roadside facade boarded up with very cheap and nasty looking hardboard) The "front garden" is overgrown and the gates padlocked and rusty. A very sad sight. "If" a sale has been completed, let us hope the new owner has the funds and energy to restore it - and it does not fall into the same category as its near neighbour at Mentmore which despite purchased by a man of unfathomable, but seemingly transigent wealth now has rain seeping through its roof and in too almost derelict. For a nation so fond of wittering on about their heritage to us other nations who they hope will spend our money coming to see it, the British do seem to be rather "'laissez-faire" when it comes to looking after it. Giacomo 08:26, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, honey! So that's the way to get you to arise on this page: to complain about some ugly house! I'll bear it in mind! Cliff Richard bought it, you say? OK, noted. Bishonen | talk 09:55, 9 February 2011 (UTC).[reply]

File:Winslow.jpg listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Winslow.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. SchuminWeb (Talk) 06:28, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have repleid [3] and thank you to those who emailed me concerming this ridiculous matter. I note that SchuminWeb has a Bachelor of Science degree in Public Administration, that probably explains why the public these days are so badly administered. I shall now return to my Wikibreak - hopefully - uninterupted. Giacomo 19:44, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just a second there! Have you seen this? Relevant to many of your uploads, I think. I've commented. Bishonen | talk 19:56, 21 February 2011 (UTC). (Returning to my own wikibreak.. :-)][reply]

My views are very obvious to all. I have always voted "keep local" since some mental retard at Commons altered all my images making them in to big meaningles squares and deleted my images here. Were it not for Durova to whom I had to go on bended knee (only she had the skill to repair them), most of my better pages would now be devoid of images. I shall not be commmenting on this matter elsewhere, but you can refer those interested to my views here. However, I only write content and take the bloody photos, I can't imagine that mattering much to those idiotic little twits who make their forgettable names in Wikipedia's beaurocracy - and let's face it, they do run the show. Giacomo 20:15, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"we must pray"

Amen. :-( --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:15, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed we must; it is catastrophic. I've seen all this elsewhere, but never where so large a percentage of a nations' heritage buildings have been destroyed. All one can do is pray for the dead and suffering - who come first - but then make sure all the lost buildings have a good right up here. I don't do messages of sympathy - sometimes I wish I did. Giacomo 20:09, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

March 2011

As you know although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, you are reminded not to attack other editors, as you did on in this deletion discussion. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors.

When discussing content as it relates to policies please comment on that and not direct comments towards editors. Please refrain from calling any editor, be they an admin or not, an "idiot", ignorant morons and "ignorant, stupid little admin who has not the remotest idea what you are talking about"

In response to your comments such as When I require it, it will cease to be orphaned it was pointed out to you Wikipedia has policies, including Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files, a file storage area or a personal web hosting site. Being an active editor for the many years you claim you should have been aware of those policies. Thank you. Soundvisions1 (talk) 00:53, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

When people try to delete my images because they wish to prove a point elsewhere with others they will be called mindless morons. If I go to the trouble of drawing an image then it is because I want it. I do not write on a timescale to please some semi-anonymous little admin who has probably never written page in its life here. The polite thing to do (not that an Admin can be expected to know the meaning of the word) would have been to ask me if I required the image before nominating it for deletion. Now I suggest you take your coments to IRC or Facebook or wherever it is that people may be interested in what you have to say. Giacomo 07:30, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Giano II. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts regarding personal attacks. The discussion is about the topic User:GiacomoReturned. Thank you. --Soundvisions1 (talk) 13:53, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Giacomo, I strongly urge you not to respond to the WQA report - and would remind you again that you should be setting the example of showing respect for other contributors actions and comments, if you desire it to be given to you. LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:04, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"The polite thing to do (not that an Admin can be expected to know the meaning of the word) would have been to ask me if I required the image before nominating it for deletion." and I would and would remind you again that Admins should be setting the example of showing respect for other contributors actions and comments, if they desire it to be given to them. Giacomo 14:15, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I closed the WQA to stave off drama; but LessHeard vanU is right. Your comments in that thread are immature and nasty; and it is not collegial to edit in such a manner. There is no way, even regarding how your image was treated, to justify what was said. Acting in such a way sacrifices any moral high ground you have and simply creates the constant churn of drama around your activities. Fine; it is annoying when stuff like that happens. But the right outcome came about, there is no need to throw the baby out with the bath water :) Please try to consider your wording in future --Errant ^(chat!) 14:17, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Imature and nasty is nominating required images for deletion without having the common courtesy of asking if they are required first or do you think otherwise?-in this case the nomination was, I beleive, a result of some spat the nominator was having elswhere with my friend, Slim Virgin - (a spat in which I have yet to become involved) I suggest Admins are given some meagre training in good manners before you come here telling me what is "nasty." Giacomo 14:22, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're absolutely right, it would have been the polite thing to ask you first. Unfortunately, Wikipedia has become so big that it is full of automated and semi-automated processes without which it cannot function anymore, resulting in the occasional impersonal and uninformed deletion nomination. These things happen, so let's assume that there were no bad intentions behind any of this. As for the issue of showing respect, this sounds a bit like the Chicken or the egg problem to me. What about some mutual respect to circumvent the problem of who's going to respect whom first? --Conti|✉ 14:26, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Giano, true. I haven't looked at the nom. However, that does not justify anything. The manners of those nomming the image may not have been good, but neither were your actions. Bottom line is; you're now as bad as them. *shrug* you did that to yourself. This training in manners, I think, is something that could benefit you as well as some admins. Indeed; not being an admin is certainly no excuse to behave rudely, if anything it is even worse justification! --Errant ^(chat!) 14:32, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not come here telling me whay I should be doing, put your own corps d'administrateurs in order first because I am rather tired of seeing them behaving like wounded and long dying swans in tawdry tutus when someone points out the error of their ways. I see nothing wrong in telling someone behaving like an idiot that they are doing so. In the meantime, I espect the point of the exercise was for me to take a look at this whole "keep local" business - so I shall go and attend to that. I see the image has been "saved" so I suppose we now have to go through the whole sour grapes rigmarole - sometimes Wikipedia becomes too tiresome for words. Giacomo 14:45, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Giano, just trying to be helpful and bring some collegiality to a corner of the wiki where it seems to have disappeared. As it is I see no reason for you to expect good manners or respect, even on a first strike basis, if you continue acting in the same way as those you deride. You may be pointing out the error of their ways, and I entirely respect that, but consider perhaps that I am trying to do the same for you. Self criticism and perspective is a bitch... I came here to diffuse a drama and perhaps get you to re-consider the attitude. As it is you seem intent on fighting for fightings sake. FWIW you just lost what respect I had for your contributions. I will leave you to the quagmire of your own attitude, although it saddens me to see --Errant ^(chat!) 14:52, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is a big difference between telling someone that he's behaving like an idiot (we all do at times, and sometimes we need to be reminded), and calling someone an "ignorant moron" or "some mental retard". I hope we can agree on this much. --Conti|✉ 14:55, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you bother to look at the comment I describe as moronic, you will see the commentator was attempting to bring the whole "keep local" debate to the discussion [4]. While I have no doubt that was the point of the nomination it was a moronic thing to do - in fact the whole of that person's comment was uninformed to put it mildly. If people wish me to join the "keep local" debate they have only to ask, but attacking my work is not a good way to go about it - no matter what you assembled admins may feel. Now regarding the "mental retard" do we have a traget for that? If you wish to open that debate , please say so - otherwise I will keep the identity of the person who stipidly caused so much damage to so many images and extra work to so many to myself. Giacomo 15:10, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Again, you did not describe an action as moronic, you described the person as an "igonrant moron". That's simply not an okay thing to do, even if you are right (and I happen to think that you were). That's the whole point here. --Conti|✉ 15:18, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see, so what is the noun and adjective for describing someone who makes uninformed and moronic statements? Giacomo 15:21, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You don't get to go around calling people morons, even when you think they are morons. Y'know, civic virtue and all that. I'm not going to explain to you why things like being nice to each other and showing mutual respect even in situations of crass disagreement are important in any kind of community. And yes, that's true for admins, too. And yes, there are admins out there who think that those basic rules don't apply to them, unfortunately. But that does not change what's happened here one bit. --Conti|✉ 15:37, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well then I suggest you go straight to the top, and start with people like Coren who without raising any eyebrows are allowed to call people mental (even when they are clearly not) then when you have sorted out the Arbs and the Admins then come back here and I will attempt to emulate them. In the meantime, if I am trolled in order to get me join a debate I have no interest in then those doing the trolling will have the error of their ways firmly pointed out to them. Now, if you don't mind, I have some pages that I wish to tidy up - this conversation is going nowhere and doubtless providing entertainment for many - so let's dissapoint them and write some very dull pages instead. Giacomo 15:45, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"They do it, too!" has never been a very good excuse for anything. If I see an arb (or an admin, or a newbie, or Jimbo, or you) call people idiots, morons or whatever, I will call them out on that, too. Anyhow, I've made my point here, and I agree that there's more productive things we could do, so let's leave it at that. --Conti|✉ 15:54, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, but people never seem to see the others - do they? Perhaps it's because I'm so friendly and welcoming that people feel able to raise issues here that they feel unable to do elsewhere. Giacomo 16:38, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Giano, given your response to my attempt to defuse the situation & inability to accept that what you said is unacceptable per our policy on attacks I have proposed a resolution for the community to discuss on AN/I. I had hope to avoid drama, but your lack of maturity is something that needs to be addressed to help promote a collegial atmosphere. --Errant ^(chat!) 09:32, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I just noticed this was going on in relation to that image discussion. Look, the absurd way our image processes are invented and applied is enough to make a saint start cursing, so this is really not a good example to base a discussion of civility on, and especially not allowing it to escalate. It would be in everyone's interests if we were just to move on. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 20:03, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I think we have passed beyond that stage now - all day long Admins have been voicing their peurile opinions on ANI and I have iignored; waiting for the voice of reason - it seems to have come too late. As usual, I will have to deal with this myself - we shall no doubt soon have Coren to tel me I am paranoid again. Giacomo 20:06, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Amerigo Vespucci

Hello Giano. It's Marskell. It's nice to see you typing.

I have a decent English language biography on the fellow named above and wondered if you wanted to have a go at an FA? Being three-and-a-half months behind on rent means that work will proceed slooooowwwwlllly on my end.

And don't mind the intro to my talk page. You can type on it if you wish. Listsshown (talk) 15:15, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I thought you had dissapeared for ever - sorry about the rent, one of the pitfalles of living in a capitalist society I suppose. I knew that American had been discovered by an Italian or Florentine/Tuscan I suppose we should say - I'm sure they are all very grateful. I don't really do FAs any more, been there and got the Tshirt; I prefer just writing pages to FA standard and leaving them there - less stress involved. The reason I am reluctant to do big expansion/re-write of dear old Amerigo, is that someone has obviously tried hard already and it's quite good; Unless it's a page I have already been heavily involved in, I normally only pounce on stubs or something so bad it is embarassing to read. I would suggest if you want to do a re-write/expansion putting on a note on the talk page asking the primary author to join you - that way you won't ruffle any feathers. I've already got two big pages on the go in user space and several other smaller ones, I really should get those finished before starting another. Anyhow - good luck. I'll put it on my watch list and add a comment or two if I see the need. Giacomo 16:06, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough and best wishes! Listsshown (talk) 16:08, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and best wishes to you too. I hope things come right for you. Giacomo 18:24, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the email

Hi Giano. Thanks for the email, I prefer to conduct all interaction on Wiki where at all possible, hence the reply here. I seem to recall you made similar statements in the past.

I see the thread was closed, personally I am ok with that, although from my perspective there seemed reasonable consensus that your actions were inappropriate. I'm afraid I don't at all share your view on how to interact with people, although I do share, and agree with, your concerns with certain aspects of behaviour and application of policy that causes issues. If I come up with any ideas for addressing that then perhaps I will give it a shot :) I also do not consider your contribution any better than some of our long term and most diligent Wiki-gnomes etc.

As it is I simply deal with each issue as it comes along, so I hope it is clear that there was no specific target in yourself (although I do know your a "contentious target" no matter what). BTW I will probably have forgotten about all this next week (sleeping & drinking ya know) but I did mean what I said; if you get abuse thrown at you in the future I'm perfectly willing to step in and treat others in the same way. I've faced much tougher challenges.

As you say; no hard feelings, and I will let you get back to the article work :) --Errant ^(chat!) 23:34, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I have heard it all before. I shall not hold my breath. I learnt a long time ago to my fight my own battles here; the last time I asked an admin for help taught me that. Anyway thanks for the offer. I won't be taking you up on it. Giacomo 23:49, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you really think Errantx that you'd get away with blocking a sitting Arb for incivility then I'd like to try a pint of whatever it is that you're drinking. Must be heady stuff! Malleus Fatuorum 23:52, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know, Bishonen was the only person who's actually done it, ever. And the corps d'administrateurs was outraged when she did. Giacomo 23:53, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, let's see :) FWIW I'm not a fan of civility blocks at all, but warnings are likely to cause as much of a stir. --Errant ^(chat!) 23:57, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why not limber up by addressing a comment made by User:Rodhullandemu in the ANI that you initiated, about Giano's "twatitude". Do you consider that to be an entirely civil comment? Malleus Fatuorum 00:06, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I expect he's gone to bed, but I'm 100% sure one of those efficient and dedicated admins there will be sactioning him as we speak. In the meantime, I shall go to bed, no doubt while Europe sleeps, America will make the brave decision to ban/block or sanction - that's what normally happens on these occasions. Not that I will be accepting anything from such people. Giacomo 00:11, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not a fan of civility blocks? probably wisest. Georgewilliamherbert likes to claim he'll block an arb or Jimbo. There's just this strange coincidence that you people never happen to notice when an arb does need blocking. Giacomo 23:59, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[/me smirks modestly. ] Bishonen | talk 00:01, 3 March 2011 (UTC).[reply]

"You have the heart and body of a king and a King of England too", or whatever it was that old bore Shakespeare claimed to have written himself. Giacomo 00:04, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bish didn't set any record with her block of FT2. Raul654 was blocked for 3RR in April 2007 for 12 hours while he was a sitting Arb. There may be an even earlier case; I haven't done that much investigation. --MZMcBride (talk) 04:26, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No sanction, but an observation about community patience being exhausted

I have closed the community sanction proposal without enacting the sanction - there was no consensus to impose it, there were slightly more "support" than "oppose" but it was either slightly below or only slightly above 50% support depending on how you count what, and that's not strong enough to impose a new sanction.

However, it should be noted that most of the opposes were opposing explicitly on grounds of futility, not expressing an opinion that the proposed sanction was incorrect or objecting to the characterization of your behavior as not meeting Wikipedia standards. Several people did oppose on those grounds, but a clear minority of the opposes.

It would appear that there is a community consensus that your behavior is not meeting expected standards. It also appears that the community's patience for putting up with that is wearing thin over time. It would be advisable to consider that in your future dealings with other users - if these incidents continue, the community may exhaust its patience with you.

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:07, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm very much afraid GWH that we are doomed to differ in our opinions. You may regard the usual and highly vociferous crew at ANI as representing the views and wisdom of the collective community, I do not. In fact, I see ANI as place of regular lynching by a minority who uphold all that is wrong with the project. Until the happy day arrives when I see you and your colleagues blocking fellow Admins and Arbs who are far more insulting than I could ever dream of being, then I fear little will change and the bullying and hectoring by that small gaggle at ANI will continue as they vie with each other to please the Admins and Arbs who I and a few others have so often embarrassed by exposing their shortcomings.

In retrospect, perhaps I should not have been quite so angry at being drawn into an arguement that I was deliberatly ignoring and having to defend keeping an image I had drawn myself for an express purpose, but then it would probably have been deleted if I had not. I certainly had to post several times as my word was clearly not believed the first time I posted – Admins argued for its deletion after I posted. So we shall never know the answer to that one. You see, civility works two ways and if Admins choose to pounce on an editor's work, try to delete it, make them argue for its retention then tempers will naturally become frayed – that's inevitable. I hope you will attend to that before the next content editor finds himself in the same situation. You see there is quite a lot for you Admins with your self-appointed mops and buckets to do, but I don't seem to see much mopping – All I see are a lot of Admins and their followers wanting the kill, but not many looking for a cure. I hope that makes my position quite clear. Thank you for dropping by. Giacomo Returned 23:43, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I like that answer, Giacomo. Bishonen | talk 00:08, 4 March 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Hi Giano

I've asked you this before, and I'll ask again: Please drop your battleground mentality, and please stop lumping all administrators together into one category. That's all, thanks - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 23:13, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea what you are talking about. Have you had one glass of wine too many? Giacomo Returned 23:15, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, I realise the dangers of drinking and editing :P. I kind of thought it would be rather obvious what I was referring to, which was this edit. Your comment that all admins will never agree to a change, is clearly stereotyping, and unfair on many admins. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 23:20, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But they are all in one category, it's called "administrator", just as those like Giano and I are in a category. I'll let you name that one for yourself though. Malleus Fatuorum 23:22, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Malleus, if we don't stop thinking as one, the Admin/checkusers will be prying into my IP (yet again)claiming we are socks of each other. The fact remains Kingpin, that content editors cannot be admins unless they forsake writing and start fiddling and pontificating - and Admins think they are better than the content editors (don't deny it) because they have all these silly magic buttons. What happened to "no big deal - it's only a mop and bucket" it seems to have become a rather pompous mayoral chain. Giacomo Returned 23:27, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody in their right mind could think that we are the same person ... ah ... wait ... I see what you mean. "In their right mind". Malleus Fatuorum 23:35, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't you know, according to Coren, I'm completely off my bloody head - paranoid as a ...whatever's paranoid. Giacomo Returned 23:39, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I find it difficult to remember all of these daily petty insults from those in authority over us. Is he the one who called you "bonkers" earlier? Or am I thinking of another editor and another abusive administrator? Malleus Fatuorum 23:44, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)Yes, but saying that all administrator's will never agree to a change is incorrect. Therefore it's just taking a group of editors (or category) and incorrectly accusing them all of something. Splitting the users into groups like that encourages a battleground mentality, and is unfair on many of the users in that group, as I said already. </ec> I agree with some of what you're saying Giano, yes the standards for admins can be ridiculous and can look for all the wrong things (two minutes at WT:RFA makes this apparent), and yes administrators should not consider themselves above content creators. Equally content creators should not consider themselves above administrators. But what I disagree with is your insistence that all administrators are the same. It's true, some no doubt think of themselves above content creators (I don't deny it), however, not all do. Just as some, but not all, content creators think they are above administrators. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 23:33, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid Kingpin, a minority is always swallowed by a majority - so you must be judged along with your peers. Just as the content editors (a minority) are juged by the corps d'administrateurs. Sad fact of life, but it can't be changed; ever! Giacomo Returned 23:39, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) To say that all members of any body, administrators or whatever, will never agree to anything is simply to state the self-evident fact that not everyone agrees about everything. It's not a reflection on the admin corps, rather an observation on human nature. For myself I wish that the many decent administrators could do more to quell the misguided enthusiasm of their less able colleagues. Malleus Fatuorum 23:41, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Or certainly not while you take that approach to it. Anyway, I've said all I wanted to, - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 23:44, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For my part, I lost faith years ago in a corps that by its requirements of membership cannot include those whose sole wish is to write the encyclpedia. Giacomo Returned 23:47, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And it's getting worse rather than better. I recently saw a proposal at the Village Pump suggesting that nobody should be allowed to use Twinkle unless they already had the rollback bauble. What we're witnessing is the evolution of a class-based structure that will entrench administrators at the top of the pile and those like you and I without any rights whatsoever at the bottom. Very unhealthy. Malleus Fatuorum 23:54, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh they took my rollback bauble away years ago - and I have no idea who Twinkle is, probably another little girl mascot in a French maids uniform - that's unhealthy too. The place is going to pot - literally I suspect. Giacomo Returned 23:59, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

They didn't take mine away, I handed it back in disgust at the way that User:WebHamster was treated when he was accused of misusing it, and I've refused all of the baubles ever since. Malleus Fatuorum 00:08, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You always have to go one better don't you. Well I would have told them where to stick it; it's just they took it first! Giacomo Returned 00:11, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can see how some might see that as a fault on my part. But it's just the facts. Malleus Fatuorum 00:18, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I just wish I could remember why they took it - I expect I used it as a lethal weapon against one of them. Giacomo Returned 00:24, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

They have an uncanny knack of hiding the evidence. Obviously I don't have any of their magic buttons, but I often find it very difficult to see exactly why someone's been blocked, for instance. And of course even if an admin fucks up with their block it's still in their victim's log, but not in theirs. There is so much wrong here it's mind-boggling. Malleus Fatuorum 00:32, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you shout loud enough and long enough you can have something erased from your block log. I think it was my first ever block - it was "hate speech" they desysopped the admin at the time, but would not erase the slur, somebody called "Bryon" refused to do it (apparently only he knew how). Anyway, as is their want, when they thought the fuss had died dowm they re-adminned my blocker and I said "no way" quite loudly (quite loudly indeed as I recall) and suddenly Bryon or his sidekick discovered how to do it. There's a moral there somewhere. Anyway, it's late -time for bed, G'night. Giacomo Returned 00:45, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It ought to be obvious to anyone that deleting one row in database table isn't even close to being as easy as the pretty easy rocket science is. Anyway, sweet dreams my prince. Malleus Fatuorum 00:53, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, hush; you disturb the children... LessHeard vanU (talk) 02:00, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please leave new messages below

Hello I would be interested to read the new page you have referred to English country house, but the link does not work - it it mispelt bcause I can't find it either. Giacomo Returned 13:52, 6 March 2011 (UTC) New page will be added in a few days - I ran out of time today. User:Andrewtriggs.

I look forward to seeing it; it sounds very interesting it. If you need any help/referencers checking etc, please ask; I have quite a few reference books on related subjects. Giacomo Returned 16:53, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Credo Accounts

400 free Wikipedia:Credo accounts available - just in case you wanted one, but didn't already have access. Anybody else you can think of who would find one useful? --RexxS (talk) 02:26, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's terrific Rex, Thank you. Most useful and timely as my JStor access is coming to an end in a month's time, and I will miss it. I seemto have 10,000s of books, but not too many online places - sign of how long I have been out of full time education I suppose. Giacomo Returned 07:04, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Me! me! me! My access to JSTOR has come to an end, RexxS, and everyone is starting to realize how dull I am without it. Giano, tell them I'm worthy. (Rushed over and signed up.)--Wetman (talk) 04:37, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately Credo is restricted to reference books. I guess it's best to think of it as an encyclopedia somewhere between Britannica and Wikipedia in terms of depth of coverage. Neither JSTOR nor anything similar is included. It's of very limited value, but apparently much more convenient for what it does cover than the online databases that I have had access to so far. Hans Adler 07:05, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was looking at the works and it is a good base if one is a neophyte to an area, which can then build other sources onto. Especially if we have to inline reference even straightforward info. I have university access, so would put myself on a 'standby' list.Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:12, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well I think it will be invaluable for referencing those little facts that one has somehow picked up, but can't immediatly find a reference for - you know the sort of this, something perfectly obvious to those with half a brain, but along comes some little irritant with a cite tag and you need a quick ref for it. Allthoug thinking sensibly, perhaps we should give the accounts to the irritants and let them do the referencing allowing those few of us who write to get on with the job. Giacomo Returned 11:24, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On occasion I'm one of the irritants, but sadly with somewhat under one year on Wikipedia, I'm not eligible for a free Credo account. Ho hum. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 11:46, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well you are obviously a very fast learner Demiurge, so I'm sure you'll manage without one very well. Giacomo Returned 17:18, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is a real possibility that all 400 free accounts may not be claimed, and there is a 'reserve' list on the same page for those who don't quite qualify. So I'd recommend putting yourself on there if you're interested. As has been said, this isn't a substitute for full access to journals, but I think it's useful enough in its own way. --RexxS (talk) 14:02, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I noticed there is not that much of a rush, but then there are not that many people here interested in content, one does not need access to on-linr reference books to comment on, and execute blocks and generally prattle about. Giacomo Returned 17:18, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Now here is an idea for reforming the site: Let's introduce a magic system as in many games. Every user is in principle able to cast spells such as "block", "unblock", "delete" etc. However, a spell costs mana, which you can obtain through content building and some other forms of constructive work. You get a tiny little bit of mana for every edit in article space that isn't a revert. Any such edits in the month before an article becomes a GA are worth more mana points, and even more if the article becomes an FA. The mana required to block a user depends on the user's mana. You can block whoever you want, and you can unblock whoever you want, even yourself. Hans Adler 22:09, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Funily enough, I sugested something like that years ago, and along came an Arb - Kelly Martin was her name - and she threatend to ban me for making the sugestion! I can't rmember the exact details and I expect there was a little more to it than that; I must try and find the links, it was the first time I had her of her or the Arbcom - plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose. Giacomo Returned 22:36, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good suggestion by little Hans! Bishzilla get plenty mana for this edit? [Bishzilla is impressed all to hell by Giano's userboxes. Jealously: ] Zilla speak Japanese, too! And built own PC, very large! bishzilla _ROARR!! 23:27, 27 March 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Clever idea Hans, yes Giano I'd like to see the original link to that proposal and discussion. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:41, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's not at all a bad idea Hans. Unfortunately it would require a software change, which the developers would either resist or cock up, most likely both. Malleus Fatuorum 01:13, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Casliber, I cannot find the diffs, but you get a flavour of the problems it caused from this very colourful banner here [5]. It was a much more basic idea than Hans', but it caused complete mayhem and panic amongst the Corps d'Administateurs at the time because the banner started to apear on quite a few talk pages - amzing fun. Perhaps I am wronging Kelly, and it was another admin (it was so long ago and I have had so many threats, one cannot keep track of them all) - I will keep hunting. Giacomo Returned 08:11, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Aha! here it is [6] she did not like the banner and kept removing it imagining it was saying things that it wasn't [7]. Then came this from a "respected" ~~admin~~ (seems he's not an admin; I'm sure he was famous sor something) [8] the most amusing thing ever, which rather showed that just like now, most of them don't have a clue about what is happening on the encyclopedia. I would be careful Hans, with what you suggest. I do though think Wikipedia today is a much better place than it was then; it just shows that standing up to those people was the right thing to do - and I don't regret it for a moment. Giacomo Returned 08:19, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, wish I'd known about that banner at the time :) I have always been unhappy with the idea of a "content editor/admin" split, and even more unhappy with "me admin/you peon" attititude which I have seen in some older discussions, but thankfully not many recent ones. I am trying to convince arbs and ex-arbs to write more content and get involved with content-side of things, and Carcharoth is taking up the challenge, so there is hope....(just wish he hadn't reviewed my article in quite so much detail...but he has made good points...)Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:04, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking of Clever Hans, wouldn't that be something for you to work up to Featured, Malleus? (Or of course for you, Hans, but I expect that's been suggested before.) Or is the story too simple? Bishonen | talk 00:45, 30 March 2011 (UTC).[reply]

It could do with some attention and certainly deserves it, but it would involve yet another battle over the removal of that popular culture section. Although it's hardly any worse than most of wikipedia's other psychology articles, which isn't saying much admittedly. Malleus Fatuorum 04:27, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Aaawww Malleus, where's your sense of fun?? Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:32, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, it hasn't been suggested before, but it's a clever idea. But before I start anything new I think I should collect all my courage and finally take Pigeon photographer through FAC. The hope to see a camera-bearing German war pigeon on the main page for April Fools Day nearly made me do it, but SandyGeorgia said it was too late. :( Hans Adler 09:28, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I know this is probably perfectly obvious to everyone except me, but are those pictures of cameral wielding pidgeons real or faked? Giacomo Returned 10:10, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

They are some of Hans' best fakes, Excellency. The only giveaway is on this picture page File:Pigeonimg.jpg, where the photograph is dated 1908, but it is stated that the author died in 1932. Everybody knows that pigeons don't live that long :D --RexxS (talk) 10:48, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The average homing pigeon in captivity lives about 8-15 years. But camera pigeons are specially trained to carry weights, so they get more exercise. And while they are carrying a camera, other birds will not attack them. I believe the pigeon that took that particular photograph was a relative of Kaiser. Hans Adler 13:25, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hmph! Despite the Geneva Convention, I strongly doubt that a pigeon could be classified as a prisoner-of-war and that the Americans would then keep it and breed from it. I'm also having a problem beleiving that a pigeon could ever live to be 32 and a half - where did the half come from - did they capture its birth certificate too? - and as for Kaiser being a "red checker cock" - well, let's just not go there. Giacomo Returned 15:54, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OMG, we do have an article on War pigeon. I did not know that. It has a section on UK pigeons decorated for valour after WWII, with some names—Commando (pigeon), William of Orange (pigeon), etc. If a creature can be decorated for valour, why shouldn't it be capable of being a prisoner-of-war? But I'm sorry, really, that my attention was directed to War pigeon, because I was impelled to cruelly remove its only footnote (dead link). :-( Bishonen | talk 23:46, 30 March 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Apropos of ... something ... ever had a bird poop in your eye? Really. Also got my eyeglasses, splashed on my sweater, my scarf, my gloves, my coat, requiring a change of clothes and trip to the drycleaners ... and, ruined my makeup too ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:36, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Funnily enough...no! I have never had that experience, but I'm told it's supposed to be lucky and that you should not wash it off for the reaminder of the day. Biy unfortunate if it was an eagle or an albatross though. Giacomo Returned 07:24, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Would you rather subject your paraphernalia to a defense dolphin, Sandy? Bishonen | talk 01:27, 31 March 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Also, see Featured List Dickin Medal for the whole gory story. And for lovers of references, I salvaged War pigeon's dead link from the wayback machine and added a fresh link from the current PDSA site. All's well ... – T-RexxS (talk) 01:07, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Rex! I was hoping somebody would know how to involve the wayback machine. Awwwww, look at that Featured list of the Dickin medallists!! Simon, ship's cat on the HMS Amethyst, awarded the Dickin medal in 1949 "for the disposal of many rats despite injury". Talk about the antropocentric world view! Seriously, isn't the mix of blood and guts with (your typical British) sentimentality over animals and animal heroism a teeny bit... er... what am I saying? I think I stop talking now. Bishonen | talk 01:27, 31 March 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Have a look at some of the stories around horses in war for some real tear-jerkers. Horses in World War I is a good example, and I think I made some suggestions on the talk page or some review page with links to some very moving poems. Though picking up on what Casliber said above about reviewing, articles involving animals and humans are clearly far more interesting than articles only about animals, and those are in turn more interesting than articles on things that have trouble moving, such as plants like (er) Banksia, or even mushrooms... :-) Carcharoth (talk) 05:10, 31 March 2011 (UTC) The poem is at the bottom of this page - called 'The Soldier's Kiss'. No jokes please, just read it if you have the time.[reply]

I went to see War Horse last year and a very good it was too, but it was not about pigeons and I somehow I suspect it would not have been so emmotive if it was - it did have an amusing goose, but not in a lead role. Giacomo Returned 07:21, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was about to reply to Carcharoth mentioning War Horse (play). The film version, War Horse (film) is due out soon, and it seems likely to garner considerable attention when it is released. But the story itself has some powerful themes that deserve proper attention from sympathetic editors like Bish (at least there's no argument over who wrote it), and I was going to suggest that an all-star collaboration might want to add some analysis to War Horse (novel) and its two derivatives. Three articles improved for the price of one! --RexxS (talk) 18:14, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ha. Hardly. If you've got a story about American war rats being decorated for valorously injuring a cat, I'll work it up to a Featured article if you ask nicely. Bishonen | talk 19:00, 31 March 2011 (UTC).[reply]

I shall not watch the film; the play was too good to bettered. Quite amazing - I never imagined that a very superior pantomime horse would be able to move me; it was quite incredible. A film will just over-egg the cake; we shall have blood and guts and no doubt some quirky sex (hopefully not with the horse) to apeal to the masses and leave the cinema knowing that despite the amazing horse and Albert, America won World War I quite alone and unaided, as it appears to have done in every war and battle since 1066. Giacomo Returned 18:44, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Campus ambassador"

Replying here to save clogging that page; Campus Ambassadors is a laudable idea of Jimbo's; to encourage people with academic connections to increase awareness of Wikipedia and how to get involved with writing it in colleges and universities. (I personally think WP:GLAM is a better idea—I think museum curators are more of a natural fit with the Wikipedia ethos than lecturers and students—but I have no problem at all with the sentiment behind it. – iridescent 22:31, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are a wide variety of classes involved. Everything from that first writing class you need to do in college/uni to upper level masters degree classes. By the end of the spring term we hope to produce a batch of DYKs and a handful of GAs. --Guerillero | My Talk 00:07, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think I will become a campus ambassador too; I certainly have the correct user boxes to qualify for such a post. Giacomo Returned 06:24, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your user boxes

Best laugh of my day. Love them! Thank you. Bielle (talk) 16:13, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you too. Jimbo and the Arbs like to know who we all are in RL and are very impressed by intelligent people (tonsored professors and the like) so user boxes are a very good way of reliably informing our colleagues about ourselves. I'm unsure what it that you find so amusing? I expect these boxes will ensure that I am swept on to the Arbcom next year in a blaze of glory. Giacomo Returned 17:43, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tenured, honey. We've done this before! Bishonen | talk 22:32, 30 March 2011 (UTC).[reply]

FGS! I cannot be expected to know every stupid word in the English language! Anyway, more importantly: I have yet to find out where I have to impart the glad tidings that I am to become a "campus ambassador" for their must be some little people in an office somewhere on Wikipedia to point me in the right direction - I have a lot of wiki-wisdom to impart to my students. Giacomo Returned 12:56, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alas, I cannot join the ranks of the "tonsored professors" as mine were removed at the rather advanced age of 19. However, I may have redeemed my suitability for the role by virtue of never having written a single article. I do particularly admire your weighty contributions in Japanese and in mathematics, as will the ArbCom electorate. As for the "blaze of glory . . .", I would think it colourful, but painful. Bielle (talk) 21:01, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am impressed, and envious of, tonsored people from any walk of life (including monks). I am no longer permitted the choice. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:50, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You would be a fine addition to the program, Giano. I would see you as having potential to be up there with ambassadors like User:RHaworth (what better choice to gently shepherd delicate newcomers in the right direction?), who not only offers advice to the students he mentors, but also corrects the students' professors when they err. Professors have much to learn! --Demiurge1000 (talk) 18:57, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. Giacomo Returned 20:06, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

i am blocked

Why has my account been globally blocked. Who has done this And why? ----

I doubt that you have actually been blocked:

There is nothing in your local block log.
Since your previous edit only one IP address was added to the global block log, and it's a Swiss one.

I guess that either you are not actually blocked and just have some technical problem, or (perhaps more likely) your internet router got a new IP address, and that one was already blocked. Just switch off your broadband router, wait a few minutes, and then turn it on again. That way you will get a new IP address. If I am right, you will be able to edit afterwards. Hans Adler 09:48, 12 April 2011 (UTC

It says that - am an open proxy and banned byu shizaoh. As - am in Milan how is this possible. Giacomo Returned 10:13, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Very simple: Each time you reboot your router (and sometimes without rebooting it), you get a new IP address. This IP address has been used by other people before you. Apparently one of these other people had malware on his computer that turned it into an open proxy. To judge from the logs it's almost certainly not a problem with your computer, so you can just reboot your router. Do you know how to do this? Hans Adler 10:17, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

' Have rebooted several times already.Giacomo Returned 10:42, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your computer or your router? Rebooting the computer doesn't help at all in this case. You must switch off your internet router and then switch it on again after a few minutes. It's probably a relatively flat little box that is connected either to a telephone socket (if you have DSL) or to a cable TV socket (if you have cable broadband). Hans Adler 10:52, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can you confirm that you have rebooted your router rather than just your computer? (If so, then I am afraid I have bad news for you.) Hans Adler 11:07, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

PS: Franamax has added an IP block exemption for you, so in any case you should be able to edit again. But it's still important that you answer my previous question, as you may have malware on your computer. Hans Adler 11:10, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hans likely has it right, you've been caught up in an auto-block at the global level. In any case, I've set the "ip-block-exempt" flag on your account. Log out of Wikipedia and log back in again, let me know how it goes, and the -exact- message you get if you're still blocked. (e/c with Hans, oh I hate that. :) But yes, please do answer his question) Franamax (talk) 11:13, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It has just occurred to me that Giano may be in a public place such as a hotel or airport. In that case it's probably best to just do nothing, and to avoid using the internet connection for something sensitive like internet banking or buying something with a credit card. Hans Adler 11:19, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The block exemption only applies to the account, as long sa Giano remembera to log out of public somputers there is no risk to Wikipedia. Keep one credit card to use for any and all your online transactions. Never access your bank account from anything other than your own or a trusted person's computer. :) Franamax (talk) 12:00, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it is a poltergeist? Kittybrewster ☎ 12:01, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Giacomo dear, I think the safest thing would be to transfer all your money to me and I'll look after it for you. Bishonen | talk 12:37, 12 April 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Problem solved; by changing computer, provider and country. Icidentally though, my IP number and its location is meaningless as it is always beamed at me from the same source - so it is all very concerning. It's why I can always edit while banned - if I choose to - not that i would ever dream of doing such a thing - that's why finding myself really banned was so very odd. I wonder what they have cooked up now that is so different. Giacomo Returned 16:01, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Who is "they"? Kittybrewster ☎ 16:35, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Does this help? [9] Kittybrewster ☎ 16:42, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(a) Gremlins who fiddle with things. (b) No. Thank you for your concern. Giacomo Returned 17:42, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

re: 'haunted houses', you may find Stambovsky v. Ackley to be amusing. DS (talk) 16:04, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Would you tell a child aged five that there is no Santa Claus, nor fairies or ghosts? Kittybrewster ☎ 11:56, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You forget, I am the evil person who kicks puppies, kittens and assorted imcompetent child-admins, so telling a kid there's no Santa Claus is easy - I'd even steal its candy while doing so. Giacomo Returned 13:10, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But you'd tell 'em there are ghosts, surely? Fear is good for kids. Here's an article for you, Kittybrewster. It proves there are fairies. Bishonen | talk 13:16, 7 April 2011 (UTC).[reply]

And nobody who believed in a Sanity Clause would be editing this website. --RexxS (talk) 13:32, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, but it helps if you beleive in fairies! Now, what are you all doing her in idle conversation? I am exhausted; dearest Giacomo and I have just returned from a sojourn in Greenwich, Connecticut (a most odd place), I of course was feted while he studied the extraordinary architecture - I do so feel for you poor Americans, this terrible unspoken disease, it's very prevalent there and there needs to be a charity to cure it - those poor dear women, huge, large heads on wasted bodies with great gleeming teeth and yellow hair and their faces swollen and mump-like with slanty starey eyes - I just kept taking my malaria tablets and hoping for the best - I wonder if there's been a nuclear leak that no one has mentioned. Lady Catherine Rollbacker-de Burgh (the Late) (talk) 16:23, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Infoboxes

Please do not revert constructive edit in adding an infobox to Winter Palace. There is consensus on wikipedia that infoboxes summarising architectural details and a locator map is a way forward. Also read WP:MOS, 450px is way too big for an image. You may also read WP:OWN, which I believe you are guilty of violating.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:23, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the large image is one of the page's strongest assets. There is a reason that MOS is only guideline and not policy. To insert an infobox that shrinks the image to the point that it is practically unrecognizable, while adding a map that is almost four times larger than the lead image, is absurd; there's no other word for it. It's a huge building, it needs an image large enough for the reader to appreciate its scale. Finally, as with almost all infoboxes that include "maps", it's nothing more than a sketch. Maps have names of streets, rivers and other important physical phenomena; this is one does nothing for the reader. Risker (talk) 23:18, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, actually in this case 450px is suitable. The pin maps we have are not the best, some day perhaps we'll have proper interactive maps... Location in St. Petersburg was my goal to see where in the city is is located without having to look externally.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:00, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is no such consensus, and indeed a great many people object to them. Malleus Fatuorum 21:39, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thirding that opinion. Blofeld, I've no idea where you've got the idea that "there is consensus on wikipedia [in favor of infoboxes]"; they're widely disliked and any attempt to get consensus for such a policy would be laughed out. There are certain circumstances—generally when articles form part of a series on a topic (sports teams, railway stations, countries, species…) where they're useful in allowing quick comparison of key attributes. For articles on one-off subjects, they're a pointless distraction which just clutter the page. – iridescent 21:55, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do they??? Then why does every virtually every article contain them then if nobody likes them? "They're a pointless distraction which just clutter the page". As a quick reference for statistics and a map, how exactly are they pointless? If I'm reading an article I want to be able to quickly look at an infobox to get the bare facts and get an idea of where the landmark is in a city. If I was say looking for the height of a building why should I have to rummage through a massive article to find a figure??♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:08, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Have you ever considered reading an article's lead? I'm given to understand that it's a summary of the subject's important points. Malleus Fatuorum 22:43, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

IMO often the only good point about an infobox for a building is the ability to include a map, but even then there are other options available. Infoboxes are most certainly not a necessity; eg: the article on the Tower of London does fine without. The details included in an infobox are almost always included in the lead, and if they aren't probably should be. Nev1 (talk) 22:50, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh noes, I spy a bona fide reference to WP:OWN, that favorite policy of trolls and n00bs (along with WP:AGF), in Dr Blofield's first post. That's usually a sign of a lack of actual arguments, though I'm sure it's sometimes just laziness. To throw WP:OWN in the face of an experienced editor with a suggestion that they "may also read it", as if you were generously imparting a little-known Wikipedia stratagem, is merely a way to join battle, Dr Blofield. I'd start over if I were you. And now I suppose I too may expect some speculations on my sexual proclivities on my talkpage? Bishonen | talk 23:25, 11 April 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Why would you be interested in that building's height any more in any of the facts that are actually interesting? Hmm. Maybe we could extend this principle to real life. Everybody should be obliged to carry a big placard with some basic information: Height, eye colour, nationality, religion (or absence thereof), ethnicity. Just in case someone who passes by is interested in that information. Hans Adler 23:32, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Laughing out loud.☺ Bishonen | talk 00:03, 12 April 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Infoboxes on visual arts pages are, as you can see, widely objected to. Since you like guidelines, see what WP:VAMOS has to say on the subject. If we have a posse here, how about tackling the WORST of them all, Template:Infobox_World_Heritage_Site, see here. Johnbod (talk) 02:50, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That infobox should just be packed full of TNT --Guerillero | My Talk | Review Me 03:36, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you - all! One of the great dissapointments of that page is that the length of the building makes a really good lead image impossible. It certainly does not need shrinking further. Most of the "visual arts" (buildings) on my watch list (a few of them of major global architectural importance) do not have info-boxes and there is (as you all point out) no concencus for there to be so. Giacomo Returned 06:25, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've opened a request for discussion at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Infoboxes as I'm surprised more than anything that you all feel this way. Yes very funny Hans, but is it not a fact that we have several hundred thousand articles containing infoboxes and navigation templates? Is that not an indicator of what is desired? If it isn't then why aren't the people here who dislike them trying to get them deleted? I agree on biography infoboxes, I don't think they are necessary, but usubjects which are likely to contain a lo of statistical data like Empire State building I think they are useful. And I think you'd be surprised Hans just how many editors use wikipedia to find quick facts or as a quick reference, and don't want to read a massive article fully. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:08, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Am I also mistaken in thinking images rendered at 450px and 300px in the articles are against MOS guidelines? Personally I prefer larger images but I remember posting articles at GA and FA and that being one of the first thing people picked up on.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:14, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. The MOS (this week anyway) says: "An image should generally be no more than 500 pixels tall and 400 pixels ("upright=1.8") wide" and "Lead images, which should usually be no wider than "300px"". Johnbod (talk) 14:37, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Most GA and FA reviewers I've come across though said the images should be thumbnailed at default to allow the option of changing in your preferences. Is that false then?♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:07, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's what's typically (supposed to be) done for images in the article body; however, images in the lead where there is no infobox are frequently fixed at a larger-than-default size. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:11, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Art & other visual FA articles very often have images fixed large - the thumbnail is much too small. I don't think anyone would object to the 450px in the lead here, though there's a case for putting it below the lead at say 600px. Johnbod (talk) 16:17, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If any of you are interested I'm going to enquire into a hidden infobox preference,. This way those who detest them can hide them completely and those who find them useful keep them...I'm surprised it hasn't been proposed before, if it has, I missed it♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:08, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The code for this was worked out a couple of years ago for another article and has been used from time to time. I am not sure if the editor who did it is still around, however. Perhaps Giano will know if he's about - or perhaps he still reads this page. Risker (talk) 17:12, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As it so happens I do; it is Rodw - he wanted an info box at Montacute House and I did not. As he had been looking after the page generally and adding the odd bit before I turned up and re-wrote it we agreed to a comporomise. It still there - even though I did a second complete re-write, as he can be considered a longstanding/primary editor of that page he has a right to be considered. Winter Palace is the only page I have ever written as a request - I was asked by some Russian editors to do it because they felt the stub which was there before was not doing their country justice. Before writing it I consulted heavily to ensure there were no Russian editors or Hermitage editors who wanted to do it - there were not. So I do consider myself the primary editor of that page - it was written in user space so my 10,000s of edits have dissapeared, but I do not feel an info box would be any benefit to the page. What other people do on pages on which they are the primary editor is up to them. Giacomo Returned 17:38, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Its definitely something we should consider, wikipedia should be a flexible as possible and should cater for as many editorial preferences as possible. You can also bet there are thousands of readers who hate infoboxes and nav boxes and see them as clutter. I think a formal proposal needs to be made on this and for it to be considered. Also shrinkable nav boxes really do little to hide. 3 or more stacked boxes look dreadfully cluttered. The option should be available to hide them and infoboxes.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:47, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't think info boxes do need to be enshrined in policy at all - much as I hate them, some people like them, when a page clearly has just two or three principle editors leave it to them to decide - life is too short for all this uiformity and dictatorship. Giacomo Returned 17:51, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mmm, but that would make wikipedia inconsistent and the shape of the articles would be based on WP:OWN, by a few editors who claim to own the article by judging what is right for it. I think the best solution would be to give editors the chance to wither hide them completely or just accept them.♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:44, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No. The shape of an article should be based on the content of the article. This is not a cookie factory and all of the articles do not need to look the same; in fact, if they do, then we have an even bigger problem. Consistency is meant for things that are largely identical, not widely diverse matters. The appearance of the article is dictated by its content before all else. Risker (talk) 19:58, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If it humours you to try - do. But you will find there are a few editors who write, many more "editors" who know how the few should write and many many more "editors" who know the format in which the writers should be writing the page. It's not a happy pyramid; I'm sure you don't need me to spell out why. Giacomo Returned 19:55, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To Risker above: I do wish people would post in chronololgical order - or nobody knows where they are! Regarding info boxes as per Risker - this debate has been had countless times before, and I agree with you; however, this is one of those things that will run and run and a definitive ruling will split the project and drive good editors (on the losing side off) - both are right - WP-own is all very well for those who never write anything, but some people write a page from next to nothing and know what is best for it - the present unwritten rule giving a choice to primary editors/discussion on the talk page is the best thing for the project. I'm sure I am not the only person who would feel reluctant to write an attractively laid out page that has to be dominated by a huge pokemon for the benefit of those with the attention span of a gnat ot too lazy to read the lead, stating the same info. Giacomo Returned 20:08, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think that infoboxes are usually not helpful in arts biographies and articles about works of art. For example, the information about the most important dates and names are usually stated clearly in the Lead section, so the boxes are redundant to that extent. Other info in these boxes, like names of parents and descendants (bios), or the locations and dates of subsequent productions (stage works), should not be the first thing the reader sees. This info should go below in the "Early life" or "subsequent productions" sections. Plus, having the infobox template at the top of these articles makes it more daunting for new editors to edit them. The boxes also often interfere with the first images in the article. Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:51, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hola

Giano, I'm shocked to have never met you. I've looked, you've done some wonderful work on architecture, on topics I am also very passionate about! I regularly work on old country houses, manor houses and palaces, most of my GA work though are Tibetan/Bjhutanese/Burmese monasteries etc like Sera Monastery and Mahamuni Buddha Temple etc. Monsoon Palace even appeared in a Bond film... Honestly I had no idea who you were, I assumed you were just another of those occasional editors and hadn't contributed anything to the project! It was very surprising to say the least to see the revert and then others supporting it. I thought Russia was well off the main radar! I agree, a lot of infoboxes look ugly. Far better in my view would be an interactive map further down the article to show location. I guess the external links is there with coordinates to view on google. Maybe an idea would be to propose shrinkable infoboxes which can disappear completely?? I reckon someday we'll have a "google street view" of the Winter Palace inside like some of the other place interiors we now have. Magnificent looking building indeed.

Sorry to have got off on the wrong foot, I tend to get a little snappy initially though if somebody tells me I'm wrong or an edit I make is unwanted!. I used go for features like Abbas Kiarostami, Casino Royale (2006 film) etc but I found them exhausting so nowadays I only go for GA and DYKs. Moscow Kremlin has just one source and is definitely an article I intend dramatically improving in the near future...Would be great to work with you some time on a building, maybe getting one up to GA class or just a DYK or something, but you are probably too busy! I could certainly use your expert assistance from time to time! Take care. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:45, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hola indeed. I suspect you and I would not work happily together - I have a very laid back Baroque approach, and I'mm a strong beleiver in sexing and livening pages up a little, to appeal to bored adolescents - big pictures with captions, risque stories (if I can find them) etc. you like uniformity and rules. I don't think our editing styles are compatible. Sorry. Giacomo Returned 20:17, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ah you still dislike me I see. Actually I hate rules and articles without images and do my best to make flickr agreements to provide an abundance of images. like Thikse, Kathmandu etc. I'm like a kid who likes to look at the pictures in a book and actually often find myself scanning the text and preferring to look at the beautiful pictures!. What exactly do you know about my editing style? I frequently work with a number of people on wikipedia in writing articles. I do like some consistency in articles in terms of layout, like History first then Geography etc, but I also acknowledge that each article is different and may have different requirements. First port of call would be to get Winter Palace up to GA status.. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:00, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe all editors should regularly meet someone they've never heard of before (I tend to look at the date of the earliest edit and the amount of talk page archives before making any of the assumptions mentioned by Blofeld above - and I've heard of both Blofeld and Giano). It makes me wonder what the best areas are to meet new editors and learn about what they edit (rather than what they complain about, or what non-article work they do, which is what you encounter at most of the noticeboards). Giano, do you remember the building I mentioned to you many months ago? Would you have time to look at that again? I'm asking because the comment you made above where you said you "consulted heavily to ensure there were no Russian editors or Hermitage editors who wanted to do it" strikes me as a very courteous approach, but difficult to be workable in the long run (it reminds me of the question of whether articles are better unwritten as red-links until someone can do a proper article, or whether the more gradualist approach of bits being added here and there from an initial stub, along with enthusiastic but maybe not completely accurate rewrites, suffices until someone can do a 'proper' job? At one extreme you have Nupedia, at the other extreme, Wikipedia). Carcharoth (talk) 03:43, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was not recomending consultation to see of others wanted to write a page first in all cases, but in that case I knew that Ghirlandajo could have done a better job and other such as User:Alex Bakharev were better placed and just as knowledgable - also I knew that the Winter Palace is of huge nationalistic and politcal importance and could prove to be a minefield; as it happened Alex was a great help with info etc during the writing procress and I had nothing but encouragement from other Russian editors - so all is well that ends well, but it took forever to write. I quickly withdrew it from FAC because it was only geting silly comments and I knew it would be thought too long, it had already had (by me) content hived off into about 10 other pages and I knew the FA crowd would want it shortened more and that would lose the integrity of the page - sometime someone has to decide what is best for a page, and it might as well be the primary editor rather than a huge committee who know little of the subject. Now, remind me, what was the page you mentioned some time ago? Incidentally, I have known of Dr Blofeld for ages and I can't think of any reason why he should be expected to know of me. Giacomo Returned 06:47, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes indeed, I also often dislike condensing it down and removing a lot of the details. The best thing of course would be to plsit the full sections in to seperate articles which I believe you've done in parts and then make the main article as concise as possible for plenty of main article sections at the top of paragraphs. Winter Palace is very important of course and undoubtedly to write a truly great article probably need wider range of sources but it looks in pretty good shape with extensive sources as it is and I think with a bit of work could pass GA. It would be shame not to promote it since you've put such hard work into it. Kathmandu I also intend sorting out sometime and promoting to GA. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:19, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, but I have no interest in GAs and FAs; I am more interested that an article is comprehensive and intelligible. I wish you luck with your future work. Giacomo Returned 12:35, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, that's fine, I'll nominate for GA myself. It's certainly worthy.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:45, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am surprised that with your extensive knowledge on so many subjects, that you need to alight on large articles written by another to GA. Especially, when that editor has told you he does not wish his work to be GAd. However, the spade work is already done for you, the article is fully comprehensive and fully referencesd and written to an almost FA standard. I don't imagine you will find the task too taxing or daunting. I hope you feel that the added respect that you receive from the GA adds to your reputation. It seems an awfully pathetic way to establish an info-box. Que cera cera. Giacomo Returned 12:51, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So you think I am a glory seeker, and am only improving the article to add an infobox? How sad that you would think that, your view of me and my purpose is shocking, and couldn't be further from the truth. In fact I've come around to your way of thinking on the images and like them as they are in this article. You think I'm trying to pass off your work as my own and parade it around at people? I've invited you to work on it with me and you rejected me and indicate you are still bitter with me. It s a great article and should quite rightly by at least a GA on such an important topic. Do you see all of my 60+ GAs plastered all over my user page with little green crosses as trophies to enhance my reputation like most editors do?? No. I work on GA articles because I want more of our content to be recognised formally as quality. No, an article does not need a badge so say this is great, readers can decide that for themselves but the ultimate goal is the highest possible quality and articles which have been formally assessed and promoted added to our officially good article lists which people can browse and be assured about. But why exactly then did you apparently contribute to the FA process for so long if you couldn't give two hoots about promoting content? ♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:27, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bollox.you are a troll. Now piss off! Giacomo Returned 14:41, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is there nobody here that can vouch for me being genuine, somebody please inform Giano I'm not a troll? Ah this has upset me.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:48, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please, no one feed the troll. Giacomo Returned 15:09, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Although I appreciate Giano's comment above, I'm going to reply (to Blofeld) anyway; you're not a troll, but you're a genuine and mostly productive editor who has an exaggerated sense of your own importance and sometimes has a lack of understanding of why your actions are seen as trolling. In the thread above and the corresponding one on Malleus's talk I count editors with a combined total of 162 Featured Articles, multiple admins and three arbitrators, all of them are having their time wasted by having to explain standard Wikipedia practices which should be basic knowledge to the soi-disant "most prolific contributor this website has ever had". In yesterday's post of mine which you immediately reverted, I compared you to User:Ottava Rima, and that name wasn't plucked out of the air—you bring many of the same benefits as Ottava, and also many of the same issues. If you're not familiar with him, I'd recommend looking over Ottava's contributions and the reason he is no longer with us; even the most constructive editors can reach the point where the disruption they cause starts to impact negatively on other editors. There's no need at all for you to end up like that. – iridescent 15:13, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, but how many hours say out of a wiki editing year do you think I cause disruption for the site and how many hours out of a wiki year do you think I focus on half decent content building and on good terms with people? If you do a percentage count of every edit I've ever made to wikipedia, what percentage of them exactly are uncivil comments and disruption to fellow users? Would it not be huuman to occasionally get upset with people on what at times can be a very frsutrating website or do you expect perfection. Because the vast majority of the time I am perfectly civil and supportive of editors on here and particularly praise and reward content contributors and encourage them. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:21, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Blofeld, please leave this talk page. It's just not worth it. Just to inform you, dear GiacomoReturned, Blofeld is one of the best editors I have ever seen on Wikipedia, and I think he deserves more respect than being called a troll, which is an insult and close to being a personal attack, for which you owe him an apology. Yes, he has contributed to numerous GAs and FAs (and I didn't know it was a crime of sorts), but he has also created and written countless informative articles, which I personally was very impressed by. I think he is one of the kindest and generally most helpful guys on here, whose hard work and goodwill should be an example to others, and factually speaking -- he is one of the most prolific. Now I'm not saying that's what defines quality, but I often go through his edits and enjoy reading new articles written by him. Just a few days back, I told him there were some articles on Hindi films which were painfully deprived and had absolutely no information in them. I just gave him one example of an acclaimed movie (Mother India) and within three days the article became a GA (just see this overwhelming transformation; and the guy never saw this film!). I am surprised that anyone could treat him in such a terribly disrespectful way. I can't get what's wrong with making an article you have worked so hard on a GA - that's a standard WP assessment. If a certain article is good, then why should one be happy having it rated any less? I see no reason to turn someone down when all he's trying to do is help. Anyway, Blofeld, you've probably dialed the wrong number this time. Just forget it. Shahid • ^Talk2me 17:11, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am afraid when it comes to personal attacks and disrespect, I am but an amateur compaired to your friend. If the only way he can argue is to state that those who oppose his mistaken views must be homosexual lovers indulging in anal sex, then I am afraid he is a troll and he is not welcome on this page and I would not work with such a person. I politely explained (above) that I did not wish to work with him, I also explained that I did not want my work GAd - all very politely - however, he failed to take the the hint and has now had my views of him explained a little more clearly. I did not seek him out - he came looking for me, and he found me. Giacomo Returned 17:20, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Where I come from Giacomo "bum chum" refers to close friends who stick together at all costs and is seriously not intended to be homophobic.. It was nothing more than a foolish reference to the opposition I received here over what I thought was fair and came at the end of a long hot day. I have since said there was no need for me to react but I can't change what happened. As for you politely saying you didn't want to work with me on GA, fine, but what gives you the right to say I should also refrain from wanting to promote it to GA just because you don't? The article may have been written by you but you don't own it. You have no right to dictate who or who should not work on it and try to promote. You said you didn't want to work on a GA with me, so in your approach you think that means "nobody else should work on promoting it to GA". I've worked hard today to try to get you to see the positive aspects of myself and for something reason it made you even worse, I think because you think you own the article and are miffed that I've nominated it for GA.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:33, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

...and where I and the rest of the world come from "bum chum" has a quite clear meaning too. Now what part of "piss off" is it that also seems to escape your understanding? Don't bother to answer, ask someone other. Giacomo Returned 17:38, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have apologised for what was said, yet you continue to be very rude towards me. It is you who is now being uncivil. I'm trying to talk to you as an intelligent human being. You've never said anything heated Giano at a stressful moment? As for the GA nomination which seems to have sparked this off, if you;d have said please don't nominate it or try to work at promoting to GA I'd likely have left it. But you said I don't want to work with you and good luck with your GA. Now why are you being so mean? ♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:40, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have never wished you luck with your GA. Now, W#will you please go away and not return. I have no wish to work with you. You say i think i own the page, I don't own the page, but when a page has been almost completely written by one person (I think the edit counter confirms this - and that will not include the user space edits before it went live) and that person says he does not want it GAd then common wiki-ettiquette and good maners should suggest that the page not be GAd. You had not even touched that page until yesterday and a few fiddlings today. When it was politely pointed out to that user-boxes were not law and a matter of choice you claimed I was a having a homosexual relations with Malleus and have trolled me since. Please go away and do not return. I will not work with you, now or at any time in the future. Giacomo Returned 17:51, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you consider "Giano, I'm shocked to have never met you. I've looked, you've done some wonderful work on architecture, on topics I am also very passionate about! " and "An idea would be to introduce hideable infoboxes" as trolling then I feel very seriously sorry for you. I did not mean or intend to proclaim that you were actually have sexual relations with Malleus, hardly possible over the Internet now is it? It was honestly intended in the same way as "Are you and Giano "migliori amici" ? rather than anything disgusting, I swear it was. It was a clumsy comment to make and unlike certain other people who called me racist, a gay 8 year old girl, homophobic, a dick a troll etc, at least I have the guts to face people and apologise for things I say at heated moments and try to patch up indifferences. I am clearly a much stronger character than you. I've tried hard to make amends with you and try to get you to see that I am not a troublemaker or an offensive person and make peace with you. I've done all I can, if you are the sort to bear a grudge and are happy to continue hating people for the rest of time without admitting that occaiosnally people get angry and overact foolishly then I am powerless for changing you. Very disappointed as you seem such an intelligent able person with very similar interests. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:58, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As you have been told (above), I have already been part of the "hidable" info box introduction - years ago - all very happily and without problems. Now as I have told you many of my friends are gay and many merely miserable, I have no problems, but when you start to call me bum chum you touch on honour and insult and, to me, you become a non-person and that is before we assess on your trolling nomination for deletion of Bishonen's article yesterday and your racist put-down to Pedro; it is to the everlasting shame of the so called civility police (who watch Malleus's page so closely) that you are currently able to edit at all. Now, I have asked you repeatedly politely and less politely to go away - will you please just get that message and go. Do not post here again. Giacomo Returned 18:21, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Winter Palace

It seems to me that you fairly haphazardly removed a lot of well-sourced content from Winter Palace that was added by the WP:GAC nominator. This article is outside of my expertise, but please reconsider reverting much of this edit.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:53, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, I won't reconsider. The editor concerened was an insulting, vindictive, racist homophobe who was trolling. It was a bad faith nomination and whoever agrees to review it as a GA will be picking up a badly poisoned chalice. Incidentally, the article is well within my very limited area of expertise - I wrote it. Giacomo Returned 18:57, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted the revert - something I don't do lightly - because I think it was unwarranted; I reveiwed the edits in question and didn't see anything wrong with them. I'd suggest opening a discussion on the article's talkpage if you feel so strongly that the edits do not belong. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 19:08, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

and I have reverted you and wil continue to do so. Giacomo Returned 19:09, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please Move conversation to Talk:Winter_Palace#Content--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:16, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User:Giano/The Private Rooms of the Winter Palace

Dear Giacomo, we haven't met, but I want to stick a feather in your cap anyway. Articles like this one, they're just amazing. I can't tell you how much I respect editors who are able to pull off big projects, big articles, with attention to detail as well as to larger structure. I admire that in Malleus, and I admire it in you. OK, I'm jealous. Drmies (talk) 15:14, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think you could becme my best friend. Giacomo Returned 16:25, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Palazzo architecture

So, I've removed a sentence which caused offence and cleared the way for you to write your bit about Inigo Jones. I think it could go in the "origins" section ot you could create a new section. If you can find the time, with your large Winter Palace thing on the go. Amandajm (talk) 01:52, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Amanda, but I wont be writing anything there because I dont regard "Palazzo" as a style. It's all covered by Renaissance Revival architecture and Italianate architecture. I think half these terms are coined because real esate agents want to describe something and don't know eneough architectural history to know the correct term, so they liken it to somethng seen on their holidays and the term sticks. If I had my way, the page would be a simple redirect to Renaissance Revival architecture, but doubtless 1,000s will dissagree with me. Giacomo Returned 07:21, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Formatting suggestion

It's sometimes hard to get all the pics in neatly. I have been using this format lately. It means juggling the pixel sizes precisely in order to get the pictures to align, but it looks good, and the pictures are bigger than in a gallery, and much less likely to get deleted by purists who don't like galleries. It's best not to have a total width of more than 680 because of some screen proportions. If you've only got two pics in a frame, then you can move it right or left. Cheers! Amandajm (talk) 02:37, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Politics

Charlemagne's octagonal Palatine Chapel, Aachen with later additions of various dates.

Speyer Cathedral, an expression of imperial power and architectural innovation

The Tower of London, (1078). William the Conqueror built the central White Tower as his stronghold and residence.

Erice Castle, Italy, is one of many fortifications built by the Normans in Sicily.

Thank you, that's very helpful; I will bear it in mind, I'm sure others will find it useful too. Giacomo Returned 12:45, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your email

Thank you for your email. You are entirely correct in your assumptions, of course. Pedro : Chat 08:59, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

i sometimes think I am clairvoyant. These things cannot be explained. Giacomo Returned 12:44, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A waste of appreciation

[10]. Bishonen | talk 12:22, 18 April 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Thank you; I have replied here [11]. Giacomo Returned 12:43, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Paranormal places

Proposed merge of Category:Reportedly haunted locations into Category:Paranormal places. Please see Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2011_April_24#Category:Reportedly_haunted_locations. Simply south...... trying to improve for 5 years 16:10, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tool

You are now a Rollbacker; please observe speed limits and other necessary signs. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:20, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh that's most kind, thank you. Giacomo Returned 21:21, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

VANDALIZING GIANO'S PAGE SO HE CANpractice

Ah dear little Sarawak - how are you? I once had a puppy called that, but he got run over - such is life. Giacomo Returned 21:26, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

*woof* *whimper*

I'm not. ;-) Malleus Fatuorum 21:37, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not a rollbacker, or not a Tool? :-)--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:43, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mr Vulcan (extraordinary name) I can asure you that rollbacking is not tool (I have never used a tool in my life), but an essential of life - I have always availed myself this facility and it is quite natural that my nephew should acquire it too. And of talking of tools, why are you named after some type of rubber? Lady Catherine Rollbacker-de Burgh (the Late) (talk) 21:49, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Because I have a latex allergy, and Trojan wasn't available. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:52, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I always thought Mr of Vulcan was from an Anglicised branch of the 'de Volcani' family – charming folk, had some property just east of Napoli, as I recall – surely you have made their acquaintance, Cara? --T-RexxS (talk)

Neither. Malleus Fatuorum 23:34, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Chiswick House and Gardens

Thanks for the tips of my Chiswick House and Gardens entry. I will read through the article over the next couple of weeks and act on your suggestions. Just to let you know that I have managed Chiswick House for the last 13 years and have published artciles on the villa with English Heritage so there is not much I don't know about the place. However, to achieve an A grade rating I am willing to spend some time getting the entry as solid as possible Thanks again — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chivalrick1 (talk • contribs) 23:44, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes, Wikipedia:WikiProject Architecture/Peer review/Chiswick House a very worthy page. Sadly for wikipedia, you can have have managed the villa for a century and written a whole set of encyclopedias on the place, but if some junior Wikipedian from Idaho feels it may be haunted by a sword wielding headless skeleton then that may have to be incorporated. Never-the-less, I'm sure we can get it up to A Class - the problem is keeping it there. I will watch your edits with interest. We need some more knowledgable people around here - Malleus can't be expected tp write every page. Giacomo Returned 06:16, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's a haunting? Now you've really captured my attention. :-) Malleus Fatuorum 21:52, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Better slap a pseudoscience tag on it then :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:16, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You can always tell when there's a slack patch at RfArb, the other arbs send poor Cas out to drum up some business. :D --RexxS (talk) 23:44, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Aww.....Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:07, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dèja vu

I have a feeling we've been here before, but please try to be gentle. I agree with you as it happens, but we're just two grumpies shouting into the wind. Malleus Fatuorum 21:49, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am always gentle. However, I do not spend hours and hours trying to explain a subject through text and linked images in a comprehensive and clear way for somone to come along and reduce the lead image to the size of a postage stamp surrounded by infomation either clearly stated less than a centimetre away or easily found by clinking the nearest blue link. We have been through all of this a thousand times, especialy on that page. It was where I first encountered Wiki-project Cheshire (or some such named group) whose preferred reporting of their architecture resembles more an advert for sunshine tours for the elderly and incontinent than Pevsner; when someone tries to do it properly they become territorial and want to keep it all to themselves, so much so that I have never bothered to touch another house in that county again. Giacomo Returned 07:51, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have taken the liberty of creating {{Infobox invisible}} and adding it to the article. This template has magic powers that protect articles from infoboxes. I only hope it doesn't have any unwanted side-effects such as heart attacks. Obviously, if you don't like it, just remove it, but I really think it will help. Hans Adler 11:10, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And an excellent device it is too Hans! I don't know why, but it's best to explicitly 'noinclude' the description, as wiki-software sometimes doesn't think 'includeonly' is a sufficient hint. Fixed now, so I've restored it to the article. --RexxS (talk) 18:05, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dèja vu too

Dear Giacomo, we haven't met, but I want to stick a feather in your cap anyway. (cackles)

Is there a use to this list. It reminds me of a skit on a beauty contest, I once saw. The grinning, bikini clad entrants are being interviewed: "I wanna help little children", I wanna help little animals", "I wanna save the planet" and then " I wanna get laid by someone famous" I suppose on that premise, I have answered my own question. Are you on the list Kittybrewster? It obviously has advantages.

Just messing with you. And saying 'hi'. I'm bored.

But you still love me (talk) 16:42, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's twice in recent days I have had a "a feather in my cap" - any more of this, and I shall be manufacturing fascinators for the next royal wedding. Giacomo Returned 18:25, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Response

Hello, Giano II. You have new messages at Dr. Blofeld's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

I have reponded to you there - no need to leave these little banners - I have you on my watch list - that's how I came acrosss your bridal pages. Giacomo Returned 13:09, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bradspeak

Hurry up and read this new essay before it gets deleted! Please help Wikipedia by expanding it! Note the excellent "nutshell"! Bishonen | talk 21:18, 2 May 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Very amusing; Why not write sister-essay called Corenspeak, where Arbs slag people off and are as rude as they like, get away with it while all the other arbs (including Brad) pretend and lie and say that they have never seen it? Giacomo Returned 21:27, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

or even "Shellspeak" - Definition: Not having the brain to think of low-rent witticisms for oneself for, so jumping on Coren's pseudo-sarcastic bandwagon. Giacomo Returned 21:35, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

PPS: The nutshell sounds familiar :-) Giacomo Returned 21:28, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

Hey Giano. I have a sourcing question for you. Have you ever reached the point where you have too many sources for a given article? I currently have 3 books and 10 academic journal articles and I am trying to put everything in place so I can write. cheers --Guerillero | My Talk 21:29, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No never, add the lot; it keeps people who never write off your back and makes them think you are very clever and well read. Giacomo Returned 21:30, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wessex children NPOV

Hullo there. I have opened a new discussion about the styling of HRH The Earl of Wessex's children: here because their articles are currently in violation of the NPOV policy. Do please drop by and have your say (and feel free to pass on the word to other concerned parties!) D B D 21:58, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I am not getting involved in all of that. If the Queen of England wants Andrew's children to be princesses and Edward's to be lords and ladies that is for her alone. Funny woman, when she declared that her daughter-in-law and mother of the future king could not be a HRH because she objected to her husband playing around with his mistress and then allowed the mistress to have the HRH taken from Diana - the future King's mother - I rather came to the conclusion that the Queen was a little misguided in her perception and allocations of titles, not to mention public opinion - a lot to be said for the European system of only marrying one's own kind, but then I suppose you would not have been able to have Kate Middleton (a breath of fresh air for them) anyway, hopefully, one day, William will one day put the whole house in order and restore some logic, but it's not Wikipedia's place to do so, or overide the Queens's wish. Giacomo Returned 22:15, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unfinished business with Simon Byrne

I finally got my finger out and have done a bit more to this; I think it's at least ready for a shot at GAN now. Malleus Fatuorum 22:22, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do you? I took him off the watchlist months ago. Giacomo Returned 22:26, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've nominated him anyway, we'll see what happens. Malleus Fatuorum 22:37, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We shall indeed. You do what you think best. Personally, I prefer my version [12] I think your version looks a little sterile, but I'm sure it meets all the rules. Progress, I suppose. Giacomo Returned 21:18, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm conscious that my version is rather less flowery than yours, but them's the rules these days. Malleus Fatuorum 21:22, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure that you are right. That's why I don't do FAs and GAS any more; I like to appeal to kids and educate rather than appease people to those making rules. Anyway, c'est la vie. Giacomo Returned 21:32, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Job done. I'm quite able to write flowery prose, but what I can't do is to get it past either GAN or FAC. So far as Simon Byrne is concerned I'm sure he's now quite close to being an FA again, but I don't have have access to the few sources needed for that final push, and I'm not sure it would be worth the effort anyway. It's a decent enough article as it is. Malleus Fatuorum 23:59, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File source problem with File:Hannah de Rothschild.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:Hannah de Rothschild.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 website from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of that website's terms of use of its content. However, if the copyright holder is a party unaffiliated from the website's publisher, that copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider verifying that you have specified sources for those files as well. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged per Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion, F4. If the image is copyrighted and non-free, the image will be deleted 48 hours after 15:06, 5 May 2011 (UTC) per speedy deletion criterion F7. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. 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) 15:06, 5 May 2011 (UTC) [reply]

I know you're not in the mood for the above, Giacomo. I've written to Sfan00 IMG on his talk, as from a template hater to a template lover. Bishonen | talk 15:53, 5 May 2011 (UTC).[reply]

You are right, I am not in the mood. It's clear to even a mental retard that the woman has been dead for God knows how long. I can't deal with these people any longer. Giacomo Returned 19:04, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia images need a source, EVEN if the image is PD. Thats why you got a message. I've left a compromise wording. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 20:18, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you just bothered to look at the image (you know, use your eyes) before trying to have it deleted, you would see it is perfectly obvious that the wretched woman is long dead! Giacomo Returned 20:44, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

::: That it's PD is NOT disputed, It's that it was when tagged seemingly unsourced that was the issue. I also find you style somewhat combative. Please clam down Sfan00 IMG (talk) 20:57, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

....and I find your style grossly irritating, you clearly are more concerned with numbers, like some second rate adolescent Cassanova with notches on a bedpost, than doing a job efficiently and properly. I cannot understand why you people have to keep constantly playing about with images - I uploaded it, asked for it to be kept local, and placed in the article for which it was intended. It sailed through FAC - no problem, and then along come people like you - what is the point of you? Giacomo Returned 21:13, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

.........and furthermore - what the fuck is this image doing in the page. Giacomo Returned 21:17, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Now! What is going on - that was an image of an American house two minutes ago? Giacomo Returned 21:23, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The image of the house on Commons, had the same name as the image of Hannah on en-wikipedia; the software got confused. That looked like an honest mistake; the house was used on Dutch wikipedia, so the uploader to Commons probably didn't think to see if there was a file of the same name here. – iridescent 21:27, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have never uploaded an image to commons in my life and never will! so what the hell is the image doing there and with such an ambiguous name? Why must people keep fiddling about with things that they clearly do not understand. I put "keep local" on everything just to avoid these fiascos - yet it seems to make not one jot of diference - does it? Giacomo Returned 21:31, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, perhaps you would care to offer some advice on where I could improve? So that I am not jsuting going on the percentages? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 22:14, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is not my place to tell you how to fiddle with images, I merely suggest that if you don't know how, then stop until you do. Giacomo Returned 22:19, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I hate to intrude, but, Stan, did you notice the "Keep Local" template on the image before you placed the "move to Commons" template on it? Ripberger (talk) 20:53, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks... Sfan00 IMG (talk) 20:57, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK... whether or not my post on your page received your full attention, Stan, please let me try again: did you notice I mentioned that the image had been moved to Commons already? And also that, curiously, it had received a different name in the process? File:Hannah de Rothschild.jpg has on Commons become File:Hannah de Rothschild, Countess of Rosebery.jpg. That's why it says on the en. image description page that "It was requested that this image be deleted as it has been moved to Wikimedia Commons at the filename Commons:File:Hannah de Rothschild, Countess of Rosebery.jpg but this request could not be completed etc etc." And, going by the house/woman "software confusion" Iridescent describes above, the different names on en and Commons are perhaps the reason both the Hannah de Rothschild images are claimed to be orphans (not true, as File:Hannah de Rothschild.jpg is in the article Hannah Primrose, Countess of Rosebery). Now what happened to the orphan claim on en? Oh.. Giacomo removed it. Well, I give up. I do have a suggestion: might it not actually at the end of the day be simpler to use humanspeak, rather than a string of templates which do not fit the case? I assure you I don't believe you take pleasure in deleting images. But since the original image has sprouted a Commons twin, and both are called orphans (and "Wikipedia is not an orphanage" — witty!), they now seem only too likely to be deleted. Both of them. Bishonen | talk 22:36, 5 May 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Thanks, I am going to walk away from this... Too much hassle for what should have been simple sourcing issue :( Sfan00 IMG (talk) 23:35, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you ought not to have walked into it. There was no issue at all until you decided to invent one. Malleus Fatuorum 00:37, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Giano, I have moved File:Hannah de Rothschild, Countess of Rosebery.jpg (on Commons) to File:Hannah de Rothschild.jpg (to match the enwp name). I have placed {{nowcommons}} on the local copy, but as you have placed {{keeplocal}} the enwp copy will be kept. At the same time, I have moved File:Hannah.jpg (on Commons) to File:Paviljoen Hannah van het Apeldoornsche Bosch.jpg. At the same time I have also replaced usage of Hannah.jpg on other WM projects with File:Hannah de Rothschild.jpg. As one can see from the usage on other projects, these articles were using a photo of the house until these changes have been made. Note that the link just above will not show usage on enwp, as enwp is using a local copy not the Commons copy. --Russavia ^{I'm chanting as we speak} 07:59, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright paranoia on here is extreme to say the least and regularly irks me too with the drilled image deletion warnings. One has to ask, what is the likelihood of the owner of the Hannah de Rothschild image suing wikipedia for copyright and opening a law suit? The fanatics that wikipedia attracts over imagery only have one outlook "guilty until proven innocent". If an image has the slightest of uncertainty you can be assured that at one point, usually sooner rather than later somebody will try to delete it. Perfect example is somebody trying to delete the sole image we have of Osama bin Laden which is even OTRS ticketed for approval. The copyright paranoics claim it to be copyrighted because the guy who gave permission to use it is actually in the photo with him so they think he can't possibly own the image, even if highly likely it was an agency and that he does own the image..♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:07, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mindless templates are very annoying. They are one of the reasons I can't be bothered to work on content. There's a constant swarm of -e-c-l-d-c- editors damaging articles in a senseless quest to enforce senseless "rules". Jehochman ^Talk 15:10, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed copyright paranoia is so extreme that they are trying to delete images from bin laden's video here which was never published and is now US government property. Somebody seriously thinks that al Qaeda would sue wikipedia for use of the image!! bin Laden is the copyright holder, might he sue wikipedia do you think? Its declared public domain by the US government who obviously have the legal side of it done and dusted to be able to do so, yet that is not good enough for those obsessed with copyright.♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:21, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

for your amusement

Otto (Middleton family dog).--Scott Mac 16:45, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh that's too sad; poor little Otto, to be so struck down in his prime. Giacomo Returned 17:48, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I struck down Ivana the Dog. Rangda-child-eater-Merridew 08:13, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Crazy Italians

Hi Giano, I don't seem to be getting any useful responses to my call for help at WT:ROY#Libro d'Oro vs. Annuario della Nobiltà Italiana. I can read Italian but I can't judge borderline Italian internet sources for their credibility. Since you brought my attention to this problem – can you give any assistance for finding out who, if anybody, is right here? Hans Adler 19:04, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I tried here] too, but it sunk like the Titanic. I don't think anybody is right or wrong other than that they are edit warring and bickering. In a country which does not recognise titles and has no sovereign as head of state, officialy, at least it matters not if your name is Paternò di Spedalotto or Rossi di Nowhere, or you are a Count of Ciampino (a pity that is red - hint) or the Prince of Biscari. There are many works purporting to list the once noble families of Italy and/or the Holy Roman Empire; I'm sure that some are accurate and some less so. In my private view, the Libro d'Oro della Nobiltà Italiana is the definitve book. Other Italian or knowledgable editors here may have different views, but that is mine. Wikipedia has lots of editors who love the nobility, I am sure there must be an expert somewhere. Giacomo Returned 19:51, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think that here you have confusing the Official Books of the Italian State called the "Libro d'Oro della Nobiltà Italiana (Golden Book of Italian Nobility) always manuscript and today in the National Central Archive in Rome

http://www.archivi.beniculturali.it/ACS/GuidaFrazionata/dest9main.html#CONSULTA_ARALDICAPRESIDENZA_DEL_CONSIGLIO_DEI_MINISTRI

with a private publication of the same name.

Please read this note of explanation about the official and unofficial (private) "Libro d'Oro della Nobiltà Italiana":

http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libro_d%27oro_della_nobilt%C3%A0_italiana

http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libro_d%27oro_della_nobilt%C3%A0_italiana_(periodico)

http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libro_d%27oro_della_nobilt%C3%A0_italiana_(registro_ufficiale) --Contebragheonte (talk) 00:09, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I was thinking of reporting all of them for the obvious socking. But I can't make myself care enough about these silly books to find out what neutral articles would look like. Maybe the best is to just get some crisps and continue watching. Hans Adler 20:29, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think that may be best. I left a note on all their talk pages yesterday, but someone has now removed the ANI link so that is now defuct. I agree, these books are all silly, and that includes those peerages of any country, social directories and registers. It's interesting that the only people who buy them (usually at vast expense) are thse listed in them and one would have thought that they knew already who they are - which just goes to show "a fool and his money...." Giacomo Returned 21:27, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

but after this serene judgment, why should I help you still here? --Contebragheonte (talk) 00:09, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, Giacomo, for the love of god, will you please learn how to make permanent links!! Links like the one in the notes you left, that "someone has now removed", have a lifespan of only a few hours on the fast-moving WP:ANI. Please read the help page I wrote about it, section "How to harvest a page section link", 2 lines of text. Or ask Lady Catherine (the late), I bet she can do permanent links standing on her head. Bishonen | talk 22:10, 10 May 2011 (UTC).[reply]

a misunderstand

What are you writing in my talk page? I think you made a big mistake. First of all, I not against you, on the contrary, I can subscribe many of your assertion about the nobility and the Annuario della Nobiltà Italiana, and about the Libro d'Oro too!. For example, i TOTALLY AGREE with you when you write: "I'm afraid, if you are not in the Libro d'Oro, you are bogus and Wikipedia is poweless to change that - so pack it in." !!.

I think that here you have confusing the Official Books of the Italian State called the "Libro d'Oro della Nobiltà Italiana (Golden Book of Italian Nobility) always manuscript and today in the National Central Archive in Rome

:::::: Don't worry, I'm not confusing the real Libro d'oro della Nobiltà Italiana, with the okus -bogus-ridiculous fake "Regio Libro" . fake as you, my dear cacalavolpe.--Larastabata (talk) 00:08, 12 May 2011 (UTC) [reply]

http://www.archivi.beniculturali.it/ACS/GuidaFrazionata/dest9main.html#CONSULTA_ARALDICAPRESIDENZA_DEL_CONSIGLIO_DEI_MINISTRI

with a private publication of the same name. Please read this note of explanation about the official and unofficial (private)

"Libro d'Oro della Nobiltà Italiana":

http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libro_d%27oro_della_nobilt%C3%A0_italiana

http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libro_d%27oro_della_nobilt%C3%A0_italiana_(periodico)

http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libro_d%27oro_della_nobilt%C3%A0_italiana_(registro_ufficiale)

--Contebragheonte (talk) 23:46, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good citation, dear cacalavolpe (http://www.caccialavolpe.it), considering that all this voices are manipulated by you and your army of sockpuppets!--Larastabata (talk) 00:08, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Second, the edit you are referring to, is not related to you but to this "Contebragheonte" user! So, please, read carefully before write to my talk page. I can easily say that i'm "against" this users, because is a well known "factory of sockpuppets" in Italian wikipedia, firstly as "Musa Heraldicana" user (check here http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discussioni_utente:Musa_heraldicana )

Ahahahaha: Funny :D

Ahahahaha: Funny :D, cacalavolpe--Larastabata (talk) 00:08, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Musa Heraldicana wasn't never identified as sockpuppets. Never. Do not lie still "Larastabata".

You was identified as sockpuppets on italian WP --Contebragheonte (talk) 23:40, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, should better to you to come back to your www.caccialvolpe.it area... you, fake baron.--Larastabata (talk) 00:08, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As i already stated, he is a fake italian baron (check the site http://www.caccialavolpe.it) that has been rejected for publication in the Libro d'oro (and as you said: "I'm afraid (FOR HIM!), if you are not in the Libro d'Oro, you are bogus and Wikipedia is poweless to change that - so pack it in.! :=) ) so he try to attack the Libro d'Oro and "raise" the "Annuario", because this last included him (!)! I know pefectly the historical reputation of the Libro d'Oro, and my family is published in the Libro d'Oro from long-longtime...! Best regards--Larastabata (talk) 21:03, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that are very know that you "Larastabata" were published only some decades ago and only in the second part of the private "Libro d'Oro della Nobiltà Italiana", then deleted entirely for about 30 years (deleted as a thousand families....) (!) and then re-republished only last year.

Most interesting, the story of the Larastabata family. At least they are in the Libro d'oro and you, as a fake baron, can oonly stay in a fake Annuario. It very logic, my dear cacalavolpe!--Larastabata (talk) 00:08, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Don't make fun of people, thanks --Contebragheonte (talk) 23:55, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The only funny here are you, everyone can see that, cacalavolpe.--Larastabata (talk) 00:08, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have never thought for one moment that you are against me or that any edit you have ever made concerns me or refers to me. I think you do not have any option, but to agree with me because I am correct and you look to me like a man who has been running an army of sockpuppets [13]. Were I you, I would be very careful about drawing attention to myself, this page can be a little too watched sometimes. Ciao. Giacomo Returned 21:15, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Have asockpuppets is not against the wiki rules, if they are not used for "illecit" wiki-purposes, that is not my case. Then, you should explain your last period ... many by email, better. Thanks. --Larastabata (talk) 21:24, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppets created to suport your own view in a serious Wikipedia debate are very wrong and that is why yours's was blocked. I don't wish to enter into email debate with you, I am more than happy here - all emails I receive from you will be forwarded unanswered to to the Arbcom. Giacomo Returned 21:29, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fascinat(or)ing response!

< cancelled >

Hôtel Ritz Paris

I've begun improving this one. I wonder if you have any books with info on it? I'm sure its the sort of exquisite structure you would appreciate like myself.. So far google books has not turned up anything particularly deep and meaningfu, I was hoping to find multiple pages on its architecture.. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:11, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, sorry, I don't have any books on the place. I had dinner there once, if that's any help and would very much like to again - if someone would like to pay the bill. Actually, there is an eminent Wikipedian always suggesting we should meet - this smay be his/her oportunity. Giacomo Returned 18:07, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't mind a night in the Imperial Suite, fit for a king!♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:38, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

if that is an offer? I'm declining it, unless it's single beds and I have first go in the multi-spa shower. Giacomo Returned 20:46, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A week in the Imperial Suite in the hotel would cost about £84,000 or $136, 000!! Coco Chanel lived in the hotel for 35 years!!♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:29, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dukedom of San Donato

Perhaps this interest you ..... http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ADukedom_of_San_Donato&action=historysubmit&diff=430058917&oldid=430058289 It my original post you can found also a genealogical tree... --Kwana the minus (talk) 16:16, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, that is more or less the gist of an email that I sent to the Arbcom for their archives several hours ago. I suspect this busines will be an ongoing problem for Wikipedia over the next few years. Thanks for sunstantiating what I had discovered though. Appreciated. Giacomo Returned 17:56, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it worth your "appreciation, a message containing a DELIBERATE false, manipulated, distorted and unproved assertions. And, do yuo believe it? the same message cite as THE "source" the ... "Annuario della Nobiltà Italiana" ... How odd!--Marimbambito (talk) 20:57, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And, just for your information sake, in the cited genealogical tree from the new-created-for-one-purpose-only user above, he just copied and deliberately altered the genealogical tree published here and - of course! - deliberately omitting of reporting (and copying) the Note too, that explain that the parental degree on the succession genealogies, at this century, was ever been calculated "adopting the so-called "Germanic system", wich count one degree for every generation, excluding the common ancestor, system of calculation fully legal at the time of the succession dispute on subject, system of calculation proved and confirmed by several succession issues raised under review by the Royal Chamber, as well as in the large majority of the "processetti matrimoniali" (marriage agreements) during XVI-XVIII century" (!) . Today, however, it is in use to calculate the relationship degree with so-called "Roman system", or counting the grades going up and down to the common parent, (as indicated in the altered genealogical tree) but this happens only from the Napoleonic period". This is fully know and every serious historians of the XVI-XVIII century former Kingdom of Naples is perfectly aware of it. Finally, still for your information, the 1st Duke Scipione Sanseverino was the father of the Francesco Sanseverino 2° Duca di San Donato assassinated at August 10th, 1648, hausband of donna Porzia Sanseverino 6° Baronessa di Càlvera, those lasts the parents of the last Duchess Anna, died 9 (and both present in the genealogical tree). --Marimbambito (talk) 01:15, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For references about the "Germanic or Canon Kinship Degree Calculation System" check here a short article on the http://umanitoba.ca/faculties/arts/anthropology/tutor/descent/cognatic/canon.html Californian Universty of Manitoba site, by professor Brian Schwimmer--Marimbambito (talk) 01:31, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

one more reference here: "La parentela e l’affinità nel diritto nobiliare (il computo dei gradi secondo il sistema romano; il computo dei gradi secondo il sistema germanico)" And this article Genealogia e rappresentazione familiare by Roberta Corbellini, Director of the State Archive of Udine, page 2. etc etc etc etc etc .....

What means this kind of "Joke"

Hi Giacomo, in my opinion it not add any significant help to an (hoped) honest discussion, the "BORN" of now-just-created-onepurposeonly account (sockpuppets account?) like the one above (that state this fantastic and very intelligent and "politically correct" "statement, ... I'm sure you agree.--Marimbambito (talk) 16:18, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am sick of the Dukedom of San Donato I can try to improve the page no longer. I am not entering into an edit war with an army of socks and IPs. Your verson of the page [14] is unsatisfactory because its references are either fraudulent, deliberatly obtuse, by 19th and early 20th century authors who produced, for a fee, books to aggrandise a family, or personal genealogical studies. Other references are written by the Holy Roman Emperor of Teddington, London.) I removed it. and others by the man trying so unsuccesfully trying to establish his claim to this title - a claim which I consider groundless. The same man (whose own Wikipedia page has been deleted, as non-notable, several times) has flooded the internet with his claims, making research very hard, but not impossible. And as for this link/reference [15] (Wiki for aristocrats - please, someone just beam me up) Fortunately, I have a large paper library at my disposal. Your version of the page deliberatly and willfully listed men as dukes who were never recognised as dukes and omitted the legitimate line who held the title until the 1970s. Sadly, this meant the family's one notable member [16] was excluded from Wikipedia (I shall rectify that). In short, your preferred version was misleading. My research has led me to the conclusion that the page can and should be deleted, as I beleive has happened on the Italain Wikipedia - where you have also made a nuisance of yourself in various guises. Such dukedoms in the first creation are meaningless, they were created two a cent by the Spanish to quell the natives, the second creation was openly sold to swell coffers, until the late 19th century, there was not one notable duke. If someone nominates the epage for deletion, I shall vote delete. I am not entering into further debate with you. Giacomo Returned 17:40, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"references either fraudulent, deliberatly obtuse, by 19th and early 20th century authors who produced, for a fee, books to aggrandise a family" ????? I'm not sure who do you think you are and, for sure, you totally mistaken who I am. I'm not intent to follow you any further "up" on this level of confrontation (and kind of personal aggression). And about the proposal for the page deletion, don't worry, I'm quite sure that someone, some now-just-created-onepurposeonly account will provide shortly, maybe the same "exalting" the "Annuario della Nobiltà Italiana" ... bets regards.--Marimbambito (talk) 20:34, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am pleased to have met you, considering your wide ranging edits [17]. Giacomo Returned 20:36, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Me too I spent some time checking your edits in your "Giano" archive files, And I must congratulate whit you for your long history of incivility. personal attacks [18], blocks [19] etc. etc. My compliments, a long career of honors. --Marimbambito (talk) 23:24, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Where are we going on this page now

Anybody (proper editors only) have any ideas what to do with this page, is it worth saving or not? At the moment many of the references lead to personal websites ect or are broken links. I can make it readable and fairly informative, but is there any point, if it's going to be constantly POVd and nothing, but trouble? As I said above, the dukes are not notable and the title was not distinguished to commerate a wonderfull deed. Some wikipedias have the biased version, the Italain Wikipedia has disposed of it altogether - what are we going to do with it. Such is the degree of POV pushing on the internet, by one person, that our version will always be at odds with what is out there on the internet. It's not wikipedia's remit to adjudicate on claims to titles, but neither is out remit to support POV and misinform. I don't want to waste time, if it's ultiately going to be deleted. Answers below please: Giacomo Returned 09:34, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously, if the Dukedom is notable in itself, then it makes sense to have an article. Otherwise, I wouldn't spend time working on an inherently non-notable topic that couldn't survive an AfD. Unfortunately, my Italian is restricted to the phrase "cercando Pompeii", so I'm unable to assess the notability of the Dukedom. Nevertheless, I've given the lead a quick copyedit to tidy it, just in case. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 10:59, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose any dukedom is just about notable, if only for being pretty high and fairly high rank of nobility; what the article needs to refelect and certainly did not before, is that the family promoted by all the socks only held the title for some 50 years, while the family they have tried to denigrated held it for over 300 years - so we need to find their coat of armsm and some phtos to replace that of the other family who are basically little more than a histrorical footnote to the title. Giacomo Returned 14:37, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

main page...

Pity you don't like porcini, otherwise teh main page would look very appetizing today. Carluccio would be proud....I was sad when I was in England as I went to a Carluccio's restaurant in Bicester shopping village and the only "exotic" fungus was shiitake... :( Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:43, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, one of yours on th emain page - congratulations, the vandals will have a job to add anything pornographic about a mushroom. I have been to Bicester too (many times as Mrs G claims to be fond of pseudo-New England-barn-type architecture) they a do a very nice Italianised full English breakfast which I eat while Mrs G peruses the architecture; you should have had that. Did you know that the Japanese are Bicester Village's best customers? Which is odd as they always seem quite small, and whenever I find a potential bargain there, it is always apears to have been made in a size for someone somewhat larger. Whatever, it seems to do a good trade in last year's Armani and out-of-date Ralph Lauren - perhaps some people don't know the difference; looking at pictures of the Wiki- meet ups, at least no Wikipedia would make that mistake. Giacomo Returned 07:05, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

mushrooms and pornography? Never! Who'd ever make that connection? we were in a hurry and the kids were arguing and the shopping village was very crowded, so I think we turned off before we hit bicester centre and kept driving to our target which was a farmhouse in Polesworth (nice old abbey there). One thing i love doing is getting A-Z of UK and driving for miles and miles on little white roads paralleling the M-whatever it is we are taking to our destination and looking at all the villages and old ruins....but we end up taking a loong time sometimes doing that...Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:56, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

first duke of San Donato in the genealogical tree (Sambiase Sanseverino's house)

Dear Giacomo, sorry for the delay in replying but I'm not very active & reactive.

This is the genealogical succession in the House Sambiase (and later Sambiase Sanseverino) about the title of Duke of San Donato. You can found this succession in theree principal sources, more or less complete, but all principal infos are coincident:

1. Enciclopedia Storico Nobiliare Italiana di Vittorio Spreti (a semi-official source but very good)

2. Elenco Ufficiale della Nobiltà Italiana, Roma, 1932 (a official statal source): page 765

3. Elenco Ufficiale Nobiliare Italiano, Torino, 1922 (a official statal source): page 836

4. Annuario della Nobiltà Italiana, first volume, page 1768 (only a private source but most complete)

Paolo Sambiase

(Naples * 22/01/1781 + 24/04/1840)

m

Beatrice Perrelli

( 22/01/1781 + 24/04/1840)

I

Giuseppe Gennaro Sambiase

(Naples * 27/03/1818 + 26/09/1908)

first duke of San Donato in the Sambiase family

(titles legally recognized by royal rescript of the King

of the Two Sicilies since 16/05/1853)

m

Maria d'Alessandro Vigo

(+1/04/1917)

I

_______________________________________________________________________________________________

I::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::I ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::I

Paolo Sambiase Sanseverino:::::::::::::Don Tommaso Ladislao::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: other five

(* 11.7.1877 + 02.07.1929)::::::::::(* Naples 01/14/1881 + 1974 ca.)::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::married daugther

second duke of San Donato::::::::::::third and last Duke of San Donato:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::with issue

never married::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::m Margherita Nardi

(only two adoptive son)

(grandchildren by his wife, ?)

(issue today living,with the surname

Minaci Sambiase Sanseverino and Cembalo Sambiase Sanseverino)

Attention please: there are also other bibliograpical sources, mostly published very recently, but, often, the infos in these other books aren't coincident with the sources above mentioned Could you understand the Italian language? When I write in english I make some mistakes. I have many things to say about this case (and similar cases, eventually, in the future): it is better if you write to me via email. I'll answer much sooner and we can talk without unleashing the wrath of some trolls. Do you agree? Here is my email sooboss4ou@gmail.com ciao --Kwana the minus (talk) 10:57, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks that is very interesting, I think you have a typo though as I have Genearro, Duke of san Donato dying in 1901 (New York Times obituary) and also is Genarro descended from Francisco Saverio (1733-1791) who inheritted the Duca di San Donato title through his mother. Easier to understand, can you explain how the Sambiase name came to be joined with the Sanserevino and the Amitrano name became lost because I am becoming a confused by contradictory references. That would be really helpful; thanks. Giacomo Returned 11:24, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Better still, could you just add to the page (or email me) a list of all the recognised dukes (from Amitrano downwards) and their relationship (if any) to each other, then I will be able to get my mind arond this. I'm sure I;m not the only confused person reading this. I am making some notes here [20] perhaps you can advise if my deductions are correct. Giacomo Returned 11:29, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Giacomo, there were some errors and some omissions.

With the help of books in my library I have traced the family tree of all the Dukes of San Donato, from the succession of the Ametrano until the extinction of the title in the Sambiase Sanseverino family.

I have indicated in bold people who enjoyed the title of Duke of San Donato.

In the old pages of "New York Times obituary" you have found the notice of the death of Gennaro (* 1821 † 1901), only called commonly "the Duke of San Donato": please note that this was just the title used under the permission ("titolo d'uso") granted to him by his older brother Joseph (* 1818 † 1908), the only and genuine Duke of San Donato, who was also VI Duke of Malvito and the VII Prince of Bonifati.

This distributive use about titles of nobility wasn't correct but was very popular in the great families, especially in the old Kingdom of two Sicilie and in the Papal States, used by some princely families like Colonna, Orsini, Borghese and others, generally used by some houses with a lot of titles and was an use tollerated in the first years of the Kingdom of Italy.

Soon I will publish here below the tree promised. Ciao --Kwana the minus (talk) 14:19, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GENEALOGICAL TREEE OF ALL DUKES OF SAN DONATO IN SAMBIASE AND SAMBIASE SANSEVERINO FAMILY

Paolo (* 1710 † 1770) III Duke of Malvito, Prince of Bonifati, married Maria Cavalcanti Ametrano, duchess of San Donato (heiress of the title of Duke of San Donato by maternal inheritance ), Baroness of Policastrello, Roggiano, Grisolia and Larderia († 1769), d. of Lucio, Duke of Buonvicino and Ippolita Ametrano, duchess of San Donato (heiress of the title of Duke of San Donato), Lady of Roggiano and Larderia

SON

Francesco Saverio (* 1733 † 1791), IV Duke of Malvito, V Prince of Bonifati, I Duke of San Donato (first Duke of San Donato in the Sambiase family by maternal inheritance), married 1777 Marianna Sambiase (* 1750 † 1791), d. of Ignazio;

ISSUE

AAA) Paolo III (* 1781 † 1840), V Duke od Malvito, VI Prince of Bonifati, II Duke of San Donato, married 1808 Beatrice Perrelli(* 1795 † 1878)

ISSUE

AA) Don Francesco (* 1812 † 1836)

BB) Domenico (* 1816 † 1817)

CC) Giuseppe (* 1818 † 1908), VI Duke of Malvito, VII Prince of Bonifati, III Duke of San Donato, married 1891 Elisa Sarah O'Connor († 1899)

ISSUE

A) (born before marriage and therefore not entitled to titles succession) Ruggero (* 1862 † 1908), married 1887 Elvira Galiani Marchioness of Polvica

ISSUE

1) Giuseppe (* 1888), marquis of Polvica.

2) Nicola (* 1896 † 1917)

B) (born before marriage and therefore not entitled to titles succession)Giuseppe (* 1865), married Maria Muglione

ISSUE

1) Achille (* 1893) married 1923 Gabriella Englen (* 1904 † 1966)

DD)Gennaro (* 1821 † 1901), known as the Duke of San Donato, Provincial Councillor and Chairman of the Province of Naples, Member of the Italian Parliament, married 1869 Maria d’Alessandro Vigo († 1917)

ISSUE

A) Paolo Sambiase (from 1909 being the surname Sambiase Sanseverino by Ministerial Decree)(* 1877 † 1929), VII Duke of Malvito, IV Duke of San Donato (after the death of Giuseppe, III Duke of San Donato)

B) Tommaso Ladislao (* 1881 † 1974), VIII Duke of Malvito, IX Prince of Bonifati, V Duke of San Donato (from 1929 to 1974: the last Duke of San Donato)

DD) Michele (* 1823 † 1905), known as the Prince of Bonifati, Senator of the Kingdom of Italy http://notes9.senato.it/Web/senregno.NSF/e56bbbe8d7e9c734c125703d002f2a0c/db03e6c5178499914125646f005f55a3?OpenDocument

EE) Raffaele (* 1825 † 1826)

BBB) Don Gennaro (* 1783 † 1813)

I hope that everything is clear. Ciao --Kwana the minus (talk) 15:38, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much; that's realy helpful. I cannot pretend not to be dissapointed that the one notable duke in the whole lot, that I find turns out to be not a duke at all. Younger sons using family titles has always been a confusing problem. This will probably be my first and last foray into genealogy pages. My friend Kittybrewster would never have made such an elemetary mistake - if I thought he understood Italian I would turn the whole lot over to him. I don't think we should plan the page by email, but please contact me (my email is enabled) if there is anything private that I should know. Otherwise, I think this is the place I really appeciate your help and advice on this page, i am begining to see things a little more clearly. However, why are the last 3 dukes referred to as the first 3 - as I said let's take this to here where if we are interupted, I can revert - although sensible advice is welcomed. Giacomo Returned 17:54, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if I understood the problem. I hope so.

If you consider the formal succession of the ducal title of San Donato the situation is as I showed in the second tree.

But if you instead consider only the succession of the title of San Donato under a legal point of view is only the first family tree that show the correct situation.

About the legal use of a title I can tell you that the law in the old Kingdom of the Two Sicilies was very far from the last nobiliary laws adopted by the Kingdom of Italy. Ciao --Kwana the minus (talk) 12:41, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What's with all the genealogy? You're not turning into Frauder-Lost are you? 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 12:56, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest that you take two lines Mr Hackney and place them somewhere very shady. My beloved nephew is establishing my rightful claim to an old and extrememly noble title. Very shortly, I shall succeed as the new Duchessa, and when I do, I shall expect a little more respect from the likes of you. Lady Catherine Rollbacker-de Burgh (the Late) (talk) 13:14, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can assure you that you will receive the same amount of respect as I'd give to any other duchess. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 13:09, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Santa Maria di Gesù

I took the photo of this church yesterday in Vizzini. I have tried to discover the year it was rebuilt after the 1693 earthquake damaged the medieval original. Would you happen to know, Giano? Thanks.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 13:12, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I need advice

Hi Giacomo, do you think is a good idea if I create the pages in English about the old official noble Italian repertoires (like to Elenchi Ufficiali, etc.), slowly and with some time ? .... I have little time to write here ... There is much material in the Italian version of WP though and I can traslate it: perhaps, are too detailed to be proposed for the English version. What do you think? I need someone to correct my mistakes in English .... Let me know. Ciao --Kwana the minus (talk) 07:58, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is a terrific idea, these things need explaining. There is much here about the British nobility; the balance needs reddressing. Let me know when you start and I will check over the English and the translation. The aristocracy are much loved on the English wikipedia (far more than on the other wikis) so be prepared for a lot of other people to offer their advice - most of them know nothing about the subject whatsoever, but you will soon spot those, and there are people who don't like such pages at all, and you will soon spot those too, but don't be deterred. I have not forgotten the Duke of San Donato, but more pressing and less noble comitments are keeping me from Wikipedia a the moment. Giacomo Returned 11:44, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Very good. Tomorrow I go to the creation of new articles about the official and unofficial italian directories on peerage. Anyway before to put these new pages online on WP, I will publish them here, on this your page, so you can help me and correct . Is it alright if I do that? --Kwana the minus (talk) 13:06, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That will be fine, but probably easier if you work on them in your own user space here User:Kwana the minus/Italian directories of the nobility. It is your own space and it's easier to work on a page when you can see what it will look like in mainspace. Giacomo Returned 13:32, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

More silly titles

Quick, write an article on this one ! (Warning, contains image that may or may not be illegal in Germany and/or Austria.)

Actually, don't bother, I'm sure someone already has.

BBC News - a very reliable source, but prone to printing Daily Mail type trivia. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:13, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Does the honorary citizenship have any relation to "Fucking, Austria"? Bishonen | talk 21:09, 29 May 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Yes, and fuck the Dukes on San Donato too. I spend hours researching a page for some drive by person to come change the title an assume he knows it all! [21] before one can even finish writing the page. It is edit warred and socked over for ages and not one admin is even watching it. I am sick of Wikipedia and its moronic editors and if one challenges them, then along come all the little admins and say one is the wrong and edit warring. I can stand these idiots no longer. Fuck the place. Giacomo Returned 21:16, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary, Excellency, you have comported yourself with dignified restraint on that page. You admirably ignored the invitation to edit war (reverting the dukedom -> duchy changes in the text), and have made your point succinctly.

The very nature of a wiki is that anyone (genius or idiot) can edit it, so that is the burden we bear. The people who care know who is which, and that's all that really matters. --RexxS (talk) 02:56, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment required

I would be interested in the thoughts of others here [22] where a perfectly good and useful image of a room is about to be deleted, because someone on Commons does not like a picture hanging on its wall. An extremely good reason for not uploading images to commons - where most people writing this project do not have a clue what is gong on. Giacomo Returned 07:38, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that that's ridiculous, but from my research it appears that we must blame the Italian legislation in this case. Article 5 (3) of the EU Copyright Directive says: "3. Member States may provide for exceptions or limitations to the rights provided for in Articles 2 and 3 in the following cases: [...] (i) incidental inclusion of a work or other subject-matter in other material". Italy failed to implement this very reasonable exception. Maybe it was considered redundant. In that case it might be a good idea to ask for help from an Italian copyright expert, perhaps at the Italian Wikipedia. Hans Adler 09:58, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Plans and interiors of Mentmore

I'm coming to you as the master of articles on stately homes and palaces. This article has never had a single source, but it doesn't make any extraordinary claims. I'd be inclined to merge it into the main Mentmore Towers article, but I'm reluctant to merge unsourced material. Any thoughts? Will Beback talk 22:01, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It all wants reffing and re-writing - a mess.Probably best deleted. Giacomo Returned 22:09, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the prompt reply. It's practically an orphan and has hardly been edited in the past seven years. I'll go ahead and PROD it. Will Beback talk 22:20, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Spellings

Ok, sorry if I've been blunt, I had found a ton of spelling errors (not only in your article)... Nicosea, Bizzacheri, etc, and the big error of confusing San Lorenzo in Lucina as in another city. Anyway I corrected them, and, as per your request, I also left a rationale in the talk page of the palace's article to explain my edits. The article looks OK by now, what do you think? Please also note that WP:POV (i.e. personal opinion-like sentences such as "literally and architecturally it served as...", or that very generic introduction part on Renaissance in Rome that I removed) and WP:Weasel word (i.e. "eminent") should be avoided, or at least, in the first case, be sourced. Be sure I am here free to collaborate and solve together any problem, and to help for anything regarding Italian matters and spellings. Let me know and good work!! --'''Attilios''' (talk) 07:36, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your courtesy; I am glad we seem to finally understand each other. I have the ability to spell appalingly and type badly in 4 languages, but I manage to make myself understood very clearly in all. I do admit to copypasting "San Lorenzo in Lucina" from a reference on JStor - I must break that habit of copypasting names in an attempt to get them typo free, it has got me into trouble before. However, remember, no one orders you to follow me clearing up - perhaps you are a very tidy person - I do wish I was too. I have replied to your belated rationale for the page move here [23]. The palazzo is not exactly one of Rome's greatest or most notable buildings (or do you feel otherwise?), so it matters not to me really what it is called. I just went for the most obvious, indisputable, commonly used and up-to-date name. Giacomo Returned 09:17, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fake an legally prosecuted "Regio Libro d'oro della Nobiltà Italiana" and "Libro d'oro della nobiltà Italiana - serie aggiornata" by www.caccialavolpe.it

In reference to the absurd and false claims of the "Club calabrese per la Caccia alla volpe di Badolato) (Calabrian Fox Hunt Club in Badolato), http://www.caccialavolpe.it/, and their fake" "Regio Libro d'oro della Nobiltà Italiana" and "Libro d'oro della nobiltà Italiana - serie aggiornata" see: http://www.caccialavolpe.it/index.php?p=librodoro http://www.caccialavolpe.it/index.php?p=regiolibrodoro here is just as declared by the director of the Central State Archive in Rome, Dr. Ginanneschi: (translated)

"From: Elena Ginanneschi [mailto: elena.ginanneschi@beniculturali.it] Sent: Monday, June 06, 2011 3:34 PM Subject: Libro d'oro della Nobiltà Italiana (Golden Book of Italian nobility) It was announced that the Institute did not cooperate in any way with the ""Club calabrese per la Caccia alla volpe di Badolato", nor has authorized the use of the source in question nor contributed to the development of a non-existent ""Libro d'oro della nobiltà Italiana - serie aggiornata"". We also advise that the club has been put on notice by legal action by this Institute. Archivio Centrale dello Stato (Central State Archives)

ORIGINAL: ‎"From: Elena Ginanneschi [1] Sent: Monday, June 06, 2011 3:34 PM Subject: Libro d'oro della nobiltà italiana Si comunica che questo Istituto non ha collaborato in alcun modo con il Club calabrese per la caccia alla volpe a cavallo né ha autorizzato l’uso della fonte in oggetto né tantomeno contribuito alla redazione di una inesistente “serie aggiornata”. Si informa, inoltre, che tale club è stato fatto oggetto di diffida da parte di questo Istituto. Archivio centrale dello Stato"

Further comment seems superfluous Please, be aware here in wikipedia about those subjects — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.115.66.242 (talk) 12:47, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For the benefit of those watching this page who are becoming as confused as me: In a nutshell: All Italian aristocrats and their families are supposedly listed in the Libro d'Oro which is published intermitently in hardback every few years. Most of Italy's noble families are listed - one is either "in" or "out." Over the last couple or years a massive paperback "new series" (Libro d'oro della nobiltà Italiana - serie aggiornata) has appeared, it is huge and lists a lot of families, who the older families (in the Libro d'Oro) would prefer not to invite to dinner because the last time they saw them, they were serving it. I make no judgement on either book other than to say it is widely known that a country always has a far larger aristocracy after the fall of its monarchy than it ever did before. It's not quite that simple, and I'm sure the "new series" does contain some families omitted from the true Libro d'Oro, but in a country where titles are not recognised and no new ones will ever again be created, it hardly matters. This seems a good time to say that anayone with a Wikipedia bio should have it because of acheivement not because they are included in a stud book or social register - that includes Britons, Europeans and all assorted Red Indians and Eskimos or whatever they are currently called. Giacomo Returned 18:34, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proof reading for Torna ai felici dì

Hi can you translate the following. My translation contradicts itself.

Fu composta durante le rappresentazioni dell'opera alla Scala nel 1885 (la prima recita ebbe luogo il 24 gennaio) e inserita all'interno della "Scena drammatica" di Roberto, composta pochi mesi prima per la versione torinese (Teatro Regio, 27 dicembre 1884). In questa forma fu pubblicata da Ricordi nella seconda edizione italiana dello spartito per canto e pianoforte (1885). Nel 1889 Puccini modificò ulteriormente l'opera, eliminando la precedente scena drammatica e lasciando solo la romanza (quarta edizione: 1891). ♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:49, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here you are, with a few embelishments to make it less confusing:

Torna ai felici dì (Return to the happy days) from Puccini's two act opera, Le Villi, was composed during performances of the opera at La Scala in 1885. The opera in its original form had been premiered at the Teatro Dal Verme, Milan, on 31 May 1884. The first performance of the opera to include Torna ai felici dì, was perfommed on 24 January 1885. The new song was inserted into the final act, as the protagonist, Roberto's dramatic lament as he fearfully anguishes over his past actions. The act, full of menace and retribution, had been re-written a few months earlier before the performance at the Teatro Regio, Turin, on 27 December 1884. In this form, the opera was published by Ricordi in the second Italian edition of the score for voice and piano in 1885. In 1889, Puccini modified the opera further, removing the earlier scene, leaving only the romance. (4th Edition 1891). Giacomo Returned 08:40, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I'm aware the opera stil has two scenes and an intermezzo, so you probably need someone who understands opera to clarify the last sentence - probably more than one version is performed - dunno, I've never seen it performed. Paste the above into the article if you want, I don't want any credit, I have not seen the sources. Giacomo Returned 08:40, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks.♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:57, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Administration: Lashes (L)earned from my Wikipedia Years by The Geogre

Did anyone tell you about this [[24]]? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.243.97.155 (talk) 17:28, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That is all very interesting, and most of it I agree with, but in my experience, if you have something to say about Wikipedia, better to say it here and damn the consequences. It is far more annoying for les petites administrateurs to have to read these things on-site than pretend that they have not seen them elsewhere. Giacomo Returned 22:02, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note

If you're fairly certain that a user is a sock, and are fairly certain as to who the sockmaster is, you could open an SPI, or you could talk to a trusted admin via e-mail and see what the admin recommends. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:02, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I could, but I won't. I don't anticipate any further problem comments from Barking. Giacomo Returned 23:17, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Depending on what he says, if anything, I might just take the initiative. I've thought from day one that he was a sock - but of who, I don't know. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:19, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well there's not much point launching an investigation then beacuse I'm not going to tell you; I think you will find they will keep their head down from now on. Giacomo Returned 23:23, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have asked an admin to look into it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:51, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Or you could just leak the email directly to Wikipedia Review and cut out the middle-man. Malleus Fatuorum 23:55, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And the boy gets a cigar! ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:57, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think I know who it is now. Shall I say it out in the open? Or hint at it? :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:39, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's fairly obvious who Giano thinks it is, the same person I think is chrisoff on Wikipedia Review. Malleus Fatuorum 01:55, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You only think she's Chrisoff? That one is certain. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:37, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know from that. My guess could be totally off. But let's say its first letter rhymes with one of Dorothy Gale's relatives. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:01, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you mean Matilda Joslyn Gage then I think we're singing from the same hymn sheet. Malleus Fatuorum 02:05, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think so. Giano has actually dropped us a hint. The question is, does someone want to start an SPI? I don't know enough about that user to be able to make a strong case. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:12, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

She's learning to cover better, but there are still signs. [25], [26], [27], [28], [29], [30], [31], [32] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:47, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Very clear signs, as you say. Malleus Fatuorum 03:59, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What do y'all think should be done about this at the moment, if anything? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:09, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing. Malleus Fatuorum 04:15, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

She usually takes care of herself, and she craves/loves attention, so why give it to her? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:16, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, for now we can keep it under the mat. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:19, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've got a different person in mind, partly because the person you guys suspect didn't frequent the DYK prep areas when she was active. My 2¢. Shubinator (talk) 04:54, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Old dogs can learn new tricks. Malleus Fatuorum 05:14, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

True, but multiple...idiosyncrasies...over at DYK lead me to suspect someone else. Shubinator (talk) 05:50, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it's her "grand-daughter" again? Malleus Fatuorum 05:55, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You never know. So what do you think is up with this?[33] Tipoff? Or red herring? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:21, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Don't jump to conclusions as to my thoughts, I have always tought that the person that you think I am thinking of was in fact the re-incarnation of a much earlier editor - what comes around, goes around; as so long as these people leave me in and my friends in peace and edit profitably, I don't much care what they do. Giacomo Returned 09:18, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mattisse is a highly problematic editor, and I don't support her or want to get mixed up in this—even though I have sympathy for anyone who's been abused by that User talk:Brian McNeil guy, who's wrecked WikiNews. But what I see in this thead seems to be social bonding through group nastiness, when the object is unable to defend herself. Sandy, particularly, is behaving cattily: I've never heard anything like this: "she craves/loves attention, so why give it to her?" It's an unethical statement. And so is the continual innuendo about socks. Perhaps Mattisse is using socks, but for heaven's sake, get a CU done rather than indulging in idle speculation. Please remember that this is public. Tony (talk) 12:23, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Tony for that wise advice. It is public, rather like the Arbcom mailing list sems to be. It's a great pity that before unfavourably commenting on me in a thread of which I was not even aware, and while I was on a wikibreak Barking did not think first. Funnily enough, that was the first I knew of the current disgraceful debacle currently being played out on WR. It rather seems to me that if people showed a little thought in their comments we would not be in the situation that we are now. We now only have to look at the vindictive drivel and stupid opinions spewed out by the likes of Coren, Kyril and Knight Lago (whoever he may be) to see that wikipedia's rot begions at the top and permuates down, to the lowly underlings who inhabit these pages. So long as the arbs feel free to bad mouth me and others, then the like of Barking will feel encouraged to do so too - so please Tony take your thoughts and comments somewhere a little more appropriate. Giacomo Returned 12:36, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've never heard anything like this: "she craves/loves attention, so why give it to her?". You missed the boat, then. Of course she's using socks-- legions of them-- that's a known fact, nothing being discussed here is secret to anyone. Don't look now, but you are mixed up in it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:00, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I'm blinking: did SandyGeorgia actually reply to me? NOooooo. I'm mistaken. Now the problem with this kind of public discussion is that it feeds the very kind of dysfunctional behaviour in Mattisse that you're objecting to. It is fundamentally self-defeating. Get a CU onto it and stop making it a social bonding exercise. Tony (talk) 13:04, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Irish Country Houses

Hi, I don't know if you're still interested in this topic, but I've written up my own article on it here. http://www.theirishstory.com/2011/06/21/the-big-house-and-the-irish-revolution/

Jdorney (talk) 12:13, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I am still intereted, but real life is claimimg more of my time than Wikipedia. I have a page in progress here User:GiacomoReturned/'Political history of the Irish country house; if you want to put your page in article space, that is fine by me. If not, I will certainly use your excellent article as a reference in my page. I can't see my page realistically being finished until Christmas, when I will have the time to sit down and properly research and read up on the subject. Giacomo Returned 13:05, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome to use it as a reference. Best of luck with your own article!

Jdorney (talk) 14:06, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think you were very wise to place your article within a limited time frame. That had been my original intention too, but I became sidetracked by all the interesting things that I found. I expect I will finish it sooner or later, I usually do. I still have your list of references kindly emailed, so they will be much used. Giacomo Returned 18:57, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Really good article, Giano. Thank you. Kittybrewster ☎ 19:42, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your query

Since another gazillion socks were publicly revealed as recently as March, she could not have been permitted back yet, which has nothing to do with whether she continues socking. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:39, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Could not? since when, Sandy, does could not mean anything on Wikipedia? I recall, my Arbcom candidature was sabotaged by Mr Wales and his court because if I did not disclose my name, address, granny's maiden name and puppy's birthday the security of the arbcom mailing list could not be assured, but yet again I have been proven right. People like Matisse (and that other long gone female whose name escapes me should beware I have a very long memory and Iridescent should remember that too and she should also remember that "the Bishonen and Giano clique" for whom she clearly has so little regard have better things to do with their time than hunt down worthy editors like Malleus or anyone else for that matter - what an extraordinary thing to have said. The Arbcom seems to be lacking what is commonly known as "professionalism" these days. It is to be regretted. Giacomo Returned 17:29, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

One might be tempted to assume, Excellency, that spending much of one's time examining the behaviour of editors at the last stage of our unsavoury dispute procedure might lead at best to a very jaundiced view of our worthy project, at worst to mental distress. It is therefore probably excusable for Iridescent to coin such an unexpected phrase. I must admit, though, that it has a certain ring to it: "Bishonen and Giano clique". How would one apply for membership, I wonder? In all my 65,000,0059 years, I've never been part of a "clique" but the "B & G Clique" has such a cachet to it, that I'm sorely tempted to enquire. Yours hopefully, --RexxS (talk) 19:16, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so. "B & G Clique" sound more like some tight and very unsavoury item of underwear worn by the Italian footballers. Giacomo Returned 20:37, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is nothing sacred?

Your personal e-mail was outed? The nice address? Fuck! Bishonen | talk 00:03, 28 June 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Ex-personal email. Giacomo Returned 00:06, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's way too much of this "outing" stuff going on in recent times. Arguments on-wiki are one thing. But that kind of sabotage is exponentially worse. It's unforgivable. Something needs to be done, but I don't know what. Surely the techies can figure out how to have a more secure system? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:10, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A system can only be as secure as the person with access to it. My advice is and has always been not to give away any more personal information than is strictly necessary - the only personal information that I ever permitted the Arbcom was an email address and that is the only personal information that has been disclosed - it was a throw away address and it has been thrown away - end of story as far as I'm concerned. However, there is a cautionary tale for those who, sometimes with good reason, do like to tell the Arbs all their RL secrets and problems. Perhaps this is a good time to rememeber that we are here to write an encyclopedia not explore our psyche and innermost secrets with a complete (and probably barking mad) stranger on the other side of the world. Giacomo Returned 09:10, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

PS:To anyone concerned with what is in my old mail box - they can relax all messages, chats, archives and trash have been permanently deleted and the password scrambled, so even if it is ever hacked, the finder will find nothing but an empty box. Emailing it should return nothing more than an automated message saying that the account is closed. To those of you who have told me things in confidence please be aware that I have kept no records elsewhere at all - they are all gone. Now that is rather that. [[User:GiacomoReturned|Giacomo]] [[User_talk:GiacomoReturned|Returned]] (talk) 12:54, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mail

You have mail. I sent it directly to WR like you said. Bishonen | talk 14:12, 28 June 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Thanks, good idea to cut out the middle men, saves time Giacomo (talk) 14:56, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Right. You have more mail! Bishonen | [[