User talk:Giano II: Difference between revisions

Please note there is now a designated area for complaining about me here (I do check it from time to time). This talk page is now only for important and interesting matters. Giano (talk) 11:36, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Old messages are at:

• User talk:Giano II/archive 1 (2004)
• User talk:Giano II/archive 2 (2005)
• User talk:Giano II/archive 3 (2005)
• User talk:Giano II/archive 4 (2006)
• User talk:Giano II/archive 5 (2006)
• User talk:Giano II/archive 6 (2007)
• User talk:Giano II/archive 7 (2007)
• User talk:Giano II/archive 8 (2008)
• User talk:Giano II/archive 9 (2008)
• User talk:Giano II/archive 10 (2009)

Essays:

• A few thoughts on writing Featured Articles
• A few thoughts on Wikipedia (unfinished)

You might like to note the Listed Building Consent application now before South Somerset District Council 09/00710/LBC.

Likewise, the new owner is Judge George Glossop (famed for ordering a veil to be removed a couple of years ago) and his family. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.169.32.250 (talk) 15:22, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would love to note, but I can't't are you going to give me a clue. Giano (talk) 15:52, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have looke the stupid sight won't work with the reference number, do give me a clue here. are you sure it is George Glossop, if it where I think you may ne talking about it is another judge. Anyhow, I don't approve of discussing Judge's private residences on the internet so lets not go there, but I am intrigued - very intrigued. Giano (talk) 16:09, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Giano II. Indeed, with your summary reversion of my edit after a clear injunction that whomever disagreed with it should improve it, not merely revert it, it is taking on the look of an edit war. I take it you like big content heavy Intros, then? Would you be one of the page custodians you referred to? Please advise. Cheers.Wikiuser100 (talk) 12:42, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lots of people watch that page, because a lot of people have to watch it. An open review went on of the article not once, but twice, and then a third time. Consensus among voters at FAC, then at two FARC's, was that the article was best in its present form. Any change to the status quo needs to have an extraordinarily compelling need to overcome a wide consensus. Arguments over one person's preference for how a lede should look are beside the point. Yes, there are people out there who think that lead paragraphs should be one-liners. I have my view of the mentality that prefers staccato data over syntactic information, but the essential factor in this edit war is this: this is not a matter of one person vs. another or one person's preferences being superior to another. It is a person with an itch vs. a consensus. Wikipedia works best, when it works at all, when there is consensus. Geogre (talk) 13:50, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

e/c with Geogre. Giano not being around, I'll respond to you, wikiuser100, hope you don't mind. You issued an injunction? (Wiktionary: "an order; a mandate; a decree; a command; a precept; a direction.") I believe it's not about what Giano likes or doesn't like, but about the Featured article criteria. See point 2: a featured article "follows the style guidelines" (=WP:MOS), including (point 2a) the MOS guideline for the length of lead sections. Compare this edit summary. Bishonen | talk 14:08, 21 February 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Don't F with an FA. And when the MOS is on your case, then best run.--Scott Mac (Doc) 14:20, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(Woo, bad Scott bad.[1])--Scott Mac (Doc) 17:15, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK Scottie, keep your kilt clean, I would be very surprised if Jimbo choses to pass this way in a hurry in the near future. I still have some unfinished business there, but for the time being have decided to write a page and see what happens. In fact the new page is very eccentric, like its former owners, I am looking forward to writing them up! Giano (talk) 17:27, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Occupied for centuries by people famous either for their crimes or indeed nothing much. You could certainly paint quite a picture here.--Scott Mac (Doc) 18:25, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you all for chiming in. "Consensus" in this case amounting in the end so much politics, the net fallout of a conflict that caused some people to be burned and others to coalesce together into something resembling a "consensus", which ends up in favor of maintaining an article in a less well written form over a better one. From my POV.

And, yes, I ended up reading an eye-numbing amount of material at Giano's Talk page boning up on all this after the fact (when I did not hear back over-promptly after getting my nose whacked with a rolled up newspaper for objecting to edits that I did not realize had been backed on-high: as stated above, don't mess with this, that, and the other). No matter if the article ends up the poorer for it. At least I didn't have some Cerberus unleashing their pet bot to label my now clearly ill-guided (that is to say, uninformed, not un-illuminated) efforts vandalism and end up dragged down in it to the point of exasperation and relent. Life is much more important than getting all gummed up in this kind of stuff here. Though it is awfully hard to always retain that detached perspective when encircled in a virtual world by harpies, er, I mean, cyber friends, one has never seen or met hurling bots and barn stars and threats of eternal banishment this way and that. Right, Giano? Odds are we'd be fine having a drink over it all at your Caribbean getaway.

As for the "injunction", plead me guilty to word on the brain. I'd just edited an article where I searched long and hard for the appropriate one characterizing a warning (proscription, caution, prohibition, interdiction, notice....) printed on a piece of paper. It was late. My brain was inelastic. Evidently it still is. Anyone like to volunteer a better one (not including an "order", "mandate", "decree", "command", "precept", or "direction"), without the potentially but not inherently belligerent aspect of "challenge" yet retaining the inference of an invitation to step up to a set of circumstances and meet them. "Injunction" in the context I used it meaning (to me), "Hey, you started the revert thing (with nothing but snippy explanations, nothing remotely approximating the genteelness and dignity of saying "Uh, hey. Better check the Talk page (to find out what you are wading into...)," the way Giano did. Kudos, Giano.); "Say, you there, please stop undoing my restores without giving cause...." (Or at least a pointer towards discovering that it was indeed a hornet's nest both ahead and behind, whether the editor whose name I am leaving out here (Don't need any thunderbots flung my way by perfect strangers.) had been part of that swarm or not.)

Hey, sorry about your travails at the B.P. page, Giano. I understand now you birthed it, and gather there is a good deal of gatekeeping and trail maintenance to do on such a popular and public sort of topic. Mainly thanks to subpar drive-by edits and, it seems, some goblin that goes by the name of a famous Impressionist. Too bad. Thank you for your polite injunction, er, caution, er, prescription, er heads-up, er suggestion that I lift the petticoats on B.P.'s past dramas and bone up on the players. And for not over-reacting to my exasperated ("Not this again...?") post that kicked this thread off.

Duly chastened (but still unable to wade through all that abatis masquerading as an introduction, FA guidelines or not), I'm outta here. Cyberspace is safe again. Hail "syntactic information", "staccato data" be gone.

We ever meet, I'm buyin' the drinks. Belly up, everyone. Wikiuser100 (talk) 23:47, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry, I love anyone who buys me a drink. Giano (talk) 11:02, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Roger. Cheers. Wikiuser100 (talk) 11:42, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That was just me being stupid - no reason to drag you into it. Tom Harrison ^Talk 22:19, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh don't worry at all, no need to apologise to me, or to him for that matter, he has loads of time. I only looked in to see if anything interesting was going on, not as though there is anything else to do here is there? When did Jimbo last write a decent proper page for instance? Giano (talk) 22:28, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your very supportive comments.

It seems extraordinary that someone would write this:

1. Accusations against Tony1 (talk · contribs) and Ohconfucius (talk · contribs) of baiting.
2. "back the hell off, try reading WP:DICK yourself, as you really are being one"
3. "Please just shut up now, I'm sick of this disruptive trolling of yours on this talk page"

Then start an ANI on me and Ohconfucius.

See the re-opened WQA on this amazing rudeness:

Wikipedia:WQA#User:Daedalus969

Tony (talk) 16:05, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is all most odd. Wikipedia does move in very mysterious ways indeed. Giano (talk) 10:23, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tony, I'm thinking that entire ANI thread needs to be blocked or pilloried or something: it's been a long time since I saw something so rude and childish. (Just noticed Daedalus, too, calling you and Oh trolls, straight out—for all the world as if that wasn't a personal attack.) The low point, besides the name-calling, may be the rapier wit response to my post, that the editor (an admin, yet) couldn't care less what I say. Ooh, shattering! But I may be biased, since it was a reply to me... ok, the low point, contextually, has more likely been Gwen Gale's "Thank you, along with my best wishes." (Believe it or not, even that got defended.) Bishonen | talk 10:31, 27 February 2009 (UTC).[reply]

• I'm afraid Tony, this is ultimate result of what happens when people see the Arbcom nervously fidgeting and biting their finger nails while other "editors" make such atrocious comments as this [2] even when they have the wrong end of the stick completely [3] . As an example to you, Tony, here is the sort of editor our Arbcom and Admins like to see [4] nice people agreeing and helping the Arbcom, writing lovely pages with nothing nasty in them. I'm afraid Tony you must leave the real world and start editing in La La Land. If you like you can come and join me and write about beautiful fairytale palaces, I'm doing Versailles at the moment, of course I'm not going to do the nasty Revolution bit, in case it upsets the French who didn't mean to chop off all those silly people's heads and smash the place up. Wikipedia is becoming a very fey place of golden sunshine, smiling children and extremely pretty manners. Now, if you will forgive me, I must skip off back through the tulips and finish my beautifully softly focused page <smiling beatifically and blowing kisses to all> Giano (talk) 13:47, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A la lanterne Giacomo ! La tricoteuse 14:09, 27 February 2009 (UTC).[reply]

How lovely. ArbCom encourages civil fringe science POV-pushers by topic banning ScienceApologist for six months. Oh how that will improve the encyclopedia. I'm starting to ask myself if en-wiki should even have an arbcom. If it's an advantage, you know? I believe most wikipedias manage without.

See the arbiters voting on the ban here. Bishonen | talk 10:11, 27 February 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Sorry, I dare, not speak - remember I know nothing, only try to harm the encyclopedia, do immense harm and only write hatchet jobs; and that is on the rare occasions I am not trolling, being incivil and disrespecting Admins or stirring up unnecessary drama. What do I know about the machinations of those running the bloody place. Giano (talk) 10:20, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, my apologies, I forgot it was you there ! Bishonen | talk 12:49, 27 February 2009 (UTC).[reply]

• Don't worry my dear, I am just revising up for my new essay the User: Giano/ Helpful hints for the Wikipedian on etiquette and nice pretty manners. Where I shall not only be imparting such wisdom as "only babies use a spoon - use a fork for everything, except soup" (not than anyone with a degree of breeding would ever order soup, something for old people's homes and the dentally challenged), but I think it would be nice, now that we are all so civil and gentile, if lady editors wore white elbow gloves and a ribbon in their hair when editing, and gentleman editors shave and get dressed before editing first thing in the morning. This will inspire us to edit more politely and thoughtfully of each other. Also a fresh flower arrangement in a pretty vase beside the computer instead of that empty beer bottle and overflowing ashtray would be beneficial. Giano (talk) 14:36, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, just don't forget to put some pearls of wisdom from your ever-popular grandmother in that essay, she raises the tone of anything. In fact, your entire extended family (you know the ladies I mean) add glamour and wit wherever they appear. Bishonen | talk 14:56, 27 February 2009 (UTC).[reply]

That is indeed very true. "Manners maketh man" and also the lady. There is nothing so nice as a freshly scented and powdered lady wafting and editing a page on flora or music etc. While we men edit the sciences and politics. Giano (talk) 15:01, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Giano, I am a little disappointed in you for having toned down the hyperbole in this article. Before your series of deadeningly sensible edits, the article had suggested that the gentleman in question was a minor figure in an early sketch for a proposed Python film; depressingly, his existence in "real life" now looks all too plausible. -- Crispin Hoary-Thunderbirds (9th Marquis Squidgygate)

Thank you, yes, it is a pity, but I found the sight of a fully grown man burdening a childrens's pony, being tacked by two scruffy grooms in what appears to be a less than smart livery yard located in a landfill site somewhat less than resplendent. It all suggests a certain falling of standards, even if these straightened times. However, I see my changes have been reverted once already. Sad, sad people. Giano (talk) 07:16, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the domain of the fellow's resplendence is, quixotically, limited to his own imagination. Perhaps he should be riding a very small motorcycle rather than Rocinante. What would the late Lady Catherine have said? -- Crispin Hoary-Thunderbirds (9th Marquis Squidgygate) 07:59, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lady catherine would have been shocked to her core. More interestingly the editor afraid to log in who made this summary [5] is unaware that I was riding larger horses than that when I was aged 9, and neither did I (nor do I still) need 2 women and a pile of old concrete bricks to get me into the saddle. Wishing to see pages concerning the aristocracy presented in a non POV, interesting and factual fashion does not mean I loathe them, it means I will not read about them in a toadying fashion as though written by Mr Samgrass from Brideshead Revisited. The Queen of England may look resplendent in her robes and crown, though even that is a matter of opinion, a grown man on a kid's pony does not, by any stretch of the imagination. Now would someone plase go and warn that user, or better still checkuser him. Giano (talk) 08:31, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome to your horse, Sir, but I hope you won't be photographed with it. Grown men don't need horses. On the other hand, write-ups of the occasional surviving proponent of eighteenth century attitudes might benefit from repeated application of the word "Lord". For then the toadying is obvious even to the denser reader. -- Crispin Hoary-Thunderbirds (9th Marquis Squidgygate) 09:00, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[densely ] His Lordship's been blocked by TenOfAllTrades.[6] Dame Bishonen | hold forth 21:22, 4 March 2009 (UTC).[reply]

It looks like Buckingham Palace is going down in flames on WP:FARC. :-( Well, at least its defeaturing can't be anything to do with User:Mattisse, can it? No, no, she can't have commented or voted. Least of all today, which is exactly one month after she "vowed" on her RFC to have to have nothing more to do with FAC and FARC, never to nominate or comment there, etc etc,[7] thus according to User:SilkTork bringing "a suitable closure on this RFC."[8] Oh, but look, she's actually been quite diligently editing the various FAC pages since then... how curious. Perhaps I've simply imagined the whole thing. Bishonen | talk 21:06, 4 March 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Yes, I can think of a suitable closure too, but good manners prevent me outlining it. Poor old BP, no one loves it, not even those who live in it. I wonder what will happen to it now. Giano (talk) 22:54, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blah - the Simple English Wikipedia Entry on Buckingham Palace is all that anyone needs anyway. Much less blah, blah, blah there - just the facts, I have much improved the spelling on the page. There are only 24 articles that are judged to be simple and good enough to be recognized as officially good and simple. One of them is on Gothic Architecture. I didn't understand a thing - someone should create a Really Simple English Wikipedia. 144.189.100.25 (talk) 00:42, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and it has one obvious mistake too - I have reverted it on our own humble offering to many times to mention - it is Normanby not bloody Normandy! Now, lemme go and look at Gothic as I'm in a very Gothic mood this morning; if people feel BP needs delisting. then that says more about the people currently editing Wikipedia than it does about the page. Giano (talk) 07:17, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there. I've been working on Ħaġar Qim and wondered if you'd take a look at it; what might I do to get the article featured? the roof of this court is too high to be yours (talk) 00:20, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Profuse apologies, I replied to this days ago, but must have pressed preview instead of save. I like everything about the page. If you must have an info box, then I really admire the way you have put 4 images onto it, it grabs the eye and attracts it whereas most onto boxes look dull and with too small pictures. I always imagine I am writing for a bored 14 year old. That;s why I like lots of pictured with captions explaining what is often buried in the text. Yours is a clean bright easy to read and page. Now regarding FA, I have rather turned from them so am not really aware what demands they make these days. Unless things have changed since I was last there - some reviewers will say - too many short paragraphs and that the references are not formatted properly. The lead is too short. I don't necessarily agree, but that is what they will likely say. If I were to make any suggestions at all, it would be that you make the lead a little more broad. Then , combine the first two sections Overview and Location. The page starts (proper) "Features of temple architecture reveal a preoccupation " You need to slow down - hang on the reader will think - what temple are we talking about - start with the location, who built it and why and then. Start the article with "The megalithic complex of Hagar Qim is located atop a hill on the southern edge of the island of Malta" so at least we all know where we are - do you see what I mean? I have it on my watch list - I'll make some suggestions (if you like?) as it progresses. Take it slowly step by step and the page will write itself. Good luck. Giano (talk) 10:04, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I agree that the infobox pic works well, it would be great to get better pictures for the rest of the article. I'll act on your suggestions, further feedback would be very helpful. We'll have to see how things turn out, but I really do think the subject is interesting (and important) enough to benefit from closer work and merit featured status. ja fiswa imċappas bil-hara! (talk) 06:29, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Giano, I am not on holiday. I happen to live in Sicily, in the foothills of Etna not too far from Acireale, as a matter of fact. Thanks for your help and advice. I never realised the building near Piazza Porta Gusmana was not Baroque, but instead art nouveau, built in the 1920s!!!!!! That's a 300 hundred years mistake. Madonna mia, what a faux pas!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:14, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then you are fortunate to live in such a pleasant part and civilized part of the world. The building is not exactly art nouveau either, but has influences of that period, it was probably built in the late 19th centurt/early 20th century to blend in with surrounding building. It could even be earlier and altered later - who knows? Giano (talk) 18:20, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the authentic Baroque buildings in Acireale are located south of the Piazza Duomo. Most of the structures to the north are relatively modern. May I inquire as to whether or not you are Sicilian? Your command of English is excellent.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 09:54, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is to remind you not to attack other editors. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Please refrain from further personal attacks against me.[9] Thank you. —Mattisse (Talk) 14:10, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Commenting on an edit by characterizing it as trolling is commenting on the edits, not the editor. Similarly, forestalling the comment coming to me, commenting on someone's habit of using the passive voice is commenting on the language. Drawing the conclusion that such a person is not fit to assess writing is simple deduction. Major premise: Passive voice is the mark of poor writing and lazy thinking. Minor premise: This editor goes to passive voice even when it is natural to use active voice. Conclusion: The editor, based on evidence, is a poor judge of writing. There is much more to know about logic, if you'd like a lesson. Utgard Loki (talk) 14:24, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Giano, please stop trolling as you have been doing repeatedly, the last instance above on the Restoration comedy FAR.[10] To accuse someone of making trolling edits is considered a personal attack. Please stop. Thank you. —Mattisse (Talk) 14:50, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

P.S.I used the active voice in my first comment. Since my use of the active voice seemed to provoke response from Utgard Loki, I am hoping my use of the passive voice in my second comment will satisfy him. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 14:57, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Stop trolling" because "to accuse someone of making trolling edits is considered" a personal attack. Wow. It is considered ridiculous and found to be risible when a self-consuming statement is discovered, and it has been ruled that documenting a person's behavior that has been found to have been trolling by many is not to be found to be a personal attack. Utgard Loki (talk) 15:00, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you only defense is to examine grammar, then I will not worry about this any more. This is a warning to Giano. No more personal attacks or you will receive a second warning. Is that clear? —Mattisse (Talk) 15:08, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

May I have one of these too, please? For calling your posts here "baiting"? Please? --Hans Adler (talk) 15:18, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't gotten a first warning, but I may have been given one that had been issued and not noticed, what with all of that air puffed into it. I think telling someone to stop trolling and that saying someone is trolling is a personal attack is absolutely delicious. It's like the Knights Who Say "Ni" trying to avoid using the third person neuter singular personal pronoun. Utgard Loki (talk) 16:03, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]