User talk:Giano archive 6 (2007)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- You say "It has been suggested I take an interest in RFAs, but I don't want to mould future administrators - it is up to the arbcom to define strict criteria to ensure only the responsible get through." We have no power to do that, and, frankly, are dependent as you are with respect to selection of administrators. There just isn't enough time to attend to it. To vote knowledgeably I would have to spend time investigating the edits and actions of the candidates. I can't do that due to other projects and arbitration duties. I would like to see some changes made, but my opinion in that regard is little more than that of any user. I would simply see more care taken and that arbitrary requirements not be imposed. Fred Bauder 22:58, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Discussion
Not sure if you want discussion to take place here or somewhere else, or if you would prefer this page to be just the open letter for a while, but I agree with what you say about the need to attract and retain writers on expert matters. The trouble is that just having expert writers was tried with Nupedia, and the wikipedia model seems to suggest that content added anonymously, and an army of wikignomes to organise other content and tidy things up is needed to reach the popularity levels we have. Those who are primarily writers also need to be able to work (directly or indirectly) with those who are janitors (admins) and those who write the code (the developers) and those who undo vandalism (anyone) and block troublemakers (admins). Getting the balance right is difficult, but I agree with the central point you are making, that those who are experts and run into troublemakers should have somewhere to complain to, rather than feeling they have to leave. There is also the flip side of the coin, even those who edit their little corner undisturbed for a long time should not become complacent. The open and public nature of the project means there is always the possibility that a troublemaker will come along. If the editors in question don't want to spend the time persuading cranks and nuts that they are wrong, or educating those who weren't aware of the most recent published work in an area, then they need to be aware that this is actually how Wikipedia works. Not ideal, but please suggest how this can be improved to both retain experts and not excessively restrict editing. Carcharoth 11:18, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Re: Your message above
Hi Giano,
Above, you describe me as a "trouble-maker" and insist that I be de-sysopped. User:Rebecca has promised to begin an RFAR against me in response to my block of you, and I hope that you participate. My block was endorsed by Mr. Wales and there was no conspiracy against you, I hope that a formal proceeding will help assuage your concerns. You have, on a number of occasions, referenced logs that you felt were damning. I encourage you to re-read them carefully, you may find some of the things you ascribed to me to be in error. If you feel that I have violated a policy or acted in a manner unbecoming a wikipedian, please let me know so I can address your concerns.
We're all supposed to be working together to improve the project, and some of the vitriol being exchanged is working against those goals. I hope you'll receive this message in the spirit with which it was sent and join me in helping heal the rifts that have formed.
Regards,
CHAIRBOY (☎) 15:59, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- For the benefit of anyone who is wondering what on earth this is all about. It seems that the case concerning me re-opened by the arbcom (very foolishly and without any serious thought IMO) has vanished into thin air, now that the arbcom finally realise it concerns more the behaviour of a small cluster of admins on the IRC admin channel than it does me. While I can quite see how embarrassing it must have been for the arbitrators to see one of their number forced to recuse after joyfully voting to ban me and/or parole me (in short get rid of me because I know too much and won't shut up) - I think it would be helpful if not courteous (remember all their talk of incivility) if we were told exactly what is happening. We now know, and indeed the arbitrators now know that Betacommand, Chairboy and Naconkantari were acting under very strange circumstances indeed with their continued blocks of me I still hardly dare edit, for wondering from where the next template will drop. It will be a pity if the arbcom's failure to act now results in further disruptive and damaging RFArb cases. From what I can gather at the moment though that seems to be their wish. I hope this dithering and failure to act, is not a ploy to prevent us ever finding out that one of their leading members has said in IRC that many of us are idiots who need to be got rid of. The arbcom needs to clean up IRC admins and I'm beginning to think their own house too in order that wikipedia can progress in a healthy fashion Giano 16:59, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
-
- Hi Chairboy. Thank you for your very measured, reasonable and concilliatory words above. I find them a refreshing contrast from some of your previous words and actions and a step in the right direction. However, you must forgive Giano for doubting them. So perhaps as a sign of good faith and sincerity on your part, would it be too much to ask that you give up your sysop mop, temporarily until the RFAr case against you is resolved? Consider too that should the RFAr go against you, such a voluntary display of humility and accoutability would be in your favor. Thanks--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 22:13, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
- I'm not aware of the existance of the RFAR, could you provide a link? - CHAIRBOY (☎) 22:18, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
- The one User:Rebecca has promised to begin against you. I'm sure you'll be provided with the link then.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 22:25, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
- Well, I asked her on her talk page, and she archived it without response. When I followed up with her on IRC, she said that she had changed her mind, so no RFAR that I know of. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 22:39, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
- Hmm, perhaps she thought that since your actions had Jimbo's approval, the RFAr didn't stand a chance. Still, such an act of sincere contrition on your part would be a noble step in the direction of concilliation.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 22:44, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
- Contrition for what? - CHAIRBOY (☎) 22:46, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
- Well for starters for making a bad situation, which was starting to calm down, much worse. For conspiring off Wiki to drive away a valuable contributor. And generally for conduct unbecoming an admin. Someone has to make amens in the situation, so why not you?--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 22:52, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
- Well jeepers. I didn't conspire against anyone, I'm not sure which specific behavior you feel was conduct unbecoming an admin, and regarding your other charge, well, I'd rather not inflame the situation any further, and I think this really isn't the venue for this discussion. If you'd like to discuss this further, let's either move it to my talk page or keep it on yours alone. Continuing this here is just fodder for more conflict, and Giano II doesn't need his talk page spammed. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 23:03, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
- Well for starters for making a bad situation, which was starting to calm down, much worse. For conspiring off Wiki to drive away a valuable contributor. And generally for conduct unbecoming an admin. Someone has to make amens in the situation, so why not you?--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 22:52, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
- Contrition for what? - CHAIRBOY (☎) 22:46, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
- Hmm, perhaps she thought that since your actions had Jimbo's approval, the RFAr didn't stand a chance. Still, such an act of sincere contrition on your part would be a noble step in the direction of concilliation.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 22:44, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry, I had hoped from your statement at the top of this chain that you were ready to own up to your part in this mess. I guess I misunderstood. Obviously we have not been reading the same IRC logs. The fault here is mine, for hoping that a Chairboy would act as a chairman:)--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 23:11, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
- Well, I asked her on her talk page, and she archived it without response. When I followed up with her on IRC, she said that she had changed her mind, so no RFAR that I know of. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 22:39, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
- The one User:Rebecca has promised to begin against you. I'm sure you'll be provided with the link then.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 22:25, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
- I'm not aware of the existance of the RFAR, could you provide a link? - CHAIRBOY (☎) 22:18, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
(Break inserted for clarity, the message below is in response to Giano II above.)
-
-
-
- I knew there might be trouble due to your calls for desyopping. I think the consensus is that we would like to see you come back, but we are also reluctant to continue the drama with respect to the issues you raise. The motions regarding you were removed because we were not getting anywhere. However, we are doing what we can to improve the situation on IRC. The disturbing situation there has been discussed at great length. Fred Bauder 22:58, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- "Disturbing situation" well at least that is one up on "Giano is paranoid" now go and tell it to those on IRC and do something about it fast - before they gang up on the next victim! God in heaven, it's like bashing one's head on a brick wall. Giano 23:17, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
-
- Oh yes Fred, neither have I forgotten you wanted me banned for bringing it to your attention! Giano 23:19, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- I'm afraid I am very seldom on IRC, other than the arbcom channel. Fred Bauder 02:27, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
- Ah Fred, I'm so glad to see that IRC has not corrupted you as well.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 22:13, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
- I knew there might be trouble due to your calls for desyopping. I think the consensus is that we would like to see you come back, but we are also reluctant to continue the drama with respect to the issues you raise. The motions regarding you were removed because we were not getting anywhere. However, we are doing what we can to improve the situation on IRC. The disturbing situation there has been discussed at great length. Fred Bauder 22:58, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
- I did get this response from a new Arbcomma [1]. Regards --Mcginnly | Natter 17:34, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
-
-
Just a point of fact, no-one was forced to recurse, at least, not in the sense that there was any rule that required it. People make mistakes, and sometimes they have the opportunity to correct them. It's not something we should take undue pleasure from. Being sinned against doesn't give one license to sin. Cheers. Ben Aveling 23:48, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- Bolox he was forced after a long debate and many emails and much discussion. Glad you too agree I and many others have been "sinned against". Regarding you edit summary "Time for forgivness on all sides please" please don't be impertinent I shall be the one to decide when it is time for "forgiveness" - and it is a long way off yet - beleive me! all the acusations of paranoia etc are still ringing in my ears - so don't you dare come here preaching about "forgiveness". Those people are all still on IRC admins plotting as we speak against the nest target - Oh and you had better beleive it Giano 00:01, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
- He was encouraged to by a number of people, including myself, and he agreed to trust our judgement over his own. Had he not, then maybe he might have been forced to. But good sense prevailed and it didn't come to that.
- I don't really care what happens on IRC admins, so long as it stays there. Sticks and stones and all that. It's what happens on wikipedia that matters. There may have been some people motivated by malice, and others that made mistakes. It happens. Life is too short to buy into every battle that offers itself. Forgivness isn't a gift to them, it's a gift to yourself. Regards, Ben Aveling 00:20, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
- Ben, are you really master of the "point of fact" you present? I for my part don't know what happens inside what is, to the ordinary community member, the black hole of internal ArbCom discussion. Do you? I only know that such discussions are liable to carry more weight than the community "encouragement" whereof you speak. I know you mean well, but I'd be honestly surprised if your aphorisms helped a lot on this page and at this time. Bishonen | talk 14:26, 13 January 2007 (UTC).
- Am I doing any good? Maybe not. But I'd rather try and fail than not try. This is what James said to me: I disagree with your disagreement. I am not "heavily involved"; in my opinion, I am not involved at all. ... I have now recused, however, in large part because you (and apparently others) for some reason consider me "involved". I have no proof but I believe he was trying to act honourably and just made a couple of mistakes. When I look back at this sorry mess, it seems to me that Giano had no control over what happened. His reaction to the situation he encountered was to lash out, to try to hurt people, and I think he succeeded in that. And perhaps some of them deserved to be hurt. But he also hurt some people who didn't deserve to be hurt, either because they were just innocent bystanders trying to help or because they were dupes who needed help, not abuse. The result was that Giano was played like a fish on a hook. Everything he did reduced his credibility with almost everyone. Had it not been for yourself and Geogre, Giano would IMHO have been permabanned. Were I Giano, I would not be happy with that. Maybe he is, in which case he doesn't need to change anything. But if he'd like a bit more control over his own destiny, then he is going to have do some things a bit differently in the future. Regards, Ben Aveling 21:22, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
- Are you being deliberately tiresome, or is it just something you can't help? I'm not sure what you are, other than less than helpful, so run along sonny - don't bother to come back. Giano 21:40, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
- Ben, are you really master of the "point of fact" you present? I for my part don't know what happens inside what is, to the ordinary community member, the black hole of internal ArbCom discussion. Do you? I only know that such discussions are liable to carry more weight than the community "encouragement" whereof you speak. I know you mean well, but I'd be honestly surprised if your aphorisms helped a lot on this page and at this time. Bishonen | talk 14:26, 13 January 2007 (UTC).
- Bolox he was forced after a long debate and many emails and much discussion. Glad you too agree I and many others have been "sinned against". Regarding you edit summary "Time for forgivness on all sides please" please don't be impertinent I shall be the one to decide when it is time for "forgiveness" - and it is a long way off yet - beleive me! all the acusations of paranoia etc are still ringing in my ears - so don't you dare come here preaching about "forgiveness". Those people are all still on IRC admins plotting as we speak against the nest target - Oh and you had better beleive it Giano 00:01, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
-
- Thanks Bishonen - sorry Ben you seem to be rather out of the loop, I rather think the arbcom have abdicated responsibility and given up. So it is up to the individual editor to act as they see fit. The arbcom no longer exists to protect you or the encyclopedia, they have simply disappeared. I seems likely that IRCadmin is running the joint - so beware. Giano 19:45, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
- I disagree, but I don't have the time to explain why. If you trust me, accept that IRCadmin does not run this community. They have some influence, as do we all. Regards, Ben Aveling 21:22, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
- "If you trust me" - Thanks, I don't. Giano 21:41, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- G, I would be remiss visiting your talkpage without paying some words to our noble host. I hope you may find something here to your liking. Cheers & ciao--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 22:13, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
-
-
[edit] A comment from someone uninvolved
I'm an admin and I spend a lot of time on the -admins channel on IRC, and until this evening I wasn't really clear on exactly how this whole debacle had started (that damn userbox wheelwar, blocks, unblocks, desysoppings, resysoppings, et cetera ad nauseam).
I know it can't take the place of a timely apology from the people involved, but I would like you to know that I genuinely regret that you were blocked. You're a good editor, and your original comment was, albeit perhaps somewhat excessive in light of the revelation that the guy who created the userbox in the first place was a 14-year-old trying to be funny, not unreasonable.
I'm sorry that people are upset with each other. I would like to try to make peace. Okay? DS 04:34, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
-
- Than you DS for taking the time to come over here to offer your support. Sadly peace comes at a price the arbcom and IRC admins don't want to pay.
-
- I'm glad you're an admin, because you will thus be aware of the problems. However, while you appear to be aware that the paedophile problem was indeed caused by a "14-year-old trying to be funny" [2]. You seem though to be unaware why I was banned for the "hate speech" which has led to all these subsequent frequent bans and problems and me being denounced by certain members (past and present) of the arb com.
-
- My fateful and dreadful words were "We have people of all ages editing, we do not want or need those who have an inclination or even pretension towards paedophilia" [3]
-
- As you quite rightly point out Wikipedia is edited by the very young. The "hate speech" which has led to this entire problem (Brion Viber refused to remove the slur from my log, and Kelly Martin felt even me wishing it made ne a "prima donna") is still causing me so much trouble. However, I stand by every word I said which led to that original block by Carnildo. (For anyone desperate to yet again dig out the details all links from here [4] are helpful) Any wikipedia editor who chooses to give an email address can be contacted by anyone, as a consequence Whatever certain admins and members of the arbcom say and do, my opinion remains 100% unaltered. I would do and say the same again whatever the "scumpit" that is IRCadmins may feels about the subject, and there is the root of this problem. Giano 14:23, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- Wikipedia is also edited by the very intolerant and heartless, as I know from personal experience. I was almost put off creating any new material at all, and I deal with Wikipedia far less as a result. Like you I consort with literate, bright and positive folk, have academic and experiential curiosity, and am reasonably well connnected. So, speaking as a kindred spirit, if I may presume, I say rejoice in your gifts and be thankful that you get to take yourself home whereas these people have themselves. Or, as a friend of mine once put it - would you like to be them? - No. Would they like to be you? - Definitely. Mine's a Pernod with lots of iced water. -- FClef (talk) 05:27, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
-
[edit] hihi
- More intersted in the delicious Baroque behind the ladder, than boring old admin antics. Giano 12:25, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
- Aaron teaches dada art. Interested? — Nearly Headless Nick 12:29, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Relax
Giano...just relax man...let discredited former admins like me take over from here:)!--MONGO 12:22, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] ANI
I have no reason to suspect that you'll listen to me on this, so please ask someone you listen to about: Geogre, Bish, whomever.
Your style of commentary as displayed in the recent (now closed) thread on the administrator's notice board is not only useless, it's harmful. Speaking as someone who shares (albeit less cantankerously) many of your views, I can't help but notice that the thread was "closed" due in no small part to your input.
Let us imagine that the world is divided into three camps: Your erstwhile cabal, the Gnostics like yourself who know of the cabal, and the great unwashed masses. Your comments bounce off the first group, add nothing to the knowledge of the second, and alienate the third.
Jumping Jesus on a pogo stick, try and tone it down. If not because it doesn't help your cause, but to stick it to the guys who say you can't.
brenneman 23:08, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- No, you are quite right I won't be listening to you, but as a matter of fact I have decided "probably" not to comment further. I know the admin channel is full of rubbish, you, he, she, and it kmows that too, the only people who seem to be havinfg a problem realising that are its guardians and those who inhabit it, so I advise all editors to just ignore and freeze those "admins". Giano 07:11, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
-
[edit] Question - what do you want?
Hi, Giano. I'm fairly new to enter this dispute, and I do so with some hesitation. I have, however, been following it for months, and even during a recent wiki-break with my own real-life issues, I sometimes took a peep at your talk page and at the ArbCom page to see what was happening. Of course it has nothing to do with me, and if you tell me to run along, I won't take offence. I'll even try to restrain myself from giving you a "cool down" block!
What I see when I look at this case is a brilliant editor who was turning out one featured article after another, and, while doing that, enjoying the social side of Wikipedia with some extremely nice friends. Then there was a completely unjustified and crazy block for "hate speech", and everything went downhill from there. I have no hesitation in saying that every block you have been given since then has in some way had its root cause in that outrageous "hate speech" block from last February.
As an admin who has written no featured articles, I really couldn't understand why two (then) admins were getting so upset at your "campaign for less bull" notice on your user page. I have in the past objected to users using their pages to make fun of other users, particularly in ways that attacked their dignity, but a general "you-may-not-get-the-respect-you-feel-you-deserve" message seemed completely unworthy of the battle it generated — especially from people who were not noted for civility themselves. My own closest wiki-friend has a "Welcome, but be warned: Enter at your own risk" notice at the top of his talk page, but so far has been fortunate enough not to attract the attention of senior Wikipedians who can't concentrate on writing an encyclopaedia while there's such a terrible threat that needs to be removed.
Anyway, the reason I'm here at your talk page now is to ask you what you want from Wikipedia? It's just a question, as I'm not in a position to negotiate. But it's something that I feel should be laid out so that we all know where we stand. In fact, I can't believe that nobody has asked you this so far. I don't have any direct experience with you, but I know you're a brilliant editor, and you seem to be very highly thought of by someone that I think very highly of. I do think you had every right to ask that your block log be cleaned (and in fact I e-mailed Jimbo a few weeks ago to say that Wikipedia owed you that much). Part of the problem was that the overturning of the blocks didn't say that there was no hate speech; they said that the block was outside of policy etc. Personally, I think if it had been cleaned immediately, a lot of the nastiness that occurred later could have been avoided.
Anyway, if you don't want to answer, I'll understand, but I'd like to know:
- What would you need from Wikipedia in order to be able to go back to editing happily, as you used to?
- If you don't get everything you want (and I'm sure you won't!), what would you need from Wikipedia in order to be prepared to stay here (as many people want you to), and to going back to behaving (almost) as if the whole thing had never happened? In other words, what's the minimum you could accept?
I'm delighted that your block log has been cleaned, but I'm not sure that you have modified your poor opinion of the ArbCom by even one percent as a result. My own view is that you should also be e-mailed a new password for the old account, that "cooldown" blocks should be stopped, and that admins should be prepared to warn and if necessary to block for harassment any user who keeps on putting warning templates on the talk page of established editors. (I know I'd be prepared to.) That's from the Wikipedia side. From your side, I think you should consider leaving out the remarks about inexperienced admins and corrupt ArbCom members. (I'm not asking you to stop thinking them, but I feel that those who agree already agree, and those who don't are not going to be convinced by you at this stage.) I do think you have been treated very badly on Wikipedia. I don't like what I've seen of the IRC logs, but don't know the full background. I think that Cyde's taunt about maybe knowing something that you don't was very inappropriate. But, more than anything else, I see a need to start discussing what you would require from Wikipedia (no matter how much), and what you'd be prepared to give back (no matter how little) in order for peace to be restored. The whole thing is very painful now.
Musical Linguist 13:38, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- Than you Musical Linguist for what I see as a very fair assessment of the situation.
-
My wishes, which are no secret are very simple. I have said countless times, I can (and do) stick up for myself, many others do not, or feel unable to do so, and as a result for varying reasons they have suffered as a result of comment on the IRC admin channel. They are the people who need to be able to edit in peace, without fear of templates and blocks for ridiculous reasons.
The disgraceful IRC admin's channel needs to be abolished, and it's even more disgraceful leading members need to be de-sysoped to point out loudly and clearly bullying and harassment will not be tolerated on Wikipedia.
My former unaccessible account has indeed had its block log cleaned but as you say I have been blocked since always as a result of the first disgusting block by Carnildo (who incidentally, has never apologised and since been promoted to glory against consensus - on whose orders I wonder?).
My problem, which is now Wikipedia's problem, is I won't shut up, and I won't shut up until this whole matter has been sorted, I want those who executed bad blocks (we can forget the templates) de-sysoped. I want those who called for bad blocks in IRC de-sysoped (why not just make the block themselves?). Finally, I want that channel abolished, with a thorough condemnation from the arbcom, quite how the arbcom will achieve this as one of their leading members considers himself the "owner" is their problem. The arbcom have allowed Wikipedia to be brought into disrepute - now they must sort it - or resign en mass themselves. Giano 14:12, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] The devil you know versus the devil you don't
Just one comment on one specific thing (I'm not touching the broader dispute with a 10 foot pole). I have my own reservations about IRC. However, the real problem here is editor conduct, is it not? If some people get together and say rude things, or even coordinate on-wiki actions, is burning down the house they meet at going to help? Won't they just find a different place to meet? You won't generally find me on IRC, but it's an unavoidable fact of life, in my opinion. Maybe the best we can hope for is an IRC channel that has reasonable people in it, to help balance out the potential harm of whatever unreasonable people also go there. We can't make IRC go away- the most we could do is "drive it underground", which is a solution worse than the problem. Friday (talk) 18:11, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
-
- Sadly so long as the channel in question is "invitation only" with invitations being given not just to selected admins but also selected favourites who are not admins there seems little hope. That the new police force employed to prevent future bad behaviour is comprised of the usual old names of the channel - indicates little hope for improvement. Better to do away with it completely. Giano 19:23, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
-
- You both make some very good points! I have, therefore, proposed a compromise here, in which I hope you will find some virtue.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 19:30, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
-
- Friday, driving it underground is not worse. Above-ground, the behavior in #wikipedia-en-admins serves to define a culture: people go there because that's where admins are supposed to go on IRC, and then they see how admins behave, and some will pick that up as the way Wikipedia's culture says admins should behave. If the same cliques met in their own private channels, at the very least newbies getting invites would have no illusions that they were entering a neutral area. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 19:38, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- Yes I think BoG has it right here. Paul August ☎ 21:09, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
- You could be right. If it were up to me, I'd eliminate the IRC channels and tell people they're on their own. I was assuming this was unrealistic in real life, though. Friday (talk) 19:42, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
-
- Well whatever, never fear Giano is here, and when I have my teeth into a page - however long, I always finish it eventually, usually to wide acclaim. Giano 19:54, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
-
- It seems extraordinary to me that anyone could think that IRC was "an unavoidable fact of life". --Wetman 20:17, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Here's another way to look at it- the editors who frequent whatever chat room was the problem will keep chatting somewhere, right? Do we want this somewhere to be an unknown place, or do we want it to be someplace where maybe there's some chance of oversight? I realize this is a tricky issue, and it'd be better if historically there had never been a wikipedia-related channel, but this cat is already out of the bag. These people will be chatting- we cannot prevent it. We may be able to influence where. Friday (talk) 22:58, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
-
- There is a difference between behavior which occurs on an official organ of Wikipedia administration, and behavior that occurs somewhere which has no official relationship to the encyclopedia. Paul August ☎ 23:42, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] admin irc
Hi Giano, I was going to comment at wp:an, but the discussion there has been boxed up. My apologies if this is old news to you, but I think it is important and hasn't been discussed much.
Abbreviated history - an admin irc channel or mailing list was first publically proposed (as far as I know) on the WikiEN mailing list [5]. There were immediate requests that archives be made public [6], then harsh words for public archiving [7], as the channel was intended for sensitive issues. Further comments noted that discussing sensitive legal issues with a thousand admins wasn't too bright, and that prohibiting archiving would never stop leaks. The admin-irc channel was then created, not sure by who, and a good guy announced it in the interest of openness. See the Jan 2006 WikiEN archives for more.
This demonstrates (IMO) that the channel was created as wikipedia body, with specific mandates, after discussions in an official wikipedia forum. All actions there, including who the ops are, should be under the jurisdiction of and accountable to the arbcom or the wikipedia community. I know others disagree.
Anyway, as a disclaimer, I've never been in the admin-irc channel and only rarely visited irc in the past, can't remember the last time, although I joke "see ya in irc" to people who know my views of the place. --Duk 22:12, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
-
- Oh dear - ist it boxed up - so soon - I do wonder why, just like the discussion on Beatacommand's tal a couple of weeks ago, the second it starts to become interesting out come the boxes. Such a pity. Giano 22:19, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
- No problem, it's been unboxed. Bishonen | talk 02:28, 17 January 2007 (UTC).
- The discussion seems to have been shuffled off to a less visible page. I added some comments there [8]. --Duk 04:11, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
- The whole thing is now ridiculous if Cyde, Mackensen and their friends want to inhabit a private world of spite then let them, so long as it is poweless and all opinions which eminate from there are shunned, ignore or laughed off, then what the hell. The place is and its occupants are thoroughly discredited. I don't see there is a lot more to say, I shall be ignoring the actions and views of all IRCadmins and no-nadmin cronies from now on. I advise all others to do the same, thus leaving wikipedia a better place. Giano 07:23, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
- The discussion seems to have been shuffled off to a less visible page. I added some comments there [8]. --Duk 04:11, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
- No problem, it's been unboxed. Bishonen | talk 02:28, 17 January 2007 (UTC).
- Oh dear - ist it boxed up - so soon - I do wonder why, just like the discussion on Beatacommand's tal a couple of weeks ago, the second it starts to become interesting out come the boxes. Such a pity. Giano 22:19, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] An editing matter
I know in the past you were concerned about the title Buckingham Palace Gardens. I believe, all that time ago, you thought it sounded pretty tatty. While expanding the article - ongoing process - I changed it to Buckingham Palace Garden.
I do make the point in the article that it is universally known as the Garden and have added that nickname to garden (disambiguation). -- FClef (talk) 01:44, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
-
- Much better. Giano 07:18, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm away for a while, my bird needs a name, please leave suggestions below. Giano 21:32, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
- Glad to see the birdy back. I suggest naming it Aloysius. Picaroon 22:11, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
- Julius Seizure. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 22:25, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
- I think Alecto would be a good name.
- Either that or Stymphalos.
- Finally, may I recommend Flip the Bird. Geogre 22:38, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
- Eunice. For no particular reason. Pinkville 23:27, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
- I suggest "Hum". Paul August ☎ 23:34, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
- A ferocious watch-bird to keep mischief-makers and evil-doers out. I assumed he was called Spike. Jd2718 23:47, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
- /me lumbers past, stops in surprise, makes some unsuccessful grabs for the colibri. Moves on, tickled. Flutterzilla! Grrrr! Bishzilla | grrrr! 02:43, 22 January 2007 (UTC).
- Rainbow Warrior? --Van helsing 08:21, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
- I love that name, I was rather thinking along the lines of "Woody" after woody-woodpecker, but these ideas are great, I shall keep thinking! Giano 21:13, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- Colourful Italian bird? - Cicciolina of course. --Mcginnly | Natter 09:19, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
- Spumoni - CHAIRBOY (☎) 20:14, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Re: Input required
Hi Giano, I've replied to your comment on my talk page. Paul August ☎ 20:01, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Actual encyclopedia-building question
Hey there. I came to you before on my last attempt, I'm trying to head off a collision course for my second one - who do you normally get to copyedit your articles before you send them off to FAC? I've had some excellent help from Hoary and ONUnicorn, but I'm wondering if you have certain old standbys that may pitch in. Or, conversely, whether you're simply that good. Let me know when you have a shot, certainly no rush. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:15, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- I am deeply hurt that you think I may need a copy editor - what makes you have these very upsetting (to me) thoughts. I'll have you know I attended for a short time one of America's finest universities, I am still spoken of there in hushed tones, even they cannot beleive I chose them as my alma mater. Giano 19:22, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
-
[edit] Your comments at User_talk:Mackensen
Make you sound like a big, spoiled baby. Just so you know. You might change your tone a bit if you want people to cooperate with you. --BenBurch 22:06, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
-
- Few have co-operated with me so far, and I've not too bad, so if now the truth is out - if many are now feeling very naive and stupid - then that is their problem. I am hugely supportive and thankful of the band (they know who they are) who have been wiser than the herd. Thanks for dropping by. Giano 22:27, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
- Well, I think your tone is why. You catch more flies with honey than you do with vinegar, as Grandmother Burch used to say. --BenBurch 22:51, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for the advice but I seem to have caught a whole hornet's nest so far, so I'll stick to my own methods. I had a granny too - she was a Borgia. Giano 22:57, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
- Few have co-operated with me so far, and I've not too bad, so if now the truth is out - if many are now feeling very naive and stupid - then that is their problem. I am hugely supportive and thankful of the band (they know who they are) who have been wiser than the herd. Thanks for dropping by. Giano 22:27, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Please
Please, can you stop responding to comments that you feel are provoking you? Tony's comments were completely uncalled for, but so are your responses. I hope you'll agree with me that absolutely nothing productive is coming out of the incivility and hostility going back and forth between you and other editors, so I am firmly asking you to just stop it and go back to doing great work in the encyclopedia. The mudfight in WP:AN is becoming disruptive. I am leaving Tony a message with the same request. Thank you. Cowman109Talk 22:12, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
-
- Blame the arbcom! Not me, they have ignored and hoped all this would wash under the carpet Giano 22:29, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
- Cowman, yet again you try to reduce it to civility. Giano, myself and Tony, from what i can tell, are least concerned about incivility. Manners are nice and dandy but not the major crux here. The true concern Giano and I have is the block orchestration. See here where I outlined it. --Irpen 22:21, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
- By all means come to the bottom of the block orchestration, I support you in filing the arbcom case to come to the root of the matter as the block orchestration is indeed a major issue, but comments off to the side that have no purpose other than insulting your opposition are disruptive, such as "Go tell it to IRC Tony, you have more credence there." and "Why don't you go and do something useful for once like write a page. We've all heard quite enough from you to last a lifetime." are incivil and only serve to escalate matters - as Irpen is creating an arbcom case, it would be more productive to instead focus on the issues there, yes? Cowman109Talk 22:38, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
- compared to what is said on IRC - the above is nothing. So please go and advise else where. Giano 22:40, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
- oh and PS statements and words are uncivil, uncivil words lead to incivility. OK Giano 22:41, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
- Oh, thanks, I always mix up such prefixes :D(is that even the right word? I'll just go ahead and tell people my German is better than my English..). But yes, what has been said in the past in IRC was indeed harmful and awful, I've heard it myself. Things have certainly improved given the new recent changes and such talk is strictly prohibited now, though. Nonetheless, such awful incivility (I hope I used that correctly :/) from others does not make it right to be uncivil in return. Being the better man and not stooping down to their level is the key to such situations. I only say this from a perspective of trying to calm things down so people can focus on the real issues without such drama. Cowman109Talk 22:59, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
- While I agree with most of what you say it is a sad fact of life that a certain class of person only understands their own language therefore to attempt communication in a more educated form would be futile, and indeed be rather patronising to them Giano 23:04, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
-
- Yes, the medium of the internet does generally lead people's words to be poorly represented and often misinterpreted. My mother's tongue would be Spanish, however, despite the fact that I was never taught it thoroughly enough to have mastered it, so that likely hindered my English-learning -- anyway, thanks for listening! :) Cowman109Talk 23:13, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
- By all means come to the bottom of the block orchestration, I support you in filing the arbcom case to come to the root of the matter as the block orchestration is indeed a major issue, but comments off to the side that have no purpose other than insulting your opposition are disruptive, such as "Go tell it to IRC Tony, you have more credence there." and "Why don't you go and do something useful for once like write a page. We've all heard quite enough from you to last a lifetime." are incivil and only serve to escalate matters - as Irpen is creating an arbcom case, it would be more productive to instead focus on the issues there, yes? Cowman109Talk 22:38, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Hi Giano!
Thanks for your comments on the Michelangelo page abbout the need to source and cite info. The sex business drags on endlessly.... it seems as if the major focus of both the Michelangelo and Leonardo pages is the issue of sexual proclivities.
My response to the Leonardo problem has been to create a separate article, jjust to clean up the main page. Yeah, people are always being accused of having hidden agendas. I have to confess that my hidden agenda was simply to make the Leonardo article more kiddie friendly. On one hand, I am not so delicate about unseemly bodily functions as some we could mention but on the other hand, the article was totally lopsided.
Tell me, is Margrave an alter ego of Lady Catherine, or what? I kkeep getting this horribly horrible feeling that the person might actually be for real! But he/she has just slammed into me for my "penal colony" association, and makes some sort of presumption about my breeding and background ... so it makes me wonder... Perhaps this is someone I knew once who has come back to haunt me.... it hardly bears considering...
Have you looked at the article on Renaissance architecture lately? Someone called Brosi has bought into it, to great effect. I think it's looking good but I'm still considering whether to chop it up and make a main article out of the Italian section. Will you let me know what you think.
--Amandajm 09:05, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry I am not Margrave (or Brosi), so you are barking up the wrong bush. I'm not hugely interested in Leonardo - I don't remember ever having edited the page. However, I don't think it needs to be "kiddy friendly" as in my experience "kiddies" generally like the rude bits best, so it might encourage them to read. In a biography there is no harm mentioning sexuality, so long as what is written is relevant, not gratuitous and above all true. If a fact is not generally accepted, well known, or contraversial then it should have an inline cite, which enables the reader to explore further and then form his own opinion. This is one of the occasions when I think inline cites are a good idea.
- Finally, no Renaissance architecture should not be chopped up, the Renaissance was not exclusive to Italy, and one complete page fully covering a subject is better than several, it also puts say the English Renaissance into context with the Italian, or that of the Low Countries if it is in the same article. Thus it is clearer and easier to understand. I'm not only against "kiddy friendly" but also pandering to the intellect of those with low concentration spans. Giano 09:25, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
-
- Well, FWIW, ideally Renaissance architecture would contain an overview of the whole topic, and, following Wikipedia:Summary style, if one part of an article became overwhelming, then it should be moved to a daughter article, and the daughter article should then be referred to and summarised back in the parent article. This approach has the benefit that the daughter article can be referred to elsewhere (for example, Italian Renaissance architecture or Renaissance architecture of Italy could be referred to in Renaissance architecture and architecture of Italy). -- ALoan (Talk) 11:27, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- Thank you ALoan, I'm sure Amanda will bear that in mind. However, in a complicated subject like Renaissance architecture where one has to constantly refer to architectural motifs and developments in terms not usually in the vocabluary of the the layman, it is easier to have everything together, so it is readily understood, and evolution of features from one country to another can easily be seen. Giano 11:34, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- Well, FWIW, ideally Renaissance architecture would contain an overview of the whole topic, and, following Wikipedia:Summary style, if one part of an article became overwhelming, then it should be moved to a daughter article, and the daughter article should then be referred to and summarised back in the parent article. This approach has the benefit that the daughter article can be referred to elsewhere (for example, Italian Renaissance architecture or Renaissance architecture of Italy could be referred to in Renaissance architecture and architecture of Italy). -- ALoan (Talk) 11:27, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Thanks
Nice to be out, gruel is so unpleasant. --Mcginnly | Natter 13:53, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
- And more thanks (you're a model wikipedian today!) for your intervention at WP:ANI - DG's made a full apology so I'm happy to leave it there. --Mcginnly | Natter 16:42, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Stay off my talk page
And as someone who has deleted my comments before, you are a god-damned hypocrite. --Ideogram 22:23, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] flypast
Dear Giano, - you'll remember me as the creator of this. RJASE1 has nominated it as a Good Article and put it up for peer review. He also placed it on the Military History Project in Start Class (on their assessment scale) and then raised it to Class B.
That's all well and good. However Looper 5920 has reversed the second move and attacked what he perceives as a UK bias in the article. I worry that the article will lose its character and original focus. I am particularly upset because it had an ENTIRE section on internationality and I did struggle to incorporate everything I could find.
Would you please support the article as a Good Article candidate and join the discussion at talk:flypast and lend whatever support and muscle you can.
Thanks. --FClef (talk) 02:40, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- I'll look but I know nothing at all about British aeroplanes, and not much more about any other country's. My sole interst in planes is that they get me from A to B in the least possible time. Sorry. Giano 11:05, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
-
[edit] Tony Sidaway
Giano, I have had my problems with him as well. Perhaps it is a rite of passage here on Wikipedia. He wrong targets users and situations escalate.--Fahrenheit451 02:24, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- Thanks for the message. In the interests of public safety I don't think I will comment further on this interesting topic. Giano 11:08, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
-
[edit] Memos to me
- Interesting page to watch: Wikipedia:IRC channels/Personal views regarding IRC
- Thinking about responses to this Wikipedia:Adminship survey
[edit] Too many chateaux
Glad to see that the above seems to have been sorted out, hopefully for good. I hope you don't mind me raising that Chateau Grimaldi question again? To jog your memory, as the thread seemed not to have been archived in your talk page archives, my earlier question was here, and you replied thus. Mcginnly was kind enough to help out and we had a discussion on my talk page here (I may archive the page soon, as we are in a new month). Mcginnly suggested I ask Wetman, who was also kind enough to help out, and there was a discussion here. As you can see, I got totally confused. Would you be able to add some thoughts? Possibly, based on this, I should chase up Mcginnly and Wetman again (who should add their comments if they happen to read this - I should drop them a note as well, if I remember). I wonder if the £700 book will help? :-) Carcharoth 14:56, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
- £700 for a book, you could almost but the whole bloody chateau for that, can you give a link to the chateau in question - I've forgotten where we are talking about - I seem to remember a French farmhouse with pretentions enclosed byancient walls. The Grimaldi they were a proloific bunch who built hyndreds of castles - I wonder if the Palais Royale in Monte Carlo has a page? Giano 16:31, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
-
- Ah yes found the link - farmhouse with pretentions - ancient walls and an interesting chapel which says to me Knights Templar. Will have a proper look later. Giano 16:51, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
- There were three at last count. One of them was formerly a "bishop's palace" (the one you seem to be chasing after), and the other was a "tower built to defend a harbour" (in Cagnes, and is now a Picasso museum). The one I was interested in was, at one time, owned by Serge Voronoff, but seems to not be as famous as the others. Was probably just a shack with a few cages in the garden for him to keep his pet monkeys whose testicles he
fried and served with salad and vinaigrette dressing, um, actually, he cut the testicles up and stuck them inside other people. They paid him lots of money to do this. Most of this is mentioned at the links I provided. How do you disambiguated between these chateau, just in case more than one attracts enough interest/notability for an article? Carcharoth 17:52, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
- There were three at last count. One of them was formerly a "bishop's palace" (the one you seem to be chasing after), and the other was a "tower built to defend a harbour" (in Cagnes, and is now a Picasso museum). The one I was interested in was, at one time, owned by Serge Voronoff, but seems to not be as famous as the others. Was probably just a shack with a few cages in the garden for him to keep his pet monkeys whose testicles he
-
Well I would have thought Chateau Grimaldi (Cagnes) and so on with the names in location in brackets. Do you want to write pags on all of them? Quick stubs just giving an architectural description which can later be embellished should be easier enough, if we have at least a photograph to work from? I will google Chateau Grimaldi (Cagnes) and we see what comes up. I don't do monkies and their testcles - McGinnly can do that section, anything medical to do with eyeballs and testacles makes me feel illGiano
- I resemble that remark! Stone me Voronoff would make an interesting dinner guest. And I think Giano might have an appropriate family recipe? --Mcginnly | Natter 19:53, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- Bugger of McGinnly, and take your home cooking with you, as one who came from a nation who invented the boiled brussel sprout you have a cheek even commenting on haute cuisine. Giano 21:08, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
-
-
LOL! I love brussel sprouts. Seriously! Anyway, thanks ever so much for starting that article. I was intrigued to see that the Grimaldi you linked to was a blue-link, not a red-link. I had remembered that the list at House of Grimaldi was lots of red links. But I looked further and discovered that Category:House of Grimaldi has lots of those people with articles already, so I'm going to correct those red links (well, create redirects, as someone obviously thought those names were reasonable, and then correct the links). I'm assuming the former bishop's palace (the more interesting Chateau Grimaldi), over on the other side of Provence, is still fermenting in the Giano cauldron? As for the monkey testicle chateau, that is "near Menton", and as Charles I, Lord of Monaco took the lordship of Menton in 1346, I think that is when the chateau, or a chateau there began to be called 'Chateau Grimaldi'. Looking at Menton#History, it says "Menton was founded by the Count of Ventimiglia as château de Puypin (ca. 1000) and inhabited by Ligurian people, it was owned by the Grimaldi family from 1346 until 1848" Possibly this Chateau de Puypin is what I am after as the one-time residence of Dr Moreau, ahem, I mean Dr Voronoff? But sadly Puypin chateaux are as thin on the ground around here as Grimaldi chateaux. Pepin is a more informative alternative spelling, but I'm losing the thread now, so I'll stop there. Carcharoth 00:41, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
After getting rather lost on the Grimaldi genealogy website, I think I found the right branch of the Grimaldis that had that cardinal that had that palace near Antibes (well, I think it was Antibes, don't quote me on that). Have a look at the family tree here. That has Geronimo who "became a cardinal". That is probably the "Jerome Grimaldi" mentioned at House of Grimaldi. There is another Geronimo mentioned a couple of generations later. The Wikipedia article says that this Geronimo was a cardinal as well, but I now doubt that. Seems more likely that a Wikipedia editor got the two Geronimos confused. Carcharoth 02:00, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- Four pages later I have solved the confusion of the Cardinal and the chateau see my recent pages (all fully referenced courtesy of google) Serge Voronoff is in fact buried in the "Caucade Cemetery" in Nice and is listed as one of that cemetries residents here [12]. It sounds like a lovely place "On a hillside in leafy Caucade, within spitting distance of Nice airport, is the last home of poets, princes, and countesses, all of them Russian..." [13] Giano 11:47, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
-
- PS: I don't like the Grimaldi family tree (you cite) it is full of mistakes and doesn't tie in with the Roman Catholic Churche's record which tie in with all other records. Giano 12:10, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
- Oh dear. I was assuming it was OK, cos it looked nice... To be fair, they do talk about how confusing the topic is, and how some Grimaldis aren't actually Grimaldis, if you get my meaning. Carcharoth 01:47, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
- PS: I don't like the Grimaldi family tree (you cite) it is full of mistakes and doesn't tie in with the Roman Catholic Churche's record which tie in with all other records. Giano 12:10, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
-
- Four pages later I have solved the confusion of the Cardinal and the chateau see my recent pages (all fully referenced courtesy of google) Serge Voronoff is in fact buried in the "Caucade Cemetery" in Nice and is listed as one of that cemetries residents here [12]. It sounds like a lovely place "On a hillside in leafy Caucade, within spitting distance of Nice airport, is the last home of poets, princes, and countesses, all of them Russian..." [13] Giano 11:47, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
-
Thanks awfully for the work you've done on this. An awful lot to digest here. Thanks for correcting the burial place of Serge Voronoff (could there be two Voronoffs, or maybe a memorial in the chateau to confuse things?). Two things for now: (1) Image:Girolamo Grimaldi.jpg is nice, but do you think you could add information on the image page as to where you found it? I deal in picture research quite a bit, and the exact origin of a picture (both in terms of who drew it and when, and where you got it from - scan from a book or from a picture library of historical images like the Library of Congress) is an important piece of information to have. (2) Do you know what the pictures of the Puyricard Chateau Grimaldi here are showing? The description here talk about a chapel, and the ruins of the palace (on the left in that picture?). The first link, the collection of photos, shows views of the chapel and ruins in the four pics in the top right corner. Clockwise from top: ruined wall next to chapel, ruined wall next to swimming pool, entrance to the chapel, interior of the chapel. I think this is the Romanesque style chapel you mention in the article. Anyway, I've added that link to the article. Carcharoth 01:47, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
- (Wetman's silence is simply the result of ignorance. But the formula Chateau Grimaldi (Cagnes) is excellent. Southern French has a useful word for what is essentially a fortified farmhouse: bastie. Not every bâti is encyclopediable. --Wetman 09:27, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
-
- Aha Mr Wetman, I was wondering what you knew about les chateaux - seemingly not much more than the rest of us, which is a pity. I think the house at Château Grimaldi (Puyricard) does not even qualify as a bastie, if you look at the interiors of the place - to my eye it looks to have been "poshed up" for the rental market. The chimneys project into the rooms - they should be flush with the walls, the ceilings are too low, and that chandalier is the dining room looks faintly ridiculous! No self respecting Frenchman with aristocratic pretensions would endure such interior design at any stage in history. My guess is it just a much enlarged farmhouse, that some enterprising paysan built within the castle walls probably using stone from the ruins. Regarding Carcharoth's point - I cannot beleive there would be two Serge Voronoffs - both doctors dying at roughly the same time in roughly the same place, both famous enough for a cemetery to be boasting about having the body, also European countries tend not to favour home burials (lowers property values) - possibly there is a memorial to him - but at which chateau? - we know it can't be the Picasso museum, so it leave one of the other three, I can find nothing about the 4th (The red link one) apart from a rental advertisement - we of course have to consider the possibility of ebn more Ch. Grimaldis. My hunch is it is the Puyricard one, but they are hardly likely to advertise "come and have a holiday on the site of the monkey castrator's cage". Looks like we will have to keep searching, I wonder if it is worth asking a question on the french wiki to see if an editor ythere knows the answer? Giano 14:13, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
- Does anyone speak french? (unfortunately this a lamentable
gapchasm in my education)- it sounds like a phone call to a local historian might be the best way to resolve this, or at least contact with someone in the area willing to do some legwork to the local library. I'll post a request at the Wikipedia:France-related topics notice board and Wikipedia:WikiProject France. --Joopercoopers 14:34, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
- Does anyone speak french? (unfortunately this a lamentable
-
-
-
- I think the chapel and ruins qualify as being the remains of Chateau Grimaldi. Whether the fact that people also refer to the 'large farmhouse' done up with 'antique French furniture' as a chateau, when in fact it looks to be a done-up hotel in the grounds of the former Chateau Grimaldi, is another matter. Does anyone know what people called the original building (since demolished, with only a few bits left) at the time of the eminent cardinal? Did they call it a chateau or a palace? I agree, someone in the local area would be best placed to answer these questions. My hunce about the Voronoff "chateau", is that this is a conflation from the history of Menton. The two best sources I found on Voronoff are this one, which says: "Voronoff built his own monkey house in Menton." and this TIME article from 1923. Looking further, and Googling for 'Voronoff' and 'Menton', I found another TIME article, this time from 1940, says Lily Pons: "was kissed by an ape at Dr. Voronoff's monkey farm near Menton, France". Another TIME article, from 1936, says "Singer Lily Pons went to see the monkeys kept by Menton's famed Rejuvenating Dr. Serge Voronoff, got too close to a cage, was soundly bussed by an ape named Rastus." - hmm. My theory of what the Grimaldi connection is with Menton, is, worryingly, the second hit on the Google search, my talk page: "On the other hand, lots of the Voronoff references say that he lived near Menton. This says that Grimaldi acquired Menton. Menton is eastwards along the coast from Ventimiglia, and has an associated chateau. It is possible that this chateau is colloquially known as the Grimaldi chateau, and is a third one, different from the two above." Also, note that Charles I, Lord of Monaco (one of the founding members of the Monaco branch of the Grimaldis), "took the lordship of Menton" in 1346. So Menton and the Grimaldis have been associated for many centuries. It would hardly be surprising if a chateau there was, or became, known as 'Chateau Grimaldi'. But this is just speculation at the moment on my part. There have actually been some books published about Voronoff, including a biography or two. Those would really help. Carcharoth 15:07, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
-
[edit] Taj Mahal
I'm interested in sorting the Taj Mahal article out a bit. One question that isn't really dealt with in the article at the moment is the influence the Taj may have had on western architecture. Its fame travelled quickly after its construction completed in the late 1600's and by the early 1800's the British were effectively in control - the traditional conception of the Taj as a 'monument to love' presumably had some resonance with the romantic movement, but other than the Royal Pavilion (I assume), I wonder what buildings in Europe might trace a significant influence from the Taj. Any pointers gratefully accepted. thanks. --Joopercoopers 20:01, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- An intersting point Jooper (may I call you Jooper?), I shall not be involving myself in Taj Mahal, as most architectural experts (myself included) feel its inspiration was the reknowned Jaipur Restaurant in Milton Keynes, when one compares the flowing lines of the Jaipur to the rather stilted curves of the Taj, one realise the Taj was probably designed by a lowly member of the The Indian Institute of Architects. In the meantime have a look at Sezingcote Thanks though for asking me. Giano 21:28, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
- PS: Aha! I see we have it already Sezincote House - that is the true interpretation of ndian architecture into England, noyt the Brighton Pavilion Giano 21:31, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
- Joopers is fine, Many thanks. --Joopercoopers 23:44, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
- PS: Aha! I see we have it already Sezincote House - that is the true interpretation of ndian architecture into England, noyt the Brighton Pavilion Giano 21:31, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
- An intersting point Jooper (may I call you Jooper?), I shall not be involving myself in Taj Mahal, as most architectural experts (myself included) feel its inspiration was the reknowned Jaipur Restaurant in Milton Keynes, when one compares the flowing lines of the Jaipur to the rather stilted curves of the Taj, one realise the Taj was probably designed by a lowly member of the The Indian Institute of Architects. In the meantime have a look at Sezingcote Thanks though for asking me. Giano 21:28, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
-
[edit] Monte Carlo architecture
Following up your comment above about 'Palais Royale', I went looking, and could only find Palais Royal (Paris} and Palais Royale (Toronto). Possibly Prince's Palace of Monaco is what you were looking for? Looking at this tourist website, we have a stub on the 'Palais du Prince' (possibly what we call Prince's Palace of Monaco - though I'm not sure now they are the same thing), a moderate start on the Oceanographic Museum, a stub on the Saint Nicholas Cathedral, Monaco, and the 'Salle Garnier' building is covered in a section at Opéra de Monte-Carlo. Which of these was the Palais Royale you were thinking of? Carcharoth 15:25, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
-
- Monaco's Royal Palace (or whatever they call it - it started life as an old castel) I have a book somewhere on it, I will knock out a little more about it if I have time this week. = Christ! I have jusr read it!!!! That has to be the worst wikipedia article on a building I have ever read "transforming the mustard-yellow walls, to a light classy shade of pink" can go the second I start on it - how has that not been deleted? Giano 17:54, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
- Probably cos it's true. She did order a new paint job on the outside, apparently. Sure, the tone is not encyclopedic, but you have to pity the new Prince, being told by the wife to get on with painting the castle a new colour! Carcharoth 22:01, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- OK ther's a new page starting here [14] I'll retain the "classy" pink! Giano 22:05, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
- Looks good. I like the "Albert the watsit" bit... :-) Carcharoth 23:22, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
- OK ther's a new page starting here [14] I'll retain the "classy" pink! Giano 22:05, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- Probably cos it's true. She did order a new paint job on the outside, apparently. Sure, the tone is not encyclopedic, but you have to pity the new Prince, being told by the wife to get on with painting the castle a new colour! Carcharoth 22:01, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
- Monaco's Royal Palace (or whatever they call it - it started life as an old castel) I have a book somewhere on it, I will knock out a little more about it if I have time this week. = Christ! I have jusr read it!!!! That has to be the worst wikipedia article on a building I have ever read "transforming the mustard-yellow walls, to a light classy shade of pink" can go the second I start on it - how has that not been deleted? Giano 17:54, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
"Architecturally this was an exiting period, however Honore ignore all architectural trends and had designed one of the dullest palaces ever seen a complete hotch potch and that make the palace look like a second rate guest house on the from at Lyme Regis." LOL! I've been to both Lyme Regis, and Bognor Regis (the 'b*gger Bognor' comment from George the whatsit is most unfair). Are you really allowed to say things like that in an encyclopedia article? Do all your articles have humourous bits like that in them if you dig through the history before tidying up has taken place? :-) PS. 'aggrandize' is an English word. Not sure if it is the best word to use there. I see your note about whole sections being swept away during erratic work, so I won't comment in detail until you've finished. I hope you don't mind me occasionally peeking over your shoulder as you work on that article. It is fascinating to watch. Hmm. Street artistry is a noble tradition, isn't it? I wonder if writing a Wikipedia article while the 'world' (in its broadest sense) watches is a similar process. Hope you don't suffer from stage fright!! :-) Carcharoth 00:39, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- No it doesn't bother me in the least having peole watching, because the article at present will in no way resemble what goes onto main space, all I'm doing at the moment is researching the history so it is encyclopedic, and also so I know what I'm talking about, when that is all on the page, I'll start to waffle about the architecture (which I do know about) then add a bit of sex and violence to spice it up, and then re-write the whole thing! Most pages I write do have the odd thing like that in the history - bcause most websites and books on architectural subjects are written by the biased owners wanting to drag in the masses - rest assured it will be gone before it enters main space, but it helps to keep tihings in perspective. Giano 08:24, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
You might already have looked at and rejected them, but are these images any use? The one on the left has lots of silly people walking around, and very overcast, leaden skies. It does seem show different architectural periods, with the tower on the right being very different from the stuff on the left. The picture on the right is much better as a picture, and you can see more of the architectural details. Carcharoth 01:20, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- Thanks they are great, I didn't see those whne I looke on commons, the one on the left I shall definitly use, allthough I may crop it - as it shows a point I ant to make about the wings conccealing the nold Genoan fort. Thanks Giano 07:05, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
-
[edit] Historic buildings
I've just thrown together an initial expansion of Charlotte Stuart, Duchess of Albany. Although, I still need to do a lot of work on it (and the compulsory infobox ;)). But it is generating a lot of redlinks to seemingly important historical buildings (many in Italy) - of course we may have these articles already by other names. Since this is your field, I wondered if I could tempt you to take a look. The only one I think I could take a stab at is the Palazzo Muti and even then. --Docg 21:00, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] The wiki seems so empty without you!
Dearest Giacomo-Vittorio, where are you? We are all distraught, please please please come back to us and bless us with your sunkissed prose! Bishonen | talk 17:41, 21 February 2007 (UTC).
- Yes please! We are so looking forward to the heady delights of Monegasque architecture. -- ALoan (Talk) 18:28, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
-
- I miss your notes on my Talkpage, Giano: let's find a subject that needs doing... --Wetman 19:45, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
- Never fear Giano is here! - just a bad case of writers block - and I am consoling a loved one during a sudden and rather abrupt bereavement. A life gone - so suddenly - one more little friend will no longer stalk us on our walks to the park. Giano 19:50, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
- I miss your notes on my Talkpage, Giano: let's find a subject that needs doing... --Wetman 19:45, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
I trust we are talking about a quadrupedal little friend? My sympathies.
How do you feel about modern architecture? I did Stephen Gardiner (architect) today, if you fancy pitching in, and spun off into Stratton Park, George Dance the Younger and his family. -- ALoan (Talk) 23:47, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
- Damn dogs, you love them so much and they're here for such a short time. --Joopercoopers 00:36, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
-
- Can we be quite clear on this (before any more messages of sympathy arrive!) the dog in question was a furry brute of indiferent breeding who followed my own highly bred hound every morning to the park. That it met its untimely end crossing Kensington High Street in pursuit of my own pet is to be regretted, particularly by my own spaniel, who I am consoling. Personally, my own early morning walk will be less stressful due to the sad demise of "Edmund" (for that was the name I saw on his collar the one time I managed to apprehend him in one of his gratuitous acts). To his owners (however negligent) I send condolences - but they should be comforted that he died in pursuit of that which he loved most. Giano 20:47, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
-
"Get down, Shep!" -- pp John Noakes 21:37, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
-
- I don't think the death of a dear little dog, is anything to joke about ALoan! Giano 22:20, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
- I had my suspicions you might be a little eccentric, but the mental image of our esteemed Giano cooing words of condolence to a love sick and bereaved spaniel has moved you into the gloriously eccentric compartment of my minds eye. The Basilica Palladiana (Palazzo della Ragione) lies masterless at the fireside of improvement. --Mcginnly | Natter 13:48, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
- I don't think the death of a dear little dog, is anything to joke about ALoan! Giano 22:20, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Hannah on FAC...?
Giacomo, I keep eyeing your beautiful Hannah Primrose, Countess of Rosebery. It's been in mainspace quite a while now, and it sure looks finished to me (admittedly I wouldn't recognize a gap in a subject like that if it jumped up and bit me). Er, are you planning to put it on FAC? Or too sick of the FA circus..? Bishonen | talk 18:33, 26 February 2007 (UTC).
-
- How very kind of you to notice - if that is a discreet offer to nominate - please don't. The current manias sweeping FA or to be precise FARC criteria have determined me to abandon the process. You have seen my last FA so while I am still writing to meet my standards - they are mine and nobody else's standards. In order to ensure they are not FAd I keep a section back and don't do a final polish - which is a pity - but there you are. The missing section for Hannah is written and in a word processor file, but it won't see the light of day. I'm glad you like her, no one has ever written a proper biography of her, and most of the books in which she is mentioned are out of print and most certainly not on-line. So while anyone can finish the page - it is doubtful they will have information to solve the final key - My FA standards demand every known fact be there. It is spiteful of me I know, but having endured the venom of the FARC page - I never want a page of mine there again, while there about ten or so that may be there sooner or later, I see no reason to produce future fodder for the ever more demanding criteria police. I am currently here [16] footnoting (as with Hannah) almost every verb for the simple reason when I am long gone from wikipedia there is likely to be movement to delete pages with every verbs not cited - the writing is on the all. The intellectually demanding page (i.e. written by someone who has to put some serious thought in order to increase Wikipedia's standing in accademia, and also to avoid charges of plagiarism) is going to be doomed as only pokemon and their ilk will meet the citing demands.
-
- So my attitude now is if the zealots of FARC are so clever and knowing let them write their own FAs to their own standards. In the meantime I'm quite enjoying writing the pages on obscure (and little referenced) subjects I enjoy to my own standards. Thanks for the complement though. In return I note, your beautiful and fascinating this is almost finished - what are your plans for that? Do you know the only thing I shall regret mega boast coming - never again will I have the same article on the Front page of three different language wikis in the same month - never mind at least I did it once! No doubt some very clever people will immediatly shoot my view down, but it is my view, and I write to my own standards no one else's. Giano 19:09, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- Bizarre. I've never taken any notice of the FA process, but I had a notion that I'd like to find the time to try to take one of my articles to that standard. But if an article of the quality of that piece wouldn't pass, then I rather think I'll just continue to ignore the process.--Docg 19:46, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- Oh try it - it's like cheap wine, rough whisky and fast sex - every one should try it once Giano 21:33, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
- I'm surprised anybody cares to try for FAs, Doc, but many people seem quite eager to. Don't know why. I used to be, but not any more. It's not so much the FARC issues for me, it's that WP:FAC itself has changed. This current sandbox isn't going near FAC after the crap I got last time — I'm still pissed off about it — yes, that shows how touchy I am, and ungrateful to the nice people who supported — it's a gut reaction, I can't help it. I challenged one opposer about the sheer hostility, and he told me that's how you're supposed to talk on FAC nowadays! So-and-so does it, so it's the culture, so it's-not-my-fault-how-I-talk. Well, I don't want to put you off, Doc, FACing an article is probably a process worth going through once, if only to realize that it's not as veneration-worthy as you thought. But I've sure hit the law of diminishing returns. I don't see the temptation in "having" FAs, anyway. As the author, you get told off for "owning" if you revert anybody, and told off (on FARC, if not sooner) for failing to "maintain" if you don't. Nice cleft stick. Geogre and Giano don't FAC their stuff any more. And Paul August doesn't. Giano, I suppose you saw what he said about it ?
- As for my current sandbox, Giano, no need to be so polite, I see right through you as usual. It's neither beautiful nor almost finished, and I'm probably the only person on this page it's remotely "fascinating" to..! My plans are to make it fit for mainspace and then move it there. It's slow because I need to research the subject a lot, I knew nothing about it. Bishonen | talk 20:50, 26 February 2007 (UTC).
-
- Bizarre. I've never taken any notice of the FA process, but I had a notion that I'd like to find the time to try to take one of my articles to that standard. But if an article of the quality of that piece wouldn't pass, then I rather think I'll just continue to ignore the process.--Docg 19:46, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
- I agree with Bishonen and Giano. There is no way that I'm going near FAC anymore. Oh, I'll write them, if I feel like it, but there isn't a chance that I'm going to put up with the morons at FAC. "Object footnote citation style not what I use." "Object prose is hard for me to understand in general." "Object awful writing but I won't tell you where." "Object does not comply to British spellings/American spellings." So, here I sit, able to publish articles in peer reviewed journals, but not FAC, because, with no experience or expertise, they know better from :03 of reading one paragraph. No, thanks. I have an article now on FARC. It has been translated into multiple wiki's, and it's an FA at many of them, but only we have the enlightenment to de-list it for footnotes, because only we have a campsite set up on FAC comprised of people who feel that they can evaluate articles entymological and etymological, all with an incomplete undergraduate reading level. I don't usually do the elitest, snob thing, but, when it comes to this, I will. Geogre 21:51, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
-
Oh dear. Would you object if I nominated Ms. Primrose at FAC?
I still intend to take Mary Seacole to FAC when I get the energy. Otherwise, I am happy writing short articles (Eric Janson, Carlo Gatti) to fill redlinks at the moment. -- ALoan (Talk) 01:08, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- ALoan, watch my lips! I'm done with FAs - I am not interested in meeting other people's daily changing criteria - I am only going to write articles to the best of my ability to my own standards. Getting them through FAC is the easy part, FARC where they are all ultimately doomed to fall is the hard part - as Bishonen says, so rightly, above "As the author, you get told off for "owning" if you revert anybody, and told off (on FARC, if not sooner) for failing to "maintain" if you don't.". The ordeal of trying to explain why Palladian architecture was still good enought to be a FA, and now again seeing Restoration literature dragged through the shit has confirmed my views. It would have been nice to think that wikipedia could have high quality articles (I refer to the intelectual scholarly ones - not my descriptions of bricks and mortar) and be proud of them, but that is not the case; authors who write such works have more productive things to with their time than defend their perevious works against zelous sniping. If a work is good it is good, if it is bad it is bad, and it is perfectly obvious when a page is bad - and there a plenty of bad pages on the site for these people to concentrate on, perhaps they should go and find a few, and leave those which have already been reviewed for excellence alone. Giano 08:50, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
-
Hi I have re uploaded the picture of Horwood House which I took myself. I used to work there in the BT days as a tutor and jolly fine it was. I am new to Wiki so hope I have got this copyright sorted this time. The police are a apin....cheers
Bletchley aprk is a great place to visit. I was brought up in Bletchley and for a time lived just outside the park. As you guessed I worked there with BT. I now live in Colchester. Did you have to travel far to get to Bletchley park?
The final } is that in the copyright of the acual picture? Sorry to be a pain. 2000 miles gosh. By the sound of your name is that Italy?
- Speaking of which, I see Stromboli is having one of its periodic fits. I trust you are in a suitably volcano-proof bunker? -- ALoan (Talk) 16:04, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Many thanks with all the help on the copyright. Hopefully it is OK now. Sicily wow I have just read the book by Bradley about what happened there in the war. What is a man in Italy doing at Bletchley Park and interested in the man who built Horwood House?
-
-
- Causing mayhem usually! Giano 20:42, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
-
- Hello; a stickybeak here. ¶ ALoan: I now live in Colchester. My sympathies, but you have (or a couple of years ago had) two of the best used bookshops I have encountered anywhere, your own almost ('cause he's propping up the bar in one or other of Wivenhoe's pubs) resident poet, and various other very redeeming features. ¶ Definitely not Geogre: "Object does not comply to British spellings/American spellings." Yes, this is one of my pet annoyances. Spellings have traditionally varied: varied less so as time has passed, but varied all the same. Many but by no means all of the variability has long been crystallizing into one US and another British convention. But even with the "dictionaries" of word processors, it hardly formed two monoliths. I'm delighted to read intelligent prose put out by any good US or British publisher according to its "style". I'm happy to adjust my own spelling according to what seem to be the conventions of the article. I'll certainly not comply in polite silence when asked to change virtually every "-ize" into "-ise" (to take one stupid but actual example) just because some peabrained jackbooted self-appointed tyrant of FAC has determined that (i) the article uses British spelling and (ii) British spelling uses "-ise". Grr. -- Hoary 06:21, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Begging a favour
Re Renaissance Architecture, There has been a whole rash of vandalism since your last revert. Further editors haven't reverted all of it. I can't do it on my present computer bcause I don't have enough memory. Woud you mind fixing it please!
--Amandajm 09:11, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] In agreement
Hey, looks like I agree with you on something. How about that. --Cyde Weys 16:27, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- You are psychic! I was about to post the same message to you. Well it is certainly a novelty Cyde - we had better both enjoy the experience while it lasts. I don't suppose you would like to......No don't worry, I won't push it! Giano 16:37, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
-
This whole situation (not your agreement, although that is pretty disturbing too ;) - the underlying situation) is very troubling. -- ALoan (Talk) 17:55, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
- What is troubling is not that someone has been deceitful - that is going to happen occasionally with 1000s of editors, it is that this is not a wikipedia internal storm (such as other "storms" in which Cyde and I have been involved!) it is the fact that millions will now view wikipedia editors and consequently there work as unreliable. It is going to be capitalised on by Wikipedia's detractors, and most disturbing of all in my view is that nobody in real authority seems to care a damn. The Arbcom should just get together and sling him out of all positions ASAP, not wait for Jimbo - they have the authority, certain members are not slow to bring fast arbcom cases when they feel they have been wronged, now the whole project is at risk through disgrace - they seem to do nothing. If they don't soon so something I shall put myself forward as an extraordinary Arbcom member - my new friend Cyde will second me - I'm sure. Giano 18:16, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
-
-
There is nothing seemly in any of this - the initial falsehoods (whatever their motivation), the repetition of them, the "apology", or the wide-spread seeming lack of concern at high levels.
I think the comments from Eloquence (and, now I have seen them, from Quadell) on Essjay's talk page got it about right. -- ALoan (Talk) 18:36, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
-
- Does that mean you will be joining in the crusade to sweep me to power and subsequent glory? Giano 18:39, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
-
- PS Now I've read what Quaddel has written I don't altogether agree with him. Essjay has done a grave disservice to both the project and the community, he need to return to the ranks and re-earn (if that is possible) the community's trust. Giano 18:43, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
-
- Does that mean you will be joining in the crusade to sweep me to power and subsequent glory? Giano 18:39, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
-
- My input is probably not needed, but I've thought about it and thought about it. I've tried to distill it as much as I could, and this is what I've come up with. "On the Internet, no one knows you're not Hans Kung, but when you try to cash his paycheck, there may be trouble." Geogre 03:17, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Kiarostami FAC
Hi Giano II
In Case you have time: Would you please take a look at Kiarostami FAC? Any comments? Thanks. Sangak Talk 20:33, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
-
- Sorry not realy my subject, bit it seems to have done very well without me. Giano 09:37, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Honoré II
Is it possible to find a better portrait of Honoré II? This is tiny, and it's no good trying to display it at a bigger size than it really is. Bishonen | talk 21:23, 2 March 2007 (UTC).
-
- No I can't find one, thay are all pretty dreadful of the Grimaldi - obviously not an attractive family - interbreeding I expect. Giano 09:36, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Comb over
Hey! what are those people doing on my talk page without comb overs - you know they're the future. --Mcginnly | Natter 21:37, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
-
- Thanks McGinnly - I really have no need of such (I'm sure to you) useful information, my own hair is not only luxurient, plentiful and silkient but only yesterday a lady (I think she may have been Swedish) on the underground asked if she could run her fingers through it! Giano 21:42, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Thank you
for this. I'm ashamed to say that I needed that reminder. ElinorD (talk) 17:29, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Let me add my own thanks for your thoughtful words. Mackensen (talk) 01:57, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
- Ditto. Thanks for applying common sense to another incident where such a thing has been entirely lacking. Daniel Bryant 02:13, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Free houses!
I dunno if we have an article on SketchUp, but it's a program made by Google and 100% free. Download that sucka, and you'll be drarwring in 3 dimentions in no time. It really is pretty dern easy to use. Oh, and it's free. Free is better than nothing left to lose. Geogre 18:47, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
-
- I actually do have something vey similar, but it is som complicated I end up loosing my temper with it and the computer - I will dowmload and try it, though drawing and planning an entire royal palace may not be the easiest start! Do we have an article dog kennel for me to start with Giano 19:05, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
- I might have a partial solution - 1.click on the coords I added to the top right of the article 2.click 'google maps' the first on the list 3.Click 'satelite' top right - that gives a pretty good resolution satelite image from which I can trace the footprint of the building - from that and the existing image I should be able to get at least a basic 'block plan'. Leave it with me I'll sketch it up tomorrow. regards. --Joopercoopers 00:42, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
- I actually do have something vey similar, but it is som complicated I end up loosing my temper with it and the computer - I will dowmload and try it, though drawing and planning an entire royal palace may not be the easiest start! Do we have an article dog kennel for me to start with Giano 19:05, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Ok, here's a first stab - let me know if you'd like bigger, different, more labelling - different cropping, different colours etc.etc.etc. --Joopercoopers 03:06, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
- Whoa! I thought I was clever for using a second layer in PhotoShop. Geogre 13:07, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
- Oh wow Gee wiz. It's be the best nonfeatured article on wikipedia, thanks so much Mc G, I shall incorporate it properly tomorrow, just had a rather a long and very alcoholic lunch so best not attemtp it now - you're a star! Giano 18:10, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
- Prego, would you like anything changing - BTW what is housed in the north wing - do you want a letter for that? - ps. the blue square in the grounds to the rear appears to be the prince's swimming pool. Also the diagonal street running south east leads directly to the cathedral. I can add a 'to the cathedral' sort of note if you'd like, clearly the relationship of the palace to matters clerical and administrative ie. the wider site, is important.--Joopercoopers 22:13, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
- Great idea JC as much as poss, is it possisble to make the old defences, walls, All saints tower and serevelle a little more defined? - I'm really thrilled with this, I'm going to have to have a rethink of the layout tomorrow Giano 22:31, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
- Ok, I've emphasised the defensive walls, towers and serevelle and added a few 'to the cathedral......etc.s' The line of the battlements is a bit speculative on my part, never having been there, it's quite hard to work out exactly what's going on from the satellite image, but I think it should be close enough. (PS you might need to press CTRL+F5 to see the new image). regards --Joopercoopers 11:28, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks that is brilliant, i can see the nwe image on the page itself but not here, I'll clean all the cookies off and start again before I log in next time, that should do the trick. Thanks for all of this, I hope to have time to spend on the page iteself later on today or tonight - sadly earning a living right now. Giano 11:42, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
- Oh wow Gee wiz. It's be the best nonfeatured article on wikipedia, thanks so much Mc G, I shall incorporate it properly tomorrow, just had a rather a long and very alcoholic lunch so best not attemtp it now - you're a star! Giano 18:10, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Wow. Nice map. That article is looking better and better every time I look at it! Carcharoth 17:42, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
-
- Well if I can finish some Bastards off I may get around to finishing it Giano 17:44, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Hey
Dear Giano,
Thank you for the nice words from two months ago regarding my work on the Ohio Wesleyan University page article. I just nominated it in the FAC process, so if you have the time, feel free to provide your opinion and comments regarding the page. Thank you, once again! LaSaltarella 03:36, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Hey there!!!
Hi Giano,
I enjoyed our debate today! =) If you ever want to shoot the breeze, you can always send me an email. Ciao!!! MetsFan76 00:45, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Love in
Can I join the love in? I've brought my own stuff. --Joopercoopers 22:15, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- Cool Man, I didn't know condoms came that big Giano 22:27, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- No comment. Do you know the urban myth about churchill during the war? During the winter whilst the allies were pushing into germany, the british found if they stretched a condom over the barrels of their rifles they wouldn't jam. The war ministry needed churchills approval for a scheme to provide troops with special gun-sized rubber sheaths - he considered the proposals and approved them subject to the packets carrying 'made in england' on one side and 'Size:Medium' on the other. --Mcginnly | Natter 22:35, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
-
-
[edit] Strawberry ice cream
Hi, Giano. I was very impressed with your efforts to put a stop to the pile up of discussion about Essjay after it was obvious that it had stopped being useful, even though I understand that you, like me, were critical of his role. I've had a look at your article writing, and find it very impressive. So, to thank you, I'm offering you one of my strawberry ice creams. Your name sounds Italian, so you'll probably be pleased to learn that I made it in this machine, which actually was not bought in Italy, but in this store in London. ElinorD (talk) 12:06, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- Gosh! I've never been given an ice cream on wikipedia before, allthough my bird is named Spumoni. You are clever, nice hands too! That is really kind. I think the pile on was inevitable, but I think one has to temper anger and criticism according to how constructive or productive it can be, and bearing in mind the target of that anger is probably already pretty mad at themselves. Outrage can only justifiably last so long. However, such emotions were not wrong and have led to productive and useful debate on Jimbo's page on how best to address thses difficult issues. Thanks again for the ice-cream. Giano 12:27, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
-
[edit] B'stard
I'm not sure I corrected this correctly - perhaps you'd have a look? --Joopercoopers 16:12, 6 March 2007 (UTC) No, I was just fixing what I meant when I got an edit conflict - neber mind these things happen <sigh> Giano 16:16, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
- Giano, I just had to note that I found your edit and edit summary to West Wycombe Park to be rather amusing! I thought it was either a joke or that you had finally "lost it" until I discovered the article on the Bastard brothers. What a truly awful surname! Thanks for unintentionally amusing me. Simple minds find simple pleasures, I guess. *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 16:14, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
-
- I would never use such an offensive term for even one of the few people I disliked! You should no me better than that Giano 16:16, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
- dah...edit conflict, sorry - butting out quick smart......--Joopercoopers 16:19, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
- No no, I'm done now it is all yours. Giano 16:24, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
- dah...edit conflict, sorry - butting out quick smart......--Joopercoopers 16:19, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
- I would never use such an offensive term for even one of the few people I disliked! You should no me better than that Giano 16:16, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
-
You did all that in a few hours? Bloody hell. I'd still be typing 'google'. Thanks you so much for that - I'm overwhelmed. You are a star, sir. And now I'm off to try to find out about those bastard clocks ... 86.133.214.44 16:45, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- Yep me and a few friends - Log in and write a page on the clocks instead - meet interesting people - make new friends - find a wife/husband (or whatever). Giano 16:47, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
-
[edit] Cranks
From the way your were talking, about editors who vandalize or might even threaten someone physically, I wasn't sure if you understood that the word crank in itself has nothing to do with that. A crank is someone with dodgy notions to sell, not a vandal, not a stalker. Sorry if I mistook your words but I'm sure you can understand cuz you started talking about something wholly different. Would you like me to retract my comment from Jimbo's talk page? Gwen Gale 19:04, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
-
- we obviously have a cultural and national different understanding on the meaning of cranks. I was referring to the type of people which Essjay said he was seeking to avoid by altering his personnae. Obviously the conversation there has taken a whole new turn. Giano 19:13, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
- That's not a crank in any English dialect I've heard of. Did you look at the Wikipedia article about cranks? Here's a dicdef too. A crank is a "screwball" trying to persuade folks to believe "nutty" notions. Gwen Gale 19:16, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- I don't speak an English dialect. Giano 19:18, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
-
- You speak an English dialect. What is it? Standard American, southern American, southern UK, western Australian, what. Gwen Gale 19:23, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
- Idahoan. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 19:48, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
- Hahaha :) Gwen Gale 19:54, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
- Idahoan. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 19:48, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
- You speak an English dialect. What is it? Standard American, southern American, southern UK, western Australian, what. Gwen Gale 19:23, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- That's not a crank in any English dialect I've heard of. Did you look at the Wikipedia article about cranks? Here's a dicdef too. A crank is a "screwball" trying to persuade folks to believe "nutty" notions. Gwen Gale 19:16, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
- we obviously have a cultural and national different understanding on the meaning of cranks. I was referring to the type of people which Essjay said he was seeking to avoid by altering his personnae. Obviously the conversation there has taken a whole new turn. Giano 19:13, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Some sort of pigeon. Coo. -- ALoan (Talk) 20:14, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
- (Nonplussed) Surely Cranks is a restaurant? Bishonen | talk 21:34, 6 March 2007 (UTC).
- Good grief - Morecambe and Wise have separate pages - only on wikipedia! I should suggest a merge to Morecambe and Wise. Doh! we have three articles on the subjects--Mcginnly | Natter 01:42, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] My reply to your reply
On User Talk:Jimbo Wales you wrote: "Are you seriously sugesting that those who in real life are very high profile, should be banned from editing Wikipedia, merely because they wish to do so quietly, without drawing attention to themselves?"
- Not at all. If, as we are theoretically musing, they were forced to disclose their identities as a requisite to joining then the decision would be entirely their's whether or not to stay. Who said anything about banning anyone? People of high profile make similar decisions every day all the time.PelleSmith 17:46, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
-
- Those that edit without disclosing their name would be prevented from editing under your suggestion this would in effect be a ban. Giano 17:48, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
- You are mincing words in a most peculiar way. No person, as at least defined by the law, no legal citizen of any nation lets say would ever be banned. By your logic we could argue that I would be "banned" from driving on the streets of the United States because I refuse to use my legal name when I try to obtain a drivers license. Are they banning me? Or, given the laws governing such matters am I making a choice not to drive? Yes I see the two sides of this mincing project but I'm very confident in the side I've picked. Thanks and best.PelleSmith 17:55, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
- I came across this by accident. It seems to me that they certainly would be prevented from editing here by that policy, which would be unfortunate. To me it is quibbling about the word "ban" that is engaging in unhelpful semantics. Metamagician3000 14:27, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- Anyway, I mainly came here because I wanted to congratulate you (i.e. Giano) on your very sensible and humane contributions to the whole debate on the Essjay contretemps and its aftermath. I'm conscious of this, in part, because I was on the opposite side from you in your dust-up with Lar, and - alas - am probably so in the current InShanee pile-up at arbcom. I was reminded when I just saw your name on Lar's talk page. But I do appreciate all the clear-headed, useful things I see you saying around the place. Metamagician3000 14:27, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- Don't worry about it - most people are generally on the opposite side to me - I get used to it. but beware, I am inevitably proved right at the ned of the day! Giano 15:25, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- I came across this by accident. It seems to me that they certainly would be prevented from editing here by that policy, which would be unfortunate. To me it is quibbling about the word "ban" that is engaging in unhelpful semantics. Metamagician3000 14:27, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- You are mincing words in a most peculiar way. No person, as at least defined by the law, no legal citizen of any nation lets say would ever be banned. By your logic we could argue that I would be "banned" from driving on the streets of the United States because I refuse to use my legal name when I try to obtain a drivers license. Are they banning me? Or, given the laws governing such matters am I making a choice not to drive? Yes I see the two sides of this mincing project but I'm very confident in the side I've picked. Thanks and best.PelleSmith 17:55, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
- Those that edit without disclosing their name would be prevented from editing under your suggestion this would in effect be a ban. Giano 17:48, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
LOL. Take care! Metamagician3000 22:09, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
- Oh I can take care of myself - I'm thinking of agreeing to go on the Arbcom, and sorting all this mess out once and for all! Giano 22:12, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
-
-
[edit] DYK
--Carabinieri 09:20, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Dyslexia
Good, sometimes one gets confused by those British vs American spelling differences. :) Garion96 (talk) 12:30, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
- Very good article. A downside of the huge size of Wikipedia is that the only reason that I encountered this article was the fact that I was following the trail of some stupid vandal. :( Garion96 (talk) 12:41, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Britmax re Bastard brothers
Thank you for the message on my talk page. The point was that someone had displayed a sense of humour on the Bastard brothers talk page and someone else reverted it away for no reason that I could see: it is, as I say, not in the article and these little things do, in my opinion, make editing wiki that much more enjoyable. So I reverted it with what I thought was a self explanatory request to leave it in the talk section. If you are not familiar with the joke a visit to South Park may be profitable.
- Thank you
- Britmax 22:02, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] From Jimbo's talk page
In defense of pretty much all of us, we outnumber the liars by a very large margin, and I for one intend that it should stay that way.
So, in light of students being silly for just using Wikipedia, I think we as editors should act as if Wikipedia is the only source they're using, therefore we should do our utmost to make each article the best it can be. Regards, Carajou 22:46, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Refreshing
Hey, just wanted to say it was most refreshing to see this - it's infuriating to see people kibitz and nitpick and do nothing else but try to make troublesome situations worse, and even though some users get away with it waaaaaay too much, it's good to know some people can still call them out on it. Milto LOL pia 07:27, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- I doubt some other people will see it quite like that - I have on occasions been more eloquent, but stand by every word of it. Thanks. Giano 08:57, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- While I'm here, I do actually agree with you about Tony's role in this particular stuff-up, whatever else I think about it. Metamagician3000 14:32, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- I doubt some other people will see it quite like that - I have on occasions been more eloquent, but stand by every word of it. Thanks. Giano 08:57, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
-
[edit] Castle
Hi. I see you're doing a monstrous amount of work on this article. Thank you. --Dweller 14:05, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Slow down on the edits. Not all of them may be to everyones likeing. For example, the motte and bailey picture is used in several places on the internet and wiki and is a useful reference. CJ DUB 23:16, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
-
- No problem - take over. I have yet to write one single word. I was about to start on the text today. The lead is dreadful and needs a complete re-write. The whole thing needs ordering vast chunk of repetitition removing. Some fact ere either wrong, and many important one's mising. The pictures were of little use and out of context. The Motte and bailey Image:Tapisserie motte maquette.jpg looked like a work of art brought home from infant's school by a less than talented infant. I've no wish to tread on the architectural team's toes, I'll leave it to them. I shall shortly be having other more pressing commitments on my time. Giano 07:13, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- I have a more serious problem with that image. It's nonsense. A motte is an artificial construct. The huge boulder outcrops are unhistorical and grossly misleading. CJ DUB - I think you've been a little unfair. Giano has done a huge amount of restructuring work and his efforts shouldn't be derided. Any changes he makes that you're unhappy with can always be discussed at the talk page. It's not that hard to change them if there's consensus. However, the existing article is utterly dreadful and needs someone willing to take out a spade and do the hard work. If Giano's willing, I trust him to do an A1 job. cross-posted to CJ DUB talk page--Dweller 09:42, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
-
[edit] Arbcom
So is anything happening about lar's drive to put you on the arbcom? I can understand his enthusiasm, but don't forget we need you down among us, too. Who's going to write the encyclopedia if you disappear "upstairs" to the abstractions of policy? Bishonen | talk 09:35, 13 March 2007 (UTC).
- Fred Bauder will. Such simple-minded questions you ask. Giano will see to it once he's ensconced. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 18:56, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
- Oh yes I have a plan of delegation already worked out - poor Jimbo he is looking rather tired and strained after all the "recent troubles" I expect he is looking forward to having some of that heavy burden lifted from his tired and weary shoulders by one so capable and caring. In fact I am going to offer him my "Palazzo Splendido" (Cayman Islands) for a nice long recuperation, while I hold the fort and make a few changes here. Giano 19:08, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- Dare I ask what the changes might be? Newyorkbrad 19:09, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- Now, now, Brad - I am curently beseiged by the power hungry, no wonder poor dear Jimbo is so tired if this is what it is like. You will have to be patient, but there are just one or two who may benefiet from a haircut. Giano 19:12, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- Dare I ask what the changes might be? Newyorkbrad 19:09, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
[edit] Mentmore and Crafton Studs
Re our previous discussions. I did an article on King Tom and used your photo. Did I label it properly? If you can add to the article that would be great. Thanx. Handicapper 14:03, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Seems we crossed paths today! Handicapper 14:04, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Castles
Of course, never accused you of being a British partisan, as I am not also an Italian partisan. the problem, according to me, is that most British (or US) users simply forget that this should be an international encyclopedia, so for them is normal that more stress is given on subjects of their countries, as, I guess, most of their textbooks are so. However, I repeat, the content of this encyclopedia should have an international appearance. I don't matter if in the first 5 pages of the castle article Italian castles are absent (I also added Italian pictures 'cause I of course know better my country's castles), but it absolutely not acceptable that out of the first 7 photographs 5 are devoted to English castles, or that nearly ALL examples relate to English castles, and written as if their knowledge was immediate to the reader, as if anybody, with a little effort and car driving time, could jump out of home and give them a glance (I mean, without even specifying that Portchester is in England). Good work. --Attilios 09:21, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- I had yet to write one bloody word. I was setting the page up. To the best of my knowledge the first image was in France! Giano 09:24, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
- As it is now, with an zealant editor reverting ALL my edits, the article on Monaco Palace is, frankly, horrendous. There's no care for image placement, size and whatever. Also the presence of photographs of people is silly, and avoided in most articles here. I'm really tired of fighting against people having bad taste here, like Don Quixote and the windmills, and others who have clearly never opened a serious encyclopedia before in their life. I think I will stop working on Wikipedia for a bit. Ciao. --Attilios 16:05, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
- Phew - Giano, re. your plans - if you'd like any others sorting let me know! --Joopercoopers 23:44, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
- As it is now, with an zealant editor reverting ALL my edits, the article on Monaco Palace is, frankly, horrendous. There's no care for image placement, size and whatever. Also the presence of photographs of people is silly, and avoided in most articles here. I'm really tired of fighting against people having bad taste here, like Don Quixote and the windmills, and others who have clearly never opened a serious encyclopedia before in their life. I think I will stop working on Wikipedia for a bit. Ciao. --Attilios 16:05, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
- I had yet to write one bloody word. I was setting the page up. To the best of my knowledge the first image was in France! Giano 09:24, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
-
[edit] Advices
Ciao! Check some of my edits at Orazio de Ferrari... I was surprised that such an odl contributor here would miss these categories and other details. Good work. --Attilios 12:49, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- Still with us then I see. Your edits [18] - are a credit to you indeed. Always important to add those bith year cats. I'm unsure why you removed the inline ref - but who am I to query one such as you. Giano 13:04, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
- Genius categorisations Attilios! I've restored the inline citation. --Joopercoopers 13:09, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
-
[edit] Ashburnham Place
I was moved to fill a redlink (so many lost houses). Any comments or contributions would be welcome. -- ALoan (Talk) 15:56, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
- And another - Barlaston Hall. -- ALoan (Talk) 16:48, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
- Oh we ought to do a big thing on the lost country houses, I remember as a child being complainingly dragged to a huge exhibition about them probably in the early 1980s - how much I wish I could see that exhibition now! I think the British must have destroyed as much of their own heritage as Hitler! Will have a look, perhaps we could ar least create a special category for them. Giano 17:35, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
- (The exhibition at the V&A was titled "The destruction of the country house", in 1974 — making Giano a fortysomething, as we've always imagined him. Giles Worsley, England's Lost Houses: from the Archives of 'Country Life' (London: Country Life), ca 2003, is the book. Wetman 18:34, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
- OK so thinking about it, as I married in the 80's it may just posibly have been 1974 - but I can still remember that spooky birdsong played over loudspeakers as we walked in - I was a very impressionable child. My mother thought anything British was superior to anything produced by any other culture - including Italian. So puzzle on that one Wetman - where was she from? Giano 18:49, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
- And Italian? It's a toss-up between Buenos Aires and Florence. --18:41, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
- Oh we ought to do a big thing on the lost country houses, I remember as a child being complainingly dragged to a huge exhibition about them probably in the early 1980s - how much I wish I could see that exhibition now! I think the British must have destroyed as much of their own heritage as Hitler! Will have a look, perhaps we could ar least create a special category for them. Giano 17:35, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- I was a bit misleading, actually - both of these houses are still standing in one form or another. The contents of Ashburnham were dispersed in the 1950s, and the building was drastically reduced. A rather sorry core remains. User:Wetman has added more details to the Ashburnham article (thanks!), but I would also appreciate your input, Giano.
-
-
-
- Barlaston Hall was undermined and almost demolished in the 1980, but was saved and expensively restored. But I agree, we ought to have a "lost houses" article. If I remember correctly, quite a few were demolished shortly before the listing rules came in. -- ALoan (Talk) 18:02, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
- That would be a really interesting article - I was always told that the punitive inherritance taxes of the 20th century, put paid to a lot of the aristocracy's country seats (that and deregulated gambling!). I remember reading somewhere that recent planning policies have attempted to encourage the rebirth of the large country house in the UK as evidenced by Ushida Findlay's starfish design for a large house in cheshire [22] rather than the appaling pile the Duke and Duchess of York built for themselves whilst newlyweds. Sunninghill Park--Joopercoopers 18:47, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
- Barlaston Hall was undermined and almost demolished in the 1980, but was saved and expensively restored. But I agree, we ought to have a "lost houses" article. If I remember correctly, quite a few were demolished shortly before the listing rules came in. -- ALoan (Talk) 18:02, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
-
I was always told that the army requisitioned houses during the war and handed them back in appauling condition. The new Labour Government then upped the cost of death duties - thousands of country house owners and heirs had been killed - and were all liable to death duties - plus the Government restricted building works - so the houses were neglected - the family paying punishing death duties - (in many cases the owners wer killed in the fighting, and their sons also a year or so later - so they 2 x death duties to pay) servant's had dissapeared after the previous war, and repairs near impossible because of restrictions - guesss what the only alternative was? Giano 19:07, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
- The F***ing Fulfords really did look like Custers last stand. My guess re. your lineage - presumably Sicillian father - Mother.....not French.......American?--Joopercoopers 19:12, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
-
- I feel a page coming on - I have ordered Worley's England's Lost Houses" (at vasrt expense - the things I do for this encyclopedia) choosing a title will be the difficult part! Giano
-
- You might find this article interesting reading 'around the subject' [23] - it touches on recent planning policy, Brideshead Revisited and the idea of new country houses. It should be noted that Grafton Hall remains unbuilt because a client has yet to be found for the 'grand design' and last year Ushida Findlay went bust due to some biggish schemes in the middle east turning turtle. regards --Joopercoopers 12:08, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
-
- Thanks for that, that is is interesting. I'm not doing too much on this page just yet because I'm waiting for the Worsley Book to arrive. Even then I'm not sure of the direction to take - at the end of the day it has to be encyclopedic and uncritical. The there is the problem of a realistic title to consider. Giano 12:14, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
- 20th century demolition of British country houses - is very ungainly but constrains the subject matter quite well. --Joopercoopers 12:16, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
-
- It does! but I don't like it. However, I expect you are right - we don't have to decide for ages yet in the meantime Exploding Houses will do very well. Giano 12:41, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
-
- 20th century demolition of British country houses - is very ungainly but constrains the subject matter quite well. --Joopercoopers 12:16, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for that, that is is interesting. I'm not doing too much on this page just yet because I'm waiting for the Worsley Book to arrive. Even then I'm not sure of the direction to take - at the end of the day it has to be encyclopedic and uncritical. The there is the problem of a realistic title to consider. Giano 12:14, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Well, some of them were deliberately blown up, of course! However, I doubt "Da house asplode" will meet much approval. How about "Britan's lost country houses (1945-1974)" or "Demolition of British country houses after the Second World War"? -- ALoan (Talk) 14:13, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- Considering my favourite two were blown up in the 1930s, it won't do at all ALoan! Giano 15:24, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
-
Doesn't that rather kill the arguments based on World War II requisitioning / lack of maintenance / hikes in death duties by the 1945 Labour government? -- ALoan (Talk) 16:00, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- No it does not! They were factors which exascapated a situation already in progress, the introduction of income tax at the begining of the century, shortage of servants following the 1st world war and sevaral other reasons which I have yet to think of, but rest assured I shall find them - and an aristocracy that had lost its way somewhat, turning their backs on the values which had upheld their possition for centuries - think A Handful of Dust etc. I have yet to prove this theory but rest assured I shall! Giano 16:11, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
- It's a good thing David Cannadine's The Decline and Fall of the British Aristocracy is now available in paperback. --Wetman 18:41, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
-
- I've asked a question from someone who might know whether or not the inclusion of Listed building provisions in the Town and Country Planning Act 1947 was an attempt to halt a pre-war destruction of these houses, or was more a way of preventing the demolition of moderately bomb damaged properties simply because it was cheaper. In any event, the destruction continued. My father bought the stable block and associated servants wings, outhouses and coach house of a modest country house some years ago and researched the history - it was bulldozed into its cellars in the late 1960s reputedly days before its 'listed status' was confirmed, still with portraits hanging on the walls. --Mcginnly | Natter 16:24, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
- Bastards! Giano 16:30, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
As I understand it, it was not actually illegal to demolish a listed building until the Town and Country Planning Act 1968! Dispersal of the contents is arguably as bad as demolition - for example, the Mentmore Towers sale in 1975.
There is a catalogue for the 1974 V&A exhibition, written by Roy Strong, credited by some as the turning point, and the start of the upswing of the "heritage industry" (although places like Longleat and Chatsworth House had been doing that for ages).
Perhaps also worth mentioning the sale of Easton Neston in 2004 - the family being more important than the house. -- ALoan (Talk) 17:50, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
- That's interesting Aloan, I didn't know that Solihull suggest although the original provisions were made in the 1947 act, it wasn't until 1966 that a comprehensive survey was undertaken to establish the 'list' - wonderful! the wheels of bureacracy really were running slow; but then people were eating Whale meat so I suppose there were other priorities.--Mcginnly | Natter 18:11, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
- The Mentmore Towers dispersal (Hannah's house co-incidentally) was entirely 102% the result of the James Callaghan government who were offered the collection for 3 million turned it down so the Rosebery's sold it for 10 million - the same government was then forced to buy three or four paintings for almost the same price as they could have brought the whole. Some daft old biddy in charge of heritage Baroness Burke said on behalf of thre government "the collection of continental items assembled by a Jew were not part of the national heritage" they may not have been her exatc words but they are very close. The nation lost a collection which was more important than the Waddesden Collection which was assembled to rival that of Mentmore. Waddesdon Manor was actually decorated with the left over 18th century boisseries which were the offcuts from those used at Mentmore. It was a national disgrace. Easton Neston is far more important than the Heskeths what do you mean? I wrote that page - or at least added a lot to it - anyway it is still very much standing as a fine example of English Baroque. Woburn Abbey was one of the first to become fully commercial, allthough valuable point here, only after it had been half demolished! This could be a very good page, keeping it NPOV will be the problem, but I'm getting some ideas now, Woburn half demolished, West Wycombe Park's servant's wing demolished - I wnder what percentage are actually untouched even Sandringham House has been drastically reduced in size Giano 18:30, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- I was just trying to find Baroness Burke on the internet, now there is a bio I would love to write!!! could not find a thing about her (serves her right) only a true socialist could choose here title in the peerage to be Burke as in Burke's peerage giving about two billion hits - none of which relate to her - because she has no recorded relations! Not surprised I would not want to own her either! (rant over) I did find this though completely endorsing my view [24] No, it was not written by me Giano 18:47, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- The Mentmore Towers dispersal (Hannah's house co-incidentally) was entirely 102% the result of the James Callaghan government who were offered the collection for 3 million turned it down so the Rosebery's sold it for 10 million - the same government was then forced to buy three or four paintings for almost the same price as they could have brought the whole. Some daft old biddy in charge of heritage Baroness Burke said on behalf of thre government "the collection of continental items assembled by a Jew were not part of the national heritage" they may not have been her exatc words but they are very close. The nation lost a collection which was more important than the Waddesden Collection which was assembled to rival that of Mentmore. Waddesdon Manor was actually decorated with the left over 18th century boisseries which were the offcuts from those used at Mentmore. It was a national disgrace. Easton Neston is far more important than the Heskeths what do you mean? I wrote that page - or at least added a lot to it - anyway it is still very much standing as a fine example of English Baroque. Woburn Abbey was one of the first to become fully commercial, allthough valuable point here, only after it had been half demolished! This could be a very good page, keeping it NPOV will be the problem, but I'm getting some ideas now, Woburn half demolished, West Wycombe Park's servant's wing demolished - I wnder what percentage are actually untouched even Sandringham House has been drastically reduced in size Giano 18:30, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
I believe she was Alma Lillian Birk, Baroness Birk, a minister at the Department of the Environment. According to List of British Jewish politicians, she was Jewish herself - "Four women were among the first ten Jews to be made life peers: Dora Gaitskell, Beatrice Serota, Alma Birk and Beatrice Plummer". The Mentmore fiasco triggered the change of the National Land Fund into the National Heritage Memorial Fund. -- ALoan (Talk) 19:25, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
-
- Is she still alive? Giano 21:22, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Intimate Relationship page
FYI, I've made corrections to the Intimate relationship page which you first suggested at Talk:Intimate_relationship nearly a year ago. NCdave 04:25, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Hornby Castle, Yorkshire
There were two castles in Hornby in the Lune valley near Lancaster (put the map ref into Streetmap or Multimap to show them) but neither fits the description of a house demolished recently. Castle Stede consists of old earthworks with no building there for centuries. The other castle consists of a 16th century tower with multiple later additions which seems to be very much there - see [27] and [28]. I am not aware of a Hornby castle elsewhere and a quick look at Google has not come up with one. Good luck. Peter I. Vardy 16:22, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
- Hornby Castle, North Riding of Yorkshire, was a fourteenth and fifteenth-century courtyard castle: C15 work for William, Lord Conyers. Late C14 northwest tower, known as St Quintin's Tower after the medieval family which occupied the castle, was demolished in 1927. see here, with bibliography. Hornby was largely rebuilt by John Carr, responsible for south and east ranges and outbuildings, for the fourth Earl of Holdernesse, in the 1760s. The eventual heir was the Duke of Leeds, who assembled rich early C18 furniture from several houses there, pre-WWI (Percy Macquoid). Most of Hornby was demolished in the 1930s except the south range. (Colvin, 1995). --(Wetman 08:32, 25 March 2007 (UTC))
-
- Thanks for that - I see you've done the page! I think I will try and find a better example for a medieveal example -If i use that one the page will be constantly plagued by people helpfully pointing out that it was not in fact demolished. So if you know of any of which do not have two stones remianing on top of each other that would be good Giano 14:17, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- Their sites and their massive foundations combined to encourage on-site rebuilding, in the form of unfortified manor houses from the fifteenth century, or as great houses, rather than simple, final demolition. This is my prejudiced impression, not having done any purposeful reading directly on-subject, Giano. Sub-themes: castles demolished as punishment; castle structure reused as building material. --Wetman 02:20, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
-
- This one is a problem - as you say they were all altered after defortification so there will be untouched medieval houses demolished - it is just a mater of finding the best example or most unaltered - amd them finding an image - Corfe Castle keeps coming to mind but that was demolished during the civil war - pity as I have some rather good fotos of that - I suppose I couls always lie and say it was demolished by drunken cricket fans rampaging back from watchinging Hampshire playing at home, but even they would have to be very drunk to take that route. I shall do have to some research. I also want a Welsh house to even the balance - so a medieval Welsh demolished house would be perfect - with an image - I found one but the owner of the site with the images has not come back to me - anyway asking people to surrender copyright and go all through that rigmarole is far too stresful - so I shall have to do some more research - there are lots of "Castly" looking houses n Yorkshire and Cumbria - I may find one there - anyway I'm growing a lttle tired of Wikipedia, it eccentricities, eccentrics and the plain mad at the moment and there is a lot going on in RL so it may have to wait. Thanks for the advice Wetman
-
- Their sites and their massive foundations combined to encourage on-site rebuilding, in the form of unfortified manor houses from the fifteenth century, or as great houses, rather than simple, final demolition. This is my prejudiced impression, not having done any purposeful reading directly on-subject, Giano. Sub-themes: castles demolished as punishment; castle structure reused as building material. --Wetman 02:20, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
-
[edit] WP:RFAR#Betacommand
Your comment is excellent, and goes to the root of half of the objections to the case. This is not about your block, that's a completely separate can of worms, and enough heads have rolled over it. When the case is opened, please do take the case off your watchlist. This is not intended to be about Bc's actions of 2006, and bringing them up would only muddy the waters. (Let's see, any other tired cliches I can inject here?) This is not about Kelly Martin, Tony Sidaway, Giano or Geogre. That's been dealt with, rehashed, and the dead horse thoroughly beaten. (Aha, found one!) There are plenty of events in 2007 to worry about. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 21:29, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- That is a matter of opinion, incidentally not mine. Whose head precisely has rolled? Concerning that deplorable incident. Anyhow it maters not, I'm rather tired of wikipedia and its show trials, which become ridiculours affairs of great drama between the hanging judge and his manic sidekick but always fail to address the issues concerned. I will go and amuse myself with something more interesting like have root canal work. Giano 06:31, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- Heads? Heads have rolled? Interesting. First I've heard of it. You must be on the Inside Track. What's that like? Bishonen | talk 21:38, 29 March 2007 (UTC).
- I think perhaps its a typo - heads lolling - gently to sleep.......zzz --Joopercoopers 21:42, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
-
- When the case is opened, it will be on a new page, so it won't be on your watchlist to begin with unless you add it (or, depending on your settings, edit the page). Regards, Newyorkbrad 21:31, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Betacommand
Hello,
An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Betacommand. Please add any evidence you may wish the arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Betacommand/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Betacommand/Workshop.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Newyorkbrad 00:31, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- Thank you Brad - I don't think I'll bother to even watch - but I'm sure I know the outcome. Giano 07:24, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
-