Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 18:35, 12 July 2008

Old messages are at:

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

• Essay: A few thoughts on writing Featured Articles

Trials and tribulations

Following the insertion of evidence (containing half-truths, out of context and missing facts which include oversighted edits) into the workshop page (by a judging Arb) of a case which I had been assured was not about me, my existing feelings of contempt for the present Arbcom and its supporters has plummeted to new and unimaginable depths. Such are my feelings at being so proven right, I, at present, do not trust myself to speak fully on the subject. So, I would be grateful if no one would post here concerning the matter. There is plenty of room on the workshop page for you to have debates. While, I have tried to avoid posting on the case pages, I have posted 2 brief comments, both restrained. I hope, I shall not be posting or rising to baits there again.

I am very grateful to those working so hard to expose the facts on my behalf. However, a very worrying incident here last week coupled with the continued and in-depth amateur examining of my personality has made me feel personally vulnerable and threatened. There is only so much one can voluntarily take and I feel I have now taken enough. Thus, I have decided to become very much more low key on Misplaced Pages for a while. Thank you all for your emails and support. Giano (talk) 07:30, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

How about a contest to see how many different bird species (or any animal species) we can count in the next 24 hours? I'm already in the lead - grey squirrel, dog, and that damn big gull that nests on the roof just opposite and doesn't squawk - it *screams* and you'd think a human was being attacked. Plus the crows that come through just after dawn to pick the garbage and harass that bloody gull into making extra loud screams. Oh, does motorcycle count as a species, I just counted that one too :) Franamax (talk) 07:45, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Here you said:

"The true problem now is that all trust and real communication between me and the Arbcom has irretrievably broken down. When Jimbo made his announcement saying that the Arbs had jurisdiction over IRC, I thought we had progress. Following the IRC case they agreed to address the problems and gave me a civility sanction. I don't accept the civility sanction because they never kept their side of the bargain to address the problems there, because FT2 announced there were no problems - so if no problems exist why pass a motion to address them? Now they are using my (less than flattering) references to them (dispossessed of any context), for not keeping their side of the bargain, as evidence to dispose of me. So more or less there is the problem in a nutshell. Of course there are one or two minor issues now cluttering the clarity up but they are all things that could have been easily sorted. However, now nothing can be sorted because any trust and respect that may have once existed has gone. They feel that any problems that exist will disappear with me, or, more likely, no one will ever dare raise them again. That peace will last just as long as it takes for the next bad block or decision to be orchestrated in IRC or someother secret place, and lets face it we all know that won't be long."

"All I have ever wanted was a transparent system of Admin debate. Admns could discuss easily on pages that ordinary editors can't edit, but can see. I just wanted an open fair system - so bad blocks orchestrated by cliques ect became a thing of the past - and the true reasoning of all blocks was open to scrutiny. Any truly confidential stuff, should not be in the hands of teen-age admins anyway, but dealt with by senior and trusted editors/admins/arbs."

"Sadly, the Arbs will just not address the problems of IRC, one can only hazard guesses as to why - and I am rapidly becoming past caring. Thanks for the support here (as ever) but I don't want to post here on this subject here again either. I see I am subconsciously using the past tense, I am truly very weary of battling a losing battle to get Misplaced Pages running fairly. Perhaps I will just go back to writing, or perhaps I may just dissapear - who knows."

May I suggest a different way of looking at this? Misplaced Pages has governance problems. Everyone knows this. You have bravely tried to put a spotlight on parts of this issue. You have succeeded in doing that. There is now an arbcom RFC. Many people are speaking up. Mission Accomplished :) I suggest that you accept this victory and announce that for one year you will watch as the debate and its resolution process proceeds and you will trust all the other people who have taken up the issues of Misplaced Pages governance to enact some needed improvements in Misplaced Pages governance. You have done your part. Relax for a year and spend your time on Misplaced Pages at what you came here to do in the first place - write articles. Bless you and good luck. WAS 4.250 (talk) 17:19, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I heartily second that, Giano. I've had many stimulating exchanges with you on architecture articles, and I long to get back to that harmonious mode. --Wetman (talk) 19:15, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I am always here, and always open to suggestions, talks and negotoations from the Arbcom. They know where to find me. Giano (talk) 20:25, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Hazarding guesses

I was under the impression that the issue had been fully explained back at the beginning of the year; but, as I can't find any real discussion to that effect, other than the statements here, I'm beginning to suspect that my impression may be incorrect. If that's indeed the case, then I apologize.

Anyways: the reason the Committee cannot "address the problems of IRC"—at least in the manner in which you would presumably like to see them addressed—is because the Committee does not actually have any real authority over IRC, and lacks the ability to issue decrees that would be binding on the IRC channels or their participants. That authority rests solely with the IRC Group Contacts and their appointed representatives. Kirill 02:39, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to both Giano and Kirill for interjecting here, I can't help myself. I asked right back then, in a thoroughly ignored section, I believe in Workshop Talk - why can't en:wiki, under the aegis of ArbCom, establish it's own admin channel, with it's own group contact, with it's own consequent rules of operation? With the accompanying deprecation of the existing channel, which of course could keep operating forever, but no longer with official imprimatur. Sorry Giano to mess up your talk page, but that question still bugs me! Franamax (talk) 02:59, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

• I can imagine. However, there comes a time when we cannot keep arguing in circles which is what is happening now. During the last circus the committee agreed this and more importantly this "Policy and procedure changes regarding Misplaced Pages IRC channels will be addressed separately by this committee." Here we all are months later, and nothing has changed. In spite of Jimbo decreeing the Arbs did have jurisdiction and one Arb wanting to address the matter properly with the wider community (she received zero support from her fellow Arbs ) In fact, FT2 was delegated to half a half hearted and look and that was the end of the matter, as he found no problems! If as Kyril says, after all these decrees and motions they have passed, the Arbs now claim to have no control over the behaviour of Admins, in a channel which Misplaced Pages encourages them to join, which is in fact, "owned" by an Arb (he has said this himself- James "You are all idiots" Forrester) then we do indeed have a problem - and if others cannot see these very real problems. which repeatedly occur and eminate from that chanel, then that is that, enough is enough - I do give up - others can sort it if they have the will or the energy. Giano (talk) 07:25, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

re yr link not found: how 'bout this? It's not the one I was thinking of, but it's fairly clear, at least at the start. Franamax (talk) 07:49, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Right, thanks, duly inserted. I am going on a wiki-break now for a while, as I am so tired of this head banging debate. My parting thoughts, more of a question really is: Is it right that Misplaced Pages is policed from a place over which Misplaced Pages claims it has no control? I know the answer, I hope some of you do too. Giano (talk) 08:01, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Partire è un po' morire --Joopercoopers (talk) 21:10, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I have to say, and you can remove this if you want to, but it absolutely is strange. Your summary above reflects my understanding of the situation, and Kirill's comment seems to directly contradict the developments in this area in the recent past. Avruch 10:52, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I think we should all thank Kirill for having posted this here, as it will be very helpful in explaining some of the edits Kirill has brought up in the current Arbitration Committee case. To review: the committee says on 9 February 2008 that "Policy and procedure changes regarding Misplaced Pages IRC channels will be addressed separately by this committee" , following a statement by Jimbo Wales on 26 December 2007 and on 8 July 2008 a member of the committee says "I was under the impression that the issue had been fully explained back at the beginning of the year", and that "the Committee does not actually have any real authority over IRC, and lacks the ability to issue decrees that would be binding on the IRC channels or their participants". Well, Kirill, I think it was explained, but the explanation given doesn't match what you are saying today. Sorry. Risker (talk) 12:54, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Kirill seems to be full of contradictions lately. The arbs decided a case. Oh, no they didn't. It's not about Giano. Oh,yes it is. The arbs will solve the IRC problem. Oh, no they won't. Strange... Tex (talk) 14:38, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

The question is how hard it is to find that statement by Jimbo. How hard is it to find cases resulting from bad acts on IRC? How hard, on the other hand, is it to find any statement that permits the use of IRC to decide anything? The only conclusion I can come to is that those who use IRC all day find themselves thinking that, you know, IRC is great... why "I" never misuse it, and they then never investigate anything. Any case showing the reverse is just a "bad apple" (like Lynndie England was a "bad apple"), and there is no credence given to anyone, no matter how dispassionate, who shows that the medium itself, by its nature, is ill-suited to use. Geogre (talk) 18:15, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't use IRC everyday, and certainly not all day, but I don't think a chat room is ill-suited for the purposes of conversation. Clearly there are events of poor judgment, and no more proof is needed than this page to demonstrate that there is a vast gulf of misunderstanding about the standards of conduct and who is responsible for enforcing them. Its also obvious that conduct on #wikipedia-en-admins, where the members join the channel and discuss as Misplaced Pages administrators, must be governable by Misplaced Pages policies and subject to review by the arbitration committee.

I'm not sure why that is so difficult to establish - perhaps the channel should just be deleted, and conversations directed to the main channel where anyone and everyone can join (and maintain a log). Nowhere else (except, perhaps, unblock-en-l) are administrator discussions privileged and secret. An alternative is just publishing a complete log automatically to a page in Misplaced Pages-space. Information that must remain private should go to the arbitration committee as it does normally. It seems simple, and I (among others) thought the question of governance was resolved awhile back. Maybe it will take another test case of IRC misconduct to force Jimbo and the arbitration committee to put it to rest. Avruch 21:59, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Yaahh, it seems to come down to "oops, someone else owns the channel", and everytime I ask why a new channel can't be made, the response seems to be the sound of one hand clapping. Looking now at this, I find it hard to understand why WMF couldn't approach Freenode and ask for a primary group name of "enwiki" or maybe "WMF", what with being the sixth-most popular website in the world and all. (Yes, I have backup for sixth-most). This lack of action seems inexplicable - it certainly does give rise to various conspiracy theories. (Although, I myself and some other users & admins who I vastly respect, couldn't care less about IRC channels, never tried them and likely never will). Franamax (talk) 23:17, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Blytheswood House

A tag has been placed on Blytheswood House requesting that it be speedily deleted from Misplaced Pages. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you.  RGTraynor  13:22, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

If Wikipedians feel a page about a house by James Gillespie Graham is unworthy of this encyclopedia, then I have no comment that does not break the civility parole placed on me by out Arbcom. I suggest the Arbcom sort the matter out. The page was intended to be part of a category I am creating to support one very lage page. Giano (talk) 13:27, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I already removed the tag, as editor not arbitrator, before I saw your reply. The content "designed by the eminent architectJames Gillespie Graham." clearly states notability. FloNight♥♥♥ 13:31, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Flo. Extraordinary edits some people make! Giano (talk) 13:33, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm still wondering how a building is considered "to be about a person or group of people". Mind-boggling. Risker (talk) 13:39, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

People are inside buildings, right? So that means buildings are all about people. So, is there a claim that this building is notably about people or about notable people? If so, it can't be speedy deleted. Oh, and you're welcome. :-) Utgard Loki (talk) 14:57, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Just another day in the life of Giano. Giano (talk) 13:40, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

speedy renaming thereof

It occurred to me that the place was (or anyway is) also written as "Blythswood House" (for example here) and that this was the likelier spelling, in view of the spelling of the family name. So I moved it to Blythswood House. It then occurred to me that perhaps "Blytheswood House" was chosen for good reason. (I blame caffeine deficiency for the lateness of the realization.) Feel very free to move back over the redirect. -- Hoary (talk) 00:39, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Giano/Blytheswood House

You appear to have accidentally created this sandbox article in the article namespace. I have moved it to User:Giano II/Blytheswood House so that you may work on it at your leisure. --Allen3  13:36, 10 July 2008 (UTC) Thank you, the mainspave version appears to be safe now, so the use space one (created in paniced hurry) can be deleted. Always such a risk these days putting a page in main space, I wonder how the less well know editors manage. Giano (talk) 13:38, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Done. FloNight♥♥♥ 13:47, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Agecroft Hall

Which of all you dear American people who watch this page, can pop over to Virginia and get me foto of Agecroft Hall asap? The first one to produce a foto has me being nauseatingly sycophantically civil to them for a year and a day. Giano (talk) 18:05, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I'd think you might get better luck from a more focused appeal at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Virginia, or even someone in their participant list that says the work on the proper geographic region. (And you have tagged for Category:Misplaced Pages requested photographs in Virginia already, right?) And it wouldn't hurt to make it more clear in the article where the place is; apparently it is in/near the state capital. GRBerry 18:12, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I am not responsible for that article, I want a foto of it for my article, which will bring fame and notability to the USA, if I have a picture to expand upon. Giano (talk) 18:19, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Just outside Richmond, VA on the banks of the James River. Risker (talk) 18:13, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

An image of what happened to Agecroft, Lancashire: Image:Agecroft Colliery.jpg --Wetman (talk) 21:15, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but sadly Wetman, it's not quite the one we need - is it? Giano (talk) 21:18, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

There's one on Flickr here and a photoset of the gardens here. You'll have to ask someone who understands how these things actually work (Giggy is usually quite good with things like this) to explain how to import Flickr images (I know it's possible). – iridescent 21:51, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Iridescent, wow, what can one say, it is horrible, it can't have looked like that in England, what have they done to it? It is all straight and angular - it's all wrong. Anyway that does not matter (for Misplaced Pages) can we just upload it - I'll ask Giggy. Giano (talk) 21:56, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Looks to me like it's been reconstructed as it would have looked new, not as it looked after 500 years - I wouldn't be surprised if it does look like that in Tudor drawings. The instructions for importing Flickr images are here, and I won't pretend to understand more than one word in three. – iridescent 22:06, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure you can't use it; the little license thing says it's all rights reserved, and you can't fair use a photo that could reasonably be recreated in a free image (eg somebody could reasonably go out and take a photo now of it and upload it with a free license). It's kind of annoying. Tombomp (talk/contribs) 22:10, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, they're all rights reserved, so perhaps our friend Giggy can come up with a contact to email the photographer and request permission to change that one photo to CC-by. Often, when people are approached and told the photo will be in Misplaced Pages, they're more than happy to help out. Will search further. You know, Iridescent, this means Giano will be nauseating to you for the next year. Risker (talk) 22:12, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

You can actually contact them directly over Flickr, if you have a Yahoo! account. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 22:13, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I don't think we'll bother. It looks to me as though someone swopped the real house for Lego mid-Atlantic, either that or they lost the instruction book when they came to putting it back together again. Whatever, we need another house, did they ship any others across the pond? Giano (talk) 22:20, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Buy one for yourself! (The existence of this company left me slack-jawed in disbelief.) – iridescent 22:23, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Brilliant idea, you could then buy one of these to hang over the door . Giano (talk) 22:27, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually, you could do worse than the Baltic Exchange, which is in the process of being rebuilt in Estonia having made way for this monstrosity. Or does it have to be in America? – iridescent 22:30, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I think I will have a re-think, it has to be a former British country house. Actually, i quite like the Gerkin. Giano (talk) 22:34, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I think there was one shipped to my area of Canada, I am trying to dig up some details and will let you know by tomorrow. If I am correct and it is close by, I'll get some shots for you. And the mention of the Gherkin has me pining for the Docklands! I've obviously been over there far too often. Risker (talk) 22:39, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Would Cooks' Cottage count? Or does it need to be a stately home? (There must be someone who's shipped a castle over.) – iridescent 22:51, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Is this some article on English architecture being shipped abroad? I mean, everyone knows about that bridge, London Bridge wasn't it, and several stately homes and cottages have been mentioned above, but castles? Who in their right mind would ship a castle halfway around the world? In fact, who would ship a bridge around the world?

"In 1967 the Common Council of the City of London placed the bridge on the market and began to look for potential buyers. Council member Ivan Luckin had put forward the idea of selling the bridge, and recalls: "They all thought I was completely crazy when I suggested we should sell London Bridge when it needed replacing."" - from London Bridge, see also London Bridge (Lake Havasu City)

Actually, we should have a category for "moved and reconstructed buildings and structures". They did that with the Abu Simbel when they flooded the area with Lake Nasser. Maybe Category:Relocated buildings and structures? I'll start it - does anyone have any other suggestions? Carcharoth (talk) 08:08, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Giano, would structure relocation be of any use? Probably of less use, but still interesting, is this (search for "floating"), which led me to the floating houses here! Carcharoth (talk) 08:35, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Tombomp is correct; that image can't be used. (commons:COM:FLICKR has a big banner at the top with info on exactly what can be used... let me know if that can be made more clear; I tried to make it as obvious as possible when adding it.) Let me know if I can help with anything else from Flickr, though. —Giggy 08:32, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Giano, though few complete houses made the crossing, many English interiors were shipped to the US pre-WWII. Tweaking Edsel and Eleanor Ford House last month, I discovered that John Harris, whose work you know, has written Moving Rooms: The Trade in Architectural Salvages, 2007.--Wetman (talk) 09:16, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it would be very good if we could get a picture of the room from Wingerworth Hall, as that is mentioned in the page, anyone in Missouri? Giano (talk) 09:58, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Found nothing titled "wingerworth" on Flickr. For the record, anything that comes out of this search is free for Misplaced Pages purposes. —Giggy 10:08, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Giggy, we are not doing too well are we?, I paricularly want an "American" house on the page, pretty near the top too, as it makes the page more relevant to those in America, who may not otherwise be interested in what is after all, a pretty British orientated page. Giano (talk) 10:23, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Photos and civility

"The first one to produce a foto has me being nauseatingly sycophantically civil to them for a year and a day" - Giano, this was very funny! Do you think that in future if you feel tempted to say something that might be incivil, that you say this instead? Hmm. On reflection, some people might take that as being incivil. Scrub that. :-( Carcharoth (talk) 06:37, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Words fail me Carcharoth. Giano (talk) 11:37, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

That's OK. Nauseating sycophantic civility will do instead. :-) Carcharoth (talk) 13:28, 11 July 2008 (UTC) civic virtue isn't a bad article, actually.

Here is a nice illustration of civility, IMO. Geogre (talk) 17:13, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Comment on workshop

I agree that, given our history of interaction, my comment could be seen as unhelpful and inflammatory, and withdraw it with apologies to you and to the committee. --Jenny 18:35, 12 July 2008 (UTC)