Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 18:59, 13 April 2011

Template:Fix bunching

Template:Fix bunching

This user built his/her own PC. PhD This user has a Doctor of Philosophy degree in Mathematics. ja-5 この利用者は少しだけ日本語を話すことができます。 ${\displaystyle \hbar }$ This user is a quantum physicist. This user believes in civility and assuming good faith.

Template:Fix bunching

Old messages are at:

• User talk:Giano II/archive 1 (From Oct 2004)
• User talk:Giano II/archive 2 (From Jan 2005)
• User talk:Giano II/archive 3 (From July 2005)
• User talk:Giano II/archive 4 (From Jan 2006)
• User talk:Giano II/archive 5 (From July 2006)
• User talk:Giano II/archive 6 (From Jan 2007)
• User talk:Giano II/archive 7 (From July 2007)
• User talk:Giano II/archive 8 (From Jan 2008)
• User talk:Giano II/archive 9 (From July 2008)
• User talk:Giano II/archive 10 (From Jan 2009)
• User talk:Giano II/archive 11 (From July 2009)
• User talk:Giano II/archive 12 (From Jan 2010)
• User talk:Giano II/archive 13 (From July 2010)
• User talk:Giano II/archive 14 (From Jan 2011)

Essays and thoughts:

• A few thoughts on writing Featured Articles (probably a little out of date now)
• A few thoughts on Misplaced Pages (unfinished)

Please leave new messages below

Infoboxes

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hola

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Winter Palace

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

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