Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:08, 30 August 2006

Old messages are at

• User talk:Giano archive 1(2004)
• User talk:Giano archive 2 (2005)
• User talk:Giano archive 3 (2005)
• User talk:Giano archive 4 (2006)
• User talk:Giano archive 5 (2006)

Please leave new messages at the foot of the page

Voting

I'm canvassing votes for our mate in Cambridge at Charles Matthews Election Candidate. Perhaps you might like to make a contribution?--Mcginnly | Natter 10:38, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

• I'd rather vote for John Prescott as PM

Waddesdon Manor

Curious about your reasoning for removal of Waddesdon Manor from cat -- it seems to accord well with the definition of "Châteauesque" given in that article. --mervyn 07:37, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

• Waddesdon Manor is a faithful reproduction of a chateau designed by a Frenchman, there are no anomalies its design as a chateau, chateauesque houses are houses in the style of a chateau, often large 19th century houses which have one of two chateauesque type features such as a turret, or mansard roof, to give them the "air" of a chateau but without these features would be just normal houses for the location they are in. I thought long and hard before putting Waddesdon's close relation Halton House in the chateauesque category. and finally decided it that it is basically a Victorian Mansion with some French embellishments to give a chateau appearance. Waddesdon though is thoroughly a chateau, therefore not "chateauesque" as it has no concessions in external architecture to the architecture of its location or time. I hope this explains my view. Giano | talk 10:18, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Waddesdon Manor is not a "faithful reproduction", it is a mélange of Loire château elements, albeit a superbly executed one (complete with Victorian porte-cochère!). I would argue that if "Châteauesque" is the term that Misplaced Pages is using for the "neo-chateau" strand in Revival styles in 19th-century architecture, then the whole spectrum of victorian chateaux should be included, ranging from the high-status, least "debased" examples like Waddesdon Manor, down to the low-status, most debased examples of suburban turreted villas. Otherwise you need to define how a separation is made. Hope you follow? --mervyn 11:07, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

• No I don't follow. Waddesdon is a prime example of Neo-Renaissance architecture (where photographs of the manor are used to illustrate) rather than a bourgeois mongrel architectural style which is basically what chateauesque architecture is. However, your understanding of architecture is obviously far superior to mine so place Waddesdon in whichever category you feel most suitable. I am well aware that Waddesdon is a melange of authentic styles - I wrote the page. Giano | talk 11:17, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Your reply makes it seem as if I am trying to be awkward or personal, which I'm not. I am just saying that the definition of Châteauesque as it stands, does not exclude Waddesdon Manor -- but it is that article (Châteauesque) that needs our attention I think. --mervyn 12:42, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Turkette

I think you may want to hold off on integrating the word into daily conversation. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 17:28, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

And there was me thinking they were part of your culture.....I'm devastated to see my new word AFD'd - not that we would ever use any such object ourselves. I note you want a page on napkin rings - even with your obsession with food and gluttony you surely do not use the same napkin twice. You'll be advocating a page on fish knives and doilies next. Amusingly (to me anyway) I've just seen on fork etiquette you all eat in that way because it allows "The dropping of the left hand into the lap near a pistol or another knife, however, was an important safety precaution" what a load of blx, who thinks this rubbish up? Turkettes and pistols at the dinner table, you'll be telling me you Americans allow small children in the dining room next. Giano | talk 22:43, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Don't look at me. I like food, but know nothing about table manners, American, Continental or otherwise. I can only imagine what it is like when the Gianos dine; just imagining the elegant dance of the butlers dutifully handing out (from the left) wet naps for your soup-spattered chest wig and gold-effect medallion brings a small tear to my eye. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 23:04, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I am shocked an amazed that we are missing such table necessities as the fish knife and napkin ring, when we have the spork and the butter knife. Is this serviette ring meant to be a sort of tourniquet, or perhaps Turk's head? -- ALoan (Talk) 13:34, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

• ALoan you marvel, that's the word I was seeking tourniquet, allthough I have found "torquette" which I think is much the same thing. I'm very surprised BoG does not have torquettes and tourniquets on his dining table like the rest of his compatriots - perhaps they are not so civilized in Idaho as the rest of the USA. In fact I may start a new page User: Giano/All American turckette as my small contribution to the culture of that great country. Giano | talk 16:00, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

• You certainy were helpful at the AfD! I can't wait for the noobs to roll in and take you at face value there. I'd make a joke about who needs a tourniquet and where it best be applied, but, you know, don't want to be banned and all. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 16:05, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

• No I certainly don't want to be banned, in fact I heve just this minute been sorting out the last person who banned me here. People would do well to remember the "curse of San Giacomo". Giano | talk 16:12, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

FYI, the EE case is about to close, and you're not going to be banned after all, so there. Now, as a relative newbie, I ask, should I take the time to read through the Carnildo evidence, or let it go? Newyorkbrad 22:35, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

In a nut shell: I was talking to two admins on the Admins notice board (details here }on the subject of paedophiles editing Misplaced Pages, Carnildo did not like the conversation and banned all 3 for hate speech indefinitely with no warning. Other admins unbanned within 3 minutes, Jimbo was very cross with Carnildo, and he was desysoped almost instantaneously. I am still stuck with a block log that accuses me of "hate speech", and Carnildo now wants to skip about as though nothing has happened, and has never shown remorse or apologised. So I am very cross. There you have it. Giano | talk 07:38, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

==User talk:Lar==

I'd really appreciate it if you'd consider letting go of that conversation. We're starting to tread into the realm of blockable civility violations (WP:CIVIL obviously) and he's already changed his response. Further taunts and namecalling might end up with the result of suspension of your editing privilages. If you feel the need to reply, please do it here. ~Kylu (u|t) 00:47, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

So long as my block log unjustly and ridiculously accuses me of hate speech I will not forgive or forget. So please take your veiled threats elsewhere. As long as Carnildo keeps re-applying to be an admin I will continue to defend myself. Giano | talk 06:28, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, that certainly convinced me to hasten over and register my opposing vote. "Treading the realm of blockable civility violations" indeed! --Wetman 09:23, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Yet more splendid behaviour. Giano gets a civility warning (and rightly so), so you rush over to oppose Carnildo? Where's the logic? --kingboyk 12:41, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

• Well let me tell you, I find being accused of hate speech pretty uncivil. I find still having "Hate Speech" on my block log uncivil, and having Carnildo still refusing to acknowledge it was uncivil or apologise for his incivility very uncivil. So I suggest you take your further accusation of my incivility somewhere they will be more appreciated. Or are you too planning to block me to shut me up? Giano | talk 12:55, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Since you asked

Hi,

Regarding Carnildo's RfA, when I said all parties behaved badly, I meant precisely that. Everyone might have handled the matter more sensitively, realizing that the subject was emotionally-charged. As Jimbo himself said, the situation originated over "one stupid userbox." In tense times, escalation of one's rhetoric is often a poor choice, even when provoked by another. You might have responded to being blocked less angrily; indeed, from your questioning of my generalization to your conversation with User:Lar today, it seems clear that you lack the ability to view this matter dispassionately, even six months after the fact. This is only my opinion, of course, but I consider calmness a virtue in nearly every circumstance. This is a flaw I see in your conduct. Best wishes, Xoloz 05:37, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Spot on. I do not view it dispassionately or calmly. How would you like through through Carnildo's arrogance and stupidity and bad judgement to have a block log labeling you unjustly a user od "hate speech" Six months later I still have it - are you even aware of that?

Do you really want someone else to be labelled with an unjust wiki criminal record. "Hate speech"- that is criminal in many European countries including UK, and very unpleasant, it is also slanderous, a word we are not allowed to use on Wiki (I use it guardedly - without making, or insinuating any legal threats) However, In real life such a slur would finish my career, the very stigma, however unjust - dirt sticks - do you really not know that? It means if ever interviewed by the press, I can never announce that I have edited Misplaced Pages, because the dirt would be dug up. It makes Misplaced Pages a dabgerous place to be.

Then you have the audacity to come here defending and wanting an admin who goes around brandishing that term with no justification and no remorse. This is a very public forum. Do you think that will encourage new editors, or those prominent in their fields to remain? - Do you think that is good for the project? Giano | talk 06:42, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I think your block entry is unjust and should be expunged. See this VP entry and please consider supporting it, perhaps something could be done developmentwise. ++Lar: t/c 11:37, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I am not allowed to speak to you, in case Kyly of the Kindness Campaign banns me. Please go away. Giano | talk 12:43, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

That is an incorrect characterisation of the warning you received, and I believe you are well aware of it, and are merely stating it that way for dramatic or rhetorical effect, but this is your talk page, refactor my words away completely if you like, with my blessing. I nevertheless do think your block should be expunged. ++Lar: t/c 13:46, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Lar is being nice here. You should be as concerned about your future block log as much as your past block log. However badly you feel about past incidents, it is no excuse for current bad behavior. As long as you remain civil from here on out, you can conduct any conversations you want, please don't mischaracterize incivility warnings as some sort of gag order. NoSeptember 13:55, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

What's an "incivility warning"?

The term "incivility warning" is new to me. Have the authors of the warnings above considered that incivility isn't a block reason? Please see WP:BLOCK. Are you really claiming that Giano is disrupting the site — posing a threat to it? Also, I ask Xoloz and NoSeptember to please not take a purely technical or numerical view of incivility. Read your own words, look into your hearts, and please tell me if you would feel civilly treated if you were to receive admonitions as pompous as those you have placed on this page. Bishonen | talk 16:08, 30 August 2006 (UTC).

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Eternal Equinox

This case is now closed and the result has been published at the link above.

Eternal Equinox (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) is placed on Probation and personal attack parole for one year.

Jim62sch (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) is cautioned to avoid teasing or taunting sensitive users.

For the Arbitration Committee. --Tony Sidaway 13:35, 30 August 2006 (UTC)