Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by SAJordan (talk | contribs) at 02:30, 24 December 2006 (Not a threat). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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

Architecture notability

To counter spurious time consuming AfD's, I've had a stab at a draft policy for architectural notability here. I've attempted to restrict the scope of the proposal to actual 'works of architecture', architects, building technology and legal aspects of the profession. Buildings and structures notability enmasse should probably be a separate enterprise, or at least a later one. I need to give some thought to threshold notability and have shied away from minor works by major architects, because buildings are not like music or literature, they cannot generally be ignored by the public and play some kind of role in most built environments, so I argue the impact is beyond just they're effectiveness or otherwise as a work of art. Comments (by anyone) gladly received. Cheers --Mcginnly | Natter 21:35, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

the dreaded infoboxes

Disruption

Giano, I am 57 and this is just obnoxious. Your persistent incivility has passed the point of being disruptive. Please stop now. Tom Harrison 22:49, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Slim nice request there they have plotted this on IRC I have all the logs. It was one hell of a mistake on their part. Now it is payback time. Giano 23:10, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh yeah almost forgot some food for thought - Kelly Martin is now editing again - as a sock - anyone besides me know who? Just a little taste of things to come Giano 23:25, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Giano, no paybacks. Come on. Having the logs is perfectly licit, of course. Posting them would not be. I'm quite sure that Kelly is editing. Although it would be deceptive and hypocritical to claim to have left and yet not, she wasn't blocked, so there's nothing to that, except that a user whose behavior was corrosive, in my view, is still here. If the behavior has changed, then there's no big deal. It's always the actions. If you really do want to go after the misuse of IRC as a parasite on Misplaced Pages, then I think the best way is to just do so frankly, with a policy or guideline proposal. On that, I would be happy to help. However, there is no reason to go down to the personal and petty world of the small minded people who care so much about their online pride that they have to go looking for the insults that they constantly fear. Such attitudes as that are pitiable, if obnoxious. You can't cure them, and neither can I, of the sorts of insecurities that make them glom to "avatars" for the succour they lack in their real lives, and so the only thing that matters, the only thing that can be demonstrated, is actions. Geogre 04:30, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I think Geogre is giving good advice here. Food for thought is nice but I often prefer food for eating, can we have some more pleasant Giano cuisine? Some nice piping hot Arancini? Or some frutta di Martorana? How about a nice mint raison and blood orange pie? Paul August ☎ 21:40, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

You are highly valued

You are a highly valued and respected editor, and I love you for it. But really, I hope that at least for the next 72 hours, you will agree to be calm and non-attacking while we ALL sort out the difficulties that have emerged. Good people are fighting, and that's unfortunate and sad. I unblocked you, even though I did agree that the block was fully warranted.

In April I will be visiting Taddy Belcher in South Africa. He is the head of Cida City Campus. What is this? It is a free (free as in beer) university which serves the poorest of the poor in South Africa. People who live in shanty towns can come there and get a free education. Thousands of graduates are making a better life for themselves through Taddy's work. Can we support him? Can we, in our own small way, make a beter world? Yes. And so my point is, those who are angry with you, AND YOU, can try really hard to put aside your differences and recognize that our work really can matter to the world. Let's try to do it in an atmosphere of peace and love... all of us together. --Jimbo Wales 00:30, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Dear god, sorry to disturb you. First, thank you for unblocking and acknowledging a fine contributor. Second, may this wikipeon humbly suggest you repeat your appeals to civility, good faith and reason, on the IRC channels #wikipedia and #wikipedia-en-admins, where much of this trouble seems to have originated. Perhaps a manifestation here ,where a new firestorm is brewing, might be helpful also.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 21:18, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Hummingbird!

Awwww, cute!

Nice choice of image. DS 01:38, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, it's a rare Italian love bird, I find it soothing. Giano 17:45, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Request

Dear Giano,

I noticed that you have a lot of experience with getting articles to FA status. I have been working on the Ohio Wesleyan University page article and am trying to get it to FA status. I was wondering if you could provide some advice on how the article can be improved? Also, any contributions to it will be even more appreciated! Thank you so much for your time! I greatly appreciate it! WikiprojectOWU 01:55, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Not a threat

Giano, if it would help to have another viewpoint, please hear mine, about Peter saying,

"Giano, I would suggest you didn't do that without permission. The reason is alluded to above. If you give out information given in confidence without the permission of all involved, then there could be legal implications, and I certainly wouldn't want that happening with anyone here."

I interpret that as not a threat by Peter to anyone, but rather as expressing Peter's fear of a lawsuit by those quoted without their permission, under laws against violations of privacy.

Yes, that means the public discussion of how decisions are reached here is being made subject to the permission or forbidding, even by whim, of those involved in private discussions. Yes, that contradicts the whole concept of open governance and open records. Yes, that forsakes transparency for opacity. Yes, it's wrong to have such decision-making discussions kept secret.

But that isn't by Peter's doing or choice or decree. He's looking ahead to how other people might respond, not threatening to take any action himself. Please don't take that as a threat by Peter. – SAJordan _contribs 02:30, 24 Dec 2006 (UTC).