User talk:GiacomoReturned

The Wikipedia philosophy can be summed up thusly: "Experts are scum." For some reason people who spend 40 years learning everything they can about, say, the Peloponnesian War -- and indeed, advancing the body of human knowledge -- get all pissy when their contributions are edited away by Randy in Boise who heard somewhere that sword-wielding skeletons were involved. And they get downright irate when asked politely to engage in discourse with Randy until the sword-skeleton theory can be incorporated into the article without passing judgment.

—Lore Sjöberg, from "The Wikipedia FAQK"

This, the funniest thing I have seen on wikipedia, was stolen from DreamGuy

Userboxes

PC-0This user is politically incorrect.

File:Animalibrí.gif

Please note there is now a designated area for complaining about me here (I do check it from time to time). This talk page is now only for important and interesting matters. Giano (talk) 11:36, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

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)

Essays:

• A few thoughts on writing Featured Articles
• A few thoughts on Wikipedia (unfinished)

I had previously believed you incorruptible

However, your decision to remove my (well founded) allegations of the late Madame de Burg - or whatever, the names of the dead are difficult to recall - using tradesmens tools in the consumption of crustaceans appendages has sorely tested my beliefs! LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:07, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

• My table manners are impeccable. You are probably the sort of person who eats asparagus with a knife and fork while slurping noisily from the finger bowl Lady Catherine de Burgh (the Late) (talk) 23:12, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

• Madame, you obviously mistake me for a juggler! LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:17, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Stop it

Really. Your point is well taken, don't make it too pointy. Black Kite 10:35, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

• I have only just started. I am not stoppng until he is blocked! Admins stared and ignored that post for hours - do you see me saying cockfucker? Just imaging Sandsttein, Herbert and their friends if I did - they would be racing to block and a thread half a mile long of others wanting the block extended. Giano (talk) 10:36, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

• I have already made that point on the ANI thread. I would point out that stuff posted at that time on a Sunday morning regularly get ignored for hours - the US are out partying and the UK is asleep - just look at the backlog of ANI threads I closed this morning. You are going to achieve nothing by martyring yourself by edit-warring on the ADCP thread - so yes, you're right, take the moral high ground and keep it. Black Kite 10:39, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

• Rubbish. They would be racing eacjh other for their names to be on my block log - it is like a super barnstar for them - and he is still not blocked - so that does not hold water. Giano (talk) 10:41, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

• He's still not blocked because throwing in a block now would be punitive rather than preventative, and if someone had blocked you for something similar 9 hours after the event I would unblock you as well. Now please let it go while you're still ahead? Black Kite 10:47, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes well, tell me about punitive blocks - they don't noramlly seem to worry Sandstein Conolly and Herbert do they? Whats so different with you all now? Never have I seen Admins display their rank partisan biasednees so much before. Giano (talk) 10:49, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

What are you trying to achieve here? You've already made your point - you are completely correct that DT's comment was out of order, I've warned him, it's been noted very visibly on ANI. Yes, I know it looks like double standards but you'll have to believe me on this one - if I'd seen that comment at 3.46am this morning I'd have blocked him, but I'm not going to now. And I'm pretty sure that goes for most admins as well. If someone else wants to drop in and block him now then fine, but it would be hypocritical of me to act differently on this one from how I would normally. Now can I unlock the thread and be confident you aren't going to keep removing Wehwalt's posting? Black Kite 10:54, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

There was no need to a warning to mention my post which was informed and quite true. Giano (talk) 10:55, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

If Wehwalt's warning is struck or removed, then I won't need to take matters into my own hands. Cock sucker is not in my vocabulary it is grossly incivil and insulting by anyone's standards. If you think it is OK it's for comments like that to stand then you are not the person I thoyght you were. Giano (talk)

OK, I've removed the entire sub-thread and unlocked it. That seems like a reasonable compromise. Black Kite 11:02, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, it is pity I have to battle so hard to acheive what is quite reasonable. Now all that remains is to know the real reason why no admin was prepared to block an editor who refers to another edoror as a cock sucker [1]. Perhaps Sandstein, Connoly or Herbert or one of the numerous others would like to start the ball rolling. Giano (talk) 11:04, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

You know how I feel. I think all of these fascination with "dirty words" is brain damaged. I think it's hypocrisy. I think it's absolutely right that you're pointing out the hypocrisy, and I even told Jimbo that the real joy he was going to have with his mandatory 3 hour blocks for any admin using a dirty word for a regular editor, which he said was policy, was that they were going to get to block each other. Of course, it would be delightful if the buffoons learned from this and tried, for once, to act appropriately. It would be delightful if they've repented and recanted. So, if they don't believe in an instant block for a word that the movie Bull Durham says will cause the instant ejection of any manager from a baseball game, then let's see some change of heart. That would be the really desired outcome: people to realize that "civility" is not words, and this fascination with words is an insanity that can only lead to witch hunts. Geogre (talk) 11:45, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

My own personal civility policy only has three fairly easy to keep and simple rules [2] that post breaks three of them. In my book it was very uncivil and the usuak admins ignoring it was suspicious in the extreme. Giano (talk) 11:51, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

BlackKite, nothing personal, but most blocks are punitive, not preventative, that are given because someone used a bad word with somebody. They're punitive because the blocking admin has no idea if the editor in question is going to use another bad word again within the next few minutes or not. Many other blocks are also punitive. That's one of the problems with Wikipedia's admin policies is that it forces our admins to distort things by saying that all of their blocks are preventative, when actually many, if not most, are intended to be corrective in nature, which is close to the same thing as punishment. I don't necessarily think that there's anything wrong with punitive blocks, but our policies need to be updated to address the issue so that our admins don't have to keep talking out of both sides of their mouth about it. Cla68 (talk) 12:47, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

• Well, I just get tired of the rank double standards and pretence, certain admins just chop and change their stance depending on who they are dealing with and what their own personal viewpoint is. What it proves beyong doubt is that, in truth, they are not really in the least bothered about civility standards. They just use it as a convenient and handy weapon to silence those advocating opinions that don't fit with their own - which is what I have always maintained. Giano (talk) 13:07, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, you're right, I think the point I was making is that I could've constructed a reasonable argument at 3.47am that such a block would've been preventative, whereas 8 hours later, with no intervening edits by that editor, it is not possible to do so. The problem is that since many admins issue such blocks depending on many other factors such as how egregious the insult is, whether it's a pattern of behaviour, and the context in which the comment is made, it's always possible for someone to say "X was blocked for this, but I found this example where Y wasn't blocked for exactly the same thing!". And it doesn't help that the text in WP:BLOCK which says "Blocks are used to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, not to punish users. Blocks sometimes are used as a deterrent, to discourage whatever behavior led to the block" is basically contradictory. Black Kite 13:10, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

No. Admns use civility to silence those whose opinions do not co-incide with their own. Today, that has been proved 100%. It has set an important precedent and left the civility policy in tatters and destroyed. Giano (talk) 13:20, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

What "civility policy?" I don't care that I've said it before: it remains the case that the "civility policy" says that we ought to be nice. Heck, no one disagrees with that. We should be forthright, thrifty, and brave, too. The only part of the policy that has anything to do with blocking is that it says that in extreme cases a person might be blocked for bad behavior. Under any reasonable circumstance, it's easy to understand what that means. Heck, I was here at the time, so I know what it means. It's true that people weren't using many bad words back then, but it's also true that the policy was aimed at attack accounts. I.e. that clause was designed for trolls, for flame warriors. There is a gap of a few dozen light years between a contributing editor who gets upset and a flame warrior. In fact, many of the people going about looking for people they can call uncivil are flame warriors. Of course the enforcement is hypocritical, because the people involved are flame warriors using what's at hand, not people worried about the tone of conversations. In some cases, they may, in fact, be so allergic to free speech and have such antibodies to disagreement that they themselves can't see the difference between "makes me look bad" and "violates the law," but, in those cases, we're just dealing with immature people. We should never underestimate the number of those there are, no matter their ages. Geogre (talk) 13:31, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Well put George! Just for that I won't report you to the Robot Council for your blasphemy earlier against our automated overlords.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 13:44, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Resolved

I am glad that the matter has been settled, or at least finished with. I am now going to tell you - and the audience that I am fully aware of - why I did not block, warn or interact with Doc Tropics in this matter. The fact is, I am livid that anyone should use or consider the term "cocksucker" as a pejorative phrase - I have as friends many women and not a few men who are cocksuckers by choice and habit, to differing degrees of skill and enthusiasm doubtless. My reaction to Doc Tropics comment was a wish to block him indefinitely for homophobic hate rhetoric within a breach of WP:CIVIL; obviously I am not permitted to do that, because the ill defined policies and guidelines that gets you warned and blocked for making personal observations upon other editors/admins actions and comments yet not someone who uses despicable language that both targets one editor and denigrates the sexual choices of two different genders and orientations. Since I cannot block another editor for being ignorant of fostering hate in their stupid remarks I realised that I could not judge impartially (difficult enough when it involves you, anyway) Doc Tropics choice of words.
I do agree with you, though, that the non actions of certain admins who appear all too eager to hold you to the very smallest punctuation mark of whatever policy they deem that you have transgressed have done them no favours. That only I, and possibly a few others likewise who felt unable to act, are not even inclined to consider the potential damage to the community in allowing terminology that vicimises large members of it to pass unremarked is even more damning. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:33, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, if we were to block for "uncivil language," and I do not believe in it, then it would apply to any term of opprobrium, and "cocksucker" is a longstanding term of abuse, even among populations for whom fellatio is not a practice held in contempt. I.e. the word is a term of abuse, whereas "blow job queen" or "queer" or some other explicit reference to homosexual or heterosexual fellatio is not. Gay men would use "cocksucker" as a term of insult. Therefore, being held back by that is overly refined, because it isn't a literal term. In fact, "cocksucker" has no more literal meaning than "fucker." Certainly, it's no insult to call someone a fucker? I should imagine that biology and society both conspire to endorse our all being fuckers. The same with being "jerk offs," to some degree, if a recent article in Slate is to be believe (msn.slate.com), which argues that masturbation is a compulsive behavior among all mammals and most animals. Therefore, it's inappropriate to look at the literal value of the term for discerning the social value of it. I should be proud of being called a "fucker," although I would, sadly, have to correct the record and say, "Alas, not in a while, but one remains hopeful." Geogre (talk) 00:21, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Truly, it's all in the context. For withering opprobrium, I've rarely heard anything to beat my late mother's delivery of "middle-class".--Wetman (talk) 05:36, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Wetman - as awithering goes that is pretty withering. As I say in my own essay on the subject of civility: [3] "Wikipedia has transformed nice pretty middle class genteel manners into a weapon which must be used to conceal the truth and bannish integrity and personal honour" except of course in this instance they did not even manage to acheive that. I objected to that term because, I beleive, it is grossly offensive, whatever one's sexual orientation and it was used with the intention of being grossly offensive. If we are going to discuss it's meaning, I think it is meant to denegrate homosexuals and in that instance to suggest that being homosexual as an insult - so you have a double whammy. Any Admin reading it would have been aware of that - I am just waiting for the next time one of the civility police dare to challenge anyone - I think it was a very dark day because it means anything can now be said and many are less robust than me and less prepared to fight back. let's have an end to it now - until the next time. Giano (talk) 06:44, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

It seems that I am alone in my concerns that certain prejudices are reinforced by casual reference to terminology that reflects negatively upon certain groups within society; yet somehow (polite) society has largely discontinued derogatory comments that might be considered demeaning to blacks, Jews, and women. Nevermind, perhaps I have been oversensitised by my exposure during vandalism patrol to those juveniles who think it the very apex of ridicule to infer that another is homosexual... That people do not consider an anti gay (or women, or Muslim) perjorative phrase to be anything other than a jibe designed simply to elicit an outraged response is part of the problem, but it is not one that Wikipedia has any role to play in resolving - other than a few people perhaps deciding to be more discerning in their choice of epithet. Never mind, the stars can wait while we search for pearls amongst the grime in the gutter. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:06, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

WP:SHUN

The user who made the unfortunate remark to you has received his comeuppance. Could you please follow WP:SHUN and ignore him? Should he annoy you further, please make a follow up report at WP:ANI. Regards, Jehochman ^Talk 19:47, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Appreciate your comment

If you'd put half the same inventive effort into your editing, we might be further advanced in the poject.

However, be assured I am not in the least angry or insulted by you. Accordingly, though we do not seem to run into each other at Wikipedia, if I see you using language, however veiled, designed to provoke or anger others, or if it is brought to AN/I's attention, I will feel at perfect liberty to take appropriate action. Riot is illegal. So is inciting to riot. I tend to treat the two equally here on Wikipedia. And the inciter may find himself prevented even if the riot doesn't occur.

Happy editing!--Wehwalt (talk) 19:58, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

The above post by an Admin (yes, you read me write, can you beleieve it?) is in response to this edit by me [4]. Sadly, he feels calling an editor a "cocksucker" is perfectlty acceptable. You can all evaluate that for yourselves, but at least he has his name on this page now, so he has acheived a certain fame - I hope it gives him satisfaction. If he replies here, would someone please just revert him or whatever...thanks.Giano (talk) 20:13, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

He does seem very middle class! --Joopercoopers (talk) 20:21, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Frightfully mundanely so! Giano (talk) 20:24, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

One reads you write or right good sir? Because the former is my prefered choice and the play on words worthy of the independent's cryptic crossword. Pedro :  Chat  20:28, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Just so long as someone is paying attention, I'm happy. Bloody stupid language anyay, no wonder no one can speak it properly. Giano (talk) 20:33, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

You know, I've been in one riot, only one, in 1984. It was caused by the police. In 2003, I was one of 500,000 marchers in Manhattan protesting the coming U.S. invasion of Iraq on Valentine's Day, and the police began using horses to stampede elderly peaceniks into the walls. Perhaps he means to block every patrolling poltroon? Then he would only need to block himself. The use of the vile, homophobic slur was simply putting the cart before the horse in trying to lead by example. A peaceful Wikipedia is a Wikipedia without contributors. Geogre (talk) 20:34, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

• No, I think he's influenced by his friend. Anyway, let's move on, this is becoming rather dull. Wikipedia has the admins it deserves, someone must vote for them - so leave it be. Giano (talk) 20:43, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I like Wikipedia:SHUN, which was a new essay on an old technique. New Yorkers know never to fall into conversation on the subway with someone reading two books at once (I observe that one is invariably the Bible) and muttering "cocksuckers cocksuckers cocksuckers...". ---Wetman (talk) 18:19, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Architecture

Actually I was here for a different purpose. I've been thinking about how the architecture article might be salvaged from it's current incoherent ramblings. Half decent top-level articles are as rare as hen's teeth - Law is the only one I could find, it's a masterpiece of concision in my view, but the subject has a number of inherent advantages over architecture. Not least, it's essentially a ruleset and so comparatively easy to quantify and also the 'global scope' isn't as diverse as architecture. When I talked to the author (he's rather modest about his achievement in my view) and asked his advice he said getting the structure right was the most important thing - I'd kind of got that far to be honest. So I've been thinking about structure and wondering whether you or Wetman, or anyone really has any ideas?

1. Summary style - see Law, careful section headings required in order to be comprehensive. Architecture possibly lends itself less well to this approach, because of the nebulous and over-arching scope of its interest.
2. Chronological - danger it becomes the 'history of mankind', problems with point-to-point historic discussions
3. Technologically chronological - explores architectural history through technological invention - makes social ideas harder to structure
4. Geographical....fraught with too wide a scope.
5. Deal principally with the current state of major global architecture and practice as it is today with short summary sections for history etc.

I know we have Outline of architecture but it seems to miss the mark somehow - too much classification, too woolly ('essence of architecture?') - I've copied over a brief subject outline I did at CZ a while ago here, it needs some work, but might be a better start. Another start point might be to have a look and see what approaches other encyclopaedias have taken - any favourites?

Any thoughts, views, opinions? anyone? --Joopercoopers (talk) 20:45, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Re "Half decent top-level articles are as rare as hen's teeth - Law is the only one I could find" – can I just give mentions to the unlikely foursome of Poetry, Islam, Planet and Genetics (with honorable mentions for Bacteria, Evolution and Australia, too), as credit-where-credit's-due efforts to make genuinely good quality articles in the "nailing jello to the wall" atmosphere of the top level high traffic articles? – iridescent 20:50, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

oo - we have more than I thought - Iridescent - were you involved in any of these? Any advice on freeze drying the jello before application would be gratefully received. (off to read poetry....deep breaths)--Joopercoopers (talk) 20:56, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Iridescent is very good on architecture, it's how I met him - well I advised on architeture he did the page, he's what I call a do-er. Giano (talk) 20:58, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

(ec, re to Joopers) Nope – if you want, I can give my standard lecture on why I think the top level articles are the least important part of Wikipedia (people can look up Architecture anywhere; there aren't many places you can find out about Ham House or Noel Park). (I don't really do that many building articles; most of my long articles are on bridges.) User:Fowler&fowler is the one you want to be asking about stabilising top-level articles. – iridescent 21:05, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

You're probably right - but think of the children in Africa! re. Fowler. Thanks, will do. --Joopercoopers (talk) 21:07, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm with iridescent: the smaller the subject, the better the article: I thought Royal Entry was too much to handle, till Johnbod did it up so well. Ideally, History of architecture should be built up of concise summaries of smaller articles, linked to with hatnotes. But Architecture should be a report of published essays by architects, I'd think.--Wetman (talk) 05:02, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Ahem. Some of us think that the big ones are the only real challenges. The giant articles are where you get to weave a line of organization and presentation that will help make sense out of the chaos. There is no greater joy than helping a naive reader put the big mess into a rational order. It's fantastic. A real research challenge, a real intellectual exercise. Then the "where is the citation to 'architecture is about building' instead of network solutions" people come along. Geogre (talk) 11:07, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

• The only problem is that any decent book on architecture has to be transported in a wheelbarrow and most those are not comprehensive. My thought are that Architecture should realy be an index page. The other problem with an all encompassing page is stability, there will alwaus be Randy from Boise who knows that Boise's public library is worthy of a mention - not that that is a reason for not writing a page. I will think some more on this. Giano (talk) 11:22, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

• These are all problems with such aticles - and it's undeniably easier to write and maintain obscure ones, but, as the Apollo missions are all over the telly at the moment, "we should do it, not because it is easy, but because it is hard".........Really high traffic'ed articles seem to end up semi-protected anyway which usually sorts out Randy. Giano - take a look at Law, it's practically a directory with a little commentary on each heading. The key is get the directory structure right. --Joopercoopers (talk) 12:01, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

My award for daftest idea of the week

Goes to the ArbCom. Giano (talk) 14:18, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I second the nomination. Join those of us mocking this mockery if you wish.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 14:48, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

War is over, if you want it. It's a bag-in! (It's the apotheosis of drag queen slang is what it is.) Geogre (talk) 00:41, 22 July 2009 (UTC)