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
|
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:
Council on Project Development
I have resigned from the above council because I accepted an invitation to be an advisor to the Arbcom, I did not accept an invitation to fight for a seat and enter into general mayhem - I have enough of that elsewhere. In its original form I though it was an idea with possibilities - however questions asked and answered before accepting the invitation made no mention of the complete lack of forethought and goal. I also believed it was a unanimous, or at least fairly unanimous, decision of the ArbCom, it now seems that was far from the case - certain Arbs now seem to be running about like headless chickens trying to appease all sides for what now appears to have been a monumental cock up - I also get the impression that other Arbs are sitting it out with a smug expression. I have tried to stick with it, but these factors, coupled with J Wales remarks about the council being so composed that "agitants" would be voted down - have led me to the view that it's not really my scene. I shall retain my opinions and always offer my advice, requested or not, just as I have always done in the past. In fact, my talk page has been a controversial, conspicuous "think tank" for years, why swap it for a controversial think tank without power? Giano (talk) 12:51, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
- Oh, indeed. There are ways of marshaling the power of Wikipedians to understand the future and solve the problems at Wikipedia, but the worst way would be self-selection, the second worst way would be ArbCom selection by turns (the hilariousness occurring now), the third worst way would be votes. The group being floated now is hilarious, but this would be what happens if every member of ArbCom gets to pick its own favorite partisan and Jimbo gets to pick his agitants. (Oh, I'm sorry...are only people who disagree with Jimbo's fly-speck attention span agitants? Are only people against personal and opaque power agitants?) There had been a hope, back when all was vague. Now we're into the comedy of small minds and fragile egos trying to throw hammers at each other... again. An elementary school playground looks like the Academy of Athens in comparison. Geogre (talk) 19:39, 16 July 2009 (UTC)