Jump to content

User talk:GiacomoReturned

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Geogre (talk | contribs) at 00:48, 17 July 2009 (→‎Personal attacks: This is the usual ill considered nonsense). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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


This user writes Featured Articles.

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)[reply]


Old messages are at:


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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Personal attacks

Please stop personally attacking Durova. (Off2riorob (talk) 20:00, 16 July 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Discussing Durova's persecution of innocent editors is not attacking her, wise up or shut up. Giano (talk) 20:02, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your comments are personal attacks, they are not discussion. (Off2riorob (talk) 20:07, 16 July 2009 (UTC))[reply]
Tell that to the editors she drove off with her racist drivel and rubbish - or were you not here then? Giano (talk) 20:08, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, Lord, not more "personal attacks" on Durova! Apparently, everyone is attacking her. I think the obvious answer is for lots and lots and lots of people to get blocked. We can't have personal attacks on Durova. Doesn't everyone know how important she is, how the site would crumble to dust without her? Geogre (talk) 20:12, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well I don't want to see her pontificating as though an elder statesman of the site. To me it was only yesterday, that she first came to my attention because she had had banned one of Wikipedia's finst editors, who she deemd a dangerous sock - his crime was knowing German. she forwarded that knowledge to among others Jimbo and Slim Virgin - both later claimed not to have even bothered to read her evidence - However, the editor was banned - had he not been one of my close wiki-friends - she would probably have got away with it and the editor remained banned. As it was he has not returned and she still talks as though authorative - he was just ne of how many I wonder? Giano (talk) 20:25, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I saw dear old Slim Virgin on the war path again, must be tres difficult for her. Thanks. Giano (talk) 20:36, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Many of us avoid trouble by never mentioning the editor in question.--Wetman (talk) 20:28, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Very good advice, my late and much lamented Grandmother adopted the same principal to a cousin who shamed the family by entering politics. Giano (talk) 20:34, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've read the history, and thats what it is ..history, forget about your past grudges. Both of you would do well to look at yourselves instead of projecting onto others. (Off2riorob (talk) 20:30, 16 July 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Only a fool turns his back on history. Giano (talk) 20:34, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Interjecting here: Durova holds a grudge like no one else I've seen at Wikipedia. She has been at me for years for a mild comment. She pursues "enemies" relentlessly and tirelessly and consistently tries to cause trouble. When I unblocked Peter Damian after a really stupid block and a really stupid misunderstanding of the blocking policy on AN/I, she came along to my page to cite an ArbCom finding at me pertaining to Giano from over a year back, as if I were under some dark, horrible restriction. It was the height of casting aspersions, irrelevant, illogical, and done with no purpose but to try to slander, that I could see. Hell, even I had forgotten about that ArbCom thing, but Durova kept a list of black marks ready to hand to use any time my name came up, it seemed. Well, keeping black lists is not appropriate. My personal experience shows her to be a personality-driven editor, and that is disruptive. Whoever Off2RioRob is, he's here suddenly upholding her honor. As for Georgewilliamherbert, he's, interestingly enough the person who did a block before on Giano for these things. Curious that Durova, who seems to remember that case so well as to cite it two weeks ago at me, is now defended by the same person who blocked Giano before.
The "personal attack" thing is utter nonsense. A personal attack would be on the person as a person. Well, there are no people at Wikipedia. There are screen names. An attack would be unprovoked and designed to harm. It would not be designed to defend Wikipedia against abusive behavior. When users are discussing allegations of abuse, the "personal attack" thing has to go out the window, else there is no way to charge people. Imagine having a law where anyone who brings a case of law can be put in jail for maligning the criminal. Geogre (talk) 00:48, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever you think about history - the edit comments [1] [2] [3] are personal attacks, uncivil, and you've crossed the line.
That's enough. If you continue I will block you for personal attacks. You can continue to comment on the history without making abusive uncivil comments if you like. But no more attacks. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 20:40, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You have the audacity to come here threatening me for saying what is the blatent truth. You are symbolic of... well we shall leave that for others to decide. Good evening and please do not return with your threats. Giano (talk) 20:42, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

As you spurned my warning and numerous others' criticisms about those comments ( [4] [5] [6] ) and un-struck the comments after another struck them out ( [7] ), as consensus has clearly established were hostile and violations of our no personal attacks policy, I have blocked you from editing for 24 hours.

As I said above - what you want to say about the historical record is of no concern. If you chose to say truthful things in a manner which violates NPA you are responsible for that action. You could have communicated your opinion and historical facts without crossing the line into insults - and chose to insult as well. That is not OK. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 20:57, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for repeated abuse of editing privileges. Please stop. You are welcome to make useful contributions after the block expires. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below.

What a funny little man you are George William Herbert. Giano (talk) 20:59, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question

I lost track - where can I join the people crying "We want a constitution"? Novickas (talk) 22:07, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:GiacomoReturned&oldid=302518136"