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 03:41, 18 July 2009 (→Question: Answer). 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]

I was curious to see the last 500 edits made by this Georgewilliamherbert. They were rather as I had expected, only more so. Not viscerally encouraging, to put it diplomatically.--Wetman (talk) 05:01, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, that's what one finds. I beleive he is a profesional Admin. However, following my "invitation" to join the "think tank" I doubt my own humble efforts to content are any better. I have come to the conclusion on Wikipedia one either talks or does, the two combine are not compatable. Giano (talk) 06:42, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, I unblocked you Giano. GWH indicated on ANI that his block was open to re-assessment. I left a message at ANI. I hope the turning of a new day has calmed a heated situation. Best regards -- Samir 08:32, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am interested in the block rationale of "prior blocks", because if that is maintained as appropriate then I shall immediately unblock Giano in future under the simple rationale of his extensive unblock log - or, you do get some muttheads coming out with the most ridiculously contrived rationales... LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:59, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes well that's as may be, but it is getting even sillier now [8] Sandstein has now blocked RioRob, who had already blocked himself - (I am quite lost) - really if two grown men cannot have the ocasional swear at each other - the other was clearly not that bothered without all this nannying - then what is the world coming to? Giano (talk) 13:05, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Off2riorob hasn't blocked himself because he isn't an admin, silly Giacomo. Though I agree he deserves to be, for his devotion to civility and truth! [9] Bishonen | talk 14:43, 17 July 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Well he said he was blocking himself, and had been talking about blocking everyone else; how on earth am I supposed to keep track of who is an admin and who is not, it seems most people are these days, at one time one noticed people writing pages and being arownd the place for a year or two and then they became admins. Today, one sees someone for the first time pontificating on ANI and the next moment they are on the ArbCom. Nothing surprises me here any more. Giano (talk) 14:55, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As you seem to be a technological marvel these days, you might try pasting in the code from here into your monobook (someone more techy than me can probably provide the link). It has the effect of turning all admin signatures a cyan colour, so you'd know if someone is just threatening or actually has the buttons. --Joopercoopers (talk) 16:10, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I use User:Splarka/sysopdectector.js personally, but that only works viewing the actual userpage or usertalk. I can install either if you would like G. MBisanz talk 16:17, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh yes please, that would be a good idea and very useful, can I have the one that turns them cyan, it would be very handy to have them all flashing blue, then I could be nice and kind to them and tell them how clever they are - think of the drama it could save us all, not to mention all those peope who like to stay up all night to watch the drama unfold live while I'm in bed - I wonder why they do that, perhaps they only come out during the hours of darkness.
checkY done –Juliancolton | Talk 17:21, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh you are blue too are you Julian? - how amazingly clever you are, to think that I know so many clever and important people all with true blue signatures, seems it's only poor old JC and me that dont flash blue - i suppose that in itself tells a story. Giano (talk) 17:30, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[Slightly threateningly.] No no little Giano! Little users not use or abuse cyan for admins! Is bishzilla uniquely handsome sig colour! bishzilla ROARR!! 17:33, 17 July 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Oh you are here are you? I thought you had been humanely destroyed for sockpuppeting - this is my personal think tank and you are not an Admin - I only like Admins - such an intelligent race - monsters and the like are unwelcome. Giano (talk) 17:39, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was under the impression one needed a licence to keep exotic pets, and that creature is unlicensed. I hate to say it, but sometimes one feels poor little Mrs Bishonen is not as responsible as she should be, in many ways Mrs Bishonen reminds me of my newest dearest friend Lucy she too had a penchant for the exotic, had we met and edited Wikipedia before our untimely deaths I'm sure we would have been a cause celebre - bringing lust to even the dullest admin. Whatever I am digressing, can the signatures be changed to royal blue? If so one of you many and dear Admins may nominate me to join your exclusive club - I feel the time is right for me to share myself Lady Catherine de Burgh (the Late) (talk) 17:59, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have this talent. I take an evening off attempting to stir up drama on the 'Boards and abusing my sysop powers to rejig my archives - and someone decides to go through some sort of rite of passage by blocking Giano for one of his interchanges with other editors who are quite familiar with his usual discussive style... I think I was also previously engaged when Giano was blocked (since both Her Bishness and Ogre G E are disallowed from adminstering to Giano blocks, can this be entirely coincidental? I digress...) also. Should there be a next time it would be interesting to see if there is a pattern. Anyhoo, I have now moved all 12 of my talkpage archives into 1 rather long time loading very historical archive (over 1 GbMb of pleasant discussion and bewildered befuddlement, and a couple of good jokes) and started collating my more recent wibblings. I had wondered how I could advise the community of these epoch achingmaking events and, wonder of wonders, this happens. I call it a talent, but others may believe it a curse. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:19, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    A 1 gigabyte archive would be a sight to behold. Yours are less than 2 Mb, though ;p –xenotalk 19:36, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Did I post gB? Oh, the shame - I meant mB. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:53, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My thoughts entirely Mr Van U, poor dearest Giacomo (my favourite and most dearest nephew) is just so put upon - how the good must suffer. Hence, I have decided to become an Administress myself, so that I can become his guardian angel and unblock him when necessary and save other the trouble - can I count on your support? PS: I'd sue that barber if I were you. Lady Catherine de Burgh (the Late) (talk) 20:24, 17 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]

I rather think we have been smoked out in recent days. Giano (talk) 06:43, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There are some useless ruminations going on here. But I doubt anything will come of it at this time. Still, no harm in trying.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 12:03, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It'll be back. Thx for the link Ghost. Novickas (talk) 14:38, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If anyone wants a suggestion for how to set up a council, I'm the man to see. I have a stunning plan that would, I think, be fair and avoid power. It's entirely reasonable, or as entirely reasonable as social objects can be ("Out of the crooked timber of humanity, no straight thing may ever be made," Immanuel Kant). It will, therefore, gather no support at all. Still, if anyone is thinking about getting a running start at this hurdle again, I have such a thing in the can. Geogre (talk) 03:41, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hepatorenal syndrome

Dear Giano, I would like to ask for your help. Please help me fix hepatorenal syndrome. My sleep deprived prose is now resembling that of lesser primates (i.e. grunting sounds, mashing the keyboard with non-opposable thumbs). It's up at FAC and is so close. I know you probably have a brazilian other things to edit (and this is outside of your usual sphere of interest) but I would so appreciate the help of the master of beautiful prose. Thanks so so so much. (In addition to my eternal thanks, I'll even send you a second goat to replace the one that was on your other user page!) -- Samir 03:24, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, that one is truly beyond me, I am not good with blood and insides and things. My advice to anyone and everyone writing Wikipedia is to stick to a subject you undertstand. In an effort of collaboration. I did try to read it through, but when I came to this picture File:Esophageal varices - wale.jpg - I felt a little unwell myself. However, it is clearly very well written and informative and I think it is fantastic that someone with such a grasp of the subject, takes the time to write at Wikipedia - one page like that is worth a billions of some of the others. Congratulations and good luck, I'm sure it is FA standard already. Giano (talk) 06:51, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
God love ya. Thanks for peeking at it -- Samir 08:22, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, the other thing is that when I read medical pages, I start to think I have the same symptoms - I wonder of other people are like that. Giano (talk) 08:25, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That would depend on the last time you read a medical page; I felt a bit off colour last weekend - can you recall whether it coincided with your above reading habits? LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:22, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
LOL. You're a funny guy. Bishonen | talk 21:09, 17 July 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Polite distance

Giano, let's put this behind us. Have set aside other work to restore an architectural image and requested your early unblock. It is not acceptable to resume with these comments[10][11][12] before the term of the original block is even over. You don't need to give thanks or apologies. Just retract the accusation about "the truth" please, because the personal attacks you wrote last night were untrue. You may have believed them but you were mistaken. If you don't wish to accept an olive branch then let's shake hands and walk our separate ways politely. Durova279 19:40, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Durova, as you have come freely and uninvited to this page, I will respond directly to you. Where I come from, olive sprigs are cheap and plentiful. I have no intention of giving thanks or apologies. The truth is you were 100% responsible for writing this. It is a foul, vile and lowly document full of lies, blatant mistakes, naivety and crass stupidity, while amusing many it caused immense distress to one editor and shamed the project, those who received it and those who ignored it. Had it been written by a child or teenager, 18 months later one could have forgiven and attempted to forget - it was not, it was written by you, an adult. No one asked you to write it, no one wanted you to write it - you just wrote it and then sent to God knows how many people (we have never been told the members of that secret Wikipedia group) and had that editor banned. Why you did that is a mater for your conscience alone, that you still continue to work in Wikipedia is fine, your work in images is remarkable. However, that you still like to talk in authoritative sagely tones, proffering your opinion all over the project is a matter for others to consider and evaluate, but I chose not to shake your hand or condone your opinions. Giano (talk) 21:01, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Concourse
  • Been having trouble uploading at full resolution, so these are compressed files. Will try to follow up with the full deal.
    Been having trouble uploading at full resolution, so these are compressed files. Will try to follow up with the full deal.
  • Restored.
    Restored.

The lengthy ANI thread re: your self

I've taken the liberty of now archiving this. No admin intervention is needed and a general air of misery is being created through well meaning intervention by others. Simply, it had its time. I felt it courteous to notify you. Very Best. Pedro :  Chat  22:15, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Completely agree with you, it was all getting rather tedious wasn't it. One wonders why poor Slim Virgin bothered to start it. Never mind, no harm done. Giano (talk) 22:17, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And thank you for your email, my apologies for not replying - busy in that Real Life thing. Pedro :  Chat  22:20, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Giano. If you have a moment could you review my post here. I'm not overly happy about getting forced into being the deal maker here, but I guess it's now come to that. You thoughts on a simple resolution would be, shall we say, helpful. Pedro :  Chat  23:35, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And Giano, for what it's worth I've just deleted basically the entire thread over on the talk page of the RfC. As I said at Durova's talk page: "I don't hold out much hope that somebody won't come and revert me, but you never know. I've done this without, I hope, suggesting any particular support for any "side" in this matter, but rather to provide a clean(ish) slate." --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 23:38, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it didn't last. Oh well. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 00:15, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:GiacomoReturned&oldid=302715372"