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 11:45, 19 July 2009 (→‎Stop it: What would be nice is a relief from hypocrisy and reform). 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:

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)[reply]

Stop it

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

  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:GiacomoReturned&oldid=302931729"