User talk:Giano

	Campaign for less bull more writing. This user believes all admins must have written at least 2 featured articles before being considered for adminship In addition they should write one featured article per year to retain their status
	We are here to write an encyclopedia

Old messages are at

Please leave new messages at the foot of the page

Carnildo-style admins vs. hard-working editors

Oh my god, I see that the split between wikilawyering admins and writing editors of WP is getting ever wider. Please check Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Discretion blocks by admins for related discussions. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 08:20, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Request

Please remove the statement which says that you will not pay as much respect to admins who don't write 1FA per year. This is per the Wikipedia guideline WP:TPG, which states that "...treat the other person in the discussion as a fellow editor, who is a thinking, feeling person, trying to positively contribute to Wikipedia, just like you". Done by Kelly Martin.

Oh, and I'd appreciate it if you removed the personal attack about me on your archive 6 - unfortunately, I used the generic {{civil2-n}} template, which happens to mention edit wars. I didn't imply that you were creating edit wars, as this was a misfunction of the template. If it would satisfy your needs, I will edit the template that I added accordingly. Oh, and please limit this discussion to this talk page, and not mine, to keep this discussion progressing logically. Daniel .Bryant 08:39, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the bit which I unintentionally accused you of. See this diff. So, if you wouldn't mind, remove the personal attack you made against me User talk:Giano/Archive 6, so this issue doesn't have to go up the WP:DR chain any further than I need to. Daniel .Bryant 08:41, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel, I consider it insensitive of you to use templates for established users at all. It's offensive in and of itself, besides the fact that this time they made you say things you didn't mean (they're of course likely to). Please consider using human language for communication. I also think you're speaking Newspeak when you say the "issue" will "have to" or "need" to progress up the dispute resolution chain unless your demand is obeyed. No, it won't need to go anywhere. You might want to take it somewhere. That's different. Please consider whether you really feel it necessary to resolve a "dispute" in an archive, Daniel. To me that looks simply punitive. Bishonen | talk 10:18, 5 September 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Again, your opinion, however WP:NPA doesn't distinguish between archives or not. All someone has to do is remove it, and I will go. Not before it is, though. And if you have such a probelm with all the warning templates, why not TfD them all? Daniel .Bryant 10:23, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't be a dick. Cheers, Ghirla ^-трёп- 10:28, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't realise that enforcing Wikipedia policies now constituted acting like a "dick". Maybe I should heed your advice and, say, totally ignore WP:VAND...which is more suitable to be tagged as "acting like a dick" - following Wikipedia policy, or vandalising? Daniel .Bryant 10:40, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No definition of being a dick has been provided. This is deliberate. If a significant number of reasonable people suggest, whether bluntly or politely, that you are being a dick, the odds are good that you are not entirely in the right. This situation needs to cool down, the slight against you was just that, a slight. Apparently (and amusingly) it appears that one's "dickiness" can be attested by a vote. I second Ghirlas motion and respectfully ask you to modify your dicky behaviour. Thanks --Mcginnly | Natter 11:08, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I could "modify" the personal attack so it doesn't exist, and I'm sure that my "dicky behaviour" would "modify" with it. Daniel .Bryant 11:12, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]