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

File:Animalibrí.gif

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 and thoughts:

• A few thoughts on writing Featured Articles
• A few thoughts on Wikipedia (unfinished)
• One of the reasons I seldom make proper edits these days. and it seems many others too

Please leave new messages below

[1] Don't worry Jack, I knew all the time!  Giano  20:40, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I figured that out ;) Cheers, Jack Merridew 01:32, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Last Rites

Have you noticed? There isn't a single soul prepared to run in the ritual humiliation that is RFA. Perhaps you can breathe new life into the process. If you need a nomination, I'd be happy to oblige. --Joopercoopers (talk) 00:35, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

No thank you (kind as the thought is) I would not get in, I don't hold the necessary credentials. Whatever, I'm presently tired of Wikipedia (and not here much); it's a body that does not like being told the truth and likes too often to shoot the messenger and then goes shamefuly quiet when the blindingly obvious truth unfolds. I am sick to death of wincingly painful lower middle class civility taking priority over morals, ethics and honesty. So, thank you, but I truly beleive Wikipedia's "leaders" and "frontmen" are in a class of their own, I have no wish to join them.  Giano  08:11, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Please

I have avoided this page for a long time but this is really kicking someone when they are down. David is not a "troll", and I don't appreciate you calling him that. You do great work around here, I just wish you did not occasionally throw a spiteful comment out in the middle of high drama, it is not helpful. I imagine you will simply revert my request for you to be more civil as you have done in the past, I will take that a acknowledgment of my message. ^Chillum 14:19, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

His message was trolling, I doubt very much that he loves me any more than I love him, or do you know something that I do not? He is also very far from "down" more riding on the crest of a wave, I would have said. I won't revert you Chillum as you are always welcome here to prove my points. If there is "high drama" then it is certainly not of my making. If you wish to block me for incivility then please do so, but my post (immediatly above this section) to the editor wanting me to be an Admin seems even more wierdly prophetic than when I posted it some days ago. I can see I day arriving, when I shall be implored to be on the Arbcom just to restore some confidence and trust; something currently in very short supply.  Giano  15:48, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I am not here to block you, it is not about policy even, it is about how we treat each other as people. I am trying to implore you to not do these things, person to person. Just treat people with a basic level of respect, even those who you are upset with, even those you disagree with. Trolling is when one intentionally attempts to inflame a situation by baiting an emotional response, there is some of that going on in that thread by more than one person but I sincerely think David is trying to deescalate the situation. ^Chillum 15:53, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Chilum, you are being even more simplistic and trusting than usual. This situation is not going to de-escelate and such posts as this should be causing huge clanging alarm bells to ring in your ears. As a person who only asks questions to which I know the answers, I recognise in John Vandenberg a similar trait. Interesting times.  Giano  16:03, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I am not disputing that others are also making unhelpful comments. I have found my simplistic and trusting point of view has served me well over the years, it is a trait I am proud of. I agree these are interesting times for Wikipedia. Thank you for not reverting me, it is nice that we have both made this sincere attempt to communicate and to some degree have succeeded. Have a nice day. ^Chillum 16:33, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

• Ah but we differ too much, you find John Vandenburg's comment "unhelpful" I regard them as as "enlightening." You want a backward looking Wikipedia ruled by a sinister authoritarian group banning people for uncivility and writing the truth, however unpallatable that may be, and I want a bright, light progressive and intelectual encyclopedia contributing to modern education. Have a nice day too, enjoy the sunshine, I suspect we are in for a some very dark clouds in the New Year.  Giano  16:42, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Hello Giano. Sorry to butt in. Does the David Gerard issue and the Arb resignation have anything to do with the mistaken oversighting of your comments a while back? What came of that eventually? Or this solely about comments posted elsewhere based on Gerard's using his checkuser powers and the events that followed that? I'm just trying to follow along.

There are interesting issues involved, but it's time consuming to try to keep track of it all.

I found your above comments very on target and insightful. Ultimately I think plodding along in article work and carefully picking battles to try and keep a few of the candles from blowing out completely is the best we can do. Rooting out the corruption, collusion, dishonesty, and abuse would be a full-time task, and then we'd be accused of failing to do article work and banned completely (an expectation that admins are immune from apparently). Anyway, take care. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:45, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

• I have no idea if they are connected, I would not have thought so, but who knows - my own experience of Arbs and Bureaucrats oversighting my edits remains (almost a month later) as unexplained and arrogantly ignored as the major questions in this current fiasco. The only thing I know for certain is that no one will press Gerard to answer this question [2] and that we have lost a very honourable and good Arb and Wikipedia is a poorer place for it. In January, we will have a new Jimbo-Picked-Arbcom who will re-instate Gerards "rights" and anyone who dares to question will be villified and/or banned. This is one of those rare occasions when I would love to be proved wrong, but I know I won't be - sad.  Giano  20:46, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

• As far as I can see, these events are totally and completely unrelated. Prodego ^talk 21:48, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Yep, and the Bureaucrat who went shopping on IRC for an oversighter on RLevse's behalf is still unnamed and free to carry on. Anyway, I expect that has all taken second place now, it seems there's little to chose between them. Quite frankly, I'm not impressed by the Arbcom they all lined up behind JohnVandenberg and signed their names, then when the shit started to fly, he looked behind him and they had all disspeared along with their signatures. How can one respect anyone who behaves like that?  Giano  22:47, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Thought you might enjoy the lulz

Hey G, you know the WP:EEML case, how web brigade members have complained about their emails being released into public domain. You may get some lulz out of this edit, in which a brigadier has copied their email into mainspace. Quite telling is Piotrus saying that FloNight has shown her true colours and other such nonsense. Well, I thought you would appreciate the lulz that these guys still don't get it. --Russavia ^{I'm chanting as we speak} 22:56, 3 December 2009 (UTC)