User talk:Giano II: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Giano II (talk | contribs)
→‎Closure?: No closure
Giano II (talk | contribs)
Just in case any of you were stupid enough to think that the Ombudsmen was there to protect your privacy, he's not he's just anither IRC Admin
Line 32: Line 32:


*[[User:Giano/On civility & Wikipedia in general|A few thoughts on Wikipedia]] (unfinished)
*[[User:Giano/On civility & Wikipedia in general|A few thoughts on Wikipedia]] (unfinished)


== Interesting diffs ==

[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AJimbo_Wales&diff=253381541&oldid=253286147 Just in case any of you were stupid enough to think that the Ombudsmen was there to protect your privacy]






Revision as of 12:34, 22 November 2008


Old messages are at:

Essays:


Interesting diffs

Just in case any of you were stupid enough to think that the Ombudsmen was there to protect your privacy


Please leave new messages below

A black Friday indeed

My dear boy. Thank you for your moving and tender report of the funeral of Lady C. After reading only the first few sentences I was shuddering with emotion and could barely see the screen through the tears streaming down my face. Nancy talk 15:51, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. A sad day for us all, and we must still brace ourselves for the final descent, which takes place later this afternoon.Giano (talk) 15:53, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm quite sure I shall be unable to bear it, I feel an attack of the vapors looming. Nancy talk 16:25, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize.

hello Giano,

I... was deeply and quite sincerely surprised that you pulled the nom of Winter Palace. I want to say something, and I hope you'll hear me and believe me. I meant no harm whatsoever by the humorous comment. I believed—and still believe— that the joke about Britney Spears and cowbells conveys not even the vaguest molecule of insult or disdain. I did not have any thoughts that harm would result. I have exactly zero-point-zero beef against you. I intended no animosity, nor lack of respect. I sincerely hope you will accept my apologies, if it made you feel less than comfortable or welcome. Ling.Nut (talkWP:3IAR) 18:23, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, I took no offence at all. I just decided that I would prefer to write to my standards in future rather than other people's. It's as simple as that. If every other sentance now has to be cited, and cited to books that have receied a "scholarly review" published on the internet, then FAC is no longer the game for me.Giano (talk) 18:52, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Mmmm. I am very happy and relieved that my remarks did not offend you. I... mmm. I know you are suggesting that you don't wanna participate in FAC, and of course I respect that decision. Good luck in all you do. I... believe... that everyone who has been on Wikipedia for longer than a month or two knows that you are a superlative writer. As for cites, well— you really may not believe this, but I actually do completely see where you are coming from. But that would be a long and potentially boring conversation, so I'll leave it for another day. Ling.Nut (talkWP:3IAR) 19:04, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Closure?

Hiya Giano. Just letting ya know, I hope Arbcom takes the David vs Giano case. I won't be getting involved there, but I sure will be watching. It might be the Trial of the Wiki decade. GoodDay (talk) 23:25, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't look like it's going to happen. Giano, just a public thought. Remember how I said that when I think you're right, I'll back you to the hilt, and when I think you're wrong, I'll say so? I'm at both points right now. I think DG was absolutely wrong (I changed that word several times) to block you in this case, and right now, he doesn't have my confidence to retain his administrative status, never mind checkuser. I was the 2nd one to state that in the arbcom case, minutes after Moreschi filed it.
But what you're doing... it's not helping you. It might allow a release of frustration and anger from the way you've been treated, but you're allowing others to point at you and redefine the situation away from the way you've been mistreated to your behaviour. There are those out there hoping to make you lose your temper so publicly that they can point at it and say "See! It's justified! Look at the trouble he's causing!"
I'm not saying you don't have the right to be angry, because you do. Heck, I'm even angry, and I wasn't the one blocked! But I'm just saying for you to turn down the volume just a bit. Focus it in. Yelling on everyone's talk page is not going to get the change you want, man. SirFozzie (talk) 00:32, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you Fozzie. If I don't yell the Arbcom puts this under its already filthy carpet. There can be no closure at all on this while Gerard is still allowed to violate editor privacy by abusing his checkuser rights. I am not alone in thinking this, but I do feel alone in vocally wanting this problem properly sorted. The Arbcom have wanted the matter silenced and swept under the carpet from the first moment they knew. What their motives were for this, one can only speculate; what the hold is that Gerard exerts over Jimbo and the Arbcom one can only speculate too. The ARbcom has done nothing to solve this problem. One or two of them send me "soothing" emails saying they understand, but in public they have the balls to do nothing. It has been suggested to me that I should run for Arbcom, having first announced that while it would be impossible to be accepted and appointed by Jimbo, a vote for me is a vote for those to register their disappointment at the way the project is currently being run. If one ran a business like this, one would be bankrupt. To me at the moment Wikipedia seems morally bankrupt. Perhaps I should run, I don't know. If I don't run - I hope those that agree with me will vote instead for those unafraid to say what changes they will try to implement for the better. A vote for the likes of Matthews and Forrester is to maintain the status quo. Forrester, is even now denying he owns IRC (Remember: "I...er..own the channel" said so smugly) , but refusing to deny that he would accept an appointment against the majority vote[1]. Are we a buch of automatons or fools to put up with this? Such a situation cannot be allowed to continue. We do the work - we have a right to a say and to be treated fairly and properly. Giano (talk) 10:08, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Random Goofballs

Pay no attention to the random goofballs who post flippery on your talk page. Uncle uncle uncle 04:15, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I don't, I revert them. Giano (talk) 09:41, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]