GiacomoReturned (talk | contribs) |
LessHeard vanU (talk | contribs) →Courtesy notice: oh, go on, let it run |
||
Line 339: | Line 339: | ||
::*It does seem like rather an ill-considered idea MickMacNee. Who's next on your list of those-you-don't-like-and-should-therefore-be-banned? [[User:Malleus Fatuorum|Malleus]] [[User_talk:Malleus_Fatuorum|Fatuorum]] 21:53, 4 June 2010 (UTC) |
::*It does seem like rather an ill-considered idea MickMacNee. Who's next on your list of those-you-don't-like-and-should-therefore-be-banned? [[User:Malleus Fatuorum|Malleus]] [[User_talk:Malleus_Fatuorum|Fatuorum]] 21:53, 4 June 2010 (UTC) |
||
:::*Anybody else who reaches such blatant Giano levels of special treatment. So I think you are safe Malleus. [[User:MickMacNee|MickMacNee]] ([[User talk:MickMacNee|talk]]) 21:56, 4 June 2010 (UTC) |
:::*Anybody else who reaches such blatant Giano levels of special treatment. So I think you are safe Malleus. [[User:MickMacNee|MickMacNee]] ([[User talk:MickMacNee|talk]]) 21:56, 4 June 2010 (UTC) |
||
*Giano, can you please desist from not allowing me to comment upon the "right thinking editors" phrase so carelessly used by MMN - it is one of my favourite hot air balloons that I enjoy popping. There are one or two serious issues I would like to address, also. [[User:LessHeard vanU|LessHeard vanU]] ([[User talk:LessHeard vanU|talk]]) 22:32, 4 June 2010 (UTC) |
Revision as of 22:32, 4 June 2010
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
This editor will not be accepting the edit reviewer rights or having anything to do with "pending changes" - all that is changing are the rules and uses concerning them. Ultimately, it is going to lead to and immense amount of trouble and/or kill "The Encyclopedia any one can edit? [1] and more recently [2]
- And in 5 years of Wikipediaring - this has been my favourite edit [3]. The trouble is, I feel I may have spoilt the fun of someone similar to myself.
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)
- User talk:Giano II/archive 12 (From Jan 2010)
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
Pages that might be interesting to edit and improve - help yourself!
Please leave new messages below
I have been trying to email this to all my contacts, but can't work out how to do it to "send all", but it's probably best here - so read on:
Dear All,
I hope you are well - or at least some of you.
This is my first and hopefully last mass email. So some of you will find yourselves in company that you normally avoid. However, i want to publicise my latest cause: As most of you know, I have a difficulty writing and after a enduring numerous comments and jibes, I have founded Category:Dyslexic editors.
I think I have proved that people like me can write a half decent page and be respected as a "content editor" (in content at least) so others like me or some of you need to know that if they have something to contribute they don't have to be shy about their spelling, grommet or whatever, someone will sort that out for them, it's facts that matter.
Should any of you feel that you fall in to the same category, you might like to consider aiding yourselves - I am looking a little lonely there at the moment.
G
I have run spell check onthis, which is why it's so good.
- Some days, I aspire to dyslexic... LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:21, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
- Just remember, the red squiggly line is your friend (in spell checker..), unless set to the wrong country (mine always seems to end up on damn US spelling...) Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:28, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
- I don't get a red squiggly line, I get a "you have fucked up - which of these alternative do you wany moron." Anyhow, even if I got a squiggly line it would not stand out because I don't spot things like that - I read what I think and want to read and then only spot it later when reading it cold - there are many different forms of dislexia - everyone is different - and it's about time people wised up; it's no different to being gay, heterosexual or barking mad - one does not choose one just gets on and accepts the hand dealt at birth, but I am sick and tried to death of clever buggers leaving smart-ass edit summaries and wise-crack comments - so that is going t stop, not just for me, bit all the millions (I am not alone) of others too. I was lucky I always had Bishonen and many others one pace behind copyediting and covering my tracks, many others don't have them and there si no reason at all why they can't edit too - so long as they have something to offer. Just think, there are probably millions of Giano's just waiting to descend and edit. Giacomo 20:58, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
- You may be lonely in the Wikipedia category, but in the real world, you have the company of Einstein, Picasso, Edison, and most likely Da Vinci, as well as other many others who have demonstrated the ability of human creativeness to overcome difficulties. Keep producing the wonderful content; any of us can tidy up details like spelling afterwards. --RexxS (talk) 21:04, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
- Thak you Rex, indeed I have often wondered if I am not Einstein re-incarnated, I can draw far better than Picasso (very odd if you ask me - his stuff) and as for Edison, I don't need a light bulb when I walk into a room. However, as you say not being able to spell has nothing to do with IQ or ability and we are going to dispell that myth once and for all and stop the clever edit sumaries - we rightly don't insult others who are "different" so why dislexics? Giacomo 21:11, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
- re: not insulting others who are "different"....honey, you ever tried being a fat chick??? It's a great way to realize that half the world never drags their thought level out of fifth grade... GJC 22:00, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
- Glady! Women are never fat, some of them just have voluptuous Botticellian curves. Remember that. Giacomo 22:07, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
- re: not insulting others who are "different"....honey, you ever tried being a fat chick??? It's a great way to realize that half the world never drags their thought level out of fifth grade... GJC 22:00, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
- Just remember, the red squiggly line is your friend (in spell checker..), unless set to the wrong country (mine always seems to end up on damn US spelling...) Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:28, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
Suggestion
You might want to consider changing the name of Category:Dyslexic editors to Category:Wikipedians who are dyslexic. The former implies an article category while the latter talks about a Wikipedian category. The call is up to you, but I won't be suprised if someone else doesn't bring this up in the future. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 03:32, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
- It never ceases to amaze me. Well spotted. Moriori (talk) 03:49, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
- Good idea - done. Category:Wikipedians who are dyslexic. Giacomo 07:28, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
Lexdyslics of the world - untie! --Joopercoopers (talk) 10:51, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
- Tres amusant JC: What do you get when you cross an agnostic, a dyslexic and an insomniac? Someone who lies awake all night wondering if there's a dog. Giacomo 10:57, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
- I think I prefer yours. Very good. Actually, the most extraordinary minds I've known in my life, have all been dyslexic for some reason. Why are you bucking that trend? --Joopercoopers (talk) 18:11, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
- Ah, but could they be regarded as trolls and general little shits in 5 languages? Giacomo 19:18, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
- I think I prefer yours. Very good. Actually, the most extraordinary minds I've known in my life, have all been dyslexic for some reason. Why are you bucking that trend? --Joopercoopers (talk) 18:11, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
- Tres amusant JC: What do you get when you cross an agnostic, a dyslexic and an insomniac? Someone who lies awake all night wondering if there's a dog. Giacomo 10:57, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
May 2010
- Not at all. I am removeing a deliberate smear by ab Admin who has shown double standards of the highest form. If you re0instate this lie again, I shall revert. Giacomo 12:12, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
- I would rather be blocked than do nothing while Wehrwalt is allowed to peddle mistruths. Giacomo 12:14, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
- Very well, it may remain, but i shall expect appollagies from all who reverted and Wehnwalt when Xeno explaoins the truth and the comment struck!
- well you will just look rather foolish and supportive of a vindictive Admin then won't you. Giacomo 12:19, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
- Giacomo, why don't you simply discuss this with the user, rather than going in with "all guns blazing". Failing that, just put a note underneath the message saying you feel you are being misrepresented, so users reading that page will get both sides of the story, and leave it at that - Kingpin13 (talk) 12:24, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
- My vast and past experience tell me, that if I do that nothing will happen. Wehrwalt deliberatly says these things to get a reaction, so it is best to give him one. It is a lie, in no way have I attempted or indeed succeeded in fooling Xeno on any matter anywhere. Simple as that! Xeno will confirm this, or we can prove it at arbitration or in any other forum of his choosing. We will not keep having these deliberatly manufactured myths and lies about me. Giacomo 12:27, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
- First, it's best to assume good faith, not every one making a comment which you find offensive is doing it because they enjoy watching you get angry. Even if it was a purposely attempt to get at you, it's not best to give them the reaction they are looking for, it's best just to ignore them. Think about it, if they are doing it just to get a reaction, and you don't give one, they get bored, if you do give one they think "that was fun, I'll do it again". If you don't want comments like that about you, then the best way to go is not to just remove them yourself (nothing would ever be so simply on Wikipedia ;D), instead discuss it with Wehwalt, I think you'll be surprised with the results. If you explain what you feel the problem with the comment is (e.g. you feel it implies you were deliberately attempting to trick xeno into moving the rights across) he may be happy to refactor the comment. If he refuses to discuss it in a civil, productive manner, then get someone else involved. The key thing is to avoid just getting angry and edit warring over it, since that's not helping anyone. Best, - Kingpin13 (talk) 12:36, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
- We are talking of the "type of person" who feels that he is qualified to preach on civility, but also feels an editor calling another editor a "cock sucker" is not uncivil. I find that indefensible and choose not to waste my time inconverstion with such people. If they attack me, I simply revert their lies and inuendo, that is the only way to deal with such "types." That Wikipedia choses to venerate such folk as "Admins" is a complete mystery to me, but then so much of Wikipedia's double standards is that to me. Giacomo 12:41, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps your little tagger needs a dose of Alexander Pope's familiar description of the villa of "Timon", who
"Shall call the winds through long arcades to roar
Proud to catch cold at a Venetian door"
.--Wetman (talk) 19:12, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
- I'm afraid where "my little tagger" is concerned I have a complete sense of humour failure. There is only one thing I wish for him at a Venetian door - and it involves a splosh! Giacomo 19:34, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Please don't do this
This edit removed the comment of another editor without justification and included a personal attack. You know not to do this kind of thing having been round the houses on WP:AN/I more times than I've had hot dinners, so don't repeat it or you'll get blocked. Fences&Windows 15:06, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
- If you block me for that, I will make sure that the entire of Wikipedia realises what a bullying disgrace that Treasury Tag is. He solicited an unlawful block and is currently harrassing another editor. Take you sanctimonious defence of his comments and place them somewhere approtiate and go away! Giacomo 15:19, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
- Fences and windows, please see the unprovoked personal attack of TT against me here, where he links the phrase "I will not be engaging further" to DFTT. It was one of the nastiest attacks I had to endure in all of my time here, and that does not happen often at all. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 16:57, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
- I am afraid DrK, that your attacker is a rather vindictive person, one only has to read his dialogue here [4] to see how having solicted and obtained a block, he was so smugly keen for it to remain. I find that very distasteful, I'm quite sure others do to. The people who love to moann and complain about me delivering the truth in a robust fashion really should concentrate on the less onvious, but infinitly worse forms of Wiki-behaviour. Giacomo 17:03, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
- I noticed the solicitation even before you pointed it out. I find these actions distasteful as well. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 17:07, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
- I haven't looking into this in depth, but I do think it would be worth pointing out a few things. Firstly, Dr.K, there's no need to dramatise this, being called a troll isn't a particularly severe attack, and is no worse than Giacomo calling TT a bullying troll, so I don't quite understand why you are trying to condemn TT Giacomo. Giacomo, you really need to stop removing other's comments, there was nothing (that I can see) wrong with the comment you removed. Simply disagreeing with another editors opinion is not a reason to remove their opinion, and is not at all how Wikipedia works, if you continue removing other's comments you may find yourself blocked. Please take a read through WP:TALK to better understand how to contribute to discussions in a collaborative manner. Cheers, - Kingpin13 (talk) 17:17, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
- Kingpin13 please do not presume to lecture me on what constitutes a grievous personal attack and unprovoked at that. I am not used to being called any terms from internet harassers and I have not been thus far except on this incident. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 17:23, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
- I'm not encouraging TT's calling you a troll, but saying it's one of the nastiest personally attacks you've suffered doesn't really help, since it's a borderline attack, and not at all serious (it's actually very common for much worse attacks to be given out, this isn't as rare as you imply, you've been called worse), and secondly telling Fences about it isn't the first thing you should be doing, try discussing it with TT, since it's so minor, it doesn't really require immediate admin action. As well as that, complaining about another editor calling you a troll, while accusing that editor of being a "internet harasser" could seem rather contradictory - treat others how you wish to be treated. - Kingpin13 (talk) 17:32, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
- If you count vandals and SPAs maybe I have been called worse but among established editors I do not recall any such insult, so do not try to minimise the magnitude of the insult. I also think I have the right once attacked to define the type of character who would do such a thing and calling them an internet harasser I think fits and it is not contradictory but rather expected self-defence. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 18:28, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
I would have been happy to block TT for that comment if you had shown it to me at the time. Prodego talk 17:43, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
- yes, I'm sure, but no one ever actually does - do they? admins are always wise after the event, as Norton has found to his cost. Giacomo 17:44, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
- @Prodego: Thank you very much Prodego. I appreciate your nice gesture. Take care. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 18:34, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
- Giano, I so very nearly blocked you for this. Get the hint about WP:NPA or I will block you. You can make your points without attacking people. Poor behaviour from others is not an excuse for your own poor behaviour, as WP:NOTTHEM explains.
- Giano, Dr. K, if you have a problem with TT's comments to you then raise it with him or at WP:WQA. I am making no defence of TT's comment or actions; I have previously stated at AN/I my belief that his actions towards RAN could constitute harassment and have just suggested an interaction ban. Fences&Windows 17:45, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
- block for the truth! oh go away and take your foul little tools with you! If half of you spent as long thinking as you do playing with your tools Wikipedia would be afar better place. Giacomo 17:47, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
- @Fences: Thank you Fences for your comments. Although a new admin, I find you to be very competent and fair and I have seen you around for some time now and I was impressed with many of your comments. I also agree with your proposal of an interaction ban between RAN and TT. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 18:49, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
- Just a note that I agree completely with Fences, those kind of comments are not acceptable, this is not the venue to be attacking and complaining about TT. Giacomo, saying it's the truth doesn't make it okay, it makes it worse. There is no need to express your hatred towards another editor here, regardless of how justified or unjustified it may be, it's possible to raise issues about or with an editor without resorting to simply attacking them. - Kingpin13 (talk) 17:56, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
- Indeed, if Lady de Burgh were still with us she would comment that your warning might save several admins from moral turpitude or even blindness. Jehochman Talk 18:02, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
- Indeed Lady C may well say that. Howver, Kingpin is correct, this is not the venue for attacking. A great pity that so many clever and wise people looked the other way when it was happening to Norton yesterday. Now go away before I really become uncivil. I suggest you don't return. Giacomo 18:06, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
- Just a note that I agree completely with Fences, those kind of comments are not acceptable, this is not the venue to be attacking and complaining about TT. Giacomo, saying it's the truth doesn't make it okay, it makes it worse. There is no need to express your hatred towards another editor here, regardless of how justified or unjustified it may be, it's possible to raise issues about or with an editor without resorting to simply attacking them. - Kingpin13 (talk) 17:56, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Please do this
Keep up the good work. Too many editors (though a very small % overall) on wikipedia become insane hall monitors, and there's little way for them to even understand how badly they are behaving, because the "good side" is usually too proper to call them out on it.--Milowent (talk) 17:21, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
- I agree. There are things done in the name of wp policies and rules that when looked at from a wider angle constitute bullying and harassment. Distasteful and condemnable behaviour. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 17:30, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
- Funny 1986 essay on hall monitors for those unfamiliar with the US school practice.[5]--Milowent (talk) 17:39, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
- I think we have seen some real progress today on Norton's behalf. People now seem to be looking agains and realsing that all is not what it may have seemed. It's just the same old problem: the less well known editors are easier to drive off and victimise than the likes of me. Could you imagine if I uploaded my old school foto, anyone daring to nominate it for deletion; we see photos of people on 1,000s of user pages that the uploaders clearly cannot have taken themselves. This is a nasty episode made more unplesant because if I had not shouted loudly the victimisation would still be going on unnoticed. Wikipedia's admins should be ashamed of the last 36 hours and looking to how thay can exert a duty of care and look beyond their precious overused tools. Giacomo 17:46, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
- Your action at ANI was badly needed. The treatment of RAN by SPAs, socks and others over the past week has been shocking. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 18:40, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
- Well they are trying to close the thread now, but what I think was most dispicable and vile of all was even his user page image "me in Sweden two years ago" was nominated for deletion. Why was that? Any reasoning behind that little gem? Are all user page images to be nomonated for deletion. Here is a friend of mine (typical of a 1000 pages) File:Jeanne Griffin 1974 makeup style.jpg doesn't look like she took that one herself - does it? so why just Nortons user page image. Some people has a great deal of explaining to do, and I won't rest until I have heard it. Giacomo 18:46, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
- It was clear and unwarranted harassment on a grand scale, and from multiple sides. User:Wikidemon on a previous ANI thread about the SPA sock user:Ocean Mystic Researcher harassing RAN, had asked how could RAN be more beleaguered than he already was and how could this stop. I have never seen such emotional violence being perpetrated, in such a short period of time, on an established user in all of my over four years here. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 19:11, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
- I agree, it shocked even a hardened campaigner like me. Seems to be the way wikipedia is going though, drive away anyone you take a dislike to. Malleus Fatuorum 21:25, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
- I know someone has just nominated another of his pages in the last our or so, it's horrible. He needs a few friends right now. Some of his stuff probably is not notable enough, I have just left him this message [6] to try and take the pressure off. It's easier for us, people know us (yes you too Malleus) so we are not such easy targets. These people just want to distress rather than offer a solution and so the leser known editors go under whereas we "the better known" have a whole crew fighting the bullies on our behalf. It's just like the school playground without the responsible teacher keeping a watch. Tres nasty. Giacomo 21:33, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
- I pointed this out to Claritas, the nominator, and they agreed to hold-off for a few days. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 21:58, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
- There is indeed a deep unfairness here Giano, and it's undoubtedly true that some admins will be less likely to take on either you or me, especially you, even when perhaps they ought to. It's no secret that I think most of wikpedia's policies were designed by smackheads thinking about the most effective way to run an infants school, but those smackhead ideas are what the kiddies are taught to believe. The only way that can be changed is by rational adults tearing down the absurd WP:CIVIL and by rationalising the equally absurd WP:NPA. Malleus Fatuorum 22:55, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
- I dunno, it's rather like smacking one's head against a brick wall. I didn't think any culture permitted what we have seen today and yesterday (it actualy looks like I was late to the party and it had been going on for days) - Treasury Tag is still commenting and voting delete amost as we speak and no one is lifting a finger to stop him, not even the Arbs who are so say monitoring the situation. Note Brad advised himto back off yesterday. Wikipedia is a jungle run by a group of blind methodisy and Baptist old ladies - I can see no other explanation. Giacomo 23:02, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
- Funny 1986 essay on hall monitors for those unfamiliar with the US school practice.[5]--Milowent (talk) 17:39, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
- Giano is perfect, thank you so much to him for bringing this to light, blah blah blah. We all get it. Now can we drop the "all administrators are scum and should be ashamed of themselves" line? Not one person brought this into the public eye until today. Sysops don't have telepathy, so criticising us is unfair and pointless. Go ahead and do it if you like; I doubt anybody gives a toss. Just don't come crying, Giano, when next time you "shout loudly" and are ignored. People are willing to be treated like crap only for so long. We made substantial progress with this issue today, and, as is said elsewhere in this thread, the issue is (very rightly so; don't get me wrong—I'm pretty displeased by this whole thing) receiving proper scrutiny; it's just a shame that that progress is poisoned by comments like ones made here. Direct your energies instead at supporting Richard, because from what I gather this issue is far from over. AGK 21:48, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
- You Admins had you chance to scrutenise this over the last few days and failed. Instead "admins" chose to template the user with threats [7]. Yes progress has been made today, and yes you looked at it - are you Wikipedia's only Admin? Are the rest unable to read? (that would not surprise me). The reason it was looked at today was because I made one hell of a stink! Had I not, he would be languishinging and even more persecuted right now. And don't forget, people wanted that thread closed from the moment it opened and I did not see many other reputable admins there at all - did you? I expect nothing from admins - nothing. Giacomo 21:55, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
- You do realize that the "last few days" have been the Memorial Day weekend in the U.S? Many of the usual U.S. based admins were on holiday. Yworo (talk) 21:58, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
- Fascinating - and the rest of the world? The rather lage place outside of the USA? Giacomo 22:03, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
- (edit conflict × 2) I wonder if the low presence of uninvolved administrators had anything to do with you mouthing off about how all administrators are useless, corrupt, and spineless? But I take your point. Not many people offered comment. The job got done anyhow. We can't do much else (it can't be proven conclusively that Treasury Tag did or did not nominate Richard's files for deletion out of malice; and AGF must prevail) here, so TT's promise to recuse from interaction with RAN will do for now. If he breaks that then we can look at an interaction ban or something else to make everybody act like adults. AGK 22:08, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
- And for how long do you feel this promise will last [8].
- Probably, that's why i kept out of all the thread yesterday, while the responsible Admins dealt with it or are you suggesting they feel the same way about all those commenting yesterday? Giacomo 22:12, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
- You do realize that the "last few days" have been the Memorial Day weekend in the U.S? Many of the usual U.S. based admins were on holiday. Yworo (talk) 21:58, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
- Giacomo, I thank you for your intervention. FWIW, my absence there was quite deliberate, because I thought the situation was being adequately handled by the removal of the AfD requests, and there was no actual need for my involvement in the part I can do best, which is afd/Deletion Review. I was unable in other contexts to help the last few people I tried to help--though this is in some part because they did not follow advice on how to deal with the matter. But I find that it is apparently not true that I am as impervious to criticism as I seemed to think I was, and the repeated failure has considerable upset me. I hope that when next needed the feeling will have passed,and I will treat it as additional experience that will make me more effective. Am I wrong is seeing some parallels? DGG ( talk ) 22:38, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
- Dunno about parallels! I was not actually criticising you, but I suppose generally speaking my experience of admins has not been a possitive one. I find it horrendous what was allowed to happen, I thought I was immune to be shocked by what I see on wikipedia, but thi has truly shocked me - Stifles horrible templating post on Norton's page, Treasury Tags succesful soliciting that terrible wronfful block and gloating to Gwen Gale who should have known better gagging him - yuk. Had he been more high profile it would never been allowed to happen. That is the disgrace of all this. Giacomo 22:48, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar | ||
I hereby award this barnstar to Giano for almost single handedly turning the tide against a gang of ill meaning socks, admins and editors who were harassing a low profile but highly productive editor and who prior to Giano's intervention had hoodwinked majority opinion into condoning them. FeydHuxtable (talk) 13:18, 3 June 2010 (UTC) |
Just to say thanks for helping to restore faith in wikipedia with your noble intervention. (Not that im asking for you to carry on, as it would be too high a price for you to be blocked, and it looks like enough has been done to raise the profile of this issue so justice can prevail.) FeydHuxtable (talk) 13:18, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
- That's very thoughtful and kind, I have not had one of thos for ages. thank you. Giacomo 19:10, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Closing statement
B didn't write anything except "closing". The Wiki software included the current title of the section when editing it as a section. Sheesh. Yworo (talk) 20:48, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
- I beg to differ: "Requestor consents to closing thread, nothing good is going to come out of this --B (talk) 20:36, 1 June 2010 (UTC)." - Actually, quite a lot of good came of it. Do you have something useful to tell me? or would you like to misrepresent some more facts? Giacomo 20:53, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
PS: and "sheesh" to you too! Giacomo 20:55, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Response to your odd and rather threatening query
No one suggested that I nominate an article for AFD or told me to do so. I saw at AFD several articles of very dubious notability which had been closed after a few hours because the nominator was said to be a sock. That is fine but it does not establish notability of the articles, and some of the articles seemed to clearly fail the applicable notability guidelines, so I nominated them for AFD. Thanks for asking. Edison (talk) 22:21, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks for replying. Giacomo 22:25, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
A littl gem
This a lovely edit Stifle [9] templating an established editor already under stress and duress with threats of a block. You must be very proud of yourself. Don't you ever dare to criticise me again, in my conduct, I am worth 10 of you. Giacomo 21:39, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
- I will criticise whomever deserves criticism, thank you. Now kindly butt out of other people's conversations; Mr. Norton has been online over these past few days, if he has an issue with my conduct he is more than capable of taking it up with me. Stifle (talk) 08:08, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
- I should think he is completely intimidated by you! As you clearly intend him to be. For an admin of long standing, your conduct is inexcusable. Giacomo 10:52, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
- In the event that that is true, which is denied, I shall be happy to deal with you or whatever other advocate Mr. Norton chooses if he notifies me of such choice. I strongly suspect, however, that it is his preference that the matter be left be, rather than stirred up. Stifle (talk) 14:30, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
- Stifle, the only people who would not like this matter stirred if you and your cohorts. Until I well and truly raised this issue's profile yesterday, you and they were getting away with your abhorent bullying behaviour. That somehow Gwen Gale and other (usually rational) Admins allowed themselves to be fooled and dragged along is puzzling, but looking at the smoke screens and shrieks you were all kicking up, not altogether surprising. Well fear not, I am keeping a close eye on this situation and will be doing so until it reaches what I consider to be a satifactory conlusion, a conclusion which at the moment it appears to be steadily cruising towards. So, I suggest you go off and do whatever it you do here and leave Norton and his works alone. Giacomo 14:41, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
- That I will gladly do, and have in fact been doing for most of today. I strongly suggest you do the same rather than injecting yourself into others' disputes. For the record, I must deny having been involved in "abhorrent bullying behaviour" and would point out that I have assisted RAN prior to this whole thing kicking off, offered to assist him again, and warned TreasuryTag; I do not operate in a black and white world and deal with users based on their actions, not their identities and beliefs. Stifle (talk) 14:46, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
- Stifle, the only people who would not like this matter stirred if you and your cohorts. Until I well and truly raised this issue's profile yesterday, you and they were getting away with your abhorent bullying behaviour. That somehow Gwen Gale and other (usually rational) Admins allowed themselves to be fooled and dragged along is puzzling, but looking at the smoke screens and shrieks you were all kicking up, not altogether surprising. Well fear not, I am keeping a close eye on this situation and will be doing so until it reaches what I consider to be a satifactory conlusion, a conclusion which at the moment it appears to be steadily cruising towards. So, I suggest you go off and do whatever it you do here and leave Norton and his works alone. Giacomo 14:41, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
- In the event that that is true, which is denied, I shall be happy to deal with you or whatever other advocate Mr. Norton chooses if he notifies me of such choice. I strongly suspect, however, that it is his preference that the matter be left be, rather than stirred up. Stifle (talk) 14:30, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
- I should think he is completely intimidated by you! As you clearly intend him to be. For an admin of long standing, your conduct is inexcusable. Giacomo 10:52, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
- Your warnings and offers of help are mere shame-faced backtracking. Now unles you would like somemore home-truths I suggets you stop posting here. Giacomo 14:48, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
- I'm sorry you feel that way. In fact, you will find that I assisted RAN in finding a correct file tag well before all this kicked off; not a lone example. Again, I deal with users based on their actions, and if something I do turns out to be incorrect, I will rectify my behaviour. Stifle (talk) 14:55, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
- Oh dear, I had hoped this was not going to be necessary: You and some other admins joined in a mass kicking session of one editor. An editor who is known for being mild and pretty meek, but had upset Treasury Tag. Having tormented him, blocked him, deleted his pages and nominated even his user-page image for deletion you all thought you were all getting away with it. You Stifle were in the thick of it voting and templating like mad. Then along I came very belatedly and made a huge stink and others started to take an interest and view what had been going on - and lo and behold we find mass harassment and bulying. That now with the full glare of spotlight you and others now seem to be deserting the odious Treasury Tag ([10][11] refs for odious) and keen to help Norton is to be commended. However, do not expect me to be fooled for one second. You have trashed your own reputation, don't come here trying to restore it. You will get no sympathy or understanding on this page. Giacomo 15:27, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
- I do not, and have never, expected either sympathy or understanding from you; I just wish we could get along more. I am not going to attempt to disprove any of your allegations, as I don't expect you will accept what I say. I genuinely do wish to be on your "good side", although I don't expect I will make it there. You could help matters by moderating your words somewhat; you are entitled to dislike people but need not shove it down everyone's throats. Stifle (talk) 15:50, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
- Many people find me very easy to get along with. Many Many in fact. Basically, apart from when dealing with traffic police and taxmen, I am a very honest person and I don't suffer fools and hypocrisy at all and I do not speak in the language of an 18th century courtier at Verailles. If you want to get on me, you will find it very easy, you just have to meet the criteria. Giacomo 15:56, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
- I think I share most of those criteria. I also think that if a person rectifies their improper conduct, it is worse than had the conduct never happened but better than persisting in the said conduct. And whilst I speak French, I also don't speak in the language of the aforementioned courtier.
- If the criteria to meet include "do not enforce policy", then I am unable to meet them; otherwise it is likely that I am. Stifle (talk) 16:01, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
- Giano: Strike or remove your slurs against Treasury Tag. Criticise whomever you like, to whatever length you like; but don't abuse them. If you think that referring to another contributor (irrespective of how questionable his edits are) as "odious" is acceptable on this project, you are mistaken. AGK 17:32, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
- Giano gave two diffs as reference for his "odious". Odious simply means "hateful" and Giano merely makes the error of applying the quality of the actions to the person. Giano actually hates the actions, not the actor, as AGK is doubtless aware. I suggest an end to this thread.--Wetman (talk) 18:02, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
- We shouldn't have to play semantics: 'odious' is a totally inappropriate adjective to use in reference to one's peer. It means repulsive or very unpleasant. I really wish Giano would just make his points without using slurs like that; it pains me to play "civility police" (though I'm sure some of my colleagues enjoy it very much :)). AGK 18:42, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
- Giano gave two diffs as reference for his "odious". Odious simply means "hateful" and Giano merely makes the error of applying the quality of the actions to the person. Giano actually hates the actions, not the actor, as AGK is doubtless aware. I suggest an end to this thread.--Wetman (talk) 18:02, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
- Giano: Strike or remove your slurs against Treasury Tag. Criticise whomever you like, to whatever length you like; but don't abuse them. If you think that referring to another contributor (irrespective of how questionable his edits are) as "odious" is acceptable on this project, you are mistaken. AGK 17:32, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
- Many people find me very easy to get along with. Many Many in fact. Basically, apart from when dealing with traffic police and taxmen, I am a very honest person and I don't suffer fools and hypocrisy at all and I do not speak in the language of an 18th century courtier at Verailles. If you want to get on me, you will find it very easy, you just have to meet the criteria. Giacomo 15:56, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
- I do not, and have never, expected either sympathy or understanding from you; I just wish we could get along more. I am not going to attempt to disprove any of your allegations, as I don't expect you will accept what I say. I genuinely do wish to be on your "good side", although I don't expect I will make it there. You could help matters by moderating your words somewhat; you are entitled to dislike people but need not shove it down everyone's throats. Stifle (talk) 15:50, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
- Please do not refer to me as TT's peer. He is not a peer and certainly not my equal. I am quite capable of deciding what is "odious" behaviour and what is not. Thank you. Giacomo 18:57, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
- Of course you are. Just don't use labels like 'odious'. AGK 19:07, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
Blocked
You're blocked for 16 hours for making personal attacks[12][13] (news flash: referring to a user as 'odious' really is not allowed!). In repeatedly denouncing all Wikipedia administrators as useless, spineless, and incompetent, you seem to have come to think that it's also acceptable to insult specific editors; this is wrong. I'm sorry to see that you weren't adult enough to avoid causing me to play civility police. AGK 19:06, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
- Since when is Giacomo's opinion about somebody a "personal attack"? It's a personal remark, for sure, but an attack? No. Just because it is negative and you may not agree with it, doesn't make it so. Aiken ♫ 19:22, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
- Be quiet you odious cretin. … Not nice, is it? Labels like 'odious' aren't appropriate on a project that thrives on collaboration and on people behaving like adults. (I seriously don't think you're either odious or a cretin, btw.) AGK 19:24, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
TreasuryTag has a history of disruption, baiting, biting and edit warring across over a dozen articles using 4 different account names and has been blocked for it by over a dozen different administrators.
TreasuryTag block log
Rambutan block log
Porcupine block log
Circuit Judge block log
Treasury Tag's behavior invokes in me strong dislike, aversion and intense displeasure. The behavior actually is [14] Uncle uncle uncle 19:28, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) A very bad idea, actually. It's a shame that the expression of dissent is a job we can give to somebody who will do it without making personal remarks, as otherwise Giano wouldn't be blocked today. As it stands we can do without comments like the ones he made; this I don't see changing at any point soon. I'm presently going offline until tomorrow so I'll reply to any more comments then. AGK 19:30, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
- Your block is way beyond reason AGK. Over the last 24 hours I've been told repeatedly what a disagreeable person I am, but I suppose that because it was a series of administrators venting their spleens and not Giano, that was OK. This playground is pathetic. Wake me up when you start to apply the same standards to your "peers" that you do to others. Malleus Fatuorum 19:31, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
- Giano (or Giacomo, whichever) says things as they are. He's not afraid to hold back his opinion. This does not make him a bad editor, or a threat to the project. Blocking solves... what? Blocking prevents... what? He's going to come back, probably angrier than before, and won't be changing his ways. Only in extreme cases of negative personal remarks (such as libel or racism) would a block be acceptable, especially on a long-term editor. Aiken ♫ 19:35, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
- Long-term editors are (or at least, should be) held to the same standards as everyone else. If the account had 20 edits and said things like that, they would be blocked without further thought. The WordsmithCommunicate 19:40, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
- Would they? Why would they be blocked? Offering an opinion is not a "personal attack". no matter what you may believe. Malleus Fatuorum 19:43, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
- If it's my opinion that you're a (insert multiple profanities here), that's not a personal attack? --B (talk) 19:46, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
- You can't really compare new editors to veteran editors. Giacomo has been here many years, contributed thousands of edits, and he is going to get treated differently to a new editor - precisely because he isn't new. Aiken ♫ 19:50, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
- Would they? Why would they be blocked? Offering an opinion is not a "personal attack". no matter what you may believe. Malleus Fatuorum 19:43, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
- I'd call it the straw that broke the camel's back. Giacomo has achieved his desired result. This is called passive–aggressive behavior - if you spend your life screaming that "admins are abusive" and picking fights at every turn, eventually someone is going to tire of it and block you. If it hadn't been AGK today, it would have been someone else tomorrow. Giacomo, you need to assume good faith and not pick fights over everything. Sure, there are people with agendas, but most of us just want to do what needs to be done to keep things running smoothly and don't really have a dog in the fight. --B (talk) 19:45, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
- You appear to be looking at this through admin blinkers. All this has done is to confirm the view that administrators do indeed act capriciously, stupidly, and one-sidedly. Malleus Fatuorum 19:48, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
- In what way is blocking somebody for calling another editor odious 'stupid'? AGK 10:57, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
- Strange you should object to the 'stupid' - shall we take it as read you accept the capriciousness and one-sidedness on the ground they're not so 'personal' - that pretty much sums up what's wrong with the civility policy. --Joopercoopers (talk) 11:07, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
- Insulting and wrong, all in one sentence. Quite an achievement JC. AGK 13:02, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) I note that Malleus did not refer specifically to your block as 'stupid'; only that some administrative action confirm his view that some actions are stupid, etc. I would not go so far as to call it stupid; that would be uncivil of me, and probably inaccurate. However, it could be argued, given the context of many editors' indignation at RAN's recent treatment, that feelings were running high. It might have been anticipated that blocking Giano, rather than calming the situation, could lead to further drama. In those circumstances, I hope you wouldn't be offended if I opined that making the block, then logging off could be construed as 'unwise'. --RexxS (talk) 13:09, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
- Strange you should object to the 'stupid' - shall we take it as read you accept the capriciousness and one-sidedness on the ground they're not so 'personal' - that pretty much sums up what's wrong with the civility policy. --Joopercoopers (talk) 11:07, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
- In what way is blocking somebody for calling another editor odious 'stupid'? AGK 10:57, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
- You appear to be looking at this through admin blinkers. All this has done is to confirm the view that administrators do indeed act capriciously, stupidly, and one-sidedly. Malleus Fatuorum 19:48, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
- This block is absolute odious bullshit. Until Giano stepped up, horrible things were being done in the name of the project. TT's behaviour, while not using the term "odious", was indeed odious. One should not be punished for artfully offering social cues to those who desperately need them to learn how to interact successfully with the human race. I have only done this once before, but I feel I have to do it a second time: I am going on a hunger strike until this block is ended.--Milowent (talk) 19:49, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
- I think that's a little over the top, Milowent. Aiken ♫ 19:51, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
There is something seriously wrong with the system when the editor who energetically targets another editor through mass deletion nominations and equally energetically insults other editors who in good faith participate in these AfDs gets a free pass and the editor who defends and champions the rights of the victim gets blocked for using unsuitable epithets. It is a clear message that such unprovoked, gratuitous and aggressive behaviour and emotional violence on a semi-epic scale targeted against a single, meek and hapless editor is allowed as long as it remains underground and undiscovered but for purely cosmetic reasons mere words will be used against you and get you blocked. In the process some people will be enjoying the show from the sidelines. I suggest that this awkward display of power be reversed. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 20:23, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
- Well said. TT put up an editor's own picture of himself on his userpage (and many other pictures) for deletion, in obvious retaliation for disagreeing with him in AfD. Did he earn a block? No, he earned hand-wringing and "oh that's not quite cricket" responses.--Milowent (talk) 20:33, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
Some editors are so odious that not one of the administrators on Wikipedia would ever want to unblock them
The official Wikipedia banning policy has stated: "Some editors are so odious that not one of the administrators on Wikipedia would ever want to unblock them." [15].
- When are the editors determined to be odious?
- Can you only call them odious after they are banned but not before they are banned.
- Was Giano too early in calling Treasury Tag odious?
- Should he have waited for the administrators to determine if Treasury Tag was odious or not before he stated his opinion on the matter? Uncle uncle uncle 20:42, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
Me blocked and odious shenanigans
Regarding Richard Norton and my block, it seems that bullying, harassing, intimidating and making another editor's life complete hell are permissible. Admins illegally rollbacking his edits and voting for even his user-page image to be deleted are permissible. While this is all going on, it is permissible for him to be wrongly blocked (gagged) as a result of repugnant and odious soliciting by his enemy (for mild, innocuous comments made on another project). When that block is deemed on ANI to be very wrong, it is permissible for him to be templated mercilessly, for hours on end, and further of his pages nominated for deletion. Beam me up, up out of this, in the strange world I inhabit, to attempt to make another person feel he is worthless shit is "odious." I stand by every word, and believe me, if I were not glacially in complete control of my temper, I could think of a few more very descriptive adjectives for what I have seen over the last 24 hours. You can block me from here to Eternity, but nothing will alter my opinion of those responsible for (and defending) this deplorable, revolting, odious and shameful happening. Giacomo 20:53, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
Unblocked
I shall now notify AGK of my actions and rationale. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:34, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
- Excellent call LHvU. I also agree completely with your unblock rationale. Thank you. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 21:45, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
- Thanls LHVU that's very kind and thoughtful. We seem to live in dark and worrying times. Giacomo 22:36, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
- Here's a handy resource by which you might wikilawyerishly glean further slurs to comment on editors, not content... seeing as how your mirror seems to be a bit foggy :) Gwen Gale (talk) 22:41, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
- Oh that is interesting, it means "obnoxious" as well. Someone other called him that yesterday too [16]. Quelle coincidence; these things cannot be explained - can they? Giacomo 22:51, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
- Excellent move on a bad block. --HighKing (talk) 13:44, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
- What a fascinating display of hypocrisy. Administrators like Gwen Gale commonly make "personal attacks" on other editors, but when they do it, it's OK, because they're omniscient and invulnerable. In their own heads at least. Malleus Fatuorum 23:11, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
- Malleus, given you seem take the very being of admins as a personal attack, I understand what you mean and I don't mind. Gwen Gale (talk) 00:08, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
- I doubt that you could even begin to imagine how much I despise you and your kind. Malleus Fatuorum 00:30, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
- Malleus, I politely suggest that you (and all the others here) disengage. There doesn't have to be a battle here, everyone can just walk away from this. The WordsmithCommunicate 00:40, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
- There has to a battle somewhere, else the idiot children will take over. Why not here? Malleus Fatuorum 00:47, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
- No, no battle is necessary today. I see a lot of people being uncivil, but more of the same is not going to cure it. I'm an administrator; if you want to and can do so like a reasonable adult (I believe that you can), I would be happy to listen to your concerns and discuss them with you on my talk page, through email or any other means of communication you prefer. The WordsmithCommunicate 00:56, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
- Please don't try to patronise me, makes me feel slightly queasy. Malleus Fatuorum 01:01, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
- I'm not at all trying to patronise you; if that is how it came across I apologise. I was merely telling you that I was willing to listen to your concerns. The WordsmithCommunicate 01:09, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
- Yeah, right: "if you want to and can do so like a reasonable adult ...". You're a dishonest joker, just like the rest of your admin mates. Malleus Fatuorum 01:15, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
- You'll notice that I followed that with a belief that you can. Meh, your loss. I'm actually fairly new to the admin cabal, haven't even received my membership card yet. If you change your mind, the offer still stands. The WordsmithCommunicate 01:26, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
- Don't hold your breath. Malleus Fatuorum 01:36, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
- I won't. Breathing is good, I hope to keep doing it for a while yet. The WordsmithCommunicate 01:48, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
- Don't hold your breath. Malleus Fatuorum 01:36, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
- You'll notice that I followed that with a belief that you can. Meh, your loss. I'm actually fairly new to the admin cabal, haven't even received my membership card yet. If you change your mind, the offer still stands. The WordsmithCommunicate 01:26, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
- Yeah, right: "if you want to and can do so like a reasonable adult ...". You're a dishonest joker, just like the rest of your admin mates. Malleus Fatuorum 01:15, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
- I'm not at all trying to patronise you; if that is how it came across I apologise. I was merely telling you that I was willing to listen to your concerns. The WordsmithCommunicate 01:09, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
- Please don't try to patronise me, makes me feel slightly queasy. Malleus Fatuorum 01:01, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
- No, no battle is necessary today. I see a lot of people being uncivil, but more of the same is not going to cure it. I'm an administrator; if you want to and can do so like a reasonable adult (I believe that you can), I would be happy to listen to your concerns and discuss them with you on my talk page, through email or any other means of communication you prefer. The WordsmithCommunicate 00:56, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
- There has to a battle somewhere, else the idiot children will take over. Why not here? Malleus Fatuorum 00:47, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
- Malleus, I politely suggest that you (and all the others here) disengage. There doesn't have to be a battle here, everyone can just walk away from this. The WordsmithCommunicate 00:40, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
- I doubt that you could even begin to imagine how much I despise you and your kind. Malleus Fatuorum 00:30, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
- Malleus, given you seem take the very being of admins as a personal attack, I understand what you mean and I don't mind. Gwen Gale (talk) 00:08, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
- Yay! I can eat now!--Milowent (talk) 01:04, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Reply
For technical reasons, [17] wasn't a brilliant move, since the <archive> tag you added has no effect...! ╟─TreasuryTag►presiding officer─╢ 19:42, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
- Do you seriously imagine that I am the sort of person who spends my time learning how to archive and make little wiki-widgets? I have not the remotest idea how to archive a page or wish to have. I just thought it important at this moment in time, for others to see that I had attempted to nicely bring the thread to a conclusion. Thank you for bringing that to our attention. Giacomo 19:48, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
- {{hat}} and {{hab}} are the easiest to use, should you ever feel so inclined --B (talk) 20:06, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
- No,thanks anyway, it's only when I have one of my impending very dark prophecies that I want to close a thread. They don't happen often. Let them yack while they may. Giacomo 20:08, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
- <1996html><blink>Awhile back I was told I should watchlist Malleus' page for dramawatching, and while its been enjoyable, this page should also have been a recommendation.</blink></1996html>--Milowent (talk) 21:34, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
- No, you were corrctly informed, it's a more high class and intelectual drama over on Malleus' page - he's one of those educated sorts or radical. I'm just a thicko from the mountains. Stick with Malleus' page. Giacomo 21:45, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
- <1996html><blink>Awhile back I was told I should watchlist Malleus' page for dramawatching, and while its been enjoyable, this page should also have been a recommendation.</blink></1996html>--Milowent (talk) 21:34, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
- No,thanks anyway, it's only when I have one of my impending very dark prophecies that I want to close a thread. They don't happen often. Let them yack while they may. Giacomo 20:08, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
- {{hat}} and {{hab}} are the easiest to use, should you ever feel so inclined --B (talk) 20:06, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
- Do you seriously imagine that I am the sort of person who spends my time learning how to archive and make little wiki-widgets? I have not the remotest idea how to archive a page or wish to have. I just thought it important at this moment in time, for others to see that I had attempted to nicely bring the thread to a conclusion. Thank you for bringing that to our attention. Giacomo 19:48, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Your recent complaint about misuse of rollback on ANI
May I ask what your goal in posting the complaint about Fastily on ANI, rather than initiating dispute resolution against him, was? Stifle (talk) 08:21, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
- yes, you may ask. Giacomo 09:58, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
- What was your goal in posting the complaint about Fastily on ANI, rather than initiating dispute resolution against him? Stifle (talk) 11:31, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
- yes, you may ask. Giacomo 09:58, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
- Because Stifle when it was decided that I loose rollbck rights for reverting accepted erronious iformation and reverting Smee's (or whatever he currently calls himself) agrevations the desired site for the drama fest to discuss it was ANI [18]. I did not notice you complaining then of the wrong location; so I assumed that was the corect meeting place for those interested in such matters. In any case, regearding Fastily, it was the correct location as it directly pertained to the hounding of Richard Norton. That it is now decide that an Admin continuously illicitly rollbacking in order to hound and distress is quite in order, I expect my rollback rights will be restored very soon for the lesser offence. Or is reverting Smee and removing false facts a greater offence in your view than a pack of thugs hounding and bullying? As it happens I would not have the rollback back if Jimbo crawled to me with them on a silver plate; as I have always said: the only way to sort things here is to accept nothing and give a great deal, then disreputable admins have and their disciples have no power over one. However, many thamks for reminding me that people were keen to see fastily absolved, I had better go and attend to that. I'm sure with your compete volte-face ([19] & [20]) in the Norton case, you will agree with me that needs attending to. Giacomo 18:18, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
- Would you say that the ANI post led to more drama than dispute resolution would have? And do you want rollback back, you can have it if you want. Stifle (talk) 18:27, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
- No thank you Stifle, I think these tools are more important to you and your friends than they are to me. Giacomo 18:34, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) I don't think he will. But asking was a nice gesture on your part Stifle. You can make it an even better gesture by granting him rollback without having to ask thus resetting the previous drama to point zero. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 18:38, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
- OK. I await with eagerness your reasoning for why you chose ANI over the less dramatic dispute resolution. Stifle (talk) 18:44, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
- My beloved nephew does not require any ghastly little tools. Tools are things for those who want to play with them. Besides which, so ridiculous is the rollback tool that I have been happily rollbacking on my nephew's behalf for the last month or so, which rather proves how stupid the whole process and dubious the honour is - doesn't it? Now Mr Stifle, I suggest you send one of the ANI henchmen round to wrestle them off me too, as I shall be delegating my rollback to my third under footman. Lady Catherine de Burgh (the Late) (talk) 18:46, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
- OK. I await with eagerness your reasoning for why you chose ANI over the less dramatic dispute resolution. Stifle (talk) 18:44, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
- Would you say that the ANI post led to more drama than dispute resolution would have? And do you want rollback back, you can have it if you want. Stifle (talk) 18:27, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
- "As it happens I would not have the rollback back if Jimbo crawled to me with them on a silver plate; as I have always said: the only way to sort things here is to accept nothing and give a great deal, then disreputable admins have and their disciples have no power over one." I really couldn't agree more. The same goes for this new half-assed reviewer status; who gives a shit for the administrators' pretty baubles? Can you believe that I once had a barnstar taken away by an idiot administrator who fell out with me, and I was told by another that I would no longer be allowed to review at GAN? There's something seriously wrong in the state of Denmark, but most people are looking in the wrong direction. Sack all of the administrators; let's see how many could get through another RfA. I'd guess about 10% or so, the rest are just dross. Malleus Fatuorum 19:54, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
-
- It's interesting, I think, to see how few of the current administrators believe that they'd get through another RfA, and equally interesting to see their excuses for that. Whatever their excuses though, they're almost certainly right; they wouldn't. Malleus Fatuorum 21:12, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
- Interesting indeed Malleus, but is any action being taken against Fastily? I have just spent 30 minutes looking and can fnd nothing. I don't initiate formal processes myself ever, because while I'm a good sprinter and stayer and boxer, as a jumper, I'm abysmal. Giacomo 21:20, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
- Giacomo: We're waiting for Fastily to log onto Wikipedia (or, if he already has, to post a response to your complaint). I'd rather we waited a few days than rush into a decision. Some breathing room usually helps to prevent stupid decisions, anyhow. AGK 21:23, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
- Interesting indeed Malleus, but is any action being taken against Fastily? I have just spent 30 minutes looking and can fnd nothing. I don't initiate formal processes myself ever, because while I'm a good sprinter and stayer and boxer, as a jumper, I'm abysmal. Giacomo 21:20, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
- Compete bollox! You have the difs! In RL, does one wait for a known crininal to strike again? Or are fingerprints and DNA enough? If I do soemthing wrong, Admins and their friend get on to ANI right away have an orgasmic hug. Go deal with it - sort! Giacomo 21:27, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
- I hope so because I am not the sort of person who waits very long. I was just wondering who the "we" who are "waiting for Fastily to log onto Wikipedia" are. Either AGK has joined the exaulted ranks of my esteemed, rocking and rollbacking aunt (entiltled to the "we"), or their are more than one waiting, in which case it would be nice to know who. Giacomo 21:39, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
Courtesy notice
I've initiated a proposal at WP:AN that you be community banned. Should you wish to comment, the discussion is here. MickMacNee (talk) 21:38, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
- I seriously wonder if that is a good carreer move on your part. Giacomo 21:42, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
- Hey I'd suggest you stop removing the section, and allow people to come and oppose it. You'll get blocked if you carry on reverting it. Aiken ♫ 21:51, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
- I will block you if you carry on disrupting AN by removing that thread. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:52, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
No, you won't be weiging in yourself will you Gwen? You remind me of the clever girl who stands on the side of the pitch, egging on the boys to beat up the skinny kid. Then they hold him for her, to spit in his face. I'm sure I'm wrong and that you are really sweet and charming. Giacomo 22:05, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
- Giano, that one cracked me up, it truly did. You can write. Cheers to that. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:20, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
- Bog off darling. You're sort are two are penny. Don't post here again. Giacomo 22:28, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
- Be that as it may, but I agree with Gwen... if you think it is frivilous make your case... GR's removing it again will lead being blocked.---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 21:57, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
- (ec) Dammit. And I was planning on running for an arb seat next year. You should have mentioned risking something I do care about. One of which is equal treatment for all. Still, edit warring to remove the proposal is an interesting opening defence. Let's see how that works out for your career. MickMacNee (talk) 21:56, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
- It does seem like rather an ill-considered idea MickMacNee. Who's next on your list of those-you-don't-like-and-should-therefore-be-banned? Malleus Fatuorum 21:53, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
- Anybody else who reaches such blatant Giano levels of special treatment. So I think you are safe Malleus. MickMacNee (talk) 21:56, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
- Giano, can you please desist from not allowing me to comment upon the "right thinking editors" phrase so carelessly used by MMN - it is one of my favourite hot air balloons that I enjoy popping. There are one or two serious issues I would like to address, also. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:32, 4 June 2010 (UTC)