User talk:Giano II: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 18:45, 26 May 2008

File:Animalibrí.gif

Old messages are at

Essay: A few thoughts on writing Featured Articles

Please leave new messages below

RFA thanks

Thanks for your support at my recent Request for adminship. Good to know you think I’m reliable enough. I hope you find I live up to your expectations. Best, Risker (talk) 16:24, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations

		The Featured Article Medal
		For all your contributions to featured content, especially the articles related to New Zealand architecture. Thanks for all your work. Shudde ^talk 13:13, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Addlebook.gif

Thanks for uploading Image:Addlebook.gif. You've indicated that the image meets Wikipedia's criteria for non-free content, but there is no explanation of why it meets those criteria. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. If you have any questions, please post them at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

Thank you for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 15:23, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've addressed this, a free use rationale has been added to the image page. Risker (talk) 16:06, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My Recent Rfa

Although you opposed me in my recent RFA I will still say thanks as from your comments and the other users comments that opposed me I have made a todo list for before my next RFA. I hope I will have resolved all of the issues before then and I hope that you would be able to support me in the future. If you would like to reply to this message or have any more suggestions for me then please message me on my talk page as I will not be checking back here. Thanks again. ·Add§hore· ^Talk/_Cont 16:19, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to genetics

Hi there, I've written this article as an attempt to introduce the articles on DNA, Gene and Genetics in a completely non-technical and approachable way. I was looking for some good editors with no background in science to look this over and advise me on how it could be improved. Would you have time to help with this? All the best Tim Vickers (talk) 16:39, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Where are you?

Where are you, Giacomo? Bishonen | talk 21:48, 20 May 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Yeah, where are you? Tex (talk) 16:28, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wherever a regular editor is telling the self-important that they're wrong, Giano will be there. Wherever editors work for months, spending fortunes to get resources, and then have arrogant children with high school diplomas tell them that the pictures have been deleted because tags have changed, Giano will be there. Wherever a guy just tries to get by, making good articles, and the IRC channels begin buzzing with how he needs to be banned forever, Giano will be there. Geogre (talk) 17:55, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you have a problem, if no one else can help, and if you can find him, maybe you can hire... Giano - Rockpocket 18:18, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Who you gonna call....Ceoil (talk) 15:14, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Come on

It's a factual recitation of the outcome; dispute it elsewhere if you must. Thatcher 14:07, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Giano, your edits to arbitration pages are getting disruptive now. If you remove sanctions from a closed case again, you'll be blocked. Ryan Postlethwaite 14:44, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you doing this? You know that it'll get reverted and you'll be asked to stop. I'd really like you to be free of restrictions as soon as possible but that needs you not to go on disruptive crusades. Sam Blacketer (talk) 14:52, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are a liar. You voted for it. It was a decision by FloNight, Deskana, UninvitedCompany, Kirill Lokshin,Sam Blacketer, Morven and Jpgordon Everyone knows it was nothing but a deceitful plan to be rid of me. Giano (talk) 14:54, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I always thought that this was too broad...especially the part about assuming bad faith, which is so open to misintepretation that it is bound to be problematic. But one thing I do know is that the majority of arbcom has a lot of respect for your work overall.--MONGO 15:04, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, it was always the intention of the above mentioned that I be plagued by irritants from IRCAdmins to such an extent that I stopped editng - which I more or less have since then. Cowardly way of going on, really. Giano (talk) 15:06, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I concur that IRC stinks, but what can we do? I tend to use the preview button before I post a comment since my original comments are full of things that might make some whine that I am not being nice.--MONGO 15:14, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I dunno what we can do Arbs/IRC can one trust any of them, is there in fact a difference - let's face it they had no business accepting the case in the first place - it was a cook up between them all from the first moment. I think most people know that. Indeed, have they yet acted on their decision to reform IRC? - No! The only decision they were remotly interested in one was the on to "get " me. Even the other Arbs knew it was a bad move but FloNight, Deskana, UninvitedCompany, Kirill Lokshin, Sam Blacketer, Morven and Jpgordon wanted me out and were determined to pursue that goal. They are liars. The arbcom was deceitful about this case from the very moment it started Giano (talk) 15:22, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Though I am but a peon, you have my support as always. I have long believed that those who are emotionally charged such as you and I are at times, should be accepted as being sometimes prone to making bold/strongly worded/passionate comments at times. I was always hoping that the arbitrators, who are probably less likely to respond passionately to various things, would understand that not everyone is as calm or as composed as they are. I think I should consider myself lucky that I have not had a civility restriction placed on me...but what many might refer to as my incivility, is actually just me being earnest and frank.--MONGO 16:10, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

<irrelevancy>"In New York I'm Frank, in Chicago I'm Ernest.". Kelly ^hi! 18:01, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's interesting. You don't think Cla68's comments should be cut the same slack? Amerique^dialectics 17:55, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't recognize the ridiculous civility restriction, it was dreamt up by the devious for application by the chattering stupid. Anyway those particular Arbs are not cool and composed, they are simply devious, or perhaps they just wanted to please Fred Bauder - who knows. Whatever, sadly, the other Arbs are too weak to rein them in; but at least 1=2 was firmly ignored on IRC this afternoon, so there are some changes for the better - at least some people are learning from their mistakes. I just hope those same Arbs will not be allowed to behave in similar dishonest vein on another current arbitration case. At least the community is starting to see through them, albeit very slowly. Giano (talk) 16:39, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Without any comment on the decision itself (since I have never been totally convinced either way), it is not right that you edit this page. Firstly, your conflict of interest (and I do not refer to the policy by that name, which is irrelevant here) is obvious: even if it were to be removed as a sanction by community or committee, it would not be your role to mark that removal. Secondly, the fact of the committee's having made the resolution (which is what that page marks) is beyond question and does not rely upon its being accepted. I don't quite know why you are making the edits: is it because you think it makes an effective change or because it winds up members of the committee? Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 17:37, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Giano, please don't. You're just giving your enemies an opening. Kelly ^hi! 17:39, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My enemies don't need an opening they need firing! Most intelligent editors now completely dismiss "the committee" - or at least the "Gang of 7." They are regarded as people not to be trusted or admired. In short, the 7 should be sent packing. It is not only that the decision was plain wrong, the case should never have been accepted in he first place, whether it was the "Gang of 7's" agenda to be rid of me, or just plain toadying to Fred Bauder I neither know nor care. However, most people accept it was one of the other. So if the committee are too cowardly to do anything about it, then others must - that is why I edited those pages. Why should we have to look at evidence of these incompetents spite and malevolence. So untrustworthy are they, I would not want to see them judging a singing canary.

We see this so called arbitration committee making mistake after mistake and no one lifts a finger about it. They strut about receiving just about enough support from the few remaining fools and henchmen on IRC to remain in power - while most of the serious editors just ring their hands in despair or simply disappear. It is like watching the antics of a deluded self serving third world junta in the final days before an implosion. The "Gang of 7" wanted rid of me, and they may get their wish. Thanks to their efforts, I no longer see the point of editing, but I won't be going quietly. Wikipedia deserves and needs better than these sad, but vicious apologies for Arbs. How many more have to be driven off just to protect their cosy little nests and egos. They don't need me editing their decisions they need firing!

French chateaux anyone?

I see from the above section that things are heating up again round here. Should I go and upload some pictures I have of French chateaux, or should I go read about the latest developments? Sorry if this strikes the wrong tone, but coming back from a holiday and seeing the same old disputes going on is rather tiresome. Maybe Arbcom should be limited to behavioural disputes that affect article content, rather than disputes that are just interpersonal disputes and don't affect articles? I'm as guilty as many of typing far too much in project space and project talk pages and noticeboards, but the old saw about "writing an encyclopedia" is as true now as it was then. Carcharoth (talk) 18:21, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It may have escaped your notice, the so call bunch of imcompetents known as the Arbcom are not interested in content, I doubt they even know it exists! Giano (talk) 18:42, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 73: / Line 73: @@
 :::Without any comment on the decision itself (since I have never been totally convinced either way), it is not right that you edit this page.  Firstly, your conflict of interest (and I do '''not''' refer to the policy by that name, which is irrelevant here) is obvious: even if it were to be removed as a sanction by community or committee, it would not be your role to mark that removal.  Secondly, the fact of the committee's having made the resolution (which is what that page marks) is beyond question and does not rely upon its being accepted.  I don't quite know why you are making the edits: is it because you think it makes an effective change or because it winds up members of the committee?  [[User:Sam Korn|Sam Korn]] <sup>[[User talk:Sam Korn|(smoddy)]]</sup> 17:37, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
 :Giano, please don't. You're just giving your enemies an opening. [[User:Kelly|<span style="color:#060;font-family:Monotype Corsiva;cursor:help">'''Kelly'''</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Kelly|hi!]]</sup> 17:39, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
+:::My enemies don't need an opening they need firing! Most intelligent editors now completely dismiss "the committee" - or at least the "Gang of 7." They are regarded as people not to be trusted or admired.  In short, the 7 should be sent packing. It is not only that the decision was plain wrong, the case should never have been accepted in he first place, whether it was the "Gang of 7's" agenda to be rid of me, or just plain toadying to Fred Bauder I neither know nor care. However, most people accept it was one of the other. So if the committee are too cowardly to do anything about it, then others must - that is why I edited those pages. Why should we have to look at evidence of these incompetents spite and malevolence. So untrustworthy are they, I would not want to see them judging a singing canary.
+:::We see this so called arbitration committee making mistake after mistake and no one lifts a finger about it. They strut about receiving just about enough support from the few remaining fools and henchmen on IRC to remain in power - while most of the serious editors just ring their hands in despair or simply disappear. It is like watching the antics of a deluded self serving third world junta in the final days before an implosion. The "Gang of 7" wanted rid of me, and they may get their wish. Thanks to their efforts, I no longer see the point of editing, but I won't be going quietly. Wikipedia deserves and needs better than these sad, but vicious apologies for Arbs. How many more have to be driven off just to protect their cosy little nests and egos. They don't need me editing their decisions they need firing!
 == French chateaux anyone? ==