Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 12:05, 24 September 2008

File:Animalibrí.gif

Old messages are at:

• User talk:Giano II/archive 1 (2004)
• User talk:Giano II/archive 2 (2005)
• User talk:Giano II/archive 3 (2005)
• User talk:Giano II/archive 4 (2006)
• User talk:Giano II/archive 5 (2006)
• User talk:Giano II/archive 6 (2007)
• User talk:Giano II/archive 7 (2007)
• User talk:Giano II/archive 8 (2008)
• User talk:Giano II/archive 9 (2008)

Essays:

• A few thoughts on writing Featured Articles

• A few thoughts on Misplaced Pages (unfinished)

Nasty things:

• Misplaced Pages's most shameful and disgraceful moment.Supported by the Arbcom, but begun by Ncmvocalist ; two diffs I never want to lose.
• Yet another embarrassing and dismal attempt by IRC#admins supporters to have me silenced - fails! In spite of FT2's best efforts
• My views in 2007 on the Arbcom etc another link I can never find when I want it.

Statement of support

For what it's worth, I think the civility restriction you're under is complete BS. You seem spicy, but harmless as far as the project is concerned-- an interesting bit of local flavor, rather than something nasty that should be watched. Every government needs it's gadflies. Jtrainor (talk) 23:17, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Completely unrelated to the above (although you know my thoughts on the subject), thanks for your kind gesture this morning. Risker (talk) 02:23, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

What's a civilty restriction? Does it mean you'll be blocked the momment you utter colorful language? GoodDay (talk) 15:29, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

It is, on the one hand, meaningless, and, on the other, malicious. It says that any administrator may block without warning at any incidence of "incivility." By those same persons' interpretations of the truly deletion-worthy WP:CIVIL, they already do block just about anyone for any incidence of "incivility" without warning. However, it was intended to be a mark of malice, I think, and a way of some arbcom members saying that they dislike Giano and want to make his experience at Misplaced Pages so uncomfortable that, without finding that he had violated any policies, they can drive him off. This is why the gesture is worth every syllable of invective that anyone can possibly level at it. It was petty, dishonest, ill-conceived, bilious, and stupid, and the same adjectives apply to pretty much everyone involved in writing and passing it. Utgard Loki (talk) 17:46, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Utgard, I could not have phrased it better myself, but have no fear I have never acknowledged the sanction, or taken any notice of it. In fact, the only people who seem remotely interested in enforcing it are those that passed it and their friends - funny old world isn't it? Giano (talk) 19:40, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Concur with sentiments of Jtrainor above. Ombudsman (talk) 02:22, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I also concur, with the extention that I'm just a gadfly, with limited useful contributions. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 06:29, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

So you must post carefully, Giano. Okie Dokie. GoodDay (talk) 16:26, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

• Absolute nonsense, to "post carefully" and change in anyway would be to acknowledge the sanction, and give even a tiny little piece of credence to the opinions of Flo Night; Deskana; The Uninvited Co., Inc; Kirill, Sam Blacketer; Matthew Brown (Morven); jpgordon who were so keen to implement the sanction ]. In fact in the recent words of one of my children, when asked to accompany his mother to see The Duchess, "I would rather eat my own lung" than change my editing in any way, shape or form. Giano (talk) 19:26, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

So you're giving it the William Wallace approach, no apologies, no compromise; cool. GoodDay (talk) 21:43, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Petition

Time to get some community involvement to persuade the deadlocked Arbcom about how counterproductively disruptive this sanction is. I think we should petition them and have started one at Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/petitions/Giano - I'm not sure petitions have been done before, but I'd rather it didn't turn into a drama - If you disagree, don't sign, simple as. Regards --Joopercoopers (talk) 12:04, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Nice thought JC, I appreciate it, but this sanction will stand and stand and stand - and everyday it stands, those Arbs can look at it, and so can all of we. Let's hope in December we have a new Arbcom, a completely new Arbcom, an Arbcom we can respect. Giano (talk) 19:30, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Now, now, we can respect the current Arbcom, regardless of its merits. It is a theoretical possibility, and some editors still do it. I'd much rather aim for the higher standard of an Arbcom that actually deserves our respect. That is a dream or vision to reach for. GRBerry 19:43, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

You may respect whomesoever you like, I shall do the same. Obviously we have different standards. I have never respected anything other than those with the highest intent, and fail to see any point of doing otherwise. To encourage mediocrity is, in my view, odd. Giano (talk) 19:49, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

WP:CIV

Hi Giano, I attempted to start this discussion at the talk page of the policy that, being abused more than any other, obviously needs to be fixed. Maybe even such policy is not needed at all? I am not sure, but I am sure that if this page is to exist and shine the {{policy}} tag on its top, it needs a complete overhaul. You are one of the editors, whose input would be especially valuable to improve this page. Please take a look if, of course, you have time. Thanks, --Irpen 05:07, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

That is a very nice idea Irpen, but I no longer enter into debates which are likely to be hijacked by members of the Peanut Gallery - life is far too short, Misplaced Pages is now run, and indeed encouraged to be run, by their cackling chorus, and quite frankly their obsession with civility, and using civility (or rather their misguided view of civility) as a mask to disguise their own real lack of value sickens me. If these debates ever cleared the air and improved things, I would join, but they don't. Thanks for leaving the message. Giano (talk) 07:06, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Palazzo Pitti

Palazzo Pitti has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here.

Do you have a name, or are you asahmed of what you do? Giano (talk) 06:43, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

But you "have been notified," now, and that's the only objective. Communication isn't one of the goals, and reasoning with people is absolutely unheard of, unsought, and too dangerous. The implicit goal is a world where FA, FAR, and GA are all, like the assessments, to be done by -bots, without any of that scary intelligence or community involved at all. Dumb people don't like it when they have to admit that they're dumb, and so they put up laws and screens and regulations and forms to excuse their appalling lack of brains, consideration, and skill. Utgard Loki (talk) 12:57, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Discussion at Misplaced Pages talk:Civility

Hi there. I recently quoted you at Misplaced Pages talk:Civility#Discussion of civility at recent Request for Arbitration. Would you have time to check that I haven't misrepresented what you said? There are several other threads on that talk page that you might be interested in as well, and a proposal to rewrite the policy. For the whole recent story, read downwards from Misplaced Pages talk:Civility#A Big Question: Does this page make sense?. This will need to be advertised more widely to get more balanced input, but for now I'm notifying those I quoted from the RfArb, and a few other editors who have either written essays on this, or have been active on the talk page recently. Apologies if you had this watchlisted anyway. Carcharoth (talk) 06:13, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Carch, no I don't have it watchlisted for a very good reason. Please see the response to Irpen above - In short, I no longer converse with the Arbcom or their Peanut Gallery. Thanks for trying to help. I appreciate it. Giano (talk) 07:07, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Wonderfull

For all its irritations, sometimes WP really comes up with the goods - have you read Ancient Chinese wooden architecture and particularly its fascinating related page Yingzao Fashi? Astonishingly the Yingzao Fashi has never been translated into English, so western academic discourse of Chinese architecture has always suffered from a lack of consideration of key texts - imagine trying to understand Classicism without De architectura. --Joopercoopers (talk) 12:05, 24 September 2008 (UTC)