This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Carcharoth (talk | contribs) at 21:08, 13 November 2009 (→Please let others do their job: reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 21:08, 13 November 2009 by Carcharoth (talk | contribs) (→Please let others do their job: reply)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)The Misplaced Pages 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.
This, the funniest thing I have seen on wikipedia, was stolen from DreamGuy
Userboxes
|
Please note there is now a designated area for complaining about me here (I do check it from time to time). This talk page is now only for important and interesting matters. Giano (talk) 11:36, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
Old messages are at:
- User talk:Giano II/archive 1 (From Oct 2004)
- User talk:Giano II/archive 2 (From Jan 2005)
- User talk:Giano II/archive 3 (From July 2005)
- User talk:Giano II/archive 4 (From Jan 2006)
- User talk:Giano II/archive 5 (From July 2006)
- User talk:Giano II/archive 6 (From Jan 2007)
- User talk:Giano II/archive 7 (From July 2007)
- User talk:Giano II/archive 8 (From Jan 2008)
- User talk:Giano II/archive 9 (From July 2008)
- User talk:Giano II/archive 10 (From Jan 2009)
- User talk:Giano II/archive 11 (From July 2009)
Essays and thoughts:
- A few thoughts on writing Featured Articles
- A few thoughts on Misplaced Pages (unfinished)
- One of the reasons I seldom make proper edits these days.
Please leave new messages below
Marked ANI thread partly resolved to note for the record that you did nothing wrong
I have marked partly resolved the ANI thread - I have not closed it (not trying to shut down discussion on the oversight error). But as you were extremely sensitive to the perception that this was an attack on your behavior, I wanted it on the record that consensus is that you had not done anything wrong in the edits leading up to the oversight. I am leaving the thread open until the oversight error issue is discussed and settled. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:12, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
- Hardly a perception, the log clearly stated that I had "made an edit revealing personal information". Thank you anyway for you clarity and consideration - I do appreciate it. It is a pity I have to make so much fuss to have such a grave matter addressed. I now know exactly what happened, and the checkuser (who is not even a Wikipedian) could not possibly have known there was the remotest, stupidist risk that I might have "made an edit revealing personal information" if he had not been told this by a very "Senior Wikipedian". I expect you know exactly what I am talking abouut GWH - so let's not discuss this further tonight. I shall resume this in the morning and each morning until I have a satisfactory answer as to what happened, and we may as well have that answer sooner rather than later because I assure you we shall have it one way or the other no matter how long it takes. Giano 00:26, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
- At last people can see the "offending" diff: . Now all you (I already know) need to know is which people (note plural) instructed this very young and obviously naive Oversighter from another project to remove it, and why it took so long for me to prove that I had done nothing wrong and have the post restored. (eventually in full, by Luna santin about half an hour ago ). There is far more to this than meets the eye, this I know for fact, and remembering, I only ask questions when I know the answers - I hope to see some resignations during the day, then we can all forget this unfortunate incident. Giano 10:30, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
- Hardly a perception, the log clearly stated that I had "made an edit revealing personal information". Thank you anyway for you clarity and consideration - I do appreciate it. It is a pity I have to make so much fuss to have such a grave matter addressed. I now know exactly what happened, and the checkuser (who is not even a Wikipedian) could not possibly have known there was the remotest, stupidist risk that I might have "made an edit revealing personal information" if he had not been told this by a very "Senior Wikipedian". I expect you know exactly what I am talking abouut GWH - so let's not discuss this further tonight. I shall resume this in the morning and each morning until I have a satisfactory answer as to what happened, and we may as well have that answer sooner rather than later because I assure you we shall have it one way or the other no matter how long it takes. Giano 00:26, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
Arb?
What leads you to believe an arb complained about the RfB statement? Hipocrite (talk) 19:42, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
- because it was an Arb, I thought everyone knew that. He shopped on IRC because none of our oversighters would do it. IRC, when will people ever learn about that place. Giano 19:47, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
- Please post or email me logs/summary. Thanks. Hipocrite (talk)
- I am being implored by several Arbs (well 3 actually) to wait, and let them deal with it. Belatedly, they suddenly seem interested. I want a resignation, I think the Arb has behaved deplorably to use that German kid like that. Giano 19:53, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
- Please post or email me logs/summary. Thanks. Hipocrite (talk)
- because it was an Arb, I thought everyone knew that. He shopped on IRC because none of our oversighters would do it. IRC, when will people ever learn about that place. Giano 19:47, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
Please let others do their job
Giano, you are not the conscience of the wiki. The audit subcommittee is looking at this right now. You need to be patient and wait for the report (even if it takes days or weeks). AUSC was set up precisely to stop this sort of running around hot-headed and demanding action in relation to OS and CU matters stance that you are taking. Even when you are right about such things, that does not excuse the disruption you cause as a result of stridently demanding action, and trying to bully people into precipitous or forced action. If you continue with this sort of behaviour, the only thing you are likely to force us to do is block or ban you for your behaviour. I closed the ANI thread because all that needed to be said had been said there. If you have more you want or need to say, then click this link (WP:AUSC) and send what you want to say to the e-mail address there. Carcharoth (talk) 20:33, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
- I'm unconvinced thinly veiled block and ban threats are likely to be productive here Carcharoth.... Either way I look forward to the audit sub-comittee neatly sweeping this under the carpet so there's probably not much point continuing with this is there? Pedro : Chat 20:43, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
- <after conflict>I have already reverted one Arb, but you seem determined to poke - so OK here it is: How dare you come here? You lot have been bullying me (or trying to) for over 24 hours denying things that we already now know to be true. Arbs claimed to have no idea this had occurred hours after the event (I spoke to them), now Coren says "the Arb" told them instantly. Either way they are in the shit because they did nothing! Bloody nothing! I can well beleive you would like to block me - that would be very convenient. "let's all laugh it off shall we - have a pint" and forget how disgustingly and deplorably one of your number has behaved. He uses a kid, trashes my name and then sits silently - and the arbCom did not have the common decency to email me and avert all of this with a simple explanation, because there bloody wasn't one - was there? Now go away and plan your whitwash, but be careful or I may through another bucket of excrement over the nice clean paint. Now I am trying to work on a new page and unless you want me to loose the plot and plaster some posts all over the place, leave me alone to get on with it in peace, I have had quite enough or Arbitrators and admins and their antics for the last 24 hours. Giano 20:48, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
- Have to say I'm with Pedro on this, and I don't find your threats to Giano to be particularly seemly or helpful. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:03, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
- I've said my bit. It was a warning, not a threat. I would like to walk away from this page, so I suggest Giano revert my reply to you, and no-one else post here, and we all let Giano get on with what he was doing before I posted here. Carcharoth (talk) 21:08, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
- Have to say I'm with Pedro on this, and I don't find your threats to Giano to be particularly seemly or helpful. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:03, 13 November 2009 (UTC)