User talk:Giano II: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 08:47, 16 January 2009 editGiano II (talk \| contribs)22,233 edits →RFC ← Previous edit		Revision as of 10:55, 16 January 2009 edit undoGeogre (talk \| contribs)25,257 edits →Arbitration request Next edit →
Line 70:		Line 70:
	I have filed an arbitration request regarding you. The case can be found here: . ] (]) 22:43, 15 January 2009 (UTC)		I have filed an arbitration request regarding you. The case can be found here: . ] (]) 22:43, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
	:Phil, don't you have anything better to do? --] 23:20, 15 January 2009 (UTC)		:Phil, don't you have anything better to do? --] 23:20, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
			:Oh, goodness. It ''looks'' awfully like revenge, which is a poor basis for arbitration. It's odd as it can be, though. Having fought to ''allow'' off-Wiki communication and off-Wiki considerations, having been a staunch defender of the ''privacy'' of e-mail, now to change all.... It doesn't look good. People talk about this being middle school redux, but I think that's wrong. It seems, to me, like nerds in a slap fight: no real force behind the blows, no real effect of the strikes, but tons of shouting in Klingon. (My 'this' is the continual Rfar-ing of whoever has annoyed a person who thinks himself a creature of power.) Couldn't we save Rfar for ''dispute'' resolution? Couldn't we save ''policy enforcement'' for administrators? ] (]) 10:55, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

	==RFC==		==RFC==

Revision as of 10:55, 16 January 2009

File:Animalibrí.gif

Old messages are at:

Essays:

A few thoughts on writing Featured Articles
A few thoughts on Misplaced Pages (unfinished)

Please leave new messages below

Happy slush-trudging season

I was going to say Happy New Year, Giano; but in my part of the world where these matters are regimented, the New Year has ritually ended, and what I should instead write on my postcard is that I humbly look at and dance for you while it's cold. So as we at the extremes of Eurasia move from commercial fantasizing about a "white Christmas" to actual trudging through grey slush, my warmest regards to you, though I'll spare you the dancing.

In the last couple of days I've observed and been tangentially involved in some of the silliest WP groupthink and clearest repudiation of this, so I'm more than normally interested by your essay, which I intend to print out tomorrow and read in the train. -- Hoary (talk) 12:47, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Well I have just arrived here to find real live grey slush, trains cancelled, and Britain in its usual state of chaos at 0.5cm of snow; and explaining to overexited tiny olive skinned ones that one cannot tobaggan or ski in grey slush. Such is my exiting life. Giano (talk) 12:56, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Right then, all jump into your car, or a friend's car, or a hotwired enemy's car -- you sedentary Brits have surplus millions of cars, this should be easy -- and drive to Uffington. Look for a parkplatz for the horse and castle. You'll all be impressed (and likely frozen too). I've found that it impresses guests from afar in warm weather and cold, though of course sleet doesn't help. It can be blowy up there; I remember thinking the skin on my hand might freeze onto my camera when I once changed film up there at a temperature that actually was probably no less than 3°C. Fleece and down, that's the ticket. -- Hoary (talk) 15:47, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I remember slush… vaguely. Hey, Happy New Year. If I can be of any help with stuff, I'd be glad to chip-in. It's going to be a good year; be happy. Cheers, Jack Merridew 14:19, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Advice

Hi Giano,

I've just finished reading your article, 'A fool's guide to writing a featured article', plus a few other examples of your work, which I have generally found to be of a very high standard.

As I am relatively new on Misplaced Pages (started 15 September 2008), I am looking for some guidance.

Currently I have been working on article Pope John Paul II, with an aim to raise it to 'Good article' and eventually 'Featured article' hopefully. I wonder if I could be so bold as to ask you to have a look and give me your honest opinion. I would appreciate any tips, pointers, advice (or even collaboration, if you have the time and/or interest). Any help would be greatly appreciated on my part. Kind Regards, Marek.69 18:49, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, I don't do GAs, and am no longer writing FAs, but that looks like a very good page to me, a little tidying arownd the edges and it ought to be a FA. However, and this is serious advice, if that is your first attempt at an FA - then leave the late Pope alone. He is far too famous and contraversial, to FAC him he would be a minefield - the page would never be comprehensive enough for some, and a magnet for the POV of others. Find an easier target to cut your FAC teeth with - this would be a disparaging experience for a FAC novice, it can be disparaging enough for those of us who know are way arownd the place ; when you see reviewers begin "I haven't read the article, but..." then it is time to leave FACs alone. If you chose to ignore my advice (and most people do), let me know and I will help you out with it, to see if it can be FAd, but I strongly advise against it - make the page as good as you can, then go enjoy yourself with another page, and forget FAing the late Pope. Giano (talk) 19:27, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Giano on the FA stuff. The system appears to have serious issues with even remotely controversial subjects these days. It looks like a pretty good article to me. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 19:33, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Giano, I appreciate you taking a look and your advice. I still have a lot of input to add to this page, so I will be making the page as good as I can. If you have any suggestions, please drop me a line. As for the FA, I have no intention of walking into a minefield just yet, so I might just put that off for the time being. I'll let you know if I change my mind. Cheers Marek.69 21:22, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

The point is, do you think it's good enough yet? Once it's good enough, fair and well-rounded and quite thorough, then I'd move on for a while, work on something else, then come back and review it yourself, privately, to your own standards. And carry it forth in that way. Misplaced Pages articles are never "finished". And if they are a great deal better than the average, they'll attract undesirable attention, like Buckingham Palace.---Wetman (talk) 23:46, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi Wetman, personally, I don't think the article is good enough yet. It's a little disjointed in places and could flow a lot better. I am working on this. Also a lot of the ‘facts’ need to be checked, I've started, but still long way to go, and its been mentioned that weblinks need formatting. So I think it still needs a fair amount of work before it's good enough. As previously mentioned, I am not in any particular hurry to take this to FA, so in the meantime I'm just enjoying myself improving it and would welcome any help and collaboration. Cheers. Marek.69 10:58, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I think the problem is the praiseful tone. Misplaced Pages is not hagiography. Bishonen | talk 13:49, 9 January 2009 (UTC).

If he is canonized it will be hagiography. No way round that. Yomangani 14:29, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Clearly, you haven't seen Talk:Sarah Palin lately.

When I saw Bish with an edit summary of "hagiography" I thought, oh good! Giano is writing a bio of Bishonen! But alas, such is not the case... KillerChihuahua 13:51, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh, all right, so it is hagiography. . Bishonen | talk 13:58, 9 January 2009 (UTC).

Please

Giano, please hold back on your comments for now. I know that the situation is upsetting, but please don't go after people. If you need to air out your grievances against people, please find my email as welcoming to you. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:52, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I beg you pardon? Please have no fear; I am working on the draft of a new page - let's not forget it is the project that is important and that is why we are here. Giano (talk) 22:54, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I was mostly referring to the comments to Jimbo. I don't want to see you blocked because you felt the need to vent upon him. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:00, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Vent on Jimbo? Oh, he is a big grown up boy, only a very silly monarch would invoke lèse majesté. Giano (talk) 23:03, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I honestly can't say I'm a David Gerard fan, but your comments at his talk page aren't helping anything. --Rschen7754 (T C) 02:41, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Arbitration request

I have filed an arbitration request regarding you. The case can be found here: . Phil Sandifer (talk) 22:43, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Phil, don't you have anything better to do? --Duk 23:20, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh, goodness. It looks awfully like revenge, which is a poor basis for arbitration. It's odd as it can be, though. Having fought to allow off-Wiki communication and off-Wiki considerations, having been a staunch defender of the privacy of e-mail, now to change all.... It doesn't look good. People talk about this being middle school redux, but I think that's wrong. It seems, to me, like nerds in a slap fight: no real force behind the blows, no real effect of the strikes, but tons of shouting in Klingon. (My 'this' is the continual Rfar-ing of whoever has annoyed a person who thinks himself a creature of power.) Couldn't we save Rfar for dispute resolution? Couldn't we save policy enforcement for administrators? Geogre (talk) 10:55, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

RFC

Per multiple requests, I've changed the venue of the above to requests for comment. That page can be found here: Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Giano II.

In the interests of exhausting forms of dispute resolution other than arbitration, I am, of course, also willing to discuss the matter outside of community comment. I have e-mail this user enabled, if you would like to talk via e-mail, or we can do so on-wiki - I'm happy to create a user subpage for the discussion. If you're interested in either approach, please let me know. Phil Sandifer (talk) 00:19, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I rather think you are supposed to attempt dialogue before not afterwards. Emails from me seem to be rather odd things, misconstrued, passed about and generally lied about. So that is an area of my "wiki-conduct" I shall definitly be amending. Regarding your RFC, I have not yet had chance to look at it - Doubtless, Elonka, Durova and Co and the usuals are saying the usual things. Recent events must have been very dissapointing for you, allthough you and your friends had rather grasped the wrong end of the stick regarding my position and view - that's the problem with emails when only the selected are circulated. Perhaps you will have better luck with this. Giano (talk) 08:47, 16 January 2009 (UTC)