User talk:Giano - Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Giano (talk | contribs) at 14:13, 5 September 2006 (→Most amusing: God all though years, and I still can't spell a basic word). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 14:13, 5 September 2006 by Giano (talk | contribs) (→Most amusing: God all though years, and I still can't spell a basic word)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Campaign for less bull more writing.

This user believes all admins must have written at least 2 featured articles before being considered for adminship

In addition they should write one featured article per year to retain their status

Admins posting here without meeting that criterion

may not receive the respect they feel they deserve

To avoid wounded feelings probably not a good idea to post if you are a non-writing admin

We are here to write an encyclopedia

Old messages are at

Please leave new messages at the foot of the page

Carnildo-style admins vs. hard-working editors

Oh my god, I see that the split between wikilawyering admins and writing editors of WP is getting ever wider. Please check Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Discretion blocks by admins for related discussions. --Ghirla 08:20, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh God that looks far too long and dull to read and assess Ghirla, it makes no difference what I say anywhere anyway. Giano | talk 12:41, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Request

Please remove the statement which says that you will not pay as much respect to admins who don't write 1FA per year. This is per the Misplaced Pages guideline WP:TPG, which states that "...treat the other person in the discussion as a fellow editor, who is a thinking, feeling person, trying to positively contribute to Misplaced Pages, just like you".

Oh, and I'd appreciate it if you removed the personal attack about me on your archive 6 - unfortunately, I used the generic {{civil2-n}} template, which happens to mention edit wars. I didn't imply that you were creating edit wars, as this was a misfunction of the template. If it would satisfy your needs, I will edit the template that I added accordingly. Oh, and please limit this discussion to this talk page, and not mine, to keep this discussion progressing logically. Daniel .Bryant 08:39, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I removed the bit which I unintentionally accused you of. See this diff. So, if you wouldn't mind, remove the personal attack you made against me User talk:Giano/Archive 6, so this issue doesn't have to go up the WP:DR chain any further than I need to. Daniel .Bryant 08:41, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Daniel, I consider it insensitive of you to use templates for established users at all. It's offensive in and of itself, besides the fact that this time they made you say things you didn't mean (they're of course likely to). Please consider using human language for communication. I also think you're speaking Newspeak when you say the "issue" will "have to" or "need" to progress up the dispute resolution chain unless your demand is obeyed. No, it won't need to go anywhere. You might want to take it somewhere. That's different. Please consider whether you really feel it necessary to resolve a "dispute" in an archive, Daniel. To me that looks simply punitive. Bishonen | talk 10:18, 5 September 2006 (UTC).

Again, your opinion, however WP:NPA doesn't distinguish between archives or not. All someone has to do is remove it, and I will go. Not before it is, though. And if you have such a probelm with all the warning templates, why not TfD them all? Daniel .Bryant 10:23, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Please don't be a dick. Cheers, Ghirla 10:28, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I didn't realise that enforcing Misplaced Pages policies now constituted acting like a "dick". Maybe I should heed your advice and, say, totally ignore WP:VAND...which is more suitable to be tagged as "acting like a dick" - following Misplaced Pages policy, or vandalising? Daniel .Bryant 10:40, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

No definition of being a dick has been provided. This is deliberate. If a significant number of reasonable people suggest, whether bluntly or politely, that you are being a dick, the odds are good that you are not entirely in the right. This situation needs to cool down, the slight against you was just that, a slight. Apparently (and amusingly) it appears that one's "dickiness" can be attested by a vote. I second Ghirlas motion and respectfully ask you to modify your dicky behaviour. Thanks --Mcginnly | Natter 11:08, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I guess I could "modify" the personal attack so it doesn't exist, and I'm sure that my "dicky behaviour" would "modify" with it. Daniel .Bryant 11:12, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Good afternoon everybody! How very nice to see so many of you gathered here. Now first Mr. Bryant, what exactly is the personal attack you are complaining of? - did you, or did you not accuse me of starting edit wars. A false accusation you have not chosen to redress in almost a week. Giano | talk 12:40, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Remove the promise to be uncivil, please

You need to remove the promise to be uncivil from your talk page. Such conduct is utterly unacceptable. I removed it once, and I see you've reinstated it, proving your intentions to be deliberately uncivil. Deliberate incivility is grounds for a block; if you do not turn from this course your continued participation in this project will not be welcome, and you will be asked to leave. Kelly Martin (talk) 13:42, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

No, you do not see I have re-instated - I did not. No you do not see a promise to be uncivil. Please check you facts. Thankyou Giano | talk 13:44, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I re-instated it - I didn't see what business it was of yours what Giano has on his talk page, surely that's a matter for him - and your reasons for it's removal are fallacious - there is no promise to be uncivil.--Mcginnly | Natter 13:50, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I concur. The war admins vs. editors is hitting up! I suppose that most admins should stop threating hard-working contributors with blocks and get to editing themselves. Giano is right in proclaiming that our aim is writing an encyclopaedia, not wikilawyering or protecting abstract admins from imaginary incivility. Please stop bickering and start writing articles instead. Thanks, Ghirla 13:53, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Most amusing

I found it most amusing that, after seeing the big notice at the top, I hit the 'user contribution' and was greeted with a screen full of non main namespace edits. Going back another screen there was only 2 in total. So I guess only admins are supposed to write articles, Giano? --Gmaxwell 14:00, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Not one word (in my defence) in response to this anyone please. Other things have been a little pressing of late it is true, but I'm quite happy with my contribution to Misplaced PagesGiano | talk 14:04, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I prefer to ignore Gmaxwell as well, especially after he blanked my user page several months ago. --Ghirla 14:07, 5 September 2006 (UTC)