User talk:ErrantX/Archive/2010/March

WP:ANI
So was that what you were looking for?--Cube lurker (talk) 20:15, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * What do you want me to say? Oh noes, drama!! :) Apart from the aside involving Giano it is very restrained. I think support for the sanction is actually firming up and I am confident that this time it might stick. I am less confident it will impress on Giano, but I am always hopeful :) --Errant (chat!) 20:44, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * So that's a yes. It's what I expected, and I always prefer the truth.--Cube lurker (talk) 20:46, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * You added this. Apart from the aside involving Giano it is very restrained..  That's fantastic considering entire thread is involving Giano.  If that's not a perfect example of asking Mrs. Lincoln how she enjoyed the play I don't know what is.--Cube lurker (talk) 20:53, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I don't really understand what the point of this specific discussion is exactly :) but I'll try to respond. I find Giano's response somewhat perplexing and disappointing. *shrug* Outside of it conversation is fairly restrained. Is there a point you are trying to get across? Because I am afraid I am missing it. :( --Errant (chat!) 20:58, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I was hoping that you were aware of the negative quality of your actions and how opposed they were to the action you made in closing the WQA thread. I was hoping you on reflection wished you were more like yesterdays ErrantX than today's ErrantX.--Cube lurker (talk) 21:04, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, it's the same ErrantX. :) I closed the thread on the hope that Giano would respond to the concerns raised in the way expected by WP:NPA but without causing drama. He didn't. So this happened, it is, sadly, on him. I sat and reflected for some time before posting the thread, and took my time to carefully express my thoughts. I am happy with what I did; ultimately if it stops the behaviour issue then it is a positive action. Thanks for your thoughts, though. --Errant (chat!) 21:09, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * You still think this will end well. It will not.  But at least you-re happy.  "Regards".--Cube lurker (talk) 21:13, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * There was obviously going to be a big discussion about it, with people holding viewpoints on both sides, but is that a reason to be afraid of the discussion? Why should the community not have the opportunity to comment on the issue? Why does anyone who tries to give the community that opportunity, get badgered like this? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:54, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I was honestly hopeful that drama could be avoided, the thread was going really well, and to be frank I think there was strong support. But once the close war starts and some of the more dramatic commentators come on board it risks devolving into a slanging match. I'm not sure I meant to imply people should close it on my behest, but that's my fault for a poor choice of words ;) --Errant (chat!) 23:56, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I consider my communications with ErrantX being termed badgering a personal attack.--Cube lurker (talk) 23:58, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:NPA has more information on how to identify personal attacks. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:23, 3 March 2011 (UTC)


 * You have an opportunity here. Giano was referred to as a twat in the ANI thread.--Cube lurker (talk) 00:25, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Yep, good thing I wasn't holding my breath.--Cube lurker (talk) 01:52, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Believe it or not I needs my beauty sleep :) If it's madly urgent and prompting email will usually wake me up. Issue is now addressed. Look, you seem to be here to provoke a reaction or to prove a point about my actions. That's very unlikely to happen. But in light of it I think this discussion has reached a natural conclusion. --Errant (chat!) 08:00, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Have you even read what i write?
I have read some extraordinary statements in my time at Wikipedia, but I believe yours here has just taken the proverbial biscuit for underhand misconstruction of fact. 

"Someone incapable of interacting pleasantly in difficult situations should not be doing article work - it is simply fortunate that Giano works in a relatively non-contentious area” I consider this to be an attack far worse than any I have ever made. Has it occurred to you that the reason I don't have problems writing and editing is not that “I work in a non contentious area” but that those of us in that field are able to understand each others views and and debate them accordingly in a civilised fashion and I do so with them. How dare you say “I should not be doing article work” I expect were my interest those of image fiddling, porn stars and comic characters I would find those with similar interests just as agreeable, as  it is I don't even bother those pages or dive in with my opinion. In fact, if you check my edits, everytime I go near an area of contention, I seek outside advice from other editors, often from those I know will have a different perspective in order to avoid contention.

This recent problem arose from gross stupidity and it was not mine. So when writing your “thoughtful” conclusion, try and do some thinking and if you think political and social history is not contentious, especially when it touches on Ireland and Jews, then you really are a little out of touch - or is it that you don't even know what I write and where I write. If you want to malign my editing, get your facts straight first.Giacomo Returned 09:38, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Giano; The comment was not brilliantly expressed, on reflection. I have ckarified it. My point was a more general one along the lines of "you can be an awesome article contributor but if you end up being nasty in content disputes it will never end well", with the addendum that this was not the sort of dispute I've ever seen you in. Hopefully that is clearer, and intended as a positive note.
 * DGG has a comment (which I've lost for the moment) which epitomises my thinking entirely; I agree entirely with your comments about the underlying problem, but disagree entirely your response is appropriate or helpful --Errant (chat!) 09:50, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Why mention content disputes at all then? - I have never been directly involved in a serious one - perhaps one (I say that just to cover myself, but I can't remember one) - in 7 years of editing 1,000s of articles and certainly never one that has required the community or the Arbcom to add their ten cents worth anywhere but the talk page. I am begining to wonder quite where your information about me is coming from, but I can't be bothered to go there. Please check out your sources before mentioning me in future. Heresay can be very misleading you should not beleive everything you are told about me. Giacomo Returned 10:08, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * FWIW no one has "given me" any information on you. I act on my own volution. Believe or disbelieve that as you wish. The "content editor issue" is a wider part of the discussion, I didn't disengage it well from the specific discussion about you in that case, for which I apologise --Errant (chat!) 10:13, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Well you seem to have a very narrow idea of the areas and places in which I work. Well, I will disengage with you now, I can't say that I have enjoyed meeting you - hopefully our paths won't cross again - unless you suddenly develop an interest in architecture, social history, boxing, historic political biography or politics. I'm at a loss to know why our paths did cross, there was certainly no crossing on my part - ever. Let me give you some parting advice: If you don't like somebody here, wait for them to come and chase you, never go chasing them. It's my golden rule here. Later, it's always interesting watching those who come chasing me - it may take a year or so, but they always prove their true colours eventually. There used to be a page "The spooky curse of Giano" - I was too lazy to keep it up to date so I deleted it - pity. Farewell. Giacomo Returned 10:34, 3 March 2011 (UTC)