Giano retires, (again) Options

[Peter Damian]

Retirement statement here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=475550962

Not the first time, of course, and I will open a book on when he is back. But, this seems a little, a trifle bit more serious than the others.

The points he makes are all perfectly valid, of course.

[Peter Damian]

Still not 'returned' http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contr...GiacomoReturned Should be 'GiacomoNotReturned'.

Meanwhile

We desperately need a reliable way to profile editors: sort the vandal-fighters from the page formatters from the dablink fixers from the FA builders from the POV-pushing wackjobs. Until we can identify our users, we can't truly understand our problems, let alone fix them. Since we have all editing history - including deleted edits, very important - a reasonable profiling program can be written, but it would be a huge task. Still, if you want to do something about Wikipedia's future beyond incessant hand-wringing, the first step is to know thyself. --JaGatalk 18:38, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

The difference is that Jimmy is talking about "experienced editors" (based on number of edits) and others are talking about "top editors" and "high-quality editors". Most of us can spot the flaw in the inference that they're the same. There are none so blind as those who will not see. 75.59.206.144 (talk) 19:48, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I specifically acknowledged and discussed the difference between the two, so please take your insults elsewhere.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 20:04, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

No, you did not. Neither did I insult you. Why do you always try to pick a fight whenever any Wikipedian points out a serious concern? 75.59.206.144 (talk) 22:25, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

This post has been edited by Peter Damian: