User talk:Digital Emotion: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 03:59, 6 November 2007

Welcome!

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia from SqueakBox! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and becoming a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.

Here is a list of useful links that I have compiled:

Again, welcome. Thanks, SqueakBox 02:47, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. digitalemotion 02:49, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hysteria

I notice you made an edit to your user page in which you say "Dose up on the hysteria" and then link to PAW. As good as your word you then post some further hysteria on the PAW talk page to add to the krystalnacht hysteria of the last few days. This is really not constructive. Thanks, SqueakBox 02:50, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Um, can you point to what was hysterical about my opposition to Roman's ban, or whatever it is that you don't like? digitalemotion 02:51, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey it was you who mentioned the word hysteria not me. You haven't seen me endlessly complaining that DPetersen or XavierVE get unblocked and given you mentioned hysteria re PAW I assumed it was to these endless complaints about PPA editors being blocked that you referred when saying "hysteria". Thanks, SqueakBox 02:55, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rather the general tone of PAW. It has a McCarthyite whiff about if that attracts and repulses in equal measure! digitalemotion 02:57, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is not what it is at all, a particularly bad example as there really were hardly any, if any, communists being targeted by McCarthy and his cronies who were themselves creating panic in order to promote a political agenda; none of that fits here. Thanks, SqueakBox 03:02, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Depends on your view of things. If the enemy doesn't exist (which looks to be the case), then it fits perfectly. digitalemotion 03:46, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think enemy is much too extreme a word for editors at wikipedia but there is no question but that there has been a huge amount of PPA POV pushing, including multiple abusing socks, for a long time by some clever, committed people. This is a situation that the encyclopedia has to protect iself against, as against any concerted POV pushing. Thanks, SqueakBox 03:53, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I guess that my opinion is just different to yours. On my reading of the PAW discussion, there have been many unjustified blocks, even before Czyborra, A.Z., Dirac etc. Having seen these people as good editors, it does not fill me with confidence about the previous blocks. digitalemotion 03:59, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A comment on your appearance

The fact is that your recent entry to pedophile-related articles is very dangerous territory, and even more so if it is the first thing you happen to edit, if you do not show enough zeal for anti-pedophile activism. It may behoove your to spread your focus to other things. This is merely my comment, but I think that if you are new, that you may find this useful.--A 03:56, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know about the inherent risk. Truth is that I do have wider interests, but nothing attracts better than political controversy. And I know where I am on this one. digitalemotion 03:59, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 51: / Line 51: @@
 ::::::I think enemy is much too extreme a word for editors at wikipedia but there is no question but that there has been a huge amount of PPA POV pushing, including multiple abusing socks, for a long time by some clever, committed people. This is a situation that the encyclopedia has to protect iself against, as against any concerted POV pushing. Thanks, [[User:SqueakBox|SqueakBox]] 03:53, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
+I guess that my opinion is just different to yours. On my reading of the PAW discussion, there have been many unjustified blocks, even before Czyborra, A.Z., Dirac etc. Having seen these people as good editors, it does not fill me with confidence about the previous blocks. [[User:Digital Emotion|<font color = "#FDD017">digitalemotion</font>]] 03:59, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
 == A comment on your appearance ==
 The fact is that your recent entry to pedophile-related articles is very dangerous territory, and even more so if it is the first thing you happen to edit, if you do not show enough zeal for anti-pedophile activism. It may behoove your to spread your focus to other things. This is merely my comment, but I think that if you are new, that you may find this useful.--[[User:The Scarlet Letter|A]] 03:56, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
+:I know about the inherent risk. Truth is that I do have wider interests, but nothing attracts better than political controversy. And I know where I am on this one. [[User:Digital Emotion|<font color = "#FDD017">digitalemotion</font>]] 03:59, 6 November 2007 (UTC)