User talk:Digital Emotion: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 01:08, 19 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]

I would suggest that you lower your risk by focusing on many other political controversies, like ones relating to the Middle East, Abortion, immigration policy, Iran, religion, among others. This and this are useful news websites to get you informed on other issues. This might also be useful. I sincerely hope you do well on this site, but I think that this requires spreading out your interests.--A 04:10, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But does that allow me to take part in, and influence the controversy as I am now? That is what I find so attractive about this. I want to resolve the controversy with my reasoning. Looks hard, but might as well give it a go. digitalemotion 04:13, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do not know what you are allowed to take part in for resolving the controversy, but I do find that if you want to do so, that you may want to spread out your interests. Again, this is a mere comment, and I am trying to help you with doing well as an editor to Wikipedia, so I hope you take this well.--A 04:17, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK. As you can see, I have and continue to edit other articles. digitalemotion 04:18, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For a suggestion, I would suggest that you inform yourself throughly on controversial topics before going to them. I have a suggestion that you check out this out before heading out to do any editing on controversial topics. I also have possible suggestions for controversial topics: religion, middle east.--A 04:24, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One important thing is that you must actually care about the controversies you are involved in, and spend some time on individual articles rather than go through multiple articles without paying much attention to any of them. Otherwise, people will not see anything substantial in those edits.--A 04:27, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Further information about Wikipedia that you may not know

You seem not to be aware of this, so I shall inform you. About this comment that you made on krimpet's talk page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Krimpet&diff=169910780&oldid=169848308

Krimpet. Dude. You're letting your emotions infringe on your logical capacities. For some reason you feel as if you have the right to make authoritative judgements based on the fact that an artist posts a naked picture of himself (naked = sexy = baaaaad) and that he has edited pedophile articles (interest = advocacy = inclination). Sloppy, hysterical and totally unverifiable.

You drew up the dots and then connected them for sure. Your unsupported and unusually sexualising assumption that Czyborra was flirting and that he is a pedophile, is not only irrational and speculative, but downright defamatory of a man who has now been gagged from defending himself. digitalemotion 18:12, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You should refrain from making comments like this talking about others. Wikipedia is not the place to talk about other people's emotions, and is not the place to offer therapy, especially when you are using it to try to justify an argument. To avoid making others dislike you, you should not attack others like offering them therapy.

Another thing. Even if you do not intend to do so, and even if you honestly think that Roman Czyborra was innocent of any wrongdoing, you must know that soapboxing without calmly talking about these matters will likely make you regarded as a pedophile, if not by me or other members of Wikipedia, at least by Jimbo Wales. I think that it shall behoove you to talk more calmly and about the facts as a genuine want to improve Wikipedia. Otherwise, passions of any kind will make you seem to be on an agenda, or a POV-pusher. It is especially unwise to be a POV-pusher in pedophile-related topics, to let you know. I do think that you may be able to make a positive contribution towards Wikipedia, but that involves not being banned, and adopting the attitude of wanting to make a contribution towards Wikipedia. It seems like you will pick up a ban eventually (just an observation, nothing more) if you shall continue with this kind of behavior, in regards to past precedents. These are just my recommendations, and I just think that these recommendations are important and good on behalf of the betterment of Wikipedia and also on your own behalf, so I hope you take this message well. Regards, A 01:15, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Headache

Your user signature gives me a headache. Would you please change it as a good faith sign. I mean I understand dazzling by the brilliance of your arguments but this is something else. Thanks, SqueakBox 01:08, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Revision as of 01:08, 19 November 2007 edit RichardWeiss (talk \| contribs) Extended confirmed users 75,870 edits →Further information about Wikipedia that you may not know: new section headache ← Previous edit		Revision as of 01:08, 19 November 2007 edit undo RichardWeiss (talk \| contribs) Extended confirmed users 75,870 edits →Headache: sigh Next edit →
Line 85:		Line 85:

	==Headache==		==Headache==
	Your user signature gives me a headache. Would you please change it as a good faith sign. I mean I understand dazzling by the brilliance of your arguments but this is something ~~else01~~:08, 19 November 2007 (UTC)		Your user signature gives me a headache. Would you please change it as a good faith sign. I mean I understand dazzling by the brilliance of your arguments but this is something else. Thanks, [[User:SqueakBox\|SqueakBox]] 01:08, 19 November 2007 (UTC)