User talk:Enrico Dirac

Arlington National Cemetery
Oops, didn't notice that spelling mistake I fixed was in a file name, and it redlinked. Live and learn. Enrico Dirac 02:56, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

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 (~&#126;); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place  on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Here is a list of useful links that I have compiled:
 * Biographies of living persons
 * What Wikipedia is not
 * Neutral point of view
 * Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point
 * Attribution
 * Verifiability
 * Assume good faith
 * Civility
 * Words to avoid
 * Requests for oversight
 * Requests_for_page_protection
 * Requests_for_comment
 * Wikipedia:Block log
 * Requests for mediation
 * Administrators' noticeboard
 * Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
 * Administrators' noticeboard/3RR
 * Requests for arbitration
 * Articles for deletion
 * Images and media for deletion
 * Requests for checkuser
 * Usernames for administrator attention
 * Avoid the word "vandal"
 * No legal threats
 * Mediation Cabal

Again, welcome, SqueakBox 18:15, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

No personal attacks
Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, we remind you not to attack other editors. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:21, 16 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Please reread my comments. Other Wikipedia editors were not attacked.  The tone of Wikipedia articles on certain topics was pointed out.  No specific editors were mentioned negatively. Enrico Dirac 19:44, 16 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I can't approve of calling unnamed Amazine reviewers "loud idiots" eithre, but it isn't against Wikipedia policy either. Please be more tmerpate in your remarks. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 00:47, 17 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Whether I call Amazon reviewers loud idiots is little of Wikipedia's concern, given the large number of biased articles Wikipedia editors could productively work on fixing. By the way, I notice Wikipedia has no article on Encyclopedia Dramatica.  Is this by design?  It's certainly big enough now to be notable.  It even has an article on Jimbo. :) Enrico Dirac 01:58, 17 October 2007 (UTC)


 * As I said, there's nothing against it here. So long as you don't name them you can call Amazon reviewers anything you like. That doesn't apply to folks around here though. We all try to do our best to be civil with one another, and we expect that of everybody. I know there are contentious issues on Wikipedia. We simply have to take our time and be neutral. We're here to write the world's encyclopedia, not to right the world's wrongs. We can't fix things, only record the way things are according to verifiable sources. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 09:39, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

It's now a deletion review
Hello, Enrico Dirac. I'm alerting all of the editors that took part in the the deletion debate for the article Adult-child sex that it is now a deletion review, as seen in this link. I felt that you may want to lend your voice about this topic in its deletion review as well. More on what may happen concerning this topic is discussed here. After reading that, I'm sure that I won't have to tell you to watch for it being put up for deletion again, if this deletion review doesn't come out as Overturn and delete. I'll see you around. Flyer22 21:16, 23 October 2007 (UTC)


 * You were right about the merge to CS, I hadn't realised. While I still think it should be merged into CSA I certainly think we need to discuss it as a group, Thanks, SqueakBox 00:18, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank You
For clearing up the vandalism on my talk page. Spartaz Humbug! 22:21, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Block
Do you have some evidence I'm the blocked user you are claiming? If not, I'd appreciate being unblocked. Given that I'm currently in the midst of a discussion about Wikipedia pre-emptively blocking everyone who criticizes its policy of extreme abuse agenda bias on certain articles, this block looks a lot like more of the same bullshit. Enrico Dirac 02:06, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

A bit of research reveals that User:Hermitian was also indefinitely banned with no explanation given, and the same nonsense about appealing to Arbcom. Looks like his ban was fabricated out of thin air too. Why am I not surprised. Enrico Dirac 02:11, 6 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Your opinions on said topic are very similar to those of Hermitian on the same page a while back (I hadn't made any connection but having read the block log and investigated Hermitian it looks like a good call to me. Sigh. Thanks, SqueakBox 02:13, 6 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, you're the one who claims everyone who shows up and disagrees with you is a sock of some previously banned user, so your opinion is hardly credible. I have yet to find any evidence that this block of User:Hermitian was justified, so it looks like Wikipedia is again just blocking everyone whose opinion it doesn't like, and claiming other people with the same opinions are socks of those blocked users.  Soon they'll be blocking entire ISPs.  What was it that Freud said about the major cause of paranoia being guilt? Wikipedia's days are numbered.
 * Few people I know would waste time trying to edit it at this point. Enrico Dirac 02:28, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

One other point. I note the blocking admin is claiming that IP logs prove I am this other user. I should point out that I am accessing Wikipedia through a large anonymous dial-up PPP network which serves New England and Washington State, AND HAVE NO FIXED IP. Plenty of people edit Wikipedia who are on this network, and it has a large IP space, and there are many edits on Wikipedia from this network both from anonymous IPs and from users with Wikipedia accounts. So not only is such a claim without merit, but it is not possible for such proof to exist. It would be like saying that two people editing from aol.com must be the same individual. Another example of how Wikipedia admins twist facts to suit their own ends.

Now I suppose Wikipedia could block the entire IP space involved, just to keep two people from criticizing their abuse agenda bias. But that would be rather revealing, now wouldn't it. Enrico Dirac 06:51, 6 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I liked you as an editor, and based on character, I still think that you could be telling the truth. If no one has linked this argument to the check-user on you and Hermitian, I will. Please assure me that I'm not bidding on behalf of a cheat, though. GrooV 07:30, 6 November 2007 (UTC)


 * That's very kind of you, but I think your efforts would be better spent at this point contesting the arbitrary and capricious blocks of other individuals who do not consider the Wikipedia project and its founder to be a giant steaming pile of monkey poo. Even if unblocked, I don't plan to edit Wikipedia again. Enrico Dirac 16:54, 6 November 2007 (UTC)