User talk:PaolaDiApulia

Your message at Modern Galilean Relativity
Hi PaolaDiApulia. In case you are a real first time user and not a sock puppet of banned user KraMuc, here is why I reverted your message. According to Wikipedia policies, you may not attack or disparage another editor - see no personal attacks, as you did in the first part of your message. When such an attack takes place, it may be reverted by anyone, which I did. The second part of your message is correct - we should always examine arguments from anyone on their merits. I think we all agree with that, but user:KraMuc has been permanently banned and may not post any messages of any kind on Wikipedia. Thanks, Crum375 11:45, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi Crum375. I am a newcomer, but one who does not need any education. You must be fairly sensitive, if you value my critical remarks as an "attack". PaolaDiApulia 10:23, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Again, assuming you are not a banned KraMuc sock puppet, I consider the statement "I'd [sic] the impression that the banned user was not so much interested in self-representation (as most of the editors messing up articles seem to be)" an attack. It certainly is not civil nor does it assume good faith. As a new user, even if you believe you "don't need any education", you might want to read up on basic Wikipedia policies anyway. You are right that criticism is important - it is the essence and spirit of science - and we all accept that. But Wikipedia is a collaborative project, where people have to work together, and for that process to be comfortable, effective and efficient, it is important to avoid attacks and disparaging remarks on each other. Civility among editors, per Wikipedia policies, is no less important than striving to improve scientific content. Thanks, Crum375 12:45, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, read: I had (instead of "I'd"), please. I was referring to the following sentence by user Harald88 (talk, 16 July 2006): "None of us likes to invest time in writing something that may be messed up by another editor who thinks differently about contents". He was obviously not referring to the banned user. If KraMuc should be a female user, then there is even more reason to listen to my kind recommendation.PaolaDiApulia 10:40, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

If you are KraMuc, then you are pemanently banned and you may not post to WP regardless of your gender. And as far as the "kind recommendation", the attack that I saw was in implying that other editors are "interested in self representation" instead of in improving WP. I already agreed with the part that encourages criticism, as long as it is done in a civil manner. And at WP we welcome all contributors who want to help, and treat them equally, regardless of their gender or other attributes, as long as they are civil and non-disruptive. Thanks, Crum375 12:56, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

You don't seem to like women in general. I am mainly interested in didactic questions. I am not very amused by your repeated suspicion of sock puppetry. My personal judgements are backed up by some years of professional experience, so that I am not deeply shocked if you put some of my words into quotes. I have not much time available. If I had, an invasion of Wikipedia with a female army of sock puppets could perhaps be a serious temptation.PaolaDiApulia 09:05, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry case
You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Suspected sock puppets/KraMuc (2nd) for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page.