User talk:Illuminati
Hello, please could you read the discussion on Talk:Illuminati Order and respond there before reverting the article again. Thanks.
By the way, if you're going to keep blnking your talk page, you might want to put some sort of disclaimer at the top like Evercat has done to avoid people not realising you have done this and telling you the same things again and again. Angela 20:59, 14 Nov 2003 (UTC)
Ahhh! Got it. Had not read this. Will do. Also, keep in mind, the artcle is about the Illuminati Order, not specifically the Illuminati, which is a broad term.
Hi, regarding your questions on Talk:Illuminati Order, such as "shall I cease and let you do what you will with it?"; perhaps it would be best if you left that article alone for a while and focus your efforts on something else. Emotions are always going to be raised when working on something that you feel strongly attached to. The advice at Wikipedia:Autobiography may be partly relevant. See the talk page too for some discussion of writing on subjects close to your heart. Angela 21:48, 14 Nov 2003 (UTC)
- Hi Angela. Is it that obvious? :) Thank you for that tip. I'll read what you suggested. Illuminati
Greetings, Illuminati. And welcome to Wikipedia. Please accept my apologies for the inhospitable way some of my fellow Wikipedians have received you. You really didn't do anything wrong, but I would urge you to limit your contributions to article Talk pages until such time as you have a better understanding of the Wikipedia community. I am drawn to controversy like a moth to a flame, but (as a general rule) I try to limit my contributions on controversial Wikipedia articles to Talk pages until I figure out who is involved in editing said articles and what their various agendas are. -- NetEsq 22:18, 14 Nov 2003 (UTC)
- Now 'this' I really appreciate. Thank you. That is, if you're an Angel of peace, and not my death! hahaha. I've learned some interesting lessons so far, and it seems that using the Talk pages is one of them. ;) Illuminati 22:28, 14 Nov 2003 (UTC)
By virtue of the fact that virtually every regular Wikipedia contributor gets involved in an occasional edit war, I think it's self-evident that we all need to learn those interesting lessons over and over again. Once again, welcome to the 'Pedia, and be sure to invite all your friends. I look forward to seeing drastically expanded content on the Freemasons. -- NetEsq 22:36, 14 Nov 2003 (UTC)
- Greets NetEsq,
Seems I have stumbled onto another very interesting place on the net. After making my presence known in some, I revert to what they call "lurking" - ever watchful. I suppose some might call me the Watcher. If some of my elder brethren knew of my internet activities, they would probably warn me more sternly than they do. However, our numbers diminish and our influence wanes because of their lack of understanding of this new technology. I am a technology baby. Information was once my food. Misunderstanding and lack of guidance was my hindrance. Time, opportunity, and obligations permitting, I will add more. Seems my brethren on the usenet have their niche. Perhaps Wikipedia needs to be someone’s too. PS - Should I to others here, or to their personal talk pages/mail? Illuminati 23:36, 14 Nov 2003 (UTC)
- It's usually best to reply on other people's talk pages. People would only see your reply here if they had put this page on their watchlist, whereas if you reply on their talk page they get instant notification of it. If you want to discuss something privately, then e-mail is an option, although not everyone discloses their e-mail address. Most communication occurs on talk pages though rather than by e-mail though. Angela 00:01, 15 Nov 2003 (UTC)
- Im glad you are able to understand what I type even when I make typos. OK, so "talk" pages are public about a subject, and "E-Mail this user" is completely private? Illuminati 00:24, 15 Nov 2003 (UTC)
- Yes that should be the case, although you should always question whether or not you trust the person in question to keep it completely private. One would hope they would, but you shouldn't rely too heavily on it. Angela 00:33, 15 Nov 2003 (UTC)
In regard to talk pages on articles, I advise you to keep the discussion solely about the subject of improvements to the article. There are plenty of fora out there were you can discuss your esoteric hobbies with your friends, Wikipedia is not one of them. --Saddhiyama (talk) 09:58, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
hobby?
Sure. ok.
And do you answer to no one about your condescending tone?
Please spare me the effort of having to find that out.
Further, if you'd stop being so quick to control you might have at the very least discovered that I was making a point, whether you got it or not.
and look what we find here at Saddhiyama (talk) under ==Re: Question about my history==
"...Once more I urge you to refrain from taking disputes as personal insults and please leave out the snug remarks and namecalling... ... --Saddhiyama"
What was the phrase you used? Something about a Pot calling a Kettle...
Illuminati (talk) 23:57, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
- I am glad to see that you have taken my hint and kept your most recent remarks in the realm of building an encyclopedia. I hope that you will continue to do so. --Saddhiyama (talk) 08:35, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
which means you didn't realize you were glad from the start, and I need to get used to a certain knack you have?
Oh, and "no". It was Blueboar's lead, not yours. But either way...
Illuminati (talk) 09:21, 6 June 2009 (UTC)