Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2012/Candidates/Carcharoth/Questions: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
Carcharoth (talk | contribs) →Question from Martinevans123: bit more |
m →Question from Martinevans123: re, thank you |
||
Line 293:
::::(Thanks for date-stampimg for me - the instructions for adding a comment seem to suggest that no signature is required.) I wonder could you briefly describe what the "valid arguents" are, in your view? Many thanks. [[User:Martinevans123|Martinevans123]] ([[User talk:Martinevans123|talk]]) 15:13, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
:::::Briefly (will be logging off soon for most of the rest of today), some profanities are used for emphasis. Though I would personally avoid using them even in that context (due to the possibility of misunderstandings), those who object to them need to be aware of that usage. Gratuitous use of profanities isn't really acceptable, but neither is it the worst thing that can be done on Wikipedia (i.e. use of profanities can distract from bigger problems both by other editors and the editors in question). [[User:Carcharoth|Carcharoth]] ([[User talk:Carcharoth|talk]]) 15:24, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
::::::Yes, I quite agree they can be a distraction. And can be purposefully employed to act as a distraction. I also think that established editors should try and use all other means available for adding "emphasis". It's very risky, in my experience, to use a profanity where one is not wholly sure how it will be received. Repeated use of multiple profanites often make the editor responsible appear as if he or she may have a problem with alcohol, or other substance, abuse. I'm sure this is not the image that the project wishes to give, particularly to younger editors. Thanks for your considered and measured response. [[User:Martinevans123|Martinevans123]] ([[User talk:Martinevans123|talk]]) 15:35, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
| |||