User talk:Hyperbole

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Maintaining this Page

I'm not sure how people usually maintain their User_talk pages. Obviously, they can get messy fast. Any suggestions? It's not considered impolite to delete stuff that no longer seems relevant, is it? --Hyperbole 00:21, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yes, archiving. Simply write, User talk:Hyperbole/Archive and then copy what you wish to archive there. I have two archives but I've seen people with 20. You can see how i've done it on my talk page. Hope that helps Falphin 01:03, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Join us

Please participate in the dicsussion about these articles on their respective talk pages, Talk:Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry and Talk:Matt Slick. While we all should be bold in editing, on controversial articles it is conducive to editing if the active editors talk about various issues. Thanks. - Willmcw 23:21, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Plan to stay

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using three tildes, like this: ~~~. Four tildes (~~~~) produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome! Cheers, -Willmcw 23:21, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)

I was just wondering if you planned to stay at wikipedia. I believe you could become a valuable editor here. Falphin 00:03, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I definitely am interested in the project. I'll keep my eyes open for other pages I'd want to edit. I'm not sure how everything works yet. --Hyperbole 00:45, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

A good idea is to edit your userpage. You can put whatever you like on it, and it will make you look more credible.(some people absolutely hate red ink on wikipedia.) Falphin 01:12, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You can ask me any questions you need on my talk, I've been here long enough I know most ropes. Also I don't know if you have seen it yet but their is a watch button on each article. To activate it you need to click on it and then not backspace otherwise it will erase. Falphin 01:13, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Something you might be intested in going to, COTW. Falphin 00:43, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Could use you

On another article if your willing to help. I plan to do Josh McDowell who has a pathetic as of now. But I need to make sure I don't get POV on that article either. Its up to you but first still going to finish the Carm ones. Falphin 01:30, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I noticed you started on the Josh McDowell article. I will do most of my edits tommorow. One other thing, I own his Evidence that Demands a Verdict and Beyond Belief to Convictions if anything from those can be used. Falphin 01:15, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The page could still use some touch-up, but at least it's not an embarassment at this point. Thanks for your help :) --Hyperbole 00:21, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Red ink

All that is just an article that hasn't been created yet that therefore is in red. Falphin 02:35, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Ahh. Wow, I am new. Thanks :) --Hyperbole 00:21, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Slick page

I agree with you on your revert on the CARM page. Thanks for still watching it. Falphin 22:06, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thanks! Yeah, it was obvious to me that the editor was editing solely from a position of bias, and didn't have objectivity in mind at all. Although, on the bright side, she did give me one more fact for "Facts and Figures," one more sentence for "Perspectives/Supporters," and a chance to revisit the whole Perspectives section for clarity.

[edit] Bad biographies

If there are any other poor biographies that you would like to be improved I thought I might let you know there is a new collaboration called, BioCOTW. Don't feel obligated to join but I thought I might let you know. Falphin 23:49, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Cool, I'll check it out! Yeah, I've been doing quite a few contributions lately - my old high school, a few "where are they now" bits on popular '90s artists, Founding Fathers, just drifting around and adding clarifications and bits of information where I can. I don't have a real organized Wikipedia plan yet but I'm really enjoying, and have a lot of respect for, the project --Hyperbole 23:54, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Har, har

Just noticed that on my userpage. Andre (talk) 01:37, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] John W. Ratcliff

While I know that you mean well and are constructively improving the article in the face of involved editors, nonetheless I must remind and warn you of the three revert rule. I have also warned another editor of the page. If there is an active editing war going on we can ask to have the page protected temporarily while issues are discussed on the talk page. Repeated reverting, even of unhelpful edits, is not conducive to building a consensus. Anyway, thanks for your contributions. -Willmcw 19:34, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, editing which is not a revert is certainly allowed. That's the whole point - move forward not backward. Regarding the profanity quote, it was clearly added with the intent of furthering a POV. Some versions of the article have over-emphasized the profanity on AARM. While the use of profanity may be shocking to those accustomed to heavily moderated sites, it is not unusual for web forums, at least in my limited experience. Cheers, -Willmcw 19:53, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

Not to pick on you, but the term "vandalism" should be restricted to true wikipedia:vandalism. [1] Unexplained deletions may feel like vandalism, but calling them that just coarsens the discource. Thanks, -Willmcw 06:19, August 20, 2005 (UTC)

No, it's no problem, I didn't know there was a formal definition of the term here. I'll make sure to stick to it in the future. --Hyperbole 08:54, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Good job!

Nice job on the article. If there is anything I could do to help you with the discussion I would be glad to, post on CARM or something. I could relate with their issues concering the CARM and Matt Slick articles but I don't understand the problem with this one. He is a notable game developer that created a semi-obscure webpage its pretty NPOV article. Well, good job. Falphin 23:43, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for doing me the honor of implementing the changes that I proposed. Although I (inevitably) agree with you that the NPOV flag no longer applies, I have learnt that it is wise to let somebody else remove an NPOV flag after making the changes that seemed to be needed. Uncomfortable experiences have taught me to make the changes and then propose removal of the template on the talk page. The presence of such a flag usually indicates high feeling and permitting discussion of the removal helps all parties to feel engaged. Keep on doing the good stuff. —Theo (Talk) 00:17, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] AARM VFD apology

Awarded to Hyperbole good-natured honesty

Hi: Your unqualified apology at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/AARM fills me with admiration. It is great to see someone apologise for a mistake without excuses. So great, in fact, that I offer a barnstar. —Theo (Talk) 16:40, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

As closer of this discussion, I'll echo that appreciation for your apology. That kind of radical reorganization does make our job a little harder, but I recognise you were trying to help. --Tony Sidaway ^Talk 16:04, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] HRG's cat

Just giving you a heads up for this, it is being consdiered in VfD Wikipedia:Pages for deletion/HRG's cat. Alf 15:47, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Image Tagging for Image:Renohighschool.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Renohighschool.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see User talk:Carnildo/images. 12:54, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WP:3RR

Read over WP:3RR as you are on the border. I rarely block anyone for violating it, and never do if I am in dispute with someone (not supposed to anyway for good reasons). Wikipedia's three revert rule is so editors can avoid edit wars. I'm on the line two, but my first revert was of what I saw as vandalism and then I reverted you twice. You have inserted the same info 4 times in less than 24 hours, a violation.

one more insertion of the links if they are deleted and that will be way over the policy limits...FYI.--MONGO 11:45, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Soap dispenser

Well done! --FloNight ^talk 02:08, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] POV fork

The WP page on that indicates that they are usually formed the way you described in the 9/11 Whitewash Commission AFD, but that's not a requirement. Just by the definition "A POV fork is a content fork deliberately created to avoid neutral point of view guidelines, often to avoid or highlight negative or positive viewpoints or facts" it would seem to be one. Esquizombi 19:56, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't see this as a content fork at all. The only "content" it offers is that some people call the commission a "Whitewash Commission." As I've said, my problem with the page is that it doesn't contain any significant content, and doesn't appear to have the potential to. --Hyperbole 21:03, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] afd

Hi. Care to take a look: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/People questioning the official American 9/11 account? --Striver 21:17, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I've already weighed in on that page; I voted "Keep" with a comment that I would prefer a different name for the article. --Hyperbole 22:29, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Did you know? {{prod}} can have a parameter.

Hello there. You have proposed the article Davis Gym for deletion without providing a reason why in the {{prod}} template. You may be interested to know that you can add your reasoning like that: {{prod|Add reason for deletion here}}. This will make your reasoning show up in the article's deletion notice. It will also aid other users in considering your suggestion on the Proposed Deletions log. See also: How to propose deletion of an article. Sandstein 17:38, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Speedy Keep on AfD

just wanted to let you know, that once there has been even a single delete vote on an AfD (excluding the nom), it is ineligible for Speedy Keep. You should change your vote to Strong Keep instead. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 21:22, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for heads up. --Hyperbole 00:54, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Charlie Sheen Edits (including Image:Charlie Sheen Publicity Photo.jpg)

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Charlie Sheen Publicity Photo.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then there needs to be an argument why we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then it needs to be specified where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag then one should be added. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media qualifies as fair use, consider reading fair use, and then use a tag such as {{fairusein|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other media, consider checking that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Jkelly 17:45, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Hello Hyperbole, I hope you don't mind I changed your picture on the Charlie Sheen page. It had some kind of strange double exposure over the right side of his face. I don't know if that was supposed to be something the photographer intended, but either way it wasn't clear. I think the current pic is the most flattering of the Charlie Sheen pics that have been uploaded to date. The Penthouse photo was up there for the longest time LOL —The preceding unsigned comment was added by FairNBalanced (talk • contribs).

Thank you. I still don't fully understand fair use issues; that's why I went to the same site you pulled your pic from. To be fully honest, I'm not much of a Charlie Sheen fan on a personal level. He's a full blown moonbat. However, I love his movies, and his acting work. Regardless, he deserves to have a decent picture on Wikipedia. His page must get a lot of hits- the fact that the Penthouse pic was on there for so long is really funny... and wrong. I've only VERY recently registered an account on Wikipedia for doing edits (even though I've been using Wikipedia for years). See ya around.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by FairNBalanced (talk • contribs).

As for the SNL monologue, I didn't think it would stay, but it was one source of a personal admission. I agree with you removing it. Charlie Sheen was well known as a Hollywood badboy, although he's currently not into quite the mischief he used to be into. The cocaine addiction allegation was not put into the article by me, but it shouldn't have been considered an inflammatory charge. Mr. Sheen himself acknowledges his past.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by FairNBalanced (talk • contribs).

What's up Loc! I've been honing my Wiki-skills since we last met :) Hope you're doing well --FrankNBeans 05:32, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Regarding Rod Sheffield

He wasn't born in 1938. He was born in 68! Some person named Betty Coburn changed the date. WhisperToMe 00:13, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] About the 2003 Invasion of Iraq Poll

Hyperbole, the vote here: [6] is about whether or not "War on Terrorism" should be used in the infobox caption. And you voted under: "Users who think the term "war on terrorism" should be used" but you said in your statement you think it Shouldn't be in the infobox. So you might want to move your statement. -- Mr. Tibbs 20:35, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Um, Tibbs, you changed the topic of the vote after I voted. The original poll was whether the term "War on Terrorism" should be used - at all - in the article. --Hyperbole 05:31, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Miscommunication. Publicus did the same thing on the same poll at [7]. Which is why I changed the headings. No one is edit warring over the tiny mention of War on Terrorism in the prelude section: [8]. It's all about the infobox. - Mr. Tibbs 06:04, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] AFD

Hi. I would like to inform you of this afd:

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paul Joseph Watson --Striver 13:07, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 7 World Trade Center dispute

We're not getting anywhere. I'm going to step back from the debate and monitor the situation without much further input from myself if the situation remains as it is now. We're simply re-hashing things that have already been said over and over and over again, and not getting anywhere. There's no common ground to be found here apparently, and all attempts to do so have failed. My position regarding the revert war remains the same. However, out of deference to your continued accusation that I have grossly abused my administrator powers, if I see a re-erruption of the revert warring I will refer it to other administrators to issue warnings and blocks.

At times when I've become involved in debates of this nature, I've asked other wikipedians for a 'reality check' as it were. I've done this in this case as well. I don't go looking for 'yes' men to affirm my position. In fact, rather the opposite. It's not useful to me if I do not get honest input. The input that I've received in this case, including input from a member of ArbCom, is that my stance regarding the links that have so far been proposed is in the right.

For me, barring the re-erruption of a revert war or the inclusion of the proposed links without consensus to do so because of the egregious problematic nature of these links, I consider the matter closed. I still invite you to find a link that supports the POV without being so problematic. However, as of this writing you've yet to do so, for reasons unknown to me.

If you still feel compelled to start an RfC on this matter, by all means I encourage you to do so if only because it will help bring closure to this for you. To be honest, I wouldn't care if the resolution of this was that I was de-adminned. Adminship is no big deal. My main concern here is the effect this matter could have on you and others who are taking your stance on this issue. I am concerned that if you do not find satisfactory closure to this that supports your position that it might result in your reduced contribution to Wikipedia, or worse departure and that of others supporting your position. Even though I disagree with you on this debate, I don't want to see that happen.

I sincerely wish you the best, --Durin 20:51, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

You may wish to agree/disagree and/or comment at Talk:7_World_Trade_Center#A_way_out_of_this_mess.3F --Durin 22:49, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I've been talking to MONGO and Durin about this; I was trying to make my POV clear. Have a look at their user talk pages if you like. Most of all, I want to make this a good and encyclopedic article, as I think you do too. To quote the motto of my locale (Leith), we must persevere. Best wishes Guinnog 22:26, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Hyperbole, on behalf of the Wiki community, you are hereby awarded the Wiki Wiffle Bat Award in recognition of your noble efforts to ensure some light of truth will someday be reflected in the Wiki's 7 World Trade Center article, despite seemingly overwhelming deletionist stemwinding. Show it with pride! Ombudsman 00:58, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedias three revert rule

Howdy! This is just a friendly reminder about Wikipedias three revert rule...as I noticed you have been reverting the NPOV tag at the top of the article 7 World Trade Center, adding it once and reverting twice so far...this is just a friendly reminder from friendly--MONGO 04:35, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

So, why do I get a 3RR warning after two reverts? --Hyperbole 04:38, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

So you don't go over your limit.--MONGO 06:57, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

If you need any help Hyper, I'll revert it next time. In fact I was in the middle of doing so last time and you beat me to it. Of course, the 3rr rule does not apply to vandalism, which the repeated removal of this (highly merited) tag arguably is. It's a shame that Mongo doesn't devote his talent and energy towards improving the article rather than trying to censor it; we will succeed in improving this article in the end in spite of his (no doubt well-intentioned) actions. Keep up the good work! --Guinnog 12:54, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree. If you need a revert anywhere, never hesitate to ask me to take a look. I dont promise ill revert, but ill take a good look. btw, take a look at this --Striver 00:35, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Getting another person to reverting on request to avoid violating 3RR is basically the same as sockpuppetry and vote stacking (and I would argue that it deserves the same treatment). At the least it's a dishonest way of dodging a policy. Why am I not surprised that you offer to do this, Striver? Good thing that you didn't promise to revert. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 13:17, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Im offering to do this because i know that there is a 95% probability that i fullheartedly agree with his version. The lack of promise is for the 5% case that i might not agree with him. This is not dishonest, this is my way of informing him that he has my support. --Striver 10:23, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hi

Take a look at this and [9], thanks.--Striver --Striver 10:21, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 7wtc

Well done! Together, we will make this a better article. --Guinnog 01:04, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fire

Bro, that isn't worth the emotions. I know, i have been there. Try to widen the audience. --Striver 23:16, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, I try to keep emotion out of it. Rodriguez's actions were notable as it concerns that fire; therefore, the article should mention him. It is unfortunate that it's turned into a revert war, but there's no compromise between "mention him" and "not mention him"; his mention has already been stripped down to just about the shortest sentence possible. --Hyperbole 01:12, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sophie McLean

*Merge and redirect to Voyage Au Pays Des Nouveaux Gourous. Since McLean is really notable only in the context of the documentary, it stands to reason that information about her should go in that article. --Hyperbole 07:26, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Again, thank you for your comment with regard to "he appears to be editing in good faith."
I would not be opposed right now to utilizing your "Merge and redirect" idea. I don't think I have ever "merged and redirected" something before, how is it done functionally? Or perhaps you could do it for me? Thank you for your time. Yours, Smeelgova 18:19, 5 October 2006 (UTC).

[edit] Something you might be interested in

Since you requested deletion for the One Peice attacks, I thought you could help out here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Dragon Ball special abilities. Hydromasta231 04:10, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		I, Smeelgova, award this barnstar to Hyperbole for Hyperbole's kind attitude and professional demeanor. Thank you. Smeelgova 05:09, 10 October 2006 (UTC).

(feel free to add to your user page if you like). yours, Smeelgova 05:09, 10 October 2006 (UTC).

[edit] CARM and Ratcliff

I saw that User:Urbie deleted your clarification (which I added to the article on CARM) on what kind of liberalism was at issue in those CARM debates. S/he gives no explanation, but apparently disagrees with that characterization. I think it needs to be clarified either as political or theological liberalism (or both) that was at play, but since you seem to have first-hand knowledge, I'll leave it up to you to restore those changes. --Flex 15:12, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Urbie is also someone with first-hand knowledge of the dispute. It's probably accurate to say that both Christian liberals and liberal Christians were perceived as being targeted by CARM's management, but I'm not sure how one would source that. --Hyperbole 03:00, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Interested Party

Do you have any firm evidence that the account, Interested Party, is definitely Diane Sellner's sister and/or used by Diane Sellner herself? Our criteria here at the Wikipedia is obviously not that of a court of law but the evidence would need to be stronger than the strangely identical point of view and editing styles. I know previously the account was blocked for being a sockpuppet of Tom and I know that account is a sockpuppet of Diane Sellner, but I wasn't the admin who determined the relationship between Tom S 48 and Interested Party. Please respond on my talk page if you have any response to make. Thanks. --Yamla 05:48, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] POV?

Explain to me how my edit is POV [10] when all I did was cite a quote from the same source just a bit further down?--MONGO 08:21, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your vote on AfD

I see you voted on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CAT1-X Hyperion Gundam series to keep. I urge you to change your decision - all of the pages violate policies, as I have taken time to do. You cannot argue there might be "babies in the bathwater", because ignorance is not a reason to keep articles. What is your reasoning for keeping the decision? --TheEmulatorGuy 00:49, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

So, tell me, what convinces you that they don't violate policies? Why have you chosen to vote "keep"? You need to read all of the articles to vote "keep" if you're using that logic. The problem with a WikiProject addressing the issue is that 1. they don't want to do it (usually because of fan-related reasons) and 2. every article is transwikied, mentioned on a list, and stolen. All we have left is to delete them, and I just can't understand why you don't agree. If you won't vote "delete" out of ignorance, then don't vote "keep" out of ignorance.

That's fair. However, you still haven't defended the other (ORIGINAL) policy violations, nor have you properly explained your "keep" vote. --TheEmulatorGuy 01:31, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

WP:NOT - "Wikipedia articles on works of fiction should contain real-world context and sourced analysis". WP:NOR - "Original research is a term used in Wikipedia to refer to material that has not been published by a reliable source." There is no real-world context and there are no reliable sources. --TheEmulatorGuy 01:43, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Black Eyed Peas

I see that you cited The Black Eyed Peas as a copyvio. Admittedly I'm not familiar with the article history, but it has been on Wikipedia for several years and received hundreds of edits. Therefore, I would be inclined to think that either there must be a non-copyvio version in the page history or that the external source may have copied from Wikipedia. Could you please provide further information at Talk:The Black Eyed Peas so that the copyright issue can be cleared up? --Metropolitan90 05:32, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../h/y/p/User_talk%7EHyperbole_eb7c.html"