User talk:Hipocrite/Archive4

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Contents

[edit] WP:V and Otherkin

read www.otherkin.net on the subject of becoming otherkin, or awakening, and youll find the sources for the awakening section on the otherkin page. you cant treat it like scientific subject, casue its about belief....Gimmiet 19:42, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

why must you mess with everything im trying to do? i try to find the cutes for your askings, but all i hear outta you is whining... please try to see that this whole thing aint easy, in by no means an expert, in just trying to help the site, and all i see you doing is methodically damaging the site and not being willing to put any damnned effort into trying to make it better in a constructive way... why is that?19:39, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

You mention if an administrator has a problem with what you're doing with Gabe, let you know. As an administrator with an interest in this case, I think you are doing an incredible job at structuring things and attempting to get some help out of Gabe - it's unfortunate he ignores every attempt. --Golbez 22:12, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Autobio

Are you taking the fucking piss? Englishrose 22:15, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

  • I didn't say there was a WP: Auto problem. I can give you a 90% guarantee that there isn't, but there is some doubt, although I feel it's marginal. There is no evidence to show that the original IP author is Aladin...but there is no evidence to show that it isn't. There were some sock-puppets who voted in the last delete and wrote parts of the article (hyped it up). However, several editors practically got rid of all the hype (look through the history, you'll know what I mean). Some could claim that the people hyping it up were aladin but frankly there is no evidence of this and those claims are unfounded. Sorry if I was a bit pissed off by the question but someone had already accussed 20+ of the editors of being sockpuppets and the majority of them including were proved entirely innocent. I hope that sheds light on the issue. Oh and the evidence suggests that he is notable for wikipedia if you examine it and where it comes from etc etc. Englishrose 22:23, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Part of my comment on the WP:Auto had a major word missing. Englishrose 22:26, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Also the thing that is wrong in the article is: 1. Out of the 19 who voted keep, 4 were sockpuppets...but they didn't really make a difference. 2. He's more notable in places like India, which makes it harder to get info. 3. More comments could be included with citations that would pass as acceptable in normal circumstances but due to the way the article was originally written where it hyped up aladin, some of the information is discarded. Only rock solid citations is allowed such as that can be verified as presented in my comment. 4. The redirects and histeria caused by other users hasn't helped the cause.

It is a mess but only due to the above points. It's hard to understand, even I find a lot of stuff confusing and I've been contacting other magicians/magic related places about him for the last 3 weeks. Englishrose 22:33, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Count and read for yourself, here. 4 were of them were sockpuppers: Tiksustoo, Autumnleaf, Aloodum , Grroin. 2 others who edited the article were sockpuppets but did not take part in the vote. On the 2nd one, some voted redirect, some voted keep and some voted deleted. I told you it was messy. Englishrose 22:58, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Been following this

I think this comment [1]should be brought to the attention of the editor you have been dealing with so patiently trying to convince as to properly citing sources. He must be able to assure the Wikipedia community at large ( you, me, the other interested parties and the arbitrators who heard his case previously) that he understands key WP precepts as NPOV and citing accuarate and verifiably trustworthy sources. If he is incapable of working within the parameters of Wikipedia, he should probably be blocked from doing so. His inclusion of his uncited contributions, and his related reversions/deletions of extant material, flies in the face of (again, IMO) the instructions to him by ArbCom. Help him to understand the ground rules if anything. Ask, perhaps that he does indicate he has done some of the reading as to pertinent WP policies. Until he can do this convincingly, I don't see any credibility in his arguments concerning either the veracity of the information he contributes, or his motivations for doing so. The point that Chairboy makes in the link above should be stressed to Gabe?Gav?Ket? " et al." that all Wikipedia editors are held to the same standards and rules of deployment. Good luck! Hamster Sandwich 18:19, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Talk:Qur'an/Picture Controversy

It is important to keep a cool head, especially when responding to comments against you or your edits. Personal attacks and disruptive comments only escalate a situation; please keep calm and remember that action can be taken against other parties if necessary. Attacking another user back can only satisfy trolls or anger contributors and leads to general bad feeling. Please try to remain civil with your comments. Thanks! ComputerJoe 21:08, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] aladin

Do I understand correctly your position that all verifiable information is encyclopedic? I am trying to figure out my own attitude in this respect. I conjectured you are not alone and typed your self-definition "inclusionist" into wikipedia search and saw m:Inclusionism and many other interesting meta-discussion. I did not know about the existence of the whole meta-phylosophy! Very interesting. Mukadderat 21:50, 23 January 2006 (UTC)


[edit] John Lott

Please see the JL page, which is reverted back to the POV version. I'm out of reverts for the next 22 hrs or so. Thanks, --Pierremenard 02:50, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Batzarro

Please can you unblock my user page? I have a ton of useful editss(see my contribs) My only problems were fair use images on my user page and suspected sockpuppet accounts which I strongly deny.These people are impersonators Please can you unblock my user page,I am not a vandal. Batzarro 07:19, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kirpan

That was an antique kirpan. The one who made it is probably dead. It was made ages ago. Batzarro 15:15, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

OK,anyway whats happening regarding the sockpuppet scene? Batzarro 15:34, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I am not a sockpuppet vandal Batzarro 16:15, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks from Lulu

Storm clouds ... and silver linings Thank you for your support on my RfA.
Unfortunately, it failed to reach consensus. Nonetheless, it proved an opportunity to establish contacts and cooperation with many supportive editors, which will be beneficial to editing Wikipedia in the future. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters (t @)

[edit] Thank you

Thank you for removing the comments at the Wikipedia:AMA Requests for Assistance page. Though I am sure you did not mean it as a personal attack, seeing you refer to me there as a "misguided user"[2] did make me somewhat uncomfortable, as it was a reference to a person, and not the content (referring to WP:NPA "comment on content, not the contributor"). I am glad that the messages were removed though, thanks. Elonka 22:23, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

(followup) Hipocrite, regarding the comment[3] that you placed on my user page. I find the comment a personal attack, not to mention uncivil. I would ask you to please read the Wikipedia policies at Wikipedia:No personal attacks and Wikipedia:Civility, and to be more careful of your behavior in the future. I do have a question though, which is, Why do you seem to be having such a strong reaction to the situation? I have to admit some bafflement as to your recent involvement, not to mention concerns about some of the edits you've made at the article about me. I've been trying very hard to assume good faith, but some of your edits and edit summaries have implied otherwise, and taken in total with the personal attacks, the conclusion seems to be that you just plain dislike me. Is this accurate, and may I ask why you feel the way that you do? Elonka 06:39, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Advocacy

Sure, sounds good. Give me a little while to write something up on your subpage. Everyking 19:37, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Economics416 is Anakinskywalker

Note he uses the exact same style on User Ardenn’s talk page as anakin used to on the Uof Ottawa talk page. He is also POV pushing the same stuff on University of Ottawa. David D. (Talk) 23:11, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] John Lott

Actually I don't understand the question since I think it's an edit war, but I'm tired of arguing with people who don't understand semi protection. I have a feeling you see it as an edit war as well, I'm guessing? --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 02:09, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

OK. If I was in error, someone will overrule me. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 11:39, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Suffrage List

Thank you for compiling the list of those who've suffrage. It is a great help. You did follow the parameters of the guideline passed just recently, didn't you? Wally 02:41, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re:AMA

Sorry, i've been out of the loop on that area. I went over to that talk page, but just saw a long string of text. Mind summing up what you're talking about? Thanks! Karmafist 15:47, 28 January 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Archived pages

Please do not modify old archive pages. I know you meant well, but we simply can't remove other people's comments, especially from archived pages to try to satisfy what an uncooperative and uncivil editor calls a personal attack just because it displeases her. DreamGuy 18:33, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lolicon & "alerts"

Given what you've written here you might want to consider reading this. Mikkerpikker ... 16:27, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes yes, The Wrong Version. Maybe this time you can try not to drive people away from Wikipedia. =D · Katefan0(scribble)/poll 17:06, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Do not change closed afd discussions

He's wrong though. The conclusions are plain wrong. Ardenn 17:46, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I care about this because I'm right. And with no consensus, it's easier to re-list it on afd in a month. Ardenn 17:50, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
I'm not going to hide the fact that I plan to re-list it. Ardenn 17:51, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
I'm a fan of winning too, it doesn't make what that admin did right. Ardenn 17:53, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps, I did list it on that page you recommended. Ardenn 17:57, 31 January 2006 (UTC) I went and removed that nomination. Ardenn 17:58, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Is there a template to dispute templates? Ardenn 17:57, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your help on this. Ardenn 18:02, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

It wouldn't let me dispute Template:vprotect since it's protected. Ardenn 18:04, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Do you use instant messaging? Ardenn 18:57, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't make friends with those who are acting in bad faith against me. Ardenn 19:06, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] the TM page

The Tm page is slipping again, any help would be appreciated Sethie 14:12, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Apology

Hipocrite, I would like to apologize for calling you a troll at the Administrator noticeboard. I was angry at some of the comments you had placed on my own talk page and in that discussion, but it was a hasty over-statement for me to call you a troll in a public forum. I have reconsidered my opinion and removed my accusation.

I have reviewed your posting history, and though I do not agree with you on all matters, I think there are many things that we do very much agree on, such as being supportive at the student project page at Lincoln Akerman School. It is my sincere hope that we will be able to put the past incidents behind us, and be able to work together in a civil manner in the future. I truly desire to be able to work with you rather than against you. I hope you will accept my apology. - Elonka 17:11, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you.  :) By the way, I saw your userpage change, and I think that's a great idea! I think the word that you're looking for is: Peccadillo. Best wishes, Elonka 20:32, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cartoons/sprotect

Hi. We disagree over the sprotect; I'm assuming you're not an admin, otherwise you'd be free to lift it yourself. In which case... have you considered applying? I'd be happy to nominate you. William M. Connolley 18:00, 1 February 2006 (UTC).

[edit] Safe Sex

I respect your edit to safe sex, but I believe the links in my version would give just as much information as in the other version, and it doesn't say "Use a condom" (something morally offesive to some people) but says you "may want to use a condom" or use this or that if engaging in these activities. That is why without your protest I will revert it to my version. Chooserr 22:06, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

The information is found on the links, and I'm not sure how to change them without rewriting the whole thing. If you personally would like to attempt a neutral tone of voice on that article than go ahead and do so. Chooserr 22:12, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

P.S. "Safe sex" like the "war on Christmas" should be in quotes so as not to appear endorsed by wikipedia or factually grounded.

[edit] Chooserr - RFC?

Are Chooserr's edits to Condom/Safe sex approaching User RFC territory, in your opinion? While occasional edits are good, like removing unsourced information about how much condoms can stretch, other edits could present public health risks. --SarekOfVulcan 23:03, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

RCF??? What??? Thanks for going behind my back though. Oh can you show me how to use AFD? Chooserr 23:07, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

No, that wasn't going behind your back -- I knew you'd spot it one way or another. Emailing him would have been behind your back. --SarekOfVulcan 23:19, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Talk

I still don't understand it, but thanks for your help. I decided on a speedy delete for it has less info and less prestige than the former F.A.C.T.1 article. Chooserr 23:17, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

I was just about to add the {{subst:afd1}} tage to the page, but you beat me to it. I'll try to memorize the section you gave me. Chooserr 23:26, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Norevard? Chooserr 23:30, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Well I tried it on Eswarappa which isn't up to snuff. Chooserr 23:48, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. Chooserr 23:56, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Umm I don't know what to say. Thanks? :)--a.n.o.n.y.m t 23:45, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wanna help once more

I understand why you were opposed to my previous rewrite on the Safe Sex page, but I attempted to make it neutral removing phrases like "Use Condoms", and it keeps getting reverted. Would you look over the two version, and attempt a compromise? Chooserr 00:03, 2 February 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Muhammad Cartoons

Sorry, I was just about to readd the image further down the article AND a link to the cartoon, but it was reverted before I had time to do so. Apologies. Thats the first time anyone has even mentioned bad faith in my regard in one year of editing...sob!--File Éireann 22:51, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the apology...accepted. You're very close to being a model Wikipedian now.--File Éireann 23:16, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Muhammad

No, but it's obvious that the drawings should be on the top, as they are more important to the article than the Muslim hate-campaign and boycutt against my country. -- Karl Meier 22:59, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Of course I'll remember to return to the article in a few months when people has forgot it a bit and fix any such issues, but still fact is that the article is most important right now to Wikipedia and otherwise, because it's featured on the front page, and there's a lot of people reading it. Also it seems there is no end to the demands of editors like AE, BrandonYusufToropov. They want the image smaller, to move it down, to add a disclaimer and what not.... Anyway I won't insist much more on this issue today or the next days as I'll most likely be offline. However, I hope that the version that serve Wikipedia and the article best, will be the one that is available to the readers. -- Karl Meier 23:15, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vote

There's a vote going on on the talk page about your idea. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 23:16, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Help

User:Monicasdude is reverting my legit edits at Stargate Atlantis, Stargate SG-1 and University of Ontario Institute of Technology. Ardenn 18:38, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I gave a reason in each of my edit summaries. Remember to always sign all of your posts on talk pages. Typing four tildes after your comment ( ~~~~ ) will insert a signature showing your username and a date/time stamp, which is very helpful. Ardenn 19:26, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
I feel like this user is stalking me. If you look at his contrib history, he votes on afd's that I vote on, and votes oppostite what I voted. Is there a way to report stalking? --Ardenn 20:05, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Could one ask for a clearer demonstration of bad faith? User:Ardenn just went through my contributions page, casting votes contrary to my position on about a dozen AFDs and FAC candidacies, then posts a fabricated accusation of Wikistalking here. Can't you see that encouraging the user to throw tantrums and behave disruptively when his/her views are disputed? Monicasdude 20:27, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
How can I bury the hatchet with him when he's always after me? He's given me no reason to trust him. Ardenn 20:26, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
He's already had at least 2 RFC's what good would a 3rd do? Ardenn 20:30, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] AIDS

Hi hipocrite, you seemed to be doing well with your cleanup of the AIDS reappraisal page, but then you disappeared. Editors are beginning to revert your changes, you might want to check up on that. Nrets 15:17, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Skin-walker opinion

Hi I was wondering if I could get your opinion on the Skin-walker entry as you have taken an interest in the entry. It revolves around two (possibly connected points):

  • I followed your request to add sources to the entry. I also added information on a couple more films. In addition I added a mention of Skinwalker Ranch. All these changes were reverted and following the dispute resolution guidelines I dropped the reverter a line on their talk page asking for clarification. They haven't properly explained why they did it (as opposeed to editting it or speaking to me) and I've suggested going back to the previous version and then we can discuss where they'd like clarificaion on the entry's talk page. As they've said no I thought I'd seek your opinion as a next step in the resolution process.
  • As I mentioned on the discussion page I wonder if the Skin-walker entry would be better being divided up with the bits parceled out to other more focused entries - more information there.

Anyway thanks for taking a look at this. (Emperor 17:44, 6 February 2006 (UTC))

[edit] "disclaimer template" on Freemasonry

What you removed was not a disclaimer template, but in fact a referenced statement made by the United Grand Lodge of England pertaining to Masonry and representing its official policy, and thus I feel it is relevant and should remain. Please discuss it first if you wish to remove it again. MSJapan 16:23, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Yo. See User_talk:William_M._Connolley#Rathbone_on_Freemasonry_..._again. William M. Connolley 19:24, 8 February 2006 (UTC).

[edit] Re : Humanistic naturalism

No, you didn't. :) I guess its more of that the edit conflict didn't kick in this time. Perhaps a bug or in my error. - Cheers, Mailer Diablo 03:23, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bones

I've left him a warning, but his actions (since block) are borderline and I'm a newbie admin. So, I want to be careful, perhaps I'll ask Mongo what he thinks. Cheers Banez 14:54, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

If it were up to me, I'd probably give him some time off. After he said "FO upstart kid" to me, and other stuff, like vandalizing somebody's userpage. However, that was all before the block, so, I'll have to see. Banez 15:06, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
There seems to be a lot of reverting going on on that page, please let me know if he violated 3RR, or if you do :) I didnt really like his response to our warnings but it isnt really a blockable offence. Thanks Banez 15:29, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
Blocked for 3 hours, not too harsh but that is policy. If he does it again it will be a lot longer. Banez 15:54, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

One more thing, if it gets out of hand again, please let me know. Cheers Banez 16:06, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] AIV

Yes, there would be no problem with you removing the alerts. Anyone may help with maintenance; the only things restricted to admins are the admin functions themselves. Other than that, admins have no special status. Thanks. Evil saltine 18:53, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Basil is right about something

The discussion about the freemasonry article must take place on the freemasonry talk page, this is done so other users can look back through the page's archives and see the discussion. Seraphim 19:34, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

According to the talk page page, "Article talk pages are used to discuss changes to the particular article. User talk pages are used to leave messages for particular users.", we are discussing changes about the freemasonry article, therefore they belong on the freemasonry talk page. The major reason is so future editors, when they are looking back on this whole mess (which they will) will beable to see what decisions we reached, and what points we made. Seraphim 19:57, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
I know it's not a talk page... I was quoting the part about the Aritcle talk pages as the main relevant part. It is discussion about proposed changes to the freemasonry article, that must be done on the freemasonry talk page. Seraphim 20:01, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] You can consider it whatever you want

If you have a problem with my actions feel free to take the appropriate actions against me, I will gladly defend myself against whoever I must. I have broken no wikipedia rules, and am following all the appropriate guidelines. If you can show me any examples of me breaking wikipedia policy please point them out to me so I can correct them. Seraphim 20:41, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

You can make up any policies you wish, however I do not have to adhere to them. The only policies and guidelines that apply to me are the wikipedia sanctioned ones. I understand there is a problem on the page, that problem is Basil, he needs to be removed, blanking of the talk page is not acceptable in any way shape or form. This is not a revert war, since i'm reverting blanking, and reverting vandalism is not a 3rr issue. If you want to report a 3rr violation I cannot stop you obviously, I will enjoy arguing my point to defend myself against my first 3rr violation report \o/ Seraphim 20:48, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cool dude

Dude, WP:COOL. I like that you archived the page, I agree with you there. We need to be civil about it all. Ardenn 20:56, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

No problem, I'm here for you like you were for me. Ardenn 20:59, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] About defending basil

You're falling into the same trap I did, I tried to help him, and defend him for atleast a week (look in the copyright section). Whenever someone has a differing opinion them him he points out that they are a mason, and he argues that all masons should be banned from editing the page. He is a anti-mason fanatic, look at the section I made called ""Freemasonry isn't satanic it IS satanism." ~ Basil" to see some examples of his fanaticism. I also suggest you read my section called "Mason Secrets?" which was my first interaction on the talk page, where I was arguing many of the same points you are arguing now, and once the basil thing is over i'd love to have you assist me in making a neutral version of a secrets section. Seraphim 21:49, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Thanks for the advice. Perhaps you can see why I seldom log in now? Deucelow 21:59, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Transcendental meditation

Yes, I've already looked at the histories of everyone on that page and I know Lumiere has been uncivil and difficult at times. We've all made mistakes. Fortunately for all involved, we're not arguing the merits of the individuals in the discussion, but the merits of the different points of view.
As I said at the bottom of the talk page, the reasons seem clear for removing the mention of the German study. As it stands, it's not verifiable. All I see is an obviously biased website and a German site I can't read. If you can come up with some unbiased English source material with which to verify the story, I would support keeping it. If you can't, then it isn't independently verifiable (and, at the risk of sounding ethnocentric, if it can't be verified anywhere in English, maybe it isn't notable enough to be included on the English Wikipedia).
Lumiere may get into a lot of unreasonable arguments, but as they say, even a blind squirrel can find an acorn once in a while. ;) Kafziel 18:14, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Admin

No, I am not currently an admin. Do you think that I should be? I do not want to nominate myself, but if someone nominates me, I will stand. Robert McClenon 22:33, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Crime against humanity

Hi there, thank you for helping with this. Could you please also give your opinion on the question? It all started with Philipp Beard Shearer complaining about mentioning area bombing as something many people regard as a crime against humanity. When sources were presented for this fact this suddenly turned into "there is no source showing there was no trial on it" although no one really doubts that there was no trial. Get-back-world-respect 01:44, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] restored Talk:Freemasonry/Scratchpad

Sorry about that. I had seen the recently-created Freemasonry/Scratchpad, which was an obvious candidate for deletion, and assumed this was just its talk page (should've checked the history). --Delirium 03:58, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lolicon Wiktionary link

That's where I like to add the link. I don't know if there is an actual policy about the best place to put them. Let me know if you ever find one. Gerard Foley 20:26, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Please check your WP:NA entry

Greetings, editor! Your name appears on Wikipedia:List of non-admins with high edit counts. If you have not done so lately, please take a look at that page and check your listing to be sure that following the particulars are correct:

  1. If you are an admin, please remove your name from the list.
  2. If you are currently interested in being considered for adminship, please be sure your name is in bold; if you are opposed to being considered for adminship, please cross out your name (but do not delete it, as it will automatically be re-added in the next page update).
  3. Please check to see if you are in the right category for classification by number of edits.

Thank you, and have a wiki wiki day! BD2412 T 05:09, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Blanket FAC objections

Hello. I noticed your objections to several current Featured Article candidates, since I hang out on that page a great deal. While I respect any editor's right to object to any article for whatever reason, I feel I should point out that "Harvard referencing" and other styles are considered perfectly acceptable usage, per the citations style guide. As such, Raul654, the Featured Articles Director, may regard your objections as inactionable. (That's up to him, of course—this is just my estimate of his character!)

Furthermore, since such objections do not directly pertain to the content of the article in question, they may provoke ill will on the FAC page. From my experience, I'd expect at least one remark resembling, "Didn't you even read the article itself?!" or "Are you willing to change them all, then?" FA nominators can be a contentious bunch, as anyone who lived through the Hollaback Girl incident can recall.

Personally, I like footnotes, and when I'm building up an article from a non-referenced state, I use the cite.php tools. I am also a confessed pedant who will merrily go through dozens of articles, changing em-dashes and semicolons until every little jot satisfies an extreme level of consistency. However, when a system works, or at least isn't broken too badly, I do let myself focus on other things. I regard the overwhelming mass of uncited articles on the Wikipedia as a far more severe problem than the scholarly tempest-in-a-teapot over whether to use little numbers or names in parentheses to tell which books we read.

Just my opinion, of course. Best wishes,

Anville 15:39, 17 February 2006 (UTC)


[edit] 1996 U.S. campaign finance scandal (objection)

That's quite a standard you have. Funny, I don't recall that being mentioned in the FAC list of requirements. If it was required, 95% of all FAs would have to be removed. Heck, many of the featured articles don't have references of any kind. Tell me, before I go through the headache of indulging in your request, do you have any other objections to the article?--Jayzel68 16:34, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

I'll test out the code and change them later today. --Jayzel68 16:39, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, now you tell me... I just changed the citations to agree with the new format. How about striking out the word object and changing it to "support" ;) --Jayzel68 17:56, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ref

Can you please translate one of the 2 references that have multiple citations off 3D Monster Maze, to Harvard reference format, with the ref feature? What you posted at my talk page doesn't cover that, and also goes against the h.r. guideline of having the citation bracketed and using the same font as the enclosing text. I still think it's not supported, but you're welcome to show me I am wrong... --BACbKA 17:43, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Citation format and Featured Articles

*Object I am blanket objecting all nominations that fail to use the new cite format. Hipocrite - «Talk» 14:40, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

What about those of us who prefer to use in-line or Harvard citation? Using the {{ref_harvard}} and {{note_label}} templates still allows for wiki-linking to the references. This is an editorial preference and should not affect the excellence of the article. -- Avi 18:00, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for the explanation. -- Avi 18:04, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Uma Thurman FAC

Thank you for your gelp with the cite format! I repaired the only other issue with using the same footnote multiple times using the ref name tag. --Fallout boy 19:33, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

If you no longer have a standing objection, indicate by striking it out (with <s>...</s>) on the nomination page. Thanks! --Fallout boy 04:34, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Education in the United States FAC

I changed over to the new cite format in the article. Would you be willing to now change your view to a support? I've added an extended history section, added almost 10 new cites, and I'm working on more.--naryathegreat | (talk) 16:40, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reliable sources

Thans for your comment Hipocrite. I'll highly appreciate your suggestions on the matter. Regards, deeptrivia (talk) 18:10, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] POV

You have just as strong a POV, also I have edited and created articles that don't relate to abortion. Chooserr 00:18, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Emergency contraception

I noticed you are editing a section on the Emergency contraception page that is being discussed on the talk page. Would you mind giving your two cents on this issue there before making edits, so we can all agree to the proper wording of that section? David Ruben has a proposed change on the table. If we work together, we can prevent 5 different users making different changes at the same time to the same section. Thanks! --Andrew c 00:42, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I'd be happy to do so, though I care not a whit for the issue, aside from defending NOR, NPOV and V, which are being repeatedly violated in the article. Hipocrite - «Talk» 00:43, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 3rr on Emergency contraception

You're skating terribly close to the line on Emergency contraception. I've decided not to block you - though someone else might - but I strongly urge you to remember that you've pledged to be a model wikipedian! William M. Connolley 20:23, 20 February 2006 (UTC).

[edit] Do not remove useful information from your talk page

In this edit you removed a personal attack warning. This should be kept so that we have a record of this warning. -Lumière 03:04, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../h/i/p/User_talk%7EHipocrite_Archive4_24e5.html"