User talk:Hipocrite/Archive/Aug06

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Experiments 2 RE:Spoiler warning 3 Checkuser 4 userbox 5 my RfA 6 Schools 7 Restoring warnings 8 So it does have to do with the high school bias here. 9 You are asking me about the encyclopedia? 10 Anyone who is here has access to the computer 11 Maybe you can give me some suggestions, please. 12 Now you are starting to scare me about questionable practices. 13 First Family 14 What do you mean -- the other account? 15 I didn't say I was done, I said I was tired of it. 16 Schools! 17 Who is that person? 18 RFC re History21 Reverts and Comments 19 WP:AGF 20 Are you going to answer my questions? 21 For a staunch defender 22 Rfc stuff 23 No offense intended 24 NPA on your RFC talk page 25 Apology 26 My Nearly Abject Apology 27 Apologize as well 28 Unspecified source for Image:Activemarker2.jpg 29 You should not have to be the one to leave 30 I resent the personal attack and public banner on my page from you 30.1 NPA 31 I resent the personal attack and public banner on my page from you 31.1 NPA 32 NicolasD 33 Democratic Underground Article 34 I resent the personal attack and public banner on my page from you 34.1 NPA 35 NicolasD 36 Democratic Underground Article 37 Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Armando/Daily Kos

[edit] Experiments

I like experiments. :-) What are you thinking of? Kim Bruning 08:30, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RE:Spoiler warning

Is there a reason that you are moving spoiler warnings away from spoilers and to the top of plot sections? Hipocrite - «Talk» 11:44, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I looked at the plot section and thought the plot contained enough spoilers to justify placing the warning at the top of that section. Viridae^Talk 13:10, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Other than the twist ending, what else spoils the movie? Hipocrite - «Talk» 13:12, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Because I felt that giving away the entire plot was a spoiler in itself. This view seems to be supported by other editors judging by the edit history of the page.[1] Viridae^Talk 14:05, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Could you review the emerging consensus at Wikipedia talk:Spoiler warning/RfC, with special attention paid to the "remove spoiler tags" section, and consider reverting yourself to a version that includes a spoiler warning only for plot details that actualy spoil the movie, as opposed to informing the reader about it? Hipocrite - «Talk» 14:07, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Not entirely sure what you are getting at. The emerging concencus is to keep the spoiler warnings in their current state. In addition you have totally removed the spoiler warnings twice and moved them twice - in opposition of four other users including myself who have placed or moved the spoiler warnings. Viridae^Talk 14:25, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

On the article in question, only you have reverted the spoiler warning from the place towards the bottom of the plot section (by the spoiler). Please review the page in totality - there is very little agreement with tagging every plot detail everywhere with a spoiler warning. Hipocrite - «Talk» 14:32, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

The plot outline in the article gives away the ENTIRE plot in some detail. That qualifies a spoiling the movie in my book. Viridae^Talk 14:34, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I have requested a third opinion and will abide by whatever decision comes from that process. Hipocrite - «Talk» 14:36, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Checkuser

As checkuser is only used for serious violations of policy, you will have a better chance of a checkuser answering your request by adding a couple diffs to the checkuser page of the policy violations that this user used his sockpuppet for. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 16:56, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] userbox

I added back in a valid image until a good version of a proper Tealc or jaffa can be added back in. Noticed the image vanished off the box on my page. Thanks. rootology 17:09, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] my RfA

[edit] Schools

You have long, long been a stolid and reliable supporter of including verifiable schools in wikipedia, and argued forcefully alongside myself and others last year on WP:SCHOOL against deletionism. In fact, until late June of this year, I don't think I have ever seen you vote to delete a verifiable school-related article. All of a sudden around June 28, you not only have consistently voted to delete every school on AfD, but even nominated a couple of them. I have absolutely no problem with your apparent change of heart as to the noteworthiness of school articles, nor with your right to vote and discuss and comment on school AfDs as you see fit. However, I am intensely curious as to what chain of reasoning has brought you to an apparently polar opposite view to that which you apparently held previously. Is there some overriding argument or notion that has convinced you? When someone such as yourself appears to have turned 180 on schools, it almost makes me think there is more to consider than has been argued in the past 750 AfD discussions on schools. (Feel free to respond here and not on my user talk page please).--Nicodemus75 06:40, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Restoring warnings

Once again, if you feel that a warning has been inappropriately given, please take it up with the person who warned you. Viridae^Talk 07:00, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I would probobly put a note on it (bolded) telling those that read it that I did not know what the problem was. I would then take it up with the person who left it. If their response wasnt satisfactory and they didnt remove it, I would then do it myself. Giving them a chance to remove it themself avoids conflict. I do understand your position though. Viridae^Talk 07:05, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I know exactly what the problem is - Mr. Devonshire is abusing wikipedia through the use of sockpuppets. He is embrassed that he was caught. Hipocrite - «Talk» 07:07, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough, if you have reported him, just remove it. Viridae^Talk 07:08, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I see you took my advice. Sorry about the stress. Have a cookie. Viridae^Talk 07:10, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Hipocrite: I've clashed with Morton from time to time - would you mind posting a diff so I can see the finding? Thanks. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 13:44, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Hipo. I've said it before, and I'll say it again - spending one's precious time in this life trolling an encyclopedia is so incredibly pathetic, I have little more than pity for those who choose to be dishonorable. The good news is it takes a lot of time and effort to troll, so only the most pathetic individuals with the least satisfying lives are able to mount effective trolling campaigns. Sort of a self-selecting phenomena, consisting largely of people who are more to be pitied than feared. :) In any case, be well. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 14:02, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

From Hipocrite's link, it seems pretty clear that FurnaceOfMonkl isn't a new user, but I don't see any evidence that FOM is a sock for Morton or even that FOM is a sock at all. TheronJ 21:17, 28 July

2006 (UTC)

[edit] So it does have to do with the high school bias here.

So what I was told was true. I'm not sure what those links are supposed to illustrate but assume something negative. I did what another person told me to do about the the Kent High School thing, because, believe me, I don't know anything about that high school.

I did what I was told which was obviously the wrong thing. I don't think your attacks on me make any advice you give to me credible. I am copying this to my page as I have been told to keep a record of what is going on toward me. Capit 20:12, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Above user blocked indef. as an abusive sockpuppet. Hipocrite - «Talk» 06:19, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] You are asking me about the encyclopedia?

I'm new to Wikipedia and also to the browsers on this computer, so I don't exactly know what you are asking. The username, the Orangehead name, was automatically in this browser. I have to use this browser because each person here has to use a different browser. IE, which I use at home, doesn't seem to be on this computer. Give me a little more time. I keep switching back to your message trying to figure out the answer. I did vote twice on one encyclopedia article this morning but when the browser suddenly updated its self I saw the two votes and removed the second vote. Hope this helps. Orangehead 18:08, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Anyone who is here has access to the computer

We are all old enough to use a computer and we all have computers at home. Orangehead 18:17, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Maybe you can give me some suggestions, please.

Maybe you could suggest a fun area on Wikipedia. My cousin told me about the deletion voting but I am getting tired of that. What else is there to do here? GrapePie 18:45, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Now you are starting to scare me about questionable practices.

Have I been doing that? Anything that is questionable? Because I will get into trouble if that happens, and it's not from you that I am worried about. You are allowed to change your name under preferences, right? Because I did do that just for fun. I like grape better than orange. I think it looks better. GrapePie 18:57, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] First Family

I beg your pardon, but what in the world was so controversial about the Ford and Eisenhower sections of the First Family of the United States article that they had to be removed? Was it saying that Gerald Ford was in fact President? Could this be a hoax? Or was it my erroneous claim that Mr. Ford had a daughter named Susan? No, no, surely the scandalous implication that the Eisenhowers' grandchildren played at the White House was what made the article unacceptable. And the pictures? What about them could possibly be fraudulent? I mean, do you think it's not really George W. Bush and that I just put that there for my health? This is getting ridiculous. Just because one fanatical user brands me a vandal does not mean that every contribution I make is now thrown into question. I haven't even been involved in half the projects I've been implicated in, and in case you can't read, I also wrote the majority of the First Family article to begin with.

Unless you can think of some legitimate reason that my contributions to the article were hoaxes, I will repost them immediately. This is nonsense. Did you even bother to look at the piece, or was that beneath you?

This whole thing has taken away the spark that made Wikipedia fun. People like you do not belong here. There is a difference between vigilance and persecution, and you are straddling the line.

I would advise you to get back to me on this promptly.

History21 05:35, 30 July 2006 (UTC)History21

Do not insert any more hoaxes into this encyclopedia. Zoe gave you a final warning, so I do not have to. Hipocrite - «Talk» 14:35, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I also would like to know WHY something as innocent looking as photos were removed from the entry without proper explaination. TruthCrusader 16:14, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I reverted every change that History21 made without examining them. If he would like to reinsert anything, he can do so, as long as he includes reliable sources. Hipocrite - «Talk» 22:47, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I reiterate: you will point out to me what was illegitimate about those entries or I will reinsert them forthright. I won't stand for this kind of pretension and nonsense. Your word is not good enough to condemn an article; you will have to provide reasons like everyone else. History21 17:44, 30 July 2006 (UTC)History21

You have added hoaxes to the encyclopedia in the past. You must provide reliable sources for all of your additions in the future. Hipocrite - «Talk» 22:47, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I am having difficulty understanding how those pictures could be considered a hoax. TruthCrusader 07:28, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Like I said, I reverted every change he made, blindly, as he has maliciously and repeatedly added hoax information to the encyclopedia. If he includes reliable sources, he can insert whatever he wants back in. Hipocrite - «Talk» 09:59, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Just as a note, blindly reverting is considered vandalism and should never be done. I read through most of what you reverted, and none of it struck me as being a hoax, though of course citations are always a good idea. Next time, if you question a fact, place a cite notice next to it rather than blindly revert, and you can solve issues such as this from occuring. ~Rangeley (talk) 19:23, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

No good faith edit is ever vandalism. Hoaxing, however, is not a good faith edit. Apparently, with above user, vandals get AGF, and long time valuable contributors get the ABF. Oh, wait - he's a politics edit warrior I've tangled with before - who would have thunk it? Hipocrite - «Talk» 19:26, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I saw an administrator tell an individual that blind reverts that remove legitimate content is vandalism and felt the need to warn you of how it could be viewed. Though, a hostile response is always nice. ~Rangeley (talk) 19:32, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Where did you see an adminstator mistakenly say that? I'd like to go correct him. Hipocrite - «Talk» 19:34, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

No, I must be incorrect. Keep on blind reverting, its a constructive policy. Take it up with EL_C: [2] ~Rangeley (talk) 19:38, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Diff does not use the world "blind" or "revert." Hipocrite - «Talk» 20:18, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Hipocrite, I'd ask you to stop blind reverting History21.

1. If you and Zoe think that History21 has been committing hoaxes and should be punished, by all means get an ArbCom ruling. However, neither you nor Zoe has the right to punish H21 -- that's the arbcom's job.
2. I haven't seen so much as a single diff of what hoax History21 supposedly committed. He or she denies hoaxing, and a bunch of warnings from Zoe saying "stop hoaxing" doesn't give the rest of the community any comfort that you guys are right, any more than an arbcom complaint that (1) doesn't have any diffs and (2) apparently was never accepted by the ArbCom.

I'm sure you guys are acting in good faith, but I really think you should leave conduct rules to the ArbCom, and would ask you to start judging History21's edits on their merits, not "blind reverting" them. I'd be happy to join you in an RFC or mediation if you disagree. TheronJ 19:58, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

As I have said, and as my actions have demonstrated, I will not remove anything with information from reliable sources. You cannot see the edits that History21 made to now deleted articles - they were obvious and clear hoaxes. This is not a retributive or punishing action, it is protecting the encyclopedia from someone who has used sockpuppets to hoax. Hipocrite - «Talk» 20:16, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. However, I am still concerned that you're blind reverting an editor who has not been sanctioned by ArbCom. Do you mind if I initiate an RFC? Thanks, TheronJ 20:23, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Please do. Hipocrite - «Talk» 20:24, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. To clarify, would you be willing to be my "second certifying user?" TheronJ 20:32, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

No. I have better things to do that waste my time with this nonsense. You and Rangley can go cerify it, and I will respond with "I have better things to do than waste my time with this nonsense." Go make a useful edit to the encyclopedia, and make sure that History21's future articles use impecable reliable sources. Hipocrite - «Talk» 20:35, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What do you mean -- the other account?

Is someone else voting under my account? I don't understand what you are saying. GrapePie 20:29, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I didn't say I was done, I said I was tired of it.

I looked at the list you sent but all that looked like stuff I would not know how to do. Maybe I'll try some of it later. I don't get the thing about having other accounts. I don't have other accounts. I told you I changed my name under Preferences but I thought that was allowed. And every time I edit, my name shows up as me. So how would I be editing under other accounts? Can that happen without me knowing it? Am I doing something that's bothering you? I feel like I have my father watching over my shoulder, only worse. GrapePie 20:45, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Schools!

So you are saying that schools are different than my other edits and that I must really be someone else? Well, that's really weird. You don't know who I am. So how could you know I'm not me? Who am I mirroring? Maybe someone is mirroring me. How do you know who's mirroring who? And what does mirroring even mean, the way you are using it? GrapePie 21:07, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Who is that person?

"You are making up wikipedia policies in a way that mirrors the contributions of another editor - specifically, regarding schools." GrapePie 21:11, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RFC re History21 Reverts and Comments

Hipocrite, as we discussed, I've started an RFC. See Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Hipocrite. If you, Rangeley, History21, or TruthCrusader certify it within 48 hours, it will go forward. Thanks, TheronJ 22:18, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

You have not properly filed the RFC. If you do not do so within 48 hours it will be deleted. Thanks. Hipocrite - «Talk» 00:11, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WP:AGF

Aren't you suppored to follow WP:AGF instead of just be mean to people? I finally got some nice notes on my talk page underneath all the mean ones from you. GrapePie 22:57, 31 July 2006 (UTC) P.S. You never answered any of my questions.

[edit] Are you going to answer my questions?

I asked the Village Pump people what to do. They said the way to deal with this problem is by WP:RFC. I really wish you would explain what you are accusing me of and why. Otherwise, I will try to figure out the WP:RFC. My mind spins when I look at it, but I will try to figure it out if you do not answer why you are accusing me of so many things. The person at the Village Pump said he copied my post to the recordss -- what ever that means -- but I hope it means that you will answer me. GrapePie 00:41, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] For a staunch defender

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		For you, in recognition of your recent (though unending) efforts to combat the ill-intentioned trolls, vandals, and sockpuppets who plague Wikipedia and its' editors. May you always find the wisdom and inner strength to fight on with dignity. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 15:13, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

You deserve it. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 15:14, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rfc stuff

I have no doubt at least two editors and maybe even 4 are there due to wikistalking issues...that problem is definitely going to go away in the near future if it doesn't stop, so no worries.--MONGO 21:25, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] No offense intended

Honestly no offence intended. I just think you need a break. --Salix alba (talk) 21:32, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NPA on your RFC talk page

I absolutely don't want to touch the RFC itself or the substantiative issues raised in it, but someone asked me for an uninvolved third party look at some of your recent contributions on the talk page.

In my opinion, you violated WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL with both the "gutter-trash" and "don't give two shits" comments.

The RFC isn't worth getting so worked up about. There are plenty of experienced admins who are supporting you, and if you take a break for a day or two it will do you a world of good and won't make a whit of difference to the RFC outcome.

Georgewilliamherbert 21:58, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Before I came in here to comment, I did look at rootology's recent actions. I am not naive, and I read the whole RFC and talk page and followed up with additional research.

Regardless of anything that rootology may or may not have done, those two comments you made are WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL violations. Incivility and personal attacks aspects are inappropriate, regardless of context... period, end of story. You've been around that you should know that without my having had to remind you.

When I reviewed the history of rootology's posts, I saw the section in the RFC talk page on your claim that R is wikistalking you. I followed that up by checking their list of contributions and edit count. I suppose you could make a case that they're stalking you, or that they're trolling you, though in my judgement neither is a foregone conclusion. If you feel very strongly that they are doing so, I would recommend posting to AN/I for further independent review.

Even if we assume (just for the sake of argument) that rootology is stalking you, that still in no way justifies or excuses the incivility and personal attack. The two issues are unrelated; even if you were responding to a user who was so blatantly abusive that you immediately indef blocked them, those comments would still be inappropriate.

If you were thinking that their potential stalking was justification for those comments... then you should take a break.

Georgewilliamherbert 22:22, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I am reviewing the edit you provided on my talk page. However, I would like to refer you to yet another one of your own comments "You sure that's not a total fucking lie?" [3]

You apparently knew that was way over the line shortly after posting it, given how quickly you changed it. But you still made it in the first place. I have seen experienced admins blocked for several hours for far less than these three edits (this one and the two previous, which you also already modified as you said).

You are endangering your own reputation here by continuing to edit while you are clearly too angry and irrational. This is why I am strongly urging you to just go take a break for a bit.

I will now return to reviewing that rootology troll comment you mentioned on my talk page... Georgewilliamherbert 22:35, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Apology

Hipocrite, my apologies. History21 is confirmed as a sock puppet, and I'm adding a note to my Outside View. As I said I would, I apologize, and striking what I wrote. I'll say that if he wasn't a sock, the mass RV was overreaching, but as he's a sock, good catch. The only thing I can really add is that we all should be more civil.

See this, this, and this. rootology (T) 00:31, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] My Nearly Abject Apology

You were right, Hipo, and I was wrong. I'm still not crazy about the idea that thousand-edit editors should get to decide who's a sock, but you were right. You were also right that my RFC brought your enemies out of the woodwork. (Although, if I can make one small observation, if either you or your enemies just responded once and let it drop, things would have gone much smoother, and whoever walked away wouldn't have lost any credibility).

I'll do my best not to cause this kind of grief again, because (1) I am sorry for sparking this kerfuffle, and (2) if I do, you'll probably be right again. Let me know if there's anything else I can do, TheronJ 01:55, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Apologize as well

Hipocrite, you expressed on your RfC that you ought to get an apology, and I for one think you are well-entitled to one from me. I endorsed three contrary views of you in that RfC, and I did so quite wrongly. I have since struck them out, apologized, and discredited my own opinion of you regarding this RfC's dispute. I also want to apologize to you on your own talk page: you were right about History21's behavior and your dealings with him were beneficial to Wikipedia, and I was not only incorrect, but too quick to judge when I endorsed views at your RfC regarding your conduct. I sincerely apologize for my endorsements of these negative comments and for any undue distress this RfC has caused you. I admire your decision to take a break, and plan to somewhat do the same - I'm staying away from conflict of all types for a few days, giving any editors who disagree with me the go-ahead to edit their way. I think you'll agree that I need to seriously revamp the way I handle disputes and try to find a way to minimize them, rather than prolong them based on my own idealism. I'll do my best to put an end to this bitterness between us, because as surprising as it may sound, I actually don't thrive on it :-) and I hope you'll reconsider your opinion of me as an intentionally disruptive troll; if you don't change your mind, however, I'll just have to live with that. Happy editing and best of luck to you in the future. Karwynn (talk) 16:06, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unspecified source for Image:Activemarker2.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Activemarker2.jpg. I notice the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this file yourself, then there needs to be a justification explaining why we have the right to use it on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you did not create the file yourself, then you need to specify 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 file 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 meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, 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 files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may 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. BigDT 23:48, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] You should not have to be the one to leave

I am quite upset that this History21 person has forced you away from wikipedia. You are a good editor and should not have to switch accounts because of harassment. I think you should stay and stick things out. You do good work and will be administrtor one day and admins don't run when someone harasses them. I've heard of many who make tough decisions. I can also understand the mass reverting because you are busy and pressed for time and can't wade through lots of hoax additions to find out which was right. So basically stick things out, say you did not have hours to research every edit for hoaxing, and leave it at that. People have jobs, they have lives, and can't be that bothered to stay home from work to research all day to find out if someone accidentally put a fact in with their hoaxes. You did the right thing, I think. DyslexicEditor 04:13, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I dont think using a different account is a good course of action. For one its just the same tactic as a sockpuppet would use, and you don't want to follow in their footsteps. Secondly it gives the message that you have been defeated. Stay strong as Hipocrite, the user who can spot a sockpuppet at 30 paces and let the socks do the running. --Salix alba (talk) 00:51, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I resent the personal attack and public banner on my page from you

Below is a copy of the message I sent to a person (I have no idea who he is) who removed the public banner you put on my page, calling me a derogatory name and making accusations. I don't know you either and why you should want to personally attack me and make accusations.

This is my talk page, and an ugly page it is:

[edit] NPA

Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on the contributor; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Hipocrite - «Talk» 02:34, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Sockpuppets are banned users to try to login under a different name. At one point there was a users User:SirIsaacBrock who was very very bad, and annoyed a lot of people. I guess because of your comments on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kent-Meridian High School User:Hipocrite has reason to think you were a sockpuppet.

Sorry that you've had a bad initial reaction. Things will go smoother if you read through some of the policy above, especially Wikipedia:Etiquette.

I'll remove the template, as you comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (technical) seems to indicate that your not a sockpuppet (sockpuppets generally know what a sockpuppet is). If you have other problems like this the best place to metion them is WP:ANB --Salix alba (talk) 19:34, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

My reply which I am keeping a record of due to the hostility around here:

First I am told that they are prejudiced against having information about high schools here -- which seems nasty right there.

Next I get a nasty note on my page from someone I do not know. Then I get a banner and I am told I am a sockpuppet by someone (not you). And now your are involved and I have no idea who you or the other persons even are.

I got involved with Wikipedia because I was told there was extreme hostitity toward high schools and that it was very necessary for me to vote to defend them. I can only believe that this is true and that my interest in high schools is the reason the guy called User:Hipocrite is attacking me and calling me a sockpuppet, which, I gather, is a slur and an ugly thing to accuss someone of -- not only accuse me but put a big banner on my personal page and publically label me.

This does not engender good feelings in me about Wikipedia and I am beginning to understand all the hostility that is around. Capit 19:54, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

User was able to quote and link policy on their 6th edit [4], was using insider-terms on their 9th [5], and knew about their user page on their 5th. Obviously a sock, I suspect SIB given that user becaume abusive following around editors who opposed SIB, but no need for a tag. If this incarnation of whichever user it is ceases all disruptive behavior, they will certainly be welcome here. If user insists on getting involved disruptively on a going forward basis, their tenure will be short. It's their call. Hipocrite - «Talk» 19:56, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I suggest you stop with the "innocent, ignorant" act, and just make valuable contributions to the encyclopedia. Hipocrite - «Talk» 20:03, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Could we have a bit of Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers and Wikipedia:Assume good faith. So capit could have been a bit better behaved on the AfD, knew the lingo without the specific meaning it has in wikipedia. Let it drop before we have some nasty battle on our hands. --Salix alba (talk) 21:18, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I resent the personal attack and public banner on my page from you

Below is a copy of the message I sent to a person (I have no idea who he is) who removed the public banner you put on my page, calling me a derogatory name and making accusations. I don't know you either and why you should want to personally attack me and make accusations.

This is my talk page, and an ugly page it is:

[edit] NPA

Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on the contributor; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Hipocrite - «Talk» 02:34, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Sockpuppets are banned users to try to login under a different name. At one point there was a users User:SirIsaacBrock who was very very bad, and annoyed a lot of people. I guess because of your comments on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kent-Meridian High School User:Hipocrite has reason to think you were a sockpuppet.

Sorry that you've had a bad initial reaction. Things will go smoother if you read through some of the policy above, especially Wikipedia:Etiquette.

I'll remove the template, as you comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (technical) seems to indicate that your not a sockpuppet (sockpuppets generally know what a sockpuppet is). If you have other problems like this the best place to metion them is WP:ANB --Salix alba (talk) 19:34, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

My reply which I am keeping a record of due to the hostility around here:

First I am told that they are prejudiced against having information about high schools here -- which seems nasty right there.

Next I get a nasty note on my page from someone I do not know. Then I get a banner and I am told I am a sockpuppet by someone (not you). And now your are involved and I have no idea who you or the other persons even are.

I got involved with Wikipedia because I was told there was extreme hostitity toward high schools and that it was very necessary for me to vote to defend them. I can only believe that this is true and that my interest in high schools is the reason the guy called User:Hipocrite is attacking me and calling me a sockpuppet, which, I gather, is a slur and an ugly thing to accuss someone of -- not only accuse me but put a big banner on my personal page and publically label me.

This does not engender good feelings in me about Wikipedia and I am beginning to understand all the hostility that is around. Capit 19:54, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

User was able to quote and link policy on their 6th edit [6], was using insider-terms on their 9th [7], and knew about their user page on their 5th. Obviously a sock, I suspect SIB given that user becaume abusive following around editors who opposed SIB, but no need for a tag. If this incarnation of whichever user it is ceases all disruptive behavior, they will certainly be welcome here. If user insists on getting involved disruptively on a going forward basis, their tenure will be short. It's their call. Hipocrite - «Talk» 19:56, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I suggest you stop with the "innocent, ignorant" act, and just make valuable contributions to the encyclopedia. Hipocrite - «Talk» 20:03, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Could we have a bit of Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers and Wikipedia:Assume good faith. So capit could have been a bit better behaved on the AfD, knew the lingo without the specific meaning it has in wikipedia. Let it drop before we have some nasty battle on our hands. --Salix alba (talk) 21:18, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NicolasD

Are you NicolasD's Sockpuppet? Tmcsheery 03:09, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

No. Are you paid to edit wikipedia? Hipocrite - «Talk» 04:24, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

• • Nope. Just curious why you only remove the PhaseSpace Logo and not the others. Seems suspicious. If you remove all of them, I'll be happy to leave that as the status quo, but as you only seem to remove the PhaseSpace one, it seems biased. If you notice I'll fix things but I never delete other's contributions, even if I disagree with them. I will revert ocassionally as you might have noticed! Tmcsheery 15:22, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

• • • Actually since it is the only picture on Performance Capture I'll leave that one as you have modified it. Ok?Tmcsheery 15:37, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

• Well that takes care of two out of 3. Are you going to remove the logo from the other Pic?Tmcsheery 15:10, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Democratic Underground Article

Wikipedia guidelines dictate that you assume good faith in dealing with other editors. Please stop being uncivil to your fellow editors, and assume that they are here to improve Wikipedia. Thank you.--RWR8189 20:05, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I resent the personal attack and public banner on my page from you

Below is a copy of the message I sent to a person (I have no idea who he is) who removed the public banner you put on my page, calling me a derogatory name and making accusations. I don't know you either and why you should want to personally attack me and make accusations.

This is my talk page, and an ugly page it is:

[edit] NPA

Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on the contributor; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Hipocrite - «Talk» 02:34, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Sockpuppets are banned users to try to login under a different name. At one point there was a users User:SirIsaacBrock who was very very bad, and annoyed a lot of people. I guess because of your comments on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kent-Meridian High School User:Hipocrite has reason to think you were a sockpuppet.

Sorry that you've had a bad initial reaction. Things will go smoother if you read through some of the policy above, especially Wikipedia:Etiquette.

I'll remove the template, as you comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (technical) seems to indicate that your not a sockpuppet (sockpuppets generally know what a sockpuppet is). If you have other problems like this the best place to metion them is WP:ANB --Salix alba (talk) 19:34, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

My reply which I am keeping a record of due to the hostility around here:

First I am told that they are prejudiced against having information about high schools here -- which seems nasty right there.

Next I get a nasty note on my page from someone I do not know. Then I get a banner and I am told I am a sockpuppet by someone (not you). And now your are involved and I have no idea who you or the other persons even are.

I got involved with Wikipedia because I was told there was extreme hostitity toward high schools and that it was very necessary for me to vote to defend them. I can only believe that this is true and that my interest in high schools is the reason the guy called User:Hipocrite is attacking me and calling me a sockpuppet, which, I gather, is a slur and an ugly thing to accuss someone of -- not only accuse me but put a big banner on my personal page and publically label me.

This does not engender good feelings in me about Wikipedia and I am beginning to understand all the hostility that is around. Capit 19:54, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

User was able to quote and link policy on their 6th edit [8], was using insider-terms on their 9th [9], and knew about their user page on their 5th. Obviously a sock, I suspect SIB given that user becaume abusive following around editors who opposed SIB, but no need for a tag. If this incarnation of whichever user it is ceases all disruptive behavior, they will certainly be welcome here. If user insists on getting involved disruptively on a going forward basis, their tenure will be short. It's their call. Hipocrite - «Talk» 19:56, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I suggest you stop with the "innocent, ignorant" act, and just make valuable contributions to the encyclopedia. Hipocrite - «Talk» 20:03, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Could we have a bit of Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers and Wikipedia:Assume good faith. So capit could have been a bit better behaved on the AfD, knew the lingo without the specific meaning it has in wikipedia. Let it drop before we have some nasty battle on our hands. --Salix alba (talk) 21:18, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NicolasD

Are you NicolasD's Sockpuppet? Tmcsheery 03:09, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

No. Are you paid to edit wikipedia? Hipocrite - «Talk» 04:24, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

• • Nope. Just curious why you only remove the PhaseSpace Logo and not the others. Seems suspicious. If you remove all of them, I'll be happy to leave that as the status quo, but as you only seem to remove the PhaseSpace one, it seems biased. If you notice I'll fix things but I never delete other's contributions, even if I disagree with them. I will revert ocassionally as you might have noticed! Tmcsheery 15:22, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

• • • Actually since it is the only picture on Performance Capture I'll leave that one as you have modified it. Ok?Tmcsheery 15:37, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

• Well that takes care of two out of 3. Are you going to remove the logo from the other Pic?Tmcsheery 15:10, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Democratic Underground Article

Wikipedia guidelines dictate that you assume good faith in dealing with other editors. Please stop being uncivil to your fellow editors, and assume that they are here to improve Wikipedia. Thank you.--RWR8189 20:05, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Armando/Daily Kos

I'm chipping in as a mediator. IF you agree with me working on the case, please drop a note stating so on my talk page. -- Drini 05:20, 22 August 2006 (UTC)