User talk:Hipocrite/Archive/Jan07

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Contents

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Derek Smart

Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Derek Smart. Please add any evidence you may wish the arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Derek Smart/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Derek Smart/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Thatcher131 23:24, 23 December 2006 (UTC)


[edit] 3RR

Pleas be careful not to do any more reverts to Fridays talk page for fear of breaching 3RR. Thanks.--Light current 23:02, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your "concern." Hipocrite - «Talk» 23:03, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

What does your edit summary 'ass' mean?--Light current 23:05, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

I was mentioning your assistance. Hipocrite - «Talk» 23:07, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
Hmmm! I though Thx was the proper abbrev 8-(--Light current 23:08, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Discuss don't vote

Hey Hipocrite I thought I'd just politely inform you that you technically violated 3RR on your last edit there by undoing my own edit. Please be cautious in your editing (and perhaps self-revert). (→Netscott) 16:28, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't feel that there was any violation of 3rr in my edits today. Rewording "However, there is a dispute about it from many other users." into "Other users disagree." is not a reversion, it is fixing questionable (putting it softly) english. Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:29, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
I understand but by WP:3RR specification you're in violation. See: rv1, rv2, rv3, rv4 (where you undid most of my edit). (→Netscott) 16:34, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
The fourth edit is not a reversion. Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:34, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
Since we're in a bit of a conflict I would recommend you call the sig to the attention of another editor/admin. Also read User talk:Netscott/s1.js. The fourth is most definitely a reversion... your removing of most of my text is undoing it... read WP:3RR again. (→Netscott) 16:36, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
Given that I don't have your permission, I will bring it up with others at a much later date to avoid the appearance of impropriety (I noticed your signature only due to it being on my talk page). Fixing your broken english is not a reversion. Please report me at WP:3rr if you feel that would be helpful to your goal of getting what you want. I have nothing more to say to you on this matter. Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:39, 26 December 2006 (UTC)


Hi! Where and how can you report someone? User 68.82.82.248 got numerous vandalism warnings but he keeps on vandalising pages. He keeps on deleting Madonna's AKA -three times already- on her article. All the other editors have no problem with it, I have an official source and it's pertinent information. Just log on his User:Talk page to see all the warnings he's still getting. He got some [once again] today! Israell 16:22, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] CAT:AOR

Were you aware of the ealier no-consensus? You might want to withdraw it early before we all spill a shitload of ink a new no-consensus. - crz crztalk 04:12, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I was not. I would like said ink spilled. Thanks for the heads up. Hipocrite - «Talk» 04:13, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
Well, at least read it. It's kinda long, but expressed most of the things you'll get here again. But fundamentally, who cares if the category is deleted? You won't achieve anything by succeeding. - crz crztalk 04:20, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
Keeping the category feeds trolls and harassers like those attempting to troll and harass Friday. Trolls and harassers should not be supported. They should be discouraged. Hipocrite - «Talk» 04:23, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Civility

Posts like this[1] or this[2] are contrary to our civility policy. Please read and follow that policy, basically treat others with respect. When you need to criticize, criticize the argument, not the arguer. Thank you. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 17:38, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Analysis" of the signers of Friday's recall petition

I strongly suggest you refrain from making comments like this. I've deleted this section and THB's response from Friday's talk page. Comments like this are totally uncalled for - not just unhelpful but completely inappropriate. If you cannot refrain from making further comments like this I suggest you stay away from this situation. -- Rick Block (talk) 17:47, 28 December 2006 (UTC)\

I disagree that my comments were unhelpful. I've decided to walk away from any further discussions with any of the individuals in question. I suggest you inform them that they will do the same. Hipocrite - «Talk» 18:04, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Hipocrite, your heart's in the right place (i.e. the good of Wikipedia), but remember that regardless of how some users see it, we don't have "teams" and we're not trying to "win." You won't achieve what you want by calling them vandals any more than they'll get what they want by calling people rouge admins. It would be different if the users in question had no good contributions, but that is far from the case. -- SCZenz 18:01, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

The users in question have, on the balance, no good contributions. I've ceased attempting to discuss, negotiate and talk with people that wish myself, and others, ill. I merely want them to leave. Hipocrite - «Talk» 18:04, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
Examine StuRat's comments on the reference desk sometime. There are many thousands of useful answers. -- SCZenz 18:43, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] re: Friday

When, exactly, are you going to do something to stop them from harassing Friday, I wonder? Hipocrite - «Talk» 18:06, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

The petition to recall Friday is being dealt with in an appropriate manner (by Friday and Lar). Is there some other harassment that you're talking about? -- Rick Block (talk) 18:12, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
Yes. [3], which lasted for two DAYS before anyone took action to stop it. I can find other examples, but perhaps you should learn from what happened to User:MONGO. Hipocrite - «Talk» 18:16, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
See also [4] and [5]. You asked that I disengage. I ask that you help. Hipocrite - «Talk» 18:21, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
[6]. Do something, or I will. Hipocrite - «Talk» 18:22, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] re: LC

LC's taunting on Friday's talk page was totally uncalled for and completely inappropriate and has been commented on by several users. You deleted LC's comment here before I noticed it. Please let me know if there's anything I can do (within reason) to help defuse this situation. Your decision to walk away from the matter seems like a very good call. Are you home with family for the holidays? You might consider taking a brief break from editing (absolutely no criticism implied here, just a suggestion for something that might help your state of mind). -- Rick Block (talk) 18:53, 28 December 2006 (UTC)


Please just ignore this comment. I'll talk to LC about it. -- Rick Block (talk) 19:48, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
I don't have any direct evidence that the comment was targeted your way. If you do, please let me know. -- Rick Block (talk) 21:01, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
Please don't revert LC's edits - it's not helpful and not in the spirit of "walking away". -- Rick Block (talk) 03:01, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
Tell him to please not disrupt the reference desk to prove a point. My walking away doesn't mean he wins every argument he's in, it means he dosen't get to argue with me any more. Hipocrite - «Talk» 03:02, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
No, it doesn't mean he wins every argument he's in - it means you're not arguing with him (and, if you're not arguing with him, he's clearly not arguing with you). Please stay cool. -- Rick Block (talk) 03:07, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm perfectly cool, but I'm not going to let him post garbage like that on the Reference Desk. An edit summary of rvv would have sufficed. Hipocrite - «Talk» 03:10, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A good reversion

Normally I have a no reversion policy, I keep everything, and archive it. But... I think this was a good reversion to make: [7] ...thank you. ++Lar: t/c 18:19, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Weird edit

Thanks for bringing that weird edit to my attention. Please review my explanation at my talk and add whatever you want to aid my understanding as to what happened. --hydnjo talk 23:47, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Paul Thompson

Please do not blank pages, it is a form of vandalism. --NuclearZer0 16:41, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Redirects are not blank. Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:42, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
You cannot say he has no studies on training unless you have a source stating that. The Esquire article called him an expert on terrorism, hence its allowed to stay. Please be more careful in your edits. Also notice its sourced to Esquire, the link of a partial article is whats online, if you did not read the full article which I cannot reproduce without copyright violations, then you realyl shouldnt be removing things saying they do not appear in the article. --NuclearZer0 18:17, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
The esquire article says the following "He never studied, trained, or even had any intention to become an authority on terrorism." Hipocrite - «Talk» 18:18, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Blocked for 3RR vio

You have been blocked for 24h.--CSTAR 20:27, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

This blocked user (block log | autoblocks | unblock | contribs) asked to be unblocked, but an administrator or other user has reviewed and declined this request. Other administrators or users can also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). This unblock request continues to be visible. Do not replace this message with another unblock request nor add another unblock request.

Request reason: "no 3rr vio, [9], inserts a hidden comment, not an actual change, and as such requires such a worthless, legalistic read of 3rr to possibly be a blockable offence."

Decline reason: "Looks like a proper block to me, it will end tomorrow. -- HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 21:21, 29 December 2006 (UTC)"

This template should be removed when the block has expired, or after 2 days in the case of blocks of 1 week or longer.

I fixed the template for you which wasn't showing your reason. Apparently you have to add "1=" at the beginning of your reason if you're adding a link (like the dif in this case) that has a = in it. Metros232 20:45, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Re your mail: as requested I've reviewed the block; I agree with the above. Technically its a revert; moving away from technicalities you were edit-warring; and inserting text comments like that smacks very strongly of WP:POINT. Sorry William M. Connolley 21:30, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Incivil

Please note this edit is incivil and a policy violation per WP:CIVIL. Moscatanix 22:50, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Cry more, troll tears nourish me. Hipocrite - «Talk» 23:12, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
I don't know what your issue is with me, sir. I simply let you know the edit I saw was inappropriate. Please direct your hostility elsewhere! Moscatanix 23:17, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Dude, is there some history here that I'm not aware of? That seems like an awfully...erm...blunt edit summary. I realize that NuclearUmpf/Zero has a tendency to be rather prickly at times.
Still, if you're letting matters get under your skin, you might be best to leave them to another editor. Copyright stuff needs cool heads. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 00:01, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Why, I would never let something get under my skin. I will religiously and devotedly analyze the edits of trolls to make sure that they are complying with all of our rules and policies, especially copyright. It's so obvious when copyright tags are just made up. Hipocrite - «Talk» 04:06, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Seriously—if you have a problem with this editor that you can't handle civilly, then you can hand it off to someone else; that's one of the uses for WP:AN/I. If you want to resolve copyright problems, there are ways to do that. You know how to use the appropriate templates; they work perfectly well without added sarcasm or insults. If it turns out that an editor is incorrigible, there are processes for dealing with that, too.
Throwing the word 'troll' around and snapping at me aren't part of those processes, and they aren't going to help you or anyone else. Go have a beer. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 04:23, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
I have found that the uses of AN/I and the other administrative "help" sections is actually to get a bunch of process wonkery to validate and verify bad behavior of worthless contributors. Your experience may be different. Hipocrite - «Talk» 04:26, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
In general, the AN/I process usually works remarkably well, if you follow three simple guidelines.
  1. Be concise. We're all busy writing an encyclopedia, here.
  2. Be clear. Describe the problem with appropriate diffs.
  3. Have clean hands. Be part of the solution rather than part of the problem.
It's point number three where you're seeming to fall down, here. You're taking a copyright dispute (which can usually be resolved in a straightforward manner, through education, or – failing that – blocks) and turning it into a personality conflict (which tends to be a much messier sort of thing). If there's a history here, then explain it so I can relate to your situation. If there isn't a history here, then drop the gratuitous rudeness. Pause to think about what you're trying to accomplish, rather than rushing to snap off a snarky response to me in three minutes. If you need to blow off steam, Wikipedia isn't the place for it. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 04:55, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Too many strikes are granted as long as individuals don't fall afoul of stupid bright-line rules. It's time for me to start swinging at more pitches. You want an explanation? User:MONGO, User:Miltopia, http://www.encycl opediadramatica.com/index.php?title=Hipocrite&action=history. Any questions? Didn't think so. Hipocrite - «Talk» 05:43, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

←back to the left margin... The fact that there are assholes and trolls on ED doesn't give you a free pass to be rude here. They know they can get under your skin and get such a delightful reaction out of you, and the little wankers are getting off on it. You self-destructing here doesn't accomplish anything. If you're going to try to go out in a blaze of glory, just...don't. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 06:19, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Why not? Hipocrite - «Talk» 06:30, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
You know, if you'd just filled me in on the history when I first asked you – 'Moscatanix is a Rootology sock; I know because of X' – or filed such a report on WP:AN/I, then I'd have blocked him yesterday. No fuss, no muss, no bother, and no need to feed the troll.
Would you like to explain to me why you left the rude edit summary that started all this? Is there a particular problem you're having with NuclearUmpf? If he's regularly using incorrect tags on uploaded images, that's something that I would be willing to intervene in. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:46, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
NU is a serial edit warrior - you, of course, know this, as he's been sanctioned by ArbComm for serial edit warring, which he continues, without further sanction. It is patently obvious he gets off on arguing on the internet. Of course, he, and his encyclopedia dramatica troll cohort (Rootology, badlydrawnjeff) needle and needle and pick untill they get what they want. In addition to this, he skirts the edge of copyright acceptability - see Image:Kim osorio.jpg - blatently false tag, Image:Al-douri12.jpg - likley innacurate tag. Since attempting to stop edit warring by telling people to get rid of edit warriors does not work, I intend to police his flagrant copyright violations instead. Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:48, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

You may be aware of the ArbCom sanction against NU - located atWikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Zer0faults. It reads that "Zer0faults is placed on Probation. He may be banned for an appropriate period of time from an article or set of articles which he disrupts by tendentious editing or edit warring." You may wish to review his conduct at a user's page, kept twice in MFD, which is ideologically opposed to his new 9-11 truth woldview, User:GabrielF/ConspiracyNoticeboard. I challenge any adminstrator reading this to take appropriate action. Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:41, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

You may also wish to review his reinstatement of statments by arbcom banned user rootology at Talk:Paul Thompson (researcher). Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:42, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Keep cool

Image:GreatSouthBaySunset-sm.gif And be well. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 18:26, 3 January 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Heya Hipocrite

Long time no. I see you're on a wiki break and... if you'd like to, I'd love your input over at the Transcendental Meditation. I don't think there are any trolls over there, so you should be safe! :) peace. Sethie 19:57, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Well

What do you think? The last three sections should make it clear. At any rate it needs RFPP one of these days. >Radiant< 16:17, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WP:PAIN

You should also edit the "For reviewers handling assistance requests:" section as well. I've always thought the requirement for templates caused problems. --Barberio 19:30, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks by the way. I'd only just brought the issue up myself on Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#.22Threats_of_Blocks.22, before this whole mess blew up. --Barberio 19:41, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Thanks, Jimfbleak.talk.06:38, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] subpage

I assume you did not know about this page? User:Hipocrite/devnul I noticed it when look at the users contributions. David D. (Talk) 18:43, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, I did not notice such. The user is a newbie who is trying to soapbox about his racial superiority theories on the Reference Desks. Hipocrite - «Talk» 18:50, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Phoenix

I was looking for users to help me with the proposal. Do you think I could recreate the page if i marked it with a proposal tag? Geo. 19:33, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

  • i was replying to your comment on Deletion Review. Phoenix would have been a working pilot for a Esperanza like project sans reasons for deletion. Geo. 19:39, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
I reverted your removal of my comments. This user has been warned by three administrators now to stop trying to create a new Esperanza, but he won't listen. I don't think it me that is trying to raise the roof. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 19:43, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
I was going to create a framework for the organization. The first program would have been the Coffee Lounge. Geo. 19:48, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
i am going to drop the proposal for now. Geo. 19:54, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

To continue your analogy, Geo.plrd's efforts are like a tango dancer starting an all night disco complete with drug addicts and coffee bar - in the middle of a library. Please don't humour him if he tries to start anything similar on Wikipedia. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 19:57, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Funny analogy, I think i will take your (Hipocrite's) advice. Geo. 22:22, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Yes, we will go for a wikia Geo. 22:43, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Ok, I'll sign up for a wikia account shortly and see if I can't figure out how they do things over there. I'll try to be around this weekend but football. My email is enabled - if you'd like to talk there, or we can use my talk page. Either way. Hipocrite - «Talk» 22:45, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Basically, you fill in an application and they'll let you know whether you can have a Wikia or not. It's fairly simple. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 23:13, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Please do not threaten me

I am not "stalking" and "needling" - I presented evidence when another admin had a concern about JzG's attacks. Is this what happens when an editor presents evidence against somebody? I never said those things JzG said, he said them, I only presented them as evidence. I have done nothing wrong and I am taking this to RfC. ATren 20:14, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Do not present evidence about JzG regarding disputes that are seperate from your dispute with him, which involves only Personal Rapid Transit. Do not stalk his edits to other pages. This will stop now. Your actions are disruptive. Hipocrite - «Talk» 20:31, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
So even though I had evidence that many other respected users thought was relevant (and it was relevant) I am being disruptive? If you read the personal attacks page, it says you should try to avoid report attacks when you are the victim - to rely on others to report. Now you're telling me it's inappropriate for others to report as well? This amounts to suppression of evidence, doesn't it?
I happened to see somebody on AN/I say that JzG's incivilitty was an isolated incident, and I had much evidence that it was anything but isolated, including an admission on JzG's own page that he will attack in the future. How is presenting that evidence disruptive? I don't care what my history is with him - I'm sure if I got into a dispute with another, he'd be the first to arrive and present all his evidence against me (though, in fact, there is none against me, because I've been a model editor).
I am soliciting advice from others on this matter, and after that I may submit an RfC. I've done nothing wrong. ATren 20:54, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
ATren solicited my opinion and advice. May I share a few words here? The diffs this editor provided looked valid and topical. It seems harsh to post a final warning because of that particular thread. ATren hasn't completely followed the spirit of my feedback, but perhaps you both could compromise? I've recommended WP:ADOPT to this editor (who's been getting some bad advice from the looks of his/her user talk). If ATren makes some good faith steps such as joining that program would you be willing to downgrade the warning? DurovaCharge 03:07, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Allow me to be perfectly clear - ATren will stop stalking JzG. There is no other solution. If he stops stalking JzG, there will be no issue. If said stalking continues, said issue will continue. Hipocrite - «Talk» 11:47, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Allow me to be perfectly clear: I've done nothing wrong, violated no policy, broken no rules. I stand by each and every one of my comments on AN/I and elsewhere. And if tomorrow I see evidence that JzG is violating policy I will not hesitate to report it despite your threat above. If you have a problem with that, I suggest you take it to RfC. ATren 12:39, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] F.Y.I.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Controlled demolition hypothesis for the collapse of the World Trade Center (3rd). TheOnlyChoice 22:17, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

I owe you one. Guy (Help!) 22:21, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Warning

In the past few days you have repeatedly engaged in egregious personal attacks, incivility, threats, bullying and other harassment of various users ([9], [10], [11], [12], et cetera). You have been warned about this previously. Please stop attacking people and try to deal with others politely. --CBD 00:00, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Make my day. Hipocrite - «Talk» 11:43, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Telling me 'gfy' in your edit summary to the above only admits the validity of what I am saying. You don't have the right to insult people on Wikipedia. You have to try to work with and even help people you disagree with... not attack them. That is the only way a collaborative project like this can function and the reason we have such strong policies about civility and personal attacks. --CBD 11:58, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Yes, you, again, are the lone crusader of correctness in the middle of a sea of people who are just wrong, every time. If I weren't feeling really good about myself right now, I'd see what I could do about finally getting rid of your misplaced buttons. PS: [13] applies doubly to you. Hipocrite - «Talk» 12:03, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Fortunately, no... I'm not a 'lone crusader'. In the past week or so half a dozen different people have warned you about your behaviour. That should have been sufficient to make clear that it was a problem. Suggesting that I should be de-sysoped is another of those things that really isn't friendly/shouldn't be done, and in this case would change nothing... I could just as easily urge people to follow Wikipedia's behavioural policies without being an administrator. Indeed, before becoming an admin I did so to admins, arbitors, and even Jimbo. My commitment to getting people to treat each other fairly and respectfully does not come in 'button' form. It would cost you nothing to be polite when you disagree with others. It is expected in general society and doubly so on Wikipedia. That you have responded each time with fresh insults seems deliberately disruptive and I can't see what you would hope to gain by that. --CBD 12:21, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
You are the lone crusader in attempting to defend your troll friends from the slings an arrows of outrageous fortune. Obviously, you don't know what civility is - you are interested in defending the downtrodden troll from people noticing the brown thing in the corner is a turd - you are not interested in defending people from incivility, only in defending the powerless from anything. This is my final comment on this thread - there is little or no need for you to respond further, but I suspect you will go ahead and get the last word in below. Hipocrite - «Talk» 12:25, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
I'll be happy to interject a word. I was going to ask you to clarify on your edit here [14], but after reading your responses here, I think we have a fundamental disagreement on what WP:CIVIL means. --Ronz 17:09, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Could I suggest that editorial disagreements are most likely to resolve quickly and productively when editors observe the following:

  • Remain polite per WP:Civility.
  • Solicit feedback and ask questions.
  • Keep the discussion focused. Concentrate on a small set of related matters and resolve them to the satisfaction of all parties.
  • Focus on the subject rather than on the personalities of the editors.

Thanks! --Ronz 17:09, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

When both editors observe the following, yes. When one party plays by the rules and the other dosen't care? Not so much. Hipocrite - «Talk» 18:34, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Don't template the regulars

Brilliant! Just what I was thinking when I MfD's Template:Civil1. I'd give you a barnstar, but as that's boilerplateish, I'll just say 'thanks'.--Docg 21:44, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Buffer overflow

I may be wrong, but I don't think ProtectionBot can be vulnerable to a buffer overflow attack. I have read the source and all of it's inputs are in the form of text only data. You cannot put binary data on a wiki page for the bot to read, and precompiled assembly(which buffer overflow attacks need) cannot be put into text. What's more I don't believe that Python has run-time compiling abilities. Have I alleviated your concerns, or have I missed something? HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 17:53, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] DDV

Please keep an eye out, thanks. >Radiant< 10:28, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] chicken or egg

""What came first, the chicken or the egg" is only an interesting question because it dosen't have an obvious answer. "

Shouldn't that be which came first the "chicken egg or the chicken"? Didn't dinoasaurs have eggs ;)

Probably a good delete but thanks for the back up. Such a true comment. I can rememeber ref desk in far better shape when it was just a bunch of strangers passing through to help out. Now we have squatters rights being invoked and it just gets uglier and uglier. David D. (Talk) 21:58, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Inshaneee

No i do not accept your "apology" for inshaneee, he can do it himself (and mean it). I have not posted to his page for nearly 2 months and only in direct relation to his bans of me and his later incivility to me. The advice on the RfC was to monitor him for futher incivility, i am doing that . I was advised to try again to resolve this dispute so i asked civily for an apology, i will not post on his talk page again. This is not about a 3 month old ban (i was in the wrong for what i did and should have been banned) this is only about an ADMIN calling me a douche, full stop. I also won't contact you again unless you talk to me. Hypnosadist 15:33, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Who gave you this terrible advice? Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:50, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Here [15] its on the Administrators noticeboard so i thought i should follow it.Hypnosadist 18:38, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

No such terrible advice is given in that thread. Hipocrite - «Talk» 19:06, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

You are right, i posted the wrong diff of two chats going on at the same time. Sorry for wasteing your time here is the link to a chat on AN/I [16]. Hypnosadist 20:11, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

No such terrible advice is given in that thread, either. Hipocrite - «Talk» 20:14, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Lets start with; Apparently you are seeing parts of this discussion and not others. Several folks (admin, and not-admin alike, including myself) have agreed that the mass discussion you were doing was ok in theory.. EXCEPT: A) you were only letting people know that already agreed with you, when to be fair, you are supposed to let all sides know that you are adding more information to the RfC, and inviting comment, and B)You did not do so in a neutral manner. SirFozzie 23:47, 8 January 2007 (UTC) and i can't find bbatsell's quote i was following when i asked civily one last time for an apology and on that i'm ceasing to justify myself to you as i have done nothing wrong.Hypnosadist 20:42, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I would like to see who advised you to ask for an apology for a three month old slight. I'm going to operate under the assumption that no one did such at this point, and that you are mistaken. Hipocrite - «Talk» 20:43, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
I didn't realize that violations of policy went away overtime. - A Link to the Past (talk) 23:03, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh yes now i remember bbatsell pointed out that Arb com would want to see repeated attempts to civily come to a resolution to this Issue. So i asked again for an apology and was supprised to get a reply of you. Since the start of my dealings with inshanee i have found out that he has also called other editors douche and other incivilty as well as wheel warring and other breaches of Admin policy. We've had an RfC which he mostly ignored as it happened and totally afterword. I started to talk to other people about what they thought of Ishaneee and got my comments deleted by a friend of inshaneee who is also an admin. I'm completely pisssed off by this whole thing now, especially my treatment by admins who don't give a damn about what hes done its about how i've done wrong.Hypnosadist 21:03, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Just wanted to say that I really appreciate your attempts to maintain civility and enforce policy during this period. If you have any comments on my conduct or suggestions for how this might be best resolved, please do not hesistate to let me know. --InShaneee 01:33, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I saw your comments on the Inshaneee RfC, and wanted to drop you a note. Respectfully, I don't think accusations of "harassment" are either well-founded or helpful here. (Particularly given the participation of respected editors like Newyorkbrad and Future Perfect.) This situation has enough animosity - if your goal is to help find a resolution and lessen that animosity, as I assume it is, I don't think this is the way to start. If you're frustrated with the progress of the RfC, a better approach would be to suggest ways to improve it. Would you consider clarifying or restating your comment? --TheOtherBob 21:01, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I have since done so. Hipocrite - «Talk» 21:05, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] William Foran

Gaah, I fell for it! Thanks for tracking it down. FreplySpang 16:40, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Foran

What the hell is going on, I made no hoax, all my claims are backed by references. Rpritchie 16:55, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

The article William Foran did, as I noted, seem unusually hyperbolic; according to ESPN, however, he does exist. That was one of the first things I checked this morning. :) RadioKirk (u|t|c) 17:59, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

He's the backup QB. After graduating HS, he took one year off, was a redshirt freshman at Perdue, then spent his sophmore and junior seasons at Princeton. Claims made in the article were innacurate and abusurd, and cited references that did not support the statements made. Hipocrite - «Talk» 18:05, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Okay, that makes sense; I was only looking at the time into whether the person existed. I've now checked the refs in the deleted article, and none linked was verifiable as to this individual. This editor's sudden silence make more sense now, as well. Nice work :) RadioKirk (u|t|c) 18:36, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] piss and rain

One of the most hilarious things I've read all day. I couldn't have said it better myself. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 07:54, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree. A bit direct maybe but it made the point. Given how disruptive that editor's posts are, would we be allowed to ignorte her if this would all us to reach a working consensus on the issue in hand? --Spartaz 07:59, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Evert Collier

A question about the death information you listed for Evert Collier was asked on the Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities‎ - specifically [17]. Can you provide any help? Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:25, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

These data are from the authorative and informative though regretfully monolingual website of the Netherlands Institute for Art History. It's page on Edwaert Collier (Edwaert apparently is preferred) says: "Sterfplaats/datum Londen 1708; begraven 9 September 1708, St. James's Picadilly", "Place/date of death London 1708, buried Sept 9 1708, St. James's Picadilly". It also lists his places of activity (1667-93 Leiden, 1693-1702 London, 1702-6 Leiden, 1706-8 London) and has 80 detailed descriptions of his paintings. As sources it lists: "Allgemeines Lexikon der bildenden Künstler von der Antike bis zur Gegenwart / unter Mitwirkung von 300 Fachgelehrten des In- und Auslandes ; hrsg. von Ulrich Thieme und Felix Becker (1907-1950)" and "Adriaan van der Willigen en Fred G. Meijer, A Dictionary of Dutch and Flemish Still-life Painters Working in Oils, 1525-1725, Leiden 2003" Afasmit 22:53, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
I should've have replied somewhere else, but you beat me to it. Thanks for the barn star ;-) Afasmit 23:01, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Please see my remarks apropos adding this information "somewhere else" after all! -- Thanks, Deborahjay 09:53, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Light current

Hipocrite, could you lay off on Light current? He's improved a lot in the last few weeks, and I think his judgement – while not perfect – has been much better about appropriate remarks since his block.

If you don't stop calling him a 'troll' or engaging in other personal attacks on him or other editors (trolls or not) I will resort to blocks for persistent incivility. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:09, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Hipocrite may be a bit blunt, but it's been made clear that subtlety does not work in this case. Friday (talk) 18:20, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

[18][19][20][21][22], without comment. Hipocrite - «Talk» 18:22, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

It's a sociological question that is at least borderline legitimate. He may well be looking for more of a chatty response than is appropriate, and it may have shown poor judgement for him to ask the question given the circumstances.
Nevertheless, flat rudeness ('blunt' would be a very generous characterization) isn't justified as a reaction. I wouldn't be harping on this point, except that – particularly lately – you've been showing a tremendous lack of civility in dealing with conflicts. I get that you're stressed out, but starting a flame war isn't going to fix that. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:42, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Email

So why no email? How is a person supposed to plot? Guettarda 02:20, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

oops. wikibreak back on now. Hipocrite - «Talk» 02:40, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
FYI - looks like you're my sockpuppet http://www.encyclopediadramatica.com/index.php/Hipocrite Guettarda 15:47, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Easy

Take it easy, man. You're after the right things, but you're stirring things up a bit too much lately. Friday (talk) 15:22, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I have limited my activity dramatically -> [23]. Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:23, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Fair enough- and for what it's worth- I understand the frustration. Trust me on that one. It's harder and harder for me to escape the conclusion that some of the folks involved are being intentionally difficult to work with. But, as always, when faced with unreasonableness, we need to be extra reasonable in our responses. Friday (talk) 15:26, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
I have no doubt now that what we a really seeing is an attempt to bait reasonable editors into untenable behaviour. Best to just sit back and let them hang themselves slowly. Their edits speak for them loud and clear, my guess is they will get bored and return to productive editing or implode if left to their own means. David D. (Talk) 15:57, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Mmm...turns out implode was the right answer. David D. (Talk) 03:08, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sarin Wrap

I think you were a little heavy handed with the deletions in the reference desk question regarding sarin wrap. The OP didn't state they had eaten it, they were asking what would happen. I felt my reply was sufficiently qualified with disclaimers to not warrant removal. Further, I really don't think that's something a teenager would go ahead and call their local GP about, so in fact, possibly you did more harm then good, telling the OP eating sarin wrapis a stupid thing to consider wasn't inappropriate in this case, in my opinion. I'm not going to fight you about it but just wanted you to know what I thought. Vespine 01:41, 17 January 2007 (UTC) Vespine 01:41, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree with Vespine, though there's a broad gray area here. The hypothetical question "What would happen if a person consumed a square foot of saran wrap?" is – on its face – a reasonable, curiosity-driven sort of question. There's the opportunity for an interesting discussion about foreign bodies, the way the digestive system handles indigestible material, bowel obstruction and its consequences, etc. On the other hand, a question like "I've eaten a square foot of saran wrap; what should I do?" would obviously be seeking medical advice. We definitely wouldn't want to be giving advice other than 'see your doctor' in such a case.

Perhaps in the future, it would be best in these sorts of ambiguous cases to note that we don't provide medical advice, and ask the original poster to clarify the intent of his or her question. We might want to shy away from using a template in these ambiguous cases; a slightly-more-personalized touch may be called for. (Incidentally, would you consider signing when you add a template to a discussion? If someone – the original poster or anyone else – wants to follow up with whomever placed the template, a signature makes that much easier. Once again, we're looking for more of a 'personal note' feel, and less of an 'edict from God'.) TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:08, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

You appear to have missed this, which is the same question, labled "Health/safety/first aid question." Don't worry, since it's obvious that eating saranwrap is ok, we can answer that one. Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:17, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Additionally, I am not looking for personal note feel. Personal notes have failed. Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:22, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Personal notes have failed with a few regular contributors. Being polite with newbies who may just not be familiar with our guidelines – and who may not have even intended to ask for medical advice in the first place – is a good practice. In any case, when you do use the templates, please sign your messages. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:15, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
I agree that whatever frustration any of us may have with others, we don't want to let this come across in our responses to questions. It's alright to expect more cluefullness from experienced editors than we do from random passers-by. Friday (talk) 18:20, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
If the proposed templates are not nice enough, it's the templates that are wrong, not the templater. I've tried everything from giving concise and useful answers to obvious trolls, giving concise and useful answers to obvious trolls with a note that others are not to respond in commented text, just putting commented text telling others not to respond, deleting entire sections, archiving them with span templates, and adding the boxes written by someone else, all failing to regular ref-desk contibutors who are actively commenting on the talk page. If the only solution is to just let the reference desks endanger and damage the encyclopedia, there is only one solution -> WP:MFD. Hipocrite - «Talk» 20:11, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Stop.

I'm sorry, but I really have no idea what you are talking about. The only place I can remember your name was a comment on the talk page about animal rights? I think you provided diffs for the adjunct discussion on the main page. X [Mac Davis] (DESK|How's my driving?) 21:50, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

[24], [25], [26]. Hipocrite - «Talk» 22:00, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Adminship

Fancy a nomination? Might keep you busy enough to stop you cheering me up. Steve block Talk 17:30, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Lawl dream on. If nominated I would fail, rightfully, and I'd be pissed about it. The thought counts, however. Hipocrite - «Talk» 17:31, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
I'd give you a glowing reference and I'd be mighty pissed if you failed too. Still, I appreciate where you are coming from. Steve block Talk 17:43, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I'd support it of course. You have one of the best eyes for B.S. of anyone on wiki.--MONGO 23:00, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I lack the requisite patience and restraint to appropriately have the ability to block other contributors. In addition, I have self-destructive editing tendancies when annoyed. I rely on people who know I am right to do my dirty work for me :). Hipocrite - «Talk» 23:10, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
I'd have to agree with this ;) but your judgement with respect to issues seems pretty good (subjectively translated from: I agree with you more often than not ;) ). I imagine an RfA for you would really bring a lot of editors out of the woodwork. If nothing else it would be entertaining. Personally i think adminship can sometimes be a disadvantage. As seen recently, it is very easy to frame arguments in the us against them dichotomy. As a non admin that fallacy can be undermined and claims of persecution, from a blocking perspective, cannot be used as a defense against indefensible editing. David D. (Talk) 16:21, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your reversion at Barrington Hall

Please revert your edit, which was made without discsussion, against consensus, and used the misleading and uncivil edit summary, "someguysblog." The blog is by a professional journalist and author, and is noted by The Academy of American Poets.-Cindery 21:56, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Cindery, I count at least four editors who have removed that same information. I know Astanhope agrees with you...but beyond that, how do you see yourself as having consensus to keep it in? --Milo H Minderbinder 22:00, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
Not even J. Smith agrees with you.-Cindery 22:12, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
Anyone who reads my talk page because they find me often in the right should definetly review the Barrington Hall article, which requires numerous uninvolved eyes to fix. Found via content dispute whinged about on WP:ANI. Hipocrite - «Talk» 22:04, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WP:BLP, editors' right to anonymity

Please see the warning I have given Milo, and the relevant discussions at RS and ANI. He may quote me; he may not speculate. Notable people who are notable for their work have a reasonable expectation to privacy.-Cindery 22:11, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] How to add citations? (further to Evert Collier)

I'd appreciate if you could please explain whether (and if so, how) the further information in the wake of the recent Humanities Reference Desk query, provided by the original editor, would get added to the Evert Collier page or its Discussion page. I see that this hasn't been done by anyone: neither yourself nor Afasmit (let alone the OP of the query, who seems to be a non-Wikipedian). I'd think such pertinent information would belong in one of those two locations before it gets buried in the annals of the Reference Desk archives. Or not? Besides my not having made much progress in learning how to write citations (I find the Style guidelines bewildering), I'm too new on RD to know the protocol here. Having experienced considerable grief after having gotten memorably slapped down on at least one previous attempt to "adjust" others' edits, I won't take action on this without explicit advice. -- Thanks, Deborahjay 00:09, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Deborahjay; I thought I'd butt in and say that I find WP:CITET useful for adding refs; I just copy the relevant citation type and paste it into the article, and fill out the fields. Anchoress 01:08, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
Many thanks, Anchoress — your intervention (particularly timely here/now as Hipocrite is on a Wikibreak) is always welcome by me! I'll follow that link and am looking forward to putting my new skills to good use (and, should I run into difficulties, shall seek you out for further advice). -- Deborahjay 09:58, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
No probs. I was very intimidated by the citation format at first, but I found that seeing the fields laid out in a tabular format insead of one long string really helped. The preview function is also critical, of course! And don't forget to ensure there's a 'References' section in the article, otherwise your hard work won't show up. I have the code for a references section with small font on my userpage under 'editing tools', or you can just copy one from an existing article; I find the front page FA is the best bet for this. Anchoress 01:55, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
In that case, I do think I'll visit your userpage for the format, especially since I'd missed the connection with References. (In fact, I'll probably contact you directly if I don't get results when I actually attempt to do this!) Meanwhile: what, pray tell, is this "front page FA" that you mention? -- Thanks again, Deborahjay 15:25, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
I didn't want to step in on something I am no expert on and so deferred to Anch before. "front page FA" means "front page featured article," an article which was declared the "Article of the day" and shown on the main page. Today, it is El Greco. Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:33, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, Hipocrite, and also for the use of your page space here :-) -- Cheers, Deborahjay 22:58, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RD medical advice

Look, I feel you're over-reacting to this issue [27]. I am a human being. I have feelings, and I was hurt by what you said. I am honestly trying to help. If we are really arguing an academic issue, I don't want it to get personal. —LestatdeLioncourt 13:53, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Newyorkbrad's RfA

Thank you for your support on my RfA, which closed favorably this morning, as well as for your kind comments accompanying your !vote. I appreciate the confidence the community has placed in me and am looking forward to my new responsibilities. Please let me know if ever you have any comments or suggestions, especially as I am learning how to use the tools. Best regards, Newyorkbrad 20:44, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] You've been warned about civility before...

...so please stop it. --badlydrawnjeff talk 05:07, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Go away. I don't broke encyclopedia dramatica here. Hipocrite - «Talk» 05:08, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
I don't know what you mean. Stop with the incivility and the nasty comments. --badlydrawnjeff talk 05:10, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Go away. I don't broke encyclopedia dramatica here. Hipocrite - «Talk» 05:11, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Play nice, kids. Georgewilliamherbert 05:13, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

  • I have wonderful news - BDJ doesn't edit ED. So it should be all good with him, right? Milto LOL pia 05:16, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Go away. I don't broke encyclopedia dramatica here. Hipocrite - «Talk» 05:16, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] JD AfD

I would have said it should have been merged in first place, but I didn't want to seem hostile to what seemed like dpbsmith's good faith effort. I felt I should point out that it was a pen name at AfD, and that I didn't think pen names have stand-alone articles, but having done that I will stay away from this particular discussion.-Cindery 05:33, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] totally fucking wrong.

"Totally fucking wrong" is a totally inappropriate edit summary. Even if your "correction" had been right. - Nunh-huh 05:36, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

No big deal, I wasn't particularly offended, just surprised. Thanks for the apology, though. Think calm thoughts. - Nunh-huh 23:19, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] FYI  :(

FYI. =( BobDjurdjevick 14:37, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, TBD. Hipocrite - «Talk» 14:38, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
User:Rootology is indef banned. Above is rootology. Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:41, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A challenge.

I challenge people coming here and to tell me that I am being incivil to Rootology and Miltopia to write an encyclopedia dramatica attack page about themselves. Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:07, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Is that really a productive challenge? HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 16:10, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
I challenge you to rise above it. We rapidly and willingly block socks of banned editors and single-purpose harrassment accounts as soon as they appear. We won't block them any faster if you're gratuitously rude; indeed, it's much more difficult us to sort wheat from chaff when you pick fights with editors in good standing and bad alike. If you want to sink to their level, go do it on ED. Wikipedia isn't the place for it. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:14, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Miltopia remains unblocked. You lack the courage of your convictions, or you lack the convictions you express. Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:29, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Based on what? Compare your contribs with Miltopia, for instance. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:33, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
There's no reason for rudeness toward and regarding established, good-faith editors like Badlydrawnjeff: [28]. Feel free to disagree with other editors. State your arguments clearly and cleanly. Don't call them names. All you do by being rude is make other people embarrassed to agree with you. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:14, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
If he stops enabling trolls, I'll start assuming his good faith. Too many bad-acts in evidence. Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:29, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
This is, again, the type of unsupported nonsense that you simply must stop before it escalates further. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:33, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Why won't you say that the things the ED editors did to MONGO, the things they are doing to me are wrong? Because you'd alienate your myspace friends, right? Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:35, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
I don't know what they're up to over there now, but if you paid any attention, the MONGO situation is why I'm no longer in their good graces. Besides, unless you have any evidence of me "enabling trolls" here, then you're simply spouting nonsense. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:44, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
I'll take that as "I don't care what they're doing to you at that other website." right? Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:46, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
What do you expect him to do? badlydrawnjeff doesn't control ED editors, nor does anyone police them off-wiki. You're not giving BDJ a "win" option here. Milto LOL pia 16:48, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
On one hand, considering how you treat me, what reason do I have to care? I'm too busy writing articles here. On the other, I don't know or care about what's been happening over there one way or another. They might have an article about me, who knows? I'm no longer concerned with it, and you're obsessed with it to the point of dragging uninvolved parties in. Stop. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:52, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Go write an article then. What I expect you to do is have a modicum of civility - Has anyone tried to figure out which library you work at? Do you constantly have to check to make sure you didn't leave some old trick that they could use to get you somewhere? Do you suspect that I'm gonna go library to library trying to find your job? No, you don't. Do you think I'm rightfully worried about Rootology doing the same to me, irregardless of how this proceeds? Of course you know I'm rightfully worried. Where's the compassion? Dead? Hipocrite - «Talk» 17:01, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Maybe you should stop taking out your frustration on other editors than rootology. If he's who you're worried about, attacking bdj (and me, for that matter) isn't going to help and isn't going to win you sympathy. I'm sorry you feel harassed by rootology, but I don't think that justifies your behavior towards others. That's the point some people have been trying to make, not that you have no right to be angry at anybody anywhere. Milto LOL pia 17:08, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Right, because you're not in any way related to Rootology's actions. Dosen't pass the smell test. Your non-apology apology is rejected. Here, try this "I looked back at what I did on your page on encyclopedia dramatica, and found that what I did then was reprehensible. I apologize for my acts, and hope you can forgive me." I'll even forgive you if you use exactly the words I just helpfull wrote for you, if you promise you mean them. Hipocrite - «Talk» 17:10, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
I had no contact you this last night until you posted about me in ANI, to which I replied. Given that, it seems unlikely that I am "working with" rootology in any way. You opened up the channels of discussion that led to us clashing again, not me or rootology, so I don't see what is making you think I'm "related" to rootology's sockpuppeteering. Milto LOL pia 17:15, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Hypocrite knows full well about the civility policy here[29]. I have a question, do you intend to follow this policy in the future? HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 16:19, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
catch-22. Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:29, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Mostly I just want to edit without you bringing me up all the time, rehashing old anger over a website and taking it out on me. I care little about you being uncivil to me, but with you constantly bringing me up, I don't have the option to simply ignore you. We'd both be happier if we simply avoided each other, I wish you would see that. Milto LOL pia 16:20, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Your edits to my encyclopedia dramatica attack page scream otherwise. Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:29, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
It's been nearly 6 months since I edited that page, other than to include a template. If I wanted to attack you, I would've after our last run-in, when you accused me of being Blu Aardvark. Milto LOL pia 16:32, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
You are the main contributor to the attack page. Is the above an apology? Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:35, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm not the main contributor, and it's not so much an apology as it is a dead issue. If my edits to your ED article are all that's fueling your pursuit of action against me, you'll accomplish nothing - the edits will remain, and I don't plan on editing the article any more regardless of what happens. Milto LOL pia 16:38, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
I'll take that as an "I will never apologize for harassing you on that other website," correct? Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:39, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Other peoples behavior has zero effect on the behavior expected from you. You need to follow WP:CIVILITY and WP:AGF regardless of other's behaviour. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 16:31, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
"This guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of evidence to the contrary." Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:35, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
That doesn't buy your way out of WP:CIV, and remember that WP:AGF cuts both ways. Why should we assume good faith of you, if you continue to broadcast your intention to adhere to WP:CIV and WP:NPA only when you feel like it? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:49, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
I don't need the crutch of others assuming my good faith. Hipocrite - «Talk» 17:01, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Seeing WP:AGF as a 'crutch' rather than a necessary foundation for productive interaction is rather the whole problem, it seems. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:13, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
I believe you have confused my statement that I don't need the crutch to the statement that others don't need the crutch. Obviously, they do. Good faith on my part has not been assumed for months - since, I believe, User:SirIsaacBrock was allowed to harass me for three weeks. Hipocrite - «Talk» 17:19, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Hip...don't bother to respond to their drama...just go on and work on the encyclopedia,--MONGO 17:14, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Agree with MONGO, this is such a waste of space and time. I also agree with TenOfAllTrades, don't let them bait you into losing your temper. It makes it hard to defend you if you are on the attack too. One thing I have seen happen here again and again is that there is massive sympathy for trolls that get attacked. Can't figure out why but it does seem to be the case. Let them dig their own grave and you should try and rise above it all. Easier said than done, of course. David D. (Talk) 17:20, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
It's done. The patzers and kibitzers can leave my talk page now. Hipocrite - «Talk» 17:20, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Chin up

Keep your chin up, have a break, try to ignore it for a little bit. I'm not entirely sure what the issue is, but I'm always emailable. Remember, Wikipedia is a hobby. Take care. Steve block Talk 21:53, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Leave, unwelcome

badlydrawnjeff, miltopia - you are unwwelcome here. There is no need for you to comment on this talk page ever again. Do not do so. If you must contact me about something, go through one of the two adminstrators who are pressing your case. Do not respond to this message. Out. Hipocrite - «Talk» 17:17, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] NJYoder

I neither know nor care. Phil Sandifer 16:56, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../h/i/p/User_talk%7EHipocrite_Archive_Jan07_135c.html"