User talk:Hipocrite

This talk page is automatically archived by Werdnabot. Any sections older than 7 days are automatically archived to User talk:Hipocrite/Archive/Jul07. Sections without timestamps are not archived - please sign your posts with four ~'s

Heya!

Good to see you again! Have some pie! >Radiant< 15:04, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you

You are a gentleman, and I am really glad you have come back. What more need I say? Clio the Muse

Stop it ?

Why should I stop ? Why don't you stop ? I'm not trying to make a point, I'm doing what is currently recommended. You're reverting without any valid reason. Sarenne 13:18, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

• Sarenne has stopped it. >Radiant< 13:21, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Per your accusation of my being a vandal

Shunned
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I have no interest in "adding shit" to the encyclopedia. Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors; 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. . --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:15, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Courtesy

Hipocrite, I see your on Citizendium, I am as well. I see your a long time user of Wikipedia, I am as well. Please take some time to handle this with care and not be too hasty. I was little surprised you deleted the image without giving a reason or rationale, that kind of thing on Citizendium is looked down on - the Image does have a fair use rationale and has been in place for a long time - and there is also a review request in place. I'd appreciate it if you could leave the image in place for now so people can see it in context and let the fair use review process take its course. -- Stbalbach 21:30, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

CZ does not currently allow fair use images. That's one of the good things, currently. Hipocrite - «Talk» 09:55, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Lewis

I don't believe I did praise his sources. I praised the use of sources in describing his objection to Lees' interpretation. Whether those sources are notable or themselves biased is another matter, but any movement away from personal, opinionated bickering to discussion on the reliability sources is a move in the right direction, in my opinion. Rockpocket 22:44, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree that it is better for him to be googling for unreliable, biased sources to present his tiny-minority opinion that Clio is a Nazi. It is, however, far better that he just stop. Hipocrite - «Talk» 10:08, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with that also. However, have you looked at the Humanities desk recently? It chock full of personal opinion, unsourced speculation and debate. Clio is the only one who regularly approaches the questions with any sources whatsoever. The whole thing should be trashed, in my opinion. However to censure Lewis for contributing in the manner everyone else does is unfair and would only antagonise the perception of bias. One step at a time. If we can break the cycle of personalising the issue, then there should be no reason they cannot co-exist in relative harmony. Rockpocket 18:39, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Dweller

Hi Hipocrite. Welcome back. Thanks for your question at my RfA. Sorry, I've been unavoidably offline for a couple of days; hence the delay in responding. You'll find an answer there now. --Dweller 22:17, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

May 2007

Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. One or more of your recent edits, such as the one you made to AACS encryption key controversy, has been considered unhelpful or unconstructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. ≈ Maurauth ^(09F9) 18:46, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Blocked for what. ≈ Maurauth ^(09F9) 18:48, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

How about you read the blacklist, whitelist removal/addition posts before going on a crusade, ohh and read the talk page. ≈ Maurauth ^(09F9) 18:50, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Spam 09

Aloha! Your edit summary here is slightly off, in my opinion. I am a supporter of not including the key (even the "beginning with..." language), but it isn't technically "spam". In this case spam would be if the key was posted in random articles, in "every box on the net". But this article is tangentially about the number, and posting it is not technically "spam". It may be "legally worrying" or maybe "awkwardly displayed", but is it really "spam"? It is coming from people within Wikipedia's community that think it adds encyclopedic value to the article. Assuming good faith, you might not call it "spam". Like I said, I have no objection to the removal of the number, just your classification of it. Am I totally wrong? Where have I erred? Feel free to answer here, I'll keep an eye open. Mahalo. --Ali'i 18:53, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

It has been hard-coded into the spam blacklist by the developers. It must not be reinserted. Hipocrite - «Talk» 18:55, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Right, because of the crazy spam we got when it was being typed into every box on the net. Now that it has calmed down, an article about the controversy might contain the number validly (read: it's being there is not technically "spam"). You can call it crap, you can call it ugly, you can call it unencyclopedic, you can call it legally worrying, you can call it juvenile, you can call it people trying to "fight the power", you can call it almost anything (and I do), but you shouldn't call it spam. Again, where have I erred? A little more than a one sentence <david gerard>geni-type response</david gerard> would be helpful for me here. Mahalo. --Ali'i 19:12, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes to prevent SPAM, not to prevent correct usage of the number. ≈ Maurauth ^(09F9) 18:55, 15 May 2007 (UTC)