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/Oct07. Sections without timestamps are not archived - please sign your posts with four ~'s

David DeAngelo/Eben Pagan page

As there is currently some contention over whether the David DeAngelo/Eben Pagan page should be at the former or latter name, I've set up a discussion on the talk page. I would be grateful if you could make your case there. -- Sasuke Sarutobi 02:11, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing how it appears that every single edit you have done to this page another editor has disagreed with perhaps it might be a good idea for you to in the future have at least one other person agreeing with whatever you are about to do before you do it. Mathmo ^Talk 16:23, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stop stalking me. Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:25, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The degree and frequency to which you are calling me a stalker is getting to such a stage that I wonder if I should get a second opinion as to if this is a personal attack on me. I'd rather not go to those lengths, so if you could kindly just stop with the accusations and be civil instead please. Thank you. Mathmo ^Talk 16:38, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Consider leaving me alone. Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:43, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Importance=disputed

i *like* your solution! hee hee :)

Coulter edits

Mind your manners, sir, within which, avoid such imperious tone and the making of dismissive personal attacks in your edit-summaries. -- Lonewolf BC 20:29, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Copying text to Talk

I thought we went over the point of moving unsourced or poorly sourced material to Talk before removing it. Oh well, I guess some people are more courteous than others - you apparently just don't care to be one of them. --Amit 20:39, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's not how we do things here. It's how you want things done, but it's not how we do things. Hipocrite - «Talk» 20:43, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mescher's Method

Sorry, that was what my teacher called it when she taught it to us. Apparently, Mescher was a teacher in the 70's who discovered the break the linear term into 2 terms method. It is considered common usage, but sice it was older, I couldn't find that name anywhere, so the link I found just showed that method used without a name. Zbl 21:34, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Small matter

My firm stumped up for Factiva, next time I may be able to save you three bucks :-) Guy (Help!) 21:53, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And if the subscription department of the International Herald Tribune can get their act together, I may be able to save you three bucks to access the New York Times archives, too. --Calton | Talk 02:39, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

3RR warning at Mengistu Haile Mariam

Warning

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 14:30, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:TEMPLAR. Dear pot, kettle calling. Hipocrite - «Talk» 14:35, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

u r currently in violation and will likely be reported. the source is legitimate and u will likely be blocked if u do not revert yrself. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 195.225.104.228 (talk) 14:50, 9 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Horowitz

Can you please seek to create a larger concensus regarding the Horowitz issue before continuing to remove the items from articles. I also ask you to please read WP:EL, the guidelines for citations in articles are vastly different from that of External Links section. Thank you. --Nuclear~~Zer0~~ 17:41, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to go ahead and try to find such consensus. I'll just continue to care less about politics and more about articles. You should try doing the same. Hipocrite - «Talk» 19:16, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mananging political warriors

I noticed your message on the VillagePump policy page. I have the same concern, and joined theForum for Encyclopedic Standards. What your talking about is what I would call a "racketeer". I am developing a "quality management tool" that I hope will help. It isn't entirely complete, but could be given a field test, if you're willing to try it out. Richiar 01:49, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just looked at "Quality Management Frame": even though I understand what I mean, it probably wouldn't be clear to you, just from reading my own proposals. I guess maybe I am suggesting that I try to create something for you that will work for you, in countering political racketeer editors. Let me know if your interested. Richiar 01:59, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Active Dispute

Sigh, Ann Coulter

I noticed your commitment to wikipedia policies above POV. I found a transcript of the C-SPAN discussion Coulter had about CBC, and the included block appears to be edited grossly out of context from it. It's a primary source with no independent coverage, and no reliable source exists for the transcript in any form. Therefore, notability problems aside, it's completely unverifiable, against WP:BLP.

Anyhow, although you'd probably want to trim the block even further, and you've probably moved on to more interesting projects, please take a look when you get the chance. Cool Hand Luke 02:25, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note

Well, the kibitzing now has ended up here. I thought you might be interested. >Radiant< 09:39, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment - if you actually address points, agree or disagree, I won't revert you...

I saw your recent edit of one of the Terri Schiavo pages; If you at least address both of my short points here, I will not revert you if you chose to revert my edit.

But, at least READ my points and don't make arguments about one thing (news sources) when the situation is another (advocacy), or I will revert you and make a fuss. At least reading the other editors' arguments is not too much to ask, now is it?

Thanks in advance,--GordonWatts 12:54, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Intelligent design FA

I've removed the Fair-use image as unnecessary. Anything else? Adam Cuerden ^talk 18:55, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop removing sourced material from articles

Please stop. You have no consensus whatsoever for your removal of info sourced to DTN, lets RfC it, let's discuss it, something. Your POV edit warring has to stop. Do you have any evidence other than WP:IDONTLIKEIT, if so present it, if not go edit elsewhere. Cheers. L0b0t 15:28, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seek consensus before returning sources of questionable reliability to biographies of living persons. Also, stop labeling my edits as vandalism. Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:30, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've started RfCs at the articles you like to remove things from, please participate. Cheers. L0b0t 15:46, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have not filed a single WP:RFC. You have put a lot of the same text on a lot of the same articles you and your politics edit-warriors friends have stalked me to. Perhaps you should read WP:RFC. Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:52, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:FUC

I invite you to discuss your reversion on the talk page. Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:55, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I will, thanks. --Abu badali ^(talk) 15:56, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New seduction community template

In light of the recent nomination of Template:Notable Members of The Seduction Community, I've began work on a new, broader template in my namespace (here). The intention is that it is placed at the bottom of the page. — Sasuke Sarutobi 17:15, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Warning

Regarding your comment on my talk page, it is not speculation. I can back it up with verifiable facts. I find it strange that an Admin knowingly used a sockpuppet and appears to have created his own userpage. Both frowned upon by Wikipedia. SSS108 ^talk-email 13:03, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]