User talk:DepartedUser/Archive/May07

From someones user page[edit]

Someone I once respected had something like this on their user page:

Defend each other!

This is amazing! It sums up how we can use conflicts to build our community instead of letting them tear us apart. I recommend that everyone read it.

When I think about being asked to attack the contributions of a valued editor that he made under duress in error over half a year ago, I wonder if it's best for me to even comment on that, or to focus on, oh, retaining the valuable users of the encyclopedia who have done everything possible to prevent disruptive POV-trolls from inserting garabge into the encyclopeda. Actually, I don't have to think that long. Have you considered asking the user who put that on their user page if they would stand up for User:MONGO when he was being relentlessly pursued by a single purpose POV pusher? Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:37, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nice, that's a fair point. I don't think that my actions are incompatible with supporting MONGO though; it might be interesting for you to read what I wrote on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/MONGO#Outside view by Guinnog and on Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Seabhcan#Statement by User:Guinnog. I like MONGO, as I have said already in this RfC. I do think though that some of the actions he and his supporters have taken are incompatible with a harmonious and collegiate editing environment. This example from last August shows (at least to me) that there has been some pretty poor behaviour in the past from anti-CT folks, all done I grant absolutely from good motives. As soon as we can establish that normal Wikipedia rules apply even on 9/11-related articles, we will have made progress here. Incidentally, do you support the vandalism that was done to the article template, without for the moment commenting on the presumed motives behind it? --Guinnog 15:59, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing you can do will get me to comment on anything that happened before the last time MOONGO was dragged by a POV-pusher or Encyclopedia Dramatica troll in front of either the community or the ArbCom. September of 2006 is long, long gone. Normal wikipedia rules certainly do apply - which is why I am shocked that you have not blocked the Rootology sock, or the disruptive single-purpose POV-pushing revert warriors yet. Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:05, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you have any specific concerns about sockpuppets or a particular problematic editor, please feel free to share them with me and I will see what I can do. Thanks for the messages, you made a good point. However, I think there are more POV-pushers and single-purpose accounts out there than you perhaps realise. Best wishes. --Guinnog 16:15, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be back[edit]

Did you ever consider changing your name to terminator? ;) David D. (Talk) 16:26, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have a meatball:GoodBye problem. The first step is recognizing it! Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:30, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For future reference, my GoodByes are of the "Sincere but impossible" type. There is such possibility here, if only people would do thing the right way. Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:32, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

i think you know when to walk away, coming back after a rest is not a problem. Finding a new home for serious editing is also a good thing. The terminator reference was more directed to the fact you return when needed, as opposed to your inability to say goodbye :). David D. (Talk) 16:41, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For this, you're my new frickin' hero. In true Meatball Wiki fashion, I will say it: "don't go.” Better yet, just get a new user name, keep editing, and don’t let other people know who you used to be. Cheers. MortonDevonshire Yo · 23:42, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's good to see you are still around. There is life after death! Clio the Muse 18:54, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Draft[edit]

I accepted your challenge; what do you think? Talk:September 11, 2001 attacks#Draft --Guinnog 23:33, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Derek Smart[edit]

Regarding your edit [1], questioning capsu.org to be a RS, can we instead reference the boot magazine directly, ie "The neural net was discussed in the following article" and it will reference (Boot magazine "Tom Liam McDonald and Keith Zabalaoui's article, "The Neural Net that Wasn't - The Quest for Artifical Intelligence in Battlecruiser 3000 AD" Boot magazine, March 1997"). The Boot magazine was a prestigious journal related to gaming.Kerr avon 23:49, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

9/11[edit]

I hadn't seen this until now. Kudos to you. Wouldn't it be great if peace broke out on this? Working together to improve articles by consensus and policy, as we have done here, is what makes this project so great. Well done. --Guinnog 19:13, 3 May 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Heya![edit]

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

Stop it ?[edit]

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)[reply]

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

Per your accusation of my being a vandal[edit]

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)[reply]

Courtesy[edit]

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)[reply]

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

Lewis[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Dweller[edit]

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)[reply]

May 2007[edit]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

Spam 09[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

My understanding is that the number was added into the blacklist yesterday. Is my understanding wrong? I'll just state that inserting '' to get around a software security issue without approval from the designers of that feature is not acceptable. Hipocrite - «Talk» 19:39, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, that's a much better reasoning than calling it "spam". Mahalo. --Ali'i 19:41, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, it was added two weeks ago! - David Gerard 19:48, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

It isn't spam. It really isn't. I also expect it to come out of the spam filter pretty soon, considering the rest of the net is sick of the 09 F9 spammers - David Gerard 19:48, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are you stating that the developers/foundation are ok with the circumvention of the filter to post the key in that article, David? If so, I'll take you on your word and walk away. Hipocrite - «Talk» 19:49, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spoilers[edit]

Please stop inserting spoilers into the discussion which are not necessary. --87.189.89.215

I suggest that you read the content disclaimer for this website, which is linked, through the General disclaimer, from every single page on Wikipedia. And stop editing the body of other people's comments. --Tony Sidaway 15:34, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[2]

I won't start another proxy war here. --87.189.89.215

Serious =[edit]

Are you serious? Jaber777 13:13, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quite. Hipocrite - «Talk» 13:14, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From helpanddata.com. The pcitrue is not subject to copyright. I would know. Jaber777 13:25, 17 May 2007 (UTC) The other pictures I personally own. Jaber777 13:25, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I happen to know the person in question. Jaber777 13:26, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are you trying to provoke me? Jaber777 13:28, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No. I guess it's pretty obvious you are trying to provoke me. I owns most of these pictures, the rest are not subject to copyright. Provoke soeone else.Jaber777 13:31, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is very sad. I didn't know people like you existed. Jaber777 13:32, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What evidence do you what me to provide? Why are you doing this, man? Jaber777 13:35, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have made the following statements:

That you "made" Image:Hjaber.jpg yourself. How did you make it? Where did you get the initial image from? This question holds true for all the other images. Hipocrite - «Talk» 13:40, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That you knew the "person in question" regarding Image:Generaljaber.jpg. Who are they? How do you know them? Why did you get the image from a website that says the image is copyrighted, and not from the "person in question?" Hipocrite - «Talk» 13:40, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever. I'm not willing argue with someone this low. Sorry for your time. Jaber777 13:46, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My comments[edit]

You removed my comments here. Dont do so again, SqueakBox 19:00, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Must have been an edit conflict. I suggest you stay out of this one. Hipocrite - «Talk» 19:15, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I thought that was likely. I am just watching, SqueakBox 19:16, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image[edit]

Whoops, I was confusing you with Cynical (similar type name perhaps) so perhaps I was overreacting on that. My sincere apologies over that, SqueakBox 20:02, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well try it again. I'll leave it a few hours and really check it and if I dont like it will revert. I was confusing you with another user and so over reacted partly based on that, SqueakBox 20:06, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OTT[edit]

This is completely OTT. I know Jeffrey through these wikipedia pages. Next you'll be telling me to stop editing Daniel Brandt, lol. On a different note your edits to my user talk have gone down well. Which brings up the issue of "why arent we doing this (whatever you did) for all main space talk pages". We saw you and I just recently re marijuana how frustrating the current archiving system is. So please dont call me a Squeaktroll (it wont do you any good anyway) but do continue being helpful and let me know about what you think of this archiving trick you have and the possibility of making it policy. Best wishes (believe it or not), SqueakBox 00:18, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shunning[edit]

I read that you recommended that Akliman Akliman (talk · contribs) be shunned. WP:SHUN. This sounds reasonable under the circumstances, but there are disputes over several articles. How can he both be shunned and the disputes be resolved rather than avoided? Watchdog07 15:01, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's no deadline. Tag the article with a "this article is shit" bar, and let it fester till someone else deals with it or he gets reasonable again. Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:04, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's an idea. What is the proper syntax/template for such a tag? Watchdog07 15:29, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Depends what your prob with the article is. What's wrong with it? Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:39, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Joyce center[edit]

I'm not sure what put a bee up your blanket young man, but it is cute that you want me to discuss things with you when you walked away from the mediation about that article. Homefill 15:55, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your input, l0b0t. Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:55, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Long Talk Page[edit]

Hi Hip. I came across you in a circuitous way but it seems you don't like overly long talk pages. I have one. Is it possible for you to archive it for me? (excuse the impertinence). I'd like the declarations and stuff at the top to remain and, say, the last five items of discussion. The rest should go to Archive #1 - and I like the date tagging at the end as per your archive; but there isn't enough jaw-jaw on my page to merit monthly updates, so a block would do nicely. If you do a good job I can probably provide you with regular employment! Thanking you in anticipation, (Sarah777 09:09, 19 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Thanks a million! Brilliant. Regards (Sarah777 12:43, 19 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]