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/Dec06. Sections without timestamps are not archived

Please comment on plagiarism

Thanks. Here you go. ____G_o_o_d____

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:

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 [1], was using insider-terms on their 9th [2], 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)

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)

Experiments

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

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.[3] 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)

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)

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)

my RfA

Thanks for your support in my RfA! Unfortunately, the request did not pass, with a vote of (43/16/7). But your support was appreciated and I'll just keep right on doing what I do. Maybe I'll see ya around -- I'll be here!
Cheers! - CheNuevara 17:29, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

A cookie from Viridae^Talk

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)