User talk:Hipocrite/11/2009

I rest my case
Note that, in spite of the fact that that particular BLP is watched by over 800 editors, the offending edit remained for almost 14 hours. Note that semi-protection failed to prevent if from happening. Cla68 (talk) 04:39, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

HIV dissent
There is current an open rfc and talk discussion on two forums... Where do you get off reverting the page to a forward? Neuromancer (talk) 12:59, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

So it is policy to blank a page when an open rfc and discussion is taking place? Please reference this policy for me? Neuromancer (talk) 13:24, 3 November 2009 (UTC)


 * WP:IAR. Hipocrite (talk) 13:24, 3 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Well then, I by that logic, the only sensible thing to do is start referring to you in a personally derogatory manner. However, I will refrain, and instead fight the good fight. This information will be included, one way or the other. It deserves to be included in the Wiki. Neuromancer (talk) 13:31, 3 November 2009 (UTC)


 * If you feel that ignoring WP:NPA would help improve the encyclopedia, then by all means, test it. I suggest that ignoring WP:NPA would not help improve the encyclopedia, and if you decide to test that theory, I will suggest blocks of increasing length to prevent you from harming the encyclopedia. Hipocrite (talk) 13:33, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Bose wave systems
An article that you have been involved in editing, Bose wave systems, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Articles for deletion/. Thank you.Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:46, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism vs. Content Dispute
I would ask that you extend to me the same level of respect. Please review WikiProject Alternative Views before trying to wholesale delete information because you do not share the same viewpoint. The purpose of Alternative HIV viewpoints is to present a notable viewpoint which lacks widespread acceptance. There is no reason to delete it. Neuromancer (talk) 19:03, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Alternative views: This project aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of significant "alternative views"—those theories, hypotheses, conjectures, and speculations which, though notable, lack widespread acceptance, and which may challenge a "dominant view" which does have such acceptance. The project encompasses alternative views in every field, from the sciences to the humanities.
 * "A content fork is usually an unintentional creation of several separate articles all treating the same subject. A point of view (POV) fork is a content fork deliberately created to avoid neutral point of view guidelines, often to avoid or highlight negative or positive viewpoints or facts. Both content forks and POV forks are undesirable on Wikipedia, as they avoid consensus building and therefore violate one of our most important policies."


 * Notable viewpoints should be expressed on the article they are related to - not on PoV-Forks. There is more than adequate discussion of your fringe theory on Aids Denialism and on HIV. I have not accused you of vandalism. Hipocrite (talk) 19:06, 3 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Alternative Viewpoint, not PoV-Fork... Please try to understand the difference. Censorship is bad. Neuromancer (talk) 19:14, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Biographies
I have done no such thing. It is a quote made in an interview. Read the policy yourself. Neuromancer (talk) 11:51, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Sock running for ArbCom
Hi, it is almost distressing to hear your news. I'd be relieved for this to be nipped in the bud before nominations are called for. It undermines the whole system. Tony  (talk)  15:28, 6 November 2009 (UTC)


 * The sock in question would never win. While I've been aware of the existance of the sock for some time, it was not being used abusively untill it began planning it's arbcom run. It's not worth being concerned about. Hipocrite (talk) 15:29, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

medical uses of silver
Hi there. I am a bit shocked that you appear to accuse me of bad faith. I have edited at this article constructively and in good faith, and I wrote this latest contribution because I was accused, repeatedly and incorrectly, of failing to respond to previous accusations. I'm sure that any objective editor will agree that I have been repeatedly attacked at the article talk page and at ANI, yet I have kept my cool all along. Please could you explain to me exactly what I have done wrong, to justify an accusation of stalking? Wdford (talk) 17:42, 6 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Evaluating your editing history it's difficult, if not impossible, to figure out how you came to MUoS except by following the contributions list of someone you disagree with. You have no edits, to my detailed review, by you to any other article about a metal or about alternative medicine. You don't typically resond to RFCs. In other words, you came to an article because someone you disagreed with was editing it (and please don't pretend that you were there first - Z was discussing the articles at noticeboards long before you showed up). Then you took the opposite position of them, and finally, got in a revert war. Probably better to stop now before someone who hasn't gotten into an edit war takes it on themselves to escalate. Hipocrite (talk) 17:50, 6 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the prompt feedback. Actually I did find this article from a watch on the noticeboards, which I monitor due to my interest in other articles that have seen disputes. Its true that I don't usually get involved in those articles, but I took an interest in this one because it seemed the scope was being broadened to include all medical uses of silver, and I have personally been treated with silver for an infection that resisted other treatments. I certainly did not come here purely because of Z. I also feel that I have not taken an "opposite" position to her - I have merely been attempting to achieve more of a balance by giving more emphasis to the positive uses of silver, without contesting the position that colloidal silver is ineffective or dangerous - a position that Z and I actually agree on. I'm sure my edit history shows that quite clearly. I fully believe my edits have added value, and I have repeatedly offered compromises, yet I have been rebuffed with mass-reverts and insults. I am inclined to believe that Z has taken an opposite position to me, merely because we have clashed in the past. I would ask that my edits be considered on their own merits. If somebody feels a particular reference is unreliable then by all means replace it, but I hardly feel that constitutes bad faith, or justifies a mass-revert of valid contributions. Yes? Wdford (talk) 18:10, 6 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Dosen't ring true. Hipocrite (talk) 18:33, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

You may be interested.
Deletion_review/Log/2009_November_6. Miami33139 (talk) 23:43, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikistalking warning.
Please review WP:WIKISTALK. Hipocrite (talk) 15:10, 7 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Excuse me? Neuromancer (talk) 15:53, 7 November 2009 (UTC)


 * If you are referring to my interest in alternative healthcare... I assure you that it has nothing to do with you. I happen to have a bottle of colloidal silver on the counter. I don't appreciate the insinuation at all. Thought I might check out Cold Fusion, but I should warn you that I have a dirty hydrogen generator in the engine bay of my car, so it is of legitimate interest. Neuromancer (talk) 16:00, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

ANI discussion
Hello,. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 19:52, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Recall
The process for recall is described at Administrators open to recall/Sample process. I am generally ready for a recall, however, due to personal reasons right now (i.e., a fire in my apartment building on October 12, 2009), I am not ready to participate in another RfA. In past practice, recall can only be intiated by the admin. What prompted this inquiry? Do you have a particular concern that I may be able to address? Do you want me to initiate a recall for myself? Bearian (talk) 18:27, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * You also asked me about recall, and both adminship and bureaucratship I would use Lar's procedure. I'm also curious if you have any concerns about my editing, or if you want me to initiate recall. Judging from the friendly tone of your note and from the other admins answering you, I'm inclined to think the negative, but I'm wrong a lot. Cheers,  bibliomaniac 1  5  01:23, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I should probably make it clear that my note is totally non-judgmental alphabetical spamming with no intention of recalling anyone. Hipocrite (talk) 03:06, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Andre Boyer
Good call with this. I cannot believe the AfD closed as it did; the keep votes were simply not justified. Hopefully your solution will stick until the point that this actor becomes demonstrably notable, if this happens.--Cúchullain t/ c 13:19, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Elizabeth Lambert
Please stop blanking the article. Follow the rules on the top of the page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by PÆonU (talk • contribs) 14:31, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I do not think I'm violating BLP or making disriptive edits. I'm trying to source the article. As you know, I have voted to delete the article. But I believe the issue is notability, not verifiability. Everything that's been put in is verifiable over the web, and I'm adding sources to show this. I still don't think she's notable, but right now I think a fully detailed article should remain in order to allow people to read it and consider it fairly while the AfD process goes on. I'm trying to help allow that process to happen properly. So I will be adding back in some of what you've taken out, but I promise I will only do so while at the same time adding reliable sources. Zaxem (talk) 15:05, 10 November 2009 (UTC)


 * In other words, you think the article is defamatory, but you think that we need to defame the girl so that WIKIPEDIA PROCESS can survive. Hipocrite (talk) 15:07, 10 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't believe anything in the article is defamatory, because it's all verifiable. I still don't think her actions are notable enough to merit a Wikipedia page. But I don't believe you or I should be imposing that view. The community should decide, and the page should remain until it does. Zaxem (talk) 15:11, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Invitation to participate in SecurePoll feedback and workshop
As you participated in the recent Audit Subcommittee election, or in one of two requests for comment that relate to the use of SecurePoll for elections on this project, you are invited to participate in the SecurePoll feedback and workshop. Your comments, suggestions and observations are welcome. For the Arbitration Committee, Risker (talk) 08:10, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

CF
Derry's book has only 2 citations on CF in the chapter cited. Pls read insertions before you delete. If you don't like the citation pls delete the whole sentence and the citation.Aqm2241 (talk) 13:03, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Requesting input for proposed community sanction of User:Neuromancer
You commented at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, a thread which has now led to proposals that the user in question be topic banned or site banned, or that review of the issue be put aside while Neuromancer seeks a mentor. Your further input to that discussion would be welcome. - 2/0 (cont.) 18:10, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Recall
Are you considering initiating a recall request against me? decltype (talk) 14:46, 13 November 2009 (UTC)


 * No. I make it a policy to ask everyone who states they are open to recall but whose recall criteria I can't find what exactly their criteria are. Hipocrite (talk) 14:47, 13 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Fair enough. If you have a grievance against me, please let me know, either privately or publicly, whichever you deem appropriate. I am sure it can be resolved amicably. decltype (talk) 14:52, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Reply
--Coffee //  have a cup  //  ark  // 12:34, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

ANI
Oops, I didn't see your 'note' there. Feel free to 'delete' my post. GoodDay (talk) 19:19, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Vote stacking
Hi, I'm pretty sure that I know what you were referring to and I admit that I've started to fear that things were starting to look fishy. Let me offer an explanation, I was recently asked to consider WP:ARS after an 'editor review', I enthusiasticly did and due to the finite number of articles there have overlapped with one or two folks at WP:AfD. Please don't mistake my enthusiasm for some nefarious plan, my intentions are in the interest of Wikipedia as I believe, after reading your user page, yours are too. Cheers, J04n(talk page) 16:13, 17 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Assuming that like most your goal in entering Editor Review is to level up, I suggest that ARS is not helpful. Instead of following that advice, you should instead read . Hope that helps! Hipocrite (talk) 16:16, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the laugh, very funny. I'll have to find me a hot chick. J04n(talk page) 16:46, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I believe a female username may trump that, but be careful of the User:Poetlister possible blowback. Hipocrite (talk) 16:49, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

edit warring
Please be careful to not edit warr at the Anwar al-Awlaki article. In particular, your recent deletions of sourced material clearly relating to him, and in fact to what he is most notable for, seems innappropriate.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:15, 17 November 2009 (UTC)


 * The items I removed were all coatracky blp violations, or shittly sourced to unreliable sources. I suggest you broaden your editing to experience the full range of wikipedia, instead of your singular focus on American Muslims. Hipocrite (talk) 20:16, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't see it that way. Please describe which sources you believe are unreliable (and why), and as to any remaining deletions why you believe they are "coatracky".  Many thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:23, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I will adress any concerns about any of my edits on the article's talk page. Hipocrite (talk) 20:25, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I've indicated my concerns.  I look forward to reading your comments there.  Cheers.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:29, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your note
I have been dealing with an editor named User:Xenophrenic, who has been refactoring a lot of my comments on an article Talk page and so I thought it was appropriate to do the same at WP:ANI. You may wish to take it up with him. Skoal. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 22:44, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Request

 * Please take a look at the current article Muslim Mafia and if this version is other than a coatrack would you note that on the AFD? Its much better than when you first looked at/involved in, though not all of your concerns have been addressed yet (youtube stuff is still a little hazy) at least some or even many of them have.--Firefly322 (talk) 00:56, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Thea Gill AfD
Have you changed your mind about Articles for deletion/Thea Gill yet? If you withdraw, I can speedy close it as unanimous keep, instead of letting it run two more days.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:54, 18 November 2009 (UTC)


 * No, but I won't object if you snow close it. Hipocrite (talk) 15:15, 18 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I'll let it run, then. While I can just barely justify speedying a unanimous keep when I !voted in it, snow closing wouldn't work, and I don't like it anyway. The only reason I snow closed Chongqing gang trials was that it had been completely rewritten since the nomination. Thanks! --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:22, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Blanking My Sandbox
This was an act of a personal vendetta and was clearly in bad faith. Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. PÆonU (talk) 08:33, 19 November 2009 (UTC)


 * No, it was an act of "you can't just have a copy of an article in your user space without improving it." If you don't make a substantive improvement to the article, I'll ask that it be deleted shortly. Hipocrite (talk) 11:35, 19 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Blanking a page for no reason when you have absolutely no knowledge of it's history is vandalism. You should have posted on my talk page that I need to work on it or you would nominate it for deletion. Instead, I have to work on the article in Word. You have no idea how much exposure she is going to get. Great job, you're fantastic. PÆonU (talk) 23:14, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Lambert
Take a look at the AfD. I don't feel like copy pasting everything, but I feel that I made a good point. I'd like your help, as now that the fact are out, the article can exist without being defamatory. —Preceding unsigned comment added by PÆonU (talk • contribs) 00:23, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

ping
I moved your Afd comment to the bottom, my bad, I created section breaks at H3 instead of H4. I also left a question re. 'coverage'. MickMacNee (talk) 04:17, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Medical uses of silver
Please note that a mediation has been requested for Medical uses of silver at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2009-11-23/Medical_uses_of_silver#Discussion. Wdford (talk) 12:47, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Pedophiles
Apologies in advance for the length.

Pedophilia != child rapists. Just as there are many people who would love to have a "sex kitten" romance with a woman who would obey their every sexual command but choose, for whatever reason, not to be in that scene, there are many pedophiles who choose to keep their pants zipped around kids. Likewise, there are too many people, frequently single fathers of teenage girls but sometimes others, who prefer adults but who have access to kids and find them an easy target.

Currently, arbcom is known to block pedophiles who either self-identify on-wiki as well as anyone, pedophile or not, who makes any statement indicating they favor sex with children. As Tyciol's block is too recent to know if he will appeal or if the appeal will be heard, the only thing we can say about pedophiles who self-identify off-wiki is arbcom implicitly endorses a block-first, ask-questions-later stance at this time. My hunch is even if he is ever allowed to come back, he will not be allowed to use that handle because it is too closely associated with pedophilia off-wiki and arbcom's apparent desire to protect Wikipedia's public reputation.

Personally, I don't think sanctioning people on-wiki for what goes on in their head or their many-years-ago crimes is a good thing. Actually, I think it's a bad thing. It's also a bad thing to sanction them here for what they do elsewhere, unless what they do elsewhere is relevant to Wikipedia, such as canvassing.

Any sanctions against criminals (e.g. sex offenders) or the mentally ill (e.g. pedophiles) or anyone else for that matter based on what they might do on-wiki in the future should be based either on specific information, like someone saying on Blogger "I'm going to troll Anime articles on Wikipedia for preteens then email them and get their phone numbers," trends that point to very likely future behavior, or an opinion from WP:LEGAL or WP:OFFICE that doing so is advised for purely legal reasons. The sanction should be the minimum necessary to protect the project or other editors, nothing more. In the case of most pedophiles, this could mean no sanction is needed or it could mean one or more of the following is needed, depending on the circumstances: A topic ban on topics related to pedophilia or of interest to children, a specific proscription against advocacy over and above the general anti-advocacy rules, username-related bans such as no usernames similar to usernames used on off-wiki pedophile-related web sites, no-tie-in orders, which would prohibit the editor from advertising his wikipedia handle on such boards or in private to other pedophiles, turning off email, and other sanctions as needed to eliminate the opportunity to use Wikipedia to advocate a position or to do real-world harm to editors.

When it comes to high-risk-of-advocacy topics, I would consider the following for all editors in all such topics, including pedophilia, possibly after warnings on a first-time offense:
 * Give the user a very strong reminder of Wikipedia's advocacy guidelines, including the canvassing guidelines
 * Be very strong in enforcing username restrictions on users editing heavily in those areas. This means an editor named "Gunshy" who edited gun-control articles heavily would be asked to change his name, as would editors named "protectthechildren" or "kidsarefun" editing pedophilia-related articles.
 * If off-wiki tie-ins became a problem, force the editor to stop or change his Wikipedia name. A neo-nazi with a clean wiki record who advertises "I'm a wikipedian" on Stormfront would face this sanction.

When it comes to editors who have taken actions which I think in good faith will cause harm to others, I would refer them to ARBCOM. ARBCOM should in turn should refer them to WP:OFFICE or WP:LEGAL to see if Wikipedia had any legal reporting obligations. If they did, let the police handle it and, if OFFICE or LEGAL recommends it, impose an OFFICE block. If OFFICE declines to block - and they will almost all of the time save for credible on-wiki threats, credible off-wiki threats to a Wikipedian or Wikipedia, or a request from the police - ARBCOM should take the minimum action action to neutralize the immediate threat or determine there was no real threat, then take appropriate actions. Appropriate actions means doing the minimum to keep the editor from interacting with those likely to be targeted. In some cases, this will be an outright ban. In some cases, it will be a topic ban on articles that attract those in the "target profile" plus a ban on talking to people who fit the "target profile," e.g. those known or reasonably suspected to be minors.

In any case, those imposing sanctions, be it OFFICE, LEGAL, or ARBCOM, should be willing to entertain appeals after a reasonable period of time: Editors are people and as such are quite likely to buy into rules once they are aware of not just the rules but the reasons behind the rules.

The bottom line:


 * In a perfect world, ARBCOM should treat pedophilia and those who edit such topics heavily the same as it does other high-profile controversial articles or topics and their editors.
 * In a perfect world, ARBCOM should treat pedophiles the same as it does other editors with a predisposition to criminal behavior against other editors, and watch them but not take specific action unless warranted. Lord only knows how many editors out there are embezzlers or wife-beaters or others who might find targets on Wikipedia.  It's probably a small number but not zero.
 * This is not a perfect world. Nobody knows with certainty who is and is not a pedophile. Anyone's mother could be one.  Anyone on the arbitration committee could be one.  Nobody knows which pedophiles will rape a kid next week or next year that they first interacted with on Wikipedia.  Nobody knows which non-pedophile will rape or kill someone next week or next year that they first interacted with on Wikipedia.
 * In a perfect world, outside pressure groups would not try to influence Wikipedia editing standards or pressure it into "cleaning house" where they define what "cleaning house" means. There are risks to Wikipedia to ignoring such pressure groups, but there are also risks to doing what they say.

Please forgive the length of this ramble, it's off-the-cuff and not edited well. davidwr/ (talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)  23:52, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

The pedophile in question
From what I gathered here and elsewhere, "the pedophile in question" is likely college-age. I could be misinformed, but if that's true then it's very reasonable for him to edit topics popular among the college-aged crowd. The fact that those topics also happen to be popular among teens and possibly pre-teens is an unfortunate happenstance. The fact that he likes to edit those articles and that he is, by all appearances, a pedophile is probably going to be "too bad for him" in that if he is ever re-instated, he will likely have some topic bans in those areas. While I personally think those topic bans are likely not based on any real threat to Wikipedia or its editors, realpolitik dictates that he won't likely be allowed back unless he agrees not to edit articles that happen to attract teenagers. davidwr/ (talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)  00:43, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

NPA
I think calling me a dick isnt the best way to educate me in the fine arts of civility. Please appologize. WVBluefield (talk) 17:53, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

why
not? both the ip and you deleted text without any edit summary of substance.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:33, 24 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Vandalism is a deliberate attempt to damage the encyclopedia. Removing a forum upload that calls someone a terrorist is following WP:BLP, not engaging in vandalism, regardless of edit summary. I strongly suggest you review WP:BLP and WP:RS, and follow them this time. Hipocrite (talk) 18:35, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Why do you maintain it is not an RS for the opinion stated?--Epeefleche (talk) 18:38, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Once more - read WP:RS and WP:BLP. Hipocrite (talk) 18:39, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I did. Its a scholar's statements of opinion, and therefore fine for inclusion under the guidance.  It was directly attributed to the scholar in the main text of the Wikipedia article so readers know that we are discussing someone's opinion.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:48, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * No, you didn't. Hipocrite (talk) 18:58, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * You seem to be filibustering, the same as you are w/Frag below. Just saying no, and throwing out acronyms, is not talking about it.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:23, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

do you mind
if I copy and paste the above into the article talk page, where I see you opened discussion?--Epeefleche (talk) 19:06, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

WP:ANI
You are the subject of a discussion at WP:ANI. Crafty (talk) 20:13, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Ebrahim Desai
Can you kindly explain how the information derived directly from years old fatwa can be "unsourced or poorly sourced possibly defamatory information". This is the article of a mufti and therefore the information in his fatwas can not be libellous or defamtory unless you argue he would be defematory to himself. I disagree with your edits and the rationale behind it is poor.Fragma08 (talk) 21:52, 24 November 2009 (UTC)


 * It's poorly sourced because it's taken out of context - it's a not notable part of whoever this guy's body of work is. No secondary source mentions it at all. I suggest that if the only source for the information is the subjects own website, and the information is made no more or less prominent than any other section of their website, then the information should be given no more prominence than all of the other whateveramojabs on the website. I suggest that you are coatracking the years-old fatwa into the article - making the article about the fatwa, not the person. No secondary source adresses the information - exclude it from the bio as NN. Hipocrite (talk) 21:55, 24 November 2009 (UTC)


 * That is simply not true. Fatwas are dependent on the mufti or scholar who issues them and therefore talking about secondary references is irrelevant. The fatwa is what he issues and the content was quoted definetely not out of context but as it was in his own words in question to rape. So I am sensing a bia on and calling it a coatrack only minutes after the article has been revised because of copyright issues, into a stub, is not reasonable or rational. The information belongs there but the article must be expanded. You can not seriously expect that to take place straight away as it is time consuming. Fragma08 (talk) 22:03, 24 November 2009 (UTC)


 * It's not notable. Hipocrite (talk) 22:04, 24 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Of course it is. And calling it defamatory and libellous´makes no sense. That can not even be taken seriously as your indirectly calling the mufti libellour and defamatory towards himself. And mind you, there was an extensive biography only an hour ago. So it takes time to rebuild an article.Fragma08 (talk) 22:06, 24 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Take this to the article talk page. I don't feel like discussing this with you at this point. Hipocrite (talk) 22:07, 24 November 2009 (UTC)


 * That is a very strange thing to say. But if you do not wish to talk to me, then no problem. Considering you started the issue by deleting the information based on your opinion which did not match reality. But fine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fragma08 (talk • contribs)

I agree with Frag.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:22, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Your 3RR complaint
Hello Hipocrite. This WP:AN3 does not make a whole lot of sense from a BLP standpoint. People can't be defamed by their own utterances. Please consider whether you might withdraw the complaint. EdJohnston (talk) 01:43, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Ed, I don't need to be right for it to be 6 reverts. Hipocrite (talk) 11:40, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

(note - I accidentally rolled back EdJohnston's note above, completely by accident - inadvertent mouse button press while scrolling over a link on my watchlist. I have put it back.  The rollback was completely an accident and I have no comment on the edit contents one way or the other.  My apologies.  Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:59, 25 November 2009 (UTC) )

Helping Yourself
As sastifying as making comments like this might be, how do you think they help your cause in the longer term? To those of us who participate in community discussions they merely serve to provide evidence of dickish behaviour. Crafty (talk) 12:01, 25 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not interested in A nobody templating me to kingdom come. I don't want to engage with him, or his ARS friends, in a location where a big yellow bar pops up every time they decide to begin harassing me again. It's easy enough to avoid them on pages they follow me to - I unwatchlist them. I can't avoid them on my talk page, so I just kick them off it. What would you have me do to disengage from them, exactly? Hipocrite (talk) 12:05, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Well you could just revert his edits on your talkpage as permitted under policy or (and here's a thought) you might just ignore it. It's when you post on his page that you make the proverbial rod for your already unduly bent back. Geddit? Crafty (talk) 12:17, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * No. I can unwatchlist other pages he stalks me to. I can't unwatch this one. How do I disengage from him without kicking him off my talk page, exactly? Hipocrite (talk) 12:18, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Look you can't post on his page what you posted and then complain that you wish to disengage. You and I both know what you have to do here. That said, you'll do what you will and I respect your choice in this matter. When you find your ass blocked (as is undoubtedly your fate should you continue in this vein) I hope that you remember this interaction. I need the validation. Cheers! Crafty (talk) 12:25, 25 November 2009 (UTC)