User talk:Hyperbole/Archive 1

Maintaining this Page
I'm not sure how people usually maintain their User_talk pages. Obviously, they can get messy fast. Any suggestions? It's not considered impolite to delete stuff that no longer seems relevant, is it? --Hyperbole 00:21, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes, archiving. Simply write, User talk:Hyperbole/Archive and then copy what you wish to archive there. I have two archives but I've seen people with 20. You can see how i've done it on my talk page. Hope that helps Falphin 01:03, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Join us
Please participate in the dicsussion about these articles on their respective talk pages, Talk:Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry and Talk:Matt Slick. While we all should be bold in editing, on controversial articles it is conducive to editing if the active editors talk about various issues. Thanks. - Willmcw 23:21, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)

Plan to stay
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using three tildes, like this: &#126;&#126;&#126;. Four tildes (&#126;&#126;&#126;&#126;) produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome! Cheers, -Willmcw 23:21, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)

I was just wondering if you planned to stay at wikipedia. I believe you could become a valuable editor here. Falphin 00:03, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * I definitely am interested in the project. I'll keep my eyes open for other pages I'd want to edit.  I'm not sure how everything works yet.  --Hyperbole 00:45, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * A good idea is to edit your userpage. You can put whatever you like on it, and it will make you look more credible.(some people absolutely hate red ink on wikipedia.) Falphin 01:12, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * You can ask me any questions you need on my talk, I've been here long enough I know most ropes. Also I don't know if you have seen it yet but their is a watch button on each article. To activate it you need to click on it and then not backspace otherwise it will erase. Falphin 01:13, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Something you might be intested in going to, COTW. Falphin 00:43, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Could use you
On another article if your willing to help. I plan to do Josh McDowell who has a pathetic as of now. But I need to make sure I don't get POV on that article either. Its up to you but first still going to finish the Carm ones. Falphin 01:30, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I noticed you started on the Josh McDowell article. I will do most of my edits tommorow. One other thing, I own his Evidence that Demands a Verdict and Beyond Belief to Convictions if anything from those can be used. Falphin 01:15, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * The page could still use some touch-up, but at least it's not an embarassment at this point. Thanks for your help :)  --Hyperbole 00:21, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Red ink
All that is just an article that hasn't been created yet that therefore is in red. Falphin 02:35, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Ahh. Wow, I am new.  Thanks :)  --Hyperbole 00:21, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Slick page

 * I agree with you on your revert on the CARM page. Thanks for still watching it. Falphin 22:06, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Yeah, it was obvious to me that the editor was editing solely from a position of bias, and didn't have objectivity in mind at all.  Although, on the bright side, she did give me one more fact for "Facts and Figures," one more sentence for "Perspectives/Supporters," and a chance to revisit the whole Perspectives section for clarity.

Bad biographies
If there are any other poor biographies that you would like to be improved I thought I might let you know there is a new collaboration called, BioCOTW. Don't feel obligated to join but I thought I might let you know. Falphin 23:49, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Cool, I'll check it out! Yeah, I've been doing quite a few contributions lately - my old high school, a few "where are they now" bits on popular '90s artists, Founding Fathers, just drifting around and adding clarifications and bits of information where I can.  I don't have a real organized Wikipedia plan yet but I'm really enjoying, and have a lot of respect for, the project --Hyperbole 23:54, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Har, har
Just noticed that on my userpage. Andre ( talk ) 01:37, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

John W. Ratcliff
While I know that you mean well and are constructively improving the article in the face of involved editors, nonetheless I must remind and warn you of the three revert rule. I have also warned another editor of the page. If there is an active editing war going on we can ask to have the page protected temporarily while issues are discussed on the talk page. Repeated reverting, even of unhelpful edits, is not conducive to building a consensus. Anyway, thanks for your contributions. -Willmcw 19:34, August 16, 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes, editing which is not a revert is certainly allowed. That's the whole point - move forward not backward. Regarding the profanity quote, it was clearly added with the intent of furthering a POV. Some versions of the article have over-emphasized the profanity on AARM. While the use of profanity may be shocking to those accustomed to heavily moderated sites, it is not unusual for web forums, at least in my limited experience. Cheers, -Willmcw 19:53, August 16, 2005 (UTC)


 * Not to pick on you, but the term "vandalism" should be restricted to true vandalism. Unexplained deletions may feel like vandalism, but calling them that just coarsens the discource. Thanks, -Willmcw 06:19, August 20, 2005 (UTC)


 * No, it's no problem, I didn't know there was a formal definition of the term here. I'll make sure to stick to it in the future. --Hyperbole 08:54, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Good job!
Nice job on the article. If there is anything I could do to help you with the discussion I would be glad to, post on CARM or something. I could relate with their issues concering the CARM and Matt Slick articles but I don't understand the problem with this one. He is a notable game developer that created a semi-obscure webpage its pretty NPOV article. Well, good job. Falphin 23:43, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for doing me the honor of implementing the changes that I proposed. Although I (inevitably) agree with you that the NPOV flag no longer applies, I have learnt that it is wise to let somebody else remove an NPOV flag after making the changes that seemed to be needed. Uncomfortable experiences have taught me to make the changes and then propose removal of the template on the talk page. The presence of such a flag usually indicates high feeling and permitting discussion of the removal helps all parties to feel engaged. Keep on doing the good stuff. &mdash;Theo (Talk) 00:17, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

AARM VFD apology
Hi: Your unqualified apology at Votes for deletion/AARM fills me with admiration. It is great to see someone apologise for a mistake without excuses. So great, in fact, that I offer a barnstar. &mdash;Theo (Talk) 16:40, 24 August 2005 (UTC)


 * As closer of this discussion, I'll echo that appreciation for your apology. That kind of radical reorganization does make our job a little harder, but I recognise you were trying to help. --Tony Sidaway Talk 16:04, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

HRG's cat
Just giving you a heads up for this, it is being consdiered in VfD Pages for deletion/HRG's cat. Alf 15:47, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Image Tagging for Image:Renohighschool.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Renohighschool.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see User talk:Carnildo/images. 12:54, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

WP:3RR
Read over WP:3RR as you are on the border. I rarely block anyone for violating it, and never do if I am in dispute with someone (not supposed to anyway for good reasons). Wikipedia's three revert rule is so editors can avoid edit wars. I'm on the line two, but my first revert was of what I saw as vandalism and then I reverted you twice. You have inserted the same info 4 times in less than 24 hours, a violation.
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 

one more insertion of the links if they are deleted and that will be way over the policy limits...FYI.--MONGO 11:45, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Soap dispenser
Well done! -- FloNight  talk  02:08, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

POV fork
The WP page on that indicates that they are usually formed the way you described in the 9/11 Whitewash Commission AFD, but that's not a requirement. Just by the definition "A 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" it would seem to be one. Esquizombi 19:56, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't see this as a content fork at all. The only "content" it offers is that some people call the commission a "Whitewash Commission."  As I've said, my problem with the page is that it doesn't contain any significant content, and doesn't appear to have the potential to.  --Hyperbole 21:03, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

afd
Hi. Care to take a look: Articles for deletion/People questioning the official American 9/11 account? --Striver 21:17, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I've already weighed in on that page; I voted "Keep" with a comment that I would prefer a different name for the article. --Hyperbole 22:29, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Did you know? prod can have a parameter.
Hello there. You have proposed the article Davis Gym for deletion without providing a reason why in the prod template. You may be interested to know that you can add your reasoning like that:. This will make your reasoning show up in the article's deletion notice. It will also aid other users in considering your suggestion on the Proposed Deletions log. See also: How to propose deletion of an article. Sandstein 17:38, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Speedy Keep on AfD
just wanted to let you know, that once there has been even a single delete vote on an AfD (excluding the nom), it is ineligible for Speedy Keep. You should change your vote to Strong Keep instead. &rArr;  SWAT Jester    Ready    Aim    Fire!  21:22, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for heads up. --Hyperbole 00:54, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Charlie Sheen Edits (including Image:Charlie Sheen Publicity Photo.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Charlie Sheen Publicity Photo.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then there needs to be an argument why we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then it needs to be specified where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag then one should be added. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the GFDL-self tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media qualifies as fair use, consider reading fair use, and then use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other media, consider checking that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Jkelly 17:45, 20 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Hello Hyperbole, I hope you don't mind I changed your picture on the Charlie Sheen page. It had some kind of strange double exposure over the right side of his face.  I don't know if that was supposed to be something the photographer intended, but either way it wasn't clear.  I think the current pic is the most flattering of the Charlie Sheen pics that have been uploaded to date.  The Penthouse photo was up there for the longest time LOL —Preceding unsigned comment added by FairNBalanced (talk • contribs)


 * Thank you. I still don't fully understand fair use issues; that's why I went to the same site you pulled your pic from.  To be fully honest, I'm not much of a Charlie Sheen fan on a personal level. He's a full blown moonbat. However, I love his movies, and his acting work.  Regardless, he deserves to have a decent picture on Wikipedia.  His page must get a lot of hits- the fact that the Penthouse pic was on there for so long is really funny... and wrong.  I've only VERY recently registered an account on Wikipedia for doing edits (even though I've been using Wikipedia for years).  See ya around. —Preceding unsigned comment added by FairNBalanced (talk • contribs)


 * As for the SNL monologue, I didn't think it would stay, but it was one source of a personal admission. I agree with you removing it. Charlie Sheen was well known as a Hollywood badboy, although he's currently not into quite the mischief he used to be into.  The cocaine addiction allegation was not put into the article by me, but it shouldn't have been considered an inflammatory charge.  Mr. Sheen himself acknowledges his past. —Preceding unsigned comment added by FairNBalanced (talk • contribs)


 * What's up Loc! I've been honing my Wiki-skills since we last met :)  Hope you're doing well --FrankNBeans 05:32, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Regarding Rod Sheffield
He wasn't born in 1938. He was born in 68! Some person named Betty Coburn changed the date. WhisperToMe 00:13, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

About the 2003 Invasion of Iraq Poll
Hyperbole, the vote here: is about whether or not "War on Terrorism" should be used in the infobox caption. And you voted under: "Users who think the term "war on terrorism" should be used" but you said in your statement you think it Shouldn't be in the infobox. So you might want to move your statement. -- Mr. Tibbs 20:35, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Um, Tibbs, you changed the topic of the vote after I voted. The original poll was whether the term "War on Terrorism" should be used - at all - in the article.  --Hyperbole 05:31, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Miscommunication. Publicus did the same thing on the same poll at . Which is why I changed the headings. No one is edit warring over the tiny mention of War on Terrorism in the prelude section: . It's all about the infobox. - Mr. Tibbs 06:04, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

AFD
Hi. I would like to inform you of this afd:

Articles for deletion/Paul Joseph Watson --Striver 13:07, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

7 World Trade Center dispute
We're not getting anywhere. I'm going to step back from the debate and monitor the situation without much further input from myself if the situation remains as it is now. We're simply re-hashing things that have already been said over and over and over again, and not getting anywhere. There's no common ground to be found here apparently, and all attempts to do so have failed. My position regarding the revert war remains the same. However, out of deference to your continued accusation that I have grossly abused my administrator powers, if I see a re-erruption of the revert warring I will refer it to other administrators to issue warnings and blocks.

At times when I've become involved in debates of this nature, I've asked other wikipedians for a 'reality check' as it were. I've done this in this case as well. I don't go looking for 'yes' men to affirm my position. In fact, rather the opposite. It's not useful to me if I do not get honest input. The input that I've received in this case, including input from a member of ArbCom, is that my stance regarding the links that have so far been proposed is in the right.

For me, barring the re-erruption of a revert war or the inclusion of the proposed links without consensus to do so because of the egregious problematic nature of these links, I consider the matter closed. I still invite you to find a link that supports the POV without being so problematic. However, as of this writing you've yet to do so, for reasons unknown to me.

If you still feel compelled to start an RfC on this matter, by all means I encourage you to do so if only because it will help bring closure to this for you. To be honest, I wouldn't care if the resolution of this was that I was de-adminned. Adminship is no big deal. My main concern here is the effect this matter could have on you and others who are taking your stance on this issue. I am concerned that if you do not find satisfactory closure to this that supports your position that it might result in your reduced contribution to Wikipedia, or worse departure and that of others supporting your position. Even though I disagree with you on this debate, I don't want to see that happen.

I sincerely wish you the best, --Durin 20:51, 11 May 2006 (UTC)


 * You may wish to agree/disagree and/or comment at Talk:7_World_Trade_Center --Durin 22:49, 11 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I've been talking to MONGO and Durin about this; I was trying to make my POV clear. Have a look at their user talk pages if you like. Most of all, I want to make this a good and encyclopedic article, as I think you do too. To quote the motto of my locale (Leith), we must persevere. Best wishes Guinnog 22:26, 13 May 2006 (UTC)



Wikipedias three revert rule
Howdy! This is just a friendly reminder about Wikipedias three revert rule...as I noticed you have been reverting the NPOV tag at the top of the article 7 World Trade Center, adding it once and reverting twice so far...this is just a friendly reminder from friendly--MONGO 04:35, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
 * So, why do I get a 3RR warning after two reverts? --Hyperbole 04:38, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
 * So you don't go over your limit.--MONGO 06:57, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
 * If you need any help Hyper, I'll revert it next time. In fact I was in the middle of doing so last time and you beat me to it. Of course, the 3rr rule does not apply to vandalism, which the repeated removal of this (highly merited) tag arguably is. It's a shame that Mongo doesn't devote his talent and energy towards improving the article rather than trying to censor it; we will succeed in improving this article in the end in spite of his (no doubt well-intentioned) actions. Keep up the good work! --Guinnog 12:54, 31 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree. If you need a revert anywhere, never hesitate to ask me to take a look. I dont promise ill revert, but ill take a good look. btw, take a look at this --Striver 00:35, 1 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Getting another person to reverting on request to avoid violating 3RR is basically the same as sockpuppetry and vote stacking (and I would argue that it deserves the same treatment). At the least it's a dishonest way of dodging a policy. Why am I not surprised that you offer to do this, Striver? Good thing that you didn't promise to revert. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 13:17, 1 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Im offering to do this because i know that there is a 95% probability that i fullheartedly agree with his version. The lack of promise is for the 5% case that i might not agree with him. This is not dishonest, this is my way of informing him that he has my support. --Striver 10:23, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi
Take a look at this and, thanks.--Striver --Striver 10:21, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

7wtc
Well done! Together, we will make this a better article. --Guinnog 01:04, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Fire
Bro, that isn't worth the emotions. I know, i have been there. Try to widen the audience. --Striver 23:16, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, I try to keep emotion out of it. Rodriguez's actions were notable as it concerns that fire; therefore, the article should mention him.  It is unfortunate that it's turned into a revert war, but there's no compromise between "mention him" and "not mention him"; his mention has already been stripped down to just about the shortest sentence possible.  --Hyperbole 01:12, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Sophie McLean
"*Merge and redirect to Voyage Au Pays Des Nouveaux Gourous. Since McLean is really notable only in the context of the documentary, it stands to reason that information about her should go in that article. --Hyperbole 07:26, 5 October 2006 (UTC)" Again, thank you for your comment with regard to "he appears to be editing in good faith." I would not be opposed right now to utilizing your "Merge and redirect" idea. I don't think I have ever "merged and redirected" something before, how is it done functionally? Or perhaps you could do it for me? Thank you for your time. Yours, Smeelgova 18:19, 5 October 2006 (UTC).

Something you might be interested in
Since you requested deletion for the One Peice attacks, I thought you could help out here: Articles for deletion/List of Dragon Ball special abilities. Hydromasta231 04:10, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
(feel free to add to your user page if you like). yours, Smeelgova 05:09, 10 October 2006 (UTC).

CARM and Ratcliff
I saw that User:Urbie deleted your clarification (which I added to the article on CARM) on what kind of liberalism was at issue in those CARM debates. S/he gives no explanation, but apparently disagrees with that characterization. I think it needs to be clarified either as political or theological liberalism (or both) that was at play, but since you seem to have first-hand knowledge, I'll leave it up to you to restore those changes. --Flex 15:12, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Urbie is also someone with first-hand knowledge of the dispute. It's probably accurate to say that both Christian liberals and liberal Christians were perceived as being targeted by CARM's management, but I'm not sure how one would source that.  --Hyperbole 03:00, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Interested Party
Do you have any firm evidence that the account, Interested Party, is definitely Diane Sellner's sister and/or used by Diane Sellner herself? Our criteria here at the Wikipedia is obviously not that of a court of law but the evidence would need to be stronger than the strangely identical point of view and editing styles. I know previously the account was blocked for being a sockpuppet of Tom and I know that account is a sockpuppet of Diane Sellner, but I wasn't the admin who determined the relationship between Tom S 48 and Interested Party. Please respond on my talk page if you have any response to make. Thanks. --Yamla 05:48, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

POV?
Explain to me how my edit is POV when all I did was cite a quote from the same source just a bit further down?--MONGO 08:21, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Your vote on AfD
I see you voted on Articles for deletion/CAT1-X Hyperion Gundam series to keep. I urge you to change your decision - all of the pages violate policies, as I have taken time to do. You cannot argue there might be "babies in the bathwater", because ignorance is not a reason to keep articles. What is your reasoning for keeping the decision? --TheEmulatorGuy 00:49, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
 * So, tell me, what convinces you that they don't violate policies? Why have you chosen to vote "keep"? You need to read all of the articles to vote "keep" if you're using that logic. The problem with a WikiProject addressing the issue is that 1. they don't want to do it (usually because of fan-related reasons) and 2. every article is transwikied, mentioned on a list, and stolen. All we have left is to delete them, and I just can't understand why you don't agree. If you won't vote "delete" out of ignorance, then don't vote "keep" out of ignorance.
 * That's fair. However, you still haven't defended the other (ORIGINAL) policy violations, nor have you properly explained your "keep" vote. --TheEmulatorGuy 01:31, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
 * WP:NOT - "Wikipedia articles on works of fiction should contain real-world context and sourced analysis". WP:NOR - "Original research is a term used in Wikipedia to refer to material that has not been published by a reliable source." There is no real-world context and there are no reliable sources. --TheEmulatorGuy 01:43, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

The Black Eyed Peas
I see that you cited The Black Eyed Peas as a copyvio. Admittedly I'm not familiar with the article history, but it has been on Wikipedia for several years and received hundreds of edits. Therefore, I would be inclined to think that either there must be a non-copyvio version in the page history or that the external source may have copied from Wikipedia. Could you please provide further information at Talk:The Black Eyed Peas so that the copyright issue can be cleared up? --Metropolitan90 05:32, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Iraq War
As you participated in the previous discussion, you may be interested in Talk:Iraq_War. savidan(talk) (e@) 02:53, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Renohighschool.gif
Thank you for uploading Image:Renohighschool.gif. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. MECU ≈ talk 20:44, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I merged the page
I merged and condensed the masquers guild info to the bhs page. YOU HAVE MY PERMISSION TO DELETE THE MASQUERS GUILD PAGE. and i have filed for a semiprotect for hte bhs page- please help me fight for it. thanks for your help.--MMSH987 20:03, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Yankee Cannonball
I have added a "" template to the article Yankee Cannonball, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, or, if you disagree with the notice, discuss the issues at its talk page. Removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, but the article may still be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached, or if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria. Jeepday 16:01, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

WP:VANITY
You may like to know that it is suggested that WP:VANITY is no longer used as it could be insulting to the recipient; it is not an automatic redirect. It's possible to use WP:COI (conflict of interest) instead. -- MightyWarrior 21:03, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Kiwi Camara re-nominated for deletion
The article Kiwi Camara has been renominated for deletion. You are being notified of this because of your participation in the first nomination process last year. Please visit the debate page to state your opinion and vote. Thanks. --  ßίζ ·  קּ‼  (talk | contribs)  01:39, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Reverting
Please be careful about reverting on 7 World Trade Center. I think you may have four reverts there. Tom Harrison Talk 20:15, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * By my count, I have two reverts and two edits that are clearly not reverts. --Hyperbole 00:02, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Any time you undo someone's work it is a revert. In this case, that is repeatedly removing 'conspiracy theory'. Tom Harrison Talk 00:06, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * All right, now I've stuck it in there with a caveat that it's a pejorative term. --Hyperbole 00:18, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Quit reverting. Now you have changed the conspiracy theory wording four times today, after also changing it yesterday.  This is a three revert rule violation.  Please stop, or next time the violation may be reported to WP:AN/3RR. --Aude (talk) 00:34, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm trying alternative wordings and adding relevant information. I'm *getting* reverted.  The way it's been worded is absolutely unacceptable for a NPOV encyclopedia.  --Hyperbole 00:38, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Harry Bailey
Hello Hyperbole could you consider using on facts you believe are dubious rather than deletion. Harry Bailey is named in line 4358 of the Cook's prologue (well Herry actually).  meltBanana  01:06, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Erica Jong
Yes, you're right. Sorry, I didn't see the link to the CNN transcript. Tom Harrison Talk 11:54, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

That is, CNN is a reliable source for what's there. Infowars.com and the Youtube link are not, but that's another issue. Tom Harrison Talk 11:56, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

GFDL
Regarding your comments on the BJAODN DRV, the license that Wikipedia uses is the GNU Free Documentation License, or GFDL. You were calling it GFLD, which contains a mistaken transposition of two letters. -- Cyde Weys 01:27, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

European magi?
02:30, 22 August 2007 Hyperbole (Talk LOL! Oh, yeah—been there, done that. — Travis  talk  02:43, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Andy Warhol
Good try, but close ref like this:  Tyrenius 20:16, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Guide to referencing
Click on "show" to open contents.

Forgery
Just so you're aware, there is a vandal posting messages with forged signatures, your own included. Apparently, this person doesn't understand the concept of an edit history.--C.Logan 14:34, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Hyperbole impersonator
I recently reverted a piece of vandalism to which your signature had been forged by User:Sweed666. Thought you'd like to know. -- Orange Mike 14:55, 18 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I forgot to mention who was doing the forging.--C.Logan 15:55, 18 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks to both of you! Apparently someone out there has it in for me... --Hyperbole 17:06, 18 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, I saw a hateful screed with your signature on it, and that seemed uncharateristic; so I looked at the history, and... viola! -- Orange Mike 17:15, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Viola ?? :) - Al is o n  ❤ 00:14, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Electric Picnic
Good call. I've reduced to semi per consensus and re. the fact that the anon editor is largely unresponsive. Thanks for that! - Al is o n  ❤ 00:15, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Spivak
Hi. I'm just curious what you think of csloat's edit on the Spivak page. You seem quite reasonable and to the point, so I'm genuinely curious what you think. If you think it's acceptable, I am inclined to cease and desist and leave things be. JrFace 21:25, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi, again. I think I'm the one to blame for not mentioning Alexander by name in the article. Sorry about that. As for the blogs, I don't think they'll get a mention without a fight, but I could be wrong. In general, though, from your response, I get the sense that you find csloat's edit more or less acceptable. Is that a fair assessment? JrFace 00:26, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Cool. Thanks. It's pretty clear that, at this point, I can hardly see straight for the emotional involvement, so I appreciate your input. JrFace 01:47, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

States_Reorganization_Commission
This is regarding http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/States_Reorganization_Commission. This is part of the government of India report which was submitted way back in 1955. I am trying to find this content on govt of India web site but could not find it. We have hard copy of the report. If needed we can update the scanned copy of the report. Let me know what should reverse the deletion. Thanks. Ramcrk 17:45, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Stance
Just curious: What part of my "stance" do you disagree with? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 09:55, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose reluctantly, per stance on WP:BADSITES.

Notifing QG
Please notify him via his talk page so that we can be certain he is informed of the notification - I have removed your notice on the probation board until you do. Thanks! PouponOnToast (talk) 20:29, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Chiro Wiki
Hi Hyper,

Thanks for the good work you've been doing on cleaning up the chiropractic wiki. Like you suggested, we've been parring it down quite a bit and are somewhere in the 55-60K range.

I wanted to comment on you regarding the contemporary view, and why its important this be discussed in the proper context. As an outside observer, I feel that you're objective enough to understand my argument.

One of the biggest challenges facing the chiropractic profession globally is transitioning from a traditional, subluxation (metaphysical) model towards a contemporary, evidence-based one. Like you suggested, this transition has been uneven, however if you look at the issue more closely, there are definitely certain COUNTRIES (chiropractic teaching institutions and/or national associations) that embraced a contemporary model.

The contemporary model is not based on vertebral subluxation. Indeed, the philosophy and term have been rejected. So, the lead, as written is inaccurate or misleading. Note:

Today, chiropractors differ on how much emphasis should be placed on subluxation, some instead taking a more general view of the relationship between structure and function and its impact on neurological mechanisms in both health and disease.[2][3][4]

1) This implies that the contemporary view takes a more generalized view on subluxations. It rejects subluxation theory, as per Palmer, outright.

2) Certain countries, based on their accrediated chiropractic teaching institutions (not individual chiropractors) have moved into an EBM model. I can provide you proof and references if required.

I would like to discuss this issue with you further and I'm certain that we can find an agreement on suitable language that will accurately reflect the global state of the profession in 2008. But, in order to do that, certain editors are going to have to acknowledge that there is such a thing as scientific chiropractic, both in terms of education curriculums, PhD researchers and the proliferation of peer-reviewed journals. Again, if required, I can provide references to validate my statements.

Best, EBDCM (talk) 19:09, 8 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Hyper,


 * IMO, by suggesting some chiropractors (as in individuals) rather than acknowleding a paradigm isn't really doing it justice. So yes, "some" chiropractors reject subluxation that is the official stance of "some" countries and teaching institutions.  At the very least some kind of wording that suggests evidence-based, scientific, contemporary needs to be put in there.  As I have been warned, I'm loathe to make any edits today (at least!) because I want to stick around long-term and learn the rules here at Wikipedia.


 * Nonetheless, giving Mr. Mccreadys history and his general derogatory remarks towards the profession, it is in his interest to keep the "contemporary" model from being known. It really is an issue of legitimacy and credibility.  I have tons of supporting references to will further my point and I lament the US-centric emphasis of the article.  Hence the issue of contemporary vs. traditional.   Otherwise scientific practitioners, teaching institutions, national associations and the like will be never be fully known as awareness becomes an issue.


 * It really is in the publics best interest to know these fundamental differences, but it impacts greatly on practice styles, claims made, interprofessional cooperation and commitment to EBM principles. So, it is much more of a paradigm shift or philosophical line in the sand that has been drawn and is necessary to acknowledge, in some context.


 * EBDCM (talk) 19:38, 8 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Just a point - there is no "Chiro Wiki". There are a number of chiropractic-related articles at Wikipedia, and they are governed by the rules at Wikipedia, not by the rules that might govern a "Chiro Wiki", which, BTW, could be started by using the same software. It's free. If you are referring to the Chiropractic article here (which you apparently are), then just refer to it as the "article" to avoid confusion. -- Fyslee / talk 03:03, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
 * You know, I doubt EBDCM monitors my talk page for replies to him. --Hyperbole (talk) 07:16, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Let's hope he watches his watchlist, if he has his preferences set to automatically add every page he edits to it. I have over two thousand items (not counting their talk pages) on my list. -- Fyslee / talk 07:40, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Yikes. I certainly wouldn't want to use that setting - just because I fixed a typo on Jim Guy Tucker in 2004 doesn't mean I want to be made aware of every edit to the page for the rest of time...  --Hyperbole (talk) 07:45, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Believe me, I know what you mean! Once in awhile I clean it up a bit, but haven't done it for awhile. -- Fyslee / talk</b> 07:50, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Blocked
You have been blocked for 24 hours for edit warring on Chiropractic care: Research and Criticism. Vsmith (talk) 03:19, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Unblock request
Consulting blocking admin. Daniel Case (talk) 03:38, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * FYI, see here and here for relevant discussion. --B (talk) 03:57, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * It would have been nice if someone had informed me of the existence of the discussion on the Administrator's Noticeboard when it was opened. I'm surprised that isn't policy.  --Hyperbole (talk) 04:02, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * It is, actually. I don't like this block that much ... no final warning, an editor apparently acting in good faith. There doesn't seem to be clear consensus at 3RR either. Daniel Case (talk) 17:37, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, there was a warning (May I say that this is another reason why people shouldn't be allowed to remove warnings from talk pages?). That changes things a bit. Still, the fact that one admin didn't see it as a 3RR violation should be cause for concern here. I think we ought to discuss this at AN/I after the block expires. Daniel Case (talk) 17:43, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The user I felt was making bad edits dropped a generic warning template on my page. I assumed he was doing it to antagonize me.  That's a far cry from being informed that there was a discussion on AN/I where people were actually taking him seriously.  Consider: how would you feel if a random non-admin user made two blatantly ugly edits, you removed them, and he took it on himself to warn you??  I thought I was being the bigger man by just ignoring him.  Warnings should *not* be passed on that way.  --Hyperbole (talk) 17:54, 10 February 2008 (UTC)


 * By the way, I'm curious: what will there be to discuss at AN/I after the block expires?? What possible action would anyone want taken?  I mean, I assume Orangemarlin is going to continue to antagonize me, considering he's left taunting messages on my talk page,  has solicited a month-long block from Vsmith,  and is aggressive and sarcastic to anyone who disagrees with him, but we'll have to cross that bridge when we come to it.  In the immediate instance, wouldn't you think the discussion at AN/I is complete?  ...and to think - all this, not because Marlin and I have conflicting POVs, but because I didn't think adding a huge block of mangled prose and block quotes was an appropriate edit... --Hyperbole (talk) 18:22, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Also keep in mind, edit warring doesn't necessarily have to violate the three-revert rule. -- slakr \ talk / 03:17, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Could someone look at this?
I hate to further complain, but an appeal on a 24-hour block isn't much use if it takes 24 hours to process. An admin made a preliminary finding that I did not appear to be edit warring and the blocking admin responded "Please review the details, if you feel an unblock is in order I would appreciate a note indicating your findings." . --Hyperbole (talk) 05:58, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm taking a break from Wikipedia. I've lost my enthusiasm for the project. How long or short the break will be, I can't say. --Hyperbole (talk) 17:19, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Chiropractic care: Research and Criticism
An article that you have been involved in editing, Chiropractic care: Research and Criticism, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chiropractic care: Research and Criticism. Thank you. -- <b style="color:#996600; font-family:times new roman,times,serif;">Levine2112</b> <sup style="padding:1px; border:1px #996600 dotted; background-color:#FFFF99; color:#774400; font-size:x-small;">discuss 19:07, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

the block
It looks like to me like you pretty much sunk any hope when you rudely removed the warning and went back to what you were doing. If someone dislikes what you're doing enough to warn you about it, it's probably wise to consider why. Did you notice that multiple people were reverting your edits? Yet you continued? The block for edit warring seems legit to me. Friday (talk) 20:01, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I tend to believe that when any two editors are involved in a content dispute, for one of the involved editors to drop a warning template on the other's talk page is obnoxious and completely out of line. Personally, I think I showed restraint by simply getting rid of it rather than, say, reciprocating with the same template.  Warnings should always be issued by third parties.  --Hyperbole (talk) 20:08, 11 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, next time show some restraint with the edit warring, and hopefully you won't get blocked. Friday (talk) 20:12, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I would have thought that making non-revert edits with an eye toward achieving consensus was showing restraint with the edit warring. --Hyperbole (talk) 20:15, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Right to vanish
You can vanish any time you want- just hit "log out". We don't generally delete user talk pages on request, but I've deleted your user page. Friday (talk) 20:49, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Why? What purpose would be served? You might find someone who's willing to delete it, but I try to discourage this practice. Friday (talk) 20:52, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Don't worry- if anyone were to do that, it would be reverted as soon as it got noticed. Friday (talk) 20:57, 11 February 2008 (UTC)