User talk:Hypesmasher

Your recent edits
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button or  located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when they said it. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 08:24, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Your recent edits
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button or  located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when they said it. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 19:14, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Your diatribes are interesting
Ultimately they serve to alienate those you are already failing to convince. All talk and little editing tends to be fruitless on Wikipedia. So please become more productive and less prone to arguing. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 22:27, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Welcome
 Hello Hypesmasher, and Welcome to Wikipedia!  Welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you enjoy the encyclopedia and want to stay. As a first step, you may wish to read the Introduction.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask me at my talk page — I'm happy to help. Or, you can ask your question at the New contributors' help page.

--- Here are some more resources to help you as you explore and contribute to the world's largest encyclopedia...

Finding your way around:


 * Table of contents


 * Department directory

Need help?


 * Questions — a guide on where to ask questions.
 * Cheatsheet — quick reference on Wikipedia's mark-up codes.
 * Wikipedia's 5 pillars — an overview of Wikipedia's foundations


 * Article wizard — a Wizard to help you create articles
 * The simplified ruleset — a summary of Wikipedia's most important rules.
 * Guide to Wikipedia — A thorough step-by-step guide to Wikipedia.

How you can help:


 * Contributing to Wikipedia — a guide on how you can help.


 * Community portal — Wikipedia's hub of activity.

Additional tips...


 * Please sign your messages on talk pages with four tildes ( ~ ). This will automatically insert your "signature" (your username and a date stamp). The [[File:Button sig.png]] or [[File:Insert-signature.png]] button, on the tool bar above Wikipedia's text editing window, also does this.


 * If you would like to play around with your new Wiki skills the Sandbox is for you.

Hypesmasher, good luck, and have fun. --Fiddle Faddle (talk) 22:28, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Oops
Sorry for the revert + warn that I just realised I completely screwed up on. I shouldn't have done that at all. -- Krenair (talk • contribs) 23:33, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

In response to your feedback
Sorry you had a negative experience editing Wikipedia. The user that responded to you on that talk page may have been a little harsh. However, you removed a lot of content without first obtaining consensus. While there's no need to ask on the talk page for every edit, when removing that much of an article it's best to get the support of other editors first. This is especially true because of the fact that the information has sources. If you have any questions, feel free to leave a note on my talk page.

Millermk90 (talk) 04:14, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

&#160;

Please do not attack other editors
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like to remind you not to attack other editors, as you did on Talk:Suicide_of_Tyler_Clementi. Please comment on the content and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. You are welcome to rephrase your comment as a civil criticism of the article. Thank you.. --Javaweb (talk) 04:46, 22 May 2012 (UTC)Javaweb

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would ask that you assume good faith while interacting with other editors, which you did not on Talk:Suicide_of_Tyler_Clementi. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you.. --Javaweb (talk) 04:46, 22 May 2012 (UTC)Javaweb

Re: Suicide_of_Tyler_Clementi
1) Consensus is gained through discussion on the talk page. You brought up an issue, and other editors disagreed with you.  Then you brought it up again, and again, and again.  2) To be honest, I think you're beyond gaining consensus here. Unfortunately, [you're very first edit to the page] did not seem like an attempt to gain consensus, and was a contradiction of Wikipedia policy. You said: ""The only reason it has been so singled out, is due to the hype generated by the media. That is not a good reason for maintaining an article on anything on Wiki.""

However, notability of events maintains widespread coverage as one of the most important factors in determining whether an article should be on Wikipedia.

After that, you took on a bit of an aggressive tone (to be fair so did other editors, but that's really no excuse). This discourages consensus, and encourages other editors to reject you opinion because it comes from you, not for an actual logical reason (which as far as I can tell is part of the problem). For those two reasons, I see little hope of this discussion becoming productive. 3) I don't think your discussion was fostering of productive engagement, so no, I don't feel that it's an excuse to remove a large portion of the article. 4) Wikipedia is not a democracy. Consensus is not a democracy. No one has suggested at any point in this whole issue that anything was a democracy. 5) To directly quote myself, ""While there's no need to ask on the talk page for every edit, when removing that much of an article it's best to get the support of other editors first. This is especially true because of the fact that the information has sources.""

I am not saying the content should be kept because it's sourced. I'm saying that since it has sources, it's not just a bunch of junk, and so there is all the more reason to discuss before removing it.

As for your request that I participate in the dispute resolution, I think I will refrain for two reasons. First, I know nothing about the actual content of the article, and second, none of the editors involved in the incident seemed willing to be reasonable. I don't think a single policy was cited by anyone, and there was a lot of incivility.

I hope you don't feel that these answers are a personal attack on you. Sometimes we all get a little worked up over something, and I can say that you are not the only one, and most, if not all, of the editors in that discussion have been uncivil to some degree. Anyway, my opinion is that you just leave this article alone, at least or the time being while everyone cools down. Then try again, but start off the discussion with a statement that says you want others' opinions on some content. Be very specific about why it doesn't belong, and preferably link to some relevant policies. Hopefully then a better discussion can be had.

If you have any other questions, feel free to ask. Millermk90 (talk) 01:39, 23 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Again, how does one achieve a consensus on such a matter when all others refuse to engage? And how does one hope to ever achieve a consensus when a discussion's participants (always?) include a preponderance of editors who have a stake in the status quo being maintained (i.e., they wrote the stuff, why would they support it's wholesale removal and their neutrality being shown up as lacking)? Meanwhile, I still haven't had one decent argument presented to me against my contention that the majority of the information is illegitimate due to its being unconnected with the suicide itself (i.e., Clementi may have killed himself for any one of a number of other reasons, and may actually be suffering an injustice himself as his decision to commit suicide could be being trivialized by being attributed to what he may have felt was a minor slight). If you look at the ongoing AfD "discussion", you will notice that nobody is really bothering to back up their vote with anything that refutes my claims of the illegitimacy of spurious connection-making in the media being used as back up for continued spurious connection-making here on Wiki. Basically, everyone is saying the same thing: The media hyped a lie, thus creating notability, and therefore, inclusion of that hyped lie here is legitimate.--Hypesmasher (talk) 23:14, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

May 2012
Please do not delete or edit legitimate talk page comments, as you did at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard. Such edits are disruptive and appear to be vandalism. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you.  Neil N   talk to me  19:00, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
 * You deleted a post by TransporterMan here, accidentally it seems like. -- Neil N   talk to me  19:20, 23 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree that was probably an accident, but I do want to note that if the AfD discussion on Suicide of Tyler Clementi goes against you, that you should feel free to relist a dispute at DRN about any specific content dispute that you may have at that article, but please avoid talking about other editors and point the request to specific content issues which have been thoroughly discussed on the article talk page. Requests about other editor's alleged biases or behavior, or about the content of the article in general as opposed to specific assertions, edits, or deletions, are probably not going to draw any help at DRN. Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 19:31, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
 * If I deleted that, it was entirely an accident. I commented on another editor's bias specifically in this case because it appeared to me that he used a ploy in order to derail my ongoing dispute resolution discussion, via nominating the article for AfD, even though such an action would, in a ployless world, run contrary to his expressed political wishes. That is, I suspected that when he made the nomination, he did so in no good faith. My goal was to illustrate that this was indeed a ploy, and thus have the AfD denied and the discussion continue on the DR noticeboard. As I couldn't rightly just announce that it was a ploy and expect people to take my word for it, I had to offer some corroborating evidence, i.e., the editor's OWN expressed political bias. I'm quite sure that there is a 40-page form available for reporting such ploys, however, I just don't have the time to obtain the necessary degree in Wiki procedures. Meanwhile, if an editor on Wiki (not a 13 year old girl on Facebook) decides to volunteer his or her political biases, why can't I comment on them in context? Since all sorts of canvassing, etc., are prohibited, what is the point of giving editors the ability to post their political biases (and sexual orientation) on their userpages?--Hypesmasher (talk) 23:03, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Baggage Retrieval System at Heathrow Airport
Note: the following is a bit of humor intended to make a point in a friendly way. If you do not appreciate attempts at humor, please delete the rest without reading.

Recently, in response to "You're pursuing it in the wrong place", you wrote that you were getting a little tired of those responses in lieu of actual productive input into the debate.

Based upon that fundamental principle, what are you going to do about the ongoing problems with the baggage retrieval system at Heathrow airport in London? I want to see some productive input into the debate between a distributed baggage retrieval system and a centralized baggage retrieval system. I also need your answer about the problems with conveyer belt jams and the power requirements of the proposed X-Ray machines.

Please don't tell me "You're pursuing it in the wrong place". That's the answer I got from the producers of Sesame Street and from the government of North Korea. Frankly, I am getting a little tired of those responses in lieu of actual productive input into the debate.

I hope this helps.

In the spirit of good-natured kidding, --Guy Macon (talk) 19:39, 23 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I understand what you're saying. I am entirely in favor of rules of order, etc. However, I can come up with a better analogy. Suppose you tried to complain at the Baggage Retrieval Complaints Office but found that your erroneously filled-out complaint form had been binned (as per policy). In the interim, suppose you learned something about the complaints procedure and decided to speak to some baggage handlers you saw standing around instead. Now suppose some jobsworth came along and told you that you couldn't talk to those handlers (in an effort to resolve the problem) simply because you had already filled in a form (albeit erroneously, and already binned) and, thus, had to restrict your efforts to that channel?


 * My point here is that I'm pretty quick on the uptake and rapidly discovered that no AfD is going to be successful without a prior groundswell of support being mustered for it. You can see this phenomenon (not) in action on the current AfD. All there is is a bunch of the same editors long associated with the article in question repeating tired lines about "notability" (which appears to be synonymous with "having been in the news a lot, whether true or false, legitimate or illegitimate, standing alone on its own newsworthy merits or tagging along as a catalyst for an outpouring of yellow journalism on an officially unrelated issue). I'm here telling you that your AfD system is flawed. You can look into that or not. I realize that it will be more comfortable not to.--Hypesmasher (talk) 23:28, 23 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I find comments like "You can look into that or not. I realize that it will be more comfortable not to." to be really annoying. Do you have any evidence -- even the smallest shred -- that I am "uncomfortable" about looking at proposals to change the way Wikipedia works? Where were you when I told the head of the Wikimedia Foundation that he had handled the roll-out of a new policy badly and he said I had a valid point?


 * Now you are claiming that the AfD system is flawed. Did you even bother asking where one might go to criticize the AfD system and suggest alternatives? (it's Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion, BTW.) And you are doing so without even bothering to find out what the existing deletion and notability notability policies are, or asking where one might go to criticize those policies and suggest alternatives. Name another website or online service that bends over backwards to listen to complaints from newbies like you. Facebook, Twitter, Britannica, Google - none of them offer you a place where you can make logical arguments that will change the sites policies if they are good enough.


 * It's really simple. You suggested article deletion when you really wanted the article content changed to suit you. You asked in the wrong place and gave a reason that is not among the acceptable reasons for deletion (reasons which you could have challenged, but instead couldn't be bothered to even find out what they are). So of course someone nominated it for AfD. When someone claims an article should be deleted, we pay attention. If that person is too stubborn or stupid to put the request in the proper place, we do it for him so the claim can get a fair hearing.


 * We all know that what you really want is to have the article content changed to suit you. Wikipedia has a place for you to argue that: WP:DRN. Alas, you chose to not present arguments for having the article content changed to suit you at DRN, but instead chose to argue that other editors were misbehaving. So you were shut down once again for making a request in the wrong place. You didn't file your complaint about Baggage Retrieval at the Baggage Retrieval Complaints Office. You filed it at the Hertz car rental counter. And when they sent you to the Baggage Retrieval Complaints Office, you filed a complaint there about the behavior the lady at the Hertz counter.


 * So, are you going to keep flailing around, or are you going to go back to WP:DRN, read and follow the rules (like only arguing article content and not bringing up user conduct) and get a fair hearing for your complaint? If you don't like the DRN rules, are you going to ask where to go to try to get them changed or are you going to complain about that in the wrong place as well?  --Guy Macon (talk) 04:00, 24 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Are you still kidding (good-naturedly), or have you stopped?--Hypesmasher (talk) 23:49, 24 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I have been thinking about it and I have concluded that my involvement is not helping the situation. I also think most or all of that is my fault. For that I must apologize; I am sorry for handling the situation poorly. I would like to back off, stop having any conflict with you and make peace. I hope that you can glean some useful information from what I wrote even if I didn't present it very well. Again, I apologize and wish for a cease fire. No need to respond to this, although you are welcome to do so: my conduct towards you from this moment on should speak louder than words. Let me know if you want me to repeat this apology on the article talk page. --Guy Macon (talk) 09:22, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Might want to look at this
Dispute resolution requests - it describes various options. -- Neil N   talk to me  19:37, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Notice of Wikiquette Assistance discussion
Hello, Hypesmasher. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikiquette assistance regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 07:27, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Your recent edits
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button or  located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when they said it. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 00:19, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

June 2012
Please do not attack other editors, as you did at Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Archive_30. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. '' WQA, using a persons support of the LGBT community as a reason to dismiss a persons opinions is uncivil as you did at DRN. Continuous incivility is disruptive (WP:UNCIVIL). Further incivility will lead to WP:RFC/U, and WP:ARBCOM involvement. '' IRWolfie- (talk) 09:17, 1 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Further, specifically your suggestions of a conflict of interest were inappropriate, see the examples on WP:COI. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:52, 1 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I would add that saying "you have admitted that you are supportive of the idea of LGBT rights" and then using that as supposed evidence of "illegitimately furthering the LGBT political agenda" is inappropriate. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:55, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

3RR – June 1
Just thought I'd remind you that you're at 3RR at Micah True. ~Adjwilley (talk) 20:40, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

June 2012
Your recent editing history at Micah True shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Note: I made an error and did not count the 31st, thus this was a slow edit war, not a 4RR violation.

I apologize for the error. I have made corrections below. --Guy Macon

Adjwilley: Material introduced 14:55, 22 May 2012

Hypesmasher 1RR 02:28, 30 May 2012

Adjwilley 1RR 16:40, 30 May 2012

Hypesmasher 2RR 23:26, 30 May 2012

Adjwilley 2RR 23:39, 30 May 2012

24 hours since Hypesmasher's first revert 02:28, 31 May 2012

24 hours since Adjwilley's first revert 16:40, 31 May 2012

24 hours since Hypesmasher's second revert 23:26, 31 May 2012

24 hours since Adjwilley's second revert 23:39, 31 May 2012

Hypesmasher 1RR (3rd revert) 00:22, 1 June 2012

Adjwilley 1RR (3rd revert)00:35, 1 June 2012

Hypesmasher 2RR (4th revert) 01:05, 1 June 2012

Adjwilley 2RR (4th revert) 03:36, 1 June 2012

Hypesmasher 3RR (5th revert) 20:05, 1 June 2012

24 hours since Hypesmasher's 1RR (3rd revert) 00:22, 2 June 2012

24 hours since Adjwilley's 1RR (3rd revert) 00:35, 2 June 2012

Hypesmasher 2RR (6th revert) 05:58, 2 June 2012

--Guy Macon (talk) 10:10, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Hypesmasher and Adjwilley, reported by User:Guy Macon (Result: Protected)

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. Thank you. --Guy Macon (talk) 10:36, 2 June 2012 (UTC)