User talk:Hipocrite/04/2011

Your personal attacks and harrassment

You have repeatedly engaged in personal attacks on the MoMK article, and now seemed to have moved to different types of uncivil behavior. It is ocnsidered uncivil to template an experienced editor. To do so with no underlying cause is considered harrassment.LedRush (talk) 13:56, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

this was a blatant personal attack. Hipocrite (talk) 14:04, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

It is a reminder to discuss edits, not editors. Perhaps I should have been more delicate (I added a more specific reminder to that edit, but I have reminded him several times and he is stepping up his personal attacks.

Of course, you have ignored WP policy and procedure yet again in your response. Please disengage from your uncivil behavior.LedRush (talk) 14:12, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I see nothing uncivil in my behavior, yet again. You appear to have confused incivility with "disagreement." We disagree that you are engaging in personal attacks. Perhaps you should seek an uninvolved third opinion. Hipocrite (talk) 14:18, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

It is also uncivil to template experienced editors. When you engaged in your binge of personal attacks, I politely came here and discussed it with you like an adult.LedRush (talk) 14:19, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

As I am discussing it with you now, after you engaged in your "binge of personal attacks." Hipocrite (talk) 14:20, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

You templated me. I did not. That is a difference. You have pointed to one, disputably uncivil edit by me, whereas you have made several. That is another difference. Please feel free to bring this to a third party.LedRush (talk) 14:23, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I have raised this issue at WP:WQA. Given that you have removed my comments on your talk page, I thought I should copy the section from there, in full, to here.

Personal attacks by Hipocrite

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, you are reminded not to attack other editors. Please comment on the contributions 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. Hipocrite (talk) 13:48, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Please provide examples of personal attacks by me. I know you've attacked me before, but that's not the same. Also, it is considered uncivil to template an experienced editor's talk page. If you don't have anything substantive to add, I would ask you not to post here.LedRush (talk) 13:56, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

this is a blatant personal attack. Hipocrite (talk) 14:04, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

It is a reminder to discuss edits, not editors. Perhaps I should have been more delicate (I added a more specific reminder to that edit, but I have reminded him several times and he is stepping up his personal attacks. I thought that you had settled down a little yourself, but it seems not. LedRush (talk) 14:09, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

No, it is not. What you see above on your talk page is a "reminder to discuss edits, not editors." What you put on my talk page a few days ago was a "reminder to discuss edits, not editors," however misplaced. Writing "It's amazing how [user] needs to insult other editors with virtually every comment he makes on this site," is a personal attack, not a reminder of anything. Would you like to seek a third parties opinion on your behavior that I link to here? Hipocrite (talk) 14:19, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, you are wrong about my post, and you have mischaracterized your own. Starting the Wikiquette alert is basically another form of harassment.LedRush (talk) 16:33, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

You explicitly blessed my attempt to get outside eyes - remember? It's right above - "Please feel free to bring this to a third party." Are you the only person using your account? Hipocrite (talk) 16:35, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Even more personal attacks. Very funny. You'll not that you made the Wikiquette alert at exactly the same time as I made that note: meaning you had not read it first. Additionally, I thought you would just informally ask a neutral editor (or non-neutral friend) his opinions. Starting a Wikiquette alert over one edit of this nature is patently absurd.LedRush (talk) 16:42, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Again, I don't see the personal attacks. I dispute that I had not read it first - in fact, I wrote the entire note, and then waited for your response. Irregardless, you authorized me to go to a third party - if that authorization was made concurrently with my going to a third party or before doesn't change the fact that you said it was ok. That you misunderstood how I'd ask for external eyes doesn't mean that my attempts were "patently absurd." I'd suggest that that ("patently absurd") is over dramatic language for a low-impact board like WQA. Perhaps you need to take a step back? My question as to if you are the only person using your account is sincere - you seem to bounce between two very different modes of communication, and as here, seemed to forget what you had written merely an hour before. If you are the only user of your account, my apologies, but please do check. Hipocrite (talk) 17:17, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm very quiet and I've politely conversed with you. I quote here pieces of conversation from your answers to me:

• Your personal views about how Italian appeals work
• Does that mean innocent untill sentenced by trial courts then guilty until unsentenced? I have no idea - neither do you. *Here's someone linking to a crowd-sourced mistranslation (with bonus invalid link on the mistranslation!) to restore your statement [44], committing OR by SYNTH by removing a reliable secondary source for their personal interpretation of the italian constitution.

Furthermore you referred to me twice as "someone" (I am not someone, I got a username, or at least you could have said "an editor"). So who is keeping conversation personal? Please respect other editors.--Grifomaniacs (talk) 18:11, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

I never called you a bad editor, I called your edits bad - they were. You used a mistranslation, edited based on your personal knowledge. I never once put words in your mouth. I suggest you take a big step back. Hipocrite (talk) 18:14, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

I repeat, I'm very quiet and I think your comments are not constructive. I hope you'll come back discussing on the article, but please be more faithful in other editors. --Grifomaniacs (talk) 18:32, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Just edited my previous comment to reflect my good intent. Will you do a step into a more collaborative conversation in exchange?--Grifomaniacs (talk) 18:45, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Murder of Meredith Kercher

Great edits there. Keep up the good work. --John (talk) 17:30, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

So, who is paying you?

Welcome back! :) Count Iblis (talk) 16:36, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm only here to resolve what I feel is my responsibility as ex-mediator on something. Then I'm gone. This place is a cesspit of people being paid, and not-paid to distort the public perception of truth to what they hope were true. Should be shut down. Hipocrite (talk) 16:39, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, there are two Wikipedias: One is about all the controversial subjects where people fight their battles, and the other is the reliable encyclopedia on e.g. Math, Physics etc. I stopped contributing to the former a long time ago. Count Iblis (talk) 16:47, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Even our articles on maths, physics and what not are garbage - constantly under attack by fringe lunatics who believe that their unique vision of what is true is actually true. For instance, Classical mechanics, the first course someone doing physics would take still includes the majority of [1], which is basically garbage designed to push the POV that Muslims invented everything. Hipocrite (talk) 16:57, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi, good to see you're still kicking around and making good sense. As a cautious editor I've commented out the more blatant Islamophilia bit with its dubious sources, no doubt a wild rumpus will commence eventually. Ho hum. . . dave souza, talk 18:22, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Your Unfounded Accusations

Resolved

 – We'll have to agree to disagree Hipocrite (talk) 22:35, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

You recently accused me of frequent attacks against you.[2]

Though I have asked you repeatedly to be more civil and to follow Wikipedia protocol, I do not remember frequently attacking you. Could you please provide examples?LedRush (talk) 20:47, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

[3], [4], [5], [6]. Hope that helps! Hipocrite (talk) 20:52, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

I am sorry, but they do not help. The first was a clarification of who was attacking who (and, ironically, asking you to provide examples where I've attacked you). The second was a redaction of your harassment against me. The third is a discussion of your attacks against me. The fourth is a difference to the edit here where I ask you to point to examples of attacks and, obviously, occurs after you make the unfounded accusation. Can you not find any examples at all?LedRush (talk) 21:02, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

We'll have to agree to disagree, as I feel that all of my examples are germane. Hipocrite (talk) 21:04, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Would you mind explaining how, after you accusing me of attacking you, me asking for examples is actually an attack itself?LedRush (talk) 21:06, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Your user of the word "Unfounded." Unfounded is defined as "Having no foundation or basis in fact." Accusing others of doing things that "have no foundation or basis in fact," is uncivil, especially in edit summaries. Hipocrite (talk) 21:07, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Further, you state that the first was you "asking [Hipocrite] to provide examples where [LedRush] attacked [Hipocrite]." That's not accurate. In fact, the first was in reference to your attacks against FormerIP, which you later amended. Hipocrite (talk) 21:23, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

[EC]I am sorry, you are right. You falsely accused me of making attacks against FormerIP, not you.LedRush (talk) 21:26, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

You continue to allege that "It's amazing how (user) needs to insult other editors with virtually every comment he makes on this site." is not a personal attack? Hipocrite (talk) 21:28, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't believe it is an attack, but a reminder not to make personal attacks. If one were to misconstrue it, as you choose to, as an attack, it would still only be one attack, not multiple. I'm sorry, but you'll need to try again.LedRush (talk) 21:31, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

I accused you of making an attacking against FormerIP. The above was that. I accused you of frequently attacking me - the above 4 links include 3 attacks before my accusation, and one directly following. Hipocrite (talk) 21:37, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

You accused me of making incivil personal attacks here [7] That comment is not an uncivil personal attack, and it certainly is not multiple attacks as you have claimed (but recently forgotten).LedRush (talk) 22:22, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

That report refers to your initial personal attack and your reversion of my good faith attempt to get you to stop as "disruption." Hipocrite (talk) 22:24, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps that reports was about it, but the sentence was clearly not. If you've forgotten, it reads "LedRush has engaged in incivil personal attacks at [33]." That was the complete sentence. At the end of the sentence was one diff in which I reminded FormerIP to address edits and not editors. I am shocked that even on such an in disputable point, you deny it.LedRush (talk) 22:34, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

We'll have to agree to disagree. I don't know why you keep sticking around. Hipocrite (talk) 22:35, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

[EC]But until you provide examples of "frequent" attacks, it is unfounded. Also, that edit was made in requesting you to provide examples of your comment (i.e., after your comment). You can't accuse someone of making attacks, and then use the response to the accusation as evidence for the accusation.LedRush (talk) 21:24, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

That your response to my statement that you frequently attack me was to, yet again, attack me is evidence that you do, in fact, frequently attack me. Further, you have confused the word "unfounded" and "unsubstantiated." Unfounded does not mean what you say it means. Hipocrite (talk) 21:26, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Subsequent attacks would not make your early accusation true. It would still be false at the time it was made. Also, until you provide any examples of frequent attacks by me of you, your claims are both unfounded and unsubstantiated.LedRush (talk) 21:28, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

I included 4 links - 3 from before I made my accusation, one from after. That is merely a sampling of your frequent attacks. Unfounded accusations cannot be substantiated. Words, as I said, have meanings. Hipocrite (talk) 21:37, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Alas, none of them contain attacks. If you think they do, perhaps you need to look at the meanings of the words instead of condescendingly insulting me with such statements.LedRush (talk) 22:22, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

We'll have to agree to disagree. I don't know why you keep sticking around. Hipocrite (talk) 22:24, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Random Thought

Hypocrites are punished in Dante's hell.^[1] --43?9enter ^☭msg_☭contribs 05:16, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Your false accusation

Please do not leave comments on my talk page accusing me of things i have not done, thank you. If you are accusing me of something, provide a link to what i have allegedly done. Any further false accusations will be taken up with administrators, thank you. CodyJoeBibby (talk) 14:49, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Per your denial - here is you deleting my comments and replacing it with yours, if by accident or on purpose. Hipocrite (talk) 14:52, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Hipocrite, I hope that you don't mind me posting, and I know that you have the interests of the article at heart, but I would urge that you strike through or otherwise withdraw your comment about off-wiki pressure here. Meatpuppetry has been a problem in the past, but I've found no reason to believe that this is true of CodyJoeBibby. Sincerely, SuperMarioMan 16:02, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

I'll do this per your request. Hipocrite (talk) 18:33, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Many thanks - otherwise, please do keep up your excellent work at this page. Regards, SuperMarioMan 18:39, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

License tagging for File:IPMK crop.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:IPMK crop.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 18:05, 18 April 2011 (UTC)