User talk:Hyperliner

Welcome

Hello, Hyperliner! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking

or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already loving Wikipedia you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Happy editing! 7 ^{talk | Δ |} 00:51, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Getting Started
Wikipedia Tutorial • The five pillars of Wikipedia How to: edit a page • upload an image
Getting Help
Frequently Asked Questions Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention
Policies and Guidelines
Neutral point of view • Reliable sources Verifiability • Citing sources • No original research What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability

The Community
Community Portal • Adopt-a-user program Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • Resolving disputes Build consensus • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists
Things to do
Be bold in editing • Help develop an article Pages needing attention • Peer review Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Spam • Vandalism
Miscellaneous
Categories • Disambiguity • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

June 2009

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we must insist that you assume good faith while interacting with other editors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. -- Banjeboi 01:37, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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:E.O. Green School shooting. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Rivertorch (talk) 19:58, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There were no secret conversations

The accusation that you made here—that I tried "to influence other editors in 'secret' off-side conversations"—is false, offensive, and arguably in violation of Wikipedia's policy on personal attacks. Please consider:

One of the main purposes of talk pages is to provide a forum for influencing other editors.
User talk pages are generally the more appropriate place for conducting conversations such as the one you provided diffs for.
User talk pages are not secret, and nothing I said about the article was said in secret.
Nonetheless, secret conversations are appropriate or even necessary in some instances. I have had a few in my time here. If you're a conscientious editor and want to avoid unnecessary drama, you probably will have some eventually, too.

For the record: did I try to influence Moni3? I sure did. She's a terrific editor and a skilled sysop, but I felt she had erred in this case and I called her on it (as I hope that others would do when I err). I violated neither letter nor spirit of any Wikipedia rules, I acted in an open and aboveboard manner, and I would do it exactly the same way again. I ask that you strike the accusation. Rivertorch (talk) 01:18, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for addressing this matter and for removing the word "secret". Friendly hint for future reference: the code <s> (placed before text) and </s> (placed after text) applies strikethru formatting . . . ~~like this~~. That way, you can cross out a word or phrase without having to explain that it's gone. Re "I would prefer the discussion about a topic to be contained within the topic to ensure all ideas are discussed in a single place", you make a valid point and in a perfect world I'd agree, but, aside from talk page guidelines which discourage non-article-related discussion on article talk pages, as a practical matter threads get too complex and hard to follow if they stray off into the periphery. Rivertorch (talk) 19:08, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the tip. Very useful. (Hyperliner (talk) 03:56, 1 July 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Just out of morbid curiosity

To be perfectly frank, when you first made edits to the E.O. Green School shooting I had assumed you were yet another conservative/anti-gay POV pusher with a singular purpose to edit that particular article (though, to be honest I have that knee-jerk reaction to any newly registered user). However, I see you're honestly trying to work towards neutrality (even if we happen to disagree on what that may include) and I assume you'll be working on wikipedia for quite sometime. I just had to ask, why pick such a nightmare article to work on as you first major contribution? The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 02:47, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I thought I should start with ONE article, and not spread out too much. So my goals were to learn the system and the "culture." So the system I am still learning. I got a good tip above for example from another editor, so I think the editing is becoming easier. So for the culture, I decided that it had to be an article of small controversy, not too easy ("carpet") and not too controversial or complex ("Abortion"), but some good back and forth to learn the "culture" and the rules. So this article came in the news and I thought I could learn more about it since it was relatively "contained" to a small set of facts. The rest is history. To be frank, yes, not the best pick for a newbie! :) But I don't regret it because I think I got a good crash course on the rules and on the nature of editing. (Hyperliner (talk) 04:11, 2 July 2009 (UTC))[reply]

I actually started off editing comic book related content (my first GA was Barbara Gordon) and then progressed into music related articles (my first FA Janet Jackson). My personal...obsession on wikipedia tends to be WP:Biographies of living persons. The foundation of my "obession" is articulated in a very truthful yet disturbing article on Britney Spears, :

More than any other star today, Britney epitomizes the crucible of fame for the famous: loving it, hating it and never quite being able to stop it from destroying you...Even Michael Jackson never deteriorated to the point where he was strapped to a gurney, his madness chronicled by news choppers' spotlights...Every day in L.A., at least a hundred paparazzi, reporters and celebrity-magazine editors dash after her, this braless chick padding around town on hilariously mundane errands — the gas station, the pet store, Starbucks, Rite Aid. The multibillion-dollar new-media economy rests on her slumped shoulders, with paparazzi agencies estimating that she has comprised up to twenty percent of their coverage for the past year. It's not only bottom feeders running after Britney — a recent memo leaked from the Associated Press, which plans to add twenty-two entertainment reporters to its staff, announces that everything that happens to Britney is news (they have already begun preparing her obit). The paparazzi feed the celebrity magazines, which feed the mainstream press, while sources sell their dirtiest material to British tabloids, and then it trickles back to America.

My objective on BLPs is to avoid WP:FANCRUFT and tabloid journalism (if you honestly care what Britney Spears eats for breakfast, you need therapy). As much as I idolize Janet (and yes: the character that nearly plummets to death is me), I could really careless about seeing a camera following her 24/7 trying to document her every move. Ironically I often get caught up in defending subjects I actually dislike in order to stop editors from using subjects as a WP:SOAPBOX or turning their articles into WP:ATTACKPAGE and usually end up getting accused of having a personal or professional relationship with the subject, or worse a devotion to the them, when I am simply trying to preserve WP:BASICHUMANDIGNITY. If you'd like a challenge on wikipedia, try monitoring any celebrity (or political) biography and watch the hoards of fanatics threaten to kill you for "removing important details about my favorite person's (insert fancruft here)" or attack you for "defending this horrible horrible human being whom we should all curse to hell." The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 12:01, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maher

Your edits on the page are being reverted primarily because the two sources you've provided only state that Maher said the word, not that it was significantly notable in any way. I didn't see any evidence of protests in either source.

By the way, you're at three reverts on that article, I would advise you to take your discussion to the talk page of the article and try and explain. Good luck! Dayewalker (talk) 06:03, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Hyperliner. I didn't look at the youtube video, as videos from that site aren't considered reliable sources for Wikipedia purposes; certainly not for a WP:BLP. I did look at the Daily Caller link you provided, and that source told me that (Stop the presses!!) Maher made snarky comments about a public figure. In my opinion, that's right up there with "Maher walked his dog", or "Maher cracked a joke". Tune in next week for more of the same. The source doesn't provide the reader with any special insight about Maher, and it reads like it was probably part of his routine comedy monologues. Just add it to the very long list of comedic cracks, along with "Bimbo", "Bitch" (or Jennifer Lopez' spanish word for the same), "Winking Trainwreck", "Caribou Barbie", etc., tossed onto the airwaves by an equally long list of punsters and comedians. And for every wisecrack or joke, there will always be people "taking offense".

Ask yourself this: what encyclopedic content about this living person are you trying to convey to the reader with your edit? Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 08:46, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]