User talk:Hypocaustic

Hello. I'm another occasional Wikipedian, interested in all sorts of things. Like most contributors, I'll occasionally get something wrong. Sometimes I'll even irritate someone by getting something right. If either concern applies to you, talk to me about it here - I may not log on all that often, but I'm listening, and I prefer collaboration.

'Denialism'

If this is your best, or indeed only, response when faced with a disagreement on a matter of science (on the Passive Smoking page) then we have rather different views of the Scientific Method. In the Stalinist Soviet Union they called dissidents revisionists. The early Catholic church called us heretics. Now we are 'deniers'. You fit right in with the present age but it is an age of zealotry not reason. SmokeyTheCat 14:22, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Let's not trade silly insults, Smokey - you only lay yourself open to accusations of zealotry if you go down that route. If you have genuine, evidence-based (and preferably peer-reviewed) information which supports a differing perspective, bring it to the relevant talk page and you will, doubtless, get constructive feedback.Hypocaustic (talk) 18:02, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Stations etc.

It's obvious you're attempting to do an end-run around a failed RM. Continue to do so and you'll find yourself at ANI again. Hot Stop (Edits) 01:29, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

What's an end-run? If you're referring to some differneces of view around how best to phrase the introductory paragraph, I think we're getting towards a workable consensus, step by step, and that's often the way these things develop - although I actually haven't been near this page for quite a while until today. Better to engage in discussion about ideas than levelling accusations; talk to me about what you're concerned about, and let's compare notes.Hypocaustic (talk) 10:38, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry case

Your name has been mentioned in connection with a sockpuppetry case. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Wedensambo for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to cases before editing the evidence page. DBaK (talk) 21:07, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

?? It's winter where I am, so I have my socks on alright. Other than that, at the risk of sounding like sour grapes, I'm not going to honour this with a detailed response. 'Only sorry for whoever it is who feels obliged to do 'detective work' as a result. Don't take up too much of your time over it; I will enjoy a holiday, and it will either be resolved in the natural course of things, or I can get on with doing something else instead. For whoever does have to sort this out, thanks. Hypocaustic (talk) 23:03, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Blocked

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts per checkuser. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.  Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 22:36, 24 December 2012 (UTC)