User talk:Hipocrite/01/2010

Tabula rasa on the "theft" issue
This is a hot issue within the blogosphere and op-eds. The AGW skeptics want to portray the hacker as a brave whisteblower and the AGW proponents want to portray him as a dishonest thief. Both sides seems to be emotionally invested in how to frame the hacker. But to be honest, this is one of the more lamer disputes. I wouldn't waste my time trying to resolve this. The average reader probably doesn't care one way or the other. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:23, 3 January 2010 (UTC)


 * That's well put. But the article currently invests a lot in demonising the heroic whistleblower! If he was being hailed as a saint I would also be saying hang on a minute, this might be a criminal hack or theft.  But I am here for another reason...   Paul Beardsell (talk) 10:19, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Disruptive editing and specious reasoning
...you may be aware of the refusal of ChrisO to allow McIntyre's view, as reported by the Daily Mail and others, on the "trick" and "hiding the decline" to be reported in the article. He is acting as a gatekeeper on this issue, in my opinion, and I would like review or arbitration of this issue as I think an impasse has been reached. Given that the article is under probation, what is the next step I should take? Paul Beardsell (talk) 10:19, 4 January 2010 (UTC)


 * You should discuss your proposed changes to the article on the talk page and seek consensus. Hipocrite (talk) 10:20, 4 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Alright, I wasn't expecting a sympathetic ear, but a wise one. What if a consensus cannot be reached?  Or, what if I think that someone is unreasonably blocking consensus?  Paul Beardsell (talk) 10:29, 4 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Have you discussed your proposed change on the talk page and reached consensus? If you have, then follow consensus. If you can not reach consensus, then seek additional ears by listing your content at RFC or other content noticeboards. Hipocrite (talk) 10:30, 4 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, I had thought there was a consensus but not unanimity. I acted on that, and I was reverted. So it's RfC time, I guess, to test just how reasonable I have been.  Thanks.  And so, procedurally, it's all the same, probation or not.  Paul Beardsell (talk) 10:38, 4 January 2010 (UTC)


 * If you were reverted, you either didn't have consensus, or you are dealing with a problem editor. Are you sure that there wasn't a long section in the talk page discussing how to include your content that came to a conclusion that your proposed addition was not as fullsome as one that mentioned an interview on a CNN program and also cited a paper from 1997? It's not clear there was consensus on that version, but it's certain everyone preferred it to yours. Hipocrite (talk) 10:42, 4 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I believe that others and I have gone to extraordinary lengths to show which of your two options is correct. Paul Beardsell (talk) 10:59, 4 January 2010 (UTC)


 * You are right except I did not put that version in, I simply reverted its removal. Now I could have improved it, and would have liked the opportunity, but my replacement was reverted quickly, not improved.  The person who is removing rather than improving would benefit from your good advice.  There is gatekeeping going on here and it is most distasteful.  It reflects badly upon WP.  Paul Beardsell (talk) 10:57, 4 January 2010 (UTC)


 * If you are making an edit to a controversial article and you know that others object to the edit you are making, and further you and they have reached agreement, or are closer to agreement on a modified form of your edit, it seems that making your initial edit as opposed to enacting the possible talk page consensus is the mistake being made here. If you had referenced the CNN interview and the 1997 paper as appeared to be a possible agreement, I might have some time for your "gatekeeper" argument. However, it appears that you agree with the broader group that your edit is less than optimal. Don't make less than optimal edits to a controversial article. Hipocrite (talk) 11:01, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

outdent. As I said: Someone else put the sub-optimal version back in. It was reverted by someone, not improved to the better version. There an opportunity was lost. Only then did I become involved to undo that removal, but it was reverted again, not removed. I am anxious not to be seen to be edit warring otherwise I would take your advice to be a prompt from you to now insert the better version. Please feel free to do so. Thanks for all your good advice. Paul Beardsell (talk) 11:10, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Double negative
Hi Hipocrite. You've used a double negative in this statement which makes your meaning a little unclear. Cheers, Jayjg (talk) 20:57, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Boldfacepalm
I don't regard "Climategate" as a credible synonym of the title, and so I think the bold face is unnecessary. Someone else can revert if they disagree. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:06, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

False Accusations
Un-f'n-believable. You lecture me about civility and then come to my talk page and make another false accusation against me? For the record, I have had exactly one account on WP, and you are way out of line to suggest otherwise. Jpat34721 (talk) 17:22, 7 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I've commented on this at User talk:Jpat34721, my view is that asking if a user has any other accounts is in order, but care should be taken to avoid phrasing it as an accusation. Hope that helps in future, dave souza, talk 18:49, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Revert
You reversed an addition to the "Climategate" article with this revert. It obviously happened pretty fast, and I wonder if you would reconsider? The version we're left with is disputed in this section of the talk page. If you'd prefer we discussed this on the talk page itself that's fine, but I figured that as you were the reverting editor it'd be just as well to discuss it with you directly. Happy editing!--Heyitspeter (talk) 08:44, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Dear admin reading this:
Indefinite semi for my user page, please. Not talk, yet. Hipocrite (talk) 21:33, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Not commonly done. You need a good reason for the request. Viridae Talk 21:39, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * persistant targeted damaging vandalism from proxies. Hipocrite (talk) 21:43, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Done. Guettarda (talk) 21:44, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Michael Cremo photo
Why do you want to delete this photo? It is a legitimate screen capture from Youtube and it is used under fair use. No copyrights are infringed. John Hyams (talk) 19:18, 8 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Review our non free content criteria - WP:NFC, section 12. Hipocrite (talk) 19:39, 8 January 2010 (UTC)


 * As far as I can tell after reading it, the specific picture adheres to the criteria. In the text have found no reason to remove it, unless you can quote where it says a screen capture from Youtube is not regarded as fair use in this specific case (Michael Cremo). John Hyams (talk) 17:35, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Revert offer
I'm taking you up on your offer to revert this edit as promised in your edit summary to the following edit. You can find previous discussion of whether to include "Swifthack" here. Thanks.--Heyitspeter (talk) 20:31, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much for following through. I appreciate it.--Heyitspeter (talk) 20:35, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

General sanctions/Climate change probation/Requests for enforcement
Might I convince you please to try to be more careful when filing these? If you take the time to build an actionable case, you are more likely to get what you want and, more importantly, save me a fair bit of time and effort. To exaggerate for the sake of presentation: I am in an edit war with this person is far less desirable than Here are the diffs I think are over the line, here are the diffs where I and other editors talked about the probation and how those edits fit with it. Also, please keep in mind that WP:PLAXICO is in full effect - if you find yourself unable to fill out diffs of actively seeking compromise or explaining why a proposal is not going to float, please try that first. Egregious cases excepted, of course. Responding here is fine. - 2/0 (cont.) 04:26, 12 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Why should I seek compromise - honestly - when every inch given is a mile taken? I'd like to see some good faith from the "other" side first, and then I'll show some more - I've sought loads of compromise on the article, but then that compromise position gets implied as my baseline position, and I'm asked to shift more, and more, and more, all the while the people I'm seeking compromise with are rapidly reverting to their starting position. Perhaps if some of those reverts didn't include a big fat bold climategate, weren't the first thing said in the article, included some caveat about who calls it climategate - anything. Instead, every single step taken to try to appease them is met with a "great, now I can ask for more." No thanks. Hipocrite (talk) 05:16, 12 January 2010 (UTC)


 * See also the section DIRECTLY ABOVE this one. Hipocrite (talk) 05:17, 12 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I did not mean to imply that you are not already engaging well at the talkpages, only that I would like to see fewer of these requests closed as no action. I also certainly would not like to discourage you from filing valid requests, even in cases where discussion leads to no action - I cannot speak for the other admins in this area, but keeping track of exactly where every editor stands on every discussion and contested edit is beyond my executive faculties. Negotiating in bad faith is topic bannable under the probation, but it is likely to pass over my complexity horizon unless I am closely perusing the talkpage and following along at the article. It does, however, need to be carefully documented. - 2/0 (cont.) 05:38, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks
I just wanted to say thanks for all the effort you've put into the climate change probation. It's thankless work, but it's appreciated. Guettarda (talk) 16:05, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Great minds...
;-). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:37, 14 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Lol. I was having a hard time figuring out what Galileo was in opposition to untill I thought of the circles and remembered something about perfect shapes. I should have gone to the wikipedia article and found out he was opposed to all of Kepler's theories. I should have gone with tides over moons. Hipocrite (talk) 15:44, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

"sabotage"
I appreciate your feedback at Talk:Climatic_Research_Unit_hacking_incident, and don't want you to think I just ignored your comment. I agree that others may have expressed concerns (as the sentence notes), and some of these others may have used stronger language. However, at the moment, I don't see evidence in terms of references from anyone else (though that's part of the reason I first posted to the talk page, as on another issue I missed something, and someone pointed it out.) I'm hesitant to do a comprehensive search of what all notable people said on the subject - it smacks of OR, although it might be acceptable. Given that we have zero reliable sources using "sabotage", it seemed wrong to use the word.-- SPhilbrick  T  00:03, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Please!
Please do not vandalize my user page Tom Butler (talk) 01:55, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Human-baiting
An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Human-baiting. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Articles for deletion/Human-baiting (3rd nomination). Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:05, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Community de-Adminship - finalization poll for the CDA proposal
After tolling up the votes in the revision proposals, it emerged that 5.4 had the most support, but elements of that support remained unclear, and various comments throughout the polls needed consideration.

A finalisation poll (intended, if possible, to be one last poll before finalising the CDA proposal) has been run to;


 * gather opinion on the 'consensus margin' (what percentages, if any, have the most support) and


 * ascertain whether there is support for a 'two-phase' poll at the eventual RfC (not far off now), where CDA will finally be put to the community. Matt Lewis (talk) 01:03, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

ANI report you may be interested in
Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents

Thanks for your help.

ScienceApologist (talk) 23:04, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

RfA
How can I make it binding? I would if I could. If I didn't make the pledge, I'd get a bunch more oppose votes. People are concerned about the AfD issue, and the pledge was an effort to reassure them. What else can I do? Everyking (talk) 04:38, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I was thinking about your oppose as well. I know we've had a few egregious examples of say-anything-to-get-elected. I count myself among those burned. But it seems a bit dogmatic to hold someone's apparently well-meaning effort to address community concerns against them just because of a few well-known bad apples, right? And I say that as someone deeply inclined to cynicism. MastCell Talk 04:43, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * As soon as the bad Elonpple is desysoped, I can stop being so cynical. Hipocrite (talk) 13:28, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * You can't make it binding - that's the problem. Like pledeges to recall, pledges to do/not do/avoid/focus on specific areas are ignored by candidates after they are awarded bits. As such, I must oppose any candidate where the opposers are told that a pledge has been made or any supporter states the pledge moved the needle. I have done so before, and will do so again. I think you'll just have to eat my oppose, because while retracting the pledge would certainly move me to at least neutral, it would obviously move others to oppose (which, by the way, is my point). Hipocrite (talk) 13:28, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm glad my views are becoming so influential, even down to my favorite Dog Latin phrase. Seriously though, my concern, like yours, is still that campaign promises can and often are ignored post-RFA.  Elonka's dishonorable behavior being the most galling example.  (For some cheap lulz read her current criteria at User:Elonka/Recall)
 * I have specific issues with the questionable recall promise, but I can see the logic in extending this to pledges to do or not do something in a contentious area. Part of my reasoning beyond the unenforceability issue is that comitting to a broken and ineffective system reflects poorly on the candidate's judgement.  As an example unrelated to Everyking, I could not vote for an editor who had been a vociferous supporter of Esperanza or WP:AMA, nor for an extreme inclusionist - because it shows bad judgement.  I am not sure AFD qualifies as an utterly broken process like those I described, though I typically avoid that nest of vipers.  In EK's case, I am actually considering supporting now due to: a) his long record of mostly positive contributions and b) my sympathy for editors who have been repeatedly screwed by Arbcom.  Unless he makes a recall pledge, that just won't do.  Skinwalker (talk) 03:17, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

User:AeronPeryton/Articles/Tatsuya Furukawa
we conflicted while I was trying to fix things up. I think leaving things behind but commented or nowikied out is better. Can you see what you think. If you think I'm doing it wrong, please let me know. ++Lar: t/c 16:37, 21 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I like your way better. Removed the cats also. Hipocrite (talk) 16:41, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Forgot about those this time (usually I remember but I'm a bit rushed this time). But shouldn't they just be left, commented out, so the cats can come back if the article goes live again without having to dig in the history for what they were or maybe assign bad ones? ++Lar: t/c 16:49, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * That's what I did. Hipocrite (talk) 16:49, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Cool. I better do all the rest I guess (see the list on my talk). Thanks. ++Lar: t/c 16:51, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I was doing the unsourced-by-date category. (Category:Unreferenced_BLPs_from_November_2006)Hipocrite (talk) 16:52, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Yuri (Korean singer)
I have removed your PROD; an article can't be prodded twice (for better or worse). Feel free to take it to AfD. Drmies (talk) 20:50, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

David M. Malone
Maybe your gutting of unreferenced BLPs is well-intentioned, but it makes for an enormous amount of extra work: I had piece together the guy's highly notable career from the news archives, rather than simply provide references for the facts--that he is high commisionner to India, past president of the International Peace Institute, etc. Hell, you even removed the basic fact that he was from Canada. Next time, why don't you delete the category as well? If I sound pissed, it's because I am: I also want to see unreferenced BLPs disappear, but not automatically by gutting and deleting. Spend five seconds Googling the guy and you will see immediately that he is highly notable: this is a clear case of "will you please read WP:BEFORE before you start chopping?" Drmies (talk) 21:38, 21 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I didn't suggest deleting that bio. I haven't engaged in gutting and deleting - either gutting, or deleting. Hipocrite (talk) 21:40, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, so the person who made this edit is another Hipocrite? Drmies (talk) 21:43, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * No, this edit isn't mine. Hipocrite (talk) 21:44, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I didn't say it was. That was Niteshift, who, against PROD guidelines, re-prodded the article after you cut it by half. You gutted the article, removing even the most basic facts, thereby increasing the workload for me. Thanks a lot. Drmies (talk) 21:48, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * You're welcome, I guess. You are aware of the history tab, right? Hipocrite (talk) 21:48, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes I am. And I will make damn sure to see next time if you've been gutting like crazy again. Drmies (talk) 21:57, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Your ARS Request
I have added 2 New York Times articles to Péter Medgyessy per your request at ARS. Took me less than 10 minutes, and I didn't want to get into the debate on the talk page there. While I have seen your many complaints about the project, I am glad to help source the article, and glad you thought to bring it to the attention of the ARS.  Jim Miller  See me 22:21, 21 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you. Hipocrite (talk) 22:21, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

WP:CIVIL
Please use civil language in your edit summaries. This isn't acceptable. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:28, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

AfD
See Articles for deletion/Razi Abedi. Drmies (talk) 03:43, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Power.corrupts
I have told him that removing tags the way he is doing is likely be seen as improper, just as you appropriately warned him. But I've checked each of his removals, and in fact, there were easy to find sources for every one of them--and in most cases it was perfectly clear from the article that there would be. Of course, he absolutely should have added those sources, not just removed the tag-- but equally d whoever it was who prodded them should have done so also. Everyone should be careful. We are getting very close to a general state of antagonism that will not turn out well, unless we act very calmly. I ask to you to listen to what Berian said just above--he is one of the most level headed and judicious people I know around here. I hope to be able to cooperate you in working out a solution.  DGG ( talk ) 10:45, 22 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't think it's a valuable use of my time to find sources for articles that I think the encyclopedia would be better off without even if sourced. I think the encyclopedia would be better off without articles on little-known living people. As such, I'm not interested in finding sources for the articles I am prodding. However, I will endeavor to avoid proding obviously notable people (in fact, I found an obviously notable person and tried to avoid prodding him by requesting help from WP:ARS, but in a fit of pique, someone removed my rescue tag because I hadn't nominated the individual for deletion, and the response at WP:ARS was basicaly "take a long walk off a short plank." Citations on request.) If you could suggest something I could do to more urgently request sources for an article that I believe should not be deleted but has not been sourced for 3+ years and that I cannot find sources for, I'm happy to do that, but as it stands now, the only avenue that appears to work is prod/afd. I am happy to rate-limit. What is the maximum number of prods across all prodders that can be prodded per day? Hipocrite (talk) 14:00, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

POV tag
Please revert this edit. There is an on going discussion about neutrality and consensus has not been reached. Thanks. JPatterson (talk) 18:09, 22 January 2010 (UTC)


 * No. Hipocrite (talk) 18:10, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Please
cool it with the threats and intimidation. You are being very unpleasant for no good reason. I am not trying to provoke. There's an open, ongoing discussion about using Climategate in the lead. The argument has been made that no reliable sources use the term. I researched that claim and found it to be untrue. What is your objection to my sharing these results? JPatterson (talk) 20:12, 22 January 2010 (UTC)


 * That argument has never been made. Hipocrite (talk) 20:13, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * "Except that most reliable sources don't call it that. So we shouldn't either." Guettarda (talk) 21:55, 13 January 2010 (UTC) in the section "Lead Sentence". The argument has also been made many times in the past. JPatterson (talk) 20:29, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Are you unable to see the difference between "most" and the inverse of "no?" Are you unaware of the discussion regarding "'s in the use of the name? This is stuff we went over before your were banned from the page - that we have to go over it yet again is why you need to be shown the door, yet again. Hipocrite (talk) 20:31, 22 January 2010 (UTC)


 * An interesting comment given the view that Climategate (in quotes if you like) belongs in lead is shared by the majority of editors. JPatterson (talk) 20:38, 22 January 2010 (UTC)


 * No, it's not. It's held by the majority of people who were bothered to !vote on it in the most recent !poll. There is broad agreement that the current state is a good compromise. You'll need to learn to compromise, at some point, or you're just going to do this (IE, cause tension by being entirely intractable) Hipocrite (talk) 20:41, 22 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm not trying to dredge up old stuff here HC. I don't see the broad agreement you speak of. I see a large number of editors who think the current lead is not NPOV. I see a large number questioning the focus and tone of the article. I see an open discussion on the lead sentence. I tried to contribute constructively to that discussion. Why does everything between us have to end up with drawn swords? We're both just trying to improve the article, and there's no publication deadline. I suggest we chill out a bit. JPatterson (talk) 20:54, 22 January 2010 (UTC)


 * If you were actually trying to improve the article you'd focus on improvements that had a remote chance of gaining acceptance with users who are not rabid climate deniers. Could you do that for, say, a month before trying yet again to push your pov into the article? Hipocrite (talk) 20:58, 22 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Really HC, these imputations of bad faith against me and other editors has got to stop. My POV is that the article should be accurate and reflect reality as it exists. I'd appreciate it if you would endeavor to relate to me on that assumption, reason with me calmly and stop the invective and ad hominem attacks. This stuff just isn't that serious. JPatterson (talk) 02:37, 23 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Then stop trying to do the same thing to the article every single time you have access to discuss it. You are constantly tryign to rewrite the lead, your rewrite is constantly biased, and don't pretend you are not sceptical of AGW. I've got sources. Hipocrite (talk) 03:00, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

To my recollection, I have made exactly one edit to the lead, in a good faith attempt to find middle ground between you and another editor. I have criticized it, as have many others and tried to improve it by suggesting alternatives. That is how I think it works around here. (BTW, I have also worked on many other aspects of the article and many other articles.) I am frankly baffled as to why I seem to get under your skin so much but I'd suggest we disengage for a while. JPatterson (talk) 03:59, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Brian Maillard (actor)
He's had several recurring roles, so he easily passes WP:N. He's been in some anime and children's TV. It will be difficult to wade through this huge mess at Google, but that's what we do. Bearian (talk) 03:19, 24 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Did you see my direct question to you above? I strongly request you answer it. Hipocrite (talk) 10:21, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

John O'Hara
Could you please see my remarks at Talk:John O'Hara (Brooklyn politician) and respond, especially on the second issue? Thanks. - Jmabel | Talk 01:39, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Pachauri article?
Whats RBI? amd why did you delete that conversation? --mark nutley (talk) 18:13, 25 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Robert Lansing is banned. Hipocrite (talk) 18:14, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Removal of talk page content
Why did you remove this? ATren (talk) 18:02, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Robert Lansing is banned. Talk page posts by banned users should be removed. I removed responses to the talk page posts because they would not make sense out of context, per WP:RBI. Hipocrite (talk) 18:04, 25 January 2010 (UTC)


 * When was Lansing banned? He only has a handful of edits and there is nothing indicating a ban. ATren (talk) 18:11, 25 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Can I ask if you've done your research before wandering over to my talk page? One shot, yes or no. Hipocrite (talk) 18:14, 25 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, I looked at his talk page (red link, his user page (red link), and his block log (empty). I didn't find anything, and I'm asking for clarification. ATren (talk) 18:16, 25 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Do you watchlist pages you edit? Hipocrite (talk) 18:16, 25 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, and I haven't seen anything. Can you please just link to it? ATren (talk) 18:18, 25 January 2010 (UTC)


 * If I link to it this time, will you not request that I prove I'm not lying next time I say someone is banned? Hipocrite (talk) 18:18, 25 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Hipocrite, I never said you were lying. Your comment said "RBI", and gave no indication of a user ban. I asked for a link. Why is this so difficult? You obviously know why you did it, why do you refuse to link it? ATren (talk) 18:22, 25 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Because this is the second time this week you've asked me to verify information that, as a reasonably experienced user, you should have checked before casting doubt on my accuracy ("Have you browsed the article for "swifthack?""). Hipocrite (talk) 18:25, 25 January 2010 (UTC)


 * You could have simply said scibaby and I would have understood. Why must you make this a game of cat-and-mouse? Really. ATren (talk) 18:32, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Scibaby  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marknutley (talk • contribs) 18:27, 25 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, OK then. Hipocrite, wouldn't it have been easier for you to simply say "scibaby"? ATren (talk) 18:30, 25 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Perhaps. Of course, it would be even EASIER to just ban a whole bunch from all of the climate change articles and let only me and a few other users who are not obvious SPA's edit it, but we haven't done that either now, have we? Hipocrite (talk) 18:33, 25 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Hipocrite, this attitude (and the one exhibited in the section below) is unacceptable. I just asked you for a link. Consider this your warning. ATren (talk) 20:00, 25 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Warning of what? That I need to provide you links when you ask for them? Ok! Consider this my warning - you aren't welcome on my talk page! Hipocrite (talk) 20:04, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Your Trenbreth edit
Before making controversial edits like this, please discuss your intention on the talk page. The material you deleted is easily sourced (see TP discussion). Please self-revert. Thanks JPatterson (talk) 18:54, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * No. Hipocrite (talk) 18:55, 25 January 2010 (UTC)


 * If I were you, I'd self-revert either the above or the CoM revert you just did. Seems to be a pretty clear violation of 1RR. JPatterson (talk) 19:33, 25 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't think my removal of unsourced text which was possibility defamatory of a living person and false after a fulsome discussion with no dissenters on the talk page from the section you are discussing was a revert, but if you want to report my possible violation, please do so. I must forwarn you, however, that I believe that scrutiny will fall more heavily on your shoulders than mine. Hipocrite (talk) 19:37, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

CRU Hack Books
The two books are obviously not reliable sources - but it occurred to me that they may be a notable reaction to the incident. I was going to bring that up in the ip editor's talk section but you had already archived it. This isn't a big deal - but maybe there is a case for mentioning them in the article? Ignignot (talk) 16:16, 25 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Find a reliable source that mentions the books. Hipocrite (talk) 16:18, 25 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I added a request to the Reliable_sources/Noticeboard because I am not sure what constitutes a reliable source in this case. Like I said not a big deal, but I really just don't know.  Ignignot (talk) 16:36, 25 January 2010 (UTC)


 * The existance of the books cannot be verified. Please review WP:V. Hipocrite (talk) 17:17, 25 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you, but I am very familiar with that policy. You... don't think that these   exist?  ibookdb is one of the sites suggested by Special:BookSources. Ignignot (talk) 18:18, 25 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure you are so clear on WP:V. What about the books do you intend to include in any article, and where is that information WP:Verified? Try not to used self published sources without any relevent experience (which the books are) as facts for articles about, for instance, climate change. Then tell me how you can include any verifiable information about the books anywhere in the encyclopedia. Hipocrite (talk) 18:22, 25 January 2010 (UTC)


 * In the article Climatic Research Unit internal e-mails they are a notable in the reaction section, so something along the lines of "Several books have already been published on the subject (blah blah blah)." Maybe you think this is an attempt to sneak past the reliable source policy, but the books do obviously exist as the isbn lookup proves, their summaries are about "climategate" which the article mentions as a major alias to the reaction to the hack, so I don't see what isn't verifiable.  I'm not suggesting that they should be used as a source, as I said in the first comment in this section.  I feel like we're talking past each other here.  Ignignot (talk) 18:37, 25 January 2010 (UTC)


 * That is not verifiable. What source is there, except for self published sources by not experts in articles not about themselves? Hipocrite (talk) 18:38, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

(undent) What? I have no idea what you just said. Ignignot (talk) 18:40, 25 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Nothing about the books except their existance is verifiable. They exist and have titles, publishers, whatever. They are not notable untill a reliable source mentions them. That's all we know. This is like wikipedia 101. It's the same as if I made a blog. Hipocrite (talk) 18:41, 25 January 2010 (UTC)


 * So then the question is - is the fact that two books were published about the article topic notable to the article if they have not been mentioned in a newspaper? It seems like a high hurdle for information that a reader would want to know. One of the main uses for wikipedia is to find more in depth information regarding a topic. I have not read the books, and I suspect that they have some seriously fringe ideas in them, but I am not sure that excludes them. Ignignot (talk) 20:26, 25 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is not a place to publish novel ideas. If it's notable, someone else will have said it first. This, again, is WP:OR 101. Hipocrite (talk) 20:28, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Requesting your opinion
Hi. I've started a discussion here. (Actually, it's a restart of a prior discussion that went cold; you can just scroll directly down to my most recent post in that section if you want.) Can you offer your thoughts? I think it's very important. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 00:50, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Directed
By a kind of advertising banner at the top of the site that something along the lines of "There are major changes being proposed to living biographies, click here to join the discussion." So I clicked "here" and got to the page where I made the comment. Jasonfward (talk) 17:22, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Rajendra K. Pachauri
I left an inquiry for you at Conflict of interest/Noticeboard. --208.59.93.238 (talk) 22:41, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Do as I say not as I do
I find it difficult to know when your comments are serious because of your screen name. Have other editors had a problem with this? Are you sometimes being intentionally hypocritical and/or ironic or is it my imagination? ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:33, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

No, no, yes, sometimes. Hipocrite (talk) 17:35, 27 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I think we need a user:Hippocrat. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:40, 28 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Wait... what if he is just being sarcastic about the no's and yes's? I can't think anymore! Ignignot (talk) 18:17, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Re: TBSDY
I'm really hoping that he considers what I've said and takes it to heart. Sometimes I've recieved advice, rejected it, and then after a nights sleep realized that it was good advice. That being said I do think I've done what I can to resolve this particular dispute. I haven't researched what led up to this disagreement, but if this talk page behaviour does continue I would have to certify. I really hope that's not needed though.--Cube lurker (talk) 21:45, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

That was unwise
Touch my talk page to edit anything but your own comments and I'm filing an incident against you. You were warned about editing user space pages of other editors, and while I was OK with removal of the recall category as I'd forgotten it, I'm not cool with you removing images. I also believe that you said you were going to leave me alone? I suggest that you carry that out, forthwith. Up to you, if you decide not to then not much I can do except I'll probably just start removing your messages from my talk page. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 01:07, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

My talk page
What do you have against primates and canvas? - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 10:06, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Come now Hipocrite, what have you got against bears? - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 11:48, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Other than the fact that they are godless killing machines, of course... MastCell Talk 19:01, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * What do you have against seals? - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 02:18, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

WP:BLP
You said You are not to speculate on the motives of identifiable living people on wikipedia. then might i suggest you stop this as you are obviously speculating on the motives of an identifiable person on wikipedia. --mark nutley (talk) 15:01, 29 January 2010 (UTC)


 * If you throw more shit on the wall, some might stick! Get out of here, you are unwelcome on my talk page. Hipocrite (talk) 15:03, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Request for deletion
Hiprocrite, I am referring to the article about an alledged hacking incident. I have requested that this article be deleted because:


 * 1) There is no evidence such an event took place
 * 2) Even is such an event took place, the content of that article would be highly prejudicial to the individual who hacked the data.

Please could you help me raise the appropriate request for deletion in line with wikipedia policy! Isonomia (talk) 15:39, 29 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Your problem with the article appears to be the title, and not the content. Please read the header of WP:RM. It details the procedure. I will not help you file an AFD for the article, because it will not be deleted. Hipocrite (talk) 15:40, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

arbcom enforcement
did you put this edit in the wrong section? it ended up in a request about Verbal. -- Ludwigs 2 22:34, 29 January 2010 (UTC)


 * No, it's in the right section. Hipocrite (talk) 22:35, 29 January 2010 (UTC)


 * it's about blp stuff - sorry, I guess I just don't get the reference. but if that's where you meant to put it, ok.  -- Ludwigs 2  22:54, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Flagged Revisions
I see you signed the FR petition. Could you explain what that's all about? Would it mean that an admin would have to approve an edit before it could become part of the default revision? Thanks. JPatterson (talk) 14:23, 30 January 2010 (UTC)


 * It means for articles that have flagged protection turned on (which would be mainly high-value targets, like biographies of people), a trusted editor would need to verify any edits were not vandalism before those edits appeared to the general public. Hipocrite (talk) 15:11, 30 January 2010 (UTC)