User talk:Hipocrite/04/2010

Depopulating a category while being considered for deletion.
Hi Hipocrite, Please note that policy states: Please do not empty the category or remove this notice while the discussion is in progress.. Your actions here:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)
 * 5)

Did precisely that. Please revert on your next edit. Thanks! Unomi (talk) 09:42, 1 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I assumed that the category in question was actually used for companies beyond ones that an unreliable source is boycotting - IE, I assumed your poor categorization was a failure to use reliable sources, rather than a bad faith PoV push on your part. When I found out I was wrong, and that you were, yet again, pushing your fringe PoV into mainspace through dishonest editing and you had created the category from scratch, I stopped. I will not revert myself, as I was not emptying a category, I was taking perfectly normal editorial actions to revert your poorly-sourced additions of companies to a category. Hipocrite (talk) 11:21, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Coatrack Articles
Hello, given your recent edits at the Jacobson article, I thought you might be interested in assisting on another WP:COATRACK article, this one designed to denigrate researchers who question global warming orthodoxy. The article in question is Vincent_R._Gray. See the talk page for a long-standing controversy on how this physical chemist should be labelled. Thanks. FellGleaming (talk) 16:22, 1 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I'd love to help, but I can't, because I'm not editing articles that are already part of the ongoing climate change wars in an attempt to make myself enjoy editing Wikipedia. Hipocrite (talk) 16:28, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi Hipocrite
We are aware of the situation with regards to A Nobody. We are discussing the proper way to handle this, and will have an interim action shortly. Rather then to have everyone show up and go through the whole issue again on RfArb, I have removed the section. Thanks for the report, however. SirFozzie (talk) 05:10, 4 April 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.174.251.49 (talk)

WorldNetDaily RS/N
I have recently referenced your comments offered in the RS/N discussion(s) on WorldNetDaily WP:RS considerations within a related issue being discussed in the RS/N "talk" page. This message is to notify you of that reference and to both solicit and encourage any contribution you might have in this matter. Thanks. JakeInJoisey (talk) 18:09, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

AN/I Notification - Edit Warring / Possible Vandalism
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. --JakeInJoisey (talk) 04:29, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Scibaby
Scibaby is very banned. If you are going to reinstate his edits, you need to be absolutly certain that doing so is inarguably improving the encyclopedia, and not proxying for a banned user. "What's the problem?" is not a good enough justification for reverting Scibaby edits back into articles. Hipocrite (talk) 17:31, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The source of the text is irrelevant; I have no idea who this particular user is. In the context of this particular article, letting the reader know that Monbiot is not a disinterested neutral bystander seems quite important to the point at hand.  If you disagree, I'm open to any argument you may have.  Thanks. FellGleaming (talk) 17:37, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

{ In re-reading our lengthy thread with the new viewpoint that you felt I was defending reverts done by an editor after he was banned, I think I can see where we went awry. In light of that, I am offering up this branch FellGleaming (talk) 23:23, 5 April 2010 (UTC) has extended an olive branch of peace.

Watts Up With That
Sorry for posting, i realize you have asked me not to. I could only undo your edit, not the one before as i do not have rollback. Plus i am only allowed 1r a day per article so was unable to remove the scibaby edit. Please consider self reverting and bringing the article back to were it was before the scibaby revert, thanks mark nutley (talk) 17:51, 5 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Which historical version of the article would you like me to revert the article to? Provide a link to a historical version, and I will consider it. Allow me to be clear - your lack of rollback does not technically prevent you from reverting multiple contributions at once. If you click on a historical version of the article, then click "Edit this page," you can easily revert to any earlier version of an article. Hipocrite (talk) 17:53, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Bugger, i had not thought of that :-), i think bring it back to were you had reverted scibaby, that seems the sensible course of action to me, what say you? mark nutley (talk) 17:55, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I am equally happy with that version and the current version. I am loathe, however, to remove the characterization of Monbiot as an environmental activst, while it is obvious Scibaby deterius, it is being defended by both FellGleaming and Arzel. As such, I decline to revert to that version pending talk page consensus. Further, I will not join in any consensus that includes the charcterization of Monbiot as something without making it clear that Dellingpole is the opposite thing, unless that charcterization is writer, author, journalist or otherwise. Hipocrite (talk) 17:59, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, we`ll trash it out on the article talk page, thanks mark nutley (talk) 18:04, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Erm, i think you have broken 3r with that last edit mate, lets just trash it out in talk please, this is a silly thing to be edit warring over mark nutley (talk) 19:00, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Reverts of banned users do not count to 3rr. Further, Many of my edits were not, in fact, reverts. Please report me if you believe I am wrong, but I strongly suggest that if you do report me, you'll find your compatriots on the wrong side of the gun, yet again. Hipocrite (talk) 19:01, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I was not going to report you, i just want to calm things down :-) mark nutley (talk) 19:05, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Stop Spamming
I am advising you to stop posting on my discussion page. I have no interest in talking to you. If you want to speak to an admin about me, that is your business. If it happens again, I go to the admins. Bye WritersCramp (talk) 18:31, 5 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I'll take your advice in the spirit it was given. Thanks! Hipocrite (talk) 18:32, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Re: Making a policy rfc
I've responded to your resolution to close the WP:Research RFC as invalid. Please see my response there. -- EpochFail (talk 18:59, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Speedy Third Opinion
You said in an edit summary at WP:3O, "Taken by TransporterMan, who will provide a 3o shortly. If he does not do so in 3 hours, reinclude." I just barely made it ! Best regards and thanks,  T RANSPORTER M AN  ( TALK ) 15:10, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

History section of R&I
I am not sure if MathSci was done with his draft. Wouldn't it be polite to wait for him? He has been very good about incorporating suggestions and that process was on-going. David.Kane (talk) 03:32, 12 April 2010 (UTC)


 * You wrote your draft on the article. Why shouldn't the better history section be written as a draft on the article? Hipocrite (talk) 03:32, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2010-03-08/The Professors: The 101 Most Dangerous Academics in America
Hi Hipocrite, I noticed that you expressed interest in taking this mediation case, which is fantastic. You don't need permission from anyone to take a case, except the agreement of the editors requesting and/or involved in the dispute at the heart of the mediation. All you have to do to formally take on the case is to edit the "medcabstatus" template at the top of the page, change the status from "New" to "Open" (which move the case from "Cases needing mediators" to "Open cases") and then include your name where it says "Mediator(s)" (I like to use which puts my signature without a timestamp). Just letting you know, thanks! --  At am a  頭 22:07, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

NAC
Thank you for working through my botched NAC. I hope it wasn't too much trouble :) I'll work to make sure any closures I do in the future are more unanimous. Happy editing!  Jujutacular  T · C 17:24, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

PORNBIO vs ANYBIO change
I understand what you're trying to do, but I think the changes to ANYBIO are quite different from the ones you're proposing to PORNBIO. As such, I've reverted for now the change you've made to ANYBIO as lacking consensus. Let's nail down any modifications to PORNBIO first, then tackle your change to ANYBIO. Tabercil (talk) 23:34, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

question
I received your comment at my Talk page. How did you happen to find your way to Old Natchez Trace (disambiguation), by the way? --doncram (talk) 16:18, 15 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Orlady's talk page is on my watchlist for some reason. Hipocrite (talk) 16:31, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

question
I received your comment at my Talk page. How did you happen to find your way to Old Natchez Trace (disambiguation), by the way? --doncram (talk) 16:18, 15 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Orlady's talk page is on my watchlist for some reason. Hipocrite (talk) 16:31, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Comment
This comes across as more aggressive than necessary. Can you back off a bit? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 13:35, 16 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Fine. I assume you know who that is, correct? Hipocrite (talk) 13:36, 16 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Rather than clog up the CC probation page further - and really, this is the very last time I intend to respond on the matter - I must tell you that you are wrong. Since you cannot reveal my identity from a former account, as I have none, I do not see how I can issue a waiver for a situation that doesn't exist. You are welcome to compile a list of users you think I am if you like, but you still won't be able to identify me from any of them, because I haven't had another identity. In the spirit of my message at the CC probation talkpage I am not going to get irate about all this, but please stop these alegations or take them to the proper venue. Weakopedia (talk) 13:43, 16 April 2010 (UTC)


 * If I reveal your old account name will you waive any claim I am outing you? Hipocrite (talk) 13:44, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

The subject of that conversation...
... is WMC, not you. (re: ) ATren (talk) 19:09, 16 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Dosen't seem that way to me. Hipocrite (talk) 19:40, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Explanation
I don't understand this action. Several quite specific policy issues were raised and you seem to have quashed discussion. Can you explain. Thank you. nobs (talk) 13:37, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Not worth it
I have mentioned to ATren that the talk thread is making us all look silly. Best leave it. Polargeo (talk) 13:46, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

National Anarchism
Hi there thanks for taking this on - I've been at work so only just seen the developments. I've posted to the mediation page. cheers. PsychoActiveKineticInternational TransVersal (talk) 19:11, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks from me as well. – xeno talk 16:22, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

BRD as applied to MoMK
Hi Hipocrite. You recommended that during the mediation of Murder of Meredith Kercher, we restrict our editing to the BRD process. It is not something I have used before (and I doubt if some of the other editors have either). Zlykinskyja has recently added material to the article which I felt was too contentious to leave unchallenged while the mediation takes place (though I did think very seriously of about just leaving it!) So, today, I made a Bold edit and got the expected Reversion from Zlykinskyja. We have then entered a kind of discussion but I don't think, at the current rate, that we are really converging on any sort of consensus and probably we are both approaching the discussion in the wrong way. Any suggestions would be most helpful and might also help set the scene for the mediation. Thanks! Bluewave (talk) 17:20, 20 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I will review and comment shortly. Hipocrite (talk) 17:24, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for picking this up—your approach is very constructive. And there is no deadline for this, so we can proceed at whatever pace fits in with Zlykinskyja's (and everyone else's) commitments. Bluewave (talk) 20:15, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject Economics census
Hello there. Sorry to bother you, but you are (titularly at least) a member of WP:WikiProject Economics, as defined by this category. If you don't know me, I'm a Wikipedia administrator, but an unqualified economist. I enjoy writing about economics, but I'm not very good at it, which is why I would like to support in any way I can the strong body of economists here on Wikipedia. I'm only bothering you because you are probably one of them. Together, I'd like us to establish the future direction of WikiProject Economics, but first, we need to know who we've got to help.

Whatever your area of expertise or level of qualification, if you're interested in helping with the WikiProject (even if only as part of a larger commitment to this wonderful online encyclopedia of ours), would you mind adding your signature to this page? It only takes a second. Thank you.

Message delivered on behalf of User:Jarry1250 by LivingBot.
 * Firstly, thank you for signing the census, and an apology if you are one of those editors who dislike posts such as this one for messaging you again in this way. I've now got myself organised and you can opt-out of any future communication at WP:WikiProject Economics/Newsletter. Just remove your name and you won't be bothered again.


 * Secondly, and most importantly, I would like to invite your comments on the census talk page about the project as a whole. I've given my own personal opinion on a range of topics, but my babbling is essentially worthless without your thoughts - I can't believe for one moment that everyone agrees with me in the slightest! :)


 * All your comments are welcomed. Thanks, - Jarry1250 [Humorous? Discuss.] 17:52, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

and that I call people "yahoo's," "septics," and "idiots."
No, that is me. I think you've misread the attribution William M. Connolley (talk) 07:45, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Courtesy note re MoMK
Hi, just a quick note that I full-protected the article for 24 hours as an IP vandalism had initiated what I saw as a quick downwards spiral that would only complicate your mediation. I'm taking no stand on the underlying issues, but the alternative would be to block one of the parties, which I do not see as constructive. Wishing you wisdom in your mediation. MLauba (Talk) 01:20, 22 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you for not blocking the party, as I agree that would not have been constructive. I would note, however, that for appearances sake, it would probably be helpful next time if you, in addition to protecting the article, also hit the IP BLP vandal with a substantial block - while I realize that most IP vandals can hop, the argument that "In addition to locking the article for a day, I also banned the IP address from editing for a year would have been perhaps one avenue to assuage bruised feelings, which I'll work on fixing. Given the fact that it was a blatent BLP vio, I think you would have come out unscathed, but now it would be merely punative. I don't fault your action at all, however, and I appreciate the heads up. Hipocrite (talk) 13:26, 22 April 2010 (UTC)


 * You're right, I dropped the ball on the IP, in reality I had a quick look at the article "just before going to bed", saw the "newsticker" and the 3RR war and thought of preserving the mediation first. The next half hour was spent with writing the notes about my actions and then I went to bed, completely leaving the IP out.


 * Re: permanent semi, the full protection duration is arbitrary, I can convert to semi at any time, as long as you're confident the parties don't lapse back. I'll check back in about 30 minutes, and convert unless you prefer to keep full for another couple of hours. Cheers, MLauba (Talk) 14:52, 22 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Update, since I saw you editing after the above, I moved to semi. If this is premature, I have absolutely no objections over it being reverted without consulting me (I'll be AFK immediately after this). I expect I butted in more than enough for the time being and will return to lurking. MLauba (Talk) 16:19, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Seth Roberts
is a Professor of Psychology at Tsinghua University, just because he wrote a book on good diet does not make him a dietician. And a notable person reviewing a book about the story behind the HS is fine, he is not commenting on science is he, he is commenting on the book, please self revert mark nutley (talk) 19:52, 22 April 2010 (UTC)


 * No. Hipocrite (talk) 19:57, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Violation of WP:SYN
This edit is a violation of WP:SYN because the USGS statement is not specifically in rebuttal of or in response to Plimer's statements on the topic. Thus, I've readded the Monbiot and Randerson text, as those two columnists are the ones who linked the two together in their editorials. Please be careful with synthesis, especially in BLPs. Cla68 (talk) 05:10, 25 April 2010 (UTC)


 * You have no idea what synthesis is. To be a violation of WP:SYN, there needs to be a source, another source, a combination of material and a conclusion not in either of the sources. What's ironic, of course, is that you have yet to adress Talk:Edward_Wegman. Have you lost all semblance of objectivity? Perhaps you should go edit an article about military history again. Hipocrite (talk) 10:56, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I just rewrote the section in the Wegman bio. You also violated SYN there.  The Guardian article didn't even mention Wegman!  Whether anyone has "validated" Mann's research since the Wegman hearings is immaterial to the Wegman article.  Once Wegman made his report, his role was over.  Anything else about the graph needs to go in the Hockey stick controversy article. Cla68 (talk) 11:12, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
 * You are directed to answer my above questions or not to return to my talk page. Hipocrite (talk) 11:13, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Why did you remove the America's Intelligence Wire source from the Wegman bio? It was the only secondary media source listed in that section. Cla68 (talk) 11:15, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I didn't remove any source. I don't trust that you have accurately described the source, so I asked for independent verification. You have previously fabricated quotes, remember? Hipocrite (talk) 11:15, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Your removals of most of the text from the Ian Plimer article and much of the Edward Wegman article, including several of the sources including the hearings transcript (from Wegman), appears to be disruptive. I assume you're upset about the content of those articles, but I don't believe that it justifies the drastic alterations.  The Plimer article content, in particular, was arrived at after extensive discussion on the talk page.  I'm going to sign-off for awhile.  I hope that when I come back in a few hours that you've self-reverted. Cla68 (talk) 12:28, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

(undent) When you assume, you make an ass. Hipocrite (talk) 12:44, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

No personal comments
Hello, I'm ClueBot III. I noticed that you made a comment that didn't seem very civil, so it has been removed. Wikipedia is built on collaboration, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. 2010-04-25T11:33:14 Hipocrite (→NPOV tag: Wifebeater!) and 2010-04-25T12:44:11 Hipocrite (→Violation of WP:SYN:  When you assume). Nsaa (talk) 16:21, 25 April 2010 (UTC)


 * H, don't respond to this please. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 16:37, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Requests_for_enforcement
See General_sanctions/Climate_change_probation/Requests_for_enforcement. Nsaa (talk) 19:45, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Suggestion
H, could you phrase this a little more tactfully? Perhaps say that these are common English idioms and that Nsaa may not have known that, given his native language is Norwegian. Remember that your behavior will be under a microscope: this is not the time to be blunt and forthright, but instead to exercise relentless courtesy. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 20:34, 25 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Editors who speak broken English should not be editing controversial articles. I don't go to the Norwegian wikipedia and start using google translate to attack editors there. However, I've rephrased. Hipocrite (talk) 20:36, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Richard Tylman (4th nomination)
Hi, Hipocrite. Because you participated in Articles for deletion/Richard Tylman (2nd nomination), you may be interested in Articles for deletion/Richard Tylman (4th nomination). Cunard (talk) 02:45, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Handled
Thanks for the info. Wikipdia has long needed a better way to deal with these problems. I despair that it will never work it out. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 20:28, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Your role in MoMK
Hi Hipocrite. Thank you for all your efforts, and I am very sorry for how things have ended up. I cannot see how your comment about lawyers can be taken is showing bias (unless this was an article on the subject of "The integrity of lawyers"). Looking back over some of the discussion, I also apologise if I actually made things worse by citing you as the source for being cautious about the views of lawyers (but you did make me think about that!) I fear that the postponement of the mediation will be yet another excuse for a lot of POV editing of the article and that things may get a lot worse before they get better. Anyway, thank you again for making a very good start on the job. Bluewave (talk) 13:25, 28 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't see that my role has changed all that dramatically. I'll still try to help out on the talk page as a disintrested party attempting to improve the article. I am also worried that you'll suffer through a lot of PoV pushing from both sides - I suggest that right now, the article is defined by a battle between people who are VERY ANGRY about something and people who are VERY ANGRY about something else, with very few people who are not very angry. I was hopeful that I could cool tempers, but I fear that Z misread my comment - which fully supported her proposed edit to the case. I suggest that the real problem is that everyone sees EVIL around the corner and is fully bunkered up. Perhaps that will change over time. Hipocrite (talk) 13:27, 28 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Yep. All true. And guilty as charged, I'm afraid. I don't think I'm "pro defence" or "pro guilt" or any such, but I will own up to sometimes being angry. And curiously, out all the hundreds of articles I've edited, this is the only one that ever makes me angry (and sometimes makes me despair too). And in real life, I'm not at all an angry person. So what must this be like for people who are easily angered? Mind you, in the last three months, I have been accused of being a hypocrite (so your involvement was ironic!), anti-American, a sockpuppet of one of the other editors, unfit to edit the article, conspiring with other editors and probably some other things I can't remember, so that's why I'm a bit touchy. Anyway, I'm glad to hear you're not going to walk away and leave us lunatics in charge of the asylum. It must be tempting. Cheers. Bluewave (talk) 13:49, 28 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Ironically, I get very angry about terribad science articles on the encyclopedia - so I know the feeling, and then later, the incredulity that something as meaningless as an online encyclopedia article could make people angry. I can't even figure out why that is - my take is that I care a lot about educating people who read articles to get informed about something and that it's important that they take-away the true facts. I'm certain people who disagree with me are getting angry about the self-same thing, except they're wrong about the true facts. I know it's hard to see that people generally want to improve an encyclopedia (some people don't, but we have to hope they don't show up). I wish I had better anger management skills. Hipocrite (talk) 13:53, 28 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Well I don't think I've been too angry (but please let me know if I've come across that way), and am sorry to see this happen, even if I'm not that surprised (this being a comment on the situation at the article, not your skills as a mediator!)
 * I only happened to come across the article as a consequence of a deletion discussion about the pictures, and hoped that some previously uninvolved eyes would be useful. In terms of your comment about the lawyer's comment I was very surprised to see Zlykinskyja take it that way, as if anything it seemed to be supporting what they were saying. I happen to agree with you that all comments by lawyers (both prosecution and defence) should be taken with a large pinch of salt. My comments regarding the "fair" quote was more that someone could think a trial was fair yet still disagree with the outcome. Quantpole (talk) 14:19, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

(undent) I don't think "angry" is really something that can be corrected. People get angry. The skill that I, and many others don't have, with respect to anger on wikipedia (and in real life, to some extent) is to realize when it's impacting decision making and take a break. I'm not really all about evaluating who was doing the angrytyping, so I'm not going to bless or curse your behavior, except to say that being better at realizing when the "fight or flight" response is kicking in and to make the correct choice (in the case of wikipedia? ALWAYS FLEE!) that everyone could do better. Hipocrite (talk) 14:28, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

ANI
Just In case you're not aware of: You're mentioned here.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 01:08, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Talkback
Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:10, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Can this be used?
it is owned and run by this guy Andrew Breitbart mark nutley (talk) 19:09, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Can and should are very different things. I'm merely going to say that that "article" would not be acceptable for use in our best articles. I'm not even going to evaluate it as a reliable source - I'd suspect that whatever crazy blog it came from lacks a reputation for accuracy and fact checking. Feel free to search WP:RSN for previous comments about it. Hipocrite (talk) 19:12, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Talk:CP
While I understand your concerns, the fact of the matter is that the aforementioned editor's real name is provided in the LA Times article (used as a reference in the Wikipedia article) he seeks to discredit, and I fear that the real purpose of the fuss they're making is not to improve the CP article on Wikipedia, but to remove all mention of his real name in an attempt to dissociate his real name and his online moniker (which has a less than glowing reputation). You were probably right to remove my post, and I'll trust your judgement, but I wanted to get my opinion out there. EddyJP (talk) 22:04, 29 April 2010 (UTC)


 * The actual truth is the Time's article mentions a editors name, but does not state that person is the CP Admin. As can be seen in the RW archives, there was much debate there about using conjecture to make the connection which eventually caused them to change their rules on the matter only because they wanted to be able to connect a real-life name to someone they hate, is all. Bringing that business here to Wikipedia is why the audit committee is investigating, I presume. EddyJP, to toss out more personal insults isn't going to help you gaming the rules here. --TK-CP (talk) 02:17, 30 April 2010 (UTC)