User talk:Hipocrite/06/2009

Unbecoming?
? For the fact he was paid (which isn't against policy) or that he released it? I just would like to get where you're coming from. Like, if someone paid you or I $100 to draft up an entry level article that was 100% compliant with WP:RS, WP:NPOV, WP:N, and then dropped it in, releasing it under GFDL... whats the harm? The paid author or payee has no control over the page at that point. It's ours, and we get +1 compliant article. If the page isn't compliant with our stuff, and gets ripped to shreds or deleted via CSD or AFD... no skin off our back, but maybe off the paid author's, which isn't our problem or concern, especially legally. rootology /equality 15:55, 2 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I find the paid editing to be a contradiction to our goal of creating an encyclopedia that people will use (as opposed to an encyclopedia people will spam,) but the reason that his editing is unbecoming an encyclopedia is that his target articles are all NN-BIO. If we know he's being paid (we do) and we know he's writing crap (we do), he's not a net benefit. It's not like he's trolling by writing articles about obviously notable things that he was not paid to do (like some other paid editors may have done,) but rather, writing bad spam for people who want to make money fast. No thanks. Hipocrite (talk) 15:59, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, looking at his pages...


 * Collaborative divorce, borderline I guess, but I know nothing about the subject matter. It looks like worst case is we get a robust section on it if merged to the other page.
 * Braun Mincher seems to be notable. I was surprised he even included a criticism/controversy section on this one.
 * The Kegel one petrosiannii actually redirected himself, which was surprising.
 * Jack Gulick appears notable.
 * Still I Rise: A Graphic History of African Americans appears notable.
 * New Yorker Hotel is a landmark, and his adds there seem fine, that's the kind of information that gradually fills up any detailed article.
 * Articles for deletion/Edward Longley was filed by me.

So far, he's 6 out of 7 here.

I keep wondering if everyone is looking at this guy like Kohs, who on some pages like Arch Coal got (admitted to by Jimbo later) screwed over, and we even pissed all over the GFDL by at least one admin there nearly just to spite the guy. Kohs hasn't helped by basically needling everyone in sight whenever he could, but now its made what feels like a stigma come up about this. I honestly could care less why someone adds free content, since they have zero recourse over it once it's released, more than anyone else does.

To be honest, if one of our Content Writers were offered $1000 to write up a decent article on a notable business (say, a restaurant) that was WP:RS, WP:NPOV, WP:BLP, WP:OR, WP:N, and etc. compliant, dropped it, and then didn't touch it again, just because the restaurant wanted the placement and "Googlejuice", I think the Content Writer would be stupid to pass it up because/if:


 * 1) Wikipedia scores a new quality article
 * 2) Readers get the benefit of a new quality article
 * 3) Who doesn't need +$1000
 * 4) Like any other article, The Hypothetical In Question is subject to all the rules afterward

I just keep looking for something bad in this current situation (I saw the sockpuppetry thing) but that aside, content-wise, I'm not seeing it yet. What am I missing? rootology /equality 16:13, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I saw your cleanup on the Gulick & Mincher pages--stuff like that, for someone new, that's to be expected. I just wanted to clear that up. rootology /equality 16:19, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Collaborative divorce - his edits were nothing more than linkspam
 * Braun Mincher is only notable because AFD is infested with keepfanatics. He lacks any real notability
 * The Kegel redirect was nothing more than him avoiding the "THIS ARTICLE IS SHITTY MC SHITTERSON" tags at the top.
 * Jack Gulick is totally NN. Again, the broken "KEEP ALL PEOPLE MENTIONED ANYWHERE" of AFD makes it unnassailable, but not good.
 * Still I Rise: A Graphic History of African Americans and New Yorker Hotel are fine and I wish they hadn't paid some retard to write them. Instead, they could contact me on my talk page and I'd have done it for free. Hipocrite (talk) 16:24, 2 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I'll go through them more tonight, but Gulick, really, NN?? With this filmography, all of this, and an Academy Award nomination? All that coasts clean past WP:N... rootology /equality 16:28, 2 June 2009 (UTC)


 * NN Music video producer. When it's the target of infantile vandalism I'm going to point and laugh. Loudly. There are 110 grammys awarded per year. Hipocrite (talk) 16:39, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

David Stack

 * Would you take another look at the David Stack article and possibly change your Articles for deletion/David Stack !vote? ty. --Firefly322 (talk) 00:50, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/France – Papua New Guinea relations
This AfD debate which you participated in, with 9 arguments in favor of deletion and 4 in favor of retention, was just closed by an admin as keep. I've opened a DRV on the matter here .Bali ultimate (talk) 19:59, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Cold fusion mediation
I have been asked to mediate the content dispute regarding Cold fusion. I have set up a separate page for this mediation here. You have been identified as one of the involved parties. Please read through the material I have presented there. Thank you. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 19:23, 5 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I have been informed that you have been banned from Cold fusion and its talk page. I noticed that you have not commented at the mediation page in several days. Perhaps you assumed that the ban covered the mediation page. Not true. WMC confirmed this. You are fully allowed (and encouraged) to participate. We will begin the actual mediation process in the next few days. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 02:40, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

hey
See Talk:Cold_fusion, in case you start editing the talk page without noticing. --Enric Naval (talk) 11:13, 7 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Talk page watchers should know that I was made aware of the ban by WMC in a timley fashion via email. Hipocrite (talk) 12:57, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Obligatory ANI thread
See need review of the topic ban of two editors from Cold Fusion. --Enric Naval (talk) 02:51, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Estonia–Luxembourg relations
Hello, I've recently tried to restore this page to a version which can be improved upon (a non-protected, non-disambiguation page) and I wondered if I could get your opinion about whether it is currently up to the quality which we expect of every Wikipedia article. I would appreciate your comments on the article at User:Cdogsimmons/Estonia–Luxembourg relations on the talk page there, and further improvements that would get it closer to inclusion status are always welcome. Thanks.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 23:08, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

"rv yourself"
Watch your attitude.  APK  lives in a very, very Mad World  20:28, 10 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Right back atchya. Hipocrite (talk) 20:31, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Objectivist's comment about me on Talk:Cold fusion
Objectivist accuses me of "post[ing] a personal opinion and pretended to provide a reference for it." This, of course, is not accurate. The personal opinion he accuses me of posting is "In other experiments, however, no excess heat was discovered, and, in fact, even the heat from successful experiments was unreliable and could not be replicated independently." That is sourced to, which reads, in part "There is one point on which all true believers in cold fusion agree: their results are not reproducible," and in other part "The case for experimental error is supported by the unreliability and lack of independent replication of key results." But, of course, Objectivist can't find that in the document, because it's also got a true believer true beliving. Hipocrite (talk) 14:19, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

It appears that Objectivist is actually accusing me of doing so in an edit summary. Perhaps objectivist is not aware that edit summaries are not required to be verifiable. Hipocrite (talk) 13:03, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

You are mentioned in a Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct
You are mentioned in a Requests for comment/User conduct. The Request for Comment page is here. Cirt (talk) 22:22, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Re: Opting out
I have responded to the issue regarding Jed Rothwell: he is disallowed from editing the mediation page. More details can be found in the Participation section where the discussion originated.

I have, on multiple occasions   , removed statements that I believed to be disruptive. According to the mediation page: "If you have a problem with the way another user is behaving and I have not already intervened, take it up at Talk:Cold fusion, the talk page of the user, or my talk page." Obviously the most important and effective option there is to take it to my talk page, which you haven't done until now. I request and suggest that you provide more specific information regarding the statements made by Abd that you find disruptive. Here, actually, as many people tend to chime in when such discussions occur on my talk page. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 16:05, 17 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I will rereview this situation later. Hipocrite (talk) 17:28, 17 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I am happy to see that you are back on board with the mediation. However, you states that the issues were "partially resolved". What can I do to fully resolve things for you? --Cryptic C62 · Talk 21:02, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Encyclopedia Dramatica
InQuahogNeato (talk) 08:34, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Thought you should know
User:Docu filed a report at Usernames for administrator attention about your username. Leave  Sleaves  09:17, 19 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I've removed it; I don't understand why there should be a concern; Docu can begni by discussing here William M. Connolley (talk) 11:29, 19 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree that UAA is not the apropriate venue for a contibutor with a 5 year edit history ("For ordinary violations of the username policy, do not use this page. Instead, warn the user and ask them to change their name, possibly using the uw-username template.") If Docu believes my username is problematic, this talk page remains open to him. He could, alternatively, go directly to a user-conduct RFC. I will waive the 2 certifier requirement for the purposes of discussion of my username, and will abide by any clear option that has the consensus of the plurality of a non-trivial number of signers and does not unduly burden me. Hipocrite (talk) 12:59, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Follow up on Registrarhistorian User
I posted on the admin board last week about RegistrarHistorian adding negative content about Dotster on various pages including the GoDaddy page. I saw that you removed that content, but the user has since gone and added it back, as well as added a section to the terrorism page that mentions Dotster.--Dotsterrep (talk) 17:52, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

ARS
Apparently I'm still under threat of a "topic ban" if I post to the ARS talk thread you started, so I'm afraid I'll have to bow out until the threat is lifted or a different thread I feel like contributing to is started. I've had more fun editing the Cold fusion talk page, and found it much more welcoming! I hope you don't think I was hijacking the thread you started, after all we don't own threads (and I thought I was on topic!) I've added a clarification, but that's it. All the best, Verbal   chat  19:21, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Re your userpage change just: "I EDIT FOREVER" - the ultimate punishment! Slightly ambiguous phrasing there :) Ooops I'm hijacking my own thread - you've got to laugh (that's an order). Verbal   chat  19:27, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

The conch
You do realize that the conch was a symbol of the artificiality and fragility of social order, and that its holder automatically became a target for those wishing to overthrow that order and replace it with anarchic cruelty? Of course you do. Watch out for those boulders. :) MastCell Talk 19:30, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * And you'll be amazed if you put it next to your ear and close your eyes. Verbal   chat  19:32, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Cold Fusion ban reconsidered
Re. OK, I've thought about it. The ban on you is lifted, initially for a trial period of one week. During that time I will be particularly attentive to complaints about your editing, on CF or t:CF especially but elsewhere as well. I won't, however, be monitoring your edits carefully myself: I'm sure your many enemies will be happy to do that for me. Should the week pass happily you return to something close to your pre-ban status w.r.t. CF. If I may offer you some advice, it would be to be scrupulous in avoiding conflict on CF and related articles. You are not formally limited to 1RR, but are strongly advised to observe it anyway. Best wishes, William M. Connolley (talk) 22:47, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I am out for the evening
Thought I would let you know, as I won't be responding to the anon's 10-15 posts in the article discussion tonight. I'll check in the morning. Have a good evening. :) - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  01:13, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Seriously
How about you READ the explanation on the talk page before throwing up a tag. I believe you are making edits without proper knowledge of the subject and would appreciate it if you would do research before changing an article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by LivefreeordieNH (talk • contribs) 13:26, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll respond on the article page to any comment you make that does not include personal attacks. Hipocrite (talk) 13:29, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

OTRS
As the author of the email to OTRS in question, I have no problem publishing the full text of it here. I have no idea what Hipocrite is going on about, there was nothing misleading about it, it was the immediate emergency request that I made upon learning of the situation, and it is precisely as has already been explained in the press and elsewhere. I believe Hipocrite is trying to make something out of nothing here and I find his line of questioning, and manner of questioning, extremely rude.

"Due to an extremely sensitive BLP issue involving grave personal danger, please protect the biography of David Rohde for 3 days. I would do it myself, but having this be done quietly is important, and me doing it would likely raise special notice which would be counter-productive."

Within a short time after my making the request, Rjd0060 did the protection requested, and either soon after or just before, he and I also had an IRC (I think it was IRC, but I am not sure at the moment) conversation in which I gave him more information, so that he could - on his own - determine what course of action to take.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 21:47, 30 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Speaking as a journalist, I'd like to publicly thank Hipocrite for going through the aggravation necessary to obtain that information. Running the gauntlet seen elsewhere is unpleasant. Jimmy, note as a logical matter, the event does involve, well, let us say, many statements which make it completely reasonable to be skeptical of other associated statements (I'm trying to put it as politely as possible, but it is a simple fact which shouldn't be denied). -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 00:33, 1 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't think Hipocrite actually saw the contents of the ticket before Jimmy posted it here. لenna  vecia  02:07, 1 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually, he did. Look at Hipocrite's user page (not here at the talk page). He retired and said it was because of the contents of the OTRS ticket. Jimmy then posted the OTRS afterwards, on the userpage instead of here on the talk page. I moved it from the user page to the user talk page here. - ALLST✰R ▼ echo wuz here 03:04, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * That doesn't actually prove anything, as the relevant ticket was linked in the protection log for that article. There is a lot of speculation here, so it would be best not to make presumptions until the facts are verified. Peter Symonds ( talk ) 11:40, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Allstarecho, I realize that. I know he claimed to have read the ticket; but considering his action, I don't think he did. That's what I'm saying. لenna  vecia  12:50, 1 July 2009 (UTC)