User talk:Hipocrite/07/2010

 Hello,. Your no-talkback edit notice is constantly ignored.

You will [ remove talkback notices] every time by removing the Talkback or Tb template. They will never stop.

Proven necessary by his recent swipe at me, while the case was ongoing
Could you add a diff? I missed this William M. Connolley (talk) 08:02, 4 July 2010 (UTC)


 * . Lar has apparently ruled that I have misinterpreted policy. Of course, I haven't, and any actually uninvolved admin or user with more than a year on the encyclopedia who isn't an activist editor knows this. Hipocrite (talk) 13:23, 4 July 2010 (UTC) Hipocrite (talk) 13:23, 4 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Yes, that is odd William M. Connolley (talk) 14:08, 4 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Par for the course. Don't let it get to you. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 15:23, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Your attention is drawn to the ArbCom workshop
Specifically, here. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:42, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

False edit summary?
How exactly is reverting an IP`s edit out of ZP5`s section disruptive? Or how exactly is my edit summary false? Please remove your allegation mark nutley (talk) 15:56, 8 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Mark, you removed 198.161.174.222's comment from Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate_change/Workshop. People don't own sections on talk pages. That's Wikipedia_talk. Hipocrite (talk) 15:57, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Further, if you thought that was Zp5's section, why didn't you remove comments by TheGoodLocust or A Quest For Knowledge? Hipocrite (talk) 15:58, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Mark, you removed 198.161.174.222's comment from Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate_change/Workshop. People don't own sections on talk pages. That's Wikipedia_talk. Hipocrite (talk) 15:57, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * So i made a mistake in thinking it was the evidence page, get real. Saying that is disruptive is ridiculous in the extreme, and to say it was an attempt to remove anothers comments is an outright falsehood as the ip could have put them back, as it happen boris did it. I did not see the others comments, i saw a tag repeating characters warning in my watchlist. I did not look at the comments, just saw the ip had posted in what i thought was ZP5`s section mark nutley (talk) 16:02, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Mark, your mistakes are disruptive. They're not malicious, but they are harmful. It was an attempt to remove another's comment - because you removed anothers' comment. Your failure to do appropriate dilligence is a problem - you should not be reverting things without looking at the comments. Hipocrite (talk) 16:04, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

To aggressive, and not justified
This is not well thought-out. You cannot (well, certainly should not) ask people to hand over private emails. You can plausibly request that the evidence is discarded unless Slim forwards the emails, but you cannot have her instructed to do so. I've held off commenting along this line to give you a chance to consider changing your statement first. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:20, 8 July 2010 (UTC)


 * True. I've changed the direction to state that she may either forward the emails or have her evidence ignored. Hipocrite (talk) 16:22, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

"Skeptic cabal"
ATren doesn't consider himself to be a skeptic, and I don't think me or mark nutley have every declared ourselves to be skeptics, either on-wiki or off. Of course, our personal views of the topic don't matter if we're editing IAW the NPOV policy. Do you have evidence that we haven't done so? More importantly, you accused us of being a cabal. Do you have any evidence of that? If not, do you still stand by that comment? Cla68 (talk) 10:18, 10 July 2010 (UTC)


 * You show up at the same articles in a coordinated fashion to push a skeptical PoV. Take it to arbitration. Hipocrite (talk) 10:19, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
 * No need for arbitration on this one, the enforcement page is still up and operating, so please give your side there. Cla68 (talk) 11:40, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Cla has already been perfectly happy to label groups of editors who edit the same articles as Cabals on arbcomm; for some reason he doesn't like having the label applied to himself. How very odd. Perhaps he should read the "thin-skinned" bit of the arb case. In the meanwhile, H, I point out your error in referring to Cla (or MN) as a skeptic: the correct phrase is "skeptic" because they aren't actually skeptical, in the sense of having carefully considered all points of view and been reluctant to accept claims without evidence; they are in contrast entirely happy to accept evidence free claims that support their POV William M. Connolley (talk) 10:33, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

You're at ANI
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — m o n o  (how's my driving?) 01:12, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Pifeedback
Pifeedback

Could you give your opinion on Reliable sources/Noticeboard?ChaosMaster16 (talk) 13:00, 13 July 2010 (UTC)ChaosMaster16

Proven necessary by his recent swipe at me, while the case was ongoing
Could you add a diff? I missed this William M. Connolley (talk) 08:02, 4 July 2010 (UTC)


 * . Lar has apparently ruled that I have misinterpreted policy. Of course, I haven't, and any actually uninvolved admin or user with more than a year on the encyclopedia who isn't an activist editor knows this. Hipocrite (talk) 13:23, 4 July 2010 (UTC) Hipocrite (talk) 13:23, 4 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Yes, that is odd William M. Connolley (talk) 14:08, 4 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Par for the course. Don't let it get to you. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 15:23, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Your attention is drawn to the ArbCom workshop
Specifically, here. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:42, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

False edit summary?
How exactly is reverting an IP`s edit out of ZP5`s section disruptive? Or how exactly is my edit summary false? Please remove your allegation mark nutley (talk) 15:56, 8 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Mark, you removed 198.161.174.222's comment from Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate_change/Workshop. People don't own sections on talk pages. That's Wikipedia_talk. Hipocrite (talk) 15:57, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Further, if you thought that was Zp5's section, why didn't you remove comments by TheGoodLocust or A Quest For Knowledge? Hipocrite (talk) 15:58, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Mark, you removed 198.161.174.222's comment from Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate_change/Workshop. People don't own sections on talk pages. That's Wikipedia_talk. Hipocrite (talk) 15:57, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * So i made a mistake in thinking it was the evidence page, get real. Saying that is disruptive is ridiculous in the extreme, and to say it was an attempt to remove anothers comments is an outright falsehood as the ip could have put them back, as it happen boris did it. I did not see the others comments, i saw a tag repeating characters warning in my watchlist. I did not look at the comments, just saw the ip had posted in what i thought was ZP5`s section mark nutley (talk) 16:02, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Mark, your mistakes are disruptive. They're not malicious, but they are harmful. It was an attempt to remove another's comment - because you removed anothers' comment. Your failure to do appropriate dilligence is a problem - you should not be reverting things without looking at the comments. Hipocrite (talk) 16:04, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

To aggressive, and not justified
This is not well thought-out. You cannot (well, certainly should not) ask people to hand over private emails. You can plausibly request that the evidence is discarded unless Slim forwards the emails, but you cannot have her instructed to do so. I've held off commenting along this line to give you a chance to consider changing your statement first. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:20, 8 July 2010 (UTC)


 * True. I've changed the direction to state that she may either forward the emails or have her evidence ignored. Hipocrite (talk) 16:22, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

"Skeptic cabal"
ATren doesn't consider himself to be a skeptic, and I don't think me or mark nutley have every declared ourselves to be skeptics, either on-wiki or off. Of course, our personal views of the topic don't matter if we're editing IAW the NPOV policy. Do you have evidence that we haven't done so? More importantly, you accused us of being a cabal. Do you have any evidence of that? If not, do you still stand by that comment? Cla68 (talk) 10:18, 10 July 2010 (UTC)


 * You show up at the same articles in a coordinated fashion to push a skeptical PoV. Take it to arbitration. Hipocrite (talk) 10:19, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
 * No need for arbitration on this one, the enforcement page is still up and operating, so please give your side there. Cla68 (talk) 11:40, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Cla has already been perfectly happy to label groups of editors who edit the same articles as Cabals on arbcomm; for some reason he doesn't like having the label applied to himself. How very odd. Perhaps he should read the "thin-skinned" bit of the arb case. In the meanwhile, H, I point out your error in referring to Cla (or MN) as a skeptic: the correct phrase is "skeptic" because they aren't actually skeptical, in the sense of having carefully considered all points of view and been reluctant to accept claims without evidence; they are in contrast entirely happy to accept evidence free claims that support their POV William M. Connolley (talk) 10:33, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

You're at ANI
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — m o n o  (how's my driving?) 01:12, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Pifeedback
Pifeedback

Could you give your opinion on Reliable sources/Noticeboard?ChaosMaster16 (talk) 13:00, 13 July 2010 (UTC)ChaosMaster16

Some respect
Have some respect we are not all as youthful and sharp as you are. There is a bewildering array of pages to deal with. Polargeo (talk) 12:29, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

RFE
See here please mark nutley (talk) 15:59, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

O2RR
Hi. Thanks for your interventions but could you leave it now? It is just going to mix things up an become confusing William M. Connolley (talk) 17:08, 16 July 2010 (UTC)


 * If you insist. He used to be an ardent BLP crusader, so I'm just trying to get as much "on the record," before he realizes that he's basically violating all of his old principles for his new "climate science is garbage" principle. Hipocrite (talk) 17:09, 16 July 2010 (UTC)