User talk:Hipocrite/08/2010

Pov tag on "Climate Research Unit email controversy"
You placed the tag on 7/16, and there is currently a discussion underway as to whether it is still warranted. If you feel it is, can you please explain the problem, and if not, can you remove? Thanks. ScottyBerg (talk) 14:34, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Probably (hopefully) out enjoying his weekend. I'd give him till 7/27 or so, it is vacation season after all.  That reminds me, why the hell am I not on vacation!? Arkon (talk) 18:58, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
 * A response to this point would be appreciated, though I believe he is now in favor of the tag being removed. ScottyBerg (talk) 21:23, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Monckton
Who's the aggrieved party you mentioned on SirFozzie's talk page? You don't mean SlimVirgin, do you? -- ChrisO (talk) 22:14, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

lol
Is it just me or do you share a sneaking suspicion that, lately, common logic is having to be spoon-fed to those who aren't much in the area of critical thinking? BigK HeX (talk) 18:58, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Policy based reasons for not using Climategate
Hi, just wondering if you've considered my 23:29, 29 July 2010 response to your 21:22, 29 July 2010 post at this page. Do we agree? Regards, --Yopienso (talk) 01:11, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Following people who have announced a desire to no longer deal with your vexatiousness to their talk page is highly problematic. Stop it. Hipocrite (talk) 02:25, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry--I missed or forgot your announcement. [Tiptoes out backwards.] --Yopienso (talk) 02:43, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Deadly Serious???
Probably too strident. Try dialing back a little, please. Thanks. ++Lar: t/c 03:43, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Take a long walk away from this talk page, Lar. You have no credibility here - your and SlimVirgin faction games, where you collaborate off-wiki to try to get people to scratch eachothers backs is so tired - especially when the failure to scratch back means that you start with the nonsense above. Go away. Don't come back. 05:29, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * As an uninvolved admin, I'll warn you as and when I think it's necessary. Or block you if that's what's needful. You were out of line. Internalize it and stop with the bluster. That goes for your whole faction, in fact. Hope that helps clarify matters. ++Lar: t/c 05:43, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * What's out of line is your faction lying about the facts. Over, and over and over again. And you - lying about the facts. You're threatening to block your adversaries in an arbcom case? Sounds deadly serious to me. Now, I'll take the last word - don't return to my talk page. Hipocrite (talk) 05:45, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * But wait nah...didn't good old Lar edit the CRU hack talk page? So now we have a new definition of "uninvolved" which not only excludes editors who import prior disputes, not only excludes people involved in active arbitration cases, it also excludes editors who actually edit pages in the subject area. Kewl. Guettarda (talk) 06:02, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * You know, when Lar asks "Why do skeptic BLPs get stuffed and AGW alarmist BLPs get puffed?" [] - note the terminology there - it's pretty obvious that he's abandoned any pretence of neutrality. -- ChrisO (talk) 10:39, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * ChrisO: Yet again, you reveal a fundamental lack of understanding of Wikipedia basics. "Skeptic" is the most commonly used term by reliable sources.  Therefore, it is the most neutral term to use.  Likewise, "Climategate" is the most commonly used term for that article's topic; so it's the most neutral term.  You've been on Wikipedia for far too long to keep making these beginner mistakes.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 11:40, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm referring to "AGW alarmist", which is both a violation of BLP and an obvious dog-whistle term. It's a bit of a give-away, don't you think? -- ChrisO (talk) 12:02, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * But we have an entire article devoted to Climate change alarmism. This isn't something I've researched too much, but I know that it was recently nominated for deletion and the community's decision was to keep. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:07, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd be curious to know the specific "alarmists" to which Lar was referring. It's interesting that he used that term, given the frequency with which he himself has offered opinions on climate change that broadly fit the "alarmist" description. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 14:54, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I am an "alarmist" in terms of my personal views on AGW. I'm just not a member of the "alarmist faction", or of any faction other than "trying to be a good wikipedian". If you have an accurately descriptive name that you'd prefer used for your faction instead, let me know. ++Lar: t/c 20:58, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * That begs the question. You said, "Why do skeptic BLPs get stuffed and AGW alarmist BLPs get puffed?" Which BLPs are "alarmists"? ScottyBerg (talk) 21:20, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * If you wish to discuss any of this further, bring this to my talk page where there isn't a danger of my responses (or yours) being arbitrarily deleted. (this applies to anyone, not just you ScottyBerg...) ++Lar: t/c 21:29, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Without conceding the validity of your characterization ("arbitrarily deleted") above, have complied with your request. ScottyBerg (talk) 23:03, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Take this somewhere else, since my defense and responses such as this one get removed by Hipocrite. Accusing me of lying is a fairly serious breach of civility, you know... I'm wondering if Guettarda or ChrisO have a problem with that? As for Guettarda's charge, the edit I made carefully said I had no view on the particular tag but pointed out common practice. It seemed to have sparked a useful discussion. ++Lar: t/c 13:24, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, Lar, you do seem to have a problem with factual accuracy. Please see User talk:Lar. -- ChrisO (talk) 14:47, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Yep Lar, I wasn't saying you weren't uninvolved. I was just commenting on your ever-expanding definition of "uninvolved". As for accusing you of lying - well, I suppose there are some hairs to split. Calling yourself "uninvolved" is, of course, a falsehood. But there's more than one way to use the word "lying". Mostly people use it in reference to statements that are false, and that the person making the statement should have known to be false. Obviously, given the past discussions, it's reasonable to assume that you knew that the statement was false. There's another use of lying, of course, that goes specifically to intent. It's entirely possible to concoct scenarios wherein it is possible that your intent was not to deceive, despite the fact that you should have known what you said was a falsehood. But if I had to choose between "falsehood but not a lie" and "using 'lie' in a relatively loose sense", I think the latter requires far fewer convolutions. So while I'd rather stay out of it, since you asked I would have to say that Hip's use of "lying" is far less egregious than your use of "uninvolved". So Lar, consider yourself warned, that you should not make false claims of "uninvolvement", like you did here, and Hip, you should be a little more parsimonious in your use of "lying". Guettarda (talk) 18:26, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Wow, just wow. If you want to warn me about something you'll have to be far more coherent than that, and you'll have to do it on my talk, not here. You and ChrisO are really on a roll, ABF-wise though. ++Lar: t/c 20:58, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * You asked for my opinion. When you ask for someone's opinion, it's really bad form to attack them when you don't like an answer you get. As for assuming bad faith - on the contrary, I went to great lengths to try to assume good faith. But the point is that your statement is a falsehood, and you should be aware of that. Guettarda (talk) 23:57, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

New sanction for CC articles
You may wish to take a look at General sanctions/Climate change probation/Requests for enforcement. Sincerely, NW ( Talk ) 22:31, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Out of curiosity
Out of curiosity, why did you modify WMC comment here? Was it an accident? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:40, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes. That is a failure of the new edit-conflict parser.

request
Could you comment on whether i've quoted you correctly, and captured the context of your comment, at the bottom of this thread? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 16:00, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Furious edits
Chalk it up to being furious, but if you cannot keep from letting your emotions get the best of you and behaving incivility, I will enforce that wikibreak for you. ~ Amory ( u  •  t  •  c ) 21:27, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Hipocrite, I don't know if you saw it, but Greg has now stated he wasn't aware of your dyslexia when he made that comment. I hope when you re-read this in a calmer mood in a few hours or days, you'll agree that the whole thing looks a lot less harmful under that assumption.

I hope you'll calm down and do your part of what needs to be done to restore peace. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:35, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

It was not common knowledge that you were dyslexic. It is now, since you added a userbox to your userpage, but I had no idea, and apparently, a lot of other editors were in the dark as well. Hopefully, you will simmer down and return in the near future, but understand that not everyone is familiar with other editors' personal issues, especially when there is no indication about said issues.  Horologium  (talk) 22:58, 3 August 2010 (UTC)


 * @ Hipocrite, very sorry you've been treated outrageously, intentionally or otherwise. You'd already made it clear that you were upset, but Lar obviously ignored that and ignored Mark's reversion that reintroduced the personal attack, apparently being primarily focussed on demanding that WMC promise not to redact others' edits again. While I have only some dim memory of you mentioning dyslexia, there's a general question of civility in drawing attention to misspellings, and people should know better. It can be difficult to find a good way of being extremely polite when commenting on actions that are under discussion, but GregJackP's comment was clearly offtopic personal sniping. I'm pretty slow to redact things like that and tend to tolerate a large degree of snark, but maybe we should all be quicker to push for improved civility. So, hope time heals all, . dave souza, talk 23:27, 3 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: I've removed a couple of posts that appeared to inflame the situation more than to solve it and engaged in further unnecessary sniping. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:34, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * FPAS missed one, I've removed it ++Lar: t/c 13:32, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I've restored it. Lar, how is the comment you removed an attack on anybody? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:40, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * "GregJackP's comment was clearly offtopic personal sniping" ... Lar obviously ignored that... I think you need to undo your revert, or better, FP needs to leave it all for Hip to decide about. Arbitrarily removing some comments on some basis, but not others that fit the same basis, shows bias. Par for the course for your faction, of course and that you even ask what the issue was shows how distortive you are. ++Lar: t/c 14:43, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Before asking for removals of this kind of comments, could you go through your own comments doing the same? I belive "par on course...", "how distortive you..." seems to fit rather well to your "no others that fit the same basis". And that is only in your latest comment. I believe that there are several such problematic comments on third parties on your own talk-page - so perhaps it should be par on course to start removing them there? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 15:03, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Which is why leaving them all and letting everyone judge for themselves is probably the better course. FP was out of line removing some but not all. Let Hip manage his own talk page. ++Lar: t/c 15:25, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * So in fact you were trying to make a WP:POINT? Hmmm - isn't that problematic? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 15:27, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * No I was not making a point. I merely want either the page left as it was, or that FP or whoever, removes all attacks, not just some. Leaving some is factional. As to your comment maligning me, sorry if calling you on your factional behavior (you all, generally speaking) seems to bug you. Protip: If you don't want to be called on acting like a faction, don't act like a faction. Rein in your own side more often, as Risker admonished you to do. The Proposed Decision can't come soon enough. ++Lar: t/c 15:41, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry? Lets get this out of the way first: Have i maligned you? Where? Lets see if i can correct it. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 15:49, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Please stop arguing on this page, both of you. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:59, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Just do a good job of removing stuff. Leave Amory's inital comment and lose all the rest. Or put it all back and leave it to Hip to decide. Your partial removal is unsatisfactory and is evidence of partisanship. ++Lar: t/c 17:58, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Stay away from this page. If you need to argue with me, take it to mine. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:42, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Hipocrite, I'm sorry that you were insulted and treated poorly. To me it seems there may be a negative campaign going on here. It pains me that your reaction seems to be exactly what they were hoping for. The environment will be improved. If you want to be, you can be an important member that can help make that happen. Hopefully after a good nights sleep and reflection you can return healed and refreshed. Bill Huffman (talk) 13:20, 4 August 2010 (UTC)


 * As someone who really understands, you have to ignore anybody that is ignorant about what is going on with you. It used to hurt me badly but now when someone says something stupid I either ignore it or I laugh about it.  Please don't let this kind of thing get to you.  It's really not worth it to get yourself all upset over somthing you have no control over.  If people don't understand the sensitivities then it's on them not you.  Remember any disablitlity needs to be controlled the best you can and what can't be controlled then so what!  We are all human, so remember, you are just like the rest of the world just a little bit special.  Taked care of yourself, -- Crohnie Gal  Talk  14:57, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Mann?
Why did you want Mann protected? William M. Connolley (talk) 16:07, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

FYI - "The Gore Effect" Discussion
In a dialogue with Yopienso, I have referenced what I believe to be a fair representation of your position on the distinctions of the "2 uses" in "The Gore Effect" article. This is to advise you of that use should you wish to clarify or offer further comment. JakeInJoisey (talk) 21:36, 5 August 2010 (UTC)


 * And Illusion was favorably reviewed by a geologist in the magazine of a learned society. Cla68 (talk) 01:41, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Voluntary CC article restriction
Please consider signing the CC restriction, as explained here. Cla68 (talk) 01:41, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Attention and participation
As you might know, The Signpost has been reporting on the Climate change case for the past several weeks. One of the drafting arbitrators is clearly unhappy with my reporting, and a couple of other users share a similar view. However, some users disagree (and on at least one occasion, one case participant disagreed with the objection raised (see this). Each user is obviously going to have their own opinion, but irrespective of the outcome, I think actual participants in the case (who are involved in the dispute or may be affected) should add their input. Therefore, I think your attention and participation is invited here. Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:07, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Science in the Middle Ages
Hello. You are invited to take part in the discussion on Science in the Middle Ages. The question is should we keep or remove the section on the Islamic world. Regards Gun Powder Ma (talk) 08:35, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race and intelligence
This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The following is a summary of the remedies enacted:


 * Standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for "race and intelligence" and all closely related articles.
 * The following editors are topic-banned from race and intelligence articles, broadly construed:
 * Mathsci (by consent)
 * David.Kane
 * Captain Occam
 * Mikemikev
 * Mikemikev, who was indefinitely blocked as a result of an ANI discussion during the case proceedings, is site-banned for 12 months. Until his ArbCom ban expires, he may only appeal his block to the Arbitration Committee, via the Ban Appeals Subcommittee. After 12 months, he may choose to appeal the ban to either the Arbitration Committee or to the community.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee,

NW ( Talk ) 22:59, 24 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Discuss this

Watson article incident timeline
I'm working with AQFK to put together a summary of the Watson article incident in a form that may be of some help. Here's the early draft, not fully proofed. User:Sphilbrick/Robert Watson incident timeline

It was created in a sortable table so that one can review it in strictly chronological order, or by ediotr or by edit location.

We are still working out how to incorporate this into the evidence section - one of us will either create a new section, or incorporate it into our existing section. However, as you were the first to bring this into evidence, you might consider noting the existence of this table (once it exists). It is obviously improper for me to edit your evidence section to mention it.

If you have any comments on presentation, or suggestions for improvements (or especially, errors or omissions), please don't hesitate to mention them.-- SPhilbrick  T  15:14, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Robert Watson article incident
A Quest for Knowledge and I compiled relevant diffs into a sortable table to make it easier for reviewers. The information is contained here

I am notifying those who made reference to the incident on the evidence page, specifically, SBHB, Minor4th, GregJackP, and Hipocrite. Did I miss anyone?-- SPhilbrick  T  18:10, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

good move
I didn't have the bollocks to move Lar's edit myself. Good thinking. Polargeo (talk) 12:47, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

hat/hab etc
Hello - I noticed you changed my use of to  etc. That's absolutely fine - I was going to use hat/hab per clear earlier procedure but I saw a hidden comment saying when discussion top/bottom should be used and so used that instead. If it's always to be hat/hab perhaps the hidden comment should also be removed? CIreland (talk) 16:46, 21 July 2010 (UTC)


 * It should. I will. Hipocrite (talk) 16:58, 21 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I moved the hat/hab comment first and made a note that it's almost always preferred to use it instead of discussion top... if discussion top should be removed entirely? dunno. Not clear to me one way or the other. ++Lar: t/c 17:01, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Concerned
All I was doing was stating that it has been criticised at RealClimate. That is a fact, backed up with a reference. It is a very popular blog, considered important enough to have a wikipedia page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ASmartKid (talk • contribs) 21:30, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Censored!

 * AARRGGGH. Yet, why has Snotty Wong not been censored for calling members of the Article Rescue Squadron "lazy" and continuing to imply that they undermine the project by using the rescue tag for improper purposes.  My outburst was inappropriate but much less insidious.--Milowent • talkblp-r  21:32, 22 July 2010 (UTC)


 * "Lazy" is not as blatent as "douchebag." Be the bigger man. Hipocrite (talk) 21:33, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I fully support your removal. Lazy, especially in the way it was used, is not uncivil. Verbal chat  21:42, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Duchamp apparently has messy hair...
Bring the issue up at ANI. At this point, some level of banning discussion is necessary. If you start the discussion, I will chime there... -- Jayron  32  03:59, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Derek Smart Surrogate
Hipocrite, I don't know who I can go to. Since I no longer have an account that I can edit articles or talk page articles. An editor that is apparently another Derek Smart surrogate  has edited a BLP, David_Allen_(game_designer) with what I consider problematic edits. Mr. Smart is currently involved in a civil suit with Mr. Allen. The David Allen article appears to me to contain multiple violations of policy violations. Derek Smart surrogates have been problematic in the past, something near a half dozen accounts banned. I suggest that semi-protecting the David Allen article may be considered. I would really appreciate attention to this matter. Thank you, Bill Huffman (talk) 03:40, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Bill, I thought you had promised ArbCom that you would stay away from Derek Smart in Wikipedia because of your ongoing off-wiki feud with him. Cla68 (talk) 04:16, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I am asking for help on the David Allen article. BTW, on SirFozzie's talk page you have another opportunity to explain why you told ArbCom that brazen total lie about me. Bill Huffman (talk) 04:31, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Hipocrite, in case you aren't aware of it, Mr. Huffman runs a website dedicated to criticizing Derek Smart. Cla68 (talk) 04:45, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Cla68, you made this inaccurate statement before. The more accurate description, I believe is that the website is dedicated to documenting the Derek Smart flame war follies. In particular, those activities primarily focused on the Usenet portion of the Derek Smart flame war follies. Bill Huffman (talk) 05:27, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Hipocrite, I apologize for bringing this additional distraction to your doorstep. In case the miscommunication here is mine, the issue that I'm asking for assistance on is the David_Allen_(game_designer) article. I would appreciate it if you could take a look. An editor, Wildcard999, has edited this article and may be an editor that has been banned multiple times for disruptive editing. I notice that Orlady has very recently looked at the article. Thank you, Bill Huffman (talk) 05:10, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Once bitten, twice shy. I don't edit bios related to possibly litigious persons. Hipocrite (talk) 14:33, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the chuckle :-) Bill Huffman (talk) 14:39, 27 July 2010 (UTC)