User talk:Hipocrite/03/2010

Template GalvanicCells

I was wondering if you could go to Template talk:GalvanicCells and explain to the IP why you are reverting their changes to the template. They asked for a third opinion, but I said no because the two editors involved are not talking. So if you could explain I think it would be most helpful. Thanks ~~ GB fan ~~ ^talk 20:28, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

The IP is banned. I will not interact with a banned user. They are well aware of this. Hipocrite (talk) 20:28, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I did not know that, thanks for the response. ~~ GB fan ~~ ^talk 20:30, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

99.34.77.217

What's going on with IP editor 99.34.77.217? --Bejnar (talk) 20:45, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Banned user Nrcprm2026 is not permitted to contribute. Hipocrite (talk) 20:50, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Bybee memo

Hi Hipocrite. I am trying to clean up and improve the Bybee memo page, before moving it to another more appropriate name which would be "Torture Memos" (for reasons I stated there on the discussion page). You'd tagged a section and asked that the tag not be removed until its discussed. What I propose doing is moving that problematic section down into the critique of the memos. It will follow a short and simple chronology of their birth at OLC, their short life, and their death by President Obama's Executive Order. I will then start an introductory sentence "Opponents of the so-called 'enhanced interrogation' say . . . . " That way the list of everybody saying its torture is no longer an assertion of fact, merely a balanced recounting of one perspective. Could you quote this and put any comments on the Bybee Memo page? Thanks, ElijahBosley (talk) 20:11, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi

If your back from your break I would make a request of you. Remember my last article, Criticism of the IPCC. You tore it to bits, and stomped it into the ground, O the humanity :), so I would like for you, if you have time to look at my current wip [1] and let me know what you think of it. Thanks. mark nutley (talk) 14:03, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I think that I don't care about climate change on Wikipedia except to state that it's the third rail. Touch it and you die. Hipocrite (talk) 14:22, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

But, without reading it, let me state that what you could do to fix it is imagine that you were absolutly positive that climate change was happening, and it was caused by humans. Then write the article to reflect that. Then find a middle ground between what you know I think is right and what you wish were right, and propose that. Hipocrite (talk) 14:24, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Ok mate, thanks for the advice mark nutley (talk) 14:57, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand your meaning

At Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Climate change denial (4th nomination) you wrote: You feel there's no topic that could be written neutrally about? I can't make out your meaning, and I think others might have the same problem. Could you rewrite that or explain it? Thanks. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 01:21, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Inflation

Please see my statement about Cost-of-living allowances (that you reverted) on the Inflation Discussion page. Thank you.

PennySeven (talk) 11:24, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Please stop your personal attack against me.

Please stop your personal attack against me as you did on the Inflation discussion page.

This is a warning. When I have the time I will report your personal attack in the proper way. This is a warning. I don´t know how to give you that warning statement.

PennySeven (talk) 14:06, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Wait, is this a warning? Tan | 39 14:14, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Unsure, however looking at the same warning being given on the inflation talk page i don`t actually see a personal attack? Strange indeed :) mark nutley (talk) 14:16, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

That's far enough of that crap. Tan | 39 22:55, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I beg your pardon? mark nutley (talk) 22:58, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Referring to PennySeven. Tan | 39 22:59, 7 March 2010 (UTC)g

O` ok, i got a tad confused then :) mark nutley (talk) 23:03, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

9/11 conspiracy theories

Sorry bout the last undo, I did not notice that you had shifted it down to the other paragraph. Mojokabobo (talk) 15:49, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

9/11 conspiracy theories

Sorry bout the last undo, I did not notice that you had shifted it to a different spot in the text. Mojokabobo (talk) 15:51, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Sarcasm? On my Wikipedia? It's more likely than you think.

You threatened to request a ban on me for being sarcastic here. Is simple sarcasm actually prohibited on Wikipedia talk pages? Macai (talk) 02:56, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I suggest that when you quote me, you quote what I actually said. Hipocrite (talk) 03:21, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

And I suggest you make yourself clear. You used the word "disruptive" before that sarcasm, but we all know that doesn't really mean anything. Anybody can consider anything disruptive. So, why don't you answer the question this time? Is sarcasm banned on Wikipedia per se? Macai (talk) 12:11, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

If you can't tell the difference between collegial sarcasm and disruptive sarcasm, then for you, yes, sarcasm is prohibited. Hipocrite (talk) 12:48, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

WP:SARCASM William M. Connolley (talk) 13:05, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

And if you can't come up with a better reason for me to stop cracking wise beyond "if you don't, I'll go and rat you out to the admins", then I suggest you stop making threats. Macai (talk) 13:19, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and Hipocrite, you might want to post a similar threat for "disruptive sarcasm" on William M. Connolley's talk page, since he clearly makes a sarcastic remark about Cla and AR here. Macai (talk) 13:26, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

You can't have it both ways. Either disruptive sarcasm is wrong when either of you do it, which I believe, or it's not wrong. The third option, which you profess above, is that when you do it it's ok because they did it after you. If you're going to stop, I'll deal with others. If you're not, I'm going to focus on you. Hipocrite (talk) 13:40, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

No, you're going to go off on William's page like you did with mine, or tacitly admit that you apply different standards to me than you do with him. Those are your options. Also, don't put words in my mouth. I never said that a rule should apply to others but not to me. That's a strawman fallacy. Don't do it again if you want to maintain credibility. Macai (talk) 13:56, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Either you think disruptive sarcasm is ok and you're going to continue doing it, in which case I'm going to fix you first, or you think it's not ok, and you're going to stop, in which case I'll deal with others. I don't think I'd like to deal with WMC before I deal with you, so, unless you are paying me, I'll adress this in the order I choose. My consulting rates avaliable on demand - I will happily adress my sarcasm concerns at other parties if you pay me my going rate. Hipocrite (talk) 13:58, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Since you're so against use of sarcasm on Wikipedia, it's fair for me to assume that you weren't being sarcastic when you said that you're willing to be consistent about your interpretation of policy for a fee. Since you're so... mercenary in your use of Wikipedia, I just might have to bring this up to the enforcement council, or whatever they call themselves. That is, unless you "redact", as you so eloquently put it on my talk page, this comment. Macai (talk) 14:16, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not being sarcastic. I'll adress WMC before you if you pay me for my time. Otherwise, I'll adress you first. I would welcome an enforcement request from you - please do it. Hipocrite (talk) 14:21, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

You do realize that you have the option to "address" both of us simultaneously, right? In fact, with the time you've spent arguing with me about the order in which you will approach people for being sarcastic, you could have crawled up WMC's ass about the same thing. Why this policy of only conversing with one person at a time about this issue? Macai (talk) 15:04, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

How do you know I haven't adressed WMC via email? How do you know that by talking with you here, he's also not getting the point? Are you going to stop being disruptively sarcastic, or are you asking me to confront him about it to prove a WP:POINT? Hipocrite (talk) 15:06, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not trying to prove a point, I'm just wondering if you really care about use of sarcasm, or if you're more concerned with shutting up people who you perceive as taking a particular side - in this case, AGW "skeptics". You ask how I know that you haven't contacted WMC privately via email or that he isn't "getting the point" through this very conversation. The answer is simply: "I don't." Now, I want to know why it's such a big deal for you to simply go on your crusade consistently. I'm going to give you another twelve hours to decide if you want to admit that you are making a one-sided attack on me, or if you want to crawl up WMC's ass the way you did mine, what, three times now? In the meantime, I won't be distracting you with further responses. Good day, Hipocrite. Macai (talk) 15:39, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I am dumber for reading this exchange. Tan | 39 14:00, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

reverted change on section 2.1 bullet point 4 of WP:RS

It really helps if you go through the talk page on sensitive pages. Had you done so for your one word edit on WP:RS you would have seen a month + conversation where your position was rejected as being contrary to the long established consensus on that page. Impact is simply not appropriate for use on single papers to establish reliability, ever. You can exclude from a particular article using WP:WEIGHT and arguing that the balancing text would need to be so extensive that it would bust the article. It doesn't give you quite the same result but it *is* workable.

I've established a section on WP:RS talk for you to defend your edit if you would like (you seem to have plenty of compatriots on global warming talk). TMLutas (talk) 17:26, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Ahh, yes, have a long meandering discussion about nothing, edit a guideline page with the justification being the meandering discussion, defend that edit by reverting any attempt to make the edit reflect actual facts on the ground, and then use that edit to justify actions elsewhere. You are aware of the climate change probation, right? Hipocrite (talk) 18:22, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I just came by to ask if you were aware. I guess you are. TMLutas (talk) 00:53, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

A sincere apology.

Your appropriate condemnation[2] of my edit summary was spot on. I should not have first and foremost taken objection to your warning which correctly and helpfully pointed out the very real pains that could have occurred from MY actions. Secondly I should never have enshrined my error in an edit summary where I am unable to correct that record. I will try to put as much thought and care into all my edits in the future as I endeavor to do now with my content and policy edits. I will copy this to my talk page, remove my flippancy and add an appropriate edit summary to reflect the error.99.142.1.101 (talk) 17:59, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Question regarding your opinion

You just stated that, "No article has been written on the "controversy," that has had a neutral POV yet."[3]Could you look at these academic papers from neutral, verifiable and reliable sources appearing in these peer-reviewed journals:[4][5][6][7][8].

Do any one of those articles meet your personal definition for neutral POV? I hope you take this question as it is meant, a serious attempt at neutral discussion. I realize the general area is a sensitive one and I don't have any quibble with the science, but I do honestly think an article is required on the cultural and political phenomenon that arose from the event and ensuing political posturing. I think a good article could be written, one which limits itself to the cultural event and does not become a denialist coatrack.

Your neutral opinion on the ref's listed regarding your earlier opinion would be welcome.99.142.1.101 (talk) 21:23, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Sign up for an account or list your prior accounts and IP addresses and I'll think about reading what you write. Hipocrite (talk) 21:27, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

What made you change your mind?

[9] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:57, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

3RR report

It has all been a big misunderstanding, it happened because my edits were legitimate yet other editors would not tolerate it and despite the amount of times they have inapropriately reverted me, nothing has been said against them. Routerone (talk) 19:28, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Feel free to self-revert, but if you do not, you will likley be blocked. Hipocrite (talk) 19:29, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

1rr violation

Resolved

the rejection of this as a 1rr violationHipocrite (talk) 21:19, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

This was evaluated by an admin and was found not to be a 1rr violation. I remain willing to revert any of my edits to any article on request from any editor with reason on the talk page (with the caveat that they must make the same pledge).

Hipocrite, am I missing something, or have you reverted Climategate three times in 24 hours? Will you revert these edits [10]?--134.10.124.232 (talk) 20:53, 22 March 2010 (UTC) I don't think any of my edits are reverts. However, if my edits were currently live, I would accept the request to revert any of my edits by anyone engaging on the talk page. Hipocrite (talk) 20:56, 22 March 2010 (UTC) At least three were unambiguous and obvious reverts: [11][12][13]. All of these edits have now been reverted, so I suppose I can't ask you to revert them yourself. The edits were in clear violation of the terms of the probation and the 1rr restriction on the page, but I'm not sure what that should imply. I opened a discussion here if you'd like to check it out: User_talk:LessHeard_vanU#1rr_violation_.28not_yours.29_at_Climatic_Research_Unit_hacking_incident. --Heyitspeter (talk) 21:05, 22 March 2010 (UTC) Per my comments at my talkpage, there was no reverting (returning content to a previous version) - there was an ongoing amendment to a paragraph between two users, trying to find a consensus - except the one revert indicated as such. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:21, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Democrats <-> Democratic

[14] Hi, Chandler and Luallen are both Democrats, so this was a correct formulation. Regards Hekerui (talk) 13:22, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

No, it wasn't. Hipocrite (talk) 14:07, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

He consulted with Democrats A and B. Correct. Hekerui (talk) 14:23, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

The old text was not in proper english. The new text is in proper english. Hipocrite (talk) 14:26, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

WorldNetDaily RS/N - removal of "resolved" tag

I am removing your inappropriate application of a "resolved" tag to the WORLD NET DAILY final answer needed RS/N. IAW the Wikipedia guidance for use of the "resolved" tag, while the template is primarily intended for application within a "talk" environment, it's application to "notice board" discussions is reserved for "...admin processes to note that an action item reported to a notice board has been dealt with...". You, therefore, lack the required authority to apply this tag to an ongoing RS/N article. Your comments on the reversion of this edit are solicited and welcomed in the "talk" discussion. --JakeInJoisey (talk) 04:55, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I know WP:YOUDIDNTHEARTHAT. Hipocrite (talk) 10:53, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

It should be noted that your creatively selective quoting, along with the addition of the phrase "is reserved for" has entirely changed the meaning of WP:Template:Resolved#Purpose. A pattern of deceptive editing practices like that could be problematic. Dlabtot (talk) 16:32, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

http://rped.org/PWDwiki/

You are promoted. Tisane (talk) 20:39, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Confirming that's me. Hipocrite (talk) 20:44, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Much derided

Please give the quote. Thanks, Mitsube (talk) 04:50, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Why do you have so much hostility towards me? I'm talking about this. Mitsube (talk) 06:32, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't know what it is that inclined you against me, but I would rather be friends with you and work collaboratively. That is better for both of us. Regards, Mitsube (talk) 07:29, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Proposals

I have some new proposals on the talk page that I'd appreciate your opinion on. Mitsube (talk) 07:56, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Reincarnation research

Not sure what happened there, I am all for removing the cruft, the version I edited had it in and I tried to shorten it - removing altogether is much better. I don't know if it was an edit conflict or a cache issue or what, I can't make out what happened. Guy (Help!) 12:35, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Hipocrite, your edit summary here contained a false justification for your edit. The sources do not support calling the research itself pseudoscience. Please respond on the talk at the section Talk:Reincarnation_research#Described_as_pseudoscience. ScienceApologist and I seem to have come to the agreement that the research itself has not been called pseudoscientific, but the conclusions drawn from it. Mitsube (talk) 22:38, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

RationalWiki

I believe we could profit from your input on Talk:RationalWiki#Disputed.

Nobs wishes to either revert the article back to the version that claimed Lipson is the founder or to hang a COI tag on the current version. The discussion seems to be running in tight circles.

You are one of the neutral editors alerted through the COI Noticeboard, and you weighed in on the COI/BLP issue before, so I believe it would help if you could weigh in on this. A similar notice has also been sent to ShadowRanger, who restored the article originally.

Thank you kindly in advance. --Sid 3050 (talk) 11:07, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Wikistalking?

You made a threatening and insulting comment on my talk page demanding that I stop "wikistalking" you. Where do you get this idea that I'm "wikistalking" you? Macai (talk) 13:51, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

You are directed to stop reviewing my talk page and contributions history to find articles to edit. Your continued wikistalking of me around is a serious problem. Hipocrite (talk) 13:52, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I'll ask again, and if you don't answer, I'll just discontinue participating in this conversation: where do you get this idea that I'm "wikistalking" you? Macai (talk) 13:55, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Your edits to RationalWiki are patently obvious wikistalking. If I see you at another article you obviously found from my talk page or contribution list, I will seek to have a formal interaction ban between us enacted. I am not following you around - you will give me the same courtesy. Hipocrite (talk) 13:58, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I was basing my decision to edit RationalWiki on this, and the fact that I edited there briefly. Bear in mind that I don't have any personal beef with you, and that I'd appreciate it if you didn't call me names like "climate-change warriors" or other obvious personal attacks. Just chill out. I'm not out to get you. Macai (talk) 14:12, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I won't need to call you any names if you stop stalking me. Don't show up on articles where I'm actively engaged again. Hipocrite (talk) 22:26, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Even if I was stalking you -- which I'm not -- the name calling would be unnecessary. If you really think that I'm stalking you down to harangue you personally on other articles, I suggest you go see a therapist, because I'm doing nothing of the sort. I didn't even address you on RationalWiki, the only other place we seem to have crossed paths on Wikipedia. With that, I wish you farewell. Macai (talk) 00:42, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm glad you have accepted the voluntary interaction ban between us. If you arrive at another article that I actively edit, given that you edit so few articles, I'll ask that you be formally restricted from further editing. Hipocrite (talk) 01:43, 29 March 2010 (UTC)