User talk:Hipocrite: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 01:19, 29 March 2010

Hipocrite is taking a short wikibreak and will be back on Wikipedia soon.

Index

Archive 1

This page has archives. Sections older than 10 days may be automatically archived by .

What made you change your mind?

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

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)[reply]

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

1rr violation

Resolved

the rejection of this as a 1rr violation Hipocrite (talk) 21:19, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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 [2]?--134.10.124.232 (talk) 20:53, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

At least three were unambiguous and obvious reverts: [3][4][5]. 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Democrats <-> Democratic

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

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

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

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

http://rped.org/PWDwiki/

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

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

Much derided

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@@ Line 84: / Line 84: @@
 :::: Actually, I was basing my decision to edit [[RationalWiki]] on [[Conservapedia#RationalWiki|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. [[User:Macai|Macai]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Hipocrite|Hipocrite]] ([[User talk:Hipocrite#top|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. [[User:Macai|Macai]] ([[User talk:Macai|talk]]) 00:42, 29 March 2010 (UTC)