User talk:Hipocrite

WikiProject Economics census

Hello there. Sorry to bother you, but you are (titularly at least) a member of WP:WikiProject Economics, as defined by this category. If you don't know me, I'm a Wikipedia administrator, but an unqualified economist. I enjoy writing about economics, but I'm not very good at it, which is why I would like to support in any way I can the strong body of economists here on Wikipedia. I'm only bothering you because you are probably one of them. Together, I'd like us to establish the future direction of WikiProject Economics, but first, we need to know who we've got to help.

Whatever your area of expertise or level of qualification, if you're interested in helping with the WikiProject (even if only as part of a larger commitment to this wonderful online encyclopedia of ours), would you mind adding your signature to this page? It only takes a second. Thank you.

Message delivered on behalf of User:Jarry1250 by LivingBot.

Firstly, thank you for signing the census, and an apology if you are one of those editors who dislike posts such as this one for messaging you again in this way. I've now got myself organised and you can opt-out of any future communication at WP:WikiProject Economics/Newsletter. Just remove your name and you won't be bothered again.

Secondly, and most importantly, I would like to invite your comments on the census talk page about the project as a whole. I've given my own personal opinion on a range of topics, but my babbling is essentially worthless without your thoughts - I can't believe for one moment that everyone agrees with me in the slightest! :)

All your comments are welcomed. Thanks, - Jarry1250 ^{[Humorous? Discuss.]} 17:52, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Comment

This[1] comes across as more aggressive than necessary. Can you back off a bit? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 13:35, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Fine. I assume you know who that is, correct? Hipocrite (talk) 13:36, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Rather than clog up the CC probation page further - and really, this is the very last time I intend to respond on the matter - I must tell you that you are wrong. Since you cannot reveal my identity from a former account, as I have none, I do not see how I can issue a waiver for a situation that doesn't exist. You are welcome to compile a list of users you think I am if you like, but you still won't be able to identify me from any of them, because I haven't had another identity. In the spirit of my message at the CC probation talkpage I am not going to get irate about all this, but please stop these alegations or take them to the proper venue. Weakopedia (talk) 13:43, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

If I reveal your old account name will you waive any claim I am outing you? Hipocrite (talk) 13:44, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

The subject of that conversation...

... is WMC, not you. (re: [2]) ATren (talk) 19:09, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Dosen't seem that way to me. Hipocrite (talk) 19:40, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Explanation

I don't understand this action. [3] Several quite specific policy issues were raised and you seem to have quashed discussion. Can you explain. Thank you. nobs (talk) 13:37, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

National Anarchism

Hi there thanks for taking this on - I've been at work so only just seen the developments. I've posted to the mediation page. cheers. PsychoActiveKineticInternational TransVersal (talk) 19:11, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks from me as well. –xeno^talk 16:22, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Not worth it

I have mentioned to ATren that the talk thread is making us all look silly. Best leave it. Polargeo (talk) 13:46, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

BRD as applied to MoMK

Hi Hipocrite. You recommended that during the mediation of Murder of Meredith Kercher, we restrict our editing to the BRD process. It is not something I have used before (and I doubt if some of the other editors have either). Zlykinskyja has recently added material to the article which I felt was too contentious to leave unchallenged while the mediation takes place (though I did think very seriously of about just leaving it!) So, today, I made a Bold edit and got the expected Reversion from Zlykinskyja. We have then entered a kind of discussion but I don't think, at the current rate, that we are really converging on any sort of consensus and probably we are both approaching the discussion in the wrong way. Any suggestions would be most helpful and might also help set the scene for the mediation. Thanks! Bluewave (talk) 17:20, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I will review and comment shortly. Hipocrite (talk) 17:24, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for picking this up—your approach is very constructive. And there is no deadline for this, so we can proceed at whatever pace fits in with Zlykinskyja's (and everyone else's) commitments. Bluewave (talk) 20:15, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Courtesy note re MoMK

Hi, just a quick note that I full-protected the article for 24 hours as an IP vandalism had initiated what I saw as a quick downwards spiral that would only complicate your mediation. I'm taking no stand on the underlying issues, but the alternative would be to block one of the parties, which I do not see as constructive. Wishing you wisdom in your mediation. MLauba ^(Talk) 01:20, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for not blocking the party, as I agree that would not have been constructive. I would note, however, that for appearances sake, it would probably be helpful next time if you, in addition to protecting the article, also hit the IP BLP vandal with a substantial block - while I realize that most IP vandals can hop, the argument that "In addition to locking the article for a day, I also banned the IP address from editing for a year would have been perhaps one avenue to assuage bruised feelings, which I'll work on fixing. Given the fact that it was a blatent BLP vio, I think you would have come out unscathed, but now it would be merely punative. I don't fault your action at all, however, and I appreciate the heads up. Hipocrite (talk) 13:26, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

You're right, I dropped the ball on the IP, in reality I had a quick look at the article "just before going to bed", saw the "newsticker" and the 3RR war and thought of preserving the mediation first. The next half hour was spent with writing the notes about my actions and then I went to bed, completely leaving the IP out.

Re: permanent semi, the full protection duration is arbitrary, I can convert to semi at any time, as long as you're confident the parties don't lapse back. I'll check back in about 30 minutes, and convert unless you prefer to keep full for another couple of hours. Cheers, MLauba ^(Talk) 14:52, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Update, since I saw you editing after the above, I moved to semi. If this is premature, I have absolutely no objections over it being reverted without consulting me (I'll be AFK immediately after this). I expect I butted in more than enough for the time being and will return to lurking. MLauba ^(Talk) 16:19, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

and that I call people "yahoo's," "septics," and "idiots."

No, that is me. I think you've misread the attribution William M. Connolley (talk) 07:45, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Seth Roberts

Blogs by dieticians are not reliable sources for books about climate change. Hipocrite (talk) 19:57, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
is a Professor of Psychology at Tsinghua University, just because he wrote a book on good diet does not make him a dietician. And a notable person reviewing a book about the story behind the HS is fine, he is not commenting on science is he, he is commenting on the book, please self revert mark nutley (talk) 19:52, 22 April 2010 (UTC) No. Hipocrite (talk) 19:57, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Violation of WP:SYN

This edit is a violation of WP:SYN because the USGS statement is not specifically in rebuttal of or in response to Plimer's statements on the topic. Thus, I've readded the Monbiot and Randerson text, as those two columnists are the ones who linked the two together in their editorials. Please be careful with synthesis, especially in BLPs. Cla68 (talk) 05:10, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

You have no idea what synthesis is. To be a violation of WP:SYN, there needs to be a source, another source, a combination of material and a conclusion not in either of the sources. What's ironic, of course, is that you have yet to adress Talk:Edward_Wegman#.22mined.22_in_quotes. Have you lost all semblance of objectivity? Perhaps you should go edit an article about military history again. Hipocrite (talk) 10:56, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

I just rewrote the section in the Wegman bio. You also violated SYN there. The Guardian article didn't even mention Wegman! Whether anyone has "validated" Mann's research since the Wegman hearings is immaterial to the Wegman article. Once Wegman made his report, his role was over. Anything else about the graph needs to go in the Hockey stick controversy article. Cla68 (talk) 11:12, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

You are directed to answer my above questions or not to return to my talk page. Hipocrite (talk) 11:13, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Why did you remove the America's Intelligence Wire source from the Wegman bio? It was the only secondary media source listed in that section. Cla68 (talk) 11:15, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

I didn't remove any source. I don't trust that you have accurately described the source, so I asked for independent verification. You have previously fabricated quotes, remember? Hipocrite (talk) 11:15, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Your removals of most of the text from the Ian Plimer article and much of the Edward Wegman article, including several of the sources including the hearings transcript (from Wegman), appears to be disruptive. I assume you're upset about the content of those articles, but I don't believe that it justifies the drastic alterations. The Plimer article content, in particular, was arrived at after extensive discussion on the talk page. I'm going to sign-off for awhile. I hope that when I come back in a few hours that you've self-reverted. Cla68 (talk) 12:28, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

(undent) When you assume, you make an ass. Hipocrite (talk) 12:44, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

No personal comments

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Hello, I'm [[User:{{subst:REVISIONUSER}}|{{subst:REVISIONUSER}}]]. I noticed that you made a comment that didn't seem very civil, so it may have been removed. Wikipedia is built on collaboration, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on [[User_talk:{{subst:REVISIONUSER}}|my talk page]]. Thank you. 2010-04-25T11:33:14 Hipocrite (→NPOV tag: Wifebeater!) and 2010-04-25T12:44:11 Hipocrite (→Violation of WP:SYN: When you assume). Nsaa (talk) 16:21, 25 April 2010 (UTC) H, don't respond to this please. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 16:37, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Requests_for_enforcement

See Wikipedia:General_sanctions/Climate_change_probation/Requests_for_enforcement#Hipocrite. Nsaa (talk) 19:45, 25 April 2010 (UTC)