User talk:Hipocrite

Hello, Hipocrite. Your no-talkback edit notice is constantly ignored. Facepalm
You will remove talkback notices every time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template. They will never stop.

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Global warming

You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Global warming and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Requests for Arbitration;
• Wikipedia:Arbitration guide.

Thanks, Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 13:12, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Nice job!

		The Barnstar of Diplomacy
		I just decided to check back on National-Anarchism and see that we have entered a new era of peace with respect to the lead sentence/paragraph. Nice job! Please accept this as a small token of my appreciation for stepping in. –xenotalk 14:25, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. I was pleased at how it went. Hipocrite (talk) 14:26, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Tea

Hey, remember our conversation a while back about tea? I think I just found where it is on the cupboard. See the top of User talk:Okiebradshaw. A very talented new editor he. ScottyBerg (talk) 16:48, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

RFE diffs

I think you caused some confusion by putting the same diff in twice. I've patched that up, and explicitly mentioned 1RR - please correct if I've misrepresented your intent William M. Connolley (talk) 21:44, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

You like talk-backs, right?

Hello, Hipocrite. You have new messages at WT:AC/C.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Replied to your query on the clerks' co-ordination page. And sorry, I couldn't resist. Best, AGK 14:21, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to no-archive this section. Thank you for the rapid response. Hipocrite (talk) 14:31, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

RE: Polargeo thread

I said what I have to say there, more then I planned on. Just to be clear though, I don't think you were a "Co-conspirator" (to use an overly dramatic term for this setting), I just think you're walking into his game.--Cube lurker (talk) 16:54, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh, so there are two people without some evil motive who believe that Lar's actions were sub-optimal? Look - I don't think PG should be editing in the involved section. I don't think Lar should be reverting and threatening to block people unilaterally. I think that both of them are over the line. You think Polargeo is over the line - I agree. Do you think Lar is over the line, regardless of what other people have done? Look at it in isolation - before his revert and threat to block two people asked Lar to deescelate. He chose not to do so - and he chose not to do so willfully. This is problematic. Hipocrite (talk) 16:57, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Exactly the situation. You say "Look at it in isolation." Considering the escalating behavior I've been witnessing for weeks I both can not and will not.--Cube lurker (talk) 17:17, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

So, to summarize, you refuse to comment on Lar's behavior because Polargeo's is bad - and Polargeo's behavior being bad makes Lar's behavior ok, regardless of how bad Lar's behavior is. Got it. So all we need to do is find one person worse than us, and we are in the clear. Got it. Hipocrite (talk) 17:22, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

I believe we can either analyze and deal with situations as they exist, or play games like you did with that paragraph above.--Cube lurker (talk) 17:28, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Ya i know that now

[1] would have been nice to have been told WP:BLPSPS allows for the use of this doc, i suppose i`m even deeper in the crap now mark nutley (talk) 22:03, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Explain to me why you shouldn't lose rollback for [2]? Hipocrite (talk) 22:05, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually hit it by mistake, i was going to check versions and restore the last one, you never hit rollback by accident? mark nutley (talk) 22:07, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

That's a perfect explanation - I hit rollback all the time wrongly. I'm glad we've put this behind us! Hipocrite (talk) 22:08, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

MoMK

As a contributor at the MoMK article and/or talk page, please take a look at the new draft and the draft's talkpage and voice your opinion. Thanks, The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 20:00, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject Economics Newsletter (Issue II)

Positively Economics The Economics WikiProject Newsletter Issue II (June 2010)
Use the show/hide button to display or hide this newsletter. From the editor Sticking to my promise of sending these out monthly, it's time for the June edition of Positively Economics, covering the events of May, which has passed relatively quietly for the project. Nevertheless, Wikipedia is a wiki, and things can change quickly and often without much notice. All contributions can be, and often are, important, regardless of how trivial they may seem. I, for example, have been working on our new list of unsourced BLPs, having added a significant number of economists to the project earlier in the month. But more on that in the newsletter itself. - Jarry1250 [Humorous? Discuss.] 14:28, 27 May 2010 (UTC) Articles of note Note: this week's "new" FAs, and so forth, are ones that previously weren't included in the project but now are. New featured articles: Akhtar Hameed Khan New featured lists: None New featured topics: None New good articles: Abram Lincoln Harris George Lee (journalist) Stephen Harper Yulia Tymoshenko Redlinks to be squashed Skysmith has posted an updated list of missing economics topics. Most will need redirecting or new articles written to blueify them, so, if you can lend a hand with the effort, please do. There are some from virtually all areas of economics and hence to suit all tastes. Project news Unassessed articles: A whole swath of articles have been added to the WikiProject recently, mainly on notable economists. They are yet to be assessed on their talk pages; this also provides a good opportunity to check and improve some of our least monitored articles. Unsourced BLPs: Before the articles about economists were added, the project had very few unsourced biographies of living people; now there are a little over a hundred. If we can clear them, however, then it is unlikely that there will be many more. Again, they represent some of our least cared-for articles, and often present good targets for cleaning up. Your comments are invited in the following other ongoing project discussions and requests for help: Too big to fail Slowflation Jobless recovery Small Business Lending Index
To start/stop receiving this newsletter, please add/remove your name from the list here. Thank you. This newletter was delivered to you by User:Jarry1250 at around 14:35, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Please explain

Hipocrite, would you please explain what you meant by your edit comment "pattern?" in this edit? Thanks. ATren (talk) 17:34, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't really recollect what I meant. I think my longer post was about a pattern of behavior by TallMagic, but then I distilled it down substantially, as it appears the pattern of behavior is being/has been dealt with, leaving only my concern that Cla68 made something up. Hipocrite (talk) 17:36, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

And why would you be concerned that Cla made something up? Are you familiar with that conflict enough to make such an accusation against a long term good faith contributor like Cla? Perhaps you should consider retracting that remark. ATren (talk) 17:43, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Er, I'm concerned that he made something up because it seems like he made something up. I'm actually quite familiar with that conflict, having been remotely involved in it on the side of sweetness and lite as recently as... 2007, [3], among others, and substantial talk page involvement. Hipocrite (talk) 17:56, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Well if you know the history, then you must know the perfectly reasonable explanation for the apparent discrepancy between what Bill and Cla are saying, because I found it in precisely 2 minutes of looking. Frankly, Hipocrite, it's puzzling why you would get into a completely unrelated conflict involving Cla, questioning his integrity with an edit comment of "pattern?" so soon after you openly questioned whether he was coordinating offsite with me on CC. It gives the appearance of stalking. I also find it ironic (hypocritical, perhaps? ;-)) that while you track down and report suspected socks in CC, you are supporting a known sock against Cla.

So, again I suggest you remove your comment, because there is no evidence that Cla is being disingenuous here, while my 2 minutes of research revealed strong evidence that Bill is the one who is not being entirely honest. ATren (talk) 18:07, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Could you point out where WNU is mentioned on werewolves.org for me? Thanks! Hipocrite (talk) 18:10, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I will give Cla a chance to respond himself first, but that's not the point -- the point is your question assumes bad faith of a long time contributor who just happens to be someone with whom you've had an ongoing unrelated conflict; and furthermore, in that assumption of bad faith, you are implicitly supporting a known sock puppet. That has all the appearance of stalking, and I think you should retract it. ATren (talk) 18:16, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

No, my question doesn't. I looked for quite a while for WNU info on werewolves.org, and didn't find it. My recollection was that Hoffman accused Smart of using "LIT" - and that recollection was verified by my re-readings. I actually don't assume bad faith of Cla68 - if I were to assume bad faith, I wouldn't go to his talk page asking for a clarification, I'd just assume that he was making things up and escalate based on that. Further, being a known sock puppet isn't bad - it's pretending not to be a sock puppet. I don't know why Hoffman didn't drop one of his two accounts, and I'm not happy about that, but just being a sockpuppet isn't enough to invalidate what you say - you also need to be either banned, dishonest or wrong. Stalking isn't having someone's talk page on your watchlist - stalking is when you follow someone from article to article - something I am most certainly not doing to Cla68, as demonstrated by the fact that it could only be argued he followed me to Derek Smart - because I had edited there before he knew Wikipedia existed - though I'm not arguing that at all. Hipocrite (talk) 18:22, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Bit of a drive-by infodump here, but this link you're looking for regarding WNU - until 2007 it was KMU, or Kennedy-Western University. And if you look on werewolves.org for KMU, you'll find a couple of links, the first one which seems to indicate at some point Derek Smart brought up KMU, possibly implying/claiming his degree came from there. That's where my quick infodump ends, I'm afraid. I was just passing by, as it were, and haven't dug much deeper. --InkSplotch (talk) 23:46, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Greetings, firstly to Hipocrite. Let me say that I feel it's one thing to assert I'm unwelcome on Wikipedia and for me to disagree, it's another thing if you find my edits to be unwelcome on your talk page. Considering the amount of discomfort I may be giving you, please feel free to move this or any comment I make to my talk page. Would you feel more comfortable if I made an account, by the by? With that said, Inksplotch, I gave the text you mentioned a quick read, and came up with this:

"To play it safe and for my own peace of mind, I had started looking into DL institutes in the US and came across KWU, which is how I was able to quote, verbatim, what I had posted. So yes, I have been aware of the implication of having an unaccredited degree *if* I wanted it to mean anything to anyone else, but me. I didn't go forward for the reasons I have already stated." The bolding there was mine, I am not sure I agree with the assertion that Derek Smart has possibly made any such claim. This link is the only evidence I've examined though, mind you. 72.192.46.9 (talk) 00:27, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

And I expect that to have a better picture would require going through a majority of the website, but I wasn't attempting to bolster Cla68's specific argument. Hipocrite was following an exchange between Cla68 and Bill Huffman over on Cla68's talk page (itself a spillover from the ArbCom request page). In his amendment request, Cla68 brought up WNU and Huffman called him on it, saying WNU isn't mentioned anywhere on the site - which is true in a literal sense. But if Cla68 was following things back he might have read about KWU over there, followed it back to Wikipedia and discovered it's now WNU. Hence, the lack of direct link to mention of WNU over there.

As for the statement, The university at which he says Smart claims to have received a doctorate is Warren National University (WNU), it's not the main point in his statement here. Whatever Smart's exact claims, KWU were a specific part of the discussions about diploma mills (archived at Hoffman's site), and I think Cla68's point is that Hoffman's views there are reflected in edits to the NWU article here. --InkSplotch (talk) 02:41, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

With regards to the fullness of the exchange, I do know that, I've been involved with the arbitration amendment case myself, but I thank you for the explanation! My perception is that Cla68's edit as you provided did have Bill Huffman's beliefs in regards to Derek Smart as a main point. This seemed to be a statement that Bill Huffman believes Derek Smart has a degree from that university:

"The university at which he says Smart claims to have received a doctorate is Warren National University (WNU)."

I haven't seen a statement that Bill Huffman believes that yet (but I have not looked, it should be reiterated). Cla68 further seems to believe this is the reason that Bill Huffman wants negative information in the article, I.E. it is because of a battle, not an interest in advancing encyclopedic content:

"The editing history of Huffman and TallMagic at that article shows efforts by those accounts to ensure that that article contains negative information on that school. TallMagic appears to editwar frequently with IP editors who try to remove at least some of the negative information. So, the off-wiki battle going on between these two people appears to have extended from just the Smart article to at least one other article."

Notice he claims an intention for Bill Huffman to 'ensure negative content' in referencing the 'off-wiki battle'. Might I ask if you consider my possible interpretation unlikely because of, or disproven by, something I have not considered? And by the way, I thank you for your time pulling up this information. I feel it has helped me understand the perceptions at play which is, of course, quite helpful! 72.192.46.9 (talk) 03:32, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I think your interpretation is is pretty close to my own, with one variance: I don't see the initial sentence about WNU as being that integral to the argument. At least, not in specificity. Cla68 might have a different quote from that site in mind that directly supports that first sentence, might have misremembered, or might just have been oversimplifying. From my cursory look at Huffman's site, I can see the PhD controversery generated a lot of discussion, some of which went down the branch of diploma mills, which led to KWU/NWU specifically (brought up, in some context, by Smart). The allegation that Huffman's site reflects a strongly negative viewpoint of diploma mills like NWU which has carried over to directly editing NWU's page here to reflect those views doesn't hinge on why NWU entered the original discussions, only how the sides in that dispute treated the subject might influence their editing here.

And on a side note, I've not looked at Huffman's/TallMagic's contributions here, but if they largely focus in the areas around Derek Smart and WNU/Diploma Mills, then it makes Huffman's case that much harder even if his edits aren't that overtly biased. ArbCom might view him as a single purpose account, which might be enough for them to enact a ban just to those topic areas. --InkSplotch (talk) 04:12, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Regarding a mention of my unwelcomeness and concerns of sockpuppetry

Greetings! I once edited the Derek Smart article, almost exclusively. I later made a few contributions to the Global Warming article. A short time after doing so, a long time editor "Cla68" began to have an issue with "Bill Huffman", though your above conversation may show that I'm absolved of responsibility (maybe he noticed you and not me), I still like to take care of the messes I may make. I understand how I may seem to be singularly interested here, but I assure you that I am my own person, with my own motivations. If I can at all allay your concerns, please feel free to let me know the ways in which I can do that. I made a comment here not to be aggressive, it should be said, only because Cla68's talk page seemed a less appropriate venue. 72.192.46.9 (talk) 20:32, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure who you are, but your content overlap with me is problematic. Hipocrite (talk) 20:34, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

It seems that all I've been doing here on Wikipedia is causing concern and upset. Is there any way that you could be assured that I'm not here to cause you, or any wikipedian for that matter, problems? 72.192.46.9 (talk) 20:46, 1 June 2010 (UTC)