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.

Index

Archive 1

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

Can you tone it down a bit?

This is a bit strong. I agree on the substance - if it's lifted nearly one to one it needs to become a quote, but why not treat it as an error in good faith, and keep out the personal opinion for now? I think a more gentle approach may be more constructive in the long run. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:53, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

S - I pointed it out when it was still a userspace draft, but she still pasted it into the article. I fixed it. She reverted the fix - twice. I have tried to explain it at length on the talk page of the Singer article. I think it's high time for a formal warning. Guettarda (talk) 17:33, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I was too strong. Hipocrite (talk) 20:44, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair the "it's not plagiarism if you change a couple of words" misconception is common amongst undergraduates, though most of them eventually learn better (sometimes in a chat with the Dean of Students). Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 20:49, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it is. And, quite frankly, paraphrasing always provides challenges. The problem here isn't the initial action, it's the response. She rejected my first set of comments to that effect. She reverted my fix. Twice. We all make mistakes. But when someone says to you "you made a mistake" and explains why, the normal thing to do is to pause and reassess your actions. When you reach the stage where you're reverting the addition of quotation marks to a quote, you've really given up on AGF gone into full battleground mode. Guettarda (talk) 23:16, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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—

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

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. –xeno^talk 14:25, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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:

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]