User talk:Hipocrite/12/2009

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Subtle humor barnstar

Barnstar of Humour3.png The Barnstar of Subtle Humor
Moo. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 03:16, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Frank G. Jackson

What a mess. Yes, I put that POV tag in, but if you took out the unsourced and bothersome text, then that's OK. I hate to bother you, but do you have any references to add to this? This biographical article has many serious issues, and I am tempted to nominate it for deletion. For the record, I am a Democrat, so I am not whitewashing. Bearian (talk) 18:16, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Fragma08 (talk · contribs)

This user has reported you on ANI and AN3. Mathsci (talk) 14:45, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

User:Jack Merridew

The user above makes the same, annoying signature as he did, along with this post. It now exceeds the characters of his previous signature, which is more than 1000 characters. Although the editors on WP:ANI stated that this is normal on his own talk page, exceeding over 1000 characters to be then used in another talk page is superbly annoying, and I think he has totally crossed the line, and is possible of heading into the cliff (getting blocked). I will no longer be involved with this user, as he continues to revert my signature. If you have a new post regarding this matter, please post a {{talkback}} message on my talk page, rather than respoding there. Boeing7107isdelicious|SPRiCh miT meineN PiloteN 00:31, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Even if there were any point to the post above (outside attempting to stir up drama, that is) please note that the post you complain of was by another user. Drop it.   pablohablo. 12:14, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Hipocrite. You have new messages at Mark Shaw's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hi

Whatever the decency of your intentions, an audience will not help in this instance.I'm engaged in interpersonal dispute resolution rather than encyclopedia business.Dduff442 (talk) 14:24, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

That's not how it works. If you want to have a private dispute with someone, use email. Hipocrite (talk) 14:34, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
Whatever. WMC is a sturdy sort of a fellow, I'm sure, all grown up and capable of looking after himself. I don't feel inserting yourself between us has been helpful, frankly.Dduff442 (talk) 14:48, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

WP:ATTACK

Your statement accusing me of having a conflict of interest that requires me to stop editing on certain subjects is a personal attack. Knock it off. --Uncle Ed (talk) 18:33, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Ed, that's not accurate. I can't explain why not without violating WP:OUTING. I've requested you waive that, but the ball is, of course, in your court. Hipocrite (talk) 18:36, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
At least part of why its COI is public. Part of it I'm not sure about, have you checked histories H? Are you sure it isn't here somewhere? KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 18:51, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
I tread too close to the outing line recently so I don't do research into people's lives anymore for publication. Hipocrite (talk) 18:55, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
I recall a good bit about Ed, but I'd have to check to see where I read it. I seem to recall a good deal of it was here, and said openly by Ed. However, you're the best judge of any COI information you are in possession of. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 19:38, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Hipocrite. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 18:37, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Killian documents authenticity issues

I saw you try to do some cleaning up there. I shouldn't get involved, but you should be warned that unless you get several other editors to back you up, you're not going to get anywhere: both Killian articles are watchguarded by "owners" armed with multiple puppets (including, I suspect, the Scibaby puppeteer [hint: he's *probably* a Tor expert]) who will block any attempt to clean them up beyond fixing small typos and such. Your changes will be reverted with nonsensical edit summaries, and any attempt at discussion on the Talk Page will quickly go circular with endless instances of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. As an experiment, I suggest you first try putting in some "Citation Missing" tags for some of the wholly unreferenced and unsupported stuff and see how far you get doing even that. Good luck. -BC aka Callmebc 09:44, 5 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.6.39.87 (talk)

  • not that you are editing past a block or anything. Hipocrite is a long standing editor with wide-ranging interests, I do not anticipate issues of the type you experienced. Incidentally, as an indefinitely blocked user you are restricted to your own talk page. Guy (Help!) 21:53, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Be cautious

I've been curiously watching things from the sidelines. You made surprising headway before more of the blackhats showed up, as well as the first IP. I was wondering if all the high recent CRU/Global Warming activity might distract them much (in the past, high activity on the Killian articles often corresponded to a decrease in puppet attacks on Global Warming), but not that much apparently. Just be very cautious here: they might seem like just hostile, right wing ideologues prone to equate obscure cranks and their own opinions in reliability to NY Times articles, but they can be pretty malicious if called out. My ban occurred when one of them contacted a source I had, during a Talk Page discussion, characterized as using "dubious hearsay" and "without any credible sourcing" (those are the exact quotes). That low level of criticism was enough to be leveraged into an OTRS complaint that duped a certain notorious admin into permanently banning me. And after I got banned, there was then basically a free for all in thrashing the article to better reflect the views of the right blog sites (go the check the edit history from about late January, 2008 on.) These are not nice people, seriously, so be very careful. -BC aka 209.6.39.87 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:28, 9 December 2009 (UTC).

It was nice of you to check, but he's not exactly the helpful sort, plus I suspect he knows he was played the fool. The short summary is that a certain person connected to the Bush re-election committee wrote a column for a certain right wing newspaper, and in it was a certain silly, bogus anecdote (in the sense that it provided no real supporting evidence, it was constructed via a deliberate misreading of a certain document, and its central points are contradicted by official DoD records). Of course this was added to Wikipedia despite there not even initially being a link to the article. This caused a massive edit war in trying to get it removed (seriously, we were #1 in Wikipedia activity at one point.) In the course of extensively (and then some) showing how the anecdote could not possibly be true, above and beyond it coming from an obviously biased and unreliable source, the major opposing editor (and probable puppeteer) apparently contacted the author and that led to the first OTRS complaint that ended up with my getting blocked from editing the article pages, as well as having any and all comments of mine even touching upon the unreliability of the author redacted. I then promised to stay off the article main page and stick with the Talk Pages until a consensus was reached. Now imagine your little negative experiences so far magnified 100x over -- it was malicious puppet/IP/ICantHearYou central for a while until I made the above comments I put in quotes. That became the 2nd OTRS complaint and I was bounced completely. In addition to the main article then quickly becoming essentially a right wing blog page (anything authoritative and contextual was removed in favor of adding more and more bits by right wing Jacques Clouseau's), my overall edit history was backtraced and many edits I had made in other articles were reverted as well out of spite. Like I said, these are not nice people..... Callmebc aka 209.6.39.87 (talk) 19:06, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
Er, I'm getting a bit uncomfortable with the obviously banned user talking at me on my talk page. If you have a problem with your ban, I suggest you appeal it. If you don't have a problem with your ban, please don't evade it to write things on my talk page - instead, feel free to write them on your own talk page. It's possible for me to care less about evil bush officials and right wing whosamawatchamabobs, but actually I just hate unreliable sources and unverified info. Hipocrite (talk) 19:10, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
I stop by there once in a random while out of curiosity to see what sorry state it's in, and you appear to be the first person in a long while to make any real attempt to clean it up, and I noted the quick contentious opposition. I admit it's tempting to join in to fix things, but without better support and better methods to ID and remove malicious editors from the politically charged articles, there's no point. Whatever hard fought "consensus" that might be reached will likely arbitrarily disappear in a blink via an IP edit and none of the "regulars" will do anything about it. I have no desire to edit any Wikipedia article ever again, which means no appeal, no talk page, nor any of that stuff. I got no help at all in dealing with pretty obviously malevolent editors, and almost all the admins I dealt with were worst than useless. Also my activity drew in even more right wingers who then sashayed over to Global Warming to cause trouble during one of my blocks. Like I said, these are not nice people, so I thought to at least give you a heads up. I do think I overstayed my visit, though, so no more "notes". Take care and good luck. -BC aka 209.6.39.87 (talk) 22:40, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Me too

Re: your edit summary - me too, but I was afraid of what might happen if we had two different warring camps at the same AfD (to be clear, this is spoken in jest). Although to be fair that discussion has taken a turn for the reasonable this morning. - 2/0 (cont.) 15:05, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Scientific opinion on climate change

Thank you for seeking compromise and actively discussing ([1], [2]). [1] could have been more polite (it is far short of WP:CIV territory, but not exactly welcoming; not badgering whichever poor soul volunteers for the check is a very good idea) and there is already an RfC on the subject of [2], but this is still a step in a good direction. - 2/0 (cont.) 19:02, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

ZP5

ZP5 is, in my opinion, a waste of time for GW related articles. He calmed down somewhat after his block, but is back to "normal" now. In the absence of admin action, I fear that the RFC route is inevitable. Comments? William M. Connolley (talk) 18:51, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

It's a waste of your time. Hipocrite (talk) 18:54, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
Yeeesss... but having him talking nonsense on article talk pages and putting ni silly changes is also a waste of everyones time. Do you have other ideas? William M. Connolley (talk) 20:31, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
Not to be a pessimistic downer, but no. I think it's been conclusively demonstrated that most admins and users see users like ZP5 to be damage, and route around them. As you've seen, trying to deal with the damaged area leads to unfun. Hipocrite (talk) 20:32, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
With due respect, I think that the "reluctance to get involved issue" is more tightly correlated with things like how well meaning admins like Tedder get treated than with users like ZP5. --GoRight (talk) 20:38, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Waste of Time is a Personal Attack

Listen .. I consider being declared "a waste of time" a personal attack. [3] How should we adress this? There was no refence to content in that eds comments. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 21:21, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Now I understand. I suggest that next time you do what I've done in my upcoming diff. Hipocrite (talk) 21:22, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
Please understand then when an editor declares a "waste of time" that may be a serious concern with WP:OWN as if they claim a right to control time in the article and wiki. See me talk, I claim the right to remove my name from a PA. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 21:59, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

AE

While you're fiddling with your request, can you move it to the bottom of the page and change the header level?--Tznkai (talk) 19:50, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Also - are you saying these IPs are Pcarbonn?
1. Fixed and 2. Yes. Hipocrite (talk) 19:52, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

A neutral respected editor

Yes, I would like a referral (three r's) please. 99.27.202.101 (talk) 14:10, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Your editing could be improved if you discussed it with User:Viriditas. I do not believe he has any connection to Cold Fusion. Hipocrite (talk) 14:11, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
Thank you; I have asked. Where do you see the most room for improvement? 99.27.202.101 (talk) 14:24, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
I think you are already engaged in a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality, and need to diversify your interests to demonstrate you are interested in editing an encyclopedia rather than tell the world the truth about Cold Fusion. Your first statement on the talk page [4] was false - as adressed by Olorinish. Your second edit [5] assumed the motives of people who might disagree with you ("Otherwise you're just trying to impose an absolutist pro-or-con point of view against the secondary sources which, in total, clearly indicate that opinion is divided.") Hipocrite (talk) 14:28, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
Furthermore, you went promptly to User talk:Kirk shanahan. He hasn't edited for almost a month, so why are you on his talk page? Hipocrite (talk) 14:29, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
My interests are diverse, but the way I am being treated is abhorrent. Do you honestly contest the idea that the secondary sources are not divided on cold fusion? If not, why don't you agree with my opposition to a pro-or-con stance?
I believe Shanahan was the last person to publish a peer reviewed anti-cold fusion article. Is that incorrect? Who is to say that he is not monitoring his talk page with RSS? 99.27.202.101 (talk) 14:35, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
I'm unintrested in responding to you further. If my first proposed assistant is unable to help you improve your editing, I am happy to find you another. Hipocrite (talk) 14:37, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
I'm sorry I offended you. I will take your advice. 99.27.202.101 (talk) 14:44, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Well well well

This [6] is rather tantalising, no? William M. Connolley (talk) 23:16, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

About This Edit

You wrote, "Oh, how interesting" but didn't elaborate.
May I (With all due respect, of course!) ask what exactly you meant by that? I ask this even though the matter is probably academic (I suspect that User:Abd may well choose not to come back — real life, after all, does has its own compelling merits.....).<br. />--NBahn (talk) 07:32, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

AUSC Report on oversight / outing incident

Thought you might be interested in this: Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Audit_Subcommittee/Reports#.22Randy_in_Boise.22_suppressions. I have made some talk page comments on the report, FYI. EdChem (talk) 12:23, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your message. As an aside, when you email the AUSC, it would probably be helpful if you include your username there; I had to sort through the entire November mail archive to connect you with the email that was received. No worries for being insistent on getting things done. Risker (talk) 14:08, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Notification: Proposed 'Motion to Close' at Wikipedia:Community de-adminship/Draft RfC

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Community de-adminship/Draft RfC re: a 'Motion to close', which would dissolve Cda as a proposal. The motion includes an !vote. You have previously commented at Wikipedia:WikiProject Administrator/Admin Recall. Best Wishes for the Holidays, Jusdafax 07:01, 24 December 2009 (UTC)