User talk:Hipocrite/Archive/Dec06

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

After continuous harassment from an editor towards Hipocrite, I excersized my right to disappear and got a new username. Talk from this username archived below.

Contents 1 Permanent deletion of historical record for Ewart's RfC; even my own contribution history 2 Communism RFM 3 Killian 4 Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/ScienceApologist 5 Dig page 6 Mediation request 7 Reference Desk 8 Request for Mediation 9 Mediation announcement 10 The unnoticeable, invisible movement 11 This month's winner is RNA interference! 12 Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience 13 Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/ScienceApologist 14 Your input is requested 15 Controversial Derek Smart page 16 Aphrodisiac question 17 Yeah 18 User Serinity 19 Hidden comments 20 FYI 21 Eh. 22 Please add spaces 23 Ref desk science, age of Earth 24 Rudeness 25 Deleted RD question 26 re: so file 27 You should apologise 28 soliciting your input 29 RfC 30 Request for Arbitration filed on Derek Smart

[edit] Permanent deletion of historical record for Ewart's RfC; even my own contribution history

Is this acceptable on a wiki? Even my own contribution history of edits at Ewart's RfC has been deleted. As you know the RfC was not vandalism. ottawaman 13:41, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Reponded on your talk. JBKramer 13:46, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Communism RFM

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Communism, and indicate whether you agree or refuse to mediate. If you are unfamiliar with mediation, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. There are only seven days for everyone to agree, so please check as soon as possible. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Donnachadelong (talk • contribs).

Signed for autoarchive JBKramer 00:55, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Killian

Hi, before things get to a revert war, can we slow down and discuss this?Kaisershatner 17:40, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your replies at my talk page and at the article's page. I'm going to open an RFC out of genuine curiousity to see what a broader group of editors thinks about the use of blogs and whether WP:IAR supersedes WP:V here. I can see your point about WP:RS and WP:V being inviolable; maybe the issue here is they are too rigid for this case. On the one hand, not all blogs are created equal, and on the other, opening the door to that kind of citation is potentially a slippery slope that might lead to worse problems. I just wanted to make it clear that this is NOT rancorous as between us - I can understand your viewpoint, and I hope you can see some of the merits of mine. It seems clear that you won't abide by any flexibility regarding using blog citations in this article, so I can't see us finding a compromise without other input. And you may be right not to allow it; I'm just not sure, and hence the RFC. Regards, Kaisershatner 16:02, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/ScienceApologist

Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/ScienceApologist. Please add any evidence you may wish the arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/ScienceApologist/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/ScienceApologist/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, --Srikeit 21:16, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dig page

Can you provide me a link to the "dig page" (I know it is deleted, but I'll still be able to see it) Apparently it shows another active editor here is his wife. FeloniousMonk 17:35, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mediation request

JB, one of the pro-blog editors has requested mediation in the Killian documents dispute. (The request is here). I am assuming that you are not interested in participating and have suggested closing the mediation as moot. However, if you would like to participate, please let the medcab know. Thanks, TheronJ 15:48, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reference Desk

Please see Wikipedia talk:Reference desk#The tone of the Reference Desk. User:Zoe|(talk) 18:35, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Request for Mediation

A Request for Mediation to which you are a party was not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the mediation subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Communism. For the Mediation Committee, Essjay (Talk) This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management. If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

[edit] Mediation announcement

Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-11-20 Killian v blogs

Please comment at the above mediation request and express your concerns there.SFinside 15:18, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The unnoticeable, invisible movement

JB, You stated that there was no evidence for Creation Seventh Day Adventist Church being a movement. I agree with you. So you might be interested in this discussion: User:The_Hybrid/Dispute --e.Shubee 11:37, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] This month's winner is RNA interference!

RNA interference

This month's MCB Collaboration of the Month article is RNA interference. Please help to improve this article to featured article status.

Last month's collaboration was proteasome

– ClockworkSoul 14:35, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience

This case is now closed and the results have been published at the link above.

• Tommysun (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) is banned from editing articles which relate to science and pseudoscience. The term "pseudoscience" shall be interpreted broadly; it is intended to include but not be limited to all article in Category:Pseudoscience and its subcategories.
• Tommysun and Iantresman (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) are placed on probation. They may be banned from any article or subject area which they disrupt by aggressive biased editing. All bans to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Pseudoscience#Log_of_blocks_and_bans. *Elerner (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) is banned from editing Eric Lerner, Plasma cosmology, Aneutronic fusion, and any pages, excepting talk pages, related to his real-life work.
• ScienceApologist (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) is cautioned to respect all policies and guidelines, in spirit as well as letter, when editing articles concerning some alternative to conventional science. This applies in particular to matters of good faith and civility.

For the Arbitration committee. Thatcher131 02:50, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/ScienceApologist

This case is now closed and the results have been published at the link above.

Asmodeus is indefinitely banned from editing Christopher Michael Langan and all related articles including but not limited to: Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe, Crank (person), and Academic elitism. He may make suggestions on talk pages if he is not disruptive. Asmodeus is also placed on probation indefinitely and is cautioned to be courteous to other users. He may be banned from any article, talk page, or subject area which he disrupts by aggressive biased editing or incivility. All remedies which apply to Asmodeus also apply to DrL and, after warning accompanied by a link to this matter, to any other user with a similar editing pattern. Haldane Fisher and Hal Fisher are banned indefinitely. FeloniousMonk is counseled to consult with other administrators with respect to disruptive users and to cooperate with them in a collegial way. ScienceApologist is counseled to be more patient and diplomatic with users who may edit their own article or advance original research. Bans imposed by this decision may be enforced by appropriate blocks. All blocks to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/ScienceApologist#Log_of_blocks_and_bans.

For the Arbitration Committee --Srikeit 17:07, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your input is requested

Your input would be appreciated at this Request for Comments. Kelly Martin (talk) 17:16, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Controversial Derek Smart page

Hello there and thanks for your comment on the Derek Smart page. I can't seem to login to my account from work but I will send you an email shortly after my meeting. In the meantime, I notice that the page has been blocked from editing by new or anon users by the same admin who, IMO, improperly blocked a user (WarhawkSP) this morning. Obviously he put this block because he felt that he was being reprimanded or attacked for his action. What is going on with these guys? He reverts an edit that I did because I was anon. Point of fact: he never even checked what it was I had reverted, nor did he check the talk page. That Ars Technica excerpt is in gross violation of [[WP:BLP] and WP:RS but one would think that he'd know that?

Another admin recently resigned for the same reason that I did. This behavior by some admins is completely unacceptable. And this action taken by Steel359 is an example of why Wiki is constantly coming under attack by critics and why pov-pushing editors can easily gain a consensus when all the other editors have either left or blocked. And don't bother reporting an abusive admin.

Anyway, can you help these guys out on that page? I can't login to my account until I get home from work. 209.214.22.231 16:38, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Aphrodisiac question

Hipocrite - just to let you know that I reinstated the "aphrodisiac" question that you deleted from the Miscellaneous RD. It's a weird question, but I don't think it deserves to be deleted on sight. Your comment said something about illegal medicial advice, but AFAIK aphrodisiacs are not illegal. If you wanted to tell the questioner that the Wikipedia RD is not the right place to come for medical advice, then it is better to post this as a response to the question - if the question is deleted, then the questioner may simply repeat it. Gandalf61 15:47, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Okay, you were reading more into the question than I saw. Feel free to delete it again if you feel strongly - I won't revert. Gandalf61 16:04, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Yeah

Good point. Unfortunately WP:PAIN doesn't seem to be working these days. (Radiant) 13:31, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

• Please respond to this important issue. (Radiant) 13:38, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User Serinity

Serinity has recently vandalized John Lott [1], and has deleted from his talk the section you added re: Vandalism back in february [2]. I don't know if there's other context and history I'm unaware of, just FYI. DOD 15:14, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hidden comments

Hipocrite - saw your hidden comments on responses to the Aphrodisiac question on the Misc RD. You are certainly entitled to express opinions on other editors responses, but I think they should be visible and signed. Would you mind if I made your comments visible ? Or would you prefer to remove them ? Gandalf61 13:40, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Do not edit my comments. They are hidden for a reason. Thanks. Hipocrite - «Talk» 14:15, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand why you are making these hidden comments - can you explain your reasons, please ? What is achieved by a set of hidden and unsigned comments on other editors responses ? Why can't you give your feedback openly ? Gandalf61 16:44, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

It is my perrogative to provide my feedback how I choose. Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:45, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, yes, to a large extent that is true. Just thought you might like to help me understand where you are coming from. If you won't explain your thinking then you are never going to persuade folks that your approach to the RDs has merit. On the face of it, unsigned and hidden comments are a pretty strange way of trying to improve things ! Gandalf61 17:06, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I strongly believe that if people would spend two minutes reviewing what they publish with the knowledge that people are actually reading it and NOT engaging in silly chit-chat with them, they would take things more seriously. My comments to take things more seriously, and to focus on accuracy (another incorrect statement was provided minutes before this comment, which I again marked) they would stop using the reference desk as a chatroom, which is totally unnaceptable to the project. I have begun signing the header text. Hipocrite - «Talk» 17:10, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] FYI

"Prerogative". Feel free to remove this comment as soon as you see it.

Atlant 16:58, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I only check my spelling for article page edits. I am an embarassment to my 5th grade teachers, I know. Hipocrite - «Talk» 17:05, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Eh.

Sorry. I tend to need a swift kick in the arse every once in a while. It's been probably about six months since I last touched the reference desk, so please bear with me while I get back into the swing of things...so many things have changed on me. Cernen Xanthine Katrena 17:12, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Please add spaces

On Ref Desk-miscellaneous-Crabs: It is jarring to see what looks like "Crab louse Hipocrite" Please add some spaces before your username. Thanks ;-) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Edison (talk • contribs) 18:07, 12 December 2006 (UTC).(sorry, the tildes were accidentally omitted. I was totally focussed on how to create the emoticon.) Edison 18:26, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

My bad. Will fix. Hipocrite - «Talk» 18:36, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ref desk science, age of Earth

Howdy, I noticed you removed a comment left on the reference desk with the comment "not valuable." I was somewhat puzzled, since my experience has been only trolling comments are generally removed. Is there something there which I am not seeing, or a policy I am unaware of? I refrained from restoring the comment under assume good faith, but was not sure what the reasoning was. Perhaps you could clarify. Thanks, --TeaDrinker 18:56, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

The reference desk is not for people to debate God and his aspects. Hipocrite - «Talk» 19:07, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I see, I suppose it is just a difference of opinion, since the response seemed relevant to me. No matter, thanks for the response. --TeaDrinker 19:24, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

One thing I would like to note is that your response could have been more courteous. You may have received a better response if you adopted a more reasonable tone. It is a good policy to be polite, especially around unregistered users and new editors because we all started that way once, and it would be a shame to say something that discouraged people from editing here in the future. Thank you, Sifaka ^talk 19:55, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. I suggest that you become fully informed about the current state of the reference desk before you contradict my statements on users talk pages. Thank you. Hipocrite - «Talk» 20:13, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I suggest you stop being rude, frankly it's embarrasing to the entire RD --froth^{T C} 22:18, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

If I were being rude, that would be problematical. Can you point out rudeness to me so I can correct it? Thanks. Hipocrite - «Talk» 22:19, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not Sifaka or Froth, so I can't answer for them, but the impression I've gotten today is that you're running around telling people what is and isn't appropriate at the reference desk, going so far as to summarily delete things which you find particularly inappropriate. I might not use the word "rude" to describe this, but it's certainly problematical. I don't know what your think your mandate for these actions is, but it doesn't seem adequate to me. There seem to be some "policy" discussions going on, but from what I can see they're about a week old, and are hardly in a state for you to be enforcing yet. —Steve Summit (talk) 23:25, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

"I suggest you become fully informed of the current state of the reference desk" drips with condescension. It might be appropriate in another context, but the current state of the reference desk is no excuse for dismissing Sifaka's suggestions --froth^{T C} 01:53, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

It is not intended to be condescending. It is intended to inform a user who is clearly going off half-cocked that there is a substantial amount of work they'll want to do before jumping in with both feet - especially when their first contribution is to defend the person who did this from having their precious reference desk contributions removed. Hipocrite - «Talk» 04:44, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I examined his contribution and it was definitely wrong for him to have removed those posts, however poorly they were written. However, I think you are being unfair when you say I am going off "half-cocked." The user likely does not understand the rules at Wikipedia. In these cases, Wikipedia should be forgiving, especially because the edit that he made had decent content and appeared to be in good faith. Just because I wasn't aware of this previous edit though does not strip me of my right to constructive criticism. I believe that my response was and is still appropriate. Sifaka ^talk 05:44, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

For the record, the response was just a reformulated version of the second objection listed on the WP page on Omphalos hypothesis, meant for easy understanding the potentially applicability in said philosophical discussion. If you read it again you'll see it does not "debate God and his aspects", it just points out one logical interpretation of a set of stated beliefs and a potential way of indicating the potentially undesired consequences of such a stance. It was neither a personal opinion, nor a polemic, nor a joke. --24.147.86.187 00:54, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rudeness

Since you asked, I can easily point out where you've been rude, User:Hipocrite: I already pointed it out to you a couple of times today. Here's another example: User talk:Ummit#Reference desk. -THB 02:21, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment. I am confused however. Which of my mesasges on that talk page from me is rude, and what leads you to believe that? It appears to me that you have confused rudeness with things you don't like. Hipocrite - «Talk» 03:02, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Following me around responding to my comments on others' talk pages is rude, too: [3]. I do appreciate you removing it. It shows that you understand that you are being rude. -THB 11:53, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

It is no longer necessary for you to contact me on my talk page. Thanks. Hipocrite - «Talk» 12:02, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Just curious... was it ever "necessary"? I assume that you don't have a loved one hostage to force THB to contact you "or else", so most likely he contacted you because he wanted to, and not because it was "necessary". Just a thought. ;-) --Maelwys 14:37, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

"Not necessary" was a platitude for "unwanted." I guess wikipedia thinks I'm "trite, meaningless, or prosaic." I'll be filing a report on Wikipedia's personal attacks shortly. Hipocrite - «Talk» 14:39, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Deleted RD question

Did you delete the following question, with a summary of cannonically unacceptable, and if so, why? Does the questioner have a history of trolling, or are there areas of history which are off limits to RD? The questioner stated that the ideas were lame and he/she was looking for suggestions, and I expect some good ones might have resulted. Thanks Edison 17:57, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

== HISTORY PROJECT == - - HELLO, I need help with my history homework. I have a project on the Salem Witch Trials and I have to come up with an idea for a project that is out of the ordinary. I had the idea for something like a broom or a shoebox with a witch's stake inside. I know the ideas suck though so please help me. Thanks - - --80.148.22.236 17:36, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

This question is not about history. It is about helping the questioner come up with an idea for his homework. This is not the purpose of a reference desk. Hipocrite - «Talk» 17:59, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I see "Do your own homework. If you need help with a specific part or concept of your homework, feel free to ask, but please do not post entire homework questions and expect us to give you the answers. " This Q sounds like 'help with a specific part or concept of your homework.'" It looks like this is appropriate for the RD Discussion page. Edison 18:06, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

This is not a request for help with a part or concept of your homework, it's an entirely off topic request to help him brainstorm what kind of diarama he's supposed to make. Use some common sense, please. Hipocrite - «Talk» 18:07, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] re: so file

Er, no. My point was that if the same criteria for RfC that you applied to them was applied to you, then you would be far worse than them --froth^{T C} 19:28, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Ok. Thanks for that input. I suggest that you file an RFC seeking wider community input on my behavior. Hipocrite - «Talk» 19:28, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I haven't made up my mind about you yet, but I doubt that even a RfC would be in order on more reasonable criteria. There are far worse than you :) --froth^{T C} 19:29, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] You should apologise

After your latest stunt on RD Talk, I think you owe StuRat a public apology. Accusing someone of insinuating child abuse cannot be attributed to a simple misinterpretation or a hasty remark made in the heat of the moment. You have gone too far this time. Gandalf61 17:41, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your input. Hipocrite - «Talk» 17:42, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I see you have now apologised. Thank you for listening. Gandalf61 17:50, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] soliciting your input

We could use your input at User talk:TenOfAllTrades/RD thoughts#...but we can't answer all questions. Thanks. —Steve Summit (talk) 20:24, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RfC

Hipocrite - see you have raised an RfC against StuRat and THB. I was very amused when I saw what you gave as Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute. More seriously, WP:RFC says "An RfC may bring close scrutiny on all involved editors" - are you comfortable with the idea that this might bring your own behaviour under the spotlight ? Gandalf61 14:54, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

If you would like to write an RFC on my conduct up, I will happily waive the requirement of a second endorser. Hipocrite - «Talk» 14:55, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• I can say from experience that I don't think an RFC on Hipocrite will be a particularly satisfying endeavor. (Glad to have you back, Hipo). TheronJ 15:03, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

What, is that supposed to intimidate us? "Having friends" isn't going to get him (or you) anywhere TheronJ. Tragic romance 17:12, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

• No, it was just an inside joke, plus a welcome back message to Hipocrite. Sorry if you were offended -- I'll tell you the backstory someday. TheronJ 22:30, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Not what I meant, Hipocrite. I don't agree with some of your recent actions and views around the RDs, but its nothing to go nuclear over. I just think there's a danger you might have shot yourself in the foot - that's all. And I was wondering whether your RfC is really necessary - surely there are better ways to sort out the RD issues ? Gandalf61 15:07, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

The RFC is not to sort out the Ref Desk issues. It's to get community input on the conduct of two of the participants in the Ref Desk issues. Let me ask you, because you appear to have not thrown in the towel on consensus - do you believe the "votes" and the mechanisms of argument the two of them were using were helpful? Perhaps you would consider endorsing the RFC? Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:08, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

If it's not for the Ref Desk issues, and just about the conduct of two people that happen to be part of the Ref Desk, wouldn't it make more sense to try to list them as two seperate RFCs, instead of grouping them both together? You seem to have completely different issues with each person (even different policies quoted for each one) so it seems unfair to group them both together just because you met them both in the same place. And naming the RFC "Reference Desk" when it's filed as a RFC:User just seems confusing. Just my thoughts. --Maelwys 15:12, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

If you belive it is more useful split, please go ahead and split it - I will not revert such. I believe comments from outside parties will be made on both individual - if one spends the time to get comfortable with one party, one will get comfortable with both - I would not, however, object to a spilt. Your call. Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:16, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't really believe that it's my call, because it's not my RFC. I was merely attempting to make a helpful suggestion that perhaps if they were split you'd have better luck getting a second supporter (since if somebody agrees with your rational against one person, but disagrees with your rational against the other, they might hesitate to support a proposal that'll through the "innocent" into the fire along with the "guilty"). And also as I said before, in the interests of fairness, they're two separate people, and you've had separate conflicts with each of them, so the conflicts should be resolved separately through different RFCs. --Maelwys 15:27, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

On further review, it is innapropriate of me to lump the two of them together - they can choose or not choose to associate as they see fit. Thank you for your assistance in guiding my thoughts on this one - you were absolutly right. Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:35, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Hipocrite - what on earth gave you the idea that I would want to endorse such a muddleheaded, bureaucratic and petty waste of everyone's time as your RfC ? Although I don't agree with everything StuRat and THB have said and done, my honest opinion is that they have always acted in good faith and their conduct around the RDs has been far better than yours. Gandalf61 15:29, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your input. Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:33, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• I don't think an RFC will do much good (although if you see a mediator around, that might help). Rather, if we could (1) move all discussion back onto the same page, and (2) quit voting on the issues and start actually talking about them, we'd have a reasonable refdesk guideline in less than a week. (Radiant) 17:30, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Request for Arbitration filed on Derek Smart

Hello,

A request for arbitration has been filed on the article Derek Smart, which you have been involved with in some manner. If you would like to contribute to the request, or subsequent case if accepted, please visit WP:RFAR. ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 03:38, 19 December 2006 (UTC)