User talk:Hipocrite - Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by HalfShadow (talk | contribs) at 18:35, 8 February 2010 (→Ooh, my first trouting!: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 18:35, 8 February 2010 by HalfShadow (talk | contribs) (→Ooh, my first trouting!: new section)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Index

Archive 1

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

A request, please

Your PRODs seem for the most part to be correct, but the sheer numbers are overloading the system. Can you pretty please, slow down? Teh kitty need be be pet... Bearian (talk) 06:05, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

How many prods can be in the daily q before it's overloaded, please? Hipocrite (talk) 12:05, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Since you can't be bothered to answer this question and you have edited my talk page again, I'll assume you don't really care. Hipocrite (talk) 10:20, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

No, I do care. Sorry this has taken so long, I've been trying to help you all - deleting the crap, but rescuing the stuff I could, and even creating a new stub. To answer your question, I think the community can handle about 200 to 225 per day total at WP:PROD and WP:AFD. I answered the question elsewhere, by the way, but I can't find the diff. I think the mass Prodding has gotten out of hand. This is one example; a cursory Google search would have discovered that Péter Medgyessy was in fact the leader of Hungary. I nominated four test cases of Pete Williams (journalist), Ric Wake, Peter O. Price, and Corey Jones. The first was probably a mistake, but it's taken a long time for anyone to source it, and it looks like a snow keep. I reversed myself on the second one, and sourced what I could. The last two were rescued by other users. Bearian (talk) 03:03, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

arbcom enforcement

did you put this edit in the wrong section? it ended up in a request about Verbal. --Ludwigs2 22:34, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

No, it's in the right section. Hipocrite (talk) 22:35, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

it's about blp stuff - sorry, I guess I just don't get the reference. but if that's where you meant to put it, ok. --Ludwigs2 22:54, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Flagged Revisions

I see you signed the FR petition. Could you explain what that's all about? Would it mean that an admin would have to approve an edit before it could become part of the default revision? Thanks. JPatterson (talk) 14:23, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

It means for articles that have flagged protection turned on (which would be mainly high-value targets, like biographies of people), a trusted editor would need to verify any edits were not vandalism before those edits appeared to the general public. Hipocrite (talk) 15:11, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

A question for you

I appreciate your view in my RfA, and I hope I can learn from it. My answer to question 10 is based upon the policies I've researched, and I won't claim to know them all. Is there a policy/guideline you could point me to that supports your position? --otherl left 21:12, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Probably not. I suggest if you can block someone from editing the entire encyclopedia, you can certainly block them from editing one article. That you write "Topic and page bans are only warranted in cases on longterm abuse and should be issued by the Arbitration Committee," is merely parroting what some random policy page somewhere says, and is not nearly as complete as what I'd want from a model answer. Hipocrite (talk) 21:16, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Understood, and thank you. I will stand by my position that a topic ban is more complex and shouldn't be decided unilaterally; I'd be more comfortable issuing an appropriate block to stop the behavior and having a larger group make that determination. I appreciate your confirming that I wasn't forming an opinion which was against policy.--otherl left 21:21, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Concerns

I'm concerned that your recent comments are getting increasingly frustrated. I'm sure everyone would like the atmosphere to become less bleak. Perhaps you should try to reign in your anger at the other "side" - when your anger becomes transparent, it causes people you disagree with to stop working with you, and rather against you. If you need examples, I can certainly provide them, but please consider. JettaMann (talk) 16:40, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Really? I'm concerned. Could you show me some examples of my anger showing itself? I'd like to work on that. Thanks! Hipocrite (talk) 16:41, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Right here in inch given, MILE TAKEN your frustration with others is showing and you were in fact reprimanded by someone there. My suggestion is to take a deep breath and try to think about these issues in a cool, detached manner. JettaMann (talk) 16:50, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

That's a good point. I was quite angry about that. I would note, however, that I've recently realized that my previous bunker mentality was unhelpful - you can see that in various discussions - specifically at User Talk:Lar and in my collaboration with Nightmote, rewriting an entire article to solve a whole bunch of problems. But, thank you for pointing that out. Hipocrite (talk) 16:53, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, when William Connolley incorrectly said that the graph showed satellite temperature data , then attempted a little jibe at me, did you reprimand him? JettaMann (talk) 17:00, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I didn't review that. However, I don't see why my giving other editors advice or not has any bearing on the good advice we gave eachother. I'd further note that I haven't reprimanded anyone, because there's not a power dynamic where anyone can be "reprimanded" on wikipedia, except at the very end of dispute resolution. Hipocrite (talk) 17:04, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, you were a part of that conversation in the link above about the graphs. Curious that you didn't feel the need to discuss this with someone who so obviously was taking an unkind (and unwarranted) dig at another Misplaced Pages editor. Perhaps you could use some introspection as to why that is. JettaMann (talk) 17:06, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I wasn't really part of the conversation, as I hadn't participated in it. In fact, I didn't really read it. I saw what topic you were all arguing about, looked at the article, and did what I thought was right in the hopes that doing it first and trying to fish out who really cared might work. I think, actually, that I crossed the bunker and made an edit that you agreed with, right? Hipocrite (talk) 17:09, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

More or less, although at that stage in the discussion we were talking about leaving the IPCC but placing the pure satellite data that Dr. Ball prefers right next to the "adjusted-amalgamated" graph of the IPCC. JettaMann (talk) 17:15, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh, right, I forgot. I made an edit that no one likes. That makes me right, dosen't it? :) Hipocrite (talk) 17:16, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

The User Hipocrite just made another wishful concern on my edits. --DuKu (talk) 17:07, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

It's true. I gave you some advice about not calling things vandalism that are not obviously vandalism. You should definently take my advice. Hipocrite (talk) 17:09, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Question about banning

I've been thinking about your question to me on my RfA, and your position that admins should be proactive about bans. You work in much more contentious articles than I do, so I can appreciate this being important to you. I'm not intending on changing my response there, as WP:BAN only supports admins enforcing bans, not placing them, but if the policy changed I certainly would. Have you brought this up as at Village pump, or considered doing so? I'd be interested in participating in that discussion. --otherl left 17:06, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

It was raised a bit ago, misunderstood, and shot down. It needs a breathair. Hipocrite (talk) 17:09, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough. Please let me know if and when it comes up again.--otherl left 19:27, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

WP:DOLT

Yes I know all about that. So where is the legal threat? – ukexpat (talk) 18:14, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

"Never unblank biographies without asking why the IP might be blanking it. Remember, you could be personally responsible for re-publishing libellous content. Not good." Hipocrite (talk) 18:15, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Protection

I've requested the talk page be semi-protected to deal with this guy Hipocrite (talk)Scjessey (talk) 19:21, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I wish we didn't have to, but it appears that's the only way forward. It's a shame he's unable to contribute productively to debate. Hipocrite (talk) 19:22, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Even if he could contribute productively, that wouldn't excuse evading a block by shifting IP address. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:27, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, the first step in contributing productively to debate would probably be registering for an account. Hipocrite (talk) 19:27, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Incivility increasing

On the bright side, at least they stopped talking in lists. :) A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:46, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm not convinced it's increasing but in my view things are slightly improved. Not ideal, but you have to consider the starting point... I just wish the admins would model the behavior they claim to desire instead of doing things like referring to one side as a "cabal" that is "socially inept". Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:49, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Since talk of "double standards" is all the rage these days, it's curious to speculate how such commentary would be received if it were uttered by, say, 2/0. MastCell 04:12, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Re: Civility

Yes, because this is civil. Telling people that they're disruptive and tendentious really is very civil. So civil, in fact, that I think you should comment on Scjessey's talk page telling him how well he handled having someone disagree with him. I'd also like to apologize for insulting him without any provocation at all. You've changed my perspective on life. Macai (talk) 02:02, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

So, to summarize, your response to my telling you to be more civil is to say "he did it first?" Rodger dodger. Hipocrite (talk) 02:11, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

More or less. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. Besides, I don't see you crawling up Scjessey's ass about his lack of civility. Why is that? Don't single me out if you want me to take your criticism seriously. Macai (talk) 03:28, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Concerns about your editing behavior.

] I am seriously concerned about your editing behavior on Climatic Research Unit hacking incident. If it continues in the vein I have seen, I will likley seek to have you barred from further participation on the article. Here are some notes on things you could do to improve your editing.

1. You need to seek consensus for changes that may be controvercial, as opposed to merely making those changes and hoping that they are either missed or that they are protected by the 1rr probation the article is under. There are a number of ways you could do this - you could propose your changes on the talk page and then wait for many comments, specifically looking for comments from people that have problems with your edits, correcting the problems they have, and then resoliciting their opinion. Another option is to make the changes you would like to the article, but expressly state that any editor may revert them, or that you would revert them on demand.

2. Blogs are never acceptable sources. If the only source you can find for something is a blog, it should never be included in an article. If you are sure something is true - it's not. You need a source for all information you intend to put in the article.

3. You should "write for the enemy" - when you are making an edit, be sure you know what the response from people who are traditionally on the other side of the debate from you would think of it, and make specific consessions to what problems you would expect them to have with it.

4. Edit summaries should be accurate. If you are reverting, note that. If you are making multiple changes, don't just mention one change and hope the rest go under the radar.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask. Sirwells (talk) 03:54, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

It's now been almost 24 hours since you dropped this steaming pantload on my talk page, and not a single apology or retraction has been forthcoming. I guess I'll get my proforma apology now that I've commented on it, but let me summarize my response "pro-forma apology not accepted. The only think that I will accept is you topic-banning yourself from all climate change articles and discussions for a month." Hipocrite (talk) 01:06, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Participation at my RfA

Thank you for taking the time to weigh in on my RfA. It was successful, in that the community's wish not to grant me the tools at this time was honored. I'm taking all the comments as constructive feedback and hope to become more valuable to the project as a result; I've also discovered several new areas in which to work. Because debating the merits of a candidate can be taxing on the heart and brain, I offer this kitten as a low-allergen, low-stress token of my appreciation. --otherl left 12:46, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Ooh, my first trouting!

Whack!

You've been whacked with a wet trout.

Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

You and this fish share things in common. I'll let you figure out what for yourself. Eat well, my friend, and save a piece for the old guy down the street. HalfShadow 18:35, 8 February 2010 (UTC)