Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 23:27, 28 June 2010

Archive 1 12/2008 01/2009 02/2009 03/2009 04/2009 05/2009 06/2009 07/2009 09/2009 10/2009 11/2009 12/2009 cfwar 01/2010 02/2010 03/2010 04/2010 05/2010 06/2010 07/2010 08/2010 09/2010 10/2010 11/2010 12/2010 02/2011 03/2011 04/2011 05/2011 09/2011 10/2011 11/2011 12/2011 01/2012 02/2012 03/2012 04/2012 05/2012 06/2012 07/2012 08/2012 09/2012 10/2012 11/2012 12/2012 01/2013 02/2013 03/2013 04/2013 05/2013 06/2013 01/2014 02/2014 04/2014 05/2014 06/2014 GGsockfarms 12/2014 01/2015 02/2015 03/2015 04/2015 07/2015 11/2015 01/2016 11/2016 02/2017 10/2017 12/2017 11/2018 08/2020 11/2020 04/2021 05/2021 06/2021 07/2021 08/2021 09/2021 10/2021 11/2021 12/2021 01/2022 02/2022 03/2022 04/2022 05/2022 06/2022 07/2022 08/2022 09/2022 10/2022 11/2022 12/2022 01/2023 02/2023 03/2023 04/2023 05/2023 06/2023 07/2023 08/2023 09/2023 11/2023 05/2024 Archives

Index Archive 1

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

Previous accounts?

Speedy deletion nomination of User:Hipocrite/GWCC

Please do not make statements attacking people or groups of people. Misplaced Pages has a strict policy against personal attacks. Attack pages and images are not tolerated by Misplaced Pages and are speedily deleted. Users who continue to create or repost such pages and images in violation of our biographies of living persons policy will be blocked from editing Misplaced Pages. Thank you.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag - if no such tag exists then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hangon tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines. mark nutley (talk) 08:57, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I have requested speedy deletion of this attack page, if i have used the incorrect tag sorry mark nutley (talk) 08:58, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Mark, your the request is nonsense. It's been declined twice now. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:09, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

How was it declined twice when i just put it up once? And now i have mfd`d it mark nutley (talk) 09:12, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I, apparently mistakenly, assumed the IP was you, too. Fixed above. And the MfD is nonsense, too. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:15, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Apparently my evidenciary draft is so damning that it needs to be deleted. Hipocrite (talk) 12:47, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

No, it was speedy kept. Sorry I didn't spot this in time to opine there but there was never really a doubt. ++Lar: t/c 20:03, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

RE: your comment at Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/User:Hipocrite/GWCC. I thought that at worst your evidence drafting could be moved to a case subpage. Certainly, you should have reasonable time to draft it. Certainly, it should not be deleted. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:34, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

ATren swings and misses

The Gore Effect

I note that you have elected to substantively edit the introduction to the article independent of any discussion in talk. As I understand by your edit summary ("If we can't split the articles, the other uses need notes"), your edit is intended to demonstrate, in your opinion, consequence to the lede that should be mandated by a consensus rejection of a second and separate treatment (such as your suggested "Gore Effect (Public Policy)"). Please consider self-reverting your edit after consideration of the following...

1. Even were the creation of an alternate article to be rejected (and that question is, IMHO, far from resolution), you should reasonably anticipate that your edit is far from what might be considered consensus acceptable. Given that reality, why have you apparently opted for "drive-by" editing and attendant implications that will, most probably, both inhibit and actually work against a consensus-driven approach to this article's composition?

2. As you are aware (and have participated in), I have attempted to foster that approach with a sentence by sentence discussion prior to any editing of the article introduction itself. Do you think "drive-by" editing will work as effectively or to be the more acceptable Misplaced Pages norm?

Please consider self-reverting your edit and...

1. Allow the discussion on an alternate treatment to come to resolution before creating unnecessary rancor with what ultimately may be be unnecessary and incendiary undiscussed edits.

2. Utilize the talk environment...which is even more important to an orderly composition of a "controversial" topic.

I appreciate your consideration. JakeInJoisey (talk) 14:07, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

No. I'm done playing pattycake with editors whose goal is to win content disputes by being extreme. Hipocrite (talk) 14:08, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Further, if you'd like to discuss the edit, feel free to discuss away. I'll participate, as I have, in any discussion. Hipocrite (talk) 14:21, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

ANI

This message has been sent to inform you about a discussion at WP:ANI. The thread is WP:ANI#Request for community ban of Darkstar1st. Thank you. TFD (talk) 05:45, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't care what you think

Stay off my talk page. -Atmoz (talk) 16:51, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

KK. Hipocrite (talk) 16:51, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry. -Atmoz (talk) 19:39, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for climing off the german building! No hard feelings. Hipocrite (talk) 20:08, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

New proposal

I'm dubious about point 3 To edit in accordance with all Misplaced Pages policies and to refrain from any form of advocacy concerning any external controversy, dispute, allegation, or proceeding. because it is misinterpretable, and arguably not related to the previous. I'm sure we all want to edit in accord with policy, but this has little to do with socking William M. Connolley (talk) 16:22, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I suggest that advocacy concerning external controversy comes from one side. Do you see wikipedia editors directed here by the non-existant external pressure groups advocating for accuracy? Hipocrite (talk) 16:27, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I would agree with you but have no confidence that the "uninvolved" admins are able to correctly evaluate this - see RFE passim and the arbcomm page if you doubt that William M. Connolley (talk) 10:31, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Ah, I see Adapted from Mantanmoreland - the idea being that gloves can come off with respect to these transparent socks - however, your remedies are not restricted to socks. The gloves are off for everyone William M. Connolley (talk) 16:24, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but I'm well able to defend myself from the charge that I cam here to advocate about an external controversy - why would I have all of those edits to articles unrelated to that controversy? On the other hand, Thegoodlocust would have no such defence. Hipocrite (talk) 16:27, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Climate change RFAR

Can I call this ClimateGate ;-) Just wanted to let you know I've posted my views on your questions on the arbwiki and asked Risker and NYB to chime in. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:36, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Request

Would you have time to look over the references used in this article please? mark nutley (talk) 10:57, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, tommorow. Hipocrite (talk) 11:45, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you mark nutley (talk) 11:46, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

I do not believe the Richard D. North quote is sourced reliably, but this is currently in dispute. I question if you have written enough exposition for inclusion into articlespace, as it appears that there is only one paragraph of new text and then a quote farm. I do not believe this subject is notable enough for an article. Aside from source 3, however, the remainder of the sources are reliable, and quoted reasonably accurately. I question if those quotes are the best possible quote from each of the sources, however. In summary, aside from Richard D. North the sourcing appears acceptable, but I question the notability and style of the article. Hipocrite (talk) 13:45, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Marknutley and blogs

It's clear that he's going to continue using blogs until he finally gets banned from Misplaced Pages (which can't happen a moment too soon, IMO). I hope you're keeping diffs of his repeated violations of WP:V to use in the CC arbitration case. -- ChrisO (talk) 13:34, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm running out of evidentiarry steam. It's too much, all at once. I'm waiting for the arbs to do something to see where I need to focus. Hipocrite (talk) 13:36, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Blogs are absolutely reliable for the opinions of their authors. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:42, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

And those opinions should not be included on any page. Insert WMCs blog comment on "Hide the Decline," and I'll consider your statements. Hipocrite (talk) 13:46, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Is his blog notable then? mark nutley (talk) 13:50, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Does it matter? The author is notable, and the authors opinion is reliably sourced to the blog. The blog doesn't need to be notable. Hipocrite (talk) 13:51, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Enough, both of you - the principle is clear (point 2 of WP:SELFPUB), and it rules out using either WMC or Watts' blogs for this purpose. -- ChrisO (talk) 14:00, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

The blog's author is notable because it's related to theClimategate scandal. So, it's not just some guy on the Internet. But I haven't checked the blog mentioned by WMC yet. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:02, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

(undent) I'll wait. Hipocrite (talk) 14:04, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

WMC`s blog post is an off wiki attempt to sway the AFD, he links to it in his post and says he hopes it will be deleted. Is`nt that against the rules? mark nutley (talk) 14:07, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

No. Further, you didn't have a problem with it when GoRight and TheGoodLocust were doing it. Hipocrite (talk) 14:08, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Erm when did they do it? Why do you assume i know about it? mark nutley (talk) 14:11, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Sure, mark, sure. Hipocrite (talk) 14:12, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

According to Cla68, views expressed outside Misplaced Pages cannot be taken into account on-Wiki. If you disagree, then presumably you believe that the canvassing on WUWT by Alex Harvey and others should be sanctioned as well. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 14:14, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Hide the Decline versus 9/11 conspiracy theories

In relation to your comment here, I believe that you are mistaken. I don't think that I've argued that a blog isn't a reliable source for the opinions of its authors at our 9/11 conspiracy theories article. My positions are more nuanced than that. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:17, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

You've opposed blog-sourced nonsence in the area where blogsourced nonsence is contrary to your pov. In the other area, where blogsourced nonsence is on your side, you're all for it. Your position is very, very nunanced. Hipocrite (talk) 15:20, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

The edit summary by you betrays a lack of understanding of policy, while the one by AQFK is consistent with policy. Yet instead of apologizing, you add a scurrilous charge without evidence. Please reconsider.--SPhilbrickT 15:28, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

As soon as a generally respected editor with 1+ years of tenure and no entrenched position on climate change agrees with you, I'll consider. Until than, I'm going to have to respectfully decline. Hipocrite (talk) 15:50, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Hey buddy, here I am! No entrenched position on climate change here! And I agree with Sphilbrick. What more do you want?! And while your at it, quit with the personal attacks, please. And I'm waiting for you to substantiate your cryptic comment about blogs over on the evidence talk page. Kinda extra tetchy today, aren'cha? -- JohnWBarber (talk) 01:23, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

If you want people to "quit with the personal attacks," expressing yourself in jibes like "Kinda extra tetchy today, aren'cha?" may not be the best way to achieve your goal. Again, model the behavior you hope to promote. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:44, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

So sorry. Been a long day. More than the usual number of personal attacks received. I'm still waiting for that explanation, Hipocrite! -- JohnWBarber (talk) 02:13, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

You have an entrenched position on climate change. I don't feel like discussing this any more, please stop. Hipocrite (talk) 15:30, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

You missed the point. I'm not arguing policy—the policy is a close call. My point is that you aren't arguing policy—you are hurling insults, which border on personal attacks, without a whit of evidence. The policy issue—exactly when, and under what circumstances blogs can be sourced is an interesting policy discussion. I'll not engage in it with someone who is more interested in partisan wrangling than honest discussion.--SPhilbrickT 17:33, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

How interesting. It's terrible that someone is "more interested in partisan wrangling than honest discussion." Just terrible, that things "border on personal attacks" are being posted, on this very talk page! Hipocrite (talk) 17:35, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Also, I'm glad policy has changed so recently. I mean, at 15:28 I "betray a lack of understanding of policy," but now "the policy is a close call." Phew! Hipocrite (talk) 17:37, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any recent change in policy, nor how you imputed that assumption. Your edit summary " Blogs are not reliable sources" is proof you are not familiar with policy. That's not inconsistent with the possibility that this specific edit may or may not be acceptable. To use an analogy, if you reverted an edit made by the subject of a bio with the edit summary "subjects of bios are not permitted to edit their own bio", that would be evidence you misunderstood policy, even though the edit in question might be problematic.--SPhilbrickT 18:13, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

A Quest For Knowledge assigns work

Evidence section

Your evidence section is about 300 words over the limit. It's not a huge deal, since I'm enforcing the limits flexibly as requested, but I did notice that a fair amount of your section is more argument than evidence. I'm not asking you to shorten it (although if you did I wouldn't mind) but I'd ask you not to add any more without removing some. Thanks, ~ Amory (u • t • c) 20:39, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

I will ensure that my evidence section is not the longest. I see no reason why I should not be permitted to add when there is other evidence that is over 3 times my length. Hipocrite (talk) 13:50, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

"Not the longest" seems like a fair way of deciding who should be bothered first William M. Connolley (talk) 13:52, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

You could easily trim a lot of words from your evidence without much loss. Let me know if you I can help. Guettarda (talk) 14:18, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Please do. If you were to propose an edit in my or your user space I'd impliment it. Hipocrite (talk) 14:22, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

OK, I'll take a shot at it later on. Guettarda (talk) 15:01, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Climate change moving to Workshop

This Arbitration case is now moving into the Workshop phase. Please read Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration#Workshop to understand the process. Editors should avoid adding to their evidence sections outside of slight tweaks to aid in understanding; large-scale additions should not be made. Many proposals have already been made and there has already been extensive discussion on them, so please keep the Arbitrators' procedures in mind, namely to keep "workshop proposals as concise as reasonably possible." Workshop proposals should be relevant and based on already provided evidence; evidence masquerading as proposals will likely be ignored. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 20:37, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Self-revert?