User talk:Hipocrite/10/2009

Bishonen 4

Hipocrite, I've restored the deleted versions of the page history that dealt with your statement. Since the RfC has been amended to exclude a lot of the mention of Risker (or at least that's the talk page scuttlebut I saw), I'll leave it to you to determine which pieces of your statement to place back on the page. Karanacs (talk) 17:18, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Argh. I cut-pasted the diff at about the same time. I love not-edit-conflicts.... --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:19, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

RfC

This is an odd, certain non-standard, RfC, and I myself have doubts about it. Personally, although I was aware that OR was intending to do something about the matter of Bishonen and Risker acting ignorant about a "sock" they apparently knew about, I wasn't expecting it to be an RfC, and probably would have chosen some other means. I really didn't know an event I myself am less than thrilled over my own conduct on, in a matter when the power went out within a minute or two of the first of a serious of four revisions I was going to do in short order, was going to be the central issue involved. But, please notice that it had received the requisite two support before I signed in. I guess it was filed as an RfC in the first case because there was no more appropriate forum for it? All I really think is that the matter should be given some attention, like Majorly said before me, and this was the only place OR could think of to raise and discuss the issue, and, in all honesty, I can't think of a better one myself. John Carter (talk) 17:39, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps the talk page of the user in question? What have you, an endorser of the RFC, done to resolve the "dispute?" What exactly is the "dispute?" Please note that I have challenged your endorsement on the RFC page as I do not see any evidence that you tried and failed to resolve the dispute. If there is no evidence forthcoming, I will strike your endorsement. Diffs of your edits attempting to resolve the dispute must be placed into evidence per the standard header. ("In order to remain listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed ... The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts") Hipocrite (talk) 17:43, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Ok, this is all getting too confusing. Please do not move anything without discussing on talk first. Thanks. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:09, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I have moved Headbomb's comment down to the "Other users who endorse this summary". His and Majorly's comments are now there. I believe you can remove your contested concern about them now. I also added links to where John Carter tried to resolve the dispute. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:21, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

• "There is no diff posted of him addressing Bishonen at any point. If he can/will not provide a diff, then the RFC will be deleted in approx 36 hours. Hipocrite (talk) 04:31, 10 October 2009 (UTC)" As pointed out before, the RFC/U clearly says that it can be addressing the -subject-. This link shows John Carter addressing Geogre, Bishzilla aka Bishonen and Risker over the edit warring that was happening on the page, which a block would have been applicable if either would have stated that Utgard Loki was Geogre and thus used a secondary account to aid in edit warring. The ANI and the WQA show failure in trying to resolve it at the article's talk page, at the user talk page, at ANI, and at WQA. Those are four failed attempts that involved Bishonen and her relationship with Geogre that would have changed events if she did not withhold the information. Furthermore, Bishonen's defense of Geogre was clearly challenged by John Carter as well as Risker's defense of Geogre. This is more than enough to certify an RfC. Looking at other RfCs guarentees that. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:38, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

No, because they, personally, have not tried to resolve the situation. Maybe John Carter could certify, if your diffs are accurate, but unless Majorly and Headbomb were actively involved, they can only endorse. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 04:39, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps you should reread the page, Majorly and Headbomb were moved to the appropriate section. John Carter and I are the only direct people verify the dispute. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:45, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Nowhere in that section does JC adress Bishonen. As you are well aware, Bishonen is neither George nor Risker. What you'll want to find, and I'm not accepting sections anymore, is a diff of JC adressing Bishonen, and telling Bishonen that Bishonen needs to stop using the civility policy to win other content disputes, which is what your diff demonstrates. Hipocrite (talk) 04:41, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

"Nowhere in that section does JC adress Bishonen" As I pointed out, he does not have to address her directly: "or the talk pages involved in the dispute, and tried but failed to resolve the problem." The dispute was Geogre violating policy while Bishonen was defending it, which is clearly present. John Carter clearly tried to resolve the policy violations. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:45, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

He needs to attempt to resolve a dispute with Bishonen. I see no attempt there. Please provide a diff of him attempting to resolve the dispute. Thanks. Hipocrite (talk) 04:46, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Bishonen 4

>>Duhleted stupid template<<

That didn't take long :) I've asked for a justification.... Verbal chat 10:30, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Aphorism

Is this a majik incantation? Seems to hang well with your name. Glad to see you've come back and are hanging about, fighting the good fight. :) Verbal chat 21:48, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Aphorism

Is this a majik incantation? Seems to hang well with your name. Glad to see you've come back and are hanging about, fighting the good fight. :) Verbal chat 21:48, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

NLT

Hi Hipocrite. I noticed your thread at User talk:The Transhumanist and noticed a logical error. First you wrote "Accusing someone of Libel is a legal threat." Then you wrote "...the world "Libel" implies a legal offense." The second statement is obviously true, while the first is not. It might not be polite, but it is not a legal threat. The way it is done determines whether it should be considered a legal threat or not. -- Brangifer (talk) 23:02, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Civility

OK, I know that it was a bit bad, I'm sorry! But then the only reason I did it was as a reply to this edit, I at least showed that I was doing it in a joking way and did not really mean what I said. Can you explain his edit it is more or less civil? --Stefan ^talk 13:55, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

OK, I disagree, but it does not really matter, I just hope Verbal is not offended, I have apologised to him. I do not think he is arguing in a nice way, he should answer to the questions posed to him, not just dance around in another direction, and I got annoyed. Got to go now, will not reply on anything more until tomorrow. --Stefan ^talk 14:04, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Email

Any chance you might turn it on? Cheers, Verbal chat 12:32, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

User talk pages

Please do not comment on my user talk page. It can be considered to be WP:Wikihounding to leave comments on a user talk page after they have requested you not to do so. This is common Wikipedia courtesy. Ask around. --Timeshifter (talk) 14:21, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

This is your first request that I not contact you. You might consider making first requests in a bit less confrontational matter, though this doesn't matter. You've been informed that you must assume good faith. I'm glad you will assume such going forward. Hipocrite (talk) 14:23, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Your edit window says "If I have informed you you are unwelcome on my talk page, you are."

You put back a message on my talk page after I removed it, with this edit summary: "Please keep discussion on the relevant article and Village Pump talk pages." --Timeshifter (talk) 14:29, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I edited the message, including only the parts that would not be relevent for a post on the article/VP - those related directly to your failure to assume good faith. Hipocrite (talk) 14:30, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

You still repeated a message after it was removed. Also, that message was already on the Village Pump. --Timeshifter (talk) 14:41, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I edited the message to adress your concern, and there was no warning to you on your talk page that you were failing AGF before I placed my warning there. I assumed (good faith) that you missed my warning to you in my longer post, so I shortened it so you would understand why it was on your talk page. Best wishes! Hipocrite (talk) 15:00, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Template:Topical guide

Namaste, Hipocrite. Could you point me to the discussion deprecating this template? Cheers,  Skomorokh, barbarian  12:36, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I boldly depreciated it because it was used on one article, and it was used incorrectly there. "Topical Outlines" are failed, and all material related to them is depreciated. Want to convince me otherwise? Get supporters of the failed topical outlines to agree to participate in, and abide by, an untainted larger community discussion of outlines. I will both participate in, and abide by, a larger community consensus. Hipocrite (talk) 12:38, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I understand that templates that are not in use or should not be are replaced or deleted rather than "depreciated" in this manner; see {{tdeprecated}}. As for the outlines in general, saying something is true does not make it so – a great deal are extant. Regards,  Skomorokh, barbarian  12:44, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

RFA spam

Thank you for participating in WP:Requests for adminship/Kww 3
Sometimes, being turned back at the door isn't such a bad thing

—Kww(talk) 18:34, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

9/11 advance-knowledge debate

You recently removed my addition to the 9/11 advance-knowledge debate article stating RM OR by SYNTH. The images depict the win towers being targeted and come from government documents. I do not understand how this is OR or Synth...the pictures are from government publications...

I have copied the removed section below for future reference.

There are a number of illustrations depicting the twin towers being "targeted" in government publications. Below are a few.

• 
  Page 49 of the Air Force Manual "10-100: Airman's Manual" from Aug 1999.
• 
  The cover of a US Dept of Justice manual entitled "Managing Weapons of Mass Destruction Incidents: An Executive Level Program for Sheriffs" from June 2000.

Smallman12q (talk) 13:52, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

No reliable source discusses those images. Hipocrite (talk) 13:55, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Stormfront question

Hipocrite: You asked about the Michael Medved quotes? I explained that on the Talk page of the article here. To summarize: When I wrote the article I used books and the web to collect material. I found the medved quotes, via Google, on the RadioIslam.org web site here. I was lazy and cut-and-pasted the text without proofreading, and for that I apologize. I would never user Stormfront as a source of material. I do not know who/what originally inserted the inflammatory words between the quotes. That particular collection of quotes from Medveds article in Moment magazine appears (including the inflammatory words) in dozens of websites. --Noleander (talk) 15:17, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Are there any other instances where you have comitted blatant copyright infringement? Please be through in your check - I will review the entirety of your contributions. Hipocrite (talk) 15:41, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Your edits on the Gilad Atzmon article are being criticized by a single editor

Though she is criticizing me for them, for some reason. It's all quite silly.http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gilad_Atzmon&diff=321776865&oldid=321776482 Drsmoo (talk) 17:13, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi there! Related discussion here. Your commentary is appreciated. Master of Puppets 14:58, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Inflation

About your edit comment on you recent revert at Inflation. The correct term there would be 'Austrian school'. Only adherents of the heterodox Austrian school of economics, (specifically the von Mises Institute adherents), continually insist on defining inflation as a monetary expansion, although the rest of the world uses the term inflation to refer to price inflation. Although they are a tiny minority in academia, unfortunately their number seem to be growing on the internets. 'Monetarists' are very similar to Keynesians, and are a mainstream school of economics. regards LK (talk) 15:48, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

A quote from the Inflation article:

"Economists generally agree that high rates of inflation and hyperinflation are caused by an excessive growth of the money supply."

Excessive growth of the money supply (talk) 07:58, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

If growth of the money supply causes inflation, it couldn't itself be inflation. QED. Hipocrite (talk) 11:03, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Good work

[1] Viridae^Talk 13:36, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Re: Recall

Hipocrite,

Per Wikipedia:Administrators open to recall/Admin criteria, my criteria are:

• six users in good community standing (no recent blocks, 500 good mainspace edits in last few months).
• and the matter concerns my admin powers rather than a non-admin editing concern.

Λυδαcιτγ 21:32, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Chuthya is a sock?

What is you basis for saying that User:Chuthya is a sock puppet? Why haven't you brought Chuthya to AN/I or checkuser? Who do you contend is the puppet master? —Finell (Talk) 05:33, 29 October 2009 (UTC) (To preserve the continuity of the conversation, I will watch for your reply, if any, here on your Talk page)

His editing pattern provides no detail as to how he would ever stumble apon the various controversies that he has been disruptive in, and because I have no idea who the sockmaster is. Hipocrite (talk) 09:10, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I see the past pattern of disruption (and saw it before I posted here). However, your rationale is not a sufficient basis for accusing someone of being a sock puppet. —Finell (Talk) 20:00, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Recall

Thanks for making me aware of the fact that I was still in that category. Since I don't believe in this recall philosophy anymore, I have decided to remove myself from it.—♦♦ AMBER^(ЯʘCK) 09:12, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Sock Puppetry in a nutshell

"The general rule is one editor, one account. Do not use multiple accounts to mislead, deceive, or disrupt; to create the illusion of greater support for a position; to stir up controversy; or to circumvent a block. Do not ask your friends to create accounts to support you." PennySeven (talk) 14:29, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Your main account is blocked. This account is circumventing it. Hipocrite (talk) 14:35, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

This is my main account.PennySeven (talk) 14:39, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Recall

Basically, if someone felt I had screwed something up, then so long as I felt they were in good faith and had a reasonable understanding of how things worked I would stand for reconfirmation. I don't have any real restrictions against who can ask, although I would reserve the right to seek a second opinion first. Hope that helps. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 15:03, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! Keep rocking! Hipocrite (talk) 15:04, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

No personal attacks please

No personal attack please. What "massive disruptions"? WP:NPA [2]PennySeven (talk) 15:38, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

This is the second attack. The first one was here: "No, I don't argue with polemics. This discussion is over." [3]PennySeven (talk) 15:44, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Third one here: "as user would be invalid to sign some stupid recall petition if they were," I do not take part in "stupid" recall petitions. [4]PennySeven (talk) 15:48, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

• None of those are personal attacks. The last two aren't even anywhere near. Verbal chat 19:50, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

PennySeven

Sarek has already stated (in the sockpuppetry page) that he would excuse P7 as long as he remained constructive. That's the rationale I have for considering him certified. Master of Puppets 21:31, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I disagree, but you were the clerk selected for this game of pancus. Hipocrite (talk) 21:32, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. I appreciate the input, though. Master of Puppets 21:58, 29 October 2009 (UTC)