User talk:Hipocrite/02/2010

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? --otherlleft 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.--otherlleft 21:21, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

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)

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. [1] 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 [2], 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 Wikipedia 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)

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)

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. --otherlleft 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.--otherlleft 19:27, 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 ^Talk 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.

[[3]] 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)

Hipocrite. The edit I referenced in your warning deleted well over 100 lines of text and added at least that many. While I stated (in your attempt to have me banned), that I would not have reverted it, had I known you were working with others on it, I still find it impossible that you could have achieved consensus on this this massive edit. Perhaps one or two editors were okay with, but certainly not enough to justify the large magnitude of edits you made. The warning stands, and in my opinion is far more appropriate then the warning you placed on my talk page a few months ago, which made no reference to any specific edit whatsoever, and for which admins have stated that my behavior is no worse than anyone else's on the climate-gate page. What's more, your recent behavior (using cuss words in talk descriptions, throwing a fit and demanding administrators to ban me or you'll 'quit', saying things like "f*** this" ,"shit or get off the pot", etc etc) is uncalled-for and immature and if it continues I will be forced to seek action to (at a minimum) prevent you from harrassing me further. I tried offering the olive-branch, you rejected it...Sirwells (talk) 18:44, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Let's be clear, then. You're standing behind your warning to me telling me that I need to seek consensus on the talk page for my proposed changes, stating that I sought consensus on the talk page, but you, with you find it impossible to believe that I actually got consensus. Further, you stand behind your warning that I'm using blogs as sources for my edits. Furter, you stand behind your warning that I'm not writing for the enemy, and finally, you stand behind your warning that my edit summaries are innacurate. Further, you feel that your civility is up to par, and you need to correct or apologize for nothing. Is that correct, for the record? Hipocrite (talk) 18:54, 8 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. --otherlleft 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)

BLP - Pressmulti - Delingpole

Read this Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive77#Talk:Climatic_Research_Unit_e-mail_hacking_incident. It's not a break of WP:BLP as you claim, so it's fine in this regard. Also be aware that I didn't include it on the page. It's outcommented. It's just there so outside people can make a proper assessment of the issue and add it if they find my arguments ok. Nsaa (talk) 12:52, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Oops.

Yes [4]. Thanks William M. Connolley (talk) 15:42, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Oops from me, too

Sorry, just kind of snapped there for a moment. Thanks. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 22:06, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Edit summaries

Please consider using edit summaries to explain changes to article content, particularly on disputed or contentious subjects. Including "per talk" or even a link to a talk page discussion, for example, let's people know there is an active discussion. Explaining the reasoning for changes is what edit summaries are for. ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:59, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Could you point out an edit summary that did not explain changes to article content, using specific diffs? I'll focus more on including "per talk" when there's been talk about a specific edit. Thanks for the reminder. Hipocrite (talk) 17:01, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Civility warning

Please refrain from making insulting and untrue allegations against yoru fellow editors. Thank you. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:10, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't think I made any allegations. Where do you see one? Hipocrite (talk) 17:11, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Please stop trolling on my talk page. If you can't refrain from making insulting allegations and won't engage in respectful discussion you are not welcome there. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:15, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't think I'm being disrespectful. Where do you see that? Diffs would be nice. Hipocrite (talk) 17:16, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

PS - stop calling other editor's contributions "trolling." It does not lead to a collegial atmosphere. Hipocrite (talk) 17:17, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Here is a diff [5] of your snarky and insulting comment where you accuse me of stonewalling because I want to correct misleading and inaccurate propaganda and to at least include links to relevant articles from POV forks. Cheers. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:26, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

There's no reason for you to feel that I'm accusing you of stonewalling if you are reverting your changes when you are informed that there are talk page discussions and consensus against them. You are doing that, right? Hipocrite (talk) 17:43, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Oscar van Dillen

An article that you have been involved in editing, Oscar van Dillen, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oscar van Dillen (2nd nomination). Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Jubilee♫clipman 01:38, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Please focus more attentively on productive discussion at Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation/Requests for enforcement

The discussions at Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation/Requests for enforcement are not meant to be general fora for discussion of other issues. Narrowly targeted productive comment at any thread is welcome, but please confine your comments to the substance of the request and closely related issues. For instance, if a request is made detailing edit warring by one party, it could be appropriate to provide context in the form of links to talkpage discussion or diffs of other parties engaged in the same edit war. It would not be appropriate, however, to bring unrelated issues to an already open request, discuss content issues, or engage in incivility or personal attacks. If someone else makes that you feel merits a reply but your reply would not itself be closely related to the original request, please raise make your reply at usertalk, open a new enforcement request, or start a thread at Wikipedia talk:General sanctions/Climate change probation/Requests for enforcement. Thank you for your cooperation. A few diffs of posts that venture partially or wholly off topic, or would be better suited to other venues: [6]. - 2/0 (cont.) 03:59, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. I'll keep that in mind. Hipocrite (talk) 11:32, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Collegial atmosphere?

Come on, don't dive into the bunker here: [7]. This is one of Mark's first attempts at an article and while it may be rough wouldn't it be better to work with him to smooth out the rough edges rather than starting in with an aggressive response? I am sure that if you were to provide some pointers to appropriate references for the criticisms that you mention Mark would be happy to work those into the article. I don't believe that he is intending to be biased. It is sometimes hard to predict what others will find biased without feedback. Try giving him amicable and constructive feedback and I think that you will find he responds in kind. Just something to think about. --GoRight (talk) 14:51, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

If he wasn't grossly dishonest on the talk page of the article, I'd take you more seriously. As soon as he provides diffs that he approached someone on the other side for help with his "article," I'll change my behavior. Hipocrite (talk) 14:53, 12 February 2010 (UTC) It appears he is mearly bad at writing articles that are unbiased and complete, in addition to using direct links (http://en.wikipedia.com/article) as opposed to [[article]], which provided no backlinks to verify his assertions. I'll endeavor to teach him to write articles, and also how to seek feedback from more then two people, and about pestering people before doing something. Hipocrite (talk) 15:28, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. I am certain that any assistance you provide with helping him to create a better and more balanced article would be greatly appreciated. He had asked for my assistance previously but if you check my talk page you will see that some of the regulars objected to my offering such assistance based on my current editing restrictions. So I too appreciate your help in this matter. --GoRight (talk) 16:50, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

(EC) Far from "diving into the bunker" Hipocrite raises an excellent point that needs to be addressed in the article. There is a considerable number of scientists who believe the IPCC is too conservative, especially on the issue of sea level rise. I also find his language to be measured and reasonable. I'm sure your misinterpretation of his comments as "aggressive" was accidental. Nevertheless please try to be more careful about such things in the future, as such misrepresentations can mistakenly be seen as attempts to provoke. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 14:58, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't discount Hipocrite's point at all. In deed, I suspect that he is correct which is why I asked him to help Mark rather than disparage his efforts. My use of the word "aggressive" here was really quite conscious and measured. It was the least objectionable of the terms which came to mind yet still conveyed some measure of what I perceived to be a less than collegial approach. I meant no offense with it and if any was taken I apologize. My reference to "bunker" was obviously chosen to refer to previous conversations he had with others (of which I am sure you are aware) on a similar topic. I pledged to work with Hipocrite if he was sincere in trying to reach out, and I have no reason to doubt his sincerity. To that end we have come together on the CRU renaming proposal that he, ChrisO, and I have begun (to which you have notably not responded, BTW) and so this seems a reasonable beginning. My comment here was only meant as a reminder to help keep us on that positive trajectory. Why not add to that trajectory, Boris, by joining us with our renaming proposal in the interests of the common good? --GoRight (talk) 16:44, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Rewrite of Criticism of the IPCC AR4

There's some sentiment at the Criticism of the IPCC AR4 to do a rewrite here (see last point) and here. I'm thinking of taking a stab at it, but want to preserve editing history, if possible. If I just start a new sandbox ab initio, I assume that will be lost. I'm writing to you, because I think you did one at Climategate. I looked to see if you had it in a sandbox, but didn't see it. If I open it for editing and copy the entire article into a sandbox as a start, will that work? (Duh, I just relized I can test this.) OK, I'll try it but if you have any advice, please pass it along. Thanks. edit - I just tried copying an article into a sandbox, and the edit history didn't come along for the ride--SPhilbrickT 15:33, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Warning

Please don't come with treats like you did here[8] again. If you need to raise some problematic edits, please do it ast MY talk page. Nsaa (talk) 09:29, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I will warn you wherever I see fit. Hipocrite (talk) 09:30, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

H is welcome on my talk page anytime William M. Connolley (talk) 10:16, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Says who?

By reverting like this by stating "Undid revision 344582634 by Nsaa (talk) - Not aceptable use of pressmulti." is groundless and I'm amazed by the way some of your alarmist (or the real deniers as WSJ says [9]) are doing everything possible to remove what you consider not ok. It's ridiculous to even remove links from the talk page that even meets WP:RS, and for the project it's quite damaging. I hope that neither James Delingpole or Lawrence Solomon start writing more about how well sourced material is removed on dubious grounds (example from today [10], not you but same kind of removal). Nsaa (talk) 11:29, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Are you the owner of hidethedecline.eu? Hipocrite (talk) 13:00, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

He he I was reading this site for the first time yesterday. No I'm not. Nsaa (talk) 14:09, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Remove section?

Hey Hipocrite, I'd like you to remove this comment, and if you wouldn't mind, the section containing it: the comment because it contains a personal attack, which was made unambiguously clear through your bolding of the relevant wording, the section because it distracts from the discussion at hand.--Heyitspeter (talk) 22:23, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

No. Hipocrite (talk) 22:32, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

New lows

I have to say, you've sunk to new lows. Scottaka UnitAnode 07:15, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry I was out ...

It seems that there was a point of contention recently that spilled onto my talk page. I won't be able to respond further today, most likely, as the real world is making demands on my time. But if you could please give me the reader's digest summary of what the issue is I will be happy to try and help address it if I can. You mentioned bludgeoning of people by OUR proposal, what's that about? --GoRight (talk) 16:41, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Keep off!

Keep off removing sourced edits that's vital to the article like you did here [11]. This is not run by the Green party. Nsaa (talk) 23:46, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Weird stuff eh? I wonder who appointed Nsaa guardian of the article? William M. Connolley (talk) 23:50, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Ha ha ha. I'm the guardian? Who is removing the sourced content and blocking every reasonable addition by claiming WP:Consensus? Not me. But you and your friends ... Nsaa (talk) 00:07, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't really find conversing with you productive, Nsaa. Perhaps you should take the hint? Hipocrite (talk) 00:21, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

BLPN

You may be interested in this: Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Talk:William_Connolley. Nsaa (talk) 12:40, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

"carefully calculated"

If t'were true, I think I'd have made a lot more headway by now - rather than just the odd improving edits as things pop upon my watch list... Best, Verbal chat 21:41, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

A small step forward

This is a small but encouraging step. There is something comforting about seeing assumptions subjected to the light of critical thought, even if people have to be dragged, cajoled, and pushed to do so. It's too much to expect anyone to admit that they were echoing emotionally charged assumptions without doing the most basic due diligence or homework. But perhaps the lesson will sink in nonetheless, for next time. Maybe this will lead people to verify their assumptions before opining - I often find I'm worked up about something, but when I go to compose a post and look at the facts, I learn I was off-base about the underlying reality. It's humbling. "All that said, I do recall having read stuff like this, just not where." Brings to mind La Rochefoucauld: Everyone blames his memory. No one blames his judgment. MastCell ^Talk 07:03, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Create an Account

Hipocrite, I'm boycotting Wikipedia editing until I see some honesty returning to the climate articles. I know this subject very well. I'm generally pro-environment, anti-car, so I'm pretty well neutral on warming, by every inclinationn I ought to favour the "warmers", but I'm sick and tired of the clear and obvious POV in Wikipedia - and to be honest, I'm sick of the admins who have allowed the POV pushers to take over wikipedia so I wouldn't want to sign in and edit any articles and put my name on an article suggesting that I in anyway support the POV in these articles. So, thankyou for the invitation, but no thanks! I used to support the concept of Wikipedia, because it would undermine the stranglehold of the right on information, but now I see the far left-enviro-lunatics have taken over and I don't want any part! 88.110.2.122 (talk) 12:46, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

So be it. Please make sure that when your IP address changes you do not inadvertantly make it appear your position is more supported than it is. Hipocrite (talk) 12:49, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Blacklisting?

RE: [12]. What link are you considering requesting a blacklist for and on what grounds? --GoRight (talk) 17:48, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

wattsupwiththat.com, due to it's frequent promotional apperance on talk pages and the fact that it will never be a valid external link or reliable source for anything but the Anthony Watts page, which it can be whitelisted for. Hipocrite (talk) 17:49, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Promotional in what sense? Do you suspect that Watts is posting the links? If he isn't would this be a proper use of the spam blacklist? I'm just trying to get a sense of your position on the whole topic of the black list and its proper usage. --GoRight (talk) 17:53, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Promotional in that I have no idea why the link to the blog can't be replaced to the link with the source except that someone wants the blog to get traffic. I do not suspect Watts is posting the links. The blacklist is for spam, not conflicts of interest. Hipocrite (talk) 17:55, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Final discussion for Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people

Hello, I note that you have commented on the first phase of Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people

As this RFC closes, there are two proposals being considered:

1. Proposal to Close This RfC
2. Alternate proposal to close this RFC: we don't need a whole new layer of bureaucracy

Your opinion on this is welcome. Okip 02:19, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Your editing privileges have been suspended for 24 hours

Per WP:TPOC you are not to remove/replace another editors comments without their permission and never without notice to said editor. Generally, the only talkpage material that may be removed without notice is obvious vandalism. By removing content in such a manner, you are determining the other party to be a vandal - which is as about bad faith as you can get when interacting with another contributor. I especially feel that you were being insulting with the edit summary, acting as if the other was a child or inferior. While not excusing the reaction, what you did was almost certain to provoke a reaction and you appeared extremely careless as to that fact. There are reasons why these articles are under probation, and you exampled one of them with your behaviour in this instance. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:59, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Please see above. I agree not to edit any article (or talk page) under probation untill March, and further note that I did notify the editor in question. Hipocrite (talk) 22:00, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I'd further ask that you unblock MN, as he had obviously stopped being incivil and I feel headway was being made. Hipocrite (talk) 22:05, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

MN was blocked for edit warring - the WQA had already addressed the incivility. The notice that I saw was post action, if there was prior please provide a diff. I noted at the Probation Request page that I would not contest any admin varying or lifting this sanction, so if you wish to use the {{unblock|''your reason here''}} template to request review by another sysop, then they may make whatever decision without further reference to me. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:00, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

The section directly above (now below) has diffs, and the unblock template. It was there before your post above. Hipocrite (talk) 23:26, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

unblock request

Block notice states that I removed without notice. This is not accurate. My notice was at [13], and at [14] for all of the times I removed or replaced another editors post. Further, I pledge not to edit any article (or talk page) under probation untill March, thus making this block unnecessary. Hipocrite (talk) 21:56, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Note to reviewing admin - per [15] blocking admin "will not contest any other admin amending or reversing them - I only request that both parties be dealt with equally in this instance." I'd like for my partner in crime, Marknutley to be unblocked without further sanction, and myself to be unblocked with enforced pledge to not edit articles under the probation till March. This would be equal dealing, in my eyes. Hipocrite (talk) 22:22, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Also, having just read Wikipedia:Admitting you're wrong, I should note for the record that I was wrong to react so aggressively to Mark, and I do owe him an apology, which I'd like to tender ASAP. Hipocrite (talk) 23:29, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Or like this

Could someone please put the following on MN's talk page for me? I'm sure you won't get in trouble for proxing for a blocked user.

Mark, I owe you an apology. When I aggressively attacked your talk page notice this morning, I was in the wrong. I should not have been so aggressive with you, and I basically take responsibility for the entire incident - my bad. I would like to claim substantial RL stress as a mitigating factor, but that's not good enough. I've decided to take a long break from Global Warming on Wikipedia - probably to edit some food articles again. I wish you the best of luck and hope someone unblocks the both of us shortly. Hipocrite (talk) 23:39, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

 Done [16] —DoRD (?) (talk) 03:46, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, and i am sorry for being an ejit as well, i reckon we both had a bad day yesterday :) mark nutley (talk) 18:27, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Bedford School

re the fire - the ref you give is a WP:PRIMARY one - the other ref just says fire - as per Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Bedford_School I don't think we can use the school as WP:RS as to it being arson. I think wat is needed is for someone to find out what the fire service clipping says and who wrote it. Give this I ask you revert your change. Codf1977 (talk) 22:00, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I am not being disruptive - all I am after is NON-PRIMARY RELIABLE SOURCE that it was arson - what is wrong with that ? - no one has produced one. Codf1977 (talk) 16:30, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Two were provided. There's no reason why the school itself is not reliable in 2010 for arson in 1979. There's no reason why the minutes saying that someone was convicted of setting the fire isn't reliable for the fire being arson, except for some one who has gone over the top on it. Hipocrite (talk) 16:39, 26 February 2010 (UTC)