ClueBot III (talk | contribs) m Archiving 1 discussion to User talk:Hipocrite/04/2010. (BOT) |
→RfC/Lar: new section |
||
Line 134: | Line 134: | ||
I have edited your talkpage before haven't I? I don't want to add a fresh one to my list because someone will wikistalk me and then dismiss me as being part of the cabal. [[User:Polargeo|Polargeo]] ([[User talk:Polargeo|talk]]) 16:10, 6 May 2010 (UTC) [[File:PikiWiki Israel 8173 mamouth in rishon lezion.jpg|thumb|right|It takes one to recognise the behaviour]] |
I have edited your talkpage before haven't I? I don't want to add a fresh one to my list because someone will wikistalk me and then dismiss me as being part of the cabal. [[User:Polargeo|Polargeo]] ([[User talk:Polargeo|talk]]) 16:10, 6 May 2010 (UTC) [[File:PikiWiki Israel 8173 mamouth in rishon lezion.jpg|thumb|right|It takes one to recognise the behaviour]] |
||
== RfC/Lar == |
|||
I believe Casliber was requesting (and I think would be better at that venue) diffs from Lar, not for the the dispute in general. I am still in the ''hopefully we can resolve this without ArbCom'' camp, but the links you recently added might be relevant to that or RfC/Cla68. Regards, - [[User talk:2over0|2/0]] <small>([[Special:Contributions/2over0|cont.]])</small> 00:51, 8 May 2010 (UTC) |
Revision as of 00:51, 8 May 2010
You will every time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template. They will never stop.
Index
|
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 10 days may be automatically archived by ClueBot III. |
Your role in MoMK
Hi Hipocrite. Thank you for all your efforts, and I am very sorry for how things have ended up. I cannot see how your comment about lawyers can be taken is showing bias (unless this was an article on the subject of "The integrity of lawyers"). Looking back over some of the discussion, I also apologise if I actually made things worse by citing you as the source for being cautious about the views of lawyers (but you did make me think about that!) I fear that the postponement of the mediation will be yet another excuse for a lot of POV editing of the article and that things may get a lot worse before they get better. Anyway, thank you again for making a very good start on the job. Bluewave (talk) 13:25, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
- I don't see that my role has changed all that dramatically. I'll still try to help out on the talk page as a disintrested party attempting to improve the article. I am also worried that you'll suffer through a lot of PoV pushing from both sides - I suggest that right now, the article is defined by a battle between people who are VERY ANGRY about something and people who are VERY ANGRY about something else, with very few people who are not very angry. I was hopeful that I could cool tempers, but I fear that Z misread my comment - which fully supported her proposed edit to the case. I suggest that the real problem is that everyone sees EVIL around the corner and is fully bunkered up. Perhaps that will change over time. Hipocrite (talk) 13:27, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
- Yep. All true. And guilty as charged, I'm afraid. I don't think I'm "pro defence" or "pro guilt" or any such, but I will own up to sometimes being angry. And curiously, out all the hundreds of articles I've edited, this is the only one that ever makes me angry (and sometimes makes me despair too). And in real life, I'm not at all an angry person. So what must this be like for people who are easily angered? Mind you, in the last three months, I have been accused of being a hypocrite (so your involvement was ironic!), anti-American, a sockpuppet of one of the other editors, unfit to edit the article, conspiring with other editors and probably some other things I can't remember, so that's why I'm a bit touchy. Anyway, I'm glad to hear you're not going to walk away and leave us lunatics in charge of the asylum. It must be tempting. Cheers. Bluewave (talk) 13:49, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
- Ironically, I get very angry about terribad science articles on the encyclopedia - so I know the feeling, and then later, the incredulity that something as meaningless as an online encyclopedia article could make people angry. I can't even figure out why that is - my take is that I care a lot about educating people who read articles to get informed about something and that it's important that they take-away the true facts. I'm certain people who disagree with me are getting angry about the self-same thing, except they're wrong about the true facts. I know it's hard to see that people generally want to improve an encyclopedia (some people don't, but we have to hope they don't show up). I wish I had better anger management skills. Hipocrite (talk) 13:53, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
- Well I don't think I've been too angry (but please let me know if I've come across that way), and am sorry to see this happen, even if I'm not that surprised (this being a comment on the situation at the article, not your skills as a mediator!)
- I only happened to come across the article as a consequence of a deletion discussion about the pictures, and hoped that some previously uninvolved eyes would be useful. In terms of your comment about the lawyer's comment I was very surprised to see Zlykinskyja take it that way, as if anything it seemed to be supporting what they were saying. I happen to agree with you that all comments by lawyers (both prosecution and defence) should be taken with a large pinch of salt. My comments regarding the "fair" quote was more that someone could think a trial was fair yet still disagree with the outcome. Quantpole (talk) 14:19, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
(undent) I don't think "angry" is really something that can be corrected. People get angry. The skill that I, and many others don't have, with respect to anger on wikipedia (and in real life, to some extent) is to realize when it's impacting decision making and take a break. I'm not really all about evaluating who was doing the angrytyping, so I'm not going to bless or curse your behavior, except to say that being better at realizing when the "fight or flight" response is kicking in and to make the correct choice (in the case of wikipedia? ALWAYS FLEE!) that everyone could do better. Hipocrite (talk) 14:28, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
ANI
Just In case you're not aware of: You're mentioned here.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 01:08, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
Talkback
Message added 01:10, 29 April 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:10, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
Can this be used?
[1] it is owned and run by this guy Andrew Breitbart mark nutley (talk) 19:09, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
Can and should are very different things. I'm merely going to say that that "article" would not be acceptable for use in our best articles. I'm not even going to evaluate it as a reliable source - I'd suspect that whatever crazy blog it came from lacks a reputation for accuracy and fact checking. Feel free to search WP:RSN for previous comments about it. Hipocrite (talk) 19:12, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
Talk:CP
While I understand your concerns, the fact of the matter is that the aforementioned editor's real name is provided in the LA Times article (used as a reference in the Wikipedia article) he seeks to discredit, and I fear that the real purpose of the fuss they're making is not to improve the CP article on Wikipedia, but to remove all mention of his real name in an attempt to dissociate his real name and his online moniker (which has a less than glowing reputation). You were probably right to remove my post, and I'll trust your judgement, but I wanted to get my opinion out there. EddyJP (talk) 22:04, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
- The actual truth is the Time's article mentions a editors name, but does not state that person is the CP Admin. As can be seen in the RW archives, there was much debate there about using conjecture to make the connection which eventually caused them to change their rules on the matter only because they wanted to be able to connect a real-life name to someone they hate, is all. Bringing that business here to Wikipedia is why the audit committee is investigating, I presume. EddyJP, to toss out more personal insults isn't going to help you gaming the rules here. --TK-CP (talk) 02:17, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
WikiProject Economics Newsletter (Issue I)
| |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| |||||||
To start/stop receiving this newsletter, please add/remove your name from the list here. Thank you. This newletter was delivered to you by Jarry1250 at around 10:35, 1 May 2010 (UTC) |
Semi-block request for National-Anarchism article
Hello Hipocrite. Could you please put a 1-month-long semi-block on the National-Anarchism article? It recently has become a target of vandalism possibly because National-Anarchists in San Francisco were in the news because of a street fight... This is totally unrelated to the dispute I am close to resolving with Paki.tv and Harrypotter. --Loremaster (talk) 00:45, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
- Sorry, missed this. If vandalism becomes a problem either you or I can report it to WP:RFPP and it will be quickly protected. It's not kosher to protect before the vandalism happens, however. Hipocrite (talk) 16:51, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
Back and forth in endorsements at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Lar
To Collect, Hipocrite, and Marknutley: I thought back and forth in endorsements was discouraged. You may want to move your comments to the talk. I could be wrong though. Since I left this note at several pages you may want to discuss it at my talk, dunno. Your call. ++Lar: t/c 13:25, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
hi, why did you remove willki?
--Teltek (talk) 15:45, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
- Per the page "In order to keep this list from becoming indiscriminate, only entries with a Wikipedia article or other evidence of Notability are permitted.
If you want to add an entry, take the extra 10 minutes to write an article for the website first. See also WP:WTAF." Hipocrite (talk) 15:51, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
Mastadon!
I have edited your talkpage before haven't I? I don't want to add a fresh one to my list because someone will wikistalk me and then dismiss me as being part of the cabal. Polargeo (talk) 16:10, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
RfC/Lar
I believe Casliber was requesting (and I think would be better at that venue) diffs from Lar, not for the the dispute in general. I am still in the hopefully we can resolve this without ArbCom camp, but the links you recently added might be relevant to that or RfC/Cla68. Regards, - 2/0 (cont.) 00:51, 8 May 2010 (UTC)