User talk:Hipocrite/Archive3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Please don't leave!

I'm sorry for being blunt to you on Template talk:Suicide and elsewhere, and would like to implore you not to leave WP forever. I can understand how you would be burned out in this rather painful controversy, but your powerful argument and general sanity have always been appreciated. Image:WikiThanks.png ~~ N (t/c) 01:00, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps later. Hipocrite - «Talk» 01:10, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps

Perhaps people have been blunt and negative towards you because of this attitude. My opinion is that you are a troll, but it has more to do with your attitude than your contributions. I've seen you make excellent contributions. But I've also seen you violate WP:POINT, drive users away, and vandalize with abandon. Heck you did it to me. Why don't you try to come back and reform your tactics. You may find people treat you better. Agriculture 03:08, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Comments on FW RfC

I presume your crossing out of all your comments on FW's RfC was part of a general "I'm not into this at the moment" feeling and not specific to that conflict. Do you mind if I uncross them? I felt they were quite cogent. Hope to have you back in full at some point. Marskell 16:00, 21 October 2005 (UTC)


Maryville Middle School

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maryville Middle School appears in danger of being trumped by a conspicuous and concerted effort on the part of deletionists. Please review the nomination and vote at your convenience.--Nicodemus75 05:26, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Name change?

Lol. I replied to your comment on my Rfa. :) Thanks, a.n.o.n.y.m t 19:24, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your support. :) --a.n.o.n.y.m t 20:56, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Dispute resolution on Template:Suicide

I would like to thank you for your good faith efforts in dispute resolution. I really appreciate how reasonable you've been lately and would like to work with you further regarding our dispute.

As Sn0wflake has ceased his attempts at informal mediation, I have composed an agreement at Template talk:Suicide#RfC/Editing pact for us to sign. As a show of good faith, I'd like us to all agree on a voluntary process to resolve this dispute. Instead of just having one of us file an RfC, I'd like us all to write one up together so we can demonstrate good faith and work harmoniously on this issue.

Once again, thanks for cooperating. — Phil Welch 03:30, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

You are two-faced. 00:42, 27 October 2005 you were singing a different tune.Hipocrite - «Talk» 14:54, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

I was pointing out that it's fallacious to discount past opinions just because there was a hiatus on the discussion for a couple days. Yes, it's true that I have a certain uncompromising interpretation of NPOV, and yes, it's true that I thought it was unreasonable that I be asked to compromise that while you were asked to compromise nothing. What am I supposed to do, apologize for my sense of fairness and neutrality? I can't do that, but I can do the next best thing—work to invite a wider variety of opinions into the dispute, and hope for some way to close the 2 to 1 majority we have into a firmer consensus. A good faith effort at dispute resolution does not necessarily entail pretending a dispute doesn't exist, or compromising one's own principles. I'm doing the best I can here, and I hope you can appreciate that just because our opinions are diametrically opposed doesn't mean either of us are bad people. — Phil Welch 17:59, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

  1. Your timing is suspect, dare I say, obvious.
  2. You state that I was being asked to compromise nothing, thus demonstrating that you have absolutly no idea what I wanted. I believe I was fairly clear in the intial statement, and in all future statments (I note that you did nothing - NOTHING - to make the statement even remotely more acceptable to you, settling on slapping self-serving martyrdom tags at the top of the template as I progressively lowered the imperitive and tone of the statement) that I was not getting what I wanted.
  3. You say here "thank you for your good faith efforts in dispute resolution." you say there "And as far as I can see, your "compromise" consists of you getting your way." "I have seen no significant compromise on the other side, nothing to suggest that Hipocrite would be willing to accept an alternative to the warning" "I have proposed an intermediary solution: in return for not adding the warning at the bottom, I will not question or remove the inclusion of list of crisis hotlines by country." (tit for tat much?)
  4. You were not participating in a good faith effort at dispute resolution - you were participating in a good faith effort in winning. I know from experience.
But don't worry, you'll be an adminstrator soon enough. Then you can block me forever as someone who dosen't want people to commit suicide. Hipocrite - «Talk» 18:10, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
  1. The main reason for my timing is simply that you went out of your way to state that you still had problems with me on my RfA, in rather specific detail. It's fine to vote oppose and state your reasons, but you seemed to be bringing up the dispute again and I wanted to discuss those problems in a more useful forum.
  2. Your concern is, as far as I can determine, to provide people suffering from suicidal ideation helpful information. I think now that we can address that concern in a neutral fashion. But your position was "have a warning text" and my position was "have no warning text". Sn0wflake asked me to accept, in principle, that we could have a warning text. I still maintain that he was asking me to compromise my position and accept yours.
  3. You're quoting me out of context in a heavily misleading fashion, Hipocrite. The first time I was talking to you. The second time I was talking to Sn0wflake in criticism of his attempt at negotiation. Besides, what I said is not in any way inconsistent. I do appreciate your being willing to work with me this time instead of simply hurling personal attacks and leaving in a huff like you did the first time. However, Sn0wflake's attempts at negotiation suffered from severe fallacies, fallacies introduced in good faith, but fallacies that needed to be pointed out.
  4. Just because I'm not willing to compromise NPOV doesn't mean I'm not willing to resolve this dispute, as I believe that I can resolve this dispute while maintaining NPOV. I think my latest proposal accomplishes this.

If you have personal problems with me, I'd like to work those out, because I think they are mostly misunderstandings. But if you're not interested, let's just work on the suicide template and articles. — Phil Welch 21:46, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Hi, this is Kewp. I realize that this has been very stressful because people have very strong opinions about the matter. I hope that you weren't offended by any of my comments that may have come across as rude (sometimes it's hard to come across as forceful but not rude in writing). I think that it would be a good idea to bring this matter to an RfC, hopefully we could create a compromise with a few more opinions involved (I know I said that compromise was impossible between the two positions, but now I've changed my mind a little after a night of sleep).--Amy (Kewp (t) 07:47, 27 October 2005 (UTC))
That would be fine with me. Hipocrite - «Talk» 14:54, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Hipocrite, I'm distressed that you were considering quitting over this template issue (from comments at top). I happened to notice the issue as your Talk is still bookmarked because of the BD issue. I too feel quite strongly that a 'warning' should be included, and frankly cannot understand the resistance. I rather strongly suspect that when this goes to RFC a consensus will build around your position, and I will certainly do what I can to encourage that. Had you quit, this issue would have been buried; unfortunately so as it is quite important.

As an aside, I think this business about the rigid purity of Wikipedia is nonsense. We put a fundraiser note on the front page for tsunami victims. This is no less important, and perhaps more so. Derex @ 19:14, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Thank you, Derex. I wasn't going to quit, I just needed a few days to catch a breath, which I realized just as I was writing someone an email to tell them to take a few days to catch a breath. Hipocrite - «Talk» 19:44, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

WP:RFA/SV

Please accept my thanks for your support at my RFA. I hope I have been able to sufficiently answer any outstanding questions regarding my conduct. Humbly, -St|eve 04:34, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Slave?

Since we haven't "met" before, I can't take umbrage with not being given more credit than that, I suppose. Let's just say that the welcome message was rather.... tongue in cheek <wink> Fox1 (talk) 16:32, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Zyklon B rant

Stop reinstating the Zyklon B rant. It has been rejected by several contributors.ThompsJohn 17:44, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Get off of my talk page and never return. Hipocrite - «Talk» 18:12, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
You are getting off my talk page. ThompsJohn 18:24, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

User:Jakes18 on List of terrorist organisations

He's back at removing the Operation Rescue item on a political agenda. I've reported him 3RR, but the admins there seem slow to get around to blocking him. Of course, even when they do, that will be short term. Would you mind keeping an eye on that also? Thanks much. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 21:17, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Btw: Sorry I can't agree/vote with you on the suicide template. I just can't imagine how any medical advice can be included in a template while maintaining NPOV. Sure, in some of the linked articles; and the template includes a link to suicide prevention hotlines, which is a resource for those who need it. But lots of templates concern things that can be harmful to people: e.g. an automobile template doesn't include a "don't drink and drive, and wear seatbelts" message, as good as that advice is. (Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters)

The Chief

Knock off the sarcasm and heavy-handed provocation at TheChief's talk page. You aren't an admin, and your manner isn't helping anything. It is still possible, however unlikely, that TheChief is not a sock-puppet; even David Gerard has admitted that the IP's don't match- they're just from the same city. Assume good faith.--Scimitar parley 22:19, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

  • I'm sorry, I didn't realize that anything David Gerard says is automatically inerrant. Even assuming that TheChief was a bonafide, no doubt about it sockpuppet, your edits to his talk page were malice, nothing more. They added nothing, contributed nothing. Furthermore, you can lecture me on the role of admins when you are one- until that point in time, you don't realize the additional responsibilities that come with the position (I didn't). Exactly what good were you hoping to accomplish by browbeating TheChief?--Scimitar parley 23:20, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
    • So, you're idea to fight sockpuppets is to act like them? Bravo.--Scimitar parley 14:11, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
      • Oh, I wasn't criticizing the ban; I was simply unconvinced that TheChief was definitely a sockpuppet. Having reviewed the evidence this morning, I believe him to be one. My opposition was, and still is, to you going over to his talk page and rubbing it in. That's immature, and adds fuel to the fire (don't feed the trolls).--Scimitar parley 14:17, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
        • And I'm sorry for snapping on you and being less than clear earlier. No hard feelings?--Scimitar parley 14:26, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Hi, regarding your comment on TheChief's talk page: "Log out, post a message, log in, sign it, convince agriculture to do the same."

I took a glance at both users' edits and this edit shows that they are not likely to be work and home of the same person:

  • (cur) (last) 01:04, 23 October 2005 Agriculture (→My 2 cents)
  • (cur) (last) 00:59, 23 October 2005 TheChief (→My 2 cents)

Five minute difference between both users edits on the same page. (Tony's talk page.) In case this was a pattern using two connections I checked for any other similar "talk to myself" discussions on tony's page and found none. At most these two users communicate by phone, email, or IM. At least... they don't know each other. - Tεxτurε 19:18, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

High Schools in Bronx County, New York, USA

Good idea on AfD re: Schools, today. I cannot promise to be much actual HELP to you and Brenneman - you're both good editors - but you have my moral support & if you make sure I know where it is I promise to drop by occasionally AndyJones 21:32, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Mr H.
    I have to begin with the admission that I don't have much hope for the future of this little venture. I'll try to find some links to the last time that this was tried, because it wasn't pretty. Like, even worse than an average school AfD sort of "not pretty".
    That being said, I think it is a perfectly sensible idea, but we couldn't go wrong to have a bit of a think about methods first. As much as I'm often in the thick of it, and as often as I say "Keep nominating schools" I'd prefer to have some sort of accord worked out so we could avoid all of this. Oh, and I simply hate being called a deletionist, by the way. I notice that the way you used it was plainly descriptive so I took to offense, but it's most often used as a pejorative. Like a reason not to examine anything else anyone says. But that's just me needing to relax a little, probably.
I think a reasonable geographical level is the county for United States schools. We could start with the List of high schools in New York City, as indicated not only for the convenience of starting at the begining but because it has a few object lessons:
  • Bronx High School of Science an excellent article about a notable school. Should maintain its independant article status.
  • Cardinal Hayes High School a sub-stub that wouldn't survive 30 seconds on Afd if it weren't a school, this will have to be expanded even to be included in the larger article.
  • Ethical Culture Fieldston School the sort of fairly average piece that is the most a normal achool article could hope to grow into. There is too much information here to be included in a larger article, but what stays and what goes? What's actually useful?

Overview

The article should actually be about High Schools in Bronx County. That sounds odd, but what I mean is that if it's simply a list of short school articles mashed together it A) Won't serve much purpose, and B) Will be more likely to be destroyed. So the article should mostly consist of general information about Bronx schools, with a section that has individual schools listed as well.

Alumni

I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest that unless the list involves something of particular character to a school, there isn't much information gained from it. To use the examples above, the list of Nobel prize winners has to do with a specific facet of Bronx High School of Science, while Horace_Mann_School_(New_York_City,_New_York)#Famous_Graduates is pretty much just a list of unrelated names. I'd even go further and suggest that this could be one criterion by which schools are judged as to if they get thier own articles. If Foo High, Foo City, Michigan had produced thirteen Super Bowl winning quarterbacks, that would make it notable.

History

This is a pretty tough one. Clearly any school over fifty years old is going to have something to be said about its past, and it's possible to make that into interesting reading. That does not make it encyclopedic, however. I'd like to apply similar standards here to other non-school historical happenings: if it wasn't notable then it's probably not notable now. Thus Walton_High_School_(New_York_City)#History should probably be distilled down to a single line.

Administration

Principals aren't important in of themselves. Number of buildings aren't important in of themselves. Contact details should go in yellowiki, with the exception of official websites. All of these things are usually put in during the AfD blow-fish treatment that school's often get. Which usually ends in one person changing thier opinion anyway, but that's beside the point.

End brain dump. - brenneman(t)(c) 02:18, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

I would agree on "History" and "Adminstration," but on Alumni I have to disagree - from a concept of link continuity - for instance John Popper from Blues Traveler graduated from My High School. This information (if it isn't) should be in both of the article - people reading about Blues Traveler may want to know more about the high school he graduated from, and people reading about the high school that graduated John Popper may also be interested to know that the lead singer from the Spin Doctors, whatever his name is, also graduated from the selfsame school. I guess I wonder what the concrete damage of excluding relevent alumni links is?
Additionally, I think the structure of an article about HS's in the area is relatively easy to pull out - some quick student stats (demographics, size, achievement), count of schools, recent changes in schools (x was closed, z was built). Done. Then the list with stub-sized blurbs about the schools we can get, and blue links to schools with articles that should survive AfD (formatted Schools in Bronx County/Notable Bronx School). Hipocrite - «Talk» 13:36, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Whoa, this is what happens when you start a mental model with, "I really have go to do X today..." Sorry that I've let this slip for almost two weeks, quite rude of me. I've mentioned this over at Wikipedia_talk:Schools#What_now.3F and am still keen to make some actual headway. I got distracted by some politics in another corner of Wikipedia, much to my shame...
    brenneman(t)(c) 03:31, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Dowling Catholic High School

I would like to assist you and Aaron Brenneman in creating a school articles framework that all can be in agreement on with regard to its value to Wikipedia. How may I be of help? Denni☯ 03:05, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Merging and context for schools

I was interested to the recent comments by you at Afd for Grove School. I see Aaron has already started the ball rolling above but I thought I would give you some background on similar pages I have tried to create.

I would be happy to help. I assume the intention is to take a bunch of stubs from a geographic district, create an article "High Schools in x,x,x" and then replace the individual school articles with redirects - for example, where I live now: "High Schools in Brooklyn, New York, USA?" Can I suggest that notable schools with longer articles be shortened and included in stub-format in the list, with a link from their name to their main article? Suggest a starting location! Hipocrite - «Talk» 13:10, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

My first experience with the school debate was with the Afd for Benjamin Cory Elementary School. This discussion actually extended into the talk page. At about that time I started to experiment with essentially the redirect approach, as you describe above. The first page I tried was based on a, then, recent Vfd for Charlotte HS. You can see my effort at Charlotte Public Schools (i recently updated to a table format, see Charlotte Public Schools. I was trying to create a template approach that could be used to see the hierarchy of the schools as well as make it relatively easy for people transfer the information to a new and better article if someone saw fit to expand one of the schools.

After the Afd for Bartlett High School I again tried this approach at the Elgin Area School District U46.

After the Afd for Chester_County_High_School I created the following Chester County School District article to allow the school article to have some real context.

And finally I experimented with a very long list of schools in hampshire after the Afd Court Moor School although I did not really complete the school district list to my satisfaction in that case.

Early on I was labeled as a deletionist by Silensor and Nicodemus75 but I do not count myself as one. I have always tried to be a constructive voice in this debate. I know these pages are not perfect but i saw them as an experimental compromise. The most important thing for these school articles is that they are not hanging in cyber space with no context. I think this was summed up well by Aaron_Brenneman at the recent Afd for Grove School:

"That's my point, Kappa. Why spend so much time and energy defending these little bits of low-utility information instead of gathering them together into some coherent form?"

I'd be interested to hear comments. David D. (Talk) 07:47, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

WikiProject Inclusionism

I noticed that you voted keep in the deletion discussion for this article based on the fact that it had recently gone through the process. While this is understandable, I feel that the last MD was somewhat out of process, as practically no one outside the project knew it was on. With the attention the vote for undeletion received, this revote has seen a much larger and much more representative result. Is there any way you could be convinced to judge this one on the merits of whether it should or should not indeed be deleted? Ambi 15:50, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Compromise proposal on Template:Suicide

Thanks for taking a look at my proposal and commenting it. It seems like mostly everyone is alright with it, but because of your involvement in this issue I'd like you to give your final OK to the proposal (in general terms at least, we can work out specifics later) so we can resolve this rancorous dispute. Thanks for your help. — Phil Welch 21:11, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

My screwups

Ahoy! It's ok to bite in this case as I may have gotten a bit over-eager with the new buttons - I'll be the first to admit my mistakes, and in order to see them someone needs to bring it up, so thanks, actually. The Barnyard thing was because some anon had been adding dozens of articles with the title "(2006 film)" at the end of it. I did a lot of moves and redirects to the proper titles (usually just the title, or just "(film)" at the end), and should have blanked and redirected Barnyard (2006 film) to the already extant Barnyard (film), but I screwed that up. Kelly McGee was G4, my reasoning was G4, I put A7 for some dumb reason. Riot Siren... well, now I know: if it is about one person that does not assert notability, speedy; if it is about more than one person that does not assert notability, AfD (and as always, when in doubt, AfD, anyway). Thanks for your help, and the barnstar! --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 02:06, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Administrative probation

No problem. I'm having trouble working out the language. It is not policy; it is more brainstorming. Fred Bauder 14:16, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Prussian Blue wording

I've added a verb to your proposed wording. Let me know what you think.--Isotope23 19:58, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Providing a reason with your vote

Hi, regarding Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Xinmin Secondary School. Just a friendly reminder, that if you don't include a reason with your vote, it might not be counted by the admin --rob 15:42, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't feel that wasting server resources any more than the nominatons already do is acceptable. I'll change my signature to "NN K," however. Hipocrite - «Talk» 19:24, 6 November 2005 (UTC) - NN-K


Final decision

The arbitration committee has reached a final decision in the Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/BigDaddy777 case →Raul654 18:21, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Philwelch's RfA

Thanks for supporting my RfA. Your vote in particular meant a lot to me because of how heated things got over Template:Suicide. I'm glad things worked out the way they did, and I'll see you around. — Phil Welch 03:27, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/MONGO

Make of it what you will. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 07:52, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for the notification. I do follow RFA regularly, and intend to ask MONGO an open ended question about the project and the various outcroppings of it. Hipocrite - «Talk» 14:04, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

RfC

You welcome an RFC on voting to keep articles that fail the deletion guidelines by a mile, and you do this simply because of your rage at ComCat? That sure looks like disruption to me. In fact, it looks like trying to 1. disrupt Wikipedia's procedures by knowingly voting against the deletion guidelines because of who made the nomination, 2. asking another admin to devote time and energy to establishing an RFC against you instead of writing articles or tending to policy pages, 3. Insisting that nothing ComCat does can go forward because you don't like him. It all looks like WP:POINT to me. You've got your RfC going against ComCat. That's all you get to do. Anything beyond that is, indeed, disrupting matters because of your quarrel. Again, go ahead and RfC him. Go ahead and be angry. Just don't disrupt the function of AfD because you don't like him. Geogre 16:01, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Excuse me? Isn't "welcoming" one asking for one? Also, this faith that "if they're that bad they'll be deleted anyway" is, indeed, contrary to your initial statement that you sought to "raise the consensus" on his VfD nominations. And yes, I know WP:POINT pretty well. More to the actual point, I know why it's there, and this is a prime example. Again, pursue your case against him, but don't, when "consensus" is now up to 80%, poison the well by saying that you feel that the articles should be kept because their nominator is disagreeable, which is exactly what you say when you vote "keep." Make the comment, by all means. Just don't vote "keep," lest you at least force folks to start striking votes. That way lies nothing but acrimony. Nor, please, suggest that the articles be deleted anyway, as that's against policy (just as voting contrary to policy for quarrelsome reasons is). Again: don't punish Wikipedia because you don't like ComCat. Geogre 16:25, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Continuing discussion from WP:AFD/Blop

Hipocrite, since I don't think I'm understanding you very well, I'll ask you a few straight-forward questions, which I anticipate honest, civil responses to:

  1. Do you think Blop is worth keeping?
  2. Do you think somebody's opinion (on whether an article should be deleted) should depend on who nominator is, what reasons are given by the nominator, how legible the nominator's notation is, whether the nominator has a history of questionable nominations, or any other factor than whether the article itself is worth keeping?
  3. Do you think it's appropriate to vote keep on every article nominated by ComCat, regardless of its merit?
  4. Did you intentionally break my signature with this edit to prove a point about templated signatures?
  5. Since you seem focused on "cleaning up after the proof", if a user's signature is damaged by a later edit, do you feel it require more effort to restore (to its previous appearance) a template-linked signature or an inline one consisting of a paragraph worth of raw HTML coding?

— FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 16:14, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

  1. I have no opinion on the article in question. I have not yet determined, nor am I interested in determining, if it is, in it's current form, verifiable, mostly because I don't care.
  2. No.
  3. Yes.
  4. No. That was an honest mistake, though it's very embarassing. For it I apologize. I misclicked while typing "clean" in. I will post this apology wherever you feel appropriate. The only reason I noticed the transcluded sig is that I accidentally vandalized it.
  5. Signatures with a paragraph of raw HTML coding are disruptive.

Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:24, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for your time. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 16:28, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

WP:SCH

Hi Hipocrite. I just wanted to let you know you are very much mistaken regarding people, deletionist of otherwise, negotiating in bad faith. No one on that page has made any bad faith gestures. Infact the only delete vote from anyone engaged in the discussion on the AFD you presented was from brenneman, who opposes the proposal in it's current form. Everyone else who has commented on that AFD has voted Keep, Merge, or encouraged people to visit WP:SCH. Gateman1997 17:41, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

  • (Just poking my nose in, eh.) If that recomendation (which is my new word for vote) is interpreted as bad faith by anyone, please do drop a note on my talk page and let me know. I am commited to working towards an accord. Sorry to but in.
    brenneman(t)(c) 22:54, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
    • How do you qualify your statement that the proposal at WP:SCH has been "torpedoed"? The current proposal says nothing about deleting any school information which seems to be what you think has happened. Merges and redirects to said merges would be all that occur for information that doesn't meet the reasonable bare minimum requirements, thus preserving ALL school data that currently exists. Your continued assertion that this discussion has been "hijacked" is doing nothing to help and is infact hurting consensus building. I would like you to keep contributing your ideas but only if you're going to do it in a non confrontational way. There is enough animosity on both sides without you stirring the pot with incorrect information.Gateman1997 23:36, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
      • Please do come back to the table. - brenneman(t)(c) 23:50, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

"Of color"

Didn't want to clutter up AFD with this discussion, so I brought it here.

I thought "of color" was generally considered inappropriate in the US, as an old-fashioned term that just means "not white." That's just a gut call, though; can you point me to a style guide to help elaborate on this? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 20:25, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Power googling got me http://www.colorado.edu/Publications/styleguide/inclusive.html and http://www.jhsph.edu/publichealthnews/style_manual/r.html and a host of others. Hipocrite - «Talk» 20:59, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
Both of those links are nearly identical. I wonder whether it's from the CMS or AP style guides. I'll have to find my copy of the AP guide and look, although my copy is sort of old. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 21:04, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
Old would be bad. I'd guess that anything pre-2002 is not-recent enough for this purpose. Those are major universities, so I tend to say they would err on the side of caution. I'll do more research when I get home, however. Hipocrite - «Talk» 21:11, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Wiki-stalking harassment campaign?

Why did you say that I was on a wiki-stalking harassment campaign? - Kookykman|(t)e

MONGO RfA

They promoted me to admin! I am happy you reconsidered your vote. I still concede that I was both rude and wrong to remove names from ther decency project and that kind of foolishness will not happen again. Let me know if there is anything I can do for you!--MONGO 09:47, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Witchhunt

Hi Hipocrite,

What makes you think I'm on a witchhunt?

Regards, Ben Aveling 04:58, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

A witchhunt - asking again.

Hi Hipocrite,

You still have this statement at [1]:

  • you are obviously on a witchhunt to make people who disagree with you quiet

I would like to think that you have a reason for making this statement, and I would like you to be good enough to share it with me, please?

If I have been unfair to Dunc, or anyone on wiki, I think I deserve the opportunity to make amends?

Regards, Ben Aveling 03:33, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Hipocrite - have you possibly confused the very polite Ben Aveling with the very controversial and often agressively rude Benapgar (who signs his posts Ben)? See Dunc's comment here where he clarifies the difference between the "two bens." KillerChihuahua 22:23, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

No such thing as a bad school article?

You really think this should not have been nominated for AfD? Pete.Hurd 16:36, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Hi Hypocrit, Can you explain where the proposal at WP:SCH does not support merging for this article?Gateman1997 20:17, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

You voted merge and delete. The proposal is for merge and redirect. Hipocrite - «Talk» 20:37, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
I mean delete the article. Redirect is implied. And try talking to someone before throwing around "bad faith" as a tag to your edit next time ;).Gateman1997 20:41, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
I don't mean to be rude, but I don't believe you are ignorant of the rules regarding article merges and the gfdl. Hipocrite - «Talk» 20:46, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
No I'm not, but some of the people who run the merge/redirect system are. And they fail to merge/delete/redirect correctly.Gateman1997 20:48, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
I think this is a storm in a tea cup. I see good faith in the merge vote and force of habit nomenclature with the delete. I understand you are sensitive to the delete vote, Hipocrite, but I think that Gateman is right that you could have reminded him first. David D. (Talk) 20:50, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

No, really, I don't.

Hi,

Really, I don't know of anything I have said or done on wikipedia that would constitute a witchhunt against dunc or anyone else.

But maybe I've missed something.

Help me here. Point me to what you are talking about.

Please.

Ben Aveling 20:15, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Zimmerman Elementary (or not)

And this is why nominators should do research on schools before they nominate. This article appears to be a hoax, though the nominator failed to uncover this, thus demonstrating that they did not follow our deletion policy (which requires that one, before nominating, determine that the article does not fall under a category that does not require deletion, like a failure of POV, or needing cleanup.) It is a waste of everyones time to nominate articles that will obviously generate controvercy on AFD without doing the requiste research. No vote, Hipocrite

Regarding this, which I will, for purposes of discussion, choose not to interpret as a personal attack. The article was speedy deletion material to begin with, in my opinion. If you use WP:KATE's tool, you can see my "contributions to deleted articles" and find that I have been patrolling the steady crapflood of new articles with a keen eye recently, and have tagged quite a large number of them for speedy deletion in the past few days. I use CDVF for this. I don't know if you're familiar with it, but it highlights the new entries in orange, making them easy to pick out and examine.

About out of every 100, I'd estimate that about 65 appear to be crap, and there's no nicer way to put it. Most of them, I tag for speedy deletion. In the case of Zimmerman, I could see it was obviously not worth keeping (CSD A1, "insignificant context"), yet I was confident that school-inclusionists, such as yourself, would throw a fit if I tagged a school for speedy deletion. Correct me if I am wrong?

So I sent it to AFD, which, according to deletion policy, is considered the correct action for articles which one considers too controversial for speedy deletion. And no, I did not bother to google it, or even check up on it on the vote tally until recently, because I did not consider it to be worth my time, as I was lagging far behind the stream of newly created articles. This is because not enough people are willing to help inspect them. I feel that bringing it to the attention of others was a sufficient contribution. I could have just as easily left it alone and it might have gone unnoticed.

Thus I don't think disparaging me on the grounds that my lack of research caused you to retract your "keep all schools per WP:SCH proposal" vote is very appropriate. Next time I find a school stub as awful as that one, hoax or not, I'll send it to the school cleanup bin which I have recently become aware of, and let you do all the googling and whatnot.

However, I do still believe wikipedia would be a better place if we could establish a minimum threshhold for what is (and what is clearly not) a notable school, and avoid the potential controversy that speedy deletion tagging (similar to A7: non-notable people, my gut instinct in the case of zimmerman) would undoubtedly have caused.

— FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 22:22, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

  1. I do not throw fits. If you CSDed a school under inaplicable A1 ("Limited content is not in itself a reason to delete if there is enough context to allow expansion."), and it were deleted, I would take it to deletion review, and it would be reversed.
  2. "If in doubt, don't delete" is not just a maxim, it is policy (Wikipedia:Deletion policy). It is far more important to NOT delete articles that are valid than it is to delete articles that are invalid. If this means that there will be all kinds of orphaned short articles then there will be all kinds of orphaned short articles. I doubt you have enough fingers to keep the dikes standing. If my telling you that you must do research when you nominate obviously controvercial articles for deletion means that you are so frusterated that you never nominate another school for deletion again, I consider that a good thing.
Hipocrite - «Talk» 22:31, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

I suppose it doesn't matter much at this point, but A1 would be applicable as zimmerman clearly lacked context as I stated above. WP:CSD clearly draws the distinction... there was, as you stated, significant content to allow for expansion, yet insufficient context for one to know where to begin, i.e. no city & state given, which I considered requisite for googling because I believed false positives would be a major concern, though I was obviously wrong on the grounds that said school does not exist and apparently, neither does its alleged namesake. However, looking more closely I see it was created by one Coach Zed, and if "Zed" means "Z" and "Z" stands for "Zimmerman" it could be that was actually a cryptic vanity entry, but this is highly speculative, irrelevent, and has received more attention than I ever planned to give it. I do not see how this can be construed as a bad-faith nomination, by any means. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 23:05, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

If I wanted to accuse you of bad faith, I would have done so. It was merely overly hasty for an obviously controvercial AFD.

Lower Merion

Good link here. I will chip in a bit too. David D. (Talk) 21:58, 1 December 2005 (UTC) http://www.lowermerionhistory.org/texts/schools.html

Clean up

Nice job on the clean up page. I like the idea of the priority list. I think if we can get all Afd direct to here it will really make a discussion on criteria for merge/redirect versus keep as article possible. By the way I'm not meant to be having any input into these school debates ;-). How did I get sucked back into this?? David D. (Talk) 22:29, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

I think we both just quit the bickering on WP:SCH and declared the smerge proposal consensus. I've resolved to stop caring about the whole thing, and just go about improving all the school articles. Hipocrite - «Talk» 22:33, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
We all need to learn from Rob, better late than never. I noticed User:Saikiri added a school to the clean up list, so this may catch on. David D. (Talk) 22:42, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
Hi hipocrite, i just made a bold move to try and prevent a mass AFD nomination. Hopefully this project will get positive contributions from both sides. You will notice i plagerised your words from a recent AFD. Could you check the wording to confirm if it fits with your idea of what we are trying to achieve? David D. (Talk) 00:50, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

John Lott comment

"Let's not, and say you're abusive" - The user has reverted 3 times in as many days. That does not fall outside of allowed behavior, no matter how difficult it may be. You have accused a number of people of sockpuppetry. Maybe you could tone it down a little? Rkevins82 19:23, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Puh-lease. That's the equivalent of a ten year old holding his hand two inches from your face saying "I'm not touching you. I'm not touching you. I can hold my hand here. I'm not touching you. It's OK if I do this. I'm not touching you". The mysterious Lott Squad with their identical lock-step mass revisions and identical refusals to discuss anything point by point and identical vague references to "previous discussions" are abusive and destructive and dedicated to establishing their deviant view of reality without compromise, and their ability to stay within the precise letter of the law in no way converts their efforts into anything positive for Wikipedia, nor does it convert their goal into anything more than obfuscation of Lott's history into a whitewash, nor does it turn them into contributing members of society who have earned our respect rather than disrespect. And I say this as a person who had in the long ago before the infestation of these pests been arguing for the article to explicitly describe Lott and his "More Guns Less Crime" work as "groundbreaking". Gzuckier 19:44, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
The user in question has done that same revert scores of times over the past weeks. I have accused him of sockpuppetry a number of times. I think that I'll continue calling a spade a spade. This is an encyclopedia, not a social experiment. WP:AUTO reverters are not helping the project and should not be coddled. Hipocrite - «Talk» 19:54, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
Maybe I just don't understand, but it seem like the edits are evenly distributed geographically - so how do you know it's a sockpuppet. All I'm getting at is that it is easy to lose our cool and we should try to maintin civility. Thank you both for keeping watch over the page. Rkevins82 20:00, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Sockwhacker Barnstar

Awarded in recognition of diligent attention to duty during the LottClone Wars of 2005
Awarded in recognition of diligent attention to duty during the LottClone Wars of 2005

Gzuckier 20:23, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for being bold at Sahara. As for the Roylee RfC, I'm not sure about the best way to proceed to RfAr but I hope others will take it up. — mark ✎ 20:42, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

If you point where I should go, I'll do the digging in the article's history and delete everything and prevent it from being readded without proper citations. I'm going to start on your userpage list now, and will mention this on IRC this evening to get more totally-inexperienced but wikipedia aware eyes on the articles. That's the right way to solve the problem, and it's what we'll have to do untill we can find a technological solution. Yes, it means that I might delete good facts, but bad facts are more pernicious than missing facts. Hipocrite - «Talk» 20:44, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
Replying there. — mark ✎ 20:56, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Awolf002 RfA

Thank you very much for your support for my RfA. I will do everything I can to justify your trust in me. Awolf002 03:29, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

My RFA

Thank you for your comments. I apologize if I offended you or made the RFC situation worse than it already was. That was never my intention and I like to think I learned a great deal about Wikipedia from that experience and am a better Wikiepdian for it. I made mistakes and for that I am sorry. No hard feelings for your oppose vote. I was not surprised that it came up (see my answer to number 3). Thanks again and have a good one!Gator (talk) 17:25, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Hipocrite...can you refresh my memory of Gator's involvement in the censorship project?--MONGO 03:59, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Removing bad recommendations

I saw that you removed some language from Wikipedia:Schools, stating in your edit summary: "removed bad advice - deletionist admins are now disregarding keep votes that are merely a link.(though they allow delete votes without comment". I have on occasion voted "keep" with no comment at all, if the votes preceding mine clearly stated the various reasons or contained a link to the list of reasons to keep. I am very curious to know if you have an example where keep votes have been disregarded for linking to the list? I have not been watching the results nearly as closely as I used to. Thanks. -- DS1953 01:48, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bryant high schoolHipocrite - «Talk» 13:00, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Thank you

For your participation in and lack of support for my successful request for adminship. I hope to learn from your criticism and the wonderful experience of reading it. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 07:39, Dec. 17, 2005

"User freespeech" template

Helloo.. Saw your free speech thing and thought you might be interested in this template (which is also linked from the WikiProject talk page: {{User:Feureau/UserBox/freespeech}}

A link so you can preview it: {{User:Feureau/UserBox/freespeech}}

Hope you like, it's pretty much the same but will also automatically add you to the Wikipedians against censorship category. :) --Mistress Selina Kyle 17:49, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Prussian Blue

Please see the Prussian Blue (American duo) talk page before making more edits. -A 02:45, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Re: Genius Home Collegiate School

Sorry, other than the website, I can't provide any verification for the existence of the school. As I mentioned in the AfD, the school is not notable enough to be referenced in media, or any other sources. Thanks. --Ragib 18:15, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Name change

Hi Hipocrite. See you have the same concern as last time. To answer your question again, yes, I will name change after adminship because that way my Rfa won't need a name change and the bureaucrats won't have too much trouble going through Rfa changes. :) --a.n.o.n.y.m t 17:34, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

user page

Yeah, I probably would. Please let DCV be the judge of what her user page should look like. It's an egregious violation of Wikiquette to blank someone else's user page, or to move it elsewhere. If you don't like her user page, don't look at it. But it's her user page to do with as she sees fit. Leaving a comment on her talk page asking her to move it to a subpage is fine (though the chances of her doing so are slim), but do not do it yourself. It's her choice to make, not yours. --Angr (tɔk) 15:27, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

I think that's a very unfortunate suggestion, especially coming from someone with a free-speech userbox on his user page. What you're proposing is censorship, pure and simple. --Angr (tɔk) 17:25, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
Anyone who can't handle an unexpected picture of a pierced penis is too immature to be left alone with a computer. --Angr (tɔk) 17:32, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
You shouldn't really be browsing Talk:Jazz when you're at work in corporate America anyway, should you? --Angr (tɔk) 17:40, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
On the contrary, I take "Wikipedia is not censored" very seriously. I finally censored the picture at Obesity after there were several protests from other users over the uncensored version, but I genuinely considered myself to be violating Wikipedia policy in doing so. I admit, if I were in DCV's position, I wouldn't handle it the way she does. If I did want to make an issue of the vandalism I receive, I probably would put it in a subpage, or just provide diffs for people to peruse. I'm not defending her methods; I'm defending her right to have her user page as she likes. I imagine you'd be pretty pissed off if someone blanked your user page and then fixed it so you couldn't even switch it back; I know I would. --Angr (tɔk) 19:59, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

University of Ottawa

No one is coddling, Hipocrite. I'm trying to ensure civility and compromise in this discussion; that means making sure everyone feels that they're being taken seriously. Merits of individual edits should be judged individually, and that's my intention. -Joshuapaquin 16:31, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Rfa thanks

Hello Hipocrite. Thank you for supporting my Rfa! I will try my best to be a good administrator. Please ask me if you need any help. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 17:43, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

A gentle suggestion

Hipocrite, have you ever heard the saying that sometimes you get more flies with honey than vinegar? I'd like to ask you to please reconsider your aggressive language on Universty of Ottawa. You can disagree, that's your right. But sometimes it's as much about how you say it as what you say. It can be difficult to come to any compromise with someone (and that's what Wikipedia is about, compromise) when you feel they aren't being civil, no matter the substance of the disputes. And, please, don't leave such accusatory messages on my talk page when I'm trying to help. It's insulting, and I know you know me better than that. · Katefan0(scribble)/mrp 17:00, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Your block of me is innapropriate, and I ask that you take the initiative to have it reviewed at any of the appropriate venues. Please also remove the autoblock, as I use a shared IP. Thank you for your prompt attention. Hipocrite - «Talk» 21:56, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

3RR

I blocked you for 24 hours for violating WP:3RR and generally being disruptive in your edits. Talk, don't revert, even if it means your preferred version isn't on the screen temporarily -- after all, this is a long-term project, there's no rush to finish. · Katefan0(scribble)/mrp 21:56, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Your block of me is innapropriate (as I did not violate 3rr, please review diffs), and I ask that you take the initiative to have it reviewed at any of the appropriate venues. Please also remove the autoblock, as I use a shared IP. Thank you for your prompt attention. Hipocrite - «Talk» 21:56, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
I will happily agree to not edit the UoO page for the timespan of the block in question. Hipocrite - «Talk» 22:26, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
I've posted a request for a review on WP:AN/I, you can see it there. My offer to lift your block if you'll avoid editing University of Ottawa (not the talk page, but the articlespace) for 24 hours still stands. · Katefan0(scribble)/mrp 22:28, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
Thank you, I noticed. I accept said offer. I would also like you to review the following dif with respect to "ego hungry monster" [2] Hipocrite - «Talk» 22:30, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
Okay, good. I'm glad. (And yes, he's had his share of incivility and trolling, it's completely true. But he is significantly newer than you are, and knows less about how this place operates -- or should operate. Some leeway is usually given for lack of experience. Anyway, I'll lift your block now. · Katefan0(scribble)/mrp 22:34, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
I agree with hipocrite's interpretation, it seems as if some editing actually did break out before 3RR was reached. The same goes for anakin too, although i thought he should have gone to the talk page sooner, rather than doing two straight reverts to prove his point. Regardless, I have made some edits on the main page and added some options on the talk page. What a waste of time! David D. (Talk) 22:29, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, I think your comments (and the intent behind them) are lovely and very much more in line with what I expect from you. Don't beat yourself up too much; everybody gets mad and says things they wish they hadn't, and Anakinskywalker certainly said some things I can understand your wanting to respond to in kind. The important point is to move forward. Thanks again · Katefan0(scribble)/mrp 23:04, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't expect anything less from a BigDaddy777 veteran.  ;) No hard feelings, I promise. · Katefan0(scribble)/mrp 03:58, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Arbitration Committee election: Mindspillage

Just thought you should know that this edit shows an anon voting in your name. It might be you while logged out, but if it's someone impersonating you, then the vote should be struck off. David | Talk 22:56, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Natasha Demkina

I have responded to your call for a citation and attribution in this article, and invite you to review the changes when you can. --BillC 19:51, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate it when you step in and remove bias in favor of paranormal things like Otherkin and Natasha's hoodoovoodoo powers, but when you step in and add biased language against it instead of taking the time to write objective sentences you are making the situation worse. Please try to use more nuetral language in the text of articles. DreamGuy 05:52, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Constant Deletion of YTMND-related material?

You seem to have some sort of grudge against YTMND - you've been removing material from articles with it. You see things as "irrelevant" and delete them. You cite Wikipedia rules that don't apply (WP:NOR). Can you at least try to see other POVs before you start deleting stuff? Tokakeke 20:05, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Copyvio on Cosplay

This article's been unprotected now, if you wish to unlink the image(s?) you had concerns about from that article, as well as listing them for deletion. Alai 17:42, 16 January 2006 (UTC)


Bygones be bygones?

Are you sure about that? I’m not too sure you are. Thank you for the nice gesture, but until prove you willingness to negotiate and not be so aggressive as noted by the admin, then this issue is going nowhere and I’m going get it to go to arbitration... I will be providing sources in a few days and most this matter is clear, but wording on the article still has to change because of NPOV. Anakinskywalker 15:36, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Hipocrite, stop stalking me where ever I go. You are a NPOV warrior and stop reverting my posts unless you have sources to claim otherwise. Don't push you POV into the Encyclopedia. I haven't agreed on the statement, and your being biased. Negotiations is the keyword.

Anakinskywalker 15:26, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

There is substantial discussion on the talk page regarding the sections I am editing. Please participate there. Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:40, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I welcome all input

I welcome all input on the issue. Currently I try to abstain from reversing Cheating in Counter-Strike too much, as I am afraid I would get possessive and hinder potentially constructive input. I have already raised the issue of cheat site links in the talk page and agree with your action to reinsert them. You are of course invited to add your input and thoughts on the issue. Dabljuh 14:53, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../h/i/p/User_talk%7EHipocrite_Archive3_0937.html"