User talk:Hipocrite

Talk to the H

This talk page is automatically archived by Werdnabot. Any sections older than 7 days are automatically archived to User talk:Hipocrite/Archive/Nov07. Sections without timestamps are not archived - please sign your posts with four ~'s

The fish will not bite

Yes, Hipocrite, you are quite right; thank you. I do my best to avoid him, and will not now enter into any discussion preceded by a contribution from him. I do, however, react badly when I feel my integrity is being questioned, and I cannot abide bullies. But it is good to have somebody to turn to when problems arise. I have, in the past, felt quite isolated when faced with what gives all the appearance of a relentless hate campaign. Rightly or wrongly, it is my feeling that he has become disturbingly obsessed with me. (Please have a look in Humanities archives for 8 January to see what he wrote after my contribution to the Cultural Warriors issue.) My best wishes. Clio the Muse 19:26, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Response to Good Acts.

Thank you. I wasn't intending to vandalize. I've always understood that trolling messages were to be deleted, as they were a pain. Messages that were downright offensive were defenitely supposed to be removed. Acalamari 21:25, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Explain yourself

That's correct. You have two rights. You have the right to leave, and you have the right to fork. Hipocrite - «Talk» 03:16, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not actually following whatever is at issue here, but I'm concerned that Loomis presumably has the same "right" as any of us have, to continue here, arguing his/her point and boldly editing things ... in addition to the two "rights" specified by Hipocrite. --Tagishsimon (talk)

You do not have that right. Hipocrite - «Talk» 12:16, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, go on. I'll bite. At what point did we lose that "right"? --Tagishsimon (talk)

You never had it. Hipocrite - «Talk» 14:54, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Hipocrite is correct on this; the right to fork and the right to leave are the only two absolute rights that any editor has. No editor on Wikipedia has the right to argue his or her point in perpetuity. In general, discussion about points of disagreement is encouraged to help to clarify positions and to try to resolve disputes. However, Wikipedia has always reserved the right to cut off fruitless discussion when it starts to interfere with the functioning of the encyclopedia. If Loomis (or anyone) would like to carry on a private argument somewhere that isn't a busy talk page, or would like to employ some more formal strategy of dispute resolution, he is welcome to. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:24, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

But the problem with this, in context, is that Hipocrite appears to be saying "your only options are to leave or fork". Surely option 3 is that the user has as much right as the rest of us to continue to discuss his point? I take your point that that there comes a time when the discussion is fruitless and shold be discontinued, or taken to another place. However I'm not happy to see users being told - and I grant this is my parsing of the sentence - is that their only two alternatives are to go away, or go away and start another wikipedia. That seems arrogant and wrong headed. --Tagishsimon (talk)

You misunderstand the usage of fork. Loomis has his own talk page to discuss these issues. We all know where it is. David D. (Talk) 16:18, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

(my apologies to Hipocrite for pursuing a discussion on his talk page) The problem arises because another editor started demanding that his 'rights' be recognized. From Loomis' comment: "...Is this some sort of kangaroo court? Even if I'm dead wrong, do I not at the very least have the basic right to respond to my accusers, using, in my defence, the very evidence they used to accuse me?..."

Many editors over the years have mistaken Wikipedia for a public place ("I have the right to freedom of speech and denying me that is unconstitutional!") or for a court of law ("I have the right to a fair trial, and the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty!"). Those misconceptions – and others like them – are very much incorrect, and they tend to lead editors into trouble. Editors typically are allowed a great many privileges and a tremendous amount of freedom. In both cases this is because those privileges and freedoms tend to aid in the construction of the encyclopedia; those privileges tend to be withdrawn when they become harmful to the project. The only absolute rights we enjoy are the two that Hipocrite has described.

Hipocrite's statement was not meant to indicate to Loomis that he had only two options. Rather, it meant exactly what it said—Loomis has only two rights on this project, and he should take extreme care with claiming any others. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:24, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I'm good with that; thanks. --Tagishsimon (talk)

Email me

My username's also a gmail address, take a look at my talk page and see if you have anything to add to the most recent discussion. Flakeloaf 15:58, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

My only comment is that Radiant is a compentent and experienced adminstrator with a demonstration of commitment to this project, and that other users are not competent and experience adminsrators and have demonstrated commitment to their view of this project, not the project as it currently stands. Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:01, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I could stand to learn a thing or two from you about diplomatic language. Flakeloaf 16:10, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I could learn a thing or two from me about using said language at all times. Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:11, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

If you did, what kind of hypocrite would that make you? Wanting to not be a hypocrite about being one by saying you want to do something you won't do that'll make you...

I think you just broke my brain. Flakeloaf 16:16, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Ahh, but I'm a hipocrite. The name comes from when someone insulted the fact that I mispealed (sic) hipocrite (sic) on usenet in the longlongago. (I wrote "hypocrite") Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:18, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Of course, being an admin is not a prerequisite to participation in policy discussions, nor does it privilege admins' opinions over others in forming consensus, which is one of the reasons that Hipocrite's opinion is relevant.  ;-)

As for Jeff, assuming we're talking about him, I think he has also displayed a lot of committment to the project as it stands. His article contributions are substantial and include contributions to a featured article and several good articles. I recognize that opinions differ about whether article writing and improvement is the most significant contribution to the encyclopedia, but I think there's a firm consensus that it is a very significant contribution. (I would certainly feel better about myself if I had a featured article on my brag board). Jeff's contributions to the policy pages have struck me as within a reasonable range that still qualifies as "commitment to the project as it currently stands" - not to get all meta, but the project as it currently stands certainly has room for people to advocate for inclusionism within the limits of the core policies, and that's what Jeff seems to be doing. Thanks, TheronJ 16:21, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

• Well, the problem isn't that Jeff is not contributive in his own way, the problem is that over the past week he has been intent on calling me a disruptive tendentious stalker in about a dozen public forums. That does not strike me as commitment to the project. I don't mind disagreeing with people (heck, I do that a lot, I know); I do mind false accusations and personal attacks. >Radiant< 17:02, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

The content I've posted recently on the MedCab discussions and my own talk page may make it look like I'm aligned against Jeff; that's definitely not the case. He is a good editor. Radiant's a good administrator. The two just don't see eye-to-eye and their disagreement has turned from content-related discussion to name-calling. Once down that slippery slope it's hard to climb back up, since a single syllable that sounds out-of-line magically dredges up every past indignity, real or perceived. Flakeloaf 17:04, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

User talk:Hipocrite/kibitzing

I've nominated this at MfD as a probable attack page. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:56, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh whatever. Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:56, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Would you get upset if I posted a hugantic table-breaking rolleyes right about here? This whole thing has become quite silly. Flakeloaf 16:59, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Blogs as sources

Will do. I was under the impression that about 99% of blogs are invalid sources, but a select few are exceptions. Is that broadly correct? >Radiant< 17:03, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

That was my impression. Hipocrite - «Talk» 17:05, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Is that issue disputed again? If so, where? RS appears reasonably stable atm. >Radiant< 13:11, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

It looks ok now. Hipocrite - «Talk» 13:44, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

• 'kay, I'll keep it on my watchlist. >Radiant< 13:55, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Citation for edit at Joshua Clover?

Please see question on that page's discussion. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Janedark (talk • contribs) 17:47, 1 February 2007 (UTC).

Werdna's RfA

As a new account here, I haven't taken part in an RfA before, but if you know something about a Werdna/Blu Aardvark connection, could you let us know what you know? If you don't want to discuss it here, would you mind sending me an email? If it's something others should know, it would color my decision on whether to participate in the RfA and which option I would choose. If you don't want to do so, I understand. Corvus cornix 23:27, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I was concerned about user venting on that website being a regular thing. I was assured by individuals I trust that it was not, and this was a one time incident a long long time ago. Hipocrite - «Talk» 13:22, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

OK, thanks for the reply. Corvus cornix 16:42, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Let me explain my view on your comment on Ann Coulter's talk

I felt targetted by the "...is a part of the problem." Maybe I'm taking it a bit personally. Watching this page rather than continuing on Ann Coulter... :P Kyaa the Catlord 19:51, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

If you believe you are spotless and pure, you are part of the problem - no offence intended. It is imperitive that we realize some of the flaws of our "opponents" are reflected on ourselves, regardless of our desperate attempts to remain pure. The article needed to be hit with a brick - and everyone, I hope, now realizes that. The problem was that people had their rapiers out, and were busy skewering this section that annoyed them or that sentance that was POV. This causes a problem because people see all the shit that's left and say "why did you pick that thing to pick on?" - the flaws of their opponents reflected on themselves. Hulk smash editing means that I have everyone's blood on me. I hope you can work productively with myself and the others on that page to make it describe not argue.Hipocrite - «Talk» 19:54, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

The article needs a good Ron Jeremy-ing, imho. Will that happen? Probably not, but I'd sit back and clap if it did. (Ron Jeremy was basically blanked and rebuilt from scratch, it was rather remarkable.) Kyaa the Catlord 20:02, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I lack the Jimbo Wales to get away with a full-out blanking. I feel there is a great deal of value in some of the article - the lead and the media description are quite well written. Hipocrite - «Talk» 20:03, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I completely agree that the basic stats are superb. Its once we get to the meat of why Coulter's such a hot button that the article needs a good napalming. I'm not against having well referenced negative material included, but the article descends into nothing but an essay on why Coulter is the antichrist. She's been accused of being evil, but Satan's got a lead on her still. :P Kyaa the Catlord 20:08, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I tend to be more direct in wording than I need to be at times. Teehee. Kyaa the Catlord 20:56, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

This, I believe, is where I can be helpful to the process. Hipocrite - «Talk» 20:57, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

First one...

I just wanted to start helping out. Look, if you really want that thing out of the article, can you just help me understand why you think it doesnt fit? EDIT: I really don't feel like edit warring. The same thing happened to the original 77 production of Star Wars, thats why it seems important. Plus its been in the article for nearly a year... - Denny 17:12, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Sexual objectificaiton

I submitted a photo to sexual objectification of women in panties heels and nothing else vacuuming; it's of a fashion show by Imitation of Christ, a well-known label. Several editors want NO images on the page, but I think this one is pretty clear: at a fashion show, these topless models vacuuming in heels shows women objectified sexually. Could you interject with your opinion please? Talk:Sexual_objectification#Request_for_Comment--DavidShankBone 04:06, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Your message

I agree with your view of the articles, but I think that the best thing to do is AfD them. It's not a perfect process (it usually does more to demonstrate the inability of most people to follow and assess evidence and arguments), but it's the best we've got... --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 12:25, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Your moves

You are fortunate that I have urgent grad school assignments to complete, not enough time, and am heavily sleep deprived and drugged. No don't feel sorry for me, just feel lucky that you got away with your moves for now without my counter reverts and follow ups with admins. --Amit 19:55, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Seek consensus for your changes and they'll stick. Engage in sterile revert wars and you'll probably lose. Hipocrite - «Talk» 19:56, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

But it is you who doesn't want to seek consensus for your moves before executing them. Is there a single admin who agrees with them... --Amit 19:57, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Admins do not have extra rights. Their judgement is no more important or relevent than mine. What I do know is that I have no connection to the "seduction community" - that there was widespread agreement among others with no such connection that you were running a walled garden of vandalspamcruifisment. Perhaps this should tell you something? Hipocrite - «Talk» 20:01, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Huh? I declare that I have no connection to the seduction community whatsoever, except for directly benefiting in my interactions with people of the opposite sex. --Amit 20:03, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Admire

Hipocrite, we may at times disagree but I admire that you have strong feelings about the subject. I think that is good. Some might disagree and say "detachment" is best. I don't know. I am sometimes accused of being "hysterical" when I think I am being pretty calm. --Justanother 22:37, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

RE:

Please put new discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Real Social Dynamics (2nd nomination), and not an old archive. Thank you. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 00:32, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Are you, by any chance, open for recall? Hipocrite - «Talk» 00:41, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I think the point is that having an old afd with a new afd below it is confusing to follow, and just bad for any admin to close. Adding the old comments back in works too. Sorry if you feel its process dedication (I'm a very anti-extra process person, but I can't imagine having to close, or even trying to find consensus in an afd that was closed as delete, undeleted, taken to DRV, reoppened with new discussion that has nothing to do with old discussion). -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 00:49, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

FYI

Talk:FrontPageMag.com#I_strongly_object_to_this_deletion up for deletion. Travb (talk) 03:56, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Template

I realize that the phrase "unwelcome to Hipocrite" came across as sarcastic. It was probably its intention too. I should have voiced my opinion on the matter plainly and without snide remarks: I believe the templates might increase the likelihood of answers that would be offensive to many people, not just unwelcome to you. I realize you're acting in good faith and doing what you think is right, and I apologize if my remark offended you. I crossed it out. ---Sluzzelin 10:58, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry allegations on ref desk talk page

To clarify my reasons for removing your comment here, I don't like it when people use allegations of sockpuppetry in ways that might intimidate or discourage anonymous users from participating. StuRat used to do that, and I told him to stop; now I'm telling you the same thing. Get some second opinions on the sockpuppetry first; since it doesn't look like it to me, you'll have to get more opinions than just mine. -- SCZenz 17:36, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Incivility

The edit summary here was not nice. If you want to improve the situation on the reference desk, one thing you can do is help set an example. -- SCZenz 17:53, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

To Dweller and Hipocrite

The two of you seem to not be getting along very well. Rather than try to worry about who started it, or who has said what that was uncivil, I'd like to propose that the two of you:

1. Start with a clean slate.
2. Make sure to be extra civil to each other.

I'm sure you both think it's unfair of me to leave you the same message, but I believe you both have it in you to swallow your pride a little and work toward getting along in the future. For the good of Wikipedia, all of us do that from time to time. Happy editing! -- SCZenz 18:07, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Anon IP

Thanks for leaving a message - I was a little suprised to be accused of sockpuppetry or whatever else - though it has happened before - your message could explain why User:StuRat accused me of it more than once. Just for the record I am not nor have ever been 'lightcurrent'. I should get a username - but find it difficult to think of one - and don't like remembering passwords.. Thanks for your message.87.102.13.26 18:38, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Delete the RD

I'm sorry, but this[1] is not allowed! If there's no hope for improvement the desk should be deleted, but is it really time now to abandon everyone's prior efforts? I don't know if we are making any progress or not, mostly i think we are going backwards, but that may be due to observation bias. If the current approach has failed, if there's really no "gradual improvement" in the responses, then i say we try something new. Maybe it's time to revive (Friday's?) proposal of mini-article responses. Anyway there's got to be something to try before MfD.—eric 20:02, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Don't know about "not allowed". That was a request for comments and that was Hipocrite's comment. Seems it is allowable, if extreme, but he has stated that opinion before. --Justanother 20:07, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, i was going to strike his comment and call him the weak sister, but was afraid not everyone would take such a comment as intended. A bit of hyperbole on a talk page i thought would be safe.—eric 20:43, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Trodel RfC

You must not have read the RfC in full, as, if you did, you will see that I have acknowledged my mistakes, and apologized, repeatedly. Your comment on RfC is a lie. Please, read through everything more fully before making an accusation like that. Thank you. TheGreenFaerae 20:08, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

If you apologized as opposed to just typing the right words I never would have found the RFC. Filing for arbitration was either malice or ignorance. I'll assume the second and amend. Hipocrite - «Talk» 20:11, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I did apologize. I have apologized repeatedly, but Trodel, refuses to accept any apology. I filed for arbitration as it seems that trodel is refusing to fully participate with the RfC as he is still wikistalking me outside of the RfC, and his last comment, on the resolution that val42 came up with, which was fully fair, I might add, he showed that he refuses to stop this last offence. Please, read through the evidence lsited, as well as the talk page, and you will see that I have apologized several times. TheGreenFaerae 20:35, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Also, my only goal in filing Rfa was to force him to disengage from the wikistalking. I just want him to leave me alone, to stop following me around wikipedia. Please, do not merely amend, until you have read all statements and evidence involved. I'm not saying you should endorse my summary, just not badmouth me in erroneous ways.TheGreenFaerae 20:39, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I see no evidence of ongoing violations of WP:STALK. Provide diffs from February. Thanks. Hipocrite - «Talk» 20:40, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

He edited the article of 4chan right in the same section i edited. This edit , if you read his edit history, is out of character for him. This is my evidence of ongoing wikistalking.TheGreenFaerae 20:41, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

this edit is not "with the intent of causing annoyance or distress to another contributor." Get over it. Hipocrite - «Talk» 20:43, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

The annoyance/distress is that he had to have gotten it from my edit history. He is using my edit history as his personal task list. That is the issue I have problem with. It does not matter if an edit is good or bad, if it was made for the wrong reasons, which Trodel is. He is editing it to undermine me as an editor. TheGreenFaerae 20:45, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I have really bad news for you - I'm reviewing your edit history also. So are scores of other people. If, while doing such, we find errors in articles you have contibuted to, we're gonna fix them. You'll have to learn to deal with this, honestly, or you're gonna have to leave. We're not going to follow you around to revert and disagree with you - that would be wrong. But we are going to fix things when we see them. Period. Hipocrite - «Talk» 20:48, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't mind if you look over my edit history occasionally. But Trodel is doing much more than this. He is maintaining a watch of my edit history. He is watching my edit history more than most people watch rc. I don't mind errors being fixed by most editors. But trodel is staying right on my ass, no matter what articles I edit, he will not stop using my edit history as his personal task list. this all I want, is an agreement to stop this one offense. If someone adds to my edit, that is perfectly fine. But if it is the same guy, and it's always right away. Ongoing unjustified review is a violation of Wikistalking, and most likely a violation of WP:AGF. In order for him to maintain such an ongoing tally of my edit history, he must be assuming that I will always make errors that it is his duty to fix. Did you read the agreement by Val42? That is all i want. I just want him to leave me alone, which he refuses to do. You claim he is trying to walk away, while I'm beating a dead horse. That is erroneous, as I am the one accepting agreements and trying to resolve the dispute. Trodel, who I might add refused to even respond at first, continues to badmouth me, blatantly refused a neutral resolution, and continues to violate WP:AGF and WIKI:STALK to follow me around wikipedia.TheGreenFaerae 20:58, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Let's go back to the first question, which was "provide diffs from february." Hipocrite - «Talk» 20:59, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=4chan&action=history He made this edit on February 5. Are you reading the evidence I put forth, or just dismissing it, as I pointed this out to you before. TheGreenFaerae 21:01, 6 February 2007 (UTC)