Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 05:33, 22 January 2007

User talk:Hipocrite/devnul

User talk:Hipocrite/Archive1

User talk:Hipocrite/Archive2

User talk:Hipocrite/Archive3

User talk:Hipocrite/Archive4

User talk:Hipocrite/Archive5

User talk:Hipocrite/Archive/Jun06

User talk:Hipocrite/Archive/Jul06

User talk:Hipocrite/Archive/Aug06

User talk:Hipocrite/Archive/Sep06

User talk:Hipocrite/Archive/Oct06

User talk:Hipocrite/Archive/Nov06

User talk:Hipocrite/Archive/Dec06

User talk:Hipocrite/Archive/Jan07

How to add citations? (further to Evert Collier)

I'd appreciate if you could please explain whether (and if so, how) the further information in the wake of the recent Humanities Reference Desk query, provided by the original editor, would get added to the Evert Collier page or its Discussion page. I see that this hasn't been done by anyone: neither yourself nor Afasmit (let alone the OP of the query, who seems to be a non-Wikipedian). I'd think such pertinent information would belong in one of those two locations before it gets buried in the annals of the Reference Desk archives. Or not? Besides my not having made much progress in learning how to write citations (I find the Style guidelines bewildering), I'm too new on RD to know the protocol here. Having experienced considerable grief after having gotten memorably slapped down on at least one previous attempt to "adjust" others' edits, I won't take action on this without explicit advice. -- Thanks, Deborahjay 00:09, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Deborahjay; I thought I'd butt in and say that I find WP:CITET useful for adding refs; I just copy the relevant citation type and paste it into the article, and fill out the fields. Anchoress 01:08, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Many thanks, Anchoress — your intervention (particularly timely here/now as Hipocrite is on a Wikibreak) is always welcome by me! I'll follow that link and am looking forward to putting my new skills to good use (and, should I run into difficulties, shall seek you out for further advice). -- Deborahjay 09:58, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

No probs. I was very intimidated by the citation format at first, but I found that seeing the fields laid out in a tabular format insead of one long string really helped. The preview function is also critical, of course! And don't forget to ensure there's a 'References' section in the article, otherwise your hard work won't show up. I have the code for a references section with small font on my userpage under 'editing tools', or you can just copy one from an existing article; I find the front page FA is the best bet for this. Anchoress 01:55, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

In that case, I do think I'll visit your userpage for the format, especially since I'd missed the connection with References. (In fact, I'll probably contact you directly if I don't get results when I actually attempt to do this!) Meanwhile: what, pray tell, is this "front page FA" that you mention? -- Thanks again, Deborahjay 15:25, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I didn't want to step in on something I am no expert on and so deferred to Anch before. "front page FA" means "front page featured article," an article which was declared the "Article of the day" and shown on the main page. Today, it is El Greco. Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:33, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Hipocrite, and also for the use of your page space here :-) -- Cheers, Deborahjay 22:58, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Easy

Take it easy, man. You're after the right things, but you're stirring things up a bit too much lately. Friday (talk) 15:22, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I have limited my activity dramatically -> . Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:23, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough- and for what it's worth- I understand the frustration. Trust me on that one. It's harder and harder for me to escape the conclusion that some of the folks involved are being intentionally difficult to work with. But, as always, when faced with unreasonableness, we need to be extra reasonable in our responses. Friday (talk) 15:26, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I have no doubt now that what we a really seeing is an attempt to bait reasonable editors into untenable behaviour. Best to just sit back and let them hang themselves slowly. Their edits speak for them loud and clear, my guess is they will get bored and return to productive editing or implode if left to their own means. David D. (Talk) 15:57, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Mmm...turns out implode was the right answer. David D. (Talk) 03:08, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Sarin Wrap

I think you were a little heavy handed with the deletions in the reference desk question regarding sarin wrap. The OP didn't state they had eaten it, they were asking what would happen. I felt my reply was sufficiently qualified with disclaimers to not warrant removal. Further, I really don't think that's something a teenager would go ahead and call their local GP about, so in fact, possibly you did more harm then good, telling the OP eating sarin wrapis a stupid thing to consider wasn't inappropriate in this case, in my opinion. I'm not going to fight you about it but just wanted you to know what I thought. Vespine 01:41, 17 January 2007 (UTC) Vespine 01:41, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree with Vespine, though there's a broad gray area here. The hypothetical question "What would happen if a person consumed a square foot of saran wrap?" is – on its face – a reasonable, curiosity-driven sort of question. There's the opportunity for an interesting discussion about foreign bodies, the way the digestive system handles indigestible material, bowel obstruction and its consequences, etc. On the other hand, a question like "I've eaten a square foot of saran wrap; what should I do?" would obviously be seeking medical advice. We definitely wouldn't want to be giving advice other than 'see your doctor' in such a case.

Perhaps in the future, it would be best in these sorts of ambiguous cases to note that we don't provide medical advice, and ask the original poster to clarify the intent of his or her question. We might want to shy away from using a template in these ambiguous cases; a slightly-more-personalized touch may be called for. (Incidentally, would you consider signing when you add a template to a discussion? If someone – the original poster or anyone else – wants to follow up with whomever placed the template, a signature makes that much easier. Once again, we're looking for more of a 'personal note' feel, and less of an 'edict from God'.) TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:08, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

You appear to have missed this, which is the same question, labled "Health/safety/first aid question." Don't worry, since it's obvious that eating saranwrap is ok, we can answer that one. Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:17, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Additionally, I am not looking for personal note feel. Personal notes have failed. Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:22, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Personal notes have failed with a few regular contributors. Being polite with newbies who may just not be familiar with our guidelines – and who may not have even intended to ask for medical advice in the first place – is a good practice. In any case, when you do use the templates, please sign your messages. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:15, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree that whatever frustration any of us may have with others, we don't want to let this come across in our responses to questions. It's alright to expect more cluefullness from experienced editors than we do from random passers-by. Friday (talk) 18:20, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

If the proposed templates are not nice enough, it's the templates that are wrong, not the templater. I've tried everything from giving concise and useful answers to obvious trolls, giving concise and useful answers to obvious trolls with a note that others are not to respond in commented text, just putting commented text telling others not to respond, deleting entire sections, archiving them with span templates, and adding the boxes written by someone else, all failing to regular ref-desk contibutors who are actively commenting on the talk page. If the only solution is to just let the reference desks endanger and damage the encyclopedia, there is only one solution -> WP:MFD. Hipocrite - «Talk» 20:11, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Stop.

I'm sorry, but I really have no idea what you are talking about. The only place I can remember your name was a comment on the talk page about animal rights? I think you provided diffs for the adjunct discussion on the main page. X (DESK|How's my driving?) 21:50, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

, , . Hipocrite - «Talk» 22:00, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Adminship

Fancy a nomination? Might keep you busy enough to stop you cheering me up. Steve block Talk 17:30, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Lawl dream on. If nominated I would fail, rightfully, and I'd be pissed about it. The thought counts, however. Hipocrite - «Talk» 17:31, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I'd give you a glowing reference and I'd be mighty pissed if you failed too. Still, I appreciate where you are coming from. Steve block Talk 17:43, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I'd support it of course. You have one of the best eyes for B.S. of anyone on wiki.--MONGO 23:00, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I lack the requisite patience and restraint to appropriately have the ability to block other contributors. In addition, I have self-destructive editing tendancies when annoyed. I rely on people who know I am right to do my dirty work for me :). Hipocrite - «Talk» 23:10, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I'd have to agree with this ;) but your judgement with respect to issues seems pretty good (subjectively translated from: I agree with you more often than not ;) ). I imagine an RfA for you would really bring a lot of editors out of the woodwork. If nothing else it would be entertaining. Personally i think adminship can sometimes be a disadvantage. As seen recently, it is very easy to frame arguments in the us against them dichotomy. As a non admin that fallacy can be undermined and claims of persecution, from a blocking perspective, cannot be used as a defense against indefensible editing. David D. (Talk) 16:21, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Your reversion at Barrington Hall

Please revert your edit, which was made without discsussion, against consensus, and used the misleading and uncivil edit summary, "someguysblog." The blog is by a professional journalist and author, and is noted by The Academy of American Poets.-Cindery 21:56, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Cindery, I count at least four editors who have removed that same information. I know Astanhope agrees with you...but beyond that, how do you see yourself as having consensus to keep it in? --Milo H Minderbinder 22:00, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Not even J. Smith agrees with you.-Cindery 22:12, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Anyone who reads my talk page because they find me often in the right should definetly review the Barrington Hall article, which requires numerous uninvolved eyes to fix. Found via content dispute whinged about on WP:ANI. Hipocrite - «Talk» 22:04, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

WP:BLP, editors' right to anonymity

Please see the warning I have given Milo, and the relevant discussions at RS and ANI. He may quote me; he may not speculate. Notable people who are notable for their work have a reasonable expectation to privacy.-Cindery 22:11, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

RD medical advice

Look, I feel you're over-reacting to this issue . I am a human being. I have feelings, and I was hurt by what you said. I am honestly trying to help. If we are really arguing an academic issue, I don't want it to get personal. —LestatdeLioncourt 13:53, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Newyorkbrad's RfA

Thank you for your support on my RfA, which closed favorably this morning, as well as for your kind comments accompanying your !vote. I appreciate the confidence the community has placed in me and am looking forward to my new responsibilities. Please let me know if ever you have any comments or suggestions, especially as I am learning how to use the tools. Best regards, Newyorkbrad 20:44, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

You've been warned about civility before...

...so please stop it. --badlydrawnjeff talk 05:07, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Go away. I don't broke encyclopedia dramatica here. Hipocrite - «Talk» 05:08, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean. Stop with the incivility and the nasty comments. --badlydrawnjeff talk 05:10, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Go away. I don't broke encyclopedia dramatica here. Hipocrite - «Talk» 05:11, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Play nice, kids. Georgewilliamherbert 05:13, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

• I have wonderful news - BDJ doesn't edit ED. So it should be all good with him, right? Milto LOL pia 05:16, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Go away. I don't broke encyclopedia dramatica here. Hipocrite - «Talk» 05:16, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

JD AfD

I would have said it should have been merged in first place, but I didn't want to seem hostile to what seemed like dpbsmith's good faith effort. I felt I should point out that it was a pen name at AfD, and that I didn't think pen names have stand-alone articles, but having done that I will stay away from this particular discussion.-Cindery 05:33, 22 January 2007 (UTC)