Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Hipocrite (talk | contribs) at 20:13, 22 January 2010 (→Please: No.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Archive 1 12/2008 01/2009 02/2009 03/2009 04/2009 05/2009 06/2009 07/2009 09/2009 10/2009 11/2009 12/2009 cfwar 01/2010 02/2010 03/2010 04/2010 05/2010 06/2010 07/2010 08/2010 09/2010 10/2010 11/2010 12/2010 02/2011 03/2011 04/2011 05/2011 09/2011 10/2011 11/2011 12/2011 01/2012 02/2012 03/2012 04/2012 05/2012 06/2012 07/2012 08/2012 09/2012 10/2012 11/2012 12/2012 01/2013 02/2013 03/2013 04/2013 05/2013 06/2013 01/2014 02/2014 04/2014 05/2014 06/2014 GGsockfarms 12/2014 01/2015 02/2015 03/2015 04/2015 07/2015 11/2015 01/2016 11/2016 02/2017 10/2017 12/2017 11/2018 08/2020 11/2020 04/2021 05/2021 06/2021 07/2021 08/2021 09/2021 10/2021 11/2021 12/2021 01/2022 02/2022 03/2022 04/2022 05/2022 06/2022 07/2022 08/2022 09/2022 10/2022 11/2022 12/2022 01/2023 02/2023 03/2023 04/2023 05/2023 06/2023 07/2023 08/2023 09/2023 11/2023 05/2024 Archives

Index Archive 1

This page has archives. Sections older than 10 days may be automatically archived by ClueBot III.

Great minds...

 ;-). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:37, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Lol. I was having a hard time figuring out what Galileo was in opposition to untill I thought of the circles and remembered something about perfect shapes. I should have gone to the wikipedia article and found out he was opposed to all of Kepler's theories. I should have gone with tides over moons. Hipocrite (talk) 15:44, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

"sabotage"

I appreciate your feedback at Talk:Climatic_Research_Unit_hacking_incident#Plan_to_make_a_minor_edit_to_lede, and don't want you to think I just ignored your comment. I agree that others may have expressed concerns (as the sentence notes), and some of these others may have used stronger language. However, at the moment, I don't see evidence in terms of references from anyone else (though that's part of the reason I first posted to the talk page, as on another issue I missed something, and someone pointed it out.) I'm hesitant to do a comprehensive search of what all notable people said on the subject - it smacks of OR, although it might be acceptable. Given that we have zero reliable sources using "sabotage", it seemed wrong to use the word.--SPhilbrickT 00:03, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Please!

Please do not vandalize my user page Tom Butler (talk) 01:55, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Human-baiting

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Human-baiting. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Misplaced Pages's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Misplaced Pages:Notability and "What Misplaced Pages is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Human-baiting (3rd nomination). Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:05, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Community de-Adminship - finalization poll for the CDA proposal

After tolling up the votes in the revision proposals, it emerged that 5.4 had the most support, but elements of that support remained unclear, and various comments throughout the polls needed consideration.

A finalisation poll (intended, if possible, to be one last poll before finalising the CDA proposal) has been run to;

• gather opinion on the 'consensus margin' (what percentages, if any, have the most support) and

• ascertain whether there is support for a 'two-phase' poll at the eventual RfC (not far off now), where CDA will finally be put to the community. Matt Lewis (talk) 01:03, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

ANI report you may be interested in

Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Tom_Butler.27s_maintenance_of_an_attack_page_against_me

Thanks for your help.

ScienceApologist (talk) 23:04, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

RfA

How can I make it binding? I would if I could. If I didn't make the pledge, I'd get a bunch more oppose votes. People are concerned about the AfD issue, and the pledge was an effort to reassure them. What else can I do? Everyking (talk) 04:38, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I was thinking about your oppose as well. I know we've had a few egregious examples of say-anything-to-get-elected. I count myself among those burned. But it seems a bit dogmatic to hold someone's apparently well-meaning effort to address community concerns against them just because of a few well-known bad apples, right? And I say that as someone deeply inclined to cynicism. MastCell  04:43, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

As soon as the bad Elonpple is desysoped, I can stop being so cynical. Hipocrite (talk) 13:28, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

You can't make it binding - that's the problem. Like pledeges to recall, pledges to do/not do/avoid/focus on specific areas are ignored by candidates after they are awarded bits. As such, I must oppose any candidate where the opposers are told that a pledge has been made or any supporter states the pledge moved the needle. I have done so before, and will do so again. I think you'll just have to eat my oppose, because while retracting the pledge would certainly move me to at least neutral, it would obviously move others to oppose (which, by the way, is my point). Hipocrite (talk) 13:28, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm glad my views are becoming so influential, even down to my favorite Dog Latin phrase. Seriously though, my concern, like yours, is still that campaign promises can and often are ignored post-RFA. Elonka's dishonorable behavior being the most galling example. (For some cheap lulz read her current criteria at User:Elonka/Recall)

I have specific issues with the questionable recall promise, but I can see the logic in extending this to pledges to do or not do something in a contentious area. Part of my reasoning beyond the unenforceability issue is that comitting to a broken and ineffective system reflects poorly on the candidate's judgement. As an example unrelated to Everyking, I could not vote for an editor who had been a vociferous supporter of Esperanza or WP:AMA, nor for an extreme inclusionist - because it shows bad judgement. I am not sure AFD qualifies as an utterly broken process like those I described, though I typically avoid that nest of vipers. In EK's case, I am actually considering supporting now due to: a) his long record of mostly positive contributions and b) my sympathy for editors who have been repeatedly screwed by Arbcom. Unless he makes a recall pledge, that just won't do. Skinwalker (talk) 03:17, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

User:AeronPeryton/Articles/Tatsuya Furukawa

we conflicted while I was trying to fix things up. I think leaving things behind but commented or nowikied out is better. Can you see what you think. If you think I'm doing it wrong, please let me know. ++Lar: t/c 16:37, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I like your way better. Removed the cats also. Hipocrite (talk) 16:41, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Forgot about those this time (usually I remember but I'm a bit rushed this time). But shouldn't they just be left, commented out, so the cats can come back if the article goes live again without having to dig in the history for what they were or maybe assign bad ones? ++Lar: t/c 16:49, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

That's what I did. Hipocrite (talk) 16:49, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Cool. I better do all the rest I guess (see the list on my talk). Thanks. ++Lar: t/c 16:51, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I was doing the unsourced-by-date category. (Category:Unreferenced_BLPs_from_November_2006)Hipocrite (talk) 16:52, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Yuri (Korean singer)

I have removed your PROD; an article can't be prodded twice (for better or worse). Feel free to take it to AfD. Drmies (talk) 20:50, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

David M. Malone

Maybe your gutting of unreferenced BLPs is well-intentioned, but it makes for an enormous amount of extra work: I had piece together the guy's highly notable career from the news archives, rather than simply provide references for the facts--that he is high commisionner to India, past president of the International Peace Institute, etc. Hell, you even removed the basic fact that he was from Canada. Next time, why don't you delete the category as well? If I sound pissed, it's because I am: I also want to see unreferenced BLPs disappear, but not automatically by gutting and deleting. Spend five seconds Googling the guy and you will see immediately that he is highly notable: this is a clear case of "will you please read WP:BEFORE before you start chopping?" Drmies (talk) 21:38, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I didn't suggest deleting that bio. I haven't engaged in gutting and deleting - either gutting, or deleting. Hipocrite (talk) 21:40, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh, so the person who made this edit is another Hipocrite? Drmies (talk) 21:43, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

No, this edit isn't mine. Hipocrite (talk) 21:44, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I didn't say it was. That was Niteshift, who, against PROD guidelines, re-prodded the article after you cut it by half. You gutted the article, removing even the most basic facts, thereby increasing the workload for me. Thanks a lot. Drmies (talk) 21:48, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome, I guess. You are aware of the history tab, right? Hipocrite (talk) 21:48, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes I am. And I will make damn sure to see next time if you've been gutting like crazy again. Drmies (talk) 21:57, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Your ARS Request

I have added 2 New York Times articles to Péter Medgyessy per your request at ARS. Took me less than 10 minutes, and I didn't want to get into the debate on the talk page there. While I have seen your many complaints about the project, I am glad to help source the article, and glad you thought to bring it to the attention of the ARS. Jim Miller 22:21, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. Hipocrite (talk) 22:21, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

WP:CIVIL

Please use civil language in your edit summaries. This isn't acceptable. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:28, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

AfD

See Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Razi Abedi. Drmies (talk) 03:43, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

A request, please

Your PRODs seem for the most part to be correct, but the sheer numbers are overloading the system. Can you pretty please, slow down? Teh kitty need be be pet... Bearian (talk) 06:05, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

How many prods can be in the daily q before it's overloaded, please? Hipocrite (talk) 12:05, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Power.corrupts

I have told him that removing tags the way he is doing is likely be seen as improper, just as you appropriately warned him. But I've checked each of his removals, and in fact, there were easy to find sources for every one of them--and in most cases it was perfectly clear from the article that there would be. Of course, he absolutely should have added those sources, not just removed the tag-- but equally d whoever it was who prodded them should have done so also. Everyone should be careful. We are getting very close to a general state of antagonism that will not turn out well , unless we act very calmly. I ask to you to listen to what Berian said just above--he is one of the most level headed and judicious people I know around here. I hope to be able to cooperate you in working out a solution. DGG ( talk ) 10:45, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it's a valuable use of my time to find sources for articles that I think the encyclopedia would be better off without even if sourced. I think the encyclopedia would be better off without articles on little-known living people. As such, I'm not interested in finding sources for the articles I am prodding. However, I will endeavor to avoid proding obviously notable people (in fact, I found an obviously notable person and tried to avoid prodding him by requesting help from WP:ARS, but in a fit of pique, someone removed my rescue tag because I hadn't nominated the individual for deletion, and the response at WP:ARS was basicaly "take a long walk off a short plank." Citations on request.) If you could suggest something I could do to more urgently request sources for an article that I believe should not be deleted but has not been sourced for 3+ years and that I cannot find sources for, I'm happy to do that, but as it stands now, the only avenue that appears to work is prod/afd. I am happy to rate-limit. What is the maximum number of prods across all prodders that can be prodded per day? Hipocrite (talk) 14:00, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

POV tag

Please revert this edit. There is an on going discussion about neutrality and consensus has not been reached. Thanks. JPatterson (talk) 18:09, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

No. Hipocrite (talk) 18:10, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Please

cool it with the threats and intimidation. You are being very unpleasant for no good reason. I am not trying to provoke. There's an open, ongoing discussion about using Climategate in the lead. The argument has been made that no reliable sources use the term. I researched that claim and found it to be untrue. What is your objection to my sharing these results? JPatterson (talk) 20:12, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

That argument has never been made. Hipocrite (talk) 20:13, 22 January 2010 (UTC)