Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by ClueBot III (talk | contribs) at 03:19, 10 July 2010 (Archiving 1 discussion to User talk:Hipocrite/06/2010. (BOT)). 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.

Request

Would you have time to look over the references used in this article please? mark nutley (talk) 10:57, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, tommorow. Hipocrite (talk) 11:45, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you mark nutley (talk) 11:46, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

I do not believe the Richard D. North quote is sourced reliably, but this is currently in dispute. I question if you have written enough exposition for inclusion into articlespace, as it appears that there is only one paragraph of new text and then a quote farm. I do not believe this subject is notable enough for an article. Aside from source 3, however, the remainder of the sources are reliable, and quoted reasonably accurately. I question if those quotes are the best possible quote from each of the sources, however. In summary, aside from Richard D. North the sourcing appears acceptable, but I question the notability and style of the article. Hipocrite (talk) 13:45, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for looking, Unsure why you think a noted author and journalist is not sourced reliably, could you explain that please? As for article size, i intend to extend the synopsis as soon as the book is delivered, Do you not think this is a notable book then? It struck me as notable as it is unusual for a climate scientist to say what hulme says mark nutley (talk) 14:43, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Because sometimes you think it's ok to use blogs to say things about not-the-author of the blog, and sometimes you don't think it's ok to use blogs to say things about not-the-author of the blog. It seems that the sole factor on what blogs are ok to use is if you agree with them. I suggest you don't use blogs that fail WP:NEWSBLOG, ever, unless the article is about the blog, or the author of the blog, which this is not. If it were the author writing in their blog, that would be different, but this is just some guy.Hipocrite (talk) 20:40, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

That AfD you blanked

What I fear has happened is that this person has demonstrated that if you are enough of an abusive, slanderous, vulgarly obscene jerk, and sufficiently vicious in your ignorantly vituperative abuse of Misplaced Pages and all Wikipedians, you can manipulate your coverage in Misplaced Pages. Is this the lesson we want to teach all controversial subjects? --Orange Mike | Talk 14:22, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

To be honest? Yes. Until such a time that wikipedians respond reasonably to the subject of an article saying "Hey, I don't want the top ranked google search for my name to be this terribly maintained garbage." with "You're right, we've got polices and procedures in place to help you out," then that's the lession we want to teach all controversial questionably notable subjects. Hipocrite (talk) 14:36, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject Economics Newsletter (Issue III)

Positively Economics The Economics WikiProject Newsletter Issue III (July 2010)
Use the show/hide button to display or hide this newsletter. From the editor Sticking to my promise of sending these out monthly, it's time for the July edition of Positively Economics, covering the events of June. It's been another constructive month for the project. Misplaced Pages remains, as ever, a very popular source of information about basic economic theory, as well as for biography and more specialised topics, and we shouldn't forget that contributions to these core articles remains our greatest strength. Onwards and upwards, as they say, for another month. - Jarry1250  14:28, 27 May 2010 (UTC) Articles of note New featured articles: None New featured lists: None New featured topics: None New good articles: Brander–Spencer model Redlinks to be squashed Skysmith has posted an updated list of missing economics topics. Most will need redirecting or new articles written to blueify them, so, if you can lend a hand with the effort, please do. There are some from virtually all areas of economics and hence to suit all tastes. Project news Unassessed articles: A whole swath of articles have been added to the WikiProject recently, mainly on notable economists. They are yet to be assessed on their talk pages; this also provides a good opportunity to check and improve some of our least monitored articles. Unsourced BLPs: Before the articles about economists were added, the project had very few unsourced biographies of living people; now there are a little over a hundred. If we can clear them, however, then it is unlikely that there will be many more. Again, they represent some of our least cared-for articles, and often present good targets for cleaning up. Your comments are invited in the following other ongoing project discussions and requests for help: Featherbedding Herbert Hoover Intelligence-related citations
To start/stop receiving this newsletter, please add/remove your name from the list here. Thank you. This newletter was delivered to you by User:Jarry1250 at around 19:46, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Climate change stmt

Hi. See stmt I just posted to talk pages of the case evidence and workshop pages. Here's my answers to your questions, they may or may not represent the views of other committee members:

1) WP:RS guideline and WP:V policy are crucial in developing a high-quality encyclopedia and must be adhered to. Different types of sources (academic sources, news sources etc) and individual sources need to be evaluated on their own merits. Differentiation between sources that meet the standard (eg different academic viewpoints, all of which are peer reviewed) is a matter for consensus among editors.

2) That SPAs are in the climate/science area makes them no different from SPAs in other areas. They can be dealt with via normal means and policies.

3) Of course not

4) No

5) I feel they are, but better enforcement is needed

— Rlevse • Talk • 19:44, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Proven necessary by his recent swipe at me, while the case was ongoing

Could you add a diff? I missed this William M. Connolley (talk) 08:02, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

. Lar has apparently ruled that I have misinterpreted policy. Of course, I haven't, and any actually uninvolved admin or user with more than a year on the encyclopedia who isn't an activist editor knows this. Hipocrite (talk) 13:23, 4 July 2010 (UTC) Hipocrite (talk) 13:23, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Yes, that is odd William M. Connolley (talk) 14:08, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Par for the course. Don't let it get to you. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 15:23, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Your attention is drawn to the ArbCom workshop

Specifically, here. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:42, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

False edit summary?

How exactly is reverting an IP`s edit out of ZP5`s section disruptive? Or how exactly is my edit summary false? Please remove your allegation mark nutley (talk) 15:56, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Mark, you removed 198.161.174.222's comment from Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate_change/Workshop#How_to_demonstrate_a_cabal.3F. People don't own sections on talk pages. That's Wikipedia_talk. Hipocrite (talk) 15:57, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Further, if you thought that was Zp5's section, why didn't you remove comments by TheGoodLocust or A Quest For Knowledge? Hipocrite (talk) 15:58, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Mark, you removed 198.161.174.222's comment from Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate_change/Workshop#How_to_demonstrate_a_cabal.3F. People don't own sections on talk pages. That's Wikipedia_talk. Hipocrite (talk) 15:57, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

So i made a mistake in thinking it was the evidence page, get real. Saying that is disruptive is ridiculous in the extreme, and to say it was an attempt to remove anothers comments is an outright falsehood as the ip could have put them back, as it happen boris did it. I did not see the others comments, i saw a tag repeating characters warning in my watchlist. I did not look at the comments, just saw the ip had posted in what i thought was ZP5`s section mark nutley (talk) 16:02, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Mark, your mistakes are disruptive. They're not malicious, but they are harmful. It was an attempt to remove another's comment - because you removed anothers' comment. Your failure to do appropriate dilligence is a problem - you should not be reverting things without looking at the comments. Hipocrite (talk) 16:04, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

To aggressive, and not justified

This is not well thought-out. You cannot (well, certainly should not) ask people to hand over private emails. You can plausibly request that the evidence is discarded unless Slim forwards the emails, but you cannot have her instructed to do so. I've held off commenting along this line to give you a chance to consider changing your statement first. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:20, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

True. I've changed the direction to state that she may either forward the emails or have her evidence ignored. Hipocrite (talk) 16:22, 8 July 2010 (UTC)