User talk:Hipocrite: Difference between revisions

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.

Objectivist accuses me of "post[ing] a personal opinion and pretended to provide a reference for it." This, of course, is not accurate. The personal opinion he accuses me of posting is "In other experiments, however, no excess heat was discovered, and, in fact, even the heat from successful experiments was unreliable and could not be replicated independently." That is sourced to [1], which reads, in part "There is one point on which all true believers in cold fusion agree: their results are not reproducible," and in other part "The case for experimental error is supported by the unreliability and lack of independent replication of key results." But, of course, Objectivist can't find that in the document, because it's also got a true believer true beliving. Hipocrite (talk) 14:19, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that Objectivist is actually accusing me of doing so in an edit summary. Perhaps objectivist is not aware that edit summaries are not required to be verifiable. Hipocrite (talk) 13:03, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have responded to the issue regarding Jed Rothwell: he is disallowed from editing the mediation page. More details can be found in the Participation section where the discussion originated.

I have, on multiple occasions [2] [3] [4] [5], removed statements that I believed to be disruptive. According to the mediation page: "If you have a problem with the way another user is behaving and I have not already intervened, take it up at Talk:Cold fusion, the talk page of the user, or my talk page." Obviously the most important and effective option there is to take it to my talk page, which you haven't done until now. I request and suggest that you provide more specific information regarding the statements made by Abd that you find disruptive. Here, actually, as many people tend to chime in when such discussions occur on my talk page. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 16:05, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I will rereview this situation later. Hipocrite (talk) 17:28, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am happy to see that you are back on board with the mediation. However, you states that the issues were "partially resolved". What can I do to fully resolve things for you? --Cryptic C62 · Talk 21:02, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are mentioned in a Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct. The Request for Comment page is here. Cirt (talk) 22:22, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Hipocrite. You have new messages at MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

InQuahogNeato (talk) 08:34, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Docu filed a report at Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention about your username. ^LeaveSleaves 09:17, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed it; I don't understand why there should be a concern; Docu can begni by discussing here William M. Connolley (talk) 11:29, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that UAA is not the apropriate venue for a contibutor with a 5 year edit history ("For ordinary violations of the username policy, do not use this page. Instead, warn the user and ask them to change their name, possibly using the {{uw-username}} template.") If Docu believes my username is problematic, this talk page remains open to him. He could, alternatively, go directly to a user-conduct RFC. I will waive the 2 certifier requirement for the purposes of discussion of my username, and will abide by any clear option that has the consensus of the plurality of a non-trivial number of signers and does not unduly burden me. Hipocrite (talk) 12:59, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I posted on the admin board last week about RegistrarHistorian adding negative content about Dotster on various pages including the GoDaddy page. I saw that you removed that content, but the user has since gone and added it back, as well as added a section to the terrorism page that mentions Dotster.--Dotsterrep (talk) 17:52, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently I'm still under threat of a "topic ban" if I post to the ARS talk thread you started, so I'm afraid I'll have to bow out until the threat is lifted or a different thread I feel like contributing to is started. I've had more fun editing the Cold fusion talk page, and found it much more welcoming! I hope you don't think I was hijacking the thread you started, after all we don't own threads (and I thought I was on topic!) I've added a clarification, but that's it. All the best, Verbal chat 19:21, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re your userpage change just: "I EDIT FOREVER" - the ultimate punishment! Slightly ambiguous phrasing there :) Ooops I'm hijacking my own thread - you've got to laugh (that's an order). Verbal chat 19:27, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You do realize that the conch was a symbol of the artificiality and fragility of social order, and that its holder automatically became a target for those wishing to overthrow that order and replace it with anarchic cruelty? Of course you do. Watch out for those boulders. :) MastCell ^Talk 19:30, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And you'll be amazed if you put it next to your ear and close your eyes. Verbal chat 19:32, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re [6]. OK, I've thought about it. The ban on you is lifted, initially for a trial period of one week. During that time I will be particularly attentive to complaints about your editing, on CF or t:CF especially but elsewhere as well. I won't, however, be monitoring your edits carefully myself: I'm sure your many enemies will be happy to do that for me. Should the week pass happily you return to something close to your pre-ban status w.r.t. CF. If I may offer you some advice, it would be to be scrupulous in avoiding conflict on CF and related articles. You are not formally limited to 1RR, but are strongly advised to observe it anyway. Best wishes, William M. Connolley (talk) 22:47, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]