User talk:Hipocrite/11/2011

This is an archive of past discussions about User:Hipocrite. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Please comment on Talk:Jolie Gabor

Responding to RFCs

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Jolie Gabor. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 11:15, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:St. Paul's Cathedral, Dunedin

Responding to RFCs

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:St. Paul's Cathedral, Dunedin. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 00:15, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Quotation mark

Responding to RFCs

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Quotation mark. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 12:15, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

New Energy Times

Who exactly are you accusing NET of being a mouthpiece for? Mangoe (talk) 20:39, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

NET is Steven Krivet. User:Steven Krivit, User:Stevenkrivit, and User:StevenBKrivit . Hipocrite (talk) 20:41, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Ah, I didn't realize he was active here. Thanks for the heads-up. Mangoe (talk) 13:24, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Embarrassment

Your comments at http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Talk:Men%27s_rights#Cancer_redux were really a personal attack and a threat. You asked me:

Could you list your other wikipedia accounts, please? It belongs in an article about the fringe group of "Men's rights activists," as one of their outlandish claims. Hipocrite (talk) 22:18, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

and followed with

Yes, it was. Review WP:SYNTH. Unless you have a source that compares the two ratios, stating them next to each other is begging the question (and the question is wrong, and embarrassingly so, to you, given the onset age and treatment rate of breast cancer and prostate cancer. Your comparison ignores both of those major factors, to your unknown embarrassment). This will be my final edit here, except to state that I am right, and if you restore the comparison without strong consensus, I will seek to have you banned from further editing. Hipocrite (talk) 22:32, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Neither of those were fair. I had two young uncles who died of prostate cancer. I will be lucky if I don't share genes with them. I am NOT, as you say, embarrassed, nor do I belong to a fringe "MRA" group. I have no other Wikipedia accounts--but you may pat yourself on the back. I think you have convinced me that this is not worth my time. It was really very hurtful of you to say those things when I was doing absolutely nothing but engaging in a polite and certainly rational discussion of how best to present that section.

I really, honestly believe that prostate cancer IS ignored disproportionately. It is unfair of you to suggest--may I add, publicly--that my belief stems from my being some sort of radical. I have certainly never made such a claim of you.Divergentgrad (talk) 23:01, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

And let me add that if my stating the ratios as they are found in official cancer literature is somehow original research... well, if only I wrote for Businessweek. Divergentgrad (talk) 23:11, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

My hope is that you will apologize for being so needlessly offensive, and promise to approach discussions of editing in a more rational and mature way. Feel free to admit to bullying and threatening me. I didn't mean to frustrate you with my editions--I'm sure you can see that I was only stating facts from primary sources.Divergentgrad (talk) 23:18, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I was moved by your statement that you're only editing the Men's rights article because of your care about prostate cancer. Then I checked your claims out, and they just don't fit. Your first edit to the article was [1], nothing to do with Prostate cancer. Come clean, will you? What, exactly, directed you to Wikipedia? Hipocrite (talk) 23:40, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I have nothing to come clean about. And I don't see how an edit to an introductory statement that (as a mathematician) I noticed was false is incriminating. Certainly not grounds to try to publicly discredit me, accusing me of belonging to some fringe group. FYI the prostate cancer issue has long been a concern of mine. My local gym recently plastered pink on all the treadmill machines and put up nice leaflets on which personal stories about breast cancer were written. No such support in September. I would have settled for some visibility, setting aside completely my wish for somewhere closer to 80% as much support... Regardless, I really think you owe me an apology and, henceforth, the "real human" treatment. Divergentgrad (talk) 23:51, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

You appear to be dodging my question - "What, exactly, directed you to Wikipedia?" More specifically, how did you find the Men's rights article? Why would you expect an apology from me when you consistently and persistently dodge my questions to you? Hipocrite (talk) 23:53, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

What? I had no intention of dodging; I just didn't take your second question literally. It was your first question I paid attention to. And even if I were dodging, that doesn't excuse your behavior, for which I really hope you're getting around to apologizing. The civil thing would have been to acknowledge your wrongdoing much earlier than now. Now, to hopefully extinguish your thirst for an ulterior motive, you will find the link I followed on the men's activism community board: http://news.mensactivism.org/node/17461.Divergentgrad (talk) 00:08, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Do you think it's appropriate for activists like yourself to edit Wikipedia articles about the subject you are an activist about? Hipocrite (talk) 00:11, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Wow--let me be clear, to contradict your public accusation, that I am not an activist. I have never demonstrated nor spoken out on behalf of "men's rights." If I am interested in gender issues, that does not disqualify me from being a Wikipedia editor, least of all of an article about something in which I'm interested. And my record on that talk page shows that I am only making note of things that are 1) verifiably true, and 2) promote discourse on the voice of the article. Now, how can you continue to attack me when I've been nothing but civil? More to the point, how can you have so grossly violated user conduct and fail to see why you should apologize and acknowledge wrongdoing?Divergentgrad (talk) 00:19, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Why are you reading a blog about Men's activism if you are not a men's activist? I deny grossly violating user conduct by appropriately realizing you were an outside agitator, directed to the article by a fringe activism site. It further makes it clear why you were so offended when I called men's activists names - you appear to be one. Hipocrite (talk) 00:25, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

That website is not a fringe activism website. If you'd looked, you'd have seen that anyone can contribute to it, and that posts to it are by-and-large only a compiling of news stories relevant to men. And if my reading articles from news sites about a walk to raise prostate cancer awareness, or a program for inner city youth, makes me an activist... then by now we must all be activists. Such stories have found their way into Yahoo, Google, etc. news. You have not recognized me as a radical men's activist. Divergentgrad (talk) 00:35, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

And when did I get offended when you called men's activists names?? I had no such reaction. I don't even know when you called men's activists names. I don't group myself with them. It would be silly of me, when some of the men who do have a distinctly anti-gay bias. Now you should apologize.Divergentgrad (talk) 00:35, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

And another thing. I'm a little bit sick of this attitude you are displaying toward me, undermining my personhood--as if I am some sort of simple, easy-to-understand, manifestation of one sort of motivation. And if you went over what I've said, you would see that I have written nothing activist or stemming from an ulterior motive--unless an interest and an ability to present facts (such as the figures I quoted, whose originators' authority I'm sure you don't dispute) is activist. For my part, I was sold on the idea that the section doesn't belong to a neutral article when I saw MastCell's comment that there are much more glaring disparities to be noted.Divergentgrad (talk) 00:41, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

As a follow-up, while I wait to see if you apologize for what is at least uncivil behavior and, I am certain, misconduct (is it that hard to see me as a human being because you didn't like my contribution?), I want to ask: how did you happen upon the awkward skeleton of an article, and decide that it needed your touch? (I only ask because I wonder if you, yourself, aren't guilty of the accusation you fling my way, given your quickness to accuse and insult.)Divergentgrad (talk) 01:35, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Civility

Resolved

– It's like the old rubber/glue thing.

This and this was incivil, and should not be repeated. Silver seren^C 16:36, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

I am happy that you are supporting a paid advocate in their paid advocacy. Hipocrite (talk) 16:58, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Question

When a sock carelessly and incontrovertibly identifies itself as a sock, what is the correct procedure for disposing of it? Is an SPI positive still required? Writegeist (talk) 08:25, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:RfA reform 2011/Clerks

Responding to RFCs

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:RfA reform 2011/Clerks. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 12:17, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Email

Just to let you know, Yahoo is currently bouncing email to you, but your message was received. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:00, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)

Responding to RFCs

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals). Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 13:15, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#G4: Moving forward

As a participant at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#G4 and subsequent XfDs, would you take a look at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#G4: Moving forward? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:07, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:National debt by U.S. presidential terms

Responding to RFCs

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:National debt by U.S. presidential terms. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 13:15, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

RfC on Astrology

Because you have participated in a related RfC on this article, or have recently contributed to it, you are hereby informed that your input would be highly appreciated on the new RfC here: [[2]]. Thank you! Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 16:57, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Usage share of operating systems

Responding to RFCs

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Usage share of operating systems. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 13:18, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Pregnancy

Responding to RFCs

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Pregnancy. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 14:15, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Continuation War

Responding to RFCs

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Continuation War. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 15:15, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Have your concerns been addressed?

Hi Hipocrite - are you OK now with the suggestion to add the research site to the links section? I think (or I hope) I have answered your concerns in my last post yesterday. The discussion is here. -- Zac Δ ^talk! 10:26, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:27 Club

Responding to RFCs

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:27 Club. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 16:15, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tree of life

Responding to RFCs

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tree of life. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 18:15, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Heterarchy

Responding to RFCs

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Heterarchy. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 19:15, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Threats

This appears to be a threat. Please do not threaten other editors. Hipocrite (talk) 22:57, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Moved here as per my edit box comment - Off2riorob (talk) 22:59, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Do you intend to stop threatening other editors? Hipocrite (talk) 22:59, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

In case it makes a difference: I don't feel threatened. Merely amused. Hans Adler 23:04, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Ones' complement

Responding to RFCs

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Ones' complement. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 09:23, 25 November 2011 (UTC)