User talk:Hipocrite/02/2009

This page is an archive of past discussions. 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.

My RFA passed today at 150/48/6. I wanted to thank you for weighing in, and I wanted to let you know I appreciated all of the comments, advice, criticism, and seriously took it all to heart this past week. I'll do my absolute best to not let any of you down with the incredible trust given me today. rootology (C)(T) 08:17, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Are you Hipocrite?

It never ceases to amaze me when someone like you and others, can just swoop down on my Biography, having not contributed or discussed anything to it before today, in the Article or Discussion, and just place a tag calling for deletion of the Article. Was your 1st visit to my Biography today just random chance in surfing?

You want my Biography expunged for this reason in the tag you placed; Articles about people notable only for one event.

(personal attack removed), you will see there is a long chronology, spread over many years and events. The Article itself does not reflect any of the references except for the language correction edit I made just before you arrived in the scene. There is some idea here in the old, but true version.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ray_Joseph_Cormier&oldid=220975243

References

  1. ^ "Preacher Arrested on Mall" Ottawa Citizen 3 September 1977
  2. ^ Dave Rogers, "Second police warning for God's emissary", Ottawa Citizen, 10 September 1977, A2.
  3. ^ "Emissary from God undaunted", Ottawa Citizen, 22 October 1977, pg 2.
  4. ^ "The self-styled prophet hauled off Mall again", Ottawa Citizen, 3 November 1977, pg5.
  5. ^ "Mall 'prophet' jailed again", Ottawa Citizen, 5 November 1977, pg 5.
  6. ^ "Prophet hauled out of Commons gallery", Ottawa Citizen, 18 October 1977, pg 3.
  7. ^ "Gagged protester gets heave-ho", Ottawa Today, 18 October 1977.
  8. ^ "Masked protester returns", The Ottawa Citizen, July 15, 1978
  9. ^ Jane Taber "'Prophet' fined for shouting at Nov. 11 service", Ottawa Citizen, 3 January 1986
 10. ^ "Anti-war speech costs man $250", Globe and Mail, 3 January 1986
 11. ^ "Cormier condamné", Le Droit, 3 January 1986
 12. ^ Steve St. Laurent. "Visiting 'prophet' no average preacher", Calgary Herald, 18 July 1981, A11.
 13. ^ Cathy Lord "Visions compelled search for God", Edmonton Journal, 25 July 1981,G13.
 14. ^ Leslie Cole "Self-proclaimed prophet: Showmanship not his style", Whitehorse Star, 26 August 1981, pg 3
 15. ^ Nicholas Read "'Divine gifts' inspire ex-executive to tramp the land with a message", Vancouver Sun, 3 October 1981
 16. ^ Maclean's Magazine, pg 40 31 August 1981, People Section.
 17. ^ Richard Caron "Raymond Cormier sillonne le pays pour precher Dieu", Le Soliel, 28 July 1986
 18. ^ Elizabeth Hanton "Prophet sees Canada as the new Israel", The Halifax Daily News, 11 August 1986
 19. ^ Sylvia Reddom "Shares Faith With Canadians - Religion More Than Going To Church Says Travelling Born Again Christian", The Charlottetown Guardian, 20 August 1986
 20. ^ Emily Dyckson "Wandering prophet shares his faith", The Weekend (St. John's), 30 August 1986
 21. ^ History of Federal Ridings since 1867
 22. ^ Kernaghan R. Webb Focus Magazine September1984 'RJC: Cormier makes people nervous. Especially authorities.'
 23. ^ Elections Canada On-Line | General Information
 24. ^ Kathleen Patterson "Prophet Chooses Park for Vigil" The Kansas City Times pg. 3A 13 September 1976
 25. ^ Robert W. Butler "Prophet Plans Appeal of Conviction" The Kansas City Times 2 November 1976

DoDaCanaDa (talk) 20:48, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes yes. Perhaps you should set up your own website? Hipocrite (talk) 21:18, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Secondly, it's not your biography. It's a biography about you. Hipocrite (talk) 21:21, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

User: phyloe As a fellow Facebook member along with Ray Cormier, I've appreciated the window into Canadian life and politics he has provided for those of us who would have been too young to know what was going on at that crucial time in our country's lifetime. His information has been verified and I have personally seen different stories verifying Ray's information posted here on Wikipedia. Phyloe (talk) 22:35, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, of course. Hipocrite (talk) 22:43, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

• Hipocrite, you misinterpret my post thinking it is a personal attack on you. I cannot see how you interpret Eyes to See as being a personal attack against you. You cannot be that sensitive.

Calling you a first time contributor is a misnomer. You have not contributed at all. The Biography on me has been in Wikipedia for two years, and only today, for the fist time ever, without adding anything to the article, and not discussion anything ever about it, you just pop in and nominate it for deletion. That is unusual, and I interpret it as a personal attack on me. This leads me to believe you are only a front for the repeat detractors who have been trying to have it expunged for months.

DoDaCanaDa (talk) 00:42, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the trouble to ask a question at my RfA and please accept my apologies for not answering it. I did mean to, but your question was complicated, needed some thinking through, and, because of real life intrusions, I never got the time to formulate an adequate response. As a general rule, I've avoided getting involved in long running conflicts on wikipedia (unless they directly relate to the areas I am interested in) and will probably continue to do so. Some of these conflicts, such as the many that flare up around the Singapore Airlines articles, seem trivial in the sense that it doesn't matter (IMO) whether this choice is made or that. Other conflicts, such as the many that surround Pseudoscience are more important but are carried over from the real world into wikipedia, involve strong personalities, and understanding the dynamics of the conflict is hard for a newcomer. Also, by the very nature of this type of conflict, it is hard to imagine how one could be a neutral party. I hope this 'half-an-answer' helps and, once again, thanks for the question. --Regent's Park (Rose Garden) 15:43, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Just FYI, in case you weren't aware and you opposed there for that reason--East718 is a NYC resident (the 718 is a reference to a NYC area code, and it's mentioned on his user page).[1] rootology (C)(T) 17:41, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Right you are. Thanks for noticing. Hipocrite (talk) 17:44, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I posted a question for you at the talk page about this. I'm genuinely intrigued, but as a non lawyer and non American, I'm baffled by the jargon. --Dweller (talk) 12:49, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Coming here to post, because I'm embarrassed by the probable stupidity of this question, but why are you worried about being sued? --Dweller (talk) 13:28, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I am not concerned about being sued, aside from the theoretical possiblity. If only the foundation insulated me from unrelated third-parties having identifying information about me. If only checkusers were agents of the foundation. But, of course, if wishes were fishes. Hipocrite (talk) 13:39, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I should be more clear, I guess. An ex-checkuser has stated that they kept "files" with their old checkuser results after they left the foundation. If they retained information about me, this would be a violation of what might be a binding contract between me and the foundation, so I guess I could sue the foundation. Said checkuser, however, was not an agent of the foundation, and thus could argue they had no duty of care to the foundation and certainly not to me, leaving me suing someone (the foundation) that both does not have deep pockets and is not a party I want to sue. Florida is unique in that the damage to me was forseeable and that it's where the foundation is. This record right here is pretty much solid evidence that I've forseen the damage that checkusers retaining files would cause. New York is unavoidable because it's where I live and thus I could always be dragged here, regardless. I don't feel like working on the duty of care standard for other states because it's a waste of my time. Thus, no checkusers except from NY/FL. Hipocrite (talk) 13:49, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Argh! I don't even understand the explanation! I need to go lie down... my poor little brain's overloaded. :-) No worries, --Dweller (talk) 13:52, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I saw your oppose and felt that I should tell you that I have not snubbed you or your question. As noted in my edit summary when answering Q10 yesterday I said I'll get to Q9. I'm VERY busy at the moment and your question requires some thought and research to answer it well as I haven't had any long running disputes as noted in my answer to Q3. Do not think I don't value your question, on the contrary it's a good one, ie it requires some thought and it's not something I can easily answer in just a few minutes. Cheers. Nja247 (talk • contribs) 22:39, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I've answered it first thing today as I do feel bad for putting it off. Again though the delay was due to me needing some time to think it over, plus I'm in a busy and stressful position at the moment in real life and on Wikipedia. Thanks for the question and I do hope you'll reconsidered the strongest possible oppose. Nja247 (talk • contribs) 06:49, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

for this edit. KillerChihuahua^?!? 22:26, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

They were indeed vandalism, first of all he added tags indiscriminately during GA review, continues even now! Removal of material because of some organization does not match my taste is vandalism. --Bluptr (talk) 11:30, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Lo behold! You can check the user's contributions! More tags added indiscriminately.. this is vandalism indeed. Bluptr (talk) 11:32, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the link, see the section "Abuse of tags." Sorry if my words offended you. Very sorry Bluptr (talk) 11:40, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Agree with you now. Probably they were misconcieved. The indiscrimate tagging during GA review was at the back of my mind, and probably this resulted in my spontaneous reaction! Thanks. Bluptr (talk) 11:44, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, quite correct (about uncivil edit summary), and just after saving, I realized it was wrong. I know I shouldn't "save" when angry; but Goethean pushed me over the line with his consistent hatred for the Ramakrishna Mission; his edit expressed this viewpoint, which seems to me to be a kind of fanaticism. Indeed, his thinking seems to be clouded with this fanatical hatred of the Mission, and he suspects the other editors of being stooges of the Mission. He is constantly making offensive remarks, which most other editors bear with patience; sometimes we too lose our cool. I don't know what the solution is; but he seems to be far more out of line than the rest of us with his anger, hatred, sarcasm, and so on. He seems to be the only editor with his views, which may make him all the more hot-headed. Anyhow, thank you for pointing out my incivility in the edit summary. Devadaru (talk) 15:41, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Hipocrite. You have new messages at KnowledgeHegemonyPart2's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

further replied. KnowledgeHegemony ^talk 14:53, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Your warning and previous warning removed by user

See this --KnowledgeHegemony ^talk 15:15, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry my bad. Got overworked by it. Actually this user miffed me because the "denial" to accept his actions as vandalism by KillerChi as vandalism in some way led to the departure of Shovon76 (talk · contribs), an experienced user from Wikipedia (one of the many reasons). I ll undo my last edit! Regards, --KnowledgeHegemony ^talk 15:25, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I am really puzzled to know how this does not amount to vandalism! Deliberately replacing cited content with false and misleading text IS vandalism! Adil your's edit clearly replaced quoted text from Stein's book (see ref) and "misquoted" it. Nationalistic or not nationalistic...it was vandalism indeed! --KnowledgeHegemony ^talk 15:38, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh yes! Its not vandalism as per WP:VANDALISM but WP:POVPUSH So what can one do to stop a user from disrupting Wikipedia? --KnowledgeHegemony ^talk 15:54, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your support in my RfA, which closed with 83 ayes to the right, one no to left and five abstaining users! Sabre (talk) 20:45, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I dont want to have an edit war with anybody, lets have a disscussion on what u want to change..... I m willing to change any content that is disputed... I removed the portion saying Indian soldiers killing Kashmiris back to its original state since i had no reference (but i m trying to find one as i have seen reports on TV about the extra judicial killings of Kasmiris by Indian Armed forces)...How about I change hypocrisy to disobedience in General gracie's case (Reference is not a good one but u can visit general gracy's article itself and the incident is also stated in the documentry film Jinnah , its pretty famous.....But I'll find a better and proper reference and put it there)...Is that ok for u..???.......I hope ur happy...... I have also changed what I wrote on Kargil War, I think I was being a little biased there as well even though u didn't point that one out.......I'll act upon ur advice and try to be absolutely Neutral in my Edits......I hope u will stop complainig now....Best Wishes.....

 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Adil your (talk • contribs) 18:41, 18 February 2009 (UTC) 

Given that their seems to be a dispute of some sort between you and the subject of said BLP, I'm not sure it makes sense for you to be editing that page. I'd suggest you consider reverting your edits. Hobit (talk) 22:42, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I have no dispute with any subject of any BLP. Hipocrite (talk) 01:41, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps you are unaware that Final Solution can carry multiple meanings, some of which are mathematical? You may wish to assume better faith. The Jade Knight (talk) 06:25, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

No, it can't. You linked to a page where it dosen't. Hipocrite (talk) 11:35, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

You say im doing disruptive edits when its 100% obusivous to anyone that you are abusing your power by threating me for doing the right thing and undo your disprutive edits — Preceding unsigned comment added by Butcer (talk • contribs)

You are inserting possibly defamatory information about living persons. Do not do that. Hipocrite (talk) 18:05, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

If you wish to discuss the edits I made in this Article Talk:Cana, please feel free to do so. DO NOT just undo an edit without discussing your reasons and justifications first. DoDaCanaDa (talk) 19:09, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

WP:BRD. Hipocrite (talk) 19:12, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

My comment was a harmless joke. We had a previous dispute 2 years ago which is why I said that. View my edit history I always keep things WP:Civil please removed that comment. I don't thing I think what I said desearves a warning of any form. Secondly the words you used was very harsh for someone that is not engaged in a dispute and was acting in good faith. My primary goals is to make wikipedia a source for all reliable non-trivial information as a feel this well make wikipedia a better encyclopedia. If you view my history you well see my goals have always been in good faith. Valoem ^talk 13:47, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Related: [2] Hipocrite (talk) 23:16, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

The article has been expanded and given a lot more references including a New York Times obituary. I think it would be a good idea to withdraw your deletion nomination. Could you take another look at the article? - Mgm|^(talk) 11:37, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I have and withdrew my nomination. Thank you for the heads up. If only the initial article author wrote more than "X was a professor." Hipocrite (talk) 13:45, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

SA has admitted that he is making the edits to prove a point on his talk page. That's attention seeking. Artw (talk) 17:13, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

You've made thread after thread about minor edits that SA has done, why? I really don't understand why you are doing this given your comments on his talk page and the fact the threads have been closed with no action needed. What is it that you are trying to achieve with this? Feel free to delete this if you do not want to reply. I am just curious. --CrohnieGal^Talk 18:17, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

SA is banned from editing on fringe topics. I do not believe that violating a valid ban is ever acceptable behavior. If I had buttons, I would have blocked SA quite some time ago. I do not have buttons, thus all I can do is report his repeated violations of his ban. My goal is for someone to stop him from violating his ban, and to redirect his efforts either to other avenues or to asking that his ban be overturned. Hipocrite (talk) 18:28, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to explain, I understand. Sorry for taking so long to get back to you, battling the flu. From what I have seen I think your latter comment should happen, the ban should be lifted. With all the threads coming from this ban it doesn't appear to be of any use to the project and seems one sided to me. Anyways, thanks again, --CrohnieGal^Talk 09:12, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Lest our conversation on WP:RFAR become an epic-miniseries, I figured I'd comment here.

I'm concerned somewhat that you're barking up the wrong tree on this one. I do understand your hesitance with Fozzie's clarification (wording sounding official and all, in retrospect, may not have been the best idea) but you seem to have wandered off into a more general critique of Arbitration practice and process.--Tznkai (talk) 22:19, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

That's probably because the consistant and epic failures of ArbCom are embodied by the fact that someuser can just go and expand one of their decisions and this doesn't even raise an eyebrow. Imagine if the judge sentenced you to 2 months in jail and a $10,000 fine, but then the Jailor came along and said "Listen, jail is real pricey, so the fine's gonna be $100,000. Pay or I execute you."

Beyond that, the cannonization of the rediculous "first mover advantage" in ArbCom is just embarassing. I'm telling you, based on procedures are now, any admin could log in right now and ban you from the entire encyclopedia under Pseudoscience, and you'd have to wait for arbcom to rule before you could be unblocked. Doesn't that seem incredibly stupid? Why isn't this fixed? Because ArbCom is too busy writing 10892797123961 word decisions that could be better writen like this "(one side/both sides) in this case are disruptive. They are banned forever." Let's evaluate the current cases and see how that would work:

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/West Bank - Judea and Samaria/Evidence. Both sides banned, have a nice day.

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/MZMcBride/Evidence everyone desysoped, have a nice day.

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Prem Rawat 2/Evidence everyone banned, have a nice day.

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Date delinking/Evidence everyone banned, have a nice day.

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Scientology/Evidence everyone banned, have a nice day.

What would we lose, exactly? A bunch of people who can't keep from getting involved in things they can't deentangle themselves from. The hordes of agenda/cash driven editors on this encyclopedia are a scourge, and should just be gotten rid of with an axe. But no, we need a month long process and a twenty point retardation. This is because lawyers have driven ArbCom since day one, and still drive. Lawyers are the bane of dispute resolution - and they know it. Hipocrite (talk) 22:32, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

(Re: you're afraid I'll accuse you of Wiki-stalking me) I don't mind people disagreeing with me. You didn't make it personal, or denigrate me.. you just posted what your concerns were, and asked for clarification from the "highest authority". If more Wikipedians did that, this would be a much better place. Have a good one. SirFozzie (talk) 03:20, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Check this out, II reinstates the edit again: [3]. ScienceApologist (talk) 23:48, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive248#Requesting topic ban of User:Hipocrite. Xasodfuih (talk) 16:27, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Was this really necessary? I can't say it helped your case. Try to be more careful in future, lest you temporarily lose the edit button. Thanks, yandman 20:42, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

It's not funny - those fake message boxes are an annoying joke that people have tried to get rid of before. To have one that deliberatly attempts to match my skin - IE, even though I've changed the color of my message box, it tries to track that change, is even more offensive. If you're going to abuse your adminstrative buttons, you should probably abuse them to protect the version of the page without the interface-faking message boxes. You may also wish to review WP:SMI. But please, block me for chaning the color of his "leave me new message box." I've always wanted to go after someone's not a big deal. Hipocrite (talk) 20:48, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

That was a shame. I was more or less on your side there. yandman 20:53, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Wow, thanks for notifing me of a discussion about me. Again, those fake message boxes are a scourge, and even worse are the ones that try to duplicate other-skins. Hipocrite (talk) 21:00, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

The version one earlier in the history looks nothing like my new message bar. It's the same colors, but a different scheme and completely different text. --Onorem♠Dil 21:17, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Multiple users believed User:Abd's actions on SA's talk page were baiting - see me, Ronnotel, and Avruch. In the Fringe Science decision, one of the new principles was "Baiting: Raising the same issues over and over despite consensus (or lack thereof), persistent low-level attacks and other continuous goading of specific editors in order to exhaust their patience and induce them to lash out in an uncivil manner are disruptive." (emph mine) I wonder if you couldn't find a better basis for the 3mo ban than Abd's actions, which were hardly conducive to a congenial atmosphere. Hipocrite (talk) 11:18, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Hipocrite. Abd's actions can be dealt with separately and my position should not be implying that I am supporting his attitude. I won't be taking a soft stance towards him if his case comes before my hands.

ScienceApologist was aware of my yesterday's post at the RfAr page because he posted an additional statement today. My comment at RfAr was crystal clear and I really hoped ScienceApologist to take it seriously. I really wanted him to show us something positive (anything but the same usual actions) and was ready to go for the alternative 1.1. Unfortunately, what ScienceApologist did at his talk page today is a clear violation of WP:TALK. I'd have appreciated it if he has just removed Abd's posts but altering them is a "no no." Everyone should be responsible for their own acts and sincerily, ScienceApologist needs a break to relax. He hasn't shown any single sign of a "take it easy." All of us are mature enough to know and measure when we are breaking the limits. We just don't want this project to become both a battleground and a kindergarten. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 11:43, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Regarding your comment at ANI that "It's not testing the limits of anything to get ArbCom permission to edit an article and then edit it": I agree, and am sorry if I wasn't clearer. My comments about limits-testing were meant to refer to SA's general pattern ("civil disobedience" etc.) leading up to this, not the specific instance mentioned. As far as the specific instance goes, my point was the same as what Bwilkins said, i.e. the block wasn't bad since the admin didn't know ArbCom had given an exception. I meant to draw that distinction by saying "absent specific exception", but obviously didn't do so very well. Seems like the subject of SA is pretty polarizing right now, so I think I'll be disengaging entirely from talking about SA, "broadly construed". regards, Middle 8 (talk) 12:10, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

The above-linked Arbitration case has been updated following this request for clarification

ScienceApologist is banned from Wikipedia for three months for disruption, gaming and wikilawyering. The clock on his six-month topic ban restarts on his return and further instances of misbehaviour will be dealt with by longer bans. For the avoidance of any doubt, a topic ban means "entirely prohibited from editing articles within the topic". Requests by ScienceApologist for clarifications of whether articles are within scope are to be made by him to the Arbitration Committee by email.

Administrators are given interpretive leeway when reasonably enforcing arbitration decisions and are expected to explain their rationale at their earliest opportunity in discussion or edit summary. Formal clarifications are best articulated by the Arbitration Committee and may be sought by a request for clarification. SirFozzie has acted appropriately and within administrator discretion by interpreting the remedy and by clearly explaining his interpretation despite misunderstandings about the best form and forum in which to clarify his reasoning. The Committee thanks and commends him for this, and his considerable past efforts in helping in the difficult area of arbitration enforcement.

For the Arbitration Committee, Gazimoff 13:14, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

... always a clerk?  :-) I've been an Arb since the year started, by the way. Not that "clerk" is an insult. — Coren ^(talk) 14:41, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Whewps. Hipocrite (talk) 15:04, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

We already gave away your office though, and shredded the stationary.--Tznkai (talk) 15:05, 12 March 2009 (UTC)