User talk:Hipocrite/05/2010

WikiProject Economics Newsletter (Issue I)

Positively Economics The Economics WikiProject Newsletter Issue I (May 2010)
Use the show/hide button to display or hide this newsletter. From the (self-appointed) editor Hello to all the economists who signed up on the census (covered in more detail below) and whom I have boldly signed up for this, the first in hopefully a long line of WikiProject Economics newsletters. The aim is simple: to distribute the project's news and developments in order that every member gets the opportunity to contribute to their fullest. It mirrors the ideals of any WikiProject: to support and assist. In creating this, on a whim, I have picked a name and stolen the layout of the Military History WikiProject's newsletter. If you have any comments or suggestions, feel free to leave them on the main newsletter talk page. The non-talk version of that page is also the place to unsubscribe yourself from the newsletter, which, for the moment, I anticipate will be monthly. Enjoy! - Jarry1250 [Humorous? Discuss.] 11:59, 25 April 2010 (UTC) Articles of note New featured articles: Economy of the Han Dynasty New featured lists: None New featured topics: None New good articles: Price elasticity of demand Production-possibility frontier Monetary Policy Committee Confederate war finance 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 Census completed A big thank you to everyone who signed the census, an attempt to renew the project's membership list. Jarry1250 explained its purpose: "once we know how many active participants we have... we can make sure no interested parties get left out of discussions; ...to get everyone included. Not just to make them feel involved, but also to actively try to make them more involved [in the supportive atmosphere of the WikiProject]". Around forty editors, with a good range of specialisms and interests, have currently signed to show their activity, and it is still open for more. Project-wide discussions commence: A series of discussions have been commenced on the census talkpage about what, if anything, should be done to strengthen the Project. All comments are welcomed on a range of topics: the economic style guide, weight guidelines, notability and the creation of this newsletter. Other discussions, on categorisation, tagging and compiling an accurate list of unreferenced BLPs, are currently active. Your comments are invited in the following other ongoing project discussions: The normative economics of central banking. What article might this fall under? Does one exist already? Does it need a separate article? Inflation. Thoughts invited on the inflation article and how best to word the lead. 2010 European sovereign debt crisis - comments requested.
To start/stop receiving this newsletter, please add/remove your name from the list here. Thank you. This newletter was delivered to you by Jarry1250 at around 10:35, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Back and forth in endorsements at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Lar

To Collect, Hipocrite, and Marknutley: I thought back and forth in endorsements was discouraged. You may want to move your comments to the talk. I could be wrong though. Since I left this note at several pages you may want to discuss it at my talk, dunno. Your call. ++Lar: t/c 13:25, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Semi-block request for National-Anarchism article

Hello Hipocrite. Could you please put a 1-month-long semi-block on the National-Anarchism article? It recently has become a target of vandalism possibly because National-Anarchists in San Francisco were in the news because of a street fight... This is totally unrelated to the dispute I am close to resolving with Paki.tv and Harrypotter. --Loremaster (talk) 00:45, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, missed this. If vandalism becomes a problem either you or I can report it to WP:RFPP and it will be quickly protected. It's not kosher to protect before the vandalism happens, however. Hipocrite (talk) 16:51, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

hi, why did you remove willki?

--Teltek (talk) 15:45, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Per the page "In order to keep this list from becoming indiscriminate, only entries with a Wikipedia article or other evidence of Notability are permitted.

If you want to add an entry, take the extra 10 minutes to write an article for the website first. See also WP:WTAF." Hipocrite (talk) 15:51, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I see, I'll try... --Teltek (talk) 15:56, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Can you give me feedback? willki --Teltek (talk) 16:01, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

You need to find Reliable sources that discuss the topic in detail or the article will be deleted as failing to be Notable. Hipocrite (talk) 16:02, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

It is on crunchbase... --Teltek (talk) 16:18, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Mastadon!

I have edited your talkpage before haven't I? I don't want to add a fresh one to my list because someone will wikistalk me and then dismiss me as being part of the cabal. Polargeo (talk) 16:10, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

It takes one to recognise the behaviour

RfC/Lar

I believe Casliber was requesting (and I think would be better at that venue) diffs from Lar, not for diffs from other editors of the dispute in general. I am still in the hopefully we can resolve this without ArbCom camp, but the links you recently added might be relevant to that or RfC/Cla68. Regards, - 2/0 (cont.) 00:51, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

It was totally unclear what he was asking for. It appeared he wanted some bad-acts by someone - now that target appears to have moved. Hipocrite (talk) 13:45, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

MoMK article

Unfortunately we've lost you as a mediator (unless Z. is serious about reconsidering and makes up her mind soon although I would count on it). You mentioned your intention to stay and edit there just as a regular editor, yet you've seem to have turned your back. Can't blame you for that. It's a "pain in the ass" kinda article to work on. But besides of being rejected as mediator by one editor, you're sure welcome as a helpful writing hand not only by me. I'd think by most if not all of the small crowd over there. I won't get on my knees but would be appreciated if you would stay and keep helping improving the named page. Thanks, The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 19:32, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

PS: Please see my last two entries at the article's talkpage here.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 19:32, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

PS 2: How did you manage to add that edit-notice to your edit-page? I'd like to add part of this to my talkpage edit screen myself. Thanks, The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 19:32, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I've been tied up out of town for the past few days, and need to do some catch up. I'll try to reengage at MOMK this afternoon. You can add an edit notice to your talk page at User talk:The Magnificent Clean-keeper/Editnotice, which can only be edited by admins and you. Hipocrite (talk) 13:45, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

No sorry needed. As (most) editors you have a real life that should come first. Thanks for the edit-notice solution; I'll have a go on it soon. Cheers, The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 15:38, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Hah, done. Didn't realize how simple it is. Thanks again, The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 17:52, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Hey Hipocrite, remember how you mentioned once the "run and flee rather than the stand and fight" notion to me? Well, I feel today it is my turn to suggest something like that to you. :`) Don't get yourself too worked up on this article. Cheers, Akuram Akuram (talk) 00:42, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

3RR on Singer

Not true
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
You appear to be over 3RR on Fred Singer. You may wish to self-revert. --94.136.50.63 (talk) 20:13, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Atomic bombings

Prompted by your comment about Gar Alperovitz, I took a look at atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. I was struck by the overall approach taken by the article authors: the main article deals with the topic as a matter of military history, while controversy is largely or entirely delegated to a sub-article. In its broad outline, it struck me as roughly analogous to the approach taken at global warming. MastCell ^Talk 00:36, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it does, dosen't it? Hipocrite (talk) 01:28, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

If I could butt in on this one, since I've been involved to some degree with the atomic bombing article. I think WP's treatment of the US area/city bombing campaign against Japan is lousy. In my opinion, the campaign needs it's own overarching article detailing the entire campaign with a narrative that ties all the raids together better, including the dropping of the two atom bombs. I think sections in that article, as well as a separate article, covering the debate over the ethics, legality, and morality of the bombing is appropriate and necessary. One problem, I think, is that, outside of the atomic bombings, there haven't been very many books in English written on the bombing campaign as a whole. One can read something into that, I think. Cla68 (talk) 01:50, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

For my own edification - are there many Japanese books or analyses of the American strategic bombing campaign? My guess would be that it's a topic not deeply explored on either side, given the close relationship that developed between the US and Japan in the post-war years, but I don't know the answer. The only book I can remember offhand that devoted much detail to the bombing campaign as a whole was Retribution, by Max Hastings. Also, Wartime by Paul Fussell gets into it a bit, but that's a quirky book and not really a linear history. I agree that it makes sense to view the atomic bombings as an extension and culmination of the firebombing campaign. I'm curious, since you're an American living in Japan (per your userpage), about your perceptions of the official/unofficial attitudes toward the subject there. MastCell ^Talk 03:51, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I think I have a little of a unique perspective on it, as my wife's grandmother had her dormitory burned down in Tokyo during the war (she was uninjured). Also, one evening at a bar in Asakusa I met a man who lost his parents and a sister, as well as a few fingers, during the March 1945 firebombing of Tokyo. I was in the US Air Force at that time, the very organization (as the Army Air Forces) which had carried out that raid. Needless to say, that was one of the most intensely emotional barroom conversations I've ever had. Actually, there appears to be a lot more books in Japanese on the raids than in English. It seems there is a deep and pervasive feeling of melancholy and sadness in the collective consciousness of the Japanese generation who experienced or witnessed the effects of those bombing raids (such as expressed in the movie Hotaru no haka). The Japanese usually won't bring up the subject with westerners, as they don't want to cause an awkward situation. If I could acquire adequate sources (my Japanese isn't good enough to generally use Japanese books) the articles I would write on the bombing would stress both the military and US side of it, but also what it was like for the recipients on the ground in cities across the Japan. Cla68 (talk) 04:38, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

That's interesting - thanks for sharing it. It's too bad that the Japanese histories are basically inaccessible to us - do you know of any that have been translated, by any chance? MastCell ^Talk 04:23, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

MastCell, what does atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki have to do with global warming, and why should their approaches be compared? Seems like two completely different topics with no connection, why are you relating them? ATren (talk) 02:06, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I took a look at the atomic bombing article because I was curious about how we covered the topic, after Hipocrite mentioned it. As to why the article should be compared to global warming, I suppose that's arguable. Both topics admit multiple possible treatments; the bombings can be treated as straightforward military history, but they are also the subject of an ongoing ethical and moral argument. I was curious to see how these different aspects were handled within Wikipedia's framework. I agree it's not a strong analogy - they're different subjects, and history is fundamentally different from science (for example, I think it would be very difficult to demonstrate a "consensus" among historians that the bombings were justified or unjustified, whereas it's somewhat easier to demonstrate a consensus among major scientific bodies where one exists). I'm not claiming that the climate-change articles "should" look a certain way because the bombing articles do; I'm just sharing my initial, possibly mistaken, impressions on reading the bombing article. Mostly, it was just food for thought, and a conversation starter. MastCell ^Talk 04:05, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Question

Would James P. Hogan (writer) pass wp:sps for use in a book review? mark nutley (talk) 18:11, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I would highly advise that if you are going to use book reviews from notable Velikovskian holocaust deniers, you preface whatever you are going to cite them for with a long and strong disclaimer that they are 100% removed from the mainstream. Hipocrite (talk) 18:12, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, interesting, i looked a tad more closely at the article and read the ref used to say he is a holocaust denier, in it he does not actually say it never happened, he says he does not believe a history written by the victors and does his own research. Is there anything else on this guy in which he actually says the holocaust did not happen? mark nutley (talk) 18:27, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Er, he said he believes Arthur Butz (author of The Hoax of the Twentieth Century) over actual historians. But don't forget, he also thinks that HIV is harmless. If my goal were to produce a serious, respectable reference work, I'd probably keep my distance from this sort of "source". MastCell ^Talk 04:21, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Well i was going to avoid him :) the guy is a lunatic from having read more :) the things some people believe stuns me at times :) mark nutley (talk) 06:39, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

I think we're close?

On Template:Climate Sanction enforcement request I took another pass and then started the talk page for it. See what you think, comment there if you like. ++Lar: t/c 14:26, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Singer

Hi H, did you get a response from Virginia about his status, by any chance? SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 01:43, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

What do you want to know? If it's about U.Va. in general or the Env Sci dept in particular I can probably find it. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:54, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

The individual I emailed is out for two weeks. I was in no particular rush, so I'm waiting. We want to know if Fred Singer was granted Emeritus status, and if he still retains it. Hipocrite (talk) 10:41, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, he was granted Emeritus status, having retired in good standing. See e.g., [1]. It would be extraordinary if a university were to remove emeritus status from someone. Purely hypothetically, this might be done if someone were later found to have engaged in massive ethical breaches while at the university in question, such as repeated and blatant plagiarism in their publications. But I've never heard of it happening. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 12:54, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! Hipocrite (talk) 13:56, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Ncprm2026

Are you sure that IP's him? Are all of its edits him? Thanks... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 18:56, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I would bet my left nut it's him - [2] is unambiguous definitive proof (see file creator, file creation date). The first obvious edit is [3]. The first pretty-obvious edit is [4]. The first suspicious edit is [5]. I think it is highly unlikey that another user had the dynamic IP assigned to them on 12 april, knew templates from their first edit, lost the assigned IP, and had it reassigned to Ncprm2026 less than a month later. Hipocrite (talk) 19:31, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Can you tone it down a bit?

This is a bit strong. I agree on the substance - if it's lifted nearly one to one it needs to become a quote, but why not treat it as an error in good faith, and keep out the personal opinion for now? I think a more gentle approach may be more constructive in the long run. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:53, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

S - I pointed it out when it was still a userspace draft, but she still pasted it into the article. I fixed it. She reverted the fix - twice. I have tried to explain it at length on the talk page of the Singer article. I think it's high time for a formal warning. Guettarda (talk) 17:33, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps I was too strong. Hipocrite (talk) 20:44, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

To be fair the "it's not plagiarism if you change a couple of words" misconception is common amongst undergraduates, though most of them eventually learn better (sometimes in a chat with the Dean of Students). Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 20:49, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Of course it is. And, quite frankly, paraphrasing always provides challenges. The problem here isn't the initial action, it's the response. She rejected my first set of comments to that effect. She reverted my fix. Twice. We all make mistakes. But when someone says to you "you made a mistake" and explains why, the normal thing to do is to pause and reassess your actions. When you reach the stage where you're reverting the addition of quotation marks to a quote, you've really given up on AGF gone into full battleground mode. Guettarda (talk) 23:16, 22 May 2010 (UTC)